NationStates Jolt Archive

From the article you posted:


She also didn't say whether she would act unilaterally or not, whereas Obama declared that he would.

Amusing. So nuances are important between Clinton and Obama, but not between Obama and Bush. How fun. You got any other logical inconsistencies you want to expose in your arguments?

A more recent article. (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1207/7590.html)
It doesn't really support either of our positions, I'm just putting it out there.

Chris Dodd is backing Barack Obama.

Amusing. So nuances are important between Clinton and Obama, but not between Obama and Bush. How fun. You got any other logical inconsistencies you want to expose in your arguments?
You may see them as "logical inconsistencies", but I don't. Hillary is not running around talking about a "a new chapter in our response to 9/11" or a new "battlefield in Pakistan". On the other hand, your guy is.

"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.

lolz Thread stealer!

www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/tx/texas_democratic_primary-312.htm

It looks like Obama has taken the lead in the state of Texas with 1 week to go till the Texas Primaries.

Meh, I dont like none of major canadates.


Go Duncan Hunter!!!

Muahahahhahahahhahahahahh!!!!!!!!

Well if all you are getting is window dressing, and I think you are at this point, then you should be concerned?

So which is it? Is he a good speaker or not? You can't have it both ways.



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.

He is? Are you claiming that there has been no fighting in the border area already?



[QUOTE=CanuckHeaven;13482925]Obama didn't talk about the border of Pakistan. He was very specific in talking about taking the fight to the "battlefield in Pakistan".

Oh, so this makes it a new war? So how many wars was Vietnam?

Same war. Same combatants. Same areas of attack. And he's only offered to act on credible intelligence, just like every other candidate.


Nice to know that we can find some agreement.

Too bad it took you half a thread to notice. No one has claimed otherwise.



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.

My complete faith? I follow the evidence. Wouldn't it be nice if this was a common practice by you. Prove me wrong. Start pretending like you actually care about honest interpretation of the evidence.

So the difference between Hillary wanting to include others in the Pakistan "invasion" is significant, but the differrence between Bush attacking an entire country and Obama going after terrorists who sneak across the border, strike and then sneak back isn't. Like I said, thanks for exposing your logical inconsistencies.



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:

He didn't threaten their government. He never has. He has only threatened to stop treating them as an ally. You're completely out there now.

Your evidence doesn't support your claim. The comments show that the Pakistani government recognizes as a violation of their sovereignty. It does not demonstrate the intention is to overthrow the government or harm them in any way.



More agreement.

Again, we said this pages upon pages ago.



Although it was an act of war, the War against Terror is totally unlike Libya and you know it.

Amusing. I like how you want to draw the conversation to about a 10,000 foot view. Because then you can make out like we're talking about what's been called the "War on Terror". Obama is talking about specifically target a known threat to our government. Attacking camp housing Al Qaeda. It's EXACTLY like Libya.


Hypothetical question. I was totally against any US invasion of Iraq. Just like I am totally against any US invasion of Pakistan.

You didn't answer the question. You avoided it. Color me surprised. Regardless, it doesn't matter what you think. It doesn't. If Bush had only performed surgical strikes against actually terrorist targets, hundreds of thousands of people would be alive and we wouldn't be complaining about Iraq now. Bush instead ousted the government of a middle eastern government with no real plan on what to do when he was done.

Comparing this to raids, is like comparing a factory pouring out smoke and not following environmental rules to me burning chicken in my kitchen. Yeah, they both involve smoke. Yes, these both involve acts of war. However, one of them was a focused and distinct effort to destroy the current leadership of a country, take it over and force it to become democratic. You've intentionally used words to imply Obama was doing the same, but logic and reality are not on your side.


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:

Or Hillary's promise. Or Edwards' promise.


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.

Oh, really? Backpedaling? Hmmm... I wonder if I can find a couple of examples of "what you meant".


[quote=Tongas]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.
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.

Yeah, you never implied he was actually attacking Pakistan and forcing democracy. Oh, wait, you didn't imply it. You out and out said it. Don't let getting caught being dishonest stop you. I'm sure no one even noticed.

I do believe that most of the world agreed with that action.

But attacking terrorist targets is wrong. It's "forcing democracy" and "bombs and bullets" and the "War on Terror".

From the man himself:


Obama said there was "misreporting" of his comments, that "I never called for an invasion of Pakistan or Afghanistan." He said rather than a surge in the number of troops in Iraq, there needs to be a "diplomatic surge" and that U.S. troops should be withdrawn within a year.

http://www.siouxcityjournal.com/articles/2007/08/07/news/top/8d9e96c628c098008625732f008341f5.txt
(http://www.siouxcityjournal.com/articles/2007/08/07/news/top/8d9e96c628c098008625732f008341f5.txt)

From the man himself:



http://www.siouxcityjournal.com/articles/2007/08/07/news/top/8d9e96c628c098008625732f008341f5.txt
(http://www.siouxcityjournal.com/articles/2007/08/07/news/top/8d9e96c628c098008625732f008341f5.txt)
However, in the same article, he kinda contradicts himself:

Further, the U.S. senator from Illinois said, if there were "actionable intelligence reports" showing al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden in Pakistan, the U.S. troops as a last resort should enter and try to capture terrorists. That would happen, he added, only if "the Pakistani government was unable or unwilling" to go after the terrorists.

www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/tx/texas_democratic_primary-312.htm

It looks like Obama has taken the lead in the state of Texas with 1 week to go till the Texas Primaries.
I thought you were the guy that said that polls don't count?

Given the volatility of polls over the past few months, who knows what to believe anymore.

However, in the same article, he kinda contradicts himself:
??? No, it's the same thing he was saying all the time.

I thought you were the guy that said that polls don't count?

Given the volatility of polls over the past few months, who knows what to believe anymore.
I think we can believe that this poll will be in error by anything from 5 to 15 percent and can go either way. And it's not like there are a ton of undecideds, either.

Polls, although not perfect, are usually much more reliable. What's different this year? No one wants to own up publicly to the lousy candidate that they back?

I think we can believe that this poll will be in error by anything from 5 to 15 percent and can go either way. And it's not like there are a ton of undecideds, either.

Polls, although not perfect, are usually much more reliable. What's different this year? No one wants to own up publicly to the lousy candidate that they back?
I tend to agree with you here. That is like twice in the last week....the sky must be falling???? :D

In regards to Afghanistan and what happened after 9/11, I like many got caught up in the emotional wave. As much as I disdain war, I thought the best solution was the one proposed by the US. Looking back on that now and what it all has evolved into, I would never have given my support.

There has to be a better way!!
Overthrowing the Taliban in Afghanistan, and chasing down Osama and the rest of al-Qaeda, is what I supported at the time, and would still support. You are saying you no longer support that because Bush didn't do what he proposed and did something else irrelevant instead?

But attacking terrorist targets is wrong. It's "forcing democracy" and "bombs and bullets" and the "War on Terror".
In regards to Afghanistan and what happened after 9/11, I like many got caught up in the emotional wave. As much as I disdain war, I thought the best solution was the one proposed by the US. Looking back on that now and what it all has evolved into, I would never have given my support.

There has to be a better way!!

In regards to Afghanistan and what happened after 9/11, I like many got caught up in the emotional wave. As much as I disdain war, I thought the best solution was the one proposed by the US. Looking back on that now and what it all has evolved into, I would never have given my support.

There has to be a better way!!

care to suggest one? or are you just being as vague and without substance as you believe Obama is?

care to suggest one? or are you just being as vague and without substance as you believe Obama is?
Well, to be honest with you, I think Obama is a hopeless idealist or a warmonger by default.

As for a better way, a concentrated peace negotiation between Israel and Palestinians to start off with.

Well, to be honest with you, I think Obama is a hopeless idealist or a warmonger by default.
And you do not let anything interfere with your default thoughts?

Overthrowing the Taliban in Afghanistan, and chasing down Osama and the rest of al-Qaeda, is what I supported at the time, and would still support. You are saying you no longer support that because Bush didn't do what he proposed and did something else irrelevant instead?
Do you honestly believe that one can fight a military war against terrorism?

What have been the results so far?

Well, to be honest with you, I think Obama is a hopeless idealist or a warmonger by default.

don't those two sound slightly contradictory? What is he, an idealist or a warmonger?

As for a better way, a concentrated peace negotiation between Israel and Palestinians to start off with.
That sounds a lot like exactly what Obama would do, what with all his talk of speaking to foreign leaders without preconditions.
Do you honestly believe that one can fight a military war against terrorism?

What have been the results so far?

Wasn't one of the points of the speech that the war would not be entirely military? that he would fight terrorism by fighting poverty and desperation, which lead to terrorism?

Do you honestly believe that one can fight a military war against terrorism?

What have been the results so far?
I do not think the military alone is a solution. However, I do think the military works better if you actually aim at the enemy. We did not respond to Pearl Harbor by invading Thailand (on grounds that they were vaguely yellow-looking and in the same general part of the world as the country that bombed us); if we had, of course the results would have been rather unsatisfactory.

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".

http://www.ontheissues.org/2008_Dems_Facebook.htm

we're not talking verbatim here, but this is from the facebook debate.

Barack Obama: Al Qaida is based in northwest Pakistan; strike if needed.
Barack Obama: FactCheck: No, violence in Iraq is LOWER than 2 years ago.
Barack Obama: Al Qaida is stronger than before thanks to the Bush doctrine.
Barack Obama: The surge reduced violence, but at enormous cost.
Barack Obama: Begin a phased redeployment to send a clear signal.
Bill Richardson: Get bin Laden in Pakistan unilaterally, if Pakistan can't.
Bill Richardson: We have an opportunity to get Musharraf to step aide.
Hillary Clinton: Ok to target Al Qaeda in Pakistan; we did that 10 years ago.
Hillary Clinton: Begin troops withdrawal within 60 days after elected.
Hillary Clinton: Withdraw troops within 60 days after taking office.
John Edwards: Get bin Laden, period, even if in Pakistan.
John Edwards: Pull 40,000 to 50,000 troops out in 1st year as President.
John Edwards: Stop propping the Sunni and Shia up with American lives.

Now don't get all nitpicky about "whah, Richardson and Edwards are not candidates anymore..." I even bolded Hillary's statement for you.

These are just the Democrats who have said the exact same thing. I'm looking for the Republicans now.

http://www.dawn.com/2007/10/17/top11.htm

US presidential candidates see Pakistan as vital to war on terror



By Our Correspondent


WASHINGTON, Oct 16: Senator Hillary Clinton, the leading Democratic candidate for the 2008 US presidential election, will redouble efforts to fight terrorism in Pakistan if she is elected.

Senator John McCain, a leading Republican presidential candidate, believes that success in the war against terror in Pakistan is as vital as it is in Afghanistan.

Barack Obama, a Democrat, will insist, not just request, Pakistan crack down on militants. John Edwards, another Democrat, includes Pakistan in a string of unstable countries such as Saudi Arabia, and urges the United States to seek to prevent terrorism in these countries.

Two major Republican candidates, Rudolph Giuliani and Mitt Romney, do not believe Pakistan is important enough to get a place in their major foreign policy objectives.

The candidates made these observations in articles they wrote for the Foreign Affairs magazine of the US Council on Foreign Relations, America’s most prestigious think-tank which influences policy makers in both Republican and Democratic parties.

Senator Clinton, who President George W. Bush thinks is the most likely to replace him at the White House in 2008, says that “the forgotten frontline in the war on terror is Afghanistan,” and not Iraq, “where our military effort must be reinforced”.

While writing about the importance of defeating the Taliban and Al Qaeda forces in Afghanistan, she claims that terrorists are increasingly finding safe havens in the Federally-Administered Tribal Areas of Pakistan. “Redoubling our efforts with Pakistan would not only help root out terrorist elements there; it would also signal to our Nato partners that the war in Afghanistan and

the broader fight against extremism in South Asia are battles that we can and must win,” she writes.

“Yet we cannot succeed unless we design a strategy that treats the entire region as an interconnected whole, where crises overlap with one another and the danger of a chain reaction of disasters is real.”

Senator Clinton believes that in Asia, India has a special significance both as an emerging power and as the world’s most populous democracy.

“As co-chair of the Senate India Caucus, I recognise the tremendous opportunity presented by India’s rise and the need to give the country an augmented voice in regional and international institutions, such as the UN.” Senator McCain is the most sympathetic to Pakistan. “Success in Afghanistan is critical to stopping Al Qaeda, but success in neighbouring Pakistan is just as vital,” he notes.

“We must continue to work with President Gen Pervez Musharraf to dismantle the cells and camps that the Taliban and Al Qaeda maintain in his country.”

He warns that both Taliban and Al Qaeda still have sanctuaries in Pakistan, and the ‘Talibanisation’ of Pakistani society is advancing.

“The United States must help Pakistan resist the forces of extremism by making a long-term commitment to the country.

“This would mean enhancing Pakistan’s ability to act against insurgent safe havens and bring children into schools and out of extremist Madressahs and supporting Pakistani moderates.”

Senator Obama, who stirred a major international controversy two months ago when he said that if elected he will send US troops into Pakistan to attack suspected Al Qaeda hideouts, retains his hawkish attitude towards Pakistan.

“We will join with our allies in insisting — not simply requesting — that Pakistan crack down on the Taliban, pursue Osama bin Laden and his lieutenants, and end its relationship with all terrorist groups,” he writes.

“At the same time, I will encourage dialogue between Pakistan and India to work toward resolving their dispute over Kashmir and between Afghanistan and Pakistan to resolve their historic differences and develop the Pashtun border region.

“If Pakistan can look toward the east with greater confidence, it will be less likely to believe that its interests are best advanced through cooperation with the Taliban.” John Edwards, who contested the 2004 election for vice-president and is now a presidential candidate, notes that Al Qaeda has expanded its reach not only across Afghanistan, Iraq, and Pakistan but even in Europe. “Unsurprisingly, we see radicalism rising today in unstable countries such as Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, and, of course, Iraq and Afghanistan,” he warns.

“This illuminates the importance of foreign and national security policies that seek to prevent terrorism, not just respond to it.”

So what say you CH?

www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/tx/texas_democratic_primary-312.htm

It looks like Obama has taken the lead in the state of Texas with 1 week to go till the Texas Primaries.

your link is dead

However, in the same article, he kinda contradicts himself:

Hmmm... perhaps Obama knows what an invasion is. You clearly don't.

That sounds a lot like exactly what Obama would do, what with all his talk of speaking to foreign leaders without preconditions.
Doesn't seem to fit within the parameters of his "war that we must win".

Wasn't one of the points of the speech that the war would not be entirely military? that he would fight terrorism by fighting poverty and desperation, which lead to terrorism?
yeah....that is the idealist side of him.

Hmmm... perhaps Obama knows what an invasion is. You clearly don't.
Whatever.

your link is dead

Sorry:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/tx/texas_democratic_primary-312.html

Hopefully it is fixed now.

Doesn't seem to fit within the parameters of his "war that we must win".
Of course it does. Are you the only person who doesn't understand? It seems so.

Do you honestly believe that one can fight a military war against terrorism?

What have been the results so far?

You keep trying this and it's utter failure. We aren't fighting a war on terror. We're fighting a war in Iraq. There was no terrorism there before we arrived.

The results so far is that Bush doesn't have any intention of fighting a war on terror. How one should be "fought" is yet to be determined, since it's not been done before.

Let's do the same thing. Do you honestly believe we can help children to gain the appropriate knowledge to keep up with their peers, so none are left behind, so to speak? What have been the results so far?

See how stupid that is? A different methodology applied to the same problem or in the case of the "War on Terror" actually focused on the problem it purports to be focused on, cannot accurately be said to be the same thing, now can it?

Whatever.

Profound.

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.

You claim he contradicted himself. In order to demonstrate that, you have to show that there is no definition of invasion by which is words are true. I believe it easily demonstrated, that not only is there a definition that makes his words true, but it's the generally accepted definition.

That he uses the generally understood version of the word seems pretty darned acceptable to me. You seem to want to deny the general definition of the term as unacceptable, which you may do. Provide a definition, please.

We aren't entering as an enemy. In fact, it's our hope that Pakistan will support our efforts or at worst ignore them.

American Heritage Dictionary (this being America and all)
1. The act of invading, especially the entrance of an armed force into a territory to conquer.

Mirriam-Webster defines Invade (and invasion as the act of invading)
1. to enter for conquest or plunder

Here's a link.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/invade

Yep, you've got "whatever" and all Obama has got is two dictionaries and the majority of the democratic party and independents on his side. Golly. So, CH, is our purpose conquest or plunder of Pakistan? I'm curious.

Profound.



You claim he contradicted himself. In order to demonstrate that, you have to show that there is no definition of invasion by which is words are true. I believe it easily demonstrated, that not only is there a definition that makes his words true, but it's the generally accepted definition.

That he uses the generally understood version of the word seems pretty darned acceptable to me. You seem to want to deny the general definition of the term as unacceptable, which you may do. Provide a definition, please.

We aren't entering as an enemy. In fact, it's our hope that Pakistan will support our efforts or at worst ignore them.

American Heritage Dictionary (this being America and all)
1. The act of invading, especially the entrance of an armed force into a territory to conquer.

Mirriam-Webster defines Invade (and invasion as the act of invading)
1. to enter for conquest or plunder

Here's a link.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/invade

Yep, you've got "whatever" and all Obama has got is two dictionaries and the majority of the democratic party and independents on his side. Golly. So, CH, is our purpose conquest or plunder of Pakistan? I'm curious.

Hey, did we all miss where CH asked for quotes of other candidates saying the same thing as Obama and me giving it to him? I mean, McCain, Richardson, Clinton, Edwards, et al. being quoted in newspapers and the facebook debate should be evidence enough. This should shut down the Obama the tyrannical Fing nonsense he's been spouting, but I know I'm just hoping against hope. HA HOPE, not false hope, big rallies, and ack ack acck ackack. Does anybody else hear that when Hillay Clinton speaks? And we're going to bring the acckk acckkk acckkk to Texas..." I'm just pointing out how God damn annoying she is on top of her hypocrisy and blind opportunism.

Sorry:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/tx/texas_democratic_primary-312.html

Hopefully it is fixed now.

Well, better your link being dead than your argument. Not that I'm pointing any fingers.

I don't see why this matters anymore. Clinton's support in Ohio and Texas is apparently collapsing despite the fact that Hillary is not out of this yet. The Democratic voters are rushing to crown Obama. I think if he wins I might just not bother to vote in the general election at all. Any party so taken by mere words and glittering generalities doesn't need my support any longer.

I don't see why this matters anymore. Clinton's support in Ohio and Texas is apparently collapsing despite the fact that Hillary is not out of this yet. The Democratic voters are rushing to crown Obama. I think if he wins I might just not bother to vote in the general election at all. Any party so taken by mere words and glittering generalities doesn't need my support any longer.

You know, you keep spouting these talking points of Hillary's and now it's becoming hard to take you seriously. As first I defended you as just having an opinion that was different than mine. You've been given ample information to support that Barack has far more than "words and glittering generalities" to share with the American people. The most telling portion was when the commentators of the last debate called Hillary out on this bullshit and she backpeddled as she often does. Barack Obama's response summed it up.
perfectly.

Heres the exchange:

"I do think that words are important and words matter," Clinton said at a debate at the University of Texas. "But actions speak louder than words."

Obama responded by laying out issues he's worked on in the Senate and others he'd support as president -- then called it ridiculous to suggest his supporters are "being duped."

"The implication is that the people who have been voting for me or involved in my campaign are somehow delusional," he said.

Obama said his supporters perceive the reality of what's going on in Washington very clearly, and they want to see it change.

"What they see is that if we don't bring the country together, stop the endless bickering, actually focus on solutions and reduce the special interests that have dominated Washington, then we will not get anything done."

She decries his "big rallies and speeches" but guess what? The reason there are big rallies at his speeches are because people want to hear what he has to say. They respect what he has to say and they want to know more. For her to downplay his appeal is just arrogant on her part. The reason people are "crowning" Obama is because he's winning elections and the hearts and minds of the people. To suggest that Hillary Clinton is somehow a victim of circumstance is just pure BS. She had more name recognition, more exposure, and more money at the start and he still kicked her ass. The writing is on the wall and you better get take a refresher course to read it. You can like Hillary all you want, but to decry the Obama movement as merely some passing fad with no substance does the process, America, and even you a disservice. Frankly, I expect this from CH but I was actually starting to respect you.

Doesn't seem to fit within the parameters of his "war that we must win".
Yes, it does. The war that we must win is against the Taliban and Al Qaeda, both international terrorist groups. They happen to be holed up in Pakistan right now, so that's where we fight them. Obama will ask Musharraf's permission, but will not hesitate to act without it if Musharraf does not give his permission.

I don't see why this matters anymore. Clinton's support in Ohio and Texas is apparently collapsing despite the fact that Hillary is not out of this yet. The Democratic voters are rushing to crown Obama. I think if he wins I might just not bother to vote in the general election at all. Any party so taken by mere words and glittering generalities doesn't need my support any longer.

So because your pet candidate doesn't get the nomination, you are not going to vote? WOW!!!

Obama is the Messiah that will change the world for the better with a snap of his magical fingers. Not really, but you know someone is going to take this post seriously.


If McCain grew too ill to run when the time came, who would they get to replace him?

If McCain grew too ill to run when the time came, who would they get to replace him?

Legally, I think Huckabee would become the Republican candidate.

and that would be interesting.

I don't see why this matters anymore. Clinton's support in Ohio and Texas is apparently collapsing despite the fact that Hillary is not out of this yet. The Democratic voters are rushing to crown Obama. I think if he wins I might just not bother to vote in the general election at all. Any party so taken by mere words and glittering generalities doesn't need my support any longer.

