He's probably not registered... that would mean that he'd have to step away from the computer for a bit.:)
Oh cool it's all about me....(I'm so narcissistic)
Who would I vote for?
well....that person has actually already been eliminated by the ever noble public consciousness as a viable candidate...
so be it.....people catch up later....I've always been ahead of the curve in my life. I can keep my cool about it (most times) sometimes it's so blatant that it irks m when people remain malfunctioned despite.
Depends what you're aiming for in life in I suppose...
It boils down to greed....or do the right thing. It's hard to let go of hate of some people.
What is unfamiliar is first hated, then slowly accepted. I can remember when people were cursing me about the Iraq WMD's, amongst a lot of other "radical" things presented at the time (all what I have based on the same ideology and source of said ideology)
It's been a slow gradual progression (an thankless (and ruthless) for the most part) progression on reality of which I have been predicting....as have many others that receive the exact same treatment...for doing the same.
crazy is the next line of discourse in response...
been there...
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
FOREIGN POLICY
Neither candidate has a "shoot-first" ask questions later foreign policy. In actuality, both candidates has a very similar stance on Iraq, which is we will stay until the country is stable. Obama's position on Iran is probably MORE aggressive than McCain's. Obama wants to increase the troop presence in Afganistan by 7000 immediately upon taking office. Obama supports a continuing erosion of US sovereignty by granting the UN the ability to "tax" US citizens, and redistribute US wealth to other countries without US involvement, but inconsistently, Obama has flip-flopped on Free Trade and NAFTA to garner democratic "labor" endorsements. Obama's policy towards Palestine is even more screwed up than Bush's. McCain has also maintained a very CONSISTENT record on readiness, deployment standards, and on bi-lateral relations with both allies and "rogue states".
INDIA/PAKISTAN
We SHOULD be concerned about the India/Pakistani border. It is a region historical conflict that involved nuclear superpowers. An escalting conflict there would likely draw in both China and Russia.
TAXES
McCain's policy on taxes demonstrates sound judgement, and there are 20 years of votes to review to determine that. He rejected 4 Budget Adjustment Appropriations Bills in 2007 alone that were designed to cut Medicaire and Medicaid and Student Loans so that Bush could squeeze more money out in Iraq. He has conservative on economic policy in the "traditional" sense, and has often voted against Bush's policies. It's likely both candidates will change their minds again on taxes. Appropriations positions are much more situational than philosophical ones, which is why they are subject to change
Obama ducked 49 tax-related votes in 2007-2008 alone. (http://www.votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=9490&type=category&category=10&go.x=12&go.y=12). His tax policy, which was developed by Goolsbee from UChicago is only feasible in a world where virtually NONE of the programs Obama supports get funded. A great example of how Obama thinks is involving immigration. Obama votes FOR a bill to allow for greater inspections of trucks crossing the US-Mexico border, and then later, votes against funding it.
You Obama folks REALLY should research your candidate more than you have. I've spoken to a few Obama supporters who seem to be fairly informed, but the vast majority ARE NOT.
If you look at most of Obama's positions that he actually has articulated. Most of them begin with "Increase funding for....."
Look, I will be happy to discuss my position on the election and whether I agree or disagree with a candidate's policy on ANY issue. It is difficult for most Obama supporters to do that, because he has taken a position on so few. The positions he HAS taken are usually VERY DIFFERENT from the average supporter's perception of them. You guys are voting for the Obama he SAYS he will be, not the Obama he PROVEN he will be.
That's the big difference here. I think he's a liar, even moreso than most politicians, and the very frail record he has supports me, not you.
So, again, name ONE position of Obama's that makes you want to vote for him. Can anyone do that? There has to be at least ONE Obama person out there that knows what his positions are and agrees with them.
Campaigning vs. ducking votes
looks like McCain has missed a lot of votes as well... WOW 399 that's a lot of fuckin votes he's missed....
Here you can buy Obama's books...perhaps you should read them and you might get some insight into the real person and not the media personna that's been created... there's a lot of policy in these books as well... http://www.amazon.com/Dreams-My-Father-Story-Inheritance/dp/1400082773
What kills me is all these fucks weren't asking these questions when GW Bush was running for President. What the fuck did we know about his policies? He didn't even have any books to read...haha!!!! What did he do for Texas? Nothing... (well he made it quicker to get a death sentence)
Where were you when you needed to be asking these questions before our country got in this mess..???
FOREIGN POLICY
Neither candidate has a "shoot-first" ask questions later foreign policy. In actuality, both candidates has a very similar stance on Iraq, which is we will stay until the country is stable. Obama's position on Iran is probably MORE aggressive than McCain's. Obama wants to increase the troop presence in Afganistan by 7000 immediately upon taking office. Obama supports a continuing erosion of US sovereignty by granting the UN the ability to "tax" US citizens, and redistribute US wealth to other countries without US involvement, but inconsistently, Obama has flip-flopped on Free Trade and NAFTA to garner democratic "labor" endorsements. Obama's policy towards Palestine is even more screwed up than Bush's. McCain has also maintained a very CONSISTENT record on readiness, deployment standards, and on bi-lateral relations with both allies and "rogue states".
INDIA/PAKISTAN
We SHOULD be concerned about the India/Pakistani border. It is a region historical conflict that involved nuclear superpowers. An escalting conflict there would likely draw in both China and Russia.
