JTM Posted September 28, 2008 Share Posted September 28, 2008 And who might those people be, pray tell? It's on a need to know basis............And you don't need to know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patrycja Posted September 28, 2008 Share Posted September 28, 2008 It's on a need to know basis............And you don't need to know. Rrrrriiiiiiight...code for no credibility whatsoever...kissing your flexed biceps on an internet forum? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JTM Posted September 28, 2008 Share Posted September 28, 2008 Rrrrriiiiiiight...code for no credibility whatsoever...kissing your flexed biceps on an internet forum? Ha Ha............You don't think democracy is real do ya. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danelectro59 Posted September 28, 2008 Author Share Posted September 28, 2008 Ha Ha............You don't think democracy is real do ya. Actually, yes I do. But it sounds like you know something I don't. Would you please share it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs. Plant Posted September 28, 2008 Share Posted September 28, 2008 That's it. Cut off your nose to spite your face. That's a good way to make sure things change around here. Do nothing! It's the American way! I'm currently reading a book by Rick Shenkman that discusses just how fucked up Americans are when it comes to politics, civics, basic history and voter turnout. You'd be surprised to find out how many people share your "fuck it, I'll just stay home" view and just how dangerous a view it is. I hope more people choose to get off their asses and vote rather than take your tack. This country has suffered enough because of it as it is. Oh I care about the issues, but unfortunately I don't want to vote for any of the candidates. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs. Plant Posted September 28, 2008 Share Posted September 28, 2008 Oh, but Im sure that if I announced that I would go vote for McCain a lot of people would rather me stay home and say Fuck it. But again, I'm no longer fond of any of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Suz Posted September 28, 2008 Share Posted September 28, 2008 Yes Liz they are because remember, every single news channel, including the national broadcast channels except for Fox News are all "biased liberal anti-American pro-gay illegal-immigrant child-aborting communists" You're tellin' US!? Now scare yourself more and realize we have a generation coming up that doesn't even remember when this alternate universe could only exist in fascist regimes...... Now watch Sarah Palin and just imagine her one heartbeat away. Now try sleeping. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
electricmage Posted September 28, 2008 Share Posted September 28, 2008 Your complete level of misunderstanding of the "tactics vs. strategy" point that McCain was making is only surpassed in incompetency by your canidate Barrack Obama. Obama has already stated the he (him personally as president) would sit down face to face with Ahmedinijad, Hugo Chavez and Raul Castro in DIRECT negotiations. That is NOT WHAT Henry Kissinger, James Baker or Colin Powell --- or anyone with half a brain about dealing with Iran has ever proposed. Obama is wrong on that, and McCain has pointed that out. And of course, Henry Kissinger just today reiterated Obama's basis misconception and flawed strategy on that very important point. It does no good for a President to meet (high level negotiations) without preconditions to that meeting. The tactical error of such a meeting could result in the opposition (and in the case of Iran a rogue state which has called for the destruction of Israel) gaining far too much prestige from a meeting where they could basically tell the President of the United States to just kiss off. And as John McCain pointed out the other night, what could you say then? What Kissinger and others have been talking about are lower level negotiations lines of communication that could be made without pre-conditions. In those cases, if the other side blows us off, then nothing in terms of prestige or position are lost. You seem to have no understanding of the difference in the two types of tactics of negotiation, and neither does Obama. And that is why Obama's clear lack of experience and wisdom on this issue could prove dangerous. Either try to keep up with this stuff or go back to the "what's your favorite color thread." What are you... 13 years old or something? Am I having a conversation with a little kid? If you really want to keep talking about penises, why not make a thread on the topic. That way your facination with mine and other men's penises could be talked about at length (no pun intended).You could even post some of the pictures you have been drawing on the back of your notebook. You know, the one you keep hiding from your mommy and daddy. Do you really need to play out your homo erotic fantasies in this Presidential debate thread? Blah Blah Blah... Believe what you want. You can keep denying what kissinger said in that clip all you want to. The rest of intelligent america can think the opposite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SunChild Posted September 28, 2008 Share Posted September 28, 2008 You obviously missed my point. You seemed so happy that Obama used both hands in that handshake...but you comepletely overlooked the fact that McCain did too. You're obviously very biased. I'm just pointing that out to you What is it with people around here first, telling me what it is I mean, then telling me why what they say I said is wrong? Is that a trick they learn from Limbaugh, along with the reductio ad absurdum bullshit where they ignore every point they don't wish to confront? Fine. Have it your way. McCain shook with both hands, too. My actual point is - at least Obama had the decency to look the man in the eye at the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Medhb Posted September 28, 2008 Share Posted September 28, 2008 I just want to say I miss Mr. Munster. Some people don't get to hang around long enough Hi Mr. Munster!