One's child being in the military doesn't mean foreign policy experience...
Posted By: sam on 2008-08-31
In Reply to: How can one's child being in the military sm - Kiki
the site I posted lists several things that do constitute foreign policy experience...more than Barack has. That is not a slam, it is just the truth. And she is the #2 person, not the #1 person. I don't know if she said she doesn't know anything about Iraq or not. She is a governor, in state politics, and that should have been her focus. She was running a state government. Obama has never run any kind of government,so she has more executive experience than he has...well, in fact, more than any candidate running, including her running mate. John McCain has more foreign policy experience than Obama. Obama's #2 has more foreign policy experience than he does. That is why he is the #2 guy. As far as experience goes...Sarah Palin has more than Barack Obama. That is fact on paper. Not trying to downgrade Obama. Contrary to popular opinion, I think he is a likable guy. I think he is a good orator. I think he has a beautiful family he loves and who love him. I don't have anything against Joe Biden, other than he can be condescending and hateful sometimes...there are sound bites all over the internet. I just don't think he is right to lead either. I just think Obama is wrong for the Presidency and so would Joe Biden be. Apparently holding that opinion put me on the tracks in front of the hate train with a target painted on my back. But that is okay...I can deal with that. My country is too important to me to throw my values under the bus for the "party." I am with PUMA...party unity my tailfeathers.
Complete Discussion Below: marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old. To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
He has more experience than Obama in foreign policy and that cannot...
be disputed. He did add that with Joe Biden; however, I still say it will look odd to foreign leaders if Biden goes to all his meetings with him. McCain can instill any number of advisors and/or his VP pick to help where he lacks in knowledge of the economy. Frankly, I would rather have the economy knowledge in the second chair than the foreign policy knowledge. Because if we get pulled into a confrontation with someone who we know for sure unequivocally DOES have nukes...well, you get my drift.
McCain does not plan to stay at war for 100 years. That was taken completely out of context and not what he said at all. What he said was that there could be an American presence there for 100 years in the form of bases. There are American bases all over the world. We still have bases in Germany and that war has been over for what...60 years or more? If the world lasts 100 years past WWII, those bases will still be there. THAT is what McCain was talking about. Not staying at war for 100 years. We have bases in South Korea, and that war has been over for 50+ years.
I could start pulling out all the Obama quotes but his followers don't care. I have never seen such a group myopic view about one individual. It seems like if he got up on a podium and said I really don't plan to do anything I say I will do, I am just like all the politicians before me, they would chant back "we don't care, we don't care, we don't care." Such is blind devotion. This goes way past a politician and party members.
How do you know McCain has no plans to help Americans through hard times? I can tell you one thing that should not be done is impose harsher taxes on the small family businesses in this country who employ a lot of people. All that does is either cause those companies to go offshore or fold, and then you have even more unemployed and add to the government ticket. But oh...what am I thinking. That is what Democrats want. The more beholden people are to the government, the better Democrats like it. When I say Democrats, I mean the Democratic party hierarchy. I do NOT lump all Democrats together and demonize the whole group as other posters here tend to do with Republicans. Even lump Independents in with the Republicans because they are "not Democrats." That is a decidedly unDEMOcratic attitude, unAmerican attitude. One would surmise the socialism thing is already working...well of course it is. How many times in the speech did we hear tax the rich and the disappearing middle class? Class socialism...redistribute that wealth.
Sarah Palin's foreign policy experience...
http://www.audacityofhypocrisy.com/2008/08/31/foreign-policy-experience-what-americans-dont-know-about-sarah-palin/
Biden has plenty of foreign policy experience.
n/m
Yep, pretty dumb to claim you have foreign policy experience from 3 weeks in Pakistan!!!...
Obama started off saying he was confident in his FOREIGN POLICY experience ("Foreign policy is the area where I am probably most confident that I know more and understand the world better than Senator Clinton or Senator McCain"). He then proceeded to talk about his visit to Pakistan.
SO WHAT? I visited and lived in several foreign countries, too. Does that mean I understand foreign policy better than someone who may have spent less time but has had actual interaction and policy discussions with those countries' leaders? And with the leaders of 80 countries?
If 3 weeks in Pakistan is the extent of Obama's foreign policy credentials, then I am way more qualified on the "foreign policy" front.
My point is that Obama's claim is ridiculous. Better that he stick to his "better judgement" mantra, since the "3 weeks abroad = foreign policy experience" is just pathetically weak.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/04/obamas-college.html
Why should she think about foreign policy?
She was the governor of a state and that should have been her focus. Your #1 also has zero foreign policy experience. That is why he has Joe Biden. That is why Sarah has McCain. If something happened to McCain, she would have foreign policy advisors, just like Obama has in Biden. The thing is...she is the #2. If we elect Obama, we have zero foreign policy experience from day 1. It's pretty clear to me what I would rather see. I would like to at least start out with someone with several years foreign policy experience. But that is just me.
RE: Foreign Policy. Sam says we'd be just as well off
On the issues
Sarah Palin on Foreign Policy.
