• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

"Obama will be tested".....Biden

NaasPreacher (C4K)

Well-Known Member
LeBuick said:
You and I know both know that was coincidence, the release for the hostages was negotiated before Reagan took oath.

I disagree - these folks were scared stiff when Reagan was elected. They knew that Carter had given away the Panama Canal and turn his back of Free China in favour of Red China so knew he was a patsy.

And what did Reagan do? Along with Mrs Thatcher they ended the Cold War and defeated European Communism.

Coincidence? I don't think so.
 

Benjamin

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
LeBuick said:
You and I know both know that was coincidence...

13.gif
I don't think soooo...
1.gif
 

Crabtownboy

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
LeBuick said:
You and I know both know that was coincidence, the release for the hostages was negotiated before Reagan took oath.

From what I have read Iran did not want to do anything that would make Carter look good in any way and they held the hostages, on purpose, until the new president, in this case Reagan, was in office.

On Jan. 20, 1981, the day of President Reagan's inauguration, the United States released almost $8 billion in Iranian assets and the hostages were freed after 444 days in Iranian detention; the agreement gave Iran immunity from lawsuits arising from the incident.

http://209.85.135.104/search?q=cach...er+release+agreement&hl=cs&ct=clnk&cd=4&gl=cz


There are people who believe that Reagan and the Republicans secretly negotiated with Iran to delay the release of the hostages.

http://209.85.135.104/search?q=cach...er+release+agreement&hl=cs&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=cz


I doubt that any of us will live long enough for the records to be made public and we really know what happened.
 

LeBuick

New Member
Crabtownboy said:
From what I have read Iran did not want to do anything that would make Carter look good in any way and they held the hostages, on purpose, until the new president, in this case Reagan, was in office.



http://209.85.135.104/search?q=cach...er+release+agreement&hl=cs&ct=clnk&cd=4&gl=cz


There are people who believe that Reagan and the Republicans secretly negotiated with Iran to delay the release of the hostages.

http://209.85.135.104/search?q=cach...er+release+agreement&hl=cs&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=cz


I doubt that any of us will live long enough for the records to be made public and we really know what happened.


Thanks CTB, remember a totally different hostage situation from these guys and it didn't include Reagan lifting a finger. As for the Iranians being scared of Reagan, how do you scare a guy who thinks dying for the cause is how he gets rewards in heaven? That's crazy to think they were scared.
 

dragonfly

New Member
saturneptune said:
I have never seen the American people as a whole so angry at a President. It is the only reason Obama, who is a radical liberal, has a chance of winning.

This is this year's election in a nutshell. Regardless of how Bush is viewed in the years to come, his current disapproval is the fuel that has powered the Obama machine.
 

dragonfly

New Member
Benjamin said:
Yep, and a reminder that Carter wasn't taken serious by them at all, but now when Reagan got into to office the Iranians were like, "Nevermind, you can have the hostages back."

WE don't need a president right now that the terrorist dogs will test to see if he will tuck his tail.

There is some who think that William Casey, who supported Reagan used the CIA to influence the Iranians to wait until after the election before releasing the hostages. Although unproven, this seems about right for Reagan and his tactics.
 

Crabtownboy

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
dragonfly said:
There is some who think that William Casey, who supported Reagan used the CIA to influence the Iranians to wait until after the election before releasing the hostages. Although unproven, this seems about right for Reagan and his tactics.

The hostages were released the day Reagan was sworn in, so I do not see that he gets a lot of credit. The Iranians were simply trying to punish or embarass Carter. But you are right, there it is not unreasonable to think that Reagan and Casey had a hand in this for:

1. for Reagan to have a better chance of winning the election.
2. to embarass Carter and the Democrats.
 

Crabtownboy

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
dragonfly said:
This is this year's election in a nutshell. Regardless of how Bush is viewed in the years to come, his current disapproval is the fuel that has powered the Obama machine.

I believe that is definitely a part of the driving force of this election.

Also, I believe the totaly failure of the "family life values" Republicians to either live up to family values, or run the country well also plays a large part in what we see at this point in the campaigns around the country.
 

TomVols

New Member
Bro. Curtis said:
ABC News' Matthew Jaffe Reports: Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., on Sunday guaranteed that if elected, Sen. Barack Obama., D-Ill., will be tested by an international crisis within his first six months in power and he will need supporters to stand by him as he makes tough, and possibly unpopular, decisions.

"Mark my words," the Democratic vice presidential nominee warned at the second of his two Seattle fundraisers Sunday. "It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy. The world is looking. We're about to elect a brilliant 47-year-old senator president of the United States of America. Remember I said it standing here if you don't remember anything else I said. Watch, we're gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy."

"I can give you at least four or five scenarios from where it might originate," Biden said to Emerald City supporters, mentioning the Middle East and Russia as possibilities. "And he's gonna need help. And the kind of help he's gonna need is, he's gonna need you - not financially to help him - we're gonna need you to use your influence, your influence within the community, to stand with him. Because it's not gonna be apparent initially, it's not gonna be apparent that we're right."....

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/10/biden-to-suppor.html

He's a real smart guy, eh ?
Obama would be smart to pull Biden immediately. Put him in states where you're ahead comfortably. Don't let him anywhere near a competitive state's media. He's too big of a liability
 

TomVols

New Member
dragonfly said:
This is this year's election in a nutshell. Regardless of how Bush is viewed in the years to come, his current disapproval is the fuel that has powered the Obama machine.
I couldn't disagree more. Obama should be winning by 20 points. The fact that many polls still have this in the margin of error and all but a couple have this as a single digit race says something about the trepidation Americans have about an Obama presidency. It surely can't be that McCain has marshalled forces with extraordinary persuasion :laugh:
 

TomVols

New Member
Crabtownboy said:
The hostages were released the day Reagan was sworn in, so I do not see that he gets a lot of credit. The Iranians were simply trying to punish or embarass Carter. .
Boy, the left hacks just refuse to give any credit to a Republican for anything. Sheesh. No wonder Independants roll their eyes at both parties.
 

