I am not enthused about the lack of economy talk by both camps. They both throw a couple ideas out there about wind power and boom everything will be saved. How we going to deal with this insane Iraq debt? A stock market that is falling for the fear of inflation? Manufacturing jobs that are dying(though the rising cost of oil may bring this back).....
Iraq is a screw up and it isn't that great of a concern, atleast in my view, because we've already jumped the shark. It's just how we exit gracefully and say sorry for messing up your country. How can these guys really influcence it except maybe staying in there forever. I still stand by the FACT that this war was a mistake and we were lied to by moron boy. Vietnam II yay.. We recovered from its effects, we'll do it from this one too.
doitover wrote:
Yes, and that McCain wasn't in it.
SVreX wrote:
I thought the soundproof room thing was an interesting approach.
Really? This argument is right up there on the "makes-you-sound-like-an-idiot" level as "Bush stole the election" back in '00
DILYSI Dave wrote:
Really? This argument is right up there on the "makes-you-sound-like-an-idiot" level as "Bush stole the election" back in '00
yeah but now the "bush stole the election argument" makes so much sense. $5 that we'd be better off now without his dumb monkey looking ass in charge.
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0310/S00211.htm
Careful, he really wasn't in it. He was in a motorcade. Now, whether he was coached or not is another matter. I believe he probably was because he has no integrity but clearly he was not where he had claimed to be.
DILYSI Dave wrote:
doitover wrote:
Yes, and that McCain wasn't in it.
SVreX wrote:
I thought the soundproof room thing was an interesting approach.
Really? This argument is right up there on the "makes-you-sound-like-an-idiot" level as "Bush stole the election" back in '00
There's that Balkanization again.
If you disagree with a candidate's stance, that's fine. To start throwing out accusations of lack of character or whatever with no proof, that's just being childishly petty.
Me, I don't plan to vote for Obama because
1) he cannot seem to really explain what he means by 'change'
2) Vladimir Putin would chew him up and spit him out instantly
3) he doesn't seem to take the Islamic militant threat that seriously.
I will not say anything about his 'monkey lookin' ass' or other childish references.
It's comforting to see someone from the right turn against the strategy that their party has pursued relentlessly for the last couple of decades. I had to look up Balkanization by the way, I'm surprised the definition didn't have Rove's picture next to it.
Anyway. I'll vote for Obama because he has adjacent brain cells. That is all the change I'll need.
Really, Do you think Obama is any more likely to say something like, "I looked into Putin's eyes and I saw that he has a good soul" or whatever the nonsense that Bush said. Do you think he is as likely as McCain to forget where Afghanistan is in relation to other middle eastern countries, or to forget that Czechoslovakia no longer exists, or whatever McCain's gaffe of the day is? Will he make jokes about killing innocent citizens?
For a change I'd like to have a president that doesn't come off like a total friggin idiot.
I think Gore, Kerry, or Obama will be more successful at dealing with terrorism, because they understand it isn't a war that can be won only on a battlefield.
There is proof of McCain's whereabouts while Obama spoke, from McCain himself. Feel free to find it for yourself.
Jensenman wrote:
There's that Balkanization again.
If you disagree with a candidate's stance, that's fine. To start throwing out accusations of lack of character or whatever with no proof, that's just being childishly petty.
Me, I don't plan to vote for Obama because
1) he cannot seem to really explain what he means by 'change'
2) Vladimir Putin would chew him up and spit him out instantly
3) he doesn't seem to take the Islamic militant threat that seriously.
I will not say anything about his 'monkey lookin' ass' or other childish references.
McCain may be many things, but he's no idiot. Actually, he's a pretty smart guy, and in my personal opinion a step back toward the goldwater-style republican... something his party really needs.
If you like Obama, that's fine. I'm not hear to sway you. I'm just saying this time -- for the first time in a long time-- we've actually got two candidates that both appear to be intelligent, honorable men who want to do good things. What they want to do and how they want to do it just differ.
In this age of instant online meetings and video conferencing, WTF does it matter where someone is? I don't care if one is in a nuke sub under the North Pole and the other is balancing atop the Empire State Building. It matters to me more the answers they give. Yet ANOTHER example of Balkanization.
If you'd like to claim that terroroists attacked this country only due to Dubya's and reagan's policies, be my guest. There's plenty of blame to go around on ALL sides.
You think the Repubs have a lock on dirty tricks? I got two words for you: MoveOn.org. Nope, doesn't count because they believe the same thing you do. it's only wrong if the guys you don't support do it. Hitler said it best: 'the ends justify the means'.
