Who do you support for U.S. Senate in Georgia in 2010?

[Columbus Native]

Most independents like me don't want either party in total control. There has to be a balance since unfortunately we only have two parties to choose from. Poor Jimmy Carter was the weakest president ever but in my 63 years George W Bush was still the worst. He and Cheney should both be in a super max on 23 hour lockdown. What total pieces of Chit.

[dognes]

youtube.com/watch... ……
Little Late right now maybe next time?

[no doubt]

Columbus Native wrote:

Most independents like me don't want either party in total control. There has to be a balance since unfortunately we only have two parties to choose from. Poor Jimmy Carter was the weakest president ever but in my 63 years George W Bush was still the worst. He and Cheney should both be in a super max on 23 hour lockdown. What total pieces of Chit.

At least bush wasn't a socialist. obama is by far the worst, no one close. Love how you so called independents always seem to favor the left wing nuts. I would be ashamed to admit i was a socialist too.

[Mustsard biscuits]

tom wrote:

eemocrats are about to shut down america and send us to socialism.ITS time for them to GO

sure..,,

[ChicknButt]

Let's just be clear about something:

Socialism is socialism. The Obama administration in no way represents socialism.

I know that won't stop any of you Republican haters from calling it that, but at least you've been exposed to the fact.

Calling things what they are, rather than what they aren't is one of the early steps to compromise and problem solving.

[Big Brother]

ChicknButt wrote:

Let's just be clear about something:
Socialism is socialism. The Obama administration in no way represents socialism.
I know that won't stop any of you Republican haters from calling it that, but at least you've been exposed to the fact.
Calling things what they are, rather than what they aren't is one of the early steps to compromise and problem solving.

I'm very clear on what socialism is and who is in favorite of it. You probably should check out Obamas history before he was elected and the stands that he took.Read the books he wrote.

[you are exposed]

ChicknButt wrote:

Let's just be clear about something:
Socialism is socialism. The Obama administration in no way represents socialism.
I know that won't stop any of you Republican haters from calling it that, but at least you've been exposed to the fact.
Calling things what they are, rather than what they aren't is one of the early steps to compromise and problem solving.

Be clear about this, like him or hate him you have to have your head in the sand to deny obama is a socialist. You would have to ignore his entire past and his long list of socialist / communist friends : Ayers, Dohrn, Frank Marshall Davis, Axelrod, Derrick Bell, Van Jones, and the list is much longer. You are either showing your ignorance or you are showing a bias towards any democrat put before you. I'm guessing the former.
http://obamaism.blogspot.com/

[Synergy]

Watch the movie, 2016. If you see it and refuse to believe it, check the facts.

[Come Clean]

Dats Rite

[DarkMeat]

Synergy wrote:

Watch the movie, 2016. If you see it and refuse to believe it, check the facts.

Yeah! Way to go Synergy! Recommend giving your dollars to the director of that film. The very guy who said the 911 terrorists were HERO's and WARRIORS!

That's the way to support your country. Hell, you might as well make a donation to AL-queda as to go see that film.

[Big Brother]

DarkMeat wrote:

<quoted text>
Yeah! Way to go Synergy! Recommend giving your dollars to the director of that film. The very guy who said the 911 terrorists were HERO's and WARRIORS!
That's the way to support your country. Hell, you might as well make a donation to AL-queda as to go see that film.

Well heil, seems that the president giving alot to these terrorist. And covering up for them too. Do you have tv? Or do you just refuse to believe that you put a guy in office that is user friendly with all these Muslim countries and their terrorist?

[DarkMeat]

Big Brother wrote:

<quoted text>Well heil, seems that the president giving alot to these terrorist. And covering up for them too. Do you have tv? Or do you just refuse to believe that you put a guy in office that is user friendly with all these Muslim countries and their terrorist?

Well come on. If you're going to say something, SAY IT.

Precisely what do you mean to say? Say it in a nice succinct clear unambiguous way.

