NationStates Jolt Archive

Do you guys think that the Republicans have any chance of getting a Pres. in this year?

Back in late '06-early '07, I thought that the Reps didn't stand a chance at all... not in the least. But then I heard some support rallied for them, and it appeared that at least the election shouldn't be a landslide.

I'm a conservative, and will more than likely be throwing my support behind the reps this election again, and I'm jsut wondering the input you guys have over whether Bush's unpopularity will effectively make the dems a shoe in?

I don't like Obama, not because he isn't sincere or anything, he just happens to not fit into my preferred political spectrum... also I think he is to much of an idealist, I saqw his commercial recently where he all but promised to end every war, feed all the hungry, give everyone jobs, end poverty, and accomplish every other noble ideal ever dreamed up, and I just thought "Good luck, you're gonna need it" (In the same tone that Han Solo directed at Lando Calrissian in the briefing before the assault on the second Death Star). He comes accross as a someone who is promising more than can be delivered. Hillary seems to have lost, from what I'm reading on here, and I never wanted her in office anyway, so I won't expound so much.

What do you guys think? Do the reps have a realistic shot at this? If so, who would you bet on being their best Primary choice?

Only if Hillary is the Dem pick

Only if Hillary is the Dem pick

:D

Fair enough.

Over here in the UK, there was a news item where an American political commentator was interviewed and it was basically concluded that election 08 would be a "vote the buggers out" election, like the 1997 election that booted out the Conservatives for Blair's New Labour. Can't say the Republicans have much chance of holding the White House, seeing as they've already lost both Houses of Congress.

Especially with John "My lips are surgically attached to Bush's ass" McCain coming up quick among a field of crackpots and non-reborn Christians.

Yeah, I figured I'd get these reactions.

My worst fear is that we elect a dem who will proceed to withdraw every soldier from Iraq immediately. Nothing like letting the few thousand soldiers deaths be pointless.

That is one of my biggest problems, the people who argue against the war in Iraq based almost solely on the American (and British, in many cases) death tolls, yet they want nothing more than for all of those deaths to have accomplished nothing in the end... it saddens me that they would treat the life of a soldier as a worthless sacrifice.

That's the way it seems to me. Personally I'm hoping for Obama.

Why exactly? No offense or anything, he just seems like he has his head in the clouds, and is promising to do more than the president can. (after all, the president can't do nearly as much as people blame Bush for, similarly a president cannot fix every problem with good intentions).

Is Nader runnng again this year? He might really help the reps, like he did in '00, and '04... by, you know, handing them the election because people are stupid enough to think that more than like, 3% of everyone will ever vote for him.

Only if Hillary is the Dem pick

That's the way it seems to me. Personally I'm hoping for Obama vs. some extreme nut who nobody in their right mind will vote for (i.e. Ron Paul).

If only Brownback hadn't dropped out, he would have guaranteed a Democratic victory. :(

Why exactly? No offense or anything, he just seems like he has his head in the clouds, and is promising to do more than the president can. (after all, the president can't do nearly as much as people blame Bush for, similarly a president cannot fix every problem with good intentions).

Idealistic? Perhaps...ok, definitely, but think on this: for the past several presidencies we've had petty squabbling along party lines, Republicans blaming Democrats blaming Republicans, and so forth. Would you really want to elect Clinton, a figure that has been repeated noted for being a divisive political personality, or Obama, who's known for being a mediator?

Is Nader runnng again this year? He might really help the reps, like he did in '00, and '04... by, you know, handing them the election because people are stupid enough to think that more than like, 3% of everyone will ever vote for him.

Yes. People hate competence. They'd rather pick the winning horse. :p

Why exactly? No offense or anything, he just seems like he has his head in the clouds, and is promising to do more than the president can. (after all, the president can't do nearly as much as people blame Bush for, similarly a president cannot fix every problem with good intentions).

Well I don't know. He is telling people that we as a group can change things if we work together. He never claimed he could do anything by himself. He wants people to get involved in govt. and to make govt. transparent.

No.

That they probably will get back into power in 2010 in the House and the Presidency in 2012 is probably a better question.

I reckon that the Republicans are going to exploit the hell out of the differences inside the Democratic party and generally make them as ineffective as possible, until they totally lose support from the general public. That's what'll happen.

Why exactly? No offense or anything, he just seems like he has his head in the clouds, and is promising to do more than the president can. (after all, the president can't do nearly as much as people blame Bush for, similarly a president cannot fix every problem with good intentions).

No offense taken. I quite liked Hillary until recently when she and her husband started negative-campaigning in earnest, but I recognise that she's too unpopular with swing-voters to be elected. As Obama and Hillary are probably the only people with a serious chance of winning the Dem nomination I'm hoping for Obama; the Republicans are all terrifyingly authoritarian and most of them are anti-science too for good measure.

I live in the UK btw, so my preference is influenced more by international issues.

People hate competence.

The truth in that statement is overwhelming.

I'm staying home. Voting for an official is like playing with a little kid; he's always going to get his way and you'll just end up getting pissed off.

My worst fear is that we elect a dem who will proceed to withdraw every soldier from Iraq immediately. Nothing like letting the few thousand soldiers deaths be pointless.

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

Do you guys think that the Republicans have any chance of getting a Pres. in this year?

Back in late '06-early '07, I thought that the Reps didn't stand a chance at all... not in the least. But then I heard some support rallied for them, and it appeared that at least the election shouldn't be a landslide.

I'm a conservative, and will more than likely be throwing my support behind the reps this election again, and I'm jsut wondering the input you guys have over whether Bush's unpopularity will effectively make the dems a shoe in?

I don't like Obama, not because he isn't sincere or anything, he just happens to not fit into my preferred political spectrum... also I think he is to much of an idealist, I saqw his commercial recently where he all but promised to end every war, feed all the hungry, give everyone jobs, end poverty, and accomplish every other noble ideal ever dreamed up, and I just thought "Good luck, you're gonna need it" (In the same tone that Han Solo directed at Lando Calrissian in the briefing before the assault on the second Death Star). He comes accross as a someone who is promising more than can be delivered. Hillary seems to have lost, from what I'm reading on here, and I never wanted her in office anyway, so I won't expound so much.

What do you guys think? Do the reps have a realistic shot at this? If so, who would you bet on being their best Primary choice?

Well, I'm more than likely voting Republican. Probably McCain, though I'm not finished reading through the entirety of his policies yet. His admitted lack of economic knowledge is troubling though...

