Here we go again!

**Ducks**

Obama supporters are growing…I’m really afraid he’s being set up to fail…I hope I’m wrong…

@Afiya…i was thinking the same thing. I hope we are both wrong..

Obama is my boy! I hope he wins and kicks ass as president!

THANK YA JESUS! Failure is not an option.

Why do those women in the front row look like they about to throw their big drawz at Obama or something

Kiss and make up time.

Bob Johnson’s apology to Sen. Barack Obama, from CNN.

“Dear Barack,

I’m writing to apologize to you and your family personally for the un-called-for comments I made at a recent Clinton event. In my zeal to support Senator Clinton, I made some very inappropriate remarks for which I am truly sorry. I hope that you will accept this apology. Good luck on the campaign trail.

Warm regards,

Bob Johnson”

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/01/17/clinton-supporter-apologizes-for-obama-comments/

Please,please,pleeeeze send the Clintons into RETIREMENT homie.

DEANNA FAVRE

In a news conference Deanna Favre announced she will be the starting QB for the Packers this coming Sunday. Deanna asserts that she is qualified to be starting QB because she has spent the past 16 years married to Brett while he played QB for the Packers. During this period of time she became familiar with the definition of a corner blitz, and is now completely comfortable with other terminology of the Packers offense. A survey of Packers fans shows that 50% of those polled supported the move.

Does this sounds idiotic and unbelievable to you? Well, Hillary Clinton makes the same claims as to why she is qualified to be President and 50% of democrats polled agreed. She has never run a City, County, or State.

When told Hillary Clinton has experience because she has 8 years in the white

house, Dick Morris stated, “So has the pastry chef”.

It’s about dang time. Some of us are now seeing the light. There is finally a viable black candidate of substance and most of us were afraid to vote for him because we didn’t think he could win over white folks. That’s not what it’s about people. We SHOULD vote for the candidate whom we believe best represents our interests.

I still have my doubts that Obama will win the presidency; however, I am voting for the man because I think he is the best candidate running and agree with most of his platform issues. And, it certainly doesn’t hurt that he looks like me…AMEN!!!

Simone…that’s a wonderful analogy because that’s exactly how Hillary acquired her so-called experience. By osmosis (near-contact), but not by actual verifiable experience.

I’m actually tired of these biased Obama posts so I don’t know why I clicked on this one. I’m out.

Stella- that’s the damn problem why the hell are we voting for him if he might not be the best

Just cause he’s black?? if that’s the case i hope Britian never gets a chance to vote in a black prime minister.

America has too much at stake to be voting for someone based on Skin color. I’m happy he’s running that’s great. winning is different…the race is not even almost over.

The old school civil rights era folks are too caught up in their desire for more personal power to think about the greater good. they don’t want to risk alientating the Clinton Machine. Real short-sighted.

WHOA! I HONESTLY THINK THERE ARE SOME WHITE PEOPLE ON THIS SITE BECAUSE I DO NOT BELIEVE SOME OF THE STUFF IAM READING ARE BY BLACK PEOPLE, IT WOULD BE TRAGIC IF THIS WERE SO.

PS; YOU ARE WELCOME.

Kudos to OLA…Speak on it because nobody seems to understand, ya’ll forgtting that it’s not Obama against Hill but Obama against EVERYONE…if he win’s i’ll be shocked and amazed if he’s doesn’t get assinated (i’m talking real talk)

HOTSAUCE!! I BELIEVE YOU ARE JUST ANOTHER LOSER IN THIS WORLD SO PLEASE GO AND SORT YOUR LIFE OUT. pLEASE DO NOT BOTHER RESPONDING BECAUSE I SHALL IGNORE ANY MORE REMARKS FROM YOU.

Stella- LMAO!!!!

wuz he about to strip? cause those brawds, especially #’s 1,3,4 from the left, look like they have some dollar bills – but check out dude behind chic #4 – you know that’s her husband and he’s ice grilling obama deep!

I wouldn’t be surprised if Edwards has a surprise win. I’m told that his Joe Everyman/Working People’s Savior shtick goes over very well in that region. I don’t for a second think Edwards is going to win the democratic presidential ticket, but still…

Middle and lower class people have loved that whole BS noble oblige damn near socialist thing. Haven’t seen anyone other than the various Kennedy’s perfect that act in my lifetime.

coming to their senses is right. I can’t believe negroes was down to support her in the first damned place. SHE IS NOT BILL.

addendum… Democratic establishment (kerry, leah, McCaskill) are now pulling for Obama.

Kgates dropping science sun! pop off! pop off!

@ kgates

Ho sit down. Everything you’ve described was attributed to the dixie crats a sect of the Democratic party that has been defunct sense Johnson.

If you are implying that the Republican party supports the black community then you need to research, busing, affirmative action, equal oppurtunity employment, gerry mandering, VOTER FRAUD, and sub prime mortgages… to start when you’re done with those I have more for you.

SMH.

AND MARTIN LUTHER KING JR WAS A DEMOCRAT. RESEARCH THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 64.

@kgates

Republicans of the 60s are not the neocons of today. Check your history! The 70s came and the tide changed that party dramatically. I’m sick of people talking about how these parties were during such and such an era. Republicans of the 80s aren’t even like Republicans now. Lord.

Up until a couple of days ago, I thought Obama would be all about change but he’s not. Take 20 minutes on Monday, January 21st between 8:00 and 10:00 p.m. E/T and watch that debate in South Carolina on CNN. You’ll see how his ideas are so far right that you’d think his speeches were all a front.

You cannot rely on the media for information anymore. Do all the research yourself.

Obama is the only one who can grab independents and beat McCain. It is so simple people. Only whites in the Democratic party seem to be voting race. People don’t realize the level of extreme hatered for Hillary out there with independents and swing Republicans. I like Hillary enough but Obama seems like the better pick if the Dems want to win the White House. I actually heard my boss (who is white) say that if Obama doesn’t win…he is voting for McCain if he is the GOP nominee. I do think the key is the Latino vote and they tend not to break for Black canidates. I think O needs to work on that and start slugging back when Hill hits him.

Raven

I’ve watched every debate. There are no far right people on the stage. You do realize the far right is where Newt Gingrich and Pat Robertson lie.

I think you are referring to the fact that Obama has a lot of centrists views. But by no means is he conservative.

This gay marriage thing is just silly. First, none of the Democratic canidates support gay marriage.

Second, even if they did, so what? Half of Europe has gay marriage and last I check…they are not at war, the Euro is way stonger than the dollar and the continent has not sunk into the 4th level of Hell as far as I can see. I know, I’ve been there.

And why is it that a conservative white can tell me very sensible reasons why they are conservative and vote GOP while all a conservative Black can tell me is that they hate gay marriage. ( I know, My mom is really conservative although she is rolling with O)

tj

@ kgates

Ho sit down. Everything you’ve described was attributed to the dixie crats a sect of the Democratic party that has been defunct sense Johnson.

If you are implying that the Republican party supports the black community then you need to research, busing, affirmative action, equal oppurtunity employment, gerry mandering, VOTER FRAUD, and sub prime mortgages… to start when you’re done with those I have more for you.

SMH.

SUBPRIME MORTAGE IS THE FAULT OF THE PERSON WITH THE MORTGAGES. SO THEY MAKE IT A GOVT PROBLEM. IF YOU MAKE 30,000 A MONTH, YOU CANNOT AFFORD A 500,000 HOUSE

Kgates sit down! The GOP changed with Nixon’s southern stategy to appeal to old white dixicrat democrats who were upset over the party’s embrace of civil rights. The fact that the Democratic Party has sacrificed itself to champion civil rights is why I stay with the party. The GOP was the champion of the anti-slavery movement that is why a lot of Blacks voted GOP until Rossevelt (my sp is horrible) and the New Deal in the 30′s. Today’s GOP is a white christian party that is wrong on alot of issues including the war, support for torture and an anti-immigrant policy that just seems un American.

@ tj

“far right” in terms of farther from the left than I originally suspected. I didn’t mean to confuse.

“Are you saying rich white people don’t support Obama because actually he’s their favorite candidate.”

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

JUST WAIT TIL THE OBAMA VOTES ARE ‘LOST SOMEWHERE’ IN A OHIO or FL. hangin chads anyone? LOL

ost Skeleton

Kgates sit down! The GOP changed with Nixon’s southern stategy to appeal to old white dixicrat democrats who were upset over the party’s embrace of civil rights. The fact that the Democratic Party has sacrificed itself to champion civil rights is why I stay with the party. The GOP was the champion of the anti-slavery movement that is why a lot of Blacks voted GOP until Rossevelt (my sp is horrible) and the New Deal in the 30’s. Today’s GOP is a white christian party that is wrong on alot of issues including the war, support for torture and an anti-immigrant policy that just seems un American.

you dont think its a problem with millions of immigrant sneaking over here every year

You obviously don’t know what a subprime mortgage is if you think someone had one for 500,000. How is it my fault if I can’t earn a living wage and fall behind on my bills during an economic recession caused mostly by rich people in the financial sector who were corrupt and overreported gross earnings.

You trying to say a woman working at a grocery store who gets laid off should be blamed for getting laid off. Even if she doesn’t get laid off why should her rates be higher than anyone elses. Such is a subprime mortgage.

Y’all said that about NEW HAMPSHIRE

@ OLA

His votes won’t be lost.

They’ll be immediately ignored by the electronic Diebold voting machines that Bush paid for during his first term in office.

Americas votes haven’t counted since 1996, son.

