Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: sunfan1121 on February 07, 2008, 12:27:40 PM
-
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jWbI2rULUHnQwe-83Fd1Pb2lT8-wD8ULK7GG0
YAAAAAAAAAA Mac won:p
-
Originally posted by sunfan1121
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jWbI2rULUHnQwe-83Fd1Pb2lT8-wD8ULK7GG0
YAAAAAAAAAA Mac won:p
Yah, he won the right to become another Goldwater. :lol :lol :lol
Prediction: McCain will win less than the 6 six states that Goldwater did in 1964.
SIG 220
-
Yah, he won the right to become another Goldwater.
Sig, if you genuinely believe that Romney had a snowball's chance in Tahiti of beating Obama or Clinton, then you need to cut back on the Wild Turkey.
Like him or hate him, McCain has a better shot at stopping the Dems because he appeals to the more moderate majority in both parties. The Republican nominee is going to need broader support that just the conservative core of one party.
No, I'm not a McCain fanboy, I'm just saying that Romney is an unrealistic choice for President. The dude couldn't garner broad enough support.
-
Originally posted by Caz1
Sig, if you genuinely believe that Romney had a snowball's chance in Tahiti of beating Obama or Clinton, then you need to cut back on the Wild Turkey.
Like him or hate him, McCain has a better shot at stopping the Dems because he appeals to the more moderate majority in both parties. The Republican nominee is going to need broader support that just the conservative core of one party.
No, I'm not a McCain fanboy, I'm just saying that Romney is an unrealistic choice for President. The dude couldn't garner broad enough support.
McCain has a better chance of beating one of them because he IS one of them
-
Like I said, I'm not a McCain fanboy. I really don't care much for him, but making the argument (implied, or directly stated) that Romeny has a better chance at beating the Dems is lunacy.
Sure McCain is a liberal Republican - despite his posturing to the contrary - but he's arguably more palatable to conservatives than the Donkeys.
As for myself, I'm still undecided. There aren't a lot of great choices, so I'll probably do what I usually do in November - vote for the candidate that I think can do the least damage over the coming four years. ;P
Aren't politics great?
-
Romney's simply not an inspiring leader, as was Reagan. His concession speech today was by far the best speech I ever heard him give
-
Aren't politics great?
Nope, vote for micky mouse for 08'!
or i guess goofy, he couldn't be any worse at speaking than bush.
-
Originally posted by Caz1
Like I said, I'm not a McCain fanboy. I really don't care much for him, but making the argument (implied, or directly stated) that Romeny has a better chance at beating the Dems is lunacy.
Sure McCain is a liberal Republican - despite his posturing to the contrary - but he's arguably more palatable to conservatives than the Donkeys.
As for myself, I'm still undecided. There aren't a lot of great choices, so I'll probably do what I usually do in November - vote for the candidate that I think can do the least damage over the coming four years. ;P
Aren't politics great?
McCain is the smart choice for the Republicans inasmuch as he is a liberal republican.
Meaning he stand the best chance in the slim or no chance the republican party has of winnning in 08.
A victory over Clintoon/Obabama is going ot be nothing short of a major upset. As the Demoncrats have poisoned the public so much with the anti Bush propoganda.
The public will only see any Republican as being another Bush.
There is a slim chance of the Reps pulling out a victory.
But two things are going to happen.
Two things Bush can accomplish to turn it around.
1 Remove the War froom the equasion by beginning to very publically bringing the troops home. But Bush is just hardheaded enough not to do that.
2 Do something that can be very publically claimed that turns the economy around in a major way.
And the Democrates are unlikely to do much in the way of helping him accomplish that. they will help just enough to keep it from completely collapsing but no more.
To do so would give Bush a political victory.
and the major reason they have been successful at painting bush as a demon is their unwillingness to do anything that might give him a political victory.
To do so now would be like stopping and kneeling it out with the end zone and winning touchdown in sight at the 10 yard line with no defenders within 30 yards.
-
Terrible that politics has come to a vote of "Don't lose" instead of a vote for your parties core beliefs.
