or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › John McCain fit to lead?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

John McCain fit to lead? - Page 3

post #81 of 212
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northgate View Post

OH MY GOD! ALERT THE PRESSES! AN AMERICAN PRESIDENT MIGHT ACTUALLY MEET WITH A CANDIAN PRESIDENT!

That would be news if Canada actually had a President. We don't.

It made Obama look incredibly foolish up here.
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #82 of 212
It's frickin' hysterical watching these Republican hawks suddenly twisting themselves into knots arguing about why "invasion" and "redeployment" of troops across "sovereign borders" is such an EVIL EVIL THING!

Absolutely hysterical. I need to pop some popcorn. These field goals are moving so fast I can't stop watching the carnage!
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
post #83 of 212
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

That would be news if Canada actually had a President. We don't.

It made Obama look incredibly foolish up here.

To quote our esteemed Vice President, "So."
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
post #84 of 212
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northgate View Post

It's frickin' hysterical watching these Republican hawks suddenly twisting themselves into knots arguing about why "invasion" and "redeployment" of troops across "sovereign borders" is such an EVIL EVIL THING!

Absolutely hysterical. I need to pop some popcorn. These field goals are moving so fast I can't stop watching the carnage!

First thing: I'm not a Republican. Use another term like "those smarter than me."

Second, the hysterical thing here is that true-blue Democrats, who have railed for years against Bush's incursions outside international law, are now saying that Obama can and should do the exact same thing if he is elected President. Who's moving the goalposts here?

Conservatives have said such actions are a necessary evil.
Liberals are the ones saying how the US moves lack international legitimacy etc.

So if Obama is elected President, Will he renounce preemptive war? Will he view domestic terrorism as a police or military action? Will he close Guantanamo?

Or will he just follow a slightly less pushy version of the same policies the U.S. has now?
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #85 of 212
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

It's a far better idea than invading a whole country to target one man (like Iraq). I think Musharraf would understand. In fact I think Musharraf would secretly approve.

I'm not saying that's a bad thing Tonton. I agree with your assessment here.

But call it what it is. An U.S. invasion (however limited) of a sovereign country's border.
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #86 of 212
By Frank 777's definition, does anyone here think we HAVEN'T "invaded" Pakistan, probably a number of times, in the last 6+ years?
A good brain ain't diddly if you don't have the facts
Reply
A good brain ain't diddly if you don't have the facts
Reply
post #87 of 212
Frank777:

You're arguing with the dictionary.

Quote:
Yes, it does. Definition No. 1: the act of invading.

This is why I provided the dictionary definition of "invade".

Quote:
A liberal, on the other hand, will engage in a deceptive, roundabout discussion on why only Republicans do invasions and the nice peaceable Democrats will just send 50 troops across a border in a limited way. As though that makes any difference.

It makes a huge difference.

Quote:
While a surgical strike is different from an occupation, they are both invasions of a country's national sovereignty.

In what way would a strike inside Pakistan's borders threaten their sovereignty?

Quote:
Second, the hysterical thing here is that true-blue Democrats, who have railed for years against Bush's incursions outside international law, are now saying that Obama can and should do the exact same thing if he is elected President. Who's moving the goalposts here?

No one is saying that Obama should do the "exact same thing". Bush invaded Iraq, overthrew its leadership, and installed troops by the hundred-thousand to patrol its streets.

Obama advocates small targeted strikes against specific targets at specific times.
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #88 of 212
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

And just like any real red-blooded Republican never "retreats" from a war no matter what the prognosis, likewise, SDW never "retreats" from a losing argument... or election.

Richard Nixon

That wasn't even very long ago. American involvement in WWI, WWII, and Vietnam were initiated under democrat administrations, so your manifesto is an ignorant one. No, I have no plan to assess the merits of these other wars or to compare them in any way to the occupation of Iraq, but I am pointing out that you should read up on your history. Don't take it personal: most PO posters could use a dose of perspective. Involvement in wars has usually become a partisan issue, for both parties, regardless of the merit of the war.
Cat: the other white meat
Reply
Cat: the other white meat
Reply
post #89 of 212
Quote:
Originally Posted by groverat View Post

You're arguing with the dictionary.

