Login

"I'd much rather lose a campaign to lose a war."

  • "I'd much rather lose a campaign to lose a war."

YoungJoonKim
#1Jul 27th, 2008
Lately, we have been witnessing John McCain Bullsh** OVER AND OVER AGAIN on CNN, MSNBC, and...Fox News...*cough*.


Its clear that his losing his mind.

His argument that Obama voted against the surge, kept going against the surge, urged to cut the bill from the surge, and rejected the reality of the surge, is bullsh**. He thinks that because he liked and still likes the surge, he deserves to be the worst president. Because Obama rejects the notion that surge is awesome and is so successful that Iraq is back to being in the state before Operation Iraqi Freedom, he shouldn't become a president.

LOL. Let's do some reality check AFTER the surge shall we?

1. Surge secured nothing but heavy military occupance of Iraq with "American troops."

2. Government is in total disarry.

3. Millions of Iraqis are lacking energy, water, and food each day--so much worse than the state before the invasion.

4. Surge is costing Americans billlions, if not trillions, of dollars each month.


So..my question is...
Why should this...idiot become a president? His argument lacks reality and fallen into deep fantasy of successful Iraq. His continuem of Iraq war will put United States into deeper debt at a faster rate than ever, his aggressive stance against global politic will damage America's image even worse (p.s. Obama is restoring America's image even BEFORE he comes a president), and his craziness will destroy America.

Honestly..when I first saw McCain debating against other republican presidential nominees, he looked tough and sensible. Now, I just feel sad for republicans...because they chose the wrong man. What they needed was Huckabee for heavens sake...gosh.
 
scratch
#2

Re: "I'd much rather lose a campaign to lose a war."

Jul 27th, 2008
Quote: Originally Posted by YoungJoonKimView Post

Lately, we have been witnessing John McCain Bullsh** OVER AND OVER AGAIN on CNN, MSNBC, and...Fox News...*cough*.


Its clear that his losing his mind.

His argument that Obama voted against the surge, kept going against the surge, urged to cut the bill from the surge, and rejected the reality of the surge, is bullsh**. He thinks that because he liked and still likes the surge, he deserves to be the worst president. Because Obama rejects the notion that surge is awesome and is so successful that Iraq is back to being in the state before Operation Iraqi Freedom, he shouldn't become a president.

LOL. Let's do some reality check AFTER the surge shall we?

1. Surge secured nothing but heavy military occupance of Iraq with "American troops."

2. Government is in total disarry.

3. Millions of Iraqis are lacking energy, water, and food each day--so much worse than the state before the invasion.

4. Surge is costing Americans billlions, if not trillions, of dollars each month.


So..my question is...
Why should this...idiot become a president? His argument lacks reality and fallen into deep fantasy of successful Iraq. His continuem of Iraq war will put United States into deeper debt at a faster rate than ever, his aggressive stance against global politic will damage America's image even worse (p.s. Obama is restoring America's image even BEFORE he comes a president), and his craziness will destroy America.

Honestly..when I first saw McCain debating against other republican presidential nominees, he looked tough and sensible. Now, I just feel sad for republicans...because they chose the wrong man. What they needed was Huckabee for heavens sake...gosh.

After almost 50 years of following American politics they do all the wrong things first until they have to to the right thing. McCain Is admired because he is able to communicate with both parties and because he decided to endure the HANOI HILTON. Yet that will only lead to more U.S. aggression, unfortunately.
 
YoungJoonKim
#3

Re: "I'd much rather lose a campaign to lose a war."

Jul 27th, 2008
Quote:

McCain Is admired

Many years ago, he is a piece of cheap garbage. Now, his like a savior to republicans..
wooow
 
lone wolf
Free Thinker
#4

Re: "I'd much rather lose a campaign to lose a war."

Jul 27th, 2008
Quote: Originally Posted by YoungJoonKimView Post

Many years ago, he is a piece of cheap garbage. Now, his like a savior to republicans..
wooow

After eight years of Dubya even Oscar the Grouch starts to look good....

Woof!
 