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JTM Posted September 28, 2008 Share Posted September 28, 2008 Actually, yes I do. But it sounds like you know something I don't. Would you please share it? There's no point...... You have your views, i have mine....there would be no end... anyway i'm off to watch Fahrenheit 911..again................. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Medhb Posted September 28, 2008 Share Posted September 28, 2008 Interesting poll results: Women gave Obama the nod, while men said they felt McCain won the first face-off. But some partisans had doubts. Just 78% of Democrats felt Obama won the debate, and just 80% of Republicans felt McCain won. Independents, by a four-point margin, said Obama won the debate. By a 47% to 34% margin, debate-watchers said they felt Obama was better prepared for the event than was McCain. Nearly two-thirds of respondents said that both candidates performed better than expected. A Zogby Interactive survey before the debate showed that, by a 4-3 ratio, likely voters believed Obama would win this first presidential debate. The online poll included 2,102 likely voters nationwide and carries a margin of error of +/- 2.2 percentage points. Said pollster John Zogby: "Some observations from our latest polling - Obama leads by 11 points among likely voters who hold at least a college degree. McCain is ahead by five among those without a degree. "Obama scores big with a 30-point advantage among moderates, and edges into a five-point lead among independents, including a five-point lead among independent women. McCain, meanwhile, has strong possession of recent Republican stalwarts like frequent Wal-Mart shoppers (leading by 25 points) NASCAR fans (leading by 40 points), and the self-described investor class (leading by 15 points). We've got a lot of campaigning to go here yet." The survey, which went into the field almost immediately after the conclusion of the debate and came out Saturday late afternoon, also showed Obama with a statistically insignificant 47.1% to 45.9% lead overall in a head-to-head "horserace" question. Voters nationwide also said they felt, again by a narrow margin, that Obama has handled himself better than McCain in dealing with the current financial crisis. Obama's tiny edge comes from independent voters, who favor him over McCain by a small 44% to 39% margin, while Obama wins 89% support from Democratic Party voters, the same level of support he has won in the last several Zogby surveys. The survey shows that McCain helped himself a little among his base Republican voters since the last Zogby Interactive survey taken just a few days ago. He now wins 92% support among Republicans, up three points from mid-week last week. Considering the support of the independent voters, Obama's five point advantage is one of the largest he has won in head-to-head contests against McCain since June, when he led by 21 points. Since June, independent voters have largely been up for grabs. Because both candidates are now winning very high percentages of their own political bases, the independents become a key group in the election. Among women, Obama leads by 10 points, but among men, McCain leads by nine points. Obama leads among voters under age 30, while McCain leads by a slightly smaller margin among voters age 65 and older. Among those voters age 30 to 64, the two are essentially tied. In a five-way horserace including Obama, McCain, Libertarian candidate Bob Barr, a former Republican congressman from Georgia, Green Party Cynthia McKinney, and independent Ralph Nader, Barr wins nearly four percent support. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wanna be drummer Posted September 28, 2008 Share Posted September 28, 2008 What is it with people around here first, telling me what it is I mean, then telling me why what they say I said is wrong? Is that a trick they learn from Limbaugh, along with the reductio ad absurdum bullshit where they ignore every point they don't wish to confront? I have no idea what you're talking about. You simply biased and I'm showing you. Fine. Have it your way. McCain shook with both hands, too. My actual point is - at least Obama had the decency to look the man in the eye at the time. Actually that wasn't your point. You never talked about Obama looking him in the eye at all during that post. Sorry, but you're wrong Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Del Zeppnile Posted September 28, 2008 Share Posted September 28, 2008 I think it gets just a little tricky here and depends on how one interprets the