NationStates Jolt Archive

John McCain performing fellatio on Bush! :eek:

THE IMAGE IS RAPING MY MIND!!! :eek:

it cannot be undone, and there is surely more to follow - presidential slash fic has been called into existence by the latest xkcd

John McCain performing fellatio on Bush! :eek:

THE IMAGE IS RAPING MY MIND!!! :eek:

its so much worse for cindy mccain always crying herself to sleep after servicing john with a strap-on only to have him cry out george's name at his climax.

it Cannot Be Undone, And There Is Surely More To Follow - Presidential Slash Fic Has Been Called Into Existence By The Latest Xkcd

Nooooooooooooo!!!

it cannot be undone, and there is surely more to follow - presidential slash fic has been called into existence by the latest xkcd

Just imagine the potential if Obama caved and accepted TUO as VP....

:::wanders off in search of mental brillo pads - ah! Found some 8% brillo pads (http://www.takarashuzo.co.jp/products/soft_alcohol/regular/index.htm) in the fridge:::

I can't get over the hilarity of the Republicans calling Obama the Savior and the Messiah, when it's their man in the White House who is the one who claims to talk to God. :rolleyes:

I can't get over the hilarity of the Republicans calling Obama the Savior and the Messiah, when it's their man in the White House who is the one who claims to talk to God. :rolleyes:

They probably are only half joking too, as even they know what a gigantic fuckup the Bush administration has been.

One day John McCain is going to wake up and realize that the McCain that ran in 2000 is the one folks want to elect.

Yup. Unfortunately for him, most people aren't just going to ignore the John McCain he's become since then. Trying to act like the McCain of 2000, at this point, will just make him seem more insincere.

It's called scepticism, and it's quite common.
An odd way to express scepticism.

An odd way to express skepticism.

Source or it didn't... Er...

>.>

<.<

What? :p

While suturing a cut on the hand of a 75-year-old Texas rancher, whose
hand was caught in a gate while working cattle, the doctor struck up a
conversation with the old man. Eventually the topic got around to Obama and
his bid to be our President.
The old rancher said, 'Well, ya know, Obama is a 'post turtle.'


Not being familiar with the term, the doctor asked him what a 'post turtle'
was.


The old rancher said, 'When you're driving down a country road and you come
across a fence post with a turtle balanced on top, that's a 'post turtle.'



The old rancher saw a puzzled look on the doctor's face, so he continued to
explain. 'You know he didn't get up there by himself, he doesn't belong up
there, he doesn't know what to do while he is up there, and you just wonder
what kind of a dumb ass put him up there.

While suturing a cut on the hand of a 75-year-old Texas rancher, whose
hand was caught in a gate while working cattle, the doctor struck up a conversation with the old man. Eventually the topic got around to George W. Bush and his presidency.
The old rancher said, 'Well, ya know, Dubya is a 'post turtle.'

Not being familiar with the term, the doctor asked him what a 'post turtle' was.

The old rancher said, 'When you're driving down a country road and you come across a fence post with a turtle balanced on top, that's a 'post turtle.'

The old rancher saw a puzzled look on the doctor's face, so he continued to explain. 'You know he didn't get up there by himself, he doesn't belong up there, he doesn't know what to do while he is up there, and you just wonder what kind of a dumb ass put him up there.

Fixed it. Now it makes sense, and it's funny because it's true :)

Fixed it. Now it makes sense, and it's funny because it's true :)

LOL!

My first thought when I read that was "Sounds like George Bush..."

While suturing a cut on the hand of a 75-year-old Texas rancher, whose
hand was caught in a gate while working cattle, the doctor struck up a
conversation with the old man. Eventually the topic got around to Obama and
his bid to be our President.
The old rancher said, 'Well, ya know, Obama is a 'post turtle.'


Not being familiar with the term, the doctor asked him what a 'post turtle'
was.


The old rancher said, 'When you're driving down a country road and you come
across a fence post with a turtle balanced on top, that's a 'post turtle.'



The old rancher saw a puzzled look on the doctor's face, so he continued to
explain. 'You know he didn't get up there by himself, he doesn't belong up
there, he doesn't know what to do while he is up there, and you just wonder
what kind of a dumb ass put him up there.

Setting aside the obvious "Isn't that Bush?" response, I would like to ask you to clarify how Obama qualifies as a "post turtle."

http://www.local6.com/news/16738523/detail.html

I really have to wonder if anyone actually thinks this sort of thing is a good tactic. What, exactly, were they trying to accomplish?

http://www.local6.com/news/16738523/detail.html

I really have to wonder if anyone actually thinks this sort of thing is a good tactic. What, exactly, were they trying to accomplish?

There are trolls in RL too.

http://www.local6.com/news/16738523/detail.html

I really have to wonder if anyone actually thinks this sort of thing is a good tactic. What, exactly, were they trying to accomplish?

Special business cards left near the damaged vehicles contained negative messages about Sen. Barack Obama and Sen. John McCain. However, there were positive words about Sen. Hillary Clinton, Local 6's Kimberly Houk reported.

They were trying to show how much of a victim Hillary is by... victimizing several people which, odds are, voted for her.

I vividly remember the crap I got, as an Obama supporter, from people that acted as if disagreeing with them were a faux pas, all the while acting like THEY could do much, MUCH worse to my side. I also remember how Clinton stimulated that psychologically perverse attitude, which is why I began this campaign not minding her and ended it outright HATING that unperson.

Next time people claim that hag is a victim I'll post this link. If they get to claim mistreatment and put the mistreatment their delusional minds saw on Obama's tab, I'm sure as hell putting this on hers!

http://www.local6.com/news/16738523/detail.html

I really have to wonder if anyone actually thinks this sort of thing is a good tactic. What, exactly, were they trying to accomplish?

Besides prove that Clinthulu supporters are vengeful sore losers? I dunno.

Anyone know where CH was the night of the vandalism?

I think it's a sign of someone who had a little too much to drink.

You know, I'd say something yet again about the whole "Clinthulhu" crap, but nobody listens when I say anything and I don't want to accidentally get banned for flaming again.

I think it's a sign of someone who had a little too much to drink.

Or several someones.

But having the cards and all the different colored paint (suggesting multiple people) seems more planned.

Maybe they were just going to leave the cards. but got drunk before they went, bought some spray paint, and went to town?

Back when Clinton mattered, if the shoe were on the other foot, I wonder how the clintonistas would have reacted.

You know, I'd say something yet again about the whole "Clinthulhu" crap ...

I asked the other mods about this some time ago, because abusing pollies is the cultural norm in Australia but I wasn't sure whether it was in the US, and if it's not the norm it could have been flaming.

The consensus was that if the abuse is directed at a significant number of players, it's actionable -- flaming or passive flaming. Otherwise, it depends on the context.

Specifically, one "Hellary Clinthulu" is a joke; repeated "Hellary Clinthulu"s in a context that makes it look like, "I'll use this term because I know it really gets up X's nose" is trolling.

On that basis, "Clinthulu" , "Our Saviour Obama" and the other variations have been let alone so far. "Paulbots" insulted a number of posters and should have been stomped on -- mea culpa. You may remember that early in the primaries Melkor rightly locked a thread devoted to finding derogatory names for opponents.

(I find "The Hag" rather ageist, Heikoku, and sexist as well, when popular usage attaches the term judgmentally to any older woman. There are a few of us on these forums. But that's a personal view, not a modly one.)

Please note the "so far"s in this post. It's not the mods' job to shelter posters from every wind that blows. It's politics we're discussing, not basketweaving*.
But provocation won't be tolerated.

*EDIT: Yes, I know some people could start a flame war over basketweaving. Just don't, m'kay?

I asked the other mods about this some time ago, because abusing pollies is the cultural norm in Australia but I wasn't sure whether it was in the US, and if it's not the norm it could have been flaming.

The consensus was that if the abuse is directed at a significant number of players, it's actionable -- flaming or passive flaming. Otherwise, it depends on the context.

Specifically, one "Hellary Clinthulu" is a joke; repeated "Hellary Clinthulu"s in a context that makes it look like, "I'll use this term because I know it really gets up X's nose" is trolling.

On that basis, "Clinthulu" , "Our Saviour Obama" and the other variations have been let alone so far. "Paulbots" insulted a number of posters and should have been stomped on -- mea culpa. You may remember that early in the primaries Melkor rightly locked a thread devoted to finding derogatory names for opponents.

(I find "The Hag" rather ageist, Heikoku, and sexist as well, when popular usage attaches the term judgmentally to any older woman. There are a few of us on these forums. But that's a personal view, not a modly one.)

Please note the "so far"s in this post. It's not the mods' job to shelter posters from every wind that blows. It's politics we're discussing, not basketweaving*.
But provocation won't be tolerated.

*EDIT: Yes, I know some people could start a flame war over basketweaving. Just don't, m'kay?


