The Obama Thread (Merged x6) [Archive] - Page 14

The Senator

02-19-2008, 01:22 PM

I trust his foreign policy a hell of a lot more than Hillary's. She's so arrogant she still refuses to admit it was a mistake on her part to vote for the Iraq War, meanwhile plenty of other veteran Dems in Congress have admitted they were wrong. A little humility never hurt anyone, but she has none.

She doesn't have to admit her vote was a mistake! Just because John Edwards wrote a pompous apology in an opinion piece for the New York Times, so he could tell voters what they wanted to hear, doesn't mean Hillary or any other candidate should be obligated to apologize for their voting record. She has admitted time and time again that she opposes the execution of this war, not the basis of the war. And in that respect, she doesn't need to apologize for it.

Arrogance has nothing to do with it. It's sticking to your guns, and really, I'd rather have that trait in a candidate than someone who's willing to change positions depending on whichever way the political wind is blowing.

The Senator

02-19-2008, 01:27 PM

COME Come now. Not everyone is blaming hillary...

i can see a few Obama supporters hemoraging(sp?) the past few days.

the thing is, he wrote a book about his cocaine use. hes come to terms with it and i believe it speaks to his resilience.

as for Hillary, though i don't doubt the Political Power of the Clinton camp... I would have to say Obama is doing just fine in the face of the adversity, no matter where it actually stems from.

im not sure i believe this is the brainchild of the Clintons. they are smarter then this, at least... i would feel betrayed and completely surprised if they are not. if this ever came out, the entire legacy would be completely flushed... come on, i give them more credit then this. And i Support Barack.

Maybe I should have said "this is why you Obama extremists disgust me?" :huh:

Never the less, blaming Hillary's campaign for this video is moronic. From what we can tell, it's independently produced by Lispy McPlaidshirt from Minnesota in an effort to get his fifteen seconds of fame, and nothing more.

Zen

02-19-2008, 01:29 PM

She doesn't have to admit her vote was a mistake! Just because John Edwards wrote a pompous apology in an opinion piece for the New York Times, so he could tell voters what they wanted to hear, doesn't mean Hillary or any other candidate should be obligated to apologize for their voting record. She has admitted time and time again that she opposes the execution of this war, not the basis of the war. And in that respect, she doesn't need to apologize for it.

Arrogance has nothing to do with it. It's sticking to your guns, and really, I'd rather have that trait in a candidate than someone who's willing to change positions depending on whichever way the political wind is blowing.

Obama stuck to his guns on this. but in order to support that you would have to have been against the grounds for war... which i am. I've watched your posts throughout the forum and i can see some areas where each candidate fits but no one really hits your mark.

Alot of people seem to feel this way, and i wonder what this environment has the possibility of doing exactly and if this political climate is good or bad in the long run.

the good news is, we are finally breaking away from a rigid 2 party system.

Land Ho!!

Superman4ever

02-19-2008, 01:32 PM

Iraq was NOT innocent.

Saddam had broken the terms of the Gulf War Peace Treaty, he ignored UN Resolutions, he was a serial human rights violator and executed many war crimes.

For G-d's sakes, those were not the reasons we were told we were going in. Saddam had been killing innocent Iraqis for DECADES (gassed the Kurds and Iranis) and we did nothing when he was our friend fighting the Iranis.

Darkly Dexter

02-19-2008, 01:33 PM

Give me one country the US declared war on that was innocent:huh:

Irak? Where are the weapons of mass destruction? Who said Hussein was supporting Al Qaeda when it was totally false? :whatever:

I won't ask you to read some history books (I see it is not your forte) but at least watch the news. And yes, I know it was a dictatorship and a terrible regime but there are a lot of those in the world. I don't see EEUU invading China or Pakistan...

I don't know if you've read what I wrote, but I gave clear examples of all the **** your country did and you only reply saying "you're an ignorant, you're an ignorant" like a retarded person.

Zen

02-19-2008, 01:35 PM

Maybe I should have said "this is why you Obama extremists disgust me?" :huh:

Never the less, blaming Hillary's campaign for this video is moronic. From what we can tell, it's independently produced by Lispy McPlaidshirt from Minnesota in an effort to get his fifteen seconds of fame, and nothing more.

well its interesting really, Obama is supporting unity... and if people are trully for him then they shouldnt get caught in these kinds of divisive assumptions. Hillary may win... and if she does... she will need Baracks voters.

the more Obama Extremists... (:woot: as you term them), act like this the more i can see a much worse candidate (in the eyes of liberals/democrats) than Hillary getting the nomination out of spite.

turning hillary voters won't happen by going negative. it just won't. they should think about it.

The Senator

02-19-2008, 01:36 PM

Obama stuck to his guns on this. but in order to support that you would have to have been against the grounds for war... which i am. I've watched your posts throughout the forum and i can see some areas where each candidate fits but no one really hits your mark.

Alot of people seem to feel this way, and i wonder what this environment has the possibility of doing exactly and if this political climate is good or bad in the long run.

the good news is, we are finally breaking away from a rigid 2 party system.

Land Ho!!

I'm actually starting to hope Michael Bloomberg runs. I agree with his stance on just about every single issue...

The Senator

02-19-2008, 01:43 PM

Irak? Where are the weapons of mass destruction? Who said Hussein was supporting Al Qaeda when it was totally false? :whatever:

Saddam Hussein was a benevolent dictator who gassed ethnic groups and murdered his political opponents. Regardless of whether Hussein had weapons of mass destruction or collaborated with Al Qaeda, he deserved to be taken out. He certainly wasn't innocent.

I won't ask you to read some history books (I see it is not your forte) but at least watch the news. And yes, I know it was a dictatorship and a terrible regime but there are a lot of those in the world. I don't see EEUU invading China or Pakistan...

Now you're acting like an arrogant child. The EU can't invade China or Pakistan because it doesn't have the power to declare war. The EU is a governing entity only, and leaves the power to declare war up to the individual members. That's why several member countries didn't join the United States' invasion of Afghanistan or Iraq.

You ought to get your facts right.

EDIT: I see you may have been referring to the Spanish translation of the U.S. by saying "EEUU." Still, that's a good point I made none the less.

As for us declaring war on China or Pakistan, yeah, the situation over there sucks, but unless you want WWIII, the U.S. won't be invading either country any time soon. Plus, democracy has been prevailing in Pakistan recently, especially given its chaotic situation as of late, so I don't see why we need to invade Pakistan.

I don't know if you've read what I wrote, but I gave clear examples of all the **** your country did and you only reply saying "you're an ignorant, you're an ignorant" like a retarded person.

You didn't give any cut and dry responses. You used Iraq as an example. Which, as I personally pointed out, we're still responsible for. We're still there, we're still funding projects there, and it will be us who fixes it. You're avoiding the point-- the point that we shouldn't have to fix other countries which the United States is not responsible for.

As for the retarded comment... I'm waiting for Norman to own you on that one.

Darkly Dexter

02-19-2008, 01:45 PM

For G-d's sakes, those were not the reasons we were told we were going in. Saddam had been killing innocent Iraqis for DECADES (gassed the Kurds and Iranis) and we did nothing when he was our friend fighting the Iranis.

that's the hypocracy of United States foreign policies in all its splendor.

Darkly Dexter

02-19-2008, 01:47 PM

As for the retarded comment... I'm waiting for Norman to own you on that one.

what's he going to say?

"you're an ignorant, you're an ignorant" lol

The Senator

02-19-2008, 01:50 PM

For G-d's sakes, those were not the reasons we were told we were going in. Saddam had been killing innocent Iraqis for DECADES (gassed the Kurds and Iranis) and we did nothing when he was our friend fighting the Iranis.

It's still a good enough reason to get rid him. If that was the official reason given by the Bush administration, I would have supported this war.

bunk

02-19-2008, 01:53 PM

LOL! For the right money, you can find someone to say anything! This election is going to be insane once the candidates are established.

StorminNorman

02-19-2008, 02:02 PM

For G-d's sakes, those were not the reasons we were told we were going in. Saddam had been killing innocent Iraqis for DECADES (gassed the Kurds and Iranis) and we did nothing when he was our friend fighting the Iranis.

I don't care if those were the reasons we were told we were going in or not - the fact of the matter is that those are all justifiable reasons and to call Iraq "innocent" is incorrect.

The Senator

02-19-2008, 02:12 PM

Smoking is bad mkay

The Senator

02-19-2008, 02:13 PM

what's he going to say?

"you're an ignorant, you're an ignorant" lol

Well, you are, so that would be a start...

StorminNorman

02-19-2008, 02:18 PM

Irak? Where are the weapons of mass destruction? Who said Hussein was supporting Al Qaeda when it was totally false? :whatever:

There were Al Qaeda training grounds in Iraq pre-war. But - again - thats not the topic of this argument.

The argument is: Was Iraq Innocent? Was there any justification of the war in Iraq?

The answer is, of course, yes.

Justification for military action went above simply WMD's.

I won't ask you to read some history books (I see it is not your forte) but at least watch the news. And yes, I know it was a dictatorship and a terrible regime but there are a lot of those in the world. I don't see EEUU invading China or Pakistan...

:lmao: Funny.

To answer your question about China and Pakistan - we have diplomatic and economic relations with those two countries. They are also not ruled by men that have made multiple anti-American comments over their years. They also do not have the magnitude of Human Rights Violations Saddam has.

I don't know if you've read what I wrote, but I gave clear examples of all the **** your country did and you only reply saying "you're an ignorant, you're an ignorant" like a retarded person.

Anyone who thinks the US has done more harm than good isn't working from facts - thus I didn't see the reason to waste the time or energy to do so.

But since you asked so nicely...

America WAS in the business of toppling legitimate governments and replace them with puppets during the Cold War. Operation Ajax and Operation PBSUCCESS were examples of this. The goal was always limiting Communism which crippled and drained East Berlin and Russia.

You fail to ignore American successes however.

We ended World War I. We destroyed Nazism and Imperial Japan. We supplied Post War Germany with supplies so they weren't starved by the Russians.

It is our Presidents that have fought for an International body whose goal is peace.

We served as the UN's backbone in Korea.

We brought vital aid to Israel when they were attacked by an Arab Alliance during on their most sacred day the Yom Kippur war.

We defeated the Soviet Union.

We saved Kuwait from Iraqi invasion. We are the country that regularly fights for peace between Palestine and Israel.

Whenever there is a natural disaster, it is our man power, technology and treasure that leads recovering efforts.

It is our nation that does more for Africa, does more for world wide poverty and hunger.

Our country is taking the most active role in defeating Radical Islam.

When something goes wrong somewhere in the world - the world looks to America to right it.

And we normally do.

Darkly Dexter

02-19-2008, 02:19 PM

^^ wow you're improving you're arguments! well done. lol

SuBe

02-19-2008, 02:26 PM

^^ wow you're improving you're arguments! well done. lol
You are still not Improving yours.

StorminNorman

02-19-2008, 02:28 PM

^^ wow you're improving you're arguments! well done. lol

Prove that you are worth it.

CorpusBlack

02-19-2008, 02:31 PM

No one should have to pay 52% more in taxes to help developing countries. I love how Obama wants to help out the middle class, yet he has presented a bill in the middle of his Presidential campaign promising to raise taxes on all Americans so he can fight poverty abroad. What about poverty here at home? What about the economic problems the United States faces?

This doesn't help the American people, and quite frankly, this bill may decide whether I actually vote for him if he becomes the Democratic Party's nominee.

That's how I'm feeling as well.

rdh007

02-19-2008, 02:33 PM

" We dont believe you, you need more people" - Hov

When Obama starts calling this a "Takeover" and tells old rich men the "break's over", this will truly be a better land.

But he's got to get permission from Shawn Carter, or the other thread will grow exponentially:
http://forums.superherohype.com/showthread.php?t=296194

MaskedManJRK

02-19-2008, 02:40 PM

Obama, I really want to support you, but...couldn't this have waited until we got our s**t put back together here in the States? Also, we could have just done this ourselves, without the UN's help--that way we could get the credit and make sure it's put in the hands of the right people.

Give me one country the US declared war on that was innocent:huh:

Stormin, I love ya, man, but...Vietnam. Ho Chi Minh wasn't a snuggly teddy bear, but we did screw him over after his helping us in WWII and the South Vietamese ruler, Diem Biem Phu was even worse.

StorminNorman

02-19-2008, 02:43 PM

Stormin, I love ya, man, but...Vietnam. Ho Chi Minh wasn't a snuggly teddy bear, but we did screw him over after his helping us in WWII and the South Vietamese ruler, Diem Biem Phu was even worse.

Phu was worse, but we were trying to prevent Vietnam from falling into Communist hands.

So even though we certainly played a role in pissing Ho Chi Minh off and molded the man he became - he certainly wasn't "innocent" and we had to try to protect South Vietnam.

MaskedManJRK

02-19-2008, 02:50 PM

Well actually that has happened.

I think he was making a joke, dude. :o

StorminNorman

02-19-2008, 02:51 PM

I think he was making a joke, dude. :o

I couldn't decide what the ninja smiley meant. :(

I also believe I was high.

MaskedManJRK

02-19-2008, 02:57 PM

Phu was worse, but we were trying to prevent Vietnam from falling into Communist hands.

So even though we certainly played a role in pissing Ho Chi Minh off and molded the man he became - he certainly wasn't "innocent" and we had to try to protect South Vietnam.

Putting the fact that the Red Scare was a bunch of hyped up bulls**t meant to scare people into submission aside, I find it very hard to believe that Vietnam, a country trying to rebuild after centuries of occupation, would be considered a threat by anyone looking at it objectively.

CorpusBlack

02-19-2008, 02:59 PM

Putting the fact that the Red Scare was a bunch of hyped up bulls**t meant to scare people into submission aside, I find it very hard to believe that Vietnam, a country trying to rebuild after centuries of occupation, would be considered a threat by anyone looking at it objectively.

:up:

Darkly Dexter

02-19-2008, 02:59 PM

There were Al Qaeda training grounds in Iraq pre-war. But - again - thats not the topic of this argument.

The argument is: Was Iraq Innocent? Was there any justification of the war in Iraq?

The answer is, of course, yes.

Justification for military action went above simply WMD's.

:lmao: Funny.

To answer your question about China and Pakistan - we have diplomatic and economic relations with those two countries. They are also not ruled by men that have made multiple anti-American comments over their years. They also do not have the magnitude of Human Rights Violations Saddam has.

