Obama/McCain - The IRAQ topic.
So - Unless my memory is shot-to-hell (which it very-well COULD be)... I thought I remembered about a year or more ago, seeing an interview with McCain and he was saying how he initially was against our war in Iraq and thought it was foolish - BUT... he had conceded that regardless of HOW we got there... we're there now and the right thing to do is to finish the job and not leave it unstable - even though we never should have been there to begin with.
Cut to last night:
They both have an opportunity here.
I understand BOTH ends of the argument... but NEITHER are finding the right (to me) things to say.
If I were McCain, I'd be AGREEING with Obama saying: "You're right - we never should have been there, and it WAS a result of failed policy that *I* hope to change, but we ARE there and we need to handle this the right way" - or something of the sort.
He really SHOULD (IMHO) be DISTANCING himself from the crap that GOT us into Iraq - and ACKNOWLEDGING that going after Saddam at THAT POINT IN TIME was absolutely the wrong thing - BUT, we cannot change what happened and we need to fix it correctly.
- - -
On the OTHER side - Barak needs to shut his trap about it being started on a failed premise - Unless I am naive, don't we all KNOW that by now...? Am I alone in thinking this is OBVIOUS...? Or are there still those that bought-into the BS about it being important to deal with Saddam BEFORE Alkheida (sp?).
I wish Obama would just say "Listen, you know where I stand on the past leadership's decisions to go into Iraq... but we cannot change that. We're there now. It's hurting us in many ways - and I UNDERSTAND that a planned withdrawal without meeting any specific objectives is cause for concern. I have no intentions of undermining what has been done, BUT... I want to review and refine those objectives to make sure we are acting in OUR best interest without negating all the time and money spent - and ignoring the lives of those we've already lost."
Something... ANYTHING to let me see that you "get it" - that we can't just say "pack it up boys.. you're COMIN' HOME...!" without making ALL that has been accomplished over the past 5-6 years moot.
I think they BOTH have the same end-goal in mind.
McCain seems to have a solid "insider" understanding and real-world experience with the complexities of our foreign policies but for *MY* taste hasn't shown the "distancing" he was once showing a year or two ago from the Bush regime. He's not showing that he ALSO feels that the decision to BE THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE was a colossal mistake.
Obama is very idealistic and I applaud the tenacity to make sure no more lives are lost and money spent - BUT... I kinda agree with the idea that we need to do it "right". We cannot just yank our troops without there being certain negative impact.
On the topic of Iraq (not afghanistan - that's a different topic) - I would say McCain "won" in my eyes... but not by much.
9/27/2008 10:14:59 AM
So... You're not happy that McCain ISN'T talking about the beginning of it, and you're not happy that Obama IS?
For what it's worth, I can see why McCain doesn't bring that up. With only weeks to go before the election, now would not be the time to start throwing bricks at members of his own party. He has more to gain by focusing only on the present.
9/27/2008 11:18:33 AM
Foreign policy experiance is going to McCain of course ,he's 73.And ,I thought he did do well on the part of the debate that was about Iraq.Overall I thought it very close in terms of who will make the best president.Very good showing for both sides,with the usual class warfare taking on the republican scare tactics/patriotism card.I'd say if you want Achmidinijards head in a sack-vote for Mccain-his facial expressions and eye movements say alot about the type of man he is.
9/27/2008 11:22:34 AM
Why, what type of man is he?
9/27/2008 11:25:27 AM
"So... You're not happy that McCain ISN'T talking about the beginning of it, and you're not happy that Obama IS?"
Why must people pick-apart such statements...? I am merely saying that Obama is saying it far-too-often and McCain isn't acknowledging it at all any more (whereas he USED to).
Was it not clear...? Cripes - how much more open-minded and fair could I have been while still claiming a McCain victory in that topic...? I don't think McCain won the overall debate - but I think between the two of them, based on LAST NIGHT'S comments - McCain was stronger.
:P
9/27/2008 11:26:36 AM
CLARIFICATION:
"but I think between the two of them, based on LAST NIGHT'S comments - McCain was stronger."
