wrong the estimate is the same amount as iraq.

not since they have been in office.

Lula posts:

Yesterday in New Hampshire Hillary said exactly this in response to a question from a woman in her audience. She would order the troop withdrawal 60 days from taking office....how long it would actually take is another story.

sorry I didn't know that she had flopped on this again.

Reply By: danielostPosted: Tuesday, January 08, 2008 The most optimistic estimate of the oil in ANWARE is 3% of our consumption wrong the estimate is the same amount as iraq.

Document that!

Reply By: danielostPosted: Tuesday, January 08, 2008 Don't you think our two former oil men have help us become FOREIGN OIL DEPENDENT! It is their legacy to BIG OIL!!!!! not since they have been in office.

WHY? That was the first big push of Bush and Cheney.

The truth is no one knows how much oil and gas may be in ANWAR. I have no problem with drilling so long as we protect the environment. The fact remains that oil from ANWAR would take ten years to develop and like all oil it has a finite supply. Drilling in ANWAR and Drilling for Gas off the coast of Florida should be part of our energy plan. Bush ONLY looked to ANWAR as a solution and that will not solve the demand for energy. If he had taken other steps like increasing the Café standards and pushed solar, geo thermal, clean coal, ethanol and wind production starting in 2001, we would be seeing the results today!

the estimates of north shore was 10 years. that was 30 years ago.

ANWAR was set aside for drilling in the 70's

Think Aloud,

This is a discussion about presidential candidate's character and their stance on important issues of the day. Get used to it, there is nothing obsessive about bringing up the obvious.

Does one's family and religious heritage, upbringing, character and education, etc. affect one's stance on policies? I think so.

Is Barack Hussein Obama's background and life story something the electorate should learn more about? I think so.

Barack Hussein Obama was enrolled in a Wahabi school in Jakarta. As you well know Wahabism is the radical teaching that is followed by Muslim terrorists who are presently waging Jihad against Europe and the Western world.


ThinkAloud posts:

He was once a Muslim but he seems to take great care to conceal that...why? He has joined the United Church of Christ. Is this for real or his being politically expedient at a time when he first decided to run for office? Inquiring, not obsessive, minds want to know.

Lula posts:

ThinkAloud posts:

There is nothing misleading about filtering internet pornography from school computers. Pornography is evil. Either one is willing to protect children from it or they aren't. Barack Hussein Obama has shown his true colors in this one. His own voting record shows he isn't willing to protect children from internet pornography in school computers.

What I have said here is not misleading or giving false accusations. So kindly stop with this direction. Again, he owns his voting record and it is what it is. His voting record is a good way we can measure the candidate.

PS: I note that you did not try to defend his pro-abortionism. that's wise on your part...it's indefensible and men who push and sanction killing our own progeny are really cowards.

and women who do it are also cowards.

Highly doubtful as the strings to get these things going would take years.  We would be in a much better situation if the liberal environmentalists would stop us from building more refineries and nuclear plants.

Highly doubtful as the strings to get these things going would take years. We would be in a much better situation if the liberal environmentalists would stop us from building more refineries and nuclear plants.

First Refineries do not lower the price of crude oil which is at record prices. Nuclear is not a good choice and had we started building solar, geo thermal, wind and ethanol in 2001 we would absolutely see the results. If Bush had not fought increasing the Cafe Standards for 7 years we would have cars today that are getting higher mileage. We would not have solved all our energy problems but we could be 7 years further down the road to real solutions if Bush had not refused to act. He is a failure and nothing he does from now until January 20, 2009 will change that fact. Look at where his new Israeli /Palestinian settlement is going? NO WARE!!!!! Look at the lack of progress in reaching a political settlement in Iraq—NO WARE. Look at the war in Afghanistan—It is getting worse by the day!!!!! Look at the economy!!!!!

you are a complete whack job aren't you.


there is only one person who is supposed to solve(seemingly) the Israeli/Palestinian problem and that is the anti-Christ.



by the way how did Clinton do in his attempt to solve that problem.

You right books, Gene? :NOTSURE:   

you see this is why we are in your face so much about bush.




not according to the boots on the ground. but then again you don't believe the boots on the ground do you.





economies go up and they go down.


how come your defend Clinton's economy when it ended in recession.

why?

I was wondering if anyone else caught those mistakes.

Right gene, they are going NO WARE!




The economy is doing reasonably well, of course we always have liberals like yourself to create gloom and doom and point out certain flaws to create a much worse picture than it really is.  But as you said, the economy is going NO WARE!

