U.S. Elections 2008: General Elections -- Analysis and Commentary [Archive] - Page 3

PanzerJaeger

07-16-2008, 20:49

After parting the Nile, Obama's planning on eliminating ALL nuclear weopons! (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D91V3A3O0&show_article=1) Free health care, free college, no more war, economic renaissance, and now no more nukes... I can't wait! Is it too early to declare Jesus 2.0?

WEST LAFAYETTE, Ind. (AP) - Democrat Barack Obama warned Wednesday about the danger of "fighting the last war" as he pledged to focus on emerging nuclear, biological and cyber threats if elected president.
Two goals of his administration would be to secure all loose nuclear material during his first term and to rid the world of nuclear weapons, Obama told an audience before a roundtable discussion at Purdue University.

Obama said adhering to nonproliferation treaties would put pressure on nations such as North Korea and Iran. North Korea has tested a nuclear weapon and Iran has an energy program the Bush administration warns could be a precursor to nuclear weapon development.

"As long as nuclear weapons exist, we'll retain a strong deterrent. But we will make the goal of eliminating all nuclear weapons a central element in our nuclear policy," Obama said.

He added, "The danger ... is that we are constantly fighting the last war, responding to the threats that have come to fruition, instead of staying one step ahead of the threats of the 21st century."

Among those joining him for the panel discussion were two potential running mates, Sen. Evan Bayh, D-Ind., and former Sen. Sam Nunn, D-Ga. Bayh has demurred when asked about running on a ticket with Obama, but he was effusive in his praise of the likely Democratic nominee.

Recalling a trip they made to Iraq together, Bayh said: "He was pragmatic, he was focused, although he was wise enough to oppose that conflict from the beginning because he understood it was a strategic diversion. He's now tough enough to get us out and to do it in the right way, refocus on Afghanistan and Iran and the other real threats that are evolving."

Nunn, a defense expert, is viewed as a senior statesman who could offset the relative youth of Obama, a freshman senator from Illinois. He said he supported Obama's nonproliferation pledge and outlined the challenges Obama would face in the Oval Office as if he were already elected.

During his remarks, Obama paid tribute to Sen. Richard Lugar, a popular Indiana Republican who has focused on nuclear nonproliferation issues for much of his career, working closely with Nunn.

Indiana is a Republican-leaning state that Obama hopes to put it in play in the general election, capitalizing in part on his status as a senator from neighboring Illinois.

In addition to his focus on nuclear matter, Obama called for investing in methods to prevent, detect and contain biological attacks. He highlighted a proposal to spend $5 billion over three years to develop an international intelligence and law enforcement infrastructure to stymie terrorist networks.

"Making these changes will do more than help us tackle bioterror; it will also create new jobs, it will support a healthier population and improve America's capability to respond to any major disaster," he said.

Coping with cyber security for an increasingly online world will protect the country's economic and national security assets, Obama said, and he pledged to appoint a cyber adviser who will coordinate government efforts and report directly to the president.

"All of this will demand the greatest resource that America has, and that's our people," said Obama. "In the Cold War, we didn't defeat the Soviets just because of the strength of our arms. We also did it because at the dawn of the atomic age and at the onset of the space race, the smartest scientists and most innovative work force was here in America."

Obama jabbed at President Bush and his Republican rival, Sen. John McCain of Arizona. "Instead of adjusting to the stateless threats of the 21st century, we invaded and occupied a state that had no collaborative relationship with al-Qaida. Instead of taking aggressive steps to secure the world's most dangerous weapons and technology, we spent almost a trillion dollars to occupy a country in the heart of the Middle East that no longer had any weapons of mass destruction."

The event continued the buildup for Obama's upcoming visit to Iraq and Afghanistan as well as Europe. The campaign also released on national cable TV its latest ad, which promotes the national security and foreign policy agenda.

(We can only hope that Obama is continuing to be a complete hypocrite and that this is pure pandering in the truest sense of the "Old Politics" he loves to rail against. Or is he trully planning on leaving America the only nation at the nuclear party that followed the dress code?)

Lemur

07-16-2008, 22:52

Egads! Gadzooks! Here's what Sen. Obama said that provoked PJ's swoon of disbelief:

" 'As long as nuclear weapons exist, we'll retain a strong deterrent. But we will make the goal of eliminating all nuclear weapons a central element in our nuclear policy,' Obama said."

So ... as long as nuclear weapons exist -- which is forever -- we'll retain a deterrent. So really Obama is saying nothing, but spinning it in a vaguely anti-nuclear-war kind of way. In other words, he's saying nothing and making it sound pretty. Or in other words, he's being a politician.

Quick, fetch the smelling salts and loosen Panzer's corset. This ball is entirely too stuffy and there's far too much dancing going on for respectable young ladies.

PanzerJaeger

07-16-2008, 22:55

Lemur

07-16-2008, 23:00

Now now, young Panzer, don't stir yourself. You need a good rest after a fit of the vapors. I'll fetch you some lemon water and we'll watch the ball from the balcony.

PanzerJaeger

07-16-2008, 23:09

Lawd, this pansy is wiltin' faster than General Lee himself in the war of Northern Aggression... :drama1:

CrossLOPER

07-17-2008, 00:04

You two make a cute couple.

discovery1

07-17-2008, 00:48

LEMUR'S CHEATING ON DEVDAVE!

To contribute: little bit on Obama's foreign policy (http://www.economist.com/world/na/displayStory.cfm?story_id=11739532&source=features_box_main)

CountArach

07-17-2008, 08:54

Barack Obama = George Bush (http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/07/mccain_camps_new_attack_obama.php)

Man you just can't make this stuff up! I love your elections! :laugh4:

Banquo's Ghost

07-17-2008, 19:06

On a serious matter, I would be interested in our US members' views on this article (http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/johann-hari-we-have-everything-to-fear-from-mccain-869681.html) which has a rather concerning assessment of Senator McCain's economic competence.

Has McCain really claimed economic indifference/lack of knowledge?

Did he really rely on such a man as Gramm, and is this fellow as painted?

Since the economic situation is surely growing as a major issue, is the press covering this and how is the senator faring?

Warning: Naughty word in the original.

Johann Hari: We have everything to fear from McCain

Thursday, 17 July 2008

When the almost six billion of us outside the US watch the contest for The Most Powerful Man in the World, we tend to focus on the candidates' foreign policies. If I was Iranian, say, I'd be anxious that John McCain keeps joking in public about killing me. As a bravo-bow after singing "bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran" to the tune of the Beach Boys melody Barbra Ann, he responded to being told exports of cigarettes to Iran are high by guffawing: "That's a way of killing them!"

But there's a way in which the next US president will affect you even more directly than foreign policy. By his economic decisions, the next president will help swing the price of the food you eat and the wages you earn – wherever you live on earth.

So it's a little worrying that John McCain – who still has a reasonable chance of winning – says: "The issue of economics is not something I've understood as well as I should... To be honest, I know a lot less about economics than I do about military and foreign policy issues. I still need to be educated."

This is a man who can't tell his Sunni from his Shia, and who opposed the Northern Ireland peace process as a capitulation to terrorism. And he admits he knows even less about the economy than that. On one occasion, he let his irritation with the subject slip by referring to it as "the credit :daisy:".

When he is forced to talk about the economy, McCain has always given the same answer: "I rely on the circle I have developed over many years – people like Phil Gramm." He has Herbert Hoovered-up his slivers of economic theory from this man – but who is Gramm? Until he briefly sputtered into the headlines a few days ago, nobody had cared to look.

Phil Gramm is an ornery old ex-Texas senator who seems to have swooped out of the most scathing H L Mencken sketch. He became McCain's "best friend in politics" – and started speaking to him every day – when they linked arms to stop Hillary Clinton's 1993 push to extend healthcare to poor Americans.

He calls for "ruthlessly" slashing government spending – but only focuses on spending on the poor. When he was told paying for healthcare plunged many 80-year-olds into poverty, he said: "Most of us don't have the luxury of living to be 80 years old, so it's hard for me to feel sorry for them."

Later, one of those very 80-year-olds approached him because she was terrified she wouldn't be able to pay her medical bills. Gramm laughed and told her to find herself a rich husband. He chuckled: "People say I don't have a heart. I do. I keep it in a quart jar on my desk."

But most relevant to those of us outside the US is that Gramm – more than any other figure in American politics – made the two great financial scandals of our time possible, and nearly brought the global economy down with him.

How? Gramm says government regulation of the economy is "akin to communism", and must be destroyed. His first great step towards this goal came in the 1990s, when he championed and pushed through the law that exempted Enron from both government regulation and public disclosure, on the grounds these were "unacceptable fetters on the free market". Enron was his biggest campaign contributor, and employing his wife to the tune of a million bucks.

So thanks to Gramm, nobody was watching over Enron any more. As a result, they embarked on a massive programme of fraud and pillage. After taking over the electricity market in California, they deliberately engineered blackouts in entire cities to drive up the price for power. In a surreal move, Gramm blamed "environmental extremists" – the nearest bogeyman to hand – even after it was proven Enron execs had paid the power plants to "get creative" in turning out the lights.

Gramm learned from the Enron scandal – to go further and push harder. He turned his attention (and his fund-raising) to the mortgage companies. Since the 1930s, there had been an unwritten deal in US politics: the government would rescue the banks if they grew sick, but in return the banks had to take the sensible medicine of regulation. Gramm thought this was "crazy": why would banks ever need to be rescued in a free market?

So in 2000, while everybody was riveted by the Gore vs Bush stand-off in Florida, Gramm slipped into a vast 3,000-page bill 268 pages radically deregulating the banking system. A legal textbook later called this "a stunning departure from normal legislative practice"; few lawmakers noticed it was there when they voted. Suddenly, the roles that had been reserved in the US for regulated banks were handed over to a vast network of unregulated financial institutions called the "shadow banking system." They began to offer wildly unsustainable mortgages to the poor at supersonic interest rates. Through accountancy-acrobatics, they then bundled these risky loans into exotic packages of derivative commodities.

All this was only legal because of Gramm's legislative footwork. He swiftly moved on from the Senate to a megabucks job at UBS, one of the banks raking in billions from his changes.

Within a few years, the entire system began to collapse without the support beams of state regulation. Sub-prime mortgages predictably fell apart, with 2 million Americans – mostly black and Hispanic – facing repossession. The state has had to step in with a much heavier hand than before – and even that will not prevent a recession now.

The billionaire Warren Buffet pointed out that Phil Gramm has twice tossed "financial weapons of mass destruction" into the US economy. Yet instead of shunning him, McCain made Gramm the co-chair of his presidential campaign, and hinted he might make him Treasury Secretary. McCain – the supposed scourge of buying influence – was even happy for Gramm to be simultaneously a paid lobbyist for the mortgage industry and helping to write his speeches about the mortgage crisis. The Gramm-grip on McCain's policies shows: incredibly, the wannabe-president responded to the credit crunch caused by deregulation by calling for even more deregulation.

The biggest question in US politics should be: would you buy a mortgage from this man? But it's a sign of how shallow the media coverage is that Gramm's ideological fanaticism passed almost without comment; he only became an issue when he made a silly verbal gaffe, claiming America is only in a "mental recession". (In CEO-Land, this is true: they are walking away with $100m bonuses from their failures.) Only then did McCain distance himself.

So it seems for this putative president, causing two major economic crises is fine – but speaking about them crudely is a step too far. Yessir: if you liked the credit crunch, you'll love McCainomics.

Marshal Murat

07-17-2008, 19:32

So, Banquo, are you saying that we need to kill Phil?

CrossLOPER

07-17-2008, 21:09

My dog for Treasurer.

Crazed Rabbit

07-18-2008, 04:02

Banquo -

when they linked arms to stop Hillary Clinton's 1993 push to extend healthcare to poor Americans.

That basically tells you the man is not near objective.

And a very good reason to keep Obama out of the white house:
An argument against Obama's tax plan (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0708/11670.html)

Make no mistake about it: Obama’s plan to raise taxes on households making more than $250,000 will raise taxes on most small-business profits in America.

What type of tax rate are we talking about? Currently, S corporations face a top tax rate of 35 percent, while sole proprietors and general partners face a tax rate of 37.9 percent (since they’re responsible for paying both income tax and the Medicare component of the payroll tax).

Under Obama’s plan to let the scheduled 2011 tax rate hikes occur, and his plan to raise the self-employment tax on those making more than $250,000, the S corporation rate would rise from 35 percent to 39.6 percent. The sole proprietor and partner rate would rise from 37.9 percent all the way up to a staggering 50.3 percent. Many Democrats in Congress have proposed making all small businesses (including S corporations) pay this 50-plus percent rate. A small business tax rate that high would be the highest marginal rate faced by them in nearly a quarter-century.

What would a world look like where two-thirds of all small-business income would be taxed at a 50 percent rate? The economic law that “taxing something more and getting less of it” would apply. Fewer Americans would be interested in opening or expanding small businesses. Tax evasion and legal tax avoidance would spike, as tax shelters would once again become a booming industry. Since small businesses create a majority of jobs in America, Main Street closing up shop will have a direct impact on the family budget, as well. Plants and equipment will go unused. Despite the misguided opinions of static scorers in Washington, federal tax revenues will likely decline as the economy staggers into a full-on recession.

That sort of tax increase on small business would be terrible.

CR

Marshal Murat

07-18-2008, 04:09

decline as the economy staggers into a full-on recession.

Which Obama will blame on failed Republican tax policies under Bush.

Sasaki Kojiro

07-18-2008, 04:28

Under Obama’s plan to let the scheduled 2011 tax rate hikes occur, and his plan to raise the self-employment tax on those making more than $250,000, the S corporation rate would rise from 35 percent to 39.6 percent. The sole proprietor and partner rate would rise from 37.9 percent all the way up to a staggering 50.3 percent. Many Democrats in Congress have proposed making all small businesses (including S corporations) pay this 50-plus percent rate. A small business tax rate that high would be the highest marginal rate faced by them in nearly a quarter-century.

Funny stuff.

A Republican in Congress has suggested going back to the gold standard and eliminating the FDA...if you elect McCain THIS WILL HAPPEN!!!!

Lemur

07-18-2008, 05:27

Let's be clear here -- that editorial from Politico was written by Grover Norquist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grover_Norquist), who is so violently anti-tax that he compares the estate tax to the Holocaust.

PanzerJaeger

07-18-2008, 07:20

Banquo's Ghost

07-18-2008, 07:21

That basically tells you the man is not near objective.

I don't disagree, but its not the objectivity of an opinion piece that I was asking about but the allegations contained therein.

If there is some substance to them, McCain may be a serious liability for a world entering a complex and challenging few years. Perhaps the economy is not a relevant topic for presidential elections anymore but I am interested in the impact a candiate's record may have on how he handles the next few years.

Because I know Mr Hari is not objective - but does often do his research - I was asking for American colleagues' opinions to balance out what was written - or to confirm it. This stuff is of real interest to those of us who don't get to vote, but whose lives will get affected substantially by your choice in November.

(You might remember the sense of unease that grew in a previous era of lives impacted by decisions not balanced through representation :wink:).

Crazed Rabbit

07-18-2008, 07:37

I don't find the article to be truthful; Hari distorts the reasons behind the banking crisis, which began with the rising home market and sub standard mortgages being given out by the banks. Now, as a result of that bad decision, the banks are suffering.

In short, McCain's advisor does seem to be solidly on the right economically, but not to the radical extent Hari alleges, and he has sensationalized his record.

Let's be clear here -- that editorial from Politico was written by Grover Norquist, who is so violently anti-tax that he compares the estate tax to the Holocaust.

And let's be clear that you're being disingenuous. :yes:

Norquist stated that "the morality that says it's OK to do something to do a group because they're a small percentage of the population is the morality that says that the Holocaust is OK because they didn't target everybody, just a small percentage."

Don't refute the points or anything.

Really. Any way you cut it, such a rate increase on small business owners, who do employ most Americans, would be very bad.

Sasaki - the GOP is in the minority in congress. Also, as a party they are not fond of pushing the gold standard, like the democrats like to push tax increases (especially on those nasty rich).

CR

Sasaki Kojiro

07-18-2008, 19:45

Sasaki - the GOP is in the minority in congress. Also, as a party they are not fond of pushing the gold standard, like the democrats like to push tax increases (especially on those nasty rich).

The point is you can't attribute the statements of congressman to a presidential candidate just because they are in the same party. Which is exactly what your article did.

In other news,

Bush agrees to "Time Horizon" for withdrawal from Iraq (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25736448/)

You see, it's not a "timetable". It's a time horizon.

Lemur

07-18-2008, 20:33

Yeah, Bush appears to be following Obama's positions every chance he gets (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/07/20080718.html). It's likely that the difference between the McCain and Obama plans for Iraq/Afghanistan will be too narrow for daylight come November.

As for Grover Norquist, what's to say? The dude is an extremist. He wants to (http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/g/grover_norquist.html) "shrink government to the size where we can drown it in a bathtub." Uh, okay. He's Best Friends Forever with Karl Rove. We're not talking about a mainstream figure here.

Norquist is yet another right-winger intent on proving that government is bad by ensuring government is bad. It's in exactly the same vein in which "conservatives" prove that all sources of news are biased by creating and funding blatantly biased news sources.

Amazing how you can prove negatives when you set out to create them.

PanzerJaeger

07-19-2008, 00:17

As for Grover Norquist, what's to say? The dude is an extremist. He wants to (http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/g/grover_norquist.html) "shrink government to the size where we can drown it in a bathtub." Uh, okay. He's Best Friends Forever with Karl Rove. We're not talking about a mainstream figure here.

Norquist is yet another right-winger intent on proving that government is bad by ensuring government is bad. It's in exactly the same vein in which "conservatives" prove that all sources of news are biased by creating and funding blatantly biased news sources.

Amazing how you can prove negatives when you set out to create them.

:coffeenews:

Some more lame character attacks, this time based on an even more innocuous quote and associations with Karl Rove. Ironically, in the mind of a Lemur, Barack escapes the "EXTREMIST!~!" label despite his 20 year association to a certain close spiritual mentor - among others. :inquisitive:

However, I was fascinated by the broad brush attack/rant/gibberish against the evil right wingers intent on making the government "bad" to prove its "bad" and other passive aggressive tendencies. A tin foil hat would have made the experience all the more enjoyable, though. :shrug:

Lemur

07-19-2008, 01:26

Mustn't ... feed ... troll ...

Marshal Murat

07-19-2008, 01:34

Troll! Fresh Virgin! (http://thehill.com/campaign-2008/gramm-steps-down-as-mccains-co-chair-2008-07-18.html)

Crazed Rabbit

07-19-2008, 02:57

m52nickerson

07-19-2008, 03:21

Banquo -

That basically tells you the man is not near objective.

And a very good reason to keep Obama out of the white house:
An argument against Obama's tax plan (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0708/11670.html)

That sort of tax increase on small business would be terrible.

CR

Funny it seems that only 2% of small business would be affected by Obama's plan. Link (http://factcheck.barackobama.com/factcheck/2008/06/10/mccain_tax.php)

Less than 2 Percent of Small Businesses Would be Affected by Rolling Back the Bush Tax Cuts on the Wealthy: According to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, less than 2 percent of individual tax filers who report small business income fall into the top two marginal tax rates. Tax Policy Center, 4/27/07 (http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/numbers/displayatab.cfm?Docid=1534&DocTypeID=7)

I wonder were Norquist gets his data?

PanzerJaeger

07-19-2008, 08:18

Mustn't ... feed ... troll ...

Weakness and personal attacks... business as usual. :2thumbsup:

Really though Lemur, how hard is it to hold one's own in a discussion forum? You swooped in like the Caped Liberal Crusader to discredit the author of a piece without even mentioning one point he made, and all it took was the mere mentioning of that fact to turn you into the proverbial fat girl on the play ground chanting "Sticks and Stones"...~:mecry:

Banquo's Ghost

07-19-2008, 08:36

Gentlemen, please.

:beadyeyes2:

CountArach

07-19-2008, 10:08

Which Obama will blame on failed Republican tax policies under Bush.
Because they are at fault :nod:

As for CR's article, I just want to point out that:

Economists know what matters is the tax rate that’s applied to the bulk of small-business income.
...
What would a world look like where two-thirds of all small-business income would be taxed at a 50 percent rate? The economic law that “taxing something more and getting less of it” would apply. Fewer Americans would be interested in opening or expanding small businesses. Tax evasion and legal tax avoidance would spike, as tax shelters would once again become a booming industry. Since small businesses create a majority of jobs in America, Main Street closing up shop will have a direct impact on the family budget, as well. Plants and equipment will go unused. Despite the misguided opinions of static scorers in Washington, federal tax revenues will likely decline as the economy staggers into a full-on recession.
is simply untrue. First off the economy is already in a recession...

Secondly I looked into the idea that economists wouldn't support Obama and I found this list (http://econ4obama.blogspot.com/2008/06/obama-economic-advisors-and-economic.html) of economists who support Obama (Including two Nobel laureates). So it is far from one-sided.

I then looked into the bolded quote some more and came up with this (http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/url.cfm?ID=411693) article which quite simply states:

Although both candidates have at times stressed fiscal responsibility, their specific non-health tax proposals would reduce tax revenues by $3.6 trillion (McCain) and $2.7 trillion (Obama) over the next 10 years, or approximately 10 and 7 percent of the revenues scheduled for collection under current law, respectively. Furthermore, as in the case of President Bush’s tax cuts, the true cost of McCain’s policies may be masked by phase-ins and sunsets (scheduled expiration dates) that reduce the estimated revenue costs. If his policies were fully phased in and permanent, the ten-year cost would rise to $4.0 trillion, or about 11 percent of total revenues.
So McCain would just leave the budget in an even more disgraceful state than Obama's tax plan.

That's all I can be bothered to do for today, but I will leave this link up for TuffStuff: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/19/us/politics/19romney.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

Lemur

07-19-2008, 15:16

And now that Norquist's article has been refuted, I expect the entire line of attack will be dropped with never another mention. 'Cause it never was about tax policy and small businesses, was it?

Meanwhile, go ahead and rationalize this away (http://www.reuters.com/article/vcCandidateFeed2/idUSL198009020080719):

[Iraqi Prime Minister] Maliki said he wanted U.S. troops to withdraw from Iraq as soon as possible.

"U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama talks about 16 months. That, we think, would be the right timeframe for a withdrawal, with the possibility of slight changes." [...]

"Whoever is thinking about the shorter term is closer to reality. Artificially extending the stay of U.S. troops would cause problems."

Not that it matters, since McCain will move toward Obama's position as quickly as he decently can. Hell, even President Bush is copying Senator Obama's playbook these days ...

m52nickerson

07-19-2008, 15:55

Crazed Rabbit

07-19-2008, 18:06

Funny it seems that only 2% of small business would be affected by Obama's plan. Link (http://factcheck.barackobama.com/factcheck/2008/06/10/mccain_tax.php)

Less than 2 Percent of Small Businesses Would be Affected by Rolling Back the Bush Tax Cuts on the Wealthy: According to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, less than 2 percent of individual tax filers who report small business income fall into the top two marginal tax rates. Tax Policy Center, 4/27/07 (http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/numbers/displayatab.cfm?Docid=1534&DocTypeID=7)

I wonder were Norquist gets his data?

No, 2% of people who report some income from small businesses. Not the same thing. 21% of people have some income from small business. That's not the same as people who own small businesses.

Secondly I looked into the idea that economists wouldn't support Obama and I found this list of economists who support Obama (Including two Nobel laureates). So it is far from one-sided.

And here's the list of economists supporting McCain. Five Nobel Laureates. ~;p So it is pretty lopsided.

So McCain would just leave the budget in an even more disgraceful state than Obama's tax plan.

Or, he'd cut the budget. :lightbulb:

Now if that is not foresight, what is?

The only reason we can consider that is because of the surge, which Obama strongly opposed, saying it would not stop the violence.

And now that Norquist's article has been refuted, I expect the entire line of attack will be dropped with never another mention. 'Cause it never was about tax policy and small businesses, was it?

What ... ? You expect me to stop attacking Obama's stupid economics? What do you think it was about? The octosquid conspiracy?

CR

Lemur

07-19-2008, 18:34

Or, he'd cut the budget. :lightbulb:
Yeah, 'cause Republicans have such a great track record on cutting the budget. Why, after the last seven years, there's hardly any budget left to hate! It's not as though a Republican president and a Republican-controlled congress passed the biggest increase in entitlement spending since the New Deal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicare_Prescription_Drug%2C_Improvement%2C_and_Modernization_Act). And if we'll just keep giving the Republicans the keys to the kingdom, we can expect more of the same!

The only reason we can consider that is because of the surge, which Obama strongly opposed, saying it would not stop the violence.
Uh, no, he said it wouldn't address political reconciliation (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-obama-iraq_dorningjul16,0,3356588.story), not that it would not stop the violence.

Obama argued that the claim of success for the troop "surge" made by McCain and Bush "misconstrues what is necessary to succeed in Iraq and stubbornly ignores the facts of the broader strategic picture that we face." [...] And yet, Obama argued, "Iraq's leaders have not made the political progress that was the purpose of the 'surge.'"

(Which ignores the fact that it's impossible to make political progress without a reduction in violence, but still, you should slam the guy accurately (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/05/us/politics/05text-ddebate.html?_r=2&pagewanted=13&oref=login).)

I had no doubt, and I said when I opposed the surge, that given how wonderfully our troops perform, if we place 30,000 more troops in there, then we would see an improvement in the security situation and we would see a reduction in the violence.

What ... ? You expect me to stop attacking Obama's stupid economics? What do you think it was about? The octosquid conspiracy?
I think there's more tribalism at work here than anyone would like to admit. Go team!

m52nickerson

07-19-2008, 20:04

No, 2% of people who report some income from small businesses. Not the same thing. 21% of people have some income from small business. That's not the same as people who own small businesses.
I'm sorry, how do you make money from a small business and not own a small business?

Plus your statement has little to do with the fact that only 2% of all small businesses would be affected.

Crazed Rabbit

07-19-2008, 21:37

I think there's more tribalism at work here than anyone would like to admit. Go team!

Well now we know where you're coming from.

Yeah, 'cause Republicans have such a great track record on cutting the budget. Why, after the last seven years, there's hardly any budget left to hate! It's not as though a Republican president and a Republican-controlled congress passed the biggest increase in entitlement spending since the New Deal. And if we'll just keep giving the Republicans the keys to the kingdom, we can expect more of the same!

Where's the 'gridlock is good' Lemur? Voting McCain in with the current dem congress would be giving noone the keys to the kingdom.

Uh, no, he said it wouldn't address political reconciliation, not that it would not stop the violence.

Obama argued that the claim of success for the troop "surge" made by McCain and Bush "misconstrues what is necessary to succeed in Iraq and stubbornly ignores the facts of the broader strategic picture that we face." [...] And yet, Obama argued, "Iraq's leaders have not made the political progress that was the purpose of the 'surge.'"

(Which ignores the fact that it's impossible to make political progress without a reduction in violence, but still, you should slam the guy accurately.)

I had no doubt, and I said when I opposed the surge, that given how wonderfully our troops perform, if we place 30,000 more troops in there, then we would see an improvement in the security situation and we would see a reduction in the violence.

