"Americans are very frustrated, and they have right to be," McCain said on the Letterman show when talking about the war. "We've wasted a lot our most precious treasure, which is American lives."




http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/news_theswamp/2007/03/mccain_us_lives.html


Have fun with this one Fossten --

I'm not voting for the guy if it makes you feel better.

McCain's not a conservative in my book. He'll likely implode a la Howard Dean before it's all over.

Thats the best you guys can do?

Im curious, what will you do if he wins the nomination?

what will you do if he wins the nomination?
Celebrate the fact that no Dem won!

How could a dem win the republican nomination?

How could a dem win the republican nomination?Because we certainly don't have any true conservatives running, so McCain would be the best of all the Dems.

So - if he won the Repub nomination, you would vote for him?

Of course. He might not be the "perfect candidate," but he's infinitely better than Hillary, Obama, Edwards, Gore, or the rest of the leftists.

I'm hoping Newt decides to announce after Labor Day. I think he's counting on the "early announcement exhaustion" of the voters to give him a big boost at that time.

He'll certainly have my vote. Closest thing to Reagan we've got.

So - if he won the Repub nomination, you would vote for him?

My vote goes to the one person; male or female - black, white or pink that I feel will best protect this Country.

Without freedom, we will lose everything.

Put up a Dem that I feel will protect us at all costs and I will vote for him/her.

My vote goes to the one person; male or female - black, white or pink that I feel will best protect this Country.

Without freedom, we will lose everything.

Put up a Dem that I feel will protect us at all costs and I will vote for him/her.

Of course, we all know that this mythical, nebulous Dem doesn't exist. :D

How do you righties feel about Huckabee? Of course McCain is better than Obama, Hillary and pretty much any other Dem that might run. But I'm tellin' ya, what this country needs is another Pres. from AR. Just look at what the last one did for us.;)

Im just wondering where all the Fossten Rhetoric is on this one? He hung Obama out to dry for doing the EXACT same thing..

Obama Pulls a Kerry, Bashing the Troops (http://www.lincolnvscadillac.com/showthread.php?t=29719)

Where all all the inflammatory comments now? If Obama was bashing the troops, isnt McCain doing the same thing?

Gee, sounds like Kerry's 'apology.' How about, "I've decided that I'm not fit to be commander in chief, and I hereby withdraw my candidacy for the U.S. Presidency."

It offends me less that he would say that, then the fact he'll say it, mean it, and then back away from the statement in order to trick the public.

The problem is, if Obama really thinks the 3,000 lives are wasted, how is that supposed to buck up the morale of the troops? Can you explain that? If you're a troop out there in harm's way, believing in what you're doing, serving your country, and some candidate for president implies your mission is a waste of time, how is that supposed to motivate you? And what message does that send to our enemies? Does that not give them aid and comfort?

Of course.

Where is all the harsh rhetoric now that McCain said exactly the same thing, and backtracked the exact same way? Or is that reserved only for Democrats?

Its funny, you love to throw the word Hippocrite around when referring to Democrats, you love to point out anything that you can twist to make them appear anti american, anti homeland security, anti war. But Now that a republican says the same thing what do we get?

He might not be the "perfect candidate," but he's infinitely better than Hillary, Obama, Edwards, Gore, or the rest of the leftists.


I'm sorry, but some of you miss the point entirely. Most of these candidates are not against war, they are against a war that we went to under pretenses that proved not to be true and a war that is being managed terribly. What you also dont understand is that most of these candidates, Republican and Democrat alike are playing to the polls and to public opinion.

You talk about the biased media, You guys often are worse. The only difference is that you dont have the means to reach millions of people with your message.

You didn't provide my full quote:

That wasn't a mistake. He meant it.

He thinks the efforts in the Middle East are a waste of effort. He thinks the mission is not worth achieving.

It offends me less that he would say that, then the fact he'll say it, mean it, and then back away from the statement in order to trick the public.

Big difference. We know that McCain has both a history of supporting the war and the military. McCain does not think the efforts in the Mid east are a wasteful effort. He does think the mission is worth achieving.

Because his meaning was different, the statement is different. And, reminder, you can't play this as some kind Republican-protective thing, because,frankly, McCain isn't all that popular amongst the GOP base. I'd lose no sleep if he were to drop out of the race. And announcing on Letterman didn't endear him to me, either.

McCain did make a stupid comment, he needs to be more carefully how he words thing. He must have been under the moronic liberal Mo-Jo of Letterman.

Thi big difference that bothers me - is that Obama makes the same comment - and we get a big inflammatory title from Fossten. McCain makes ithe comment - we get little comment at all. And its not baout being protective of McCain or Obama or anyone else, its about twisting things out of context to make someone look a certain way.

