Obama sucks. [Archive] - The PokeMasters Forums

Roy Karrde

19th January 2010, 10:38 PM

Told you mother fuckers he'd be a useless President. Democrats are nuts and the Republicans are just as nuts. But conservative America always wins. You stupid fucking red neck fuckers.

There are red necks in Massachusetts? I mean there could be a occasional one, but this is the deepest blue state in the union.

Just like I told you stupid TPMERS in 2001 that attacking Iraq would be a real mistake and NO WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION would be found. I was proven right that eventually America would tire of that war. You lot were way too slow of course. Something about America makes you go, "ewww poo" its fucking Americans.

Psst Iraq was 2003 not 2001

Well that plan is going to be even harder now with a new Republican Senator from Massachusetts. Hence, why I made this topic. It was in trouble before and its in trouble now. Democrats will play all types of tricks to get healthcare passed. I just don't think the Republicans should hedge their bets yet. 2010 mid-term elections might be looking good for them. But who the hell are they going to select in 2012 for the Presidential race?

Obama may suck but all your candidates look pathetic.

Healthcare is dead, the Dems options on it get worse and worse, and after what we saw tonight, don't expect too many Blue Dogs running to the Democrats side.

As for 2012, remember 2008, there is a strong "Anybody but him" vote out there that could return in 2012. Anyway for names

Sarah Palin, Mitt Romney, Bobby Jindal, Mike Huckabee and a few others that are top contenders. Then again back in 2006 everyone thought it would be Clinton versus Edwards.

firepokemon

20th January 2010, 02:26 AM

kazr

20th January 2010, 03:02 AM

Massachusetts is actually one of the more progressive parts of the country, along with the entirety of New England. Obama won there by about 20 points. But keep in mind that "liberalism" in America is center left at best, and on average center right compared to other parts of the world.

With no public option, the health care plan will inevitably be a complete joke. It's just going to keep getting watered down until it's eventually only going to be throwing money at health insurance companies with very little benefit for the actual people.

Obama needs to try to ram that shit through as fast as possible because it's the #1 on his agenda, and if he doesn't get it done within the first term, or even within the first year or two he'll be shown as an ineffectual dumb ass by the media and will have no chance of winning again.

But are you really surprised Obama isn't the incredible end all, be all guiding light he was made out to be? Welcome to the new president, same as the old president. This is United States' Politics and as long as people have their American Idol and Big Macs nothing is going to change.

I am actually pretty pleased with Obama though, because every time I read the news and there's an article on him/something he's done my reaction is usually "yeah that's pretty reasonable" or "hmm that makes sense" instead of *slowly shakes head and pounds fist on desk* every time that fucking walking disaster Bush was in the news.

Heald

20th January 2010, 10:52 AM

This whole affair is a savage indictment of America's legislative system. I frankly find it insane that a man dying a few months ago, due to be in office until at least 2013, can be the major difference between over 30 million of America's poorest and most vulnerable getting the health care they need, and the rich just laughing at them as they die in the gutter. Of course, what will really kill the bill is a bunch of grown men throwing toys out of the pram and trying to stall as long as possible, but it wouldn't have been possible for such a juvenile tactic to have taken place if Kennedy hadn't died.

It's ironic that considering Kennedy was a champion of health care and progressivism, his death has probably just consigned the USA's health care to the dark ages.

mr_pikachu

20th January 2010, 11:46 AM

Roy Karrde

20th January 2010, 12:49 PM

My redneck comment wasn't directed at Massachusetts. Though I do hear they're rather nuts in that area. America in general though is actually very conservative (I should probably use a different term here since most democrats or centrists wouldn't see themselves as conservative but compared to the rest of the world you lot are ) compared to other Western Countries.

So? That is how we run things and it has worked out pretty well for us so far.

And meh I would have made the post 2002 or early 2003. I was still right but the stupid americans wouldn't wake up at the time.

What that he didn't have WMDs? All evidence to that point, pointed to he did, which is why Clinton bombed him in 98.

And I do wish republicans and stupid americans would wake up. Palin is not a good candidate. She is a walking disaster. I do hope they go for her though.

You know if 2008 taught us anything, it is that a bad candidate can be viewed in a very positive light after campaigning. Hillary Clinton went in looking like a Class A Bitch. Now she has higher poll numbers than Obama. People grew to respect her during her campaign.

Huckabee won't win the Republican primary. He just isn't good enough and won't win.

Yeah umm Huckabee right now polls highest against Obama out of any of the candidates. If Palin doesn't get in, expect him to win.

Mitt Romney is an idiot.

Yeah he also is the most economically minded of the bunch

I don't even know the other guy.

Bobby Jindal? Governor of Louisiana, He is highly popular down there and was considered a VP Candidate for McCain. He is very charismatic, good looking, and is basically the Republican answer to Obama.

But are you serious in saying those are your candidates. Obama may look a loser now and the Democrats may look dead in the water. But the Republicans risk getting too arrogant and running one shitty campaign. Not to mention the economy can and should improve in that time.

The economy can improve, it could also take another dip, we don't know. And Republicans do risk getting too arrogant and running a bad campaign. On the other hand Democrats could continue their arrogance and not take away the right message from last night. If they do it won't matter what campaign the Republicans run, they will win.

This whole affair is a savage indictment of America's legislative system. I frankly find it insane that a man dying a few months ago, due to be in office until at least 2013, can be the major difference between over 30 million of America's poorest and most vulnerable getting the health care they need, and the rich just laughing at them as they die in the gutter.

Psst the number is around 8 to 12 million, but continue

It's ironic that considering Kennedy was a champion of health care and progressivism, his death has probably just consigned the USA's health care to the dark ages.

Well that is a opinion, personally the dark ages for USA's Health Care would be adopting something like what Britain has.

Heald

20th January 2010, 01:21 PM

Psst the number is around 8 to 12 million, but continue
SOURCE (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8206349.stm)

Well that is a opinion, personally the dark ages for USA's Health Care would be adopting something like what Britain has.
In the UK, we call any system where the rich and powerful prosper and thrive at the expense of the poor and vulnerable the Dark Ages because, unlike America, we actually had a Dark Age where kings, lords and the privileged subjugated thousands of impoverished people to a life of cruelty, poverty and famine. And that is exactly what the health care system in the USA is like: if you're lucky enough to be born into a privileged background, are lucky enough to fall ill before getting insurance or are not born with a serious hereditary disease, then congratulations, you get to have insurance. If you're unlucky enough to be born in an impoverished background, or you fall ill before you can afford adequate insurance or you're born with a hereditary disease, all factors completely outside of your control, the current system damns to you a life of either terrible health or terrible debt in order to pay back your bills. I am not entirely in favour what Obama is offering, I personally think it is too much, too soon, but it is better than leaving it the way it currently is, a horribly skewed system that only serves to widen the socio-economic disparity between rich and poor.

Roy Karrde

20th January 2010, 01:31 PM

SOURCE (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8206349.stm)

SOURCE (http://www.businessandmedia.org/articles/2007/20070718153509.aspx)

In the UK, we call any system where the rich and powerful prosper and thrive at the expense of the poor and vulnerable the Dark Ages because, unlike America, we actually had a Dark Age where kings, lords and the privileged subjugated thousands of impoverished people to a life of cruelty, poverty and famine. And that is exactly what the health care system in the USA is like: if you're lucky enough to be born into a privileged background, are lucky enough to fall ill before getting insurance or are not born with a serious hereditary disease, then congratulations, you get to have insurance. If you're unlucky enough to be born in an impoverished background, or you fall ill before you can afford adequate insurance or you're born with a hereditary disease, all factors completely outside of your control, the current system damns to you a life of either terrible health or terrible debt in order to pay back your bills. I am not entirely in favour what Obama is offering, I personally think it is too much, too soon, but it is better than leaving it the way it currently is, a horribly skewed system that only serves to widen the socio-economic disparity between rich and poor.

You know it is funny, as you have shown a view that is completely outside the realm of reality with what the United States has. Of the 80 to 90% of this country that is insured, 70% of it atleast is perfectly happy with our health care. Now I would love to think that 90% of our country comes from a privileged background, but that is just not true.

But you know what I call the Dark Ages, I call any country that has a cancer survival rate that looks more like the Middle East than the western world. I call it the Dark Ages when a system of health care is so fundamentally flawed, so broken that over 4,000 women were shut out of maternity wards because the Government decided to cut back. I call it the Dark Ages when a Government decides to ration treatment on back pain shots so they can save a buck even though over 60,000 patients use it. I call it the Dark Ages when a system is so flawed, that it provides Private Care to it's employees instead of using it's own broken system.

Now we can throw back and forth insults at our other Health Care system all day in a massive pissing contest. But this thread doesn't seem to be the time or place for it.

Heald

20th January 2010, 01:36 PM

SOURCE (http://www.businessandmedia.org/articles/2007/20070718153509.aspx)
Err...2007. And from a conservative watchdog source, rather than a news source that is less than one month old.

Now we can throw back and forth insults at our other Health Care system all day in a massive pissing contest. But this thread doesn't seem to be the time or place for it.
True, to each his own, although were those percentages referring to the NHS? I know the NHS has some problems, most of them are nothing to do with the NHS itself but the Labour Government's horrible mismanagement of it, but that sounds like some cooked up crap that Rush pulls out of his ass for his outdated, misinformed opinions.

Roy Karrde

20th January 2010, 01:40 PM

Err...2007. And from a conservative watchdog source, rather than a news source that is less than one month old.

Read the numbers, they come from a Liberal source:

So what is the true extent of the uninsured “crisis?” The Kaiser Family Foundation, a liberal non-profit frequently quoted by the media, puts the number of uninsured Americans who do not qualify for current government programs and make less than $50,000 a year between 13.9 million and 8.2 million. That is a much smaller figure than the media report.

Kaiser’s 8.2 million figure for the chronically uninsured only includes those uninsured for two years or more. It is also worth noting, that, 45 percent of uninsured people will be uninsured for less than four months according to the Congressional Budget Office.

Seeing how we get these numbers through the Census, and the lie of "30 million or 40 million or 50 million" has been around for a long time, I would not discount the numbers on time alone. Especially since those numbers are usually not so nuanced to give them the highest amount.