Well, that's funny, considering here's a video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NVy5REoiDJo) containing him saying the surge will not solve the violence "but will do the reverse".

I'm sorry, how do you make money from a small business and not own a small business?

Plus your statement has little to do with the fact that only 2% of all small businesses would be affected.

Guess what; Obama's using spin. According to his data, 21.5% of US taxpayers get income from a small business. His site took this to mean 21.5% of taxpayers own a small business, which I don't think is true.

Oh, and Obama says 'one bomb' (http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0807/16/ino.01.html) fell on Pearl Harbor. Good to see he's got such a good grasp of history.:dizzy2:

CR

m52nickerson

07-19-2008, 21:53

Well, that's funny, considering here's a video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NVy5REoiDJo) containing him saying the surge will not solve the violence "but will do the reverse".

This is true, but try to stay on point. Obama has been stating that it is time to get out of Iraq, and now so is Bush and soon McCain will also. Your point has only shows he was wrong about the surge.

Guess what; Obama's using spin. According to his data, 21.5% of US taxpayers get income from a small business. His site took this to mean 21.5% of taxpayers own a small business, which I don't think is true.

You did not answer my question, how does one get income from a small business and not own one.

Plus it does not matter if 50% or 10% of people in this country own a small business. Only 2% of those who do own a small business would be affected.

Oh, and Obama says 'one bomb' (http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0807/16/ino.01.html) fell on Pearl Harbor. Good to see he's got such a good grasp of history.:dizzy2:

Your mean this part of the transcript "Throughout our history, America's confronted constantly evolving danger, from the oppression of an empire, to the lawlessness of the frontier, from the bomb that fell on Pearl Harbor, to the threat of nuclear annihilation. Americans have adapted to the threats posed by an ever-changing world."

So someone typed "bomb" instead of "bombs" and this is your big come back. Weak, very weak.

Marshal Murat

07-19-2008, 22:01

Your point has only shows he (Obama) was wrong about the surge
If Obama was incorrect about the effects of the surge, what does that show about his decision-making skills (especially on the world stage?)

I will agree with CR concerning the spending. Spending has always decreased when one party owns Congress, the other the White House. Republicans + Clinton = Decreased spending, budget surplus. Republicans + Bush = Dramatic spending increase.

When Obama refers to the 'bomb', he clearly doesn't understand that the first attack on Pearl Harbor was actually a submarine assault! Duh! :book:

Sasaki Kojiro

07-19-2008, 22:18

If Obama was incorrect about the effects of the surge, what does that show about his decision-making skills (especially on the world stage?)

That's silly. Obama said the surge would be counterproductive, and we needed a timetable for withdrawal. McCain said the surge would solve our problems and that timetables would be surrendering. Hindsight tells us that the surge provided temporary relief and that we still need timetables (you know a funny thing about calling it "time horizon" is that you never actually reach the horizon) for withdrawal. I don't see why you'd be more pleased with McCain's approach and backpedaling.

Not to MENTION supporting the war in the first place.

m52nickerson

07-19-2008, 22:19

If Obama was incorrect about the effects of the surge, what does that show about his decision-making skills (especially on the world stage?)

I will agree with CR concerning the spending. Spending has always decreased when one party owns Congress, the other the White House. Republicans + Clinton = Decreased spending, budget surplus. Republicans + Bush = Dramatic spending increase.

When Obama refers to the 'bomb', he clearly doesn't understand that the first attack on Pearl Harbor was actually a submarine assault! Duh! :book:

1. Well I guess others have perfect records on make decisions.

2. Didn't Clinton have a majority of Democrat's in congress when he was first in office? Plus that fact Bush has had a Republican controlled congress for most of his 8 years.

3. I hope you for got your [sarcasm] tags.

Seamus Fermanagh

07-19-2008, 23:50

And here's the list of economists supporting McCain. Five Nobel Laureates. ~;p So it is pretty lopsided.

:cheesy: Like it!

Or, he'd cut the budget. :lightbulb:

No, I don't think McCain would. McCain is for both a strong military and leaving entitlement/social programs more or less where they are. This means no significant budget cutting (though hammering ear-marks would be nice!). Obama likely would finish his first term with a budget that was not in deficit, or at least close to that level. Remember, Bill Clinton had little trouble doing that once he got serious about the budget as his "legacy," and Obama would be working against less Congressional opposition.

The only reason we can consider that is because of the surge, which Obama strongly opposed, saying it would not stop the violence.

I agree, but that won't stop Obama from reaping the better political windfall. Especially after his trip to the region, from which he will return with "new insight" and any justification he needs to tailor his policy where it will do him the most good. My bet is that McCain gains little credit for Bush's "success" while Obama actually picks up a half-notch on foreign policy for "connecting" so well with the Arab world.

CountArach

07-20-2008, 01:23

And here's the list of economists supporting McCain. Five Nobel Laureates. ~;p So it is pretty lopsided.
Touché sir...

Or, he'd cut the budget. :lightbulb:
McCain can't balance the budget by 2013 (http://taxvox.taxpolicycenter.org/blog/_archives/2008/7/8/3782597.html)

Lemur

07-20-2008, 02:49

Well know we know where you're coming from.
Last I checked I was in favor of both candidates. But the fact that I defend Obama from what I feel is a never-ending stream of attacks makes me ... captain librul dem lackey! Woo-hoo! If you're not with us 100% you're the enemy! As I was saying about tribalism ...

Where's the 'gridlock is good' Lemur? Voting McCain in with the current dem congress would be giving noone the keys to the kingdom.
As you love to say, way to completely dodge what I was saying ...

Oh, and Obama says 'one bomb' (http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0807/16/ino.01.html) fell on Pearl Harbor. Good to see he's got such a good grasp of history.:dizzy2:
That is weak, dude. So the transcript has "bomb" instead of "bombs." Is that the best line of attack you can mount? Seriously? This is the **** you want to win the White House with?

Here's an item of interest -- a reporter put together the Top Ten McCain Articles (http://www.reason.com/blog/show/127637.html) freely available on the web. Looks like some cool stuff.

The Life Story of Arizona's Maverick Senator McCain (http://www.azcentral.com/news/specials/mccain/articles/0301mccainbio-chapter1.html)
Neo-McCain: The Making of an überhawk (http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=23c3a0ff-9d55-4d28-a94e-0b0e09e26505)
Prisoner of Conscience (http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2007/02/mccain200702?printable=true&currentPage=all)
P.O.W. to Power Broker, a Chapter Most Telling (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B02EFDF1439F934A15751C0A9669C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=print)
The Subversive: A Question of Honor (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C04EEDF1438F936A15756C0A961958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=print)
I Liked a Pol (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=940CEFDF133DF932A15752C1A96F958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all)
Race Against Himself: Is John McCain Trying to Lose? (http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=5a7cd482-de2b-438a-8bed-f02d1f495e18)
The War Secrets Sen. John McCain Hides: Former POW Fights Public Access to POW/MIA Files (http://www.vvof.org/mccain_hides.htm)
Opiate for the Mrs.: When Laws Are Broken, Somebody's Got to Be Punished. In the Case of Cindy McCain, That Somebody is Tom Gosinski (http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/1994-09-08/news/opiate-for-the-mrs/print)
McCain Pressed FCC in Case Involving Major Contributor (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2000/01/05/mccain_pressed_fcc_in_case_involving_major_contributor?mode=PF)

ICantSpellDawg

07-20-2008, 03:10

Last I checked I was in favor of both candidates. But the fact that I defend Obama from what I feel is a never-ending stream of attacks makes me ... captain librul dem lackey! Woo-hoo! If you're not with us 100% you're the enemy! As I was saying about tribalism ...

Don't pretend that you are going to vote for McCain, Lemur. You have a special place in your heart for Barry and you can't cover it up with quick claims!

Lemur

07-20-2008, 03:16

I get the impression that the right-wingers on the board would be much, much more comfortable if I would just line up behind Obama. Must be part of that authoritarian instinct -- fries or chips, soldier? There's a war on, pick a side! Tastes great or less filling? Don't try to waffle -- we all know you're a "tastes great" partisan.

McCain always was far and away my favorite of the Repub choices. Obama was my favorite Dem candidate. I'm still thrilled it's the two of them. There are ramifications that I'm not going to go into, since it would be taken as flaming by the right-wing die-hards. I am a happy, happy lemur.

I will freely admit, however, that I fall for the ceaseless, repetitive attacks on Senator Obama. If there were anything, anything of the like happening with Senator McCain, I'd feel compelled to defend him as well, but there isn't. All of the hysterical, hyperventilating j'accuse seems to be coming from one direction ...

Seamus Fermanagh

07-20-2008, 03:52

...I will freely admit, however, that I fall for the ceaseless, repetitive attacks on Senator Obama. If there were anything, anything of the like happening with Senator McCain, I'd feel compelled to defend him as well, but there isn't. All of the hysterical, hyperventilating j'accuse seems to be coming from one direction ...

....in support of a candidate that most conservatives are luke-warm for at best.

Sasaki Kojiro

07-20-2008, 04:46

I will freely admit, however, that I fall for the ceaseless, repetitive attacks on Senator Obama. If there were anything, anything of the like happening with Senator McCain, I'd feel compelled to defend him as well, but there isn't. All of the hysterical, hyperventilating j'accuse seems to be coming from one direction ...

Well, it's a natural urge to to shoot a man down when you see him giving speeches to ridiculously over excited crowds all the time. That's why a lot of the criticism of Obama centers on "he's just a politician". Why would anyone bother to say that about McCain?

Crazed Rabbit

07-20-2008, 05:03

That's true. We all take for granted McCain's a pol, ie. a liar, scoundrel and general knave. You just hope you get one who doesn't lie to much and is only a little knavish.

But Obama is seen by those enthralled (no, I'm not talking about you Lemur, be calm ~;p ) as a great virtuous demi-god who has risen above petty politics, you know - the next JFK, who'll be our savior. So it's a fight just to show him as a politician.

But I don't see, Lemur, how saying Obama's going to be bad for the economy is a 'hyperventilating' attack. The only thing that's hyperventilating, I dare say, is your description of the attacks.

CR

Lemur

07-20-2008, 05:14

But Obama is seen by those enthralled [...] as a great virtuous demi-god who has risen above petty politics, you know - the next JFK, who'll be our savior. So it's a fight just to show him as a politician.
You'll get no argument from me on that one. He is a politician, after all, and a shockingly talented one. It's a shame to see his supporters run from this basic truth.

But I don't see, Lemur, how saying Obama's going to be bad for the economy is a 'hyperventilating' attack.
It isn't -- you had the misfortune to get mixed in with the kitchen-sink-plus that's been going on in this thread. You also rested your entire economic argument on a well-established extremist's op-ed piece, which isn't exactly the bedrock to build a tower of unassailable logic upon. I would certainly have taken less umbrage if you'd found someone who isn't such a complete one-issue demagogue from whom to borrow your argument.

-edit-

Although you have to admit, Rabbit, that if the Pearl Harbor attack you quoted isn't hyperventilating, it's breathing very hard. I mean, face it: that talking point is borderline gibberish. Are we to believe that this over-educated guy, an editor of the Harvard Law Review and a constitutional law professor at Chicago University does not have even a Michael Bay-level (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0213149/) understanding of Pearl Harbor? All based on a CNN transcript? And all based on "bomb" versus "bombs"? Which seems more likely: (1) Transcript error, (2) Simple misstatement, or (3) Total, absolute stupidity about recent American history? I'm guessing you went for 3 without much consideration, yes?

The fact that you're even willing to regurgitate weak **** like that smacks of ... well, I gotta say it ... tribalism. In other words, you don't ultimately care how you attack the other side, just that you do so. Somebody said he's a closet transvestite who must kill puppies to achieve orgasm? Run with it! Spread it far and wide! I always knew he was a puppy-killing trannie!

Crazed Rabbit

07-20-2008, 06:14

Although you have to admit, Rabbit, that if the Pearl Harbor attack you quoted isn't hyperventilating, it's breathing very hard.

Fair enough, but he has made other historical gaffes.

Somebody said he's a closet transvestite who must kill puppies to achieve orgasm?

Man, you made me LoL.

I would certainly have taken less umbrage if you'd found someone who isn't such a complete one-issue demagogue from whom to borrow your argument.

That's why I tried to highlight the facts in regards to Obama's plan to raise taxes.

CR

CountArach

07-20-2008, 08:06

Fair enough, but he has made other historical gaffes.
Like McCain referring to Czechoslovakia? (link (http://thepage.time.com/transcript-of-mccains-remarks-to-the-press-in-phoenix/))

“I was concerned about a couple of steps that the Russian government took in the last several days. One was reducing the energy supplies to Czechoslovakia. Apparently that is in reaction to the Czech’s agreement with us concerning missile defense, and again some of the Russian now announcement they are now retargeting new targets, something they abandoned at the end of the Cold War, is also a concern. So we see the tensions between Russia and their neighbors, as well as Russia and the United States are somewhat increasing.”
I don't really care though.

http://www.johnmccain.com/supporters/ Comforting to know :wink:

PanzerJaeger

07-20-2008, 09:48

Uh, no, he said it wouldn't address political reconciliation (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-obama-iraq_dorningjul16,0,3356588.story), not that it would not stop the violence.

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

Then why did he purge his website of fun phrases like "The surge is not working"? Go ahead and answer with some more quotes from Obama after the fact. :laugh4::laugh4:

I will freely admit, however, that I fall for the ceaseless, repetitive attacks on Senator Obama. If there were anything, anything of the like happening with Senator McCain, I'd feel compelled to defend him as well, but there isn't. All of the hysterical, hyperventilating j'accuse seems to be coming from one direction ...

Its about intellectual honesty Lemur, or a lack there of. Most of us - right and left - have staked out our positions. My feelings on Obama are transparent, and despite your "independence", so are yours.

You are right though. The attacks on Obama have been far more numerous than those on McCain. Come to think of it, the last hysterical, hyperventilating j'accuse on McCain was a vicious article in the oh-so-credible Daily Mail full of rumor and speculation about his first marriage posted by... guess who (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=1941358&postcount=36). ~;)

m52nickerson

07-20-2008, 13:43

Its about intellectual honesty Lemur, or a lack there of. Most of us - right and left - have staked out our positions. My feelings on Obama are transparent, and despite your "independence", so are yours.

You are right though. The attacks on Obama have been far more numerous than those on McCain. Come to think of it, the last hysterical, hyperventilating j'accuse on McCain was a vicious article in the oh-so-credible Daily Mail full of rumor and speculation about his first marriage posted by... guess who (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=1941358&postcount=36). ~;)

.....and in Lemur's post he says

What do the Orgahs think? Should I ignore this as irrelevant personal data? Doesn't it say something about a man that he will walk away from a disabled woman who loves him deeply?

More than any of the shots that have been taken at McCain, this has made me question my support for the guy. Am I over-reacting to an election-year hit piece?

So he posted the article and then was asking if he should take it into account. I think this is a little different then posting something and then saying "look McCain is a scumbag and left his sick wife, he will not make a good president."

Xiahou

07-20-2008, 20:31

Lemur

07-20-2008, 20:53

I seem to remember a lot of sniping from you over my refusal to support either candidate.
What irritated me in the primaries was the fact that you only sniped at Obama (shocking, I know) but by your account had no dog in the fight. At least, once Fred Thompson had banked his 1% nation of True Conservatives and retired from the field for a mint julep. So you could throw bombs more or less endlessly, while supporting no one and nothing.

It struck me as a bit nihilist.

https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Lemurmania/Nihilists.jpg

-edit-

Just looking back over that paragraph, I think I may have achieved the Holy Grail of mixed metaphors. Sniping ... dogs ... banking ... mint juleps ... bomb-throwing ... nihilists. Wow. I deserve some kind of prize for bad writing.

Kralizec

07-21-2008, 03:50

Like McCain referring to Czechoslovakia? (link (http://thepage.time.com/transcript-of-mccains-remarks-to-the-press-in-phoenix/))

I don't really care though.

http://www.johnmccain.com/supporters/ Comforting to know :wink:

I'd hesitate to call that a gaffe. Some of my older relatives have made the same slip, being alive since before the split. Add to that the fact that neither country is particulary important...

ICantSpellDawg

07-21-2008, 04:30

What irritated me in the primaries was the fact that you only sniped at Obama (shocking, I know) but by your account had no dog in the fight. At least, once Fred Thompson had banked his 1% nation of True Conservatives and retired from the field for a mint julep. So you could throw bombs more or less endlessly, while supporting no one and nothing.

It struck me as a bit nihilist.

https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Lemurmania/Nihilists.jpg

-edit-

Just looking back over that paragraph, I think I may have achieved the Holy Grail of mixed metaphors. Sniping ... dogs ... banking ... mint juleps ... bomb-throwing ... nihilists. Wow. I deserve some kind of prize for bad writing.

On these forums it may seem to you that more people attack Obama than attack McCain.I believe you are right. I don't like cheap quips about things that don't matter either.

I also notice that this forum is different from the media angle that is strongly in favor of Obama in general (except Fox). We are predominantly attackers here (while I would bet the majority on the forum supports Obama) because there is so much support everywhere else. Obama has more money and more employees than any candidate before him and McCain has a huge handicap in this race. If we stop taking cheap shots about him, can you find it in your heart to understand our frustration? McCain is simply not the most frustrating candidate in this election.

If you want to defend against stupid points about Obama and still want to be viewed as un-biased in this election - don't retort by attacking McCain, but only the foolishness of the comments about Obama. It usually goes like this:

Devastatin' Crazed Xiahou says: "something about the way in which Obama smells funny and is therefore ineligible for the presidency"

Lemure say in response: "Oh Yea?!!!? Obama is great and this and that. McCain is fat and has wierd arms"

Devastatin' Crazed Xiahou says: "You love Obama"

Lemur

07-21-2008, 04:45

If we stop taking cheap shots about him, can you find it in your heart to understand our frustration? McCain is simply not the most frustrating candidate in this election.
I do understand that this will be a very tough election cycle for all Republicans (http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/07/almalikis_announcement_a_big_d.php), not just McCain. And I get that McCain is not viewed with great warmth by the conservative true believers. I'm not clear on how frustration plays into all of this, but I'm willing to learn ...

If you want to defend against stupid points about Obama and still want to be viewed as un-biased in this election - don't retort by attacking McCain, but only the foolishness of the comments about Obama.
I don't believe I have been attacking McCain, unless you consider those instances when I bring up an area in which one of our Republicans is attacking Obama in a way that would be equally damaging to either candidate. Then, sometimes, I feel compelled to point out that some attacks are bad for all.

I don't give much of a damn about whether I'm viewed as unbiased or not — and I seriously doubt that I am. (What does "unbiased" mean, anyway? I'll take "thoughtful" or "considered" instead, or better yet "funny," assuming I'm allowed to choose.) But it irritates me when others insist that I must think the way they imagine I do, and if I don't I'm being sneaky and deceptive. How dare I not conform to somebody else's notion of my thought process.

As another poster so thoughtfully highlighted, I raised exactly one attack article on Johnny Mac, and it was to sound out the Orgah's opinion on the matter, not to score some ephemeral internet debate point. If this is the basis for my rabid Obama partisanship, what can I say? The True Way must be narrow and difficult indeed.

-edit-

I also notice that this forum is different from the media angle that is strongly in favor of Obama in general (except Fox).
The thing that I notice about general media coverage is that there's just way more coverage of Obama, period. A lot of it's fluff and some of it's stupid, and lord knows every possible slander has been dragged through the spotlight, but if you weren't paying close attention, you might not notice that Johnny Mac was in the race.

I'd say much the same about this thread.

Spino

07-21-2008, 06:13

I do understand that this will be a very tough election cycle for all Republicans (http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/07/almalikis_announcement_a_big_d.php), not just McCain. And I get that McCain is not viewed with great warmth by the conservative true believers. I'm not clear on how frustration plays into all of this, but I'm willing to learn ...

I don't believe I have been attacking McCain, unless you consider those instances when I bring up an area in which one of our Republicans is attacking Obama in a way that would be equally damaging to either candidate. Then, sometimes, I feel compelled to point out that some attacks are bad for all.

I don't give much of a damn about whether I'm viewed as unbiased or not — and I seriously doubt that I am. (What does "unbiased" mean, anyway? I'll take "thoughtful" or "considered" instead, or better yet "funny," assuming I'm allowed to choose.) But it irritates me when others insist that I must think the way they imagine I do, and if I don't I'm being sneaky and deceptive. How dare I not conform to somebody else's notion of my thought process.

As another poster so thoughtfully highlighted, I raised exactly one attack article on Johnny Mac, and it was to sound out the Orgah's opinion on the matter, not to score some ephemeral internet debate point. If this is the basis for my rabid Obama partisanship, what can I say? The True Way must be narrow and difficult indeed.

-edit-

The thing that I notice about general media coverage is that there's just way more coverage of Obama, period. A lot of it's fluff and some of it's stupid, and lord knows every possible slander has been dragged through the spotlight, but if you weren't paying close attention, you might not notice that Johnny Mac was in the race.

I'd say much the same about this thread.

I honestly don't know if this election cycle is going to be that tough for all Republicans. Since gaining the majority in 2006 the Democrats are doing a bang up job of pissing the average American off. Despite the 'assurance' of having Democrats in control of the Legislature the public still thinks they're doing a piss poor job and so we have Congress' approval less than twice that of our infamous President's and getting alarmingly close to single digits!

Nancy Pelosi had a sit-down interview with Wolf Blitzer last week and when asked about Congress' ridiculously low approval rating all she could do was... blame George Bush and the Republicans! That and she mentioned needing a 60% majority in order to do anything meaningful. The Democrat's $300 billion farm bill went over like a lead balloon with the public and despite the fact that 70-75% of Americans want us to drill for oil off the coast to alleviate the gas crunch and wean us off foreign oil the Democrats are adamantly against it, opting instead to tap into the strategic reserve and push for everything else (so long as it doesn't include drilling for oil and nuclear... ~:rolleyes: ). Obamamania aside I get the feeling the Democrats are deluding themselves into thinking they're going to have another cakewalk this Fall. I mean seriously, blaming a lame duck president for everything from the current state of things to global warming to tooth decay grows old after awhile.

CountArach

07-21-2008, 11:37

I honestly don't know if this election cycle is going to be that tough for all Republicans. Since gaining the majority in 2006 the Democrats are doing a bang up job of pissing the average American off. Despite the 'assurance' of having Democrats in control of the Legislature the public still thinks they're doing a piss poor job and so we have Congress' approval less than twice that of our infamous President's and getting alarmingly close to single digits!
According to this (http://www.gallup.com/poll/108454/Democrats-Favored-Retain-House-November.aspx) Gallup poll a "generic ballot" of a Democrat vs Republican House member the Democrats win 52-42 amongst likely voters. This site (http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Senate/Maps/Jul21-s.html) puts the Democrats at likely to hold 55 Senate seats, with 2 Independents who caucus with the Democrats to 43 GOP seats. McCain has not led in a national poll for a long time and both of the national tracking polls (Gallup (http://www.gallup.com/poll/108949/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Has-ThreePoint-Edge.aspx) and Rasmussen (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/general_election_match_up_history)) have him behind. Further, the Democrats have a huge advantage in terms of fund raising (I will dig up the numbers if you want them).

This is going to be a very tough year for Republicans.

ICantSpellDawg

07-21-2008, 13:28

According to this (http://www.gallup.com/poll/108454/Democrats-Favored-Retain-House-November.aspx) Gallup poll a "generic ballot" of a Democrat vs Republican House member the Democrats win 52-42 amongst likely voters. This site (http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Senate/Maps/Jul21-s.html) puts the Democrats at likely to hold 55 Senate seats, with 2 Independents who caucus with the Democrats to 43 GOP seats. McCain has not led in a national poll for a long time and both of the national tracking polls (Gallup (http://www.gallup.com/poll/108949/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Has-ThreePoint-Edge.aspx) and Rasmussen (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/general_election_match_up_history)) have him behind. Further, the Democrats have a huge advantage in terms of fund raising (I will dig up the numbers if you want them).

This is going to be a very tough year for Republicans.

Those numbers are important, but not as important as where they are coming from and why. If the overwhelming majority of New York and Cali are for Obama, then all of those numbers are less important. Obama doesn't need whole States to love him, just larger electoral vote winning majorities.

Media Media Media. That is what will make it hard.
Say what you will about Fox, but the truth is McCain wouldn't exist in this election cycle without them.

CountArach

07-21-2008, 13:43

Those numbers are important, but not as important as where they are coming from and why. If the overwhelming majority of New York and Cali are for Obama, then all of those numbers are less important. Obama doesn't need whole States to love him, just larger electoral vote winning majorities.
Then would you prefer state-by-state polling showing Obama up with 312 EVs (http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Pres/Maps/Jul21.html)? How about an average of 292.4 (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/)? How about betting markets showing Obama with 306 (http://electoralmap.net/index.php)? Good pollsters (Which Gallup and Rasmussen are) take the population levels into account, as well as partisan identification, to make their numbers more accurate anyway.

Media Media Media. That is what will make it hard.
Say what you will about Fox, but the truth is McCain wouldn't exist in this election cycle without them.
Yep, McCain has been a bit left out from what I can gather (obviously my coverage is limited a bit more. I only get Fox and CNN, as well as what I can get on the Internet), but just because Obama gets all of the media doesn't mean it is entirely positive. I can understand your frustration though - similar things have occurred down here in the past.

Marshal Murat

07-21-2008, 14:41

AP (and Yahoo) ask "Is teh Coverage Fair? (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080720/ap_en_tv/ap_on_tv_obama_s_trip)

Lemur

07-21-2008, 15:22

Another nail in the coffin for the sad, deluded notion that voters are logical creatures who vote in their self-interest, unaffected by hype and trivia (http://blog.summation.net/2008/07/people-are-highly-susceptible-to-suggestion.html):

Jonah Berger, Assistant Professor of Marketing at the Wharton School of Business, conducted a terrific study where he demonstrates that where people vote affects how they vote. Essentially, people whose voting booth is located in a church are more likely to put more weight into social issues, people voting in fire houses care more about safety, and people voting in a school tend to put more weight on things like education.

Marshal Murat

07-21-2008, 17:56

Drudge Reports NYT fails to allow McCain's Editorial (http://www.drudgereport.com/flashnym.htm)

'It would be terrific to have an article from Senator McCain that mirrors Senator Obama's piece,' NYT Op-Ed editor David Shipley explained in an email late Friday to McCain's staff. 'I'm not going to be able to accept this piece as currently written.'

NYT's Shipley advised McCain to try again: 'I'd be pleased, though, to look at another draft.'

[Shipley served in the Clinton Administration from 1995 until 1997 as Special Assistant to the President and Senior Presidential Speechwriter.]

Obama's Piece (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/14/opinion/14obama.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin)

I think it's terrible that NYT doesn't deem an editorial by a Presidential candidate worthy enough to be printed. While I can understand the article may not 'mirror' Obama's piece in it's subject, does that mean it shouldn't be printed?

Seamus Fermanagh

07-21-2008, 18:37

I think it's terrible that NYT doesn't deem an editorial by a Presidential candidate worthy enough to be printed. While I can understand the article may not 'mirror' Obama's piece in it's subject, does that mean it shouldn't be printed?

