View Full Version : Republican Cross-over Tactic.
Duke Dicky
03-06-2008, 05:53 PM
Pulled this from a YEC webpage. What do you think?
"I never thought I'd say this, I voted for Hillary this morning here in the Texas democrat primary, so she will have new political life, taking the battle all the way to the convention this summer, as Obama and Hillary bludgeon each other (ideally with great vigor) through the summer, for the eventual nominee to be so beat-up and disoriented by the fall that he/she will be easy pickings for the Republican nominee. Rush Limbaugh and Dick Morris have been encouraging Republicans to practice this strategy, so that the Democrats will fight on, and on, and on.
A campaign worker for a Republican candidate outside my polling place told me that she knows alot of Republicans here in Texas who are voting for Hillary in the primary, with the same reasoning, and a gal at my lunch stop said she voted Hillary for the same reasons, so it looks like thousands of Texas Republicans are going Hillary in the primary, that Hillary and Obama can battle on valiantly, taking the layers off their respective onions."
Spike Lee
03-06-2008, 05:59 PM
Makes sense. The Democrats had the opportunity to do that in Michigan. They didn't.
I 0_0 I
03-06-2008, 06:03 PM
Rush Limbaugh and Dick Morris have been encouraging Republicans to practice this strategy, so that the Democrats will fight on, and on, and on.
Sucks if those people are your coaches, that are telling you how and what to vote for.
its disturbing to say the least.
I'm not buying it for one second. The plan has always been to get Hillary in to continue the war in Iraq and start another with Iran. I mean McCain would do that too, but he is completely unelectable with all his scandals.
The fact that polls show McCain loosing against either Hillary or Obama doesn't give any water to this crackpot scheme by the media Republicans to make it a McCain/Hillary race. Enjoy your puppet show.
Zardozus
03-06-2008, 06:12 PM
I don't see McCain losing to either of those candidates but, if anything, I would say he has a harder time against Hillary who is feisty and been around for a while (not that she herself is very experienced),
but,
McCain would simply school Obama.
bonenator
03-06-2008, 06:31 PM
i really dont think mccain would "school" obama. people that are voting for obama are quite different from mccains demographic.
I'm currently a registered republican, but I want to switch to democrat so I can vote for Obama in the PA primary. I'm probably going to end up voting for him anyway, I don't like McCain so much.
texmaster
03-06-2008, 07:10 PM
I'm currently a registered republican, but I want to switch to democrat so I can vote for Obama in the PA primary. I'm probably going to end up voting for him anyway, I don't like McCain so much.
You're a republican that would vote for Obama?
What entices you? The higher taxes? His cut and run war tactics? Louis Farrakhan's endorsement? Michelle's "Whitey hates me" college thesis? Driver's licenses for illegal immigrants?
I can understand a dislike for McCain as I have it but voting for Obama? You couldn't have a moral liberal candidate so I fail to see how you being a Republican as you claim would throw out everything a Republican stands for and vote for the most liberal candidate the dems have to offer?
You're a republican that would vote for Obama?
What entices you? The higher taxes? His cut and run war tactics? Louis Farrakhan's endorsement? Michelle's "Whitey hates me" college thesis? Driver's licenses for illegal immigrants?
I can understand a dislike for McCain as I have it but voting for Obama? You couldn't have a moral liberal candidate so I fail to see how you being a Republican as you claim would throw out everything a Republican stands for and vote for the most liberal candidate the dems have to offer?
I want to vote for whoever has been in Washington the least.
texmaster
03-06-2008, 07:23 PM
I want to vote for whoever has been in Washington the least.
Then how do you call yourself a republican if that is your only criteria?
Then how do you call yourself a republican if that is your only criteria?
Because, I'm an American citizen before I'm a republican. And as a citizen, I think Obama is the best choice for the future of our nation, simply because he is the most removed from the machine that Washington has turned into. Also, I hate the Clintons, and I don't like the idea of staying in Iraq for the next century like McCain says we should.
Jordan
03-06-2008, 08:21 PM
Then how do you call yourself a republican if that is your only criteria?
Let him vote for whoever the fuck he pleases. Isn't that the whole meaning behind "free society"?
Duke Dicky
03-06-2008, 10:02 PM
You're a republican that would vote for Obama?
What entices you? The higher taxes? His cut and run war tactics? Louis Farrakhan's endorsement? Michelle's "Whitey hates me" college thesis? Driver's licenses for illegal immigrants?
