PDA

View Full Version : For all things relative to politics.



Pages : [1] 2 3

Ethan
7th November 2008, 11:03 PM
You can all thank Kyogre 35 for this topic. He sent me a PM about it, and I thought it was a good idea. We all know there are hotly contended issues in the world of politics, this thread is to discuss current events going on that pertain to it. Issues like abortion and gay marriage will not be discussed, but issues such as Joe Lieberman possibly being stripped of power, the on going senate race between Norm Coleman and Al Franken, Ted Stevens being found guilty and charged with several felonies, the current economic situation, etc. things a long that line. I realize this may be a bit too broad, but it's worth a shot. This topic is basically a current events debate thread, just with a political spin.

Kyogre35
7th November 2008, 11:32 PM
Oh yeah thanks Babylon. So um the first thing I would like to present is that Obama coming to be president-elect of this great nation. Most likely taxes for EVERYONE will go up and Foreign countries will test him (Like our VP said) so I suspect a bumpy ride for 4 years and everyone might no like it. National Health Care being 1 trillion dollars, more Gov. Checks and Handouts by the Gov. will come. And many other radical things will emerge. Partisan will still be around even though Obama said there won't be. Of Course new judges with a liberal agenda will be elected when with no doubt some will die or retire. Hopefully we can come through.

Don't get me wrong I HOPE that these next 4 years are successful for Obama and our nation....but I think otherwise.

BigLutz
7th November 2008, 11:46 PM
Babylon mentioned the Coleman/Franken race, apparently there is some discussion of voter fraud in the race in that as the recount keeps going large swaths of votes are coming in for Franken, at one point 100 voters were found all for Franken! Seems like something fishy is going on:

Hot off the press, the first apparent evidence of fraud. Last night at around 7:30, a precinct in Mountain Iron, St. Louis County, mysteriously updated its vote total to add 100 new votes–all 100 for Barack Obama and Al Franken.

Mountain Iron uses optical scanning, so the Coleman campaign asked for a copy of the tape documenting the ballots cast on election night. St. Louis County responded by providing a tape that includes the newly-added 100 votes, and is dated November 2–the Sunday before the election. St. Louis County reportedly denies being able to produce the genuine tape from election night, even though Minnesota law, as I understand it, requires that tape to be signed by the election judges and publicly displayed.

Kate
7th November 2008, 11:52 PM
Can someone explain Minnesota law further?

Ethan
7th November 2008, 11:57 PM
I live in Minnesota, I'll be the first to tell you I will hang myself if Al Franken wins the senate. He's made jokes about child pornography and rape, he failed to prodide workers comp insurance for his own employees, and avoided taxes in several states. His political campaign ads have virtually all been negative, in one ad he even blamed Coleman for not making negative ads against him and saying he was taking some sort of false moral high ground. I don't care that he's liberal, he's just a douchebag. Coleman is an idiot too. Coleman critisized Al Franken for asking for a recount, when Minnesota state law demands a recount if the vote is that close. God both of them are idiots, but I'd choose Coleman over Franken. My God.

Kyogre35
7th November 2008, 11:59 PM
Can someone explain Minnesota law further?

If the vote is within a certain margin a recount will be held...it's so close they've done multiple recount's and Al Franken is gianing....when he shouldn't be. It's really getting to were fraud is definatly in play. Let's hope Norm still wins.

Carlisle
8th November 2008, 12:14 AM
Well, this election was a landslide for the Democrats. 364 electoral votes vs. 174, and the Democrats winning the popular vote by seven points. I thought McCain would get less, though - I was expecting him to lose Missouri, North Dakota, Montana, and Georgia. Nine red states went blue, while zero red states went blue. All the main swing states except for Missouri went to Obama. The Democrats are in a big majority in the Senate. 57 expected seats so far, with Georgia, Minnesota, and Alaska still being undecided. Georgia will probably go to the Republicans, no clue on Minnesota, and Alaska SHOULD go Democratic. No way should a convicted felon be allowed Senator. But lets see how those three seats ago. In the house Democrats have 254 seats, with Republicans having 173. Eight still undecided. Either way, this January we will have a Democrat controlled White House and Congress. All the other main parts of power in our government like the Supreme Court and the Cabinet and the like will be replaced with Democrats and left leaning people. I'm expecting the Clintons to fit in some of this. McCain did a great job, and he took the loss like a true American. I'm glad he'll have a say in the Senate, he really deserves it. It's a shame, he could have won if it wasn't for Palin. I'm just glad this woman is out of this.