Though I'd have to say, I would be happy if Obama won. He's a decent person.

Yeah, I figured I'd get these reactions.

My worst fear is that we elect a dem who will proceed to withdraw every soldier from Iraq immediately. Nothing like letting the few thousand soldiers deaths be pointless.

That is one of my biggest problems, the people who argue against the war in Iraq based almost solely on the American (and British, in many cases) death tolls, yet they want nothing more than for all of those deaths to have accomplished nothing in the end... it saddens me that they would treat the life of a soldier as a worthless sacrifice.

So it would be the Deomcrats who, should they withdraw troops, make their deaths pointless, as opposed to the Republicans who -- wait for it -- sent them to die in the first place. Okay. Just getting that out of the way so that there are no mix-ups. You think the deaths will be on the hands of they who withdraw them rather than they who sent them. Got it.

Yikes.

No, they dont have a chance, thank god

I am voting for Mickey mouse

So it would be the Deomcrats who, should they withdraw troops, make their deaths pointless, as opposed to the Republicans who -- wait for it -- sent them to die in the first place. Okay. Just getting that out of the way so that there are no mix-ups. You think the deaths will be on the hands of they who withdraw them rather than they who sent them. Got it.

Yikes.

Pulling out would be a disaster. You should concentrate on the more important aspects.

No, they dont have a chance, thank god

It does appear McCain has a good chance. However, he is not much of a republican.

It does appear McCain has a good chance. However, he is not much of a republican.

Depends on which poll you listen to. I've seen ones that have him beating Clinton but losing to Obama, beating Obama but losing to Clinton, losing the nomination to Ron Paul (:rolleyes:), and just about everything in between.

I think he probably is the strongest Republican candidate, though, ahead of maybe Romney.

No offense taken. I quite liked Hillary until recently when she and her husband started negative-campaigning in earnest, but I recognise that she's too unpopular with swing-voters to be elected. As Obama and Hillary are probably the only people with a serious chance of winning the Dem nomination I'm hoping for Obama; the Republicans are all terrifyingly authoritarian and most of them are anti-science too for good measure.

I live in the UK btw, so my preference is influenced more by international issues.

It does appear Slickmeister has sunk his wife's meager chances. Really to bad. She would have lost to any republican candidate put against her.

Obama is left wing of Shrillary. Hell even Chappaquiddick is on his side. Has to tell you something.

No, they dont have a chance, thank godIronic wording, or poetic?

Pulling out would be a disaster. You should concentrate on the more important aspects.

None of the Dems have called for pulling out completely. They have called for ending combat operations in Iraq though.

I choose to not vote. I can't bring my self to participate in a system where I choose my master. I would rather fail on my own than be a pawn in the politicians game. Voting for the dems or the reps is just you deciding who is going to steal from you.:headbang:

Depends on which poll you listen to. I've seen ones that have him beating Clinton but losing to Obama, beating Obama but losing to Clinton, losing the nomination to Ron Paul (:rolleyes:), and just about everything in between.

I think he probably is the strongest Republican candidate, though, ahead of maybe Romney.

I do not pay attention to polls. I find most polls to be extremely biased. I am referring to his voting record.

I choose to not vote. I can't bring my self to participate in a system where I choose my master. I would rather fail on my own than be a pawn in the politicians game. Voting for the dems or the reps is just you deciding who is going to steal from you.:headbang:

Well one has to understand that party trumps candidates in any case. Not voting is a vote for status quo.

Everything I have seen shows that John "Hundred Years in Iraq" "I suck of General Patreous" McCain can only win if Hilary is the dem.

Which after South Carolina is doenst look like that will be very likely.

The entire political system is corrupt. Shrillary and Bill pay off people. I would not dismiss her just yet. Lots of bribes of the delegates to go.

I do not pay attention to polls. I find most polls to be extremely biased.

Exactly my point ;)

I am referring to his voting record.

Putting you ahead of well over 50% of the U.S. electorate.

Ironic wording, or poetic?

Wishful thinking.

It does appear McCain has a good chance. However, he is not much of a republican.

Everything I have seen shows that John "Hundred Years in Iraq" "I suck of General Patreous" McCain can only win if Hilary is the dem.

Which after South Carolina is doenst look like that will be very likely.

Is Nader runnng again this year? He might really help the reps, like he did in '00, and '04... by, you know, handing them the election because people are stupid enough to think that more than like, 3% of everyone will ever vote for him.

Everyone learned their lesson with Perot. If he had not run, you would have never seen the demise of the economy and the military in the 90's.

8 years ago, I would have gladly voted for him. Then he tucked his tail and became a party patsy. Sad, that.

Not really. McCain has been a maverick most of the time. People let him slide. He just does not have a very strong platform. His platitudes drive me insane.


Depends on the issue, really. In economic matters, Obama tends to be more right wing than Hillary. In social matters, she's more authoritarian than him.

Perhaps but the perception of him as a candidate overall is very left wing.

I choose to not vote. I can't bring my self to participate in a system where I choose my master. I would rather fail on my own than be a pawn in the politicians game. Voting for the dems or the reps is just you deciding who is going to steal from you.:headbang:

You already have masters. You're just choosing their figurehead. *nod*

Exactly my point ;)


Putting you ahead of well over 50% of the U.S. electorate.

Sad isnt it.

It does appear McCain has a good chance. However, he is not much of a republican.

8 years ago, I would have gladly voted for him. Then he tucked his tail and became a party patsy. Sad, that.

Obama is left wing of Shrillary. Hell even Chappaquiddick is on his side. Has to tell you something.

Depends on the issue, really. In economic matters, Obama tends to be more right wing than Hillary. In social matters, she's more authoritarian than him.

You already have masters. You're just choosing their figurehead. *nod*

I never inderstood why people blame one man for the ails of a nation.

Congress silently agrees or disagrees with any matter and votes it in or out. They are the ones to blame or praise. The only thing that having a particular party in the white house does (besides perception) is it has a public voice of what is more important to work on, and congress rarely listens.

The media decides for you how to think and they broadcast it over and over again until the masses are chanting the mantra.

Very few people vote correctly anymore. It is easier to choose a candidate by soundbites.

I never inderstood why people blame one man for the ails of a nation.

Congress silently agrees or disagrees with any matter and votes it in or out. They are the ones to blame or praise. The only thing that having a particular party in the white house does (besides perception) is it has a public voice of what is more important to work on, and congress rarely listens.