I love irony.

You know what is a glittering generality? These accusations. Nothing specific about them. Name what he is inspecific on? Go ahead. I'll wait.

I don't see why this matters anymore. Clinton's support in Ohio and Texas is apparently collapsing despite the fact that Hillary is not out of this yet. The Democratic voters are rushing to crown Obama. I think if he wins I might just not bother to vote in the general election at all. Any party so taken by mere words and glittering generalities doesn't need my support any longer.

How childish.

Haha

Well I don't wanna see the comeback kid get ill or anything; It was a thought I had because of his age. I'm glad to see Obama looking good against McCain though and seeing him up in the polls in Texas and Ohio is encouraging.

This is the most interesting politics has ever been in my lifetime.

By definition, a political campaign involves "mere words" and "glittering generalities".
But remember, if Obama didn't have specific positions on all the issues that have come up, he wouldn't be in the race by now. He'd have failed to come up with answers in debates and been totally discredited.

I will grant you that most of his positions are very similar to Clinton's, so basically the only thing you can use to decide is character, which boils down to:
Obama is more electable. We have only a vague idea how good of a president he would be, but he looks like he'd be good. I could be wrong though.
Clinton is almost guaranteed to be at least as good of a president as her husband was. But a lot of Republicans hate Clinton. She will have a very hard time winning the election, and even if Obama isn't that great, he will almost certainly be better then McCain.

Haha

Well I don't wanna see the comeback kid get ill or anything; It was a thought I had because of his age. I'm glad to see Obama looking good against McCain though and seeing him up in the polls in Texas and Ohio is encouraging.

This is the most interesting politics has ever been in my lifetime.

Couldn't agree more. I have to say that what was said about Hillary earlier today got me a bit excited about seeing more of her (I'm in Texas until March 4). I love that there are candidates we can get behind instead of run from like in past years.

It's part of what particulary bugs me about CH. It drives him nuts that people are excited by a candidate. One could claim because of substantive problems with that candidate, except every problem he's been able to demonstrate to date is a problem with every candidate, like the the potential for crossing the border of Pakistan to go after Al Qaeda.

Honestly I have no patience for whatever CH is doing.

And yes to worthwhile candidates. I don't have to vote third party this time knowing my candidate is sure to lose.

Honestly I have no patience for whatever CH is doing.

And yes to worthwhile candidates. I don't have to vote third party this time knowing my candidate is sure to lose.

Ditto, though, to my chagrin, I used to vote Libertarian in the national election. I should have been more educated on their party. At the time, I wasn't as aware of how to become educated on their politics.

Go ahead. I'll wait.

That could be a loooooong time. ;)

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

good, but not as good as a plaaned market

I'm seriously considering voting for Obama but I've a question for him, "Do you believe Allah is the one true god and Mohammed is his prophet?"
Any answer other than "No" would probably cause me to not vote for him. Maybe he's already been asked this.

I'm seriously considering voting for Obama but I've a question for him, "Do you believe Allah is the one true god and Mohammed is his prophet?"
Any answer other than "No" would probably cause me to not vote for him. Maybe he's already been asked this.

First off, I don't like the fact that you wouldn't vote for him if he was Muslim. It seems more than a little bigoted.

But with that out of the way, he isn't. At all.

Obama is a member of the United Church of Christ.

His father and stepfather were both nonpracticing Muslims.

In Indonesia, where he spent several years as a child, he went to a predominantly Muslim school for 2 years, when his parents could no longer send him to the predominantly Christian expatriot school.

I'm seriously considering voting for Obama but I've a question for him, "Do you believe Allah is the one true god and Mohammed is his prophet?"
Any answer other than "No" would probably cause me to not vote for him. Maybe he's already been asked this.

Someone has been getting chain emails. Keith Ellison is a pretty good legislator and he's Muslim. Being xenophobic is not an attractive quality for most of us. OBAMA is not a Muslim, but if he were I wouldn't withhold my vote as a result. Please read more and inform yourself on the truth of the candidates. Only then can you make an informed decision.

Legally, I think Huckabee would become the Republican candidate.

and that would be interesting.
There are actually no laws at all about how the parties select their candidates. The Republicans are like a private club with private clubhouse rules. I vaguely remember the nonsense the Dems went through to replace Eagleton as running mate when he dropped off the ticket in '72 (an emergency snap "convention" made up of national committee members, sort of like superdelegates without any regular delegates) but I don't know if the Reps would do the same kind of thing, or what.

I'm seriously considering voting for Obama but I've a question for him, "Do you believe Allah is the one true god and Mohammed is his prophet?"
Any answer other than "No" would probably cause me to not vote for him. Maybe he's already been asked this.

You wouldnt vote for him because hes Muslim? Frankly, I think people like you shouldnt be allowed to vote.

But regardless, as has been stated numerous times by him and others, he is a Christian. A non-Christian could not do nearly as well as he has in America. Which is upsetting.

I'm seriously considering voting for Obama but I've a question for him, "Do you believe Allah is the one true god and Mohammed is his prophet?"
Any answer other than "No" would probably cause me to not vote for him. Maybe he's already been asked this.

dont vote for people based on religion.

And a right-wing radio host, after displaying xenophobic, racist attitudes, making himself look like an absolute idiot, and damaging McCain's campaign, is wondering why McCain didn't follow it up with an attack on Obama and instead apologized, and now claims he's going to support Clinton.

I don't believe I've seen such a retard on television since the Swift Boat veterans for Truth.

Obama is the Messiah that will change the world for the better with a snap of his magical fingers. Not really, but you know someone is going to take this post seriously.


If McCain grew too ill to run when the time came, who would they get to replace him?

newt gingrich.

they couldnt pick any of the losers who ran against mccain.

Obama is a member of the United Church of Christ.

His father and stepfather were both nonpracticing Muslims.



He should have no problem saying “No” to “Is Allah the one true God and Mohammed is his prophet?”

. Being xenophobic is not an attractive quality for most of us.
I'm not in fear of anyone strange or foreign. I am wary of people who belong to a religion or espouse a political ideology that includes the torturing, dismembering, stoning, and murder of anyone who does not convert to their way of thinking. In general I don’t approve of anyone who advocates cruelty to people or animals.

You wouldnt vote for him because hes Muslim? Frankly, I think people like you shouldnt be allowed to vote.


You have an interesting concept of "liberty".
dont vote for people based on religion.

At this time I do have the right to vote. Maybe if we keep going the way we are I’ll lose that right. You probably will also if that happens. Maybe you guys can come up with a test that will assure those who vote meet your standards. I’m sure the majority would go along with it as long as it was the majority opinion.
I see no problem examining a candidate’s beliefs and philosophies that they use to make decisions affecting the country. Islam has a very clear record of human rights’ violations. As a voter I’ve the right to not vote for someone based on what I perceive as a risk..Do I think all those of Islamic faith are bad? No. Am I willing to take the risk of having them in public office? Not me personally. Actually I’ll probably vote for Obama anyway but I’d like for him to answer the question.

Cleveland Debate just started - can watch online here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/22886841#22886841

Islam has a very clear record of human rights’ violations.

Ignoring all of that crap about your right to vote, since everyone knows that isn't what the poster was implying. Islam has as bad of a track record with human rights as any other religion (or non-religion for that matter). A candidates policies are what should affect your decision to vote, unless you are saying that all Muslims do not care about human rights.

Cleveland Debate just started - can watch online here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/22886841#22886841

Geez, I guess the honeymoon is over...they might be throwing pens at each other soon...

He should have no problem saying “No” to “Is Allah the one true God and Mohammed is his prophet?”
no, he would not have a problem saying "no" to that statement, though he would probably be offended by the asking of it.

I'm not in fear of anyone strange or foreign. I am wary of people who belong to a religion or espouse a political ideology that includes the torturing, dismembering, stoning, and murder of anyone who does not convert to their way of thinking. In general I don’t approve of anyone who advocates cruelty to people or animals.

not all muslims are a part of the Jihad, just as not all catholics were a part of the inquisition, just as not all baptists are part of the dominionist movement.


At this time I do have the right to vote. Maybe if we keep going the way we are I’ll lose that right. You probably will also if that happens. Maybe you guys can come up with a test that will assure those who vote meet your standards. I’m sure the majority would go along with it as long as it was the majority opinion.
I see no problem examining a candidate’s beliefs and philosophies that they use to make decisions affecting the country. Islam has a very clear record of human rights’ violations. As a voter I’ve the right to not vote for someone based on what I perceive as a risk..Do I think all those of Islamic faith are bad? No. Am I willing to take the risk of having them in public office? Not me personally. Actually I’ll probably vote for Obama anyway but I’d like for him to answer the question.

his membership in a christian church should be answer enough. I doubt he'll personally answer it unless directly asked, as he feels the fearmongering going about does not dignify a response.

that Obama is Muslim is nothing but fearmongering begun by Fox "news". it should disturb you that you've bought into it.

I'm not in fear of anyone strange or foreign. I am wary of people who belong to a religion or espouse a political ideology that includes the torturing, dismembering, stoning, and murder of anyone who does not convert to their way of thinking. In general I don’t approve of anyone who advocates cruelty to people or animals.

Then you should have no issue opposing every single president in America to date, or asking this question either.

“Is Yahweh the one true God and Jesus is our saviour?”


The Christian god was a mean old bastard too. Stoning kids to death for not obeying their parents, shellfish consumption punishable by torment, along with numerous temper tantrums and bloodletting demands.

Since obviously there is only one interpretation of Muslim, just as there is only one interpretation of Christianity. The evil, blood hungry type.

He should have no problem saying “No” to “Is Allah the one true God and Mohammed is his prophet?”


I'm not in fear of anyone strange or foreign. I am wary of people who belong to a religion or espouse a political ideology that includes the torturing, dismembering, stoning, and murder of anyone who does not convert to their way of thinking. In general I don’t approve of anyone who advocates cruelty to people or animals.


You have an interesting concept of "liberty".


At this time I do have the right to vote. Maybe if we keep going the way we are I’ll lose that right. You probably will also if that happens. Maybe you guys can come up with a test that will assure those who vote meet your standards. I’m sure the majority would go along with it as long as it was the majority opinion.
I see no problem examining a candidate’s beliefs and philosophies that they use to make decisions affecting the country. Islam has a very clear record of human rights’ violations. As a voter I’ve the right to not vote for someone based on what I perceive as a risk..Do I think all those of Islamic faith are bad? No. Am I willing to take the risk of having them in public office? Not me personally. Actually I’ll probably vote for Obama anyway but I’d like for him to answer the question.

Ok, so you are a little young and misinformed so I'll extend a bit of compassion to you. I do not like people who abuse people or animals as well. But we're not talking about that. Obama need not answer that question again. He is a Christian and that's that.

Your opinion here confuses me a bit. First, you say you are not afraid of anyone foreign or different and then you espouse a very ignorant view of Islam. Is it true that some people who practice Islam are radical and condone stoning, torture, and even rape? Yes! They are drastically in the minority. I ask only that you look back over the course of human history. Knights during the crusades (Christians) turned to cannibalism to stay alive. The Branch Davidian complex was populated by people with a warped view of Christianity. People died as a result of this. Have you heard of Jim Jones and do you like Koolaid? My point is that your understanding seems to be very limited. As you grow older I am going to give you advice you can take or leave. Read and learn as much as you can. Don't trust the conventional wisdom and challenge yourself to go beyond the point you believed you could reach.

Finally, I'd like you to do some serious research on the candidates. I'd like you to go beyond wackjob sites that do not promote truth. Take time and weigh the issues.

He should have no problem saying “No” to “Is Allah the one true God and Mohammed is his prophet?”

But he shouldnt have to.


I'm not in fear of anyone strange or foreign. I am wary of people who belong to a religion or espouse a political ideology that includes the torturing, dismembering, stoning, and murder of anyone who does not convert to their way of thinking. In general I don’t approve of anyone who advocates cruelty to people or animals.

So, you shouldnt support Christians or conservatives either.

You have an interesting concept of "liberty".

I will be the first to admit that I agree with the small amount of founding fathers who thought only the educated should be allowed to vote. How you are deciding whether you will vote for Obama or not is frankly unintellegent.


At this time I do have the right to vote.

Sadly.

Maybe if we keep going the way we are I’ll lose that right. You probably will also if that happens.

All the more reason to vote for Obama, hes not a bootlick...er...McCain.

Maybe you guys can come up with a test that will assure those who vote meet your standards. I’m sure the majority would go along with it as long as it was the majority opinion.

I can only hope.

Islam has a very clear record of human rights’ violations. As a voter I’ve the right to not vote for someone based on what I perceive as a risk..

So you cant vote for Christians by that logic either.

Do I think all those of Islamic faith are bad? No. Am I willing to take the risk of having them in public office? Not me personally.

I dont think all Muslims are bad, but they are scawy and I wouldnt ever want one to get elected.:rolleyes:

Tim Russert is going at it very well. Hillary is going to lose Texas and perhaps even Ohio after this debate. Obama is quite concise and forthright in his answers. This is the major difference between Obama and Hillary. She pussyfoots around the issues and tries to sugarcoat everything. Obama just says it flat out.

He just pawns her and makes her look rediculous at every turn. "If Senator Clinton thinks the word reject is stronger than denounce then I reject and denounce Minister Farakhan's support." He's just saying, this is and Fing stupid discussion so can we get onto something that is more important.

I don't see why this matters anymore. Clinton's support in Ohio and Texas is apparently collapsing despite the fact that Hillary is not out of this yet. The Democratic voters are rushing to crown Obama. I think if he wins I might just not bother to vote in the general election at all. Any party so taken by mere words and glittering generalities doesn't need my support any longer.

How mature.

(Not.)

Profound.

You claim he contradicted himself. In order to demonstrate that, you have to show that there is no definition of invasion by which is words are true. I believe it easily demonstrated, that not only is there a definition that makes his words true, but it's the generally accepted definition.

That he uses the generally understood version of the word seems pretty darned acceptable to me. You seem to want to deny the general definition of the term as unacceptable, which you may do. Provide a definition, please.

We aren't entering as an enemy. In fact, it's our hope that Pakistan will support our efforts or at worst ignore them.

American Heritage Dictionary (this being America and all)
1. The act of invading, especially the entrance of an armed force into a territory to conquer.

Mirriam-Webster defines Invade (and invasion as the act of invading)
1. to enter for conquest or plunder

Here's a link.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/invade

Yep, you've got "whatever" and all Obama has got is two dictionaries and the majority of the democratic party and independents on his side. Golly. So, CH, is our purpose conquest or plunder of Pakistan? I'm curious.
Originally Posted by wikipedia
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.
That was fun.

Pakistanis Protest Barak Obama's Invasion Threats (http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2007/08/pakistanis-protest-barak-obamas.html)

Obama never called for an invasion of Pakistan (http://youtube.com/watch?v=rKvc6aj08g4&feature=related)

Listen to the number of times that these people use the word "invade". I also smirked at the comment at the end.....

"this is Bush heavy" (in reference to Obama calling Hillary Bush Lite).

Obama says he might send troops to Pakistan (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20070536/)

The Illinois senator warned Pakistani President Gen. Pervez Musharraf that he must do more to shut down terrorist operations in his country and evict foreign fighters under an Obama presidency, or Pakistan will risk a U.S. troop invasion and losing hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. military aid.
Like I said...whatever.

Yes, it does. The war that we must win is against the Taliban and Al Qaeda, both international terrorist groups. They happen to be holed up in Pakistan right now, so that's where we fight them. Obama will ask Musharraf's permission, but will not hesitate to act without it if Musharraf does not give his permission.
Yea!! Let's pour gasoline over the entire area and turn it into an inferno. Let's piss off another 150 Million Muslims..... more then they already are pissed off.

http://bp2.blogger.com/_L6pDyjqqsvY/RrXNNDefwGI/AAAAAAAAGS8/2ZIQGyGp4f0/s400/paki+obama3.jpg

If you don't think this is folly then you aren't reading the right script.

That was fun.
congratulations, you've learned that definitions are not always absolute.


Pakistanis Protest Barak Obama's Invasion Threats (http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2007/08/pakistanis-protest-barak-obamas.html)
A rightwing blog that refers to liberals as "moonbats", very credible source for whether or not it's an invasion.
Obama never called for an invasion of Pakistan (http://youtube.com/watch?v=rKvc6aj08g4&feature=related)

Listen to the number of times that these people use the word "invade". I also smirked at the comment at the end.....

So people in Fox news are trying to sell this "invade" nonsense pretty hard. Agendas show pretty nakedly here. Some other blatant mischaracterizations from the fox news guys. If you're mostly listening to rightwing blogs and Fox news, I can begin to understand why you've been so lost recently.

At best, this shows you are not the only one to mischaracterize his speech.

"this is Bush heavy" (in reference to Obama calling Hillary Bush Lite).
now you're directly mimicking fox news.

Obama says he might send troops to Pakistan (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20070536/)
Like I said...whatever.

From the article:Thousands of Taliban fighters are based in Pakistan’s vast and jagged mountains, where they can pass into Afghanistan, train for suicide operations and find refuge from local tribesmen. Intelligence experts warn that al-Qaida could be rebuilding here to mount another attack on the United States.

whatever indeed.

Yea!! Let's pour gasoline over the entire area and turn it into an inferno. Let's piss off another 150 Million Muslims..... more then they already are pissed off.

http://bp2.blogger.com/_L6pDyjqqsvY/RrXNNDefwGI/AAAAAAAAGS8/2ZIQGyGp4f0/s400/paki+obama3.jpg

If you don't think this is folly then you aren't reading the right script.
I'm not reading a script. You seem to be, though. Did the guys at "gateway pundit" hand it to you? Or do you regularly google the blogosphere until you find someone, anyone, who agrees with you?

congratulations, you've learned that definitions are not always absolute.
Really? :rolleyes:

A rightwing blog that refers to liberals as "moonbats", very credible source for whether or not it's an invasion.So people in Fox news are trying to sell this "invade" nonsense pretty hard. Agendas show pretty nakedly here. Some other blatant mischaracterizations from the fox news guys. If you're mostly listening to rightwing blogs and Fox news, I can begin to understand why you've been so lost recently.
To help clear up some of your misconceptions:

- I got the link from a Google search (http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=obama+invasion+pakistan&meta=)

- I am certainly not a right winger by any stretch of the imagination

- I certainly never watch Fox News....don't even know if I can get it here

- Obama made a huge mistake with his declaration

- I am not lost

At best, this shows you are not the only one to mischaracterize his speech.
now you're directly mimicking fox news.
Actually, they appear to be validating my own conclusion about Obama being Bush like.

From the article:

Thousands of Taliban fighters are based in Pakistan’s vast and jagged mountains, where they can pass into Afghanistan, train for suicide operations and find refuge from local tribesmen. Intelligence experts warn that al-Qaida could be rebuilding here to mount another attack on the United States.
And you continue to buy into the Bush/Republican message of fear?

Really? :rolleyes:


To help clear up some of your misconceptions:

- I got the link from a Google search (http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=obama+invasion+pakistan&meta=)So I was right about searching for anyone who agrees with you, whether or not they're credible. Will you be pulling articles from Stormfront next?

- I am certainly not a right winger by any stretch of the imagination

- I certainly never watch Fox News....don't even know if I can get it here

- Obama made a huge mistake with his declaration
I disagree.
- I am not lost
I disagree.

Actually, they appear to be validating my own conclusion about Obama being Bush like.


Fox news said it, therefore it is true?

And you continue to buy into the Bush/Republican message of fear?
Are you?

I actually never heard of Barrack Obama until I read about him in the news that he would be running for president last year. :D

I actually never heard of Barrack Obama until I read about him in the news that he would be running for president last year. :D

Most people hadn't heard of Bill Clinton until he announced his candidacy either.

Part I, posted without comment. Posts are not necessarily in order and date back to late January. I hit a massive increase, this is taking forever and is too much or the point I am going to make, but since I've gone this far I might as well finish.

Again, comment to follow. It will take a while, like hours. Don't wait up if you weren't gonna.
Ultimately:

President: Hillary Clinton replacing George W.MD Bush
Vice President: Barrack Obama replacing Dick Halliburton Cheney
Secretary of State: John Edwards replacing Gonzosleazy Rice

:D

I agree with you. Also, I don't think America's middle class will vote for an African American President. The only possibility I see, and that is slight, is if he is the nominee, then Hillary would have to be his running mate.

Hillary does have a better chance to win the WH.

Obama cannot possibly win without some help from Hillary, either as his Veep or convincing her to help unite the party.

On the other hand, I think Hillary could quite easily win without Obama as her Veep, but more likely to win if he was.

Note: this over stated bashing of Hillary by Obama supporters does not bode well for Democrats.

And Obama is a corporate pimp?

Contributions from Selected Industries (http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/select.asp?Ind=F07)

Next?

Watch her fly on Super Tuesday. :D

Like I said before, your rants prove otherwise:





That is truly not the mark of anyone who "strongly supports political freedom". Which takes me back to this:



The very fact that you want her to die, strongly suggests to me that she is anything other than Bush like, as you so strongly want to paint her.

Clinton stands for the "political freedoms" you detest.

That is interesting, the support for Clinton amongst Edwards supporters. If such is true, it certainly bodes well for Clinton and flies in the face of what others on these boards have been insinuating.

