Ok, so let me get this straight. When Barbour a governor travels out of the country on economic trade missions, that is a good thing and he is good for doing it. But when the President of the United States wants to travel to lobby for the Olympics being held in the United States, he is not doing his job and only doing something to make himself look good. Got it.

Conservatives are going to overplay their hand at some point and show people how ridiculous they really are when it comes to being objective about President Obama. Both Barbour and Obama are doing what they should be doing, but looked at totally different.

I don’t recall Barbour getting on national t.v., or even state wide radio, last week and say there were too many pressing issues for him to get away and go.  Another lie by obama. But that’s okay for the leftwing radicals.

Here’s the difference between the two, in a taxpayer’s opinion:
1. When State Governors, or, a lot of times, the President of the United States, makes a trip for economic development, it’s usually in view of attracting jobs here.
2. When a city, anywhere in the world, gets the Olympics, there goes any money you had. Show me a city that actually profited from them! People still think of places like Montreal as a city where money got sucked in and never came out again. Same as Munich. Same as many others. The only ones who profit are real estate folks. And notice, not a single so-called personal attack on anyone!

Obama isnt going for the US, he is going for his buddies and Chicago Politics.....All of his “supporters” are apart of this, and they twisted his arm.  Read this POLITICO (non-partisan) article, and see for yourself.  Way too many connections for their not to be a fishy smell:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1009/27818.html

Gee Goldenae, do you remember this comment you made a couple of years ago about Republicans?

Goldenae lies about Republicans

Gee, Kingfish, I’m shocked-- shocked!-- to learn that everything that’s posted at the Fondren Free Fishwrapper is not absolutely truthful and accurate.

So Golden[Showers]AE and Kamikaze are one and the same…

Bill O’Reilly, BTW, is an independent.

Now that IOC has denied Chicago, I wonder if the Chicago machine/mob will go after the IOC?  Also, does this mean the IOC is racist? 

Ship Island

First things first, it is truly sad that you guys are actually happy that Chicago did not get the bid simply because of your hatred for President Obama. It is quite sad that things have devolved to the point that you find pleasure in something like that.

Ship, that would be you injecting race into the issue, something you all like to claim that you dont do. The IOC made a decision and President Obama knew that it was not a sure thing. Otherwise, it would have been rigged. He took a chance, things do not always work your way. You guys have really lost all objectivity when it comes to President Obama. Now all of the sudden hosting an Olympics is a horrible thing to do. Except when Romney steps back on the scene, you all will be touting the Olympics as a good thing.

Kingfish, both you and Steve have me confused with someone else because I am neither Kamikaze or Golden Eagle. But if you really want to know what I think of conservatives/Republicans, I would be more than happy to tell you. But the simple fact that you all would run with a charge without knowing what you are talking about is indicative of how you operate. I post on Jackson Free Press as GoldenAE and have not tried to hide.

Golden, perhaps there is a bit of unfairness here as respects my feelings and the Olympics (not) going to Chicago.  On the other hand, I’ve frequently been opposed to such projects when they require the people to spend $100 billion so a community like Chicago can supposedly reap $25 billion in economic benefits.  Furthermore, I’m having Chicago friends say they don’t want the Olympics because it will cost them a lot of money to the benefit Daly’s friends of the Chicago machine.
How can I be expected to support Reid, Poloshi and Obama when I’m opposed to 99% of the things they advocate?

Ship Island

First, I do not hate Obama. I strongly disagree with him. 

Second, Mitt Romney in no way was associated with bringing the Olympics to Salt Lake City.  He was brought in after the orginization went bankrupt and had no direction, so he came in to clean up the mess.  Much like he will have to do in 2013 when he, or any other Republican, is elected President.

Third, now is not the time or place for cities to be bidding on the Olympic games when they face dire budget situations in the years ahead.  Most of the citizens in Chicago did not want the games.

Gee Golden, this isn’t you?

Law Talking guy, you would be hard pressed to find that many Republican law makers that actually served. You have Lindsey Graham and some others. But I think the point of the list was to show you that a lot of the ones that talk a lot of noise did not serve and a lot of the guys that are called cowards did serve. I did research on Rush and he claims he got a medical deferment, but was never seen by a military doctor, only his private physician. That was a legit way. But it seems odd that something that would have kept him from serving did not keep him from playing highschool football or sitting on his butt in the radio booth all these years. I have brought this list up to conservatives and they can not justify it. Cheney comes across as so tough and he got multiple deferments. What it says to me is that when their butts are on the line, its not that important, but when YOUR butt or your children’s butts are on the line, they are all for fighting wars.