They're in the business of selling newspapers. Their core readership is far more intrigued by the doings and sayings of the Senator from Illinois than by those of the Senator from Arizona. If they can't hook it to Obama, then its less likely to sell papers.

This is McCain's biggest hurdle right now -- during the Summer doldrums. Until the conventions, most people aren't paying a lot of attention and McCain (whatever you think of him) is a pretty known quantity. The "new kid on the block" is just more compelling a news subject. Unless McCain can uncork something more "man bites dog," he's just not going to get much face time.

ICantSpellDawg

07-21-2008, 18:46

It is a fine article, but it comes after so it is obviously more of a retort. NYT is NYT, who expected anything else?

Either way - I've already gotten what I wanted from this election. Not just one Clinton, but two were mortally wounded in the eyes of their party and are no longer a threat in this election. Wee.

Don Corleone

07-21-2008, 20:17

I actually think the NYT is doing Senator McCain a favor here, and is doing Senator Obama an injustice.

Anybody that subscribes to the NYT is already guaranteed to vote for Obama. So there are no direct affects that would help Obama or hurt McCain.

Similarly, anybody that subscribes to the National Review is going to vote for McCain.

It's the middle ground that's of interest here. As Seamus points out, we're in some summer stall (ideal time for Obama to finally go to Iraq, by the way. Maybe not the most ethical approach, but certainly the most shrewd politically). Right now, any press McCain can get is good press. If the NYT had published his version, it would have been a quick "me too" and it would have been forgotten. Now it's become a rallying cry "Elitist Leftist media outlet won't run position pieces unless they mirror Obama". Plays well for him, ginning up the outrage in advance of the convention.

But it also works against Obama. I'd like to think that I'm not the only discriminating voter from the right that's concerned about fiscal conservatism. To that end, McCain is by no means a lock for me. We're cruising up to our credit limits and then the party's over, something McCain doesn't seem to understand. As Seamus pointed out, the one thing Obama is almost guaranteed to do in his first term is to find some means, by hook or by crook, to balance the budget before 2012.

Now, people like me see an article like this, and it actually makes us begin to question the competency of a candidate that appears to require having the NYT (granted, a pretty left-leaning rag, but with some reputation from it's prior days left), basically fix the race for him, or at least attempt to.

Seriously, if Obama's camp thinks they can only debate in one-sided exchanges and have pulled strings with the Times to get that kind of "only I get to talk" coverage, that doesn't speak very highly of how much confidence they have in their position.

Seriously, Obama wrote that piece before his first ever visit to the battlefield, but the NY Times feels his is the only opinion that can be allowed to be presented? Doesn't give you a strong feeling of confidence for how defensible Obama's position is.

Seamus Fermanagh

07-21-2008, 23:14

...I'd like to think that I'm not the only discriminating voter from the right that's concerned about fiscal conservatism. To that end, McCain is by no means a lock for me. We're cruising up to our credit limits and then the party's over, something McCain doesn't seem to understand. As Seamus pointed out, the one thing Obama is almost guaranteed to do in his first term is to find some means, by hook or by crook, to balance the budget before 2012.

Nothing crooked.

He'll raise taxes on capital gains, on the highest 10% of incomes, on the social security/medicare tax by removing the income limitations, by allowing the Bush Tax Cuts to lapse, and by working with Congress to establish a new (higher) limit on estate exclusion -- but nowhere near the 3M limit or no limit we're currently enjoying/will enjoy in 2010. There will be some slump in the economy from the tax increase, but not a catastrophic one, and overall revenues will go up slightly.

On the spending side, he'll progressively ramp back military spending to levels equivalent to the percentage of GDP we saw under Clinton. This is the easiest of the "large" segments of the budget to pare back and will dovetail nicely with the Obama model for the War on Terror (a return to the "police/legal model" approach). Bill Clinton proved this model of funding can work. Obama will have a bit more difficulty slowing spending growth on the social side, but the modest increase in tax revenue will allow for enough of this to please his core constituencies.

m52nickerson

07-22-2008, 02:53

On the spending side, he'll progressively ramp back military spending to levels equivalent to the percentage of GDP we saw under Clinton. This is the easiest of the "large" segments of the budget to pare back and will dovetail nicely with the Obama model for the War on Terror (a return to the "police/legal model" approach). Bill Clinton proved this model of funding can work. Obama will have a bit more difficulty slowing spending growth on the social side, but the modest increase in tax revenue will allow for enough of this to please his core constituencies.

Funny in this article says he will add more troops and increase the military budget.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/27/AR2007042702027.html

.....and this article http://www.huntingtonnews.net/columns/070520-brown-columnmilitary.html

So, were did you get your information?

PanzerJaeger

07-22-2008, 03:10

So, were did you get your information?

More importantly, where is Obama going to get the money for all of his promised spending plus tax cuts for most Americans. :inquisitive:

Seamus Fermanagh

07-22-2008, 03:16

Both of those links refer to the same speech, a speech delivered more than 6 months before the Iowa Caucuses (and safely before the Iowans were really listening) as a response to the first stages of the "surge" effort in Iraq. I don't view this as much more than campaign "positioning," a possibilty raised by Mr. Kagan in his commentary piece in the first link. I'm more likely to view this as a political stance then a real statement of intent. Obama's record suggests a fairly orthodox Democrat party stance with very little in the way of a Leiberman factor.

Consider this (http://www.federalbudget.com/).

The largest budgetary expenditures are to service the national debt, to provide for Social Security payments, to provide for welfare and Medicare/Medicaid payments, and to fund the military. Smaller, though measurable, chunks go to pay farm subsidies and education subsidies etc.

Of these, given his record as a legislator, his overall political stance, and the support/direction of his party, just where do you think Obama will make the adjustments needed to balance the budget?

woad&fangs

07-22-2008, 03:16

Maybe the $30 billion per month* that is being poured into Iraq

*random # I made up off the top of my head

m52nickerson

07-22-2008, 03:18

More importantly, where is Obama going to get the money for all of his promised spending plus tax cuts for most Americans. :inquisitive:

Repealing the tax cuts for people making over 250K per year, plus the money saved from pulling forces out of Iraq. Yes he will still have a short fall for everything he wants to do, but it is a start.

Both of those links refer to the same speech, a speech delivered more than 6 months before the Iowa Caucuses (and safely before the Iowans were really listening) as a response to the first stages of the "surge" effort in Iraq. I don't view this as much more than campaign "positioning," a possibilty raised by Mr. Kagan in his commentary piece in the first link. I'm more likely to view this as a political stance then a real statement of intent. Obama's record suggests a fairly orthodox Democrat party stance with very little in the way of a Leiberman factor.

Of course you are entitled to your view, but do you have anything to back that up with? If not it seems that his "positioning" is the close thing to intent we have.

As for the balance budget, I don't know how he would do it.

PanzerJaeger

07-22-2008, 03:28

Repealing the tax cuts for people making over 250K per year, plus the money saved from pulling forces out of Iraq. Yes he will still have a short fall for everything he wants to do, but it is a start.

So all the funding for his massive health care plans, expanded entitlements, military expansion, college tuition payments, Afghani surge, tax breaks for those making under 250k, etc is going to rest on the shoulders of those making over 250k a year - supposedly only raising their taxes from 35 to 39.5%? Quite a shortfall, indeed.

(Thanks for replying without the righteous indignation I've come to expect from certain mammals in this thread. :bow:)

CountArach

07-22-2008, 03:43

(Thanks for replying without the righteous indignation I've come to expect from certain mammals in this thread. :bow:)
Fear my righteous indignation!

m52nickerson

07-22-2008, 03:49

So all the funding for his massive health care plans, expanded entitlements, military expansion, college tuition payments, Afghani surge, tax breaks for those making under 250k, etc is going to rest on the shoulders of those making over 250k a year - supposedly only raising their taxes from 35 to 39.5%? Quite a shortfall, indeed.

(Thanks for replying without the righteous indignation I've come to expect from certain mammals in this thread. :bow:)

I will not pretend to have all the answers. Obama is going to have a hard time delivering on all he wants to do. He may have to wait until Iraq and Afghanistan are settled. To have the extra money.

I try not to believe that Obama can walk on water and heal the blind. I support him because his plans and ideals fall closest to my own.

Marshal Murat

07-22-2008, 03:52

Hey, I've got a good analogy.

Obama=LBJ

One proposes to launch a sweeping overhaul of the nation to assist the poor.
The other launched a 'War on Poverty' reducing overall poverty by 5-9%

Both have wars distracting them from actually accomplishing their goals.

seireikhaan

07-22-2008, 04:07

. (Thanks for replying without the righteous indignation I've come to expect from certain mammals in this thread. :bow:)
Play the ball, Panzer, play the ball.

I will say, this is the sort of thing that we can't truly understand or know how politicians will do if elected President. The overall grand scope of things is too big and detailed for 95% of Americans to honestly care to evaluate, and thus, nobody is going to pressure either candidate to attempt to show what their exact planned budget would be/would have been to show their commitment/lack of commitment to a balanced budget. Especially given when you have two Senators, neither of whom have any record of budgeting like a governor would. Not that being a governor is an automatic indicator of financial prudency, of course, especially on a national scale.

Obviously McCain has a long record of attacking 'pork', but that alas, isn't going to be as big of a budget swing as he would like us to believe. Furthermore, I have a hard time believing that as President, he would veto any bill containing pork. If he did that, there'd likely be NOTHING done at all, and all the Democrats would (have) to do should things stay south or return south with the economy or war would be to point the finger at the man vetoing every piece of legislation, which, frankly, does neither party, nor the nation, any good in my opinion.

Obama, on the other hand, would have a much more willing Congress to work with, which of course is the ultimate tempter of more spending. Only strong discipline from Obama, as well as cooperation, understanding, and some ounce of wisdom(this latter part being particularly unlikely, in my opinion) would keep it to an even keel. Obviously he doesn't have nearly the legislative record that McCain does, but from what we do have to work with, it is quite apparent that he does indeed uphold tradition Democratic Party values of watching over corporate integrity and regulation, which I believe will add to the budget as well. For one, as an example, FEMA and especially the FDA, have been clamoring for more budget allocation to help do their jobs, though of course this doesn't necessarily translate into more success for the said commission. Of course, there's numerous other agencies would would likely want a little extra of the pie as well once the others get increased funding.

Of course, this whole issue is still way larger than either of these two political candidates. The United State's debt is so massive that the only way we'll possibly pay it back is to completely dismantle our largest social services, medicare and social security. Now, I can't give you the source, but I will try to find it, but I was informed by an individual I trust greatly that the privatization of social security, as an example, would cost the United States, up front, a sum of roughly 2 trillion dollars. Not to mention the inherent risks that are present in privatization and the transfer of so much capital in a short time. So obviously we aren't going to privatize SS, at least not in any short term future. And Medicare, of course, would be an entirely different monster to tackle, one that I honestly don't see how we could possible dismantle, but at the same time, one that is draining our long term funds at the same time.

CountArach

07-22-2008, 13:40

Time Gets It Right (http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1825337,00.html)

Oh, let's just admit it: John McCain is a long shot. He's got a heroic personal story, and being white has never hurt a presidential candidate, but on paper 2008 just doesn't look like his year. And considering what's happening off paper, it might be time to ask the question the horse-race-loving media are never supposed to ask: Is McCain a no-shot?

Last week, the McCain campaign's case against Barack Obama went something like this: He's irresponsible when it comes to Iraq, naive when it comes to Iran, and a big-government liberal when it comes to the economy. But now Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki has more or less endorsed Obama's plan to withdraw from Iraq, forcing McCain to argue that Maliki didn't really mean it, and even the Bush administration has accepted a "time horizon" for withdrawal, if not a precise "timetable." The Bush administration has also engaged in some diplomatic outreach with Iran, just as Obama has recommended, a severe blow to McCain's efforts to portray Obama's willingness to talk as appeasement. And on the economy, a TIME/Rockefeller Foundation poll found that 82% of the country supports more federal infrastructure spending designed to create jobs. When big-government liberalism is all the rage, McCain's courage in opposing water projects or the farm bill becomes less of a selling point.

...

That doesn't mean that anything's probable. The media will try to preserve the illusion of a toss-up; you'll keep seeing "Obama Leads, But Voters Have Concerns" headlines. But when Democrats are winning blood-red congressional districts in Mississippi and Louisiana, when the Republican president is down to 28 percent, when the economy is tanking and world affairs keep breaking Obama's way, it shouldn't be heresy to recognize that McCain needs an improbable series of breaks. Analysts get paid to analyze, and cable news has airtime to fill, so pundits have an incentive to make politics seem complicated. In the end, though, it's usually pretty simple. Everyone seems to agree that 2008 is a change election. Which of these guys looks like change?
A very sensible article that just about sums things up for McCain at this point.

Lemur

07-22-2008, 14:17

Good article from Fareed Zakaria (http://www.newsweek.com/id/147763/output/print) trying to analyze where Senator Obama stands on foreign policy. I find Zakaria to always be worth the read, even when I disagree with him.

Obama never uses the soaring language of Bush's freedom agenda, preferring instead to talk about enhancing people's economic prospects, civil society and—his key word—"dignity." He rejects Bush's obsession with elections and political rights, and argues that people's aspirations are broader and more basic—including food, shelter, jobs. "Once these aspirations are met," he told The New York Times's James Traub, "it opens up space for the kind of democratic regimes we want." This is a view of democratic development that is slow, organic and incremental, usually held by conservatives.

-edit-

And a wonderful, must-read essay (http://scienceblogs.com/cortex/2008/07/rational_voters.php) for those soft-headed enough to believe in the myth of the rational voter.

Xiahou

07-23-2008, 00:26

What irritated me in the primaries was the fact that you only sniped at Obama (shocking, I know) but by your account had no dog in the fight.For the record, that's simply false. I criticized pretty much every candidate including Ron Paul, Romney, McCain, Huckabee, Clinton, and Obama. Someone like Clinton, who already had so much dirty laundry aired, was harder for me to dig up something new on- otoh, Obama who was a blank slate coming into this was much easier to find unreported/underreported material on. Obama got a big share of my critiques, but virtually none escaped me unscathed. :whip:

Sorry for the sidetrack. Carry on. :bow:

Ice

07-23-2008, 04:22

For the record, that's simply false. I criticized pretty much every candidate including Ron Paul, Romney, McCain, Huckabee, Clinton, and Obama. Someone like Clinton, who already had so much dirty laundry aired, was harder for me to dig up something new on- otoh, Obama who was a blank slate coming into this was much easier to find unreported/underreported material on. Obama got a big share of my critiques, but virtually none escaped me unscathed. :whip:

Sorry for the sidetrack. Carry on. :bow:

That is correct as I remember you pretty much ripping on every candidate minus Fred.

Lemur

07-23-2008, 04:23

Obama got a big share of my critiques, but virtually none escaped me unscathed.
Well, then, I retract my earlier sentence, and would like to modify it to "the majority of your sniping was directed at Obama." Would that move this into the realm of the accurate?

Xiahou

07-23-2008, 08:47

Well, then, I retract my earlier sentence, and would like to modify it to "the majority of your sniping was directed at Obama." Would that move this into the realm of the accurate?Majority? It's possible. Certainly, after the GOP field played out, I'd bet he got the majority. :yes:

woad&fangs

07-23-2008, 23:36

Xiahou

07-24-2008, 00:22

Apparently, I'm not the only one focusing on Obama (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/17/us/politics/17anchors.html?_r=1&ref=politics&oref=slogin). :2thumbsup:

The Tyndall Report, a news coverage monitoring service that has the broadcast networks as clients, reports that the three newscasts by the networks — which have a combined audience of more than 20 million people — spent roughly 114 minutes covering Mr. Obama since June. They spent about 48 minutes covering Mr. McCain, who made the rounds of the evening newscasts in satellite interviews last week.
Of course, their coverage may have been more favorable than mine. :beam:

m52nickerson

07-24-2008, 01:33

CountArach

07-24-2008, 02:12

Gah, this is the second time I have seen this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EiTpS4MK3D8) ad on TV. I can't believe that McCain is seriously blaming $4 dollar gas on Obama. Even more amazing is that he makes it seem like drilling in America will instantly reverse the rising cost.:wall:
New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/22/us/politics/22adbox.html?ref=politics) tears it apart:

ACCURACY Mr. Obama is not against all drilling for oil and gas, only drilling offshore, a crucial word in the debate on energy policy but one never mentioned here. Increasing domestic oil production is also by no means the only or even main road to long-term energy independence, as both candidates have emphasized on the campaign trail by endorsing alternatives like solar and wind power and corn-based ethanol (in Mr. Obama’s case) and nuclear energy (Mr. McCain). Mr. Obama, who has proposed a $150 billion decade-long government-backed effort to help develop clean-energy sources, does oppose the temporary gasoline tax rebate that Mr. McCain favors, calling it an election-year gimmick that does not bring meaningful relief to ordinary Americans. But that is a position many economists and energy experts share. Finally, even before the recent spike, oil prices had been rising for a decade, the result of a variety of political and economic factors in places as far afield as China, India, Venezuela and Nigeria. So it is difficult to understand how Mr. Obama, a first-term senator, can be held responsible for that phenomenon.

SCORECARD Aside from correctly stating current gasoline prices, “Pump” is misleading on nearly every substantive point. But it is shrewdly conceived and may prove to be effective with undecided voters upset about having to pay as much as $100 to fill their gas tanks, yet uncertain as to the causes of the squeeze on their budgets.
So, though it is completely inaccurate it may well be effective.. wow... your politics sucks...

seireikhaan

07-24-2008, 02:14

Xiahou

07-24-2008, 02:23

New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/22/us/politics/22adbox.html?ref=politics) tears it apart:Wow, the NYT is really going out of its way to carry water for Obama isnt it?

Ok, why does Obama oppose offshore drilling? Further, if it's only offshore he opposes, where does he favor onshore drilling? Certainly not ANWR. :dizzy2:

CountArach

07-24-2008, 02:30

Xiahou

07-24-2008, 02:49

The land that the oil companies already own is on-shore.
They lease it, not own it and much of the leases are offshore.

Crazed Rabbit

07-24-2008, 03:10

Mr. Obama is not against all drilling for oil and gas, only drilling offshore, a crucial word in the debate on energy policy but one never mentioned here.

And, as noted, against ANWR. NYT = fail. Would drilling damage that part of the North Slope? It hasn't the other parts, and installations would be tiny on the immense area. But idiot politicians are still against it for moronic reasons.

Opening ANWR and offshore drilling in the past - which would have required a politician to have a working brain and be able to foresee what might happen (how the heck can the dems claim to have an "energy plan"?! good grief.) instead of waiting for 4.30 gasoline - would have helped make prices lower today. And those same freaking morons still argue against it because it won't come online for years.

Well yes, you cretins, but where do you think the price of gas is going to go in the future? Do you have any concept of not living in the present and maybe, just maybe, looking to future years when ANWR would be online and pumping 1MMbbl/day?

GARGGHGHGHGHHH!!!

whew.

Sorry, but I don't suffer idiots well. Also, please note that the previous was directed at anti-transportation politicians.

CR

CountArach

07-24-2008, 04:04

Opening ANWR and offshore drilling in the past - which would have required a politician to have a working brain and be able to foresee what might happen (how the heck can the dems claim to have an "energy plan"?! good grief.) instead of waiting for 4.30 gasoline - would have helped make prices lower today. And those same freaking morons still argue against it because it won't come online for years.
We are at the point now where within years we will almost certainly have a form of renewable energy that is efficient, if not exactly cheap. I would rather money was pumped into that than destroying the environment and continuing the world's addiction to oil. What happens after ANWR runs dry? What then? Is that when we start looking for the renewable energy?

Marshal Murat

07-24-2008, 04:16

After President Bush announced that he was lifting the ban on off-shore oil drilling, the price of oil has dropped. It has continued to drop. It hopefully will continue in the future. That is because the oil companies can possibly pump more oil, and get more money for it.
Oil will continue to be a source of energy even after the United States finishes her affair with it. Africa, Asia, Latin America, they still need oil for their booming (or soon to be) economies! They could pour out millions for fancy hydrogen-electrostatic-camel-dung powered vehicles and machines, or they could buy discounted equipment, no longer needed or used. Until that time, it's far better that we use national resources to keep gas low until we find a better source.

The space used in ANWR would be so very small in comparison to the large natural reserve that it is. It's pure ideology restraining the oil drilling.
USGS Confirms it (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601082&sid=aqEDMhrCvp28)

Fuel prices going Down? (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aHLWg6Vg1XYs&refer=worldwide)

m52nickerson

07-24-2008, 04:20

Until that time, it's far better that we use national resources to keep gas low until we find a better source.

That is part of the problem, if the prices drop there will be no demanded for a better source or sources.

Necessity is the mother of invention!

Marshal Murat

07-24-2008, 04:25

That is part of the problem, if the prices drop there will be no demanded for a better source or sources.

Then is it your suggestion that we artificially raise prices, create havoc, initiate a downturn in the national economy(ies) to simply create a better energy source? Or should we wait for oil to run out? Neither is the answer. The government can initiate a NASA-esque development, to prevent a future calamity. Or we could challenge China in a modern Space-Race.

Crazed Rabbit

07-24-2008, 04:36

We are at the point now where within years we will almost certainly have a form of renewable energy that is efficient, if not exactly cheap. I would rather money was pumped into that than destroying the environment and continuing the world's addiction to oil. What happens after ANWR runs dry? What then? Is that when we start looking for the renewable energy?

It's not destroying the environment. Did I say we shouldn't look into alternate fuel sources? No - but look where the current government policies with ethanol got us. High food prices that have pushed ~100million around the world into poverty. That's the kind of unintended consequences that comes with stupid government meddling.

That is part of the problem, if the prices drop there will be no demanded for a better source or sources.

Necessity is the mother of invention!

That's not necessity, that's a cruel burdensome decree and manipulation by government. If prices stayed low (which they won't forever of course - businessmen know that, and so would continue to invest in non-oil anyway) we wouldn't need alternate energy.

CR

woad&fangs

07-24-2008, 04:44

Ethanol was a crude stumbling block on the path to "green" fuel sources. Remember that Kitty Hawk only lasted 11 seconds.

Marshal Murat

07-24-2008, 04:52

Remember that Kitty Hawk only lasted 11 seconds.

So did the Hindenburg 30 some years later.

m52nickerson

07-24-2008, 05:05

Then is it your suggestion that we artificially raise prices, create havoc, initiate a downturn in the national economy(ies) to simply create a better energy source? Or should we wait for oil to run out? Neither is the answer. The government can initiate a NASA-esque development, to prevent a future calamity. Or we could challenge China in a modern Space-Race.

No that is not my suggestion. I was merely stating a fact. If gas prices are high it will drive development of technology. If for some reason gas prices suddenly drop, even if the government pushes new tech, it will not happen as fast. Unless that government push is backed up with new regulations.

....of course the government could always limit overall profit of American oil companies.

PanzerJaeger

07-24-2008, 05:09

So did the Hindenburg 30 some years later.

Didn't it make it all the way to America, or am I thinking of another zeppelin?

Seamus Fermanagh

07-24-2008, 05:18

Kitty Hawk was private enterprise in action and helped, in time, to create the "global village."

The government-funded competitor project took a nose dive into the Potomac on both atttempts.

But at least we got the plane-launching catapult as a spinoff.

CountArach

07-24-2008, 06:13

It's not destroying the environment. Did I say we shouldn't look into alternate fuel sources? No - but look where the current government policies with ethanol got us. High food prices that have pushed ~100million around the world into poverty. That's the kind of unintended consequences that comes with stupid government meddling.
Well it is destroying the environment, but let's avoid turning this into a Global Warming discussion. Though I suppose given that you probably don't believe Global Warming is man-made I am never going to be able to convince you that renewable enrgys are going to have to be found.

Ethanol has been bad, there is no denying that. But look at most countries in Europe where effective alternate fuels have been found and are starting to take on much higher proportions of energy consumption (14.2%, and rising, of Germany's energy is renewable, in large part thanks to subsidies for creating the incentives to create these technologies). Government 'meddling' gave Germany that, including the tens of thousands of jobs that go with it.

Ironside

07-24-2008, 08:47

Well it is destroying the environment, but let's avoid turning this into a Global Warming discussion. Though I suppose given that you probably don't believe Global Warming is man-made I am never going to be able to convince you that renewable enrgys are going to have to be found.

You can of course run with the acidifiction of the seas and the consequential destruction of the coral reefs due to the increased CO2 concentrations. But I guess you're right with this being the wrong thread for that.

Don Corleone

07-24-2008, 14:25

Eight and a half weeks. That's my prediction, eight and a half weeks.

Lemur

07-24-2008, 15:40

Does anybody else know what Don is talking about? Don, could you issue a clarification for the slower Orgahs, like me?

Does anybody besides CountArch have an opinion on the Maliki thing (http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2008/07/22/maliki_spiegel/index.html)? I don't buy for a moment that it was a misquotation or a mistranslation. As I understand it, Der Spiegel provides interviewee approval over all quotes, which is a big part of how they score interviews.

What would motivate Maliki to effectively endorse one candidate over another? Is this, as some reports suggest, all about Ahmad Chalabi (http://www.nysun.com/foreign/maliki-bets-that-obama-will-prevail/82374/)?

The matter was taken up at a meeting of Iraq's National Security Council on Thursday on the recommendation of Mr. Maliki, who had been advised by the Iraqi politician Ahmad Chalabi to express public support for the Obama withdrawal plan. [...]

The role of Mr. Chalabi, whose party failed to gain any seats in the 2005 federal parliamentary elections, should be of interest to close watchers of the Bush administration. While Mr. Chalabi has clashed with both the American embassy and at times with Mr. Maliki, he nonetheless is still regarded among the Shiite political class as knowledgeable of American politics from his days lobbying for the Iraq Liberation Act in Washington. At the time, in the late 1990s, Senator McCain was one of Mr. Chalabi's biggest supporters.

Xiahou

07-24-2008, 16:38

I think Maliki is just playing (local)politics. Most Iraqis, I expect, want to think their country is strong and sovereign with no need of American interference. The reality might be different, but I don't think it'd play very will at home for him to be saying we'll need American help for the foreseeable future.

And speaking of Iraq plans, I'd be remiss if I didn't point out how horribly wrong Obama in particular, and Democrats in general were in regards to the surge. Obama is still trying to imply, with a straight face, that things might have worked out as well or better had American forces began pulling out instead of building up to the surge. :no:

Katie Couric (http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/07/obama_spars_with_couric_over_s.php), of all people, tried to nail him down on this recently. As often seems to be the case, Obama appeared to get short with her when pressed.

Does anybody else know what Don is talking about? Don, could you issue a clarification for the slower Orgahs, like me?He's doing viral marketing for an, as of yet, unannounced post. :beam:

FactionHeir

07-24-2008, 16:50

Obama actually to be the first Arab-American President? (http://kennethelamb.blogspot.com/2008/02/barak-obama-questions-about-ethnic.html)
I was reading some comments on the political sites and came across this. Already a bit dated, but I couldn't find a counterclaim on snopes, so I figure I'd throw this in here.
According to the lengthy article, he is only 6.25% african american.

Don Corleone

07-24-2008, 16:58

Does anybody else know what Don is talking about? Don, could you issue a clarification for the slower Orgahs, like me?

