calm the fuck down guy. dont dish out shit if you cant take it.
I'm not judging you. I'm basing my comment on yours. there are many people around here with the holier than now attitude. calling all Americans stupid, sheep, being distracted by shiny meddles, etc.
I'm not saying shit doesnt get swept under the rug. over time it does. but before it does there are many whos voices are heard, congressional hearings, investigations, firings, charges, consequences.
I guess telling it like it is is suddenly the new "holier than now attitude"...
Good point. It's not just McCain...many of the Democratic nominees were for the war as well. And they should be held accountable as well.
But we're not talking about Biden right now. We're talking about McCain. And as I've heard from many Republican supporters in the past week, it's not the No. 2 that counts. It's the No. 1.
That we would elect someone who through incompetence contributed to the death of over 4,000 (mostly) young soldiers is incomprehensible to me. It's a violation of everything the Presidency is supposed to stand for. Obama may be an empty suit, but give me the empty suit over someone like that.
But we're not talking about Biden right now. We're talking about McCain. And as I've heard from many Republican supporters in the past week, it's not the No. 2 that counts. It's the No. 1.
really? LOL then is Palin's lack of experience a non-issue?
calm the fuck down guy. dont dish out shit if you cant take it.
I'm not judging you. I'm basing my comment on yours. there are many people around here with the holier than now attitude. calling all Americans stupid, sheep, being distracted by shiny meddles, etc.
I'm not saying shit doesnt get swept under the rug. over time it does. but before it does there are many whos voices are heard, congressional hearings, investigations, firings, charges, consequences.
I can take it, the point is I never resort to attacking people on this board. I try to be as respectful as possible and don't appreciate it when someone passes judgement on me. What I said is true, it's not pretending to be better than anyone else. You think I like saying that the majority of American voters are either too apathetic, stupid or lazy to get involved. No it's a poor reflextion on my country but unfortunetly it is an accurate depiction of the electorate. The Iraq war is a prime example. How can the greatest foreign policy diseaster in current time, the lies, cover-ups, billions of dollars wasted, contractors bilking the American public be a non-issue. Trust me it's great that we have a timeline for pulling the troops out and I would love nothing more than to see a stable peaceful free Iraq, god knows those people deserve a normal life, but that is not the end of it. Lastly if you think that Congress is going to investigate this or hold Congressional hearings you are gravely mistaken. The Democrats have had control of Congress for over a year now and there has not been one word about investigating the many dealings concerning Iraq. As I said they are chin deep in the shit as well. Also as far as speaking up about it, look what happened to Ron paul when he criticized our foreign policy, labeled a loon and publicaly mocked by Mr 9/11 himself Rudy Guilliani.
So if my words about the electorate seem harsh to you, well too bad, because I for one am sick and fucking tired of having apathetic, lazy or stupid people, this includes Dems and Reps alike, electing worthless politicians to lead our nation. So if that makes me a god damn elitist then fuck I guess I'm an elitist. I never would have thought that there would be a day when being well informed and concerned would be frowned upon.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
I can take it, the point is I never resort to attacking people on this board. I try to be as respectful as possible and don't appreciate it when someone passes judgement on me. What I said is true, it's not pretending to be better than anyone else. You think I like saying that the majority of American voters are either too apathetic, stupid or lazy to get involved. No it's a poor reflextion on my country but unfortunetly it is an accurate depiction of the electorate. The Iraq war is a prime example. How can the greatest foreign policy diseaster in current time, the lies, cover-ups, billions of dollars wasted, contractors bilking the American public be a non-issue. Trust me it's great that we have a timeline for pulling the troops out and I would love nothing more than to see a stable peaceful free Iraq, god knows those people deserve a normal life, but that is not the end of it. Lastly if you think that Congress is going to investigate this or hold Congressional hearings you are gravely mistaken. The Democrats have had control of Congress for over a year now and there has not been one word about investigating the many dealings concerning Iraq. As I said they are chin deep in the shit as well. Also as far as speaking up about it, look what happened to Ron paul when he criticized our foreign policy, labeled a loon and publicaly mocked by Mr 9/11 himself Rudy Guilliani.
