Allstocks.com's Bulletin Board Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

» Allstocks.com's Bulletin Board » Off-Topic Post, Non Stock Talk » Dear Mr. Obama » Post A Reply

Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message Icon: Icon 1     Icon 2     Icon 3     Icon 4     Icon 5     Icon 6     Icon 7    
Icon 8     Icon 9     Icon 10     Icon 11     Icon 12     Icon 13     Icon 14    
Message:

HTML is enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.

 

Instant Graemlins Instant UBB Code™
Smile   Frown   Embarrassed   Big Grin   Wink   Razz  
Cool   Roll Eyes   Mad   Eek!   Confused   BadOne  
Good Luck   More Crap   Wall Bang   Were Up   Were Down    
Insert URL Hyperlink - UBB Code™   Insert Email Address - UBB Code™
Bold - UBB Code™   Italics - UBB Code™
Quote - UBB Code™   Code Tag - UBB Code™
List Start - UBB Code™   List Item - UBB Code™
List End - UBB Code™   Image - UBB Code™

What is UBB Code™?
Options


Disable Graemlins in this post.


 


T O P I C     R E V I E W
Bob Frey  - posted
Dear Mr. Obama

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TG4fe9GlWS8
 
CashCowMoo  - posted
You know, I get what this guy is trying to say but I get tired of people who call the war a mistake a smack against people who were there.


My first tour showed it to me all. On our way up north from Kuwait into Iraq just before we crossed the border I saw this massive sign.

It read "Halliburton oil fields" with an arrow pointing to the sandy road to our west.


I believe oil is a matter of national security. If he would have just said we needed oil control and control in the gulf it would have made more sense.

Making lies about knowing exactly where the WMDs are and making that as the case then never finding them is something else.

I have changed my view from needing their oil for our security to needing our OWN oil while we transition to cleaner fuels which will take probably 30 years to be realistic instead of idealistic.
 
glassman  - posted
i beleive the other oil co's are the ones that blocked HAL from pulling it off (taking over Iraq's oil)....
 
Ace of Spades  - posted
The war was a mistake in the sense that the Bush administration lied saying there were Weapons of Mass Destruction!

Which we all now know was an obvious lie.

It was a mistake going to war with Irag against the UN, and based on false intelligence.

We went to war not to free the Iraq people, but because the Bush administration said that they were responsible for 9/11.

Which was a flat out lie.....

We should have went to war with Afganastan and the taliban.

Just because the war was a mistkake, doesn't mean the military didn't do their job well.

The men and women who served in Iraq did their job well, even though the war was based on lies.

Nobody, including Obama, is claiming that our military doesn't reserve respect for their accomplishments and have created a better country for Iraq....

The whole point was that the war was based on lies, and even if the war was "make Iraq a democracy" , what makes it the United States Responsibility???

All that money could have went to our country which is now struggling.

Yes the men and women in the military, followered their orders, fought well in the war that was declared, and make US citizens proud.....but that doesn't mean the War was not a mistake.

The Man in the video, and others that play the game of politics in accurately....make me sick....on both parties!!!
 
Machiavelli  - posted
you said it best Ace... can't add to it... no one is disputing the great job our military did... but they shouldn't have been there in the first place is what we are saying...
 
IWISHIHAD  - posted
I sure wish that all Iraq veterans felt this way and i also wish that when all is said and done this really is the case.

It would have been nice if this video did not look so scripted and political and would have appeared that it really came from his heart when he spoke.

People in any war will say a lot of things we want to hear when guys with weapons are standing in front of them.

I am sure that some people in Iraq are better off to our standards than they were before, this could also be said of Vietnam when we occupied it, but i am not sure that means alot until we have left the country and see where it goes.

The key to me is whether there are enough people in Iraq that feel that our way of freedom is worth stepping up to the plate and dying for when we make our exit, it was not the case in Vietnam.

I feel we have secured Iraq as much as we can by now and it's time for the Iraq people to take their stand if our type of freedom is what they want.

History will tell us whether the losses in Iraq were really worth it, i really hope that they are worth more than the loses were in Vietnam because there are so many families affected for a lifetime.
 
CashCowMoo  - posted
The healthcare costs for the disabled vets from this war is going to be staggering long term
 
bdgee  - posted
As I see it, we have no choice but to pay those cost, whatever they are, and each time any payment is made there should be an announcement to the public that this is what results when you elect someone that thinks he is royalty and can't think much at all.

Every honor and appreciation to our men and women of the military, and a constant recollection that it was not them that shamed and dishonored our Country.
 
Ace of Spades  - posted
The young soldier in the video, walking away with an artificial leg was a nice touch, though.
 