I've always preferred 'Darth Clinton':

http://www.boomspeed.com/looonatic/hillary_vader.jpg

But that might just be because I can't find a decent picture of Clinthulhu. :p

(I find "The Hag" rather ageist, Heikoku, and sexist as well, when popular usage attaches the term judgmentally to any older woman. There are a few of us on these forums. But that's a personal view, not a modly one.)

I'd call her that regardless of age, and I'd call her "bastard" or SOB were she male.

Not being a native speaker, I can't know for sure how frequent is the usage of "hag" to define any older woman; the problem, however, is that a mod said the OTHER name I thought of referring to Clinton by was not kosher. However, if it makes you, personally (not as a mod, I know), feel better, I can call her an unperson or... Okay, I need ideas.

I'd call her that regardless of age, and I'd call her "bastard" or SOB were she male.

Not being a native speaker, I can't know for sure how frequent is the usage of "hag" to define any older woman; the problem, however, is that a mod said the OTHER name I thought of referring to Clinton by was not kosher. However, if it makes you, personally (not as a mod, I know), feel better, I can call her an unperson or... Okay, I need ideas.

Antichrist?

A bit overused, I think. What about 'Left Hand of Doom'?

Antichrist?

A bit overused, I think. What about 'Left Hand of Doom'?

Left hand of doom? :confused:

Left hand of doom? :confused:

Has a ring to it, eh?

Has a ring to it, eh?

Yes, but why "left hand"?

Left hand of doom? :confused:

Because Hellboy has the Right :P

Because Hellboy has the Right :P

Mmm...

"Prostitute" isn't gender-specific...

I asked the other mods about this some time ago, because abusing pollies is the cultural norm in Australia but I wasn't sure whether it was in the US, and if it's not the norm it could have been flaming.

Oh trust me...its a norm here in the States as well. We just do it strategically and Subtly. :D

Oh trust me...its a norm here in the States as well. We just do it strategically and Subtly. :D

To be fair, I'd be less subtle if I knew I'd not get modded.

Yes, but why "left hand"?

Because Hellboy has the Right :P

Bill Clinton is the right.

And we all know who doom is:

James Carville.

To be fair, I'd be less subtle if I knew I'd not get modded.

Being subtle though is what makes the insults more fun. Sometimes the person doesn't know if he/she was insulted :cool:

EDIT: Yes, I know some people could start a flame war over basketweaving.
Plait basket weavers are the scum of the Earth. Palms and Yucca have no place in baskets and people who practice it should be beaten with New Zealand flax.
Just don't, m'kay?[/size]
Ooops...moving on...



Yep...had to look up basketweaving for that...

Plait basket weavers are the scum of the Earth. Palms and Yucca have no place in baskets and people who practice it should be beaten with New Zealand flax.

Ooops...moving on...



Yep...had to look up basketweaving for that...

Too much free time, eh?

Too much free time, eh?

Hey man, I've been busy all day, dammit...not useful, just busy...

Hey man, I've been busy all day, dammit...not useful, just busy...

Big QED...

I asked the other mods about this some time ago, because abusing pollies is the cultural norm in Australia but I wasn't sure whether it was in the US, and if it's not the norm it could have been flaming.

The consensus was that if the abuse is directed at a significant number of players, it's actionable -- flaming or passive flaming. Otherwise, it depends on the context.

Specifically, one "Hellary Clinthulu" is a joke; repeated "Hellary Clinthulu"s in a context that makes it look like, "I'll use this term because I know it really gets up X's nose" is trolling.

On that basis, "Clinthulu" , "Our Saviour Obama" and the other variations have been let alone so far. "Paulbots" insulted a number of posters and should have been stomped on -- mea culpa. You may remember that early in the primaries Melkor rightly locked a thread devoted to finding derogatory names for opponents.

(I find "The Hag" rather ageist, Heikoku, and sexist as well, when popular usage attaches the term judgmentally to any older woman. There are a few of us on these forums. But that's a personal view, not a modly one.)

Please note the "so far"s in this post. It's not the mods' job to shelter posters from every wind that blows. It's politics we're discussing, not basketweaving*.
But provocation won't be tolerated.

*EDIT: Yes, I know some people could start a flame war over basketweaving. Just don't, m'kay?

Oh, I know all that. My beef with it has nothing to do with percieving that there's something mod worthy. I just don't like it and I think it seriously detracts from debate.

But as I said, no one has listened to me in the past on it, so all I'm doing here is sidetracking everything with my one-man whining session.

Oh, I know all that. My beef with it has nothing to do with percieving that there's something mod worthy. I just don't like it and I think it seriously detracts from debate.

But as I said, no one has listened to me in the past on it, so all I'm doing here is sidetracking everything with my one-man whining session.

Not a total loss. It gave me a chance to post Darth Clinton. :)

But as I said, no one has listened to me in the past on it, so all I'm doing here is sidetracking everything with my one-man whining session.

It's not 'no one' is listening to you, plenty of people have made the same complaint. It's a drag. It's disappointing because we have an opportunity to have a substantive debate. But it's not "no one" is listening to you. Just not the only person who has the capacity to change it.

So I just talked to an old teacher of mine yesterday, and the topic of the election came up. He espoused his views, and come to find out, he supported Hillary, but now supports McCain.

What was a bit surprising was that I don't believe it was out of bitterness necessarily. The reasons he gave me were thus:

-Obama is inexperienced, and as such, is a pretty frightening prospect. We don't really know what we'd get with him.

-The "bitter" comment, for whatever reason, really hit home with him. He's not particularly religious or gun-toting or conservative in any way. In fact, as far as I know, he's a social moderate. He did nevertheless find the comment highly offensive and condescending.

-While McCain may not be exactly what he (my teacher) is looking for, he's not terrible due to his moderate leanings (or at least supposed moderate leanings).

This is a man for whom I have quite a bit of respect, though I've never talked to him about politics before, and he's only about 10 years older than me. So now I wonder: Is there any merit to these views? I realize that these issues have been hashed out for the most part, but does this seem reasonable to anyone? And perhaps most importantly, isn't it nice to hear of someone who's not crazy and bitter? ;)

Besides prove that Clinthulu supporters are vengeful sore losers? I dunno.

Anyone know where CH was the night of the vandalism?

It astounds me that, on the one hand, Clinton supporters are supposed to roll over, play nice, and vote for Obama, while on the other hand, comments like this are being made about them by supporters of Obama.

Frankly, I won't vote for that man. He has no substance, no plan, no experience. He's a great speaker, but we need more for this country than someone who can get up on a podium and make a pretty speech. He will be as bad, if not worse, for this country than any other candidate out there.

So I just talked to an old teacher of mine yesterday, and the topic of the election came up. He espoused his views, and come to find out, he supported Hillary, but now supports McCain.

What was a bit surprising was that I don't believe it was out of bitterness necessarily. The reasons he gave me were thus:

-Obama is inexperienced, and as such, is a pretty frightening prospect. We don't really know what we'd get with him.

-The "bitter" comment, for whatever reason, really hit home with him. He's not particularly religious or gun-toting or conservative in any way. In fact, as far as I know, he's a social moderate. He did nevertheless find the comment highly offensive and condescending.

-While McCain may not be exactly what he (my teacher) is looking for, he's not terrible due to his moderate leanings (or at least supposed moderate leanings).

This is a man for whom I have quite a bit of respect, though I've never talked to him about politics before, and he's only about 10 years older than me. So now I wonder: Is there any merit to these views? I realize that these issues have been hashed out for the most part, but does this seem reasonable to anyone? And perhaps most importantly, isn't it nice to hear of someone who's not crazy and bitter? ;)

- Obama's supposed inexperience potentially offers a much fresher approach to the Presidency than would McCain's "Bushevism Part Three" idea of continuing most if not all of the Dubya Administration's inept and disruptive policies.

- McCain's moderate credentials died the day he literally embraced Dubya. Keep in mind that this is the same Dubya whose campaign machine smeared McCain during the leadup to the 2000 campaign as a tool of The Gay Agenda.

It astounds me that, on the one hand, Clinton supporters are supposed to roll over, play nice, and vote for Obama, while on the other hand, comments like this are being made about them by supporters of Obama.

Comments that would be near non-existent if not for the vandalism.

Frankly, I won't vote for that man. He has no substance, no plan, no experience. He's a great speaker, but we need more for this country than someone who can get up on a podium and make a pretty speech. He will be as bad, if not worse, for this country than any other candidate out there.

Even worse than McCain, aka The Third Dubya Term?

- McCain's moderate credentials died the day he literally embraced Dubya. Keep in mind that this is the same Dubya whose campaign machine smeared McCain during the leadup to the 2000 campaign as a tool of The Gay Agenda.

And it is, of course, so much more acceptable that Obama is now bestest buddies with the Clintons, whom he made out to be womanizers and racists? Ah, the sweet smell of hypocrisy first thing in the morning.

And it is, of course, so much more acceptable that Obama is now bestest buddies with the Clintons, whom he made out to be womanizers and racists? Ah, the sweet smell of hypocrisy first thing in the morning.

Links to proof of those allegations or it's nonexistent.

