Originally Posted by tony
lmao, reps
lmao, reps
2005 Ford F-150 FX4 Supercrew
:repubelickers:
Kelly's picture just made me want vote for Obama even more.
x2 He always says Obama can't do this and that (insert blinking here)
Why oh why didn't someone make this same comparison when Bush ran against Kerry? Isn't there a HUGE age difference between McCain & Obama? ...and...how on earth is this relevant to anything that has anything to do with them running against each other for prez?
Fuk voting neither are worth a dayum!
Dubya had a rather impressive political background & lots of experience. Apparently that wasn't enough to keep him from going down as the one of (if not the) WORST presidents in US history
Here, i'll help:
I think your head is up your ass kelly, that obama picture was taken about 2 years ago after he was instated as a senator and visited an african country and dressed according to culture along with some other senators. How bout you do some research instead of just posteing stupid picture you mindless troll.
IT's trying to say that obama is some *** rights activist for africans and mccain is an all american war hero! Do you not get the picture? it's pretty simple. Either way, neither of them are good candidates, it's just voting for the lesser evil, which would be obama. :\
A politician dressing in traditional clothing of the region while visiting that country? Well... a republican would never do such a thing! Stupid democrats
As for Obama not having experience.... he was in the Illinois Senate for 7 years and has been in the US Senate for three years. Sure, he hasn't been a Governor or something but he's certainly not without experience.
He's not my favorite candidate to ever run but I just can't get in the McCain camp. He seems condescending and I cannot agree with staying in Iraq much longer.
I am anxious to see who each chooses as a running mate though.
2005 Mazdaspeed MX-5 -1.8L Turbo
Actually, thats only part of the photo.
Bush and Putin were dressing up in the native robes of some place. So other countrie's leaders do it too.
Last edited by Spektrewing386; 07-03-2008 at 05:44 PM.
I'm aware of that. The photo was taken in Vietnam.
Showing that other people/leaders dress in traditional clothing when visiting a country was the point of posting the photo.
2005 Mazdaspeed MX-5 -1.8L Turbo
Exactly its funny what ignorant people do.
yah, thank goodness his Mom wasn't a ho and his Dad had the balls to stick around.
LMAO
2005 Ford F-150 FX4 Supercrew
I don't want my money going to africa.
and u know kelly posted that from a site FOR obama right? not to mention she was only posting it because the OP's link was broken.
you are an idiot
2005 Ford F-150 FX4 Supercrew
People like this shouldnt have the right to vote
Seriously
Kill your self!
you realize he has one of the worst attendance records on voting. I think he misses over 40+ % votes
You should understand what he has voted "For"
http://www.organicconsumers.org/arti...icle_10679.cfm
It was an idiotic hypothetical situation, I think the comment was justifiable.
People like this shouldnt have the right to vote
Seriously
Kill your self!
I have asked this same question on a couple other boards and no Obama supporter will answer it. Maybe I will get lucky here.
1. If the US was to retreat from Iraq what, in your opinion, would be the outcome in Iraq?
2. Would that eventual outcome be detrimental or favorable to the security of the US and its foreign based intrests?
I dont agree with Obama on a lot of things, so i dont call myself a full blown supporter. Mainly I'm anti-McCain guy. If there were a canidate that was 1/3 Obama, 1/3 McCain, 1/3 Ron Paul... id support that guy.
1. If the US was to retreat from Iraq what, in your opinion, would be the outcome in Iraq?
My opinion is using the, im not going to say retreat, i'm going to call it reverse occupation. Using the reverse occupation plan of Obama, which is a withdrawel over a 1.5 year period with some special forces behind to help out the Iraqi National Army and Iraqi police. We will see a reduction in violence due to the insurgent's call for no American military in Iraq. While the trained Iraqi National Army and police subdue the areas with militant's whos only goal is killing the other Islamic sect (Sunni vs Shiite) and militant's goals of obtaining power through violence rather than the politcal process. No foreign armies in Iraq will instill a greater sense of sovereignty and pride to the Iraqi people, calling themselves a sovereign nation unhindered by Western leaders telling them what to do. To be considered a nation rather than America's *****, it should be refreshing to them.