No stance
Obama on Foreign Policy
- Meet with Cuban leaders only with agenda of US interests. (Feb 2008)
- Cuba: Loosen restrictions now; normalization later. (Feb 2008)
- Important to undo the damage of the last seven years. (Feb 2008)
- Never negotiate out of fear, and never fear to negotiate. (Jan 2008)
- Ok to postpone Pakistani elections, but not indefinitely. (Dec 2007)
- Pakistan crisis: secure nukes; continue with elections. (Dec 2007)
- President must abide by international human rights treaties. (Dec 2007)
- Obama Doctrine: ideology has overridden facts and reality. (Dec 2007)
- China is a competitor but not an enemy. (Dec 2007)
- Willing to meet with Fidel Castro, Kim Jung IL & Hugo Chavez. (Nov 2007)
- Wrote 2006 law stabilizing Congo with $52M. (Oct 2007)
- No Obama Doctrine; just democracy, security, liberty. (Oct 2007)
- Invest in our relationship with Mexico. (Sep 2007)
- Strengthen NATO to face 21st-century threats. (Aug 2007)
- $50B annually to strengthen weak states at risk of collapse. (Aug 2007)
- No "strategic ambiguity" on foreign policy issues. (Aug 2007)
- At college, protested for divestment from South Africa. (Aug 2007)
- Increased aid to Republic of Congo. (Aug 2007)
- Visited largest slum in Africa, to publicize its plight. (Aug 2007)
- My critics engineered our biggest foreign policy disaster. (Aug 2007)
- China is a competitor, but not an enemy. (Aug 2007)
- Meet with enemy leaders; it's a disgrace that we have not. (Jul 2007)
- No-fly zone in Darfur; but pay attention more in Africa. (Jun 2007)
- Europe & Japan are allies, but China is a competitor. (Apr 2007)
- Palestinian people suffer-but from not recognizing Israel. (Apr 2007)
- FactCheck: Palestinian suffering from stalled peace effort. (Apr 2007)
- U.S. needs to ameliorate trade relations with China. (Mar 2007)
- U.S. funds for humanitarian aid to Darfur. (Mar 2007)
- We cannot afford isolationism. (Mar 2007)
- Protested South African apartheid while at college. (Feb 2007)
- Focus on corruption to improve African development. (Oct 2006)
- Supports Israel's self-defense; but distrusted by Israelis. (Oct 2006)
- Visited Africa in 2006; encouraged HIV testing & research. (Oct 2006)
- Never has US had so much power & so little influence to lead. (Jul 2004)
- US policy should promote democracy and human rights. (Jul 2004)
- Sponsored aid bill to avert humanitarian crisis in Congo. (Dec 2005)
- Urge Venezuela to re-open dissident radio & TV stations. (May 2007)
- Let Ukraine & Georgia enter NATO. (Jan 2008)
- Condemn violence by Chinese government in Tibet. (Apr 2008)
- Sanction Mugabe until Zimbabwe transitions to democracy. (Apr 2008)
Sarah Palin on Homeland Security
- Strong military and sound energy. (Aug 2008)
- Armed forces, including my son, give us security and freedom. (Jan 2008)
- Ask all candidates "Are you doing all you can for security?". (Oct 2007)
- Visits Kuwait; encourages Alaska big game hunting to troops. (Sep 2007)
- Promote from within, in Alaska's National Guard. (Nov 2006)
- Let military personnel know how much we support them. (Nov 2006)
Obama on Homeland Security
- No torture; no renditions; no operating out of fear. (Apr 2008)
- Unacceptable to have veterans drive 250 miles to a hospital. (Feb 2008)
- Pursue goal of a world without nuclear weapons. (Feb 2008)
- Al Qaida is stronger now than in 2001 as Iraq distracted us. (Jan 2008)
- Colleges must allow military recruiters for ROTC on campus. (Jan 2008)
- Rebuild a nuclear nonproliferation strategy. (Jan 2008)
- FactCheck: Promised to repeal Patriot Act, then voted for it. (Jan 2008)
- No presidential power for secret surveillance. (Dec 2007)
- No holding US citizens as unlawful enemy combatants. (Dec 2007)
- Congress decides what constitutes torture, not president. (Dec 2007)
- No torture; defiance of FISA; no military commissions. (Dec 2007)
- Restore habeas corpus to reach Muslims abroad. (Dec 2007)
- Human rights and national security are complementary. (Nov 2007)
- Don't allow our politics to be driven by fear of terrorism. (Nov 2007)
- 2006: Obama-Lugar bill restricted conventional weapons. (Oct 2007)
- Judgment is as important as experience. (Oct 2007)
- If attacked, first help victims then prevent further attacks. (Oct 2007)
- America cannot sanction torture; no loopholes or exceptions. (Sep 2007)
- Repeal Don't-Ask-Don't-Tell. (Aug 2007)
- 2005: Passed bill to reduce conventional weapon stockpiles. (Aug 2007)
- We are no safer now than we were after 9/11. (Aug 2007)
- Close Guantanamo and restore the right of habeas corpus. (Jun 2007)
- Homeland security must protect citizens, not intrude on them. (Mar 2007)
- America must practice the patriotism it preaches. (Mar 2007)
- Protecting nuclear power plants is of utmost importance. (Mar 2007)
- Personal privacy must be protected even in terrorism age. (Mar 2007)
- Get first responders the healthcare and equipment they need. (Mar 2007)
- Need to be both strong and smart on national defense. (Oct 2006)
- Grow size of military to maintain rotation schedules. (Oct 2006)
- Battling terrorism must go beyond belligerence vs. isolation. (Oct 2006)
- Going after AL Qaeda in Pakistan is not Bush-style invasion. (Jan 2006)
- Rebuild the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. (Jan 2006)
- We are currently inspecting 3% of all incoming cargo. (Oct 2004)
- Increase funding to decommission Russian nukes. (Jul 2004)
- Give our soldiers the best equipment and training available. (Jul 2004)
- Balance domestic intelligence reform with civil liberty risk. (Jul 2004)
Sarah Palin on War and Peace
- We don't know what the plan is to ever end the war. (Aug 2008)
- Wants exit plan; also assurances to keep our troops safe. (Mar 2007)
Obama on War and Peace
Iraq War
- President sets Iraq mission; Generals then implement tactics. (Apr 2008)
- President sets Iraq mission; give generals a new mission. (Apr 2008)
- $2.7 billion each week of Iraq spending is unsustainable. (Feb 2008)
- Humanitarian aid now for displaced Iraqis. (Feb 2008)
- FactCheck: Overstated displaced Iraqis; actually 4.2 million. (Feb 2008)
- The Iraq war has undermined our security. (Jan 2008)
- Iraq is distracting us from a host of global threats. (Jan 2008)
- End the war, and end the mindset that got us into war. (Jan 2008)
- The Iraq war was conceptually flawed from the start. (Jan 2008)
- Title of Iraq war authorization bill stated its intent. (Jan 2008)
- Get our troops out by the end of 2009. (Jan 2008)
- No permanent bases in Iraq. (Jan 2008)
- FactCheck: No, violence in Iraq is LOWER than 2 years ago. (Jan 2008)
- Congress decides deployment level & duration, not president. (Dec 2007)
- Surge strategy has made a difference in Iraq but failed. (Nov 2007)
- Leave troops for protection of Americans & counterterrorism. (Sep 2007)
- Hopes to remove all troops from Iraq by 2013, but no pledge. (Sep 2007)
- Tell people the truth: quickest is 1-2 brigades per month. (Sep 2007)
- No good options in Iraq--just bad options & worse options. (Aug 2007)