Go Hillary!! :)

1. I want the Democrats to win the Presidency.

2. Hillary has the best chance to beat the Republican propaganda machine.

3. Obama would be a great selection as Hillary's VP.

4. Obama/Edwards would not fare as well as Kerry/Edwards.

You know, that is strange. I just did a Google search for ""anybody but clinton", and got:

Results 1 - 10 of about 7,720 for "anybody but clinton"

So of course I did an "anybody but obama" search and got:

Results 1 - 10 of about 20,300 for "anybody but obama"

Certainly not scientific and certainly nothing to support an argument, especially since there is more than one famous Clinton?

Look again? USA Today (1/10-13/08) poll shows Obama losing by 5 points, and in the same poll, Hillary beating McCain by 5.

Los Angeles Times (1/18-22/08) poll shows Obama losing by 1 point to McCain and Hilary beating McCain by 4 points. The previous poll (10/19-22/07) had Obama winning by 8 points, and Hillary winning by 10 points.

CNN (1/9-10/08) poll, shows Obama beating McCain by 1 point, and Hillary beating McCain by 2 points.



Such a low blow!!

Those polls do show your assertion to be incorrect?

I won't insist upon an apology. :D

You didn't look at ALL the polls? Several showed Clinton beating McCain. Several showed Obama losing to McCain.


I think that Clinton will do very well on Super Tuesday, certainly much better than Obama.


Bloomberg can't win and he knows that. I don't think he will bother.


Or the pissed off Hillary supporters, if Obama wins the nomination?


A Clinton/Obama run would have all the right stuff to win the White House.

I don't see Obama winning the nomination, and if he does, I certainly don't see him winning the Presidency, unless Hillary is his running mate, and I only rate that as an outside chance.

BTW, these (at this time) polls do not truly support your supposition.

White House 2008: General Election (http://www.pollingreport.com/wh08gen.htm)


Which I think she will.


I think she has a better shot at the Presidency, especially if Obama is her running mate.


But probably he won't?

Why Bloomberg May Not Want to Run (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1635537,00.html)

And if he did run, who knows where his votes will come from?


I think this proposition is made of fail.


In a free and democratic society, it is nice to know that the delegates will be free to vote their own conscience if their main candidate goes down to defeat.

I think the biggest problems for Obama becoming the next President are:

1. Colour of his skin.

2. His relative inexperience.

3. Having been partially raised outside the US, and partly raised in the Muslim religion.

And of course, the numbers are all over the place!!

http://www.pollingreport.com/images/logo3.gif (http://www.pollingreport.com/wh08gen.htm)

And how many Republicans will be voting for either Hilary or Obama? Your poll is limited to Republicans you know?


You are discounting Hilary's 8 years in the White House? Also, Obama loss an election bid to the House or Representatives earlier.


Well according to the following (http://bsimmons.wordpress.com/2007/01/31/the-obama-muslim-shell-game-catholic-school-docs-show-obama-registered-as-muslim/):


Most of that is validated by Snopes (http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/muslim.asp).

I think that the Republicans will play that out in any election campaign, just like they swift boated John Kerry in 2004.

Assuming that Obama will hold all the Blue States, which of the Red States can he turn Blue to seal a win?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/2f/ElectoralCollege2004-Large.PNG

Did you read the comments below the article?

I think this is a fair interpretation:


However, if you want to go crazy, be my guest.

After all, Americans did re-elect Bush in 2004. What was it then.....oh yea...swift boaters.

Okay, let's think about what Obama said.....


That is one helluva slam against Bill Clinton who took office 15 years ago and was in office for 8 of those 15 years.

The Democrats under Clinton weren't the "party of ideas".....they didn't challenge "conventional wisdom"?


Another slam against Clinton. You don't expect that those words are biting and waiting to be attacked? Here is a guy trying to get his foot in the door of the White House and slamming the last successful Democrat, who actually spent two terms in office.



I think the Clintons were pretty honest about their remarks.

From watching the tape, I see a guy fundamentally praising the Republicans (including George Bush?), while kicking sand into the eyes of the last Democrat to hold keys to the Oval Office.

Either Obama is trying to woo Republican supporters or has a severe Republican fetish.

And who are these Republicans in the last 10 to 15 years that have bringing forward these "ideas".....Bush? Cheney? Rice? Rove? Delay? Rumsfeld? Powell? Ashcroft? Gonzales? Chertoff? Card? Negroponte? Snow? Wolfowitz? Scooter" Libby?

Don't you see the problem with what Obama stated?

Obama took a calculated risk and sucker punched Bill Clinton and we can see the results. It weakened the Democrats. He calculated wrong. It may not have been his "intention" to say that the Republicans had "better" ideas, but it sure comes across like that. At the very least, it was an attack on Bill Clinton's term of office.

Did I say anything about "lavishing praise" on Bill Clinton? No, I did not. You just made the same mistake that you accuse Bill and Hillary of.


Again...what has this got to do with this debate?


GHWB's term of office was more than the 10 to 15 years that Obama was speaking of, so he is kinda excluded? So, what are you left with? Thats right, 8 years of Clinton and 7 years of George "Uniter" Bush. The latter is clearly a man of "vision", a member of the "part of ideas", who were "challenging conventional wisdom"? Give me a break!!

That is a huge slam against Bill Clinton. Obama opened a can of worms.


Clinton left the White House with the highest approval rating of any President (http://abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/DailyNews/poll_clintonlegacy010117.html)since they started recording approval ratings.


Sure they are doing well. The rest is just your opinion.


Totally disagree, especially considering Dubya's record.


I believe that Americans felt pretty good about themselves and their country during the Clinton years.


No it is far better just glorifying the Republicans and lavishing them with praise (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13394479&postcount=47).

I think it is more about the Clintons defending themselves, than "glorifying" them.


Yet it was Obama who stated unequivocally:


Yea....some heavy duty objective thinking on his part!! :rolleyes:

Keep in mind that the slugfest was initiated by Obama himself, by his inappropriate comments.

Whether you like Bill or Hillary or not is irrelevant. They responded to an obvious slam and the best thing for the Dems is to drop the matter altogether, as it only hurts the cause.

Perhaps not, but one would think that he must have done something right to rate such an approval, especially considering the scandals that only certain people want to characterize his term of office.


You mean 1994, not 2004?

Obama might have been speaking in general terms, but he was very specific with his praise of Republicans. Obama even lumped Clinton in with Nixon. Nice touch!!


And of course Clinton didn't have a vision and the Republicans didn't have to work with a Democrat President to ensure those visions and vice versa?


And pray tell what administration didn't have its' share of scandal? You are grasping at straws.


if the comments on NSG the past 5 years are any indication, there are not too many Americans feeling good about there country during the past 7 years of the Reign of Error.


Yea....Dubya considers himself a "uniter" and a "compassionate conservative"....yeah right!! I believe that the US was more united under Clinton then they wre under either Bush or Reagan.


I don't think most Dems despise GHWB, more likely GWB? Clinton is a pretty popular figure these days?


Yet, Clinton was able to accomplish a lot with Republicans in Congress?


Yea, the Republicans sold their message of fear and the voters bought it. That and a great hatchet job on John Kerry.


Yup, in 2004, the politics of fear trumped the politics of reason for sure.

That is exactly what Obama did, and a huge slam against Clinton.

Praising Republicans and dissing Clinton is certainly not the earmark of a man of "vision", and certainly does little to suggest that he could be a "transformative" kind of leader.

Perhaps what you need to do is step back, take a big breath, and take a more objective look at what you are trying to accomplish here?

From your passionate defence of Obama, I sense a seething dislike, if not hatred for Hillary Clinton? What will that accomplish in the long run, especially if they become running mates?

Personally, I think that is destructive for the Democrats' goal of attaining the White House.

I also get the sense that you are trying to shout down the opposition here with an attitude of I am right and they are wrong. I can show you many comments from others that agree with TCT and myself that Obama's remarks appear to praise the Republicans, while putting down Clinton's accomplishments.

I can well imagine how the Republicans will use those same comments to skewer Obama in the General election, should Obama succeed in getting the nod.

I sure as heck do not want to see the Democrats go down in a heap over such vitriolic attitudes.

If Obama wants to sell himself as one of those transformative type leaders, then he will need to better practice the politics of inclusion and demonstrate that he is the better person for the job.

He won't be able to do that by praising Republicans and dissing Democrats.

Technically, Clinton is miles ahead. She already won Michigan and Florida with no delegates disbursed. If and when those delegates receive status, then Hillary is quite ahead.

If you are a Democrat and you believe in Democracy, you will want those delegates to be seated.

Reality is that Clinton won both Florida and Michigan. Reality dictates that something will have to be done about those delegates.

In your "stupidland" there is no democracy.

And when those disenfranchised voters vote for Mc Cain in November, you will all say we shoulda done the right thing?

Seriously, I believe that Dems are self destructing here.

It may be the "damn primaries", but if Obama wins the nomination by default and/or goes on to lose the election, all you can do is second guess yourselves. Yes disenfranchisement is the correct word, especially when deciding such a high profile position.


Of course I don't. From what I understand, Obama voters voted for "uncommitted", since Obama's name was not on the ballot. Perhaps they will have to figure something out.

She was? Not according to this:

Michigan (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/state/#MI)

Updated 12:09 p.m. EST, Jan 17, 2008

100% reporting

Clinton 328,151 55% 0
Uncommitted 237,762 40% 0
Kucinich 21,708 4% 0
Dodd 3,853 1% 0
Gravel 2,363 0% 0


well something should be done or the consequences will be grave.

At least the Republicans came up with a 50% rule. That is certainly more progressive than the Democrats choice.

To deny the delegates from Michigan and Florida to select the Presidential nominee is ultimately damaging to the Democrats.

As far as the Michigan ballot is concerned, the only name missing was that of Obama's and why the others got on the ballot is anybodys' guess.

But before the Florida primary, which is not what Knights of Liberty stated.


Did Hillary agree to withdraw? I don't think so. If you can find it please let me know.

If you want to see a Democrat in the White House in January, I don't think that this is the way to go about it. It is made of fail.

Edit: I believe that all the candidates agreed not to campaign and to my knowledge, none of them did.

All I can say is that with the attitude I have witnessed on these boards, you will more than likely get the President you deserve but not the one that you want.

Kerry got "swift boated".

Now the Dems are "swift boating" themselves.

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

Who can blame Hillary for going after those votes? Certainly if the situation were reversed, Obama would be going after those votes?

So of course, Obama supporters would prefer to believe that Florida and Michigan doesn't exist for the nomination process.

Democrats exercising democracy. NOT!!

Well then, a fair means to get those delegates seated should be a huge priority. Find a workable solution that allows democracy to succeed.

I actually never heard of Barrack Obama until I read about him in the news that he would be running for president last year. :D

Most people hadn't heard of Bill Clinton until he announced his candidacy either.

Actually, both had a national moment in a similar way. Clinton gave a speech at the Democratic national convention in 1988 (which was chided for going on long, but at the time I was at the mercy of my father's conservative media, so actual impressions may vary) and Obama gave a speech at the 2004 convention (the famed 'purple states' speech).

Then you should have no issue opposing every single president in America to date, or asking this question either.
None whatsoever.



The Christian god was a mean old bastard too. Stoning kids to death for not obeying their parents, shellfish consumption punishable by torment, along with numerous temper tantrums and bloodletting demands.
The christians haven’t stoned people to death, etc in the last 150 years or so but let me assure you if they revert back to barbarism in the name of religion I’ll be just as opposed to them.

Since obviously there is only one interpretation of Muslim, just as there is only one interpretation of Christianity. The evil, blood hungry type.

I suggest you look at the constitutions and laws of Islamic states.

no, he would not have a problem saying "no" to that statement, though he would probably be offended by the asking of it.

I don’t care if he is offended. I want to hear the “no”.



that Obama is Muslim is nothing but fearmongering begun by Fox "news". it should disturb you that you've bought into it.

Fox “news” is primarily right-wing propaganda. I think their weather reporting is decent though.

Obama need not answer that question again. He is a Christian and that's that.
He should have no problem denying that Allah is the one true god and Mohammed is his prophet then. Has he done that? Maybe I missed it.

Your opinion here confuses me a bit. First, you say you are not afraid of anyone foreign or different and then you espouse a very ignorant view of Islam. Is it true that some people who practice Islam are radical and condone stoning, torture, and even rape? Yes! They are drastically in the minority.
I certainly hope that I am wrong about my view of Islam. I’m not convinced they’re in the minority. As a matter of fact, I think most evidence points to the contrary. But if you can convince me otherwise I’d certainly be happy. But y’know, I refuse to let my guard down after 9/11/01.[/QUOTE]

I ask only that you look back over the course of human history. Knights during the crusades (Christians) turned to cannibalism to stay alive. The Branch Davidian complex was populated by people with a warped view of Christianity. People died as a result of this. Have you heard of Jim Jones and do you like Koolaid? My point is that your understanding seems to be very limited. As you grow older I am going to give you advice you can take or leave. Read and learn as much as you can. Don't trust the conventional wisdom and challenge yourself to go beyond the point you believed you could reach.

The crusades ended around 1300 I think. The crusaders were religious zealots and those who used religion to justify their own desires for rape, theft , and conquest, etc. The key point being the crusades ended around 1300. I watched on the news and saw the pictures in Life magazine of the Jim Jones massacre. They weren’t much different than the islamics who strap bombs to their wives and children.

Finally, I’d like to say that throughout the course of human history there are countless of examples of peace-loving , optomistic people who were conquered by ruthless people more than happy to take advantage of them.

*snip*


Hehe. So your response is to take a bunch of words while ignoring others out of a long definition. It specifically shows that the kind of raids Obama is suggesting are not an invasion. Not only that, but you said it was a contradiction. In order for that to be true, what you said must ALWAYS be true, not generally, which, you've not established. In fact, by highlighting the word "generally", you've domenstrated that he "generally" is NOT contradicting himself.

But, hey, let's see what you're coloring of my post looks like, just for giggles.


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.

I bolded the parts of my post as a joke to make fun of CH and it was meant to be hyperbole. However, I can't see a difference between this and this link -

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13484930&postcount=569

I was intending to exaggerate when I made the quoted post as a joke. I didn't think it was a prediction.

Fox “news” is primarily right-wing propaganda. I think their weather reporting is decent though.
Well, it does seem just a bit less vitriolic and inane than the rest of their bile.
But it could be the only actually scientific aspect to them, which is probably why. Perhaps it's their part in the vast libruhl conspiracy to dupe everyone into worshiping those fame/$-hungry scientists and hurt the poor innocent corporations.

The christians haven’t stoned people to death, etc in the last 150 years or so but let me assure you if they revert back to barbarism in the name of religion I’ll be just as opposed to them.

In the past 150 years? No, they just lynched people (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ku_Klux_Klan), shot doctors (http://www.tkb.org/Group.jsp?groupID=28), or bombed people. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Robert_Rudolph)

Why is that any less barbaric? Because they used more sophisticated means of killing someone?

Clearly this is representative of ALL Christians. Just like how a minority of Muslim extremists represent all Muslims according to you.

Don't deny it. All Christians are racist, bible thumping killers. Admit it.

Otherwise you are a hypocrite.


I suggest you look at the constitutions and laws of Islamic states.


What, like Turkey? Or Indonesia? Or do you mean theocratic countries?

Ohhhh, I get it. You want the worst cases possible to show that anyone who is Muslim in power will automatically make the nation he/she is in charge of turn it into a replica of the worst cases.

In which case, it's clear that Christian American Presidents have been trying to turn America into the land of the Spanish Inquisition.

He should have no problem denying that Allah is the one true god and Mohammed is his prophet then. Has he done that? Maybe I missed it.

what, you want him to say those words specifically? It's not enough for him to say he is a Christian, to be a member of a christian church, or to talk about his faith in Christ? now he has to publicly deny belief in every other religion? you have some damn weird standards.

Hillary hasn't announced her disbelief in Allah either, and neither has McCain. Do you fear that either of them are Muslims? or is it just because Obama is black?

Yes, I do read what I type.


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

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

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


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


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


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

Interesting.


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

I completely disagree. While Obama wants to champion that he was always against the War in Iraq, he admits that he cannot predict how he would have voted if he was in a position to do so.

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

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


Suggesting that this "kid" is only about 13 now is laughable. The fact that you criticize him for his age is telling.


IF the circumstances warranted it. And we all know they didn't.


The fact that Bush violated the goodwill that Congress gave him on this matter is the true story.


This "kid" made some valid points regarding factual comments made by Obama himself. The very fact that the Obama campaign felt compelled to answer such claims proves that there is validity to those points, and just want to put their spin on it.


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


If you don't like the message, you attack the messenger, by blaming his schooling.


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


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


You can count on it.


Obama thinks nukes would be appropriate? No doubt. :p


That is technically a misrepresentation of her position, but I am seeing a pattern to your passionate support of your candidate.

It was a side bar issue with Corny, and it is rather irrelevant to our discussion. Please don't make it bigger then what it is.


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


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


The "kid" made some pretty good points. It shouldn't matter if he mispronounced a word......perhaps you are just "misunderestimating" this guys future potential? :p


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


However, I don't think that Obama should have stated that "there is not much difference between my position and George Bush's position at this stage,".

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


Yes, well stated indeed. Principles are great to define but hard to defend if indeed you do not adhere to those principles.


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

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

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


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

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


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

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

August 07, 2007 1:29 PM


I believe that Obama made a very Bush like comment, which should appeal to the Republicans in the field.

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

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




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


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

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

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


Look at the whole picture.

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

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



Then:


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


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

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


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

Bottom line:

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

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

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

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

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.

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)




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?

Obviously not only do you and I disagree, so do many politicians in the US. See my previous post.


A strong bipartisan record does not help assuage the potential damage he caused by his tough talk on Pakistan.


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.


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.


So you think it is better that the US continue to be perceived as the evil one in the eyes of Pakistans' Muslims huh?


I think what Obama is suggesting helps to destablize the situation in Pakistan and their foreign minister stated such.


It is a serious subject.


Okay done:

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.

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


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:

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.

Taking inventory of the state of the alliance is well and fine, but issuing threats is not conducive to said state of alliance.


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


That is not the sequence in his speech. His priority:


Then he goes on to talk about economic aid.


Talking about the situation is one thing....issuing threats is another. That is the Bush/Republican style. I thought Obama was about change?


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".


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.....

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

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.

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


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....

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:



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.

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.

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.

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 think it is an important speech, although I do believe his delivery of the speech was dry and passionless.


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.


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:


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?

Of course it is important, unless you are looking for a President just to read prepared speeches.


It has lots to do with Obama. It appears that he wants to duplicate Bush's folly, except in Pakistan this time.


Scary when you think about huh? Don't let it happen again.


That is what I am seeing with Obama.


Keen grasp of the issues? I don't see Hillary contemplating a "battlefield in Pakistan".


Which really pale in comparison to the actions that are instituted by the President?


Ohhh....Daily Kos....my favourite!!

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


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.


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?


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)


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?


Ahhh, but what did this great orator (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/27/us/politics/27clinton.html)recently say about Clinton?


I just love Clinton's reply:

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!!

Well if all you are getting is window dressing, and I think you are at this point, then you should be concerned?


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.


Obama didn't talk about the border of Pakistan. He was very specific in talking about taking the fight to the "battlefield in Pakistan".


Nice to know that we can find some agreement.


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.


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:


Other comments from the same source:




More agreement.


Although it was an act of war, the War against Terror is totally unlike Libya and you know it.


Hypothetical question. I was totally against any US invasion of Iraq. Just like I am totally against any US invasion of Pakistan.


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:




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.

From the article you posted:


She also didn't say whether she would act unilaterally or not, whereas Obama declared that he would.

You may see them as "logical inconsistencies", but I don't. Hillary is not running around talking about a "a new chapter in our response to 9/11" or a new "battlefield in Pakistan". On the other hand, your guy is.

I thought you were the guy that said that polls don't count?

Given the volatility of polls over the past few months, who knows what to believe anymore.

In regards to Afghanistan and what happened after 9/11, I like many got caught up in the emotional wave. As much as I disdain war, I thought the best solution was the one proposed by the US. Looking back on that now and what it all has evolved into, I would never have given my support.

There has to be a better way!!

Well, to be honest with you, I think Obama is a hopeless idealist or a warmonger by default.

As for a better way, a concentrated peace negotiation between Israel and Palestinians to start off with.

That was fun.

Pakistanis Protest Barak Obama's Invasion Threats (http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2007/08/pakistanis-protest-barak-obamas.html)

Obama never called for an invasion of Pakistan (http://youtube.com/watch?v=rKvc6aj08g4&feature=related)

Listen to the number of times that these people use the word "invade". I also smirked at the comment at the end.....

"this is Bush heavy" (in reference to Obama calling Hillary Bush Lite).

Obama says he might send troops to Pakistan (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20070536/)


Like I said...whatever.

Yea!! Let's pour gasoline over the entire area and turn it into an inferno. Let's piss off another 150 Million Muslims..... more then they already are pissed off.

http://bp2.blogger.com/_L6pDyjqqsvY/RrXNNDefwGI/AAAAAAAAGS8/2ZIQGyGp4f0/s400/paki+obama3.jpg

If you don't think this is folly then you aren't reading the right script.

Really?


To help clear up some of your misconceptions:

- I got the link from a Google search (http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=obama+invasion+pakistan&meta=)

- I am certainly not a right winger by any stretch of the imagination

- I certainly never watch Fox News....don't even know if I can get it here

- Obama made a huge mistake with his declaration

- I am not lost


Actually, they appear to be validating my own conclusion about Obama being Bush like.




And you continue to buy into the Bush/Republican message of fear?

I agree. Although I prefer Hillary, you won't see me playing the name calling game. That is truly divisive.


There has to be a better way indeed.

Well there is such a word.

