NationStates Jolt Archive

"Things he did to help you"? Is that the new standard for presidential candidates in the US? How they have "helped the American people"? Because, call me crazy, but I'm pretty sure that would narrow the field right into invisibility.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:ObamaBarack.jpg

OBAMA OBAMA OBAMA that is all I hear on the news (Yes even on FOX). What I want to know is where did Obama even come from. The only time i heard about him was in 04' after he won the senate race against that guy who wanted to ban taxes for black people who had past family working on the cotton fields...I belive his name is Alan Keyes? Anyway it seems this OBAMA MANIA is getting out of hand. His followers cant even give me five things that he did to help us. So what I want to know is why is obama so great and how has he helped the american people.

and people you cant say

1 He's black (he is really bi-racial)
2 He knows how to talk (and so can baby's)
3 He will bring change (And if he isnt elected?)

Help me out :confused::confused:

http://www.barackobama.com/index.php

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:ObamaBarack.jpg

OBAMA OBAMA OBAMA that is all I hear on the news (Yes even on FOX). What I want to know is where did Obama even come from. The only time i heard about him was in 04' after he won the senate race against that guy who wanted to ban taxes for black people who had past family working on the cotton fields...I belive his name is Alan Keyes? Anyway it seems this OBAMA MANIA is getting out of hand. His followers cant even give me five things that he did to help us. So what I want to know is why is obama so great and how has he helped the american people.

and people you cant say

1 He's black (he is really bi-racial)
2 He knows how to talk (and so can baby's)
3 He will bring change (And if he isnt elected?)

Help me out :confused::confused:

I'll give you the most important: he wants to regulate free trade.

2 He knows how to talk (and so can baby's)


EPIC FAIIIIIIIL!!! ;)

I'll give you the most important: he wants to regulate free trade.

the us congress wanted to get things done but have they???? And talking the talk is diffrent from walking the walk

Ask not what Obama can do for you - ask what you can do for Obama!

the us congress wanted to get things done but have they???? And talking the talk is diffrent from walking the walk

The President can introduce legislature-- you are aware of that, aren't you?

Read the wikipedia article on Obama that you pulled the picture from.

http://www.barackobama.com/index.php
^

Just give me one thing that barack obama did to make him right to be our president?

He voted against the Iraqi war :D

the us congress wanted to get things done but have they???? And talking the talk is diffrent from walking the walk

Voting Record (http://www.votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=9490)

Just give me one thing that barack obama did to make him right to be our president?

Take your pick:

He entered Harvard Law School in 1988.[25] In 1990, The New York Times reported his election as the Harvard Law Review's "first black president in its 104-year history".[26] He completed his J.D. degree magna cum laude in 1991.[27] On returning to Chicago, Obama directed a voter registration drive.[27] As an associate attorney with Miner, Barnhill & Galland from 1993 to 1996, he represented community organizers, discrimination claims, and voting rights cases.[28]

As a state legislator, Obama gained bipartisan support for legislation reforming ethics and health care laws.[33] He sponsored a law enhancing tax credits for low-income workers, negotiated welfare reform, and promoted increased subsidies for childcare.[34] Obama also led the passage of legislation mandating videotaping of homicide interrogations, and a law to monitor racial profiling by requiring police to record the race of drivers they stopped.[34]

The "Coburn-Obama Transparency Act" provides for the web site USAspending.gov, managed by the Office of Management and Budget, listing all organizations receiving Federal funds from 2007 onward, and providing breakdowns by the agency allocating the funds, the dollar amount given, and the purpose of the grant or contract.[58]


In the first month of the newly Democratic-controlled 110th Congress, Obama worked with Russ Feingold (D–WI) to eliminate gifts of travel on corporate jets by lobbyists to members of Congress and require disclosure of bundled campaign contributions under the "Honest Leadership and Open Government Act", which was signed into law in September 2007.[64] He joined Chuck Schumer (D-NY) in sponsoring S. 453, a bill to criminalize deceptive practices in federal elections, including fraudulent flyers and automated phone calls, as witnessed in the 2006 midterm elections.[65]

Take your pick.

Just give me one thing that barack obama did to make him right to be our president?

See above.

If you know this then why doesnt the American Public....how can their be a Obama Mania when know one even nows this stuff you just said....

Because Americans are to lazy to actually look up things about the candidates. That's why we have crappy people running 95% of the time.

Take your pick:

He entered Harvard Law School in 1988.[25] In 1990, The New York Times reported his election as the Harvard Law Review's "first black president in its 104-year history".[26] He completed his J.D. degree magna cum laude in 1991.[27] On returning to Chicago, Obama directed a voter registration drive.[27] As an associate attorney with Miner, Barnhill & Galland from 1993 to 1996, he represented community organizers, discrimination claims, and voting rights cases.[28]

As a state legislator, Obama gained bipartisan support for legislation reforming ethics and health care laws.[33] He sponsored a law enhancing tax credits for low-income workers, negotiated welfare reform, and promoted increased subsidies for childcare.[34] Obama also led the passage of legislation mandating videotaping of homicide interrogations, and a law to monitor racial profiling by requiring police to record the race of drivers they stopped.[34]

The "Coburn-Obama Transparency Act" provides for the web site USAspending.gov, managed by the Office of Management and Budget, listing all organizations receiving Federal funds from 2007 onward, and providing breakdowns by the agency allocating the funds, the dollar amount given, and the purpose of the grant or contract.[58]


In the first month of the newly Democratic-controlled 110th Congress, Obama worked with Russ Feingold (D–WI) to eliminate gifts of travel on corporate jets by lobbyists to members of Congress and require disclosure of bundled campaign contributions under the "Honest Leadership and Open Government Act", which was signed into law in September 2007.[64] He joined Chuck Schumer (D-NY) in sponsoring S. 453, a bill to criminalize deceptive practices in federal elections, including fraudulent flyers and automated phone calls, as witnessed in the 2006 midterm elections.[65]

Take your pick.

If you know this then why doesnt the American Public....how can their be a Obama Mania when know one even nows this stuff you just said....

"Things he did to help you"? Is that the new standard for presidential candidates in the US? How they have "helped the American people"? Because, call me crazy, but I'm pretty sure that would narrow the field right into invisibility.

How about Obama, Obama, Obama, Obomba.

If you know this then why doesnt the American Public....how can their be a Obama Mania when know one even nows this stuff you just said....
Says a lot about the American public, doesn't it? Too lazy to check whom they elect as their leader.

And your post should read:
If you know this, then why doesn't the American public....how can there be an Obama Mania when no one even knows this stuff you just said....

Spelling - it really ain't that hard and a courtesy to your reader!

If you know this then why doesnt the American Public....how can their be a Obama Mania when know one even nows this stuff you just said....Maybe lot's of them do because they do their research? Or maybe they don't and they're voting for him for the myriad of other reasons?

"I will bomb pakistan" - Obama

enough said

If you know this then why doesnt the American Public....how can their be a Obama Mania when know one even nows this stuff you just said....

What makes you think we don't?

"I make up quotes from other people when I'm not incesting with my parents" - Schrandtopia


http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSN0132206420070801

or not

Schrandtopia;13460496']"I will bomb pakistan" - Obama

enough said
"I make up quotes from other people when I'm not incesting with my parents" - Schrandtopia

Obama said if elected in November 2008 he would be willing to attack inside Pakistan with or without approval from the Pakistani government, a move that would likely cause anxiety in the already troubled region.

thats for that incest remark though, that was classy

Schrandtopia;13460507']http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSN0132206420070801

or not
Not seeing the "I will bomb Pakistan"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:ObamaBarack.jpg

OBAMA OBAMA OBAMA that is all I hear on the news (Yes even on FOX). What I want to know is where did Obama even come from. The only time i heard about him was in 04' after he won the senate race against that guy who wanted to ban taxes for black people who had past family working on the cotton fields...I belive his name is Alan Keyes? Anyway it seems this OBAMA MANIA is getting out of hand. His followers cant even give me five things that he did to help us. So what I want to know is why is obama so great and how has he helped the american people.

and people you cant say

1 He's black (he is really bi-racial)
2 He knows how to talk (and so can baby's)
3 He will bring change (And if he isnt elected?)

Help me out :confused::confused:

But...babies can't talk. They're babies. :confused::confused:

anyone else remember what a shitty president JFK turned out to be?

He's mined 60 years worth of speeches and cobbled together an impressive number of catchphrases and themes, although to be fair, he did hire a former JFK speechwriter for some of them - the guy who wrote his "ask not..." line. Beyond that, he's got the usual credentials: lawyer, from an Ivy League school, etc.

He energized young voters, cut taxes to a far more reasonable level, and handled the Cuban missile crisis well by most accounts.

while I'll hand lowwer taxes to him didn't he cause the Cuban Missile Crisis?

Schrandtopia;13460834']anyone else remember what a shitty president JFK turned out to be?

To be fair, he didn't have much of a chance to prove himself. He energized young voters, cut taxes to a far more reasonable level, and handled the Cuban missile crisis well by most accounts. He might not have been the dynamo many Democrats like to think he was, but he was alright.

Just give me one thing that barack obama did to make him right to be our president?

He is a natural born US citizen.

He is a natural born US citizen.

he has great teeth

He voted against the Iraqi war :D
Two problems with your response:

1) Obama did NOT vote against the war in Iraq.

2) You were ALL for the war against Iraq. How do you see that as a positive?

He's the candidate that would be mostly likely initiate "socialist" agendas. :D

Universal Healthcare ftw? Plus he is supported by the Guardian. :)

Although Hillary also supports universal healthcare, she might turn out to be a corporate slave and she scares me. :(

He's not unlike Clinton in this regard, are you sure you want to call him out on that?
Of course. I love exposing hypocritical bullshit.

Obama's Iraq War Positions--The Facts (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ainMlDyy8U&feature=related)

Hear this guy out. Tell me if you can support anything contrary to his claimed "facts".

2) You were ALL for the war against Iraq. How do you see that as a positive?

He's not unlike Clinton in this regard, are you sure you want to call him out on that?

He's the candidate that would be mostly likely initiate "socialist" agendas. :D

Universal Healthcare ftw?

Although Hillary also supports universal healthcare

but most Americans don't want that

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:ObamaBarack.jpg

OBAMA OBAMA OBAMA that is all I hear on the news (Yes even on FOX). What I want to know is where did Obama even come from. The only time i heard about him was in 04' after he won the senate race against that guy who wanted to ban taxes for black people who had past family working on the cotton fields...I belive his name is Alan Keyes? Anyway it seems this OBAMA MANIA is getting out of hand. His followers cant even give me five things that he did to help us. So what I want to know is why is obama so great and how has he helped the american people.

and people you cant say

1 He's black (he is really bi-racial)
2 He knows how to talk (and so can baby's)
3 He will bring change (And if he isnt elected?)

Help me out :confused::confused:

He reminds me of the Allstate guy.

Everytime I hear the Allstate guy, I want to buy Allstate, because his voice makes me feel like everything in the world is just dandy.

Now, I'm a conservative Republican (Pause for boos). Yes, thank you folks, you are too kind. But, I kinda like Obama, he seems to really want to do the things he says he's going to do. He hasn't been corrupted by politics...yet.

Of course. I love exposing hypocritical bullshit.
Really? Really? Do you even read what you type? Clinton voted for authorization for the war and now opposes it. Apparently that's Corny's position now. He has the same track record as Clinton, how is that calling him out on hypocritical bullshit? If that's the case, why aren't you calling Clinton out, it's the same thing.

Don't mistake this for one of those tired ass 'flip flop' accusations. "A foolish consistancy..." and all that. Just seems like a bit of a glass house for you to call out Corny for having more or less the same track record on opinions of the war.

Obama's Iraq War Positions--The Facts (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ainMlDyy8U&feature=related)

Hear this guy out. Tell me if you can support anything contrary to his claimed "facts".
Some kid on YouTube, huh? Alright. I'll wait for it to load, but before I waste my time on this-are you just going to run away and hide when I actually address this like you have every researched post on the subject so far? Because I'm getting kind of tired of wasting my time on you.

Schrandtopia;13460925']but most Americans don't want that

Yeah, that's true. But I do! That's my personal reason for supporting Obama. :D

Obama's Iraq War Positions--The Facts (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ainMlDyy8U&feature=related)

Hear this guy out. Tell me if you can support anything contrary to his claimed "facts".

Yup, that's reliable, some random kid on youtube :rolleyes:

Yup, that's reliable, some random kid on youtube :rolleyes:
It is! Why must you deny the truth they speak?

"Things he did to help you"? Is that the new standard for presidential candidates in the US? How they have "helped the American people"? Because, call me crazy, but I'm pretty sure that would narrow the field right into invisibility.Balanced budget comes to mind...

Schrandtopia;13460925']but most Americans don't want thatexcept once they need medical care :rolleyes:

It is! Why must you deny the truth they speak?

Mostly because he needs to speak the fuck up. I can barely hear his mumbly ass. Still waiting for the whole thing to load, my intertubes are clogged or something. Doesn't matter. CH won't actually acknowledge any real address of his source anyway. He hasn't so far, why would he start now.

Schrandtopia;13460496']"I will bomb pakistan" - Obama

enough said
....but invading and occupying Iraq at a cost of .... *dons turtle-neck*
billions and billions
*takes off turtle-neck*
is peachy.

Yup, that's reliable, some random kid on youtube :rolleyes:
Try refuting his "facts". :D

Try refuting his "facts". :D

I didn't even bother trying to listen for more than a minute or so.

If you know this then why doesnt the American Public....how can their be a Obama Mania when know one even nows this stuff you just said....

Are you serious? Go back to school. Stay off the internet.

Really? Really? Do you even read what you type?
Yes, I do read what I type.

Clinton voted for authorization for the war and now opposes it.
Yea and you can't handle that? Obama couldn't vote for the Iraq War because he wasn't in Congress....he wasn't even elected yet. However, Obama seems to have no problem voting for funding the Iraq War.

And yet, Obama seems to have no problem declaring that he would violate Pakistan's sovereignity by bombing high value targets if permission was not received from Musharraf.

That to me is pretty dangerous thinking from your peace loving candidate?

He has the same track record as Clinton, how is that calling him out on hypocritical bullshit? If that's the case, why aren't you calling Clinton out, it's the same thing.
Where has Corny indicated that he is now against the war in Iraq?

Don't mistake this for one of those tired ass 'flip flop' accusations. "A foolish consistancy..." and all that.
Okay then, don't turn it into one of those "tired ass 'flip flop' accusations", although it seems that you have already started down that road with your opening salvo?

Some kid on YouTube, huh?
Young adults are not allowed to have opinions, er express some facts?

Interesting.

Alright. I'll wait for it to load, but before I waste my time on this-are you just going to run away and hide when I actually address this like you have every researched post on the subject so far? Because I'm getting kind of tired of wasting my time on you.
You have every right to ignore my posts, although your accussations are not entirely factual. I did address your research and stated that it (the research) did not address my premise. But, I don't want to rehash that again. It will only get both of us agitated.

Are you serious? Go back to school. Stay off the internet.

Learning for some needs to be in stages ... and that fella's at the "pop-up book" stage, by appearances.

"I make up quotes from other people when I'm not incesting with my parents" - Schrandtopia
Nice flame job. :rolleyes:

....but invading and occupying Iraq at a cost of .... *dons turtle-neck*

*takes off turtle-neck*
is peachy.

not saying invading Iraq was the right thing to do, just saying bombing an islamic country with nuclear weapons that is at least trying to co-operate with us is a downright retarded thing to do

Schrandtopia;13461168']not saying invading Iraq was the right thing to do, just saying bombing an islamic country with nuclear weapons that is at least trying to co-operate with us is a downright retarded thing to do

And when exactly did Obama say he would do this?

And when exactly did Obama say he would do this?

http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSN0132206420070801


Obama said if elected in November 2008 he would be willing to attack inside Pakistan with or without approval from the Pakistani government, a move that would likely cause anxiety in the already troubled region.

http://www.philly2hoboken.com/blog/archives/images/jan_brady.jpg

Octember 32nd, 2101.


try August 1st, 2007

And when exactly did Obama say he would do this?

Octember 32nd, 2101.

Schrandtopia;13461182']http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSN0132206420070801

Nowhere in that article does it say that he would use nukes on Pakistan, so again, when exactly did he say:Schrandtopia;13461168']bombing an islamic country with nuclear weapons

Schrandtopia;13461184']try August 1st, 2007

Source it.

Schrandtopia;13461184']try August 1st, 2007

Damnable campaign promises! My spirit is crushed! :mad:
*bites pillow*

Nowhere in that article does it say that he would use nukes on Pakistan, so again, when exactly did he say:

sorry if the language was confusing

I meant to say there is a nice, powerful muslim country that has nuclear weapons and obama is going to bomb it, not that obama is going to use nuclear weapons to bomb a nice, powerful muslim country

Source it.


http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSN0132206420070801

Schrandtopia;13461231']sorry if the language was confusing
There's a big difference between confusing and deliberately misleading
Schrandtopia;13461231']I meant to say there is a nice, powerful muslim country that has nuclear weapons and obama is going to bomb it, not that obama is going to use nuclear weapons to bomb a nice, powerful muslim country

So you admit your statement was bs?