Kreskin
Avatar
#5

Re: "I'd much rather lose a campaign to lose a war."

Jul 27th, 2008
Quote: Originally Posted by lone wolfView Post

After eight years of Dubya even Oscar the Grouch starts to look good....

Woof!

No matter who wins Wolf, I'll be popping a bottle of wine to celebrate.
 
Lineman
Avatar
#6

Re: "I'd much rather lose a campaign to lose a war."

Jul 28th, 2008
I think I'll wait for Colpy to set a few of the facts straight here.
 
talloola
No Party Affiliation
Avatar
#7

Re: "I'd much rather lose a campaign to lose a war."

Jul 28th, 2008
Quote: Originally Posted by LinemanView Post

I think I'll wait for Colpy to set a few of the facts straight here.

He has an opinion and the side he chooses, he's not the final answer, just another opinion, like the rest of us.
 
scratch
#8

Re: "I'd much rather lose a campaign to lose a war."

Jul 28th, 2008
Quote: Originally Posted by talloolaView Post

He has an opinion and the side he chooses, he's not the final answer, just another opinion, like the rest of us.

We all have choices and the sad part is when this election is over they will start haggling about 2012! One never wins.
 
Lineman
Avatar
#9

Re: "I'd much rather lose a campaign to lose a war."

Jul 28th, 2008
Quote: Originally Posted by talloolaView Post

He has an opinion and the side he chooses, he's not the final answer, just another opinion, like the rest of us.

I won't disagree with you, I just respect his viewpoint more than other's and feel he could comment on this better than I could.
 
talloola
No Party Affiliation
Avatar
#10

Re: "I'd much rather lose a campaign to lose a war."

Jul 28th, 2008
Quote: Originally Posted by LinemanView Post

I won't disagree with you, I just respect his viewpoint more than other's and feel he could comment on this better than I could.

I agree with some of his thoughts, and others I don't, oh well, that's life, I don't like
rejecting Obama just because he doesn't have the experience of McCain and others, as
the experience definitely wasn't positive, they have made a mess of things, and,
everyone starts somewhere, as they all did as well, so, lets give him a chance, he has
a more 'broad minded' view of the world, and doesn't seem so defensive and narrow minded as the republicans, he has caught the eye of the international community as well,
and that is positive too, as bush broke that relationship down with his close minded and
aggressive and arrogant attitude.
 
darkbeaver
Republican
Avatar
#11

Re: "I'd much rather lose a campaign to lose a war."

Jul 28th, 2008
Quote: Originally Posted by LinemanView Post

I think I'll wait for Colpy to set a few of the facts straight here.

and wait and wait and wait and wait and wait and wait and wait and wait and wait

McCain is owned by the zionists.
 
darkbeaver
Republican
#12

Re: "I'd much rather lose a campaign to lose a war."

Jul 28th, 2008
Quote: Originally Posted by talloolaView Post

I agree with some of his thoughts, and others I don't, oh well, that's life, I don't like
rejecting Obama just because he doesn't have the experience of McCain and others, as
the experience definitely wasn't positive, they have made a mess of things, and,
everyone starts somewhere, as they all did as well, so, lets give him a chance, he has
a more 'broad minded' view of the world, and doesn't seem so defensive and narrow minded as the republicans, he has caught the eye of the international community as well,
and that is positive too, as bush broke that relationship down with his close minded and
aggressive and arrogant attitude.

Obama's going to break your heart Talloola.
 
scratch
#13

Re: "I'd much rather lose a campaign to lose a war."

Jul 28th, 2008
Quote: Originally Posted by darkbeaverView Post

Obama's going to break your heart Talloola.

It's all done with mirrors. 'Roos lose big time.
 
Lineman
Avatar
#14

Re: "I'd much rather lose a campaign to lose a war."

Jul 28th, 2008
Sometimes you use the whip, sometimes you offer some sugar. In an country that was long dominated by successive dictators people tend to understand the use of force quicker than diplomacy. The surge came at an appropriate time when the Sunni had decided to work for instead of against peace. That combination is what advanced the process. Either by itself would not have brought the results that both accomplished together.