Anyone who thinks the US has done more harm than good isn't working from facts - thus I didn't see the reason to waste the time or energy to do so.

But since you asked so nicely...

America WAS in the business of toppling legitimate governments and replace them with puppets during the Cold War. Operation Ajax and Operation PBSUCCESS were examples of this. The goal was always limiting Communism which crippled and drained East Berlin and Russia.

You fail to ignore American successes however.

We ended World War I. We destroyed Nazism and Imperial Japan. We supplied Post War Germany with supplies so they weren't starved by the Russians.

It is our Presidents that have fought for an International body whose goal is peace.

We served as the UN's backbone in Korea.

We brought vital aid to Israel when they were attacked by an Arab Alliance during on their most sacred day the Yom Kippur war.

We defeated the Soviet Union.

We saved Kuwait from Iraqi invasion. We are the country that regularly fights for peace between Palestine and Israel.

Whenever there is a natural disaster, it is our man power, technology and treasure that leads recovering efforts.

It is our nation that does more for Africa, does more for world wide poverty and hunger.

Our country is taking the most active role in defeating Radical Islam.

When something goes wrong somewhere in the world - the world looks to America to right it.

And we normally do.

1) That's not an argument. You can't keep invading countries just because you think there is justification. There is something called international law that you should respet. Secondly, there are few innocents countries in the world and you are certainly not in the best position to talk it...

2) So, as long as they don't make anti-american comments that's fine. Nothing is happening. Let's speak with the true here, United States didn't invade Iraq because they had Weapons of mass destruction, niether because of the terrible regime of Saddam. USA invaded it, because:
a) Oil
b) Strategic position in east asia.

BTW, China and Pakistan have a longer and more terrible history of Human Rights violations. And they keep doing it.

3) First of all, the Marshall Plan for the reconstruction of Europe was made with only one purpose: Stop comunisn in Europe. When there is an interest behind the "help" it's not help, just good business.

4) I don't understand your logic. Military support doesn't equal help.
Can you help someone without guns and violence?
There is an interest behind all the things you said. That's not help my friend.

MaskedManJRK

02-19-2008, 03:06 PM

I couldn't decide what the ninja smiley meant. :(

I also believe I was high.

It's okay, man. :yay:

And pass some my way, you selfish bastard. :cmad:

:oldrazz:

SuBe

02-19-2008, 03:12 PM

CorpusBlack

02-19-2008, 03:15 PM

Keep believing what your government controlled Media Tells you:up:

I do. It's easier for me to process that way. :cwink:

StorminNorman

02-19-2008, 03:18 PM

1) That's not an argument. You can't keep invading countries just because you think there is justification. There is something called international law that you should respet. Secondly, there are few innocents countries in the world and you are certainly not in the best position to talk it...

Its not an argument. You are correct. Argument implies there is a credible opposing view point.

This is not a question of what I think is justification. This has nothing to do with my opinion. It has to do with reality and fact. When you break a peace treaty with a country in a war you started - that is justification to restart the war. There is NO question about that. Period. That.

I never called America innocent. But America also does far more good than whatever you may or may not view as harm.

2) So, as long as they don't make anti-american comments that's fine. Nothing is happening. Let's speak with the true here, United States didn't invade Iraq because they had Weapons of mass destruction, niether because of the terrible regime of Saddam. USA invaded it, because:
a) Oil
b) Strategic position in east asia.

BTW, China and Pakistan have a longer and more terrible history of Human Rights violations. And they keep doing it.

Yes. If a country is an enemy of America, we have more of a reason to target them than if they are NOT an enemy of America. Simple logic.

Oil had less to do with the invasion of Iraq than people try to paint it as. Strategic position in the Middle East was, of course, very relevant. But if there were not the other very viable reasons for war - those two wouldn't of allow America to invade.

Show me the mass graves in China and Pakistan. Show me the gassing of innocent civilians. China has been making steps in become more (for lack of a better word) "civilized" with human rights. Pakistan - by Middle Eastern standards - is fairly modern. I would agree they need to improve though.

3) First of all, the Marshall Plan for the reconstruction of Europe was made with only one purpose: Stop comunisn in Europe. When there is an interest behind the "help" it's not help, just good business.

The purpose of creating life saving drugs is to make a profit. Is that wrong? Should we dismiss the benefits? No.

4) I don't understand your logic. Military support doesn't equal help.
Can you help someone without guns and violence?
There is an interest behind all the things you said. That's not help my friend.

Military support DOESN'T equal help? Really? So if we allowed countries to fall into chaos - that ISN'T harming them?

You, of course, CAN help someone without guns and violence. At times thats all you can do is help.

Just because America was seeking or did benefit from its helping other countries doesn't mean it still wasn't help.

We defeated Nazism because we didn't want it to continue.

A police officer arrests a child rapist because he doesn't his daughter to face the sick SOB.

Does that mean the police officer didn't do a good deed?

A ridiculous point you are failing to make.

Darkly Dexter

02-19-2008, 03:46 PM

clearly, you have a wrong concept of what help is. When I help someone I don't expect anything in return.

Darkly Dexter

02-19-2008, 03:48 PM

Keep believing what your government controlled Media Tells you:up:

:huh:

StorminNorman

02-19-2008, 03:55 PM

clearly, you have a wrong concept of what help is. When I help someone I don't expect anything in return.

You don't enjoy feeling good about helping someone?

And you have a wrong concept of Government. Government is meant to serve the people of the country. If the people of the country do not benefit from there action - there is NO reason they should do it.

It would be inappropriate for the Government to spend billions of tax payer funds and not to expect anything in return to benefit them.

redfirebird2008

02-19-2008, 04:07 PM

Smoking is bad mkay

Yes it is! My grandfather died of lung cancer and he had quit smoking 40 years earlier. But he was smoking cigarettes back when there were no warnings and no filters in the cigarettes, so it eventually got him. :csad:

BlackLantern

02-19-2008, 04:09 PM

rdh007

02-19-2008, 04:34 PM

Cigarettes do suck. Can we all agree on that?

The Senator

02-19-2008, 04:36 PM

You know what is starting to bother me....those Truth commercials. At this point, everyone knows cigarettes are bad for you and these Truth toolboxes are trying to be smarta$$es about it and are failing

They also exaggerate every claim they make. In all honesty, Truth is no better than the tobacco companies in some respects.

One of my teachers always had this to say about smoking: "While it may take five years off my life, those are the five years I'll spend in a nursing home, crapping in a bed pan and pissing my bed." So that's how I view smoking, and I use that logic whenever I light up.

Varient

02-19-2008, 04:38 PM

I wonder who Dana Hill is going to vote for?

The Black Man, The Woman, or the Old man?

The Senator

02-19-2008, 04:38 PM

Cigarettes do suck. Can we all agree on that?

Yeah, but if people make a conscientious choice to smoke, it's their own damn fault.

souvlaki

02-19-2008, 04:57 PM

Ghost writers agree to write a book for someone else. Feinman didn't deserve credit because she knew what she was getting into-- that's the preface of ghostwriting!

I would agree normally if the person that wrote the book never explicitly said they used ghost writers. Clinton said: "“I actually wrote the book … I had to write my own book because I want to stand by every word.” That's what pissed Feinman off, and why she started complaining for not receiving credit.

Then there is this:

The Clinton Campaign Just Now...

February 18, 2008 11:33 AM

In a conference call just now the Clinton campaign would not guarantee that Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, has never used someone else's rhetoric without crediting them.

I asked Clinton communications director Howard Wolfson and Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass, if they could assure the public that neither Clinton nor McGovern has ever done what Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, did when he used the rhetoric of Gov. Deval Patrick without footnoting him.

They would not.

In fact, Wolfson seemed to say it wouldn't be as big a deal if it were discovered that Clinton had "lifted" such language.

"Sen. Clinton is not running on the strength of her rhetoric," Wolfson said.

Hmmmm.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/02/the-clinton-cam.html

Superman4ever

02-19-2008, 05:41 PM

This is one of the most ridiculous political attacks I've come across and just reeks of desperation.

Matt

02-19-2008, 05:57 PM

I feel faint......:eek:

Get your head in the game, Cellslim. I've been trashing Obama and Clinton for the better part of a year. :oldrazz:

Memphis Slim

02-19-2008, 06:18 PM

Michelle Obama not proud of her country???

Only her husband’s run for president has made her proud of America? That’s…extremely narcissistic and self-centered.
Nothing America has done in Michelle Obama’s adult life, which at 44 goes back 26 years to 1982, has made her proud of her country? Nothing? Not winning the Cold War? Not our regular and orderly transitions of power based on the rule of law? Not the fact that we feed and defend the world, not that we lead in science and technology research, not that we elected the first black president in 1992…nothing? Not the fact that she and her husband were able to go to Ivy League schools before embarking on extremely lucrative careers? Not the fact that we help out in disasters wherever they strike in the world? Nothing has made Michelle Obama proud of her country in her entire adult life?
How sad. I certainly don’t want such a vain pessimist as First Lady. :dry:

Memphis Slim

02-19-2008, 06:18 PM

Memphis Slim

02-19-2008, 06:19 PM

Kelly

02-19-2008, 06:35 PM

Why would he give you or Kel that stuff in his speeches? Bush got into office without giving specifics (other than that he wouldn't engage in nation building...), plus his speeches seem to be working for him right now.

I didn't say he had to do it for me specifically......even though I did call him last week and asked him personally.......but I got his answering machine.....

Zen

02-19-2008, 06:44 PM

Yo Slim the submit button aint being celebate to you so stop trying to court her so hard. ;)

as for the statements, i think she should be carefull with what she says. this won't play well, shes a well educated liberal so its not hard to beleive that she has been dissatisfied with American politics for a long time... many left leaning professors ive come in contact with have had problems with the political system for a while, its just how that demographic is. and i think politics is where she is directing the majority of her comment.

alot of my black female freinds say that what she said probably speaks mostly directly to them because they havn't had much to be proud of in the poltical process for a long time... and now Barack is here, and inspiring pride in them.

still careless statment though

Addendum

02-19-2008, 06:47 PM

And what does Michelle Obama's comments have to do with the alleged plagiarism of Obama?

jaguarr

02-19-2008, 06:49 PM

I didn't say he had to do it for me specifically......even though I did call him last week and asked him personally.......but I got his answering machine.....

Stalker. :o

Honestly, I don't hear any of the candidates going into super in-depth policy details in any of their speeches, really. He's not the only one.

jag

Superman4ever

02-19-2008, 06:49 PM

Michelle Obama not proud of her country???

Link, trigger happy!

Kelly

02-19-2008, 06:52 PM

Stalker. :o

Honestly, I don't hear any of the candidates going into super in-depth policy details in any of their speeches, really. He's not the only one.

jag

I think the problem for me is.......................well yes, the stalker issue....

But, I know alot about how McCain thinks, and his specific thoughts on issues..........I know Hillary's as well........both came before the election really started.........I don't know as much about Obama, and I would like to hear his thoughts, from his lips. Thats all.......

The Senator

02-19-2008, 07:06 PM

Link, trigger happy!

It's been all over the news, but for your viewing pleasure, here it is:

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/02/19/cindy-mccain-michelle-obama-in-patriotism-flap/

Superman4ever

02-19-2008, 07:07 PM

It's been all over the news, but for your viewing pleasure, here it is:

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/02/19/cindy-mccain-michelle-obama-in-patriotism-flap/

Thanks!

Edit: Oh, I can see how it can be taken the wrong way but the quote is that she's "...really proud..." that doesn't say she's never been proud, just that she's more proud than other times she's been proud. She also says that because it feels like "...hope is making a come back..." and to be truthful after these past couple of years I agree with her on that stance that Obama does seem like a breath of fresh air.

The Senator

02-19-2008, 07:30 PM

Thanks!

Edit: Oh, I can see how it can be taken the wrong way but the quote is that she's "...really proud..." that doesn't say she's never been proud, just that she's more proud than other times she's been proud. She also says that because it feels like "...hope is making a come back..." and to be truthful after these past couple of years I agree with her on that stance that Obama does seem like a breath of fresh air.

I consider her comments a non-issue.

Superman4ever

02-19-2008, 08:08 PM

I consider her comments a non-issue.

Agreed.

Arkady Rossovich

02-19-2008, 08:25 PM

Obama won the state of Wisconsin.

The Senator

02-19-2008, 08:27 PM

Yeah, with less than 1% of the votes counted.

On a related note... anyone else think the governor of Wisconsin looks like a sweaty, tanner version of Uncle Fester? (If you're watching MSNBC, of course)

R0rschach

02-19-2008, 08:39 PM

Obama won the state of Wisconsin.

Ohh yeah. :woot:

rdh007

02-19-2008, 09:25 PM

I didn't say he had to do it for me specifically......even though I did call him last week and asked him personally.......but I got his answering machine.....

Don't you know he posts here? I figured he'd be afraid of Mod-Power.

StorminNorman

02-19-2008, 09:25 PM

He loves to talk. That Obama.

Memphis Slim

02-19-2008, 09:25 PM

ANTOINE X

02-19-2008, 09:27 PM

He loves to talk. That Obama.

He s not just a talker he has big idea for the this country. A country that is in crisis socially.

Addendum

02-19-2008, 09:28 PM

Then start a thread about her comments, instead of hijacking a thread discussing the non-issue of Obama "plagiarising" comments from his the governor of Massachusetts, who has no problem with it.

The Senator

02-19-2008, 09:35 PM

Yeah... Hillary has to win 61% of the state delegates between now and June to reclaim a majority of the delegates. I don't see that happening.

Lightning Strykez!

02-19-2008, 09:41 PM

That's all fine and dandy, except he didn't credit Patrick at the high-profile Jefferson-Jackson dinner in Wisconsin, and that's where the criticism is directed at.

You are missing the point.

Deval GAVE him permission. That is documented. Therefore, how does it qualify as theft? STEALING is taking something that doesn't belong to you. If it's given to you for usage it is not categorized as "theft" or plagiarizing.

I'm sorry but your argument does not carry water. The whole thing is bogus--just as bogus as Hillary's new stance today that her campaign didn't start this mess, but rather the media did it of their own initiative. Even the most objective of media outlets today are saying she's lying. Her campaign held a friggin conference call with the media to fan the flames deliberately.

And again--that also is documented. :down

Lightning Strykez!

02-19-2008, 09:48 PM

The Senator

02-19-2008, 09:49 PM

You are missing the point.

Deval GAVE him permission. That is documented. Therefore, how does it qualify as theft? STEALING is taking something that doesn't belong to you. If it's given to you for usage it is not categorized as "theft" or plagiarizing.

