Let The Games Begin

Should be very very interesting.

(from USNEWS.com)

WASHINGTON NEWS
Bush Balanced Budget Challenges Congress
With Democrats poised to take control of Congress tomorrow, President Bush is reaching out, offering to work with the new Hill majorities in governing the country. In a Wall Street Journal op-ed this morning, Bush says he "will have the privilege of working with" the Democrats "for the next two years -- one quarter of my presidency, plenty of time to accomplish important things for the American people. ... To do that, however, we can't play politics as usual." But, as the Wall Street Journal and AP note in their analysis of the op-ed, the President sounded a tone of bipartisanship, but makes it clear he won't back down from his stated priorities on terrorism and Iraq. In addition, the President appears to be readying a gambit on the domestic front: This morning, he announces that he will propose a plan to "balance the federal budget by 2012 while funding our priorities and making the tax cuts permanent." While 2012 comes four years after the end of Bush's presidency, the balanced-budget issue could potentially give Republicans an issue to rally around while splitting the Democratic caucus.

At any rate, chances for bipartisanship do not appear strong in Washington, DC. Gannett News Service reports incoming House speaker Rep. Nancy Pelosi "has vowed to push six key measures during the first 100 legislative hours of the 110th Congress, which begins Thursday." But the Washington Post reports Democratic leaders "are facing mounting pressure from liberal activists to chart a more confrontational course on Iraq and the issues of human rights and civil liberties, with some even calling for the impeachment of President Bush."

Also criticizing the Democrats' "limited" agenda is Mario Cuomo, who writes in USA Today's website, "After years of chaos in Iraq, which has led to neglect of many critical domestic issues, voters are looking for dramatic ideas and courageous leadership to deal with the nation's most difficult challenges. ... So far, the Democratic agenda...offers a laudable but light list of issues, such as increasing the minimum wage, greater stem cell availability, job training benefits and adopting ethics reforms. I doubt that kind of agenda would be enough to keep control of the Congress, let alone to win the next presidency."

House and Senate Republicans, meanwhile, appear to have settled on their opening approach to the new majority that will be critical -- though not harshly so -- of Democratic moves during the first month. "We're still feeling our way, obviously, but for the first couple of weeks we won't be bombastic," a senior House GOP leadership aide tells the US News Political Bulletin. "They won so we'll let them have their day," added the aide. Another aide said that the Republicans also don't want to look like they are being mean to Nancy Pelosi, who is to be elected the first-ever woman House speaker.

Finger pointing, mudslinging, and a whole lotta he said she said (and that's within the parties [img]wink.gif[/img] )

Welcome Congress, we all hope you can do what we need you to do, but if not...
At least continuie to entertain us!

I got a large-charge out of Cindy Sheehan showing up at the Democrats press conference demanding that they bring the troops home NOW!!

Be careful who you lie down with.
She may just follow you home!! [img]tongue.gif[/img]

Quote:

---

Originally posted by craig in northside:
I got a large-charge out of Cindy Sheehan showing up at the Democrats press conference demanding that they bring the troops home NOW!!

Be careful who you lie down with.
She may just follow you home!! [img]tongue.gif[/img]

---

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">[img]biggrin.gif[/img]

The Democrat who bothers me the most, and I think he could be very dangerous for this country is Obama. He tries to come across as this down to earth, guy next store, all American. He's a serpent ready to strike as soon as he gets the chance. Mark my words...

He's got the personality and charm thing down.
Should be interesting, and remember...
He allready admitted to inhaling.