On the TOPIC OF IRAQ... (just forgot to clarify)
9/27/2008 11:28:34 AM
Down boy!!! Just asking a question... What the F*ck!
9/27/2008 11:28:42 AM
Questions aren't allowed. ;-)
9/27/2008 11:30:07 AM
Al - did you miss my little "tongue sticking-out" emoticon at the end...?
I am just teasing. Granted, it mostly gets lost in Text on the screen.
9/27/2008 11:31:19 AM
Just trying to catch up around here... Alot of people have been pretty pissy about their politics here lately, huh?
9/27/2008 11:32:30 AM
Don't worry, man... I don't get too worked up over this shit.
Personally, I'd rather neither one of them re-hash that... It gets us nowhere
9/27/2008 11:35:13 AM
Someone who is in agreement with the current administration in office but wants voters to think he is going to be the "Reagan democrat" if you vote for him.
9/27/2008 11:36:17 AM
See, I don't put those smiley thingy's in my posts
9/27/2008 11:36:57 AM
You saw all that in his eyes? F*ck man, you're good!
9/27/2008 11:38:04 AM
Answering the post a few boxes(8) up.Looks like a few responses have come back before me
9/27/2008 11:38:44 AM
On this topic, I'm surprised (well, not really surprised knowing what the media is like) that McCain hasn't received the credit due to him for being the main pusher for the surge!
It seems that no one remembers the it was he, while the President was against it, and the Democrats (including Obama) were VERY against it, who stuck to his guns and said a surge was needed (it wasn't even "the" surge at that time) and while it was in the early stages, the Dems, led by Obama were saying it's not working.
Everyone knows now that it worked like a charm, was McCain's idea, and yet he's not getting the credit!
9/27/2008 11:39:51 AM
Al he was very worked up about the part about Iran,did you watch the debate?
9/27/2008 11:41:01 AM
Republicans were mad at him for going against the President, Dems were out and out calling him a War monger, and he was always just saying that we're there, we HAVE to win, and this is the only way.
9/27/2008 11:41:56 AM
Yes, I had to miss part of it though...
9/27/2008 11:42:57 AM
Of course, most of the spin from the news stations afterward was that Obama won
9/27/2008 11:44:16 AM
Did you hear him use the phrase "stinking corpse"?
9/27/2008 11:45:06 AM
It was one of the dullest debates I've ever witnessed...
The whole format was designed for them to engage each other directly, with nine minute intervals for each question/topic.
They were each afraid to do that. They pretty much shadow boxed through the whole thing...... Disappointing
9/27/2008 11:46:48 AM
Carl - I want to understand clearly what you said.
- The surge = Us entering and engaging in Iraq (?)
- You're saying McCain WAS for it, not against it at first (?)
- "Everyone knows now that it worked like a charm" - assuming the first statement above is correct and we're talking about us engaging in Iraq, are you saying that you honestly think that Us going to Iraq and pulling troops from Afghanistan was a good idea *AND* that it "worked like a charm"...?
I just want to be clear...
9/27/2008 11:48:31 AM
Fox news last night: Mccain won by 85% to 15%. No spin there!
That was at about 12:30 so the numbers may have changed
9/27/2008 11:51:14 AM
And if it is true that McCain was "for" us entering Iraq... then I must have been mistaken, and/or I misunderstood his response in the interview - which would nullify my desire to hear him *agree* that we should never have been there.
9/27/2008 11:52:39 AM
ThatGuy, I think you have to research this stuff a little more.
A while back, we were bogged down in Iraq. The President was sticking to his original game plan, that most experts agreed was not working. John McCain came out against him, saying we needed more troops on the ground in order to win. The President wanted to stay the same, the Dems just wanted us to fail. Eventually, McCain, and a number of Generals convinced the President that a surge was needed. It was enacted, and finally, we started really accomplishing things in Iraq. And the death toll started to really come down.
McCain was the man who pushed for it, even Obama admits that it has worked well, yet McCain is so ignored by the media on this topic, that you don't even know about it. (That's not an insult to you, it's a slam on the media)
9/27/2008 11:53:36 AM
It came up int he debate last night when McCain reiterated that Obama was against the surge. It's unrelated to our initial move into Iraq, it cam years later.