Oh I don’t know, maybe he’s smart for believing lower taxes isn’t and shouldn’t be top priority in the coming election; you know with a recession and war going on. Perhaps he doesn’t like supporting someone with an ideology believing we can stay in Iraq indefinitely. Perhaps he’s disgusted that a candidate could say they’re “pleased” to have a John Hagee endorsement. Something could also be said about the President Bush endorsement. McCain’s lobbyist scandal. The Keating Five scandal. Let’s not play the smearing game.
SpringfieldArms
03-06-2008, 10:06 PM
God forbid this country ever does anything as smart as elect someone like Paul or Huckabee... No, that would make too much sense.
God forbid this country ever does anything as smart as elect someone like Paul or Huckabee... No, that would make too much sense.
Amen to that...
Sketcher
03-06-2008, 10:20 PM
I don't see McCain losing to either of those candidates but, if anything, I would say he has a harder time against Hillary who is feisty and been around for a while (not that she herself is very experienced),
but,
McCain would simply school Obama.
It doesn't matter if "McCain schools Obama". Obama has a celebrity status now. His supporters see him as a fucking savior. Nothing McCain says to make him look bad will sway the Obama supporters from their blindness. He has the support of the uneducated who generally don't care about the issues or watch the debates. Nothing McCain says will sway their support for him because they won't even know McCain is saying anything at all. The reason why Obama did so well in the first place is because he's so inexperienced that he doesn't have a background to attack.
Hillary, on the other hand, has a long history in politics that is prime picking for attacks. She has been around long enough for us to have seen her weaknesses. She doesn't have the luxury of a celebrity status like Obama does. I've seen more Democrat hate towards Hillary than for Obama and if the Republicans can help get her the nomination, it will actually hurt her in the long run. Honestly, I believe Hillary supporters would be willing to vote for Obama over McCain, but I don't believe enough Obama supporters would be willing to vote for Hillary over McCain.
I still stand by my prediction that I made this past fall - any of the Dem candidates BESIDES Hillary could beat ANY of the Repub candidates, but any of the Repub candidates could beat Hillary. I also stand by my prediction that I made three years ago - that Hillary will NOT be our next president.
BlCkDeAtH
03-06-2008, 10:47 PM
I work at a local county GOP HQ in a state that voted on the 4th and I can tell you that I got many phone calls from people asking if it was ok to vote for Hillary in the Primary.
This one guy said that thats what Fox News told him to do, its pretty sad when people actually vote for a person because a channel told them to :(
texmaster
03-06-2008, 11:12 PM
Because, I'm an American citizen before I'm a republican.
That doesn't explain it.
And as a citizen, I think Obama is the best choice for the future of our nation, simply because he is the most removed from the machine that Washington has turned into. Also, I hate the Clintons, and I don't like the idea of staying in Iraq for the next century like McCain says we should.
Then you aren't a republican. A republican or any member of any party has principles and values they believe in. If yours are so easily discarded then count yourself as an independent, not a member of a party.
Oh I don’t know, maybe he’s smart for believing lower taxes isn’t and shouldn’t be top priority in the coming election; you know with a recession and war going on. Perhaps he doesn’t like supporting someone with an ideology believing we can stay in Iraq indefinitely. Perhaps he’s disgusted that a candidate could say they’re “pleased” to have a John Hagee endorsement. Something could also be said about the President Bush endorsement. McCain’s lobbyist scandal. The Keating Five scandal. Let’s not play the smearing game.
Everything I stated was factual. Go ahead and prove any of it was made up.
Lower taxes is one issue.
There are literally a dozen I can think of that put McCain and Obama on polar opposite sides.
I would have the same argument for someone who claimed to be a democrat but would vote for McCain.
Let him vote for whoever the fuck he pleases. Isn't that the whole meaning behind "free society"?
Show me where I said he couldn't do as he pleases.
That doesn't explain it.
Then you aren't a republican. A republican or any member of any party has principles and values they believe in. If yours are so easily discarded then count yourself as an independent, not a member of a party.
Everything I stated was factual. Go ahead and prove any of it was made up.
Lower taxes is one issue.
There are literally a dozen I can think of that put McCain and Obama on polar opposite sides.
I would have the same argument for someone who claimed to be a democrat but would vote for McCain.
Show me where I said he couldn't do as he pleases.
