republicans or those thinking of voting for mccain

stupidcorporatewhore

National Journal is conservative horseshit

Biden is #3

more than Boxer? More than Harry reid?

Kerry is pretty far down on the list. Funny that, considering he was #1 when he was running for president.

I'd laugh if it weren't so sad.

stupidcorporatewhore

know1 wrote:

Peace? What did you call it when he bombed Serbia (or whatever country it was then or now) in an effort to cover up his scandal?

not a major conflict, not by a longshot. even michael moore condemned this one, jackass.

know1 wrote:

I do believe McCain would be a better president than Obama.

It's certainly one of two possibilities.

MrBrian

Cosmo wrote:

...
The only person on the planet who is grateful that George W. Bush is our president is Jimmy Carter.

haha!

But Carter has made up for not being such a great prez. Bush? even if he tried, even if he spent the rest of his life trying, he would still not be able to make up for even a small % of what made him such a bad president.
----

BTW, what's the deal with the Carter presidency. Was it the Iran hostage crisis? He did try many diplomatic initiatives, they didnt work, he did not just want to level Iran and didn't. or maybe the Voyager 1 message? lmao!

Cosmo

MrBrian wrote:

haha!

But Carter has made up for not being such a great prez. Bush? even if he tried, even if he spent the rest of his life trying, he would still not be able to make up for even a small % of what made him such a bad president.
----

BTW, what's the deal with the Carter presidency. Was it the Iran hostage crisis? He did try many diplomatic initiatives, they didnt work, he did not just want to level Iran and didn't. or maybe the Voyager 1 message? lmao!

...
And guess what? Carter... was heralded as a 'Washington Outsider'. Sound familiar? People today who are hailing 'Washington Outsiders' are endorsing... Jimmy Carter!!!
...
And Carter was considered to be the 'Worst President, Ever'... til Bush... another 'Washington Outsider'.
Why? He followed the Nixon Watergate presidency... and an administration that had both a President and Vice President that did not recieve one vote (Nixon/agnew... Agnew resigns... Nixon appoints Ford... Nixon resigns... Ford becomes President... appoints Rockerfeller... neither Ford nor Rockerfeller got one vote from the American people). The double digit Inflation (a.k.a. Stagflation)... double digit unemployment... oil embargos... the Iran Hostage Situation... the disasterous Delta operation to free the hostages. America was considered weak.
...
Carter turned out to be one of the Best former Presidents, ever.
And like you... I don't think Bush will ever come close to achieving that.

dmitry

catch22 wrote:

hahahhahaha.

yeah, having a one-person majority and a deadlock in the senate with a veto-happy republican president... it's the dems' fault! keep telling yourself that.

The democrats could end the war by not funding it, right?

catch22

dmitry wrote:

The democrats could end the war by not funding it, right?

i'm not so sure about that. but even so, a spending bill that does not include funding for the war would be vetoed by bush. and even a number of democrats are not comfortable with leaving american soldiers high and dry. it's not their fault their commander-in-chief is a fucking idiot. i think yanking funding would only hurt the soldiers, and not do anything to stop the war.

know1

stupidcorporatewhore wrote:

not a major conflict, not by a longshot. even michael moore condemned this one, jackass..

Hmm...my comment was in response to a statement about Peace. So a minor conflict still qualifies as peace?

And do you really think calling people names who disagree with you wins people to "your side"? And do you want the type of people who would respond to that on your side?

darthvedder81

dmitry wrote:

The democrats could end the war by not funding it, right?

Or they could not have given the President authorization to wage war in the first place.

Here's a crazy idea--when you give the Commander in Chief the go ahead for war plan on actually winning the war before you do so! Wow, what a concept.

The War in Iraq is basically over. Major withdrawals will start early next year. Notice how neither candidate is talking about Iraq anymore? It's off the table.

catch22

darthvedder81 wrote:

Or they could not have given the President authorization to wage war in the first place.

Here's a crazy idea--when you give the Commander in Chief the go ahead for war plan on actually winning the war before you do so! Wow, what a concept.

The War in Iraq is basically over. Major withdrawals will start early next year. Notice how neither candidate is talking about Iraq anymore? It's off the table.

the republicans held the majority in congress when the war was approved.

you make my generation look stupid.

MrBrian

darthvedder81 wrote:

Or they could not have given the President authorization to wage war in the first place.

The War in Iraq is basically over. Major withdrawals will start early next year. Notice how neither candidate is talking about Iraq anymore? It's off the table.

Yeah and the only reason they gave authorization is because they though they could use the excuse "We trusted the president and he lied to us!"

lmao! yeah Iran is old news now, Iran and Pakistan are the hot topics for this election.

Cosmo

dmitry wrote:

The democrats could end the war by not funding it, right?

...
Great... our guys are over there... no more logistical support... no more bullets... no more spare parts replacements for HMMWVs... no more food... no more medical supplies.
Yeah... that'll work.

dmitry

Cosmo wrote:

...
Great... our guys are over there... no more logistical support... no more bullets... no more spare parts replacements for HMMWVs... no more food... no more medical supplies.
Yeah... that'll work.