Obama voting against the surge, spending, and anything "Iraq" was nothing but a pure political gambit that succeeded in getting him up front of the voters. Now that he's been there, talked with the locals and the US military he will change his tune. An immediate withdrawal without a stable Iraq would be almost as criminal as the invasion.

( Guess I couldn't wait......)
 
darkbeaver
Republican
Avatar
#15

Re: "I'd much rather lose a campaign to lose a war."

Jul 28th, 2008
Quote: Originally Posted by LinemanView Post

Sometimes you use the whip, sometimes you offer some sugar. In an country that was long dominated by successive dictators people tend to understand the use of force quicker than diplomacy. The surge came at an appropriate time when the Sunni had decided to work for instead of against peace. That combination is what advanced the process. Either by itself would not have brought the results that both accomplished together.

Obama voting against the surge, spending, and anything "Iraq" was nothing but a pure political gambit that succeeded in getting him up front of the voters. Now that he's been there, talked with the locals and the US military he will change his tune. An immediate withdrawal without a stable Iraq would be almost as criminal as the invasion.

( Guess I couldn't wait......)

The Sunni's decided to work for money Lineman. There was no advance in any process but the propaganda. Obama will say and do anything for his Zionist masters, they all will, he is a very good orator but this is the work of an actor. The Iraqi are to be obliterated and the country carved up for the bankers.
 
Lineman
#16

Re: "I'd much rather lose a campaign to lose a war."

Jul 28th, 2008
Money and they re-joined the government. Obliterated? No profit in that.
 
scratch
#17

Re: "I'd much rather lose a campaign to lose a war."

Jul 28th, 2008
Quote: Originally Posted by LinemanView Post

Money and they re-joined the government. Obliterated? No profit in that.


Goes against everything American, doesn't it.
 
darkbeaver
Republican
Avatar
#18

Re: "I'd much rather lose a campaign to lose a war."

Jul 28th, 2008
Quote: Originally Posted by LinemanView Post

Money and they re-joined the government. Obliterated? No profit in that.

Sure there is Lineman those obliterating machines and bullets sell for big bucks and when the obliteration winds down the oil and the region will be free and easy, no threat to Israel ever again.
The Military-Industrial Complex

It's Much Later Than You Think By Chalmers Johnson
28/07/08 "--" -- -Most Americans have a rough idea what the term "military-industrial complex" means when they come across it in a newspaper or hear a politician mention it. President Dwight D. Eisenhower introduced the idea to the public in his -- of January 17, 1961. "Our military organization today bears little relation to that known by any of my predecessors in peacetime," he said, "or indeed by the fighting men of World War II and Korea… We have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions… We must not fail to comprehend its grave implications… We must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex."
Although Eisenhower's reference to the military-industrial complex is, by now, well-known, his warning against its "unwarranted influence" has, I believe, largely been ignored. Since 1961, there has been too little serious study of, or discussion of, the origins of the military-industrial complex, how it has changed over time, how governmental secrecy has hidden it from oversight by members of Congress or attentive citizens, and how it degrades our Constitutional structure of checks and balances.
From its origins in the early 1940s, when President Franklin Delano Roosevelt was building up his "arsenal of democracy," down to the present moment, public opinion has usually assumed that it involved more or less equitable relations -- often termed a "partnership" -- between the high command and civilian overlords of the United States military and privately-owned, for-profit manufacturing and service enterprises. Unfortunately, the truth of the matter is that, from the time they first emerged, these relations were never equitable.
In the formative years of the military-industrial complex, the public still deeply distrusted privately owned industrial firms because of the way they had contributed to the Great Depression. Thus, the leading role in the newly emerging relationship was played by the official governmental sector. A deeply popular, charismatic president, FDR sponsored these public-private relationships. They gained further legitimacy because their purpose was to rearm the country, as w
 
Lineman
Avatar
#19

Re: "I'd much rather lose a campaign to lose a war."

