Title: ARG Poll has PA tied between Obama and Clinton at 45-45
Source: Democratic Underground
URL Source: [None]
Published: Apr 7, 2008
Author: DU people
Post Date: 2008-04-07 17:42:11 by ghostdogtxn
Keywords: None
Views: 3971
Comments: 259

I assume you're talking about national ZioNazis, and nobody associated w/the forum?

I will grant you that, let's say that there's 10% about Hillary Clinton that we don't know yet, I will grant you that, but I would say there's also about 50% about Barack Obama that we don't know yet," Ed Rendell said.

"The truth that makes men free is for the most part the truth which men prefer not to hear." -- Herbert Sebastien Agar (1897-1980) Source: The Time for Greatness, 1942

"It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brush fires of freedom in the minds of men." -- Samuel Adams (1722-1803)‡

As for WHY Obama wants more troops in Afghanistan, I don't know that he really does. He says so, but you don't know if he means it? Utter crap. I don't get where you're coming from at all.

If you don't take him at his word, how did you conclude he would be less of a disaster than the other 2? Was it is voting record? I am seriously trying to understand how some have come to this conclusion. Maybe it's just a 'feeling'... please elaborate!

"The truth that makes men free is for the most part the truth which men prefer not to hear." -- Herbert Sebastien Agar (1897-1980) Source: The Time for Greatness, 1942

Those of us who have shucked off their party affiliations are more politically evolved than you are. Until you're able to liberate yourself from that coating you choose to wear, you will remain a political neophyte. Other than that closed mindset, you're OK.

I agree. Insane doesn't have the support. He's too close to the current Bush admin who's approval ratings are in the toilet. He openly wants more war when it's extremely unpopular.

And the economy will continue to tank between now and November and he'll have no answers to campaign with.

"It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brush fires of freedom in the minds of men." -- Samuel Adams (1722-1803)‡

As a write in or is Clinton going 3rd party? Clinton's history and she knows it, but doesn't want to face the truth yet.

They are polling Cain vs Obama and Obama hasn't even secured the D nomination yet. Once he does (and he will) his credibility will go up and his poll numbers will go up with it.

First, its not a concept it's a fact, and his son Mark is also an advisor, and yes it's very scary.

Second, to follow along here, you say critics lapped up a movie and it was accepted by MOST Americans. I don't know that that's true, and I haven't seen the movie myself to agree or disagree... but you are suggesting that most Americans then embrace whatever it was in the movie, and that's good enough to keep on doing the same? How does this connect with Obama's policy?

I liked the Godfather movies, but didn't conclude that it was okay embrace the criminal empire.

"The truth that makes men free is for the most part the truth which men prefer not to hear." -- Herbert Sebastien Agar (1897-1980) Source: The Time for Greatness, 1942

Obama stakes turf, outlines counterterrorism plan - Would add troops in Afghanistan, double foreign aid

WASHINGTON - The United States must add at least 7,000 troops in Afghanistan, double foreign aid spending to $50 billion, and be prepared to strike unilaterally against terrorist sanctuaries in Pakistan, Senator Barack Obama of Illinois said yesterday in a major speech laying out his counterterrorism plan.

************

Obama says he'd send troops into Pakistan to hunt down terrorists.

From:: Knight Ridder Washington Bureau (Washington D.C.)
Date:: August 1, 2007
More results for:: obama and troops in Afghanistan

Byline: Margaret Talev

WASHINGTON _ Democrat Barack Obama said Wednesday that if he were president and had good intelligence about top terrorists in Pakistan, he'd send U.S. troops to hunt them down if Pakistan's government wouldn't do it.

Seeking to establish his foreign-policy credentials a week after Democratic front-runner Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., accused him of being naive for being willing to talk with the leaders of hostile nations without preconditions, the first-term Illinois senator gave a comprehensive speech on fighting global terrorism before the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington.

Obama called for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq and redeploying at least two more brigades to Afghanistan, along with $1 billion in additional nonmilitary aid. He reiterated a willingness to talk with leaders from nations such as Iran, Syria and North Korea: "The lesson of the Bush years is that not talking does not work. Go down the list of countries we've ignored and see how successful that strategy has been."

But his controversial words about Pakistan _ where Osama bin Laden's al-Qaida has been regrouping, according to the latest National Intelligence Estimate _ drew the most attention.

Obama said he'd make hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. military aid to Pakistan conditional on President Pervez Musharraf moving to shutter terrorism training camps, preventing terrorists from hiding in his country and stopping the Taliban from running back and forth across the border to attack in Afghanistan.