Bushevik (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Bushevik).

And you do seem to fit the mold.

Well then you would be 100% wrong. Regardless of what you may think, I do believe in democracy. There appears to be a lot of undemocratic principles in the US, such as the electoral college, and nullifying people with criminal records from ever voting again.

Although I prefer Hillary, I do not hate Obama.

No, that is not what the OP implied, he was quite explicit:




I can't believe that accurate numbers are not available.

BTW, in another thread, I challenged the numbers citing the fact that ALL of the California delegates had not been accounted for. Obviously when they were, that gave Hillary the most delegates on the night. At least that is what I can see. I believe that CNN's numbers are most accurate. also Fox's numbers are closer to CNN's.


Yes I think that Clinton did soar. She handily won most of the traditional Blue States. 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?


Let's also face another fact, in that Clinton won the primaries in Michigan and Florida, even though she has not received any delegates for those States. Had she been awarded those delegates, she would be comfortably in the lead.

I believe that in a general election, Clinton could very well win Florida. I don't believe that Obama would.


I like sneaking up from behind and saying "gotcha"!!

If you would notice, I said the Red States won by Obama are very likely to stay Red.

I think Hillary could easily win the Red States of Florida, Arkansas, New Mexico, and Nevada. I am only going by the States that have voted thus far.


Michigan is certainly more hazy than Florida, where all the candidates were on the ballot and Hillary scored a 50% to 33% win over Obama.

But it is what she said before that, that is most important:


That is not how the current administration views dealing with Iran.

I acknowledge all your hard work and effort, but alas, it did not address the point that I had raised. Certainly in the election coming up the swing States will ultimately determine if a Democrat or a Republican will be given the keys to the White House.

Who is better poised to win those swing States in a general election? I believe that it would be Clinton, especially if it is a Clinton/Obama ticket. I rate that a Clinton/Edwards ticket would also have a chance at success. I don't believe that an Obama/Clinton will materialize.

I will detail my thoughts on those issues later.

Well, that is simply not true.


Certainly a matter of opinion.


The jury is still out on that one, especially since Obama raised the prospect of invading Pakistan territory.

Right now, I tend to agree with you on that matter. Polling is all over the map the past few months and the more meaningful polls will start once the parties have nominated their candidate.

Okay, to pick up where I left off. This report (http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=22494)somewhat details exactly what I was talking about, although he mentions many States that I mentioned, he does have some that differ from mine.

There is absolutely no way that you can measure that?


My thoughts on the voter registration switch:

The Republicans in the very Red States are so afraid of Clinton winning the nomination and the election, that they want Obama to win. I doubt they will be voting for him come November.

Okay, here we go. My initial premise:


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




Who the states went for the last 4 elections.

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

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

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

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

Now, my 2nd premise was:



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My two premises. You answered one of them sorta.

Also, I threw this one in for added support:

Hillary Can Win (http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=22494)

No I wasn't arguing that at all. We were only premising potential electoral votes in the States that already have been won by the candidates. Jocaibia broke it down along those lines. From him to suggest that Obama has the potential to win the mostly red states in a general election that he won in the primaries/caucuses is far from feasible and also not backed by reasonable claims.

He hasn't been proven wrong. The only way that he can be proven wrong is that Clinton would have to win the nomination and face whoever the Republican candidate is and win.

He stated:


I hope that he is right.

Hillary is in a bit of a dry spell right now, but I think she will land right side up. I would be extremely disappointed, as well as all her supporters, if she loses the nomination because of the non-events in Florida and Michigan.

I just love the politics of fear that oozes from the US. Fear the terrorists, fear Kerry, fear Clinton, fear McCain.

No wonder the White House eludes the Dems.

Please point to a post that I claimed that "Obama can't win".

You lean towards the Libertarian side of life?


Clinton is the real deal, and I think that bothers conservatives. Obama would get his ass whupped.


I just remembered a few things you had stated before and was bringing them back for your clarification. It wasn't difficult, just a few key words and a couple of clicks.


I am not exactly chasing you around....more like catching you on your indecisiveness?

Besides, I was bored!!

Good question. This topic was bandied about earlier in this thread. I think they should pick another date and have a make up vote.


Of course not....that would certainly be undemocratic.


Edwards name was on the ballot. The only name not on the ballot was Obama's and many of his supporters were urged to vote "uncommitted".

Michigan Voters Who Support Obama, Edwards Urged to choose ‘Uncommitted’ in Primary (http://www.blackamericaweb.com/site.aspx/bawnews/michiganprimary114)


Of course it has been a farce and I blame the Democrat party for that. Truly not conducive to party unity, and disenfranchising voters in States that are needed for a Presidential win is total insanity.

Actually that is not exactly true.

On your list, you stated that Obama had the potential to win several Red States. You didn't say which ones. I went down your list and added my comments in blue and red as to how I thought they would play out and in certain cases offered reasoning.

The 4 years you show for the voting, you should remember that the Red States and Blue States stayed fairly status quo when Kerry ran. The biggest problem in 2000 was that Gore lost Florida and the election (due some wicked tom foolery), which Clinton snagged from the Republicans in 1996. The swing States, which weren't swing States were won by a Clinton. Before that, Bush Sr. and Ronnie had a lock on those Red States in 1980, 1984, and 1988. Hell, they had a lock on most of the country.

Keep up with the Hillary bashing and you will probably see the Red Sea return?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/2/2f/ElectoralCollege2004-Large.PNG/350px-ElectoralCollege2004-Large.PNG

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ed/ElectoralCollege2000-Large.png/300px-ElectoralCollege2000-Large.png

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b9/ElectoralCollege1996-Large.png/400px-ElectoralCollege1996-Large.png

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/29/ElectoralCollege1992-Large.png/400px-ElectoralCollege1992-Large.png

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a4/ElectoralCollege1988-Large.png/400px-ElectoralCollege1988-Large.png

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/43/ElectoralCollege1984-Large.png/400px-ElectoralCollege1984-Large.png

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b9/ElectoralCollege1980-Large.png/400px-ElectoralCollege1980-Large.png

Go back and read it if you don't believe me.


Four problems with your premise.

1. You assume that Obama is a strong candidate.

2. The Hillary bashing is divisive and could cost Dems big time at the polls.

3. The boneheaded Democratic party that took Florida and Michigan (two important States) off the map, disenfranchising voters, and giving the Republicans a free campaign pass in those States.

4. An African-American has never been nominated for the Presidency of the US and is in uncharted waters.


The point alludes you I see?


Thanks to Clinton. I truly don't think Obama will fare as well.

As I stated before, this issue with Michigan and Florida delegates would be a divisive and contentious situation. The Dems have really made it difficult for the party to succeed.


Dem Delegate Fight Pits Sharpton Vs. NAACP (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/02/dem-delegate-fi.html)

Florida’s Democratic Delegate Mess (http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/29/floridas-democratic-delegate-mess/)


There is still hope for a fair solution!! :)

My suggested solution, IF Florida and Michigan do not have make up votes:

Let all 156 Michigan delegates and all Florida's 210 delegates attend the Convention as free agents. That should make for a lot of good old arm twisting. :)

And this guy's comment sums up my feelings on this issue:


Then of course, there is always the Superdelegates......

Democrats fear superdelegates could overrule voters (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/14/superdelegates/index.html)

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.

The "side show" is your own creation. Again I remind you of my initial premise:



The 2nd part of my premise was:



And 2nd premise I threw out there was:


So, your counter claim is wrong. The only way that my premise can prove to be true or false would be after a general election where Obama was the Democratic nominee.

For your clarification, I never stated "Obama running against Clinton is doing damage to the Democratic Party".

And the Corny thing, well that has always been a bit of a side show in any debate here at NSG. :p
Okay, so here it all is. I tried to only quote actual arguments and not squabbles, but some are intertwined. A lot would require you to click the arrows to find the text he's talking about or the comment he's responding to.

I could comment about the shifting criticism, or about faulty predictions, or even about things in which he has been shockingly consistent. Or times he's returned to premises as if they hadn't already been challenged, regardless of the fact that most of this has involved the same players.

But instead, I'm going to comment on the mess and not the elements of the mess. Just about every premise has been rebutted several times by several people and we've been chasing them like a dog chases it's tail for, well, I lost track of how many threads. I started this in an attempt to see if I could find the core argument because I had lost the forest through the trees on this. You know what? I can't find one.

So-this is a blank slate. I know, from experience, that you won't answer my earlier posts. I've posted one of them so often that it's had to go through 5 updates and now that I've gone back and read the arguments it directly addressed your premise and you still ignore it.

But whatever. We know and have hacked away at your premises for pages and pages. What is your argument-the whole cloth, to mix a metaphor. From start, what are you trying to argue? Lay it out like this is a new topic, because playing whack-a-mole with your random stabs is tiring, and having had the luxury of stepping away from this for a day and a half has made me see how ridiculous this is. I want to see if you can bring your position into focus.

(I told you that the effort (collecting the quotes) wasn't worth it towards my final point, but once I got going I felt I had to finish...)

Also, here's a fun fact-you apparently can only have 10 images, including smilies...so I've taken out a lot of smilies. And changed some img tags to url tags.

Wait, I remember him in my World Almanac 2005.:D It said he made a famous speech.

He was all over the news for it and for his own state senate campaign, where the Republicans dispatched Alan Keyes in the mistaken idea that his fame was all about race, or that you 'fight black with black' or some other misguided notion that got Keyes his ass handed to him.

Actually, both had a national moment in a similar way. Clinton gave a speech at the Democratic national convention in 1988 (which was chided for going on long, but at the time I was at the mercy of my father's conservative media, so actual impressions may vary) and Obama gave a speech at the 2004 convention (the famed 'purple states' speech).

Wait, I remember him in my World Almanac 2005.:D It said he made a famous speech.

I was surprised to hear that he won 70% of the vote, thats means he might win a landslide if he becomes the Democratic nominee. I hope :D

Don't base too much on that election. Keyes was completely nuts, had never lived in Illinois, and called the income tax the "slave tax." near the end of his campaign he tried to secure the black vote by promising to eliminate the income tax for black people.

Keyes was never a serious contender.

In the past 150 years? No, they just lynched people (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ku_Klux_Klan), shot doctors (http://www.tkb.org/Group.jsp?groupID=28), or bombed people. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Robert_Rudolph)

Why is that any less barbaric? Because they used more sophisticated means of killing someone?

Clearly this is representative of ALL Christians. Just like how a minority of Muslim extremists represent all Muslims according to you.

Don't deny it. All Christians are racist, bible thumping killers. Admit it.

Otherwise you are a hypocrite.

A very good point. While I don’t know that hypocrite would be exactly fitting, I would say that not thinking through the examples of christian fundamentalist extremism in the last 150 years was a bit short-sighted on my part. I agree that your examples are no less barbaric. Christian barbarism doesn’t justify muslim barbarism however. I suppose the most pertinent point would be : is Islam primarily fundamentalist? In my opinion it is. I don’t think that christian fundamentalism is the norm in the west although there is a sizeable percentage of the population who would agree with having national constitutions conform and change to biblical law. An example would be Huckabee. I do think that we are quite lucky that most christians pick and chose the parts of the bible that conform to their current social morals. There is a positive side to hypocrisy I guess.



What, like Turkey? Or Indonesia? Or do you mean theocratic countries?

Ohhhh, I get it. You want the worst cases possible to show that anyone who is Muslim in power will automatically make the nation he/she is in charge of turn it into a replica of the worst cases.

In which case, it's clear that Christian American Presidents have been trying to turn America into the land of the Spanish Inquisition.

Turkey is, according to it’s constitution, a secular state, therefore not an Islamic state.

Indonesia is a bit nebulous :
Chapter XI. Religion
1. Article 29
1. The State shall be based upon the belief in the One and Only God.
2. The State guarantees all persons the freedom of worship, each according to his/her own religion or belief.

Not quite sure who “the One and Only God “ is.

He was all over the news for it and for his own state senate campaign, where the Republicans dispatched Alan Keyes in the mistaken idea that his fame was all about race, or that you 'fight black with black' or some other misguided notion that got Keyes his ass handed to him.

I was surprised to hear that he won 70% of the vote, thats means he might win a landslide if he becomes the Democratic nominee. I hope :D

Christian barbarism doesn’t justify muslim barbarism however.


Barbarism isn't justified in most cases anyway. Good, so we have a baseline to work with.


I suppose the most pertinent point would be : is Islam primarily fundamentalist? In my opinion it is.


Fundamentalism has almost always been about people taking whichever holy/political/economic text and running with it to the extremes or putting their slant on it and then running to the extremes, while ignoring all the inconvenient bits of their source material.

It's never about what faith they have. It's how nuts they are about it. Given a choice between a Muslim Moderate (they do exist you know) or a bible thumping Ku Ku Klux neo-Nazi, which would you rather see given power?


I don’t think that christian fundamentalism is the norm in the west although there is a sizeable percentage of the population who would agree with having national constitutions conform and change to biblical law.


Neither is Islamic fundamentalism the norm in the west. If you somehow managed to get a fire eating Islamic cleric running for president in America, you might have a point, but that's not the case at all here.


An example would be Huckabee. I do think that we are quite lucky that most christians pick and chose the parts of the bible that conform to their current social morals. There is a positive side to hypocrisy I guess.


What like the whole constant ignorance of "Thou shalt not kill"?

Real positive, being hypocritical about that one. Maybe there's a hidden passage that goes "Thou shalt not kill, unless you don't like them, or their skin tone, or their haircut, then fire away."

What you're doing is simply hypocritical. You're picking worst case applications of Islam and applying it to all adherents of Islam, while denying the same application to other known religions which have spawned similar nutcases.

It's the individual that makes the difference, not some kind of pseudo-scare hive mind that a belief system has.


Turkey is, according to it’s constitution, a secular state, therefore not an Islamic state.

And Turkey is an Islamic majority state, with Muslim leaders. So much for the idea that being a Muslim leader means you'd start a theocratic fundamentalist state.

I've said it before. It's the individual that makes the difference, not whether they happen to be of a particular denomination or not.


Indonesia is a bit nebulous :

Not quite sure who “the One and Only God “ is.

You're right. Indonesia is clearly a Pastafarianistic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster) state. While people have been waving hands over Islamic and Christian fundamentalist, covert Pastafarianists have been secretly converting Indonesia into a noodle worshiping nation.

Non Aligned States, Shlarg, quit this threadjack or take it to a separate thread, please.

None whatsoever.


The christians haven’t stoned people to death, etc in the last 150 years or so but let me assure you if they revert back to barbarism in the name of religion I’ll be just as opposed to them.


I suggest you look at the constitutions and laws of Islamic states.



I don’t care if he is offended. I want to hear the “no”.

There's already been the "no." Because you weren't paying attention doesn't make it Obama's fault.

see here (http://www.barackobama.com/factcheck/2007/11/12/obama_has_never_been_a_muslim_1.php)

here (http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/22/obama.madrassa/)

and here (http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/muslim.asp)





Fox “news” is primarily right-wing propaganda. I think their weather reporting is decent though.


He should have no problem denying that Allah is the one true god and Mohammed is his prophet then. Has he done that? Maybe I missed it.

I certainly hope that I am wrong about my view of Islam. I’m not convinced they’re in the minority. As a matter of fact, I think most evidence points to the contrary. But if you can convince me otherwise I’d certainly be happy. But y’know, I refuse to let my guard down after 9/11/01.

You most certainly are wrong. As for 9/11/01, where do you live? I am a native New Yorker now living in the burbs a mere 10 miles outside the city. I lived through that day with stunning realism of watching the skyline burning from my building. I lost 2 friends that day, one who had a young baby girl who will never know her father. I am also a Marine in the Reserves. All of these elements should make me far more "guarded" than you. Why am I not? Click on my google searches and inform yourself.

http://www.google.com/search?q=muslim+scholars+speak+out+against+terrorism&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

Moderate Muslims are far more prevalent than radical ones. Look at Lebanon, Egypt, UAE, etc. http://www.danielpipes.org/article/2226

http://www.islamfortoday.com/khan08.htm

Hell, even Fox News gets this right! (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,131580,00.html)



The crusades ended around 1300 I think. The crusaders were religious zealots and those who used religion to justify their own desires for rape, theft , and conquest, etc. The key point being the crusades ended around 1300. I watched on the news and saw the pictures in Life magazine of the Jim Jones massacre. They weren’t much different than the islamics who strap bombs to their wives and children. My point exactly

Finally, I’d like to say that throughout the course of human history there are countless of examples of peace-loving , optomistic people who were conquered by ruthless people more than happy to take advantage of them.[/QUOTE]

Please see my links and comments interspersed with yours above. I believe that I have done service to dispel many of the "issues" you seem to have with Islam.

Edit: I just realized it says where you are from in your profile. Sorry for my lack of attention to detail.

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]




















































































Okay, so here it all is. I tried to only quote actual arguments and not squabbles, but some are intertwined. A lot would require you to click the arrows to find the text he's talking about or the comment he's responding to.

I could comment about the shifting criticism, or about faulty predictions, or even about things in which he has been shockingly consistent. Or times he's returned to premises as if they hadn't already been challenged, regardless of the fact that most of this has involved the same players.

But instead, I'm going to comment on the mess and not the elements of the mess. Just about every premise has been rebutted several times by several people and we've been chasing them like a dog chases it's tale for, well, I lost track of how many threads. I started this in an attempt to see if I could find the core argument because I had lost the forest through the trees on this. You know what? I can't find one.

So-this is a blank slate. I know, from experience, that you won't answer my earlier posts. I've posted one of them so often that it's had to go through 5 updates and now that I've gone back and read the arguments it directly addressed your premise and you still ignore it.

But whatever. We know and have hacked away at your premises for pages and pages. What is your argument-the whole cloth, to mix a metaphor. From start, what are you trying to argue? Lay it out like this is a new topic, because playing whack-a-mole with your random stabs is tiring, and having had the luxury of stepping away from this for a day and a half has made me see how ridiculous this is. I want to see if you can bring your position into focus.

(I told you that the effort (collecting the quotes) wasn't worth it towards my final point, but once I got going I felt I had to finish...)

Also, here's a fun fact-you apparently can only have 10 images, including smilies...so I've taken out a lot of smilies. And changed some img tags to url tags.[/QUOTE]

Is CH still ignoring that I gave him the quotes he was asking for from the other candidates who are "Bush-like?" Yes Sir!

Is CH still ignoring that I gave him the quotes he was asking for from the other candidates who are "Bush-like?" Yes Sir!

Please don't quote the extremely long posts full of quotes. It's making this thread unmanageable.

Please don't quote the extremely long posts full of quotes. It's making this thread unmanageable.

My apologies

Please don't quote the extremely long posts full of quotes. It's making this thread unmanageable.

I cleaned up the broken tags so that now if you were to quote it you'd only get my text and not the weird thing that happened above.

The crusades ended around 1300 I think. The crusaders were religious zealots and those who used religion to justify their own desires for rape, theft , and conquest, etc. The key point being the crusades ended around 1300. I watched on the news and saw the pictures in Life magazine of the Jim Jones massacre. They weren’t much different than the islamics who strap bombs to their wives and children.



Firstly, the Crusades lasted well into the 15th Century, just the Crusades into the middle east ended in 1291. The Balkan Crusades (predominitally lead by the Teutonic Order) lasted well into the 1400s.

As to the bolded part...Christians used religion to justify doing that...you mean...just like the muslim terrorists do? Wow, you mean....the two religions arent really that different?

The Muslims were the civilized ones during the Crusades and much of the middle ages. The Christians were the barbarians. Then the roles switched, and radical christians began losing their power, while radical muslims began to gain it in large part as a reaction to the crusades.

My apologies

You can go in and edit it so that you're only responding to the part you want to and get rid of the long blank space.

Firstly, the Crusades lasted well into the 15th Century, just the Crusades into the middle east ended in 1291. The Balkan Crusades (predominitally lead by the Teutonic Order) lasted well into the 1400s.

As to the bolded part...Christians used religion to justify doing that...you mean...just like the muslim terrorists do? Wow, you mean....the two religions arent really that different?

The Muslims were the civilized ones during the Crusades and much of the middle ages. The Christians were the barbarians. Then the roles switched, and radical christians began losing their power, while radical muslims began to gain it in large part as a reaction to the crusades.

you know, that's a rather scary example of a horrible cycle that could be in the works. We act like barbarians and attack their society, which causes them to slip into barbarism while we regain civility, and then they attack us and we slip into barbarism again...

you know, that's a rather scary example of a horrible cycle that could be in the works. We act like barbarians and attack their society, which causes them to slip into barbarism while we regain civility, and then they attack us and we slip into barbarism again...

If you'll notice, its already happening. Christians are begining to give more and more power and voice to the radicals in their party. I believe I saw an interview with some lady who said "If muslims are willing to blow themselves up and kill people in the name of their religion, thats something we Christians need to become willing to do also."

Think about it.

Ah, the Middle Ages. Almost all of societies ails can be traced back to you;)

You can go in and edit it so that you're only responding to the part you want to and get rid of the long blank space.

Yeah, this was just me being lazy and not thinking about what would transpire. I promise to be more diligent next time.

Firstly, the Crusades lasted well into the 15th Century, just the Crusades into the middle east ended in 1291. The Balkan Crusades (predominitally lead by the Teutonic Order) lasted well into the 1400s.

As to the bolded part...Christians used religion to justify doing that...you mean...just like the muslim terrorists do? Wow, you mean....the two religions arent really that different?

