Obama wins!

reefraff

reefraff

Active Member
Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/2635351
Yea, after he got caught, he back-peddled and said we could possibly 'occupy' Iraq for 100 years, like the 50 we've been in Korea. Give me a break. If he could keep his 'surge' (is that the new War Monger buzz word?) going for 200 years, he would.
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/01/04/mccain-100-years/
Hate to break it to ya sport but that is his original comment on it, no back peddling involved.
How about your BS claim about his pork spending?
 
1journeyman

1journeyman

Active Member

Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/2635085
NOW he has his own tax plan...
The man who vowed to stay in the Iraq War for 100 years if it takes that long...
The man who invented pork barrel spending...
The man who is deciding to jump onto the Gore bandwagon after realizing the American public want something done about global warming....
Sounds like a typical Republican flip-flopper to me.

More faulty talking points from the left, unfortunately.
Pork barrel? Nancy Pelosi said, a year before becoming Speaker, that if she ever became Speaker she would eliminate Pork. Someone needs to tell her she's Speaker apparently. Democrats have repeatedly opposed the Republican idea of a line item veto for the President so that he/she could cross out wasteful spending.
McCain, when he said we could be in Iraq for 100 years, said very clearly, that would not be a combat force. Feel free to look up his complete answer. He was absolutely correct, btw. We could easily have troops here 100 years from now; Just as we have troops in Japan and Germany 60 years after WW2.
I'm still waiting for you to show me where Obama was not associated with Ayers, founder of the Weather Underground. You said Obama had cleard that up, let's see it.
 
1journeyman

1journeyman

Active Member
Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/2635022
If you want McCain, you'd better like his Vice President pick. That old geezer won't make it through his first year without having a stroke. ...
If you are worried about the President having a stroke, you better support someone other than Obama. After all, smokers are at least 2 1/2 times more likely to have a stroke than non-smokers. Further evidence also supports the idea that smoking weakens blood vessels in the brain and high stress conditions can increase those odds to close to 10 times...
 
stdreb27

stdreb27

Active Member
I'm not a McDem fan period. But the 100 year thing was pretty cut and dry what he was trying to say. As for the porkbarreling. IMO the dems have been in control of congress for was it 50 years, they pretty much set up the rules for congress, they invented pork barrel spending. Not McCain. (that that he hasn't done it)
What annoys me is this obama no lobbiests or special interests line. Sure some of it may be less than ethical, but they are americans too, are we going to shut americans out of the political system simply because they go up to washington and present their interest? And if rezko and he association with obama wasn't for some sort of influence what was it for? A crook giving obama special favors is ok, but legal lobbiests in washington aren't?
Don't get me wrong, lobbiests aren't all good. But when you run around saying no lobbiests and stuff, you basically are saying because of x you don't have access to the political system, and keeping people out for whatever the reason isn't our political system.
 
stdreb27

stdreb27

Active Member
Originally Posted by 1journeyman
http:///forum/post/2635508
If you are worried about the President having a stroke, you better support someone other than Obama. After all, smokers are at least 2 1/2 times more likely to have a stroke than non-smokers. Further evidence also supports the idea that smoking weakens blood vessels in the brain and high stress conditions can increase those odds to close to 10 times...
So do you really think McCain wasn't a smoker in the military?
 
stdreb27

stdreb27

Active Member
Originally Posted by oscardeuce
http:///forum/post/2635706
True, rino's have strayed, but at least we have not become the party of karl marx like the democrat party
Well no that is ok, because the commies only killed the smart people. And the christians.
 
