PDA

View Full Version : Top McCain advisor calls Obama camp stupid?


tony hipchest
08-04-2008, 10:15 AM
i love spin. since it works both ways and insignificant things are taking on such importance.... :stirthepot:

on mccain choosing a veep-

By waiting to make a major announcement in the window after Obama’s much-anticipated acceptance speech August 28 , McCain would be able to quickly shift the focus of the race following the Democratic convention

Further, these advisers say, by waiting until the end of the month he could also gauge his pick based both on who Obama selects and what the contours of the race appear to be just two months out from Election Day.

“We’d be stupid to pick before they do,” said one top McCain adviser, speaking about the hush-hush decision on the basis of anonymity. “If they go first, you have more information.”


http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20080804/pl_politico/12271

so whoever picks first is "stupid"? "more information"? is bill belichick his freaking advisor? :chuckle:

:popcorn:

fansince'76
08-04-2008, 10:21 AM
Here's another gem of irrelevance:

Paris Hilton's mom takes offense at McCain's humor

Sun Aug 3, 7:31 PM ET

Washington - Paris Hilton's mother doesn't share John McCain's sense of humor.

McCain, the Republican presidential candidate, said last week that his campaign ad mocking Democrat Barack Obama with images of Hilton and singer Britney Spears was part of an attempt to inject humor into the presidential race.

On Sunday, Hilton's mother, Kathy Hilton, a McCain donor, registered her disapproval.

"It is a complete waste of the country's time and attention at the very moment when millions of people are losing their homes and their jobs," Kathy Hilton said in a short article posted on the liberal Huffington Post Web site. "And it is a completely frivolous way to choose the next president of the United States."

The ad plays on Obama's popularity by dismissing him as a mere celebrity, like Hilton and Spears. The Obama campaign has said the ad is proof that McCain would rather launch negative attacks than debate important issues.

McCain on Friday denied that his campaign had taken a negative turn, saying, "We think it's got a lot of humor in it, we're having fun and enjoying it."

Kathy Hilton, however, was unpersuaded, calling the ad "a complete waste of the money John McCain's contributors have donated to his campaign."

Kathy Hilton and her husband donated a total of $4,600 to McCain's campaign earlier this year.

Paris' Mom is Pissed at McCain (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080803/ap_on_el_pr/mccain_hilton_s_mom;_ylt=AjVtjvk7pAFDPeCdmj9LJykaz JV4)

:toofunny: :toofunny: :toofunny:

Godfather
08-04-2008, 01:17 PM
Here's another gem of irrelevance:



Paris' Mom is Pissed at McCain (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080803/ap_on_el_pr/mccain_hilton_s_mom;_ylt=AjVtjvk7pAFDPeCdmj9LJykaz JV4)

:toofunny: :toofunny: :toofunny:

Jon Stewart was ragging them for it. He called the celebrity ad the "dick move of the week" and then asked "Why is it a dick move?"... and put up a copy of J-Mac's campaign disclosure report.

Funny thing is Jon Stewart's only agenda is to be funny and his coverage is far more intelligent than the news media's.

HometownGal
08-04-2008, 06:41 PM
i love spin. since it works both ways and insignificant things are taking on such importance.... :stirthepot:

on mccain choosing a veep-



http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20080804/pl_politico/12271

so whoever picks first is "stupid"? "more information"? is bill belichick his freaking advisor? :chuckle:

:popcorn:

The only difference here, my dear Mr. Hipcheese, is that 99.9% of Obama's fubars come directly out of his mouth. This tidbit of idiocy came out of one of McCain's top advisors' yap. If McCain gets wind of which one of his advisors made this statement, trust me - they'll be gone faster than McCain can pass gas.

"It is a complete waste of the country's time and attention at the very moment when millions of people are losing their homes and their jobs," Kathy Hilton said in a short article posted on the liberal Huffington Post Web site.

No more than your daughter being a complete waste of a good sperm and egg.

tony hipchest
08-04-2008, 07:17 PM
:chuckle:

to keep the obama camp off guard, and to gain a competitive edge, mccain has been listed as "questionable" for next weeks campaign stops.

tony hipchest
08-04-2008, 07:58 PM
wow. senator mccain is on a roll. looks like he is gonna start hanging with the hells angels at sturgis and nuke a power plant! :jawdrop:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26012016

McCain to visit bike rally, nuke power plant

i wonder if he will do that famous biker olympic stunt where a hotdog hangs from a string and he has to grab it with his mouth on the back of a harley as they ride under it.

if that dont earn him every bikers vote, nothing will!

just watch out for this guy, senator-


http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q23/shortyshane_2006/DaddyDickCheney.jpg

xfl2001fan
08-05-2008, 06:25 AM
No more than your daughter being a complete waste of a good sperm and egg.

You're actually making the assumption that both the Sperm and the Egg were good? Judging by the mom's actions, I'm leaning towards a flawed egg.

lamberts-lost-tooth
08-05-2008, 07:43 AM
The only difference here, my dear Mr. Hipcheese, is that 99.9% of Obama's fubars come directly out of his mouth. This tidbit of idiocy came out of one of McCain's top advisors' yap. If McCain gets wind of which one of his advisors made this statement, trust me - they'll be gone faster than McCain can pass gas.



No more than your daughter being a complete waste of a good sperm and egg.

You gotta love it when the mother of Paris Hilton decides to take someone to task for being "frivolous" and a "waste"......I would think that she could have used that lecture at better junctures in her life, and perhaps a little closer to home.

lamberts-lost-tooth
08-05-2008, 07:48 AM
:chuckle:

to keep the obama camp off guard, and to gain a competitive edge, mccain has been listed as "questionable" for next weeks campaign stops.

Using football analogies.....I guess that we can call Obama an "Ironman"...since on most issues he plays "both ways"?:wink02:

revefsreleets
08-05-2008, 09:24 AM
Here I thought that McCain ad was mocking Obama for being famous for nothing more then, well, being famous.

Turns out we were all wrong, and that it's a completely racist thing, and McCain is saying that Obama is after our white women! (You can't make this stuff up...Bob Hoover is one of the biggest nuts in this country...what a kook!)

http://www.ohio.com:80/editorial/commentary/26270864.html

xfl2001fan
08-05-2008, 09:27 AM
You gotta love it when the mother of Paris Hilton decides to take someone to task for being "frivolous" and a "waste"......I would think that she could have used that lecture at better junctures in her life, and perhaps a little closer to home.

The sin you preach the loudest about is the one you're most likely guilty of!

Dino 6 Rings
08-05-2008, 09:29 AM
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/seton-motley/2008/08/04/first-person-compare-sen-obama-paris-hilton-was-not-sen-mccain

A February 24, 2005, Washington Post article begins:

There's nothing exotic or complicated about how phenoms are made in Washington, and, more to the point, how they are broken.

"Andy Warhol said we all get our 15 minutes of fame," says Barack Obama. "I've already had an hour and a half. I mean, I'm so overexposed, I'm making Paris Hilton look like a recluse."
That is pretty much the who and the why of Sen. McCain's explanation of his ad, is it not? It turns out he wasn't mocking Sen. Obama so much as channeling him. Or making a mini-documentary out of the Post's article.

Either way, it is just another example of the elite media not liking a Leftist's own words being used against him in the court of public opinion.

Obama needs to STFU and actually put forth some true ideas and not just fluff and "I'm hope and change" crap. He has NO plan at all. Just blame blame blame and nothing of substance.

lamberts-lost-tooth
08-05-2008, 09:30 AM
Here I thought that McCain ad was mocking Obama for being famous for nothing more then, well, being famous.

Turns out we were all wrong, and that it's a completely racist thing, and McCain is saying that Obama is after our white women! (You can't make this stuff up...Bob Hoover is one of the biggest nuts in this country...what a kook!)

http://www.ohio.com:80/editorial/commentary/26270864.html

.............. Both were designed to exploit the hostility, anxiety and resentment of the many white Americans who are still freakishly hung up on the idea of black men rising above their station and becoming sexually involved with white women.

WTF!!!!!!!!!!!!!:doh:

lamberts-lost-tooth
08-05-2008, 09:34 AM
The sin you preach the loudest about is the one you're most likely guilty of!

Well said.:thumbsup:

HometownGal
08-05-2008, 09:37 AM
Here I thought that McCain ad was mocking Obama for being famous for nothing more then, well, being famous.

Turns out we were all wrong, and that it's a completely racist thing, and McCain is saying that Obama is after our white women! (You can't make this stuff up...Bob Hoover is one of the biggest nuts in this country...what a kook!)

http://www.ohio.com:80/editorial/commentary/26270864.html

Herbert needs to be taken away by the men in the little white (oops - sorry for the racist comment :chuckle:) coats. :screwy::screwy:

Obama has spoken more honestly and thoughtfully about race than any other politician in many years

Bwa ha ha ha!!!!! :laughing::rofl::toofunny:

One name makes that statement as idiotic as the tard who wrote it.

Jeremiah Wright.

fansince'76
08-05-2008, 09:39 AM
....Both were designed to exploit the hostility, anxiety and resentment of the many white Americans who are still freakishly hung up on the idea of black men rising above their station and becoming sexually involved with white women.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

tony hipchest
08-05-2008, 09:44 AM
Here I thought that McCain ad was mocking Obama for being famous for nothing more then, well, being famous.


and here i thought this thread was about the mccain advisor's belichickian, top secret, information gathering, covert operations.

i found it a bit silly (especially the "stupid" comment) .

oh well, i guess we will have to wait and see if obama runs an ad mocking mccain for being famous for nothing more than being captured by the vietnamese for 4 years.

revefsreleets
08-05-2008, 09:57 AM
And, well, that whole Senator for 25 years thing...

lamberts-lost-tooth
08-05-2008, 10:01 AM
and here i thought this thread was about the mccain advisor's belichickian, top secret, information gathering, covert operations.

i found it a bit silly (especially the "stupid" comment) .

oh well, i guess we will have to wait and see if obama runs an ad mocking mccain for being famous for nothing more than being captured by the vietnamese for 4 years.

I think I am safe in assuming that a candidate with no commendable history to speak of, will refrain from criticizing a candidate about something commendable in his past....:coffee:

tony hipchest
08-05-2008, 10:07 AM
I think I am safe in assuming that a candidate with no commendable history to speak of, will refrain from criticizing a candidate about something commendable in his past....:coffee:kinda refreshing and noble then.

and i was SO hoping for tons of mudslinging. i like my elections to have that whole jerry springer feel. after all, it is more entertaining that way and on the lines of what most americans are looking at when making a decision of such importance.

btw mccains plane has no flag on the tail. :sofunny:

HometownGal
08-05-2008, 10:09 AM
oh well, i guess we will have to wait and see if obama runs an ad mocking mccain for being famous for nothing more than being captured by the vietnamese for 4 years.

If you're gonna post it, Hipcheese, get it right - it was 5-1/2 years. :wink02::flap: Even so, it is 5-1/2 more years more than Obama has ever spent doing anything for his country.

Refresh my memory here. How many years has Obama spent in the United States military? :noidea:

tony hipchest
08-05-2008, 10:16 AM
And, well, that whole Senator for 25 years thing...go figure...

obama and mccain are both famous for being politicians. funny how that works, being in the public eye and all.

maybe obama should just run an ad comparing mccain to estelle getty, betty white and the rest of the Golden Girls.

:toofunny:

tony hipchest
08-05-2008, 10:27 AM
If you're gonna post it, Hipcheese, get it right - it was 5-1/2 years. :wink02::flap: Even so, it is 5-1/2 more years more than Obama has ever spent doing anything for his country.

Refresh my memory here. How many years has Obama spent in the United States military? :noidea:you got me. i was thinking 4 1/2. that earns him 20% more fame than i originally indicated. (tongue in cheek of course).

anyways, since when is military service a pre-requisite to running for prez? plenty of assholes have served who are no way capable of being the commander in chief.

i dont vote on military service alone. dubya's "service" had absolutely no impact on my opinion of him. neither did gores, kerrys, clintons, or dubyas daddy.

so has mccains top advisor been fired yet?

revefsreleets
08-05-2008, 10:29 AM
So, let me get this straight...serving honorably, being a POW, 25 years in the Senate is somehow < or = serving in the senate for 4 years?