The Muslims were the civilized ones during the Crusades and much of the middle ages. The Christians were the barbarians. Then the roles switched, and radical christians began losing their power, while radical muslims began to gain it in large part as a reaction to the crusades.

you know, that's a rather scary example of a horrible cycle that could be in the works. We act like barbarians and attack their society, which causes them to slip into barbarism while we regain civility, and then they attack us and we slip into barbarism again...

If you'll notice, its already happening. Christians are begining to give more and more power and voice to the radicals in their party. I believe I saw an interview with some lady who said "If muslims are willing to blow themselves up and kill people in the name of their religion, thats something we Christians need to become willing to do also."

Think about it.

Ah, the Middle Ages. Almost all of societies ails can be traced back to you;)
You guys saw this, right?
Non Aligned States, Shlarg, quit this threadjack or take it to a separate thread, please.

So I was right about searching for anyone who agrees with you, whether or not they're credible. Will you be pulling articles from Stormfront next?
I do believe that the stand up comedy position has already been filled.

I disagree.I disagree.
You are a disagreeable fella huh? And wrong to boot.

Fox news said it, therefore it is true?'
You mean Faux News? They are a little bit bent over there.

Are you?'
Absolutely not.

I do believe that the stand up comedy position has already been filled.


You are a disagreeable fella huh? And wrong to boot.
well, I am disagreeable. If you want to convince me I'm wrong, however, you'll have to do more than state it.
'
You mean Faux News? They are a little bit bent over there.
then why do you keep using them as a source for attacks against Obama?

New name, same old act.

Is CH still ignoring that I gave him the quotes he was asking for from the other candidates who are "Bush-like?" Yes Sir!
Yes I am because they are not as you stated the "EXACT SAME WORDS".

As a matter of fact, the quotes do not reflect what Obama said at all.

I do believe that the stand up comedy position has already been filled.

Yep, by you.

You are a disagreeable fella huh? And wrong to boot.

Prove it.

You mean Faux News? They are a little bit bent over there.

As are you.

Absolutely not.

*dies of laughter*

well, I am disagreeable. If you want to convince me I'm wrong, however, you'll have to do more than state it.
Well it would be rather difficult to prove that I don't watch Fox News, etc.

It would certainly be difficult to prove to you that I am not a right winger, so you will just have to take my word for it, that I have never voted Conservative in my life. I vote mostly Liberal, but I have voted NDP.

then why do you keep using them as a source for attacks against Obama?
I was just demonstrating that others have a broad definition of the word invade. And it is not that broad a definition if you send troops over another country's border without permission.

Well it would be rather difficult to prove that I don't watch Fox News, etc.
then stop quoting them and posting youtube videos composed mostly of fox news footage.

It would certainly be difficult to prove to you that I am not a right winger, so you will just have to take my word for it, that I have never voted Conservative in my life. I vote mostly Liberal, but I have voted NDP.
I disagreed to your statements that Obama was wrong and you were not lost. Surely you can back these up somewhat.

I was just demonstrating that others have a broad definition of the word invade. And it is not that broad a definition if you send troops over another country's border without permission.

The problem is that you are using the word "invade" to compare what Obama proposes to the invasion of Iraq, when the things aren't really that similer at all. It's like saying that bananas and watermelons are similer on the basis that both are fruit, and if you don't like watermelons you shouldn't like bananas either.

then stop quoting them and posting youtube videos composed mostly of fox news footage.
Although I rarely agree with anything Fox, I can agree with them on that one particular situation. If Obama gets the nod for the Dems, you will be hearing much, much more of the same from those news sources.

I disagreed to your statements that Obama was wrong
So we agree to disagree....that doesn't make me automatically wrong.

and you were not lost.
Right now....it would appear that the Dem supporters are lost or will lose unless they shore up the growing rift.

The problem is that you are using the word "invade" to compare what Obama proposes to the invasion of Iraq, when the things aren't really that similer at all.
When the US crosses that border and starts blowing shit up, you will think that Iraq was like a walk in the park.

It'll be Obama/Hillary '08

This from CNN:

(CNN) — Rep. John Lewis has formally switched his support to Sen. Barack Obama in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination, he told CNN affiliate WSB Wednesdy.

Looks like some people are starting to jump from the sinking Clinton ship and to top it off, is a long time friend of the Clintons!

Lewis is a longtime friend of the Clintons

It'll be Obama/Hillary '08
I think they would both refuse the VP. Just guessing.

I think they would both refuse the VP. Just guessing.

A Hillary aid recently said she wouldnt. Now that shes losing and all hope is slipping through her claws, I guess shell do whatever she can for some power.


I wouldnt even put it beyond her to be his VP and have him assassinated:rolleyes:

I wouldnt even put it beyond her to be his VP and have him assassinated:rolleyes:

Why do I have the last episode of Season 1 of Babylon 5 and Ivanova's trip to Epsilon 3 proving that Clark (VP) was behind the assassination of President Santiago going through my head with this statement?

Why do I have the last episode of Season 1 of Babylon 5 and Ivanova's trip to Epsilon 3 proving that Clark (VP) was behind the assassination of President Santiago going through my head with this statement?

I have no idea as I didnt watch Babylon 5 and have no idea what your talking about:p

When the US crosses that border and starts blowing shit up, you will think that Iraq was like a walk in the park.

What, like the complete lack of that happening after last months missile strike? I still don't see how you're able to connect something like that to a regime-change full on invasion. Well, not honestly, at least.

Why do I have the last episode of Season 1 of Babylon 5 and Ivanova's trip to Epsilon 3 proving that Clark (VP) was behind the assassination of President Santiago going through my head with this statement?

That's it. Hand over your lunch money.

This from CNN:

Looks like some people are starting to jump from the sinking Clinton ship and to top it off, is a long time friend of the Clintons!
I guess you can appreciate the feeling?

I never thought you would abandon the Republicans to become a Democrat.

That's it. Hand over your lunch money.

Why should I? Its mine!

I guess you can appreciate the feeling?

I never thought you would abandon the Republicans to become a Democrat.

So you are saying I cannot vote Dem because I am a Republican? Shit man, now you really are off your rocker.

So you are saying I cannot vote Dem because I am a Republican? Shit man, now you really are off your rocker.

What do you mean now?

Tim Russert is going at it very well. Hillary is going to lose Texas and perhaps even Ohio after this debate. Obama is quite concise and forthright in his answers. This is the major difference between Obama and Hillary. She pussyfoots around the issues and tries to sugarcoat everything. Obama just says it flat out.

Like hell he's forthright. He again skimps on detail, and he again offers little but generalities. He's not going to win Ohio with MY vote....and if he's the nominee, I will withhold my support from the Democrats this election.

Like hell he's forthright. He again skimps on detail, and he again offers little but generalities. He's not going to win Ohio with MY vote....and if he's the nominee, I will withhold my support from the Democrats this election.

What details do you want? perhaps those of us who have been paying attention can provide them.

What details do you want? perhaps those of us who have been paying attention can provide them.

F it. We've already provided all of the details this twit could want. All she wants to do is spout the same bullshit over and over again. Did she watch the debate last night? How about the Texas debate? Has she watched the 20 debates previous? Has she gone to Obama's website and looked at the issues he has there? No, she just wants to say "glittering generalities and speeches" ad nauseum. She's like the female version of CH who is now using a new nation to spew the same tired shit he was before. Pardon me for getting pissed when you explain shit to people repeatedly and they do not argue the point, they just say "I refuse to listen for the nth time." Schaladoria, debate the issues or shut it down. We're tired of reading your repeat posts.

Like hell he's forthright. He again skimps on detail, and he again offers little but generalities. He's not going to win Ohio with MY vote....and if he's the nominee, I will withhold my support from the Democrats this election.

Why withold your vote from the democrats because your pet candidate isn't the nominee? That's rather stupid way to cast, or in this case, not cast a vote. But then...it is your vote so....

Like hell he's forthright. He again skimps on detail, and he again offers little but generalities. He's not going to win Ohio with MY vote....and if he's the nominee, I will withhold my support from the Democrats this election.

I'll post this again so you can read it. If you choose to remain ignorant than fine. Just don't bother us with the tired rhetoric any longer.

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/

http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/Barack_Obama.htm

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/healthcare/

I even highlighted the healthcare plan for you. Read the details or admit you are too intellectually lazy to actually explore the issues.

Like hell he's forthright. He again skimps on detail, and he again offers little but generalities. He's not going to win Ohio with MY vote....and if he's the nominee, I will withhold my support from the Democrats this election.

Hillary was no more detailed. One canot sum up their policies in 90 seconds.

btw, you are very, very petty. You are not going to help the democrats take back the white house because the American Democrats, Independents, and some Republicans have spoken and do not like Hillary?


See my post earlier on how only the educated should be allowed to vote:rolleyes:


EDIT: Thats fine anyway, he's going to do well in Ohio and might even win even without your help :p

Fact Check on bombing Pakistan (http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/cleveland_clinkers.html)

That's not a direct link to the part about the bombing, that's below. It's the fact check on the debate. Both did their share of fudging numbers, the relevant to this thread is below.
Bombs Away!

Clinton claimed, "Last summer [Obama] basically threatened to bomb Pakistan." Obama denied that: "I never said I would bomb Pakistan."

Clinton He's right. What he really said on Aug. 1, 2007, was this: "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."

Furthermore, as Obama also noted, that's pretty much what the U.S. did recently. On Feb. 1, several news organizations quoted official sources saying that a CIA airstrike in Pakistan killed Abu Laith al-Libi, who once was 4th on the "most wanted" list of a military anti-terrorism task force. The strike, incidentally, was by a remote-controlled Predator drone using missiles, not by crewed bombers.

Obama’s War Flip-Flop?

Clinton claimed that in 2004 Obama "was saying that he basically agreed with the way George Bush was conducting the war."

She is referencing a July 27, 2004, quote in the Chicago Tribune, in which Obama did indeed say of the Iraq war that "[t]here’s not much of a difference between my position and George Bush’s position at this stage" (our emphasis). But Clinton quoted him selectively. In that same interview, Obama also reiterated that he would not have voted for the war, and he offered serious criticism of Bush’s handling of it, saying, "I don't see them having the credibility to be able to execute." And in a New York Times interview given the day before, Obama said that "from my vantage point, the case was not made" for the war, and he rebuked Democratic leaders for "the degree to which Congress gave the president a pass" on proving the case for the war.

As Clinton herself pointed out during the debate, the two candidates have identical voting records on the war since they both have been in the Senate. Furthermore, Obama's views about how to conduct the war are not significantly different from hers, and they have proposed very similar plans for ending it.

I love how she's trying to one up him on how soon she'll get things done.

"I'll be ready on day 1!"

"I'll start pulling the troops out in 60 days!"

etc.

Especially when the "I'll be out in 60 days" was used by Edwarsds when HE was getting hammered and Clinton refused to say she would then. Who's plagarising now? :rolleyes:

So you are saying I cannot vote Dem because I am a Republican? Shit man, now you really are off your rocker.
Sometimes I think you have magical reading glasses and can see words that just aren't there.

What I said:

I never thought you would abandon the Republicans to become a Democrat.

What you said:

So you are saying I cannot vote Dem because I am a Republican?

What, like the complete lack of that happening after last months missile strike? I still don't see how you're able to connect something like that to a regime-change full on invasion. Well, not honestly, at least.
Hey...it was Obama that was throwing out the whole new war scenario, not me. I am just trying to envisage the full scope of his ideology. It is scary to say the least.

If he does get elected to the White House, I sincerely hope that he turns over those special war powers that Bush received from Congress.

Hey...it was Obama that was throwing out the whole new war scenario, not me. I am just trying to envisage the full scope of his ideology. It is scary to say the least.

If he does get elected to the White House, I sincerely hope that he turns over those special war powers that Bush received from Congress.

Why don't you read the Factcheck.org piece that was posted and get back to us on that little piece of nonsense you keep trying to peddle.

Hey...it was Obama that was throwing out the whole new war scenario, not me. I am just trying to envisage the full scope of his ideology. It is scary to say the least.

If he does get elected to the White House, I sincerely hope that he turns over those special war powers that Bush received from Congress.

You seem to be missing a big part of what he was saying.
Namely, that he will only act if he has "actionable intelligence".
And even then he implied it would only be bombing raids, not a troop invasion like Iraq was.
Which, as I have pointed out before is also Clinton's position: She will also bomb terrorist targets in Pakistan with or without Pakistan's consent if she has "actionable intelligence".

What Bush did, was first, invade a country related to the attacks on decent intelligence, reasonably well. It worked out OK.
Next, he invaded a country not related to the attacks at all, based on very shoddy intelligence that they might possibly be able to attack us if they were even friends with terrorists at all.
Not only that, he then mismanaged the ensuing invasion, so now Iraq hates us and will continue to hate us for the foreseeable future.
The bold parts are what Obama would not do. The bold parts are also every major mistake Bush made. Any Obama attack would be very unlikely (after all, how often do you get "actionable intelligence"?), and both discreet and not targeted at Pakistan itself if it did happen.

By the way, if he actually was going to invade Pakistan, what's with the stuff about "whether Pakistan wants us to or not"? He's, of course, implying that the government of Pakistan will remain standing, which falsifies your claims of invasion yet again.

And of course, he said specifically, "I never said I would invade Pakistan."

Sometimes I think you have magical reading glasses and can see words that just aren't there.

What I said:



What you said:

So what I said was true. In your opinion, I'm abandoning the republicans even though I have never changed my registration nor intend to.

Which, as I have pointed out before is also Clinton's position: She will also bomb terrorist targets in Pakistan with or without Pakistan's consent if she has "actionable intelligence".
Where did she say that? Link or source of any kind?

Bolding mine.

if he was elected this will happen :sniper:

if he was elected this will happen :sniper:

o.O

Newbs will post gun smilies? That happens anyway...

lmfao

if he was elected this will happen :sniper:

Newbs will post gun smilies? That happens anyway...

Where did she say that? Link or source of any kind?

Bolding mine.

Will do.

But while you wait, Clinton sounds more Bush-like to me (http://www.nowpublic.com/politics/biden-highlights-clinton-pakistan-gaffe).
And more stuff. (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/375/)

I already cited Clinton saying she would attack on "actionable intelligence", but here's a quote that proves without Pakistan's consent:
CLINTON: And at some point -- probably when the missiles have been launched -- the Pakistani government has to know they're on the way. Because one of the problems is the inherent paranoia about India in the region in Pakistan, so that we've got to have a plan to try to make sure we don't ignite some kind of reaction before we even know whether the action we took with the missiles has worked.
http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/documents/democratic_debate_new_hampshire_120507.html
By the way, I'll be citing from this later.

A few interesting quotes from that article (thank you for posting these, Shlishi):





But it is a significant distortion to say Obama wants to "attack Pakistan," as President Bush did, and an even more serious one that he supports "bombing Pakistan" as McCain and Clinton did.

...

So the United States is already doing what Obama is advocating. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/18/AR2008021802500_pf.html)

...

We might give Clinton points for qualifying her remarks with "basically." But even with that qualifier, she is twisting Obama's comments to imply he wants to attack a U.S. ally. It's not enough to call that False. We called it Pants-On-Fire wrong when McCain said it and we're doing the same for Clinton.


Emphasis mine.

And from the washington post article cited in this article:



The missiles killed Abu Laith al-Libi, a senior al-Qaeda commander and a man who had repeatedly eluded the CIA's dragnet. It was the first successful strike against al-Qaeda's core leadership in two years, and it involved, U.S. officials say, an unusual degree of autonomy by the CIA inside Pakistan.

Having requested the Pakistani government's official permission for such strikes on previous occasions, only to be put off or turned down, this time the U.S. spy agency did not seek approval. The government of Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf was notified only as the operation was underway, according to the officials, who insisted on anonymity because of diplomatic sensitivities.

Officials say the incident was a model of how Washington often scores its rare victories these days in the fight against al-Qaeda inside Pakistan's national borders: It acts with assistance from well-paid sympathizers inside the country, but without getting the government's formal permission beforehand



Again, emphasis mine.

I believe your "invasion" comments were debunked around page 20 and your "new battlefront of Pakistan" quote has been proven to have been taken out of context and not reffering to an attack on Pakistan.

Please find a new argument that hasn't been defeated *many* times.

Hey...it was Obama that was throwing out the whole new war scenario, not me. I am just trying to envisage the full scope of his ideology. It is scary to say the least.

If he does get elected to the White House, I sincerely hope that he turns over those special war powers that Bush received from Congress.

Ah, I get it. By new war, you mean the war we're already fighting. Oh, no, wait, you mean that we haven't already conducted strikes against Al Qaeda in Pakistan. Oh, no, wait.

So actually by "new" you mean "old". Because what Obama said is already happening. He just wants to focus on it.

Call it "new" again. Cuz, when you know it's wrong, it's called lying.

Sometimes I think you have magical reading glasses and can see words that just aren't there.

What I said:



What you said:

Right. So you accused him of abandoning Republicans and he told you that you're ignoring that he can remain Republican and vote for a candidate from another party.

How do you think attacking Corny who is not in any way leading the charge against you is going to help you? Are you just that desperate to score points?

Fact Check on bombing Pakistan (http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/cleveland_clinkers.html)

That's not a direct link to the part about the bombing, that's below. It's the fact check on the debate. Both did their share of fudging numbers, the relevant to this thread is below.

Quick, CH, look away. Wouldn't want to be accused of addressing the arguments against you.

Right. So you accused him of abandoning Republicans and he told you that you're ignoring that he can remain Republican and vote for a candidate from another party.

How do you think attacking Corny who is not in any way leading the charge against you is going to help you? Are you just that desperate to score points?

He's as desperate as Hillary Clinton is at winning this thing.

Right. So you accused him of abandoning Republicans and he told you that you're ignoring that he can remain Republican and vote for a candidate from another party.

How do you think attacking Corny who is not in any way leading the charge against you is going to help you? Are you just that desperate to score points?
Corny and I have been bantering back and forth for 4 years now. I don't think that will change anytime soon. :D

He's as desperate as Hillary Clinton is at winning this thing.
Perhaps you don't quite understand?

I want to see a Democrat in the White House in January 2009. Do you?

Perhaps you don't quite understand?

I want to see a Democrat in the White House in January 2009. Do you?

We no longer buy that.

Corny and I have been bantering back and forth for 4 years now. I don't think that will change anytime soon. :D

Except for the fact that you stated that I am abandoning the Republican Party which I am not. Just supporting OBama as President. I do have to switch my registration to a new address though. I no longer live in Pittsburgh.

Perhaps you don't quite understand?

I want to see a Democrat in the White House in January 2009. Do you?

We no longer buy that.

I know I don't. If you did believe that CH then you would not be dogging Obama and ignoring all the evidence.

Quick, CH, look away. Wouldn't want to be accused of addressing the arguments against you.
Argument addressed. I am not afraid of facts. Not like some people here.

Fact Check on bombing Pakistan (http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/cleveland_clinkers.html)

That's not a direct link to the part about the bombing, that's below. It's the fact check on the debate. Both did their share of fudging numbers, the relevant to this thread is below.
Kersploosh!!

That is you falling in the deep end without a life perserver.

Did you click on "what he really said (http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/afl-cio_democratic_forum.html)"?

Obama's Historical Revision

Sen. Obama rewrote history when he defended his controversial remarks about invading Pakistan if necessary to eliminate al Qaeda.

Obama: I did not say that we would immediately go in unilaterally. What I said was that we have to work with [Pakistan’s President Pervez] Musharraf.

Obama is referring to an Aug. 1 policy address, which left a much tougher impression. Then, he said in general that “I will not hesitate to use military force to take out terrorists who pose a direct threat to America.” As for Pakistan specifically, he said that if elected he would go in unilaterally to “take out” al Qaeda if the U.S. has “actionable intelligence” and Musharraf refuses to act:

Obama (Aug. 1): 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.

In those remarks Obama clearly did say he would go in, and do it unilaterally, under the conditions stated. Whether or not that would occur “immediately” is a matter of interpretation, but the nature of “actionable intelligence” is such that it can become quickly outdated and must be acted upon very quickly. For example, in the capture of Saddam Hussein U.S. forces responded within “a couple of hours” of receiving “actionable intelligence” of his whereabouts, according to a briefing by Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, commander of coalition ground forces in Iraq at the time.

And by saying in general that he “will not hesitate” to use military force against terrorists, Obama left the impression that he wouldn’t wait long for Musharraf to act first, if he consulted him at all. It’s worth noting that Pakistan won’t even admit that terrorists have safe havens to attack. "There is no al Qaeda or Taliban safe haven in Pakistan," Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Tasnim Aslam said at a weekly briefing earlier this month. That directly disputes the recent finding of the U.S. National Intelligence Estimate that Obama cited in his speech, when he said "al Qaeda has a sanctuary in Pakistan” and is training new recruits there.

As for saying he would "work with" Musharraf, in his Aug. 1 speech Obama did talk of diplomatic efforts aimed at Pakistan. He said he would make current U.S. aid “conditional,” cutting it off unless the country shows progress in evicting foreign fighters. That sounds to us more like a threat than a promise of cooperation. Obama also said he would offer additional aid to “help Pakistan invest” in the border regions where al Qaeda and Taliban forces are said to operate. But he did not specify whether this additional aid would come before or after U.S. military action there.
Notice the use of the word "invading".

At any rate, this write up coincides exactly as to how I felt when Obama first stated his intentions.

It made me sit up and take notice, and even more so now with his "war we must win" speech.

All you sheeple want to disregard this ominous threat and give him a pass. I think that is something you should give serious consideration to.

We no longer buy that.
Why? Just because I would prefer that Democrat to be Hillary?

