NationStates Jolt Archive

I believe that you will find millions of Americans will agree with me.




To bad its not enough to prevent him from crushing Clinthullu.



We get it CH, you have the hots for Clinton. Thats really the only thing I can think of for you to defend her in such totally illogical ways.

ps- There is a thread out there to discuss Hillary and her policies. Why not go there and contribute rather than flame Obama here?

Well living in denial is not the best place to be. I believe that you will find millions of Americans will agree with me.

yes, i'm sure you have polling data to back up the idea that "millions of americans" would read that to mean that obama intends to invade. so let's fucking see it.

of course, even if you could find such, it still wouldn't say anything of the sort, because the word 'invade' actually has a meaning in this discourse, and it ain't what obama said.

I certainly don't need your charity and it certainly would be nice if you could stay on topic and drop the flaming.

dude, you need all the help you can get. seriously, there is no more argument to be had because you lost so impressively badly. it has now devolved to a game of people trying to get you to acknowledge the basic facts of reality.

Well then perhaps Obama should have chosen different words to convey his message? Perhaps he shouldn't have made those statements at all?
To protect from equivocation? He can't help it if people will see what they want to see. That you found an opinion piece that makes the same equivocation doesn't impress me. Especially after what follows.



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.

Well, for that matter, where does he say invade?

And are you so bound up in sound bite campaigning that you forgot that a paragraph isn't a speech? Lets look at the paragraph that immediately follows-
And Pakistan needs more than F-16s to combat extremism. As the Pakistani government increases investment in secular education to counter radical madrasas, my Administration will increase America’s commitment. We must help Pakistan invest in the provinces along the Afghan border, so that the extremists’ program of hate is met with one of hope. And we must not turn a blind eye to elections that are neither free nor fair – our goal is not simply an ally in Pakistan, it is a democratic ally.
Oh yeah, he's just itching to invade. No, wait, invest. The other 'in' word.

The whole section on Pakistan:
As 9/11 showed us, the security of Afghanistan and America is shared. And today, that security is most threatened by the al Qaeda and Taliban sanctuary in the tribal regions of northwest Pakistan.


Al Qaeda terrorists train, travel, and maintain global communications in this safe-haven. The Taliban pursues a hit and run strategy, striking in Afghanistan, then skulking across the border to safety.


This is the wild frontier of our globalized world. There are wind-swept deserts and cave-dotted mountains. There are tribes that see borders as nothing more than lines on a map, and governments as forces that come and go. There are blood ties deeper than alliances of convenience, and pockets of extremism that follow religion to violence. It’s a tough place.


But that is no excuse. There must be no safe-haven for terrorists who threaten America. We cannot fail to act because action is hard.


As President, I would make the hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. military aid to Pakistan conditional, and I would make our conditions clear: Pakistan must make substantial progress in closing down the training camps, evicting foreign fighters, and preventing the Taliban from using Pakistan as a staging area for attacks in Afghanistan.


I understand that President Musharraf has his own challenges. 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.


And Pakistan needs more than F-16s to combat extremism. As the Pakistani government increases investment in secular education to counter radical madrasas, my Administration will increase America’s commitment. We must help Pakistan invest in the provinces along the Afghan border, so that the extremists’ program of hate is met with one of hope. And we must not turn a blind eye to elections that are neither free nor fair – our goal is not simply an ally in Pakistan, it is a democratic ally.
The full text of the speech is towards the bottom of the page (http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post_group/ObamaHQ/CpHR).

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

Diplomacy is probably his strongest suit. It's how he's conducted politics and what's given him a strong bipartisan record. Hell, he's been conducting serious international diplomacy to help stabilize Kenya all the while he's been campaigning.

You realize, don't you, that Musharraf actually WANTS us helping him fight Al Qaeda, right? And that it actually helps him politically if anti-terrorist actions in Pakistan are seen as being something the US is making happen rather than himself. And that helps retain stability in Pakistan without hindering democratization or anti-terrorist actions. There have been serious articles written about this.

Furthermore, you keep saying invasion. You must have missed my post where I quoted the definition of invasion. Please read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion

He can't help it if people will see what they want to see. That you found an opinion piece that makes the same equivocation doesn't impress me.
It isn't a matter of seeing what I want to see. It is a matter of record what Obama stated. You want to continually make excuses for his careless blunder, and I can understand your passion for your candidate but he is already doing damage and he hasn't even been elected yet.

Obama's Foreign Policy Blunder (http://cornellsun.com/node/23671)

Despite his rising status as the rockstar of the Democratic Party, Barack Obama has proven that no amount of popularity can match the experience and knowledge required to master the complexities of foreign policy. Obama threatened to unilaterally bomb Pakistan if actionable intelligence placed high-level al-Qaeda operatives in Pakistan and President Musharraf would not act. While this threat became a good applause line, Musharraf, a U.S. ally who faces a tough situation in Pakistan, did not take so kindly to Obama's words, and he certainly was not alone. Obama's statement, combined with his willingness at the same time to meet with crazy dictators like Chavez and Ahmadinejaid, provoked much criticism from Hillary Clinton on Obama's naive statement, and Mitt Romney weighed in as well with the best one-liner of Sunday's Republican debate: "In one week, he went from saying he's going to sit down, you know, for tea, with our enemies, but then he's going to bomb our allies. I mean, he's gone from Jane Fonda to Dr. Strangelove in one week." In the Democratic debate that shortly followed, both Hillary Clinton and veteran Senator and foreign policy expert Chris Dodd double-teamed Obama for his reckless decree. At the very least, Obama's public declaration of hostility towards Pakistan does not qualify as "common sense."

Well, for that matter, where does he say invade?
While he does not directly use the word invade, he also uses the words "we will wage the war that has to be won .....on to the right battlefield in Afghanistan and Pakistan."

What "battlefield" in Pakistan?

What does he mean when he says that "we will wage the war that has to be won ...on to the right battlefield in Pakistan"?

What does that mean to you?

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.

I'm only quoting myself because Clinton is on the Armed Services Committee so she should have read the bill fully. It's her own damn fault for her vote.

These are his EXACT words:


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

Yes, he said that he would attack inside Pakistan if there was actionable intelligence for it. Pakistan doesn't even control the border region we are talking about. If there are Al Quaeda leaders planning attacks against American and our allies we will act.

Those carping on Obama's Pakistan comment should consider: This statement of his resonates with many people who think the Iraq invasion was an unnecessary debacle, yet are still enraged that Osama is still out there - probably in Pakistan.

Do not think the stupidity of the Iraq war has lessened our desire to see Osama Bin Laden brought to justice.

The Republican failure to kill or capture Bin Laden is an issue.

So the military and the CIA are just republicans?


Deliberate obtuseness? The decision to attack Iraq shifted 90% of our assets away from finding Bin Laden.

"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.

Obama won't do a damn thing to help me, he'll just tax me, since I have a job, and do not collect from gubment programs.

The Republican failure to kill or capture Bin Laden is an issue.

So the military and the CIA are just republicans?

What "battlefield" in Pakistan?

What does he mean when he says that "we will wage the war that has to be won ...on to the right battlefield in Pakistan"?

do you honestly not know? have you really not been paying any attention at all to the reports of where the leadership of al-q is at? are you incapable of reading the rest of the speech you are citing?

It isn't a matter of seeing what I want to see. It is a matter of record what Obama stated. You want to continually make excuses for his careless blunder, and I can understand your passion for your candidate but he is already doing damage and he hasn't even been elected yet.

Obama's Foreign Policy Blunder (http://cornellsun.com/node/23671)
Oh no! Romney finds fault with it! How's ol' Mitt doin' in the primaries, by the way?




While he does not directly use the word invade, he also uses the words "we will wage the war that has to be won .....on to the right battlefield in Afghanistan and Pakistan."

What "battlefield" in Pakistan?

What does he mean when he says that "we will wage the war that has to be won ...on to the right battlefield in Pakistan"?

What does that mean to you?
Well, it means-
And Pakistan needs more than F-16s to combat extremism. As the Pakistani government increases investment in secular education to counter radical madrasas, my Administration will increase America’s commitment. We must help Pakistan invest in the provinces along the Afghan border, so that the extremists’ program of hate is met with one of hope. And we must not turn a blind eye to elections that are neither free nor fair – our goal is not simply an ally in Pakistan, it is a democratic ally.

Oh no! Romney finds fault with it! How's ol' Mitt doin' in the primaries, by the way?
Sloughing it off huh? :p

Well, it means-
So you avoid the question and sidebar it.

Diplomacy is probably his strongest suit.
Obviously not only do you and I disagree, so do many politicians in the US. See my previous post.

It's how he's conducted politics and what's given him a strong bipartisan record.
A strong bipartisan record does not help assuage the potential damage he caused by his tough talk on Pakistan.

Hell, he's been conducting serious international diplomacy to help stabilize Kenya all the while he's been campaigning.
But then again that could prove to be a very negative situation for Obama and his hopes of the Presidency if the following has any truth:

Kenya, Islam and Obama Hussein (http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2008/01/obama-islam-and.html)

Now, don't get me wrong, I don't really know anything about this subject, but you can expect that any criticism of your candidate will get turned up a notch if he ends up being the Democrat standard bearer.

You realize, don't you, that Musharraf actually WANTS us helping him fight Al Qaeda, right?
I am sure he wants help, but only to a point. I don't think he needs the kind of help/rhetoric that Obama is offering.

And that it actually helps him politically if anti-terrorist actions in Pakistan are seen as being something the US is making happen rather than himself.
So you think it is better that the US continue to be perceived as the evil one in the eyes of Pakistans' Muslims huh?

And that helps retain stability in Pakistan without hindering democratization or anti-terrorist actions.
I think what Obama is suggesting helps to destablize the situation in Pakistan and their foreign minister stated such.

There have been serious articles written about this.
It is a serious subject.

Furthermore, you keep saying invasion. You must have missed my post where I quoted the definition of invasion. Please read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion
Okay done:

Because an invasion is, by definition, an attack from outside forces

Okay done:Because an invasion is, by definition, an attack from outside forces

holy fucking shit. that is outright lying. there is no way you could have innocently taken something that out of context. that required dropping not only the rest of the surrounding paragraphs, but dishonestly dropping the rest of the fucking sentence. fuck man, just stop.

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.

Sloughing it off huh? :p


So you avoid the question and sidebar it.

You have got to be kidding...

Obama won't do a damn thing to help me, he'll just tax me, since I have a job, and do not collect from gubment programs.

The tax and spend liberal nonsense is just kind of getting boring. If you think it's fair to say that then it's fair to say that the Republican Party, as least under GWB was a borrow and spend policy. If you are going to promote programs then you damn well better be able to pay for them. We are having a war and borrowing money to do so. Fiscal responsibility means you have the ability to balance spending with your income. Taxes are not always a horrible thing. I agree with tax cuts in most situations, but not when we have spent over .5 trillion dollars on a war.

You have got to be kidding...
Seriously, what does "we will wage the war that has to be won .....on to the right battlefield in Pakistan" mean to you?

Seriously, what does "we will wage the war that has to be won .....on to the right battlefield in Pakistan" mean to you?

It means that we've taken our eye off the ball in going into Iraq. The real war is with Al Quaeda and those who plot to harm us. The leadership of these groups happen to be hiding in the mountanous region in between Afghanistan and Pakistan. If we get actionable intelligence we should exploit it even if Musharif might not agree. People crossing borders in that area is not uncommon. Sending special forces with air support into this region to attack those responsible is exactly what we need. Our only problem was not doing this first.

Seriously, what does "we will wage the war that has to be won .....on to the right battlefield in Pakistan" mean to you?

you forgot the part of the quote that says AFGHANISTAN!

CH, I have a question for you.


What, aside from greater electability because thats been proven to be BS, do you like about Mrs. Clinton?

Obviously not only do you and I disagree, so do many politicians in the US. See my previous post.I don't consider politicians in general to be high experts on such things.
A strong bipartisan record does not help assuage the potential damage he caused by his tough talk on Pakistan.Firstly, it's retarded to think that saying the obvious truth would cause "damage". Hillary talks tougher than Obama anyway.

But then again that could prove to be a very negative situation for Obama and his hopes of the Presidency if the following has any truth:

Kenya, Islam and Obama Hussein (http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2008/01/obama-islam-and.html)

Now, don't get me wrong, I don't really know anything about this subject, but you can expect that any criticism of your candidate will get turned up a notch if he ends up being the Democrat standard bearer.Yes, criticism by crazy-fucking racist reactionary sites will certainly get turned up. The fact that you keep linking to borderline white supremacist and conservative sites explains your apparent blindness to reason.

So you think it is better that the US continue to be perceived as the evil one in the eyes of Pakistans' Muslims huh?Way to oversimplify. The Fundamentalist Muslims will consider the US "evil" in any case. Those who don't sympathize with terrorism (the majority) will have mized feelings. In any case, the long-term goal is to reduce the ability of terrorist sentiment to spread by encouraging democratization. If the situation is perceived as Musharraf vs Islam, then the prospect of fundamentalist Islamic gaining prominence makes democratization far less likely, and the possibility of terrorism spreading or a terrorist state arising far more likely.

I think what Obama is suggesting helps to destablize the situation in Pakistan and their foreign minister stated such.Of COURSE the foreign minister would say that. It's like playing a I chord after a V7.

Okay done:Yes, we know that an invasion is an attack from outside forces. Now please read the sentences you skipped over to find out what kind of attack from outside forces would constitute an invasion.

Seriously, what does "we will wage the war that has to be won .....on to the right battlefield in Pakistan" mean to you?It means that you take quotes completely out of context. (Hint, the ellipsis makes it way too obvious.)

Seriously, what does "we will wage the war that has to be won .....on to the right battlefield in Pakistan" mean to you?

See, here's the thing. If you show someone a ball and they go, "What ball?" Okay. It seemed pretty obvious, but whatever. If you then place the ball on thier nose and they still say, "What ball?" you'd be a sucker to try and show them the ball again because they are clearly fucking with you or are so desperate that they're willing to pretend not to see the ball right in front of their nose. Convincing you of anything is pointless. I think the line of argument is clear to any third party reader and I don't need to make myself look foolish trying to show you the ball in front of your face.

Of COURSE the foreign minister would say that. It's like playing a I chord after a V7.



Music nerd!!! I totally got that...

CH, I have a question for you.


What, aside from greater electability because thats been proven to be BS, do you like about Mrs. Clinton?
I thought you would have taken the hint that I prefer not to answer your posts considering their nature.

As far as her "greater electability", that has not been proven to be BS, in that the election is not until November of this year.

I thought you would have taken the hint that I prefer not to answer your posts considering their nature.

As far as her "greater electability", that has not been proven to be BS, in that the election is not until November of this year.
Covered.
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.

I thought you would have taken the hint that I prefer not to answer your posts considering their nature.

As far as her "greater electability", that has not been proven to be BS, in that the election is not until November of this year.

Clearly, you prefer not to answer any post that has anything you've not got an aswer for. It has nothing to do with nature. We've proven this repeatedly. Your credibility ranks with GWB on this forum.

Sloughing it off huh? :p


So you avoid the question and sidebar it.

He sidebarred it? He quoted him and you ignored the actual quote and HE sidebarrred it? You're not interested in credibiltity, huh?

EDIT: You know we've long since passed the point where anyone should humor this obvious lunacy. I'll tell you what, anyone besides CH want to admit they agree with CH? Anyone? Anyone here think CH has put forth even once a reasonable arguement?

You've embarrassed yourself again. "His exact words" included invasion? Quote it. I'm calling you a liar. So is everyone else. IF they aren't, you'll see them challenging my claim. Watch all the challenges.

CanuckHeaven, I can honestly say I am absolutely disgusted by you. You are constantly practicing an intellectual dishonesty that is absolutely shameful. People are repeatedly pointing out that you are taking Obama's words out of context and showing the REST OF THE SPEECH THOSE WORDS WERE A PART OF and you are simply ignoring them.

You are shameful, disgusting, and should not even be here. I personally advise you to leave and to return ONLY when you are willing to debate like a reasonable person instead of a hopeless ideologue.

You've embarrassed yourself again. "His exat words" included invasion? Quote it. I'm calling you a liar. So is everyone else. IF they aren't, you'll see them challenging my claim. Watch all the challenges.

I challenge your claim.

Calling CH a liar is a disservice to liars everywhere. :p

CanuckHeaven, I can honestly say I am absolutely disgusted by you. You are constantly practicing an intellectual dishonesty that is absolutely shameful. People are repeatedly pointing out that you are taking Obama's words out of context and showing the REST OF THE SPEECH THOSE WORDS WERE A PART OF and you are simply ignoring them.

You are shameful, disgusting, and should not even be here. I personally advise you to leave and to return ONLY when you are willing to debate like a reasonable person instead of a hopeless ideologue.
You know, you are just entitled to your opinion, as I am. You don't like my style, well that is your problem.

I do notice that there are several posters on here that believe the best method of debate is to shout down the opposition, or call them stupid or retarded, or in your case "shameful, and disgusting". I find that rather sad, but such is life.

I am certainly not going to stop posting my counterpoints because you don't like them, or don't understand them. So that leaves you two distinct choices....put me on ignore, or don't answer my posts. I really don't care which one you choose.

You know, you are just entitled to your opinion, as I am. You don't like my style, well that is your problem.

I do notice that there are several posters on here that believe the best method of debate is to shout down the opposition, or call them stupid or retarded, or in your case "shameful, and disgusting". I find that rather sad, but such is life.

I am certainly not going to stop posting my counterpoints because you don't like them, or don't understand them. So that leaves you two distinct choices....put me on ignore, or don't answer my posts. I really don't care which one you choose.

You could easily prove him wrong, by you know, answering the plethora of posts that challenge you. I'll tell you what. Let's stick to one. According to you, you've already answered the very long and reasoned posts of me and CTOAN. I'll accept that. As soon as you post that link. Instead of rhetoric, how about you evidence that we're all wrong, and post some substance.

You notice the extensive number of posters pointing out they agree with you. Oh, wait, right, NONE. That's exactly how many posters willing to be attached to your point. Good job, CH. No one takes you seriously.

I am certainly not going to stop posting my counterpoints because you don't like them, or don't understand them. So that leaves you two distinct choices....put me on ignore, or don't answer my posts. I really don't care which one you choose.

I like your style. You're deliberately blowing off the same people you're trying to convince of your points, thus proving the futility of your posts.

Honestly, if you're going to make a post proclaiming that you're making a good argument, don't proclaim that you're making a good argument by saying that we don't understand or like your argument. We're here for a reason, and that reason is that we're reasoners. If you say Hillary is great, we need reason. When you supply us reason and we doubt it, don't blow us off and say we're fucktards. Give us more reason.

I like your style. You're deliberately blowing off the same people you're trying to convince of your points, thus proving the futility of your posts.

Honestly, if you're going to make a post proclaiming that you're making a good argument, don't proclaim that you're making a good argument by saying that we don't understand or like your argument. We're here for a reason, and that reason is that we're reasoners. If you say Hillary is great, we need reason. When you supply us reason and we doubt it, don't blow us off and say we're fucktards. Give us more reason.

I'll be happy if he does the first part, supply us with reason, in the first place. That would be oustanding.

You're deliberately blowing off the same people you're trying to convince of your points, thus proving the futility of your posts.The word you're looking for is "trolling".

Music nerd!!! I totally got that...

Oddly, me too. :)

I like your style. You're deliberately blowing off the same people you're trying to convince of your points, thus proving the futility of your posts.
I wasn't trying to convince Kyronea of anything in this thread. We had no direct dialogue until the post I responded to. If anyone was trying to blow anyone off, that was Kyronea. He has made a sum total of 4 posts in this thread. One, even though it was irrelevant, it was factual in that British troops did indeed fight on US soil in the War of 1812. The other 3 were direct attacks on posters with no real substance regarding the topic at hand.

Honestly, if you're going to make a post proclaiming that you're making a good argument, don't proclaim that you're making a good argument by saying that we don't understand or like your argument.
I do believe that I have made some good arguments in this thread regarding Obama's foreign policy. I provided links and I even linked to Obama's own web site to support my points. If someone believes that I am taking his speech out of context, then I disagree, as did the people who I quoted and or who also wrote articles about it. If the posters here cannot or will not accept that, then I am powerless to change their beliefs. Perhaps they don't understand or in certain cases they don't want to understand.

We're here for a reason, and that reason is that we're reasoners.
I agree for the most part, but some posters can be extremely unreasonable and downright nasty in their remarks. They have their own motives for their rudeness, but I don't think it is conducive to debate.

If you say Hillary is great, we need reason. When you supply us reason and we doubt it, don't blow us off and say we're fucktards. Give us more reason.
Firstly this thread is about "Obama,Obama,Obama", not Hillary.

Secondly, I have no desire to debate with people who are going to throw out words such as stupid, retarded, idiot, etc., because they have already convinced themselves that they are intellectually superior, and I have no desire to feed their egotistical hunger.

Thirdly, in regards to supplying "reason", one can do that over and over again, but there is no guarantee that they will understand the reason, and there is also no guarantee that they want to accept the reason.

Thirdly, in regards to supplying "reason", one can do that over and over again, but there is no guarantee that they will understand the reason, and there is also no guarantee that they want to accept the reason.Quoted for truth.

The word you're looking for is "trolling".
It is not trolling if one desires not to respond to trolls.

I wasn't trying to convince Kyronea of anything in this thread. We had no direct dialogue until the post I responded to. If anyone was trying to blow anyone off, that was Kyronea. He has made a sum total of 4 posts in this thread. One, even though it was irrelevant, it was factual in that British troops did indeed fight on US soil in the War of 1812. The other 3 were direct attacks on posters with no real substance regarding the topic at hand.


I've been avoiding posting directly because all I'd really be doing is cheerleading, and since I got on Corny's case for that I'd be a big hypocrite if I did it myself.

I am simply calling you on what I see. I've been watching this back and forth between Jocabia, CToaN, and yourself across the many threads since it started up, and all I am seeing is intellectual dishonesty and so on and so forth from you. You haven't reasoned. You haven't convinced anyone. All you've done is embarrass yourself.

Especially since I used to consider you to be a pretty good debater. Looks like my initial opinion of you was wrong.

I've been avoiding posting directly because all I'd really be doing is cheerleading, and since I got on Corny's case for that I'd be a big hypocrite if I did it myself.
But that is exactly what you did:

http://forums3.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13467535&postcount=227

I am simply calling you on what I see. I've been watching this back and forth between Jocabia, CToaN, and yourself across the many threads since it started up, and all I am seeing is intellectual dishonesty and so on and so forth from you. You haven't reasoned. You haven't convinced anyone. All you've done is embarrass yourself.
For me to embarass myself, I would have to feel that embarassment. I don't. As far as "intellectual dishonesty" you are not looking deep enough. Just because I haven't convinced as you say anyone, doesn't mean that I haven't presented "reasoned" arguments. If people don't want to accept my reasoning and want to top it off with insults, then I have no desire to continue in the dialogue.

Especially since I used to consider you to be a pretty good debater. Looks like my initial opinion of you was wrong.
I think the subject matter has a lot to do with it. There are some very passionate Obama supporters in the crowd and they are obviously in the majority. I think you made a post about that awhile ago. Perhaps a re-read is in order?

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12999216&postcount=1

But that is exactly what you did:

http://forums3.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13467535&postcount=227

I do believe that does not count as "posting directly" since I was talking to Corny, not you.

For me to embarass myself, I would have to feel that embarassment. I don't. As far as "intellectual dishonesty" you are not looking deep enough. Just because I haven't convinced as you say anyone, doesn't mean that I haven't presented "reasoned" arguments. If people don't want to accept my reasoning and want to top it off with insults, then I have no desire to continue in the dialogue.
So...basically, what you're saying is that we can't understand your arguments?

Then dumb them down. Make them understandable.


I think the subject matter has a lot to do with it. There are some very passionate Obama supporters in the crowd and they are obviously in the majority. I think you made a post about that awhile ago. Perhaps a re-read is in order?

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12999216&postcount=1

I never said anything about huge groups shouting down opposition. It does happen, but that's not what's happening here. Yes, both Jocabia and CToaN are occasionally insulting and I personally think they should quit that, but they're acting that way because they're so frustrated by you.

All you're doing is posting down arguments and then shaking your head and going "LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!" when they respond. They've responded with research and specific points, and all you return with is rhetoric and vague arguments, not to mention a load of condescension.

As I said, maybe you should make your arguments understandable and try actually responding to points and research instead of either repeating your "I CAN'T HEAR YOU!" or saying you already have when you haven't.

To add, on Pg. 18, when CTOAN bolded an Obama statement to directly attack your "Waging a War..." statement, you did this:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13469887&postcount=264

Making a point and sidebarring are two entirely different things.

You know, I really wanted to avoid going down this path, but I can't consciencously do that. I can't just ignore this.

I wasn't trying to convince Kyronea of anything in this thread. We had no direct dialogue until the post I responded to. If anyone was trying to blow anyone off, that was Kyronea. He has made a sum total of 4 posts in this thread. One, even though it was irrelevant, it was factual in that British troops did indeed fight on US soil in the War of 1812. The other 3 were direct attacks on posters with no real substance regarding the topic at hand.

And CTOAN? And Jocabia? They kept making valid arguments to counterpoint yours, and you kept blowing them off because they didn't understand your logic.

I do believe that I have made some good arguments in this thread regarding Obama's foreign policy. I provided links and I even linked to Obama's own web site to support my points. If someone believes that I am taking his speech out of context, then I disagree, as did the people who I quoted and or who also wrote articles about it. If the posters here cannot or will not accept that, then I am powerless to change their beliefs. Perhaps they don't understand or in certain cases they don't want to understand.

But you haven't addressed the counterpoints to your arguments. You keep saying "What does 'we will wage the war that has to be won .....on to the right battlefield in Pakistan' mean?" But when we address the fact that Obama means to combat their violent ways with peace, you say we're sidebarring.

The word war is a dysphemism in your context. We're waging a War on Terror, a War in Iraq, a War on Drugs, and a War on just about every Evil and Injustice in America. The fact that we use the word "war" doesn't necessarily make it a war.

You could make the argument that Martin Luther King Jr. waged a war against racial injustice. He attacked the foundations of the disparity between the civil liberties in America and the American Constitution and challenged the utmost of authorities of his time. He literally waged a war against injustice. And, yet, he was a man of peace. He seldom raised a hand to strike, nor did he incite people to commit great and terrible acts of violence. Yet, he waged a war. A good war. The right war.

Using war as a dysphemism to counter the real message behind Obama's feelings about Pakistan (found in the bottom of this post: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13469820&postcount=263) is merely a way to counter one's argument with an emotional pretext.

Secondly, I have no desire to debate with people who are going to throw out words such as stupid, retarded, idiot, etc., because they have already convinced themselves that they are intellectually superior, and I have no desire to feed their egotistical hunger.

I didn't say that you were a fucktard - I said you're treating us like fucktards. You, sir, are writing this at the very same time that you are implying that we are not getting the full rambifications or reasoning of your posts, and are thus making the argument that you should ignore us because we don't understand what you're saying. Would not this, then, be an example of what you yourself are trying to avoid? By saying we don't understand, instead of acknowledging that we think differently, you are implying that you are of a superior intellect. Would you contest this?

Thirdly, in regards to supplying "reason", one can do that over and over again, but there is no guarantee that they will understand the reason, and there is also no guarantee that they want to accept the reason.

Again, you're blowing us off. The rest will continue to make further attempts to reason with you. I, however, cannot continue doing so because my free time is up. However, by submitting that those that differ in opinion from your own may not understand nor accept your reasoning, you may just provide an example to the same conclusion you were trying to avoid.

You're just feeding the troll.

Seriously, what does "we will wage the war that has to be won .....on to the right battlefield in Pakistan" mean to you?

The battlefield stretches from the ground, to the sea, to the air. There is more than one way to engage the enemy on the battlefield. We engaged on the battlefield in Serbia through the use of Air Power.

I thought you would have taken the hint that I prefer not to answer your posts considering their nature.

Which means:

She's God's gift to the democratic party and she is the only hope for the USA.

As far as her "greater electability", that has not been proven to be BS, in that the election is not until November of this year.

Um...incase you have not noticed, she is trying to win the nomination which is an election in and of itself :rolleyes:

The battlefield stretches from the ground, to the sea, to the air. There is more than one way to engage the enemy on the battlefield. We engaged on the battlefield in Serbia through the use of Air Power.
Absolutely agree with that statement 100%. Did you think I meant a different battlefield? I know that some other posters seem to believe that Obama's proposed "battlefield" is somehow different.

You know, you are just entitled to your opinion, as I am. You don't like my style, well that is your problem.

Our problem is that you are not backing anything up and when you finally do, its mostly out of context.

I do notice that there are several posters on here that believe the best method of debate is to shout down the opposition, or call them stupid or retarded, or in your case "shameful, and disgusting". I find that rather sad, but such is life.

Sounds like 95% of the debates on here and you yourself have participated in such "shameful, and disgusting" tactics yourself. You have been told to back up your claims and you have failed to do so. You have been called and called on it and now it seems you have no argument.

Prove me wrong.