As far as I am concerned, I am not looking forward to this election, because the country is divided enough, and everyone has a different idea on how to manage this war.

My attitude, go at it, all out, or get out. This halfass crap is not going to solve anything. Either you go in and completely get control, or you dont bother. Fact is, we are in the war already, so how to we get out? Do we commit full troop levels - another 100k - and ensure victory - or do we just bail.

Personally, Im for commiting full troops - and put the insurgency in a stranglehold.

Im just wondering where all the Fossten Rhetoric is on this one? He hung Obama out to dry for doing the EXACT same thing..

Obama Pulls a Kerry, Bashing the Troops (http://www.lincolnvscadillac.com/showthread.php?t=29719)

Where all all the inflammatory comments now? If Obama was bashing the troops, isnt McCain doing the same thing?







Where is all the harsh rhetoric now that McCain said exactly the same thing, and backtracked the exact same way? Or is that reserved only for Democrats?

Its funny, you love to throw the word Hippocrite around when referring to Democrats, you love to point out anything that you can twist to make them appear anti american, anti homeland security, anti war. But Now that a republican says the same thing what do we get?




I'm sorry, but some of you miss the point entirely. Most of these candidates are not against war, they are against a war that we went to under pretenses that proved not to be true and a war that is being managed terribly. What you also dont understand is that most of these candidates, Republican and Democrat alike are playing to the polls and to public opinion.

You talk about the biased media, You guys often are worse. The only difference is that you dont have the means to reach millions of people with your message.

Gee, Joey, where were your comments in that thread, hypocrite? What, you only comment when it's a Republican?

I hardly think I need to demonstrate any more intellectual honesty to someone like you. I've demonstrated plenty of disdain for McCain, to the extent that I even call him a RINO. When have you ever criticized Obama?

The fact is that I didn't feel the need to comment on McCain's words because he's not the MEDIA DARLING that Obama is. You know Obama? He's the Second Coming of Jesus to the media. He's the Great Black(ish) Hope or something like that. McCain is a non issue and everybody knows it.

However, I will comment since you have SINGLED ME OUT FOR CRITICISM. McCain's comments were out of line and he shouldn't have said them. He has not, however, come out in opposition to the President like Obama has. He is, however, a disaster of a Republican and has caused much damage in the last 2 years in the Senate, from the gang of 14 to the terrorist bill of rights. He's a disgrace.

Happy?

McCain's comments were out of line and he shouldn't have said them. He has not, however, come out in opposition to the President like Obama has. He is, however, a disaster of a Republican and has caused much damage in the last 2 years in the Senate, from the gang of 14 to the terrorist bill of rights. He's a disgrace.

That makes 2 if someone is counting.

Gee, Joey, where were your comments in that thread, hypocrite? What, you only comment when it's a Republican?


Honestly? Because each of them made comments that could be easily taken a few different ways, so to me I didnt think they comments meant anything worth discussing. The meanings were distorted and blown out of proportion. I dont fault either one of them for anything but making an unclear statement.

And fact is, Fossten, I singled you out because, traditionally, you only open your mouth to slam a Democrat or defend a Republican. I cant recall hearing you say anything about a Democrat that might have a good point, or a Republican who is a complete idiot. (there are plenty, believe me) You certainly save your sensationalist comments for times when you want to slam a Democrat. My problem with that? Your biased. Plain and simple. You better come to grips that every politician is a human being and has faults. None of them speak perfectly 100% of the time, and none of them do the right thing 100% of the time.

Obama never bashed the troops - but thats the title of your thread. Now McCain comes along and says the same thing - and not a peep from you until I bait you into it. And then, your justification is that Obama is a media darling so you must speak in sensationalist terms? Please spare me. You spend much of your time putting other people and their ideas down instead of discussing positives or debating anything. Many LVC members dont post in these forums only because of you and your rhetoric. Your a bully, and I am quite tired of it.

Again, your biased. You use insults against anyone who doesnt think the way you think, and you twist and sensationalize things to make yourself look right. In that way you are every bit a hippocrite, because you bitch about the media doing the exact same thing as you do.

Honestly? Because each of them made comments that could be easily taken a few different ways, so to me I didnt think they comments meant anything worth discussing. The meanings were distorted and blown out of proportion. I dont fault either one of them for anything but making an unclear statement.

And fact is, Fossten, I signled you out because, traditionally, you only open your mouth to slam a Democrat or defend a Republican. I cant recall hearing you say anything about a Democrat that might have a good point, or a Republican who is a complete idiot. (there are plenty, believe me) You certainly save your sensationalist comments for times when you want to slam a Democrat. My problem with that? Your biased. Plain and simple.

