How many of you think there will be a President Obama?

[The Rabbi]

Can we?  How so?

Because you seem to think either Hillary or NObama would be a better choice than Mcstain. 
Neither one would be a friend of the taxpayer.  Both nitwits actually think that they can pull us out of Iraq and just spend the same amount of money on social programs. 

Yes, when they talk about "change" they are referring to what they might leave in your pocket once they are done with their wunnerful new social programs.
I'll take McCain for five.  If he wants to go invade another 3rd world slime hole and do some cleaning, that's just skippy with me.

[Werewolf]

I would rather spend it on social programs that fail rather than on wars which kill thousands of innocent people.

You mean - like the social programs the government euphemisticly calls the war on drugs? I wonder how many thousands or 100's of thousands are dead because of it?

[The Rabbi]

I would rather spend it on social programs that fail rather than on wars which kill thousands of innocent people.

You mean - like the social programs the government euphemisticly calls the war on drugs? I wonder how many thousands or 100's of thousands are dead because of it?

The answer is "not enough."

[roo_ster]

Can we?  How so?

Because you seem to think either Hillary or NObama would be a better choice than Mcstain. 
Neither one would be a friend of the taxpayer.  Both nitwits actually think that they can pull us out of Iraq and just spend the same amount of money on social programs. 

  I would rather spend it on social programs that fail rather than on wars which kill thousands of innocent people.

I'd rather kill the thousands of people.....it's cheaper and creates more defense-industry jobs.....

....but I don't want us spending American money to rebuild their nation when they shouldn't have provoked us in the first place.....it's like paying for the ER care for the burglar you just shot.....

  I dont seem to remember Iraq provoking us.  How did they?

Short memory, some folks.

1. Invading an ally of the USA
2. Shooting at our planes in violation of agreed-upon ceasefire agreements
3. Using deception to avoid compliance with agreed-upon inspections of WMD facilities
4. Sponsoring terrorism against an ally
5. Running terrorist training camps

I could go on, but I tire from restating the obvious.

[Jamisjockey]

1. Invading an ally of the USA
2. Shooting at our planes in violation of agreed-upon ceasefire agreements
3. Using deception to avoid compliance with agreed-upon inspections of WMD facilities
4. Sponsoring terrorism against an ally
5. Running terrorist training camps

You forget, Tecumseh was in grade school when most of that happened. 

[The Rabbi]

1. Invading an ally of the USA
2. Shooting at our planes in violation of agreed-upon ceasefire agreements
3. Using deception to avoid compliance with agreed-upon inspections of WMD facilities
4. Sponsoring terrorism against an ally
5. Running terrorist training camps

You forget, Tecumseh was in grade school when most of that happened. 

Actually they were in violation of numerous UN resolutions, resolutions the UN refused to enforce by doing anything more than passing more resolutions.

[seeker_two]

Can we?  How so?

Because you seem to think either Hillary or NObama would be a better choice than Mcstain. 
Neither one would be a friend of the taxpayer.  Both nitwits actually think that they can pull us out of Iraq and just spend the same amount of money on social programs. 

  I would rather spend it on social programs that fail rather than on wars which kill thousands of innocent people.

I'd rather kill the thousands of people.....it's cheaper and creates more defense-industry jobs.....

....but I don't want us spending American money to rebuild their nation when they shouldn't have provoked us in the first place.....it's like paying for the ER care for the burglar you just shot.....

  I dont seem to remember Iraq provoking us.  How did they?

I would rather do the more morally acceptable approach than kill innocent people.  I dont get all happy at the thought of violence like many GOP members do.  Especially when they are not actually having to do the violence.  As far as defense industry jobs, why not health-care jobs?  Or construction jobs in our country?

Failing to follow the Gulf War cease-fire terms, shooting at our planes, providing funding and training camps to terror groups targeting American citizens.....take your pick. While I DO believe it deserved a nation-shaking pounding (air strikes and ICBMs delivering solid-mass warheads at hyperkinetic velocities/no nukes), I DON'T believe it justified an invasion.......

