livendive 8 #26 August 9, 2007 He seems intelligent and can put together a coherent sentence that sounds honest. That's a hell of an improvement over our current fucktard and better than the rest of the field. I don't like his stance on guns or gay marriage, but right now he's at the top of my list. Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #28 August 9, 2007 I think it will be a Clinton/Obama ticket. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SpeedRacer 1 #29 August 9, 2007 Quote (it's kinda nice to approach cases and problems with an OPORD background) Hey, weren't you the guy complaining about acronyms a while back? Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #30 August 9, 2007 Quote Ick You can say that again, and again, and again, and again, until you've said it once for every candidate who has announced. These "least of several evils" elections suck. Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #31 August 9, 2007 QuoteI think it will be a Clinton/Obama ticket. Nope... never happen... that would be just WAY too much diversity for too many of the Good ole white boy crowd out there to tolerate in any way shape or form. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
azdiver 0 #32 August 9, 2007 do you think every white male is a racist? i dont think there would be a hillary, obama ticket, by the time the tickets decided i think there will be to much bad blood between them. i think more likely that the vp running will be some one not running for pres.light travels faster than sound, that's why some people appear to be bright until you hear them speak Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #33 August 9, 2007 Quotedo you think every white male is a racist? Nope not at all.. but a significant number ARE.....just as many of those same racists are also sexist boogerflingers that would find it impossible to ever vote for a woman. WAY too many of them are far to intimidated by a woman with an education....it skeers em. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #34 August 9, 2007 I will be voting for Fred Thompson, I hope he gets the nomination, but I have faith the republican party can fuck that up. The GOP probably can't stand him for he is for all things they are against. Believing in the constitution and being an honorable man that sticks to his convictions is probably very reprehensible to the criminals that we call politicians. And that goes for both sides of the aisle. If elected he may wind up being one of teh finest Presidents our country has ever seen. I hope he gets to debate Hitlery or Obama. He will make them look like fools without launching into tirades or untruths. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andrewwhyte 1 #35 August 9, 2007 Quotedo you think every white male is a racist? i dont think there would be a hillary, obama ticket, by the time the tickets decided i think there will be to much bad blood between them. i think more likely that the vp running will be some one not running for pres. I agree. I think the VP slot would be a trap for Obama unless he was sure they were going to lose. If he doesn't get the nod he can go back to the Senate with either four or eight years to 'season' himself. He will be the starting line favorite for the next race. BTW what was the legislative legacy of JFK prior to 1960? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nightowl1135 0 #36 August 10, 2007 His recent comments about a military campaign in Pakistan to destroy the terrorist haven in the NW Tribal Frontier Region on the Afghan Border were very, very weird. For someone so insistent that the war in Iraq is such a disasterous quagmire, he's pretty cavalier about starting another, probabally bigger, war. Pakistan has a population 6 times that of Iraq and that is renowned for it's anti-american sentiment. They simply hate us. Their intelligence service (The ISI) practically founded the Taliban and, lets not forget, they have a sizable supply of nuclear weapons. Granted, US Troops going into the Tribal Regions doesn't neccesarily mean that Mushareff's government would collapse but many think that's exactly what would happen. If he's going to send troops there, he needs to be prepared to invade and occupy the rest of the country to prevent radical islamists getting power and nukes. And frankly, THAT occupation would make Iraq look like a sunday walk in the park. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheAnvil 0 #37 August 10, 2007 Take a look at the article Obama wrote for Foreign Affairs magazine. Then read the one Mitt Romney wrote. One is at the high school level at best, the other is at the graduate level (Romney's). You hit the nail on the head with his foreign policy experience. His staff and the people who would likely advise him as president wrote the article for him, undoubtedly, but I think it very telling. He is not ready to lead the nation in that regard. Vinny the Anvil Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL JACKASS POWER!!!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idrankwhat 0 #38 August 10, 2007 Quote I think it will be a Clinton/Obama ticket. How about a Gravel/Paul ticket? And I'm only half kidding. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #39 August 10, 2007 Quote Quote I think it will be a Clinton/Obama ticket. How about a Gravel/Paul ticket? And I'm only half kidding. I'm voting write-in for Knotts/Conway ticket ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,991 #40 August 10, 2007 > His recent comments about a military campaign in Pakistan to >destroy the terrorist haven in the NW Tribal Frontier Region on the Afghan >Border were very, very weird. I don't. I would much prefer killing Al Qaeda fighters in their sanctuary in Pakistan to killing Iraqis in Iraq. One of those groups attacked the continental US and killed 3000 american civilians in 2001, a fact that a lot of people have forgotten. The other one did not. It will be interesting to see if the spectre of losing an election will be sufficient to get right wingers to argue against attacking Al Qaeda. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idrankwhat 0 #41 August 10, 2007 Quote Quote Quote I think it will be a Clinton/Obama ticket. How about a Gravel/Paul ticket? And I'm only half kidding. I'm voting write-in for Knotts/Conway ticket Don and Tim? I could go for that. We deserve it Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #42 August 10, 2007 QuoteDon and Tim? I could go for that. We deserve it As long as no one gives Knotts the bullet. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #43 August 10, 2007 Quote Quote Quote Quote I think it will be a Clinton/Obama ticket. How about a Gravel/Paul ticket? And I'm only half kidding. I'm voting write-in for Knotts/Conway ticket Don and Tim? I could go for that. We deserve it This is taking on a Point Break feel. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #44 August 10, 2007 Quote > His recent comments about a military campaign in Pakistan to >destroy the terrorist haven in the NW Tribal Frontier Region on the Afghan >Border were very, very weird. I don't. I would much prefer killing Al Qaeda fighters in their sanctuary in Pakistan to killing Iraqis in Iraq. One of those groups attacked the continental US and killed 3000 american civilians in 2001, a fact that a lot of people have forgotten. The other one did not. It will be interesting to see if the spectre of losing an election will be sufficient to get right wingers to argue against attacking Al Qaeda. What he said. If we're going to have boots on the ground in a sovereign nation, pressing our attack on the terrorists who harmed us, shouldn't they be where those terrorists actually are? We had it right when we went into Afghanistan. When the fucktards fled to Pakistan, our President basically gave up the chase, looked around, and said, "Hey, since we're over here, how about we head into Iraq? I can one-up daddy and garner more of Iran's border at the same time. Yay!" He even went so far as to say he was no longer concerned about Osama Bin Laden. I, for one, would prefer we stay on task. Those fucks killed a bunch of our people, cost us a shitload of money, and gave our government a convenient excuse to trample on our Constitution. Our fighting deaths and the ill will we are generating around the world are unfortunate, but if they have to happen, shouldn't they at least be the results of our destroying those who actually attacked us? Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #45 August 10, 2007 Quote > His recent comments about a military campaign in Pakistan to >destroy the terrorist haven in the NW Tribal Frontier Region on the Afghan >Border were very, very weird. I don't. I would much prefer killing Al Qaeda fighters in their sanctuary in Pakistan to killing Iraqis in Iraq. One of those groups attacked the continental US and killed 3000 american civilians in 2001, a fact that a lot of people have forgotten. The other one did not. It will be interesting to see if the spectre of losing an election will be sufficient to get right wingers to argue against attacking Al Qaeda. Damn you mean you could have circumvented our actions in Iraq for the last three years by simply telling us there are no AQ members in Iraq? Wow, you have one hell of an Intel OP going on. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,991 #46 August 10, 2007 >Damn you mean you could have circumvented our actions in Iraq for the >last three years by simply telling us there are no AQ members in Iraq? Nope. You'd have also needed a leader who would listen to such things - and our current one is immune to intelligence like that. Indeed, he went out of his way to imply that there WAS a connection there. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #47 August 10, 2007 Quotehe went out of his way to imply that there WAS a connection there. Ooo look. A talking point. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #48 August 10, 2007 Then please explain how come we are fighting killing, or detaining AQ operatives in Iraq? I gotta hear this one... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,991 #49 August 10, 2007 > Then please explain how come we are fighting killing, or > detaining AQ operatives in Iraq? Because there is an organization there now called Al Qaeda in Iraq. They began operations in 2004. Can you think of an event that occurred in Iraq in 2003 that removed the previous barriers to their being there? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,991 #50 August 10, 2007 Interesting factoid on Obama: A recent poll of republicans in Iowa revealed these levels of support for potential candidates: No choice 34% Romney 22% Giuliani 10% Obama 7% Thompson 5% McCain 2% That's a _republican_ poll. Obama is polling ahead of McCain, the former presumed frontrunner, with republicans. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