TAXES
McCain's policy on taxes demonstrates sound judgement, and there are 20 years of votes to review to determine that. He rejected 4 Budget Adjustment Appropriations Bills in 2007 alone that were designed to cut Medicaire and Medicaid and Student Loans so that Bush could squeeze more money out in Iraq. He has conservative on economic policy in the "traditional" sense, and has often voted against Bush's policies. It's likely both candidates will change their minds again on taxes. Appropriations positions are much more situational than philosophical ones, which is why they are subject to change
Obama ducked 49 tax-related votes in 2007-2008 alone. (http://www.votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=9490&type=category&category=10&go.x=12&go.y=12). His tax policy, which was developed by Goolsbee from UChicago is only feasible in a world where virtually NONE of the programs Obama supports get funded. A great example of how Obama thinks is involving immigration. Obama votes FOR a bill to allow for greater inspections of trucks crossing the US-Mexico border, and then later, votes against funding it.
You Obama folks REALLY should research your candidate more than you have. I've spoken to a few Obama supporters who seem to be fairly informed, but the vast majority ARE NOT.
If you look at most of Obama's positions that he actually has articulated. Most of them begin with "Increase funding for....."
Look, I will be happy to discuss my position on the election and whether I agree or disagree with a candidate's policy on ANY issue. It is difficult for most Obama supporters to do that, because he has taken a position on so few. The positions he HAS taken are usually VERY DIFFERENT from the average supporter's perception of them. You guys are voting for the Obama he SAYS he will be, not the Obama he PROVEN he will be.
That's the big difference here. I think he's a liar, even moreso than most politicians, and the very frail record he has supports me, not you.
So, again, name ONE position of Obama's that makes you want to vote for him. Can anyone do that? There has to be at least ONE Obama person out there that knows what his positions are and agrees with them.
Since you are a McCain supporter...I wonder if you'd be so kind to address the following:
Do you think if Barack Obama had left his seriously ill wife after having had multiple affairs, had been a member of the “Keating Five,” had had a relationship with a much younger lobbyist that his staff felt the need to try and block, had intervened on behalf of the client of said young lobbyist with a federal agency, had denounced then embraced Jerry Falwell, had denounced then embraced the Bush tax cuts, had confused Shiite with Sunni, had confused Al Qaeda in Iraq with the Mahdi Army, had actively sought the endorsement and appeared on stage with a man who denounced the Catholic Church as a whore, and stated that he knew next to nothing about economics — do you think it’s possible that Obama would have been treated differently by the media than John McCain has been? Possible?
And — this is fun to contemplate — if Michelle Obama had been an adulteress, drug addict thief with a penchant for plagiarism — do you think that she would be subject to slightly different treatment from the media than Cindypills McCain has been? Anyone?
Since you are a McCain supporter...I wonder if you'd be so kind to address the following:
Do you think if Barack Obama had left his seriously ill wife after having had multiple affairs, had been a member of the “Keating Five,” had had a relationship with a much younger lobbyist that his staff felt the need to try and block, had intervened on behalf of the client of said young lobbyist with a federal agency, had denounced then embraced Jerry Falwell, had denounced then embraced the Bush tax cuts, had confused Shiite with Sunni, had confused Al Qaeda in Iraq with the Mahdi Army, had actively sought the endorsement and appeared on stage with a man who denounced the Catholic Church as a whore, and stated that he knew next to nothing about economics — do you think it’s possible that Obama would have been treated differently by the media than John McCain has been? Possible?
And — this is fun to contemplate — if Michelle Obama had been an adulteress, drug addict thief with a penchant for plagiarism — do you think that she would be subject to slightly different treatment from the media than Cindypills McCain has been? Anyone?
What kills me is all these fucks weren't asking these questions when GW Bush was running for President. What the fuck did we know about his policies? He didn't even have any books to read...haha!!!! What did he do for Texas? Nothing... (well he made it quicker to get a death sentence)
Where were you when you needed to be asking these questions before our country got in this mess..???
Sounds just like Obama to me..
where are the hard questions being asked (by Obama supporters in fulfilling an honest and TURE democracy....(ffs)) except by racist small minded haters like myself?
I guess nowhere....
just me and the short sighted group Obama hating clansmen that knows nothing else in life....and especially not foreign policy... :rolleyes:
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
where are the hard questions being asked (by Obama supporters in fulfilling an honest and TURE democracy....(ffs)) except by racist small minded haters like myself?
I guess nowhere....
just me and the short sighted group Obama hating clansmen that knows nothing else in life....and especially not foreign policy... :rolleyes:
Yeah, but it's what we do know about McCain that establishes precedent in this type of argument....
This is typically why the Obama naysayers justify their argument...
He has military background, 20 years of legislative history to examine his positions on foreign policy and international issues, and is much more competent on those issues than Obama.
Military experience means what? Allow me to answer my own question. Nothing. Thats what it means.
As far as competency on foreign policy and international issues, you're right. McCain's complete inability to distinguish the difference between sunni and shia, his constant insistence on referring to countries that don't even exist, etc., have me believing he is TOTALLY competent in these areas. :rolleyes:
"When all your friends and sedatives mean well but make it worse... better find yourself a place to level out."
