Qualifications to be commander-in-chief

x-nutmegger wrote:

<quoted text>
What a wacko joke.
You claim the GOP preaches fear, BWTF is your last sentence ?
" Wake up and begin to fear what a McCain.......... "
Typical Lefty-Lib-Dem-Social Progressive word games.
Duh !
I'm impressed.

Maybe a bit hypocritical I admit, but the fear created by the possibility of a McCain Administration is real whereas the fear tactics the GOP use toward Obama are based on lies, smears, and doomsday scenarios in order to so frighten the majority of American people that they aren't able to see past the lies and smears and see who would best stand up for their interests economically, environmentally, domestically, and internationally.

If you read these posts, notice that the Republican/ Anti-Obama ones are based on whack-job, Nazi fantasies, impossible scenarios, and blatant lies whereas Democrat/ Pro-Obama arguments are mostly well-reasoned and explain why McCain would be another 4 years of disastrous policies.(And face it, if he gets elected, it will only be 4 years of hostile politics considering the Democratic majorities in the Congress and then Hillary and the Fem-Nazis will takes over in 2012).

It's pretty easy to see who the rational thinkers are on this website and who the Karl Rove-inspired fear mongers are.

Reality wrote:

<quoted text>
Maybe a bit hypocritical I admit, but the fear created by the possibility of a McCain Administration is real whereas the fear tactics the GOP use toward Obama are based on lies, smears, and doomsday scenarios in order to so frighten the majority of American people that they aren't able to see past the lies and smears and see who would best stand up for their interests economically, environmentally, domestically, and internationally.
If you read these posts, notice that the Republican/ Anti-Obama ones are based on whack-job, Nazi fantasies, impossible scenarios, and blatant lies whereas Democrat/ Pro-Obama arguments are mostly well-reasoned and explain why McCain would be another 4 years of disastrous policies.(And face it, if he gets elected, it will only be 4 years of hostile politics considering the Democratic majorities in the Congress and then Hillary and the Fem-Nazis will takes over in 2012).
It's pretty easy to see who the rational thinkers are on this website and who the Karl Rove-inspired fear mongers are.

I stated my comment in my previous post and let it stand at that.

However , I'm old enough to remember the SMEAR campaign waged on the troops in the VN Era.

This FEAR CAMPAIGN on McCain via PTSD is nothing but an updated smearing of the VN vets.

From " Baby killers " To " PTSD pandemic".

Nothing has really changed and claiming the " PTSD pandemic " isn't fear mongering is a bald face lie.

I never questioned the PTSD that McCain may or may not suffer from (thought I personally don't believe he suffers from it). I also have not heard any smearing of him based off of PTSD, atleast not on the level that the smearing of Obama has been conducted. Fox News hasn't smeared McCain because of PTSD, but they have smeared Obama due to his race and questioned his Christianity (even though he was raised by a Christian mother and Christian grandparents in Kansas, the hotbed of Christianity in America.)

I have heard, however, questioning of McCain's ability to lead based off his age, which unlike race, is a more legitimate issue pertaining to one's ability to execute the office and endure the physically and mentally demanding nature of the job. McCain's frequent mistaking and misremembering of easy facts doesn't help his case, either.

In either case of McCain or Obama, it will be nice to see a person give a speech that is coherent, literate, and makes sense. I hope we can all agree on that.