You want health care and construction jobs......run the illegal aliens out. THAT would do the magic WITHOUT extra gov't spending and interference.....

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

"And a lot of people will not tell pollsters they wouldn't vote for Obama because they dont want to be seen as racists.  But in the privacy of the voting booths it will be different."


BINGO!!!


and it appears too many others are schooling tecumseh for it to be sport for me.

[Bogie]

"Send in the envoy."

Damn, I miss Warren.

[grampster]

The reality of history is certainly lost on some folks.  Let's see...history tells us that human beings were kind and loving to each other throughout the ages.  It was only till America came along that the violence and unneighborly behavior began.   

[CAnnoneer]

"And a lot of people will not tell pollsters they wouldn't vote for Obama because they dont want to be seen as racists.  But in the privacy of the voting booths it will be different."

If that were the case, he would not be winning in the primaries, where ppl are alone in the voting booth.

Judging by the results in the primaries, it will be McStain against Obama. To win, McStain has to mobilize the right and win over independents, while hoping at least some democrats stay home. To win, Obama does not need to do anything but do what he has been doing. I think Obama will have a much easier time, and therefore is the likely winner.

The problem with McStain and his supporters is that they think that a RINO will be more electable than a true conservative. They think they can somehow appease or beguile independents and social-democrats into switching to him as a unifier candidate. Except that does not work. There is so much animosity against Bush and the Republicans that none of that is likely to happen.

The Repub's best shot was to run a conservative, mobilize the base, get the conservative independent vote, then spend tons of money educating the electorate how hollow and inexperienced Obama is, while also secretly funding Nader so he can go steal some liberal votes away from Obama. That would have worked. Instead they ran a long line of flawed candidates who managed to squabble and dilute their message until now the pinkest RINO is about to lose the election big time. Stupidity is not a survivalist trait.

[Sergeant Bob]

"And a lot of people will not tell pollsters they wouldn't vote for Obama because they dont want to be seen as racists.  But in the privacy of the voting booths it will be different."

If that were the case, he would not be winning in the primaries, where ppl are alone in the voting booth.

Judging by the results in the primaries, it will be McStain against Obama. To win, McStain has to mobilize the right and win over independents, while hoping at least some democrats stay home. To win, Obama does not need to do anything but do what he has been doing. I think Obama will have a much easier time, and therefore is the likely winner.

The problem with McStain and his supporters is that they think that a RINO will be more electable than a true conservative. They think they can somehow appease or beguile independents and social-democrats into switching to him as a unifier candidate. Except that does not work. There is so much animosity against Bush and the Republicans that none of that is likely to happen.

The Repub's best shot was to run a conservative, mobilize the base, get the conservative independent vote, then spend tons of money educating the electorate how hollow and inexperienced Obama is, while also secretly funding Nader so he can go steal some liberal votes away from Obama. That would have worked. Instead they ran a long line of flawed candidates who managed to squabble and dilute their message until now the pinkest RINO is about to lose the election big time. Stupidity is not a survivalist trait.

I think you pretty much nailed it.

[HankB]

"And a lot of people will not tell pollsters they wouldn't vote for Obama because they dont want to be seen as racists.  But in the privacy of the voting booths it will be different."

If that were the case, he would not be winning in the primaries, where ppl are alone in the voting booth.

Obama is getting by some estimates 90% of the black vote, and many democrats are unhappy at the prospect of another Clinton, so an "anti-Hillary" vote shows up as an Obama vote.

But these are primary voters, which aren't more than a fraction of all democrats.

How things will turn out in the general election . . . I don't know. It depends on how McCain & Co. can get out the word that Obama has got what it takes to take what you've got . . . all of it. Especially on the proposal he's supporting which would devote a fraction of our GNP to fighting "global poverty" . . . a transfer of US $$ to stinking pestilential turd world dungheaps in the amount of $845,000,000,000 . . . for now.

It will be hard for McCain, RINO that he is, to educate the populace about Obama being the uber-leftists that he really is. Maybe if proof - not innuendo, but proof - that Obama is still a doper surfaces . . .