Since you are a McCain supporter...I wonder if you'd be so kind to address the following:
Do you think if Barack Obama had left his seriously ill wife after having had multiple affairs, had been a member of the “Keating Five,” had had a relationship with a much younger lobbyist that his staff felt the need to try and block, had intervened on behalf of the client of said young lobbyist with a federal agency, had denounced then embraced Jerry Falwell, had denounced then embraced the Bush tax cuts, had confused Shiite with Sunni, had confused Al Qaeda in Iraq with the Mahdi Army, had actively sought the endorsement and appeared on stage with a man who denounced the Catholic Church as a whore, and stated that he knew next to nothing about economics — do you think it’s possible that Obama would have been treated differently by the media than John McCain has been? Possible?
And — this is fun to contemplate — if Michelle Obama had been an adulteress, drug addict thief with a penchant for plagiarism — do you think that she would be subject to slightly different treatment from the media than Cindypills McCain has been? Anyone?
i'm also wondering what would happen had Obama, just a few years ago, went on a rant about how much he "hates gooks".
"When all your friends and sedatives mean well but make it worse... better find yourself a place to level out."
Yeah, but it's what we do know about McCain that establishes precedent in this type of argument....
This is typically why the Obama naysayers justify their argument...
I look at it just the opposite...
I'll agree with that. There is definitely that aspect to be factored in, as you have described. While it provides comfort from some, for others it has tendency to relay an unknown...when it comes down to it, To be honest, I think a fair portion of it is faith based. Ultimately it does all refer (and boils down) to some kind of religious connotation (and varying levels within).
Looking at mankind as a whole (like whoa big suprise....) of course that's to be expected....and also in some cases to be...well...exploited. The goodness in people always seems to be fair game in various circumstances....(especially third world)
It's a cycle that needs to be evaluated for fear of perpetual (and massive) global conflict.
I fear that's where this whole pre-emptive methodology may be heading.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
Since you are a McCain supporter...I wonder if you'd be so kind to address the following:
I'd LOVE to. Let me begin by saying that I'm not really excited about McCain, but WILL vote for him, because at this point he is the only candidate qualified to be President.
Do you think if Barack Obama had left his seriously ill wife after having had multiple affairs...
He had ONE affair, while trying to get a divorce. Both parties claim that after McCain's war years, POW years, and her injury, that they had grown apart. The divorce was amicable, he and Carol are still friends, he pays her medical bills and helps support her. If she can forgive him, so can I. When I issued the "challenge", earlier I was talking about POLITICAL issues. I don't care who McCain screws.
If you knew anything about this beyond the taglines, you wouldn't post it. If anything, McCain comes out as a stand-up ethical guy because of this scandal.. He bailed out as soon as things started being abnormal, and was very open about the entire incident, then blew the roof on it. He attended one meeting when the Senators tried to influence FHLBB, and then bailed out because he thought it was wrong. The other Senators actually called him a "pussy" because he would have no part in it. Three Senators were indicted, McCain was cleared of all wrong doing, and then became a huge and sometimes unpopular advocate of Ethics legislation.
had had a relationship with a much younger lobbyist that his staff felt the need to try and block, .
I'm glad he still had game. Again, I don't care unless laws were broken. There is no proof whatsoever of this, however, just speculation. Many think this was a Howard Dean smear special.
had intervened on behalf of the client of said young lobbyist with a federal agency,
This would, of course, be illegal. There have been no indictments. All parties deny any impropriety. The only thing he is accused of to begin with is that he used influence to try and get a "ruling" on an issue she was allegedly lobbying for - not that he tried to influence the decision itself, but just that he tried to get them TO DECIDE. Again, nothing of substance has been found.
I indicated above why appropriations issues are relative to the situation, for either candidate. He denounced the Bush cuts in 2000, during which the economy was stable, but the budget was upsidedown, and denounced it for buedgetary reasons. In 2008, the cuts served to boost an economy where people were losing their homes. At that point, immediately economic relief trumped the budget. I agree with both of his positions. It's the same as choosing not to buy a new car in April, and then deciding a few years later that you're ready to buy one.
This whole thing was badly taken out of context. In a hearing with Petraeus, McCain suggested that Iran is allowing Al Qaeda operatives to come over the border and train then return to Iraq for operations. Iran is shiite, Iraq is Sunni. That's the contradiction? I realize this has gotten a lot of press as a contradiction, but it really isn't. Here's the article (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2008/03/18/2008-03-18_john_mccain_in_shiitesunni_snafu_during_.html). Regardless of their respective religious beliefs, Iran has many reasons to try and subvert what is happening in Iraq. Lots of evidence, including your next "contradiction" suggest that Iran is doing so. The media has gotten behind Obama for the most part, so it isn't unusual for these kind of claims to be made. You can blindly believe them, as you obviously have. Or you can go back to the source and draw your own conclusions. It's listed above in case you'd like to form your own opinions and not regurgitate the opinions of others.
had confused Al Qaeda in Iraq with the Mahdi Army,
This is really a carry-over of the previous one. The Mahdi Army is a shiite paramilitary group acting to detabilize Iraq -an example of a shiite group acting in an sunni country, which should somehow be a contradiction. In the same hearing with Petraeus, McCain brought up concern that Iran was acting in Iraq. Again, the media painted confusion where there was none. They keep saying it over and over, just like Barry says "16 months" over and over, and those of you that just pay attention to soundbytes think its truth.
had actively sought the endorsement and appeared on stage with a man who denounced the Catholic Church as a whore
Again, at best this washes out with Reverend Wright. GOD DAMN AMERICA! Just like the youtube guys said. "I'm not responsible for what people I know say." I'm sure McCain as well as Obama both know assholes.
