Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Senator Obama VS Senator Clinton

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Ghost View Post
    [*]Save $150 billion in tax cuts for people who don't need them. (Dec 2007)


    = unless you are living in a cardboard box, your taxes are about to go up.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Ghost View Post
      [*]Take China "to the mat" about currency manipulation. (Dec 2007)


      Classic empty rhetoric. 'Take them to the mat!' means nothing, and every politician knows it.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by jubaji View Post
        = unless you are living in a cardboard box, your taxes are about to go up.
        well yours might...mine wont

        lol im going to come back to this thread later, its awe inspiringly tiring and i simply dont have the motivation for it most of the time, probably would if it was the UK election.
        will post again though soon enough.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Ghost View Post
          [*]Bush's economic policies are not working. (May 2004).


          For 2004:


          lightningdrink.com เว็บตรง pgslot สล็อตpp เว็บใหม่มาแรงปี 2025 รวมทุกค่ายแตกง่าย ระบบออโต้ มั่นคง ปลอดภัย รีวิวแน่นจากผู้ใช้งานจริง

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Ghost View Post

            Bringing Our Troops Home
            Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months. Obama will make it clear that we will not build any permanent bases in Iraq. He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda..


            I think only Mike has the patience to point out to you all of the contradictions and irrationalities inherent in that little turn of phrase.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Ghost View Post
              probably would if it was the UK election.
              it is your election as well. you just dont get to vote. neither do i though. so were all in the same boat really.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by jubaji View Post
                I think only Mike has the patience to point out to you all of the contradictions and irrationalities inherent in that little turn of phrase.
                targetted strikes is different from occupation.

                Al queda wont be supported when the common enemy is gone.

                Comment


                • I think the Shia militia wont tolerate them, they absolutely hate each other. They only tolerate them because the americans are there now. Al queda is estimated to amount to less than 1000 troops. They are a smaller issue, the shia militia wont tolerate them.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Mike Brewer
                    That doesn't mean they'll leave. There are plenty of Sunni alcoves in Iraq. Lots of them, in fact. There are places that al Qaeda can and would hide. And let's not forget the multitude of new Shi'a sponsors that have managed to get over their disdain for al Qaeda and actually fund them. When you put those ingredients together, what you end up with (again, look at your own history) is competitive interests in a hotbed of violence. That can lead to anything from Civil War to all-out oppression or even genocide of a minority. Without a solid security force, a Sunni minority could well look to a group like Osama's to "protect them" from retaliation by their government majority and militias.

                    There are a lot of factors there to consider, but the potential for negative consequences is far greater and more likely than the potential for it to come out a net positive for us.

                    And none of that matters anyway, because you got this whole ECONOMY discussion going and you've neglected to address my long and information dense post about McCain's demonstrated understanding (and arguably superior execution) of fiscal policy. One point at a time! Talk about what we're talking about, then we'll move on to the war.
                    I know! LMAO, Mike ill be honest with you, i cant be bothered to go through the economy thing right now as it requires thought. Right now im in martial arts spamming mode. My enthusiasm for this topic goes up and down regularly, so i expect i will reply at some point in some detail, i just dont have the heart in me for it right now, sorry. It is always interesting reading your posts though, its just the mental effort required to post doesnt always come to me lol.

                    Just watching CNN, do you think Obama has hillary beaten?

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Mike Brewer
                      You could at least concede that my post was masterfully executed and that it's scared you off for a few days! Come on, man. Give my ego a boost! You know how shy and introverted I am. I'd do it for you.

                      grrr stop trying to make me answer the post, yes it was a good post, it was, but i genuinely cant be bothered to think it all the way through right now.
                      Ill rep you if you like but be ready for the swearing lolol
                      EDIT: gave you rep for it now tosser lol

                      Comment


                      • Yeah ive learnt a lot more too, i think id have more interest if it was a UK election and it is intensive. lol. I need a holiday.

                        Comment


                        • Might well take you up on that but our elections are tedious and boring in comparison to yours. i mean its nothing like what you get over there its like a soap opera over there and fun to watch on tv. In the UK they have maybe 1 debate and thats about it lol. its not much fun and the characters are often duller but perhaps very qualified.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Mr. Arieson
                            I already told you, it's a joke based on two radio hosts out here.


                            Not funny, you bigot.