I'm sorry but your argument does not carry water. The whole thing is bogus--just as bogus as Hillary's new stance today that her campaign didn't start this mess, but rather the media did it of their own initiative. Even the most objective of media outlets today are saying she's lying. Her campaign held a friggin conference call with the media to fan the flames deliberately.

And again--that also is documented. :down

Actually it was the media which started this, at the discretion of someone from NPR, I do believe. The Clinton campaign jumped on board, though, so I guess they're to blame in some respects.

But whatever, it had no effect in the states it would have had an effect on, so this scandal is pretty much dead.

Lightning Strykez!

02-19-2008, 09:52 PM

And do you know what is amazing? The entire "Clinton did it too!" argument. Aren't you the same people who just a year ago were saying that Bill Clinton's mistakes did not justify George Bush's? Your hypocrisy is amazing.

Matt. I love you man. True :heart: You know that, right? No matter what I'm about to say, we will always be friends but...

...you couldn't be more off the mark bro. Seriously. The point people are making is that this borrowing of ideas is not some new reinvention of the wheel. And the fact that Obama used it with permission does not qualify as plagiarism.

Citing that Hillary has done it too is to buoy the point that she and her campaign are (desperately) trying to make a mountain out of a mole-hill. It was all spun to hurt his win in Wisconsin.

Which, as we can see tonight, was totally ineffective and a waster of her time. It's interesting she claims he doesn't have "substance", yet neither do her attacks. ;)

Lightning Strykez!

02-19-2008, 09:55 PM

Actually it was the media which started this, at the discretion of someone from NPR, I do believe. The Clinton campaign jumped on board, though, so I guess they're to blame in some respects.

But whatever, it had no effect in the states it would have had an effect on, so this scandal is pretty much dead.

Sorry, but that's not what every media outlet I'm reading is reporting. All of them unaminously are pointing to her campaign as starting this ridiculous snafu. But that's not even the worst part to me. You know what it is?

The worst part is that she would have the utter gall to LIE and say they are not the culprits--while simitaneously questioning someone else's ability to tell "the truth." :whatever:

redfirebird2008

02-19-2008, 09:59 PM

Sorry, but that's not what every media outlet I'm reading is reporting. All of them unaminously are pointing to her campaign as starting this ridiculous snafu. But that's not even the worst part to me. You know what it is?

The worst part is that she would have the utter gall to LIE and say they are not the culprits--while simitaneously questioning someone else's ability to tell "the truth." :whatever:

You expect something different? LOL.

rdh007

02-19-2008, 10:00 PM

I would find it funny if NPR of all outlets was caught up in this. Only NPR could take a potential issue and make it a non-issue.

Lightning Strykez!

02-19-2008, 10:15 PM

You expect something different? LOL.

No.

But I guess I thought that the Clinton campaign wanted to WIN this thing. Haven't they learned (for example with the South Carolina primary) that going negative on this guy does not bode well for them?

Lightning Strykez!

02-19-2008, 10:22 PM

Obamology FTW!

:lmao:

Laughs aside though, there is some truth to his statement. There is a reason why people say Hillary is one of the most polarizing figures in the Dem party. Stuff like that totally defines the term "polarizing".

I have a feeling she will divide the party and destroy it along either racial lines or something else if she can't get the nom. Just to make a point.

Lightning Strykez!

02-19-2008, 10:28 PM

The results are in for Wisconsin, and he did very well in every core group. Earlier tonight, with the votes counted in nearly three-quarters of Wisconsin's precincts, Obama was winning 57 percent of the vote to 42 percent for Clinton. She had support among older white women and low income groups, but he also substantially bit into her margins there as well. White men, middle and high income voters, blacks and--gasp--even hispanics were his bulwarks. He also split the woman vote by more than 50%.

Hawaii might be a lock for him, and if so, he will ride into Texas and Ohio with 10 straight wins--and they aren't even close-calls...I'm not sure she can recessuitate (yes, I know I mispelled it) her campaign because the power now is in the number of delegates.

StorminNorman

02-19-2008, 10:29 PM

He s not just a talker he has big idea for the this country. A country that is in crisis socially.

I see no social crisis.

He does have the big radical idea of Hope - you are right.

redfirebird2008

02-19-2008, 11:01 PM

No.

But I guess I thought that the Clinton campaign wanted to WIN this thing. Haven't they learned (for example with the South Carolina primary) that going negative on this guy does not bode well for them?

Of course not. And this is precisely what Barack is talking about when he refers to old style politics. They're still stuck in the past trying to use old strategies. I really do think she would have done much better if she hadn't gone negative. Stay positive and focus on your own plans. Explain them in detail and make the people feel that you are doing something to help them. Attacking him doesn't address the issues that face the people of this country.

The Senator

02-19-2008, 11:09 PM

Excel

02-19-2008, 11:30 PM

McCain looks to be making a major mistake and going the same direction Hillary did.

He seems to be trying to play the expirience card on Obama.

Generally I like SurveyUSA's polls the best since they give a comprehensive cross-tab report, and they are pretty good overall. Here are their latest polls:

Texas (http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=a727cce1-0546-4909-95cf-02f3bc9ab73c&q=45558):
Clinton - 50%
Obama - 45%

Ohio (http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=f333c0e2-db75-40c1-90c3-2a9f25af12e8&q=45558):
Clinton - 52%
Obama - 43%

The Senator

02-19-2008, 11:33 PM

McCain looks to be making a major mistake and going the same direction Hillary did.

He seems to be trying to play the expirience card on Obama.

It may actually work for McCain, considering he's from the opposing party.

The people who usually make or break elections haven't put a whole lot of thought into who they're voting for when the nominations are secured, and I would imagine this will be a pretty strong argument throughout the general election. McCain trumps Obama and Clinton combined in experience, so he has a right to flaunt it if he so wishes.

Excel

02-19-2008, 11:37 PM

McCains problem is matching Obama in terms of new voters, and it wont be done by touting expirience.

Lightning Strykez!

02-19-2008, 11:46 PM

Lightning Strykez!

02-19-2008, 11:52 PM

^ She had to attack him though.

Essentially, their views on policy are identical. There isn't much to differentiate them except for personality, likability and electability.

She knows that. So she went for the character assassination route.

hippie_hunter

02-19-2008, 11:52 PM

McCain looks to be making a major mistake and going the same direction Hillary did.

He seems to be trying to play the expirience card on Obama.
There's a big difference between Hillary and McCain using the experience card. McCain not only has a hell of a lot more experience, he has actual experience which both Clinton and Obama lack.

He can probably play the unity card better than Obama too since he's actually worked with Democrats and is respected by his Democratic collegues, while Obama has never attempted to work with his Republican counterparts and is one of the most liberal Senators in Congress.

Matt

02-20-2008, 05:48 AM

...Obama vs McCain is looking almost certain (provided Clinton doesn't take PA and Ohio by big margins).

Super_Ludacris

02-20-2008, 05:50 AM

Good thing, both guys represent a change in there parties.

Matt

02-20-2008, 05:51 AM

Matt. I love you man. True :heart: You know that, right? No matter what I'm about to say, we will always be friends but...

Why's there have to be a but? :csad: :heart:

...you couldn't be more off the mark bro. Seriously. The point people are making is that this borrowing of ideas is not some new reinvention of the wheel. And the fact that Obama used it with permission does not qualify as plagiarism.

I know people have been borrowing ideas, but would it really have been so hard to say "As my friend Deval Patrick said..."?

Citing that Hillary has done it too is to buoy the point that she and her campaign are (desperately) trying to make a mountain out of a mole-hill. It was all spun to hurt his win in Wisconsin.

Which, as we can see tonight, was totally ineffective and a waster of her time. It's interesting she claims he doesn't have "substance", yet neither do her attacks. ;)

Oh, it definitely backfired and neither of them have substance :csad:

The Senator

02-20-2008, 06:55 AM

Jman, Experience hasn't exactly been a stronghold for Hillary. While McCain is a veteran warbird, the country has had its fill of that before. Besides, I think McCain actually has more cons going against him than Obama at this point in the game however.

-Age

-"More Of The Same" low appeal

-Lack of conservative support

-Stance on the war

-Likability/Electability factor

One has to remember that people right now are extremely disillusioned with the Bush presidency; George is at all time lows in approval ratings. Yet, McCain is clearly in bed with him and that will turn a LOT of people off.

A LOT.

The fight for the Democratic nomination vs. the general election are two completely different things. McCain will arguably win those independents who consider experience a huge deal, and he may even win over some Clintonites who wanted an experienced candidate over an ideological candidate. I know Democrats who would vote for McCain over Obama solely on the experience factor alone, and I know some independent voters who like Obama but would prefer he have a longer resume, especially since we are going into a recession and are still stuck over in Iraq.

Obama needs to start focusing on his accomplishments, however few they may be, rather than focusing solely on his change platform. Yeah, the change rhetoric will convince a lot of people to vote for him on that premise alone, but for those who are looking for substance and vote based on someone's record, he's going to have a hard time convincing them to vote for him.

Obama doesn't own independent voters, and with McCain as his opponent, he will need to fight tooth and nail to earn their votes. Even I, as a Democrat who wants to win this election, feel that Obama's resume is too short for the time, and that his plans for the future are incredibly vague. While I will never vote for McCain solely because I disagree with almost everything he's calling for, If Michael Bloomberg enters as an independent candidate, I may be tempted to vote for him over Obama, solely because Bloomberg has a record and I agree with 90% of what he stands for. Sometimes I find it hard to agree with half of what Obama's calling for, and that's a huge problem.

Zen

02-20-2008, 07:06 AM

experience still on vacation as Baracks judgement is seemingly spot on again about foreign policy...

On the front page of Tuesday's Washington Post was an article detailing how in late January U.S. forces, acting with autonomy inside Pakistan, were able to target and kill Abu Laith al-Libi, a senior al-Qaeda commander.

The strike, which came without the Pakistani government's knowledge and helped eliminate an individual who had long eluded the spy-agency's capture, was an obvious boon in the War on Terror. But the political implications of the operation were just as fascinating.

In August, Sen. Barack Obama had made the argument that, as president, he would target Al Qaeda officials in Pakistan even without the country's acquiescence -- the type of attack that, six months later, proved to be successful.

At the time, Obama was roundly criticized for his remarks, both by his Democratic competitors for the White House and by the Bush administration.

"We think that our approach to Pakistan is not only one that respects the sovereignty of Pakistan, but also is designed so that we are working in cooperation," said then-Press Secretary Tony Snow.

And just one week ago, President Bush himself lambasted Obama's approach to foreign affairs.

"I certainly don't know what he believes in," Bush said on February 10, about Obama. "The only foreign policy thing I remember he said was he's going to attack Pakistan and embrace Ahmadinejad."

To be sure, not everything is known about the extent and execution of the CIA's operation. But, on the surface, it carries similarities to Obama's stated approach towards Pakistan's terrorism problem, the same approach Bush trivialized.

Here is Obama's August 2 statement at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars:

"I understand that President Musharraf has his own challenges... But let me make this clear. There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. ... If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf will not act, we will."
And here are some excerpts from Tuesday's Washington Post article.
In the predawn hours of Jan. 29, a CIA Predator aircraft flew in a slow arc above the Pakistani town of Mir Ali. The drone's operator, relying on information secretly passed to the CIA by local informants, clicked a computer mouse and sent the first of two Hellfire missiles hurtling toward a cluster of mud-brick buildings a few miles from the town center.

The missiles killed Abu Laith al-Libi, a senior al-Qaeda commander and a man who had repeatedly eluded the CIA's dragnet. It was the first successful strike against al-Qaeda's core leadership in two years, and it involved, U.S. officials say, an unusual degree of autonomy by the CIA inside Pakistan.

It is an approach that some U.S. officials say could be used more frequently this year, particularly if a power vacuum results from yesterday's election and associated political tumult. The administration also feels an increased sense of urgency about undermining al-Qaeda before President Bush leaves office, making it less hesitant, said one official familiar with the incident.
Having requested the Pakistani government's official permission for such strikes on previous occasions, only to be put off or turned down, this time the U.S. spy agency did not seek approval. The government of Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf was notified only as the operation was underway, according to the officials, who insisted on anonymity because of diplomatic sensitivities.

honestly, i think Obama will be able to play the clip of McCain saying the economy isnt his strong point, painting him into a securtiy corner, and then he can bust out his judgement... and make the compelling case in debates.

i like Obama's chances in the debates.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/19/cia-operation-similar-to-_n_87433.html

redfirebird2008

02-20-2008, 07:46 AM

Didn't McCain criticize him yesterday for this? I think I recall him getting blasted by Chris Matthews for this. He's been criticizing Barack on this issue ever since Barack stated his position on the matter and finally someone in the media jumped on him about it. And then it was revealed that our very own CIA was doing exactly what Barack proposed. McCain looks like a buffoon on this issue.

MaskedManJRK

02-20-2008, 07:55 AM

Chris Matthews was talking to a Texas state senator earlier, who happens to be one of Obama's super delegates. However, when Chris asked him to name one piece of legislation Obama has pushed through Congress, he couldn't name anything, and instead said "well, I can't name anything specifically, and I'm not going to because this is about the future."

I think that represents Obama's major flaw, that while he says he stands for something, he's never actually stood for something significant... and I have a feeling this will be huge during the general election, if he's the nominee.

Can you name any legislation that Clinton or McCain has pushed recently? Every canidate out there now doesn't really have anything concrete, from what I've seen.

Jman, Experience hasn't exactly been a stronghold for Hillary. While McCain is a veteran warbird, the country has had its fill of that before. Besides, I think McCain actually has more cons going against him than Obama at this point in the game however.

-Age

-"More Of The Same" low appeal

-Lack of conservative support

-Stance on the war

-Likability/Electability factor

One has to remember that people right now are extremely disillusioned with the Bush presidency; George is at all time lows in approval ratings. Yet, McCain is clearly in bed with him and that will turn a LOT of people off.

A LOT.

Yeah, I liked McCain until he became Bush's prison b***h. :o

experience still on vacation as Baracks judgement is seemingly spot on again about foreign policy...

I'm sorry, but I had to do it:

http://wiredtom.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2006/11/owned.JPG

Barack = old white guy
His detractors on how to handle Pakistan = kitty

:o

kane9321

02-20-2008, 08:11 AM

alright obama keep it going

Excel

02-20-2008, 10:07 AM

StorminNorman

02-20-2008, 10:19 AM

Can you name any legislation that Clinton or McCain has pushed recently? Every canidate out there now doesn't really have anything concrete, from what I've seen.

