and one moving violation!

urbancenturion on April 30,2008 at 6:09PM.

urbancenturion: He he,and one moving violation,forgot
that part,workin on strictly memory!

Thanks for that,for that was the punch
line kicker,Ha ha.

Anything to point up the absurdity of this kind of snippet-commercial manufacturing.

This reminds me of the scene in Heavy Metal with Hand over
Fist:

The following charges are leveled against the Democrats!

-200,000 charges of falsifying voting records
-800,000 charges of tampering with the voting boxes
-3,400,400 charges of voter intimidation
-350,000 charges of vechicle damage to voting shut-ins*
*(does not include tire-slashings.)
-400,000 charges of US Military not able to exercise
their right to vote!
-7,000,000 charges of voter disenfranchisement
-8,000,000 charges of destroying voter cards
-440 charges of closing the voting office by 6 hours early
-800 charges of frivilous court documents of said voter
fraud.

Representative of the Liberal Party how do you plead!

Judge takes a sip of water,NOT QUILTY!

Judge spits water all over his desk,You got to be kidding!
(Snark) Hahahaha.

canopfor on April 30, 2008 at 3:26 PM

Dude, how could you forget…?

…and one moving violation!

I agree. Your question is silly, resting on either a lack of comprehension of what McCain is saying or willful misunderstanding out of malice.

McCain said we were likely to be in Iraq for a hundred years, not occupy it for a hundred years. We’ve been in Cuba for over a hundred years, yet we do not occupy it. We’ve been in Germany and Japan since the end of WWII, 63 years ago, yet we do not occupy them.

Even though we remain in Cuba, Germany, and Japan, we are not in active hostilities there. You can ask your friends or check the newspapers if you don’t believe me. Likewise, McCain realizes that a token American force in Iraq will stabilize the neighborhood and reduce the prospect of war, not increase it or prolong it. For example, nobody attacked Iran when we were its ally. About a year after Iran turned on us, Iraq sought to exploit that weakness and attack it. Rejecting our alliance cost the Iranians a million dead and wounded.

As for the Muslim terrorists, they have been conducting a jihad against the non-Muslim world for thirteen centuries and are unlikely to stop, considering that their religious doctrine commands them to make war to propagate their vile faith. Your idea that these hostilities are initiated by America, the West, John McCain or anybody but the Muslims who perpetrate them demonstrates a dim appreciation for the situation. Surrendering to Muslim barbarism, as you suggest, is not an option. It just may be that Muslims will never learn the folly of their belligerence until it puts them in danger of annihilation. That’s what turned the trick for the Japanese.

Snake307 on April 30, 2008 at 3:43 PM

Where have you been, oh snake, where have you been hiding?
Absolute victory is a fallacy, placed by the left…occupation is the cost of cleaning up a country. CK above details WWII. You know what McCain was saying, don’t be coy or cute. He is willing to be there for the people to stay free for as long as it takes. Anything short of that gives the enemy hope.
Carter was an appeaser, and men suffered under him, Reagan got elected in within moments our men were free.

Kadafi raised his ugly head, and Reagan all but chopped it off, and he fell silent. The enemy knows and fears strength, and sniffs out weakness, McCain knows that, he lived it.
You have a stench of weakness about you…and so does the DNC.

Then you agree that the ad from the DNC while tacky, is essentially true. Thank you

Not at all, because I understand the intent behind the ad. The Democrats want to leave without stability in Iraq, or in the surrounding region. That is to say, they advocate unequivocal concession, surrender. Therefore, they advocate losing.

My brothers in arms and I have spent too much, lost too much, sweat too much, and bled too much, to ever, ever agree with that idea.

“Absolute victory” is an abstraction. If all we wanted to do was eliminate the immediate threat of a crtain brand of terrorism, we could render large regions of the world uninhabitable for generations, and we could do it in a matter of hours.

Making policy would be easier if everything fit into cookie-cutter shapes. Our objectives are a bit more complex than that.

You can consider me…refuse.

mjk on April 30, 2008 at 3:43 PM

Last thing before I head to work.

Charles Lindberg objected to getting involved in the war prior to Pearl Harbor. After that, he worked to help the US tremendously. He helped design the cross Atlantic flight routes for American Aircraft headed for England. He flew several combat missions, as a technical rep, and shot down Japanese aircraft. He helped extend the range of the P-38 and showed that the Corsair could lift a great deal more weight than the Military thought it could.

If you’re putting me in that category, I don’t really mind. Lindberg was also providing information to Military intelligence while he was in Germany before the war, American Military Intelligence.

Lindberg didn’t want to go to war on a whim, or a fluke. However, once that war was one, he was one of the first to volunteer for service. I believe he was also quoted as saying it should be victory at any cost, after Pearl Harbor.

I don’t mind that comparison, because like Lindberg, I want victory, and am willing to bear the cost, and take the action, even unpopular action like Gitmo, to win. Too bad McCain isn’t.

However, I honestly believe that John McCain won’t leave the troops over there in harms way for his entire Presidency, no matter what he says now about never surrendering. I was also hoping to get someone to notice that to end a war you either have defeat, or victory.

If victory is defined as no more threat from the Terrorists, then surrender is going to be a tough one to get from them. The only alternative is to eliminate the threat, and we aren’t doing that right now. We’re fighting, but a limited war against the terrorists. One that could realistically last for a hundred years pretty much like it is.

Now, if McCain had said something like Victory, or Death, then I would have a tough time arguing with it, because he’s showing that only victory, and he doesn’t care how many of them we have to kill to get it, is acceptable.

