|
 Annapurna1
liberal pussy
Registered: 05/21/02
Posts: 3,465
Loc: republic of gilead
|
 Re: NYTIMES ..king george accuses obama of appeasing hitler... [Re: Phred]
#8411564 - 05/17/08 12:22 AM (3 months, 18 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Phred said:
The thread title is yet another Annapurna1 masterpiece of inaccuracy.
Not only did Bush not accuse Obama of appeasing Hitler, he didn't accuse Obama of appeasing anyone. Nor did he accuse Jimmy Carter of appeasing anyone. Nor any Democrat. Nor any American, for that matter.
whether thats so depends on how you choose to parse bushs' doublespeak ..
Quote:
Mr. Bush did not mention Mr. Obama by name, and White House officials said he was not taking aim at the senator, though they were aware the speech might be interpreted that way.
and im parsing that as an admission that they were making precisely that accusation while taking care not to mention any names...
Quote:
Yet the Democrats in general and Obama in particular trip all over each other in the race to see who can first portray himself as an appeaser in order to shower himself in victimhood (he talked mean about me!) and call Bush a meanie one more time.
and what specific act(s) of appeasement did obama say that he that would commit??...ie..which country did he say he would fork over to whom...
--------------------
"anchor blocks counteract the process of pontiprobation..while omalean globes regulize the pressure"...
Edited by Annapurna1 (05/17/08 12:28 AM)
|
afoaf
CEO DBK?
Registered: 11/08/02
Posts: 31,881
Loc: Ripple's Heart
|
Re: NYTIMES ..king george accuses obama of appeasing hitler... [Re: shrems]
#8414584 - 05/17/08 09:19 PM (3 months, 17 days ago) |
|
|
so you can't read either? congratulations.
once again, it goes in one side and comes out the other completely
fucking garbled and discombobulated.
--------------------
I eat steak medium at most, I use bare hands to eat it and its usually after an hour long fuck fest with several women, and with a full keg of the coldest beer.
|
Annapurna1
liberal pussy
Registered: 05/21/02
Posts: 3,465
Loc: republic of gilead
|
Re: NYTIMES ..king george accuses obama of appeasing hitler... [Re: afoaf]
#8414863 - 05/17/08 10:49 PM (3 months, 17 days ago) |
|
|
^looks like phred has a puppetoid...
|
 zappaisgod
horrid asshole
Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 10,959
Last seen: 46 minutes, 43 seconds
|
Re: NYTIMES ..king george accuses obama of appeasing hitler... [Re: Annapurna1]
#8415683 - 05/18/08 07:54 AM (3 months, 17 days ago) |
|
|
And you continue to ignore the fact that Bush did not call Barry an appeaser, nor any other specific person for that matter. Barry just jumped and whined that he was being called a mean name. Somebody came up with an old saying that when you throw a stone into a pack of dogs the one that yelps is the one that got hit. Why on earth would Barry assume he was being talked about? Perhaps because he thinks it's true? Or is it just that he prefers a cloak of victimhood to wrap himself in? Not all that smart either way.
--------------------
"For anyone who cares I know zappaisgod personally. He is gay. He is jewish. He is a douche. And he both, has a crush on me:" Some Incredible Retard
|
afoaf
CEO DBK?
Registered: 11/08/02
Posts: 31,881
Loc: Ripple's Heart
|
Re: NYTIMES ..king george accuses obama of appeasing hitler... [Re: Annapurna1]
#8415769 - 05/18/08 08:50 AM (3 months, 17 days ago) |
|
|
please show me the quote from the speech or article where
"king george accuses obama of appeasing hitler" otherwise
slink off with your tail between your legs and let your
ridiculous thread die like you do all the other foolish
ones.
--------------------
I eat steak medium at most, I use bare hands to eat it and its usually after an hour long fuck fest with several women, and with a full keg of the coldest beer.
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole
Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 10,959
Last seen: 46 minutes, 43 seconds
|
Re: NYTIMES ..king george accuses obama of appeasing hitler... [Re: afoaf]
#8415775 - 05/18/08 08:54 AM (3 months, 17 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
afoaf said:
please show me the quote from the speech or article where
"king george accuses obama of appeasing hitler" otherwise
slink off with your tail between your legs and let your
ridiculous thread die like you do all the other foolish
ones.
