ADN

Fapper, your keyboard is broke. heh

Erratic indeed...

raum wrote:

blixa wrote:mcain has promised victory in Iraq...i think Pallin may have also, am I the only one who see's something majorly wrong with leaders(would be) promising victory in war????????????????

Hooray, let's go off Topic and talk about that mean old thing called War that has existed since the first days of mankind.

EVERY candidate has vowed for victory in Iraq. and despite his soapbox, not even Obama is calling for a full withdrawal.



But let me guess -with all this evidence the war was still a big lie, huh? Sober up.

Look raum you got me...yes I am a screaming lefty who thinks we should be handing out crystal meth to school kids
who dont do there homework.

Raum you know what you do when you assume.....my gripe there wasn't with the war and it's history, it was more about a presidential candidate preying on that dumb ass "Good guy bad guy"...."us Vs them" "U ...S...A U...S...A" mentality in order to score political points.

As for the war I have far more of a problem with the way it was handled more so than the actual invasion, and my thoughts on that are based on how the US seems to handle itself with "war'

...but hey I better stop here otherwise I'll be going off topic with a rant based on assumption

see what I did there

blixa wrote:Raum you know what you do when you assume.....my gripe there wasn't with the war and it's history, it was more about a presidential candidate preying on that dumb ass "Good guy bad guy"...."us Vs them" "U ...S...A U...S...A" mentality in order to score political points.

I haven't heard either candidate do that. Rudy was the only person even in the primaries who held that view. But my point was simple, as bad as I think the policing of Iraq is going, it is working. But it is not a WAR. I am slow to anger, easy to reconcile without violence, but if I do have to defend myself, I seek to destroy those who attack me. That to me is what war is. This is another gutless response because our opposition is playing to modern artificial sympathies. I wrote in a post what I would do, and it did not involve one bullet or explosion. There was a collective *damn* in that thread on that forum, and I was called a monster and a genius at the same time. I am neither, just a Man among Men.

But you made this about the way McCain and Palin grandstand about the war, and neither really has anymore than Obama who has already show willingness to use military force in Africa, if warranted:

When speaking with ABC's Diane Sawyer, Obama on Jan. 3, was asked "If you were the president, at this moment, would you do more. Would you send in troops [into Africa] to stop that violence?"

"Well, I don't think we're at that stage yet. Obviously, at this point, we're monitoring the situation," Obama Jr. answered."

So don't play like Obama is some friggin peacenik. He didn't vote against the war. He didn't get a vote. HE WASN'T IN CONGRESS!!!! So who cares if he says he is for or against it. He has never voted on an initial military action ever. But he has ridden this whole damn drama wave like he was carrying a banner of peace against the whole of Congress. That is Grandstanding, the likes of which only a man far more eloquent than John McCain can perform. I seem to be the only one calling for scrutiny of Obama and he is getting a pass on ALOT.

As for the war I have far more of a problem with the way it was handled more so than the actual invasion, and my thoughts on that are based on how the US seems to handle itself with "war'

We are in accord, on this. I think war, when waged, should be so horrible it reminds the entire world that we are not to be trifled with. But I would have ended the Korean war the same way as WWII (though I would not have used an atomic explosion for either).

...but hey I better stop here otherwise I'll be going off topic with a rant based on assumption

see what I did there[/quote]

That was hardly a rant. And I am sorry but but your accusation was poorly structured and not well founded.

If you oppose the notion of Good Guys and Bad Guys, understand that that is part of the framing of traditional campaigning, and VERY effective.

Raum you havent heard Mccain mention bringing victory in Iraq lol......please troll his speaches and flick yourself in the nuts for every time he has.....but how victorious is a victorious "police action"

Mccain and Pallin may not have built the grandstand but they sure as hell love selling tickets to fill it lol

I didn't mention Obama in my post....and certainly don't believe him to be a peacnik lol..

blixa wrote:Raum you havent heard Mccain mention bringing victory in Iraq lol......please troll his speaches and flick yourself in the nuts for every time he has.....but how victorious is a victorious "police action"

No, i meant the whole good guy and bad guy tough guys stuff - the "cowboy' speak about victory - rarely do those kinds of things make it into speeches by McCain and Palin, but if the crowd does that - that's just a yee-haw reason i am not a republican.

