2008 Election

Page 2 of 7 First 1234 ... Last

  1. just to sum it up, McCain may be moderate in certain areas, but his stance on the war is not. For you to imply by the way that there was a need to be in Iraq is downright laughable and shows a lack of knowledge on the country of Iraq and their "relationship" w/ AQ.

    Additionally, Obama is most certainly not the most far left and is actually quite moderate considering his appeal to may of the independants. If you would like to make those statements, please source many of the votes you are referring to.

    Finally, please show me where AQ endorsed Obama, I would love to see the commerical Osama for Obama. Come on man, you are stretching a bit thin on this


  2. Quote Originally Posted by Reaper329 View Post
    just to sum it up, McCain may be moderate in certain areas, but his stance on the war is not. For you to imply by the way that there was a need to be in Iraq is downright laughable and shows a lack of knowledge on the country of Iraq and their "relationship" w/ AQ.

    Additionally, Obama is most certainly not the most far left and is actually quite moderate considering his appeal to may of the independants. If you would like to make those statements, please source many of the votes you are referring to.

    Finally, please show me where AQ endorsed Obama, I would love to see the commerical Osama for Obama. Come on man, you are stretching a bit thin on this
    LOL try again. This debate isnt about why we went into Iraq its about our policy now. And Obama, Cut and Run Ron and all the other lunatics are wrong on the current issue at hand. Keep your change the subject and spin the debate into another issue tactics up all you want but it wont work with Americans.

    And yes. Obama is moderate. Thats why he was named the most liberal member of the senate in 2007 based on his voting record. NATIONAL JOURNAL: Obama: Most Liberal Senator in 2007 (01/31/2008)

    I am stretching it to say that radical fascist Muslims wouldn't rather have a terrorist appeasing cut and run hippy in office rather than a noble man that will oppose their evil goals? I don't think so. Honestly they would most likely prefer Cut and Run Ron, but I'm sure Obama would be better for them than McCain.
    •   
       


  3. Quote Originally Posted by CNorris View Post
    Actually we need someone who will fight for America's interests, for Iraq's interests the the entire world's interests by opposing a fascist, genocidal and flat out dangerous regime that is determined to obtain nuclear weapons and militarily dominate the middle east. We need a person that will not negotiate or appease evil where it exists.
    An American leader fights for America's interests first. Iraqis have their own nation and leaders to solve their problems.

    Where evil exists depends who you ask. Maybe seek a broader consensus than from the American media and government propaganda machine.

    Its people like Obama that would have opposed even getting involved in WW2.
    The majority of Americans were strongly opposed to joining WW2. Wars are expensive and destructive instead of conservative and productive. No one wins by starting wars except those who profit from them, who are usually the same people advocating them.

    If you think we should appease and not oppose Iran's stated goal to develop nuclear weapons technology than you are not fit for office, let alone to vote.
    Iran has stated it has no interest in nuclear weapons technology. Oil is running out and they have a large population that needs energy, so they want to use nuclear power to produce electricity. There is no statement or evidence contrary to this, even after extensive nuclear inspection by the International Atomic Energy Agency.

    American intelligence recently made a public statement confirming Iran has no nuclear weapons program. This was probably done so that its leaders didn't start another war based on ignorance and lies.

    It sounds like you are still in the market for a war started under the pretense of looking for more WMDs that don't exist. You might want to do a little research about Iran before repeating the soundbite half-truths from media and other sources. You might also want to understand the background a little better by watching the BBC special The Power of Nightmares.

  4. Quote Originally Posted by firecross View Post
    An American leader fights for America's interests first. Iraqis have their own nation and leaders to solve their problems.

    If you are able to be so idealistic that you can separate Iraq's success from American, European and the rest of the free world's interests than you lack a crucial fundamental understanding of global politics.

    Where evil exists depends who you ask. Maybe seek a broader consensus than from the American media and government propaganda machine.

    You mean lets seek a consensus from countries that are being paid off by the same brutal and murderous dictators we seek to stop? A consensus from countries that sell weapons to Iran, and use Iran as a pawn in their world chess stragety to reduce the powers of the US and increase their own? A consensus from radically leftist governments that have all but completely abolished their military?

    "The majority of Americans were strongly opposed to joining WW2. Wars are expensive and destructive instead of conservative and productive. No one wins by starting wars except those who profit from them, who are usually the same people advocating them.

