once again the jokes write themselves...

Originally posted by walkonby:
in twenty or so years from now, lets just say for the sake of arguement, and not that i really believe this to be true. let's just say that it is revealed that bush did steal the election(s), rework the truth about iraq, plot/plan/commit nine eleven to open a moment within this country to rally behind a war, and then just let the profit machine do what it does best as we the american people did nothing to investigate it or even attempt to stop it, and that we even voted back into office another bush croney because the vice president is a cool hockey mom who exploits her children for popularity points, just to keep up the fine work of a government that controls you . . . will you care or feel the least bit bad about it?

ok..lets say, just for the sake of argument, that obama really hung around weather underground members and was a member of an anti american racist church and then we elected him to office and he enslaved white people and made crack legal? would you feel the least bit bad?

hypotheticals, well half hypotheticals in my case, are fun.

Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
No, McCain criticized Obama for saying he would negotiate with countries that harbor terrorists and terrorist leaders, which is a different issue.

Correct me if I'm wrong, Charlie, but you just posted a link that said Obama supports going into Pakistan to chase terrorists out, even without Zadari's permission. Charlie.

Originally posted by manimtired:

Originally posted by walkonby:
in twenty or so years from now, lets just say for the sake of arguement, and not that i really believe this to be true. let's just say that it is revealed that bush did steal the election(s), rework the truth about iraq, plot/plan/commit nine eleven to open a moment within this country to rally behind a war, and then just let the profit machine do what it does best as we the american people did nothing to investigate it or even attempt to stop it, and that we even voted back into office another bush croney because the vice president is a cool hockey mom who exploits her children for popularity points, just to keep up the fine work of a government that controls you . . . will you care or feel the least bit bad about it?

ok..lets say, just for the sake of argument, that obama really hung around weather underground members and was a member of an anti american racist church and then we elected him to office and he enslaved white people and made crack legal? would you feel the least bit bad?

hypotheticals, well half hypotheticals in my case, are fun.

are you attempting to say that black people (hypothetically) want to enslave white people and make crack legal? interesting idea there, david duke.

Originally posted by vansmack:

Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
No, McCain criticized Obama for saying he would negotiate with countries that harbor terrorists and terrorist leaders, which is a different issue.

Correct me if I'm wrong, Charlie, but you just posted a link that said Obama supports going into Pakistan to chase terrorists out, even without Zadari's permission. Charlie.

yeah. . .and. . . . . . . .which one is obama gonna do? attack terrorists or negotiate first, presuming we believe that zadari is a terrorist leader or has ties to terrorists. which inconsistency do you support?

Originally posted by walkonby:

Originally posted by manimtired:

Originally posted by walkonby:
in twenty or so years from now, lets just say for the sake of arguement, and not that i really believe this to be true. let's just say that it is revealed that bush did steal the election(s), rework the truth about iraq, plot/plan/commit nine eleven to open a moment within this country to rally behind a war, and then just let the profit machine do what it does best as we the american people did nothing to investigate it or even attempt to stop it, and that we even voted back into office another bush croney because the vice president is a cool hockey mom who exploits her children for popularity points, just to keep up the fine work of a government that controls you . . . will you care or feel the least bit bad about it?

ok..lets say, just for the sake of argument, that obama really hung around weather underground members and was a member of an anti american racist church and then we elected him to office and he enslaved white people and made crack legal? would you feel the least bit bad?

hypotheticals, well half hypotheticals in my case, are fun.

are you attempting to say that black people (hypothetically) want to enslave white people and make crack legal? interesting idea there, david duke.

no i was pointing out how completely idiotic your post was.

Charlie … isn't that what people called the VC back in the day? Not McCain!

sorry, i know that's off-topic, don't want to distract from the wonderful discourse in here.

charlie.

Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
yeah. . .and. . . . . . . .which one is obama gonna do? attack terrorists or negotiate first, presuming we believe that zadari is a terrorist leader or has ties to terrorists. which inconsistency do you support?

Zadari is no terrorist, he's the President of Pakistan, Charlie.

I was saying that no country in the world houses more terrorists or poses a greater terrorist threat to this country than Pakistan, and Obama has already said what he would do in Pakistan if he were President.