I am certainly not going to stop posting my counterpoints because you don't like them, or don't understand them. So that leaves you two distinct choices....put me on ignore, or don't answer my posts. I really don't care which one you choose.

Why should we respond to your posts when they are so full of errors and out of context quotes?

Our problem is that you are not backing anything up and when you finally do, its mostly out of context.

Sounds like 95% of the debates on here and you yourself have participated in such "shameful, and disgusting" tactics yourself. You have been told to back up your claims and you have failed to do so. You have been called and called on it and now it seems you have no argument.

Prove me wrong.

Why should we respond to your posts when they are so full of errors and out of context quotes?
Just when there was a glimmer of hope....you dash it with this post. Now go back through the thread....check my links....check my comments, and then.....get back to me.

Absolutely agree with that statement 100%. Did you think I meant a different battlefield? I know that some other posters seem to believe that Obama's proposed "battlefield" is somehow different.

What has already been posted by posters debunking your use of the word invasion? Obama does not want to invade pakistan. Take the war to the terrorists in pakistan sure but invade and take on pakistan, no.

Just when there was a glimmer of hope....you dash it with this post. Now go back through the thread....check my links....check my comments, and then.....get back to me.

I have and then I watched the argument between you, Jocabia, and CTOAN. Guess what? What I find is a shameful poster who is not even bothering looking into Obama and is so dead set on a person who is far more authoritarian than GWB is. That's sad.

Secondly, I have no desire to debate with people who are going to throw out words such as stupid, retarded, idiot, etc., because they have already convinced themselves that they are intellectually superior, and I have no desire to feed their egotistical hunger.

Thirdly, in regards to supplying "reason", one can do that over and over again, but there is no guarantee that they will understand the reason, and there is also no guarantee that they want to accept the reason.

You gotta love irony. "I'm right, but people just can't understand how right I am. And by the way, I really hate when people suggest the people they're arguing with aren't smart enough to understand."

And I guess the reason you couldn't link to your reply when you said you'd replied to certain points is we wouldn't understand anyway? Cuz, so far, you've dodged most of the substance to keep arguing that Obama's "exact words" were that he was going to "invade Pakistan". Given we've shown the meaning of the word invade and your own links demonstrated that he's not talking about anything that qualifies, I think everyone here, including you, understand that your claim cannot be rationally supported. Thus the intellectual dishonest accusation. You're too smart to not recognize that calling it an invasion implies a level of action that is no where near what Obama is talking about.

For some reason, there are way too many people that when it comes to politics just think everyone should suspend reason and just constantly speak in hyperbole. I expected better from you. "Invasion" is hyperbole and everyone here knows it, including you.

Secondly, I have no desire to debate with people who are going to throw out words such as stupid, retarded, idiot, etc., because they have already convinced themselves that they are intellectually superior, and I have no desire to feed their egotistical hunger.

Thirdly, in regards to supplying "reason", one can do that over and over again, but there is no guarantee that they will understand the reason, and there is also no guarantee that they want to accept the reason.

Oh, and by the way, while we're quoting my thread on sounder debates?

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12999381&postcount=9

Maybe you ought to listen to yourself. Specifically, this part:

Also the debaters that can't or won't back up their talking points with links to credible information often jam up the debate and more often sidetrack it entirely, which could be their purpose in the first place.

You know, you are just entitled to your opinion, as I am. You don't like my style, well that is your problem.

I do notice that there are several posters on here that believe the best method of debate is to shout down the opposition, or call them stupid or retarded, or in your case "shameful, and disgusting". I find that rather sad, but such is life.

I am certainly not going to stop posting my counterpoints because you don't like them, or don't understand them. So that leaves you two distinct choices....put me on ignore, or don't answer my posts. I really don't care which one you choose.

I have not insulted you in this way. And you still have not pointed us to a direct quote where h proposes invasion of Pakistan. It's time to put up or admit you are wrong.

Oh, and by the way, while we're quoting my thread on sounder debates?

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12999381&postcount=9

Maybe you ought to listen to yourself. Specifically, this part:

You officially win the thread, Kyr. That's hillarious since we've been positively begging him to give credible support for his claims for a month and five or six threads.

Obama wins Democrats Abroad contest (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/02/21/obama-wins-democrats-abroad-contest/)

(CNN) — Barack Obama has won the Democrats Abroad Global Primary, according to the International Chair for the Democrats Abroad, Christine Marques.

Marques tells CNN the results of the week-long vote were:

Barack Obama – 65 percent, Hillary Clinton – 32 percent, with the rest of the candidates pulling in less than 1 percent of the vote each.

The news just keeps getting worse and worse for the CLinton camp.

Obama wins Democrats Abroad contest (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/02/21/obama-wins-democrats-abroad-contest/)

time for another update:

Contests Obama has won with 60% or more of the vote:
Alaska (75%)
DC (75%)*
Dems Abroad (65%)*
Colorado (67%)
Georgia (67%)*
Hawaii (76%)
Idaho (79%)
Illinois (65%)*
Kansas (74%)
Maryland (60%)*
Minnesota (67%)
Nebraska (68%)
North Dakota (61%)
Virginia (64%)*
Washington (68%)
The Virgin Islands (90%)*

And we should probably spot him Maine (59.47%) too. Wisconsin* falls just short of making the list at 58.13%.

Contests Clinton won with 60% or more of the vote:
Arkansas (70%)*

Her next highest is New York* at 57.39% and then Massachusetts* at 56.16%

* primary rather than caucus contest

time for another update:

Contests Obama has won with 60% or more of the vote:
Alaska (75%)
DC (75%)*
Dems Abroad (65%)*
Colorado (67%)
Georgia (67%)*
Hawaii (76%)
Idaho (79%)
Illinois (65%)*
Kansas (74%)
Maryland (60%)*
Minnesota (67%)
Nebraska (68%)
North Dakota (61%)
Virginia (64%)*
Washington (68%)
The Virgin Islands (90%)*

And we should probably spot him Maine (59.47%) too. Wisconsin* falls just short of making the list at 58.13%.

Contests Clinton won with 60% or more of the vote:
Arkansas (70%)*

Her next highest is New York* at 57.39% and then Massachusetts* at 56.16%

* primary rather than caucus contest

Craziness. It's so strange looking at the list of states for each of them.

Oh no! Romney finds fault with it! How's ol' Mitt doin' in the primaries, by the way?

For a while last night, he was giving Ron Paul a good run for 3rd place in Wisconsin!

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

enough said

Woah, where did you get that?

Also, I'm voting for him, because I like him WAY more than Hilary. She's scary and a warhawk, I don't give a crap what she says now, the fact is she voted for the war, and supported it until she decided that "she was tricke," conviently when everyone else was jumping off the war bandwagon. I'm voting for Obama for one reason, plain and simple, he came out agains the war in 2002 as soon as we were proposing going to Iraq, because there was NO LOGIC BEHIND IT. That, and his college plan bloody rocks. He wants to give college students 4,000 dollars a year, flat, on top of all of the other scholarships, so long as you give back to your community.

Also, Hilary's heath plan sucks. We all saw how well health care suited her when Bill let her run that back when he was president. She has experience SCREWING UP. So I would very much like it if people would stop commenting on Obama's lack of experience. Her plan, basically, is making the American people pay for health insurance whether they can afford it or not. :confused: How does that help the middle class?

She scares me because she always changes her opinion to the winning side's. Obama inspires people, which so long as he does get shot (see JFK) will do wonders for repairing our global image.

whoops, does NOT get shot..:headbang:

And if Hilary gets the Democratic Nomination, there will be a republican in the white house. Although, I do very much like the fact that he was in the Vietnam war and so is against torture, but I don't like pretty much anything else about him.

You know, I believe this has been stated already, but I must express my frustration with one aspect in particular of CH's current debating style.

It's the "Well, you disagree with me, so obviously you're just too dumb or too stubborn to understand my argument!" line. I find that to be incredibly condescending. Maybe, CH, somebody has legitimate reasons to disagree with you? Or, indeed, it's possible that you're wrong!

I recognize the possibility that I may be wrong. I know that there are almost certainly a good many things that I am wrong about. I post on NSG because I want to expose the instances where I am wrong so that I might learn. It's happened before, both here and in other places. I've changed my mind on things that I was previously certain about. It's not that bad, CH, to consider the possibility that you just might be wrong.

What is that bad is to assume that anybody who disagrees with you must be a fool, especially if they present solid research to support their opinions. Yet, when they do so, you often just dismiss them with just "Well, you're wrong about that," without presenting any evidence to the contrary. When CTOAN posted a list of states that he felt could swing, supported by their past voting history, you just said "no, that can't swing," without saying why, and I think, as I've said, the reason is that you've just assumed that you must be correct.

So I ask you. Look at the evidence. When attempting to refute it, use evidence of your own to do so, not just your own statements. And if you find that you're wrong on a point, concede that point, even if you still have other reasons to think what you do. (After all, conceding a point does not mean you concede the debate.)

I recognize that I may be wrong; Obama may be as horrible a candidate as you suggest. If you give me solid reasons, then I may willing to change my mind. But the fact that you must engage in such acts of intellectual dishonesty make me think that that's unlikely.

You know, I believe this has been stated already, but I must express my frustration with one aspect in particular of CH's current debating style.

It's the "Well, you disagree with me, so obviously you're just too dumb or too stubborn to understand my argument!" line. I find that to be incredibly condescending. Maybe, CH, somebody has legitimate reasons to disagree with you? Or, indeed, it's possible that you're wrong!

I recognize the possibility that I may be wrong. I know that there are almost certainly a good many things that I am wrong about. I post on NSG because I want to expose the instances where I am wrong so that I might learn. It's happened before, both here and in other places. I've changed my mind on things that I was previously certain about. It's not that bad, CH, to consider the possibility that you just might be wrong.

What is that bad is to assume that anybody who disagrees with you must be a fool, especially if they present solid research to support their opinions. Yet, when they do so, you often just dismiss them with just "Well, you're wrong about that," without presenting any evidence to the contrary. When CTOAN posted a list of states that he felt could swing, supported by their past voting history, you just said "no, that can't swing," without saying why, and I think, as I've said, the reason is that you've just assumed that you must be correct.

So I ask you. Look at the evidence. When attempting to refute it, use evidence of your own to do so, not just your own statements. And if you find that you're wrong on a point, concede that point, even if you still have other reasons to think what you do. (After all, conceding a point does not mean you concede the debate.)

I recognize that I may be wrong; Obama may be as horrible a candidate as you suggest. If you give me solid reasons, then I may willing to change my mind. But the fact that you must engage in such acts of intellectual dishonesty make me think that that's unlikely.

The one with the past voting history was me, I believe. Otherwise, you make a good point. He's better than this. I keep hoping he'll suddenly go back to the guy who debates well. I keep being disappointed.

The one with the past voting history was me, I believe. Otherwise, you make a good point. He's better than this. I keep hoping he'll suddenly go back to the guy who debates well. I keep being disappointed.

D'oh! I wasn't sure, maybe I should have checked my facts. :D

I do believe that I have made some good arguments in this thread regarding Obama's foreign policy. I provided links and I even linked to Obama's own web site to support my points. If someone believes that I am taking his speech out of context, then I disagree, as did the people who I quoted and or who also wrote articles about it. If the posters here cannot or will not accept that, then I am powerless to change their beliefs. Perhaps they don't understand or in certain cases they don't want to understand.

Your only 'reasons' have been misquotes and quotes taken out of context.

This administration owes our CIA agents a promise that their identities will be jeopardized.

Firstly this thread is about "Obama,Obama,Obama", not Hillary.
And yet you won't do it in the Hillary thread either
Secondly, I have no desire to debate with people who are going to throw out words such as (1) stupid, retarded, idiot, etc., because they have already convinced themselves that they are intellectually superior, and (2) I have no desire to feed their egotistical hunger.

1. the name calling is in large part due to the fact that you don't seem to realize when your argument has been refuted
2. So you don't believe you can present your case for Hillary intelligently?

I'm going to go ahead and step into this little mud pit here for a minute. I'm not going to criticize, and in turn, I would appreciate simply having been observed.

I support Barack Obama. Unfortunately for me, I have to hold down a full-time job, take care of my 2-year-old son (who is sick now), take my classes full-time, and still find time to care for my animals and my house. By myself. Because my husband is at sea. So I don't have a lot of time to dig into the nitty gritty business of the exact why's and how's.

But, all that set aside, I would like to explain why I am for Obama.

He is actively trying to bring the country together, in terms of people in the House and Senate. He isn't looking to the Democrats, the Republicans, or Independents... he is looking to everybody. I like this about him, because it means he wants to address the issues, not necessarily his popularity.

That isn't to say he isn't addressing it on -some- level... gotta get elected somehow, right?

Clinton does frighten me a bit. Something about her campaign does not sit well with me.

And McCain... good lord, he wants it way too bad. Seems like a funny guy, though. :)

Just offering up a little down-to-earth perspective. I'm not saying I'm right. Just saying my opinion.

D'oh! I wasn't sure, maybe I should have checked my facts. :D

Mine were the lists of recognized swing states (granted according to Wikipedia) and who won which (Obama has won six of them, Clinton four but leads the polls in three more-take into consideration, though, that when I made the list Clinton led Wisconsin where she eventually lost by 17%)

Clinton
New Hampshire
Pennsylvania
Arkansas
Ohio
Nevada
New Mexico
Oregon

Obama
Wisconsin
Virginia
Iowa
Minnesota
Missouri
Colorado

This was in response to CH's claim that Obama was just winning mostly Red States and so his wins didn't matter. But six of his 23 wins, or 1/4th of them, have been swing states compared to Clinton's four swing state wins. He hasn't so much as disputed their swing state status with me. In fact, the closest I've gotten to a response is to restate his premise that Obama has won mostly Red States and that Clinton can win the swing states. Jocabia's list and my list have both countered that.

My other list was polls of swing states (and others, since I'm going to update it again) from RCP. This actually gives him room to argue but again, completely ignored-

Real Clear Politics (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/latestpolls/index.html) has tracked general election races for Obama and Clinton against McCain.
New ones (changed from the first time) in green, newer ones (changed for this post) in purple. Unfortunately you have to go to the post and then click the arrow (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13466972&postcount=202) to see the original numbers to compare. The most notable difference from the first time I did this was the dramatic drop of both Clinton and Obama in Florida, Obama falling much further.

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
Ohio: McCain vs. Obama Rasmussen McCain 42, Obama 41, Und 17 McCain +1
Ohio: McCain vs. Clinton Rasmussen McCain 46, Clinton 43, Und 11 McCain +3
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
Pennsylvania: McCain vs. Clinton Franklin & Marshall McCain 46, Clinton 46, Und 8 Tie
Pennsylvania: McCain vs. Obama Franklin & Marshall McCain 44, Obama 43, Und 13 McCain +1
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
Iowa: McCain vs. Clinton Rasmussen McCain 47, Clinton 37, Und 16 McCain +10
Iowa: McCain vs. Obama Rasmussen McCain 41, Obama 44, Und 15 Obama +3
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
Virginia: McCain vs. Clinton Rasmussen McCain 51, Clinton 41, Und 8 McCain +10
Virginia: McCain vs. Obama Rasmussen McCain 49, Obama 44, Und 7 McCain +5
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
New York: McCain vs. Clinton SurveyUSA McCain 41, Clinton 52, Und 7 Clinton +11
New York: McCain vs. Obama SurveyUSA McCain 36, Obama 57, Und 7 Obama +21
New York: McCain vs. Clinton Siena McCain 42, Clinton 49, Und 9 Clinton +7
New York: McCain vs. Obama Siena McCain 40, Obama 47, Und 13 Obama +7
Kansas: McCain vs. Clinton SurveyUSA McCain 59, Clinton 35, Und 6 McCain +24
Kansas: McCain vs. Obama SurveyUSA McCain 50, Obama 44, Und 6 McCain +6
New Jersey: McCain vs. Clinton Quinnipiac McCain 41, Clinton 47, Und 12 Clinton +6
New Jersey: McCain vs. Obama Quinnipiac McCain 39, Obama 46, Und 15 Obama +7
Michigan: McCain vs. Obama Rasmussen McCain 39, Obama 47, Und 14 Obama +8
Michigan: McCain vs. Clinton Rasmussen McCain 44, Clinton 44, Und 12 Tie


Not all of those are swing states by current definitions, but some of them show swing where there might not have been before. The list has grown unruly so I'll condense the results by collections of states-

McCain Leads Both Match Ups (States where Obama loses by less in italic)
Florida
Ohio
Missouri
Virginia
Kansas

States Obama is Leading but Clinton is Trailing McCain
Pennsylvania
Colorado
Iowa
Wisconsin
Minnesota
Virginia (Second new poll as well)
Oregon

States Clinton is Leading but Obama is Trailing McCain
Pennsylvania (Clinton is in a tie actually, Obama trails so I gave it to Clinton to give CH the fairest shake)


States Both Clinton and Obama Lead (States where Obama has a greater margin in italics)
New Hampshire
New York (on of them has it at a tie)
New Jersey
Michigan (Clinton actually ties McCain, but again, to give the fairest shake)

This has gone completely unaddressed. CH now uses the 'god' defense, his assertions are true and can't be proved wrong unless Obama wins the nomination, ergo we should not have Obama as the nominee. To which I have responded-
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.


Of course, he has largely abandoned the electability argument in favor of "OMG! He's going to invade Pakistan!!!"

Your only 'reasons' have been misquotes and quotes taken out of context.
I disagree and I gave supporting evidence.

And yet you won't do it in the Hillary thread either
That thread was set up by the OP to fail. The first post is entirely disingenuous.

1. the name calling is in large part due to the fact that you don't seem to realize when your argument has been refuted
The problem is that a multitude of people can suggest that my argument has been refuted, but that does not mean that my argument has in fact been refuted. Obama made a rookie mistake while vying to look like a seasoned major leaguer.

The inordinate amount of name calling is also Bush league and certainly not conducive to progressive debate. It is painfully obvious that the Obama supporters do not take kindly to any criticism of their star candidate. I can understand their passion, but the juvenile taunts of "stupid", "retarded", "idiot", etc. are totally unnecessary.

2. So you don't believe you can present your case for Hillary intelligently?
Of course I can, but when you see dialogue such as the following, what is the point?

I've championed her stance on mandatory healthcare with the point that, in politics, you're dealing with bargaining chips and it's best to start with the highest hand - un-addressed.

Heh. Un-addressed? It's an opinion. I have a different opinion. What do you want me to say? That you opinion is stupid? It is.
I would rather stay here on the Obama thread and chip away at the front runner.

I disagree and I gave supporting evidence.

No, in fact, you didn't. You gave a quote from Obama which, read in context by anyone sane, clearly did not mean what you were claiming it meant; and in support of your weak assertion that it did mean that, you offered some opinion pieces, which is only "evidence" that there, perhaps, a handful of other people who think like you do. Unfortunately for you, there is nobody who thinks like that around here.

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.

And guess what? It works. He may well be amongst the least appealling politicians I've ever had the misfortune to stumble upon; his diction, rhetorical style (or lack thereof) and bombast render him little more than a crude manipulator of people's frustrations.

I do hope he faces William Hague in a debate. Watching Obama get savaged by somebpdy with genuine eloquence and insight would be mightily entertaining.

And guess what? It works. He may well be amongst the least appealling politicians I've ever had the misfortune to stumble upon; his diction, rhetorical style (or lack thereof) and bombast render him little more than a crude manipulator of people's frustrations.

I do hope he faces William Hague in a debate. Watching Obama get savaged by somebpdy with genuine eloquence and insight would be mightily entertaining.


We all know the main reason you dont like him TBC.

We all know the main reason you dont like him TBC.

Yeah. He has no style to redeem the fact I dislike his policies to the same degree I do him as a person.

No, in fact, you didn't. You gave a quote from Obama which, read in context by anyone sane, clearly did not mean what you were claiming it meant; and in support of your weak assertion that it did mean that, you offered some opinion pieces, which is only "evidence" that there, perhaps, a handful of other people who think like you do. Unfortunately for you, there is nobody who thinks like that around here.

seconded

Mine were the lists of recognized swing states (granted according to Wikipedia) and who won which (Obama has won six of them, Clinton four but leads the polls in three more-take into consideration, though, that when I made the list Clinton led Wisconsin where she eventually lost by 17%)

Clinton
New Hampshire
Pennsylvania
Arkansas
Ohio
Nevada
New Mexico
Oregon

Obama
Wisconsin
Virginia
Iowa
Minnesota
Missouri
Colorado

This was in response to CH's claim that Obama was just winning mostly Red States and so his wins didn't matter. But six of his 23 wins, or 1/4th of them, have been swing states compared to Clinton's four swing state wins. He hasn't so much as disputed their swing state status with me. In fact, the closest I've gotten to a response is to restate his premise that Obama has won mostly Red States and that Clinton can win the swing states. Jocabia's list and my list have both countered that.

My other list was polls of swing states (and others, since I'm going to update it again) from RCP. This actually gives him room to argue but again, completely ignored-

Real Clear Politics (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/latestpolls/index.html) has tracked general election races for Obama and Clinton against McCain.
New ones (changed from the first time) in green, newer ones (changed for this post) in purple. Unfortunately you have to go to the post and then click the arrow (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13466972&postcount=202) to see the original numbers to compare. The most notable difference from the first time I did this was the dramatic drop of both Clinton and Obama in Florida, Obama falling much further.

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
Ohio: McCain vs. Obama Rasmussen McCain 42, Obama 41, Und 17 McCain +1
Ohio: McCain vs. Clinton Rasmussen McCain 46, Clinton 43, Und 11 McCain +3
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
Pennsylvania: McCain vs. Clinton Franklin & Marshall McCain 46, Clinton 46, Und 8 Tie
Pennsylvania: McCain vs. Obama Franklin & Marshall McCain 44, Obama 43, Und 13 McCain +1
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
Iowa: McCain vs. Clinton Rasmussen McCain 47, Clinton 37, Und 16 McCain +10
Iowa: McCain vs. Obama Rasmussen McCain 41, Obama 44, Und 15 Obama +3
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
Virginia: McCain vs. Clinton Rasmussen McCain 51, Clinton 41, Und 8 McCain +10
Virginia: McCain vs. Obama Rasmussen McCain 49, Obama 44, Und 7 McCain +5
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
New York: McCain vs. Clinton SurveyUSA McCain 41, Clinton 52, Und 7 Clinton +11
New York: McCain vs. Obama SurveyUSA McCain 36, Obama 57, Und 7 Obama +21
New York: McCain vs. Clinton Siena McCain 42, Clinton 49, Und 9 Clinton +7
New York: McCain vs. Obama Siena McCain 40, Obama 47, Und 13 Obama +7
Kansas: McCain vs. Clinton SurveyUSA McCain 59, Clinton 35, Und 6 McCain +24
Kansas: McCain vs. Obama SurveyUSA McCain 50, Obama 44, Und 6 McCain +6
New Jersey: McCain vs. Clinton Quinnipiac McCain 41, Clinton 47, Und 12 Clinton +6
New Jersey: McCain vs. Obama Quinnipiac McCain 39, Obama 46, Und 15 Obama +7
Michigan: McCain vs. Obama Rasmussen McCain 39, Obama 47, Und 14 Obama +8
Michigan: McCain vs. Clinton Rasmussen McCain 44, Clinton 44, Und 12 Tie


Not all of those are swing states by current definitions, but some of them show swing where there might not have been before. The list has grown unruly so I'll condense the results by collections of states-

McCain Leads Both Match Ups (States where Obama loses by less in italic)
Florida
Ohio
Missouri
Virginia
Kansas

States Obama is Leading but Clinton is Trailing McCain
Pennsylvania
Colorado
Iowa
Wisconsin
Minnesota
Virginia (Second new poll as well)
Oregon

States Clinton is Leading but Obama is Trailing McCain
Pennsylvania (Clinton is in a tie actually, Obama trails so I gave it to Clinton to give CH the fairest shake)


States Both Clinton and Obama Lead (States where Obama has a greater margin in italics)
New Hampshire
New York (on of them has it at a tie)
New Jersey
Michigan (Clinton actually ties McCain, but again, to give the fairest shake)

This has gone completely unaddressed. CH now uses the 'god' defense, his assertions are true and can't be proved wrong unless Obama wins the nomination, ergo we should not have Obama as the nominee. To which I have responded-


Of course, he has largely abandoned the electability argument in favor of "OMG! He's going to invade Pakistan!!!"

I must congratulate you on your hard work of bringing facts and statistical information to the forefront. Now all you need to do is get some teenager from youtube as your link and you'll have me sold. ;)

I must congratulate you on your hard work of bringing facts and statistical information to the forefront. Now all you need to do is get some teenager from youtube as your link and you'll have me sold. ;)

Does Obama Girl count? :D

I disagree and I gave supporting evidence.

Your evidence does not say invade. It proves he does not plan to invade to anyone who knows what invade means.


That thread was set up by the OP to fail. The first post is entirely disingenuous.

Puh. You'll say or do anything to avoid actually having to talk about your candidate. How about you start your own thread then? I'll take bets on the fact that you won't. I'll even give odds.


The problem is that a multitude of people can suggest that my argument has been refuted, but that does not mean that my argument has in fact been refuted. Obama made a rookie mistake while vying to look like a seasoned major leaguer.

The inordinate amount of name calling is also Bush league and certainly not conducive to progressive debate. It is painfully obvious that the Obama supporters do not take kindly to any criticism of their star candidate. I can understand their passion, but the juvenile taunts of "stupid", "retarded", "idiot", etc. are totally unnecessary.

Hehe. Oh, really? You've said that everyone who disagrees with you is either too stupid to understand or lying. Many people make great arguments for Hillary. My roommate in TX is one of them. You aren't. In fact, you've adequately demonstrated that you're completely unwilling to even try.


Of course I can, but when you see dialogue such as the following, what is the point?

I would rather stay here on the Obama thread and chip away at the front runner.

Hehe. So? I originally addressed it as just saying we agree to disagree and he said I'd not addressed it. I was joking with him about how far he needed me to go in order to get him to accept that I'd stated as much as I could about something that's just an opinion. It turned out I'd missed a post and that he was actually asking me to address larger evidence. I've not gotten to it yet, becuase it was quite substantive, but Barringtonia and I are getting along fine, friend. He's defending your candidate while you refuse to.

Meanwhile, I'm in both threads. And, thank you for finally admitting your goals. You don't believe you can lift up Hillary, so you're trying to bring down Obama. Negative politics is an embarrassment to your intelligence.

Meanwhile, I'm in both threads. And, thank you for finally admitting your goals. You don't believe you can lift up Hillary, so you're trying to bring down Obama. Negative politics is an embarrassment to your intelligence.
Not to mention running entirely contrary to his earlier statements-
Actually, I am getting rather bored with the Obamalites who despite their rhetoric are inflicting so much damage on their party. The biggest problem is that they can't even see it. I envisage a severely damaged and divisive party that won't have what it takes to put a Democrat in the White House.

Not to mention running entirely contrary to his earlier statements-

I'm going through and selecting the amount of space he uses alternately saying everyone is too stupid to understand him and attacking people for not sticking to points.

I'm going through and selecting the amount of space he uses alternately saying everyone is too stupid to understand him and attacking people for not sticking to points.

You might want to make a snack, you'll be at it a while.

Craziness. It's so strange looking at the list of states for each of them.

yup. obama has a super high utter blow-out rate. like a ridiculously high one for a race that is still allegedly competitive.

A few CanuckHeaven quotes, since he's all about substance, of course.
---

Well living in denial is not the best place to be.

I assure you that I am not trolling but you certainly are.

"If you think about it long enough, it will become clearer." (see how not only does he call the person stupid, but now he thinks that we're so stupid we won't notice.)

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

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

"You are wrong on so many points here, I can't be bothered pointing them out. Do some reading and some research and you will realize what I am saying. Don't let your blind hatred for Hillary block you from the truth." (This is the entire post. In essense, "you're wrong, but you're so ignorant I can't explain it to you. Oh, yeah, and you're deluded and that's why you can't see the truth.")

"Is your love affair for Obama so great that you would gladly screw over the delegates of two States with a population of 29 Million people?" (More comments about how people who don't agree with him are deluded.

"You all realize that if Michigan and Florida delegates get representation, then Hillary will more than likely win the nomination.

So of course, Obama supporters would prefer to believe that Florida and Michigan doesn't exist for the nomination process." (Dishonest and delusional if you support following the rules.)

"Ahhh, so you don't have any "facts", therefore it would be logical to assume that you are just making stuff up."

"Of course you would. Quite often "facts" and "logic" are rare commodities for you."

"I realize that it tells you nothing.

And yes, it would be really sad for me to act like you, so I won't bother. " (He bolded the you in an effort to point out that Corny is the problem.)

"I don't think you get it. Do you?" (Again, that's his entire argument. Nothing else in the post.)

"Ummm, take your incomplete numbers and claims of "intellectual dishonesty" and shove them where the sun don't shine." (In response to "Hillary did not score more delegates as of now and to say she did is intellectual dishonesty.")

"I believe that the Yahoo News article posted by Corny is totally out to lunch." (In response Corny ask him to prove it. CH responded with "To be honest with you, I can't be bothered.")

"It would appear that there is no shortage of "intellectual dishonesty" on this forum?"