words "us" and "we". Listen carefully to this clip. It is pure symantics. Obama said "I reserve the right to sit down with anyone in the world at the time and place of my choosing if I think it increases safety of Americans" . That sentence taken on it's own is absolutely what ANY president would agree with. THEN, as the discussion futhers Obama begins to use the words "we" and "us" insinutating his administration. And if you pay real close attention you will notice he SAYS "Of course! It will start with low level discussions" So clearly he is indicating that he intends to approach it exactly as Kissinger said he would. The problem is when the press asked Kissinger about what he meant they posed the wrong question to him. They said "Did you ever say that the President should sit down without pre-conditions?" and he said "No" and that of course is correct. However Obama never said "I will sit down with the President of Iran without pre-conditions". So of course this can be spun anyway you want to look at it. http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/2007...364154241_x.htm From a USA TODAY article: Obama said there was no contradiction between his willingness to meet with Ahmadinejad as president and his statement that he probably would not have invited him to Columbia. "As president of the United States, my job is to look out for the national security interests of this country. Iran, in particular because of the bad decision this administration has made by invading Iraq, is a major player in the Middle East," Obama said. "If it is in the United States' interest to make certain that we can stabilize the situation and avoid further military confrontation and curb state sponsored terrorism they've been involved with, that's something we should be willing to do." He said the Columbia appearance was unnecessary because Ahmadinejad would have other opportunities during his visit to New York to make his views known. Obama was criticized by rival Hillary Rodham Clinton and other Democrats after a debate in July in which he said he would be willing to meet with Ahmadinejad and leaders of other nations the U.S. is not on good terms with "without precondition" as president. Clinton called Obama's remark irresponsible and naive and suggested it was evidence he did not have sufficient experience to be president. I believe that it is obvious that the Obama camp is now trying to use semantics to spin Obama's earlier statements and positions on this issue. Obama's biggest weakness is obviously on foreign affairs and national security, and that is why he selected Joe Biden to help him change that perception. However, Biden himself had also pointed out enough of Obama's failings on these issues during the primary election, to basically render that benefit to Obama as worthless. Obama is weak on national defense and the wrong choice for Americans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Del Zeppnile Posted September 28, 2008 Share Posted September 28, 2008 Blah Blah Blah... Believe what you want. You can keep denying what kissinger said in that clip all you want to. The rest of intelligent america can think the opposite. I provided to you the interview where Kissinger just said yesterday that Barrack Obama was WRONG about the conditions for meeting with the Iranian president. You heard what he said yesterday, and obvioulsy McCain's position is in line with Kissingers, while Obama just got it wrong. Now you can either respond to that or choose to ignore it, but the facts don't just go away because you are unwilling to acknowlege what Henry Kissinger said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Medhb Posted September 28, 2008 Share Posted September 28, 2008 http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/2007...364154241_x.htm From a USA TODAY article: Obama said there was no contradiction between his willingness to meet with Ahmadinejad as president and his statement that he probably would not have invited him to Columbia. "As president of the United States, my job is to look out for the national security interests of this country. Iran, in particular because of the bad decision this administration has made by invading Iraq, is a major player in the Middle East," Obama said. "If it is in the United States' interest to make certain that we can stabilize the situation and avoid further military confrontation and curb state sponsored terrorism they've been involved with, that's something we should be willing to do." He said the Columbia appearance was unnecessary because Ahmadinejad would have other opportunities during his visit to New York to make his views known. Obama was criticized by rival Hillary Rodham Clinton and other Democrats after a debate in July in which he said he would be willing to meet with Ahmadinejad and leaders of other nations the U.S. is not on good terms with "without precondition" as president. Clinton called Obama's remark irresponsible and naive and suggested it was evidence he did not have sufficient experience to be president. I believe that it is obvious that the Obama camp is now trying to use semantics to spin Obama's earlier statements and positions on this issue. Obama's biggest weakness is obviously on foreign affairs and national security, and that is why he selected Joe Biden to help him change that perception. However, Biden