BigLutz
8th November 2008, 12:22 AM
I'm expecting the Clintons to fit in some of this.

Maybe a Supreme Court position, because Hillary doesn't have a chance at the Presidency for at least 8 years and by then its pretty much too late.


McCain did a great job, and he took the loss like a true American. I'm glad he'll have a say in the Senate, he really deserves it. It's a shame, he could have won if it wasn't for Palin. I'm just glad this woman is out of this.

Oh C'mon Carlisle you are smarter than that, McCain lost it because of a poorly organized Campaign and the Economic Disaster. One thing he had control over the other he didn't. You had 6 out of 10 people say the economy decided their vote. It was the Economic Melt Down that killed McCain, not Palin. Infact with out Palin he probably would have lost a few of those states you listed.

Carlisle
8th November 2008, 12:25 AM
Maybe a Supreme Court position, because Hillary doesn't have a chance at the Presidency for at least 8 years and by then its pretty much too late.
The first part I definitely agree with. The latter, not so much. Hillary can run in 2012 if Obama f*cks it up. She CAN run eight years later in 2016. McCain ran eight years later and almost made it. She knows where she messed up, and I don't think a Clinton would make the same mistake in a campaign a second time around.




Oh C'mon Carlisle you are smarter than that, McCain lost it because of a poorly organized Campaign and the Economic Disaster. One thing he had control over the other he didn't. You had 6 out of 10 people say the economy decided their vote. It was the Economic Melt Down that killed McCain, not Palin.
Well, yes. I wasn't saying Palin wasn't the only reason. She contributes to the poorly organized campaign. I do agree heavily on the economy part. I just don't think McCain was able to make that connection with the voters. If he had chosen a person who had economic experience it would have increased his chances of winning. I don't think Palin was the sole reason for his loss, but she was a big part of it.

BigLutz
8th November 2008, 12:31 AM
The first part I definitely agree with. The latter, not so much. Hillary can run in 2012 if Obama f*cks it up.

Obama would be the Incumbant, the Democratic Party wouldnt want a long drawn out bloody battle again when Obama will already be forced to defend his record to the Republicans.


She CAN run eight years later in 2016. McCain ran eight years later and almost made it. She knows where she messed up, and I don't think a Clinton would make the same mistake in a campaign a second time around.

She would also be nearly 70 and a Woman. Two things that are negatives in Politics. McCain's age was a detractor, combine that together with the fact that she is a Woman and would look her age, she wouldn't have a chance.



Well, yes. I wasn't saying Palin wasn't the only reason. She contributes to the poorly organized campaign.

Not really, their ground game was horrible, and the people handling both Palin and McCain were screwing up badly and overwhelming them with what they should and shouldn't do. Not to mention the fact that they were running out of money near the end and could not come close to matching Obama's money because of his cowardice.


I do agree heavily on the economy part. I just don't think McCain was able to make that connection with the voters. If he had chosen a person who had economic experience it would have increased his chances of winning. I don't think Palin was the sole reason for his loss, but she was a big part of it.

Looking back a Economic VP would have been good but it wouldn't have saved him. You also have to remember that at the time of the choice the Economy wasn't the huge big issue it became. You also have to remember at that time that Romney was the Economic VP choice, but Obama was hammering McCain on houses. Now while Romney earned his houses through hard work and pretty much the American Way, the Obama team was already gearing up attacks on Romney the days leading up to the VP Announcement. Choosing him would have made McCain play defense for the first two weeks, while Choosing Palin made the Obama Campaign struggle for a answer.