True, to each his own, although were those percentages referring to the NHS? Because if they were, well, they aren't true. Like, not even a tiny bit. I know the NHS has some problems, but that sounds like some cooked up crap that Rush uses as fodder for his outdated, misinformed opinions.

Which one the Cancer Numbers? Britain has terrible Cancer Numbers, infact I have heard it from more than a few it ranks last in the Western World. For example, the US has a 81% survival rate for Prostate Cancer. Britain is in the pathetic 43%

Heald

20th January 2010, 01:45 PM

I have since revised my post, but like you said, this isn't the time and place to discuss it, so why continue?

Telume

20th January 2010, 02:09 PM

Personally,

http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Investing/JubaksJournal/LetWalMartFixUSHealthCare.aspx

Yes I know, old article but I find it has some truth behind it.

kazr

20th January 2010, 08:21 PM

I'm not going to argue over the health care plan beyond saying that, based on the evidence I've seen, it looks like a missile aimed straight at ourselves. Similar plans enacted elsewhere have had devastating results, so I see no reason why this should do better.

Devastating results? Uhh... pretty much the entirety of Europe has free, public health care, Canada, Israel, Cuba, the list goes on and you know what they all say about it?

That it's awesome.

Guess what other country has free health care? Iraq. Guess who pays for it? The tax payers of the United States.

Give this video a watch, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgqqSHr0wVA
Having your life ruined financially because you can't pay medical costs vs maybe, possibly having to wait a little longer to get surgery (which this is barely ever the case) is a pretty piss poor fucking argument against the MOST POWERFUL, RICHEST NATION ON EARTH, being able to provide a basic necessity in this day and age to all of its citizens. Private health care isn't going to disappear, and the people who can afford it will still be able to get better care than anybody else regardless.

And to anybody who says that socialized health care is terrible in other countries is literally a child who is eating up media rhetoric that is being made by the same ultra rich people who benefit from public health care not passing and who will never have to worry about paying medical bills, or having their house/car/whatever repo'd because they can't pay the crushing debt.

Fact of life: Everybody gets sick.

Roy Karrde

20th January 2010, 08:29 PM

Devastating results? Uhh... pretty much the entirety of Europe has free, public health care, Canada, Israel, Cuba, the list goes on and you know what they all say about it?

That it's awesome.

Cuba may not be the best example, seeing how 26 patients just died in a Cuban Hospital because they are so pathetic that they could not afford heating.

Pro Tip: Don't buy Michael Moore's rhetoric about Cuba, it's health care system is fucking pathetic.

Guess what other country has free health care? Iraq. Guess who pays for it? The tax payers of the United States.

Give this video a watch, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgqqSHr0wVA
Having your life ruined financially because you can't pay medical costs vs maybe, possibly having to wait a little longer to get surgery (which this is barely ever the case) is a pretty piss poor fucking argument against the MOST POWERFUL, RICHEST NATION ON EARTH, being able to provide a basic necessity in this day and age to all of its citizens. Private health care isn't going to disappear, and the people who can afford it will still be able to get better care than anybody else regardless.

And to anybody who says that socialized health care is terrible in other countries is literally a child who is eating up media rhetoric that is being made by the same ultra rich people who benefit from public health care not passing and who will never have to worry about paying medical bills, or having their house/car/whatever repo'd because they can't pay the crushing debt.

Fact of life: Everybody gets sick.

Yeah maybe we should have a Healthcare thread, as the level of bullshit in here seems to be rising.

kazr

20th January 2010, 08:30 PM

Bobby Jindal? Governor of Louisiana, He is highly popular down there and was considered a VP Candidate for McCain. He is very charismatic, good looking, and is basically the Republican answer to Obama.

Bobby Jindal is a goofy looking brown skinned dude, do you think he could even make it to the Republican primary, much less win it? A bunch of angry, old as dirt white guys would never vote for one of 'them darkies'.

http://img59.imageshack.us/img59/8899/jindal.jpg

Roy Karrde

20th January 2010, 08:33 PM

Bobby Jindal is a goofy looking brown skinned dude, do you think he could even make it to the Republican primary, much less win it? A bunch of angry, old as dirt white guys would never vote for one of 'them darkies'.

You mean the Republican Party who is ran by "One of them darkies" and was elected to that position by a bunch of "Old as dirt white guys who would never vote for a darkie"?

Here is a hint, if you are going to make stupid statements, make sure the party you are insulting isn't ran by a black man.

kazr

20th January 2010, 08:33 PM

Cuba may not be the best example, seeing how 26 patients just died in a Cuban Hospital because they are so pathetic that they could not afford heating.

Pro Tip: Don't buy Michael Moore's rhetoric about Cuba, it's health care system is fucking pathetic.

Cuba is embargo'd by the most powerful nation on earth, they do the best they can with what they've got.

Michael Moore is the last person's view I'd take as fact. He's a sensationalist shit head just like anybody else.

Roy Karrde

20th January 2010, 08:35 PM

Cuba is embargo'd by the most powerful nation on earth, they do the best they can with what they've got.

Which doesn't stop other nations from trading with them or traveling to them.

kazr

20th January 2010, 08:39 PM

You mean the Republican Party who is ran by "One of them darkies" and was elected to that position by a bunch of "Old as dirt white guys who would never vote for a darkie"?

Michael Steele, RNC chairman that was elected when Obama was running for president to show that the republican party is 'with it' 'hip' and 'fly' too. Tell me that this isn't the whitest looking black person that the RNC could of picked ever,

http://img63.imageshack.us/img63/8246/michaelsteele.jpg
if it isn't obvious why he was elected then, welp lol

Btw RNC chairman elections aren't like primaries/general elections. Average Joe Smith drinkin' his miller high life watching NASCAR doesn't have the same grasp of what's going on in politics/the world as the higher ups in the RNC who vote and decide this kind of shit.

kazr

20th January 2010, 08:41 PM

Which doesn't stop other nations from trading with them or traveling to them.

What's the alternative for Cuba? Their impoverished citizens die in the street of easily curable disease, or they try and set up a functioning health care system so not only the wealthy can be treated in their shit hole of a country?

ok

Roy Karrde

20th January 2010, 08:42 PM

Michael Steele, RNC chairman that was elected when Obama was running for president to show that the republican party is 'with it' 'hip' and 'fly' too. Tell me that this isn't the whitest looking black person that the RNC could of picked ever,

if it isn't obvious why he was elected then, welp lol

Btw RNC chairman elections aren't like primaries/general elections. Average Joe Smith drinkin' his miller high life watching NASCAR doesn't have the same grasp of what's going on in politics/the world as the higher ups in the RNC who vote and decide this kind of shit.

So let me get this straight, the RNC, the party ran by a bunch of old people that hate blacks, suddenly decided to elect a black man to be hip and fly, not because oh I don't know he has been respected in the Republican Establishment for years?

As for Average Joe Smith, drinkin the high life, do you honestly think he is going to be receptive to the message of the Republican Party if he hates blacks THAT much?

What's the alternative for Cuba? Their impoverished citizens die in the street of easily curable disease, or they try and set up a functioning health care system so not only the wealthy can be treated in their shit hole of a country?

Guess what? The wealthy or the wealthy that travel to Cuba get treated in their 'shit hole of a country'. That is why Michael Moore picked Cuba, they have great hospitals set up for those that visit from other nations, really state of the art stuff. That is where all the Cuban Health Care money goes. For the rest of the populous, they get flies and soiled bed sheets.

kazr

20th January 2010, 08:45 PM

So let me get this straight, the RNC, the party ran by a bunch of old people that hate blacks, suddenly decided to elect a black man to be hip and fly, not because oh I don't know he has been respected in the Republican Establishment for years?

As for Average Joe Smith, drinkin the high life, do you honestly think he is going to be receptive to the message of the Republican Party if he hates blacks THAT much?

What is the message of the Republican party?

kazr

20th January 2010, 08:46 PM

Guess what? The wealthy or the wealthy that travel to Cuba get treated in their 'shit hole of a country'. That is why Michael Moore picked Cuba, they have great hospitals set up for those that visit from other nations, really state of the art stuff. That is where all the Cuban Health Care money goes. For the rest of the populous, they get flies and soiled bed sheets.

Source please.

Roy Karrde

20th January 2010, 08:50 PM

What is the message of the Republican party?

Small Government, Lower Taxes, Strong National Defense is what it is broken down to in its simplest terms.

Source please.

Moore sat down with "20/20's" John Stossel and talked about that claim. When asked whether it really was an average hospital, Moore said, "Yes."

"This isn't just me saying this, you know. All the world health organizations or whatever have confirmed that if there's one thing they do right in Cuba, it's health care," Moore said. "And there's very little debate about that."

In fact, there is plenty of debate. Miami-based Cuban Human Rights activist Jose Carro says Moore's movie paints an inaccurate picture.

"These films that try to portray the health care system as superior to that of the U.S. are lacking in truth," Carro said. He asserts that most hospitals for Cuban citizens are dilapidated, that conditions are filthy and that patients are so neglected that some are starving.

George Utset, who runs the anti-Castro Web site called therealcuba.com, says Moore's group didn't "go to the hospital for regular Cubans. They go to the hospital for the elite and it's [a] very different condition." (http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=3568278&page=1)

What Real Cuban Hospitals Look Like (http://www.therealcuba.com/Page10.htm)

kazr

20th January 2010, 08:56 PM

Moore sat down with "20/20's" John Stossel and talked about that claim. When asked whether it really was an average hospital, Moore said, "Yes."

"This isn't just me saying this, you know. All the world health organizations or whatever have confirmed that if there's one thing they do right in Cuba, it's health care," Moore said. "And there's very little debate about that."

In fact, there is plenty of debate. Miami-based Cuban Human Rights activist Jose Carro says Moore's movie paints an inaccurate picture.

"These films that try to portray the health care system as superior to that of the U.S. are lacking in truth," Carro said. He asserts that most hospitals for Cuban citizens are dilapidated, that conditions are filthy and that patients are so neglected that some are starving.