 Right on, right on, right on
--------------------
"For anyone who cares I know zappaisgod personally. He is gay. He is jewish. He is a douche. And he both, has a crush on me:" Some Incredible Retard
|
Annapurna1
liberal pussy
Registered: 05/21/02
Posts: 3,465
Loc: republic of gilead
|
Re: NYTIMES ..king george accuses obama of appeasing hitler... [Re: afoaf]
#8416128 - 05/18/08 12:17 PM (3 months, 17 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
afool said:
please show me the quote from the speech or article where
"king george accuses obama of appeasing hitler" otherwise
slink off with your tail between your legs and let your
ridiculous thread die like you do all the other foolish
ones.
no..the NYTIMES doesnt call him "king george"...why am i not surprised by your disingenousness??...
--------------------
"anchor blocks counteract the process of pontiprobation..while omalean globes regulize the pressure"...
|
johnm214
Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 5,996
Loc: Americas
|
Re: NYTIMES ..king george accuses obama of appeasing hitler... [Re: Annapurna1]
#8416233 - 05/18/08 12:47 PM (3 months, 17 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Annapurna1 said:
Quote:
afool said:
please show me the quote from the speech or article where
"king george accuses obama of appeasing hitler" otherwise
slink off with your tail between your legs and let your
ridiculous thread die like you do all the other foolish
ones.
no..the NYTIMES doesn't call him "king george"...why am i not surprised by your disingenousness??...
Why am I not surprised by yours?
There was one contention in his post, that bush didn't compare obama to hitler appeasers. You ignore that and focus on the fact that your petty name calling wasn't mentioned in the article.
And the NYTimes isn't the issue, what bush said was.
Find where bush compared obama to hittler apeasers.
In fact, he compared no one to hitler appeasers, he merely compared the "let's negotiate argument" to ones made in the past, and that bush contends were meritless.
Why do you continually make unsupported claims, refuse to back them up, equivocate, and call people names?
I myself immediately distrust any conclusory statements you make, or any representations of facts not born out by your posts. You have little credibility. Why don't you try sticking to the facts and clearly delineate your opinions from them? Then maybe people will consider your arguments.
|
StrandedVoyager
The People's Champ
Registered: 12/09/04
Posts: 2,571
Loc: (202)-456-1414 Call Me
Last seen: 1 day, 18 hours
|
Re: NYTIMES ..king george accuses obama of appeasing hitler... [Re: johnm214]
#8416334 - 05/18/08 01:18 PM (3 months, 17 days ago) |
|
|
If anyone should know about Nazis, it's George Bush... you know the guy who's family made a fortune off of selling munitions to the Nazis...
--------------------
Hi 
My god... it's full of stars...
.svg/70px-Flag_of_the_United_States_(upside_down).svg.png)
|
Yossarian22
Stranger
Registered: 09/12/07
Posts: 378
Last seen: 11 days, 4 hours
|
Re: NYTIMES ..king george accuses obama of appeasing hitler... [Re: StrandedVoyager]
#8416800 - 05/18/08 03:15 PM (3 months, 17 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Of course not. But a whole fuck of a lot better than any appeaser bitches. Bush is fucking spot on when he references the "magic dialogue" that some people think will make other people stop being assholes. It is a fantasy.
Are you really so ignorant to think that diplomacy consists of browbeating your enemies until they agree that you're the good guy and they're the bad guy? Really? It's attitudes like this that lead to our precipitous fall as a world power and got us stuck in a bloody and pointless quagmire.
Quote:
And you continue to ignore the fact that Bush did not call Barry an appeaser, nor any other specific person for that matter. Barry just jumped and whined that he was being called a mean name. Somebody came up with an old saying that when you throw a stone into a pack of dogs the one that yelps is the one that got hit. Why on earth would Barry assume he was being talked about? Perhaps because he thinks it's true? Or is it just that he prefers a cloak of victimhood to wrap himself in? Not all that smart either way.
I know you don't have the nimblest of minds, but this is beyond the pale. Do you really think that Bush wasn't purposefully trying to compare the two? Really? I mean, this wasn't even subtle.
Let's review: the highest elected office in the US is the President. This is an election year in which the office of the President is up for grabs. George W. Bush is a member of the Republican party, a party who has consistently used fearmongering and innuendo about "soft on defense"(because apparently the Republicans are too stupid or disingenuous to realize there's a difference between "soft" and "smart") as an election issue. John McCain is this year's Republican nominee for the President and has recently began using this very line of attack: remember when he said that Obama was endorsed by Hamas as if it was meaningful (because politicians can really help who offers them unsolicited approval; I'm sure the KKK's supporting McCain, but you don't see Democrats calling McCain the KKK candidate) and that Obama is "naive" and "inexperienced" for wanting to talk to countries with whom the US is having conflict(Iran, North Korea, Myanmar)?