No, I'm arguing with you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by groverat View Post

It makes a huge difference.

If you say so.

Quote:
Originally Posted by groverat View Post

In what way would a strike inside Pakistan's borders threaten their sovereignty?

Because Pakistan's government gets to say what goes on in Pakistan. It's a little thing called International Law.
Only Americans would think they have some divine right to send troops wherever they want on the planet, because in their eyes they're the good guys.

Quote:
Originally Posted by groverat View Post

No one is saying that Obama should do the "exact same thing". Bush invaded Iraq, overthrew its leadership, and installed troops by the hundred-thousand to patrol its streets.

Obama advocates small targeted strikes against specific targets at specific times.

Obama is proposing to do the very same thing with the very same reasoning as Bush.
He is simply proposing to do it on a much smaller scale.

There is a difference between stealing $20. out of a cash register and $50 million at a bank.
No one argues that either act isn't stealing.

One is rightfully viewed as more serious. But both actions are wrong.
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #90 of 212
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

Only THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION would think they have some divine right to send troops wherever they want on the planet, because in their eyes they're the good guys.

Fixed that.
post #91 of 212
Stop dreaming. Clinton lobbed missiles into countries when it suited his purposes.
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #92 of 212
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

Stop dreaming. Clinton lobbed missiles into countries when it suited his purposes.

Troops. T. .r o. o. p. s. But as far as Clinton (troops) I forget Somalia, Bosnia and Kosovo correct?

But as an invasion, to troop size and occupation of Afghanistan & Iraq, those are paltry compared to Clinton's "divine right to send troops wherever they want on the planet, because in their eyes they're the good guys".

Not a Clinton supporter anymore either, but look at the actions, motivations and failures of Bush's Middle East foreign policy, please.
post #93 of 212
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northgate View Post

It's frickin' hysterical watching these Republican hawks suddenly twisting themselves into knots arguing about why "invasion" and "redeployment" of troops across "sovereign borders" is such an EVIL EVIL THING!

Absolutely hysterical. I need to pop some popcorn. These field goals are moving so fast I can't stop watching the carnage!

It really is hysterical isn't it?

How dare that guy favor sending troops into Pakistan without their government's consent?

This is too much man.

Conspiracy alert: we know where Osama is, and he knows we know. We just don't take him out because it "could be bad".
post #94 of 212
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

Yes, it does. Definition No. 1: the act of invading.

What is being invaded here? A: A sovereign border.

This board has been the subject of much debate on why liberals can't get their message out to America while even reckless conservative ideas seem to dominate public discourse with impunity.

And this example shows precisely why.

Whether you approve or not, a hard-core U.S. conservative will look people to their face and say they would violate national sovereignty and invade a country if their country's interests are a stake.

A liberal, on the other hand, will engage in a deceptive, roundabout discussion on why only Republicans do invasions and the nice peaceable Democrats will just send 50 troops across a border in a limited way. As though that makes any difference.

Like Clinton under oath, it's important to go over the definition of basic words and redefine them for their own silly purposes.

While a surgical strike is different from an occupation, they are both invasions of a country's national sovereignty.

In that respect, it makes little difference if it's Bush sending drones into Pakistan or Clinton firing cruise missiles at random African factories.

Foreign policy of the Clinton Administration

The words "invade" or "invasion" or "invading" or "invaded" appear nowhere on that page. \

But lookie here under Invasion;

[CENTER]
Quote:
An invasion is a military action consisting of armed forces of one geopolitical entity entering territory controlled by another such entity, generally with the objective of either conquering territory, altering the established government, or a combination thereof. An invasion can be the cause of a war, it can be used as a part of a larger strategy to end a war, or it can constitute an entire war in itself.

