Please don't vote for McCain

darthtang aw

darthtang aw

Active Member
So what does the quote say? Basically he doesn't confirm or deny... which IMO suggests that they were not there or that it is at least debatable on when they arrived. Since people of the GOP want to secure our reasoning for being over there I think leaving this door open is very telling... If it were fact that they were there prior to the war then he would have said it. 2nd, we've heard tons of info saying the al qaeda terrorists were coming across the border at the onset of the war and that most of them our foreigners...

and McCain clearly stated the time to debate whether they were there or not is past. and he is correct. What would be the point. They are their now. Let me give you an example.
Someone tells you your house has termites. You can't see them or don't see them so ignore them. Your neighbor treats for them anyway. Later on you see termites. Do you sit there and debate arguing, "well I didn't see them before when you said they were there." Or do you just spray to kill them again. What would be the point of continue to argue if they were there before or not?
 
reefraff

reefraff

Active Member
Originally Posted by Rylan1
http:///forum/post/2481021
This is what McCain wants to do too... IMO Obama would do much better w/o it ... You should be all for it because this is the only way you could compete when it comes to fundraising or dollars.
... I can dance better than this.
Obama is the one going back on his word. McCain just repeated his previous committment while the Boba is back peddling,
 
1journeyman

1journeyman

Active Member
Originally Posted by Rylan1
http:///forum/post/2480988
get out of here... are you serious... retract ?

So what does the quote say? Basically he doesn't confirm or deny... ...
Which is a big difference from what you originally said he said.
Rylan, you're a smart guy. You and I agree on a lot of non political things. Take a look at how you are having to consistently make up things and try to twist facts to prove your points.
Sooner or later you're going to have to take a deep look at what you are trying to argue for. The truth shouldn't require lies and half truths to support it.
 
rylan1

rylan1

Active Member
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
http:///forum/post/2480944
Of course, Journey....but we both know the outcome of that.
I did look at it and responded with what is written at the bottom of the article of your post... there is a retraction

But I'm sure you would say that he was pressured or paid off or something...

to get them to put that in there.
 
rylan1

rylan1

Active Member
Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/2481031
Obama is the one going back on his word. McCain just repeated his previous committment while the Boba is back peddling,
how? I'm trying to understand what you are saying.
So McCain wants to have campaign reform and pay for election with public funds? But its wrong because Obama made a pledge or said he would do this...
I hope he doesnt to be honest... I would like him to keep his word, but by doing so he would give up an advantage he has.
 
1journeyman

1journeyman

Active Member
Originally Posted by Rylan1
http:///forum/post/2481013
lets be serious... muslims were treated different... profiled, vandalized, they were recipiants of hateful remarks, etc.. Just because they weren't shipped off or killed doesn't mean that it was acceptable.
Profiled? When at war that's a good thing. We profiled Germans and Japanese in WW2, heck we profiled the British in our Revolutionary War. Had 9-11 been perpetuated by a bunch of bown haired, green eyed, Protestant Caucasions I'd fully expect to be profiled myself.
Vandalized? Come on... Chicago was a lot more vandalized after a single Bull's Championship.
Recipients of hateful remarks? What are we, 12? I'm the recipient of hateful remarks every day.
Don't forget the other side of the coin, btw. We suffered quite a few hateful remarks form Muslims around the world saying we deserved it. We suffer quite a bit of "profiling" anytime an American travels overseas into an Arab country.
 
rylan1

rylan1

Active Member
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
http:///forum/post/2481045
so does this mean Rylan wont ansewr my questions?
Does this mean he won't respond to my analogy....?
analogy taken
.. but okay take your same anaolgy and lets say there is a termite mound in your yard .. but you ignore the mound and treat the house... you'll keep getting termites if you ignore the mound (source)
 
1journeyman

1journeyman

Active Member
Originally Posted by Rylan1
http:///forum/post/2481035
I did look at it and responded with what is written at the bottom of the article of your post... there is a retraction

But I'm sure you would say that he was pressured or paid off or something...