Carlisle
8th November 2008, 12:38 AM
She would also be nearly 70 and a Woman. Two things that are negatives in Politics. McCain's age was a detractor, combine that together with the fact that she is a Woman and would look her age, she wouldn't have a chance.
She'd only be 67 or 68, ending her first term at age 71 or 72. Whereas McCain would have started his at 72. Ronald Reagan was old, but we still elected him. And the fact that 18,000,000 voted for her in a primary season I think we're ready for a white woman. If an African-American can, so can she.


Looking back a Economic VP would have been good but it wouldn't have saved him. You also have to remember that at the time of the choice the Economy wasn't the huge big issue it became. You also have to remember at that time that Romney was the Economic VP choice, but Obama was hammering McCain on houses. Now while Romney earned his houses through hard work and pretty much the American Way, the Obama team was already gearing up attacks on Romney the days leading up to the VP Announcement. Choosing him would have made McCain play defense for the first two weeks, while Choosing Palin made the Obama Campaign struggle for a answer.
If you ask me, he should have just forgotten about the Conservative base and made the the entire political arena go "wtf?" and have chosen Joe Liberman or someone else.

BigLutz
8th November 2008, 12:43 AM
She'd only be 67 or 68, ending her first term at age 71 or 72. Whereas McCain would have started his at 72. Ronald Reagan was old, but we still elected him. And the fact that 18,000,000 voted for her in a primary season I think we're ready for a white woman. If an African-American can, so can she.

Yeah but the difference is both of them are Men, Hillary Clinton's fight has always been a uphill one, the older she gets the steeper the hill. Yes she got 18 million votes but she also had the help of heavy make up and the best stylists money can buy. The older you get the harder it is to cover your age up.

And really after Obama's victory I would think the Democrats would swing more youthful for the next few elections to try and keep that "Young Energy" up. Going from a Black Man in the mid 40s to a White Woman coming close to 70 would be a pretty big leap, especially if the Republicans decide to play Palin and Jindal in the next 8 years to try and tackle the Youth Vote.



If you ask me, he should have just forgotten about the Conservative base and made the the entire political arena go "wtf?" and have chosen Joe Liberman or someone else.

That would have been really interesting but he would have lost alot of the Republican base because of Lieberman voting with the Democrats so many times.

Requiem's Eclipse
8th November 2008, 2:26 AM
Since we are still on the topic of the election this year and the next one, I would like too add my few sense into this. For this election I think McCain only lost because of the comparison the Obama camp made as the 'next Bush' I mean, all I hear is that "We don't need another republican, it'll be another Bush". But as far as I know, McCain is not a real right-wing conservative the media and the public make him out to be. He seemed to be more bipartisan then Obama is.

Also, I find this election to be utterly weighed by Obama being the first major bi-racial canidate. I mean, I know many people that don't know anything about his policies and supported him simply because he was black and they wanted to hlep make history. Now I'm all for making history but, when you are blindly voting for someone without any knowledge of the canidate. It was absolutely ridiculous the week prior to the elections.

Okay so from that, you'd think that I'm a Obama basher, I'm not. I actually supported him but, solely based on his policies and I don't give a flying f*ck if he is black. His philosophies and hopes during his presidency were the same as mine. But, i think that the caimpaigning was rather dirty in this election. But, now i'm going off topic of what I was originally going to talke about with this next passage is the problems within the McCain camp.

For one, McCain was destined for a long uphill battle because well Bush. Since the media painted the Republicans so bad, it would be horrifically hard for a Republican to take office once more. And then Obama came out of the blue as the young charismatic dem from Chicago. And on top of that he was black. After that he decided to take Palin who many painted as a stupid MILF from Alaska who was a communist since alaska is next to Russia. Then the economic meltdown, this sealed the deal that he wouldn't fair well in this election. well....im done with this rant and I'm off.

GrizzlyB
8th November 2008, 2:39 AM
Since we are still on the topic of the election this year and the next one, I would like too add my few sense into this. For this election I think McCain only lost because of the comparison the Obama camp made as the 'next Bush' I mean, all I hear is that "We don't need another republican, it'll be another Bush". But as far as I know, McCain is not a real right-wing conservative the media and the public make him out to be. He seemed to be more bipartisan then Obama is.