So I just talked to an old teacher of mine yesterday, and the topic of the election came up. He espoused his views, and come to find out, he supported Hillary, but now supports McCain.

What was a bit surprising was that I don't believe it was out of bitterness necessarily. The reasons he gave me were thus:

-Obama is inexperienced, and as such, is a pretty frightening prospect. We don't really know what we'd get with him.

-The "bitter" comment, for whatever reason, really hit home with him. He's not particularly religious or gun-toting or conservative in any way. In fact, as far as I know, he's a social moderate. He did nevertheless find the comment highly offensive and condescending.

-While McCain may not be exactly what he (my teacher) is looking for, he's not terrible due to his moderate leanings (or at least supposed moderate leanings).

This is a man for whom I have quite a bit of respect, though I've never talked to him about politics before, and he's only about 10 years older than me. So now I wonder: Is there any merit to these views? I realize that these issues have been hashed out for the most part, but does this seem reasonable to anyone? And perhaps most importantly, isn't it nice to hear of someone who's not crazy and bitter? ;)

yes the view have merit but need to be thought out eh?

how much experience has any president have? fdr had one term as governor of new york, truman was vp, eisenhower was a military general, kennedy had 14 years in congress, johnson was vp, nixon was vp, ford was appointed, carter had one term as governor of GA, reagan had 2 terms as governor of CA, bush1 was vp, clinton was governor of AR for 10 years, bush2 had 1 1/2 terms as governor of tx.

thinking about that, it doesnt seem that experience is a good predictor of performance as president.

And it is, of course, so much more acceptable that Obama is now bestest buddies with the Clintons, whom he made out to be womanizers and racists? Ah, the sweet smell of hypocrisy first thing in the morning.

When did he make out the Clintons to be womanizers and racists? Seriously, I think you just make this crap up. Obama simply said he was a better candidate and then proved it by beating her in the primaries. It was Obama that was accused of being a womanizer by the Clinton campaign.

When did he make out the Clintons to be womanizers and racists? Seriously, I think you just make this crap up. Obama simply said he was a better candidate and then proved it by beating her in the primaries. It was Obama that was accused of being a womanizer by the Clinton campaign.

He does think Obama is actually worse than Dubya Part Three, after all.

It's not 'no one' is listening to you, plenty of people have made the same complaint. It's a drag. It's disappointing because we have an opportunity to have a substantive debate. But it's not "no one" is listening to you. Just not the only person who has the capacity to change it.

Right, I know, I know. It has the same result though , and I'm a little less patient lately because of how irritating my allergies are.

Pine pollen: It pisses you off.

When did he make out the Clintons to be womanizers and racists? Seriously, I think you just make this crap up. Obama simply said he was a better candidate and then proved it by beating her in the primaries. It was Obama that was accused of being a womanizer by the Clinton campaign.

Don't forget the racist comments by the Clinton campaign.

Bill says that Obama has to come to him if he wants Bill to support him, and Obama will have to "kiss his ass".

Pine pollen: It pisses you off.

This should be on a poster.

-Obama is inexperienced, and as such, is a pretty frightening prospect. We don't really know what we'd get with him.

The false claims that Obama is inexperienced re HRC are exactly that - false. If this person supported HRC, who has less experience in elected office (and a whol;e heck of a lot more in the corporate lawyer biz), they should have no qualms supporting the more experienced dem.

-The "bitter" comment, for whatever reason, really hit home with him. He's not particularly religious or gun-toting or conservative in any way. In fact, as far as I know, he's a social moderate. He did nevertheless find the comment highly offensive and condescending.

Another one that makes no sense. If he's a social moderate, why is he supporting the authoritarian candidate of the SoCons?

-While McCain may not be exactly what he (my teacher) is looking for, he's not terrible due to his moderate leanings (or at least supposed moderate leanings).

McCain has strayed far away from his moderation in order to woo certain parts of the unravelling GOP base - namely the very "agents of intolerance" he condemned scant years ago. As your teacher why this "moderate" is courting the religious right big time.

This is a man for whom I have quite a bit of respect, though I've never talked to him about politics before, and he's only about 10 years older than me. So now I wonder: Is there any merit to these views? I realize that these issues have been hashed out for the most part, but does this seem reasonable to anyone? And perhaps most importantly, isn't it nice to hear of someone who's not crazy and bitter? ;)

Bring some of those objections to him and see what he says...

It astounds me that, on the one hand, Clinton supporters are supposed to roll over, play nice, and vote for Obama, while on the other hand, comments like this are being made about them by supporters of Obama.

Very much the same has been said, and with much more legitimacy, regarding HRC.

Frankly, I won't vote for that man. He has no substance, no plan, no experience. He's a great speaker, but we need more for this country than someone who can get up on a podium and make a pretty speech. He will be as bad, if not worse, for this country than any other candidate out there.

So you don't bother looking into the candidates positions before you decide to support them or not?

And it is, of course, so much more acceptable that Obama is now bestest buddies with the Clintons, whom he made out to be womanizers and racists? Ah, the sweet smell of hypocrisy first thing in the morning.

HRC's a womanizer? :eek: Now that's a story! Tell us more.

yes the view have merit but need to be thought out eh?

how much experience has any president have? fdr had one term as governor of new york, truman was vp, eisenhower was a military general, kennedy had 14 years in congress, johnson was vp, nixon was vp, ford was appointed, carter had one term as governor of GA, reagan had 2 terms as governor of CA, bush1 was vp, clinton was governor of AR for 10 years, bush2 had 1 1/2 terms as governor of tx.

thinking about that, it doesnt seem that experience is a good predictor of performance as president.

Don't forget Lincoln - Illinois St. House 8 years and US House 2 years - a compatable record...

A serious question re McCain:

Sunday, June 29, 2008
Honestly, besides being tortured, what did McCain do to excel in the military?
John Aravosis (DC) · 6/29/2008 10:23:00 PM ET · Link
186 Comments · reddit · FARK · Digg It! ·

It's not "nice" to ask the question, but it's actually a pretty good question. Yes, we all know that John McCain was captured and tortured in Vietnam (McCain won't let you forget). A lot of people don't know, however, that McCain made a propaganda video for the enemy while he was in captivity. Putting that bit of disloyalty aside, what exactly is McCain's military experience that prepares him for being commander in chief? It's not like McCain rose to the level of general or something. He's a vet. We get it. But simply being a vet, as laudable as it is, doesn't really tell you much about someone's qualifications for being commander in chief. If McCain is going to play the "I was tortured" card every five minutes as a justification for electing him president, then he shouldn't throw a hissy fit any time any one asks to know more about his military experience. Getting shot down, tortured, and then doing propaganda for the enemy is not command experience. Again, it's not nice to say say, but we're not running for class president here. We deserve real answers, not emotional outbursts designed to quell the questions.
http://www.americablog.com/

So, McCaniacs, why does getting shot down, tortured, and forced to make propaganda movies qualkify as CINC experience?

A serious question re McCain:


http://www.americablog.com/

So, McCaniacs, why does getting shot down, tortured, and forced to make propaganda movies qualkify as CINC experience?

If you don't see the connection, then I don't know what else to say. :p

It astounds me that, on the one hand, Clinton supporters are supposed to roll over, play nice, and vote for Obama, while on the other hand, comments like this are being made about them by supporters of Obama.

Frankly, I won't vote for that man. He has no substance, no plan, no experience. He's a great speaker, but we need more for this country than someone who can get up on a podium and make a pretty speech. He will be as bad, if not worse, for this country than any other candidate out there.

That's it.

You know what astounds ME? By all means, let me tell you.

***7th Flush***

It astounds me that Hillary's supporters have, by her own stimulus, played victims because people dared to run against her.

It astounds me that some of her supporters won't vote for a candidate that has just about the same exact ideas as her because they're such sore-loser manchildren.

It astounds me that you can claim Obama's inexperienced with a straight face while supporting a woman whose experience is mostly "The former President thought, in his 20s, that she'd not look like a bulldog when she grew old".

It astounds me that you think you can bitch and moan about mistreatment in the face of HER supporters vandalizing property, HER supporters trying to make a MOCKERY of the electoral process, and HER supporters using racism and, yes, reverse sexism, in the campaign, HER SUPPORTERS, HERS ALONE!

It astounds me that we can't even complain about friggin' VANDALISM without her supporters trying to play the victim card, over and over and over again.

It astounds me that the same people that claimed they wouldn't vote for Obama because of what they THINK "his supporters" did are now trying to claim that same guilt by association is wrong when it's about Hillary's supporters DESTROYING PROPERTY.

It astounds me that you're fully willing to put your country, your military and the world at risk because the evil black candidate with a funny name "stole" the nomination from Hillary by RUNNING AGAINST HER.

THAT'S what astounds me. If you feel like being astounded, at least see if you can pick something more coherent to be astounded by, such as the notion of continuing a war that shouldn't have been started and killing more people because Dubya told McCain to.

<snip>
So...

Hilary and Obama are in two different parties, yeah?

So...

Hilary and Obama are in two different parties, yeah?