C'mon now...let's reel this thing back in...

lamberts-lost-tooth
08-05-2008, 10:35 AM
kinda refreshing and noble then.

and i was SO hoping for tons of mudslinging. i like my elections to have that whole jerry springer feel. after all, it is more entertaining that way and on the lines of what most americans are looking at when making a decision of such importance.

btw mccains plane has no flag on the tail. :sofunny:

I would agree that you wont hear much outright mud-slinging on Obama's part... But keep an ear open for subtle racial blame
.....They will scare you by saying he has a funny name, and he doesn’t look like all the presidents on the dollar bills and the five dollar bills.

and outright misrepresentations.
You have to understand, I am from the heartland, from Illinois. I am not somebody who believes that the democrats have a monopoly on wisdom.

He is from, perhaps, the most politically corrupt Democratic bastion in this country...Chicago....and as the senator with the most liberal voting record in congress, has shown NO ability to work with others on the other side of the aisle.
He does NOT represent the ethics of "the heartland".

lamberts-lost-tooth
08-05-2008, 10:39 AM
anyways, since when is military service a pre-requisite to running for prez? plenty of assholes have served who are no way capable of being the commander in chief.



By using your own standards.... if given a choice in this next election ...why would you want an "Asshole" with no military background over an "Asshole" with a military background?

stlrtruck
08-05-2008, 10:43 AM
Alex, I'll take "Asshole" with military background for 2000!

tony hipchest
08-05-2008, 11:03 AM
By using your own standards.... if given a choice in this next election ...why would you want an "Asshole" with no military background over an "Asshole" with a military background?using my standards, i have just stated military service will not influence my decision. its irrelevant at this point. i will wait and see who the veep selections are (which just so happens to be the topic of this specific thread- not "lets bash obama". theres already a plethora of those.) and how the debates go.

for example, suppose mccain cracks during a debate and drops the N-bomb on obama infront of an national audience, why would you want an asshole with military experience?

while most already have their minds made up, i will wait and see how it all shakes out. since america is so beautiful, and capitalism so great, i may just put my vote for sale on e-bay. :cool:

VP > military service

tony hipchest
08-05-2008, 11:14 AM
So, let me get this straight...serving honorably, being a POW, 25 years in the Senate is somehow < or = serving in the senate for 4 years?

C'mon now...let's reel this thing back in...:fishing:

fame is fame, i say, with my feet firmly planted to the ground. and it is a fickle public who dishes that fame out. i dont write the rules, i just notice it and comment.

i simply pointed the FACT out that politicians are in the public eye which leads to fame. is there anybody out there who wishes to deny or debate this?

wasnt you who suggested ones (mccains) fame was better than the others?

it is what it is, and i dont think fame can be measured in a cup. but with a gun to my head i would probably say mccain and obama are equally famous. who deserves it more does nothing to change that FACT.

i think glenn danzig has WAY more artistic integrity than britney spears, but i would NEVER argue that he is more famous than her.

revefsreleets
08-05-2008, 11:24 AM
You are missing the point. Obama has to pick his battles, and that'll be harder for him. What is he gonna attack McCain for exactly? Flip-flopping? Pandering? POW? Serving 25 years? (Actually, I think that WILL be his POA...saying he has 25 years working against him). Obama can't very well hit McCain for the first two while he's in the middle of HUGE policy (cough cough) "shifts", so...really, Obama isn't attacking because he has little ammo with which to do so...McCain can hit early and often (and, let's be honest, compared to Rove/Clinton type stuff, these ads are really quite tame) quite simply because he can.

Dino 6 Rings
08-05-2008, 11:39 AM
Did I hear correctly that Obama is now for Offshore Drilling?

"For his proposed 10-year, $150 billion overhaul of the nation's energy system to get bipartisan support, he's willing to compromise on his earlier stance against offshore drilling by allowing a "limited amount" of drilling."

Lord almighty...honestly...this guy...ZERO ideas of his own, nothing to offer. Even the "Take the Oil Company Profits" wasn't his, it was Hillary's first. He has nothing to offer but speeches and hype. He is a packaged, manufactured candidate. At least McCain has some experience and has some plans. Obama makes me laugh more each day.

Part of me thinks if Obama wins, the SNL and Satirical comedies about the Prez will be off the hook funny, but is 4 years of laughing my butt off worth 4 years of attempted Socialism and pandering to every singl Left wing Group in the country? I could use the laugh. Hmm....

tony hipchest
08-05-2008, 11:46 AM
You are missing the point. Obama has to pick his battles, and that'll be harder for him. What is he gonna attack McCain for exactly? Flip-flopping? Pandering? POW? Serving 25 years? (Actually, I think that WILL be his POA...saying he has 25 years working against him). Obama can't very well hit McCain for the first two while he's in the middle of HUGE policy (cough cough) "shifts", so...really, Obama isn't attacking because he has little ammo with which to do so...McCain can hit early and often (and, let's be honest, compared to Rove/Clinton type stuff, these ads are really quite tame) quite simply because he can.that is YOUR point, which i clearly got. i have my own set of points in this thread.

if were reeling this back in, lets not miss the point of choosing a veep which quickly swiched to obama being associated with paris hilton and britney spears.

nothing i said is untrue. obamas camp could easilly run a campaign ad associating him with the "Golden Girls". now would that influence voters one way or the other? i dont know. i would laugh at such a tit for tat manuver though, just like the righties laugh at mccains "sense of humor".

attacking ones "fame" is about as relevant as attacking ones "age". although i doubt one can go medically senile due to fame.

what if the mccain ad backfires and the dunces who buy britney tabloids and watch paris on tv, associate obama with their "idols"? thats dangerous water to tread.

bill clinton embraced the mtv crowd, and the "rock the vote" campaign was born. he jammed his sax on arsenio hall. did george bush mock those fans? i know 1 thing, he didnt win.

just cause britney and paris (and all their fans) are retarded doesnt mean their votes count any less. dumbasses are a large demographic in this nation. to win an election, one kinda needs their vote too.

the same population who made them blonde twits so famous are the same people who have the power to put mccain in the white house.

i dont like the denigration of our society any more than anybody else. but it is what it is. i dont make the rules, i just live amongst them and comment.

tony hipchest
08-05-2008, 11:54 AM
Lord almighty...honestly...this guy...ZERO ideas of his own, nothing to offer. Even the "Take the Oil Company Profits" wasn't his, it was Hillary's first. He has nothing to offer but speeches and hype. He is a packaged, manufactured candidate. At least McCain has some experience and has some plans. Obama makes me laugh more each day.

....dino, if i am correct to assume you voted for bush in '00 can you quickly and off the top of your head list about 5-10 original ideas or plans he had that earned him your vote? i know some people voted for his dad based on the "new world order" and "read my lips..." plans.

Dino 6 Rings
08-05-2008, 11:55 AM
I like that McCain's campaign is comparing Obama to the "pop tarts" of the world. Basically, they are saying "Obama is a great Reality TV Star." But after that, has anything good ever happened to a reality star after the fact?

That's the point. He's pointing out Obama's biggest flaw, being that he has zero experience, and he's all hype. Great for "America's Got Talent" But not so great for President of the United States.

Just the fact that Obama needs to pick an experienced person for his VP shows that he needs to "fluff up" his own prestige on someone else's back.

McCain can pick anyone he wants and it won't really matter come voting day. He could take Bobby Jindal and it wouldn't sway votes one way or the others. Obama needs to be "careful" about his pick. Why? Cause he can't stand on his own. He needs to "phone a freind" to win this contest. And that is exactly the point McCain is making.

Dino 6 Rings
08-05-2008, 11:58 AM
dino, if i am correct to assume you voted for bush in '00 can you quickly and off the top of your head list about 5-10 original ideas or plans he had that earned him your vote? i know some people voted for his dad based on the "new world order" and "read my lips..." plans.

I voted against Al Gore more than for Bush. But I liked that Bush was Pro Death Penalty and I liked that he was, at the time, for lowering taxes. It would have been very interesting to see what his terms would have been like if we weren't attacked by moslim terrorists.

revefsreleets
08-05-2008, 12:13 PM
Obama switching his position from DEADSET against offshore drilling to some kind of limited offshore drilling is really despicably lowbrow, just the worst kind of pandering I've ever seen. Is there ANYTHING this guy says that he stands by? Any position he won't vacillate on? Does he have any rock solid principles? "Vote for Change" indeed...changing positions every day is more like it...

Really, I feel bad for his supporters who have been handed the shitty deal of trying to defend this guy. Spin away, but this cat is just shamelessly pandering now, and his daily position flips are becoming indefensible. Attacking McCain is not going to remedy the giant and glaring holes in the Obama candidacy, and are nothing more than obvious attempts at deflection.

tony hipchest
08-05-2008, 12:30 PM
But I liked that Bush was Pro Death Penalty and I liked that he was, at the time, for lowering taxes. ...now theres 2 really original ideas. looks like the current president had about as much to offer as our current democratic nominee.

I like that McCain's campaign is comparing Obama to the "pop tarts" of the world. Basically, they are saying "Obama is a great Reality TV Star." But after that, has anything good ever happened to a reality star after the fact?
correct me if i am wrong, but doesnt a great reality tv star usually win the contest in the end and enjoy even more fame after the fact?

im pretty sure obama likes that the mccain camp is making the comparisson too. hes pretty much conceding that obama is more popular. i wonder if he will win the "popular vote".

me thinks mccain need new advisors. hey! look at that! back on track again.

Dino 6 Rings
08-05-2008, 12:48 PM
...now theres 2 really original ideas. looks like the current president had about as much to offer as our current democratic nominee.

correct me if i am wrong, but doesnt a great reality tv star usually win the contest in the end and enjoy even more fame after the fact?

im pretty sure obama likes that the mccain camp is making the comparisson too. hes pretty much conceding that obama is more popular. i wonder if he will win the "popular vote".

me thinks mccain need new advisors. hey! look at that! back on track again.

Are You Being Sarcastic? The GOP, which Bush is part of, is for a smaller government, less federal intervention, lower taxes, more capitalism, less regulations or restrictions on the free market, more money for the military and the lowering of taxes in order to increase revenue to the government, which works every time. Now that is what makes me lean to the right. When Bush was Governor of Texas there was one huge case of the Death Penalty that he had to allow to go through. A woman had chopped her husband up with an ax, but then in prison, turned Christian. As Gov, he had the opportunity to pardon her or lessen her sentence, He could have caved to the Christian Coalition that was pushing him to give her life in prison. He held his ground and went against them and allowed her to be put to death. THAT was a tough call, agree with it or not, he had to make that call. That impressed me. Want to compare Bush as Gov to Obama as a 1 term Senator, please start a new thread and I'll take my time trashing you with fact after fact about the policies Bush put in place while Gov and decisions he made while Gov of Texas while comparing them to the "present" votes Obama has made while in the Senate.

2nd Point. I was tired of the Liberals running thing with Clinton in the white house. He embarressed us as a nation. Bottom line, I wanted to Clean out the garbage that was in there. Al Gore probably was a better man then he was given credit for at the time, but he was tied to the Clintons. That hurt him big time in the eyes of people like me. Heck, he's a huge Grateful Dead fan and I love the Dead, but I wanted a new way, not the same 8 we had just gone through with companies going bankrupt and laying off people by the 50,000 at a time. Look it up. The Massive layoffs across this country in the 90s was staggering. I wanted something different. Bush got my vote. Then I had to choice between Kerry and Bush again. Not much choice.

McCain's advisors will win this race because they will be steady and slow and just drum into people's minds that Obama, isn't really what they think. Over and over again, slowly until November they will remind the voters, Obama is a Paper Tiger.

tony hipchest
08-05-2008, 12:55 PM
i am familiar with carla faye tucker....

nobody is saying mccain is bad. but he is tied to bush by party alone. bush has made people so disgusted it will probably land somebody in office who you despise.

but I wanted a new way, not the same 8 we had just gone through with companies going bankrupt and laying off people by the 50,000 at a time. Look it up. The Massive layoffs across this country in the 90s was staggering. I wanted something different.

eerily familiar to what obama is selling. just remember, gore didnt lose by a landslide.

steelwall
08-05-2008, 01:01 PM
"Vote for Change" indeed...changing positions every day is more like it...