For the record in order to truly get anything done or be a productive voter you have to study where you stand on the issues and who stands there with you. I for one am an INDEPENDENT. Right now I’m most concerned about Iraq Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are the only two candidates on a federal level who support withdrawal with a lasting force to combat terrorist cells. I don’t mind a difference of opinion I just don’t like when people give out misinformation like: Martin Luther King was a republican. If you only knew the things Republicans have been doing to black folks Florida 2000 was just the tip of the iceberg.

Go Obama

EVERONE SHOULD GO TO OBAMA’S SITE AND DOWNLOAD HIS PLAN FOR AMERICA AND READ IT THOROUGHLY. HE HAS GOOD SOUND IDEAS THAT MAKE SENSE FOR THIS COUNTRY!!!

george bush is not a smart person but he did do one GENIUS thing in that war. We have been going at Iraq for years because they were the worlds number one supplier of oil. george has made them

obselete. they are now down to number 5 in oil output. with canada climbing its way up in the next couple years. this war was poorly planned but i understand what they were trying to do. Iraq was a asshole to deal with and we had to put them in their place. so with us doing so, it will make the world stable to be able to depend on that region without kissing ass for oil

@lost skeleton it matters to me since i serve the almighty oh and here is my reason that makes very good sense to me the conservatives are more in line with what god had for this country and the liberals are taking out of everything how sensible is that ? not much to you since you stated so what about gay marriages, and we are in the last days its no surprise to me that a democratic is going to win because it has to be that way so they can end the war and isreal will be attacked. this presidental campaign is so much more for me I don’t know but obama is to liked praised and he can make the change and save the world, sound familiar

……..

This is way far out there.

Are you saying Jesus would support invading Iraq and killing people for no good reason. Wasn’t it Jesus who said to feed the hungry, help the sick, and cherish the children? Well why do the republicans continue to block universal healthcare, Aids initiatives, Food stamps, and early childhood education? That’s the christian party. There’s a difference between being the party for christianity and simply being the party that is against abortion and gay marriage.

(BTW no one supports abortion and few support gay marriage. Abortion has more to do with a woman’s right not to be forced to do anything with her body including having a baby. Check Roe v Wade. Gay marriage is a non issue. Republicans used it to rile up votes in 04 but there has never been one single bill introduced to create gay marriage)

Whether you support BO or not, you should read his book, “The Audacity of Hope”.

I want to reiterate the marriage ban was just to get evangelicals to the polls. Gay marriage is not legal when it does become legal and it will it will be because of supreme court interpretation of the 10th amendment. Or ironically, a repealing of BILL CLINTON’S defense of marriage act which bans gay civil contracts of all kinds from translating from state to state.

Serious Sister

EVERONE SHOULD GO TO OBAMA’S SITE AND DOWNLOAD HIS PLAN FOR AMERICA AND READ IT THOROUGHLY. HE HAS GOOD SOUND IDEAS THAT MAKE SENSE FOR THIS COUNTRY!!!

i dont want to read one of his pep talks. He is a good speaker but he has no power and athority to back him up. people dont understand. every canidate who ever ran for president had alot of big promises. but the truth be told, they cant change nothing. he world has old Jewish family pullingn the strings for years and a president cant change it. whats the saying in sports, the game dont change, just the players and the coaches. i dont understnad people complain with the clintons, because bill was one of the best president we had. we were out of debt and the country was safe and secure. thats all the president is there for. He is not their when you cant pay your mortgage, he is not there to cut your student loan interest, he is not their to fix up “YOUR” neighborhood and also not their to make sure you kids go to school. All these are your problem where you have the capibility to fix theses\

Raven:

Or Republicans who are so believers in Jesus Christ and his Word yet neglected the victims of Hurricane Katrina and the refugees and prisoners in Darfur?

…..

Preach! And let’s not forget the Aids epidemic they let fester in the 80′s, and the numerous attempts at Healthcare they have blocked. Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell etc have fooled people into believing they can be selfish judgemental American supremacists and still be christians and they have fallen for it hook line and sinker.

Yo, is that Vanessa Williams (from tv’s ‘Soul Food’) in the center of that pic? Damn, there are some fine-@ss females in that crowd! The chick behind the Vanessa Williams chick/look-a-like looks yummy, too. Man! Maybe I need to volunteer for the Obama campaign…

No wonder his wife travels with him! I’m sure HE’S honorable, but some of those chicks…some of them look like they’re in an audience at Chippendales!

I don’t hate gays. And no, just because I went so school and work with good people who happened to sleep with members of their own sex does not make me gay. That is the most childish rebut I have heard. Although it is none of your business, I have a very loving wife. We both have friends and good co-workers who are gay and they do not make my Blackness an issue so why should i be a hypocrite and make their homosexuality an issue. My wife and I are concerned with the economic posperity of our children and whether we (and them) will have social security, a peaceful society and a posperous and educated Black community. That is what is important to me.

Well Obama was “ahead” in New Hampshire and look how that turned out!

I mean we won’t know how good he does until the primary is over. If he is declared the winner, then he has more support.

The “Bradley” effect is in effect.

OBAMA 2008!!!

Not that anyone cares. But Lost Skeleton is my username at Aintitcoolnews.com A movie site run by Harry Knowles that gives you all the latest news on upcoming flicks. It refers to this movie satire on B movies that only film geeks would know (The Lost Skeleton of Cardavia) I can see how it could be turned around by those with dirty minds (LOL)

…anyone notice the woman in the front and how she is looking a Obama? Like she’s about to throw her panties on stage…

I guess if I read the Bible, I’d be psychic and omniscient too. But I’d like to actually know what’s going on in the real world. How dumb of me.

@ KGATES

That meritocratic ideology is why there is so many problems with this country, I think. Race, gender, disability, education, all of these factor into a person’s ability to succeed. And the American Dream is harder to come by when it’s becoming increasingly hard to find a good free education or a well-paying job or good health insurance.

How is someone supposed to even pay $118 a month for their health insurance when they earn $200 a week? And you’re speaking about universal health insurance like it’s not vital enough for each human being. This country will not be in an even deeper deficit if the government supplies its citizens with health care. It’s widespread in Europe and Canada, both regions doing pretty well for themselves. Why not America?

This is partly what turned me off from Obama. He’s interested in only child universal health care. The rest of us still have to fend for ourselves.

@Raven 2007

Great posts!!

@KGates

The subprime mortgage crisis is not the fault of the individual mortgagee. The individual mortgagee was advised to take the risk by the economic predictions of Alan Greenspan, the Fed Reserve Chairman at the time. Due to his policies of holding down interest rates for prolonged periods, the financial institutions decided to get higher returns on their money by making these subprime loans to the public who lacked the financial savvy. In many black and latino areas, many were only offered subprime loans. To the follks who want to inject religion into this, this is a prime example of usury which I believe is banned in the Old Testament. As for who is going to start Armaggedon — the military industrial lobbyists are lined up behind the Republicans and most recently, Hillary, so there you have it. As far as welfare is concerned, the current Fed Chairman and the Treasury department is figuring out a way to constantly inject more money (causing inflation) so as to save Wall Street and the big banks. Does anyone remember Long Term Capital – the hedge fund that lost so much money that it was bailed out with our tax money? Please don’t run that ish about the Republicans being morally superior, financially prudent and encouraging self-advancement. And I haven’t even discussed what is going on at the Federal court level.

I am not saying vote for the man because he is Black. Vote for him because you believe he is the better candidate. I truly like him better than Hillary but I think she has a slight lead over him overall. If she is the Democratic nominee it would be her best bet to have him as her running mate. That is my personal prediction. I still want him in the White house because I think he can do good things for ALL Americans.

@Afiya & Southern Belle 225

I think you both are right people don’t realize that just because you can win the nomination does not mean you can be elected. I personally believe that Clinton, Edwards, and Obama can all get the job done but I feel that Edwards stands the best chance at winning when it’s time to go head to head with the republicans.

what the dems have done.

Well,

Civil Rights Act of 1964

Voting Rights Act of 1965

Violence Against Women Act

Child Credits in Tax Code

Keeping the interest rates low for education loans

Funding Medicare/Medicaid

Opposition to privatized social security

Opposition to torture

Federal judges who do not rule against civil rights for women and minorities.

Federal controls over business to prevent companies from violating laws protecting our environment, food, water.

This is what affects the everyday lives of folk. I can’t sit around thinking about the rapture when I can’t afford to send my kid to college, heat my home or drink my water.

The picture says if all! Hillary is in trouble. And they thought his campaign was joke. It appears that Mr. Obama may be laughing all the way the White House.

@tj and @aboutit

Thanks!!

If Barack wins, I hope he goes with Edwards. Clinton is festering so thoroughly in political and corporate ish, that there’s no way the Democrats will undo what the neocons have done over the past twenty years if she’s vice-president.

Y’all should seriously start looking into Edwards. He’s the only candidate to refuse money from any corporate lobbyists. If he’s doing that now, when he needs the most help, imagine what he’ll do as President…

Edwards gets crushed. Independents and moderate republicans hate him. People are not voting race people, they are voting, unfortunately, personality. Hill may be okay with the female vote but the level of disgust with her from independants and the GOP is high. She gets the GOP base exicted to vote against her…They do not care she is white. Look at Michigan…she basically ran unopposed in an open primary (independents can vote) and unopposed got 40%. That’s bad. O is the only canidate that can pull independents and moderate republicans who do not like their crop of canidates. Look at the national polling people. Get your head out of your arse.

I like Edwards…I supported him in 2004. I think he is getting lost in all the firsts (Hill being the first female and O being the first Black man) to be viable as President. I will admit, Hilldog has hurt my feelings alittle with this race. If she gets it, I will have to hold my nose a little but I’ll roll with her. No way either of them is each other’s running mate. If you want O in the White House you better vote for him now.

