Answers to outlaw's silly questions...

Its Evolution Baby wrote:

Thats because the Israel Palestine conflict is the number one concern for Americans...

Wait it isn't??????

It's a major concern for the Arab nations, who we're deeply involved with. We also show blind support towards Israel and give them billions of dollars of aid, involving ourselves in the conflict.

But I'm sure you know that.

cornnifer wrote:

i doubt it. Whenever someones mentions that *gasp* people should vote for who they want, you launch into some rant about how this is a discussion board , blah, blah, and no one will answer your dumb questions. i answered them. Now vote for who you want to. i'll do the same.

what do you doubt? that you didn't answer all my questions or that I'll respond? you make no sense. and nowhere did I ever say you can't vote for who you want. if you're so scared of being influenced or discussing political candidates on the political section of a message board, then seriously, stop reading it and stop posting here. no offense or anything, but it just makes no sense complaining about something like that.

cornnifer wrote:

i wasn't whining. i did get on with it. All i got from you is some nonsense about it being silly. All i've gotten from any one else is a crap response on point #1. The shortest of 8. So much for "this is a discussion board.

Yeah, that's what happens when you make a comment which pigeon-holes anyone who criticizes Israel as "Antisemitic".

As if you didn't expect that to happen:rolleyes:

Now you're whining about what questions you posed were addressed and the one's that were not.

Would I take a page from your own book and say that maybe, just maybe.....no one else wants to respond to ridiculous, speculative, horribly spun, completely rhetorical and hypothetical questions? No I won't say that.

I'm not going to take it upon myself to speak for everyone else, here.

This is not elementry school, this is not high school and neither is it a popularity contest. And I'm not 12 years old and interested in being in anyone's " clique ".

Its Evolution Baby wrote:

Issue 1 Israel: Obama publicly supports our main Allies agenda. However he has also has pledged to bring resolution to the dispute and has met with the Palestinian President already. I don't care that he refuses to meet with Hamas as they engage in tourist like activities. Once they cut that shit out and are strictly a political party then I expect him to include them on the discussions. McCain will not even talk about or acknowledge Palestine. So there is a big difference there.

thanks for answering the questions.
Obama publicly supports our main Allies agenda: actually, it's much more than this. Obama has gone the step no president, including Bush, has gone before- giving ALL of Jerusalem to Israel. Obama has not once mentioned the occupation over Gaza and the West Bank. Obama has not once mentioned the Palestinians' suffering as a result of the occupation from the Israelis, but actually had the balls to blame the Palestinians' suffering on themselves! seriously, that alone makes me want to throw up.

And your comment about Hamas engaging in terrorist-like activities is laughable because you exclude the fact that Israel engages in even worse terrorist-like activities. Hamas is the democratically elected government of Palestine. They, NOT Fatah and Abbas, represent the views of most Palestinians. They are the ones we must talk to. Obama's plan on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is absolutely the worst in any president's history thus yet. McCain atleast said that we have to talk to Hamas. Granted, he did take it back, but atleast he even said it.

Issue 2 Iran: I've been over this so many times. Of course war should be kept on the table when you are negotiating with someone when it involves missile development. Why would Iran have any reason to listen to Obama if we say right off the bat that we will not go to War with you?

uhh... Iran is looking forward to a president that does not have war as options... Iran is looking forward to having real diplomatic talks with a good American president. In fact, if we took off military options and Obama extended his hand to the Iranians to look for only peaceful solutions (though there is no problem), then the Iranians would be more inclined to do so. you think it makes more sense to scare the Iranians into talking?

He is not saying let's go to War. He's saying if there are no concessions from Iran we may end up in some sort of conflict. And no they are not a threat to the US but to our main Ally Israel.

they aren't a threat to Israel either, though. they have never given us any reason to think they are a threat to Israel. you also ignored the question about sanctions and whether or not you think Iran's nuclear program is illegal.

Issue 3 Condi, Patriot Act, FISA: Bush appointed her not Obama. I have no problem him confirming her candidacy as she was more then qualified for the position even if I disagree with her 100%.

Kabong has argued this with you several times- she certainly was not qualified since she lied, and the point isn't whether you will be QUALIFIED, the point is whether you think the person would make a good secretary of state and serve the country in our best interests, which she doesn't.

FISA I disagreed with him on and made that clear, but I respected his reasons he gave for his vote. I still disagreed with him on that one though. But no candidate is perfect.

I do agree that if you think Obama is fine on most other issues, then FISA alone shouldn't convince you otherwise... however, FISA is just one of many issues I have with him which is my complaint. since we are both on board with disagreeing with FISA though, there's no reason to discuss it further...

Issue 4 Blank Checks for Iraq: Again you leave out that he was the first senator to introduce a bill for a mandatory pull out date for Iraq.

leave out? i asked questions, I didn't write a speech.

Or that he was against the war from the beginning.

correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Obama once say something along the lines of "There's not much of a difference between my position on Iraq and George Bush's position at this stage" ??

Or that he has pledged to get the troops home in 16 months and has not wavered.

MOST troops, and not home, but rather in Afghanistan. oh, not to mention keeping Blackwater in Iraq.

Him voting to keep the troops properly funded does not bother me. Especially when he is running for president and there are a lot of easily manipulated people out there who would look at a vote against funding for Troops as an Anti-Patriot.

riight, back to the whole "it's a no-win situation since people will think wrongly of him." so he has to do choices that he may not agree with just so people don't think wrongly of him? isn't that highly unethical and hypocritical?

Its Evolution Baby wrote:

True. Good points.

Still doesn't change the fact that the Economy, Health Care, Education, Iraq, Iran, Gas Prices, etc etc are all more important then Israel.

Most Americans could care less about the conflict like it or not.

The Israel conflict is very much intertwined with Iran, Iraq and this administrations 'War On Terrorism".

Furthermore our Economy, Health Care, Education, Gas Prices are also affected to some degree when this administration gives billions of dollars to Israel and spending a gazillion dollars on a phoney, trumped-up war.

Money that should be going to all of the above mentioned programs/issues/infrastructure, is being wasted.

Not to mention the still unaccounted for 8 billion dollars that was given to Blackwater amd the unaccounted for 9 billion dollars that was supposed build a new Police Station in Baghdad.

So in many ways it is all connected and intertwined.


I know...I know.....that's all ridiculous, speculative, horribly spun, completely rhetorical and hypothetical:rolleyes:

nobody wrote:

critizising Israel is one thing. constantly stating Israel is committing a genocide and downplaying the actions of Hamas as "fighting for freedom" is another.

welcome back, haven't seen you in a while. anyway:

what do you call downplaying Israel's actions has "retaliation"?

and answer me this as well, what is Hamas fighting for?

it doesn't lend your argument any credibility if you overblow and oversimplify it in such a way. Israels misdeeds have to be called out.

which Obama is not doing.

yet one should always keep in mind Israels unique situation. and this has nothing to do with being politically correct, but being correct about reality.

and what situation is that? are you referring to the occupation? that is a pretty unique situation, I guess, one that should be dealt with, not ignored by Obama.

Not to mention that this thread title and it's topic, is a bash or attack on Outlaw.

Talk about ridiculous, speculative, horribly spun, completely rhetorical and hypothetical.

next it'll be WMD's in Iraq

cornnifer wrote:

HA! you're a real freakin' comedian. Don't quit your day job of surfing youtube for crap videos from conspiracy theorists.

Anytime you want to stop shooting yourself in both feet by showing that you're not quite familiar with the situation...go for it.

Color it whatever you want to pump the ol ego...it matters nothing to me.

dust in the wind..