<p>
[quote]
This gets the award for How to Best Turn People Off and Away From Your Favorite Candidate.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>It's also called speaking the truth.</p>
<p>Give me one policy supported by the remaining two candidates that would actually help the United States, a well as coincide with the beliefs written in our Rule of Law (Constitution for those ill-informed).</p>
<p>Just give me one.</p>
<p>
[quote]
[quote]
This gets the award for How to Best Turn People Off and Away From Your Favorite Candidate.
[/quote]
It's also called speaking the truth.
[/quote]
As you see it. There are many different truths accompanying different points of view.</p>
<p>I agree with wedge, I rather vote for Ron Paul than Obama and McCain, but if I have to vote (I wouldnt vote even if I can), I prefer Obama.</p>
<p>Just give me one.</p>
<p>McCain- Nuclear power and drilling in Alaska. Game. Set. Match.</p>
<p>"McCain- Nuclear power and drilling in Alaska. Game. Set. Match."</p>
<p>This solves our energy problems! Alaska has enough crude oil for like a million years! Plus, look at Chernobyl they turned out just fine!</p>
<p>Plus, look at France and the rest of Europe: they turned out just fine!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!</p>
<p>"Yeah, Obama being the picture of moderateness and all"
Of Course Obama isn't a moderate, but I surprisingly agree with his stances more than John McCain, even though McCain was considered the moderate. Hell if I knew Barr had a chance I'd vote for him, but realistically he's got no chance. So I might as well vote for either Obama or McCain. Obama's tax increases to the wealthy(Used to be my main gripe about him), though I disagree with them in theory, aren't going to affect me. So in the long run, he has the potential to help me in that respect more than McCain. So I conclude, reluctantly that Obama's my man. Guess I'm sort of an Obamacon in this sense:)</p>
<p>One thing worse than a tax-and-spend Democrat is a don't-tax-and-spend Republican. Someday we (our children and grandchildren) have to pay back the Chinese for their funding of the Iraq war. This is the first time a "war" president (Republican or Democrat) has not raised taxes at least somewhat to pay for a war. I wish more people were willing to pay our way now. War bonds worked when the people were 100% behind the war. Do people think the bills will be magically paid somehow, someday? I don't think so; I think we're collectively headed for collapse (default on our Chinese borrowing) if we don't start behaving more fiscally responsibly. I don't hear McCain or Obama facing up to this.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Those whom would vote for Obama have no true understanding of this country, nor do they truly understand his ideals. He is a Socialist folks, wake the hell up. He's also a stone cold liar. Before he became the nominee he vowed to get us out of Iraq as soon as he was elected. Just days ago he went back on this and stated he will now "review" the current strategy and try to update it. So there you go, he told us we were leaving, and now he's telling us we're just going to change up our strategy.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Um, Obama has never said that he would immediately pull out of Iraq. He's not Dennis Kucinich. </p>
<p>Obama's stance has always been that he'd set the mission for a 16-month gradual withdrawal, which was subject to the ongoing situation on the ground and the opinions of the generals. Any mischaracterization of this position is either ignorance or deceitfulness.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Um, Obama has never said that he would immediately pull out of Iraq. He's not Dennis Kucinich. </p>
<p>Obama's stance has always been that he'd set the mission for a 16-month gradual withdrawal, which was subject to the ongoing situation on the ground and the opinions of the generals. Any mischaracterization of this position is either ignorance or deceitfulness.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>O'Rly.</p>
<p>Obama</a> Changes Mind About Iraq | The News is NowPublic.com</p>
<p>Pre-Nomination</p>
<p>
[quote]
"Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Post-Nomination</p>
<p>
[quote]
I am going to do a thorough assessment when I'm there," he told reporters in Fargo, N.D., according to CBS News. "When I go to Iraq and I have a chance to talk to some of the commanders on the ground, I'm sure I'll have more information and will continue to refine my policies."
[/quote]
</p>
<p>It seems to me as if he once stated he would start the withdrawal as soon as he became President, but now that he is the Nominee, he has changed his mind.</p>
<p>Imagine a President with the capability to change her/his mind when conditions change! Unthinkable! (In the last seven years, at least.)</p>
<p>
[quote]
Imagine a President with the capability to change her/his mind when conditions change! Unthinkable! (In the last seven years, at least.)