So you admit your statement was bs?

no, he is still going to bomb pakistan I am clarifying to say not with nuclear weapons

pakistan is still a nuclear state and obama has still said he will attack them

Schrandtopia;13461246']no, he is still going to bomb pakistan I am clarifying to say not with nuclear weapons

pakistan is still a nuclear state and obama has still said he will attack them

And where in that article does he state that he will definately bomb Pakistan, since that is what you are implying.

I didn't even bother trying to listen for more than a minute or so.
Why not? Young adults shhould have no voice?

And where in that article does he state that he will definately bomb Pakistan, since that is what you are implying.

I don't see what else promising to attack Pakistan could mean

Schrandtopia;13461269']I don't see what else promising to attack Pakistan could mean

And where does he 'promise' to attack Pakistan

This is the closest he comes to 'promising' an attack
If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will.

Why not? Young adults shhould have no voice?

No, his voice just annoyed me.

Yes, I do read what I type.
And yet you still hit 'submit'...


Yea and you can't handle that? Obama couldn't vote for the Iraq War because he wasn't in Congress....he wasn't even elected yet. However, Obama seems to have no problem voting for funding the Iraq War.

And yet, Obama seems to have no problem declaring that he would violate Pakistan's sovereignity by bombing high value targets if permission was not received from Musharraf.

That to me is pretty dangerous thinking from your peace loving candidate?
And this has what to do with the Corny/Clinton thing?


Where has Corny indicated that he is now against the war in Iraq?
In the post you quoted to start this...


Okay then, don't turn it into one of those "tired ass 'flip flop' accusations", although it seems that you have already started down that road with your opening salvo?
Actually, you did, champ. I just pointed out that the person you were slamming had a similar arc as the person your supporting.


Young adults are not allowed to have opinions, er express some facts?
Sure they are. But often young adults opinions are not considered primary sources.

Interesting.
Not nearly as much as you think.


You have every right to ignore my posts, although your accussations are not entirely factual. I did address your research and stated that it (the research) did not address my premise. But, I don't want to rehash that again. It will only get both of us agitated.
Yeah, after making us wait a day you went 'nuh uh' and ignored the fact that we directly addressed your premise. Your argument was to simply restate it like it hadn't been challenged at all and whistle down the tracks. Which I suspect will happen here again, seeing you flail about here...ah well...whats worse is because of some sort of keyboard error this is the second time I have to type this out for you to ignore. Ah well...

So, this dude's five points. I'm going to use a verifiable resource that contains links to its primary sources like the actual speeches and voting records. While I appreciate the whole 'Web 2.0' thing with some kid in what looks like a hotel room who says 'ax' instead of 'ask,' it's just easier for all involved to use a varifiable resource with links to primary sources. Call me old school.
So, here's my source (http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/01/clinton_vs_obama_on_iraq.html), compiling a time line and comparing Clinton and Obama on the war.

Let's go through this dudes' points-

His first revolves around a quote from Obama about how he would have voted-
"What would I have done? I don't know. What I know is that from my vantage point the case was not made."
Note that in the last sentence Obama still states that from his vantage point the case was not made. All he is doing here is acknowledging that he did not have the same information that the senators did and without that information he can't say what he would have done. This doesn't seem unreasonable and in fact something one probably should look for in a leader. More information informs their decision. No problems there.

What's more important is when and where he said it-
uly 26. In an interview with the New York Times, prior to his speech at the Democratic Party convention, Obama declines to criticize presidential nominee John Kerry for his 2002 vote to authorize the Iraq war. Says he was "not privy to Senate intelligence reports." He then continued: "What would I have done? I don't know. What I know is that from my vantage point the case was not made."
Is it gamesmanship to not knock the party nominee before the convention? Yes it is. But he doesn't really sell himself out, he says the the case wasn't made for him. Admitting that he didn't have the same information and not knowing how that information would affect his decision is pretty honest.

His second point should have been his lead off point, quoting Obama when he said-
"there is not much difference between my position and George Bush's position at this stage,"
This is, again, at the convention during his 'purple states' speech-
July 27. Obama tells Chicago Tribune that U.S. forces should remain in Iraq to stabilize the war-torn country. Says "there is not much difference between my position and George Bush's position at this stage," but is critical of Bush for bungling the occupation. Remains opposed to the original decision to invade. In keynote speech to Democratic convention, Obama avoids criticism of the war, saying "there are patriots who opposed the war in Iraq and patriots who supported the war in Iraq."

He goes on later, putting his position in clearer context and explains one of this dudes points later on-
September 19. Associated Press reports that Obama, running for Illinois Senate seat, would be willing to send more troops to Iraq if it would create conditions for eventual withdrawal. Says it would be "an extraordinary accomplishment" if U.S. could withdraw from Iraq in four years. Remains opposed to invasion decision.
Bolding mine. As those conditions were not met his votes reflected that as did Clintons. This is his strongest point, he should have lead with it.

But he was right to bury this one, his number three says that Obama said he would not vote for funding the war. That is not actually true-
Nov. 16. Obama tells Chicago community activists that he would have voted against the $87 billion package, explaining, "At a certain point, we have to say no to George Bush." See video here. In January 2008, Clinton claimed in speeches and interviews in New Hampshire that Obama promised never to fund the war. Her aides cite this 2003 speech as evidence, but context shows that Obama was referring specifically to the $87 billion request, not future requests.
So much for dudes claim that this whole thing is 100% factual.

In his fourth he talks about him opposing a amendment by Kerry for a time table for withdrawal. He quotes-
But having visited Iraq, I'm also acutely aware that a precipitous withdrawal of our troops, driven by Congressional edict rather than the realities on the ground, will not undo the mistakes made by this Administration. It could compound them.
There is more to that speech (http://obama.senate.gov/speech/060621-floor_statement_6/)-
We must exit Iraq, but not in a way that leaves behind a security vacuum filled with terrorism, chaos, ethnic cleansing and genocide that could engulf large swaths of the Middle East and endanger America. We have both moral and national security reasons to manage our exit in a responsible way.

I share many of the goals set forth in the Kerry Amendment. We should send a clear message to the Iraqis that we won't be there forever, and that by next year our primary role should be to conduct counter-insurgency actions, train Iraqi security forces, and provide needed logistical support.

Moreover, I share the frustration with an Administration whose policies with respect to Iraq seem to simply repeat the simple-minded refrains of "we know best" and "stay the course." It's not acceptable to conduct a war where our goals and strategies drift aimlessly regardless of the cost in lives or dollars spent, and where we end up with arbitrary, poll-driven troop reductions by the Administration - the worst of all possible outcomes.

As one who strongly opposed the decision to go to war and who has met with servicemen and women injured in this conflict and seen the pain of the parents and loved ones of those who have died in Iraq, I would like nothing more than for our military involvement to end.

But I do not believe that setting a date certain for the total withdrawal of U.S. troops is the best approach to achieving, in a methodical and responsible way, the three basic goals that should drive our Iraq policy: that is, 1) stabilizing Iraq and giving the factions within Iraq the space they need to forge a political settlement; 2) containing and ultimately defeating the insurgency in Iraq; and 3) bringing our troops safely home.

What is needed is a blueprint for an expeditious yet responsible exit from Iraq. A hard and fast, arbitrary deadline for withdrawal offers our commanders in the field, and our diplomats in the region, insufficient flexibility to implement that strategy.
He still wants expeditious withdrawal but recognizes the need for flexibility for bother diplomats and commanders.

Since this is about differences with Clinton-
Feb. 19. Clinton, making her second trip to Iraq, says that "insurgency is failing" and much of Iraq is "functioning quite well" despite a rash of suicide bombings.

I have to amend myself, since his fifth point is his strongest, that on voting record, Obama and Clinton have voted the same with the exception of the confirmation of a commander. He however overstates Obama's position. Obama's case is that he opposed the war from the start, which he did, not as reliant, as the kid states, that they are different all the way down the line.

And that's really the bottom line, Obama opposed the war from the start. His nuance on how to get out doesn't really undermine that but rather indicates that he will not be arbitrary about it but insist on a strategy for withdrawal instead of doing it willy nilly, which was how the war was initiated.

Two out of five and one outright misrepresentation. Overwhelmed I am not. Even the two rely more on his own characterization of the Obama campaign in order to work. This is why verifiable resources are better than someones webcam video. At that point why not just present your own argument?

Of course. I love exposing hypocritical bullshit.

Obama's Iraq War Positions--The Facts (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ainMlDyy8U&feature=related)

Hear this guy out. Tell me if you can support anything contrary to his claimed "facts".
1) Everything this guy says is either a straw man or Obama quotes taken completely out of context.
2) http://www.barackobama.com/factcheck/2008/01/12/fact_check_barack_obamas_consi.php
3) http://www.barackobama.com/factcheck/2008/01/05/fact_check_obamas_consistent_p.php
4) I don't blame this kid because he was probably eight years old or something when the Iraq War started, but he clearly doesn't know how shit went down in late 2002. It was a vote to let the president go to war, and there was no reason to believe that there were circumstances under which the war should have been waged.
5) This kid doesn't understand the difference between thinking the war should have never been started (Obama's opinion) and thinking that we should cut and run (not Obama's opinion). He's old enough that he should have been taught those critical thinking skills already. If I were him I would demand a refund from the government for not schooling him effectively.
6) Thank you for wasting 9:17 of my time. Did you seriously think anybody would be swayed be this garbage? We're getting tired of refuting the same old arguments. Please bring something new to the table next time.

Schrandtopia;13461168']not saying invading Iraq was the right thing to do, just saying bombing an islamic country with nuclear weapons that is at least trying to co-operate with us is a downright retarded thing to do
Actually, Obama has specifically said that nukes would be appropriate. It's Clinton who's refused to rule them out, as we have discussed in previous threads.

1) Everything this guy says is either a straw man or Obama quotes taken completely out of context.
2) http://www.barackobama.com/factcheck/2008/01/12/fact_check_barack_obamas_consi.php
3) http://www.barackobama.com/factcheck/2008/01/05/fact_check_obamas_consistent_p.php
4) I don't blame this kid because he was probably eight years old or something when the Iraq War started, but he clearly doesn't know how shit went down in late 2002. It was a vote to let the president go to war, and there was no reason to believe that there were circumstances under which the war should have been waged.
5) This kid doesn't understand the difference between thinking the war should have never been started (Obama's opinion) and thinking that we should cut and run (not Obama's opinion). He's old enough that he should have been taught those critical thinking skills already. If I were him I would demand a refund from the government for not schooling him effectively.
6) Thank you for wasting 9:17 of my time. Did you seriously think anybody would be swayed be this garbage? We're getting tired of refuting the same old arguments. Please bring something new to the table next time.


Actually, Obama has specifically said that nukes would be appropriate. It's Clinton who's refused to rule them out, as we have discussed in previous threads.
Fuck dude, thanks...once I got through his five 'points' I was taxed and forgot to get to the delusion that the authorization was for anything but war.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:ObamaBarack.jpg

OBAMA OBAMA OBAMA that is all I hear on the news (Yes even on FOX). What I want to know is where did Obama even come from. The only time i heard about him was in 04' after he won the senate race against that guy who wanted to ban taxes for black people who had past family working on the cotton fields...I belive his name is Alan Keyes? Anyway it seems this OBAMA MANIA is getting out of hand. His followers cant even give me five things that he did to help us. So what I want to know is why is obama so great and how has he helped the american people.

and people you cant say

1 He's black (he is really bi-racial)
2 He knows how to talk (and so can baby's)
3 He will bring change (And if he isnt elected?)

Help me out :confused::confused:

http://www.justfuckinggoogleit.com/

Schrandtopia;13460834']anyone else remember what a shitty president JFK turned out to be?

He was shitty? What's the matter? Do not like candidates that actually care for the people?

Schrandtopia;13460858']while I'll hand lowwer taxes to him didn't he cause the Cuban Missile Crisis?

No. He didn't.

Two problems with your response:

1) Obama did NOT vote against the war in Iraq.

against it from the beginning=voting against it

2) You were ALL for the war against Iraq. How do you see that as a positive?

Me? I don't but then again...

Schrandtopia;13461168']not saying invading Iraq was the right thing to do, just saying bombing an islamic country with nuclear weapons that is at least trying to co-operate with us is a downright retarded thing to do

Where the hell did he say that? I heard him say he would not use nukes to bomb terrorist camps or something like that but not what you are claiming.

Schrandtopia;13461182']http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSN0132206420070801

Care to point where he mentioned nukes?

He's the candidate that would be mostly likely initiate "socialist" agendas. :D

Universal Healthcare ftw? Plus he is supported by the Guardian. :)

Although Hillary also supports universal healthcare, she might turn out to be a corporate slave and she scares me. :(

Hillary is scary because she's shown she'll support anything that's currently popular. See Hot Coffee (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hot_Coffee_mod), her vote on Iraq, her current stance towards Iran. She's a scary individual, a populist in the worst meaning of the word. Now maybe she was taken in by the propaganda like so many Americans were, but you'd think a member of the Armed Services committee and the subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities would know better than the average shlub.

against it from the beginning=voting against it
Perhaps in your world, but in reality no they are not equivalent.

2) You were ALL for the war against Iraq. How do you see that as a positive?

No, but thanks for lying.

Help me out :confused::confused:

He seems like a nice enough guy; the other two major candidates do not posses this appearance.

No, but thanks for lying.
That was an aside to Corny. So, it is not a lie. Hope that helps your confusion.

Really? Really? Do you even read what you type?

for your own sanity, i suggest taking up my approach of treating CH's publicly visible mad rush towards insanity as an elaborate piece of performance art. it's easier on the brain.

That was an aside to Corny. So, it is not a lie. Hope that helps your confusion.
Ahem...
for your own sanity, i suggest taking up my approach of treating CH's publicly visible mad rush towards insanity as an elaborate piece of performance art. it's easier on the brain.

True enough.

Perhaps in your world, but in reality no they are not equivalent.

Actually...if you are against something, it stands to reason that you would vote against it.

That was an aside to Corny. So, it is not a lie. Hope that helps your confusion.

And when you point out that I am now against it...then it might be a truth. Until now though, it ain't lying. Someone asked why they should vote for Obama and I pointed out (somewhat incorrectly I admit about the voting) against the Iraq War. That's not lying CH. That is a truth wether you want to think it or not.

The President can introduce legislature-- you are aware of that, aren't you?

Technically, no. If the President wants legislation introduced, he has to round up Congressmen to introduce it. The State of the Union speech is his only formal, constitutional opportunity even to suggest legislation, but his suggestions for legislative action during the speech do not, in and of themselves, cause bills to be drafted.

That was an aside to Corny. So, it is not a lie. Hope that helps your confusion.

It does. I apologize for the misunderstanding. :(

*gives you a donut*

1) Everything this guy says is either a straw man or Obama quotes taken completely out of context.
I completely disagree. While Obama wants to champion that he was always against the War in Iraq, he admits that he cannot predict how he would have voted if he was in a position to do so.

The fact that he has consistently voted for continuation of Iraq War funding identical to Senator Clinton speaks volumes.

The fact that Obama declared that he would invade Pakistan's sovereignity speaks volumes. He was chastized for those comments and rightly so. This guy would further destablize the Middle East/Asian situation.

4) I don't blame this kid because he was probably eight years old or something when the Iraq War started, but he clearly doesn't know how shit went down in late 2002.
Suggesting that this "kid" is only about 13 now is laughable. The fact that you criticize him for his age is telling.

It was a vote to let the president go to war,
IF the circumstances warranted it. And we all know they didn't.

and there was no reason to believe that there were circumstances under which the war should have been waged.
The fact that Bush violated the goodwill that Congress gave him on this matter is the true story.

5) This kid doesn't understand the difference between thinking the war should have never been started (Obama's opinion) and thinking that we should cut and run (not Obama's opinion).
This "kid" made some valid points regarding factual comments made by Obama himself. The very fact that the Obama campaign felt compelled to answer such claims proves that there is validity to those points, and just want to put their spin on it.

He's old enough that he should have been taught those critical thinking skills already.
First you say he is too young (a kid) and then you say he is "old enough". I guess his " critical thinking skills" are more advanced then you want to give him credit for.

If I were him I would demand a refund from the government for not schooling him effectively.
If you don't like the message, you attack the messenger, by blaming his schooling.

6) Thank you for wasting 9:17 of my time. Did you seriously think anybody would be swayed be this garbage?
Dismissing these claims as "garbage" again demonstrates your inability to refute the charges in an educated manner.

We're getting tired of refuting the same old arguments.
You aren't refuting "the same old arguments", you are attempting to brush aside critical comments regarding your star candidate. You may see him as a peace loving, transformative individual, but so far all I see him as is an opportunist and a slightly dangerous one at that.

Please bring something new to the table next time.
You can count on it.

Actually, Obama has specifically said that nukes would be appropriate.
Obama thinks nukes would be appropriate? No doubt. :p

It's Clinton who's refused to rule them out, as we have discussed in previous threads.
That is technically a misrepresentation of her position, but I am seeing a pattern to your passionate support of your candidate.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/18/poll.texas/index.html

So much for those Clinton leads in Texas. Its now officially a dead heat in the state.

I completely disagree. While Obama wants to champion that he was always against the War in Iraq, he admits that he cannot predict how he would have voted if he was in a position to do so.Admitted, not admits. He speculated that they may have had access to intelligence he didn't have. Turns out they didn't really.

The fact that he has consistently voted for continuation of Iraq War funding identical to Senator Clinton speaks volumes.Not about his position that the war should have never been authorized or started in the first place.