McCain recently (as in within the last few years) has propose - if nothing else - McCain-Finegold and McCain-Kennedy on the issues of Campaign Finance and Immigration respectively. Campaign Finance went through.

Matt

02-20-2008, 10:24 AM

Good thing, both guys represent a change in there parties.

:lmao:

...you're not serious, are you?

StorminNorman

02-20-2008, 10:25 AM

McCains gonna have to try very hard to not come off as a senile old man

Voting against the non tortue ban? Saying we could be in iraq 100 years?

Barack could make him look like a bumbling, angry old man.

No one is going to criticize McCain on how he votes on Torture-Related Issues.

Also the "I would stay in Iraq fro 100 years" is completely taken out of context.

That being said, I think McCain NEEDS a young, handsome VP.

StorminNorman

02-20-2008, 10:26 AM

:lmao:

...you're not serious, are you?

Obama's black - that means he IS change!

Darthphere

02-20-2008, 10:28 AM

Different pigmentation is a vehicle for change.

Matt

02-20-2008, 10:39 AM

McCains gonna have to try very hard to not come off as a senile old man

Voting against the non tortue ban? Saying we could be in iraq 100 years?

Barack could make him look like a bumbling, angry old man.

Or he could make Barack look like an inexperienced, non-committing, crazy liberal. Talking points like "Wants to allow the UN to tax you," aren't going to sit well with middle America. An experienced, well versed politican like McCain can very easily turn change against Obama. People tend to like the status quo. Things like being taxed by the UN is going to hurt him. Obama will win the younger vote...but I would be very, very suprised if enough of them get out to over throw the elderly and middle-aged vote and I can see a good lot of that going to McCain.

BlackLantern

02-20-2008, 10:42 AM

Obama's black - that means he IS change!

No....he could simply be the same old crap in a different wrapper

sinewave

02-20-2008, 10:48 AM

experience still on vacation as Baracks judgement is seemingly spot on again about foreign policy...

honestly, i think Obama will be able to play the clip of McCain saying the economy isnt his strong point, painting him into a securtiy corner, and then he can bust out his judgement... and make the compelling case in debates.

i like Obama's chances in the debates.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/19/cia-operation-similar-to-_n_87433.html

nice!

McCains gonna have to try very hard to not come off as a senile old man

Voting against the non tortue ban? Saying we could be in iraq 100 years?

Barack could make him look like a bumbling, angry old man.

not to mention how overmatched mccain will be in potential debates between the two. i think his runningmate will make or break him, if he's even got a chance at this point. huckabee will be a boon for him with the ultra-conservatives, but he's gonna turn off mccain's moderate and independent supporters. nobody wants that dude in charge if and when mccain kicks the bucket.

No one is going to criticize McCain on how he votes on Torture-Related Issues.

if he's flip-flopping on them they will.

Also the "I would stay in Iraq fro 100 years" is completely taken out of context.

it's really not, though.

That being said, I think McCain NEEDS a young, handsome VP.

agreed. who's that leave? mitt romney? he's not exactly young, but he's got slightly more appeal with conservatives and people worried about the economy.

Matt

02-20-2008, 11:00 AM

agreed. who's that leave? mitt romney? he's not exactly young, but he's got slightly more appeal with conservatives and people worried about the economy.

I'm wondering if Sarah Palin has a chance. She is pretty heavily conservative so she could win back the Huckabee base. She is fairly good on fiscal matters. Plus she is young (44 years old) and attractive.

http://www.juneauempire.com/images/120306/15652_500.jpg

The only problem is, she doesn't really balance the ticket from a geographic perspective (Alaska).

StorminNorman

02-20-2008, 11:00 AM

if he's flip-flopping on them they will.

No. They SHOULD, but they won't. Its going to be incredibly hard to mount an attack on a former tortured POW about their stance on torture.

it's really not, though.

He said something to the effect that he would stay there as long as there are no significant American casualties. Hardly the "he wants a 100 years war" some liberals are trying to paint it as.

agreed. who's that leave? mitt romney? he's not exactly young, but he's got slightly more appeal with conservatives and people worried about the economy.

Honestly Romney would be McCain's best VP because he is attractive and has fantastic charisma. He can make people feel good about America. He also can help with voters for the reason you mentioned.

terry78

02-20-2008, 11:01 AM

My curiosity got the better of me and I browsed that stormfront site to see their thoughts on Obama's current wins. Conspiracy, according to them. :o

CorpusBlack

02-20-2008, 11:01 AM

...Obama vs McCain is looking almost certain (provided Clinton doesn't take PA and Ohio by big margins).

I can live w/ this. Hilary as President just frightens me.

Matt

02-20-2008, 11:03 AM

Matt

02-20-2008, 11:05 AM

Same with Matt Blunt, young, very handsome, charasmatic, but ultimately not a minority or woman. Not seeking a second term as governor, so his schedule is free

Varient

02-20-2008, 11:08 AM

My curiosity got the better of me and I browsed that stormfront site to see their thoughts on Obama's current wins. Conspiracy, according to them. :o

No surprise there either.

I stand by my statement that we are still more than a decade from white America accepting a Black President.

Those Losers on Stormfront give validity to this.

V.

"Waaah,.... The black (blank) is only winning because sumbodies cheating"

Meh.

jaguarr

02-20-2008, 11:08 AM

Honestly Romney would be McCain's best VP because he is attractive and has fantastic charisma. He can make people feel good about America. He also can help with voters for the reason you mentioned.

This made me think of the line from Zoolander:

"Models help people. They make them feel good about themselves. They also show them to to dress cool and wear their hair in interesting ways!"

Haha! :D

jag

Matt

02-20-2008, 11:08 AM

I honestly can't see a better choice for McCain than Palin. She is good economically. She is conservative but not crazy about it (ala Huckabee). She is young, she is attractive, she is a woman. The only draw back is location but I think in the days of modern media and the internet, that doesn't really matter as much.

StorminNorman

02-20-2008, 11:09 AM

Bobby Jindal is another possibility. Young, minority, handsome(ish), charasmatic, conservative. Tim Pawlenty is possible as he is young, handsome, and conservative but I think McCain is pretty much going to have to take a woman or a minority.

I would love Bobby Jindal -but I honestly think Louisiana needs him more :(

J.C. Watts is a guy I have always liked. He hasn't been in office for about 5 years, but he was the first black congressman from a southern state.

jaguarr

02-20-2008, 11:10 AM

Bobby Jindal is another possibility. Young, minority, handsome(ish), charasmatic, conservative. Tim Pawlenty is possible as he is young, handsome, and conservative but I think McCain is pretty much going to have to take a woman or a minority.

Condi Rice. Even though she's a Bushie, which he seems to be trying to distance himself from, I can see that happening very easily.

jag

Matt

02-20-2008, 11:12 AM

I would love Bobby Jindal -but I honestly think Louisiana needs him more :(

J.C. Watts is a guy I have always liked. He hasn't been in office for about 5 years, but he was the first black congressman from a southern state.

Watts would be a good choice. He has a good relationship with McCain too. I honestly think it is going to be someone like Palin or Watts or one of the names that no one is throwing around (like Romney, Huckabee, and Crist)

Matt

02-20-2008, 11:12 AM

Condi Rice. Even though she's a Bushie, which he seems to be trying to distance himself from, I can see that happening very easily.

jag

I don't think Rice would want it nor am I sure McCain would want to give it to her (too much built-in controversy around her). I think Palin would be the way to go if he wants a woman.

CorpusBlack

02-20-2008, 11:15 AM

I don't think Rice would want it nor am I sure McCain would want to give it to her (too much built-in controversy around her). I think Palin would be the way to go if he wants a woman.

It'd be interesting to see Condi in that position, but I agree that Palin would be a better route and I feel she is better suited overall.

Varient

02-20-2008, 11:15 AM

Condi Rice. Even though she's a Bushie, which he seems to be trying to distance himself from, I can see that happening very easily.

jag

(((((shudder)))))

Won't happen - three reasons:
1. Constantly trying to remove the stigmata of being seen as Bushes bedwarmer in everything but deed. If she bounces into McCain it'll be seen as her ******* ******'s.

2. Isn't seen as competent enough to be VP.

3. Black AND a woman? U think Stormfront is whining now?...............

StorminNorman

02-20-2008, 11:17 AM

Watts would be a good choice. He has a good relationship with McCain too. I honestly think it is going to be someone like Palin or Watts or one of the names that no one is throwing around (like Romney, Huckabee, and Crist)

Huckabee has ensured that he WON'T get it.

Crist won't help with Conservatives.

Romney....:heart:, but I don't see those two working well together on a campaign trail - especially with McCain's temper.

After reading a bit more about Palin - she seems like a perfect VP.

Conservative, a record of cutting spending, has a son in the military.

Brilliant.

Matt

02-20-2008, 11:18 AM

Only drawback I see to Palin is geographical. Alaska is not going to matter that much. Then again, I'm not sure any possible candidates will matter that much geographically.

jaguarr

02-20-2008, 11:20 AM

CorpusBlack

02-20-2008, 11:23 AM

And everyone at Stormfront can suck it. :up:

QFT!

Matt

02-20-2008, 11:26 AM

Hey, the idea of Condi as a VP scares the holy hell out of me (her policy ideas are frightening), but she's a Conservative and neo-con darling. I have a feeling McCain will have the running mate he is TOLD he is going to have by his Republican masters, to be honest. I could see them trying to play off of Condi's high visibility and her female/minority persuasion to show they're "progressive" in an attempt to draw in voters. I'm not saying that might not ultimately backfire on them, but I could easily see them rationalizing it.

And everyone at Stormfront can suck it. :up:

jag

However, even if they are thinking under that rationale, I think Palin would make the better choice though as she has all of the benefits of Rice with none of the draw backs. Sure, she's not black...but I don't think the GOP even harbors the illusion that they can win the black vote anymore.

jaguarr

02-20-2008, 11:29 AM

However, even if they are thinking under that rationale, I think Palin would make the better choice though as she has all of the benefits of Rice with none of the draw backs. Sure, she's not black...but I don't think the GOP even harbors the illusion that they can win the black vote anymore.

Maybe. Palin is pretty well an unknown on the national political scene and the GOP seems to be focusing on their "brand name franchise players" lately, of which Condi is. It'll be very interesting to see who gets the nod for VP from both the Dem's and the Republicans, that's for sure.

jag

sinewave

02-20-2008, 11:31 AM

I'm wondering if Sarah Palin has a chance. She is pretty heavily conservative so she could win back the Huckabee base. She is fairly good on fiscal matters. Plus she is young (44 years old) and attractive.

http://www.juneauempire.com/images/120306/15652_500.jpg

The only problem is, she doesn't really balance the ticket from a geographic perspective (Alaska).

eh, she's got no name recognition and she looks like a soccer mom. i guess that may get him more votes from independent women, but i doubt it would be enough to win the general election against obama.

No. They SHOULD, but they won't. Its going to be incredibly hard to mount an attack on a former tortured POW about their stance on torture.

he's definitely got the, for lack of a better term, "POW-cred" when it comes to torture and how we treat detainees, but honestly, if he keeps selling out his ideals, even if it's what the conservatives want to hear, it's going to greatly affect his support from independents, which is crucial for a moderate like himself. he's said he doesn't support torture but then he votes for against a ban on it? that's pure political angling right there, which the obama campaign could use to say he's "just more of the same."

He said something to the effect that he would stay there as long as there are no significant American casualties. Hardly the "he wants a 100 years war" some liberals are trying to paint it as.

no, i understand completely what he meant. he wants a military presence there like we have in other allied countries. the thing is, though, americans are just completely sick of this war. they can see that iraq is a completely different animal than, say, germany. having a presence there is just inflaming more resentment towards our country. they're killing themselves and have been for centuries. they're not going to just stop, sit back and let us hang out in their holy land. they want the infidels out. this is not going to go well if we dig our boots in and try to babysit them for the next 25, 50 or 100 years. it's going to take a major change on the part of the iraqi citizens' mindset and culture before we're welcomed as permanent guests in their country.

Honestly Romney would be McCain's best VP because he is attractive and has fantastic charisma. He can make people feel good about America. He also can help with voters for the reason you mentioned.

yeah, but a lot of people, myself included, see him as just another slimy republican creep. charisma is not a slick haircut and a smile. he just comes off as extremely fake.

Condi Rice. Even though she's a Bushie, which he seems to be trying to distance himself from, I can see that happening very easily.

jag

now that makes sense. he'll have the benefit of a strong, popular, black female in his corner. as long as she's successful at shaking off her legacy with the bush administration, she'd be a benefit to him.

Matt

02-20-2008, 11:31 AM

Maybe. Palin is pretty well an unknown on the national political scene and the GOP seems to be focusing on their "brand name franchise players" lately, of which Condi is. It'll be very interesting to see who gets the nod for VP from both the Dem's and the Republicans, that's for sure.

jag

But I wonder if they think an unknown would help them at this point. 4 years ago, Barack Obama was a complete unknown and yet one speech and he is suddenly in the national spot light and the likely nominee. They may want their own Obama and while Palin is not black, she is charasmatic, can probably unite the party as she is a pretty streamline conservative and has a decent record. But yeah, her geographical location in combination with no name recognition could hurt her...but her smexyness makes up for it :cwink:

jaguarr

02-20-2008, 11:33 AM

Haha! Matt wants to mash on the governor of Alaska. :D

jag

Matt

02-20-2008, 11:33 AM

I think McCain is slowly going to drift back into the more moderate realm. Now that the nomination is locked and neo-cons hate him anyway, he can stop pandering and allow his running mate to do that. Once Huckabee drops out you are going to see a whole different McCain and that should make Obama very nervous.