Eight and a half weeks. That's the amount of time following the inauguration on January 20th of Barrack Obama (which is becoming more certain in my mind every day), that public sentiment of Obama in Europe and on the American Left will turn against him for being a sell-out, a traitor, and not being 'their guy'.

I was listening to an NPR report on the way in this morning where they were talking to a German editor and a French editor regarding Obama-mania. It's nothing about him that they desire, so much as a reaction to the Bush years.

And the very first time that Obama says something to the affect of "We have to do what's right for America", poof, Obama mania will evaporate and the pillorying and villification will begin. Granted not to the degree that Bush currently experiences it, but give him time. W has had 8 years to build up his popularity.

And I predict it will take about 8 and a half weeks for this watershed event to occur. Either Obama will say something such as "no published timetable in Iraq", "continuing fight against Taleban" or "continued support of Israel" or in some other way act in the USA's own best interest.

And then the honeymoon will be over.

Xiahou

07-24-2008, 18:55

Ice

07-24-2008, 19:05

Wow, the NYT is really going out of its way to carry water for Obama isnt it?

Ok, why does Obama oppose offshore drilling? Further, if it's only offshore he opposes, where does he favor onshore drilling? Certainly not ANWR. :dizzy2:

I know, I don't really get it either. I don't see much in harm in lifting the federal ban. States still have the say whether they want it off their coast or not.

It's like everyone is afraid of an oil spill because what happened 40 years ago.

seireikhaan

07-24-2008, 19:17

Here's (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jfogMFL7UJo) a McCain ad that actually gave me a chuckle. :laugh4:

Frankly, I'm surprised he allowed it to be made- he seems to be in denial over unbalanced media coverage.
Alright, this is really starting to piss me off. You'd almost think that people have never realized that the media isn't unbiased. I mean, COME ON! Its in human nature to be biased towards what we like as opposed to the opposite. I wish the Republicans would stop :daisy:ing over the media coverage and deal with it. Of course, you gotta make sure you get them hard liners nice and outraged over the HORRIBLE attempts of the liberal media to sabotage the nation and turn us into the Soviet Union.:annoyed:

Don Corleone

07-24-2008, 19:38

Alright, this is really starting to piss me off. You'd almost think that people have never realized that the media isn't unbiased. I mean, COME ON! Its in human nature to be biased towards what we like as opposed to the opposite. I wish the Republicans would stop :daisy:ing over the media coverage and deal with it. Of course, you gotta make sure you get them hard liners nice and outraged over the HORRIBLE attempts of the liberal media to sabotage the nation and turn us into the Soviet Union.:annoyed:

Dude, you can't have your cake and eat it too. You can't run around claiming to be unbiased and objective, and then when somebody points out that no, you're actually quite partisan respond with "Well, duh, what did you expect?"

If the media is a proganda wing for Obama, then it should acknowledge itself as such. They confer upon themselves a lot of rights and prestige that are dervied from their supposedly neutral and objective stance, and yet, here you are, chastising people for not simply accepting that they're trying to give the election to one of the candidates.

Not sure how Adrian will respond to your premise that it's perfectly okay for the media to try to throw the election for one guy, and get offended that people don't just accept it.

Don Corleone

07-24-2008, 19:48

So I found this link discussing how Obama-mania has struck Germany. Obama actually loses a couple of style points for 'borrowing' a bit too much from JFK's "I am a Jelly Donut" speech. Not that he actually said he was German, but referring to himself, who he was, why he was there. Too close and too obvious. Boo.

Anyway, turns out, according to the quiz on the right side panel, I am ready to emigrate and become a German citizen. Ser C, Husar, EMFM... look out. The Corleones are coming, and Germany may never be the same again. :help:

:germany:

German Citizenship Quiz (http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,3507071,00.html).

Lemur

07-24-2008, 21:21

Speaking of media bias, I thought this (http://pewresearch.org/pubs/910/obama-new-yorker-cover) was interesting:

https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Lemurmania/910-2.gif

Ice

07-24-2008, 21:39

seireikhaan

07-24-2008, 22:29

That's fine if the media adopts at a slogan such as "Biased towards *insert name*".

Like Don said, you can't have your cake and eat it too. Don't say you are unbiased and then expect people not to call you out on it.
Okay, I'm a little cooled off. Guess I blew it a bit over the top, but I was still really pissed off about Hannity's(FOX news, fair and balanced!~:rolleyes:) interview with John McCain on the previous night. The guy constantly whines and :daisy:'s about how people won't ask Obama tough questions, and then he gives Johnnie Mac a veritable love fest, not asking a single question that didn't end up with McCain basically saying, "yes, that's right", with a little extra explanation to follow it. I'm not saying its necessarily alright for the media to try and throw an election, but at the same time, its their livelyhood to sell stories, and frankly, to most people, Obama is a more interesting story; we all more or less know about McCain, whereas Obama's the fresh, new guy. Not to mention that news stations are trying to pull in younger audiences to compete with the internet, a battle they're almost sure to lose anyways, by covering the guy who more young people like. The other thing that bothers me is that people are treating it like its some kind of revelation; the "breaking news" that the media is biased?! OMG, NOBODY KNEW THAT!!!!~:rolleyes: You'd think that maybe covering the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were more important, but nope. LETS ALL TALK ABOUT SOMETHING THAT ANYONE WITH HALF A BRAIN ALREADY HAS KNOWN ABOUT FOR THE LAST 30 YEARS!!!

Grr... I'm getting worked up again.

Ice

07-24-2008, 23:44

Okay, I'm a little cooled off. Guess I blew it a bit over the top, but I was still really pissed off about Hannity's(FOX news, fair and balanced!~:rolleyes:) interview with John McCain on the previous night.

Yes, it's well known fact that fox isn't balance what so ever. They calling themselves balanced doesn't make it so.

The guy constantly whines and :daisy:'s about how people won't ask Obama tough questions, and then he gives Johnnie Mac a veritable love fest, not asking a single question that didn't end up with McCain basically saying, "yes, that's right", with a little extra explanation to follow it. I'm not saying its necessarily alright for the media to try and throw an election, but at the same time, its their livelyhood to sell stories, and frankly, to most people, Obama is a more interesting story; we all more or less know about McCain, whereas Obama's the fresh, new guy. Not to mention that news stations are trying to pull in younger audiences to compete with the internet, a battle they're almost sure to lose anyways, by covering the guy who more young people like.

I know that McCain is a crusty old, boring man. I'm not disputing that, but just because Obama is the new flashly flavor doesn't give the media the right to call themselves balanced, but cater more to him. Sorry.

The other thing that bothers me is that people are treating it like its some kind of revelation; the "breaking news" that the media is biased?! OMG, NOBODY KNEW THAT!!!!~:rolleyes: You'd think that maybe covering the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were more important, but nope. LETS ALL TALK ABOUT SOMETHING THAT ANYONE WITH HALF A BRAIN ALREADY HAS KNOWN ABOUT FOR THE LAST 30 YEARS!!!

Why does *insert celebrity's * name get more attention than 70 killed in Iraq? It just does. That isn't really new. It probably has been going on since the dawn on news. This why i hardly watch/read the news much except for a basic outlook on what's going on in the world.

Grr... I'm getting worked up again.

You seem to be. I'd advise against it though. It's really not getting worked up about.

m52nickerson

07-25-2008, 01:55

LittleGrizzly

07-25-2008, 02:22

Eight and a half weeks. That's the amount of time following the inauguration on January 20th of Barrack Obama (which is becoming more certain in my mind every day), that public sentiment of Obama in Europe and on the American Left will turn against him for being a sell-out, a traitor, and not being 'their guy'.

I think your partially right here, alot of people think Obama will be the opposite of bush, whereas infact to us in Europe i don't think he's going to be all that different in terms of policys, obviously theres a difference but across the atlantic that difference seems narrower. The reason i think your partially wrong (only in my humble quite proabably wrong opinion) is that alot of the people who support Obama in europe either know he's not going to be to different (say like obama fans here for example) or the ones who think he's going to be some great difference don't pay enough attention and care to notice he's not what they expect.

Hes going to have some nice rhetoric and small moves on torture and global warming and those who care very little to start with will think he is a big change from bush

It's nothing about him that they desire, so much as a reaction to the Bush years.

I would agree with that, you could have probably put the devil up as the democrat front runner against god s the republican front runner and most of europe would root for the devil because of the last few years, all my friends dislike bush greatly even though most of them have no interest whatsoever in politics. I was young at the time but im sure after the clinton years europe didn't seem to bothered who got elected, I think a bad experience with Bush has made europeans default towards the democrats, it helps that they seem closer to european poltical partys as well (in terms of policy)

Crazed Rabbit

07-25-2008, 03:13

Let not forget the media in in the business of making the networks MONEY. Right now an Obama story get more attention then a McCain story. Even Fox News runs more stories about Obama then McCain. Yes those are negative stories, but there are still more of them.

Right now Obama sells.

True.

But Don's right about Obama. I would recommend the following article:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/david_aaronovitch/article4374704.ece

George W.Bush, of course, represents a particular kind of offence to European sensibilities. He blew out Kyoto, instead of pretending to care about it and then not implementing it, which is what our hypocrisies require. He took no exquisite pains to make us feel consulted. He invaded Iraq in the name of freedom and then somehow allowed torturers to photograph each other in the fallen dictator's house of tortures. He is not going to run Franklin Roosevelt a close race for nomination as the second greatest president of the US.

But even if he had been a half-Chinese ballet-loving Francophone, he would have been hated by some who should have loved him, for there isn't an American president since Eisenhower who hasn't ended up, at some point or other, being depicted by the world's cartoonists as a cowboy astride a phallic missile. It happened to Bill Clinton when he bombed Iraq; it will happen to Mr Obama when his reinforced forces in Afghanistan or Pakistan mistake a meeting of tribal elders for an unwise gathering of Taleban and al-Qaeda. Then the new president (or, if McCain, the old president) will be the target of that mandarin Anglo-French conceit that our superior colonialism somehow gives us the standing to critique the Yank's naive and inferior imperialism.

Often those who express their tiresome anti-Americanism will suggest, as do some of the more disingenuous anti-Zionists with regard to anti-Semitism - that they, of course, are not anti-American, and that no one really is. But, coming as I do from an Anti-American tradition that wasn't afraid to proclaim itself, I think I know where the corpses are interred. For example, the current production of Bernstein's Candide at the English National Opera is a classic of elite anti-Americanism, in which we are invited to laugh at the philistine invocation of “Democracy, the American Way and McDonald's”. The laughter that accompanied this feeble satire showed our proper understanding that we, the audience, had a proper concept of democracy, and would never soil ourselves with an Egg McMuffin.

The true irony went way above the sniggerers' heads, which was that Leonard Bernstein was the American cultural import that we were, at that very moment, enjoying. But the prejudice is that American culture has had a negative influence on the world, tabloidising our journalism, subverting the gentle land of Ealing with the violent pleasures of Die Hard 10 and commercialising our most intimate lives. And so we have ever complained; my father, back in the early Fifties, once wrote an entire communist pamphlet about the terrible effect of Hollywood and jazz on the land of Shakespeare and Elgar.

This week you could hear the author Andrew O'Hagan on Radio 4, reading from his collection of self-conscious essays, The Atlantic Ocean, in which - despite his own claims - every impact of American life on Britain is somehow configured negatively. He writes of an exported popular culture “born in the suburbs of America” and defined as “Spite as entertainment. Shouting as argument. Dysfunction as normality. Desires as rights. Shopping as democracy.” This in the country that has sent Big Brother, Pop Idol, Wife Swap and Location, Location, Location over the Atlantic in the other direction, while taking delivery of Curb Your Enthusiasm and The Wire.

Khaan - Hannity's uselss. I find it best to usually ignore TV pundit shows.

CR

KukriKhan

07-25-2008, 03:35

CountArach

07-25-2008, 03:38

Eight and a half weeks. That's the amount of time following the inauguration on January 20th of Barrack Obama (which is becoming more certain in my mind every day), that public sentiment of Obama in Europe and on the American Left will turn against him for being a sell-out, a traitor, and not being 'their guy'.

I was listening to an NPR report on the way in this morning where they were talking to a German editor and a French editor regarding Obama-mania. It's nothing about him that they desire, so much as a reaction to the Bush years.

And the very first time that Obama says something to the affect of "We have to do what's right for America", poof, Obama mania will evaporate and the pillorying and villification will begin. Granted not to the degree that Bush currently experiences it, but give him time. W has had 8 years to build up his popularity.

And I predict it will take about 8 and a half weeks for this watershed event to occur. Either Obama will say something such as "no published timetable in Iraq", "continuing fight against Taleban" or "continued support of Israel" or in some other way act in the USA's own best interest.

And then the honeymoon will be over.
I'm gonna agree with you here. That's how long it took for me to turn on our new Prime Minister.

Spino

07-25-2008, 03:42

True.

But Don's right about Obama. I would recommend the following article:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/david_aaronovitch/article4374704.ece

Khaan - Hannity's uselss. I find it best to usually ignore TV pundit shows.

CR

C'mon now, Sean works with the Crypt Keeper... how cool is that?Note: Images will expand your browser view.

https://img167.imageshack.us/img167/8450/alancolmeslh5.jpghttps://img167.imageshack.us/img167/4839/cryptkeeperat3.jpg

https://img92.imageshack.us/img92/3641/kerrybf2.jpghttps://img92.imageshack.us/img92/4478/cryptkeepersubduedoi5.jpg

:hide:

LittleGrizzly

07-25-2008, 04:18

This week you could hear the author Andrew O'Hagan on Radio 4, reading from his collection of self-conscious essays, The Atlantic Ocean, in which - despite his own claims - every impact of American life on Britain is somehow configured negatively.

you will probably find more stuff praising american culture than criticising it, look at our current top 10 films in britian and tell me again were anti-american, sure you will find people criticising the culture that is because we have so much of your culture over here theres bound to be people who dislike things, im sure you have americans complaining about
another Mcdonalds, are they anti-american or do they just dislike that paticular part of the culture

If your culture has that much of an effect to other countries of course theres going to be individuals who dislike parts of it, but for every person criticising mcdonalds theres 1000 people munching on a big mac, for every person criticising hollywood theres 1000's going to watch the latest hollywood movie, even in the article it talks of a british people laughing at a play... and its american!

In the last part of his article he goes onto an anti-british tirade (how hypocritical) or maybe just like people who criticise mcdonalds he happens to think the shows he mentioned are crap and its nothing to do with the makers

im pretty sure he's wrong about big brother, im sure i heard it was the Dutch who came up with it

He trys to link all this up with politics but this is where it falls flat, american culture is loved all over europe, the movies, the tv most of your new gadgets and toys, we love them!

Your politics we dislike, as can be seen by this board there does seem to be different views on issues if you cross the atlantic, so maybe the fact that we love the culture but hate the politics is proof that its not anti-americanism just a big difference in views

or maybe the fact you have different views is down to anti-europeanism, you seem to watch less european movies than we watch american, watch less european tv shows than we watch american, hell i can't even think of a european food chain in america but even if there is we eat more american food than you eat european food

If all this is proof of anti americanism in europe then we should really be worried about all the anti-europeanism in america.....

Xiahou

07-25-2008, 04:21

C'mon now, Sean works with the Crypt Keeper... how cool is that?
Huh, I always thought Maria Shriver was the crypt keeper- but I do see the resemblance to Colmes as well. :yes:

Regardless, I think Hannity is pretty much a dim-witted bully. That aside, he and his show make no pretenses about where his views are coming from.

Lemur

07-25-2008, 14:57

Here's an analysis (http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/ezraklein_archive?month=07&year=2008&base_name=how_much_should_obama_be_winni) which broadly agrees with Kukri:

The media may be trying to make the race look competitive, but all stories hinge on the figure of Obama: Why isn't he up more? Will he win? It's like watching a movie where the main character faces trouble, but since he's the main character, you know he can't die.

But campaigns aren't particularly responsive to campaigning. They're about partisan loyalties and demographics (how soon we forget the primaries, where Obama's vote totals were best predicted by the state's racial composition), by the economy and sense of the foreign scene. I still think Obama has a pretty significant edge, but it's largely because I think those forces will eventually weigh in heavily on his side, not because he's so much better a campaigner.

Don Corleone

07-25-2008, 16:12

Sorry, Lemur, I have to take issue with your quoted article. I do not believe the media are interested in making the race look competitive. They are interested in keeping viewership up, that's it. With the exception of FoxNews (granted, they have their own slant), the media speaks in one voice that if you're considering McCain, not only are you a moron and morally decrepit, but you're most likely a bigot and a warmonger to boot.

There's no positive coverage of McCain, and no pretense at entertaining any of the ideas he proposes that differentiate himself from Obama. As far as the media is concerned, this is Obamaland, and if you're not behind him in complete lock-step, get the hell out.

Crazed Rabbit

07-25-2008, 17:39

Obama may be wearing out his welcome with the press pool on his campaign, though:
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=6e9f4a42-9540-4d99-aba2-25adc276c25d

But, as Obama ascended from underdog to front-runner to presumptive nominee, the flame seems to have dwindled. Reporters who cover Obama these days grouse that Obama's flacks shroud the campaign in secrecy and provide little to no access. "They're more disciplined than the Bush people," a reporter on the Obama trail gripes. "There was this idea of being transparent, but they're not. They're total tightwads with information."

In June, there was something of a revolt after Obama ditched the press corps on his campaign plane for a secret meeting with Clinton at Senator Dianne Feinstein's house in Washington, leaving the reporters trapped on the flight to Chicago. The D.C. bureau chiefs of half a dozen news organizations, including the late Tim Russert, sent an angry letter to Obama aides Robert Gibbs and David Plouffe and threatened not to reimburse the campaign for the cost of the flight. "The decision to mislead reporters is a troubling one," they wrote. "We hope this does not presage a relationship with the Obama campaign that is not based on a mutual respect for the truth." After the incident, the press corps decided that one pool reporter would keep Obama in sight at all times. "It's a body watch," one reporter jokes.

Wouldn't that be lovely if he turned them off?

CR

Don Corleone

07-25-2008, 18:03

Oh, CR, you don't really believe the media would drop their support of the favorite son, do you?

Consider their alternatives:

-McCain, who they have already declared to be the 3rd term of Bush

or

-No horse in the race.

In order to assume the second position, they have to drop their role as self-anointed kingmakers, and they won't do that.

They may get angry at him and they may make loud noises and shake their fists, but there's no doubt in my mind that they will do everything, and anything, it takes, including fabricating stories, to ensure Obama's election.

They've just been lucky enough that McCain's defecit hasn't required them to do too much. You wait to see the coverage he starts getting if he closes to within 10 points.

Crazed Rabbit

07-25-2008, 19:42

I'm not saying the whole media, just those close to Obama might not be so loving, having been personally learned who he really is. The talking heads and staff reporters will still swoon, I'm sure.

CR

m52nickerson

07-25-2008, 20:51

Xiahou

07-26-2008, 02:31

Wouldn't that be lovely if he turned them off?

CRNot a chance. They complain to staff about lack of access, campaign enforced dress codes, ect. But when it comes to the man himself they're still in love. I've heard journalist mutterings about how tightly controlled access is to Obama since the beginning- they still love him. :2thumbsup:

I'm beginning to wonder if we'll ever even see a real debate between the candidates. It seems the Obama campaign was only interested in predetermined questions and written speeches as responses. Some say Obama has trouble (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qp0hU1THjuc) speaking extemporaneously. :clown:

m52nickerson

07-26-2008, 02:48

I hope we see at least a couple of debates between them. It may be McCain's only shot of out shining Obama, or John could get angry and lose it. Either way it would be interesting.

Spino

07-26-2008, 04:10

I hope we see at least a couple of debates between them. It may be McCain's only shot of out shining Obama, or John could get angry and lose it. Either way it would be interesting.

This is true, Obama is not very effective at speaking about specifics off the cuff. And he has a tendency to get elusive and agitated whenever anyone tries to press the issue (of all people Katie Couric managed to get under his skin recently).

McCain may have a temper but based on what I've seen of him in his numerous Town Hall meetings (we have live internal feeds at CNN that cover all these events in their entirety) he would wipe the floor with Obama in unrehearsed debates... It's too bad the media doesn't broadcast these town hall debates for any serious length of time because McCain is pretty damn impressive speaking off the cuff and is particularly good at handling people who attack him or go whacko bananas over some of his positions. 72 years old or not the old man has a mind like a steel trap, he can pretty much go off on a tear about any topic put before him.

The Obama campaign knows this and I think it's safe money to bet that they're only going to agree to a few debates... the pre-rehearsed kind where the questions are agreed to by both candidates' campaigns beforehand. If the McCain campaign has any brains it will make a huge push for as many, non-rehearsed debates as possible and make a stink whenever the Obama campaign balks or attempts to duck out.

Ice

07-26-2008, 04:10

I hope we see at least a couple of debates between them. It may be McCain's only shot of out shining Obama, or John could get angry and lose it. Either way it would be interesting.

McCain will rip Obama a new one in the speeches. I'll refer to this post when said event happens.

Edit: Spino said it better at the exact moment I posted.

Seamus Fermanagh

07-26-2008, 04:21

Speaking of media bias, I thought this (http://pewresearch.org/pubs/910/obama-new-yorker-cover) was interesting:

https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Lemurmania/910-2.gif

This graph deserves a 2nd look. Good snag Lemur!

The implications about the media's mis-focus is devastating.

If you read the paper, virtually NOTHING will happen in the ENTIRE WORLD until Barack wins in November (and he will, though the margin will be a fair bit narrower than current polls suggest).

Yet it would seem that this is more a product of the media's own fixation than either a) reality or b) what really matters to people in their audiences.

PanzerJaeger

07-26-2008, 04:50

You mean a person who would duck the press to have a meeting in peace?

Or a person who embraces racist and anti-american ideologies?

Evil_Maniac From Mars

07-26-2008, 06:36

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/david_aaronovitch/article4374704.ece

m52nickerson

07-26-2008, 07:37

This is true, Obama is not very effective at speaking about specifics off the cuff. And he has a tendency to get elusive and agitated whenever anyone tries to press the issue (of all people Katie Couric managed to get under his skin recently).

McCain may have a temper but based on what I've seen of him in his numerous Town Hall meetings (we have live internal feeds at CNN that cover all these events in their entirety) he would wipe the floor with Obama in unrehearsed debates... It's too bad the media doesn't broadcast these town hall debates for any serious length of time because McCain is pretty damn impressive speaking off the cuff and is particularly good at handling people who attack him or go whacko bananas over some of his positions. 72 years old or not the old man has a mind like a steel trap, he can pretty much go off on a tear about any topic put before him.

The Obama campaign knows this and I think it's safe money to bet that they're only going to agree to a few debates... the pre-rehearsed kind where the questions are agreed to by both candidates' campaigns beforehand. If the McCain campaign has any brains it will make a huge push for as many, non-rehearsed debates as possible and make a stink whenever the Obama campaign balks or attempts to duck out.
The one thing Obama would have in a debate is the fact that McCain does make mistakes. He has been called on them by people in the meetings before.

Or a person who embraces racist and anti-american ideologies?
Panzer you avoid the media as well? You must be speaking of yourself, because I know you are not sad enough to throw up baseless moronic attacks.

Xiahou

07-26-2008, 07:50

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/david_aaronovitch/article4374704.ece

there isn't an American president since Eisenhower who hasn't ended up, at some point or other, being depicted by the world's cartoonists as a cowboy astride a phallic missile.:yes:
Fun read. :2thumbsup:

CountArach

07-26-2008, 08:58

McCain will rip Obama a new one in the speeches. I'll refer to this post when said event happens.

Edit: Spino said it better at the exact moment I posted.
Assuming you mean the debates then I am not so sure. From a policy standpoint, yes Obama will probably be taken down a notch, however from an image standpoint - McCain will just look old. I know this doesn't have substance but it will probably help to reinforce the image.

Xiahou

07-26-2008, 09:47

Anyone been following this (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080726/ap_on_re_eu/obama_troops)? Pretty curious to me...

Obama had made public plans to visit wounded US troops while in Germany. However, at the last minute his campaign announced that Obama
"decided out of respect for these servicemen and women that it would be inappropriate to make a stop to visit troops at a U.S. military facility as part of a trip funded by the campaign."but then
A few hours later, the campaign issued a statement in the name of retired Gen. Scott Gration, an adviser to the senator, that mentioned the Pentagon's involvement.The Pentagon claims that all they told Obama is that his campaign staff wouldn't be allowed to accompany him when visiting the wounded troops.
At the Pentagon, spokesman Bryan Whitman said Obama was told he could go to Landstuhl, but the visit would have to conform to Defense Department guidelines that restrict political activity on military installation. That meant campaign staff would have been barred from accompanying him, he said.

At the same time, he said, "The Pentagon certainly did not tell the senator he could not visit Landstuhl."

I can't see how this is anything but a stupid move by the Obama campaign. They can't be so inept as to not have realized his appearance might appear "political"- it couldn't have taken a memo from the Pentagon to figure that one out. And the Pentagon claims that they only said he couldn't bring campaign staff, ect with him. So either they're astonishingly dumb for not realizing there could be political connotations ahead of time, or worse, they decided not to go only when they found out they couldn't make it into a political sideshow. Either way- stupid move that makes the candidate look bad.

PanzerJaeger

07-26-2008, 12:10

Panzer you avoid the media as well? You must be speaking of yourself, because I know you are not sad enough to throw up baseless moronic attacks.

Neither baseless nor moronic, but many, many news cycles old. Obama's deep, personal connection with an avid anti-american racist for 20 years shouldn't be forgotten, though.

However, I'll hold my powder this time, as Xiahou's information is possibly even more disgusting. Apparently visiting the gym was of major importance, but visiting our troops just isn't worth it without the cameras. :shame:

Lemur

07-26-2008, 14:26

So are we completely dismissing the notion of a misunderstanding (http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/0708/DoD_spokesman_says_Obama_camp_was_reminded_of_political_rules.html)?

Robert Gibbs said one of Obama's military advisers had been informed by the Pentagon that the visit may be seen as a campaign stop.

"They cited a regulation," Gibbs said of their point of contact, described as legislative affairs in the office of the secretary.

"We believed that based on the information we received that any presence, even his own and only his own, would get into a back and forth on whether his own presence was a campaign event," Gibbs said. [...]

Trying to make clear that this was not an attempt to undercut the Democratic nominee, Morrell also noted that when McCain officials asked the Pentagon for permission to let Cindy McCain visit the massive U.S. hospital ship, the U.S.N.S. Comfort, the request was rejected.

"Had she gone with Sen. McCain, it would have been OK," Morrell said, underlining the delineation between what are official and campaign activities.

-edit-

And as evidence of my rabid partisanship, may I point out that McCain has tangled with these same regulations (http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/04/03/mccain.pentagon/index.html):

With Department of Defense rules prohibiting political campaigning on military bases, it was determined that in some cases McCain could visit the installations as a senator but could not engage in any political activity or have news media present.

McCain campaign officials said Thursday they intentionally did not campaign on military property.

"We follow the rules," said senior McCain adviser Steve Schmidt.

