BTW, I casme up with the following pertinent joke about Jimmuh---
What do you call a former president from Georgia who hugs a Hamas thug?
DHIMMI CARTER.
LOL, that’s good.
People want “change,” but they also want national security (well, not his hardcore leftist supporters, but everyone else), so I have to hope that will save us from Obamania.
BTW, I casme up with the following pertinent joke about Jimmuh---
What do you call a former president from Georgia who hugs a Hamas thug?
DHIMMI CARTER.
LOL, that’s good.
People want “change,” but they also want national security (well, not his hardcore leftist supporters, but everyone else), so I have to hope that will save us from Obamania.
People do not want Bush/McCain style “National Security” in which we have squandered both hard and soft power on unnecessary wars. America is much weaker than she was 8 years ago both economically and militarily, whether or not you care to admit it.
True, Truman was at the Potsdam Conference, not Yalta. Roosevelt was the one who, meeting with Churchill and Stalin at the end of the war, sold out Eastern Europe to the Communists. Historians argue whether Roosevelt was a Communist sympathizer or merely felt that America was sick of war and didn’t want to further commit US troops to stem the Soviet advance through Eastern Europe. Churchill, it should be noted, was the only one to take a hard line on Stalin and probably should have prevailed.
At Yalta Roosevelt had a state department full of Soviet agents. During the conference Alger Hiss was whispering in his ear. He was lucky to leave Yalta with his pants and shirt.
People do not want Bush/McCain style “National Security” in which we have squandered both hard and soft power on unnecessary wars. America is much weaker than she was 8 years ago both economically and militarily, whether or not you care to admit it.
You’ve been reading the NYT too much. Lets see if we hadn’t invaded Iraq today Sadam, Kadafi, and Iran would have Nukes,and probably Osama as well. The jihadists would have come here instead of going to Iraq . Sadam would have continued the genocide against his own people and foreign aggression against others. France is friendlier Germany is friendlier, Italy is friendler and Osama’s Arab street cred continues to decline. Oh and the biggie no attacks on the home front. And lets not forget the 10 million Jobs created and low inflation/unemployment. The economy sure is weak.
So Obama’s a little light on history. Obama’s was a speech that invoked the image of John Belushi in the movie Animal House, when Belushi reminded everyone of America’s response when the “Germans bombed Pearl Harbor”. Yes, he was “on a roll”.
We can expect, “yes we can”, to be replaced by, “let’s do it!”, in the very near future.
BTW, I casme up with the following pertinent joke about Jimmuh---
What do you call a former president from Georgia who hugs a Hamas thug?
DHIMMI CARTER.
LOL, that’s good.
People want “change,” but they also want national security (well, not his hardcore leftist supporters, but everyone else), so I have to hope that will save us from Obamania.
People do not want Bush/McCain style “National Security” in which we have squandered both hard and soft power on unnecessary wars. America is much weaker than she was 8 years ago both economically and militarily, whether or not you care to admit it.
Uh-huh. Even if I accepted that assertion--which I don’t--surely Obama’s abject surrender policy is not the ideal alternative? Even Hillary is more credible on foreign policy than Obama.
BTW, I casme up with the following pertinent joke about Jimmuh---
What do you call a former president from Georgia who hugs a Hamas thug?
DHIMMI CARTER.
LOL, that’s good.
People want “change,” but they also want national security (well, not his hardcore leftist supporters, but everyone else), so I have to hope that will save us from Obamania.
People do not want Bush/McCain style “National Security” in which we have squandered both hard and soft power on unnecessary wars. America is much weaker than she was 8 years ago both economically and militarily, whether or not you care to admit it.
Uh-huh. Even if I accepted that assertion--which I don’t--surely Obama’s abject surrender policy is not the ideal alternative? Even Hillary is more credible on foreign policy than Obama.
All you can do is distort and smear. ("Abject Surrender"). Obama is talking about using soft power as opposed to blowing our military capabilities needlessly. Had we done that, we might not be in the mess we’re in.
All you can do is distort and smear. ("Abject Surrender").
Abject surrender is exactly what he’s proposing.
Obama is talking about using soft power as opposed to blowing our military capabilities needlessly. Had we done that, we might not be in the mess we’re in.
We didn’t blow our military capabilities needlessly.
Nor are we in a mess.
I don’t know which is scarier: Hussein Obama’s “foreign policy” or his “economic policy.”
In the end, aren’t we looking for a pragmatic statesman(woman) to lead us, one unfettered by too many preconceived views about how things should be? After all, like it or not, things are the way they are when a new President takes office. The war in Iraq will be continuing whether or not one voted for it. So spending too much (any) time in the general election campaign arguing whether or not it should have happened is a waste of time. The angry zealots will still desire our demise.
I just do not think that Barack Obama has the stuff to handle the job. There are lots of smart poeple around. It takes more than that. Giving an inspiring sermon is not what we need. It takes judgment and understanding about the nature of this country, where it came from, what makes it great and how best to provide protection and prosperity. For example, I have not heard one word out of Obama (or Clinton, for that matter) with regard to energy policy. McCain has touched on it. We have the technology available to produce fuel cell cars, with refinement of the existing R&D. If we had a program and commitment to replace the internal combustion engines in this country with fuel cells fueled by hydrogen(of which there is a vast supply) we could stop importing crude oil (which currently represents c. 60% of our annual needs) and run vehicles on fuel that produces zero emissions other than water. Think for a second what that would do to those vastly productive middle east countries that use our money to fund jihadists, buy equity in out financial and industrial companies and build really useful metropolitan oases in the desert.
Barack has not yet been programmed to talk about energy policy. What will his program include?
In the end, aren’t we looking for a pragmatic statesman(woman) to lead us, one unfettered by too many preconceived views about how things should be? After all, like it or not, things are the way they are when a new President takes office. The war in Iraq will be continuing whether or not one voted for it. So spending too much (any) time in the general election campaign arguing whether or not it should have happened is a waste of time. The angry zealots will still desire our demise.
I just do not think that Barack Obama has the stuff to handle the job. There are lots of smart poeple around. It takes more than that. Giving an inspiring sermon is not what we need. It takes judgment and understanding about the nature of this country, where it came from, what makes it great and how best to provide protection and prosperity. For example, I have not heard one word out of Obama (or Clinton, for that matter) with regard to energy policy. McCain has touched on it. We have the technology available to produce fuel cell cars, with refinement of the existing R&D. If we had a program and commitment to replace the internal combustion engines in this country with fuel cells fueled by hydrogen(of which there is a vast supply) we could stop importing crude oil (which currently represents c. 60% of our annual needs) and run vehicles on fuel that produces zero emissions other than water. Think for a second what that would do to those vastly productive middle east countries that use our money to fund jihadists, buy equity in out financial and industrial companies and build really useful metropolitan oases in the desert.
Barack has not yet been programmed to talk about energy policy. What will his program include?
Then you haven’t been listening.
He supports energy diversity as a means of getting away from buying oil from terrorists.
"Energy diversity” is a phrase. It is not a policy. Wind turbines and solar panels will not assist getting us off the dependence on foreing crude oil. Our fossil fule power plants are not run on oil, there are run on natural gas and coal. If we can solve the ‘cars use refined petroleum’ issue the rest is more easily dealt with.
