Who do you want to be the next president?

eaglesfan90 wrote:

catspajamas wrote:

But seriously he isnt the right choice, at this point in the history of our nation, on the job training cant be an option

I can't take your statement seriously considering your avatar

HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH, lol, funny t-shirt...


[url]tshirthell.com[/url]

first off...if hilary clinton becomes president...i become canadian.

and id just like to say that you younger are smart little fuckers.

im 22 years old and can actually vote and everything and you guys know way more about this stuff than i do.

thats awesome

Big_Z wrote:

first off...if hilary clinton becomes president...i become canadian.

and id just like to say that you younger are smart little fuckers.

im 22 years old and can actually vote and everything and you guys know way more about this stuff than i do.

thats awesome

im 16 and am studying law and politics, will prob do law in college..

you must be one lazy fucker

if i could vote i woud vote for Rudy

BarackObama4Prez wrote:

and how is obama like cheney???

i just saw this


there related, dont you watch tv you blind idiot?

Clinton "won" Nevada but Obama got more delegates which actually matters.

And McCain won SC, which traditionally (since 1980) the winner always goes on to get the nomination..... A good sign for McCain, a bad sign for dems.

BarackObama4Prez wrote:

Clinton "won" Nevada but Obama got more delegates which actually matters.

And McCain won SC, which traditionally (since 1980) the winner always goes on to get the nomination..... A good sign for McCain, a bad sign for dems.

Actually its just Obama's group which is saying he got more democrats. The Democratic Party Committee says they're reviewing it.

SoxNats08 wrote:

BarackObama4Prez wrote:

Clinton "won" Nevada but Obama got more delegates which actually matters.

And McCain won SC, which traditionally (since 1980) the winner always goes on to get the nomination..... A good sign for McCain, a bad sign for dems.

Actually its just Obama's group which is saying he got more democrats. The Democratic Party Committee says they're reviewing it.

BarackObama4Prez wrote:

Clinton "won" Nevada but Obama got more delegates which actually matters.

And McCain won SC, which traditionally (since 1980) the winner always goes on to get the nomination..... A good sign for McCain, a bad sign for dems.

It's not a bad sign at all for Democrats actually. If McCain wins the Republican nomination...it makes it THAT much easier for democrats to win the election.. McCain has never been and never will be, good at finishing in elections.

TheBigTunaKing wrote:

BarackObama4Prez wrote:

Clinton "won" Nevada but Obama got more delegates which actually matters.

And McCain won SC, which traditionally (since 1980) the winner always goes on to get the nomination..... A good sign for McCain, a bad sign for dems.

It's not a bad sign at all for Democrats actually. If McCain wins the Republican nomination...it makes it THAT much easier for democrats to win the election.. McCain has never been and never will be, good at finishing in elections.

Plus he's an old guy who won't do anything but fight random people in the Middle East just for the sake of war...

SoxNats08 wrote:

TheBigTunaKing wrote:

BarackObama4Prez wrote:

Clinton "won" Nevada but Obama got more delegates which actually matters.

And McCain won SC, which traditionally (since 1980) the winner always goes on to get the nomination..... A good sign for McCain, a bad sign for dems.

It's not a bad sign at all for Democrats actually. If McCain wins the Republican nomination...it makes it THAT much easier for democrats to win the election.. McCain has never been and never will be, good at finishing in elections.

Plus he's an old guy who won't do anything but fight random people in the Middle East just for the sake of war...

I believe the word for those "random people" is Islamic militants and terrorists

Ruskie89 wrote:

SoxNats08 wrote:

TheBigTunaKing wrote:

BarackObama4Prez wrote:

Clinton "won" Nevada but Obama got more delegates which actually matters.

And McCain won SC, which traditionally (since 1980) the winner always goes on to get the nomination..... A good sign for McCain, a bad sign for dems.

It's not a bad sign at all for Democrats actually. If McCain wins the Republican nomination...it makes it THAT much easier for democrats to win the election.. McCain has never been and never will be, good at finishing in elections.

Plus he's an old guy who won't do anything but fight random people in the Middle East just for the sake of war...

I believe the word for those "random people" is Islamic militants and terrorists

Sounds great! Lets have our government play world police and look for imaginary weapons! Lets use all of our taxpayers dollars to fund a war that is unnecessarily killing the lives of young soldiers! Lets completely forget about trying to fix the United States issues, and go pointlessy ruin some random country's government and hopelessly try to put it back together again! Its like a game right! And its a fun one too especially if you dont have to worry about dying in combat and losing your loved ones.

We HAVE to leave Iraq ASAP and end this nonsense that the Bush Administration put us and the whole world through.

Ruskie89 wrote:

SoxNats08 wrote:

TheBigTunaKing wrote:

BarackObama4Prez wrote:

Clinton "won" Nevada but Obama got more delegates which actually matters.

And McCain won SC, which traditionally (since 1980) the winner always goes on to get the nomination..... A good sign for McCain, a bad sign for dems.

It's not a bad sign at all for Democrats actually. If McCain wins the Republican nomination...it makes it THAT much easier for democrats to win the election.. McCain has never been and never will be, good at finishing in elections.

Plus he's an old guy who won't do anything but fight random people in the Middle East just for the sake of war...

I believe the word for those "random people" is Islamic militants and terrorists

Nope because 9 out of 10 people we kill are innocent

SoxNats08 wrote:

Ruskie89 wrote:

SoxNats08 wrote:

TheBigTunaKing wrote:

BarackObama4Prez wrote:

Clinton "won" Nevada but Obama got more delegates which actually matters.

And McCain won SC, which traditionally (since 1980) the winner always goes on to get the nomination..... A good sign for McCain, a bad sign for dems.

It's not a bad sign at all for Democrats actually. If McCain wins the Republican nomination...it makes it THAT much easier for democrats to win the election.. McCain has never been and never will be, good at finishing in elections.

Plus he's an old guy who won't do anything but fight random people in the Middle East just for the sake of war...

I believe the word for those "random people" is Islamic militants and terrorists

Nope because 9 out of 10 people we kill are innocent

I think the number is a little higher. Maybe 499/500

BarackObama4Prez wrote:

SoxNats08 wrote:

Ruskie89 wrote:

SoxNats08 wrote:

TheBigTunaKing wrote:

BarackObama4Prez wrote:

Clinton "won" Nevada but Obama got more delegates which actually matters.

And McCain won SC, which traditionally (since 1980) the winner always goes on to get the nomination..... A good sign for McCain, a bad sign for dems.

It's not a bad sign at all for Democrats actually. If McCain wins the Republican nomination...it makes it THAT much easier for democrats to win the election.. McCain has never been and never will be, good at finishing in elections.

Plus he's an old guy who won't do anything but fight random people in the Middle East just for the sake of war...

I believe the word for those "random people" is Islamic militants and terrorists

Nope because 9 out of 10 people we kill are innocent

I think the number is a little higher. Maybe 499/500

Link for stats? Personally, I wouldn't have a problem with wasting their civilians if I was a soldier there, too many of them are disguised and shit, better safe than sorry, better them than me, etc.

In addition, I also disagree with the War, but I agree with it, to some extent.

We really didn't need it right now, but I could see why we did it, for two reasons:
1. Preemptive - Saddam was starting to associate more and more with terrorists
2. Economics - I believe this is a lot bigger than most people actually realize or even know. Saddam changed his treasury from the dollar to the Euro, which further hurt the dollar. Kicking him out of power is a nice message to other countries to not follow suit.

I honestly say we just nuke the shit out of the middle east. Do you honestly think that if they (the middle eastern islamic countries) had nukes and we didn't, that they wouldn't hesitate to use them?

what we needed to do, is make allies with North Korea for about week, borrow their Atomic Bombs, as, (if you know military you know this) they hold the large stockpile of A-Bombs in the world, and just level the ENTIRE middle East. Am i serious? What do you think.

Pakistan, Iran, Iraq, etc. Sounds heartless? Who cares, so are the people that are bred to believe their only purpose in life is to kill americans.

What the fuck are you guys thinking? Do you even care about the thousands of innocent lives you are taking? Imagine the children in those poor countries, who haven't done anything, but will get killed because some stupid Americans (thats how everyone outside of the US views us) bombed us? That might have been the stupidest thing I've ever heard.

Ruskie89 wrote:

I honestly say we just nuke the shit out of the middle east. Do you honestly think that if they (the middle eastern islamic countries) had nukes and we didn't, that they wouldn't hesitate to use them?

TheBigTunaKing wrote:

Pakistan, Iran, Iraq, etc. Sounds heartless? Who cares, so are the people that are bred to believe their only purpose in life is to kill americans.

So you basically want to put us on an equal level to them then? Stoop to the level of terrorists?

I'm saying, that when Osama attacked NY, Afghanistan should've Been leveled.

Youc an talk about people beign "innocent" all you want. But the people of Afghanistan are bred to be killers. End of Story.

how do you get rid of roaches? you don't just kill the ones you see on the counter, you kill them all.

This comes from someone who's been in the military and knows how the minds of other countries works, and knows what goes on in the military.

SoxNats08 wrote:

Ruskie89 wrote:

I honestly say we just nuke the shit out of the middle east. Do you honestly think that if they (the middle eastern islamic countries) had nukes and we didn't, that they wouldn't hesitate to use them?

TheBigTunaKing wrote:

Pakistan, Iran, Iraq, etc. Sounds heartless? Who cares, so are the people that are bred to believe their only purpose in life is to kill americans.

So you basically want to put us on an equal level to them then? Stoop to the level of terrorists?

\

your one of them arent you?

TheBigTunaKing wrote:

I'm saying, that when Osama attacked NY, Afghanistan should've Been leveled.

Youc an talk about people beign "innocent" all you want. But the people of Afghanistan are bred to be killers. End of Story.

that probably was one of the most ignorant things i have ever heard.

Ruskie89 wrote:

BarackObama4Prez wrote:

SoxNats08 wrote:

Ruskie89 wrote:

SoxNats08 wrote:

TheBigTunaKing wrote:

BarackObama4Prez wrote:

Clinton "won" Nevada but Obama got more delegates which actually matters.

And McCain won SC, which traditionally (since 1980) the winner always goes on to get the nomination..... A good sign for McCain, a bad sign for dems.

It's not a bad sign at all for Democrats actually. If McCain wins the Republican nomination...it makes it THAT much easier for democrats to win the election.. McCain has never been and never will be, good at finishing in elections.

Plus he's an old guy who won't do anything but fight random people in the Middle East just for the sake of war...

I believe the word for those "random people" is Islamic militants and terrorists

Nope because 9 out of 10 people we kill are innocent

I think the number is a little higher. Maybe 499/500

Link for stats? Personally, I wouldn't have a problem with wasting their civilians if I was a soldier there, too many of them are disguised and shit, better safe than sorry, better them than me, etc.

In addition, I also disagree with the War, but I agree with it, to some extent.

We really didn't need it right now, but I could see why we did it, for two reasons:
1. Preemptive - Saddam was starting to associate more and more with terrorists
2. Economics - I believe this is a lot bigger than most people actually realize or even know. Saddam changed his treasury from the dollar to the Euro, which further hurt the dollar. Kicking him out of power is a nice message to other countries to not follow suit.

I honestly say we just nuke the shit out of the middle east. Do you honestly think that if they (the middle eastern islamic countries) had nukes and we didn't, that they wouldn't hesitate to use them?

If we "nuke the shit out of the middle east" the United States might just be removed from the UN, NAFTA, NATO and any every alliance with another country. It would hurt us tremendously, our economy would go down the toilet, and the whole world will be against us. Pretty much like 10 times the crap situation we are in now.

Honestly, fuck preemptive. the Bush Administration used the words "preemptive" and "WMD" to scare us (U.S citizens) into thinking that 9/11 was related to iraq. Not even close. We had Osama cornered in the mountains. It wouldnt have taken us very long to capture him, and the real villain would be eliminated. But we went for Saddam, and although maybe now an evil dictator has been terminated, it just wasnt worth it, with all the innocent lives taken, all the money spent, and all the countries turned against us.

I say we get the hell out of the middle east, bring U.S soldiers onto U.S soil so we can focus U.S issues.

BarackObama4Prez wrote:

TheBigTunaKing wrote:

I'm saying, that when Osama attacked NY, Afghanistan should've Been leveled.

Youc an talk about people beign "innocent" all you want. But the people of Afghanistan are bred to be killers. End of Story.

that probably was one of the most ignorant things i have ever heard.

It's not ignorant at all. It's the truth.

TheBigTunaKing wrote:

BarackObama4Prez wrote:

TheBigTunaKing wrote:

I'm saying, that when Osama attacked NY, Afghanistan should've Been leveled.

Youc an talk about people beign "innocent" all you want. But the people of Afghanistan are bred to be killers. End of Story.

that probably was one of the most ignorant things i have ever heard.

It's not ignorant at all. It's the truth.

"the people of Afganistan are Bred to be Killers"

if that doesnt sound ignorant, then i dont know what is