2008 U.S. Presidential Election - General Election [Archive]

Heald

21st July 2008, 10:09 AM

That could be a problem for McCain. According to pollster.com, pretty much every poll shows Obama ahead of McCain, many of which sport a dangerously small percentage of undecideds. Only about 3 show McCain ahead, and even then only by a couple of points. I was surprised to see that even FOX's poll, considering that many of FOX's staff and much of their audience would probably argue that slavery 'wasn't such a bad thing', shows Obama ahead.

As long as Obama doesn't do anything too spectacularly stupid (considering 'controversies', as painted by America's most conservative of conservatives, such as Obama encouraging the teaching of Spanish in schools, have failed to make any sort of dent in his ratings), it is up to McCain to steal the headlines, which, according to your link mr_pikachu, he is failing to do.

It is also worthy to note that the Independents may once again play a significant part in these elections. Since they are usually more left-wing than the Democrats, they could steal many crucial votes from them. Or, perhaps they have learned that back in 2000 their votes helped begin an 8 year reign of terror that over 6 billion people will remember as the most disastrous presidency in living memory, and then they might think twice before voting for Joe Nobody.

Roy Karrde

21st July 2008, 11:38 AM

Heald you do realize that recent polls have the two tied, and that is before the convention or any bounce for McCain. Alot of Conservatives are staying on the fense until McCain chooses Romney or another VP. And besides if polls were any indication as to who would win, we would have President Kerry or President Gore * Yuck * right now.

firepokemon

21st July 2008, 02:24 PM

Some would say the United States should have had Gore.

Calaveron

21st July 2008, 02:28 PM

I've missed you too Haukino.

Heald

21st July 2008, 02:35 PM

Heald you do realize that recent polls have the two tied

According to pollster.com, pretty much every poll shows Obama ahead of McCain, many of which sport a dangerously small percentage of undecideds. Only about 3 show McCain ahead, and even then only by a couple of points.
Pollster.com collects every latest poll score from every source and has both an average of all polls and the results of every poll. At the moment it shows Obama ahead by around 3 points in pretty much every poll, the latest one being from 4 days ago. Their average at the moment puts Obama at 46%, McCain at 43% and the rest are undecideds or third-party.

Therefore, not only do I realise the recent polls, I actually know that in fact the two are not tied.

So...

Roy Karrde, you do realise that recent polls put Obama ahead of McCain ;)

firepokemon

21st July 2008, 02:51 PM

I've missed you too Haukino.

Oh Calaveron how lovely to see you ^_^.

And I have to go with Heald here, polls where I go also show Obama leading all the major polls. The thing is regardless of how well these people do in the polls. At the end of the day the American Presidential Election is decided state-by-state-by-state. So really that's where the focus should be.

mr_pikachu

21st July 2008, 04:17 PM

Clark

21st July 2008, 04:18 PM

McCain. I'm White.

Heald

21st July 2008, 04:59 PM

McCain. I'm White.
Ace just won the thread.

I'll agree with what you're saying mr_pikachu regarding the inaccuracy regarding a minority candidate, and I will now admit that polls do not decide the election, especially considering we're 3 months away from the big day and the two candidates haven't begun to really campaign yet, neither have we had the debates (of course, whether the debates matter or not is another question, considering Bush's embarrassing performances even though he managed to win both elections). The polls can, and will, change. However, as the current trend is going. McCain has lost his lead and over the last months the margin Obama has over McCain has been increasing, with no sign of slowing down. At this moment in time, it seems that Obama's support could be growing exponentially, and only time will tell if or when it will peak. For McCain's camp to not be doing anything in the face of Obama's growing support is showing dangerous complacency on McCain's behalf.

One idea that I've been toying with is that McCain has never really been a President kind of guy. The people that have come and gone, such as Kerry, Gore, Romney, Huckabee, both Clintons and both Bushs, have all shown great zeal in their campaigns and ever since they entered politics you could tell that they had great aspirations. McCain has never struck me as that kind of guy. He is an idealist at heart and is a man who wants to change people's opinions, rather than being one to force his opinions on other people. I like McCain, and I honestly wouldn't mind him being President, but I really don't believe he truly wants to win. Considering his record as a maverick amongst the Republicans and does lean to the left in many of his views, he might be making such a half-assed attempt at this shot simply because he thinks Obama would be a better President than him. This is just meaningless conjecture, but it is something that does strike me about his character.

Roy Karrde

21st July 2008, 06:45 PM

Pollster.com collects every latest poll score from every source and has both an average of all polls and the results of every poll. At the moment it shows Obama ahead by around 3 points in pretty much every poll, the latest one being from 4 days ago. Their average at the moment puts Obama at 46%, McCain at 43% and the rest are undecideds or third-party.

Problem is most polls do not factor in leanings or third parties, when those are factored in it is either tied or Obama has only a 1 point lead as of early this week. Not to mention while polls were released earlier, many of them outside of Rasmussen were conducted weeks ago and do not show the most up to date reaction of the American people. Now granted Obama will get a bump from his Fact Finding/Photo Op trip, just as he got a bump from winning the nomination. But just like in the nomination, the numbers are only soft.

Roy Karrde, you do realise that recent polls put Obama ahead of McCain ;)

http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

Rasmussen Today, Obama only has +1 which puts him under the margin of error, and mind you this is the time when he should be getting a huge bounce from the Middle East Photo Op er.. Fact Finding tour.

Infact if you want to talk about recent polls look at the daily polls here.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/general_election_match_up_history

A bunch of ties, or +1s, with the highest being a +3 last week. All within the margin of error.

The polls can, and will, change. However, as the current trend is going. McCain has lost his lead and over the last months the margin Obama has over McCain has been increasing, with no sign of slowing down.

You must either be blind or neglectful, you do realize that last month polls were coming out with Obama at a 8 to 15 point advantage. Now earlier this week its either 3 points, well within the margin of error, or tied. So if anything it is Obama who has been losing.

At this moment in time, it seems that Obama's support could be growing exponentially, and only time will tell if or when it will peak. For McCain's camp to not be doing anything in the face of Obama's growing support is showing dangerous complacency on McCain's behalf.

Again you are neglectful of reality, as well as neglectful of Obama's recent loss of support of the net roots.

he might be making such a half-assed attempt at this shot simply because he thinks Obama would be a better President than him.

Problem is if you look at how McCain has acted recently you can see that he believes Obama would truely be a horrible President and he is right. He attacks Obama repeatedly over Iraq, hammering him for not supporting the Surge, and he attacks Obama over energy and his unwillingness to help change our energy policy. McCain sees Obama as a dangerous man, some one who's nieveness and stupidity could do real harm to this country, and you know what?

He's right.

Heald

21st July 2008, 07:44 PM

Rasmussen Today, Obama only has +1 which puts him under the margin of error, and mind you this is the time when he should be getting a huge bounce from the Middle East Photo Op er.. Fact Finding tour.
I love it how whenever it's a Dem, it's a photo op, but whenever it's a Republican, it's a serious thing with lots of important people and talks and stuff.

You must either be blind or neglectful, you do realize that last month polls were coming out with Obama at a 8 to 15 point advantage. Now earlier this week its either 3 points, well within the margin of error, or tied. So if anything it is Obama who has been losing.
Blind or neglectful my ass. This is from less than 10 days ago:
http://www.pollster.com/08USPresGEMvOand3sr.png

Roy Karrde

21st July 2008, 07:57 PM

I love it how whenever it's a Dem, it's a photo op, but whenever it's a Republican, it's a serious thing with lots of important people and talks and stuff.

Well it would be helpful that Obama did not release his intentions and plans for Iraq BEFORE going over there for his Fact Finding Mission. Not to mention many media outlets have been reporting that Obama has been doing very little on substance ( especially in Afghanistan ) and a whole lot on just photo ops.

Blind or neglectful my ass. This is from less than 10 days ago:

Come to me when you have a real group of polls from say Real Clear Politics, or Rasmussen, and not... well Blogspot. And a graph that is a bit more detailed then "Lets put up alot of lines with very little detail or explination".

Heald

21st July 2008, 08:09 PM

Come to me when you have a real group of polls from say Real Clear Politics, or Rasmussen, and not... well Blogspot. And a graph that is a bit more detailed then "Lets put up alot of lines with very little detail or explination".
I just checked the source again for that graph, and if you're not a statistician, I'll explain. The graph is a scatter diagram of all polls ranging from the 13th March to the 13th of July. The blots are the most significant averages from particular dates. The lines represent a line of best fit, which show the correlation between the average scores. The correlation appears to fit the diagram very well, so I assume it is an accurate projection. The diagram therefore shows that, on average, polls are showing a growth in support for Obama, and consequently, a fall in support for McCain. It also factors in the third parties.

As for where the polls sources came from, the source provided a list:

ABC/Post
Zogby/Reuters
CNN
Times/Bloomberg
FOX
Rasmussen

Oh snap!

Look, before this continues, I'm not on some kind of hidden agenda to try and promote Obama. I really couldn't give two shits as to who the next chimp you decide to dress up as your next President is going to be. These are just the facts. You can take them or leave them, but it isn't worth your while trying to dress them up as something they are not. You clearly want Obama not to win. That's fine, but pretending that he isn't enjoying what may be short-lived support isn't going to make him go away.

Roy Karrde

21st July 2008, 08:13 PM

I just checked the source again for that graph, and if you're not a statistician, I'll explain. The graph is a scatter diagram of all polls ranging from the 13th March to the 13th of July. The blots are the most significant averages from particular dates. The lines represent a line of best fit, which show the correlation between the average scores. The correlation appears to fit the diagram very well, so I assume it is an accurate projection. The diagram therefore shows that, on average, polls are showing a growth in support for Obama, and consequently, a fall in support for McCain. It also factors in the third parties.

As for where the polls sources came from, the source provided a list:

ABC/Post
Zogby/Reuters
CNN
Times/Bloomberg
FOX
Rasmussen

Oh snap!

And thus that is your problem, you tried to push off your graph as being something recent, when in reality it is a long term graph with no true idea of when and where the different points came from. For example the only poll that would give Obama such a lead seen on your graph would be the LA Times/Bloomberg poll which was shown to be a false and fake poll. While the polls that apparently your graph neglects such as Reuters and Rasmussen would have the graph within the 2 to 3% points range and not nearly a 10% difference.

If you want to use a graph which factors in LA Times/Bloomberg then please be my guest, but do not try to pass it off as anything more than the sham that it is. So I would suggest you use more up to date sources.

mr_pikachu

21st July 2008, 08:23 PM

Roy Karrde

21st July 2008, 08:27 PM

Roy, I hate to say it, but a 4.7% edge by the RCP polls is still significant. Again, it's hard to say whether that advantage will be retained over the coming months, particularly due to the pressure factor I outlined earlier, but in terms of sheer statistics it's hard to argue "margin of error" here.

Well mind you the margin of error differs, and that the two polls that are raising it up are CNN and ABC which were conducted nearly two weeks ago and before the events of Obama's vote on the FISA act. Anyway to give you a bit of a idea of how close it was before Obama's bounce, here is Gallup Daily. Now mind you the latest poll is the bounce from the trip and is soft numbers so do not expect it to be his true numbers.

http://media.gallup.com/poll/graphs/080721DailyUpdateGraph1_nmjhtrd.gif

Now take that, add in dailies from Rasmussen,

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ...tch_up_history

And you get a idea of how tight the race actually is.

Heald

21st July 2008, 08:35 PM

And thus that is your problem, you tried to push off your graph as being something recent, when in reality it is a long term graph with no true idea of when and where the different points came from.Hence why it is called 'time series data' as it can be used to show concepts such as growth. Which was what I meant when I said Obama's support had been growing. So even if you ignore the so-called fake Times/Bloomberg poll, that happened in June, whereas the latest figures are from July, meaning the Times/Bloomberg figure would have had little effect on the time series data. In fact, if the Times/Bloomberg figure was ignored, that would have lowered the average polled figure for Obama in June and therefore would have made the growth in support he had in the last month actually greater. Therefore, it still proves my point that Obama's support is growing.

Roy Karrde

21st July 2008, 08:46 PM

Hence why it is called 'time series data' as it can be used to show concepts such as growth. Which was what I meant when I said Obama's support had been growing. So even if you ignore the so-called fake Times/Bloomberg poll, that happened in June, whereas the latest figures are from July, meaning the Times/Bloomberg figure would have had little effect on the time series data. In fact, if the Times/Bloomberg figure was ignored, that would have lowered the average polled figure for Obama in June and therefore would have made the growth in support he had in the last month actually greater. Therefore, it still proves my point that Obama's support is growing.

Alright lets take in for a second the belief that your poll is accurate up to 10 days ago, since the latest polls up to today have shown the cannidates tied or very close to eachother as I provided, then that only proves that Obama's support has suddenly dropped. Or it shows that your graph is wrong and you should stay with more accurate sources. Either way this argument is some what insane seeing how your graph is already out dated by 10 days, and how it is not very detailed.

Drusilla

21st July 2008, 10:10 PM

More like "much more BROKE because of" the right...

Obama '08 baby!

I can't agree more. (y)

Jeff

21st July 2008, 10:23 PM

Media bias? John who? Oh yeah that's right, there's someone running against Obama, but the media's been making me forget about him. Back when Hillary was still in the race the attention to the Democrats was understandable considering the Republican race was already clinched, but now? I haven't even heard much about McCain in the local media and I live in a conservative area.

I'm voting for McCain, although it's not like it'll matter. Expecting Maryland's electoral votes to go for a Republican is like expecting Nader to win, it's just not going to happen. So, I guess I'll be more focused on the local races like I was back during the primaries.

Roy Karrde

21st July 2008, 10:35 PM

Media bias? John who? Oh yeah that's right, there's someone running against Obama, but the media's been making me forget about him. Back when Hillary was still in the race the attention to the Democrats was understandable considering the Republican race was already clinched, but now? I haven't even heard much about McCain in the local media and I live in a conservative area.

The funny thing about the media bias ( and lets make no mistake there is media bias ). Is that it's going to make McCain look a hell of alot more sympathetic to alot of people. I think it was today's Rassmussen poll that shows that a increasingly amount of Americans believe there is a media bias for Obama. That is really going to start to backfire against the Obama campeign if that number continues to rise, and people start to see the media ganging up against this poor old POW Vet.

MToolen

21st July 2008, 11:54 PM

Is it okay that I don't like either candidate? Each has his own glaring flaws and I can't help but see those over their good points. For McCain, he has that car battery contest (http://news.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-9975344-54.html), not to mention the fact that, if elected President, he will be 72 when he takes office. 72! And I don't mind Obama's race, creed, or experience; taxes on gas companies who have little to nothing to do with oil prices (especially when a majority of the income in my area comes from ConocoPhilips's largest refinery, located a mile south of my location) are a different story, though. I like to think that I'm a better man for thinking through things; still, I don't like what I see and it leaves me worried.

firepokemon

22nd July 2008, 12:04 AM

Of course you can dislike both candidates. On one hand you have a nominee with not much experience, grand ideas but can he make the right judgements when he needs to? Can he achieve his policy claims? Those are things still to be answered. And of course on the other side you have a nominee who basically wants to maintain the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. There isn't that much to like.

But most people here didn't seem to favour Clinton either and its not like Guliani or Romney were exactly inspiring. But that's kinda backwards looking. If I had to choose a better candidate right now for me it would be McCain. But I've been rather out of the loop as of late.

mr_pikachu

22nd July 2008, 12:10 AM

If I had to choose a better candidate right now for me it would be McCain. But I've been rather out of the loop as of late.

That's exactly the problem; when it comes to McCain, everybody has been "out of the loop." Even though Obama's looking rather weak right now, when you can't put McCain up against him and say, "Hey, that looks better," it's hard to be confident in going that way.

I think that not being present to take advantage of this opportunity could hurt McCain with moderates. He should be showing his face, if only for comparison purposes.

Roy Karrde

22nd July 2008, 12:26 AM

And of course on the other side you have a nominee who basically wants to maintain the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. There isn't that much to like.

Well lets be realistic, both cannidates plan to maintain the wars in Afghanistan, and Obama will keep the war going in Iraq for another 16 months at the least. The problem with Afghanistan though isn't necassarly troops, but other things that need to be taken care of. As for Iraq, Obama is treading very dangerously with his timeline proposal, and really it could have the possibility of us resending troops into Iraq ( ala Afghanistan ) to take care of the problem, and thus prolonging the war alot longer than what McCain would have done.

.hacker

22nd July 2008, 01:17 PM

I'm voting for McCain.

I can't to see what happens on this thread once election day arrives (Bush vs Kerry on TPM was epic).

Clark

22nd July 2008, 04:04 PM

woopie. go outside ladies. mass media is just shit to control you little piggie's brains. let it go. mccain could go lynch a bunch of black people later, i wont care. media is wasting our resources to making the world better.

Blademaster

22nd July 2008, 06:13 PM

That is really going to start to backfire against the Obama campeign if that number continues to rise, and people start to see the media ganging up against this poor old POW Vet.

ROFLMAO.

Roy Karrde

22nd July 2008, 06:34 PM

ROFLMAO.

Hey its already happening, 50% of the public believes the media is unfairly helping Obama.

Anyway a variety of Obama news came out today, but I think the most interesting article was from CBS News.

I'll break up the interview into various parts.

Couric: But talking microcosmically, did the surge, the addition of 30,000 additional troops ... help the situation in Iraq?

Obama: Katie, as … you've asked me three different times, and I have said repeatedly that there is no doubt that our troops helped to reduce violence. There's no doubt.

As Obama has said repeatedly, lets bring us back to his statement after his vote on the Surge.

"I am not persuaded, that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violance there, infact I think it will do the reverse." - Obama on MSNBC

And lets not forget.

"Given the deteriorating situation, it is clear at this point that we cannot, through putting in more troops or maintaining the presence that we have, expect that somehow the situation is going to improve"

and

"My assessment is that the surge has not worked and we will not see a different report eight weeks from now."

Couric: But yet you're saying … given what you know now, you still wouldn't support it … so I'm just trying to understand this.

Obama: Because … it's pretty straightforward. By us putting $10 billion to $12 billion a month, $200 billion, that's money that could have gone into Afghanistan. Those additional troops could have gone into Afghanistan. That money also could have been used to shore up a declining economic situation in the United States. That money could have been applied to having a serious energy security plan so that we were reducing our demand on oil, which is helping to fund the insurgents in many countries. So those are all factors that would be taken into consideration in my decision-- to deal with a specific tactic or strategy inside of Iraq.

Its funny how he mentions Afghanistan first, Afghanistan was experiencing very low violance before the Surge happened. Infact it did not even begin to spike till the Summer of 2007, while the vote happened in January of 2007. Infact the only reason violance started to spike in Afghanistan was becuase Al Qaeda was getting their ass kicked so badly becuase of the surge, that they had to retreat and move back to the Afghanistan war.

As for the Economic Crisis, now correct me if I am wrong but we didn't even start to see any major signs of the housing crisis until the middle of 2007, so unless Obama had a Crystal Ball no one would have predicted the extent of the economic crisis.

As for solving the energy demand, lets not forget that Obama is the one that is against solving the energy demand any time soon.

Couric: And I really don't mean to belabor this, Senator, because I'm really, I'm trying … to figure out your position. Do you think the level of security in Iraq …

Obama: Yes.

Couric … would exist today without the surge?

Nope.

Obama: Katie, I have no idea what would have happened had we applied my approach, which was to put more pressure on the Iraqis to arrive at a political reconciliation. So this is all hypotheticals. What I can say is that there's no doubt that our U.S. troops have contributed to a reduction of violence in Iraq. I said that-- not just today, not just yesterday, but I've said that-- previously. What that doesn't change is that we've got to have a different strategic approach if we're going to make America as safe as possible.

Lets not forget that Obama's approach would not have made America safe, it would not have provided political reconciliation, infact at that time the Iraqis were ramping up for a Civil War. As for Obama saying the US troops contributed to a reduction of violance.

"I am not persuaded, that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violance there, infact I think it will do the reverse." - Obama on MSNBC

Crystal Mew

23rd July 2008, 02:21 AM

Oh man, to be honest I don't like either of them very much. I'm still not sure who I'll be voting for...gah

I'll start thinking about it more seriously towards election time, but for now I'm undecided

mr_pikachu

23rd July 2008, 03:18 AM

Obama vows support for Israel in Jerusalem visit (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080723/pl_nm/palestinians_israel_obama_dc)

Potential policy or political pandering? Just as importantly, how does this affect Obama's voter base and sway the undecideds and moderates?

He's already grabbing headlines with this foreign tour. Not that I'd expect anything different, considering McCain's relative absence from the spotlight.

On a related note, I read an interesting article earlier today about the status of McCain's VP search. Would this be a good moment to make a move and take attention from Obama's trip? Or is it too early in the race for McCain to play that card, since Obama can stir up speculation at will about his running mate choice (Clinton or not)? For that matter, is there any potential backlash from such an obviously timed move? Any thoughts?

Heald

23rd July 2008, 06:04 AM

Can we have a separate topic for people who hate Obama? I don't really feel like reading about every time Obama wipes his nose and the political connotations it has.

shazza

23rd July 2008, 07:24 AM

It's okay everyone I voted for Kevin Rudd, so obviously I want Obama to win. :wave:

Roy Karrde

23rd July 2008, 07:26 AM

Can we have a separate topic for people who hate Obama? I don't really feel like reading about every time Obama wipes his nose and the political connotations it has.

Now you know how Bush supporters felt in 2004 ~.^. Now it's the Democrat's turn to have the bumbling idiot that loves to screw up!

firepokemon

23rd July 2008, 07:35 AM

Can we have a separate topic for people who hate Obama? I don't really feel like reading about every time Obama wipes his nose and the political connotations it has.

Is poor wee Heald getting all upset? I do agree that there are people in this thread who do go a bit overboard in their opinions of Obama. But frankly, its better than hearing people bashing the right all the time like on so many other forums. Its quite refreshing. Even if they go overboard at times.

Heald

23rd July 2008, 08:38 AM

Roy Karrde

23rd July 2008, 10:06 AM

I promise you Heald there is alot worse stuff out there on Obama this week, from the DNC skipping out on the Gas Tax Obama supports, to comments that have surfaced of Obama saying in 2004 how bad a Timetable to getting out of Iraq would be. So please don't think I am just grabbing the worst Obama news out there and putting it on the board.

The only reason I put the interview is that it is going to be the remarks that will be playing for the next few weeks. Obama's unwillingness to show that he made a mistake on the Surge will be everything Republicans need to undo any image he got of being a competent Commander and Chief.

Also the latest Polls have come out. Rasmussen was tied yesterday, Obama is up 2.0 today. Gallup has Obama at +3, down 3 points from earlier this week.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jfogMFL7UJo

A halarious video on how bad the reporters are in the tank for Obama.

mr_pikachu

23rd July 2008, 04:24 PM

I neither like or dislike Obama, and in fact I actually like McCain. As I said before, I don't really give two shits who you decide to elect. However, there are people who just seem to be taking every little thing Obama says and blowing it out of proportion. If you're gonna play big shot political commentator, actually make your comments worthwhile and at least have some parity: hardly anyone is saying shit all about McCain. Also, please, for the love of God, please keep putting your malformed opinion over as fact, as it makes you idiots look even more retarded and I just love that.

I'm just sick and tired of this bullshit. People keep running their mouths about things they don't even know about, I present some evidence suggesting that Obama seems to be gaining momentum and I get called a liar, and when I explain that these aren't my words but facts from polls and then I get called a manipulator for presenting evidence that doesn't fit your rose-tinted spectacles.

*shrugs* I'll admit I'm not exactly the biggest Obama supporter in this race - I'm hardly ga-ga for McCain either, but that's beside the point - however, I and some others have at least been trying to get some good discussions going that are fair to both sides of the aisle.

To be frank, it's a little hard to get big news items on McCain right now (need I repeat my earlier statements again?), but the topics that do make headlines are promptly mentioned when I see 'em. Sorry if you feel our coverage is biased in some way, but I'd argue that it's way fairer than either CNN or Fox News. ^_^

Heald

23rd July 2008, 05:28 PM

Republicans need to undo any image he got of being a competent Commander and Chief.

Considering these are the idiots who followed Bush into Iraq, who is considered by most to be about as competent as an un-potty trained puppy, they are hardly qualified to say who and who isn't competent enough of being Commander-in-Chief.

A halarious video on how bad the reporters are in the tank for Obama.
Considering how much you hate Michael Moore's films, I'm surprised you'd fall for a tactic he uses in his films, which is commonly know as in the industry 'splice up a load of old news shows and interviews to make it look like a problem is worse than it is'. The fact that it was spliced up by McCain's publicity team makes its credibility all the more suspect.

I know that news on McCain has dried up somewhat, especially so in the UK. If it wasn't for the fact that Obama is black, I doubt the election would get covered at all in the UK. However, all I've seen coming out of McCain's camp in recent weeks is spiel about how bad a President Obama would be. Considering McCain is meant to be a man of so-called integrity, surely he should be promoting himself than slandering his opponent. He isn't saying 'Vote for me because I'll be a good President', he's saying, 'Vote for me because the other guy sucks and I'm the only alternative!'. What the hell kind of platform is that to run on?

mr_pikachu

23rd July 2008, 05:47 PM

However, all I've seen coming out of McCain's camp in recent weeks is spiel about how bad a President Obama would be. Considering McCain is meant to be a man of so-called integrity, surely he should be promoting himself than slandering his opponent. He isn't saying 'Vote for me because I'll be a good President', he's saying, 'Vote for me because the other guy sucks and I'm the only alternative!'. What the hell kind of platform is that to run on?

