BF2S Forums McCains VP Sarah Palin

Poseidon wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Poseidon wrote:

No no, I realize that. However, people (especially criminals) are very imaginitive. Plus, you never know who'd do it.

You simply can not take the chance and must be fully prepared. I'm not willing to have someone like Palin be the one to step in if Obama gets taken out for some reason.

If you are basing your campaign on bringing change to Washington you might want to consider adding someone other than a long time Washington Bureaucrat to the ticket. What's that say? If Obama is assassinated all bets are off?..lol. It's a conundrum and there is no way around it.

I don't get why people keep throwing that into the mix. Yes, he's been in the senate for a while. So? It's not like one person in the senate can commit change while they're there.

I'll say it again, too

Biden has the lowest income of anyone in the US Senate.  And he's a senior member too.  That should say at the very least he isnt a corrupt fuck like so many others cashing in.

Poseidon wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Poseidon wrote:

No no, I realize that. However, people (especially criminals) are very imaginitive. Plus, you never know who'd do it.

You simply can not take the chance and must be fully prepared. I'm not willing to have someone like Palin be the one to step in if Obama gets taken out for some reason.

If you are basing your campaign on bringing change to Washington you might want to consider adding someone other than a long time Washington Bureaucrat to the ticket. What's that say? If Obama is assassinated all bets are off?..lol. It's a conundrum and there is no way around it.

I don't get why people keep throwing that into the mix. Yes, he's been in the senate for a while. So? It's not like one person in the senate can commit change while they're there.

But his voting record shows what change? Bidin's been their for how long? How much change has he helped make?
Dates     Congress     Majority     President     Committees     Class/District
1973–1975     93rd     Democratic     Richard M. Nixon
Gerald R. Ford     Judiciary, Foreign Relations     class 2
1975–1977     94th     Democratic     Gerald R. Ford     Judiciary, Foreign Relations     class 2
1977–1979     95th     Democratic     James E. Carter, Jr.     Judiciary, Foreign Relations     class 2
1979–1981     96th     Democratic     James E. Carter, Jr.     Judiciary, Foreign Relations     class 2
1981–1983     97th     Republican     Ronald W. Reagan     Judiciary, Foreign Relations     class 2
1983–1985     98th     Republican     Ronald W. Reagan     Judiciary, Foreign Relations     class 2
1985–1987     99th     Republican     Ronald W. Reagan     Judiciary, Foreign Relations     class 2
1987–1989     100th     Democratic     Ronald W. Reagan     Judiciary, Foreign Relations     class 2
1989–1991     101st     Democratic     George H. W. Bush     Judiciary, Foreign Relations     class 2
1991–1993     102nd     Democratic     George H. W. Bush     Judiciary, Foreign Relations     class 2
1993–1995     103rd     Democratic     William J. Clinton     Judiciary, Foreign Relations     class 2
1995–1997     104th     Republican     William J. Clinton     Judiciary, Foreign Relations     class 2
1997–1999     105th     Republican     William J. Clinton     Judiciary, Foreign Relations     class 2
1999–2001     106th     Republican     William J. Clinton     Judiciary, Foreign Relations     class 2
2001–2003     107th     Republican
Democratic     George W. Bush     Judiciary, Foreign Relations     class 2
2003–2005     108th     Republican     George W. Bush     Judiciary, Foreign Relations     class 2
2005–2007     109th     Republican     George W. Bush     Judiciary, Foreign Relations     class 2
2007–2009     110th     Democratic     George W. Bush     Judiciary, Foreign Relations     class 2

He has been part of the Foreign Relations committee, lots of change.

Yeah, until Bush single handedly fucked it up.  Didnt think it could be done tbh, lol.

Spearhead wrote:

Yeah, until Bush single handedly fucked it up.  Didnt think it could be done tbh, lol.

Bush didn't do it alone. A President is not a dictator that can make laws and just say they are law, their are checks and balances.

He had plenty of help from congress, both Democrats and Republicans. The Dems say they were tricked, then you know what, you shouldn't be in office, if you are that brain dead to be led along by the leash.

Mutantsteak wrote:

Ajax_the_Great1 wrote:

Spearhead wrote:

I'll say it again, too

Biden has the lowest income of anyone in the US Senate.  And he's a senior member too.  That should say at the very least he isnt a corrupt fuck like so many others cashing in.

McCain is an old man with lots of money and a hot wife.

...

Think about it. Why would an older than dust man still want to run for office when he already has what most of us dream of getting?