Do you mean to say: "I believe President Obama is a member of a terrorist organization" ?

Do you mean to say: "I believe President Obama supports global terrorism against the United States"?

Whatever it is you mean to say, just come out and say it. So we can prove it is nothing more than unfounded Republican paranoia.

[I will say it]

DarkMeat wrote:

<quoted text>
Well come on. If you're going to say something, SAY IT.
Precisely what do you mean to say? Say it in a nice succinct clear unambiguous way.
Do you mean to say: "I believe President Obama is a member of a terrorist organization" ?
Do you mean to say: "I believe President Obama supports global terrorism against the United States"?
Whatever it is you mean to say, just come out and say it. So we can prove it is nothing more than unfounded Republican paranoia.

He clearly sympathizes with many of our enemies. He is apologetic to anyone who will listen and he is hell bent on bringing America down to size so we can be on equal footing with the rest of the world. He and his wife and friends are ashamed of everything this country stands for. Good enough ?

[DrumStick]

I will say it wrote:

<quoted text>Good enough ?

No. These are still general undefined accusations. You can't just call a man a thief, you have to state what he stole and prove it. Get where I'm going with this?

I will say it wrote:

<quoted text>He clearly sympathizes with many of our enemies.

Specifically, what has he done that makes you believe this is a truth? Please provide corroboration.

I will say it wrote:

<quoted text>He clearly sympathizes he is hell bent on bringing America down to size so we can be on equal footing with the rest of the world.

Specifically, what does this mean. What has he done, specifically, to make this happen? Please provide some proof or examples.

I will say it wrote:

<quoted text>HHe and his wife and friends are ashamed of everything this country stands for.

Prove it. What do you have to back this opinion?

[Aggie23]

DrumStick wrote:

<quoted text>
No. These are still general undefined accusations. You can't just call a man a thief, you have to state what he stole and prove it. Get where I'm going with this?
<quoted text>
Specifically, what has he done that makes you believe this is a truth? Please provide corroboration.
<quoted text>
Specifically, what does this mean. What has he done, specifically, to make this happen? Please provide some proof or examples.
<quoted text>
Prove it. What do you have to back this opinion?

Okay:
1. France 2009 - the US "has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive..." toward Europe
2. UN address - "I took office at a time when many around the world had come to view America with skepticism and distrust....and a belief that on certain critical issues, America has acted unilaterally, without regard for the interests of others."
3. 2009 Turkish Parliament - "the United States is still working through some of our own darker periods in our history."
4. And most egregious - after our consulate is attacked and four Americans are murdered - including our Ambassador, Obama spends far more energy expressing outrage over a stupid film virtually nobody saw and apologizing for the "insult to Islam" than he shows over the attack and murders.

Bows (our President BOWS) to the Mexican President, Saudi King, Japanese Emperor and Chinese Communist Party Secretary General.

Michelle Obama after her husband's nomination as the Democrat candidate for president: "For the first time in my adult life, I am really proud of my country...."

And for the first time in my adult life, I am truly disgusted at the ignorance the American electorate has shown in reelecting this poor excuse for a president.

[Big Brother]

Thank you Aggie, well put, and I believe there is more that will be brought to light with the bengazi situation and other things.

[ChicknButt]

I will say it wrote:

<quoted text>He clearly sympathizes with many of our enemies.

Aggie23 wrote:

<quoted text>
1. France 2009 - the US "has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive..." toward Europe

France is one of our enemies?

Aggie23 wrote:

<quoted text>
O
2. UN address - "I took office at a time when many around the world had come to view America with skepticism and distrust....and a belief that on certain critical issues, America has acted unilaterally, without regard for the interests of others."

That is something that is absolutely true. Many in the world did (and do) view America in absolutely that way.

The invasion of Iraq of course comes to mind. Bush was a veritable cornucopia of foriegn policy failures. From the obvious ones of invading Iraq under the pretenses of WMD, to the less obvious ones. With its policy of preemptive war and open belligerence toward Iran, the Bush Admin set the stage for Ahmadinejad’s ascent.