More liberal spam
Keep up the spamming, you will need it.
So I hear Obama told Gordon Brown today he was sending more troops to Afgainistan!
Question #1 - where does Obama have the authority to send more troops to Afganistan!
Question #2 - so I guess Obama 16 month plan needs to be revised to 16 months in Iraq and then another 5 years of so in Afgainistan! So all you liberals calling McCain a war monger. Guess what, Obama is a war monger!
You show you ignorance concerning oil prices and oil companies. A lesson for the ignorant
$1.00 of gas
-72% is the cost of crude. Oil companies control less than 7% of the worldwide supply of crude. No profits here they pay the worldwide price.
-12% is taxes. No profit made on taxes.
-16% is refining and distribution. The oil company makes 8 cents for every dollar.
So now you complain what about the profits. Do you own research. It's volume, volume and volume. The shear number of gallons sold worldwide is growing exponentially! Then consider you have corporations reporting numbers that used to be two companies like Exxon/Mobil! Now they report combined profits.
Sorry oil pricing can be just as easliy blamed on Democrats like Pelosi that will not allow us to drill. And that's a fact jack!
Iraq - so do you want to discuss the list of Democratic Presidents who attacke nations that did not attack the US
- Roosevelt declared war on Germany! They did not attack us.
- Truman attacked North Korea. They did not attack us.
-Kennedy and LBJ attacked Vietnam. They did not attack us.
SO WHAT THE HECK IS YOUR POINT!
Obama and corruption - Can you say Tony Rezko! Obama is from one of most corrupt political areas in the US, Chicago. Look as Obama's list of friends and business associates. He's no saint!
First, the surge worked. Obama's arrogant and can't admit it's successful. So your stating Obama told McCain to admit the war was a mistake. THAT IS WHAT YOU SAYING OR IS THAT WHAT YOU ARE MAKING UP AS AN EXCUSE FOR OBAMA!
By the way, Americans don't have confidence in Nancy Pelosi either. Her approval rating is 18%.
So you excuse for this is?
It's nice to see you able to follow the liberal handbooks.
You complained a lot. Good
You blamed the other side. Good
Then you finished with childish insults. Problem is your not that funny!
But you excuted the liberal handbook!

Reality wrote:

Get Informed-
Corrupt? I believe it's McCain who has taken the majority of his fundraising from Big Oil companies and Department of Defense corporations, among others. Why else does he favor staying in Iraq?
Legree, I'm not responding to your trash anymore. Move out of your parents' basement and find a girl so you can stop seeking attention from the intellectuals from both sides who post on this website. My IQ takes a hit every time I read your drivel.

By the way bonehead, Obama's only been a Senator 3 years not 4! Your research is excellent though you could work for the NY Times!
One more thing. After you crawl out from under your rock. Saddam's regime was a worldwide threat vs. you lame comments about Darfur! Ask Israel!
Know how support Hamas with Millions! Saddam! Know who supplied weapons to Hamas! Saddam!
Oh, surprise you even have an IQ based on the fiction you post!

Reality wrote:

My IQ takes a hit every time I read your drivel.

Obama - President of the World

Obama
"I will solve poverty"
"I will create World Unity"
"I will solve the World's Economic Problems"
"I will solve Global Warming"

When asked how. "With all your change"! See he does stand for Change. All the worlds money not just Americans bank accounts!

As one commentator stated. Kennedy and Reagan spoke in Berlin. Both were there to help create freedom for Eastern Berlin.

Obama covered every possible issue and promised things that not one American President could begin to resolve.

Then Obama rode off on his Unicorn!

Reality wrote:

Um...he didn't bring those there. In fact his visit was unannounced and people assumed he would be there. Nevertheless, your Christian savior McCain has never visited the Western Wall...interesting considering he courts the whack-job religious Right vote.
Ever consider that those people brought those signs there, in poor taste nonetheless, because Obama represents the hope of the world that you try to hide and cover through your lies, smears, and insults hurled against those wise enough to see trough McCain, Bush, and the Republican lies. For the Religious Right to insist Obama has no Israeli support and poses a threat to Israel, those signs confirm quite the opposite. Where are McCain's Judaic and Hebrew signs?
Real Americans do care, and that's why this election has seen record number of individuals giving to campaigns (mostly Obama's) and record turnout in the primaries.
Real Americans aren't fear-mongers, racists, bigots, and homophobes like yourself. Real Americans are those who are tired of the lies, corruption, fear-mongering, and polarizing that you and the Republican party stand for, and who are finally saying enough is enough and standing up for themselves. My family came to America in the 1650s to escape the Counter Reformation in Europe. So, as a "Real American", I bet it must be scary for homophobes and bigots who unfoundedly fear Obama.
Wake up and begin to fear what a McCain Presidency would do to this country, this economy, and this planet.