Jul 28th, 2008
So If they obliterate the Iraqis then the new workers will be from???
Much easier and cheaper to give them the "I can get rich" dream and keep them around.
 
talloola
No Party Affiliation
Avatar
#20

Re: "I'd much rather lose a campaign to lose a war."

Jul 28th, 2008
Quote: Originally Posted by scratchView Post

It's all done with mirrors. 'Roos lose big time.

How will you save me from that fate. Should I be more of a skeptic?
I am a strong person, if he turns out to be a terrorist in disguise, or, a silly
weak sniffling wimp, or a great president, I will handle it well.
The only person who ever broke my heart was my dad, what could be worse that that, I say.
 
scratch
#21

Re: "I'd much rather lose a campaign to lose a war."

Jul 28th, 2008
Quote: Originally Posted by talloolaView Post

How will you save me from that fate. Should I be more of a skeptic?
I am a strong person, if he turns out to be a terrorist in disguise, or, a silly
weak sniffling wimp, or a great president, I will handle it well.
The only person who ever broke my heart was my dad, what could be worse that that, I say.

I can empathize with that, so did my dad.
 
darkbeaver
Republican
Avatar
#22

Re: "I'd much rather lose a campaign to lose a war."

Jul 28th, 2008
Quote: Originally Posted by LinemanView Post

So If they obliterate the Iraqis then the new workers will be from???
Much easier and cheaper to give them the "I can get rich" dream and keep them around.

The Philipines, there are many thousands of contract workers already in Iraq working while Iraqis starve. The I can get rich dream won't work very well coming from a bankrupt American occupation army will it? Read the economic forcasts Lineman Uncle Sam is in the last days of it's glory.
 
talloola
No Party Affiliation
#23

Re: "I'd much rather lose a campaign to lose a war."

Jul 28th, 2008
Quote: Originally Posted by scratchView Post

I can empathize with that, so did my dad.

Then, you know. I raise my glass to 'my mother', and maybe yours too?
 
scratch
#24

Re: "I'd much rather lose a campaign to lose a war."

Jul 29th, 2008
Quote: Originally Posted by talloolaView Post

Then, you know. I raise my glass to 'my mother', and maybe yours too?

We shall raise our glasses to the others mother!
 
jimmoyer
Avatar
#25

Re: "I'd much rather lose a campaign to lose a war."

Jul 29th, 2008
The Sunni's decided to work for money Lineman. There was no advance in any process but the propaganda. Obama will say and do anything for his Zionist masters, they all will, he is a very good orator but this is the work of an actor. The Iraqi are to be obliterated and the country carved up for the bankers.
---------------------------------------------------Darkbeaver---------------------------------------------

Sheeeesh !! Let's replace one myth with a new myth.

Darkbeaver is correct --partly. The Sunnis did decide to work for money.
Witness all those thousands of policeman that died from all the bombings. Then see a new line of volunteers. Also the sunnis were tired of the foreign jihadists killing their own people. Money alone would not encourage the Sunni's to finger them. But with the surge there seemed to be more protection and so the money to finger the jihadists was worth the gamble.

More than anything the jihad died more because it was blasphemy to kill their own.
This lost much support. The jihad was going after sunni families, tribal leaders. When the surge kicked in, the reward money to finger the culprits became a reasonable gamble.

As far as Obama following his zionist masters, that's irony !!!
Darkbeaver loves saying zionist masters. It has a nice ring. Campy.

Coffee's on me.

um

spilled it again.
 
talloola
No Party Affiliation
#26

Re: "I'd much rather lose a campaign to lose a war."

Jul 29th, 2008
Quote: Originally Posted by scratchView Post

We shall raise our glasses to the others mother!

'done'
 

Similar Threads

2
Truth Behind "Stop the TV Tax" Campaign
by Tyler | Oct 27th, 2009
1
Mandy Antoinette: Tories lose their nerve in poster campaign attacking Lord Mandelson
by Blackleaf | Feb 8th, 2009
46
Join the "Anyone But Conservative" Campaign
by earth_as_one | Oct 6th, 2008
7
Are we about to lose our country?! "North American Unio
by AspiringStarvingArtist | Aug 16th, 2006
no new posts