Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
neural link

John McShit

Recommended Posts

I feel like with all the attention surrounding the Democratic primary, we have forgotten how horrible John McCain is as a potential president. Holy fucking shit is he bad. Seriously wrong about everything. A few months ago, I wrote a Pulitzer Award winning article titled, "Fuck John McCain." Now I am forced to update the list of reasons to not vote for this nearly dead creature and I have written an article with an equally genius and witty title.

 

Last week, Grandpa Ancient received the endorsement of crazy Texas evangelical pastor John Hagee. Hagee is the pure physical form of awful. He hates everything and loves to talk about it. Check out his beautiful description of the Catholic Church.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uViQ0hVV57Q

 

Ha ha. Good times. I totally want to invite this guy to a barbeque. Hagee was an endorsement McCain worked very hard to get. He did everything but blow Mr. Lunatic and it apparently worked. Kudos, Johnny, you’re in bed with pure hate.

 

A few years ago, John The Elder hated the religious right, now he loves them. The McCain of 1999 is dead. He was hollowed out and filled with the loving spirit of George Bush. From issue to issue, he has morphed to align with the worst president in the history of the United States.

 

 

Like most people, Time Worn McCain wants the George Bush economy to keep rolling on. Why wouldn’t he? This shit is awesome!

Behind the scenes, his campaign is searching for ways to pay for Sen. McCain's tax proposals. In addition to extending the Bush tax cuts, the 71-year-old candidate would slash the corporate income-tax rate from 35% to 25% at a cost to the Treasury of $100 billion a year, estimates Mr. Holtz-Eakin.

 

In all, his tax-cutting proposals could cost about $400 billion a year, according to estimates of the impact of different tax cuts by CBO and the McCain campaign. The cost will make it difficult for him to achieve his goal of balancing the budget by the end of his first term.

 

Oh, fuck yes! Why pay for anything? This fucker will keep on running with a totally unsound economic policy. Money out, no money in. What could go wrong? And the Time Worn Airman will also keep on keeping on with Bush’s fantastically unsuccessful Social Security plan.

 

“I’m totally in favor of personal savings accounts,” he says. When reminded that his Web site says something different, he says he will change the Web site. “As part of Social Security reform, I believe that private savings accounts are a part of it — along the lines that President Bush proposed.”

 

Shit yeah. Why would you want to separate yourself from the least popular president since the one who had to resign? Good work. May we call you Old Failure now, or later?

 

0.jpg

 

 

But, at least McCain has experience. And that’s what we need right now.

 

In early 1987, at the beginning of his first Senate term, McCain attended two meetings with federal banking regulators to discuss an investigation into Lincoln Savings and Loan, an Irvine, Calif., thrift owned by Arizona developer Charles Keating. Federal auditors were investigating Keating's banking practices, and Keating, fearful that the government would seize his S&L, sought intervention from a number of U.S. senators.

 

Keating raised money for McCain's two congressional campaigns in 1982 and 1984, and for McCain's 1986 Senate bid. By 1987, McCain campaigns had received $112,000 from Keating, his relatives, and his employees--the most received by any of the Keating Five.

In February 1991, the Senate Ethics Committee found McCain and guilty of nothing more than "poor judgment." He gave $112,000 to the US Treasury. Experience!

 

Mr. Barely Alive also authored an amendment that allowed companies making US military equipment to move jobs out of America. Yay! Go foreign countries! In 2003, McCain came up with this gem of an amendment.

 

S. 1050—Buy American rules traditionally have required that most U.S. military equipment, defense systems and components be manufactured in the United States. An amendment to the FY 2004 U.S. Department of Defense authorization bill weakened the Buy American requirements. The amendment, offered by Sen. John McCain (R–Ariz.), exempted defense goods from six European countries from Buy American requirements. It passed May 21, 2003, 50–48.

 

Hmm, I wonder what that will lead to...

 

The Air Force on Friday delivered a shock to storied American airplane builder The Boeing Co. by choosing a team of Northrop Grumman Corp. and Airbus parent EADS to build a new fleet of air-to-air refueling tankers -- a contract potentially worth $100 billion.

 

Grandpa Time responded to the contract by saying, “military decisions should not be about creating jobs.” Fuck, yeah. Hopefully you will keep America safe by taking away all our jobs. The number of Americans jobs that would have been created by the Boeing contract was 44,000. That’s 44,000 jobs the Old Man has already cost Americans – and he’s not even president yet.

 

Thankfully, Oldy McOlderson can run on the incredible success of the surge.

 

The U.S. has not only added 30,000 more troops in Iraq — it has essentially bribed the opposition, arming the very Sunni militants who only months ago were waging deadly assaults on American forces. To engineer a fragile peace, the U.S. military has created and backed dozens of new Sunni militias, which now operate beyond the control of Iraq's central government. The Americans call the units by a variety of euphemisms: Iraqi Security Volunteers (ISVs), neighborhood watch groups, Concerned Local Citizens, Critical Infrastructure Security. The militias prefer a simpler and more dramatic name: They call themselves Sahwa, or "the Awakening."

 

Great. This sounds like the perfect idea. Create a government, then create and arm opposing militias within the same country. And keep the money rolling in! That way everything appears to be okay.

 

"The only reason anything works or anybody deals with us is because we give them money," says a young Army intelligence officer. The 2nd Squadron, 2nd Stryker Cavalry Regiment, which patrols Osama's territory, is handing out $32 million to Iraqis in the district, including $6 million to build the towering walls that, in the words of one U.S. officer, serve only to "make Iraqis more divided than they already are." In districts like Dora, the strategy of the surge seems simple: to buy off every Iraqi in sight. All told, the U.S. is now backing more than 600,000 Iraqi men in the security sector — more than half the number Saddam had at the height of his power.

 

Fucking awesome. This is what White Hair is running on. This is the big feather in The Decaying Man’s hat. Giving our old enemies tons of cash and weapons to prepare for a future war against the new "government" we put in place.

 

Only months ago, members of the Awakening were planting IEDs and ambushing U.S. soldiers. They were snipers and assassins, singing songs in honor of Fallujah and fighting what they viewed as a war of national liberation against the foreign occupiers. These are men the Americans described as terrorists, Saddam loyalists, dead-enders, evildoers, Baathists, insurgents. There is little doubt what will happen when the massive influx of American money stops: Unless the new Iraqi state continues to operate as a vast bribing machine, the insurgent Sunnis who have joined the new militias will likely revert to fighting the ruling Shiites, who still refuse to share power.

 

"We are essentially supporting a quasi-feudal devolution of authority to armed enclaves, which exist at the expense of central government authority," says Chas Freeman, who served as ambassador to Saudi Arabia under the first President Bush. "Those we are arming and training are arming and training themselves not to facilitate our objectives but to pursue their own objectives vis-a-vis other Iraqis. It means that the sectarian and ethnic conflicts that are now suppressed are likely to burst out with even greater ferocity in the future."

 

Remember what happened to Yugoslavia after the communist country fell apart? That’s going to look like a blip compared to the number of countries and people who will be sucked into a Sunni Shiite religious war. McCain and Bush pushed the surge only to quiet Iraq down until another Republican could be elected to the presidency. It’s a colossal fucking disaster, more so than at any other time. During this quiet “successful” time in Iraq, we have been creating the ultimate future nightmare. John Prehistoric McCain was the man pushing it the whole time. Good work, douchebag.

 

 

 

Original source: http://suicidegirls.com/news/politics/23032/

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you, neural link. It sickens me that people are considering voting for this maniac.

BTW: You forget his "Let's Stay In Iraq for 10,000 Years" comment which probably shocked me more than anything.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i like a guy that, for all his faults, and there are many, will spend all day talking to the press. will answer any question. sometimes the questions anger him. but he takes them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
To me there is one much worst choice Clinton!!

 

 

Explain. True, Clinton is pretty establishment, but when it comes down to it, she has a lot of the right ideas, and certainly more than McCain.

 

Edit: To the neg rep person: thanks for giving me my first one, and I definitely did say I love socialism and hate freedom in this post, so I guess I had it coming. Hear the weather's great in Cuba and Burma too (oh, it's called Myanmar now, by the way).

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread is further proof that Rayl will be stumping for Hillary if she wins the nomination.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That article makes me cringe. Even if McCain's not the best candidate, the article hardly defines the good reasons for why that might be true. I mean Social Security Reform, and 10% tax cuts in this economic situation? No one's that stupid, short of Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich. And the US's economy is not driven by or largely impacted by homemade weapons anyway. We're not a manufacturing nation...

And why in the world would it be good for the US, the Iraqis, or any one else if we just packed up and left Iraq right now?

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why don't you just wait until he wins the election or actually might have a chance of winning the election until you start complaining.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That article makes me cringe. Even if McCain's not the best candidate, the article hardly defines the good reasons for why that might be true. I mean Social Security Reform, and 10% tax cuts in this economic situation? No one's that stupid, short of Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich. And the US's economy is not driven by or largely impacted by homemade weapons anyway. We're not a manufacturing nation...

And why in the world would it be good for the US, the Iraqis, or any one else if we just packed up and left Iraq right now?

 

this post makes me cringe! Why don't you start by answering your own questions, or at least, providing counter-evidence to the McCain quotes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All the first part of your post proves is that if Obama or McCain is elected - they both subsribe to churches which spout hatred...what's unique about that?

 

And, you're forgetting that the tankers will be assembled in the US, Hunstville, to be exact, and that they will create 48,000 new jobs in 49 states. And, you seem to forget that Boeing had the deal done with, until it turned out that high ranking Boeing officials had conspired with the Air Force on the deal - and that they, the officials - are now setting in prison. Also, should it really be something to hold against the Air Force for thinking that the A330 is a superior airframe to the 767?

 

Now, on your next point - that McCain is corrupt - no more so than others.

 

About the only thing I can agree with you on is the overall futility of Iraq - but I don't agree with your assessment that the surge hasn't worked.

 

H.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

McCain is in a good position to win the presidency regardless of the information out about him (and considering how old he is, there's alot of it.) He used to have the problem of "not being conservative enough" but since the NYT suggested he had an affair with an undisclosed source he has rallied quite a bit of the conservative movement behind him. He might not embrace the religious right, even if he has their endorsements, but he knows he needs them because they aren't going anywhere else.

 

As Clinton and Obama continue the infighting he will have all the time to just coast around and boost his credentials while the rest of the party backs behind him. As of right now he's boosting his foreign policy credentials. He already has the reaching across the aisle history and since most people don't believe he supports tax cuts he can probably still ally himself with democrats, potentially stealing votes.

 

In all honesty, its not looking too good right now for Obama or Hillary if the fighting continues. I bet John McCain is having a good laugh about it though. /sigh Wish the race actually focused on issues for once.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah..I'm not a McCain fan...I think he's a bad Republican and a horrible conservative..that said, he's out in the field looking Presidential - going to Iraq, meeting the troops, etc...while Obama is stuck trying to explain why he didn't realize his pastor of 17 years (or 20 years in some report) wasn't a nut job, and Clinton is stuck trying to explain that she really, really is qualified to be President, and tying to apologize for her husband's remarks on race....I love the Democrats..you hand them gold...and they'll find a way to make it into lead..trouble is, it's supposed to work the other way around....ah well.

 

H.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
this post makes me cringe! Why don't you start by answering your own questions, or at least, providing counter-evidence to the McCain quotes.

The arguments the blog presents aren't even good arguments against John McCain. It fails to recognize two things: 1. He's a politician - his job is to get votes to get elected, then vote in Congress in ways that presents itself as best for the country. As James Madison said, the greatest threats to our nation and democracy are factions, i.e. the NRA, Big Tobacco, or every 20 year old clammoring for immediate withdrawal from Iraq (If you want me to explain, I will). 2.

 

<beginning>...From issue to issue, he has morphed to align with the worst president in the history of the United States.

Yes, he's allegedly "flip-flopped." That might be hypocritical, but it makes sense in terms of the fact that one of the GOP's largest constituencies is the Religious Right. Without his support, he doesn't stand a chance. Clinton and Obama can also be accused of similar arguably unethical tactics, especially in how they manipulate the race and gender cards, and the way they try to downplay it and do it subtly. I wouldn't be surprised if everything their spokesmen have said that's highly controversial was a political ploy to bring race and gender into play, in both directions as well.

 

The impact of this argument, of course, comes from the flip-flopping allegations, so the last few sentences have limited utility. However, the impact to flip-flopping isn't as relevant as one might think. There is no implication as to how McCain will act in presidency, since the positions he takes prior to the election will be the ones he intends to follow - two self-explanatory reasons - one is re-election, and the other is base support in Congress, i.e. the ever so popular notion of political capital.

 

Next point:

Like most people, Time Worn McCain wants the George Bush economy to keep rolling on. Why wouldn’t he? This shit is awesome!

 

First of all, they left this out...

To pay for the cut in corporate tax rates, Sen. McCain is considering eliminating some corporate tax breaks listed by a bipartisan tax reform panel appointed by President Bush, who ignored its report. The panel outlined different ways to change the tax code to spur U.S. competitiveness.

Among the candidates for elimination are a 2004 break for manufacturers -- written so broadly that it includes computer software makers, construction firms and architects -- a low-income housing credit, and tax breaks for life-insurance companies, credit unions and exporters. Undoing those breaks would raise a maximum of around $45 billion a year, still leaving a big hole.

"There could be a fairer, flatter tax proposal that I might embrace, that you might look at the minutiae of it and say, well, that's going to increase somebody's taxes," he says. "But they eliminate the inequities, the complexities, and all of the things that characterize our tax code today."

Sen. McCain began to prepare himself for campaigning on economics late in 2005 when Mr. Holtz-Eakin and conservative Kevin Hassett, a veteran of the 2000 McCain campaign, started sending him four-page weekly briefing papers on tax reform, trade and other issues. Sen. McCain also consults with business and political leaders including Cisco Systems Inc. Chief Executive John Chambers; former Republican Texas Sen. Phil Gramm, a deficit hawk; and former Republican vice presidential candidate Jack Kemp, who hails from the deficits-don't-matter side of the party.

Sen. McCain rarely makes a public appearance without supporters with strong business or economic pedigrees, such as former Hewlett-Packard chief Carly Fiorina or Mr. Kemp. At town-hall meetings earlier in the campaign, he sometimes turned over economic questions to them.

As a presidential candidate, Sen. McCain has faced hostility from the political right because he voted against two rounds of Bush tax cuts. "I voted against the tax cuts because of the disproportional amount that went to the wealthiest Americans," he said on NBC's "Meet the Press" in January. He also said the tax cuts weren't matched by spending restraints, as he had wanted.

Second, he's also advocating middle-class tax cuts...

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gSu1RI33g5jZfU8YAz7ZFmoPbb7AD8VCKL302

 

Third, I'm pretty sure it's irrelevant...

http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080314/NEWS07/803140416

 

Congress controls taxes, not the President.

 

Oh, fuck yes! Why pay for anything? This fucker will keep on running with a totally unsound economic policy. Money out, no money in. What could go wrong? And the Time Worn Airman will also keep on keeping on with Bush’s fantastically unsuccessful Social Security plan.

The Social Security Plan makes about 10% of your social security available (optionally) for investment. They literally don't highlight a warrant as to why its bad, but instead stick with it being unpopular. And of course, they left out the conciliatory and thoughtful parts again...

Sen. McCain's 2008 presidential campaign Web site takes a different view, proposing "supplementing" the existing full Social Security system with personally managed accounts. Such accounts wouldn't substitute for guaranteed payments, and they wouldn't be financed by diverting a portion of Social Security payroll taxes.

Mr. McCain's chief economic aide, Douglas Holtz-Eakin, a former head of the Congressional Budget Office, says economic circumstances forced changes concerning Social Security policy. Vast budget surpluses projected in 2000 evaporated with a recession, the Bush tax cuts and the cost of responding to Sept. 11.

As a result, the McCain campaign says the candidate intends to keep Social Security solvent by reducing the growth in benefits over the coming decades to match projected growth in payroll tax revenues. Among the options are extending the retirement age to 68 and reducing cost-of-living adjustments, but the campaign hasn't made any final decisions.

And regardless of his position, if it's really that similar, and the Democrats continue to control Congress, it won't change.

 

Next:

But, at least McCain has experience. And that’s what we need right now.

First of all, their source is neither recent nor neutral. Second, the argument doesn't even apply. If someone can find some plausible link/internal link into how he got funding in 87 and whether or not he's got policymaking experience from a few decades in Congress, I'll give them a cookie... As for their real point...

In February 1991, the Senate Ethics Committee found McCain and guilty of nothing more than "poor judgment." He gave $112,000 to the US Treasury. Experience!

Has anyone seen All the Kings Men? He's a politician, and to be a politician, some occasional scheming is involved. Is that good? Maybe not. But does that affect A. His policies, or B. the fact that he's the one pushing for reform in that area? No. In fact, he's the best hope we've got to prevent that in the future.

 

Grandpa Time responded to the contract by saying, “military decisions should not be about creating jobs.” Fuck, yeah. Hopefully you will keep America safe by taking away all our jobs. The number of Americans jobs that would have been created by the Boeing contract was 44,000. That’s 44,000 jobs the Old Man has already cost Americans – and he’s not even president yet.

If your parents live near a factory, or were thinking of getting into the arms-making business, tell me and I'll send you a check. Arms factories are largely automated, and the one's that need special attention are under programs like Rumsfeld's. Buying AK-47's from Russia doesn't cripple our economy, and we've been doing it for years. The US exports soft goods, and is not a manufacturing power.

 

Thankfully, Oldy McOlderson can run on the incredible success of the surge.

Wow... Dude if someone stood up and said "Surge Fails now, Rolling Stones, 3/4," what would be your first reaction?

The dude doesn't have an ounce of qualifications, while policy analysts and experts like Petraus say that it is having effect. Even the MIT professors agree that it's having some effect, even if it's not the the extent that was hoped for...

http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/09/15/is-the-surge-working-ask-the-data-not-the-politicians/

And that's statistical data, by the way.

Even if the surge was a failure, the idea is that we have to fix our mistakes in Iraq - just because we messed up, doesn't mean that removing our presence solves the problems. Just like in chemistry, not every reaction is reversible, and Iraq is one that will go to completion. Bin Laden cites the CRUSADES from around 1000AD and earlier as examples of why they're fighting - withdrawing from Iraq won't change that, or the fact that we've already fucked up. We need to stabilize the region, and pulling out will not do that.

Also, how does this affect his stance on how the US should act in the future? It just proves he's got some solid knowledge on realism - something debate has apparently deprived us of.

 

 

Remember what happened to Yugoslavia after the communist country fell apart? That’s going to look like a blip compared to the number of countries and people who will be sucked into a Sunni Shiite religious war. McCain and Bush pushed the surge only to quiet Iraq down until another Republican could be elected to the presidency. It’s a colossal fucking disaster, more so than at any other time. During this quiet “successful” time in Iraq, we have been creating the ultimate future nightmare. John Prehistoric McCain was the man pushing it the whole time. Good work, douchebag.

Here's the irony - just like Tito kept Yugoslavia together with his iron fist, Saddam quelled the Sunni-Shiite conflicts. Our removal of a dictator who flagrantly violated human rights might cause potential conflicts to occur now. However, this is something we can deal with. The Sunnis and Shiites are only two groups, and even if they're diametrically opposed to each other, there is room for either compromise or the separation of Shia and Sunni states. There is no reason why the Surge increased this tension. At worst, it bottled it up. If the US withdrew, THAT would cause the conflict to erupt, since there's no longer a third-party arbiter that has the potential to be trusted.

 

That being said, my indict is of the article, not necessarily a support of McCain over Obama or Clinton. Short of a few issues, their presidencies would be nearly identical in what they proposed. The article, however, is from a fucking blog by the suicide girls, and basically consists of them ranting with little to no warrants about why they hate Bush. What debaters especially don't understand is that the hard left is not always the way to go. Being a smart independent thinking person does not mean voting for the most liberal issue - it means voting for the one that makes sense given the context of the times. This is the exact reason no one presses for the isolationism Krauthammer proposes. They hardly follow Layne's arguments about reentrenchment, and he's at least got some moderation to it.

I don't have a problem with liberals or liberalism - I have a problem with the way it's framed in debate and in America's youth - as going to the extremes in terms of short term goals with no acknowledgment of repercussions. The same reason why it's so sweet to impact turn the K is a reason why this time of rhetoric has no place in academic thought. Our object should be to assess the situation, not determine which of the extremes is a superior option.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One more thought on an Iraqi civil war - why not? Most modern states have had civil wars - The United States, Great Britain (3 that I can recall), Germany etc...civil wars are almost necessary to settle outstanding greivances, etc, so that everyone can get on with life after the blood has been spilt. Brutal? Sure...but show me a society that hasn't experienced warfare in some form or another - after the war, if the nation has strong leadership and everyone is convinced the bloodshed was wrong - strong nations emerge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
One more thought on an Iraqi civil war - why not? Most modern states have had civil wars - The United States, Great Britain (3 that I can recall), Germany etc...civil wars are almost necessary to settle outstanding greivances, etc, so that everyone can get on with life after the blood has been spilt. Brutal? Sure...but show me a society that hasn't experienced warfare in some form or another - after the war, if the nation has strong leadership and everyone is convinced the bloodshed was wrong - strong nations emerge.

 

hahaha, you have got to be joking me. civil wars were supposed to end with the end of the cold war and military interventionism from nations. now, that didn't happen, but it also doesn't help that we were the ones that caused this civil war, not themselves. at least we fought our own civil war.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hahaha, you have got to be joking me. civil wars were supposed to end with the end of the cold war and military interventionism from nations. now, that didn't happen, but it also doesn't help that we were the ones that caused this civil war, not themselves. at least we fought our own civil war.

*blink*blink*

If you mean that by liberating Iraq from a brutal dictator, we subjected it to a potential civil war between two factions that have disliked each other for ages, then yes, it's our fault. We should really stop trying fight these dictators and human rights abuses and just deal...

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
*blink*blink*

If you mean that by liberating Iraq from a brutal dictator, we subjected it to a potential civil war between two factions that have disliked each other for ages, then yes, it's our fault. We should really stop trying fight these dictators and human rights abuses and just deal...

 

International political morality is not a U.S. Foreign Policy issue.

 

Was Sadaam brutal and sadistic? Hell yes, but no more so than, let's say, Janjaweed. Was he a threat to U.S. Security? No. In fact, he was the head of a relatively stable government that actually served to maintain the balance of power within the region. The simple facts are that before the war, there were no terrorists in Iraq. We created them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Sunnis and Shiites are only two groups, and even if they're diametrically opposed to each other, there is room for either compromise or the separation of Shia and Sunni states. There is no reason why the Surge increased this tension. At worst, it bottled it up. If the US withdrew, THAT would cause the conflict to erupt, since there's no longer a third-party arbiter that has the potential to be trusted.

 

Except thats not what McBush wants, nor would allow. Bush needs iraq to be one state: one state = one national oil law governing trading currency and privatization (see Hydrocarbons Act).

 

So the only solution under a republican framework is a one state solution.

 

That just leaves 'the surge', or as people not obsessed with White House spin call it, an 'escalation'. not as sexy. Most iraqi's find the US presence, and total incompetence, to be at the heart of their problems of violence.

 

For example, when Paul Bremer allowed total domestic economic collapse, creating years of war torn economic shock, he created a long term problem. Now, for $100, iraqi sectarian merc's will plant bombs.

 

Or, for example, when the CPA instituted a policy of 'de-baathification' - now, Shite militia's control the oil ministry and its distribution chain, providing groups with upwards of $200 million a year. Approved by bush, of course.

 

More recently, the escalation is working line is completely wrong. Paying off militia heads to hold cease fires is a temporary fix. Especially when the political reconciliation process is completely dead. What happens when Iran says jump or the Mahdi army gets restless.

 

I wonder what market John McCain will visit this year? Certainly not the same one as last year, which is completely run by bagdads shiite groups.

 

What about our friends, the great Kurds? Oops, they are in a Israeli-Lebanon style war on the turkish border.

 

How about those great former enemy turned our friends cuz we pay them: the Sunni villagers? Well, they may have gotten rid of Al-Q (which was probably never there in the first place, because the group, Al-Q in Mesopotamia, was made up!) but now they have joined the Civil War because they are pissed the shia continue to ethnically clense their neighborhoods.

 

Well, shit its a cluster fuck. But Dick cheney already knew that would happen. Here's life under McCain in 09: http://shootingwar.com/

 

 

Obama/Biden 08.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No one's that stupid, short of Ron Paul
don't buy into the mass corporate global news media distortions, Ron Paul is actually I believe the last good candidate the GOP has

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...