The term usually denotes a strategic endeavor of substantial magnitude; because the goals of an invasion are usually large-scale and long-term, a sizeable force is needed to hold territory, and protect the interests of the invading entity. Smaller-scale, tactical cross-border actions, such as skirmishes, sorties, raids, infiltrations or guerrilla warfare, are not generally considered invasions. Because an invasion is, by definition, an attack from outside forces, rebellions, civil wars, coups d'état, and internal acts of democide or other acts of oppression, are not considered invasions.

[/CENTER]

List of invasions

[CENTER]
Quote:
2008 invasion of Ecuador by Colombian military
2008 invasion of northern Iraq by Turkey
2006 invasion of Somalia by Ethiopia
2006 invasion of Lebanon by Israel
2003 invasion of Iraq by the United States
2001 invasion of Afghanistan by United States

1999 invasion of Dagestan, Russia by Chechen fighters.
1999 invasion of India by the Pakistan Army, the paramilitary Northern Light Infantry, and other irregulars
1998 invasion of Ethiopia by Eritrea
1994 invasion of Haiti by a multinational force (MNF) led by the United States
1993 invasion of Spratly Islands by Vietnam
1991 invasion of Kuwait by a coalition force of 34 nations led by the United States
1990 invasion of Kuwait by Iraq
1989 invasion of Liberia launched from Côte d'Ivoire by the National Patriotic Front of Liberia
1989 invasion of Panama by the United States
1988 invasion of Spratly Islands by Vietnam
1983 invasion of Grenada by the United States and allied Caribbean nations
1982 invasion of Lebanon by Israel
1982 invasion of Falkland Islands by the United Kingdom
1982 invasion of Falkland Islands initially by Argentine civilians, followed by official Argentina forces
1980 invasion of Iran by Iraq
1979 invasion of Afghanistan by the Soviet Union
1979–1988 invasions of Thailand by Vietnam
1979 invasion of Northern Vietnam by China
1979 invasion of Uganda by Tanzania and Ugandan exiles
1978 invasion of Cambodia by Vietnam, with Soviet support
1978 invasion of Tanzania by Uganda
1978 invasion of Lebanon by Israel
1977 invasion of Cambodia by Vietnam
1977 invasion of Ethiopia by Somalia and Western Somali Liberation Front irregulars
1976 invasion of Paracel Islands by Vietnam
1975 invasion of East Timor by Indonesia
1975 invasion of Spanish Sahara by Morocco
1975 invasion of Poulo Wai Island by Vietnam
1975 invasion of South Vietnam by North Vietnam
1974 invasion of Cyprus by Turkey
1974 invasion of Paracel Islands by South Vietnam
1973 Invasion of Egypt by Israel
1972 invasion of South Vietnam by North Vietnam
1971 invasion of East Pakistan by India
1971 invasion of Laos by South Vietnam
1970 invasion of Cambodia by the United States and South Vietnam
1968 invasion of Czechoslovakia by the Warsaw Pact led by the Soviet Union
1968 invasion of South Vietnam by North Vietnam
1967 invasions of Biafra by Nigeria
1967 invasions of Nigeria by Biafra
1967 invasion of Egypt, Syria, and Jordan by Israel
1965 invasion of Pakistan by India
1965 invasion of India by Pakistan Army and irregulars
1965 invasion of Dominican Republic by United States and OAS
1964 invasion of the Turkish Cypriot Enclave Kokkina by Cyprus and Greece
1962 invasions of South Vietnam by the United States
1961 invasion of Netherlands New Guinea by Indonesia
1961 invasion of Goa by India
1961 invasion of Cuba by Cuban allies of the United States, particularly its CIA
1958 invasion of Laos by North Vietnam
1956 invasion of Hungary by the Soviet Union
1956 invasion of Egypt by France, United Kingdom and Israel
1951 invasion of North Korea by United Nations and South Korea
1951 invasion of South Korea by the Chinese People's Volunteer Army and North Korea
1950 invasion of North Korea by United Nations and South Korea
1950 invasion of South Korea by North Korea with Soviet support
1950-1951 invasion of Tibet by China
1948 invasion of Lebanon and Egypt by Israeli forces
1948 invasion of Israel by Lebanese, Syrian, Iraqi, Egyptian, Transjordanian and other forces
1947 invasion of Kashmir by Pakistan irregulars
1946 invasion of Northern Vietnam by France
1945 invasion of Southern Vietnam by France, with British and Indian support and captured Japanese fascist forces.
1945 invasion of Japanese-controlled Hong Kong by Britain
1945 invasion of Japan by the Allies
1945 invasion of Japanese-occupied Vietnam by the Allies, and disarmed the Japanese army
1945 invasion of Nagasaki, Japan by the United States (second invasion)
1945 invasion of Japanese-controlled Northeast China and Korea by the Soviet Union
1945 invasion of Hiroshima, Japan by the United States (first invasion)
1945 invasion of Japanese Burma by Allied forces
1945 invasion of Okinawa, Japan by the United States
1945 invasion of Poland, Austria and Eastern Germany by the Soviet Union
1945 invasion of Iwo Jima, Japan by Allied forces
1944 invasion of Western Germany by Allied forces
1944 invasion of Bulgaria, Yugoslavia by the Soviet Union
1944 invasion of Belgium, the southern Netherlands, Luxembourg, Greece, the Philippines, Albania by Allied forces
1944 invasion of Guam by the United States
1944 invasion of Southern France by the United States, Britain and Free France
1944 invasion of East Asia by Japan
1944 invasion of Normandy, France by the United States, Britain and Canada
1944 invasion of Hungary by Germany
1944 invasion of Marshall Islands by the United States
1943 invasion of Gilberts & Marshall Islands by Japan
1943 invasion of Italy by the United States, Britain and Canada
1943 invasion of Kolombangara in the Solomon Islands by Japan
1943 invasion of Italy (Sicily) by Britain, the United States and Canada
1942 invasion of Vichy French North Africa by the United States, Britain and Free French Forces
1942 invasion of Solomon Islands by the United States, Australia and New Zealand

