Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Cafe toonzone' started by Zach Logan, Nov 17, 2007.
This is either her way of accepting the VP decision, or pure idiocy. I'm hoping it's the former.
I think a Picard ASCII facepalm picture would do very well, right about now.
Seriously. There's stubborn, and then there's psychotically-pride-driven.
This is great! Obama being president will definitely make history and make change for the world.
Hillary is immensely annoying. She's still not quitting. Personally, I think Obama should decline any offer Hillary will give to make her Vice President. Look Hillary: You were the First Lady, and you are now a Senator. You had your time in the White House and your time to shine. Stop being stubborn and go home.
As for McCain, I just don't see him winning despite his votes. Besides, he still wants to continue the war. For Pete's Sakes, millions of family members are dead, Iraq is nearly in ruins, billions of our dollars are wasted (resulting in this recession)...and Osama is STILL ALIVE! All of this is happening yet this guy is still running around making video threats? Wasn't he supposed to be dead by now?
I'm with Obama all the way. Make history, Barack!
I'm not sure he can offer the VP slot to her now even if he wanted to, after her "gun to his head" behavior/speech tonight.
Also, from a lot of polls I've been seeing today, the majority seem against her becoming VP, especially the Obama supporters. I really hope she has the sense to concede by tomorrow, or at the very least by the end of the week. When all those superdelegates were rapidly voting for Obama earlier today, I really think they were trying to send Hillary a message that it's time for this race to end, so they wanted to make sure Obama would have enough to clench the nomination. They and many others were hoping that Hillary would realize that this would be the perfect time to start bringing the party together by officially stepping down from the race and backing Obama. Sadly, that was not the case. She claims she refuses to concede because she still she is the better candidate and has options, what options? Let this drag to the convention and desperately hope she can get the superdelegates to change their mind? Not gonna happen.
Thank goodness Obama got the nomination! I have to give him credit for the speech he gave tonight since it was the best speech I've heard all night.
I did not like how Hilary make her speech a "gun to Obama's head" type speech, and it would be a HUGE mistake for Obama to pick her as his running mate. I just wish Hilary would realize that it's all over and concede already!
At this rate, it seems like the only thing that can get her to stop is if she loses all her super delegates.
He managed to get her on the phone and say that they should meet. Her response was something along the line of "I'm sure that'll happen soon." Good grief.
And none of you guys/gals who support Obama are not the least bit concerned that Hillary won 9 out of the last 15 primaries/caucuses that have occured? If Obama's this shining star on the rise, then why has Hillary fared better in the last month? Perhaps Democrats are having second thoughts on Obama's chances of beating McCain in November?
Except by all accounts, the Surge is working, a majority of Iraq is under control, and the Iraqi Army is stepping up and taking on the terrorists?
From the link:
With that in mind, wouldn't it be wrong to vote into office someone who wants us to arbitrarily pull out of Iraq, fracturing whatever progress we've made?!?
Those of you thinking of voting in the November elections need to think about the reality on the ground here and now, not to keep obsessing about Bush standing on an Aircraft Carrier. Get over the hatred and stand up for what's right.
Not really. If there wasn't dissent over him being the candidate I'd be suspicious of vote rigging. It doesn't help her case that some of her "biggest" wins come from states so red they're bleeding.
That's why I think Hillary is pushing hard even now. She wants a concellation prize in the Veep position. And she's made a surprisingly good case for it.
Gas is $4.25 average around my workplace, which I have to drive half an hour to get to. My paycheck is a pittance. Foreclosures are so rampant Ed McMahon is being kicked out of his house.
Bill put it best when he ran against George Sr. "It's the economy stupid!" Even if McCain makes Iraq the central issue, that wouldn't work very well for him either.
Yes, Hillary won the majority of them. However, for many, she didn't beat him by enough. While there were several rolls like West Virginia, for the most part Hillary had trouble winning decisively. Additionally, Obama was still pulling enough delegates from both the vote and the superdelegates to keep ahead of her. Also, Hillary isn't backing off -- she has a very rabid fanbase, but in a different breed of Obama's rabid fans. Hers have more of a vicious edge, much like the candidate herself. She's groomed them to be as such. She's also been granted a lot of favors with conservative television -- they've really been hammering Obama lately. Why? She has enough personal hate garnered in America to hand the election over to McCain. Obama is still a nebulous entity, and despite the saying, I believe in going with the devil I don't know -- makes life interesting as well as a gamble of a better outcome.
