US 2008 Presidential Campaign/Debate Discussion Thread - Part Catorce!
- Thread starter redhotswami
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
- Status
Slipstream
Refugee
MrsSpringsteen said:
I don't know how anybody can watch these bloody idiots, let alone on a daily basis. They need to be parachuted into Baghdad in broad daylight with Fox plastered all over their chutes.
And Horse Face, ummm, I don't think Hillary would ever want your support, so take a hike.
INDY500
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
Slipstream said:
Probably safer than being parachuted into Manhattan, Georgetown or Berkeley California in broad daylight with Fox plastered all over their chutes.
But are you really suggesting that insurgents or al-Qaeda members in Baghdad would somehow be more hospitable to Western media members clearly labeled CNN, NBC or New York Times than those from FOX?
Gee, I wonder why?
2861U2
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
INDY500 said:
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
This is why there are few conservative comedians... You are all too predictable.
INDY500
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
Ummm... it's probably safer than being parachuted into Brattleboro, Vermont in broad daylight with the Presidential Seal plastered all over their chutes.
yolland
Forum Moderator
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2004
- Messages
- 7,471
^ You forgot to work in the nude hula-hooping angle. 
INDY500
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
Didn't wanna upset any impressionable, young minds after jammie-time.
Last edited:
waterboarding Ann Coulter ...
diamond
ONE love, blood, life
Strongbow said:
I think that Mitt is more about the conservative movement than himself; I think this isn't about him and is alocated a certain amount of money to be spent.
In other words, once he sees the writing on the wall, for the good of the party, he would bow out-only after giving it his best effort.
He won't hang around like a Ron Paul or Nader figure.
At the end of the day, he'll be a gentleman/statesman and do what he feels is best for the party.
So, at this point we'll have to wait and see where were at in a few weeks.
dbs
Vincent Vega
Rock n' Roll Doggie ALL ACCESS
INDY500 said:
Nah, that's far too safe. They just have to drop some pot and all will be fine.
2861U2
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
diamond said:
True. And I don't think this is the last time he will run for president, either.
BonosSaint
Rock n' Roll Doggie
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2004
- Messages
- 3,566
I think when you spend that much of your own money on your own presidential campaign, it's at least a little about yourself.
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
diamond said:
Really? He flip flopped his stances on some conservative views that he knew he wouldn't do anything about like abortion, just to get ya'lls vote.
I can't believe you fell for that crap.
martha
Blue Crack Supplier
BonoVoxSupastar said:
As long as God is mentioned enough times, along with "family values," many conservatives will fall for anything.
phillyfan26
Blue Crack Supplier
- Joined
- May 7, 2006
- Messages
- 30,343
No, he's very conservative: he wants to fight the "Church of Secularism."
That's all it takes these days.
That's all it takes these days.
diamond
ONE love, blood, life
BonoVoxSupastar said:
Incorrect.
Mitt's stances have evolved, similarily to Reagan's who was once a Democrat.
You can't hold somebody's personal, spiritual and polictical evolution against them.
If you do, you'll be judged the same way, anytime you change your mind on an issue, and I'm sure many of us continue to evlove personally, polictially and spiritually.
dbs
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
Tell yourself whatever it takes to make you feel better.
If he evolved, then why not just admit that you have changed your mind. He hasn't done that. He's just telling you what you want to hear, he won't do a thing to end abortion...
If he evolved, then why not just admit that you have changed your mind. He hasn't done that. He's just telling you what you want to hear, he won't do a thing to end abortion...
2861U2
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
BonoVoxSupastar said:
He has, though. He has said a million times that he used to be pro-choice.
I think Mitt is actually an economic conservative, and prior to his so-called "evolution" (I don't really believe it and I think if he were not running in the US, he'd never have "evolved" on the topic of abortion and gay rights), he actually had reasonable stances. I disagree with the conservative philosophy but I do not find economic conservatives to be offensive per se; I even understand their positions. Unfortunately for Mitt, he cannot get elected in the US as a Republican without bashing gays and wanting the state between a woman's legs. If he could, he'd be running in the vein of Stephen Harper.
In the end, I find him less scary than McCain. Mitt is a slick businessman, you know what to expect from his type and he knows he's full of crap most of the time. McCain is more dishonest, running on some kind of straight talk express BS platform while he talks out of both sides of his mouth and frankly his foreign policy ideas "more wars! bomb Iran!" is insane.
That said, he'll win the nomination, and then I do believe he'll lose the election to either Dem candidate, which will finally put the nail in his presidential aspirations once and for all.