Because all three presidential candidates are sitting senators, DoD officials have privately noted for some weeks that the whole matter of drawing the line between Senate business and campaigning is sensitive. [...]

Earlier in the day, when McCain had breakfast with midshipmen on academy grounds, it was closed to the press and considered a private event.

The military spokesman points out that any U.S. senator could also request to visit the academy or any military installation.

But the Navy declined a McCain campaign request to speak at the Naval Aviation Museum at the naval base in Pensacola, Florida, because it is a military owned installation and is located on the base, the official said.

m52nickerson

07-26-2008, 14:50

Neither baseless nor moronic, but many, many news cycles old. Obama's deep, personal connection with an avid anti-american racist for 20 years shouldn't be forgotten, though.

When Wright stepped over the line Obama left his church. So do you have any proof that Obama is a racist? Any proof he is anti-American? In fact if he was anti-American why would he be running for president? Panzer you are turning our to be a one trick pony.

However, I'll hold my powder this time, as Xiahou's information is possibly even more disgusting. Apparently visiting the gym was of major importance, but visiting our troops just isn't worth it without the cameras. :shame:

Please don't save anything for me. Obama could have visited the troops without cameras and still had people write about it. Lemur explained it quite well.

So are we completely dismissing the notion of a misunderstanding (http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/0708/DoD_spokesman_says_Obama_camp_was_reminded_of_political_rules.html)?

Obama make a mistake, it is obliviously because he dos not care about our troops, anti-American, racist or some some other crap like that. Someone here on the boards post racist remarks or out right lies, it is a misunderstanding, a mistake.

Crazed Rabbit

07-26-2008, 16:16

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/david_aaronovitch/article4374704.ece

So is Lemur's Disease spreading then? (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=1975368&postcount=623)

When Wright stepped over the line Obama left his church.

Um, no. He went to that church for 20 years and only separated himself (and at the time comparing his relationship to Wright with that of his Grandmother) when public attention on Wright increased, and only later denounced Wright. For 20 years Obama thought Wright was fine, but dumped him when it became politically expedient.

CR

LittleGrizzly

07-26-2008, 16:27

For 20 years Obama thought Wright was fine, but dumped him when it became politically expedient.

You almost sound hurt on behalf of wright...

m52nickerson

07-26-2008, 18:54

Um, no. He went to that church for 20 years and only separated himself (and at the time comparing his relationship to Wright with that of his Grandmother) when public attention on Wright increased, and only later denounced Wright. For 20 years Obama thought Wright was fine, but dumped him when it became politically expedient.

CR

So I suppose you know for a fact that Wright's speeches have always for the past twenty years been on the same level as recently. It could not have been the fact that Obama was now in the national spotlight caused Wright to ramp up his anti-white speech. Lets just label Obama a racist that way people will have an excuse to hate him instead of what what they may really be thinking.

Lemur

07-26-2008, 20:18

I'm glad to see Johnny Mac staking out more reasonable turf when it comes to getting the bulk of our troops out of Iraq. Video. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5mvk_NV8-L4)

BLITZER: So why do you think he said that 16 months is basically a pretty good timetable?

McCAIN: He said it’s a pretty good timetable based on conditions on the ground. I think it’s a pretty good timetable, as we should — or horizons for withdrawal. But they have to be based on conditions on the ground.

This is a welcome development. Yay. Idiots will call this retreat or flip-flopping (a term that is approaching meaninglessness). I say a convergence between Obama and McCain was inevitable and welcome.

Xiahou

07-27-2008, 01:43

McCain's response (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080726/ap_on_el_pr/mccain_obama_troops) to the earlier Obama story:

McCain himself joined in the rebuke, saying in an interview to be aired Sunday by ABC's "This Week" that "if I had been told by the Pentagon that I couldn't visit those troops, and I was there and wanted to be there, I guarantee you, there would have been a seismic event."

McCain added, "He certainly found time to do other things."

LittleGrizzly

07-27-2008, 04:00

flip-flopping (a term that is approaching meaninglessness).

Whoever came up with it needs to be shot, its just an annoying insult as far as im concerned of course people change thier mind, its nessecary sometimes....

PanzerJaeger

07-27-2008, 04:30

When Wright stepped over the line Obama left his church. So do you have any proof that Obama is a racist? Any proof he is anti-American? In fact if he was anti-American why would he be running for president? Panzer you are turning our to be a one trick pony.

Are you serious? Do we need to go over the entire saga again to refresh your memory? Here's a short rundown..

-Disgusting comments break
-Obama declares he could no more denounce Wright than he could the black community
-Wright shows up at a press club luncheon and reiterates the exact same comments
-Obama leaves the church (inexplicably doesn't denounce the black community :laugh4:)

Obama left the church for nothing more than political reasons. Please don't try and sell it as some sort of change of heart or moral realization.

So let me ask you a question. As someone who isn't shy about throwing around racist accusations - if I had attended a church for 20 years where the pastor consistently propagated white superiority and hatred towards black people, had that pastor marry me, and then credited him as my closest spiritual mentor - what would that make me?

How does Obama sit in a church like that for 20 years - and yes, this is nothing new for Rev. Wright, do some research - and not absorb whats being said? The claims that he just missed the message are ridiculous considering how close the two men are, err.. were.

Maybe he was focused on the day's basketball game, though. Coming from a guy who would rather hit the gym than have to spend some time with our fallen troops, it could be that he was just too focused on his game to notice all the "DA WHITE PEOPLES GAVE US DA AIDS" nonesense.

Lemur

07-27-2008, 14:28

The Germans get super-extra creepy (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/27/opinion/27dowd.html?ref=opinion) with their Obamamania:

In Berlin, the tabloid Bild sent an attractive blonde reporter to stalk Obama at the Ritz-Carlton gym as he exercised with his body man, Reggie Love. She then wrote a tell-all, enthusing, “I’m getting hot, and not from the workout,” and concluding, “What a man.”

Obama marveled: “I’m just realizing what I’ve got to become accustomed to. The fact that I was played like that at the gym. Do you remember ‘The Color of Money’ with Paul Newman? And Forest Whitaker is sort of sitting there, acting like he doesn’t know how to play pool. And then he hustles the hustler. She hustled us. We walk into the gym. She’s already on the treadmill. She looks like just an ordinary German girl. She smiles and sort of waves, shyly, but doesn’t go out of her way to say anything. As I’m walking out, she says: ‘Oh, can I have a picture? I’m a big fan.’ Reggie takes the picture.”

I ask him if he found it a bit creepy that she described his T-shirt as smelling like “fabric softener with spring scent.”

He looked nonplused: “Did she describe what my T-shirt smelled like?”

-edit-

On a different note, stick this (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-onthemedia27-2008jul27,0,6802141.story) in your conservative outrage pipe and smoke it.

During the evening news, the majority of statements from reporters and anchors on all three networks are neutral, the center found. And when network news people ventured opinions in recent weeks, 28% of the statements were positive for Obama and 72% negative.

Network reporting also tilted against McCain, but far less dramatically, with 43% of the statements positive and 57% negative, according to the Washington-based media center.

m52nickerson

07-27-2008, 15:20

Are you serious? Do we need to go over the entire saga again to refresh your memory? Here's a short rundown..

-Disgusting comments break
-Obama declares he could no more denounce Wright than he could the black community
-Wright shows up at a press club luncheon and reiterates the exact same comments
-Obama leaves the church (inexplicably doesn't denounce the black community :laugh4:)

Obama left the church for nothing more than political reasons. Please don't try and sell it as some sort of change of heart or moral realization.

So Obama did not leave a long time friend stated "God damn America" (which I have heard many preachers state because of the US have not outlawed Homosexuality). Then when Wright goes over the top again and Obama realised that he had to separate from him. Yes it was political, because there are enough Americans that will blindly believe that what Wright says is what Obama thinks.

So let me ask you a question. As someone who isn't shy about throwing around racist accusations - if I had attended a church for 20 years where the pastor consistently propagated white superiority and hatred towards black people, had that pastor marry me, and then credited him as my closest spiritual mentor - what would that make me?

It would make you someone who attended that church. Nothing more or less. It would be your own actions and beliefs on which you would be (should be) judged. It is just like Catholics who attend church and hear about how Homosexuals are sinners and Abortion is a sin, not all Catholics believe these things.

How does Obama sit in a church like that for 20 years - and yes, this is nothing new for Rev. Wright, do some research - and not absorb whats being said? The claims that he just missed the message are ridiculous considering how close the two men are, err.. were. Everything I find on Wright is recent, now since you are making the claim that Wright has been preaching at this level about the wrongs of the United States for 20 years the you have the responsibility to back up your claims.

Maybe he was focused on the day's basketball game, though. Coming from a guy who would rather hit the gym than have to spend some time with our fallen troops, it could be that he was just too focused on his game to notice all the "DA WHITE PEOPLES GAVE US DA AIDS" nonesense.
You really don't read and comprehend what others post do you? It has been spelled out why he did not visit the troops.

PanzerJaeger it is very clear that you despise Obama. Your hatred of Obama is based on him as a person and not his political position. You can only spew out lies you find on the internet, and bring up issues from the mass media which it seems you only half understand. You even argued for the fact that Obama is not really black, and said his wife looks like a monkey. Are you going to attack his children next?

We can always take this here (http://www.fstdt.com/forums/thread.aspx?t=17270) if you would like to move this away from the Org. There we will not have to play nice!

Xiahou

07-27-2008, 20:11

On a different note, stick this (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-onthemedia27-2008jul27,0,6802141.story) in your conservative outrage pipe and smoke it.

During the evening news, the majority of statements from reporters and anchors on all three networks are neutral, the center found. And when network news people ventured opinions in recent weeks, 28% of the statements were positive for Obama and 72% negative.

Network reporting also tilted against McCain, but far less dramatically, with 43% of the statements positive and 57% negative, according to the Washington-based media center.
Hmm, I can't find the study that he references on the CMPA website- but I did find one where they said FoxNews had the most balanced campaign coverage. Who knew?

KarlXII

07-27-2008, 22:58

PJ, do you also believe that Obama (excuse me, Barack Saddam Hussein Obama bin Ladin) is a pinko-commie Muslim liberal who will hand over America to Osama and the Russians?

CountArach

07-27-2008, 22:59

PJ, do you also believe that Obama (excuse me, Barack Saddam Hussein Obama bin Ladin) is a pinko-commie Muslim liberal who will hand over America to Osama and the Russians?
Are you implying he isn't? :inquisitive:

CrossLOPER

07-27-2008, 23:44

Why do the Russians or Osama bin Ladin need to own the US?

KarlXII

07-28-2008, 00:23

Are you implying he isn't? :inquisitive:

I seem to have forgot.

Seamus Fermanagh

07-28-2008, 02:18

Why do the Russians or Osama bin Ladin need to own the US?

It's a "keeping up with the Joneses" thing. After all, they see China buying up the US in great big chunks and they figure those Chinese must know something....

PanzerJaeger

07-28-2008, 04:16

PanzerJaeger it is very clear that you despise Obama. Your hatred of Obama is based on him as a person and not his political position. You can only spew out lies you find on the internet, and bring up issues from the mass media which it seems you only half understand. You even argued for the fact that Obama is not really black, and said his wife looks like a monkey. Are you going to attack his children next?

We can always take this here (http://www.fstdt.com/forums/thread.aspx?t=17270) if you would like to move this away from the Org. There we will not have to play nice!

Despise? Hate? Hardly. I wouldn't waste the energy.

A politician who long ago sold out to the MoveOn crowd, relies on image over substance, harbors deep seeded racist and elitist beliefs, peddles in gloom and defeat for his own gain, and would need twice the national budget to pay for everything he's promising us just isn't my cup of tea.

Is that ok, or do I have to be clinging to some sort of underlying racist motives along with my guns and religion?

Edit: Do I really need to join another forum to tell you exactly what I’ve been saying throughout this thread? I’m not a fan of the ultra-left wing in America and that’s as deep as it gets.

If, on the other hand, you feel the need to play dirty, I’ve found the org can be quite accommodating, so long as you expand your vocabulary just a bit. If you put a little effort into it, there are plenty of ways to call me a :daisy: without actually calling me a :daisy:.

m52nickerson

07-28-2008, 04:51

Despise? Hate? Hardly. I wouldn't waste the energy.

A politician who long ago sold out to the MoveOn crowd, relies on image over substance, harbors deep seeded racist and elitist beliefs, peddles in gloom and defeat for his own gain, and would need twice the national budget to pay for everything he's promising us just isn't my cup of tea.

The MoveOn crowd represents the way a large portion of the population feels and there beliefs are inline with Obama's. One of the reasons he is so popular.

Yes, he has a good image. As far as substance, he has a more detailed plan then McCain, what more do you want?

I ask again, do you have any proof he is racist, or an elitist? It's funny that he is called an elitist when much of his plans would help the poor, while taking money and power from the rich.

Gloom and defeat? Are you referring to him being wrong about the surge?

Yes, he will be hard pressed to come up with the funds for all his plans, but since when have we not had a politician set the bar higher then they can reach.

Is that ok, or do I have to be clinging to some sort of underlying racist motives along with my guns and religion?
Well if the shoe fits.

Edit: Do I really need to join another forum to tell you exactly what I’ve been saying throughout this thread? I’m not a fan of the ultra-left wing in America and that’s as deep as it gets.
That's fine.

I'm fine with the fact that you do not like left wing thinking. It's that fact that you are attacking that man and not his policies is the problem.

Redleg

07-28-2008, 06:32

The MoveOn crowd represents the way a large portion of the population feels and there beliefs are inline with Obama's. One of the reasons he is so popular.

I do believe you have just overstated the size of the MoveOn crowd. I haven't looked into the actual numbers but the MoveOn crowd is still a minority of the overall percentage of American Voters.

Yes, he has a good image. As far as substance, he has a more detailed plan then McCain, what more do you want?

Neither candidate has a detailed plan. Why do you think Obama is refusing to hold town hall type debates?

Yes, he will be hard pressed to come up with the funds for all his plans, but since when have we not had a politician set the bar higher then they can reach.

When one makes campaign promises that they know they can not keep - I normally begin to think very little of that candidate. So are you claiming that Obama knows he can not even come close to meeting the goals that he is promising the American People? Does that not make you question the sincerity of the candidate?

Not that I think McCain is any better, but at least I don't get the feeling that he is making promises he knows he wont attempt to keep. Now I am not sure on what Obama really means but such statements that you have made here would indicate that he is the worse candidate of the two. Pandering to the voters without any intention of following through once he is elected - is this truely what you wish readers to have an understanding of?

CountArach

07-28-2008, 06:51

I do believe you have just overstated the size of the MoveOn crowd. I haven't looked into the actual numbers but the MoveOn crowd is still a minority of the overall percentage of American Voters.
Without putting words in nickerson's mouth, I believe that he means that the views MoveOn espouse are broadly in line with much of America, which is true in some cases.

m52nickerson

07-28-2008, 10:27

I do believe you have just overstated the size of the MoveOn crowd. I haven't looked into the actual numbers but the MoveOn crowd is still a minority of the overall percentage of American Voters.

CounterArach hit it.

Neither candidate has a detailed plan. Why do you think Obama is refusing to hold town hall type debates? Have you looked at the their websites? How much more detailed do you want.

When one makes campaign promises that they know they can not keep - I normally begin to think very little of that candidate. So are you claiming that Obama knows he can not even come close to meeting the goals that he is promising the American People? Does that not make you question the sincerity of the candidate?

Not that I think McCain is any better, but at least I don't get the feeling that he is making promises he knows he wont attempt to keep. Now I am not sure on what Obama really means but such statements that you have made here would indicate that he is the worse candidate of the two. Pandering to the voters without any intention of following through once he is elected - is this truely what you wish readers to have an understanding of?

I stated that Obama would be hard pressed to come up with the funds needed, not that is was impossible. Now a promise and a plan is two different things. If a politician states that he plans to do X but then later when elected can't find the funding or cannot get it passed that is not his fault. I what people to have an understanding that politicians do not operate in a vacuum. So times they have to make compromises, and sometimes "gasp" they have to change their minds.

I would rather have politicians that reach as high as possible then ones that say it is impossible.

PanzerJaeger

07-28-2008, 15:58

The MoveOn crowd represents the way a large portion of the population feels and there beliefs are inline with Obama's. One of the reasons he is so popular.

I don't think a large portion of the nation fall in line with MoveOn, and I haven't seen any affiliation polls that correspond with that claim. If that is true, however, this nation deserves Obama and much more..

Yes, he has a good image. As far as substance, he has a more detailed plan then McCain, what more do you want?

I'm sorry, a plan is not a bunch of empty promises with no way of fulfilling them. That is what is commonly referred to as a lie.

I ask again, do you have any proof he is racist, or an elitist? It's funny that he is called an elitist when much of his plans would help the poor, while taking money and power from the rich.

I believe that you are defined, at least in part, by the company you keep. Obama, for example, chose to join and participate for 20 years in the real life equivalent of StormFront for Black People. :shrug:

(And lets not forget the part-time-gospel-singer-full-time-gay-basher he sought out in South Carolina.)

Of course there was one other plausible excuse floated by the Obama lackeys when the Rev. Wright story broke; that he joined the church for political advancement.

I'm giving Barack the benefit of the doubt on this one, though. At least a black man in America has some past societal injustices to base his racism on, however misguided. However, God help us all if we elect a man so morally deficient and lacking in character as to throw his lot in with hate mongers for pure political ambition, and then to submit his family - small children included - to the sort of frenzied hatred, lies, and "black liberation" that Trinity specializes in. No, I cannot accept that Obama is that contemptible.

The elitism speaks for itself.

Gloom and defeat? Are you referring to him being wrong about the surge?

That and so much more. Obama decided against the path of patriotic opposition and chose to align himself with the "General Betrayus" crowd - the same people who have been banking on American deaths and defeat for years to score cheap political points.

Yes, he will be hard pressed to come up with the funds for all his plans, but since when have we not had a politician set the bar higher then they can reach.

If they cannot be paid for, how then, are they plans? :inquisitive:

If I told you that I was running for President and I wanted to give every American a Prius to solve the energy issue, would that really be a plan or simply a pipe dream?

Well if the shoe fits.

I could say the same about Obama, but with far more support than you have against me. :yes:

It's that fact that you are attacking that man and not his policies is the problem.

I've criticized his "policies" fairly consistently. Character is just important though, and he seems decidedly lacking in that department as well.

I would rather have politicians that reach as high as possible then ones that say it is impossible.

Sorry to nip a bit from your other post but I wanted to comment.

What Obama is doing is not "reaching" a la Kennedy and the moon, he's just lying. Promising people a load of crap to get votes with absolutely no way of delivering is not a noble aspiration.

m52nickerson

07-29-2008, 01:01

I don't think a large portion of the nation fall in line with MoveOn, and I haven't seen any affiliation polls that correspond with that claim. If that is true, however, this nation deserves Obama and much more..
Well since Bush's rating is in the tanks, and Republicans have been losing elections to Democrats left and right, I would say that a large part of the nation is moving to the left were most of the Dems beliefs lie. Plus the number of people who identify them selfs as Democrats rather then Republicans has been increasing. (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/party_affiliation/partisan_trends)

.......and yes this country deserves more then the Conservative Republics have given us.

I'm sorry, a plan is not a bunch of empty promises with no way of fulfilling them. That is what is commonly referred to as a lie.
Can you show that he has absolutely no way of enacting his plan overtime. Or are you just going by what you heard.

I believe that you are defined, at least in part, by the company you keep. Obama, for example, chose to join and participate for 20 years in the real life equivalent of StormFront for Black People. :shrug:(And lets not forget the part-time-gospel-singer-full-time-gay-basher he sought out in South Carolina.)
Perhaps in part, but the actions of the man should count for more then who he has associated with. I believe Jesus (if you believe) hung out with the prostitutes, tax collector, Liars and other dregs of society.

Note - I'm not trying to say that Obama is Jesus.

Of course there was one other plausible excuse floated by the Obama lackeys when the Rev. Wright story broke; that he joined the church for political advancement.

I will give you that this was spin.

I'm giving Barack the benefit of the doubt on this one, though. At least a black man in America has some past societal injustices to base his racism on, however misguided. However, God help us all if we elect a man so morally deficient and lacking in character as to throw his lot in with hate mongers for pure political ambition, and then to submit his family - small children included - to the sort of frenzied hatred, lies, and "black liberation" that Trinity specializes in. No, I cannot accept that Obama is that contemptible.

Damn, you did surprise me. I had to read this a few times.

The elitism speaks for itself.
Perhaps I'm slow, but could you point out how he is an elitist.

That and so much more. Obama decided against the path of patriotic opposition and chose to align himself with the "General Betrayus" crowd - the same people who have been banking on American deaths and defeat for years to score cheap political points.
So speaking out against a war in which we were lead into based solely on lies is unpatriotic and was done for political points. That is hard to believe since Obama has opposed the war since the beginning when it was unpopular to do so.

If they cannot be paid for, how then, are they plans? :inquisitive:

If I told you that I was running for President and I wanted to give every American a Prius to solve the energy issue, would that really be a plan or simply a pipe dream? That would be a pipe dream. These are far cries from Obama's plan.

How about you give some specific examples of things that he could not possible get done.

I could say the same about Obama, but with far more support than you have against me. :yes:All you have against Obama is his associates, I have statements you have made that can easily be construed as racist. If you like we can revisit these.

I've criticized his "policies" fairly consistently. Character is just important though, and he seems decidedly lacking in that department as well. I don't seem to remember you really doing that, please post some examples.

Sorry to nip a bit from your other post but I wanted to comment.

What Obama is doing is not "reaching" a la Kennedy and the moon, he's just lying. Promising people a load of crap to get votes with absolutely no way of delivering is not a noble aspiration.

Again could you give specific examples of things he would have on way of doing.

By the way FactCheck.org thinks that McCain's latest commercial criticizing Obama for not visiting US troops is misleading at best. It happens to also blow holes in your previous statements as well, enjoy (http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/snubbing_wounded_troops.html)!

Real Clear Politics still shows Obama with a sizable lead. I give you the MAP (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/maps/obama_vs_mccain/)!

Lemur

07-29-2008, 04:24

Finally someone addresses the real issue: Which candidate would handle an alien invasion better (http://www.asylum.com/2008/07/22/barroom-debate-which-candidate-would-best-handle-aliens/)? (We'll hold off on discussing who would cope with the zombie apocalypse, since there is no leader who can.)

Ronin

07-29-2008, 11:15

I’m not a fan of the ultra-left wing in America and that’s as deep as it gets.

I´m seriously considering paying for you to travel over here so that you can meet face-to-face with a real life commy-pinko leftist....it might be worth it just for the entertainment value of watching your head explode...

there is no such thing as ultra-left in mainstream US politics....I know you people like the label but it´s just silly. :laugh4:

CountArach

07-29-2008, 11:24

there is no such thing as ultra-left in mainstream US politics....I know you people like the label but it´s just silly. :laugh4:
Took the words right out of my mouth :2thumbsup: . Even Ralph Nader is only moderately-left by European standards.

Redleg

07-29-2008, 13:09

CounterArach hit it.

Well then you will have to provide more evidence that a majority of the population have a broadly excepted the views of MoveOn. Now while change in some things is always to be desired and often happens after 8 years of one party in the White House, I just don't see it in the news that the majority of the people want what the MoveOn crowd espouse.

Have you looked at the their websites? How much more detailed do you want.

Yep, hince my statement. Both only have very broad stroke campaigns right now. Nothing that one can hold their feet to the fire on, as the election cycle develops more detailed plans of what they wish to accomplish in office is something the American People should demand. Half baked plans without detail are not adequate plans for who I desire to elect to the highest office.

I stated that Obama would be hard pressed to come up with the funds needed, not that is was impossible. Now a promise and a plan is two different things. If a politician states that he plans to do X but then later when elected can't find the funding or cannot get it passed that is not his fault. I what people to have an understanding that politicians do not operate in a vacuum. So times they have to make compromises, and sometimes "gasp" they have to change their minds.

Careful now - you might want to look at some of the things Obama has been saying - he might have crossed the line into the promise versus the plan - not that interested in what he has stated during the primaries - I am giving him the benefit of the doubt and waiting for the actual election sequence. This is why debates are important between the two candidates. Why do you think Obama steers away from town hall style debates with McCain?

I would rather have politicians that reach as high as possible then ones that say it is impossible.

Nothing wrong with that view - I prefer candidates who will discuss the issues and debate each other so I can determine who I believe has the best course of action plans for the nation. A failure to be willing to debate is a tell against Obama.

Kralizec

07-29-2008, 17:42

I'm not that familiar with Moveon.org, but it does seem that they're extremely partisan left-wingers.

The reason that they appear in line with the moderates is that most of the time they espouse messages that a large part of the population can get behind, while occasionally slipping in those bits wich make them stand out.

Here's (https://youtube.com/watch?v=PpxmYvlLKXo) a Moveon add comparing Bush to Hitler, wich was endorsed by them until it provoked outrage after wich they withdrew it.

KarlXII

07-29-2008, 22:21

Obama decided against the path of patriotic opposition

Is it all of a sudden unpatriotic to not support a war, especially one that was caused by lies? PJ, maybe you need to stop blindly follow the Republican Party. You seem to be a sufferer of Sheeple Syndrome.

PanzerJaeger

07-29-2008, 22:58

Is it all of a sudden unpatriotic to not support a war, especially one that was caused by lies? PJ, maybe you need to stop blindly follow the Republican Party. You seem to be a sufferer of Sheeple Syndrome.

The issue is not his opposition, but the people he associates with. There are plenty of people in this country that oppose the war who do not deal in the gutter tactics MoveOn and others that form the core of Barack's base subscribe to.

I´m seriously considering paying for you to travel over here so that you can meet face-to-face with a real life commy-pinko leftist....it might be worth it just for the entertainment value of watching your head explode...

there is no such thing as ultra-left in mainstream US politics....I know you people like the label but it´s just silly.

The ultra-left in America. That would be a caveat. I would love to come visit, though!

Nickerson deserves a proper response which will be forthcoming.....

KarlXII

07-29-2008, 23:04

The issue is not his opposition, but the people he associates with. There are plenty of people in this country that oppose the war who do not deal in the gutter tactics MoveOn and others that form the core of Barack's base subscribe to.

The Bush Administration associates itself with Pakistan, a nation that has had a very bad rep, are we guilty by association? The US has been responsible for many dictatorships and terrorists in the world, are we terrorists by association?

PanzerJaeger

07-29-2008, 23:32

The Bush Administration associates itself with Pakistan, a nation that has had a very bad rep, are we guilty by association? The US has been responsible for many dictatorships and terrorists in the world, are we terrorists by association?

I assume you're in Sweden, so I think you're ok.

Anyway, apple to apple comparisons are more helpful. The point being that you don't have to support hit jobs on US soldiers and such to oppose the war.

KarlXII

07-29-2008, 23:34

I assume you're in Sweden, so I think you're ok.

Anyway, apple to apple comparisons are more helpful. The point being that you don't have to support hit jobs on US soldiers and such to oppose the war.

I live in the US. Is Obama calling hits on soldiers now?

LittleGrizzly

07-29-2008, 23:42

I live in the US.

I always figured you were swedish as well, if my name was american grizzly you'd get confused too!