The media decides for you how to think and they broadcast it over and over again until the masses are chanting the mantra.

Very few people vote correctly anymore. It is easier to choose a candidate by soundbites.

The President's real power is publicity. The President speaks to the people, the people speak to Congress and Congress, every once in a while so as to appear to care, listens to them.

But the rest of the time, Congress and the President obeys the will of their corporate masters. Now do your civic duty and consume, damn you! :mad:

Sad isnt it.

Indeed. There's just no excuse. 15 minutes of research told me enough about Obama and Clinton to make an educated choice between the two.

Times like this, I just put F.E.A.R. into the computer and play for awhile. I figure if I want to be scared about something, I'd rather it be a video game on a CPU monitor than the fact that most people base their vote off of soundbites and internet polls.

So it would be the Deomcrats who, should they withdraw troops, make their deaths pointless, as opposed to the Republicans who -- wait for it -- sent them to die in the first place. Okay. Just getting that out of the way so that there are no mix-ups. You think the deaths will be on the hands of they who withdraw them rather than they who sent them. Got it.

Yikes.

Umm... the reps didn't send them there to be pointless, but rahter to accomplish something, if anyone withdraws them early of their goal, then yes, it would be on the hands of the withdrawers.

For example, if a math teacher assigns a certain number of problems due tomorrow, and all the kids work really hard on it, and for some reason the teacher quits before it is due, and the new teacher doesn't collect the assignment it is the new teachers fault for their wasted effort, not the teacher that was attempting to do something (the first one).

What do you guys think? Do the reps have a realistic shot at this? Too early to tell. At the moment, its less likely, but nothing is clear until the candidates are picked and certainly not definite until the election is pretty much over.
If so, who would you bet on being their best Primary choice?McCain. The others are a tad too polarizing.

I choose to not vote. I can't bring my self to participate in a system where I choose my master. I would rather fail on my own than be a pawn in the politicians game. Voting for the dems or the reps is just you deciding who is going to steal from you.:headbang:

That doens't make sense... by not voting you aren't getting less 'stolen form' you're merely allowing others to 'choose your master' for you. By your own (failed) attempt at logic your own statement does not make sense.

That doens't make sense... by not voting you aren't getting less 'stolen form' you're merely allowing others to 'choose your master' for you. By your own (failed) attempt at logic your own statement does not make sense.

Why admit to apathy when you can indulge in self-rightousness?

Umm... the reps didn't send them there to be pointless, but rahter to accomplish something, if anyone withdraws them early of their goal, then yes, it would be on the hands of the withdrawers.



Haliburton already got their money.

Oil companies already go their contracts.

The rich have gotten richer at the expense of the poor's sons and daughters.

The reps accomplished their goals.

Haliburton already got their money.

Oil companies already go their contracts.

The rich have gotten richer at the expense of the poor's sons and daughters.

The reps accomplished their goals.

The poor's sons and daughters? May I rmind you that America's military is volunteer-based.

If you don't want to go to war, don't join the military, if a family member dies overseas... in combat don't blame the gov't, they didn't enlist your family member for you.

Who's fault is it that little Johnny Aparentlypoor died? His own fualt for joining an organization who's chief duty is armed combat, or the gov't's fault for using it's volunteer-based assets.

Also, Iraq is not entirely stable yet, so no, the reps have not accomplished their goal.

Haliburton already got their money.

So did Global Crossing and a half million others. One company is not the norm. So what if they made money? It is not a crime to make money you know!

Oil companies already go their contracts.

The problem is they did not. Oil prices are high in this country because of apathy of the American people and complacency. We ALLOWED refineries to be closed. We DO NOT ALLOW the oil companies to drill in ANWAR. The majority of our oil dependence is from Mexico and Canada, not the middle east. When you buy in bulk, you get a better rate. Reality of economics. We ALLOW foreign companies to sell at a reduced rate in this country (NO TARIFFS) so our green backs are diminishing. We ALLOWED the democrats to finance our debt in short term bonds. So the dollar is a fraction of what it used to be and is no longer a driving force in the world economy.

You can be a simpleton and blame the oil companies and the republicans if you like but anyone with 5 minutes of time can look at reality and it shows the problem is the smoke screen they force feed you on prime time news.

The rich have gotten richer at the expense of the poor's sons and daughters.

Yes George Soros, we heard you. Now the reality is a lot different.

The reps accomplished their goals.

Well from where I see it the republicans and the democrats have both been screwing us pretty hard. The vast majority of congress are former lawyers. Lawyers feed off the economy and want choas so they can litigate it and get pointless laws passed. Pork makes the world go round.

The poor's sons and daughters? May I rmind you that America's military is volunteer-based.

If you don't want to go to war, don't join the military, if a family member dies overseas... in combat don't blame the gov't, they didn't enlist your family member for you.

Who's fault is it that little Johnny Aparentlypoor died? His own fualt for joining an organization who's chief duty is armed combat, or the gov't's fault for using it's volunteer-based assets.

Also, Iraq is not entirely stable yet, so no, the reps have not accomplished their goal.

Ahem, if you take a look into the papers, the REPS if you include Bush as one said that Iraq was already liberated by the assasination of Hussein, if you republicans can vote a crackpot that destroys the reputation and view of america, why can't you also vote in one that "will take us out slowly", if a republican gets the presidency again we are all screwed. No republican has ever helped us out in a war, FDR world War 2, Truman World War 1, Bill Clinton and the Egypt Islrael treaty. What have republicans done, Nixon-Vietnam War

A draft has already been proposed three times in the house when it was republican runned. You cant go by the thought of volunteerism and still be a double crossing "frickin" republican. You have no arguement that can be said for your side, for the republican party has no moral and democratic views left, Try arguing, for everyone of you, their are three democrats. Its a dangerous place for you in the future.:upyours:

My point exactly, this is the sad problem when a capitalist society is run on a conservative view. It is not possible to run any form of government on a conservative view, except for a dictatorship.:p

The poor's sons and daughters? May I rmind you that America's military is volunteer-based.




The demographic make up of the USA's military is disproportional. Its mostly made up of the working class and the poor. This is because it is one of their only options to do anything with their life. You think politicians dont know this? I have a feeling that if our politicians had their sons and daughters in te armed forces, they wouldnt be so willing to send them to war. (yes I know some do, but very few)

The idea that Iraq is somehow a matter of patriotism is absurd, as is the "trump card" played by the right that if you pulled out you

A) Dont support our troops
B) Dont care about their sacrifices

Its because we care about their sacrifices that we want them home.