- Be as careful getting out as we were careless getting in. (Jul 2007)
- We live in a more dangerous world because of Bush's actions. (Jun 2007)
- Case for war was weak, but people voted their best judgment. (Jun 2007)
- War in Iraq is "dumb" but troops still need equipment. (Apr 2007)
- Open-ended Iraq occupation must end: no military solution. (Apr 2007)
- Saddam is a tyrant but not a national security threat. (Mar 2007)
- Iraq 2002: ill-conceived venture; 2007: waste of resources. (Feb 2007)
- Saddam did not own and was not providing WMD to terrorists. (Oct 2004)
- Iraq War has made US less safe from terrorism. (Oct 2004)
- Invading Iraq was a bad strategic blunder. (Oct 2004)
- Democratizing Iraq will be more difficult than Afghanistan. (Oct 2004)
- Never fudge numbers or shade the truth about war. (Jul 2004)
- Set a new tone to internationalize the Iraqi reconstruction. (Jul 2004)
- Iraq war was sincere but misguided, ideologically driven. (Jul 2004)
- Not opposed to all wars, but opposed to the war in Iraq. (Jul 2004)
- International voice in Iraq in exchange for debt forgiveness. (Jul 2004)
Trouble Spots
- Iran is biggest strategic beneficiary of invasion of Iraq. (May 2008)
- Military surge in Afghanistan to eliminate the Taliban. (May 2008)
- Take no options off the table if Iran attacks Israel. (Apr 2008)
- Two-state solution: Israel & Palestine side-by-side in peace. (Feb 2008)
- Al Qaida is based in northwest Pakistan; strike if needed. (Jan 2008)
- No action against Iran without Congressional authorization. (Dec 2007)
- Iran: Bush does not let facts get in the way of ideology. (Dec 2007)
- Meet directly for diplomacy with the leadership in Iran. (Nov 2007)
- Committed to Iran not having nuclear weapons. (Oct 2007)
- Iran military resolution sends the region a wrong signal. (Oct 2007)
- Deal with al Qaeda on Pakistan border, but not with nukes. (Aug 2007)
- Military action in Pakistan if we have actionable intel. (Aug 2007)
- FactCheck: Yes, Obama said invade Pakistan to get al Qaeda. (Aug 2007)
- Focus on battle in Afghanistan and root out al Qaeda. (Jun 2007)
- Bush cracked down on some terrorists' financial networks. (Jun 2007)
- Iraq has distracted us from Taliban in Afghanistan. (Apr 2007)
- Iran with nuclear weapons is a profound security threat. (Apr 2007)
- We did the right thing in Afghanistan. (Mar 2007)
- We are playing to Osama's plan for winning a war from a cave. (Oct 2006)
- Al Qaida is stronger than before thanks to the Bush doctrine. (Jan 2006)
- Terrorists are in Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Iran. (Oct 2004)
- Problems with current Israeli policy. (Jul 2004)
- Engage North Korea in 6-party talks. (Jul 2004)
- Use moral authority to work towards Middle East peace. (Jul 2004)
Voting Record
- Voted to fund war until 2006; now wants no blank check. (Nov 2007)
- Late to vote against war is not late to oppose war. (Jun 2007)
- Spending on the Cold War relics should be for the veterans. (Jun 2007)
- Would have voted no to authorize the President to go to war. (Jul 2004)
- Voted YES on redeploying US troops out of Iraq by March 2008. (Mar 2007)
- Voted NO on redeploying troops out of Iraq by July 2007. (Jun 2006)
- Voted YES on investigating contract awards in Iraq & Afghanistan. (Nov 2005)
JM/SP foreign policy exactly what?
I notice you have expressed no defense of SP regarding the points I have raised in the previous post regarding her breathtaking lack of knowledge and experience in foreign policy as was so painfully obvious in her first interview with Gibson and will be even more visible when she debates Biden. So you did what you always do and resorted to attacking Obama instead. OK. Let's go there for a minute.
You failed to mention who is the Chairman of the (full) Senate Foreign Relations Committee where hearings and strategies relative to NATO-Afghanistan relations are conducted. Lo and Behold. Would you look at that? It's Joe Biden, who served as chairman of that committee Jan 2001 to Jan 2003 and assumed his current incumbent chair position in Jan 2007. Looks like O made a pretty good choice of VP running mate when it comes to foreign policy experience. So if O is Chairman of the Subcommittee on European Affairs, why shouldn't he be in California for a debate? I would argue that if the Foreign Relations Committee IS the place where policy is debated relative to NATO and its relationship to Afghanistan (last time I checked, NOT in Europe) and O has (according to you) 300 advisors, his attendance is not expected or required, then evidently he feels that he can confidently rely on his advisors to keep him up to speed on what actually IS within the realm of his duties as Chairman of the Subcommittee on European Affairs since he is running for president.
By the way, how many foreign policy advisors does SP have at her disposal? Just curious. Also, it is notable that JM does not serve on any committees and his foreign policy experience is exactly what now? Speaking of advisors, for the life of me I cannot understand why you think there is something wrong with Obama having access to the insight of more than 300 people when it comes to foreign affairs. Sounds like a pretty impressive staff to me. Some might argue that that is an asset, not a liability. The world is a mighty big place and it is ludicrous to think that a president or a senator on a committee should not be taking advice and guidance from the experts on a given region.
Here's some foreign affairs stuff Obama did do during his time in the Senate before the campaign. Notice his interest in WMDs and his involvement in the strategy planning for controlling them in defense against terrorist attacks.
1. Introduced expansions to Cooperative Threat Reduction Program to secure and dismantle weapons of mass destruction and their associated infrastructure in former Soviet Union states.
2. Sponsor of Democratic Republic of Congo Relief, Security and Democracy Promotion Act, signed by Bush, to restore basic services like clinics and schools, train a professional, integrated and accountable police force and military, and otherwise support the Congolese in protecting their human rights and rebuilding their nation.
3. As member of Foreign Relations Committee, he made official trips to Eastern Europe, the Middle East and Africa. His 2005 trip to Russia, Ukraine and Azerbaijan focus on strategy planning for the control of world's supply of conventional weapons, biological weapons and WMDs and defense against potential terrorist attacks.
4. January 2006, met with US military in Kuwait and Iraq. Visited Jordan, Israel and Palestinian territories. Asserted preconditions that US will never recognize legitimacy of Hamas leadership until they renounce elimination of Israel.
5. August 2006, official trip to South Africa, Kenya, Djibouti, Ethiopia and Chad where he made televised appearance addressing ethnic rivalries and corruption in Kenya.
So that's about it for now. JM/SP foreign affairs experience is what now?