So if my words about the electorate seem harsh to you, well too bad, because I for one am sick and fucking tired of having apathetic, lazy or stupid people, this includes Dems and Reps alike, electing worthless politicians to lead our nation. So if that makes me a god damn elitist then fuck I guess I'm an elitist. I never would have thought that there would be a day when being well informed and concerned would be frowned upon.
if you took offense to my comment I apologize. I wasnt attacking you as a person, I was attacking the comment you made generalizing americans while leaving yourself out.
when I said Iraq would be a non-issue, i meant in terms of the continuation of the war. that in itself will be a non-issue because of the reasons I stated.
now will the lies, cover up, wasteful spending, etc be an issue? yes, and I hope it will.
So if my words about the electorate seem harsh to you, well too bad, because I for one am sick and fucking tired of having apathetic, lazy or stupid people, this includes Dems and Reps alike, electing worthless politicians to lead our nation. So if that makes me a god damn elitist then fuck I guess I'm an elitist. I never would have thought that there would be a day when being well informed and concerned would be frowned upon.
It's frowned upon because the people that are elected want mindless sheep following them around. Independent thinking is frowned upon by both D's and R's. They don't want you to question anything, just move with the status quo of it all.
They're just going to give us hollow promises. If McCain gets to the White House we'll be in the same stale mate that we've been in for 2 years. These assholes in Congress and the White House want to push their own agendas and not realize the greater good (America) is suffering because of it.
if you took offense to my comment I apologize. I wasnt attacking you as a person, I was attacking the comment you made generalizing americans while leaving yourself out.
when I said Iraq would be a non-issue, i meant in terms of the continuation of the war. that in itself will be a non-issue because of the reasons I stated.
now will the lies, cover up, wasteful spending, etc be an issue? yes, and I hope it will.
I left myself, and I should say that there are many people who do not fit the apathetic, stupid and lazy title, because I am neither of the three. I care about politics, I care about who we elect, I care about the issues and sorry if I sound holier than though but I am neither stupid (even though it seems to be a bad thing in America these days to be well educated and consider yourself an intellectual) nor lazy. So forgive me for not including myself in my description of the electorate but my super massive Northeastern elitist ego felt that the description really didn't pertain to me.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
I left myself, and I should say that there are many people who do not fit the apathetic, stupid and lazy title, because I am neither of the three. I care about politics, I care about who we elect, I care about the issues and sorry if I sound holier than though but I am neither stupid (even though it seems to be a bad thing in America these days to be well educated and consider yourself an intellectual) nor lazy. So forgive me for not including myself in my description of the electorate but my super massive Northeastern elitist ego felt that the description really didn't pertain to me.
right, and everyone else is just stupid and lazy. you rule
right, and everyone else is just stupid and lazy. you rule
You forgot apathetic.
No not everyone else, just those that would vote for a politician simply based on the fact that he seems like someone they would have a beer with. Mock and dismiss what I say all you want but even the campaign manager of one of the presidential candidates even reinforced my point. He stated that this election would be decided by personality not issues. That right there is enough to tell me that my assumption of the electorate is pretty dead on.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
No not everyone else, just those that would vote for a politician simply based on the fact that he seems like someone they would have a beer with. Mock and dismiss what I say all you want but even the campaign manager of one of the presidential candidates even reinforced my point. He stated that this election would be decided by personality not issues. That right there is enough to tell me that my assumption of the electorate is pretty dead on.
absolutely I do. but hell, 2003 was a long time ago, false information was being tossed around as fact.. bush had the support of 99% of congress?
I believe mccain supported the war more after the fact then before it. which is ok with me.
Not true.
The Iraq War Resolution of October 2002 passed 296-133 in the House and 77 to 23 in the Senate. A majority? Of course, but that's not 99 percent. It wasn't just left-wing nuts condemning the war at its' start; there were many reasoned, legitimate opinions against it. John McCain (and Clinton and Edwards), by his own admission did not read or analyze the National Intelligence Estimate that detailed the possibility of Iraq having weapons of mass destruction.
The Iraq War Resolution of October 2002 passed 296-133 in the House and 77 to 23 in the Senate. A majority? Of course, but that's not 99 percent. It wasn't just left-wing nuts condemning the war at its' start; there were many reasoned, legitimate opinions against it. John McCain (and Clinton and Edwards), by his own admission did not read or analyze the National Intelligence Estimate that detailed the possibility of Iraq having weapons of mass destruction.
thanks for posting, I knew I was exaggerating but didnt know the exact votes.
really? LOL then is Palin's lack of experience a non-issue?