Also, I find this election to be utterly weighed by Obama being the first major bi-racial canidate. I mean, I know many people that don't know anything about his policies and supported him simply because he was black and they wanted to hlep make history. Now I'm all for making history but, when you are blindly voting for someone without any knowledge of the canidate. It was absolutely ridiculous the week prior to the elections.

Okay so from that, you'd think that I'm a Obama basher, I'm not. I actually supported him but, solely based on his policies and I don't give a flying f*ck if he is black. His philosophies and hopes during his presidency were the same as mine. But, i think that the caimpaigning was rather dirty in this election. But, now i'm going off topic of what I was originally going to talke about with this next passage is the problems within the McCain camp.

For one, McCain was destined for a long uphill battle because well Bush. Since the media painted the Republicans so bad, it would be horrifically hard for a Republican to take office once more. And then Obama came out of the blue as the young charismatic dem from Chicago. And on top of that he was black. After that he decided to take Palin who many painted as a stupid MILF from Alaska who was a communist since alaska is next to Russia. Then the economic meltdown, this sealed the deal that he wouldn't fair well in this election. well....im done with this rant and I'm off.

Yeah, you're right on pretty much every count.

Also, you hit on what I think is one of the hugely ironic things about this election. Obama is supposedly now all about uniting America beyond party lines, yet he really only won this election through the partisanship which demonized the Republicans.

And the fact that he's black was most likely an extremely huge factor in his message of change working so well, which probably won him the election. As well as the facts that he can now talk about uniting America past the parties (or "barriers") even though he hasn't shown much of anything bipartisan, and that many people voted for him simply because of him being black (whether to "make history" or otherwise).

In short, I hated this election, and especially how Obama was able to win it.

Requiem's Eclipse
8th November 2008, 3:28 AM
Now let's see as many of you know, Elisabeth Hasselbeck is the only conservative person on the view and seemingly made a 'racist remark' in the video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4ivObqOjgw&feature=related


Is it wrong to attack a black person when you're white, when not ever reffering to the damn skin color? Is any attack on Obama or Michelle a racist attack? And is anything on the Republicans an alright and fine attack?

So, since I switched the topic on the supporters of the canidates, Could rap supporters for Obama possibly make people lose support in him as his presidency rolls on?

BigLutz
8th November 2008, 3:33 AM
Now let's see as many of you know, Elisabeth Hasselbeck is the only conservative person on the view and seemingly made a 'racist remark' in the video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4ivObqOjgw&feature=related


Is it wrong to attack a black person when you're white, when not ever reffering to the damn skin color? Is any attack on Obama or Michelle a racist attack? And is anything on the Republicans an alright and fine attack?

So, since I switched the topic on the supporters of the canidates, Could rap supporters for Obama possibly make people lose support in him as his presidency rolls on?

Ummm what the hell? How is that a racist remark? She is stating how "She" which I would guess is Cindy McCain didn't come onto the View with a list of things that couldn't be touched, like Michelle Obama did. Which makes sense as Michelle Obama's View Appearance was the first step of her trying to remake herself into a more appealing image after the "First time Proud of this country" line that had demonized her.

Requiem's Eclipse
8th November 2008, 3:55 AM
Ummm what the hell? How is that a racist remark? She is stating how "She" which I would guess is Cindy McCain didn't come onto the View with a list of things that couldn't be touched, like Michelle Obama did. Which makes sense as Michelle Obama's View Appearance was the first step of her trying to remake herself into a more appealing image after the "First time Proud of this country" line that had demonized her.

Yes I know that it isnt. But, look at the comments people believe that any attack on the Obamas is racist.

For instance i feel a rehearsed feel with this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=59twO1fJwtQ&feature=related

BigLutz
8th November 2008, 3:57 AM
Yes I know that it isnt. But, look at the comments people believe that any attack on the Obamas is racist.

For instance i feel a rehearsed feel with this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=59twO1fJwtQ&feature=related

Oh okay then I completely apologize, I totally misread your post.