So now, in a prepared speech, Bush makes a barely-veiled reference to "appeasers" which is coincidentally the new GOP buzzword for Obama and the Democrats. This was not an off-the-cuff remark; this speech was written in advance, it was copy-edited, it went over scrutiny for maximum political effect. The idea that it's a coincidence is so far-fetched it boggles the mind; it's like saying that referring to someone as "the former President, who will remain nameless" isn't clearly referring to a certain individual.
This is inexcusable in so many ways. For one thing, another nation's birthday celebration is neither the time nor the place for a cheap political attack. This is not about advocating a policy- if he simply wanted to say "we'll fight terrorists and won't negotiate with them" he could have said it without blatantly attacking "my party's opponent, who will remain nameless". It's tacky and ugly.
It's also stupid because of the level of ignorance, historical and otherwise, it reflects. Chamberlain's mistake wasn't talking with Hitler; it was ceding him control of half of Czechloslovokia in order to appease him. Obama has promised only to meet with government leaders, nothing more. Talking is not appeasement. Bush was also clearly trying to conflate terrorists(Obama has never agreed to talk with any terrorist group unless they disarm and disavow violence) with rogue states, probably by betting that the average voter won't be able to distinguish between vaguely threatening Muslim names. And, as I mentioned before, the entire point of the speech is based on an idiotic misunderstanding of what diplomacy and negotiations are; it's not a debate where you try to convince your opponent he's wrong and you're right; it's a way of peacefully reconciling divergent interests. It doesn't always work, and sometimes it carries a price, but it is the only way of peacefully resolving conflicts.
The pièce de résistance however is the hypocrisy. McCain, the big strong Republican who'll make those terrorists cower in their boots has previously endorsed negotiations both with state sponsors of terrorism and Hamas. As another thread pointed out, he even had the balls to claim that Reagan solved the Iranian crisis situation not through negotiations but through grit and tenacity even though he sat through the entire Iran Contra scandal while in the Senate. This is some shameless shit right here.
But I guess when support for your party and your policies are dropping like an anvil in the polls, your party's ideology is discredited and its prominent figures disgraced, shame is a luxury the Republicans can't afford.
|
Yossarian22
Stranger
Registered: 09/12/07
Posts: 378
Last seen: 11 days, 4 hours
|
Re: NYTIMES ..king george accuses obama of appeasing hitler... [Re: Yossarian22]
#8416867 - 05/18/08 03:37 PM (3 months, 17 days ago) |
|
|
Oh, also, according to CNN is reporting that:
Quote:
The president did not name Obama or any other Democrat, but White House aides privately acknowledged the remarks were aimed at the presidential candidate and others in his party. Former President Jimmy Carter has called for talks with Hamas.
All of this goes to show that when it comes to carefully prepared political speeches, there are no "accidental" implications or interpretations. The Karl Rove wing of the Republican Party may be incompetent at actually governing, but they are highly skilled at political attacks, spin, and smears. The speech was given during an election season and followed the same lines as the party-wide talking points which are designed to present a unified "framing" of the discussion. It was quickly picked up by Bush's heir apparent who made the link explicit. You either have to be hilariously gullible or willfully stupid to see coincidence and not design in this.
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole
Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 10,959
Last seen: 46 minutes, 43 seconds
|
Re: NYTIMES ..king george accuses obama of appeasing hitler... [Re: Yossarian22]
#8417764 - 05/18/08 07:18 PM (3 months, 17 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Yossarian22 said:
Quote:
Of course not. But a whole fuck of a lot better than any appeaser bitches. Bush is fucking spot on when he references the "magic dialogue" that some people think will make other people stop being assholes. It is a fantasy.
Are you really so ignorant to think that diplomacy consists of browbeating your enemies until they agree that you're the good guy and they're the bad guy? Really? It's attitudes like this that lead to our precipitous fall as a world power and got us stuck in a bloody and pointless quagmire.