Matt

02-20-2008, 11:34 AM

Haha! Matt wants to mash on the governor of Alaska. :D

jag

:o I have a thing for middle aged soccer moms :O

CorpusBlack

02-20-2008, 11:34 AM

Haha! Matt wants to mash on the governor of Alaska. :D

jag

Sh-t I'll mash on her too.

sinewave

02-20-2008, 11:38 AM

as long as we're throwing out republican women's names for vp consideration, how about sue collins and olympia snowe, both from maine? i guess that fact that they're both moderates, like mccain, might hurt their chances with the conservative base, though.

sinewave

02-20-2008, 11:42 AM

i honestly don't see the hardcore conservatives warming up to any woman anytime soon. all that sexist, subservient crap from the bible would probably turn them off from one.

jaguarr

02-20-2008, 11:43 AM

CorpusBlack

02-20-2008, 11:47 AM

We need pics to see if they'd be the kind of VP Matt would like to mash on.

jag

Sue Collins, have at'er Matt. ;)

http://speakout.com/VoteMatch/people/Susan_Collins.jpg

CorpusBlack

02-20-2008, 11:48 AM

Here's Snowe.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/93/Olympia_Snowe,_official_photo_2.JPG/478px-Olympia_Snowe,_official_photo_2.JPG

jaguarr

02-20-2008, 11:49 AM

Those are NOT VPILF's. :down

jag

CorpusBlack

02-20-2008, 11:50 AM

Those are NOT VPILF's. :down

jag

Agreed. I'm starting an extensive search for VPILFS.

StorminNorman

02-20-2008, 11:55 AM

he's definitely got the, for lack of a better term, "POW-cred" when it comes to torture and how we treat detainees, but honestly, if he keeps selling out his ideals, even if it's what the conservatives want to hear, it's going to greatly affect his support from independents, which is crucial for a moderate like himself. he's said he doesn't support torture but then he votes for against a ban on it? that's pure political angling right there, which the obama campaign could use to say he's "just more of the same."

I think he risks this on just about any issue. Again, I just think he is untouchable on this issue.

no, i understand completely what he meant. he wants a military presence there like we have in other allied countries. the thing is, though, americans are just completely sick of this war. they can see that iraq is a completely different animal than, say, germany. having a presence there is just inflaming more resentment towards our country. they're killing themselves and have been for centuries. they're not going to just stop, sit back and let us hang out in their holy land. they want the infidels out. this is not going to go well if we dig our boots in and try to babysit them for the next 25, 50 or 100 years. it's going to take a major change on the part of the iraqi citizens' mindset and culture before we're welcomed as permanent guests in their country.

I would like to think that change, to a certain extent, is already happening. Attacks are down in Baghdad 80%. The local groups are starting to fight for their country. Its far from a sure thing - but these are all very positive signs. The people in mass don't know about them though, mainly because of horrible media coverage.

yeah, but a lot of people, myself included, see him as just another slimy republican creep. charisma is not a slick haircut and a smile. he just comes off as extremely fake.

You would not be McCain's target however. While Romney has a great smile and impeccable hair, he also has great genuine charisma. He can make the Reagan-esk speeches about America McCain can not do.

He also won most of the Republican vote in almost all of the Pre-Super Tuesday states. And it is that Conservative Republican based McCain NEEDS to unify.

now that makes sense. he'll have the benefit of a strong, popular, black female in his corner. as long as she's successful at shaking off her legacy with the bush administration, she'd be a benefit to him.

If Condi can be viewed as NOT a Bush patsy - she could be a great benefit to McCain.

Raiden

02-20-2008, 12:04 PM

Since this is an Obama thread, who do you think would make a good VP for Obama (if he does win the nomination)? I don't think I'd want Edward nor Clinton.

StorminNorman

02-20-2008, 12:10 PM

General Clark would be best.

CorpusBlack

02-20-2008, 12:11 PM

Since this is an Obama thread, who do you think would make a good VP for Obama (if he does win the nomination)? I don't think I'd want Edward nor Clinton.

Clinton would never run with Obama. Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned.

StorminNorman

02-20-2008, 12:15 PM

Chuck Hagel would make a very interesting choice for Obama.

An outcast Republican and a far left Democrat?

jaguarr

02-20-2008, 12:15 PM

General Clark would be best.

He's probably a name that has been considered, I'm sure.

Clinton would never run with Obama. Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned.

I doubt Obama would want her as his VP. She would constantly undermine him. And, if she had the chance to off him just so she could take over the Oval Office, well....I'm not saying she definitely would, but I'm not saying she wouldn't, either.

jag

Excel

02-20-2008, 12:19 PM

Or he could make Barack look like an inexperienced, non-committing, crazy liberal.

Hillary tired that and it failed and shes the best debater and smearer of all em. All he has to talk about is how it didnt take ANY expirience to call out the war in Iraq while all of McCains didnt help him, and hell have Americans on his side.

CorpusBlack

02-20-2008, 12:21 PM

I doubt Obama would want her as his VP. She would constantly undermine him. And, if she had the chance to off him just so she could take over the Oval Office, well....I'm not saying she definitely would, but I'm not saying she wouldn't, either.

I don't disagree w/ that.

StorminNorman

02-20-2008, 12:32 PM

Hillary tired that and it failed and shes the best debater and smearer of all em. All he has to talk about is how it didnt take ANY expirience to call out the war in Iraq while all of McCains didnt help him, and hell have Americans on his side.

If you think Hillary is the best debater, you are sorely mistaken. She is a great smear merchant though.

McCain will argue that he argued from day one that the approach in Iraq was flawed and that ever since they implemented the surge has was calling for since day one Iraq has become a success.

Obama thinks we are losing the war in Iraq, McCain thinks we are winning - thats what Iraq will boil down to.

CorpusBlack

02-20-2008, 12:38 PM

She is a great smear merchant thought.

Yes she is.

Venom'sDad

02-20-2008, 12:44 PM

I don't know if anyone have notice, but if the Democrat Primary instituted winner takes all delegates... Obama would lead billary 1359 - 1314. Making OH & TX even more intriguing. :hehe:

Varient

02-20-2008, 12:55 PM

Romney?

As in Obama - Romney?
(No chill on that one,... more like a shrug)

Obama - Huckabee?

Meh.

Since I'm one of the few who just doesn't like any of the canidates for various reasons,.. I'd not put ANY thought into who he would run with,.. I'd assumed from past history that Hillary as the second placer would be auto VP.

(((((Shudder))))

(Sorry,... can't help it, Bill's wife from everything I've seen could drive a man into the arms of a more pliable female.)

V.

jaguarr

02-20-2008, 01:00 PM

(Sorry,... can't help it, Bill's wife from everything I've seen could drive a man into the arms of a more pliable female.

V.

:lmao:

jag

Varient

02-20-2008, 01:11 PM

:lmao:

jag

Am I being too harsh?

She just comes across as a manipulating ball-buster who probably charged Bill cold hard cash every time she dropped her drawls.

I felt that way before Bill was President, I was not suprised that he had twenty-somethings knobbing him in the oval office because of it, I also wasn't surprised to hear rumors that she prefered women anyway.

Sigh.

V.

CorpusBlack

02-20-2008, 01:19 PM

She just comes across as a manipulating ball-buster who probably charged Bill cold hard cash every time she dropped her drawls.

I felt that way before Bill was President, I was not suprised that he had twenty-somethings knobbing him in the oval office because of it, I also wasn't surprised to hear rumors that she prefered women anyway.

You are officially my new hero. *kicks Spider-Man to the curb.:spidey:

jaguarr

02-20-2008, 01:22 PM

Am I being too harsh?

She just comes across as a manipulating ball-buster who probably charged Bill cold hard cash every time she dropped her drawls.

I felt that way before Bill was President, I was not suprised that he had twenty-somethings knobbing him in the oval office because of it, I also wasn't surprised to hear rumors that she prefered women anyway.

Sigh.

V.

:lmao: :lmao: :lmao:

:up:

Hey, you know what'd be ironic? If Hillary became President and had a big scandal involving her, the Oval Office, a young female intern and a cigar. :ninja:

jag

StorminNorman

02-20-2008, 01:27 PM

Am I being too harsh?

She just comes across as a manipulating ball-buster who probably charged Bill cold hard cash every time she dropped her drawls.

I felt that way before Bill was President, I was not suprised that he had twenty-somethings knobbing him in the oval office because of it, I also wasn't surprised to hear rumors that she prefered women anyway.

Sigh.

V.

A friend of my mother's claims to be a former girlfriend of Hillary.

Zen

02-20-2008, 01:29 PM

What do you guys think of Barack-Powell?

just to refresh that possiblity

Varient

02-20-2008, 01:31 PM

What do you guys think of Barack-Powell?

just to refresh that possiblity

Powell wife put her foot down and told her husband he can go out and play at the white house in any capacity.

If it were possible I would prefer Powell to Obama.

Matt

02-20-2008, 01:32 PM

If Obama were smart, he would offer the position to Joe Lieberman. White, experienced, and pretty much has every one of McCain's beliefs. He would steal so much of McCain's base its not even funny and would probably hand the election to Obama.

Raiden

02-20-2008, 01:33 PM

What do you guys think of Barack-Powell?

just to refresh that possiblity

I like it. :up:

Matt

02-20-2008, 01:33 PM

Hillary tired that and it failed and shes the best debater and smearer of all em. All he has to talk about is how it didnt take ANY expirience to call out the war in Iraq while all of McCains didnt help him, and hell have Americans on his side.

McCain is a far more talented debater than Clinton and believe it or not, Americans do not want to hear "We lost the war in Iraq." Those kinds of phrases sell primaries because you are appealing to your party base and therefore can get away with saying ultra liberal things but in the general election you have to take a more moderate approach, which I'm not sure Obama can. However, McCain already has 90 % of America believing he is a moderate.

Raiden

02-20-2008, 01:34 PM

Matt

02-20-2008, 01:42 PM

Lieberman has endorsed McCain, so I think the chance of that happening is slim to none.

Maybe, but things change. He endorsed him in the Republican primary, not the general election. I am sure Lieberman would love to be sitting in the Naval Observatory. However, I doubt he would as well. Still, would make a great choice for Obama.

Matt

02-20-2008, 01:43 PM

He's probably a name that has been considered, I'm sure.

jag

The only problem is, Clark has been a huge Clinton supporter from the very beginning.

jaguarr

02-20-2008, 01:45 PM

Lieberman has the charisma of a turnip. :o

jag

CorpusBlack

02-20-2008, 01:47 PM

Lieberman has the charisma of a turnip. :o

jag

Man I f'n hate turnips.

Matt

02-20-2008, 01:49 PM

Lieberman has the charisma of a turnip. :o

jag

Yes he does. But what he lacks in charisma he makes up for in ability to steal McCain voters. Besides, Obama has enough charisma for both of them.

jaguarr

02-20-2008, 01:52 PM

Yes he does. But what he lacks in charisma he makes up for in ability to steal McCain voters. Besides, Obama has enough charisma for both of them.

Joe-mentum and Obamamania are incompatible. It would rip a hole in the space-time continuum and send us reeling into the Dark Ages. Way to try and kill us all, Matt. :down

jag

sinewave

02-20-2008, 01:53 PM

Those are NOT VPILF's. :down

jag

i know. sorry. i'm really, really sorry. :csad:

I would like to think that change, to a certain extent, is already happening. Attacks are down in Baghdad 80%. The local groups are starting to fight for their country. Its far from a sure thing - but these are all very positive signs. The people in mass don't know about them though, mainly because of horrible media coverage.

if that's the number coming from the government, you have to take that with a huge grain of salt after all the stunts they've pulled so far. does that include car bombs? shots to the front of the head? inter-tribal violence? i know a lot of that was left off the list of violence a few months ago. i think the american people have a pretty good idea of how this war is going. the mainstream media is not sugar-coating this war. if there were multiple bombings killing tens of people everyday here in the states, that'd take top priority over opening a school, that's for sure.

You would not be McCain's target however. While Romney has a great smile and impeccable hair, he also has great genuine charisma. He can make the Reagan-esk speeches about America McCain can not do.

He also won most of the Republican vote in almost all of the Pre-Super Tuesday states. And it is that Conservative Republican based McCain NEEDS to unify.

i do like his level of economic know-how. there, i said something positive about a republican politician. :woot:

i feel dirty now. :csad:

If Condi can be viewed as NOT a Bush patsy - she could be a great benefit to McCain.

could be, but that's a tall order.

Since this is an Obama thread, who do you think would make a good VP for Obama (if he does win the nomination)? I don't think I'd want Edward nor Clinton.

i think edwards is probably near the top of his list.

General Clark would be best.

him too.

Chuck Hagel would make a very interesting choice for Obama.

An outcast Republican and a far left Democrat?

that'd be interesting...

i'd mention bill richardson, who i ****ing love, but there's no way a black presidential candidate is going to win with a mexican running mate, no matter how qualified he is. :csad:

If you think Hillary is the best debater, you are sorely mistaken. She is a great smear merchant though.

McCain will argue that he argued from day one that the approach in Iraq was flawed and that ever since they implemented the surge has was calling for since day one Iraq has become a success.

Obama thinks we are losing the war in Iraq, McCain thinks we are winning - thats what Iraq will boil down to.

apparently somewhere around 70% of the country sides with barack on that issue.

Am I being too harsh?

She just comes across as a manipulating ball-buster who probably charged Bill cold hard cash every time she dropped her drawls.

I felt that way before Bill was President, I was not suprised that he had twenty-somethings knobbing him in the oval office because of it, I also wasn't surprised to hear rumors that she prefered women anyway.

Sigh.

V.

it's gotta be those eyes. http://www.brightandearlyblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/11/scary-hillary-clinton.jpg

What do you guys think of Barack-Powell?

just to refresh that possiblity

not bad. i'm sure he's got a bit of resentment towards the republican party after they threw him under the bus.

If Obama were smart, he would offer the position to Joe Lieberman. White, experienced, and pretty much has every one of McCain's beliefs. He would steal so much of McCain's base its not even funny and would probably hand the election to Obama.

yuch! he left a bad taste in democrats' mouthes with his man-love for bush and his war.

StorminNorman

02-20-2008, 01:54 PM

Lieberman wouldn't run against McCain as it is.

CorpusBlack

02-20-2008, 01:54 PM

http://www.brightandearlyblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/11/scary-hillary-clinton.jpg

Funniest thing I've seen all day. :hehe:

Matt

02-20-2008, 01:56 PM

Joe-mentum and Obamamania are incompatible. It would rip a hole in the space-time continuum and send us reeling into the Dark Ages. Way to try and kill us all, Matt. :down

jag

Anything is better than an Obama presidency :hehe:

jaguarr

02-20-2008, 01:57 PM

Anything is better than an Obama presidency :hehe:

Except for a Billary Presidency. :o

jag

Matt

02-20-2008, 01:58 PM

i know. sorry. i'm really, really sorry. :csad:

As you should be. At least Palin is hot in a soccer momish way. Your VPILFs were ugly. :cmad:

i think edwards is probably near the top of his list.