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/latestpolls/index.html
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_obama-225.html

[ilbob]

I think it will boil down to McCain versus Obama.

A lot depends on whether McCain can force Obama to actually come out with a firm position on anything. So far, the only firm position Obama has taken is to further restrict 2A rights, and he is completely unequivocal on that point.

[Tecumseh]

I would rather spend it on social programs that fail rather than on wars which kill thousands of innocent people.

You mean - like the social programs the government euphemisticly calls the war on drugs? I wonder how many thousands or 100's of thousands are dead because of it?

  You have convinced me.  Lets just give the tax money back to the people.  All you heroes who want to liberate countries, just grab your guns and go march there on your own dime.  Dont have the US military do it for you.  Let me keep my money so I can give it to a charitable cause like a Shriners Hospital.

[Tecumseh]

Can we?  How so?

Because you seem to think either Hillary or NObama would be a better choice than Mcstain. 
Neither one would be a friend of the taxpayer.  Both nitwits actually think that they can pull us out of Iraq and just spend the same amount of money on social programs. 

Yes, when they talk about "change" they are referring to what they might leave in your pocket once they are done with their wunnerful new social programs.
I'll take McCain for five.  If he wants to go invade another 3rd world slime hole and do some cleaning, that's just skippy with me.

  Well I am not skippy with it. 

If your so entusiastic, then call this number:

1-800-USA-ARMY

or look into this site...

http://www.goarmy.com/flindex.jsp?#?channel=&video=

I am sure they could send you to a slime hole, this way you can help with the cleaning. 

[Paddy]

A lot depends on whether McCain can force Obama to actually come out with a firm position on anything

Nobody cares about that.  All the American people will see is a wheezy old geezer continuing Bush's war.  That alone will cost McCain the election, in addition to a dozen other things.

[Tecumseh]

Can we?  How so?

Because you seem to think either Hillary or NObama would be a better choice than Mcstain. 
Neither one would be a friend of the taxpayer.  Both nitwits actually think that they can pull us out of Iraq and just spend the same amount of money on social programs. 

  I would rather spend it on social programs that fail rather than on wars which kill thousands of innocent people.

I'd rather kill the thousands of people.....it's cheaper and creates more defense-industry jobs.....

....but I don't want us spending American money to rebuild their nation when they shouldn't have provoked us in the first place.....it's like paying for the ER care for the burglar you just shot.....

  I dont seem to remember Iraq provoking us.  How did they?

Short memory, some folks.

1. Invading an ally of the USA
2. Shooting at our planes in violation of agreed-upon ceasefire agreements
3. Using deception to avoid compliance with agreed-upon inspections of WMD facilities
4. Sponsoring terrorism against an ally
5. Running terrorist training camps

I could go on, but I tire from restating the obvious.

  Are we talking about Kuwait? 

When our planes fly over their country it seems reasonable.

Yes, because they don't want UN involvement in their country.  I have heard people on this site complaining about UN involvement here.  Can you please tell Herr Bush where the WMDs are?  I dont seem to remember them being found.

Why are we arguing over this?  Remember...



The war is over.  We won.  Mission Accomplished.  What are we still doing there?  I thought they were going to give us hugs and greet us with open arms.  Herr Bush told us they would be greatful and it would be over in a few months.

Terrorism?  Where are these terrorists?  Where are the training camps? 

[Jamisjockey]

Well, without debating whether we made the right decision on going to war in the first place:

After WWII what did we do?  We occupied Germany and Japan for many years, and established bases in both.  We installed puppet governments that were friendly to us, and molded and dictated thier future.
After we helped Afghanistan defeat the soviets, we left.  A power vacum was created, and the Taliban moved in.  An unfriendly government that harbored the very terrorists who came to our shores and killed our citizens. 

The reason that we're still in Iraq is because Bush, under the direction of Rummy, made poor decisions on how to occupy Iraq.  The invasion plan was nearly flawless, and we stormed Baghdad before they knew what hit them, but we're still cleaning up for a clueless occupation plan.

Of course, they probably don't teach world history in College anymore, right?