Obama has done virtually the same thing, which is why his economic policy was developed by Goolsbee and Liebman, two academics with no policymaking experience. Obama's only economic experience is he wrote a newsletter for an International Business firm.
— do you think it’s possible that Obama would have been treated differently by the media than John McCain has been? Possible?
And — this is fun to contemplate — if Michelle Obama had been an adulteress, drug addict thief with a penchant for plagiarism — do you think that she would be subject to slightly different treatment from the media than Cindypills McCain has been? Anyone?
Cindy McCain wasn't given a pass by the media at all. That's probably where you got the really "grown-up" nickname for her. BTW, while all that happened, Cindy was organizing and primarily bankrolling medical missions to impoversihed and war-torn countries like Bangladesh, Iraq, and Micronesia. During that time period, she LED 55 humanitarian missions to places all over the globe to provide medical treatment for those in need. Maybe the media cut her a little slack for that. All Michelle Obama has done is complain about how shitty America is. It was cool enough that it allowed her entry into Harvard even though her SAT scores were too low.
This was a pretty good attempt - at least it was issues-oriented. In order to REALLY discuss these types of issues, though, it would be better if, before you post, you do more than a cursory google search to find out things to talk about.
To answer the final question though, my answer would be "It depends on when the issues came out". Early on, before everyone stopped using critical thinking techniques and using outdated methods like "logic" and "rationality" when they were evaluating Obama - the media probably would've destroyed him. Obama was smart enough to get in bed with major media outlets quickly though. Now, the media will ignore it and focus on Michelle's Vanity Fair intervew and who is the best dresser.
Military experience means what? Allow me to answer my own question. Nothing. Thats what it means.
As far as competency on foreign policy and international issues, you're right. McCain's complete inability to distinguish the difference between sunni and shia, his constant insistence on referring to countries that don't even exist, etc., have me believing he is TOTALLY competent in these areas. :rolleyes:
Military experience means EVERYTHING to a nation currently involved in a war. It also indicates an understanding of the types of issues a Commander-In-Chief will deal with. McCain, after his naval career, was military liaison to the US Congress, which means he briefed US Senators on matters of foreign policy importance. In addition he has debated and voted on foreign policy issues for nearly 20 years. That is why I believe he has greater competence than Obama on foreign policy issues.
Why do you believe Obama is more competent? Try to stick with facts and not feelings.
trolling? Is that what debating and reporting news is these days?
Oh c'mon now. That's not what they are saying. Reporting news is one thing. Some of the threads that have been started here lately are not reporting news, they are trolling.
I don't get it. so we should just vote for Obama? so we should not debate his policies?
what's the problem here (not with you, with this thread)?
No you shouldn't just vote for obama. Vote for who you like.
Debate his policies all you like. Just forget about the cereal boxes and polls designed to entice people into flame wars. Yes? No? Sound like a plan?
oh no if it's Hillary it's ok... the Obama crowd absolutely loathes Hillary....
There you go again roland, talking about shit you know nothing about. If you consider 10 to 15 posters on a message board who didn't like Hillary as 'the obama crowd absolutely loathes hillary', then good luck with that.
I've yet to have ONE Obama supporter take me up on my challenge to provide at least ONE issue in which they support Obama's policy, where they ACTUALLY knew what his policy was besides soundbytes and buzzwords. One tried talking about their Iraq policies, which are essentially the same.
That was me. I did more than 'tried talking'. I gave you my honest and detailed view on the issue. You don't agree and that's quite ok.
As did virtually every other US soldier in Viet Nam. McCain said this while describing the prison guards who tortured him.
Michelle Obama's thesis is largely based around how much she hated white people, however, so I guess we coul draw a parallel.
Talk about apologists. Holy Sheesh. i don't care what every soldier said in vietnam. The comments were made in 2000 from his campaign bus!! Something along the lines of "i will hate gooks for as long as i live". What a joke.
"When all your friends and sedatives mean well but make it worse... better find yourself a place to level out."
why does everyone that's not for Obama immediately assume that everyone that's for Obama doesn't know what he's about?
Aint that the truth. That's the thing that i struggle the most with. Just because i have a different opinion to them, that does not automatically make me a retard sheep, who doesn't have a brain and can't think for themselves. Fact is, i do have a brain, it just so happens my opinion differs from yours, but that doesn't give you an open invitiation to attack me.
Wonder how much of a retard some of them would think i was if their asses are laying broken and bleeding and the ground, and they need help and i'm the one who happens to be working that night and may be able to save them.
Would they speak to me like they do here, like i'm an idiot, because omg she supports obama? Pfffft. Whatever.
Michelle Obama's thesis is largely based around how much she hated white people, however, so I guess we coul draw a parallel.
LOFL! No it isn't! You listen to Hannity to much which destroys your credibility. Show me, in print, from her thesis, where it says "i hate white people. i will hate white people for the rest of my life", and i'll give you a point. Heck, show me in her thesis where it even implies a hatred of white people and i'll give you half of a point.
And since you would, theoretically be comparing the candidate's spouse to the candidate himself, you couldn't draw a parallel any damn way.
"When all your friends and sedatives mean well but make it worse... better find yourself a place to level out."
No you shouldn't just vote for obama. Vote for who you like.
Debate his policies all you like. Just forget about the cereal boxes and polls designed to entice people into flame wars. Yes? No? Sound like a plan?
whatever. these complaints are pointless, though I'm starting to feel like that's the case with virtually ALL complaints on the message board these days...
whatever. these complaints are pointless, though I'm starting to feel like that's the case with virtually ALL complaints on the message board these days...
