Dem's flat out Lie about the 100 year war.

Page 1 of 2 12 Last
  1. Dem's flat out Lie about the 100 year war.


    Expect the Democrats to throw lies about McCain and the 100 year war. Be prepared to witness one of the most dishonest and desperate political attacks in US history.
    Here is the truth about the 100 year war accusation.


    "McCain never actually went so far as to call for a century-long occupation. Rather, in response to a New Hampshire town hall questioner who asked about President Bush’s statement that U.S. troops could be in Iraq for 50 years, McCain interrupted and said, “Make it 100.”

    “We've been in South Korea ... we’ve been in Japan for 60 years,” he continued. “We’ve been in South Korea for 50 years or so. That would be fine with me. As long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed, that’s fine with me. I hope that would be fine with you, if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world where Al Qaeda is training, recruiting and equipping and motivating people every single day."

    The point he was making is really postwar. He’s not even taken a position,” said Mark Salter, McCain’s top adviser. “He’s trying to explain whether you could have a presence, a base, in Iraq after war, and the American people would accept it. His argument always was, 'If we are not taking casualties, well, they’ve accepted it in Japan, Korea and Germany.'”


  2. this is good info. mccain has been portrayed as some sort of insane war mongerer for the 100 year comment. if the current level of activity took place for another 100 years, I don't think there'd be an Iraq left whatsoever.------
    •   
       




  3. The fact people can take this out of context is absolutely startling.
    Liberals do not seem to understand we have troops stationed all over the world and we will have troops stationed there long after combat operations end.

    McCain's mistake was overestimating the voting public's intelligence level. He should have dumbed it down so the liberals can understand. They aren't exactly tuned into reality so you need to explain things they don't want to understand even slower.

  4. Quote Originally Posted by CNorris View Post


    The fact people can take this out of context is absolutely startling.
    Liberals do not seem to understand we have troops stationed all over the world and we will have troops stationed there long after combat operations end.

    McCain's mistake was overestimating the voting public's intelligence level. He should have dumbed it down so the liberals can understand. They aren't exactly tuned into reality so you need to explain things they don't want to understand even slower.
    What I find startling is all the dead people in Iraq.

  5. What most people don't understand about Iraq is that it is, and always has been, a tribal war. I worked with an Iraqi who informed me that the tribes were fighting one hundred years ago. They are fighting now. They will be fighting one hundred years from now. His family got out after the Gulf war, because they are Christians. He said even his Muslim friends he grew up with from childhood will never trust him because of his faith. Nothing we have done or will do, is going to make a difference.
    •   
       


  6. Quote Originally Posted by cord195148 View Post
    What most people don't understand about Iraq is that it is, and always has been, a tribal war. I worked with an Iraqi who informed me that the tribes were fighting one hundred years ago. They are fighting now. They will be fighting one hundred years from now. His family got out after the Gulf war, because they are Christians. He said even his Muslim friends he grew up with from childhood will never trust him because of his faith. Nothing we have done or will do, is going to make a difference.
    True, the situation is so complicated with the sunni's, shiites, kurds, iranians, turks, and now the addition of radical muslims, that most people can barely wrap their mind around it, so how do they expect to make informed judgements about it?

  7. it doesn`t really matter what mccain says. he isn`t going to win

  8. Quote Originally Posted by Chad View Post
    it doesn`t really matter what mccain says. he isn`t going to win


    Thats just flat out funny.

    Obama swift boated himself by having the most influential philosophical mentor in his adult life a racist hateful anti-Semite America hater that puts pro-terrorist hamas writings in his church newsletter.

    Hillary I dont need to even specify.

    The Democratic uncivil war will leave the Democratic candidate battered. A shocking number of Obama and Hillary voters are saying they will not vote for the opposing Democratic candidate. Im talking numbers of about 20-30% on both sides. If even 15% of these people are serious come November, the Democrats have lost.

    Independants are polling for McCain 2:1 over any Democrat and Obama can not carry the white male vote after he was exposed with the Rev. Wright issue. Just wait until his ties to the 60's domestic terrorist group the weather underground is exposed. Wait until his wife's hatred and America bashing rhetoric is further exposed. Wait until Obama's empty call for unity is exposed by the fact he is the most partisans liberal in the senate and has not sponsored, written or voted for any piece of bi-partisan piece of legislation. Wait until the American people see a huge leap in Iraqi elections in October, get wind of the successes in Iraq like the budget being passed, all 3 main factions now participating in the gov't. THe people will realize we are winning and there is light at the end of the tunnel. They last thing the American public wants is all our effort to be wasteful and to see a bloodbath in Iraq because Obama pulled out irresponsibly.