Dirty foreign policy
Well, seems to be if we didnt have such a murderous dirty foreign policy for the last 50 years, the rest of the world might not be wanting to blow us to kingdom come. You have to wonder why other people of the world hate us so. It is because we have overthrown third world governments and placed puppets in, undermined elections in other countries, murdered duly legally elected leaders in other countries. Heck, we were bombing Iraq nonstop through the 1990s and stepped it up right before this illegal criminal war. The great thing is lots of those soldiers who took part in the bombing are now speaking out. It has been my experience, from what I have seen in life, you can only bully for so long, then others will definitely strike back. We are now being struck back.
That's ridiculous. This is a foreign policy debate...
mccain still leads all the polls on foreign policy. He has no reason to try to duck this, and that should not even be an issue...they should both be back in Washington doing their jobs as leaders of their parties, not to mention as senators, which they both still are and drawing checks for.
I am glad one of them is doing it, and believe it or not, if Obama had said it first he would be getting the kudos from me too. If he even agreed to it I would give him thumbs up. But he chose not to.
Cheney 'cabal' hijacked foreign policy
Cheney 'cabal' hijacked foreign policy By Edward Alden in Washington Published: October 20 2005 00:00 | Last updated: October 20 2005 00:19 Vice-President Dick Cheney and a handful of others had hijacked the government's foreign policy apparatus, deciding in secret to carry out policies that had left the US weaker and more isolated in the world, the top aide to former Secretary of State Colin Powell claimed on Wednesday. In a scathing attack on the record of President George W. Bush, Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, chief of staff to Mr Powell until last January, said: “What I saw was a cabal between the vice-president of the United States, Richard Cheney, and the secretary of defense, Donald Rumsfeld, on critical issues that made decisions that the bureaucracy did not know were being made. “Now it is paying the consequences of making those decisions in secret, but far more telling to me is America is paying the consequences.” Transcript: Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson Click here http://news.ft.com/cms/s/c925a686-4...000e2511c8.html Mr Wilkerson said such secret decision-making was responsible for mistakes such as the long refusal to engage with North Korea or to back European efforts on Iran. It also resulted in bitter battles in the administration among those excluded from the decisions. “If you're not prepared to stop the feuding elements in the bureaucracy as they carry out your decisions, you are courting disaster. And I would say that we have courted disaster in Iraq, in North Korea, in Iran.” The comments, made at the New America Foundation, a Washington think-tank, were the harshest attack on the administration by a former senior official since criticisms by Richard Clarke, former White House terrorism czar, and Paul O'Neill, former Treasury secretary, early last year. Mr Wilkerson said his decision to go public had led to a personal falling out with Mr Powell, whom he served for 16 years at the Pentagon and the State Department. “He's not happy with my speaking out because, and I admire this in him, he is the world's most loyal soldier. Among his other charges: ■ The detainee abuse at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere was “a concrete example” of the decision-making problem, with the president and other top officials in effect giving the green light to soldiers to abuse detainees. “You don't have this kind of pervasive attitude out there unless you've condoned it.” ■ Condoleezza Rice, the former national security adviser and now secretary of state, was “part of the problem”. Instead of ensuring that Mr Bush received the best possible advice, “she would side with the president to build her intimacy with the president”. ■ The military, particularly the army and marine corps, is overstretched and demoralised. Officers, Mr Wilkerson claimed, “start voting with their feet, as they did in Vietnam. . . and all of a sudden your military begins to unravel”. Mr Wilkerson said former president George H.W. Bush “one of the finest presidents we have ever had” understood how to make foreign policy work. In contrast, he said, his son was “not versed in international relations and not too much interested in them either”. “There's a vast difference between the way George H.W. Bush dealt with major challenges, some of the greatest challenges at the end of the 20th century, and effected positive results in my view, and the way we conduct diplomacy today.” www.newamerica.net
How much did Barack Obama think about foreign policy before he decided to run...?
I would say...none. There is certainly no proof that he DID, that is why he chose Biden. So, if HE has to make a crucial decision that does not involve voting present or yelling at Michelle for spending $10,000 to send their kids to camp, or which Britney Spears designer to use for his next big speech...what's he gonna do? All I can say is, if he is elected, he better put Biden on speed dial or handcuff him to himself. You act as if your guy is ready!! And no one has to keel over for HIM to be in charge...he is in charge on day 1. Yeah, THAT IS scary!!
I don't know in what alternate universe you think Karl Rove is advising him. Karl Rove and John McCain detest each other. Have you not paid ANY attention these last few years??
Biden's giving a speech on foreign policy right now..
sure doesn't sound like he is stepping down any time soon, but don't want to burst your bubble.
Because they were roasting the economy, foreign and domestic policy
I am a firm Obama suppoter but I concede on this point. McCain out-roasted Obama. He was clever, not over the top, comfortable with himself and amazingly gracious in his concluding remarks...in stark contrast to his demeanor when debating the more difficult issues of this election.
McCain and his foreign policy would have pushed America into total isolation from the rest of the w
and the world would have disrespected us even more.
There are different ways to SHOW STRENGTH, it must not always be BOMBS !
How can one's child being in the military sm
equate to a point for foreign affairs experience? Please explain that to me. I know a lot of people whose children are in the military, in the war zone and not one of them would say they have foreign affairs experience. Also, didn't she herself say she doesn't know anything about Iraq.
But can parent sacrifice their child to the military?
that was the question...
and No most of the country doesn't agree with the self-proclaimed martyr, Sheehan.
Child molestation doesn't have a partyline...sm
so on that we agree. I think during the Lunsford investigation, conservatives were more focused on Shiavo than the Lunsford case and the Shiavo case was not and should not have been a major issue from a liberal, at least this one's point of view, but that is besides the point.
I think castration AND 25 years in prison would be good, but then castrating them may just turn them into violent offenders.
I'm not a big fan of the death penalty, but in the case of heinous crimes against children and elderly and serial killers, if we are 100% sure they're guilty then let'em fry.
A happy well-adjusted child doesn't need 24/7
it's repulsive you would insinuate that every woman should dedicate every minute of every single day to her child. No woman is even CAPABLE of that, yet you have no problem shoving some kind of stereotype to the foreground on behalf of all women just so you can slander the opponent and attempt to project your favored candidate. Please, whatever you do, do not lump us capable, resourceful, and strong women in with the likes of yourself. Again, if you're even a mother, which I somehow doubt based on your asinine observation on what is required to be a proper mother.
