If elected, which John McCain will become president?

[Genx87]

If peace existed in Iraq tomorrow we would be in Iraq for years if not decades to come. Our sphere of influence is nearly everywhere.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Genx87
If peace existed in Iraq tomorrow we would be in Iraq for years if not decades to come. Our sphere of influence is nearly everywhere.

We could talk IF's forever.

If all McCain was talking about was a military base in Basra, he might have my support.

But he's not, and it's intentionally misleading on his part to pretend that he is when his actual agenda from his own website is Surge Part II.

It makes me wonder... will we still be talking about military bases while our bombs are falling on Tehran?

 

[dphantom]

Originally posted by: Vic
I'm sure that has something to do with the fact that situation in Iraq is not similar to that in Japan, Germany, or SK.

So, it's not that McCain's comments were incorrectly attributed, but that he was being intentionally misleading in his use of analogy.

I disagree he was intentionally misleading. He was very clear in what he meant and that was not 100 years of war but 100 years of presence in a volatile and strategically important part of the world.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Genx87
If peace existed in Iraq tomorrow we would be in Iraq for years if not decades to come. Our sphere of influence is nearly everywhere.

We could talk IF's forever.

If all McCain was talking about was a military base in Basra, he might have my support.

But he's not, and it's intentionally misleading on his part to pretend that he is when his actual agenda from his own website is Surge Part II.

It makes me wonder... will we still be talking about military bases while our bombs are falling on Tehran?

You honestly believe McCain wants and thinks we will be fighting for 100 years? A 100 year war? Give me a break.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Genx87
If peace existed in Iraq tomorrow we would be in Iraq for years if not decades to come. Our sphere of influence is nearly everywhere.

We could talk IF's forever.

If all McCain was talking about was a military base in Basra, he might have my support.

But he's not, and it's intentionally misleading on his part to pretend that he is when his actual agenda from his own website is Surge Part II.

It makes me wonder... will we still be talking about military bases while our bombs are falling on Tehran?

You honestly believe McCain wants and thinks we will be fighting for 100 years? A 100 year war? Give me a break.

Sigh... no, I don't.

What I really believe is that he wants to escalate the already unpopular conflict in the ME while at the same time fooling the American people into believing that it would be no different than our bases in Japan, Germany, and SK.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Vic

Whoa, looks it must have been "hacked" by liberals...

:laugh: :thumbsup:

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Genx87
If peace existed in Iraq tomorrow we would be in Iraq for years if not decades to come. Our sphere of influence is nearly everywhere.

We could talk IF's forever.

If all McCain was talking about was a military base in Basra, he might have my support.

But he's not, and it's intentionally misleading on his part to pretend that he is when his actual agenda from his own website is Surge Part II.

It makes me wonder... will we still be talking about military bases while our bombs are falling on Tehran?

You honestly believe McCain wants and thinks we will be fighting for 100 years? A 100 year war? Give me a break.

Sigh... no, I don't.

What I really believe is that he wants to escalate the already unpopular conflict in the ME while at the same time fooling the American people into believing that it would be no different than our bases in Japan, Germany, and SK.

I think he wants to surge in Iraq. Going after Iran I highly doubt. I just dont see how he would get that by a Democratic congress or the American people.

 

[bamacre]

And let's not forget his comments during the debates. "If we leave, Al Qaida will take over the country." :roll:

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Genx87
Going after Iran I highly doubt. I just dont see how he would get that by a Democratic congress or the American people.

Getting a war in Iraq was easy as pie for Bush. The Dem's were pissing in their pants at the idea.

And getting it past these people, well, McCain won't have any problems here...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjMRgT5o-Ig

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Genx87
If peace existed in Iraq tomorrow we would be in Iraq for years if not decades to come. Our sphere of influence is nearly everywhere.

We could talk IF's forever.

If all McCain was talking about was a military base in Basra, he might have my support.

But he's not, and it's intentionally misleading on his part to pretend that he is when his actual agenda from his own website is Surge Part II.

It makes me wonder... will we still be talking about military bases while our bombs are falling on Tehran?

You honestly believe McCain wants and thinks we will be fighting for 100 years? A 100 year war? Give me a break.

Sigh... no, I don't.

What I really believe is that he wants to escalate the already unpopular conflict in the ME while at the same time fooling the American people into believing that it would be no different than our bases in Japan, Germany, and SK.

I think he wants to surge in Iraq. Going after Iran I highly doubt. I just dont see how he would get that by a Democratic congress or the American people.

The point is that he would if he could.

 

[StageLeft]

He's old, maybe senile, give him a break already, damn.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Genx87
Going after Iran I highly doubt. I just dont see how he would get that by a Democratic congress or the American people.

Getting a war in Iraq was easy as pie for Bush. The Dem's were pissing in their pants at the idea.

And getting it past these people, well, McCain won't have any problems here...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjMRgT5o-Ig

This was hot off the heels of 9-11. After 6+ years of occupation that is clearly unpopular. The Dems would have to commit politcal suicide to grant any wish McCain "may" have at striking Iran.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Genx87
If peace existed in Iraq tomorrow we would be in Iraq for years if not decades to come. Our sphere of influence is nearly everywhere.