“I will not hesitate to use military force to take out terrorists who pose a direct threat to America.” As for Pakistan specifically, he said that if elected he would go in unilaterally to “take out” al Qaeda if the U.S. has “actionable intelligence” and Musharraf refuses to act:


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.

Ladies and gentlemen, this argument is now officially over as CH has just destroyed his very own argument!

Kersploosh!!

That is you falling in the deep end without a life perserver.

Did you click on "what he really said (http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/afl-cio_democratic_forum.html)"?

Actually...this does more to damage your words than his.

Obama's Historical Revision


Notice the use of the word "invading".

Point to the word invade in those quotes! I do not see it.

At any rate, this write up coincides exactly as to how I felt when Obama first stated his intentions.

Which shows that you support Hillary Clinton and thus 4 more years of a Republican in office.

It made me sit up and take notice, and even more so now with his "war we must win" speech.

All you sheeple want to disregard this ominous threat and give him a pass. I think that is something you should give serious consideration to.


Sheeple eh? At least we do research. Its apparent you don't.

I want to see a Democrat in the White House in January 2009. Do you?

Liar. Obama is a democrat, but your actions speak of only Hillary in office. Hypocrisy confirmed.

Liar. Obama is a democrat, but your actions speak of only Hillary in office. Hypocrisy confirmed.
You calling me a liar? That is flaming. I want a Democrat in the White House in 2009. I prefer that Democrat to be Hillary.

Note: I have stated many times that I do not think that Obama would win the general election unless Hillary was his running mate, and somehow, I don't think that will happen.

All you sheeple want to disregard this ominous threat and give him a pass. I think that is something you should give serious consideration to.

You calling me a liar? That is flaming. I want a Democrat in the White House in 2009. I prefer that Democrat to be Hillary.

Note: I have stated many times that I do not think that Obama would win the general election unless Hillary was his running mate, and somehow, I don't think that will happen.

You know what the difference is? You've made it utterly clear that you do not want to see Obama in the White House.

You're use of the word "sheeple" is unsupported by any of your evidence.

I'll tell you what. You've again dishonestly said "note the use of the word invading" while supposedly quoting Obama, but Obama never used the word invade. It was someone wrongly paraphrasing him to criticize him like you are. Why are they more reliable? They aren't. You quote Obama using the word "invade" and I'll clean your house.

Meanwhile, I take it we've already started the invasion, no?

Kersploosh!!

That is you falling in the deep end without a life perserver.
You know, you should wait for a stronger case before you display such confidence.


Did you click on "what he really said (http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/afl-cio_democratic_forum.html)"?

Obama's Historical Revision


Notice the use of the word "invading".
My mistake. I used 'invade' instead of 'invading'. That, however, does not support your supposition that the attack is against Pakistan or significantly different than the attack in late January as noted by the more recent Factcheck.org article. An attack that has not resulted in the doom and gloom you constantly predict. Yet another of your predictions that have fallen flat.

At any rate, this write up coincides exactly as to how I felt when Obama first stated his intentions.

It made me sit up and take notice, and even more so now with his "war we must win" speech.

All you sheeple want to disregard this ominous threat and give him a pass. I think that is something you should give serious consideration to.
Ah, the old tried and true use of the word 'sheeple.' When you can't make a convincing argument you have to accuse your opponents of being 'sheeple' like that's still a clever thing to say.

This write up does not confirm a damn thing you've said and in fact enforces how wrong you are. It does not infer that Obama will attack Pakistan but confirms that the target of any such attack would be al Quada and only on actionable intelligence.
In fact, Clinton makes your erroneous claim and Fact Check disagrees.

You don't need a life preserver when your argument is strong enough to swim on its own.

Why? Just because I would prefer that Democrat to be Hillary?

Because it is the only Democrat you want as president. Your electability argument has been left by the road side bloody and crying.

Why don't you read the Factcheck.org piece that was posted and get back to us on that little piece of nonsense you keep trying to peddle.

No No, Canuck isn't being hypocritical, he's being "consistent." He explained this to me in great detail in another thread. CanucK, still waiting for you to admit that McCain, Clinton, Edwards, and Richardson all said the same thing. I gave you the quotes and the links. Now be a man and own up to your mistake. I admit when I am wrong so why won't you? The only one who has debated this issue very well is TCT. He said some things that gave me pause and made me think. He still supports Obama which is the best part. he has debated honestly, you have not.

You seem to be missing a big part of what he was saying.
Namely, that he will only act if he has "actionable intelligence".
And even then he implied it would only be bombing raids, not a troop invasion like Iraq was.
Which, as I have pointed out before is also Clinton's position: She will also bomb terrorist targets in Pakistan with or without Pakistan's consent if she has "actionable intelligence".

What Bush did, was first, invade a country related to the attacks on decent intelligence, reasonably well. It worked out OK.
Next, he invaded a country not related to the attacks at all, based on very shoddy intelligence that they might possibly be able to attack us if they were even friends with terrorists at all.
Not only that, he then mismanaged the ensuing invasion, so now Iraq hates us and will continue to hate us for the foreseeable future.
The bold parts are what Obama would not do. The bold parts are also every major mistake Bush made. Any Obama attack would be very unlikely (after all, how often do you get "actionable intelligence"?), and both discreet and not targeted at Pakistan itself if it did happen.

By the way, if he actually was going to invade Pakistan, what's with the stuff about "whether Pakistan wants us to or not"? He's, of course, implying that the government of Pakistan will remain standing, which falsifies your claims of invasion yet again.

And of course, he said specifically, "I never said I would invade Pakistan."

You have tried valiantly to do what we have been doing for 43 pages now. Prepare to be ignored, dismissed, or both.

I figured it out!

Sal and CH are pretending to be for Hillary to make Hillary supporters look bad and get Obama more votes. Genius.

You know, you should wait for a stronger case before you display such confidence.
Not really. I thought it was so ironic that you would post a link that would nicely sum up my argument. Thanks. :)

I did. In fact, I didn't trust my own reading where I didn't see it once and went to the actual page and used /invade in Firefox to find the word anywhere on that page. It did not appear. Not only does it not exist in the text you quoted, but it does not appear on the whole of the page.
I have never insisted that Obama said that he would "invade" Pakistan. That is what I called it. Many articles later, including your linked Fact Check refers to Obama's declaration as an invasion.

Ah, the old tried and true use of the word 'sheeple.' When you can't make a convincing argument you have to accuse your opponents of being 'sheeple' like that's still a clever thing to say.
Well, I could go back through all the barbs thrown at me, and they have been numerous, but why bother. I think I have made a very convincing argument but it would appear that the people that the argument is directed towards don't want to be convinced. They want to stay stuck or as I call it....living in denial.

This write up does not confirm a damn thing you've said and in fact enforces how wrong you are. It does not infer that Obama will attack Pakistan but confirms that the target of any such attack would be al Quada and only on actionable intelligence.
You used Fact Check to try and skewer Hillary and yet the supporting link actually skewers Obama, by calling it "Obama's Historical Revision".

You don't need a life preserver when your argument is strong enough to swim on its own.
If you want to live in denial, that is okay. It doesn't mean that everyone has to accept your version of the truth. The people of Fact Check don't see it your way and neither do I.

Where did she say that? Link or source of any kind?

Bolding mine.

I've already provided that link pages ago. Stop being lazy and go read it.

Where did she say that? Link or source of any kind?

Bolding mine.

http://onlyabill.com/2008/01/05/abc-facebook-democratic-debate-january-5-2008/

http://www.ontheissues.org/2008_Dems_Facebook.htm

Hillary Clinton:

* Believes we need more NATO troops and greater efforts to train personnel in Afghanistan to pursue bin Laden. We must be ready to respond to actionable intelligence that bin Laden is in Pakistan, but should notify Pakistan after the missiles are in the air because of the sensitivity of their situation with India. Clinton would try to get Musharraf to share responsibility for the security of their nuclear materials with the United States. Blames Bush for ignoring the issue.
* Believes we must retaliate against any nation that provided a safe haven for any terrorists that strike America with a nuclear device. Believes that deterrence worked during the cold war because the Soviets understood the consequences of attacking us. (My comment: and the Soviets behaved logically. Will the terrorists?)

Barack Obama: Al Qaida is based in northwest Pakistan; strike if needed.
Barack Obama: FactCheck: No, violence in Iraq is LOWER than 2 years ago.
Barack Obama: Al Qaida is stronger than before thanks to the Bush doctrine.
Barack Obama: The surge reduced violence, but at enormous cost.
Barack Obama: Begin a phased redeployment to send a clear signal.
Bill Richardson: Get bin Laden in Pakistan unilaterally, if Pakistan can't.
Bill Richardson: We have an opportunity to get Musharraf to step aide.
Hillary Clinton: Ok to target Al Qaeda in Pakistan; we did that 10 years ago.
Hillary Clinton: Begin troops withdrawal within 60 days after elected.
Hillary Clinton: Withdraw troops within 60 days after taking office.
John Edwards: Get bin Laden, period, even if in Pakistan.
John Edwards: Pull 40,000 to 50,000 troops out in 1st year as President
John Edwards: Stop propping the Sunni and Shia up with American lives.

Bush and his comments on Pakistan (http://mediamatters.org/items/200801080001)

I'll accept your acknowledgment that you were wrong at any time CH. I just hope we don't have to wait until I'm on my deathbed.

Didn't CH spend a number of posts complaining about how "Obama supporters" (cuz you know we just have one big hive mind) call him a liar or accuse him of being in denial or call him an idiot. Specific barbs at him

In that last several pages, as a group, we've been called "sheeple", living in denial, deluded and various other ways of saying that the reason we recognize his argument has no basis is because we're too stupid. Don't you love irony?

Because it is the only Democrat you want as president.
At this point, I am a tad leery of Obama because of his Pakistan statement and a few others, but I do believe that he would be infinitely better than another Republican in the WH. I have been on these boards for 4 years now and have always supported liberal causes. For you to suggest otherwise is not only wrong but inappropriate.

At this point, I am a tad leery of Obama because of his Pakistan statement and a few others, but I do believe that he would be infinitely better than another Republican in the WH. I have been on these boards for 4 years now and have always supported liberal causes. For you to suggest otherwise is not only wrong but inappropriate.

A tad leary? You wonder why people suggest you've been intellectually dishonest?

You accused him of being Bushlike (I know, I know, you'll claim that it's only in the military dealings).

But not only did you say that, but when you mentioned the domestic problems and I challenged you that Obama is also proposing we fix those, you're reply was that it was with the failed policies of Bushco.

A tad leary? Sure. A tad leary. Yup, that would describe what you've doing. Good thing you're worried that the party has to unify and all that.

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:


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?
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.

So you must really like Bush if you think the "same tired solutions that failed Bushco" is only something to be a "tad leary" of.

Or is it possible that your argument consists almost ENTIRELY of hyperbole.

At this point, I am a tad leery of Obama because of his Pakistan statement and a few others, but I do believe that he would be infinitely better than another Republican in the WH. I have been on these boards for 4 years now and have always supported liberal causes. For you to suggest otherwise is not only wrong but inappropriate.

Inappropriate? What? You call people "sheeple" for thinking Obama is the better candidate, and suggest we're all in denial (an amusing comment consider how long it took us to demonstrate to you that Super Tuesday was the turning point), but suggesting that Hillary is the only Democrat you'd support is "inappropriate"?

By the way, it has occurred to you that Democrat =/= liberal, yeah?

Not really. I thought it was so ironic that you would post a link that would nicely sum up my argument. Thanks. :)

Except, you know, it didn't.

I have never insisted that Obama said that he would "invade" Pakistan. That is what I called it. Many articles later, including your linked Fact Check refers to Obama's declaration as an invasion.
In fact, they don't. They dismiss the characterization as 'bombing Pakistan' and in fact underline the fact that you keep ignoring, that any attack would be against 'high value al Queada targets' and only on 'actionable intellegence' and only if 'Musharrif fails to act.' None of this supports your version of 'invasion' or 'bombing Pakistan' and in fact both articles are clear on that.


Well, I could go back through all the barbs thrown at me, and they have been numerous, but why bother. I think I have made a very convincing argument but it would appear that the people that the argument is directed towards don't want to be convinced. They want to stay stuck or as I call it....living in denial.
"Oh, woe is me. I have failed to convince a single person...it's totally their fault..."


You used Fact Check to try and skewer Hillary and yet the supporting link actually skewers Obama, by calling it "Obama's Historical Revision".
Actually, the link I gave was to clear up your proposal that Clinton happened to echo during the debate. The earlier article that you went and found on the same site, not the one I linked, clarified a comment in a separate debate where Obama said he would work with Musharrif. The only thing that your link clears up is that is not all he said, the later article that I linked disputes your and Clinton's claim that this is tantimount to 'bombing Pakistan' and in fact dismisses this as an act against anything other than 'high value al Queda targets on actionable intelligence.'


If you want to live in denial, that is okay. It doesn't mean that everyone has to accept your version of the truth. The people of Fact Check don't see it your way and neither do I.
In fact, they see it exactly the way I do.

Not to mention-
Furthermore, as Obama also noted, that's pretty much what the U.S. did recently. On Feb. 1, several news organizations quoted official sources saying that a CIA airstrike in Pakistan killed Abu Laith al-Libi, who once was 4th on the "most wanted" list of a military anti-terrorism task force. The strike, incidentally, was by a remote-controlled Predator drone using missiles, not by crewed bombers.

And yet all the gloomy predictions about what such an action would create have not come to light. Prediction track record is low in CH land. As such I see no reason to believe any predictions he has left on the table are worth considering.

but it would appear that the people that the argument is directed towards don't want to be convinced.
As an outside spectator, I can tell you that the people you aren't directing your arguments at don't find them the least bit convincing either.

A tad leary? You wonder why people suggest you've been intellectually dishonest?

You accused him of being Bushlike (I know, I know, you'll claim that it's only in the military dealings).

But not only did you say that, but when you mentioned the domestic problems and I challenged you that Obama is also proposing we fix those, you're reply was that it was with the failed policies of Bushco.

A tad leary? Sure. A tad leary. Yup, that would describe what you've doing. Good thing you're worried that the party has to unify and all that.



So you must really like Bush if you think the "same tired solutions that failed Bushco" is only something to be a "tad leary" of.

Or is it possible that your argument consists almost ENTIRELY of hyperbole.
This...
Inappropriate? What? You call people "sheeple" for thinking Obama is the better candidate, and suggest we're all in denial (an amusing comment consider how long it took us to demonstrate to you that Super Tuesday was the turning point), but suggesting that Hillary is the only Democrat you'd support is "inappropriate"?

By the way, it has occurred to you that Democrat =/= liberal, yeah?
and this. Jocabia has already stated what I would have which is the only reason I haven't responded to that one, it would be redundant.

This...

and this. Jocabia has already stated what I would have which is the only reason I haven't responded to that one, it would be redundant.

I'm so tired of the holier-than-thou.

He has willingfully ignored long, patient well-researched posts, in your case, or just gave a contrary answer without any evidence or reasoning, in mine. He's attacked, accused and drawn away from the argument throughout while complaining that time is the reason why he's not replied to certain arguments that he pretends don't even exist. Worse, he's attacked while complaining about how harsh people are towards him.

And after multiple threads over months of attacking Obama with Rovian tactics and telling us how afraid we should be of getting 8 more years of Bush, when it's pointed out the hypocrisy of his behavior he's just a "tad leary" of Obama. It would be funny if he was kidding. But he's not. And it's not. It's pathetic.

Didn't CH spend a number of posts complaining about how "Obama supporters" (cuz you know we just have one big hive mind) call him a liar or accuse him of being in denial or call him an idiot. Specific barbs at him
Yup, it is all part of the bandwagon approach, which is actually approaching the dogpile syndrome.

In that last several pages, as a group, we've been called "sheeple", living in denial, deluded and various other ways of saying that the reason we recognize his argument has no basis is because we're too stupid. Don't you love irony?
Again you like to put words in peoples' mouths. I never said that any of you were "deluded" nor have I said that any of you are "too stupid". Perhaps you like to use those words whilst shouting down the opposition.....

Yup, it is all part of the bandwagon approach, which is actually approaching the dogpile syndrome.


Again you like to put words in peoples' mouths. I never said that any of you were "deluded" nor have I said that any of you are "too stupid". Perhaps you like to use those words whilst shouting down the opposition.....

Hehe. Sometimes you're so predictable.

So what you're saying is that people shouldn't paraphrase what you say for the purpose of hyperbolizing it? Hmmmm.... I whole-heartedly agree. And so ends the "invasion" debate.

I'm so tired of the holier-than-thou.

He has willingfully ignored long, patient well-researched posts, in your case, or just gave a contrary answer without any evidence or reasoning, in mine. He's attacked, accused and drawn away from the argument throughout while complaining that time is the reason why he's not replied to certain arguments that he pretends don't even exist. Worse, he's attacked while complaining about how harsh people are towards him.

And after multiple threads over months of attacking Obama with Rovian tactics and telling us how afraid we should be of getting 8 more years of Bush, when it's pointed out the hypocrisy of his behavior he's just a "tad leary" of Obama. It would be funny if he was kidding. But he's not. And it's not. It's pathetic.
I was having the same frustration. Fortunately now we have a large collection of his own words to hang him on since he didn't take the invitation to step back and restate what his position is from square one...

I agree. Although I prefer Hillary, you won't see me playing the name calling game. That is truly divisive.


There has to be a better way indeed.

Well there is such a word. :D

Bushevik (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Bushevik).

And you do seem to fit the mold. :)

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.


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


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

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

August 07, 2007 1:29 PM


I believe that Obama made a very Bush like comment, which should appeal to the Republicans in the field.

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



All you sheeple want to disregard this ominous threat and give him a pass. I think that is something you should give serious consideration to.
Sometimes I think people forget that what they type here stays here.

http://onlyabill.com/2008/01/05/abc-facebook-democratic-debate-january-5-2008/

http://www.ontheissues.org/2008_Dems_Facebook.htm

Hillary Clinton:

* Believes we need more NATO troops and greater efforts to train personnel in Afghanistan to pursue bin Laden. We must be ready to respond to actionable intelligence that bin Laden is in Pakistan, but should notify Pakistan after the missiles are in the air because of the sensitivity of their situation with India. Clinton would try to get Musharraf to share responsibility for the security of their nuclear materials with the United States. Blames Bush for ignoring the issue.
* Believes we must retaliate against any nation that provided a safe haven for any terrorists that strike America with a nuclear device. Believes that deterrence worked during the cold war because the Soviets understood the consequences of attacking us. (My comment: and the Soviets behaved logically. Will the terrorists?)

Barack Obama: Al Qaida is based in northwest Pakistan; strike if needed.
Barack Obama: FactCheck: No, violence in Iraq is LOWER than 2 years ago.
Barack Obama: Al Qaida is stronger than before thanks to the Bush doctrine.
Barack Obama: The surge reduced violence, but at enormous cost.
Barack Obama: Begin a phased redeployment to send a clear signal.
Bill Richardson: Get bin Laden in Pakistan unilaterally, if Pakistan can't.
Bill Richardson: We have an opportunity to get Musharraf to step aide.
Hillary Clinton: Ok to target Al Qaeda in Pakistan; we did that 10 years ago.
Hillary Clinton: Begin troops withdrawal within 60 days after elected.
Hillary Clinton: Withdraw troops within 60 days after taking office.
John Edwards: Get bin Laden, period, even if in Pakistan.
John Edwards: Pull 40,000 to 50,000 troops out in 1st year as President
John Edwards: Stop propping the Sunni and Shia up with American lives.

Bush and his comments on Pakistan (http://mediamatters.org/items/200801080001)

I'll accept your acknowledgment that you were wrong at any time CH. I just hope we don't have to wait until I'm on my deathbed.

I'm quoting myself (what a bastard I am) again to point out the quotes CH asked for. Like I said before, I'll wait for you to say you're wrong but I'm not holding my breathe.

You know what the difference is? You've made it utterly clear that you do not want to see Obama in the White House.

You're use of the word "sheeple" is unsupported by any of your evidence.

I'll tell you what. You've again dishonestly said "note the use of the word invading" while supposedly quoting Obama, but Obama never used the word invade. It was someone wrongly paraphrasing him to criticize him like you are. Why are they more reliable? They aren't. You quote Obama using the word "invade" and I'll clean your house.

Meanwhile, I take it we've already started the invasion, no?

It is just great. It goes through the entire statement and NOWHERE is the word invade seen. CH, you just undermine yourself. So yes, you are lying or being patently dishonest. It's not a flame when it's the truth. Calling you out of your nonsense is just that.

It is just great. It goes through the entire statement and NOWHERE is the word invade seen. CH, you just undermine yourself. So yes, you are lying or being patently dishonest. It's not a flame when it's the truth. Calling you out of your nonsense is just that.
I never once stated that Obama said that he was going to invade Pakistan. So how am I a liar?

*munches popcorn*

want some Dem?

Again you like to put words in peoples' mouths. I never said that any of you were "deluded" nor have I said that any of you are "too stupid". Perhaps you like to use those words whilst shouting down the opposition.....
You think this is significantly different?
Kersploosh!!

All you sheeple want to disregard this ominous threat and give him a pass. I think that is something you should give serious consideration to.

I think I have made a very convincing argument but it would appear that the people that the argument is directed towards don't want to be convinced. They want to stay stuck or as I call it....living in denial.


If you want to live in denial, that is okay. It doesn't mean that everyone has to accept your version of the truth. The people of Fact Check don't see it your way and neither do I.

I have never insisted that Obama said that he would "invade" Pakistan. That is what I called it.
I can't believe I missed this. Classic.