reefraff

reefraff

Active Member
One thing that needs to be cleared up is terms being used.
Liberal meaning of Flip Flop when applied to any Republican: Any change or modification of an opinion since the beginning of time. Example: John McCain has reached the conclusion there is enough evidence that human activity is at least causing some influence on global warming that we should take reasonable steps to deal with it because in his words "even it it's wrong all we have done is left our children a cleaner environment".
Example 2: John McCain says the Bush tax cuts he opposed should be made permanent. He says "If I had it to do again I would still oppose the Bush tax cuts because I think my plan was better".
Liberals call those flip flops.
Real meaning of flip flop: When under pressure a candidate suddenly reverses or changes positions on an issue.
Example: Obama said he would meet with the leaders of Hamas and the president of Iran without preconditions. He is now backpeddling say "well of course there would have to be negotiations and they would have to renounce terrorism first". Sounds like a precondition to me.
Example 2: Appearing before a national Jewish lobbying group Obama said "Jerusalem must be the undivided capital of Israel". Of course that statement is contrary to US policy which is the two sides must negotiate the issue of Jerusalem for themselves. Within hours of making the statement Obama back peddled when he started receiving criticism from various muslim groups. (Also interesting to note that Mr. I don't take lobbyist money was kissing a lobbyist group's butt)
Pork Barrel spending/earmarks. Every politician can be said to have brought home the pork for their state but not all pork is created equally. Earmarks are projects slipped into bills after the details of the bill have been negotiated. Basically a backroom deal. Clinton had over 300 million last year, Obama 91 million.
JOHN MCCAIN HAS NEVER INSERTED ANY PROJECTS IN A BILL THROUGH AN EARMARK. Thats over 20 years folks, impressive!
 
darthtang aw

darthtang aw

Active Member
Originally Posted by Jmick
http:///forum/post/2635041
How many black US Senators or Congressmen does your party have at this time? When Obama was running your party fielded Alan Keyes to run against him

I will not say that in the past that the republican party hasn't done good things for this country but the party is not the same as it was even 30 years ago. What would someone like Reagan (a real conservative) think of the party today?
Ok, considering currently there is only one more black senator democrat than republicans that makes the democratic party 2% less racist than Republicans...way to go there skippy. You just drove your racist point home with that question. (sarcasm in case you missed it)
You did ask for recent politicians in the republican party, I added a few "firsts" since everyone is all giddy over the first black president. I did omit Governors and cabinet members that would have tripled that list easily.
As far as Reagan and his views on the republicans of today, he would call them democrats. Plain and simple. Reagan cut funding for social programs ( something Bush has increased spending on) Reagan's majority of his budgets went to defense (something no president since him has done). He did rack up the highest deficit ever in previous history with his defense spending.....Then Bush made it bigger, followed by Cl;inton, an Now Bush....so no change in that direction.
Please don't bring up Reagan in comparrison to the republican party again, you obviously have no clue on him and can't grasp he would have even less respect for the policies of Obama.
Oh and when Reagan said he would do something......he did it....he didn't check polling data, he didn't change his mind one day after saying it because he was in front of someone different than the previous. Reagan would look at the direction our country has gone and roll over in his grave. Do you honestly think he would be happy with what he sees going on in either party based off what his terms were centered on. Reagan was a firm believer in "you can do it yourself". You don't need the government to do it for you such as Obama preaches....and yes, I say preaches because he is nothing more than a televangelist promising you Heaven if you support him and send him money...
I ask you obama supporters again. And do try to answer these questions.
How is he going to pay for his healthcare program that is reported going to cost 500 billion per year minimum?
How is going to help out those states that have job crisis because they relied heavily on manufacturing and the auto industry when more auto plants are closiung because gas is so high but he won't support the one GUARANTEED way to be bring down gas prices in this country to help stimulate the desire for certain autos again.
How is he going to bring the country together, when 40% of the country has moral views exactly opposite to his.....How do you get people to compromise their morals and ignore them....this is what he claims he will do.
How is he going to safely pull out of Iraq without destabilizing the region more and send gas prices even higher due to lack of oil production. Right now Iraq is producing more oil than their entire history has ever shown....how expensive will gas be if Iraq oil wells are shut down due to regional middle east free for all for the country of Iraq?
How will his pull out of Iraq prevent a similar genocide such as occurred in Vietnam killing over 10 million people in massacres and "cleansings"?
 
stdreb27

stdreb27

Active Member
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
http:///forum/post/2635779
Ok, considering currently there is only one more black senator democrat than republicans that makes the democratic party 2% less racist than Republicans...way to go there skippy. You just drove your racist point home with that question. (sarcasm in case you missed it)
Less than that he half white!
 
bionicarm

bionicarm

Active Member
What's so hilarious about the debates of all these presidential candidates is that it's a lose/lose situation no matter which one gets elected into office. Both of them have faults, both of them will never get a tenth of their political promises or agendas passed, and the country will remain in it's sad economic state. You think Obama can get some type of National Healthcare system put in place with the current Congress? You think McCain can do anything about tax relief or greenhouse gases with the current Congress?