1942 invasion of Alaska by Japan
1942 invasion of Midway Island by Japan
1942 invasion of Vichy France by Germany
1942 invasion of Madagascar by Vichy France and Japan
1942 invasion of Coral Sea by Japan
1942 invasion of Indonesia by Japan
1942 invasion of Tokyo, Japan by the United States
1942 invasion of Colombo and Trincomalee by Japan
1942 invasion of New Caledonia, Fiji and Australia by Japan
1942 invasion of New Guinea, Dutch New Guinea and Singapore by Japan
1942 invasion of Solomon Islands by Japan
1941 invasion of Netherlands East Indies, Guam and Borneo by Japan
1941 invasion of Wake Island, Hong Kong and Philippines by Japan
1941 invasion of Malaya and Thailand by Japan
1941 invasion of the United States by Japan initiating World War II in the Pacific (Pacific War)
1941 invasion of the Soviet Union by Germany and many other Axis forces (Romania, Finland, Italy, Hungary, Slovakia)
1941 invasion of Vichy Indochina by Thailand
1941 invasion of Iran by the Soviet Union
1941 invasion of Vichy French Syria and Lebanon by Australian and Free French forces
1941 invasion of Iraq and Syria by Germany and Italy
1941 invasion of Southern French Indochina by Japan
1941 invasion of Greenland and Iceland by the United States
1941 invasion of Yugoslavia by Germany, Italy, Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania
1941 invasion of North Africa by Germany
1941 invasion of Southern Vietnam by Japan
1941 invasion of Portuguese Timor by Australian and Dutch forces
1940 invasion of Albania by Greece
1940 invasion of Egypt, Greece by Italy, Germany and Bulgaria
1940 invasion of Sudan, Kenya, British Somaliland by Italy
1940 invasion of Vietnam by Japan, destroying the French colony
1940 invasion of Iceland by Britain
1940 invasion of Southern France by Italy
1940 invasion of Denmark, Norway, Belgium, France, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, the Channel Islands and Romania by Germany
1939 invasion of Finland by the Soviet Union
1939 invasion of French and Vietnamese-held Spratly Islands by Japan
1939 invasion of Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia by the Soviet Union
1939 invasion of French and Vietnamese-held Paracel Islands by Japan
1939 invasion of Poland by Germany, Slovakia and the Soviet Union initiating World War II in Europe
.
.
.