EDIT- If you think the war was anything but economically motivated you are naive. But what do I know, everything I know about Iraq is from "the evil libwal media" :rolleyes:

-snip- No republican has ever helped us out in a war, FDR world War 2, Truman World War 1, Bill Clinton and the Egypt Islrael treaty. What have republicans done, Nixon-Vietnam War

WWI 1914 - 1918

President: Woodrow Wilson 1913-1921 (Democrat)

Not only was he President before the war, wanted neutrality and then later got us into it, he was President after. So I guess one could say he 'lead us out' but he also 'lead us in to begin with'.

WWII - 1939 - 1945

President: Franklin Roosevelt (Democrat), Harry Truman 1945 - 1953 (Democrat)

It is quite obvious with FDR that he wanted us into WWI. He setup many scenarios to side with Churchill and get us across the pond. When Japan attacked us in 1941, it gave him the excuse he needed. We declared war on Japan and then Germany a few days later. A Democrat lead us into it.

Truman dropped two bombs but did little more than continue the FDR legacy.

Korean Conflict - 1950-1853

President: Harry Truman (Democrat) 1945-1953, Eisenhower 1953-1961 (Republican)

Again, a Democrat leads us in and then a Republican leads us out.

Vietnam 1965-1975

President: Lyndon Johnson 1963 - 1969 (Democrat), Richard Nixon 1969-1974 (Republican), Gerald Ford 1974-1977

We had advisors in Vietnam in 1961. John F. Kennedy sent them. (Democrat). Johnson committed troops in 1965. I guess by your logic Nixon lead us out and Ford finished the job.

Again, democrats start a war, don't have the stomach to finish and a republican has to lead them out.

Cold War 1945 - 1992

Post WWII (Democrats in control) we went into the cold war. It too a Republican , Ronald Reagan and later George HW Bush to lead them out.

Gulf War I 1990 - 1991

President: George HW Bush 1989-1993 (Republican)

So since you gave credit before I suppose you are ready to give credit for a republican doing the same as your previous example, Woodrow Wilson.


War on Terror 2001 - Present

President: George Bush 2001 - Present (Republican)

With fronts in Afghanistan and in Iraq. When will the war end? When the terrorists are no longer a threat.

Gulf War II 2003

President: George Bush 2001 - Present (Republican)

Started the war and it ended months after it began. The winning of the peace with occupying forces continues until this day. The war started and ended under George Bush.

Interesting sidelines:

Camp David Accords: 1978
President Carter

Action: Sadat and Begin signed treaty.
Result: Peace treaty.


Iran Hostage Crisis 1979 - 1981

President: Jimmy Carter 1977-1981 (Democrat)

It took the election of Ronald Reagan (Republican) to release the hostages.

Sadat Assassination: 1981
President: Reagan

A man later involved in the World Trade Center Bombings assassinated Sadat.

Result: Backlash in the middle east

Battle of Mogadishu 1993
President: Clinton

Action: Left US Soldiers to die

US Embassy Bombings: 1998
President: Clinton

Action: Saber rattling

USS Cole bombing 2000
President: Clinton

Action taken: Saber rattling.

World Trade Center bombing 1993
President: Clinton

The attack was planned by a group of conspirators including Ramzi Yousef, Mahmud Abouhalima, Mohammad Salameh, Nidal Ayyad, Abdul Rahman Yasin and Ahmad Ajaj. They received financing from al-Qaeda member Khaled Shaikh Mohammed, Yousef's uncle. In March 1994, four men were convicted of carrying out the bombing: Abouhalima, Ajaj, Ayyad and Salameh. The charges included conspiracy, explosive destruction of property and interstate transportation of explosives. And in November 1997, two more were convicted: Yousef, the mastermind behind the bombings, and Eyad Ismoil, who drove the truck carrying the bomb.

Action: Saber rattling

9-11 Attack 2001

President for 8 months: George Bush (Republican)

Muslim extremists attacked the World trade center and the Pentagon.

Action: Tracked down Osama Bin Laden to Afghanastan - Began campaign. Began to systematically eliminate terrorist strongholds and training facilites including in Iraq.

Result: Near total collapse of Al-Qada and Taliban. Dictator friendly to terrorism removed and progress made towards security in the Middle East.

So I would say you have a bit of reading to do, and I reccommend checking your facts outside of CNN puppets.

My point exactly, this is the sad problem when a capitalist society is run on a conservative view. It is not possible to run any form of government on a conservative view, except for a dictatorship.:p

If you are a communist.

The demographic make up of the USA's military is disproportional. Its mostly made up of the working class and the poor. This is because it is one of their only options to do anything with their life. You think politicians dont know this? I have a feeling that if our politicians had their sons and daughters in te armed forces, they wouldnt be so willing to send them to war. (yes I know some do, but very few)

The idea that Iraq is somehow a matter of patriotism is absurd, as is the "trump card" played by the right that if you pulled out you

A) Dont support our troops
B) Dont care about their sacrifices

Its because we care about their sacrifices that we want them home.

EDIT- If you think the war was anything but economically motivated you are naive. But what do I know, everything I know about Iraq is from "the evil libwal media" :rolleyes:

Sound bites are sound bites. It is naive to believe everyone in the military is poor and had no choice. Deflection.

As to democrats and liberals, the have utopian goals but when they see what it takes they turn and run.

You see, the world is run on force and might. No matter what you would like to believe, if you let your guard down, you are screwed.

If you don't believe me, walk down the street with a hundred dollar bill sticking out of your back pocket through a poor section of town. Let me know how it goes.

The poor's sons and daughters? May I rmind you that America's military is volunteer-based.

If you don't want to go to war, don't join the military, if a family member dies overseas... in combat don't blame the gov't, they didn't enlist your family member for you.

Who's fault is it that little Johnny Aparentlypoor died? His own fualt for joining an organization who's chief duty is armed combat, or the gov't's fault for using it's volunteer-based assets.

Also, Iraq is not entirely stable yet, so no, the reps have not accomplished their goal.
This is, honestly, stupid. People don't enlist to die and they certainly don't enlist to be used indiscriminately. They are volunteering (which is a misuse of the word, as they are compensated) to serve and protect their country. If the government uses that sacrifice frivolously then the death is on the hands of those who did such. It is our responsibility as citizens to hold the policy makers responsible, to ensure that they aren't taking the sacrifice of those who would serve and mis-using it. They don't have the luxury of being able to say, "Look, I don't think this is a good idea." We have to do that for them.