EVEN IF OBAMA WAS TO WIN HE’D BE ASSINATED EARLY!!! THIS COUNTRY IS NOT GOING TO LET A BLACK MAN IN AS PRESIDENT EVER IF THEY CAN HELP IT. KEEP DREAMING. THEY AREN’T LETTING A WOMAN IN EITHER BUT I KNOW THEY DEFINITELY WON’T BE LETTING THE BLACK MAN IN. THIS COUNTRY CLAIMS TO HAVE COME FAR BUT IN A LOT OF WAYS IT IS STILL 1865 IN THIS B*TCH!!!

MY FAULT THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ASSASSINATED

Don’t forget…Bill was seen as a “rookie” in 1992 and he got the job done against the elder and more experienced George H.W. Bush. Listen, O will have good people around him. Look at all the endoresments he is getting (Sen. Leahey endorsed him today), plus former Sen. majority leader Tom Daschle is advising him. He has enough heavies around him to make it happen…so does Hilldog. He can do it. Don’t beleive the hype.

I’M VOTING GREEN PARTY! CYNTHIA MCKINLEY FOR PRESIDENT. SHE’S A BLACK WOMEN, SO HOW’S THAT FOR CHANGE?

I’ll say it once and I’ll say it again…WISE UP! No matter who is president things will not change!

I am rolling with you too Whoa! O was playing that smart game. The Jena 6 stuff was crazy but not every Black politician went down there so to single out O is just wrong. O is not trying to run for the President of the Rainbow Coaltion. He is in this to win this, don’t sleep. Hilldog and Bill wasn’t down there either so don’t throw that in O’s face. especially after those cats was at the BET awards stunning.

I like Cindy but she is a little nutty sometimes. Slapping the cop and all. I agree that we need some sistas running out there. Brothers can be sexist too you know.

SUPPORT BARACK OBAMA PRESIDENT 2008!! SOUTH CAROLINA STAND UP!!

Kgates…it is broke and I want O to fix it. You willing to put up with all that disrespect Clintons heaped on you be my guess. This is not 1992 or 1996 so do not think the Clintons can work there magic again. This is a different economic mess we are looking at then what happened in 92. Plus, do not discount hope and inspiration. We all need it. Plus, do not think for a second that if O gets the nomination and wins in November, he will not have the best minds in the party, including the Clintons, helping him out.

Lofs of blacks found their true love at kissinterracial.com . As you may know it becomes the outstanding niche interracial dating site recently. Thousands of new members FREE to Join daily to meet dream date@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

Which candidate plans to keep the U.S. out of the New World Order. That’s who I want in office.

If O doesn’t win he doesn’t win. But he has the best chance of any minority ever. I love the fact that American can make history by electing the first minority or woman President of the United States. The fact is that he can, and why shouldn’t I support that. I admit the Jena 6 issue was real but you know what, that is what Al Sharpton and Jessie are for and they got the job done. O is in politics where you make things happen from the government side of things. He is not running for the civil rights leadership but for President. Plus, his record as a community organizer in Chicago, in the Illinois State Legislator and in the US Senate shows that he is right on all the issues. I agree with you Powers…crabs in a bucket I tell you!

LAS VEGAS, Nevada (CNN) — Vermont Sen. Patrick Leahy, the powerful chairman of the Judiciary Committee, will back Sen. Barack Obama’s bid for president, three Democratic sources familiar with the pending endorsement tell CNN — the Illinois senator’s fourth Senate endorsement in a week.

Leahy, first elected in 1974, is charged with vetting nominees to the federal bench, including the U.S. Supreme Court.

“Pat Leahy is one of the finest members of the U.S. Senate, and he sees the kind of possibilities that Barack Obama can bring to effect change to this country and world,” said one of the sources.

UPDATE: On a conference call with reporters, Leahy said he endorsed Obama because he believes he can bring reform to the nation’s health care system and schools, and end the Iraq war. “Barack Obama gives us that hope,” he said, saying the Illinois senator “represents the America we once were, and want to be again.”

“We need a president who can reintroduce America to the world, actually reintroduce America to ourselves. I believe Barack Obama is the best person to do that,” said Leahy.

He also said that “My endorsement is not in opposition to either Sen. Clinton or Sen. Edwards, both of whom I know and admire. I’m looking at who can do this best, and I believe Barack Obama can.”

– CNN’s Candy Crowley and Ted Barrett

@Raven

Here’s the thing about John Edwards he is a hypocrite. I volunteered for him in 2004 and went to school with his daughter Cait. There was no populist message then. This man will do and say anything to be president. Just 4 years ago he was an economic centrist, war hawk, who was hostile toward gay rights. Now 4 years later… he says that was all a mistake. Well would it be a mistake if the political climate hadn’t changed so drastically as to make that polically passe?

Also Edwards couldn’t carry the independent vote because not only is he a flip flopper he was on the ticket with the most notorious (whether rightfully known or not) flip flopper in American politic. Also he has a scandal brewing with a former aid who is supposedly pregnant. His wife is dying…

Edwards is a horrible candidate. He’s gotten a pass with all the focus on barack and hillary but he would be torn apart if the campaigns ever saw him as a real threat. And he would be torn apart in the general as well. There will be no obama-edwards. I’m guessing Obama-Biden. Also Clinton at this point has no choice but to ask Obama to veep for her because of the tremendous devotion he experiences from supporters. If she won she would have to deal with a lot of disention and the idea that she is status quo.

Also cait is a snob and no one at Princeton liked her she is a member of this elite club called Ivy which was notorious for excluding black people. The Edwards live in a 12 million dollar house… and this man is supposed to be the great populist hope? I will pass.

here we go again. first of all, you don’t know who the fcuk dr. king would of supported. so y’all need to edit dat ish out. y’all get more ignant every time y’all get on this topic

And we all know why u support Obama, and it has nothign to do w/ politics, i’ve said this on here once and i’ll say it, again, i wanna see how fast y’all turn on him.

And as black ppl, we need to focus more on local leaders, cuz Obama is not going to fix our problems. Any one, including dis here site, who thinks Obama is going to come in and save black people, needs to wake up. Most of the people in congress of whyte anyways, thats what has t ot change…

@ kgates -

You always have to pick your battles bruh… otherwise you end up like permed and pimped out AL – overexposed and useless!

I’m an 24 yr old African-american, and I don’t think that any black person is saying DON’T vote for Senator Obama simply because he is black, but rather outraged by the fact that we have a truly viable candidate. The DREAM candidate we’ve been waiting for. He’s perfect in every way! Intelligent, charismatic, has the gift to inspire ALL people of ALL backgrounds while bringing them together for the change he keeps promoting. If blacks can’t/won’t vote for him, who on earth will the vote for????? Yes, most can understand why many blacks would not support Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton. However, Senator Obama is NOT in the same category with them. Out with the old and in with the new in EVERY way. I also love the fact that he just happens to be a black man running for president. He’s not running as the ‘black people’s president’. He truly represents ALL of us in this country.

WAKE UP GUYS! Think for a minute, before it’s too late. 20 yrs from now I’m going to be proud to say that I was apart of changing America for the better.

Was’nt it once rumered that Hillary Clinton is a lesbian? She is stiff on the stage just as it seems she is in bed. Thats why Bill cheated on her so many times.

GO OBAMA

Please take the time to listen and consider what each candidate has to offer. It is irresponsible to vote for someone “just because” they’re Black or a woman. We are all getting swept up into the Obama movement — and yet he has barely articulated any viable policy. It isn’t just about winning the presidency, it is about having the ability to eradicate the effects of 8 years of incompetency and arrogance, that led us into a never-ending war and a recession.

Real talk — Edwards is the one who is putting forth the policies that will help the lower and middle class. Even if it just rhetoric, as some say, so too is Obama’s current message. I hope he backs up his hopes and dreams with some realistic policies. If so, he’ll have my vote.

Making history is participating in this election, regardless of the outcome — not just voting for Obama because he is Black. Let’s not forget that Hillary will make history if she’s elected, too.

All the black folks who are against Obama are a bunch of retarded, talkin that he ain’t that good enuff just because of his skin, it might be the whole case this time because white folks can (gonna) vote against him just because of his skin, never forget that. White folks always tryna win by any means necessary to put their Champs on top, so just play the same game if yall wanna win sh*t one day soon.Don’t Be Stupid.Skills? Who cares right now?Come on, It’s a Master VS Slave Game!ya dig. If skills would mean something, Clintonz & Bushz couldn’t even make one step in that White House.This time, colour is THE case so GO OBAMA!!! I’m Black so Black People is Best people, That’s it. It’s the 1st time that a brother goes that far. Just support a n*gga!!!

You all are such full of crap. Obviously, you your self do not even know the history behind Martin Luther King and the Civil Rights Act. According to you all, King (all by himself) wrote the legislation and had it passed in Congress.

JUST GET OUT AND VOTE!!!

who are to be speaking for dr. king

i think this is a fair post. the truth is the polls say she is in trouble in south carolina. she should save her money and just let obama win it. i don’t think she will be able to catch up in time in that state

The more time I spend on this site, the more screwed up I see Black America really is…

First off: Raven2007. Till I see Democrats controling weather patterns, the answer is NO about Katrina. Your views on the war are as off base as your support for John Edwards, ambalance chaser.