to get them to put that in there.
http://embeds.blogs.foxnews.com/2008...f-her-country/
Watch the videos Rylan...
TWO SPEECHES... two different things said. Obama's camp are lying to you if they are telling you she didn't say it.
WATCH THE TWO SEPERATE VIDEOS
 
reefraff

reefraff

Active Member
Originally Posted by Rylan1
http:///forum/post/2481042
how? I'm trying to understand what you are saying.
So McCain wants to have campaign reform and pay for election with public funds? But its wrong because Obama made a pledge or said he would do this...
I hope he doesnt to be honest... I would like him to keep his word, but by doing so he would give up an advantage he has.
From USA Today
Sen. Barack Obama sells himself as the candidate of "change," the candidate of reform, the man who'll shake up Washington's business-as-usual mentality.
But before the Illinois Democrat has even gotten on the November ballot, he is waffling on one of his earliest reform pledges: to pursue public financing rather than gather money from high rollers and special interests if he is his party's nominee.
Early last year, Obama's campaign sought and won a ruling from federal election officials to make it easier for candidates to use the public financing system in the general election. Asked three months ago by the Midwest Democracy Network whether he would participate in public financing, Obama wrote: "Yes. ... If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election."
Sounds straightforward. But now that Obama is raising money at a clip of more than $1 million a day and, if he is the Democratic candidate, could enjoy a large financial advantage over presumptive Republican nominee John McCain, he's adding asterisks and provisos just like, well, some Washington politician.
Last week, Obama's campaign manager Bill Burton told the Associated Press that public financing was "an option" that's still "on the table." Obama said, "It would be presumptuous of me to say now that I'm locking myself into something when I don't even know if the other side is going to agree to it."
McCain also pledged last March to use public financing in the general election if his opponent would. McCain, a leader in campaign-finance reform just as Obama has been, reiterated his pledge last week. So this doesn't need to be a very complicated discussion, although the opposing view below suggests it could well turn into one.
 
1journeyman

1journeyman

Active Member
Originally Posted by Rylan1
http:///forum/post/2481059
analogy taken
.. but okay take your same anaolgy and lets say there is a termite mound in your yard .. but you ignore the mound and treat the house... you'll keep getting termites if you ignore the mound (source)
To take the analogy further...
The best way to wipe out the mound is to walk over to it, kick the top off, dump gasoline down into it, and set it ablaze...
 
oscardeuce

oscardeuce

Active Member
Originally Posted by Rylan1
http:///forum/post/2481013
lets be serious... muslims were treated different... profiled, vandalized, they were recipiants of hateful remarks, etc.. Just because they weren't shipped off or killed doesn't mean that it was acceptable.
One of my Muslim friends was upset he was not profiled getting on a plane. There was no organized outbreak of violence against Muslims, and some would argue there should have been.
Again, there was not much outrage, considering the attacks.
You can't change the FACTS.
Spin again!
Anyway, how can a Chicago area Democrat be "change". Vote early, Vote often!
 
rylan1

rylan1

Active Member
Originally Posted by 1journeyman
http:///forum/post/2481044
Profiled? When at wat. that's a good thing. We profiled Germans and Japanese in WW2, heck we profiled the British in our Revolutionary War. Had 9-11 been perpetuated by a bunch of bown haired, green eyed, Protestant Caucasions I'd fully expect to be profiled myself.
Vandalized? Come on... Chicago was a lot more vandalized after a single Bull's Championship.
Recipients of hateful remarks? What are we, 12? I'm the recipient of hateful remarks every day.
Don't forget the other side of the coin, btw. We suffered quite a few hateful remarks form Muslims around the world saying we deserved it. We suffer quite a bit of "profiling" anytime an American travels overseas into an Arab country.
You can't be concerned w/ what people outside the country are saying... but profiling innocent people just because they are black, arab, asian or whatever is wrong.. I've experienced it and its not right... and fuels stereotypes and racism. Hateful remarks because of who are as an individual are different than remarks based on things you can't control or are born as... Its like you have the right to offend, but not be offended. I can't relate to what they went through spefically, but I am sure if some one that was muslim on this thread they would feel totally opposite to what you are saying.
Take John McVay... there is no backlash when the accused looks like you, perhaps resentment....the reaction is totally different.
 