9/27/2008 11:55:24 AM
MSN poll numbers as of early a.m. regarding "Who Won the Debate" were:
Obama: 52%
McCain: 35%
Tie & "unsure" were the remaining 13%
I'm sure if we route-around enough, we'll find reports from BOTH sides that show either winning by a landslide. :)
9/27/2008 11:55:24 AM
When you here pundits use the term "surge" THAT'S what they're talking about, not the Iraq War in general.
9/27/2008 11:55:58 AM
The political pressure, by using the public forum to openly disagree with his own party's sitting President, is how McCain can and should receive credit for the about face in troop casualties occurring in Iraq since the surge.
But the media is too busy helping Obama say he is just like Bush, which is absurd with just a cursory glance at his record.
9/27/2008 12:01:30 PM
Okay - so "surge" is not the initial entering. Got it.
And you are correct... I am not "up" on all facts... but sadly, as uninformed as I am - and I TRULY believe this - I think I at least am capable of making an intelligent decision based on how I feel each candidate's ideas will play-out and effect us in the future.
There is a HUGE number of American citizens that either (a) "blindly" vote their political affiliation, (b) only understand what few sound-bytes they hear from friends of biased media forms and stick to those stereotypes, (c) aren't even capable of understanding the larger issues and vote solely on superficial things; "look how he dressed", "He looks old", "His ears are so big", "I'd never vote a ni***r into office", "He's an old guy that's gonna die soon"... lipstick on a pig.. blah blah blah.
This is why I at least "ask" questions here. :)
I don't pretend to "know all" - I know I don't... but I'm no dummy either. :)
9/27/2008 12:02:37 PM
If anything, in the last few years, he's pulled Bush into HIS camp.
example: The McCain Immigration Bill (which failed due to Republican opposition)
9/27/2008 12:03:53 PM
The correct answer should be "regardless of how we got there, we owe it the now free Iraqi people to help them secure their country and build their democracy strong. However, the Iraqis must start footing the bill and repaying us for the billions we've put into their infrastructure. They have plenty of oil revenues which are only going to grow over time."
I'd just like to point out again that this whole "bogus premise" argument that the Dems keep laying on the feet of Bush is bogus since Clinton and his people made the same claims for his eight years. It was a major failure in our intelligence that no one has yet to take the blame for.
9/27/2008 12:05:42 PM
That's the thing ThatGuy, You ARE interested, and obviously starting to pay attention, but your media is failing you. And Obama is simply lying to you.
You started this thread about McCain/Obama and Iraq. And you watched them debate it, but didn't really know what was being said because McCain's record on it is simply not being reported.
9/27/2008 12:07:44 PM
In short, the surge is the reason we see fewer body bags and can even discuss troop withdrawals. John McCain was a big reason it happened, Barrack Obama opposed it, and still says he was right to oppose it. They like to talk about another 4 years of Bush, how about another 4 years of Carter?
9/27/2008 12:10:57 PM
By the way, I was very critical of McCain always opposing the President. He bugged the shit out of me. But history has proven him right on Iraq. He was a lonely voice in the wilderness for a while on that topic. Senator Obama should shut his rookie mouth up and just say thank you.
9/27/2008 12:15:25 PM
Okay, I'll take a rest now. :-)
9/27/2008 12:15:49 PM
You had to bring up Carter, didn't you? Now I get to re-live all that pain!
9/27/2008 12:19:27 PM
The last eight have been like Bush and Carter-Vote Savior McCain/Barracuda working families if you want a government who knows you're there.
9/27/2008 12:20:40 PM
<--- not a Democrat, but I, too, keep laying it at the current administration's feet.
In my simplistic view and memory of the events after 2001 - we began stepping-up our "hunt" in afghanistan for O.BinL and instead of floowing THAT through to the end, we began "outsourcing" the job to local rebal groups (more familiar with the terrain and dynamics over there) and pulled our troops as we prepared to enter Iraq - even though Hans Blix (sp?) and all of the UN and other nations (except Britain) were telling us we were wrong with our intelligence linking Saddam to ANYTHING that had to do with Alqheida(sp?) and any terrorist acts - the whole PREMISE for our "war on terrorism".