I doubt it. Too much inexperience. Edwards is probably top choice for both Clinton and Obama's attorney general position though.

him too.

He is a hardcore Clinton supporter. It would be hard to get him to jump ship.

Matt

02-20-2008, 01:58 PM

Except for a Billary Presidency. :o

jag

I'd take Billary over Obama at this point (though I'd take McCain over both of them and let Sherrod Brown take the White House in 2012). I doubt I'll vote for McCain, but I'd rather see him than Clinton or Obama.

jaguarr

02-20-2008, 01:59 PM

He is a hardcore Clinton supporter. It would be hard to get him to jump ship.

What if the ship he was on was sinking? :D

jag

jaguarr

02-20-2008, 01:59 PM

I'd take Billary over Obama at this point (though I'd take McCain over both of them and let Sherrod Brown take the White House in 2012). I doubt I'll vote for McCain, but I'd rather see him than Clinton or Obama.

You are dead to me.

jag

CorpusBlack

02-20-2008, 02:02 PM

What if the ship he was on was sinking? :D

jag

then that mutha****a is jumping!

CorpusBlack

02-20-2008, 02:02 PM

You are dead to me.

jag

:lmao:

sinewave

02-20-2008, 02:07 PM

As you should be. At least Palin is hot in a soccer momish way. Your VPILFs were ugly. :cmad:

sorry. i forgot the "****ability" factor.

I doubt it. Too much inexperience. Edwards is probably top choice for both Clinton and Obama's attorney general position though.

a lot of people responded to his health care plan and his attitude towards the working class and against corporate greed. i think that would work well for the obama campaign.

He is a hardcore Clinton supporter. It would be hard to get him to jump ship.

i know, he'd probably be her running mate, but as jag mentioned below...

What if the ship he was on was sinking? :D

jag

Matt

02-20-2008, 02:10 PM

You are dead to me.

jag

Our country can handle 4 more years of the status quo. I'm not sure it can handle 4 years of change for the sake of change which will go entirely unchecked due to the Democratic Congress. During which time Obama will institute all kinds of new EXPENSIVE social programs such as universal health care (great idea on paper, wrong time at the moment since we are nearly bankrupt), more free trade agreements, and a tax to the UN. All while Obama has promised to cut taxes. This guy will spend more than George W. Bush and that scares me. We need someone who is fiscally responsible in the White House. Not someone who will change things just to say he is changing them. I'm just not sure our country can survive 4 years of Obama.

jaguarr

02-20-2008, 02:14 PM

Our country can handle 4 more years of the status quo. I'm not sure it can handle 4 years of change for the sake of change which will go entirely unchecked due to the Democratic Congress. During which time Obama will institute all kinds of new EXPENSIVE social programs such as universal health care (great idea on paper, wrong time at the moment since we are nearly bankrupt), more free trade agreements, and a tax to the UN. All while Obama has promised to cut taxes. This guy will spend more than George W. Bush and that scares me. We need someone who is fiscally responsible in the White House. Not someone who will change things just to say he is changing them. I'm just not sure our country can survive 4 years of Obama.

All of the candidates are going to (try to) spend far more money than they are really letting on, Matt, including McCain. At least Obama is looking to focus some of our tax dollars on our own damn country for a change. McCain's off in the Middle East with our tax dollars, same as the jackasses that have been running things the past eight years. We've seriously neglected our infrastructure and our own country for far too long. I don't see the Republicans taking strides to do anything about it. At least Obama is bringing the focus back onto the homefront. We're in our current situation BECAUSE of the friggin' Republicans. They've used up their chances. We can't handle another 4 years of this ****.

jag

StorminNorman

02-20-2008, 02:15 PM

if that's the number coming from the government, you have to take that with a huge grain of salt after all the stunts they've pulled so far. does that include car bombs? shots to the front of the head? inter-tribal violence? i know a lot of that was left off the list of violence a few months ago. i think the american people have a pretty good idea of how this war is going. the mainstream media is not sugar-coating this war. if there were multiple bombings killing tens of people everyday here in the states, that'd take top priority over opening a school, that's for sure.

The situation in Iraq IS improving - no one is arguing that point. Democrats and Republicans alike have been forced to admit the Surge did and is working.

That number came from the Iraqi Lt. General, btw.

i do like his level of economic know-how. there, i said something positive about a republican politician. :woot:

i feel dirty now. :csad:

Baby steps...baby steps...

could be, but that's a tall order.

I think its an impossible order.

i think edwards is probably near the top of his list.

Would have to be at this point.

apparently somewhere around 70% of the country sides with barack on that issue.

70% right now. It is the McCain's campaigns job to show the country the other side of the story.

not bad. i'm sure he's got a bit of resentment towards the republican party after they threw him under the bus.

I don't think Powell will ever enter politics again. Though he was my dream VP for Romney. :csad:

Raiden

02-20-2008, 02:17 PM

Our country can handle 4 more years of the status quo. I'm not sure it can handle 4 years of change for the sake of change which will go entirely unchecked due to the Democratic Congress. During which time Obama will institute all kinds of new EXPENSIVE social programs such as universal health care (great idea on paper, wrong time at the moment since we are nearly bankrupt), more free trade agreements, and a tax to the UN. All while Obama has promised to cut taxes. This guy will spend more than George W. Bush and that scares me. We need someone who is fiscally responsible in the White House. Not someone who will change things just to say he is changing them. I'm just not sure our country can survive 4 years of Obama.

After 8 years of Bush presidency, I think most Americans really do want change in the WH, and not more of the same for another 4 years. And as for fiscal responsibility, the government has grown in size during those 6 years of GOP-controlled Congress, not to mention the deficit. I think the Dems should be given a chance to occupy the 3 branches of the government. If they screwed up, then they can be voted out a la '06 Republicans.

Matt

02-20-2008, 02:18 PM

What part of letting the UN tax us is focusing on our infrastructure? Or agreeing to free trade agreements with third world countries that have no labor laws? Or allowing social programs for lower classes to exploit the middle class' tax dollars? Sure, he will focus his attention here, but not in the right way. I'd rather have 4 more years of the same old men ****ing up another country then 4 years of a young man whose campaign resembles Zaphod Beeblebrox's (no one will get the reference :csad:) ****ing up ours.

Matt

02-20-2008, 02:20 PM

After 8 years of Bush presidency, I think most Americans really do want change in the WH, and not more of the same for another 4 years. And as for fiscal responsibility, the government has grown in size during those 6 years of GOP-controlled Congress, not to mention the deficit. I think the Dems should be given a chance to occupy the 3 branches of the government. If they screwed up, then they can be voted out a la '06 Republicans.

The dems have had their "chance" (and you speak of it as if it is children sharing a toy) numerous times throughout our history and they **** it up just as badly. I'm not saying the Republicans are good. They are just as bad. But no single party should ever single handedly control the government.

StorminNorman

02-20-2008, 02:22 PM

After 8 years of Bush presidency, I think most Americans really do want change in the WH, and not more of the same for another 4 years. And as for fiscal responsibility, the government has grown in size during those 6 years of GOP-controlled Congress, not to mention the deficit. I think the Dems should be given a chance to occupy the 3 branches of the government. If they screwed up, then they can be voted out a la '06 Republicans.

Change is more than an Elephant or a Donkey. Change is more than skin color. Change is about confronting the people already in Washington and being willing to fight to tough battles for what you believe in.

McCain has a record of doing that. He butted heads with Democrats. He butted heads with Republicans. He has stood by his guns on the issues he cares about most. McCain has proven experience.

Obama has none. In fact he has waffled on some of the promises he has made in his own campaign. He has a horrible attendance record in Washington. His campaign is based almost totally on style and no substance.

DV8

02-20-2008, 02:42 PM

what if Obama wanted McCain for his VP . . . how would that make you guys feel?

StorminNorman

02-20-2008, 02:49 PM

what if Obama wanted McCain for his VP . . . how would that make you guys feel?

Confused

Excel

02-20-2008, 02:50 PM

is that even possible?

Not a fan of Lieberman. Still think Edwards should go with Barrack be the ob forerunner for 2012-16.

DV8

02-20-2008, 03:08 PM

I think it actually is possible . . . although HIGHLY unorthodox . . . I mean, McCain is more of a 'left' Republican anyway . . . why not unite the parties? what's wrong with that? why does it have to be like WWE wrestling every time?

hippie_hunter

02-20-2008, 03:08 PM

What do you guys think of Barack-Powell?

just to refresh that possiblity

If Obama were smart, he would offer the position to Joe Lieberman. White, experienced, and pretty much has every one of McCain's beliefs. He would steal so much of McCain's base its not even funny and would probably hand the election to Obama.

Not gonna happen. Despite the fact that he says he's a uniter, Obama's nothing more than a partisan hack (like the most of Congress) who for the most part votes along the mainstream lines of his party.

CorpusBlack

02-20-2008, 03:09 PM

jaguarr

02-20-2008, 03:16 PM

Every game has rules.

Except for the Game Of Life! :crosscheck:

jag

StorminNorman

02-20-2008, 03:23 PM

CorpusBlack

02-20-2008, 03:24 PM

got me there jag.

Kelly

02-20-2008, 03:58 PM

Not gonna happen. Despite the fact that he says he's a uniter, Obama's nothing more than a partisan hack (like the most of Congress) who for the most part votes along the mainstream lines of his party.

I understand where you are coming from with this.....BUT WHAT IF.....in those votes he truly was voting his conscience, his heart, the will of the people that put him in office...(you talk to people in his homestate, few people have negative comments on his voting record).....does that make him a partisan hack??????????

Kelly

02-20-2008, 03:58 PM

sinewave

02-20-2008, 04:00 PM

All of the candidates are going to (try to) spend far more money than they are really letting on, Matt, including McCain. At least Obama is looking to focus some of our tax dollars on our own damn country for a change. McCain's off in the Middle East with our tax dollars, same as the jackasses that have been running things the past eight years. We've seriously neglected our infrastructure and our own country for far too long. I don't see the Republicans taking strides to do anything about it. At least Obama is bringing the focus back onto the homefront. We're in our current situation BECAUSE of the friggin' Republicans. They've used up their chances. We can't handle another 4 years of this ****.

jag

sing it, soul sista!

The situation in Iraq IS improving - no one is arguing that point. Democrats and Republicans alike have been forced to admit the Surge did and is working.

it's partially working, yes, but the whole point was to secure it enough for their government to start passing laws that would strengthen their security, government and infrastructure. that hasn't happened and we were told that the surge wasn't open ended. it's gone on for a year now, so i'd hardly call it a success, either.

That number came from the Iraqi Lt. General, btw.

interesting. i'd like to look at that more in depth before making a decision on that claim.

70% right now. It is the McCain's campaigns job to show the country the other side of the story.

just to be clear, do you think it's a matter of the american people not understanding the situation on the ground in iraq or that they're just tired of war and being broke?

The dems have had their "chance" (and you speak of it as if it is children sharing a toy) numerous times throughout our history and they **** it up just as badly. I'm not saying the Republicans are good. They are just as bad. But no single party should ever single handedly control the government.

ok, but we've seen the republican party move farther and farther to the right while actively dividing this country. don't you think it'd be slightly better if a less extreme, divisive, power-hungry party were in charge? maybe someone who didn't cater to a very small but extreme base?

rdh007

02-20-2008, 04:36 PM

Isn't "The Surge" just a fancy term for finally getting the proper amount of troops on the ground?

sinewave

02-20-2008, 04:42 PM

basically, yep.

Raiden

02-20-2008, 04:44 PM

basically, yep.

And it comes about 4 years too late as well.

StorminNorman

02-20-2008, 04:57 PM

it's partially working, yes, but the whole point was to secure it enough for their government to start passing laws that would strengthen their security, government and infrastructure. that hasn't happened and we were told that the surge wasn't open ended. it's gone on for a year now, so i'd hardly call it a success, either.

Now that Iraq is become secure the burden now does lie with the government, this is correct. If Iraq can not - or refuses to stand up on its own two feet, all the protection we can do for them is meaningless and we will have an obligation to leave a helpless matter.

I would like to believe the situation isn't like that - the Iraqi's MUST start playing their cards.

interesting. i'd like to look at that more in depth before making a decision on that claim.

:up:

just to be clear, do you think it's a matter of the american people not understanding the situation on the ground in iraq or that they're just tired of war and being broke?[/quote[

I honestly think that most American's believe we are losing the war and THATS why they want us to leave. I think if Americans really knew about the reduction in violence and saw that victory IS possible - the support would be far more favorable then it is.

My biggest complain with the Bush administration has been its gross failings in selling the public on this war after 'Mission Accomplished' and its ineptitude in getting across the side of the story that supports THEIR cause.

[quote]ok, but we've seen the republican party move farther and farther to the right while actively dividing this country. don't you think it'd be slightly better if a less extreme, divisive, power-hungry party were in charge? maybe someone who didn't cater to a very small but extreme base?

Its not just the GOP that is moving farther and farther right. The Democrats have been sprinting to the left. The serious Democratic Presidential candidates varied from Extreme Liberal to European Socialist.

The GOP offered moderates in the form of Rudy and McCain. A staunch Conservative in Thompson. A Conservative with a liberal past in Romney and a fairly liberal (policy wise) governor with a very Conservative moral compass in Huckabee.

The GOP offered variety. The Democrats offered various shades of left wing.

Superman

02-20-2008, 05:10 PM

This is already old and dead news.
Deval Patrick and obama are friends.Obama is on record admitting he borrows lines from Patrick and vice versa.

Exactly!!!

This is just another Non-Issue that they are trying to use to make him look bad.

I don't think it's going to work. Hopefully the people are smart enough to see through this crap for what it is.:whatever:

The Senator

02-20-2008, 05:22 PM

Can you name any legislation that Clinton or McCain has pushed recently? Every canidate out there now doesn't really have anything concrete, from what I've seen.

Yes, I can name one piece of legislation Clinton has her name attached to: The Home Ownership Preservation Act, which I believe called for increased accountability on behalf of mortgage brokers.

However, this isn't about whether I can name a piece of legislation Clinton passed. It's about how one of Obama's Super Delegates can't name any of his accomplishments in the Senate. That's quite important if you ask me. I don't care what Jo Blo out on the street knows (though they should be able to research their candidate and find out what he actually stands for). But when a politician appears on national television and tells the American people that he should vote for Obama, yet can't tell the American people what Obama's done in his three years in the Senate, I find that pretty upsetting. As viewers and voters, we're supposed to consider this Texas politician a credible and reliable source. He should have known everything he needed to know about Obama before going on national television to praise him up and down.