Either way, you can make pressumtions about politicians morals and ethics all you want but in the end you believe only what you want to believe to be true, when in reality you have no idea.

SgtHeihn wrote:

Spearhead wrote:

Yeah, until Bush single handedly fucked it up.  Didnt think it could be done tbh, lol.

Bush didn't do it alone. A President is not a dictator that can make laws and just say they are law, their are checks and balances.

He had plenty of help from congress, both Democrats and Republicans. The Dems say they were tricked, then you know what, you shouldn't be in office, if you are that brain dead to be led along by the leash.

Yeah, you only would've called them faggots and pussies if they'd have noted no.  You hold people you disagree with up to a higher standard than those with which you do.

Ajax_the_Great1 wrote:

...  but in the end you believe only what you want to believe to be true, when in reality you have no idea.

I believe McCain wants to be there because he's got an agenda to try his vision for the Republican party ... the stuff he's been blowing about for years.

I believe Obama wants to be there because  ... well ... I think he's like a surfer on a wave, and loving every minute of it.  Ever see the movie Being There?  Well, that's Obama (minus the retarded mental state).

SgtHeihn wrote:

Spearhead wrote:

SgtHeihn wrote:

Bush didn't do it alone. A President is not a dictator that can make laws and just say they are law, their are checks and balances.

He had plenty of help from congress, both Democrats and Republicans. The Dems say they were tricked, then you know what, you shouldn't be in office, if you are that brain dead to be led along by the leash.

Yeah, you only would've called them faggots and pussies if they'd have noted no.  You hold people you disagree with up to a higher standard than those with which you do.

So what you are saying is that Democrats will follow the strongest leader because they can't make up their own minds or afraid of being  bullied?
If they can't stand up to their peers then how would they stand up to a foreign power?

That is the dumbest fucking thought I have ever heard on this forum, that is worse than a rammination post.

You know exactly why.  The Bush administration went on basically a public relations campaign to sell the war to the American people.  I believe a majority of people supported it when we first went in.  The Democrats voted to save their own asses, not saying it was good. 

I think you would find lots of GOP congress people who have slightly different views on the war now, too.  So it goes both ways. 

Another thing -- even if you supported the overthrow of Saddam Hussein and the invasion, nothing excuses the incompetence post invasion.  We didnt send enough troops and we had no plan.  Now, if we had had a plan, maybe this election would be a lot different.

Spearhead wrote:

SgtHeihn wrote:

Spearhead wrote:

Yeah, you only would've called them faggots and pussies if they'd have noted no.  You hold people you disagree with up to a higher standard than those with which you do.

So what you are saying is that Democrats will follow the strongest leader because they can't make up their own minds or afraid of being  bullied?
If they can't stand up to their peers then how would they stand up to a foreign power?

That is the dumbest fucking thought I have ever heard on this forum, that is worse than a rammination post.

You know exactly why.  The Bush administration went on basically a public relations campaign to sell the war to the American people.  I believe a majority of people supported it when we first went in.  The Democrats voted to save their own asses, not saying it was good. 

I think you would find lots of GOP congress people who have slightly different views on the war now, too.  So it goes both ways. 

Another thing -- even if you supported the overthrow of Saddam Hussein and the invasion, nothing excuses the incompetence post invasion.  We didnt send enough troops and we had no plan.  Now, if we had had a plan, maybe this election would be a lot different.

Well, take the Democrat run Congress now, they took over seats on the basis on ending the war in Iraq, total withdrawal, the war is still being run the same way.

Saving your ass is not a excuse when it comes to running a country.

If Bush is so bad, then why is his approval rating higher than Congress?

DBBrinson1 wrote:

9  Pages and how long has this thread been around?.... I think McCain hit a home run.

When do you think he DOESNT hit a home run? lmao

SgtHeihn wrote:

Spearhead wrote:

SgtHeihn wrote:

So what you are saying is that Democrats will follow the strongest leader because they can't make up their own minds or afraid of being  bullied?
If they can't stand up to their peers then how would they stand up to a foreign power?

That is the dumbest fucking thought I have ever heard on this forum, that is worse than a rammination post.

You know exactly why.  The Bush administration went on basically a public relations campaign to sell the war to the American people.  I believe a majority of people supported it when we first went in.  The Democrats voted to save their own asses, not saying it was good. 

I think you would find lots of GOP congress people who have slightly different views on the war now, too.  So it goes both ways. 

Another thing -- even if you supported the overthrow of Saddam Hussein and the invasion, nothing excuses the incompetence post invasion.  We didnt send enough troops and we had no plan.  Now, if we had had a plan, maybe this election would be a lot different.

