U.S. Elections 2008: General Elections -- Analysis and Commentary

"I believe that we have lost the abortion battle -- permanently."

What the heck is that!!!??? Talk about raising the white flag of surrender being a hallmark of Obama supporters. They'll give up at anything, won't they. He even says it is an "unspeakable evil" and most likely believes that its foundations are illegitimate. Women have always had abortions, as they always will - but I want to return the numbers to pre-roe or close to it. I think that is a winnable war.
People are so crazy - something has to be eradicated from the planet earth in order for them to "win the war". Nobody understands what winning is anymore. Naziism and Communism never went away - they were just beaten sufficiently to reduce their threat to massive numbers of people. That is what the abortion war must accomplish.



I see his other points and agree with many of them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

"I believe that we have lost the abortion battle -- permanently."

What the heck is that!!!??? Talk about raising the white flag of surrender being a hallmark of Obama supporters. They'll give up at anything, won't they. He even says it is an "unspeakable evil" and most likely believes that its foundations are illegitimate. Women have always had abortions, as they always will - but I want to return the numbers to pre-roe or close to it. I think that is a winnable war.
People are so crazy - something has to be eradicated from the planet earth in order for them to "win the war". Nobody understands what winning is anymore. Naziism and Communism never went away - they were just beaten sufficiently to reduce their threat to massive numbers of people. That is what the abortion war must accomplish.

I see his other points and agree with many of them.

---

Yup, us Obama supporters give up so easy.

What that person realizes is that abortion is not going to be mad illegal in this country again. So it becomes a non-issue when picking a candidate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by m52nickerson

Yup, us Obama supporters give up so easy.

What that person realizes is that abortion is not going to be mad illegal in this country again. So it becomes a non-issue when picking a candidate.

---

What I don't understand is how someone can say something is such an incredible evil being perpetrated and say that the war is lost. I can only assume that he doesn't believe it is worth fighting for.

We can change the stigma and policy specifics on abortion, but we need to get rid of Roe first. That is an attainable goal and one worth fighting for.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ronin

I remember reading something about this back in the day.....let´s see if my Google Kung Foo is up to par...

ohhh here go....

not condemned to hell...but close enough??

You voted for Kerry? then get the hell out

---

Well it's not condemnation to hell, but it's pretty crazy. I'll give you that... :bow:

I'm annoyed with the AP:
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20081006/D93KS9J01.html

Quote:

---

ASHEVILLE, N.C. (AP) - The gloves are off, the heels are on, and the presidential race is dredging up infamous events from 20, 30, even 40 years ago.

Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin defended her claim Sunday that Barack Obama "pals around with terrorists" because of his association with a 1960s radical.

---

:wall: He's not a 'radical', he's an unrepentant terrorist!

Gah.

CR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

What I don't understand is how someone can say something is such an incredible evil being perpetrated and say that the war is lost. I can only assume that he doesn't believe it is worth fighting for.

We can change the stigma and policy specifics on abortion, but we need to get rid of Roe first. That is an attainable goal and one worth fighting for.

---

Even if you get rid of Roe vs Wade it will not make abortion go away. At best it would come down to states. Then you would have women crossing state lines to get abortions.

....in other news, Obama's supporting this website attacking McCain.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by m52nickerson

Even if you get rid of Roe vs Wade it will not make abortion go away. At best it would come down to states. Then you would have women crossing state lines to get abortions.

---

Why? Why couldn't there be federal legislation?

People use the state's rights argument exclusively for some reason. This is an issue of the rights of the people to have a say in the laws that govern them, not to have a few people remove that right because they don't trust the people to resolve their differences. It could be the states that make the laws or there could be federal laws. Most likely there would be an agreement to limit the term allowance like there was across Europe.

Do you mean to tell me that the Europeans could be trusted to make laws on the subject and they did it? Noooo!

We could have workable and legitimate laws on the books instead of this depressing nonsense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

I'm annoyed with the AP:
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20081006/D93KS9J01.html


:wall: He's not a 'radical', he's an unrepentant terrorist!

Gah.

CR

---

Hes not a terrorist. Hes an idiot who sent letters to congress saying he would blow up the building. Talk about lack of testicular fortitude. Everyone likes to play revolutionary but no one likes to actually do it buncha pansies

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

What I don't understand is how someone can say something is such an incredible evil being perpetrated and say that the war is lost. I can only assume that he doesn't believe it is worth fighting for.

We can change the stigma and policy specifics on abortion, but we need to get rid of Roe first. That is an attainable goal and one worth fighting for.

---

I say an unjustified war is incredible evil, and destroys lives on a much grander scale than abortion does... but I'm sure that's just left-wing nonsense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

I'm annoyed with the AP:
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20081006/D93KS9J01.html


:wall: He's not a 'radical', he's an unrepentant terrorist!