Obama never bashed the troops - but thats the title of your thread, but McCain comes along - not a peep from you until I bait you into it. And then, your justification is that Obama is a media darling so you must speak in sensationalist terms? Please spare me. You spend much of your time putting other people and their ideas down instead of discussing positives or debating anything. Your a bully, and I am quite tired of it.

Again, your biased. You use insults against anyone who doesnt think the way you think, and you twist and sensationalize things to make yourself look right. In that way you are every bit a hippocrite, because you bitch about the media doing the exact same thing as you do.


Guess what, Joey? I'm biased. Big whoop. Not a surprise. At least I'm not ignorant like you. For example, you still believe George Bush lied to get us into war. You continue to trumpet that idiotic filth every chance you get, no matter how many times IRREFUTABLE EVIDENCE has shown you to be full of crap. You also accuse me of never criticizing a Republican. Again, WRONG. I do it all the time. You admit that you baited me. What are you, if I'm biased? A nincompoop?

I don't have to apologize for being biased, because I'm not a member of the media. I'm a private citizen who has every right to espouse his views, regardless of what side I am on. You wouldn't understand the difference between me and the media if it hit you in the face. But for the rest of the readers who aren't complete ignoramuses, I'll assert that the media PRETENDS to be unbiased, and they are not. They pretend to be objective journalists, and they are liars. So pick that one out of your teeth, Mr. Disgusting Avatar.

Guess what, Joey? I'm biased. Big whoop. Not a surprise. At least I'm not ignorant like you. For example, you still believe George Bush lied to get us into war. You continue to trumpet that idiotic filth every chance you get, no matter how many times IRREFUTABLE EVIDENCE has shown you to be full of crap. You also accuse me of never criticizing a Republican. Again, WRONG. I do it all the time. You admit that you baited me. What are you, if I'm biased? A nincompoop?

I don't have to apologize for being biased, because I'm not a member of the media. I'm a private citizen who has every right to espouse his views, regardless of what side I am on. You wouldn't understand the difference between me and the media if it hit you in the face. But for the rest of the readers who aren't complete ignoramuses, I'll assert that the media PRETENDS to be unbiased, and they are not. They pretend to be objective journalists, and they are liars. So pick that one out of your teeth, Mr. Disgusting Avatar.

The big difference is you are biased AND you are unwilling to accept fault. You already know what you do, but I will refresh it for everyone else. You browse through the internet and find articles that support only your idea. You also aleady know that anyone could find 10 other articles to counter your post but people typically dont choose to do so because that would lump them in the exact same, one dimensionsal, indoctrinated boat as you.
Also, the articles you post are biased.....just in your favor. I would rather pretend to be ubiased than be a complete one sided person such as you.

hey fossten y dont u run 4 pres

Guess what, Joey? I'm biased. Big whoop. Not a surprise. At least I'm not ignorant like you. For example, you still believe George Bush lied to get us into war. You continue to trumpet that idiotic filth every chance you get, no matter how many times IRREFUTABLE EVIDENCE has shown you to be full of crap.

Thats nonsense. I believe GW listened to what he wanted to hear and what would justify his going to war. I dont know that he lied, but by in large his reasons have not proven to have been accurate Iraq was not a hotbed of aL Qaida terrorists, and they havent found massive WMDs. Thats the opnly part thats IRREFUTABLE.

So pick that one out of your teeth, Mr. Disgusting Avatar.

Glad you like it. I get alot of compliments on it.

The big difference is you are biased AND you are unwilling to accept fault. You already know what you do, but I will refresh it for everyone else. You browse through the internet and find articles that support only your idea. You also aleady know that anyone could find 10 other articles to counter your post but people typically dont choose to do so because that would lump them in the exact same, one dimensionsal, indoctrinated boat as you.
Also, the articles you post are biased.....just in your favor. I would rather pretend to be ubiased than be a complete one sided person such as you.


I agree completely. Biased to the point that you dont even consider that there MIGHT be another side of the story, or another rational conclusion that can be reached.

I agree completely. Biased to the point that you dont even consider that there MIGHT be another side of the story, or another rational conclusionthat can be reached.

You mean like the possibility that Bush wasn't necessarily predisposed to going to war, but after Saddam broke seventeen UN resolutions and nearly all Congressmen and women urged him, he decided along with the rest of the world that the best thing was to disarm Iraq?

No, you have never considered that rational possibility. You are biased, and ignorantly so. Unlike you, I have considered all possibilities with regard to Bush going to war. I considered that the WMDs might have been smuggled out of Iraq, especially since that explanation MAKES SO MUCH RATIONAL SENSE considering that we know he had WMDs because he used them, and because there are people who were in high levels of the Iraqi government who said they saw the WMDs being smuggled out. But did you consider that? No, you dismissed it because it doesn't fit your wacky, one-sided, Bush-hating worldview.