[/CENTER]

So from those POV's it appears that to invade or cause an invasion needs either massive "boots on their ground" or truly massive air strikes (WMD's or thousands of bombs) by one sovereign nation against another sovereign nation/territory.

D'oh!

By your definition, Mexicans crossing our border are "invading" the USA!
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #95 of 212
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

No. You're the one who challenged it. Find the proof that that's not what he meant.


He always does that!
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #96 of 212
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Yes and that evil CBS news, a known right-wing megaphone dismissed it as a gaffe. I mean you and I both saw the policy position paper, the website issue page, and demand for inclusion into the party platform of the view that Iran and Al Qaeda are working together.

Or... maybe....just maybe... it was a gaffe.



What did I miss then because all I have see is three different links to the same news conference where Lieberman corrected him for misspeaking.



How dare you suggest we eat meatloaf in Trumpetland. No ice cream sundaes for you. You also forgot to add the part whereby we reenact the draft with a special exclusion from conscription tax so that I don't go and you do.

Isn't imagining fun?



Well your view is....patheticer....and stuff. Oh and it is silly. Fellowship said anything is bad that is silly so your view is very, very bad.



I'm not serious. I'm completely unserious. In fact I am actually paid large sums of money by the powers that be to post stuff I never believe on here so that in replying to it, you are actively kept from changing the world. I'm pretty sure you would have personally created a completely renewable hydrocarbon that can be grown for cents on the dollar and solved the entire world's energy crisis but instead... bwahahahahaha... you are in here asking me if I am serious and so the evil overlords that fund me continue to rape and kill the planet. Bwahahahahahahaha!!!!



I'm glad we agree on this. Oh wait... you were being sarcastic. Eitherway way you can't have it both ways. The press is either "bringing up" stuff about lobbyists in addition to hashing up old and made up stuff or they aren't. They can't magically not bring it up.. but bring it up.



Actually none of those things bother me. It was the whole "and by the way I am doing these things to study poverty" bit that was galling. Also Gore had more to do with his extensive use of private jets when he could use the wonderful internet he invented to video conference instead.

Oh and isn't it totally fun to bring up stuff that isn't even on topic here? BWaRRR!!! John McCain fit to lead? BWaRR!! Edwards, and Gore equal da eval bad!!!



They probably are all paid for by the 527 groups like on the left so they don't know how to bring it up without condemning their own side as well.



Absolutely and we don't have meatloaf as well!



I wish, you wish, we all wish, but not likely.



Of course singing bomb Iran is silliness..

YouTube

How serious does it look and sound there? Hear all the serious press laughing?

Oh course Obama is VERY SERIOUS here.

Look at that evil right-winger Ellen. She clearly has him punching a speed bag to make people think he is violent and has him swaying his hips to make white people think of him as an oversexualized black man who is going to rape their white daughters. Then she pays him off with an $800 bribe at the end....

Or...perhaps it is just silliness.



We all know what you are saying. You never say anything else. I think your posts must be a keyboard macro.



See what I mean?

Jimmac. You don't have to act senile in hopes that in noticing the traits in you, we will see them in McCain.

The way the country is right now and the way people feel about the legacy Bush has left us the only thing you'll have to notice is McCain not winning in Nov.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #97 of 212
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilsch View Post

It really is hysterical isn't it?