Whether or not his argument is accurate, I agree that it's a strategic mistake. Remember how, just six months ago, Giuliani was practically a shoo-in for the Republican nomination? He let the public focus get away from him for a few weeks and suddenly his campaign was over. In my view, McCain's campaign about how "Obama is the wrong choice, vote for an alternative" is doing the same thing, only worse - his own message puts his opponent in the spotlight! He'd better remember to focus on his own merits, or Obama's going to woo enough of the people with minimal political knowledge to make this a landslide.

The one saving grace for McCain may be that we're still months away from the election. I suppose one possible reason for this move is to give voters a bad taste in their mouth before making a strong push toward the general populace. He'd better be smart about his timing, though. Wait too long, and you deny the undecideds any chance to get to know you. That's nothing more than political suicide, as Giuliani learned last spring.

Heald

23rd July 2008, 07:01 PM

Yup, pretty much. If Roy Karrde's video is anything to go by, if his idea of trying to win an election is saying stuff like, "Hey, the media all love Obama! He must be a really bad candidate!" then he is in serious trouble.

At the moment, Obama wants it so much more than McCain. As you said, we're still months away from the election, but if McCain doesn't begin to build up steam, he might find his fire will burn out.

Roy Karrde

23rd July 2008, 07:07 PM

Considering these are the idiots who followed Bush into Iraq, who is considered by most to be about as competent as an un-potty trained puppy, they are hardly qualified to say who and who isn't competent enough of being Commander-in-Chief.

Well Obviously the Democrats are in a much better position, having Obama believe there are 58 states, and how he is part of comittees he isn't even in. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rjzb61wfyN0) And remember these people made the American people believe Bush was a better Commander in Chief than Kerry and Gore. Can you imagine what they can do against some one as so green and incompetent as Obama?!

Considering how much you hate Michael Moore's films, I'm surprised you'd fall for a tactic he uses in his films, which is commonly know as in the industry 'splice up a load of old news shows and interviews to make it look like a problem is worse than it is'. The fact that it was spliced up by McCain's publicity team makes its credibility all the more suspect.

True enough, but then again the person also just took the "Best Ofs" when it comes to the Media's love affair with Obama. "Tingle Running down my leg" and "Its hard to be objective" and just added them to music, both of which are clips that have been used to critisize the media for months.

I know that news on McCain has dried up somewhat, especially so in the UK. If it wasn't for the fact that Obama is black, I doubt the election would get covered at all in the UK. However, all I've seen coming out of McCain's camp in recent weeks is spiel about how bad a President Obama would be. Considering McCain is meant to be a man of so-called integrity, surely he should be promoting himself than slandering his opponent. He isn't saying 'Vote for me because I'll be a good President', he's saying, 'Vote for me because the other guy sucks and I'm the only alternative!'. What the hell kind of platform is that to run on?

Well obviously you are getting alot of less news over there since McCain has been running platform speaches and other things such as his support for Offshore Oil Drilling and what not. The reason you are seeing the attacks, is becuase Obama promised that he would not attack McCain, that lasted about three months before he siced his people on McCain's POW status, and released the first attack ad on McCain. Becuase of that the McCain people pretty much opened up against Obama since he threw the first blow.

Heald

23rd July 2008, 07:32 PM

Well Obviously the Democrats are in a much better position, having Obama believe there are 58 states, and how he is part of comittees he isn't even in. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rjzb61wfyN0) And remember these people made the American people believe Bush was a better Commander in Chief than Kerry and Gore. Can you imagine what they can do against some one as so green and incompetent as Obama?!
I never said the Democrats are in any better position, but the Republicans really can't claim after their lavish support of Bush's Iraq campaign that they know a good Commander-in-Chief.

I'd guess the best people to ask whether the Republicans have been running the war well would be the troops themselves. I found this interesting little tidbit: it turns out more money has been donated to Obama than McCain by military personnel (http://www.examiner.com/a-1467662~Military_see_presidential_race_through_own _lens.html?cid=rss-Politics). I quote:

Among people who have donated at least $200 to a presidential campaign this election cycle, Obama has collected more than $327,000 from those identifying themselves as military personnel, while McCain has collected $224,000, according to an analysis of Federal Election Commission (http://www.examiner.com/Subject-Federal_Election_Commission.html) data by The Associated Press (http://www.examiner.com/Subject-The_Associated_Press.html).

Will the diehard Conservatives out their still be wearing t-shirts saying 'Support the Troops' when the troops are supporting their most hated enemy?

Roy Karrde

23rd July 2008, 07:46 PM

I never said the Democrats are in any better position, but the Republicans really can't claim after their lavish support of Bush's Iraq campaign that they know a good Commander-in-Chief.

Well mind you in hind sight Iraq was a bad decision, but then McCain can clam that he knew a change of strategy was needed and that he lobbied ( which he did ) for that strategy which ended up winning the Iraq War. At that point Republicans can lavish support on McCain's judgement and Obama's failure of judgement.

I'd guess the best people to ask whether the Republicans have been running the war well would be the troops themselves. I found this interesting little tidbit: it turns out more money has been donated to Obama than McCain by military personnel (http://www.examiner.com/a-1467662~Military_see_presidential_race_through_own _lens.html?cid=rss-Politics). I quote:

You are using the examiner for a source? What's wrong National Enquirer was all out? Funny how there is no "credible" source that really backs it up, no CNN, no ABC, nothing.

Its funny how apparently over in Iraq and Afghanistan they cannot stand Obama, to the point that over on ABC they aired a quick interview to see who the military would vote for. 5 said they would vote for Obama, 2 said they would vote for Hillary if they could. And they didn't air the other 53, why? Becuase they all said they would vote for McCain.

Thing is the Military doesn't like people who support them losing.

Edit: Also notice in your story how they say that the measure is of people that identified themselves as Military Personal, truely if that were the bench mark then anyone could identify themselves as Military personal and get into the poll.

Will the diehard Conservatives out their still be wearing t-shirts saying 'Support the Troops' when the troops are supporting their most hated enemy?

Funny how reality differs.

Heald

23rd July 2008, 08:06 PM

You are using the examiner for a source? What's wrong National Enquirer was all out? Funny how there is no "credible" source that really backs it up, no CNN, no ABC, nothing.
It'd be easier if you listed all the sources you think are fair and balanced, since then I know when I list something, you don't immediately call it a lie.

I'll add FOX and McCain's publicity team to what will probably be an incredibly short list.

Anyway, if you actually read the article (I'll assume you highlighted the link, saw 'The Examiner', assumed it was liberal trash and didn't click the link) it actually states the figure actually comes from the Federal Election Commission, which is chosen by the President and confirmed by the Senate, so I think we can assume that makes the figure reliable. The figure was also first reported by the Associated Press, a reputable news agency. I just posted that link because it was the first one I could find and it cited its sources in the article.

Its funny how apparently over in Iraq and Afghanistan they cannot stand Obama, to the point that over on ABC they aired a quick interview to see who the military would vote for. 5 said they would vote for Obama, 2 said they would vote for Hillary if they could. And they didn't air the other 53, why? Becuase they all said they would vote for McCain.

Thing is the Military doesn't like people who support them losing.
At least I cite my sources. This is meaningless unless you actually have some proof to back up these allegations. Hell, I'll even try it out and then you can call bullshit on me.

Apparently troops love Barack. They hate people like McCain that want to keep them in Iraq and get themselves blown up in a war that they don't even know why they're fighting. They did this interview and everyone said they are going to vote Obama. It was on ABC.

Roy Karrde

23rd July 2008, 08:14 PM

It'd be easier if you listed all the sources you think are fair and balanced, since then I know when I list something, you don't immediately call it a lie.

I'll add FOX and McCain's publicity team to what will probably be an incredibly short list.

Anyway, if you actually read the article (I'll assume you highlighted the link, saw 'The Examiner', assumed it was liberal trash and didn't click the link) it actually states the figure actually comes from the Federal Election Commission, which is chosen by the President and confirmed by the Senate, so I think we can assume that makes the figure reliable. The figure was also first reported by the Associated Press, a reputable news agency. I just posted that link because it was the first one I could find and it cited its sources in the article.

Well the only two biased sources I would say would be MSNBC and FOX. Both of them side which each cannidate. Then again you have various slime magazines such as the Examiner and the Inquierer that cannot be trusted.

Anyway.. I would suggest waiting till any actual poll comes out, remember the Military is utterly Conservative, so much so that they backed Bush by a 4 to 1 Margin.

Infact the one poll we have on the Military shows that Vets support McCain by 49% to 32%.

http://news.yahoo.com/page/election-2008-political-pulse-military-voices

And remember, anyone can say they are Military Personal when they donate, I could and I am not even in the military. Not to mention the article does not distinguish between people like Recruiters, and those that are active duty personal, and those who are just plan lying.

Apparently troops love Barack. They hate people like McCain that want to keep them in Iraq and get themselves blown up in a war that they don't even know why they're fighting. They did this interview and everyone said they are going to vote Obama. It was on ABC.

THAT! Is the one I am talking about, the interview that went to a supposed 60 troops, they showed 3 troops who said they would support Obama. Thank you for backing it up.

Anyway the troops want to win, they want to win this war. McCain does that, Obama doesn't. But until we get some actual polls in later this fall, such as the Bush poll in the fall of 2004. All we have to go on is the Vets poll which shows overwhelming support for McCain.

Heald

23rd July 2008, 08:26 PM

Infact the one poll we have on the Military shows that Vets support McCain by 49% to 32%.

http://news.yahoo.com/page/election-2008-political-pulse-military-voices

This source also backs up the military personnel donating more to Obama.

Also, likewise, anyone could just turn up and say they are a Vet.

THAT! Is the one I am talking about, the interview that went to a supposed 60 troops, they showed 3 troops who said they would support Obama. Thank you for backing it up.
Snopes (http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/raddatz.asp) has debunked this rumour as a fake email that was probably made up by some crusty old racist who just doesn't want a black man to be President.

The fact that this story, when I checked on Google, was only being carried by the kinds of blogs that are so conservative that they help make up most of Colbert's material and make Bill O'Reilly look like a liberal pussy, the credibility is diminished somewhat.

Anyway the troops want to win, they want to win this war. McCain does that, Obama doesn't. But until we get some actual polls in later this fall, such as the Bush poll in the fall of 2004. All we have to go on is the Vets poll which shows overwhelming support for McCain.
Who says the troops want to win the war? What is there left to win? Stability for Iraq? When the troops come home, there is not going to be a big parade. There will be no signs of their victory. And within 5 years of US withdrawal, Iraq will probably be a messed-up shithole like it is now. The continued conflict is pointless and the sentiment here is that the troops would rather come home than spend another second in Iraq.

Also, by vets, do you mean 70 year old crusty vets like those who served in 'Nam? Well no shit that the majority of them support McCain. Mainly because most old people are conservatives but because he is a Vietnam vet too!

Roy Karrde

23rd July 2008, 08:34 PM

This source also backs up the military personnel donating more to Obama.

Also, likewise, anyone could just turn up and say they are a Vet.

Depends on the criteria of the poll used, then again as I said we're just going to have to wait till a real poll comes out.

Snopes (http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/raddatz.asp) has debunked this rumour as a fake email that was probably made up by some crusty old racist who just doesn't want a black man to be President.

Fair enough but then again as even mentioned in Snopes they never showed the ones that backed McCain and only made a vailed reference to them.

The fact that this story, when I checked on Google, was only being carried by the kinds of blogs that are so conservative that they help make up most of Colbert's material and make Bill O'Reilly look like a liberal pussy, the credibility is diminished somewhat.

You know how to use Google?!

Who says the troops want to win the war? What is there left to win? Stability for Iraq?

Yep, leaving Iraq a stable place, and do you honestly truely believe the troops want to LOSE this war in which they gave so much for?

When the troops come home, there is not going to be a big parade. There will be no signs of their victory.

Sadly becuase of the patheticness of the left, but hey atleast they wont be spit upon like Vietnam vets were when they came home.

And within 5 years of US withdrawal, Iraq will probably be a messed-up shithole like it is now.

Only if we go by Obama's plan and do not leave Iraq able to truely sustain itself.

The continued conflict is pointless and the sentiment here is that the troops would rather come home than spend another second in Iraq.

That's good, American troops tend to want to actually leave Iraq a success than a failure. It's sad that British troops do not have enough honor to do the same thing.

Also, by vets, do you mean 70 year old crusty vets like those who served in 'Nam? Well no shit that the majority of them support McCain. Mainly because most old people are conservatives but because he is a Vietnam vet too!

Funny how the first vet interviewed in that story was a 2 term Iraq War vet that supports McCain. I take it he is crusty and served in Iraq and Nam?

Heald

23rd July 2008, 09:06 PM

Fair enough but then again as even mentioned in Snopes they never showed the ones that backed McCain and only made a vailed reference to them.
Maybe so, but it was pretty pathetic of the right to make up an email to try and paint the liberal media as, well, liberal.

You know how to use Google?!
I'd be the only one around here who does, evidently.

Yep, leaving Iraq a stable place, and do you honestly truely believe the troops want to LOSE this war in which they gave so much for?
As I said, Iraq will be a turmoil-ridden shithole within 5 years of any withdrawal. Nothing short of actually giving the Iraq government their own military police with which they can subjugate the population themselves with will actually matter in the long run. All Coalition involvement is doing is delaying the inevitable. The fact that much of the insurgency is being caused by resentment of continued Western interference in Middle Eastern affairs. Fighting fire with fire rarely works.

That's good, American troops tend to want to actually leave Iraq a success than a failure. It's sad that British troops do not have enough honor to do the same thing.
Firstly, Americans don't even get to talk about honour considering how many Brits have been killed by the Yanks in friendly fire incidents. Plus trying to doll up the harsh realities of war with fluffy, arbitrary terms like honour does no one any favours. I'll let you say my country's troops are without honour once you pick up a rifle and fight beside them.

Secondly, there has been resentment at home and in the forces over going into a pointless conflict with no strategy since the outset which has only grown over the years. They have a sense of duty and are following orders, but ask them if they would rather the government would bring them home and they'll say yes. I don't know if you have this problem in the US, but in the UK our troops are woefully undersupplied and underpaid, and have grown incredibly apathetic with the inept government that followed an even more inept government into this pointless conflict.

There is a key difference between supporting the troops and supporting a worthless conflict.

Funny how the first vet interviewed in that story was a 2 term Iraq War vet that supports McCain. I take it he is crusty and served in Iraq and Nam?
When people talk about veterans, they usually mean older guys. Isn't that what shit like Veterans Day is for? It was a fair assumption.

Roy Karrde

23rd July 2008, 09:15 PM

Maybe so, but it was pretty pathetic of the right to make up an email to try and paint the liberal media as, well, liberal.

Right now we cannot truely say the email is made up. It originally came from some one who says she was part of the security crew in Iraq that followed around ABC. Until ABC releases the amount that said they support McCain I am going to be skeptical.

As I said, Iraq will be a turmoil-ridden shithole within 5 years of any withdrawal. Nothing short of actually giving the Iraq government their own military police with which they can subjugate the population themselves with will actually matter in the long run. All Coalition involvement is doing is delaying the inevitable. The fact that much of the insurgency is being caused by resentment of continued Western interference in Middle Eastern affairs. Fighting fire with fire rarely works.

Funny you use your expert knowledge of the Middle East to make this judgement? Right now Iraq is becoming more and more peaceful, the only thing that will jepordize that peace, or turn it into a "turmoil-ridden shithole". As you put it would be to pull out of Iraq with out having the Iraqis ready to take over. Obama wants to do that, McCain doesn't. We are already seeing many areas where the Iraqi Military and Police have complete control over and are maintaining it well. We should only leave till the Iraqi Military and Police can do that for their whole country.

Firstly, Americans don't even get to talk about honour considering how many Brits have been killed by the Yanks in friendly fire incidents.

There are also more "Yank" troops there than "Brits" when you have such a difference in troop levels you are liable to have more accidents.

Plus trying to doll up the harsh realities of war with fluffy, arbitrary terms like honour does no one any favours. I'll let you say my country's troops are without honour once you pick up a rifle and fight beside them.

I don't have to pick up a gun to see something that is clear as day. You do not wish to leave a country and it's people to the dogs like Al Qaeda and Iran, to come back home to the safety of your house and home, and claim you have any honor.

Secondly, there has been resentment at home and in the forces over going into a pointless conflict with no strategy since the outset which has only grown over the years. They have a sense of duty and are following orders, but ask them if they would rather the government would bring them home and they'll say yes.

And how do they feel about all the Iraqis they are leaving to their deaths?

I don't know if you have this problem in the US, but in the UK our troops are woefully undersupplied and underpaid, and have grown incredibly apathetic with the inept government that followed an even more inept government into this pointless conflict.

While it is debatable that the conflict was pointless in the beginning. Once Al Qaeda decided to wager their entire war against us on Iraq, the conflict became anything but pointless. Now that we have won, and Al Qaeda is on the verge of utter colapse, that should be clear. As for being undersupplied and underpaid, that is the problems of the British Government.

There is a key difference between supporting the troops and supporting a worthless conflict.

Oh no both go hand and hand. You cannot support the troops, with out supporting their mission and what they are doing over there. Supporting the troops meaning giving support to what they are doing and giving their lives for.

When people talk about veterans, they usually mean older guys. Isn't that what shit like Veterans Day is for? It was a fair assumption.

Anyone that has served in a war can be a Veteran, the idea that Veterans are older guys just comes from the idea that we didn't have a major war between Nam and the Iraqi War.

The Blue Avenger

23rd July 2008, 09:22 PM

Oh no both go hand and hand. You cannot support the troops, with out supporting their mission and what they are doing over there. Supporting the troops meaning giving support to what they are doing and giving their lives for.

That's bull. I don't agree with the war, but I support the troops - I respect that they're willing to give their lives for what they believe in. I may not agree with what they're giving their loves for, but I support them.

mr_pikachu

23rd July 2008, 09:22 PM

Secondly, there has been resentment at home and in the forces over going into a pointless conflict with no strategy since the outset which has only grown over the years. They have a sense of duty and are following orders, but ask them if they would rather the government would bring them home and they'll say yes. I don't know if you have this problem in the US, but in the UK our troops are woefully undersupplied and underpaid, and have grown incredibly apathetic with the inept government that followed an even more inept government into this pointless conflict.

Just want to clear up something about which I'm uncertain... does the U.K. use a draft to send its citizens to war? That is, do people sign up for the armed forces voluntarily, or can they just be called and told, "You've been drafted; get ready to go to ________."

If the U.K. does use a draft, I can understand people being angry about being sent to fight against their will. If, however, they joined the armed forces willingly, then they don't really have the grounds to demand a return. It's just the risk you take, registering for the army/navy/air force/etc.

Roy Karrde

23rd July 2008, 09:26 PM

That's bull. I don't agree with the war, but I support the troops - I respect that they're willing to give their lives for what they believe in. I may not agree with what they're giving their loves for, but I support them.

That's respecting them, not supporting them. Supporting means actually giving support to what they are doing over there, what they are giving their lives for. Just blindly saying "I don't support the war but I support the troops" is utter bull shit. You want to respect the troops, that is great. But do not, DO NOT, say you support them, but do not support what they are doing.

Boston.com has a excellent article on this.

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/02/18/irreconcilable_positions_support_troops_oppose_war/

Yet there is no end of Americans who insist they "support" US troops in Iraq but want the war those troops are fighting to end in defeat. The two positions are irreconcilable. You cannot logically or honorably curse the war as an immoral neocon disaster or a Halliburton oil grab or "a fraud . . . cooked up in Texas," yet bless the troops who are waging it.

The Blue Avenger

23rd July 2008, 09:42 PM

I dislike your choice in article as well as your tone - both seem needlessly antagonistic - but you make a good point, and I agree that 'respect' is a more appropriate term.

Roy Karrde

23rd July 2008, 09:49 PM

I dislike your choice in article as well as your tone - both seem needlessly antagonistic.

Sorry but it is one of my pet peevs, people, especially those in public office, saying they support the troops, and then go and perform some Anti War function. Becuase at that point all you are doing is giving Al Qaeda and the rest ammo to demoralize and attack the troops in Iraq. A good article to read would be McCain's account of being in a POW camp in Vietnam, where the captors would run antiwar statements and various antiwar things over and over again on the loud speaker just to demoralize them.

http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/2008/01/28/john-mccain-prisoner-of-war-a-first-person-account.html?PageNr=1

Also Washington Post is now saying that Obama found little to no support for his Iraq withdrawl plan in Iraq.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/22/AR2008072202462.html

Heald

24th July 2008, 06:25 AM

Right now we cannot truely say the email is made up. It originally came from some one who says she was part of the security crew in Iraq that followed around ABC. Until ABC releases the amount that said they support McCain I am going to be skeptical.The General the email is attributed to flat out says that the email is fake. I think that is evidence enough. There is nothing to be sceptical about: it is a lie, made up by some idiot in order to defame ABC and/or Obama. That is a fact.

There are also more "Yank" troops there than "Brits" when you have such a difference in troop levels you are liable to have more accidents.
This is a pretty poor excuse to justify what are entirely avoidable incidents caused by the ineptness of American troops.

Oh no both go hand and hand. You cannot support the troops, with out supporting their mission and what they are doing over there. Supporting the troops meaning giving support to what they are doing and giving their lives for.
Bullshit. This statement is entirely unjustifiable. Firstly, I support the troops but I am against our continued involvement in Iraq. You say this is contradictory. I shall explain. I want our troops to do well. I want our troops to succeed at what they're doing. However, in invading Iraq, we have severely pissed off what happens to be a very large Muslim population in the UK. For every day we continue to be in Iraq, homegrown cells that have actually nothing to do with al-Qaeda grow more and more. The number of attacks and attempted attacks or cells discovered in the UK has risen considerably since the Iraq War. 7/7 was a direct result of British Muslim sentiment about our interference in the Middle East. Rather than making our country safer against terrorists, it has fermented growing anti-British sentiment amongst a very large population of Muslims in the UK.

There is also the fact that our current government is making an absolute mess of running this war. Our troops are underpaid, they are undersupplied and undertrained and we are using equipment that was out of date in the 1970s. We are overstretched on all fronts and the UK simply does not have the capabilities to maintain this war without putting our entire army at serious risk. Had our government actually had a strategy to win, and then actually given our troops the support they needed, then we wouldn't be in such a big mess. Unfortunately, our government are a bunch of inept bureaucrats and thus our troops are in serious trouble.

It isn't so much that I oppose what they are fighting for: a peaceful Iraq, a safer world, etc. are all noble goals, but I oppose the manner in which we have done it and the fact that only one man in our entire government actually supported the war, and now that Tony Blair got us into this mess without thinking it through and then handed the mess to some even more useless bastard. I am more than happy for you Americans to keep at it, but unless our troops actually get modern supplies, equipment meant for desert combat and dealing with the weapons our enemies are using and get paid well for it, I don't blame our troops for wanting out: they want to stay and finish the job, but the strategy and the supplies that they have at the moment means that a lot of them are going to die or be at serious risk of dying in order to finish this job.

And hence when I took one look at your article, and the opening spiel was:

"WHAT DOES IT mean to support the troops but oppose the cause they fight for?"

I knew the article actually meant nothing to what I was talking about. I support the troops and the cause, but not the manner in which our government is orchestrating this catastrophe.

That answers your question too mr_pikachu: if the troops were being paid well for the job they're doing and were being given the supplies they need, then fine, they'd have no excuse to complain. However, considering our forces are meant to be the world's finest, sending them to war with useless tech, undersupplied and underpaid and without the support of the government that sent them there, then I think they have a right to have grievances over this sortie.

Anyway, this really has little to do with the topic at hand; I just wanted to clarify my positions.

In other news, Obama begins his European tour (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7522738.stm), (although, for some reason, this is in the Middle-East section of BBC News). Whether or not this will actually have any impact on election day is debatable, considering I doubt most Americans really care whether Europe likes or dislikes their President. However, depending on how the world leaders receive him, he could get some hearty recommendations.

Funnily enough, I love how Tony Blair has now been made 'Middle East Peace Envoy', considering he was one of the people to bring a war to it in the first place.

Roy Karrde

24th July 2008, 09:40 AM

The General the email is attributed to flat out says that the email is fake. I think that is evidence enough. There is nothing to be sceptical about: it is a lie, made up by some idiot in order to defame ABC and/or Obama. That is a fact.

It is also a fact that ABC did not air any of the McCain supporters, until they do so I and many others will remain skeptical.

This is a pretty poor excuse to justify what are entirely avoidable incidents caused by the ineptness of American troops.

You have over 200,000 to 300,000 people in a area in which there is alot of stress, there is going to be accidents, and last time I checked there were accidents on the British side as well.

Bullshit. This statement is entirely unjustifiable. Firstly, I support the troops but I am against our continued involvement in Iraq. You say this is contradictory. I shall explain. I want our troops to do well. I want our troops to succeed at what they're doing. However, in invading Iraq, we have severely pissed off what happens to be a very large Muslim population in the UK. For every day we continue to be in Iraq, homegrown cells that have actually nothing to do with al-Qaeda grow more and more. The number of attacks and attempted attacks or cells discovered in the UK has risen considerably since the Iraq War. 7/7 was a direct result of British Muslim sentiment about our interference in the Middle East. Rather than making our country safer against terrorists, it has fermented growing anti-British sentiment amongst a very large population of Muslims in the UK.

Well for one you have gone entirely off topic by bringing up British Muslim sentiment, and in reality, by the troops defeating Al Qaeda in Iraq, by totally destroying the organization, and in the long run bringing down Al Qaeda as a whole you are making your self safer. So far you have provided nothing to prove that you can Support the Troops but not Support the War.

