Thank G-d your OK.

Actually, I think and Obama presidency would be like a roller coaster (hadn’t thought of that, thanks!) during an earthquake. Who knows where it would end up! We might come out of it alright, but there would be a really large probability that we would not.

Do I read this correctly… you are assuming that a nation that is disgruntled with the beltway finds an unknown with “no baggage” - and a pot full of obviously notable conflictive promises that is nothing but a pile of verbal manure in posturing - is more inviting than a GOP candidate that has problems getting support from his own conservative base? ala… the “unknown” is better than a “known” that is despised by the DNC “enemy”?

In which case, the “dumbing down of America” is even more successful that I already believe. You are saying, in essence, the public can’t comprehend and absorb the content of simple speeches (hidden by “soaring” deliveries). To entrust the highest office, and most powerful position in the world, to chance by betting on the “unknown, sans baggage” is the most irresponsible use of the vote I’ve ever heard of.

Simple fact - no baggage? Then listen to what the man is saying. Beyond the rock concert setting, vague language, and pyrotechnique media coverage is a policy that strikes at the heart of not only capitalism, but the national security of the nation.

I don’t discount the picture you present, mind you. It’s entirely possible humans are that gullible, and unable to translate words into perceived effects of policy. But if I was “down on humanity” before this moment, this new revelation just takes the cake. Obviously, with your perspective, we’ll need to “bottom out” the next term before reversing course. And the “bottom” is yet to come.

sigh…. off planet, please.

Having no assets, the man has no “baggage.” That has to be an enormous plus, since our perception of him is not limited by past accomplishments, his potential, in the eyes of the masses, is unlimited. The inspiration that would provide for improved productivity by all citizens must not be underestimated.

Then, when you combine that with the fact that he’s not been caught doing anything wrong (yet), he has no visible liabilites, and so no negative side, either. What a winning combination.

But wait, that’s not all. This once in a lifetime opportunity includes, as you say, his ability to be everything to everyone. As long as he can avoid making any decisions, he’s going to be very popular. But, won’t he have to make a decision at some point in his career?

Of course, and there has to be a way to make that work. I would now like to offer just a couple of ideas.

(1) For taxes, simply do a poll on who wants taxes raised, and raise them on them, while leaving those who don’t want to be taxed alone. If everyone gets what he/she wants, they have no right to complain.

(2) He could do the same on other issues, as well. Drilling for oil. for example, might be tricky. Perhaps he could just have a population exchange? Move those who want drilling to an area where there’ll be drilling, and those who don’t, out of those areas. Now I know some will take issue with mass population exchanges, but with the right incentives, I’m sure no one will object. And, since they all get what they want, they really have no right to put up a fuss. I mean, being all things to all people is great, but one does have to draw the line SOMEWHERE!

Still, there will be other decisions that will inevitably make everyone unhappy. But, even here there is a solution. Simply appoint advisors who are charged with “doing the will of the president” (which, as we already have established, is identical with “the will of the people”) and have them appear to make the decisions he tells them in secret to implement. That way, when the decision makes everyone unhappy, he can say “that’s not the way the person that I knew would have decided that, and it’s certainly not what I wanted” At that point the advisor is “fired” (given a new cushy job in another sector) and policy changed to reflect more what people seem to want. Again, as in (2) above, relocation of various elements of the population, and/or reassigning them tasks commenserate with their desires should stifle any complaints. If you’re busy relocating and reestablishing yourself, it’s hard to focus on trivial issues, like if the president is living up to your expectations.

But, I’m sure the great mind of BHO has already thought of this and so much more. I just can’t wait to find out what he has in store for us. Still, I honestly would feel more secure about it myself if he were to try it out on lab rats first, starting, say, with Dean, Pelosi and Reid.

Absolutely, which is why I said I was wrong to use the so-called “fact check” sites as support for my arguments. In fact, what I’ve been doing since I acknowledged that mistake has been to show WHY relying on them is so misleading, and, in Obama’s case, potentially very dangerous.

