New Mcain ad

[HunterCO]

Just ran across this talk about bitch slapping obama.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TG4fe9GlWS8

[bjl913]

Good one!!!

[Zundfolge]

Its real good ... hits real hard ... but its not an official campaign ad.

Aside from the fact that it runs 1:55 instead of :60, :30 or :15, it also didn't have the "I'm John McCain and I approve this message" tag at the end (that McCain's silly little law requires).

My guess is that it was made by the soldier in the ad ... now with a quick re-edit, some spit polish and the proper legals it would be a pretty good ad for McCain to put out.

[Gman]

But, but, but...he "supports the troops", just not the mission.

When you dump on the mission those troops are performing, you are emboldening the enemy and are definitely not supporting the troops. Not suited to be Commander in Chief is an understatement.

[jackedco]

True and moving. Looking forward to Nov 4th.

[ssf467]

So if you oppose an unjust war and the killing of service members for an imperialistic goal, you don't support them? I think wanting them home with their families protecting American soil is how we should be supporting them.

Let the Arabs kill each other and screw their oil, we have our on here, if we would get the nature Nazis out of the way and send them packing.

Obama is an Assclown, no doubt and is the biggest threat to this country since 911.
I still can't get my head around the Iraq war. I don't want to hear that we would be fighting them here, that's a GOP talking point.

The fact is we need our Military here on the boarder dealing with the Mexican Army holding Boarder Agents at gun point. Policing the world is not our job.

God Bless the REPUBLIC and may we see our way back to peace.

[Gman]

So if you oppose an unjust war and the killing of service members for an imperialistic goal, you don't support them? I think wanting them home with their families protecting American soil is how we should be supporting them.

I'm not even going to touch your assertion that this is for imperialistic purposes because it's not germane to the discussion. We're there and we're committed. You don't publicly weaken support for the troops while they're in the fight. Folks that didn't agree with WWII still understood that unified support at home for the men in combat was the priority. When the troops are back home, have at it.

[StagLefty]

Our troops are doing what the've sworn to do and regardless how we feel about any given conflict we need to support THEM.That doesn't necessarily mean we support the decision makers who sent them there. I agree with Gman,say what you want after it's over not while it's taking place.

[ssf467]

Our troops are doing what the've sworn to do and regardless how we feel about any given conflict we need to support THEM.That doesn't necessarily mean we support the decision makers who sent them there. I agree with Gman,say what you want after it's over not while it's taking place.

So by that rational, if the POTUS ordered an attack on Alaska. Support it so the troops have high morale and wait for the aftermath to be critical. Bahhh bahhh bahhh

[Gman]

"Rational" and the scenario you posted are divergent points of thought. The President did not attack Iraq on his own. He had the support of the UN resolutions and the US Congress, but don't let that get in the way of a good argument.