George Utset, who runs the anti-Castro Web site called therealcuba.com, says Moore's group didn't "go to the hospital for regular Cubans. They go to the hospital for the elite and it's [a] very different condition." (http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=3568278&page=1)

What Real Cuban Hospitals Look Like (http://www.therealcuba.com/Page10.htm)

Man that sucks. I've always been pretty thankful since I was a little kazr to be born in a first world country so I didn't have to endure such hopelessness. But really, what is the alternative there? Cuba is a butt hole and I think anyone can agree with that.

Roy Karrde

20th January 2010, 08:58 PM

Man that sucks. I've always been pretty thankful since I was a little kazr to be born in a first world country so I didn't have to endure such hopelessness. But really, what is the alternative there? Cuba is a butt hole and I think anyone can agree with that.

It is, but their Government dumps all of its money into these First World Hospitals because it is a place for the rich and wealthy to flock to for cheap surgeries. The rest of Cuba, the citizens with their wonderful Health Care system, have to live in their Third World Hospitals. Thus you get deaths of patients as we saw a few weeks ago.

Now can we please get back to politics.

kazr

20th January 2010, 09:01 PM

Health care is a pretty important political topic in the United States at the moment, whether you're right or left leaning :)

I'm going to take therealcuba dot com with a grain of salt just like Mr. Moore

http://img705.imageshack.us/img705/4886/michaelmoore.jpg
just look at this guy

Roy Karrde

20th January 2010, 09:04 PM

Health care is a pretty important political topic in the United States at the moment, whether you're right or left leaning :)

But that is not the purpose of the thread, it is to discuss the political climate right now in America, it is not a discussion on Health Care as Heald and I agreed to earlier.

kazr

20th January 2010, 09:10 PM

Whoa there I didn't know you and Heald were the de facto discussion deciders in TPM! My apologies.

The political climate sucks, it's pretty cloudy with a chance of rain. When I first got into politics I was outraged about all the bull shit that comes from all sides of the political spectrum in the current day and age until I realized that this is how it's always been, a bunch of reactionary babies thinking that other opinions are inches away from ripping this country into a steaming pile of shit.

Now instead of my blood boiling I can't help but just laugh at it and ride the snake baby.

http://img188.imageshack.us/img188/410/thechoice.jpg

What's your opinion on Haiti? A guy in my class today was tip toeing around the idea that we should not do a damn thing in terms of relief effort and aid for them.

Roy Karrde

20th January 2010, 09:18 PM

What's your opinion on Haiti? A guy in my class today was tip toeing around the idea that we should not do a damn thing in terms of relief effort and aid for them.

There is plenty to talk about with what is happening in the US with out going wildly off topic again. We have the Scott Brown victory, we have the death throws of the Health Care bill, we have the upcoming midterm elections, we have the 2012 Presidential elections, etc etc etc.

kazr

20th January 2010, 09:30 PM

There is plenty to talk about with what is happening in the US with out going wildly off topic again. We have the Scott Brown victory, we have the death throws of the Health Care bill, we have the upcoming midterm elections, we have the 2012 Presidential elections, etc etc etc.

Oh no now that dems don't have a filibuster proof majority, which I'm doubting all 60 would have voted yes on the reform anyways. What is there to discuss?

Health care reform is going to either not pass, or be a white washed piece of shit if it does.

Who's Obama going to run against in '12? Palin? Huckabee? Not fucking likely, they have some nice cushy jobs being talking heads for FNC. Newt? He's full of hot air. We've got some time on this one :cool:

Pick something broha, I'm feeling feisty tonight and want to pound on my keyboard to people I will never meet in real life. I have a serious question though... are you a freeper?

lazy edit,
Haiti is some real shit happening right now with real consequences for a lot of people. I don't see how this has no merit for discussion, and this is the perfect thread to do it in.

Roy Karrde

20th January 2010, 09:34 PM

Oh no now that dems don't have a filibuster proof majority, which I'm doubting all 60 would have voted yes on the reform anyways. What is there to discuss?

Health care reform is going to either not pass, or be a white washed piece of shit if it does.

Right now odds are "Not going to pass"

Who's Obama going to run against in '12? Palin? Huckabee? Not fucking likely, they have some nice cushy jobs being talking heads for FNC. Newt? He's full of hot air. We've got some time on this one :cool:

Ever consider WHY they have such cushy jobs? Being on Cable allows them to broadcast to millions of people every week. It keeps both of them visible, front of mind, and able to expose on Political Views with little worry of media backlash. You take jobs like that to get ready for the next election.

Edit:
Haiti is some real shit happening right now with real consequences for a lot of people. I don't see how this has no merit for discussion, and this is the perfect thread to do it in.

Because it is not a Haiti thread? As for my view of the US' involvement in Haiti

We are not obligated to help them, but we do, why? Because it is the right thing to do. With out the US, Haiti would be in far more trouble right now, not just with the loss of aid, but because it would be a lawless state. There is already stories out there of people coming to aid drops with Machetes. Of Men beating women and children to get first in line for food. It is truly survival of the fittest and the Haiti Government is not able to protect the weaker out there.

Now people can go out and criticize the US for our response to this for some very very stupid reasons. But with out boots on the ground, the death count would be rising right now, and it wouldn't be the earthquake that would be causing it to rise.

kazr

20th January 2010, 09:39 PM

Ever consider WHY they have such cushy jobs? Being on Cable allows them to broadcast to millions of people every week. It keeps both of them visible, front of mind, and able to expose on Political Views with little worry of media backlash. You take jobs like that to get ready for the next election.

Nope. You take jobs like that to make bank after you're done making strong ties and get out of public service. No president in the past 40 years (or possibly ever, not going to bother looking it up because I'm most likely right) has gone from public service to high paying pundit job to president.

answer my freep question

Roy Karrde

20th January 2010, 09:43 PM

Nope. You take jobs like that to make bank after you're done making strong ties and get out of public service. No president in the past 40 years (or possibly ever, not going to bother looking it up because I'm most likely right) has gone from public service to high paying pundit job to president.

Well that is a pretty ignorant statement as the 24 Hour Cable News Networks have really only came into existence over the previous two Presidencies. Before that it was strictly nightly news. Now like it or not both candidates are gearing up toward making a 2012 run, and both of them would be insane not to, Huckabee polls incredibly high against Obama, and Palin's numbers have been on the rebound since the book tour. A book tour by the way, which looked alot like a early primary tour to gather up support.

answer my freep question

Well first I had to look up Freep so that should tell you something. Second while I am right wing I am not a political activist, I have only gone to two political events in my life, one of which was a local watching party.

kazr

20th January 2010, 09:54 PM

Well that is a pretty ignorant statement as the 24 Hour Cable News Networks have really only came into existence over the previous two Presidencies. Before that it was strictly nightly news. Now like it or not both candidates are gearing up toward making a 2012 run, and both of them would be insane not to, Huckabee polls incredibly high against Obama, and Palin's numbers have been on the rebound since the book tour. A book tour by the way, which looked alot like a early primary tour to gather up support.

Huckabee is a religious fundamentalist with some pretty prehistoric views that 'fit in with the bible' but sadly aren't up to date in our current society, gotta move forward or you risk falling behind. He lost to John McCain in the primaries. John McCain, a doddering old robot who couldn't even beat a black guy in the United States. edit, seriously I just want to reiterate that John fucking McCain was the best candidate that the republicans could field in '08 is mind blowing.

Palin is a joke. Everything she did or said during the '08 election was just a complete and utter joke and the thought of her actually running for President in '12 not only makes me filled with glee for the inevitable slaughter but the sheer amounts of comedy that will be produced from it will be staggering.

Roy Karrde

20th January 2010, 09:57 PM

Huckabee is a religious fundamentalist with some pretty prehistoric views that 'fit in with the bible' but sadly aren't up to date in our current society, gotta move forward or you risk falling behind. He lost to John McCain in the primaries. John McCain, a doddering old robot who couldn't even beat a black guy in the United States.

And while I agree with you, nothing of that prevents him from running again and possibly winning the nomination.

edit, seriously I just want to reiterate that John fucking McCain was the best candidate that the republicans could field in '08 is mind blowing.

Not really, there was a heavy Republican Backlash in early 2008 building, and the party believed a man who was well liked by Independents and Hispanics could possibly win against the two heavy weights on the Democratic side. In the end they were wrong.

Palin is a joke. Everything she did or said during the '08 election was just a complete and utter joke and the thought of her actually running for President in '12 not only makes me filled with glee for the inevitable slaughter but the sheer amounts of comedy that will be produced from it will be staggering.

And I will say it again, do not underestimate her, also we have no idea what the Political Climate will be in 2012. It could possibly be even more toxic for Democrats than it is right now. Just as the Political Climate in 2008 was toxic for Republicans. If it is, expect the Republican candidate to win. Also as I have said it again, if Hillary Clinton can start out looking like a soul less evil bitch, and in the end look like a respectable human being just through the riggers of one campaign, anything can happen.

DivineAll

20th January 2010, 10:01 PM

kazr

20th January 2010, 10:03 PM

You know what the stupid funny thing is? The Republican Party's values were the Democratic's and vice-versa. Over the past couple years or so their values were reversed or something along those lines, somehow, and they were supposed to reverse back right around when Clinton was leaving office. However, thanks to Bush the second being elected, it's gonna take quite a while for that to happen because of his status of why he was elected. So in other words, all that is happening to the U.S. right now is W. Bush's fault.

what the hell is this

page 2 snipe

"Do not underestimate Palin" is a retarded talking point and maybe if the media repeats it ad nauseum then it could come true, I guess? I am underestimating her because all her opponents would have to do is play sound bites of her speaking in her run as McCain's VP to kick her stupid ass right to the curb. She has a fringe, albeit hardcore following but I pray for not just my country but the rest of the world that not enough people could possibly vote in this walking monstrosity as president.

edit: "I can see russia from my house"

Roy Karrde

20th January 2010, 10:05 PM

You know what the stupid funny thing is? The Republican Party's values were the Democratic's and vice-versa. Over the past couple years or so their values were reversed or something along those lines, somehow, and they were supposed to reverse back right around when Clinton was leaving office. However, thanks to Bush the second being elected, it's gonna take quite a while for that to happen because of his status of why he was elected. So in other words, all that is happening to the U.S. right now is W. Bush's fault.

