This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

Barack Obama!

Jump to new
Re: Barack 2008!

I watched most of the debate between Obama and Mcain over the weekend and was very impressed with both candidates and the way in which the debate was formatted and carried out.

One thing of interest for me was where Obama was talking about Iraq.
In gist he stated the US. had put all its chips into Iraq and not looked at the bigger picture, then he went onto say, meanwhile China is in Africa, Iran (? i think) and venezuela.

It was a strange comment to tag along with the topic of US involvement in Iraq
To my mind it's nearly an admission that Iraq was all about securing energy needs

Did anyone else pick up on this or have any thoughts about it?
 
Re: Barack 2008!


This is the part the Republicans don't want the US public to know what a disaster Iraq is.

A resurgent Russia will be working hard to use this window to destabilize US borders to take the pressure off its own. Wars ships to Venezuela anyone, you can bet money / weapons to support drugs and guerrillas south of the border all the way to Bolivia etc.

China will be working hard to secure raw material supplies for its expansion, read much bigger and increasingly high tech military.

This is happening because the Republican administration has bogged the US down in a war that will not secure anything as the Iraq government has already made clear it wants Independence and it will get it.

Add financial melt down and Russia / China will never have a better opportunity to disrupt US / Europe / world security.

Will Barack be better? answer is really simple its impossible for him to be as bad........
 
Re: Barack 2008!

kgee said:
... To my mind it's nearly an admission that Iraq was all about securing energy needs

Did anyone else pick up on this or have any thoughts about it?
Click to expand...
kgee - howdy,
missed that in the debate,
but here's a gaffe ... by McCain - on the same subject. (similar to Brendan Nelson)
Unequivocal - they went in for oil. (at least one of the factors)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c0GWoxbMs1k
 
Re: Barack 2008!

Hey 20/20
It surprises me that more isn't been said about this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c0GWoxbMs1k

The actuall debate was a bit of an eye opener for me... I was expecing to hear a lot of rhetoric about "building a better US" and the usual buying vote BS. Which I thought Mcain was a bit guilty of when getting emotional and talking about war veterans.

But besides that it really did give an insight into where the US is right now and what its major challenges are
IraQ
Russia
The Economy
and even though China wasn't a subject they were often referenced

+ there was Iran which is another thread altogether...but interestlingly relates to the resource grab subject ....where both Russia and China have stong ties to Iran

Very interesting times we live in....I kinda wonder where Australia lies in it (ps just passed my australlian citizenship test)....And if we find even more gas reseves in the nor west shelf where will that put us?
 
Re: Barack 2008!

kgee,
I guess the next debate is more likely to discuss domestic porkbarrelling -
but neither can afford to appear irresponsible for sure -
bit like our last election in Nov - except 20 times worse lol.

changing direction,
http://www.easyodds.com/compareodds/specials/Politics/m/147587-234-5.html
wow, McCain's odds going out to the right bigtime ... up to $3.50

odds :
Obama now 9/20 ($1.45) .. steady from ( $1.44) .... steady from ($1.44)... in from ($1.50) just before debate
McCain now 5/2 ($3.50) .... out from ($2.95) .......... out from ($2.75) ....... in from ($2.95) just before debate

Speaking of arbitrage (= guaranteed safe) bets
Put $690 (= 1000/1.45) on Obama will win you $690+ $690 x 9/20 = $1000
Put $286 (= 1000/3.50) on McCain will win you $286 + $286 x 5/2 = $1000
hence for outlay of $976, you win $1000 either way.
Guaranteed 2.4% win
 

Attachments

  • 20080930.jpg
    16.7 KB · Views: 71
Re: Barack 2008!

You don't see that often... free money that is...are you sure your calculations are correct?
Been a gambling man I'll probably put $10 down on Mcain, due mainly to me being a cynic and believing people are more racist than they would like think
 
Re: Barack 2008!

In elections, I would just go with the flow. People are more likely to vote for someone if they are going to win money by doing so.
 
Re: Barack 2008!

kgee said:
... I'll probably put $10 down on Mcain, due mainly to me being a cynic and believing people are more racist than they would like think
Click to expand...

But even entrenched (minority ok) racism might get a hiding here - which can only be a good thing
 
Re: Barack 2008!

Oh I do like this man!

Zbigniew Brzezinski, the national security advisor to former president Jimmy Carter,
... currently a professor of international studies at Johns Hopkins University.
... is in Vancouver to deliver a speech on foreign affairs ... is impressed by Obama:

"I've known every Democratic candidate for president since 1960 and a number of them wanted me to be their foreign policy coordinators," Brzezinski said. "And I can tell you that he is one of two that impressed me the most on first meeting. The other one was John Kennedy."