Reality wrote:

I never questioned the PTSD that McCain may or may not suffer from (thought I personally don't believe he suffers from it). I also have not heard any smearing of him based off of PTSD, atleast not on the level that the smearing of Obama has been conducted. Fox News hasn't smeared McCain because of PTSD, but they have smeared Obama due to his race and questioned his Christianity (even though he was raised by a Christian mother and Christian grandparents in Kansas, the hotbed of Christianity in America.)
I have heard, however, questioning of McCain's ability to lead based off his age, which unlike race, is a more legitimate issue pertaining to one's ability to execute the office and endure the physically and mentally demanding nature of the job. McCain's frequent mistaking and misremembering of easy facts doesn't help his case, either.
In either case of McCain or Obama, it will be nice to see a person give a speech that is coherent, literate, and makes sense. I hope we can all agree on that.

PTSD FEAR mongering is posted 20-30 times a day on TOPIX most of them are cut n' paste..

There are posters using PTSD as part of their handle.

Of course many of them change their ' HANDLE' weekly.

As to the Obama racial, religious etc. smear topics I don't read them or post in them.

I go after specifics in issues or in actions or challenge twisted nuances and facts.

One newly created is the sudden emergence of Obama the warrior and his wanting a " SURGE " in A-stan.
He previously stated A-stan needs more attention but now he is getting quite agressive about it.

Is this just a play to show the CENTRISTS that he has cajones ?

I hear they are getting nervous on MOVEON and the DAILY KOS about his sudden warrior glitter.
I'm sure some groups will give him hell in Denver including Code Pink and RECEATE'68.

Another thing I post frequently pertaining to A-stan applies to both candidates.
Watchout , A-stan can be a TRAP and Pakistan the TRAPDOOR.

I probably wouldn't have invaded Iraq as Bush did but now isn't the time to Cut n' Run.

A carefull withdrawl over 16 months is B.S. It's a planned scheduled withdrawl carefull or not.
Judging carefull , not carefull is about as subjective a comment one can make when an exact schedule is in play.

As to A-stan , bin Laden isn't there , he is in Pakistan.
Look at a map , look at A-stan . It's landlocked. It's as stategically important as Tibet.

Right or wrong invading Iraq it is an easier doable than is A-stan. What happens in A-stan is dominated by what happens in Pakistan , a chaotic country with a full complement of nukes and nuts.
A-stan supplies onload in Karachi Pak and truck through mts to A-stan. Mts can be blocked or trapped. Reports are Iran has lost most of it's interest in Iraq and shifted interest to A-stan.

So is Obama playing MACHO pertaining to A-stan to cover being boxed in over Iraq ?

Seems quite possible to me.

He went from anti war to war of personal choice.

Like " We had Bush's war and now it's my turn to pick the Obama war ". Watchout A-stan is much more dangerous than Iraq in the long run.

In the last 150 years two major armies of two major powers have been destroyed there.The UK and the USSR.

"Get Informed"

You are the spammer, so allow me to educate you, and then you can keep up your blind spamming.

Obama committed as President in 2009 more troops to Afghanistan, not now, because obviously he doesn't have the authority, but I guess Fox News doesn't report that caveat. I think it's interesting that Bush and McCain have taken on Obama's policy of reducing troops in Iraq and adding to Afghanistan, something he has been advocating for years.

I do not believe your formula for gas prices for a minute until you provide a link to an unbiased source that backs up your theory. You have no credibility on the issue, so please, enlighten me with some outside research (since you're so big on the concept).

You must have missed the day in class when Alliances were taught and discussed. Roosevelt (in combination with Churchill, de Gaulle, the Canadians, and others) launched the invasion because we had an alliance with Britain that we would come to their aid, and Hitler knew this and still chose to fire bomb London. All of the other instances are also Ally instances as well.(N. Korea attacked S. Korea, which we swore to defend to stop communism. Same with N. Vietnam and S. Vietnam). What alliance did Iraq attack in the years leading up to 2003? No one. He attacked Kuwait in 1991, and because of our ALLIANCE, we stopped him. Sorry, you're case falls apart again.

Once again, if McCain (and you for that matter) will admit the war in Iraq was the greatest mistake in American foreign policy history, I'm sure Obama would admit the surge worked because he would be conceding much less than McCain at that point (in essence alienating the entire Religious Right who still *sigh* adore Bush and his failed policies).