Lockman  - posted
We should have went to war with Afganastan and the taliban.


Ace- We did go to war with Afganistan, where still there and will probably be in a war with Pakistan in the near future.
 
bdgee  - posted
We should have ONLY gone to war in Afganistan.

Had we done what was reasonable, responsible and honorable, we would not have squandered hundreds of billions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of lives in order to kill off the only Arab leader who actively and forcefully was fighting Al Qaeda and the other radical Muslem extremist.

The results of our dishonorable attack of Iraq? We will loose in both in Iraq and in Afghanistan; we have lost any hope of having credibility throughout the world; and we are in economic straights that may take decades to recover from, if ever.
 
Machiavelli  - posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lockman:
Ace- We did go to war with Afganistan, where still there and will probably be in a war with Pakistan in the near future.

I doubt it... Pakistan has a new President whose very friendly to us imo...

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiapcf/09/06/pakistan.presidential.election/
 
Lockman  - posted
quote:
Originally posted by Machiavelli:
quote:
Originally posted by Lockman:
Ace- We did go to war with Afganistan, where still there and will probably be in a war with Pakistan in the near future.

I doubt it... Pakistan has a new President whose very friendly to us imo...

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiapcf/09/06/pakistan.presidential.election/

I don't know about that, if we are going to really put an effort into destroying Osama's group we will have to go into the mountains between Afganistan and Pakistan. The Pakistan gov't doesn't seem to have the stomach for doing it and doesn't want us to. Both presidential candidates have said they will bomb those sites with or without Pakistans permission.

End result WAR
 
Lockman  - posted
quote:
Originally posted by bdgee:
We should have ONLY gone to war in Afganistan.

Had we done what was reasonable, responsible and honorable, we would not have squandered hundreds of billions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of lives in order to kill off the only Arab leader who actively and forcefully was fighting Al Qaeda and the other radical Muslem extremist.

The results of our dishonorable attack of Iraq? We will loose in both in Iraq and in Afghanistan; we have lost any hope of having credibility throughout the world; and we are in economic straights that may take decades to recover from, if ever.

What is your defintion of victory? It will be at least 10 years before we see the real effects of our confilt in Iraq. If Iraq becomes a responsible country and works with the rest of the world to promote peace and commerce then victory will be ours. If they fall back and become agressors in that region and disrupt commerce and promote terrorism, then we lose.

Our job is just about done in Iraq. Within a year or two they will have complete control over their own affairs and will hopefully be partners with the free world in our struggle to eliminate terrorist activity.
 
glassman  - posted
It will be at least 10 years before we see the real effects of our confilt in Iraq.

LOL...

10 years at 10 billion$ per month? sorry dude, hear that noise on Wall st? we are already scraping pistons now... and we are about to throw the bearings too...

the BEST possible outcome was always that Iranian Shiites would end up with more influence than US... unless of course we "do" Iran too.. then we might as well pull out of the mideast entirely...

Dubya didn't even know there WERE two types of Muslims [BadOne]
 
Machiavelli  - posted
quote:
Originally posted by glassman:


10 years at 10 billion$ per month?

The number I heard was $12 Billion... were bleeding money between the Iraq/Afghanistan debacles and the bailouts on Wall Street among other things...
quote:
Dubya didn't even know there WERE two types of Muslims [BadOne]
I didn't know either till we got involved in Iraq... [Embarrassed]
 
Lockman  - posted
quote:
Originally posted by glassman:
It will be at least 10 years before we see the real effects of our confilt in Iraq.

LOL...

10 years at 10 billion$ per month? sorry dude, hear that noise on Wall st? we are already scraping pistons now... and we are about to throw the bearings too...

the BEST possible outcome was always that Iranian Shiites would end up with more influence than US... unless of course we "do" Iran too.. then we might as well pull out of the mideast entirely...

Dubya didn't even know there WERE two types of Muslims [BadOne]

I did'nt say we'd be there another 10 years. 1-2 at most. Iraq will have to start paying their own way sometime after Jan.09.

President Bush was given faulty information, same as members of congress that actually voted for us to go to WAR. Once the attacks took place we were married to reconstruction. We probably should have attacked and left immediatly just like our Secretary of Defense had planned.
 
bdgee  - posted
"President Bush was given faulty information"

BULL SH-T!

He was not a victim.

Bush and his cronies were the source of all the faulty information. Let's stop this crap and admit the facts!

The Administration cooked up fake reasons for invading Iraq, with promises from the republican party to make it impossible for anyone to object or even suggest an alternative, for fear of permanent damage to ones reputation, professional, and private life, and thereby, the welfare of their family and friends.

Just look at Valorie Plame.