Carlisle
8th November 2008, 6:11 AM
Yeah but the difference is both of them are Men, Hillary Clinton's fight has always been a uphill one, the older she gets the steeper the hill. Yes she got 18 million votes but she also had the help of heavy make up and the best stylists money can buy. The older you get the harder it is to cover your age up.
We'll just have to see how society is in eight years.


And really after Obama's victory I would think the Democrats would swing more youthful for the next few elections to try and keep that "Young Energy" up.
If Obama's presidency goes well, he can easily have them back Clinton. A few major endorsements and a disciplined campaign is a good start.


Going from a Black Man in the mid 40s to a White Woman coming close to 70 would be a pretty big leap, especially if the Republicans decide to play Palin and Jindal in the next 8 years to try and tackle the Youth Vote
Hahaha, I can tell you that my generation will NOT back Palin. There's no way that woman could get the nomination. Jindal I would love to see, I'm interested to see how he'll be used. But what the Republicans need to do is regroup and change their agenda. They need to learn that this new generation of voters doesn't want to hear about gay marriage, abortion, God and the Bible, trickle down economics, or anything else the party babbles about.

BigLutz
8th November 2008, 6:17 AM
We'll just have to see how society is in eight years.

I hope so, she has devoted so much for Public Service that she does deserve another chance.


If Obama's presidency goes well, he can easily have them back Clinton. A few major endorsements and a disciplined campaign is a good start.

True but that is a big if. Right now Obama has to get through his first term and get re-elected. Something that if I were a betting man, I wouldn't bet on.


Hahaha, I can tell you that my generation will NOT back Palin. There's no way that woman could get the nomination. Jindal I would love to see, I'm interested to see how he'll be used. But what the Republicans need to do is regroup and change their agenda. They need to learn that this new generation of voters doesn't want to hear about gay marriage, abortion, God and the Bible, trickle down economics, or anything else the party babbles about.

Well I would disagree on Gay Marriage, look at California, the bluest of blue states just signed a Prop that banned Gay Marriage in their state. As for Abortion and God, I can absolutely agree. But for Trickle Down Economics, well after 4 years of "Ground up Economics" hurting this country, I could see Republicans pouncing on Obama's plan as proof that Liberal "Work up Economics" hurt this country.

As for Palin we will see in a few months if she has Presidential ambitions, if she moves to take a Senate seat then you know that she is angling to become the first Female President in 2012.

Carlisle
8th November 2008, 6:28 AM
I hope so, she has devoted so much for Public Service that she does deserve another chance.
I agree so much. Even though she may be on the Liberal side of some issues, she's worked too hard to have any other woman be president before her.



True but that is a big if. Right now Obama has to get through his first term and get re-elected. Something that if I were a betting man, I wouldn't bet on.
Unless Obama does REALLY bad, and Democrats get thrown out in 2010, which I think has a chance of happening, it'll allow a lot of other people, not just Hillary or another Democrat, to run in 2012. And I know this sounds horrible, and a lot of people are like, "Blahblahblah, Obama will get shot," it does allow other people to step in. Now, I obviously supported Obama and do not wish death on anyone, but he DOES have a higher chance than most people when it comes to threats.




Well I would disagree on Gay Marriage, look at California, the bluest of blue states just signed a Prop that banned Gay Marriage in their state. As for Abortion and God, I can absolutely agree. But for Trickle Down Economics, well after 4 years of "Ground up Economics" hurting this country, I could see Republicans pouncing on Obama's plan as proof that Liberal "Work up Economics" hurt this country.
Maybe gay marriage wasn't the right thing to say, more like gay rights. I think most people are for gay rights and civil unions, but many aren't ready for gay marriage. Though, with all the protesting in California I think it'll get turned around. I don't see why a bunch of silly Mormons from Utah are trying to do, but it's making me angry.


As for Palin we will see in a few months if she has Presidential ambitions, if she moves to take a Senate seat then you know that she is angling to become the first Female President in 2012.
Yes. Her having senator AND governor experience makes me feel more comfortable with her.

randomspot555
8th November 2008, 6:39 AM
Since we are still on the topic of the election this year and the next one, I would like too add my few sense into this. For this election I think McCain only lost because of the comparison the Obama camp made as the 'next Bush' I mean, all I hear is that "We don't need another republican, it'll be another Bush". But as far as I know, McCain is not a real right-wing conservative the media and the public make him out to be. He seemed to be more bipartisan then Obama is.

