Oh My God...McCain could win if he picks Palin!!!

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
then it's entirely appropriate to point out the fact that it's quite likely that she abused the executive power she was given

in order to exact revenge over a personal issue.

I have checked a bit more

and I am now more confident there is nothing to it

except a lot of wishful thinking by nervous, Obama supporters
 
No one has anywhere near the experience that McCain has



i'm sorry STING, but John McCain has made it quite clear with his selection of the person he obviously felt was the most qualified individual to take his place should he become incapacitated that experience is most certainly irrelevant to the job description.

if Palin is the most qualified, then all of McCain's so-called experience, by his own admission, amounts to less than a hill of beans.
 
I have checked a bit more

and I am now more confident there is nothing to it

except a lot of wishful thinking by nervous, Obama supporters



considering this was going on well before anyone ever thought she'd be on the VP ticket (including herself),

i don't think this has much to do with "Obama supporters."
 
Nervous, I thought they were rejoicing over McCain's "foolish" pick of Palin?:wink:



i'm not nervous at all.

i'm just amazed you can post your support for her when she undercuts every single argument you've ever made for your preference for John McCain.
 
i'm sorry STING, but John McCain has made it quite clear with his selection of the person he obviously felt was the most qualified individual to take his place should he become incapacitated that experience is most certainly irrelevant to the job description.

if Palin is the most qualified, then all of McCain's so-called experience, by his own admission, amounts to less than a hill of beans.

Oh sure, and I guess thats even more true with the Democrats given who they picked to actually be President. :wink:
 
i'm not nervous at all.

i'm just amazed you can post your support for her when she undercuts every single argument you've ever made for your preference for John McCain.


I do wish there was someone more experienced than Palin on the Republican ticket for VP. That being said, she is not unqualified to be President as you and others are claiming. I have never made the case that Obama was not qualifed to be President, just that McCain's experience made him a far better candidate than Obama. My support for McCain is also not just based on his experience but also his judgement which you so often refer to.

In 1991, McCain understood that Saddam's military had to be removed from Kuwait as soon as possible. Joe Biden in the biggest vote of his career at that point got it wrong, and voted against the use of military force that even the French were actively participating in. Joe Biden voted against the coalition that is held up as the standard for one by so many.

In 2002, Obama voted against removing Saddam from power with military force. Saddam would still be in power in Iraq today free of sanctions and the embargo, if Obama had been President in 2002.

Two enormously important issues that Biden first, and then Obama got wrong. No one knows how Obama felt about the first Gulf War at the time, but its most likely that he got that one wrong to and voted with the majority of his party against removing Saddam's military from Kuwait.

Obama not only said the Surge in Iraq would not work but that it would make violence in Iraq worse. Biden wants to split Iraq into three countries. Provided Palin has views that are the opposite of Obama and Biden on these issues, she in some ways is already more qualifed than either Obama or Biden to be President.
 
I do wish there was someone more experienced than Palin on the Republican ticket for VP. That being said, she is not unqualified to be President as you and others are claiming. I have never made the case that Obama was not qualifed to be President, just that McCain's experience made him a far better candidate than Obama. My support for McCain is also not just based on his experience but also his judgement which you so often refer to.

In 1991, McCain understood that Saddam's military had to be removed from Kuwait as soon as possible. Joe Biden in the biggest vote of his career at that point got it wrong, and voted against the use of military force that even the French were actively participating in. Joe Biden voted against the coalition that is held up as the standard for one by so many.

In 2002, Obama voted against removing Saddam from power with military force. Saddam would still be in power in Iraq today free of sanctions and the embargo, if Obama had been President in 2002.

Two enormously important issues that Biden first, and then Obama got wrong. No one knows how Obama felt about the first Gulf War at the time, but its most likely that he got that one wrong to and voted with the majority of his party against removing Saddam's military from Kuwait.

Obama not only said the Surge in Iraq would not work but that it would make violence in Iraq worse. Biden wants to split Iraq into three countries. Provided Palin has views that are the opposite of Obama and Biden on these issues, she in some ways is already more qualifed than either Obama or Biden to be President.

If Barack had been President in 2002, we wouldn't be spending upwards of one-trillion-devalued-dollars that don't exist on a corrupt, useless war that has accomplished nothing more than frying our image in the middle east and allowing terrorists to recruit new people to their cause.

And regarding the surge, it was designed to allow for political progress to happen. You can kick all the terrorist ass you want to, but, in the end, it's all going to be useless if the Iraqi government continues to be in a state of complete disaster.
 
It just keeps getting worse. If Cindy McCain wanted to start making herself a more known figure in her husband's campaign, rambling off statements that make her sound like a clueless idiot is not the way to go about it. I know she's an intelligent woman, from what I understand she has multiple degrees in Education, but this is ridiculous. Also, the only way Palin could sound less confident in her abilities would be if she actually just came right out said, "I don't know what the fuck I'm doing." At least then she'd be telling the truth.:|


Greg Mitchell: Cindy McCain on ABC Today: Palin Has National Security Experience Because Alaska Is Close To Russia
 
If Barack had been President in 2002, we wouldn't be spending upwards of a one-trillion-devalued-dollars that don't exist on a corrupt, useless war that has accomplished nothing more than frying our image in the middle east and allowing terrorists to recruit new people to their cause.