Rezko may be a valid point, but if you seriously are going to connect everyone who has ever talked or done business dealings with McCain or Obama (or Bush, for that matter) you are going to find plenty of "shady" deals. It's the nature of being a millionaire, as both Obama and McCain are. I'm sure McCain has plenty of "shady" connections, especially considering her wife's business dealings and refusal to release her tax returns. Where there is smoke there is fire, afterall.

But good to see you following the Conservative playbook-
-Deny the truth
-Make up some lies
-Hurl some insults and smears
-Call me a liberal, when I'm a registered libertarian who can see what's best for the country.
-Take credit for your awe-inspiring, enlightening post.

Get Informed wrote:

By the way bonehead, Obama's only been a Senator 3 years not 4! Your research is excellent though you could work for the NY Times!
One more thing. After you crawl out from under your rock. Saddam's regime was a worldwide threat vs. you lame comments about Darfur! Ask Israel!
Know how support Hamas with Millions! Saddam! Know who supplied weapons to Hamas! Saddam!
Oh, surprise you even have an IQ based on the fiction you post!
<quoted text>

Actually he has been a Senator for 3.5 years, so we're both wrong.

And you're flat out wrong. Saddam was never a threat to the US or Israel during Bush's year in office. In fact it was the US who supplied trips to Saddam, and it was Iran who gave and continues to give money and weapons to Hamas. Hamas, as a Shiite organization, probably wouldn't take support from Saddam, a Sunni, but then again, if you could read, you would have known that. Maybe you were thinking of Islamic Jihad, but then again, I'm sure to someone like you they all look alike.

Nice work, Bonehead. I think it takes even you to a new low to marginalize the deaths of nearly a million people in Darfur by lying about Saddam's threat. Keep following that Republican playbook.

Ok, so what's the deal with John Edwards potential VP pick? I saw on TV he has a love child and was in Beverly Hills visiting the baby and mommy in a hotel and ran into a bathroom to hide from reporters.

So what's up with Mr. Moral Democrat? Or are there any moral democrats?

Reality wrote:

<quoted text>
Actually he has been a Senator for 3.5 years, so we're both wrong.
And you're flat out wrong. Saddam was never a threat to the US or Israel during Bush's year in office. In fact it was the US who supplied trips to Saddam, and it was Iran who gave and continues to give money and weapons to Hamas. Hamas, as a Shiite organization, probably wouldn't take support from Saddam, a Sunni, but then again, if you could read, you would have known that. Maybe you were thinking of Islamic Jihad, but then again, I'm sure to someone like you they all look alike.
Nice work, Bonehead. I think it takes even you to a new low to marginalize the deaths of nearly a million people in Darfur by lying about Saddam's threat. Keep following that Republican playbook.

Obambie may have been in Congress for 3 1/2 years but he's spent virtually the whole time trying to run for President. I guess you could care less about the thousands of Kurds Saddam gassed to death, huh. He admitted gassing them to the FBI before they hung him. He also admitted to having WMD which he used to gas the Kurds and said he was going to make them again.

But the past is prologue. Why does Obama think the tribal leaders are responsible for the success of the surge instead of the troops? Typical lib response. It's so predictible it's actually funny. I knew he'd diss them before Terry Moran even finished asking the question.

Here's a guy who wants to be President and he would be the first President ever in history to dismiss a successful USA military operation. What a pathetic loser.

Then he says he wouldn't vote for the surge. I think Obama is patently stupid. No wonder Hamas, Chavez, Iran, Castro among others want him elected. They know he's weak and a pushover.

Hey Reality,

Have you seen the new Obama commercial? It's hilarious. He's even worse than a flip flopper, he takes two positions on each issue. He's Both Ways Barack! Worse than a Flip Flopper!

So now there is a new way for Senators to commit troops to a Country when they are a candidate! Funny, there are rules like Congress has to approve these sort of things. So Obama will re write the rules too! I see!

Sorry McCain's said all along the troop levels would be handles and issues on the ground warrant. Like letting Generals make these decision. Funny, Obama told Gen. Petraus he did not agree with him. How many years did Obama serve in the military!

So I'm your research source. Try googling! Every done that. Since your lazy here are some articles
http://money.cnn.com/2008/03/13/news/economy/...
http://www.gravmag.com/oil3.html
http://news.moneycentral.msn.com/provider/pro...