That's nice, but the situation we have in Iraq is absolutely unsustainable. Both the physical and psychological toll is too much on our armed forces; they don't have nearly enough downtime. We have men going in for their nine or ten rounds of combat. My friend Mike just came home last month and got redeployed a few days ago. He came back from Afghanistan and now is in Iraq. He got maybe two weeks off with his wife and kids from combat. As in watching his buddies get blown to bits. We do not have a standing army of limitless supply -- we have a volunteer army, and these volunteers are getting worn too thin between Afghanistan -- remember that little war? -- and Iraq. The surge was good idea -- we should have done this at the beginning of this disaster. We cannot sustain it, however, and it doesn't seem we have a plan under the current administration to fill in the gaps. The Iraqi army and police force are coming up nicely, but at the rate we're going, we're going to run out of US servicemen before a) they're ready to go; b) the insurgents run out of fighters.
I think things would go faster if Iraq had electricity and water. You know, those luxuries.
Why do people never read the candidate's website before making statements like this?
For those too lazy to click, Obama has said on the website and during foreign policy seminars (one of which I went to) that he would meet with the leaders on the ground. From there, he would enact a withdrawal over the course of 16 months, one combat brigade a month. If any insurgents or terrorists get cocky and start building something, yes, he will stay in country longer. Yes, he will maintain forces around US embassies. He will not be building a permanent base a la Gitmo or Okinawa. He will also start doing the biggest "Hi, we're nice and open to conversation!" song and dance seen yet. He rather talk with other countries rather than blow them up right off the bat.
So, no, we're not ditching the Iraqi people. And you know, Obama might even recognize the fact that we had a hand in blowing up 90,000+ civilians in the name of this venture. The philosophy of "If you're not for us, you're against us" has gotten us really far. Really far into the disfavor of the rest of the world. Considering the way things are going right now, you'd think we'd be smart enough to be making friends, not trying to poke things with sticks.
I still think making Clinton VP will wreck Obama's whole theme of change and the promise of a new politics. But I'm not a Democrat, so that's for whatever it's worth.
As for winning the nomination, well, she can try to convert superdelegates if that is her choice, but she won't be making any friends or winning many supporters even in the very unlikely event that effort succeeds. Yes, if the Democrats had run their primary like the Republicans did, perhaps the outcome would be different...but they didn't, and you play by the rules you agree to at the start. The terms were set, Obama played on those terms and won. Its a hard argument to say they should be dismissed because the polling doesn't look so good these days.
Just so we're clear, I've said from the start that I'd rather Obama be the nominee as opposed to Clinton. I'd rather see an honest left wing individual as opposed to the manipulative schemer which Clinton comes across as, (and always has). I'm just left curious as to whether the trend in primaries for the last month has revealed Obama's not as popular as the media portrays him to be.
Have to agree with you about the economy being a major election issue, but I'm not sure electing Obama would fix the economy. In fact, I've long believed that the President can do very little to shape the economy. I find it funny that one President gets credit for a good economy while another gets the blame for a bad one, yet it's often beyond their control.
However, if you want to lower the gas prices, (and by extension, lower the costs of a lot of market goods which get shipped) then we'd better start increasing domestic oil production, something which I think most Democrats oppose.
That's what we're going to be voting in a new administration to end this. The question becomes do we want to end it McCain's way, or Obama's way?
I'm reminded of a moment from the debate's earlier this year, when Obama said that he would send U.S. troops back into Iraq if al Queda re-established itself. John McCain the next day said something akin to, "I've got new for Mr. Obama: al Queda's already in Iraq!"
How about we don't start a full fledged withdraw of the troops until the enemy is defeated and the country secure?
I tend to agree with what John McCain's political views on this,here's what he's said in the last couple of days in regards to Iran:
Or you could try placing the blame on Saddam Hussein, the Sunni insurgents, the foreign al Queda agents infiltrating the country, Iran's continued support of the Shiite militias, and maybe after all that, yes, feel free to blame Bush for inept war planning and plain ol' human error by our soldiers out in the field. But don't blame "we", as in "our nation". We are a good people doing our best in a complex and hostile world.
McCain proposes Town Hall meetings with Obama. Yes, please.
Breaking News! Hilary Clinton will drop out of the race after all!
All I have to say, thank goodness! Now I'm curious who both McCain and Obama will pick as their running mates.