There is also the fact that our current government is making an absolute mess of running this war. Our troops are underpaid, they are undersupplied and undertrained and we are using equipment that was out of date in the 1970s. We are overstretched on all fronts and the UK simply does not have the capabilities to maintain this war without putting our entire army at serious risk. Had our government actually had a strategy to win, and then actually given our troops the support they needed, then we wouldn't be in such a big mess. Unfortunately, our government are a bunch of inept bureaucrats and thus our troops are in serious trouble.

Again this has NOTHING to do with not supporting the troops actions over there, aka supporting the war.

It isn't so much that I oppose what they are fighting for: a peaceful Iraq, a safer world, etc. are all noble goals, but I oppose the manner in which we have done it and the fact that only one man in our entire government actually supported the war, and now that Tony Blair got us into this mess without thinking it through and then handed the mess to some even more useless bastard. I am more than happy for you Americans to keep at it, but unless our troops actually get modern supplies, equipment meant for desert combat and dealing with the weapons our enemies are using and get paid well for it, I don't blame our troops for wanting out: they want to stay and finish the job, but the strategy and the supplies that they have at the moment means that a lot of them are going to die or be at serious risk of dying in order to finish this job.

It seems you are more against how we got into the war, and how it was brought about. Which is absolutely fine, but now that they are there, you must support them and the actions they take if you want to say you support the troops. Opposing what they are doing, aka opposing the actions currently happening in the war, is NOT supporting the troops.

I knew the article actually meant nothing to what I was talking about. I support the troops and the cause, but not the manner in which our government is orchestrating this catastrophe.

Which is fine, you can oppose how we got into this war, that is fine. But now that it has started, you cannot say you support the troops, but not the actions they have taken in this war. In other words, if you support the troops, you support what they are doing whole heartedly, you want them to win, and you support the war as it currently is.

In other news, Obama begins his European tour (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7522738.stm), (although, for some reason, this is in the Middle-East section of BBC News). Whether or not this will actually have any impact on election day is debatable, considering I doubt most Americans really care whether Europe likes or dislikes their President. However, depending on how the world leaders receive him, he could get some hearty recommendations.

Alot of people are expecting this to backfire badly. Obama is over there touring Europe like a rockstar and being well recieved in Europe. While Americans are losing jobs, paying very high gas prices, and overall suffering pretty badly. I don't have to tell you how much this will hurt Obama's image as it makes it look like he is more of a European Rock Star than a American President that cares about American concerns.

Also I am curious as to what happens in his speech, he needs to give Europe some tough talk, and he needs to be careful what he says about American foreign policy, attacking Bush or attacking our presence in Iraq could backfire horribly.

Heald

24th July 2008, 09:51 AM

Completely misinterpreting what I said
But considering it isn't the topic at hand, I really can't be bothered to explain it even slower and using smaller words at this time. To be succinct, the government we have is too inept to fight a war in Iraq, hence why that while I support what they're doing, I don't endorse the fact that my government is doing such a shit job of running it and putting the troops in unnecessary danger, hence why I, and everyone else in the UK, wants them out.

Alot of people are expecting this to backfire badly. Obama is over there touring Europe like a rockstar and being well recieved in Europe. While Americans are losing jobs, paying very high gas prices, and overall suffering pretty badly. I don't have to tell you how much this will hurt Obama's image as it makes it look like he is more of a European Rock Star than a American President that cares about American concerns.
On the other hand, if he didn't go and meet world leaders, Republicans would turn around and say that he has no experience in dealing with international leaders. Either way, the Republicans are always going to have something to whine about.

Roy Karrde

24th July 2008, 09:58 AM

But considering it isn't the topic at hand, I really can't be bothered to explain it even slower and using smaller words at this time.

Where the fuck did I even post that?

To be succinct, the government we have is too inept to fight a war in Iraq, hence why that while I support what they're doing, I don't endorse the fact that my government is doing such a shit job of running it and putting the troops in unnecessary danger, hence why I want them out.

Well for one they are doing a pretty damn good job over there. Second it is the troops over there fighting the war and making the decisions and not the troops. Third if you do not support what they are currently doing over there, and believe they should be pulled out, then you do not support the troops.

I'd rather we pulled out, got our act together and did it right than keep losing our troops with a failing strategy.

Changing a strategy is fine, although if you havn't noticed we Americans have found a strategy that has worked. But pulling them out, and then re entering, will only cause a shit more danger for the troops.

On the other hand, if he didn't go and meet world leaders, Republicans would turn around and say that he has no experience in dealing with international leaders. Either way, the Republicans are always going to have something to whine about.

There are ways to visit international leaders, mainly visiting with them when they come to Washington. And I wouldn't consider it whining when a Presidential Cannidate is going on tour outside of the country, while we are dealing with a energy crisis and housing crisis.

MToolen

24th July 2008, 10:24 AM

Second it is the troops over there fighting the war and making the decisions and not the troops.

Just wanted to point that out. Yes, I'm a grammar Nazi.

I kind of feel that, without a timetable or clear plan, the military is as the Joker described himself in The Dark Knight, just "a dog chasing cars." We seem to be a reactionary force simply because our enemy hides so well in the populace. I can't deny that we're making progress, but a change of strategy might pick that process up a bit or at least make us back at home feel like we're accomplishing something.

And Obama would have to have gone overseas sometime. He has directed a vast majority of his time to domestic issues; he could spend a week in July, two months even before officially becoming the Democratic candidate, on foreign policy, just enough to get his toes wet.

What I find funny about this election is that some people on each side feel that the election is already over, already in the bag. I, for one, think that is taking the easy way out. People, and especially politicians, can change greatly in a matter of four months.

Roy Karrde

24th July 2008, 10:32 AM

Just wanted to point that out. Yes, I'm a grammar Nazi.

I kind of feel that, without a timetable or clear plan, the military is as the Joker described himself in The Dark Knight, just "a dog chasing cars." We seem to be a reactionary force simply because our enemy hides so well in the populace. I can't deny that we're making progress, but a change of strategy might pick that process up a bit or at least make us back at home feel like we're accomplishing something.

Well for one lets just be clear, a time table is dangerous and stupid.

Even Obama admitted this in the past before he became a Anti War nut.

"A hard and fast, arbitrary deadline for withdrawal offers our commanders in the field, and our diplomats in the region, insufficient flexibility to implement that strategy."

and

"No. No, I've never said that troops should be withdrawn. What I've said is that we've got to make sure that we secure and execute the rebuilding and reconstruction process effectively and properly and I don't think we should have an artificial deadline when to do that."

Second we have changed our strategy, we ran Al Qaeda out of Iraq, we WON the Iraqi war. Now the strategy is to be able to provide enough protection, enough time, and enough help, so that the Iraqi Military and Police can sustain itself. This is already happening in many areas in Iraq. But in many others they still need the American troops. One IRAQI General said he may need American troops providing protection in some areas as far as 2020.

And Obama would have to have gone overseas sometime. He has directed a vast majority of his time to domestic issues; he could spend a week in July, two months even before officially becoming the Democratic candidate, on foreign policy, just enough to get his toes wet.

Problem just comes in timing, we are at the worst of the energy crisis right now. Something Obama refuses to address, and Obama is seen overseas enjoying the European crowd while Americans are suffering.

The Blue Avenger

24th July 2008, 10:54 AM

Roy Karrde

24th July 2008, 10:58 AM

The energy crisis is probably not going to get substantially better before November, yeah? Obama would have to go overseas at some point, as MToolen said, so why not now?

And before you say "Because Americans are suffering" again, what could Obama do to fix that if he stayed here for the moment?

Mainly doing ceremonial things to show that he actually cares. McCain this week was expected to go to oil rigs off the coast to tour them. Although the trip got cancelled it is a excellent example of atleast one of the Presidential Cannidates going to areas which concern Americans.

Heald

24th July 2008, 11:09 AM

Mainly doing ceremonial things to show that he actually cares. McCain this week was expected to go to oil rigs off the coast to tour them. Although the trip got cancelled it is a excellent example of atleast one of the Presidential Cannidates going to areas which concern Americans.
Again, he can't win. 'Ceremonial' would just be lambasted by Republicans as going for a photo op. Besides, he pretty just did a tour of the country trying to win the nomination from Hilary and he shook hands with thousands of folks and such. He already has built up a lot of support at home, hence why he is ahead in the polls (2 points clear of McCain according to Rasmussen) and therefore now he has done his tour, he ought to go get some foreign policy points he desperately needs. You're basically saying that instead of doing something useful like discussing global matters with world leaders, he ought to be having his photo taken with some blue collar Joes.

Roy Karrde

24th July 2008, 11:19 AM

Again, he can't win. 'Ceremonial' would just be lambasted by Republicans as going for a photo op.

As opposed to going overseas for a "Photo op" and looking like he is detatched from American problems?

Besides, he pretty just did a tour of the country trying to win the nomination from Hilary and he shook hands with thousands of folks and such. He already has built up a lot of support at home, hence why he is ahead in the polls (2 points clear of McCain according to Rasmussen) and therefore now he has done his tour, he ought to go get some foreign policy points he desperately needs. You're basically saying that instead of doing something useful like discussing global matters with world leaders, he ought to be having his photo taken with some blue collar Joes.

Exactly, he should be having photos taken with some blue collars. Why? Becuase Americans right now do not care about how he appears in Europe, they care about the problems they are experiencing right now at home. As for touring the country, that's great, he still needs to do it and even more if he wants to win. A 2/3 point lead is still in the margin of error and is truely pitiful for a Democrat right now. Especially with McCain actually making gains in many states, and Obama's numbers continuing to fall.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/07/24/ST2008072401398.html

CO McCain 46(+2) Obama 44(-5)

MN McCain 44(+7) Obama 46(-5)

MI McCain 42 Obama 46(-2)

WI McCain 39 Obama 50(-2)

Now hey I don't have a problem with Obama pissing away his lead, in many way's he is one of if not the weakest Democrat out there right now. But for politics sake it is just horrible timing when your numbers are going down that you go on a glorified Photo Op to make it look like you are more of a friend to Europe than you are to Americans.

Heald

24th July 2008, 11:28 AM

As opposed to going overseas for a "Photo op" and looking like he is detatched from American problems?

I love it how whenever it's a Dem, it's a photo op, but whenever it's a Republican, it's a serious thing with lots of important people and talks and stuff.
It is funny how partisanship can often damage your credibility.

Exactly, he should be having photos taken with some blue collars. Why? Becuase Americans right now do not care about how he appears in Europe, they care about the problems they are experiencing right now at home.
It is months before the election and by the time the debates come around, if he hadn't made the trip, McCain would have called him out on not taking the time to meet with international leaders and gaining their support. Pre-emptive strike for the win!

Americans may not care about how Obama looks in Europe at the moment, but come election day, are they going to be saying 'Boohoohoo! Obama didn't shake my hand in a contrived photo-op!' or are they going to be saying 'Obama has gained the support and respect of the most important world leaders and that is a vital quality in the man who will represent our country on the world stage'.

Roy Karrde

24th July 2008, 11:35 AM

It is funny how partisanship can often damage your credibility.

If it was McCain doing the same thing I would call it a Photo Op as well. Obama went around in Iraq and the rest, making speaches and spending very little time with officials, mainly standing around and taking pictures, and staging multiple different events in which not even reporters were allowed to take pictures. Aka the pictures were provided by the military from these staged events.

So yeah, it is a photo op, and if McCain was over there doing the exact same thing, staging events, and spending more time posing for pictures and making speaches than actually sitting down with officials, I would call it a photo op as well.

It is months before the election and by the time the debates come around,

Just want to point out how funny it is that you mention debates. Obama said he would debate McCain any time, any place. Then like a coward, he backed out of it when McCain offered him a variety of chances. Anyway..

if he hadn't made the trip, McCain would have called him out on not taking the time to meet with international leaders and gaining their support. Pre-emptive strike for the win!

Again there were two times he could have done it, back in March when he had pretty much wrapped up the nomination, and had time between primaries. Or when said international leaders came to him.

Deciding to do it now during the worst part of the energy crisis, and during the effects of the housing crisis, is absolutely piss poor timing, and it will end up hurting him in the end.

Americans may not care about how Obama looks in Europe at the moment, but come election day, are they going to be saying 'Boohoohoo! Obama didn't shake my hand in a contrived photo-op!' or are they going to be saying 'Obama has gained the support and respect of the most important world leaders and that is a vital quality in the man who will represent our country on the world stage'.

Actually they will be saying. "I care about the person that wants to help this country, not look good in Europe". I will say it again, Americans do not give a damn about how Europeans look at us right now, we have more than enough problems to focus on. And we will end up electing a President that cares more about those problems, not about how people look like on the world stage.

Heald

24th July 2008, 11:56 AM

If it was McCain doing the same thing I would call it a Photo Op as well. Obama went around in Iraq and the rest, making speaches and spending very little time with officials, mainly standing around and taking pictures, and staging multiple different events in which not even reporters were allowed to take pictures. Aka the pictures were provided by the military from these staged events.

So yeah, it is a photo op, and if McCain was over there doing the exact same thing, staging events, and spending more time posing for pictures and making speaches than actually sitting down with officials, I would call it a photo op as well.
Do you have any proof that this is all he is doing? From all the news sources I'm reading, apparently he is actually spending more time talking to officials and actually did a great deal over there.

Again there were two times he could have done it, back in March when he had pretty much wrapped up the nomination, and had time between primaries. Or when said international leaders came to him.
When exactly are the international leaders coming? I didn't realise this was actually happening. Is Obama going to write them all a letter, along the lines of,

"Dear Mister Prime Minister,

I really wanna come over to play today but I'm grounded because of the stupid economy, so I gotta stay in. You can come over and play if you want though!"

But seriously, how arrogant do you have to be to suggest that because your economy has gone to shit, even though Obama can't actually do anything to help, he ought to get the world's leaders to come to him instead.

Actually they will be saying. "I care about the person that wants to help this country, not look good in Europe". I will say it again, Americans do not give a damn about how Europeans look at us right now, we have more than enough problems to focus on. And we will end up electing a President that cares more about those problems, not about how people look like on the world stage.
Both Clinton and McCain attacked Obama over not having enough interest in Europe. He gets it out of the way now. The economy will still be there when he gets back.

Roy Karrde

24th July 2008, 12:02 PM

Do you have any proof that this is all he is doing? From all the news sources I'm reading, apparently he is actually spending more time talking to officials and actually did a great deal over there.

Then you must be getting the "Obamatized" news, then again that isn't a surprise seeing Obama's support over there. Over here you have reporters for the big three stations starting to get pissed at what they see as a Obama Photo Op, since alot of the things he did over there were staged.

When exactly are the international leaders coming? I didn't realise this was actually happening. Is Obama going to write them all a letter, along the lines of,

"Dear Mister Prime Minister,

I really wanna come over to play today but I'm grounded because of the stupid economy, so I gotta stay in. You can come over and play if you want though!"

You do have various international leaders at any time coming in and out of the country. Hell McCain is meeting with the Dali Lama tomorrow, but is also campeigning around the state side as he does so.

But seriously, how arrogant do you have to be to suggest that because your economy has gone to shit, even though Obama can't actually do anything to help, he ought to get the world's leaders to come to him instead.

I don't expect World Leaders to come over strickly for him, but we do get a variety of world leaders coming over here each month, and seeing how this Campeign has lasted over a year, I would say almost every leader in the world has been in this country for some time. As for Obama doing something to help, maybe he can, but right now the perception from this trip is that he cares more about how he looks in Europe, than Economical problems.

Both Clinton and McCain attacked Obama over not having enough interest in Europe. He gets it out of the way now. The economy will still be there when he gets back.

No McCain attacked him for never going over to Iraq, which is true, he spent 900 days between trips to Iraq while McCain went 8 to 9 times. If Obama wanted to go to Iraq then there were much better times to do so, such as during March. But doing it right now, no matter if the economy will be here when he gets back or not, is a horrible political move, especially since he is not getting a bump for it, and is only giving Republicans more fodder.

Heald

24th July 2008, 12:21 PM

Then you must be getting the "Obamatized" news, then again that isn't a surprise seeing Obama's support over there. Over here you have reporters for the big three stations starting to get pissed at what they see as a Obama Photo Op, since alot of the things he did over there were staged.
BBC News, uh-huh, really Obamatized, the Democrats obviously have what is a statutorily unbiased network in their pocket.

The reason why I hesitate to use any American news source is because they always add their own political slant to a story, regardless of whether it is true or not. Considering the BBC correspondent actually shadowed him for his trip and reported back that he met many key officials and answered questions.

Interestingly enough, I just took a browse through CNN and FOX and neither one makes any mention of the words photo-op or anything else that denigrates his trip. I am really beginning to wonder where you're getting your coverage of Obama's trip from, because I have checked dozens of stories and all are either neutral about his trip and make note of the progress he is making.

Roy Karrde

24th July 2008, 12:33 PM

BBC News, uh-huh, really Obamatized, the Democrats obviously have what is a statutorily unbiased network in their pocket.

Well I wouldn't say BBC News is unbiased, but obviously with all the Obama fevor in Europe they are not going to run stories about how the pictures we are getting out of Iraq right now from the Obama Campeign were not from reporters, but staged by the campeign.

The reason why I hesitate to use any American news source is because they always add their own political slant to a story, regardless of whether it is true or not. Considering the BBC correspondent actually shadowed him for his trip and reported back that he met many key officials and answered questions.

And there is a politicial slant with the BBC Reporting, I have no doubt there was some with the American reporting too, especially with as much as they begged Obama to give them the right answer on the Surge. And hey want to know the key reason why this was a photo op? Becuase he had already made his decision on Iraq before he went over there.

Interestingly enough, I just took a browse through CNN and FOX and neither one makes any mention of the words photo-op or anything else that denigrates his trip. I am really beginning to wonder where you're getting your coverage of Obama's trip from, because I have checked dozens of stories and all are either neutral about his trip and make note of the progress he is making.

It actually comes from a Chris Mathews clip with a reporter over there for MSNBC, one of the biggest Obama networks, saying how angry she was how the events in Iraq were staged to the point reporters were not allowed in.

Besides do you honestly believe CNN is going to call it a Photo Op? From Obama's European Speach happening now, to him spending a vast majority of his time doing staged photos with the troops, that is all it pretty much is. Granted he has spent a small time with leaders, but then again Obama already made his views known before he even went on this trip.

Edit: Obama just finished his speech, it was nice, but very short. Anyway it's been announced by the Obama Campeign that they will miss their trip to Rammstein and Landstuhl US military bases. Well it's always nice to know where their priorities lay.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/07/obama-scrubs-vi.html

"Barack Obama is wrong. It is never ‘inappropriate’ to visit our men and women in the military," said McCain spokesman Brian Rogers.

Edit2: Well this story gets worse and worse, and I promise you it ISNT going away.

http://patterico.com/2008/07/24/this-deserves-its-own-post-obamas-cancelation-of-visit-to-military-bases-in-germany-caused-by-restriction-on-press-coverage/

From NBC’s Jim Miklaszewski and Courtney Kube
A U.S. military official tells NBC News they were making preparations for Sen. Barack Obama to visit wounded troops at the Landstuhl Medical Center at Ramstein, Germany on Friday, but “for some reason the visit was called off.”

One military official who was working on the Obama visit said because political candidates are prohibited from using military installations as campaign backdrops, Obama’s representatives were told, “he could only bring two or three of his Senate staff member, no campaign officials or workers.” In addition,
“Obama could not bring any media. Only military photographers would be permitted to record Obama’s visit.”

The official said “We didn’t know why” the request to visit the wounded troops was withdrawn. “He (Obama) was more than welcome. We were all ready for him.”

So let me get this straight, you have no problem making a speach to Europeans where you say you come to them not as a Cannidate, but a "Member of the World". But when it comes to visiting wounded troops, you call it off becuase you can't make it a Photo Op?! Is that all this man cares about? It isn't worth it unless you get a picture with you standing next to a wounded soldier?!

“No photographers? Why go then?”

mr_pikachu

29th July 2008, 10:04 PM

From US: Iraqi fighters extort, kidnap to raise funds (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080730/ap_on_go_ot/al_qaida_in_iraq):

Al-Qaida in Iraq is increasingly embracing extortion and kidnapping to finance its operations as cash carried in by its dwindling foreign fighter network is drying up, according to U.S. intelligence and documents captured in Iraq.

Al-Qaida in Iraq's funding scheme could drive an even deeper wedge between the terrorist organization and the Iraqi tribes and others who once joined forces against the U.S.-led invasion and occupation.

The smuggling network that funnels foreign fighters and weapons into Iraq has been under increasing pressure in the past year, squeezed from three sides: by Iraqi tribes, who, repelled by the violence, are making it increasingly difficult for terrorist networks to operate and hide among them; by more effective U.S. and Iraqi military operations, and by governments in the region — notably Saudi Arabia and Morocco — that are cracking down on al-Qaida and the smuggling networks that feed the insurgency.

The flow of foreign fighters into Iraq has been cut to an estimated 20 a month, a senior U.S. military intelligence official said. That's a 50 percent decline from six months ago, and just a fifth of the estimated 100 foreign fighters who were infiltrating Iraq a year ago, according to the official, speaking on condition of anonymity in order to discuss intelligence reports.

What does this development do for McCain and his campaign, given his support of the "surge" to take control of the region? Is this a victory on the foreign policy issue, or does the Republican nominee need to act further to try and take advantage of it?

Roy Karrde

29th July 2008, 10:12 PM

What does this development do for McCain and his campaign, given his support of the "surge" to take control of the region? Is this a victory on the foreign policy issue, or does the Republican nominee need to act further to try and take advantage of it?

I would think this is good news for the country, if not for the world, instead of just worrying about it in terms of who benifits.

That being said, Obama still refusing to back the surge sure will not help him when it comes down to the fact that the Surge by and large has brought about the near defeat of Al Qaeda and the victory in Iraq.

By the way latest poll numbers.
Among all Registered Voters
Gallup: Obama +6 down 3 from the Bounce.
Rasmussen: Obama +1 down 5 from the Bounce.

Among Likely Voters
USA Today/Gallup: McCain +4 up 9 from the last poll taken in June.

mr_pikachu

29th July 2008, 10:33 PM

I would think this is good news for the country, if not for the world, instead of just worrying about it in terms of who benifits.

I wouldn't disagree with that (others might, but I wouldn't). However, considering that this thread is all about the election, poll numbers are pretty much the only way in which the article is really relevant here. Hence why I framed it in that manner.

Regarding the polls, we'll have to see whether that's a permanent loss for Obama or just part of the normal up-and-down shifts before any election.

Roy Karrde

30th July 2008, 11:47 AM

Alright well I want to see Obama's position on this. Ludacris released a new song about him, now normally this wouldn't be much of a story, except the lyrics are absolutely horrid, and Ludacris is a heavy supporter of Obama. And Obama is a big fan of Ludacris, to the point that he once claimed to have Ludacris in heavy rotation on his iPod.

Here are some exerpts on this bastard's new song.

Better yet put him in office, make me your vice president
Hillary hated on you, so that BITCH is irrelevant
Jesse talking slick and apologizing for what?
if you said it then you meant it how you want it have a gut!

* Snip *

so get off your ass, black people, it's time to get out and vote!
paint the White House black and I'm sure that's got 'em terrified
McCain don't belong in ANY chair unless he's paralyzed

Here is the song.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=52f_1217434061&p=1

So lets see how Obama reacts now, he has to attack his buddy * Who in the song is shown in a photo with Obama *, as well as change his IPod.

kalad1

30th July 2008, 01:05 PM

See, Roy, I don't Care about Ludacris. I don't care about music. That has no standing on what sort of president he may or may not be, and thus is irrelevant.

Roy Karrde

30th July 2008, 02:18 PM

See, Roy, I don't Care about Ludacris. I don't care about music. That has no standing on what sort of president he may or may not be, and thus is irrelevant.

Well for one it deals with the overall election seeing how those were Ludacris' targets. Second it had relevents with Obama the moment Obama decided to befriend Ludacris and give him accolades about how Ludacris was his favorite rapper, and how he listens to him all the time.

Really it comes down to another dent in Obama's character, something that people look at as well as policies, and truthfully should be looked at.

The Blue Avenger

30th July 2008, 02:19 PM

So... you're judging Obama's character on the music he listens to?

Roy Karrde

30th July 2008, 02:31 PM

So... you're judging Obama's character on the music he listens to?

I judge Obama's character on the people he assosiates with, supports, and well all around spends time with. It isn't as if Ludacris was some pure angel before this came along, but that didn't stop Obama from saying how great the rapper is, and supporting him through claiming about how many songs he listens to of Ludacris. But then again Obama was never a great judge of character ( Reverend Wright, Rezko ) or having the ability to distinguish which are the right and wrong people he should support. ( Ludacris, Wright, Pflager, Ayres, Rezko, etc etc ).

And just take a look at what Obama thinks of Ludacris:

He headlined in a Obama Fundraiser

He met with Ludacris in his office last year.

He said hip-hop mogul Russell Simmons and rappers Jay-Z and Ludacris were "great talents and great businessmen."

etc etc.

The Blue Avenger

30th July 2008, 03:33 PM

Roy Karrde

30th July 2008, 03:36 PM

There's a very big difference between who a politician associates with politically and what music he likes. I suspect people would be making an issue out of this no matter what artist Obama said he supported.

Well mind you Obama has assosiated with him Politically, both at his office, and using him at a campaign, as well as talking about how great Ludacris was. And really if Obama had no connection to Ludacris, this story would pretty much continue to take a back seat to all the "Obama believing he is already President" and "Obama snubs the Troops" stories. Instead now this is going to join the chorus of the other problems that Obama is experiencing in the news.