Brzezinski dismissed criticism that Obama lacks the foreign policy experience necessary for the White House, saying that "ultimately, it's a sense of judgment that is the test of leadership and that's what differentiates people who are leaders from people who simply spend a lot of time doing things."

He applauded Obama's "eminently sensible" willingness to negotiate with states and leaders that disagree with American policy.

"I think we can prevail if we are smart politically, but that means less emphasis on militarizing the problem and more emphasis on political and financial accommodation on a decentralized basis."

The choice of Palin is "hard to understand on rational grounds unless one seems to think that anything goes in order to win elections."

"I do not see how in any fashion it is possible to argue that McCain took the long-term interests of the United States at heart in his choice." "He chose someone who is literally unequipped to be vice-president, not to mention being president. - her selection stems from the reckless leadership style."

"Decision-making entails much greater need for knowledge, sensitivity and an instinctive awareness of what is important and what isn't."

"And there is not the slightest bit of evidence that Mrs. Palin has ever spent any time thinking about either foreign policy issues or national economic issues." ... he compared seeking Palin's advice on international affairs to canvassing people at a gas station for their thoughts on foreign policy.

http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=4c7c5709-18ad-4eeb-95b4-986545b6e956
 
Re: Barack 2008!

kgee said:
You don't see that often... free money that is...are you sure your calculations are correct?
Been a gambling man I'll probably put $10 down on Mcain, due mainly to me being a cynic and believing people are more racist than they would like think
Click to expand...

Fair bet and realistic reasoning unfortunately I think you are right
 
Re: Barack 2008!

McCain vs. Obama: The Great Nonverbal Debate

You can print this out and use it when you watch the Palin-Biden confrontation on Friday!

People say much more than words when they appear before an audience.
The most effective leaders are those who convey charisma and confidence. They are inspirational.
They connect with others and stimulate interest. They show emotion. They are labeled "visionaries."

Here's how our Presidential candidates fared in their first debate:

* Senator Obama talked straight into the camera during his opening statement. Via eye contact, he was clearly attempting to communicate his message not just to the audience in a Mississippi hall, but also to the millions watching on TV. Obama also looked straight into the camera near the end of the debate, when he talked about his father, how he got his name, and how Americans can make it if they try.

McCain addressed the moderator and the audience in the hall.
The next President, like any leader, must connect with his followers.
Obama did a better job of connecting with the TV audience.

* The tones of voice McCain and Obama used were strikingly different.
Several times during the debate, McCain's tone of voice was softer, lower, and calmer than Obama's. Leaders often use such a tone to lessen the worries and fears of those listening. Given the anxiety, tension, and uncertainties many Americans face, I believe McCain did this to ease voters' fears and to show them that he is not the hot-tempered, impulsive person some have made him out to be.

By contrast, Obama had a more urgent, harsh, sharp, and serious tone.
Leaders take this tone when an important point must be made.
I believe Obama used it to emphasize that this is a critical time for America, and he was trying to show the steadfast confidence that leaders must have during such uneasy times.

Debaters are always "on:" Even when they don't utter a word, they are communicating.
* When Obama spoke, McCain mostly looked straight ahead patiently, posture straight, sometimes smiling—trying not to look flustered or angry. However, during several instances when McCain was speaking, Obama stared him down, sometimes looking condescendingly at his opponent. Obama looked perturbed.
(Why not? McCain had blatantly lied and misrepresented him!)

* Overall, Obama seemed more polished and practiced than McCain.
This, along with the fact that he was better able to connect with the TV audience, leads me to believe that he slightly edged McCain as "winner" from a nonverbal perspective.
But this by no means implies that Obama is guaranteed to be our next President.

History and research both show that it's more likely that the candidate with the biggest nonverbal mistake will lose the 2008 election. Just ask Nixon, Dukakis, the elder Bush, or Gore.

http://www.businessweek.com/managing/content/sep2008/ca20080929_440972_page_2.htm
 
Re: Barack 2008!

http://www.bio-chart.com

Yes, yes indeed. This is a warning to Barack Obama (born 4th August 1961).
Your intellectual well being is "critical", only do anything today if you have the chance to repeat it later. Your mind will be foggy.
After all Doris has posted, and she misses this very important factor. "Tell him Doris, don't go out on Thursday!"
 
Re: Barack 2008!