Gah.

CR

---

Tss, unrepentant former terrorist.

And is the annoyance due to not throwing around the "terrorist" word much or bias (that would require them to comment on american radical right-wing groups using terrorist methods as terrorists and not radicals)?

Still, the Republicans must be really desperate if this is the "gloves off".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ironside

Tss, unrepentant former terrorist.

And is the annoyance due to not throwing around the "terrorist" word much or bias (that would require them to comment on american radical right-wing groups using terrorist methods as terrorists and not radicals)?

Still, the Republicans must be really desperate if this is the "gloves off".

---

Yup they seriously can't find anything. Obama wisely didn't choose anyone with pregnant teenage kids and such or this election would be OVER already. ;)

I'll stipulate that the Repubs have apparently not found any smoking gun to tie directly to Senator Obama, and that therefore, barring some *surprise* last-minute evidence of law-breaking, corruption, or moral turpitude on his part,

if the election were held today Obama would win the contest, and I'll project that he wins Nov 5th, too.

Given that... and the liklihood that we will deliver to him the same advantage we gave to GWB (a majority in both the House and Senate), and all the still-in-place tools of an Imperial Presidency (Authorization to Use Force, the Pre-Emptive Doctrine, Patriot Act, a virtually limitless pocketbook via the Bank Bailout, etc etc), a question:

Will President Obama relinquish any of that power back to Congress, or will he continue to use it? Will he try to amass more presidential prerogatives?

Bah, these Palin attacks on Obama only serve to emphasise the bankruptcy of the Republican campaign.

Tired smear campaigns? That what America needs right now? :no:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

Bah, these Palin attacks on Obama only serve to emphasise the bankruptcy of the Republican campaign.

Tired smear campaigns? That what America needs right now? :no:

---

It's what you fight with when you can't win on the issues. I hear almost nothing out of their campaign except Obama is bad, bad, bad, terrorist, raise taxes, bad. Look at me I'm a soccer mom.

And the really cynical part is, it works remarkably well.

Best advice for the McCain camp that I've read in a month:

For the last nine weeks the McCain campaign has tried win by raising Obama’s negatives. Ads have attacked, McCain and Palin has have attacked. This has failed. Over the top negative attacks and a campaign message that too often seems to be little more than sarcasm and suppressed anger has damaged McCain’s priceless and hard earned “brand” as a different kind of Republican. McCain’s best option now is to ditch the chainsaw and offer a scared and angry country what it badly wants; hope and leadership.

Palin should drop the braying attacks on Obama’s aging hippie bomber pals and start connecting to her cherished hockey moms on the one issue they = are actually worried about; a quickly slowing economy. Chuck the hacky and ineffective negative ads and switch to man on the street spots with real people voicing their real doubts about Obama; too weak to stand up to Washington’s mighty special interest cartel or the newly empowered Democratic bosses of the Congress and Senate, too liberal to know how to fix the economy, too inexperienced to handle a dangerous world. On Tuesday, McCain should look into the camera and connect to the 80 million scared and worried Americans who will be watching him.

McCain is losing. To regain a chance to win, McCain must run as who he truly is; pragmatic, tough, bi-partisan and ready to break some special interest china to get the right things done in Washington. Fix the message, and you will fix the states.

Hmm, that quote of yours seems very good, Lemur.

Quote:

---

Hes not a terrorist. Hes an idiot who sent letters to congress saying he would blow up the building. Talk about lack of testicular fortitude. Everyone likes to play revolutionary but no one likes to actually do it buncha pansies

---

The Weathermen did detonate a lot of bombs and kill a policeman, tried to kill a judge and his family as he presided over a trial of their members, and killed three of their own members through bomb making ineptness.

CR

Oh god, Ayers again?

Well, if he's really a terrorist, go arrest him. Isn't he a uni professor? What's stopping you? Go on, get your warrant and arrest him.

OK. No one wants to speculate yet on whether President Obama will relinquish the imperial powers we are gonna give him; we're still committed to the 'horserace' part of the election.

So, a different question:

If you could sneak one question into tomorrow's McCain-Obama debate, what would it be?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KukriKhan

OK. No one wants to speculate yet on whether President Obama will relinquish the imperial powers we are gonna give him; we're still committed to the 'horserace' part of the election.

So, a different question:

If you could sneak one question into tomorrow's McCain-Obama debate, what would it be?

---

Can you explain what you mean exactly? Do you mean "will Obama interpret the role of President exactly as George W. Bush has"?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KukriKhan

If you could sneak one question into tomorrow's McCain-Obama debate, what would it be?

---

Me sir, please!

"Will you relinquish the imperial powers we are going to give you, and to what extent, and by when exactly?" :inquisitive:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Honestly, I'd really like to know.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

Me sir, please!