I gots another news flash for ya, skappesitover: ALL Presidents look like idiots to SOMEONE. NONE of them have a real effect on the country, it comes rather from Congress and the 600 million greedy grasping hands (two per person, do the math) that demand all sorts of gummint freebies at the expense of someone else. You want change, don't vote for Obama, he can't do shi+. Throw Congress out and start fresh.
You attribute a lot of beliefs to me that I don't have but as long as you aren't Balkanizing I guess that's OK. :)
moveon.org over steps, I'm not in awe of them.
It is important that you are where you say you are, especially when the "cone of silence" was supposed to be a key element of Warren't event. To say it didn't happen is wrong, to then acknowledge that it did but that it doesn't matter, not sure what that is.
Not to reopen the whole why do they attack us bit, but it's a little more complicated than can be blamed on one person.
Um, you went off on a vein popping rant there, couldn't follow your point. I've said my piece, I'm back to peaceful lurking until something riles me up again.
when
Jensenman wrote:
In this age of instant online meetings and video conferencing, WTF does it matter where someone is? I don't care if one is in a nuke sub under the North Pole and the other is balancing atop the Empire State Building. It matters to me more the answers they give. Yet ANOTHER example of Balkanization.
If you'd like to claim that terroroists attacked this country only due to Dubya's and reagan's policies, be my guest. There's plenty of blame to go around on ALL sides.
You think the Repubs have a lock on dirty tricks? I got two words for you: MoveOn.org. Nope, doesn't count because they believe the same thing you do. it's only wrong if the guys you don't support do it. Hitler said it best: 'the ends justify the means'.
I gots another news flash for ya, skappesitover: ALL Presidents look like idiots to SOMEONE. NONE of them have a real effect on the country, it comes rather from Congress and the 600 million greedy grasping hands (two per person, do the math) that demand all sorts of gummint freebies at the expense of someone else. You want change, don't vote for Obama, he can't do shi+. Throw Congress out and start fresh.
Honorable? Claiming that Obama would like for us to have lost in Iraq to further his political ambitions is honorable? McCain checked the honorable hat at the door to this election cycle.
He claimed to veterans this week that he supported the last GI bill and in fact made it better. Neither was true. That was beyond political spin, it was just dishonest.
I'd like to see one bit of evidence that McCain is an intelligent man.
Tim Baxter wrote:
McCain may be many things, but he's no idiot. Actually, he's a pretty smart guy, and in my personal opinion a step back toward the goldwater-style republican... something his party really needs.
If you like Obama, that's fine. I'm not hear to sway you. I'm just saying this time -- for the first time in a long time-- we've actually got two candidates that both appear to be intelligent, honorable men who want to do good things. What they want to do and how they want to do it just differ.
doitover wrote:
It is important that you are where you say you are, especially when the "cone of silence" was supposed to be a key element of Warren't event. To say it didn't happen is wrong, to then acknowledge that it did but that it doesn't matter, not sure what that is.
You musta just watched 'Get Smart'. 
Assuming that McCain got some sort of leg up with the whole 'where was he?' question: so it's a problem to you that McCain mighta heard the questions asked of Obama and that's bad, but I betcha if Obama had heard the questions asked of McCain that would be good? Don't even pretend you wouldn't defend him had it gone that way.
You are practicing Balkanization again, my good man. I got a feeling the moderator had/has enough intelligence to properly handle the silence thing.
Something that no one seems to want to talk about in the pres. race is the Bradley effect and the boost it will inevitably give little mac. for thoes who don't know what the Bradley effect is.... Bradley effect But ignore that bit at the bottom. I have head some speculate that Big O will need a 5 to 10 lead to break even with little mac. This is just food for thought...
Ok, you know my buttons. No way would I defend Obama if it were the other way around.
As far as McCain goes this was a minor deal. sorry it freaks you out too much.
It was a reference to Get Smart by the way. Cone of Silence was Warren's words not mine.
Jensenman wrote:
doitover wrote:
It is important that you are where you say you are, especially when the "cone of silence" was supposed to be a key element of Warren't event. To say it didn't happen is wrong, to then acknowledge that it did but that it doesn't matter, not sure what that is.
You musta just watched 'Get Smart'.
Assuming that McCain got some sort of leg up with the whole 'where was he?' question: so it's a problem to you that McCain mighta heard the questions asked of Obama and that's bad, but I betcha if Obama had heard the questions asked of McCain that would be good? Don't even pretend you wouldn't defend him had it gone that way.
You are practicing Balkanization again, my good man. I got a feeling the moderator had/has enough intelligence to properly handle the silence thing.
Seems to me you were the one who got freaked out by Lil' Mac not being in the right place at the right time. Didn't bother me a bit.
From your earlier post:
Careful, he really wasn't in it. He was in a motorcade. Now, whether he was coached or not is another matter. I believe he probably was because he has no integrity but clearly he was not where he had claimed to be.