And this is something that the pundits have gotten people to believe sometime around 2000-2002. That McCain is this sort of moderate Republican.

Don't get be wrong. He can and does work in a bi-partisan manner. His Democratic colleagues aren't just saying that he's a great person to work with just to save face, I bet. But just because he works in a bi-partisan manner doesn't make him a moderate Republican, like someone like Jim Jeffords (well, was), or Rick Santorum or Arlen Specter.

He's a very reliable vote for many of the main Republican issues out there. He's got a good, independent voice, but he's still a reliable Republican.

If there's one issue he's been more moderate on, it's probably immigration, and maybe education.


Also, I find this election to be utterly weighed by Obama being the first major bi-racial canidate. I mean, I know many people that don't know anything about his policies and supported him simply because he was black and they wanted to hlep make history. Now I'm all for making history but, when you are blindly voting for someone without any knowledge of the canidate. It was absolutely ridiculous the week prior to the elections.

People vote for shallow reasons all the time. This is nothing new (nor does it make the aforementioned reasoning okay).

It's no secret that I'm really ****** that Stevens is still in office. It's ironic that the party that wanted to clean up Washington has one of the biggest pork barrel Senators and is now a convicted felon because of this addiction to greed he has. And even without changing the ideology (we could go on for days if Republicans should be more center , more right, more whatever), if the Congressional Republican caucus could get together and just find out everything ethically wrong, so that they don't find out about it on the news. And they either come forth with it and solve it in the open, or have them resign. Voluntarily becoming the party of ethics and doing a sort of self cleansing ritual would at least increase respect for the Republicans, if not actually help them gain seats in 2 years.

(Psst, Congressional Republicans. Your next target should be Dan Burton).

Of course, if Stevens wins (and it's looking that way, though just barely), it makes you think. What would a Republican have to do to get kicked out of an office in Alaska?

Something interesting I found, from Indiana's voting.

Obama won by about 23,000 votes. And Governor Mitch Daniels won by 500,000.

Daniels and Obama have two things in common:

They're both basically the "change" candidate.
Flooded the state with campaign money.

It looks like Daniels' supporters who split their ticket put Obama over the top. And while Governor Daniels has been quite public in saying that this is the only elected office he'll ever hold, it might bode well for either a role in a major campaign or something like the RNC chairmanship in a few years. During the inevitable soul searching the Republicans will turn to, I hope they sit down with Governor Mitch, an he can show them how to run a real campaign.

BigLutz
8th November 2008, 6:40 AM
Unless Obama does REALLY bad, and Democrats get thrown out in 2010, which I think has a chance of happening, it'll allow a lot of other people, not just Hillary or another Democrat, to run in 2012. And I know this sounds horrible, and a lot of people are like, "Blahblahblah, Obama will get shot," it does allow other people to step in. Now, I obviously supported Obama and do not wish death on anyone, but he DOES have a higher chance than most people when it comes to threats.

Even if Obama/Biden do absolutely horribly, I really doubt the Democrats would run a Candidate against the Incumbent in the Primaries. They would have been dealt a major defeat in 2010 and wouldn't want to up their chances by losing the Presidency by having a bloody long drawn out Primary.

Besides lets say Obama really tanks and doesn't want to run again. I really don't think Hillary would want to run. It would be the opposite of 2008, where the Democrat brand would be damaged by a major mid term loss, and a un popular President. Anyone that would go up would be tied to that brand and the President.

The good thing is Hillary was smart enough to rarely be seen with Obama, so that the clips of her except for at the convention are very few and in between.

Still it would be near suicide in her chances to run with a 10 pound weight around her neck named Barack Obama.

Which is why I really considered this year the one last best hope for Hillary. She devoted everything for this year, and it was beaten to death by this newbie.