"Will you relinquish the imperial powers we are going to give you, and to what extent, and by when exactly?" :inquisitive:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Honestly, I'd really like to know.

---

I don't know what people mean by imperial powers, unless we're referring to the "liberal" interpretation of the President's power under 8 years of Bush, wiretapping torture etc. and other clearly illegal things that have been shoved through in the name of National Security *tm.

The guy is a Constitutional law scholar though. George W. Bush is the kind of guy who would have called a Constitutional law scholar a not so nice word for homosexuals, and then belched in college. So, I would be shocked if we saw "the same thing." But, to tiny government people, and to especially tiny government Republicans, any government under a Democrat will be way too much government under a Democrat so... I guess it's a matter of perspective.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

Why? Why couldn't there be federal legislation?

People use the state's rights argument exclusively for some reason. This is an issue of the rights of the people to have a say in the laws that govern them, not to have a few people remove that right because they don't trust the people to resolve their differences. It could be the states that make the laws or there could be federal laws. Most likely there would be an agreement to limit the term allowance like there was across Europe.

Do you mean to tell me that the Europeans could be trusted to make laws on the subject and they did it? Noooo!

We could have workable and legitimate laws on the books instead of this depressing nonsense.

---

I'm not saying that there could not be federal regulations. Maybe some day there may be a cutoff on when an abortion may be done. I don't see a federal regulation that bans all abortions out right.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Best advice for the McCain camp that I've read in a month:

For the last nine weeks the McCain campaign has tried win by raising Obama’s negatives. Ads have attacked, McCain and Palin has have attacked. This has failed. Over the top negative attacks and a campaign message that too often seems to be little more than sarcasm and suppressed anger has damaged McCain’s priceless and hard earned “brand” as a different kind of Republican. McCain’s best option now is to ditch the chainsaw and offer a scared and angry country what it badly wants; hope and leadership.

Palin should drop the braying attacks on Obama’s aging hippie bomber pals and start connecting to her cherished hockey moms on the one issue they = are actually worried about; a quickly slowing economy. Chuck the hacky and ineffective negative ads and switch to man on the street spots with real people voicing their real doubts about Obama; too weak to stand up to Washington’s mighty special interest cartel or the newly empowered Democratic bosses of the Congress and Senate, too liberal to know how to fix the economy, too inexperienced to handle a dangerous world. On Tuesday, McCain should look into the camera and connect to the 80 million scared and worried Americans who will be watching him.

McCain is losing. To regain a chance to win, McCain must run as who he truly is; pragmatic, tough, bi-partisan and ready to break some special interest china to get the right things done in Washington. Fix the message, and you will fix the states.

---

McCain should have done that about a month ago. It may be to late now.

Interesting. The Obama campaign puts out a film about McCain and the Keating scandal. I guess they're showing that dredging up old scandal is a game two can play.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Interesting. The Obama campaign puts out a film about McCain and the Keating scandal. I guess they're showing that dredging up old scandal is a game two can play.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by m52nickerson

....in other news, Obama's supporting this website attacking McCain.

---

oh, Lemur!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Koga No Goshi

I don't know what people mean by imperial powers, unless we're referring to the "liberal" interpretation of the President's power under 8 years of Bush, wiretapping torture etc. and other clearly illegal things that have been shoved through in the name of National Security *tm.

The guy is a Constitutional law scholar though. George W. Bush is the kind of guy who would have called a Constitutional law scholar a not so nice word for homosexuals, and then belched in college. So, I would be shocked if we saw "the same thing." But, to tiny government people, and to especially tiny government Republicans, any government under a Democrat will be way too much government under a Democrat so... I guess it's a matter of perspective.

---

So your opinion is that President Obama will be compelled by his scholarly background to give back to Congress the prerogatives accumulated his predecessor, not to keep any of them?

I hope you're right.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Koga No Goshi

I don't know what people mean by imperial powers, unless we're referring to the "liberal" interpretation of the President's power under 8 years of Bush, wiretapping torture etc. and other clearly illegal things that have been shoved through in the name of National Security *tm.

The guy is a Constitutional law scholar though. George W. Bush is the kind of guy who would have called a Constitutional law scholar a not so nice word for homosexuals, and then belched in college. So, I would be shocked if we saw "the same thing." But, to tiny government people, and to especially tiny government Republicans, any government under a Democrat will be way too much government under a Democrat so... I guess it's a matter of perspective.

---

Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. :yes:

The executive, with a mandate for change, backed by a friendly congress, it's main check. Not a good combination. All these powers that the GOP Congress gave Bush in 2000-2006, will now be in the hands of their opposition, with full legislative backing. Before handing power to the president, every GOP member of Congress should have asked themselves, "would we really want Hillary to have this same power?"

