What a horrible time for our economy

[theknife]

atm, the choice for Prez is obvious: Obama wants to end the war in Iraq, McCain wants to continue it indefinitely. the rest is just details.

[Mazer]

The war is a non-issue to all but a few Americans, knife. Though we all talk about it, few of us actually have to deal with it personally. Politicians only talk about the war in order to divide people. It's working; we're well and truly divided on the issue. But what has that accomplished?

Obama won't end the war, he can't, so he's no different than McCain in that respect. Since the prospective Democrat nominees are no longer competing to promise the soonest end to the war we can focus on Obama's more realistic campaign promises. He'll still argue with McCain about the war, but only to turn our attentions away from issues that might make voters less decisive. If you took away this one issue then the only obvious difference between those two politicians would be their skin colors.

They'll try to use the economy to divide us too, but the difference is that the economy affects us all. We really can't afford to be divided on that issue, and one of the two candidates will have a better head for numbers and he'll be the man we should all vote for. As for Iraq, get used to thinking of it as an other Afghanistan 'cause, no matter who gets elected, a year from now that's how the media and the better part of congress will be treating it.

[Ðiego]

Ever notice how albed and jcmd always sound so angry and bitter? Like they're clinging to their guns and religion?

Come November your worst nightmare: a Buckwheat in the White House OH NO SPANKIE! HAHAHA!


Ð

[Nicobie]

It really is time for a change

helter skelter to all the pol's

[jcmd62]

Originally Posted by theknife

atm, the choice for Prez is obvious: Obama wants to end the war in Iraq, McCain wants to continue it indefinitely.

Originally Posted by Mazer

Politicians only talk about the war in order to divide people.

Obama won't end the war, he can't, so he's no different than McCain in that respect.

atm, Its clear that Obamas plan to pull the political wool over the eyes of the ignorant is working. So many people like you knife are falling for the "I want to, therefore I can" bullshit obama is spewing forth every chance he gets. Want in one hand and shit in the other and see which one fills up first.

Fact is what obama wants to do and can do are entirely different. He won't end the Iraq war and can't as Mazer properly pointed out. Even if obama lasts 8 years we will still be in Iraq when his term ends. So go ahead and base your vote decision on your ignorance of presidential limitations and what some inexperienced, unknown politician says he WANTS to do instead of what he actually can do. Obama is counting on people like you to focus on the war, something he can do nothing about, and not on the real issues that ARE going to affect you like his major tax increase he will impose the minute he takes office, something he can and will do.

Not that Im a big McCain fan but he never said he wants the war to continue indefinitely. He said we COULD be there for 100 years, not that he WANTS the war to continue. Not the best choice of words but at least he spoke the truth and reality of the situation in the middle east which is rare for a politician.

[Ðiego]

Okay, so run through the issues and how you feel the candidates stand on them. Oh, and try to do so without the insults. I know you feel it makes you 'win' the conversation, but it doesn't.

Can you have a reasoned debate on the stance of the candidates on the issues?


Ð

[theknife]

Originally Posted by Mazer

The war is a non-issue to all but a few Americans, knife. Though we all talk about it, few of us actually have to deal with it personally. Politicians only talk about the war in order to divide people. It's working; we're well and truly divided on the issue. But what has that accomplished?

actually, the war consistently polls as the second most important issue to voters, behind the economy.

Originally Posted by jcmd62

atm, Its clear that Obamas plan to pull the political wool over the eyes of the ignorant is working. So many people like you knife are falling for the "I want to, therefore I can" bullshit obama is spewing forth every chance he gets. Want in one hand and shit in the other and see which one fills up first.

Fact is what obama wants to do and can do are entirely different. He won't end the Iraq war and can't as Mazer properly pointed out. Even if obama lasts 8 years we will still be in Iraq when his term ends. So go ahead and base your vote decision on your ignorance of presidential limitations and what some inexperienced, unknown politician says he WANTS to do instead of what he actually can do. Obama is counting on people like you to focus on the war, something he can do nothing about, and not on the real issues that ARE going to affect you like his major tax increase he will impose the minute he takes office, something he can and will do.