Well then I'm not a Republican according to you (even though I'm registered as one.) I would rather be nothing than a voting automaton like you, pal.
scavenger
03-06-2008, 11:51 PM
The Republican party and the word "republican" have little in common. Since when are invading other countries unprovoked, taking away people's right to screw themselves up (with drugs), running up a gigantic national debt, spying on citizens without warrant, etc.--since when are those things remotely "republican"? And for that matter, since when is it Democratic to take away the people's guns, or to make them give their money to people who are too lazy to get a job?
I maintain that the two-party system is a large-scale and highly successful form of window-dressing, to make people think it's their party vs. the other party rather than the government vs. them.
SpringfieldArms
03-07-2008, 12:10 AM
Well then I'm not a Republican according to you (even though I'm registered as one.) I would rather be nothing than a voting automaton like you, pal.
Tex is dead on right... Being a republican requires a bit more than just a checkbox on your voter registration card.
You are no more of a republican than Obama is.
Spike Lee
03-07-2008, 12:23 AM
Ronald Reagan must not be a conservative. He raised taxes!
Reagan continued these "modest rollbacks" in his second term. The historic Tax Reform Act of 1986, though it achieved the supply side goal of lowering individual income tax rates, was a startlingly progressive reform. The plan imposed the largest corporate tax increase in history--an act utterly unimaginable for any conservative to support today. Just two years after declaring, "there is no justification" for taxing corporate income, Reagan raised corporate taxes by $120 billion over five years and closed corporate tax loopholes worth about $300 billion over that same period. In addition to broadening the tax base, the plan increased standard deductions and personal exemptions to the point that no family with an income below the poverty line would have to pay federal income tax.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2001/0301.green.html
This is also the same man that negotiated with the "enemy", raised taxes and decided to save social security.
SpringfieldArms
03-07-2008, 12:28 AM
One does not need to be conservative to be a republican, nor republican to be a conservative. Reagan had his moments, but he was probably the greatest Republican to ever walk the face of the Earth (so try to show a little respect).
Spike Lee
03-07-2008, 12:29 AM
One does not need to be conservative to be a republican, nor republican to be a conservative. Reagan had his moments, but he was probably the greatest Republican to ever walk the face of the Earth (so try to show a little respect).
How is this disrespectful of Regan? And besides Reagan is consistently touted as the model conservative and the model Republican. If that is the case, the current batch of conservatives (including Paul) are not true conservatives or Republicans.
texmaster
03-07-2008, 12:32 AM
Well then I'm not a Republican according to you (even though I'm registered as one.) I would rather be nothing than a voting automaton like you, pal.
And I'd rather believe in my convictions rather than throw them away just because a guy has a great smile and looks good on tv, buddy.
And I'd rather believe in my convictions rather than throw them away just because a guy has a great smile and looks good on tv, buddy.
I'd rather desert my party (which isn't all that important in the first place) than support someone who would be ok with spending 3 trillion dollars every five years on war. My convictions are don't goto war unless you need to, don't tax us to death unless you're going to put the money to good use, and keep your laws out of our personal lives. My party is deserting MY convictions and their own, not the other way around.
BJ and UT5
03-07-2008, 12:48 AM
Tex is dead on right... Being a republican requires a bit more than just a checkbox on your voter registration card.
You are no more of a republican than Obama is.
Well, first, he can't be right because its just an opinion. Secondly, he is more of a Republican than Obama, because he is registered a Republican. Being a Republican, legally speaking, requires no more than a check box on your voter card. Thirdly, just who in the hell are you? Do you hold the keys to RNC headquarters? Republicans are not a secret club. There is no exclusion from the party. Anyone who chooses to associate with them is a member.
Bergs
03-07-2008, 12:56 AM
I'd rather desert my party (which isn't all that important in the first place) than support someone who would be ok with spending 3 trillion dollars every five years on war. My convictions are don't goto war unless you need to, don't tax us to death unless you're going to put the money to good use, and keep your laws out of our personal lives. My party is deserting MY convictions and their own, not the other way around.
Fuckin-A. The Republican Party has lost their minds, lost their convictions, and lost their way. They have betrayed us, not the other way around. But neither would I ever vote for Obama. Whoever wins this election now, America loses in the long run.
SpringfieldArms
03-07-2008, 12:58 AM
Well, first, he can't be right because its just an opinion. Secondly, he is more of a Republican than Obama, because he is registered a Republican. Being a Republican, legally speaking, requires no more than a check box on your voter card. Thirdly, just who in the hell are you? Do you hold the keys to RNC headquarters? Republicans are not a secret club. There is no exclusion from the party. Anyone who chooses to associate with them is a member.