And in November 1991, George H.W. Bush's poll numbers were through the roof. So much so that SNL parodied the Democratic primaries as "the race to avoid being beat by Bush".

Hillary was unbeatable three months ago, so was Giuliani. One thing that baffles me about poll watchers is they don't seem to be very good students of history.

Obama will make the GOP lose, but not because more people will vote for Obama - more people will vote for a third party. Because without Hillary on the other side, using your vote on a third party isn't as devestating as if Clinton ended up president.

Yes it is and I showed you why it is. You conveniently just ignored it. That is typical. You never answer the argument, you just repeat what you say.

I told you how these two votes objected to methods which would not have achieved the objective of "protecting Children" and would have caused other problems. but you still accused him of allowing "evil" to harm children.

the fact that he disagreed with you on the way to protect children doesnt make him as you accused him of being.

and if his middle name is a criterion for indicating his background and heritage, how come you are not using the same with other candidates?

If you like to discuss the effect of the environment in which he grew up, just say so openly not just use his middle name. Stop hiding under the radar.

If you have objections and questions , nothing wrong at all with talking about them in clear terms. not under the radar of a middle name which doesnt mean a thing for anyone.

why dont you say how old was he when he left those schools? and after all those years of being christian, now you question his faith? and on what basis you doing that?

just assumptions on your part or do you have something concrete to tell you he is not faithful to his religion?

that is how you address the issue not just use his middle name.

Or was your objective is to create doubt in other people's minds and just leave it at that? that is exactly what is dishonest and deceitful about your "under the radar" strategy.

of course it is. but we must present the facts in an honest way not put it in a way to achieve political goals. He is not against protecting children, and i told you the logic behind those two votes. You didnt even try to adress that. you just continued to reapeat the same wrong accusations. This dishonest representation of political positions is what is dividing this country. we can disagree on the best ways to do things but we will never do anything as long as half of us follow dishonest way of discussing the issues.

lula posts:

Think Aloud posts:



Lula posts:

Thaink Aloud Posts:



Think ALoud,

Get real and honest. Internet pornography is evil. With just one click children can bring up a pornographic site, or image, etc. on the screen. Filters are designed to prevent that and thereby protect children from the evil of internet pornography.

All children in this world have a right to be protected from evil....and it is the duty and responsibility for the adults in this world, especially Congressmen, including liberals pushing socialism, like Barack Hussein Obama, to protect our children at every opportunity. Barack Hussein Obama failed miserably on this one opportunity to vote for internet filters and protect children from the evil of internet pornography.



Barack Hussein Obama's Wahabisim background and Muslim heritage is what it is...be honest and deal with it.



At most, I've only raised awareness about the man. I trust that people upon knowing the facts about the person and issues can decide for themselves.






Concerning his Christianity......how many years has he been a Christian? I quite frankly dont't know. It certainly wasn't while he was growing up. Yes, I question his profession of faith...(just as I do Rudy Guiliani, a Catholic hypocrite). The basis on which I question Obama's profession of faith is that he obviously prefers man's laws over God's Laws particularly in obedience to the Commandment, "Thou shalt not kill" which certainly includes innocent, defenseless babies in the womb. In 2002, he voted against a bill to protect babies that survived failed abortions. These positions contrast 100% with keeping the Christian faith.





Well, the facts are...he is..and that's all there is to it.



There is nothing I've said here that is "under the radar". Calling me dishonest and now deceitful or saying that I've falsely accused or been misleading is getting tiring. It also doesn't change the facts one iota about Barack Hussein Obama character and voting record.

I am trying to get you to do that. It is nothing to deal with as far as I am concerned. The man IS christian with a Muslim father who left him looong time ago. It is you who should deal with it honestly and openly not with winks and false assumptions. If you dont like him as a devoted christian, just say that too. for me, it doesnt matter whether he is Muslim or Christian, that is his business. what matters is his politics now and in the past.



Lula, you dont have to convince me of that. I know it is evil and danger to children. But again, you ignore what i said. It is HOW we protect them from that not whether. We disagree on the method, that doesnt make me or Obama aginst protecting children.



and they contradict Islam's too. so what is your point?

You really dont look at things with a wider perspective at all.

If his "wahabi" heritage had ANY effect on him at ALL, he would be before you banning all internet access (not just filtering it) and porn stores in the USA. how is that for his heritage?

but you accuse him of not protecting kids from porn, is that possible for someone with "whabi" heritage?

according to you, there is nothing wrong with "under the radar" strategy. It is all ok with you. your pants are catching fire Lula .... Jesus will be very upset with you  

He is NOT against "protecting children" but you still accuse him of that.