----

And just for the lulz - "I agree. Although I prefer Hillary, you won't see me playing the name calling game. That is truly divisive."

and

"Well there is such a word.

Bushevik.

And you do seem to fit the mold."

'Would I expect a true Bushevik to say anything complimentary? Towards the Clintons that is. "


---

ONe more bit - "As far as I am concerned, Clinton is the best choice, and that is what debate is all about.

Now if only you could drop your phony I love Obama because I really hate Clinton routine"

Notice not only does accuse Corny of lying, but he also says that he is about debating why Clinton is the best candidate. Given what he just said, I think we've proven he's not willing to debate about Hillary at all.

Keep in mind this is from the first half of the first thread we all started in. During that time CTOAN was repeatedly defending CanuckHeaven and he, we were all, begging him to just reply to the substantive posts, but he regularly just replied with "You're wrong." "I don't agree." "I can't be bothered." "I'm too busy." or just "No." This has never been a debate. Only one side is willing to actually address the posts of the other side. Only one side is willing to examine evidence.

He voted against the Iraqi war :D

that is the one reason I WILL NEVER VOTE FOR HIM!!! popluar or not that war needed to be fought, still dose. if we give up, all those deaths are meaningless. I WON'T DO THAT TO OUR TROOPS!!! by voting for someone who dose'nt back them you might as well surrender;:sniper:

You might want to make a snack, you'll be at it a while.

I didn't have the heart to keep going. He's going to mention that they aren't "really" attacks. You know because talking about how people are just too deluded to understand is okay as long as you use euphamisms.

I'm tempted to show the number of times he simply ignored substantive posts, but it's pretty much impossible to show, since usually he just didn't reply at all.

My favorite was when I spent an hour and a half on a post showing voting history for states and a half day later he says he's going to give a good reply when he has the time. Then "when he has the time" another half day later, I get "no, no, no, no, no."

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13440457&postcount=440

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13441052&postcount=456

After a day, a full day, here was the reply.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13443083&postcount=527

Not so amusingly, he claims I didn't understand (so much for rising about personal attacks) his point. His point that I was attempting to address - "Obama won mostly the Red States, , and let's face facts, those Red states that Obama won are very unlikely to vote Democrat in the general election?" And apparently, a list of the states each candidate won, and whether or not they have gone blue in the past (and an occasional mention if they were particularly close recently) does not address such a claim? In what world? Then after a full day, I got, "nope" and "you just don't understand my point" (with no clarification of what exactly about his point I missed).


I lost patience with him pretty quickly, and I like Canuck, but you made it about 26 pages in before you finally just lost it and asked what the hell he was doing.

How do you reply to posts where the entire substance is "nuh-uh"? Let me demonstrate some of his claims that I "attacked" him, just to give you an idea of where we started and how we got here. First in the link above, saying he keeps making false claims is an attack. Um, huh? Isn't it presupposed if we're debating that I think his claims are false?

But here's another.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13439517&postcount=411

I said his claims were spurious. A synonym for false. In a debate. How dare I?

Oh, and calling it "spin" is labeling, of course. Want me to link all the posts where he called it "spin". Also, notice that he didn't actually say anything other than complaining about my style. Nothing.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13441784&postcount=500

By the way, you gotta love hypocrisy.

What was the blanket statement? It was that nukes were off the table in use against terrorist camps.

Her response is "Don't make blanket statements." In other words, "Don't say you won't use nukes against terrorist camps." In other words, "Nukes are still on the table for use against terrorist camps."

Here, using quotation marks, you are clearly putting words in her mouth. That is not what she said.

The hypocrisy of this when he's claiming Obama said he would "invade". This particularly funny when what they're discussing above is how Hillary didn't like that he ruled out using nukes in those military actions into Pakistan.

I didn't have the heart to keep going. He's going to mention that they aren't "really" attacks. You know because talking about how people are just too deluded to understand is okay as long as you use euphamisms.

I'm tempted to show the number of times he simply ignored substantive posts, but it's pretty much impossible to show, since usually he just didn't reply at all.

My favorite was when I spent an hour and a half on a post showing voting history for states and a half day later he says he's going to give a good reply when he has the time. Then "when he has the time" another half day later, I get "no, no, no, no, no."

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13440457&postcount=440

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13441052&postcount=456



I lost patience with him pretty quickly, and I like Canuck, but you made it about 26 pages in before you finally just lost it and asked what the hell he was doing.

How do you reply to posts where the entire substance is "nuh-uh"? Let me demonstrate some of his claims that I "attacked" him, just to give you an idea of where we started and how we got here. First in the link above, saying he keeps making false claims is an attack. Um, huh? Isn't it presupposed if we're debating that I think his claims are false?

But here's another.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13439517&postcount=411

I said his claims were spurious. A synonym for false. In a debate. How dare I?

Oh, and calling it "spin" is labeling, of course. Want me to link all the posts where he called it "spin". Also, notice that he didn't actually say anything other than complaining about my style. Nothing.

When you're on the ropes your last hope is to play to the ref. You reminded me that after he had slammed me for the nth time for my 'blind Obama love' I thought about stringing together all the times I had defended Clinton or even had fun with Obama's lofty rhetoric or even acknowledged that there were things about Obama that I didn't neccesarily agree with, but at this point why bother? Actual substantive debate has started to emerge, there's no need to humor him anymore than we would the more 'extreme' posters.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13441784&postcount=500

By the way, you gotta love hypocrisy.

[Quote = Dem]What was the blanket statement? It was that nukes were off the table in use against terrorist camps.

Her response is "Don't make blanket statements." In other words, "Don't say you won't use nukes against terrorist camps." In other words, "Nukes are still on the table for use against terrorist camps."[ /quote]

[Quote = Canuck]Here, using quotation marks, you are clearly putting words in her mouth. That is not what she said.[ /quote]

The hypocrisy of this when he's claiming Obama said he would "invade". This particularly funny when what they're discussing above is how Hillary didn't like that he ruled out using nukes in those military actions into Pakistan.
Fuck, dude, I had forgotten about that. He's a step away from receiving a note from the Clinton campaign, "Please don't do us any favors. Seriously."

So I'm two pages into the transcript of the debate last night.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/02/22/america/21textdemdebate.php?page=2

She opens very, very well. I finished just her bit and I thought it was nearly perfect. She points to what she's done and how she's got the country moving in the right direction. Brilliant.

Then Obama says his bit. First, he actually acknowledges and compliments her. She didn't. Points to him. But worse, he points out that people feel like we aren't moving in the right direction and he highlights exactly why and how they feel. And given her opening, that seems like a pretty serious blow. It's strange for me to react that way because I was so impressed by her opening. Wow.

Skipping Cuba and the economy because even the differences there weren't very big to me.

In fact, I'm going to skip a lot because there have already been comments or I got bored (sorry).

This kills me though

Q:And House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, the highest-ranking Democrat in government, said recently -- and I'm quoting -- "It would be a problem" -- and this is a question for you, Senator Clinton -- "It would be a problem for the party if the verdict would be something different than the public has decided." Do you agree?
A:Well, you know, these are the rules that are followed, and I -- you know, I think that it'll sort itself out. I'm not worried about that. We will have a nominee, and we will a unified Democratic Party, and we will go on to victory in November.

Uh, that's totally not an answer. At all.

Obama's answer: Well, I think it is important, given how hard Senator Clinton and I have been working, that these primaries and caucuses count for something. (Applause.) And so my belief is that -- that the will of the voters, expressed in this long election process, is what ultimately determine who our next nominee is going to be.

The difference is so stark there (though this is totally a softball question for him).

On the final question, I liked both of their responses, but I noted he pointed to several specific challenges and how they affected him and she basically alluded to Bill cheating and skipped over it. Her answer was good, but she kind of skipped the point a little quickly (yes, they always skip to their talking points, but she should address the question first).

CTOAN, you listened to it (I was on a plane). Did you notice any questions that went the other way? That Obama really didn't answer at all?

EDIT: Oh, and the health care bit was BEAUTIFUL. I love both of their passion. I think he got the first blows there, but she parried really well. She probably came out a little stronger in the end. I wouldn't have minded if they'd let that exchange continue.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13441784&postcount=500

By the way, you gotta love hypocrisy.

What was the blanket statement? It was that nukes were off the table in use against terrorist camps.

Her response is "Don't make blanket statements." In other words, "Don't say you won't use nukes against terrorist camps." In other words, "Nukes are still on the table for use against terrorist camps."

Here, using quotation marks, you are clearly putting words in her mouth. That is not what she said.

The hypocrisy of this when he's claiming Obama said he would "invade". This particularly funny when what they're discussing above is how Hillary didn't like that he ruled out using nukes in those military actions into Pakistan.
Too bad you dragged this over from the other thread, but it appears that you too are confused by Hillary's comment and mine?

It is not that "Hillary didn't like that he ruled out using nukes in those military actions into Pakistan", what she didn't like is (http://www.usatoday.com/news/topstories/2007-08-02-2649906268_x.htm):

Asked about Obama's speech and his comments about nuclear weapons, New York Sen. Clinton chided Obama for addressing hypotheticals.

"Presidents should be very careful at all times in discussing the use or nonuse of nuclear weapons. ... I don't believe that any president should make any blanket statements with respect to the use or nonuse of nuclear weapons," Clinton said.

Asked about the idea of unilateral U.S. military action in Pakistan to get al-Qaida leadership, Clinton said: "How we do it should not be telegraphed or discussed for obvious reasons."
Here are some of the obvious reasons:

Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware, one of Obama's presidential rivals, also criticized Obama's comments about unilateral military action in Pakistan to pursue terrorists.

"It's a well-intended notion he has, but it's a very naive way of figuring out how you're going to conduct foreign policy," Biden, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said on National Public Radio's "The Diane Rehm Show."

Sen. Chris Dodd of Connecticut, a member of the Foreign Relations Committee along with Obama, also took his rival to task.

"Over the past several days, Senator Obama's assertions about foreign and military affairs have been, frankly, confusing and confused. He has made threats he should not make and made unwise categorical statements about military options," Dodd said in a statement.

Pakistan has nuclear weapons and is politically unstable, raising concerns that the current military leadership could be replaced by religious fanatics who would be less cautious in using the weapons.
And more reason for concern about his comments:

In an AP interview Thursday, the governor of Pakistan's largest province said Obama's comments undermine crucial efforts to win Pakistanis' support for the fight against terrorists.

Baluchistan Gov. Owais Ahmed Ghani, whose province shares a long border with Afghanistan, said Pakistanis watch their soldiers being killed in the fight against militants and say, "If that is the sort of signal that is coming out of Washington, why bother?"

"Nothing must be said or done which will undermine the vital public support that Pakistan needs, the world needs," he said.
And more reasons:

During the July 23 debate, he said he would hold face-to-face negotiations as president with leaders of enemy nations, and earlier this week, he said he would invade an ally, Pakistan, if its leaders are not helpful enough in the war on terror.

Pakistan's minister of state for information, Tariq Azeem, told Agence France-Presse that Mr. Obama showed "sheer ignorance" in threatening to take military action without the consent of an ally, while fellow Democrats blasted Mr. Obama for his military strategizing and said he is showing a lack of experience and understanding.

Youtubes of the debate being posted here (http://youtube.com/profile_videos?user=yd2008).

So I'm two pages into the transcript of the debate last night.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/02/22/america/21textdemdebate.php?page=2

She opens very, very well. I finished just her bit and I thought it was nearly perfect. She points to what she's done and how she's got the country moving in the right direction. Brilliant.

Then Obama says his bit. First, he actually acknowledges and compliments her. She didn't. Points to him. But worse, he points out that people feel like we aren't moving in the right direction and he highlights exactly why and how they feel. And given her opening, that seems like a pretty serious blow. It's strange for me to react that way because I was so impressed by her opening. Wow.

Skipping Cuba and the economy because even the differences there weren't very big to me.

In fact, I'm going to skip a lot because there have already been comments or I got bored (sorry).

This kills me though

Q:And House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, the highest-ranking Democrat in government, said recently -- and I'm quoting -- "It would be a problem" -- and this is a question for you, Senator Clinton -- "It would be a problem for the party if the verdict would be something different than the public has decided." Do you agree?
A:Well, you know, these are the rules that are followed, and I -- you know, I think that it'll sort itself out. I'm not worried about that. We will have a nominee, and we will a unified Democratic Party, and we will go on to victory in November.

Uh, that's totally not an answer. At all.

Obama's answer: Well, I think it is important, given how hard Senator Clinton and I have been working, that these primaries and caucuses count for something. (Applause.) And so my belief is that -- that the will of the voters, expressed in this long election process, is what ultimately determine who our next nominee is going to be.

The difference is so stark there (though this is totally a softball question for him).

On the final question, I liked both of their responses, but I noted he pointed to several specific challenges and how they affected him and she basically alluded to Bill cheating and skipped over it. Her answer was good, but she kind of skipped the point a little quickly (yes, they always skip to their talking points, but she should address the question first).

CTOAN, you listened to it (I was on a plane). Did you notice any questions that went the other way? That Obama really didn't answer at all?

EDIT: Oh, and the health care bit was BEAUTIFUL. I love both of their passion. I think he got the first blows there, but she parried really well. She probably came out a little stronger in the end. I wouldn't have minded if they'd let that exchange continue.

He kind of dodged questions about his record, unless I missed his answers, and for a while when they talked about differences it didn't really seem like they were. One would say, "I want to do all this stuff," then the other would say, "That's great, I also want to do all this stuff." So the only real meat was differences in Health Care and how they dealt with diplomacy, Obama essentially asserting that you can't get anyone to do anything by refusing to talk to them and Clinton making talking a privilege that they have to earn. She scored some points by saying when she does talk she'd take a coalition with her to demonstrate that it's not longer just a cowboy but rather an actual discussion, but by putting all those preconditions to talking undermined that I think.

Her biggest fuck up was the 'change you can Xerox' moment where she was booed. I think, to her credit, she turned on her heel there and recovered with a real good closing remark about unity, etc. That's where I think Obama lost some ground after defending borrowed words as menial within minutes of the end of his debate his campaign had sent in an e-mail comparing her closing remarks to those of Edwards. It was needlessly petty when he had already won the point and lost him some of the high ground one the subject. Granted that was his campaign and not him since he was still signing signatures at the time, but if the people he picks make a bad decision it should still reflect on him. My hope is that they drop it and fast.

EDIT: I did miss his response to his record. I'm listening to him now and he's giving a laundry list.

Here are some of the obvious reasons:


And more reason for concern about his comments:


And more reasons:

I've posted this link before, but I'll do it again: http://youtube.com/watch?v=v0tgxVmVQpw

It has Obama's response to those arguments. Basically, we're discussing what may be the most important foreign policy issue of the near future, and the idea that it should not be discussed in the public arena is antithetical to democracy.

A president that won't rule out using nukes, or makes other believe she won't rule out using nukes, is far more dangerous to the world, and serves to push the world back to the nearly-catastrophic days of MAD, except with more actors and more powerful weapons. Anybody who thinks that saying we won't use nukes in a situation where they wouldn't be appropriate is dangerous is loony. That kind of thinking assumes that having foreign actors believe that the US is irrational and has an itchy trigger finger will result in a safer world.

edit - and we've already established that Obama's statements are actually more likely to improve stability in Iran by taking the heat off Musharraf. Dodd's an idiot in that regard, or more likely he was just trying to be politically opportunistic.

And more reason for concern about his comments:


And more reasons:
Of course Pakistan is going to have a problem with it. It would be silly to think that they wouldn't. No one, not even Obama, would have thought their response was going to be, "Sure, knock yourself out. We don't give a shit."

But the truth is that Pakistan has not been a perfect ally. Musharrif specifically. It has been an uneasy partnership that actually speaks to the root of a lot of our difficulties in that area, that we are seen as supporting dictator and oppressive rule in the area as long as it serves our needs. While this isn't as super pronounced in Pakistan, Musharrif under any other circumstances would be someone we'd be leaning on.

Obama in the full text of his speech acknowledges that we need their help and they need ours, but if that help is half assed, it's not really help at all. He acknowledged the need for assistance-
And Pakistan needs more than F-16s to combat extremism. As the Pakistani government increases investment in secular education to counter radical madrasas, my Administration will increase America’s commitment. We must help Pakistan invest in the provinces along the Afghan border, so that the extremists’ program of hate is met with one of hope. And we must not turn a blind eye to elections that are neither free nor fair – our goal is not simply an ally in Pakistan, it is a democratic ally.

And again, it's not just a threat to invade but rather a recognition of the state of our alliance -
But that is no excuse. There must be no safe-haven for terrorists who threaten America. We cannot fail to act because action is hard.


As President, I would make the hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. military aid to Pakistan conditional, and I would make our conditions clear: Pakistan must make substantial progress in closing down the training camps, evicting foreign fighters, and preventing the Taliban from using Pakistan as a staging area for attacks in Afghanistan.
An ally is no good if you're pouring into it and not getting the results you need. Of course Pakistan is going to balk at that-no one expects them to tuck their tail and say, "Okay, we're sorry." but at the same time the alliance isn't really working.

They're upset about it. I expect them to be. But when you look at what he wants to do, and not cherry pick and equivocate, he's talking about strengthening a troubled alliance and brings a whole lot to the table before we even start to consider attacking camps on our own.

I don't find it a negative that he talks realistically about the situation there.

Youtubes of the debate being posted here (http://youtube.com/profile_videos?user=yd2008).

It's being replayed at least here on the best, sorry, West Coast...(sorry, couldn't resist)

EDIT: Rather than deleting this I think I'll add an address to the comparison because as I read it again it actually resembles a point and those should be encouraged since they are so sparse.

As I read the argument it is as followed:

It's not whether or not Clinton would use nukes, but rather discussing a hypothetical one way or the other about a specific situation is dangerous. To exemplify that he points to a hypothetical that Obama addressed and the fall out that has resulted from that.

Where he has gone off the rails is to insist that Obama was saying he would invade Pakistan with little regard to what Obama said and what the context was. By insisting on that interpretation he has derailed what might have been his strongest point.

Because the base of that can be argued. If he had stuck to the facts of the issue instead of the hyperbole he'd be on stronger ground. The three basic elements of the premise are true. 1-Clinton thinks that addressing hypotheticals is not a good idea because you are creating a situation where you are defending yourself against an action you haven't taken and have agitated a situation that didn't necessarily exist. (I'm being generous here, from what I read she's really saying 'Keep 'em guessin', don't let 'em know what you'd do,' but for the sake of getting actual debate off the ground I'll run with the generous take), 2-Obama addressed a hypothetical situation (again, this is a tad generous because Clinton's initial rebuke was about Obama's willingness to admit that he wouldn't use a hammer on an ant infestation) 3-There has been diplomatic fall out over his address of a hypothetical situation.

Those are all, more or less, true.

However, in the context that they are put in they are not as strong or black and white. A nuclear weapon is not the tool for the job, and saying you won't use one in the circumstance is no more out of place than saying you wouldn't use a dune buggy. There is very few if any situations where a group of terrorists are going to say, "Should we do this?" "Yeah, it's cool. They won't use nukes so we're alright." Our nuclear arsenal is a deterent for an enemy that is a state itself, not one that hides within a state. Saying that we won't use a nuclear weapon is not giving away a hypothetical, it is recognizing that you have an idea of what tools go to what job.

The second part of that, the hypothetical that Obama addressed. It is dissengenious and derails the more solid point to insist that it is a call for invasion. It is far from that and involves far more in the way of cooperation, but acknowledges that the cooperation so far has been lacking, that making excuses for our 'friends' is doing us no favors. Pretending the partnership is more than it is so as not to upset anyone has not worked.

So it comes to the third part, the fall out. I have argued above that that was to be expected. In this instance he's talking about the kind of thing that has been happening and saying that if their partnership doesn't address it it is not much of a partnership. It's akin to telling your business partner that if they don't get their work done you'll do it. Will it hurt his feelings? Yes. Might it affect the partnership? Absolutely. But if the work doesn't get done, you're sunk. Obama is offering aid and assistance with one hand but letting it be known that the work has to get done.

Where you lost your way was to insist on the equivocation on one end and dismiss it when the standard was applied in the other direction. I no more believe that Clinton will start nuking people once she's in office than I do that Obama will start an invasion of Pakistan. However, since Obama was willing to lay out what he wants from the partnership with Pakistan I know what he is working toward, so while the hypothetical has hurt some feelings, it has underlined what's at stake. With Clinton I don't know that she would not use the wrong tool for the wrong job.

This is exactly Obama's strength, the key difference. It is a transparent approach, this is what we want, this is what is at stake. Now that we know, lets sit down and work this out. It's that kind of diplomacy that speaks. Now we can debate one over the other, but to let yourself drag out equivocal and hyperbolic debate you lose the only ground you might possibly have had.

Too bad you dragged this over from the other thread, but it appears that you too are confused by Hillary's comment and mine?

Good thing you'd never make personal comments about "confusion" or "lack of understanding". You crack me up.

But I'm not confused at all.

"There's been no discussion of using nuclear weapons, and that's not a hypothetical that I'm going to discuss," Obama said. When asked whether his answer also applied to the possible use of tactical nuclear weapons, he said it did.

By the afternoon, Clinton (N.Y.) had responded with an implicit rebuke. "Presidents should be careful at all times in discussing the use and nonuse of nuclear weapons," she said, adding that she would not answer hypothetical questions about the use of nuclear force.

"Presidents since the Cold War have used nuclear deterrents to keep the peace, and I don't believe any president should make blanket statements with the regard to use or nonuse," Clinton said.

She publicly rebuked him for saying nukes were not on the table in terms of a response to terrorism in Pakistan. There is no way to take that but to recognize that she's saying she wouldn't be silly enough to publicly take them off the table, meaning, they're on the table (since the table is public).




It is not that "Hillary didn't like that he ruled out using nukes in those military actions into Pakistan", what she didn't like is (http://www.usatoday.com/news/topstories/2007-08-02-2649906268_x.htm):

Uh-huh. How about we just look at what she said. She said plainly that she didn't like him ruling out nukes. "Presidents should be careful at all times in discussing the use and nonuse of nuclear weapons." To be fair, she is also saying he shouldn't say he would use them. She is just saying they aren't ruled out for her, and that he shouldn't say they are for him.

Meanwhile, the point of bringing it is that you chastised Dem for paraphrasing, which is EXACTLY what you've been doing for a dozen pages on the invasion issue. This is why the term "intellectually dishonest" keeps coming up. Go ahead and avoid the point a little more. It's amusing.



Here are some of the obvious reasons:


And more reason for concern about his comments:


And more reasons:

Hehe. Nothing like moving those goalposts a little bit further, huh?

And quick, quick, change the subject, we nearly discussed Hillary for a second there. We know how you wouldn't want to do that.

No one has denied that there is a valid discussion about whether or not he should have said what he did, but it's a blatant lie that he saiid he would invade. He said he wouldn't rule out military action if the information was credible and specific. But hey, when she was talking about nukes, she wasn't really talking about nukes, but when he says he won't rule military action, he really means we're gonna invade. Nice and intellectually consistant.

Of course Pakistan is going to have a problem with it. It would be silly to think that they wouldn't. No one, not even Obama, would have thought their response was going to be, "Sure, knock yourself out. We don't give a shit."

But the truth is that Pakistan has not been a perfect ally. Musharrif specifically. It has been an uneasy partnership that actually speaks to the root of a lot of our difficulties in that area, that we are seen as supporting dictator and oppressive rule in the area as long as it serves our needs. While this isn't as super pronounced in Pakistan, Musharrif under any other circumstances would be someone we'd be leaning on.

Obama in the full text of his speech acknowledges that we need their help and they need ours, but if that help is half assed, it's not really help at all. He acknowledged the need for assistance-


And again, it's not just a threat to invade but rather a recognition of the state of our alliance -

An ally is no good if you're pouring into it and not getting the results you need. Of course Pakistan is going to balk at that-no one expects them to tuck their tail and say, "Okay, we're sorry." but at the same time the alliance isn't really working.

They're upset about it. I expect them to be. But when you look at what he wants to do, and not cherry pick and equivocate, he's talking about strengthening a troubled alliance and brings a whole lot to the table before we even start to consider attacking camps on our own.

I don't find it a negative that he talks realistically about the situation there.



It's being replayed at least here on the best, sorry, West Coast...(sorry, couldn't resist)

You notice how he completely skipped over the point, which is that he chastised Dem disingenuously for paraphrasing what Hillary said, while stating that she's paraphrasing, and then in this thread said that "invade" was Obama's "exact words". Add some bananas and that's a hearty breakfast.

By the way, I'm going to repost a bit of your quotes with bolding for emphasis.

"And Pakistan needs more than F-16s to combat extremism. As the Pakistani government increases investment in secular education to counter radical madrasas, my Administration will increase America’s commitment. We must help Pakistan invest in the provinces along the Afghan border, so that the extremists’ program of hate is met with one of hope. And we must not turn a blind eye to elections that are neither free nor fair – our goal is not simply an ally in Pakistan, it is a democratic ally."

Yup, clearly he means he's going to add ground troops. :rolleyes: (I hate using smilies, but one can never tell if CH will realize when I'm joking.)

You notice how he completely skipped over the point, which is that he chastised Dem disingenuously for paraphrasing what Hillary said, while stating that she's paraphrasing, and then in this thread said that "invade" was Obama's "exact words". Add some bananas and that's a hearty breakfast.
I noticed. I've actually been considering deleting my comment because it takes the bait.

I settled on editing my post instead in the hopes of actually directing an actual debate, because buried in all the bullshit is actually something to debate about. We'll see if that pans out. The edit follows the original text quoted above.

that is the one reason I WILL NEVER VOTE FOR HIM!!! popluar or not that war needed to be fought, still dose. if we give up, all those deaths are meaningless. I WON'T DO THAT TO OUR TROOPS!!! by voting for someone who dose'nt back them you might as well surrender;:sniper:

No, it didn't need to be fought... Saddam Hussein was never a threat to the U.S., nor did he have any connections with Al-Queda.

When you're on the ropes your last hope is to play to the ref. You reminded me that after he had slammed me for the nth time for my 'blind Obama love' I thought about stringing together all the times I had defended Clinton or even had fun with Obama's lofty rhetoric or even acknowledged that there were things about Obama that I didn't neccesarily agree with, but at this point why bother? Actual substantive debate has started to emerge, there's no need to humor him anymore than we would the more 'extreme' posters.

Not to mention his 'attack' on me for "blindly following Obama", even after I pointed out to him that I am not, in fact, an Obama supporter.

From a few clips of the debate last night - is it just me or did it look like Obama was drawing Hillary's head on random animals while she was talking?

You notice how he completely skipped over the point, which is that he chastised Dem disingenuously for paraphrasing what Hillary said, while stating that she's paraphrasing,
Dem was not paraphrasing what Hillary stated. Dem used quotation marks and added her own thoughts and then attributed those words to Hillary. Now that is disengenuous on her part indeed.

and then in this thread said that "invade" was Obama's "exact words".
And again you are making stuff up. I never stated that Obama used the word invade and I never stated that Obamas "exact words" were that he would "invade" Pakistan.

Perhaps you are confusing this post (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13468310&postcount=240)and making it your truth?

By the way, I'm going to repost a bit of your quotes with bolding for emphasis.

"And Pakistan needs more than F-16s to combat extremism. As the Pakistani government increases investment in secular education to counter radical madrasas, my Administration will increase America’s commitment. We must help Pakistan invest in the provinces along the Afghan border, so that the extremists’ program of hate is met with one of hope. And we must not turn a blind eye to elections that are neither free nor fair – our goal is not simply an ally in Pakistan, it is a democratic ally."
And where have we heard words similar to these? Bush stating his goals for Iraq and Afghanistan...that is where. Iraq is coming up to 5 years and Afghanistan is coming up to 7 years..... of turmoil!!

Now all we need is another President to create a new "battlefield in Pakistan".

And of course, the US will offer them all the same goodies that Iraq and Afghanistan have been blessed with. :rolleyes:

I noticed. I've actually been considering deleting my comment because it takes the bait.

I settled on editing my post instead in the hopes of actually directing an actual debate, because buried in all the bullshit is actually something to debate about. We'll see if that pans out. The edit follows the original text quoted above.
As soon as I get a moment, I will go back and read that post. I started to read it, but I got pulled away.

I don't have time to address your whole post at this sitting but I will chip away at it. I do believe that meaningful dialogue can be achieved. Pakistan is a large part of the enigma in that part of the world and I think it is going to require a lot of statesmanship to ensure that it does not become an even more unstable, fragmented situation. That is why I got my hackles up when I first discussed Obama's tough talk on Pakistan when it was announced last year.

Starting here:
Of course Pakistan is going to have a problem with it. It would be silly to think that they wouldn't. No one, not even Obama, would have thought their response was going to be, "Sure, knock yourself out. We don't give a shit."

But the truth is that Pakistan has not been a perfect ally. Musharrif specifically. It has been an uneasy partnership that actually speaks to the root of a lot of our difficulties in that area, that we are seen as supporting dictator and oppressive rule in the area as long as it serves our needs. While this isn't as super pronounced in Pakistan, Musharrif under any other circumstances would be someone we'd be leaning on.