Well, take the Democrat run Congress now, they took over seats on the basis on ending the war in Iraq, total withdrawal, the war is still being run the same way.

Saving your ass is not a excuse when it comes to running a country.

If Bush is so bad, then why is his approval rating higher than Congress?

Well, the "Democrat" congress is more or less split right down the middle.  The only way they could've pulled the troops out, which as the GOP made conveniently clear may put some troops at risk.  So we're stuck.

No shit its not an excuse.  I didnt say it was.  Congress has a low approval rating because we're still in fucking Iraq and things are still turning to shit at home.  Bush's approval rating is higher because the people that approve of him now would approve of him anytime, anywhere.  Hes a horrible president.  Does that mean everythings his fault?  No, but fucking hell its hard to believe 20 or 30 percent of the right wing still likes him.  Really shows how the GOPs been hijacked. 

DBBrinson1 wrote:

Spearhead wrote:

You know exactly why.  The Bush administration went on basically a public relations campaign to sell the war to the American people.  I believe a majority of people supported it when we first went in.  The Democrats voted to save their own asses, not saying it was good. 

I think you would find lots of GOP congress people who have slightly different views on the war now, too.  So it goes both ways. 

Another thing -- even if you supported the overthrow of Saddam Hussein and the invasion, nothing excuses the incompetence post invasion.  We didnt send enough troops and we had no plan.  Now, if we had had a plan, maybe this election would be a lot different.

Gotta call bullshit on that one.  Many predominant democratic leaders BEFORE Bush was even in office called for the forcible removal of Saddam.  Seriously how do you guys ever find your TV remotes or car keys?

Plan?  The admin thought the people of Iraq would have stepped up a bit more.. Bush was fighting a war in Afghanistan, Iraq and a media war.  I'd say he won 2 of the 3 (and the media loss is peanuts). 

Pray tell.  What was the Dem's plan when things by the media were perceived bleak in Iraq?  Pull out... er, re-deploy.

Of course there were.  Saddam was a piece of shit dictator.  Plenty of people wanted him out.

The post invasion plan was simply shit.  There was no plan.  We dissolved the fucking Iraqi military.  We didnt do that in Germany after WW2.

Simply put, the Bush administration gambled with the lives of Americans by trying to win a war without the effort and sacrifice needed.  They ignored the people who criticized anything they had done.

BTW, things were perceived bleak in Iraq LONG BEFORE the media jumped on board.  The media was in full support of the war at its begining remember?  Oh wait, no, of course not, because it doesnt support your accusation of liberal bias.

Have you ever considered the "liberal" media decided things were bleak in Iraq because they were??  Do you even give a shit about the Americans who died so nutjob Arabs could kill eachother over rivalries thousands of years old? 

70 people died the other day from a bombing in Iraq.  Why the fuck are we still there?  Either do the draft, and fix it, or leave.

Last edited by Spearhead (2008-08-29 21:42:32)

The Dems took control of Congress saying they would end the war, why haven't they? They have the majority to ram a bill through, and enough to override a Presidential veto. Get over your hatred  of Republicans and blind following of the Dems and see the bigger picture, both parties are bad for America.

The Congressional leadership is just as fucked up.

All the Congress cares about is furthering the goals of their own parties, that is all American politics are today. 

And no, people wont just stand by Bush because he is pres, his approval rating was lower than Congress before the Dems took it over.

SgtHeihn wrote:

The Dems took control of Congress saying they would end the war, why haven't they? They have the majority to ram a bill through, and enough to override a Presidential veto. Get over your hatred  of Republicans and blind following of the Dems and see the bigger picture, both parties are bad for America.

The Congressional leadership is just as fucked up.

All the Congress cares about is furthering the goals of their own parties, that is all American politics are today. 

And no, people wont just stand by Bush because he is pres, his approval rating was lower than Congress before the Dems took it over.

No, they do NOT have enough to override a presidential veto.  That is the key point.

Its not Bushs numbers which have fallen, its Congress' numbers.  When the Dems "took over" (remember, they barely hold a majority) The Republicans naturally went against them, and because the Dems havent stopped the war yet, Congress is getting hit by both sides.  I wonder what the approval rating would be if the Republicans had a majority.  Probably higher.

So yes.  Bush's approval ratings have gone anywhere from like 25 to 90 percent during his 8 years.  Lately its been like 25 or 30.  To me that says a lot about the GOP.  He should have one just as low as the Congress right now.  And congress should be a tad bit higher.

Last edited by Spearhead (2008-08-29 22:41:33)