#2:Nathaniel.”All the black folks who are against Obama are a bunch of retarded, talkin that he ain’t that good enuff just because of his skin, it might be the whole case this time because white folks can (gonna) vote against him just because of his skin, never forget that. White folks always tryna win by any means necessary to put their Champs on top, so just play the same game if yall wanna win sh*t one day soon.Don’t Be Stupid.Skills? Who cares right now?Come on, It’s a Master VS Slave Game!ya dig. If skills would mean something, Clintonz & Bushz couldn’t even make one step in that White House.This time, colour is THE case so GO OBAMA!!! I’m Black so Black People is Best people, That’s it. It’s the 1st time that a brother goes that far. Just support a n*gga!!!”

Are you serious???

#3:Kasmir360: Sorry most historians would disagree.

#4:Trixie:???? If your Trixie , why the Speed avatar?

Change my behind. When the NWO comes down on us while Obama is in office, then noone will be smiling.

Ofcourse we will never suspect anything and vote for him. Ask him is he a member of the CFR a.k.a. illuminati. It’s not myth, its real.Do your research. Our votes never count anyway

Shouldn’t vote for Obama ’cause he’s Black, well I say, Heavens Yes! we should. This is 2008.

The psychological boost Obama would give to Black people around the world would resonate for generations. More accurately, for eternity.

People are voting for Hilary ’cause she’s a woman, Black people are voting for Hilary ‘just because she’s a woman.’

Personally, I think how sad is that? What has the Clintons done for women of colour, past present… and believe… not in the future. How many women of colour have the same privileges, special advantage, immunity, permission, rights, or benefit granted to or enjoyed by a white women/ white men or white individuals. Going for a job, the potential employer sees black first, woman second. That goes for Black men too.

We don’t live in a utopian state people, and colour still matters, call a thing what it is and then, we can change it.

As a successful Black woman from the UK, Now living in the USA, I am fortunate enough to have been elevated by the Civil Rights era that was so bravely fought on American soil.

Black people in America re; The Civil Rights era, have inspired Black people across the world to do better, to demand justice and freedom from oppression, slavery and tyranny, and put to shame those who would withhold our inalienable rights of liberty, equality and brotherhood/sisterhood.

African/Americans have shown that no matter the atrocities leveled at them they are a power to be contended with.

Dirty politics, (POLITRICKS) won’t stop our forward progress.

And yes, I recognize the effects and have also been equally inspired by Africa, Caribbean and Latin freedom fighters, who have uplifted many and changed much since the destructive era of sub-human bondage, (Slavery)

Heaven yes! Vote for Obama cause he’s Black, the policies he speaks of sound okay. In a capitalist system the whole government administration has to be overhauled for real change to happen in America, and so in any other country. You all know that. One man or woman does not a country run. (Thank goodness) Hey look at what Margaret Thatcher didn’t do for women/the arts/unions, etc in the UK…

Hilary= 25 years of political dynasty= Old School

As for Bob Johnson, his BET legacy = Black Enslavement Television.

Come on people, let’s not let ‘Willie Lynch’ win this one.

Wake UP!

So lets get real…

For the psychological empowerment of Black folk… Obama,

For a symbol of progressive world change… Obama

For a man who appears to offer an healthy political alternative for real change… Obama

VOTE OBAMA

i don’t think Dr. King would support obama just because he’s black.

America is on the brink of repeating the Regan Era depending on who we elect. I can not see where in obama’s resume where he is qualified to take on such a task, nor can I clearly hear this through his debates, quotes and such.

We should stop and think about whether we are trying to make history in our era or if obama is ready to be president.

I think obama needs some relevant years/experience in public service before his legacy ends up being like J. Carter who is more successful in public service post presidency than during his presidency. The reason for that is his inspiring speech funneled hin to the white house but he was ill-prepared for the monumentus problems facing the nation during his term.

Dr. King wouldn’t be supporting that sh*t.

lol

Barack Obama President 2008 People stay united, we have some Hillary people in here to dissuade us, put doubt in our minds. Remember united we stand divided…….

I support Barack Obama 100%

shaline

Change my behind.

____________________________

Yeah, change my ass…

Funny how people are so easily influenced by gibberish.

>>>Our votes never count anyway…<<<

Actually, the president, like Bush in 2000 and 2004, has already been selected. And from the look of things, it may very well be Bush again…

nahnah

shaline

Change my behind.

____________________________

Yeah, change my ass…

Funny how people are so easily influenced by gibberish.

>>>Our votes never count anyway…<<<

Actually, the president, like Bush in 2000 and 2004, has already been selected. And from the look of things, it may very well be Bush again…

—–

that’s defeatism. the problem is states rights. the electorial process works differently in the various states and territories. if we understand the process better we can then make it work towards our own benefit. but to say don’t bother to try? mmmmmmmmmm

cat4everrr:

Defeatism is allowing the illegal president to still be in office after nearly 8 years.

I dont care who becomes president! Anybody can talk a good game and there is one that I believe that is god.

nahnah

cat4everrr:

Defeatism is allowing the illegal president to still be in office after nearly 8 years.

i never understood, we almost impeached clintom for getting some head, but bush lies and never once have i heard impeachment

jjones

i never understood, we almost impeached clintom for getting some head, but bush lies and never once have i heard impeachment

______________________

defeatism…;-)

Obama is the fraud of change.

Somebody, anybody, please enlighten me, WHAT exactly has the Clintons done for Blacks in their lifetime. Just cite me one.

As far as I know, Bill Clinton kicked off his 92 campaign by attacking Sister Souljah (a signal to southern racist whites that he is prepared to keep blacks in their place). The highest ranking Black person in the Clinton white house was the Sec. of Commerce – Ron Brown. There was no Black in the Clinton inner-circle.

Bill Clinton threw Lani Gurnier under the bus when the republicans opposed her appointment for AG. Clinton signed the crime bill that has nearly a million black men in prison (most of them for non-violent drug crimes); Clinton repealed the welfare program that has plunged over 8million people (blacks and whites) below the poverty line – see 2000 census figures. By the way, these bills were all part of the Republicans “Contract with America”.

As for Bob Johnson, I can understand his contempt for black people. He made his money by funnelling garbage and smut into the homes of blacks vai his BET. He, of all people, know that we blacks are stupid. How else could we allow a pimp and smut-peddler to dare claim to speak for us, if we are not stupid?

Memo to Al Sharpton: Lets march on BET, NOW!!!

Attention Bob Johnson: When Barack Obama was giving voice to poor Blacks, you were busy peddling smut to us. So shut up and go to your ornate room in massa’s house.

The real ‘fairy tale’ in this campaign is this idiotic, dubious, and downright fallacious notion that the Clintons have a long record of standing behind blacks. Nobody have ever cited one example. Any wonder why white folks see us as intelectually inferior? We act as if we are!!

Kenya

Obama is the fraud of change.

___________________________

Fraud of change.

Fraudulently anti-war.

AIPAAC puppet…

He’s a phony who knows he can lie to his supporters, since Americans don’t read, unless it’s about a celebrity getting married…

Starting QB for the Packers

In a news conference Deanna Favre announced she will be the starting

QB for the Packers this coming Sunday.

Deanna asserts that she is

qualified to be starting QB because she has spent the past 16 years

married to Brett while he played QB for the Packers. During this

period of time she became familiar with the definition of a corner

blitz, and is now completely comfortable with other terminology of

the Packers offense. A survey of Packers fans shows that 50% of

those polled supported the move.

Does this sounds idiotic and unbelievable to you? Well, Hillary Clinton makes the same claims as to why she is qualified to be President and 50% of democrats polled agreed. She has never run a

City, County, or State.

When told Hillary Clinton has experience because she has 8 years in

the white house, Dick Morris stated “so has the pastry chef”.

If Bill Clinton can fu*k over his wife and the nation by lying to her/us about fu*king the help, and ruin the life of an intern and several other harem members—-why do Black people believe that he WON’T Fu*k us over as well??????

“When I think of the person that I thought was Bill Clinton, I think he had genuine remorse. When I think of the person that I now see is 100 percent politician, I think he’s sorry he got caught.” —Monica Lewinsky

@ Yolinda: EXACTLY

@ Nah Nah: I hate when radicals pretend that their radicalism doubles as altruism. You think Obama and any other well intentioned person would like to see a needless war persists. The fact of the matter is these things are extremely convoluted. You can’t take away funding without taking away vital combat gear, post service benefits, withdrawal capabilities, and perhaps even lowering pay.

Again you come with this attitude that you’re either more informed or morally superior to Obama and every other politician which is a joke. You simply have an all or nothing attitude when it comes to policy and that’s not the way things work. Politics changes policy not attitudes. If you want a social movement start one, but don’t hold politicians to your radical anarchist litmus test.

I love this photo!

I think it is great that black people are beginning to allow ourselves to get back in this political process. Now when we start putting these people in office we need to make sure they keep their promises to our communities. If that means marching in front of their office and calling them out every chance we get then we will have better things in our communities.

It is a shame that people who are not even here legally fight for their rights more than we do and this is our country. I hope that Mr. Obama win because then we will have to look at ourselves and stop blaming everything on the white man.

And as far as Hilary she is loosing support because of the mess she and her campaign tried to creat with this whole race thing. I don’t think she realized how sinsitive and how much destructions in way or the other drugs has brought to our community. Then to bring out all of these old civil rights leaders who so far out of touch with their own people and communities to defend her and stand up for her just turned alot of people stomachs.

They are part of the status quo as well. It is time to retire them also.

People keep talking about America isn’t ready for a black man as president. The statement should be America better get ready for a black man as president. In the infamous words of the late great Sam Cooke: A change is gonna come!

THE BOTTOM LINE IS VOTE FOR THE BEST CANDIDATE, WHITE OR BLACK, MALE OR FEMALE

@MICHELLE I HEARD THAT TOO AND WE KNOW REGAN WAS ALL ABOUT THE TRICKLE DOWN ENCONOMICS THEORY AND PUSHING CRACK INTO MOSTLY MINORITY NEIGHBORHOODS.