Depends if you ask an Obama supporter or a Hillary supporter.

So I just talked to an old teacher of mine yesterday, and the topic of the election came up. He espoused his views, and come to find out, he supported Hillary, but now supports McCain.

What was a bit surprising was that I don't believe it was out of bitterness necessarily. The reasons he gave me were thus:

-Obama is inexperienced, and as such, is a pretty frightening prospect. We don't really know what we'd get with him.

-The "bitter" comment, for whatever reason, really hit home with him. He's not particularly religious or gun-toting or conservative in any way. In fact, as far as I know, he's a social moderate. He did nevertheless find the comment highly offensive and condescending.

-While McCain may not be exactly what he (my teacher) is looking for, he's not terrible due to his moderate leanings (or at least supposed moderate leanings).

This is a man for whom I have quite a bit of respect, though I've never talked to him about politics before, and he's only about 10 years older than me. So now I wonder: Is there any merit to these views? I realize that these issues have been hashed out for the most part, but does this seem reasonable to anyone? And perhaps most importantly, isn't it nice to hear of someone who's not crazy and bitter? ;)

In my mind, they don't make much sense. We've all seen what happens to McCain's "moderate" views when he feels the political need to go neocon, so I don't really trust them to be helpful. And his policies, overall, are very, very different from Clinton's.

I also don't see Obama's supposed "inexperience" as a problem and, in truth, I think one could argue that he has more experience than Clinton. He's been an elected official in a legislative position for longer - and I don't see why we should make a major distinction based on where that position is. Neither of them has any experience as an executive official. And Obama has his years as a community organizer to bring to the table as well.

In the end, though, it boils down to priorities. Other people place high priority on different things. I don't have to understand it.

I think one could argue that he has more experience than Clinton.

But she spent 28 years NOT having sex with Bill Clinton! And before other several years not doing it as well.

I'd do Chelsea, though.

But she spent 28 years NOT having sex with Bill Clinton!


that shows good judgement on her part.

that shows good judgement on her part.

Yeah, but not experience. I mean, she wants to be President and didn't even read the Kama Sutra?

Also, I have LOTS of experience. I mean, I did play lots of RPGs. And my experience is as meaningful as Clinton's.

I wonder if there was never someone holding an "I'd do your daughter" sign against Clinton...

So, McCaniacs, why does getting shot down, tortured, and forced to make propaganda movies qualkify as CINC experience?
I'm not a McCainiac, but come on now: doesn't the job of President mostly consist of getting shot down, tortured, and forced to make propaganda?

I'm not a McCainiac, but come on now: doesn't the job of President mostly consist of getting shot down, tortured, and forced to make propaganda?

Not in the same way. :p

A serious question re McCain:


http://www.americablog.com/

So, McCaniacs, why does getting shot down, tortured, and forced to make propaganda movies qualkify as CINC experience?

yeah i saw wesley clark on msnbc last night defending his weekend remarks about mccain.

i just dont see how asking that question or making the point qualifies as dissing mccains experience. its a legitimate point that does not cast aspersions on his character, patriotism or fitness for the job.

serving in the military, being a pow, surviving torture are all significant details in his life. they have shaped his character and do in fact tell us something about the kind of man he is. but they do not in make him exceptionally qualified for the office of the presidency. they dont make him UNqualified either.

so why is clarke getting a ration of shit for bringing it up?

yeah i saw wesley clark on msnbc last night defending his weekend remarks about mccain.

i just dont see how asking that question or making the point qualifies as dissing mccains experience. its a legitimate point that does not cast aspersions on his character, patriotism or fitness for the job.

serving in the military, being a pow, surviving torture are all significant details in his life. they have shaped his character and do in fact tell us something about the kind of man he is. but they do not in make him exceptionally qualified for the office of the presidency. they dont make him UNqualified either.

so why is clarke getting a ration of shit for bringing it up?

Yeah, I watched him when he was making the comments. I was kind of against Clark at first when he was saying it.

But he tied it up nicely at the end with a bit that never gets included in the sound bites. He pointed out that McCain has repeatedly suggested that it qualifies him for office. He has repeatedly suggested that it makes his opinion on military service, benefits and torture valid and Obama's invalid. In doing so, he practically forces someone to say what McCain said.

In the same way, Obama sets himself up to be analyzed based on the politics of old. Fortunately for Obama, he hasn't positioned himself as above reproach. In fact, he has suggested that he is vulnerable and that what we need is a President who is diligent in an attempt to make the politics of old unnecessary.

so why is clarke getting a ration of shit for bringing it up?

Patriotism is sacrosanct in the US, and the service of soldiers who risk themselves in the defense of freedom must therefore be held above reproach. The McCain camp wants to bundle his military experience in with his supposed foreign policy and executive expertise to protect it against the scrutiny Clarke's comments threaten to open up. If it were anyone but an ex-soldier raising the question, it would likely be outside the scope of conversation altogether.

Thus, Clarke gets a ration of shit because he's attacking what was supposed to be a safe point for McCain. "McCain is the national security candidate because he's a war hero" isn't particularly good logic, but its a difficult argument to tackle nonetheless. It seems, however, that people are actually questioning McCain's C-I-C credentials now, so regardless of what people say about Clarke, the discussion has started.

so why is clarke getting a ration of shit for bringing it up?

Because people are sensitive to anything that might be taken as an attack on military service. There have been real attacks in the past two presidential elections, and a lot of people (rightfully) think that was going too low. But it also makes them very sensitive to the topic - especially during wartime when people are worried about whether or not they come across as supporting the troops.

I think it is a valid question and there are answers that could go either way. One might argue that McCain's horrible experiences give him invaluable insight into the toll that war takes on individual soldiers. One also might argue that such experiences, while they do give us respect for McCain and what he went through, do not necessarily impart any leadership ability.

It bothers me when we shy away from even asking a question like that as if the answer must be self-evident.

Because people are sensitive to anything that might be taken as an attack on military service. There have been real attacks in the past two presidential elections, and a lot of people (rightfully) think that was going too low. But it also makes them very sensitive to the topic - especially during wartime when people are worried about whether or not they come across as supporting the troops.

I think it is a valid question and there are answers that could go either way. One might argue that McCain's horrible experiences give him invaluable insight into the toll that war takes on individual soldiers. One also might argue that such experiences, while they do give us respect for McCain and what he went through, do not necessarily impart any leadership ability.

It bothers me when we shy away from even asking a question like that as if the answer must be self-evident.


it bothered me too. the mccain apologist on msnbc was aghast that the point was even made as if to even bring up the idea that military experience is not an automatic over-the-top qualfiication for the presidency was somehow a huge slam against mccain.

i have come to believe (after the example of this administration and its almost complete lack of military men leading us to disaster) that military experience is very valuable for the president. i hope that obama will balance out his lack of military service by appointing people with experience to the appropriate jobs.

asking the question is not a slam against mccain. its a point that deserves thinking about as to why it is or is not a good thing for a president to have. it is no more a slam-dunk qualification for mccain than it was for john kerry or against george bush.

so why is clarke getting a ration of shit for bringing it up?

People are suckers.

it bothered me too. the mccain apologist on msnbc was aghast that the point was even made as if to even bring up the idea that military experience is not an automatic over-the-top qualfiication for the presidency was somehow a huge slam against mccain.

i have come to believe (after the example of this administration and its almost complete lack of military men leading us to disaster) that military experience is very valuable for the president. i hope that obama will balance out his lack of military service by appointing people with experience to the appropriate jobs.

asking the question is not a slam against mccain. its a point that deserves thinking about as to why it is or is not a good thing for a president to have. it is no more a slam-dunk qualification for mccain than it was for john kerry or against george bush.
The JCS should be providing military advice to the civilian politicians. If the civilians are smart, they will be able to evaluate that advice without regard to past military service of their own. In fact, if they were a junior officer, as was Kerry, Dole, Kennedy, Bush, Bush, and so forth, the military experience was probably no big qualifier. Being a JO doesn't expose one to a lot of strategic thinking past when the next watch is, am I on the flight schedule, and can I take a nap before dinner.

On the other hand, if they were experienced senior officers, and McCain was one, they would have attended policy level schools and would have a completely different frame of reference in which to evaluate recommendations from the JCS. And further, if that former senior officer had served in a legislative and policy position BEFORE and AFTER leaving the service, he would have even a different slant on how to evaluate a JCS recommendation.

I guess the choice in a strong military record is whether we think someone with that record is going to be open to new ideas, or will he fight the last war? Someone without that experience needs to be smart enough to evaluate information without any personal experience with which to ground the decision.

No military or career military? Naive or Jaded? Unbiased or Experienced? There's probably a few more combinations.

The JCS should be providing military advice to the civilian politicians. If the civilians are smart, they will be able to evaluate that advice without regard to past military service of their own. In fact, if they were a junior officer, as was Kerry, Dole, Kennedy, Bush, Bush, and so forth, the military experience was probably no big qualifier. Being a JO doesn't expose one to a lot of strategic thinking past when the next watch is, am I on the flight schedule, and can I take a nap before dinner.