    McCain has sponsored more bi-partisan legislation, participated in more bi-partisan committees and even written very significant bi-partisan bills. The American public wants a candidate that puts American progress and getting things done ahead of his own party's ideology. That candidate is clearly John McCain.

  9. Quote Originally Posted by CNorris View Post


    Thats just flat out funny.

    Obama swift boated himself by having the most influential philosophical mentor in his adult life a racist hateful anti-Semite America hater that puts pro-terrorist hamas writings in his church newsletter.

    Hillary I dont need to even specify.

    The Democratic uncivil war will leave the Democratic candidate battered. A shocking number of Obama and Hillary voters are saying they will not vote for the opposing Democratic candidate. Im talking numbers of about 20-30% on both sides. If even 15% of these people are serious come November, the Democrats have lost.

    Independants are polling for McCain 2:1 over any Democrat and Obama can not carry the white male vote after he was exposed with the Rev. Wright issue. Just wait until his ties to the 60's domestic terrorist group the weather underground is exposed. Wait until his wife's hatred and America bashing rhetoric is further exposed. Wait until Obama's empty call for unity is exposed by the fact he is the most partisans liberal in the senate and has not sponsored, written or voted for any piece of bi-partisan piece of legislation. Wait until the American people see a huge leap in Iraqi elections in October, get wind of the successes in Iraq like the budget being passed, all 3 main factions now participating in the gov't. THe people will realize we are winning and there is light at the end of the tunnel. They last thing the American public wants is all our effort to be wasteful and to see a bloodbath in Iraq because Obama pulled out irresponsibly.

    McCain has sponsored more bi-partisan legislation, participated in more bi-partisan committees and even written very significant bi-partisan bills. The American public wants a candidate that puts American progress and getting things done ahead of his own party's ideology. That candidate is clearly John McCain.


    glad you think thats funny. but if you really think americans would put another republican in office then thats also.

  10. Quote Originally Posted by Chad View Post
    glad you think thats funny. but if you really think americans would put another republican in office then thats also.
    Bush is hardly a republican. Republicans would not put him in the office again either.

    McCain is smart enough to employ a strategy for winning and ending the war in Iraq, cut taxes AND spending unlike Bush and stimulate the economy by giving business an incentive to invest locally because their taxes wont be such a burden they are forced to move overseas to turn a profit.

    Bush nearly ruined the Republican party but McCain is moderate enough to get elected overwhelmingly and the party will only be more reinvigorated and this party will be here as long as Americans still believe we are a noble nation and we should be a capitalist nation.

  11. Quote Originally Posted by CNorris View Post
    Bush is hardly a republican. Republicans would not put him in the office again either.

    McCain is smart enough to employ a strategy for winning and ending the war in Iraq, cut taxes AND spending unlike Bush and stimulate the economy by giving business an incentive to invest locally because their taxes wont be such a burden they are forced to move overseas to turn a profit.

    Bush nearly ruined the Republican party but McCain is moderate enough to get elected overwhelmingly and the party will only be more reinvigorated and this party will be here as long as Americans still believe we are a noble nation and we should be a capitalist nation.

    i agree that mccain is a lot better than bush. but a lot of people are just going to see him as a republican. and with all this hype over a having a black man in office i dont think mccain really stands a chance even if he would do a better job. thats all im saying.

  12. Quote Originally Posted by CNorris View Post
    Bush is hardly a republican. Republicans would not put him in the office again either.

    McCain is smart enough to employ a strategy for winning and ending the war in Iraq, cut taxes AND spending unlike Bush and stimulate the economy by giving business an incentive to invest locally because their taxes wont be such a burden they are forced to move overseas to turn a profit.

    Bush nearly ruined the Republican party but McCain is moderate enough to get elected overwhelmingly and the party will only be more reinvigorated and this party will be here as long as Americans still believe we are a noble nation and we should be a capitalist nation.

    Hopefully he doesn't allow government bailouts of companies like Bear Stearns.

