It has occured to me...

Jim O'Bryan · Post by **Jim O'Bryan** » Tue Sep 02, 2008 8:49 pm

That the Republicans run conventions about as well as they run wars.

No planning, over emphasizing the most trivial things hoping no one notices the blunders, no real plan, no exit strategy. Jim Baker and Carlye must be in catering and trade show business.

Sarah Palin is change because? because? because? She is vice president to a life long water boy in Washington? Is this the new/old Republicans where the Vice President has all the decision making powers?

One Republican tonight said the only vote for change is McCain/Palin. That a vote for Obama is NOT change? Huh?

I saw another Republican talking about how the citizens are sick of politicians? Never realizing that we are sick of lying, cheating, scoundrels, not all politicians.

Imagine, a national convention where they ask the sitting president not to come. They send him off to Texas?! to sit out a rainstorm?

Is this how single minded they are, he cannot stay in touch with the thunder storm while in Washington, or Minneapolis?

pitiful

.

Brad Hutchison · Post by **Brad Hutchison** » Tue Sep 02, 2008 10:03 pm

This reminds of something I noticed earlier to day. I skimmed a list of planned speakers during the RNC, and I did not see Palin's name. Is it possible that she's not speaking during the convention? I can't believe that's so, but her name was not on the schedule I saw.

Jim O'Bryan · Post by **Jim O'Bryan** » Wed Sep 03, 2008 5:16 am

Brad Hutchison wrote:This reminds of something I noticed earlier to day. I skimmed a list of planned speakers during the RNC, and I did not see Palin's name. Is it possible that she's not speaking during the convention? I can't believe that's so, but her name was not on the schedule I saw.

Brad

She is speaking tonight. I think it could be good. She seems sharp, and is known as being a great speaker.

.

Bret Callentine · Post by **Bret Callentine** » Wed Sep 03, 2008 7:43 am

Sarah Palin is change because? because? because?

Well, for starters, I'd say, she's change because she's demonstrated no hesitation in going after government corruption, even in her own party.

That a vote for Obama is NOT change? Huh?

And what exactly has Obama changed?

Never realizing that we are sick of lying, cheating, scoundrels, not all politicians.

Don't worry, no one invited John Edwards to this convention either.

Is this how single minded they are, he cannot stay in touch with the thunder storm while in Washington, or Minneapolis?

Nice try, but look yourself in the mirror and try to say that without laughing. So, doing nothing during the last "thunder storm" is an impeachable offense, but when he doesn't ignore this one it's "single minded"?

Jim O'Bryan · Post by **Jim O'Bryan** » Wed Sep 03, 2008 8:32 am

Bret Callentine wrote:
Sarah Palin is change because? because? because?

Well, for starters, I'd say, she's change because she's demonstrated no hesitation in going after government corruption, even in her own party.

That a vote for Obama is NOT change? Huh?

And what exactly has Obama changed?

Never realizing that we are sick of lying, cheating, scoundrels, not all politicians.

Don't worry, no one invited John Edwards to this convention either.

Is this how single minded they are, he cannot stay in touch with the thunder storm while in Washington, or Minneapolis?

Nice try, but look yourself in the mirror and try to say that without laughing. So, doing nothing during the last "thunder storm" is an impeachable offense, but when he doesn't ignore this one it's "single minded"?

Bret

Palin is not being elected president, she is being elected vice president. So how does she accomplish this? I cannot see John McCain doing anything different than what VPs did in the past before Cheney. Or as Thompson said in an interview when asked how Yeltsin will deal with Palin, "That is why we have John McCain." So how does she, a person that McCain hardly knows get the traction for anything?

Obama, brings the change of outside the beltway, along with help from someone that knows the beltway. As we know from history, outsider do not do well on their own in Washington. It also begins to get a huge stone off the collar of America here at home, and around the world. We will never really see change in this two party system, but certainly you have to admit, at least a party change is a change. I do not care how much you see John McCain as a Maverick, I do not in anyway see the Republican party as a "Change" for this country right now.

John Edwards? No but I did see Tom Delay crowing about Palin. I did see Ralph Reed glowing over Palin. You know the two that represented Russia gangsters and changed laws to benefit them. You know. The house with the red door. Jack Abramhoff's crew of thieves.

Bret, Gustav. What on earth did GWB do? He flew to Texas, a safe distance from the storm. I expect him to do what is right. I do not expect his to build sand levies by hand. I expect him to fight a war with brains, not holding a gun. I expect the leader of America to have enough trust, that he can run the country from anywhere. Not run from the country anywhere. What on earth was GWB doing that could not have been done from Washington, or Minneapolis. Last night he addressed the convention from the Oval Office, he could have been at the Convention. But as Republican speech writer Peggy Noonan said on MSNBC, "Well they got GWB over pretty painlessly."