Or we could try and not use as much oil, thereby lowering demand, thereby forcing the companies to drop their prices.
That terrorist organization has not set up an official headquarters in Iraq yet. It doesn't have a training camp or any true form of organization there. Yes, there are agents in there -- that's no secret. Places without US embassies don't have any official headquarters or American representation there; it doesn't mean that there are no Americans at all in the country. Please reread what you post before you hit submit.
(falls off chair laughing hysterically)
Welcome to endless war. Welcome to conflict with no end. HI! We're here.
The enemy is defeated? Who's the enemy? Terrorists? Give me names. Give me faces. This isn't a war where we can rattle off names like Mussolini, Hitler, Tojo. There is no end to this "war on terror!" We're blindly chasing after a concept, not an actual goal. It's like "the war on drugs" -- we've still not won that one yet. Unlike the war on drugs, the war on terror is not only endless, but also an endless drain on American lives. As long as a human being can fear, there always can be terror. And one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.
You want to win the war? Put down your suit and tie and pick up a gun, mate. Then I'll listen.
If we hadn't taken out Saddam without thinking about how that would enable Iran and terrorists, we wouldn't have this problem. The reason why we never took out Saddam before was because he was keeping Iran in check. Was he a monster? Yes. He should have been toppled years ago, but as mentioned previously in this thread, I believe the US chickened out back in the Gulf War. However, it's because we went in there like Audie Murphy in 2003 that the sack of Baghdad occurred, resulting in the loss of so much art and history. It's because of us that there literally was no government to replace the one we had ripped out.
Look at the Nazi invasions of various European countries in World War II. They had Europe under its thumb. They had new governments installed and ready to go at a drop of a hat. If they had managed to capture Stalingrad, they already had laid out what they would be doing with the Soviet Union.
We still haven't done that, and we've been there for five years. I hardly believe in Nazi ideology, but you cannot take away they almost took over the world. They were effective. There are good takeovers, and there are bad takeovers. This was a very bad takeover. If it had been a good one, we wouldn't be dealing with a five-year loss of utilities or as many security risks. We wouldn't have had to have a troop surge that is unsustainable and will eventually reduce our standing army to pathetic -- between corpses and men in dire need of mental health care, our armed forces will be very understaffed once this is done. While I don't deny there still would be terrorists, insurgents, and troublemakers in there, they would not be as out-of-control if we had thought this through. Or had done this almost twenty years ago when everyone else was playing in the sandbox with us.
The answer is fairly apparent if one chooses to pay attention.
Can we not get off track with yet another pointless back-and-forth dissertation about the war?
I'm all for conserving fuel when appropriate, but not at the expense of the American economy.
I'm not familiar with any terrorist groups that have an "official" headquarters. But have they been organized and operate in Iraq? Yes.
Please stop being rude to people who have a different opinion than you.
Well, they said the Cold War was endless as well, but that wasn't true, was it?
And I was referring specifically to the conflict in Iraq, which as I pointed out, the media is reporting more and more about how Iraq is becoming slowly stable. Is the country completely under control? No. But it's getting there.
McCain's pledging with his winning the election, if we stay the course, by 2013 the Iraq conflict will be at end. Here is his words:
I'd rather be on the side that's shooting for victory, as opposed to the side that would rather call it quits, (even if it's spread over "16 months"). I'd rather have 16 months of withdrawing where the reason we're withdrawing is because Iraq has achieved a high degree of stability, not having the U.S. President for 16 month's of withdraw saying everyday, "We failed, so tough luck Middle East, you're on your own." Can you imagine the crushing morale loss to our troops? Talk about giving "aid and comfort" to our enemies...
As the Iraq conflict is a central theme of both McCain and Obama's campaigns for President, it's inevitable that discussion of the war will pop up from time to time in a thread like this. As long as we tie the discussion back into the campaigns, I don't see the harm. I'm not looking for an endless argument, I simply wanted to state my opinion in response to this post, have a rebuttal back and forth a couple times, and then let it be.
Okay, we're temporarily closing up to revamp. Thanks to everyone for making this thread a 48 page success. It has been a blast to read all of your posts, though I disagree with whom you supported . The thread was, for the most part, pretty civil. Look out on the boards in the coming minutes for a big change that will last until November. With the success of this thread, I may try another topic or two.
Thanks, and see you on the campaign trail!