Sweetheart Deal Videos

VinceP1974 Says:

Jul 7, 2008 - What you and Obama dont understand is that any US troops in Sudan in order to end the Islamic Jihad against black Muslims and Non-Muslims in Darfur will be seen by the very same people that have you panicking about Iraq as an occupation of Muslim land. Only this time, our troops would be in a hard to reach no mans land, meanwhile Iraq will turn into Sudan due to Obama and you'll be screaming about the Genocide there. Democrats are so good at blaming the past yet never learn from it.

VinceP1974 Says:

Jul 7, 2008 - I love it when gay-bashing is approved when the target is people Democrats hate.

FabalaFae32 Says:

Jul 7, 2008 - Thanks to Bush, Iraq is heading down the road to genocide (though based on religion rather than ethnicity) and is already at allout civil war. The difference here would be that Obama would, I'm sure, do his research before committing troops anywhere (i.e. know that there is more than one sect of Islam, unlike your dear Bush). And this will be to stop a genocide, rather than practically create one. People in refugee camps WANT help.

FabalaFae32 Says:

Jul 7, 2008 - continued...The government has been PROVEN to be behind the genocidal militias. International law supports-indeed, mandates- intervention on behalf of genocide victims when a genocide has been documented as taking place. There is nothing in common between Iraq and Sudan. your logic is faulty.

VinceP1974 Says:

Jul 7, 2008 - "Stopping" the Genocide means putting an end to the Islamic Government of Sudan and their Jihadist tribal warrior. You folks make no sense. You want to create a genocide in Iraq because you're afraid of Jihadists and then you want to invade Sudan to stop Genocide attacks by Jihadists there.Bush could have made a million mistakes... but those are past. We're talking about the future...do you actually learn anythign or not? All Dems do is blame blame blame.. but have no ideas about future.

FabalaFae32 Says:

Jul 7, 2008 - Read that again. It made no sense whatsoever. How do Democrats want a genocide in Iraq, again? I recall us being AGAINST that whole debacle. And even if we did, which we don't "you're afraid of jihadists so you want to stop them." yes. And? you seem to be trying to accuse us of being consistent.

VinceP1974 Says:

Jul 7, 2008 - I know it's hard to grasp the concept that removing US forces from Iraq will result in some pretty nasty consequences, but really.. please try. And it's totally irrelevent who was for what and was against what in the past. The situation is what it is. I know you guys are so invested in pointing fingers, but please join us in 2008 in the current situation. And besides Dems were not agaisnt the war. they voted for it. they only betrayed the troops when they thought it would be good politcs.

FabalaFae32 Says:

Jul 7, 2008 - 1. Oh yeah- we were the ones who understood that concept from the beginning. Not Hillary, perhaps, but...enh, well. And the reason rational people supported the war at the beginning (though I never did) was that Bush told everyone Saddam had WMD. He did not. Many Democrats knew that if we went into Iraq, we would not be able to get out. People told the president, 'Hey, go ahead and go to war if you must, but please just read this about the dynamic there' He didn't. And that betrayed the troops.

VinceP1974 Says:

Jul 7, 2008 - True to form. blame blame blame. not only that.. you distort the record. How many reasons would you say there were for the invasion?

FabalaFae32 Says:

Jul 7, 2008 - It's not the reasons there were, it's the reasons Bush gave. He lied nearly a thousand times to get us into that war. al-Qaeda had a very limited presence in Iraq before we came in- it was a secular state. Again, Bush lied nearly 1,000 times about a war that's killed 4,000 soldiers and who knows how many Iraqi civilians. Who's distorting the record? Sounds like Bush, changing his "reason" for invading every other day. If you must invade other countries on weak evidence, at least have a plan.

VinceP1974 Says:

Jul 7, 2008 - I asked you that question for a reason. You obviously have no idea what the reason for the war was. There were over 20.Go back to your kindergarten and play your blame game with an age appropiate group of people.