How dare that guy favor sending troops into Pakistan without their government's consent?

This is too much man.

Again, this isn't so much about the policy being the wrong one. It's about Democrats going down the exact same road that Bush is going now, yet claiming to be different.

And in Obama's case, he's claiming to be a substantially different (and presumably better) politician than even his Democratic peers. So why is he echoing foreign policy from the Bush playbook?
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #98 of 212
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

Again, this isn't so much about the policy being the wrong one. It's about Democrats going down the exact same road that Bush is going now, yet claiming to be different.

And in Obama's case, he's claiming to be a substantially different (and presumably better) politician than even his Democratic peers. So why is he echoing foreign policy from the Bush playbook?

TOTAL BS

TOTAL freaking BS.

This is so freaking wrong it is not even funny.

Fellows
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
Reply
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
Reply
post #99 of 212
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Why just the other day I was speaking to my wife and I said,"You know dear, I really hope when I vote for a war monger to be president of the United States, I at least get a good steak and beer out of it before he kills of my offspring."

Well Nick at least it is a positive and refreshing change to see you being a bit more honest these days...

Fellows
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
Reply
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
Reply
post #100 of 212
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fellowship View Post

TOTAL BS

TOTAL freaking BS.

This is so freaking wrong it is not even funny.

Fellows

I hadn't realized that abbreviating foul language made it Christian.

Perhaps you could enlighten us with the reasoning behind your opinion.
Since y'know...it's a discussion board.
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #101 of 212
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

I hadn't realized that abbreviating foul language made it Christian.

Perhaps you could enlighten us with the reasoning behind your opinion.
Since y'know...it's a discussion board.

Here is a hint.. Obama is nothing like Bush when it comes to Foreign Policy and when you try to distort things to paint some kind of fairy tale that he is "just like Bush" That my friend is called deception.

So while I still love ya we got some big time differences with our intra-Christianary views.

BS by the way means (bygeorge sowrong)

What was going through your mind?

Love peace and kisses

Fellows
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
Reply
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
Reply
post #102 of 212
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fellowship View Post

Here is a hint.. Obama is nothing like Bush when it comes to Foreign Policy and when you try to distort things to paint some kind of fairy tale that he is "just like Bush" That my friend is called deception.

I did not say he was "just like Bush". I said his views on foreign policy (and one important foreign policy in particular) shows a similar outlook as Bush.

Seriously, how does one simply explain away what he said in that speech?
Sending uninvited troops across sovereign borders is cowboy diplomacy. Life isn't Star Trek.

While one expects such bluster from Republicans, it's the Democrats who keep claiming that once they take office the world will love America again. Yeah, right.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fellowship View Post

BS by the way means (bygeroge sowrong)

I have no idea what that means, but it's probably another example from the "let's change the definition 'cause we feel like it" book.
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #103 of 212
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

That would be news if Canada actually had a President. We don't.

It made Obama look incredibly foolish up here.

We prefer to call it senile. Obama... the senile old man who will meet with the president of Canada.

That would never be a gaffe though. Instead it is proof that he wants to invade, conquer Canada and annex it to the United States due to all the oil it has.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #104 of 212
We don't need a strong President, or a new cult of personality anyway... we need one that follows the Constitution.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #105 of 212
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

It's a far better idea than invading a whole country to target one man (like Iraq). I think Musharraf would understand. In fact I think Musharraf would secretly approve.

False dilemma. Nice try.

Quote:
Originally Posted by groverat View Post

SDW:

retreat
[i] 1 a (1): an act or process of withdrawing.....

I was going through the end of the thread and I saw the list of invasions someone posted. "God, I though...that's it. They've passed the point where I've stopped caring."

But I was wrong.

I stopped caring once you broke out the dictionary. Have a nice day.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #106 of 212
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

False dilemma. Nice try.



I was going through the end of the thread and I saw the list of invasions someone posted. "God, I though...that's it. They've passed the point where I've stopped caring."

