1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Possible GOP vice presidents

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by deskslave, Jan 29, 2008.

  1. It might and it might not. It depends on who gets the nomination. It also depends on whether your view of Joe is purely one of his pro-war stance.

    I wouldn't like Joe to get anywhere near the ticket. I was answering your "I assume you'd like..."
     
  2. Guy_Incognito

    Guy_Incognito Well-Known Member

    And I was seeing how much you value differences of opinion on your own side, after imposing it on the other side.
     
  3. Yawn

    Yawn New Member

    Obama wants to end it quickly. Oh, and by the way, I heard briefly that somebody named Obama the most liberal senator in America.

    Someone on your favorite news channel, FOX, made the suggestion today asking why would we want a senator in the first place when Congress is just as much a problem as any branch of government when it comes to leadership?
     
  4. Difference of opinion is one thing. Favoring a fake war that has needlessly cost the lives of 1,000s of US soldiers is another.
     
  5. Guy_Incognito

    Guy_Incognito Well-Known Member

    In other words, differences of opinion are great when they agree with me, but not when they don't.
     
  6. Policy differences are one thing, differences in which people die is another. If this isn't clear after two posts let me know and I'll act out the point I'm trying to make with sock puppets.
     
  7. No. Stop making it that convenient. Comparing Hagel and Leiberman are two different things. One guy left his fucking party.
     
  8. Guy_Incognito

    Guy_Incognito Well-Known Member

    Entertaining as that sounds, I'll pass. You seem to think that you're the only one who values life. People in favor of the war do so no less, but sometimes there are reasons to use the military, which means that people will die. I assume you agree with that, no? If so, than it is a policy decision whether or not to go to war in a particular case.

    You want a different example? Would you welcome a running mate who was pro-life? Anti-Affirmative action?
     
  9. Guy_Incognito

    Guy_Incognito Well-Known Member

    Silly, parsing argument. If ever someone can say, for real that their party left him it's him. Literally.

    See above.
     
  10. Pastor

    Pastor Active Member

    Lieberman ran against another Democratic Party member. Lieberman lost. If he wanted to stay a Democrat, he could have. He chose instead to leave the party and run for office anyway.

    Things like this happen in a democracy. If the Democrats preferred a different Democrat to represent them, this isn't the party leaving the man it is the party choosing someone else more aligned with their views. Lieberman left the party.
     
  11. Beaker

    Beaker Active Member

    Do we really need to cover this again? Please, Lieberman left his party of his own volition, after the voters of CT booted him in the primary. He gave a big eff you to the voters and ran as an independent.
     
  12. Yes, I agree. And, no, none of those reasons apply in this case. Where are the WMDs? The war was based on a mistake that has cost the lives of thousands, and justifications after the fact are BS. That's not an opinion.

    And I'm actually pro-life, so I'd be all right with that. Affirmative action? I don't care.

    I want two things from my President:

    1) Don't get us into any unneccessary wars
    2) Try to keep the economy on the right track

    Pretty simple.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page