RNC demands networks yank McCain ad

Desh said:
Here is another thought for you guys.

If we stay in Iraq it will NEVER be like just staying in germany. There are religious reasons that have started this whole mess to begin with to consider. Why did OBL say he wanted to attack us?

We can not stay in this area if you want to end the terror.
Click to expand...

The Germany comparison is so inaccurate, and pretty naive. We're not going to have a presence in Iraq like we do in Germany.
 
Onceler said:
The Germany comparison is so inaccurate, and pretty naive. We're not going to have a presence in Iraq like we do in Germany.
Click to expand...
Not unless it actually does become a stable situation. I agree.

It's not like I'm voting for him. He doesn't promote the end of the War Powers Act. While he does give lip-service to the border, and has promoted a balanced budget amendment, 1 of 3 in reality is not good enough.
 
Superfreak said:
1) I said distortion... you know, the very same thing you and others continue to harp on with regards to Wright. (and rightfully so)
Click to expand...

I've never said Wrights words were distorted. I said most Americans don't understand the context he's talking about.

2) It is not acceptable to YOU to keep a base in Iraq. Most Americans would not care if we had a permanent base there any more than they care that we have one in Japan and Germany. Which was McCains point. But somehow I doubt that came across in the ad.... but again, I have not seen it yet, so I am not sure.
Click to expand...

Who told you Americans would have no problem with us being in Iraq for 100 years in any capacity? Iraq is not Japan and Germany where there was no armed and violent opposition to troops stationed there forever.

3) Iran has had influence in Iraq since it was first created. That is not going to change and has nothing to do with the 100 year comment.
Click to expand...

It has everything to do with any long-term occupation.. and McCain himself has said Iranian influence must be eliminated .. which is why I asked the question.

4) winning the war also has nothing to do with the comment. The comment was a simple comparison between what exists currently in Japan and Germany and the fact that McCain said IF the situation in Iraq was to the point that no troops were being harmed THEN people wouldn't care if we had a base. He did not say he had a miracle cure for what is going on in Iraq.
Click to expand...

"Winning the war" has EVERYTHING to do with it brother. How else is McCain to get to a point when US troops aren't being killed?

How long is it going to be before we get to that point?

10 years or 100 years?
 
Funny, SF isn’t bothered by what 100 years in Iraq, under any circumstances, would cost. But bring up any kind of health care plan, and you better run! HOW ARE YOU GOING TO PAY FOR THAT!?

I guess SF has subscribed to the Iraq for dummies theory of “Once McCain gets in, Iraq is only gonna cost us one dollar and fifty cents a day. And you can’t beat that anywhere!”
 
Damocles said:
The original tape.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFknKVjuyNk

Pay attention to the "As long as Americans are not being wounded, harmed, or killed" part and how he points to places we have maintained troops in peace time as examples of what he is talking about.
Click to expand...

How long before we get to the "As long as Americans are not being wounded, harmed, or killed" part?

What are his plans if US troops are still being killed 10 years from now?

How much longer can the US Treasury sustain trillons of dollars flowing to a useless war?

How much longer can the US military sustain this level of engagement before it and our troops completely collapses .. without a draft?

These are critical questions for which neither McCain or anybody who supports the war have no answers.
 
Damocles said:
Not unless it actually does become a stable situation. I agree.

It's not like I'm voting for him. He doesn't promote the end of the War Powers Act. While he does give lip-service to the border, and has promoted a balanced budget amendment, 1 of 3 in reality is not good enough.
Click to expand...

This is what I don't get about the 3rd party vote. Neither candidate represents me ideally, either, and both have major detours from what I would consider ideal policy. Yet, I understand that they are the only 2 viable candidates, and that a country under one will look dramatically different from a country under the other, so I concede the differences & go with the country that most closely resembles the one I want to live in.

I could easily say, oh, that Obama - he doesn't support wind energy enough, or a top tax rate of 33%, so I'm through with him. It just seems like a cop out.
 
Y'all crack me up.............