Obama decided against the path of patriotic opposition

I never understood this unpatriotic charge that is laid at people who don't support wars, unless your actively working against your own army, how can it be unpatrioitic opposition, surely seeing the mess we got ourselves into in iraq all opposition was very patriotically trying to save you, whereas the goverment was unpatrioitically heading you towards disaster...

could you define obamas unpatriotic opposition ?

PanzerJaeger

07-30-2008, 00:22

Obama decided against the path of patriotic opposition

I never understood this unpatriotic charge that is laid at people who don't support wars, unless your actively working against your own army, how can it be unpatrioitic opposition, surely seeing the mess we got ourselves into in iraq all opposition was very patriotically trying to save you, whereas the goverment was unpatrioitically heading you towards disaster...

could you define obamas unpatriotic opposition ?

This is the point I am trying to make. You can be patriotic and be against the war. Stand on the steps of Congress and yell it for all I care. Just don't associate yourself with this kind of thing...

https://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y104/panzerjaeger/1361714993_1308f15398_o.jpg

...and thats just the tip of the iceberg. MoveOn varies between portraying our soldiers as mindless puppies who can't think for themselves and vicious, bloodthirsty baby killers depending on who their advertising to.

KarlXII

07-30-2008, 00:59

m52nickerson

07-30-2008, 01:01

This is the point I am trying to make. You can be patriotic and be against the war. Stand on the steps of Congress and yell it for all I care. Just don't associate yourself with this kind of thing...

https://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y104/panzerjaeger/1361714993_1308f15398_o.jpg

...and thats just the tip of the iceberg. MoveOn varies between portraying our soldiers as mindless puppies who can't think for themselves and vicious, bloodthirsty baby killers depending on who their advertising to.

With all the things you have said about Obama, you have a problem with that picture?

Could you provide links to were MoveOn portraying our soldiers as mindless puppies who can't think for themselves and/or vicious, bloodthirsty baby killers.

Well then you will have to provide more evidence that a majority of the population have a broadly excepted the views of MoveOn. Now while change in some things is always to be desired and often happens after 8 years of one party in the White House, I just don't see it in the news that the majority of the people want what the MoveOn crowd espouse.So you don't see how a change to support more liberal views supports that the opinion that a majority of the people what the same thing as a liberal web site? The fact that Republics have been losing to Democrats, all most all polls indicate that a majority of people do not support the war, the presidents rating is in the tank, Obama is leading in most polls and so on.

Yep, hince my statement. Both only have very broad stroke campaigns right now. Nothing that one can hold their feet to the fire on, as the election cycle develops more detailed plans of what they wish to accomplish in office is something the American People should demand. Half baked plans without detail are not adequate plans for who I desire to elect to the highest office.Again how much more detail do you want? How about this, tell me what more do you what in Obama's health care plan (http://www.barackobama.com/issues/healthcare/).

Careful now - you might want to look at some of the things Obama has been saying - he might have crossed the line into the promise versus the plan - not that interested in what he has stated during the primaries - I am giving him the benefit of the doubt and waiting for the actual election sequence. This is why debates are important between the two candidates. Why do you think Obama steers away from town hall style debates with McCain?What things would those be? Links would be nice.

I don't know why Obama is steering away. There is at least one planned. Don't put to much emphasis on debating, a good debater a leader does not make.

Nothing wrong with that view - I prefer candidates who will discuss the issues and debate each other so I can determine who I believe has the best course of action plans for the nation. A failure to be willing to debate is a tell against Obama.
I agree if Obama fails to showup for any debates it is a tell, but I doubt it will happen.

Redleg

07-30-2008, 03:40

So you don't see how a change to support more liberal views supports that the opinion that a majority of the people what the same thing as a liberal web site? The fact that Republics have been losing to Democrats, all most all polls indicate that a majority of people do not support the war, the presidents rating is in the tank, Obama is leading in most polls and so on.

Supporting more liberial moderate functions of government does not equate to the MoveOn.org crowd is what I am saying. America has always primarily been a moderate/Centerist population with minor swings to the left or to the right. Equating this normal process that happens during the election cycles to the MoveOn.Org philisophy is an extreme reach in logical. Historically after a party has been in power for 8 years the other party often gets the opporunity to get in office. This also happened after the Clinton Adminstration. One of the few Presidents besides FDR to break that norm was Reagan.

Again how much more detail do you want? How about this, tell me what more do you what in Obama's health care plan (http://www.barackobama.com/issues/healthcare/).

I would like a debate that finds out what the details are with both candidates discussing the issue. This looks very similiar to the one posted two monthes ago - still don't see how he plans to implement and pay for the plan. But then I am at work and only browsing the article

[quote]
What things would those be? Links would be nice.

Primarily being the news links that state that Obama has not signed up for Town Hall debates with McCain as McCain has been asking for.

I don't know why Obama is steering away. There is at least one planned. Don't put to much emphasis on debating, a good debater a leader does not make.

The debate has nothing to do with leadership - it has to do with understanding what the Candidate's plan is. If you just want to blindly vote for a candidate that is your choice, however I am an independent voter who steers toward the candidate that upholds the values of the Constitution more then the other. I am always basically voting for the man I believe will do the least damage to the constitution. Was right for two of them, wrong on one. Now we got two individuals running who its hard to determine which one will create more damage to the nation - because neither have a good record on upholding the constitution.

I agree if Obama fails to showup for any debates it is a tell, but I doubt it will happen.

And a man unwilling to have open discussion with citizens about his plans for the government is a man I do not trust at all. Until Obama develops a desire to have these discussions outside of the controled environment of his handlers - I only see him as the same bad politican that we have voted into office over and over again. Nothing new with him at all.

LittleGrizzly

07-30-2008, 03:52

And a man unwilling to have open discussion with citizens about his plans for the government is a man I do not trust at all. Until Obama develops a desire to have these discussions outside of the controled environment of his handlers - I only see him as the same bad politican that we have voted into office over and over again. Nothing new with him at all.

If as i have heard, Obama is not so good at non scripted speaking, debates or question and answer events, then maybe avioding them is simply a good political move for him, as in not letting his weaknesses come to the fore.

Of course it could be one of a hundred bad reasons but i wouldn't count ^ out

m52nickerson

07-30-2008, 04:12

Supporting more liberial moderate functions of government does not equate to the MoveOn.org crowd is what I am saying. America has always primarily been a moderate/Centerist population with minor swings to the left or to the right. Equating this normal process that happens during the election cycles to the MoveOn.Org philisophy is an extreme reach in logical. Historically after a party has been in power for 8 years the other party often gets the opporunity to get in office. This also happened after the Clinton Adminstration. One of the few Presidents besides FDR to break that norm was Reagan.

MoveOn wants change, and supports more liberal views.
There is a natural swing at present to the left, which is a more liberal view.

So......the swing is inline with MoveOn. I'm not trying to say that this has been caused bt MoveOn.

I would like a debate that finds out what the details are with both candidates discussing the issue. This looks very similiar to the one posted two monthes ago - still don't see how he plans to implement and pay for the plan. But then I am at work and only browsing the article

Implementation would be a change in regulations and laws. Do you want them to write the Bills now.

......and a debate will not necessarily bring up greater details, it may point out which plan will work better.

Primarily being the news links that state that Obama has not signed up for Town Hall debates with McCain as McCain has been asking for.Obama has said he would meet for a town hall debate, just not 10.

The debate has nothing to do with leadership - it has to do with understanding what the Candidate's plan is. If you just want to blindly vote for a candidate that is your choice, however I am an independent voter who steers toward the candidate that upholds the values of the Constitution more then the other. I am always basically voting for the man I believe will do the least damage to the constitution. Was right for two of them, wrong on one. Now we got two individuals running who its hard to determine which one will create more damage to the nation - because neither have a good record on upholding the constitution........and how would a debate do this better then a written plan or a simple interview?

And a man unwilling to have open discussion with citizens about his plans for the government is a man I do not trust at all. Until Obama develops a desire to have these discussions outside of the controled environment of his handlers - I only see him as the same bad politican that we have voted into office over and over again. Nothing new with him at all.Obama has agreed to debates, just not as many town hall style. A controlled debate with a moderator is normally a better debate.

Redleg

07-30-2008, 04:34

MoveOn wants change, and supports more liberal views.
There is a natural swing at present to the left, which is a more liberal view.

This is normal the case after any president is in office for 8 years. After Clinton the Republicans came into power.

So......the swing is inline with MoveOn. I'm not trying to say that this has been caused bt MoveOn.

And it would still be incorrect - that is like saying that the swing to the right after Clinton's term in office is in-line with the United States going facsist.

Implementation would be a change in regulations and laws. Do you want them to write the Bills now.

Incorrect - how he plans to implemented these programs means what regulations and bills is he going to pursue to implement his plan. Again read what is written not what you think I wrote, what is his plan?

......and a debate will not necessarily bring up greater details, it may point out which plan will work better.

Bingo you have just hit on the point why Obama should particapate in any debates

Obama has said he would meet for a town hall debate, just not 10.

Which if I remember the news correctly he has not committed to even that one's date.

.......and how would a debate do this better then a written plan or a simple interview? Because I want to hear the passion for the plan in his voice, I want to know how much of it is his plan and how much he supports such a plan. Mannerisms during a debate helps one understand the person's postion.

Obama has agreed to debates, just not as many town hall style. A controlled debate with a moderator is normally a better debate.

Controlled debates only ask the questions the political pundits want the candidates to take. A town hall debate allows us citizens to determine what questions the candidates will be asked. Because citizens will ask more broad base questions - the candidate's own ideas will be what comes out of the debate versus what his party or his handlers have prepared for him. I alreadly know the party positions for both main parties - I want to know what the candidate's emotion and feelings are on the issue. A town hall debate gives us the best picture of that.

Controlled debates are just media events.

Lemur

07-30-2008, 14:54

An ad is put out to counter the McCain media bias piece. Most interestingly, it also features Chris Matthews. I guess I'm going to have to pay attention to this guy, since everybody's using him as a touchstone. Enjoy. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GJhM6_gZKV8)

drone

07-30-2008, 16:16

One very good reason to vote McCain. His policies? His stance on abortion? No. That idiot Sen. Ted "Series of Tubes (https://youtube.com/watch?v=_cZC67wXUTs)" Stevens (R-Alaska) got himself indicted, giving the Dems a very good chance of controlling 60 seats in the Senate after the election. Good riddance to him hopefully, but there is the downside.

President Obama + large Dem majority in Congress = disaster.

I hadn't really looked at which Senator seats were up for reelection this year, but it looks like a bad case of timing for the GOP. 23 GOP seats against 12 Dems, with a lot of the old guard retiring and no money for the campaigns.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/29/AR2008072902227.html?hpid=topnews

Spino

07-30-2008, 17:13

Redleg

07-30-2008, 21:24

Frightening isn't it? I'm fairly certain that when Nancy Pelosi heard the news she spontaneously soaked her panties...

Well the nation will quickly discover that the lesson of two branches controled by the same party equates to diaster regardless of which party is in power.

Unfortunately its going to be a lesson we have to learn over and over again. Given that both parties have the super ability to completely make a mess of things when they control both elected branches of government.

Give the Democrates their chance to prove my cynism wrong - many thought that two branches controled by the Conservative Republicians would be a good thing when it first happened - let the Democrates learn that lesson.

Maybe it will destroy the two party system and get some true new blood into our politicial system.

Seamus Fermanagh

07-30-2008, 22:16

...there is no such thing as ultra-left in mainstream US politics....I know you people like the label but it´s just silly. :laugh4:

By common European definitions you are, of course, quite correct.

However, the USA's political center -- our mid-point -- is a good three notches to the right of the mid-point in Western Europe. We of the US political right are trying to keep that mid-point where it is, and by marginalizing the label "liberal" we keep the really fringe left solutions on the "they're insane" list rather than having that fringe become the politically "acceptable" outcasts while the "normal" left makes themselves more mainstream. There's some good persuasive/rhetoric theory supporting this approach.

Of course, if you ask a U.S. Conservative, she or he probably wouldn't think of it that way -- even while doing just that.

Lemur

07-30-2008, 22:47

m52nickerson

07-31-2008, 00:45

This is normal the case after any president is in office for 8 years. After Clinton the Republicans came into power.
And it would still be incorrect - that is like saying that the swing to the right after Clinton's term in office is in-line with the United States going facsist.Not quite, MoveOn is a website that is liberal in is views, it is not a political structure.

The majority = wants change, supporting Democrates
MoveOn = wants change, supporting Democrates

It is not a hard concept, I think you get it, you just don't want to admit it.

Incorrect - how he plans to implemented these programs means what regulations and bills is he going to pursue to implement his plan. Again read what is written not what you think I wrote, what is his plan?So you want him to write the bills and regulations now. I think you are asking a little much but OK.

Which if I remember the news correctly he has not committed to even that one's date.He has submitted dates to the McCain camp, but they have rejected them because of the number of debates.

Because I want to hear the passion for the plan in his voice, I want to know how much of it is his plan and how much he supports such a plan. Mannerisms during a debate helps one understand the person's postion.You can hear passion in speeches. Mannerisms will help you understand a persons position on issues?

Controlled debates only ask the questions the political pundits want the candidates to take. A town hall debate allows us citizens to determine what questions the candidates will be asked. Because citizens will ask more broad base questions - the candidate's own ideas will be what comes out of the debate versus what his party or his handlers have prepared for him. I alreadly know the party positions for both main parties - I want to know what the candidate's emotion and feelings are on the issue. A town hall debate gives us the best picture of that.

Controlled debates are just media events.

Debates are good, but they are not that good at showing who will be the better leader for a country. Someone could have a great plan, but not be a good debater. A good debater can argue on the side of a weaker potions and win.

Plus that fact that policies, bills, regulations, and mandates are not written in a town hall off the cuff environment. So while debates will show us somethings about the candidates, they are not the best way of picking our leaders.

One very good reason to vote McCain. His policies? His stance on abortion? No. That idiot Sen. Ted "Series of Tubes (https://youtube.com/watch?v=_cZC67wXUTs)" Stevens (R-Alaska) got himself indicted, giving the Dems a very good chance of controlling 60 seats in the Senate after the election. Good riddance to him hopefully, but there is the downside.

President Obama + large Dem majority in Congress = disaster.

I hadn't really looked at which Senator seats were up for reelection this year, but it looks like a bad case of timing for the GOP. 23 GOP seats against 12 Dems, with a lot of the old guard retiring and no money for the campaigns.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/29/AR2008072902227.html?hpid=topnews
No, President Obama + Large Dem majority in Congress = fixing a disaster.
Just thinking of all those liberal programs makes me giddy!

LittleGrizzly

07-31-2008, 01:09

Xiahou

07-31-2008, 01:16

Going back to the media bias mantra, here's an interesting take (http://www.reason.com/blog/show/127819.html):

Has McCain run the sloppiest Republican campaign since Dole '96? Sure; I don't think you can look at how he wasted his four-month honeymoon during the Clinton-Obama fight and conclude otherwise. But convincing voters that the media is unfair to him is the most impressive trick McCain has pulled. This is a campaign that, seven months ago, was rebroadcasting Tim Russert's description of McCain's heroism in its TV ads.

I don't think McCain's comeback would have been possible had the political press not been scoring points for him all throughout 2007. His comeback was willed into existence by reporters; you could find helpful analyses of what he could do to win as early as July last year. It's part of what makes the Obama-McCain battle a fair fight, not a hopelessly lopsided fight: Both men are beloved by the press in a way no one's been since, arguably, Carter in 1976.
I can agree the McCain is running a lousy campaign. However, it's hard to see the Clinton-Obama fight as a missed opportunity. The media was utterly fixated on every word of the Clinton-Obama slapfight. I can't imagine what McCain would've had to do to get any headlines during it.

I would also agree that McCain had been a media darling in the past, mainly due to him sticking a finger in the eyes of conservatives. He should've known, but apparently didn't, that the honeymoon would end when he came up against a proper liberal. :wink:

m52nickerson

07-31-2008, 02:22

No, President Obama + Large Dem majority in Congress = fixing a disaster.

Part of me hopes that Obama can sort out the budget... but even as a liberal i have to wonder how he plans to do this and introduce liberal programs, i hope the dems realise this is thier change to institute some real good change but they need to sort out the budget before they start approving more spending, the republicans showed they can't be trusted with the budget over the last two terms maybe this is the democrats chance to show they can...

The budget is going to be a problem. They are going to have to find ways to bring in more money and cut funding to things that can afford it then slowly institute programs as money becomes available. In the beginning it would be a :juggle2: act.

Redleg

07-31-2008, 06:40

Not quite, MoveOn is a website that is liberal in is views, it is not a political structure.

When one campaigns for a political purpose it has a political structure -

The majority = wants change, supporting Democrates
MoveOn = wants change, supporting Democrates

The two are not necessarily the same as you have stated. Again provide evidence that the mainstream is in line of thinking of the MoveOn.org crowd, wanting change does not equate to the mainstream having ideas in line with MoveOn.org. That is a reaching conclusion and you well know it.

So you want him to write the bills and regulations now. I think you are asking a little much but OK.

LOL are you having problems reading and understanding - I said I want to know how he plans to implement his ideas - what is his process to bring about the necessarily legislation - that once again does not equate to writing bills and regulations. Come on now you have to be smarter then what you just attempted here.

He has submitted dates to the McCain camp, but they have rejected them because of the number of debates.

As stated before - the number should be as high as possible - now I haven't yet discussed my displeasure with McCain - and be sure their is quite a bit of displeasure toward his campaign - this would be one of them. However we are discussing Obama right now - and why he wont committed to a double digit number of debates that could happen across the country during the run-up to the election.

You can hear passion in speeches. Mannerisms will help you understand a persons position on issues?

Again speeches are controlled events - I want to see the true candidate not what the speech writer has presented him.

Debates are good, but they are not that good at showing who will be the better leader for a country. Someone could have a great plan, but not be a good debater. A good debater can argue on the side of a weaker potions and win.

Plus that fact that policies, bills, regulations, and mandates are not written in a town hall off the cuff environment. So while debates will show us somethings about the candidates, they are not the best way of picking our leaders.

Now did I say debates were the only criteria that I use to pick a candidate for the job? Your attempting to defend against a postion I have not taken. Does a debate show what the candidate might have envision and his personal position on an issue? THis is a yes or no question.

No, President Obama + Large Dem majority in Congress = fixing a disaster.
Just thinking of all those liberal programs makes me giddy!

Again far from it - study a bit of history about both parties controlling the elected branches - it never equates to fixing a disaster.

Redleg

07-31-2008, 06:42

The budget is going to be a problem. They are going to have to find ways to bring in more money and cut funding to things that can afford it then slowly institute programs as money becomes available. In the beginning it would be a :juggle2: act.

Now explain why a democratic controlled Congress has yet to balance the budget? You look at the last attempt with all the Pork inplaced into the budget - Bush actually vetod the bill, but congress overrid the veto.

Don't trust the democratics to balance the budget any more then the other party.

Xiahou

07-31-2008, 23:44

So, is Obama dropping the race card (http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2008/07/31/mccain-obama.html)?

"Nobody thinks that Bush and McCain have a real answer to the challenges we face. So what they're going to try to do is make you scared of me," Obama said. "You know, 'He's not patriotic enough, he's got a funny name,' you know, 'He doesn't look like all those other presidents on the dollar bills.'"Kinda sounds like it to me....

Lemur

08-01-2008, 00:08

This (http://www.businessweek.com/the_thread/brandnewday/archives/2008/07/the_new_normal.html) is kinda sad ...

What the McCain campaign doesn’t want people to know, according to one GOP strategist I spoke with over the weekend, is that they had an ad script ready to go if Obama had visited the wounded troops saying that Obama was...wait for it...using wounded troops as campaign props. So, no matter which way Obama turned, McCain had an Obama bashing ad ready to launch. I guess that’s political hardball. But another word for it is the one word that most politicians are loathe to use about their opponents—a lie.

PanzerJaeger

08-01-2008, 00:47

So, is Obama dropping the race card (http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2008/07/31/mccain-obama.html)?
Kinda sounds like it to me....

Ummm... is there really any question? Obama has been painting his opponents as racist for a while now.

We know what kind of campaign they’re going to run. They’re going to try to make you afraid, they’re going to try to make you afraid of me. He’s young and inexperienced and he’s got a funny name. And did I mention he’s black?

-Barack Obama, June 21

Seamus Fermanagh

08-01-2008, 02:20

Actually, the race thing is one of the aspects of Obama's impending Presidency that I do like. From here on out, dismissing a politico because of the melanin content of their skin should be an impossibility. Since it has been more than 140 years since the abolition of slavery and more than 40 since we started a serious cultural effort to weed out formally institutionalized racism, it's about time.

Unfortunately, we're still so giddy about not being racists that some of the electorate is reacting to ANY criticism as though it were evidence of racism -- and being politicians, people in the campaign teams will use any leverage tool that comes to their attention.

On the whole, I don't think Obama is playing the "race card" any more than should be expected from the first serious contender for the Presidency from his ethnic background. Some of it -- "wow, this is a new thing" -- is inevitable.

If anything, Americans are so enamored of the idea of doing something "new" and putting the ky-bosh on racism, that they are putting way too much "halo" on a fellow who is -- at least in policy terms -- a pretty generic Democrat party man.

The talk radio chorale is treating us to a never-ending regurgitation of "This is the most liberal, socialist" candidate to ever run for the office. I'd be more sanguine about that mantra if I had a shorter memory and didn't recall the same drumbeat about Kerry, Gore, Clinton, Dukakis, & Mondale. Obama probably isn't even the most liberal on that short list of previous nominees (Dukakis by a half a length over Kerry and Mondale with Obama a quarter length back in 4th).

All in all, I feel out of step with the rest of the GOP right now. There's nothing Reaganesque about McCain -- honorable and dedicated fellow that he is. Obama is easy enough for me to vote against as his policy background doesn't mesh with my conservative beliefs at all (at least McCain gets a 55-60% congruence). I just can't get all frothed up into loathing Obama.

Maybe that's why he'll best McCain in November.

m52nickerson

08-01-2008, 02:26

When one campaigns for a political purpose it has a political structure -
The two are not necessarily the same as you have stated. Again provide evidence that the mainstream is in line of thinking of the MoveOn.org crowd, wanting change does not equate to the mainstream having ideas in line with MoveOn.org. That is a reaching conclusion and you well know it.How do you not understand that the main overriding view on MoveOn is change and you your self have said that there is a swing in the direction of Democrates after 8 years of Republican control, that is change.

LOL are you having problems reading and understanding - I said I want to know how he plans to implement his ideas - what is his process to bring about the necessarily legislation - that once again does not equate to writing bills and regulations. Come on now you have to be smarter then what you just attempted here.Well tell me how one brings about legislation if not by changing, or enacting new laws and regulation. If someone says they will enact legislation that requires all new cars to get 40 mpg, then how would you bring that about with a new regulation?

As stated before - the number should be as high as possible - now I haven't yet discussed my displeasure with McCain - and be sure their is quite a bit of displeasure toward his campaign - this would be one of them. However we are discussing Obama right now - and why he wont committed to a double digit number of debates that could happen across the country during the run-up to the election.You have bee going on about how Obama has not set one date, now it is about the number of debates. I glad you like debates, but if you think it shows any type of weakness on Obama's part because he debates McCain 5 time instead of 10 you are fooling yourself.

Again speeches are controlled events - I want to see the true candidate not what the speech writer has presented him.But the speeches still address the candidate's plans and policies. The speech writers are not makes these up.

Now did I say debates were the only criteria that I use to pick a candidate for the job? Your attempting to defend against a postion I have not taken. Does a debate show what the candidate might have envision and his personal position on an issue? THis is a yes or no question.No you did not say this. I was making a point because it does seem you are putting more importance on debates then there should be.

To answer your question, yes, but so can a written speech or interview.
I guess it was not a yes or no question.

Again far from it - study a bit of history about both parties controlling the elected branches - it never equates to fixing a disaster.How about you educate me since you seem to be the expert.

Just off the top of my head, did not Clinton have a Dem controlled congress for his first two years in office. Even after that the Congress was still in the hands of the Dem for awhile. I don't remember any disaster then.

Now explain why a democratic controlled Congress has yet to balance the budget? You look at the last attempt with all the Pork inplaced into the budget - Bush actually vetod the bill, but congress overrid the veto.

Don't trust the democratics to balance the budget any more then the other party.

I'm not going to pretend I know that, but one reason would be that right now it would be impossible with the cost of the war in Iraq.

Now tell me about this pork, or don't you know what the pork is.

So, is Obama dropping the race card (http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2008/07/31/mccain-obama.html)?
Kinda sounds like it to me....
No he was predicting the Republicans would play the race card.

m52nickerson

08-01-2008, 02:38

All in all, I feel out of step with the rest of the GOP right now. There's nothing Reaganesque about McCain -- honorable and dedicated fellow that he is. Obama is easy enough for me to vote against as his policy background doesn't mesh with my conservative beliefs at all (at least McCain gets a 55-60% congruence). I just can't get all frothed up into loathing Obama.
Maybe that's why he'll best McCain in November.I'm glad to see someone that can just disagree with Obama's policies and not feel like they have to attack him.

Much respect Seamus Fermanagh. :bow:

Sasaki Kojiro

08-01-2008, 05:24

So, is Obama dropping the race card (http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2008/07/31/mccain-obama.html)?
Kinda sounds like it to me....

Sounds to me like you're dropping the " 'race card' card".

CountArach

08-01-2008, 05:26

Sounds to me like you're dropping the " 'race card' card".
Touché :laugh4:

Xiahou

08-01-2008, 06:34

Sounds to me like you're dropping the " 'race card' card".Sounds like you're dropping the "''race card' card"card"....
No he was predicting the Republicans would play the race card. No, he said that "Bush and McCain" are going to try to scare voters by pointing out he's black. He's using his race as a shield from criticism. That, is playing the race card. :yes:
Saying he's a shallow celebrity or responsible for high gas prices is not trying to scare voters over his race. :no:

LittleGrizzly

08-01-2008, 06:50

Your going to have to explain this race card card to me

Well obama being of a minority has a card to play saying people will go for him because of his minority status, the race card, but this gives his opponents the 'race card' card, it could be that you and obama are simply playing these cards for political points, or you could have played those cards in good faith with honourable intentions...

Don't worry i think both you and obama did it with good intentions unlike some cynics here...

Ice

08-01-2008, 07:32

[B]
Don't worry i think both you and obama did it with good intentions unlike some cynics here...

Obama is a very intelligent man. Don't underestimate his ability to be a politician.

Same goes for pretty much anyone in government.

LittleGrizzly

08-01-2008, 07:39

Obama is a very intelligent man. Don't underestimate his ability to be a politician.

Actually it was more a sly jab at xiahou who brought obamas race into it because he was criticising obama bringing his race into it, it was too ironic to leave...

In all honesty i think he did it as a defence from real racism, at least partially...

woad&fangs

08-01-2008, 15:42

Obama=Paris Hilton? (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJEsAi5n3fM)

Unlike the last McCain ad where I was outraged, this time I'm laughing my head off.

Ronin

08-01-2008, 15:53

Obama=Paris Hilton? (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJEsAi5n3fM)

Unlike the last McCain ad where I was outraged, this time I'm laughing my head.

if this is the level of commercials used for the campaign for "leader of the free world" I´m starting to understand why this place is such a mess...

talk about pandering to the lowest common denominator...

Ironside

08-01-2008, 16:11

Obama=Paris Hilton? (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJEsAi5n3fM)

Unlike the last McCain ad where I was outraged, this time I'm laughing my head.

That one actually reached Swedish media, although they also catched that the Republican supporting Hilton family was a bit annoyed.

I start to feel that if the mudslinging sinks any lower it will reach parody levels, like this:
The political comericials are about 5 min in (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hb_05K79zQI)

Lemur

08-01-2008, 16:40

The new, unpleasant, mud-slinging face of the McCain campaign is due entirely to Steve Schmidt (http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/0708/Schmidt_takes_control_of_daytoday_operation.html), a student of Karl Rove's. I'm kinda disappointed in Johnny Mac for letting a piranha like Schmidt take over his campaign.

And, uh, Obama is Paris Hilton, and a Socialist, and teh most librul person evar, and he's an angry black separatist, and he's a country club snob, too. All at once. Think of a mixture of Yanni, Al Sharpton, Stalin, Tom Cruise, and the Chevy Chase character from Caddyshack, with a little Beyonce Knowles mixed in, and you've got it. Yeah, that's the ticket (http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/stumper/archive/2008/07/31/playing-the-playing-the-race-card-card.aspx).

In this case, I don't believe that's what Obama did [play the race card]--and judging by June 21, neither does McCain. But unlike whoever was running the show back then, new head honcho Steve Schmidt--a pugilistic Karl Rove protégé--seems to have decided that it benefits his boss to give voters the impression that Obama is the type of person who "plays the race card" (even though Obama strenuously, and necessarily, avoids doing so). And that's what's unsettling about this incident. If Schmidt and Co. were worried, as they say, that Obama was trying frame any "conventional campaign attacks as race-based" and were merely seeking to pre-empt his efforts, they could've simply said "we've never played the race card and we never will." But instead they lashed out. In playing offense instead of defense, Team McCain is actively characterizing Obama as another Al Sharpton--a "divisive, negative" Black Politician with vocal grievances who uses race as both shield and sword. This strikes me as too convenient to dismiss as a coincidence.

It's too bad. Until now, McCain has honorably avoided the tricky pitfalls of race. Back in February, he apologized for a local shock jock's questionable comments, and in April, he condemned an ad by the North Carolina Republican Party featuring images of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright. He knows firsthand what playing the race card actually looks like, having watched during the 2000 South Carolina primary as the delightful allies of opponent George W. Bush falsely alleged that his adopted Bangladeshi daughter Bridget was his lovechild with a black woman. But thanks to his new coaches, McCain is no longer batting 1.000.

-edit-

Not only that, but Obama is too skinny (http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB121755336096303089-lMyQjAxMDI4MTA3MTUwNTEzWj.html) to be President.

In a nation in which 66% of the voting-age population is overweight and 32% is obese, could Sen. Obama's skinniness be a liability? Despite his visits to waffle houses, ice-cream parlors and greasy-spoon diners around the country, his slim physique just might have some Americans wondering whether he is truly like them.

Redleg

08-01-2008, 17:31

How do you not understand that the main overriding view on MoveOn is change and you your self have said that there is a swing in the direction of Democrates after 8 years of Republican control, that is change.

How do you not understand the agenda of MoveOn.org at its followers. The change they want is not in line with the mainstream of the people. People always want change - but it does not necessarily fall in line with MoveOn.org idea of change.

Well tell me how one brings about legislation if not by changing, or enacting new laws and regulation. If someone says they will enact legislation that requires all new cars to get 40 mpg, then how would you bring that about with a new regulation?

You do understand what Policy means do you not? Legislation is something that the President does to meet his policy goals. Presidential policy does not equate to new laws passed by the congress. If you do not have a basic understanding of how the different branches work and how presidential policy is implemented - you really can not argue the issue with me.

You have bee going on about how Obama has not set one date, now it is about the number of debates. I glad you like debates, but if you think it shows any type of weakness on Obama's part because he debates McCain 5 time instead of 10 you are fooling yourself.

Actually its been about both. And yes its a weakness of Obama's. There is a specific reason why Obama has not agreed to the number of debates put forth by McCain, and there is a reason why the dates have not been agreed upon concerning the current agreed upon debates. In fact it changes several times a month depending on what news source you pull concerning the debate issue. Sorry that you don't understand that point - but then again I am not favoring either candidate over the other at this time based upon debate points - as stated before it only a tell for me. Now if Obama seriousily wants to convince me to vote for him he is going to have to show that he is all about change and is not the typical politician - because I have had enough of them. Currently Obama is only showing that he is the typical politician - changing his stance and his policies toward the center so he can convince more voters to vote for him. However we have not seen any major substance from either candidate either now have we.

But the speeches still address the candidate's plans and policies. The speech writers are not makes these up.

Are you so sure about that? Speech writers write what is told to them by the candidate - and the campaign staff. Does that necessarily equate to the true plans. I very well remember Bush Sr. running on the campaign promise not to raise taxes - guess what he did after he got into office.....

No you did not say this. I was making a point because it does seem you are putting more importance on debates then there should be.

Then you are argueing a false postion - since I said it was one of the critiria I use when looking at the candidates. Debates are indeed important to the process. Far more then your willing to admit to.

To answer your question, yes, but so can a written speech or interview.
I guess it was not a yes or no question.

Then it seems you have a fundmental problem in understanding what a presidential debate actually accomplishes. Now then if you want to go on a about speeches and interviews - why are you against town hall debates if you like interviews? Or are you only talking about structure interviews were the questions are known and approved beforehand by the campaign?

I want free interaction - not controlled events when candidates discuss issues.

How about you educate me since you seem to be the expert.

You might want to read a bit of history

Just off the top of my head, did not Clinton have a Dem controlled congress for his first two years in office. Even after that the Congress was still in the hands of the Dem for awhile. I don't remember any disaster then.

Depends on what you think was a disaster - Somilia for one, and a few other exambles one can find if they do a bit of reading.

I'm not going to pretend I know that, but one reason would be that right now it would be impossible with the cost of the war in Iraq.

The budget has not been balanced for a long time there - the two current wars we are in - only highlight the issue - but they are not the sole cause of the issue.

Now tell me about this pork, or don't you know what the pork is.

Nice attempt but you fail once again - the war is a cost, pork requires something hidden within the bill itself - for instance the last Iraq spending bill contained both funds for the war, and guess what true pork.

It seems you have a basic misunderstanding of what pork spending is all about. THe Farm bill is a good examble of a bill that contains lots of pork also.

No he was predicting the Republicans would play the race card.

Which lowers both parties to the same level - and it completely disgusts me that both decided to go that way. Mickey Mouse is becoming a better and better candidate every day.

PanzerJaeger

08-01-2008, 17:41

Yeah, that's the ticket (http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/stumper/archive/2008/07/31/playing-the-playing-the-race-card-card.aspx).

What a joke. What else could the "and he's black" comments be but the race card? With these latest comments, Obama has shown that his Jun 21 race baiting wasn't a limited affair. Good for McCain on finally calling it what it is.

Lemur

08-01-2008, 18:16

PJ, if McCain ran the sort of campaign that would make fascist residents of Memphis happy, I guarantee you he would never get elected.

Meanwhile, here's an in-depth profile of Steve Schmidt (http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=3c33403d-a212-43db-99ae-6fe3af25fd63&p=1), since he's going to be a factor from now on.

PanzerJaeger

08-01-2008, 18:28

PJ, if McCain ran the sort of campaign that would make fascist residents of Memphis happy, I guarantee you he would never get elected.

Man Lemur, you need to put down some of that water you're carrying, it seems to be making your posts rather tired. :trytofly:

Anyway, ball not man play. Unscramble and apply, please! :yes:

Lemur

08-01-2008, 18:39

PJ, I accept your apology. Meanwhile, here's more astute reasoning (http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/08/01/1240112.aspx) for you to dismiss, since it doesn't fit into your narrative:

Let's get something straight: Anytime race is THE topic du jour in the campaign, it's a bad day for Obama. Period. There are a lot of voters out there who don't want to have their vote judged through the prism of race. (If somehow a swing voter in Ohio, Pennsylvania or Michigan is made to feel that voting against Obama will make them a racist, they'll be resentful.) While today's papers are filled with "who played the race card first?" allegations between the two campaigns, know this fact: The Obama campaign doesn't want the race issue to become an overarching theme of the campaign. [...]

When the McCain folks hit “Send” on that Rick Davis email at 11:46 am ET charging the Obama campaign with playing the race card, what it did was knock Obama’s message of the day -- hitting McCain on Exxon’s quarterly profits -- off the political front burner. (After all, what are we talking about today? Exxon? Or race?) And in a way, it appears that the larger strategy behind the negative ads, Britney and Paris, Landstuhl, etc., is to knock Obama off his message of the day and keep him busy responding to these charges. Compare this week, for instance, with last week, when Obama controlled the message. As the McCain campaign and RNC folks are touting, they've won the week, if you count winning the week as controlling the message (by the way, check out how many views the "Celeb" ad has gotten on YouTube). To use a boxing analogy, McCain is putting Obama into a bear hug -- making it nearly impossible for the Illinois senator to move (in the polls?) or land a punch. But as a big boxing aficionado, McCain also must realize that the fans often don’t take too kindly to boxers who constantly bear hug their opponent. And at some point, the refs break up the bear hugging and the boxing match is forced. But for now, the McCain campaign appears to have a way to knock Obama off message. The only problem for McCain, he's still not on any message of his own, other than "not-Obama."

Xiahou

08-01-2008, 19:41

Here's a new McCain ad tweaking Obama (http://www.breitbart.tv/html/143513.html). This is my favorite by far. :laugh4:

If this is Steve, the prince of darkness, Schmidt's doing- I approve. :2thumbsup:

Lemur

08-01-2008, 20:24

That is the funniest campaign ad yet -- I approve. If Schmidt can keep playing at that level, I will withdraw all of my doubts of the man.

CountArach

08-02-2008, 01:20

m52nickerson

08-02-2008, 03:00

How do you not understand the agenda of MoveOn.org at its followers. The change they want is not in line with the mainstream of the people. People always want change - but it does not necessarily fall in line with MoveOn.org idea of change.Seeing that MoveOn supports Obama, and it looks like more people support him, they seem the same to me.

You do understand what Policy means do you not? Legislation is something that the President does to meet his policy goals. Presidential policy does not equate to new laws passed by the congress. If you do not have a basic understanding of how the different branches work and how presidential policy is implemented - you really can not argue the issue with me.So wouldn't there plans be there policies, I think so. You are still avoiding my original question of what more detail do you want? You can see the candidates policies on there web sites. The was those policies are implemented IS by passing laws and regulation. If you don't think so explain it to me.

Actually its been about both. And yes its a weakness of Obama's. There is a specific reason why Obama has not agreed to the number of debates put forth by McCain, and there is a reason why the dates have not been agreed upon concerning the current agreed upon debates. In fact it changes several times a month depending on what news source you pull concerning the debate issue. Sorry that you don't understand that point - but then again I am not favoring either candidate over the other at this time based upon debate points - as stated before it only a tell for me. Now if Obama seriousily wants to convince me to vote for him he is going to have to show that he is all about change and is not the typical politician - because I have had enough of them. Currently Obama is only showing that he is the typical politician - changing his stance and his policies toward the center so he can convince more voters to vote for him. However we have not seen any major substance from either candidate either now have we.So what is that specific reason, Obama's scared. I doubt it. More like he does not what to share his spot light with McCain more then a few times. McCain is good at town halls, he is a likable guy. Obama is no dope. He does hold town halls, and held his own VS. Clinton.

I highly doubt you are as independent as you claim, as I doubt you would know substance if it jumped up and bit you.

Are you so sure about that? Speech writers write what is told to them by the candidate - and the campaign staff. Does that necessarily equate to the true plans. I very well remember Bush Sr. running on the campaign promise not to raise taxes - guess what he did after he got into office..... Well since you can see the plans online and so far they are the same as the speeches, I'm sure. Oh and what Bush did was called lying.

Then you are argueing a false postion - since I said it was one of the critiria I use when looking at the candidates. Debates are indeed important to the process. Far more then your willing to admit to.No I was making a point, if I had wanted to argue a false potions I would not have admitted that you were not claiming that.

Then it seems you have a fundmental problem in understanding what a presidential debate actually accomplishes. Now then if you want to go on a about speeches and interviews - why are you against town hall debates if you like interviews? Or are you only talking about structure interviews were the questions are known and approved beforehand by the campaign?

I want free interaction - not controlled events when candidates discuss issues. Now you are putting words in my mouth. I said I preferred structured debates controlled by a moderator, to town hall style. Town halls can be dominated by persons with stronger personalities. That does not mean that person is correct.

No I was not talking about scripted Interviews. Interview eliminate what I just spoke of. I want to hear what the candidates have to say in a point counter point debate, not an argument.

You might want to read a bit of historySee, you are the one who made the claim that when a single party controls everything it is a disaster. So the burden of proof is on you. So were is it.

Depends on what you think was a disaster - Somilia for one, and a few other exambles one can find if they do a bit of reading.Somilia could be one, but since I don't see how a difference in congress would have changed anything since the president is commander and chief it is not realy a good example.

The budget has not been balanced for a long time there - the two current wars we are in - only highlight the issue - but they are not the sole cause of the issue.....and I never said they were the sole issue.

Nice attempt but you fail once again - the war is a cost, pork requires something hidden within the bill itself - for instance the last Iraq spending bill contained both funds for the war, and guess what true pork.

It seems you have a basic misunderstanding of what pork spending is all about. THe Farm bill is a good examble of a bill that contains lots of pork also.Now it is you that is failing. I never stated that the war was pork. I asked you to tell me what pork you are talking about. What is the pork on the farm bill. Again you are the one making the claim, I'm asking for you to give specific examples. So what is the pork in the farm bill?

Which lowers both parties to the same level - and it completely disgusts me that both decided to go that way. Mickey Mouse is becoming a better and better candidate every day.So Obama saying that the people or groups that oppose him might bring up his race lowers him. At best he ends up wrong if they do not bring it up.

Over all Red you seem to be side stepping direct question I'm asking, and FAILing to provide and information to support your claims. I hope in your next post you do more then say "your wrong, go read".

Lemur

08-02-2008, 15:03

As amusing as that "Messiah" ad was, it's worth pointing out that while it's 100% funny, it's not 100% accurate: (http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2008/08/01/the_one/index.html)

It should be noted, the McCain camp took at least two quotes from Obama out of context. It uses one controversial remark made by Obama that popped up earlier this week, "I have become a symbol of the possibility of America returning to our best traditions." A Democratic source later told multiple news outlets that, in context, Obama wasn't speaking about himself but about America generally -- the source quoted Obama as having also said, "It has become increasingly clear in my travel, the campaign, that the crowds, the enthusiasm, 200,000 people in Berlin, is not about me at all. It's about America. I have just become a symbol.'" It's fairly obvious that Obama was joking in another similar quote used in the video.

And yes, Xiahou, Steve Schmidt (http://nymag.com/news/politics/powergrid/48928/) seems like the kind of guy you'd develop a Republican man-crush on.

The motor behind his operation now is Steve Schmidt, the shaven-headed strategist who earned his bones running Karl Rove's war room in 2004, Frenchifying and de-war-heroizing John Kerry. What Schmidt and his associates have apparently concluded is that McCain's weaknesses -- on the election's most salient issues and as a candidate -- are so pronounced and Obama's vulnerabilities so glaring that the low road is their guy's best, and maybe only, route to the White House. They've concluded, in other words, that even if McCain may not be able to win the election in any affirmative sense, he might still wind up behind the big desk if he and his people can strip the bark off Obama with sufficiently vicious force.

Redleg

08-02-2008, 17:51

Seeing that MoveOn supports Obama, and it looks like more people support him, they seem the same to me.

Then I suggest you research MoveOn.org a bit more. There agenda is not just about change - but a specific type of change. And that is different then the average american's desire for change in the government.

So wouldn't there plans be there policies, I think so. You are still avoiding my original question of what more detail do you want? You can see the candidates policies on there web sites. The was those policies are implemented IS by passing laws and regulation. If you don't think so explain it to me.

What detail is in the websites - they consist of broad strokes of idea's. No substance about how the candidate desires to pursue the implenation of the idea. It's all fine for the primary races - but in the presidential election I expect more detail on what direction and how that direction is going to be done.

So what is that specific reason, Obama's scared. I doubt it. More like he does not what to share his spot light with McCain more then a few times. McCain is good at town halls, he is a likable guy. Obama is no dope. He does hold town halls, and held his own VS. Clinton.

Did I say scared? I said he had a reason - never claimed to know the reason just that there is one. Now your hinting to a personality flaw with the candidate that demonstrates that he is concerned about maintaining his image - not discussing his policy. Another factor that we have had more then enough of in the highest office.

I highly doubt you are as independent as you claim, as I doubt you would know substance if it jumped up and bit you.

Oh a personal attack - how interesting. Care to guess my voting record? I vote Democrate in all local elections because I agree with social policies at the community level. I vote a mix based upon the candidates presented for state elections. All depends on how well I agree with their stances. And in national elections I concentrate on who I believe will do the least damage to the country in both elected branches. So before you attempt such an arguement you better understand something about politics and a persons philisophy. A Constitutionist closest describes my mindset, which makes me more independent then you seem to be. And your other comment demonstrates that you have a base misunderstanding of government policy and how it works. To bad you have demonstrated how un-intellegent you truely are. Now do you want to continue with this type of exchange feel free, I am more then game.

Well since you can see the plans online and so far they are the same as the speeches, I'm sure. Oh and what Bush did was called lying.

And it cost him his job now didnt it? Now again neither contain enough detail to demonstrate how the man plans to accomplish his objectives. This is the same folly that Bush Sr. did that you state means he lied. But you don't see the lack of detail as an issue for Obama. I frankly see it as an issue that both candidates have. Poor details in their plans - just broad strokes that demonstrate neither candidate is much better then the other.

No I was making a point, if I had wanted to argue a false potions I would not have admitted that you were not claiming that.

Practicing duplicty are you?

Now you are putting words in my mouth. I said I preferred structured debates controlled by a moderator, to town hall style. Town halls can be dominated by persons with stronger personalities. That does not mean that person is correct.

Careful now you about to committ a serious error in your arguement providing an arguement that demonstrates Obama is more controled by his handlers then McCain. Leadership is about being able to make a decision, its not always the right decision, but sometimes it requires strength to make a decision. I have seen both types of interviews - the stronger personalities always dominate the debate. So this arguement seems a bit weak for a desire not to do town hall styles. The main difference between the two types of debates is that the candidate does not get informed before what the questions will be. There is some time limit and structure differences - but the benefit of a town hall far exceeds the problems. Why are you scared of the average citizen being able to ask questions of his future president?

No I was not talking about scripted Interviews. Interview eliminate what I just spoke of. I want to hear what the candidates have to say in a point counter point debate, not an argument.

Town Hall debates can function just as well in that regard. If the candidate is a hot head - I want to see it in the town hall debate. If he can not control his arguement style to a logical postion then I desire to know that weakness. So far your arguement seems to be about controlled structure of what the candidate presents - not what the people need to understand about the candidate's positions.

See, you are the one who made the claim that when a single party controls everything it is a disaster. So the burden of proof is on you. So were is it.

Is your memory that short - 2001 to 2006
the first two years of Clinton's adminstration
the carter adminstration.

Come now understand the politics of having both parties control the elective branches.

Somilia could be one, but since I don't see how a difference in congress would have changed anything since the president is commander and chief it is not realy a good example.

Oh congress could have changed quite a bit in regards to it. Just like congress could of done quite a bit to prevent the invasion of Iraq.

....and I never said they were the sole issue.

Good - so you agree that the budget has not been balanced for many years now - regardless of which party is in power in the whitehouse or congress.

Now it is you that is failing. I never stated that the war was pork. I asked you to tell me what pork you are talking about. What is the pork on the farm bill. Again you are the one making the claim, I'm asking for you to give specific examples. So what is the pork in the farm bill?

Okay fair enough the way you stated your question was off. Pork is simple - any rider placed into the bill that does not support the stated purpose of the bill. Simple enough to explain. Now what is pork - in 2007's war spending bill the congress added about $5 billion to provide releif to Kansas Farmers because of the extreme conditions that ruined crops during the winter/early spring. Now the farm bill contains even more pork in it.

So Obama saying that the people or groups that oppose him might bring up his race lowers him. At best he ends up wrong if they do not bring it up.

as before both candidates are not doing a very good job of address issues.

Over all Red you seem to be side stepping direct question I'm asking, and FAILing to provide and information to support your claims. I hope in your next post you do more then say "your wrong, go read".

No - I want you to actually read the bills and the constitution. If I told you then you will not educate yourself on the issue. So if you want details I suggest you provide more detail yourself, since you still have not provide details concerning how MoveOn.org and the American people's desire for change are the same thing.

So be careful of calling the Kettle black if your committing the same error.

ICantSpellDawg

08-02-2008, 20:12

I hope McCain picks Palin for VP ASAP. Who agree's?

seireikhaan

08-02-2008, 20:47

I hope McCain picks Palin for VP ASAP. Who agree's?
You don't want Mitt for vp?

m52nickerson

08-02-2008, 21:17

Then I suggest you research MoveOn.org a bit more. There agenda is not just about change - but a specific type of change. And that is different then the average american's desire for change in the government.You are look at it in much more detail then I am. All I was getting at was both are for change.

What detail is in the websites - they consist of broad strokes of idea's. No substance about how the candidate desires to pursue the implenation of the idea. It's all fine for the primary races - but in the presidential election I expect more detail on what direction and how that direction is going to be done. Now see, I was under the impression you had read there plans. Here is part of Obama's health care plan.

# Obama's Plan to Cover Uninsured Americans: Obama will make available a new national health plan to all Americans, including the self-employed and small businesses, to buy affordable health coverage that is similar to the plan available to members of Congress. The Obama plan will have the following features:

1. Guaranteed eligibility. No American will be turned away from any insurance plan because of illness or pre-existing conditions.
2. Comprehensive benefits. The benefit package will be similar to that offered through Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP), the plan members of Congress have. The plan will cover all essential medical services, including preventive, maternity and mental health care.
3. Affordable premiums, co-pays and deductibles.
4. Subsidies. Individuals and families who do not qualify for Medicaid or SCHIP but still need financial assistance will receive an income-related federal subsidy to buy into the new public plan or purchase a private health care plan.
5. Simplified paperwork and reined in health costs.
6. Easy enrollment. The new public plan will be simple to enroll in and provide ready access to coverage.
7. Portability and choice. Participants in the new public plan and the National Health Insurance Exchange (see below) will be able to move from job to job without changing or jeopardizing their health care coverage.
8. Quality and efficiency. Participating insurance companies in the new public program will be required to report data to ensure that standards for quality, health information technology and administration are being met.

Now I ask you once again, what more detail would you like? If you say "how will it be implemented" then the answer would be government regulations, and laws.

Did I say scared? I said he had a reason - never claimed to know the reason just that there is one. Now your hinting to a personality flaw with the candidate that demonstrates that he is concerned about maintaining his image - not discussing his policy. Another factor that we have had more then enough of in the highest office.No you did not, I was asking if that was the reason. So I guess if you don't know the reason why the dates have been rejected it's really only a guess that it has anything to do with Obama not wanting to debate McCain.

Oh a personal attack - how interesting. Care to guess my voting record? I vote Democrate in all local elections because I agree with social policies at the community level. I vote a mix based upon the candidates presented for state elections. All depends on how well I agree with their stances. And in national elections I concentrate on who I believe will do the least damage to the country in both elected branches. So before you attempt such an arguement you better understand something about politics and a persons philisophy. A Constitutionist closest describes my mindset, which makes me more independent then you seem to be. And your other comment demonstrates that you have a base misunderstanding of government policy and how it works. To bad you have demonstrated how un-intellegent you truely are. Now do you want to continue with this type of exchange feel free, I am more then game.I really don't care about your claimed voting record, and you are most likely more independent then me. I can't remember the last time I voted for a Republican candidate.

Now if 'm so un-intelligent why don't you explain how policies are implemented if not by regulations and laws? I believe this is the second time I asked this question, now you would not dodge it again would you?

And it cost him his job now didnt it? Now again neither contain enough detail to demonstrate how the man plans to accomplish his objectives. This is the same folly that Bush Sr. did that you state means he lied. But you don't see the lack of detail as an issue for Obama. I frankly see it as an issue that both candidates have. Poor details in their plans - just broad strokes that demonstrate neither candidate is much better then the other.I don't see a lack of detail from ether candidate. I'm still waiting for you to tell me what more detail you want.

Practicing duplicty are you? No, I was just making a point, please try to follow along.

Careful now you about to committ a serious error in your arguement providing an arguement that demonstrates Obama is more controled by his handlers then McCain. Leadership is about being able to make a decision, its not always the right decision, but sometimes it requires strength to make a decision. I have seen both types of interviews - the stronger personalities always dominate the debate. So this arguement seems a bit weak for a desire not to do town hall styles. The main difference between the two types of debates is that the candidate does not get informed before what the questions will be. There is some time limit and structure differences - but the benefit of a town hall far exceeds the problems. Why are you scared of the average citizen being able to ask questions of his future president?I have said that I want to see debates, but I prefer a more classic style of debate over town halls. That does not mean I would not be interested in see at least on town hall between Obama and McCain. Now from may comments that the stronger personality will sometimes dominate a town hall debate means Obama is under more control. Now f you put just about anyone in an open forum like a town hall with Bill O' he will dominate. That does not mean he is right, just that he can yell louder.

So, I want to see debates between the two. At least one should be a town hall. I see now reason why we need 10 town halls.

Town Hall debates can function just as well in that regard. If the candidate is a hot head - I want to see it in the town hall debate. If he can not control his arguement style to a logical postion then I desire to know that weakness. So far your arguement seems to be about controlled structure of what the candidate presents - not what the people need to understand about the candidate's positions.So what a candidate presents does not present there positions?

Is your memory that short - 2001 to 2006
the first two years of Clinton's adminstration
the carter adminstration.

Come now understand the politics of having both parties control the elective branches.

Oh congress could have changed quite a bit in regards to it. Just like congress could of done quite a bit to prevent the invasion of Iraq. Now what would that have been? The president is the commander of the military he does not need permission from congress to deploy troops.

Good - so you agree that the budget has not been balanced for many years now - regardless of which party is in power in the whitehouse or congress.Yes we are.

Okay fair enough the way you stated your question was off. Pork is simple - any rider placed into the bill that does not support the stated purpose of the bill. Simple enough to explain. Now what is pork - in 2007's war spending bill the congress added about $5 billion to provide releif to Kansas Farmers because of the extreme conditions that ruined crops during the winter/early spring. Now the farm bill contains even more pork in it.I understand what pork is, I asked what was the pork in the farm bill.

Oh, do you think that the farmers of Kansas did not deserve government help?

as before both candidates are not doing a very good job of address issues.No McCain is not doing a good job, he is to busy attacking Obama. Obama addresses the issues every time he speaks. You should know that since I'm sure you are listen to the speeches since you agree that debates are not the sole way of picking a president.

No - I want you to actually read the bills and the constitution. If I told you then you will not educate yourself on the issue. So if you want details I suggest you provide more detail yourself, since you still have not provide details concerning how MoveOn.org and the American people's desire for change are the same thing.You can't know if I have read them or not. If I have do you think I would come back here and provide support for your arguments. Since you are making the claims, it is up to you to provide support for them. If you can't or won't then you lose the argument.

So be careful of calling the Kettle black if your committing the same error.That is way I'm so lucky that I addressed this at the beginning.

Now I hope you answer the questions I asked, sidestepping is so un-becoming.

CrossLOPER

08-02-2008, 21:57

Guys, Obama and McCain are settling it the old fashioned (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZxxjkfy_ow) way.

m52nickerson

08-02-2008, 22:39

Guys, Obama and McCain are settling it the old fashioned (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZxxjkfy_ow) way.

Funny, is that McCain's Mighty McHammer, and Obama's Obamachucks?

Crazed Rabbit

08-02-2008, 23:09

Obama addresses the issues every time he speaks.

I'm sorry, but that can only be met with a snort of laughter.

Obama's been focusing on change and hope, and not emphasizing his liberal agenda.

Now I ask you once again, what more detail would you like? If you say "how will it be implemented" then the answer would be government regulations, and laws.

Indeed - of which there don't seem to be any. It's nice to say things like easy enrollment and simplified paperwork (which is, of course, what the government is known for), but something else entirely to get down to the nitty-gritty of the exact wording.

CR

CountArach

08-02-2008, 23:19

Obama's been focusing on change and hope, and not emphasizing his liberal agenda.
McCain has been focussing on his military record, and not emphasising his conservative agenda.

GeneralHankerchief

08-02-2008, 23:39

Well, considering how national security is considered his strength and pretty much the only thing conservatives actually like about him, I'd say it's a smart move on his part.

m52nickerson

08-02-2008, 23:43

I'm sorry, but that can only be met with a snort of laughter.

Obama's been focusing on change and hope, and not emphasizing his liberal agenda.So when Obama was in Orlando today and he was speaking about the economy he was not addressing an issue? He has also spoken about health care, that is not one of the major issues of this election?

Indeed - of which there don't seem to be any. It's nice to say things like easy enrollment and simplified paperwork (which is, of course, what the government is known for), but something else entirely to get down to the nitty-gritty of the exact wording.

CROk, the candidates could draft proposed regulations and put them out. Do you really think that is needed?

Crazed Rabbit

08-03-2008, 00:17

McCain has been focussing on his military record, and not emphasising his conservative agenda.

Never said he wasn't. But he's less focused on nebulous stuff like 'change' and 'hope'.

So when Obama was in Orlando today and he was speaking about the economy he was not addressing an issue? He has also spoken about health care, that is not one of the major issues of this election?

Having just skimmed the speech, he's talking about the issues in platitudes of change, not really addressing the issues. He's got a laundry list of complaints and promises his 'change' will fix things.

Ok, the candidates could draft proposed regulations and put them out. Do you really think that is needed?

It'd certainly be better.

CR

ICantSpellDawg

08-03-2008, 00:32

You don't want Mitt for vp?

I wanted Mitt for President, but it was not to be. I love that guy, but I really wanted a female in the number 2 slot. 2 males may look like the past - and that is exactly where mccain doesn't need any help. He needs to set himself apart from the tickets of the past so that he can look like a viable alternative to Obama's future. If he picks an incredibly inteligent woman with solid conservative credentials, a gorgeous personality and style - he can create that alternative more effectively. If he picks a female first he may have the upper hand. Romney is my number 2 pick for VP but my number 1 for top slot. Karl Rove continues to say that he would pick Romney if it were his choice.

Jindal is number 3, but the republicans have, for better of worse, the votes of racists in this election. Jindal may get a small number of voters to say "to hell with it - if we are gonna get a "black" no matter how we vote, we may as well go for the one who promises the most stuff and screws the rich" - which would be a gain for the democrats. I'm assuming that this will be a line of thought, but I can't be sure. It would be interesting to see how large a portion of voters are bigots and what their politics play like.

Redleg

08-03-2008, 01:26

You are look at it in much more detail then I am. All I was getting at was both are for change.

Then you are grossly mistaken. MoveOn.Org is after a specific type of change - not just change.

Now see, I was under the impression you had read there plans. Here is part of Obama's health care plan.

# Obama's Plan to Cover Uninsured Americans: Obama will make available a new national health plan to all Americans, including the self-employed and small businesses, to buy affordable health coverage that is similar to the plan available to members of Congress. The Obama plan will have the following features:

1. Guaranteed eligibility. No American will be turned away from any insurance plan because of illness or pre-existing conditions.
2. Comprehensive benefits. The benefit package will be similar to that offered through Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP), the plan members of Congress have. The plan will cover all essential medical services, including preventive, maternity and mental health care.
3. Affordable premiums, co-pays and deductibles.
4. Subsidies. Individuals and families who do not qualify for Medicaid or SCHIP but still need financial assistance will receive an income-related federal subsidy to buy into the new public plan or purchase a private health care plan.
5. Simplified paperwork and reined in health costs.
6. Easy enrollment. The new public plan will be simple to enroll in and provide ready access to coverage.
7. Portability and choice. Participants in the new public plan and the National Health Insurance Exchange (see below) will be able to move from job to job without changing or jeopardizing their health care coverage.
8. Quality and efficiency. Participating insurance companies in the new public program will be required to report data to ensure that standards for quality, health information technology and administration are being met.

Now I ask you once again, what more detail would you like? If you say "how will it be implemented" then the answer would be government regulations, and laws.

What is the time line, what is the cost, how is it going to be funded, what hurdles does he forsee in implemation of the plan. Again what are the details - that is just a broad stroke plan. So I think your just naive enough to think that this is a plan - however this is not a plan - plans have details in them

No you did not, I was asking if that was the reason. So I guess if you don't know the reason why the dates have been rejected it's really only a guess that it has anything to do with Obama not wanting to debate McCain.

So we will save this for latter - since you have demonstrated a base misunderstanding of my point because of your eagerness to defend a candidate that I have not attacked - only questioned. As a citizen I have every right to question the candidate's ability to lead the nation. So are you attempting to claim a citizen does not have the right to question the candidate's ability to actualy lead the nation, because his political agenda does not have details in it?

I really don't care about your claimed voting record, and you are most likely more independent then me. I can't remember the last time I voted for a Republican candidate.

So again we determine that you like to make cheap shots because someone disagrees with your stated postion.

Now if 'm so un-intelligent why don't you explain how policies are implemented if not by regulations and laws? I believe this is the second time I asked this question, now you would not dodge it again would you?

Hmm you should of watch the school house rock explanation of how things are done in congress - its really rather simple, a measure is brought forth into the congress, and if it has the desired sponsers it can become a bill, and if the bill gets past that process it can then become a piece of legislation. which is what laws and regulations are part of. Now once again how does the above agenda of Mr. Obama meet the criteria of developing a contrete plan on how to bring about his agenda for health care reform for the nation. Because all I see - as with McCains is a broad stroke on what they would like to have happen, nothing about cost, timeline, or any other details in the plan.

I don't see a lack of detail from ether candidate. I'm still waiting for you to tell me what more detail you want.

Alreadly stated several times in the thread, if you do not have the ability to understand what detail means just let me know - its easily looked up in the dictionary.

No, I was just making a point, please try to follow along.

Try making the point - instead of practicing duplicity.

I have said that I want to see debates, but I prefer a more classic style of debate over town halls. That does not mean I would not be interested in see at least on town hall between Obama and McCain. Now from may comments that the stronger personality will sometimes dominate a town hall debate means Obama is under more control. Now f you put just about anyone in an open forum like a town hall with Bill O' he will dominate. That does not mean he is right, just that he can yell louder.

As stated before - I prefer town hall types - and the shouting match type of personality would turn off most voters that watched that type of behavior in a town hall meeting. Only party hacks want that. Citizens who want to legimately look at all candidates want to see how the candidates respond to questions and answer the question.

So, I want to see debates between the two. At least one should be a town hall. I see now reason why we need 10 town halls.

I see the need for one a week from the conventions until the election - of both types, in equal portions so we, the citizens of the nation, can determine of which of the two candidates have the best interests of the country at heart. Mistakes happen, bad decisions will happen, but I want the candidate that has the best interest of the people of the nation at heart to be voted into office. Right now neither candidate seems to present that picture,

So what a candidate presents does not present there positions?

Read it again

Now what would that have been? The president is the commander of the military he does not need permission from congress to deploy troops.

Read the War Powers Act of 1973, he can make certain deployments under specific conditions prior to congressional approval. Guess what every senator and representive I have written to - fail to address that important piece of legislation in their responses to me. Congress has failed terribly in upholding their constitution and legislative duties.

I understand what pork is, I asked what was the pork in the farm bill.

As stated before - read for yourself, its not hard to find it in there once you begin to read it.

Oh, do you think that the farmers of Kansas did not deserve government help?

Not as pork I don't.

No McCain is not doing a good job, he is to busy attacking Obama. Obama addresses the issues every time he speaks. You should know that since I'm sure you are listen to the speeches since you agree that debates are not the sole way of picking a president.

I seem marginal addressment of issues by Obama, I see hope speech being present by Obama, however I don't see much detail in his speeches about how he is going to change the government. Now I might be missing some of the speeches - but from what I have seen and read - I don't see anything that demonstrates that he has a real plan to lead the nation, just the typical message of hope and improvement I would expect of a candidate for office. And yes McCain is indeed much worse in this area then Obama, hince the reason I want to see more debates to force them to address the issues - or resort to personal attacks only. Then I can determine which one I will vote for based upon their behavior

You can't know if I have read them or not. If I have do you think I would come back here and provide support for your arguments. Since you are making the claims, it is up to you to provide support for them. If you can't or won't then you lose the argument.

See I dont care to provide you with the evidence that is easily seen by a little google search of the internet. This is a political discussion about how individuals feel about an issue. Now are you attempting to claim that pork is not included in the Farm Bill? Because that would be very foolish of you, and would demonstrate that you have not read the bill yourself.....

And I dont care if I will or lose the arguement,

That is way I'm so lucky that I addressed this at the beginning.

Now I hope you answer the questions I asked, sidestepping is so un-becoming.

I wish you would do the same thing - so again the Pot calling the Kettle black, you want becoming arguements don't resort to cheap shots.

m52nickerson

08-03-2008, 03:19

Then you are grossly mistaken. MoveOn.Org is after a specific type of change - not just change.It is still change.

What is the time line, what is the cost, how is it going to be funded, what hurdles does he forsee in implemation of the plan. Again what are the details - that is just a broad stroke plan. So I think your just naive enough to think that this is a plan - however this is not a plan - plans have details in themThat was not very hard was it. The plan in part will be funded by repealing Bush's tax cuts, plus most people will pay for the coverage. Will be depended on how long it take for the bill to get through congress. I will give you that he does not address the hurdles. You do realize that that is only a small part of his plan.

So we will save this for latter - since you have demonstrated a base misunderstanding of my point because of your eagerness to defend a candidate that I have not attacked - only questioned. As a citizen I have every right to question the candidate's ability to lead the nation. So are you attempting to claim a citizen does not have the right to question the candidate's ability to actualy lead the nation, because his political agenda does not have details in it?You have the right to question, and I have the right to defend.

So again we determine that you like to make cheap shots because someone disagrees with your stated postion. So the fact that I don' care about your voting record is another cheap shot, so sorry to offend you.

Hmm you should of watch the school house rock explanation of how things are done in congress - its really rather simple, a measure is brought forth into the congress, and if it has the desired sponsers it can become a bill, and if the bill gets past that process it can then become a piece of legislation. which is what laws and regulations are part of. Now once again how does the above agenda of Mr. Obama meet the criteria of developing a contrete plan on how to bring about his agenda for health care reform for the nation. Because all I see - as with McCains is a broad stroke on what they would like to have happen, nothing about cost, timeline, or any other details in the plan. You had stated that you wanted to know how the candidates would implement there plans. I responded with regulations and laws. You then told me I was wrong. Now you say that ultimately laws and regulations are used. :laugh4:

Alreadly stated several times in the thread, if you do not have the ability to understand what detail means just let me know - its easily looked up in the dictionary.I have been asking what details you wanted, it has taken this long for you to tell me.

Try making the point - instead of practicing duplicity.I guess your ability to see a point is equal to your ability to spot substance. Oops, sorry I forgot you bruise easy.

As stated before - I prefer town hall types - and the shouting match type of personality would turn off most voters that watched that type of behavior in a town hall meeting. Only party hacks want that. Citizens who want to legimately look at all candidates want to see how the candidates respond to questions and answer the question.....and you can get that from both styles of debates. Just because a debate has a moderator, does not mean the candidates will know all the question ahead of time. Plus a moderator has the power to make sure each candidate gets equal time to speak, no letting one dominate.

I see the need for one a week from the conventions until the election - of both types, in equal portions so we, the citizens of the nation, can determine of which of the two candidates have the best interests of the country at heart. Mistakes happen, bad decisions will happen, but I want the candidate that has the best interest of the people of the nation at heart to be voted into office. Right now neither candidate seems to present that picture,A good debater can argue a point even if he does not believe it, so I don't see how you or any one will see who has the best interest of this country at heart. But is that even a question? Don't you think that both candidates have made their plans because they feel that is what is best. If not what possible agenda do they have.

Read it againOk
So far your arguement seems to be about controlled structure of what the candidate presents - not what the people need to understand about the candidate's positions.I still don't see how what a candidate presents is different than what his position is.

Read the War Powers Act of 1973, he can make certain deployments under specific conditions prior to congressional approval. Guess what every senator and representive I have written to - fail to address that important piece of legislation in their responses to me. Congress has failed terribly in upholding their constitution and legislative duties.The president may deploy troops for 60 days before needing a declaration of war from congress. Yes congress has not done a good job of using this, of course after 60 days. That is a enough time to get deep enough into a situation that it would be hard to just pull out. This still does not provide any proof that when on party controls both the electoral branch and the congress it leads to disaster.

As stated before - read for yourself, its not hard to find it in there once you begin to read it.
Not as pork I don't. Not all pork is bad. Passing the relief as part of the defense bill simple saved time.

Now as far as the farm bill would some of the pork you are talking about be the Food Stamp Program?

I seem marginal addressment of issues by Obama, I see hope speech being present by Obama, however I don't see much detail in his speeches about how he is going to change the government. Now I might be missing some of the speeches - but from what I have seen and read - I don't see anything that demonstrates that he has a real plan to lead the nation, just the typical message of hope and improvement I would expect of a candidate for office. And yes McCain is indeed much worse in this area then Obama, hince the reason I want to see more debates to force them to address the issues - or resort to personal attacks only. Then I can determine which one I will vote for based upon their behaviorWell I have to say you are not listen to the speeches and want a level of detail that at this point is unrealistic.

See I dont care to provide you with the evidence that is easily seen by a little google search of the internet. This is a political discussion about how individuals feel about an issue. Now are you attempting to claim that pork is not included in the Farm Bill? Because that would be very foolish of you, and would demonstrate that you have not read the bill yourself.....As I stated not all pork is bad, personally I like baby back ribs.

And I dont care if I will or lose the arguement, Then why are you still hear?

I wish you would do the same thing - so again the Pot calling the Kettle black, you want becoming arguements don't resort to cheap shots.So what questions of your have I not answered?

Lemur

08-03-2008, 03:46

Redleg, M52, if we could only harness the energy you're putting into this back-and-forth, we could power a smallish city for a week. Think about it. It's your duty to find a way to capture this brilliant and wasted effort.

m52nickerson

08-03-2008, 04:51

Redleg

08-03-2008, 06:22

It is still change.

However it does not equate to what you stated it did now does it.

That was not very hard was it. The plan in part will be funded by repealing Bush's tax cuts, plus most people will pay for the coverage. Will be depended on how long it take for the bill to get through congress. I will give you that he does not address the hurdles. You do realize that that is only a small part of his plan.

The problem is that no-one knows that, Your making an assumption on what his plan might be, I want to see what he says about it - not what others think it might be. To bad you didnt read it the first time I said it either. Its easy to find out what details mean - all it requires is looking it up in the dictionary.

You have the right to question, and I have the right to defend.

you have the right to voice your opinion. Obama has to provide the answers to the questions - not you. Especially given that I have not attacked Obama, just questioned his political plans for the nation. So it seems you have become overly defensive for nothing. Simple fact is I am not against Obama, but neither am I for him at this time. He simply has not provided enough information for me to make a decision concerning his run for office, in fact your attempts have demonstrated how weak some of his positions truely are. So all your attempts at being defensive are for not. However you have demonstrated one of the fundmental flaws of the democratic party during election time. (and yes the Republicans have the same flaws to.)

So the fact that I don' care about your voting record is another cheap shot, so sorry to offend you.

Actually that wasnt the cheap shot - try again.

You had stated that you wanted to know how the candidates would implement there plans. I responded with regulations and laws. You then told me I was wrong. Now you say that ultimately laws and regulations are used. :laugh4:

Try again - I said something completely different. So I guess I will make it simple for you - Obama's implentation is the plans and details that he wants written into the bills that have to go through the process to become law. His implenation is what details is he going to put into executive orders, and what if any new governmental departments he wishes to create. Legislation of law and regulations is what Congress does to Fund his plan. Government 101 in school will teach you this if you can find the time to actually seek an education.

I have been asking what details you wanted, it has taken this long for you to tell me.

Nope, its the first time you chose to actually read it - details is a pretty specific comment - all one has to do is look into the dictionary to determine what it means.

I guess your ability to see a point is equal to your ability to spot substance. Oops, sorry I forgot you bruise easy.

Not at all on either case - but since you wish to play that game - I guess I will also

....and you can get that from both styles of debates. Just because a debate has a moderator, does not mean the candidates will know all the question ahead of time. Plus a moderator has the power to make sure each candidate gets equal time to speak, no letting one dominate.

- both types of debates have the opporunity for one individual to dominate.

A good debater can argue a point even if he does not believe it, so I don't see how you or any one will see who has the best interest of this country at heart. But is that even a question? Don't you think that both candidates have made their plans because they feel that is what is best. If not what possible agenda do they have.

and I am not going to enlighten you on how to judge people for yourself - everyone has their own opinion on that subject. So your point here is mote.

OkI still don't see how what a candidate presents is different than what his position is.

Politicians are politicans - they speak to get votes. So until you know what his postion truely is - you dont know for a fact what he is saying is what he will do, or is it just campaign speech. Here is what allowing people to question candidates does when its not a set piece debate or interview process - the candidates don't have prepared speeches or answers available - they have to come from themselves with the answer.

The president may deploy troops for 60 days before needing a declaration of war from congress. Yes congress has not done a good job of using this, of course after 60 days. That is a enough time to get deep enough into a situation that it would be hard to just pull out. This still does not provide any proof that when on party controls both the electoral branch and the congress it leads to disaster.

Actually it does given the screams of Bush Lied to congress. You cant have both ways in that aspect - both parties in power is not good for the nation. No comprise is necessary when both control the elective branches/

It also says something else about the deployment of troops for 60 days also. He can not just deploy troops for any old reason that he feels like doing it for. And then your forgetting the most important part of the Resolution where he has to come to congress to justify his actions - or the plug is pulled on the operation. And there is a time table for that action to.

Not all pork is bad. Passing the relief as part of the defense bill simple saved time.

Incorrect all pork is bad - it is nothing else then a cheat on the system - emergancy spending bills are the correct way to do it and are just as simple to do.

Now as far as the farm bill would some of the pork you are talking about be the Food Stamp Program?

Nope look deeper into it. But since you seemly cant find the legislation itself, pure laziness on your part since a simple google search is all that is required to find the farm bill.

http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/farmbill2008?navid=FARMBILL2008

one should have to explain why the government includes Social Security funding in the Farm Bill.....

But since you were to lazy to do a simple google - and I image you are to lazy to read the complete bill to find all the pork included in it.. Bill Moyers at PBS has a decent write up on the pork and problems with the 2008 Farm bill. THere are others but they are from more consertive postions, Bill actually does a pretty good job of addressing some of the pork in the bill.

Well I have to say you are not listen to the speeches and want a level of detail that at this point is unrealistic.
And you would be incorrect once again - detail is required for many things when candidates are making specific campaign promises.

As I stated not all pork is bad, personally I like baby back ribs.

good for you - to bad you are acting like a pig.....

Then why are you still hear?

Cause I can......

So what questions of your have I not answered?

Several - review the thread....

CountArach

08-03-2008, 07:14

I hope McCain picks Palin for VP ASAP. Who agree's?
Be my guest, just don't complain when the Democrats start pointing out that she is currently under investigation (http://www.adn.com/news/alaska/story/482003.html).

Banquo's Ghost

08-03-2008, 09:09

Gentlemen,

Whereas it is understood that this subject is likely to provoke much heated debate, there are some posters tripping over the line into personal attacks. Mild so far, but getting increasingly unpleasant.

Unlike the campaigns, here there are rules against being beastly to one another. Let's respect them, and each other.

Thank you kindly.

:bow:

m52nickerson

08-03-2008, 16:26

However it does not equate to what you stated it did now does it.Yes it does. A majority of people what change, but I bet you would be hard presses to find a consensus within those people of what specific type of change. I in no way meant that a majority of people want the exact same things as MoveOn, just that they want change.

The problem is that no-one knows that, Your making an assumption on what his plan might be, I want to see what he says about it - not what others think it might be. To bad you didnt read it the first time I said it either. Its easy to find out what details mean - all it requires is looking it up in the dictionary. You mean about how he will fund it, no the part about the repealing of tax cuts is in there. Now a time line, no he has not given one, so yes that is one more detail he could put in.

Now me looking up "detail" in the dictionary would not have told me what you wanted to know. Here is one definition "An individual part or item; a particular."

Now what did you say it before?
well here (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=1978548&postcount=685), you stated you wanted to know how he was going to implement and pay for it. This then launched the discussion how things are implemented.

you have the right to voice your opinion. Obama has to provide the answers to the questions - not you. Especially given that I have not attacked Obama, just questioned his political plans for the nation. So it seems you have become overly defensive for nothing. Simple fact is I am not against Obama, but neither am I for him at this time. He simply has not provided enough information for me to make a decision concerning his run for office, in fact your attempts have demonstrated how weak some of his positions truely are. So all your attempts at being defensive are for not. However you have demonstrated one of the fundmental flaws of the democratic party during election time. (and yes the Republicans have the same flaws to.)He has not provided enough for you. Now explain to me how I have shown his positions to be weak.

Actually that wasnt the cheap shot - try again.No - it is to easy.

Try again - I said something completely different. So I guess I will make it simple for you - Obama's implentation is the plans and details that he wants written into the bills that have to go through the process to become law. His implenation is what details is he going to put into executive orders, and what if any new governmental departments he wishes to create. Legislation of law and regulations is what Congress does to Fund his plan. Government 101 in school will teach you this if you can find the time to actually seek an education.Ok you have said that you wanted to know how he would implement his plan. I responded with laws and regulations, which start as a bill. All you would have to say is you wanted to know how his bills would be written.

Now your assumption the laws and regulations fund plans is incorrect. Laws and regulations are what is used to enact as plan. The president and other write a bill, that then goes through congress and the house were if passed becomes a law. Even new agencies need laws behind them. Now once the law is in place it is up to other government agencies, like EPA, to write regulations on how that law is going to be followed. Then individual states may have to adopt laws and then regulations so that state regulatory agencies can enforce those laws. Funding specifications may be included in the laws or regulations, such as a case of subsidies, most funding will come from funds dedicated the regulatory agencies tasked with enforcing the laws through there regulations.

Now if you feel that is the level of detail you need, fine. It is not accurate to say that without draft bills, or parts of bills, a plan has no substance. Substance can be defined as "the meaning or gist, as of speech or writing" - from Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1).

- both types of debates have the opporunity for one individual to dominate.Yes, one by making better points and rebutting the points of your opponent and the other by talking more and louder.

and I am not going to enlighten you on how to judge people for yourself - everyone has their own opinion on that subject. So your point here is mote.Nor would I want YOU to. My point was far from moot.

Politicians are politicans - they speak to get votes. So until you know what his postion truely is - you dont know for a fact what he is saying is what he will do, or is it just campaign speech. Here is what allowing people to question candidates does when its not a set piece debate or interview process - the candidates don't have prepared speeches or answers available - they have to come from themselves with the answer.The candidates know what their plans are. I doubt most politicians will forget what they have spoke about before and then say something total different in a debate. It is not like the speech writer get no impute from the candidates, and the candidates do not go out and just riddle off a speech without reading it first.

If you feel that the candidates are not being honest in there speeches and plans, why would you even think about voting for one of them?

Actually it does given the screams of Bush Lied to congress. You cant have both ways in that aspect - both parties in power is not good for the nation. No comprise is necessary when both control the elective branches/

It also says something else about the deployment of troops for 60 days also. He can not just deploy troops for any old reason that he feels like doing it for. And then your forgetting the most important part of the Resolution where he has to come to congress to justify his actions - or the plug is pulled on the operation. And there is a time table for that action to.Unless the country is under serious attack or serious threat.

Now the US was in Somalia as part of a UN mission. They were sent there by president Bush Sr. under a Dem controlled congress.

So, your point is moot. Do you have any proof the when one party controls the White House and congress it leads to disaster.

Incorrect all pork is bad - it is nothing else then a cheat on the system - emergancy spending bills are the correct way to do it and are just as simple to do.Well that is your opinion, but I don't see it.

Nope look deeper into it. But since you seemly cant find the legislation itself, pure laziness on your part since a simple google search is all that is required to find the farm bill.

http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/farmbill2008?navid=FARMBILL2008

one should have to explain why the government includes Social Security funding in the Farm Bill.....That is in the bill it self.

PART V--PROTECTION OF SOCIAL SECURITY

SEC. 15361. PROTECTION OF SOCIAL SECURITY.

To ensure that the assets of the trust funds established under
section 201 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 401) are not reduced
as a result of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Treasury
shall transfer annually from the general revenues of the Federal
Government to those trust funds the following amounts:

But since you were to lazy to do a simple google - and I image you are to lazy to read the complete bill to find all the pork included in it.. Bill Moyers at PBS has a decent write up on the pork and problems with the 2008 Farm bill. THere are others but they are from more consertive postions, Bill actually does a pretty good job of addressing some of the pork in the bill.I found were Moyer talks about pork, and were he talks bout the farm bill, but not at the same time.

Back to your original example, the relief funds in the defense bill. The definition of Pork is-The term pork barrel politics refers to government spending that is intended to benefit constituents of a politician in return for their political support, either in the form of campaign contributions or votes. So is that relief money really pork, No. Is the social security funds in the farm bill pork, no.

But, by the definition I will take back my position that all pork is not bad, because by this it is. Now by reading the farm bill I can't find any pork.

And you would be incorrect once again - detail is required for many things when candidates are making specific campaign promises. No - if I promise you that I will do something it does not mean I have to tell you how.

good for you - to bad you are acting like a pig.....Oink, oink.

Several - review the thread....Did, can't find any. You must be wrong.