If defeat is inevitable in Iraq

[Michael Tee]

Barak Obama is another product of the DLC from the same cookie cutter that gave you Hillary Clinton and John Kerry.  He won't rock the boat.  Don't trust anyone who gets a TIME magazine cover article unless they're doing a real hatchet job on him (which they're not.)    He doesn't have the balls or the stature to stand up to AIPAC or the oil industry.  If the American business and finance community have collectively decided to pull the plug on Iraq, the plug will be pulled whether it's Obama or a Republican in the White House.

[larry]

Obama said he has no interest in running for Pre or VP. He wants to continue his work in the senate. That is fine with me. Like they say all politics a local and the leadership that come from the states is what is supposed to create the national political agenda. Barak Obama is well aware of the fact that he has not had enough time to prove himself. The time will come when Obama will be one of the most respected leaders in this country. I  know a winner when I see one.

[larry]

Barak Obama is another product of the DLC from the same cookie cutter that gave you Hillary Clinton and John Kerry. 

He is a member of the same party, but I saw something today I haven't seen in a long time. Barak Obama spoke without a script or q-cards. In a debate, Obama would destroy, Bush Hillary or Kerry. Obama is a real contender for the public ear.

[Plane]

"Al Qaeda, in a sneak attack that they could never pull off again thanks to relatively simple security measures taken by airport managers, managed to knock down a couple of buildings (because, it appears, they were in flagrant violation of existing New York building codes which weren't binding on the Port Authority) and ..."


Could you expand on these points , I am reading it a third time already.

[Plane]

  <<Next President will be a Democrat , and there will be no political need to be gentle .>>

You mean that the American people and the loyal opposition will feel no compulsion to pull out all stops in opposition to his cruelty and savagery?

What?

Did you sleep through the Clinton Presidency?

[Michael Tee]

<<What?

<<Did you sleep through the Clinton Presidency?>>

Not all of it, just the part where the Republicans tried to impeach him for war crimes.

[The_Professor]

war crimes? huh? I thought it was not because no one would ever look again at a cigar the way they used to, or that he boffed an innocent intern (oops, sorry, I DID NOT HAVE SEX WITH THAT WOMAN), but becauae he LIED.

[Xavier_Onassis]

Obama is not ready for prime time and he should not even consider a vp slot offering.


Okay. why not?

Was ANYONE elected president ever LESS COMPETENT gthan Juniorbush?
Was any VP ever less liked than Dickless Cheney?

[Michael Tee]

<<war crimes? huh? I thought it was not because no one would ever look again at a cigar the way they used to, or that he boffed an innocent intern (oops, sorry, I DID NOT HAVE SEX WITH THAT WOMAN), but becauae he LIED. >>

That was my poor attempt at sarcasm, Professor.  plane claimed that a Democratic President would act with less restraint and more savagely in Iraq than a Republican, so I asked him if the Republican opposition would then protest against the atrocities of a Democratic President.  Plane then asked me if I had slept through the entire Clinton Presidency, and my reply, which was meant to be sarcastic, was that I had only slept through the part where they impeached him for war crimes and atrocities.  MEANING that they didn't give a shit and would never give a shit about any war crimes or atrocities committed by ANY President, of either party, as clearly demonstrated by the fact that they did little if anything to protest Clinton's alleged war crimes or atrocities but were energized to impeach the guy, as we all know, over something as trivial and ultimately unimportant as an Oval Office blow-job and ALSO MEANING that plane was fulla shit, because if the Republicans HAD been opposed to any war crimes or atrocities of the Clinton administration, as plane implied they had been, they WOULD have dealt with it at least as energetically as they dealt with his blow-job, i.e. by impeaching him for it.  Admitting I slept through an obviously non-existent impeachment is a way of saying, not that I slept through it, but that it never happened, i.e. that plane was full of it.