:chuckle: thats funny, good one.

Dino 6 Rings
08-05-2008, 01:06 PM
i am familiar with carla faye tucker....

nobody is saying mccain is bad. but he is tied to bush by party alone. bush has made people so disgusted it will probably land somebody in office who you despise.



eerily familiar to what obama is selling. just remember, gore didnt lose by a landslide.

Well the Tucker case was a huge decision and showed me the guy wasn't afraid to make up his mind and make a tough choice.

McCain and Bush really aren't tied together, they kind of hate each other in fact. and that is very appealing to the anti-bush crowd. McCain voted against Bush and went against his policies a lot. He's a moderate not a true republican.

Gore was the VP under Clinton, that's being tied to regime. McCain has been fighting with Bush since the 2000 primaries.

tony hipchest
08-05-2008, 01:25 PM
Well the Tucker case was a huge decision and showed me the guy wasn't afraid to make up his mind and make a tough choice.

McCain and Bush really aren't tied together, they kind of hate each other in fact. and that is very appealing to the anti-bush crowd. McCain voted against Bush and went against his policies a lot. He's a moderate not a true republican.

Gore was the VP under Clinton, that's being tied to regime. McCain has been fighting with Bush since the 2000 primaries.i like mccain and his moderate views. fact is, he is the republican nominee, which is why i stated he is tied to bush by party alone. i think people have become that disinfranchised with the whole deal.

i liked bob dole. didnt agree with him on as many things as clinton, but i liked him and wouldnt have thrown myself infront of a train, had he won.

i didnt really buy anything either of the g dub's were selling though.

im curious which direction the mccain ad campaigns will follow, especially when they get that top secret, insider info, and head start jump on who obamas running mate will be. :laughing: with all his experience, and military duties, and hands down being the best candidate, theres no way they would have to resort to mudslinging, now is there?

so how bout mccains top advisor acting like he's bill belichick? isnt that bizarre?

lamberts-lost-tooth
08-05-2008, 01:55 PM
:fishing:

fame is fame, i say,

I would beg to differ....

There are 5 types of fame:

Fame by election or appointment....... acquired by politicians, judges and others in public office.

Fame by achievement....... comes to film stars, fashion models, sporting heroes, and leaders in business. A variant of this type of fame is the infamy acquired by wrongdoers because of the seriousness of their acts.
.
Fame by chance..... for instance, winning the lottery - fame by chance is usually not a good time for the people going through it.......particularly those who are not well versed in public relations and in the trading of privacy for media coverage.

Fame by association........ enjoyed or endured by those close to the famous, such as a politician’s spouse, a sports champion’s children or the parents of a criminal. It is reflected fame.
.
The last is Royal fame ......those who are born into, or marry into, a royal family.

I would argue that McCain is running on "Fame by Election" and on the 25 year history of his time serving the American Public.

Obama , in my humble opinion, is banking on "Fame by Achievement" ...His PR staff is trying to convince the public that he is some type of celebrity shich is ironic since he has less "achievement" to hang his hat on then any candidate in history. Just more symbolism over substance.

lamberts-lost-tooth
08-05-2008, 02:06 PM
VP > military service

Could you explain why you believe that ?

HometownGal
08-05-2008, 02:11 PM
I'm thoroughly enjoying this one. Carry on gentlemen! :drink:

Anyone want to share some of this with me? :popcorn:

stlrtruck
08-05-2008, 02:18 PM
I'm thoroughly enjoying this one. Carry on gentlemen! :drink:

Anyone want to share some of this with me? :popcorn:

Sure I'd love some of that :popcorn: and while they're at it :drink:

tony hipchest
08-05-2008, 02:41 PM
I would beg to differ....

There are 5 types of fame:

Fame by election or appointment....... acquired by politicians, judges and others in public office.

Fame by achievement....... comes to film stars, fashion models, sporting heroes, and leaders in business. A variant of this type of fame is the infamy acquired by wrongdoers because of the seriousness of their acts.
.
Fame by chance..... for instance, winning the lottery - fame by chance is usually not a good time for the people going through it.......particularly those who are not well versed in public relations and in the trading of privacy for media coverage.

Fame by association........ enjoyed or endured by those close to the famous, such as a politician’s spouse, a sports champion’s children or the parents of a criminal. It is reflected fame.
.
The last is Royal fame ......those who are born into, or marry into, a royal family.

I would argue that McCain is running on "Fame by Election" and on the 25 year history of his time serving the American Public.

Obama , in my humble opinion, is banking on "Fame by Achievement" ...His PR staff is trying to convince the public that he is some type of celebrity shich is ironic since he has less "achievement" to hang his hat on then any candidate in history. Just more symbolism over substance.there are 31 flavors of ice cream but it all still comes from a cow. we can disect fame into a million different categories, but it doesnt change a thing, especially when we look deeper into your post.


so youre telling me that even though mccain and obama are BOTH elected officials, BOTH are politicians, and even though virtually nobody had any idea who obama was before going into politics, they still are famous under different definitions?

:bs: gotta call bs on this one. you cant change the very definitions you gave to support your opinion.

and this further goes to show how off base the mccain camp is. how dare they lump in obama with the Royal Fame of paris and the hilton empire? if anybody is incorrect, it is their camp, not me.

LLT, you know youre my homeslice, but what you did was pure horseshit. you took obama out of the class that perfectly describes his fame- Fame by election or appointment....... acquired by politicians, judges and others in public office.


and lumped him in with ted bundy and charles manson. :applaudit: bravo.

do you expect me to believe he is not an elected official who holds a public office?

and if i do accept the bogus "fame by achievement" claim i have to wonder.... do you frown upon ronald reagan and arnold swartzenegger for banking on their evil, fake, stake to fame or do they get a pass because theyre republicans?

tony hipchest
08-05-2008, 02:45 PM
Could you explain why you believe that ?this ones easy.

America doesnt require its president to have military experience, however it does require that every single one have a vice president; therefore, i contend that VP is more important.

and i have the backing of our entire political system. :wink02:

not much debate to be found here.

tony hipchest
08-05-2008, 02:49 PM
Anyone want to share some of this with me? :popcorn:i'll have some too. :chug:

(better than the :poop: im trying to be fed.)

lamberts-lost-tooth
08-05-2008, 03:10 PM
Posted by tony hipchest there are 31 flavors of ice cream but it all still comes from a cow. we can disect fame into a million different categories, but it doesnt change a thing, especially when we look deeper into your post.

LLT, you know youre my homeslice, but what you did was pure horseshit. you took obama out of the class that perfectly describes his fame-



Actually...No.

Obama obviously fits the first classification...its how I know him and how many know him...I'm not saying (nor did I say) that he doesnt fit the classification.

What I did is imply is (my belief) that Obamas campaign is attempting to take him out of the first category due to a credibility problem with his lack of experience....and are instead trying to simulate it with a shallow symbolic "Rock-Star" fame.

Sorta trading ice cream.....for sour milk.

lamberts-lost-tooth
08-05-2008, 03:13 PM
this ones easy.

America doesnt require its president to have military experience, however it does require that every single one have a vice president; therefore, i contend that VP is more important.

and i have the backing of our entire political system. :wink02:

not much debate to be found here.

I understand now...I thought your original post meant that Experience as VP... was better than Experience in the military.

HometownGal
08-05-2008, 03:24 PM
America doesnt require its president to have military experience, however it does require that every single one have a vice president; therefore, i contend that VP is more important.



You're absolutely correct that military experience is not a prerequisite for holding the office of President of the United States, Tony. It is a matter of preference for me based on my top priority in electing a President who I believe can be not only solid but a hard ass against terrorism. McCain has it all over Obama in that department, imho, as he's "been there, done that". As I've said many times in these political threads, if America is attacked again, we most likely won't have to worry about all of the other issues - we'll be pushing up daisies. I believe our country would continue to be safe from terrorism under McCain's watch - I don't believe the same with regard to Obama.

On the other hand, if Obama selects a total asshole for his running mate (and the possibilities are admittedly endless on both sides of the coin), we'd have two assholes holding the highest offices in the country. :wink02: :flap: When all is said and done, I'd much prefer to elect an "asshole" who is an established hardass. :chuckle:

tony hipchest
08-05-2008, 04:00 PM
I understand now...I thought your original post meant that Experience as VP... was better than Experience in the military.i coulda made that more clear but i did state that the vp selection will have much more impact on for whom i cast my vote than prior military experience. i feel its great to have but not necessary. this race is young and there is still plenty that can be done to sway my vote either way.

tony hipchest
08-05-2008, 04:13 PM
It is a matter of preference for me based on my top priority in electing a President who I believe can be not only solid but a hard ass against terrorism.

I believe our country would continue to be safe from terrorism under McCain's watch - I don't believe the same with regard to Obama.

how was prez bush with virtually no military experience able to keep us so safe from terrorism? im a little concerned that bin laden is still out there and we are breeding them in guantanamo bay. hopefully all the young iraqis who were exposed to our most recent war dont grow up to want revenge.

i will feel just as safe or unsafe, regardless of who is elected. there are holes to be exposed under anyones watch. after all, i feel terrorism has more to do with us being infidels and the devil as opposed to who happens to be in on a 4 year term, red or blue.

even saddam said he really had nothing against clinton, admired reagan, but he really disliked the bush's. :noidea:

personally i like bill richardsons approach to difusing the n. korean nuclear armament as opposed to prez bush's "pistols ablazin', axis of evil" approach.

but thats just me.

tony hipchest
08-05-2008, 04:22 PM
Actually...No.

Obama obviously fits the first classification...its how I know him and how many know him...I'm not saying (nor did I say) that he doesnt fit the classification.

What I did is imply is (my belief) that Obamas campaign is attempting to take him out of the first category due to a credibility problem with his lack of experience....and are instead trying to simulate it with a shallow symbolic "Rock-Star" fame.

Sorta trading ice cream.....for sour milk.HA! it may be.

but who said the run for president wanst ultimately a popularity contest? after all isnt that we learn in grades K-12? who usually wins those elections? the more than capable nerd in debate club, or the homecoming king, good looking qb of the football team?

it is what it is, and obama is out to win. just remember, if he does, not to cry over spilt sour milk :chuckle:

slightly off topic but eddie murphys "i got some ice cream, i got some ice cream" routine comes to mind along with the movie Election starring mathew broderick and reese witherspoon (great flick).

Texasteel
08-05-2008, 04:24 PM
I have got to side with HTG, anyone that thinks you can reason with a terrorist does not understand what is or has been going on in this world.
I would much rather have a person, man or woman, that would make it clear that if you attack us, you, and not one you know will not walk away in one peice.

HometownGal
08-05-2008, 04:34 PM
how was prez bush with virtually no military experience able to keep us so safe from terrorism?

GWB has done some things that I haven't been too happy with, but the one constant in his two terms in office has been the strong message he laid down on the eve of 911, which message obviously has been taken seriously by those who wish to harm us, as the United States has not suffered another terrorist attack on its soil since that horrific day.

im a little concerned that bin laden is still out there and we are breeding them in guantanamo bay. hopefully all the young iraqis who were exposed to our most recent war dont grow up to want revenge.

i will feel just as safe or unsafe, regardless of who is elected. there are holes to be exposed under anyones watch. after all, i feel terrorism has more to do with us being infidels and the devil as opposed to who happens to be in on a 4 year term, red or blue.