Not that Im a big McCain fan but he never said he wants the war to continue indefinitely. He said we COULD be there for 100 years, not that he WANTS the war to continue. Not the best choice of words but at least he spoke the truth and reality of the situation in the middle east which is rare for a politician.

you miss the point, laddie - McCain will continue the Bush policies and is on record as being in favor of a permanent Iraqi occupation ( which include 58 permament military bases in Iraq)... whereas Obama has expressly declared no permanent bases in Iraq. so the intent of each candidate is clear and the differences could not be sharper. since Obama was smart enough to foresee the Iraqi trainwreck coming in the first place, he has already demonstrated superior judgement in this area. he obviously has the will, and as Prez, he will also have the power, to end the military occupation of Iraq .

[albed]

Originally Posted by theknife

atm, the choice for Prez is obvious: Obama wants to end the war in Iraq, McCain wants to continue it indefinitely. the rest is just details.

Didn't the democratic congressional candidates say they wanted to end that war too?

And what did you learn?

You're so willing to swallow any shit at all you should have been sent to the ISS to replace that broken toilet.

But you spew shit out too with your lies about McCain "wanting" to continue the war.

You're too worthless to even serve as a shit collector.






And - AWWWW; the lying, "McBush" squawking, scumbag doesn't like insults. Isn't he special.

[Ðiego]

Aww, Albed insults people because he can't debate the issues.


Ð

[albed]

I've already explained what debating with a liar is like, and unlike you, the smell of shit doesn't appeal to me.

[theknife]

c'mon, you're a Bushie, you've been swallowing shit for eight years. clearly, you've developed a taste for it

[Ðiego]

Back to those issues. Notice how McBush changes his tune depending on who he's standing in front of? His latest? That he supports Bill Clinton's Supreme Court appointments of Ginsberg and Breyer? Who'd he say it to? Hillary Clinton supporters.

An unusual stance for someone who wants to overturn Roe. How do you know who/what you're voting for with him? Is there an internal memo? How many of the issues has he changed his position on now? that's easy: all of them.


Ð

[Mazer]

He didn't get to be a senator by telling people things they don't like hearing, diego. He's a politician like his opponent. We'll be seeing more of this from both men in the coming months, and here's the reason: getting nominated is a matter of appealing to the extremists in one's party while getting elected is a matter of appealing to the center. It's an anomaly of the two party system so I can hardly blame the candidates for adapting their platforms to the fickle whims of voters. The trick will be to make their flip flopping look like personal growth and not like pandering, and given Obama's perceived inexperience it will be easier for him to get away with it.

You're holding McCain to a higher standard than Obama, whether you realize it or not.

[albed]

Originally Posted by theknife

atm, the choice for Prez is obvious: Obama wants to end the war in Iraq, McCain wants to continue it indefinitely. the rest is just details.

ATTENTION; BARAK OBAMA IS REFINING, NOT REVERSING, HIS PLEDGE TO WITHDRAW FROM IRAQ!


REPEAT; BARAK OBAMA IS REFINING, NOT REVERSING, HIS OFT REPEATED PROMISE.SUCKERS

[Ðiego]

I've always known your ability to discuss issues to be hampered by your ignorance of those same issues, and your seeming inability to talk to someone without your questionable upbringing shining through, but I didn't know that ignorance extended to your grasp of the English language.

Refine: to make more fine, subtle, or precise. To make fine distinctions in thought or language: improve, perfect, polish, temper, elevate, hone.

Reverse: opposite or contrary in position, direction, order, or character

A post on HiffPo covers it best, and so I'll quote it for you.

Obama Denies Change In Iraq Policy

Democrat Barack Obama struggled Thursday to explain how his upcoming trip to Iraq might refine, but not basically alter, his promise to quickly remove U.S. combat troops from the war.

A dustup over war policy - one of the main issues separating the Illinois senator from his Republican opponent, John McCain - overshadowed Obama's town-hall meeting here with veterans to talk about patriotism and his plans to care for them. Republicans pounced on the chance to characterize Obama as altering one of the core policies that drove his candidacy "for the sake of political expedience." He denied equally forcefully that he was shifting positions.

Arriving in Fargo, Obama hastily called a news conference to discuss news of a sixth straight month of nationwide job losses, but the questioning turned to Iraq policy and his impending trip there.

"I am going to do a thorough assessment when I'm there," he said. "I'm sure I'll have more information and continue to refine my policy."