On the other hand, if they were experienced senior officers, and McCain was one, they would have attended policy level schools and would have a completely different frame of reference in which to evaluate recommendations from the JCS. And further, if that former senior officer had served in a legislative and policy position BEFORE and AFTER leaving the service, he would have even a different slant on how to evaluate a JCS recommendation.

I guess the choice in a strong military record is whether we think someone with that record is going to be open to new ideas, or will he fight the last war? Someone without that experience needs to be smart enough to evaluate information without any personal experience with which to ground the decision.

No military or career military? Naive or Jaded? Unbiased or Experienced? There's probably a few more combinations.


i guess im more thinking of the neocons and how they seemed to think that war was a neat idea. even if a president only served as a grunt, the possiblity of battle and of losing his life and the lives of his comrades should put the idea of war as thing only done out of necessity, not to advance some lame brained idea of advancing democracy through invasion.

they are different men but when you contrast the approach of bush1 with bush2 to war in iraq -- even with many of the same men on their teams-- it seems that bush1s war service might have given him a better perspective on how and when war should be waged.

A point nobody seems to have raised yet:

Did you notice how the same cursed, evil, inhuman, hateful Party that attacked Kerry's military record so much, with lies and fallacies, is now giving an actual former military man shit over a point that's NOT a lie, NOR an attack?

http://abcnews.go.com/WN/Vote2008/story?id=5280860&page=1

Ironically, McCain's defenders include George "Bud" Day, one of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, who famously trashed John Kerry's war record in 2004.

While we're on the topic.

San Blanco;13804605']http://abcnews.go.com/WN/Vote2008/story?id=5280860&page=1



While we're on the topic.

I stand corrected on the "nobody seems to have raised".

San Blanco;13804605']http://abcnews.go.com/WN/Vote2008/story?id=5280860&page=1



While we're on the topic.

yeah. i just dont see where gen. clarke is off base on this. he didnt dis mccains service. he declared its applicability limited in its qualifications to be president.

its good in that it shows a good character. its neutral in showing fitness for administration.

Another gem -

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/07/01/mccain-warns-of-an-obama-court/

Mr. McCain quickly moved on. “My opponent may not care for this particular decision,’’ he said, “but it was exactly the kind of opinion we could expect from an Obama Court.’’

But here's the amusing bit...
The Obama campaign shot back at Mr. McCain shortly after his remarks to the sheriffs, saying that Mr. McCain had voted for four of the five judges who supported the ruling, “which is why this attack is particularly disingenuous and nothing more than the same old Bush-style politics that the American people are tired of.’’

Nothing better than McCain getting caught in another wild detachment from reality.

Another gem -

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/07/01/mccain-warns-of-an-obama-court/

Mr. McCain quickly moved on. “My opponent may not care for this particular decision,’’ he said, “but it was exactly the kind of opinion we could expect from an Obama Court.’’

But here's the amusing bit...
The Obama campaign shot back at Mr. McCain shortly after his remarks to the sheriffs, saying that Mr. McCain had voted for four of the five judges who supported the ruling, “which is why this attack is particularly disingenuous and nothing more than the same old Bush-style politics that the American people are tired of.’’

Nothing better than McCain getting caught in another wild detachment from reality.

So, let me get this straight.

McCain attacks Obama out of the blue when what he and Obama said are the same, and on an issue in which they're both wrong due to the fact that there'd be no deterrent for rape AND murder should this come to pass.

All of this after CLAIMING he is for a clean campaign.

There's a reason why even this man's skin tried to kill him three times!

But McCain was against those judges before he was for them so it's ok.

So, let me get this straight.

McCain attacks Obama out of the blue when what he and Obama said are the same, and on an issue in which they're both wrong due to the factthat there'd be no deterrent for rape AND murder should this come to pass.

All of this after CLAIMING he is for a clean campaign.

There's a reason why even this man's skin tried to kill him three times!

No deterrent? Dude some of the stuff people say is just so absurd.

So you seriously think people prefer the rape and torture that happens to child rapists in prison to a rather humane and gentle death of the death penalty? I know if I was going to jail with people believing I was a child rapist, I would do ANYTHING to prevent those consequences, including incur the death penalty.

No deterrent? Dude some of the stuff people say is just so absurd.

So you seriously think people prefer the rape and torture that happens to child rapists in prison to a rather humane and gentle death of the death penalty? I know if I was going to jail with people believing I was a child rapist, I would do ANYTHING to prevent those consequences, including incur the death penalty.

Not sure we disagree here:

Scenario 1: Sans death penalty for child rape, rapist lets child live for fear of death penalty - most of the times.

Scenario 2: With death penalty for child rape, rapist kills child as well for lack of anything else to lose and fear of being found - most of the times.

A point rendered moot by the fact that death penalty may (and does) get innocents executed and doesn't deter crime at all, but baby steps...

<snip>an issue in which they're both wrong due to the factthat there'd be no deterrent for rape AND murder should this come to pass.

No deterrent? Dude some of the stuff people say is just so absurd.

So you seriously think people ...(etc)

<snip>A point rendered moot by the fact that death penalty may (and does) get innocents executed and doesn't deter crime at all, but baby steps...

Topic split required? Or shall we leave the death penalty and get back to the OP?

A point nobody seems to have raised yet:

Did you notice how the same cursed, evil, inhuman, hateful Party that attacked Kerry's military record so much, with lies and fallacies, is now giving an actual former military man shit over a point that's NOT a lie, NOR an attack?

ah, but you forget, IOKIYAR

Man alive do I wish Obama had taken up the townhall debates, at least we'd have something slightly more substantial to yammer about other than dueling conference calls.

Granted, after having to answer 'Why do you hate Jesus' questions last time I can understand his reluctance, I'm just booooooooorrred.

Granted, after having to answer 'Why do you hate Jesus' questions last time I can understand his reluctance, I'm just booooooooorrred.

Tell me that didn't actually happen lest my respect for your country drops.

ah, but you forget, IOKIYAR

Ah.

Topic split required? Or shall we leave the death penalty and get back to the OP?

Ok, ok...

Tell me that didn't actually happen lest my respect for your country drops.

Hyperbole. But the questions from 'average' folk were mind numbing.

Hyperbole. But the questions from 'average' folk were mind numbing.

Was that in a debate with McCain/Repubs or?

Was that in a debate with McCain/Repubs or?

No, it was his last debate with Clinton. He hasn't debated McCain yet.

No, it was his last debate with Clinton. He hasn't debated McCain yet.

And with McCain's definition of "public debate" as "getting my stupid yes-men in and only them"...

And with McCain's definition of "public debate" as "getting my stupid yes-men in and only them"...

Meh, it wasn't a debate by that time, it was just a John McCain townhall meeting. At that point he had complete control over the event. You can't say it would have been the same thing, just with Obama there as well. It's kind of an unfair comparison. It's not like Obama gets a lot of McCain people at his rallies.

Meh, it wasn't a debate by that time, it was just a John McCain townhall meeting. At that point he had complete control over the event. You can't say it would have been the same thing, just with Obama there as well. It's kind of an unfair comparison. It's not like Obama gets a lot of McCain people at his rallies.

I referred to McCain's attempt to get the townhall meeting with Obama done with MANY more Republicans than Democrats...

so why is clarke getting a ration of shit for bringing it up?

People are suckers.

Bingo.

Also...what do people think this has done for Clark in terms of VP chances? He was on a lot of people's short list. I wouldn't mind an Obama/Clark ticket, but I think he may have eliminated himself as an option with these comments.

Bingo.

Also...what do people think this has done for Clark in terms of VP chances? He was on a lot of people's short list. I wouldn't mind an Obama/Clark ticket, but I think he may have eliminated himself as an option with these comments.

I don't think Clark was ever a realistic choice. He wasn't that great a campaigner in 2004 when he should have really run away with it.

Bingo.

Also...what do people think this has done for Clark in terms of VP chances? He was on a lot of people's short list. I wouldn't mind an Obama/Clark ticket, but I think he may have eliminated himself as an option with these comments.

There are two possibilities:

Either Obama takes him as VP and lets him do all the attacking he wants (as a more aggressive, but probably more backlash-inducing campaign)...

...or Clark now has "NOT A VP" written on his forehead now.

I'd say the latter is likelier.

yeah i saw wesley clark on msnbc last night defending his weekend remarks about mccain.

i just dont see how asking that question or making the point qualifies as dissing mccains experience. its a legitimate point that does not cast aspersions on his character, patriotism or fitness for the job.

serving in the military, being a pow, surviving torture are all significant details in his life. they have shaped his character and do in fact tell us something about the kind of man he is. but they do not in make him exceptionally qualified for the office of the presidency. they dont make him UNqualified either.

Indeed.

so why is clarke getting a ration of shit for bringing it up?