Obama in the full text of his speech acknowledges that we need their help and they need ours, but if that help is half assed, it's not really help at all. He acknowledged the need for assistance-

Obama talks about striking terrorists in Pakistan and also helping the growth of democracy. What happens if the people don't want the help of the US, What if they don't like the US treatening their sovereignity?

Here from yesterday's news after Musharraf's party went down to defeat in the elections:

Bush calls Musharraf after his party's defeat (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23272431/)

Can an authoritarian dictator succeed?

Bush is taking a forward-looking stance while edging toward the view that the fight against terrorism stands a better chance of success if Pakistan's government is not authoritarian, as it has been under Musharraf, and is chosen democratically.

Pakistan is on the front lines. Yet critics question whether an authoritarian leader could succeed. They also complain that Musharraf pursued al-Qaida along the border with Afghanistan while sparing Taliban fighters.

Wendy Chamberlin, U.S. ambassador to Pakistan in 2001-02, elicited from Musharraf a commitment to fight extremists. "He never made a deal to work with us on Taliban. But somehow we have blurred the two," she said.

Chamberlin, now president of the Middle East Institute, a Washington think tank, said al-Qaida fighters are often foreigners, Libyans, Saudis and Yemenis. Musharraf, she said in an interview, was willing to agree to take them on, but hesitant to fight people in tribal border areas.

"You have this odd situation where the U.S. has been calling a military dictatorship indispensable for the war on terrorism at the same time he has been dispensing with the rule of law, dispensing with constitutional protection, dispensing with democracy," Chamberlin said.

The Pakistanis "feel we talk this game of democracy, but do not support it," she said.

James Dobbins, the Bush administration's first envoy for Afghanistan after the Sept. 11 attacks, credited Musharraf with fighting al-Qaida and making considerable progress in resolving differences with India.

On the negative side, Dobbins said in an interview, Musharraf "tolerated and on occasion collaborated with indigenous extremist movements like the Taliban and subverted the constitution."
So while Musharraf has helped, some feel that he has not done enough, and part of that is obviously due to the political instability in the country.

That is why I take exception to Obama making those remarks when he did. The political stability of Pakistan is far more important than a US political candidate trying to demonstrate their qualifications to be CIC?

New opportunities bring new risks

An analyst with the Rand Corp., Dobbins said there were considerable opportunities now if the democratic parties in Pakistan are able to govern. But he also cited "substantial dangers that Pakistan society will continue to fragment."

If that happens, he said, and a stable government does not emerge, "eventually the army might feel compelled to step in yet again." Also, Dobbins said, extremists could gather further strength if there is a period of a weak civilian government.

Bush did not overlook Musharraf's authoritarian ways. He and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice called for free and fair elections in Pakistan. Bush helped persuade Musharraf to give up his dual role as commander of the country's military.

At the same time, Bush praised Musharraf as a partner in promoting democracy and Washington gave the Muslim nation billions of dollars to help train and equip Pakistani security forces.

It is not clear how much sentiment there is in Pakistan to remain aligned with the United States in trying to counter terrorist groups.

While polls show Pakistanis are "very worried about extremism," Chamberlin said, many are opposed to cooperation with the U.S. "The Pakistani people think there is a better way of dealing with extremism than we are doing," she said. "Bombs and bullets is not the best way to do it."
Again, this re-inforces the need to handle this situation in a diplomatic manner and not through issuing threats and dictating initiatives. I am sure the people of Pakistan don't want hear Obama talking about "war" and "battlefield" and "Pakistan" all in the same paragraph.

I like this comment from a Newsweek opinion editorial (http://www.newsweek.com/id/114385):

Obama has come close. He has repeatedly called the war in Iraq a needless distraction, and he has accused Bush of "lumping" all sorts of enemies together. "It is time to turn the page," Obama declared last August in a defining speech at the Woodrow Wilson Center in Washington. "When I am president, we will wage the war that has to be won." But Obama's rhetoric still suggests that he too will be spending his term as a war president. And his "comprehensive strategy" for that war, while it calls for "getting out of Iraq and onto the right battlefield in Afghanistan and Pakistan," still implies that the Illinois senator believes the war on terror should be the overarching framework for his foreign policy.
And that to me is the bottom line. And that is not what Americans and the rest of the world need.

We need designers....not destroyers.

As soon as I get a moment, I will go back and read that post. I started to read it, but I got pulled away.

Probably won't respond to it in a way which furthers the debate, but he'll read it. :p


I stand corrected :D

MCCAIN MCCAIN MCCAIN


Obama is wayyy too liberal (I don't like liberals) and wayyy to inexperienced.

edit - and we've already established that Obama's statements are actually more likely to improve stability in Iran by taking the heat off Musharraf.
I really don't think we have established anything of the sort.

Dodd's an idiot in that regard, or more likely he was just trying to be politically opportunistic.
The politician that was using the opportunity to further his political landscape was Obama. I believe that the backlash was fully warranted.

I really don't think we have established anything of the sort.Okay okay, you're right. We didn't establish it. I established it by posting a highly plausible argument, the substance of which was ignored by you.

I don't have time to address your whole post at this sitting but I will chip away at it. I do believe that meaningful dialogue can be achieved. Pakistan is a large part of the enigma in that part of the world and I think it is going to require a lot of statesmanship to ensure that it does not become an even more unstable, fragmented situation. That is why I got my hackles up when I first discussed Obama's tough talk on Pakistan when it was announced last year.

Starting here:

Obama talks about striking terrorists in Pakistan and also helping the growth of democracy. What happens if the people don't want the help of the US, What if they don't like the US treatening their sovereignity?

Here from yesterday's news after Musharraf's party went down to defeat in the elections:

Bush calls Musharraf after his party's defeat (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23272431/)

Can an authoritarian dictator succeed?


So while Musharraf has helped, some feel that he has not done enough, and part of that is obviously due to the political instability in the country.

That is why I take exception to Obama making those remarks when he did. The political stability of Pakistan is far more important than a US political candidate trying to demonstrate their qualifications to be CIC?

New opportunities bring new risks


Again, this re-inforces the need to handle this situation in a diplomatic manner and not through issuing threats and dictating initiatives. I am sure the people of Pakistan don't want hear Obama talking about "war" and "battlefield" and "Pakistan" all in the same paragraph.

I like this comment from a Newsweek opinion editorial (http://www.newsweek.com/id/114385):


And that to me is the bottom line. And that is not what Americans and the rest of the world need.

We need designers....not destroyers.

I agree with much of what you posted. The rhetoric of elections is often problematic, particularly in a country that seems to place so much stock in whether or not you're capable of bringing it to the evils of the war.

I disagree with the last bit. First of all, you're being utterly dishonest. You support a candidate whose rhetoric is more adamant and that has criticized Obama for his positions being too soft. Second of all, he's made it clear that war is not what he has in mind, but has pointed out that he is willing to use military actions, small, focused, military actions if necessary. That you failed, and continue to fail, to recognize this doesn't change the fact that his position is utterly clear that another war is not what we need. He has talking of ending one war, and focusing the other. He's NEVER talked of an invasion or prolonged military action of any sort.

So spin that all you like, but I believe you were correct when you said that changing what someone says to your ends is dishonest. Absolutely correct. Intersting that you were doing exactly the same thing. It appears you were never FOR anyone. You were just AGAINST Obama. Negative politics and fearmongering is so tiresome.

You guys know it's likely that CanuckHeaven doesn't really support Hillary, right?

A few CanuckHeaven quotes, since he's all about substance, of course.
---

Well living in denial is not the best place to be.

I assure you that I am not trolling but you certainly are.

"If you think about it long enough, it will become clearer." (see how not only does he call the person stupid, but now he thinks that we're so stupid we won't notice.)

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

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

"You are wrong on so many points here, I can't be bothered pointing them out. Do some reading and some research and you will realize what I am saying. Don't let your blind hatred for Hillary block you from the truth." (This is the entire post. In essense, "you're wrong, but you're so ignorant I can't explain it to you. Oh, yeah, and you're deluded and that's why you can't see the truth.")

"Is your love affair for Obama so great that you would gladly screw over the delegates of two States with a population of 29 Million people?" (More comments about how people who don't agree with him are deluded.

"You all realize that if Michigan and Florida delegates get representation, then Hillary will more than likely win the nomination.

So of course, Obama supporters would prefer to believe that Florida and Michigan doesn't exist for the nomination process." (Dishonest and delusional if you support following the rules.)

"Ahhh, so you don't have any "facts", therefore it would be logical to assume that you are just making stuff up."

"Of course you would. Quite often "facts" and "logic" are rare commodities for you."

"I realize that it tells you nothing.

And yes, it would be really sad for me to act like you, so I won't bother. " (He bolded the you in an effort to point out that Corny is the problem.)

"I don't think you get it. Do you?" (Again, that's his entire argument. Nothing else in the post.)

"Ummm, take your incomplete numbers and claims of "intellectual dishonesty" and shove them where the sun don't shine." (In response to "Hillary did not score more delegates as of now and to say she did is intellectual dishonesty.")

"I believe that the Yahoo News article posted by Corny is totally out to lunch." (In response Corny ask him to prove it. CH responded with "To be honest with you, I can't be bothered.")

"It would appear that there is no shortage of "intellectual dishonesty" on this forum?"




----

And just for the lulz - "I agree. Although I prefer Hillary, you won't see me playing the name calling game. That is truly divisive."

and

"Well there is such a word.

Bushevik.

And you do seem to fit the mold."

'Would I expect a true Bushevik to say anything complimentary? Towards the Clintons that is. "


---

ONe more bit - "As far as I am concerned, Clinton is the best choice, and that is what debate is all about.

Now if only you could drop your phony I love Obama because I really hate Clinton routine"

Notice not only does accuse Corny of lying, but he also says that he is about debating why Clinton is the best candidate. Given what he just said, I think we've proven he's not willing to debate about Hillary at all.

Keep in mind this is from the first half of the first thread we all started in. During that time CTOAN was repeatedly defending CanuckHeaven and he, we were all, begging him to just reply to the substantive posts, but he regularly just replied with "You're wrong." "I don't agree." "I can't be bothered." "I'm too busy." or just "No." This has never been a debate. Only one side is willing to actually address the posts of the other side. Only one side is willing to examine evidence.

Good show Sir.

Here, using quotation marks, you are clearly putting words in her mouth. That is not what she said.

The hypocrisy of this when he's claiming Obama said he would "invade". This particularly funny when what they're discussing above is how Hillary didn't like that he ruled out using nukes in those military actions into Pakistan.
Too bad you dragged this over from the other thread, but it appears that you too are confused by Hillary's comment and mine?

It is not that "Hillary didn't like that he ruled out using nukes in those military actions into Pakistan", what she didn't like is (http://www.usatoday.com/news/topstories/2007-08-02-2649906268_x.htm):


Here are some of the obvious reasons:


And more reason for concern about his comments:


And more reasons:[/QUOTE]

Other people's concerns over his comments does not make the quote from him say "invade." You've managed to find someone else paraphrasing Obama by saying "invade," but you still haven't show a direct quote from him saying he would invade Pakistan. This is the biggest problem people are having with you. Other than you being snarky and condescending, and then claiming that everyone else is sinking to horrible lows and attacking you personally. There are many people who have punched holes in your argument and you have done nothing but what you decry in others. This makes people frustrating and some actually do attack you at that point. You painted the target on your back and then got mad when people fired shots.

Edit: War is necessary at times. If we must take the war across the border of Afghanistan into the mountain region of Pakistan then so be it. We invaded Afghanistan and that was perfectly fine with me. Our number once concern would be fighting Al Qaueda and making sure they cannot plan major attacks against free nations. We'll never be able to completely destroy terrorism and Al Quaeda until we change the situations that allow terrorism to exist. We must make it so people feel they have more recourse than to take up arms and kill innocent people. I always look at it from the point of the Palestinians, which after all is pretty much the crux of the whole battle. When someone feels so utterly hopeless to change their life that they are willing to pick up a rock to try and battle troops with automatic weapons, there can be no other alternative than to see the banality of their cause. Unless there are honest deliberations and real attempts to solve this problem, there will still be the ingredients for terrorism. I think I may have strayed too far from our intended goal, but I thought this was necessary not only to defend Obama, but even Hillary. Tough decisions must be made, but who has the judgment to make then?

And again, it's not just a threat to invade but rather a recognition of the state of our alliance
Taking inventory of the state of the alliance is well and fine, but issuing threats is not conducive to said state of alliance.

An ally is no good if you're pouring into it and not getting the results you need. Of course Pakistan is going to balk at that-no one expects them to tuck their tail and say, "Okay, we're sorry." but at the same time the alliance isn't really working.
The alliance is working to some degree, but certainly far from optimal. Certainly, some form of acceptable solution should be persued.

They're upset about it. I expect them to be. But when you look at what he wants to do, and not cherry pick and equivocate, he's talking about strengthening a troubled alliance and brings a whole lot to the table before we even start to consider attacking camps on our own.
That is not the sequence in his speech. His priority:

The first step must be getting off the wrong battlefield in Iraq, and taking the fight to the terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan. ...

As President, I would deploy at least two additional brigades to Afghanistan to re-enforce our counter-terrorism operations and support NATO's efforts against the Taliban As we step up our commitment, our European friends must do the same, and without the burdensome restrictions that have hampered NATO's efforts. We must also put more of an Afghan face on security by improving the training and equipping of the Afghan Army and Police, and including Afghan soldiers in U.S. and NATO operations.
Then he goes on to talk about economic aid.

I don't find it a negative that he talks realistically about the situation there.
Talking about the situation is one thing....issuing threats is another. That is the Bush/Republican style. I thought Obama was about change?

As I read the argument it is as followed:

It's not whether or not Clinton would use nukes, but rather discussing a hypothetical one way or the other about a specific situation is dangerous. To exemplify that he points to a hypothetical that Obama addressed and the fall out that has resulted from that.
Exactly.

Where he has gone off the rails is to insist that Obama was saying he would invade Pakistan with little regard to what Obama said and what the context was. By insisting on that interpretation he has derailed what might have been his strongest point.
I can't remember exactly, but I do believe that someone else used the word "invade" long before we got into the discussion regarding the meaning of the word. Invasion of some sort would be the operative word if Obama wants to accomplish the following:

So the second step in my strategy will be to build our capacity and our partnerships to track down, capture or kill terrorists around the world, and to deny them the world's most dangerous weapons.

I will not hesitate to use military force to take out terrorists who pose a direct threat to America. This requires a broader set of capabilities, as outlined in the Army and Marine Corps's new counter-insurgency manual. I will ensure that our military becomes more stealth, agile, and lethal in its ability to capture or kill terrorists.
At any rate, I do not want to get bogged down with the meaning of "invade".

Because the base of that can be argued. If he had stuck to the facts of the issue instead of the hyperbole he'd be on stronger ground. The three basic elements of the premise are true. 1-Clinton thinks that addressing hypotheticals is not a good idea because you are creating a situation where you are defending yourself against an action you haven't taken and have agitated a situation that didn't necessarily exist. (I'm being generous here, from what I read she's really saying 'Keep 'em guessin', don't let 'em know what you'd do,' but for the sake of getting actual debate off the ground I'll run with the generous take), 2-Obama addressed a hypothetical situation (again, this is a tad generous because Clinton's initial rebuke was about Obama's willingness to admit that he wouldn't use a hammer on an ant infestation) 3-There has been diplomatic fall out over his address of a hypothetical situation.

Those are all, more or less, true.
Yes indeed.

However, in the context that they are put in they are not as strong or black and white. A nuclear weapon is not the tool for the job, and saying you won't use one in the circumstance is no more out of place than saying you wouldn't use a dune buggy. There is very few if any situations where a group of terrorists are going to say, "Should we do this?" "Yeah, it's cool. They won't use nukes so we're alright." Our nuclear arsenal is a deterent for an enemy that is a state itself, not one that hides within a state. Saying that we won't use a nuclear weapon is not giving away a hypothetical, it is recognizing that you have an idea of what tools go to what job.
The hypothetical discussion turned into a reminder of proper protocol.

The second part of that, the hypothetical that Obama addressed. It is dissengenious and derails the more solid point to insist that it is a call for invasion. It is far from that and involves far more in the way of cooperation, but acknowledges that the cooperation so far has been lacking, that making excuses for our 'friends' is doing us no favors. Pretending the partnership is more than it is so as not to upset anyone has not worked.
I really don't think it is disengenuous when you take into account his choice of words, and I repeat here:

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......The first step must be getting off the wrong battlefield in Iraq, and taking the fight to the terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
It was so important that he repeated it twice, close together in the speech.

More later.....

Dem was not paraphrasing what Hillary stated. Dem used quotation marks and added her own thoughts and then attributed those words to Hillary. Now that is disengenuous on her part indeed.

She wasn't? I think Dem and anyone with an ounce of reading comprehension would disagree. In fact, let's see exactly what Dem said, shall we?

In other words, "Don't say you won't use nukes against terrorist camps." In other words, "Nukes are still on the table for use against terrorist camps."

Yes, what would ever give anyone any indication she was paraphrasing. Particularly when while she was saying "in other words", she actually posted an article above that had the actual words.

And again you are making stuff up. I never stated that Obama used the word invade and I never stated that Obamas "exact words" were that he would "invade" Pakistan.

Perhaps you are confusing this post (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13468310&postcount=240)and making it your truth?

My truth. I'm so tired of your bullshit. Time for A LOT of quotes, since you're pretending like we had an entirely different argument.

What you said - both originally and in reply -

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)


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.


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

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.

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


We challenged that specific wording?

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.


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


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

*brain asplode*

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.(notice how here I state specifically that he is willing to violate their sovereignty but not to attack the country which is exactly what you indicated.)

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? (in reference to your claims about what an invasion is.)

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

Nope

It was an aerial raid, not an invasion

No, they did not invade the United States.

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

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.

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'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.

(given the utterly obnoxious number of times at that point that you'd been challenged on the use of the term invade, you quoted Obama, got challenged on the use of the word invasion again and replied that that those were his words. As a result you got more challenges that are entirely consistent with the line of conversation.)

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

You do quote his exact words in reply, but given what Dyakovo said, your post is entirely dishonest. He was referring to your analysis that it means an invasion. And you even address that analysis again at the end.

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.

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.


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.

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!"

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/)

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.

To protect from equivocation? He can't help it if people will see what they want to see. That you found an opinion piece that makes the same equivocation doesn't impress me. Especially after what follows.

Well, for that matter, where does he say invade?

And are you so bound up in sound bite campaigning that you forgot that a paragraph isn't a speech? Lets look at the paragraph that immediately follows-

Oh yeah, he's just itching to invade. No, wait, invest. The other 'in' word.

The whole section on Pakistan:

The full text of the speech is towards the bottom of the page (http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post_group/ObamaHQ/CpHR).

The argument was about the fact that you were coloring a military strike, an unlikely military strike only to be conducted precisely and if the situation is absolutely clear, as an invasion. We called you out on your dishonest claims and now you're pretending like we claimed he never suggested he would take any action in Pakistan. You kept claiming you were just echoing his words, but as soon as the quotes were past, you were claiming he said something utterly different.

You don't want to play quote wars in this thread. Since you've been utterly dishonest and it's provable, it's really not in your interest.




By the way, I'm going to repost a bit of your quotes with bolding for emphasis.


And where have we heard words similar to these? Bush stating his goals for Iraq and Afghanistan...that is where. Iraq is coming up to 5 years and Afghanistan is coming up to 7 years..... of turmoil!!

Now all we need is another President to create a new "battlefield in Pakistan".

And of course, the US will offer them all the same goodies that Iraq and Afghanistan have been blessed with. :rolleyes:

Dear God. Considering this entire post, this enormous post, is all about showing how you'll twist words into a pretzel to make them say the opposite of what they mean, I really gotta love this last bit.

He is talking about diplomacy and how violence is not a solution and you read that as aggression?

He makes it very clear in the full context of the speech that he is not talking about entering Pakinstan for any sort of war. To claim otherwise is just, well, astonishing, really. As far as creating a "new" battlefield, he's talking about focusing on Afghanistan with the potential for specific missions across the border, something we've been doing for seven years.

You guys know it's likely that CanuckHeaven doesn't really support Hillary, right?

Actually, it's entirely clear he's unwilling to support Hillary. He said so. His goal is to tear Obama down. It's not surprising. It's typical American politics.

This thread was dead all day and as soon as I start typing you guys go nuts. Dammit. I only noticed because the quotes in the post I'm addressing was buried and I needed to open the thread to find them again.

Did everyone synchronize your clocks or something? (still typing first response...)

She wasn't? I think Dem and anyone with an ounce of reading comprehension would disagree. In fact, let's see exactly what Dem said, shall we?

Yes, what would ever give anyone any indication she was paraphrasing. Particularly when while she was saying "in other words", she actually posted an article above that had the actual words.

Perhaps you are confusing this post (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13468310&postcount=240)and making it your truth?

My truth. I'm so tired of your bullshit. Time for A LOT of quotes, since you're pretending like we had an entirely different argument.

What you said - both originally and in reply -

We challenged that specific wording?

(notice how here I state specifically that he is willing to violate their sovereignty but not to attack the country which is exactly what you indicated.)

(in reference to your claims about what an invasion is.)

(given the utterly obnoxious number of times at that point that you'd been challenged on the use of the term invade, you quoted Obama, got challenged on the use of the word invasion again and replied that that those were his words. As a result you got more challenges that are entirely consistent with the line of conversation.)

You do quote his exact words in reply, but given what Dyakovo said, your post is entirely dishonest. He was referring to your analysis that it means an invasion. And you even address that analysis again at the end.

The argument was about the fact that you were coloring a military strike, an unlikely military strike only to be conducted precisely and if the situation is absolutely clear, as an invasion. We called you out on your dishonest claims and now you're pretending like we claimed he never suggested he would take any action in Pakistan. You kept claiming you were just echoing his words, but as soon as the quotes were past, you were claiming he said something utterly different.

You don't want to play quote wars in this thread. Since you've been utterly dishonest and it's provable, it's really not in your interest.

Dear God. Considering this entire post, this enormous post, is all about showing how you'll twist words into a pretzel to make them say the opposite of what they mean, I really gotta love this last bit.

He is talking about diplomacy and how violence is not a solution and you read that as aggression?

He makes it very clear in the full context of the speech that he is not talking about entering Pakinstan for any sort of war. To claim otherwise is just, well, astonishing, really. As far as creating a "new" battlefield, he's talking about focusing on Afghanistan with the potential for specific missions across the border, something we've been doing for seven years.
Are you having fun yet? :D

If so carry on.

It was so important that he repeated it twice, close together in the speech. With a bunch of stuff about diplomacy and military not being a solution and working on our alliance with Pakistan to fill out the rest of the speech. So a couple of lines about his willingness to take a harder line where necessary overrides the overarching message of diplomacy. The two lines are "so important" that they get two lines close together, but several paragraphs about diplomacy are completely ignored by you. Dude, you crack me up.

Are you having fun yet? :D

If so carry on.

I'm having a great time. And true to form, not a substantive reply at all. Good job.

I don't have time to address your whole post at this sitting but I will chip away at it. I do believe that meaningful dialogue can be achieved. Pakistan is a large part of the enigma in that part of the world and I think it is going to require a lot of statesmanship to ensure that it does not become an even more unstable, fragmented situation. That is why I got my hackles up when I first discussed Obama's tough talk on Pakistan when it was announced last year.

Starting here:

Obama talks about striking terrorists in Pakistan and also helping the growth of democracy. What happens if the people don't want the help of the US, What if they don't like the US treatening their sovereignity?

Here from yesterday's news after Musharraf's party went down to defeat in the elections:

Bush calls Musharraf after his party's defeat (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23272431/)

Can an authoritarian dictator succeed?


So while Musharraf has helped, some feel that he has not done enough, and part of that is obviously due to the political instability in the country.

That is why I take exception to Obama making those remarks when he did. The political stability of Pakistan is far more important than a US political candidate trying to demonstrate their qualifications to be CIC?

New opportunities bring new risks


Again, this re-inforces the need to handle this situation in a diplomatic manner and not through issuing threats and dictating initiatives. I am sure the people of Pakistan don't want hear Obama talking about "war" and "battlefield" and "Pakistan" all in the same paragraph.




And that to me is the bottom line. And that is not what Americans and the rest of the world need.

We need designers....not destroyers.
I don't have to parse your post because it's pretty one note, repeats your first point, and relies still too heavily on equivocating Obama's words. You haven't really addressed or chipped away at my argument.

Your links and posts actually underline my exact point. Pakistan is an imperfect ally and Musarrif is at the center of that. Enemy of my enemy is my friend is the old diplomacy. It's the diplomacy that supported the Taliban against the Soviet Union. It's the diplomacy that support Hussein against Iran. It's the diplomacy that could see us fighting against our own weapons again in ten or twenty years while people show pictures of our secretary of state shaking hands with Musharrif. It's an old diplomacy and it does not work.

We can not with one side of our mouth promote democracy and with the other prop up dictators. It undermines us in a way far more real and far more damaging than equivocating a national candidate's words to insist that he will go from zero to invade. It does not work, it has not worked, and it will not work.

The core of our problem in the middle east is this exact impression-that we will hold up any government no matter their principles as long as we get what we want out of them. To the people there, it appears not erroneously that we are selling them down the river.

You're the one who bolded this:
"You have this odd situation where the U.S. has been calling a military dictatorship indispensable for the war on terrorism at the same time he has been dispensing with the rule of law, dispensing with constitutional protection, dispensing with democracy," Chamberlin said.
If we are promoting freedom and democracy with one hand and supporting, by your own highlighting, someone who is at the same time he has been dispensing with the rule of law, dispensing with constitutional protection, dispensing with democracy we undermine our message and any hope we have of lasting results.

To pretend this problem does not exist does damage. To continue to unconditionally support someone who would do that does damage.

You continually ignore the far more numerous support and programs and assistance that Obama offers that stand in line before the highly specific instance where we would strike on our own. The fact that the most important one was is the one of ideals, the one we surrender when we look the other way for an ally that isn't meeting the partnership even halfway.

Obama isn't trying to 'sound tough' to show he can be the CIC, he's telling you what he'd do if given the job, what his priorities would be, and no, they are not 'invade Pakistan.'

By contrast Clinton won't address it. "Guess what I'd do." She guessed what Bush would do and look what happened. I'm tired of guessing. I'm tired thumping around about freedom and democracy and proping up people that stand in the way of both just so we won't rustle feathers.

If Musharrif doesn't like it...well, obviously he doesn't like it. That's really the issue. Pointing out that he doesn't doesn't prove anything. Recent elections in Pakistan prove that the people do want change.

Your position is still too reliant on demanding that Obama is a hair's breadth from invasion. That is simply not true. If that's what you want to hinge this point on then we are back to where we started.

I like this comment from a Newsweek opinion editorial (http://www.newsweek.com/id/114385):

Senator Obama presented a thoughtful, substantive and comprehensive counter-terrorism strategy. This is an important contribution to the national dialogue on this leading issue.
-Lee Hamilton, former Democratic Congressman, Vice Chair of the 9/11 Commission, Co-Chair of the Iraq Study Group, Member of the Homeland Security Advisory Council

Defending America will require taking the fight to the terrorists, and drying up support for terrorism and extremism worldwide. Senator Obama's counter-terrorism strategy shows that he is committed to developing the capabilities required to defeat terrorists on the field of battle, and that he has the vision to defeat the terrorists in the battle of ideas.
-Major General Scott Gration (USAF-Ret); Commander, Operation Iraqi Freedom’s Task Force West; Director Strategy Policy and Assessments, United States European Command

At a time when Americans are despairing over the Bush Administration's handling of terrorism, Barack Obama has offered us a smart, tough and principled way forward. Where Bush overstretched our armed forces and sent them into an unnecessary war, Obama would heed the military's pleas for counterinsurgency resources and beefed-up civilian capacity. Where Bush lumped US foes together, Obama would pry them apart. And where Bush threw out the rule-book, Obama would again make America a country that practices what it preaches.
-Samantha Power; author of A Problem from Hell: America in the Age of Genocide; Founding Executive Director, Harvard University Carr Center for Human Rights Policy

Are we through playing the 'lets find people who agree with me' game yet? Argue your argument, don't show me you can find people who agree with you.

The more I read Obama's speech, the more I think it will ultimately sink him. As I said before, this speech is very Bush like, but perhaps a tad more eloquent. Although Obama has hired a very skilled speech writer, the words are full of traps, and I wonder if Obama is aware of those traps.

But then again, that could just be my twisted thinking. :D

The more I read Obama's speech, the more I think it will ultimately sink him. As I said before, this speech is very Bush like, but perhaps a tad more eloquent. Although Obama has hired a very skilled speech writer, the words are full of traps, and I wonder if Obama is aware of those traps.

But then again, that could just be my twisted thinking. :D

Sink him? Against whom? Why? Enough rhetoric. Be specific. Why is he more "Bush-like" than Hillary or McCain?

You seem to feel like you can just make vague comparisons to Bush and call it a done argument. Sorry, but we're actually hoping for intelligent debate, not just the same old tired attempts to use accusations and attacks with no reasonable arguments at all to back up those accusations or attacks.