Meh. Forget the stupid boards ! I'm gonna make my own! With hookers! And blackjack!...
That was me. I did more than 'tried talking'. I gave you my honest and detailed view on the issue. You don't agree and that's quite ok.
You're quite correct. Actually you were one of the more informed Obama supporters. You claimed you supported Obama because his Iraq policy gets us out sooner. I pointed out that his Iraq policy, minus the rhetoric, is nearly IDENTICAL to McCains, which is a controlled and gradual removal based on security needs. Obama says he'll get everyone out except those needed for security and anti-terror operations, which is why ALL of them are there now.
You responded by claiming you still felt your chances were better with Obama, and that I could vote for who ever I like, which are the stock responses all Obama supporters give when realize they've been "had".
I believe much of what I said here applies to you as much as most, which is you support your candidate based around a flawed perception of what his policies are. You DO get credit for basing them around policies at least, which is more than I can say for most. Unfortunately it is based around what Obama PRETENDS like his policy is - "16 MONTHS! 16 MONTHS!", rather than what it REALLY is "I feel like we can have all troops out of Iraq within 16 months from taking office, leaving only those needed for security and to continue anti-terrorism operations."
Again.....maybe everyone has missed this.
**All of the troops that are there NOW are there for security and anti-terror operations**
Meaning.....(ding - ding)
The troops stay as long as they are needed regardless of who wins the election. To believe otherwise is just ignoring what your candidate has said when pressed about his "deadline".
I'd LOVE to. Let me begin by saying that I'm not really excited about McCain, but WILL vote for him, because at this point he is the only candidate qualified to be President.
He had ONE affair, while trying to get a divorce. Both parties claim that after McCain's war years, POW years, and her injury, that they had grown apart. The divorce was amicable, he and Carol are still friends, he pays her medical bills and helps support her. If she can forgive him, so can I. When I issued the "challenge", earlier I was talking about POLITICAL issues. I don't care who McCain screws.
If you knew anything about this beyond the taglines, you wouldn't post it. If anything, McCain comes out as a stand-up ethical guy because of this scandal.. He bailed out as soon as things started being abnormal, and was very open about the entire incident, then blew the roof on it. He attended one meeting when the Senators tried to influence FHLBB, and then bailed out because he thought it was wrong. The other Senators actually called him a "pussy" because he would have no part in it. Three Senators were indicted, McCain was cleared of all wrong doing, and then became a huge and sometimes unpopular advocate of Ethics legislation.
I'm glad he still had game. Again, I don't care unless laws were broken. There is no proof whatsoever of this, however, just speculation. Many think this was a Howard Dean smear special.
This would, of course, be illegal. There have been no indictments. All parties deny any impropriety. The only thing he is accused of to begin with is that he used influence to try and get a "ruling" on an issue she was allegedly lobbying for - not that he tried to influence the decision itself, but just that he tried to get them TO DECIDE. Again, nothing of substance has been found.
Pales in comparison to Reverend Wright. Falwell used to be much less of a hater.
I indicated above why appropriations issues are relative to the situation, for either candidate. He denounced the Bush cuts in 2000, during which the economy was stable, but the budget was upsidedown, and denounced it for buedgetary reasons. In 2008, the cuts served to boost an economy where people were losing their homes. At that point, immediately economic relief trumped the budget. I agree with both of his positions. It's the same as choosing not to buy a new car in April, and then deciding a few years later that you're ready to buy one.
This whole thing was badly taken out of context. In a hearing with Petraeus, McCain suggested that Iran is allowing Al Qaeda operatives to come over the border and train then return to Iraq for operations. Iran is shiite, Iraq is Sunni. That's the contradiction? I realize this has gotten a lot of press as a contradiction, but it really isn't. Here's the article (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2008/03/18/2008-03-18_john_mccain_in_shiitesunni_snafu_during_.html). Regardless of their respective religious beliefs, Iran has many reasons to try and subvert what is happening in Iraq. Lots of evidence, including your next "contradiction" suggest that Iran is doing so. The media has gotten behind Obama for the most part, so it isn't unusual for these kind of claims to be made. You can blindly believe them, as you obviously have. Or you can go back to the source and draw your own conclusions. It's listed above in case you'd like to form your own opinions and not regurgitate the opinions of others.
This is really a carry-over of the previous one. The Mahdi Army is a shiite paramilitary group acting to detabilize Iraq -an example of a shiite group acting in an sunni country, which should somehow be a contradiction. In the same hearing with Petraeus, McCain brought up concern that Iran was acting in Iraq. Again, the media painted confusion where there was none. They keep saying it over and over, just like Barry says "16 months" over and over, and those of you that just pay attention to soundbytes think its truth.
Again, at best this washes out with Reverend Wright. GOD DAMN AMERICA! Just like the youtube guys said. "I'm not responsible for what people I know say." I'm sure McCain as well as Obama both know assholes.
and stated that he knew next to nothing about economics
Obama has done virtually the same thing, which is why his economic policy was developed by Goolsbee and Liebman, two academics with no policymaking experience. Obama's only economic experience is he wrote a newsletter for an International Business firm.