So here's a start to your education. My numbers are factual!

I see you got caught in a box on your statement about Iraq not attacking us. Lame defense!

Obama was ask point blank by the media if he agreed the surge works. You ridiculous accusation that the was was illegal and a failure was not a question. Only your dream!

Continue to spread you dis information.

Did Obama sign "we are the world" in Berlin too!

Reality wrote:

"Get Informed"
You are the spammer, so allow me to educate you, and then you can keep up your blind spamming.
Obama committed as President in 2009 more troops to Afghanistan, not now, because obviously he doesn't have the authority, but I guess Fox News doesn't report that caveat. I think it's interesting that Bush and McCain have taken on Obama's policy of reducing troops in Iraq and adding to Afghanistan, something he has been advocating for years.
I do not believe your formula for gas prices for a minute until you provide a link to an unbiased source that backs up your theory. You have no credibility on the issue, so please, enlighten me with some outside research (since you're so big on the concept).
You must have missed the day in class when Alliances were taught and discussed. Roosevelt (in combination with Churchill, de Gaulle, the Canadians, and others) launched the invasion because we had an alliance with Britain that we would come to their aid, and Hitler knew this and still chose to fire bomb London. All of the other instances are also Ally instances as well.(N. Korea attacked S. Korea, which we swore to defend to stop communism. Same with N. Vietnam and S. Vietnam). What alliance did Iraq attack in the years leading up to 2003? No one. He attacked Kuwait in 1991, and because of our ALLIANCE, we stopped him. Sorry, you're case falls apart again.
Once again, if McCain (and you for that matter) will admit the war in Iraq was the greatest mistake in American foreign policy history, I'm sure Obama would admit the surge worked because he would be conceding much less than McCain at that point (in essence alienating the entire Religious Right who still *sigh* adore Bush and his failed policies).
Rezko may be a valid point, but if you seriously are going to connect everyone who has ever talked or done business dealings with McCain or Obama (or Bush, for that matter) you are going to find plenty of "shady" deals. It's the nature of being a millionaire, as both Obama and McCain are. I'm sure McCain has plenty of "shady" connections, especially considering her wife's business dealings and refusal to release her tax returns. Where there is smoke there is fire, afterall.
But good to see you following the Conservative playbook-
-Deny the truth
-Make up some lies
-Hurl some insults and smears
-Call me a liberal, when I'm a registered libertarian who can see what's best for the country.
-Take credit for your awe-inspiring, enlightening post.

Yea, you don't here the moral Democrats saying anything about John Edwards. Funny, they are quick to find a Republican but hide their head in the sand when one of their own gets caught.

Guess John was using the expensive hair cut to find himself a young cutie while his wife was at home fighting cancer. Great Guy!

Joe wrote:

Ok, so what's the deal with John Edwards potential VP pick? I saw on TV he has a love child and was in Beverly Hills visiting the baby and mommy in a hotel and ran into a bathroom to hide from reporters.
So what's up with Mr. Moral Democrat? Or are there any moral democrats?

Joe wrote:

Ok, so what's the deal with John Edwards potential VP pick? I saw on TV he has a love child and was in Beverly Hills visiting the baby and mommy in a hotel and ran into a bathroom to hide from reporters.
So what's up with Mr. Moral Democrat? Or are there any moral democrats?

Glad you noticed it seems that the EDITORS of this forum are most selective.

They routinely comb the blogs for anti-McCain slime but skip the biggest news site on the web , Drudge !

Drudge has been running the Edwards articles(3) for three days and all we get is obscure blog B.S. sliming McCain.

x-nutmegger wrote:

<quoted text>
PTSD FEAR mongering is posted 20-30 times a day on TOPIX most of them are cut n' paste..
There are posters using PTSD as part of their handle.
Of course many of them change their ' HANDLE' weekly.
As to the Obama racial, religious etc. smear topics I don't read them or post in them.
I go after specifics in issues or in actions or challenge twisted nuances and facts.
One newly created is the sudden emergence of Obama the warrior and his wanting a " SURGE " in A-stan.
He previously stated A-stan needs more attention but now he is getting quite agressive about it.
Is this just a play to show the CENTRISTS that he has cajones ?
I hear they are getting nervous on MOVEON and the DAILY KOS about his sudden warrior glitter.
I'm sure some groups will give him hell in Denver including Code Pink and RECEATE'68.
Another thing I post frequently pertaining to A-stan applies to both candidates.
Watchout , A-stan can be a TRAP and Pakistan the TRAPDOOR.
I probably wouldn't have invaded Iraq as Bush did but now isn't the time to Cut n' Run.
A carefull withdrawl over 16 months is B.S. It's a planned scheduled withdrawl carefull or not.
Judging carefull , not carefull is about as subjective a comment one can make when an exact schedule is in play.
As to A-stan , bin Laden isn't there , he is in Pakistan.
Look at a map , look at A-stan . It's landlocked. It's as stategically important as Tibet.
Right or wrong invading Iraq it is an easier doable than is A-stan. What happens in A-stan is dominated by what happens in Pakistan , a chaotic country with a full complement of nukes and nuts.
A-stan supplies onload in Karachi Pak and truck through mts to A-stan. Mts can be blocked or trapped. Reports are Iran has lost most of it's interest in Iraq and shifted interest to A-stan.
So is Obama playing MACHO pertaining to A-stan to cover being boxed in over Iraq ?
Seems quite possible to me.
He went from anti war to war of personal choice.
Like " We had Bush's war and now it's my turn to pick the Obama war ". Watchout A-stan is much more dangerous than Iraq in the long run.
In the last 150 years two major armies of two major powers have been destroyed there.The UK and the USSR.

Obama was ALWAYS about putting attention of the war where we were actually attacked. The entire time he has been running for President he has stated that the war in Iraq distracted us from finding and killing OBL and Al-Qaeda, who are the real people who attacked America, not Iraq. He was never anti-war, he was anti corporate war waged for the benefit of the special interests who support the Republican Party, which is exactly what the Iraq War is.

Joe wrote:

<quoted text>
Obambie may have been in Congress for 3 1/2 years but he's spent virtually the whole time trying to run for President. I guess you could care less about the thousands of Kurds Saddam gassed to death, huh. He admitted gassing them to the FBI before they hung him. He also admitted to having WMD which he used to gas the Kurds and said he was going to make them again.
But the past is prologue. Why does Obama think the tribal leaders are responsible for the success of the surge instead of the troops? Typical lib response. It's so predictible it's actually funny. I knew he'd diss them before Terry Moran even finished asking the question.
Here's a guy who wants to be President and he would be the first President ever in history to dismiss a successful USA military operation. What a pathetic loser.
Then he says he wouldn't vote for the surge. I think Obama is patently stupid. No wonder Hamas, Chavez, Iran, Castro among others want him elected. They know he's weak and a pushover.

Um...I do feel bad for the Kurds, except that they were attacked before the first Gulf War, so your culprit there is your boy Bush's Daddy, who was a true pushover and gave into the UN when the justified opportunity for taking out Saddam existed.

If Obama is so weak, why has he spoken the strongest and fiercest against Iran and putting them out of commission with regards to their nuclear program? Since you obviously weren't paying attention, Hillary already attacked him for his aggressive stance towards Iran and open willingness to attack them should the conditions necessitate with nuclear weapons. If Obama is so weak, why does he have support of over 70% of the enlisted troops? If Obama is so weak, why do the Iraqis actually respond to him when he still just a candidate, instead of shrugging the words and influence of McCain off as if he were some petulant child? Exactly. Another lie.

Stop listening to Fox News. They are nothing but a mouthpiece for Bush and his lies. In case you haven't noticed (since McCain has been taking a lot of flack for this confusion) the Sunni Awakening was starting before the surge. And, as I've said before, I will put money on the fact that if McCain would admit that the Iraq war was the most disastrous act of American foreign policy in history, Obama would be happy to admit the surge worked. The fact is that without the war, there would be no need for a surge, and OBAMA WAS RIGHT ON THAT 100%, and McCAIN WAS WRONG 100%. UNDENIABLE.

As for Iran, they fear Obama more than McCain. Iran has come to power under the Republican Administration, and no Republican has threatened to nuke them like Obama has.