EVEN IF EVERY BLACK PERSON IN AMERICA OF VOTING AGE VOTED FOR OBAMA HE STILL WOULDN’T WIN….DID YOU FORGET WE ARE STILL A MINORITY IN THIS COUNTRY. EVEN IF ALL THE HISPANICS AND BLACKS VOTED FOR HIM HE STILL WOULDN’T WIN. I DON’T DOUBT. BUT I WANT WHOEVER IS GOING TO GET IN THERE, GET OUR TROOPS HOME, LOWER TAXES FOR THE IMPOVERISHED, SUCH AS MYSELF, AND BRING SOME MONEY HOME SO THAT I CAN GET SOME FINANCIAL AID TO FINISH COLLEGE AND SOME REASONABLE HEALTHCARE AND PRESCRIPTION DRUG COVERAGE FOR ME AND MY CHILD. THAT IS WHO I WANT…THEY ARE PLAYING THESE MUDSLINGING TACTICS AND WHATNOT TO, AS USUAL, AVOID THE REAL ISSUES.

@Michelle

You aren’t that good in coprehending what you read are you? He wasn’t praising Reagan he was acknowledging how Reagan was “transformational” . Here is the quote:

““When the country was so sick of a blue state president, Carter, Reagan was able to tap into it by being 100 percent red-state,” he said. “Reagan knew transformation was all about mandate. Reagan ran a clear red-issue campaign. He never reached out to blue. Reagan was able to bowl over any resistance in Congress because he had a clear 100 percent red-state mandate … Reagan, therefore, was able to get all the changes he wanted. Reagan was for those reasons … transformational.”

He is not praising Reagan at all. Jimmy Carter blew it for the Dems and Reagan used that to get elected and push his agenda. Thats fact. BTW, he may also be implying that Bush is the new Jimmy Carter and people are tired of him.

here we go again. first of all, you don’t know who the fcuk dr. king would of supported. so y’all need to edit dat ish out. y’all get more ignant every time y’all get on this topic

And we all know why u support Obama, and it has nothign to do w/ politics, i’ve said this on here once and i’ll say it, again, i wanna see how fast y’all turn on him.

And as black ppl, we need to focus more on local leaders, cuz Obama is not going to fix our problems. Any one, including dis here site, who thinks Obama is going to come in and save black people, needs to wake up. Most of the people in congress of whyte anyways, thats what has t ot change…

————————————————–

@ SERENE…..I AGREE WITH THIS WHOLE HEARTEDLY NO ONE BLACK PRESIDENT IS GOING TO COME IN AND SWEEP THE COUNTRY AND DO EVERYTHING FOR EVERY BLAKC PERSON. WE KNOW MOST POLITICIANS ARE EASILY BROUGHT AND SOLD FOR A FEW BUCKS AND OBAMA MAYBE ISN’T NOW BUT WHEN THE THREATS OF HIS LIFE START TO FLY….I AM NOT SURE HOW MUCH WE, BLACK PEOPLE, WILL MEAN TO HIM WHEN WE CANNOT SAVE HIS LIFE.

My wife flew off the handle about the Reagan comment until she actually heard it. O was not praising Reagans presidency, he was commenting on how Reagans 1980 campaign was able to pull Democrats from the party to vote for him. He was talking about the campaign and not the Presidency. Duh! O is a Democrat and a very liberal one at that (he is more to the left than Hillary) so of course he is not praising Raegan as the two are not alike.

O should not have made that comment because it can be taken out of context like it is now. Both Sen. Edwards, Clinton and Obama have that problem because they engage in Senator speak. Kerry had that problem in 2004. O gave a highly thoughtful and complex answer to a question that was better answered during the general election and not the nomination. But for anyone to think that a liberal Democrat from Illinois wants to be like Reagan is just plain silly. O made a bad analogy considering how Reagans name is mud in the Black communuity but it isn’t a fatal one.

I am not voting for O to fix Black people. A president can’t do that. (Actually I think Clinton supports actually want Hillary to fix Black people too but that is besides the point). I want O as President of the U.S. because I beleif in the type of bipartisanship we need in government to make it work. Black folk need to fix their own problems without government becoming an obstacle. I am an O supporter because I believe the country needs a fresh start because the GOP will battle Clinton to death because their voters hate her. O or Edwards have less baggage and no one is voting for Johnny E so kill that noise.

I’m supporting John Edwards, that said, I still find inspiration in the other candidates. I’m not a Hilliary fan, but as a woman I admire how far she’s come and I admire her for her intellect as well as her strength. I admire Dennis for fighting for what he believes in and standing up for those of us who would like to see Bush and Cheney impeached. The other night while watching the latest debate, I actually got a little overwhelmed, thinking about the weight that Obama and Hilliary must carry on their shoulders.

I’m beginning to see the stress and strain in their faces. Imagine having a whole group of people looking to you to be “the one.” Be it some African Americans for Obama or Some Woman for Hilliary. No, race shouldn’t be an issue and gender should also not be an issue, but we can talk about the history being made by both of these candidates. Now little girls can say it is possible and young African American kids can say the same.

Which is why I felt inspired to make the video “A Hope For Change.” Just go to youtube and type in rainlillie a hope for change. Thanks.

TJ

Nah Nah: I hate when radicals pretend that their radicalism doubles as altruism. You think Obama and any other well intentioned person would like to see a needless war persists. The fact of the matter is these things are extremely convoluted. You can’t take away funding without taking away vital combat gear, post service benefits, withdrawal capabilities, and perhaps even lowering pay.

Again you come with this attitude that you’re either more informed or morally superior to Obama and every other politician which is a joke. You simply have an all or nothing attitude when it comes to policy and that’s not the way things work. Politics changes policy not attitudes. If you want a social movement start one, but don’t hold politicians to your radical anarchist litmus test.

_________________________________________________

1. Why do you insist I am morally superior to any person, since I never made such claim? Could it possibly be because your argument is lacking – and therefore YOU feel inferior?

2. I suggest you school us on how else to end an unfavorable war, other than to stop funding it? Go ahead, and tell us…Because even congress knows the ONLY way to end a war such as this is to cut of funding and slowly, but surely withdraw the troops and bring them home.

3. Radical what? The only way to clean up the mess that the selected president of nearly 8 years caused is to take a radical approach for change. I thought you were into radicalism, being an Obama supporter an all. Radical = change, dear.

4. What makes Obama “well-intentioned”? Is it because the media pushed and shoved him down your throat and told you so? LOL @ you and your blind faith for Mr. Obama, and the fact that you and many on here excuse him for signing over 300 billions of dollars of funding with absolutely no resolution whatsoever!

BTW…If Obama is well intentioned, then so is Hilary, since both vote the same 98% of the time…

Please tell me that’s not your pic?????^^^^^^^^^^^^

@Nahnah

You don’t end the war but cutting the funding. You end soldiers lives by doing that. Rethink your strategy…its foolish. The funding doesnt just pay for bombs and bullets. It also provides for the soldiers safety and morale. The funding is also what keeps the troops safer, provides equipment,protective armor, night vision goggles, interpreters, informants, meals, phone calls and calling cards, mail service, showers, real food(not MRE’s), flights home, increased pay, etc. Not just bullets and bombs.

Imagine a father not paying his child support “AT ALL” because he knew the mother was misusing part or even most of it. That father would be a deadbeat because that decision to punish the mother also punished the innocent child. The child has no voice. To not fund the war because you dont like the war and want to punish the Republicans makes “you” a deadbeat. The military member has no voice.

You end the war by slow but deliberate withdrawal. This withdrawal does not neet to be announced. It just needs to happen, period!

How To End The War

Russ Feingold

Our founders wisely kept the power to fund a war separate from the power to conduct a war. In their brilliant design of our system of government, Congress got the power of the purse, and the president got the power of the sword. As James Madison wrote, “Those who are to conduct a war cannot in the nature of things, be proper or safe judges, whether a war ought to be commenced, continued or concluded.”

Earlier this week, I chaired a hearing in the Senate Judiciary Committee to remind my colleagues in the Senate that, through the power of the purse, we have the constitutional power to end a war. At the hearing, a wide range of constitutional scholars agreed that Congress can use its power to end a military engagement.

The Constitution gives Congress the explicit power “[to] declare War,” “[t]o raise and support Armies,” “[t]o provide and maintain a Navy” and “[t]o make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces.” In addition, under Article I, “No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law.” These are direct quotes from the Constitution of the United States. Yet to hear some in the Administration talk, it is as if these powers were written in invisible ink. They were not. These powers are a clear and direct statement from the founders of our republic that Congress has authority to declare, to define and, ultimately, to end a war.

If and when Congress acts on the will of the American people by ending our involvement in the Iraq war, Congress will be performing the role assigned it by the founding fathers—defining the nature of our military commitments and acting as a check on a president whose policies are weakening our nation.

There is plenty of precedent for Congress exercising its constitutional authority to stop U.S. involvement in armed conflict.

In late December 1970, Congress prohibited the use of funds for introducing United States ground combat troops into Cambodia or providing U.S. advisors to Cambodian military forces. In late June 1973, Congress set a date to cut off funds for combat activities in Southeast Asia.

More recently, President Clinton signed into law language that prohibited funding after March 31, 1994, for military operations in Somalia, with certain limited exceptions. And in 1998, Congress passed spending legislation that prevented U.S. troops from serving in Bosnia after June 30, 1998, unless the president made certain assurances.