Again very simplistic to blame everything on Bush, alot of what is currently happening in the US, atleast economically, the Bush Administration was warning against. That isn't to say Republicans are not partially to blame for what happened, but it is not all Bush's fault. That being said some of the values did switch between the parties. Bush ran against Clinton's nation building efforts of the 90s, promising he wasn't going to nation build. 8 years later we have Iraq and Afghanistan, with the Democrats going after such nation building efforts.

mr_pikachu

20th January 2010, 10:11 PM

Again very simplistic to blame everything on Bush, alot of what is currently happening in the US, atleast economically, the Bush Administration was warning against. That being said some of the values did switch between the parties. Bush ran against Clinton's nation building efforts of the 90s, promising he wasn't going to nation build. 8 years later we have Iraq and Afghanistan, with the Democrats going after such nation building efforts.

Uh. I wouldn't necessarily call that "switching policies." That's just the typical campaign promise-breaking. Granted, the circumstances were a little extreme... but when in the last two decades has there not been some extreme element? Long story short, don't make a promise if you're not going to keep it.

Roy Karrde

20th January 2010, 10:13 PM

Uh. I wouldn't necessarily call that "switching policies." That's just the typical campaign promise-breaking. Granted, the circumstances were a little extreme... but when in the last two decades has there not been some extreme element? Long story short, don't make a promise if you're not going to keep it.

Gotta say between at least the last 4 Presidents that seems to be a recurring theme. Making substantial promises that they knew they could not keep, or were unable to keep due to events outside of their control.

kazr

20th January 2010, 10:17 PM

Gotta say between at least the last 4 Presidents that seems to be a recurring theme. Making substantial promises that they knew they could not keep, or were unable to keep due to events outside of their control.

This is the history of democracy since its inception.

Roy Karrde

20th January 2010, 10:19 PM

This is the history of democracy since its inception.

No doubt, but it has played heavily over the last four years. Bush Sr's No New Taxes pledge, Clinton lying under oath ( Yeah I had to stretch for that one ), W Bush's Nation Building Pledge, and of course Obama's C Span Pledge.

Then again it probably helps that as with increased media over the last few years, its easier to go back instantly to clips of candidates making promises. Such as Obama's C Span pledge.

kazr

20th January 2010, 10:31 PM

Well it's been fun Roy, but I'm going to take a shower and maybe bake those brownies.

*does a kick flip over ur headz and skates out of dis thread*

MeLoVeGhOsTs

21st January 2010, 04:08 AM

Health insurance is awesome:)

Master Rudy

21st January 2010, 04:18 AM

Well it's been fun Roy, but I'm going to take a shower and maybe bake those brownies. royally getting my ass kicked in this debate since I don't seem to know what I'm talking about. I'ma leave now......

*does a kick flip over ur headz and skates out of dis thread*

Fixed that for you Kazr...... ^_~
Oh and I seriously hope you weren't trying to pass "I can see Russia from my house" as an actual Palin quote. You do know it came from that turd Tina Fey in an SNL skit right?
To shift the focus back to our fearless leader I have this to ask of his supporters: name one thing that Obama has done since taking office that has truely made a change or worked towards helping this country. Go ahead......I'll wait......

kazr

21st January 2010, 05:39 AM

MeLoVeGhOsTs

21st January 2010, 07:08 AM

My spidersense detects friendship.

Master Rudy

21st January 2010, 07:21 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JXL86v8NoGk

You would need some powerful eyes to see Russia from Alaska, and how being able to see Russia has anything to do with foreign policy is beyond me.

Congratulations Rudy. When you're ready to roll with the big boys come back to this thread, until then keep the bench warm.

^_~

Keep the bench warm? You may have to dig for a little while but I'm not afraid to jump into these kinds of debates. I just usually prefer to stay out of them since trying to convince an opposing political party that their viewpoint is wrong is about as easy as trying to stop a speeding train with your bare hands.

In any case I'd be more than happy to argue with you if you could tell me what the fuck is in that video. I've only got high speed access about once a week so right now You Tube is a no go for me. I'm sure I could see the first 20-30 seconds or so if you want to give my dial up a few hours but I don't know how my parents would like that considering that they wouldn't be able to use the phone :-/

shazza

21st January 2010, 07:26 AM

The video only goes for 12 seconds.

P.S: You're a fucking faggot, dude.

Roy Karrde

21st January 2010, 08:24 AM

You would need some powerful eyes to see Russia from Alaska,

There are areas of Alaska that are close enough to Russia that you can see the Russian Coast Line, which was Palin's point.

and how being able to see Russia has anything to do with foreign policy is beyond me.

You need to remember two things, both of which I doubt you do

A: Russia had just invaded Georgia when that interview happened, we were at heightened tensions with Russia over that event

B: Russian bombers and jets have over the past decade threatened US Airspace by performing aerial exercises very close to Alaska and American Ships in the vicinity. Her point, is that if Russia were to attack, Alaska would be first, and that is true. Even on 9/11 we were performing war games close to Russia in response to their own war games they had performed close to Alaska just a few months before.

"Do not underestimate Palin" is a retarded talking point and maybe if the media repeats it ad nauseum then it could come true, I guess?

Actually it was a warning given to the Obama Camp by Palin's former opponent for the Governor's seat.

I am underestimating her because all her opponents would have to do is play sound bites of her speaking in her run as McCain's VP to kick her stupid ass right to the curb.

And they would lose the election if they pulled off such a retarded tactic.

She has a fringe, albeit hardcore following but I pray for not just my country but the rest of the world that not enough people could possibly vote in this walking monstrosity as president.

Yeah well I felt the same way about Barack Obama and yet he won, so at this point, she is a massive step up from the current administration.

Heald

21st January 2010, 08:30 AM

Yeah, this is exactly what I wanted to wake up to.

Roy, don't say 'this debate doesn't belong in this thread' and then continue debating it. I could easily refute and argue against some of your opinions you've put in this thread but it isn't the right thread. Be the bigger man and take your own advice.

Otherwise, I feel this thread is accelerating towards something I'd expect to see in Mt. Moon. I like a shitstorm as much as the next asshole, but I'm a mod, and therefore have to keep the peace. If you want to scream and swear at each other, take it to Mt. Moon. If, God forbid, any of you have anything intelligent to add to the discussion, then by all means, post it.

Anyway, for the benefit of Rudy: the video is of real Palin (not Tina Fey) saying that she can see Russia from Alaska in response to a question asking her depth into Russia's politics and actions. So yeah, she's an idiot. I'll underestimate her all I want, thank you very much, although I also know that roughly half of the USA is also stupid enough to vote for her.

Roy Karrde

21st January 2010, 08:39 AM

Yeah, this is exactly what I wanted to wake up to.

Roy, don't say 'this debate doesn't belong in this thread' and then continue debating it. I could easily refute and argue against some of your opinions you've put in this thread but it isn't the right thread. Be the bigger man and take your own advice.

Otherwise, I feel this thread is accelerating towards something I'd expect to see in Mt. Moon. I like a shitstorm as much as the next asshole, but I'm a mod, and therefore have to keep the peace. If you want to scream and swear at each other, take it to Mt. Moon. If, God forbid, any of you have anything intelligent to add to the discussion, then by all means, post it.

That is very true, I'll re frame from Health Care from now on.

Anyway, for the benefit of Rudy: the video is of real Palin (not Tina Fey) saying that she can see Russia from Alaska in response to a question asking her depth into Russia's politics and actions. So yeah, she's an idiot.

No where did I see her say "I can see Russia from Alaska" she said and I quote "They are our neighbors, and you can actually see Russia from land, here in Alaska" which is true, and if say Mexico was acting up and invading countries, and Rick Perry was running for President or Vice President I would expect him to bring up Mexico's proximity to Texas as one of the main reasons he has more political experience and knowledge of Mexico than his opponent.

Heald

21st January 2010, 09:07 AM

No where did I see her say "I can see Russia from Alaska" she said and I quote "They are our neighbors, and you can actually see Russia from land, here in Alaska" which is true, and if say Mexico was acting up and invading countries, and Rick Perry was running for President or Vice President I would expect him to bring up Mexico's proximity to the United States as one of the main reasons he has more political experience and knowledge of Mexico than his opponent.
So she is saying that 'one could see Russia from Alaska' and since she lives in Alaska, either she has actually seen Russia herself from Alaska (therefore confirming that she has seen Russia from Alaska) or, despite living in Alaska, has never seen Russia and is only relying on what someone else has told her.

Now, she was asked what insight she had into Russia's politics and actions. Her first answer was that one, not her personally, could see Russia from Alaska. Therefore, any Alaskan who can see and happens to be facing Russia is now automatically qualified to give insight into Russia's politics and actions? I'm sorry, but no amount of weaseling from even the most blind follower of Palin can excuse her from such a ridiculous answer. Granted, if she had said it last, after a real answer into what real insight she has, then fine, but the fact she decided to open her answer with that is just moronic. Hell, on a clear day, I can see France from the British coast, does that qualify me as an expert in French politics? No, in fact, I only have a very basic knowledge of French politics, pretty much all of which comes from reading the news. Funnily enough, being able to see a different country from your homeland does not somehow give you a psychic link to that country's politics, no matter how hard Sarah Palin and her equally idiotic fan base want to believe it.

Now, the point about Russia's proximity to Alaska might be equatable to Mexico's proximity to Texas, except that the part of Russia Alaska is adjacent to is thousands of miles of meaningless, uninhabited wasteland. Granted, some military manoeuvres by Russia take place there, but any more than the usual sabre-rattling we've come to expect from the Russians? How much of a threat it is to the USA is debatable, and an invasion by Russia is incredibly unlikely.

There is also the fact that most of Russia's political action occurs in Moscow, and if we're using proximity as a factor, both New York City and Juneau are about 4500 miles away from Moscow.

The point is, it is a ridiculous argument to say that Palin has any kind of Russian political expertise because Alaskans can see Russia.