You want change, any change? Elect the right people into Congress. That's where it counts. The president is nothing more than a figure head and a detriment to this country's global affairs.
 
stdreb27

stdreb27

Active Member
Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/2635913
What's so hilarious about the debates of all these presidential candidates is that it's a lose/lose situation no matter which one gets elected into office. Both of them have faults, both of them will never get a tenth of their political promises or agendas passed, and the country will remain in it's sad economic state. You think Obama can get some type of National Healthcare system put in place with the current Congress? You think McCain can do anything about tax relief or greenhouse gases with the current Congress?

You want change, any change? Elect the right people into Congress. That's where it counts. The president is nothing more than a figure head and a detriment to this country's global affairs.
I agree, but I ask this question, if this is true, why is anything bad, bush's fault?
 
bionicarm

bionicarm

Active Member

Originally Posted by 1journeyman
http:///forum/post/2635505
More faulty talking points from the left, unfortunately.
Pork barrel? Nancy Pelosi said, a year before becoming Speaker, that if she ever became Speaker she would eliminate Pork. Someone needs to tell her she's Speaker apparently. Democrats have repeatedly opposed the Republican idea of a line item veto for the President so that he/she could cross out wasteful spending.
McCain, when he said we could be in Iraq for 100 years, said very clearly, that would not be a combat force. Feel free to look up his complete answer. He was absolutely correct, btw. We could easily have troops here 100 years from now; Just as we have troops in Japan and Germany 60 years after WW2.
I'm still waiting for you to show me where Obama was not associated with Ayers, founder of the Weather Underground. You said Obama had cleard that up, let's see it.

I'm sure you'd love to be in Iraq for 100 years. Hey, maybe you can become a permanent fixture there so you can live out your dream of being involved with this historic conflict we're stuck in. Nice stories to tell your grandchildren -- "No sonny. I was too old to join the Real Army to fight our War on Terror. Instead I was a contractor where I could make twice what I could make here in the US. But it was rough. I lived in an air conditioned shack in the Safe Zone, sucking popsicles and playing with the locals at night, while our Troops were getting shot and and blown up by missles 5 miles away. Those explosions did keep me awake at night. But that's OK, I survived."
Why are you so fixated with Obama's association with this guy? If this guy is such a terroristic threat, is he in jail? If not, why not? Just because he knew a guy that goes against the grain of you War Lovers, he's going to emulate their beliefs? The Weatherman Underground was a radical group back in the 60's and 70's that wanted to supposedly overthrow the government because they refused to abandon the Vietnam War. Wish I knew about them back then, I would've joined. Maybe they can revitalize their front and get us out of the Iraq 'Surge'. Fighting for what you believe in that goes against what the government perceives is right, and you're considered a terrorist?
 
bionicarm

bionicarm

Active Member
Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/2635916
I agree, but I ask this question, if this is true, why is anything bad, bush's fault?
Because he's the current figurehead. He's the guy in the limelight, the one who represents US political policies. Just like his father, Clinton, Carter, Nixon, etc. If Congress pushed their agenda through and made it law during any of these individual's terms, they were the one's to blame. That's because Congress is this faceless entity that people blindly elect unknown indivduals into, not even scrutinizing their agendas or beliefs. You have people in Congress that have been there for decades because their constituents keep voting them in just because they recognize the name on the ballot. Look at Strom Thurman. The man had to be wheeled into sessions (if he even showed up), and told what was going on. How many Congressmen do you know by name?
 