Congress has the power to end military engagements, and there is little doubt that decisive action from the Congress is needed to end U.S. involvement in the war in Iraq. Despite the results of the election, and two months of study and supposed consultation—during which experts and members of Congress from across the political spectrum argued for a new policy—the president has decided to escalate the war. When asked whether he would persist in this policy despite congressional opposition, he replied: “Frankly, that’s not their responsibility.”

Last week Vice President Cheney was asked whether the non-binding resolution passed by the Foreign Relations Committee that will soon be considered by the full Senate would deter the president from escalating the war. He replied: “It’s not going to stop us.”

In the United States of America, the people are sovereign, not the president. It is Congress’ responsibility to challenge an administration that persists in a war that is misguided and that the nation opposes. We cannot simply wring our hands and complain about the administration’s policy. We cannot just pass resolutions saying “your policy is mistaken.” And we can’t stand idly by and tell ourselves that it’s the president’s job to fix the mess he made. It’s our job to fix the mess, too, and if we don’t do so we are abdicating our responsibilities.

Yesterday, I introduced legislation that will prohibit the use of funds to continue the deployment of U.S. forces in Iraq six months after enactment. By prohibiting funds after a specific deadline, Congress can force the president to bring our forces out of Iraq and out of harm’s way.

This legislation will allow the president adequate time to redeploy our troops safely from Iraq, and it will make specific exceptions for a limited number of U.S. troops who must remain in Iraq to conduct targeted counter-terrorism and training missions and protect U.S. personnel. It will not hurt our troops in any way—they will continue receiving their equipment, training, salaries, etc. It will simply prevent the president from continuing to deploy them to Iraq. By passing this bill, we can finally focus on repairing our military and countering the full range of threats that we face around the world.

As the hearing I chaired in the Senate Judiciary Committee made clear, this legislation is fully consistent with the Constitution of the United States. Since the president is adamant about pursuing his failed policies in Iraq, Congress has the duty to stand up and use its constitutional power to stop him. If Congress doesn’t stop this war, it’s not because it doesn’t have the power. It’s because it doesn’t have the will.

tompaine.com/articles/2007/02/02/how_to_end_the_war.php

Hillary > Obama

I find it pathetic that so many blacks are supporting Obama JUST BECAUSE HE IS BLACK. And a lot of white liberals are supporting Obama JUST BECAUSE HE IS BLACK.

“I’m not racist I support Obama.” – white yuppies who feel ‘hip’ supporting Obama yet they don’t have any black friends

@ kdogg:

The only foolishness I see here is:

“You end the war by slowly but deliberate withdrawal. This withdrawal does not neet to be announced. It just needs to happen, period!”

So, are you suggesting that we should wait for Bush, who doesn’t want the troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan, to withdraw the troops when he’s ready, instead of congress excercising their constitional power to create resolutions for partial, yet immediate withdrawal?

You do know that “we the people” wants the troops OUT of Iraq, right? And you do know Congress, in theory, works for “we the people”, right?

The fact of the matter is, your silly suggestion can only work IF the president chooses to do so, but since he’s not interested in bringing the troops home, congress is the only solution to this mess. But they’re not willing to do so, for obvious reasons.

And that includes OBAMA, since he voted against the Russ-Feingold amendment, which advocated for partial troop withdrawal…

Also, there’s clearly a difference between funding the war and funding the troops, kdogg. But, unfortunatley, the two are lumped together, especially the Democraps, for political purposes.

The fact is, the vast majority of the Democrats, INCLUDING OBAMA, want to keep the troops in Iraq, therefore they trick the public into thinking they’re approving billions of dollars for the sole purpose of protecting the troops.

And if this were true, then how much longer will we be ‘funding the troops’ in Iraq and Afghanistan?

@ NahNah

You just don’t get it, do you? I’m not arguing the legality of the war, or the powers of congress, or the powers of the President. I don’t think that the war should’ve ever been fought, I think Congress failed us , and I cant wait until Bush leaves office. With all of that said, Punishing the troops by ending their funding would be criminal!

Obviously since you don’t know anything about the military let me educate you on something. Congress is not part of a soldiers Chain of Command. However, the President is. And, unless lawmakers declare this war to be unlawful, then EVERY person in the Armed Forces is subordinate to the President. To disoey a lawful order is punishable under the UCMJ. Military law and Civilian law are not the same. As a soldier, you give up certain rights.

So with or without the extra funding, the war would still go on. The military does have a budget. There is money available. Cutting that funding will not stop the military. Certain monies originally earmarked for NASA and DOE, will go to the Military.

The only thing voting against war funding would have done is make the DOD have to become creative in where the money came from. Remember 1000 dollar hammers, anyone?

Voting against the funding would have hurt the soldiers/Marines long before it ever affected the President.

Maybe YOU can live with that. However most people with a conscience can’t.

Also, there’s clearly a difference between funding the war and funding the troops, kdogg. But, unfortunatley, the two are lumped together…..

——————————————————————————————————

In your heart there may be a difference. I know there is a difference in my heart. I still have brothers over there. In reality, there is no difference. The fact remains that the war funding money doesn’t just pay for the bombs and bullets. You cant get around that. That’s why I stand by my analogy of the deadbeat dad depriving his child of support in order to control/punsih the baby momma:

Imagine a father not paying his child support “AT ALL” because he knew the mother was misusing part or even most of it. That father would be a deadbeat because that decision to punish the mother also punished the innocent child. The child has no voice. To not fund the war because you dont like the war and want to punish the Republicans makes “you” a deadbeat. The military member has no voice.

This is to KDOGG!

Can you please tell me what OBAMA has down for the black people while he has been in office. Do you think you would ever hear a REPUBLICAN praising a DEMOCRAT for his TRANSITIONAL period. I DON’T THINK SO!

@ Nah Nah

You imply your own moral superiority when you claim that Obama isn’t REALLY interested in ending the war but simply posturing for votes.

As for your claim that stopping funding would end the war that is incorrect. The unfortunate truth is congress is not the commander and chief until there is a new commander and chief funds would simply be re-allocated to ensure the truths were still funded.

Now for a lesson in campaigning.

Cutting funding for troops is political suicide. You literally are not supporting the troops by doing so. when you vote to cut funding you vote to cut combat gear which puts American lives in danger. Furthermore I’m sure you’ve heard of a fillibuster if Obama had voted to cut funding it still never would have passed.

As for your attitude. You clearly think you either better informed or morally superior to Mr Obama. what I mean by that is you either think he doesn’t know what he’s doing or doesn’t really want the war to end.

Kdogg said:@ NahNah

You just don’t get it, do you? I’m not arguing the legality of the war, or the powers of congress, or the powers of the President. I don’t think that the war should’ve ever been fought, I think Congress failed us , and I cant wait until Bush leaves office. With all of that said, Punishing the troops by ending their funding would be criminal!

Obviously since you don’t know anything about the military let me educate you on something. Congress is not part of a soldiers Chain of Command. However, the President is. And, unless lawmakers declare this war to be unlawful, then EVERY person in the Armed Forces is subordinate to the President. To disoey a lawful order is punishable under the UCMJ. Military law and Civilian law are not the same. As a soldier, you give up certain rights.

So with or without the extra funding, the war would still go on. The military does have a budget. There is money available. Cutting that funding will not stop the military. Certain monies originally earmarked for NASA and DOE, will go to the Military.

The only thing voting against war funding would have done is make the DOD have to become creative in where the money came from. Remember 1000 dollar hammers, anyone?

Voting against the funding would have hurt the soldiers/Marines long before it ever affected the President.

Maybe YOU can live with that. However most people with a conscience can’t.

………….

Exactly!

But haven’t you heard. Nah Nah is the most informed person on the planet. She’s the only person who REALLY wants to stop the war, solve the healthcare crisis, fight predatory lending and end all forms of oppression. And she has the (very simple) answers to all of this. ALL the politicians in Washington are uninformed war mongers they need to talk to Nah Nah because she’ll straighten them out. She can cure AIDS too. All this with out a grad degree…

News Flash:

The only person who is telling the truth about Iraq is John McCain. We are going to be there for a very long time. It was a mistake to go but we are there so like the Pottybarn…we broke it…we fix it. I support O but the new flash is no President worth their salt is getting us completly out of Iraq anytime soon. Reduction is troop levels yes but a complete withdrawal aint gonna happen captain.

And I never said Hillary Clinton did not have the best interest of the nation or people in general at heart. It’s her pursuit of the presidency that is suspect not her actions in service to the country.

But I’m sure you think Hillary is somehow hoping Iraquees die so she can take the oil and somehow manage to syphon that money to herself or whatever you conspiracy theorists are saying now days.

Having spent much time around politicians I can tell you that they are mostly driven by power not greed. Most of them are substantially wealthy already, and despite how horrible you think they all are most would not condone a war that they didn’t feel was necessary that goes for Democrat and Republican. The opposition is a cerebral one not a moral. That’s what I mean by well intentioned.

tj:

Regarding your post at 2:27pm:

It’s pretty obvious you’re a puppet for your government. Maybe you think racism is a figment of the black imagination, and that the government never intended on profiting off of slavery and the suffering of African peoples, because they’re not greedy , just power hungry?

And if you don’t believe in conspiracy theories, then I guess you don’t believe Osama Bin Laden blew up the towers.

What I notice about many Americans is that we will sit around and accept the evilness-corruptness-greediness of other governments, yet will get extremely defensive when someone suggest the nasty ways of our own. Of course, it’s a defense mechanism, since we’ve been taught to believe government is here to protect us…

BTW: you can’t have power without money. So stop…

@NahNah

Since you want to pull out excerpts from the US Constitution, maybe this will interest you:

Article II Section 2

“The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.” U.S. Const. art. II, § 2, cl. 1.