I was hoping that people would say they’d demand absolute victory from McCain and the rest of the Washington Elite, but so far no one has doen that. Instead, they suggest I count the angels on the head of the pin.

If you are determined to win a fight, you pull out all the stops, you fight. You don’t shut down Gitmo, you fight. You either hold those terrorists for life, or you eliminate them period. We’re doing neither, at least John McCain isn’t.

Charles Lindbergh said once that there was a military and an air force that the Americans should not challenge as many young men would be killed and the Americans would lose anyway.

Can you guess who that was about? Should the Coalition of the Willing have surrendered to that country considering how brainwashed the populace was to that particular idea of nationalism? Or is it just that you want to pick and choose your enemies and your battles and think that the people in the Middle East deserve to be brutalized and tortured by brutal Islamic governments?

Which is actually rather racist…

Then you agree that the ad from the DNC while tacky, is essentially true. Thank you

.

That was your Super Bowl, wasn’t it, Snake307? You sure put that soldier in his place, you mighty man.

Snake307 on April 30, 2008 at 3:09 PM

And how many angels dance on the heads of your pins?

Your defense of the DNC ad is pure sophistry, and is based on a series of absurd assumptions. To be fair to you, they originate partly in the debased and juvenile language that we have come to rely on for discussions of military strategy.

If some future president decides that having 20,000 troops stationed in Iraq, with the risk that a handful will suffer attacks or accidents each year, is beneficial to the American interest, would that be “war” to you? If so, then would you say that the NYPD is at war with New York City, and should be withdrawn from the field? If not, then at what point does the situation in Iraq and our participation in it begin to qualify as “war” in your mind?

McCain has made it clear over and over that he sees an indefinite commitment of US forces to Iraq, in whatever sustainable numbers, far preferable to letting that country fall apart and become a base for forces hostile to the US. He also has made it clear that he understands that such a commitment would be difficult if not impossible to sustain indefinitely at current levels of casualties and other costs.

It shouldn’t be hard to process. It’s not really very complicated. The demagogy from the Democrats, on the other hand, implies that McCain favors chaos and carnage forever and ever. It probably wouldn’t be tenable for even a few seconds if the rest of so-called “anti-war” policy wasn’t already based on fantasy and denial. The 100 years of war line itself probably isn’t really meant to be taken literally: It’s meant to scare the children (including the grown-up ones), encourage the yahoos, and reinforce attacks on McCain’s character.

Back to the fun…

The following charges are leveled against the Democrats!

-200,000 charges of falsifying voting records
-800,000 charges of tampering with the voting boxes
-3,400,400 charges of voter intimidation
-350,000 charges of vechicle damage to voting shut-ins*
*(does not include tire-slashings.)
-400,000 charges of US Military not able to exercise
their right to vote!
-7,000,000 charges of voter disenfranchisement
-8,000,000 charges of destroying voter cards
-440 charges of closing the voting office by 6 hours early
-800 charges of frivilous court documents of said voter
fraud.

Representative of the Liberal Party how do you plead!

Judge takes a sip of water,NOT QUILTY!

Judge spits water all over his desk,You got to be kidding!
(Snark) Hahahaha.

As a military man, who’s served two tours in Iraq, and am serving my first in Afghanistan, given the choice between 100 years in Iraq, or surrender, I have this to say (I do not speak for the Army, or any particular element therein. Just myself):

“100 years? Beats losing!”

Spc Steve on April 30, 2008 at 3:24 PM

Then you agree that the ad from the DNC while tacky, is essentially true. Thank you.

I think at the very most McCain would be on the hook for eight years of active hostility. Hopefully only four.

James on April 30, 2008 at 2:56 PM

Tear it apart if you want, I don’t care. The truth is fairly obvious, and neither side has the truthful high ground at the moment on this particular issue.

You can consider me a Maverick Conservative, I refuse to accept anything just upon party line.

The DNC ad …is … misleading.

Snake307 on April 30, 2008 at 3:09 PM

Glad that you finally came clean.

Snake307 on April 30, 2008 at 3:09 PM

As a military man, who’s served two tours in Iraq, and am serving my first in Afghanistan, given the choice between 100 years in Iraq, or surrender, I have this to say (I do not speak for the Army, or any particular element therein. Just myself):

“100 years? Beats losing!”

According to John McCain, he will never surrender in Iraq. — Snake307

Then I agree with McCain, NEVER SURRENDER. Only the Democrats want to SURRENDER. How is Surrendering good?

kirkill on April 30, 2008 at 2:56 PM

So you agree that it could well be a hundred years of active hostilities in Iraq.

I think at the very most McCain would be on the hook for eight years of active hostility. Hopefully only four.

James on April 30, 2008 at 2:56 PM

Granted, and the next President, or even the one we’re currently trying to pick, could determine that there is no further tactical or strategic value to be gained in Iraq. Even John McCain could determine in three years that there is no further use to keeping troops in Iraq, and withdraw them victory, or defeat.

So we have two choices, either unending war, forever, even a hundred years without any cessation, or we can surrender at some future point, perhaps in ninety nine years. Or we can win at some future point. Yet to win the war on terror, that means either there is no desire, or no ability, for terrorists to strike at the American people, or American interests. Since that’s doubtful, especially with our open boarders, then one hundred years of active hostilities is in fact possible.

I’m sorry, I personally think the DNC ad, while slightly misleading, and using an incomplete quote, is more honest than the misleading arguments from the RNC and McCain against it.

However the Tacky award goes totally to the DNC over the use of American servicemen in harms way as part of the ad.

Hillary Clinton.

Dammit! She said that, too!

K, I quit.