[Plane]

<<war crimes? huh? I thought it was not because no one would ever look again at a cigar the way they used to, or that he boffed an innocent intern (oops, sorry, I DID NOT HAVE SEX WITH THAT WOMAN), but becauae he LIED. >>

That was my poor attempt at sarcasm, Professor.  plane claimed that a Democratic President would act with less restraint and more savagely in Iraq than a Republican, so I asked him if the Republican opposition would then protest against the atrocities of a Democratic President.  Plane then asked me if I had slept through the entire Clinton Presidency, and my reply, which was meant to be sarcastic, was that I had only slept through the part where they impeached him for war crimes and atrocities.  MEANING that they didn't give a shit and would never give a shit about any war crimes or atrocities committed by ANY President, of either party, as clearly demonstrated by the fact that they did little if anything to protest Clinton's alleged war crimes or atrocities but were energized to impeach the guy, as we all know, over something as trivial and ultimately unimportant as an Oval Office blow-job and ALSO MEANING that plane was fulla shit, because if the Republicans HAD been opposed to any war crimes or atrocities of the Clinton administration, as plane implied they had been, they WOULD have dealt with it at least as energetically as they dealt with his blow-job, i.e. by impeaching him for it.  Admitting I slept through an obviously non-existent impeachment is a way of saying, not that I slept through it, but that it never happened, i.e. that plane was full of it.

No you have it right.

Clinton used Arieal bombing against which the Bosnians and Serbs were helpless.
Colateral Damage was maximised and damage to our own personell and equipment was minimised.

No one started talking about Clintons war crimes, this is perfectly true.
Outside of Serbia.

[Michael Tee]

Thank you.

[Plane]

Thank you.

So you understand why a Democrat can get away with worse than a Republican?

[Michael Tee]

<<So you understand why a Democrat can get away with worse than a Republican?>>

Sure.  Democrats care about people, so they are horrified by war crimes and atrocities.

Republicans don't give a shit about people so they don't give a shit about war crimes and atrocities.  (except Islamic ones or the imaginary war crimes and atrocities they make up about communists)

So Democrats will sometimes refrain from criticizing a Democratic war criminal (like LBJ for example) because they felt at least he was doing some good Great Society work.  Republicans won't criticize anybody for war crimes and atrocities because they don't give a shit.  So only Democrats get upset about war criminals and they'll all blast a Republican war criminal but not all will blast a Democratic war criminal, because the Democrat is also bringing in some social welfare benefits benefitting some poor people, which is enough to silence some of the Dems.  That's why Republican war criminals catch more flak than Democratic war criminals - - because almost all the flak is coming from the Democrats.

[Lanya]

Thank you.

So you understand why a Democrat can get away with worse than a Republican?

Wow!  IOKIYAR at its finest.  War crimes, that's oK if you're a Republican.  No more writ of habeas corpus, OK if you're a Republican.
Spying on American citizens w/o a warrant, OK if GOP.
Torture, OK if GOP.
Either your moral code is nonexistent or I fell asleep and woke up in a time far into the future when such things were no longer abhorent, vile and criminal.   
Nope, it's still the year 2006.   

[Plane]

<<So you understand why a Democrat can get away with worse than a Republican?>>

Sure.  Democrats care about people, so they are horrified by war crimes and atrocities.

Republicans don't give a shit about people so they don't give a shit about war crimes and atrocities.  (except Islamic ones or the imaginary war crimes and atrocities they make up about communists)

So Democrats will sometimes refrain from criticizing a Democratic war criminal (like LBJ for example) because they felt at least he was doing some good Great Society work.  Republicans won't criticize anybody for war crimes and atrocities because they don't give a shit.  So only Democrats get upset about war criminals and they'll all blast a Republican war criminal but not all will blast a Democratic war criminal, because the Democrat is also bringing in some social welfare benefits benefitting some poor people, which is enough to silence some of the Dems.  That's why Republican war criminals catch more flak than Democratic war criminals - - because almost all the flak is coming from the Democrats.

By George, I think he has got it!


We will elect a Democrat next time, and really slay them.




Ironicly I expect to see poorly breifed Islamists danceing on the street when they hear about an election upset , but President Hillary will wind up reminding them of Queen Victoria or Elisabeth the first rather than any pushover.