Personally, I think Bin Laden is taking a dirt nap, but that's just mho. Even if he isn't, he's been a good little Ishkabibble since Bush's message and his band of murderous turban tops have been knocked off one by one at a pretty good clip by our military. In the event the bearded weirdo is still breathing somewhere in a hole or in an outhouse, I truly believe he is sitting back and waiting to see who we Americans elect before planning his next attack. I am pretty confident that if McCain (or should I say "when" :flap:) is elected, Bin Turban is going to continue hiding for the next (at least) 4 years.


even saddam said he really had nothing against clinton, admired reagan, but he really disliked the bush's. :noidea:



And what did that get Saddam other than a hangman's noose, a broken neck and a personal interview with Satan? :evil:

personally i like bill richardsons approach to difusing the n. korean nuclear armament as opposed to prez bush's "pistols ablazin', axis of evil" approach.

but thats just me

It's a shame Richardson didn't make it this time around, as I may have voted for him. Don't lose faith - in 4 years, Richardson will only be 61 years of age and may have won the favor of the Democratic Party, especially when they see that putting an inexperienced smooth talker as their candidate didn't work too well. :chuckle:

tony hipchest
08-05-2008, 04:56 PM
GWB has done some things that I haven't been too happy with, but the one constant in his two terms in office has been the strong message he laid down on the eve of 911, which message obviously has been taken seriously by those who wish to harm us, as the United States has not suffered another terrorist attack on its soil since that horrific day.
but how many terrorist attacks were there on american soil before that day? not many. there was the world trade center in '93 which was more of an attack on capitalizm and our culture as opposed to clinton or democrats. and then, who can forget OKC, which i believe was carried out by 2 right wing extremist nutjobs.

i dont know what obama would do if attacked again. i do know he wont be rolling out red carpet for them though. if it were to happen he may be more inclined to listen to his military advisors and generals. :noidea:

i dont like this perception that only a republican leader is willing to lay it on the line and defend our country. democrats are capable of that too.

lamberts-lost-tooth
08-05-2008, 04:59 PM
HA! it may be.

but who said the run for president wanst ultimately a popularity contest? after all isnt that we learn in grades K-12? who usually wins those elections? the more than capable nerd in debate club, or the homecoming king, good looking qb of the football team?

it is what it is, and obama is out to win. just remember, if he does, not to cry over spilt sour milk :chuckle:

slightly off topic but eddie murphys "i got some ice cream, i got some ice cream" routine comes to mind along with the movie Election starring mathew broderick and reese witherspoon (great flick).

I agree with you that poitics has turned into a popularity contest...which is pretty sad....But I truly dont want to get sucked into the cultural shallowness of voting for the nerdy guy in hopes of looking pseudo-intellectual...or voting the Captain of the football team in hopes of living vicariously through someone elses accomplishments.

In both scenerios I turn over personal accountability ..and leave my vote to be based on which party can give me the "warm fuzzies" over their candidate.

I made a knee-jerk vote several years ago when I cast my ballot for ex-Illinois govenor George Ryan...who now sits in a prison cell for being a one of the biggest crooks this state has ever seen. I dont want to make that same mistake again...and because of that, I am very critical of anything outside of experience when it comes to picking a candidate.

lamberts-lost-tooth
08-05-2008, 05:14 PM
but how many terrorist attacks were there on american soil before that day? not many. there was the world trade center in '93 which was more of an attack on capitalizm and our culture as opposed to clinton or democrats. and then, who can forget OKC, which i believe was carried out by 2 right wing extremist nutjobs.

i dont know what obama would do if attacked again. i do know he wont be rolling out red carpet for them though. if it were to happen he may be more inclined to listen to his military advisors and generals. :noidea:

i dont like this perception that only a republican leader is willing to lay it on the line and defend our country. democrats are capable of that too.

The attack on 9-11 was planned under Clintons watch....the problem with "poll watching politics"...is that under the pretense of being everthing to everyone...and trying to be seen as a "global president"....we let our guard down.

Under Clinton we saw:

Oct. 12, 2000 - A terrorist bomb damages the destroyer USS Cole in the port of Aden, Yemen, killing 17 sailors and injuring 39.

Aug. 7, 1998 - Terrorist bombs destroy the U.S. embassies in Nairobi, Kenya and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. In Nairobi, 12 Americans are among the 291 killed, and over 5,000 are wounded, including 6 Americans. In Dar es Salaam, one U.S. citizen is wounded among the 10 killed and 77 injured.

June 21, 1998 - Rocket-propelled grenades explode near the U.S. embassy in Beirut.

July 27, 1996 - A pipe bomb explodes during the Olympic games in Atlanta, killing one person and wounding 111.

June 25, 1996 - A bomb aboard a fuel truck explodes outside a U.S. air force installation in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia. 19 U.S. military personnel are killed in the Khubar Towers housing facility, and 515 are wounded, including 240 Americans.

Nov. 13, 1995 - A car-bomb in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia kills seven people, five of them American military and civilian advisers for National Guard training. The "Tigers of the Gulf," "Islamist Movement for Change," and "Fighting Advocates of God" claim responsibility.

April 19, 1995 - A car bomb destroys the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, killing 168 people and wounding over 600.

February 1993 - A bomb in a van explodes in the underground parking garage in New York's World Trade Center, killing six people and wounding 1,042.


If thats not a pattern...I'm not sure of the definition.

HometownGal
08-05-2008, 05:23 PM
but how many terrorist attacks were there on american soil before that day? not many. there was the world trade center in '93 which was more of an attack on capitalizm and our culture as opposed to clinton or democrats. and then, who can forget OKC, which i believe was carried out by 2 right wing extremist nutjobs.

i dont like this perception that only a republican leader is willing to lay it on the line and defend our country. democrats are capable of that too.

No, no, no!!! I am not saying that only GOP Presidents are capable of defending our country, though if you look back, Clinton did nothing to avenge the terrorist attacks on the WTC, the USS Cole, the al-Khobar Tower bombing or the bombing of the US Embassy in Africa other than fire a couple of missiles to try and hit Bin Laden in the summer of 1998, in an effort to take the attention away from his tryst with Monica Lewinsky. Other than FDR and Truman, I really can't name a Democratic President who had the nads of steel which I feel are necessary to lead a country as large and powerful as the U.S.

i dont know what obama would do if attacked again. i do know he wont be rolling out red carpet for them though. if it were to happen he may be more inclined to listen to his military advisors and generals. :noidea:

This is the point I've been trying to get across here. I am 100% confident in McCain's ability to continue to keep the terrorists at bay and over in their shit hole countries. As I said above, he has more than proven his "true grit". Obama, on the other hand, comes across to me as a yellow-bellied wimp with the toughness of a bowl of tapioca. He is inexperienced and unproven and imho - not qualified in any way, shape or form to be the President (or the "protector in chief") of this great country.

xfl2001fan
08-05-2008, 05:55 PM
Clinton may have had the nads to do what was right, but he couldn't keep them out of the mouth of interns.

I was overseas in 98 when the US Embassies were bombed and in 2000 when the USS Cole was struck. I remember particularly the USS Cole bombing because of the bravery of those sailors that kept that boat afloat through their hard work and determination. They wouldn't accept food/water from any non-american source. If it didn't come directly from the Air Force, Army or Navy, they wanted nothing to do with it. It was a terrible time and NOTHING was done.

Clinton did some good things for this country, but he was a profanityfilterprofanityfilterprofanityfilterprofa nityfilterprofanityfilter when it came to this crap.

tony hipchest
08-05-2008, 06:58 PM
The attack on 9-11 was planned under Clintons watch....the problem with "poll watching politics"...is that under the pretense of being everthing to everyone...and trying to be seen as a "global president"....we let our guard down.

Under Clinton we saw:

Oct. 12, 2000 - A terrorist bomb damages the destroyer USS Cole in the port of Aden, Yemen, killing 17 sailors and injuring 39.

Aug. 7, 1998 - Terrorist bombs destroy the U.S. embassies in Nairobi, Kenya and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. In Nairobi, 12 Americans are among the 291 killed, and over 5,000 are wounded, including 6 Americans. In Dar es Salaam, one U.S. citizen is wounded among the 10 killed and 77 injured.

June 21, 1998 - Rocket-propelled grenades explode near the U.S. embassy in Beirut.

July 27, 1996 - A pipe bomb explodes during the Olympic games in Atlanta, killing one person and wounding 111.

June 25, 1996 - A bomb aboard a fuel truck explodes outside a U.S. air force installation in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia. 19 U.S. military personnel are killed in the Khubar Towers housing facility, and 515 are wounded, including 240 Americans.

Nov. 13, 1995 - A car-bomb in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia kills seven people, five of them American military and civilian advisers for National Guard training. The "Tigers of the Gulf," "Islamist Movement for Change," and "Fighting Advocates of God" claim responsibility.

April 19, 1995 - A car bomb destroys the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, killing 168 people and wounding over 600.

February 1993 - A bomb in a van explodes in the underground parking garage in New York's World Trade Center, killing six people and wounding 1,042.


If thats not a pattern...I'm not sure of the definition.and how many were on US soil (that is what HTG said isnt it)?

2

and if clinton is to be blamed for attacks being planned on his watch, is bush sr. willing to accept all the blame of attacks planned on his watch. isnt he the one who put a stick in the hornets nest?

who set up the bases in the "holy land"? who provoked all these attacks? didnt bush ignore is generals and pull out like a father of 8 having an affair with a fertile 20 year old, leaving his son to clean up the mess?

but this blame game and debate is old hat. im sure its been covered countless times in numerous threads on this board alone. whats done is done.

im much more in to moving on to newer and fresher debates that are more entertaining, and not stale and mundane.

...such as the direction our 2 candidates ad campaigns will take and who mis-steps the most. whose strategy is the best?. we are moving into the "pre-season" of this election, and the heat will turn up. discussing new subjects will be much more stimulating.

as for as discussing all terrorism being blamed on "clintons watch" i already know where this leads. a finger pointing stalemate where the bush supporters blame clinton and the clinton supporters point out the big mess he was left to deal with.

didnt bush sr run agains clinton in '92 and LOSE?

yep. are you gonna take the stance that bush wouldnt have had to deal with the same problems he helped create had he remained in office?


good luck selling that one.

revefsreleets
08-05-2008, 07:07 PM
Here's the problem with defending Obama's positions of TODAY.

You're going to have to defend his positions of tomorrow, which, increasingly are beginning to look more and more exactly like GWB's policies of today (and less and less like Obama's policies of yesterday)

This is almost becoming Orwellian in nature...Obama's "Ministry of Peace" has us fighting Eurasia today, Eastasia tomorrow, and we are all just supposed to buy into the fact that we've ALWAYS been fighting Eastasia...

fansince'76
08-05-2008, 07:31 PM
....is bush sr. willing to accept all the blame of attacks planned on his watch. isnt he the one who put a stick in the hornets nest?

who set up the bases in the "holy land"? who provoked all these attacks? didnt bush ignore is generals and pull out like a father of 8 having an affair with a fertile 20 year old, leaving his son to clean up the mess?

I usually stay out of these debates, but I think a couple points need to be made here.

Bush Sr. established bases in Saudi at the invitation of the Saudis themselves, after Saddam Hussein conquered Kuwait and the inevitability of him doing the same to Saudi without our intervention became quite apparent. Ignore his generals? You mean Schwarzkopf? Bush Sr. played by the UN's rules on that one and pulled out before finishing the job, which is the exact opposite of what his son wound up doing and has been vilified nonstop over for the past 5 years. Sorry, but you can't have it both ways.

You can say all you want about Bush the Elder and Dubya's sabre-rattling and warmongering, but it was Clinton who left the impression with the Islamic extremists that we're a bunch of pussies who'll cut and run after getting our noses bloodied a bit (see Somalia). That didn't help this country's cause with them a bit either.

tony hipchest
08-05-2008, 07:34 PM
Here's the problem with defending Obama's positions of TODAY.

You're going to have to defend his positions of tomorrow, which, increasingly are beginning to look more and more exactly like GWB's policies of today (and less and less like Obama's policies of yesterday)

This is almost becoming Orwellian in nature...Obama's "Ministry of Peace" has us fighting Eurasia today, Eastasia tomorrow, and we are all just supposed to buy into the fact that we've ALWAYS been fighting Eastasia...
not sure how this post even pertains to this thread. i dont think any one is defending his positions as it is pretty irrelevant to this discussion. i have sarcastically thrown out several great ad campaigns he can run though. :chuckle:
Attacking McCain is not going to remedy the giant and glaring holes in the Obama candidacy, and are nothing more than obvious attempts at deflection.

speaking of deflection, what does of shore oil drilling policies even have to do with this thread?

the subject matter of this thread was pretty much addressed with the 1st 2 posts from our 2 mods. after that, its pretty much turned into a shitstorm of obama bashing.

im all for the point-counterpoint of debate, and definitely down for "whats good for the goose is good for the gander"...

BUT... 2 attacks on US soil magically turn into ALL attacks that have happened around the globe.

