Please don't vote for McCain

renogaw

renogaw

Active Member
yet again though, we'd be butting our nose into some area that we honestly have no reason to be in (africa).
i'd agree with getting bin laden as should be numero uno priorty, but you can't just pull out of iraq with the job unfinished. we'd have thousands (well, more maybe) of bin ladens running around. we're there. for whatever reason (bush lied, saddam bluffed us, etc) we're there. we'd be wasting the billions we've spent if we leave without finishing the job.
that would tick me off more tbh.
 
rylan1

rylan1

Active Member
Originally Posted by fishzen
http:///forum/post/2470219
OK, many Iraqis vote, but as soon as we leave the religious extremists are going to fuel division, no matter how strong the democracy is, these people do not think like easterners, they are fanatics for their religion and their sect. I don't think Iraq is going to exist as we know it today.
thats why it won't be stable, and that Hussein or that type of dictorial (is that a word?) may be the best solution. The only other solution I see is some sort of tri-lateral counsel
 
1journeyman

1journeyman

Active Member
Originally Posted by renogaw
http:///forum/post/2470243
yet again though, we'd be butting our nose into some area that we honestly have no reason to be in (africa).
i'd agree with getting bin laden as should be numero uno priorty, but you can't just pull out of iraq with the job unfinished. we'd have thousands (well, more maybe) of bin ladens running around. we're there. for whatever reason (bush lied, saddam bluffed us, etc) we're there. we'd be wasting the billions we've spent if we leave without finishing the job.
that would tick me off more tbh.
I agree with ya on Africa. We went round and round on that in another thread.
I honestly have not seen our Generals calling for more troops in Afghanistan. If they have and we can't send them for Iraq then it is a worthy debate. Until then, however, it's a moot point; The two are not mutually exclusive.
 
rylan1

rylan1

Active Member
Originally Posted by 1journeyman
http:///forum/post/2470242
NATO is in control of Afghanistan. Has our General there asked for more troops and not gotten them?
See it should be the other way around.... I would think we would be better justified going after bin landen in afganistan/pakistan than in Iraq.
 
1journeyman

1journeyman

Active Member
Originally Posted by Rylan1
http:///forum/post/2470301
thats why it won't be stable, and that Hussein or that type of dictorial (is that a word?) may be the best solution. The only other solution I see is some sort of tri-lateral counsel
So you'd be ok with a dictator who runs r ape rooms and torture cells? Whose security forces exocute opposition and free speech? You believe the Iraqi people don't deserve freedom?
A tri-lateral Counsel... Hmm, you mean like an elected parliament?
 
1journeyman

1journeyman

Active Member
Originally Posted by Rylan1
http:///forum/post/2470307
See it should be the other way around.... I would think we would be better justified going after bin landen in afganistan/pakistan than in Iraq.

My point is we can do both; until you can prove to me otherwise.
How many top Al Qaeda leaders have been killed in Iraq?
 
sigmachris

sigmachris

Active Member
This is something I have heard, Journey, Darth, Rylan, you guys seem be up to speed can you clarify the answer?
Out of Obama, Clinton, and McCain you has the best track record for working legislation with BOTH parties? I have heard McCain has stepped across the aisle to co-sponsor bills to get work done. That in my humble opinion is a priority to be President. To be able to lead and get things done with both parties and not have endless bickering and not getting anything done.
 
1journeyman

1journeyman

Active Member
Originally Posted by SigmaChris
http:///forum/post/2470321
This is something I have heard, Journey, Darth, Rylan, you guys seem be up to speed can you clarify the answer?
Out of Obama, Clinton, and McCain you has the best track record for working legislation with BOTH parties? I have heard McCain has stepped across the aisle to co-sponsor bills to get work done. That in my humble opinion is a priority to be President. To be able to lead and get things done with both parties and not have endless bickering and not getting anything done.
Hehe..
Well, much to my chagrin, McCain has a well documented record of doing that. Much more so than either of the other two. I don't like it about him and have been vocal in that. I'm not a huge fan of compromising principles.
 
rylan1

rylan1

Active Member

Originally Posted by 1journeyman
http:///forum/post/2470230
Quit comparing his plan to Hillary's. I'm arguing against his plan, not for hers.
My plan begins by covering every American. If you already have health insurance, the only thing that will change for you under this plan is the amount of money you will spend on premiums
please explain the obvious contradiction.