1journeyman

1journeyman

Active Member
Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/2635089
Out of curiousity, why do you even care who wins? Reading your 'Bagdhad Blog', you have some aspiration to move to Australia and become a preacher. Shouldn't matter to you what happens in the ole' U.S. of A. You'll be too busy eating Vegamite and becoming shark food.
This is a novel concept to some, I realize, but I'm an American and a Patriot first, no matter where I live. I want what is best for my Nation.
Can't stand vegamite, and there are actually very few shark attacks off the coast of NE Australia, especially as far out as the GBR.
 
stdreb27

stdreb27

Active Member
Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/2635944
Because he's the current figurehead. He's the guy in the limelight, the one who represents US political policies. Just like his father, Clinton, Carter, Nixon, etc. If Congress pushed their agenda through and made it law during any of these individual's terms, they were the one's to blame. That's because Congress is this faceless entity that people blindly elect unknown indivduals into, not even scrutinizing their agendas or beliefs. You have people in Congress that have been there for decades because their constituents keep voting them in just because they recognize the name on the ballot. Look at Strom Thurman. The man had to be wheeled into sessions (if he even showed up), and told what was going on. How many Congressmen do you know by name?
I'm the wrong person to ask, I'm a junky if you do big names 2 kennedys, oboomer, McCain, Clinton, major democrat players, Barbara Boxer, Fienstine, Reid, Pelosi, then I could go on.
I understand this concept, you seem to. But the reporters, and other people with a loud mouthpiece ignore this concept.
For instance who was it earlier that he wasn't going to vote republican because of clinton was the only prez to balance the budget.
 
1journeyman

1journeyman

Active Member

Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/2635934
I'm sure you'd love to be in Iraq for 100 years. Hey, maybe you can become a permanent fixture there so you can live out your dream of being involved with this historic conflict we're stuck in. Nice stories to tell your grandchildren -- "No sonny. I was too old to join the Real Army to fight our War on Terror. Instead I was a contractor where I could make twice what I could make here in the US. But it was rough. I lived in an air conditioned shack in the Safe Zone, sucking popsicles and playing with the locals at night, while our Troops were getting shot and and blown up by missles 5 miles away. Those explosions did keep me awake at night. But that's OK, I survived."
Why are you so fixated with Obama's association with this guy? If this guy is such a terroristic threat, is he in jail? If not, why not? Just because he knew a guy that goes against the grain of you War Lovers, he's going to emulate their beliefs? The Weatherman Underground was a radical group back in the 60's and 70's that wanted to supposedly overthrow the government because they refused to abandon the Vietnam War. Wish I knew about them back then, I would've joined. Maybe they can revitalize their front and get us out of the Iraq 'Surge'. Fighting for what you believe in that goes against what the government perceives is right, and you're considered a terrorist?
You still need to actually listen to McCain's statement regarding 100 years.
Unless of course you wish to attempt to have a conversation on a point you are clearly uneducated on.
The Contract I am on is a critical one that the military has repeatedly stated they do not want. I'm proud to be here and proud of the job we are doing here. .. I hate popcicles, military casualties are at record lows, and the IZ is obviously within striking distance of rockets...
You made a totally false statement regarding the Weather Underground founder Ayers and his relationship with Obama. I'm not fixated, I'm simply interested in the truth. (Hopefully you are just ignorant when you say you would have joined the terrorists. They bombed police offices, the Pentagon, etc. Would you really like to join a group like that?)
So I ask again for you to back up your claim that Obama did not serve on the same board with Ayers.
 
reefraff

reefraff

Active Member
Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/2635758
I'd be interested in seeing the basis for that claim.
I love using leftwing sites to prove my points

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/01/06/mccain-earmark/
They claim two instances of McCain getting pork or an earmark. The first could be considered pork but McCain was supporting a stand alone bill to fund the center. That never went through so 2 years later the other senator had it earmarked.
The second one has a retraction printed right in the article under "update".
So a leftist website shows McCain never did an earmark just as I claimed
 
reefraff

reefraff

Active Member
Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/2635913
What's so hilarious about the debates of all these presidential candidates is that it's a lose/lose situation no matter which one gets elected into office. Both of them have faults, both of them will never get a tenth of their political promises or agendas passed, and the country will remain in it's sad economic state. You think Obama can get some type of National Healthcare system put in place with the current Congress? You think McCain can do anything about tax relief or greenhouse gases with the current Congress?

You want change, any change? Elect the right people into Congress. That's where it counts. The president is nothing more than a figure head and a detriment to this country's global affairs.
What I am hoping is
McCain will stick to his guns on spending and he has enough good will banked from the other side that the rhetoric will be toned down just a little.
What we need is about half a dozen senators and about 40 Congressmen from some sort of a centrist 3rd party elected to really change things in DC.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top