EPTBush has laid the groundwork for Cold War 2.0 and McCain could likely start it.
2008 US Presidential Election - Page 59
| Forum Index > Closed |
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
Bush has laid the groundwork for Cold War 2.0 and McCain could likely start it. | ||
|
QuanticHawk
United States32100 Posts
Arent you a republican Jibba? | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
I just hope Obama pulls an upset and wins Pa, and if he loses it becomes a Texas situation where it's so close but he manages to take the delegates. | ||
|
War_Minister
Canada86 Posts
Not only that, but these similarities are common to essentially every type of fundamentalism, including evangelical. And you still haven't tied anything into Iran. Well, I believe violence to be quite an essential part of it. Evangelicals have, up to my knowledge, not been violent until now. Still, there are many Ron Paul supporters who claim Huckabee was bringing fascism to the US. Should the Evangelicals become violent, I would have good reasons to agree with them. Until then, I make a big difference between violent and non-violent creeds. I'm not quite sure what this is supposed to mean. I'm a political science and philosophy major, studying under the tutelage of one of Charles Tilly's proteges. Go me? Oh, that comment wasn't directed to you. I really wasn't trying to use my studies as an argument of authority (since it is not, neither for me nor for you) but I was only replying to oneofthem of who said my reflection was laughable. I wholly accept that someone disagrees and argues against me as you do, but to pretend that a logical reflection is laughable appears as some misplaced overconfidence to me. Still, your education is indeed apparent in the way you explain your theory  now, i am supposed to describe what you actually did do here, but since that would require actual reading of your post which i have avoided up until now, i wont do that. what is clear though is that you were doing it wrong and made up excuses. Whew, I am comforted to learn that you avoided reading my posts, because you were obviously not replying to them at all, or completely failed to understand them. My whole point was that we must protect the moderate Muslims from radical Islamists, not destroy Iran (just like we should have protected the moderate Germans from the Nazis, not destroy Germany). I really don't see how you managed to find that I was promoting an attack on Iran, especially after I said many times that I opposed the invasion of Iraq (even though I promote restabilising stability and security before leaving) but that shouldn't surprise me since, as you said, you avoid reading what I write... War_Minister you're going off topic of this thread. That's true; sorry about that. I easily get drown into endless arguments. | ||
|
NovaTheFeared
United States7229 Posts
On April 22 2008 22:58 Jibba wrote: Hamas couldn't destroy Israel if they were given a 90 day head start. Perhaps not, but even if they honored the 10 year truce, which I think is truly a laughable suggestion, the war would continue afterward in the exact same manner it is going now. | ||
|
Danger_Duck
Burkina Faso571 Posts
On April 22 2008 21:33 MyLostTemple wrote: any updates on the primaries today? when do we know the results? Early returns show Hillary 50 to 43 over Obama, but they're early (I'm surprised that there's 7% hiding/wasting) | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
but anyway, your criticism of the dems is not exactly fair, since politicians not merely work on policy but on popular politics. given the choice of tapping into wartime discontent then using that leverage to some more intelligent policy, and the alternative of laying out a well thought out but hardly appealing plan on iraq, it is obvious which choice is the most sensible politics. the general election is like a narrowing of the voting population. if the left manages to win, it means the exclusion of rightwing nutjobs from politics, which is pretty important. as far as policy goes, i'd look at the guys who are actually working on them in the potential administrations. since im not knowledgeable enough about this, i will not comment. as for substantive evaluation of iraq etc, i do agree that the situation itself takes priority over any concerns about troop and expenses. problem is though, the original mission as it was put forth has lost entirely its good faith, and it might be useful now to abandon that cover but not abandon the endeavor itself. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
 | ||
|
NovaTheFeared
United States7229 Posts
| ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
On the main page it states Obama is only behind 6k votes, how the hell is that a victory. It sure as hell better climb for Clinton's sake. But like previously stated 7% is in. | ||
|
NovaTheFeared
United States7229 Posts
93k Obama CNN just reporting. 10% in. | ||
|
Centric
United States1989 Posts
| ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
NovaTheFeared
United States7229 Posts
166k Obama 47% 17% reporting. Obama doesn't appear to be getting the margins he needed in the southeast and is doing worse than usual among the blue collar Dems who cling to their guns and religion. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
On April 23 2008 10:28 NovaTheFeared wrote: 189k Clinton 53% 166k Obama 47% 17% reporting. Obama doesn't appear to be getting the margins he needed in the southeast and is doing worse than usual among the blue collar Dems who cling to their guns and religion. Maybe Obama should have thrown down a shot whiskey like Clinton did. | ||
GTR
51509 Posts
| ||
|
NovaTheFeared
United States7229 Posts
492k 54% Clinton 413k 46% Obama 45% reporting. If Clinton maintains an 8 point lead she'll close Obama's lead in the popular vote by around 160,000 votes. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
In Pennsylvania, Clinton won with the support of whites, women and older voters, according to exit polls conducted for The Associated Press and the television networks. Maybe Obama can make her see her face in a reflection and just turn to stone, seems the only solution since she just won't back down. | ||
|
HeadBangaa
United States6512 Posts
| ||
|
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
On April 23 2008 08:46 NovaTheFeared wrote: Doubtful. It's truly not a religious conflict, even if the leaders are depicting it that way. It's a socioeconomic and political one and giving Palestinians some sort of autonomy would fix many of the problems. I'd expect the country to be impoverished in 10 years, but at least it wouldn't be deprived of things like water and education, like it is atm. One state solution is completely out of the question now.Perhaps not, but even if they honored the 10 year truce, which I think is truly a laughable suggestion, the war would continue afterward in the exact same manner it is going now. Hawk, no, I'm not a republican. I'm a centrist democrat/social libertarian. I voted None of the Above in my worthless Michigan primary. | ||
| ||
