Give a Legitimate Argument For McCain, Against Obama

[Irvine511]

Originally posted by financeguy


I reserve the right to call Hillary a cold hearted bitch, and Bush a stupid prick, any time I feel like it....would you honestly have objected if someone said something 10 times as bad regarding, say, Ann Coulter?

in this context, the use of "bitch" was absolutely no better than "nigger" "faggot" "kyke" or "jap."

you can call Hillary whatever you damn please, but if we're going to resort to slurs instead of actual arguments, expect to be called out on it.

[Irvine511]

Originally posted by MadelynIris
Iraq for 50 for sho. Hopefully not 100. And I'm talking social and economic reform, with the backing of a military presence.

Can we really change the middle east to sort of a modern western way of thinking? Iraq would be our best shot at this moment.

tell me, why aren't we still in Vietnam?

[Dreadsox]

Originally posted by U2isthebest


He wants to stay in Iraq for 100 more years. He feels that what we've done has worked in most areas. Once again, experience clearly does not equal judgment. His strategy for Iraq is absolutely ridiculous. Sending more troops will not help the situation. We've already sent soldiers over for more tours of duty than they should serve. We don't have enough body armor and equipment to protect the troops already there. More information on that is in this article.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion...our-view_x.htm

I am so tired of seeing this posted - Not just by you, but it is not true of his position.

FactCheck.org has this to say about the misrepresentation by the Democratic pary:

[Q]A 100-Year War?


The DNC's message portrays McCain as bent on fighting an "endless" war in Iraq.

DNC: We can't afford four more years with a President who fights an endless war in Iraq. ... On the war, McCain scoffed at Bush's call to leave troops in Iraq for 50 years, saying "Make it a hundred!"

That of course is a serious distortion of what McCain actually said to a town-hall meeting in New Hampshire back on Jan. 3. His actual words are posted in a video on YouTube. Far from advocating "endless war," he said the presence of U.S. troops in Iraq would be "fine with me" provided that they're not being killed or wounded. Here's the full quote:

McCain, Jan. 3: Make it a hundred. ... We’ve been in Japan for 60 years. We’ve been in South Korea for 50 years or so. That would be fine with me, as long as American, as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed. It’s fine with me and I hope it would be fine with you if we maintained a presence in a very volatile part of the world where al Qaeda is training, recruiting and equipping and motivating people every single day.

It should be noted that both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, despite their frequent talk of withdrawing from Iraq, have said repeatedly that they would maintain at least some troops in a combat role in Iraq for some time, possibly their entire term of office.


There's little doubt that McCain is less eager than either Clinton or Obama to bring troops home without further suppression of insurgent attacks. But it's a rank falsehood for the DNC to accuse McCain of wanting to wage "endless war" based on his support for a presence in Iraq something like the U.S. role in South Korea.
[/Q]

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2...e_smeared.html

[U2isthebest]

Originally posted by Dreadsox


I am so tired of seeing this posted - Not just by you, but it is not true of his position.

FactCheck.org has this to say about the misrepresentation by the Democratic pary:

[Q]A 100-Year War?


The DNC's message portrays McCain as bent on fighting an "endless" war in Iraq.

DNC: We can't afford four more years with a President who fights an endless war in Iraq. ... On the war, McCain scoffed at Bush's call to leave troops in Iraq for 50 years, saying "Make it a hundred!"

That of course is a serious distortion of what McCain actually said to a town-hall meeting in New Hampshire back on Jan. 3. His actual words are posted in a video on YouTube. Far from advocating "endless war," he said the presence of U.S. troops in Iraq would be "fine with me" provided that they're not being killed or wounded. Here's the full quote:

McCain, Jan. 3: Make it a hundred. ... We’ve been in Japan for 60 years. We’ve been in South Korea for 50 years or so. That would be fine with me, as long as American, as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed. It’s fine with me and I hope it would be fine with you if we maintained a presence in a very volatile part of the world where al Qaeda is training, recruiting and equipping and motivating people every single day.

It should be noted that both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, despite their frequent talk of withdrawing from Iraq, have said repeatedly that they would maintain at least some troops in a combat role in Iraq for some time, possibly their entire term of office.


There's little doubt that McCain is less eager than either Clinton or Obama to bring troops home without further suppression of insurgent attacks. But it's a rank falsehood for the DNC to accuse McCain of wanting to wage "endless war" based on his support for a presence in Iraq something like the U.S. role in South Korea.
[/Q]

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2...e_smeared.html

You're right in saying that it is an exaggeration for him wanting to maintain a war-like state there for 100 years. However, he has no intention of bringing the troops home anytime soon. I've read his Iraq policy straight from his website and he wants to send more troops over there if he wins.

[anitram]

Are you equally as bothered by McCain blatantly distorting Obama's position on Pakistan?

Obama:

"If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and [Pakistani] President Pervez Musharraf won't act, we will."

McCain:

"Or will we risk the confused leadership of an inexperienced candidate who once suggested invading our ally, Pakistan"

[Dreadsox]

Originally posted by anitram


Kind of hard to promise something when you admit you don't really understand the economy:



What a dumb, DUMB thing to say. Watch for it in every Dem ad this fall.

That was not the exact quote - But it is nice to see the Democratic Party talking points put out there so effectively.

FactCheck.org :

[Q]The DNC's Glass House

The DNC also throws some stones at McCain that could be hurled at their own leading candidates.