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Imagine, a President that lies to the American public about one of the biggest issues are country is facing, and as soon as he is nominated as the Democrat Candidate, he recants on his previous promises.</p>
<p>Imagine political debate where participants don't distort! Imagine quoting O'Reilly and believing it!</p>
<p>tomatoking,</p>
<p>Using Chernobyl as a reason against nuclear power is a very ignorant argument in our time, it really hows how uninformed you are. </p>
<p>Chernobyl was a result of undertrained technicians conducting an unsafe test as a result of political pressure in a SOVIET reactor. Reactor designs have changed so much in the last two decades that a meltdown like that just cannot feasibly happen.</p>
<p>I hate people who cite Chernobyl as a reason we should not have nuclear power. There is no corrolation between the problems with the Chernobly reactor and the reactors built in the US. Anyone who sites this as a reason really has no idea what they are talking about.</p>
<p>i hate you too <3</p>
<p>
[quote]
It seems to me as if he once stated he would start the withdrawal as soon as he became President, but now that he is the Nominee, he has changed his mind.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Sigh, Obama has always said that he, unlike George "Mind of Stone" Bush, would always listen to his generals and assess the ongoing situation when carrying out his Iraq plan. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Imagine, a President that lies to the American public about one of the biggest issues are country is facing, and as soon as he is nominated as the Democrat Candidate, he recants on his previous promises.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Lying? Maybe Obama will pull another bait and switch and Blackify himself right after the inauguration and enslave the white race.</p>
<p>No Obama did not. I personally watched about every primary speech or debate, bc of FOX and my involvement with political speaking. And what Obama repeatedly said was that we are going to end this war. Over and over, unquivocally that is what he said. There was NO mention of listening to generals, in fact when McCain said that he would stay for 100 years to ensure Americans were safe, the Dems mocked them. Obama has been to Iraq and NEVER mentioned listening to generals. What he said REPEATEDLY was that he was going to end the war and bring universal healthcare. The first he changed on, the second he doesn't talk about. That is a fact.
In fact I remeber the debate in at University of Texas (i am from texas) they both (Hill and Obama) that they would bring home 1 or 2 brigades a month starting when they were in office and he repeatedly talked about how he did not vote for the Iraq war. This junk about listening to generals is new, and is a flip flop pure and simple.</p>
<p>The thing is what is Obama's plan for energy. He said that he is adverse to off shore drilling bc it will not have an impact for 10 years, but a good leader makes plans for the long time. Not the immediately.</p>
<p>Heck even on HIS OWN website, it doesn't state that Barack Obama supported listening to generals.</p>
<p>Barack</a> Obama | Change We Can Believe In | Iraq</p>
<p>And the funniest thing, is he stated in the campaign that he didn't vote for the iraq war, but the truth is he did not vote against it bc he was in the State Legislator. So somehow a person who wasn't even qualified to be a senator when the war started is somehow qualified to be the president to guide our policy in iraq.</p>
<p>From the site:
"Before the war in Iraq ever started, Senator Obama said that it was wrong in its conception. In 2002, then Illinois State Senator Obama said Saddam Hussein posed no imminent threat to the United States and that invasion would lead to an occupation of undetermined length"</p>
<p>As Michael Cooper and Jeff Zeleny shrewdly put it in the New York Times, Republicans want to place Obama "in the political equivalent of a double bind: painting him as impervious to the changing reality on the ground if he sticks to his plan, and as a flip-flopper if he alters it to reflect changing circumstances."</p>
<p>At the beginning of the year, McCain famously said he was willing to keep troops in Iraq for 100 years, "as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed." But in May, McCain promised that America would have "welcomed home most of the servicemen and women" by the end of his first term and that American troops in Iraq would not be playing "a direct combat role."</p>
<p>McCain is plainly adjusting his rhetoric to appease the clear majority of Americans who believe the Iraq war was a mistake and want it to end.</p>