Barack Obama, asked about drug history, admits he inhaled

By Katharine Q. Seelye The New York Times

Published: October 24, 2006

PHOENIX, Arizona Senator Barack Obama, the Illinois Democrat who said Sunday that he was considering running for president in 2008, has created a little sunlight between himself and both Bill and Hillary Rodham Clinton.
For one thing, he said, "When I was a kid, I inhaled."
"That was the point," Obama told an audience of magazine editors.
The direct admission was in contrast to Bill Clinton's denial in his 1992 campaign for president that he had smoked marijuana.
"I didn't inhale," Clinton said, cementing the idea that he liked to have things both ways.
Obama had written in his first book, "Dreams From My Father" (1995), before entering politics, that he had used marijuana and cocaine ("maybe a little blow"). He said he had not tried heroin because he did not like the pusher who was trying to sell it to him.
In an interview here at a meeting of the American Society of Magazine Editors, Obama said he was not making light of the subject.
"It was reflective of the struggles and confusion of a teenage boy," he said. "Teenage boys are frequently confused."
The question of drug use has become a standard one for politicians, sometimes as a test of their ability to be straightforward. If the politician has used drugs, conventional wisdom says it is best to try to get the question out of the way early.
Obama was also asked for his views about Hillary Rodham Clinton, the New York Democrat who has been a dominant figure in discussions about potential presidential candidates. Obama praised her but made clear that he did not agree with her vote for the Iraq war.
"I think very highly of Hillary," he said. "The more I get to know her, the more I admire her. I think she's one of the most disciplined people I know. She's one of the toughest. She's got an extraordinary intelligence, and she's somebody who's in this stuff for the right reasons. She's passionate about moving the country forward on issues like health care and children."
But, he said, they clearly had "different assessments" about the wisdom of going to war in Iraq. Perhaps mindful that he could end up as her vice presidential running mate, he added that he had it easier because he was not in the Senate at the time, while she had to vote.
Asked how he might campaign against her in a primary, he said he had not thought about that.
But he did sound like a candidate in criticizing the Bush administration in somewhat stronger terms than he had previously.
"This administration has done great damage to this country," he said, citing the Iraq war as the chief reason.


THis could be a very very tough campaign for all involved as far as the road to the white house in 2008 goes.

His possible drug abuses as a teenager don't worry me nearly so much as this. It is difficult to find references to his muslim background now that he is the darling of the Dummycrats, but it's there if you look for it. I knew about it when he first came into prominence, then ofcourse the info was brushed under the rug in most discussions about him:

Barack Hussein Obama: Once a Muslim, Always A Muslim
Debbieschlussel.com ^ | Dec 19, 2006 | Debbie Schlussel


Posted on 12/20/2006 1:48:52 PM PST by Stone Mountain


Barack Hussein Obama: Once a Muslim, Always A Muslim


By Debbie Schlussel


Many months ago, readers began asking me whether Barack Obama is Muslim. Since he identifies as a Christian, I said, "no," and responded that he was not raised by his Kenyan father.

But, then, I decided to look further into Obama's background. His full name--as by now you have probably heard--is Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. Hussein is a Muslim name, which comes from the name of Ali's son--Hussein Ibn Ali. And Obama is named after his late Kenyan father, the late Barack Hussein Obama, Sr., apparently a Muslim.

And while Obama may not identify as a Muslim, that's not how the Arab and Muslim Streets see it. In Arab culture and under Islamic law, if your father is a Muslim, so are you. And once a Muslim, always a Muslim. You cannot go back. In Islamic eyes, Obama is certainly a Muslim. He may think he's a Christian, but they do not.

Then, there are the other items in his background. As best-selling author Scott Turow wrote in Salon, Obama went to a Muslim school for two years in Indonesia. His mother, Anna, married an Indonesian man (likely another Muslim, as Indonesia is Muslim-dominated and has the largest Islamic population in the world).

And Obama has a "born-again" affinity for the nation of his Muslim father, Kenya, and his Kenyan sister. (Although Kenya is largely Christian, it has a fast-growing Muslim population that has engaged in a good deal of religious violence and riots against Christians. And Kenyan courts will apply Sharia law, when the participants are Muslim.) Wrote Turow:

Obama's father died in a traffic accident in Nairobi in 1982, but while Obama was working in Chicago, he met his Kenyan sister, Auma, a linguist educated in Germany who was visiting the United States. When she returned to Kenya in 1986 to teach for a year at the University of Nairobi, Obama finally made the trip to his father's homeland he had long promised himself. There, he managed to fully embrace a heritage and a family he'd never fully known and come to terms with his father, whom he'd long regarded as an august foreign prince, but now realized was a human being burdened by his own illusions and vulnerabilities.

So, even if he identifies strongly as a Christian, and even if he despised the behavior of his father (as Obama said on Oprah); is a man who Muslims think is a Muslim, who feels some sort of psychological need to prove himself to his absent Muslim father, and who is now moving in the direction of his father's heritage, a man we want as President when we are fighting the war of our lives against Islam? Where will his loyalties be?

And anyone who votes for a muslim in this country is a damned fool, you muslim ass kissers like Raven who want to paint anyone who sees them for who and what they are as "racist" are going to be the ruin of this country and Western Civilization. They are on a campaign of conquest and intolerance, period. There should be ZERO tolerance for muslims or islamics in our government in any shape or form.

I'm with GL.

Locked and loaded there in FL?