Roy Karrde

21st January 2010, 11:46 AM

So she is saying that 'one could see Russia from Alaska' and since she lives in Alaska, either she has actually seen Russia herself from Alaska (therefore confirming that she has seen Russia from Alaska) or, despite living in Alaska, has never seen Russia and is only relying on what someone else has told her.

Well living in Texas, I have never seen the border with my own eyes that doesn't mean I can't see it from El Paso. Now I have no idea how Palin learned of this, but the visibility of Russia from certain areas of Alaska most likely is a documented fact just as the visibility of the border from El Paso is a documented fact down here.

Now, she was asked what insight she had into Russia's politics and actions. Her first answer was that one, not her personally, could see Russia from Alaska. Therefore, any Alaskan who can see and happens to be facing Russia is now automatically qualified to give insight into Russia's politics and actions?

No, she was giving a example of the closeness of Russia, which plays into a very large factor of why a Governor of Alaska would have insight into Russian Political Action and Politics.

I'm sorry, but no amount of weaseling from even the most blind follower of Palin can excuse her from such a ridiculous answer. Granted, if she had said it last, after a real answer into what real insight she has, then fine, but the fact she decided to open her answer with that is just moronic. Hell, on a clear day, I can see France from the British coast, does that qualify me as an expert in French politics? No, in fact, I only have a very basic knowledge of French politics, pretty much all of which comes from reading the news. Funnily enough, being able to see a different country from your homeland does not somehow give you a psychic link to that country's politics, no matter how hard Sarah Palin and her equally idiotic fan base want to believe it.

Lets play this out, if France was buzzing across British ships, and coming dangerously close to the British homeland, making threatening gesters, and overall taking a very belligerent attitude toward Britain. Do you think the British Prime Minister would have a direct focus on what was happening in France, from the Political Situation to the Military Situation? Of course. As if France were to make one wrong move, and a international incident were to happen, Britain would be on the front line of a possible war with France.

It is idiotic of her detractors to not believe the Governor of Alaska, a state that is very much it's own country due to how disconnected it is from the rest of the United States, would not have his or her focus directed toward a neighboring country that could at any moment launch a attack that would place Alaska directly on the front lines of World War 3.

Now, the point about Russia's proximity to Alaska might be equatable to Mexico's proximity to Texas, except that the part of Russia Alaska is adjacent to is thousands of miles of meaningless, uninhabited wasteland.

Which means absolutely nothing since we are talking about war planes and missiles, not troops.

Granted, some military manoeuvres by Russia take place there, but any more than the usual sabre-rattling we've come to expect from the Russians? How much of a threat it is to the USA is debatable, and an invasion by Russia is incredibly unlikely.

It's debatable because it is a inconvenient truth for you. It may be sabre rattling, but you have a maniac in power in Russia at the moment which had just invaded a neighboring country, while tensions were escalating with the west because of our missile program. At any moment during the Georgia crisis, Putin could believe that the US support for Georgia was tantamount to war and decide to take us out. Hell at any point in the last 10 years Putin could go off the deep end and decide to blow us away. That is the risk you take when you have such a maniac in power, and as the Governor on the state that would be on the front line of such a war, she would have much more insight into the comings and goings of Russia, than a Freshman Senator from Illinois. You would have to, just as the current Governor of Texas has much more insight into the gang wars happening right across the Texas border, than the Governor of New York. It is the height of stupidity not to believe a Governor would not have every eye focused on what is happening in his or her own back yard.

There is also the fact that most of Russia's political action occurs in Moscow, and if we're using proximity as a factor, both New York City and Juneau are about 4500 miles away from Moscow.

Yet Moscow has shown that they will use military aggression against Alaska first, not New York State.

The point is, it is a ridiculous argument to say that Palin has any kind of Russian political expertise because Alaskans can see Russia.

It is just a ridiculous argument to take what she is saying at face value and not see the nuance of it.

Blademaster

21st January 2010, 11:47 AM

I'm pro-Obama.

This thread amuses me.

That is all. :)

Heald

21st January 2010, 12:32 PM

Roy Karrde

21st January 2010, 12:45 PM

Roy, I get what you're saying, I get that a governor of Alaska ought to at least know what is going on in Russia and the political environment in Russia due to its proximity.

However, in her entire career in Alaskan politics, I can only find one instance where she ever made reference to Russia, and that is she said to GW Bush that if Russia invaded a NATO country, the USA ought to honour its NATO obligations and send troops to repel the Russians.

Otherwise, there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that she even knew the name of the Russian president, let alone anything else that went on in the Russian political scene.

Of which is not evidence that she does not get daily breifings on Russia or knows the comings and goings of Russia. Logic itself dictates she would. Also last time I checked, Governors tend to not make major political statements unless in a election year.

Palin has never been to Russia. She's never demonstrated any expertise on U.S. policy towards Russia. She doesn't have any background in international relations at any level. But for Republicans, the fact that she's lived in a state near Russia is somehow a qualification for national office.

Except the Governor would be getting daily briefings on the situation in Russia if it came close to threatening Alaska, as well as any additional briefings she requested. Not to mention you are basing your knowledge on her expertise on US Policy toward Russia, based on 2 months on the campaign trail, that in and of itself is incredibly poor judgment on your part.

You don't need to hear it from me though. Sarah Palin herself clears it up for us:

For the benefit of Rudy and the other bandwidth-impaired, she is asked to explain why she feels Russia's proximity to Alaska gives her the kind of foreign policy experience required of national office, and, apart from a vague reference to trade missions and national security issues (as in she mentions them but never goes into any depth on what involvement she has with either of these issues), all she does is repeat over and over that Russia is next-door neighbours with Alaska and Russia is very close to Alaska.

I admit the CBS interview was not her best interview. That being said the facts do speak for themselves, and while I do not live in Alaska I do live in a border state and thus have seen what a border state governor does do, what kind of information he or she gets briefed on, etc etc.

Until I see some evidence that Sarah Palin has actually explained the depth of her involvement in dealing with Russia as governor of Alaska, I'm afraid repeating 'next-door neighbours' ad nauseum is not reasonable evidence that she has any kind of foreign policy experience whatsoever.

Which I doubt you will get until the next election, until then you have to deal with the logic of the situation, based on what a Governor does get briefed on and should get briefed on when it comes to foreign policy situations that could endanger their state.

kazr

21st January 2010, 12:45 PM

The mental gymnastics required to be able to come to the conclusion that the Alaskan-Russian comment about foreign policy is anything but completely ridiculous and borderline retarded is astounding.

The France/Britain analogy is terrible. Is the Prime Minister of Britain going to hang out on the edge to watch France and see what they're up to to base his decisions? Likewise is Palin going to squat down on some remote island that technically still counts as Alaska and watch the shit hole waste land of Siberia and come to some ground breaking conclusions?

Roy Karrde

21st January 2010, 12:47 PM

The mental gymnastics required to be able to come to the conclusion that the Alaskan-Russian comment about foreign policy is anything but completely ridiculous and borderline retarded is astounding.

Not really if you have knowledge of the events that take place upon that border, as well as the information and knowledge that is presented to a border state governor.

The France/Britain analogy is terrible. Is the Prime Minister of Britain going to hang out on the edge to watch France and see what they're up to to base his decisions? Likewise is Palin going to squat down on some remote island that technically still counts as Alaska and watch the shit hole waste land of Siberia and come to some ground breaking conclusions?

No, they have radar as well as military officers and advisers to do that, but then again I would hope you would know that since you just said the analogy was terrible with no real argument to back that up.

Heald

21st January 2010, 12:55 PM

Roy, you're basing your entire argument on the faith that Sarah Palin, as governor, received briefings purely because she was governor. Not facts, faith. I'm asking for evidence that she did receive these briefings. You're saying that because there is no evidence she didn't, that means she did. Sorry, but that doesn't cut it.

If she had said she had received briefings in her interviews, I would be inclined to believe her. The fact that she did not mention receiving briefings just builds the case against her. It would certainly be better for her than saying 'next-door neighbours'.

Otherwise, what you call 'logic', is actually just faith. Should she have received daily briefings? Yes? Did she? No evidence can suggest one way or another.

Also:

Not to mention you are basing your knowledge on her expertise on US Policy toward Russia, based on 2 months on the campaign trail, that in and of itself is incredibly poor judgment on your part.
Whereas you're basing it on faith. What's the worse judgement? Me using facts or you using faith?

Roy Karrde

21st January 2010, 01:02 PM

Edit: I typed out a whole reply to the post, but then did 2 seconds on Google, guess what popped up.

In her role as Commander-in-Chief of the Alaska National Guard, Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin has received briefings on Russian military plane incursions near Alaskan airspace, an Alaska National Guard spokesman confirms to CBS News.

“Russian incursions near Alaskan airspace and inside the air defense identification zone have occurred,” a McCain campaign spokesperson told CBS News. “When they do, Governor Palin is briefed on them by the Adjutant General of the Alaska National Guard. U.S Air Force fighters have been scrambled repeatedly in response to Russian actions. After September 11, 2001, U.S. tolerance for such activities is understandably low.”

Captain Guy Hayes, an Alaska National Guard Public Affairs Officer, confirmed that Palin has received such briefings from Adjutant General Craig E. Campbell on Russian plane incursions.

“Guardsmen do work in the section that patrols the air over Alaska,” Hayes added.

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/09/25/politics/fromtheroad/entry4479278.shtml

Heald

21st January 2010, 01:31 PM

So she only ever received briefings when they actually occurred? Not the daily briefings you previously claimed she received?

Also, the question levelled at her what about her expertise in Russian politics, not about being briefed when incursions actually occurred. I'd imagine she would have received a briefing if that occurred, hell, I imagine the president would have also received a briefing too if Russians entered US airspace.

The point is, there is a far more disturbing lack of evidence that she has anything near the level of foreign policy experience required of national office than one or two pieces of evidence of her dealing with a foreign power.

Roy Karrde

21st January 2010, 01:36 PM

So she only ever received briefings when they actually occurred? Not the daily briefings you previously claimed she received?

Neither you or I know how many briefings she got, or when she got them if they were on a daily, weekly, or monthly basis. Obviously times of heightened tension would cause her to receive more continuous updates than times of no tension.