Maybe I *do* hold the keys to the RNC headquarters. :wave:
Fuckin-A. The Republican Party has lost their minds, lost their convictions, and lost their way. They have betrayed us, not the other way around. But neither would I ever vote for Obama. Whoever wins this election now, America loses in the long run.
I pretty much agree, I would just rather spend 3 trillion dollars on medical care and education rather than war, and I hate the Clintons. Short term it's the least bad choice for me. I would vote for Paul if he still had a chance, but Obama needs as many votes in PA as he can get, so I'm gonna support the least of three evils.
Duke Dicky
03-07-2008, 01:18 AM
Everything I stated was factual. Go ahead and prove any of it was made up.
Sorry, but nothing you said carried with it any sense of objectivity and most of it verged on sheer opinion. It’s not my job to disprove your obvious biasness towards the Democratic Party. You see, I could ask you to define what “cut and run tactics” means and in playing your charades you’ll simply mold your answer to fit that of the view of Barack Obama, which many would consider his plan on Iraq not to be filed under “run”. Hence, it’s impossible to disprove your opinions, but they certainly aren’t facts as you so boldly proclaimed. Secondly, Michelle Obama’s thesis was titled, “Princeton-Educated Blacks and the Black Community”, not, "Whitey hates me” and unlike yourself she took an objective and scientific approach in approaching her thesis for the paper. It wasn’t a conclusion based on simple anecdotes. Third, I’m sure there are many voters far worse than the Louis Farrakhan's of the world voting for every candidate. Should we round them all up and make it illegal for them to cast a vote? The fact that you use any of these examples as “enticements” makes you, in my mind, no more than some FOX news lapdog. You sound more like a puppet rather than a republican.
Lower taxes is one issue.
There are literally a dozen I can think of that put McCain and Obama on polar opposite sides.
I would have the same argument for someone who claimed to be a democrat but would vote for McCain.
Name values that are exclusive to that of only Republicans.
Is Rush really that fickle? If this is true, then he's done a 180. First he was encouraging people to vote for Hillary because he hates McCain and thinks Hillary is more conservative... now you're saying he's encouraging people to vote for Hillary so that the dems beat themselves up and hand the election over to McCain? Well, which one is it?
I don't buy that a prolonged fight for the democratic nomination will hurt the party so much that they won't stand a chance in November. People won't really make up their minds until during the debates in September and October anyway. The public has a short memory and unless there's some sort of major attack (miles above what we've seen so far) or someone makes a huge mistake, they won't care what happened during the primary process. The worst that would happen given how things are going IMO is that if Hillary takes the nomination and doesn't choose Obama as her running mate, a lot of the enthusiastic, young and first time voters that were turned on by Obama will just stay home.
Off topic, I'm gonna make this prediction:
If Hillary is the nominee, she'll pick Obama as her VP
If Obama is the nominee, he'll pick Hillary as his VP if it comes down to a brokered convention, or if it ends up being VERY close--otherwise he'll pick---Bloomberg. You wait and see.... :p
Nefarious
03-07-2008, 03:09 AM
Pulled this from a YEC webpage. What do you think?
"I never thought I'd say this, I voted for Hillary this morning here in the Texas democrat primary, so she will have new political life, taking the battle all the way to the convention this summer, as Obama and Hillary bludgeon each other (ideally with great vigor) through the summer, for the eventual nominee to be so beat-up and disoriented by the fall that he/she will be easy pickings for the Republican nominee. Rush Limbaugh and Dick Morris have been encouraging Republicans to practice this strategy, so that the Democrats will fight on, and on, and on.
A campaign worker for a Republican candidate outside my polling place told me that she knows alot of Republicans here in Texas who are voting for Hillary in the primary, with the same reasoning, and a gal at my lunch stop said she voted Hillary for the same reasons, so it looks like thousands of Texas Republicans are going Hillary in the primary, that Hillary and Obama can battle on valiantly, taking the layers off their respective onions."
You know why? because Hillary would get her ass kicked by McCain. McCain won already why not use your votes to nominate a person that will loose?
Anyone who thinks Obama will be a good president is a fool. Im stuck because I hate them all but Obama is your typical anti-freedom fuck head.
Anyone who thinks Obama will be a good president is a fool. Im stuck because I hate them all but Obama is your typical anti-freedom fuck head.