For example, I've called you intellectually dishonest. Utterly unacceptable as a debate tactic UNLESS I actually show how and why I think you're being intellectually dishonest (let's say with 30+ posts). Then it's something you can actively defend. When people just make vague accusations or completely ignore substance altogether, THAT's what actually stifles debate. So either enhance your point or address ours properly. I don't particularly care which.

Taking inventory of the state of the alliance is well and fine, but issuing threats is not conducive to said state of alliance.
For the nth time. You overstate the nature of said 'threats.'


The alliance is working to some degree, but certainly far from optimal. Certainly, some form of acceptable solution should be persued.
Welcome to the rest of the speech.


That is not the sequence in his speech. His priority:
You might not have noticed, but we already invaded Afghanistan. We are already in Afghanistan. We have compromised our gains in Afghanistan by the war in Iraq. Are you taking umbrage with putting an Afghan face on the nation's security? Of engaging them in the direction of their nation? Are you at once for the sovereignty of Pakistan and against it Afghanistan? What exactly is your point here?


Then he goes on to talk about economic aid.
Well at least you found it. It only took 8 pages or so.


Talking about the situation is one thing....issuing threats is another. That is the Bush/Republican style. I thought Obama was about change?
The enemy of my enemy was the Bush/Reagan style. The ignoring the shortcomings of our allies, accepting the apparent lesser evil is the Bush/Reagan style. It's the style that supported Osama and the Taliban. The style that supported Hussein. So yes, it is time for change so that our children aren't fighting the fights we make for them.

Thats why he proposes-
And Pakistan needs more than F-16s to combat extremism. As the Pakistani government increases investment in secular education to counter radical madrasas, my Administration will increase America’s commitment. We must help Pakistan invest in the provinces along the Afghan border, so that the extremists’ program of hate is met with one of hope. And we must not turn a blind eye to elections that are neither free nor fair – our goal is not simply an ally in Pakistan, it is a democratic ally.

Because he recognizes-
President Kennedy said it best: “Let us never negotiate out of fear, but let us never fear to negotiate.” Only by knowing your adversary can you defeat them or drive wedges between them. As President, I will work with our friend and allies, but I won’t outsource our diplomacy in Tehran to the Europeans, or our diplomacy in Pyongyang to the Chinese. I will do the careful preparation needed, and let these countries know where America stands. They will no longer have the excuse of American intransigence. They will have our terms: no support for terror and no nuclear weapons.
But America must be about more than taking out terrorists and locking up weapons, or else new terrorists will rise up to take the place of every one we capture or kill. That is why the third step in my strategy will be drying up the rising well of support for extremism.
...
And we know what the extremists say about us. America is just an occupying Army in Muslim lands, the shadow of a shrouded figure standing on a box at Abu Ghraib, the power behind the throne of a repressive leader. They say we are at war with Islam. That is the whispered line of the extremist who has nothing to offer in this battle of ideas but blame – blame America, blame progress, blame Jews. And often he offers something along with the hate. A sense of empowerment. Maybe an education at a madrasa, some charity for your family, some basic services in the neighborhood. And then: a mission and a gun.


Exactly.


I can't remember exactly, but I do believe that someone else used the word "invade" long before we got into the discussion regarding the meaning of the word. Invasion of some sort would be the operative word if Obama wants to accomplish the following:


At any rate, I do not want to get bogged down with the meaning of "invade".
Then you need to drop it as a central tenant of your premise.


Yes indeed.


The hypothetical discussion turned into a reminder of proper protocol.


I really don't think it is disengenuous when you take into account his choice of words, and I repeat here:


It was so important that he repeated it twice, close together in the speech.

More later.....
And yet there is paragraph after paragraph about diplomacy, talking, getting to know enemies, reaching out. Far stronger than equivocating a few lines to make it out to appear that he's invading on day one.

The more I read Obama's speech, the more I think it will ultimately sink him. As I said before, this speech is very Bush like, but perhaps a tad more eloquent. Although Obama has hired a very skilled speech writer, the words are full of traps, and I wonder if Obama is aware of those traps.

But then again, that could just be my twisted thinking. :D
That certainly appears to be the case.

I don't think America is ready for a Black president yet.

Just my opinion.

What would constitute a state of readiness?

Sink him? Against whom? Why? Enough rhetoric. Be specific. Why is he more "Bush-like" than Hillary or McCain?

You seem to feel like you can just make vague comparisons to Bush and call it a done argument. Sorry, but we're actually hoping for intelligent debate, not just the same old tired attempts to use accusations and attacks with no reasonable arguments at all to back up those accusations or attacks.

For example, I've called you intellectually dishonest. Utterly unacceptable as a debate tactic UNLESS I actually show how and why I think you're being intellectually dishonest (let's say with 30+ posts). Then it's something you can actively defend. When people just make vague accusations or completely ignore substance altogether, THAT's what actually stifles debate. So either enhance your point or address ours properly. I don't particularly care which.
You think I am "intellectually dishonest", "stupid", and an assortment of other slurs, that is your business. If that is what you want to do, carry on. To be honest, I really don't care what you think of me. Others have jumped on the bandwagon....it doesn't matter. It appears that you don't want debate....you just want to shout down the opposition.

If that is what turns your crank, then carry on.

I don't think America is ready for a Black president yet.

Just my opinion.

You think I am "intellectually dishonest", "stupid", and an assortment of other slurs, that is your business. If that is what you want to do, carry on. To be honest, I really don't care what you think of me. Others have jumped on the bandwagon....it doesn't matter. It appears that you don't want debate....you just want to shout down the opposition.

If that is what turns your crank, then carry on.

http://forums.adventchildren.net/images/smilies/facehand.gif

You think I am "intellectually dishonest", "stupid", and an assortment of other slurs, that is your business. If that is what you want to do, carry on. To be honest, I really don't care what you think of me. Others have jumped on the bandwagon....it doesn't matter. It appears that you don't want debate....you just want to shout down the opposition.

If that is what turns your crank, then carry on.

I've not called you stupid. I've probably said some of your arguments are. As far as "intellectually dishonest", sometimes it's not "the bandwagon". Sometimes everyone just reaches the same conclusion because it's true. When you jump through the kind of hoops you have to make somethng be true while you chastise other people for paraphrasing, yeah, who isn't going to reach that conclusion? And gosh, wouldn't it be nice it were just that one thing?

No one is shouting you down. Every accusation is mired in facts. I've presented support for every claim. And when you can't handle that support, you whine about my accusations. Well, friend, since you've openly claimed that the reason you don't address certain claims is because the person isn't capable of understanding, and the reason people don't agree with you is because they either cannot or refuse to understand, get off the high horse. You've not fooled anyone.

http://forums.adventchildren.net/images/smilies/facehand.gif

It's the same old, same old. There can be twenty-five pages of substance and one comment about how he's being intellectually dishonest and he'll comment on the attack and avoid ALL of the substance.

It's funny because I'm sure he thinks an ad hominem is when someone includes an attack in their argument, but it's actually what he's doing where he says something about the person (like "you're mean") and then uses it as an excuse for not replying to their points. It doesn't work on reasonable people. So he either isn't aware that we're reasonable or doesn't care that it won't work.

There seems to be a myth going on here that Obama wanted to invade Pakistan. Having talked to an Obama Campaign Representative about this issue, I find out that Obama was horrendously misquoted. What Obama proposed was to send in the US Air Force and special force, with the CIA and Delta Force working together to find lawless Opium fields on the border of Pakistan and Afghanistan, (NOT in Pakistan itself), have these Opium Fields and Al Quida bases destroyed and get out of there. Go in, hurt Al Quida financially and hopefully militarily too, get out. That's it. No invasion, no Army/Marines, none of that stuff. If Clinton and/or Bush wanted to go into Chechnya in the same manner to take out Chechen Rebels, I doubt Russians would shout "the Americans are invading!" But Bush is not intelligent enough to figure something like this out, and foreign policy wasn't Bill Clinton's forte, his advisor James Carville summed it up by saying: "It's the economy stupid!" It's a nice clean operation, AND Obama said that he would act on Intelligence recieved from several sources before acting on it. In no way would this act actually hurt Pakistan, they wouldn't even know we were there. So relax, Obama isn't McCainiac, he won't be invading countries and starting Cold Wars for fun.

Edit: of course now that the Second Chechen War is over, any operation there are pointless, as the region is becoming largely peaceful, and been doing so since 2005, one of Putin's successes. But that's as far off-topic as I'll go.

There seems to be a myth going on here that Obama wanted to invade Pakistan. Having talked to an Obama Campaign Representative about this issue, I find out that Obama was horrendously misquoted. What Obama proposed was to send in the US Air Force and special force, with the CIA and Delta Force working together to find lawless Opium fields on the border of Pakistan and Afghanistan, (NOT in Pakistan itself), have these Opium Fields and Al Quida bases destroyed and get out of there. Go in, hurt Al Quida financially and hopefully militarily too, get out. That's it. No invasion, no Army/Marines, none of that stuff. If Clinton and/or Bush wanted to go into Chechnya in the same manner to take out Chechen Rebels, I doubt Russians would shout "the Americans are invading!" But Bush is not intelligent enough to figure something like this out, and foreign policy wasn't Bill Clinton's forte, his advisor James Carville summed it up by saying: "It's the economy stupid!" It's a nice clean operation, AND Obama said that he would act on Intelligence recieved from several sources before acting on it. In no way would this act actually hurt Pakistan, they wouldn't even know we were there. So relax, Obama isn't McCainiac, he won't be invading countries and starting Cold Wars for fun.

Edit: of course now that the Second Chechen War is over, any operation there are pointless, as the region is becoming largely peaceful, and been doing so since 2005, one of Putin's successes. But that's as far off-topic as I'll go.

http://img20.imageshack.us/img20/9260/forgetitjakeyu5.jpg

It's the same old, same old. There can be twenty-five pages of substance and one comment about how he's being intellectually dishonest and he'll comment on the attack and avoid ALL of the substance.

It's funny because I'm sure he thinks an ad hominem is when someone includes an attack in their argument, but it's actually what he's doing where he says something about the person (like "you're mean") and then uses it as an excuse for not replying to their points. It doesn't work on reasonable people. So he either isn't aware that we're reasonable or doesn't care that it won't work.

It wouldn't be so face palming if you hadn't just posted a long ass list of him doing what he just accused you of.

Mine were the lists of recognized swing states (granted according to Wikipedia) and who won which (Obama has won six of them, Clinton four but leads the polls in three more-take into consideration, though, that when I made the list Clinton led Wisconsin where she eventually lost by 17%)

Clinton
New Hampshire
Pennsylvania
Arkansas
Ohio
Nevada
New Mexico
Oregon

Obama
Wisconsin
Virginia
Iowa
Minnesota
Missouri
Colorado

This was in response to CH's claim that Obama was just winning mostly Red States and so his wins didn't matter. But six of his 23 wins, or 1/4th of them, have been swing states compared to Clinton's four swing state wins. He hasn't so much as disputed their swing state status with me. In fact, the closest I've gotten to a response is to restate his premise that Obama has won mostly Red States and that Clinton can win the swing states. Jocabia's list and my list have both countered that.

My other list was polls of swing states (and others, since I'm going to update it again) from RCP. This actually gives him room to argue but again, completely ignored-

Real Clear Politics (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/latestpolls/index.html) has tracked general election races for Obama and Clinton against McCain.
New ones (changed from the first time) in green, newer ones (changed for this post) in purple. Unfortunately you have to go to the post and then click the arrow (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13466972&postcount=202) to see the original numbers to compare. The most notable difference from the first time I did this was the dramatic drop of both Clinton and Obama in Florida, Obama falling much further.

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
Ohio: McCain vs. Obama Rasmussen McCain 42, Obama 41, Und 17 McCain +1
Ohio: McCain vs. Clinton Rasmussen McCain 46, Clinton 43, Und 11 McCain +3
Ohio: McCain vs. Clinton SurveyUSA McCain 42, Clinton 52, Und 6 Clinton +10
Ohio: McCain vs. Obama SurveyUSA McCain 44, Obama 47, Und 9 Obama +3
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
Pennsylvania: McCain vs. Clinton Franklin & Marshall McCain 46, Clinton 46, Und 8 Tie
Pennsylvania: McCain vs. Obama Franklin & Marshall McCain 44, Obama 43, Und 13 McCain +1
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
Iowa: McCain vs. Clinton Rasmussen McCain 47, Clinton 37, Und 16 McCain +10
Iowa: McCain vs. Obama Rasmussen McCain 41, Obama 44, Und 15 Obama +3
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
Virginia: McCain vs. Clinton Rasmussen McCain 51, Clinton 41, Und 8 McCain +10
Virginia: McCain vs. Obama Rasmussen McCain 49, Obama 44, Und 7 McCain +5
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
Oregon: McCain vs. Clinton SurveyUSA McCain 49, Clinton 41, Und 10 McCain +8
Oregon: McCain vs. Obama SurveyUSA McCain 47, Obama 48, Und 6 Obama +1
New York: McCain vs. Clinton SurveyUSA McCain 41, Clinton 52, Und 7 Clinton +11
New York: McCain vs. Obama SurveyUSA McCain 36, Obama 57, Und 7 Obama +21
New York: McCain vs. Clinton Siena McCain 42, Clinton 49, Und 9 Clinton +7
New York: McCain vs. Obama Siena McCain 40, Obama 47, Und 13 Obama +7
Kansas: McCain vs. Clinton SurveyUSA McCain 59, Clinton 35, Und 6 McCain +24
Kansas: McCain vs. Obama SurveyUSA McCain 50, Obama 44, Und 6 McCain +6
New Jersey: McCain vs. Clinton Quinnipiac McCain 41, Clinton 47, Und 12 Clinton +6
New Jersey: McCain vs. Obama Quinnipiac McCain 39, Obama 46, Und 15 Obama +7
Michigan: McCain vs. Obama Rasmussen McCain 39, Obama 47, Und 14 Obama +8
Michigan: McCain vs. Clinton Rasmussen McCain 44, Clinton 44, Und 12 Tie


Not all of those are swing states by current definitions, but some of them show swing where there might not have been before. The list has grown unruly so I'll condense the results by collections of states-

McCain Leads Both Match Ups (States where Obama loses by less in italic)
Florida
Ohio
Missouri
Virginia
Kansas

States Obama is Leading but Clinton is Trailing McCain
Pennsylvania
Colorado
Iowa
Wisconsin
Minnesota
Virginia (Second new poll as well)
Oregon


States Clinton is Leading but Obama is Trailing McCain
Pennsylvania (Clinton is in a tie actually, Obama trails so I gave it to Clinton to give CH the fairest shake)


States Both Clinton and Obama Lead (States where Obama has a greater margin in italics)
New Hampshire
New York (on of them has it at a tie)
New Jersey
Michigan (Clinton actually ties McCain, but again, to give the fairest shake)
Ohio

This has gone completely unaddressed. CH now uses the 'god' defense, his assertions are true and can't be proved wrong unless Obama wins the nomination, ergo we should not have Obama as the nominee. To which I have responded-


Of course, he has largely abandoned the electability argument in favor of "OMG! He's going to invade Pakistan!!!"
Just updating this for the heck of it at this point. I hold no delusions about it being addressed.

The age of the polls go like this-plain, oldest, first update, second, third.

Actually, it's entirely clear he's unwilling to support Hillary. He said so. His goal is to tear Obama down. It's not surprising. It's typical American politics.
Wait, so why are we arguing with him then? Given the far-right sources he uses, it's pretty safe to say he's one of those knuckle-dragging Bush-loving warmongering Philistine bigots, in which case his attacks against Obama for allegedly being a hawk are not being made in good faith. Of COURSE he's being intellectually dishonest. Troll city. You don't need the bullet when you got the ballot.

They still call it the White House... But that's a temporary condition, too. Can you dig it, CC?

I don't think America is ready for a Black president yet.

Just my opinion.
America survived a retard with delusions of grandeur for eight years (although just barely). Is there any reason to think that the opposite kind of president would somehow bring woe to the nation despite his superior qualities simply because of his skin color? The notion that America's not "ready" for a black president is a meaningless load of bull. I suspect that it's you who's not ready for a black president, which means to me that maybe now is a GOOD time to have one.

It wouldn't be so face palming if you hadn't just posted a long ass list of him doing what he just accused you of.

Let's see if I can guess the answer.

1. I already addressed that in the other thread, but don't expect me to show where.
2. You didn't understand that my claim that Obama won mostly red states that will stay red warrants no actual analysis of the states Obama won and whether they can be shifted blue.
3. ....... (in other words, just continued blatant efforts to pretend these posts don't exist.)

See, he's not going to address it now. Doing so requires him to defend Hillary. He long since conceded the idea that he could ever reasonably do that.

I don't think America is ready for a Black president yet.

Just my opinion.

I don't think you should think.

Just my opinion. :)

Wait, so why are we arguing with him then? Given the far-right sources he uses, it's pretty safe to say he's one of those knuckle-dragging Bush-loving warmongering Philistine bigots, in which case his attacks against Obama for allegedly being a hawk are not being made in good faith. Of COURSE he's being intellectually dishonest. Troll city. You don't need the bullet when you got the ballot.

They still call it the White House... But that's a temporary condition, too. Can you dig it, CC?

It ain't, Tongass, it ain't safe at all. Cut it out.

Don't fall for into the trap of thinking that, if you just toss in the phrase "intellectually dishonest", you can claim to be attacking the argument, not the poster, and can then get away with saying whatever else you choose.

It doesn't work like that. Yes, you can say a person is being intellectually dishonest in making an argument, and if you support that by citing examples of what you see as intellectual dishonesty, you're arguing, and that's okay. Jocabia and Cannot Think of a Name have been doing that. Yes, their analyses of Canuck Heaven's arguments are getting a bit personal, too -- think about the emotional weight of some of those comments -- but they're still within bounds, so far.

But you cannot then go on to make personal remarks about the poster whose argument you found intellectually dishonest. CanuckHeaven is justified in calling that a "bandwagon".

Should it move from "bandwagon" to "dogpile", I'll act appropriately.

The more I read Obama's speech, the more I think it will ultimately sink him. As I said before, this speech is very Bush like, but perhaps a tad more eloquent. Although Obama has hired a very skilled speech writer, the words are full of traps, and I wonder if Obama is aware of those traps.

But then again, that could just be my twisted thinking. :D

Bushlike? What about Clinton's speeches? I do not see you criticizing her warlike stances and she is far more warlike.

Bushlike? What about Clinton's speeches? I do not see you criticizing her warlike stances and she is far more warlike.
You seem to be forgetting that it is Obama who wants to portray himself as the anti-war candidate? Yet he is talking about creating a new "battlefield in Pakistan".

Yes, his speech is very Bushlike and when I get some time, I will detail those points in his speech. I truly believe that speech will come back to haunt him if he is the Democrat nominee.

You seem to be forgetting that it is Obama who wants to portray himself as the anti-war candidate? Yet he is talking about creating a new "battlefield in Pakistan".

There's already a battlefied in Pakistan. The fact is, he's acting presidential. You can't stomach it.

Yes, his speech is very Bushlike and when I get some time, I will detail those points in his speech. I truly believe that speech will come back to haunt him if he is the Democrat nominee.

As opposed to what Hillary Clinton has been saying, who is far more warlike than Obama is and far more authoritarian that Bush is...I doubt it.

You seem to be forgetting that it is Obama who wants to portray himself as the anti-war candidate? Yet he is talking about creating a new "battlefield in Pakistan".
I hate to have to echo Corny, but there already is a battlefield in Pakistan. What the hell do you think the partnership with them is all about? You've quoted people talking about that battlefield. I don't see how you can now claim that it's a new one.

Yes, his speech is very Bushlike and when I get some time, I will detail those points in his speech. I truly believe that speech will come back to haunt him if he is the Democrat nominee.
You really really think that a speech that is largely about diplomacy, about aid and understanding your enemy and undermining it's support, by combining a more focused and limited military with reaching out to the people and not lumping enemies together is actually going to be used by a Republican who runs on the 100 year war in the General election, and you really expect that to have any traction whatsoever? This speech is months old and even the singular Pakistan thing fails to get much traction when it could actually count against him. You got a hard sell ahead of you.

You seem to be forgetting that it is Obama who wants to portray himself as the anti-war candidate? Yet he is talking about creating a new "battlefield in Pakistan".

Yes, his speech is very Bushlike and when I get some time, I will detail those points in his speech. I truly believe that speech will come back to haunt him if he is the Democrat nominee.

No, he doesn't. He portrays himself as anti-Iraq war. He's never said he is agains the concept of war. He also never said "new" battlefield. He's talking about focusing on the first battlefield and making our efforts there more successful and distinct. I believe you know this.

America survived a retard with delusions of grandeur for eight years (although just barely). Is there any reason to think that the opposite kind of president would somehow bring woe to the nation despite his superior qualities simply because of his skin color? The notion that America's not "ready" for a black president is a meaningless load of bull. I suspect that it's you who's not ready for a black president, which means to me that maybe now is a GOOD time to have one.

I think the best indication of whether America is 'ready' for a black president will come in November (assuming of course that he gets the Dem nomination).

I think the best indication of whether America is 'ready' for a black president will come in November (assuming of course that he gets the Dem nomination).

Which is an assumption that has no basis. Obviously he's less electable than Hillary. Stop being so silly and talking about something actually likely, like bacon on hot dogs.

You seem to be forgetting that it is Obama who wants to portray himself as the anti-war candidate? Yet he is talking about creating a new "battlefield in Pakistan".

Yes, his speech is very Bushlike and when I get some time, I will detail those points in his speech. I truly believe that speech will come back to haunt him if he is the Democrat nominee.

In other words he'll pluck out sentences/sentence fragments that support his hypothesis. and then say: "See, Obama wants a new war!"

Which is an assumption that has no basis. Obviously he's less electable than Hillary. Stop being so silly and talking about something actually likely, like bacon on hot dogs.

OK, bacon on hot dogs is great :D





Also as far as my assumption of Obama getting the Democratic nomination, on a personal level I am doing no such thing (although I am hoping for it, since I can't stand Hillary)

In other words he'll pluck out sentences/sentence fragments that support his hypothesis. and then say: "See, Obama wants war!"

No, you forget. "Obama was a NEW war despite talking about a war we're already in and have been in for seven years".

No, you forget. "Obama was a NEW war despite talking about a war we're already in and have been in for seven years".

Right, my bad :( ...fixed BTW

You seem to be forgetting that it is Obama who wants to portray himself as the anti-war candidate? Yet he is talking about creating a new "battlefield in Pakistan".

Yes, his speech is very Bushlike and when I get some time, I will detail those points in his speech. I truly believe that speech will come back to haunt him if he is the Democrat nominee.

He is not anti-war. Anyone who would be running for President who rules out armed conflict is a fool. He's anti IRAQ WAR. At no time did Obama say that he was against all war. As a matter of fact, as can be seen in your own argument, he is for war in the right situations. Obama is not running as an anti-war candidate. He just states that he thought the war in Iraq was the wrong war and Hillary voted for it. Consider this a lighter to your strawman. Further, how the hell can it come back to bite him when McCain is all for the Iraq war from the start, middle, etc.? Obama has NEVER said he is against all war and I challenge you to find where he did. Again, you fail.

He is not anti-war. Anyone who would be running for President who rules out armed conflict is a fool. He's anti IRAQ WAR. At no time did Obama say that he was against all war. As a matter of fact, as can be seen in your own argument, he is for war in the right situations. Obama is not running as an anti-war candidate. He just states that he thought the war in Iraq was the wrong war and Hillary voted for it. Consider this a lighter to your strawman. Further, how the hell can it come back to bite him when McCain is all for the Iraq war from the start, middle, etc.? Obama has NEVER said he is against all war and I challenge you to find where he did. Again, you fail.

exactly. no "peace at any cost" candidate will ever make it in the US

exactly. no "peace at any cost" candidate will ever make it in the US

No candidate anywhere could run on a campaign of absolutes.

No candidate anywhere could run on a campaign of absolutes.

Well, actually some campaign issues are presented as absolutes. However, it's definitely true that no candidate is going to win on a campaign that says they refuse to wage war of any kind. Hell, I'm surprised we don't "No Child Left Behind" the "War on Ignorant Children".

We love war.

Meanwhile, I find it hilarious that CH posts extensive information about how Obama has talked about miliatary actions in certain scenarios, that same action has been commented on by nearly every politician in the race and talked about in reply by Obama and his campaign, YET CH claims he's running as the anti-war candidate.

Well, actually some campaign issues are presented as absolutes. However, it's definitely true that no candidate is going to win on a campaign that says they refuse to wage war of any kind. Hell, I'm surprised we don't "No Child Left Behind" the "War on Ignorant Children".

We love war.
Heh, I realized after I posted it that my statement about absolutes wasn't really absolute and wondered how long it would take for someone to call me on it.

Meanwhile, I find it hilarious that CH posts extensive information about how Obama has talked about miliatary actions in certain scenarios, that same action has been commented on by nearly every politician in the race and talked about in reply by Obama and his campaign, YET CH claims he's running as the anti-war candidate.
I'm gonna lay off him until he posts something substantive. Ardchoille posted here without a mod thread about it...how on the verge do we have to be for them to watch us without a request? I'm going to use the Eye of Mod as a reason to focus. We're still on about his arguments, but I think it's obvious that our case has been made. It's up to him now.

I hate to have to echo Corny, but there already is a battlefield in Pakistan. What the hell do you think the partnership with them is all about? You've quoted people talking about that battlefield. I don't see how you can now claim that it's a new one.
It will be a new one when the US joins the battle.

You really really think that a speech that is largely about diplomacy, about aid and understanding your enemy and undermining it's support, by combining a more focused and limited military with reaching out to the people and not lumping enemies together is actually going to be used by a Republican who runs on the 100 year war in the General election, and you really expect that to have any traction whatsoever? This speech is months old and even the singular Pakistan thing fails to get much traction when it could actually count against him. You got a hard sell ahead of you.
Actually, the title of his speech is:

The War We Need to Win (http://www.barackobama.com/2007/08/01/the_war_we_need_to_win.php)

The first step must be getting off the wrong battlefield in Iraq, and taking the fight to the terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

So the second step in my strategy will be to build our capacity and our partnerships to track down, capture or kill terrorists around the world, and to deny them the world's most dangerous weapons.

That is why the third step in my strategy will be drying up the rising well of support for extremism.

This brings me to the fourth step in my strategy: I will make clear that the days of compromising our values are over.

I assume the fifth step is "securing a more resilient homeland."
I see a lot of recycled rhetoric in this speech, and I am amazed at how Bush like it is. But, it is still about war. How many people have argued on here that you can't win a "War on Terrorism"? Lots.

More later....

It will be a new one when the US joins the battle.

Um, what? We're not in Afghanistan and having been fighting on the border of Pakistan already? Have you been around for the last seven years?


Actually, the title of his speech is:

The War We Need to Win (http://www.barackobama.com/2007/08/01/the_war_we_need_to_win.php)


I see a lot of recycled rhetoric in this speech, and I am amazed at how Bush like it is. But, it is still about war. How many people have argued on here that you can't win a "War on Terrorism"? Lots.

More later....

So you're completely abandoning the claim that he's the "anti-war" candidate. Good, because it was entirely untrue.

And, hey, look, the entirety of your argumet is that it's "Bush-like".

A lot of people have argued that a military war that doesn't address the political, philosophical, economic and diplomatic problems cannot be won. Fortunately, you quote him agreeing.

Are you supporting Obama? Because you're doing a good job of showing exactly how valid his views are. Keep linking, please.

Heh, I realized after I posted it that my statement about absolutes wasn't really absolute and wondered how long it would take for someone to call me on it.

I'm gonna lay off him until he posts something substantive. Ardchoille posted here without a mod thread about it...how on the verge do we have to be for them to watch us without a request? I'm going to use the Eye of Mod as a reason to focus. We're still on about his arguments, but I think it's obvious that our case has been made. It's up to him now.

We are rather focused, I think. One wonders how much more value this can have. One post he says Obama is the "anti-war" candidate then he shows a self-titled speech by Obama talking about the war he plans to refocus on.

He openly claims where going to join the war on the Afghanistan-Pakistan border. Join? This is after a post a bit ago about how we've been there for seven years.

I don't see how there could be any chance people are going to take his arguments as valid at this point. So I am kind of wondering what value this thread has at this point? It's quickly becoming the point and laugh thread, and, frankly, I'm not sure I'm that happy with participating in that.

We are rather focused, I think. One wonders how much more value this can have. One post he says Obama is the "anti-war" candidate then he shows a self-titled speech by Obama talking about the war he plans to refocus on.

He openly claims where going to join the war on the Afghanistan-Pakistan border. Join? This is after a post a bit ago about how we've been there for seven years.

I don't see how there could be any chance people are going to take his arguments as valid at this point. So I am kind of wondering what value this thread has at this point? It's quickly becoming the point and laugh thread, and, frankly, I'm not sure I'm that happy with participating in that.
Well, that's what I mean. I don't want to get too caught up in self congratulatory posts. It was more a note to self than anything.

Well, that's what I mean. I don't want to get too caught up in self congratulatory posts. It was more a note to self than anything.