The fact that Obama declared that he would invade Pakistan's sovereignity speaks volumes. He was chastized for those comments and rightly so. This guy would further destablize the Middle East/Asian situation.BS. Obama has never stated that he would invade Pakistan. That's a complete fabrication. He said that he would strike at Al Qaeda if he had legit intel and Musharaf was stonewalling. Depending on the nature of the strike, troops wouldn't even have to cross borders. And he was chastised for it NOT because it was the wrong thing to do, but because he was talking about it. I think if you asked Middle East leaders, they would prefer to negotiate with a president who's honest and open with them.

Suggesting that this "kid" is only about 13 now is laughable. The fact that you criticize him for his age is telling.In fact I didn't criticize him for his age. I was giving him a pass for it.

IF the circumstances warranted it. And we all know they didn't.BINGO. If there are no circumstances under which the blank check would be cashed, then why write it in the first place?

The fact that Bush violated the goodwill that Congress gave him on this matter is the true story.Authorizing a known neocon-controlled moron to start a stupid war is not "goodwill," it's the height of idiocy and irresponsibility.

This "kid" made some valid points regarding factual comments made by Obama himself. The very fact that the Obama campaign felt compelled to answer such claims proves that there is validity to those points, and just want to put their spin on it.No it doesn't. I don't think you know what the word "prove" means. If I claimed that you grabbed my ass last Tuesday, and you said "No, here is evidence that I was nowhere near your ass last Tuesday", that does not prove that you grabbed my ass last Tuesday. In fact, it disproves it.

First you say he is too young (a kid) and then you say he is "old enough". I guess his " critical thinking skills" are more advanced then you want to give him credit for.What?????

If you don't like the message, you attack the messenger, by blaming his schooling.By blaming his schooling, I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt that he isn't just a fucking moron.

Dismissing these claims as "garbage" again demonstrates your inability to refute the charges in an educated manner.We've been doing it over and over, and you keep ignoring the parts that you don't like to hear. Seriously. Flow out the arguments if you don't believe me.

You aren't refuting "the same old arguments", you are attempting to brush aside critical comments regarding your star candidate. You may see him as a peace loving, transformative individual, but so far all I see him as is an opportunist and a slightly dangerous one at that.In fact every argument you're bringing up has been refuted on multiple occasions. The Pakistan thing, Iraq War consistency, etc. It's all old news. Yet you don't feel it necessary to address your own candidate's numerous troublesome qualities that have been touched on just as often.

Obama thinks nukes would be appropriate? No doubt. :pInappropriate I should have written.

That is technically a misrepresentation of her position, but I am seeing a pattern to your passionate support of your candidate.No, you're right. In fact, we have no idea what the fuck Clinton thinks about nukes, since she ruled them out in 2006, but now says we shouldn't rule anything out. For that matter, who knows what her real position is on anything when she's relying on pollster superstar Mark Penn to calculate the best positions for her to take!

Dismissing these claims as "garbage" again demonstrates your inability to refute the charges in an educated manner.


That is technically a misrepresentation of her position, but I am seeing a pattern to your passionate support of your candidate.
These statements are rich considering you dodged the post above his that sourced all of his points and addressed them, including your 'source' basing his accusation on a mis-characterization.

It's alright. You've done this enough times that we're not longer surprised.

These statements are rich considering you dodged the post above his that sourced all of his points and addressed them, including your 'source' basing his accusation on a mis-characterization.

It's alright. You've done this enough times that we're not longer surprised.


When will everyone realize that CH is so blinded by irrational Clinton love that he wont see reason.

When will everyone realize that CH is so blinded by irrational Clinton love that he wont see reason.

I don't think thats a mystery to many anymore.

And yet you still hit 'submit'...

And this has what to do with the Corny/Clinton thing?

In the post you quoted to start this...

Actually, you did, champ. I just pointed out that the person you were slamming had a similar arc as the person your supporting.
It was a side bar issue with Corny, and it is rather irrelevant to our discussion. Please don't make it bigger then what it is.

Sure they are. But often young adults opinions are not considered primary sources.
Is that what you think? How many Obama supporters here at NSG are that guys age and younger? I give the guy credit for being politically aware, especially when a large percentage of voters will go to the polls totally unprepared to do the right thing.

Yeah, after making us wait a day you went 'nuh uh' and ignored the fact that we directly addressed your premise. Your argument was to simply restate it like it hadn't been challenged at all and whistle down the tracks. Which I suspect will happen here again, seeing you flail about here...ah well...whats worse is because of some sort of keyboard error this is the second time I have to type this out for you to ignore. Ah well...
With all due respect, my premise cannot be proven right or wrong unless Obama wins the nomination and then ends up losing the bid for the White House. All the rest is fancy filler?

So, this dude's five points. I'm going to use a verifiable resource that contains links to its primary sources like the actual speeches and voting records. While I appreciate the whole 'Web 2.0' thing with some kid in what looks like a hotel room who says 'ax' instead of 'ask,' it's just easier for all involved to use a varifiable resource with links to primary sources. Call me old school.
The "kid" made some pretty good points. It shouldn't matter if he mispronounced a word......perhaps you are just "misunderestimating" this guys future potential? :p

So, here's my source (http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/01/clinton_vs_obama_on_iraq.html), compiling a time line and comparing Clinton and Obama on the war.

Let's go through this dudes' points-

His first revolves around a quote from Obama about how he would have voted-

Note that in the last sentence Obama still states that from his vantage point the case was not made. All he is doing here is acknowledging that he did not have the same information that the senators did and without that information he can't say what he would have done. This doesn't seem unreasonable and in fact something one probably should look for in a leader. More information informs their decision. No problems there.

What's more important is when and where he said it-

Is it gamesmanship to not knock the party nominee before the convention? Yes it is. But he doesn't really sell himself out, he says the the case wasn't made for him. Admitting that he didn't have the same information and not knowing how that information would affect his decision is pretty honest.

However, slamming Hillary for her decision when he states that he couldn't predict how he would have voted is crass politics to say the least.

His second point should have been his lead off point, quoting Obama when he said-

This is, again, at the convention during his 'purple states' speech-

He goes on later, putting his position in clearer context and explains one of this dudes points later on-

Bolding mine. As those conditions were not met his votes reflected that as did Clintons. This is his strongest point, he should have lead with it.

But he was right to bury this one, his number three says that Obama said he would not vote for funding the war. That is not actually true-

So much for dudes claim that this whole thing is 100% factual.
However, I don't think that Obama should have stated that "there is not much difference between my position and George Bush's position at this stage,".

In regards to funding, I like this point (http://www.motherjones.com/mojoblog/archives/2008/01/6786_desperate_in_nh_1.html)that was made by a poster to a Mother Jones article:

The reason Mr. Obama claims to oppose the 87 bilion is that he says it is important to say no to George W Bush. If the whole premise of his position is to say no to George W Bush, then that reasoning cannot be logically limited to only this 87 billion. He was promising to stand up to Bush, which he did not do by voting for all the other funding bills. What changed? Obviously once he was no longer running to win liberal Illinois, but the whole country, his belief that we needed as a matter of principle to say no to George W Bush disappeared.

The second quote provided does not actually prove Mr. Obama honest, but in fact does the exact opposite. It reads:

Obama challenged the Congress to 'stand up to the misplaced priorities of this Administration' by delaying the $87 billion for Iraq until the President provides a specific plan and timetable for ending the U.S. occupation, justifies each and every dollar to ensure it is not going to reward Bush political friends and contributors, and provides 'investment in our own schools, health care, economic development and job creation that is at least comparable' to what is going to Iraq. 'It's not just Iraq that needs rebuilding. It's America, too,'

Here Obama tells the audience that he will not vote to fund the war until the Bush administration has changed its misplaced priorities. I can promise you that Bush did not provide the domestic investments that Obama outlines here before Mr. Obama voted to fund the war. This is flat out evidence that Mr. Obama lied in his campaign. He should not have been able to cast a vote to fund the war until Bush had provided "investment in our own schools, health care, economic development and job creation that is at least comparable' to what is going to Iraq." That sure as hell didn't happen, but Mr. Obama voted to fund the war anyway. Clearly Mr.Obama knew that wouldn't happen and so this rhetoric was his way of saying he would not vote for billions for Iraq when that money should be being spent here. This is a promise Mr. Obama did not even come close to keeping. This article takes Mr. Obama's words and attempts to interpret them in way which is simply not consistent with their context. This is one of the most dishonest, baised articles I have ever read.
Yes, well stated indeed. Principles are great to define but hard to defend if indeed you do not adhere to those principles.

In his fourth he talks about him opposing a amendment by Kerry for a time table for withdrawal. He quotes-

There is more to that speech (http://obama.senate.gov/speech/060621-floor_statement_6/)-

He still wants expeditious withdrawal but recognizes the need for flexibility for bother diplomats and commanders.

Since this is about differences with Clinton-

I have to amend myself, since his fifth point is his strongest, that on voting record, Obama and Clinton have voted the same with the exception of the confirmation of a commander. He however overstates Obama's position. Obama's case is that he opposed the war from the start, which he did, not as reliant, as the kid states, that they are different all the way down the line.

And that's really the bottom line, Obama opposed the war from the start. His nuance on how to get out doesn't really undermine that but rather indicates that he will not be arbitrary about it but insist on a strategy for withdrawal instead of doing it willy nilly, which was how the war was initiated.

Two out of five and one outright misrepresentation. Overwhelmed I am not. Even the two rely more on his own characterization of the Obama campaign in order to work. This is why verifiable resources are better than someones webcam video. At that point why not just present your own argument?
So Obama has voted against a timetable ammendment, voted for the surge, voted for Iraq War funding and has the attitude that "there is not much difference between my position and George Bush's position at this stage,"

Throw in talks about invading Pakistan and what have we got?

Actually...if you are against something, it stands to reason that you would vote against it.
Hormetic Principle FTW!

Throw in talks about invading Pakistan and what have we got?I JUST refuted that for the millionth time. Please stop spouting nonsense if you're not going to read the replies.

Hillary war-mongering on Iran. She emphatically says that "No option can be taken off the table" while surrounded by ominous stars of David.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E7tiEt_iguY&feature=related

With all due respect, my premise cannot be proven right or wrong unless Obama wins the nomination and then ends up losing the bid for the White House. All the rest is fancy filler?

is this supposed to be a positive aspect to your argumentation?

It was a side bar issue with Corny, and it is rather irrelevant to our discussion. Please don't make it bigger then what it is.
I know, you like to use these side squabbles to bury harder to respond to posts. You should be thanking me, taking you to task on them makes it easier to bury the hard questions.


Is that what you think? How many Obama supporters here at NSG are that guys age and younger? I give the guy credit for being politically aware, especially when a large percentage of voters will go to the polls totally unprepared to do the right thing.
Yeeessss, but they're not verifiable sources, now are they? You wouldn't accept, "Believe my argument, I dragged this guy off the street who agrees with me!" He's no different from you or I. You might as well have found a post from another Clinton supporter on this board and called that a source.


With all due respect, my premise cannot be proven right or wrong unless Obama wins the nomination and then ends up losing the bid for the White House. All the rest is fancy filler?
Pancakes will rain on Tuesday.

You can't prove that pancakes won't rain on Tuesday until Tuesday comes and goes and no pancakes rain. However, if I'm trying to enlist you in building a syrup fire hose you can argue against the likely hood of my premise to prevent wasting your time and energy building a fire hose for pancakes that will never come.

Your premise has been demonstrated to be Tuesday Pancake Rain and we're not going to help you build your syrup fire hose.


The "kid" made some pretty good points. It shouldn't matter if he mispronounced a word......perhaps you are just "misunderestimating" this guys future potential? :p
There are many things that go into deciding to trust a source or take someone seriously. It's why when I walk into a bank no one clamors over themselves to give me a loan.


However, slamming Hillary for her decision when he states that he couldn't predict how he would have voted is crass politics to say the least.
Because the case remains unmade.


However, I don't think that Obama should have stated that "there is not much difference between my position and George Bush's position at this stage,".
Perhaps. Perhaps not. Doesn't really make the kids point, however.

In regards to funding, I like this point that was made by a poster to a Mother Jones article:


Yes, well stated indeed. Principles are great to define but hard to defend if indeed you do not adhere to those principles.
I'm not doing your research for you anymore. Provide a link and remember to include her quotations in your quote so that it's coherent and therefore answerable.


So Obama has voted against a timetable ammendment, voted for the surge, voted for Iraq War funding and has the attitude that "there is not much difference between my position and George Bush's position at this stage,"

Throw in talks about invading Pakistan and what have we got?
Equivocation.

Pancakes will rain on Tuesday.

You can't prove that pancakes won't rain on Tuesday until Tuesday comes and goes and no pancakes rain. However, if I'm trying to enlist you in building a syrup fire hose you can argue against the likely hood of my premise to prevent wasting your time and energy building a fire hose for pancakes that will never come.

Your premise has been demonstrated to be Tuesday Pancake Rain and we're not going to help you build your syrup fire hose.

this is one of the more delicious analogies i've ever encountered

However, slamming Hillary for her decision when he states that he couldn't predict how he would have voted is crass politics to say the least.I disagree. As I've already stated, Obama's statement was predicated on the fact that there may have been significant decision-swaying intel he didn't have the same access to. Now that we know that's not the case a few years after Obama made the statement, I think we can say with certainty how Obama would have voted.

this is one of the more delicious analogies i've ever encountered

Kinda jonesin' for pancakes...

this is one of the more delicious analogies i've ever encountered

Seconded.

Admitted, not admits. He speculated that they may have had access to intelligence he didn't have. Turns out they didn't really.
That fact is that he admitted that he didn't know how he would have voted.

Not about his position that the war should have never been authorized or started in the first place.
Given his noted admission, his current position is greatly diluted by that admission and by the fact that he has continued to vote for Iraq War funding. Principles be damned.

BS. Obama has never stated that he would invade Pakistan. That's a complete fabrication. He said that he would strike at Al Qaeda if he had legit intel and Musharaf was stonewalling. Depending on the nature of the strike, troops wouldn't even have to cross borders.
Yup, complete fabrication:

Obama willing to invade Pakistan in al-Qaeda hunt (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article2182955.ece)

Bush: Obama will invade Pakistan (http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/february2008/110208_b_Obama.htm)

Presidential Candidate Pushes Aggressive Stance Toward Pakistan (http://i.abcnews.com/Politics/story?id=3434573&page=1)

"I understand that President Musharraf has his own challenges," Obama said, "but let me make this clear. There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will."

.....In many ways, the speech is counterintuitive; Obama, one of the more liberal candidates in the race, is proposing a geopolitical posture that is more aggressive than that of President Bush.
Yea......George Bush the 3rd!!

BTW, for your education, since you are so concerned about education, if a plane crosses an international border without permission, that is an invasion. If while invading that country you drop bombs, that is an act of aggression/war.

Edit: your candidate supports such actions. BTW, I love the way that Obama uses the same fear mongering of the Bush/Guiliani Republicans.

And he was chastised for it NOT because it was the wrong thing to do, but because he was talking about it.
And he should never have made that statement. It was an extremely dangerous form of politicking.

I think if you asked Middle East leaders, they would prefer to negotiate with a president who's honest and open with them.
However, people are less likely to seek negotiations if they believe you to be a hostile person.

In fact I didn't criticize him for his age. I was giving him a pass for it.
No, you were trying to portray the young man as being too young to know anything.

BINGO. If there are no circumstances under which the blank check would be cashed, then why write it in the first place?
After what happened on 911, lots of blank cheques got written, and many were out of fear and prejudice.

Authorizing a known neocon-controlled moron to start a stupid war is not "goodwill," it's the height of idiocy and irresponsibility.
However, you should remember that when Bush asked for that authorization, he was hovering around 70% in job approval ratings. Hard to argue with that huh?

No it doesn't. I don't think you know what the word "prove" means. If I claimed that you grabbed my ass last Tuesday, and you said "No, here is evidence that I was nowhere near your ass last Tuesday", that does not prove that you grabbed my ass last Tuesday. In fact, it disproves it.
Firstly, I have absolutely no desire to grab your ass. :p

Secondly, one can produce evidence to support or squash a claim, as long as the evidence is indeed factual.

What?????
If you think about it long enough, it will become clearer.

By blaming his schooling, I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt that he isn't just a fucking moron.
Interesting rationale. :rolleyes:

We've been doing it over and over, and you keep ignoring the parts that you don't like to hear. Seriously. Flow out the arguments if you don't believe me.
Flow out the arguments?

In fact every argument you're bringing up has been refuted on multiple occasions. The Pakistan thing, Iraq War consistency, etc. It's all old news. Yet you don't feel it necessary to address your own candidate's numerous troublesome qualities that have been touched on just as often.
Every candidate has "troublesome qualities". I just don't see what sets your candidate on a higher plateau. As a matter of fact, his inexperience at the federal level and in foreign relations suggests to me that he needs more seasoning before he is ready for prime time.

Inappropriate I should have written.
:D

No, you're right. In fact, we have no idea what the fuck Clinton thinks about nukes, since she ruled them out in 2006, but now says we shouldn't rule anything out.
That is not her position. Get it straight.

For that matter, who knows what her real position is on anything when she's relying on pollster superstar Mark Penn to calculate the best positions for her to take!
Do you have something to back up this claim, or is it just filler to round out your post?