The Republicans are running on change? What is that change? Palin anti-abortion, pro guns? Change? McCain cut taxes, more military Change? They are running from their record of the worst president in the history of America. Though that president backs McCain, but not on national TV. The same president that last night declared war on the "left." So we start illegal wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, and now a civil war here?

I understand the pain.

But please let's turn on some critical thinking.

McCain 4 more years of the same or worse. Obama, a chance for change.

.

Bret Callentine · Post by **Bret Callentine** » Wed Sep 03, 2008 8:55 am

Jim,

Call me whatever you want to call me, but I dissagree with your assesment of the past 8 years. If you want to suggest that I don't think critically about these issues, you'd be sadly mistaken.

I simply disagree... with your assessment of the last 8 years and with your evaluation of the candidates.

Jim O'Bryan · Post by **Jim O'Bryan** » Wed Sep 03, 2008 10:19 am

Bret Callentine wrote:I simply disagree... with your assessment of the last 8 years and with your evaluation of the candidates.

Bret

Your prerogative.

But the facts are, Bush inherited a surplus, that was actually called, "The peace dividend." This came from the fact that the cold war was over, and things were moving along well. Except the Military Industrial Complex does not really like that peace stuff. So with an Administration that was filled with investors in oil, and military, we went off to war and crafted an energy policy that benefited no one outside of energy companies.

Wow, who would of ever thought that this group would lead to record profits for oil companies, and military suppliers?! Go figure.

Meanwhile, the surplus is gone, and we have put your children's children in debt for? Security? Nope. Home ownership? Nope. Education? Nope. Health Care? Nope. National Security? Nope. Environmental reasons? Nope. No we did it for the largest money transfer in the history of the world. And it is not the one T. Boone hints at. Again nthis is something that needs serious critical thought. Is the war a mess because of poor planning, or because poor planning as we learned in Vietnam is worth $$$$$$$$$$ to war profiteers?

Bret, there are far to many examples of either bad management, of skull duggery for me to turn a blind eye to the last 8 years. On the social side, it is even worse. The moral president has done nothing to raise the morals of the country from his bully pulpit. No this guy is the same failure he was in every other business he owned.

But I guess you see it as a great success story for America?

.

Bret Callentine · Post by **Bret Callentine** » Wed Sep 03, 2008 11:03 am

But I guess you see it as a great success story for America?

Quite the contrary. I see the past presidency frought with tough decisions. But, I don't see the country in a time of failure, I see a country that is being forced to deal with strife. I don't think the war in Iraq or Afghanistan were handled all that well tactically, but I do think they were entered into legitimately. Further, for as much as I think Bush has made some mistakes in war, I think Clinton made even bigger mistakes in peace.

It is my opinion that this war would not have been necessary if not for the policy of relative apathy from the previous administration.

Personally, I would have preferred someone other than Bush as our President. However, that's a far cry from considering him incompetent, imoral, or even criminal.

I don't think the situation we're in today is entirely the fault of one administration and I pity the person who thinks that a simple change of party will solve the kind of problems that we have in society.

If we guage the soul of a man by the popularity of his decisions then what do we do with a congress with a 9% approval rating (disclaimer: I think the latest poll I saw suggests that congress' latest rating was in the high teens, but heck, nine sounds better

)

To paraphrase Bill Parcells, I think Bush has been forced to make the best dinner he could, given he wasn't able to shop for the groceries.

Jim O'Bryan · Post by **Jim O'Bryan** » Wed Sep 03, 2008 12:49 pm

Bret

This is one place you have it wrong.

GWB has had options everyday of this administration. He is either terribly unlucky, or very good. No half way on this.

No matter what we want to say before 9-11 or after. GWB started a war with Afghanistan. We know he wanted to go to Iraq then. Why Afghanistan? Because a group living in tents in their desert, that were not Afghanis caused 911? That is crazy, it is a sovereign country. We have never declared war on a sovereign country that did not attack us. We were told by GWB, not about pipelines, now we know it was.

Then we declare war on Iraq, a country that had never harmed us. Oh yeah they talked big, but we now know Sadaam had to. Let's not forget that Iraqi WMD were purchased from us with targeting provided by us. So it was not about WMDs, or regime change, or security, or, or or or or. I have to think it all goes back to the rumblings before it ever started about GWB wanting to be a "Warrior President." these are his words not mine. For a president to be remembered, he must be a warrior president.

When he baited the very inept Democrats into voting for the war, I truly believe that all of them were hoping he would do it correctly, with a show of overwhelming force. I think everyone had learned the lesson from Vietnam about fighting wars half assed. Today he is still fighting the war half assed, as a political tool, nothing more. Barack gets traction for a timetable, well then we better have a timetable. It is pitiful, when you use the lives of Americans for political purposes. But America has gotten used to giving up sons and daughters for power in Washington. 30,000 names on the Vietnam Wall are there because Richard Nixon wanted to get elected. so why would it surprise anyone that another Republican president offers our most precious commodity up for cannon fodder?

You want to bring in Slick Willy? I guess this is the Republican well he was inept, we can be inept too. Sorry I expect more.

What I do wonder is why can't you or your brothers and sister give GWB the same going over you would give Clinton or Obama? If either of these two had been vice-president of Haliburton, and then put their stock in a blind trust while the corp got sick rich, you would freak out and rightly so. If Clinton owned 25% of Carlyle Group with the BinLadin family you would be calling for slick Willy's head, and rightfully so. So they make Bin Ladin sell their share, which is bought by Bush and Baker, and then make billions on the war. Again I would hope someone would say, wait a second. But for GWB he gets some magical pass. Oh he would never do that.

GWB has been a washout since he was a kid, and has only gotten worse.

Now, we need to stop the bleeding before we can ever hope for change. We have 60 years of debt to address for what? And we have schools in shambles, business in shambles, banking in shambles, families in shambles, and our reputation in the world gone.

No you are right, one election will never fix the harm GWB and friends did to this country. But when your drunken Frat brother falls through the stereo and pukes in the fish tank, you have to start the cleanup somewhere at some time.

FWIW

.

Stephen Eisel · Post by **Stephen Eisel** » Wed Sep 03, 2008 12:59 pm

But the facts are, Bush inherited a surplus

BS.. Try thinking for yourself once in a while..

Fiscal
Year Year
Ending National Debt Deficit
FY1993 09/30/1993 $4.411488 trillion
FY1994 09/30/1994 $4.692749 trillion $281.26 billion
FY1995 09/29/1995 $4.973982 trillion $281.23 billion
FY1996 09/30/1996 $5.224810 trillion $250.83 billion
FY1997 09/30/1997 $5.413146 trillion $188.34 billion
FY1998 09/30/1998 $5.526193 trillion $113.05 billion
FY1999 09/30/1999 $5.656270 trillion $130.08 billion
FY2000 09/29/2000 $5.674178 trillion $17.91 billion
FY2001 09/28/2001 $5.807463 trillion $133.29 billion

Stephen Eisel · Post by **Stephen Eisel** » Wed Sep 03, 2008 1:00 pm

Wow, who would of ever thought that this group would lead to record profits for oil companies, and military suppliers?! Go figure.

Go figure that the media twisted the truth and all of the Kool-Aid drinkers believe it

Stephen Eisel · Post by **Stephen Eisel** » Wed Sep 03, 2008 1:04 pm

Then we declare war on Iraq, a country that had never harmed us

Bret Callentine · Post by **Bret Callentine** » Wed Sep 03, 2008 1:16 pm

So just for the record, let me see if I have this straight...

Afghanistan... blameless
Iraq... minding its own business
Osama Bin Laden... just misunderstood
Congress... witless
the voting public... brainless
George W. Bush... the essence of all evil

I guess it's a good thing the Dems took over, so now we can have that impeachment trial they promised. Because if it is so clearly as you suggest, then if they continue to do nothing, I would classify that as "aiding and abetting".

I'm not throwing out all of your points, but forgive me for wanting a formal hearing or at least some sort of bipartisan investigative commission to convene before I convict.

Jim O'Bryan · Post by **Jim O'Bryan** » Wed Sep 03, 2008 1:34 pm

Bret Callentine wrote:So just for the record, let me see if I have this straight...

Afghanistan... blameless
Iraq... minding its own business
Osama Bin Laden... just misunderstood
Congress... witless
the voting public... brainless
George W. Bush... the essence of all evil

I guess it's a good thing the Dems took over, so now we can have that impeachment trial they promised. Because if it is so clearly as you suggest, then if they continue to do nothing, I would classify that as "aiding and abetting".

I'm not throwing out all of your points, but forgive me for wanting a formal hearing or at least some sort of bipartisan investigative commission to convene before I convict.

Afghanistan... blameless
Surgical strike on BinLadin

Iraq... minding its own business
contained

Osama Bin Laden... just misunderstood
murderer

Congress... witless
close

the voting public... brainless
75% medicated another 20% self medicated

George W. Bush... the essence of all evil
or a fool

.

Jim O'Bryan · Post by **Jim O'Bryan** » Wed Sep 03, 2008 1:38 pm

Stephen

I am an old person, hard to hate them.

Just because it comes out of the mouth of an elected Democrat does not mean it is gospel, or that I agree. Will check this later.

You do understand the difference between having a plan, and simply stating before being elected that you want to attack Iraq?

You do understand the difference of a plan, and perverting everything to make that happen.

right?

.