You continue to have difficulty with formatting. You reply to one guy yet quote me without attribution. There is no magic dialogue. You don't even talk to the fucks. We did diplomacy with Saddam. He stuck a finger in our eye. How many times do you take a finger, Freddie? We have not fallen and we are not in a quagmire. I pity any of your future employers.Quote:
Quote:
And you continue to ignore the fact that Bush did not call Barry an appeaser, nor any other specific person for that matter. Barry just jumped and whined that he was being called a mean name. Somebody came up with an old saying that when you throw a stone into a pack of dogs the one that yelps is the one that got hit. Why on earth would Barry assume he was being talked about? Perhaps because he thinks it's true? Or is it just that he prefers a cloak of victimhood to wrap himself in? Not all that smart either way.
I know you don't have the nimblest of minds, but this is beyond the pale. Do you really think that Bush wasn't purposefully trying to compare the two? Really? I mean, this wasn't even subtle.
What two? I ask again, if this is Bush's policy, has always been Bush's policy and is particularly apropos of the occasion why should he give two shits about Barry's butt. Barry is NOT the President of the United States of America. Not everything is about Barry. Barry will soon go back to being the junior Senator from Illinois. He can go cry in his soup all he wants. He is not the original appeaser. Or, according to him, not an appeaser at all. Or, according to him, he is. So hard to tell just what the lad is. So confusing.Quote:
Let's review: the highest elected office in the US is the President.
That is correct. Tell me again who the President is and why you think he should give two shits about what the junior Senator from Illinois thinks. Bush's attitude about appeasement predates Barry's birth.Quote:
This is an election year in which the office of the President is up for grabs. George W. Bush is a member of the Republican party, a party who has consistently used fearmongering and innuendo about "soft on defense"(because apparently the Republicans are too stupid or disingenuous to realize there's a difference between "soft" and "smart") as an election issue. John McCain is this year's Republican nominee for the President and has recently began using this very line of attack: remember when he said that Obama was endorsed by Hamas as if it was meaningful (because politicians can really help who offers them unsolicited approval; I'm sure the KKK's supporting McCain, but you don't see Democrats calling McCain the KKK candidate) and that Obama is "naive" and "inexperienced" for wanting to talk to countries with whom the US is having conflict(Iran, North Korea, Myanmar)?
Dems are soft on defense and are feckless craven pussies. But that is not the argument here. The argument here is that the President of the United States of America is expressing the policy of the President of the United States of America with zero regard for the putative nominee to the opposition party. As he should. The question here is; Is Barry an appeaser and if he is not, why does he think he was being referenced? Narcissism? Does he think he has already been elected? He has not and probably will never be.Quote:
So now, in a prepared speech, Bush makes a barely-veiled reference to "appeasers" which is coincidentally the new GOP buzzword for Obama and the Democrats. This was not an off-the-cuff remark; this speech was written in advance, it was copy-edited, it went over scrutiny for maximum political effect. The idea that it's a coincidence is so far-fetched it boggles the mind; it's like saying that referring to someone as "the former President, who will remain nameless" isn't clearly referring to a certain individual.
That would be "thinly veiled" and not all Dems are "appeasers". Nor should anything Bush says be the least bit constrained by how it might hurt Buttsore Barry's feelings.Quote:
This is inexcusable in so many ways. For one thing, another nation's birthday celebration is neither the time nor the place for a cheap political attack. This is not about advocating a policy- if he simply wanted to say "we'll fight terrorists and won't negotiate with them" he could have said it without blatantly attacking "my party's opponent, who will remain nameless". It's tacky and ugly.
More stunning nonsense. He was as generic as could be.Quote:
It's also stupid because of the level of ignorance, historical and otherwise, it reflects. Chamberlain's mistake wasn't talking with Hitler; it was ceding him control of half of Czechloslovokia in order to appease him. Obama has promised only to meet with government leaders, nothing more. Talking is not appeasement. Bush was also clearly trying to conflate terrorists(Obama has never agreed to talk with any terrorist group unless they disarm and disavow violence) with rogue states, probably by betting that the average voter won't be able to distinguish between vaguely threatening Muslim names. And, as I mentioned before, the entire point of the speech is based on an idiotic misunderstanding of what diplomacy and negotiations are; it's not a debate where you try to convince your opponent he's wrong and you're right; it's a way of peacefully reconciling divergent interests. It doesn't always work, and sometimes it carries a price, but it is the only way of peacefully resolving conflicts.
