Is Obama going to stop the war?

24567…13

Comments

  • macgyver06
    macgyver06 Posts: 2,500
    ledvedderman wrote:
    Of course. The Republican strategy wouldn't change at all really. John McCain would be running against one of two Democratic senators in November, and he could point out how much of a time was spent in Washington voting over and over to pass legislation to send to the President and then have to vote on it again to try and override the Presidential veto. It's partisan tricks like that that will not fly this year. Not only that, but what do you think military hero John McCain would say to spin all of those votes into Obama and Clinton turning their backs on the troops and playing politics with the lives of soldiers "fighting for our freedom" in Iraq.


    i think your wrong...no matter who is running for president even George W. wasnt going to start a campaign where he layed out to get votes based on a continuation of war...

    ARE YOU SERIOUS?? you think McCains platform is going to be continuing the occupation of Iraq?
  • macgyver06
    macgyver06 Posts: 2,500
    ledvedderman wrote:
    Besides passing bill after bill there is nothing. Even cutting the funding wouldn't work because of not enough votes to override a Presidential veto.


    so you think by passing bill after bill this wouldnt get coverage...that this would be ignored..you know if they were doing this...this is where our candidates would be ...not parading around the country pretending to be patriots.... these people have jobs vedderman and they arent doing them...and people like yourself fall victim to rhetoric thinking once these people get elected something is going to change...they dont care about sheep vedder.
  • ledvedderman
    ledvedderman Posts: 7,762
    macgyver06 wrote:
    i think your wrong...no matter who is running for president even George W. wasnt going to start a campaign where he layed out to get votes based on a continuation of war...

    ARE YOU SERIOUS?? you think McCains platform is going to be continuing the occupation of Iraq?

    He said he would keep troops in Iraq for the next 100 years

    Doesn't get much clearer than that. While the war is very unpopular among a lot of the total population, in the military circles and evangelical it is going "swimmingly". If those are your supporters, why wouldn't you want to campaign on keeping the troops there.
    E8toX.gif

    http://www.reverbnation.com/brianzilm
  • macgyver06
    macgyver06 Posts: 2,500
    if your going to back your candidate lets get some good views in here guys... shepard smith must of taught you guys something right?

    lol
  • LikeAnOpeningBandForTheSun
    LikeAnOpeningBandForTheSun Posts: 6,097
    macgyver06 wrote:
    ARE YOU SERIOUS?? you think McCains platform is going to be continuing the occupation of Iraq?

    so McCain is for bringing the troops home? and Obama isn't?
  • ledvedderman
    ledvedderman Posts: 7,762
    macgyver06 wrote:
    so you think by passing bill after bill this wouldnt get coverage...that this would be ignored..you know if they were doing this...this is where our candidates would be ...not parading around the country pretending to be patriots.... these people have jobs vedderman and they arent doing them...and people like yourself fall victim to rhetoric thinking once these people get elected something is going to change...they dont care about sheep vedder.

    If they could do something I'm sure they would. Their hands are literally tied. Because their hands are tied, and until more Republican congressman start coming out against the war, I would prefer our time being spent on things that can actually get passed.
    E8toX.gif

    http://www.reverbnation.com/brianzilm
  • macgyver06
    macgyver06 Posts: 2,500
    MrSmith wrote:
    so McCain is for bringing the troops home? and Obama isn't?


    no you goon..im saying is he going to make it his platform. of course mccain isnt bringing troops home! but he isnt going to get on live tv and tell the camera he is for the continuation of war..he will dance around it.
  • macgyver06
    macgyver06 Posts: 2,500
    ledvedderman wrote:
    If they could do something I'm sure they would. Their hands are literally tied. Because their hands are tied, and until more Republican congressman start coming out against the war, I would prefer our time being spent on things that can actually get passed.


    thats it??? if they could do something they would


    what a sad day... this is our education system

    vote for obama than... good luck!
  • LikeAnOpeningBandForTheSun
    LikeAnOpeningBandForTheSun Posts: 6,097
    macgyver06 wrote:
    no you goon..im saying is he going to make it his platform. of course mccain isnt bringing troops home! but he isnt going to get on live tv and tell the camera he is for the continuation of war..he will dance around it.

    have you been living in a cave?!?!? McCain's platform since the beginning is to continue the war. 60% of republicans are pro-iraq war. You think he's gonna say he's against it now?!?
  • ledvedderman
    ledvedderman Posts: 7,762
    macgyver06 wrote:
    no you goon..im saying is he going to make it his platform. of course mccain isnt bringing troops home! but he isnt going to get on live tv and tell the camera he is for the continuation of war..he will dance around it.

    No. He's been pretty open about it. His main platform is "vote for me, I was correct on saying the troop surge would work" (it didn't), but that's what is getting him a lot of votes.
    E8toX.gif

    http://www.reverbnation.com/brianzilm
  • macgyver06
    macgyver06 Posts: 2,500
    MrSmith wrote:
    have you been living in a cave?!?!? McCain's platform since the beginning is to continue the war. 60% of republicans are pro-iraq war. You think he's gonna say he's against it now?!?


    you still dont understand the concept...which is making it hard to argue

    HIS PLATFORM IS NOT CONTINUATION OF WAR
  • ledvedderman
    ledvedderman Posts: 7,762
    macgyver06 wrote:
    thats it??? if they could do something they would


    what a sad day... this is our education system

    vote for obama than... good luck!

    Yes it is our educational system. If you would have paid a little more attention in governement and math class you would see that there is NOTHING the Dems can do.