The Blue Avenger

30th July 2008, 03:42 PM

Roy Karrde

30th July 2008, 03:49 PM

Hell, if I were gunning for the presidency, I'd get some high profile people to campaign for me, and if I were looking for entertainment at a campaign, I'd probably go to my favorite artists first too. Still think you're making a mountain out of a molehill here, dude.

Well you know what? We will see by the polls in the next few days. Obviously this will be in the news tonight so lets see how people react.

Then again, imagine the public backlash if say McCain said how he thought some Country Music Star was a Great Talent, and how he listened to him all the time. Then that Country Music Star comes out with a McCain support song talking about how Obama is a Nigger, and how we should keep the White House, White, and how Obama should be lynched, and basically a mirror of this horrid song. You would see so many crawl up McCain's ass.

As for what you would do if you were President, would you honestly get people to campaign with you that talk about "Bitches" and "Hoes" and "Niggers" and everything else? Becuase honestly that is not only a Political Disaster waiting to happen, aka what may happen here. But it is also degrading to our political system.

mr_pikachu

30th July 2008, 04:07 PM

To be honest, this seems a little different than the Reverend Wright scandal, as Ludacris isn't someone with whom Obama has associated on, say, a weekly basis. While the two have spoken in the past, Ludacris seems to have served mostly as an Obama supporter rather than an advisor (iPod music notwithstanding; I'm not best friends with Orange Range despite what my playlist mat say).

The key thing to watch is how Obama reacts. It's probably not a problem for him yet. But if he makes a mistake similar to how he reacted to the Wright incidents - saying he agrees with what Ludacris said (or even that he doesn't disagree) - then he's asking for trouble.

As a politician, you have to choose your friends wisely. While Ludacris may be a marketer of sorts for Obama, they don't really have any stronger ties at the moment. Whether this has any lasting impact likely depends on Obama's next move. Will he learn from his past mistakes? We'll see.

The Blue Avenger

30th July 2008, 04:53 PM

firepokemon

30th July 2008, 05:20 PM

See perhaps Roy and the likes of Fox News etc need to realise, that Obama has campaigned against this pettyness and silliness and for weeks and months now its been working. So then why instead of attacking Obama on substantial issues, do you instead take miniscule scandals that won't be remembered in two days.

I think the right has a real problem. You're essentially losing the argument because of what you choose to talk about. The voters don't want to hear yet a nother uselesstidbit about Obama or his character. Instead, shouldn't you be talking about the strengths of the right. That being small government, less taxes, lowering the price of oil. The right has a problem. This election has already given the left huge advantages over the right sowhy make it worse for yourselves by prddling silly arguments?

Roy Karrde

30th July 2008, 10:49 PM

Roy: I'm not saying what the public will do; I know the public will probably jump down Obama's throat about this because the public jumps down everyone's throat at the slightest urging. I'm saying it doesn't need to be an issue. If McCain were in a similar position, I still wouldn't care.

Fair enough.

But if Obama wants to provide entertainment, he can choose whoever the hell he wants. His taste in music has no bearing at all on his ability to lead the nation, which is what I'm concerned with.

No but it does show which people he wants around him and which people he wants promoting them. Something that shows his judge in character, and something that WILL effect this nation.

See perhaps Roy and the likes of Fox News etc need to realise, that Obama has campaigned against this pettyness and silliness and for weeks and months now its been working.

He also has been supporting Ludacris and Bernie Mac, both of which have played at his events, and now both of them have made horrible comments about women. Now, sorry but that is just sending mixed messages.

So then why instead of attacking Obama on substantial issues, do you instead take miniscule scandals that won't be remembered in two days.

Well I could beat Obama down on the issues from Energy to Affirmative Action, two substantial issues in this campaign, but this also goes to his judge of character. Which like it or not is something we should consider when we are looking for a President.

I think the right has a real problem. You're essentially losing the argument because of what you choose to talk about. The voters don't want to hear yet a nother uselesstidbit about Obama or his character. Instead, shouldn't you be talking about the strengths of the right. That being small government, less taxes, lowering the price of oil. The right has a problem. This election has already given the left huge advantages over the right sowhy make it worse for yourselves by prddling silly arguments?

If that were true then no one would care about Wright, or Ayres, or the rest, and it has been proven that the public does care. Second if the left has such a huge advantage, why are Obama and McCain in a statistical tie?

Katie

31st July 2008, 12:36 AM

Once again I pop into this thread to read what's going on and it's still OBAMA GOOD! OBAMA BAD! OBAMA GOOD! OBAMA BAD! I forget, who's he running against? It's been so long since, well, anyone, has mentioned that other guy. He must not have much going for him if no one wants to talk about him. At all. Ever. :confused:

Roy Karrde

31st July 2008, 12:55 AM

The guy as you put it is doing a pretty good job running as the "Anti Obama" in many respects. Obama wants higher energy taxes, McCain is against them. Obama doesn't want drilling, McCain is for it. Obama wants to keep Affirmative Action, McCain is against it. Obama wants to pull the troops out on a stricked time table, McCain wants to get the troops out but have it based on progress on the ground. Obama was against the surge, McCain was for it. The list goes on and on.

Now usually elections like these are a referndum on the incumbant, which would basically be a referndum against McCain/Republicans. Problem is it's changed to be a referndum against Obama. People are for what he wants to do, or are against it, and really now he is acting as if he had already won the election. To the point of already starting to measure for drapes in the White House.

McCain has really turned this to being to "Look at this horrible, arrogant, bastard who believes he is already won". And if the polls are any indication, it's working for him.

Roy Karrde

31st July 2008, 11:13 PM

Well I gotta hand it to Obama, what a way to kill a Ludacris thing, accusing your opponent of being a racist. I seriously didn't see this one coming.

ABC's Jake Tapper has a great article on well.. I don't think I really have words to describe this.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/07/did-obama-accus.html

mr_pikachu

2nd August 2008, 02:14 AM

McCain mocks 'anointed' Obama in new broadside (http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080802/ts_afp/usvote_080802013246)

Okay, I'll admit that, given some of Obama's recent comments, this is a smart attack. He's gotten extremely arrogant in his speeches as of late, and I think it's only appropriate that such arrogance be pointed out.

However, the problem is that it's still all about Obama. Yes, the attack needed to be made, but McCain has got to show the public how he's the right candidate, not just how Obama is the wrong one. McCain is setting himself up for a situation where if Obama can sufficiently assuage the public's fears, the election is over. You cannot leave the election in the hands of your opponent.

DarkTemplarZero

17th August 2008, 12:11 AM

Alright, here's my two cents.

I voted for Obama in the New Jersey primary, and I was quite proud of it. I'm definitely having second thoughts about that vote however. Every day, McCain looks more appealing; he's less religious and he's white. No offense, but after spending most of my summer on the border between West Philadelphia and civilization, I have lost all respect for the African American community. There is only a "racial issue" outside of the south only because the African American community makes it so. For example, I witnessed a man punch a white police officer who was trying to arrest him for threatening a pair of white kids (myself and my roommate) and then get tackled by a black police officer. Black bystanders claimed that this was racist. Basically, the African American community needs to stop being an immature waste of resources and grow up, this country is simply not ready for an African American president, especially one who sympathizes with people such as these.

As much as I like Obama's domestic policies, I'm also starting to question his ability to stand up to the newly belligerent Russia; it's quite clear Russia's been planning an invasion of Georgia for months, if not years, with the efficiency that they devastated the country. Now they're threatening to nuke Poland. I don't think Obama has the balls to tell Putin to shove it.

mr_pikachu

20th August 2008, 03:36 PM

McCain takes lead over Obama: poll (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080820/ts_nm/usa_poll_politics_dc)

Okay, full disclosure time... this title only refers to the Reuters/Zogby poll, in which McCain has suddenly pulled a twelve-point swing from Obama's July advantage of 7%. RCP (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_obama-225.html) still has Obama up 1.3%.

(Obama's remaining lead is partially due to 5% leads in the Quinnipiac and IBD/TIPP polls, which began polling on the 12th and 4th of August, respectively. That could suggest a shift in priorities and public opinion due to the Russia/Georgia conflict. Still, other recent polls show the race much closer than the Reuters/Zogby update.)

Thoughts?

Roy Karrde

20th August 2008, 03:40 PM

From my perspective, this is incredibly dangerous for Obama, he is going into the convention with a tie or losing to McCain, with the biggest bomb shell yet to drop. At the same time Clinton starts looking VERY tempting on the ballot.

As for the biggest bomb shell? Obama Lied, Babies Died (http://hotair.com/archives/2008/08/18/team-obama-acknowledges-infanticide-lie/)

Expect to see this to be rearing its head after the convention, especially if Obama gets a bump from it.

DarkTemplarZero

20th August 2008, 04:28 PM

Heald

20th August 2008, 08:19 PM

mr_pikachu

20th August 2008, 08:27 PM

Man, Obama's really fucking this up. 2 months ago, McCain was just an afterthought in this election. Now, with Obama's sudden attempt to become a moderate and make sure everybody knows all about how important his religion is to him, he's pissing off his biggest support demographics. Now it's starting to bite him in the ass.

Amazingly, I agree with most of this. The election was Obama's to lose, as McCain hadn't really even begum campaigning until recently. Yet Obama's numbers have been in a fairly steady decline, mostly because he keeps shooting himself. Under different circumstances, I might criticize McCain for launching so many attacks... but it's just so easy!

The curious thing is that McCain is winning on his platform of being a regular guy. Obama's been trying to portray himself as something more; now that the facade is cracking, he looks like a massive liar in contrast with the likable (by some) McCain.

Roy Karrde

20th August 2008, 08:40 PM

Not being able to find any alive supporters, McCain rally claims the endorsement of dead country music star. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7572040.stm)

This is particularly lulzworthy, although I guess nothing will really come of it, what with Obama being accused of eating babies or whatever the buzzards are squawking about today.

Heh well Obama said he saw dead people in the audiance at a Veterans event, so I guess both are trying for the Undead vote.

As for what Obama is being accused of. It actually is the truth. There was a bill in the Illinois Senate called the Born Alive Infant Protection Act. Basically babies that survive a form of abortion that come out alive are guaranteed medical help instead of being thrown into the waste bin to die. This actually happens to anywhere between 10 to 20% of babies.

Obama voted against it the first time saying that it would harm Roe V Wade. So a Federal bill was passed by a vote of 98 to 0. And then a year later the bill came up again, this time with additional wording to protect Roe V Wade. Obama voted for the additional wording, and then voted against the bill, striking it down.

For the past 5 years Obama has been continuing the lie of "Well if it had the language in it the federal bill had, then I would have voted for it!" And then last week documents from the Illinois Senate were released showing what really happened, and that Obama had been lying to the American people for five years on it. But even then Obama wouldn't let up, calling the people that released the documents, "Liars"

Finally two days ago Obama's Campiagn finally admitted that he had been lying all the time.

So I wouldn't say Obama happens to eat babies, but he does want to make sure aborted babies die no matter what.

mr_pikachu

20th August 2008, 08:45 PM

So I wouldn't say Obama happens to eat babies, but he does want to make sure babies whose mothers don't want them die, even if they've already been born.

Fixed.

Roy Karrde

20th August 2008, 09:28 PM

Heh nice Mr Pikachu. Also new audio has surfaced, and when I mean new, I mean its making the blogs in the last ten minutes. It is a quick clip from the Illinois State Floor of Obama talking about the Born Alive Act.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ypDwNpgIUQc

Obviously like anything else on Youtube, music has to be added, as well as words, and other clips along with it, but the juicy stuff is in the first few seconds.

"And that essentially, adding an additional doctor, who has to be called in, in a emergency situation, to come in, and make these assessments, is really designed to burden the original decision of the mother and the physician to enduce labor and perform the abortion."

Now see what I don't understand is why a additional doctor would even be needed? If the baby comes out breathing then it should get medical care, and thus rushed to the ER. I mean I may not have a PHD but I think even I could tell when a infant is breathing or not.

And you know even if another doctor is needed, shouldn't that be a good thing instead of a negative like Obama tries to make it here? Shouldn't we try to save the life if it's already out of the womb instead of denying it Medical Treatment?

mr_pikachu

20th August 2008, 09:37 PM

And you know even if another doctor is needed, shouldn't that be a good thing instead of a negative like Obama tries to make it here? Shouldn't we try to save the life if it's already out of the womb instead of denying it Medical Treatment?

You would think so. The debate over "when life begins" commonly centers around the second trimester; fewer arguments are made out the third trimester, and I defy anyone to call a baby that has already been born, premature or not, a "fetus." Hence why the original bill passed with 98 votes.

It's notable that in this very thread, "Sucks, Everyone" is steadily catching up with "Obama, Barack."

Heald

20th August 2008, 09:38 PM

Roy Karrde

20th August 2008, 09:42 PM

At least he seems to be taking a concrete view on the matter. McCain flipped from supporting Roe vs Wade to being against it just in time to begin building a platform for his Republican nomination, so would you want to vote for a man who would rather put the ideologies of the fervent Christian Right above his own convictions?

You mind backing this up? All I have seen McCain has been a Pro Choice Cannidate.

As for the Born Alive Act, there is legislation in it that says that the bill does not apply to anything but the baby that has already been born. In other words it does not effect any Abortion Law or would ursup any Abortion Law. See, the addition of that language was what Obama DID vote for. And then he voted against the bill once the language was added.

Also to answer you, 10 to 20% of these abortions, have the baby surviving longer than just a few minutes. Meaning 10 to 20% have children live for hours until they finally die. Also the baby that prompted the making of this act was 5 months old, not 12 weeks. The 12 weeks most likely do not survive the violent abortion process of being birthed.

Besides, considering that premature births already clog up many hospitals' infant departments, could you imagine the strain that would be put on the system to try and keep every failed abortion alive?

Sorry but that is a dumb ass excuse man. You up the funding if you need to, but you do not leave babies to die in a waste bin becuase the room is clogged up. You do not deny medical treatment becuase the room is clogged up.

Heald

20th August 2008, 09:50 PM

You mind backing this up? All I have seen McCain has been a Pro Choice Cannidate.
Link (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17222147/)

As for the Born Alive Act, there is legislation in it that says that the bill does not apply to anything but the baby that has already been born. In other words it does not effect any Abortion Law or would ursup any Abortion Law. See, the addition of that language was what Obama DID vote for. And then he voted against the bill once the language was added.
So can the mother walk away, never be told the baby survived, and there would be no consequences for her? Would the baby be told, if it survived and grew up, that it has no parents because it was a failed abortion?

Would hospitals be given government funding to fund more infant-care facilities that this law would necessitate?

And would there be protection against doctors who cock-up the abortions on purpose because they are pro-life?

I'd like to see what the language of the bill is and see if the language was added in entirety, and what the neutrality promised. Until I see evidence, all I can hear and see are pro-lifers moaning about neutrality without actually backing it up.

Good on Obama for actually having a stance on this issue. Most politicians wouldn't touch it with a 6-yard pole for fear of upsetting the wrong crowds.

mr_pikachu

20th August 2008, 09:51 PM

Not that I condone or disapprove of abortion and such-related issues, but I'd like to see if any other country has a law like this, and the language describing it. Abortion is protection of the mother rather than the child, and as long as you continue to have a legal precedent that rules that the woman's right to kill her unborn child overrules the right of that child to life, then a law like this is going to thorny, regardless of whether people say that it won't harm Roe vs Wade. I'm not going to go into whether it is right or wrong to try to sustain the life of an unborn child that its mother has already made a decision to try to kill, since such actions would have ramifications on both mother and child.

Regardless, there seems to be a general consensus that in between 12-24 weeks is usually the period that abortions are cut off in most places. It is generally agreed that a child is not developed enough earlier than whatever the limit is in whatever area to survive. Yes, you do occasionally get the miracle that survived at 12 weeks and what-not that the Pro-Life army love to parade around, but realistically, modern medicine is not that advanced. Besides, considering that premature births already clog up many hospitals' infant departments, could you imagine the strain that would be put on the system to try and keep every failed abortion alive?

At least he seems to be taking a concrete view on the matter. McCain flipped from supporting Roe vs Wade to being against it just in time to begin building a platform for his Republican nomination, so would you want to vote for a man who would rather put the ideologies of the fervent Christian Right above his own convictions?

I'm going to sound like the "fervent Christian Right" here, but I feel something needs to be said. I'm far beyond arguing with people about whether an unborn baby is a "fetus"; that is the scientific term, after all. However, a baby that has been born, even if it wasn't supposed to survive, is a little more than a "failed abortion."

I hope you wouldn't go so far as to explicitly say that a post-birth baby isn't a person if it's mother meant to abort it. Assuming that's the case, that at that stage we have a baby - a human being - then I see no reason why it should have less of a right to life than any other premature baby (even if, as you said, they fill up hospitals).

Whether the baby lives or dies no longer impacts the mother's health - that's the whole argument for abortion in the first place, at least by most people in the debate - so why shouldn't someone we've already determined to be a human being receive treatment?

Anyway, we're getting a bit off-topic, so let me try to get us back... Obama may have had a concrete view on this, but his view is something that will certainly draw a lot of criticism from his opponents. It's unlikely to be the sort of thing that moderates will appreciate in the long run, assuming that McCain can effectively hammer in the point. While he's been unsuccessful in most of his campaign, McCain is finally turning up the heat; given that religion is an issue in which he can (and has) beaten Obama silly, we can expect him to take this case very, very seriously.

EDIT: You guys are fast strikers.

So can the mother walk away, never be told the baby survived, and there would be no consequences for her? Would the baby be told, if it survived and grew up, that it has no parents because it was a failed abortion?

Would hospitals be given government funding to fund more infant-care facilities that this law would necessitate?

And would there be protection against doctors who cock-up the abortions on purpose because they are pro-life?

1. Adoption.

2. If so few babies survive the abortion process, then this really has a negligible impact. Besides, this is how it worked prior to the recent bill, I believe. Why would going back to a system just a few years old place excessive strain on hospitals?

3. Medical malpractice lawsuits.

EDIT2: Here's the text, quoted from the Library of Congress (http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=107_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ207.107):

``(a) In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any
ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative
bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words `person', `human
being', `child', and `individual', shall include every infant member of
the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.
``(b) As used in this section, the term `born alive', with respect
to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or
extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of
development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a
beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of
voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been
cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a
result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced
abortion.
``(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny,
expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any
member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being `born
alive' as defined in this section.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the beginning of
chapter 1 of title 1, United States Code, is amended by adding at the
end the following new item:

``8. `Person', `human being', `child', and `individual' as including
born-alive infant.''.

I would assume that section "c" is the neutrality clause to protect Roe v. Wade.

Heald

20th August 2008, 10:06 PM

Also to answer you, 10 to 20% of these abortions, have the baby surviving longer than just a few minutes. Meaning 10 to 20% have children live for hours until they finally die. Also the baby that prompted the making of this act was 5 months old, not 12 weeks. The 12 weeks most likely do not survive the violent abortion process of being birthed.
As I said, it is the law of each area that gives each legal limit. If the legal limit is 12 weeks, then the abortion beyond 12 weeks was illegal, unless specific circumstances, for example, the mother is in actually danger, it isn't because she wants to get rid of it, in which case it ought to receive medical attention if it survives.

Sorry but that is a dumb ass excuse man. You up the funding if you need to, but you do not leave babies to die in a waste bin becuase the room is clogged up. You do not deny medical treatment becuase the room is clogged up.
So where else do they go when the room is clogged up? Have you ever been in a infant-care ward? They're not exactly in beds watching mini-tvs, the incubation units and the equipment that these kids need to survive is expensive and if a hospital doesn't have them, then the baby is a little bit screwed. Your argument doesn't make sense; how exactly is the baby meant to survive if there is no available equipment? If the Bill made provisions to give hospitals much more funding, then this wouldn't be an issue, but there is no evidence suggesting this.

2. If so few babies survive the abortion process, then this really has a negligible impact. Besides, this is how it worked prior to the recent bill, I believe. Why would going back to a system just a few years old place excessive strain on hospitals?
Am I being obvious in saying that so few babies survive the abortion process because, considering there is no law obligating their care if they survive abortion, that most of the ones that do survive are left to die? If it is a big enough issue to try and denigrate a Presidential candidate with, then surely once a law has been passed, every abortion that does survive ought to be saved. What happens when a mother gives birth prematurely, only to be told that there is no more room to care for their infant, due to the ward being filled with babies whose mothers opted to try to kill them.

Roy Karrde

20th August 2008, 10:13 PM

Link (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17222147/)

Sorry I meant to say Pro Life Cannidate, all I have seen is McCain being the Pro Life Cannidate. And seriously, do better than MSNBC, the network is now more partisan than Fox News.

So can the mother walk away, never be told the baby survived, and there would be no consequences for her? Would the baby be told, if it survived and grew up, that it has no parents because it was a failed abortion?

I would say the mother should be told that he baby survived, the mother shouldn't have any consequences becuase it would be like putting the child up for adoption. As for the baby, why should it be told that it was a failed abortion? Why not just say that it was put up for adoption?

Would hospitals be given government funding to fund more infant-care facilities that this law would necessitate?

Yes, if the Hospital is in need of extra equipment and funding then they should get it. It is no different if the ER needed more funding becuase it was getting congested with patients. I mean should we just let the patients die becuase the ER is clogged?

And would there be protection against doctors who cock-up the abortions on purpose because they are pro-life?

You can't "Cock-up" this, labor is enduced, and the violent process is what usually kills the baby. You can't really "cock-up" enduced labor.

I'd like to see what the language of the bill is and see if the language was added in entirety, and what the neutrality promised. Until I see evidence, all I can hear and see are pro-lifers moaning about neutrality without actually backing it up.

Here is the amendment added, it is the EXACT same language as in the Federal Bill.

1 AMENDMENT TO SENATE BILL 1082
2 AMENDMENT NO. . Amend Senate Bill 1082 on page 1, by
3 replacing lines 24 through 26 with the following:
4 “(c) Nothing in this Section shall be construed to
5 affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal
6 right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at
7 any point prior to being born alive as defined in this
8 Section.”.

It was added in it's entirety.

Good on Obama for actually having a stance on this issue. Most politicians wouldn't touch it with a 6-yard pole for fear of upsetting the wrong crowds.

Yes Good for Obama for supporting Infantcide! Good for him and killing those babies!

My God you realize how disgusting of a human being you sound like when you say "Good for Obama" for taking the stance against babies on this issue?

Anyway Pika is right we do not need to get this into a Abortion Debate.

As I said, it is the law of each area that gives each legal limit. If the legal limit is 12 weeks, then the abortion beyond 12 weeks was illegal, unless specific circumstances, for example, the mother is in actually danger, it isn't because she wants to get rid of it, in which case it ought to receive medical attention if it survives.

Okay the mother's decision after it is born, should mean absolutely shit here. The baby survived, it is a living breathing human being now, it deserves medical treatment. Period. PARAGRAPH. END OF STORY.

So where else do they go when the room is clogged up? Have you ever been in a infant-care ward? They're not exactly in beds watching mini-tvs, the incubation units and the equipment that these kids need to survive is expensive and if a hospital doesn't have them, then the baby is a little bit screwed. Your argument doesn't make sense; how exactly is the baby meant to survive if there is no available equipment? If the Bill made provisions to give hospitals much more funding, then this wouldn't be an issue, but there is no evidence suggesting this.

For one you are going under the assumption that the infant ward would be filled at this time. Yes it would require equipment, Yes the hospitals would have to ask for it if needed. That does not make the bill any less right and just.

Am I being obvious in saying that so few babies survive the abortion process because, considering there is no law obligating their care if they survive abortion, that most of the ones that do survive are left to die? If it is a big enough issue to try and denigrate a Presidential candidate with, then surely once a law has been passed, every abortion that does survive ought to be saved. What happens when a mother gives birth prematurely, only to be told that there is no more room to care for their infant, due to the ward being filled with babies whose mothers opted to try to kill them.

At that point you rush it to the next hospital. Or rush the mother while in labor to the next hospital. Just becuase the hospital is clogged up does not. DOES NOT mean that you should deny treatment.

mr_pikachu

20th August 2008, 10:14 PM

Am I being obvious in saying that so few babies survive the abortion process because, considering there is no law obligating their care if they survive abortion, that most of the ones that do survive are left to die?

I dunno, I was kind of thinking that the abortion was the reason few babies survive abortion. But hey, what do I know? :sweat2:

Anyway, I honestly think the "we'll overload hospitals!" argument is weak. 66 babies survive official abortions per year (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-512129/66-babies-year-left-die-NHS-abortions-wrong.html)... that comes out to slightly more than one per state. Unless you assume that all 66 of these abortions occur in the same hospital, there's not much chance for the chaos you're arguing. Hence the outrage at Obama's arguments - which, as far as I know, never cited "hospital overcrowding" as a reason for his vote.

(We're getting dangerously close to being off topic....)

EDIT: I retract my statistical analysis; momentarily forgot that the NHS is in the UK. >_< Nonetheless, if only 66 babies survive there, I still fail to see how that would overwhelm hospitals. Going by about the same per capita rate and a generous estimate (since I don't have the stats at hand), I'd say that absolutely no more than five extra babies would be added to any one hospital in a year. (That's being very, VERY generous.)

EDIT2: In 2006, the population of the U.K. was estimated at just over 50 million (http://www.statistics.gov.uk/CCI/nugget.asp?ID=6). In 2008, the estimate for the U.S. had just topped 300 million (http://www.census.gov/population/www/popclockus.html). Going by that rough 6:1 ratio, we would have 396 additional babies each year across the entire United States. I don't know exactly how many hospitals we have in America, but the conclusion is obvious. The impact of this law on the system as a whole would be effectively nothing, yet it would grant 396 babies, post-birth, a chance at life.