Cindy McCain wasn't given a pass by the media at all. That's probably where you got the really "grown-up" nickname for her. BTW, while all that happened, Cindy was organizing and primarily bankrolling medical missions to impoversihed and war-torn countries like Bangladesh, Iraq, and Micronesia. During that time period, she LED 55 humanitarian missions to places all over the globe to provide medical treatment for those in need. Maybe the media cut her a little slack for that. All Michelle Obama has done is complain about how shitty America is. It was cool enough that it allowed her entry into Harvard even though her SAT scores were too low.
This was a pretty good attempt - at least it was issues-oriented. In order to REALLY discuss these types of issues, though, it would be better if, before you post, you do more than a cursory google search to find out things to talk about.
To answer the final question though, my answer would be "It depends on when the issues came out". Early on, before everyone stopped using critical thinking techniques and using outdated methods like "logic" and "rationality" when they were evaluating Obama - the media probably would've destroyed him. Obama was smart enough to get in bed with major media outlets quickly though. Now, the media will ignore it and focus on Michelle's Vanity Fair intervew and who is the best dresser.
nice work, Karl....
the McCain camp should hire you as an apologist...rather at address, redirect...good use of Wright and Mrs. Obama...which of course doesn't address anything..
again, nicely spun...
by the way, where can I find a evidence supporting your assertion that McCain was called a "pussy" during the Keating Five...
Every presidential race is a popularity contest to a large degree. So by saying a lot of people will vote for Obama and not done any research is true. However, just as many are going to vote for Obama because they disagree with McCain (is that such a revelation?).
McCain will have a tough time shaking the Bush fiascos... this is really a parallel to the 2000 election which in my opinion was more of a popularity contest with the masses of fundamentalist Christians so enamored with GW Bush.
If you look back to 2000, no one knew what GW Bush actually stood for, and he really hadn't done anything but be the son of a former president. So everyone thought of him as a "good ol' boy" and voted for him for that reason... And they had grown tired of the Clinton administration and essentially wanted CHANGE...
Don't you see the cycle? Not that it really matters anyway.
There you go again roland, talking about shit you know nothing about. If you consider 10 to 15 posters on a message board who didn't like Hillary as 'the obama crowd absolutely loathes hillary', then good luck with that.
He has more than 10 supporters. Duh.
Talking shit? Oh, this one is not too hard to figure out.
It's a recurring trend everywhere I look. Hillary is the oil to Obama's water. It's practically vote for Bobo, and in the next breath I hope Hillary dies...
Bobo fans felt VERY threatened (at the time) by Hillary from what I could see.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
Bobo fans felt VERY threatened (at the time) by Hillary from what I could see.
Clinton was the virtual incumbent. She started February with about a 30 point lead in all polls. The underdog challenger is not "threatened" by the champ. That it isn't how it works. If anything, it was the other way around.
"When all your friends and sedatives mean well but make it worse... better find yourself a place to level out."
Comments
Oh cool it's all about me....(I'm so narcissistic)
Who would I vote for?
well....that person has actually already been eliminated by the ever noble public consciousness as a viable candidate...
so be it.....people catch up later....I've always been ahead of the curve in my life. I can keep my cool about it (most times) sometimes it's so blatant that it irks m when people remain malfunctioned despite.
Depends what you're aiming for in life in I suppose...
It boils down to greed....or do the right thing. It's hard to let go of hate of some people.
What is unfamiliar is first hated, then slowly accepted. I can remember when people were cursing me about the Iraq WMD's, amongst a lot of other "radical" things presented at the time (all what I have based on the same ideology and source of said ideology)
It's been a slow gradual progression (an thankless (and ruthless) for the most part) progression on reality of which I have been predicting....as have many others that receive the exact same treatment...for doing the same.
crazy is the next line of discourse in response...
been there...
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
Campaigning vs. ducking votes
looks like McCain has missed a lot of votes as well... WOW 399 that's a lot of fuckin votes he's missed....
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/m000303/
FUCK.... there goes that ducking votes argument!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Maybe he was campaigning or maybe he didn't want people to know how he stood on the issues...
Anything can be said about any politician...
Your points are just as much a load of crap as they are valid...
I'm personally voting for Obama for his own stand on Foreign relations, Health Care, Energy and Environment, etc.
Here you can download and read all about Obama's Blueprint for Change
I don't have time to dissect all the issues I agree with him on.
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/
Here you can buy Obama's books...perhaps you should read them and you might get some insight into the real person and not the media personna that's been created... there's a lot of policy in these books as well...
http://www.amazon.com/Dreams-My-Father-Story-Inheritance/dp/1400082773
http://www.amazon.com/Audacity-Hope-Thoughts-Reclaiming-American/dp/0307237702/ref=bxgy_cc_b_img_a
I'm sure you will
What kills me is all these fucks weren't asking these questions when GW Bush was running for President. What the fuck did we know about his policies? He didn't even have any books to read...haha!!!! What did he do for Texas? Nothing... (well he made it quicker to get a death sentence)
Where were you when you needed to be asking these questions before our country got in this mess..???
Since you are a McCain supporter...I wonder if you'd be so kind to address the following:
Do you think if Barack Obama had left his seriously ill wife after having had multiple affairs, had been a member of the “Keating Five,” had had a relationship with a much younger lobbyist that his staff felt the need to try and block, had intervened on behalf of the client of said young lobbyist with a federal agency, had denounced then embraced Jerry Falwell, had denounced then embraced the Bush tax cuts, had confused Shiite with Sunni, had confused Al Qaeda in Iraq with the Mahdi Army, had actively sought the endorsement and appeared on stage with a man who denounced the Catholic Church as a whore, and stated that he knew next to nothing about economics — do you think it’s possible that Obama would have been treated differently by the media than John McCain has been? Possible?