Sadly, I believe the answer to KukriKhan's question is, "Are you freakin' kidding me! How am I supposed to change things without all these cool superpowers!" The only way to regain balance would have been an impeachment of Cheney and Bush (in that order), and Pelosi was way too gutless (or complicit) to do it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KukriKhan

I'll stipulate that the Repubs have apparently not found any smoking gun to tie directly to Senator Obama, and that therefore, barring some *surprise* last-minute evidence of law-breaking, corruption, or moral turpitude on his part,

if the election were held today Obama would win the contest, and I'll project that he wins Nov 5th, too.

Given that... and the liklihood that we will deliver to him the same advantage we gave to GWB (a majority in both the House and Senate), and all the still-in-place tools of an Imperial Presidency (Authorization to Use Force, the Pre-Emptive Doctrine, Patriot Act, a virtually limitless pocketbook via the Bank Bailout, etc etc), a question:

Will President Obama relinquish any of that power back to Congress, or will he continue to use it? Will he try to amass more presidential prerogatives?

---

Why should he? Obama and his party have done nothing to repeal many of those "failed policies of George W Bush" since they grabbed both the House and the Senate. In many instances they have only contributed to the increase in executive powers and the size and powers of the Dept. of Homeland Security & the Patriot Act.

Here's a perfect example of Obama sacrificing his 'principles' so as to side with his party. Remember the wiretapping bill?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/10/wa...on/10fisa.html

Quote:

---

The issue put Senator Barack Obama, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, in a particularly precarious spot. He had long opposed giving legal immunity to the phone companies that took part in the N.S.A.’s wiretapping program, even threatening a filibuster during his run for the nomination. But on Wednesday, he ended up voting for what he called “an improved but imperfect bill” after backing a failed attempt earlier in the day to strip the immunity provision from the bill through an amendment.

Mr. Obama’s decision last month to reverse course angered some ardent supporters, who organized an Internet drive to influence his vote. And his position came to symbolize the continuing difficulties that Democrats have faced in striking a position on national security issues even against a weakened president. Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, Democrat of New York, who had battled Mr. Obama for the nomination, voted against the bill.

---

So rather than take the principled approach and stick to his guns he opted to vote for the bill. Do you honestly believed he changed his mind and voted for the bill because of the additional improvements or was he afraid of running the risk of being the guy who voted against the bill in the event another major terrorist attack takes place? Hell, he probably factored into his decision the the hopes that moderates and center-right conservatives would find this gesture appealing as it made him appear to be 'strong on terror'. Comparatively speaking Hillary Clinton clearly demonstrated which Democratic candidate had the bigger balls this election year.

The notion that the Democrats will right the wrongs is ludicrous to the extreme. To date they've been complicit in virtually every wrong doing being blamed on Republicans.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Best advice for the McCain camp that I've read in a month:

[indent] For the last nine weeks the McCain campaign has tried win by raising Obama’s negatives. Ads have attacked, McCain and Palin has have attacked. This has failed.

---

Actually, it worked - and quite effectively. Obama's numbers are due to the current economic "crisis". McCain was surging directly before it all went down. Why people favor the democrats on economic issues.. I have no idea, other than some misguided credit Clinton gets for the economic conditions during his tenure that were not of his making...

When Obama pops the capital gains up double digits, we'll see how far his "tax breaks for the middle class" go towards the newly unemployed.

Quote:

---

The notion that the Democrats will right the wrongs is ludicrous to the extreme. To date they've been complicit in virtually every wrong doing being blamed on Republicans.

---

Wait, so now Republicans are Constitution-minded folk who have a problem with Homeland Security, wiretapping, torture, the Patriot Act...?

It is really annoying how you guys cheerlead for this stuff when your party is doing it, and then later, if it fails miserably, or proves unpopular, or exceeds its boundaries, it's the Dems fault for enabling it. If you want any credibility in being a Republican and criticizing these policies, saying that the Dems did it all does not serve your cause, whatsoever. Especially since the one power Dems might have been able to wield while a minority, filibustering, was threatened with the nuclear option and the arbitrary changing of the rules of Congress.

Obama didn't vote for war in Iraq. That alone makes him smarter than almost every single Republican and a majority of the rest of the Democrats.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

Actually, it worked - and quite effectively. Obama's numbers are due to the current economic "crisis". McCain was surging directly before it all went down. Why people favor the democrats on economic issues.. I have no idea, other than some misguided credit Clinton gets for the economic conditions during his tenure that were not of his making...

When Obama pops the capital gains up double digits, we'll see how far his "tax breaks for the middle class" go towards the newly unemployed.

---

No, McCain had been doing nothing BUT attacking since the very beginning of campaign season. It was Palin, not the attack strategy, that created McCain's surge.