Roy Karrde

20th August 2008, 10:24 PM

mr_pikachu

20th August 2008, 10:27 PM

For the US rate Mr Pika, the number is in the percentage of 10 to 20%. This number comes from the doctor that testified in the hearing on this bill infront of Obama. 10 to 20% of all babies aborted is incredibly INCREDIBLY small amount, and really out of that 10 to 20% I bet less than half survive the day.

Wait, I thought the 10%-20% stat was how many babies survive more than a few minutes after having already been born. That's very different from the number of abortions that fail... which is it?

(A couple more posts, and then I'm going to call back on topic.)

Heald

20th August 2008, 10:27 PM

I really don't feel like playing with you guys any more, so I'll just give a brief guide:

How to Debate (apparently):

1: Use a Straw Man! Hell, use Straw Men!

Yes Good for Obama for supporting Infantcide! Good for him and killing those babies!2: Next, use ad hominem attacks, because attacking the person is much easier than attacking the point! Extra points for taking what he was saying out of context!

My God you realize how disgusting of a human being you sound like when you say "Good for Obama" for taking the stance against babies on this issue?3: Try to wrap things up nicely.

Anyway Pika is right we do not need to get this into a Abortion Debate.4: Except then make yourself the exception and add in a quick edit just so you do get the last word in!

Okay the mother's decision after it is born, should mean absolutely shit here. The baby survived, it is a living breathing human being now, it deserves medical treatment. Period. PARAGRAPH. END OF STORY.5: Note the end of the last paragraph and the use of LARGE CAPITAL LETTERS, because AS LONG AS YOU USE LARGE CAPITAL LETTERS THE POINT YOU ARE MAKING IS RIGHT, NO MATTER WHAT!

Also seen in this example.

At that point you rush it to the next hospital. Or rush the mother while in labor to the next hospital. Just becuase the hospital is clogged up does not. DOES NOT mean that you should deny treatment.Good night guys.

mr_pikachu

20th August 2008, 10:30 PM

Okay, that's it, debate over. If anyone wants to continue the discussion, make an abortion thread.

Now! Back on topic!

Obama and McCain dodge questions on VPs (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/usa_politics_dc)

So, who do you think the running mates will be? What's your theory?

Roy Karrde

20th August 2008, 10:34 PM

Edited: Gah Pika is too fast

My thoughts would be Romney for McCain, it puts Michigan in play and pretty much hurts Obama even further.

And I hope Biden for Obama, becuase the man is a walking sound clip. Talking about how you can walk into any 7/11 with out hearing a slight Indian Accent, and for calling Obama the first Clean Black Person.

MToolen

20th August 2008, 10:39 PM

I think Romney's the smart choice for McCain, though I'd love to see Huckabee back. He's my favorite, I'll admit. To be honest, I could care less who Obama's picking; the race just doesn't have too much in the way of standouts.

mr_pikachu

20th August 2008, 10:42 PM

To be honest, I could care less who Obama's picking; the race just doesn't have too much in the way of standouts.

You make a good point; it seems like it's pretty much "Clinton" or "other." Which is odd to say, because a ticket with Hillary seems exceedingly unlikely.

It would be mildly interesting if Obama picked Edwards... but not too much.

mr_pikachu

21st August 2008, 03:31 PM

So, apparently Obama's made his choice (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080821/ap_on_el_pr/veepstakes).

Barack Obama says he's decided on a running mate, but he won't say who. The Democratic presidential candidate told USA Today on Thursday that he went with someone who is independent and would challenge him in the White House. He also said he wanted someone who is prepared to be president and would help him strengthen the economy.

Interpret that however you wish....

Roy Karrde

21st August 2008, 03:37 PM

That pretty much would rule out Clinton I believe, infact it would rule out most of the Democrats in there. Oh please how I hold out hope for Biden.

MToolen

21st August 2008, 03:46 PM

Oh please how I hold out hope for Biden.

Or not. (http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/player/popup/?rn=3906861&cl=9361212&ch=4226716&src=news)

mr_pikachu

21st August 2008, 03:49 PM

Roy Karrde

22nd August 2008, 08:53 AM

Well it is Friday, and thus this has officially become wierd...

Friday in politics is known as "Hang out the dirty laundry day". It gets the name becuase its the first day of the weekend and everyone is busy with their own things and thus do not pay much attention to the news. Which is why John Edwards announced two weeks ago about his affair on a Friday. People are thinking about the weekend, about what they are going to do, and they pay little attention to the news.

So Friday is one of the worst days to announce something that is supposed to help your campiagn. And the thing is that the further you go through the day, the worse off you get. Obama knows this, his advisors know this, so I am wondering why they have allowed the VP speculation go on this long. He is supposed to campiagn with said VP tomorrow, and the convention starts Sunday. So the announcement has to come today, that and announcing Saturday is even worse than announcing Friday.

Although then again he may be trying to bury the announcement. Unless its Al Gore or Clinton, he wont get too big of a pop from it. And he could be trying to mitigate the damage from the Clinton Supporters.

Also to continue my love for Teh Brits. A interesting piece on the Times Online about the current state of politics.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/gerard_baker/article4582920.ece

A quick summery is that Obama might * gasp * lose?!

Storm_Lord

22nd August 2008, 09:34 AM

Speaking as mostly an economic conservative first and a social conservative second, I'm not happy with either choice. I was in favor of Mitt Romney at the beginning, though even then wondered if would be right to fix things. If he gets picked for the VP Slot, that would be interesting, though I'd still be skeptical. For the record, I've never been much of a Bush fan, though mostly turned conservative from listening to talk radio.

For Obama, he'd probably have better luck with Jim Webb as I see it. (I'm probably way off though).

Roy Karrde

22nd August 2008, 11:52 AM

Heh I hear you Storm_Lord, I think I still have Romney as my choice on Facebook. It would be great to have him as VP.

As for Obama, another name has been thrown into the race. Chet Edwards. Now you may be asking "Who the fuck is Chet Edwards?" He is a very low key Congressional Representative from Waco Texas. He hasn't made any waves so he doesn't have anything bad attached to him, nor does he have anything good other than running as a Conservative Democrat in Texas. Which makes me wonder: Is Obama STUPID enough to think he can win Texas?

Also it has been announced that Obama never even vetted Hillary, he didn't ask for a single sheet of paper, nothing. Nice little showing of disrespect from Obama to Hillary and her 18 Million Supporters, who atleast 17% are saying that they will vote for McCain, and 13% saying undecided.

Last but not least, a video that perfectly encapcilates July in the Political Spectrum, just the black guy needs shorter hair to be Obama.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dMZfdCkYPig

For the Love of God (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OIT3jUrNTX0)

Please let it be Biden (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lxWSVXZVR4c)

Different video for each sentence.

Storm_Lord

22nd August 2008, 10:06 PM

I was hearing about Chet Edwards today and he reminds me of the conservative Democrats of the olden days. If Obama were to pick him (doubtful though), it would make an already close race even closer.

Roy Karrde

23rd August 2008, 01:08 AM

CNN confirms it's Biden.

C'mon everyone do the Biden Dance!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NmRXH7RkCZQ

Here you go, if Obama is elected, this man is one bullet away from the Oval Office!

mr_pikachu

23rd August 2008, 02:38 AM

Or not. (http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/player/popup/?rn=3906861&cl=9361212&ch=4226716&src=news)

From Obama says he's decided on a running mate (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080821/ap_on_el_pr/veepstakes):

Obama didn't say whether he's informed his pick yet.

Don't rule out Biden yet....

Called it!

Now the race gets exciting. We're heading into the DNC, upon which Obama should get a big boost. How will McCain try to squash the impact (running mate announcement, anyone?), and how will the Democrats position themselves to block a move like that?

EDIT: Romney veep speculation swirls (http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20080822/pl_politico/12711)

MToolen

23rd August 2008, 08:33 AM

CNN confirms it's Biden.

C'mon everyone do the Biden Dance!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NmRXH7RkCZQ

Here you go, if Obama is elected, this man is one bullet away from the Oval Office!

That... was... amazing.

He could spin this as being like any American though. "Have you ever gotten drunk and done something stupid? You know I have!"

Heald

23rd August 2008, 09:12 AM

To be honest, compared to the clown you've had ruining the planet for the last 8 years, this guy seems like a saint.

Roy Karrde

23rd August 2008, 12:13 PM

To be honest, compared to the clown you've had ruining the planet for the last 8 years, this guy seems like a saint.

To put it bluntly, Biden is like a well, more pathetic version of Chaney. He is a pit bull, and some one who has alot of Washington experience, which is what Chaney brought to the Bush team. Just like what Chaney did with Bush, Biden most likely will be the one that gets down and dirty for Obama.

Difference is unlike Chaney, Biden doesn't know when to shut up, and has a horrible history infront of the camera, as well as with plagerism. So I would call it Chaney-lite.

And the first Biden Ad is out by McCain
This is why Republicans love Biden (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RDVUPqoowf8)

Also two fun Biden quotes:
"I think I have a much higher IQ than you do."

and

“Seems to me this would be a good time to send, no strings attached, a check for $200 million to Iran,”

The Blue Avenger

23rd August 2008, 12:43 PM

Mind providing sources on those quotes, Roy? I'm curious as to the context.

Roy Karrde

23rd August 2008, 12:50 PM

Mind providing sources on those quotes, Roy? I'm curious as to the context.

First one comes from here.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2008/08/the_case_against_joe_biden.html

One of the most overlooked episodes during the 1987 collapse of Biden's campaign was a snippet of footage captured by C-Span in which the Delaware senator, in response to a question about where he went to law school and what sort of grades he received, delivered this classic line: "I think I have a much higher IQ than you do."

Second comes from his New Republic profile.
http://www.tnr.com/columnists/story.html?id=ba9b09bb-ed01-4582-b6ec-444834c9df73&k=93697

At the Tuesday-morning meeting with committee staffers, Biden launches into a stream-of-consciousness monologue about what his committee should be doing, before he finally admits the obvious: "I'm groping here." Then he hits on an idea: America needs to show the Arab world that we're not bent on its destruction. "Seems to me this would be a good time to send, no strings attached, a check for $200 million to Iran," Biden declares. He surveys the table with raised eyebrows, a How do ya like that? look on his face.

The staffers sit in silence. Finally somebody ventures a response: "I think they'd send it back." Then another aide speaks up delicately: "The thing I would worry about is that it would almost look like a publicity stunt." Still another reminds Biden that an Iranian delegation is in Moscow that very day to discuss a $300 million arms deal with Vladimir Putin that the United States has strongly condemned. But Joe Biden is barely listening anymore. He's already moved on to something else.

The Blue Avenger

23rd August 2008, 12:53 PM

*nods* Thank you.

I'm unsure as to my thoughts on Biden's selection, because honestly I don't know enough about the guy. Yeah, the quotes sound rather damning, but on the other hand, it's what he does and not what he says that matters. I mean, every politician says dumb things now and again.

Roy Karrde

23rd August 2008, 12:58 PM

I mean, every politician says dumb things now and again.

Biden seriously puts that theory to its test, I mean we are talking about the guy that said

"You cannot go into a 7-11 or Dunken Donuts, with out a slight Indian Accent"

and

"I mean you have the first mainstream African American, who is articulate, and bright, and clean, and a nice looking guy"

And this was just in the past year!

See the most dangerous place for Joe Biden to be, is infront of a microphone or Video Camera of any kind.

The Blue Avenger

23rd August 2008, 01:06 PM

Hey, Bush said enough dumb things to warrant Bushism-A-Day calendars and he still got into office. ;)

Roy Karrde

23rd August 2008, 01:22 PM

Hey, Bush said enough dumb things to warrant Bushism-A-Day calendars and he still got into office. ;)

Do you really think the Obama camp want their VP, a man one bullet away to the Oval Office, to be compared to Bush?

Heald

23rd August 2008, 01:37 PM

Difference is unlike Chaney, Biden doesn't know when to shut up, and has a horrible history infront of the camera, as well as with plagerism. So I would call it Chaney-lite.
Bear in mind, Cheney did tell a Senator to go "fuck yourself" right in the middle of the Senate Chamber.

Roy Karrde

23rd August 2008, 01:39 PM

Bear in mind, Cheney did tell a Senator to go "fuck yourself" right in the middle of the Senate Chamber.

Yeah, and Biden has his own explosive temper, the guy is seriously Cheney-lite.

mr_pikachu

24th August 2008, 05:43 PM

Dems give Michigan and Florida full voting rights (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080824/ap_on_el_pr/cvn_primary_scramble)

In an equally important move, a senator sneezed today! We'll tell you who it was after the break. Stay tuned!

...Seriously, this is nothing more than posturing. I don't think they would have lifted a finger if the race was close enough for that change to swing it. Then again, maybe they would have made the switch if it would have given Clinton the nomination. Curious thought.

mr_pikachu

27th August 2008, 06:27 PM

Dems choose Obama in thunderous acclamation (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/cvn_convention_rdp)

It's official: Barack Obama will compete for the presidency. Once John McCain makes his VP announcement, the true game can finally begin.

Drusilla

27th August 2008, 09:14 PM

I just watched Bill Clinton's speech... and ZOMG... I <3 him! =D

I only wish he could be president again, because not only is he brilliant, but he can hit the nail right on the damned head AND be moving.

Not unlike our soon-to-be President... XP

Roy Karrde

27th August 2008, 09:32 PM

Not unlike our soon-to-be President... XP

Yeah Clinton and McCain do share alot together, especially when off teleprompter

But yeah Clinton delivered the speach he had to and it was incredibly passionate. That being said, it wasn't Clinton's true feelings. We all know Clinton's true feelings, they were shown in the leak yesterday about Obama being a Chicago Thug, and this morning with him doing the whole Cannidate X and Cannidate Y. Bill Clinton utterly hates Obama. But I do admire him for the guts of going up there and lying to save face.

Blademaster

27th August 2008, 09:49 PM

Yeah Clinton and McCain do share alot together,

The day that John "Dubya: The Sequel" McCain becomes President is the day that I put a bullet in my head.

...I should prepare: November is coming fast... Anybody have a gun they'd be interested in selling? Preferably one that's already loaded? More than one bullet is fine: I might wanna headshot a few Republican voters before I take my own dose of lead med, after all.

Roy Karrde

27th August 2008, 09:50 PM

The day that John "Dubya: The Sequel" McCain becomes President is the day that I put a bullet in my head.

here is the thing I cant stand, is idiots, and I mean absolute idiots that believe that McCain is the same as Bush. I mean it is utter stupidity, and goes against reality.

And the Democrats are really beginning to make the exact same STUPID mistake Bush made. In 01 Bush came in the White House and said "Anything Clinton did, I wont do" you know what happened? We spent 2 years screwing up till they realized that some things the Clintons did were right.

Like it or not, some things Bush has done are right, but Democrats are wanting to make the EXACT SAME MISTAKE.

...I should prepare: November is coming fast... Anybody have a gun they'd be interested in selling? Preferably one that's already loaded? More than one bullet is fine: I might wanna headshot a few Republican voters before I take my own dose of lead med, after all.

That is utterly disgusting man, just disgusting.

mr_pikachu

27th August 2008, 10:03 PM

here is the thing I cant stand, is idiots, and I mean absolute idiots that believe that McCain is the same as Bush. I mean it is utter stupidity, and goes against reality.

I have to disagree with this, if only because the media has done such a good job of propagating this myth. It can be hard, at times, to look past the assumptions and see what's actually happening in the election. After talking politics with a senior-level college class last year, I commend anyone who knows how the electoral college works. That's more than most people, sadly enough.

(For the record, I was one of two people who knew what the electoral college was. The conversation was quickly reduced to the two of us and the professor; the three of us continued the discussion for about an hour after class.)

Dark Sage

27th August 2008, 10:15 PM

You know how the electoral college works? Funny. I was under the assumption that it doesn't come close to working.

Roy Karrde

27th August 2008, 10:21 PM

Its done pretty well so far, having a hick up only twice in what over 200 years? BTW Dark, you had to love the 5Ds episode today, Aki seems to be the only Singer* sp * that can kill people. ( Gets shot by Blade for going off topic )

Dark Sage

27th August 2008, 10:24 PM

I've already seen it, Roy, thank you.

Anyway, I might as well tell you... My brother was a White House intern who worked for Mr. Gore as a speechwriter. So our support for him when he ran against Bush was rather... big. So we were very upset when one of those "hick ups" in Florida pretty much cost him the whole election.

That's my opinion, and you'll never get me to think otherwise.

And by the way, I'm with Obama all the way.

Roy Karrde

27th August 2008, 10:34 PM

Well lets not try and drag this down into a debate on the Electoral College. It happened nearly 8 years ago, Bush won, the recounts in the end bear that out. Hopefully we wont see a election that close again, although I have a feeling the lawyers would be called in on this one again.

Drusilla

28th August 2008, 09:29 AM

The day that John "Dubya: The Sequel" McCain becomes President is the day that I put a bullet in my head.

...I should prepare: November is coming fast... Anybody have a gun they'd be interested in selling? Preferably one that's already loaded? More than one bullet is fine: I might wanna headshot a few Republican voters before I take my own dose of lead med, after all.

Save one for me.

BTW, I hate the whole idea behind the Electoral College. No, Americans as a whole really shouldn't have that kind of power... but isn't that part of the basis for our country?

Heald

28th August 2008, 09:55 AM

The electoral college isn't perfect, but, as Roy Karrde said, at least it works most of the time, and I'd wager that if it had been the Dems on the side of losing the popular vote but winning the most electoral college votes, I doubt so many people would be whining about it.

At least you guys keep your executive and legislative separate. Over here, it is rolled into one, with the PM having near-limitless power for a period of as much as 5 years. He has the power to write laws, and then sign them in. Our political system is far more flawed than yours, but it doesn't really matter in this thread. I guess the one good thing that ours has that yours doesn't is choice. Several political parties are far better than two, democratically-speaking.

Blademaster

28th August 2008, 10:01 AM

here is the thing I cant stand, is idiots,

(a bunch of other McCain-fellating shit)

That is utterly disgusting man, just disgusting.

...Do me a favor, Roy: Save the juvenile name-calling for when you debate with some kindergarteners or something.

Or at least try and be a LITTLE non-biased: You would've never - NEVER - said that last line (or that first one, for that matter) if I'd said the words "Barack "Baby-Killer" Obama" and "Democrat" instead of "John "Dubya: The Sequel" McCain" and "Republican."

Drusilla

28th August 2008, 10:11 AM

The electoral college isn't perfect, but, as Roy Karrde said, at least it works most of the time, and I'd wager that if it had been the Dems on the side of losing the popular vote but winning the most electoral college votes, I doubt so many people would be whining about it.

For the record, I've always hated the idea. Theoretically speaking, the electorates are supposed to vote the way that the people they represent do... but they don't have to. WHAT THE FUCK?! If I bother to go vote, I want my damned vote to count, you corrupt hoebags! *rantrant*

Heald

28th August 2008, 10:21 AM

Roy Karrde

28th August 2008, 03:11 PM

For the record, I've always hated the idea. Theoretically speaking, the electorates are supposed to vote the way that the people they represent do... but they don't have to. WHAT THE FUCK?! If I bother to go vote, I want my damned vote to count, you corrupt hoebags! *rantrant*

Well for one I think you would have a damn good law suit if a Electorial Cannidate voted against his party that he had been elected to serve. Second, and my College Political Science class may have failed me on this, since it was 4 years ago, but isn't the Electorial Representative under contract?

Roy: Save the juvenile name-calling for when you debate with some kindergarteners or something.

I call Stupidity as I see it.

Or at least try and be a LITTLE non-biased: You would've never - NEVER - said that last line (or that first one, for that matter) if I'd said the words "Barack "Baby-Killer" Obama" and "Democrat" instead of "John "Dubya: The Sequel" McCain" and "Republican."

Actually yeah I have, becuase saying Obama is a baby killer is idiologically dishonest and only serves to hurt what are very valid complaints against Obama. Saying he is a baby killer gives the imagery that he stands outside the hospital room with a knife ready to go slashing away.

The truth is that Obama has been against legislation that would have saved a certain number of babies lives. He also is one of if not the most liberal Senator when it comes to Abortion, and is far more Liberal than most if not all of his collegues in the Senate.

The difference though between John "Dubya" McCain, and Barack "Baby Killer" Obama. Is that Obama has been opposed to legislation that would have saved babies lives, there is a voting record for that. With McCain you have some one who has always bucked idiology for what he believes is right. Hell just 4 years ago, the man was on the short list to become the John Kerry's Vice President. That is how short the memories of many in the Democratic party are. Too many Democrats are willing to be utterly ignorant of history and say he is a sequel of Bush, with out looking at McCain's policies, and with out looking at their own party's utter support of McCain.

Blademaster

28th August 2008, 05:11 PM

I call Stupidity as I see it.

The problem is that the way you see it isn't the way any of the rest of us see it: You see it as "I'm right; everyone else is wrong. Disagree and I'll argue at you, or, if you presented no argument, but rather a witty remark, a one-liner, or a sarcastic jab at my party, I'll merely insult you to make myself look like a good debater.".

But that's OK: If you wanna resort to childishness and name-calling instead of intelligent debate, I can oblige you that.

Actually yeah I have, becuase saying Obama is a baby killer is idiologically dishonest and only serves to hurt what are very valid complaints against Obama. Saying he is a baby killer gives the imagery that he stands outside the hospital room with a knife ready to go slashing away.

...

Yes Good for Obama for supporting Infantcide! Good for him and killing those babies!

Remember, kids, hypocrisy is A-OK when debating with anyone you deem stupider than you.

The difference though between John "Dubya" McCain, and Barack "Baby Killer" Obama. Is that Obama has been opposed to legislation that would have saved babies lives, there is a voting record for that. With McCain you have some one who has always bucked idiology for what he believes is right.

So, Obama is Satan for denying rights to an unwanted fetus, while McBush is a saint for denying a woman her right to fix a mistake that may ruin her life, or simply keep another child from being brought into an already-overpopulated world where millions of children suffer and die annually thanks to having no food or shelter. Great logic.

Well, sorry to burst your bubble, but McCain is no saint, either: He has a good chunk of the same fuckbrained views as Dubya (See below.), he was to the Navy when he was younger what Dubya was to the National Guard, and he's an unstable old geezer that shouts "Fuck you!" at people on TV and has a habit of making sure at least 25% of his fellow party members are pissed off at him daily. Not the kind of guy I want having access to the entire nuke stash of the country.

Hell just 4 years ago, the man was on the short list to become the John Kerry's Vice President. That is how short the memories of many in the Democratic party are. Too many Democrats are willing to be utterly ignorant of history and say he is a sequel of Bush, with out looking at McCain's policies,

1. McCain wants to continue Bush's war.
2. McCain has the same stances on health care as Bush.
3. McCain has the same GTFO attitude on immigration that Bush does.
4. McCain wants Guantanamo to be just as much of an inhumane shithole as Bush has it.
5. McCain is all for Bush's "Wire-tap fucking everything going out of or coming into the country." idea.
6. McCain is on Bush's side when it comes to abortion. (HOLY SHIT HE'S GOD FOR THAT!!1!!111)
7. McCain not only wants to keep Bush's "economy-stimulating" tax cuts, but he has four of his own that he'd like to try out, too.

Yeah, I can TOTALLY see how different from Bush he'd be.

and with out looking at their own party's utter support of McCain.

And for every Democrat that supports McBush, there's a Republican that either hates him, or likes Obama. Moot point.

mr_pikachu

28th August 2008, 05:21 PM

*sighs and tries to restore some degree of civility*

So, I'm looking at the RCP polls right now, and it seems that Gallup's results went from a 3% advantage to Obama at the beginning of August to a 6% advantage as of yesterday. Could Obama be getting the boost so many thought he would? I'd argue that he'd like to have gotten more of a bump from the combination of his running mate announcement and the start of the DNC, but it's something nonetheless.

What do you think?

Roy Karrde

28th August 2008, 05:24 PM

The problem is that the way you see it isn't the way any of the rest of us see it: You see it as "I'm right; everyone else is wrong. Disagree and I'll argue at you, or, if you presented no argument, but rather a witty remark, a one-liner, or a sarcastic jab at my party, I'll merely insult you to make myself look like a good debater.".

Says the man that said he wanted to not only kill himself, but kill others becuase of their political idiology.

Remember, kids, hypocrisy is A-OK when debating with anyone you deem stupider than you.

Notice I said supporting, just as I put in the previous post, Obama has been against bills and took the position of infantcide. But he hasn't actually physically slaughtered any children personally.

So, Obama is Satan for denying rights to an unwanted fetus,

When it is breathing outside the womb it is no longer a fetus but a living breathing human being.

while McBush is a saint for denying a woman her right to fix a mistake that may ruin her life, or simply keep another child from being brought into an already-overpopulated world where millions of children suffer and die annually thanks to having no food or shelter. Great logic.

Sorry I cant follow your blathering, McCain or Bush have over turned Roe Vs Wade? Or are you suggesting that we allow the killing of actual human beings becuase their mother did not want them?

Well, sorry to burst your bubble, but McCain is no saint, either: He has a good chunk of the same fuckbrained views as Dubya (See below.),

Laughable.

he was to the Navy when he was younger what Dubya was to the National Guard, and he's an unstable old geezer that shouts "Fuck you!"

And Biden screamed out he had a higher IQ than others.
And Obama was restrained by Security in the Chicago Senate.

Do you really want to get into temper tantrums?

and has a habit of making sure at least 25% of his fellow party members are pissed off at him daily. Not the kind of guy I want having access to the entire nuke stash of the country.

So being bi partisan and not toeing the party line, willing to reach across the isle for what he believes is right. Is a negative?