    Yes, no one benefited from WW2 except for those that stopped Hitler's genocidal rampage throughout Europe? Wow. I have now heard it all. I think you forget the fundamental concept that WW2 has thought us that remaining neutral and passive when clear threats are building can and will result in a far more destructive event when the inevitable conflict occurs. If more people had the foresight that President Roosevelt's did many more people would have survived that time in history. Those who sit Idle and let Hitler rise to power have blood on their hands just as much as the German army did.

    Iran has stated it has no interest in nuclear weapons technology. Oil is running out and they have a large population that needs energy, so they want to use nuclear power to produce electricity. There is no statement or evidence contrary to this, even after extensive nuclear inspection by the International Atomic Energy Agency.

    American intelligence recently made a public statement confirming Iran has no nuclear weapons program. This was probably done so that its leaders didn't start another war based on ignorance and lies.

    It sounds like you are still in the market for a war started under the pretense of looking for more WMDs that don't exist. You might want to do a little research about Iran before repeating the soundbite half-truths from media and other sources. You might also want to understand the background a little better by watching the BBC special The Power of Nightmares.
    "Seldom can a single document have caused quite such a stir. The National Intelligence Estimate, compiled by the US government's 16 intelligence agencies, has stood the conventional wisdom on Iran's nuclear weapons programme on its head. Teheran is not, it seems, engaged in the development of nuclear warheads after all. That weapons programme was put on ice in 2003 and, as far as the NIE can tell, there it remains.

    Before popping the champagne, it is as well to remember that the NIE issued a report just over two years ago saying exactly the opposite. In its May 2005 analysis, it said that it had "high confidence that Iran currently is determined to develop nuclear weapons". Yet that gloomy assessment was made, according to this week's report, when the nuclear programme had already been on hold for two years. Intelligence may be an inexact science but this looks positively perverse. It argues for taking the NIE assessment with a generous pinch of salt: another one could come along in a year or two saying something else again."

    I wish I could be as idealistic and ignorant to believe the lack of a smoking gun means that Iran has no intentions of using nuclear weapons on those long range missiles they are developing and testing. I wish I could ignore the words of their leaders who brazenly admit that nuclear technology is their right. I wish I could ignore a dangerous and genocidal regime that wants nothing more than to acquire nuclear weapons in order to consolidate military power in the middle east, threated Europe, the US and rise to be a superpower.
    History will prove wrong all of you who think one report instantly makes Iran not a threat. Mark my words. You will be proven as wrong as those who wanted to stay out of the early parts of WW2.

    "Iran's past behavior precludes any legitimate claim to nuclear power. You simply do not hand a loaded shotgun to a three year-old and not expect to get shot."

  5. Quote Originally Posted by firecross View Post
    The majority of Americans were strongly opposed to joining WW2. Wars are expensive and destructive instead of conservative and productive. No one wins by starting wars except those who profit from them, who are usually the same people advocating them.
    I think you are confusing WW1 with WW2. The vast majority of the United States was very pro-war, especially after Pearl Harbor.
    •   
       


  6. Quote Originally Posted by slow-mun View Post
    I think you are confusing WW1 with WW2. The vast majority of the United States was very pro-war, especially after Pearl Harbor.
    keep in mind the war in euopre had been on for a while and FDR had no chance of approval in the US till Pearl Harbor. Kinda interesting that whole event, but dont want to hijack my own thread with that.

  7. unsubbed. not another thread on politics with good ol boy cnorris.

  8. Quote Originally Posted by Reaper329;
    I think your synopsis of Obama is short sighted and palin wrong. However, in contrast to your statements, we need someone who will escalate the conflict, and possibly futher enrage an area that is already at a boiling point, and all the while push for conflict in Iran and possibly elsewhere, which will then in turn kill more of an already lost generation? Sorry cant see how the war monger is the best choice....

    And reps.
    Product Educator | USPowders
    Statements made by this online persona are the sole property of the owner, and do not necessarily reflect USPowders’ opinion as a whole.

  9. Quote Originally Posted by Reaper329 View Post
    keep in mind the war in euopre had been on for a while and FDR had no chance of approval in the US till Pearl Harbor. Kinda interesting that whole event, but dont want to hijack my own thread with that.
    I was a history major, so while I can accept this current synopsis, the previous one was incorrect. What you said before was like saying that most Americans were against the war in Iraq before it started. You're bending historical facts to prove your points and that's not at all right.

  10. Quote Originally Posted by slow-mun View Post
    I think you are confusing WW1 with WW2. The vast majority of the United States was very pro-war, especially after Pearl Harbor.
    Before WW2 (and Pearl Harbor) the majority of Americans favored an isolationist viewpoint. They were NOT in favor of entering WW2 due to economic hardship. He even acknowledge this in his "Arsenal of Democracy" speech in 1940 which he basically admitted that our goal was to supply Europe (which would ease economic pressure), not intervene. Churchill basically begged Roosevelt for a year to intervene and he did not until Pearl Harbor (which shifted public sentiment).