Many less predominate people that were heard to voice opinions not sanctioned by the party learned how many of their so called friends were actually friends.

Fascism always requires dedicated toadies to rat on the population and the republican party gleefully filled that bill.
 
jordanreed  - posted
quote:
Originally posted by bdgee:
"President Bush was given faulty information"

BULL SH-T!

He was not a victim.

Bush and his cronies were the source of all the faulty information. Let's stop this crap and admit the facts!

The Administration cooked up fake reasons for invading Iraq, with promises from the republican party to make it impossible for anyone to object or even suggest an alternative, for fear of permanent damage to ones reputation, professional, and private life, and thereby, the welfare of their family and friends.

Just look at Valorie Plame.

Many less predominate people that were heard to voice opinions not sanctioned by the party learned how many of their so called friends were actually friends.

Fascism always requires dedicated toadies to rat on the population and the republican party gleefully filled that bill.

This is the truth!!

Bush cannot be excused!!


some people refuse, stubbornly, to admit it
 
glassman  - posted
I did'nt say we'd be there another 10 years. 1-2 at most. Iraq will have to start paying their own way sometime after Jan.09.

President Bush was given faulty information, same as members of congress that actually voted for us to go to WAR. Once the attacks took place we were married to reconstruction. We probably should have attacked and left immediatly just like our Secretary of Defense had planned.


if we leave in less than 5 years from now? Iraq will be another Iran in much less than 5 more...

i don't think staying 5 years more than that will make much difference either...
 
wallymac  - posted
The outcome here is almost predetermined before we leave.

Once the US is gone the Religous Cleric's will take control. Democracy can not be forced on a civilization. A few years, it could be 10 or 20, cannot change the foundation of a nation. Once the US leaves they will revert back to a system they are comfortable with. I'm talking in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

The dissension is already happening in both countries. Bide their time, wait for the US to leave and then revert back to what they know.
 
bdgee  - posted
"Democracy can not be forced on a civilization."

That is the essential thing we need to get through our thick skulls. If it were something you could do for or to a people, it wouldn't, BY DEFINITION, be democracy.

Democracy is not dictatable!
 
Machiavelli  - posted
yah, i agree with both of you... i think that is why violence is down in Iraq... the different factions are in agreement to, privately till we leave...
 
Lockman  - posted
quote:
Originally posted by bdgee:
"Democracy can not be forced on a civilization."

That is the essential thing we need to get through our thick skulls. If it were something you could do for or to a people, it wouldn't, BY DEFINITION, be democracy.

Democracy is not dictatable!

I guess civilization can not be forced upon people either.
 
bdgee  - posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lockman:
quote:
Originally posted by bdgee:
"Democracy can not be forced on a civilization."

That is the essential thing we need to get through our thick skulls. If it were something you could do for or to a people, it wouldn't, BY DEFINITION, be democracy.

Democracy is not dictatable!

I guess civilization can not be forced upon people either.
No it can't.

And, should you ever figure out what it is, you'll still preach the Party line and declare it to be socialism.
 
Lockman  - posted
Well at least we agree SOCIALISM is not a government system either of us would like to live under.
 
bdgee  - posted
I must admit, whenever I'm driving down an interstate highway or listening to the radio or watching the TV, I very much appreciate those socialistic functions.

And I particularly approve of the clean water that is delivered to my house, the Natural gas, the telephone lines and the electricity, each of which comes via socialized property rights.

There is much to be said for the socialistic elements of our society.

And those that routinely damn socialistic efforts by our government are asking that you and I go back in time and live in a world of maybe 2000 - 3000 years ago, when the socialistic things we now refer to as "modern conveniences" were not there.

It is sad that they are so ignorant and poorly educated (particularly since, had they not been sent to socialized schools, they would have been left completely uneducated). Of course, that world back then could not have supported today's enormous population....it is the socialized infrastructure that makes possible feeding the people of the world of today.
 
Lockman  - posted
Wow we do live under a socialistic system.

I guess we might as well go all the way and just send our paychecks to congress and have them send back what they think we need.

OH that would be peachy keen.
 
bdgee  - posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lockman:
Wow we do live under a socialistic system.

I guess we might as well go all the way and just send our paychecks to congress and have them send back what they think we need.

OH that would be peachy keen.

"I guess we might as well go all the way and just send our paychecks to congress and have them send back what they think we need."

Isn't that what dubya did?


Doesn't work and never will. That isn't socialism, it is p-ss poor accounting and covering your azz.
 
Lockman  - posted
How destructive to the U.S. economy would a Barack Obama presidency be?

Beneath Obama's flowery rhetoric lies a dangerous economic plan that will wreak havoc on the American economy.