America was viewed as "renegade war-mongering cowboys" and Bush did what he wanted under very thinly-veiled pretenses. This affected how most of the world thought about us.

Would you prefer Obama DIDN'T have a clear view of the damage done to Americas image during the previous 8 years?

Aggie23 wrote:

<quoted text>

2009 Turkish Parliament - "the United States is still working through some of our own darker periods in our history."

Here's the full context:

"Another issue that confronts all democracies as they move to the future is how we deal with the past. The United States is still working through some of our own darker periods in our history. Facing the Washington Monument that I spoke of is a memorial of Abraham Lincoln, the man who freed those who were enslaved even after Washington led our Revolution. Our country still struggles with the legacies of slavery and segregation, the past treatment of Native Americans."

What exactly is the problem here? Nothing that isn't true, nothing that isn't appropriate.

Aggie23 wrote:

<quoted text>

4. And most egregious - after our consulate is attacked and four Americans are murdered - including our Ambassador, Obama spends far more energy expressing outrage over a stupid film virtually nobody saw and apologizing for the "insult to Islam" than he shows over the attack and murders.

Actually, that simply isn't true. This is recent history. I could point out that cities were burning all over the middle-east as a result of that film. I could point out that he offered no "huge energy expenditure" beyond what was appropriate to say, all the while defending Americans right to express themselves. He was distinguished and presidential and appropriate.

Feel free to think otherwise, but there's no smoking gun here.

Aggie23 wrote:

<quoted text>
Bows (our President BOWS) to the Mexican President, Saudi King, Japanese Emperor and Chinese Communist Party Secretary General.

Yeah, I'm sure he regrets that as much as Bush regrets having thrown up on the Japanese Prime Minister, or Romney regrets having insulted British Prime Minister David Cameron and the rest of Great Britain.

However, none of these things makes President Obama a terrorist, a terrorist supporter and even a sympathizer with terrorists.

What we have here is just some more good-ol'-fashioned Republican hating that doesn't really have any foundation or basis in reason.

Not that Republican hating has ever needed any.

[ChicknButt]

Big Brother wrote:

Thank you Aggie, well put, and I believe there is more that will be brought to light with the bengazi situation and other things.

Benghazi situation.

Americans were attacked in a volatile part of the world. It's something that happened to us. We were attacked, not for the first time and not for the last time.

Immediately the Republican Presidential Candidate tried to spin it for political gain, firmly putting his foot in his mouth.

Republican Senator and former Presidential Candidate John McCain is trying to spin it to form a new committee since he is about to be booted out for term limits, and the most prestigious thing he's up for is Committee of Indian Affairs.

The Republican Party is now using Benghazi as an attack on Susan Rice, trying to prevent her from being tapped as Secretary of State. They are trying to do this so that the position goes to John Kerry, opening up another Senate seat since they're taking a beating.

In every instance what's happened is the Republican Party and it's members have been using Benghazi as a cheap political tool. They are harming good people by doing this, and harming America. They don't care. They just want to get more power to serve their masters.

They should be DEEPLY ashamed of their behavior surrounding the Benghazi attack on Americans.

[Aggie23]

ChicknButt wrote:

<quoted text>
<quoted text>
That is something that is absolutely true. Many in the world did (and do) view America in absolutely that way.
The invasion of Iraq of course comes to mind. Bush was a veritable cornucopia of foriegn policy failures. From the obvious ones of invading Iraq under the pretenses of WMD, to the less obvious ones. With its policy of preemptive war and open belligerence toward Iran, the Bush Admin set the stage for Ahmadinejad’s ascent.
America was viewed as "renegade war-mongering cowboys" and Bush did what he wanted under very thinly-veiled pretenses. This affected how most of the world thought about us.
Would you prefer Obama DIDN'T have a clear view of the damage done to Americas image during the previous 8 years?
<quoted text>
Here's the full context:
"Another issue that confronts all democracies as they move to the future is how we deal with the past. The United States is still working through some of our own darker periods in our history. Facing the Washington Monument that I spoke of is a memorial of Abraham Lincoln, the man who freed those who were enslaved even after Washington led our Revolution. Our country still struggles with the legacies of slavery and segregation, the past treatment of Native Americans."
What exactly is the problem here? Nothing that isn't true, nothing that isn't appropriate.
<quoted text>
Actually, that simply isn't true. This is recent history. I could point out that cities were burning all over the middle-east as a result of that film. I could point out that he offered no "huge energy expenditure" beyond what was appropriate to say, all the while defending Americans right to express themselves. He was distinguished and presidential and appropriate.
Feel free to think otherwise, but there's no smoking gun here.
<quoted text>
Yeah, I'm sure he regrets that as much as Bush regrets having thrown up on the Japanese Prime Minister, or Romney regrets having insulted British Prime Minister David Cameron and the rest of Great Britain.
What we have here is just some more good-ol'-fashioned Republican hating that doesn't really have any foundation or basis in reason.
Not that Republican hating has ever needed any.

There is something highly unseemly about a head of state going abroad and then criticizing his own country. Those on the Left seem to have a problem with acknowledging how great this country is. Have we had our problems, certainly, but we learn from our mistakes and grow. Who does the world look to when disaster strikes and who is first in line to help - this country. But as soon as disaster is over, here comes the blame America crowd. Say what you will about Bush, but the US was respected and seen as a force to be reckoned with. The US has been weakened by the actions of this president and is looked upon more as a paper tiger.
And why do we still struggle with the legacy of slavery, not because of any inherent problem with this country. It is because the race baiters on the Left refuse to acknowledge how far this country has come in such a short time. When I was a small child, we still had segregated bathrooms and water fountains - we now have black congressmen and a black president. But the Left still uses the tired refrain of racism when we on the Right have legitimate differences of opinion on policy and substance. And to talk about "Republican hating" - please, look at the hysteria over George Bush and you'll see real hating, or the venom spewed towards any black who dares to be a conservative - oreo, Uncle Tom, Aunt Jemima, house n-----, all coming from our oh so compassionate and loving Left.
And are you seriously going to compare a president becoming ill with a president who makes the conscious decision to bow to foreign leaders?
Romney made an informed observation about security - so sorry if it hurt someone's feelings.

[Aggie23]

And here is the difference between Bush and Iraq and Obama and Benghazi.
Bush relied on intelligence that we now know was incorrect and in some cases from informants who lied. However, there was plenty of reason to believe in it's accuracy. Hussein had used chemical weapons against the Kurds in the 80's and was KNOWN to be pursuing biological WMD and developing a nuclear program. After the Persian Gulf War, Iraq was ordered to destroy it's chemical and biological stockpiles. One result of Wikileaks is that is now known that chemical agents were found in 2004 and 2007. During Clinton's presidency, the threats of Iraqi WMD was taken very seriously:
"We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." Clinton 1998
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has 10 times since 1983." Sandy Berger, National Security Advisor 1998

However, Obama KNEW it was a planned attack on our embassy from day one, and yet continued to deceive the American people and blame it on a video. Susan Rice has proven herself to be unqualified for the position of Sec of State by either knowingly lying on national tv not once, but five times by trying to sell a story she knew was not true based on the information we now know was available. And if she didn't know it, then her incompetence disqualifies her.
The video story made no sense then and it makes no sense now - that is one huge reason why this is still a story that must be investigated - why did the administration continue to perpetuate such a stupid lie? But more importantly, the families of those dead Americans deserve to know why that consulate was left so vulnerable when there was so much evidence that conditions were ripe for what happened. And all our foreign diplomates and their support personnel deserve to have that question answered, because next time, it might be their lives in the balance. Our citizens who serve this country overseas deserve better.