It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
There can't be a legitimate disagreement. Noooo... Its because McCain doesn't care about the troops. That's gotta be it.
Originally posted by RabbitChaser
reply to post by RRconservative
And there is the problem in this damn country. Most of you think you only have two choices in every race. All of you... OPEN YOUR DAMN EYES!!
Throw ALL The Bums Out!!
I should know who the Libertarian nominee is by Monday. I anticipate Wayne Root... maybe Bob Barr. So... there's a 3rd choice, just in the Presidential race. There will be others on the ballot. Just as there will be other parties represented in most other races when they are up for a vote. It baffles me that the majority of voters continually WASTE their votes on these two corrupt parties who don't give a crap about the American people.
[edit on 5/24/2008 by RabbitChaser]
Originally posted by vor78
reply to post by wytworm
There was another version that he supported instead.
But it really just illustrates what's wrong with American politics at the top, IMO. There can't be a legitimate disagreement. Noooo... Its because McCain doesn't care about the troops. That's gotta be it.
Originally posted by Rilence
reply to post by wytworm
Put it this way...
If you want to further alienate the US from the rest of the "democratic" world, go ahead and elect the man as president...
Frankly, if he is elected president, the final nail in the coffin of the empire of the USA will be nailed...
Careful how you vote, folks...
Originally posted by RomanMaroni
reply to post by RRconservative
RR, I noticed in your signature you have a quote from Ronald Reagan. Your comment is about singing kumbya before negotiating with terrorists. Now, did Reagan sing kumbya before he negotiated with the Iranian terrorists? Or was he against the singing part? How about the Contra terrorists? For or against the singing part? I was just a little confused. I understand the negotiating with terrorists part doesn't bother you, it's just whether they should sing kumbya prior to the actual negotiation. Maybe that's why the Rep's kept saying we need a new Ronald Reagan in all their debates. So they know exactly how to negotiate with terrorists while they tell the American people, "We don't negotiate with terrorists."
Originally posted by blimpseeker
Seems like to me that Obama got what is commonly reffered to as a "smack down"
or also a synonym for this would be, "shut up fool! (insert a pimp slap here) you don't know what you sayin beeeotch!"
Originally posted by RRconservative
It's amazing how people distort history. Reagan did not negotiate with the Iranian hostage takers. They were released a few minutes after Reagan took the oath of office. It's amazing what perceived strength will do.
Yes we did negiotiate with the Soviet Union, but in different ways. You have Kennedy's way...which led to the Bay of Pigs, then you have Reagans way (The bombing starts in 5 minutes), which led to the collapse of the Soviet Union. Hussein Obama is no Ronald Reagan, heck he is not even close to JFK, so imagine the consiquences of his negotiations.
The Contras were not terrorists, they were fighting a communist regime led by a good friend of Democrats, Daniel Ortega, in Nicaragua. The Democrat controlled Congress couldn't have us messing with their favorite Communist leader, so they declared messing with him illegal...hence Iran/Contra.
Negotiation out of strength, and pandering are two different things. Hussein Obama would do that latter.
The idea of that macho freak McCain at the helm makes visions of Cheney and Rumselfeld dance in my head.