I never once stated that Obama said that he was going to invade Pakistan. So how am I a liar?

and various other ways of saying that the reason we recognize his argument has no basis is because we're too stupid.
nor have I said that any of you are "too stupid".

Teehee. I never once stated that CH said that we were too stupid. How could any one look at what I said and take it that way? Seriously? I just hyperbolized what he said to make it sound even worse.

As I said, tee.... hee.

You guys are funny.

Just thought I'd share.

Carry on with your regularly scheduled shenanigans.

http://www.ontheissues.org/2008_Dems_Facebook.htm

I'll accept your acknowledgment that you were wrong at any time CH. I just hope we don't have to wait until I'm on my deathbed.
Okay, let's look at what Obama and Clinton stated:

: [to CLINTON]: I stand by my statement that I would go into western Pakistan if we had actionable intelligence to go after al Qaeda, whether or not the Pakistani government agreed.
That supports my use of the word invade. It is also not as specific as Clinton's explanation.

: We did take action similar to what has been described about 10 years ago, based on what was thought to be actionable intelligence, sending in missiles to try to target bin Laden and his top leadership who were thought to be at a certain meeting place. They were not taken out at the time. So we have to be very conscious of all the consequences. I think it's imperative that any actionable intelligence that would lead to a strike inside Pakistan's territory be given the most careful consideration. And at some point--probably when the missiles have been launched--the Pakistani government has to know they're on the way. Because one of the problems is the inherent paranoia about India in the region in Pakistan, so that we've got to have a plan to try to make sure we don't ignite some kind of reaction.

*plops down on the couch and cuddles up to SB*

*shares popcorn*

:D

I hear in this episode CH kidnaps an Obama supporter and tickle tortures them until they switch their allegiance. Only CH turns out to be a lookalike hired by Jocabia to frame CH.

*munches popcorn*

want some Dem?

*plops down on the couch and cuddles up to SB*

*shares popcorn*

Obama on the Issues


* American principles: CHANGE
* Civil rights: CHANGE
* Disabilities: CHANGE
* Economy: CHANGE
* Education: CHANGE
* Energy & Environment: CHANGE
* Ethics: CHANGE
* Family: CHANGE
* Fiscal: CHANGE
* Foreign Policy: CHANGE
* Gun Control: CHANGE
* Health care: CHANGE
* Homeland Security: CHANGE
* Immigration: CHANGE
* Iraq: CHANGE
* Poverty: CHANGE
* Prostitution: CHANGE
* Rural: CHANGE
* Service: CHANGE
* Seniors & Social Security: CHANGE
* Technology: CHANGE
* Use of the "N-word" in Mike Tyson's Punch Out: CHANGE
* Veterans: CHANGE

*munches popcorn*

want some Dem?

*plops down on the couch and cuddles up to SB*

*shares popcorn*

Hey can I get in on that? I've brought fruit punch.

I think I have made a very convincing argument but it would appear that the people that the argument is directed towards don't want to be convinced. They want to stay stuck or as I call it....living in denial.


If you want to live in denial, that is okay. It doesn't mean that everyone has to accept your version of the truth. The people of Fact Check don't see it your way and neither do I.

Supports my use of words "too stupid".

I mean, my paraphrasing is at least as good, don't you think, Canuck?

Also, I love how you highlight that Clinton would notify Pakistan. I think that's very nice of her and huge distinction between her and Obama. Oh, wait, there's that part about it being after the missles are in the air.

So let's look at honesty.

Here's the quote -

And at some point--probably when the missiles have been launched--the Pakistani government has to know they're on the way.

The way you presented it -
And at some point--probably when the missiles have been launched--the Pakistani government has to know they're on the way.

Hehe. That's what passes for honesty with CH. Make your own judgements.

Hey can I get in on that? I've brought fruit punch.

of course!

you'll like this stuff - garlic butter popcorn baby!

*gets a glass of punch and pours contents of flask into it*

I never once stated that Obama said that he was going to invade Pakistan. So how am I a liar?

Oh God the love of.... Forget it, you're not a liar. You've responded to everyone's posts honestly and never said that he said he was going to invade. Even though the entire argument for days now has been over the word invade. People have been asking you to back up that claim repeatedly. We're all, however, functionally retarded and unable to read so we've just made it up. You've got about 5 people debating whether or not you've said he would invade Pakistan without Mushariff's consent and they've all made it up out of whole cloth. Now that I've acquiesced to this idiocy, will you finally look at the quotes I've been showing you in multiple threads regarding Hillary and other candidates? Please, show me there's still a reason to respect you and carry on this nonsense. Please tell me there's some decency left.

Obama on the Issues


* American principles: CHANGE
* Civil rights: CHANGE
* Disabilities: CHANGE
* Economy: CHANGE
* Education: CHANGE
* Energy & Environment: CHANGE
* Ethics: CHANGE
* Family: CHANGE
* Fiscal: CHANGE
* Foreign Policy: CHANGE
* Gun Control: CHANGE
* Health care: CHANGE
* Homeland Security: CHANGE
* Immigration: CHANGE
* Iraq: CHANGE
* Poverty: CHANGE
* Prostitution: CHANGE
* Rural: CHANGE
* Service: CHANGE
* Seniors & Social Security: CHANGE
* Technology: CHANGE
* Use of the "N-word" in Mike Tyson's Punch Out: CHANGE
* Veterans: CHANGE

I'll tell you what, you come post in her a couple more times so I'll know you'll stick arounda nd I'll be happy to help you hear more about his positions. Clearly, you're looking to educate yourself and the rest of us better on election issues, no? This isn't just some straight from the playbook drive-by attack, is it?

Didn't CH spend a number of posts complaining about how "Obama supporters" (cuz you know we just have one big hive mind) call him a liar or accuse him of being in denial or call him an idiot. Specific barbs at him

In that last several pages, as a group, we've been called "sheeple", living in denial, deluded and various other ways of saying that the reason we recognize his argument has no basis is because we're too stupid. Don't you love irony?

Oh I love it.

of course!

you'll like this stuff - garlic butter popcorn baby!

*gets a glass of punch and pours contents of flask into it*

Do you mind if I put a little ginger on it? I love just a hint in garlic butter.

Okay, let's look at what Obama and Clinton stated:


That supports my use of the word invade. It is also not as specific as Clinton's explanation.

Yes, so she'd tell them after the missiles were on their way. THAT MEANS SHE'D DO IT WITHOUT THEIR PERMISSION. Shoot first and let them know later. You're done. You've just been nailed to the cross you wish to carry. You said show me where Hillary said she's attack without telling Pakistan first. You got it right here and you quoted it. If I go to your house and take your shit, then call you and say, "Oh by the way I took your shit" does this not make me a thief. After all I took it first and then told you. Damn it man.

Do you mind if I put a little ginger on it? I love just a hint in garlic butter.


I'm for Obama so I must be for you changing the flavor.

I'll make a second batch for your crazy experiment just in case it's gross. :p

You know what's great on popcorn? Turmeric. That's the yellow stuff that's key in your general curry powders. It's really tasty on popcorn, but your fingers turn all yellow and you make splotches on your pants.

Okay, let's look at what Obama and Clinton stated:


That supports my use of the word invade. It is also not as specific as Clinton's explanation.

Sending a missile is not an invasion. You lose yet again.

Yes, so she'd tell them after the missiles were on their way. THAT MEANS SHE'D DO IT WITHOUT THEIR PERMISSION. Shoot first and let them know later. You're done. You've just been nailed to the cross you wish to carry. You said show me where Hillary said she's attack without telling Pakistan first. You got it right here and you quoted it. If I go to your house and take your shit, then call you and say, "Oh by the way I took your shit" does this not make me a thief. After all I took it first and then told you. Damn it man.


no, it's preemptive borrowing

as long as you tell him later that you are borrowing it, you are not a 'thief'

You know what's great on popcorn? Turmeric. That's the yellow stuff that's key in your general curry powders. It's really tasty on popcorn, but your fingers turn all yellow and you make splotches on your pants.

*gets out the spice rack and gives everyone their own batch of popcorn to flavor*

everybody happy now? ;)

Sending a missile is not an invasion. You lose yet again.

Actually, you should read that again. He's pointing at the use of the words "going into Pakistan". Unfortunately, sending a missle is "going into Pakistan", as is sending a plane. It doesn't support his claim about invasion any better than us saying Hillary wants to invade.

This is the quote so deal with it.

* Believes we need more NATO troops and greater efforts to train personnel in Afghanistan to pursue bin Laden. We must be ready to respond to actionable intelligence that bin Laden is in Pakistan, but should notify Pakistan after the missiles are in the air because of the sensitivity of their situation with India. Clinton would try to get Musharraf to share responsibility for the security of their nuclear materials with the United States. Blames Bush for ignoring the issue.
* Believes we must retaliate against any nation that provided a safe haven for any terrorists that strike America with a nuclear device. Believes that deterrence worked during the cold war because the Soviets understood the consequences of attacking us. (My comment: and the Soviets behaved logically. Will the terrorists?)

You guys are funny.

Just thought I'd share.

Carry on with your regularly scheduled shenanigans.

What's sad is that I started this kind of on the fence. There were aspects of the Clinton administration that I was uncomfortable with that I thought would carry over with Hillary Clinton that gave me some misgivings (things like the FCC rule changes and corporate handlings) but while Obama is more beholden to individual grass roots support than corporate interests he is not free from them. He said he wouldn't take PAC money, which is admirable, but he still takes corporate donations. This is a big issue for me and I didn't think either candidate still in the race had a big enough lead for me to lean heavily one way or the other. The Cat-Tribe has done a remarkable job of dismissing talking-point simplifications about Clinton's positions and detractions and thus has ceased to be much of a concern for me. I don't like her reaction to the video game industry, but I'm more upset about the company that sparked that reaction than I am anything she said.

Really, my 'horse' in this race dropped out early, but now both sides are courting him for an endorsement he may not even give. (Richardson, I'll admit I hadn't gotten around to looking into him deeply, but I was impressed by his diplomatic track record and feel deeply that what we need now is a diplomat and here was a man who already had a relationship with foreign leaders.) What has tipped me is not CH's clumsy defense/attack on Obama, that'd be just as silly as Sal's decision to reject Obama because she got in a tiff with an Obama supporter. Mostly it's two things-her dishonest approach to the issue with Michigan and Florida. Whether or not you agree that they should have been stripped of their delegates aside, her nakedly two faced approach to the decision sits very wrong with me. It is dishonest and opportunistic. Had she championed them from the beginning, that would be a different issue. But she didn't. She agreed with the decision and only started saying that they should be seated afterwards when suddenly she wasn't 20 points ahead in the polls-even going so far as to even reject a do over, which is within the rules, as a solution regardless of the fact that she was the only front runner on the Michigan ballot. It doesn't sit well.

The second element was refusing to meet with leaders without preconditions. That's been a failed diplomacy for too long, it's bully diplomacy and it's arrogant. Since that was a top concern for me it tips me in favor of Obama. Now, no doubt CH will cease upon this to bang his invasion drum again, but I've already exhaustively have refuted his interpritation and hilighted the importance that our alliances not simply be ones of convenience because they do us no favors. If we support a leader that suppresses freedom or democracy it undermines our intentions toward it. I don't necessarily buy the 'democracy for all, our way is the best way and everyone should fall in line' but at the same time I don't see it as doing us any favors to prop up actively suppressive regimes out of political convenience. It is, in fact, part of what fuels resentment. If we're truer to our principles, and instead of leaning on the stick we lean on the carrot it will reduce the need for the stick. I don't think that there is some magic wand that will stop the violence immediately without someone's hands getting bloody, but the cudgel we've been using is ineffective. That CH fails to see the difference or even that no candidate in a position to win a nomination is advocating no more military action is baffling.

I don't know that it matters or really addresses you so much. I guess I just needed to say that.

*gets out the spice rack and gives everyone their own batch of popcorn to flavor*

everybody happy now? ;)

Very. *dashes about 20 different spices onto his popcorn, throws it into a skillet, adds in some olive oil and diced potatos*

Look, Barack Obama's premise lies in his goals, and not really in his past. His way is the way of the future for the US, and that is why so many people can relate to him. However, if you want to hear some accomplishments of his, here I've listed a couple:
1) He is completely self-made; no one in his family had a lot of money or influence in politics.
2) He knows a lot about foreign cultures; he has lived in a region that is full of Muslim people, something that means he can relate to people in the Middle East far better than the Bush can.
3) He has made many right decisions while in the Senate, such as being against the war in Iraq since the beginning, helping health care, and raising money for those in need.
4) He has lived with, helped, and knows well the poor classes of America.
5) He is a man who manages to inspire people, something that is very hard to do in the 21st century.

This is the quote so deal with it.

* Believes we need more NATO troops and greater efforts to train personnel in Afghanistan to pursue bin Laden. We must be ready to respond to actionable intelligence that bin Laden is in Pakistan, but should notify Pakistan after the missiles are in the air because of the sensitivity of their situation with India. Clinton would try to get Musharraf to share responsibility for the security of their nuclear materials with the United States. Blames Bush for ignoring the issue.
* Believes we must retaliate against any nation that provided a safe haven for any terrorists that strike America with a nuclear device. Believes that deterrence worked during the cold war because the Soviets understood the consequences of attacking us. (My comment: and the Soviets behaved logically. Will the terrorists?)

When you take into account that Castro was willing to 'pull down the cathedral' during the Cuban missile crisis (from the film Fog of War, MacNamara), and that while Russia had an infrastructure and populace to consider while terrorists use them as shields, no it is not logical for them to consider a nuclear weapon a deterrent. The collateral damage and fallout, if you'll excuse the pun, of the US using a nuclear weapon on a Middle Eastern target would be enough for them to martyr themselves in the attack. We do not see this being as effective when the attacks are more precise, even if not perfectly so like in the missile attack late this January.

I have to say, I couldn't exactly have been said to be on the fence at the beginning of this, because I didn't really like the first Clinton administration (there's something about having a CIC who thinks we should stay out of civil wars when his butt is on the line, but not when my butt is on the line). I also come from IL and have enjoyed the fruits of Obama's efforts there.

However, I used to be much more excited by the idea of HRC winning the nod. I thought she would at first and I thought she was a great candidate. I still think she's good and I agree on the TCT stuff, but MI and FL was a pretty big blow for me, as well as some of her other ways of treating this campaign.

Skipping over states because they don't matter is so incredible to me.

I think even when she began losing she should have viewed this as an opportunity to finally get her message out and to improve her image with the world.

She had a great platform for letting people know that she wasn't seeking power for power's sake and could have risen above the fray in this manner. She may or may not have won, but she'd have my vote in the future for other elections. Imagine she takes that road and Obama attacks her. He'd have been the one getting boos. It would have upped the level of the whole thing.

Now, why is this her responsibilty? It wasn't. But she had nothing to lose. Given the choice between showing America what politics should be, she showed America what it shouldn't be. In 2000 and 2004, the popular vote was all the mattered to Democrats, and all of the sudden certain populations are hardly worth her time, and certain rules, and having superdelegates override the whole thing is good too, right?

I'm disppointed in Hillary, and I didn't expect to be a month ago. She had enormous potential, still does, but she needs to worry more about what's best here, and less about what's best for her.

When you take into account that Castro was willing to 'pull down the cathedral' during the Cuban missile crisis (from the film Fog of War, MacNamara), and that while Russia had an infrastructure and populace to consider while terrorists use them as shields, no it is not logical for them to consider a nuclear weapon a deterrent. The collateral damage and fallout, if you'll excuse the pun, of the US using a nuclear weapon on a Middle Eastern target would be enough for them to martyr themselves in the attack. We do not see this being as effective when the attacks are more precise, even if not perfectly so like in the missile attack late this January.

My apologies. The my comment portion was from the quoted text. I did not write it. I should have been more clear on this.

Very. *dashes about 20 different spices onto his popcorn, throws it into a skillet, adds in some olive oil and diced potatos*
Oooh, that sounds good. Want some cream soda?

My apologies. The my comment portion was from the quoted text. I did not write it. I should have been more clear on this.

I see. It doesn't matter to my answer to the proposed question, but thanks for the clarification.

I see. It doesn't matter to my answer to the proposed question, but thanks for the clarification.

Oh, and I agree with you.

Oddly enough, I'm probably the only solid Obama supporter here.
Mostly because of Clinton's response to the "hot coffee" mod.
Anyone who doesn't understand what they're legislating about should not be legislating at all.
Also partly because she is too quick to take up positions for political gain, even if they're bad positions. The GTA thing above is a perfect example, as is the Michigan and Florida thing.
Obama just seemed like the only good candidate who actually stood a chance. (Edwards wasn't bad either, by the way).

wow, I see that CH or CU can't refute the quotes posted. Do you know why? Because even he can't spin her comments and those of the other candidates. Everyone supports striking the border region of Pakistan on "actionable intelligence" and they are right. I'm still waiting for him to admit that he is wrong. I have done it already in this thread and have on many occasions. Just be honorable and you get respect.

Well, when this race statrted, I was an ignorant 12 year old who knew little about either candidate and could do little beyond go "omg gore won '00!!!one11!"

I've turned into a 13 year old political addict.

I started supporting Obama ~2 weeks before Iowa, though at the time I would have liked Clinton had she become the nominee. Since then I have gotten turned off toward her thanks to Bill's comments in SC and the reasons posted here several times. (Michagin/Florida for example)

I also am somewhat wary of her health care as the state I live in (Massachusetts) has a similar system which isn't working very well.

I tend to be far to the left on social issues and centre-left on economic issue.

Well, when this race statrted, I was an ignorant 12 year old who knew little about either candidate and could do little beyond go "omg gore won '00!!!one11!"

I've turned into a 13 year old political addict.


Heh, I thought this was going to end, "when this race started I was an ignorant 12 year old, and now that I'm 21..."

Because this race has been llllllooooooooooooooooonnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnngggggggggggggg.

Heh, I thought this was going to end, "when this race started I was an ignorant 12 year old, and now that I'm 21..."

Because this race has been llllllooooooooooooooooonnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnngggggggggggggg.

Two things are interesting at this current time. Obama is looking to outdo Hillary by a mark of 50-35 million. That's with Hillary's "loan." After yesterday's super delegate defection there has been another right in the heart of Texas. These are delegates formerly pledged to Clinton, but switching allegiance to Obama. Then there's the daily tracking polls nationally about who Democrats want to be their nominee. All the fundraising and delegate switching is important, and the numbers are looking more like a blowout than ever before.

Daily Tracking Numbers (http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/poll-tracker.htm)

Two things are interesting at this current time. Obama is looking to outdo Hillary by a mark of 50-35 million. That's with Hillary's "loan." After yesterday's super delegate defection there has been another right in the heart of Texas. These are delegates formerly pledged to Clinton, but switching allegiance to Obama. Then there's the daily tracking polls nationally about who Democrats want to be their nominee. All the fundraising and delegate switching is important, and the numbers are looking more like a blowout than ever before.

Daily Tracking Numbers (http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/poll-tracker.htm)
Ah, USA Today...your nothing if not fun, easy to read charts...

Most of the articles I can find only mention what Clinton raised and not what Obama raised except to say "more." I kind of don't like the horse race part of things, comparing money thing as much. I mean, it's significant and I get your point. It's just that money legitimizes money. I guess it's voting with your dollar...I don't know...I was kind of railing against this early on. To be fair to Clinton on this, $36 mil is more than twice what she did in January when she was still up. Her support hasn't dried up entirely.

I lost what point I was making. Simpsons is on, you see...

Oddly enough, I'm probably the only solid Obama supporter here.

Careful. Those are fighting words...:gundge:

You calling me a liar? That is flaming.


Factual event. You tell a lie, you are a liar. Maybe calling you a human being would be flaming next.


I want a Democrat in the White House in 2009. I prefer that Democrat to be Hillary.

Two separate conditions. Hence a lie. Hypocrite.

Factual event. You tell a lie, you are a liar. Maybe calling you a human being would be flaming next.

Two separate conditions. Hence a lie. Hypocrite.
You don't believe, I really don't care. That would be your problem not mine. :p

Actually, those two are not mutually exclusive - he wants either Hillary or Obama to win, but would rather have Hillary. I'm the same, but reversed.

The only lie is that he obviously doesn't want Obama to win given how he refuses to respond to evidence discrediting his 'OMG Obama is gonna invade Pakistan!!!!!one11!!!' theory and he is so far unable to advocate for Hillary, or post a reply to any of the many posts debunking his theory.

Ah, USA Today...your nothing if not fun, easy to read charts...

Most of the articles I can find only mention what Clinton raised and not what Obama raised except to say "more." I kind of don't like the horse race part of things, comparing money thing as much. I mean, it's significant and I get your point. It's just that money legitimizes money. I guess it's voting with your dollar...I don't know...I was kind of railing against this early on. To be fair to Clinton on this, $36 mil is more than twice what she did in January when she was still up. Her support hasn't dried up entirely.

I lost what point I was making. Simpsons is on, you see...

I'm not a big money in politics person either. I believe every politician should be held to public financing instead of it being a choice. The interesting thing is also that Hillary gets most of the donors who give $2,300 (the maximum amount) and Obama takes it with the masses in denominations on the average of $25. Make of this what you will. What I make of it is that the "common man" that Hillary talks about championing is not able to give 2,300 for a primary fight and then more in the general. Obama clearly resonates with the majority of people who are working hard to make ends meet. These people are unable to give these large amounts. To look at who is giving and how much shows who is the chosen candidate of the wealthy and corporate elite and who is the representative of average Joe/Jane. This is a further example of why I do not like Hillary. She's a smart woman and can extrapolate the same info I just did. It just shows whose interests are owned by whom. Those people who donate large sums want it back when their guy/gal gets into office. Who has the advantage then?