I JUST refuted that for the millionth time. Please stop spouting nonsense if you're not going to read the replies.
Your refutation pales in the light of reality.

That fact is that he admitted that he didn't know how he would have voted.
I disagree. As I've already stated, Obama's statement was predicated on the fact that there may have been significant decision-swaying intel he didn't have the same access to. Now that we know that's not the case a few years after Obama made the statement, I think we can say with certainty how Obama would have voted.
Given his noted admission, his current position is greatly diluted by that admission and by the fact that he has continued to vote for Iraq War funding. Principles be damned.
doesn't understand the difference between thinking the war should have never been started (Obama's opinion) and thinking that we should cut and run (not Obama's opinion).
BTW, for your education, since you are so concerned about education, if a plane crosses an international border without permission, that is an invasion. If while invading that country you drop bombs, that is an act of aggression/war.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion
An invasion is a military action consisting of armed forces of one geopolitical entity entering territory controlled by another such entity, generally with the objective of either conquering territory, altering the established government, or a combination thereof.
...
Smaller-scale, tactical cross-border actions, such as skirmishes, sorties, raids, infiltrations or guerrilla warfare, are not generally considered invasions.

And he should never have made that statement. It was an extremely dangerous form of politicking.I strongly disagree. What's dangerous is to continue the threatening, stick-shaking form of diplomacy we've conducted for most of the last half century. Openness and honesty is the ONLY way to broach real solutions to most current international problems.
However, people are less likely to seek negotiations if they believe you to be a hostile person.You must think Musharraf and ME leaders are idiots if they would consider a Clinton presidency less hostile than an Obama presidency simply because Clinton doean't talk about military specifics.
No, you were trying to portray the young man as being too young to know anything.Just about the Iraq War. I thought it was nicer than criticizing him for being too stupid.
After what happened on 911, lots of blank cheques got written, and many were out of fear and prejudice.This was more than a year afterward. I wasn't writing any blank checks. Thousands of protestors weren't writing blank checks. Several other Democratic Senators weren't writing blank checks. Obama wasn't writing any blank checks. I consider an ability to make rational decisions in the wake of national crises a vital prerequisite for the presidency. Clinton has failed that prerequisite.
However, you should remember that when Bush asked for that authorization, he was hovering around 70% in job approval ratings. Hard to argue with that huh?Not really. Obama didn't have too much trouble and he was running for Senate at the time. I consider an ability to make rational decisions in the face of popular opposition a vital prerequisite for the presidency. Clinton has failed that prerequisite.
Firstly, I have absolutely no desire to grab your ass. :pClearly your defensiveness PROVES otherwise!
Secondly, one can produce evidence to support or squash a claim, as long as the evidence is indeed factual.You can post a picture of yourself partying in Tijuana on Tuesday.
If you think about it long enough, it will become clearer.You said that since I called him a kid and said that he was old enough that he should have been taught critical thinking skills, that somehow my saying this constitutes evidence that he does have more critical thinking skills than I think. What you said made no kind of sense whatsoever.
Flow out the arguments?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flow_%28policy_debate%29

Every candidate has "troublesome qualities". I just don't see what sets your candidate on a higher plateau.
IMO these attributes are the most tangible reasons for giving Obama the edge over Clinton:
1) relative honesty/openness/ethicalness
2) the issues differences that exist
3) ability to mutually respect and work with opposition without compromising principles
4) electability
As a matter of fact, his inexperience at the federal level and in foreign relations suggests to me that he needs more seasoning before he is ready for prime time.
1) I believe that he communicates a deep understanding of foreign policy issues. And he's taking the initiative in conducting diplomacy with places where he can make a difference, like Kenya.
2) Define "seasoning" Sounds like a meaningless buzzword to me.
3) Exactly how experienced is Clinton in this regard? Wining and dining heads of state IMO does not constitute foreign policy experience.
That is not her position. Get it straight.
Hillary war-mongering on Iran. She emphatically says that "No option can be taken off the table" while surrounded by ominous stars of David.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E7tiEt_iguY&feature=related
Do you have something to back up this claim, or is it just filler to round out your post?I can't seem to find the great NY Times article I read, but it's factual information - you can look up yourself who Mark Penn is. If you want filler, this time I think I'll round out my post with this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mZZ4Is9h8E

Yup, complete fabrication:

Bush: Obama will invade Pakistan (http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/february2008/110208_b_Obama.htm)

CanuckHeaven is arguing that Obama will invade Pakistan because Bush says so?

*brain asplode*

I disagree. As I've already stated, Obama's statement was predicated on the fact that there may have been significant decision-swaying intel he didn't have the same access to. Now that we know that's not the case a few years after Obama made the statement, I think we can say with certainty how Obama would have voted.
Ummm no you cannot. All you have is supposition and speculation.

Ummm no you cannot. All you have is supposition and speculation.Considering that he actually said he would have voted against it, but that if he had it would have been because of intelligence unknown to him, AND considering that we now know there wasn't anymore intelligence to be known, I'm gonna have to go ahead and say that you're completely wrong here.

CanuckHeaven is arguing that Obama will invade Pakistan because Bush says so?

*brain asplode*
Perhaps if you had read the other links, you could have kept your grey matter intact?

Considering that he actually said he would have voted against it, but that if he had it would have been because of intelligence unknown to him, AND considering that we now know there wasn't anymore intelligence to be known, I'm gonna have to go ahead and say that you're completely wrong here.
Wow, you are going to issue a proclamation that defies space and time and all reasoning?

Wow, you are going to issue a proclamation that defies space and time and all reasoning?
I'm just being reasonable here. You're trying to undermine Obama's consistency on the Iraq War, but the quotes you use don't do that when analyzed in context.

Perhaps if you had read the other links, you could have kept your grey matter intact?

I've read the other links. The fact that you were using a GWB speech as a source for said argument is crazy enough. :p

Is that what you think? How many Obama supporters here at NSG are that guys age and younger? I give the guy credit for being politically aware, especially when a large percentage of voters will go to the polls totally unprepared to do the right thing.

Which is what precisely? What is the right thing? Voting for Clinton?

Hillary war-mongering on Iran. She emphatically says that "No option can be taken off the table" while surrounded by ominous stars of David.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E7tiEt_iguY&feature=related

They're all saying that Tongass.

Schrandtopia;13461246']no, he is still going to bomb pakistan I am clarifying to say not with nuclear weapons

pakistan is still a nuclear state and obama has still said he will attack them

Language is your friend. He didn't say he would attack Pakistan. He said he would attack terrorists who were hiding in Pakistan. You make it seem as if he's attacking the country. He isn't. He would be violating their soveriegnty, of course, but he would not be attacking them. Pakistan has made it clear they do not wish to harbor terrorists, so whether or not they agree with us violating their sovereignty, they do not intend to protect terrorists.

Ummm no you cannot. All you have is supposition and speculation.

Okay, let's talk about the kid since you seem to want to rest on his arguments rather than make and source your own. And, seriously, this is the last time I'm looking at your nonsensical sources. That kid makes me want to poke my eyes for his dishonesty AND for his inability to make his video blog even remotely interesting.

A - Obama, even according to the kid, said, with the information he had, he would not have voted for it. He left room as he always does for their to be information he doesn't have. He now has all the information they did and can confirm he wouldn't have voted for it. Completely honest and still shows he never supported the war, nor voted for it.

B - Voting for funding is not voting for the war. Denying the war funding won't stop it. It will just leave without proper equipment as we've seen.

C - What the kid said about Obama agreeing with Bush on the war was taken out of context. What Obama actually said was that he agreed with the current Bush policies after the war had started. There is a significant difference.

So with just a little effort I can find three things the kid misrepresented or just plain wrong about. He's not a valid source.

Next.

Click Stand;13460372']See above.

Obama is the most intelligent candidate to run for the presidency in ages

Wow, you are going to issue a proclamation that defies space and time and all reasoning?

Um, no. Obama said he didn't know how he would vote because there may be intelligence available that he didn't have. He did say with all the information he currently had, he was against it. Later he found out there was no additional information. It's perfectly logical to say that he would have voted against the war. It's entirely clear what he would have done.

Logic:

Given: He said that he was against it unless there was information he didn't have that Congress did.
Given: There wasn't any information he didn't have that Congress did.

Conclusion: He remains against it.

There is nothing tricky about that logic. So what's that say about you if you think it requires magical powers?

Obama is the most intelligent candidate to run for the presidency in agesProof? Relevance?

BTW, for your education, since you are so concerned about education, if a plane crosses an international border without permission, that is an invasion. If while invading that country you drop bombs, that is an act of aggression/war.

Hehehehe. I'm sorry, but when someone says something this stupid, I can only giggle incessantly. I'm sure you can find tons of articles in encyclopedias about the Libyan war conducted by the US, no? The big Libyan invasion?

Hehehehe. I'm sorry, but when someone says something this stupid, I can only giggle incessantly. I'm sure you can find tons of articles in encyclopedias about the Libyan war conducted by the US, no? The big Libyan invasion?

Are we talking about the Barbary Pirates? I mean...we did sack Tripoli :D

bill clinton was a rhodes scholar.

12 years is not ages.

The implication was that Obama was smarter than Bill. Which still might be true, since president of the Harvard law review > Rhodes scholar

Obama is the most intelligent candidate to run for the presidency in ages

bill clinton was a rhodes scholar.

12 years is not ages.

The implication was that Obama was smarter than Bill. Which still might be true, since president of the Harvard law review > Rhodes scholar

the implication was that we have not had a candidate anywhere near the intelligence of obama in many many years. it doubt he was thinking of clinton's rhodes scholarship.

obama may well be smarter than bill clinton. or bill might be smarter than he is. they are in the same league in any case.

the implication was that we have not had a candidate anywhere near the intelligence of obama in many many years. it doubt he was thinking of clinton's rhodes scholarship.

obama may well be smarter than bill clinton. or bill might be smarter than he is. they are in the same league in any case.

you know what's funny? I always used to hear it as "Rogue scholar"

as in "that scholar's gone rogue!"

Yup, complete fabrication:
Yes
Obama willing to invade Pakistan in al-Qaeda hunt (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article2182955.ece)
Where does he state he would invade Pakistann?
There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again . . . If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act, we will.
Bush: Obama will invade Pakistan (http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/february2008/110208_b_Obama.htm)
Suddenly 'Dubya' knows exactly what Obama will do?
President George W. Bush says Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama would attack Pakistan if he is elected chief executive.

Presidential Candidate Pushes Aggressive Stance Toward Pakistan (http://i.abcnews.com/Politics/story?id=3434573&page=1)
And this is the same story as the first

You have yet to show where Obama has stated that he will definitely invade Pakistan.

You have yet to show where Obama has stated that he will definitely invade Pakistan.

Or even that it's likely.

You know what I love? How the things Obama says in a spirit of honesty and openness get taken out of context in order to attack him. about half the attacks I've heard against him are based on out of context quotes from his books.

Why not? Young adults shhould have no voice?

Of course they should.

But, just as with everyone else, when they dont know what theyre talking about I reserve the right to ignore them.


There is also some sweet sweet hypocritical BS going on in Bush saying "Obama is teh evil he would bomb Pakistan!!!11!!!1111!"


How many Middle Eastern countries have we bombed when Dubya was in the White House?

Yes

Where does he state he would invade Pakistann?

Suddenly 'Dubya' knows exactly what Obama will do?



And this is the same story as the first

You have yet to show where Obama has stated that he will definitely invade Pakistan.

All CH has shown is that he doesn't know what "invade" means. Apparently, we invaded Libya in 1986 and a few minutes later went to war with him. Well, unless you know what "invade" and "war" means.

All CH has shown is that he doesn't know what "invade" means. Apparently, we invaded Libya in 1986 and a few minutes later went to war with him. Well, unless you know what "invade" and "war" means.

True true.

CanuckHeaven is arguing that Obama will invade Pakistan because Bush says so?

*brain asplode*

*scoops up the pieces of Hamilay's brain, sells it on eBay, makes a fortune*

Hehehehe. I'm sorry, but when someone says something this stupid, I can only giggle incessantly. I'm sure you can find tons of articles in encyclopedias about the Libyan war conducted by the US, no? The big Libyan invasion?
I suppose that the Japanese didn't execute an aerial invasion of Pearl Harbor?

Frankly, I am getting tired of your personal attacks. If you don't want to respond in a responsible manner then don't bother. I won't feel offended by the slight.

You have yet to show where Obama has stated that he will definitely invade Pakistan.
Well, here is a hint from the same article, but different news source (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/01/AR2007080101233.html):

"When I am president, we will wage the war that has to be won," he told an audience at the Woodrow Wilson Center in the District. He added, "The first step must be to get off the wrong battlefield in Iraq and take the fight to the terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan."
Sounds like Pakistan looms large in his "battlefield" plans?

Um, no. Obama said he didn't know how he would vote because there may be intelligence available that he didn't have. He did say with all the information he currently had, he was against it. Later he found out there was no additional information. It's perfectly logical to say that he would have voted against the war. It's entirely clear what he would have done.

Logic:

Given: He said that he was against it unless there was information he didn't have that Congress did.
Given: There wasn't any information he didn't have that Congress did.

Conclusion: He remains against it.

There is nothing tricky about that logic. So what's that say about you if you think it requires magical powers?

Exactly. CH has ignored this, but I'll restate it.
Let W be the proposition that Obama would vote against the war
Let I be the proposition that it turns out there was Obama didn't have access to.

WvI.
~I
------
So,
W

I suppose that the Japanese didn't execute an aerial invasion of Pearl Harbor?


Exactly true, they did not. They committed an act of war by attacking a US Naval Base, sure, but it wasn't an invasion.

CanuckHeaven is ignoring that EVERY SINGLE CANDIDATE says they would attack Pakistani terrorists if they had "actionable intelligence". Clinton says it, and Edwards said it. Add to that that Clinton has taken several other aggressive positions in the past and you start running into problems.

CanuckHeaven is ignoring that EVERY SINGLE CANDIDATE says they would attack Pakistani terrorists if they had "actionable intelligence". Clinton says it, and Edwards said it. Add to that that Clinton has taken several other aggressive positions in the past and you start running into problems.
Now can you provide a source to back up your claims?

CanuckHeaven is ignoring that EVERY SINGLE CANDIDATE says they would attack Pakistani terrorists if they had "actionable intelligence". Clinton says it, and Edwards said it. Add to that that Clinton has taken several other aggressive positions in the past and you start running into problems.

honestly, any american president would do it.

honestly, any american president would do it.

Apparently, and I can't find the details of this so this is kind of the 'average American' version*, to be derisive, this whole conversation is in regards to an incident in 2005 where supposedly we knew or thought we knew that there was an al Quada hold up in Pakistan and we didn't act on it.

One of the primary criticisms of Bush's war is that it is a distraction from rather than a tool of the 'war on terror.' That invading Afghanistan was about al Quada and Iraq had fuck all to do with that. To underline that when there was a chance to strike at al Quada Bush did not. The logic at the time was that Bush is fostering an uneasy partnership with Pakistan in the 'war on terror' and couldn't jeopardize that by acting within their boarders. Since the Republicans paint the Democrat's opposition to the war in Iraq as capitulation to the terrorists stating that they would have acted on al Quada was their version of 'manning up' sort of in the same way that the Republicans tried to out-do each other on how much more severe they'd make Guantanamo Bay. So technically, not only would Bush not, but he didn't.

However, I don't know that they were saying in that specific situation they would have bombed but rather to a hypothetical where they 'knew for sure' there was a camp there and they couldn't get Musharrif to co-operate. It's ultimately another one of those cases where Obama gives too honest an answer. It was a hypothetical and he should have shrugged it off with a vagary but he took the details of the hypothetical and said what he would do. As a result it becomes, "OMG, Obama will invade Pakistan!!!"

*Which means if someone could find the details and correct me, that'd be fine. And to not take what I just said as gospel.

Apparently, and I can't find the details of this so this is kind of the 'average American' version*, to be derisive, this whole conversation is in regards to an incident in 2005 where supposedly we knew or thought we knew that there was an al Quada hold up in Pakistan and we didn't act on it.

One of the primary criticisms of Bush's war is that it is a distraction from rather than a tool of the 'war on terror.' That invading Afghanistan was about al Quada and Iraq had fuck all to do with that. To underline that when there was a chance to strike at al Quada Bush did not. The logic at the time was that Bush is fostering an uneasy partnership with Pakistan in the 'war on terror' and couldn't jeopardize that by acting within their boarders. Since the Republicans paint the Democrat's opposition to the war in Iraq as capitulation to the terrorists stating that they would have acted on al Quada was their version of 'manning up' sort of in the same way that the Republicans tried to out-do each other on how much more severe they'd make Guantanamo Bay. So technically, not only would Bush not, but he didn't.

However, I don't know that they were saying in that specific situation they would have bombed but rather to a hypothetical where they 'knew for sure' there was a camp there and they couldn't get Musharrif to co-operate. It's ultimately another one of those cases where Obama gives too honest an answer. It was a hypothetical and he should have shrugged it off with a vagary but he took the details of the hypothetical and said what he would do. As a result it becomes, "OMG, Obama will invade Pakistan!!!"