Was Saddam a nuisance and evil dictator that needed to be dealt with...? ABSOLUTELY... but THAT wasn't the time to do it. Not at all.
So - back to how this relates... I don't think it's wrong to point-out that historically, we should understand a "fault" (going there in the first place). I don't think it's irrelevant at all - but I just think Obama is banging that drum WAY to hard, too often.
Us going to Iraq back then *WAS* a bogus premise.
They tried selling it to "us" many different ways. First, it was the "weapons of mass destruction" angle. They tried proving it... but to no avail. It has never been proven, and trust me - I WANTED to believe back then.
THEN, it was "They are within the Axis of Evil" and tried connecting dots to link them to the terrorism... and those links they tried proving at the time were VERY weak at best... which prompted the shift to...
"Liberating Iraq" - ummm... really...? Now...? RIGHT NOW...? when we really need to be focussing on Afghanistan and O.BinL...? I am not against HELPING a people in need of liberation, but they needed it BEFORE 9/11 and we were doing nothing. This was an "excuse" to do something Bush and Rumsfeld wanted to do all-along...
THEN... the angle shifted to "Remove Saddam from power" because he's an evil dictator, etc... again, TRUE... but not relevant to what SHOULD HAVE BEEN more important to us.
Now, it's about helping them rebuild and gain independence - which I AGREE has to be done right... but it doesn't nullify that we NEVER SHOULD HAVE STARTED IT IN THE FIRST PLACE.
Sorry - not "shouting" per-se... just emphasizing.
Just my opinion(s). :)
9/27/2008 12:20:45 PM
"Why must people pick-apart such statements...? "
Dude, you've been around here for a long time. You should know that when it comes to politics -everything- is picked apart. I'm guilty of doing it to others and have had it done to me many. many times. It's just the natured of the beast when it comes to politics discussions (and is very much in evidence elsewhere on the internet as well)
"but didn't really know what was being said because McCain's record on it is simply not being reported."
I'd say, however, that we as voters are supposed to go take the extra steps to find out what Candidate's positions are. I haven't looked at either Candidate's sites recently, but McCain should make sure that his record is documented on his site.
9/27/2008 12:21:55 PM
Yeah, truth is, I was trying to save some face for ThatGuy by laying it all on the feet of the media.
Dude, HOW CAN YOU NOT KNOW WHAT THE SURGE IS?!?!?!?
And why on earth are you now debating whether going into Iraq was a good idea or not?!?!?!
We went. It was Repubs and Dems who voted overwhelmingly for it. They all had access to the info regarding it. blah blah blah
Obama wasn't in the Senate yet, but rest assured, since he's voted 100% with the rest of the Dems on everything, he would have been lockstep with Hillary in voting for the war in Iraq as well.
Concentrate on which candidate will take control of the situation and handle it in our best interests NOW.
9/27/2008 12:29:07 PM
You are correct. I (and many others) don't do enough "home-work" on these issues to be fully and unbiasedly (real word?) aware of the facts.
And for that reason alone, I can UNDERSTAND the original premise of the Electoral Vote system. People that are SUPPOSED to be well-informed and intelligent that are in-place to "hopefully" represent our best interests.
It is too-easy to grab incorrect news and/or opinions from the web and even "news" nowadays... but that's really all I've got to go on.
I am a fan of the comedy of both Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert ... it doesn't help when their "message" (which I find as humorous) is biased towards the Obama camp.
I TRY to take it for what it is: Comedy - but there are so many forms of media that want to "slant" your opinion in their own subtle ways... so it's tough to stay "on top of all this" and still live a normal (oblivious) life.
To that point - WHOMEVER wins - I will back them and give them a chance, until they prove themselves otherwise.
9/27/2008 12:31:10 PM
I wasn't debating it.
9/27/2008 12:32:14 PM
Al, I remember being in Junior High and hearing that our Helicopters got clogged with sand and collided into each other on the take-off pad. All in a vain and half hearted Carter band-aid attempt at saving face regarding the hostages. Sad times.