1. McCain wants to continue Bush's war.

Wrong McCain wants to end the war in a way that the Iraqi people are able to support themselves and protect themselves. Now I may be wrong, but shouldn't we leave Iraq with the country stable and able to protect itself?

2. McCain has the same stances on health care as Bush.

Another lie, McCain has presented various ideas on health care to allow insentives and other ways to get everyone under Universal Health Care that wouldn't be paid for by the tax payers.

3. McCain has the same GTFO attitude on immigration that Bush does.

Now you are showing your ignorance.
Both McCain and Bush support amnesty for Illegal Immigrants. The Amnesty Bill in the Senate was called MCCAIN KENNEDY you dumbass. Bush was in support this bill and has been supporting Amnesty, and guess what? So were most of the Dems.

4. McCain wants Guantanamo to be just as much of an inhumane shithole as Bush has it.

http://news.aol.com/elections-blog/2007/03/18/mccain-close-guantanamo-bay/

McCain, in an interview with Britain's Sunday Telegraph, has vowed to try and fix that "ugly American" image that our current president has helped foster in much of the world. How to accomplish this feat? First, close the prison at Guantanamo Bay and "expedite judicial proceedings" for the remaining prisoners.

5. McCain is all for Bush's "Wire-tap fucking everything going out of or coming into the country." idea.

And that has stopped terrorist attacks, this has been agreed on, on both sides of the isle, and remember it isn't just McCain that supports this, Obama voted on FISA as well.

6. McCain is on Bush's side when it comes to abortion. (HOLY SHIT HE'S GOD FOR THAT!!1!!111)

And Obama is more far left than anyone else on the Senate on Abortion. So far left that he is beyond the point of view of this country.

7. McCain not only wants to keep Bush's "economy-stimulating" tax cuts, but he has four of his own that he'd like to try out, too.

Yes becuase during a time in which we have hightened unemployment, a bad economy, and just a over all rough economic time. We should be RAISING taxes. Listen, there were twice that we had a President that raised Taxes during a bad economic time. The first time we got the Depression, the second time during Jimmy Carter we got a horrible recession. Does Obama want to roll the dice again?

Yeah, I can TOTALLY see how different from Bush he'd be.

Seeing how ignorant and how wrong you were on some of them, well.. You just got owned bitch.

And for every Democrat that supports McBush, there's a Republican that either hates him, or likes Obama. Moot point.

Sorry but the polls dont balance that out, Obama is bleeding Conservative Dems/Republicans, while McCain is leading in Independents and is picking up Older Women. But hey, after this post I wouldn't expect you to be very hip on little things, like you know, FACTS.

Also lets see some of the things that you forgot to mention
McCain is against major drilling in ANWR while Republicans are
McCain believes in Cap and Trade while Bush and Republicans dont
McCain believes in Global Warming while Bush and Republicans dont
McCain believes in amnesty while Republicans dont
McCain led his party in the need to ban torture of detainees in US Custody.
Should I go on?

Blademaster

28th August 2008, 06:10 PM

Says the man that said he wanted to not only kill himself, but kill others becuase of their political idiology.

I guess you missed the "witty remark, a one-liner, or a sarcastic jab at my party" part of that quote, huh?

I don't see you cursing out Drusilla for agreeing with me.

Notice I said supporting, just as I put in the previous post, Obama has been against bills and took the position of infantcide. But he hasn't actually physically slaughtered any children personally.

...If he hasn't KILLED any infants, how could he "take the position of" INFANTICIDE?

When it is breathing outside the womb it is no longer a fetus but a living breathing human being.

How is this relevant? It's already ALIVE in the WOMB. What do you think, that it's fucking DEAD inside there?

Sorry I cant follow your blathering, McCain or Bush have over turned Roe Vs Wade?

What the Hell is "Roe VS. Wade?"

Or are you suggesting that we allow the killing of actual human beings becuase their mother did not want them?

That's... what an abortion is.

And Biden screamed out he had a higher IQ than others.
And Obama was restrained by Security in the Chicago Senate.

Do you really want to get into temper tantrums?

I don't wanna be having this conversation, honestly. I'm just using attitude and random facts because that's what you did. You know, when you called me a disgusting idiot.

So being bi partisan and not toeing the party line, willing to reach across the isle for what he believes is right. Is a negative?

You lambaste Obama whenever he does 'what he believes is right.' Why is that...? Oh, wait, I forgot... It's because he's a filthy Democrat not fit to hold a political position, right?

Wrong McCain wants to end the war in a way that the Iraqi people are able to support themselves and protect themselves. Now I may be wrong, but shouldn't we leave Iraq with the country stable and able to protect itself?

Sure! Why not? That's the Republican motto in terms of foreign relations, right?

"We'll fix your country, no matter how many of your citizens and our soldiers have to die in the process! :D"

Another lie, McCain has presented various ideas on health care to allow insentives and other ways to get everyone under Universal Health Care that wouldn't be paid for by the tax payers.

Now you are showing your ignorance.
Both McCain and Bush support amnesty for Illegal Immigrants. The Amnesty Bill in the Senate was called MCCAIN KENNEDY you dumbass. Bush was in support this bill and has been supporting Amnesty, and guess what? So were most of the Dems.

''Disgusting..." "Idiot..." "Ignorant..." ...and... "...Dumbass."

You really do have that ad hominem thing down, don't you?

I made that last post of mine out of SPITE and not for debating, and I STILL wasn't as rude as you are.

http://news.aol.com/elections-blog/2007/03/18/mccain-close-guantanamo-bay/

McCain, in an interview with Britain's Sunday Telegraph, has vowed to try and fix that "ugly American" image that our current president has helped foster in much of the world. How to accomplish this feat? First, close the prison at Guantanamo Bay and "expedite judicial proceedings" for the remaining prisoners.

I heard differently.

And that has stopped terrorist attacks, this has been agreed on, on both sides of the isle, and remember it isn't just McCain that supports this, Obama voted on FISA as well.

Dunno what 'FISA' is, either.

And Obama is more far left than anyone else on the Senate on Abortion. So far left that he is beyond the point of view of this country.

Huh... So THAT'S why he's so popular...

Yes becuase during a time in which we have hightened unemployment, a bad economy, and just a over all rough economic time. We should be RAISING taxes. Listen, there were twice that we had a President that raised Taxes during a bad economic time. The first time we got the Depression, the second time during Jimmy Carter we got a horrible recession. Does Obama want to roll the dice again?

Seeing how ignorant and how wrong you were on some of them, well.. You just got owned bitch.

Aaaaaand now we have "bitch." But since that seemed to be in jest, somewhat, I'll discount that one.

And I find it kinda 'meh' that I was so 'ignorant and wrong,' considering that ALL THE SIMILARITIES I LISTED CAME FROM THE SAME ARTICLE.

Want a link?

Sorry but the polls dont balance that out, Obama is bleeding Conservative Dems/Republicans, while McCain is leading in Independents and is picking up Older Women. But hey, after this post I wouldn't expect you to be very hip on little things, like you know, FACTS.

I know my facts like you know your courtesy.

But hey, feel free to go on Google and search for "Republicans like Obama" and "Republicans hate Obama," minus the quotation marks.

The "Republicans hate Obama" part should lead you right to an article or two about how 1/4 of the Republican party hates McDubya, ironically.

Also lets see some of the things that you forgot to mention
McCain is against major drilling in ANWR while Republicans are
McCain believes in Cap and Trade while Bush and Republicans dont
McCain believes in Global Warming while Bush and Republicans dont
McCain believes in amnesty while Republicans dont
McCain led his party in the need to ban torture of detainees in US Custody.
Should I go on?

Well, of COURSE I didn't mention those things - they would've made me look wrong. I learned from you that only showing half the facts is a vital part of debating.

If "debating" is what you want to call this load of binary diarrhea you and I have been posting for the past 20 or so posts.

Roy Karrde

28th August 2008, 06:35 PM

I guess you missed the "witty remark, a one-liner, or a sarcastic jab at my party" part of that quote, huh?

It was a disgusting thing to say, absolutely disgusting.

I don't see you cursing out Drusilla for agreeing with me.

I think she is disgusting for agreeing with you.

...If he hasn't KILLED any infants, how could he "take the position of" INFANTICIDE?

He hasn't killed infants, but he was against a bill that would have stopped this practice, a practice which is pretty much Infanticide.

How is this relevant? It's already ALIVE in the WOMB. What do you think, that it's fucking DEAD inside there?

Right now with Roe V Wade, and the current state of laws, it is fully a human being when it draws its first breath outside of the womb. Inside the room is debatable, but outside it is no doubt a human being and has every right to live.

What the Hell is "Roe VS. Wade?"

Land mark Supreme Court Rulling that legalized Abortion

That's... what an abortion is.

Debatable, but we're not here to debate what is a human being. Once it gets outside the womb it IS a human being, no ifs, ands, or buts.

I don't wanna be having this conversation, honestly. I'm just using attitude and random facts because that's what you did. You know, when you called me a disgusting idiot.

Hey you were the one that brought up McCain's attitude, the truth is all of them have had their own outbursts at one time or the other, none of them can claim the moral high ground on it.

You lambaste Obama whenever he does 'what he believes is right.' Why is that...? Oh, wait, I forgot... It's because he's a filthy Democrat not fit to hold a political position, right?

When has Obama reached across the isle, going against Democrat Dogma, to join with Republicans on a important issue? Thing is, he hasn't. He almost did once, joining on McCain on important ethics reform, but then the Dems caught up with him and he backed out.

Sure! Why not? That's the Republican motto in terms of foreign relations, right?

"We'll fix your country, no matter how many of your citizens and our soldiers have to die in the process! :D"

Would that mean the Democrats motto in terms of Foreign Relation is.

"So what if we screwed up your country, to protect our interests we are going to leave when the going gets rough and let you guys die by the thousands."

The thing is, is that we have a moral responsability to make sure we leave Iraq right, we went in there, we screwed it up, and we have a responsability to those people to leave it in a condition for it to protect itself.

''Disgusting..." "Idiot..." "Ignorant..." ...and... "...Dumbass."

You really do have that ad hominem thing down, don't you?

Only when I am talking to people who describe those things. I notice you havn't properly even replied to those things. Whats wrong, can't admit you were wrong?

I made that last post of mine out of SPITE and not for debating, and I STILL wasn't as rude as you are.

Sorry but you lost all hold on not being rude when you said you wanted to shoot Republicans. And really while you weren't rude, you were wrong, absolutely, with out a doubt, wrong.

I heard differently.

Well you were mistaken.

Dunno what 'FISA' is, either.

Federal Wiretapping Bill that just passed.

Huh... So THAT'S why he's so popular...

His popularity has nothing to do with his views on abortion, views that he tried desperatly to keep hidden from the rest of the public.

And I find it kinda 'meh' that I was so 'ignorant and wrong,' considering that ALL THE SIMILARITIES I LISTED CAME FROM THE SAME ARTICLE.

Want a link?

Seeing how wrong you were on many of them, no thank you.

But hey, feel free to go on Google and search for "Republicans like Obama" and "Republicans hate Obama," minus the quotation marks.

Sorry I tend to hold polls in a higher esteem than just what I can gleem off of Google. Especially the poll that shows that Obama has had a 10% drop in Conservative Dems in the last month. And that McCain has higher support with his base than Obama has with his.

The "Republicans hate Obama" part should lead you right to an article or two about how 1/4 of the Republican party hates McDubya, ironically.

Gallup disagrees with you, McCain is pulling in 84% of Republicans, and Obama pulling in 10% of Republicans.

Well, of COURSE I didn't mention those things - they would've made me look wrong.

Oh you mean disprove the whole McBush Bull Shit?

I learned from you that only showing half the facts is a vital part of debating.

Why don't you show me which facts I left out? And remember the only one that has done anything wrong with facts so far in our debate is you, with some of your out right lies.

If "debating" is what you want to call this load of binary diarrhea you and I have been posting for the past 20 or so posts.

Translation: I am losing becuase I have no idea what I am talking about.

Andrew

28th August 2008, 07:04 PM

I know it's terrible, but, if Obama got assassinated, we could totally have Hilary for president.

:)

Roy Karrde

28th August 2008, 07:07 PM

And Chelsey is hot now, or atleast she looked that way from the far off shot. Some one quick! We need a picture of Chelsey Clinton from last night or the night before.

Edit:Now
http://www2.pictures.gi.zimbio.com/2008+Democratic+National+Convention+Day+2+mXqeFMN3 QD6l.jpg

During Clinton's Administration
http://www.io.com/~cjburke/clinton/archives/chelsea.gif

Blademaster

28th August 2008, 07:19 PM

It was a disgusting thing to say, absolutely disgusting.

I'm not sorry I made a joke, exercised my right of free speech, or said something anti-Republican...

But I WILL apologize for insulting you.

I think she is disgusting for agreeing with you.

Don't insult my friends. Ever.

He hasn't killed infants, but he was against a bill that would have stopped this practice, a practice which is pretty much Infanticide.

Death penalty is homicide. And for the sake of staying on-topic, I'd advise you to avoid the cheap strawman attack of "ZOMFG HE'S COMPARING BABIES TO CRIMINALS WHAT A FUCKING PRICK!!!11!1," because I'm comparing humans to humans. That's all I'll say on the matter.

Right now with Roe V Wade, and the current state of laws, it is fully a human being when it draws its first breath outside of the womb. Inside the room is debatable, but outside it is no doubt a human being and has every right to live.

Your law is bullshit. The egg and the spermatozoa are living cells. When they combine, the resultant zygote is growing and thriving. It's a human zygote, and it is alive. To think it's not a human, albeit an extremely undeveloped human, is wrong: If it's not a human, then what the Hell is it? A cockatiel?

Land mark Supreme Court Rulling that legalized Abortion

Thank you.

Hey you were the one that brought up McCain's attitude, the truth is all of them have had their own outbursts at one time or the other, none of them can claim the moral high ground on it.

Only in response to what you said about McCain's ideology, which you said in response to my 'Baby Killer Obama' line, which I said in response to you throwing a fucking hissy fit and insulting me.

Would that mean the Democrats motto in terms of Foreign Relation is.

"So what if we screwed up your country, to protect our interests we are going to leave when the going gets rough and let you guys die by the thousands."

People are dying either way. The difference is that the Democrats are content to let the sandmonkeys continue blowing each other up like they have for thousands of years, whereas Dubya had to turn the U.S. military into Team America: World Police and turn the entire Middle East into an even bigger clusterfuck than it already is.

Only when I am talking to people who describe those things. I notice you havn't properly even replied to those things. Whats wrong, can't admit you were wrong?

I came here and made a snarky remark. I didn't come here to debate. I only started debating (very poorly) out of spite, emulating your "I'm right, you're wrong, AND you're a dumb asshole." style.

Federal Wiretapping Bill that just passed.

Thank you. Again.

His popularity has nothing to do with his views on abortion, views that he tried desperatly to keep hidden from the rest of the public.

How sneaky... Oh, wait. Nobody expects a politician to be honest these days anyway.

Sorry I tend to hold polls in a higher esteem than just what I can gleem off of Google.

What I found wasn't a poll. But you ARE aware that polls CAN be found by checking around Google, right?

Gallup disagrees with you, McCain is pulling in 84% of Republicans, and Obama pulling in 10% of Republicans.

Gallup is partisan. Come up with something better. (Sound familiar?)

Why don't you show me which facts I left out? And remember the only one that has done anything wrong with facts so far in our debate is you, with some of your out right lies.

Every 'lie' as you put it I've either gotten from a link or I said "What is that?" Read a dictionary and learn what it means to 'lie.'

Translation: I am losing becuase I have no idea what I am talking about.

What is this...? The... THIRD time I'm telling you I'm not seriously debating here: I'm just arguing the way YOU do whenever you feel like being an elitist prick towards someone who didn't even come to debate to begin with?

I'll give you the abridged version, since you seem to be having trouble piecing it together yourself:

I came here and made a snarky remark. Like I typically do when I hear something I dislike.
You got pissed off and called me an "idiot" and "disgusting."
I got pissed off and returned fire in the style that Heald outlined last night, which you more or less resorted to again in the previous post (to the first 'debate' post I made, chief; not to THIS current post).
You returned return-fire.
I revealed what I was doing, hoping for an apology.
You ignored what I said and told me "ARRR, ROY MAD! ROY SMASH! ROY WANT WIN NON-EXISTENT DEBATE!"
I said "Blade sorry Blade make Roy mad, but Roy still being prick to Blade.".

And this is where I pass the buck to you again: You can own up, offer me an apology (like I did at the start of this fucking post), and I'll be on my way, or we can continue this retarded game of Ping-Pong until you get the message.

Your choice.

Roy Karrde

28th August 2008, 07:32 PM

I'm not sorry I made a joke, exercised my right of free speech, or said something anti-Republican...

But I WILL apologize for insulting you.

And I am sorry this got heated, I take responsability for it doing so. But please, please do not act as if it were just some joke and that everyone should know.

Don't insult my friends. Ever.

I'm not insulting your friends, just saying that the belief that killing some one when it comes to ideology is disgusting. Which really I think we can both agree on.

Death penalty is homicide. And for the sake of staying on-topic, I'd advise you to avoid the cheap strawman attack of "ZOMFG HE'S COMPARING BABIES TO CRIMINALS WHAT A FUCKING PRICK!!!11!1," because I'm comparing humans to humans. That's all I'll say on the matter.

Okay... I have no idea what your saying here so I wont even touch it.

Your law is bullshit. The egg and the spermatozoa are living cells. When they combine, the resultant zygote is growing and thriving. It's a human zygote, and it is alive. To think it's not a human, albeit an extremely undeveloped human, is wrong: If it's not a human, then what the Hell is it? A cockatiel?

Please I beg you, just as I dont want this to get into a discussion on the Electorial College, PLEASE do not bring this into a Abortion Debate.

Only in response to what you said about McCain's ideology, which you said in response to my 'Baby Killer Obama' line, which I said in response to you throwing a fucking hissy fit and insulting me.

O...kay...

People are dying either way. The difference is that the Democrats are content to let the sandmonkeys continue blowing each other up like they have for thousands of years, whereas Dubya had to turn the U.S. military into Team America: World Police and turn the entire Middle East into an even bigger clusterfuck than it already is.

Well for one lets not use racist insults, we do have people from the Middle East here, one of which I consider a friend and is a mod. Second if you havn't noticed, due to the Surge, brought about by McCain and Petraus and Bush. Iraq has turned into a safer place, it has brought about unity between the parties, and it has stopped the sectarian killing by and large.

Remember Obama opposed the surge, he wanted to cut and run. All of the peace that we have in Iraq now would not have happened under Obama in 06. Infact if Obama had his way, Iraq would be in a mist of a civil war right now in which the victor would be either Iran or Al Qaeda. Either way the victor of that war hurts our country.

I came here and made a snarky remark. I didn't come here to debate. I only started debating (very poorly) out of spite, emulating your "I'm right, you're wrong, AND you're a dumb asshole." style.

Fair enough, but you had to realize the comment was well, disgusting, and that it would be taken as offensive by many people.

What I found wasn't a poll. But you ARE aware that polls CAN be found by checking around Google, right?

Absolutely, how do you think I found Gallup's information?

Gallup is partisan. Come up with something better. (Sound familiar?)

And you have proof to back this up?

Every 'lie' as you put it I've either gotten from a link or I said "What is that?" Read a dictionary and learn what it means to 'lie.'

A lie means telling a known falsehood with the intent to diseve. I would hope that by posting such information for the debate you would have atleast vetted it. Mind you several of the things, such as McCain's views on Immigration and Guitmo, are well known. So what ever site you got it from was obviously lying to you.

What is this...? The... THIRD time I'm telling you I'm not seriously debating here: I'm just arguing the way YOU do whenever you feel like being an elitist prick towards someone who didn't even come to debate to begin with?

Which is fine, but I should remind you this is again you have insulted me, but anyway, you may have not realized it, or there could have been some confusion, but when you started listing off things that McCain and Bush agree on, that was pretty much a tale tale sign of wanting to debate.

And this is where I pass the buck to you again: You can own up, offer me an apology (like I did at the start of this fucking post), and I'll be on my way, or we can continue this retarded game of Ping-Pong until you get the message.

Which I have appologised, and if you will notice from this post I have reframed from anything close to flaming. You on the other hand have called me a prick and a variety of other colorful names.

Either way I would rather get back to talking about Chelsea's hotness.

Blademaster

28th August 2008, 07:45 PM

Finally.

And I am sorry this got heated, I take responsability for it doing so. But please, please do not act as if it were just some joke and that everyone should know.

OK. I just... kinda expected you'd figure it out when I brought up shooting to begin with. I've argued with you at least twice about me being pro-gun control, remember? :P

I'm not insulting your friends, just saying that the belief that killing some one when it comes to ideology is disgusting. Which really I think we can both agree on.

Yyyyyyep.

Well for one lets not use racist insults, we do have people from the Middle East here, one of which I consider a friend and is a mod.

When I say 'sandmonkeys,' I mean the ones ACTING like monkeys: the ones blowing each other up in the name of peace and sinning for their god. Remember, killing over ideology = disgusting, right? Right.

Second if you blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah our country.

I'M NOT HERE TO DEBATE ALREADY! >_<

Fair enough, but you had to realize the comment was well, disgusting, and that it would be taken as offensive by many people.

Well... it was only you, actually, but either way, like I said, I just figured it was obvious the second I pulled out the old "The day (X) is the day (Y)." line. My bad.

And you have proof to back this up?

Yup. I'll show it to you when you show me your proof that MSNBC is more partisan than even Fox News. (<----- joke, in case I have to spell it out when your "debate switch" is on)

Which I have appologised, and if you will notice from this post I have reframed from anything close to flaming. You on the other hand have called me a prick and a variety of other colorful names.

Technically, I called you an assholish prick and you called me an ignorant, disgusting, dumbass idiot that just got owned due to reasons of being a bitch. You got in more "colorful names" than me, but they weren't as "colorful, so... I'd say we're even now...? Yes? Even? Just say yes, I don't wanna spend as many posts on the apologies as I did on the argument... :sweat:

Either way I would rather get back to talking about Chelsea's hotness.

But she ain't a loli. :keke:

Roy Karrde

28th August 2008, 09:08 PM

A sign of things to come?

Joe Biden: “If I had your hair I’d be president, you know what I mean? I wouldn’t be screwing around with this job.”

So being Vice President is just "screwing around"? May not come close to some of his other Gaffs but then again, he is just warming up!

mr_pikachu

28th August 2008, 09:12 PM

Just one step away from an "If he gets shot, I'll be president!" comment.

Drusilla

28th August 2008, 10:13 PM

I think she is disgusting for agreeing with you.

Oh, gee, what a nice thing to say. Here I am, throwing in my two cents worth, and I'm "disgusting" now? Sorry, I thought that I was a free American and was allowed to have an opinion.

And on the electoral college... I remember distinctly learning that they do not have to vote the way the people do. We never actually find out who votes for whom, do we?

PNT510

28th August 2008, 10:29 PM

I believe in at least some states the members of the electoral college do have to vote the way the people do.

Roy Karrde

28th August 2008, 10:29 PM

Oh, gee, what a nice thing to say. Here I am, throwing in my two cents worth, and I'm "disgusting" now? Sorry, I thought that I was a free American and was allowed to have an opinion.

You are a free American, I never said you couldn't voice your opinion, I just find the opinion of killing people becuase of how they vote, just disgusting.

And on the electoral college... I remember distinctly learning that they do not have to vote the way the people do. We never actually find out who votes for whom, do we?

States have various laws on it though.

http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/faq.html#mystate

Which States bind electors to popular vote results? Refer to Electors Bound by State Law and Pledges to find out.

The Supreme Court has held that the Constitution does not require that electors be completely free to act as they choose and therefore, political parties may extract pledges from electors to vote for the parties' nominees. Some State laws provide that so-called "faithless electors" may be subject to fines or may be disqualified for casting an invalid vote and be replaced by a substitute elector. The Supreme Court has not specifically ruled on the question of whether pledges and penalties for failure to vote as pledged may be enforced under the Constitution. No elector has ever been prosecuted for failing to vote as pledged.

Today, it is rare for electors to disregard the popular vote by casting their electoral vote for someone other than their party's candidate. Electors generally hold a leadership position in their party or were chosen to recognize years of loyal service to the party. Throughout our history as a nation, more than 99 percent of electors have voted as pledged.

Andrew

28th August 2008, 10:49 PM

Blademaster and Roy.

Comment wars will NOW STOP.

Thank you.

Roy Karrde

28th August 2008, 10:50 PM

Blademaster and Roy.

Comment wars will NOW STOP.

Thank you.

We kind of already have, or atleast I wont be replying to Blade's last comment, I don't think anything else really needs to be said and this topic has been derailed enough.

Drusilla

28th August 2008, 10:52 PM

You are a free American, I never said you couldn't voice your opinion, I just find the opinion of killing people becuase of how they vote, just disgusting.

I wasn't agreeing with that. I'd just rather eat a bullet than live through four more years of this. If you noticed, I said save one for me, not, hey, I'll join you.

And, well, my point WAS that the electorates don't always have to vote according to the populace.

Blademaster

28th August 2008, 10:55 PM

We kind of already have,

Yep. You're a little late to the party, Ozzy. There's still some booze leftover if you're thirsty, though.

Roy Karrde

28th August 2008, 10:57 PM

Ahh sorry about the confusion, as for the voting thing. Yeah we need more laws in states to prevent it from happening, but if it did, God knows there would be hell to pay. The ACLU would go crazy, and you and I can lead the charge together to get it changed.