*Which means if someone could find the details and correct me, that'd be fine. And to not take what I just said as gospel.

bush's incompetence aside, he has struck inside pakistan. i suppose it was with the agreement of Musharraf but that doesnt mean that he wouldnt have struck without it.

bush's incompetence aside, he has struck inside pakistan. i suppose it was with the agreement of Musharraf but that doesnt mean that he wouldnt have struck without it.
I can't stress enough that as far as the details go I might as well be talking out my ass. I'm really hoping someone gets the details for me because I apparently narrow the Google search to make it not a pain in the ass.

I suppose that the Japanese didn't execute an aerial invasion of Pearl Harbor?

Frankly, I am getting tired of your personal attacks. If you don't want to respond in a responsible manner then don't bother. I won't feel offended by the slight.

No, they didnt execute an aerial invasion. An attack and an invasion are two different things.

Really? Really? Do you even read what you type? Clinton voted for authorization for the war and now opposes it. Apparently that's Corny's position now. He has the same track record as Clinton, how is that calling him out on hypocritical bullshit? If that's the case, why aren't you calling Clinton out, it's the same thing.

Don't mistake this for one of those tired ass 'flip flop' accusations. "A foolish consistancy..." and all that. Just seems like a bit of a glass house for you to call out Corny for having more or less the same track record on opinions of the war.

Some kid on YouTube, huh? Alright. I'll wait for it to load, but before I waste my time on this-are you just going to run away and hide when I actually address this like you have every researched post on the subject so far? Because I'm getting kind of tired of wasting my time on you.

Indeed this is both Corny and Hillary's position. Thank you CH for admitting that Hillary is a hypocrite and a phony.

Yup, that's reliable, some random kid on youtube :rolleyes:

The worst part is that the points he criticizes Obama on are thbe exact positions of Hillary Clinton. Even when he quotes Obama he does so with the ignorance of a teenager. My favorite quotes from this tool are: "I am not privy to Senate intelligence reports" (re: Obama) The truth of the matter was that he was not in the senate and correctly stated that he did not have all of the information needed to make a full decision. Futher, he goes on to attack Obama for supporting war funding when Hillary Clinton did that, as well as authorized W to attack Iraq. So, on the issue of war funding they were the same, but Clinton went a step further and authorized the war. This issue always pisses me off because once our troops go to war you have to support them right or wrong. You do not have to support the premise for which they are there. You do need to give them all of the protection (body armor) and supplies they need. Suggesting otherwise just prove naivety and ignorance. Hate the war but love the soldier for they have no choice in the matter.

Try refuting his "facts". :D

check my response later in this thread. He mostly regurgitates talking points that have very little relevance. He tries to spin Obama saying he didn't have information from senate intelligence reports into being a relative "fact." Here's a fact: Hillary voted to authorize the war and Obama didn't. Another: They both voted subsequently to fund the war so how does this make Hillary better? Last one: Hillary continued to support the policies of George W Bush until it became a problem with her Presidential ambitions.

Hillary had the advantage of the senate intelligence reports and she still made the wrong choice. This makes her more qualified than Obama?

Yes, I do read what I type.


Yea and you can't handle that? Obama couldn't vote for the Iraq War because he wasn't in Congress....he wasn't even elected yet. However, Obama seems to have no problem voting for funding the Iraq War.

And yet, Obama seems to have no problem declaring that he would violate Pakistan's sovereignity by bombing high value targets if permission was not received from Musharraf.

That to me is pretty dangerous thinking from your peace loving candidate?


Where has Corny indicated that he is now against the war in Iraq?


Okay then, don't turn it into one of those "tired ass 'flip flop' accusations", although it seems that you have already started down that road with your opening salvo?


Young adults are not allowed to have opinions, er express some facts?

Interesting.


You have every right to ignore my posts, although your accussations are not entirely factual. I did address your research and stated that it (the research) did not address my premise. But, I don't want to rehash that again. It will only get both of us agitated.

Take note of the bolded portions above. Obama could not have voted for it and he didn't. He even admitted he wasn't privy to the intelligence on the matter so he could not make a great choice. Guess who did have access to that info? Do you remember what committees Ms. Clinton sits on? She had the info and voted for the war. They both voted to fund the war so how are you drawing distinctions between the two on that account?

Exactly. CH has ignored this, but I'll restate it.
Let W be the proposition that Obama would vote against the war
Let I be the proposition that it turns out there was Obama didn't have access to.

WvI.
~I
------
So,
W
However, Obomba's continued support of funding for the war in Iraq, would lead one to make other assumptions.

Exactly true, they did not. They committed an act of war by attacking a US Naval Base, sure, but it wasn't an invasion.
Despite our differences in interpretation, I do believe that this ABC News' Senior National Correspondent has similar beliefs as me:

Was Obama proposing an "invasion" of Pakistan? (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2007/08/was-obama-propo.html)

August 07, 2007 1:29 PM

The Sioux city (Iowa) Journal today reports (HERE) that Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, says his foreign policy speech from last week (CLICK HERE FOR MORE) was the victim of "misreporting."

"I never called for an invasion of Pakistan or Afghanistan " he said. Obama said that what he actually said was that if there were "actionable intelligence reports" showing Osama bin Laden in Pakistan, U.S. troops should enter the country and try to capture bin Laden and al Qaeda terrorists -- an entry only if "the Pakistani government was unable or unwilling" to do so.

Huh?

That's what the media reported, Senator. If there were actionable Intel that high-level terrorist targets were in Pakistan and Gen. Musharraf were not willing to act, you would be. You would send in US troops into another sovereign country to take out the terrorist targets.

Let's go to the tape...

"I understand that President Musharraf has his own challenges," Obama said last Wednesday , "but let me make this clear. There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf will not act, we will."

A lot of the disagreement seems to be about the word "invade," which Obama did not use in his speech. According to dictionary.com, invade could mean:

1. to enter forcefully as an enemy; go into with hostile intent: Germany invaded Poland in 1939.
2. to enter like an enemy: Locusts invaded the fields.
3. to enter as if to take possession: to invade a neighbor's home.
4. to enter and affect injuriously or destructively, as disease: viruses that invade the bloodstream.
5. to intrude upon: to invade the privacy of a family.
6. to encroach or infringe upon: to invade the rights of citizens.
7. to permeate: The smell of baking invades the house.
8. to penetrate; spread into or over: The population boom has caused city dwellers to invade the suburbs.

Certainly what Obama was proposing was not invading as Germany invaded Poland in 1939, since the U.S. presumably would leave as soon as the capture or killing of the al Qaeda operatives was completed, and Pakistan would not be perceived as the enemy.

But I suspect Pakistan and the United Nations would consider such an operation technically an invasion, especially if it were conducted against Musharraf's wishes. And I suspect we would view it the same way if Pakistani forces flew into Dubuque, and either captured or killed high-level members of an anti-Pakistani militia. After all, it's considered an "invasion" of U.S. airspace when a plane encroaches on our territory.

Certainly sending in Navy SEALs, Army Rangers, and CIA operatives with weapons and parachutes, shuttled in on a C-130 aircraft -- as would have happened in the 2005 operation Obama faulted the Bush administration for not carrying out (LINK)-- spelled out exactly the kind of military action Obama was talking about.

Is there a difference in terminology depending on the size of the force? The column that broke the news of this aborted op reported that "the number of troops involved in the mission had grown to several hundred with "various planners bulked up the force's size to provide security for the Special Operations forces." Said "the former senior intelligence official involved in the planning" of the operation, "The whole thing turned into the invasion of Pakistan."

But this is precisely the mission Obama says he would have OKed.....

What do you think? Did the media (and I) overstate the case by using the term "invade"?
I believe that Obama made a very Bush like comment, which should appeal to the Republicans in the field.

It certainly appealed to Corny six months ago (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12927469&postcount=1):

Looks like Obama is starting to show a spine. That is what I like to see in a Presidential Candidate. I applaud his stance on this issue. His stock has gone up in my book and makes me one step closer to maybe actually voting for him in the General Election.

Nowhere in that article does it say that he would use nukes on Pakistan, so again, when exactly did he say:

No, what it does say is that Obama would support attacking in the border regions of Pakistan if there were actionable intelligence to suggest OBL or major Al Quaeda targets were present. It doesn't say anything about wanting to nuke Pakistan. It's just alarmist bullshit by Hillary supporters who are playing the "woulda, coulda shoulda" game even your parents warned you against in the past. It's pure spin and nothing else. Karl Rove would be proud of the way Hillary and her supporters are running the campaign.

Schrandtopia;13461231']sorry if the language was confusing

I meant to say there is a nice, powerful muslim country that has nuclear weapons and obama is going to bomb it, not that obama is going to use nuclear weapons to bomb a nice, powerful muslim country

Pakistan is nice? This is a hell of a stretch. Pakistan trained the Taliban and is primarily responsible for their rise to power of Afghanistan. (http://www.hrw.org/reports/2001/afghan2/Afghan0701-02.htm) Then the Taliban allowed Al Quadea safe haven to train to kill Americans and their allies worldwide. You really want to purport that Pakistan is a "nice" Muslim country? Why don't you check out how Musharif came to power and his declarations of emergencies in his own country. He's just a dictator who happens to be on our side (maybe) at the time. Kind of like, hmmm, Saddam Hussein back in the 80's. How do you feel about Saddam now? Try applying some forsight to your positions rather than working in a purely reactionary way.

And where does he 'promise' to attack Pakistan

This is the closest he comes to 'promising' an attack

This is my exact point. He didn't say that "when I am President I will attack Pakistan immediately." His statement comes from talking points and is intentionally intellectually dishonest. He just hopes more people are stupid enough to buy it and not call him on his bullshit. He's already backtracked on the nuclear questions and watch as he'll continue to do more of this in the future of this thread. It's like any other time someone here puts up their strawman, we just need to add a little fire to see it go up in smoke.

1) Everything this guy says is either a straw man or Obama quotes taken completely out of context.
2) http://www.barackobama.com/factcheck/2008/01/12/fact_check_barack_obamas_consi.php
3) http://www.barackobama.com/factcheck/2008/01/05/fact_check_obamas_consistent_p.php
4) I don't blame this kid because he was probably eight years old or something when the Iraq War started, but he clearly doesn't know how shit went down in late 2002. It was a vote to let the president go to war, and there was no reason to believe that there were circumstances under which the war should have been waged.
5) This kid doesn't understand the difference between thinking the war should have never been started (Obama's opinion) and thinking that we should cut and run (not Obama's opinion). He's old enough that he should have been taught those critical thinking skills already. If I were him I would demand a refund from the government for not schooling him effectively.
6) Thank you for wasting 9:17 of my time. Did you seriously think anybody would be swayed be this garbage? We're getting tired of refuting the same old arguments. Please bring something new to the table next time.


Actually, Obama has specifically said that nukes would be appropriate. It's Clinton who's refused to rule them out, as we have discussed in previous threads.

This should be case closed but it won't be. Hillary supporters will fight from their back even in a losing cause.

However, Obomba's continued support of funding for the war in Iraq, would lead one to make other assumptions.

God, I hate stupid arguments. Yes, voting to pay for a war you're already in, voting to stay and clean up the mess you created by invading a country is EXACTLY the same as attacking that country in the first. Yep. Unless you think about it all.



Despite our differences in interpretation, I do believe that this ABC News' Senior National Correspondent has similar beliefs as me:

I notice you avoid almost every substantive post. Are you trying to make people entirely stop taking you seriously? Who cares what Corny believes or believed? You were presented with the definition of invasion. You ignored it. You were presented with the evidence your "source" either doesn't know what he's talking about or is a liar. You ignored it.

What do you want from us? You ignore evidence when we provide it and refuse to provide your own. You used to be a relevant and intelligent debator. I doubt you've struck your head, so I'm guessing even you recognize how ridiculous your arguments have been lately. If you can't win with a good argument, then don't debate. Coming up with such a lame argument hurts people's view of your candidate. Don't you see? When a usually strong debator can't help but get his ass kicked attempting to defend her, how can anyone conclude that there is a good argument for her candidacy?

These statements are rich considering you dodged the post above his that sourced all of his points and addressed them, including your 'source' basing his accusation on a mis-characterization.

It's alright. You've done this enough times that we're not longer surprised.

This is classic CH. He tries to find an area where the thinks the argument is weakest and attack that. When someone presents information to the contrary that is hard to just swat off he avoids it. It's like punching the little brother of tough guy that challenged you to a fight to say you're "fighting back."

I suppose that the Japanese didn't execute an aerial invasion of Pearl Harbor?

Frankly, I am getting tired of your personal attacks. If you don't want to respond in a responsible manner then don't bother. I won't feel offended by the slight.

No, they did not invade the United States. As a matter of fact there has never been a war (by an opposing force) fought on Americans soil since the revolution. The only other war fought on American soils since then was fought between the US itself. An invasion can only occur by ground forces as it requires that you take and hold sovereign land by force. Japan did not invade as they immediately pulled back. Their attack was not meant to be an invasion, it was meant to draw the US into war. They did not take and hold any land for any period of time, whether by air or land. You fail once again.

This is classic CH. He tries to find an area where the thinks the argument is weakest and attack that. When someone presents information to the contrary that is hard to just swat off he avoids it. It's like punching the little brother of tough guy that challenged you to a fight to say you're "fighting back."

It reminds me of one of the best opening scenes in a movie (not the best movie, but it had its moments and one of them was the opening scene), in Way of the Gun where the two protagonists are standing across from a club and they get in a confrontation with a woman and her boyfriend. The boyfriend eventually admits that he has to kick their ass (and he's twice their size). They acknowledge that the fight is now inevitable and one of them knocks the chick out before getting pounded by the boyfriend. It sets up what happens in the rest of the movie, that they know they've lost, that they are over their head but they take the victory they can get before getting the pounding that's coming to them.

This has fuck all to do with anything. I just wanted to filmgeek out for a second...carry on...

I suppose that the Japanese didn't execute an aerial invasion of Pearl Harbor?

Actually it was an aerial raid.

Just to note, Wisconsin was called for Obama.

check my response later in this thread. He mostly regurgitates talking points that have very little relevance. He tries to spin Obama saying he didn't have information from senate intelligence reports into being a relative "fact." Here's a fact: Hillary voted to authorize the war and Obama didn't. Another: They both voted subsequently to fund the war so how does this make Hillary better?
This all stems from Obama's attack against Clinton, for his suggestion that he was somehow immune from investigation regarding the War in Iraq (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/27/us/politics/27clinton.html)

Pundits generally perceived Mrs. Clinton as winning the debate point for highlighting her experience and at the same time suggesting that Mr. Obama was inexperienced. She kept the issue alive the next day by telling The Quad-City Times in Iowa that Mr. Obama’s answer was “irresponsible and frankly naïve.”

Mr. Obama, who has been behind Mrs. Clinton in the polls, responded that she was the one who was irresponsible and naïve because she had voted to authorize President Bush to use force in Iraq. He repeated the accusation on NBC News on Wednesday, giving the networks fresh images of him as he tapped into reservations about Mrs. Clinton as an establishment figure.

“I don’t want Bush-Cheney lite,” he told reporters yesterday. “I want a fundamental change.”

Last one: Hillary continued to support the policies of George W Bush until it became a problem with her Presidential ambitions.
Which Bush policies did Clinton continue to support? Did Obama support any of those same policies?

Hillary had the advantage of the senate intelligence reports and she still made the wrong choice. This makes her more qualified than Obama?
Hillary supported an authorization to use force only if all diplomatic channels failed. Bush abused that support.

Obama's criticism of Hillary given his identical voting record with Clinton on war funding is extremely hypocritical to say the least.

Hillary supported an authorization to use force only if all diplomatic channels failed. Bush abused that support.
So Hillary is a horrible judge of character, then.

Obama's criticism of Hillary given his identical voting record with Clinton on war funding is extremely hypocritical to say the least.
No, it's not. It would be hypocritical if he criticized her for voting to fund the war. He hasn't.

It reminds me of one of the best opening scenes in a movie (not the best movie, but it had its moments and one of them was the opening scene), in Way of the Gun where the two protagonists are standing across from a club and they get in a confrontation with a woman and her boyfriend. The boyfriend eventually admits that he has to kick their ass (and he's twice their size). They acknowledge that the fight is now inevitable and one of them knocks the chick out before getting pounded by the boyfriend. It sets up what happens in the rest of the movie, that they know they've lost, that they are over their head but they take the victory they can get before getting the pounding that's coming to them.

This has fuck all to do with anything. I just wanted to filmgeek out for a second...carry on...
That was very funny....irrelevant but it did get me to crack a smile. :)

No, they did not invade the United States. As a matter of fact there has never been a war (by an opposing force) fought on Americans soil since the revolution. The only other war fought on American soils since then was fought between the US itself. An invasion can only occur by ground forces as it requires that you take and hold sovereign land by force. Japan did not invade as they immediately pulled back. Their attack was not meant to be an invasion, it was meant to draw the US into war. They did not take and hold any land for any period of time, whether by air or land. You fail once again.

Incorrect. The British and the Canadians both fought Americans on American soil in the War of 1812.

Incorrect. The British and the Canadians both fought Americans on American soil in the War of 1812.

Attu and Kiska Islands in the Aleutian chain off Alaska were both invaded during WWII.

No surprises there. Except if the gap grows. It's hard for her to spin it as 'no big lose' if she loses by more than 10%. If she keeps it within ten than she can ride it as a possitive in that bizarro world way. "They thought it would be a blow out and it wasn't, on to Texas and Ohio, the only people we actually care about at the moment!" More than 10% and she's uphill in her 'firewall' states.

Politico shows him winning 55-43, so it's more than 10%. Things are not looking good for Hillary.