It was a good post. It kind of drew me to that point. It's not a reason to punish us, but it's a reason to close the thread.

It will be a new one when the US joins the battle.
As already pointed out, we joined this battle seven years ago. So, no, it's not.


Actually, the title of his speech is:

The War We Need to Win (http://www.barackobama.com/2007/08/01/the_war_we_need_to_win.php)
Where he talks about the battle of ideas...OMG! Barrack is going to invade ideas!!!


I see a lot of recycled rhetoric in this speech, and I am amazed at how Bush like it is. But, it is still about war. How many people have argued on here that you can't win a "War on Terrorism"? Lots.

More later....
Really? Lets look at the points-
The first step must be getting off the wrong battlefield in Iraq, and taking the fight to the terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Yes, I find this very Bush like. I remember how vigirously Bush didn't want to distract from Afghanistan and the search for terrorists by invading Iraq. I see a lot of parralells with Bush's wanting to not fight in Iraq with Obama's wanting to get off the...

HHeeeyyyy, wait a second. That's not true, it's the opposite.

So the second step in my strategy will be to build our capacity and our partnerships to track down, capture or kill terrorists around the world, and to deny them the world's most dangerous weapons.
I find this very similar to Bush's plan of staging a fight in Iraq as a magnet for them to 'fight them over there so we don't have to fight them over here.' No, wait, again...that's not the same at all.

Were you perhaps hoping to find a candidate that was going to say, "Nah, fuck it. Let's just leave 'em be and hope they go away..." I know the Republicans try and paint the Democratic position as just that, but they also try and say that Clinton is a communist, so...you know...

That is why the third step in my strategy will be drying up the rising well of support for extremism.

Lets see how he says he'll do that-
And we know what the extremists say about us. America is just an occupying Army in Muslim lands, the shadow of a shrouded figure standing on a box at Abu Ghraib, the power behind the throne of a repressive leader. They say we are at war with Islam. That is the whispered line of the extremist who has nothing to offer in this battle of ideas but blame -- blame America, blame progress, blame Jews. And often he offers something along with the hate. A sense of empowerment. Maybe an education at a madrasa, some charity for your family, some basic services in the neighborhood. And then: a mission and a gun.

We know we are not who they say we are. America is at war with terrorists who killed on our soil. We are not at war with Islam. America is a compassionate nation that wants a better future for all people. The vast majority of the world's 1.3 billion Muslims have no use for bin Ladin or his bankrupt ideas. But too often since 9/11, the extremists have defined us, not the other way around.

When I am President, that will change. We will author our own story.

We do need to stand for democracy. And I will. But democracy is about more than a ballot box. America must show -- through deeds as well as words -- that we stand with those who seek a better life. That child looking up at the helicopter must see America and feel hope.

As President, I will make it a focus of my foreign policy to roll back the tide of hopelessness that gives rise to hate. Freedom must mean freedom from fear, not the freedom of anarchy. I will never shrug my shoulders and say -- as Secretary Rumsfeld did -- "Freedom is untidy." I will focus our support on helping nations build independent judicial systems, honest police forces, and financial systems that are transparent and accountable. Freedom must also mean freedom from want, not freedom lost to an empty stomach. So I will make poverty reduction a key part of helping other nations reduce anarchy.

I will double our annual investments to meet these challenges to $50 billion by 2012. And I will support a $2 billion Global Education Fund to counter the radical madrasas -- often funded by money from within Saudi Arabia -- that have filled young minds with messages of hate. We must work for a world where every child, everywhere, is taught to build and not to destroy. And as we lead we will ask for more from our friends in Europe and Asia as well -- more support for our diplomacy, more support for multilateral peacekeeping, and more support to rebuild societies ravaged by conflict.

I will also launch a program of public diplomacy that is a coordinated effort across my Administration, not a small group of political officials at the State Department explaining a misguided war. We will open "America Houses" in cities across the Islamic world, with Internet, libraries, English lessons, stories of America's Muslims and the strength they add to our country, and vocational programs. Through a new " America's Voice Corps" we will recruit, train, and send out into the field talented young Americans who can speak with -- and listen to -- the people who today hear about us only from our enemies.

As President, I will lead this effort. In the first 100 days of my Administration, I will travel to a major Islamic forum and deliver an address to redefine our struggle. I will make clear that we are not at war with Islam, that we will stand with those who are willing to stand up for their future, and that we need their effort to defeat the prophets of hate and violence. I will speak directly to that child who looks up at that helicopter, and my message will be clear: "You matter to us. Your future is our future. And our moment is now."
Yes, very Bush like...in that it was in English, I guess...

The fifth line was your assumption, we've seen the quality of those.

It was a good post. It kind of drew me to that point. It's not a reason to punish us, but it's a reason to close the thread.

I don't think we should be punished, just that we didn't need to pat ourselves on the back so much. Partly because it allows him to bury substantive arguments and avoid them. I think locking it would be premature as well.

I, for one, welcome our new galac ... I mean, I, for one, won't be closing this thread as long as it sticks to its expansively worded topic, because it's doing a good job as a catch-all for Obama discussions.

As for the Eye of Mod being upon you, relax. It's just that mods are like seagulls: we go where we think we'll find scraps.

As for the Eye of Mod being upon you, relax. It's just that mods are like seagulls: we go where we think we'll find scraps.

*throws scraps to Ard *



You're here, you might as well get some :D

I, for one, welcome our new galac ... I mean, I, for one, won't be closing this thread as long as it sticks to its expansively worded topic, because it's doing a good job as a catch-all for Obama discussions.

As for the Eye of Mod being upon you, relax. It's just that mods are like seagulls: we go where we think we'll find scraps.

http://www.uncov.com/assets/2007/6/29/fry-see-what-you-did-there-scaled.jpg

I Hate him i like Mitt Romney but he is gone so i like Mike Huckabee

I like Mike Huckabee

Why?

I, for one, welcome our new galac ... I mean, I, for one, won't be closing this thread as long as it sticks to its expansively worded topic, because it's doing a good job as a catch-all for Obama discussions.

As for the Eye of Mod being upon you, relax. It's just that mods are like seagulls: we go where we think we'll find scraps.

No, it's good for us to focus on substance and whether it's by a false feeling that we're treading a line or not, it's better for us to realize that we've got a little useless in our rather sad enjoyment of piling on Canuck. Okay, it's not sad. It really is fun, but it should be clear that it's not the purpose of the topic.

By the way, CH, if you search your name you'll find me saying something quite nice about you in another thread. I was making a point because I think some people confuse an argument with a general disdain. With regard to you and my feelings about you, they'd be entirely incorrect.

I Hate him i like Mitt Romney but he is gone so i like Mike Huckabee

But what he really hates? Punctuation.

As already pointed out, we joined this battle seven years ago. So, no, it's not.
Okay, take the troops out of Iraq where they didn't belong in the first place. I can buy that. Okay, and put them where they should have stayed. I can buy that too.

Now here is where the problem is with Obama. A nifty little speech entitled "The War We Need to Win". Whereby Obama proclaims:

The solution in Afghanistan is not just military -- it is political and economic.

Bush like? I think so. Take for example Bush's Twin Towers speech (http://www.putlearningfirst.com/language/20rhet/bush.html)(one of many that all sound similar to Obama's rhetorical speech).

Bush says:

We're in a war we didn't ask for, but it's a war we must wage, and a war we will win.
Whereby Bush proclaims:

The war we fight today is more than a military conflict; it is the decisive ideological struggle of the 21st century.

The similarities go on and on, and on:

They kill man, woman and child; Christian and Hindu, Jew and Muslim. They seek to create a repressive caliphate.

The terrorists’ directive commands them to kill Christians and Jews, to kill all Americans and make no distinctions among military and civilians, including women and children......But its goal is not making money; its goal is remaking the world and imposing its radical beliefs on people everywhere.
The bottom line is that Obama is going to take Bush's "war that we will win" and turn it into a "war we need to win". No matter what kind of window dressing is used, it is all about war. A war against terrorism. A war that knows no boundary.

Bush's playground was Afghanistan and Iraq, and Obama's would be Afghanistan and Pakistan.

What else does Obama tells us?

And worse -- he is fighting the war the terrorists want us to fight. Bin Ladin and his allies know they cannot defeat us on the field of battle or in a genuine battle of ideas. But they can provoke the reaction we've seen in Iraq: a misguided invasion of a Muslim country that sparks new insurgencies, ties down our military, busts our budgets, increases the pool of terrorist recruits, alienates America, gives democracy a bad name, and prompts the American people to question our engagement in the world.
So would Obama institute "a misguided invasion of a Muslim country that sparks new insurgencies, ties down our military, busts our budgets, increases the pool of terrorist recruits, alienates America, gives democracy a bad name, and prompts the American people to question our engagement in the world" by invading Pakistan?

Hmmmmm.

It will be a new one when the US joins the battle.

Oh for fucks sake :headbang:

Okay, take the troops out of Iraq where they didn't belong in the first place. I can buy that. Okay, and put them where they should have stayed. I can buy that too.

Now here is where the problem is with Obama. A nifty little speech entitled "The War We Need to Win". Whereby Obama proclaims:

The solution in Afghanistan is not just military -- it is political and economic

Bush like? I think so. Take for example Bush's

Congratulations...you just destroyed your whole argument.

He voted against the Iraqi war :D

No he didn't. He wasn't in the Senate when there was a vote.

Okay, take the troops out of Iraq where they didn't belong in the first place. I can buy that. Okay, and put them where they should have stayed. I can buy that too.
....
The bottom line is that Obama is going to take Bush's "war that we will win" and turn it into a "war we need to win".

so can you or can you not buy putting troops "where they should have stayed"?

So would Obama institute "a misguided invasion of a Muslim country that sparks new insurgencies, ties down our military, busts our budgets, increases the pool of terrorist recruits, alienates America, gives democracy a bad name, and prompts the American people to question our engagement in the world" by invading Pakistan?

Hmmmmm.

you still don't know what 'invade' means. or rather you are either lying about not knowing or have lost your grasp on basic reading comprehension, because it has been explained to you previously what the word means and you got caught blatantly misrepresenting the wiki article on the subject in a way that could not be other than retardedly grossly incompetent or willfully lying.

but once again, they would only be invading pakistan if they were there to conquer and hold territory or alter/replace the government. raids and sorties and missile strikes against a group that is not part of the government of a country and which the government of that country is also (theoretically) engaged in fighting alongside the nation launching the attack do not and can not count as invasions. at all. ever. in the slightest.

Today in Washington, a new Congress convenes -- and I will ask members of both parties to work with me to secure our economic future.

Dear God, doesn't Obama want to also want to work with both parties and secure our economic future?

Americans are proving once again to be the hardest working people in the world.

Wait, Obama thinks Americans are hard-working, too.

You have doubled the child tax credit from $500 to $1,000

Obama likes tax credits for children, too!!!

Dear God, they're the same person. A vote for Obama is a vote for Bush!!!

Not only that but Obama wants to leave Iraq and focus on Afghanistan and the Afghani-Pakistani border just like Bush. Hmmm... wait. Ignore that bit.

Obama wants to create universal health care just like Bush. Oh, dammit. Ignore that one too.

Obama wants to decrease the tax burden on the middle class just like Bush. Oh, right. Ignore that one too.

Obama wants to sit down with Cuba for talks just like Bush. Hmmm.. that's not right. Ignore that one too.

Obama says that diplomacy is necessary and that the war wll never be won with bullets JUST LIKE BUSH. Dammit. I was sure I had that one.

Obama wants to address the economic, political and social issues that make them want to attack us or support terrorism. That's Bush-like. I mean Bush said he wanted to declare war on the ideology. Oh, right, that's not the same at all.

But, still, Bush and Obama are practically twins. They're exactly the same as long as you ignore all their differences and don't think about it too much. Won't someone please think of the children?!?!?

Not only that but Obama wants to leave Iraq and focus on Afghanistan and the Afghani-Pakistani border just like Bush. Hmmm... wait. Ignore that bit.

Obama wants to create universal health care just like Bush. Oh, dammit. Ignore that one too.

Obama wants to decrease the tax burden on the middle class just like Bush. Oh, right. Ignore that one too.

Obama wants to sit down with Cuba for talks just like Bush. Hmmm.. that's not right. Ignore that one too.

Obama says that diplomacy is necessary and that the war wll never be won with bullets JUST LIKE BUSH. Dammit. I was sure I had that one.

Obama wants to address the economic, political and social issues that make them want to attack us or support terrorism. That's Bush-like. I mean Bush said he wanted to declare war on the ideology. Oh, right, that's not the same at all.

But, still, Bush and Obama are practically twins. They're exactly the same as long as you ignore all their differences and don't think about it too much. Won't someone please think of the children?!?!?

LOL

LOL

It's fear politics. He can't argue against the policies endorsed by Obama without invoking the spectre of 8 more years of Bush. See, he could just point out the problems with such policies in an open and honest way, but that would be a discussion, and you know how terrible it is to have open and honest discussions about politics.

Instead let's use hyperbolous phrasing that every here is too intelligent to accept. An attack on an enemy of both the sovereign nation and the country making the attack, with the interest of protecting both the sovereign nation and the country making the attack is an invasion. Unless you're not a fan of hyperbole. Obama is "Bush-like". Well, unless you're not a fan of hyperbole AND you've actually compared them honestly. Obama is winning mostly red states that cannot count for him in the general election. Unless of course, you look at which states he's won their history of voting for both democrats and republicans and various other facts. Obama is unwilling to give health-care to all. Unless you recognize that choosing not to have health care and not having access to it aren't the same things. Obama has no experience. Well, unless you count his actual experience everywhere and not just in Washington, like people did with Clinton, Bush, Reagen, etc.

Some people want to pretend the entire argument is the bolded parts and ignore the rest of the discussion. I mean if you bold it right and ignore the rest I just agreed with everything CH said. It's time we have an honest discussion about politics. Everyone here, including CH recognizes that what he is engaging in is intentionally ignoring the substance of these issues, the utterly important nuances of the policies. I know that type of politicking works on the general population, at time, but CH knowns we're not the general population and that we're not going to buy into fearmongering, hyperbole and skewing the meaning of words.

It's fear politics. He can't argue against the policies endorsed by Obama without invoking the spectre of 8 more years of Bush. See, he could just point out the problems with such policies in an open and honest way, but that would be a discussion, and you know how terrible it is to have open and honest discussions about politics.

Instead let's use hyperbolous phrasing that every here is too intelligent to accept. An attack on an enemy of both the sovereign nation and the country making the attack, with the interest of protecting both the sovereign nation and the country making the attack is an invasion. Unless you're not a fan of hyperbole. Obama is "Bush-like". Well, unless you're not a fan of hyperbole AND you've actually compared them honestly. Obama is winning mostly red states that cannot count for him in the general election. Unless of course, you look at which states he's won their history of voting for both democrats and republicans and various other facts. Obama is unwilling to give health-care to all. Unless you recognize that choosing not to have health care and not having access to it aren't the same things. Obama has no experience. Well, unless you count his actual experience everywhere and not just in Washington, like people did with Clinton, Bush, Reagen, etc.

Some people want to pretend the entire argument is the bolded parts and ignore the rest of the discussion. I mean if you bold it right and ignore the rest I just agreed with everything CH said. It's time we have an honest discussion about politics. Everyone here, including CH recognizes that what he is engaging in is intentionally ignoring the substance of these issues, the utterly important nuances of the policies. I know that type of politicking works on the general population, at time, but CH knowns we're not the general population and that we're not going to buy into fearmongering, hyperbole and skewing the meaning of words.

I know, I just thought it was hilarious the way you broke it down.

I know, I just thought it was hilarious the way you broke it down.

You like the bolding bits. It's pretty much exactly what he's doing.

Dear God, doesn't Obama want to also want to work with both parties and secure our economic future?

Wait, Obama thinks Americans are hard-working, too.

Obama likes tax credits for children, too!!!

Dear God, they're the same person. A vote for Obama is a vote for Bush!!!
I suppose I should have been a little more specific, in that Obama is Bush like in regards to foreign military campaigns, and speeches involving the use of military.

No he didn't. He wasn't in the Senate when there was a vote.

except that he did say that he would have voted against it.

I suppose I should have been a little more specific, in that Obama is Bush like in regards to foreign military campaigns, and speeches involving the use of military.

Which obviously makes them one and the same politically.

except that he did say that he would have voted against it.

When did he say this? At the time, or when it was expediant to do so in later years?

Which obviously makes them one and the same politically.

Now you're learning the ways of CH's incredible mental gymnastics.

When did he say this? At the time, or when it was expediant to do so in later years?
At the time, he was very loud and vocal in his opposition to the war, although that was not very expedient.

No he didn't. He wasn't in the Senate when there was a vote.

Great post..... You have to like when someone gives a quick dose of reality....

perhaps the originator meant "Obama voted against the war in Iraq in an informal Obama family meeting while enjoying a delicious pasta dinner".

When did he say this? At the time, or when it was expediant to do so in later years?

He's always been against it.

Great post..... You have to like when someone gives a quick dose of reality....

perhaps the originator meant "Obama voted against the war in Iraq in an informal Obama family meeting while enjoying a delicious pasta dinner".

Oftentimes in Congress, the pro-lobbyistic Congressmen and Senators, especially Republicans, will call for a vote when the people who are likely to vote no are absent. The fact still remains the same, Obama's voting record on Iraq is much better then both McCainiac's and Clinton's.

I'm starting to wonder if CanuckHeaven is getting his rhetoric from some source rather than coming up with it on his own, because my father was spitting out some of the same lines to someone on the telephone, about how Obama stacked the caucus states and how he doesn't actually have the majority support of Democrats. (I'm sure he said a lot more than that before I came in the room, and maybe afterwards, but I left before I heard anymore because I was just that disgusted.)

I'm starting to wonder if CanuckHeaven is getting his rhetoric from some source rather than coming up with it on his own, because my father was spitting out some of the same lines to someone on the telephone, about how Obama stacked the caucus states and how he doesn't actually have the majority support of Democrats. (I'm sure he said a lot more than that before I came in the room, and maybe afterwards, but I left before I heard anymore because I was just that disgusted.)

You mean his inability to intelligently back it up wasn't a clue?




... Actually I've figured out CH's source...







It's your dad.

What makes me angry about Obama is that he views himself as the next FREAKIN' JACK KENNEDY BEEATCH! Trust me, Dan Quayle had more of JFK in him.

What makes me angry about Obama is that he views himself as the next FREAKIN' JACK KENNEDY BEEATCH! Trust me, Dan Quayle had more of JFK in him.

neither of these sentences seem very well grounded in fact to me

So should I really bother? I spent time and directly addressed your last set, gave context. And you just move on like you haven't been challenged. The lack of respect is pretty grating, especially with all your flops to the refs about how bad you're treated by other posters. It's tiring to try and retain even a baseline respect for you rather than just regard you as a run of the mill troll who just posts nonsense to get a rise without any interest in real debate. Three threads now and countless posts and I've lost how many times you have ignored substantive arguments but can always find the time to whine about the quality of other's post.
Okay, take the troops out of Iraq where they didn't belong in the first place. I can buy that. Okay, and put them where they should have stayed. I can buy that too.

Now here is where the problem is with Obama. A nifty little speech entitled "The War We Need to Win". Whereby Obama proclaims
We've been talking about that speech for 10 pages, but hey, thanks for introducing us to it.



Bush like? I think so. Take for example Bush's Twin Towers speech (http://www.putlearningfirst.com/language/20rhet/bush.html)(one of many that all sound similar to Obama's rhetorical speech).

Bush says:


Whereby Bush proclaims:



The similarities go on and on, and on:




The bottom line is that Obama is going to take Bush's "war that we will win" and turn it into a "war we need to win". No matter what kind of window dressing is used, it is all about war. A war against terrorism. A war that knows no boundary.
So Bush also mentioned that it was a war of ideas. Even a broken clock is right twice a day. The devil is in the details. Bush didn't give any, and didn't deliver anything other than a war that didn't need to be fought. Not to mention you misrepresent Obama in this. We are already in the fight in Afghanistan, we are already in the fight on the borders of Pakistan. We have shirked our commitment there with an unnecessary war. Shirked it both to Afghanistan and have left too much of the burden to Pakistan with our distractions. When it comes to military action Obama is very specific, it regards the Taliban and Al Queada specifically in that area. Outside of that, as I've already quoted and pointed out it involves fighting poverty, promoting education.

If you pull out far enough you can make just about anything look similar, it's when you get closer your attempts to pain them with the same brush becomes comic.

Further, this argument against Obama doesn't really lead a path to Clinton. Unless you can somehow point to a Clinton position that somehow ends conflict it is simply a case of candidates recognizing we are in a conflict, and it is going to take some fighting. Obama's position is that relying on the fighting will get us nowhere, that freedom on an empty stomach is not freedom at all. He actually draws a direct contrast with his position on that with the Bush Doctrine. I've already quoted and hilighted that so I'm not going to bother again.

Unless you've become a Ron Paul supporter, this is a dead end for you.

Bush's playground was Afghanistan and Iraq, and Obama's would be Afghanistan and Pakistan.

What else does Obama tells us?


So would Obama institute "a misguided invasion of a Muslim country that sparks new insurgencies, ties down our military, busts our budgets, increases the pool of terrorist recruits, alienates America, gives democracy a bad name, and prompts the American people to question our engagement in the world" by invading Pakistan?

Hmmmmm.
Again, you rely too heavily on equivocating Obama's words into insisting he will invade Pakistan. To clamp on that in such a bulldog manner when you have been shown over and over again that it is false is frankly ridiculous. In fact, it is that we talk of freedom and democracy in the region and then continue to support leaders who run counter to those things, and that creates our image in that part of the world. Those alliances do us more harm than good and we must be true to our principles. He does not advocate an invasion of Pakistan, he does not even hint at forcibly overturning Musharrif. He says that if Musharrif oppresses democracy we do ourselves no favors by supporting him. Seeing as Bush's position is to support Musharrif in this uneasy partnership is an immediate and obvious difference.

To many of your conclusions are based on erronious premises. And even if they weren't, again, unless you've suddenly become a Ron Paul supporter, you haven't made a case for Clinton over Obama. You're taking debate tips from Creationists who haven't realized that you can't just attack the position of your opponent and hope the default is then your position.

And that's just the short list of things wrong with your argument.

I'd go on, but considering your track record for actually addressing arguments I frankly don't see the point.

Oftentimes in Congress, the pro-lobbyistic Congressmen and Senators, especially Republicans, will call for a vote when the people who are likely to vote no are absent. The fact still remains the same, Obama's voting record on Iraq is much better then both McCainiac's and Clinton's.

To be fair, Obama and Clinton's voting record on Iraq are very similar. The difference comes that in 2002 Obama was vocally against the war and against the vote (despite being in the Illinois senate and not the national senate) and remains against the vote. Clinton feels that the vote itself was justified but that the power was given to the wrong person. That's the major difference. Once in the senate Obama and Clinton's votes have been very similar to almost identical.

I suppose I should have been a little more specific, in that Obama is Bush like in regards to foreign military campaigns, and speeches involving the use of military.

Except he's not and you haven't demonstrated as much. You chose bits and peices that could be found in nearly every speech made about any war. It's nonsense. First of all, you pointed to when Bush was speaking about Afghanistant which was a war Obama actually agreed with. Second of all, you chose bits that sound similar but aren't not. Like compare the suggestion that we need to help those countries that are battling with terrorists internally economically. You compared it to a statement that we're at war with an ideology. The difference isn't subtle at all. It's like comparing me saying that I'm going to use economic means to get rich to someone saying they're going to steal to get rich because we both want to get rich.

I'm starting to wonder if CanuckHeaven is getting his rhetoric from some source rather than coming up with it on his own, because my father was spitting out some of the same lines to someone on the telephone, about how Obama stacked the caucus states and how he doesn't actually have the majority support of Democrats. (I'm sure he said a lot more than that before I came in the room, and maybe afterwards, but I left before I heard anymore because I was just that disgusted.)
There's some evidence to suggest that the Clinton campaign coordinates the real dirty stuff through targeted viral emails and the attack site http://hillaryis44.com/

edit - Clinton's been criticized for doing a bad job of coordinating a clear message, but IMO the negative message coordination has been clear focused, and unified.

Now you're learning the ways of CH's incredible mental gymnastics.

I didn't know a hamster in a wheel reading the talking points as they roll in front of his face was considered "gymnastics."

I didn't know a hamster in a wheel reading the talking points as they roll in front of his face was considered "gymnastics."

It's not generally, by for CH when it comes to Obama....

Seriously, enough. Contribute. The constant cheerleading is tiresome. Yes, CH isn't really addressing all of the posts and some of them are standard and fairly unsupportable talking points, but what possible good can all the cheerleading do? It'll just give him an excuse to address something other than the substantive posts.

Particularly the hamster comparison is unnecessary. Focus on the arguments, or if necessary, the lack of it.

What makes me angry about Obama is that he views himself as the next FREAKIN' JACK KENNEDY BEEATCH! Trust me, Dan Quayle had more of JFK in him.

Are you suggesting JFK had sex with Dan Quayle?

Are you suggesting JFK had sex with Dan Quayle?

hawt!

So should I really bother? I spent time and directly addressed your last set, gave context. And you just move on like you haven't been challenged.
I appreciate the time you have invested, but I am unfortunately in a position of extrapolating my position, which involves a fair amount of research, and the second problem is that I do have time constraints, (meetings, family and job). Also a part of the problem is that I am an absolutely horrid hunt and peck typer. I honestly wish I had more time.

The lack of respect is pretty grating,
I do respect your depth of knowledge and your willingness to share your point of view. I am sorry if I cannot keep up due to the aforementioned problems.

especially with all your flops to the refs about how bad you're treated by other posters.
If you are suggesting that I appealed to the Mods for help regarding the CH lynching mob, you would be incorrect. I have been here 4 years and have never lodged a complaint at the Mod level, except one inappropriate link.

It's tiring to try and retain even a baseline respect for you rather than just regard you as a run of the mill troll who just posts nonsense to get a rise without any interest in real debate.
Well, if you think I am a "run of the mill troll who just posts nonsense", then you have a choice, and I suggested this before, and that would be to put me on ignore or just avoid respponding to my posts.

Three threads now and countless posts and I've lost how many times you have ignored substantive arguments but can always find the time to whine about the quality of other's post.
Unfortunately, some people do want to sidetrack the debate by jumping on the bandwagon, and in that endeavour, they do succeed.

We've been talking about that speech for 10 pages, but hey, thanks for introducing us to it.
I think it is an important speech, although I do believe his delivery of the speech was dry and passionless.

So Bush also mentioned that it was a war of ideas. Even a broken clock is right twice a day. The devil is in the details. Bush didn't give any, and didn't deliver anything other than a war that didn't need to be fought.
Here is the kicker though......he fought a war that should never have been fought, broke all the rules, and yet through the politics of fear was able to get re-elected. Simply amazing to say the least.

Not to mention you misrepresent Obama in this. We are already in the fight in Afghanistan, we are already in the fight on the borders of Pakistan. We have shirked our commitment there with an unnecessary war. Shirked it both to Afghanistan and have left too much of the burden to Pakistan with our distractions. When it comes to military action Obama is very specific, it regards the Taliban and Al Queada specifically in that area. Outside of that, as I've already quoted and pointed out it involves fighting poverty, promoting education.
It really isn't a case of me misrepresenting Obama....it is a matter of my opinion that Obama is dishing out tons of hollow rhetoric designed to make him appear decisive, tough, demanding, forceful, yet kind caring and compassionate.

Your invocation of the "poverty, education" aspect is part of that hollow rhetoric I was alluding to. Nevermind that proper funding has not been given to Iraq or Afghanistan (although it was promised), despite the devastation that has been augnented and exacerbated by the US invasion, take a look at your own country, whereby US poverty ranks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Poverty_Index)17th out of 19 listed industrial countries.

And as far as education (http://kapio.kcc.hawaii.edu/upload/fullnews.php?id=52) is concerned:

In a 2003 study conducted by UNICEF that took the averages from five different international education studies, the researchers ranked the United States No. 18 out of 24 nations in terms of the relative effectiveness of its educational system.
I think it is intellectually dishonest to expect people to believe that you are going to go the extra mile for your antagonists while your own people suffer.

And it is the same story by Bush or Obama that the US will whip a little "democracy" on these nations. What happens when it appears these people don't want your democracy?

*snip*

Um, huh? What does that have to do with Obama? You just entirely changed the subject. Everything you mentioned has been mentioned by Obama as a problem. You've just shown him to be entirely consistent.

And, as far as the sidetracking, if your time is so limited and you answer so many of the the "sidetrack" points, then it's you who is giving them priority over substance and in doing so validating those accusations. Suddenly your lack of substantive response becomes an issue of your priority in posting, rather than your claim that you simply can't find the time. Find the time by ignoring any side points about your lack of substance, and you can correct the problem and everyone wins.

Um, huh? What does that have to do with Obama? You just entirely changed the subject. Everything you mentioned has been mentioned by Obama as a problem. You've just shown him to be entirely consistent.
Has much to do with Obama. He is proposing the same tired solutions that failed Bushco.