    There are several books covering the switch from isolationism to interventionism.


    So in other words, if Pearl Harbor never happened, Americans would probably be speaking German.
    For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.

  11. Romney, Huckabee, and the rest of the Republicans, besides McCain, don't have a chance in hell. McCain will be able to put up quite a fight against the Democrats, but in the end, the Dems will be taking over the White House again. Clinton is losing a lot of support because of her big mouth and spiteful attitude. I didn't mind her much, up until I found out that she voted for the Iraq war, without knowing any details. She wants total control. She's very determined to get that. She just won't budge for anything or anybody. It's kinda scary. I think our country's been through enough since 2000. I do believe Obama is going to win the presidency and I will be voting for him, and may even be donating some money to his campaign. He has even won the support of several Repubs! Quite a few Repubs have their faith in him. He's young, healthy, extremely intelligent, has an optimistic outlook, has a very good agenda lined up, and seems like he's a guy who enjoys getting things done. McCain will put up a fight, though, but in the end, America will decide and hopefully the decision sticks this time, unlike the last election. I must admit that I do like Rudy Guiliani, but of course, he's no longer in the race and I wouldn't vote for him anyway. He seems to be the most liberal Repub, but he did help NYC through a lot, especially after 9/11.

    Just so all of you know, especially you Repub supporters; though I may disagree with those who vote Repub (only because I'm very knowledgable in the field of politics), I believe in your right to voice your opinion. I may not agree with it, but if you hear me out, then it's only fair and respectful that I hear you out as well. I'm a registered Independent, but support more liberal views than I do conservative ones. Therefore, most people would associate me as possessing Dem ideologies, however, we all stand on both sides of the fence. We all have conversative views, as well as liberal views. For example: I'm pro-choice, which would be labeled as a liberal/Dem view, however, I'm also against tightening up gun control, only because of our right to bear arms granted to us by the US Constition, which would be labeled as a conservative/Repub view.

  12. Quote Originally Posted by slow-mun View Post
    I was a history major, so while I can accept this current synopsis, the previous one was incorrect. What you said before was like saying that most Americans were against the war in Iraq before it started. You're bending historical facts to prove your points and that's not at all right.

    Actually I am a history teacher so lets look at the facts. Polls prior to pearl harbor gave an approval under 20% for entrance into another european war. Keep in mind the country was struggling economically as the new deal was not the "big deal" it was thought to be and the US had just fought a few decades earlier in WWI. The only way FDR could get approval from the public and congress for the war was an attack on American soil. Look logically

  13. Quote Originally Posted by MuscleGuyinNY View Post
    I'm also against tightening up gun control, only because of our right to bear arms granted to us by the US Constition, which would be labeled as a conservative/Repub view.
    I am not trying ot hijack or change topics, but wanted to address this. The 2nd ammend. is not so cut and dry

  14. Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    Before WW2 (and Pearl Harbor) the majority of Americans favored an isolationist viewpoint. They were NOT in favor of entering WW2 due to economic hardship. He even acknowledge this in his "Arsenal of Democracy" speech in 1940 which he basically admitted that our goal was to supply Europe (which would ease economic pressure), not intervene. Churchill basically begged Roosevelt for a year to intervene and he did not until Pearl Harbor (which shifted public sentiment).

    There are several books covering the switch from isolationism to interventionism.


    So in other words, if Pearl Harbor never happened, Americans would probably be speaking German.
    I'm not disputing this in any way. My point was in reference to after the Pearl Harbor attack.

  15. Quote Originally Posted by Reaper329 View Post
    Actually I am a history teacher so lets look at the facts. Polls prior to pearl harbor gave an approval under 20% for entrance into another european war. Keep in mind the country was struggling economically as the new deal was not the "big deal" it was thought to be and the US had just fought a few decades earlier in WWI. The only way FDR could get approval from the public and congress for the war was an attack on American soil. Look logically
    I am. Entrance into the second world war actually lifted our economy fully out of the Great Depression. You're right that their wasn't universal support for the war prior to Pearl Harbor, but that quickly changed in one day. That's something that cannot be disputed.

  16. Back on topic-

    If I were to vote for a democrat, then it would be Obama.

    -lesser of two evils.

    If I were to vote for a republican, then it would be McCain.

    -I firmly in heart believe that a man who has actually served in our nation's military has its best interest in mind. I hear alot of talk about people concerning the war, but almost none of it has come from anyone who has actually been there.