And — this is fun to contemplate — if Michelle Obama had been an adulteress, drug addict thief with a penchant for plagiarism — do you think that she would be subject to slightly different treatment from the media than Cindypills McCain has been? Anyone?
I wasn't going to go there but....
What he said
Sounds just like Obama to me..
where are the hard questions being asked (by Obama supporters in fulfilling an honest and TURE democracy....(ffs)) except by racist small minded haters like myself?
I guess nowhere....
just me and the short sighted group Obama hating clansmen that knows nothing else in life....and especially not foreign policy... :rolleyes:
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
Yeah, but it's what we do know about McCain that establishes precedent in this type of argument....
This is typically why the Obama naysayers justify their argument...
I look at it just the opposite...
Military experience means what? Allow me to answer my own question. Nothing. Thats what it means.
As far as competency on foreign policy and international issues, you're right. McCain's complete inability to distinguish the difference between sunni and shia, his constant insistence on referring to countries that don't even exist, etc., have me believing he is TOTALLY competent in these areas. :rolleyes:
i'm also wondering what would happen had Obama, just a few years ago, went on a rant about how much he "hates gooks".
I'll agree with that. There is definitely that aspect to be factored in, as you have described. While it provides comfort from some, for others it has tendency to relay an unknown...when it comes down to it, To be honest, I think a fair portion of it is faith based. Ultimately it does all refer (and boils down) to some kind of religious connotation (and varying levels within).
Looking at mankind as a whole (like whoa big suprise....) of course that's to be expected....and also in some cases to be...well...exploited. The goodness in people always seems to be fair game in various circumstances....(especially third world)
It's a cycle that needs to be evaluated for fear of perpetual (and massive) global conflict.
I fear that's where this whole pre-emptive methodology may be heading.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
I'd LOVE to. Let me begin by saying that I'm not really excited about McCain, but WILL vote for him, because at this point he is the only candidate qualified to be President.
He had ONE affair, while trying to get a divorce. Both parties claim that after McCain's war years, POW years, and her injury, that they had grown apart. The divorce was amicable, he and Carol are still friends, he pays her medical bills and helps support her. If she can forgive him, so can I. When I issued the "challenge", earlier I was talking about POLITICAL issues. I don't care who McCain screws.
If you knew anything about this beyond the taglines, you wouldn't post it. If anything, McCain comes out as a stand-up ethical guy because of this scandal.. He bailed out as soon as things started being abnormal, and was very open about the entire incident, then blew the roof on it. He attended one meeting when the Senators tried to influence FHLBB, and then bailed out because he thought it was wrong. The other Senators actually called him a "pussy" because he would have no part in it. Three Senators were indicted, McCain was cleared of all wrong doing, and then became a huge and sometimes unpopular advocate of Ethics legislation.
I'm glad he still had game. Again, I don't care unless laws were broken. There is no proof whatsoever of this, however, just speculation. Many think this was a Howard Dean smear special.
This would, of course, be illegal. There have been no indictments. All parties deny any impropriety. The only thing he is accused of to begin with is that he used influence to try and get a "ruling" on an issue she was allegedly lobbying for - not that he tried to influence the decision itself, but just that he tried to get them TO DECIDE. Again, nothing of substance has been found.
Pales in comparison to Reverend Wright. Falwell used to be much less of a hater.
I indicated above why appropriations issues are relative to the situation, for either candidate. He denounced the Bush cuts in 2000, during which the economy was stable, but the budget was upsidedown, and denounced it for buedgetary reasons. In 2008, the cuts served to boost an economy where people were losing their homes. At that point, immediately economic relief trumped the budget. I agree with both of his positions. It's the same as choosing not to buy a new car in April, and then deciding a few years later that you're ready to buy one.
This whole thing was badly taken out of context. In a hearing with Petraeus, McCain suggested that Iran is allowing Al Qaeda operatives to come over the border and train then return to Iraq for operations. Iran is shiite, Iraq is Sunni. That's the contradiction? I realize this has gotten a lot of press as a contradiction, but it really isn't. Here's the article (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2008/03/18/2008-03-18_john_mccain_in_shiitesunni_snafu_during_.html). Regardless of their respective religious beliefs, Iran has many reasons to try and subvert what is happening in Iraq. Lots of evidence, including your next "contradiction" suggest that Iran is doing so. The media has gotten behind Obama for the most part, so it isn't unusual for these kind of claims to be made. You can blindly believe them, as you obviously have. Or you can go back to the source and draw your own conclusions. It's listed above in case you'd like to form your own opinions and not regurgitate the opinions of others.
This is really a carry-over of the previous one. The Mahdi Army is a shiite paramilitary group acting to detabilize Iraq -an example of a shiite group acting in an sunni country, which should somehow be a contradiction. In the same hearing with Petraeus, McCain brought up concern that Iran was acting in Iraq. Again, the media painted confusion where there was none. They keep saying it over and over, just like Barry says "16 months" over and over, and those of you that just pay attention to soundbytes think its truth.
Again, at best this washes out with Reverend Wright. GOD DAMN AMERICA! Just like the youtube guys said. "I'm not responsible for what people I know say." I'm sure McCain as well as Obama both know assholes.