Eveyone in this thread is doing the Macarena for their preferred candidate...actually really funny...keep on a dancin' fools!

[nomedia]www.youtube.com/watch?v=9z7t-Ox3XvU&feature=related[/nomedia]
 
Onceler said:
This is what I don't get about the 3rd party vote. Neither candidate represents me ideally, either, and both have major detours from what I would consider ideal policy. Yet, I understand that they are the only 2 viable candidates, and that a country under one will look dramatically different from a country under the other, so I concede the differences & go with the country that most closely resembles the one I want to live in.

I could easily say, oh, that Obama - he doesn't support wind energy enough, or a top tax rate of 33%, so I'm through with him. It just seems like a cop out.
Click to expand...
It isn't just "ideally", it is pretty much "not at all". Both of these parties are far from my beliefs right now. I guess I could do "Least of two evils" voting and go McCain because at least one of my main three is covered and another of them gets some lip service. But I know what happens if I do that now.
 
Damocles said:
It isn't just "ideally", it is pretty much "not at all". Both of these parties are far from my beliefs right now. I guess I could do "Least of two evils" voting and go McCain because at least one of my main three is covered and another of them gets some lip service. But I know what happens if I do that now.
Click to expand...


Which one of your main three is covered? To me it doesn't look like you get any of them from McCain.
 
Damocles said:
He actively promotes and has a record of promoting a balanced budget amendment.
Click to expand...

Did you freaking miss the news that his “economic plan” would add by far the most to our deficit? You people crack me up. Who’s your dealer man, I want some of that shit.
 
Damocles said:
He actively promotes and has a record of promoting a balanced budget amendment.
Click to expand...


But his current policy proposals reflect something entirely different. I mean, anyone can say they support a balanced budget amendment, but McCain is running a campaign that is promoting three times as much deficit spending as his Democratic competitors. How do you square that?

I know it's hard to keep track of McCain's positions, but shouldn't we go with the most current? Please advise as this is an on-going issue for me. I'm not sure which McCain to argue against.
 
Darla said:
Did you freaking miss the news that his “economic plan” would add by far the most to our deficit? You people crack me up. Who’s your dealer man, I want some of that shit.
Click to expand...
I didn't miss that Obama does not promote, nor does he have a record of promoting a Balanced Budget Amendment. He also does not promote closing the border to illegal entry before doing something about people who are already here. He also does not promote an end to the War Powers Act.

That's three of three.

McCain does:

1. Promote a Balanced Budget Amendment (yes his interim plan increases the deficit, as does Obama's, the difference here one of them actually would work towards something that I would like).

2. Now "suddenly" support doing something about the border before doing something about the people who are already here. (I mistrust this, it is lip service his record on this one is totally opposite).

3. Nothing about the War Powers Act.

Bad news, neither of them are really on my side in the things I really care about.
 
Dungheap said:
But his current policy proposals reflect something entirely different. I mean, anyone can say they support a balanced budget amendment, but McCain is running a campaign that is promoting three times as much deficit spending as his Democratic competitors. How do you square that?

I know it's hard to keep track of McCain's positions, but shouldn't we go with the most current? Please advise as this is an on-going issue for me. I'm not sure which McCain to argue against.
Click to expand...
It doesn't matter which you argue against.

I told you I wasn't voting for him.
 
Damocles said:
The original tape.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFknKVjuyNk

Pay attention to the "As long as Americans are not being wounded, harmed, or killed" part and how he points to places we have maintained troops in peace time as examples of what he is talking about.
Click to expand...

I watched it and notice the part about as long as we are not being killed or injured, but then he went on about how violent and volitile the area is.

McSameold, is talking out both sides of his ass.
And he got caught and called on it. Case closed.
 
LMAO..............

Darla said:
Did you freaking miss the news that his “economic plan” would add by far the most to our deficit? You people crack me up. Who’s your dealer man, I want some of that shit.
Click to expand...


Darla is dancing in this video...can you find her...:cof1:

[nomedia]www.youtube.com/watch?v=9z7t-Ox3XvU&feature=related[/nomedia]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top