Economics: The DNC paints McCain as untrained to run the economy: "McCain has said: 'I know a lot less about economics than I do about military and foreign policy issues. I still need to be educated.' " That's an accurate quote. But while McCain wasn't trained as an economist, neither were Obama or Clinton. Clinton has touted her experience working for children and health care. Obama talks about his experience organizing the poor and low-income workers in Chicago. None of the three senators sit on the Finance Committee, the Banking Committee or the Budget Committee. We'll be interested to hear the DNC explain how a graduate of Harvard or Yale law schools is any better educated about economics or the economy than an Annapolis grad who has been in Congress longer than the two Democrats put together. [/Q]


http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2...e_smeared.html

No the Greenspan's Book line, is a very humorous one. Shows the candidate has a sense of humor. But, out of context and in the wrong hands...well it makes for good cannon fodder.

[Dreadsox]

Originally posted by anitram
Are you equally as bothered by McCain blatantly distorting Obama's position on Pakistan?

Obama:



McCain:

Of course I am. And I have not picked my candidate yet. I have stated my admiration for both of them.

But I would say based on your posts, I would be hard pressed to find less bias.

[Dreadsox]

Originally posted by U2isthebest


You're right in saying that it is an exaggeration for him wanting to maintain a war-like state there for 100 years. However, he has no intention of bringing the troops home anytime soon. I've read his Iraq policy straight from his website and he wants to send more troops over there if he wins.

None of the candiates will be bringing the troops home anytime soon.

And more troops may be necessary for the short term.

[anitram]

Originally posted by Dreadsox


Of course I am. And I have not picked my candidate yet. I have stated my admiration for both of them.

But I would say based on your posts, I would be hard pressed to find less bias.

I don't have admiration for both of them.

I don't believe McCain is a man of principles. I've said it many times. Never claimed anything else. In fact, I'd rather have voted for Romney than him.

[Dreadsox]

Originally posted by anitram


I don't have admiration for both of them.

I don't believe McCain is a man of principles. I've said it many times. Never claimed anything else. In fact, I'd rather have voted for Romney than him.

So I guess spreading inaccuracies will somehow make the judgement easier for the sheep?

[anitram]

Gives us something to do before we bomb, bomb, bomb Iran.

[Dreadsox]

Are you trying to drive me to the right?

Personally, if you search my posts, I was in favor of attacking Iran right after 9/11....since there is PLENTY of evidence that they aided the Taliban and Al-Qaeda.

Yet another failure of this administration.

[anitram]

I'm no big fan of Iran, but out of all the countries in that miserable region, I feel like their population is the most likely to (eventually?) embrace change and carry on a (quiet?) revolution from within. Iran is well educated, with a good infrastructure, more than you can say about any of their neighbours. They have a history of looking to the west, they send large numbers of students abroad, they have some very active and important dissidents who are quite pragmatic when discussing what can be done in the short term, and what is more of a lofty goal. Regardless of their meddling, which is obvious, I can't help thinking that intervening militarily there would be really, really counter-productive in the long run.

[U2isthebest]

Originally posted by Dreadsox


None of the candiates will be bringing the troops home anytime soon.

And more troops may be necessary for the short term.

Clinton and Obama, especially Obama, are both determined to begin bringing the troops home as soon as possible. Whether that will be possible in terms of Congressional approval remains to be seen, but I'm glad they both are making it a top priority. Myself, and several others have also stated numerous times why more troops would not help the Iraq situation, so I'm not going to address that again. That's nothing against you, I just don't feel like typing everything out again.

[Dreadsox]

In response to your Obama comment.......

I agree, McCain has distorted his position and taken his quotes out of context. I actually believe that Obama is close to my position in respects to Pakistan.

[anitram]

Originally posted by Dreadsox
I actually believe that Obama is close to my position in respects to Pakistan.

On that we agree.

I've been saying the same thing about Pakistan for years and years. I don't understand why things have been allowed to degenerate to such a degree over there.

[Dreadsox]

Originally posted by U2isthebest


Clinton and Obama, especially Obama, are both determined to begin bringing the troops home as soon as possible. Whether that will be possible in terms of Congressional approval remains to be seen, but I'm glad they both are making it a top priority. Myself, and several others have also stated numerous times why more troops would not help the Iraq situation, so I'm not going to address that again. That's nothing against you, I just don't feel like typing everything out again.

That is your opinion. I was there before the surge. The surge has worked to a point. My biggest issue is that if there had been an honest attempt a building a coalition from the start - this whole situation would have looked different. We may have had the necessary troops, from ARAB nations, not just the big three US allies in all of this.

The fact is the surge has helped. I think there are enough posts in here where I said I thought McCain and the President were wrong on this. BUT, the fact is, the surge helped turn the corner, and I do not believe it is time to leave and let the place fall to crap.

[Dreadsox]

Originally posted by anitram


On that we agree.

I've been saying the same thing about Pakistan for years and years. I don't understand why things have been allowed to degenerate to such a degree over there.

If you smile at me again, I may have to bevcome Fernando

[anitram]

[Diemen]

Originally posted by Dreadsox
BUT, the fact is, the surge helped turn the corner

I don't know if I agree with this "fact" you've given us. Sure, the surge has resulted in increased security. It seems a pretty simple formula that less stability + more troops = more stability. But is it sustainable? Not without real, tangible, and significant political movement. So far movement has been extremely slow in the political realm (to put it mildly). At what point does the risk and cost of putting our troops in harms way outweigh the possibility of an eventually independent, politically functional and secure Iraq? Never? Until the job is done, damn the costs (both monetarily and in human lives)?