But on the whole “truth” issue - Isn’t this a bit hard since BHO rarely defines anything that isn’t laden with vague nuances?

i.e. Iraq? “careful coming out as careless going in”. So does he support a timetable that’s conditions based, or not? Yet he *finally* meets Petraeus, and discounts his recommendations INRE conditions and timetables. Doublespeak.

i.e. off shore drilling? Would consider an energy policy that includes drilling, if wrapped up with alternatives. Uh huh… but he burdens that with drill it or lose it leases on non productive land, nuclear waste caveats nigh on impossible to meet, and sundry other deal killers. What he’s doing it doublespeak yet again… stating he’d “consider” something when he knows very well it is impossible to come to agreement on those issues. He can safety speak what people want to hear to look good, and count on Pelosi and Reid to make sure it never happens. If not outright lies, deceptive truth at best.

Then there’s the doublespeak on his pastor. The double speak on taxes… cutting them when his policys - if implemented - would raise taxes astronomically on all Americans.

The point is… how can anyone determine if BHO is telling “the truth” when he takes a position which is really no position at all, or one that is not fully representative of his stated proposals?

Therefore either site I would consider bogus. The man’s not been honest on anything to date except his hatred for liberating Iraq. Why would he start now?

They say it’s true that Obama co-sponsered a bill that sort of dealt with WMD, and, on the face of it, that is “correct,” BUT….

Obama also asserts that Iraq was a distraction in the war against terror. Well, never mind all the Al Qaeda filth that’s been flushed by our wonderful military there, consider also that by going to war we took VERY REAL steps to prevent terrorists from acquiring WMD.

“Here are some of the findings and statements of David Kay:

–Iraq was a stockpile of scientists and technology and actual equipment for producing WMD, while we’re in a world where terrorists and others are seeking those weapons
–there clearly were terrorist groups passing through and operating in Iraq still seeking WMD capability
–Iraq well could have been that supplier if the war had not intervened
–Iraq was becoming the marketplace for selling the knowledge of how to make them, the knowledge of how to make small amounts, which is, after all, mostly what terrorists wants
–Iraq remained a very dangerous place in terms of WMD capabilities, even though we found no large stockpiles of weapons
–What we have found is a substantial body of evidence that reports that the Iraqis had an intention to continue weapons production at some point in the future
–we found undeclared activities in the chemical and biological and missile area that were never declared to the U.N. and not discovered during previous inspections
–we discovered that the Iraqis initiated work on new agents: Congo-Crimean hemorrhagic fever being one, brucellosis, another, that they had not done before and had not declared
–we found 97 vials of material that they hid from the inspectors to preserve a restart capability
–recent discussions with an Iraqi scientist who, in 1993, had hid in his own refrigerator reference strains for, active strains, that were still active when we found them — Botulinum toxin, one of the most toxic elements known
–he was asked to hide others, including anthrax, but refused at the time
–we now have three cases in which scientists have come forward with equipment, technology, diagrams, documents and, in this case, actual weapons material, reference strains and Botulinum toxin, that they were told to hide and that the UN and Hans Blix didn’t find. These could only be found after the war in which they had free access to investigate.
–there were other strains being searched for in Iraq for at least one more cache of weapons — of strains that David Kay says is certain to exist, although not found
–Iraq conducted new research on biological capable agents, such as Brucella, Congo Crimean Hemorrhagic Fever, and Naflotoxin (ph), as well as efforts to weaponize Ricin right up until the start of the war
–only time and a little growth media would have produced large amounts of Botulinum toxin
–in fact, it would have taken Iraq an estimated 3-6 months to restart mustard production, and a maximum estimate of two years to produce VX. This fact was again cited during Charles Duelfer’s report
–David Kay’s team has identified 130 ammunition storage points of significant size, some larger than 50 square kilometers. These are sites that contain, the best estimate is, between 600,000 and 650,000 tons of arms. That’s about one-third of the entire ammunitions stockpile of the much-larger U.S. military. This type of stuff was all supposed to have been declared to the UN. It wasn’t.
–Iraq was seeking long range missiles that went well beyond the UN limitations.
–we now have evidence that he was seeking propellants for Scud missiles from N. Korea as late as 2002. Ironically, Iraq had declared that it got rid of all of its Scud missiles in the early 1990s.
–Saddam was ready to restart his nuclear program as soon as sanctions had eroded, which was coming very soon. This was one of the major facts that was later confirmed by Charles Duelfer.
–Documents and equipment, hidden in scientists’ homes, that would have helped Iraq resume uranium enrichment by centrifuge and electromagnetic isotope separation.
–A prison laboratory complex that possibly was used to test biological weapons agents on humans. Kay said his investigations have shown that Iraqi officials working to prepare for U.N. inspections were ordered not to declare the facility to the U.N. [...and those effing creeps worry about Abu Ghraib??!!]
–there is absolutely no evidence of any political pressure to manipulate any intelligence or to influence how any inspection team was to perform
–the world is safer without Saddam in power
–Iraq was becoming more dangerous than we realized”

So, let’s review…

Obama co-sponsered a law that would make some feeble attempts, and might have limited success in a few specific instances.

Bush took us to war with, and shut down, a major conduit on the WMD supply chain.

And neither Obama nor his surrogates either understand, or care, about actual accomplishment, only the APPEARANCE of same.

Make no mistake, if Obama had been serious about stopping proliferation of WMD, he would have been, and would stil be, one of the major boosters of the Iraq war. The fact that he is not means he’s a fraud.

This cannot be stated often enough…
OBAMA AND HIS ENABLERS CONSTITUTE ONE OF THE GREATEST THREATS, NOT ONLY TO THE USA, BUT TO THE WORLD!

The superficial treatment given at “PolitiFact” (and, as MataHarley points out below, other similar sites) gives no information whatever about the really important aspects of the issues.

“Nobody authorized Bush, Rumsfeld and Co. to grossly mismanage the war and get our troops kiled unnecessarily.”
-the war wasn’t mismanaged, and unless you can show me a military defeat ala Waterloo, Dunkirk, the Fall of Saigon, or the retreat from Somalia…then the fact is that the war-while still filled with problems-has gone far better than others/far better than should be expected of any war.

“And I was making those observations about George Bush and his Administration long before he was a lame-duck.”
THERE’S THE CATCH You’re still making the comments now.

(insult removed - as it adds nothing to the discussion that his errors don’t already make clear)

We made plenty of mistakes in WWII, but only the Leftist quislings, who were against ANY war, used that fact to argue there should have been no war at all.

Today, only the Leftists who have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING positive to contribute focus solely on the negatives of their opponents in order to distract from the fact that they themselves are utterly unworthy to lead, unlike the real leaders who, in leading, unavoidably do make mistakes.

If one notes that the Left did itself NOT predict ANY of the problems we had in Iraq, nor did they contribute ANY positive ideas how to solve those problems (because they didn’t see them), one will begin to realize what a total waste they are. All they could do was, and is, to interfere with every effort to keep Americans safe, or to improve the quality of life for Americans in particular and the World in general. That is what is wrong with our country, and that is what conservatives will continue to fight against until it is remedied.

I used a low-end estimate that doesn’t factor in the long term effects of the war - replacement of war materiel, etc. There are estimates as high as 3 trillion. But you know I always enjoy that kind of argument. You mean it was ONLY 648 billion? What a bargain! A hundred billion here and hundred billion there - Pretty soon you’re talking about real money.

Rumsfeld - “Better than McNamara.” Now there’s an endorsement.

Nobody authorized Bush, Rumsfeld and Co. to grossly mismanage the war and get our troops kiled unnecessarily.

And I was making those observations about George Bush and his Administration long before he was a lame-duck.

You found a problem with mine, and I admitted it, something you aren’t able to do when you are wrong.

I found a problem with yours (re it’s superficiality) and you get all defensive and start accusing me of ranting. You can’t show me to be wrong, so all you have for a “defense” is to hurl petty accusations.

I wasn’t able to go into the depth I wanted at the time I wrote that other piece, so I made the mistake of relying on a weak reference. I’m only trying to make up for that here. Whenever someone comes up with a weak argument, you can show them wrong, but when they have solid irrefutable facts, all you can do is throw scheiss?

Pretty feeble, Dave. Pretty feeble.

I didn’t help you do anything, Yon. Anything can trigger an ODS seizure in someone afflicted with the disorder - embarassment, bright light, solar cycles.