Also, the question levelled at her what about her expertise in Russian politics, not about being briefed when incursions actually occurred. I'd imagine she would have received a briefing if that occurred, hell, I imagine the president would have also received a briefing too if Russians entered US airspace.

Except those two are interconnected, as is with the original argument about Alaska sharing a border with Russia. The border they share allows Russia to take a hostile attitude with Alaska, and invade Alaskan Airspace. As Commander and Chief of the Alaskan National Guard she has to keep up to date with threats and possible attacks that could happen, that in and of itself qualifies as experience.

The point is, there is a far more disturbing lack of evidence that she has anything near the level of foreign policy experience required of national office than one or two pieces of evidence of her dealing with a foreign power.

That is a opinion, at this point she has far more foreign policy experience than one Freshman Senator from Illinois.

Heald

21st January 2010, 02:23 PM

At this point she has far more foreign policy experience than one Freshman Senator from Illinois.
This is also an opinion, and even though this isn't about Obama, if by 'at this point', you mean right this very second in time, Obama has a plethora of foreign policy experience under his belt. What does she have? Apart from a yet to be proven knowledge of Russian politics and a couple of trips she has done since being named the VP candidate, nothing. She hadn't even left the USA a year prior to being named the VP candidate. One would think that if Alaska's proximity to Russia means that it is of enough interest to the governor to be briefed daily about it, she would at least travel to Russia, or at least phone Moscow, neither of which she has done (or at least, no evidence exists for her doing). Don't try to turn this into 'well even though she has no real experience, neither does Obama' because I'm not here to support Obama, my point is the evidence for Palin even having a basic knowledge of Russian politics is minimal at best, whereas the lack of evidence suggesting she has an involved knowledge is of much greater concern.

Andrew

21st January 2010, 02:27 PM

Hay guys I haven't read the thread!

But at least Obama is trying to change things, I think it's probably just the USA's indoctrinated into a culture of not getting anything done quickly through bureaucracy.
I think it also comes back into the whole "Look, unless this policy is for my political party, I ain't supportin' it!" Regardless of how good it is for the people.

Roy Karrde

21st January 2010, 03:27 PM

This is also an opinion, and even though this isn't about Obama, if by 'at this point', you mean right this very second in time, Obama has a plethora of foreign policy experience under his belt.

No, as Sarah Palin is not running for the President right now. I am comparing her 3 years of Foreign Policy experience as a Governor, to the 1 year in the Senate, of which you cannot even gain much or any Foreign Policy experience when he ran as a President. If we are going to say that she doesn't have the foreign policy experience to hold National Office, then Obama when he began running did not either.

What does she have? Apart from a yet to be proven knowledge of Russian politics and a couple of trips she has done since being named the VP candidate, nothing.

You mean other than the numerous deals she did with Canada on the Alaskan Pipeline? Remember Russia is only 1 half of her Foreign Policy experience.

She hadn't even left the USA a year prior to being named the VP candidate.

While leaving the US would help gain foreign policy experience, it is not a pre requisite.

One would think that if Alaska's proximity to Russia means that it is of enough interest to the governor to be briefed daily about it, she would at least travel to Russia, or at least phone Moscow, neither of which she has done (or at least, no evidence exists for her doing).

One it is not her place to contact Moscow by phone, since you seem to know little about American Foreign Policy, we do have a hierarchy, Governor's do not deal with heads of state or even Foreign Governments in a direct fashion as a National Government does. Second that is a very piss poor example, she does not need to be over there to know what is going on over there. Governor Perry does not need to go to the Gangland held territories of Mexico to know that it is a lawless uncontrolled place that could spill over into Texas.

Don't try to turn this into 'well even though she has no real experience, neither does Obama' because I'm not here to support Obama, my point is the evidence for Palin even having a basic knowledge of Russian politics is minimal at best, whereas the lack of evidence suggesting she has an involved knowledge is of much greater concern.

You drew out the comparison and now you have to deal with it, if we are going to make her foreign policy experience a example of why she should or she should not be on the national level, then we damn well are going to compare it to others who have ascended to the national level. Don't like it, tough.

But at least Obama is trying to change things, I think it's probably just the USA's indoctrinated into a culture of not getting anything done quickly through bureaucracy.

Except he is getting the wrong things done, he passed a Stimulus and then took his eye off the ball, focusing on divisive issues like Health Care and Cap and Trade while the Stimulus failed to help the US economy. Now look at where we are at, a dead Cap and Trade bill, a dead Health Care bill, and a economy that is getting worse again.

I think it also comes back into the whole "Look, unless this policy is for my political party, I ain't supportin' it!" Regardless of how good it is for the people.

Is that why Independents and Democrats as seen in the Scott Brown victory are moving toward the Republican party?

Heald

21st January 2010, 03:41 PM

One it is not her place to contact Moscow by phone, since you seem to know little about American Foreign Policy, we do have a hierarchy, Governor's do not deal with heads of state or even Foreign Governments in a direct fashion as a National Government does.
This is exactly my point, thank you for proving it for me. She has no foreign policy experience because it has never been her place. She deals with state issues; dealing with foreign countries, which is what foreign policy is, is a federal issue. She might be briefed when Russian planes fly over US airspace, but then again, that's national news and what she knows anyone reading a newspaper will know too. You've still yet to effectively portray Palin as someone who is reliable in terms of foreign policy.

You drew out the comparison and now you have to deal with it
Err, actually you started it with:

she has far more foreign policy experience than one Freshman Senator from Illinois.
I couldn't give two shits about Obama, the fact is you couldn't prove Palin is an acceptable candidate for president due to her horrible lack of foreign policy experience so you use your usual fall-back of 'well at least she isn't as bad as Obama', as if your horribly skewed opinion on Obama and Democrats as a whole is a good metric of how suited to a national office a candidate is.

Roy Karrde

21st January 2010, 03:47 PM

This is exactly my point, thank you for proving it for me. She has no foreign policy experience because it has never been her place. She deals with state issues; dealing with foreign countries, which is what foreign policy is, is a federal issue. She might be briefed when Russian planes fly over US airspace, but then again, that's national news and what she knows anyone reading a newspaper will know too. You've still yet to effectively portray Palin as someone who is reliable in terms of foreign policy.

Except since Foreign Policy covers many aspects it is nieve if not stupid to say she has no foreign policy experience. She may not be dealing directly with the Russian Government, but that does not mean she was not briefed on Russian activities that could endanger her state, either on a political level, or on a military level. Just as my Governor is briefed on Gang and Mafia activities that could threaten my state.

Second you seem to forget that Russia is only one of two countries she dealt with. She did have permission to deal with the Canadian Government on the Alaskan Oil Pipeline, a project that she spent alot of time on as governor.

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/politics/local/stories/DN-pipeline_06pro.ART.State.Edition2.26d3d5b.html

Err, actually you started it with:

Err I was replying to

The point is, there is a far more disturbing lack of evidence that she has anything near the level of foreign policy experience required of national office

If we are going to look at the requirements for national office on the level of foreign policy then comparing her to the man that just took said national office is a just comparison.

I couldn't give two shits about Obama, the fact is you couldn't prove Palin is an acceptable candidate for president due to her horrible lack of foreign policy experience so you use your usual fall-back of 'well at least she isn't as bad as Obama', as if your horribly skewed opinion on Obama and Democrats as a whole is a good metric of how suited to a national office a candidate is.

If Palin some how becomes a unacceptable candidate for President due to her foreign policy experience then I have every right to compare her to the current President, if we are going to establish a foreign policy baseline for the Presidency then I have every right to begin with Obama.

Andrew

21st January 2010, 04:00 PM

Words!

Roy, you destroy everything you touch in Misc.

I was talking more bout the politicians than 'the people.'

Btw - My opinion is that of a casual outside observer, I am not privvy to the power plays for each bill.

Roy Karrde

21st January 2010, 04:04 PM

Roy, you destroy everything you touch in Misc.

I love you too? See this is why I stopped debating in Misc!

I was talking more bout the politicians than 'the people.'

Oh my bad

Heald

21st January 2010, 04:07 PM

I'll grant that dealing with Canada gives her some foreign policy experience, but I still disagree that merely being briefed, and since we have only been able to accurately prove that these briefings only occurred when tensions were high (such as airspace incursions) merits stating that she had the deep insight into Russian politics that the McCain/Palin campaign purported she had.

That said, a rudimentary search of the internet has shown that during his career as a Senator, Obama had much involvement in legislation involving foreign countries, including the Democratic Republic of the Congo Relief, Security, and Democracy Promotion Act, of which Obama was the primary sponsor. He was also a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and as a result of this he travelled to over 20 countries on official business on behalf of the government in order to deal in person with foreign ministers and dignitaries, in countries in Africa, Eastern Europe, Western Europe, the Middle East, Asia and Russia, and we're not even including his vast experience and knowledge of countries before he entered politics. And of course there are the official visits to Europe and the Middle East he made during his presidential campaign.

Granted, none of this is executive experience, but in my eyes, and seemingly the eyes of the American voters, considering this was the man who was elected as president, better than sitting in your office looking at Russia with a telescope whilst an official comes in to tell you a small iceberg floated down the Bering Strait that morning.

Roy Karrde

21st January 2010, 04:11 PM

That said, a rudimentary search of the internet has shown that during his career as a Senator, Obama had much involvement in legislation involving foreign countries, including the Democratic Republic of the Congo Relief, Security, and Democracy Promotion Act, of which Obama was the primary sponsor. He was also a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and as a result of this he travelled to over 20 countries on official business on behalf of the government in order to deal in person with foreign ministers and dignitaries, in countries in Africa, Eastern Europe, Western Europe, the Middle East, Asia and Russia, and we're not even including his vast experience and knowledge of countries before he entered politics.

None of which he ran on in the campaign, infact his Foreign Policy experience was so poor, that he had to grab Joe Biden as his vice president to boost his failing foreign policy credentials. And it should be noted when that legislation happened, did it happen after he began to run in 06 or before, the same with the trips.

And of course there are the official visits to Europe and the Middle East he made during his presidential campaign.