  13. Quote Originally Posted by CryingEmo View Post
    Hopefully he doesn't allow government bailouts of companies like Bear Stearns.
    That's such a narrow view of things. Bailing out Bear Stearns actually helped your average Joe maintain some sort of equity in his home. If these investment banks weren't bailed out, the credit crisis would be much worse sending the prices of homes (and middle class equity and their 401k's) in the tank increasing the chances of a prolonged recession while killing their retirement funds..

    What people seem to forget is that regulation caused this problem by the amending (in 1995) of the CRA act of 1977. This brilliant liberal philosophy create sub prime and no doc loans so that low and moderate income borrows could buy homes. This created a huge secondary mortgage industry selling bad loans to people who couldn't afford them. If they never enacted the CRA and made amendments in 95 in the first place, you would have never had the sub prime crisis or the massive amounts of investment capital pumped into the real estate market.


    So its really funny hearing Democrats complain about the sub prime crisis and what the current administration didn't do when the problem was created by Democrat policies in the first place.

    ..but you won't hear that on CNN.
    For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.

  14. Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    That's such a narrow view of things. Bailing out Bear Stearns actually helped your average Joe maintain some sort of equity in his home. If these investment banks weren't bailed out, the credit crisis would be much worse sending the prices of homes (and middle class equity and their 401k's) in the tank increasing the chances of a prolonged recession while killing their retirement funds..

    What people seem to forget is that regulation caused this problem by the amending (in 1995) of the CRA act of 1977. This brilliant liberal philosophy create sub prime and no doc loans so that low and moderate income borrows could buy homes. This created a huge secondary mortgage industry selling bad loans to people who couldn't afford them. If they never enacted the CRA and made amendments in 95 in the first place, you would have never had the sub prime crisis or the massive amounts of investment capital pumped into the real estate market.


    So its really funny hearing Democrats complain about the sub prime crisis and what the current administration didn't do when the problem was created by Democrat policies in the first place.

    ..but you won't hear that on CNN.
  15. Unbreakable
    David Dunn's Avatar

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    That's such a narrow view of things. Bailing out Bear Stearns actually helped your average Joe maintain some sort of equity in his home. If these investment banks weren't bailed out, the credit crisis would be much worse sending the prices of homes (and middle class equity and their 401k's) in the tank increasing the chances of a prolonged recession while killing their retirement funds..

    What people seem to forget is that regulation caused this problem by the amending (in 1995) of the CRA act of 1977. This brilliant liberal philosophy create sub prime and no doc loans so that low and moderate income borrows could buy homes. This created a huge secondary mortgage industry selling bad loans to people who couldn't afford them. If they never enacted the CRA and made amendments in 95 in the first place, you would have never had the sub prime crisis or the massive amounts of investment capital pumped into the real estate market.


    So its really funny hearing Democrats complain about the sub prime crisis and what the current administration didn't do when the problem was created by Democrat policies in the first place.

    ..but you won't hear that on CNN.
    Thank you!

    I'll admit up front that I am ignorant to many aspects of politics and what is really going on.

    *note the bold above*

    Low and moderate income people (insert "should") live in low and moderate income homes. It's called living within your means.

    When I bought the home I live in I could qualify for a lot more than I borrowed. But I chose to live within my means.

    The only impact that this mortgage/housing crisis has made on me is that it has reduced the equity in my home maybe even by half. But it was an inflated equity.

    I wont lie, I regret not selling my house for twice what I owed when I could. But I would have still taken that equity, put as much down as I could have, to achieve the same loan payment (same principle on the new loan) and lived within my means at maybe a little higher standard of living as far as home goes.

    I have a tradition 30yr fixed low interest mortgage so I am not effected by any of this other than the collateral inflation and increased cost of living that has now come from this recession.

    My wife and I both have FICO scores in the 800's and are very capable of qualifying and maybe could make a mortgage payment of 50% to even 100% more than I do now. But that would be irresponsible. So I don't do it.

    I shake my head sometimes and try to figure out how some guy making $45K a year is living in a $350k home driving two brand new SUV's...one of which is towing a 22' boat. I understand now

    So now I watch the little investment (and profits) that I able to make for my retirement while living within my means dwindle away. Fortunately my company matches 50% of the first 6%.