Who in the world would want to give birth to a child a child conceived during rape?????..nm
Again:L How many children do you have?
policy
So you think economic policies are the same as voter fraud? As a democrat, I have sat and read those that back Obama just come back with ridiculous questions because they know the facts against Obama are there but they have nothing to defend them, so they ask questions that have absolutely nothing to do with the facts at hand. It's an embarrassment when someone that is dem can't find one fact to defend the man in the stuff he is involved in. Corruption, terrorists....or do you like that?
I asked for someone to refute Obama's involvement with ACORN but since no one can, they bring up an issue that has nothing to do with the question. Now that is true ignorance. I'm so glad many democrats have opened their eyes and realize this is not what they want, which is why Obama has ACORN out there doing his dirty bidding, trying to get fradulent voter applications in there.
According to tax policy institute...
McCain's plan is to lower taxes on all levels, and from this the middle class would see a 3% increase in take-home pay. This also keeps small businesses who employ a great many people in this country, healthy and here, not offshore or folding.
Obama's program would have the middle class (not defined) getting 5% raise in takehome pay by 2012. He also wants $60 billion to give more tax cuts to the lowest income tax bracket...who already pay little or no taxes. And he plans to tax businesses who make over $250,000 a year to pay for that. THAT is exactly where the small businesses in this country fall. So why on EARTH would you hit the small businesses who employ so many people, just to give more breaks to the lowest bracket? All in the world that is going to do is cause small businesses to fail or go offshore or lay people off, so you will have even MORE people sent to that lower bracket, and that will put even more pressure on a slow economy.
McCain = everybody gets a tax break and small businesses stay healthy, and we don't add anymore people to that lower tax bracket. Plus the middle class gets a 3% raise in takehome pay.
To me, that is a no brainer.
When I said "enacting policy" sm
I was referring to his urging Congress to act on certain measures, such as the economic stimulus package, etc. Perhaps my choice of words was a little off, but I think you knew what I meant.
As far as being a "Bushie", I am not, thank you very much, but I believe in fairness inasmuch as fairness can be had in the political world, and I believe that Bush has been given too much "credit" for all the woes of this country. You have to remember that the POTUS is not always the decider, despite what Bush might have called himself. It is also interesting to note that the past 2 years, Dems have been the majority in Congress, which actually plays more of a part in deciding that the POTUS. No rabbits out of that hat!
I'm not criticizing Obama....yet. I am simply stating a fact....that he has jumped to the forefront and has made himself a very vocal player in the Washington arena. He is not the POTUS yet, and he should stop acting like he is. Do I like Obama? Most assuredly not, but I wish the man all the best. I hope he does a splendid job as President and pulls us from the brink of destruction, but it is a very tall order to fill and I do agree with you in that I don't know if there is anyone who can manage this.
In the meantime, I think all you Obama worshippers need to pull the wool off your eyes and realize that he is just a man and not some kind of super hero. He will have his kryptonite, too.
Not when it is publishing policy statements
the joke's on you. Hundred of others where that came from.
Firstly, he CANNOT enact policy, and he
is trying to get the economy stabilized ASAP. Bush has let go of the prez's office, he just wants to take his marbles and go home. He has not been acting prez since before the economic crisis; i.e. he came out for about all of a minute and a half to "explain" the economic crash in Sept. So he is not acting as prez, nor does he want to. Therefore, Obama is trying to get the economic issues in place so he can DO SOMETHING about it!! Why is that so hard for you to understand? "Bush given too much credit for woes of the country" Bush is given much of the credit because HIS policies made this mess. When these policies were enacted, Reps were in power. Bush is responsible for every little thing that happened during his tenure, as I am sure Obama will be responsible for everything he does PLUS what Bush has caused because he is the one who has to unravel the mass of strings all knotted up in a big ball, caused by Bush, and it will be a tough road to hoe for Americans, thanks to Bush. "He is not POTUS yet, and he should stop acting like he is." Well, that's funny that you keep bringing that up. He was elected POTUS, Shrub doesn't want the job, so somebody has to answer the questions, like "how's he going to fix this mess?" the press keeps putting to him. As an Obama worshipper which gets my ire because I only worship Jesus Christ, thank you very much, but if you must call me an Obama worshipper and tell me to pull the wool off my eyes, I will tell you that my eyes have been wide open for years, way back, darlin', probably as long or longer than you have been on this earth. I know my history for one, and you better get to know your history. My eyes are wide open, open yours. This country is no longer "home of the free," no longer the democracy I grew up in or even the democracy we had just a few 8 years ago, and you're telling me to pull the wool off my eyes. Incredible.
If you want to vote personality over policy and substance
nm
Former US Diplomat Raps Bush N. Korea Policy
Here is yet another expert criticizing Bush's policies. How can ALL of these people be wrong?
http://today.reuters.com/news/newsarticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2006-06-21T064029Z_01_N21187502_RTRUKOT_0_TEXT0.xml&pageNumber=0&imageid=&cap=&sz=13&WTModLoc=NewsArt-C1-ArticlePage3
Former US Diplomat Raps Bush N. Korea Policy
June 21, 2006
By Carol Giacomo, Diplomatic Correspondent
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A former U.S. diplomat who was deeply involved in North Korea policy said the Bush administration's approach toward the isolated communist state has been a failure that left Pyongyang to pursue its nuclear and missile programs.
In a rare public attack on the administration by a foreign service officer, retired head of the State Department's office of Korean affairs David Straub also questioned Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's decision-making on the issue. A spokesman for Rice was not immediately available for comment.
One fundamental failure of Bush's approach was the tendency to raise tensions and make South Korea nervous by stating that all options were the table, a phrase underscoring U.S. intentions to use force against North Korea if necessary, he said.
Of course all options are on the table. No government ever takes any option off the table but you don't have to talk about it all the time, Straub said.
Every time we said 'all options are on the table' gratuitously, we made the situation with our South Korean ally worse and made the prospect of coordination with South Korea to resolve the North Korean problem diplomatically that much more remote, he said.
Straub was head of the Korean office from 2002-2004 and was part of a team that negotiated with the North during former Secretary of State Colin Powell's tenure.
Several former administration political appointees have faulted President George W. Bush's policies after leaving office but it is rare for a foreign service officer to do so.
DIPLOMATIC FAILURE
Straub spoke in Washington at a meeting of the Korea Club, which groups former officials, scholars and journalists interested in the Korean peninsula.
His remarks came as six-country negotiations on ending North Korea's nuclear program are at a stalemate and as Pyongyang fans tensions again with preparations for a possible long-range missile test.
