McCain and Romney haven't a clue

gabers
gabers Posts: 2,787
edited January 2008 in A Moving Train
So they are debating about who is going to keep the troops in Iraq longer. Brilliant strategy boys. Maybe when you're done with that you guys can debate how bad Iran wants to get attacked. I'm sure the American voting public is behind you guys all the way.
Post edited by Unknown User on

Comments

  • cornnifer
    cornnifer Posts: 2,130
    gabers wrote:
    So they are debating about who is going to keep the troops in Iraq longer. Brilliant strategy boys. Maybe when you're done with that you guys can debate how bad Iran wants to get attacked. I'm sure the American voting public is behind you guys all the way.

    Yeah, they really are pretty clueless it would seem. Sad thing is, and i hate to sound like a proverbial broken record, but if the dems nominate clinton, one of these two guys is what you're going to get. Prepare yourself.
    "When all your friends and sedatives mean well but make it worse... better find yourself a place to level out."
  • Indifference
    Indifference Posts: 2,778
    gabers wrote:
    I'm sure the American voting public is behind you guys all the way.


    Aren't they getting the most votes?

    SHOW COUNT: (170) 1990's=3, 2000's=53, 2010/20's=114, US=124, CAN=15, Europe=20 ,New Zealand=4, Australia=5
    Mexico=1, Colombia=1 



  • gabers
    gabers Posts: 2,787
    Indifference wrote:
    Aren't they getting the most votes?

    I was referring to the general election in November.
  • Indifference
    Indifference Posts: 2,778
    gabers wrote:
    I was referring to the general election in November.


    I'll take Romney over Clinton any day.

    SHOW COUNT: (170) 1990's=3, 2000's=53, 2010/20's=114, US=124, CAN=15, Europe=20 ,New Zealand=4, Australia=5
    Mexico=1, Colombia=1 



  • DPrival78
    DPrival78 CT Posts: 2,263
    gabers wrote:
    So they are debating about who is going to keep the troops in Iraq longer. Brilliant strategy boys. Maybe when you're done with that you guys can debate how bad Iran wants to get attacked. I'm sure the American voting public is behind you guys all the way.


    that's why i was glad that ron paul, using some of the 48 seconds he got to speak last night, pointed that out. arguing over how long we should stay and in what capacity is ridiculous, and it shows that we have no real choice in the matter. every candidate is staying in iraq for some indeterminate length of time. the large number of us who want out ASAP have no representation in this election.. outside of the good doctor paul.
    i'm more a fan of popular bands.. like the bee-gees, pearl jam
  • gabers
    gabers Posts: 2,787
    DPrival78 wrote:
    that's why i was glad that ron paul, using some of the 48 seconds he got to speak last night, pointed that out. arguing over how long we should stay and in what capacity is ridiculous, and it shows that we have no real choice in the matter. every candidate is staying in iraq for some indeterminate length of time. the large number of us who want out ASAP have no representation in this election.. outside of the good doctor paul.

    Don't these candidates understand we want a fricking timetable?! It's like they're not listening. Any of the ones that remain at least. I don't think Obama is discussing a timetable, is he?

    My original point was that these two were arguing that we should keep our troops there indefinitely. I hope that whoever is the candidate in the general election that they're still saying this. Or does America really care? Sometimes I wonder.
  • cornnifer
    cornnifer Posts: 2,130
    DPrival78 wrote:
    that's why i was glad that ron paul, using some of the 48 seconds he got to speak last night, pointed that out. arguing over how long we should stay and in what capacity is ridiculous, and it shows that we have no real choice in the matter. every candidate is staying in iraq for some indeterminate length of time. the large number of us who want out ASAP have no representation in this election.. outside of the good doctor paul.

    But that simply isn't true. Those on the democratic side, especially Obama who is sincere and will tell it like it is, want out, as you say "As Soon As Possible". The key word here is possible. Where it would great to be able to pack up and pull evey last troop out of Iraq by this afternoon, that simply isn't POSSIBLE at this point. It would be dangerous and irresponsible. What about, for example American citizens there working in our embassy? Complete, immediate troop withdrawl simply won't work. Granted, war in Iraq should have never been waged, but the fact remains, our current administration has us in balls deep, and we have to be responsible and realistic about getting back out.
    "When all your friends and sedatives mean well but make it worse... better find yourself a place to level out."
  • cornnifer
    cornnifer Posts: 2,130
    gabers wrote:
    I don't think Obama is discussing a timetable, is he?

    .
    It sort of depends on your operational definition of "timetable". Completely out by 1:30 EST this afternoon? No. Not possible. Gradual, responsible, deliberate withdrawl? Yes Obama supports this. i expect this to be discussed in the democratic debate this evening. Should be a good one.
    "When all your friends and sedatives mean well but make it worse... better find yourself a place to level out."
  • Skitch Patterson
    Skitch Patterson Posts: 642
    The scary part is, if Clinton wins and gets two terms, ill be 36 years old when she leaves office. at that time I will have had a Clinton or Bush in Office for 78% of my life.
  • MasterFramer
    MasterFramer Posts: 2,268
    Skitch Patterson wrote:
    The scary part is, if Clinton wins and gets two terms, ill be 36 years old when she leaves office. at that time I will have had a Clinton or Bush in Office for 78% of my life.

    Which is fucked up... remember... friends dont let friends vote clinton...
    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
  • slightofjeff
    slightofjeff Posts: 7,762
    gabers wrote:
    Don't these candidates understand we want a fricking timetable?! .

    Who wants a timetable? I don't want a timetable. At least not one that's made public.

    While we're at it, why don't we see if Bill Belichick will let the Giants borrow his playbook for the week leading up to the Super Bowl ...
    everybody wants the most they can possibly get
    for the least they could possibly do
  • gabers
    gabers Posts: 2,787
    slightofjeff wrote:
    Who wants a timetable? I don't want a timetable. At least not one that's made public.

    While we're at it, why don't we see if Bill Belichick will let the Giants borrow his playbook for the week leading up to the Super Bowl ...

    I want someone to have cojones enough to admit we shouldn't be in Iraq, and that we need to get out, and the plan is to be out in x amount of time. I want this someone right now to be Obama. It sure as shit isn't McCain or Romney.
  • slightofjeff
    slightofjeff Posts: 7,762
    gabers wrote:
    I want someone to have cojones enough to admit we shouldn't be in Iraq, and that we need to get out, and the plan is to be out in x amount of time. I want this someone right now to be Obama. It sure as shit isn't McCain or Romney.

    McCain/Romney are vying for the REPUBLICAN nomination. First one to repeat what you just said, loses.

    Remember, to get the Republican nomination, you have to defend the war at all costs.

    To get the Democratic nomination, you have to pretend even the strategies that are working don't work.
    everybody wants the most they can possibly get
    for the least they could possibly do

Categories