    I guess what I am not understanding is why would our government (democrats) do such a thing in the first place? Was the huge secondary mortgage industry created as a result of the amendment to the act or did a small secondary mortgage industry pressure and lobby and send kickbacks to our (democratic) government to enact this amendment so that they could become a huge industry?

  16. Quote Originally Posted by B5150 View Post

    I guess what I am not understanding is why would our government (democrats) do such a thing in the first place? Was the huge secondary mortgage industry created as a result of the amendment to the act or did a small secondary mortgage industry pressure and lobby and send kickbacks to our (democratic) government to enact this amendment so that they could become a huge industry?

    Because its follows the same path/idea as income redistribution. Its in the "greater good" for people to be able to get mortgages for houses (which in turn increases the amount of property tax collected while increasing surrounding property values). What they didn't count on was people exploiting the system both on the lending and borrowing end (gee, THAT never happens ). Its just another example of regulation based on ideology rather than reality. Instead of trickle down economics which puts the burden of smart investing in the hands of the wealthy (which makes some sense) its trickle up economics putting the burden of making smart investing on the low-middle class which as you can see, doesnt work. That's Democratic big government for you in a nutshell.

    Once it gets started, prices are based on more perception than reality (same as oil and gold now....its not really based on supply and demand but perception and speculation).

    The problem is now the government is almost forced to step and in try to correct the error because its not a free market problem that created it, but a regulation one.



    B, love the avi...Eddie the Ed lives on...Up the Irons!
    For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.

  17. Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    That's such a narrow view of things. Bailing out Bear Stearns actually helped your average Joe maintain some sort of equity in his home. If these investment banks weren't bailed out, the credit crisis would be much worse sending the prices of homes (and middle class equity and their 401k's) in the tank increasing the chances of a prolonged recession while killing their retirement funds..

    It just seems like corporate wellfare to me. I mean a corporation plays the capitalism game, but if they get in trouble, they get alot of tax dollars. Seems like socialism to me...


    The CEO immediately sold his shares worth 65 million and hired a body guard... lol. There goes 65 million tax dollars...


    I'm not disagreeing that it did provide some help to the market. I'm open to new ideas.

  18. Quote Originally Posted by CNorris View Post
    McCain's mistake was overestimating the voting public's intelligence level.
    This is a sad, but true, comment. The voting public is very easily propagandized with fluffy well-wishes, catch phrases, and fear mongering.

    That being said our three choices for candidates are all douches. However, McCain is a strawberry flavored douche so I may just have to go with that one from lack of a better option.

    I truly think this election is worse, for me, than Kerry v. Bush.

  19. Quote Originally Posted by kwyckemynd00 View Post
    This is a sad, but true, comment. The voting public is very easily propagandized with fluffy well-wishes, catch phrases, and fear mongering.

    That being said our three choices for candidates are all douches. However, McCain is a strawberry flavored douche so I may just have to go with that one from lack of a better option.

    I truly think this election is worse, for me, than Kerry v. Bush.
    Bush nearly single handedly ruined the Republican party. I'm not necessarily saying it is all his fault, but a 4+ years of a very media freidnly republican will go a long way in restoring the party's image so we can have many more years of republican leadership in the future. Even though McCain is dead wrong about global warming and a few other issues, he has more integrity than almost anyone in the senate and he will cut taxes and spending unlike Bush.

  20. IMHO Bush didn't ruin the republican party, the republican party ruined the republican party--he just happen to be their representative in chief!

    And, again, I don't like McCain, but I hate him less than Hillary or Obama (well, I don't hate Obama, I just think he'll be a horrible president).
  21. Unbreakable
    David Dunn's Avatar

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    B, love the avi...Eddie the Ed lives on...Up the Irons!
    Knew you would

    You just made me think about changing my name to E5150!

    Here is some metal trivia for you: We know what B is for and we know what 5150 is.

    E5150 is not (mine) original. Do you know what E5150 is and what it means?

    I'll give you two hints: Man on a Silver Mountain, Mob Rules.

    If you google it it will give it away in a heart beat.

  22. Quote Originally Posted by kwyckemynd00 View Post
    IMHO Bush didn't ruin the republican party, the republican party ruined the republican party--he just happen to be their representative in chief!

