Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
Your Next president
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="wkmac" data-source="post: 307503" data-attributes="member: 2189"><p>Hillary has been seen going around Auburn Ala. writting the leter "G" in front of Obama to make it say Go Bama in order to steer the vote towards her. I love that one.</p><p></p><p>I understand your frustration with the 2 party system and the believed control the democrats/republicans have over it but I personally believe it's an illusion and ruse. Don't be afraid to look at 3rd party choices and IMO this election is an example of there being no real clear differences between the 3 candidates when you honestly look at their records.</p><p></p><p>For example:</p><p><strong>Healthcare</strong>, with all 3 there may be suttle differences but in the end there will be some kind of gov't mandate, gov't growth and less open free market.</p><p><strong>Immigration</strong>, lots of talk but inthe end nothing will change.</p><p><strong>War on Terror, </strong>McCain and Hillary are easy because their records are so overpowering. No change between those 2 at all. One reason Hillary is loosing to Obama is she is seen as really Pro-War. But what about Obama? Before he came to Washington and was an Ill. State Senator, he was clearly and vocally anti-war. However, since he's come to Washington he's voted for continuing war funding <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Story?id=2970930&page=2" target="_blank"><span style="color: blue"><strong>http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Story?id=2970930&page=2</strong></span></a></p><p></p><p>And</p><p></p><p></p><p>so troops would stay to "protect US assets" ie bases and civilian contractors and here's the real kicker "engage in counterterrorism activities in Iraq." Now that one line proves to me the most interesting of all. This is the sounds of someone totally committed to an antiwar stance? OK, so you still think he'd pull them all out? Well he had his chance to make that committment to the public but instead refused to go that far.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>If you are committed to an antiwar stance, everyone comes home, period!</p><p></p><p>What about Pakistan?</p><p></p><p>Here's an interesting Q & A with Obama.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Redeployment to where? If antiwar it would be "I'll bring the troops home!" but instead he spoke of "we can still have troops in the region, outside of Iraq" Where at Mr. Senator?</p><p></p><p>What about Pakistan!</p><p></p><p>Let's start with this. The question goes first to Sen. Clinton and then a followup to Sen Obama.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>OK, my question would be, how would you deal with them? and Where again would you deploy the troops? OK, let's see if we again can figure this out.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>continuing:</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Does Obama really want to go into Pakistan?</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>For anyone to think Barack Obama is antiwar or opposed to war then let him/her not think that way any longer. Boiling this down, Barack will redeploy the troops to Afghanistan/Pakistan with a troop presence left in Iraq.</p><p></p><p>So you see Bad Gas, in the end the 3 candidates really don't differ at all but you've been sold an illusion by policy wonks hoping to protect self-interest political control. Don't be so quick to play their game.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="wkmac, post: 307503, member: 2189"] Hillary has been seen going around Auburn Ala. writting the leter "G" in front of Obama to make it say Go Bama in order to steer the vote towards her. I love that one. I understand your frustration with the 2 party system and the believed control the democrats/republicans have over it but I personally believe it's an illusion and ruse. Don't be afraid to look at 3rd party choices and IMO this election is an example of there being no real clear differences between the 3 candidates when you honestly look at their records. For example: [B]Healthcare[/B], with all 3 there may be suttle differences but in the end there will be some kind of gov't mandate, gov't growth and less open free market. [B]Immigration[/B], lots of talk but inthe end nothing will change. [B]War on Terror, [/B]McCain and Hillary are easy because their records are so overpowering. No change between those 2 at all. One reason Hillary is loosing to Obama is she is seen as really Pro-War. But what about Obama? Before he came to Washington and was an Ill. State Senator, he was clearly and vocally anti-war. However, since he's come to Washington he's voted for continuing war funding [URL='http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Story?id=2970930&page=2'][COLOR=blue][B]http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Story?id=2970930&page=2[/B][/COLOR][/URL] And so troops would stay to "protect US assets" ie bases and civilian contractors and here's the real kicker "engage in counterterrorism activities in Iraq." Now that one line proves to me the most interesting of all. This is the sounds of someone totally committed to an antiwar stance? OK, so you still think he'd pull them all out? Well he had his chance to make that committment to the public but instead refused to go that far. If you are committed to an antiwar stance, everyone comes home, period! What about Pakistan? Here's an interesting Q & A with Obama. Redeployment to where? If antiwar it would be "I'll bring the troops home!" but instead he spoke of "we can still have troops in the region, outside of Iraq" Where at Mr. Senator? What about Pakistan! Let's start with this. The question goes first to Sen. Clinton and then a followup to Sen Obama. OK, my question would be, how would you deal with them? and Where again would you deploy the troops? OK, let's see if we again can figure this out. continuing: Does Obama really want to go into Pakistan? For anyone to think Barack Obama is antiwar or opposed to war then let him/her not think that way any longer. Boiling this down, Barack will redeploy the troops to Afghanistan/Pakistan with a troop presence left in Iraq. So you see Bad Gas, in the end the 3 candidates really don't differ at all but you've been sold an illusion by policy wonks hoping to protect self-interest political control. Don't be so quick to play their game. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
Your Next president
Top