A draft has already been proposed three times in the house when it was republican runned. You cant go by the thought of volunteerism and still be a double crossing "frickin" republican. You have no arguement that can be said for your side, for the republican party has no moral and democratic views left, Try arguing, for everyone of you, their are three democrats. Its a dangerous place for you in the future.:upyours:
To be fair, all of those times it was brought up by a Democratic senator and shot down by the Republican congress. It wasn't being brought up to bolster troop strength but to make a point. It's argued that the public turning point in Vietnam had a lot to do with the draft, the congressman was trying to put the cost of the war in everyone's lap to make a point.

A draft has already been proposed three times in the house when it was republican runned. You cant go by the thought of volunteerism and still be a double crossing "frickin" republican. You have no arguement that can be said for your side, for the republican party has no moral and democratic views left, Try arguing, for everyone of you, their are three democrats. Its a dangerous place for you in the future.:upyours:

As a political stunt.

Pelosi was Speaker from 2003-present so that makes the House Democrat at that time. 2003-2005 you had Daschle, 2005-2007 Harry Reid and now Reid again. All democrats.

By Bill...

S. 89 [108th]: Universal National Service Act of 2003
Hollings (Democrat)

H.R. 163 [108th]: Universal National Service Act of 2003
Rangel (Democrat)

H.R. 2723 [109th]: Universal National Service Act of 2005
Rangel (Democrat)

H.R. 4752 [109th]: Universal National Service Act of 2006
Rangel (Democrat)

H.R. 393: Universal National Service Act of 2007
Rangel (Democrat)

Not sure which sound bites you are listening to, but your entire post is incorrect. Not sure who your 'up yours' was directed at.

Ahem, if you take a look into the papers, the REPS if you include Bush as one said that Iraq was already liberated by the assasination of Hussein,

Assassination? He was executed by an Iraqi court.

if you republicans can vote a crackpot that destroys the reputation and view of america,

We did not vote for Clinton.

why can't you also vote in one that "will take us out slowly",

Historically if you look at Germany and Japan, we never left. So to back out slowly is just a liberal weenie comment. We should not withdraw. We should setup bases in Iraq and move out of Germany and other European countries because we have no vital interest there anymore.

if a republican gets the presidency again we are all screwed.

Historically it is the opposite.

No republican has ever helped us out in a war, FDR world War 2, Truman World War 1, Bill Clinton and the Egypt Islrael treaty. What have republicans done, Nixon-Vietnam War

I already addressed this here http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13406342&postcount=54

Hostorically it is the opposite.


Is 'hostory' the study of the past you wish had happened? [/cheapshot]

Deep Kimchi is that you?

If Hillary is nominated, there's not a doubt in my mind the Republicans would have a strong chance. I'd be voting for McCain or Ron Paul in that case (maybe Romney if there wasn't anyone else worth it).

Is 'hostory' the study of the past you wish had happened? [/cheapshot]

Well technically it is the way historians choose to document the past. With the victor goes the spoils as it were.

We do live in interesting times and I have already seem the media distort many many truths. That is just in my lifetime so since we are at the mercy of historians, were are forced to make decisions based on their accounts.

"When the legend becomes fact, print the legend."

However in many cases it is when you recite a lie enough, and a majority of people begin to believe it, it becomes fact. Unfortunately the liberal press skips to the end and tries to manufacture the truth before it gets a chance to be known.

If Hillary is nominated, there's not a doubt in my mind the Republicans would have a strong chance. I'd be voting for McCain or Ron Paul in that case (maybe Romney if there wasn't anyone else worth it).

Well in reality, if Shrillary ever got elected (doubtful) she would no doubt be impeached. This country would be so divided and in turmoil over this idiot nothing would get done. Her own party is disowning here and they haven't even reached super tuesday.

So the real choices are anyone but Hillary. Is the establishment ready for a first term black man as President? Probably not in reality. So that leaves us with some bad choices on the right. Mickey Mouse would be fine in that case.

WWI 1914 - 1918

President: Woodrow Wilson 1913-1921 (Democrat)

Not only was he President before the war, wanted neutrality and then later got us into it, he was President after. So I guess one could say he 'lead us out' but he also 'lead us in to begin with'.

WWII - 1939 - 1945

President: Franklin Roosevelt (Democrat), Harry Truman 1945 - 1953 (Democrat)

It is quite obvious with FDR that he wanted us into WWI. He setup many scenarios to side with Churchill and get us across the pond. When Japan attacked us in 1941, it gave him the excuse he needed. We declared war on Japan and then Germany a few days later. A Democrat lead us into it.

Truman dropped two bombs but did little more than continue the FDR legacy.

Korean Conflict - 1950-1853

President: Harry Truman (Democrat) 1945-1953, Eisenhower 1953-1961 (Republican)

Again, a Democrat leads us in and then a Republican leads us out.

Vietnam 1965-1975

President: Lyndon Johnson 1963 - 1969 (Democrat), Richard Nixon 1969-1974 (Republican), Gerald Ford 1974-1977

We had advisors in Vietnam in 1961. John F. Kennedy sent them. (Democrat). Johnson committed troops in 1965. I guess by your logic Nixon lead us out and Ford finished the job.

Again, democrats start a war, don't have the stomach to finish and a republican has to lead them out.

Cold War 1945 - 1992

Post WWII (Democrats in control) we went into the cold war. It too a Republican , Ronald Reagan and later George HW Bush to lead them out.

Gulf War I 1990 - 1991

President: George HW Bush 1989-1993 (Republican)

So since you gave credit before I suppose you are ready to give credit for a republican doing the same as your previous example, Woodrow Wilson.


War on Terror 2001 - Present

President: George Bush 2001 - Present (Republican)

With fronts in Afghanistan and in Iraq. When will the war end? When the terrorists are no longer a threat.

Gulf War II 2003

President: George Bush 2001 - Present (Republican)

Started the war and it ended months after it began. The winning of the peace with occupying forces continues until this day. The war started and ended under George Bush.

Interesting sidelines:

Camp David Accords: 1978
President Carter

Action: Sadat and Begin signed treaty.
Result: Peace treaty.


Iran Hostage Crisis 1979 - 1981

President: Jimmy Carter 1977-1981 (Democrat)

It took the election of Ronald Reagan (Republican) to release the hostages.

Sadat Assassination: 1981
President: Reagan

A man later involved in the World Trade Center Bombings assassinated Sadat.