Just to note, Wisconsin was called for Obama.

No surprises there. Except if the gap grows. It's hard for her to spin it as 'no big lose' if she loses by more than 10%. If she keeps it within ten than she can ride it as a possitive in that bizarro world way. "They thought it would be a blow out and it wasn't, on to Texas and Ohio, the only people we actually care about at the moment!" More than 10% and she's uphill in her 'firewall' states.

This all stems from Obama's attack against Clinton, for his suggestion that he was somehow immune from investigation regarding the War in Iraq (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/27/us/politics/27clinton.html)Regarding its authorization, he is.
Hillary supported an authorization to use force only if all diplomatic channels failed. Bush abused that support.1) False. In fact, she voted against the Levin amendment that would have made it closer to that.
2) If all diplomatic channels had failed, invasion and regime change would still have been the incorrect action for precisely the reasons Obama outlined in 2002, which are the consequences that we've seen.
Obama's criticism of Hillary given his identical voting record with Clinton on war funding is extremely hypocritical to say the least.Their voting record is NOT identical. Before Obama was in the Senate, Hillary voted to allow the War in Iraq.

Seriously, how many times have we posted this?

This all stems from Obama's attack against Clinton, for his suggestion that he was somehow immune from investigation regarding the War in Iraq (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/27/us/politics/27clinton.html)




Which Bush policies did Clinton continue to support? Did Obama support any of those same policies?


Hillary supported an authorization to use force only if all diplomatic channels failed. Bush abused that support.

Obama's criticism of Hillary given his identical voting record with Clinton on war funding is extremely hypocritical to say the least.

This is what she said after the fact when questioned on the issue. She was spinning then and is still doing it now. Your argument is that Clinton is better so by stating they have the same voting record after the fact does not support your premise. The only differentiation in this case is the voting on the initial bill to go to war. If Hillary had read the bill she would have known it authorized the president to take military action. She paid little attention to the wording and this is why she had to make her clarifying statement. She had the advantage of reading the bill and still voted wrong. Obama speculated based upon his own feelings and NO INTELLIGENCE REPORTS. He also said "the case had not been made." This is a drastic distinction and Hillary was wrong to vote for the war. Ignorance of the bill is no excuse for her mistaken vote.

Incorrect. The British and the Canadians both fought Americans on American soil in the War of 1812.

My apologies. I can admit when I am wrong :)

Politico shows him winning 55-43, so it's more than 10%. Things are not looking good for Hillary.
I know, but it's still early. At one point it was 52-48.

So Hillary is a horrible judge of character, then.
In this case apparently, along with the other 69 senators who voted for it and the majority of Congressmen/women who voted for it. And yet, Obama wasn't in the Senate at that time and even expressed doubt as to how he would have voted.

No, it's not. It would be hypocritical if he criticized her for voting to fund the war. He hasn't.
Look at the whole picture.

Obama states that he was against the war but was not able to say how he would have voted at that time. Then.....

Obama while running for the Senate stated (http://www.motherjones.com/mojoblog/archives/2008/01/6786_desperate_in_nh_1.html):

Just this week, when I was asked, would I have voted for the $87 billion dollars [in a war funding], I said no. I said no unequivocally because, at a certain point, we have to say no to George Bush. If we keep on getting steamrolled, we are not going to stand a chance.

Then:

In fact, during Obama's Senate campaign, he explained his opposition to this particular war funding bill in detail. From a September 29, 2003 Obama press release:

Obama challenged the Congress to 'stand up to the misplaced priorities of this Administration' by delaying the $87 billion for Iraq until the President provides a specific plan and timetable for ending the U.S. occupation, justifies each and every dollar to ensure it is not going to reward Bush political friends and contributors, and provides 'investment in our own schools, health care, economic development and job creation that is at least comparable' to what is going to Iraq. 'It's not just Iraq that needs rebuilding. It's America, too,' Obama said.
And from the peanut gallery at the bottom....an appropriate comment:

The reason Mr. Obama claims to oppose the 87 bilion is that he says it is important to say no to George W Bush. If the whole premise of his position is to say no to George W Bush, then that reasoning cannot be logically limited to only this 87 billion. He was promising to stand up to Bush, which he did not do by voting for all the other funding bills. What changed? Obviously once he was no longer running to win liberal Illinois, but the whole country, his belief that we needed as a matter of principle to say no to George W Bush disappeared.

The second quote provided does not actually prove Mr. Obama honest, but in fact does the exact opposite. It reads:

Obama challenged the Congress to 'stand up to the misplaced priorities of this Administration' by delaying the $87 billion for Iraq until the President provides a specific plan and timetable for ending the U.S. occupation, justifies each and every dollar to ensure it is not going to reward Bush political friends and contributors, and provides 'investment in our own schools, health care, economic development and job creation that is at least comparable' to what is going to Iraq. 'It's not just Iraq that needs rebuilding. It's America, too,'

Here Obama tells the audience that he will not vote to fund the war until the Bush administration has changed its misplaced priorities. I can promise you that Bush did not provide the domestic investments that Obama outlines here before Mr. Obama voted to fund the war. This is flat out evidence that Mr. Obama lied in his campaign. He should not have been able to cast a vote to fund the war until Bush had provided "investment in our own schools, health care, economic development and job creation that is at least comparable' to what is going to Iraq." That sure as hell didn't happen, but Mr. Obama voted to fund the war anyway. Clearly Mr.Obama knew that wouldn't happen and so this rhetoric was his way of saying he would not vote for billions for Iraq when that money should be being spent here. This is a promise Mr. Obama did not even come close to keeping. This article takes Mr. Obama's words and attempts to interpret them in way which is simply not consistent with their context. This is one of the most dishonest, baised articles I have ever read.
Yup....a principled man indeed, Obama that is. :p

Well, here is a hint from the same article, but different news source (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/01/AR2007080101233.html):


Sounds like Pakistan looms large in his "battlefield" plans?

And once again he is stating his willingness to attack terrorist camps within Pakistan, if Musharraf will not take action himself; at no point does he state that he will definitely invade Pakistan.

I suppose that the Japanese didn't execute an aerial invasion of Pearl Harbor?
Nope
An invasion is a military action consisting of armed forces of one geopolitical entity entering territory controlled by another such entity, generally with the objective of either conquering territory, altering the established government, or a combination thereof. An invasion can be the cause of a war, it can be used as a part of a larger strategy to end a war, or it can constitute an entire war in itself.

The term usually denotes a strategic endeavor of substantial magnitude; because the goals of an invasion are usually large-scale and long-term, a sizeable force is needed to hold territory, and protect the interests of the invading entity. Smaller-scale, tactical cross-border actions, such as skirmishes, sorties, raids, infiltrations or guerrilla warfare, are not generally considered invasions. Because an invasion is, by definition, an attack from outside forces, rebellions, civil wars, coups d'état, and internal acts of democide or other acts of oppression, are not considered invasions.
It was an aerial raid, not an invasion

As a matter of fact there has never been a war (by an opposing force) fought on Americans soil since the revolution.

Fail (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_1812)




Edit: OK others beat me to it, and you acknowledged your mistake already

In this case apparently, along with the other 69 senators who voted for it and the majority of Congressmen/women who voted for it. And yet, Obama wasn't in the Senate at that time and even expressed doubt as to how he would have voted.


Look at the whole picture.

Obama states that he was against the war but was not able to say how he would have voted at that time. Then.....

Obama while running for the Senate stated (http://www.motherjones.com/mojoblog/archives/2008/01/6786_desperate_in_nh_1.html):



Then:


And from the peanut gallery at the bottom....an appropriate comment:


Yup....a principled man indeed, Obama that is. :p

Dude, that may be the weakest attack yet. So Obama, like Clinton, realized that the best way to support the troops was to fund them, but also try to force timetable. They both failed, but are you really going to say that's the same as voting away the Congress's position in the declaration of war?

This is just sad.

In fact, I don't believe you're even trying anymore. You're the dog growling as it slinks away tail between legs.

Fail (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_1812)




Edit: OK others beat me to it, and you acknowledged your mistake already

I would like you to take note of my willingness to admit when I am wrong. This is contrary to many other posters on this thread and in others.

Since Super Tuesday Obama has eaten into Clinton strongholds. He has gained a 5-12 point advantage with key groups. White voters, women voters, hispanic voters, and even non college educated voters (he always held leads with college educated white voters). These are actual numbers and not polls. Obama is pulling away and taking support away from key constituencies that Hillary has counted on. Hillary, with her great name recognition has been passed up by someone who months ago wouldn't even be considered as a threat. CNN is saying he split the union vote and opened up leads in all age demographics.

Hillary Clinton is just a fraud. She changes her accent and vernacular to suit her campaign stops. She works on polls and focus groups rather than on great ideas. Even her unwillingness to congratulate Senator Obama shows her character. Right now Obama leads 57-42, a near blowout in Wisconsin where she should have been strong. The movement and momentum are about more than great speeches, they are about great ideas that will move this country forward. This is what I see in both Obama and McCain. Either way I see this election as a win win for me. Obama gets the nod and beats McCain=win. Obama loses to Hillary and she WILL lose to McCain =win. Obama beats McCain=win. The only loss is if Hillary wins and I'm not in fear of that.

On a side note: Obama is winning the Washington Primary. It holds little weight as the delegates are already determined. But it does speak to the Hillary statement that Obama is better in caucuses and she is better in actual votes (I've cited this before so look it up yourself if you are in want). The actual vote right now has Obama 50-47 for Clinton. So in that state she will lose both the caucus and the "actual" vote.

Dude, that may be the weakest attack yet. So Obama, like Clinton, realized that the best way to support the troops was to fund them, but also try to force timetable. They both failed, but are you really going to say that's the same as voting away the Congress's position in the declaration of war?

This is just sad.

In fact, I don't believe you're even trying anymore. You're the dog growling as it slinks away tail between legs.

Agreed. I'm wondering what the "they voted the same but Clinton is somehow on top" defense is. The fact still remains, she had the intelligence reports and still voted to authorize the war. In this matter she still fails.

Dude, that may be the weakest attack yet. So Obama, like Clinton, realized that the best way to support the troops was to fund them, but also try to force timetable. They both failed, but are you really going to say that's the same as voting away the Congress's position in the declaration of war?

This is just sad.

In fact, I don't believe you're even trying anymore. You're the dog growling as it slinks away tail between legs.
Hey dude!! You have made about 6 or 7 posts in this thread and most them are attacks on the poster. Try to stay focused on the material. If you disagree say so and we can go from there? Capiche?

Hey dude!! You have made about 6 or 7 posts in this thread and most them are attacks on the poster. Try to stay focused on the material. If you disagree say so and we can go from there? Capiche?That's right. Just skip right over the part where he directly debunks your argument.

That's right. Just skip right over the part where he directly debunks your argument.

No need to give CH permission, he was going to do it anyways. :p

No need to give CH permission, he was going to do it anyways. :p

lmao

He voted against the Iraqi war :D

WRONG! he wasn't in office yet, therefore he could not have voted at all. The thing is that he was against the war before there was a war, now that there is a war he is really for it because it just might get him elected.
Change is not always good.
If you start a war you damn well better finish it because what remains is far worse. Don't beleive me? Look up Cambodia after the US left SE Asia.

Hey dude!! You have made about 6 or 7 posts in this thread and most them are attacks on the poster. Try to stay focused on the material. If you disagree say so and we can go from there? Capiche?

Golly, I just never offer any material. Let's see.

Okay, here we go. My initial premise:


Okay, let's look at your list, even though it did not directly address my premise. I was not referring to all the "swing States" but it is an interesting thought. I will add my comments in Red or in Blue. Keep in mind that if Kerry had won either Ohio or Florida, he would have beaten George Bush.




Who the states went for the last 4 elections.

Obama States:
State(Electoral votes) - 2004-2000-1996-1992
Alabama(9)-RRRR staying Red
Alaska(3)-RRDR staying Red
Colorado(9)-RRRD staying Red
Connecticut(7)-DDDD staying Blue
Deleware(3)-DDDD staying Blue
Georgia(15)-RRRD staying Red
Idaho(4)-RRRR staying Red
Illinois(21)-DDDD staying Blue
Iowa(7)-RDDD possible to go either way
Kansas(6)-RRRR staying Red
Lousiana(9)-RRDD staying Red
Maine(4)-DDDD staying Blue
Minnesota(10)-DDDD staying Blue
Missouri(11)-RRDD staying Red
Nebraska(5)-RRRR staying Red
North Dakota(3)-RRRR staying Red
South Carolina(8)-RRRR staying Red
Utah(5)-RRRR staying Red
Washington(11)-DDDD staying Blue

In other words he has a potential 150 electoral votes in the states he won.

Of them,
40 are virtually guaranteed Republican 87 are virtually guaranteed Republican
56 are virtually guaranteed Democrat agreed
54 are states he could swing 7 one possible swing State (Iowa)

Which gives Obama a grand potential of 63 electoral votes, not the 150 you claim. What "swing States" are you giving Obama?

Now, my 2nd premise was:



Clinton States:
Arizona(10)-RRDR staying Red
Arkansas(6)-RRDD going Blue for the Clintons
California(55)-DDDD staying Blue
Massachussetts(12)-DDDD staying Blue
Nevada(5)-RRDD possible to go either way
New Hampshire(4)-DRDD staying Blue
New Jersey(15)-DDDD staying Blue
New Mexico(5)-RDDD going Blue with Latino votes
New York(31)-DDDD staying Blue
Oklahoma(7)-RRRR staying Red
Tennessee(11)-RRDD staying Red

In other words she has a potential 161 electoral votes in the states she won.

Of them,
7 are virtually guaranteed Republican 28 are virtually guaranteed Republican
113 are virtually guaranteed Democrat 117 are virtually guaranteed Democrat
41 are states she could swing. 16 are States she could swing

Which gives Hillary a grand potential of 133 electoral votes, not the 161 you claim.

Now it gets controversial in States that Clinton won but was not credited with:

I stated that Clinton could swing Florida (27 electoral votes) (again the Latino vote), and she would keep Michigan (17 electoral votes).

That is another 44 plus the 133 is 177 electoral votes so far, which is 114 electoral votes more than Obama has/could realistically win.

The black is a quote of me. The red is CanuckHaven's arguments against my extensive research.

Keep in mind, folks, this is the entirety of his argument. No explanation of why states proven to swing won't. No retort to the FACT that Obama is winning MORE of the states that have traditionally been swing states.

Now of course Clinton has gotten no states since then. Obama has added:
Wisconsin(10) - DDDD
Hawaii(4) - DDDD
Virgina(13) - RRRR
D.C.(3) - DDDD
Maryland(10) - DDDD

So no traditional swing states, but it should be pointed out that Wisconsin was about as close as they come in 2004.

So, basically, "traditional" swing states have gone WAY more for Obama. But, hey, CH replied with a big NUH-UH, and who can argue with that? I'm serious. Who can argue with something so entirely devoid of a point?

In other words, Obama carried 64 electoral votes worth of swing states. Hillary just 41. His argument is patently false. He's hoping anyone looking on is too stupid to understand the evidence.

Here you go. How about YOU deal with the material?

After reading the gun control thread and this one:
Is it just me, or does Jocabia seem to fill all the room he enters?

So Obama, like Clinton, realized that the best way to support the troops was to fund them, but also try to force timetable. They both failed, but are you really going to say that's the same as voting away the Congress's position in the declaration of war?

Yes, voting to pay for a war you're already in, voting to stay and clean up the mess you created by invading a country is EXACTLY the same as attacking that country in the first. Yep. Unless you think about it all.

I notice you avoid almost every substantive post. Who cares what Corny believes or believed? You were presented with the definition of invasion. You ignored it. You were presented with the evidence your "source" either doesn't know what he's talking about or is a liar. You ignored it.

You ignore evidence when we provide it and refuse to provide your own.

Okay, let's talk about the kid. And, seriously, this is the last time I'm looking at your nonsensical sources. That kid makes me want to poke my eyes for his dishonesty AND for his inability to make his video blog even remotely interesting.

A - Obama, even according to the kid, said, with the information he had, he would not have voted for it. He left room as he always does for their to be information he doesn't have. He now has all the information they did and can confirm he wouldn't have voted for it. Completely honest and still shows he never supported the war, nor voted for it.

B - Voting for funding is not voting for the war. Denying the war funding won't stop it. It will just leave without proper equipment as we've seen.

C - What the kid said about Obama agreeing with Bush on the war was taken out of context. What Obama actually said was that he agreed with the current Bush policies after the war had started. There is a significant difference.

So with just a little effort I can find three things the kid misrepresented or just plain wrong about. He's not a valid source.

Next.

Alright. So here are all the points you've ignored. Interestingly, in one of them I noted exactly how often you completely ignore the substance of posts. You also completely ignored that invasion was demonstrated to not mean what you claim. Time for some substance, Bubba.

Alright. So here are all the points you've ignored. Interestingly, in one of them I noted exactly how often you completely ignore the substance of posts. You also completely ignored that invasion was demonstrated to not mean what you claim. Time for some substance, Bubba.

Permit me to add to the list (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13466800&postcount=83)...not that I hold out any hope...

Permit me to add to the list (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13466800&postcount=83)...not that I hold out any hope...

Golly, why don't we start providing material and addressing it? Clearly, it's us that are just focusing on those arguing. I mean, it's not like CH looked at my posts and skipped over the substance and then attacked me. Oh, wait... right.