I've criticized Bush for a number of things, notably the Harriet Miers nomination and his stance on illegal aliens. I've been intellectually honest about him with regard to my views. What has he ever done that you've agreed with? NOTHING, because you are suffering from BDS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_Derangement_Syndrome). Not my problem. In the face of all the evidence you simply accept the most irrational explanation, which is that Bush was bloodthirsty and he wanted to kill Saddam Hussein, so he went to war on a pretext. There isn't one shred of evidence in the 6 years he's been President that he has any kind of tendency to take going to war lightly.

Not so Clinton, who bombed an aspirin factory to distract the country from his cigar games with Monica. But I'll bet you NEVER ONCE questioned his decision to do that, did you? Nope. I don't have to take this crap from you, considering you are not only irrational, but ignorant as well.

No, you have never considered that rational possibility. You are biased, and ignorantly so. Unlike you, I have considered all possibilities with regard to Bush going to war. I considered that the WMDs might have been smuggled out of Iraq, especially since that explanation MAKES SO MUCH RATIONAL SENSE considering that we know he had WMDs because he used them, and because there are people who were in high levels of the Iraqi government who said they saw the WMDs being smuggled out. But did you consider that? No, you dismissed it because it doesn't fit your wacky, one-sided, Bush-hating worldview..


Actually I have - and Monstermark can even tell you that I have thought about such things because I have discussed some of them with him. I have long thought that one reason GW was so hell bent on this war was so that he could intimidate Iran by having a few hundred thousand troops on 3 of their four borders.

If that was one of his intentions, which I could understand and probably support such intentions, he failed miserably in that goal. He failed because he hasnt managed this conflict well whatsoever.

SO here we sit, 4 years later, afghanistan isnt secure, Iraq isnt secure, Iran is stronger and now prepared for war, and is ever closer to nuclear weapons, and where's Waldo? (aka osama bin laden). Even republicans have been distancing themselves more and more from your beloved GW.

SO here we sit, 4 years later
Side note, how long should it take to over throw a dictator, form a government, develop a constitution, build a civic structure, and then develop the middle class to support Democracy?

That's not a rhetorical question, I'm seriously asking this. How long do you think it should take to do that, and where else has it been done?



afghanistan isnt secure, Iraq isnt secure,
Afghanistan will never be "secure." All we can do is play whack-a-mole/terrorist over there.

But, the important thing is that the terrorist camps were destroyed and Al-Queda can't use the Taliban to provide them safe haven.

Iran is stronger and now prepared for war, and is ever closer to nuclear weapons, and where's Waldo? (aka osama bin laden).
Iran isn't stronger. Iran ONLY becomes stronger if we withdraw from Iraq.
Until then, they are threatened. The weapons program moves forward, but that has no bearing on Iraq. The International community would be dragging their feet, denying sanctions anyway.

The U.S. DOES have the military power to fight in Iran. To think otherwise is foolish. What we probably don't have are the abundant resources and public support that would be needed to invade and occupy the country. But the U.S. could crush Iran within 30 days using nothing but air power. Remember that.

Even republicans have been distancing themselves more and more from your beloved GW.
And again, you're incorrect.
President Bush's poll numbers have tanked, but most Republicans are standing by their man. (http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/politics/16821022.htm)

But if you come across a historic example of any country successfully doing something as ambitious as our efforts in Iraq, let us know. It'd be helpful to have some reference.

If that was one of his intentions, which I could understand and probably support such intentions, he failed miserably in that goal. He failed because he hasnt managed this conflict well whatsoever.

A perfect example of your irrationality. First, you say "if" that was one of his intentions. Very good, because you really don't know for sure about someone's intentions. You can only observe their actions, and since Bush's intentions were made clear by him verbally, the only other way you could judge his true intentions would be by his actions, correct? And there is where your circular logic breaks down.

Bush's actions did NOT support these nebulous, bogus intentions that you've attributed to him. He did NOT go into Iraq and act as though he were threatening Iran. He stuck to his stated purpose, which was to depose Hussein and clear out the WMDs. It's very likely, then, that his intentions NEVER were what you say they were. But you, in a HUGE example of irrationality, instead say that he did have these intentions and simply "failed miserably"at them. Of course, since you can't read his mind, and since his actions have NEVER supported such intentions, you are simply full of sh!t.

I hate to say this to you, Joey, but you are like a man looking in the mirror and saying "DUH" to himself over and over again. Here you try to attribute intentions to Bush that have ZERO evidence to back them up and then in some weird twist you say that he's failed in those intentions and that explains his actions. That's like arresting a man who did nothing for attempted murder, and when he goes to court, the prosecutor says, "Well, your honor, I admit that he really didn't shoot the guy, but he intended to and just was a terrible failure at it."

A contortionist would be proud of your attempts to do somersaults in order to HATE BUSH SO MUCH.