Is Obama going to stop the war?

2456789

Comments

  • macgyver06macgyver06 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
  • 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.
  • 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?
  • 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.
  • cornnifercornnifer 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."
  • macgyver06macgyver06 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??
  • macgyver06macgyver06 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??
  • 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.
  • cornnifercornnifer 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."
  • macgyver06macgyver06 Posts: 2,500
    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.


    ??
  • macgyver06macgyver06 Posts: 2,500
    cornnifer wrote:
    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.


    give what up...you think im trying to trick you?? you idiots are trying to tell people that the senate has no power


    you give it up! whya re you blindly following lies...whats its advantage to you..why the fuck are you lying to yourself..it makes no sense.. im not harming you
  • 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?

    since you didnt answer the questions i thought i'd repost them for you to give you another chance
  • macgyver06macgyver06 Posts: 2,500
    cornnifer wrote:
    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.


    who gives a shit about his opposition..what does that do for us?
  • macgyver06macgyver06 Posts: 2,500
    MrSmith wrote:
    since you didnt answer the questions i thought i'd repost them for you to give you another chance


    McCain does not want to withdrawal troops and he is still Interested in finding bin laden which a a good thing..


    and what can they do to stop war?


    1)they have to attend
    2)vote
    3) pass bills so that the president can veto them daily
  • macgyver06 wrote:
    1)they have to attend
    2)vote
    3) pass bills so that the president can veto them daily

    and this accomplishes what?

    which accomplishes more? defeating a pro war presidential candidate in an election or showing up in Washington for meaningless votes?
  • macgyver06 wrote:
    ??

    That doesn't sound like "continuation of the war" to you....
  • macgyver06macgyver06 Posts: 2,500
    That doesn't sound like "continuation of the war" to you....


    i understand that... dude.. its not his platform! he isnt going to get in debates and tell you he is going to war with iran..he isnt going to tell you we are sending millions more to iraq... ITS NOT HIS PLATFORM AND IS NO PRESIDENTS PLATFORM
  • macgyver06 wrote:
    you still dont understand the concept...which is making it hard to argue

    HIS PLATFORM IS NOT CONTINUATION OF WAR

    Exactly, Obama said in Seattle he wants to end the war by 2009. It is amazing at this point in the process people are still trying to distort his positions. Its not going to work. He will sweep tomorrow and use that momentum to take with Ohio or Texas OR both. Get ready for Obama vs McCain.
    10.31.93 / 10.1.94 / 6.24.95 / 11.4.95 / 10.19-20.96 / 7.16.98 / 7.21.98 / 10.31.00 /8.4.01 Nader Rally/ 10.21.01 / 12.8-9.02 / 6.01.03 / 9.1.05 / 7.15-16,18.06 / 7.20.06 / 7.22-23.06 / Lolla 07
  • macgyver06macgyver06 Posts: 2,500
    MrSmith wrote:
    and this accomplishes what?

    which accomplishes more? defeating a pro war presidential candidate in an election or showing up in Washington for meaningless votes?

    hahahahahahahaahahahahahahaahahahahaa i hope you are kidding with this question
  • macgyver06macgyver06 Posts: 2,500
    Exactly, Obama said in Seattle he wants to end the war by 2009. It is amazing at this point in the process people are still trying to distort his positions. Its not going to work. He will sweep tomorrow and use that momentum to take with Ohio or Texas OR both. Get ready for Obama vs McCain.



    end what war!?

    it is amazing you accept half truths. and are some kind of fan of another human who has done nothing for you
  • macgyver06 wrote:
    i understand that... dude.. its not his platform! he isnt going to get in debates and tell you he is going to war with iran..he isnt going to tell you we are sending millions more to iraq... ITS NOT HIS PLATFORM AND IS NO PRESIDENTS PLATFORM

    I will agree with you here. However, McCain has done plenty of tough talking on Iran that would lead the far right hawkish wing to believe he would go after Iran. Sometimes that is all it takes.
  • macgyver06 wrote:
    hahahahahahahaahahahahahahaahahahahaa i hope you are kidding with this question

    hahah you are completely lost.

    by the way: answer it
  • macgyver06 wrote:
    end what war!?

    it is amazing you accept half truths. and are some kind of fan of another human who has done nothing for you

    Now we're just splitting hairs. I'm sure he means Iraq.
  • macgyver06macgyver06 Posts: 2,500
    Now we're just splitting hairs. I'm sure he means Iraq.


    im against war at any cost... these people arent... and you dont recognize it!
  • macgyver06macgyver06 Posts: 2,500
    MrSmith wrote:
    hahah you are completely lost.

    by the way: answer it


    Im not answering a question that suggests the president is more powerful than the senate..

    i am educated.
  • macgyver06 wrote:
    i understand that... dude.. its not his platform! he isnt going to get in debates and tell you he is going to war with iran..he isnt going to tell you we are sending millions more to iraq... ITS NOT HIS PLATFORM AND IS NO PRESIDENTS PLATFORM

    He IS going into debates and voicing his support for continuing the war and supporting troop surges! do you deny this? do you need a youtube clip or something? have you watched any of the debates? THIS IS PART OF HIS PLATFORM
  • macgyver06 wrote:
    Im not answering a question that suggests the president is more powerful than the senate..

    i am educated.

    so the president can't veto every bill that gets sent his way?

    he is more powerful than the senate (and the house, which you keep leaving out) if they cant get enough votes to override a veto.

    how can you deny this?
  • and by the way. what is your education?
  • macgyver06macgyver06 Posts: 2,500
    MrSmith wrote:
    He IS going into debates and voicing his support for continuing the war and supporting troop surges! do you deny this? do you need a youtube clip or something? have you watched any of the debates? THIS IS PART OF HIS PLATFORM


    THE REPUBLICAN PRIMARIES
  • macgyver06macgyver06 Posts: 2,500
    MrSmith wrote:
    so the president can't veto every bill that gets sent his way?

    he is more powerful than the senate (and the house, which you keep leaving out) if they cant get enough votes to override a veto.

    how can you deny this?


    you dont understand the system.. you think these votes go unnoticed? you dont think if there are votes everyday to end this thing it would go unnoticed by us??


    use your brain..thats all iask... think about the idea of voting to end this thing everyday and the kind of pressure it would put on those who would like to keep their jobs in the senate and the president himself.
Sign In or Register to comment.