Of course I'm voting for Obama. He's maybe the only candidate on the ticket who did not support the war, and was right in doing so. Hm, not sending troops into harm's way when they don't need to be; I think that's the bare minimum of qualifications someone should have when they're in the Oval Office.
According to Republicans (including you, since I think we've debated this before), Palin's experience is a non-issue since it's "No. 1 on the ticket that counts, not No. 2". Your argument, not mine. It doesn't matter then, whether Biden supported the war or not. I think it does, but what is my alternative? McCain?
And another thing; why is it impossible for people here to defend their candidate of choice? I'm sure I'm as guilty of this as anyone, but come on; I questioned McCain's vote on the war, and I feel it makes him unqualified to be President. Don't come back at me with Biden. Defend McCain, and let's keep the argument what it was about. When I question McCain, and you come back at me with Biden, it makes it sound like you have no defense for McCain's actions.
Of course I'm voting for Obama. He's maybe the only candidate on the ticket who did not support the war, and was right in doing so. Hm, not sending troops into harm's way when they don't need to be; I think that's the bare minimum of qualifications someone should have when they're in the Oval Office.
According to Republicans (including you, since I think we've debated this before), Palin's experience is a non-issue since it's "No. 1 on the ticket that counts, not No. 2". Your argument, not mine. It doesn't matter then, whether Biden supported the war or not. I think it does, but what is my alternative? McCain?
And another thing; why is it impossible for people here to defend their candidate of choice? I'm sure I'm as guilty of this as anyone, but come on; I questioned McCain's vote on the war, and I feel it makes him unqualified to be President. Don't come back at me with Biden. Defend McCain, and let's keep the argument what it was about. When I question McCain, and you come back at me with Biden, it makes it sound like you have no defense for McCain's actions.
How do you defend Obama's position on this?
The Bridge to Nowhere wouldn't have existed if Obama and Biden and the rest of the Senate hadn't voted to reject the diverting of funding for the Bridge to Nowhere to repair Interstate 10 in New Orleans after it was heavily damaged by Katrina. But I guess Obama and Biden and the rest of the Senate thought that the Bridge in Alaska was more important than the site of a natural disaster.
I also like how in Obama's podcast 4 months after voting to keep the Bridge, he discusses his ethics reform bill that he speaks about often and mentions:
"We've also suggested that we end a practice called earmarks, which John McCain and I agree on. There's a process in which essentially individual Senators can, without letting other Senators know, inject their own pork projects into the budget, without any scrutiny or really any public knowledge. That's how you end up getting the two hundred something billion dollar bridge to nowhere in Alaska."
Of course I'm voting for Obama. He's maybe the only candidate on the ticket who did not support the war, and was right in doing so. Hm, not sending troops into harm's way when they don't need to be; I think that's the bare minimum of qualifications someone should have when they're in the Oval Office.
fair enough. I dont necessarily disagree with you, but I wont exclude mccain from getting my vote because he voted for the war.
According to Republicans (including you, since I think we've debated this before), Palin's experience is a non-issue since it's "No. 1 on the ticket that counts, not No. 2". Your argument, not mine. It doesn't matter then, whether Biden supported the war or not. I think it does, but what is my alternative? McCain?
And another thing; why is it impossible for people here to defend their candidate of choice? I'm sure I'm as guilty of this as anyone, but come on; I questioned McCain's vote on the war, and I feel it makes him unqualified to be President. Don't come back at me with Biden. Defend McCain, and let's keep the argument what it was about. When I question McCain, and you come back at me with Biden, it makes it sound like you have no defense for McCain's actions.
dont u see the point he was trying to make? you wont vote for mccain because he voted to go to Iraq but totally excuse the fact that biden did.
The Bridge to Nowhere wouldn't have existed if Obama and Biden and the rest of the Senate hadn't voted to reject the diverting of funding for the Bridge to Nowhere to repair Interstate 10 in New Orleans after it was heavily damaged by Katrina. But I guess Obama and Biden and the rest of the Senate thought that the Bridge in Alaska was more important than the site of a natural disaster.
I also like how in Obama's podcast 4 months after voting to keep the Bridge, he discusses his ethics reform bill that he speaks about often and mentions:
"We've also suggested that we end a practice called earmarks, which John McCain and I agree on. There's a process in which essentially individual Senators can, without letting other Senators know, inject their own pork projects into the budget, without any scrutiny or really any public knowledge. That's how you end up getting the two hundred something billion dollar bridge to nowhere in Alaska."
