Well we might as well have a McCain thread too......

[Runs With The Spirit]

He that oppress reproach his maker. He that honor him have mercy on the poor.

[Corleone]

Don't say "you guys"....My vote or opinion doesn't mean shit cause my party isn't in office...so............'

exactly what she said ^^

yeah i just read the obama thread

[emotivelotion]

Don't say "you guys"....My vote or opinion doesn't mean shit cause my party isn't in office...so............'

exactly what she said ^^

yeah i just read the obama thread

lawl your high fool

democracy is a fucking lie

[Variable]

You guys need to finish out this war shit, and then help in afghanistan, you know, where the taliban actually is.

woh woh woh woh.  Hold on a sec.  I think we can all agree going to Iraq was one of the worst decisions in American history.  But, we did go to Afghanistan first.  And we have not left Afghanistan since.  We have more than enough troops in Afghanistan to get the mission done.  And we are helping the people of Afghanistan in many, many ways.  Afghanistan is actually coming along quite nicely. 

The recent increase of violence is for two reasons
1.  The fighting season.  Check every single year, that the US and NATO has been in Afghanistan.  Violence always hits bottom in the winter, and sky rockets in the summer.  The mountains and harsh winter there do not allow the fighters to cross the Pakistan border during the winter.  So unless you are literally right on the boarder ( which of course only the US is with the Only exception of Britain except that we had to send the USMC down south to help them out) there will be no violence. 

2.  The United States Marine Corps.  yes, that is a reason in itself.  They  threw a few thousand Marines down south and they stirred things up.  How?  they left the base.  Yes, the opposite is actually a strategy that NATO forces ( particularly Canada and Britain down in the Helman Provence) have tried, and keep trying.  There is this infection mentality in Afghanistan that you should just stay on your FOB and hope the world around you remains secure.  It extents to the US Army as well.  Its disturbing.  However, Marines being trained as assault troops.  Tend to try to go do something.  So they started patrols.  This confused the Bad guys at first.  Because they were not used to seeing NATO forces in their villages.  After they realized it was not going to stop.  They started shooting at them.  Because it was giving the good people in those villages a sense of security.  A sense that maybe it was ok to go give some intelligence about where the bad guys are hiding out.

anyways, im preaching.  But that's what up in afghanistan.  Obama so proudly talks about how intelligent he is for wanting to send in, what is it two more brigades?  But that's not the problem at all.  The problem is to get the forces that are already there to do their job.  The mission after all is to get the Afghanistan National Army and Afghanistan National Police to take charge so we can eventually leave.  How would sending more troops be progressing towards that?  The NATO forces need to get their shit together.  And seeing as how the ONLY NATO forces with the potential to be worth a fuck are Canada and Britain ( I talk shit, but I actually have a lot of respect for both ) Maybe you sir should get your country to start doing more in Afghanistan. 

[Variable]

Don't say "you guys"....My vote or opinion doesn't mean shit cause my party isn't in office...so............'

and that bull shit too kelly.  And you know it.  Who has control of congress?  Did the Democrats not Vote for the "war" in Iraq?  Have republicans not tried to get out of it?  This issue goes beyond parties.  But, the congress controlled by your party hasn't done shit about anything.  If you want to point fingers that is. 

[devilinside]

Correct me if I'm wrong,but didn't the Democratic party just gain head in Congress?

"During the administration of President Franklin D. Roosevelt (1933–45), the Democratic Party controlled both houses of Congress. The Republicans won control of both houses in the 1946 elections, only to lose them in 1948; with Dwight D. Eisenhower's election to the presidency in 1952, the Republicans again won both houses. However, after the Democratic Party again won back control in the elections of 1954, it was the majority party in both houses of Congress for most of the next 40 years; the Republicans were only able to win control of the Senate for a six-year period (1981–87). The Republicans won a majority position in both houses of Congress in the elections of 1994. The Republicans controlled both houses until 2006, except the Senate for most of 2001 and 2002, when the Democrats had the majority after Jim Jeffords left the Republican Party to become an independent and caucus with the Democrats. In 2006, the Democratic Party regained control of the House of Representatives, and the results of the Senate elections yielded a Senate makeup of 49 Republicans, 49 Democrats, and two independents. In the 110th Congress (2007–08), the Democratic voting bloc has a 51-49 majority in the Senate because the two independents, Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut and Bernie Sanders of Vermont, align themselves with the Democratic Party."

[Variable]

if you consider "just" to be 2 years then sure.  But that's half their term.  They are up for re election in 2010.  And this is in fact the least productive congress in American history.  As in, they literally have not done shit.  Have not accomplished anything.  And since you so proudly boasted that your party was not in the white house.  I just thought I would mention that they did have control of congress.  and the president can only veto twice.....so.....hm

[devilinside]

TECHNICALLY they didn't take over till 07...kinda like when we vote for President and he doesn't take over till the next year. And here's a list of a few things they HAVE done.

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/110/key-votes/

I like Roll Call 624 myself...especially the last line "President Bush has promised to veto any bill that sets a deadline for troop withdrawal" 

[devilinside]

Why Trent is sooo BA



[youtube=625,550]yqOCpvCb1cI[/youtube]

[Corleone]

You guys need to finish out this war shit, and then help in afghanistan, you know, where the taliban actually is.

woh woh woh woh.  Hold on a sec.  I think we can all agree going to Iraq was one of the worst decisions in American history.  But, we did go to Afghanistan first.  And we have not left Afghanistan since.  We have more than enough troops in Afghanistan to get the mission done.   How would sending more troops be progressing towards that?  The NATO forces need to get their shit together.  And seeing as how the ONLY NATO forces with the potential to be worth a fuck are Canada and Britain ( I talk shit, but I actually have a lot of respect for both ) Maybe you sir should get your country to start doing more in Afghanistan. 

I know you guys are in Afghanistan, just wasn't sure how many troops you've commited. Do you know? I'm curious, we have 2500. I think thats a pretty good amount considering the size of our population.

The only thing I can do to help the war in Afghanistan is vote for Stephen Harper. Unless I enlist, which I'm not because I don't care that much.

[devilinside]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEtZlR3zp4c

http://www.cmpa.com/Studies/Election08/election%20news%207_29_08.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_Media_and_Public_Affairs


Todd Harris, a GOP strategist, slips up (?) and admits on MSNBC that the reason for Palin's press silence could be because she might make a mistake. So ... they need to groom and prep her to the point of a practical gag order?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2AV_54517R8

Oh, and the bit about her asking before if someone could explain to her what exactly a VP does everyday ... because, you know, she's used to "being productive and working real hard." Nice tone there, lady. Seems like this woman doesn't think much of jobs other than her own, considering she's mocked Obama's community work and the job of vice presidents.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=006axc2aELE

[Corleone]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEtZlR3zp4c

lol


I don't get it, why wouldn't the media cover this?

[Variable]

You guys need to finish out this war shit, and then help in afghanistan, you know, where the taliban actually is.

woh woh woh woh.  Hold on a sec.  I think we can all agree going to Iraq was one of the worst decisions in American history.  But, we did go to Afghanistan first.  And we have not left Afghanistan since.  We have more than enough troops in Afghanistan to get the mission done.   How would sending more troops be progressing towards that?  The NATO forces need to get their shit together.  And seeing as how the ONLY NATO forces with the potential to be worth a fuck are Canada and Britain ( I talk shit, but I actually have a lot of respect for both ) Maybe you sir should get your country to start doing more in Afghanistan. 

I know you guys are in Afghanistan, just wasn't sure how many troops you've commited. Do you know? I'm curious, we have 2500. I think thats a pretty good amount considering the size of our population.

The only thing I can do to help the war in Afghanistan is vote for Stephen Harper. Unless I enlist, which I'm not because I don't care that much.

im not sure exactly.  It would probably be pretty easy to look up.  But I just woke up so im being lazy.  But its a pretty substantial number.  Especially between the US and all the troops from all the other NATO countries.  Its enough.  Like I said, the goal is to have the ANA and ANP take over anyways.  I know the ANA is around 70,000 right now.  Not too bad for a country smaller than Texas.  You do know that I got back from afghanistan in April right?  Im just saying from my experiences there, we have enough troops.  They are just not being used.

[Variable]

TECHNICALLY they didn't take over till 07...kinda like when we vote for President and he doesn't take over till the next year. And here's a list of a few things they HAVE done.

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/110/key-votes/

I like Roll Call 624 myself...especially the last line "President Bush has promised to veto any bill that sets a deadline for troop withdrawal" 

like I said kelly, he can only veto twice

[devilinside]

Ok,whats your deal with the Vetoes? He can only Veto a bill once I though...

[Variable]

Congress passes a bill, the president doesn't like it.  He vetoes it.  It doesn't pass.  But if congress really believes in the bill, and isnt just trying to win the public over by saying " hey we tried but those jerk faces said no" then they will pass it again. Once again, the president Vetos it.  After that, if congress passes the bill again, the president can't veto it.  He can only veto the same bill twice.  So if any of this was actually important to them, they continue to pass the legislation, only 3 times.

Its just their way of saying that they did something, without actually doing anything.

[bright lights, big city]

really? i thought he just vetoed a bill once, then the process started over in congress, but it needed 2/3 of the vote to override the president.
guess i'm dumber than i thought.

[Corleone]

Interesting stuff

[devilinside]

really? i thought he just vetoed a bill once, then the process started over in congress, but it needed 2/3 of the vote to override the president.
guess i'm dumber than i thought.

EXACTLY! That's what I was saying. But hell....maybe I remember wrong also.

[Variable]

well yeah there is more to the process.  But I just simplified it.  Pretty much, the president does not have unlimited veto power.