Cindy McCain wasn't given a pass by the media at all. That's probably where you got the really "grown-up" nickname for her. BTW, while all that happened, Cindy was organizing and primarily bankrolling medical missions to impoversihed and war-torn countries like Bangladesh, Iraq, and Micronesia. During that time period, she LED 55 humanitarian missions to places all over the globe to provide medical treatment for those in need. Maybe the media cut her a little slack for that. All Michelle Obama has done is complain about how shitty America is. It was cool enough that it allowed her entry into Harvard even though her SAT scores were too low.
This was a pretty good attempt - at least it was issues-oriented. In order to REALLY discuss these types of issues, though, it would be better if, before you post, you do more than a cursory google search to find out things to talk about.
To answer the final question though, my answer would be "It depends on when the issues came out". Early on, before everyone stopped using critical thinking techniques and using outdated methods like "logic" and "rationality" when they were evaluating Obama - the media probably would've destroyed him. Obama was smart enough to get in bed with major media outlets quickly though. Now, the media will ignore it and focus on Michelle's Vanity Fair intervew and who is the best dresser.
As did virtually every other US soldier in Viet Nam. McCain said this while describing the prison guards who tortured him.
Michelle Obama's thesis is largely based around how much she hated white people, however, so I guess we coul draw a parallel.
Military experience means EVERYTHING to a nation currently involved in a war. It also indicates an understanding of the types of issues a Commander-In-Chief will deal with. McCain, after his naval career, was military liaison to the US Congress, which means he briefed US Senators on matters of foreign policy importance. In addition he has debated and voted on foreign policy issues for nearly 20 years. That is why I believe he has greater competence than Obama on foreign policy issues.
Why do you believe Obama is more competent? Try to stick with facts and not feelings.
Debate his policies all you like. Just forget about the cereal boxes and polls designed to entice people into flame wars. Yes? No? Sound like a plan?
He has more than 10 supporters. Duh.
People are too busy jumping on the i hate obama bandwagen to be worrying about that.
Talk about apologists. Holy Sheesh. i don't care what every soldier said in vietnam. The comments were made in 2000 from his campaign bus!! Something along the lines of "i will hate gooks for as long as i live". What a joke.
Wonder how much of a retard some of them would think i was if their asses are laying broken and bleeding and the ground, and they need help and i'm the one who happens to be working that night and may be able to save them.
Would they speak to me like they do here, like i'm an idiot, because omg she supports obama? Pfffft. Whatever.
Changing the name of the White House will cost us a fortune.
EV- 08/09,10/2008.06/08,09/2009
LOFL! No it isn't! You listen to Hannity to much which destroys your credibility. Show me, in print, from her thesis, where it says "i hate white people. i will hate white people for the rest of my life", and i'll give you a point. Heck, show me in her thesis where it even implies a hatred of white people and i'll give you half of a point.
And since you would, theoretically be comparing the candidate's spouse to the candidate himself, you couldn't draw a parallel any damn way.
You're quite correct. Actually you were one of the more informed Obama supporters. You claimed you supported Obama because his Iraq policy gets us out sooner. I pointed out that his Iraq policy, minus the rhetoric, is nearly IDENTICAL to McCains, which is a controlled and gradual removal based on security needs. Obama says he'll get everyone out except those needed for security and anti-terror operations, which is why ALL of them are there now.
You responded by claiming you still felt your chances were better with Obama, and that I could vote for who ever I like, which are the stock responses all Obama supporters give when realize they've been "had".
I believe much of what I said here applies to you as much as most, which is you support your candidate based around a flawed perception of what his policies are. You DO get credit for basing them around policies at least, which is more than I can say for most. Unfortunately it is based around what Obama PRETENDS like his policy is - "16 MONTHS! 16 MONTHS!", rather than what it REALLY is "I feel like we can have all troops out of Iraq within 16 months from taking office, leaving only those needed for security and to continue anti-terrorism operations."
Again.....maybe everyone has missed this.
**All of the troops that are there NOW are there for security and anti-terror operations**
Meaning.....(ding - ding)
The troops stay as long as they are needed regardless of who wins the election. To believe otherwise is just ignoring what your candidate has said when pressed about his "deadline".
nice work, Karl....
the McCain camp should hire you as an apologist...rather at address, redirect...good use of Wright and Mrs. Obama...which of course doesn't address anything..
again, nicely spun...
by the way, where can I find a evidence supporting your assertion that McCain was called a "pussy" during the Keating Five...
McCain will have a tough time shaking the Bush fiascos... this is really a parallel to the 2000 election which in my opinion was more of a popularity contest with the masses of fundamentalist Christians so enamored with GW Bush.
If you look back to 2000, no one knew what GW Bush actually stood for, and he really hadn't done anything but be the son of a former president. So everyone thought of him as a "good ol' boy" and voted for him for that reason... And they had grown tired of the Clinton administration and essentially wanted CHANGE...
Don't you see the cycle? Not that it really matters anyway.
Talking shit? Oh, this one is not too hard to figure out.
It's a recurring trend everywhere I look. Hillary is the oil to Obama's water. It's practically vote for Bobo, and in the next breath I hope Hillary dies...
Bobo fans felt VERY threatened (at the time) by Hillary from what I could see.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
Clinton was the virtual incumbent. She started February with about a 30 point lead in all polls. The underdog challenger is not "threatened" by the champ. That it isn't how it works. If anything, it was the other way around.