In the end, I find him less scary than McCain. Mitt is a slick businessman, you know what to expect from his type and he knows he's full of crap most of the time. McCain is more dishonest, running on some kind of straight talk express BS platform while he talks out of both sides of his mouth and frankly his foreign policy ideas "more wars! bomb Iran!" is insane.
That said, he'll win the nomination, and then I do believe he'll lose the election to either Dem candidate, which will finally put the nail in his presidential aspirations once and for all.
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
2861U2 said:
I've heard him deny it hundreds of times.
BonoVoxSupastar said:
No Republican will ever criminalize abortion.
This is their bread and butter, what will they crow about otherwise? Besides about 5 minutes after anyone criminalizes it, the public opinion will shift and that party will be kicked out post haste, with the damage potentially lasting a generation.
This is just a wedge issue.
2861U2
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
I've never understood why abortion is as large an issue as it is in presidential elections. I'm pro-life and have fairly strong feelings about that, but someone's stance on abortion wouldn't affect my vote at all.
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
diamond said:
people don't evolve by first promising to be better on gay equality than Ted Kennedy, and then moving as far away from that position as possible. politicians who hold overtly homophobic positions never describe their thought process on this as an evolution, it is always described as coming from a "deep" and "personal" idea of what marriage or whatever is about.
stances on abortion might be viewed as an evolution, but not so with gay equality. pausing to bash gays when he had previously been supportive is nothing more than pandering to a hateful base.
nothing more.
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
Anitram just anwered it for you.
There have been many posters here in the past that have said, if the Republican Nominee isn't pro-life they would just stay home and not vote.
martha
Blue Crack Supplier
So some Republicans do believe in evolution? 
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
martha said:So some Republicans do believe in evolution?
they all do. they just won't admit it publicly. just like they don't talk about their gay friends or driving their teenaged daughters to Planned Parenthood for abortions.
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
Strongbow said:
it's rather plain-as-day obvious that the reason that these governments voted for 1441 was because it was precisely NOT an authorization to go to war.
and the real reason for the passing of Resolution 1483 was not to give a
to the invasion, but rather to hold the US and the UK responsible for the mess created. the resolution made it clear the United States and Britain are defined as occupying forces and, according to the Geneva Conventions, occupation forces are responsible for providing not only security and safety, but also daily needs such as healthcare.so, yeah, bang-up job there as well.
Last edited:
anitram said:
Well, I think you said not to long ago that the nail had been put in his aspirations to win the nomination.
Here is how McCain currently stands in the latest national polls against both Obama and Hillary.
General Election: McCain vs. Obama
Fox News 01/30 - 01/31
Obama 44%
McCain 43%
Rasmussen 01/25 - 01/27
McCain 47%
Obama 41%
NBC/WSJ 01/20 - 01/22
McCain 42%
Obama 42%
LA Times/Bloomberg 01/18 - 01/22
McCain 42%
Obama 41%
USA Today/GALLUP 01/10 - 01/13
McCain 50%
Obama 45%
General Election: McCain vs. Clinton
Fox News 01/30 - 01/31
McCain 45%
Clinton 44%
Rasmussen 01/25 - 01/27
McCain 48%
Clinton 40%
NBC/WSJ 01/20 - 01/22
McCain 46%
Clinton 44%
LA Times/Bloomberg 01/18 - 01/22
Clinton 46%
McCain 42%
USA Today/GALLUP 01/10 - 01/13
McCain 50%
Clinton 47%
Not bad for a guy that was declared DONE, by nearly everyone in this forum just a couple of months ago.
Unlike Obama and Clinton, McCain has 50 years of experience in US national security and US foreign policy. Compare that to roughly 10 year of experience combined on these issues for both Obama and Clinton through their recent Senate runs. No one running for President in 2008 can even be compared to McCain in terms of his qualifications for President.
You totally inaccurately describe McCains Foreign Policy which understands fundamental US Security needs, and is NEVER based on polls or where the political winds might be blowing. McCain understands the need to stay in both Afghanistan and Iraq to rebuild and stabilize those countries since their instability would benefit Al Quada and those hostile to the United States. Obama and Clinton have pursued contradictory policies in the two countries. In Afghanistan, they have no time table for withdrawal and are willing to stay as long as necessary to fight Al Quada and rebuild the country, despite the fact that most Al Quada attacks occur in Iraq, and not Afghanistan. In Iraq, they want to get the troops out within a year. This objective has NOTHING to do with stabilizing Iraq or defending US security interest, fighting Al Quada where they are most active, but is purely a short sighted political goal to satisfy their party and many independents.
You don't want someone as Commander In Chief who is willing to sacrifice US and global security for short term political gain.
- Status
Similar threads