The text, structure and history of the Constitution establish that the Founders entrusted the President with the primary responsibility, and therefore the power, to use military force in situations of emergency.

He is further vested with all of “the executive Power” and the duty to execute the laws. U.S. Const. art. II, § 1. These powers give the President broad constitutional authority to use military force in response to threats to the national security and foreign policy of the United States. During the period leading up to the Constitution’s ratification, the power to initiate hostilities and to control the escalation of conflict had been long understood to rest in the hands of the executive branch.

By their terms, these provisions vest full control of the military forces of the United States in the President. The power of the President is at its zenith under the Constitution when the President is directing military operations of the armed forces, because the power of Commander in Chief is assigned solely to the President.

As I said before, Congress is not in the military’s Chain of Command. The President is, and if he gives an order, the military follows it…with or without the extra funding.

@Lost Skeleton

I agree. We never should have gone in the first place, but we have to strategically pullout. We have created a mess over there, not to mention a vacuum for terrorism. We also gave I ran free reign over our economy(oil). If we we pull out without creating some kind of REAL government over there, Iran will claim Iraq as its own. The pullout needs to be gradual but deliberate and unannounced. Even if a timetable exists, it should be known by as few as possible. Troop numbers and deployments should be classified info.

@tj

LOL! I don’t take NahNah too seriously. I find her amusing, at best. If she really is a “her.” What are you nahnah?

kdogg. I do in my heart of hearts what and end to our involement over there. I just think the security vacuum we leave behind would be far worst. I am upset that the Iraqis do not seem to be taken advantage of the surge to hash out some political solution to ensure we can get out without the situation getting much worst. The surge has worked in terms of lower deaths (Kerry’s idea by the way) but the lack of political progress in distresing. Unfortunatly (sp is horrible) I see a prolonged engagement and both Hilldog and O know it.

I disagree NahNah….we as Americans, especially Black America have resigned ourselves to letting those with money have power with the promise that we can either (1) join them by getting a piece of what they have or (2) resign ourselves to middle class lives of quiet desperation. If people of collective thought can band together they can effect change (Civil Rights Movement, etc). Yes movements always get coorupted in the end but systems can change for the better with the power of the collective mob. I’m not naive, just a dreamer.

Nah Nah says:

tj:

Regarding your post at 2:27pm:

It’s pretty obvious you’re a puppet for your government. Maybe you think racism is a figment of the black imagination, and that the government never intended on profiting off of slavery and the suffering of African peoples, because they’re not greedy , just power hungry?

And if you don’t believe in conspiracy theories, then I guess you don’t believe Osama Bin Laden blew up the towers.

What I notice about many Americans is that we will sit around and accept the evilness-corruptness-greediness of other governments, yet will get extremely defensive when someone suggest the nasty ways of our own. Of course, it’s a defense mechanism, since we’ve been taught to believe government is here to protect us…

BTW: you can’t have power without money. So stop…

….

THis is so backwards. First off matters of national security are far different from civil rights matters. For one these evil politicians of whom you speak LIVE AND WORK IN DC. If you think they aren’t acting in what they feel is America’s best interest safety wise then I don’t know what to tell you.

Also since I have several degrees I’m pretty clear on how corrupt our government is. But please define corrupt, because the secret oligarchy of which you speak (the one that supposedly picks presidents and controls the world right along with Dr. evil) does not exist.

Also damn you caught me I am a puppet and I whole heartedly support racism. The cats out of the bag. Once again you are better informed and morally superior. Damn nothing gets pass you. I’m gonna go ahead and ignore you from now on I think people are pretty clear on the fact that you’re and idiot and a nut job.

Lost Skeleton:

What is it that you disagree with, because I agree with everything you just said in that particular paragraph.

NahNah,

Youre hopeless.

When was the last time Congress declared war? How many times has the US ever declared war?

I’ll help you. The last formal declaration of war from the US came during WWII. The US has only declared war 5 times.

Vietnam, Op Desert Storm, The “war” in Afghanistan, and Op Iraqi Freedom were never declared wars. However, we found ourselves in those skirmishes anyway under the

President(s) “sole” command.

Congress cannot shut down a war unless it declares the war to be unconstitutional and they cannot declare a war to be unconstitutional if it hasnt been declared a war to begin with.

From the US Constitution:

Article II Section 2

“The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States.

This means that if the President says go…the military goes. Congress can try to cut the funding all they want. Again as I have told you before, that would hurt the troops before it ever hurt the President. Not only that, Congress doesn’t have the Constitutional authority to interfere with the President using his Constitutional authority to defend the nation against all threats.

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

As long as the President continues with assertion that he is “defending” us, Congress can’t stop him. Again, unless they declare the war to be unlawful, the military has to listen to him.

Clinton will win nevada and gain a momentum to win south carolina, Obama had the opportunity to kill Clinton in NH, he lets this one pass, i think it’s over… The clinton mafia is way too powerfull

Are u Ashanti by any chance Nahnah?

Are u Ashanti by any chance Nahnah?

Kdogg, why do you keep arguing against what the constitution states? No matter what you say, it is what it is…

The issue of whether or not the president has the authority to declare war(formal or NOT) should not be up for debate, as the answer is clearly written in Article 1. Section 8 of the United States Constitution(law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articlei.html). In other words, the power to declare war lies in the hands of congress and congress only. There is no if’s, and’s, or but’s about it. To that end, any war declared(formal or NOT) by the president is unconstitutional. And while it’s a well-known fact that Bush does not respect the constitution – he still sought congressional approval before invading Iraq and Afghanistan – as he knew the legal and political ramifications of not doing so…

Furthermore, Article 2 Section 2 that you keep bringing up only grants the president authority to command the military, NOT declare(formal or NOT) sole discretion. It must be approved/declared(formal or NOT) by the legislative branch. Only a dictatorship would allow such practice by a president…

Going back to congress…

Congress is aware of the illegality of this war/occupation.

Congress know the war/occupation is unconstitutional.

Congress is aware of the war powers permitted by the US constitution.

Congress is aware of their authority to impeach a president if he oversteps his boundaries – especially when he’s unpopular amongst ‘we the people’.

Congress does not want the troops out of Iraq.

Congress accepts bribes from lobbyists.

Congress voted against the Fiengold-Kerry Amendment -which sought to partially and strategically withdraw the troops from the Middle East within the course of a year.

Congress, like the president, does not respect the constitution.

Congress can force withdrawal of troops by controlling funds.

Are u Ashanti by any chance Nahnah?

______________________________

???????????????

Article Section 8.

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;

To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;

To establish post offices and post roads;

To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;

To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;

To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;

To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;–And

To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

Correction: Article 1. Section 8.

NahNah you can keep reposting the same stuff over and over and it still does not change the fact that:

The Constitution grants the President “sole” command of the military. Article II Section 2

Which basically means that when he gives them a lawful order, they must obey it and Congress has no power to give any orders to the military. Even if Congress were to actually “declare war,” they still would not have any Constitutional authority over the military. They could not deploy or direct them. That is left to the Executive Branch, which the President heads.

I have conceded that Congress can declare war. Yet war has not been declared since WWII. The President does not need Congress’ approval to protect the nation. That has been this Administrations justification since the war started. I don’t agree with it. I know that its an excuse to keep the power in the hands of the Executive Branch but that doesn’t change the fact that our troops will be hurt first and the most by cuts in war funding.

Even if Congress stopped the extra funding, they would still have to provide for salaries, food, lodging, and national defense. Which again the administration considers the Iraq war part of our nations defense. Even with reduced funding, the military could still carry out the mission albeit less effectively. Since they would have to ration supplies like ammo, armor, communications, etc.. Who do you think they will blame?

In the military there is a thing called rank structure. The military member must adhere to and follow the lawful orders of those that outank him or are in their chain of command. The prseident is in that Chain but Congress isn’t.

Even if the entire Congress stood in front of a soldier and told him to “go left” and the President told him to “go right”, the soldier is legally obligated to follow the President’s “lawful” orders. Congress is not in the Chain of command. That’s why we would still be over there without the extra funding. Congress should not be trying to cut the funding, they should be trying to declare the war illegal. That would make the Presidents orders illegal/unlawful and then the military could legally choose not to obey them.

>>>The Constitution grants the President “sole” command of the military. Article II Section 2

Which basically means that when he gives them a lawful order, they must obey it and Congress has no power to give any orders to the military. Even if Congress were to actually “declare war,” they still would not have any Constitutional authority over the military. They could not deploy or direct them. That is left to the Executive Branch, which the President heads.<<<

Please direct me when it says the president shall hae sole command of the military…

______________________________________

Article 2 Section 2:

Section 2. The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States; he may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices, and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.

He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law: but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.

The President shall have power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate, by granting commissions which shall expire at the end of their next session.

______________________________________

>>>Even if Congress were to actually “declare war,” they still would not have any Constitutional authority over the military. They could not deploy or direct them. That is left to the Executive Branch, which the President heads.<<>>The President does not need Congress’ approval to protect the nation. That has been this Administrations justification since the war started. I don’t agree with it. I know that its an excuse to keep the power in the hands of the Executive Branch but that doesn’t change the fact that our troops will be hurt first and the most by cuts in war funding.<<<

1. The Despite the pre-war rhetoric of the Bush Administration and many Republicans and Democrats, the “protect the nation” mantra was proven to be a farce a few months after they went into Iraq, and that was in 2003! We are now in 2008!!!!!!!

2. Despite the dictatorial opinions of the “president” and many others, the president cannot wage war on his own – as it’s not permitted by the constitution. So going back to my original statement: CONGRESS HAS THE CONSTITUTIONAL POWER TO STOP THE WAR.