Straub said Washington was not primarily responsible for the failure to stop the North's pursuit of nuclear weapons and expressed skepticism Pyongyang would abandon its growing capability even if the United States made major concessions.
But he said the only viable U.S. approach is serious negotiations, the appointment of a high-level envoy and a willingness to engage in bilateral as well as multilateral talks, something the Bush administration has eschewed.
Straub said North Korea never seemed a priority for Bush and he could not understand why the National Security Council under Rice, who is often credited with energizing diplomacy at the State Department, repeatedly rejected Powell's diplomatic proposals.
Powell was desperate to try to have some real diplomatic effort going (with Pyongyang). Maybe she did something (to assist that) for four years while he was in office, but if she did no one ever told me, Straub said.
As for Bush, Straub wondered how much attention is he able to pay to it (North Korea). How much does he know?
Straub noted that opinion polls show many South Koreans consider America a bigger problem than North Korea. I can't think of a better definition of diplomatic failure, he said
He expressed confidence Powell would have pursued bilateral talks with Pyongyang in 2002-2003 during a crisis created by U.S. discovery of the North's clandestine program for enriching weapons-grade uranium.
But he said the administration did not want real give and take so the stalemate in six-country talks between the United States, the two Koreas, Japan, China and Russia was predictable, he said.
Straub also questioned why, after six-party talks reached an important but preliminary agreement on the nuclear issue last September, Rice would allow release of a statement clarifying U.S. views on issues papered over in the agreement.
The U.S. statement prompted Pyongyang to renege on the agreement.
For full impact: McC's nuclear safety policy:
That's blah x4. Got it?
He should shut up and not push policy or influence until he gets into office.
He has truly undermined the current sitting president and has been disrespectful to that very office. That much is true.
I wasn't talking about two ways about anything. You must be talking about someone else.
Ayers doesn't regret the bombings, doesn't feel like they did enough sm
In a story that appeared in the Times on the morning of Sept. 11, 2001, Ayers told a reporter while promoting his memoir "Fugitive Days": "I don't regret setting bombs...I feel we didn't do enough."
Mr. Ayers, now a professor of education in Chicago, was a founder of the Weather Underground, which bombed government buildings in the early 1970s. He was indicted on conspiracy charges that were thrown out for prosecutorial misconduct.
He served with Mr. Obama on the board of the Woods Fund of Chicago, a charitable organization, and, along with his wife, the former Weather Underground member Bernardine Dohrn, hosted Mr. Obama at his home in 1995 when he was running for state office.
Mr. Obama has called Mr. Ayers "somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago, when I was 8 years old."...so because it was 40 years ago, and Ayers is still proud of what he did, how is it justifiable for a US presidential candidate to now be friends with this man? Unless he has the same view of America.
Foreign language
Forgot to say that my foreign language was Latin and my memory is about as dead as the language.
Yeah. That "I don't think much about foreign
nm
However, if foreign investors own some of those...
mortgages, then I guess we are...in a way. Need to do some more research on that.
Foreign leaders
I've seen a lot of the video clips and pictures also. You know there is so much hoopla about everything in politics, it's really hard for me to believe anything I see much less anything I hear. I think we've sunk so low in our politics that the one who can throw the most mud is the one who will win. I don't care about Obama's association of 40 years ago. I do care about his recent so-called church affiliation. I do not care if Palin fired the guy for not firing her ex-brother-in-law (of course she did). I do care that all she can talk about is how "bad" Obama is and how "saintly" John McCain is. Pull the string and see what Sarah says.
The common sense side of me tells me that most of the garbage we hear from both campaigns is stuff dug up by the other side trying to discredit the other candidate.
A MOST aggravating thing happened this morning.......a REPUBLICAN acquaintance stopped by to see us this morning. The unexpected call was to campaign for John McCain. He got ANGRY when I told him I wasn't voting for either candidate. Pretty much called me a redneck hillbilly for not agreeing with him. LOL
VOTING WITH A WRITE IN VOTE FOR LOU DOBBS.
And do you buy foreign or domestic gas?
xx
I'd like to see a foreign car outdo that! n/m
x
Foreign Legion?
AN AMERICAN FOREIGN LEGION: IS THE US MILITARY NOW AN IMPERIAL POLICE FORCE?
Sunday 15 February 2009
by: William Astore, TomDispatch.com
New US Army recruits. (Photo: Tech. Sgt. Mike R. Smith / USAF)
A leaner, meaner, higher tech force - that was what George W. Bush and his Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld promised to transform the American military into. Instead, they came close to turning it into a foreign legion. Foreign as in being constantly deployed overseas on imperial errands; foreign as in being ever more reliant on private military contractors; foreign as in being increasingly segregated from the elites that profit most from its actions, yet serve the least in its ranks.
Now would be a good time for President Barack Obama and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates to begin to reclaim that military for its proper purpose: to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Now would be a good time to ask exactly why, and for whom, our troops are currently fighting and dying in the urban jungles of Iraq and the hostile hills of Afghanistan.
A few fortnights and forever ago, in the Bush years, our "expeditionary" military came remarkably close to resembling an updated version of the French Foreign Legion in the ways it was conceived and used by those in power - and even, to some extent, in its makeup.
For the metropolitan French elite of an earlier era, the Foreign Legion - best known to Americans from countless old action films - was an assemblage of military adventurers and rootless romantics, volunteers willing to man an army fighting colonial wars in far-flung places. Those wars served the narrow interests of people who weren't particularly concerned about the fate of the legion itself.
It's easy enough to imagine one of them saying, à LA Rumsfeld, "You go to war with the legion you have, not the legion you might want or wish to have." Such a blithe statement would have been uncontroversial back then, since the French Foreign Legion was - well - so foreign. Its members, recruited worldwide, but especially from French colonial possessions, were considered expendable, a fate captured in its grim, sardonic motto: "You joined the Legion to die. The Legion will send you where you can die!"
Looking back on the last eight years, what's remarkable is the degree to which Rumsfeld and others in the Bush administration treated the U.S. military in a similarly dismissive manner. Bullying his generals and ignoring their concerns, the Secretary of Defense even dismissed the vulnerability of the troops in Iraq, who, in the early years, motored about in inadequately armored Humvees and other thin-skinned vehicles.
Last year, Vice President DickCheney offered another Legionnaire-worthy version of such dismissiveness. Informed that most Americans no longer supported the war in Iraq, he infamously and succinctly countered, "So?" - as if the U.S. military weren't the American people's instrument, but his own private army, fed and supplied by private contractor KBR, the former Halliburton subsidiary whose former CEO was the very same DickCheney.