Obama having no "new ideas" is supported with bush being for the death penalty.

obama and mccains fame are classified differently using the same classification that has them both achieving their fame as public servants.

i am told to "reel it in", when i am the only one actually trying to "reel it in" :huh:

:hunch:

where does it end?

steelwall
08-05-2008, 07:37 PM
I for one respect a leader who sticks to his/her guns... Even if I don't always agree.. To me.. that's what a leader does. We elect people to "lead" not to "follow" what ever will change public opinion about themselves, or perhaps win an election. I for one, predicted Obama to get the Democratic nomination long ago when his name was first mentioned, and honestly at the time I could see him becoming president. However, IMO pandering....flip flopping... call it what you will, is a sure way to loose my vote. I don't expect the president to hold every single value I do, but I do expect the leader of this country to at minimum, stay true to themselves, and stand for what they believe in ..... I just have a hard time trusting someone that doesn’t.

What happened in the past with a different person or president honestly, has no bearing on who I vote for. Everyone is their own person.

tony hipchest
08-05-2008, 07:54 PM
I usually stay out of these debates, but I think a couple points need to be made here.

Bush Sr. established bases in Saudi at the invitation of the Saudis themselves, after Saddam Hussein conquered Kuwait and the inevitability of him doing the same to Saudi without our intervention became quite apparent. Ignore his generals? You mean Schwarzkopf? Bush Sr. played by the UN's rules on that one and pulled out before finishing the job, which is the exact opposite of what his son wound up doing and has been vilified nonstop over for the past 5 years. Sorry, but you can't have it both ways.

You can say all you want about Bush the Elder and Dubya's sabre-rattling and warmongering, but it was Clinton who left the impression with the Islamic extremists that we're a bunch of pussies who'll cut and run after getting our noses bloodied a bit (see Somalia). That didn't help this country's cause with them a bit either.and this is exactly what i am talking about. if blaming clinton doesnt pan out, then people move on and blame the saudi's for inviting their oil buddies to stay. well, why the hell wasnt saudi's attacked like the americans were? american interests in saudi arabia was attacked but was the core or infrastructure of the holy land ever attacked on the scale and magnitude of 9-11?

were the 17 or so (dont wanna be caught on a technicality) hijackers aboard those 4 jets attacking clintons weakness moreso than bush sr. accepting the saudi invitation to stay?

i think not.

personally, i woulda wiped somalia off the face of the earth, but that woulda been accepted about as well as cut'n and runnin (or invading iraq a 2nd time under the guise of WMD).

i easilly accept clintons downfalls, and know that no democrat will have the answer to all the worlds problems. when will reps be able to do the same?

fansince'76
08-05-2008, 08:13 PM
well, why the hell wasnt saudi's attacked like the americans were? american interests in saudi arabia was attacked but was the core or infrastructure of the holy land ever attacked on the scale and magnitude of 9-11?

Not like they haven't tried numerous times (the following is just one example):

Saudi security forces have foiled an apparent suicide car bomb attack on a major oil production facility in the eastern town of Abqaiq.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4747488.stm

The point I'm making here is that Saudis (or any other Muslims of any nationality, really) who are seen to capitulate with the West are considered by Al Qaeda to be just as much infidels as Westerners themselves. That's my point - you can't negotiate with people who want nothing more than to kill you, and won't mind dying themselves in trying. Your earlier point about negotiations with North Korea doesn't correlate to Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda wants nothing less than the entire world living under Sharia Law and anybody who resists deserves to die as far as they're concerned. You cannot negotiate with that mindset. Period.

Preacher
08-05-2008, 08:17 PM
Funny thing....

Terrorism in its current form could and should be laid at the doorstep of the 1970's presidential administrations.

Do I blame Carter? Yep. Completely.

However, Nixon, pushing detente changed the impetus of American foreign policy from negotiating from a position of power to negotiating from a position of "understanding" (my term).

Take that stand... add to it Carter's penchant for pacifism, and throw into the mix the French (who mess up everything), and welcome to the modern installation of terrorism and the terrorist state known as Iran.

Make no mistake about it. Iran was the start and the sustainer of this terrorist age. IT has grown and transmogrified from there. But it can be laid at the foot of Iran... and 1970's American foreign policy.

tony hipchest
08-05-2008, 08:47 PM
Not like they haven't tried numerous times (the following is just one example):



http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4747488.stm

The point I'm making here is that Saudis (or any other Muslims of any nationality, really) who are seen to capitulate with the West are considered by Al Qaeda to be just as much infidels as Westerners themselves. That's my point - you can't negotiate with people who want nothing more than to kill you, and won't mind dying themselves in trying. Your earlier point about negotiations with North Korea doesn't correlate to Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda wants nothing less than the entire world living under Sharia Law and anybody who resists deserves to die as far as they're concerned. You cannot negotiate with that mindset. Period.exactly. youve just nailed the crux of my point.

while many would like to make it a republican or democratic thing, it is much, much bigger than that. which is why i think lumping in n. korea in with the likes of al quaeda was a tactical error.

we cannot deal with the likes of terrorists through reason and verbal negotiations..

the headway we have made with this renegade nation shows not every threat is a terrorist.

some people saw this. some didnt. hindsight is 20/20, and i dont expect every candidate to be perfect all the time. unless theyre republican. after all they are advertised as perfection. :chuckle:

HometownGal
08-05-2008, 09:29 PM
unless theyre republican. after all they are advertised as perfection. :chuckle:

Spoken like a true liberal! :applaudit::wink02::flap:

tony hipchest
08-05-2008, 10:27 PM
Spoken like a true liberal! :applaudit::wink02::flap:
tsk tsk tsk. werent you once labeled as a right wing conservative?

i admit i waffle a bit, and 2nd guess myself on more issues than obama but i can freeley say, i am open minded enough to do so. then again, i am not running for public office either.

it is my right to have an open mind, grow and develop, and nourish my beliefs.

if that makes me a true liberal, then i can do nothing but embrace it :hug:

HometownGal
08-06-2008, 06:13 AM
tsk tsk tsk. werent you once labeled as a right wing conservative?

i admit i waffle a bit, and 2nd guess myself on more issues than obama but i can freeley say, i am open minded enough to do so. then again, i am not running for public office either.

it is my right to have an open mind, grow and develop, and nourish my beliefs.

if that makes me a true liberal, then i can do nothing but embrace it :hug:

Yes I was, as a matter of fact, my dear Hipcheese. By Jeremy. Enough said. :laughing::laughing:

Actually, I'm more moderate. btw - in case you didn't know it, I was just messing with you. :wink02:

lamberts-lost-tooth
08-06-2008, 08:21 AM
american interests in saudi arabia was attacked but was the core or infrastructure of the holy land ever attacked on the scale and magnitude of 9-11?


The bombing of the twin towers isnt the ruler countries should use to determine legitimacy of terrrorist attacks..but here you go...

2003
12 May (See Riyadh Compound Bombings) 35 are killed and over 200 wounded during a suicide attack on the Vinnell Compound in Riyadh.
31 May 2 police officers and a militant are killed.
14 June 2 police officers and 5 militants are killed in Mecca.
28 July 3 unnamed militants killed on a farm outside of Qassim.
23 September 3 militants and a police officer are killed in a gunfight at a Riyadh hospital.
20 October Police raid hideout in Riyadh and capture a large supply of weapons.
3 November Police surround militant hideout in Riyadh and kill two.
6 November 2 militants surrounded by the police in Riyadh blow themselves up.
8 November A truck bomb explodes at an Arab housing compound in Riyadh, killing 17 and injuring 120.
8 December an unnamed militant is killed at a Riyadh gas station.

2004
19 January Shootout in Al-Nassim District (Riyadh)
29 January One unnamed gunman captured and five police officers killed in a shootout in the Al-Nassim District of Riyadh.
15 March A Yemeni militant leader is killed in Saudi Arabia.
5 April An unnamed militant is reported killed in a car chase in Riyadh.
12 April A police officer and one militant are killed in a shootout in Riyadh. Rakan ibn Moshen Al-Seikhan and Nasser ibn Rashid Al-Rashid are wounded and escaped. Both are reported dead on 4 July.
13 April 4 police officers are killed in two attacks by militants. Several car bombs are found and defused.
21 April A suicide bomber detonates a car bomb in Riyadh at the gates of a building used as the headquarters of the traffic police and emergency services. Five people die and 148 are injured.
22 April 3 unnamed militants are killed by police in Jeddah in an incident in the Al-Fayha district.
1 July Abdullah ibn Ahmed Al-Rashoud is killed in shootout east of the capital. Bandar Al-Dakheel escapes. Two policemen (Bandar Al-Qahtani and Humoud Abdullah Al-Harbi) are killed.
4 July The bodies of Moshen Al-Seikhan and Nasser ibn Rashid Al-Rashid are discovered. One had had his leg crudely amputated. Both seem to have been wounded in fights with the security services and died later.
13 July Khaled al-Harbi, who is listed on the government's most-wanted list, surrenders in Iran, is flown to Saudi Arabia.
14 July Ibrahim al-Harb surrenders himself in Syria.
20 July Shootout in Riyadh. Eisa ibn Saad Al-Awshan is killed Saleh Al-Oufi , the head of Al Qaeda in the kingdom escapes from the raid on the compound.
5 August Faris Ahmed Jamaan al-Showeel al-Zahrani is captured in Abha without a fight.
11 September Two small bombs go off in Jeddah near the Saudi British and Saudi American Banks. Nobody is injured.
4 November Unnamed ‘deviant’ is arrested in a shoot-out at an Internet café in Buraidah, Qasim region. Two policemen are injured.
9 November Shootout in Jeddah. On Al-Amal Al-Saleh Street, police capture four unnamed militants and seize eight AKs and hundreds of locally-made bombs.
10 November Government announces the interception of 44,000 rounds of ammunition being smuggled in from Yemen.
13 November Five unnamed militants arrested in Riyadh and Zulfi. A number of machine guns and other weapons are captured. Nobody is hurt in the gunfight.
17 November A police officer is killed and eight are injured in a shootout in Unayzah, Qassim. Five persons of interest are detained. Computers, pipe bombs are seized.
29 December Two suicide car bombs explode in Riyadh. One outside the Interior Ministry Complex, the other near the Special Emergency Force training center. A passerby is killed and some people are wounded. In a resulting gun battle, seven suspected militants are killed. Two (Sultan Al-Otabi and Faisal Al-Dakheel) were on the Kingdom’s list of 26 Most Wanted.

2005
13 March Saudi security forces in Jeddah conduct an early-morning raid that kills one (Saed al-Youbi) labeled as a terrorist. One civilian was also killed; five policemen were wounded. Three other suspects were arrested.
4 April and 5 April Saudi security forces launch a major raid against a three-house compound in the town of Al-Rass. Fifteen terrorists, including Saleh Al-Aufi, reportedly the Al-Qaeda leader for Saudi Arabia were killed along with Talib Saud Al-Talib, also on the list of the 26 most-wanted persons. The gunfight lasted for most of two days and included the use of rocket-propelled grenades, machine guns and other heavy weapons. .
7 April Using information from the previous raid, security services killed Abdul Rahman Al-Yaziji, number four on the most-wanted list in a firefight in the Southern Industrial District of Riyadh.
22 April A group of four insurgents dressed as women attempt to bluff their way past a security checkpoint near the holy city of Makkah. The police gave chase as the group fled in their car. They were surrounded in a hilly area near Umm Al-Joud southeast of the city. Two militants and two security officers were killed in the resulting shootout, an unknown number were wounded. The battle took place as the Western Region of Saudi Arabia was conducting its first-ever elections for local government councils.
9 May Abdul Aziz ibn Rasheed Al-Inazi is arrested after a shoot-out in Riyadh. His is described in the press as a leader of the Religious Committee of the insurgency.
19 June Lt Colonel Mubarak Al-Sawat, a senior police commander in Makkah, was killed outside his home as he got in his car on his way to work.
21 June The killers of Lt Colonel Mubarak Al-Sawat are killed by security forces after a long fire-fight on the Old Makkah Road in the Holy City. Mansour Al-Thubaity and Kamal Foudah, both Saudi nationals, were fired on while fleeing police in a car, took another car and finally were killed while hiding in a building in a residential area.
3 July Younus Mohamed Al-Hiyari is killed in a shoot-out with police in eastern Riyadh. Six police officers were injured in the clash which included the use of homemade bombs by the militants.
19 July Saudi Security forces capture a weapons cache in Al-Kharj south of Riyadh. The store included included 1,900 kg of fertilizer, 125 kg of ammonium nitrate, aluminum powder, potassium nitrate and other chemicals used by suspected Al-Qaeda militants to make bombs.
25 July Mohamed Saeed Al-Amry (number ten on List A) is captured in Madinah along with two unnamed others. He was carrying an explosive device when he was captured.
18 August Saudi Security Forces conducted six raids around the kingdom killing four and capturing an unknown number of fighters. During one of these actions, Saleh Al Oufi is reportedly killed in Madinah. He was the fourth name on the original list of 26 most-wanted persons and has been described as the Al-Qaeda chief in the kingdom. Newspapers also reported that Farraj Al-Juwait was killed by police near exit five on the Ring Road in Riyadh.
3 December Seventeen unnamed "terror suspect"s are arrested in a series of raids in Riyadh, Al-Kharj and Majmaa. The security services also claimed to have captured an undisclosed amount af explosives and weaponry.
28 December In separate incidents, Saudi security forces killed two wanted militants in Qassim. Abdul Rahman Saleh Al-Miteb,was killed in Um Khashba after a routine traffic stop led to his killing two highway patrolmen. This set off a running gunfight that killed three more police officers. Abdul Rahman Al-Suwailemi died in custody from his wounds after being captured elsewhere in the region. He was described as a computer expert who managed insurgent websites.