Would that be Richard A. Clarke the counter-terrorism czar or Arthur C. Clarke the author? :p

Because people are sensitive to anything that might be taken as an attack on military service. There have been real attacks in the past two presidential elections, and a lot of people (rightfully) think that was going too low. But it also makes them very sensitive to the topic - especially during wartime when people are worried about whether or not they come across as supporting the troops.

I think it is a valid question and there are answers that could go either way. One might argue that McCain's horrible experiences give him invaluable insight into the toll that war takes on individual soldiers. One also might argue that such experiences, while they do give us respect for McCain and what he went through, do not necessarily impart any leadership ability.

It bothers me when we shy away from even asking a question like that as if the answer must be self-evident.

Just a note to point out that these attacks go back alot further than the last two elections: Dan Quayle's NG service was seen as a draft dodge manuver and Clinton's trickery in getting out of his induction was also seen as draft dodging.

it bothered me too. the mccain apologist on msnbc was aghast that the point was even made as if to even bring up the idea that military experience is not an automatic over-the-top qualfiication for the presidency was somehow a huge slam against mccain.

i have come to believe (after the example of this administration and its almost complete lack of military men leading us to disaster) that military experience is very valuable for the president. i hope that obama will balance out his lack of military service by appointing people with experience to the appropriate jobs.

asking the question is not a slam against mccain. its a point that deserves thinking about as to why it is or is not a good thing for a president to have. it is no more a slam-dunk qualification for mccain than it was for john kerry or against george bush.

I agree very much. This is one reason I'd really like to see Hagel (almost spelled that "Hegel" :P) or Webb on the ticket.

The JCS should be providing military advice to the civilian politicians. If the civilians are smart, they will be able to evaluate that advice without regard to past military service of their own. In fact, if they were a junior officer, as was Kerry, Dole, Kennedy, Bush, Bush, and so forth, the military experience was probably no big qualifier. Being a JO doesn't expose one to a lot of strategic thinking past when the next watch is, am I on the flight schedule, and can I take a nap before dinner.

On the other hand, if they were experienced senior officers, and McCain was one, they would have attended policy level schools and would have a completely different frame of reference in which to evaluate recommendations from the JCS. And further, if that former senior officer had served in a legislative and policy position BEFORE and AFTER leaving the service, he would have even a different slant on how to evaluate a JCS recommendation.

I guess the choice in a strong military record is whether we think someone with that record is going to be open to new ideas, or will he fight the last war? Someone without that experience needs to be smart enough to evaluate information without any personal experience with which to ground the decision.

No military or career military? Naive or Jaded? Unbiased or Experienced? There's probably a few more combinations.

Indeed good points. However, I'll point out that two weeks ago, questions were brought up regarding McCain's leaving the service (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-klein/mccains-secret-questionab_b_107409.html).

i guess im more thinking of the neocons and how they seemed to think that war was a neat idea. even if a president only served as a grunt, the possiblity of battle and of losing his life and the lives of his comrades should put the idea of war as thing only done out of necessity, not to advance some lame brained idea of advancing democracy through invasion.

they are different men but when you contrast the approach of bush1 with bush2 to war in iraq -- even with many of the same men on their teams-- it seems that bush1s war service might have given him a better perspective on how and when war should be waged.

I'd say that's a mixed bag. Bush I made LTJG and saw combat, while Bush II made 1stLt (note for non-military savvy types: those are equivalent ranks) but had a very different record. That having been said, I'd say Bush I's perspective was influanced much more by his time in government service.

I don't think Clark was ever a realistic choice. He wasn't that great a campaigner in 2004 when he should have really run away with it.

Yeah, I liked him better than Kerry, but he didn't stand out enough.

whoever else, some street person chosen by lottery, might be the better choice of all of them, but there's no way the corporate mafia is going to let us have anyone they haven't vetted themselves first.

of those they do seem willing to allow us, i think obama has the slight edge.
(in the sense of maybe murdering a few hundred thousand fewer then the other likely suspects, and robbing us of fewer of our real freedoms and so on.) i'm not saying i could prove that one way or the other either. that's just how it looks to me.

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

Obama starting to get backlash from his core constituency and rightfully so.


Obama Voters Protest His Switch on Telecom Immunity

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/02/us/politics/02fisa.html?partner=rssyahoo&emc=rss

That is distressing.

One of the few things I disagree with Obama on. I hope he doesn't continue this trend of changing his stances on key issues like this.

If I understand correctly, this bill protects telecom companies from civil suits, but not from criminal prosecution. I hope that that has occurred to Obama, but so far he hasn't said anything about it.

Is it just me or does it seem like Obama is becoming less available to the press lately?

If I understand correctly, this bill protects telecom companies from civil suits, but not from criminal prosecution. I hope that that has occurred to Obama, but so far he hasn't said anything about it.

Thats an irrelevant distinction, the telecoms have violated civil privacy laws regarding their contracts with their customers. Not criminal laws.

Would have to be Obama.. Wish I could actually vote for him, heh.

Hope all you Americans who voted for him here get out on the day and vote for him in the real thing!

Well, since there's just two guys who can actually win...

I'm gonna say... NOTHING. I just want to get up to my tenth post. Ha!

Is it just me or does it seem like Obama is becoming less available to the press lately?

What exactly do you mean?

What exactly do you mean?

I mean in the beginning, it seemed that whenever there was some controversy over Obama we'd see him address it with a long eloquent speech right away, covering all of the various concerns over the controversy of the day.

Now that I searched the webonets, it seems that it isn't just me that thinks that he isn't available to the press as often anymore:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=92103239
Yet for the media, Obama is not especially accessible.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8685.html
For all the positive press Barack Obama receives, as he moves closer to clinching the Democratic nomination he is establishing himself as the candidate who keeps the most distance from the national media.

Granted, he has a lot to do and has his staff to talk to the press, but McCain of all people is making him look bad on this issue of addressing the media by being available whenever he is asked pretty much.

As a fan of Obama and his talk on transparency in the govt., I would hope that he also gives us transparency on his own dealings.

Because I am such a fan of Obamas, I feel that he needs to be held to a very high standard. I don't want him getting comfortable and a huge ego, thinking that he doesn't need to explain himself. He started off as a very humble man saying his candidacy was improbable, admitting that he's made mistakes, done drugs, and accepted PAC money. He needs to continue along that path IMO.

I'd point out that second link is from February.

I'd point out that second link is from February.

True

I am just saying that it is my perception and to me it recently seemed to start but according to some of the press it started a while ago.

Do you think he's been as accessible to the press as he should be? I don't think the press is completely unbiased but they do serve an important function and while they can be dangerous, the perception that he is secretive could be more harmful.

True

I am just saying that it is my perception and to me it recently seemed to start but according to some of the press it started a while ago.

Do you think he's been as accessible to the press as he should be? I don't think the press is completely unbiased but they do serve an important function and while they can be dangerous, the perception that he is secretive could be more harmful.

I think he's been more open than most candidates. Could he do more, probably. I think he's being more conservative in his campaign style now though.

I think he's been more open than most candidates. Could he do more, probably. I think he's being more conservative in his campaign style now though.

It's probably his handlers and campaign staff more than him.

He might want to be more open, but they're going to run with their gut, and say, "look, you're ahead, we don't want any potential gaffes that ruin it".

Promises, Promises...
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0708/11517.html

First, a sharply delineated withdrawal process on his website, and now...


Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) promised primary voters a swift withdrawal from Iraq, in clear language still on his website: “Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months.”

Not anymore. Heading into the holiday weekend, Obama and his advisers repudiated that pledge, saying he is reevaluating his plan and will incorporate advice from commanders on the ground when he visits Iraq later this month.

A top Obama adviser said he is not “wedded” to a specific timeline, and Obama said Thursday he plans to “refine” his plan.

“I am going to do a thorough assessment when I'm there," he told reporters in Fargo, N.D., according to CBS News. "When I go to Iraq and I have a chance to talk to some of the commanders on the ground, I'm sure I'll have more information and will continue to refine my policies."

But he went on to maintain: “I have been consistent, throughout this process, that I believe the war in Iraq was a mistake.”

David Axelrod, Obama’s chief strategist, went even further during remarks Wednesday on CNN’s “Situation Room,” telling guest host John Roberts that Obama has actually advocated “a phased withdrawal, with benchmarks for the Iraqi government to meet, that called for strategic pauses, based on the progress on these benchmarks, and advice on the commanders on the ground.”

“He's always said that he would listen to the advice of commanders on the ground that that would factor into his thinking,” Axelrod said. “He's also always said that we had to be as careful getting out of Iraq as we were careless getting in. So he's been very consistent on this point. ...

“I think he will take the advice, not just the advice of the commanders on the ground but his general assessment of conditions on the ground, in calibrating that withdrawal. He said he thought we could get one to two brigades out a month. But he's not wedded to that in the face of events. No president would be. And he's always said that he's never said that this withdrawal would be without any possibility of alteration based on events on the ground. That would not be a prudent thing to do for any president.”

Promises, Promises...
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0708/11517.html

First, a sharply delineated withdrawal process on his website, and now...

Beats the fuck of John "Yay, let's stay there forever" McCain, especially considering the fact that the war was wrong.