himself had also pointed out enough of Obama's failings on these issues during the primary election, to basically render that benefit to Obama as worthless. Obama is weak on national defense and the wrong choice for Americans. Hey Del, please let me know your thoughts on why, what had been a pretty neutral relationship with Russia over the last several years, has now escalated once again to near cold war proportions? I'm not being a smart ass here, I'd like to hear your thoughts on it. Not knowing all the ins and outs of these relationships it appears to me that the cumulation of the last 8 years of our foreign affairs policies now have Russia pretty damn pissed off at us again. They are pumping Iran, and other countries that deplore us, up militarily and monetarily. I liked it better when we had a better relationship with Russia... How do you think McCain is going to approach this situation to cool it down instead of heat it up? Thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Del Zeppnile Posted September 28, 2008 Share Posted September 28, 2008 He NEVER ONCE looked Obama in the face or in the eye. It was a clear demonstration of absolute disrespect. You realize McCain was able to look at Jim Lehrer, at the audience, and into the camera when he wanted to, don't you? Explain how he overcame his awful handicap when he needed to make a point in a direction away from Mr. Obama. The occasion called for much better from such a "distinguished" older statesman. I think you're just upset that people picked up on McCain's body language, and read it for what it was: immature, disrespectful, and racist. Please explain to us how your interpretation of John McCain's body language equals racism? This has got to be the most foolish and absurd arguement yet made in this thread. Is anyone other than you making a racism charge against John McCain? Is the Obama camp making that claim? Of course not. And the reason is because it is just plain dumb. What is your personal perspective that causes you to see 'race' as a factor in this debate? Are you African-American and possibly conditioned to use that as an excuse? Are you some other minority that maybe has a similar perspective... although wrong in my opinion. For someone from Bishop California you sure don't sound like most of the folks I have encountered up that way in my many travels through there. Do you live in Bishop proper or are you one of those living along North Barlow Lane South of 395 and North of West Line street if you know what I mean? Help me understand where your racial hatred towards whites is coming from? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wanna be drummer Posted September 29, 2008 Share Posted September 29, 2008 There's no point...... You have your views, i have mine....there would be no end... anyway i'm off to watch Fahrenheit 911..again.................What's the point of opinions if no one shares them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Suz Posted September 29, 2008 Share Posted September 29, 2008 Maybe McCain doesn't want to get trapped under Obama's spell. Just what kind of hold does Obama have over you people anyway? I get sick of looking at him and hearing him talk. Lucky for me, I've never seen one of Obama's campaign commercials or have I....? CBS, NBC, and ABC sure seem to be biased in his favor. Maybe instead of running his commercials, he's paid them off. That could account for the Katie Couric-kissinger escapade. What in god's name makes you think it's a spell? Just because optimism is involved doesn't mean we're a bunch of little kids under his spell. It's been clearly explained in this thread and others why we support Obama. The inability to even recognize this man as a worthy contender is very strange to me. I have listened to McCain for years and I have respect for him. I have voted in presidential elections for 20 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Medhb Posted September 29, 2008 Share Posted September 29, 2008 What in god's name makes you think it's a spell? Just because optimism is involved doesn't mean we're a bunch of little kids under his spell. It's been clearly explained in this thread and others why we support Obama. The inability to even recognize this man as a worthy contender is very strange to me. I have listened to McCain for years and I have respect for him. I have voted in presidential elections for 20 years. Maybe he's a NASCAR fan Said pollster John Zogby: "Some observations from our latest polling - Obama leads by 11 points among likely voters who hold at least a college degree. McCain is ahead by five among those without a degree. "Obama scores big with a 30-point advantage among moderates, and edges into a five-point lead among independents, including a five-point lead among independent women. McCain, meanwhile, has strong possession of recent Republican stalwarts like frequent Wal-Mart shoppers (leading by 25 points) NASCAR fans (leading by 40 points), and the self-described investor class (leading by 15 points). We've got a lot of campaigning to go here yet." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Electrophile Posted September 29, 2008 Share Posted September 29, 2008 What in god's name makes you think it's a spell? Just because optimism is involved doesn't mean we're a bunch of little kids under his spell. It's been clearly explained in this thread and others why we support Obama. The inability to even recognize this man as a worthy contender is very strange to me. I have listened to McCain for years and I have respect for him. I have voted in presidential elections for 20 years. Don't you get it, Suz? You're not allowed to support Barack Obama because you agree with his policies, or because you think he's a swell guy, or because you think he can help fix this broken country. We only support him because we've been hypnotized by his secret Muslim anti-Christ evil Liberal devil eyes. (I think I got all the Rush O'Hannity talking points in there) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allthekingshorses Posted September 29, 2008 Share Posted September 29, 2008 http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/2007...364154241_x.htm From a USA TODAY article: Obama said there was no contradiction between his willingness to meet with Ahmadinejad as president and his statement that he probably would not have invited him to Columbia. "As president of the United States, my job is to look out for the national security interests of this country. Iran, in particular because of the bad decision this administration has made by invading Iraq, is a major player in the Middle East," Obama said. "If it is in the United States' interest to make certain that we can stabilize the situation and avoid further military confrontation and curb state sponsored terrorism they've been involved with, that's something we should be willing to do." He said the Columbia appearance was unnecessary because Ahmadinejad would have other opportunities during his visit to New York to make his views known. Obama was criticized by rival Hillary Rodham Clinton and other Democrats after a debate in July in which he said he would be willing to meet with Ahmadinejad and leaders of other nations the U.S. is not on good terms with "without precondition" as president. Clinton called Obama's remark irresponsible and naive and suggested it was evidence he did not have sufficient experience to be president. I believe that it is obvious that the Obama camp is now trying to use semantics to spin Obama's earlier statements and positions on this issue. Obama's biggest weakness is obviously on foreign affairs and national security, and that is why he selected Joe Biden to help him change that perception. However, Biden himself had also pointed out enough of Obama's failings on these issues during the primary election, to basically render that benefit to Obama as worthless. Obama is weak on national defense and the wrong choice for Americans. I agree with Obama's position on foreign relations. That is the one thing I hated about Bush in 2000. He was clueless on a global scale. And John McCain and Sarah Palin on Foreign Affairs.... that's down right scary. We need problem solvers not fighters. John McCain should join the re-military if he wants to fight, but I don't want someone who can't even look a democrat in the eye trying to go to other countries and have discussions with other leaders that we disapprove of. These are crazy times.... we can't afford another President who is unwilling to work with the rest of the people on this planet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew! Posted September 29, 2008 Share Posted September 29, 2008 We need problem solvers not fighters. John McCain should join the re-military if he wants to fight, but I don't want someone who can't even look a democrat in the eye trying to go to other countries and have discussions with other leaders that we disapprove of. These are crazy times.... we can't afford another President who is unwilling to work with the rest of the people on this planet. Quote worthy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dzldoc Posted September 29, 2008 Share Posted September 29, 2008 Hey Del, please let me know your thoughts on why, what had been a pretty neutral relationship with Russia over the last several years, has now escalated once again to near cold war proportions? I'm not being a smart ass here, I'd like to hear your thoughts on it. Not knowing all the ins and outs of these relationships it appears to me that the cumulation of the last 8 years of our foreign affairs policies now have Russia pretty damn pissed off at us again. They are pumping Iran, and other countries that deplore us, up militarily and monetarily. I liked it better when we had a better relationship with Russia... How do you think McCain is going to approach this situation to cool it down instead of heat it up? Thanks! I can answer that Medhb, they the russians see us as weak right now so this emboldens the enemy ( they are still the enemy ) as much as we like the russian people and probably visaversa. The governments are still at each other. It's all about perception, when the soviet union collapsed we no longer saw them as a threat. They had nothing to bargain with. Now with the war, economy and worldwide perception of our positions they percieve us as weak so this is has emboldened them. Remeber their leader was/is KGB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allthekingshorses Posted September 29, 2008 Share Posted September 29, 2008 join the re-military... hehehehee I really meant re-join the military. But re-military could work too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.