Roy Karrde

29th August 2008, 07:27 AM

And the Vice President most likely is....

http://www.drudgereport.com/mpb.jpg

Drusilla

29th August 2008, 09:23 AM

Who the hell is that?! She's scary... o_o;;

mr_pikachu

29th August 2008, 10:25 AM

Damn, Roy beat me to this one!

Sarah Palin, Governor of Alaska, is John McCain's running mate.

On the strategic side of things... dang, my dad knows his stuff. We discussed the possibilities for a running mate about a week ago, and he argued that McCain could gain a huge advantage by going for a woman, as he's already been taking quite a few of Hillary's supporters.

Now, whether Obama or McCain wins the election, it WILL be historic. Neither an African-American nor a woman has ever served as either the president or vice president. Ladies and gentlemen, we are watching an election for the ages.

Heald

29th August 2008, 10:48 AM

Yeah, this throws things really into full gear. First we had Obama snubbing Clinton, and now we have McCain snubbing several expected VP nominees in order to put a woman on the ballot.

As a PR move, it is fantastic, but then again, is she actually qualified? For those who criticise Obama for being under-experienced, this gal hasn't even served 2 years as Governor. She is also strongly pro-life, anti-gay and generally a Bible-basher. Pro-choice supporters ought to be scared of the McCain-Palin ticket.

As much as this could win over women voters for McCain, the question is, are women voters really stupid enough to fall for what is conceivably quite a cynical choice?

Roy Karrde

29th August 2008, 11:47 AM

As a PR move, it is fantastic, but then again, is she actually qualified? For those who criticise Obama for being under-experienced, this gal hasn't even served 2 years as Governor. She is also strongly pro-life, anti-gay and generally a Bible-basher. Pro-choice supporters ought to be scared of the McCain-Palin ticket.

She also has strongly conservative economic skills, I'm going to do some research on her and see what she has done. As for qualified, being VP is excellent for experience, which is something Obama should have done. And I would say being governor of the largest state of the Union is ALOT better than being Senator for the same amount of time.

As much as this could win over women voters for McCain, the question is, are women voters really stupid enough to fall for what is conceivably quite a cynical choice?

Well outside of having different reproductive organs she has shown to be a good Governor from what I heard. I seriously hope the McCain campiagn does something Obama hasn't done. That being talk about her pluses, and do not make this a race/sex thing.

mr_pikachu

29th August 2008, 11:51 AM

Well, they kind of made it a race/sex thing, with Palin basically congratulating the other women who have paved the way (including Clinton, hah!), and telling voters to help finally "break the glass ceiling." A little bit of a blunt move, but probably a smart move.

They placed some great emphasis on change, taking someone who has minimal experience but who, in her time, has challenged the mainstream repeatedly. It will be interesting to see if she can live up to her expectations. For now, not a bad start for the McCain/Palin ticket.

Roy Karrde

29th August 2008, 12:03 PM

Well I didnt get to listen to the speach ^_^;;

That being said Obama Camp has scrambled to come out against her and you can tell it was a horrible scramble.

"Governor Palin shares John McCain's commitment to overturning Roe v. Wade, the agenda of Big Oil and continuing George Bush's failed economic policies -- that's not the change we need, it's just more of the same,"

Sounds kind of like Blade last night ^^;; J/K Blade I love ya.

The energy thing is a lie, as Sarah has been a huge sponcer of Energy Indepedence in her state, while also promoting drilling and Energy Relief.

The economic policies is also a lie, as she went out being a stricked Economic Conservative. Making large economic cuts, shutting down pork, and fixing Alaska's general economy.

Both of these issues, the economy, and energy are Obama's weakness, and Palin's strength.

mr_pikachu

29th August 2008, 12:06 PM

The curious thing is that Palin's main weakness is inexperience... and criticizing that would be suicidal for the Obama campaign. The more I look at this, the more I think it's a brilliant move by McCain.

However, it will only stay brilliant if Palin can keep her composure on the national stage. She's got to be poised for the battle ahead, especially during her debates with Biden. Obama can't make a move on her, but if Biden can throttle her in the VP debates, things could actually be difficult. It's the first time in history that the running mate debate might be critical.

Roy Karrde

29th August 2008, 12:16 PM

However, it will only stay brilliant if Palin can keep her composure on the national stage. She's got to be poised for the battle ahead, especially during her debates with Biden. Obama can't make a move on her, but if Biden can throttle her in the VP debates, things could actually be difficult. It's the first time in history that the running mate debate might be critical.

Yeah but Biden has to walk that line carefully. He can't attack Sarah for being a part of Washington, if anything she is the farthest thing from Washington and Bush. He can't attack her on experience, and he can't be the Pit Bull Obama wants, or else lose the Woman vote by looking like a mean old man beating up on a young woman.

mr_pikachu

29th August 2008, 12:35 PM

I'm not sure; he might be able to attack on experience, but ONLY if the attack is successful. The reason I say he can do that is because in the VP debates, the main candidates are largely out of the limelight. For that brief moment, the running mates are no longer connected with their respective presidential candidates, especially since any attack will demand an immediate response that must come from the VP, not the campaign as a whole.

However, if Biden fails to really drive home the point and make Palin look horribly weak, the McCain camp can then use the misstep to absolutely thrash Obama: "His own running mate thinks experience is important!"

It's safer, as you said, to try to reveal some weakness in Palin on policy alone and not risk character assassination. However, it will probably be a lot harder to accomplish, as well. McCain's pulled a huge risk/reward move. Can the Obama camp afford to take a similar gamble?

Heald

29th August 2008, 12:36 PM

Saying she's the governor of the largest state in the US is no big deal really, considering it is ranked 47th in terms of population, and last in terms of population density. I mean, these are the same people that keep sending Ted Stevens back to the Senate, despite him being one of the most insane and out-of-touch politicians in the history of the Senate! Anyway, she is a relative unknown and there is hardly any background on her, so I guess it's a game of wait-and-see in terms on how she will promote herself.

Besides, I doubt they had even considered her up until even 6 months ago, so this is quite unexpected. She might become a deer caught in the headlights. The next few weeks will tell if this gamble is worth it.

Roy Karrde

29th August 2008, 12:43 PM

Well mind you on Policy, she comes up better than Obama and Biden. When Obama was in State Government he followed the corrupt Chicago system. When Palen came aboard she was a dark horse cannidate that ran against the Alaska Corruption. And has done major work in reform.

Also remember Palen's state is bordered by two countries that are not the United States. Canada and Russia. As Governor she has experience dealing with those countries, just as Bush had experience dealing with Mexico.

They also as you say can attack her on experience, but Obama only spent a year and a half in the Senate before running for President. Which is about the same amount of time as Palen. And while Obama basically kept his head down and didnt make waves. Palen pulled off drastic changes.

Also from what I have heard, Palen is a attack dog in her own right, remember Romney wasn't one nor was Palenty.

mr_pikachu

29th August 2008, 12:44 PM

I mean, these are the same people that keep sending Ted Stevens back to the Senate, despite him being one of the most insane and out-of-touch politicians in the history of the Senate!

Funny you should mention Stevens, because I just read a report on him and how he's linked to Palin... it's not what you'd think, amazingly. After he did a commercial on her behalf during her campaign - which Obama is trying to use against her - she called him out, asking him to explain himself publicly for some things that didn't look quite right. That snowballed into a big investigation, and now because she took a stand, he's on trial for corruption!

EDIT: Egh, having a little trouble finding the original article I read. However, her actions against others involved in corruption are also notable:

From McCain's veep choice is historic and hardly known (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080829/ap_on_el_pr/cvn_veepstakes_palin):

During her first year in office, Palin moved away from the powerful old guard of the state Republican Party and has refused to kowtow to the powerful oil industry, instead presiding over a tax increase on oil company profits that now has the state's treasury swelling.

Palin also asked Alaska's congressional delegation to be more selective in seeking earmarks after what came to be known as the "Bridge to Nowhere" turned into a national embarrassment and a symbol of piggish pork-barrel spending — thanks to McCain's relentless criticism of the now-abandoned project.

[...]

Palin's confrontations with the state GOP began when Murkowski named her chairwoman of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission. There, Palin exposed current Alaska Republican Party Chairman Randy Ruedrich, who was also on the commission, for ethical violations.

In 2005, Palin co-filed an ethics complaint against Murkowski's longtime aide and then attorney general, Gregg Renkes, for having a financial interest in a company that stood to gain from an international trade deal he was helping craft.

From McCain's veep choice is historic and hardly known (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080829/ap_on_el_pr/cvn_veepstakes):

Palin has a long history of run-ins with the Alaska GOP hierarchy, giving her genuine maverick status and reformer credentials that could complement McCain's image.

Two years ago, she ousted the state's Republican incumbent governor, Frank Murkowski in the primary, despite having little money and little establishment backing.

She has also distanced herself from two senior Republican office-holders, Sen. Ted Stevens and Rep. Don young. Both men are under federal corruption investigations.

She had earned stripes — and enmity — after Murkowski made her head of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission. From that post, she exposed ethical violations by the state GOP chairman, also a fellow commissioner.

Roy Karrde

29th August 2008, 12:51 PM

Funny you should mention Stevens, because I just read a report on him and how he's linked to Palin... it's not what you'd think, amazingly. After he did a commercial on her behalf during her campaign - which Obama is trying to use against her - she called him out, asking him to explain himself publicly for some things that didn't look quite right. That snowballed into a big investigation, and now because she took a stand, he's on trial for corruption!

Palin is one of the few Politicians which takes the approch of "The Buck Stops Here". When she was being investigated by Democrats for a firing, she came out and publically said. "Hold me accountable." and opened her entire office for investigation.

Also biggest boost from this? Obama just lost his Victory Speach news cycle.

mr_pikachu

29th August 2008, 12:56 PM

Also biggest boost from this? Obama just lost his Victory Speach news cycle.

Precisely. They talked about that a lot in the post-speech analysis, how they hadn't played so much as a clip of Obama all morning. Everyone knew this was how it was going to be timed, yet it's still surprising how big of an effect it has had.

(Please note the article citations edited into my previous post.)

Drusilla

29th August 2008, 01:04 PM

As Governor she has experience dealing with those countries, just as Bush had experience dealing with Mexico.
That's stretching it, if you're suggesting that she has experience with foreign policy.

And while Obama basically kept his head down and didnt make waves. Palen pulled off drastic changes.
You're comparing legislative power to executive power... that's a bit of a difference, at least in my book.

Roy Karrde

29th August 2008, 02:29 PM

That's stretching it, if you're suggesting that she has experience with foreign policy.

From a Fellow Texan you should know just as well as I do how much the Governor deals with Mexico. Its the same with any other border state. Now I am not saying she has had to deal with huge foreign policy issues on a national scale. But she does have to keep a open line of communications to both Canada and Russia. Something that no other Governor can really claim.

You're comparing legislative power to executive power... that's a bit of a difference, at least in my book.

Not really, especially how Obama ran on a change platform. You have to understand, Chicago is HORRIBLE in Politics, it is one of if not the most corrupt cities in the United States. Obama is no different, he practiced Chicago like Politics instead of trying to reform in any way. Hell he continued that after he left Chicago, endorcing Daley and other corrupt politicians over any that would shake things up and make real change.

Edit: The Liberal Commentators are already ripping into her.

John Roberts: She has a child with Down's Syndrome, and care for children like that can take a lot of time. Is there any concern about the balance of that?

Translation: How dare she run for a man's job, get back into the kitchen woman and take care of those children!

Yeah this is going to go down really well with women...

The Blue Avenger

29th August 2008, 02:47 PM

Roy Karrde

29th August 2008, 02:53 PM

I think you're taking that translation a bit too far. I'm an education major, and I can tell you that exceptional children do take a lot a lot a lot of effort to take care of. I mean, sure, she could balance things while governor, but VP is a bit bigger scale.

I'm not saying there's no truth to what you're saying - I'm sure there is an underlying message there - I just think you're a bit too quick on the draw there. :P

Well I wouldnt say VP is on too much of a bigger scale, their position is pretty much ribbon cutting ceramonies, breaking a tie, providing any type of personal support to the President, and taking over if the President dies. Hell she has more responsabilities as Governor of Alaska, than as Vice President.

Not to mention we have heard constantly how Women can be mothers and work in the work place at the same time. The Vice Presidency if not the Presidency should be a shining example of that.

Edit: BTW Fox says that her parents found out from watching TV, and that not even her staff knew. Amazing information control on this.

The Blue Avenger

29th August 2008, 03:14 PM

Being a mother of an exceptional child is much different than being a mother in general, especially if your child has Down syndrome and you have four other kids to boot. Don't downplay that.

mr_pikachu

29th August 2008, 03:18 PM

Well I wouldnt say VP is on too much of a bigger scale, their position is pretty much ribbon cutting ceramonies, breaking a tie, providing any type of personal support to the President, and taking over if the President dies. Hell she has more responsabilities as Governor of Alaska, than as Vice President.

Under almost any other circumstance I'd agree with you totally. Remember, though, that in this case we're dealing with the oldest presidential candidate in history. Not to say anything will happen, and let us all hope it doesn't. But from a realistic standpoint, voters will probably recognize that something could happen over four years. In some sense, they might have to evaluate Palin, if only on a peripheral level.

That being said, I don't think her situation as a mother hurts her at all, even if she does have a child with Down Syndrome. She's dealt with it pretty well as Governor, so my feeling is that it won't be an issue in the long run.

Roy Karrde

29th August 2008, 03:20 PM

Being a mother of an exceptional child is much different than being a mother in general, especially if your child has Down syndrome and you have four other kids to boot. Don't downplay that.

Oh I have no doubt it is different, but then again it is her choice, although it isn't the choice of millions of other moms in this country who have exceptional children and are forced to work a job. If anything Palin should be congragulated for not only raising children in one hand, but also raising a state out of corruption with the other.

And as I said, many mothers are not afforded the luxery of being able to stay home with their children becuase they have Down Syndrome, should we not also have elected officials that say "I know you are having to work hard to support you and your child, and I am going to work hard not only to help my child, but also to help yours as well."

Edit:
Under almost any other circumstance I'd agree with you totally. Remember, though, that in this case we're dealing with the oldest presidential candidate in history. Not to say anything will happen, and let us all hope it doesn't. But from a realistic standpoint, voters will probably recognize that something could happen over four years. In some sense, they might have to evaluate Palin, if only on a peripheral level.

Which it is entirely possible, but it wont happen automatically, and during that time she will be getting the experience that Vice Presidents are supposed to get.

But on the flip side of the coin, you have the first Black President in history, who likes to model himself off of JFK. Do you think that something couldn't happen to him? And to make matters worse, Biden is just a few years younger than McCain. Hopefully we wont, but we could possibly have two deaths in office under Obama.

The Blue Avenger

29th August 2008, 03:21 PM

Believe me, I know it's her choice, and I realize I can't say either way if it will affect her possible stint as VP. I just think it's not a bad question to ask.

Roy Karrde

29th August 2008, 03:36 PM

Believe me, I know it's her choice, and I realize I can't say either way if it will affect her possible stint as VP. I just think it's not a bad question to ask.

Oh I hope they ask it, I hope that we have Liberals all over MSNBC screaming it. Becuase at that point McCain not only picks up Single Mothers, but Working Class Women.

Please, scream out the question, the Republicans will win in a land slide.

Katie

29th August 2008, 05:33 PM

Roy Karrde

29th August 2008, 05:47 PM

So if McCain eats it we'll have this broad as our president? A beauty queen whose only real talent appears to be popping out kids (and kind of failing on one count) and has managed to keep Alaska, of all states, out of trouble for less than 2 years?

....

So, any Canadians out there, please tell me about your immigration procedures. :)

She did a amazing job in fighting corruption in Alaska, and turning what was a failing state around.

Being Vice President gives some one like her, on the job experience to be President.

And really, look at Obama. His only real talent was keeping his head down and following corrupt people, and managing to get elected to the Senate, and keeping out of trouble for less than 2 years.

Atleast McCain is putting Palin in a position to gain experience. The Democrat Party wants us to put some one with no executive experience, and just as little national experience, in the Oval Office on day one.

Blademaster

29th August 2008, 08:50 PM

The Democrat Party wants us to put some one with no executive experience, and just as little national experience, in the Oval Office on day one.

Well, shit, if the Republican party can get away with it, why can't we?!

Roy Karrde

29th August 2008, 09:07 PM

Well, shit, if the Republican party can get away with it, why can't we?!

And who has the Republican party elected in the last 50 years with no Executive Experience and very little National Experience? Just curious.

mr_pikachu

30th August 2008, 01:45 PM

How a college sophomore won Sarah Palin the veep shot. (http://www.slate.com/id/2198949/?y=1)

I'm not sure if I completely trust the degree to which the article kind of claims Brickley had; I'd want to do some close analysis myself, really, to judge how much spawned from his website and how much was because others heard about Palin's actions independently. On the other hand, it's a cool story that gives hope to the millions of Americans who believe they have no opportunity to significantly affect the political process.

Blademaster

30th August 2008, 01:57 PM

And who has the Republican party elected in the last 50 years with no Executive Experience and very little National Experience? Just curious.

Bush.

Bush.

And...

Bush again.

Roy Karrde

30th August 2008, 02:08 PM

Bush.

Bush.

And...

Bush again.

Bush was a two term Governor of Texas, that gives him Executive Experience nearly double the amount of time that Obama was a relatively low key US Senator. So I ask again, who has the Republicans ever elected that has no Executive Experience and very little National Experience

Heald

30th August 2008, 02:13 PM

Bush was a two term Governor of Texas, that gives him Executive Experience nearly double the amount of time that Obama was a relatively low key US Senator. So I ask again, who has the Republicans ever elected that has no Executive Experience and very little National Experience
Two-term is stretching it a bit, considering he was only in office for less than 6 years, and quit at the beginning of his second term to run his campaign. Plus all he did way make Jesus Day and cut taxes for all his buddies in oil and big business (so, pretty much the same as when he became President, then).

So, he had no national experience prior to the job and only a few years Executive experience.

This is all pointless though. We can all agree Bush was/is a failure and trying to justify a candidate by comparing him to Bush really does no one any favours. Back to the actual election campaign in progress. It would seem that Palin hasn't made much of an impact on the polls, what with Obama now commanding at 4-point lead, according to Rasmussen.

Roy Karrde

30th August 2008, 02:16 PM

Two-term is stretching it a bit, considering he was only in office for less than 6 years, and quit at the beginning of his second term to run his campaign. Plus all he did way make Jesus Day and cut taxes for all his buddies in oil and big business (so, pretty much the same as when he became President, then).

So, he had no national experience prior to the job and only a few years Executive experience.

If you are going to put it that way then Obama has had 0 years of National Experience as he would have had to cut his Senate time to prepare and then carry out his run. As for the Jesus day we have been over that again. For Cutting Taxes in Oil and Big Buisness. The Oil Boom was finishing, towns were drying up and Texas was losing Buisness, those tax cuts helped keep alot of jobs both in Dallas and in Houston.

Also National Experience does get trumped by Executive Experience in many ways.

This is all pointless though. We can all agree Bush was/is a failure

In your opinion.

Back to the actual election campaign in progress. It would seem that Palin hasn't made much of an impact on the polls, what with Obama now commanding at 4-point lead, according to Rasmussen.

Actually Palin had a huge impact in the polls. Obama had a 4-point lead going into his Final Convention Speach. Now either Obama's Convention Speach was so much of a dud, so utterly horrible, that it didn't give Obama a boost in the polls. Or Palin's nomination was strong enough to negate any bump Obama could have recieved from his speach.

Heald

30th August 2008, 02:30 PM

In your opinion.The man has absolutely abysmal approval ratings. The public has spoken! Besides, I'm not the only one who perpetuates opinion as fact. :P

Actually Palin had a huge impact in the polls. Obama had a 4-point lead going into his Final Convention Speach. Now either Obama's Convention Speach was so much of a dud, so utterly horrible, that it didn't give Obama a boost in the polls. Or Palin's nomination was strong enough to negate any bump Obama could have recieved from his speach.
Well, here come the facts (source Rasmussen).

27th - Evens
28th - Obama +1
-- Obama gives speech --
29th - Obama +3
-- Palin announced as Republican VP candidate --
30th - Obama +4

Roy Karrde

30th August 2008, 02:33 PM

The man has absolutely abysmal approval ratings. The public has spoken! Besides, I'm not the only one who perpetuates opinion as fact. :P

Approval Ratings mean absolutely nothing, Bush had a 90% Approval Rating after 9/11 meaning he also was one of our greatest Presidents of all time if we use your logic.

Well, here come the facts (source Rasmussen).

27th - Evens
28th - Obama +1
-- Obama gives speech --
29th - Obama +3
-- Palin announced as Republican VP candidate --
30th - Obama +4

The 29th Poll was based off of Clinton's Speach. Since Obama's speach was so late in the night the poll concerning that was taken on the day of the 29th and factored into the poll on the 30th. Remember Obama's speach ended past 11 PM EST, meaning that they would not be able to man the phone banks till the next day as most of the country was heading to bed.

Edit: Also remember that Polls are usually taken with Leaners factored in, with Leaners factored in, it goes this:

27th - McCain +1
28th - Tied
Clinton's speach
29th - Obama +4
Obama/Palin
30th - Obama +4

No Bounce with leaners factored in.

mr_pikachu

30th August 2008, 02:42 PM

The man has absolutely abysmal approval ratings. The public has spoken! Besides, I'm not the only one who perpetuates opinion as fact. :P

I'd just like to point out a little something, courtesy of PollingReport.com.

President Bush Job Rating (http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob.htm): 30% approve
Congress Job Rating (http://www.pollingreport.com/CongJob.htm): 16% approve

Statistics are fun!

Heald

30th August 2008, 06:20 PM

Approval Ratings mean absolutely nothing, Bush had a 90% Approval Rating after 9/11 meaning he also was one of our greatest Presidents of all time if we use your logic.
As much as you'd like to put words in my mouth to the effect of me possibly endorsing Bush, there is a slight difference. Mainly, the 90% was a blip that occurred purely because in the wake of 9/11, anyone who wasn't a flag-waving sheep who loved the president was accused of being a communist or a terrorist, hence the disproportionate approval rating. Hell, if a goat was President, the approval rating would've been the same. It was effectively modern-day McCarthyism.

On the other hand, Bush's approval ratings since everyone woke up from the trance of screaming '9/11! Never forget!' ad nauseum have been consistently low. But, as you said, it doesn't matter. There are plenty of other reasons to ascertain how he is a shitty President.

Anyway, this thread isn't about the old, it's about what's to come.

It's interesting to note that while McCain's team can attempt to time their stunts in order to offset any Obama hype, Obama still does consistently better in the polls. Hopefully their convention ought to reveal whether McCain can secure a consistent lead in the polls, otherwise the election is going to be incredibly close. Again.

Roy Karrde

30th August 2008, 08:54 PM

As much as you'd like to put words in my mouth to the effect of me possibly endorsing Bush, there is a slight difference. Mainly, the 90% was a blip that occurred purely because in the wake of 9/11, anyone who wasn't a flag-waving sheep who loved the president was accused of being a communist or a terrorist, hence the disproportionate approval rating. Hell, if a goat was President, the approval rating would've been the same. It was effectively modern-day McCarthyism.

If I remember correctly that high approval rating stayed with him for quite some time.

On the other hand, Bush's approval ratings since everyone woke up from the trance of screaming '9/11! Never forget!' ad nauseum have been consistently low. But, as you said, it doesn't matter. There are plenty of other reasons to ascertain how he is a shitty President.

Again, in your opinion. There are also plenty of reason as to why he had a very good Presidency.

It's interesting to note that while McCain's team can attempt to time their stunts in order to offset any Obama hype, Obama still does consistently better in the polls. Hopefully their convention ought to reveal whether McCain can secure a consistent lead in the polls, otherwise the election is going to be incredibly close. Again.

Of course Obama does better in the polls right now he just had a 4 night Infomercial, infact he is doing worse in the polls than was to be expected. He got a 8 point bounce a best while many people were predicting a 10 to 12 point bounce. And of course there is the convention coming up where McCain and the Republicans will be able to dispell the utter fantasy that Bush and McCain are the same. Which really isnt that freaking hard.

The Blue Avenger

30th August 2008, 09:21 PM

There are also plenty of reason as to why he had a very good Presidency.

I dunno, Roy, you do a pretty good job of proving the converse (http://www.pokemasters.net/forums/showpost.php?p=355766&postcount=138) on that one.

Roy Karrde

30th August 2008, 09:24 PM

I dunno, Roy, you do a pretty good job of proving the converse (http://www.pokemasters.net/forums/showpost.php?p=355766&postcount=138) on that one.

I never said all of his Presidency was good, you will find problems with each one, including even Washington's. I think Bush waited too long on Iraq, his religion, and on immigration. That being said I think he has been right on the IOC, the Kyoto Treaty, and helping turn around this economy and keep it going after the .Com Bubble and 9/11. He also did something Clinton had not done and took a incredibly strong armed approach to terrorism, which has benifited not just the United States but the entire world.

Blademaster

30th August 2008, 10:02 PM

I never said all of his Presidency was good, you will find problems with each one, including even Washington's.

Sorry, Roy-boy, but considering the way you debate, I am required by law to make the following post:

Are you honestly comparing BUSH to WASHINGTON? A Bible-thumping screw-up who never fairly won a political office higher than governor, has cost the lives of thousands of U.S. soldiers and innocent Iraqi citizens in a war the country should have never started, and has dragged the country into a depression that makes the money drought in the '30's look like The Great Happy Tree Friends Decade...

This... is being compared to the FATHER of the COUNTRY? The guy who fearlessly fought tooth and nail against the British armies HIMSELF to gain us the freedom to live the way we do? The guy who helped sign the Declaration of Independence and ratify the Constitution? The guy who chopped down the cherry tree!? THINK of the fucking CHERRY TREE, Roy! THAT CHERRY TREE DIED FOR YOUR FREEDOM!!! :911:

...OK, I'm done now.