After reading the gun control thread and this one:
Is it just me, or does Jocabia seem to fill all the room he enters?

Yeah, sorry.

One of the best things about Obama is what he hasnt done. He has not been in Washington long enough to become corrupt and lose sight of what his job requires him to do which is to do what what the common man wants.
Its hard to beleive Clinton will be the voice of the people if she is so rich she can put 5000000 dollars to get a job that will only make what? a little over
100000 per year?

One of the best things about Obama is what he hasnt done. He has not been in Washington long enough to become corrupt and lose sight of what his job requires him to do which is to do what what the common man wants.
Its hard to beleive Clinton will be the voice of the people if she is so rich she can put 5000000 dollars to get a job that will only make what? a little over
100000 per year?

Well, that $5 mil came from profits from books they both (her and Bill) wrote that had such a success because of Bill's presidency and her First Lady...ecy, I guess.

I'm scared for our country if he wins. His whole platform is "change", but he's just your typical windbag politician doing what he needs to do to be elected. If he were white, he would be labelled as just as "another politician", and one with not enough experience to be president.

I'm scared for our country if he wins. His whole platform is "change",His whole platform? I'm looking at a condensed version of his platform I picked up in Iowa right now, and OMG it's 59 pages of nothing but the word "change"!

If he were white, he would be labelled as just as "another politician", and one with not enough experience to be president.I think it's a positive sign for this country that his blackness isn't preventing these false labels from being pinned on him.

Golly, I just never offer any material. Let's see.

The black is a quote of me. The red is CanuckHaven's arguments against my extensive research.

Keep in mind, folks, this is the entirety of his argument. No explanation of why states proven to swing won't. No retort to the FACT that Obama is winning MORE of the states that have traditionally been swing states.

Now of course Clinton has gotten no states since then. Obama has added:
Wisconsin(10) - DDDD
Hawaii(4) - DDDD
Virgina(13) - RRRR
D.C.(3) - DDDD
Maryland(10) - DDDD

So no traditional swing states, but it should be pointed out that Wisconsin was about as close as they come in 2004.

So, basically, "traditional" swing states have gone WAY more for Obama. But, hey, CH replied with a big NUH-UH, and who can argue with that? I'm serious. Who can argue with something so entirely devoid of a point?

In other words, Obama carried 64 electoral votes worth of swing states. Hillary just 41. His argument is patently false. He's hoping anyone looking on is too stupid to understand the evidence.

Here you go. How about YOU deal with the material?
Firstly, we addressed these points in another thread and they still don't nullify my premise. Perhaps you didn't understand my premise in the first place?

Secondly, you continue to feel that attacking the poster is the best method of debate.

Humor me, lets see this supposed address.

Ditto. Link?

Firstly, we addressed these points in another thread and they still don't nullify my premise. Perhaps you didn't understand my premise in the first place?

Secondly, you continue to feel that attacking the poster is the best method of debate.

You didn't address them. You just looked at each state and said "nuh-uh! Those won't swing!" And secondly, you claim Clinton is more electable. Obama has done better in swing states. (Your objection-- just claiming "nuh-uh"--aside.) That would indicate that people in swing states prefer Obama to Clinton.

Firstly, we addressed these points in another thread and they still don't nullify my premise. [B]Perhaps you didn't understand my premise in the first place?

Secondly, you continue to feel that attacking the poster is the best method of debate.[/b
I love the irony that you refused to address my points (claiming you've already done so) and spent 2/3 of your post attacking me while claiming that's all I do. In fact, your last three responses have been completely devoid of a point, only focused on telling me how I need to concentrate on material.

Put up or shut up. I gave you plenty of material. I'm not the only noticing that every time I do, you skip over it entirely.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13466825&postcount=188

The above is yet another post you skpped. I condense three seperate posts into one and removed anything that could even remotely be considered an attack on you. You ignored it. You want me to focus on issues, then enter the discussion and stop slobbering over me.

Firstly, we addressed these points in another thread and they still don't nullify my premise. Perhaps you didn't understand my premise in the first place?

Secondly, you continue to feel that attacking the poster is the best method of debate.

Humor me, lets see this supposed address.

Humor me, lets see this supposed address.

Dude. He said "nuh-uh." Isn't that good enough for you?!?!

And while you're at it CH, maybe you can get to this-EDIT-Updated information in green. because I like green, so there. You can follow the link to post for the original numbers because I didn't think of it until now. Notables on the bottom.
I got ya on that, I'm just sayin' that 'a few months ago' isn't 'out of date' especially since it was on the campaign trail.

We've been linking RCP pretty vigorously in this thread. Also the ugly looking USAElectionpolls (http://www.usaelectionpolls.com/2008/texas.html) website with its out of date Texas poll with Clinton leading (but Obama closing, as he's prone to doing). That website also has Obama leading Clinton by 11% in Wisconsin (http://www.usaelectionpolls.com/2008/wisconsin.html).

Isn't everyone taking poor Hawaii for granted? I can't seem to find a poll on Hawaii with my simple Google searches.

Expect the endorsement game to get heated as we head on.

Now, in the Doing CanuckHeaven's Job For Him Again catagory, there is finally something to mildly validate one of his tangential points. (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/latestpolls/index.html) Gonna feel silly if he gets this in while I'm typing it, but I'm going to go with pattern and assume he hasn't.

EDIT the V: Okay, I screwed up this a ton, so I'm revising the whole deal. If someone quotes me while I'm at it you can see how badly I fucked up, if not take my word for it, it was mess. I mean, this is my fifth fucking edit...

Real Clear Politics has tracked general election races for Obama and Clinton against McCain. The states include Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Colorado, New Hampshire, and Missouri.
Florida: McCain vs. Clinton Rasmussen McCain 49, Clinton 43, Und 8 McCain +6
Florida: McCain vs. Obama Rasmussen McCain 53, Obama 37, Und 10 McCain +16
Ohio: McCain vs. Clinton Quinnipiac McCain 44, Clinton 43, Und 8 McCain +1
Ohio: McCain vs. Obama Quinnipiac McCain 42, Obama 40, Und 10 McCain +2
Pennsylvania: McCain vs. Clinton Rasmussen McCain 44, Clinton 42, Und 14 McCain +2
Pennsylvania: McCain vs. Obama Rasmussen McCain 39, Obama 49, Und 12 Obama +10
Missouri: McCain vs. Clinton Rasmussen McCain 43, Clinton 42, Und 15 McCain +1
Missouri: McCain vs. Obama Rasmussen McCain 42, Obama 40 McCain +2
Colorado: McCain vs. Obama Rasmussen McCain 39, Obama 46, Undecided 15 Obama +7
Colorado: McCain vs. Clinton Rasmussen McCain 49, Clinton 35, Undecided 16 McCain +14
New Hampshire: McCain vs. Obama Rasmussen McCain 36, Obama 49 Obama +13
New Hampshire: McCain vs. Clinton Rasmussen McCain 41, Clinton 43, Und 16 Clinton +2
Iowa: McCain vs. Obama SurveyUSA McCain 41, Obama 51, Und 8 Obama +10
Iowa: McCain vs. Clinton SurveyUSA McCain 52, Clinton 41, Und 7 McCain +11
Wisconsin: McCain vs. Clinton SurveyUSA McCain 49, Clinton 42, Und 9 McCain +7
Wisconsin: McCain vs. Obama SurveyUSA McCain 42, Obama 52, Und 6 Obama +10
Minnesota: McCain vs. Clinton Rasmussen McCain 47, Clinton 42, Und 11 McCain +5
Minnesota: McCain vs. Obama Rasmussen McCain 38, Obama 53, Und 9 Obama +15
Virginia: McCain vs. Clinton SurveyUSA McCain 48, Clinton 45, Und 7 McCain +3
Virginia: McCain vs. Obama SurveyUSA McCain 45, Obama 51, Und 4 Obama +6
Oregon: McCain vs. Clinton Rasmussen McCain 45, Clinton 42, Und 13 McCain +3
Oregon: McCain vs. Obama Rasmussen McCain 40, Obama 49, Und 11 Obama +9


So, what have we learned (other than I suck at internetz)? Well, neither Clinton nor Obama 'have' Florida right now. Both trail by 2% points, Obama's poll has more 'undecideds,' which seems to be fairly consistant throughout. Not that there are 3% more undecided votes but the gap between the candidates is the same.

Ohio is roughly the same story.

As is Missouri.

Pennsylvania is a different tale, with Clinton in a commanding lead over McCain and Obama with a thin one. The barest of sheens for CH's premise.

But then there is Colorado, where McCain appears to be stomping all over Clinton but losing to Obama.

The nail gets hammered in New Hampshire where Obama slams McCain by +13 to Clinton's +2.

So, three states where Clinton is losing by by roughly the same margin as Obama to McCain, one where she wins by more than he would, one she would lose that Obama would win and one that Obama would walk away with while Clinton would squeak.

So, there it is, evidence regarding CH's premise. And once again it isn't nearly as conclusive as he would hope and in some cases completely contrary.

And, of course, I suck at internetz.

More EDITs, because you can never have enough (and more EDITS)-
Clinton seems to be losing to McCain over all in Feb. 11 polls (except one) while Obama still leads-
General Election: McCain vs. Clinton Rasmussen (Thu) McCain 48, Clinton 41, Und 11 McCain +7
General Election: McCain vs. Obama Rasmussen (Thu) McCain 42, Obama 46, Und 12 Obama +4
General Election: McCain vs. Clinton USA Today/Gallup McCain 49, Clinton 48, Und 3 McCain +1
General Election: McCain vs. Obama USA Today/Gallup McCain 46, Obama 50, Und 4 Obama +4
General Election: McCain vs. Clinton AP-Ipsos McCain 45, Clinton 46, Und 7 Clinton +1
General Election: McCain vs. Obama AP-Ipsos McCain 42, Obama 48, Und 8 Obama +6

Yeah, you really do.

But mostly it's just because at this point I know better than to ask you for any sort of support for your assertion and I'm having a hard time finding a list of traditional swing states to check how the candidates have done in them so far except Connecticut, which Obama won. Likely you'll cite Florida and then we'll have to through that stupid merry-go-round again. For some reason Ohio isn't on CNN's summary sight, nor Pennsylvania.

Alright, so while I was typing this and trying to figure out why I was still watching The Dukes of Hazzard, I found a list. Granted, it's on Wikipedia, but whatever.

So it lists the swing states as follows-

That one goes to Clinton in a near statistical tie. A difference of @8,000 votes doesn't overwhelm, or the delegate tie. But granting your premise its best shot, we'll give it to you.


They don't have a primary until April 22nd, but Real Clear Politics (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/pa/pennsylvania_democratic_primary-240.html) has Clinton polling ahead of Obama. Granted the last poll was taken Jan 14th, but again, giving as much justice to your premise, we'll give it to you, with the caveat that things can change, as we saw last Tuesday when Clinton was supposed to wrap this thing up.


Here you point is the strongest, with Clinton in a big lead. I will not dismiss this lead as it being a 'home' state because that doesn't make the votes count any less in the end. But keep that in mind.


We've gone over this so much it makes me want to cry. When they have a real primary we'll assign the state one way or the other. Moving on.


Ah, Virginy...we'll see on Tuesday. Virginia looks to be leaning Obama (http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2008/02/obama_leads_in.html). Since we gave Clinton one based on polling, it's only fair to give this one to Obama. Perhaps that will change on Tuesday, but for now, one for Obama.


Iowa went to Obama in a bit of a squeaker. But more of a margin than the one we granted to Clinton earlier, so for consistencies sake, this one is Obama, too.


Don't even start with me on this. Obama wasn't even on the ballot and as it is 40% of the voters turned out just to not vote for Clinton. No, no one gets this until they come to their senses and have a real primary.


Obama takes this one in a slammer, 67% to 32%.


Obama in another squeaker. A delegate dead heat. But again, we granted Clinton the delegate dead heat for popular vote advantage, consistency.


Ohio does it's deal the first week of March, the first poll Google gave me (http://www.usaelectionpolls.com/2008/ohio.html) has Clinton in a handy lead there. One for Clinton.


Same place (http://www.usaelectionpolls.com/2008/wisconsin.html) give it to Clinton. Just noticed you can scroll down for multiple polls. This is taking forever so I'm not going to amend the last one, if someone scrolls down and finds the results inconclusive I'm happy to be corrected.


Another drubbing here, Obama takes 67% compared to 32%.


Ah, Nevada. A bit sticky as Obama took it in terms of delegates but Clinton took it for popular vote. We've already established a preference for popular vote, so this goes to Clinton in the squeaker to beat all squeakers.


They're still counting this state, apparently. Dead heat. Right now Clinton is ahead, so to give your premise the greatest chance we'll give it to Clinton, but this could change as well.


Oregon does it's thing in May, and again same place (http://www.usaelectionpolls.com/2008/oregon.html) gives it to Clinton.

Sweet crap that took forever. I shouldn't even have to do it, it's your fucking premise, but rather than waste four pages asking for it it was easier for me to just do your work for you.

So, let me see if I can collect this up into a tally of some sort.

Clinton
[b]New Hampshire
Pennsylvania
Arkansas
Ohio
Nevada
New Mexico
Oregon

Obama
Wisconsin
Virginia
Iowa
Minnesota
Missouri
Colorado
EDIT: See new posts for why the chart doesn't match the quoted text
Bold are states that have already had their primaries/caucuses.

Taken as a whole your premise technically stands. Of the swing states that have had or will have actual primaries, Clinton leads 8-5. However, you did say won, and you're a stickler for what you actually said. You give her Nevada, Arkansas and New Mexico. (and Florida, but we've covered that). Of those three, she's only definitively won one of them and still hasn't officially won New Mexico. Of the four swing states she's won, three have been squeakers and one slam dunk.

Of the dead tie in won swing states Obama has has two slam dunks and two squeakers.

What we see is that your premise is on the shakiest of grounds. Of the eight swing states that have had legitimate primaries it's split 50/50, and of those wins Obama has the more definitive wins. Hell, one of Clinton's could actually turn out to be an Obama state, though it seems that that is not the way the wind is going.

Now, I think I can say I've been as fair as I can be to your premise and it doesn't seem to wash. Obama is carrying swing states the same as Clinton and more definitively.

Between that and the fact that Obama is polling better than Clinton against McCain, the foundations of your support are shakier and shakier. Perhaps you should have chose who to back based on positions instead of vote mongering.

Fuck, that took almost as long to post as it did to write...you fucking owe me.

So there it is again. Calling once again this 'Obama wins red states so it doesn't matter.' When you look at the swing states, Obama has won, that's won, not leads in polls, 6 to Clinton's four. She leads in the three left, but at the time I made that list, she led in Wisconsin, too. And now she's losing 58% to 42% with 86% reporting.

And then there's the swing state polling.

We're not building your syrup fire hose for Pancake Rain Tuesday because you have failed to convince us of its likleyhood.

Obama appears to be dominating the states except Florida, where Clinton is simply not doing as bad.

And once again he is stating his willingness to attack terrorist camps within Pakistan, if Musharraf will not take action himself; at no point does he state that he will definitely invade Pakistan.
He is playing you like a fiddle. He wants to take troops out of Iraq (http://www.barackobama.com/2007/08/01/the_war_we_need_to_win.php)and......

When I am President, we will wage the war that has to be won, with a comprehensive strategy with five elements: getting out of Iraq and on to the right battlefield in Afghanistan and Pakistan; developing the capabilities and partnerships we need to take out the terrorists and the world's most deadly weapons; engaging the world to dry up support for terror and extremism; restoring our values; and securing a more resilient homeland.

The first step must be getting off the wrong battlefield in Iraq, and taking the fight to the terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Think about it for awhile, and then think about it some more.

Bottom line:

That is a challenge that I welcome. Because when we do make that change, we'll do more than win a war -- we'll live up to that calling to make America, and the world, safer, freer, and more hopeful than we found it.

threat 12 times
terror/terrorists 37 times
9/11 14 times

I don't think the Busheviks could have written a better speech. Perhaps he enlisted their help?

He is playing you like a fiddle. He wants to take troops out of Iraq (http://www.barackobama.com/2007/08/01/the_war_we_need_to_win.php)and......


Think about it for awhile, and then think about it some more.

Bottom line:

That is a challenge that I welcome. Because when we do make that change, we'll do more than win a war -- we'll live up to that calling to make America, and the world, safer, freer, and more hopeful than we found it.

threat 12 times
terror/terrorists 37 times
9/11 14 times

I don't think the Busheviks could have written a better speech. Perhaps he enlisted their help?

Nothing like shfting those goalposts. Now it's the simple mention there there is still a problem with terrorism and that we still have the objective of capturing Al Qaeda. I guess you abandoned that ludicrous claim about invading Pakistan (since what you quoted is completely consistent with a candidate who has repeatedly pointed out the need to work with the government of Pakistan if they're willing to).

Meanwhile, what a sad type of politics. I mean, I know it's become commonplace in America, but don't you want to do something better than spend all your time trying to show that the other candidate is "just as bad"?

What do you like about your candidate? What is she better than Barak on? Certainly it's more than "I think she can turn more red states blue"? Particularly since voting patterns don't support that claim.

He is playing you like a fiddle.

He's playing me like a fiddle? I think not, I am not an Obama supporter, I have simply been pointing out the fact that you are twisting his words to suit your own ends.