2006
24 February Saudi security forces have thwarted an attempted suicide attack at an oil processing facility in eastern Saudi Arabia. Two pick-up trucks carrying two would-be bombers tried to enter the side gate to the Abqaiq plant , the largest oil processing facilities in the world, but the attackers detonated their explosives after security guards fired on them.
27 February In a series of predawn raids sparked by the attack on Abqaiq, Saudi security forces killed five unnamed militants and captured another. In addition, three people were killed by the police at a vehicle checkpoint.
26 October Security services announce the arrest of 44 Saudi nationals in Riyadh, Al-Qassim and Hail.
2 December Security services announce the arrest of 136 Al-Qaeda suspects, including 115 Saudi nationals. Calling the arrests "preemptive," they claim that at least one cell of militants were on the verge of making a suicide attack in the Kingdom.

revefsreleets
08-06-2008, 09:18 AM
Obama waffles more than any politicain I've ever seen. I don't see how ANYTHING else matters more than that.

And there is no defense for it, hence there has been no direct defense other than attacking McCain and McCain supporters or GOP in general.

Attacking McCain does not = defending Obama. There is no defense for being deadset against offshore drilling forever, then being for it for votes. Or against the war in Iraq, and running on the plank of first A) Immediate withdrawal, then, B) 16 months withdrawal, then C) Whatever it is today, then D) Whatever it will be tomorrow.

DEFEND the candidate if you can, but STOP attacking McCain and the posters in this thread as a sop for the inadequacies of Obama. It doesn't hold water...look how far off-topic we've come from the HUGE reach that McCain's camp called Obama stupid.

tony hipchest
08-06-2008, 09:32 AM
DEFEND the candidate if you can, but STOP attacking McCain and the posters in this thread as a sop for the inadequacies of Obama. It doesn't hold water...look how far off-topic we've come from the HUGE reach that McCain's camp called Obama stupid.are you telling ME to stop attacking posters?

but... but... but....

obamas plane doesnt have a flag on the tail.... :rolleyes:

and hes muslim.

Attacking McCain does not = defending Obama.but youve already implied that there are obama defenders [in this thread, i suppose] for doing nothing more than suggesting ideas for a rebuttal attack ad.

who's waffling now?

revefsreleets
08-06-2008, 09:46 AM
Again, there is zero substance here as a defense for Obama. Still nothing. I know in other threads there have been people asking for the same, but where are the rational, well thought and and reasoned, line-by-line defenses?

Flipped on the War (Immediate withdrawal to 16 months to...?)
Flopped on off shore drilling
Flipped on late term abortions
Flopped on gun control
Flipped on public campaign financing (vowed to take it, then didn't)
Flopped on FISA
Flipped on Faith Based Initiatives
Flopped on death penalty for child rapists, though anti-capital punishment


Attacking McCain will not answer for all these flip-flops, and they have all occurred in the very recent past. How many more poition reversals will this dude fob off on us? And how long can his supporters turn a blind eye to this awful and insulting pandering?

(Edit: Bear in mind, I had great respect for this dude up until VERY recently. I thought he was at least a man of prnciple and strong convictions, as well as someone who, if elected, would "put our best foot forward" internationally. He has been VERY disappointing as of late. Can someone show me why I should be dissuaded of my recent notions?)

lamberts-lost-tooth
08-06-2008, 10:44 AM
Attacking McCain will not answer for all these flip-flops, and they have all occurred in the very recent past. How many more poition reversals will this dude fob off on us? And how long can his supporters turn a blind eye to this awful and insulting pandering?


Not very long....he has lost 6 percentage points in the last 10 days..according to the latest polls.


08/06/2008
Match-up without Leaners
McCain 43%
Obama 45%

Match-up with Leaners
McCain 46%
Obama 47%
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/general_election_match_up_history

Counselor
08-06-2008, 10:57 AM
DEFEND the candidate if you can, but STOP attacking McCain and the posters in this thread as a sop for the inadequacies of Obama. It doesn't hold water...look how far off-topic we've come from the HUGE reach that McCain's camp called Obama stupid.

I don't see a lot of attacking of McCain on this board at all. In all honesty I see a lot of Obama bashing and people like Tony and Dan who try to give another point of view------.

In fact I would venture to say, that most everyone here likes McCain---whether or not they eventually vote for him.

lamberts-lost-tooth
08-06-2008, 11:30 AM
I don't see a lot of attacking of McCain on this board at all. In all honesty I see a lot of Obama bashing and people like Tony and Dan who try to give another point of view------.

In fact I would venture to say, that most everyone here likes McCain---whether or not they eventually vote for him.

To be totally honest...if you go back and check the threads....Jeremy and Dan started the McCain bashing...and what you are seeing now is more "backlash" than anything else....though you are correct in saying that the McCain supporters are now out in full force.

Most of what you see with Tony is "tongue in cheek" debate with some serious undertones....but with the other two that I mentioned...they refused to debate fairly and civily, which unfortunately brings the debate to a more "base" level.

I have seen several people...myself included..try and discuss the facts by asking the relevant question as to what Obama has done that warrants his "Rock-Star" following...but the answer we get is always vague and deflective.

Atlanta Dan
08-06-2008, 11:56 AM
I don't see a lot of attacking of McCain on this board at all. In all honesty I see a lot of Obama bashing and people like Tony and Dan who try to give another point of view------.

In fact I would venture to say, that most everyone here likes McCain---whether or not they eventually vote for him.

The board is what it is - there is a home team for the political threads here just as there is on the Steelers threads - anyone posting arguments in support of Obama here should not be incensed to get the same reaction a Steelers fan would get for posting on a Browns board or a Browns fan would get on a Steelers board - that's the breaks - posters can either post in recogniton of those circumstances or if they do not like it sit out the political discussions around here until after the election

As another poster recently stated, nobody is going to change their opinion on who they are voting for based on what gets posted here - so it comes down to whether or not you enjoy voicing your opinions and seeing what type of response it draws

tony hipchest
08-06-2008, 12:00 PM
The bombing of the twin towers isnt the ruler countries should use to determine legitimacy of terrrorist attacks..but here you go...

.LLT, i appreciate the effort, but 9-11 IS the measuring stick of this particular branch of the discussion.

HTG stated that she feels safer with bush in office and will not feel as safe with obama, noting that no attacks have happened on our soil since he took a hard stance on terrorism. i noted that nothing has happened in the last 7 years but only 2 had happened prior if you go back to pearl harbor.

there is always the underlying tone that all terrorist attacks on our soil plus the ones that happened abroad are clintons fault for being soft. thats just propoganda.

the above list of all the shit going on in saudi arabi is almost akin to drive-by's in inner citys right here in america and typical cops and robbers. is saudi arabia turning into a hot bed for terrorism because of clinton being soft (the instances you noted are from 2003-2006) or is it becaus of us setting up bases there and being in bed with them for oil?

not to diminish the threat over there, but that type of terrorism is going on in LA with mexicans randomly killing blacks and vice versa. columbine and many other school shootings, unibomber, the anthrax mailings all cant be blamed on clinton.

i counted about 128 killed in saudi arabia in the 4 years you listed. some "good guys" and many "bad guys". i prefer that they keep it over there.

but what about over here? after all we were originally talking about being safe on our own soil. im not as concerned about what is going on in that catbox as i am with whats going on 90 miles south of me-

http://www.elpasotimes.com/news/ci_10109688

700 slain so far in Juárez

EL PASO -- More than 25 people were slain in the first few days of August in Juárez bringing the total to more than 700 this year -- surpassing the total number of homicides in Mexico City and that of most major United States cities last year.

The violence, linked to a war between drug cartels that flared up in January, has crippled tourism to Juárez, has caused some residents to move to the United States and has led more than two dozen victims to seek medical treatment in El Paso.

Last weekend was among the bloodiest in the beleaguered city, where arrests have been few as almost all of the homicides have gone unsolved despite the presence of the military and federal police.

The recent spate of street shootings include at least seven double homicides since Friday and that of a transit officer and a police academy cadet, according to Chihuahua state police.

Among the dead is Juárez transit police officer Miguel Angel Alvarez Hernandez, 23, who was killed Tuesday morning when the Dodge Durango he was driving was strafed with gunfire. Thirty-four bullet casings were found at the scene off Norzagaray Boulevard, police said.

On Friday evening, Juárez
police academy cadet Ramon Flores Escamilla, 40, was fatally shot on Zaragoza Boulevard in the Lomas de San José area.
It is difficult to know how many, if any, U.S. citizens have been slain. Some victims were killed while driving vehicles with Texas plates, such as on Saturday, when a man identified at Lino Fernandez Martinez, 56, was shot and killed in a GMC Jimmy with Texas plates. He was parked outside El Mexicano beer shop. It was unknown whether Fernandez was a Texas resident.

Juárez police also said that a banner threatening public safety Director Roberto Orduña Cruz was recently discovered.

Orduña told Chihuahua state legislators that the city needs money to increase the number of police officers and equipment needed to patrol the city of an estimated 2 million people. Juárez had around 300 homicides last year.

The Norte de Ciudad Juárez newspaper reported that Juárez has had nearly 730 homicides, surpassing the total in Mexico City for all of last year. Mexico City has about 20 million residents.

By comparison in 2007, New York City had 496 slayings, Los Angeles had 390 and Chicago 443, according to the preliminary Uniform Crime Report by the FBI.

Many of the mob-style shootings in Juárez are believed to be linked to a war between the Sinaloa drug cartel and Juárez drug cartel, known as La Linea.

The violence has continued despite the deployment of the Mexican army, a few arrests of some suspected members of hit squads, and multi-ton marijuana sei zures.



so, since clinton is being blamed for bush sr. setting up camp in saudi, how bout i just blame all this on him wasting billions of dollars on that bogus "war on drugs" campaign back in the late 80's and early 90's. or is that democrats fault too?

dont even get me started on the current administrations brilliant idea of building a wall to keep me safe. bill richardson said it best. "we build a 13 foot wall and they build a 14 foot ladder."

lamberts-lost-tooth
08-06-2008, 12:21 PM
The board is what it is - there is a home team for the political threads here just as there is on the Steelers threads - anyone posting arguments in support of Obama here should not be incensed to get the same reaction a Steelers fan would get for posting on a Browns board or a Browns fan would get on a Steelers board - that's the breaks - posters can either post in recogniton of those circumstances or if they do not like it sit out the political discussions around here until after the election

As another poster recently stated, nobody is going to change their opinion on who they are voting for based on what gets posted here - so it comes down to whether or not you enjoy voicing your opinions and seeing what type of response it draws

You dont fool me....I got you on the ropes and you are sooooo close to jumping on the McCain bandwagon

Such is the power of the Pie Master:whip:

fansince'76
08-06-2008, 12:32 PM
I don't see a lot of attacking of McCain on this board at all. In all honesty I see a lot of Obama bashing and people like Tony and Dan who try to give another point of view------.