Friggin brilliant. Congressman Keith Ellison was just sworn in on a Koran - do you find any significance in that book was owned by Thomas Jefferson? Or any significance in Article VI of the Constitution?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by LanDroid:
Friggin brilliant. Congressman Keith Ellison was just sworn in on a Koran - do you find any significance in that book was owned by Thomas Jefferson? Or any significance in Article VI of the Constitution?

---

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">The idea of swearing on the Bible arises from Christian belief that requires honesty and eschews all dishonesty as coming from the "Father of Lies." The permissions to be dishonest in the Qur'an are not mitigated by Islamic belief, tradition, and theology, but are in fact reinforced -- by Muhammad's statements that "war is deceit" and that lying is permissible in wartime, and more.

Uncle Sam poster

<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ January 06, 2007 02:26 PM: Message edited by: LanDroid ]</font>

What was Muhammad's attitude towards lying?

Muhammad treated truth and deception according his own style of situational ethics. Muhammad condoned, and actually permitted, lying to further his goals:

For example,


Narrated Jabir bin 'Abdullah:
Allah's Apostle said, "Who is willing to kill Ka'b bin Al-Ashraf who has hurt Allah and His Apostle?" Thereupon Muhammad bin Maslama got up saying, "O Allah's Apostle! Would you like that I kill him?" The Prophet said, "Yes," Muhammad bin Maslama said, "Then allow me to say a (false) thing (i.e. to deceive Kab). "The Prophet said, "You may say it." ... (Sahih al-Bukhari 5.369, cf. the article on Ka'b bin Al-Ashraf for further details)

Muhammad clearly condoned dishonesty, as well as murder, when it suited his purposes.

Lying today


Imam Abu Hammid Ghazali says: "Speaking is a means to achieve objectives. If a praiseworthy aim is attainable through both telling the truth and lying, it is unlawful to accomplish through lying because there is no need for it. When it is possible to achieve such an aim by lying but not by telling the truth, it is permissible to lie if attaining the goal is permissible." (Ahmad ibn Naqib al-Misri, The Reliance of the Traveller, translated by Nuh Ha Mim Keller, amana publications, 1997, section r8.2, page 745)

1. I don't think you know Jack Squat about Islam, Mr. Google Cut 'N Paste. Identical claims about Judaism are made by anti-Semitics.
2. Christian Senators, Congressmen, and Presidents have set an astonishingly low bar for Truth-telling.
3. It is more logical to equate all Christians with Rev. Fred Phelps than to equate all Muslims with Jihadists. Both are ridiculous, but one is even more of a stretch than the other...

<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ January 06, 2007 08:46 PM: Message edited by: LanDroid ]</font>

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Beachcomber:
And anyone who votes for a muslim in this country is a damned fool, you muslim ass kissers like Raven who want to paint anyone who sees them for who and what they are as "racist" are going to be the ruin of this country and Western Civilization. They are on a campaign of conquest and intolerance, period. There should be ZERO tolerance for muslims or islamics in our government in any shape or form.

---

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Mcarthy would be proud.
So, There is a sizable Muslim community in the states, But they are not allowed political representation.?? Is there not yet a term Arab-American.?? Are you not the land of the Free?
Surely the majority of muslims can be seen as hardworking honest citizens.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by LanDroid:
1. I don't think you know Jack Squat about Islam, Mr. Google Cut 'N Paste. Identical claims about Judaism are made by anti-Semitics.
2. Christian Senators, Congressmen, and Presidents have set an astonishingly low bar for Truth-telling.
3. It is more logical to equate all Christians with Rev. Fred Phelps than to equate all Muslims with Jihadists. Both are ridiculous, but one is even more of a stretch than the other...

<font color="#a62a2a"><font size="1">[ January 06, 2007 08:46 PM: Message edited by: LanDroid ]</font></font>

---

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Unless you are telepathic you don?t know shit about my knowledge or understanding of religion.

Your examples of Christianity are based on humans and being human makes them poor representatives of faith. I provided quotes regarding the tenets of the Islamic faith and you respond with the acts of men. Faith and those who claim to represent that faith are not the same. You speak of the acts of men and I speak of the meaning of scripture.

The Christian faith is based on the New Testament. It doesn?t matter if you believe Jesus was a great profit and teacher, you believe he was actually the son of God or you believe he was a figment of someone?s imagination it does not change the message of the New Testament, just like all the peace loving Muslims in the world will not change the message of the Koran.

Christianity is based on love and forgiveness regardless how many men or woman pervert it for their own agenda. Islam is based on conquest through violence and treachery regardless how many men or woman want to live within the human community.