My goodness, how creative the deranged lefty mind is. It finds so much extra stuff in the attic. Let's put it on E-Bay and see if we can sell it.Quote:
The pièce de résistance however is the hypocrisy. McCain, the big strong Republican who'll make those terrorists cower in their boots has previously endorsed negotiations both with state sponsors of terrorism and Hamas. As another thread pointed out, he even had the balls to claim that Reagan solved the Iranian crisis situation not through negotiations but through grit and tenacity even though he sat through the entire Iran Contra scandal while in the Senate. This is some shameless shit right here.
But I guess when support for your party and your policies are dropping like an anvil in the polls, your party's ideology is discredited and its prominent figures disgraced, shame is a luxury the Republicans can't afford.
I have no idea what you are talking about and would be quite interested if the thread you are referencing has as much resemblance to reality as your nonsense about Bush's speech at Israel's birthday party. I, myself have always felt that Reagan shit the bed over Iran. But he felt he had bigger fish to fry. So now we get to deal with the lesser fish. You have no idea how good you have it.
--------------------
"For anyone who cares I know zappaisgod personally. He is gay. He is jewish. He is a douche. And he both, has a crush on me:" Some Incredible Retard
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole
Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 10,959
Last seen: 46 minutes, 43 seconds
|
Re: NYTIMES ..king george accuses obama of appeasing hitler... [Re: Yossarian22]
#8417777 - 05/18/08 07:22 PM (3 months, 17 days ago) |
|
|
I don't care what CNN says anonymous White House staffers say. Nor should anybody else.
And Obama is the favored candidate of Hamas. According to you, that should be a good thing. Because you can have tea.
--------------------
"For anyone who cares I know zappaisgod personally. He is gay. He is jewish. He is a douche. And he both, has a crush on me:" Some Incredible Retard
|
gluke bastid
Stinky Bum
Registered: 12/20/00
Posts: 2,114
Loc: Charm City
Last seen: 24 days, 9 hours
|
Re: NYTIMES ..king george accuses obama of appeasing hitler... [Re: danknugz81]
#8420102 - 05/19/08 01:45 PM (3 months, 16 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
danknugz81 said:
he was smart enough not to mention names, but its obvious he's referring to obama or anyone else who would dare consider TALKING to a nation before bombing them.
Dubya's speech was the bump and set for this spike:
McCain Criticizes Obama For Wanting Iran Talks
Quote:
CHICAGO (Reuters) - Republican presidential candidate John McCain accused Democratic front-runner Barack Obama on Monday of underestimating the threat posed by Iran and ridiculed his pledge to meet Iran's leader if elected.
McCain, in a theme likely to play out in the campaign for the November election, sought to portray Obama as too inexperienced to be trusted as commander in chief.
At a speech to the National Restaurant Association in Obama's home town of Chicago, McCain said the Democratic front-runner's stated desire to hold direct talks with the leaders of hostile countries like Iran "betrays the depth of Senator Obama's inexperience and reckless judgment."
Full Article (NYTIMES)
So on Friday George Bush says "appeasers paved the way for Hitler" and then Monday McCain criticizes Obama for being an appeaser. Slippery, coordinated Republican bullshit. At first I laughed at the thread of this title. But when you watch the way they play this shit out over time, it's clear that the GOP mudslinging campaign actually gives some weight to AnnaPurna's "far-fetched" spin.
--------------------
Society in every form is a blessing,
but government at its best is but a necessary evil
- Thomas Paine
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole
Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 10,959
Last seen: 46 minutes, 43 seconds
|
Re: NYTIMES ..king george accuses obama of appeasing hitler... [Re: gluke bastid]
#8420363 - 05/19/08 02:55 PM (3 months, 16 days ago) |
|
|
Let's see, Bush never mentions the name Obama and McCain never uses the word "appeaser" but there is a whole bunch of butthurt Marys whinging that McCain and Bush are being mean to li'l Barry. Disingenuous pussies. Is Barry an appeaser or not? If he isn't, then Bush wasn't talking about him. If he is, then Bush was talking about him and McCain was being kind in not using the word. Every way you slice it, Barry comes off badly by whining. What a lightweight. He would have been better off to keep his piehole shut. Not quite ready for primetime.
--------------------
"For anyone who cares I know zappaisgod personally. He is gay. He is jewish. He is a douche. And he both, has a crush on me:" Some Incredible Retard
|
lonestar2004
Live to party,work to affordit.