Well, if he was so against the Bridge a few months later, why did he vote to keep the funding initially?
I'll be happy to review what you gave me there, but what does that have to do with McCain's vote on Iraq?
EDIT: Do you know where in the amendment the stuff regarding the Bridge to Nowhere is? I've been looking through the amendment, but so far all I'm seeing is stuff related to reform of Amtrak. I'm sure they stuck it in here, but I'd like to read it before responding.
dont u see the point he was trying to make? you wont vote for mccain because he voted to go to Iraq but totally excuse the fact that biden did.
How am I excusing that Biden did? This is from an earlier post of mine, regarding someone who brought up Biden.
"Good point. It's not just McCain...many of the Democratic nominees were for the war as well. And they should be held accountable as well."
I'm not avoiding that fact; the fact does remain, however that Senator Obama was the only one on the ticket on either side that accurately predicted what was going to happen in Iraq, one of the biggest foreign policy fiascos in American history. You're saying I should refuse to vote for candidate who had that clarity of mind, who was able to see beyond the patriotic fervor and war fever in the air to see the truth and consequences about what we were about to embark upon? You're saying I should not vote for him, because his VP candidate and the Presidential candidate on the opposing side shared the same gross incompetence? Maybe in some other election, I'll vote third party, but I'm not willing to sit through another four year rerun of the past eight. And McCain, in every vote he's made, has given me to reason to believe that he would not have conducted that war in the exact same way Bush did.
This is why the criticism of Obama about 'the surge' is pretty ludicrous. If Obama had been in office there wouldn't have been a need for the surge in the first place. There wouldn't have been a needless war.
"And each says he is committed to treating his opponent and his opponent’s party with respect"
So far the speeches at the RNC have pulled away from this commitment.
you don't think Obama went negative? also i found some parts to very interesting such as how mcCain has worked with teh democrates on issues hell even Tom das. said that.
People demand freedom of speech to make up for the freedom of thought which they avoid."
- Soren Aabye Kierkegaard (1813-1855)
If you haven't got anything nice to say about anybody, come sit next to me."
- Alice Roosevelt Longworth (1884-1980)
How am I excusing that Biden did? This is from an earlier post of mine, regarding someone who brought up Biden.
"Good point. It's not just McCain...many of the Democratic nominees were for the war as well. And they should be held accountable as well."
I'm not avoiding that fact; the fact does remain, however that Senator Obama was the only one on the ticket on either side that accurately predicted what was going to happen in Iraq, one of the biggest foreign policy fiascos in American history. You're saying I should refuse to vote for candidate who had that clarity of mind, who was able to see beyond the patriotic fervor and war fever in the air to see the truth and consequences about what we were about to embark upon? You're saying I should not vote for him, because his VP candidate and the Presidential candidate on the opposing side shared the same gross incompetence? Maybe in some other election, I'll vote third party, but I'm not willing to sit through another four year rerun of the past eight. And McCain, in every vote he's made, has given me to reason to believe that he would not have conducted that war in the exact same way Bush did.
This is why the criticism of Obama about 'the surge' is pretty ludicrous. If Obama had been in office there wouldn't have been a need for the surge in the first place. There wouldn't have been a needless war.
whoa, chill out. im not telling you who to vote for at all. we are just having a discussion.
someone else brought up biden, not me. all I was I saying was you refuse to vote for mccain because he voted for the war. but will vote for biden even though he did the same thing.
I understand that points you are making and am not telling you who to vote for.
you don't think Obama went negative? also i found some parts to very interesting such as how mcCain has worked with teh democrates on issues hell even Tom das. said that.
Yes, both candidates have been negative, but in respect to the DNC and the RNC, the RNC was way more negative and snidely
Thank you for posting that article. people need to realize how much hyper-partisanship is really hurting this country. It just seems that the extreme factions of both parties are the only one's being heard while those down the middle have completely been cast aside.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
I think McCain is sincere. I believe he hates war, but sees it as a necessary evil (and it is many times). I just don't think the continued occupation of Iraq is a necessary evil.
the Iraq war is going to almost become a non-issue IMO. the time table is already being written out.
If it becomes an issue, it's going to be one that actually works FOR McCain ... he can spin it, "If Obama would have had his way, Iraq would have been lost."
True or not, that's something that might resonate with millions of Americans.