I don't understand how you keep missing the point. You are pulling stuff from his website, however, you fail to specifically address the issue of a mandate. The quote that I used is a comparrison of the plans... the comparison is neccessary because Clinton's plan mandates, while Obama's does not and she critictizes him for it. If you read past the 1st paragraph, you would see it mandates for children whom have no choice, and its objective is to lower costs and to insure everyone... but as I said it doesn't penalize you for not buying in.
2 other republicans have done or are interested in a plan that mandates... Swartznegger and former candidate Rommney who has a plan similar to Clintons in Mass.
 
rylan1

rylan1

Active Member
Originally Posted by 1journeyman
http:///forum/post/2470315
My point is we can do both; until you can prove to me otherwise.
How many top Al Qaeda leaders have been killed in Iraq?
question is where did they come from? and I bet they would go anywhere the US was. We used Iraq to just draw them in.
 
rylan1

rylan1

Active Member
Originally Posted by SigmaChris
http:///forum/post/2470321
This is something I have heard, Journey, Darth, Rylan, you guys seem be up to speed can you clarify the answer?
Out of Obama, Clinton, and McCain you has the best track record for working legislation with BOTH parties? I have heard McCain has stepped across the aisle to co-sponsor bills to get work done. That in my humble opinion is a priority to be President. To be able to lead and get things done with both parties and not have endless bickering and not getting anything done.
I'd say McCain and Obama have the best record on working bi-partisan. I'd give McCain the advantage simply because of his tenure. McCain and Obama have worked together.
 
1journeyman

1journeyman

Active Member

Originally Posted by Rylan1
http:///forum/post/2470344

I don't understand how you keep missing the point. You are pulling stuff from his website, however, you fail to specifically address the issue of a mandate. The quote that I used is a comparrison of the plans... the comparison is neccessary because Clinton's plan mandates, while Obama's does not and she critictizes him for it. If you read past the 1st paragraph, you would see it mandates for children whom have no choice, and its objective is to lower costs and to insure everyone... but as I said it doesn't penalize you for not buying in.
2 other republicans have done or are interested in a plan that mandates... Swartznegger and former candidate Rommney who has a plan similar to Clintons in Mass.
1. I'm not "pulling stuff from his website"; I'm freakin QUOTING OBAMA HIMSELF.
Rylan, either you know Obama's plan better than Obama, or else you're wrong.
Obama says: "My plan begins by covering every American..."
 
rylan1

rylan1

Active Member
Originally Posted by 1journeyman
http:///forum/post/2470335
Hehe..
Well, much to my chagrin, McCain has a well documented record of doing that. Much more so than either of the other two. I don't like it about him and have been vocal in that. I'm not a huge fan of compromising principles.
This is why nothing happens in Washington. If the parties worked together... things would get done , instead we debate about them every 4 years and say what we want to do, but nothing gets done
 
1journeyman

1journeyman

Active Member

Originally Posted by Rylan1
http:///forum/post/2470350
I'd say McCain and Obama have the best record on working bi-partisan. I'd give McCain the advantage simply because of his tenure. McCain and Obama have worked together.
Name a single bill Obama has sponsored and worked with the Republicans on to get passed.
 
1journeyman

1journeyman

Active Member
Originally Posted by Rylan1
http:///forum/post/2470348
question is where did they come from? and I bet they would go anywhere the US was. We used Iraq to just draw them in.
So you admit the war in Iraq is drawing Al Qaeda leadership into the field where they are getting killed?
I agree they would go anywhere the USA is. And if our troops aren't in Iraq or Afghanistan then I wonder where they will find us...
 
1journeyman

1journeyman

Active Member
Originally Posted by Rylan1
http:///forum/post/2470356
This is why nothing happens in Washington. If the parties worked together... things would get done , instead we debate about them every 4 years and say what we want to do, but nothing gets done
Doing nothing is better than doing something wrong and making things worse.
Our Nation was founded on State's Rights and individual freedom from the Federal Government.
 
ophiura

ophiura

Active Member
Originally Posted by COWFISHRULE
http:///forum/post/2470094
sitting in the stall, i just figured out what my problem is.
i am resiliant to change. i have a comfort in knowing things as they are/how they were.
the source of this is that i am still bitter over the mlb changing its playoff format.
the mlb should be:
al east al west nl east nl west.
top team in each division is div champ, winner of those 2 goes to world series.
this stems from '94.
i should just get over it already, right?
I had no intention of getting into this thread, but you are soooo right
 
rylan1

rylan1

Active Member
Originally Posted by 1journeyman
http:///forum/post/2470313
So you'd be ok with a dictator who runs r ape rooms and torture cells? Whose security forces exocute opposition and free speech? You believe the Iraqi people don't deserve freedom?
A tri-lateral Counsel... Hmm, you mean like an elected parliament?
No I'm not ok with what Saddam did, however; I think it allowed him to keep the country stable. The problem w/ Iraq is that there needs to be an equal share of power with all partys represented. Iraq needs to become more self reliant. They need to be able to protect themselves and improve their security forces... I think we need to withdrawal, but do it in an orderly fashion. I also think we should keep forces in the region, but end the occupation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top