Beats the fuck of John "Yay, let's stay there forever" McCain, especially considering the fact that the war was wrong.

If the commanders say we need to stay, it sounds like he'll go along with it...

http://youtube.com/v/LvUNFmB7Jl8

If the commanders say we need to stay, it sounds like he'll go along with it...

McCain wants to stay there for way longer.

If the commanders say we need to stay, it sounds like he'll go along with it...

What would be wrong with that?

You seem to think we're all gaming for getting out of there and damn the consequences. We're not, or at least I'm not. I want this settled not only with us out, but with Iraq as stable as possible, and that won't happen without some sort of plan. If we have to stay slightly longer to establish that and THEN get out, so be it. It needs to be done correctly, not stupidly, or else it will be no better than what Bush did to begin with.

Honestly I'm just tired of being lied to about everything. The republican party has done so much crap to this country we need someone new from the democrats in office.

What would be wrong with that?

You seem to think we're all gaming for getting out of there and damn the consequences. We're not, or at least I'm not. I want this settled not only with us out, but with Iraq as stable as possible, and that won't happen without some sort of plan. If we have to stay slightly longer to establish that and THEN get out, so be it. It needs to be done correctly, not stupidly, or else it will be no better than what Bush did to begin with.

Amen. I don't want to just abandon the country to chaos (or at least not more than we've already caused), I am against McCain's idea of indefinite occupation. It wouldn't be like Korea or post-war Germany and Japan, it would be more like Vietnam. And we need to rebuild Iraq on some way other than giving oil companies unrestricted access to Iraq'a oil fields. People are liable to start thinking we went in to secure a cheap oil supply, rather than to destroy Saddam Hussein's WMDs... I mean break his connection to al-Qaeda... I mean free the Iraqi people from tyranny.

http://youtube.com/v/LvUNFmB7Jl8

Oh, hey...a Chris Crocker joke...how...timely...got any dramatic groundhog references stored up? Maybe Star Wars Kid? Did your grandson just show you how to work the internets?

Aaaanyway, pretending for a moment that you wouldn't be eviscerating him for not listening to the commanders...

This is actually why I support him-part of the problem of Bush was he just kept cycling people until he found someone who'd agree with him. Prosecuting the Iraq war is a policy decision, he hasn't changed on that, he thinks it's a bad idea. But the fact that he's going to check his plan with the people whose job it is to manage this shit, that isn't a turn off. That's the kind of thinking I want.

Sorry, Bob. I haven't agreed with everything Obama's done lately, but if you wanted me to get all sad eyed about this one, well, tough luck.

Promises, Promises...
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0708/11517.html

First, a sharply delineated withdrawal process on his website, and now...
This goes back to the typical politician thread (http://forums3.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13789201&postcount=6)that was started. He is certainly flip flopping more and more.

That is the "transformative" nature of the beast.....

This goes back to the typical politician thread (http://forums3.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13789201&postcount=6)that was started. He is certainly flip flopping more and more.

That is the "transformative" nature of the beast.....

Again, you're pissed off enough that Obama dared to run and win against that slut you supported that you now essentially support McCain and call Obama "the beast".

Pitiful.

Again, you're pissed off enough that Obama dared to run and win against that slut you supported that you now essentially support McCain and call Obama "the beast".

Pitiful.
What is "pitiful" is calling Hillary a "slut". 18,000,000 Americans voted for her.

I now "essentially support McCain"....you are off your rocker pal.

"nature of the beast" is an idiom.....look it up.

They way you twist, turn, and misconstrue people's words is criminal.

Oh....and you didn't even address my point....nice!!

Get a room, you two.

What is "pitiful" is calling Hillary a "slut". 18,000,000 Americans voted for her.

I now "essentially support McCain"....you are off your rocker pal.

"nature of the beast" is an idiom.....look it up.

They way you twist, turn, and misconstrue people's words is criminal.

Oh....and you didn't even address my point....nice!!

I'll call her names because she is the one that drove her supporters into frenzies over imagined slights - which, incidentally, got me deleted. And that you go "vote Nader '08" means that, as is, yes, you support McCain. Even Hillary decided to make her hellish semiexistence useful for once and is now supporting Obama. Who, incidentally, STILL wants to get the troops out faster than Hillary did or McCain does. So, you're going "oh, he changed his mind" in the hopes of what again?

I now "essentially support McCain"....you are off your rocker pal.

Yet knowing how Third Parties have Shit Chance in the United States short of a significant bionic reconstruction of the electoral system, you pull a Corny on the Clintons and think you know what's good for them better than they do by encouraging support for a Third Party has-been who has been noted for trying to gain support from the same nutcake fundies that McCain is.

Even if you don't call yourself a Bushevik you well as might be singing praises of Beloved Dear Leader and hold hands with Kimchi in a sing-along at this point.

I'll call her names because she is the one that drove her supporters into frenzies over imagined slights - which, incidentally, got me deleted. <snip>

It was not Hillary Clinton or her supporters who got you deleted, it was you. Take responsibility for your own behaviour.

CH's reference to "the nature of the beast" is, as he says, an idiom, not an insult.

Canuck Heaven, you recognised that Heikoku's comment was based on a misunderstanding. That makes your remark "you must be off your rocker" a silly and inflammatory response.

Both of you, pull your heads in.

EDIT: And Gauthier, lose the personal references and stick to the arguments.

It was not Hillary Clinton or her supporters who got you deleted, it was you. Take responsibility for your own behaviour.

Okay, what if I say "her victim-mongering irritated me and set off a chain of events that did result in me getting deleted, and now I hate that unperson with a passion"?

Regardless, I did get deleted over getting angry at a supporter of her playing victim here, a behavior she incited. I take responsibility for getting riled up, but part of the whole event is on her tab. I'm now glad that she won't be able to ever make it into President again because of having lost. I'm glad her dreams are now shattered. You can call it misplaced, if you will; fine, as it may well be and as I'm pretty sure "failure to take responsibility for one's own actions" isn't a moddable offense, just a case of "look at what she made me do", which, again, you have every right to call silly or even dysfunctional.

Her behavior, though, cause or not of my deletion, was reprehensible, and I now despise her for that. The "personal" part may be an idiotic reaction, but whatever. She also did increase the risk of another old, decaying ape getting into power in the US, something I will forgive her for when Obama's in office. Good thing for me that she's not a poster here.

But, to be fair, because of her I also know a new English language idiom. So, she's useful. See how it works?

And yes, I know, you can compare me to the Janitor from Scrubs if you want (if with limitations, as I'm short), but I really don't think this post I made is moddable, so, we're cool, I guess. In short: As long as you don't feel free to ban me for this post, feel free to call me an ass.

[/rant]

Yet knowing how Third Parties have Shit Chance in the United States short of a significant bionic reconstruction of the electoral system, you pull a Corny on the Clintons and think you know what's good for them better than they do by encouraging support for a Third Party has-been who has been noted for trying to gain support from the same nutcake fundies that McCain is.
So in essence you only support a two party democracy?

Here in Canada, 3rd parties have been started and have grown to the point that they actually won minority and majority governments at the Provincial level. At the Federal level, some 3rd parties have held the balance of power in minority governments.

Even if you don't call yourself a Bushevik you well as might be singing praises of Beloved Dear Leader and hold hands with Kimchi in a sing-along at this point.
You have known me for quite some time and my politics.....your suggestion infers that you have forgotten that I have great disdain for the Republican party, and their hacks.

You have known me for quite some time and my politics.....your suggestion infers that you have forgotten that I have great disdain for the Republican party, and their hacks.

Which is why you support the candidate that siphons Democratic votes and that has views that are more different from Clinton's than the ones Obama, which she now supports, has? You just hate Obama that much for beating your candidate?

This goes back to the typical politician thread (http://forums3.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13789201&postcount=6)that was started. He is certainly flip flopping more and more.

That is the "transformative" nature of the beast.....

Dear God... a politician who listens to experts on life and death issues. Next thing you know he'll change his opinion on things as he gets more information like he's rational or something.

What we need is a politician who treats his stances like articles of faith and either ignores or molds information so that stance never changes. Four more years! Four more years!

I hope that Obama, I like what he stands for

Which is why you support the candidate that siphons Democratic votes
Nader doesn't siphon Democratic votes. Any votes that he receives are for him and his platform. Since you are Brazilian, I figure that you should be able to understand that?

and that has views that are more different from Clinton's than the ones Obama, which she now supports, has?
Clinton is in a situation where she is obligated to support Obama. Truth be known, I wish she would run as an Independent candidate.


You just hate Obama that much for beating your candidate?
I don't hate anyone. I just think that Obama is as phoney as a $3 dollar bill.

Nader doesn't siphon Democratic votes. Any votes that he receives are for him and his platform. Since you are Brazilian, I figure that you should be able to understand that?


Soo...without copy and pasting, or running off to his website-just off the top of your head-what is his platform?

Nader doesn't siphon Democratic votes. Any votes that he receives are for him and his platform. Since you are Brazilian, I figure that you should be able to understand that?