Bro. Curtis

<img src =/curtis.gif>
Site Supporter
As someone who served under both Carter & Reagan, I can promise you we were a completely different Navy, overnight.


O/T
Have you ever sung "Happy Birthday to America" on July 4th in the Persian Gulf ?
 

LeBuick

New Member
TomVols said:
Obama would be smart to pull Biden immediately. Put him in states where you're ahead comfortably. Don't let him anywhere near a competitive state's media. He's too big of a liability

That seems to be what they're doing with Palin and I don't think it's too effective. Where it does serve to energize your base and it draws huge numbers of enthusiastic crowds at rallies, it's deceptive. It's like fishing in your own pawn, you can show large number of fish caught but you won't see a net gain when you look at the tally board.

Even if Biden looses one in 3 with his gaff's, Obama will still see a 2 out of 3 increase in the bottom line. In my view, these last two weeks of the elections have left the Republican's defending their own territory because they didn't stir the waters in the enemies camp.
 

LeBuick

New Member
TomVols said:
I couldn't disagree more. Obama should be winning by 20 points. The fact that many polls still have this in the margin of error and all but a couple have this as a single digit race says something about the trepidation Americans have about an Obama presidency. It surely can't be that McCain has marshalled forces with extraordinary persuasion :laugh:

I couldn't disagree more, there has only been one democratic president in the last 30 years for obvious reasons. Most of the folks in the cities who would vote democratic aren't interested in politics and don't bother voting. This made the Republican machine which mostly contains rural "less government" conservatives dominant and able to win elections by primarily energizing their own base. They were also able to scare a few independents their way which doesn't seem as effective this election.

The reason Clinton, Carter and even Johnson got into office is because they were able to carry southern, rural red states because they were southern liberals. There is no way a Senator from IL can ever carry AR, TX or GA. This is why I thought Obama should have chosen Hillary. She would have stirred the southern waters and drawn the blue collar workers of the swing states. She was an all in one package.

The polls are close for several reasons. The biggest of which is the new interest Obama was able to drum up with liberal thinking people in the big cities. This is evident by the crowd of 100K in MO and is how he is leading in the polls. I don't recall an election like this where everyone is talking about it. You don't normally see it like this in the big cities.

I think the republican machine is as it normally is but the liberals have successfully gotten slightly ahead in the polls by bringing new voters to the booth. The conservatives know this is true which is why they are making such a big deal of normal activities like ACORN. They can't seem to increase their voter base so the key now is to reduce the liberals. What ACORN did has happened in every election but they've never worried about it because they know Michey Mouse doesn't turn out to vote.

However the ACORN scare tactic seems to be backfiring. Liberals are turning out for early voting in large numbers. They are making sure their vote is in, valid and will be counted come Nov 4th. The have scared them to the booths instead of away. I've never seen liberals involved in early voting like this election. The question is how many of these new voters will turn out and be able to vote? We know we can count on the republican faithfuls to show, the question is will these new voters actually vote?

If they vote Obama is in. If they don't McCain will win.
 

LeBuick

New Member
Bro. Curtis said:
As someone who served under both Carter & Reagan, I can promise you we were a completely different Navy, overnight.

I will agree, Reagan gave to the defence budget and being in the military in those days was good. We got huge pay raises, lots of new toys and soviets knew we meant business.


Bro. Curtis said:
O/T
Have you ever sung "Happy Birthday to America" on July 4th in the Persian Gulf ?

No but we sang happy birthday to Jesus one Christmas while I was in basic training. I don't think you can do that today.
 

LeBuick

New Member
Just thought I would throw this in here...

Looks like Obama is beginning to penetrate solid red territories. This will leave McCain defending his own pond and without resources to fish the Obama pond. This past month with all these Palin rallies in Red territory is taking its toll.

http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSTRE49M5SF20081023

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - After trailing by 10 points in U.S. rural areas, Democrat Barack Obama is neck-and-neck with Republican John McCain among rural voters in 13 swing states, a potentially key group for winning the White House, according to a poll released on Thursday.

I hate to say it becaue I know you guys will attack me, but here is why...

The poll showed rural voters have cooled from their initial enthusiasm for Sarah Palin, the Republican nominee for vice president. Forty percent view her favorably and 42 percent unfavorably, compared to a 48-33 split in September. Obama, McCain and Joe Biden, the Democratic nominee for vice president, had higher ratings than Palin in the new poll.

Palin is a strong conservative but unfortunately she only appeals to conservatives. She is not drawing voters from the middle or other side. This is not the way to win an election.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

carpro

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
dragonfly said:
There is some who think that William Casey, who supported Reagan used the CIA to influence the Iranians to wait until after the election before releasing the hostages. Although unproven, this seems about right for Reagan and his tactics.


Innuendo is more important to liberals than proof.

We already know that.
 

carpro

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Bro. Curtis said:
As someone who served under both Carter & Reagan, I can promise you we were a completely different Navy, overnight.

:thumbs:

I imagine the difference was startling.

What a difference a real leader makes to the military!
 

LeBuick

New Member
carpro said:
:thumbs:

I imagine the difference was startling.

What a difference a real leader makes to the military!

Can't argue that, but Reaganomics sure didn't do anything for the masses.
 

Pastor Larry

<b>Moderator</b>
Site Supporter
LeBuick said:
...Reaganomics sure didn't do anything for the masses.
Boy, this sure seems naive. The masses first gained the opportunity to amass wealth during the 80s because of Reagan's policies.
 
Top