There's been plenty of bashing both ways.

http://forums.steelersfever.com/showthread.php?t=25902

http://forums.steelersfever.com/showthread.php?t=25687

http://forums.steelersfever.com/showthread.php?t=25025

http://forums.steelersfever.com/showthread.php?t=25024

But, like I said before, for the most part I generally stay out of these debates myself - not like anybody's mind is going to be changed on a messageboard. Much more likely that hard feelings will be caused than anything else.

revefsreleets
08-06-2008, 01:18 PM
I'm not so sure where people get their info. I'd rather have people make decisions based on back-and-forth from informed (and even semi-informed) people on message boards rather than just buying into the party line, or eating up whatever their union tells them, or getting their info from TV commercials or You Tube.

I have repeatedly asked my friends (most of them not being from this board or any BB) to defend Obama's positions, to make a case for why he should be president, and all I keep hearing is Keating-5, and infidelity and all sorts of other attacks on McCain and his character. The same seems true of here, there really aren't a lot of great defensive positions to take for a guy who is literally changing his entire platform in a matter of weeks.

I think I've tried to be at least sort of nuetral some of the time. I know McCain isn't perfect (ther are many planks of his platform I don't agree with), and, conversely, I've tried to give Obama credit. I think he'd be great for the US image in the rest of the World, particularly Muslim Countries. I think his election would be a great leap for race relations in the US, and proof that we truly have come a long way. But the facts are facts...I simply have no idea what this guy really and truly stands for, and I don't want a guy in the White vacilating his positions from day to day. This country is teetering on the brink of disaster, and it's too precarious of a time to have guy who can't stand firm on his own convictions.

lamberts-lost-tooth
08-06-2008, 01:21 PM
LLT, i appreciate the effort, but 9-11 IS the measuring stick of this particular branch of the discussion.

the above list of all the shit going on in saudi arabi is almost akin to drive-by's in inner citys right here in america and typical cops and robbers. is saudi arabia turning into a hot bed for terrorism because of clinton being soft (the instances you noted are from 2003-2006) or is it becaus of us setting up bases there and being in bed with them for oil?

not to diminish the threat over there, but that type of terrorism is going on in LA with mexicans randomly killing blacks and vice versa. columbine and many other school shootings, unibomber, the anthrax mailings all cant be blamed on clinton.

i counted about 128 killed in saudi arabia in the 4 years you listed. some "good guys" and many "bad guys". i prefer that they keep it over there.

but what about over here? after all we were originally talking about being safe on our own soil. im not as concerned about what is going on in that catbox as i am with whats going on 90 miles south of me-



I understand what you are saying Tony...the point of the list I gave was not about lives lost but was rather directed at your question in regards to ...

was the core or infrastructure of the holy land ever attacked on the scale and magnitude of 9-11

Terrorists in Saudi Arabia specifically target the infrastructure....which I would say is the major difference between gangs and terrorists...though in all honesty I do see a similarity between shiite and sunni factions that fight each other.

Counselor
08-06-2008, 01:49 PM
I'm not so sure where people get their info. I'd rather have people make decisions based on back-and-forth from informed (and even semi-informed) people on message boards rather than just buying into the party line, or eating up whatever their union tells them, or getting their info from TV commercials or You Tube.

I have repeatedly asked my friends (most of them not being from this board or any BB) to defend Obama's positions, to make a case for why he should be president, and all I keep hearing is Keating-5, and infidelity and all sorts of other attacks on McCain and his character. The same seems true of here, there really aren't a lot of great defensive positions to take for a guy who is literally changing his entire platform in a matter of weeks..

I see your point regarding discussion on message boards---but there is a lot of misinformation on message boards as well. I get particularly disturbed when people seem to believe what they get in an e-mail from an anonymous person without question. While you're friends "bash" McCain for the "Keating 5", mine bash Obama because he's "Muslim"---in both cases the bashing is not on this issues.

I think I've tried to be at least sort of nuetral some of the time. I know McCain isn't perfect (ther are many planks of his platform I don't agree with), and, conversely, I've tried to give Obama credit. I think he'd be great for the US image in the rest of the World, particularly Muslim Countries. I think his election would be a great leap for race relations in the US, and proof that we truly have come a long way. .

Yes, and perhaps you can see why these "good things" about Obama might be reason enough for someone to vote for him? There are plenty of people who vote primarily on a single issue in this country whether it be taxes or abortion or something else. It might not be the most important thing to you---but it might be the most important thing to someone else.


But the facts are facts...I simply have no idea what this guy really and truly stands for, and I don't want a guy in the White vacilating his positions from day to day. This country is teetering on the brink of disaster, and it's too precarious of a time to have guy who can't stand firm on his own convictions.

John Maynard Keynes (of Keynsian economics fame) said 'When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?'

And Ralph Waldo Emerson said: "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds."

Sometimes the best leaders are those who can adapt based on new facts, new circumstances, or a better understanding of what is going on in the world.

I don't care much about the "flip-flop" issue because every president and presidential candidate is accused of it by the other side---rightly or wrongly. They all flip flop to a certain extent for the single reason that to get a party nomination you must be of the right or of the left----to win the presidency you must be of the "center". McCain was accused of it, Obama is being accused of it.

For my president, I want the best "leader" someone who can steer the boat, which also includes someone who will change coarse instead of running into a hurricane simply because he plotted a single coarse and won't deviate from it.

revefsreleets
08-06-2008, 01:51 PM
But the problem is that Obama is clearly NOT just changing his mind. He's saying what he's either being directed to say (scary) or he's just saying whatever he thinks people want to hear (scarier), and both show a lack of character, conviction, and that he's NOT an agent of change.

lamberts-lost-tooth
08-06-2008, 01:53 PM
John Maynard Keynes (of Keynsian economics fame) said 'When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?'

And Ralph Waldo Emerson said: "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds."

Sometimes the best leaders are those who can adapt based on new facts, new circumstances, or a better understanding of what is going on in the world.

I don't care much about the "flip-flop" issue because every president and presidential candidate is accused of it by the other side---rightly or wrongly. They all flip flop to a certain extent for the single reason that to get a party nomination you must be of the right or of the left----to win the presidency you must be of the "center". McCain was accused of it, Obama is being accused of it.


Great points and great discussion...I would say that there is a subtle difference though...in changing your mind and having the intestinal fortitude to say that you changed it based on new information....and denying that you ever changed your mind at all.

The latter concerns me greatly.

Counselor
08-06-2008, 02:37 PM
Great points and great discussion...I would say that there is a subtle difference though...in changing your mind and having the intestinal fortitude to say that you changed it based on new information....and denying that you ever changed your mind at all.

The latter concerns me greatly.

OK, I see what you are saying, but don't you think to a certain extent your perception of whether someone is changing their opinion for the "right" reason or the "wrong" reason will be influenced by your feelings on the candidate?

For instance, read this article linked below---its pre Obama flip-flopping and mostly focuses on others including Edwards and McCain----I think you can make a case that each of these "flip-flops" mentioned could have occured for the "right" reasons or could have occured for the "wrong" reasons.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/us_world/2007/09/30/2007-09-30_flipflopping_candidates_new_tunes_may_co.html

tony hipchest
08-06-2008, 02:43 PM
speaking of debating fairly and civily...

Most of what you see with Tony is "tongue in cheek" debate with some serious undertones....but with the other two that I mentioned...they refused to debate fairly and civily, which unfortunately brings the debate to a more "base" level.

I have seen several people...myself included..try and discuss the facts by asking the relevant question as to what Obama has done that warrants his "Rock-Star" following...but the answer we get is always vague and deflective.

by no means have i studied law and discourse, or been in the debate club, but i do have a semester of Logic and Critical Thinking under my belt. I tend to rely more on common sense and finding the inherent flaws in the arguments of others (which is why i was so quickly able to sniff out obamas prayer being stolen and published as NOT being a PR stunt).

from what i recall, the relevant "question" being asked was phrased somewhat like this-

"i dont understand the boyfriend/girlfriend crush [which turns into] love affair with obama, anyone care to explain this"?

lets start with the basics then.

1. loaded question- within the confines of civil debate, one of the first rules is that it is not fair to ask loaded questions. :nono: the term "affair" carries a negative connotation and immediately implies that whoever answers said question is doing something wrong. it insinuates that anybody who likes him or votes for him (regardless if his experience is nil) is in love with him. so if i answer, does that make me a homo? the term "boyfriend/ girlfriend crush" implies one is being childish. that type of baiting isnt considered fair.


2. asking a question where you know there is no "real" answer- there is no real answer or correct answer that is going to satisfy you, so why ask it? thats not very fair.
you are asking why so many people gravitate to him, and like him. the french have a phrase for this that has been adapted/adopted into english vernacular. obama has that certain je ne sais quoit about him, which literally translates to "i dont know what it is". its english meaning is meant to describe something indescribable or that has an aura of mystery.
while the phrase may or may not be foreign to you i definitely know the concept isnt because you are a die hard football fan. you undoubtedly have heard about the quarterback who has that it factor. they dont know what it is they just know he has it. one just recognizes it when they see it.
why do they call it "it"? can you imagine john madden saying brett favre has the je ne sais quoit factor?
theres no crying in baseball and there most certainly is no french in football. many people who are supposedly "in love with obama" simply feel he has "it".


3. immediately dismissing the best possible answer is not fair- i gave a perfect example of mike tomlin having that "it" factor, and why the rooneys would select him over much more qualified candidates.
when he speaks, people listen. when he enters a room, he takes command of it. he appears to be a natural born leader. obama has been described of having these EXACT same attributes. i gave as good of a comparisson as could be expected to answer your loaded question that couldnt be answered.


4. misrepresenting my answer as "vague and deflective"- and after ALL of this i am dismissed as being vague and deflective. so the more consice and detailed my answer is, it passed off as dodging the question and deflection? :thumbsup:

how fair and civil is that?

for what it is worth, mccains top advisor didnt call obama's camp stupid, and i dont think even meant to imply they were. he simply made a poor choice of words when he harmlessly answered a question.

this thread was really just an exercize of spin on my part, cause i wanted to see what type of reaction it would get. :sly:

you caught the tongue in cheek part, and there are definitely serious undertones, primarily the crappy rules of engagement i see many taking when discussing or debating these matters. i do appreciate HTG admitting what the advisor said was stupid and taking a hard stance saying he should be fired. i dont know if i would be that harsh but she does have a point.

fair is fair. (or perhaps theres 5 different categories of fair) :chuckle: but still...

Texasteel
08-06-2008, 03:02 PM
OK, I see what you are saying, but don't you think to a certain extent your perception of whether someone is changing their opinion for the "right" reason or the "wrong" reason will be influenced by your feelings on the candidate?

For instance, read this article linked below---its pre Obama flip-flopping and mostly focuses on others including Edwards and McCain----I think you can make a case that each of these "flip-flops" mentioned could have occured for the "right" reasons or could have occured for the "wrong" reasons.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/us_world/2007/09/30/2007-09-30_flipflopping_candidates_new_tunes_may_co.html

No one can tell what these guys are really thinking, they're politicans. Most of the time all we have to go on is our fellings.
I just do not trust Obama, for that matter I don't trust McCain that much but I guess I am willing to tollerate him out of necessity.

fansince'76
08-06-2008, 03:32 PM
2. asking a question where you know there is no "real" answer- there is no real answer or correct answer that is going to satisfy you, so why ask it? thats not very fair.
you are asking why so many people gravitate to him, and like him. the french have a phrase for this that has been adapted/adopted into english vernacular. obama has that certain je ne sais quoit about him, which literally translates to "i dont know what it is". its english meaning is meant to describe something indescribable or that has an aura of mystery.
while the phrase may or may not be foreign to you i definitely know the concept isnt because you are a die hard football fan. you undoubtedly have heard about the quarterback who has that it factor. they dont know what it is they just know he has it. one just recognizes it when they see it.
why do they call it "it"? can you imagine john madden saying brett favre has the je ne sais quoit factor?
theres no crying in baseball and there most certainly is no french in football. many people who are supposedly "in love with obama" simply feel he has "it".

I think the "it" here is actually "charisma" - and Obama certainly has that.