Clinton is in a situation where she is obligated to support Obama. Truth be known, I wish she would run as an Independent candidate.



I don't hate anyone. I just think that Obama is as phoney as a $3 dollar bill.

1- Brazil has runoffs, the US does not.

2- So you wish she'd split Democratic votes and hand the election to McCain. And if she doesn't LIKE having to support Obama, all the better, as I wish for her nothing but suffering.

3- Yet you not only made no such case, but spoke nothing bad about McCain.

Soo...without copy and pasting, or running off to his website-just off the top of your head-what is his platform?
I have posted his issues before and for the most part, I endorse them, especially universal healthcare and cutting defence funding.

Issues that Matter for 2008 (http://www.votenader.org/issues/)

The only real substantive issue I have with his policies is that he doesn't support nuclear power.

I have posted his issues before and for the most part, I endorse them, especially universal healthcare and cutting defence funding.

Issues that Matter for 2008 (http://www.votenader.org/issues/)

The only real substantive issue I have with his policies is that he doesn't support nuclear power.

Yet your "support" for Nader only suddenly emerges after it became clear Obama was the winner over your Hillary. How sincere of you.

:rolleyes:

1- Brazil has runoffs, the US does not.
Because there is far more than two parties? How many parties are on the final ballot?

2- So you wish she'd split Democratic votes and hand the election to McCain.
I have already explained this to you....you prefer to keep to your belief on the matter....so be it, as wrong as it may be.

And if she doesn't LIKE having to support Obama, all the better, as I wish for her nothing but suffering.
These types of comments are not conducive to cultivating support for Obama amongst Clinton supporters.

3- Yet you not only made no such case,
Not true.

but spoke nothing bad about McCain.
Because I don't say anything bad about someone, that infers that I support that person? You are applying strange logic indeed.

Because there is far more than two parties? How many parties are on the final ballot?


I have already explained this to you....you prefer to keep to your belief on the matter....so be it, as wrong as it may be.


These types of comments are not conducive to cultivating support for Obama amongst Clinton supporters.


Not true.


Because I don't say anything bad about someone, that infers that I support that person? You are applying strange logic indeed.

1- Many in the first part of the election, two candidates in the runoffs.

2- Given that Nader not only is far from Hillary ideologically, but also would spoil Obama, and not become President, my point remains.

3- You seem to assume that I care. Her supporters either wouldn't vote for Obama anyways (your case) or will follow her lead to.

4- No, you made no case. And given that you're hammering on Obama because he dared to win against that unholy harpy you called your candidate and are ignoring McCain, what would you expect me to think?

Yet your "support" for Nader only suddenly emerges after it became clear Obama was the winner over your Hillary. How sincere of you.

:rolleyes:

Especially given that he supports that hag for '12.

Yet your "support" for Nader only suddenly emerges after it became clear Obama was the winner over your Hillary. How sincere of you.

:rolleyes:
Of course I would prefer Hillary over Obama, but since it appears that Obama is not astute enough to put her on his ticket, and since he has made some boneheaded moves since then, it becomes easier to support a candidate such as Nader.

Another real turnoff is due to Obama's supporters and their callous disregard for Hillary and her supporters.

Of course I would prefer Hillary over Obama, but since it appears that Obama is not astute enough to put her on his ticket, and since he has made some boneheaded moves since then, it becomes easier to support a candidate such as Nader.

Another real turnoff is due to Obama's supporters and their callous disregard for Hillary and her supporters.

In other words, you're admitting to a petty grudge that's enough to make you throw indirect support to McCain and the Busheviks. Niiiiice.

:rolleyes:

Another real turnoff is due to Obama's supporters and their callous disregard for Hillary and her supporters.

Which surely has nothing to do with the fact that Hillary's supporters were shrill in their misplaced notion of entitlement.

But you're now going to use me as a case in point, because I don't care what you think.

In other words, you're admitting to a petty grudge that's enough to make you throw indirect support to McCain and the Busheviks. Niiiiice.

:rolleyes:
A weak 4 year stint by McCain will certainly be more beneficial to Democrats in the long run, compared to a disastorous 4 year stint by Obama.

Besides, even Obama disagrees with you (http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/06/24/9856/):

Mr. Obama in February took a swipe at Mr. Nader before he wrapped up the Democratic nomination, saying that anyone has the “right to run for president” and that the party’s job is to “be so compelling that a few percentage of the vote going to another candidate is not going to make any difference.”

A weak 4 year stint by McCain will certainly be more beneficial to Democrats in the long run, compared to a disastorous 4 year stint by Obama.

Which you just KNOW it will be disastorous (sic) because Obama dared to run against Hillary while not being white nor having a vagina, right? Not to mention that you just implied that McCain, which runs opposite to Hillary, would be better (weak) than Obama (disastorous (sic)).

Which you just KNOW it will be disastorous (sic) because Obama dared to run against Hillary while not being white nor having a vagina, right? Not to mention that you just implied that McCain, which runs opposite to Hillary, would be better (weak) than Obama (disastorous (sic)).

Now youre just being dismissve of Hillary supporters again. Bastard.

Now youre just being dismissve of Hillary supporters again. Bastard.

Wait, did I kill Kenny again?

Wait, did I kill Kenny again?

lol.


Everytime an Obama supporter is dismissive or snide towards the shrill whining of a disillusioned, spiteful Hillary supporter, God kills Kenny.

lol.


Everytime an Obama supporter is dismissive or snide towards the shrill whining of a disillusioned, spiteful Hillary supporter, God kills Kenny.

Think of Kenny?

What would be wrong with that?

You seem to think we're all gaming for getting out of there and damn the consequences. We're not, or at least I'm not. I want this settled not only with us out, but with Iraq as stable as possible, and that won't happen without some sort of plan. If we have to stay slightly longer to establish that and THEN get out, so be it. It needs to be done correctly, not stupidly, or else it will be no better than what Bush did to begin with.

That's not what Obama promised on his web site. He promised 2 brigades a month, to be done in 16 months.

I think he said that for the benefit of people who are gaming for getting out of there, and damn the consequences.

Honestly I'm just tired of being lied to about everything. The republican party has done so much crap to this country we need someone new from the democrats in office.

Like some fresh lies, for instance.

Dear God... a politician who listens to experts on life and death issues. Next thing you know he'll change his opinion on things as he gets more information like he's rational or something.

What we need is a politician who treats his stances like articles of faith and either ignores or molds information so that stance never changes. Four more years! Four more years!

He wasn't going to listen until McCain called him on the carpet about it.

Obama's website promised everyone out in 16 months, fuck the consequences.

Then McCain pointed out that Obama had never spoken to any commanders, and hadn't visited Iraq in years.

Obviously Obama isn't changing his mind because he's wiser - he's doing it because he got the idea from a Republican.

If the commanders say we need to stay, it sounds like he'll go along with it...

Why is that played as a bad thing? Adabtability and willingness to adjust policy based on new facts, new information, and new input, is a good trait for a politician. The stubbornness of Bush has been a serious problem.

Obama's website promised everyone out in 16 months, fuck the consequences.

*To the sound of "neeners neeners neeners"*

Source or it didn't haaa-ppen!
Source or it didn't haaa-ppen!
Source or it didn't haaa-ppen!

Why is that played as a bad thing? Adabtability and willingness to adjust policy based on new facts, new information, and new input, is a good trait for a politician. The stubbornness of Bush has been a serious problem.

Indeed, I never understood why changing ones mind in the face of new evidence is a career killer in American politics. Why do so many people desire a politician who stays with his ideas in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary?


They call it "sticking to your principles". I call it "stupidity".

Obviously Obama isn't changing his mind because he's wiser - he's doing it because he got the idea from a Republican.

So? He acts on a good idea when he sees it, regardless on which side on the aisle it originated. Not a bad thing that.

A weak 4 year stint by McCain will certainly be more beneficial to Democrats in the long run, compared to a disastorous 4 year stint by Obama.

Besides, even Obama disagrees with you (http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/06/24/9856/):

So you're saying Four More Years of Bushevism will do the Democrats good. There's foresight right there, assuming the United States is even a second world nation, much less a first world nation after President McCain Stays the Course with the Iraq Occupation, Permanent Tax Cuts for the Filthy Rich 10 Percent, Alaskan Wildlife Refuge Oil Drilling, and other brilliant moves started or proposed by Your Beloved Dear Leader Dubya right by 2012.

"I'll save you from a fate worse than death by killing you!"

Indeed, I never understood why changing ones mind in the face of new evidence is a career killer in American politics. Why do so many people desire a politician who stays with his ideas in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary?


They call it "sticking to your principles". I call it "stupidity".

I agree.

I remember seeing an interview with a Florida farmer once. He voted Bush twice because of his great leadership abilities. When asked what those were, he answered something akin to:

"He doesn't change his mind and follows through on his policies no matter what happens and what anybody says."

Stubbornness does not equal good leadership! When the path you're on leads you off the cliff - change directions!