Obama plans to return to the failed policies of high taxation coupled with an expansion of government spending.

Worse, Obama says he is absolutely committed to almost doubling the capital gains rate — something he will easily accomplish with a Democrat Congress.

In the coming months — when investors realize that Obama will raise the cap gains rate — there could be a stampede of asset sales as investors rush to take their profits now to avoid Obama's doubling of the tax rates next year.

Indeed, Obama makes no bones about his plans to go on a tax rampage. Not only would he increase the capital-gains tax rate from 15 percent to as much as 28 percent, he wants to allow the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts to expire in 2010, which effectively raises taxes on Americans by tens of billions of dollars.

He also wants to do away with the $102,000 FICA payroll tax cap, which means anyone making over $102,000 would pay an additional 7 percent in taxes on earned income.

And the loan dividend tax rate George Bush implemented? Under President Obama it will be DOA!

Vote Obama and and sign up for food stamps.
 
bdgee  - posted
"How destructive to the U.S. economy would a Barack Obama presidency be?"

None at all. The danger to the economy is to keep the republican efforts that have brought us this mess in force, which we all know is what McCain will begin doing if he gets elected, then that will be continued by Palin when she takes over after he is dead.

"Beneath Obama's flowery rhetoric lies a dangerous economic plan that will wreak havoc on the American economy."

BULL sh-t. Obama has a detailed plan which is carefully designed. It has been recognized as the best chance we have by even republican economist. Mcain, of course, has no plan of any kind, and will keep up what he has always done and this mess will lead to complete failure.

"Obama plans to return to the failed policies of high taxation coupled with an expansion of government spending."

That is even worse bull sh-t. Obama's tax cut plan will lower taxes for 98 % of all Americans and will lower taxes overall, while Mcain has no plans to change taxes at all.

"Worse, Obama says he is absolutely committed to almost doubling the capital gains rate — something he will easily accomplish with a Democrat Congress."

That is simply a lie. Obama never said any such thing.

"In the coming months — when investors realize that Obama will raise the cap gains rate — there could be a stampede of asset sales as investors rush to take their profits now to avoid Obama's doubling of the tax rates next year."

Man What wild speculative lying.....again, Obama never said he plans to double capital gains taxes.

"Indeed, Obama makes no bones about his plans to go on a tax rampage. Not only would he increase the capital-gains tax rate from 15 percent to as much as 28 percent, he wants to allow the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts to expire in 2010, which effectively raises taxes on Americans by tens of billions of dollars."

Where do youi get this crap. It is all a pack of lies. Are you really that stupid? Obama's tax plan DOES NOT "allow the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts to expire in 2010" except for working class and elderly Americans, specifically those making less than $250000 taxable income.

"He also wants to do away with the $102,000 FICA payroll tax cap, which means anyone making over $102,000 would pay an additional 7 percent in taxes on earned income."

No, that one is a total fabrication......A LIE! But it is a measure the country has needed for years, since the original tax cap has failed to keep up with inflation and its intended target has been lowered into the ranks of pay scales.

"And the loan dividend tax rate George Bush implemented? Under President Obama it will be DOA! "

Good! And good riddance.

"Vote Obama and and sign up for food stamps."

Were that the case, which is another ridiculous lie, a huge percentage of those now on food stamps wouldn't need to sign up for food stamps, as so many military families are already on food stamps. Another large block are vets that are unable to work and have no other way to eat. Wouldn't it be nice if the republicans would care about our people serving in the military and even nicer if they gave a damn about the crippled and wounded vets.
 
glassman  - posted

"Vote Obama and and sign up for food stamps."



good one...

how about we

Vote Palin and sign up for oil checks?
 
CashCowMoo  - posted
A lot of fellow vets I know dont have any idea about how McCain has voted over and over against VA funding, and how McCain voted AGAINST the new GI BILL and then somewhat acted like he stands up for vets rights once he was forced to like it!!!!!!!!


A SHAME!
 
bdgee  - posted
Vets will get an even stingier helping hand if McCain wins, which is something he has already said (though not lately).

I don't approve of the Iraq war, but as with any vets, we owe them too much to cut them short and we should spend the rest of their lives trying to pay the debt. Unless it deprives some other person, the vets should be at the top of the list, whgatever the list is for.

Let's not stop with just the vets! I think it is even a bigger shame to see wives of militatry families standing in line to get food stamps. What the hell is wrong with our sense of justice.....PAY THOSE PEOPLE BETTER!
 



Contact Us | Allstocks.com Message Board Home

© 1997 - 2021 Allstocks.com. All rights reserved.

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2

Share