Not valid here, as if we are going to use that to boost Obama's foreign policy cred, then I have every right to use the official visits Palin was on during her Vice Presidential Campaign.

Granted, none of this is executive experience, but in my eyes, and seemingly the eyes of the American voters, considering this was the man who was elected as president, better than sitting in your office looking at Russia with a telescope whilst an official comes in to tell you a small iceberg floated down the Bering Strait that morning.

Except his foreign policy experience was never a issue, it was one with Sarah Palin, now we can go through how much of those things actually happened before he started running in 06, and how much of them happened afterwards. But I would think we can both agree that due to the Vice Presidential choice of Joe Biden, that he himself saw and worried about his lacking foreign policy credentials.

Heald

21st January 2010, 04:18 PM

Meh, true, McCain was probably the strongest foreign policy wise out of the 4 (including Palin and Biden) but I think the election was mostly won and lost on anger at Republicans for 8 years of Bush and Obama's ridiculously good image in the media. Of course, now the sheen is coming off, he's going to have to fight hard for his next election, regardless of his opponent. It could get so bad that even Hillary might take a swipe and challenge him in the primary.

Blademaster

21st January 2010, 07:16 PM

The mental gymnastics required to be able to come to the conclusion that the Alaskan-Russian comment about foreign policy is anything but completely ridiculous and borderline retarded is astounding.

Not really if you have knowledge of the events that take place in Misc. on a regular basis.

FTFY, kazr. You've just been gone too long to realize what 'debating' on this forum has become.

Hay guys I haven't read the thread!

But at least Obama is trying to change things, I think it's probably just the USA's indoctrinated into a culture of not getting anything done quickly through bureaucracy.
I think it also comes back into the whole "Look, unless this policy is for my political party, I ain't supportin' it!" Regardless of how good it is for the people.

Words!

Roy, you destroy everything you touch in Misc.

I was talking more bout the politicians than 'the people.'

Btw - My opinion is that of a casual outside observer, I am not privvy to the power plays for each bill.

Dear Andrew,

If this is your general viewpoint, please post in every Misc. topic concerning politics from now on.

Sincerely, Blade

I love you too? See this is why I stopped debating in Misc!

You stopped debating in Misc.!? Really!? *looks wildly through topic* When?! When!?

Roy Karrde

21st January 2010, 07:24 PM

You stopped debating in Misc.!? Really!? *looks wildly through topic* When?! When!?

You haven't noticed me pretty much being absent from Misc for the vast majority of 2009?

Andrew

21st January 2010, 07:44 PM

Blade, I don't know if you are serious or not :(.

I would hope to live in a world where we have governments for the good of the people, not their own personal aims of staying in power. I personally try and support policies and not get too hung up on who is presenting it. Would Obama's policies attract so much bile if McCain presented them?

Btw McCain wad a hot 20yo...

Roy Karrde

21st January 2010, 08:06 PM

Would Obama's policies attract so much bile if McCain presented them?

Yeah probably, remember McCain was never the darling of the Republican party, which earned him the maverick name. His work on Illegal Immigration reform, and the Party of 6 caused alot of hatred by Republicans for McCain. Now if you break it down to his policies, yeah alot of Obama's policies are just seen as too left by too many on the right to swallow it, especially after how the Bush years ended with all the bail outs.

Btw McCain wad a hot 20yo...

Pfft of course! Who wouldn't?!

kazr

21st January 2010, 08:33 PM

Just going to repeat it in case it wasn't clear the first time: being able to see Russia from Alaska as governor of Alaska in no way shape or form qualifies Sarah Palin to have the foreign policy know how to be president regardless of what questionable things Russia pulls in its air space. There are things such as radar and telephone to communicate these sort of things so people don't have to camp out on a remote rock scoping out the ass hole wasteland of Russia. I don't even see what you're trying to argue here at this point, it's like you're just quoting my post and responding for the sake of smashing your keyboard and pounding out text in my direction. It was a terrible answer to an alright question, and that's it.

Sarah Palin is literally the worst and if she was elected to highest office it would just be George Bush 2 The Movie: Bush Harder.

But in other news, lets check this out:

The supreme court decided today that not allowing corporations (since they are legally ruled to be people, with individual rights) to have the limitless ability to make political campaign contributions is illegal.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/21/AR2010012102223.html

Lawfully and technically it makes sense... but now the question is: in 2012 who are you voting for, Pepsi or Coke?

Andrew

21st January 2010, 08:51 PM

A refreshing winner?!

Roy Karrde

21st January 2010, 09:08 PM

Just going to repeat it in case it wasn't clear the first time: being able to see Russia from Alaska as governor of Alaska in no way shape or form qualifies Sarah Palin to have the foreign policy know how to be president regardless of what questionable things Russia pulls in its air space. There are things such as radar and telephone to communicate these sort of things so people don't have to camp out on a remote rock scoping out the ass hole wasteland of Russia. I don't even see what you're trying to argue here at this point, it's like you're just quoting my post and responding for the sake of smashing your keyboard and pounding out text in my direction. It was a terrible answer to an alright question, and that's it.

* Shakes head * He just doesn't get it

Sarah Palin is literally the worst and if she was elected to highest office it would just be George Bush 2 The Movie: Bush Harder.

Why not, we are currently living in Jimmy Carter 2 The Movie: How much lower can you go Think Bush was bad, he was like a day at the spa compared to the 4 years of hell that was the Carter presidency.

Lawfully and technically it makes sense... but now the question is: in 2012 who are you voting for, Pepsi or Coke?

Pepsi all the way!

kazr

21st January 2010, 09:15 PM

Comparing Obama and Carter.. saying Bush was better...?

I just... I dont even..

speechless.

5WztB6HzXxI

kazr

21st January 2010, 09:19 PM

WHERE'S THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE, OBAMA?

Roy Karrde

21st January 2010, 09:31 PM

Comparing Obama and Carter.. saying Bush was better...?

I just... I dont even..

speechless.

Yeah because of course his Press Secretary wasn't in the back of the room telling him not to say the word. Of course the Secret Service wasn't busy re securing the building before the President moved, and most likely would have done anything to keep him in that room where he remained secure. Of course there hadn't been a unauthorized camera crew trying to gain access to Bush earlier in the day, thus spooking the Secret Service even more.

And seriously, Carter = Worst President and Ex President in Modern American History. The utter horrors the man put this nation through in 4 years its just insane.

kazr

21st January 2010, 09:43 PM

And seriously, Carter = Worst President and Ex President in Modern American History. The utter horrors the man put this nation through in 4 years its just insane.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_contra

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_policy_of_the_Ronald_Reagan_administration #Nicaragua_and_Latin_America

Hope this helps!!

kazr

21st January 2010, 09:46 PM

Roy Karrde

21st January 2010, 09:49 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_contra

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_policy_of_the_Ronald_Reagan_administration #Nicaragua_and_Latin_America

Hope this helps!!

You do realize you are making yourself look like a utter idiot right?

Lets look at the economic policies for a moment, the man who led to what became known as the Misery Index, and by the way had the highest marks on the misery index. The man who led this country to the point of the inflation rate being at 13.58%. The man who's Foreign Policy decisions help shake the Middle East so badly that we are still dealing with his decision today.

Seriously read up on Jimmy Carter

But if you want to engage in the stupidity of the pissing match on links

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Hostage_Crisis

kazr

21st January 2010, 09:56 PM

You do realize you are making yourself look like a utter idiot right?

Lets look at the economic policies for a moment, the man who led to what became known as the Misery Index, and by the way had the highest marks on the misery index. The man who led this country to the point of the inflation rate being at 13.58%. The man who's Foreign Policy decisions help shake the Middle East so badly that we are still dealing with his decision today.

Seriously read up on Jimmy Carter

Jimmy Carter was an awful president, even though he had the best intentions. He gave away the fucking panama canal back to panama, which is 'good' but what kind of president does something that is that much against the interests of his country? A bad president.

But the worst president? I'd reserve that for maybe Jackson, Dubya, or Reagan.

And easy on the insulting, cock sucker. I've been pretty civil about this because I'm not a big dumb baby but it can turn the other way pretty fast :)

Roy Karrde

21st January 2010, 09:59 PM

But the worst president? I'd reserve that for maybe Jackson, Dubya, or Reagan.

Notice I said Modern American History, there is a whole lot worse than Jimmy Carter in previous American History. But lets just compare Bush and Carter on the Misery Index. For Carter the height he reached on the Misery index, was 21.98, for Bush 11.47. And as for Reagan, gotta laugh, not only was he one of our best Presidents, but even Democrats have compared Obama to Reagan in so many ways. You would think if he was our Worst, that they would avoid such comparisons.

kazr

21st January 2010, 10:01 PM

Notice I said Modern American History, there is a whole lot worse than Jimmy Carter in previous American History. But lets just compare Bush and Carter on the Misery Index. For Carter the height he reached on the Misery index, was 21.98, for Bush 11.47. And as for Reagan, gotta laugh, not only was he one of our best Presidents, but even Democrats have compared Obama to Reagan in so many ways. You would think if he was our Worst, that they would avoid such comparisons.

A president who funds a war that results in 50,000 deaths is not the greatest president, sorry.

kazr

21st January 2010, 10:02 PM

A president who's economic theory is that if the obscenely wealthy are allowed to pay much much less in taxes will some how benefit the middle and lower classes is a bad president.

Roy Karrde

21st January 2010, 10:05 PM

A president who funds a war that results in 50,000 deaths is not the greatest president, sorry.

So then I guess Lincoln, FDR, and many of our other war time Presidents are not the greatest either?

A president who's economic theory is that if the obscenely wealthy are allowed to pay much much less in taxes will some how benefit the middle and lower classes is a bad president.

Okay just to point out, there is a edit button, you might want to learn to use it. Second as for Reagan it should be noted that his economic theory helped dig us out of a economic hell hole created by, guess who: Jimmy Carter.

kazr

21st January 2010, 10:09 PM

So then I guess Lincoln, FDR, and many of our other war time Presidents are not the greatest either?

Are you seriously comparing World War 2 and the Civil War to funding death squads in Latin America? Are you really?