And, as far as the sidetracking, if your time is so limited and you answer so many of the the "sidetrack" points, then it's you who is giving them priority over substance and in doing so validating those accusations. Suddenly your lack of substantive response becomes an issue of your priority in posting, rather than your claim that you simply can't find the time. Find the time by ignoring any side points about your lack of substance, and you can correct the problem and everyone wins.
Then quite sidetracking the debate with your inane comments. :D

Thanks.

Has much to do with Obama. He is proposing the same tired solutions that failed Bushco.

Pardon? What solutions? You're all over the place. The things you said we needed to clean up domestically have nothing to do with Pakistan, and according to you, you were only comparing their military solutions. So I take it Bush proposed universal health care? Certainly you can find that for me. Oh, and Obama is a big supporter of NCLB, right? Well, he must be since he's proposing the same solutions as Bush, right?

I love this. Your challenged on the claim that his military solutions are the same, you talk about a bunch of things that have nothing to do with it, complaining that those problems, domestic problems, hurt our credibiltiy, and when I point out that Obama wants to address those too, you switch back to the similarities between Bush and Obama, which you said is only on military issues.

You're not making any sense, but I'll give you a chance to clarify.

In EXACTLY what ways is Obama like Bush. And don't trot out that invasion nonsense. By no stretch of the imagination is bombing a terrorist camp the same as attacking the government of Iraq and replacing it. Let's try and pretend like there is such a thing as degree. K? K.


Then quite sidetracking the debate with your inane comments. :D

Thanks.

I have plenty of time. I manage to reply to everything I choose to and I can cover all of the substantive posts and have, so the problem is not mine. If you don't have time to reply to everything, then by replying to the sidetrack stuff, you're demonstrating that you're more interested in complaing about people noticing you lack substance, than providing substance and proving them wrong.

And putting a smiley at the end doesn't make this fact funny or interesting or less true. Put your limited time and hunting and pecking to the task you created for yourself. You decided to go on the attack against Obama, now support your claims.

I think it is an important speech, although I do believe his delivery of the speech was dry and passionless.Is that important?
Here is the kicker though......he fought a war that should never have been fought, broke all the rules, and yet through the politics of fear was able to get re-elected. Simply amazing to say the least.Amazing, but nothing to do with Obama. It was readily apparent that Bush was unintelligent before he was elected. Heck, according to some people it was why he was elected. So we could know at the time that his talk was no more than words put into his mouth. Obama on the other hand has demonstrated a keen grasp of the issues when put on the spot, and wrote his own book of his campaign thesis, AND has demonstrated in his record concrete support for the principles he touts.

I think it is intellectually dishonest to expect people to believe that you are going to go the extra mile for your antagonists while your own people suffer.Not if you can point to the actions you have taken to change your own people's conditions as well as those who aren't your people.

If you think Clinton is doing more of this than Obama in the Senate, read this:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/2/20/201332/807/36/458633
(and that doesn't include his work in the Illinois Senate)

And it is the same story by Bush or Obama that the US will whip a little "democracy" on these nations. What happens when it appears these people don't want your democracy?I wasn't aware that Obama intended to force democracy on anybody. Bush himself doesn't understand how democracy works, that it can only be sustained where there is sufficient social capital. That's why democracy can only be instituted through the grassroots, a path that Obama embraces.

An aside: if people don't want democracy forced on them (which I think misstates the problem), do they really have grounds to complain when it is? I mean, that's what they support by being opposed to democracy, right?

If you still think Clinton has good experience, read this:
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=24979

If you still think Barack Obama is vague and position-less, here are some of Senator Barack Obama's positions:

Opposed the Iraq war from the start.
Voted to end the war in Iraq.
Supports capturing and killing Osama Bin Laden.
Favors a $1000 tax cut for every working American family.

Will implement tax form simplification to reduce filing time.
Provide tax credit for all middle class homeowners.
Provide a tax cut for all families making less than $75,000 a year.
Amend NAFTA to protect American workers.
Amend NAFTA to strengthen environmental protections.
Providing Flex Ed training accounts for workers.
Extending Trade Adjustment assistance to service workers.
Supported Patriot Employer Act of 2007 that gives tax credits to large companies that keep workers here in America.
Double funds for basic federal research.
Implement a long term research and development tax credit.
Invest in green technologies.
Reduce carbon emission gases.
Tackle the challenges of global warming.
Create an energy focused youth jobs program.
Create Federal Renewable Portfolio Standard.
Extend the Production Tax Credit.
Expand Broadband into every community.
Keep the Internet tax free.
Expand high speed internet access in rural areas.
Fight for passage of Employee Free Choice Act.
Ensure freedom to unionize.
Would overturn "Kentucky River" classifications of Bush's NLRB
Protect rights of striking workers.
Increase the mininum wage to index it to inflation.
Crack down on predatory lenders.
Provide a universal mortgage tax credit for homeowners who don't itemize.
Sign the Stop Fraud Act to prevent lending fraud.
Mandate accurate loan disclosure.
Create a fund to protect people from foreclosures.
Close the bankruptcy loophole for mortgage companies.
Establish a credit card rating to improve disclosure.
Ban utilateral credit card charges.
Apply interest rate only to future debt.
Prohibit credit card interest on fees.
Prohibit Universal defaults.
Require prompt and fair crediting of cardholder payments.
Protect working people from unfair bankruptcy laws.
Ban executive bonuses for bankruptcy companies.
REquire disclosure of pension investments.
Cap outlandandish interest rates on payday loans.
Implement legislation to drive unscrupulous lenders out of business
Create a bankruptcy exemption for people that went broke because of medical bills.
Double funding for after school programs.
Extend Family and Medical Leave Act.
Encourage states to adopt Paid leave.
Expand the Child Care Tax Credit
Supports ratification of UN Convention Rights of Persons With Disabilities.
Supports independent, community based living for people with disabilities.
Expand educational opportunites for people with disabilities.
Expand job opportunities for people with disabilities.
Strengthen civil rights enforcement.
Sign into law the Fair Pay Act.
Sign law reversing recent SCOTUS rulings that permitted discrimination against women.
Sign law reversing recent SCOTUS rulings that permitted discrimination against racial minorities.
Strengthen federal hate crimes legislation.
Eliminate the sentence disparities regarding crack cocaines.
Establish drug courts for first time, non violent offenders.
Create a prison to work incentive for those transitioning back into society.
Passed a law to prohibit the practice of racial profiling.
Supported reauthorizing the Voting Rights Act.
Opposes all discriminatory barriers to voting.
Helped reform death penalty system in Illinois to protect innocent people on death row.
Voted to ban cluster bombs.
Provide high quality affordable child care to families.
Will quadrulple Early Head Start funding.
Will increase Head Start funding.
Creates early learning challenge grants.
Abolish overly rigid teach to the test curriculum in schools.
Improve accountability in public schools.
Invest in intervention strategies to reduce dropout rates in schools.
Increase funding for afterschool programs.
Supports Step Up program to increase summer learning opportunities.
Support English language learner programs.
Expand college outreach programs.
Create teacher service scholarships.
Requires all public schools to be accredited.
Create teacher residency programs.
Create the American Opportunity Tax Credit for higher education.
Streamline financial aid application.
Introduced legislation to increase Pell Grant to $5,100.
Reduce carbon emissions by 80% by 2050.
Confront deforestation.
Promote carbon sequestration.
Accelerate commercialization of plug in hybrids.
Promote development of commercial scale renewable energy.
Invest in low emission coal plants.
Transition to new electric digit grid.
Double science funding for clean energy products.
Create Green Jobs Corps.
Invest in programs to help manufacturers make transition to green products.
Create clean technologies venture capital fund.
Deploy cellulosic ethanol.
Expand locally owned biofuel refineries.
Increase renewable fuel standards.
Establish national low carbon fuel standard.
Increase fuel economy standards.
Invest in solar energy.
Invest in wind energy.
Establish a centralized database to track lobbyist activities.
Appoint an independent watchdog group to oversee congressional ethic violations.
Favors campaign finance reform.
Sunshine on legislation proposal.
End abuse of no bid contracts.
Release presidential records in a more timely fashion.
Prevent political appointees from working as lobbyists within two years after employment has ended.
Reform political appointment process.
Sign ethics legislation that he proposed as a Senator with Russ Feingold.
Obama sponsored a bi-partisan bill allowing regular people to track federal grants.
Take leadership in the global fight against AIDS.
Provide tax cuts to small businesses.
Provide income tax cuts for all senior citizens making $50,000 a year or less.
Expand the Earned Income Tax Credit.
Protect workers from caregiver discrimination.
Increase mentoring programs for beginner teachers.
Provide universal health care for all Americans within 4 years.
Combat fraudulent subprime loans.
Expand Nurse Family Partnership.
Provide automatic workplace pensions for workers.
Expand savings credit for retirement accounts.
Reinstate pay as you go budget rules.
Repeal Bush tax cuts for top 1% which led to lower middle class standard of living.
Slash earmarks to pre 2001 levels.
Abolish obsolete wasteful government programs.
Voted against raising the minimum debt in 2006.
Supports wiping out Al Qaeda wherever they may be.
Opposed Kyl Lieberman.
Supports tough attempts at diplomacy with Iran to protect America's interests.
Will work to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Restrengthen NATO.
Passed a bipartisan law with Senator Lugar to prevent smuggling of WMDs.
Introduced a bill with Senator Hagel to reduce nuclear arsenals around the globe.
Supports securing loose nuke arsenals from the former Soviet Union and elsewhere.
Strengthen Non Nuclear Proliferation Treaty.
Expand size of Army by 65,000.
Expand size of Marines by 27,000.
Provide our troops with new equipment and the tools they need.
Provide National Service troops with adequate leave time.
Will insulate the Director of National Intelligence from partisan politics.
Guarantee that health care can never be denied because of a pre-existing condition.
Introduce a health care plan similar to the one members of Congress have and give all Americans access to this plan.
Simplify the paperwork in health care costs.
Make premiums and co pays affordable.
Require mandatory coverage of all children for health care.
Expand SCHIP.
Expand Medicaid.
Reduce costs of catastrophic illnesses for employers and employees.
Support disease management programs.
Require hospitals and providers to have full transparency over costs.
Promote patient safety by requiring providers to report medical errors.
Establish an independent institute to guide reviews + research on comparative effectiveness in health care.
Strengthen anti trust laws to prevent insurance companies from gouging medical providers.
Lower medical costs by having electronic health info systems.
Increase competition in prescription drug markets.
Advance biomedical research field.
Improve mental care coverage.
Reduce mercury deposits to help prevent miscarriages.
Increase funding for autism research.
Cosponsored Healthy Kids Act of 2007.
Cosponsored reauthorization of SCHIP in 2007.
Obama introduced legislation to establish guidelines to monitor fuels from nuclear power plants.
Sponsored a bill with Senator Lautenberg to protect chemical plants from possible terrorist attacks.
Introduced legislation to upgrade monitoring of water supplies.
Introduced legislation to protect localities from radioactive leaks.
Create secure borders with additional personnel and infrastructure.
Remove incentives for people to enter this country illegally.
Crack down on employers who hire illegal immigrants.
Invest in transitional jobs.
Improve transportation access to jobs.
Fully fund community block grants.
Create an affordable housing trust fund.
Establish a program called 20 Promise Neighborhoods.
Invest in rural areas, especially small businesses, schools, and doctors.
Implement a payment limitation program to help small farmers.
Protect family farms from anti-competitive monopolies.
Implement tough fines for CAFO violations.
Establish country of origin labeling for all products.
Support regional food systems.
Encourage organic farming.
Provide tax credits for young farmers.
Increase capital for small farmers.
Modify FCC so all rural residents have access to modern communications.
Upgrade rural infrastructure.
Supported legislation to reverse 2 billion dollars of agriculture cuts under Bush.
Cosponsored Emergency Farm Relief Act of 2006.
Sponsored a bill to combat the scourge of methamphetamines.
Expand Americorps.
Double the Peacecorps in 8 years.
Expand Service learning in all our schools.
Offer an opportunity tax credit for college students in exchange for 100 hours of community service.
Promote college work study programs with public service.
Expand on the YouthBuild program.
Create a Social Investment Fund Network.
Create a non profit entrepreneur agency.
Protect Social Security.
Reform corporate bankruptcy laws.
Strengthen laws protecting against age discrimination in the workplace.
Ensure heating assistance for senior citizens.
Protect the openness of the Internet.
Encourage diversity in media ownership.
Protect children from Internet predators with strict law enforcement.
Support transition of the internet into the digital world.
Preserve artistic expression.
Keep inappropriate advertising away from programs for children.
Enhance safety standards for toys imported into this country.
Protect the right of privacy of every law abiding American.
Update surveillance laws under the rule of law.
Higher salaries for teachers.
Work with the FTC to cut down on cyber crimes.
Eliminate teach to the test curriculum and restore true learning to the classroom.
Open up government to citizens by providing transparency.
Provide all our schools with broadband technology.
Modernize public safety networks.
Make the research and development tax credit permanent.
Protect intellectual property at home and abroad.
Reform the patent system to encourage innovation.
Allow all veterans back into the VA.
Strengthen VA care for all veterans.
Fight veterans employment discrimination.
Fix the benefits bureaucracy to help veterans.
Expand vet centers across the country.
Obama passed legilsation to slash red tape to help wounded soldiers at Walter Reed.
Introduced legislation to direct the VA and Pentagon to fix its veterans record systems.
Introduced legislation to help the victims of Hurricane Katrina.
Rebuild the roads and bridges that need to be rebuilt.
Will end the genocide in Darfur.
Will restore habeas corpus to America.
Reject torture.
Close down Gitmo.
Pledges to obey the Constitution of the United States.
Will fully implement and enforce the Equal Pay Act.
End tax breaks for US companies sending jobs overseas.
Voted to reinstate 1.15 billion to the COPS program to reduce crime.
Wants to keep drinking age at 21.
Supports grants to local educational agencies.
Voted to protect ANWR.
Voted to protect the Great Lakes from polluters.
Favors labor and trade standards with trade with China.
Opposed CAFTA which hurts American workers.
Voting to give the District of Columbia its proper vote in Congress.
Voted to expand enrollment period for Medicare Part D.
Favors repealing the discriminatory don't ask don't tell policy.
Provide first responders with the health care and equipment they need.
Voted to implement the 9/11 commission recommendations.
Voted to restore money to ports and first responders.
Voted to establish a Guest Worker program.
Voted to increase the minimum wage.
Voted against anti-Constitution radicals Alito and Roberts.
Voted against the repeal of the estate tax that only applies to 1% of the wealthiest of estates.
Supports the first amendment freedom of religion clauses and establishment clauses.
Introduced a bill requiring public companies to give shareholders an annual nonbinding vote on executive compensation.
Protects our schools by opposing voucher schemes.
Introduced Biofuels Security Act in 2007.
Favors closing corporate tax loopholes.
Understands that global warming is a real problem that must be addressed.
Supports civil unions for LGBT couples.
Favors the death penalty in the rarest but appropriate of circumstances.

Has much to do with Obama. He is proposing the same tired solutions that failed Bushco.In the list I just posted, please specify how those solutions are the same tired ones that failed Bushco.

Obama was talking about taking out Usama bin Laden. We Americans have waited a long time for our government to get around to finding and arresting or killing the man who masterminded the attacks on our country.

Neither Obama or Clinton are advocating forcing democracy down the throats of a middle eastern country. That's the republican party's policy.

I appreciate the time you have invested, but I am unfortunately in a position of extrapolating my position, which involves a fair amount of research, and the second problem is that I do have time constraints, (meetings, family and job). Also a part of the problem is that I am an absolutely horrid hunt and peck typer. I honestly wish I had more time.


I do respect your depth of knowledge and your willingness to share your point of view. I am sorry if I cannot keep up due to the aforementioned problems.


If you are suggesting that I appealed to the Mods for help regarding the CH lynching mob, you would be incorrect. I have been here 4 years and have never lodged a complaint at the Mod level, except one inappropriate link.


Well, if you think I am a "run of the mill troll who just posts nonsense", then you have a choice, and I suggested this before, and that would be to put me on ignore or just avoid respponding to my posts.


Unfortunately, some people do want to sidetrack the debate by jumping on the bandwagon, and in that endeavour, they do succeed.
I question your time management skills.


I think it is an important speech, although I do believe his delivery of the speech was dry and passionless.
Clearly. We've been discussing it for pages. Kinda the point of the ol' barb, there, Swift.


Here is the kicker though......he fought a war that should never have been fought, broke all the rules, and yet through the politics of fear was able to get re-elected. Simply amazing to say the least.
Were you under the impression that we were arguing that Bush's was a good presidency? I'm not sure what your point here was.


It really isn't a case of me misrepresenting Obama....it is a matter of my opinion that Obama is dishing out tons of hollow rhetoric designed to make him decisive, tough, demanding, forceful, yet kind caring and compassionate.
The speech contained specifics. I listed them, even bolded them. Willful ignorance is not an argument.

Your invocation of the "poverty, education" aspect is part of that hollow rhetoric I was alluding to. Nevermind that proper funding has not been given to Iraq or Afghanistan (although it was promised), despite the devastation that has been augnented and exacerbated by the US invasion, take a look at your own country, whereby US poverty ranks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Poverty_Index)17th out of 19 listed industrial countries.
Are you hoping that I'll argue that our education system doesn't need attention? Or that this one Obama speech is the only part of his platform, or that a president only does one thing his or her entire term?

And as far as education (http://kapio.kcc.hawaii.edu/upload/fullnews.php?id=52) is concerned:


I think it is intellectually dishonest to expect people to believe that you are going to go the extra mile for your antagonists while your own people suffer.

And it is the same story by Bush or Obama that the US will whip a little "democracy" on these nations. What happens when it appears these people don't want your democracy?
So then you are a Ron Paul supporter? Because he's the only candidate advocating isolationism. The condition of force that you are so married to with Obama has shit all to do with a country taking on our notion of democracy, the only thing related to that is that we cannot be partners, supporters even, of regimes that suppress it. If they don't want it, they don't, but we don't have to pay for it, either. The strikes, that you so constantly try to paint as invasion, are specifically related to parties that wish us specific and direct harm.

Did you dislocate something on this stretch? Did you forget that at some point you were advocating Clinton, because in these critiques you've also painted Clinton with your wide brush.

In EXACTLY what ways is Obama like Bush. And don't trot out that invasion nonsense. By no stretch of the imagination is bombing a terrorist camp the same as attacking the government of Iraq and replacing it. Let's try and pretend like there is such a thing as degree. K? K.


Sorry to add on to things here, but it seemed most appropriate from this comment. There is a president that these proposed strikes resemble, but it isn't Bush, it's...Clinton. Bill. They're more like Bill Clinton's strikes at terrorist targets than Bush's 'Total War' solution. You can argue the effectiveness or lack there of of that. It would be at least more honest then attempting the "OMG! BUSH!" slant.

Abolish obsolete wasteful government programs.

In other words, every government program that has ever existed?

I don't know - the IRS doesn't seem to be run pretty effectively.

I was somewhat joking.

As for the IRS, it runs too effectively. :(

In other words, every government program that has ever existed?
I don't know - the IRS doesn't seem to be run pretty effectively.

It's the old unaddressed electability counter argument again, but this time the added poll directly contrasts CH's claim, see the bolded note below.

Clinton
New Hampshire
Pennsylvania
Arkansas
Ohio
Nevada
New Mexico
Oregon

Obama
Wisconsin
Virginia
Iowa
Minnesota
Missouri
Colorado

This was in response to CH's claim that Obama was just winning mostly Red States and so his wins didn't matter. But six of his 23 wins, or 1/4th of them, have been swing states compared to Clinton's four swing state wins. He hasn't so much as disputed their swing state status with me. In fact, the closest I've gotten to a response is to restate his premise that Obama has won mostly Red States and that Clinton can win the swing states. Jocabia's list and my list have both countered that.

My other list was polls of swing states (and others, since I'm going to update it again) from RCP. This actually gives him room to argue but again, completely ignored-

Real Clear Politics (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/latestpolls/index.html) has tracked general election races for Obama and Clinton against McCain.
New ones (changed from the first time) in green, newer ones (changed for this post) in purple. Unfortunately you have to go to the post and then click the arrow (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13466972&postcount=202) to see the original numbers to compare. The most notable difference from the first time I did this was the dramatic drop of both Clinton and Obama in Florida, Obama falling much further.

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
Ohio: McCain vs. Obama Rasmussen McCain 42, Obama 41, Und 17 McCain +1
Ohio: McCain vs. Clinton Rasmussen McCain 46, Clinton 43, Und 11 McCain +3
Ohio: McCain vs. Clinton SurveyUSA McCain 42, Clinton 52, Und 6 Clinton +10
Ohio: McCain vs. Obama SurveyUSA McCain 44, Obama 47, Und 9 Obama +3
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
Pennsylvania: McCain vs. Clinton Franklin & Marshall McCain 46, Clinton 46, Und 8 Tie
Pennsylvania: McCain vs. Obama Franklin & Marshall McCain 44, Obama 43, Und 13 McCain +1
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
Iowa: McCain vs. Clinton Rasmussen McCain 47, Clinton 37, Und 16 McCain +10
Iowa: McCain vs. Obama Rasmussen McCain 41, Obama 44, Und 15 Obama +3
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
Virginia: McCain vs. Clinton Rasmussen McCain 51, Clinton 41, Und 8 McCain +10
Virginia: McCain vs. Obama Rasmussen McCain 49, Obama 44, Und 7 McCain +5
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
Oregon: McCain vs. Clinton SurveyUSA McCain 49, Clinton 41, Und 10 McCain +8
Oregon: McCain vs. Obama SurveyUSA McCain 47, Obama 48, Und 6 Obama +1
New York: McCain vs. Clinton SurveyUSA McCain 41, Clinton 52, Und 7 Clinton +11
New York: McCain vs. Obama SurveyUSA McCain 36, Obama 57, Und 7 Obama +21
New York: McCain vs. Clinton Siena McCain 42, Clinton 49, Und 9 Clinton +7
New York: McCain vs. Obama Siena McCain 40, Obama 47, Und 13 Obama +7
Kansas: McCain vs. Clinton SurveyUSA McCain 59, Clinton 35, Und 6 McCain +24
Kansas: McCain vs. Obama SurveyUSA McCain 50, Obama 44, Und 6 McCain +6
New Jersey: McCain vs. Clinton Quinnipiac McCain 41, Clinton 47, Und 12 Clinton +6
New Jersey: McCain vs. Obama Quinnipiac McCain 39, Obama 46, Und 15 Obama +7
Michigan: McCain vs. Obama Rasmussen McCain 39, Obama 47, Und 14 Obama +8
Michigan: McCain vs. Clinton Rasmussen McCain 44, Clinton 44, Und 12 Tie
New Mexico: McCain vs. Obama Rasmussen McCain 44, Obama 44 Tie
New Mexico: McCain vs. Clinton Rasmussen McCain 50, Clinton 38 McCain +12


Not all of those are swing states by current definitions, but some of them show swing where there might not have been before. The list has grown unruly so I'll condense the results by collections of states-

McCain Leads Both Match Ups (States where Obama loses by less in italic)
Florida
Ohio
Missouri
Virginia
Kansas

States Obama is Leading but Clinton is Trailing McCain
Pennsylvania
Colorado
Iowa
Wisconsin
Minnesota
Virginia (Second new poll as well)
Oregon
New Mexico (I gave Pennsylvania to Clinton, so...)


States Clinton is Leading but Obama is Trailing McCain
Pennsylvania (Clinton is in a tie actually, Obama trails so I gave it to Clinton to give CH the fairest shake)


States Both Clinton and Obama Lead (States where Obama has a greater margin in italics)
New Hampshire
New York (on of them has it at a tie)
New Jersey
Michigan (Clinton actually ties McCain, but again, to give the fairest shake)
Ohio

This has gone completely unaddressed. CH now uses the 'god' defense, his assertions are true and can't be proved wrong unless Obama wins the nomination, ergo we should not have Obama as the nominee. To which I have responded-


Of course, he has largely abandoned the electability argument in favor of "OMG! He's going to invade Pakistan!!!"

Notes on why I update this now-One of the key states in CH's initial electability premise was New Mexico. Well, match up polls are now available in orange. Now, I fully acknowledge that February polls will bare little resemblance to the ones in November, but considering the gulf that Clinton has to clear versus the dead heat Obama starts with, it's hard to buy that aspect of CH's argument.

The age of the polls go like this-plain, oldest, first update, second, third.

I was somewhat joking.

As for the IRS, it runs too effectively. :(

Oh whoops, that's what I meant to say. My attempt at humor falls flat on its face!

Did anyone else notice the combination of the following?

1. CH compares Obama to Bush on a couple of very broad points
2. I compare Obama to Bush on a couple of wildly important and specific points
3. CH says that he is only making the comparison in terms of military action (which is funny since the comparison is that both of them are willing to do it).
4. CH then replies to CTOAN with a bunch of nonsense about how we need to fix things at home if people are going to buy that we'll fix things elsewhere.
5. I point out that Obama would like to do both.
6. He says that Obama is posing the same tired solutions as Bushco.

This leads to two possible conclusions. A. CH is comparing Bush and Obama on all of their policies, in which case he was lying when he said he wasn't. B. CH can't follow his own argument.

No speculation. Let's let CH dig himself out of this hole.

Did anyone else notice the combination of the following?

1. CH compares Obama to Bush on a couple of very broad points
2. I compare Obama to Bush on a couple of wildly important and specific points
3. CH says that he is only making the comparison in terms of military action (which is funny since the comparison is that both of them are willing to do it).
4. CH then replies to CTOAN with a bunch of nonsense about how we need to fix things at home if people are going to buy that we'll fix things elsewhere.
5. I point out that Obama would like to do both.
6. He says that Obama is posing the same tired solutions as Bushco.

This leads to two possible conclusions. A. CH is comparing Bush and Obama on all of their policies, in which case he was lying when he said he wasn't. B. CH can't follow his own argument.

No speculation. Let's let CH dig himself out of this hole.

I noticed

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:

Quiet, fool. How dare you speak against our Savior and the Second Coming of our Lord Himself. He will, of course, bring the great buzzword: Change.

Quiet, fool. How dare you speak against our Savior and the Second Coming of our Lord Himself. He will, of course, bring the great buzzword: Change.

sarcasm much?

sarcasm much?

Of course. All of his supporters think his Jesus Christ himself. So powerful is He, He can even unchaste Himself.

Of course. All of his supporters think his Jesus Christ himself. So powerful is He, He can even unchaste Himself.

Nice sarcasm.

Are you suggesting JFK had sex with Dan Quayle?

Ha Ha. I like the stupid trolls on this board now much more than the old ones. God I couldn't stand to hear another moment of F.A.G and his many incarnations. At least New Mittani runs away after annoying us.

So powerful is He, He can even unchaste Himself.

can't we all?

Quiet, fool. How dare you speak against our Savior and the Second Coming of our Lord Himself. He will, of course, bring the great buzzword: Change.

I love people who don't have any real arguments so they have to make them up. Let us know when you think what you have to say is important enough to remove all the hyperbole and make a point.

Pardon? What solutions? You're all over the place. The things you said we needed to clean up domestically have nothing to do with Pakistan, and according to you, you were only comparing their military solutions. So I take it Bush proposed universal health care? Certainly you can find that for me. Oh, and Obama is a big supporter of NCLB, right? Well, he must be since he's proposing the same solutions as Bush, right?

I love this. Your challenged on the claim that his military solutions are the same, you talk about a bunch of things that have nothing to do with it, complaining that those problems, domestic problems, hurt our credibiltiy, and when I point out that Obama wants to address those too, you switch back to the similarities between Bush and Obama, which you said is only on military issues.

You're not making any sense, but I'll give you a chance to clarify.

In EXACTLY what ways is Obama like Bush. And don't trot out that invasion nonsense. By no stretch of the imagination is bombing a terrorist camp the same as attacking the government of Iraq and replacing it. Let's try and pretend like there is such a thing as degree. K? K.




I have plenty of time. I manage to reply to everything I choose to and I can cover all of the substantive posts and have, so the problem is not mine. If you don't have time to reply to everything, then by replying to the sidetrack stuff, you're demonstrating that you're more interested in complaing about people noticing you lack substance, than providing substance and proving them wrong.

And putting a smiley at the end doesn't make this fact funny or interesting or less true. Put your limited time and hunting and pecking to the task you created for yourself. You decided to go on the attack against Obama, now support your claims.

Anyone making a claim on military action can be seen as "like Bush." The difference between Obama and Bush is that Obama really would use our forces as a last resort. He's not going to send men and women to die over resources or a personal grudge. Pointed strikes to attack Al Quaeda is not the same as an invasion. But that's just CH's opinion which is based on little more than "well maybe."

Anyone making a claim on military action can be seen as "like Bush." The difference between Obama and Bush is that Obama really would use our forces as a last resort. He's not going to send men and women to die over resources or a personal grudge. Pointed strikes to attack Al Quaeda is not the same as an invasion. But that's just CH's opinion which is based on little more than "well maybe."

Well, particularly with the broad brush being used here. Basically every President in this century could be called Bush-like when the standard is any use of military force makes you Bush-like.