What a load of duplicitous piffle. Again, it must be pointed out that the greatest acceleration of the trend as outlined in the video happened on Bush the Dumber's watch.

I remember Art Laffer (member of Ronnie's policy advisory board and Keynesian) shouting down Peter Schiff not even a year ago on this very topic. This was as much Republican policy as Democrat, otherwise it would have been repealed or more severely regulated in the last few years.

The GOP could have done something, but they facilitated it to the max.
 
Re: Barack 2008!

trouble is with astrological forecasts and the like - they can't tell you whether it's Thursday Hawaii or Thursday NZ time. Surely the effect (or the peak of the effect) of "Uranus lining up with Mars or Venus or Pluto" (whatever) occurs at a point in time, not a calender day that blurrs into two days as it wipes the globe , first 1am in NZ to last 11pm in Hawaii?
 
Re: Barack 2008!

Doris said:
The most effective leaders are those who convey charisma and confidence. They are inspirational.
They connect with others and stimulate interest. They show emotion. They are labeled "visionaries."
Click to expand...

Or they are labelled "conmen". Nevertheless after watching the debate I think you are on the right track. America is now in a deep crisis and although neither candidates could come up with any answer (who could?), I am fairly sure that in times of crisis Americans will pick the man with the rhetoric.

There is a parallel here with Reagan. He succeeded a weak president (Carter) in a time of crisis, and although, like Obama, he had no substance, he could talk the talk. He could say the right things at the right time. During his presidency the world pulled back from the brink of nuclear disaster and the "evil empire" imploded.

In this financial world crisis Americans desperately need a president who can say the right things, and with good advisers can probably do the right things and restore confidence. He does however have a problem Reagan didn't have. Most of Reagan's political enemies liked him personally. Republicans hate Obama.
 
Re: Barack 2008!


2020 - Your in-depth insight is infallible and has indicated inept indeterminism of astral ascendancy initially could incongruously inject innumerable inconceivable incoherent incogitable and inconsistent, incompatible indelibles in indiscriminately including inarticulate and inept indiscreet indiscretions which may not be innocently innocuous and inculpable hence inconsequential for this incomparable indomitable insurgent icon, incurring inconvenient indecorous ineludible inefficacy that is ineradicable.

Noi... the world needs your adjudicative edification!

When will Barack's mind be foggy?

When should the ineludible inducement be inferred - or deferred, to inflict infractions on the inexpugnable infidels?
 
Re: Barack 2008!


Wayne, you have truly lost your former objectivity on this. The Republicans could certainly have done more, for sure, and I've said that, but the Democrats and their media friends were more than willing to use the race card to keep this scam going. When the race card gets pulled out, the Republicans run for cover. Cowardly, but it is an American fact of life that once race gets injected into an issue, the issue can no longer be discussed.

You say it accelerated under the Republicans, well the acceleration started under Clinton, and as with any government program, it multiplies later, until it is no longer sustainable.\

Barack and his Democrat cohorts are benefiting from something they began. All I can do is point it out, and let people make up their own minds. Some people's minds are closed right now, unfortunately.

Perhaps you have to be an American to realize what I am talking about.
 
Re: Barack 2008!

Another good read for the open minded:

Wrecks, Lies and Barney Frank

Democrats have a lot to hide about their role in creating the current financial crisis and are doing their best to appear blameless with charges directed elsewhere.


Within hours of the fall of their affirmative-action-lending-policies house-of-cards, they rose united to wag accusing fingers at Wall-Street greed and the failures of an unregulated free market. And even as new transcripts and videos surface daily revealing an irrefutable connect to a decades-old liberal push to increase availability of home mortgages to high-risk minority borrowers, the counterfeit clarion call against "predatory" capitalism continues. This fraudulent tactic is meant to not only exonerate accountable Democrats -- and one Massachusetts congressman particularly -- but to provide them cover to insist the same quixotic liberalism fueling the problem be included in any government-sanctioned solution.

Continued: http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/10/wrecks_lies_and_barney_frank.html

Go ahead Obama cheerleaders, be for him if you wish, but the rest of you, please educate yourselves about the reason we got into this mess we are in today
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

JD Vance
2
Replies
24
Views
1K
basilio
How Hitler Dismantled a Democracy in 53 Days
Replies
11
Views
544
basilio
Can you make money investing in watches?
2
Replies
29
Views
1K
moXJO
M
The Romance Scam thread
2
Replies
24
Views
1K
Dona Ferentes
Vale Clive Robertson
Replies
2
Views
443
SirRumpole
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...