Result: Backlash in the middle east

Battle of Mogadishu 1993
President: Clinton

Action: Left US Soldiers to die

US Embassy Bombings: 1998
President: Clinton

Action: Saber rattling

USS Cole bombing 2000
President: Clinton

Action taken: Saber rattling.

World Trade Center bombing 1993
President: Clinton

The attack was planned by a group of conspirators including Ramzi Yousef, Mahmud Abouhalima, Mohammad Salameh, Nidal Ayyad, Abdul Rahman Yasin and Ahmad Ajaj. They received financing from al-Qaeda member Khaled Shaikh Mohammed, Yousef's uncle. In March 1994, four men were convicted of carrying out the bombing: Abouhalima, Ajaj, Ayyad and Salameh. The charges included conspiracy, explosive destruction of property and interstate transportation of explosives. And in November 1997, two more were convicted: Yousef, the mastermind behind the bombings, and Eyad Ismoil, who drove the truck carrying the bomb.

Action: Saber rattling

9-11 Attack 2001

President for 8 months: George Bush (Republican)

Muslim extremists attacked the World trade center and the Pentagon.

Action: Tracked down Osama Bin Laden to Afghanastan - Began campaign. Began to systematically eliminate terrorist strongholds and training facilites including in Iraq.

Result: Near total collapse of Al-Qada and Taliban. Dictator friendly to terrorism removed and progress made towards security in the Middle East.

So I would say you have a bit of reading to do, and I reccommend checking your facts outside of CNN puppets.


Someone has been reading too much Ann Coulter.

What you fail to notice is that any time we left a war zone, it was because the war was unpopular and the candidate running to defeat the incumbant used a platform of peace and withdrawl. So are you saying its bad when politicians keep their campaign promises? I was always under the impression that the goal of American Government was to serve the intrests of the people.

Wilson was a democrat back when the demoratic party was basically the modern day republican party. Comparisons that far back as pointless, because around the time of the civil rights movements the party's platforms basically switched.

Truman led a UN action that was the equivalent to Gulf War I and Eisenhower was the guy who basically "pulled out because he couldnt stick it out", however in reality it was because we were at a stale mate and nothing was going to be accomplished (credit where credit is due)

Also, as you failed to mention, Kennedy wanted us OUT of 'nam (democrat) and Nixon escalated it, and only began withdrawing once he realized how unbelievablly unpopular it was, coupled with the scandles, he attemped to salvage his already destroyed legacy.

And one last thing. Watch the news. I highly doubt you can call the Taliban and Al Quada "nearly destroyed".


Might I suggest reading up on your history from sources other than Ann Coulter?

EDIT: I also find it interesting how you talk about how Republicans have a huge pair of em for wanting to stay in Iraq, and then you cite a bunch of instances where Republicans pulled us out and glorify them for that...

Oh yes, and Regan defeated the Soviet Union. Single handedly. All hail the mighty Saint Regan! :rolleyes:
Gorbachoff ended the Cold War. Hes the one who made the decision to tear down the wall. It doesnt take courage to stand in front of the Berlin wall and tell them to tear it down.

Oh, and one last thing. Regan and Bush Senior created the monster that is Osama. We trained the ISI and they trained him. We also armed him and the Mujahadeen.

Food for thought.

We do live in interesting times and I have already seem the media distort many many truths. That is just in my lifetime so since we are at the mercy of historians, were are forced to make decisions based on their accounts.

You mean like almost everything you've spouted on this topic?

However in many cases it is when you recite a lie enough, and a majority of people begin to believe it, it becomes fact. Unfortunately the liberal press skips to the end and tries to manufacture the truth before it gets a chance to be known.

*yawn* Ah yes, the evil liberal media. Thats the conservative buzz phrase for whenever the media prints facts that are contrary to the conservative mind set and agenda. Please, do some research, there is ample evidence that the media is not burdened with a liberal bias as many claim. You cant be liberal if every media outlit is owned by one of six major corperations who all have a vested intrest in Republican policy.


In short, your a twit.

Someone has been reading too much Ann Coulter.

Sorry, seen her face, I tend to ignore talking heads.

What you fail to notice is that any time we left a war zone, it was because the war was unpopular and the candidate running to defeat the incumbant used a platform of peace and withdrawl.

Lets see, Wilson was still President so this is moot. FDR Died and Truman was President so this was moot. Perhaps true for Eisnehower over Truman. JFK was assassinated, Nixon kept our troops in Vietname until Ford ordered the withdrawal in 1975. Clinton was in office after Gulf War I was over. So your theory does not hold water.... well at least not from your point of view.

So are you saying its bad when politicians keep their campaign promises?

You may be saying this. I have no idea if Clinton kept any promises. I know Bush Sr broke his and that cost him re-election.

I was always under the impression that the goal of American Government was to serve the intrests of the people.

That may have been true in 1797. Government is corrupt. It is about bringing home the bacon for your constituency.

Wilson was a democrat back when the demoratic party was basically the modern day republican party. Comparisons that far back as pointless, because around the time of the civil rights movements the party's platforms basically switched.

Then why did you include him in your initial volley?

Truman led a UN action that was the equivalent to Gulf War I and Eisenhower was the guy who basically "pulled out because he couldnt stick it out", however in reality it was because we were at a stale mate and nothing was going to be accomplished (credit where credit is due)

Well Truman had really no idea how to win. General Eisenhower was a rising star and did know how but the cease fire went into effect before any of that could be implemented. It left Eisenhower looking pretty good without having to do anything and it got him elected. In reality could Eisenhower have won in Korea? Probably not based on what we know now. Perception is reality in this case so Eisenhower got the nod and the war was almost over at that point anyway (fighting).

Also, as you failed to mention, Kennedy wanted us OUT of 'nam (democrat)

Well Kennedy sent the 'advisors in in 1961. He did not want out he was exploring. He wanted a limited war to make it look like he was doing something but was afraid of the conflict. We did not commit troops until 1965 and JFK was assassinated in November 1963, so yes I did not mention it because the stuation did not exist.

Johnson escalated the war. In fact close to the peak levels were under Johnson. Linebacker 2 was the big surge under Nixon and yes he was going for the throat in 1972.

and Nixon escalated it, and only began withdrawing once he realized how unbelievablly unpopular it was.

Nixon began to draw down the war effort because of congress, not public opinion.

And one last thing. Watch the news. I highly doubt you can call the Taliban and Al Quada "nearly destroyed".