He left the impression that his talks with military commanders there could refine his promise to remove U.S. combat troops within 16 months of taking office.

Less than four hours later, after the town hall meeting, Obama appeared before reporters for another statement and round of questions to "try this again."

"Apparently I was not clear enough this morning," he said. He blamed any confusion on the McCain campaign, which he said had "primed the pump with the press" to suggest "we were changing our policy when we haven't."

"I have said throughout this campaign that this war was ill-conceived, that it was a strategic blunder and that it needs to come to an end," he said. "I have also said I would be deliberate and careful about how we get out. That position has not changed. I am not searching for maneuvering room with respect to that position."

He promised to summon the Joint Chiefs of Staff on his first day in office "and I will give them a new mission and that is to end this war, responsibly and deliberately, but decisively."

He said that when he talked earlier about refining his policy after talking with commanders in Iraq, he was referring not to his 16-month timeline, but to how many troops may need to remain in Iraq to train the local army and police and what troop presence might be needed "`to be sure al-Qaida doesn't re-establish a foothold there."

"I will bring our troops out at a pace of one two brigades a month" which would mean the United States would be totally out of Iraq in 16 months. "That is what I intend to do as president of the United States."

But later in the session, he said it is possible the 16-month timeline could slip if the pace of withdrawal needs to be slowed some months to ensure troop safety. "I have always said ... I would always reserve the right to do what's best," Obama said.

During his presidential campaign, Obama has gone from the hard-edged, vocal opposition to Iraq that defined his early candidacy to more nuanced rhetoric that calls for the phased-out drawdown of all combat brigades that, at a rate of one or two a month, could take 16 months. He has said that if al-Qaida builds bases in Iraq, he would keep troops either in the country or the region to carry out "targeted strikes."

Republicans, who have claimed Obama needs an update on the situation in Iraq, e-mailed a midday broadside.

"There appears to be no issue that Barack Obama is not willing to reverse himself on for the sake of political expedience," said Alex Conant, a spokesman for the national Republican Party. "Obama's Iraq problem undermines the central premise of his candidacy and shows him to be a typical politician."

McCain, has been a vocal supporter of the Iraq war and war policy has been a central disagreement between the two candidates.

But Obama insisted his position has not changed at all. He pointed out he has always said, "We need to be as careful getting out as we were careless getting in." This means, he said, that his 16-month timeline "was always premised on" not endangering either U.S. troops or Iraq's stability, which he had previously been told by commanders was possible.

"I'm going to continue to gather information to see whether those conditions still hold," he said. "My goal is to end this conflict as soon as possible."

"I continue to believe that it is a strategic error for us to maintain a long-term occupation in Iraq at a time when conditions in Afghanistan are worsening, al-Qaida is continuing to establish bases in areas of northwest Pakistan, resources there are severely strained and we are spending $10 to $12 billion a month in Iraq that we desperately need here at home, not to mention the strains on our military," Obama said.

Obama plans a visit this summer to Jordan, Israel, Germany, France and the United Kingdom. The Illinois senator also has said he intends to visit Iraq and Afghanistan this summer as part of an official congressional trip that would be separate from the campaign-funded Mideast and European tour. It would be his second trip to Iraq.

Obama's Web site contains this direct promise about Iraq: "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-Qaida 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-Qaida."

McCain was an early supporter of increasing the number of U.S. troops in Iraq as President Bush did last year. He wants to pursue the current counterinsurgency tactics to give Iraqis time to work out a political reconciliation. He has said he's willing to see some U.S. troops stay there as much as 100 years but not if they are being wounded or killed in combat. Rather he supports keeping a military presence in that part of the world because of its volatility.

McCain has always supported our invasion and the continued occupation of Iraq and sees no problem with our troops remaining in Iraq at the tune of $10,000,000,000 a month. This for a fiscal conservative?

Obama, and a large majority of the American people, believe we should have remained focused on Afghanistan and that Iraq was a mistake then and is a mistake now. His stated position, which has not changed, is that we need to get our troops out of Iraq and return our attention to eliminating the Taliban and al-Qaeda.