3. In a country where laws speak, the opinions of a president wouldn’t mean anything if we had congress people who were willing to challenge him. But since the majority of those in congress are pro-war (eventhough some mascarade as the oppositite: Obama), they are not interested in utilizing their WAR POWERS to end it.

4. Again, and again, and again, the troops will NOT be hurt by cutting funds, and that is because congress has the power to provide CONDITIONAL FUNDING, which will not cut funds related directly to the troops. Which part of that do no you not understand?

>>>Even if Congress stopped the extra funding, they would still have to provide for salaries, food, lodging, and national defense. Which again the administration considers the Iraq war part of our nations defense. Even with reduced funding, the military could still carry out the mission albeit less effectively. Since they would have to ration supplies like ammo, armor, communications, etc.. Who do you think they will blame?<<<

Again, this is a MYTH.

1. I will say it again…Even when congress approves funding for Iraq and Afghanistan, all poritions of funds will go to a specific aspect of the war. In result, troops can and WILL recieive EVERYTHING they need to survive until they make it home.

2. A president cannot use ice cream money to buy cake.

Kdogg:

By your logic, there’s no way out of of Iraq and Afghanistan, and that’s an ignorantly false way of thinking.

1. American troops being in the middle east automatically put them in harm’s way – and anyone who honestly care for them, will advocate for their withdrawal instead of hiding behind a “we’re going to hurt them if you stop approving billions of dollars” mask.

2. Those who claim to care so much for the troops, and advocate them to stay in the Middle East turn a blind eye to their suffering when many of them make it to the states, depressed, unemployed, and unsheltered.

3. Anybody with a half of a working brain will see that everything, including contracts to Halliburton, is about ‘funding the troops’.

4. The “Funding the troops” bunch will continue their propaganda 10 years on if that’s what’s needed to keep the imperialism going in Iraq.

5. Democrats won the mid term elections on the platform that they’d bring the troops home. So why are they still there?

6. “No No No, we’re hurting the troops” has been deeply implemented in the collective conscious of the average American, by both the Republicans and the Democrats, and that’s sad…

I remember last year when I met a homeless Iraqi vet in NYC. Being that I have a motor mouth, we stood out in cold and talked for hours, and the first thing he told me is that the same people who pretended to have supported him when he was sent to Iraq are the same ones who now walk around with their normal lives, looking at him up and down, in disgust, like he’s a menace to society. And while that was the first and only Iraqi vet I’ve met, I’ve met a bunch of Vietnam vets with the same accusations…

I tell you, this herd menatality is what’s going to lead America to a very dangerous path.

The ONLY way to support our troops is to bring them home to safety. Letting them stay in Iraq and Afghanistan, in harm’s way, is NOT supporting them. And many of the troops are counting on Americans to help them come home to their family and friends.

SUPPORT OUR TROOPS.

BRING THEM HOME!

SUPPORT OUR TROOPS.

BRING THEM HOME!

SUPPORT OUR TROOPS.

BRING THEM HOME!

SUPPORT OUR TROOPS.

BRING THEM HOME!

SUPPORT OUR TROOPS.

BRING THEM HOME!

TO The Editor’s Post:

“Why do these civil rights era negroes want three decades of the Bush and Clinton families? Dr. King wouldn’t be supporting that sh*t.”

Firstly, I doubt that you are qualified to speak on Dr. King’s behalf and Secondly, and most importantly, Dr. King would never advocate his people to choose a candidate based on the color of his skin and not the content of his character…do you remember the “I Have a Dream” speech? It’s an insult to Dr. King’s legacy that you promote the choosing of Barack Obama on the basis of his race and not on who he has proven himself to be. Check yo’self, People!

This is my last post in this thread since it appears that you will tirelessly cling on to your flawed opinion in your sea of conspiracy even when offered a lifesaver in the form of the Truth.

Article 2 Section 2 of the US Constitution gives the the President “SOLE” command of the military. hence the name “Commander in Chief.”

Article II Section II.

The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States

That means the military does, whatever the President tells it to do. There is no gray area there. The President is in the military’s chain of command while Congress is not.

You are right. Only Congress can declare war. However, again I must point out that We are not in a declared war This administration has successfully argued that this “war” is a conlict that is the result of the nation defending itself. By using this “defense of the nation” definition and refusing to declare it a war, the administration is keeping the decision out of the hands of Congress.

You are so naive in thinking that Congress actually oversees or even has the ability to oversee the proper appropriation of DOD funds. They may designate a certain amount to the military but the DOD actually divvies it up. As I said before, remember the $1000 hammers? Yeah they can cut out the supplemental “Global War on Terror” funds but the annual appropriations (the money the military would be getting even if there was no war) would be untouched. Congress would not dare touch the regular/annual appropriation since that money is actually needed to maintain the country’s defense.

Without the extra war funding, the military would just get creative in getting money. They would also cutback on things that are in place for the troops morale and welfare.

The war will go on unless Congress declares the war to be illegal or there is an administration change. Even then, the pullout will have to be calculated, steady, and unannounced.

SUPPORT OUR TROOPS.

DON’T CUT THE FUNDING THAT ALSO HELPS PAY FOR THEIR PROTECTIVE ARMOR, AND MORALE BOOSTERS LIKE PHONE CALLS AND FLIGHTS HOME, HOT MEALS, HEALTHCARE, LAUNDRY SERVICES, INTERNET ACCESS, SATELLITE TV,DAILY MAIL SERVICE, TRANSLATORS, AND INFORMANTS!

SUPPORT OUR TROOPS.

DON’T CUT THE FUNDING THAT ALSO HELPS PAY FOR THEIR PROTECTIVE ARMOR, AND MORALE BOOSTERS LIKE PHONE CALLS AND FLIGHTS HOME, HOT MEALS, HEALTHCARE, LAUNDRY SERVICES, INTERNET ACCESS, SATELLITE TV,DAILY MAIL SERVICE, TRANSLATORS, AND INFORMANTS!

SUPPORT OUR TROOPS.

DON’T CUT THE FUNDING THAT ALSO HELPS PAY FOR THEIR PROTECTIVE ARMOR, AND MORALE BOOSTERS LIKE PHONE CALLS AND FLIGHTS HOME, HOT MEALS, HEALTHCARE, LAUNDRY SERVICES, INTERNET ACCESS, SATELLITE TV,DAILY MAIL SERVICE, TRANSLATORS, AND INFORMANTS!

@Kdogg

>>>This is my last post in this thread since it appears that you will tirelessly cling on to your flawed opinion in your sea of conspiracy even when offered a lifesaver in the form of the Truth.<<>> That means the military does, whatever the President tells it to do. There is no gray area there. The President is in the military’s chain of command while Congress is not. <<<

I think your problem is you lack basic comprehension skills, which prohibits you from understanding the difference between REGULATE and DIRECT/COMMAND. Just take your time and read it over a few times to get an understand of what they really mean…

@kdogg

>>>This is my last post in this thread since it appears that you will tirelessly cling on to your flawed opinion in your sea of conspiracy even when offered a lifesaver in the form of the Truth.<<>> That means the military does, whatever the President tells it to do. There is no gray area there. The President is in the military’s chain of command while Congress is not. <<<

con’t…

^This is my last post in this thread since it appears that you will tirelessly cling on to your flawed opinion in your sea of conspiracy even when offered a lifesaver in the form of the Truth.^

I think you’re giving up because you’re tired of pulling half-baked information out of your ASS. There’s nothing TRUTHFUL about what you’re saying here. My argument is based 100% on the UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION, while yours is based on ignorance and what George Bush says…

My actual response – Bossp effing up again…

^This is my last post in this thread since it appears that you will tirelessly cling on to your flawed opinion in your sea of conspiracy even when offered a lifesaver in the form of the Truth.^

I think you’re giving up because you’re tired of pulling half-baked information out of your ASS. There’s nothing TRUTHFUL about what you’re saying here. My argument is based 100% on the UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION, while yours is based on ignorance and what George Bush says…

^ That means the military does, whatever the President tells it to do. There is no gray area there. The President is in the military’s chain of command while Congress is not. ^

LISTEN/READ: I ALWAYS THE SAID THE PRESIDENT COMMANDS THE MILITARY – AND NEVER DID I SAY NO TO THAT. HOWEVER, ARTICLE 1, SECTION 8, OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION GIVES CONGRESS CERTAIN RIGHTS OVER THE MILITARY. YOU READ IT YOUR DAMN SELF, AND STOP RECYCLING YOUR GARBAGE TO FILL UP YOUR NON-EXISTENT ARGUMENT. DAMN!

IN ADDITION, THE GEORGE BUSH CANNOT DO WHATEVER HE WANTS. SO, EVEN IF GEORGE BUSH COMMANDS THE MILITARY, HE CANNOT COMMAND THEM TO DO WHATEVER HE WANTS BECAUSE HE, AS THE PRESIDENT, CANNOT DO WHATEVER HE WANTS. What is it that’s so hard for you to understand

It’s really easy….George Bush commands the military, yet George Bush cannot LEGALLY declare war(FORMAL OR NOT). Therefore, there’s a limit on what Bush can do as president and commander of the military, because he doesn’t have certain power unless congress grant them to him.

Seriously, are you slow, Kdogg? I mean…Go to ARTICLE 1 SECTION 8, and you’ll see the powers of congress.

Here, I’ll help you out:

- To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water

- To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years

- To provide and maintain a navy

- To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

- To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions

- To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress

I think your problem is you lack basic comprehension skills, which prohibits you from understanding the difference between REGULATE and DIRECT/COMMAND.