Well there numbers are diminished. Yes if you watch CNN and the Dan Rathers of the world, the sky is falling. Have to give you that. Their reporting is so slanted it would make Mother Teresa out to be Saddam Husseins military advisor.

Might I suggest reading up on your history from sources other than Ann Coulter?

Well mine came from History books. How about yours? Who gives a shit about Ann Coulter?

You mean like almost everything you've spouted on this topic?

Yes history and time lines can defeat your argument.

*yawn* Ah yes, the evil liberal media.

Evi? No. Slanted? Yes.

Thats the conservative buzz phrase for whenever the media prints facts that are contrary to the conservative mind set and agenda.

I merely presented the facts. No buzz words for you.

Please, do some research, there is ample evidence that the media is not burdened with a liberal bias as many claim. You cant be liberal if every media outlit is owned by one of six major corperations who all have a vested intrest in Republican policy.

If you wish to prove there is no liberal bias, be my guest. I simply take everything in the media through a filter.

In short, your a twit.

Well, with that kind of post, you must be a liberal icon.

Then why did you include him [Wilson] in your initial volley?

I didnt mention Wilson, you did.



Well Truman had really no idea how to win. General Eisenhower was a rising star and did know how but the cease fire went into effect before any of that could be implemented. It left Eisenhower looking pretty good without having to do anything and it got him elected. In reality could Eisenhower have won in Korea? Probably not based on what we know now. Perception is reality in this case so Eisenhower got the nod and the war was almost over at that point anyway (fighting).

And Ike won because he said he'd end the fighting.

Johnson escalated the war. In fact close to the peak levels were under Johnson. Linebacker 2 was the big surge under Nixon and yes he was going for the throat in 1972.

So taking the war into other countries like Cambodia isnt escalating it? My we have a different definition of the word.

Nixon began to draw down the war effort because of congress, not public opinion.

And who was congress reacting to?;)


Well there numbers are diminished. Yes if you watch CNN and the Dan Rathers of the world, the sky is falling. Have to give you that. Their reporting is so slanted it would make Mother Teresa out to be Saddam Husseins military advisor.

Wait, CNN actually talks about politics? I was always under the impression that they were the Celebrity News Network;)

Well mine came from History books. How about yours?

My degree. However Ive learned that there is no history with a capital H much to the chargin of conservative commentators. So I guess much of our discussion is open to our own interperations.

Who gives a shit about Ann Coulter?

Apperantly no one, I stand corrected.

Only if Hillary is the Dem pick

I'd say it's more likely the republicans will win if Obama is the democratic pick. I know I'll vote republican if that's the case. If Hilary is on the ballot, I'll vote for her.

Yes history and time lines can defeat your argument.


Well, having a history degree tends to put history on your side. I havent seen it defeat me yet.



Evi? No. Slanted? Yes.

*yawn*



I merely presented the facts. No buzz words for you.

You presented facts, yes, and then you interperted the meaning behind said facts. As I said earlier, there is no history with a capital "H'



Well, with that kind of post, you must be a liberal icon.

I doubt it. I like being allowed to own guns. Im sure many of my colleagues would disagree with that stance.

I'd say it's more likely the republicans will win if Obama is the democratic pick. I know I'll vote republican if that's the case. If Hilary is on the ballot, I'll vote for her.


Survays, polls, and common sense disagree with you.

I didnt mention Wilson, you did.

Originally Posted by Daressalaam
-snip- No republican has ever helped us out in a war, FDR world War 2, Truman World War 1, Bill Clinton and the Egypt Islrael treaty. What have republicans done, Nixon-Vietnam War

Neither of us did.

And Ike won because he said he'd end the fighting.

Eisenhower had 2 stances on the war. Ultimately the claim of getting us out of Korea was the last. Either way he was Republican and not Democrat.

So taking the war into other countries like Cambodia isnt escalating it? My we have a different definition of the word.

No, the same definition. I said Johnson escalated, I did not deny Nixon did.

And who was congress reacting to?;)

Lets face it. Congress reacts to...congress. The people have very little to say about it.

Wait, CNN actually talks about politics? I was always under the impression that they were the Celebrity News Network;)

I always thought it was Clinton News Network.

My degree.

So perhaps less name calling would show more credit on it.

However Ive learned that there is no history with a capital H much to the chargin of conservative commentators. So I guess much of our discussion is open to our own interperations.

Or life experiences.


Apperantly no one, I stand corrected.

Well, having a history degree tends to put history on your side. I havent seen it defeat me yet.


Pleas to authority on the internet are especially useless. I'll give you an example.

I am a Space Man. As a Space Man I can assure you that the Moon is indeed made of cheese.

"But we have these rocks, and photos, and we sent like half a dozen people there."

I AM A SPACE MAN!!! THE MOON IS MADE OF CHEESE!!!

You see? This is not enough. You have to use that degree not as a coffee table decoration but rather employ those skills and demonstrate your point.

Originally Posted by Daressalaam
-snip- No republican has ever helped us out in a war, FDR world War 2, Truman World War 1, Bill Clinton and the Egypt Islrael treaty. What have republicans done, Nixon-Vietnam War

Neither of us did.


Missed that post. Well, I saw it, but I try to avoid posts by people who dont know how to use punctuation.


I always thought it was Clinton News Network.

See, Ive heard that, but lately they seem to be showing a very negative spin on Billary, so I think maybe he stopped paying them their bribes.



So perhaps less name calling would show more credit on it.

Point taken.



Or life experiences.
That too.

I'd say it's more likely the republicans will win if Obama is the democratic pick. I know I'll vote republican if that's the case. If Hilary is on the ballot, I'll vote for her.


Why? I know a lot of women say they are voting for Hillary because she is female. Is that the case for you? Is it feminism or something? Or is it because you are for the war? Maybe you just like politics as usual and don't like the idea of a transparent govt like the one Obama wants?

I remember you sayign that Obama sounds like a black man from the hood. how so? Are you racist or something? What do you have against Obama besides the color of his skin?

Missed that post. Well, I saw it, but I try to avoid posts by people who dont know how to use punctuatio.

"Ahem," I will try to be more punctual with my comments from now on. I am sorry if it made you skip over my comments in the past.

tidbit- Lets face it. Congress reacts to...congress. The people have very little to say about it.-Naughty Slave Girls


On the contrary, the congress reacts strongly to attacks and proposals from the republicans of the senate and the party in general. To say that they only react to themselves would be to give them a more sophisticated fault, which they shall not be granted.