Okay just to point out, there is a edit button, you might want to learn to use it. Second as for Reagan it should be noted that his economic theory helped dig us out of a economic hell hole created by, guess who: Jimmy Carter.

A president who's economic theory is that if the obscenely wealthy are allowed to pay much much less in taxes will some how benefit the middle and lower classes is a bad president.

Seriously, I don't see how this could possibly make sense to anybody unless they sleep on a mountain of cash every night. It's mind boggling.

Roy Karrde

21st January 2010, 10:11 PM

Are you seriously comparing World War 2 and the Civil War to funding death squads in Latin America? Are you really?

I am using your statement against you, you provided no extra justification, just that he was a President that funded a war that led to X amount of deaths. If you are going to leave yourself wide open to such a thing, expect me to jump on it.

A president who's economic theory is that if the obscenely wealthy are allowed to pay much much less in taxes will some how benefit the middle and lower classes is a bad president.

And yet it brought us out of the hell hole that was the Carter Presidency, it brought America back to prosperity, and slowly lowered unemployment. Now it may not be a long sustaining economic policy, but the results in the end speak for themselves. Reagan helped us get out of the hell hole that Carter put us in.

kazr

21st January 2010, 10:16 PM

I am using your statement against you, you provided no extra justification, just that he was a President that funded a war that led to X amount of deaths. If you are going to leave yourself wide open to such a thing, expect me to jump on it.

You compared WW2 and the Civil War to death squads lol. Excuse me for leaving my statement wide open and assuming you had a little decency and tact.

http://img402.imageshack.us/img402/9818/reagancomic.jpg

Roy Karrde

21st January 2010, 10:18 PM

You compared WW2 and the Civil War to death squads lol. Excuse me for leaving my statement wide open and assuming you had a little decency and tact.

No, now if you had specified exactly what you were talking about I would have used a different response. Such as that any Presidency is going to have missteps in them, that does not how ever mean that Reagan was one of if not the greatest Modern American President. One held in such high esteem in our country that he draws comparisons from the Right and the Left with who ever is in office. Meanwhile Jimmy Carter is used more like a curse word, a bad memory, so horrible that Democrats can only hope that he disappears somewhere into private life eventually.

kazr

21st January 2010, 10:21 PM

No, now if you had specified exactly what you were talking about I would have used a different response. Such as that any Presidency is going to have missteps in them, that does not how ever mean that Reagan was one of if not the greatest Modern American President. One held in such high esteem in our country that he draws comparisons from the Right and the Left with who ever is in office. Meanwhile Jimmy Carter is used more like a curse word, a bad memory, so horrible that Democrats can only hope that he disappears somewhere into private life eventually.

As long as Jimmy is building houses for the homeless he's alright in my book :cool:

Also, you compared World War 2 and our very own Civil War to funding death squads in Latin America. You did, holy moly my head is still reeling.

Roy Karrde

21st January 2010, 10:22 PM

As long as Jimmy is building houses for the homeless he's alright in my book :cool:

He also has a book out that is so bad it has been endorsed by Osama Bin Laden.

kazr

21st January 2010, 10:27 PM

He also has a book out that is so bad it has been endorsed by Osama Bin Laden.

So what, Osama bin Laden endorses growing out a beard. Doesn't mean everyone should shave theirs off.

I'm pretty sure Jimmy's message is "yo lets be good to each other, stop fighting pointless wars over ideology & resources, share a little bit more, and we can all get along much better on this earth"

i dunno sounds like a good deal to me.

Roy Karrde

21st January 2010, 10:29 PM

So what, Osama bin Laden endorses growing out a beard. Doesn't mean everyone should shave theirs off.

I'm pretty sure Jimmy's message is "yo lets be good to each other, stop fighting pointless wars over ideology & resources, share a little bit more, and we can all get along much better on this earth"

i dunno sounds like a good deal to me.

Yeah again you show your lack of knowledge. His book was a very one sided, very hateful book about the Israelis. Osama Bin Laden thus used it as a recruiting tool to drive more people and most likely suicide bombers to his side by pointing out how muslims should read Jimmy Carter's book.

Anyway I am out of debating, I had fun with Heald, but this is just mindless right now and I have much better things to be doing.

Master Rudy

22nd January 2010, 12:47 AM

Wow......this isn't a debate. It's the Roy and Kazr Show!
BTW Kazr you totally ignored my challenge to name something that Obama has done to promote change/help this country. Man up......you can't do it can you?
In regards to the way Obama's presidency is going so far remember this folks: you can polish a turd all you want but in the end it's still a piece of shit......

shazza

22nd January 2010, 01:37 AM

You racist cunt.

kazr

22nd January 2010, 01:51 AM

Yeah again you show your lack of knowledge. His book was a very one sided, very hateful book about the Israelis. Osama Bin Laden thus used it as a recruiting tool to drive more people and most likely suicide bombers to his side by pointing out how muslims should read Jimmy Carter's book.

Anyway I am out of debating, I had fun with Heald, but this is just mindless right now and I have much better things to be doing.

Backing down? *flex* I would stop having fun when faced with undeniable facts also.

jk, it was fun. A formidable opponent.

But I have to add: Israel is an apartheid state and it's pretty easy to draw direct parallels between what happened to the Jews during Nazi Germany and what is happening now to Palestinians. Although they aren't being forced into camps and into gas chambers they are living in shit hole ghettos, with very little outside aid, ancient decaying infrastructure, and it is one of the biggest atrocities currently happening in the world. It can be said that both sides are wrong in this, but Israel holds all the cards and needs to be the bigger man to offer real lasting peace for all Israelis and Palestinians in this horrible conflict, and sadly I'm predicting this will never happen.

Rudy, I'm not defending Obama here. He's going to be a mediocre at best president, and will most likely be shit all over for the state of the economy, the massive deficit, and the (possibly unwinnable) war in Afghanistan in the history books. Like I said in my first post in this thread: welcome to the new president, same as the old president.

But you want something positive he's done? Reached his hand out to the gay community and makes dialogue that they aren't some alienated underclass that should be shit all over because EW GAY PEOPLE. Kind of refreshing to see in a politician.

That of course is only if you aren't a giant bigot who gets his panties in a knot over who people fall in love with, or choose to be sexual with.

Give me a list of shit Obamas gotten wrong in his first year as president.

MeLoVeGhOsTs

22nd January 2010, 02:48 AM

There's to much personal bitching in this thread, and not much listening to eachother.

Master Rudy

22nd January 2010, 04:22 AM

You racist cunt.

Oh pipe down! I always love how if someone talks bad about poor Obama then they are suddenly a racist. When are you people going to learn that what some of us say has nothing to do with what fucking color his skin is? I'd be saying the same shit if the son of a bitch was white.

Kazr I'm a big enough man to admit when I'm wrong. With all the activity this post is seeing I honestly missed the part where you originally said you weren't defending Obama. I will however disagree with you on the point of trying to compare Obama to Bush. You'll have to forgive the expression but that's like trying to compare night and day. Regardless of your stance and opinion on Bush I think that even you'd have to admit that the two of them are about as different as they come. Therefore to say that the new president is the same as the old is foolish.

So Obama reached out to the gay community? Ok fine......despite most of my views and the fact that I'm a Republican I've got no problem with gays. It's one of the few things I disagree with my own party on since the majority of them can't seem to stand the thought of gay marriage. I say let them have it. If it's not hurting you then do you honestly give a fuck?

With that being said however I will tell you why Obama reached out to them: it'll get him potential votes in 2012 and help his image. It's still my firm belief that Obama is more of a celebrity than a president. As a result his public image is going to come first. As for anything related to politics it's extremely rare but the guy does occassionally get pissy and turn into an arrogant prick when things don't go his way. I'm sure some of you will question if that's true or not so I'll leave that one to Roy since he's much better at uncovering things than I am.

Heald

22nd January 2010, 05:54 AM

I'm not sure if I can tolerate this thread any longer. I mean I didn't expect a thread with such a base title such as 'Obama sucks' to attract too many intelligent replies, but I at least expected better. Well, sort it or shut it.

Blademaster

22nd January 2010, 11:34 AM

Blade, I don't know if you are serious or not :(.

Very serious. :yes:

kazr

22nd January 2010, 12:39 PM

With that being said however I will tell you why Obama reached out to them: it'll get him potential votes in 2012 and help his image. It's still my firm belief that Obama is more of a celebrity than a president. As a result his public image is going to come first. As for anything related to politics it's extremely rare but the guy does occassionally get pissy and turn into an arrogant prick when things don't go his way. I'm sure some of you will question if that's true or not so I'll leave that one to Roy since he's much better at uncovering things than I am.

Obama is just another politician pandering to who he can to win votes, I agree.

Sorry this thread turned into the Roy v Kazr bitch fest

firepokemon

22nd January 2010, 03:56 PM

Heald

22nd January 2010, 04:13 PM

With that being said however I will tell you why Obama reached out to them: it'll get him potential votes in 2012 and help his image.
You could be less cynical about this. Perhaps, maybe perhaps, that he genuinely believes that same sex couples have a right to be recognised as civil unions and have the same fundamental rights as heterosexual married couples. There's also the fact he's been pro-gay rights since at least 1996 (when homosexuality was a far bigger taboo than it is today); are you saying he was planning his 2012 campaign as far back as 1996?

And it's as much a vote loser as a vote winner. For every gay person who would vote Democrat purely because they would recognise civil unions, there is a fundamentalist who will vote Republican because Obama is pro-gay rights. There are still a lot of fundamentalists within the Democrats who they are desperately trying to cling onto, and since gay rights seems to be a state rather than a federal issue at the moment, not only does Obama face losing votes over his pro-gay rights stance, he may also lose votes over the issue of big government interfering in state issues.

Either way, I don't believe any one politician is going to change the face of gay rights, and I don't think there will be a gay Martin Luther King. It's just a matter that most of the electorate are older types who still hold bigoted opinions towards homosexuality. Most people I know in my generation are not opposed to homosexuality and I'd hope we don't become as bigoted as the anti-homosexual agenda when we become the main generation. Just like gender, race, colour and class before them, sexual preference is just a convenient scapegoat for idiots to blame society's hang-ups on.