SVreX
SuperDork
8/19/08 9:04 p.m.
doitover: According to NPR today, you are completely incorrect. They stated that McCain was on the premises, and that it was flat out impossible for him to have listened to anything being said.
Please drop it or provide a credible reference.
ddavidv wrote:
I should not have to search and find a magazine back issue. Both of them are being interviewed ad nauseum on electronic media. Why can't they just answer a direct question with a direct answer?
There were direct answers to direct questions. Right in that magazine back issue. As well some detailed digging into their financial plans and such.
Research is always necessary when one seeks knowledge. Are you so lazy that it must be spoon fed to you via TV or some other media that requires no effort on your part? If so, you won't know anything, for you will have never sought the truth. All you will "know" is what someone told you to think. I don't believe you're that shallow or weak.
Russia is evil for attacking Georgia. That is what the lazy believe for that is what they are told. The violent and brutal invasion of South Ossetia by Georgia is never mentioned. Those to lazy to research have no idea that Georgia started it all, they just hear the wagging of the dog.
Times correction to Kristols misinformation
Somewhere out there is a quote from Warren saying that the CIA was to blame if McCain heard any of the interview.
Typical politician speak, McCain's camp says that McCain did not hear any of the interview. They don't claim that he wasn't coached by someone that did.
This is no big deal to me, I made my mind up about McCain during the primaries. Just a one line comment on an earlier post saying that the "cone of silence" was special.
Apology accepted by the way. :)
Oh, and as someone else pointed out, Obama said less than 150K and you might be poor, Less than 150K includes everyone from 0 up to 150K. That range definitely includes the poor. If you live in New York or San Francisco, the range of poor gets pretty close to $150K. If you make less than that, under Obama you aren't going to pay more in taxes and you will probably pay less.
Under McCain, you are probably going to pay more because someone is going to have to pay the bills and under the Republicans it probably isn't going to be the rich.
SVreX wrote:
doitover: According to NPR today, you are completely incorrect. They stated that McCain was on the premises, and that it was flat out impossible for him to have listened to anything being said.
Please drop it or provide a credible reference.
SVreX, don't bother. He hates anything that isn't directly connected with the Democratic Party because all else is evil. Only the Dems are good honorable people in his world.
As he proved in the earlier discussions re: Clinton's sex appetite, the LQ's business dealings, Kerry's medals and the Swift boat thing, he's not above sweeping the peccadilloes of his favorite politicos under the rug. When it suits him, of course.
in regards to the interview.
"that's above my payscale" or whatever it was that Barry said.
Holy crap. Really?!?
Because if we take that response seriously instead of dismissing it as utter crap it becomes an even bigger problem. He's pro-choice. He's completely pro-choice. If there's one thing he's never missed an opportunity to act on, it's being pro-choice. So now all of a sudden he doesn't know? You're even failing at failing here Barry. If you don't know, shouldn't you be erroring on the side of caution instead of advocating abortion rights every chance you get?
The reality is you absolutely can't say something consistent with your actions or the crowd before you will be burning you in effigy before you can make it to your car, and you can't say what they want to hear or your constituents will do the same thing.
belteshazzar, that's what I was thinking too. He says "That's above my pay grade," implying that it is a moral/philosophical decision to be made by who? God? Then you have a history of "I vote for the death of every baby from the time they are conceived to the time momma pushes them out and they're screaming for life." If you don't know when life begins, how do you justify the "kill 'em all" philosophy? I think he had bad coaching on that answer. I think he was trying to be phunny. You know he had rehearsed for this. They all do. So he was waiting for the abortion/when life begins question. That was the game plan to make killing people look like it wasn't really important. What's next? Nuke Houston to solve the problem of whitey moving to the burbs? It's above his pay grade, so, why not? When in doubt, kill 'em all, right?
On that "cone of silence" from Warren's mouth for anyone that cares.
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/2008/08/17/rick.warren.forum.interview.cnn?iref=videosearch
SVreX
SuperDork
8/20/08 5:32 p.m.
doitover wrote:
Times correction to Kristols misinformation
A correction of the misinformation which stated "...no basis for charges that ...not in a “cone of silence” ... and could therefore have heard questions...
What is that, a quadruple negative? My head is spinning. So which part was Kristol's misinformation?? Just what are they trying to correct? That is pitifully poor writing.
On second thought...never mind.
I found the entire thing on Youtube last night and watched it. I about lost it when Obama just about said he wouldn't have nominated Justice Thomas because he wasn't ex(perienced) enough for the job. In the end I liked more of McCain's answers than I liked Obama's answers, and now I can't wait for the debates.