Why do you assume it would be like that? They would have to appropriate enough funds specifically for the purpose of leaving instead of continuing. I'm pretty sure that's what Kucinich wanted. There's no way in hell you're going to end up with guys over there with no logistical support.

Cosmo

dmitry wrote:

Why do you assume it would be like that? They would have to appropriate enough funds specifically for the purpose of leaving instead of continuing. I'm pretty sure that's what Kucinich wanted. There's no way in hell you're going to end up with guys over there with no logistical support.

...
It was a lot easier to go in.. than to get out.
Remember, th U.S. is providing all air cover and close air support... all combat surgical hospitals and rapid response med-evac... all central command and control... all military logistical support.
If we remove our combat troops... we leave our support staff in the hands of the iraqi forces. Is that a good deal?
If we remove our support staff... what happens to our combat troops.
That is what an exit strategy is all about. And it's not easy if there are fuckers still running around and blowing up shit. And it would be easier to fund a sufficient amount if there is a goddamn TIMETABLE to draw down the number of troops and leave enough for a rear guard to see that it goes through.
Remember... we have tanks and armoured vehicles we have to evacuate, too. As well as trucks, HMMWVs, trailers, mobile command centers, communication vehicles, medical equipment and a ton of stuff. Either we leave it all there... or we take it with us.
Until we figure this shit out... we are left with no alternative but to fund the troops that are there. Or write them off as a loss... all as a cost of doing business.
...
Finally... let me add this because I haven't said this for a while... Fuck that asshole Bush for being a mother fucking asshole.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

MCain is 72. The average male life expectancy in the US is 78.

toss in POW stresses, and the stresses of running a country, and 78 might be pushing it.

can anyone hello President Palin?

Hockey mom bimbo nut to the rescue....

oh yeah!

acutejam

Barack Obama is truly a phenomenon of our time — a presidential candidate who cannot cite a single serious accomplishment in his entire career, besides advancing his own career with rhetoric. -Thomas Sowell

I'm most likely voting McCain because of his experience, his willingness to spend political capital for his beliefs, and his lifelong record of service to his country.

National security and stem cell research are probably my two litmus tests, though I try not to be a single issue voter.

ACCBootlegGoddess

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

MCain is 72. The average male life expectancy in the US is 78.

toss in POW stresses, and the stresses of running a country, and 78 might be pushing it.

can anyone hello President Palin?

Hockey mom bimbo nut to the rescue....

oh yeah!

EXACTLY!!!!!!!!!!!!
(the following is not directed at you Roland)

Its too bad that the republicans (most of u anyways) are more intent on making your vote a "vote against Obama" as opposed to a vote FOR McCain and his bitch. I've seen some of you acknowledge you have shortcomings with McCain and don't entirely trust him but you're willing to take you chances with his temper and the possibility of Palin becoming president. Makes me wonder what the hell you are smoking!!

ACCBootlegGoddess

acutejam wrote:

Barack Obama is truly a phenomenon of our time — a presidential candidate who cannot cite a single serious accomplishment in his entire career, besides advancing his own career with rhetoric. -Thomas Sowell

I'm most likely voting McCain because of his experience, his willingness to spend political capital for his beliefs, and his lifelong record of service to his country.

National security and stem cell research are probably my two litmus tests, though I try not to be a single issue voter.

Hmmm this is funny considering George W had even LESS experience when he took office but the Republican voters didn't seem to have a problem with that when it was THEIR OWN candidate!!!!! Double standard anyone???

Cosmo

acutejam wrote:

I'm most likely voting McCain because of his experience, his willingness to spend political capital for his beliefs, and his lifelong record of service to his country.

...
You know... you could substitute the name 'Kerry' for 'McCain'... and it's a perfect fit... right?

acutejam

Hmm, we just can't seem to get beyond past elections, huh? Thought this thread was about THIS election? These candidates? But take your shots anyways yous cans huh?

I think every election cycle is different, the challenges and opportunities different, the candidates different. The issues jockeying in importance.

But sure, I'd vote Biden over Obama or Kerry over Edwards. I think it was a great call to make Biden the Veep, though I can think of a few better ones...

digster

acutejam wrote:

Barack Obama is truly a phenomenon of our time — a presidential candidate who cannot cite a single serious accomplishment in his entire career, besides advancing his own career with rhetoric. -Thomas Sowell

There are many accomplishments in Obama's career that I'd be happy to either point you towards or explain. Whichever one you'd like is your call. Most of his most significant achievements have been with ethics reform, although he is on the right side of national homeland protection; he realized that the inadequate protection of our ports are our weak point, while McCain did not; I found this out at ontheissues.org if you're curous).

Basically, there's no doubt that Obama's list of accomplishments in the U.S. Senate is short when compared to McCain's record. However, I feel that McCain's record, when checked, is just plain wrong on the majority of the issues. I appreciate his service and am awed by his devotion to his fellow prisoners during his time as a POW in Vietnam, but that sole experience is not adequate reason to elect someone as leader of our country, particularly when he has proven to be wrong on many of the most important issues guiding our days. Although the talk of him being a "clone" of George W. Bush is a bit inflated, the fact remains that the majority of his policy positions seem somewhat or remarkably similar to this current administration.