But I was wrong.

I stopped caring once you broke out the dictionary. Have a nice day.

Targeting known positions of the people who attacked us on 9/11 is exactly like the wholesale invasion of a country that had nothing to do with it!

It's not?

Bored now! Bye!
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #107 of 212
SDW:

Is it that you no longer care or that you are no longer able to make a rational argument?

Would you call that last post of yours a retreat?
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #108 of 212
Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post

Troops. T. .r o. o. p. s. But as far as Clinton (troops) I forget Somalia, Bosnia and Kosovo correct?

But as an invasion, to troop size and occupation of Afghanistan & Iraq, those are paltry compared to Clinton's "divine right to send troops wherever they want on the planet, because in their eyes they're the good guys".

Not a Clinton supporter anymore either, but look at the actions, motivations and failures of Bush's Middle East foreign policy, please.

It's kind of like when they compare Iraq or WOT to WWII!

Because there was no real justification for this invasion of Iraq ( especially when you consider the money and the lives spent ) They'll say anything.

At the university where I work they just had an exibit of all the shoes of the troops just from Oregon ( called " Eyes Open " ) that have died there. It filled the second floor lobby of the University center! Each pair had a tag and picture of the person they used to belong to. It was really difficult to look at all those young men and women at such a young age just starting out their lives only to end this way. Also I talked a guy who worked for the food sevice there who was kind of bothered about it because he knew two of the people.

Very moving and very sad.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #109 of 212
Frank, I think we done gone invaded again...

U.S. Steps Up Unilateral Strikes in Pakistan

Obama must be behind this insanity.
post #110 of 212
Quote:
Originally Posted by Akumulator View Post

Frank, I think we done gone invaded again...

U.S. Steps Up Unilateral Strikes in Pakistan

Obama must be behind this insanity.

Geez... we keep invading Pakistan...
post #111 of 212
Gimme a P!
Gimme a W!
Gimme an N!
Gimme an E!
Gimme a D!
Gimme a transparent, hypocritical water-carrying knobcheese of an argument hit across its internet face by the copper-bottomed frying pan of THE NEWS!
post #112 of 212
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777.1 (gypsy Hassan predicts) View Post

Ah, but that's nothing like the same thing at all! That's not at all what Obama was suggesting! THIS is sending missiles on best intelligence to kill a target considered DANGEROUS. Obama was suggesting that we dress up a battalion of TWELVE YEAR OLD BOYS as Roman soldiers and send them in the to the battle zone, in a Pakistan-flavoured Islaminic sovereign nation, to meet their deaths at the hands of MUSLIMS (these people are known to eat children in their rites to Satan.)

Pre-emptive quote.
post #113 of 212
Israelis blocked the Sufa again - now with farmers! Look here:

http://samsonblinded.org/news/kibbut...ing-again-2247
post #114 of 212
Quote:
Originally Posted by tranquill View Post

Israelis blocked the Sufa again - now with farmers! Look here:

http://samsonblinded.org/news/kibbut...ing-again-2247

Wrong topic post? What does this have to do with McCancer?
post #115 of 212
Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post

Wrong topic post? What does this have to do with McCancer?

McCancer!!!!

That's just wrong!
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
post #116 of 212
Just don't call him a Muslim.
post #117 of 212
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northgate View Post

McCancer!!!!

That's just wrong!

That's not even close to funny. What are you going to joke about next, heart disease?
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #118 of 212
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

That's not even close to funny. What are you going to joke about next, heart disease?

Oldstercoccus McCainium?
post #119 of 212
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

That's not even close to funny. What are you going to joke about next, heart disease?

We could always talk about Purple Heart Band-Aids.
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
post #120 of 212
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northgate View Post

We could always talk about Purple Heart Band-Aids.

"McCain CHOSE to give himself cancer by being out in the sun too much. It was self-inflicted! Let's wear melanoma splotches at the convention!"

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › John McCain fit to lead?