Of course. All of his supporters think his Jesus Christ himself. So powerful is He, He can even unchaste Himself.

who said this? please provide us to a link so we can chastise this person publicly. Otherwise we'll just do it to you.

Anyone making a claim on military action can be seen as "like Bush." The difference between Obama and Bush is that Obama really would use our forces as a last resort. He's not going to send men and women to die over resources or a personal grudge. Pointed strikes to attack Al Quaeda is not the same as an invasion. But that's just CH's opinion which is based on little more than "well maybe."

Obama would use the military like a surgeon, as a scalpel, to remove problems and leave the surrounding area as unharmed as possible. Bush uses it as a club to threaten and beat people with. The difference is competence.

Is that important?
Of course it is important, unless you are looking for a President just to read prepared speeches.

Amazing, but nothing to do with Obama.
It has lots to do with Obama. It appears that he wants to duplicate Bush's folly, except in Pakistan this time.

It was readily apparent that Bush was unintelligent before he was elected. Heck, according to some people it was why he was elected.
Scary when you think about huh? Don't let it happen again.

So we could know at the time that his talk was no more than words put into his mouth.
That is what I am seeing with Obama.

Obama on the other hand has demonstrated a keen grasp of the issues when put on the spot, and wrote his own book of his campaign thesis, AND has demonstrated in his record concrete support for the principles he touts.
Keen grasp of the issues? I don't see Hillary contemplating a "battlefield in Pakistan".

Not if you can point to the actions you have taken to change your own people's conditions as well as those who aren't your people.
Which really pale in comparison to the actions that are instituted by the President?

If you think Clinton is doing more of this than Obama in the Senate, read this:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/2/20/201332/807/36/458633
(and that doesn't include his work in the Illinois Senate)
Ohhh....Daily Kos....my favourite!! :rolleyes:

If you want to compare records, start here:

http://thomas.loc.gov/bss/d110query.html

http://thomas.loc.gov/bss/d109query.html

and before Obama was in the US Senate:

http://thomas.loc.gov/bss/d108query.html

http://thomas.loc.gov/bss/d107query.html

I wasn't aware that Obama intended to force democracy on anybody.
You weren't? It was in his speech:

And we must not turn a blind eye to elections that are neither free nor fair -- our goal is not simply an ally in Pakistan, it is a democratic ally.

Bush himself doesn't understand how democracy works, that it can only be sustained where there is sufficient social capital. That's why democracy can only be instituted through the grassroots, a path that Obama embraces.
No, it really sounds like Bush...more of the same....bombs and bullets. Then give them that grassroots democracy. That is if there is any grass or roots left.

An aside: if people don't want democracy forced on them (which I think misstates the problem), do they really have grounds to complain when it is? I mean, that's what they support by being opposed to democracy, right?
So your philosophy is that if they don't want democracy forced on them, then it is okay to force democracy on them anyways, and they will have no right to complain because it is their fault that they chose to be opposed to democracy?

If you still think Clinton has good experience, read this:
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=24979
Another excellent choice of web site. While you are browsing that web site, you might want to check out:

Barackl Obama Exposed (http://www.humanevents.com/offers/offer.php?id=BHO201)

Or perhaps you would rather read:

The Obama Files (http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=25166&page=1#c1)

If you still think Barack Obama is vague and position-less, here are some of Senator Barack Obama's positions:

Opposed the Iraq war from the start.
Hold the presses. He wants a hero biscuit for opposing the Iraq War, even though he couldn't even vote on that proposition? He wants to hold that against Hillary, and all the while he wants to propose a new war on the "battlefield in Pakistan"? Whoa, slow down.

Now what did Obama say at the DNC in 2004?

Now even as we speak, there are those who are preparing to divide us, the spin masters, the negative ad peddlers who embrace the politics of anything goes.

Well, I say to them tonight, there is not a liberal America and a conservative America — there is the United States of America. There is not a Black America and a White America and Latino America and Asian America — there’s the United States of America.....

There are patriots who opposed the war in Iraq and there are patriots who supported the war in Iraq.

We Are One People

We are one people, all of us pledging allegiance to the stars and stripes, all of us defending the United States of America. In the end, that’s what this election is about. Do we participate in a politics of cynicism or do we participate in a politics of hope?
Ahhh, but what did this great orator (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/27/us/politics/27clinton.html)recently say about Clinton?

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.....

“I don’t want Bush-Cheney lite,” he told reporters yesterday. “I want a fundamental change.”
I just love Clinton's reply:

“Whatever has happened to the politics of hope?” she asked.

Of course it is important, unless you are looking for a President just to read prepared speeches.

So now you're argument against Obama is he's a poor speaker? Are you sure you want to go that route?


It has lots to do with Obama. It appears that he wants to duplicate Bush's folly, except in Pakistan this time.

Except he doesn't That's nonsense. He's made not the slightest overture towards overturning the government or attacking Afghanistan's government or people. The people he suggested he would attack were Al Qaeda, have attacked us, and he expressed that any attack would at them specifically and only under very specific and credible evidence that warrents such an attack.

Let me ask this plainly. Do you believe Obama has EVER suggested that he was going to use a military attack the government of Pakistan? If so, please show where? Because if Bush had simply bombed someplace in Iraq to attack a specific Al Qaeda cell, we wouldn't be having this conversation. People would have supported it.



You weren't? It was in his speech:




No, it really sounds like Bush...more of the same....bombs and bullets. Then give them that grassroots democracy. That is if there is any grass or roots left.

What? He said he wanted a democracy or they wouldn't be supported by us anymore. Yeah, that's almost like forcing. Kind of like I'm forcing you not to punch me in the face by saying, if you punch me in the face again, I'm going home.

Quote Obama saying he would attacking the government of Pakistan. I want to hear this one. Where did he say it? Because you keep saying he said he was going to "invade", "force democracy" and use bombs and bullets. He said he would bomb terrorist training camps. Not Pakistanis. Not their government

So it's not missed. Please show Obama saying he's going to attack the Pakistani government.

Just a thought, but why should anyone believe that Hillary is ready to run an effective Presidency from Day One when she can't even seem to manage running an effective campaign by about (to guess) Day 200?

I mean really - she and Bill have done more to boost Obama's chances than almost anything he has done.

In many ways, I think that Hillary is a very prepared person and well involved in the nuances of various policy areas. She would, I think, be a competent President.

And if basic competence is all you want from your next leader - then that is a nice, safe, totally uninspiring option. Probably won't do too much damage. Probably won't change a whole lot for the better either.

But don't be surprised that many are hoping for something a whole lot more than that, and are willing to take a chance on someone who might just be that much better. It seems, in this instance based on Obama's (admittedly limited, although still impressive for the short timeline) resume, to be a pretty fair bet to be willing to undertake.

At the very least, for the Democratic partisans, a more inspirational candidate should provide more voter excitement should translate into far more significant gains where it REALLY impacts things - in the Congress and Senate.

Of course it is important, unless you are looking for a President just to read prepared speeches.Actually, I don't give a damn if he/she does, as long as they're a good president. Besides, one speech does not equal all. Barack Obama only uses a teleprompter for the speeches he hasn't yet memorized, and even then comes across a million times more authentic than any other candidate.

It has lots to do with Obama. It appears that he wants to duplicate Bush's folly, except in Pakistan this time.Appears to somebody with 0 reading comprehension perhaps.

That is what I am seeing with Obama.So you think his books were secretly ghost-written? That every seemingly off-the-cuff answer to questions on the campaign trail was somehow pre-planted and memorized? It's all a vast progressive-wing conspiracy?

Keen grasp of the issues? I don't see Hillary contemplating a "battlefield in Pakistan".That's because she's mostly fantasizing about how she can get revenge on the right wing once she's president.

Which really pale in comparison to the actions that are instituted by the President?Which is why it would so great for him to be president, so his actions can have so much more impact!

Ohhh....Daily Kos....my favourite!! :rolleyes:Yes, we know.

If you want to compare records, start here:

http://thomas.loc.gov/bss/d110query.html

http://thomas.loc.gov/bss/d109query.html

and before Obama was in the US Senate:

http://thomas.loc.gov/bss/d108query.html

http://thomas.loc.gov/bss/d107query.htmlEverybody who read the Daily Kos article already knows this information because the Library of Congress site was linked from there.

You weren't? It was in his speech:You followed up this claim with a great quote, but not one that communicated an intent to force democracy on anyone. Try again.

No, it really sounds like Bush...more of the same....bombs and bullets. Then give them that grassroots democracy. That is if there is any grass or roots left.Obama speaks in complete sentences. He sounds nothing like Bush. Of course, actions speak louder than words. Obama is practicing grass-roots democracy. Bush had marginal astroturfing skill.

So your philosophy is that if they don't want democracy forced on them, then it is okay to force democracy on them anyways, and they will have no right to complain because it is their fault that they chose to be opposed to democracy?I was making a joke. Really though, the idea that actual democracy with an enforced rights-enshrining constitution (not just tyranny-by-majority) is "forcing" something on somebody is ludicrous.

Another excellent choice of web site. This one really is your favorite, isn't it?

Hold the presses. He wants a hero biscuit for opposing the Iraq War, even though he couldn't even vote on that proposition?Yes. He put his Senate candidacy on the line.

He wants to hold that against Hillary, and all the while he wants to propose a new war on the "battlefield in Pakistan"? Whoa, slow down.We're going as slow as we can. How many times has your Pakistan ranting been debunked?

Now what did Obama say at the DNC in 2004?He's not attacking Clinton's patriotism (although I would).

Ahhh, but what did this great orator (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/27/us/politics/27clinton.html)recently say about Clinton?1) Not so recent
2) Context please?

I just love Clinton's reply:She's one to talk!

And if basic competence is all you want from your next leader - then that is a nice, safe, totally uninspiring option. Probably won't do too much damage.Nice? Hillary Clinton?

At the very least, for the Democratic partisans, a more inspirational candidate should provide more voter excitement should translate into far more significant gains where it REALLY impacts things - in the Congress and Senate.I'm quoting this because nobody really talks about the down-ticket benefit from an Obama candidacy. Even if Clinton pulls off the election (which I think she can - she's not as wholly unelectable as one might think), lot's of progressives will stay home. On the other hand, Obama's already making down-ticket waves in the primaries, and will undoubtedly boost the chances of candidates in Red states like mine. Two of our incumbent politicians (Ted Stevens and Don Young) are corrupt as all-mother-of-fuck, and many Republicans are itching for a reason to vote against him. If both the fed-up Republicans and the other-wise Green pot-smoking hippies who voted for Obama (and who wouldn't touch Clinton with a ten-foot pole) show up on election day, You could easily see one seat in each chamber go from red to blue. Now factor in all the other states where similar forces could be at work, and Obama may not have to work too hard to put together his working majority.

So now you're argument against Obama is he's a poor speaker? Are you sure you want to go that route?
He has a good speech writer and poor delivery.....at least on that speech.

Except he doesn't That's nonsense. He's made not the slightest overture towards overturning the government or attacking Afghanistan's government or people. The people he suggested he would attack were Al Qaeda, have attacked us, and he expressed that any attack would at them specifically and only under very specific and credible evidence that warrents such an attack.
He has already marked out the "battlefield" in Pakistan. It was his first priority/step in his outline for fighting "the war that we must win".

The first step must be getting off the wrong battlefield in Iraq, and taking the fight to the terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
It appears abundantly clear what his objective is, and this is where he and Bush are so alike. They want to continue the illogical War against Terrorism. Like Bush, he is going to hunt down these terrorists worldwide. How much success has that garnered to date?

Let me ask this plainly. Do you believe Obama has EVER suggested that he was going to use a military attack the government of Pakistan?
Right now, the Pakistan government is very unstable and even Musharraf's Presidency is weak. Any kind of outside provacation could result in devestating consequences. Let's face facts.....the Pakistanis don't want American troops on their soil or bombing their country. That is why Obama's comments are so dangerous.

If so, please show where? Because if Bush had simply bombed someplace in Iraq to attack a specific Al Qaeda cell, we wouldn't be having this conversation. People would have supported it.
Except there were no Al qadea cells in Iraq, so that is a non issue. We all know that Iraq was a huge mistake. Obama wants to carry on the tradition?

What? He said he wanted a democracy or they wouldn't be supported by us anymore. Yeah, that's almost like forcing. Kind of like I'm forcing you not to punch me in the face by saying, if you punch me in the face again, I'm going home.
Yeah and Musharraf would quickly whip up a democracy and everyone would be singing Kum Ba Yah. Not happening. That is what happens when you let your ideals get in the way of reality.

Quote Obama saying he would attacking the government of Pakistan. I want to hear this one. Where did he say it?
Any strike by US forces inside Pakistan without Pakistan's approval is technically an act of war. Read your UN Charter. You know it and I know it.

Because you keep saying he said he was going to "invade", "force democracy" and use bombs and bullets. He said he would bomb terrorist training camps. Not Pakistanis. Not their government
As above, but keep in mind that I am just repeating the very words that Obama delivered in a speech and the words are very explicit.

Above all, I will send a clear message: we will not repeat the mistake of the past, when we turned our back on Afghanistan following Soviet withdrawal. As 9/11 showed us, the security of Afghanistan and America is shared. And today, that security is most threatened by the al Qaeda and Taliban sanctuary in the tribal regions of northwest Pakistan.

Al Qaeda terrorists train, travel, and maintain global communications in this safe-haven. The Taliban pursues a hit and run strategy, striking in Afghanistan, then skulking across the border to safety.

This is the wild frontier of our globalized world. There are wind-swept deserts and cave-dotted mountains. There are tribes that see borders as nothing more than lines on a map, and governments as forces that come and go. There are blood ties deeper than alliances of convenience, and pockets of extremism that follow religion to violence. It's a tough place.

But that is no excuse. There must be no safe-haven for terrorists who threaten America. We cannot fail to act because action is hard.

As President, I would make the hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. military aid to Pakistan conditional, and I would make our conditions clear: Pakistan must make substantial progress in closing down the training camps, evicting foreign fighters, and preventing the Taliban from using Pakistan as a staging area for attacks in Afghanistan.

I understand that President Musharraf has his own challenges. 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.
Read it....read it again and again. It is clear. Obama won't risk egg on his face...."he will" act!!

He has a good speech writer and poor delivery.....at least on that speech.

So this reflects on his ability to speak as President how? His ability to speak put him on the map. Who cares if you think it's the speech writer, since he'll also have those as President.



He has already marked out the "battlefield" in Pakistan. It was his first priority/step in his outline for fighting "the war that we must win".

Except he wasn't talking only about Afghanistan. He was talking about a war we're already FIGHTING. In fact, I believe you comment that it's been going on for seven years, no?



It appears abundantly clear what his objective is, and this is where he and Bush are so alike. They want to continue the illogical War against Terrorism. Like Bush, he is going to hunt down these terrorists worldwide. How much success has that garnered to date?

Might have worked out well if he'd actually done that. Instead he went to Iraq where there were not terrorists a regime that wasn't supporting them. Obama has never suggested we attack any regime, never suggested we should attack any country and wants to refocus on where the terrorists still are Afghanistan and the border of Pakistan.


Right now, the Pakistan government is very unstable and even Musharraf's Presidency is weak. Any kind of outside provacation could result in devestating consequences. Let's face facts.....the Pakistanis don't want American troops on their soil or bombing their country. That is why Obama's comments are so dangerous.

I can agree that those comments were poorly timed. I think many can. Unfortunately, this has little to do with your argument all this time. You've made that comment as a sidenote a few times, but it speaks little to whether or not we're going to "invade" Pakistan or fight a "new" war or treat Pakistan like Iraq. None of this has ever been supported by even weak evidence. You've demonstrated that your word "invade" is being used by you just like we said it was being used by you, and the evidence utterly denies your claim.



Except there were no Al qadea cells in Iraq, so that is a non issue. We all know that Iraq was a huge mistake. Obama wants to carry on the tradition?

Are you claiming there are no Al Qaeda cells in Pakistan? Meanwhile, again, the difference is that Obama has never threaten Pakistan. He has threatened to take action against Al Qaeda. Bush attacked Iraq and never claimed they were Al Qaeda. You are highlighting the differences quite well actually.



Any strike by US forces inside Pakistan without Pakistan's approval is technically an act of war. Read your UN Charter. You know it and I know it.

Sure, it's an act of war. Just like it was an act of war when we bombed Libya. We did not however go to war with Libya. We didn't "invade". And we didn't fight there for five years. I'm glad you're finally recognizing the difference. If there had been Al Qaeda cells in Iraq and Bush had bombed them, would you be complaining about it now?


As above, but keep in mind that I am just repeating the very words that Obama delivered in a speech and the words are very explicit.


Read it....read it again and again. It is clear. Obama won't risk egg on his face...."he will" act!!


Yup. He said very explicitly that he would attack Al Qaeda. Not Pakistan. Not invade. He said he would attack Al Qaeda. That's what Bush didn't do. In fact, let me see exactly what Bush did. Let's see if we can find a source you'll accept to highlight a difference.


Except there were no Al qadea cells in Iraq, so that is a non issue. We all know that Iraq was a huge mistake. Obama wants to carry on the tradition?

And today, that security is most threatened by the al Qaeda and Taliban sanctuary in the tribal regions of northwest Pakistan.
...
If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will.

D'oh. Don't you wish you were just a LITTLE better at this? Cuz ^ that's just embarrassing.

Obama is going to nuke Canada!

Now can you provide a source to back up your claims?

I realize I'm coming in late, and I realize that the argument has moved on but:
The source for the other candidates saying the EXACT SAME THING about Pakistan is the same website you used to source Obama's claim.
Read the parts at the end. You'll notice that Clinton says and Edwards said that they would invade Pakistan if they had "actionable intelligence".

For once I'm actually glad I've been dodged (again) since I'm tired as hell. Things appear to be going normally.

Just a thought, but why should anyone believe that Hillary is ready to run an effective Presidency from Day One when she can't even seem to manage running an effective campaign by about (to guess) Day 200?

She thought she would have things wrapped up by Super Tuesday...now she's struggling to stay competetive against Obama's money-making juggernaut of a campaign.

Obama's campaign really is an example of how well I think he can do as President.

With McCain and Clinton you see "old friends", infighting, and indecision.

With Obama, you see one of the most successful primary campaigns of all time, going against the Clinton machine that dominated the 90's and was widely expected to run over all opposition this time around. They are well coordinated, and ought to scare the hell out of the Republican party with their ability to turn out voters and scrounge up dollars.

If Obama can put together a cabinet anywhere near as capable and competent as his campaign staff, every American ought to be pulling for an Obama presidency.

I realize I'm coming in late, and I realize that the argument has moved on but:
The source for the other candidates saying the EXACT SAME THING about Pakistan is the same website you used to source Obama's claim.
Read the parts at the end. You'll notice that Clinton says and Edwards said that they would invade Pakistan if they had "actionable intelligence".

We've gone through this routine before. Like on Page 18 or something like that. Or however many pages after the quote you found.

If you can convince CH, you win the thread.

D'oh. Don't you wish you were just a LITTLE better at this? Cuz ^ that's just embarrassing.

...

Has Kyronea still won the thread?

On the other hand, Obama's already making down-ticket waves in the primaries, and will undoubtedly boost the chances of candidates in Red states like mine. Two of our incumbent politicians (Ted Stevens and Don Young) are corrupt as all-mother-of-fuck, and many Republicans are itching for a reason to vote against him. THANK YOU!!!!!
BTW - there's still a lot of Ron Paul posters up here in town, on overpasses & such.

I realize I'm coming in late, and I realize that the argument has moved on but:
The source for the other candidates saying the EXACT SAME THING about Pakistan is the same website you used to source Obama's claim.
Read the parts at the end. You'll notice that Clinton says and Edwards said that they would invade Pakistan if they had "actionable intelligence".
I have used several sources regarding Obama....could you please provide a link that supports your claim that "the other candidates (are) saying the EXACT SAME THING about Pakistan".

I have used several sources regarding Obama....could you please provide a link that supports your claim that "the other candidates (are) saying the EXACT SAME THING about Pakistan".

Oh, don't worry. I'll help out.

Clinton did not respond yesterday to the issue of her Iraq vote, but she sought to show her toughness on dealing with terrorist threats without endorsing the idea of raids into Pakistan. In an interview with American Urban Radio News Networks, she said that if there were actionable intelligence showing Osama bin Laden or other prominent terrorist leaders in Pakistan, "I would ensure that they were targeted and killed or captured." She also said she long has favored sending more troops to Afghanistan.

Oh, dear. Look at that, she favors targeted strikes in Pakistan, and "She also said she long has favored sending more troops to Afghanistan."
Clinton is bush-like. She supports starting a NEW war.

RON PAUL '08

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/01/AR2007080101233_2.html

...

Has Kyronea still won the thread?

Yes. I'm not giving up my win. No way. *hugs win close to chest*

So this reflects on his ability to speak as President how? His ability to speak put him on the map. Who cares if you think it's the speech writer, since he'll also have those as President.
Well if all you are getting is window dressing, and I think you are at this point, then you should be concerned?

Except he wasn't talking only about Afghanistan. He was talking about a war we're already FIGHTING. In fact, I believe you comment that it's been going on for seven years, no?
Yes he is talking about a war that you are already fighting, but he is also defining a new battlefield. I think you should be concerned.

Might have worked out well if he'd actually done that. Instead he went to Iraq where there were not terrorists a regime that wasn't supporting them. Obama has never suggested we attack any regime, never suggested we should attack any country and wants to refocus on where the terrorists still are Afghanistan and the border of Pakistan.
Obama didn't talk about the border of Pakistan. He was very specific in talking about taking the fight to the "battlefield in Pakistan".

I can agree that those comments were poorly timed. I think many can.
Nice to know that we can find some agreement.

Unfortunately, this has little to do with your argument all this time. You've made that comment as a sidenote a few times, but it speaks little to whether or not we're going to "invade" Pakistan or fight a "new" war or treat Pakistan like Iraq. None of this has ever been supported by even weak evidence. You've demonstrated that your word "invade" is being used by you just like we said it was being used by you, and the evidence utterly denies your claim.
I wish I could share your complete faith in Obama, but fact is that I cannot. Bush made a case for invading Iraq and the rest is history. Obama is making a case for invading Pakistan and only time will tell if you or me are correct on our assumptions.

Are you claiming there are no Al Qaeda cells in Pakistan? Meanwhile, again, the difference is that Obama has never threaten Pakistan. He has threatened to take action against Al Qaeda. Bush attacked Iraq and never claimed they were Al Qaeda. You are highlighting the differences quite well actually.
Of course there are Al Qaeda cells in Pakistan, and there were Al Qaeda cells in Afghanistan. Afghanistan is where the US began the War on Terror. And Obama did indeed threaten Pakistan (http://edition.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/08/03/obama.pakistan.ap/index.html)to the point that the foreign minister replied:

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan (AP) -- Pakistan has criticized U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama for saying that, if elected, he might order unilateral military strikes against terrorists hiding in this Islamic country.

Top Pakistan officials said Obama's comment was irresponsible and likely made for political gain in the race for the Democratic nomination.

"It's a very irresponsible statement, that's all I can say," Pakistan's Foreign Minister Khusheed Kasuri told AP Television News on Friday.
Other comments from the same source:

Deputy Information Minister Tariq Azim said no foreign forces would be allowed to enter Pakistan, and called Obama irresponsible.

"I think those who make such statements are not aware of our contribution" in the fight on terrorism, he said.

Pakistan used to be a main backer of the Taliban, but it threw its support behind Washington following the September 11, 2001 attacks.

Since then, Pakistan has deployed about 90,000 troops in its tribal regions, mostly in lawless North and South Waziristan, and has lost hundreds of troops in fighting with militants there.

But a controversial strategy to make peace with militants and use tribesmen to police Waziristan has fueled U.S. fears that al Qaeda has been given space to regroup.

In Pakistan's national assembly on Friday, Minister for Parliamentary Affairs Sher Afgan said he would bring on a debate next week on recent criticism of Pakistan from several quarters in the U.S., including Tancredo's remarks.

It was a matter of "grave concern that U.S. presidential candidates are using unethical and immoral tactics against Islam and Pakistan to win their election," Afghan said.

Sure, it's an act of war.
More agreement.

Just like it was an act of war when we bombed Libya. We did not however go to war with Libya. We didn't "invade". And we didn't fight there for five years.
Although it was an act of war, the War against Terror is totally unlike Libya and you know it.

If there had been Al Qaeda cells in Iraq and Bush had bombed them, would you be complaining about it now?
Hypothetical question. I was totally against any US invasion of Iraq. Just like I am totally against any US invasion of Pakistan.

Yup. He said very explicitly that he would attack Al Qaeda. Not Pakistan. Not invade. He said he would attack Al Qaeda.
However you want to slice it or dress it up, the fact that there is Al Qaeda in Pakistan and to get to them, the US would have to invade if they are going to fulfill Obama's promise:

So the second step in my strategy will be to build our capacity and our partnerships to track down, capture or kill terrorists around the world....

I will ensure that our military becomes more stealth, agile, and lethal in its ability to capture or kill terrorists.

That's what Bush didn't do. In fact, let me see exactly what Bush did. Let's see if we can find a source you'll accept to highlight a difference.
What I meant by "Obama wants to carry on the tradition", is in reference to Bush making threats against other countries and invading their sovereignity.

He has a good speech writer and poor delivery.....at least on that speech.


He has already marked out the "battlefield" in Pakistan. It was his first priority/step in his outline for fighting "the war that we must win".


It appears abundantly clear what his objective is, and this is where he and Bush are so alike. They want to continue the illogical War against Terrorism. Like Bush, he is going to hunt down these terrorists worldwide. How much success has that garnered to date?


Right now, the Pakistan government is very unstable and even Musharraf's Presidency is weak. Any kind of outside provacation could result in devestating consequences. Let's face facts.....the Pakistanis don't want American troops on their soil or bombing their country. That is why Obama's comments are so dangerous.


Except there were no Al qadea cells in Iraq, so that is a non issue. We all know that Iraq was a huge mistake. Obama wants to carry on the tradition?


Yeah and Musharraf would quickly whip up a democracy and everyone would be singing Kum Ba Yah. Not happening. That is what happens when you let your ideals get in the way of reality.


Any strike by US forces inside Pakistan without Pakistan's approval is technically an act of war. Read your UN Charter. You know it and I know it.


As above, but keep in mind that I am just repeating the very words that Obama delivered in a speech and the words are very explicit.


Read it....read it again and again. It is clear. Obama won't risk egg on his face...."he will" act!!

Good! By virtue of your definition the Turks attacking in Northern Iraq is an act of war. No one is taking them on with regard to this action. If Pakistan is not willing to work with the US to stop the spread of terrorism then they are seen as harboring terrorists within their border and are open to attack. It's the same situation as in Afghanistan, and I support that wholeheartedly.

Oh, don't worry. I'll help out.

Oh, dear. Look at that, she favors targeted strikes in Pakistan, and "She also said she long has favored sending more troops to Afghanistan."
Clinton is bush-like. She supports starting a NEW war.

From the article you posted:

Clinton did not respond yesterday to the issue of her Iraq vote, but she sought to show her toughness on dealing with terrorist threats without endorsing the idea of raids into Pakistan.
She also didn't say whether she would act unilaterally or not, whereas Obama declared that he would.

I have used several sources regarding Obama....could you please provide a link that supports your claim that "the other candidates (are) saying the EXACT SAME THING about Pakistan".

Certainly.
Clinton, in an interview with the American Urban Radio Network, stressed the importance of the Pakistanis "taking the actions that only they can take within their own country."

But she did not rule out U.S. attacks inside Pakistan, citing the missile attacks her husband, then-President Bill Clinton, ordered against Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan in 1998. "If we had actionable intelligence that Osama bin Laden or other high-value targets were in Pakistan I would ensure that they were targeted and killed or captured," she said.

Another Democratic candidate, former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards, said he would not hesitate to use force against extremists but said, "I believe we must first use maximum diplomatic and economic pressure on states like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia to take all necessary actions to stop al Qaeda."
http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSN0132206420070801?pageNumber=2&virtualBrandChannel=0

EDIT: Damn, I was beaten to it. Ah well.
EDIT2: And I would also like to make the point that that speech was made because Clinton accused Obama of being naive after he said he would meet unconditionally with the leaders of foreign countries, or, in other words, he's taking that position because he knows Clinton won't attack it, or in other words, because he knows Clinton agrees with it. (He was wrong, by the way, she did attack it. She's also in the odd position of attacking a position more or less identical to her own.)
His own stuff on foreign policy is pretty much not at all like Bush. Since more people are agreeing with the original statement, he's probably going to stick with that one.

Good! By virtue of your definition the Turks attacking in Northern Iraq is an act of war.
Technically you are correct.

No one is taking them on with regard to this action.
Yet. It doesn't mean that the Turkish actions are condoned in any way shape or form

If Pakistan is not willing to work with the US to stop the spread of terrorism then they are seen as harboring terrorists within their border and are open to attack.
Pakistan is working on capturing and killing terrorists. By whose laws is an invasion justified or rationalized?

It's the same situation as in Afghanistan, and I support that wholeheartedly.
I do believe that most of the world agreed with that action.