Also, don't be surprised to see McCain seize on something Obama said in the O'Reilly interview, "the surge worked beyond anyone's wildest dreams."
I think McCain can claim it worked exactly the way he thought it would, and score points on foreign policy experience. He can say something to the effect that maybe Obama lacks imagination.
Another point from the O'Reilly interview: Obama admits the surge worked beyong anyone's wildest expectations, yet says he is STILL against it. McCain's gonna be able to use that against him, too.
everybody wants the most they can possibly get
for the least they could possibly do
Comments
I guess telling it like it is is suddenly the new "holier than now attitude"...
right, you and mamma are the only ones smart enough in this country to not be distracted by shiny meddles. how dare I question that.
Good point. It's not just McCain...many of the Democratic nominees were for the war as well. And they should be held accountable as well.
But we're not talking about Biden right now. We're talking about McCain. And as I've heard from many Republican supporters in the past week, it's not the No. 2 that counts. It's the No. 1.
That we would elect someone who through incompetence contributed to the death of over 4,000 (mostly) young soldiers is incomprehensible to me. It's a violation of everything the Presidency is supposed to stand for. Obama may be an empty suit, but give me the empty suit over someone like that.
accountable how? meaning you wont vote for obama?
really? LOL then is Palin's lack of experience a non-issue?
I can take it, the point is I never resort to attacking people on this board. I try to be as respectful as possible and don't appreciate it when someone passes judgement on me. What I said is true, it's not pretending to be better than anyone else. You think I like saying that the majority of American voters are either too apathetic, stupid or lazy to get involved. No it's a poor reflextion on my country but unfortunetly it is an accurate depiction of the electorate. The Iraq war is a prime example. How can the greatest foreign policy diseaster in current time, the lies, cover-ups, billions of dollars wasted, contractors bilking the American public be a non-issue. Trust me it's great that we have a timeline for pulling the troops out and I would love nothing more than to see a stable peaceful free Iraq, god knows those people deserve a normal life, but that is not the end of it. Lastly if you think that Congress is going to investigate this or hold Congressional hearings you are gravely mistaken. The Democrats have had control of Congress for over a year now and there has not been one word about investigating the many dealings concerning Iraq. As I said they are chin deep in the shit as well. Also as far as speaking up about it, look what happened to Ron paul when he criticized our foreign policy, labeled a loon and publicaly mocked by Mr 9/11 himself Rudy Guilliani.
So if my words about the electorate seem harsh to you, well too bad, because I for one am sick and fucking tired of having apathetic, lazy or stupid people, this includes Dems and Reps alike, electing worthless politicians to lead our nation. So if that makes me a god damn elitist then fuck I guess I'm an elitist. I never would have thought that there would be a day when being well informed and concerned would be frowned upon.
if you took offense to my comment I apologize. I wasnt attacking you as a person, I was attacking the comment you made generalizing americans while leaving yourself out.
when I said Iraq would be a non-issue, i meant in terms of the continuation of the war. that in itself will be a non-issue because of the reasons I stated.
now will the lies, cover up, wasteful spending, etc be an issue? yes, and I hope it will.
It's frowned upon because the people that are elected want mindless sheep following them around. Independent thinking is frowned upon by both D's and R's. They don't want you to question anything, just move with the status quo of it all.
They're just going to give us hollow promises. If McCain gets to the White House we'll be in the same stale mate that we've been in for 2 years. These assholes in Congress and the White House want to push their own agendas and not realize the greater good (America) is suffering because of it.
I left myself, and I should say that there are many people who do not fit the apathetic, stupid and lazy title, because I am neither of the three. I care about politics, I care about who we elect, I care about the issues and sorry if I sound holier than though but I am neither stupid (even though it seems to be a bad thing in America these days to be well educated and consider yourself an intellectual) nor lazy. So forgive me for not including myself in my description of the electorate but my super massive Northeastern elitist ego felt that the description really didn't pertain to me.
question away...that's fine...but to simply dismiss by pulling the "holier that thou card" is just lame...
right, and everyone else is just stupid and lazy. you rule
You forgot apathetic.
No not everyone else, just those that would vote for a politician simply based on the fact that he seems like someone they would have a beer with. Mock and dismiss what I say all you want but even the campaign manager of one of the presidential candidates even reinforced my point. He stated that this election would be decided by personality not issues. That right there is enough to tell me that my assumption of the electorate is pretty dead on.
you make it sound like we are electing a King.