9/27/2008 12:33:04 PM
McCain's website is very explicit on his intent for the Iraq situation, and discusses the success of the surge. Obama's however, is just a sound bite that says he wants us home in 16 months.
9/27/2008 12:34:51 PM
It's cool ThatGuy, I'm sorry to be hard on you, I really am.
I know a lot of people are gonna scoff at this suggestion, but try listening to Rush Limbaugh if you get a chance. Even if you totally disagree with what you think he's saying, he'll read between the lines of newspaper print and anchorman rhetoric.
And what people leave out when criticizing him, he always stays positive. He never gets down about anything (sure, it could be the "oxiconton") but again, even if you find you disagree with him, he'll give you the other side of the story.
9/27/2008 12:36:39 PM
And as I said in the first post. I agree with McCain on this issue.
9/27/2008 12:37:00 PM
Carter was too much of a "nice guy". That's what made him a lousy president
9/27/2008 12:37:35 PM
Oh ,I thought this thread was about the debate.I am very soooorrrrry
9/27/2008 12:38:16 PM
And yes, getting your news from the comedians is the most dangerous and common thing going on in this country right now.
Or worse, from Matt Damon or George Clooney. These guys are woefully dimwitted.
9/27/2008 12:39:16 PM
Read the title Almac, that'll help you out.
9/27/2008 12:40:13 PM
Just read and listen to what the candidates say... not what the media spins off of it. And do what Almac says..... watch their eyes
9/27/2008 12:40:46 PM
I've listened to Jay Sevrin (sp?) for a while because he at least PRETENDS to be methodical and analytical with his bias. :)
I am not offended - really. Even if I SHOULD be. :)
I just like the idea of discussion and debating... exchanging ideas. I LIKE hearing both-sides interpretations of historical events and seeing where they align with *MY* perceptions.
Truthfully - I think we have a REALLY difficult road ahead of us regardless of which suit makes it in there.
9/27/2008 12:40:52 PM
We are talking about the Iraq War, and where McCain stands on it, and where Obama stands on it, and how their positions have been misreported. We only got slightly sidetracked when I realized a defining of terms was necessary (surge) if conversation were to continue.
9/27/2008 12:42:20 PM
yes - speak slowly for the drummer to understand. :)
9/27/2008 12:43:25 PM
ThatGuy, you shouldn't be offended.
Jay is great for learning the ins and outs of the campaign. He is admittedly light in the foreign policy end of things. He used to admit to that until he got all excited about his anti-Bush anti-Iraq War crusade. I only listen to him now around election times, because he's so well informed about campaigns.
Rush is an old school Conservative. From the William F. Buckley school. (not to be confused with Berklee Bill)
9/27/2008 12:46:13 PM
They both want this to end.... No question about that.
It's just that McCain objects to a restricting timetable, and Obama wants it done in 16 mos.
9/27/2008 12:47:45 PM
One big difference is that Obama wants to spend billions on helping the refugees after we "withdraw"
9/27/2008 12:49:29 PM
Of course the irony regarding the Iraq debate now is that it's practically over. (the debate) Everyone is in favor of leaving Iraq. The time frame is the only debate and I have a feeling it's not really a question either. If President Obama had every General in his office telling him that to withdraw "Today" would bring massive hardship, death, and a weakened US, he'd say, "okay then, let's stay a little longer" just like any other President.
Withdrawals have to be results driven, not politically driven.
9/27/2008 12:50:46 PM
Al beat me to it!
9/27/2008 12:51:33 PM
Sorry dude...
Oh, and Mccain wants Iraq to use it's own budget surplus to bring its econmy back to life and lift up its own people. But Obama's plan would use several billion US dollars to solve the problem!?!?
9/27/2008 12:54:38 PM
I'm just drawing off the canditates are actually saying, not what the f*cking sh*tballs in the media spin... or their attack ads on each other. Those things are useless!