[Manedwolf]

The reason that we're still in Iraq is because Bush, under the direction of Rummy, made poor decisions on how to occupy Iraq.  The invasion plan was nearly flawless, and we stormed Baghdad before they knew what hit them, but we're still cleaning up for a clueless occupation plan.

Of course, they probably don't teach world history in College anymore, right?

Oh, plenty of military historians in general and even at the War College were screaming and pulling their hair out, waving Sun Tzu and Caesar...and they were ignored.

You can't occupy a country with high-tech toys. Since ancient times, it's been the number of feet, sandals, or boots on the ground.

[The Rabbi]

Can we?  How so?

Because you seem to think either Hillary or NObama would be a better choice than Mcstain. 
Neither one would be a friend of the taxpayer.  Both nitwits actually think that they can pull us out of Iraq and just spend the same amount of money on social programs. 

Yes, when they talk about "change" they are referring to what they might leave in your pocket once they are done with their wunnerful new social programs.
I'll take McCain for five.  If he wants to go invade another 3rd world slime hole and do some cleaning, that's just skippy with me.

  Well I am not skippy with it. 

If your so entusiastic, then call this number:

1-800-USA-ARMY

or look into this site...

http://www.goarmy.com/flindex.jsp?#?channel=&video=

I am sure they could send you to a slime hole, this way you can help with the cleaning. 

I happily would.  But the military's requirement for overweight 46 yr old Orthodox Jewish men has probably been filled already.
Sorry you are unhappy at seeing 3rd world anti-American zealots getting their due.  But who said life was unfair?

[roo_ster]

Can we?  How so?

Because you seem to think either Hillary or NObama would be a better choice than Mcstain. 
Neither one would be a friend of the taxpayer.  Both nitwits actually think that they can pull us out of Iraq and just spend the same amount of money on social programs. 

  I would rather spend it on social programs that fail rather than on wars which kill thousands of innocent people.

I'd rather kill the thousands of people.....it's cheaper and creates more defense-industry jobs.....

....but I don't want us spending American money to rebuild their nation when they shouldn't have provoked us in the first place.....it's like paying for the ER care for the burglar you just shot.....

  I dont seem to remember Iraq provoking us.  How did they?

Short memory, some folks.

1. Invading an ally of the USA
2. Shooting at our planes in violation of agreed-upon ceasefire agreements
3. Using deception to avoid compliance with agreed-upon inspections of WMD facilities
4. Sponsoring terrorism against an ally
5. Running terrorist training camps

I could go on, but I tire from restating the obvious.

  Are we talking about Kuwait? 

When our planes fly over their country it seems reasonable.

Yes, because they don't want UN involvement in their country.  I have heard people on this site complaining about UN involvement here.  Can you please tell Herr Bush where the WMDs are?  I dont seem to remember them being found.

Why are we arguing over this?  Remember...



The war is over.  We won.  Mission Accomplished.  What are we still doing there?  I thought they were going to give us hugs and greet us with open arms.  Herr Bush told us they would be greatful and it would be over in a few months.

Terrorism?  Where are these terrorists?  Where are the training camps? 

Tecumseh:

There was no peace treaty or "end" to GWI.  There was a ceasefire that came into effect because Saddam agreed to certain conditions.  When he no longer would abide by those conditions, the ceasefire was to be ended at our leisure.

In the real world, when you get your ass handed to you (like Saddam did in GWI), conditions are imposed.  If you don't like them, you are free to get another ass-whooping until your ass ends up on the end of a rope with your local enemies howling with delight at your demise.

Several terrorist training camps were unearthed during GWII.  Google is your friend, O Forgetful One.  Use its power wisely.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

its not forgetful if you were too young to be much concerned beyond where the next nipple was coming from.of course when you reach the age of majority and still need the nipple thats different

[Balog]

A lot of people are abusing the "Quote" button here. Stop wasting bandwidth; if you want to cite something relevent ctrl-c / ctrl-v it. Geez.

Oh, and on the subject of saving bandwidth, why is Tec still here? hehe