2. Would that eventual outcome be detrimental or favorable to the security of the US and its foreign based intrests?
It would be favorable to our security. We will be allowing the American military to do their job and not get side-tracked by Iraq. There are still Al-Qaeda operatatives out there. And it will take highly skilled intelligence agents to keep track of the sleeper cells. And small spec ops operations to take down training camps if any left. Step up Interpol and cooperation between nation's intelligence agencies. And remember you shouldn't use a cannon to kill a fly. I believe we ourselves are propigating anti-american hate by doing what we do... Did the Nazi's call the partisan soldier's of Europe terrorists? If you look at it, they kind of acted like the anti-american insurgents of Iraq (not the sunni vs shiite ones, those guys are insane).
So yes, the outcome will be favorable to our security. As long as we remember to not piss off the world, it will be good.
Last edited by Spektrewing386; 07-03-2008 at 06:38 PM.
Single mothers are "hos" now?
you didn't get the memo?
2005 Ford F-150 FX4 Supercrew
Yea you much rather have your money going to Iraq where its being well spent for a great cause!
/sarcasm.
The memo is that the b!tch asses that busted a nut and couldn't take care of it are b!tch asses.
We may not agree, but its nice to see an actual intelligent response.
My biggest worry about leaving Iraq before the country is stable and the Iraqi military and police are really up to speed is Iran. Considering the fact that they have funded, trained and supplied the insurgency in Iraq for this long leads me to think they will immediately become involved in force when the US leaves. This will elad to us havig to go back into Iraq under much less favorable condition than even in 03.
First we will have to deal with the Iranian military who have not been subject to such strict embargos and have a much more advanced military than Iraq did. Second, and much more importantly, we will have to start all over with hearts and minds with Iraqi citizens. We are winning that battle now on a grand scale, and I have a feeling that with another year we still start to see a real national identity take hold there.
There are still areas of concern in Iraq, but recently the Iraqi police/military have taken operational control in the Anbar Province which was at one time one of the more unstable regions. There is still a US presence there, but it is mainly logistical, intelligence and air support. US troops are more in an advisory role now. A friend of mine who is still active duty and is in Iraq told me that they started an NCO leadership and tactics course outside of Baghdad to increase the effectiveness of small units.
Im not worried at all about Iran, its a beautiful place thats pretty modern. You could be in Tehran and mistake it for any American city.
I have really stopped believing what the government is telling me. They tricked us into Iraq and they might as well be tricking us about Iran. The government is not listening to the CIA and other intelligence sources. We want them to stop enriching uranium, but they want peaceful nuclear power, which requires enriched uranium. They feel as if we are denying them the ability to have effective electrical power. Yes their leader doesnt like Israel too much, but most of what he says has been skewed a tad and misunderstood. Theres media out there that compare his full phrases with the ones put together by the media, and they are skewed, but also meaning lost in translation. Most of the Arab world is upset at the results of the Six Day War, with Israel capturing lands, Israel even has a blockade against Gaza now. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a democratically elected president, same as our own. I think he is the Iranian Bush. But should some foreign country invade the United States because of the actions of their president? Same thing with Iran, he is 1 man. He isn't even the offical commander-in-chief of the military. All this fear of Iran wanting to attack someone with nukes is just governmental mumbo-jumbo. Why should we even think of starting a war with Iran? First, why do we consider them dangerous? Because of what the government has told us? If any Iranian terrorists are out there in Iraq or abroad, they are simply representing themselves and their small group and not following the orders of the Iranian government or representing the majority of the Iranian population. The Iraqi civilian death count is near 100,000. Should we risk the same in Iran based on the what our own blind government tells us? Although to the history books and in comparision to the rest of the population, 100k is a speck. But also in the history books will be a history of the United States military actions. We might be on par with Sparta from ancient Greece. People will look back in time and say "The United States invaded lots of countries. They even invaded Iran which wanted nothing more than to be left alone. All based on a hunch."
Dont go to war unless you believe in the cause, and in Iran, the cause our media is showing us is so freakin stupid.