Why do you say that?
texmaster
03-07-2008, 02:37 PM
I'd rather desert my party (which isn't all that important in the first place) than support someone who would be ok with spending 3 trillion dollars every five years on war. My convictions are don't goto war unless you need to, don't tax us to death unless you're going to put the money to good use, and keep your laws out of our personal lives. My party is deserting MY convictions and their own, not the other way around.
Then you aren't a republican. You're an independent.
Anyone who can change that easy is either an independent or a liar about being a republican.
Then you aren't a republican. You're an independent.
Anyone who can change that easy is either an independent or a liar about being a republican.
So what if you're completely in line with everything the GOP says, but you're opposed to one thing, like the war, or abortion, or gay marriage, only one difference in opinion, does that make them not a republican?
texmaster
03-07-2008, 02:53 PM
So what if you're completely in line with everything the GOP says, but you're opposed to one thing, like the war, or abortion, or gay marriage, only one difference in opinion, does that make them not a republican?
Absolutely not. But there are core values that cannot switch over to a democrat candidate as far left as Obama.
We aren't talking about a Joe Lieberman, we are talking about the Senator with the highest liberal rating in Congress.
Sorry, but nothing you said carried with it any sense of objectivity and most of it verged on sheer opinion.
Which is completly false. I can back up any of those quotes easily.
Or are you going to claim things like Farakan endorsing Obama doesn't exist? :rolleyes:
It’s not my job to disprove your obvious biasness towards the Democratic Party.
Bias and facts are two separate issues.
You see, I could ask you to define what “cut and run tactics” means and in playing your charades you’ll simply mold your answer to fit that of the view of Barack Obama, which many would consider his plan on Iraq not to be filed under “run”. Hence, it’s impossible to disprove your opinions, but they certainly aren’t facts as you so boldly proclaimed.
Cut and run is easily defined
Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama is calling for the immediate withdrawal of all U.S. combat brigades from Iraq, with the pullout being completed by the end of next year.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1895323/posts
That is cut and run. A complete withdrawal regardless of the situation on the ground is what he is advocating. That is the definition of cut and run.
Secondly, Michelle Obama’s thesis was titled, “Princeton-Educated Blacks and the Black Community”, not, "Whitey hates me” and unlike yourself she took an objective and scientific approach in approaching her thesis for the paper. It wasn’t a conclusion based on simple anecdotes.
If you had bothered to read the thesis beyond the title, you would have found this:
"My experiences at Princeton have made me far more aware of my 'blackness' than ever before," the future Mrs. Obama wrote in her thesis introduction. "I have found that at Princeton, no matter how liberal and open-minded some of my white professors and classmates try to be toward me, I sometimes feel like a visitor on campus; as if I really don't belong. Regardless of the circumstances underwhich I interact with whites at Princeton, it often seems as if, to them, I will always be black first and a student second."
Go ahead, explain that away :ohnoes:
Third, I’m sure there are many voters far worse than the Louis Farrakhan's of the world voting for every candidate.
Not in the public.
Should we round them all up and make it illegal for them to cast a vote? The fact that you use any of these examples as “enticements” makes you, in my mind, no more than some FOX news lapdog. You sound more like a puppet rather than a republican.
LOL Because I point out a racist endorsing him means I'm the bad guy.
Of course we shoudn't keep people like him from voting. But we should not be afraid to know who they are going to endorse and WHY.
Name values that are exclusive to that of only Republicans.
Low Taxes. Traditional family. Illegal immigration is a problem not an opportunity. Support the troops with more than words. Strong Military. Less Government. Less social services, more independence from government. 2nd Ammendment support.
And I'm just scratching the surface.
Absolutely not. But there are core values that cannot switch over to a democrat candidate as far left as Obama.
We aren't talking about a Joe Lieberman, we are talking about the Senator with the highest liberal rating in Congress.
So you would rather stay in Iraq for 100 years than have universal health care?
Duke Dicky
03-07-2008, 08:27 PM
Which is completly false. I can back up any of those quotes easily.
Or are you going to claim things like Farakan endorsing Obama doesn't exist? :rolleyes:
I acknowledge the Farakan endorsement just as you should acknowledge John Hagee's endorsement of McCain. All you're trying to do is spin said inconsequential information into your typical fear mongering.
Bias and facts are two separate issues.
And biased-facts are the issue at hand.