"I understand that President Musharraf has his own challenges," Obama said. "But let me make this clear: There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. ... If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf will not act, we will."

**********

Obama: Shift Troops to Fight al-Qaida

From:: AP Online
Date:: July 14, 2007
More results for:: obama and troops in Afghanistan

OELWEIN, Iowa - The U.S. should shift troops from Iraq to pursue al- Qaida along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border, Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said Saturday.

He said President Bush's war-fighting policies have left the United States at greater risk from terrorists. The first-term Illinois senator said decisions by the Republican president had allowed Osama bin Laden and his deputies to elude capture.

"We cannot win a war against the terrorists if we're on the wrong battlefield," Obama said. "America must urgently begin deploying from Iraq and take the fight more effectively to the enemy's home by destroying al- Qaida's leadership along the Afghan-Pakistan border, eliminating their command and control networks and disrupting their funding."

Obama spoke during his 15th trip to Iowa, where precinct caucuses set for January begin the presidential nominating process. He opened his day with a rally on the shores of a lake in Oelwein before his later stops.

The senator focused on the threat of terrorism just days after a new U.S. intelligence assessment warned that al-Qaida has succeeded in rebuilding its strength.

"What I would say is that as a consequence of bad decisions we are more at risk and less safe than we should have been at this point, given all the resources we have spent and the U.S. lives that have been lost," Obama said.

Obama contended the Bush administration erred by choosing to fight in Iraq rather than concentrating on Afghanistan, where he said al-Qaida has rebuilt itself.

"They have entirely regrouped along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border," Obama said. "The threat of terrorism has actually increased and we've seen a massive spike in terrorist activity, in part because we did not finish the job in Afghanistan and were distracted by a war of choice in Iraq."

Frankly, I'm surprised to hear this kool-aid nonsense coming out of your mouth, as well as the "lesser of evils, weevils ..etc" coming from others.

IMO, Obama is head and shoulders above the other two in intellect, decency and background ... not to mention his inclination to promote bi-partisanship in congress and harmony amongst the citizenry as opposed to the hate-filled divisiveness which is the legacy of two decades of hate-radio and anonymous web chatter.

I cling to hope of a 50 state repudiation of the traitorous, neocon Plutocrat Party

"It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brush fires of freedom in the minds of men." -- Samuel Adams (1722-1803)‡

Uhhhhh..... no, not at all, seeing how the net gain in lives saved would go up dramatically.

"It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brush fires of freedom in the minds of men." -- Samuel Adams (1722-1803)‡

Wow, thanks for the fact filled post. I'm sure cleared up the confusion we're having with his past and present statements.

"It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brush fires of freedom in the minds of men." -- Samuel Adams (1722-1803)‡

So basically, without a record and believing what you don't see is proof that he is not bought and sold, you just sort of feel that his is better choice.

To excuse his non-voting record as okay because it's politically smart to keep everyone guessing is giving the guy a blank check with your life.

This to me, hooks you a position to support him no matter what he does for purposes of loyalty to his success at the possible expense to your own.

"The truth that makes men free is for the most part the truth which men prefer not to hear." -- Herbert Sebastien Agar (1897-1980) Source: The Time for Greatness, 1942

"It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brush fires of freedom in the minds of men." -- Samuel Adams (1722-1803)‡

Obama's gotta get past the Dem party elite to secure the nomination first. that won't happen unless he's the selection.

I think there is a new political category called 'good ju-ju'. You don't know how you got there, but you know it when you feel it.

"The truth that makes men free is for the most part the truth which men prefer not to hear." -- Herbert Sebastien Agar (1897-1980) Source: The Time for Greatness, 1942

"It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brush fires of freedom in the minds of men." -- Samuel Adams (1722-1803)‡

Counselor, I just noticed my bozo number bounced up by 1. Could that be you who did this?

'Individuals should not take responsibility for their own defense. That’s what the police are for. ... If I oppose individuals defending themselves, I have to support police defending them. I have to support a police state.”' Alan Dershowitz

Clinton is toast. And Obama might well be smart enough to leave the Clinton luggage in the baggage claim. He has to know that many R's are very upset with McCain having the R ticket, and the one thing that could keep them from voting for him is "VP Hillary". He'd probably be best off picking a moderate with some christian type values. It'll be a white guy so his campaign won't be screaming "Minority Revolution!"

I believe they will obey in a different, less destructive way. The Clinton years were bad, they were awful, but not as bad as the Bush years. Would an Al Gore presidency have been different? Yes, IMO. And I would have found much wrong with it, I'm sure.

A lot are still active. Someone's approached me about having a couple RP dedicated forums (no commitment yet), and RPers seem to be infiltrating the ranks for the R convention, as posted here I think yesterday.

I did not ignore those articles, and I appreciate you posting them, as critical, opposing views should always be heard. We all learn from them.

I learned that Obama is still not as bad as the warmonger McCain, but not as pure as some Dems believe.

You mentioned above: look how the critics lapped up "Charlie Wilson's War". That was an unapologetic ode to Zbigniew Breszinski's policies that would have made Monica Lewinski blush from under the table, and yet it was accepted non critically by most Americans.

I tried to understand the logic of it, but apparently fell short. Can you help me understand what you meant?

I've accepted reluctantly that we are down to 3 likely candidates for president. Obama, Clinton or McCain is going to inherit the expanded and ghastly powers of "Free World's Slavemaster". Who do you want to see in that office, among the 3? If you disagree that we're down to 3, please explain how that can be?

Same here. There are 3. I will not vote for any of them, at all, no matter what happens from now till November, I reject all three. And their are many many reasons, but one huge common denominator is that all three are or are controlled by the CFR, that is intent on a one-world government controlled by pure evil beings. To all three, I say, I won't vote for our own suicide.

"The truth that makes men free is for the most part the truth which men prefer not to hear." -- Herbert Sebastien Agar (1897-1980) Source: The Time for Greatness, 1942

Fortunately you don't have to be a "guilt laden White" to know he is the best candidate of the three the system offers. I could of re-registered as a Democrat to vote for him in the primary, but I didn't. I am a Green, not a Democrat. I ultimately want someone fare better then Obama to be POTUS; someone who doesn't belong to either half of the current one party running things.

The system is co-opted and broken. It does not run as the founders intended and has become owned by too few of the wrong people. But I will vote for the least objectionable candidate and keep hoping that martial law and a war against "American insurgents" doesn't develop.

I vote for the candidate I feel is the most vulnerable to pressure from dissidents to make right choices. I got over thinking I would see a competent POTUS that is the true choice of the American people in an unmanipulated election long ago.

I put my choice out here mostly in response to bullying of people supporting Obama and ad hominem attacks against them instead of people arguing in good faith without the character assassination.

As far as race goes, it's importance has always been over exaggerated. When I look at any person I see a human being first and foremost. Race is only as important as bigotry drives it to be, nothing more.

I am glad he is doing so well in Pennsylvania, but I don't trust the system and won't believe it until I see the tallies come in. I believe McCain will get the same manipulate the vote attempt at a win Bush got twice and which was used to marginalized and neutralize Ron Paul whom I would very much support over Obama despite strong ideological differences I have with him.

If those in power could no longer twist the result of the election, then Bush would keep it from happening, they do not intend on giving up power without a fight. And if Obama gets in and shows the same fierce independence and unwillingness to accede to the desires of this shadow government group running things, they would shoot him just as brutally and quickly as they did John Kennedy.

I know how unstable and volatile the situation is. But I am going to stay in there nominally supporting the process going on, because when and if the facade comes off and martial law is declared I want to survive the first round-ups of people to the FEMA camps. And I want to make sure I do because my core notion is the Constitution and the ideas behind it should not ever go quietly.

I am prepared to survive, and to fight for what I believe. But I am not going to belittle and browbeat people still trying to make the system work. Working through problems and bringing elections back to the people for them to make the choice is preferable to seeing martial law and an insurgency develop with people dying and imprisoned as they try to keep the revolution of 1776 alive.

That is why I take the stance I do. It isn't because Obama has African heritage to him. Race and gender should never keep someone from being president, conversely they should never be elected solely to put someone of a different race and gender then has been in that office either.

You're ignoring the other major difference between Obama and the other candidates: civil liberties. Obama repeatedly calls for restoring habeas corpus in his speeches. The other candidates do not do that.

To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.

The Catholics who voted for JFK in the 1960 primaries (as most of them did) had mostly voted for Adlai Stevenson in '52 and '56. (A lot of Catholics had voted for Eisenhower in those elections, but most of those Catholics did not vote in the Democratic primaries in 1960.) Stevenson was one of the Democrats running for the nomination in 1960.

I remember. I was a Catholic Irish-American who (mistakenly) supported Nixon that year (mainly out of resentment of how it seemed to be expected that I should support JFK). I remember how unpopular that was in my circles.