posted by Goldenae on 12/19/07 at 03:13 PM

By the way Golden, here is why you are not telling the truth about Republicans:

Setting the record straight about Republican military records

Hasn’t it been shown in the past that hosting the Olympics is NOT a good thing?  Costs are much more than they are worth,,,, that is unless you’re a part of the corrupt Chicago/Illinois politics where you could gain monetary values.  I’m sure obama was only looking after the interest of those that belonged to the same machine he’d belonged to in the past. For the record, I’m no racist, I don’t hate obama, I just have total hatred for socialism and communism that he’s shown he’s a huge part of.  There’s an old saying that “God doesn’t hate the sinner, just the sin”.  I don’t hate obama, just his political ideology.  I pray for him every day that God will give him wisdom to lead our country.  I hope he gains the wisdom to lead it in the right direction instead of the socialistic direction he’s wanting it to go.

“I post on [Fondren Free Fishwrapper] as Golden[Showers]AE and have not tried to hide.”

If you’re not trying to hide, why don’t you use your real name?

The commanders-in-chief during World War I and World War II were, respectively, Woodrow Wilson and Franklin D. Roosevelt, both Democrats.  Neither served in the military.

Wilson, BTW, was a racist.  And FDR’s vice president for the first eight years was John Nance Garner, a Texas segregationist.  In 1944, when FDR won his fourth term, the Democrats nearly picked Jimmy Byrnes, a South Carolina segregationist, as FDR’s running mate.

Golden, a correct item: The military IS trained to fight.
An incorrect item: that is not what they necessarily WANT to do. Back in the day, I was a member of SAC: The Strategic Air Command. Our motto: “Peace Is Our Profession”. SAC was trained in performing a certain action, and I thank God every day we never had to do that action.

Ship Island: Spin it however you like, but conservatives across the nation displayed their true selves Friday. Applauding that Chicago did not get the Olympics had nothing to do with costs, etc. That is a cop out that you would even lay down that lame excuse. All of the conservatives I saw and heard were happy because they felt that was a black eye for Obama. When actually all it was was a failed try. It was a total lack of class on those people’s parts and sad that they could not put “country first”.

Kingfish: If you get a hold of a list of Congressmen that have served in the military, you would be surprised to know that it is heavily swayed in the Democratic column. What is the dispute there?

Steve: First, you should learn some respect. Your infantile insults really speak more about your mindset than anything else. You post the way you like to and I will do the same. You knowing my name would not change my opinion or expression of it. As if you only have “Steve” on your birth certificate. What does your partial recount of history have to do with anything? Let’s expand that a bit.

MrJWS: I do not really see the point of your post, but it would be partially true at best. Soldiers that are trained to fight often want to fight. Nothing uncommon about that. Some soldiers may indeed want to avoid war, but at the same time, others do not. Also, the general idea promoted by conservatives is to have the biggest nuclear arsenal you can have when any nuclear war would be a disaster. So, let’s not ignore that there are often different ideas about reaching the same goal.

GoldenAE: quit lying. I posted a link to a list of them on my site. You damn well know there is a pretty long list of Republican who served in the military.  Quit lying.

Goldenae and Kamikaze AREN’T the same person.  However, in terms of political ideology, I doubt there is a dimes worth of difference between them.

Kingfish,
I never commented on your list of Republicans that served in the military, I just happen to know that the list of Democrats in Congress was longer when I did the research. Maybe you never took the time to look into the other side and therefore you do not know. What I do know is that a lot of the folks that push war like Cheney, Rumsfield, Rush Limbaugh etc., were draft dodgers. That should be taken into account.

Ace of Spades, you will find more differences of opinion between me and Kamikaze than you will most two people on this site.

So one side might have had 100 the other 95 so that makes one side more patriotic than the other? Grow up. Go tell that to Bob Dole or John McCain. I caught you twice in a lie, yet you simply move the goalposts and I seriously doubt you did any research. I showed mine, where is yours?

Looks like you shut Golden[Showers]AE up, Kingfish.  I note that his list of draft dodgers did not include the well-documented case of Bill Clinton.

As I’ve already pointed out, neither of the commanders-in-chief during the two world wars served in the military, and they were both Democrats.  And our current commander-in-chief, the Big B. O., did not serve either.

What’s the point here?  Are we to believe that only those who served in the military have the right to advocate a first-class defense of this nation?  I seem to recall that the Founding Fathers established civilian control of the military.

One of the Democrat Jimmy Carter’s first acts as president was to pardon the draft dodgers, so draft-dodging must not be such a big deal.