<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ January 07, 2007 04:26 PM: Message edited by: travelinman ]</font>

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Sean Pa:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Beachcomber:
And anyone who votes for a muslim in this country is a damned fool, you muslim ass kissers like Raven who want to paint anyone who sees them for who and what they are as "racist" are going to be the ruin of this country and Western Civilization. They are on a campaign of conquest and intolerance, period. There should be ZERO tolerance for muslims or islamics in our government in any shape or form.

---

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Mcarthy would be proud.
So, There is a sizable Muslim community in the states, But they are not allowed political representation.?? Is there not yet a term Arab-American.?? Are you not the land of the Free?
Surely the majority of muslims can be seen as hardworking honest citizens.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Actually just being an "American" is to be relegated to minority status anymore, and identifying as such opens one up to labels of "racist" "skinhead" and "stupid" by the leftists who maintain control of the Democratic Party and mainstream media. During WWI Theodore Roosevelt made the point that we could not afford to identify as anything but "Americans" during a time of war. He found considerable objection to the term "German Americans" and what their "feelings" were in relation to the US involvement in the war. We are at war now, as is Western Civilization, Christianity and Judaism in general against a muslim enemy that seeks total victory. Those of you who make apologies, those who say "they are not all like that" are blinding yourselves to those who ARE. There is a considerable muslim/Middle Eastern population in the United States. It's what made 9/11 so easy for them to carry out. But then your own Subway bombing, the Madrid train bombing, those were just little boo-boos from the "Religion of Peace" I know. How stupid of me...

There can be no fifty-fifty Americanism in this country. There is room here for only 100 percent. Americanism, only for those who are Americans and nothing else.
Theodore Roosevelt

http://www.theodore-roosevelt.com/trmiddle126.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Sean Pa:
Our worst act of terrorism was carried out by Irish Catholics. Substancially funded by (As Roosevelt would put it) Americans.

---

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Not true, Roosevelt's Americans would never be funding the IRA. But Irish americans would. That was his point.

Quote:

---

You just cannot blanket blame a whole section of the populous or how will those Arab-Americans ever Lose the "Arab" from that title.

---

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">It is the responsibility of the emigrant to become an American. Just as my grandparents were Italian-Americans when they arrived on Ellis Island because they were borne in Italy, but once they became naturalized they were no longer hyphenated and became Americans. My grandparents were proud to be Americans, they insisted on never speaking anything but English outside of their house. At one time emigrants came to America to be Americans and we were truly the Great Melting Pot, no longer.

<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ January 08, 2007 06:54 PM: Message edited by: travelinman ]</font>

<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ January 08, 2007 06:54 PM: Message edited by: travelinman ]</font>

[

<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ January 08, 2007 06:53 PM: Message edited by: travelinman ]</font>

"You speak of the acts of men and I speak of the meaning of scripture."

Heh, that's a good one - by their fruits ye shall know them. Christianity is based on the Bible, both the Old and New Testaments - God's Word is eternal. There is a great deal of warmongering and other Evil in the Bible - I'm sure I don't need to point out any examples...

GL, i see your point, but dont understand your logic.
Was not the oklahoma bombing carried out by an American and Waco and the Una Bomber (sp).
Indeed as you mention the UK, Our worst act of terrorism was carried out by Irish Catholics. Substancially funded by (As Roosevelt would put it) Americans.
You just cannot blanket blame a whole section of the populous or how will those Arab-Americans ever Lose the "Arab" from that title.

The New Testament fulfilled the Old Testament. The teachings in the Old Testament are archaic and based on survival of the Jews, the New Testament changes duty and conquest to love and understanding. The Koran has no New Testament and is based on the same archaic message as the Old Testament. There is no Islamic savior that enables you to enter heaven through forgiveness. Islam?s path to paradise is through ?good? works which include killing Infidels and lying to achieve the objective (which is world domination)

Events such as the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition and the Salem witch trials are not based in the teachings of the New Testament; they were based on man?s greed and desire for power.

You really need to learn a bit about what you speak.

LLoks like Rev. Al is contemplating a run at the Oval Office again...
Updated: 3:13 a.m. AKT Jan 9, 2007
NEW YORK - Civil rights activist Al Sharpton said Monday he is seriously considering a run for president. "I don't hear any reason not to," Sharpton, 52, said in an interview during an urban affairs conference sponsored by another civil rights leader, the Rev. Jesse Jackson.

"If we're talking about the urban agenda, can you tell me anybody else in the field who's representing that right now?" Sharpton asked. "We clearly have a reason to run, and whether we do it or not we'll see over the next couple of months."