Now on to the anti-war talk on the subject of logistics:
Invading Iran is almost impossible anyways. Their air force uses many American planes as well as Soviet built planes such as the MiG-29. Their military will definitley NOT roll-over as Iraq's did. They beat the Iraqi military back in the 80s even when the Iraqis had support from America. Which is weird because we sold Iran F-4 Phantoms, F-5E Tiger IIs, and F-14 Tomcats 1 year before the US backed Iraqi forces invaded Iran. The Iranian military will definitley not be a cake walk.
Moving our forces on the ground is impossible. Iran has one of the most diverse terrains ever. Take every type of land feature in the United States and squeeze it into an area a little less than Alaska. Iran has deserts, thick forests, very rugged mountians, they even have jungles. It will be nothing like invading Iraq, it will be 500x harder. Not to mention the blow-back from the world, even from the American citizens. The government has most likley learned that we will not stand for it. We do not feel threatened anymore. We wont care if the media calls non-war supporters unpatriotic. Because being patriotic is not about blindley following what the great leader tells you do to, its about making your country a better one. By constructing buildings, inventing machines, writing liturature, making movies, helping the world and not destroying it, and by loving your country. Being against our countries recent actions are just tough love. As a parent loves their child, one must show tough-love when they do something wrong.
And remember young impressionable children: If its not an American flag, its probably a bomb.
Last edited by Spektrewing386; 07-04-2008 at 07:10 PM.
Wait...what? No political experience!
Have you ever heard of the state of Illinois? Just wondering
Im not even gonna vote for Obama, but for as young as he is he actually has quite a political past. Obama will be a great candiate in 20 years.
Not to mention, most presidents (if they are smart) will surround themselves with experienced, smart people to help them make decisions. I wish Bush would have been a little more selective with some of his advisors, that is honestly what got him in a lot of trouble. The people who were assisting him were asshats, and misinforming/guiding him on many issues.
Last edited by Specsteve; 07-05-2008 at 11:53 PM.
Exactly!
2005 Ford F-150 FX4 Supercrew
Here, i'll help:
hahahaha he's a secret terrorist. fsck obama. he's full of shi!t
Drillin' switches on them bitches!
Ridin' So Low...
My qualm with McCain:
He is (IIRC) 72 years old. Not too bad, but still pretty old. But the catch is being the US president is hands down one of the most stressful jobs in the world. Because of that, the US president ages twice as fast due to the amount of stress in his day to day life. Assuming McCain does get elected, the 4 year term is actually more around 8 years on his health, which translates to him being 80 years old on leaving office, ASSUMING he was not re-elected.
And if he was re-elected, well...you do the math. Almost 90 years old.
I mean Jesus pull up a picture of G.W. Bush on google from '99-'00, and then compare it to now, dude looks like he has aged 20 years in 8.
McCain better have a good running mate, because we might be needing him.
haha it would be a blessing to me if he picked someone like Romney or Huckabee, pref Romney. I wouldn't mind him croaking if it meant Romney would be in the office, McCain is not that strong of a candidate without a doubt.
2005 Ford F-150 FX4 Supercrew
Seriously dude Romney would be hands down (IMO haha) the best running-mate, I was bummed when he pulled out of the race. But we will have to see, McCain is a smart guy and realizes Romney has a lot of supporters. I think Huckabee is a little too conservative for McCain, and McCain is known to be a more liberal conservative (oxymoron much? haha)
Either way, this years election is going to be intense.
yea i agree.
I think Obama has a lot of supporters though, i think its a matter of the Democrats playing it cool or shooting themselves in the foot like normal.
I really don't fell like the ball is in McCain's side of the court anymore, anyone that is voting for him i feel is already on the boat, but i do feel like Obama could lose support inbetween now and election time.
2005 Ford F-150 FX4 Supercrew
wrong section
unless he changes his standpoint on the iraq war AGAIN.
Drillin' switches on them bitches!
Ridin' So Low...
Maybe his stance only keeps changing because he is finding out more intelligence and information on the war? I would rather have a guy who is able to see both sides and change his mind accordingly, opposed to a guy who is so stuck in his ways and what he believes that he sends an entire nation into war and racks up a sizeable debt (understatement)unless he changes his standpoint on the iraq war AGAIN.
And also still won't admit that he has made any mistakes.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