  17. Quote Originally Posted by slow-mun View Post
    I am. Entrance into the second world war actually lifted our economy fully out of the Great Depression. You're right that their wasn't universal support for the war prior to Pearl Harbor, but that quickly changed in one day. That's something that cannot be disputed.
    so how does this relate to your earlier statement that I was responding to?

  18. Quote Originally Posted by Reaper329 View Post
    so how does this relate to your earlier statement that I was responding to?
    I think I confused your posts with firecross's. Anyhow, it just adds to it. I should have elaborated more initially.

  19. Quote Originally Posted by slow-mun View Post
    I hear alot of talk about people concerning the war, but almost none of it has come from anyone who has actually been there.
    And ****, almost nobody else alive has "been there" like McCain was. 5 years in the POW camp. I did a special project + report on it in 8th grade ( a lot of research work, a lot of reading) and its completely horrifying the sort of things they did.

    So if McCain were to ask to put some of our men in harms way, I'd have to say ok.

  20. Just bc of McCains experience that does not mean that we should allow an escaltion of the war to the extent that Mccain wants. IMO he will be Bush +10, which is a bad, BAD thing

  21. Quote Originally Posted by Reaper329 View Post
    Just bc of McCains experience that does not mean that we should allow an escaltion of the war to the extent that Mccain wants. IMO he will be Bush +10, which is a bad, BAD thing
    Bush +10? Wow, your lack of understanding of him does not surprise be given your irrational fear of him.

    McCain is hated... absolutely bitterly HATED by the far right because of many of his moderate positions.

    He has a different approach to the Iraq war than the democrats , but its an approach to resolve the conflict unlike Bush. Commit the troop levels and get it over with quickly and pull out under the correct, noble and intelligent cirumstances rather than cut and run leaving a complete disaster that will be equivalent to sweeping it under the rug for future generations to deal with.

    The reason has Iraq and the US dollar has been such a mess is because Bush lacked the clear vision McCain has from the beginning. You cant fund a war and cut taxes and run up the debt, you cant fight a war without enough troops.

    McCain will bring us a stabilized Iraq that we are able to hand off to the Iraqi military, not a mess for future generations to deal with. He will also keep nuclear weapons away from the most militarily active and unstable nation in the middle east. Iran wants nothing more than to rise to control the middle east. They want nothing more than to use nuclear weapons to force their hand against Europe and the US. Why do you think the Soviet Union and China, who both have a direct interest in a less powerful US and Europe, are so supportive of Iran? China and Russia are not interested in a Unipolar world with America being the only super power, despite the fact that fewer wars have gone on since the the fall of the Soviet Empire than any other equivalent time period in modern history.

    Is pathetic liberals are willing to trust the UN (an undisputed anti-military and anti-American organization) intelligence and roll the dice and assume Iran is not developing a nuclear weapon despite the fact every action and ever word coming out of their nation indicates the opposite. There may be a the lack of a smoking gun, but there sure is a carton of bullets and an NRA sign on the Iranian flag.

    And before you try and bring up the Iraq WMD intelligence issue, lets not forget Saddam actively wanted to appear to be a threat and in possession of WMD because of their bitter history with Iran.

  22. Quote Originally Posted by CNorris View Post

    He has a different approach to the Iraq war than the democrats , but its an approach to resolve the conflict unlike Bush. Commit the troop levels and get it over with quickly and pull out under the correct, noble and intelligent cirumstances rather than cut and run leaving a complete disaster that will be equivalent to sweeping it under the rug for future generations to deal with.
    this lacks in any certainty. there is a choice here, and the american people were dupped into believing the WMD argument and the threat of Iraq, so there is no reason to continue to "commit" further young people who will come home in a bag

    Quote Originally Posted by CNorris View Post
    The reason has Iraq and the US dollar has been such a mess is because Bush lacked the clear vision McCain has from the beginning. You cant fund a war and cut taxes and run up the debt, you cant fight a war without enough troops.
    you also cant do it without the $, and due to the current administration we will not have that for a while. to be honest, when we have that money, our interests would be better served domestically

    Quote Originally Posted by CNorris View Post
    McCain will bring us a stabilized Iraq that we are able to hand off to the Iraqi military, not a mess for future generations to deal with. He will also keep nuclear weapons away from the most militarily active and unstable nation in the middle east. Iran wants nothing more than to rise to control the middle east. They want nothing more than to use nuclear weapons to force their hand against Europe and the US. Why do you think the Soviet Union and China, who both have a direct interest in a less powerful US and Europe, are so supportive of Iran? China and Russia are not interested in a Unipolar world with America being the only super power, despite the fact that fewer wars have gone on since the the fall of the Soviet Empire than any other equivalent time period in modern history.
    of course both china and russia want to be powers, hell they already are. we cannot be so ridiculous to believe it should only be the US, we have survived in the past with multiple world powers