Sharpton mounted a long-shot bid for the White House in 2004, in which his wit and fiery denunciation of President Bush often enlivened Democratic primary debates. He dropped out of the race after losing several state primaries and endorsed the eventual nominee, Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry.

Despite widespread interest in the likely candidacy of another influential black Democrat, Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, Sharpton said he's heard little substantive discussion of issues that might influence his decision about running.

"Right now we're hearing a lot of media razzle dazzle," Sharpton said. "I'm not hearing a lot of meat, or a lot of content. I think when the meat hits the fire, we'll find out if it's just fat or if there's some real meat there."

Sharpton said the candidate who impressed him most so far was former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards, who has made poverty the central issue of his campaign.

Sharpton ran for the Senate from New York in 1988, 1992 and 1994, and ran for New York City mayor in 1997.

The Field is growing larger by the day.
Pretty soon it'll be like that California Govenor's ballot from Arnie's win at the primaries!

Well I don't base my opinions on islam as a Christian, because I'm not "Christian". I simply see what is happening in the world and base my opinion accordingly, as I see it.

And I never condoned the support or money given to the IRA by some Americans, never will. My opinions have always tended to be pro-British and in general I support peace and order in the world. Today's muslim population is all about disorder and conquest. Even in subtle ways, they want to force everyone else to conform to their beliefs. Even the ones who do not engage in violence, they are the first ones to scream and protest over every perceived slight against their beliefs. Look at the outcry and violence they raised over the Danish cartoons last year. Let the Pope make one reference to their religion they take offense to and they go on the rampage. No one is going to convince me anytime soon that any muslim is anything but a barbarian. Period. My opinion, you are as free to form yours as I am mine...

"No one is going to convince me anytime soon that any muslim is anything but a barbarian."

[img]graemlins/rainbow.gif[/img]

GL,

While I generally agree with your views, albeit no as strongly, I suspect that there are muslim's in this world that are truly non violent. While going through the police academy, we had several classes on different cultures and invited a muslim woman in to speak with us about her religion.
She was very articulate and acknowledged that there are those who have perverted her religion. She took the time to answer any question about her religion that we cared to ask and cleared up some misconceptions that I personally had.
While I do not believe that EVERY muslim is a threat, I do think that taken as a whole, they are not the threat you perceive them as. Of course, I will always watch them with both eyes open. But I do that with everyone now.

Jump,

I think we have a different view of the threat. You see it as tactical; as well you should given your job. I see it as strategic. Is every Muslim walking around with a bomb under their coat? Of course not, but as a whole their lack of a negative response to the violence demonstrates their acceptance of it.

I for one am very cautious around them; I would have no problem getting off a plane if I felt uncomfortable. Is this fear justified? I believe it?s as justified as the fear black men had of all white men in Mississippi in 1964.

Yeah, what Trav said.

Even though I am unsettled on this whole issue, I probably line up more with Jumper's sentiments than anyone else. I have always been against racial profiling; but I have always been in favor of "criminal" profiling; and there is a difference. I have also advocated better use of local law enforcement in the "war" on terror. Let's use Silverton as an example (simply because I used to live there and know several cops there). The police in Silverton have a pretty good handle on the comings and goings in their community. They know the local businesses, they also know the regular troublemakers.

Suppose a group of wannabe terrorists set-up shop in Silverton. You're telling me that, in time, the cops wouldn't notice things? That word wouldn't eventually get around? Now, granted, one of the problems that has always existed in law enforcement is the lack of cooperation that has existed among the various entities and I would submit that is going to have to change. But if it did (and in some areas maybe it already has) that could go a long way.

The bottom line is, some bureaucrat in Washington isn't going to know the inner workings of the city of Silverton. But if the various parties can share information, can work together, that's one powerful way you can fight terrorist networks here.

And I realize that the same arguments were made in the failed "war" on drugs. But here's the key difference- the drug trade has never slowed in this country because drugs are found at all levels. The wealthy do drugs; politicians do drugs; powerful people do drugs. The middle class uses drugs. If you jailed everyone that did drugs, we'd have a serious labor shortage.

That's not true with terrorism. Most of us don't commit acts of terror. There are millions and millions of drug users, but nowhere near as many terrorists.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Beachcomber:
Yeah, what Trav said.

---

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Wait a minute.

GL and Trav just agreed on something [img]eek.gif[/img]
I knew when Reason and I agreed on something once that it would just lead to chaos!

Looks like there is going to be a pretty large field on both sides of the next election and that the choices will be varied.
Going to be a very very long campaign for most.