If you don't believe the Iraq invasion, or that our spending 10 bullion dollars a month there now, are mistakes then I question your judgment as much as I question McCains. Why are we spending 10 billion dollars a month on a country which is sitting on untold billions of barrels of oil? Why are they not paying it themselves? Why are we spending so much there, while cupping the budget for schools here?

What the hell is wrong with the Conservatives and can they even be called 'conservative' any more? Or is it that they are only conservative when it comes to spending on Americans and are liberal when spending on their businesses and those of their associates?

[JackSpratts]

"We're going to try this again. Apparently I wasn't clear enough this morning on my position with respect to the war in Iraq.

Let me be as clear as I can be: I intend to end this war.

My first day in office I will bring the Joint Chiefs of Staff in and I will give them a new mission, and that is to end this war -- responsibly, deliberately but decisively.

This is the same position I that had four months ago. It's the same position that I had eight months ago. It's the same position that I had 12 months ago."

- Obama

[albed]

"We're going to try this again. Apparently I wasn't clear enough this morning on my position with respect to the war in Iraq.

Let me be as clear as I can be: I intend to end this war.

Ooooh, so it's an "intention" instead of a "pledge". That's so much more.....


worthless.

My first day in office I will bring the Joint Chiefs of Staff in and I will give them a new mission, and that is to end this war -- responsibly, deliberately but decisively.

Well this sounds like a replacement pledge. Let's see how long before it becomes another "intention".

This is the same position I that had four months ago. It's the same position that I had eight months ago. It's the same position that I had 12 months ago."

Yeah, yeah but the poor suckers can only hear what you say, not what "position" you secretly hold.




Enjoy your new status of Obama bitchhood.

Now bend over.

[Ðiego]

You're so uninformed that I'm often surprised you even know the names of the candidates.

Nice to see PA is going blue Also nice to see that Jesse Helms finially got his first class ticket to hell.


Ð

[jcmd62]

Originally Posted by Ðiego

Ever notice how albed and jcmd always sound so angry and bitter? Like they're clinging to their guns and religion?

Come November your worst nightmare: a Buckwheat in the White House OH NO SPANKIE! HAHAHA!


Ð

Ever notice how whenever someone makes a valid point the best you can do is continue to whine like a baby instead of making a valid and appropriate response.

Your Buckwheat reference was the most racist remark I've heard in years. David Duke is that you????????

While like most Americans I am not HAPPY with fuel prices I am hardly angry and bitter. I am simply sick to my stomach of whiny fuckin Americans and Euro trash alike that blame their own shortcomings and flat out laziness on anyone and everyone but themselves.

As for my guns, and yes I have a nice collection, something you can't have LEGALLY in the land of cameras and Queen mum. Seems your constant whining would be better placed towards her and her inbred offspring instead of constantly whining in this useless shithole.

As for that ridiculous TAX your unAmerican non European ass pays on gas, well now thats what funds that lousy, piss poor substandard FREE health Care you idiots are always raving about. Case in point, when my brothers daughter needed surgery recently, your Free health care system flew him, his wife and daughter to Johns Hopkins University Hospital in Baltimore because your wonderful FREE health care system couldn't handle the surgery.

Just a bit ironic that some of those fuel taxes your paying for that glorious FREE health care are being spent right here in the land of the FREE and the home of the BRAVE. Top notch Hotel including dining for 3 weeks and over $400,000 in medical expenses all paid by you Europeans. Gotta love the Irony.

FREE health care doesn't exist. You either pay for it yourself like we do in America or you pay ridiculously high taxes to your government for substandard care.

[theknife]

Originally Posted by Ðiego

If you don't believe the Iraq invasion, or that our spending 10 bullion dollars a month there now, are mistakes then I question your judgment as much as I question McCains. Why are we spending 10 billion dollars a month on a country which is sitting on untold billions of barrels of oil?

well, the answer to that question should be clear as a fucking bell at this point: so we can control thier oil. all the rest of that "freedom is on the march" and "spreading democracy" bullshit were fairy tales and window dressing to sell this train wreck to feebleminded neocon Bushbots.

edit: and btw, Obama is distinctly juking right, imo, no doubt to broaden his appeal for the GE. his recent comments on Iraq as well his disinclination to hold the line on the FISA bill and telecom immunity are not encouraging. it's a shame coz he really doesn't have to water down his brand to carry this election - apparently, he thinks otherwise.