-
I only vote for Republicans to the extent that they are the home of conservatives--I will not vote for McCain. A few years of an idiot like Obama or Hillary is only SLIGHTly worse than a few years of McCain. Voting for McCain is like taking your wife back after you caught her boffing the neighbor. and laughing at you while she did it:furious
-
Originally posted by bj229r
(http://a.abcnews.com/images/GMA/is_tantrum_070808_ms.jpg)
-
nah, it's more like THIS:(http://i106.photobucket.com/albums/m248/bj229r/412a.jpg)
-
Every candidate match I took gave me Romney as my closest choice. I liked him but could not get over the fact he was a Mormon. Sorry. Now I'm in "AnyTHING but Hitlary" mode. I honestly don't think the GOP stands a chance this time around. Hows that for optimism?
:aok
-
Originally posted by RedTop
Terrible that politics has come to a vote of "Don't lose" instead of a vote for your parties core beliefs.
even more terrible and downright sad that people vote for a specific party pr justt o keep anothe party out instead of the best person reguardless of core beleifs.
-
Tell ya what though
Reguardless if Hillary or Obamba win.
They damn well best do a good job.
Because if either dont.
It will be as long LONG time comming before a Woman or a black ever get voted in again
I am not against either a woman or a Black winning.
But one must be aware of the precidents, standards and expectations that would be set by either of them getting in.
-
this election is pretty simple, if you want Iraq to turn into another Vietnam vote for hillary/obama.
-
Originally posted by john9001
this election is pretty simple, if you want Iraq to turn into another Vietnam vote for hillary/obama.
It already is..in spades.
shamus
-
you need to update your news service.
-
Originally posted by Shamus
It already is..in spades.
shamus
Only if we pull out and let Iran/Taliban/Religious Zealots take over. We're still in Germay and South Korea and it's relatively painless. Iraq is growing less painless. Pulling out of South Vietnam was painless neither for us nor the millions murdered in the region as a result.
er, Iraq is growing less painful
never mix whiskey and rum, unless you run out of whiskey ;)
-
If we only had someone with some serious military experience in charge when it counted, Iraq would have never been the quagmire it is.
-
Iraq today is probably much like it would have been a couple of years ago had we applied the proper force then. Mistakes were made and lives lost as result. The situation has been corrected. Anyone who thinks we can defeat Islamic facism in a couple of years is ignoring hundreds of years of history or needs to be willing to use nukes.
-
Lincoln.
If I only had someone with some serious military experience in charge when it counted, the civil war would have never been the quagmire it is.
-
Originally posted by john9001
Lincoln.
If I only had someone with some serious military experience in charge when it counted, the civil war would have never been the quagmire it is.
The Civil War only lasted 4 years and had 2 combatants.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Only if we pull out and let Iran/Taliban/Religious Zealots take over. We're still in Germay and South Korea and it's relatively painless. Iraq is growing less painless. Pulling out of South Vietnam was painless neither for us nor the millions murdered in the region as a result.
er, Iraq is growing less painful
never mix whiskey and rum, unless you run out of whiskey ;)
Unfortunately, there is a world of difference, between Iraq, and the situation in Germany/South Korea.
The situation in Germany/R.O.K. stemmed' from having hostile OUTSIDE neighbors, who were driven and equipped by our chief nemesis during the cold war-the U.S.S.R.
Iraq is a country that we recently invaded, and overthrew the government of. A Non-extremist, albeit ruthless and dictatorial one.
In Germany/R.O.K., The U.S. could probably leave tomorrow, letting those countries' look after themselves. Germany would probably be ok. The R.O.K. Still faces' a hardline communist regime, that could possibly be backed up by the new Communist superpower-China-and they more than likely still want the help of the U.S. To deter any possible aggression from their northern cousins.
But such is not the case with Iraq.
It faces more insurgency. It has to cope with the fact that very few other nations' in the area, have a non-theology based form of Gov't. And that is what these people...well, seem to cherish.
We'll be there forever, propping up a pro-western gov't. I don't see any way that any gov't. we install, will stand up on it's own, without a significant U.S. presence. All it will take is a coup, as soon as the U.S. force levels' are down low enough. It would be 1979 all over again.
-
Originally posted by bj229r
McCain has a better chance of beating one of them because he IS one of them
Word.
-
Originally posted by john9001
this election is pretty simple, if you want Iraq to turn into another Vietnam vote for hillary/obama.
Hilarious. Some people just eat up the party line.
The surge was supposed to allow the Iraqis to reconstitute their government... and what did they do? They took a vacation.
