Political signs

Page 5 of 11  


I stated at the time that GW reminded me of Mandy Pantakin (sp??) in the Princess Bride: "You have killed my father's chance at a second term. Prepare to die."
Although I would suggest that being bipartisan with the Democrats at the Budget Mugging (er Summit) was the main reason.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Nate Nagel wrote:

## Right. Does anyone wonder WHY no shots have been fired?

## Vietnam was not a failure at the time we withdrew. It became a failure when the Democrats cut off funding for the South Vietnamese government a year later.
## Panama was not a failure until a Democratic president decided to withdraw from the Canal Zone.
## The British lease on Hong Kong's lease expired in 1998 after 99 years. For all I know, Democrats controlled the British Parliment in 1898.

I never said that everyone who disagrees with the war is a Democrat. The Democrats certainly disagree and are doing all that they can to hasten our withdrawl, but I freely admit there are some non-Democrats who want us out, too:
Osama ben Laden and members of Al Quada, Miscellaneous Extremist Mohammaden groups, Other unaffiliated terrorists, Domestic traitors and other wannabe terrorists, and The French.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Hong Kong was a British protectorate and they pulled out at the end of a 100-year treaty. Be hard to put either of those on the backs of ANY US person.

On the Canal Zone, I tend to agree (for about the only time) with the Late and Much Lamented SI Hyakawa Senator from California who said: "Of course it is ours we stole it fair and square". The Canal Zone was hardly a loss. Panama itself was a plus because we got rid of the dictator and the country itself has been doing much better economically and otherwise. And we got a chance to annoy Vatican Ambassadors by playing rock at their embassy until Noriega left. All in all a most satisfactory foray.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Kurt Ullman wrote:

Hope they played some "Meatloaf".
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
HeyBub wrote:

I recall this thing call The Vietnam Conflict. Democrats got us into it, Republicans got us out. Yet, to this day, I'm sure that the dumb masses blame the war in Vietnam on the Republicans. Just like my Negro American friends who refuse to believe that it was Republicans who freed the slaves. And no, I'm not a Republican. Like my brother says "Republicans disgust me but Democrats are special, they horrify me."
TDD
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Oh,BTW,Obama violated the Logan Act when he suggested to the Iraqi officials that they WAIT until the next administration to agree on the SOF agreement. (endangering more US soldiers lives.) He worked against the direct interests of the United States.
That makes Obama a traitor and he violated his oath of office. (Congress is not exempt from that law.)
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

This has been claimed by the Republicans continuously and has never been true. The democrats were not devisive. They were realistic. Going into Iraq was stupid, uncalled for, persued with lies and distortions, and totally missplanned. So why should they support it. "Morale support to the ememy"???? This is laughable.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Yet they did in great numbers, until it got rough. Then they still voted for funding the war, all the while whining about how bad it was.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Kurt Ullman wrote:

Of course, because it *is* a bad war, but nobody wants to be responsible for cutting off supplies to grunts stationed halfway around the world through no choice of their own (save for enlisting in the first place.)
nate
--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Well enlisting is a choice. You got the "nobody wants to be responsible" part right. Of course there is a huge difference between cutting off supplies to grunts and strapping on their Congressional Cojones and saying we are fully funding their orderly withdrawal now get them the Hell out of there. At least the GOP has stuck with their beliefs for better or worse. While the Dems sit around and talk big until they actually have to vote and then vote for continuing the conflict all they while wimpering about how the big, bad Republicans will say nasty things about them. Doing what you think is right and taking the heat is the essence of leadership.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Kurt Ullman wrote:

Which brings us full circle to my original point. McCain has no set convictions (say what you will about Bush, he has those - he's almost always wrong, but at least he has convictions) so it's impossible for me to vote for him.
nate
--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

But then that would also make it impossible for vote for Obama, too.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Kurt Ullman wrote:

Obama simply by being younger hasn't had the same opportunities as McCain to go on record with one position and then eight years later support another one. The sad thing is, I would have voted for the Y2K McCain, before he was destroyed by the same Karl Rove who's working for the 2008 McCain.
I'll probably vote for Obama not because I want to but because I feel that the current Republican administration is literally dangerous to the American way of life and McCain has done little to distance himself from their policies and actions, his protestations of "I'm not George Bush" notwithstanding. The Republican party needs to move away - no, that's not strong enough, try "make a clean break" - from the neocons and religious right and back towards a more Goldwater-esque philosophy before I can ever consider supporting them.
I would be sorely tempted to vote Libertarian just to make a point if it weren't for the fact that the election is still close enough that there's a danger that that would allow McCain to win. That can't be allowed, period. I do live in one of those states that is still "too close to call" so I really don't feel that I can vote how I really want to, I need to cast the vote that will keep McCain and Palin out.
nate
--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

So inexperience at flip flopping is a reason to vote for someone?

I'd generally support you in the latter part. But McCain was never that answer. I am not as sanguine that Obama is the answer to the question of being literally dangerous..

As I with O and B.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Kurt Ullman wrote:

It ain't exactly a ringing endorsement, but it's better than a long, proven track record of it. Plus I was much more comfortable with McCain's "flip" than I was his "flop."

In retrospect that seems to be true, although I didn't know it. I recently picked up a book of Barry Goldwater's letters out of the bargain bin at my local bookstore, and what he has to say about McCain is enlightening. Apparently he was a weasel long before I ever realized it.

It's not an answer, it's just the lesser of two weevils.

That's your prerogative, but I have to say that while Obama merely concerns me, McCain and especially Palin scare the shit out of me. This from someone who tends to lean right of center.
Voting for McCain is sending the message to the Republican Party Machine that things don't need to change, and they most certainly do if they want to continue to exist as a viable political party. Pandering to the religious right and gung-ho trailer park dwellers is not the way to work.
nate
--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Well, I'll file that under ignorance is bliss I guess. (g).

Lesser is relative (and very personal) term, I guess.

Which is my tendency. So there (phhftt!-grin). I think the danger to the US is greater with Obama precisely because he is less tested. I thought even last year, that no one was doing Obama a great service by pressuring him to get in now or be labelled as someone who was unable to get in the race. I think it would have been much better for the country and the candidate if he had taken my advice and waited until the next time. Even if Hiliary had made it, he would have been VERY young 8 years hence.

Worked in the past. Of course, selling your ass to the Unions and the Trial Lawyers is a well-proven political plus.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

you must have a funny idea of "center".
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
And, what use would you have for that sign, after the election?
--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Obama is for the "Fairness Doctrine" which most people know is anything but "fair".It will shut down Talk Radio,silincing Obama's biggest critic. Obama has already tried to shut up critics using the power of government. (along with his campaign organization) Kiss the First Amendment bye-bye with Obama.
but that doesn't seem to bother Nate...
Then some of his DemocRAT buddies have already mentioned nationalizing certain industries,Obama wants to create his own Brown Shirt org,his civilian National Security Force(armed and trained as well as the US Military).
but that doesn't seem to bother Nate... (he's blind)
Obama;communist mentored(Frank Davis),communist trained(Alinsky),communist to the core.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

And he is also on record as being against secret ballots at least as they apply to union elections. He seems to think it will be okay to supplant secret ballots with union organizers going to people's houses and "asking" them to sign the card. Enough sign the card, then the union is in. If management tried to do this, the Dems and Unions would be screaming about how unfair it is. Look at the Dixie Queen's eminent demise and note that the only time in the last 41 years that the boat's exemption wasn't a formality is when the Dems hold the chairmanship and the union was kicked out. Coincidence? I think not.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.