Originally posted by Venerable Bede:

Originally posted by god's shoeshine:
so you like obama's position?

this isn't about whether i like it or not, i am finding it amusing that the issue being discussed is not all that substantially different than what obama has said. i think obama and mccain's position on foreign terrorism and pre-emptive attacks are relatively similiar.

clinton already criticized obama's position as being a "bush doctrine lite". . so, take that however you want.

i think people are zonging her for sounding like she's trying to cram a talking point into an answer and not really sounding like she understands what position she's taking, regardless of whether its right or wrong

Originally posted by god's shoeshine:
i think people are zonging her for sounding like she's trying to cram a talking point into an answer and not really sounding like she understands what position she's taking, regardless of whether its right or wrong

You forgot to say Charlie…

how sexist of me

Originally posted by god's shoeshine:
i think people are zonging her for sounding like she's trying to cram a talking point into an answer and not really sounding like she understands what position she's taking, regardless of whether its right or wrong

ok, that's a fair point. . .and i don't necessarily disagree with that. but taking her on over a position that is very similiar to obama's is just kind of strange.

Originally posted by manimtired:

Originally posted by walkonby:

Originally posted by manimtired:

Originally posted by walkonby:
in twenty or so years from now, lets just say for the sake of arguement, and not that i really believe this to be true. let's just say that it is revealed that bush did steal the election(s), rework the truth about iraq, plot/plan/commit nine eleven to open a moment within this country to rally behind a war, and then just let the profit machine do what it does best as we the american people did nothing to investigate it or even attempt to stop it, and that we even voted back into office another bush croney because the vice president is a cool hockey mom who exploits her children for popularity points, just to keep up the fine work of a government that controls you . . . will you care or feel the least bit bad about it?

ok..lets say, just for the sake of argument, that obama really hung around weather underground members and was a member of an anti american racist church and then we elected him to office and he enslaved white people and made crack legal? would you feel the least bit bad?

hypotheticals, well half hypotheticals in my case, are fun.

are you attempting to say that black people (hypothetically) want to enslave white people and make crack legal? interesting idea there, david duke.

no i was pointing out how completely idiotic your post was.

then why didn't you just say that. what i posted could be a possibility. what you said seemed to be an embedded fantasy of hope.

Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
ok, that's a fair point. . .and i don't necessarily disagree with that. but taking her on over a position that is very similiar to obama's is just kind of strange.

Republican's didn't point out where policy differences were between Biden and Obama? We would have done this sooner if we knew anything about her stances….

Originally posted by vansmack:

Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
yeah. . .and. . . . . . . .which one is obama gonna do? attack terrorists or negotiate first, presuming we believe that zadari is a terrorist leader or has ties to terrorists. which inconsistency do you support?

Zadari is no terrorist, he's the President of Pakistan, Charlie.

I was saying that no country in the world houses more terrorists or poses a greater terrorist threat to this country than Pakistan, and Obama has already said what he would do in Pakistan if he were President.

yeah, which i've linked to above. . .and that would be to attack terrorists. so, what's your point?

now, is there a political risk associated with that. . of course, and both mccain and obama would need to take that into account.

walkonby…you got me. well played. i owe you a beer.

There's already a McCain ad online blasting the Obama campaign for the sexist, inherently paternalistic accusations that Sarah Palin simply recited talking points. Charlie. (I'll add taht she recites them with the passion of a sportscaster that doesn't understand the sport their talking about. Charlie). Charlie. CNN.com is reporting that the quote actually came from g's shoeshine on the 930 forum. Charlie. McCain denied this and accused the democrats of being "nervous". Charlie.

You've completely lost me. Explain what you meant by this:

Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
presuming we believe that zadari is a terrorist leader or has ties to terrorists.

It's not about Zadari or any perceived ties to terrorists. It's about Pakistan not being able or willing to do anything about the Western Provinces, a stance we can no longer tolerate and which is why the US attacked inside of Pakistan again last night. Nobody thinks that Zadari is encouraging their behavior, just that's he's not capable of adequately dealing with it, and if he were to agree to US troops in Pakistan, his already weak government would crumble. There is no inconsistency in this stance between Bush, McCain, Biden, or Obama. Of course Palin didn't say yes last night, but her answer was pretty much a yes.

So again, what's your point?

Sorry, forgot to add my Charlie.

good call on not using the word god charlie

Originally posted by manimtired:
no i was pointing out how completely idiotic your post was.

I'm a hardcore fiscal and governmental (not social) conservative, so I appreciate you fighting the good fight, but still thought your post sounded more idiotic. If you're gonna jump into debates about politics with liberals, don't just keep using rude antagonistic messageboard-speak. Saying things like "stop posting", is puerile and not constructive.

Most regulars on this board are half-obsessed music dorks that love to analyze and critique anything in an intellectual way. To use to a common idiom from this board, this isn't the WHFstival messageboard! By which I mean, stop just "pointing out how completely idiotic" someone's post may have been by mocking them, point out the idiocy you perceive by actually refuting their statements with facts you can back up. What you're doing now is proving to the many liberal leaning types on this board that conservatives are morons that just shout their own rhetoric because they don't have any real answers to hard questions.

GTFO.