Fond of posing in flight suits, leather jackets, and related pseudo-military gear, President Bush might, on the other hand, have seemed overly invested in the military. Certainly, his tough war talk resonated within conservative circles, and he visibly relished speaking before masses of hooah-ing soldiers. Too often, however, Bush simply used them as patriotic props, while his administration did its best to hide their deaths from public view.
In that way, he and his top officials made our troops into foreigners, in part by making their ultimate sacrifice, their deaths, as foreign to us as was humanly possible. Put another way, his administration made the very idea of national "sacrifice" - by anyone but our troops - foreign to most Americans. In response to the 9/11 attacks, Americans were, as the President famously suggested only 16 days after the attacks, to show their grit by visiting Disney World and shopping till they dropped. Military service instills (and thrives on) an ethic of sacrifice that was, for more than seven years, consciously disavowed domestically.
As the Obama administration begins to deploy U.S. troops back to the Iraq or Afghan war zones for their fourth or fifth tours of duty, I remain amazed at the silent complicity of my country. Why have we been so quiet? Is it because the Bush administration was, in fact, successful in sending our military down the path to foreign legion-hood? Is the fate of our troops no longer of much importance to most Americans?
Even the military's recruitment and demographics are increasingly alien to much of the country. Troops are now regularly recruited in "foreign" places like South Central Los Angeles and Appalachia that more affluent Americans wouldn't be caught dead visiting. In some cases, those new recruits are quite literally "foreign" - non-U.S. citizens allowed to seek a fast-track to citizenship by volunteering for frontline, war-zone duty in the U.S. Army or Marines. And when, in these last years, the military has fallen short of its recruitment goals - less likely today thanks to the ongoing economic meltdown - mercenaries have simply been hired at inflated prices from civilian contractors with names like Triple Canopy or Blackwater redolent of foreign adventures.
With respect to demographics, it'll take more than the sons of Joe Biden and Sarah Palin to redress inequities in burden-sharing. With startlingly few exceptions, America's sons and daughters dodging bullets remain the progeny of rural America, of immigrant America, of the working and lower middle classes. As long as our so-called best and brightest continue to be AWOL when it comes to serving among the rank-and-file, count on our foreign adventurism to continue to surge.
Diversity is now our societal byword. But how about more class diversity in our military? How about a combat regiment of rich young volunteers from uptown Manhattan? (After all, some of their great-grandfathers probably fought with New York's famed "Silk Stocking" regiment in World War I.) How about more Ivy League recruits like George H.W. Bush and John F. Kennedy, who respectively piloted a dive bomber and a PT boat in World War II? Heck, why not a few prominent Hollywood actors like Jimmy Stewart, who piloted heavy bombers in the flak-filled skies of Europe in that same war?
Instead of collective patriotic sacrifice, however, it's clear that the military will now be running the equivalent of a poverty and recession "draft" to fill the "all-volunteer" military. Those without jobs or down on their luck in terrible times will have the singular honor of fighting our future wars. Who would deny that drawing such recruits from dead-end situations in the hinterlands or central cities is strikingly Foreign Legion-esque?
Caught in the shock and awe of 9/11, we allowed our military to be transformed into a neocon imperial police force. Now, approaching our eighth year in Afghanistan and sixth year in Iraq, what exactly is that force defending? Before President Obama acts to double the number of American boots-on-the-ground in Afghanistan - before even more of our troops are sucked deeper into yet another quagmire - shouldn't we ask this question with renewed urgency? Shouldn't we wonder just why, despite all the reverent words about "our troops," we really seem to care so little about sending them back into the wilderness again and again?
Where indeed is the outcry?
The French Foreign Legionnaires knew better than to expect such an outcry: The elites for whom they fought didn't give a damn about what happened to them. Our military may not yet be a foreign legion - but don't fool yourself, it's getting there.
--------
William J. Astore, a retired lieutenant colonel (USAF), taught for six years at the Air Force Academy. He currently teaches at the Pennsylvania College of Technology. A TomDispatch regular, he is the author of "Hindenburg: Icon of German Militarism" (Potomac Press, 2005), among other works. He may be reached at wastore@pct.edu.
»
concerning foreign politics he does..nm
nm
I wish he was in foreign politics
nm
Let me rephrase that. It doesn't *seem like* my vote doesn't count...sm
It does not count because its in the bag that our 3 electoral votes will go to the republican party.
The Myth of Foreign Fighters
Report by US think tank says only '4 to 10' percent of insurgents are foreigners.
By Tom Regan | csmonitor.com
The US and Iraqi governments have vastly overstated the number of foreign fighters in Iraq, and most of them don't come from Saudi Arabia, according to a new report from the Washington-based Center for Strategic International Studies (CSIS). According to a piece in The Guardian, this means the US and Iraq feed the myth that foreign fighters are the backbone of the insurgency. While the foreign fighters may stoke the incurgency flames, they only comprise only about 4 to 10 percent of the estimated 30,000 insurgents.
The CSIS study also disputes media reports that Saudis comprise the largest group of foreign fighters. CSIS says Algerians are the largest group (20 percent), followed by Syrians (18 percent), Yemenis (17 percent), Sudanese (15 percent), Egyptians (13 percent), Saudis (12 percent) and those from other states (5 percent). CSIS gathered the information for its study from intelligence services in the Gulf region.
The CSIS report says: The vast majority of Saudi militants who have entered Iraq were not terrorist sympathisers before the war; and were radicalized almost exclusively by the coalition invasion.
The average age of the Saudis was 17-25 and they were generally middle-class with jobs, though they usually had connections with the most prominent conservative tribes. Most of the Saudi militants were motivated by revulsion at the idea of an Arab land being occupied by a non-Arab country. These feelings are intensified by the images of the occupation they see on television and the internet ... the catalyst most often cited [in interrogations] is Abu Ghraib, though images from Guantánamo Bay also feed into the pathology.
The report also gives credit to the Saudi government for spending nearly $1.2 billion over the past two years, and deploying 35,000 troops, in an effort to secure its border with Iraq. The major problem remains the border with Syria, which lacks the resources of the Saudis to create a similar barrier on its border.
The Associated Press reports that CSIS believes most of the insurgents are not Saddam Hussein loyalists but members of Sunni Arab Iraqi tribes. They do not want to see Mr. Hussein return to power, but they are wary of a Shiite-led government.