Roy Karrde

30th August 2008, 11:11 PM

No, I was saying that each Presidency has some problems, and runs into some problems with public opinion. No President can satisfy everyone. And Blade, really some of your replies do in no way represent my posts and are just making a mockery of yourself so I would ask even beg if you could actually post something of substance in here, or just avoid it.

I just did me some digging, and I found something incredibly interesting. This is Joe Biden talking about a possible Kerry/McCain ticket in 2004.

"I think that this is time for unity in this country, and maybe it is time to have a guy like John McCain — a Republican — on the ticket with a guy he does like. They do get along. And they don't have fundamental disagreements on major policies."

McBush my ass.

mr_pikachu

31st August 2008, 08:29 PM

McCain orders convention curtailed for Gustav (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080831/ap_on_el_pr/cvn_convention_rdp)

Well, this throws a huge twist into the political landscape. As much as I'd rather not talk about this in strategic terms, it is a relevant point. So, who does this help, McCain or Obama? Will McCain get some long-term benefits from his apparent "America first, politics second" approach, or will the downplaying of his party's convention be too serious a blow?

The Blue Avenger

31st August 2008, 10:23 PM

I dunno, I thought it was a great move. I mean, who's going to argue against that? If McCain had held the conference as planned, it could have been completely overshadowed by Gustav; worse still, it could have also cast him in a bad light - one article I read termed it as partying while people are in peril. In addition to being nice alliteration, I feel it's true.

Roy Karrde

31st August 2008, 10:30 PM

I would rather think instead of the political ramifications just the overall help this could provide to the Gulf Coast with them turning a significant part of their convention toward a fund raiser dedicated to relief effort.

Politically this does help in that it keeps George Bush from appearing at the convention, giving Democrats less to target about. And it keeps from having a very red meat convention like the Democrats had. Which is more appropriate for McCain since he tends to shy away from the Republican Red Meat.

firepokemon

1st September 2008, 05:22 AM

Republican Red Meat? Lovely phrasing there Roy, lol. He had to do it, doesn't benefit hm politically, but it doesn't lose anything for him either. There is still a long time to go in this election. Bush needs to get away, he will not gander votes for McCain not even with the conservatives. Since Bush was never a conservative and the conservatives have no option they either give McCain his votes or don't. I actually ask how important conservatives are to McCain's overall success. It may buy him some south states, but surely those would go to McCain anyway? McCain will not lose this election because of conservatives he's gonna lose due to swing voters (not that he can't win).

Conservatives to me just are not as important, sure they help of course. But this is real battle for the middle and the middle are not in the conservative court anymore.

mr_pikachu

1st September 2008, 01:09 PM

Conservatives to me just are not as important, sure they help of course. But this is real battle for the middle and the middle are not in the conservative court anymore.

See, this is why I think McCain has the advantage from a political standpoint. In most elections it's a fight for the middle, so whoever appeals most to the moderates wins. McCain, though, is already a moderate in many senses. Over the years, many of his policies have leaned left more than right. His biggest problem has been winning the primary, since he's not what some would call a "true Republican." At that stage, he was an outlier. Now, though, his position appeals to a lot of middle-of-the-road voters, and he's unlikely to lose votes on the right. It's a good stance for him to have at this level.

EDIT: Palin says 17-year-old daughter is pregnant (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080901/ap_on_el_pr/cvn_palin_daughter)

...Okay, so this might lend support to the whole "Palin is too busy as a mother" argument.

Roy Karrde

1st September 2008, 02:56 PM

EDIT: Palin says 17-year-old daughter is pregnant (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080901/ap_on_el_pr/cvn_palin_daughter)

...Okay, so this might lend support to the whole "Palin is too busy as a mother" argument.

Actually I could see it having four very big pros and very little cons

Pro: It gives play again to Obama's "I wouldn't want my daughter burdaned with a baby". Which I am sure he wished was put behind him.

Pro: It gives her even more support from the Christian Right, and right now their movement is so energised right now that it is really helping John McCain. To the point they pulled in over 10 mil just over this one weekend.

Pro: It helps her connect with Single Mothers, which is a major base for the Democrats.

Pro: It puts the whole "Palin is too busy as a mother" argument back into the spot light. Now some may think this would be a con but I think it is actually a pro. The more you have angry men saying how a Woman's Place is at home when she has a child, the more you piss off the femnists.

Which is really why so many think the Palin choice is so smart. Many Democrats are so angry with Republicans they will rip into any Republican like a wild dog. Attacking Palin only gains her sympathy, and hurts the Democrats when it comes to women.

mr_pikachu

1st September 2008, 04:09 PM

Well, perhaps. I'm a little doubtful that it'll be quite so easy, but certain factors do make attacking Palin difficult. We'll see how it goes.

Roy Karrde

1st September 2008, 04:38 PM

Well, perhaps. I'm a little doubtful that it'll be quite so easy, but certain factors do make attacking Palin difficult. We'll see how it goes.

Here is a interesting article from Newsweek today.

Pushed by NEWSWEEK’s reporters and editors to say whether having a pregnant teenage daughter and five-month-old baby with Down syndrome at home will raise questions about Palin’s “priorities,” Thompson responded by questioning the questioners. “Would you be saying that about man running for office in her shoes?” he asked.

“I really think you’re going to be surprised at how average people and women who are not necessarily political one way or another identify with her. I see nothing in this that will hurt Sarah Palin politically. I mean, I get that it’s a necessary part of the process to ask those questions. But we have to keep it fair. If we don’t keep it fair, it will redound to her benefit.” Judging by the reaction in the room

“I look around this table all these angry men, and I can’t believe they’re even asking this question,” quipped one female NEWSWEEKer–I have a feeling he’s right. Saying a woman can’t pursue her professional goals AND care for her children at the same time is never a political winner–whether it’s conservatives or liberals wagging their fingers.

Drusilla

1st September 2008, 04:41 PM

Also National Experience does get trumped by Executive Experience in many ways.

I fail to see where experience in this fucking corrupt government is a boon. I really do. Let's get someone fresh, who CARES ABOUT THE DAMN PEOPLE.

So, any Canadians out there, please tell me about your immigration procedures. :)

Wanna carpool?

Roy Karrde

1st September 2008, 04:53 PM

I fail to see where experience in this fucking corrupt government is a boon. I really do. Let's get someone fresh, who CARES ABOUT THE DAMN PEOPLE.

Then that would be Palin wouldnt it? Obama went into one of the most corrupt Government in the United States, the Illinois State Government, and brought about no change, infact he backed corruption. He went into the US Senate, and again he brought about no change to corruption.

Palin went into the Alaska State Government and brought about major changes in corruption, taking down Republican leaders and Democrat leaders alike. She hasn't been touched by the inside the beltway corruption, and is about as fresh as you can get.

I mean seriously, Obama talks about change, and changing Government to something better, but he has not matched his retoric. While Palin actually has brought about the change that Obama talks about. Shouldn't that be a good thing?

And really, both Obama, McCain, Biden, and Palin care about the damn people.

Drusilla

1st September 2008, 05:08 PM

Then that would be Palin wouldnt it?

Palin is one scary bitch. I can't look at her without wanting to run away screaming.

In any case, comparing results between one in executive power and one in legislative power is a little unfair, isn't it? Kind of like a race between a cripple and an athlete... Legislature is a slow moving process because of how many people it involves.

As for the unscrupulous dealings, I don't believe a damn word of it.

He went into the Senate and stood against the invasion of Iraq, because we had no business being there in the first place. Yeah, Hussein needed to be taken down, but it wasn't our job to go in and do it. Just about everything that he stood for or against in the Senate, I agree with.

On the other hand, Palin is anti-choice, supported Buchanan (another scary-ass extremist), anti-creationism, doesn't believe in the human factor of climate change, sued the Bush administration for listing polar bears as being endangered (WHAT THE FUCK, WOMAN?!), never left the country before she went to see her son in Kuwait, and made the city she was once mayor of cut funding for public services (including the library) to pay for a $15 million ice arena.

Oh, yeah, sounds like someone I want to be MY president. You can't deny it, there's a very good chance she could end up in the Oval Office...

mr_pikachu

1st September 2008, 05:17 PM

I fail to see where experience in this fucking corrupt government is a boon. I really do. Let's get someone fresh, who CARES ABOUT THE DAMN PEOPLE.

With all due respect, you're not going to get that from either side of this election. If you're looking to Obama for change, you're going to be very disappointed.

As for comparing Obama's too-short-to-make-an-impact legislative experience and Palin's short executive experience, feel free to throw that out the window. The problem is that doing so doesn't give Obama a leg to stand on. If you're arguing that he hasn't been able to do anything while in office, even if it's because of where he served, then his message of being a lifelong agent of change really has no meaning.

Roy Karrde

1st September 2008, 05:30 PM

In any case, comparing results between one in executive power and one in legislative power is a little unfair, isn't it? Kind of like a race between a cripple and an athlete... Legislature is a slow moving process because of how many people it involves.

Not really seeing how Obama did have some clout to effect reform. Not to mention his support of some of the most corrupt politicians in Illinois. One ringing endorcement of support helped seal the election of the son of one of the most corrupt leaders of Chicago. Causing more corruption and eventually leading to the Federal Investigation.

As for the unscrupulous dealings, I don't believe a damn word of it.

You may not believe a word of it, but his support of some of the corrupt politicians in Chicago are a matter of record.

He went into the Senate and stood against the invasion of Iraq,

With aboslutely no political consequences. He was elected in one of the most liberal districts in Illinois, and he was not prevy to any of the top secret briefings that were given to the US Senate. His opposition to the war in 2002 was not going to give him any backlash, and infact would have helped him with his base, while at the same time he was making a judgement with out the information that those higher in power were given.

Just about everything that he stood for or against in the Senate, I agree with.

So you agree with his opposition to the Surge? Not that I want to turn this into a Iraq debate. But Obama's horrible judgement on the Surge would have turned Iraq into a Civil War hell hole.

On the other hand, Palin is anti-choice,

Her choice, and to her credit she has lived by it.

supported Buchanan (another scary-ass extremist),

Already being questioned. Buchanan can claim that Palin was a fundraiser for her, but Open Secrets refutes this saying that Palin never contributed to Buchanan. Not to mention there are old press reports saying that Palin supported Steve Forbes not Buchanan in 1999.

anti-creationism,

"She added that, if elected, she would not push the state Board of Education to add such creation-based alternatives to the state’s required curriculum."

doesn't believe in the human factor of climate change,

Nor do many many scientists.

sued the Bush administration for listing polar bears as being endangered (WHAT THE FUCK, WOMAN?!),

Who's population has increased in the last 30 years, and as Sarah Palin herself has put it "The possible listing of a healthy species like the polar bear would be based on uncertain modeling of possible effects. This is simply not justified."

Alaska already has protections in place on Polar Bears, including Hunting Bans on them. That coupled with the fact that the Polar Bear population HAS been increasing, there is really only one reason to even put them on the Endangered Species List, and that is to promote the issue of Human Caused Global Warming.

I'm sorry but playing politics should never factor into the decision as to what to put on the Endangered Species List.

never left the country before she went to see her son in Kuwait,

So in a state that borders both Russia and Canada you believe she never left the country? Funny that I find that so hard to believe. And it should also be noted that she went on to visit soldiers at Landstuhl Regional Medical Center in Germany. Something that Obama did not want to do becuase Video Cameras could not be brought along.

and made the city she was once mayor of cut funding for public services (including the library) to pay for a $15 million ice arena.

Link?

Oh, yeah, sounds like someone I want to be MY president. You can't deny it, there's a very good chance she could end up in the Oval Office...

There is, just like there is a good chance for Biden to be in the Oval Office. A man who wanted to divide Iraq up into three countries. Which I mind you was so hated by the Iraqi people many leaders claim that it helped bring them together. He also suggested that we give Iran a nearly billion dollar blank check to make them like us.

And of course do you want to go into Obama's history? Lets just say it makes Palin look like a saint.

mistysakura

1st September 2008, 06:27 PM

Palin scares the hell out of me, but I was never on her party's side. She might actually appeal to Republicans for precisely the reasons which scare me (gun control, pro-creationism etc.) I do like her actions against corruption. On the other hand, there goes McCain's lack-of-experience argument. Ouch. Also, if Palin was supposed to lure in the Democrats who are lost after Hillary lost her nomination, I don't think that ploy will succeed. If anything, I think it might backfire because Hillary's supporters, while wanting a woman to get into the White House, are the most likely to oppose Palin's stances. Because there's a correlation between feminism and pro-choice, for example. The Republicans could have done well with a more moderate woman.

And it's a great move for McCain to downplay the convention for Gustav. Makes him look good, and the convention is largely symbolic anyway.

mr_pikachu

1st September 2008, 07:18 PM

Ada: I agree with you on the convention move, at least for now. At the moment, the biggest RNC news story I've found is one about how a bunch of protesters attacked delegates and bystanders (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080901/ap_on_el_pr/cvn_convention_protests) - one 80-year-old man had to be treated for injuries - which does nothing but evoke sympathy for those attacked and outrage at the protesters. (This, it should be noted, made the peaceful march that spawned the violence totally backfire.)

Regarding the Palin move, I do see your point. However, it's hard to say whether or not voters will look into the issues that seriously, even in such a historic election. I'd cite some more examples of voter stupidity, but I think we've had enough of that for awhile.

In any case, I'd definitely argue that the McCain-Palin ticket is still more moderate than Obama-Biden. That may make all the difference come November.

Roy Karrde

1st September 2008, 07:23 PM

Speaking of Biden...

This morning, Joe Biden said today was not a day for national politics. He said it again during a roundtable discussion outside his childhood home here this afternoon. But before long, he couldn’t help himself, criticizing McCain for his views on offshore drilling and questioning his foreign policy judgment.

“The only guy in America in a position of some authority who is out of sync with the whole rest of the world is John McCain,” he told a small group of relatives and old family friends. “This Administration, the Iraqis, NATO, the Europeans, our friends around the world, the vast majority of the American people, the Democratic-controlled Congress, Republicans in Congress — they all agree. Barack Obama was right, and John McCain was wrong.”

Thank ya Joe, not only are you a Hypocrite, but you just showed the Obama/Biden ticket is more worried about attacking McCain than to show a day of respect

mr_pikachu

1st September 2008, 07:31 PM

“The only guy in America in a position of some authority who is out of sync with the whole rest of the world is John McCain,” he told a small group of relatives and old family friends. “This Administration, the Iraqis, NATO, the Europeans, our friends around the world, the vast majority of the American people, the Democratic-controlled Congress, Republicans in Congress — they all agree. Barack Obama was right, and John McCain was wrong.”

Normally I'd take hold of that point and argue that a guy can say whatever he wants to say to his close confidants. The problem is, apparently he wasn't just talking to them; otherwise it would have been private and the media never would have heard about it. Misrepresenting an audience is one of the most obvious signs of heavy media bias.

*sighs* Traditional politics. Joy.

Katie

1st September 2008, 08:07 PM

Pro: It gives her even more support from the Christian Right

Maybe I need to brush up on my ten commandments, but I'm pretty sure the Christian Right isn't high fiving her because her unwed high school daughter is pregnant. Maybe a little on the not-aborting issue, but most fundies I've talked to generally blame teen pregnancies on the parents. (Which I would too, in this case. "Don't have sex" "k mom")

Pro: It helps her connect with Single Mothers, which is a major base for the Democrats.

Her daughter is marrying the father. Shotgun wedding if I've ever seen one, but she's not single.

Pro: It puts the whole "Palin is too busy as a mother" argument back into the spot light. Now some may think this would be a con but I think it is actually a pro. The more you have angry men saying how a Woman's Place is at home when she has a child, the more you piss off the femnists.

I've never met a feminist who votes republican. Not saying they don't exist, I've just never met one.

And, from earlier:

She did a amazing job in fighting corruption in Alaska
Except about that part where she's under investigation herself. That whole post of yours worries me though. If she was running against Obama (ignoring VPs), would you vote for her?

Roy Karrde

1st September 2008, 08:11 PM

Maybe I need to brush up on my ten commandments, but I'm pretty sure the Christian Right isn't high fiving her because her unwed high school daughter is pregnant. Maybe a little on the not-aborting issue, but most fundies I've talked to generally blame teen pregnancies on the parents. (Which I would too, in this case. "Don't have sex" "k mom")

Its more that she didnt abort the Pregnauncy, and is getting married to give the baby a two parent home.

Her daughter is marrying the father. Shotgun wedding if I've ever seen one, but she's not single.

That is true, but there are many more women around her age or just older that have gotten pregnaunt around that time and can identify with her.

I've never met a feminist who votes republican. Not saying they don't exist, I've just never met one.

You probably will soon.

Except about that part where she's under investigation herself. That whole post of yours worries me though.

The investigation thing has already been pretty much explained. The man who she fired was serving at her pleasure, meaning he could be fired at any time. And was doing a very poor job at the time.

If she was running against Obama (ignoring VPs), would you vote for her?

If it was her versus Obama. I would take her becuase of her Executive Experience trumps Obama's Legislative Experience. There are also a few other reasons as well. Mainly Obama's foreign policy gaffs.

mr_pikachu

1st September 2008, 08:11 PM

I've never met a feminist who votes republican. Not saying they don't exist, I've just never met one.

Agreed. On the other hand, I wouldn't necessarily call McCain a Republican; as I've argued elsewhere (including earlier in this thread), he's much more of a moderate.

Would this help a Republican win feminist votes? Probably not. Will this help McCain win feminist votes? We'll see.

EDIT:
If it was her versus Obama. I would take her becuase of her Executive Experience trumps Obama's Legislative Experience. There are also a few other reasons as well. Mainly Obama's foreign policy gaffs.

Just so we can avoid pointless squabbling, would you mind explaining a few of the gaffes in question? That way we can at least debate each incident rather than overgeneralizing with "Obama's great with foreign policy," "No he's not," "Yes he is," and so forth.

Roy Karrde

1st September 2008, 08:20 PM

Just so we can avoid pointless squabbling, would you mind explaining a few of the gaffes in question? That way we can at least debate each incident rather than overgeneralizing with "Obama's great with foreign policy," "No he's not," "Yes he is," and so forth.

His ignorance in believing that we should talk to terrorist leaders with out any pre conditions, something he has since recanted, but then again that flip flop, is something that tends to worry me.

And then of course there is his opposition to the Surge and continued opposition to the Surge even till today.

There are more to list but I am too lazy to look them up XP.

Also for more Joe Biden fun!

"I will be back, I'll be back to campaign in earnest," Biden said, "but today is not the moment for me to campaign. Today is the moment for me as a United States senator running for president to put aside the national politics and focus on what's happening down there" in the Gulf Coast.

Of course this was before he decided to delve into National Politics later that day.

Edit for today: And the biggest LOL today goes to Obama and his utter stupidity.

He is now claiming that since they have ran a Presidential Campiagn for over a year that means he has just as much if not more executive experience for Obama.

The funny thing is, that when you are the cannidate in a Presidential Campiagn, you are NOT the executive of the campiagn. You are not running it, you do not have control over it. You don't even really make the day to day decisions. You have campiagn managers that do all of that. So apparently sitting on his ass is now executive experience.

My god this man is a idiot.

mr_pikachu

2nd September 2008, 11:22 PM

More news, courtesy of the Pika:

Lieberman calls Obama young, untested (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/cvn_lieberman)

An attack from the guy who, along with Gore, fought to a photo finish with Bush and Cheney in 2000... what does this mean for Barack Obama?

mistysakura

3rd September 2008, 12:40 AM

Edit for today: And the biggest LOL today goes to Obama and his utter stupidity.

He is now claiming that since they have ran a Presidential Campiagn for over a year that means he has just as much if not more executive experience for Obama.

I agree that Obama isn't running his own campaign, but I'm confused by the above sentence -- Obama has more experience than Obama? Wha? Either way, since McCain has also had a campaign, whether or not being a candidate in a campaign constitutes experience is irrelevant since it would affect both candidates equally. Unless he's comparing himself to Palin.

Roy Karrde

3rd September 2008, 12:44 AM

I agree that Obama isn't running his own campaign, but I'm confused by the above sentence -- Obama has more experience than Obama? Wha?

See this is what happens when I type posts while exhausted. I meant he said he had more experience than Palin.

An attack from the guy who, along with Gore, fought to a photo finish with Bush and Cheney in 2000... what does this mean for Barack Obama?

Its going to be interesting to see the polls in the next few days. I do admire the courage of Liberman, if the Democrats get a Super Majority in 2009, his political career is over, they will make him pay horribly. ( Although they pretty much already tried that in 2006 ). The man put what he thought would be the good of his country, over his political career.

Alright guys we are about 9 hours from the Sarah speach. It can go two ways, if she comes up as the PTA/Soccer Mom Sarah as we saw on Friday, then there are probably going to be some problems, and fear going into the debates.

But, if we see Governor Sarah, the Sarah who has left opponents littered across the cold Alaska Landscape, the Sarah who's had to watch as her children have been attacked by the media. Then it will be a sight to see, and I do mean a sight to see.

Blademaster

3rd September 2008, 04:31 PM

A little something I just recently discovered...

Obama gives what I believe to be the greatest speech in the history of politics. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65I0HNvTDH4)

That DOES it. This man's got my vote. :lemoncool:

mr_pikachu

3rd September 2008, 04:46 PM

Reminds me of one of those weird online presidential games... you know the type.

Oh, and from the Onion...

So You Think You Can Dance?
FOX
8 p.m. EDT/7 p.m. CDT
Tension is diffused somewhat as each contestant responds to the titular question with "Eh, kinda."

...Aaaanyway.

Palin prepares to fire back with convention speech (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080903/ap_on_el_pr/cvn_palin)

This article is notable for some of the text after that big header, which talks about what I believe to be a mistake by McCain. He's been trying to shut down the criticism of Palin basically by calling it a "vetting controversy" and such, which is basically the same thing that Obama did earlier to try to defend his wife.

I think it's a poor strategy by McCain for two reasons. First, if it's successful, it may take attacks on Obama's cronies off the table. Second, it makes Palin look weak; if he was intent on having her as his running mate he had to plan for her to take a lot of attacks but be resilient through it all. That was the only way he'd benefit from giving her the nod, and I think he's quickly straying from that. It doesn't give her a chance to demonstrate strength.

Roy Karrde

3rd September 2008, 04:59 PM

Well I think we will see tonight Palin's strength so do not worry about that. But I think McCain nor Palin could have seen the amount of fear and hypocracy would have come from the media. This was a onslaught no one could have expected, and many people believe it is becuase the media is scared of her. They are throwing everything at her in hopes that McCain will drop her. If he doesn't drop her he has a very good chance of winning against Obama. The media knows this, and they are so far in the tank for Obama that it is pathetic.

I mean seriously, we hear all about Palin's 17 year old daughter having a pregnancy, and we hear about all these media types wispering about wanting a DNA test on the new baby, or even that Palin went outside her marriage.

All of these, and I mean absolutely all of these are disgusting questions asked by mainstream journalists. But contrast it with the fawning coverage Biden got. When he was appointed as Vice President, did we hear a single story about Biden's Lobbiest son who uses his ties to his father to get certain pork projects through the Senate?

I mean the media is going after Palin's 17 year old Daughter ruthlessly for a private decision that has nothing to do with her mother's job. But we do not hear one question about Biden's own son, who's job would actually effect his father's job.

It's utter Hypocracy. But then again if Palin can weather the next week or so it will begin to ease, unless something major comes out again. And if anything else good has come from this shitty coverage, it is a display as to how deep MSNBC, CNN, New York Times, and other news outlets are in for Obama.

By the way it is time for our Daily Joe Biden quotes:

Today we have Joe Biden on the Supreme Court, proving that he is less qualified than Sarah Palin.

"We have enough professors on the bench. I want someone who ran for dog catcher. I want someone — literally, not a joke."

The Blue Avenger

3rd September 2008, 07:08 PM

I mean seriously, we hear all about Palin's 17 year old daughter having a pregnancy, and we hear about all these media types wispering about wanting a DNA test on the new baby, or even that Palin went outside her marriage.

All of these, and I mean absolutely all of these are disgusting questions asked by mainstream journalists. But contrast it with the fawning coverage Biden got. When he was appointed as Vice President, did we hear a single story about Biden's Lobbiest son who uses his ties to his father to get certain pork projects through the Senate?

It's because they're the media and that's the sort of thing that interests the public in general - it's got nothing to do with either party. When Edwards admitted he had an affair, god, we never heard the end of that one.

Roy Karrde

3rd September 2008, 07:23 PM

It's because they're the media and that's the sort of thing that interests the public in general - it's got nothing to do with either party. When Edwards admitted he had an affair, god, we never heard the end of that one.

Actually I think it has everything to do with the party. Not just becuase most of the people at those places are Fire Breathing Liberals. But that they tend to bury things as much as they can until they have to acknowledge it.

The Edwards affair was known since early 2007, but the National Enquierer was the only one that went after it. All of the info was there, but it took a tabloid to go after it. Hell the week after Edwards visited the hotel where his Mistress was at, the Media refused to report it or do any investigative journalism.

The information on Obama and his Preacher was also out there, I mean freaking Sean Hannity was talking about Wright for nearly a year before it was finally acknowledged by the media. The same goes for Pflager and Ayres.

The media buries bad info on the people they like, and they attack to the point of making up outright lies of the people they hate.

By the way some of Palin's remarks have been leaked, all I can say is well, it aint Aunt Fluffy.

http://liberalismisnotmainstream.com/payback.jpg