                            Comment


                            • Re: PBS' Recent "Bush's War"

                              Re: last night's (Mon 3-24-08) PBS "Bushes War," though obviously liberal, surprisingly Bush was basically shown incompetant and manipulated by Cheney, Rumsfeld, Libby (sic), and Tenent, who were shown to have been arrogant, cold as ice and scheming from the get. Their agenda, let Ben Laden escape by thwarting Colin Powell, the CIA and General Franks at every turn while a case against Iraq as an accomplice was falsified.

                              As I watched I was shocked once more at the heartlessnes of both Cheney and Rumsfeld in the wake 911.

                              Blair, Powell, Rice, Clark, the CIA and General Franks (these last two shown to have been way more than competant) were shown to have been victim's of the above's manipulations. France was shown to have not wanted a part of it when it became evident the agenda had been set, "even though it will mean alienating the American Public."

                              Chalabi was shown to have been the snake he is.

                              Then the piece went really left and started focuisng on the violated "rights" of the terrorists held at Guantanamo. The program was based on interviews with many of those involved, internal memos, conflicting news clips by the culprits, etc. Part 2 tonight. You can watch excerpts here:

                              On the fifth anniversary of the Iraq invasion, this definitive two-part series draws on FRONTLINE's more than 40 reports on Iraq and the war on terror, as well as fresh reporting and interviews, to examine the lasting legacy of the Bush administration.


                              Looking back at history from this and it's perspective, I'd have to say that in such a sharkfest, Obama, given his inexperience, may not fair much better than Carter, did, even if it turns out Obama truly meant well.

                              Hilary would be more of the same Cinton lies. McCain? My own verdict (now)is once more "out." Many good qualifications. But his stance on continuing this War is bothersome. Given the above character's scheming, it is obvious going there could not have been for any greater good. Think I'll wait, research, reflect until the "real" run/election rows around, see what else comes out on these individuals running for President, weigh other "candidate" options.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Mike Brewer
                                By way of pacifying some of the rhetoric, what is your position on McCain's war policy if you look at it out of the context of Bush's war?
                                And how do you propose one do that given he is supported by the very criminals who got us in this mess?

                                In other words, if you start from right now, with the influences, conditions, risks, and consequences we face today, what would your position be if you were in charge? Why?
                                Do what general Franks, Powell, and very few others did, distance myself from Bush and company.

                                Consider the options available, the enemies we face, their ability to exert themselves in a chaotic vacuum, our strategic needs, the need to contain certain enemies and oppositional interests, etc. in developing your response.
                                Our greatest enemies are not in Iraq - not only are they still in the White House, where they've been all along, but will continue to operate from behind closed doors. Like the war on Organized Crime in America, where the FBI and local State's attorneys continually sabotage one another, in their quest for pwoer at the expense of Americans, until this is somehow put an end to, it will always be one step forward, two steps back, regardless of anyone's good intentions "out of context." Honestly, why is this so difficult to grasp for some here and elsewhere?

                                Don't come at the argument in terms of the people who were involved in getting us there. Don't look at the people who are up for the vote now. Look at it as if you inherited the whole mess yourself, and really research what the consequences of any measure might mean overall. Would a massive commitment of troops in the short term mean a quicker long-term end? Would a quick withdrawal be seen by an incapable and poorly equipped Iraqi government as "abandonment" by the U.S.? What's going on that's not in the news, and what real concerns should a leader have beyond the media storylines and soundbites?
                                I'd opt for massive commitment of troops in the short term. But first, I'd pull what Obama has suggested and set things up to ensure those behind closed doors in the White House who'd attempt their criminal ways, would be easily exposed at every step.

                                I think when you put yourself in the positions of the people we elect and ask their questions of yourself, sometimes positions that didn't make sense before all of a sudden begin to.
                                Exactly. For when I put myself in the positions of people who stole the last election, I conclude that those in Bush's criminal circle, the last thing they'd pull on themselves is to to put their support behind someone (McCain) who would destroy their years of hard, criminal work against the best interests of the American people. Then again, given McCain's possible good traits, it's a great front for them to appear to support him, as Bush and company so often did before the American public, while sabotaging everyone in the way of their conspiracy, behind closed doors.

                                Until I can see evidence to the contrary, Mike, well, feel free to fill in the blanks...

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X