I don't know if his performance speaks for most Obama supporters, but I think it goes to show that some of his supporters have no desire to learn what Obama has actually accomplished-- and I think his past accomplishments speak louder than what he says he's going to accomplish as President.

And to close... I can name/ describe three pieces of legislation Obama's worked towards, and I'm not even an Obama supporter: The Global Poverty Act; the ethics/ lobbying reform bill; and a bill which worked to make nuclear power plants safer. All that Texas Senator needed to do was spend half an hour on Google... and he could have learned plenty about Obama's legislative history.

sinewave

02-20-2008, 05:25 PM

Now that Iraq is become secure the burden now does lie with the government, this is correct. If Iraq can not - or refuses to stand up on its own two feet, all the protection we can do for them is meaningless and we will have an obligation to leave a helpless matter.

I would like to believe the situation isn't like that - the Iraqi's MUST start playing their cards.

it's not secure yet. far from it. you still can't walk down the street without fear of car bombs and suicide bombers and there's still plenty of sectarian violence.

I honestly think that most American's believe we are losing the war and THATS why they want us to leave. I think if Americans really knew about the reduction in violence and saw that victory IS possible - the support would be far more favorable then it is.

My biggest complain with the Bush administration has been its gross failings in selling the public on this war after 'Mission Accomplished' and its ineptitude in getting across the side of the story that supports THEIR cause.

the way i see it, the american public realizes that we made a serious mistake by going into iraq and since we've poured hundreds of billions of dollars into the war effort and have sacrificed 4,000 soldiers, all while falling into a serious economic funk here at home, i think americans are just sick and tired of the war. they don't trust what the government is telling them and they're tired of reading about and seeing the bloodshed over there. so, i don't really agree that americans think we're "losing". i don't see it like that at all. our military is obviously tops in the world and we could take on anyone in a head-to-head fight, but this isn't a head-to-head fight. it's much more complex than that and it's not about kicking an enemy's ass. you can't force a country to adhere to a strict plan if you don't understand how they function in the first place. i'd say we "won" the military portion of the equation, and could continue to win it, but in the long run, i think we're losing our good standing with the world, some of our dignity and in some cases our morality. not to mention the money and troops. and i definitely don't buy the republican line that if we leave they'll follow us home. i think that's a big scare tactic and highly illogical. if iraqi's really want a democracy they'll fight for it like every other democracy has over the course of history.

Its not just the GOP that is moving farther and farther right. The Democrats have been sprinting to the left. The serious Democratic Presidential candidates varied from Extreme Liberal to European Socialist.

The GOP offered moderates in the form of Rudy and McCain. A staunch Conservative in Thompson. A Conservative with a liberal past in Romney and a fairly liberal (policy wise) governor with a very Conservative moral compass in Huckabee.

The GOP offered variety. The Democrats offered various shades of left wing.

:huh: then why does the GOP keep insisting mccain isn't conservative enough?

i find it more telling that the republican party constantly rails on about "liberals" and how horrible the "far-left" is, but they're the party that has actually allowed their extremists to get a significant foothold in the party. they actually have a huge say in things like choosing a president. that's scary as hell, yet it's totally acceptable to their party members. let's see what happens if we get an actual "liberal" in the white house. i have a hard time believing they'll do anywhere close to the amount of harm that the republican extremists have done.

StorminNorman

02-20-2008, 05:38 PM

it's not secure yet. far from it. you still can't walk down the street without fear of car bombs and suicide bombers and there's still plenty of sectarian violence.

Its not secure - but it is making strives to become secure. The job is far from over, but it is becoming far more manageable. The key is maintaining this momentum and having the Iraqi Government step up. American's alone can not secure the country.

the way i see it, the american public realizes that we made a serious mistake by going into iraq and since we've poured hundreds of billions of dollars into the war effort and have sacrificed 4,000 soldiers, all while falling into a serious economic funk here at home, i think americans are just sick and tired of the war. they don't trust what the government is telling them and they're tired of reading about and seeing the bloodshed over there. so, i don't really agree that americans think we're "losing". i don't see it like that at all. our military is obviously tops in the world and we could take on anyone in a head-to-head fight, but this isn't a head-to-head fight. it's much more complex than that and it's not about kicking an enemy's ass. you can't force a country to adhere to a strict plan if you don't understand how they function in the first place. i'd say we "won" the military portion of the equation, and could continue to win it, but in the long run, i think we're losing our good standing with the world, some of our dignity and in some cases our morality. not to mention the money and troops. and i definitely don't buy the republican line that if we leave they'll follow us home. i think that's a big scare tactic and highly illogical. if iraqi's really want a democracy they'll fight for it like every other democracy has over the course of history.

We only lose our dignity if we bail out before the mission is over. Do you really not think that if we leave Al Queda, they will not paint it as victory over the Great Satan?

You are right - Iraq was the wrong war at the wrong time. The fact is though that we have to deal with the hand our leaders have dealt us. We opened a hornets nest, but it serves us best in the long term to take care of it now instead of running away in fear.

I think many American's have bought in to the idea that there is no way we can win this war. While, yes, other factors like the economy have hurt the morale of the country as a whole - I think if American's believed there was the chance of taking care of the job and leaving - there would be far more support at home.

I HOPE you are right. I want to believe that we can leave Iraq and have nothing of real consequence happen. I really do, since I don't think President McCain will be able to unite the country on the war much better than President Bush.

:huh: then why does the GOP keep insisting mccain isn't conservative enough?

i find it more telling that the republican party constantly rails on about "liberals" and how horrible the "far-left" is, but they're the party that has actually allowed their extremists to get a significant foothold in the party. they actually have a huge say in things like choosing a president. that's scary as hell, yet it's totally acceptable to their party members. let's see what happens if we get an actual "liberal" in the white house. i have a hard time believing they'll do anywhere close to the amount of harm that the republican extremists have done.

The GOP doesn't rail about McCain not being Conservative. Far Right Talk Show hosts do. Its the far right that has not accepted McCain - not Republicans in general. If that was the case, he would of never won the GOP nomination, no matter how many independents he got.

I don't think the far-left is horrible. I simply disagree with them on most issues.

And while the GOP has done a poor job in keeping the extremist from making strong footholds in the party - the Democrats have made the extremists the mainstream. Howard Dean is the head of the DNC. Nanci Pelosi is Speaker of the House. Harry Reid is Senate Majority Leader. Those are among the most liberal members, the most extreme members of the party.

Moderates like Lieberman have been shunned by the mainstream of the DNC.

Thats what makes me upset at the Democrats.

I was absolutely fed up with Republicans. I was BEGGING for a moderate from the Democrats that I could support. It never came.

hippie_hunter

02-20-2008, 05:59 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RmLfE30-kZw
I took great pleasure in this video :oldrazz:

Doomed_hero

02-20-2008, 06:14 PM

I was watching a speech with hiliary when she was once again talking about style over substance. It is starting to make me angry cause all this work she has done over the last couple of years she does nor present or refuses to disclose. And speaking just from watching the election, she has shown bad judgement in all her decsions and bad managing skills.

Obama may not have the experience most so, but that arguement has been talked to death. Alot of Presidents had experience before going to Washington, while some did not. For everyone who did, there is another one who did not, Just look at the people who have been in the Bush administration, more experince then anyone.

Yet there are some, like Abe Lincoln, who had little if none and are regarded in high regard. It's a debate that goes in circles. But just from watching the race Obama has shown better judgment and better orgainization skills. Plus his books and actions have shown me a genuine person. So he has my vote.

And all this talk about experience. I remeber a govenor from Arkansas who had little experience and ended up catching the presidency, is Hiliary discounting her own husband with these arguements.

The Senator

02-20-2008, 06:28 PM

And all this talk about experience. I remeber a govenor from Arkansas who had little experience and ended up catching the presidency, is Hiliary discounting her own husband with these arguements.

Since when does twelve years as Governor count as little experience?? :huh:

Zen

02-20-2008, 06:49 PM

Anyone gunna make a thread about the new york times report about Vicky Iseman and how she just gave the presidency to Obama??

The Senator

02-20-2008, 06:51 PM

Anyone gunna make a thread about the new york times report about Vicky Iseman and how she just gave the presidency to Obama??

What did Ms. Iseman say?

StorminNorman

02-20-2008, 06:52 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RmLfE30-kZw
I took great pleasure in this video :oldrazz:

That is truly brilliant.

I can't believe it, MSNBC has a bigger ass than Chris Mathews...

Keith Olberman!

Zen

02-20-2008, 06:54 PM

What did Ms. Iseman say?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/21/us/politics/21mccain.html?pagewanted=1&hp&sq=iseman&st=cse&scp=1

The Senator

02-20-2008, 06:57 PM

Well, according to Ross Perot, Walnuts McCain left his first wife simply because she was crippled, so I wouldn't be surprised at all if this turned out to be true.

Zen

02-20-2008, 07:02 PM

Well, according to Ross Perot, Walnuts McCain left his first wife simply because she was crippled, so I wouldn't be surprised at all if this turned out to be true.

i just think the coverage this is getting on the news right now is going to hurt McCain... its all over the nightly news right now.

Excel

02-20-2008, 07:04 PM

Since when does twelve years as Governor count as little experience?? :huh:

He had expirience. BUT he did run on a message of change and difference from the past, young vs. old ect. just like Obama did, though Hillary is not really attacking that.

Kelly

02-20-2008, 07:05 PM

Well, according to Ross Perot, Walnuts McCain left his first wife simply because she was crippled, so I wouldn't be surprised at all if this turned out to be true.

hmmmm.....sounds like the black child crapola of South Carolina in 2000....

The Senator

02-20-2008, 07:06 PM

He had expirience. BUT he did run on a message of change and difference from the past, young vs. old ect. just like Obama did, though Hillary is not really attacking that.

I didn't reply to that post because someone questioned Clinton's message. I replied because someone said he was inexperienced, which clearly wasn't the case.

The Senator

02-20-2008, 07:08 PM

hmmmm.....sounds like the black child crapola of South Carolina in 2000....

Except... John McCain actually left his wife :huh:

Kelly

02-20-2008, 07:12 PM

Except... John McCain actually left his wife :huh:

Yeah, men do that all the time......:huh: :huh: so do women....it's called divorce.....in fact over 60% in the US.....sucks but it happens.

Arc-Light

02-20-2008, 07:18 PM

Its not secure - but it is making strives to become secure. The job is far from over, but it is becoming far more manageable. The key is maintaining this momentum and having the Iraqi Government step up. American's alone can not secure the country.

------I agree------

We only lose our dignity if we bail out before the mission is over. Do you really not think that if we leave Al Queda, they will not paint it as victory over the Great Satan?

----Do we really care what they say, they will say that whenever we leave be that tomorrow or in 10 years. This isn't a popularity contest, if it was we have already lost it with he way the current administration has dealt with the international polices. I would rather save American lives and money than save face.-------

You are right - Iraq was the wrong war at the wrong time. The fact is though that we have to deal with the hand our leaders have dealt us. We opened a hornets nest, but it serves us best in the long term to take care of it now instead of running away in fear.

-----well we have ran away in fear before ( Vietnam ), and in the long run it turned out OK. How long is enough, we have been there long enough already.--------

I think many American's have bought in to the idea that there is no way we can win this war. While, yes, other factors like the economy have hurt the morale of the country as a whole - I think if American's believed there was the chance of taking care of the job and leaving - there would be far more support at home.

------Well you have to see it as we never saw it as a war, more of a MISTAKE, and the economy, time, deaths...proves as such. And the Vietnam factor that leaving to early is flawed, we can leave and still support the Iraqis that need it. I'll put it in better terms it was a #$%&-hole before we arrived, it was be a $%#&-hole when we leave, of course that depends on how much more money we give. Its up to the Iraqis to make that change. We have to help them since we are the ones who invaded, but if they continue the bloodshed with-in themselves, then that's their problem.---------

I HOPE you are right. I want to believe that we can leave Iraq and have nothing of real consequence happen. I really do, since I don't think President McCain will be able to unite the country on the war much better than President Bush.

-----I agree-------

The GOP doesn't rail about McCain not being Conservative. Far Right Talk Show hosts do. Its the far right that has not accepted McCain - not Republicans in general. If that was the case, he would of never won the GOP nomination, no matter how many independents he got.

I don't think the far-left is horrible. I simply disagree with them on most issues.

And while the GOP has done a poor job in keeping the extremist from making strong footholds in the party - the Democrats have made the extremists the mainstream. Howard Dean is the head of the DNC. Nanci Pelosi is Speaker of the House. Harry Reid is Senate Majority Leader. Those are among the most liberal members, the most extreme members of the party.

Moderates like Lieberman have been shunned by the mainstream of the DNC.

Thats what makes me upset at the Democrats.

I was absolutely fed up with Republicans. I was BEGGING for a moderate from the Democrats that I could support. It never came.

I agree there aren't any middle men anymore, it is sad both parties have to be that way.

rdh007

02-20-2008, 07:34 PM

I was absolutely fed up with Republicans. I was BEGGING for a moderate from the Democrats that I could support. It never came.

SN '08 = rdh007 '00

I wanted McCain in '00, but nooooooo, y'all had to put up he who shall not be named.

StorminNorman

02-20-2008, 08:06 PM

----Do we really care what they say, they will say that whenever we leave be that tomorrow or in 10 years. This isn't a popularity contest, if it was we have already lost it with he way the current administration has dealt with the international polices. I would rather save American lives and money than save face.-------

I could care less about the words themselves. But it would be the the calling call for all Islamofascist to focus on the "bloodied" United States to begin for the epic war to slay all infidels. I care far more about how strong we appear to the radical extremist muslims than in the eyes of Europe. I admit that BOTH are important, in the long run, but we can afford to be viewed poorly in the short term by Europe and have it have very little ill effects on us.

-----well we have ran away in fear before ( Vietnam ), and in the long run it turned out OK. How long is enough, we have been there long enough already.--------

You do realize The North Vietnamese slaughtered hundreds of thousands after we left South Vietnam right? Sure - 30 years later we have opened diplomacy, but it was a disaster for much of that time. It haunted to United States Diplomatically, Domestically and Morally.