9/27/2008 12:57:15 PM
What's funny to me is, the only reason we're discussing Iraq, is because it's a campaign year, and Obama is where he is mainly because of his opposition to everything War in Iraq. The surge basically took the wind right out of that sail, but the media, and an uninformed, or misinformed public still thinks it's a strong case for him, so it's still being discussed when , let's face it, it's the economy stupid! :-)
9/27/2008 12:58:06 PM
Well, I'm only talking about Iraq, because the thread title said Iraq... but I'd be happy to hijack this f*cker!
9/27/2008 1:00:29 PM
Was anyone else aware of that... That Obama wants to spend more of our tax dollars on Iraq, and McCain doesn't?
9/27/2008 1:02:10 PM
No no, I'm talking about Iraq too! I'm just seriously thinking about stopping. :-)
It's a red herring. But I do want to reiterate that John McCain deserves some credit for standing up against the President, standing up against the Democrats, and insisting that we needed more troops to see this thing through. He was right, everyone else was wrong (except the Generals who agreed with him, and I believe Ronin) and the idea that Obama can stand on the same stage and even begin to debate the man on this topic, is laughable to me.
9/27/2008 1:04:49 PM
Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha !!!
9/27/2008 1:06:01 PM
Sorry, I just thought it was laughable too
9/27/2008 1:06:40 PM
But I have a wedding to prepare for, so I'm off!
No hard feelings ThatGuy, and I DO apologize if I sounded offensive.
If the rest of the country thought about it, and wanted to discuss it the way YOU do, we be in much better shape right now.
9/27/2008 1:07:19 PM
Don't forget to practice the Macerena!
9/27/2008 1:08:52 PM
(I have it on iPod ;-)
9/27/2008 1:13:26 PM
Most Americans probably don't even realize we've been in Iraq since 1991. We never really left as we were enforcing no-fly zones, sanctions, etc. That's why we were in Saudi in 1996 when terrorists attacked Khobar Towers.
Throughout the Clinton Administration, we bombed them numerous times in name of hampering Saddam's WMD programs or enforcing no-fly provisions.
We were going to have to eventually take out Saddam or sit over there pretending to do something forever. While the timing sucked, the plan on what to do after toppling Saddam was weak and the troops were not equipped properly, it was inevitable. The Iraqi people, unlike the current young Iranians, had no way to take out their corrupt government.
If we hadn't gone on a "procurement holiday" for eight years proceeding Bush, we might not have suffered nearly as many casualties due to not having the right tools to do the job. It infuriated me when Rumsfeld stated you go into war with the military you have, not the one you want.
That was bullshit. You certainly go into it with the one you want when you pick the start date.
Anyway, I'm getting off track.
9/27/2008 1:28:14 PM
Meanwhile, both parties will screw us no matter who wins. The only way we are going to take back this country for real is to start electing real people.
The auto worker down in the QC department who has been supporting his family for twenty years at GM after his four years in the Army, the guy who runs a four ship fishing fleet out of Gloucester, the cattlemen who has a small ranch in Texas, etc. The real people of this country need to be in office representing us, not the millionaires who are there to protect their interests.
We need people like Carl and Al in DC (just to name two examples) not a bunch of Armani wearing lawyers. Until that happens, our interests will always be secondary.
9/27/2008 1:32:15 PM
Carl could hire Rush as his foreign/economic advisor-God help us
9/27/2008 9:23:57 PM
In a heart beat. He's arguably the most influential political voice of our age, whether you like him or not. He single handedly spearheaded the modern era conservative radio talk show. His knowledge and familiarity with all sides of the debate is something many could learn from. The number one political talk show on radio for going on 20 years now I believe. Rush help us.
9/28/2008 1:37:20 AM
He's a loudmouth,drug addicted,flunkie blowhard.
Give me a break
9/28/2008 6:06:54 AM
Ah, I can always count on an insulting rebuttal from Almac77.
Ronin, funny you should mention the "everyman" factor that is missing.