Not true.
The Iraq War Resolution of October 2002 passed 296-133 in the House and 77 to 23 in the Senate. A majority? Of course, but that's not 99 percent. It wasn't just left-wing nuts condemning the war at its' start; there were many reasoned, legitimate opinions against it. John McCain (and Clinton and Edwards), by his own admission did not read or analyze the National Intelligence Estimate that detailed the possibility of Iraq having weapons of mass destruction.
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200809/partisanship
- Soren Aabye Kierkegaard (1813-1855)
If you haven't got anything nice to say about anybody, come sit next to me."
- Alice Roosevelt Longworth (1884-1980)
OK?
thanks for posting, I knew I was exaggerating but didnt know the exact votes.
Of course I'm voting for Obama. He's maybe the only candidate on the ticket who did not support the war, and was right in doing so. Hm, not sending troops into harm's way when they don't need to be; I think that's the bare minimum of qualifications someone should have when they're in the Oval Office.
According to Republicans (including you, since I think we've debated this before), Palin's experience is a non-issue since it's "No. 1 on the ticket that counts, not No. 2". Your argument, not mine. It doesn't matter then, whether Biden supported the war or not. I think it does, but what is my alternative? McCain?
And another thing; why is it impossible for people here to defend their candidate of choice? I'm sure I'm as guilty of this as anyone, but come on; I questioned McCain's vote on the war, and I feel it makes him unqualified to be President. Don't come back at me with Biden. Defend McCain, and let's keep the argument what it was about. When I question McCain, and you come back at me with Biden, it makes it sound like you have no defense for McCain's actions.
"And each says he is committed to treating his opponent and his opponent’s party with respect"
So far the speeches at the RNC have pulled away from this commitment.
How do you defend Obama's position on this?
The Bridge to Nowhere wouldn't have existed if Obama and Biden and the rest of the Senate hadn't voted to reject the diverting of funding for the Bridge to Nowhere to repair Interstate 10 in New Orleans after it was heavily damaged by Katrina. But I guess Obama and Biden and the rest of the Senate thought that the Bridge in Alaska was more important than the site of a natural disaster.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/20/AR2005102001931.html
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00262
I also like how in Obama's podcast 4 months after voting to keep the Bridge, he discusses his ethics reform bill that he speaks about often and mentions:
"We've also suggested that we end a practice called earmarks, which John McCain and I agree on. There's a process in which essentially individual Senators can, without letting other Senators know, inject their own pork projects into the budget, without any scrutiny or really any public knowledge. That's how you end up getting the two hundred something billion dollar bridge to nowhere in Alaska."
http://obama.senate.gov/podcast/060209-lobbying_and_et/
Well, if he was so against the Bridge a few months later, why did he vote to keep the funding initially?
- 8/28/98
- 9/2/00
- 4/28/03, 5/3/03, 7/3/03, 7/5/03, 7/6/03, 7/9/03, 7/11/03, 7/12/03, 7/14/03
- 9/28/04, 9/29/04, 10/1/04, 10/2/04
- 9/11/05, 9/12/05, 9/13/05, 9/30/05, 10/1/05, 10/3/05
- 5/12/06, 5/13/06, 5/27/06, 5/28/06, 5/30/06, 6/1/06, 6/3/06, 6/23/06, 7/22/06, 7/23/06, 12/2/06, 12/9/06
- 8/2/07, 8/5/07
- 6/19/08, 6/20/08, 6/22/08, 6/24/08, 6/25/08, 6/27/08, 6/28/08, 6/30/08, 7/1/08
- 8/23/09, 8/24/09, 9/21/09, 9/22/09, 10/27/09, 10/28/09, 10/30/09, 10/31/09
- 5/15/10, 5/17/10, 5/18/10, 5/20/10, 5/21/10, 10/23/10, 10/24/10
- 9/11/11, 9/12/11
- 10/18/13, 10/21/13, 10/22/13, 11/30/13, 12/4/13
fair enough. I dont necessarily disagree with you, but I wont exclude mccain from getting my vote because he voted for the war.
nope that wasnt me.
dont u see the point he was trying to make? you wont vote for mccain because he voted to go to Iraq but totally excuse the fact that biden did.
I'll be happy to review what you gave me there, but what does that have to do with McCain's vote on Iraq?