TheLos Angeles Times reports that a greater concern is that 'skills' foreign fighters are learning in Iraq are being exported to their home countries. This is a particular concern for Europe, since early this year US intelligence reported that Abu Musab Zarqawi, whose network is believed to extend far beyond Iraq, had dispatched teams of battle-hardened operatives to European capitals.
Iraq has become a superheated, real-world academy for lessons about weapons, urban combat and terrorist trade craft, said Thomas Sanderson of [CSIS].
Extremists in Iraq are exposed to international networks from around the world, said Sanderson, who has been briefed by German security agencies. They are returning with bomb-making skills, perhaps stolen explosives, vastly increased knowledge. If they are succeeding in a hostile environment, avoiding ... US Special Forces, then to go back to Europe, my God, it's kid's play.
Meanwhile, The Boston Globe reports that President Bush, in a speech Thursday that was clearly designed to dampen the potential impact of the antiwar rally this weekend in Washington, said his top military commanders in Iraq have told him that they are making progress against the insurgents and in establishing a politically viable state.
Newly trained Iraqi forces are taking the lead in many security operations, the president said, including a recent offensive in the insurgent stronghold of Tal Afar along the Syrian border – a key transit point for foreign fighters and supplies.
Iraqi forces are showing the vital difference they can make, Bush said. 'They are now in control of more parts of Iraq than at any time in the past two years. Significant areas of Baghdad and Mosul, once violent and volatile, are now more stable because Iraqi forces are helping to keep the peace.
The president's speech, however, was overshadowed by comments made Thursday by Saudi Arabia's foreign minister. Prince Saud al-Faisal said the US ignored warnings the Saudi government gave it about occupying Iraq. Prince al-Faisal also said he fears US policies in Iraq will lead to the country breaking up into Kurdish, Sunni and Shiite parts. He also said that Saudi Arabia is not ready to send an ambassador to Baghdad, because he would become a target for the insurgents. I doubt he would last a day, al-Faisal said.
Finally, The Guardian reports that ambitions for Iraq are being drastically scaled down in private by British and US officials. The main goal has now become avoiding the image of failure. The paper quotes sources in the British Foreign department as saying that hopes to turn Iraq into a model of democracy for the Middle East had been put aside. We will settle for leaving behind an Iraqi democracy that is creaking along, the source said.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0923/dailyUpdate.html
So sad..we need a foreign leader to help our poor
Venezuelan heating oil will be distributed to poor U.S. communities via the Venezuelan-owned oil company Citgo. Credit: Venezuelanalysis.com <http://Venezuelanalysis.com>
Caracas, Venezuela, November 18, 2005—The Venezuelan-owned and U.S.-basedfuel refiner and distributor Citgo will begin distributing discounted heating oil to poor U.S. communities next week. Rafael Ramirez, Venezuela's Minister of Energy and Petroleum, made the announcement yesterday, saying that the measure is meant to show Venezuela's commitment to disadvantaged sectors in the United States.
Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez had originally announced the measure last August, while the U.S. civil rights activist Jesse Jackson was visiting Venezuela.
The launch of the discounted heating oil program is meant to coincide with the Thanksgiving holiday and will benefit communities in poor communities of Boston, Massachusetts and of the Bronx, New York.
The first phase of the program will begin in Boston and will provide 4.5million liters (1.2 million gallons) of heating oil at discounted rates, which will mean a savings of approximately $10 million. According to the Venezuelan government, the discounts will be achieved by eliminating middle-men and having Citgo deliver the heating oil directly to the communities. Accordingly, the plan does not involve any losses to Citgo itself.
The logistics of the plan will involve non-profit community organizations, which will help with the selection of beneficiaries, distribution, and billing. Heating oil costs are expected to reach historical heights this year, which means that many poor households might have to go without heat, despite limited state programs to subsidize heating oil for low-income families.
Citgo is a wholly owned subsidiary of Venezuela's state-owned oil company PDVSA and operates five refineries and licenses 14,000 gas stations throughout the U.S.
For those who follow foreign politics...
I just heard on NPR that Gary Kasparov has been arrested in Russia during a marching and protest of Russia's voting practice. This is NOT good. Putin is a very dangerous individual who has been funding the middle east conflict and selling weapons to those who really shouldn't have them. Kasparov is a potential light at the end of the tunnel for a more democratic and liberal Russian state. I am afraid for him.
don;t forget foreign banks
successfully lobbied to be included in this bailout. (John McCain's financial advisor Phil Gram is head of USB, Swiss bank)
Foreign cars are not better or cheaper.
If they are cheaper it is because they are literally that....cheaper cars. You pay for what you get. I've seen so many American made cars throughout my family where they have put 200,000+ miles on vehicles and they keep going. I've driven so many different types of vehicles since my husband runs a car dealership and I have to say that American trumps foreign any day in my opinion. I will NEVER own a foreign car. Ain't happenin. You will more than likely see my happy butt in a Chevy of some type. I'm currently driving a Chevy Uplander and I friggin LOVE it! I have no problem telling someone their vehicle is a foreign piece of crap. In fact, I recently told my best friend's sister that was what her Honda was. LOL!
you should update yourself on foreign politics,
especially North Korea, Israel and Iran, instead of trying to prove IN VAIN that Obama's and Biden's decisions are wrong!
They know what they are doing!
you should update yourself on foreign policies
He most certainly does NOT know what he is doing.
Link to current law regarding foreign birth...sm
to American citizens. http://www.aca.ch/joomla/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=91&Itemid=80
Stop importing foreign cars won't help a bit
People in this country want them because they get better gas mileage. Like I said before, Toyota has plants here in America and they are doing good.
The problem with the big 3 is they sat back and forgot about the past (1970s gas crunch), not into the future. They got a winner with those big SUVs and decided, "Hey, let's concentrate on all the big SUVs, big V8s, etc. That's what the American people want" and they did want them.
Car dealers are falling by the wayside in large numbers because of the problems, too. Lots of them are closing because they can't hang on any longer.
Looks like foreign ears are picking up on the right wing...sm
chatter about Obama's birth certificate. People spreading ilk about Obama are not doing our country any favors.
People have been buying foreign cars
for years. What does that have to do with losing our jobs due to fewer patient visits to doctors or hospitals? Actually, a lot of so-called American-made cars are made in Mexico, like the PT Cruiser. In fact, a lot of cars are made in Mexico because of cheap labor, including VW.
We're pussycats compared to some foreign leaders. sm
What's she going to do with them, and anyone else she can't just bully and fire?
|