Cut and run is easily defined
Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama is calling for the immediate withdrawal of all U.S. combat brigades from Iraq, with the pullout being completed by the end of next year.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1895323/posts
That is cut and run. A complete withdrawal regardless of the situation on the ground is what he is advocating. That is the definition of cut and run.
As predicted, nice job at trying to mold your answer whilst conveniently forgetting or perhaps ignoring the information below.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uTwUAAmRuNM&feature=related
Also, during a televised debate Tim Russert asked if under an Obama administration, would America re-invade Iraq if al Qaeda "resurged."
In which he responded, SEN. OBAMA: ...Now, I always reserve the right for the president -- as commander in chief, I will always reserve the right to make sure that we are looking out for American interests. And if al Qaeda is forming a base in Iraq, then we will have to act in a way that secures the American homeland and our interests abroad. So that is true, I think, not just in Iraq, but that's true in other places. That's part of my argument with respect to Pakistan.
I think we should always cooperate with our allies and sovereign nations in making sure that we are rooting out terrorist organizations, but if they are planning attacks on Americans, like what happened in 9/11, it is my job -- it will be my job as president to make sure that we are hunting them down.
If you had bothered to read the thesis beyond the title, you would have found this:
"My experiences at Princeton have made me far more aware of my 'blackness' than ever before," the future Mrs. Obama wrote in her thesis introduction. "I have found that at Princeton, no matter how liberal and open-minded some of my white professors and classmates try to be toward me, I sometimes feel like a visitor on campus; as if I really don't belong. Regardless of the circumstances underwhich I interact with whites at Princeton, it often seems as if, to them, I will always be black first and a student second."
Go ahead, explain that away :ohnoes:
No, you need to read her paper, all 66 pages of it. If you think it was about how “whitey hates her” you’re completely delusional. The object of the experiment was to determine comfort/relationship levels between blacks and whites and if Princeton education has any unique effects upon those factors and if so, is there anything that could be done to better improve the college’s education. You’re little snippet you posted was torn from page 3 and directly under that she goes on to explain how although she sometimes feels seperated, other aspects, or the other side of her feels like she has much in common with her white colleagues.
Not in the public.
Big Deal.
LOL Because I point out a racist endorsing him means I'm the bad guy.
When you spin it as an enticement, yes, that makes you the bad guy. Don't play games.
Of course we shoudn't keep people like him from voting. But we should not be afraid to know who they are going to endorse and WHY.
And I suppose you'll give your biased opinion as to the question WHY a racist decided to endorse Obama. I suppose you’re going to assume that it MUST be because Obama is a racist?
Low Taxes. Traditional family. Illegal immigration is a problem not an opportunity. Support the troops with more than words. Strong Military. Less Government. Less social services, more independence from government. 2nd Ammendment support.
And I'm just scratching the surface.
Funny how with each example I can either show a Republican doing the exact opposite or a Democrat supporting your so called "exclusive" values. Either way, the point was to show that those values pare in comparison to a recession and a war in Iraq and I can see plenty of Republicans voting Democrat simply because Mr. McCain doesn't have a reasonable answer to said questions. So don't go stating that someone isn't Republican or Republican enough because they're not worried about 2nd ammendment support when there's greater problems this nation is facing.
I 0_0 I
03-07-2008, 08:36 PM
So you would rather stay in Iraq for 100 years than have universal health care?
hahahah pwnage.
10pwnages
ROFLStomp
03-07-2008, 10:51 PM
Also, during a televised debate Tim Russert asked if under an Obama administration, would America re-invade Iraq if al Qaeda "resurged."
In which he responded, SEN. OBAMA: ...Now, I always reserve the right for the president -- as commander in chief, I will always reserve the right to make sure that we are looking out for American interests. And if al Qaeda is forming a base in Iraq, then we will have to act in a way that secures the American homeland and our interests abroad. So that is true, I think, not just in Iraq, but that's true in other places. That's part of my argument with respect to Pakistan.
I think we should always cooperate with our allies and sovereign nations in making sure that we are rooting out terrorist organizations, but if they are planning attacks on Americans, like what happened in 9/11, it is my job -- it will be my job as president to make sure that we are hunting them down.
Yeah thanks thats bullshit. So the guy is advocating getting the troops out ASAP but then sending them back in when Al Qaeda "returns". THEY STILL ARE IN IRAQ. And when we leave (hence the last security for the nation), guess whose going to get a new home. Al Qaeda...