EDIT: Do you know where in the amendment the stuff regarding the Bridge to Nowhere is? I've been looking through the amendment, but so far all I'm seeing is stuff related to reform of Amtrak. I'm sure they stuck it in here, but I'd like to read it before responding.
Nothing, but this is one of the reason I can't vote for Obama and am voting third party.
Not everything has to do with Iraq.
I posted this in another thread yesterday and no one responded. I was more hoping someone could justify this for me.
- 8/28/98
- 9/2/00
- 4/28/03, 5/3/03, 7/3/03, 7/5/03, 7/6/03, 7/9/03, 7/11/03, 7/12/03, 7/14/03
- 9/28/04, 9/29/04, 10/1/04, 10/2/04
- 9/11/05, 9/12/05, 9/13/05, 9/30/05, 10/1/05, 10/3/05
- 5/12/06, 5/13/06, 5/27/06, 5/28/06, 5/30/06, 6/1/06, 6/3/06, 6/23/06, 7/22/06, 7/23/06, 12/2/06, 12/9/06
- 8/2/07, 8/5/07
- 6/19/08, 6/20/08, 6/22/08, 6/24/08, 6/25/08, 6/27/08, 6/28/08, 6/30/08, 7/1/08
- 8/23/09, 8/24/09, 9/21/09, 9/22/09, 10/27/09, 10/28/09, 10/30/09, 10/31/09
- 5/15/10, 5/17/10, 5/18/10, 5/20/10, 5/21/10, 10/23/10, 10/24/10
- 9/11/11, 9/12/11
- 10/18/13, 10/21/13, 10/22/13, 11/30/13, 12/4/13
How am I excusing that Biden did? This is from an earlier post of mine, regarding someone who brought up Biden.
"Good point. It's not just McCain...many of the Democratic nominees were for the war as well. And they should be held accountable as well."
I'm not avoiding that fact; the fact does remain, however that Senator Obama was the only one on the ticket on either side that accurately predicted what was going to happen in Iraq, one of the biggest foreign policy fiascos in American history. You're saying I should refuse to vote for candidate who had that clarity of mind, who was able to see beyond the patriotic fervor and war fever in the air to see the truth and consequences about what we were about to embark upon? You're saying I should not vote for him, because his VP candidate and the Presidential candidate on the opposing side shared the same gross incompetence? Maybe in some other election, I'll vote third party, but I'm not willing to sit through another four year rerun of the past eight. And McCain, in every vote he's made, has given me to reason to believe that he would not have conducted that war in the exact same way Bush did.
This is why the criticism of Obama about 'the surge' is pretty ludicrous. If Obama had been in office there wouldn't have been a need for the surge in the first place. There wouldn't have been a needless war.
you don't think Obama went negative? also i found some parts to very interesting such as how mcCain has worked with teh democrates on issues hell even Tom das. said that.
- Soren Aabye Kierkegaard (1813-1855)
If you haven't got anything nice to say about anybody, come sit next to me."
- Alice Roosevelt Longworth (1884-1980)
whoa, chill out. im not telling you who to vote for at all. we are just having a discussion.
someone else brought up biden, not me. all I was I saying was you refuse to vote for mccain because he voted for the war. but will vote for biden even though he did the same thing.
I understand that points you are making and am not telling you who to vote for.
see i don't see that. i think the DNC is doing it more on teh side where the RNC is coming straight out with it. i don't like it for both parties.
- Soren Aabye Kierkegaard (1813-1855)
If you haven't got anything nice to say about anybody, come sit next to me."
- Alice Roosevelt Longworth (1884-1980)
Thank you for posting that article. people need to realize how much hyper-partisanship is really hurting this country. It just seems that the extreme factions of both parties are the only one's being heard while those down the middle have completely been cast aside.
If it becomes an issue, it's going to be one that actually works FOR McCain ... he can spin it, "If Obama would have had his way, Iraq would have been lost."
True or not, that's something that might resonate with millions of Americans.
Also, don't be surprised to see McCain seize on something Obama said in the O'Reilly interview, "the surge worked beyond anyone's wildest dreams."
I think McCain can claim it worked exactly the way he thought it would, and score points on foreign policy experience. He can say something to the effect that maybe Obama lacks imagination.
Another point from the O'Reilly interview: Obama admits the surge worked beyong anyone's wildest expectations, yet says he is STILL against it. McCain's gonna be able to use that against him, too.
for the least they could possibly do