The other night I was discussing Gov. Palin with a right wing female friend of mine (a very successful in business one) She's not a fan of Palin to say the least. And she mentioned in passing that she felt she had as much experience in management as Gov. Palin, to which I replied, "Yes, and you are qualified to be President, or in this case Vice President". I know many successful people who I firmly believe would make good Presidents. It comes down to being able to look at two or three scenarios, most likely organized by a well balanced team of people with individual specialties, and picking the best option. For many people, this is a simple gift they were born with.
I think we have a bad habit of putting these jobs on too high a pedestal. When the stakes are as high as they are in that particular job, I suspect the decisions actually become easier. But obviously harder to live with once made, either way.
Of course Harry Truman comes to mind. The haberdasher.
But we HAVE strayed off topic.
I'd hire Senator Obama as an adviser in the Housing and Urban Development Dept. since that is truly where his experience would lend itself.
When it comes to a War time President, I'd definitely take the guy who knows first hand the horror of War.
9/28/2008 11:54:56 AM
Rush Limbaugh is a drug addled blowhard. The ONLY thing he's qualified to do is have a radio talk show.
9/28/2008 12:19:18 PM
"When it comes to a war time president,I'd definately take the who knows first hand the horror of war"
I don't think theres an American alive who doesn't respect and admire McCains sevice to his country.It's not his career that I disagreee with.He's voted for almost everything Bush has done and given his stubborn nature he'll revert right back to the same policy once he's left office.I'm not sold on the "Change" he's telling us about.Someone else had that idea first.
9/28/2008 3:19:47 PM
abraham lincoln was seriously depressed throughout his presidency.
he did alright.
9/28/2008 3:53:01 PM
wait, rush can't be president since he was a drug addict.
OBAMA fkn LITTERALLY dealt dope and did blow.
i guess that qualifes him to be a community organizer?
while palin at that age was running a business and mccain was serving our country, OBAMA was dealing dope.
is he more or less of a blowhard than RUSH?
Read up on it, its in HIS biography.
9/28/2008 3:55:29 PM
I am very familiar with the whores of war. I guess that would make me a good candidate for president in this day and age.
Oh shit, you said "horrors?" Disregard.
9/28/2008 7:36:19 PM
Obama didn't get caught driving around cocked so the race is still open
9/28/2008 8:25:59 PM
don't have the time or patience to read all this...
Let's just say that your mind IS definitely SHOT to hell.
9/28/2008 8:34:47 PM
Nice of you to come in and read half this thread and then piss on it
Whose mind is SHOT?
9/28/2008 9:22:31 PM
i think he was refering to me, and of course he's right.
i''ve been doing shots of blue lable smirnoff.
it's kinda weighing on my mind.
9/28/2008 9:55:25 PM
Stay off the road then
9/28/2008 10:04:57 PM
That's right... Put me and Carl in DC and you'll see some real "change" fast! First thing I'd do is put a woodstove in the oval office to cut the budget... Must cost a fortune to heat that f'kn place. Carl can do the tiki thing with the rest of it.
9/29/2008 7:48:28 AM
"Whores Of War"?
Nobody told me there would be whoring and drinking.
9/29/2008 8:25:58 AM
We should focus more on energy- They should be debating that topic instead -Iraq just turns into a pain in the butt
9/29/2008 9:04:18 AM
You've apparently never watched "Full Metal Jacket" then, dog.
9/29/2008 11:20:50 AM
Me so hoooorrrny!
Me love you long time!!
FMJ is one of my favorite films.
9/29/2008 12:16:42 PM
i was off the road.
the car barely fits on the sidewalk, but it doesn't seem to matter as much at 90mph
9/29/2008 12:18:12 PM
"Why must people pick-apart such statements...? "
Scott if you have not noticed by now, THAT is what they do here! There are so many here that they all think their opinions are the only opinions that should be accepted or they take their ball and run away..There is no healthy debating here..Unless you agree with the chosen few...
9/29/2008 3:51:24 PM
« Back to Politics or All Forum Discussions
Login or Register to Post a Reply
All messages are the express view of the author of the message and not those of LowellRocks.com or its affiliates, advertisers, or sponsors. Neither the owners of LowellRocks.com nor its affiliates will be held responsible for the content of any message. LowellRocks.com does not guarantee or warrant the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any message.