    No 2/3 majority? Good luck trying to get ANYTHING passed that the President doesn't want.
    E8toX.gif

    http://www.reverbnation.com/brianzilm
  • LikeAnOpeningBandForTheSun
    LikeAnOpeningBandForTheSun Posts: 6,097
    macgyver06 wrote:
    you still dont understand the concept...which is making it hard to argue

    HIS PLATFORM IS NOT CONTINUATION OF WAR

    there seems to be a lot you dont understand.

    2 questions:

    what is McCain's stance on the war?

    what can democratic congressman who are against the war do to stop the war tommorrow?
  • ledvedderman
    ledvedderman Posts: 7,762
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/01/03/mccain-fine-with-me-to-_n_79662.html

    The United States military could stay in Iraq for "maybe a hundred years" and that "would be fine with me," John McCain told two hundred or so people at a town hall meeting in Derry, New Hampshire, on Thursday evening. Toward the end of this session, which was being held shortly before the Iowa caucuses were to start, McCain was confronted by Dave Tiffany, who calls himself a "full-time antiwar activist." In a heated exchange, Tiffany told McCain that he had looked at McCain's campaign website and had found no indication of how long McCain was willing to keep U.S. troops in Iraq. Arguing that George W. Bush's escalation of troops has led to a decline in U.S. casualties, McCain noted that the United States still maintains troops in South Korea and Japan. He said he had no objection to U.S. soldiers staying in Iraq for decades, "as long as Americans are not being injured, harmed or killed."

    After the event ended, I asked McCain about his "hundred years" comment, and he reaffirmed the remark, excitedly declaring that U.S. troops could be in Iraq for "a thousand years" or "a million years," as far as he was concerned. The key matter, he explained, was whether they were being killed or not: "It's not American presence; it's American casualties." U.S. troops, he continued, are stationed in South Korea, Japan, Europe, Bosnia, and elsewhere as part of a "generally accepted policy of America's multilateralism." There's nothing wrong with Iraq being part of that policy, providing the government in Baghdad does not object.
    E8toX.gif

    http://www.reverbnation.com/brianzilm
  • cornnifer
    cornnifer Posts: 2,130
    macgyver06 wrote:
    they couldnt have stopped it on day one...is this what your saying?

    Many senators, including senator cunton, voted in favor of the war on day one. Obama, on the other hand, did not, and never has. He has been outspoken against the war since BEFORE day one. So your argument against senator Obama is prety much over.
    "When all your friends and sedatives mean well but make it worse... better find yourself a place to level out."
  • macgyver06
    macgyver06 Posts: 2,500
    MrSmith wrote:
    there seems to be a lot you dont understand.

    2 questions:

    what is McCain's stance on the war?

    what can democratic congressman who are against the war do to stop the war tommorrow?


    no you dont... everyone knows he is going to continue the war... that isnt going to be his platform though...

    are you kidding me??
  • macgyver06
    macgyver06 Posts: 2,500
    cornnifer wrote:
    Many senators, including senator cunton, voted in favor of the war on day one. Obama, on the other hand, did not, and never has. He has been outspoken against the war since BEFORE day one. So your argument against senator Obama is prety much over.


    actually its not! he voted against the war??
  • LikeAnOpeningBandForTheSun
    LikeAnOpeningBandForTheSun Posts: 6,097
    does McGuyver ever make sense to anyone on this board? seriously, most of the time i have no idea what he's ranting about. he's either way over my head or an 8 year old hitting a keyboard with a plastic bat. i can't tell.

    apparently his answer to not watching Fox News is to not get his news from any source. i guess its the only way to keep his bizaare opinions untainted.
  • cornnifer
    cornnifer Posts: 2,130
    macgyver06 wrote:
    actually its not! he voted against the war??

    He never voted for it, and was very public and outspoken in his opposition to it. His opposition to the Iraq war is very much on the record. Give it up.
    "When all your friends and sedatives mean well but make it worse... better find yourself a place to level out."
  • macgyver06
    macgyver06 Posts: 2,500
    ledvedderman wrote:
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/01/03/mccain-fine-with-me-to-_n_79662.html

    The United States military could stay in Iraq for "maybe a hundred years" and that "would be fine with me," John McCain told two hundred or so people at a town hall meeting in Derry, New Hampshire, on Thursday evening. Toward the end of this session, which was being held shortly before the Iowa caucuses were to start, McCain was confronted by Dave Tiffany, who calls himself a "full-time antiwar activist." In a heated exchange, Tiffany told McCain that he had looked at McCain's campaign website and had found no indication of how long McCain was willing to keep U.S. troops in Iraq. Arguing that George W. Bush's escalation of troops has led to a decline in U.S. casualties, McCain noted that the United States still maintains troops in South Korea and Japan. He said he had no objection to U.S. soldiers staying in Iraq for decades, "as long as Americans are not being injured, harmed or killed."

    After the event ended, I asked McCain about his "hundred years" comment, and he reaffirmed the remark, excitedly declaring that U.S. troops could be in Iraq for "a thousand years" or "a million years," as far as he was concerned. The key matter, he explained, was whether they were being killed or not: "It's not American presence; it's American casualties." U.S. troops, he continued, are stationed in South Korea, Japan, Europe, Bosnia, and elsewhere as part of a "generally accepted policy of America's multilateralism." There's nothing wrong with Iraq being part of that policy, providing the government in Baghdad does not object.


    ??

Categories