------Well you have to see it as we never saw it as a war, more of a MISTAKE, and the economy, time, deaths...proves as such. And the Vietnam factor that leaving to early is flawed, we can leave and still support the Iraqis that need it. I'll put it in better terms it was a #$%&-hole before we arrived, it was be a $%#&-hole when we leave, of course that depends on how much more money we give. Its up to the Iraqis to make that change. We have to help them since we are the ones who invaded, but if they continue the bloodshed with-in themselves, then that's their problem.---------

But we DID see it as a war. If we leave Iraq now, the Iraqis that need are help will be killed. It happened in the Gulf War when certain groups of Iraqi's rebelled against Saddam because we told them we would help them - we left and those innocent Iraqis were killed. It IS up to the Iraqi's to make the change, but it is our responsibility to help allow them to make that change since we opened up this bloodshed.

I agree there aren't any middle men anymore, it is sad both parties have to be that way.I agree there aren't any middle men anymore, it is sad both parties have to be that way.

McCain IS a moderate - a middle man.

StorminNorman

02-20-2008, 08:09 PM

SN '08 = rdh007 '00

I wanted McCain in '00, but nooooooo, y'all had to put up he who shall not be named.

Probably so.

Its funny, I wanted Romney so bad not because I agreed with him on the issues - I probably agree with McCain more. He brought, however, a similar type of hope Obama did. That is what makes me WANT to love Obama so much. I love that spirit of hope and change.

But Romney had a record. He had positions. He has experience. He has substance to go along with the great speeches and the flawless hair.

Obama has...Hope?

Venom'sDad

02-20-2008, 08:12 PM

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/21/us/politics/21mccain.html?pagewanted=1&hp&sq=iseman&st=cse&scp=1

There may be some truth buried in that story; but hey, that's the NYTimes, a very Liberal Organization.... what do you expect. :o

Excel

02-20-2008, 08:19 PM

The Senator

02-20-2008, 08:24 PM

Excel

02-20-2008, 08:31 PM

Thats the point. You pick the best of what you got. My dream would be a Schwarzenegger white house :o

comicgirl

02-20-2008, 08:32 PM

Yeah, men do that all the time......:huh: :huh: so do women....it's called divorce.....in fact over 60% in the US.....sucks but it happens.
I could care less about who someone beds down with....silly.

Go Obama!!!!! whoot!

StorminNorman

02-20-2008, 08:34 PM

hmmmm.....sounds like the black child crapola of South Carolina in 2000....

Which was a complete lie.

There has never been one person in South Carolina that has said they received such a phone call.

jaguarr

02-20-2008, 08:35 PM

Thats the point. You pick the best of what you got. My dream would be a Schwarzenegger white house :o

No. :dry:

jag

comicgirl

02-20-2008, 08:37 PM

No. :dry:

jagtrue that

StorminNorman

02-20-2008, 08:37 PM

Again, can someone explain why expirience is so much more important than judgement?

Like I said, most dont like the war. Obama had no expirience, but predicted what would happen all the way back in 2002 while all the expirience Clinton and McCain didnt stop them from voting for it.

McCain supported the war and then was a critic of Rummy's handling of the war after Saddam's Government fell.

Since McCain's advised surge happened - the battle in Iraq has turned in America's favor.

So McCain was right there.

Also - its easy for Obama to say he wouldn't of supported the war now, in hindsite.

StorminNorman

02-20-2008, 08:39 PM

I like Gov. Schwarzenegger. I disagree with him on some issues - mainly immigration and the handling of illegal immigrants - but he is a great Governor.

The Senator

02-20-2008, 08:41 PM

Thats the point. You pick the best of what you got. My dream would be a Schwarzenegger white house :o

My dream's actually a Feingold White House, but sadly he declined to run :csad:

Venom'sDad

02-20-2008, 08:52 PM

McCain supported the war and then was a critic of Rummy's handling of the war after Saddam's Government fell.

Since McCain's advised surge happened - the battle in Iraq has turned in America's favor.

So McCain was right there.

Also - its easy for Obama to say he wouldn't of supported the war now, in hindsite.

I like McCain, but Colin Powers should get credit for the surge... he has advocated for it, really from the beginning. Bush Iraq Legacy initially hinges on being a disaster, because of Rummy stubbornness and bad relationship with one who knows... Colin Powers.

However the surge is working and there is an opportunity here to get it right.... IMO.

Kelly

02-20-2008, 09:04 PM

Which was a complete lie.

There has never been one person in South Carolina that has said they received such a phone call.

Damn, you talked to all of them???????? I'm impressed.....:cwink:

StorminNorman

02-20-2008, 09:16 PM

Damn, you talked to all of them???????? I'm impressed.....:cwink:

Hehe, I don't have to. Since no one ever came forward, its safe to assume it never happened.

Of course this is never actually mentioned by the media that loved the idea of a dirty Republican race.

StorminNorman

02-20-2008, 09:18 PM

I like McCain, but Colin Powers should get credit for the surge... he has advocated for it, really from the beginning. Bush Iraq Legacy initially hinges on being a disaster, because of Rummy stubbornness and bad relationship with one who knows... Colin Powers.

However the surge is working and there is an opportunity here to get it right.... IMO.

I don't think Colin Powel continued to put pressure on the Bush White House after he stepped down, however.

That being said- I honestly don't care who gets credit for suggesting the surge. The important this is that it works.

Venom'sDad

02-20-2008, 09:26 PM

^ SN, you are correct, no he didn't pressure the WH after he left, but what I'm saying, he advocated a very similiar plan once Baghdad was seiged. He stated many occasions, the proper way to secure the city and Rumsfeld publically dismissed it a number of times.

StorminNorman

02-20-2008, 09:28 PM

Venom'sDad

02-20-2008, 09:30 PM

Agreed

Excel

02-20-2008, 09:55 PM

Also - its easy for Obama to say he wouldn't of supported the war now, in hindsite.

Obama never supported it; he gave a speech about in october 2002 saying what he believed would happen:

I stand before you as someone who is not opposed to war in all circumstances. The Civil War was one of the bloodiest in history, and yet it was only through the crucible of the sword, the sacrifice of multitudes, that we could begin to perfect this union and drive the scourge of slavery from our soil.

I Don't Oppose All Wars

I don't oppose all wars. My grandfather signed up for a war the day after Pearl Harbor was bombed, fought in Patton's army. He fought in the name of a larger freedom, part of that arsenal of democracy that triumphed over evil.

I don't oppose all wars. After September 11, after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, I supported this administration's pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly take up arms myself to prevent such tragedy from happening again.

Opposed to Dumb, Rash Wars

I don't oppose all wars. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.
What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income, to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression.

That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.

On Saddam Hussein

Now let me be clear: I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power.... The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors...and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.

I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences.

I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.

I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars. So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the president.

You Want a Fight, President Bush?

You want a fight, President Bush? Let's finish the fight with Bin Laden and al-Qaeda, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to make sure that...we vigorously enforce a nonproliferation treaty, and that former enemies and current allies like Russia safeguard and ultimately eliminate their stores of nuclear material, and that nations like Pakistan and India never use the terrible weapons already in their possession, and that the arms merchants in our own country stop feeding the countless wars that rage across the globe.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East, the Saudis and the Egyptians, stop oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and tolerating corruption and inequality, and mismanaging their economies so that their youth grow up without education, without prospects, without hope, the ready recruits of terrorist cells.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to wean ourselves off Middle East oil through an energy policy that doesn't simply serve the interests of Exxon and Mobil.
Those are the battles that we need to fight. Those are the battles that we willingly join. The battles against ignorance and intolerance. Corruption and greed. Poverty and despair."

hippie_hunter

02-20-2008, 09:56 PM

Well, according to Ross Perot, Walnuts McCain left his first wife simply because she was crippled, so I wouldn't be surprised at all if this turned out to be true.

Actually this issue has been touched upon a while ago and McCain laid the blame of the break up of his first marriage upon himself:

Sound marriages can be hard to recover after great time and distance have separated a husband and wife. We are different people when we reunite. But my marriage's collapse was attributable to my own selfishness and immaturity more than it was to Vietnam, and I cannot escape blame by pointing a finger at the war. The blame was entirely mine.

His ex-wife had this to comment on it too:

The breakup of our marriage was not caused by my accident or Vietnam or any of those things. I don't know that it might not have happened if John had never been gone. I attribute it more to John turning 40 and wanting to be 25 again than I do to anything else.

Mr Sparkle

02-20-2008, 09:59 PM

But Romney had a record. He had positions. He has experience. He has substance to go along with the great speeches and the flawless hair.

Obama has...Hope?

People are strange.
and not in the when-you're-a-stranger-lizard-king kind of way, but in the worst way.
I have heard the most baffling arguments being thrown around when it comes to this election, the only thing that tops them? the arguments throw around the last time.
I particularly liked the " he's ugly, hence not presidential material" stuff for John Kerry.
but this, this is the height of it.
it's the damned if you do, damned if you don't thing for Obama.
because if he acts like a politician he inmediately gets called out on it, like lighting fast, but then, in the blink of an eye, the position switches and then he's not enough of a politician.
you people are familar with politics? like at all?
you understand that there's no such thing as clean politician? no such thing, I know that all you college kids doing the Ron Paul boredom express thought you stood for something.
you didn't, he was just another politician.
Dems and Republicans? hahaha! you people think there is a far-left?
really? are you kidding me? both of your parties are almost indistiguishable nowadays, there's no real left anymore, last time I checked Bob Avakian wasn't running for office.
it's a machine and you have to change it, you have to underscore change you have to foster it, Hilarry showed that she was the most willing to bend over to become president, that's a bad sign, and you know what?
so did McCain.
McCain was marvelous in 2000, worthy oponnent to Gore both intelligent men with good mindsets about government both colored by their generation.
now? McCain is little more than a whore, it was painful to watch really and anyone who kept tabs on politics in the last 8 years has seen the McCain transformation and has had to force themselves not to wince everytime they hear him talk.
Obama is really not that different from all of them, but he is the one cnadidate that has a chance to redefine the face of establishment in the US, it's a minor change and really, to be honest I do like some of his ideas.
but that change is really up to the bulk of voters in the US and the bulk of voters in the US is uninformed, lazy and afraid.
so as far as Obama having " hope " I don;t really think that's going to get him too far these days.

these days you need soundbites.

StorminNorman

02-20-2008, 10:12 PM

it's the damned if you do, damned if you don't thing for Obama.
because if he acts like a politician he inmediately gets called out on it, like lighting fast, but then, in the blink of an eye, the position switches and

When Obama is trying to paint himself as NOT being a normal politician - yes. He SHOULD be called out on it. When me makes a claim that he is going to live by some higher rule of conduct (about campaign funds) and then backs down - he SHOULD be called back on it. His entire campaign based is based around style - not substance. He is trying to say that his lack of record SHOULDN'T matter - because he is new and fresh and will bring change and hope to America.

You can't do that if you are acting like everyone else.

then he's not enough of a politician.

His lack of experience IS laughable. Period. He may be the least qualified candidate to EVER run.

you people are familar with politics? like at all?
you understand that there's no such thing as clean politician? no such thing, I know that all you college kids doing the Ron Paul boredom express thought you stood for something.
you didn't, he was just another politician.

Everyone is human. Every politician jumps through the same hoops or they don't get elected. Yada yada yada...

Dems and Republicans? hahaha! you people think there is a far-left?
really? are you kidding me? both of your parties are almost indistiguishable nowadays, there's no real left anymore, last time I checked Bob Avakian wasn't running for office.

Look at what Hillary and Obama are proposing! They AREN'T a massive leap towards the left spectrum? Universal Health Care - reliance on the government! A global tax. Etc. etc.

Those are position heavily slanted to the left.

it's a machine and you have to change it, you have to underscore change you have to foster it, Hilarry showed that she was the most willing to bend over to become president, that's a bad sign, and you know what?
so did McCain.

Washington IS broke. The way to the White House is not. I want reforms in the parties. Thats where change has to happen, I agree.

McCain was marvelous in 2000, worthy oponnent to Gore both intelligent men with good mindsets about government both colored by their generation.
now? McCain is little more than a whore, it was painful to watch really and anyone who kept tabs on politics in the last 8 years has seen the McCain transformation and has had to force themselves not to wince everytime they hear him talk.

Honestly his positions haven't changed THAT much. He has simply tried to embrace the heavy hitters of the GOP, that doesn't mean he has fit his beliefs, necessarily, to fit them. He is still against the party on many issues.

Obama is really not that different from all of them, but he is the one cnadidate that has a chance to redefine the face of establishment in the US, it's a minor change and really, to be honest I do like some of his ideas.
but that change is really up to the bulk of voters in the US and the bulk of voters in the US is uninformed, lazy and afraid.
so as far as Obama having " hope " I don;t really think that's going to get him too far these days.

Obama is NO different from all of them - accept that he claims to be. At least you see just how transparent Obama's message is.

StorminNorman

02-20-2008, 10:14 PM

Obama never supported it; he gave a speech about in october 2002 saying what he believed would happen:

It is one thing to make such a statement when you are not in Washington. Not seeing the intell they see, not getting the briefs they get.

That is the point I was making. You can say you would make that decision in Hillary's shoes - but it doesn't mean anything.

Excel

02-20-2008, 10:20 PM

Im just saying he was right, and it didnt take any expirience to figure it out.

Lightning Strykez!

02-20-2008, 10:22 PM

Am I being too harsh?

She just comes across as a manipulating ball-buster who probably charged Bill cold hard cash every time she dropped her drawls.

:lmao:

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!

:up:!!!

The Senator

02-20-2008, 10:30 PM

Im just saying he was right, and it didnt take any expirience to figure it out.

Well, then by that logic, the weatherman should be President simply because he predicted the weather correctly.

You can't tell the outcome of a war before it happens. And I think that blaming Hillary Clinton because she voted to authorize the war is not a solid reason not to support her. She's constantly criticized the organization of the war, and has called for a different strategy once/ if she becomes President. Like SN said, at the time, the intel, altered or not, indicated that Saddam was planning to manufacture weapons of mass destruction. Hindsight is 20/20.

With all due respect, Obama, while he was running for Senate, brushed aside the notion we should withdraw our troops from Iraq. He said we should remain there until we've accomplished the mission. So he may have been quick to criticize it when he was a little-known State Senator, but his overt criticism didn't re-emerge until he was plotting a run for the Presidency himself. He even voted against John Kerry's bill two years ago which would have withdrawn all troops by April 2007.

Obama can say that he didn't support the war, but what he should really say is he didn't support the war before he was in Washington, he supported the war when he was in Washington so it didn't bite him in the ass politically, and now he's against it because he's running for President and most Americans are against it. He's just as guilty of parsing over Iraq as Hillary is.