And as far as the rest of your diatribe on civil discourse is concerned, you're nothing but a turd-pushing doodie-head! :flap:

:toofunny: :toofunny: :toofunny:

Atlanta Dan
08-06-2008, 03:55 PM
I only know how my posts (and I guess my character) are being characterized by certain posters when they are quoted in other posts since this board has an ignore function - to the extent I am being blamed for lowering the level of civility with regard to the politics discussions here, so be it - I doubt anyone will find that to be much of a problem in the future

revefsreleets
08-06-2008, 05:11 PM
OK, I see what you are saying, but don't you think to a certain extent your perception of whether someone is changing their opinion for the "right" reason or the "wrong" reason will be influenced by your feelings on the candidate?

For instance, read this article linked below---its pre Obama flip-flopping and mostly focuses on others including Edwards and McCain----I think you can make a case that each of these "flip-flops" mentioned could have occured for the "right" reasons or could have occured for the "wrong" reasons.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/us_world/2007/09/30/2007-09-30_flipflopping_candidates_new_tunes_may_co.html

I understand that candidates have to change their minds...but I go back to this (Yeah, sure, I'm using the pejorative term "flip-flop, but it is expedient):

Flipped on the War (Immediate withdrawal to 16 months to...?)
Flopped on off shore drilling
Flipped on late term abortions
Flopped on gun control
Flipped on public campaign financing (vowed to take it, then didn't)
Flopped on FISA
Flipped on Faith Based Initiatives
Flopped on death penalty for child rapists, though anti-capital punishment

All these changes occurred over a VERY short period of time...literally since he's become a viable candidate. That's A LOT of change, and some of these are complete 180's, not only on his position, but some of these are flips on the Democratic platform in general. Either the guy is pandering at a rate and quantity never seen before, or he literally knew nothing about these planks and was just following the party line or making positions up, and is only now rectifying his earlier ignorance.

Neither bodes well when the litmus test of "conviction to beliefs" is applied.

stlrtruck
08-07-2008, 07:51 AM
speaking of debating fairly and civily...

by no means have i studied law and discourse, or been in the debate club, but i do have a semester of Logic and Critical Thinking under my belt. I tend to rely more on common sense and finding the inherent flaws in the arguments of others (which is why i was so quickly able to sniff out obamas prayer being stolen and published as NOT being a PR stunt).

from what i recall, the relevant "question" being asked was phrased somewhat like this-



lets start with the basics then.

1. loaded question- within the confines of civil debate, one of the first rules is that it is not fair to ask loaded questions. :nono: the term "affair" carries a negative connotation and immediately implies that whoever answers said question is doing something wrong. it insinuates that anybody who likes him or votes for him (regardless if his experience is nil) is in love with him. so if i answer, does that make me a homo? the term "boyfriend/ girlfriend crush" implies one is being childish. that type of baiting isnt considered fair.


2. asking a question where you know there is no "real" answer- there is no real answer or correct answer that is going to satisfy you, so why ask it? thats not very fair.
you are asking why so many people gravitate to him, and like him. the french have a phrase for this that has been adapted/adopted into english vernacular. obama has that certain je ne sais quoit about him, which literally translates to "i dont know what it is". its english meaning is meant to describe something indescribable or that has an aura of mystery.
while the phrase may or may not be foreign to you i definitely know the concept isnt because you are a die hard football fan. you undoubtedly have heard about the quarterback who has that it factor. they dont know what it is they just know he has it. one just recognizes it when they see it.
why do they call it "it"? can you imagine john madden saying brett favre has the je ne sais quoit factor?
theres no crying in baseball and there most certainly is no french in football. many people who are supposedly "in love with obama" simply feel he has "it".


3. immediately dismissing the best possible answer is not fair- i gave a perfect example of mike tomlin having that "it" factor, and why the rooneys would select him over much more qualified candidates.
when he speaks, people listen. when he enters a room, he takes command of it. he appears to be a natural born leader. obama has been described of having these EXACT same attributes. i gave as good of a comparisson as could be expected to answer your loaded question that couldnt be answered.


4. misrepresenting my answer as "vague and deflective"- and after ALL of this i am dismissed as being vague and deflective. so the more consice and detailed my answer is, it passed off as dodging the question and deflection? :thumbsup:

how fair and civil is that?

for what it is worth, mccains top advisor didnt call obama's camp stupid, and i dont think even meant to imply they were. he simply made a poor choice of words when he harmlessly answered a question.

this thread was really just an exercize of spin on my part, cause i wanted to see what type of reaction it would get. :sly:

you caught the tongue in cheek part, and there are definitely serious undertones, primarily the crappy rules of engagement i see many taking when discussing or debating these matters. i do appreciate HTG admitting what the advisor said was stupid and taking a hard stance saying he should be fired. i dont know if i would be that harsh but she does have a point.

fair is fair. (or perhaps theres 5 different categories of fair) :chuckle: but still...

And here I thought you were only on the board to instigate Preachers and Trolls!!!

Counselor
08-07-2008, 09:30 AM
I understand that candidates have to change their minds...but I go back to this (Yeah, sure, I'm using the pejorative term "flip-flop, but it is expedient):

Flipped on the War (Immediate withdrawal to 16 months to...?)
Flopped on off shore drilling
Flipped on late term abortions
Flopped on gun control
Flipped on public campaign financing (vowed to take it, then didn't)
Flopped on FISA
Flipped on Faith Based Initiatives
Flopped on death penalty for child rapists, though anti-capital punishment

All these changes occurred over a VERY short period of time...literally since he's become a viable candidate. That's A LOT of change, and some of these are complete 180's, not only on his position, but some of these are flips on the Democratic platform in general. Either the guy is pandering at a rate and quantity never seen before, or he literally knew nothing about these planks and was just following the party line or making positions up, and is only now rectifying his earlier ignorance.

Neither bodes well when the litmus test of "conviction to beliefs" is applied.

OK, here is a fact---Obama does not have a lot of experience. We can all accept that as true, I think.

I suggest to you, that in going around the country campaigning, speaking with real people, learning about their problems, their interests, their issues, has been a learning experience for him. His originally very liberal ideology (and the democratic plat form in general) is not always pragmatic in the real world. (similarly the right platofrm isn't perfect either) I also suggest that with radical changes we have seen in the economy over the time period of the campaign is a good reason to be readjusting positions on a lot of topics.

You say he is flip-flopping because he is trying to get elected. That's true---but why does that have to be bad? Don't you want a president that adjusts to the situations faced by the country and her citizens? Sticking to your guns in the face of evidence to the contrary can be stubborn and stupid.

To me---if you make the right decision in the end, I don't care how many times you changed your mind back and forth to get there.

Now McCain---and please--I am not bashing him here. I actually find him quite politically astute. He used to "stick to his guns" quite well. Then he realized after 20 years, that he could never get the party nomination that way---so he started aligning himself more "right" of center. Staunch right-wingers would never accept him, but the middle right would. Now that he's got the nomination, he slowly distancing himself from Bush and the very conservative party---so he can capture the true middle. He knows the conservatives are now stuck with him and they'll never vote for Obama, so he's their best choice.

I submit to you that McCain has flipped and flopped back and forth a few times, but over a much longer period of time (because he's been around longer) and he in a much more subtle manner (because he's been around longer)

FYI: As a "rookie"/freshman Senator, Obama would have been expected (ie "encouraged") to tow the party line. So I can't hold that against him.

I am perhaps more of a optimist that many here---but I think the country will be just fine with either of these guys. I want to see McCain show a little more Reagan & Clinton and a little less GW in his foreign policy before I vote for him (in otherwords, I'm requesting a flip here). I like Obama's potential, but his youth and inexperience does make me nervous.

revefsreleets
08-07-2008, 09:48 AM
My biggest problem with that is it means he was woefully ignorant on all these issues, and has had a crash course in a very short period of time. That completely diffuses the argument that McCain "doesn't get the economy", since it would appear prima facie that Obama just doesn't get much of anything about the issues facing the American people, and I really don't want some dude learning the basics as he goes, let alone trying to run the country at the same time.

And what if he's just saying these things to get elected? Isn't that worse?

And the worst case scenario of all, what if these policy shifts are being directed by the Pelosi/Reed braintrust?

There are just way too many if's and maybe's surrounding this guy for my taste (not that I was going to vote for him to begin with), and, like i said, we're in precarious times.

tony hipchest
08-07-2008, 11:35 AM
isnt calling him "woefully ignorant" a bit melodramatic?

some highly intelligent people are more than capable of "learning on the fly" and doing a damn good job, especially if they surround themselves with great people.

ive used the mike tomlin example already just to show it is possible.

counselor makes some great points about being flexible to grow, adapt and change ones mind, which is why im not going to be on the obama flip flop watch. it seems to make him a bit more human and genuine in my eyes (not saying that makes him a better or worse leader).

as far as "conviction of ones beliefs", sometimes they dont mix well on a political stage.

a very wise philosopher once peacefully said "give unto ceasar what is ceasars".
the very same dude turned over the money changers tables in front of the temple and called it "a den of thieves".

sometimes whats best for you may not be whats best for the 300,000,000 people you are hired to lead. a candidate has the whole population to look after, protect, and please, not just one side of the aisle.

now i know some blockhead who is incapable of reading between the lines, or comprehending analogies or parables, will say i am calling obama Jesus Christ. so be it. sometimes theres no cure for ignorance. im just making a point.

:tap: although....

i know conservative christians hold this young leader in high regard. even though he only had 3 years experience in the ministry and was barely a blip on the radar in his time, his philosophy caught on. many thought he should be king.

:chuckle: i cant wait to see how this goes over....

revefsreleets
08-07-2008, 11:38 AM
Yikes.

Black Jesus?

I liked him better when he was just a rock star.

Anyway, switch your position once, okay...switch your position 5 times....er, um...alright, whatever. Switch your position daily...I just don't know.

tony hipchest
08-07-2008, 11:42 AM
:laughing:

i like to picture my Jesus with a really really dark tan, a pair of Jams and flip-flops, standing on the beach as his rock star locks blow in the breeze...

stlrtruck
08-07-2008, 01:13 PM
:laughing:

i like to picture my Jesus with a really really dark tan, a pair of Jams and flip-flops, standing on the beach as his rock star locks blow in the breeze...

And for some reason I pictured you as the Talladega Nights type, "Dear Baby Jesus!"

tony hipchest
08-07-2008, 01:28 PM
And for some reason I pictured you as the Talladega Nights type, "Dear Baby Jesus!":chuckle: they dont call me El Diablo's advocate for nothing.

"im like a fighting chicken with claws and stuff!" in fact some have called me a c0ck. my middle name is Dick.

:hatsoff:

Texasteel
08-07-2008, 04:07 PM
:chuckle: they dont call me El Diablo's advocate for nothing.

"im like a fighting chicken with claws and stuff!" in fact some have called me a c0ck. my middle name is Dick.

:hatsoff:

Your last name wouldn't be Head would it?

Sorry Tony, could not resist.

HometownGal
08-07-2008, 04:27 PM
Your last name wouldn't be Head would it?

Sorry Tony, could not resist.

:toofunny: :toofunny:

No. His last name is Hertz. :chuckle:

tony hipchest
08-07-2008, 04:47 PM
:toofunny: :toofunny:

No. His last name is Hertz. :chuckle::sofunny: .... HEY!... :nono: im telling! (wheres that damn "report post" button?) ....MODS! ...oh wait...

Your last name wouldn't be Head would it?

.lol.

Anthony Richard Hipchest Cranium III, to be exact.

"toe knee dick hip chest head", quite anatomical huh?

but dont let the name fool ya. im full on a$$hole from head to toe.

:sofunny:

HometownGal
08-07-2008, 05:42 PM
:sofunny: .... HEY!... :nono: im telling! (wheres that damn "report post" button?) ....MODS! ...oh wait...

lol.



LOL! Bite Me. :chuckle::wink02:

http://instapinch.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/dentures.jpg

Before you say it - no, that's not me. :sofunny:

revefsreleets
08-07-2008, 05:48 PM
LOL! Bite Me. :chuckle::wink02:

http://instapinch.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/dentures.jpg

Before you say it - no, that's not me. :sofunny:

Beer, meet keyboard..via nose!