And regarding the surge, it was designed to allow for political progress to happen. You can kick all the terrorist ass you want to, but, in the end, it's all going to be useless if the Iraqi government continues to be in a state of complete disaster.

US defense spending including spending on both the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan has been smaller as a percentage of US wealth than US defense spending was in the 1980s. Its only been 50% larger than the peacetime defense spending holiday of the 1990s.

It was necessity to remove Saddam given the threat he posed to vital US national security interest in the Persian Gulf. Waiting for Saddam to make the first move again after what he did in 1990 was not an option. The loss of Persian Gulf Oil supply could cause a worldwide economic depression as bad as or worse than the 1930s. Removing Saddam's removes the threat to something that is vital to the whole planet.

In addition, waiting to confront Saddam later, would have only increased the cost to the United States in terms of money and casaulties.

As far as the Surge it was designed to both reduce violence and allow for improvements in the political and economic progress to happen in the country. All of those things have happened. Iraq is doing very well economically and politically, especially relative to where it was two years ago. Substantial progress has been made on 15 of the 18 benchmarks set by the US congress. The Iraqi military and security forces have made tremondous progress and are providing security for 11 of Iraq's 18 provinces. This is a gradual process, and provided that the United States does not withdraw pre-maturely, it will achieve its post Saddam objectives in Iraq.
 
I do wish there was someone more experienced than Palin on the Republican ticket for VP. That being said, she is not unqualified to be President as you and others are claiming. I have never made the case that Obama was not qualifed to be President, just that McCain's experience made him a far better candidate than Obama. My support for McCain is also not just based on his experience but also his judgement which you so often refer to.

In 1991, McCain understood that Saddam's military had to be removed from Kuwait as soon as possible. Joe Biden in the biggest vote of his career at that point got it wrong, and voted against the use of military force that even the French were actively participating in. Joe Biden voted against the coalition that is held up as the standard for one by so many.

In 2002, Obama voted against removing Saddam from power with military force. Saddam would still be in power in Iraq today free of sanctions and the embargo, if Obama had been President in 2002.

Two enormously important issues that Biden first, and then Obama got wrong. No one knows how Obama felt about the first Gulf War at the time, but its most likely that he got that one wrong to and voted with the majority of his party against removing Saddam's military from Kuwait.

Obama not only said the Surge in Iraq would not work but that it would make violence in Iraq worse. Biden wants to split Iraq into three countries. Provided Palin has views that are the opposite of Obama and Biden on these issues, she in some ways is already more qualifed than either Obama or Biden to be President.


A rather confused interpretation.

Biden was wrong in 1991 and 2003. (You are glossing over the fact that, as you well know, Biden was on your side of the fence in 2003).

Obama was right in 2003. No serious observer disputes this.

Your last sentence is so absurd it's impossible to take seriously.

I happen to think that Palin is extremely well qualified, but it's nothing got to do with her views on Iraq.

Edit: Actually, come to think of it, I'm not entirely convinced Biden WAS wrong in 1991.
 
A rather confused interpretation.

Biden was wrong in 1991 and 2003. (You are glossing over the fact that, as you well know, Biden was on your side of the fence in 2003).

I said Biden first was wrong, meaning his vote in 1991 and the Obama with his vote in 2002.


Obama was right in 2003. No serious observer disputes this.

Except for Colin Powell, Kenneth Pollack, Michael O'Halon, and the majority of US military and national security experts who understood that the erosion of Sanctions and the weapons embargo plus Saddam's failure to verifiably disarm and comply with Gulf War Ceacefire agreement meant that it was a necessity that he be removed.



Your last sentence is so absurd it's impossible to take seriously.

Only to those foolish enough to believe that Persian Gulf Oil supply would be more secure today with Saddam still in power.
 
I said Biden first was wrong, meaning his vote in 1991 and the Obama with his vote in 2002.

As I said, you are glossing over the fact that Biden was on your side in 2003, presumably because it doesn't suit your narrative. However, to be fair to Biden, he subsequently acknowledged his error and repented of his vote, unlike Hilary Clinton (for example).

This is one of the reasons why I still hope Obama/Biden win, though I admire Palin, as she does appear to have GENUINE conservative credentials, as opposed to the fake conservative credentials of someone like Ridge or the Zionist fanatic Lieberman.
 
Even Bill O'Reilly acknowledges that the decision to invade Iraq was based on a mistaken premise.
 
Obama was right in 2003. No serious observer disputes this.

He was not right at all.

The Senators that saw the "evidence" voted 77 -23, I think.

If a jury brings in a verdict, based on the evidence. They are right.

If it is later found out the "evidence" was wrong.

Then you can say, the Defense was right, the defendant was not guilty afer all.
But, the conclusion was not wrong.


Obama was completely wrong on the surge and he did not bother to do any due diligence than you or I.
 
