desperate GOP scrapes for ways to smear Obama

Why the hell are you spelling it that way? People purposely changing candidates' names invalidates their points by making them look dumb.

Sorry. I actually picked that up from an ********* person YEARS ago in the usenet group alt.rock-n-roll.metal.death. He would spell God like that to mock. I used it because of this movement that Obama is some kind of messiah. People are almost worshiping that guy. It makes me pretty sick. I'll try to refrain.

He's not going to fucking ruin the USA. My friend Kevin, who is a poli sci major, is extremely non-partisan, he constantly challenges people's views on conservativism and liberalism, and was a McCain supporter until he realized all of the stupid, bad decisions John made over the campaign (random pick for VP, ducking out of campaign to "HELP ECONOMY", failing over and over again to deliver any kind of real "maverick" usefulness that actually would have made him a good candidate had he not abandoned it halfway through to sellout and get voters) and is now an Obama supporter. I think it's dumb to play partisan politics as it cheapens the entire thing. But you DO have to think about what is best for the country, and Obama plans on doing things that WILL help the country. We don't need another 4+ years of failure in the White House.

I have never been all that knowledgeable about politics, but as I have begun to pay attention, I am surprised at how the ways I think line up with conservative politics. Obama is so far to the left it scares me. With his socialist ideas that the government should do everything for people and his lack of patriotism and his liberal views on things like abortion. I know that issue is more complicated than most, but he would not even support a ban on partial birth abortions. That's sick. I simply disagree with his way of thinking, so I will not vote for him. the next 4 years will be different from the last 4, regardless of who wins. McCain is not Bush. The Democrats are constantly feeding you the line that McCain = Bush, but that's just not the case. The two are obviously more similar that Obama and Bush, but that doesn't mean they are =.
 
I didn't say you're not capable of debating, but throwing insults half the time is a pretty immature thing to do, and suggests that you are insecure enough about your point that you have to throw low blows to get it across.

When krig blatantly ignores my questions and comments, sometimes a little flare is all you need :rolleyes:

anyways I think the only conservative here is krig.
edit - nvm


McCain is not bush but approves or approved some of his policies
-tax cuts for the wealthy
- No timeline for the Iraq war
- believed (or maybe even still) that the war in Afghanistan was won.
- Refuses to speak with leaders of rouge nations unless on pre-determined contions according to his administration (yeah that helped us alot these past 8 years)
- Drill baby drill (stfu plz)

The only difference between the two is that McCain wants to freeze government spending on all but what is needed.
 
When krig blatantly ignores my questions and comments, sometimes a little flare is all you need :rolleyes:

anyways I think the only conservative here is krig.
edit - nvm


McCain is not bush but approves or approved some of his policies
-tax cuts for the wealthy
- No timeline for the Iraq war
- believed (or maybe even still) that the war in Afghanistan was won.
- Refuses to speak with leaders of rouge nations unless on pre-determined contions according to his administration (yeah that helped us alot these past 8 years)
- Drill baby drill (stfu plz)

The only difference between the two is that McCain wants to freeze government spending on all but what is needed.


The misconception is that Bush/McCain (and many others) will not allow talks with leaders of rogue nations. The fact is that they will not allow face to face talks at the presidential level. They are all for talking with them, but not face to face, at that level without signs that these nations are willing to come to the international table as a member of the world, and not solely as their own little nation that will do whatever they want. Obama, on the other hand, said that he personally would meet with the leaders of these nations regardless of any moves by that nation toward reason. That is the difference.
 
Maybe because it's a non-issue? You would thing the dems would already be talking about it if it was much of anything. I haven't read the whole thing, just the main top part. But McCain was not charged with any wrongdoing.

Sure, sure - with $112,000 he got from Keating, his family's $359,000 investments in Keating's business, and McCain's close personal relationship with Keating, I'm sure McCain did NOTHING wrong.

It's not like the committee "investigating" the incident was the most neutral ever. It was made up of Senators, and they only punished one of the five guys involved. Looks pretty damn fishy to me.
 
At least I've got something to throw back at the next Republican who tells me Obama's not as lobbyist-free as he claims he is, or that he'll be doing unjust favors for the black community if he's President. Not that either of those points had much bearing on the fact that his policy views are over 90% more logical than McCain's.
 
Did AchrisK seriously challenge Obama's patriotism? This is the oldest GOP trick in the book: Anyone who thinks that the way we're doing things is wrong must hate America. What a load of shit.
 
That debate didn't make me feel too good. Neither candidate answered the questions concisely or clearly enough, and focused too much on attacking each other's record.
 
I disagree, I thought it was a pretty great debate. They were both pretty well-composed (even with Brokaw being fucking annoying)...it really does make me wonder where THAT McCain has been the whole time...the whole Palin + I REALLY WANT VOTES moves he made hurt his credibility as a moderate. He gained some back last night, but I was surprised that Obama beat him on foreign policy...someone's been doing his homework.