FabalaFae32 Says:

Jul 7, 2008 - The main reason, the reason that provided the impetus for starting the war, was WMD. Without that reason Bush would not have gotten congressional approval for the war, which is why I focus on that. Other reasons, like deposing Saddam, were perhaps more noble, but with the absolute lack of planning, Iraqis now get to fear insurgents and the US military, who detains people who they think might have some vague insurgent connection indefinitely. Hooray for us.

irishcaeser Says:

Jul 7, 2008 - I love when the Democrats use gaybaiting to attacka rival. Where's GLADD andf the HRC? Wait their two busy licking HIlary's and Obama's boots. Such good little lap dogs they are.

falconwings1982 Says:

Jul 7, 2008 - Remember, this was done for Valentine's Day, the obvious theme being love. I thought this was a clever ad. Who ever said it was gaybaiting? John McCain, in his efforts to reach out to a disillusioned conservative base, suddenly sheds his "maverick" image (as if he was ever a "maverick") and embraces George Bush policies to the point where he is promising a third Bush term. It does sound like a sweetheart deal to me. Republicans ran in 04 on empty promises and fanned homophobia. let it go already

falconwings1982 Says:

Jul 7, 2008 - I repeat what I asked earlier. Who ever said this was ever gaybashing? It was a Valentine's Day ad! And yes, McCain did enter into a sweetheart deal to promote a 3rd Bush term. The only thing shocking and controversial here is that 28% of Americans at this point still want that! The GOP in 04 ran on a platform they knew they couldn't deliver on (banning gay marriage), promoted fear in the form of exaggerated national security credentials, and swift boated. Their day of reckoning is coming...

CoffeeLiberal Says:

Jul 7, 2008 - Leave it to the democratic elitist assholes to use an underlying current of homophobia in a negative caricature of opponents. Almost as clever as calling someone a whore. Oh wait, but they already used that gag when they called Hillary a whore---to use it again would be tiring, no? I would expect this from Republicans, but then again this year, what's up is down and what's democratic is left over republican filth without the creativity. Can't wait to register ind when this debacle is over.

WhiteIguana Says:

Jul 7, 2008 - Bush & McBush should both be committed. Both are in denial of a declining economy. Our people are suffering & the republicans don't seem to care. Shame on the republican party. I will support either Democratic candidate in 2008. Just so the republicans don't "win" this election. (I'm using the word "win" very loosely)... To think! I used to be "one of them" but never again. I am now an Independent but will proudly support a Democratic candidate. Vote Smart, Vote Democratic 2008.

BobAnonSmith Says:

Jul 7, 2008 - i mean come on bush kisses every freakin dude in the government dose anyone else see this hes gotta be gay. i mean theres more damn footage of him kissing old men then there is of him kissing his wife ...

JimboTHC Says:

Jul 7, 2008 - This is awesome.

pacroyalty113 Says:

Jul 7, 2008 - Though i totally support democrats and agree that mccain is like a bush third term... i feel that the way this video implied homosexuality among bush and mccain was frankly quite a shameful attack that has no factual proof.

falconwings1982 Says:

Jul 7, 2008 - First of all this was a Valentine's Day ad so the theme was obvious. I thought it was a clever ad and there was no homophobia being fanned. It is not implying homosexuality. The title of the ad is Sweetheart Deal, which basically states that McCain has promised a Third Bush Term amounting to exactly what the title is. The main point of the ad is what you yourself said in your own words "mccain is like a third bush term". It is not only appropriate for Valentines, but very clever too!

pacroyalty113 Says:

Jul 7, 2008 - you dont call two men giving each other a friendly hug at the end, which was surrounded by a heart to imply that it was something more, is insinuating a homosexual relationship? though i respect mccain and bush, even though i may sharply divide with them over numerous issues, this ad is shameful.

falconwings1982 Says:

Jul 7, 2008 - No and here's why. Once again this was a Valentine's Day ad and the theme is pretty obvious. John McCain had pretty much locked up the nomination a bit over a week before Feb. 14th (Super Tuesday). Look up Sweetheart deal on wikipedia, which describes perfectly the relationship between Bush and McCain. McCain has basically promised a third bush term something Americans definitely do not want. It is in no why insinuating a homosexual relationship.

JimboTHC Says:

Jul 7, 2008 - Maybe if the GOP could go 3 months without getting caught humping a young boy they wouldn't have this problem.I predict Lindsey Graham will be caught performing fellatio on a mammal in a mens room with in the next year.

UGOTDAJACK Says:

Jul 7, 2008 - This is GREAT!!! For far too long those evil ass neocons have been playing dirty tricks against us democrats and the DNC has just sat back and twiddled their fucking thumbs like a bunch of scared bitches...but not under Howard Dean and my homeboy Barak...we aint sitting by while you neocons try to imply Obama's a terrorist and his wife is un american. Nope! not this time. This time...Obama said knock you out!!!!!