    And, again, I don't like McCain, but I hate him less than Hillary or Obama (well, I don't hate Obama, I just think he'll be a horrible president).

    agreed on the first part. if they wanted to stop him from screwing things up they could have.

    as far as hating all 3. does that mean you`ll not vote or vote for mccain?

  23. Quote Originally Posted by CryingEmo View Post
    It just seems like corporate wellfare to me. I mean a corporation plays the capitalism game, but if they get in trouble, they get alot of tax dollars. Seems like socialism to me...
    Its not a capitalism game when regulation forces banks to give out loans to low and middle income people to maintain a "score" to appease politicans and a regulated ranking system. Do you think banks were happy to be forced into making risky loans in the 90's? The housing bubble and problems were caused by something that was NOT capitalism. If government breaks the system, sometimes government has to fix the system. To try and simplify it into a Democratic or Republican talking point ignores reality.

    Socialism is Hillary wanting to bailout the people who can't make their mortgage payment because it was the "evil" corporation that "persuaded" people into signing the contract


    One solution helps retain liquidity and equity where it belongs (bailing out Bear Sterns), the other punishes banks for something they were forced into by legislation to do anyway. Government bureaucracy at its best.

    And really, we have the second highest corporate tax rate in the world so if you want to talk about corporate welfare, ask Europe and see how they are doing.


    The CEO immediately sold his shares worth 65 million and hired a body guard... lol. There goes 65 million tax dollars...
    So what...the guy probably made them 100x more than that in his lifetime. I don't balk at the idea that some people get really really rich....and the bailout was mostly to insure people they didn't go under and peoples actual money (investment accounts) weren't lost. The stock price means nothing and it certainly isn't worth $2 a share. Thats a complete joke.


    I'm not disagreeing that it did provide some help to the market. I'm open to new ideas.
    Its not new ideas....its economics that most people who repeat political talking points don't seem to get.


    Bailing out the banks actually gives you a chance to fix the situation. Bailing out the people who took the loans will cause such a **** storm in the financial system that you will have double digit interest rates, severe credit restrictions (its already been increased with 3 years of w2 income verification) and banks will not offer mortgages like they could.

    The debt is out there...if you want to take a pure free market approach to a problem that was caused by regulation then you better be ready for a world of hurt. If you let these large banks go under, you will hurt more "average joes" much worse than anything else being proposed.
    For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.

  24. McCain = Anti-Gun Trash

  25. Fukk em all, let the interest rate sort em out!

  26. Quote Originally Posted by The Paper Route View Post
    McCain = Anti-Gun Trash
    For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.

  27. Quote Originally Posted by Chad View Post
    agreed on the first part. if they wanted to stop him from screwing things up they could have.

    as far as hating all 3. does that mean you`ll not vote or vote for mccain?
    I'm afraid of the other two more so than McCain, so I'll begrudgingly vote for him.

  28. Quote Originally Posted by CNorris View Post


    McCain's mistake was overestimating the voting public's intelligence level. He should have dumbed it down so the liberals can understand. They aren't exactly tuned into reality so you need to explain things they don't want to understand even slower.
    That has to be the most ironic thing I have read all year.

    Don't worry just a few more months in Iraq and it will turn around! </sarcasm>

  29. Quote Originally Posted by DougMan View Post
    That has to be the most ironic thing I have read all year.

    Don't worry just a few more months in Iraq and it will turn around! </sarcasm>
    If you have something to say, say it. Anyone that thinks pulling out of Iraq is even an option attempting to belittle someone else's intellectual capacity is like Rosie O'Donnell giving fitness advice.

  30. Quote Originally Posted by CNorris View Post
    is like Rosie O'Donnell giving fitness advice.

    HEY! i hear she can deadlift A LOT!!!:donut:
  •   

      
     

Similar Forum Threads

  1. mid-cycle - feeling flat?
    By 1newbie in forum Anabolics
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 09-23-2010, 01:27 PM
  2. Fix-a-Flat (ED)
    By AGELESS in forum Male Anti-Aging Medicine
    Replies: 40
    Last Post: 01-02-2010, 09:13 PM
  3. Where are your thumbs while flat benching?
    By 5111 in forum Training Forum
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 03-11-2007, 01:10 PM
  4. Incline to Flat Bench
    By Rebel in forum Training Forum
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 03-15-2004, 10:13 PM
Log in
Log in