You don't believe, I really don't care. That would be your problem not mine. :p

Still waiting for you to acknowledge 1. Hillary said the same thing as Obama about Pakistan (telling them after launching missiles is not asking permission). 2. Other candidates said the exact same thing as provided in my quotes from newspapers and the facebook debate. 3. If you cannot recognize this information and choose to ignore it you are in fact a liar. Like I've said, I'm not a run to the mods kind of guy. But, your repetition of the same information in the face of conflicting information brought to your attention by numerous posters consists of trolling. Now don't respond to the second part of this post like you are accustomed to doing. Attack the meat of the argument or accept defeat. I'd appreciate it if you laid down your queen now. As for the 10,000 or bust I think you know which one I believe you accomplished well.

I thought I heard him say in a speech his average donation was $109.

I sent him $100.

I thought I heard him say in a speech his average donation was $109.

I sent him $100.

I seem to remember that number as well.

I'd actually love it if campaigns were publicly financed. I do see potholes in that. Given even money an Obama doesn't stand as much of a chance against a Clinton. Name recognition is then harder to overcome, entrenching power. I don't really have an immediate solution to that, it's either whores or pimps. Right now we only have the hope that we can buy enough of the whore that they'll maybe kiss us first.

I thought I heard him say in a speech his average donation was $109.

I sent him $100.

I may be misquoting him and if I am then sorry. Regardless of 100 or 25, it's far below what Hillary gets. It just goes to show what type of people are donating and to who.

Edit: I like the story about the little, old lady who donated $3.01 because it's all she had at the time.

Ah, USA Today...your nothing if not fun, easy to read charts...

Most of the articles I can find only mention what Clinton raised and not what Obama raised except to say "more." I kind of don't like the horse race part of things, comparing money thing as much. I mean, it's significant and I get your point. It's just that money legitimizes money. I guess it's voting with your dollar...I don't know...I was kind of railing against this early on. To be fair to Clinton on this, $36 mil is more than twice what she did in January when she was still up. Her support hasn't dried up entirely.

I lost what point I was making. Simpsons is on, you see...

The amount thing kind of bothers me as well. It's sad to me that money is so overwhelmingly important in an election.

The most interesting numbers, to me, are the number of donors. Obama's campaign recently reached 1 million donors, which is apparently a record in a primary campaign. That's awesome.

Still waiting for you to acknowledge 1. Hillary said the same thing as Obama about Pakistan (telling them after launching missiles is not asking permission).
I did respond to that (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13488964&postcount=687). Her response (note the word probably) is quite different than Obama's and certainly a lot more sensitive than Obama's hostile declaration.

And most certainly, Clinton didn't give a speech detailing a "war we need to win".

2. Other candidates said the exact same thing as provided in my quotes from newspapers and the facebook debate.
Other candidates remarks are no longer an issue since they have dropped out, and they didn't say the "exact same thing".?

3. If you cannot recognize this information and choose to ignore it you are in fact a liar.
To be a liar, someone has to knowingly lie. Now knock yourself out.

Like I've said, I'm not a run to the mods kind of guy.
But you keep threatening such action. Be my guest.

But, your repetition of the same information in the face of conflicting information brought to your attention by numerous posters consists of trolling.
Because people keep presenting what is their truths doesn't make them truths and are subject to that being brought to their attention.

Now don't respond to the second part of this post like you are accustomed to doing.
And that is how?

Attack the meat of the argument or accept defeat.
I always try to stay focused on the meat, but so often all I see is the baloney. :D

I'd appreciate it if you laid down your queen now.
It takes a very good player to capture my queen. She is still in the game.

As for the 10,000 or bust I think you know which one I believe you accomplished well.
Another little dig.

I have said this before and will say it again. I didn't have any real concerns about Obama until he talked about invading Pakistan and gave a speech entitled a "war we need to win".

I know the vast majority of posters in this thread are Obama lovers/Hillary haters and I take severe heat because I show dissent. Some would like to shout down the opposition, but as Tom Petty says, "I won't back down".

I did respond to that (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13488964&postcount=687). Her response (note the word probably) is quite different than Obama's and certainly a lot more sensitive than Obama's hostile declaration.

And most certainly, Clinton didn't give a speech detailing a "war we need to win".

Amusing. Right, the 'new" war that already happened. She did say that she was willing to do what you called an invasion. "Probably" means she can envision a scenario where she wouldn't get permission. That's the exact same thing as Obama.

I'll ask again. Have we already invaded Pakistan?


Other candidates remarks are no longer an issue since they have dropped out, and they didn't say the "exact same thing".?


To be a liar, someone has to knowingly lie. Now knock yourself out.

So you're claim is that you're ignorant of the fact that your claims are false. So are you claiming you've done almost know research here? Are you claiming you don't actually read the links you supply? Because at this point it's impossible to not know some of the things you are saying are patently false.

And certainly you knew that you highlighted words by Hillary to make them appear to say the opposite of what they actually say. But, hey, maybe you just didn't read the whole quote, right?



I always try to stay focused on the meat, but so often all I see is the baloney. :D

You try to stay focused on the meat? And you wonder why people accuse you of intellectual dishonesty. We'll ignore the irony.


It takes a very good player to capture my queen. She is still in the game.

I've changed my mind. Perhaps you truly are so completely unaware of reality that you cannot recognize that the game is long since over and the only reason your queen is still in the game is because you're running around the room going, "I still have my queen. You didn't capture it. I still have it. No, you have to actually capture. You didn't capture. See it in my hand. You can't get it from me." You're playing an entirely different game. The game we're playing is debate and you've lost. A long time ago.


Another little dig.

I have said this before and will say it again. I didn't have any real concerns about Obama until he talked about invading Pakistan and gave a speech entitled a "war we need to win".

I know the vast majority of posters in this thread are Obama lovers/Hillary haters and I take severe heat because I show dissent. Some would like to shout down the opposition, but as Tom Petty says, "I won't back down".

Yes, it's shouting down the opposition to present evidence after evidence after evidence that you refuse to address, to call you out on blatant misrepresentations, to call you out on your hypocrisy. Sure. Let's pretend that's true. Keep running around the room with your pieces in your hand. That'll impress everyone.

So let's look at "baloney".

Here's the quote -

And at some point--probably when the missiles have been launched--the Pakistani government has to know they're on the way.

The way you presented it -
And at some point--probably when the missiles have been launched--the Pakistani government has to know they're on the way.

Hehe. That's what passes for honesty with CH. Make your own judgements.

I guess I'm more involved in this one than I am any other, so I'll post it here. I definitely don't want to make another thread...

You gotta love shifting the expectations... (http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/02/29/clinton-camp-games-march-4-expectations/)
In a press release and conference call today, advisers to Mrs. Clinton said Senator Barack Obama has a “problem” if he does not win in all the states holding contests Tuesday: Ohio, Texas, Vermont and Rhode Island.

Mr. Obama has “anointed himself the frontrunner,” said Howard Wolfson, Mrs. Clinton’s spokesman, and a failure to win in all four states would send a signal that “that there is some concern and dissatisfaction with Senator Obama’s campaign.”
even better-
A reporter asked her advisers on the conference call, which included Mark Penn, a chief pollster, and Phil Singer, a deputy spokesman, if Obama has victories everywhere but in Rhode Island, where Mrs. Clinton holds a significant lead in polls, could really be seen as “buyer’s remorse,” as they repeatedly put it. The advisers declined to answer, calling such a scenario unlikely.
Also choice-
Mr. Wolfson also introduced a novel explanation for fund-raising disparities between his candidate and Mr. Obama.

He told of going to a wake on Thursday that was attended by many elderly, female Clinton supporters. When he asked them if they had donated to her campaign online, they said they had never conducted any financial transaction over the Internet.

“So many of our supporters, by dint of age, are less likely to be comfortable and conversant on the Internet,” Mr. Wolfson said. “Despite the fact that our supporters find themselves in that situation, we had an unbelievable outpouring of support.”

The Obama campaign said it raised $50 million in February, while the Clinton camp reported taking in $35 million.

I think this answers the question of whether or not she'll bow out if she doesn't get the delegates she needs from Texas and Ohio. So now the firewall is not that she needs to win delegates in big states like Ohio and Texas, but he needs a clean sweep.

Good freaking lord. Well, now we know where the slipperiness comes from...

haha - they may as well say that if even one person votes for Clinton rather than Obama, then Obama is obviously having trouble closing the deal with Democrats. It looks so desperate.

A loss for Obama in even one of the four states Tuesday would indicate Democrats have developed a case of "buyer's remorse," Wolfson said. "It would show that Senator Obama is having trouble closing the deal with Democrats."

I think this answers the question of whether or not she'll bow out if she doesn't get the delegates she needs from Texas and Ohio. So now the firewall is not that she needs to win delegates in big states like Ohio and Texas, but he needs a clean sweep.

Good freaking lord. Well, now we know where the slipperiness comes from...


wait, I thought just a week ago she said that she had to win big in Ohio and Texas...

wait, I thought just a week ago she said that she had to win big in Ohio and Texas...
Yeah, well, that was before the polls got close and it looked like she might.

"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.

Pay no attention to the man (woman) behind the curtain...

The early voting in Texas is finished. They closed at seven but the line didn't clear till 9. They got five times the people than in 2004. A two hour line all day. I love that people are excited. The results should be interesting.

The early voting in Texas is finished. They closed at seven but the line didn't clear till 9. They got five times the people than in 2004. A two hour line all day. I love that people are excited. The results should be interesting.
It is pretty cool. I might actually miss it once it's over.

Might.



A little bit.


Maybe.

I did respond to that (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13488964&postcount=687). Her response (note the word probably) is quite different than Obama's and certainly a lot more sensitive than Obama's hostile declaration.

And most certainly, Clinton didn't give a speech detailing a "war we need to win".


Other candidates remarks are no longer an issue since they have dropped out, and they didn't say the "exact same thing".?


To be a liar, someone has to knowingly lie. Now knock yourself out.


But you keep threatening such action. Be my guest.


Because people keep presenting what is their truths doesn't make them truths and are subject to that being brought to their attention.


And that is how?


I always try to stay focused on the meat, but so often all I see is the baloney. :D


It takes a very good player to capture my queen. She is still in the game.


Another little dig.

I have said this before and will say it again. I didn't have any real concerns about Obama until he talked about invading Pakistan and gave a speech entitled a "war we need to win".

I know the vast majority of posters in this thread are Obama lovers/Hillary haters and I take severe heat because I show dissent. Some would like to shout down the opposition, but as Tom Petty says, "I won't back down".

You just want to change the rules after the game has already been played. You claimed that Obama was Bushlike and he was on his lonesome. Just because you got called out on your BS doesn't make me suddenly retarded. I can go back and quote your shite, but I'm tired at this point. You glanced over the quotes by saying "nuh uh." The quotes were DIRECT Fing quotes from the Facebook debate. There was no "look a little harder at the words. She said 2 things that really matter. She said she would attack any country that harbored terrorists who use a nuclear weapon against the US. You said, "duh, Barack Obama wouldn't rule it out dude so he wants a war." She also said, "we have to of course tell them after the missiles are in the air because of the delicate situation with India." Here, I'll give you the direct quotes again.

Hillary Clinton: There is no safe haven for the terrorists.

Barack Obama: Al Qaida is based in northwest Pakistan; strike if needed.
Barack Obama: FactCheck: No, violence in Iraq is LOWER than 2 years ago.
Barack Obama: Al Qaida is stronger than before thanks to the Bush doctrine.
Barack Obama: The surge reduced violence, but at enormous cost.
Barack Obama: Begin a phased redeployment to send a clear signal.
Bill Richardson: Get bin Laden in Pakistan unilaterally, if Pakistan can't.
Bill Richardson: We have an opportunity to get Musharraf to step aide.
Hillary Clinton: Ok to target Al Qaeda in Pakistan; we did that 10 years ago.
Hillary Clinton: Begin troops withdrawal within 60 days after elected.
Hillary Clinton: Withdraw troops within 60 days after taking office.
John Edwards: Get bin Laden, period, even if in Pakistan.
John Edwards: Pull 40,000 to 50,000 troops out in 1st year as President.
John Edwards: Stop propping the Sunni and Shia up with American lives.

Clinton criticized rival Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) in August 2007 for his pledge to pursue al-Qaeda in Pakistan. She called it “a very big mistake to telegraph that and to destabilize the Musharraf regime, which is fighting for its life against the Islamic extremists who are in bed with al-Qaeda and Taliban.” Still, Clinton said in summer 2007 that if the United States gains “actionable intelligence that Osama bin Laden or other high-value targets were in Pakistan,” she would “ensure that they were targeted and killed or captured” (ABC).

http://onlyabill.com/2008/01/05/abc-...anuary-5-2008/

http://www.ontheissues.org/2008_Dems_Facebook.htm

Hillary Clinton:

* Believes we need more NATO troops and greater efforts to train personnel in Afghanistan to pursue bin Laden. We must be ready to respond to actionable intelligence that bin Laden is in Pakistan, but should notify Pakistan after the missiles are in the air because of the sensitivity of their situation with India. Clinton would try to get Musharraf to share responsibility for the security of their nuclear materials with the United States. Blames Bush for ignoring the issue.
* Believes we must retaliate against any nation that provided a safe haven for any terrorists that strike America with a nuclear device. Believes that deterrence worked during the cold war because the Soviets understood the consequences of attacking us. (My comment: and the Soviets behaved logically. Will the terrorists?)

Barack Obama: Al Qaida is based in northwest Pakistan; strike if needed.
Barack Obama: FactCheck: No, violence in Iraq is LOWER than 2 years ago.
Barack Obama: Al Qaida is stronger than before thanks to the Bush doctrine.
Barack Obama: The surge reduced violence, but at enormous cost.
Barack Obama: Begin a phased redeployment to send a clear signal.
Bill Richardson: Get bin Laden in Pakistan unilaterally, if Pakistan can't.
Bill Richardson: We have an opportunity to get Musharraf to step aide.
Hillary Clinton: Ok to target Al Qaeda in Pakistan; we did that 10 years ago.
Hillary Clinton: Begin troops withdrawal within 60 days after elected.
Hillary Clinton: Withdraw troops within 60 days after taking office.
John Edwards: Get bin Laden, period, even if in Pakistan.
John Edwards: Pull 40,000 to 50,000 troops out in 1st year as President
John Edwards: Stop propping the Sunni and Shia up with American lives.

Bush and his comments on Pakistan

Like I said, you are the one who commented that it was only Obama saying these things and I have shown you were other candidates, and even Hillary have stated the same thing.

They would all attack Pakistan on "actionable intelligence." Hillary just suggests we give a call and say, "yeah, the missiles will hit in 5...4....3...2..."

You did a great job of "addressing" the quotes. You just changed the quote to something you felt more comfortable with. They are quotes from the facebook debates. Deal with her exact words.

Edit: People have gone back and linked all of your posts together. I'll thank CTOAN and Jacobia for that. Every time you shift the rules of the game people have been throwing your own words back in your face. Hell, you can't even win a debate with yourself. Don't worry I'm done with you. If you can't at least be honest then why debate you? Yes, after 50 pages I started digging on you. Sorry, I even said my NSG rep was impatient with ignorance. Not that you have flamed any posters here (Oh shit, someone compiled all that for you as well.). So yes, hypocrite, liar, and willfully ignorant of when people information right in front of your face.

Meh, he's jumped ship to another thread where he can pretend that all of this hasn't been challenged and can accuse anyone from here who challenged him of 'following him around.'

CLINTON: 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.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200708020010

and again

I did respond to that (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13488964&postcount=687). Her response (note the word probably) is quite different than Obama's and certainly a lot more sensitive than Obama's hostile declaration.

Doesn't matter.
They both have the exact same policy, no matter how they phrase it.

And most certainly, Clinton didn't give a speech detailing a "war we need to win".

As far as we know.
In any case, Obama quite clearly intended the speech to mean helping Pakistan, not invading it.
Considering, you know, he said so himself.


Other candidates remarks are no longer an issue since they have dropped out, and they didn't say the "exact same thing".?

Yes they did say the exact same thing.


To be a liar, someone has to knowingly lie. Now knock yourself out.

No, all "liar" means is "someone who lies".



Because people keep presenting what is their truths doesn't make them truths and are subject to that being brought to their attention.

That is true, if quite incoherent.
But you have to wonder:
You are the only poster taking your position.
You are also the poster with the weakest arguments, by far.
Makes one suspect it's a problem with your position.



It takes a very good player to capture my queen. She is still in the game.

See what Jocabia said.


Another little dig.

I have said this before and will say it again. I didn't have any real concerns about Obama until he talked about invading Pakistan and gave a speech entitled a "war we need to win".

"A war we need to win" against terrorists, not Pakistan.
And since, of course, the war on terror is not actually a war, he was using- surprise!- metaphor. Which you don't seem to understand.

I know the vast majority of posters in this thread are Obama lovers/Hillary haters and I take severe heat because I show dissent. Some would like to shout down the opposition, but as Tom Petty says, "I won't back down".
Remember when you kept saying Obama is "Bush-like"?
He's got nothing on you.
Classic "stay the course". Straight out of Bush's playbook.

*snip*.

I appreciated the compliment. He's right. It takes a good player to capture his queen and I captured it several threads ago when he was still declaring that Hillary won Super Tuesday.

Meh, he's jumped ship to another thread where he can pretend that all of this hasn't been challenged and can accuse anyone from here who challenged him of 'following him around.'

Why not? Its 'worked' for him so far...
:rolleyes:

I have said this before and will say it again. I didn't have any real concerns about Obama until he talked about invading Pakistan and gave a speech entitled a "war we need to win".
That's bullshit and we have the quote history to prove it.

I know the vast majority of posters in this thread are Obama lovers/Hillary haters and I take severe heat because I show dissent. Some would like to shout down the opposition, but as Tom Petty says, "I won't back down".
No. No no no no no. You are not a martyr, you are not a hero, and you are certainly not Tom fucking Petty. You are not taking heat because of Obamalove or Hillaryhate, you are taking heat because you are making shit up. We aren't giving The Cat-Tribes heat who has done a far far far fucking far better job of defending Clinton that you can in your wildest dreams have imagined. Your halo is ill-applied. I came into this looking for valid criticism, you provided none. Don't strain your arm patting yourself on the back, it is ill-deserved.

I'll just keep it here, though I guess I could pick a primary thread at random...



now now dont be that way.

if mrs clinton doesnt act positive she wont win. so the march 4th states dont count much for her and are everything for her opponent. its just posturing.

otherwise she would have to throw in the towel now and its still too soon for that. she can throw it in on wednesday.

I'll just keep it here, though I guess I could pick a primary thread at random...


More on Clinton's Leiningen vs. the Ants (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leiningen_Versus_the_Ants) approach to the primaries (http://weblogs.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/blog/2008/03/clinton_planning_for_life_afte.html)-
Back in the good old days (three weeks ago), when she still held a double-digit advantage in Texas, Clinton's brain trust was confidently predicting she would run the table on March 4th and overcome Barack Obama's widening lead in delegates. Privately, they conceded that losing EITHER Texas or Ohio would be fatal. One staffer told me a single loss would create a "death spiral" -- an avalanche of super delegates, a donor revolt, defections from her exhausted staff and the sudden appearance of a delegation of Wise Men and Women pressuring her to quit for the good of the party. Then Bill Clinton more or less endorsed that thesis in public.

Amazingly, Hillary Clinton's top aides -- Mark Penn, Howard Wolfson and Harold Ickes -- are now behaving as if those calculations never existed. The first sign of the shift came last week, when Ickes declared that Clinton would have to reassess her plans only if she lost BOTH Texas and Ohio. Then came a Friday conference call in which Wolfson -- to the utter amazement of reporters listening in -- said the "onus" was on Obama to win all four March 4th states.
I'd bold bits, but it's all pretty remarkable.

As usual, it's all about money-
Wolfson is not being delusional. If the campaign doesn't yet have a compelling electoral rationale to survive a loss in Texas it has a financial one -- $35 million in February fundraising from a new base of online donors eager to keep the First-Woman-President dream alive no matter how many contests she loses.
You have to love this-
To keep her in the fight, the campaign needs to come up with some way to argue that Texas doesn't matter.
The Potomac states don't matter, Wisconsin doesn't matter, the 13 or so states Obama won on Super Tuesday don't matter, Texas might not matter. I guess I should be flattered I'm in a state that still matters...
During Friday's call they hinted at a possible strategy based on discrediting the state's bizarre primary-caucus hybrid: If Clinton manages to win the primary part and loses the oddball late-night caucus, she might be able to muster a moral argument case for continuing. Since losing Iowa, Clinton has railed against caucuses as being fundamentally undemocratic.
...
Nonetheless, the gauntlet has already been thrown and the Clinton camp is on record questioning the fairness of the process.
Oh yeah, and caucus' don't matter.

At what point does she light the mote of oil on fire?

But shouldn't she be acting like she's going to win? I can't find the article now but there was a breakdown that showed that while Obama did better among voters who decided in the last week and three days before the election, she did better among people who decided on the day of. She's also, apparently going to appear on The Daily Show the night before the election. (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/03/01/clinton-to-appear-on-the-daily-show/) she still stands a chance, really, with the polls neck and neck, that shouldn't she positive about the results instead of gaming them? Changing the story right before hand looks desperate, not positive.


she must be in a panic because nothing she does works. she should have a huge edge over obama but its all gone away.

it seems that everyone loved her right up until the time they realized that they didnt have to.