"Get Informed"
Well, Congress didn't stop Bush from launching an illegal war, so what's to stop a political candidate from saying he will add troops to a war in Afghanistan that has all ready been started, authorized, and fought (however miserably. It's a Bush theme. HALF-ASSED).
I give the Generals the credit for creating, authorizing, and executing the plan to defeat the enemy, but this isn't Burma, jackass. This is America, where Presidents set the agenda, not the Generals. And it's blatantly undemocratic to say we will let the generals set policy because that violates Voltaire's Social Contract that's the basis for the Constitution. We don't elect Generals. We elect President, and they represent the will of the people. And the will of the people is to end this illegal war, and that's what needs to happen. Otherwise, America is not a democracy because it will have ceased to be responsive to the will of the American people (and it's not a passing phase, the will has been against the war for 4 years).
Interesting information on gas prices, but it's tough to explain the information that exists beyond the numbers, like Bush's connection to the Oil Companies and insistence on not punishing them for gas price gouging.(Something McCain won't do either...if they have nothing to hide, why won't McCain even investigate? Begs a good question. Maybe if he weren't another Oil company patsy like Bush he would have the balls to actually do something).
The war became unquestionably illegal when we invaded Iraq and found no WMD. In order for it to have been legal, the weapons HAD TO HAVE TO BE THERE, intelligence be damned. If Bush wasn't 100% positive, he shouldn't have invaded. Why was it illegal? Maybe because of a little thing called the Geneva Convention which makes it illegal to attack an autonomous, independent country without evidence, which Bush didn't have with Iraq when the WMD weren't there since that was the only evidence of a threat (and a loose one at that). Since you're lacking in your history, the Geneva Convention was created to stop countries from attacking other independent countries in the way that Hitler did to Poland, Czechslovakia, etc. Why else are their rumors of war crimes being passed down against Bush, Cheney, and others, not from the US, but from the ICC for violating the rules of war? Don't be surprised if it happens in 2010.
And you think the 5 years McCain spent in a hole in the dark make him somehow more qualified? I feel bad for him, but it does nothing to add to his credentials. He didn't go through any leadership skills or additional training there. The best leaders in this country's history had no experience (ie. Reagan, FDR, Lincoln) while those who did or pretended to had military service (see Bush, Bush Sr.). That's why the framers of the US Constitution designed it that way. Sometimes the best leaders of the military are those who are able to see past war and weigh things even handedly which Generals by nature aren't able to do because of their martial nature, and that's why giving them power over the President not only undermines American democracy but fully neuters the power of the Presidency.

BTW

"Get informed"

Obama didn't sign we are the world, but he did attract a crowd that demonstrates the potential role America could have in the world under his leadership. We could be seen as role models and the example of freedom for the rest of the world, or we could have 4 more years like the past 8 where America is vilified and reviled in every corner of the earth. America cant afford to govern itself in isolation anymore (as Bush has done over the past 8 years), and McCain wont be able to rebuild the relationships with Europe that are needed to face the growing threats from Russia, Iran, and China. Iraq demonstrated we cant go it alone...hopefully McCain will realize that fact.
By the way, I didn't "get caught in a box" because IRAQ NEVER ATTACKED US. WAKE UP! But nice job complimenting yourself again. Is your self-esteem that low that you cant just post your opinion but you have to congratulate yourself on it in the process?
Weak.

Get Informed wrote:

Yea, you don't here the moral Democrats saying anything about John Edwards. Funny, they are quick to find a Republican but hide their head in the sand when one of their own gets caught.
Guess John was using the expensive hair cut to find himself a young cutie while his wife was at home fighting cancer. Great Guy!
<quoted text>

Also, I find it reprehensible what Edwards did, but no more reprehensible than McCain committing adultery on his first wife with Cindy before he divorced her, regardless of the fact that McCain and Cindy got married less than 3 months after McCain dumped his first wife.

Didn't hear that one, eh? Well, check it out.

Edwards was slimier than Mitt Romney anyway.

As for the editors of this site, I have to disagree. I see far more anti-Obama stories than anti-McCain, and McCain's advertising on this site confirm my belief that it's nothing more than another fountain of conservative lies, smears, and hates as so many of you have demonstrated on a near hourly basis.