1journeyman

1journeyman

Active Member
Originally Posted by Rylan1
http:///forum/post/2481073
You can't be concerned w/ what people outside the country are saying... but profiling innocent people just because they are black, arab, asian or whatever is wrong.. I've experienced it and its not right... and fuels stereotypes and racism. Hateful remarks because of who are as an individual are different than remarks based on things you can't control or are born as... Its like you have the right to offend, but not be offended. I can't relate to what they went through spefically, but I am sure if some one that was muslim on this thread they would feel totally opposite to what you are saying.
Take John McVay... there is no backlash when the accused looks like you, perhaps resentment....the reaction is totally different.
McVay wasn't part of a religion who has a significant membership seeking to destroy us.
People are profiled because of the radical islamists calling for the destruction of America. You aren't born to be Muslim. You choose to be. If you choose to be part of a religion that has a fringe element seeking to kill innocent civilians at every opportunity expect to get profiled.
I've experienced it too Rylan. I lived in South Texas where I was a minority. Guess what; If a crime was committed by a caucasion in a hispanic neighborhood I've got no problem having my car searched. As an American I realize it's for the good of the country. I don't get mad at hte system for treating me unfairly, I get mad at the idiot who committed the original crime.
 
stdreb27

stdreb27

Active Member
lol, here comes this whole equality thing again,
If statistically a person with a physically distinguishable characteristic is more likely have committed the act, then why shouldn't the person searching, look for that characteristic when searching for the perpitrator?
Overall, the search would effect less of the general public then searching each characteristic equally. And have less cost to society on a whole.
 
reefraff

reefraff

Active Member
If you have a bank robbed by a group of 3 black men driving a blue sedan is it wrong to pull over a blue sedan being driven by a black man to investigate? I don't think so.
Would it be wrong to pull over a 4x4 full of white guys with shaved heads and a confederate flag on the antenna if they were driving through watts? I don't think so.
Too damned many people trying too hard to be offended
 
bdhutier

bdhutier

Member
Originally Posted by 1journeyman
http:///forum/post/2480900
You're absolutely wrong Rylan. Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong and wrong.
http://embeds.blogs.foxnews.com/2008...f-her-country/
Watch her say it, for yourself...
Boy, she sure is stumbling in the second speech, isn't she?
Originally Posted by Rylan1
get out of here... are you serious... retract ?
So what does the quote say? Basically he doesn't confirm or deny... which IMO suggests that they were not there or that it is at least debatable on when they arrived. Since people of the GOP want to secure our reasoning for being over there I think leaving this door open is very telling... If it were fact that they were there prior to the war then he would have said it. 2nd, we've heard tons of info saying the al qaeda terrorists were coming across the border at the onset of the war and that most of them our foreigners...
Rylan... you do understand the concept of classified information, right? Stuff like Secret, Top Secret-SCI, things like that? People can't just go around saying whatever they know just because it would be politically convenient! I'll throw it back to you, "get out of here... are you serious... ?"
Originally Posted by Rylan1
You can't be concerned w/ what people outside the country are saying...
Oh REALLY??? Please allow me to direct your attention way back to post #47 of this thread... here, I'll help you out:
Originally Posted by Rylan1
http:///forum/post/2470133
I disagree, I think the world would be more cooperative with these 2, particulary Obama. I'd be interested to know who foreign leaders endorse for presidency. I believe they do have polls of how other nations view the presidential race.
Make up your mind, guy...
 
rylan1

rylan1

Active Member
Originally Posted by 1journeyman
http:///forum/post/2481083
McVay wasn't part of a religion who has a significant membership seeking to destroy us.
People are profiled because of the radical islamists calling for the destruction of America. You aren't born to be Muslim. You choose to be. If you choose to be part of a religion that has a fringe element seeking to kill innocent civilians at every opportunity expect to get profiled.
I've experienced it too Rylan. I lived in South Texas where I was a minority. Guess what; If a crime was committed by a caucasion in a hispanic neighborhood I've got no problem having my car searched. As an American I realize it's for the good of the country. I don't get mad at hte system for treating me unfairly, I get mad at the idiot who committed the original crime.
So this is a war on Islam? And in a since you are born muslim if that is your family history... to leave it later in life is a diffucult thing... for most muslims... Islam is just as much a part of their culture as their ethnicity. Journey you are wrong here PROFILING IS WRONG especially if its unwarrarnted ... if someone commited a crime and they meet your description as far as race, height, weight, clothing ... fine... if its just race its wrong
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top