I think any of the three candidates running right now know very well that if the US is doing well in Iraq they will stay for a little bit...Hillary and Obama can just run the "no war, Repubs made this mess" shit while still keeping the same intentions of any president.
Duke Dicky
03-08-2008, 11:09 AM
Yeah thanks thats bullshit. So the guy is advocating getting the troops out ASAP but then sending them back in when Al Qaeda "returns". THEY STILL ARE IN IRAQ. And when we leave (hence the last security for the nation), guess whose going to get a new home. Al Qaeda...
I think any of the three candidates running right now know very well that if the US is doing well in Iraq they will stay for a little bit...Hillary and Obama can just run the "no war, Repubs made this mess" shit while still keeping the same intentions of any president.
There was no Al Qaeda insurgency in Iraq until we moved into Iraq. We brought this war to the Iraqi people and that's exactly why it's been a dismal failure. Al Qaeda will go where American troops go, which will be back to Afghanistan; exactly where we should have been this entire war.
ROFLStomp
03-08-2008, 11:40 PM
There was no Al Qaeda insurgency in Iraq until we moved into Iraq. We brought this war to the Iraqi people and that's exactly why it's been a dismal failure. Al Qaeda will go where American troops go, which will be back to Afghanistan; exactly where we should have been this entire war.
Yeah, Al Qaeda won't exactly pick up their things and leave, when they have a country in chaos they will most likely stay there.
Unless you mean when someone withdrawals US troops, they will follow us home :lmao:
Duke Dicky
03-09-2008, 04:24 AM
Yeah, Al Qaeda won't exactly pick up their things and leave, when they have a country in chaos they will most likely stay there.
Unless you mean when someone withdrawals US troops, they will follow us home :lmao:
They will follow us wherever we go, which will be back into Afghanistan, away from Iraqi civilians. Iraq is in chaos because the current administration decided to mobilize near civilians and destabilize all control.
Yeah thanks thats bullshit. So the guy is advocating getting the troops out ASAP but then sending them back in when Al Qaeda "returns". THEY STILL ARE IN IRAQ. And when we leave (hence the last security for the nation), guess whose going to get a new home. Al Qaeda...
I think any of the three candidates running right now know very well that if the US is doing well in Iraq they will stay for a little bit...Hillary and Obama can just run the "no war, Repubs made this mess" shit while still keeping the same intentions of any president.
Al Qaeda has one problem in Iraq: The gov't and the people are against them. That wasn't the case in Afghanistan.
Spike Lee
03-09-2008, 03:02 PM
Al Qaeda has one problem in Iraq: The gov't and the people are against them. That wasn't the case in Afghanistan.
Exactly the Shia anf the Sunni's hate them.
Fungus Amungus
03-09-2008, 05:35 PM
I voted for Hillary for that strategy. I don't like McCain, but I'll take him over any of the democrats. I really hope that health is going to get McCain to drop out then it'll be upto Paul or Romney.
Duke Dicky
03-09-2008, 06:13 PM
I voted for Hillary for that strategy. I don't like McCain, but I'll take him over any of the democrats. I really hope that health is going to get McCain to drop out then it'll be upto Paul or Romney.
You casted a vote for Hillary?
Fungus Amungus
03-09-2008, 06:33 PM
Yes. She has more dirt that can be used against her than Obama. I REALLY do not like Obama.
Duke Dicky
03-09-2008, 08:10 PM
Yes. She has more dirt that can be used against her than Obama. I REALLY do not like Obama.
You're cheating democracy.
Deamatix
03-09-2008, 08:25 PM
You're cheating democracy.
My thoughts exactly. Good God people, this is the sacred right for the people to pick a leader based on fair representation. But I guess some people are more devoted to their party than the foundations of this country.
Fungus Amungus
03-10-2008, 02:05 AM
People did the same thing in other states against republicans. Trying to get Guiliani or Thompson to get the delegates. I would say it's pretty fair. Also it's not my fault people who support Obama didn't have the balls to vote for him.
Spike Lee
03-10-2008, 02:20 AM
People did the same thing in other states against republicans. Trying to get Guiliani or Thompson to get the delegates. I would say it's pretty fair. Also it's not my fault people who support Obama didn't have the balls to vote for him.
No it's not fair. If you thought it was wrong, then you shouldn't practice it. And the people that supported Obama voted for him. I have no idea why you even bring that part up.
vBulletin® v3.7.2, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.