Now they are acting like that washed up cousin that comes to your house to stay "a few days" cuz he lost his job...
...and still doesn't have one 5 months later, sittin on the couch eatin your doritos and watchin "Judge Judy" while you're at work supportin the *******.
We need to move the hell on. These people don't want what we're shoving down their throats.
-
that's not the party line, thats my line.
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
Meaning he stand the best chance in the slim or no chance the republican party has of winnning in 08.
Never underestimate the ability of the democrats to screw up an election.
Romney pulling out allows the GOP to start concentrating on the general election -- organization, money, lining up support and so on. Despite all the current whining, the party will quickly fall in line now that their nominee is clear.
Meanwhile Hilary v. Obama is going to be a slugfest. They will each spend millions attacking each other and could possibly even go to Denver with no consensus. A protracted delegate fight would be a disaster for the dems -- by then whoever is the nominee could be so far behind they will never catch up.
-
yep.. billary is obsessed with winning.. she would tie the whole democratic party to a stake and set it on fire if it would mean she would win. I don't think you want to see her when she is desperate and/or angry.
osamabama will look like a fool when the republicans tell everyone how much he is going to charge each and every one of the lower middle class and the middle class to fund all his programs.
they are setting the stage now by making anyone who wants to "end the war" admit that they mean cut and run.. if they say they won't cut and run...
Then they have no "peace dividend" to flush down the social welfare toilet and they need to add more burden on to the middle class.. if they tax the "rich" they won't get enough and they will slow the economy that tax cuts heated up.
A pleasant voice and promises of utopia only play well to the choir when people start asking how you are gonna pay for it.
lazs
-
Originally posted by myelo
Never underestimate the ability of the democrats to screw up an election.
Romney pulling out allows the GOP to start concentrating on the general election -- organization, money, lining up support and so on. Despite all the current whining, the party will quickly fall in line now that their nominee is clear.
Meanwhile Hilary v. Obama is going to be a slugfest. They will each spend millions attacking each other and could possibly even go to Denver with no consensus. A protracted delegate fight would be a disaster for the dems -- by then whoever is the nominee could be so far behind they will never catch up.
I understand what your saying.
But I think the country as a whole do not want another republican in the Whitehouse after Bush.
IMO The Democrates have so conditioned the public to detest Bush that/and Bush has so poisoned the republican party. That the Republicans have next to no shot of winning no matter who the Democrats put up or how long it takes them to do it.
McCain only stands a chance because of his more moderate stand.
But he is being hurt by the "R" word.
Just as Democrates were hurt by the liberal word.
To be fair. Bush helped the Democrats push that poison with his own antics.
In the end Its only hurt the party in the country as a whole.
-
Frankly, in this time of war, I simply cannot let my campaign be a part of aiding a surrender to terror.
You have got to be kidding me! This is about as low and scandalous a remark as I've heard in this campaign. Mr. Family Values takes the high road....
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
I understand what your saying.
But I think the country as a whole do not want another republican in the Whitehouse after Bush.
Most of the country doesn't know what they want until someone tells them. Anybody who thinks a presidential campaign is about issues, ideology, or competency needs to get a grip on reality.
It's about organization, marketing, and public relations. And most of all it's about money.
-
John Stewart ripped Romney a new one last night... http://www.thedailyshow.com/index.jhtml
-
Originally posted by bsdaddict
John Stewart ripped Romney a new one last night... http://www.thedailyshow.com/index.jhtml
you watch stewart? HAHAHAHAHA.
-
Originally posted by john9001
you watch stewart? HAHAHAHAHA.
occasionally, although I wasn't watching last night. This was posted on another board I frequent...
-
Originally posted by john9001
you watch stewart? HAHAHAHAHA.
You don't???????????
Bwahahahaha.
-
Originally posted by john9001
fix]Grant.[/fix]
If I only had someone with some serious military experience in charge when it counted, the civil war would have never been the quagmire it is.
fixed, free of charge
-
Lincoln needed Grant, Bush needed Petraeus. Try to keep up.
-
Originally posted by john9001
Lincoln needed Grant, Bush needed Petraeus. Try to keep up.
my bad, i thought you were giving credit to Lincoln for saving the Union army's bacon. Although I think Lincoln went through more Generals than Bush...