Interesting note on the re-broadcast of Anderson Cooper 360, Obama had more votes for him in Wisconsin than the entire turn out for the Republican primary.

Interesting note on the re-broadcast of Anderson Cooper 360, Obama had more votes for him in Wisconsin than the entire turn out for the Republican primary.

The fact that the outcome was pre-determined may've played in to that a bit. :p

The fact that the outcome was pre-determined may've played in to that a bit. :p

Oh absolutely, but the outnumbering of the Republicans in the primaries is not an anomaly.

EDIT: I'll also add that Obama appears to have beaten Clinton by the same margin that McCain beat Huckabee...make of that what you will...

3 He will bring change (And if he isnt elected?)



I have enough quarters already, dammit! I don't want to hear another politician promise to bring change!

Is anyone else seeing this thread as started by WYTYG now or is it only my computer that's gone crazy?

Two problems with your response:

1) Obama did NOT vote against the war in Iraq.
He wasn't in Congress when the vote was taken, so in a sense you're right.
But he was against the war from the beginning. He just didn't have the chance to vote on that.

2) You were ALL for the war against Iraq.

I wasn't. None of my friends/family were for the war, either.
I wanted us to stay in Afghanistan and finish the job (read: collar Bin Ladin, hoist Al Qaeda on their own petards, mop up the Taliban).

Although Hillary also supports universal healthcare, she might turn out to be a corporate slave and she scares me. :(
She wants to give us universal health care, she believes it's a fundamental human right, and that's a good thing.

The bad thing is that her plan goes as far as garnishing wages to pay the premiums. I haven't heard her say that she was going to improve the economy, so can you imagine getting what little wages you pull down already, garnished by a market-driven health industry?

Obama's plan makes much more sense: it's not a socialist handout so much as a Costco approach: using the power of American citizenry numbers to negotiate a lower price for medical care across the boards — drug prices, importation channels opened, insurance premiums, access to the Congressional health plan, doctors' fees, et alia. In other words, making it affordable and accessible.

Schrandtopia;13461231']I meant to say there is a nice, powerful muslim country that has nuclear weapons and obama is going to bomb it, not that obama is going to use nuclear weapons to bomb a nice, powerful muslim country

Context Part I: Pakistan is in our corner only because Bush threatened them. He basically said to Musharraf, "Help us (maintain the appearance of) catch(ing) Bin Ladin and the Taliban or we'll come after you next."

Context Part II: The quote was from the Democratic debate on CNN a couple months back. Which was a joke from start to finish ("Diamonds or pearls?"). And all four candidates on the stage basically said they'd attack Pakistan to get to Bin Ladin. Watching the moment, I got the impression that it was a kind of mob mentality because that was a rather tense exchange. That debate was very pugilistic and I get the feeling Wolf Blitzer was goading them. The phrase "leading the witness" kept coming to mind.
That said, both Barack and Hillary said they'd attack Pakistan to get Bin Ladin. So, we get to choose between a.) Hillary attacking Pakistan (and we all know the high esteem they hold women in), b.) Barack attacking, or c.) John McCain keeping us in Iraq indefinitely, attacking Pakistan, AND Iran, who are practically peeing themselves in anticipation of the U.S. chucking a bomb in their direction.
Pick your flavour. At least when Barack says that he wants to see Bin Ladin swing in the sun, we know he's dead-centre sincere about it.

In the 'no surprises there' catagory, Obama is slamming away in Hawaii, 77% to 23% (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/state/#HI). (with 8% reporting, that link will change)

I guess they did go for the native son. I thought it was silly to assume that the state would go that way just because he was born there since his political life was elsewhere...but I guess I was wrong. Or, they just really liked Obama. It is a caucus state.

Poor Hawaii, time zoned out of coverage, no people sitting at computers telling you why what happened...

on a scale of one to ten, obama's an eight, hillary's a six, and mccain's a one or two. that is, in the context we have. in the context we, or at least i, dream of, on a scale of one to one hundred they might all of them still be between one and ten. or maybe one in twenty or thirty. be that as it may, obama's what we got and obama's what i'm goin with.

=^^=
.../\...

In the 'no surprises there' catagory, Obama is slamming away in Hawaii, 77% to 23% (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/state/#HI). (with 8% reporting, that link will change)

I guess they did go for the native son. I thought it was silly to assume that the state would go that way just because he was born there since his political life was elsewhere...but I guess I was wrong. Or, they just really liked Obama. It is a caucus state.

Poor Hawaii, time zoned out of coverage, no people sitting at computers telling you why what happened...

The final numbers are in. 76% to 24%. It looks like Obama just gained ten delegates on his lead. That puts him over seventy ahead counting superdelegates. I'll give hillary up until texas, but unless she gets more than 60% there, I think she's done.

The final numbers are in. 76% to 24%. It looks like Obama just gained ten delegates on his lead. That puts him over seventy ahead counting superdelegates. I'll give hillary up until texas, but unless she gets more than 60% there, I think she's done.

Even if he shut her out in this primary she still could turn it around with Ohio, Texas, and Pennyslvania. The issue was just about how hard she was going to make that on herself. That's what fueled her too little too late decision to actually campaign in Wisconsin. To borrow some talking head's metaphor, her hill just got steeper.

She can make up ground in the debate. It'd be better for her if it was closer to the election date. I don't know if there is another one before Mar. 4th, I think I heard that there was two, I just don't know when the second one is.

What will be interesting is if she thinks going on the attack worked or not. I heard someone in the yabbering talking heads imply that the attack had mitigated the loss in Wisconsin, but I don't buy that because the polls averaged to a 4% lead for Obama going in and he managed a 17% win. It would seem to me that going on the attack hurt her.

We'll see which way that goes.

Hey dude!! You have made about 6 or 7 posts in this thread and most them are attacks on the poster. Try to stay focused on the material. If you disagree say so and we can go from there? Capiche?

And you had zero posts of substance. If you have nothing new to add, then leave. Its apparent that you are so blinded by Clinton love that you cannot see that she is more authoritarian than Bush is.

That's right. Just skip right over the part where he directly debunks your argument.

Seems like CH is doing something that I used to do. Sad to say that really.

WRONG! he wasn't in office yet, therefore he could not have voted at all. The thing is that he was against the war before there was a war, now that there is a war he is really for it because it just might get him elected.

Actually he is on record that he would have voted AGAINST the war.

Alright. So here are all the points you've ignored. Interestingly, in one of them I noted exactly how often you completely ignore the substance of posts. You also completely ignored that invasion was demonstrated to not mean what you claim. Time for some substance, Bubba.

Don't expect it Jocabia.

Firstly, we addressed these points in another thread and they still don't nullify my premise. Perhaps you didn't understand my premise in the first place?

Secondly, you continue to feel that attacking the poster is the best method of debate.

*dies of laughter*

WOW!! CH, you really are off your rocker.

Interesting note on the re-broadcast of Anderson Cooper 360, Obama had more votes for him in Wisconsin than the entire turn out for the Republican primary.

However, the Republican Race is pretty much over with, that comes as no surprise.

And you had zero posts of substance. If you have nothing new to add, then leave. Its apparent that you are so blinded by Clinton love that you cannot see that she is more authoritarian than Bush is.

Please, Corny, stop with the fucking cheerleading already. You're embarrassing us.

Please, Corny, stop with the fucking cheerleading already. You're embarrassing us.

:rolleyes:

Im sorry. What's the difference between me saying and Jocobia/cantthinkofaname saying it? Oh yea...none.

So STFU!

Democratic Races
Reporting 1st Place 2nd Place
HI 100% Obama 76% Clinton 24%
WI 99% Obama 58% Clinton 41%

The final numbers from both states.

However, the Republican Race is pretty much over with, that comes as no surprise.

Well, like I said to the other person that raised the same point-absolutely, that's true. But this isn't necessarily an anomaly, it just might be the first time that it got this bad-but turn out has consistently been high for the Democratic primaries. Additionally, Clinton lost by almost the same gap as Huckabee did. Those two are not necessarily related, just points of interest.

:rolleyes:

Im sorry. What's the difference between me saying and Jocobia/cantthinkofaname saying it? Oh yea...none.

So STFU!



The final numbers from both states.

What's the difference? The difference is that CToaN and Jocabia actually know what the hell they're talking about while all you're doing is echoing their words. As I said, it's embarrassing.

What's the difference? The difference is that CToaN and Jocabia actually know what the hell they're talking about while all you're doing is echoing their words. As I said, it's embarrassing.

So I"m not allowed to agree with them? I'm not allowed to echo their words? WOW!!

So I"m not allowed to agree with them? I'm not allowed to echo their words? WOW!!

Echoes were outlawed in the Substance Posts Act of 2007, section 12(b). :p

Clinton keeps trying to pull a Karl Rove on her main opponent, Obama. And failing miserably. Apparently Clinton is confused which party she is in - she must think she is in the Republican competition where people decide who to not vote for based on how much that person has been attacked as opposed to the Democratic competition where all those attacks make her look like a douchebag, especially when Obama is charismatic and got into the spotlight for his ability to make speeches.

Egads, when did this become officially my thread?? ><

Feb. 17, 2008 7:48 PM Central Standard Time. That's what you get for messing around in American politics, German.

Egads, when did this become officially my thread?? ><

I guess they did go for the native son. I thought it was silly to assume that the state would go that way just because he was born there since his political life was elsewhere...but I guess I was wrong. Or, they just really liked Obama. It is a caucus state.

they got about 37,000 people out for the caucus. previous high was apparently a bit under 5,000 back in 1988.

She wants to give us universal health care, she believes it's a fundamental human right, and that's a good thing.

There's a funny thing about rights. You can exercise them, if you want to. You are not forced to exercise them.

I have the right to follow the religion of my choice, but I should not be forced to do so.
I have the right to speak, but I can remain silent if I so choose.

If I have the right to health care, why should I be forced to exercise it?
(not really directed at you personally)

The bad thing is that her plan goes as far as garnishing wages to pay the premiums. I haven't heard her say that she was going to improve the economy, so can you imagine getting what little wages you pull down already, garnished by a market-driven health industry?

Actually, from what I've read and seen, she's refused to acknowledge the fact that her plan would require garnishing wages. At least Edwards admitted that a mandatory plan would need something like that. She keeps saying that her plan is mandatory, but is strangely silent on what the penalty would be if you choose not to buy in.

Obama's plan makes much more sense: it's not a socialist handout so much as a Costco approach: using the power of American citizenry numbers to negotiate a lower price for medical care across the boards — drug prices, importation channels opened, insurance premiums, access to the Congressional health plan, doctors' fees, et alia. In other words, making it affordable and accessible.

Indeed. =)

He's playing me like a fiddle? I think not, I am not an Obama supporter, I have simply been pointing out the fact that you are twisting his words to suit your own ends.
No, they are his words and he has to live with them. I don't think diplomacy is his strong suit.

No, they are his words and he has to live with them. I don't think diplomacy is his strong suit.

They really aren't his words if you take them out of context, and add your interpretations of their meaning.

They really aren't his words if you take them out of context, and add your interpretations of their meaning.

Let CH play his games and let him have his fantasies.

No, they are his words and he has to live with them. I don't think diplomacy is his strong suit.

His words said he would "invade"? Please, quote him saying he would "invade". If he didn't, then you certainly twisted them.

And, still I notice you make a wide berth around more substantive posts. At least your consistent.

His words said he would "invade"? Please, quote him saying he would "invade". If he didn't, then you certainly twisted them.

And, still I notice you make a wide berth around more substantive posts. At least your consistent.

Meh, he'd rather attack someone who is not an Obama supporter for being one than have to face the reality of his lack of factual basis.

They really aren't his words if you take them out of context, and add your interpretations of their meaning.
These are his EXACT words:


When I am President, we will wage the war that has to be won, with a comprehensive strategy with five elements: getting out of Iraq and on to the right battlefield in Afghanistan and Pakistan; developing the capabilities and partnerships we need to take out the terrorists and the world's most deadly weapons; engaging the world to dry up support for terror and extremism; restoring our values; and securing a more resilient homeland.

The first step must be getting off the wrong battlefield in Iraq, and taking the fight to the terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Am I taking him out of context? I really don't think so.

These are his EXACT words:


Am I taking him out of context? I really don't think so.

So where is he saying that he'll actually invade Pakistan? I mean we took the war to Serbia but did not use ground forces in 1999.

These are his EXACT words:


Am I taking him out of context? I really don't think so.

Yes, and where does it say "invade", pray tell?

He further explains that "In Pakistan" his first goal is to get the President of that country to oust the terrorists or to work with Americans in doing so. He has expressed a willingness to attack terrorists there IF we have very distinct and credible intelligence and only in very limited ways. He's not talking about attacking Pakistan or any kind of sustained action there, and we already HAVE troops in Afghanistan.

Yes, he's clearly plotting an "invasion". Well, of course, unless you know what an invasion is an apply that knowledge without dishonest manipulation of what he said.

Meh, he'd rather attack someone who is not an Obama supporter for being one than have to face the reality of his lack of factual basis.

You'll notice that, when given a thread to actually discuss Hillary Clinton's policies, he didn't show up. It's patently obvious that he can't win by focusing on real points, so he's got to try to drag down our candidate rather than build up his. I hate American politics sometimes.

These are his EXACT words:


Am I taking him out of context? I really don't think so.

Well, to make the jump to "He's going to invade Pakistan" avoids a lot of other steps. The quote everyone is using for the 'invade' part is the actionable intelligence where they know for sure and can't get Musharrif to act. That's a highly specific combination.

"Taking the fight to the terrorists...in Pakistan" does not automatically mean "I'm going to invade Pakistan." His initial position is Musharrif's cooperation, which technically we already have. So our default position is not invasion but working with the Pakistani government to take the fight to the terrorists instead of wasting our resources in Iraq. In the hypothetical, where we don't have the cooperation that we already have and we do have information that is certain that we don't currently have, then he would be willing to violate their air space to take out the single camp. While not a perfect sollution it is a far cry from "OMG! He's going to invade Pakistan!"

These are his EXACT words

is english your first language?

Sources: Teamsters to endorse Obama (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/20/teamsters.obama/index.html)

Looks like more nails in the Clinton Coffin

is english your first language?
Is there enough room for you on the bandwagon?

Are you denying that those were his exact words (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13468310&postcount=240)?

Is there enough room for you on the bandwagon?

Are you denying that those were his exact words (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13468310&postcount=240)?

i'm denying that they say what you say they do. as is plainly obvious. words mean things, and you seem fundamentally confused as to what those meanings are.

and i'm actually offering you another way out (of this particular problem you've gotten yourself into) besides being either utterly laughable or being a troll. but i guess i'll stick to the charitable interpretation that you know everything you've said on this subject is fucking stupid and you are engaging in a bit of performance art.

"Taking the fight to the terrorists...in Pakistan" does not automatically mean "I'm going to invade Pakistan."
Well then perhaps Obama should have chosen different words to convey his message? Perhaps he shouldn't have made those statements at all?

Does Obama Want to Invade Pakistan? (http://www.thinkyouth.org/2007/08/01/obama-pakistan/)

Most Democrats are extremely upset by Obama’s hawkish remarks. Senator and presidential candidate Chris Dodd said, “Frankly, I am not sure what Barack is calling for in his speech this morning. But it is dangerous and irresponsible to leave even the impression the United States would needlessly and publicly provoke a nuclear power.” [Fox News]

Now let’s rememeber that Obama also said that he would not keep the option of nuking Iran off the table. Obama is taking an extreme hawkish approach to foreign policy. And, we all know Obama is trying to look tough when it comes to the war on terror. It’s unfortunate, because this is the same man who had the foresight to oppose the War in Iraq “from the beginning.” But like Dennis Kucinich brought up in the last debate, he funded the war every chance he could.

He is now trying to appeal to the people who think Democrats are weak. But, Democrats are not weak, they are smart when thinking that war is a bad option. Diplomacy, when done right, is the most smart thing a country can do. It is the inexperienced leaders who blindly lead us to war, ie. Bush.

Many have claimed that Obama simply does not have the experience to be president. I have to say that I agree with that. He does not have the experience yet. But, he does have the experience to be vice president. War hawks should not be tolerated when it comes to the next president of the United States. Is this just another slip for Obama’s credibility? Because it could cost him the presidency, and Hillary’s remarks don’t see to off when she calls him “naive”.

In the hypothetical, where we don't have the cooperation that we already have and we do have information that is certain that we don't currently have, then he would be willing to violate their air space to take out the single camp. While not a perfect sollution it is a far cry from "OMG! He's going to invade Pakistan!"
Where in his speech does he talk about a "single camp"? Violating Pakistan's sovereignity would more than likely destablize the region further and further alienate the 150 Muslims who live there. This amounts to pouring gasoline on a fire to put it out.

i'm denying that they say what you say they do. as is plainly obvious. words mean things, and you seem fundamentally confused as to what those meanings are.
Well living in denial is not the best place to be. I believe that you will find millions of Americans will agree with me.

and i'm actually offering you another way out (of this particular problem you've gotten yourself into)
What problem?

besides being either utterly laughable or being a troll.
I assure you that I am not trolling but you certainly are. Add a dash of flamebait to that as well.

but i guess i'll stick to the charitable interpretation that you know everything you've said on this subject is fucking stupid and you are engaging in a bit of performance art.
I certainly don't need your charity and it certainly would be nice if you could stay on topic and drop the flaming.