We could talk IF's forever.

If all McCain was talking about was a military base in Basra, he might have my support.

But he's not, and it's intentionally misleading on his part to pretend that he is when his actual agenda from his own website is Surge Part II.

It makes me wonder... will we still be talking about military bases while our bombs are falling on Tehran?

You honestly believe McCain wants and thinks we will be fighting for 100 years? A 100 year war? Give me a break.

Sigh... no, I don't.

What I really believe is that he wants to escalate the already unpopular conflict in the ME while at the same time fooling the American people into believing that it would be no different than our bases in Japan, Germany, and SK.

I think he wants to surge in Iraq. Going after Iran I highly doubt. I just dont see how he would get that by a Democratic congress or the American people.

The point is that he would if he could.

I am saying if he truely wants to attack Iran(I dont really believe he does unless provoked) he cant.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: bamacre
I hope we never find out.

QFT!

Originally posted by: Mxylplyx
Hmm, sounds like he might be a politician.

So you're saying that "Straight Talk Express" is bent, broken and shattered.

Are you suggesting the candidate you support is above that?

If the question is about Obama, yes. If it's about Hillary, the answer is no.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Genx87
If peace existed in Iraq tomorrow we would be in Iraq for years if not decades to come. Our sphere of influence is nearly everywhere.

We could talk IF's forever.

If all McCain was talking about was a military base in Basra, he might have my support.

But he's not, and it's intentionally misleading on his part to pretend that he is when his actual agenda from his own website is Surge Part II.

It makes me wonder... will we still be talking about military bases while our bombs are falling on Tehran?

You honestly believe McCain wants and thinks we will be fighting for 100 years? A 100 year war? Give me a break.

Sigh... no, I don't.

What I really believe is that he wants to escalate the already unpopular conflict in the ME while at the same time fooling the American people into believing that it would be no different than our bases in Japan, Germany, and SK.

I think he wants to surge in Iraq. Going after Iran I highly doubt. I just dont see how he would get that by a Democratic congress or the American people.

The point is that he would if he could.

I am saying if he truely wants to attack Iran(I dont really believe he does unless provoked) he cant.

With Lieberman's hand up his ass, I don't think he'll need too hard an evidence to attack Iran.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Harvey

If the question is about Obama, yes. If it's about Hillary, the answer is no.

obama is above flip-flopping? doubt it.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Harvey

If the question is about Obama, yes. If it's about Hillary, the answer is no.

obama is above flip-flopping? doubt it.

I'm not sure but McCain is far worse than Kerry and its been so blatant and shameful that people that supported him in 2000 must be appalled at what he's doing. He's simply unpredictable at this point and with Lieberman acting as his minder, only bad things can come from his administration.

 

[Nebor]

Doesn't matter. He's better than any of the alternatives. It's hold my nose and vote time.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Nebor
Doesn't matter. He's better than any of the alternatives. It's hold my nose and vote time.

I suggest you sniff at the 3 shit-piles again. McCain's only foreign policy is to drop bombs and his domestic agenda is non-existent.

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: Dari
which John McCain will become president?

to get back to the OP, I hope it's the cute one.

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Nebor
Doesn't matter. He's better than any of the alternatives. It's hold my nose and vote time.

I suggest you sniff at the 3 shit-piles again. McCain's only foreign policy is to drop bombs and his domestic agenda is non-existent.

He's a maverick. Don't you get that? A maverick.

 

[ProfJohn]

If elected which Obama will become President?

The one who claims that he can unite the country?
Or
The one who has the most liberal voting record in the Senate and has NO track record of ever working with Republicans on any issue.

 

[ProfJohn]

I think McCain could be a far more successful President than you liberals think.

He has a record of working with Democrats to accomplish stuff. The people in congress will remember this and will work with McCain to get bills passed.

Obama on the other hand has no track record of working with Republicans which means the Republicans in congress are going to be far less likely to want to listen to Obama or work with him. This could result in grid lock in which nothing meaningful gets done.

There is historical precedence to what I say.
During Clinton's first two years the Republicans refused to work with and the results were a disaster for the Democrats in the 1994 election. Afterwards Clinton worked with the new Republican leadership and a lot was accomplished.

Post 9-11 Republicans and Democrats worked together to pass a lot of bills, but post 2004 election things with the war got bitter and nothing meaningful has come out of Bush's second term.

 

[ericlp]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: Vic
The McSame who wants 100 years of war is the one who would become President.

Look who's trolling... again. Is that all you know?

Ain't it enough to NOT vote for him? IS for me.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Nebor
Doesn't matter. He's better than any of the alternatives. It's hold my nose and vote time.

I suggest you sniff at the 3 shit-piles again. McCain's only foreign policy is to drop bombs and his domestic agenda is non-existent.

He's a maverick. Don't you get that? A maverick.

Like James Garner or Mel Gibson?