Registered: 10/03/04
Posts: 5,267
Loc: Texas
Last seen: 3 hours, 32 minutes
|
Re: NYTIMES ..king george accuses obama of appeasing hitler... [Re: zappaisgod]
#8420391 - 05/19/08 03:07 PM (3 months, 16 days ago) |
|
|
Yup, he's weak.
|
Annapurna1
liberal pussy
Registered: 05/21/02
Posts: 3,465
Loc: republic of gilead
|
Re: NYTIMES ..king george accuses obama of appeasing hitler... [Re: johnm214]
#8421555 - 05/19/08 07:58 PM (3 months, 16 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
johnm214 said:
Quote:
Annapurna1 said:
Quote:
afool said:
please show me the quote from the speech or article where
"king george accuses obama of appeasing hitler" otherwise
slink off with your tail between your legs and let your
ridiculous thread die like you do all the other foolish
ones.
no..the NYTIMES doesn't call him "king george"...why am i not surprised by your disingenousness??...
Why am I not surprised by yours?
There was one contention in his post, that bush didn't compare obama to hitler appeasers. You ignore that and focus on the fact that your petty name calling wasn't mentioned in the article.
And the NYTimes isn't the issue, what bush said was.
Find where bush compared obama to hittler apeasers.
In fact, he compared no one to hitler appeasers, he merely compared the "let's negotiate argument" to ones made in the past, and that bush contends were meritless.
Why do you continually make unsupported claims, refuse to back them up, equivocate, and call people names?
I myself immediately distrust any conclusory statements you make, or any representations of facts not born out by your posts. You have little credibility. Why don't you try sticking to the facts and clearly delineate your opinions from them? Then maybe people will consider your arguments.
so many puppetoids...so little time...
--------------------
"anchor blocks counteract the process of pontiprobation..while omalean globes regulize the pressure"...
|
 Baby_Hitler
Anarcho-Technologist
Registered: 03/06/02
Posts: 18,263
Loc: To the limit!
Last seen: 1 second
|
Re: NYTIMES ..king george accuses obama of appeasing hitler... [Re: Annapurna1]
#8421718 - 05/19/08 08:25 PM (3 months, 16 days ago) |
|
|
Are you accusing John of being the ghost of Jim Henson?
--------------------
|
danknugz81
spiralingdownward
Registered: 02/22/08
Posts: 770
|
Re: NYTIMES ..king george accuses obama of appeasing hitler... [Re: lonestar2004]
#8422033 - 05/19/08 09:24 PM (3 months, 15 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
lonestar2004 said:
Yup, he's weak.
partisan bullshit aside, do you honestly think John McCain is a strong candidate? If so, please explain why. I know republicans who aren't very interested in him at all. this question applies to all McCain supporters.
a small aside - if McCain had won the republican nomination in 2000 instead of Bush, I would have voted for McCain over Gore. I admire the fact that he's a vietnam vet and was a POW. to me this showed character. I applauded McCain when he stood on the senate floor denouncing Bush's ridiculous tax cuts. These are the same tax cuts he now supports and wants to make permanent. to me this seems like he's just pandering to bush supporters. in other words, the character i thought he had has gone out the window. of course there's always room for a change of heart, but what brought along this change of heart? is a 1.35 trillion dollar tax cut to the wealthiest people in this country really a good idea in this shithole of an economy we have right now? if someone can provide me some info on how these tax cuts will benefit the majority of the country, then i'll be happy to check it out. dont give me any of that trickle down bullshit either. thats just another way of saying we're being pissed on.
i'm not really an obama supporter, but I can't see myself voting for McCain, due to his constant flip-flopping on issues. the only thing i really see him talking about is Iran. if thats his platform for success, then I think he'll be sorely disappointed when he's not elected - i dont think the majority of americans are eager to get involved in another war.
|
lonestar2004
Live to party,work to affordit.
Registered: 10/03/04
Posts: 5,267
Loc: Texas
Last seen: 3 hours, 32 minutes
|
Re: NYTIMES ..king george accuses obama of appeasing hitler... [Re: danknugz81]
#8423640 - 05/20/08 10:07 AM (3 months, 15 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
danknugz81 said:
Quote:
lonestar2004 said:
Yup, he's weak.
partisan bullshit aside, do you honestly think John McCain is a strong candidate?
No!
He's weak too. (just not near as weak as Obama)
We've had 8 years of an Un-Popular Republican President. (obama should be polling way ahead of old man MCain.)
|
|
login or 
register to post messages and view our members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, encrypted messages, file attachments, board customizations, and much more!
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit 
Reply 
Quote 