Nothing like letting the few thousand soldiers deaths be pointless.
It is going to be pointless no matter what we do. Do you prefer that MANY thousands of soldiers die a pointless death?

It is going to be pointless no matter what we do. Do you prefer that MANY thousands of soldiers die a pointless death?



I can answer that for him if you want me to...

I can answer that for him if you want me to...

The answer for hippocrite republicans would be yes, if the republican is at least a little concerned with humanity hopefully they would agree less is better. Lets see what this message sparks:confused::gundge:

It is going to be pointless no matter what we do. Do you prefer that MANY thousands of soldiers die a pointless death?

I am sure the veterans of WWII and other conflicts would have a different opinion.

However if you abandon this cause prematurely it will cause a civil war just as before, a vacuum in the middle east, and they would all fight to the death than have us help again.

But then again, the democrats want us to look weak and stupid. What they don't realize is, it makes you vulnerable. Then our enemies will attack us, our citizens will be unsafe overseas. Even the idiots who want to 'pull out'. They don't discriminate. Another thing they will try to blame on republicans.

Now I am not republican, nor am I liberal, but I can tell you that this has happenned in the past, and will happen again, if we allow it.

The answer for hippocrite republicans would be yes, if the republican is at least a little concerned with humanity hopefully they would agree less is better. Lets see what this message sparks:confused::gundge:

Well the answer is to finish what you start. War is hell. It has very little to do with humanity. So your platitudes are interesting but naive.

Not much discussion can be had from your post as it is opinion based. Republicans are more concerned about human life than your are. Albeit they are more concerned with everyones lives and you are thinking of a handful of people who fought and died for this cause.

So whereas your emotional appeal will work on the weak, it won't work with people who understand that you defeat the enemy before trying to celebrate.

I am sure the veterans of WWII and other conflicts would have a different opinion.


I must say that I think there is a huge difference between WWII and Iraq.

Death in war is the same in any conflict. Soldiers do not die pointless deaths. Even if you disagree with their cause.

It is a matter of degree.


ll give you that.

I must say that I think there is a huge difference between WWII and Iraq.

Death in war is the same in any conflict. Soldiers do not die pointless deaths. Even if you disagree with their cause.

It is a matter of degree.

As a political stunt.

Pelosi was Speaker from 2003-present so that makes the House Democrat at that time. 2003-2005 you had Daschle, 2005-2007 Harry Reid and now Reid again. All democrats

Nancy Pelosi took office as Speaker of the House on January 4, 2007. What she has been since January 3, 2003 is the Democratic Leader which made her Minority Leader. Republican Dennis Hastert was Speaker from January 6, 1999-January 3, 2007. Fact check, please.

Nancy Pelosi took office as Speaker of the House on January 4, 2007. What she has been since January 3, 2003 is the Democratic Leader which made her Minority Leader. Republican Dennis Hastert was Speaker from January 6, 1999-January 3, 2007. Fact check, please.

Good catch. The website I used was incorrect.

If so, who would you bet on being their best Primary choice?

Your kidding right? There are two people running on the Rep ballot. Huckabee and McCain. Do you honostly think Huckabee has a shot.

The Reps will probably win. The Dems might have one, it would have been a close call either way. Still will be a close call but the Reps will win for one reason. Two words; Ralph Nader. He'll drain votes from people who don't want Obama or Hillary but don't want McCain. McCain will win the conservitives and other Republicans. Reps who might have crossed over will prefer the middle grounds so that they don't vote for a possible third Bush term or whatever people think but don't vote Obama or Clinton.

I wonder if one election so many people won't like either candidate, they'll all vote for Nader assuming he'll lose again and because of that he wins.

What's with the gravedig? There aren't enough recent election threads?

Your kidding right? There are two people running on the Rep ballot. Huckabee and McCain. Do you honostly think Huckabee has a shot.

The Reps will probably win. The Dems might have one, it would have been a close call either way. Still will be a close call but the Reps will win for one reason. Two words; Ralph Nader. He'll drain votes from people who don't want Obama or Hillary but don't want McCain. McCain will win the conservitives and other Republicans. Reps who might have crossed over will prefer the middle grounds so that they don't vote for a possible third Bush term or whatever people think but don't vote Obama or Clinton.

I wonder if one election so many people won't like either candidate, they'll all vote for Nader assuming he'll lose again and because of that he wins.
In the last election he managed less than percentage point. He didn't make the difference. You're still seeing the majority of democratic voters being happy with either candidate as well as record turn outs for the primaries. McCain is having trouble shoring up the Republican base. While I don't think that problem will continue all the way to the election, it's enough of a problem that this race is up in the air.

Well there numbers are diminished. Yes if you watch CNN and the Dan Rathers of the world, the sky is falling. Have to give you that. Their reporting is so slanted it would make Mother Teresa out to be Saddam Husseins military advisor.

That is really funny. Really. Must be that "liberal" media i keep hearing about but can't find anywhere. I can find Faux News though. But I'm sure they are the only "fair and balanced" news source out there, the rest all under the ebil forces of liberals.

I don't really trust anything I hear on any of the news stations. Everyone has a slant. At least talk radio is honest and open about its slant.

If Ron Paul isn't the republican candidate (and it doesn't look like that will happen) I'll vote third party. I won't vote for the lesser of two evils.

I don't really trust anything I hear on any of the news stations. Everyone has a slant. At least talk radio is honest and open about its slant.

If Ron Paul isn't the republican candidate (and it doesn't look like that will happen) I'll vote third party. I won't vote for the lesser of two evils.

I don't believe it's mathematically possible at this point.

If this about US 08 election this is link questioning McCain's qualification to even be candidate for US President.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23415028

Even if the US did not have soverignty over the canal it had soverignty over the US military base where McCain was born.

I think that natural born means where your country excerises soverignty. That includes embassies and bases.

The Supreme Court has held that that the provisions of the Constitution are not automatically applied in the unincorporated territories. I don't think natural born needs to refer to the physical location though. There are two ways to be a citizen of the United States by birth, being born in the United States and being born to one or more parents who are American citizens. McCain's parents were citizens.

If this about US 08 election this is link questioning McCain's qualification to even be candidate for US President.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23415028

Even if the US did not have soverignty over the canal it had soverignty over the US military base where McCain was born.

I think that natural born means where your country excerises soverignty. That includes embassies and bases.

Didn't we have a huge ass thread on this already where we determined that it was silly?