Mccain and Pallin may not have built the grandstand but they sure as hell love selling tickets to fill it lol

i think that is fair to say. they play to their constituients just like any politicians do.

[quuote]I didn't mention Obama in my post....and certainly don't believe him to be a peacnik lol..[/quote]

Thank goodness. I rather like you, and most the people here - but the Obama is strong with alot of people here. He is not ready anymore than Palin is. i would certainly put him on a national budget commission, and maybe even lead democrat - but you have no idea what China will do to that man if he goes in like he did last night.

[center]Bill Maher making with the serious dumping
Both parts are equally hilarious

Part1

Part2
[/center]

I saw a report on BBC World yesterday where they conducted a street poll amongst 12,000 individuals in 40 states on some of the things McCain keeps repeating & apparently the average American male or female does not know what an earmark is. They take the term "Porkbarreling" literally & think John is talking about eating swine. Nor do they know exactly what a "Teddy Roosevelt Republican" means. Sounds like J.M's slogans are falling on deaf earmarks. LMAO

Orson Smelles wrote:I saw a report on BBC World yesterday where they conducted a street poll amongst 12,000 individuals in 40 states on some of the things McCain keeps repeating & apparently the average American male or female does not know what an earmark is. They take the term "Porkbarreling" literally & think John is talking about eating swine. Nor do they know exactly what a "Teddy Roosevelt Republican" means. Sounds like J.M's slogans are falling on deaf earmarks. LMAO

please link this poll. I don't doubt it... Most Americans on this forum prolly didn't know what it was until they used the Google to find it.

First of all, it was only a practice in the south. Second of all, it wasn't really spoken of. HERE:

Pork-barrel is first and foremost originally term full of Govt. suspicion, with heavy race implications. In Post civil war, there were barrels of pork by-product that were heavily salted and sent to those blacks "freed" by the civil war. The food was sent without inspection, and on the burden of federal taxpayers. The barrels were sent to the original plantation owners, and distributed from the stockpiles. Usually the barrels sat in the heat for months while the more rancid barrels were given to families. The meat (and hocks, and innards, and hoofs etc.) were books against tax dollars as the same price as pork on the commodity market. Most "soul food" emerges from this post-civil war era, and not before as is imagined and sensationalized in movies - however Lousiana "Fancy Fine" cousine was already established in the more progressive of parts of the Gulf States.

So basically, the Govt. was charging taxpayers for live pork livestock prices, and buying industry byproduct with the siezed Confedarate economy. This is a way the South was systematically and economically deflated to prevent any further attempt at seccession. However, when the Taxpayers cried unfair, it was taken as a spin that they "didn't care for the welfare of the freed slaves, who were their fellow Americans." Even at that time, it was a term that was not well understood. It was true some people opposed giving any sort of welfare, but the loudest proponents were actually just fighting the fact that their tax dollars were paying for pork loin prices, and they actually purchased by-product, and NO ONE COULD ACCOUNT FOR THE FUNDS.

But, personally, McCain should back off the term, it was a Post-Lincoln administration under a new Republican Congress with a Republican President Ulysses S. Grant personally fueled by his hatred of the south for his own impunity that put this "Pork Barrel Spending" into practice, and even indicated it was the just deserved punishment for the Secession (which he was an original strategist of).

I wish McCain would stop using terms people don't understand unless they are very well read, because plain and simple most people don't know the behind.

As for an earmark, this term is really a complaint of the Phoenicians - it was when they entered town and The Government/Priests would slash the ear of certain livestock, when those livestock were sold, the money was claimed as "tax" for the right to do business in the market... It later became synonymous but less effective than branding, and now means simply to "reserve".

I'm sure you can find it on the BBC World site,raum. I didn't read it on the net. I was watching the BBC World cable channel. It was tied in to the post-debate discussion their reporters & guests were hashing out.