He was not right at all.

The Senators that saw the "evidence" voted 77 -23, I think.

If a jury brings in a verdict, based on the evidence. They are right.

If it is later found out the "evidence" was wrong.

Then you can say, the Defense was right, the defendant was not guilty afer all.
But, the conclusion was not wrong.


Obama was completely wrong on the surge and he did not bother to do any due diligence than you or I.

Your dislike of Obama is blinding your judgement. You have repeatedly criticized the Iraq war and the Bush administration. Obama was one of the ones wise enough to exercise the correct political judgment in 2003, at a time when it was, the say the least, unpopular for any politician to be perceived as 'going soft' on terror. For that, he should be congratulated.
 
Even Bill O'Reilly acknowledges that the decision to invade Iraq was based on a mistaken premise.

I would not call it a mistake


I would call it bad evidence.



Obama never said the the photos of " chemical labs in Iraq" that Colin Powell presented at the U N were fakes.

and that is why he would not support the War.

He, like all of us believed they were legit.

and he did not want Saddam stopped?
 
Your dislike of Obama is blinding your judgement. You have repeatedly criticized the Iraq war and the Bush administration. Obama was one of the ones wise enough to exercise the correct political judgment in 2003, at a time when it was, the say the least, unpopular for any politician to be perceived as 'going soft' on terror. For that, he should be congratulated.

I like Obama just fine

And I give him credit for things that are legit

I dislike Bush/Cheeney completely and don't believe they are even honest

especially Cheney
 
I got to tip my at to Harry Vest in calling this way way back.

That said; Sarah rocks.

She has more backbone than Dan Qualyle and has better approval rating then Quayle ever had-so attempting to label her "Dan Quayle in a skirt" makes them look desperate and mean spirited.

And remember Quayle made it to the White House.

In the coming monthe soccer moms, hockey moms, conservative Dems and Indies will embrace her, a smidgeon of PUMAS-just enough to put Mac over the top.

Johnny Mac the Maverick has outsmarted everyone.

<>
 
I would not call it a mistake


I would call it bad evidence.



Obama never said the the photos of " labs" that Colin Powell presented at the U N were fakes.

and that is why he would not support the War.

He, like all of us believed they were legit.

and he did not want Saddam stopped?

When I joined the forum, in 2005, you were against the Iraq war, correct?

How many times have you changed your mind?

Will you change it again?

To quote Thatcher, 'The lady's not for turning'.

I respect Obama's consistency on the Iraq war issue. I respect politicians who are consistent.
 
I would not call it a mistake


I would call it bad evidence.



Obama never said the the photos of " chemical labs in Iraq" that Colin Powell presented at the U N were fakes.

and that is why he would not support the War.

He, like all of us believed they were legit.

and he did not want Saddam stopped?

At the time, were you against going into Iraq?
 
I got to tip my at to Harry Vest in calling this way way back.

That said; Sarah rocks.

She has more backbone than Dan Qualyle and has better approval rating then Quayle evr had.

In the coming monthe soccer moms, hockey moms, conservative Dems and Indies will embrace her- and a few PUMAS.

Johnny Mac the Maverick outsmatred everyone.

<>

Agreed.
 
Even Bill O'Reilly acknowledges that the decision to invade Iraq was based on a mistaken premise.

The fact that Saddam was in violation of multiple UN resolutions vital to the security of the region is not a mistake, nor is his past behavior, conventional miltiary capabilities, or the WMD related programs that were found after the invasion that were in total violation of the resolutions and were never shown to UN inspectors.

The other issue is the collapse the sanctions and embargo regime designed to contain Saddam. Even without all the other things, this alone would make the invasion necessary.
 
He was not right at all.

The Senators that saw the "evidence" voted 77 -23, I think.

If a jury brings in a verdict, based on the evidence. They are right.

If it is later found out the "evidence" was wrong.

Then you can say, the Defense was right, the defendant was not guilty afer all.
But, the conclusion was not wrong.


Obama was completely wrong on the surge and he did not bother to do any due diligence than you or I.

There was never any evidence that Saddam had complied with any of the requirements placed on him after his invasion of Kuwait in 1990.
 
At the time, were you against going into Iraq?


yes,

but I did not have clearance to see the evidence

I have quite a bit of faith in Colin Powell
and I believe he would not gone along if they had given him what he believed to credible evidence.

that is why, he walked away from Bush/Cheney and said that day at the U N was the worst day of his life.
 
I got to tip my at to Harry Vest in calling this way way back.

That said; Sarah rocks.

She has more backbone than Dan Qualyle and has better approval rating then Quayle ever had-so attempting to label her "Dan Quayle in a skirt" makes them look desperate and mean spirited.

And remember Quayle made it to the White House.

In the coming monthe soccer moms, hockey moms, conservative Dems and Indies will embrace her, a smidgeon of PUMAS-just enough to put Mac over the top.

Johnny Mac the Maverick has outsmarted everyone.

<>



Wrong.
 
Did Saddam try to have GHB assasinated?

What's the policy when an attempted assination is made on the head of state in our country?

<>
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom