# Cant make this up.. Bush flips on Iran talks...



## Jeepers (Jul 16, 2008)

> PARIS  The decision by the Bush administration to send a senior American official to participate in international talks with Iran this weekend reflects a double policy shift in the struggle to resolve the impasse over the countrys nuclear program..
> 
> First, the Bush administration has decided to abandon its longstanding position that it will only meet face-to-face with Iran after it first suspends uranium enrichment as demanded by the United Nations Security Council.
> 
> ...



Man.. this must have Mac Steamin.. Bush fucked him in 2000, now he screws him in 2008...


----------



## Jeepers (Jul 16, 2008)

I just wish now that he will start talking to Kim Jong Ill...


----------



## Ravi (Jul 16, 2008)

That is pretty funny.

I think it'd be a riot to see Bush and the pres of Iran trying to talk to each other without looking like idiots.


----------



## Jeepers (Jul 16, 2008)

I'll bet the Seabees and Army Corp are in the hills of pakistan now running a telephone line to BinLadens cave as we speak....


----------



## busara (Jul 16, 2008)

Jeepers said:


> Man.. this must have Mac Steamin.. Bush fucked him in 2000, now he screws him in 2008...



how can he do this!! this makes us look weak. i mean, reagan's administration never would have negotiated with iran

wait...


----------



## Tech_Esq (Jul 16, 2008)

Typical Liberal response. Somebody gives you what you want and you smash them in the face for it. Good job! 

I think one fair reading of the development is:

1) there is some sincerity in wishing to avoid armed conflict with Iran.

2) a recognition that the 6 party talks with North Korea yielded some beneficial results. Thus, a similar 6 party negotiation here could yield better results than the diplomacy that has taken place thus far.

3) if you will recall during the 6 party North Korean talks, the US refused to have two party talks with North Korea, I expect that will be the case with Iran.

4) nothing else has worked, at least if this fails, and if war eventually occurs, there would not be much left in the diplomatic bag unlike the insincere effort in the run-up to war with Iraq.


----------



## jillian (Jul 16, 2008)

Tech_Esq said:


> Typical Liberal response. Somebody gives you what you want and you smash them in the face for it. Good job!



You mean like what the right did with FISA or what they did when Obama said he'd rely on the generals on the ground to help him formulate Iraq policy?




> I think one fair reading of the development is:
> 
> 1) there is some sincerity in wishing to avoid armed conflict with Iran.
> 
> ...



Given the past 7 plus years, I'd discount anything from this white house as being "sincere".

The only recognition is that they need to follow Obama's lead on these issues because this admin has made the repubs look stupid.

On the other hand, they've really hurt McCain. I wonder why they'd do that?

Could it be that Baby Bush is trying to salvage something to keep him from being called the worst president ever?


----------



## Chris (Jul 16, 2008)

Bush has changed his postion on global warming, negotiating with North Korea, and now negotiating with Iran. Maybe he has learned something.

My favorite Bush moment was when they asked him what he had learned from his first term in office and he said, "Words have consequences." 

Duh!


----------



## Charles_Main (Jul 16, 2008)

This matter why? I think Bushes many faults have been well established, but see Bush is not running for office


----------



## Jeepers (Jul 16, 2008)

Charles_Main said:


> This matter why? I think Bushes many faults have been well established, but see Bush is not running for office



Yeah.. but Mac was counting on bush not to talk to terrorists... eh.. go figure...


----------



## jillian (Jul 16, 2008)

Charles_Main said:


> This matter why? I think Bushes many faults have been well established, but see Bush is not running for office



Because when McCain is running as a third Bush term, Bush changing horses kind of embarrasses McCain.


----------



## Charles_Main (Jul 16, 2008)

jillian said:


> Because when McCain is running as a third Bush term, Bush changing horses kind of embarrasses McCain.



I see you have the Democrat talking points down pat. So you want to play talking point word games? ok then Obama is running for Caters second term.


----------



## jillian (Jul 16, 2008)

Charles_Main said:


> I see you have the Democrat talking points down pat. So you want to play talking point word games? ok then Obama is running for Caters second term.



What was that you were saying about "talking points"? That whole Carter silliness is that. But I guess it's an interesting rebuttal. Irrelevant, though it may be.

Tell me, what policies does Obama support that Carter did and Clinton didn't?

Besides prioritizing energy independence, which, I think we can all agree, was the one thing Carter was right about.

You were the one who asked why it mattered that Bush hung McCain out to dry, not me.


----------



## Charles_Main (Jul 16, 2008)

jillian said:


> What was that you were saying about "talking points"? That whole Carter silliness is that. But I guess it's an interesting rebuttal. Irrelevant, though it may be.
> 
> Tell me, what policies does Obama support that Carter did and Clinton didn't?
> 
> ...




I was just trying to make a point, Just because Democrats say McCain is running to be Bush 3 does not in anyway make it true. I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this one. However keep in mind I am not Voting for McCain or Obama


----------



## jillian (Jul 16, 2008)

Charles_Main said:


> I was just trying to make a point, Just because Democrats say McCain is running to be Bush 3 does not in anyway make it true. I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this one. However keep in mind I am not Voting for McCain or Obama



Except that he is....

1. Iraq... check
2. oil policy... check
3. economic policy... check
4. g-d, guns and gays domestic policy... check

Sounds like a third Bush term to me. Hence it being noteworthy that Bush left him out in the muck and mire.

And just so you understand, in 2000, I'd have voted for McCain...I might have this time, too, except that now he's stood every position he had in 2000n its ear.

But no worries... we can always agree to disagree on this issue.


----------



## Charles_Main (Jul 16, 2008)

jillian said:


> Except that he is....
> 
> 1. Iraq... check
> 2. oil policy... check
> ...




And as I pointed out Obama has made dramatic changes to many of his own beliefs. I listed the biggest ones in 2 other threads. 

Like I said, I don't like McCain either, but I do not think he is like Bush. Bush is a Moron. The only real difference between me and you is I am not going to vote for Obama either I see them both for what they are. politicians who will do and say what ever they think we want them to, to get elected. 

Personally I have had it with this cycle of Power sharing between the Democrats and Republican and want real change. Change neither candidate will give us.


----------



## Tech_Esq (Jul 16, 2008)

Charles_Main said:


> And as I pointed out Obama has made dramatic changes to many of his own beliefs. I listed the biggest ones in 2 other threads.
> 
> Like I said, I don't like McCain either, but I do not think he is like Bush. Bush is a Moron. The only real difference between me and you is I am not going to vote for Obama either I see them both for what they are. politicians who will do and say what ever they think we want them to, to get elected.
> 
> Personally I have had it with this cycle of Power sharing between the Democrats and Republican and want real change. Change neither candidate will give us.



AMEN Brother!


----------



## jillian (Jul 16, 2008)

Charles_Main said:


> And as I pointed out Obama has made dramatic changes to many of his own beliefs. I listed the biggest ones in 2 other threads.
> 
> Like I said, I don't like McCain either, but I do not think he is like Bush. Bush is a Moron. The only real difference between me and you is I am not going to vote for Obama either I see them both for what they are. politicians who will do and say what ever they think we want them to, to get elected.
> 
> Personally I have had it with this cycle of Power sharing between the Democrats and Republican and want real change. Change neither candidate will give us.



Anyone is smarter than Bush. McCain is, certainly. I am, however, getting concerned about his lack of knowledge about the differences among Sunni and Shi'a; and economic policy... particularly when the banking industry is in a world of hurt right now... what? about 1.2 trillion dollars worth of defaulted mortgages?

There aren't viable alternatives right now. Personally, I think we're in need of a tune up and would do better with a more representative, parliamentary type of set up.


----------



## Charles_Main (Jul 16, 2008)

jillian said:


> Anyone is smarter than Bush. McCain is, certainly. I am, however, getting concerned about his lack of knowledge about the differences among Sunni and Shi'a; and economic policy... particularly when the banking industry is in a world of hurt right now... what? about 1.2 trillion dollars worth of defaulted mortgages?
> 
> There aren't viable alternatives right now. Personally, I think we're in need of a tune up and would do better with a more representative, parliamentary type of set up.



I agree there are not any viable alternatives right now, however there will never be any unless Americans wise up and start voting for other parties. Votes are the only way they can become viable.


----------



## jillian (Jul 16, 2008)

Charles_Main said:


> I agree there are not any viable alternatives right now, however there will never be any unless Americans wise up and start voting for other parties. Votes are the only way they can become viable.



But I think it's throwing away your vote to vote for someone who has no shot.

Not that I'd mind a massive repub exodus to Bob Barr.


----------



## Charles_Main (Jul 16, 2008)

jillian said:


> But I think it's throwing away your vote to vote for someone who has no shot.
> 
> Not that I'd mind a massive repub exodus to Bob Barr.



Yep, but there will never be another party that has a shot unless we start voting for them today. Kinda a paradox eh. 

I should make you happy then, as I will be voting for Bob Barr. Hopefully enough of Us will and he will get the needed 5% of the vote to gain matching funds, Access to ballots, and debates needed to start down the road to being a viable alternative to the Dems and Reps.


----------



## jillian (Jul 16, 2008)

Good luck to ya! Hopefully, I'll get tickets to Obama's inaugaration ;o)


----------



## Charles_Main (Jul 16, 2008)

jillian said:


> Good luck to ya! Hopefully, I'll get tickets to Obama's inaugaration ;o)



As far as I am concerned Obama winning has been an unavoidable fact for some time now, So It really can't hurt for me to not vote for McCan't.


----------



## Tech_Esq (Jul 16, 2008)

jillian said:


> But I think it's throwing away your vote to vote for someone who has no shot.
> 
> Not that I'd mind a massive repub exodus to Bob Barr.



I disagree. If you keep voting for whatever turkey they give you to vote for, what incentive do they have to stop putting up turkeys and give you someone decent to vote for?

I wasn't a big fan of HW Bush after his first term, but I voted for him anyway. 

I was never a fan of Dole, but I voted for him anyway.

I was never a fan of GW Bush, but I voted for him anyway. 

I'm sick of it. I really, really never liked McCain and I just will not do it. If it damns the country to Obama, so be it. Maybe if the Libertarians poll 10-20% in the election, it will send a message.


----------



## Charles_Main (Jul 16, 2008)

Tech_Esq said:


> I disagree. If you keep voting for whatever turkey they give you to vote for, what incentive do they have to stop putting up turkeys and give you someone decent to vote for?
> 
> I wasn't a big fan of HW Bush after his first term, but I voted for him anyway.
> 
> ...




What I have been saying all along. I damn well would send a message. the Message being return to your roots or DIE as a party.

See the Republicans are not even the first party to drive me away. I was once a card carrying Democrat. Back when they still had a brain and were not pulled around by the nose, by the left.


----------



## jillian (Jul 16, 2008)

Tech_Esq said:


> I disagree. If you keep voting for whatever turkey they give you to vote for, what incentive do they have to stop putting up turkeys and give you someone decent to vote for?
> 
> I wasn't a big fan of HW Bush after his first term, but I voted for him anyway.
> 
> ...



It's fair of you to disagree. I understand. But I ask myself which person will less damage the things that matter to me. I couldn't in good conscience cast a vote for McCain and I couldn't in good conscience cast a vote that would help him.

I suspect it depends on whether the things that matter to you can be so damaged in the short run that one can't afford to take a more long term view. For me, that's the case.


----------



## Charles_Main (Jul 16, 2008)

jillian said:


> It's fair of you to disagree. I understand. But I ask myself which person will less damage the things that matter to me. I couldn't in good conscience cast a vote for McCain and I couldn't in good conscience cast a vote that would help him.
> 
> I suspect it depends on whether the things that matter to you can be so damaged in the short run that one can't afford to take a more long term view. For me, that's the case.



Yep and as long as Americans keep thinking that way, your choice will always be limited to who will do the least damage, and never include someone who might actually do some good.


----------



## Wow (Jul 16, 2008)

Kirk said:


> Bush has changed his postion on global warming, negotiating with North Korea, and now negotiating with Iran. Maybe he has learned something.
> 
> My favorite Bush moment was when they asked him what he had learned from his first term in office and he said, "Words have consequences."
> 
> Duh!


Hahahahaha
Bush has negotiated with neither and Bush refuses to destroy America over the global warming hoax. 

You guys will make up anything.


----------



## Tech_Esq (Jul 16, 2008)

jillian said:


> Anyone is smarter than Bush. McCain is, certainly. I am, however, getting concerned about his lack of knowledge about the differences among Sunni and Shi'a; and economic policy... particularly when the banking industry is in a world of hurt right now... what? about 1.2 trillion dollars worth of defaulted mortgages?
> 
> There aren't viable alternatives right now. Personally, I think we're in need of a tune up and would do better with a more representative, parliamentary type of set up.



Jillian, I think you have a point, but I wouldn't go down the parliamentary road. I think it is far too dangerous and sets us on the wrong course. But, more representation is needed. The UK has 650 members of the House of Commons and they have roughly a third of the population of this country. We currently have democracy limited by architecture. We have artificially limited representation to 435 members and we increase the number of people they represent constantly. We need to go to the point where each member represented 250,000 people (which is where we capped it). 

Then we need to reduce the size of congressional staffs (and thus their power). Since there will be more Congressmen, they can do the work themselves. Reduce the number of committee assignments each member has (so they have time to do the work). Repeal campaign finance and other undemocratic reforms. You will not need them with the explosion of new congressional districts. Because the size of the congressional district is smaller, the need for money will be less. And, you might actually know your member of Congress.


----------



## Tech_Esq (Jul 16, 2008)

jillian said:


> It's fair of you to disagree. I understand. But I ask myself which person will less damage the things that matter to me. I couldn't in good conscience cast a vote for McCain and I couldn't in good conscience cast a vote that would help him.
> 
> I suspect it depends on whether the things that matter to you can be so damaged in the short run that one can't afford to take a more long term view. For me, that's the case.



That's precisely the reason I voted for W twice. I was so close to pulling the libertarian lever last time, but Kerrey scared me out of it.

This time I'm trying to be a little more Zen about it. Part of it is that I've disliked McCain longer than I disliked Bush. The other part is, I've gotten to a point where I'm so frustrated by the performance that the Repubs have put up over the last 10 years, that I'm just not going to vote for any of them until they get back to Reagan. If they don't, then I guess I'm gonna be a dyed in the wool Libertarian.


----------



## jillian (Jul 16, 2008)

Tech_Esq said:


> That's precisely the reason I voted for W twice. I was so close to pulling the libertarian lever last time, but Kerrey scared me out of it.
> 
> This time I'm trying to be a little more Zen about it. Part of it is that I've disliked McCain longer than I disliked Bush. The other part is, I've gotten to a point where I'm so frustrated by the performance that the Repubs have put up over the last 10 years, that I'm just not going to vote for any of them until they get back to Reagan. If they don't, then I guess I'm gonna be a dyed in the wool Libertarian.



For me it's the Supreme Court. I can't hand those choices over to someone who uses the issue to pander to the religious right.... particularly when that person used to say that the religious right are the "agents of intolerance".


----------



## Ravi (Jul 16, 2008)

Here's what Bush said a couple of months ago: 


> &#8220;Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along,&#8221; Mr. Bush said, in a speech otherwise devoted to spotlighting Israel&#8217;s friendship with the United States.
> &#8220;We have an obligation,&#8221; he continued, &#8220;to call this what it is: the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history.&#8221;



http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/16/us/politics/16obama.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin

So, what is he up to?


----------



## Wow (Jul 16, 2008)

Ravi said:


> Here's what Bush said a couple of months ago:
> 
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/16/us/politics/16obama.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin
> ...


Are you implying Bush is negotiating with terrorists?
If so, please provide the evidence.


----------



## Ravi (Jul 16, 2008)

Wow said:


> Are you implying Bush is negotiating with terrorists?
> If so, please provide the evidence.



No, but if he were honest, he'd make the same comments about himself that he made a couple of months ago.

I'd like to know why the 180.


----------



## Wow (Jul 16, 2008)

Ravi said:


> No, but if he were honest, he'd make the same comments about himself that he made a couple of months ago.
> 
> I'd like to know why the 180.


180 on what, he thinks Obama is a Nazi?


----------



## Tech_Esq (Jul 16, 2008)

jillian said:


> For me it's the Supreme Court. I can't hand those choices over to someone who uses the issue to pander to the religious right.... particularly when that person used to say that the religious right are the "agents of intolerance".



I have no confidence that McLame would appoint originalists.


----------



## Charles_Main (Jul 16, 2008)

Tech_Esq said:


> I have no confidence that McLame would appoint originalists.



Neither do I, but I have plenty of Confidence Obama surely will not.


----------



## Jeepers (Jul 16, 2008)

Charles_Main said:


> What I have been saying all along. I damn well would send a message. the Message being return to your roots or DIE as a party.
> 
> See the Republicans are not even the first party to drive me away. I was once a card carrying Democrat. Back when they still had a brain and were not pulled around by the nose, by the left.


Better by the nose than by that little conservative circle jerk thing you cats have goin on... Obama actually is a solid candidate.. if you can look beyond your R bias you just might be able to see it..


----------



## Charles_Main (Jul 16, 2008)

Jeepers said:


> Better by the nose than by that little conservative circle jerk thing you cats have goin on... Obama actually is a solid candidate.. if you can look beyond your R bias you just might be able to see it..



My ass, but feel free to try and convince me, maybe you will be better at showing me who he really is than he is.


----------



## jillian (Jul 16, 2008)

Tech_Esq said:


> I have no confidence that McLame would appoint originalists.



I have no reason to think he's lying about putting people on the bench who share that pathetic made up construct.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jul 16, 2008)

jillian said:


> For me it's the Supreme Court. I can't hand those choices over to someone who uses the issue to pander to the religious right.... particularly when that person used to say that the religious right are the "agents of intolerance".



But no problem handing those choices over to a racist and a Socialist, right? Well I am as long as he is black then it is ok, now if a white man did all the things Obama had done we would never hear the end of it from you liberal turds.

Replace white everywhere black appears ,or African American, in the Church he went to for 20 YEARS, the Pastor he described as a mentor, spirtual leader that brought him to Christian beliefs and an Uncle figure and remind who you would be excusing it all as NOT important.

And explain how it is ok he comes from the MOST corrupt political machine in the Country and you are ok with that cause, well it is democratic party run?

McCain is not going to give one damn thing to the religious right, claiming he will while IGNORING the problems with Obama's religious connections is the biggest fraud ever put forth by you liberal lying pieces of filth.


----------



## Jeepers (Jul 17, 2008)

Charles_Main said:


> My ass, but feel free to try and convince me, maybe you will be better at showing me who he really is than he is.


Go to BarackObama.com. Read his platform. Let me know which policy you have issue with...


----------



## Tech_Esq (Jul 17, 2008)

jillian said:


> I have no reason to think he's lying about putting people on the bench who share that pathetic made up construct.



Call it what you like, but it's better than letting navel gazing lawyers in black robes do whatever they happen to feel like that day.


----------



## Jeepers (Jul 17, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> But no problem handing those choices over to a racist and a Socialist, right? Well I am as long as he is black then it is ok, now if a white man did all the things Obama had done we would never hear the end of it from you liberal turds.
> 
> Replace white everywhere black appears ,or African American, in the Church he went to for 20 YEARS, the Pastor he described as a mentor, spirtual leader that brought him to Christian beliefs and an Uncle figure and remind who you would be excusing it all as NOT important.


 Huh... the only thing you have right is that he is black.. and frankly.. your only half right at that... what are "ALL THOSE THINGS" btw... I hear much smear attributed to All those things... or any number of purposefully vague statements...



> And explain how it is ok he comes from the MOST corrupt political machine in the Country and you are ok with that cause, well it is democratic party run?.



Moreso OK with Obama than Mr Keating on the other ticket... Seriously.. do you have any meat here or is this just supposition and inuendo...Because I am from South Carolina am I accused of being redneck or republican...



> McCain is not going to give one damn thing to the religious right, .


 already has my friend... .





> claiming he will while IGNORING the problems with Obama's religious connections is the biggest fraud ever put forth by you liberal lying pieces of filth.


Huh... you've got to clarify what it is your trying to say.. your free association crap is nonsensical and tiring... What is this fraud? Does this involve or forget Obamas faith based program continuance...


----------



## Charles_Main (Jul 18, 2008)

Jeepers said:


> Go to BarackObama.com. Read his platform. Let me know which policy you have issue with...



been there done that, and why would I list my differences with Obamas policies to you? Are you his campaign manager? Are you going to make him change his fundamental ideas? me thinks not.


----------



## jreeves (Jul 18, 2008)

Jeepers said:


> Man.. this must have Mac Steamin.. Bush fucked him in 2000, now he screws him in 2008...



Hmm....You don't understand how this is different from, 

"Today, former Senator Tom Daschle joined a growing list of experienced
Democrats dismissing *Obama's proposal to negotiate with Iran without
preconditions*. Daschle's hedging of his candidates' pledge shows how truly
naive it would be to negotiate with Iran without preconditions. Obama's
promise to negotiate with Iran betrays his inexperience and weak judgment on
foreign affairs." 

RNC Response to Daschle Statement on Obama's Pledge to Negotiate Without Preconditions | Reuters

A* President *negotiating with Iran without any preconditions?


Nice attempt to spin it though....


----------



## jreeves (Jul 18, 2008)

Jeepers said:


> Yeah.. but Mac was counting on bush not to talk to terrorists... eh.. go figure...



See there you go again....Bush has no plans to meet with Ahmedinejah, as Obama said he will do if elected without preconditions....


----------



## jreeves (Jul 18, 2008)

jillian said:


> Except that he is....
> 
> 1. Iraq... check
> 2. oil policy... check
> ...



Couldn't you say that Obama is only a Bush 3?


1. Faith Based Initiatives....check
2. FISA....check
3. Bush's 2005 energy plan....check
4. Iraq War....check(even if it was only for a few hours)

Lmao


----------



## jreeves (Jul 18, 2008)

jillian said:


> Anyone is smarter than Bush. McCain is, certainly. I am, however, getting concerned about his lack of knowledge about the differences among Sunni and Shi'a; and economic policy... particularly when the banking industry is in a world of hurt right now... what? about 1.2 trillion dollars worth of defaulted mortgages?
> 
> There aren't viable alternatives right now. Personally, I think we're in need of a tune up and would do better with a more representative, parliamentary type of set up.



Does Obama stating their is a shortage of Arabic interpreters in Iraq bother you? Especially considering Iraqis don't speak Arabic? At least MCcain will know what type of interpreter to take with him....


Just saying


----------



## editec (Jul 18, 2008)

FYI

Iraqis speak "literary Arabic" that is sort of the : *lingua* franca 
of the Arab world and is the language in which the Koran was written.

That is the major language of Iraq. 

Farsi is the basically the language of Persia.


----------



## Ravi (Jul 18, 2008)

jreeves said:


> Does Obama stating their is a shortage of Arabic interpreters in Iraq bother you? Especially considering Iraqis don't speak Arabic? At least MCcain will know what type of interpreter to take with him....
> 
> 
> Just saying



What are you smoking there, jreeves?


----------



## Wow (Jul 18, 2008)

Obama is endangering the lives of our brave soldiers by visiting Iraq and Afghanistan.
There is a war being fought, our troops do not need to risk their lives for a chimp's campaign of lies.
How many Americans will lose their lives because Obama wants to use the battlefield as a campaign back drop?


----------



## Charles_Main (Jul 18, 2008)

Wow said:


> Obama is endangering the lives of our brave soldiers by visiting Iraq and Afghanistan.
> There is a war being fought, our troops do not need to risk their lives for a chimp's campaign of lies.
> How many Americans will lose their lives because Obama wants to use the battlefield as a campaign back drop?



Oh cmon man, I am as opposed to Obama as you are, but that's just a load of BS.

If it smells like shit, it is shit my friend.


----------



## Ravi (Jul 18, 2008)

Wow said:


> Obama is endangering the lives of our brave soldiers by visiting Iraq and Afghanistan.
> There is a war being fought, our troops do not need to risk their lives for a chimp's campaign of lies.
> How many Americans will lose their lives because Obama wants to use the battlefield as a campaign back drop?



I wonder what you think of McCain announcing today that he thinks Obama will be in Iraq this weekend. That kind of thing is supposed to be kept as quiet as possible ahead of time.


----------



## Charles_Main (Jul 18, 2008)

Ravi said:


> I wonder what you think of McCain announcing today that he thinks Obama will be in Iraq this weekend. That kind of thing is supposed to be kept as quiet as possible ahead of time.



as opposed to the media who is saying the same thing? Please.


----------



## Ravi (Jul 18, 2008)

Charles_Main said:


> as opposed to the media who is saying the same thing? Please.


The media said sometime this summer. That's quite a bit different than saying this weekend.


----------



## Charles_Main (Jul 18, 2008)

Ravi said:


> The media said sometime this summer. That's quite a bit different than saying this weekend.



Umm, I just watched a news anchor say "Obama will be in Iraq sometime in the next few days" not 2 mins ago. 

but nice try.


----------



## Ravi (Jul 18, 2008)

Charles_Main said:


> Umm, I just watched a news anchor say "Obama will be in Iraq sometime in the next few days" not 2 mins ago.
> 
> but nice try.


Yes, they are getting that information from John McCain, who let the cat out of the bag earlier today.


----------



## jreeves (Jul 18, 2008)

editec said:


> FYI
> 
> Iraqis speak "literary Arabic" that is sort of the : *lingua* franca
> of the Arab world and is the language in which the Koran was written.
> ...



Sorry, correction he said there wasn't enough Arabic translators for Afgan. which is wrong.....


----------



## jreeves (Jul 18, 2008)

Ravi said:


> What are you smoking there, jreeves?



Excuse me I substituted Iraq for Afgan....honest mistake... Would you like to see the mighty Obama declaring Afgan. official language Arabic?


----------



## Ravi (Jul 18, 2008)

jreeves said:


> Excuse me I substituted Iraq for Afgan....honest mistake... Would you like to see the mighty Obama declaring Afgan. official language Arabic?


Okay, that makes more sense. Honestly though, I can hardly keep all the languages straight myself and both candidates have been guilty of not being able to either.


----------



## jreeves (Jul 18, 2008)

Ravi said:


> Okay, that makes more sense. Honestly though, I can hardly keep all the languages straight myself and both candidates have been guilty of not being able to either.



That was my point, a temporary lapse in memory, MCcain's Sunni and Shia. Does not mean he doesn't know the difference, it was just a temporary lapse in memory, correct?


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jul 18, 2008)

jreeves said:


> That was my point, a temporary lapse in memory, MCcain's Sunni and Shia. Does not mean he doesn't know the difference, it was just a temporary lapse in memory, correct?



No No, A democrat can make a mistake a republican is always an idiot when he does so, at least according to a liberal turd.


----------



## Charles_Main (Jul 19, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> No No, A democrat can make a mistake a republican is always an idiot when he does so, at least according to a liberal turd.



an idiot or a liar, don't forget that one.


----------



## coolgeee (Jul 21, 2008)

How many wars are we going to start for this war profiteering administration.


----------



## Epsilon Delta (Jul 22, 2008)

coolgeee said:


> How many wars are we going to start for this war profiteering administration.



Pretty sure it's gonna stay at 1.

(One too many, if you ask me)


----------



## editec (Jul 22, 2008)

Ravi said:


> Okay, that makes more sense. Honestly though, I can hardly keep all the languages straight myself and both candidates have been guilty of not being able to either.


 
Folks I'm one the internet's most prolific publishers of books in languages other than English, and I can't keep it straight, either.

I though Farsi was the predominent language of Iraq, too, until I looked it up.

What I'm saying is...*give yourselves and others here a break*, you know?


----------