    Quote Originally Posted by CNorris View Post
    Is pathetic liberals are willing to trust the UN (an undisputed anti-military and anti-American organization) intelligence and roll the dice and assume Iran is not developing a nuclear weapon despite the fact every action and ever word coming out of their nation indicates the opposite. There may be a the lack of a smoking gun, but there sure is a carton of bullets and an NRA sign on the Iranian flag.

    And before you try and bring up the Iraq WMD intelligence issue, lets not forget Saddam actively wanted to appear to be a threat and in possession of WMD because of their bitter history with Iran.
    the major difference between us here is that there is no reason for the US to be globocop anymore. There comes a time when you want to develop and better yourselves as a nation and to do that you need a president who will help at home aside from abroad. You look at the disaster that this country has become under an administration thats only focal point is foreign policy (and they were horrible at that to say the least) We as a nation need balance and McCain will NOT bring that

  23. Quote Originally Posted by Reaper329 View Post
    so there is no reason to continue to "commit" further young people who will come home in a bag
    comically, Bill Clinton had more than twice as many men die during his presidency than Bush has. easily available statistic.

  24. Quote Originally Posted by Reaper329 View Post
    Just bc of McCains experience that does not mean that we should allow an escaltion of the war to the extent that Mccain wants. IMO he will be Bush +10, which is a bad, BAD thing
    Of course the vast experience in military and foreign affairs of Hillary and Obama is better.
    For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.

  25. Quote Originally Posted by Reaper329 View Post
    this lacks in any certainty. there is a choice here, and the american people were dupped into believing the WMD argument and the threat of Iraq, so there is no reason to continue to "commit" further young people who will come home in a bag

    So were the intelligence agencies of almost every Western European power. What is even funnier is the vast amounts of people who will think either Clinton or Obama will actually change anything. We already hear how they both will keep troops in Iraq yet their rhetoric is anti-war.


    you also cant do it without the $, and due to the current administration we will not have that for a while. to be honest, when we have that money, our interests would be better served domestically
    This might be the biggest myth in the world, that the administration (any for that matter) has this much power over the economy. Sorry, Greenspan and his ridiculous post 90's policies had more to do with it. This was the same man (and fed bank) that faciliated the boom of the 90's (along wiht the internet). The fed controls the economy more so than any President does and its been the same man for almost 20 years (up until 2006).



    of course both china and russia want to be powers, hell they already are. we cannot be so ridiculous to believe it should only be the US, we have survived in the past with multiple world powers
    Obviously you didnt live through the majority of the Cold war.



    the major difference between us here is that there is no reason for the US to be globocop anymore.
    Naive.

    There comes a time when you want to develop and better yourselves as a nation and to do that you need a president who will help at home aside from abroad.
    January 18, 1999
    "Islamic terrorism" helps justify defense spending"

    "Desperate to fend off the Republican led impeachment process, President Clinton has agreed to an $124 billion increase in defense spending over seven years, thereby, jeopardizing his earlier commitments to education, social security, medicare, and programs for the poor."


    Sometimes, reality gets in the way. This also correlates to the economic issue as the majority of the surplus was because of Clinton cutting military budgets, not some grand economic plan. His "commitments to education, social security, medicare, and programs for the poor" were for the most part a collosal failure.

    You look at the disaster that this country has become under an administration thats only focal point is foreign policy (and they were horrible at that to say the least) We as a nation need balance and McCain will NOT bring that

    Funny because the extreme right hate him because he actually works with liberals and he appeals to many democrats. Seems you statement is quite wrong.
    For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.
  •   

      
     

Similar Forum Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-22-2008, 06:24 PM
  2. Election 2004: Who are you voting for?
    By CEDeoudes59 in forum Politics
    Replies: 287
    Last Post: 10-30-2004, 03:02 AM
  3. International Monitoring of U.S. Election Called 'Frightening'
    By VanillaGorilla in forum General Chat
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-11-2004, 03:52 AM
  4. The 2000 presidential Election 4 years later
    By VanillaGorilla in forum General Chat
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-09-2004, 06:07 AM
  5. Schwarzenegger is elected Gov.
    By lifted in forum General Chat
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 10-11-2003, 02:11 AM
Log in
Log in