If Barack Obama is a disaster then 2012 will be a much bigger disaster for the Democrats, not just for the damage Barack would bring. But because their GOTV effort would be in ruins, the Youth Vote would be broken due to the empty promises and hope that they were suckered in by Obama, and the Black vote would be absolutely depressed as the first Black Candidate would be a major failure. The Democrats could turn to Hillary as their savior, but if she is smart ( and I truly think she is ) she will say no thank you.

Their next best choice would be a Candidate that would be distanced from Obama. * Glance at Joe Lieberman *



Yes. Her having senator AND governor experience makes me feel more comfortable with her.

Me too, although I am a bit more in favor of Jindal or Romney. Palin does have the Folksy, almost Mom like feeling to her, but I would rather have her get 4 years in the Vice Presidency to get a true feeling of the inner workings of Washington.

Maybe a Woman Vs Woman Presidential Run in 2016.

S.Suikun
8th November 2008, 7:59 AM
Time for S.Suikun's edition of "Hey Look, I Can Be a Political Analyst Too, Just Like Those Professional Pundits Who Get Paid for Getting Everything Wrong!"

The GOP certainly wants to get to 2012 as soon as possible, but I think even projecting 2010 is murky by this point, and Obama won't even assume office for over 2 months. While a GOP comeback isn't impossible by 2010, especially when you consider that Bill Clinton had a similar majority (actually slightly larger) in 1992 then lost it all just 2 years later, the circumstances are a bit different this time around. So much lies in the balance, and it's a delicate balance indeed. The "aura" of celebrity-like majesty surrounding Obama is going to enshroud him for a while, which is frustrating for some of us (and has been for the past year), and his decisions are going to have great repercussions, whether they're positive or negative. Positive results like a full economic rebound would certainly extend that aura's lastibility, but more negative consequences (foreign affairs being the greatest concern) could cause a Democratic domino effect.

As I said in the previous thread, I certainly don't want the guy to fail (deliberately wanting a president to fail is pretty twisted), especially since his presidency will essentially shape the future of minorities in power in this country, and so much else is currently at risk. He currently has wiped himself a clean slate as far as I'm concerned, although Senate records and past affiliations could be indicitave of that slate dusting up rapidly.

As for the Republicans, they really should have looked at themselves and re-establishing their movement back in 2006, but I guess it took all this for everyone to finally get their heads out of the sand. McCain's approach and history of crossing the aisle and hoping to serve as the "middle man" did no favors for him, as he failed to win over any more independents than a Republican normally would, even with Lieberman support. Not saying that bipartisanship is a bad thing, but I really never see Pelosi and her gang engaging in such a practice. The word is used in each of her sentences, even though every bill that fails to pass is coined as a GOP failure by her. Bailout bill drafts are a good example.

And 2012? Look, I'm more than sick of having to deal with election garbage from the past 22 months to even think about that yet. Before any running-mate was chosen this time around and common names like Romney, Huckabee, and *ick* Lieberman were floating around, there were occasionally names dropped of some "rising stars" as Jindal and, yes, Palin. Some theorized that these rising stars were best saved for the future, and the choice of Palin proved that even though she is charismatic and witty, both her lack of prior national exposure, relative newness, and the fact that she was literally chosen and informed of it last-minute resulted in some leadership skepticism. No doubt her political career is far from over, and any damage to her image that resulted is easily repairable (that clothing thing especially was nonsense). It just wasn't her time yet.

Ethan
8th November 2008, 8:48 AM
So just how is the GOP going to repair itself? What do they need to do? The party has obviously been bruised, with democrats almost having a super majority in the house senate. What's being done? I think Bobby Jindal would be a great face for the Republican party, but I sadly think he wouldn't make it. The dems would slam him for being a radical evangelical, as they already have. Palin has been smeared so badly, I honestly am skeptical if she can recover. Tim Pawlenty seems like a safe bet, he was the runner up behind Palin. I honestly can't think of many people.

HoennMaster
8th November 2008, 2:51 PM
I live in Minnesota, I'll be the first to tell you I will hang myself if Al Franken wins the senate. He's made jokes about child pornography and rape, he failed to prodide workers comp insurance for his own employees, and avoided taxes in several states. His political campaign ads have virtually all been negative, in one ad he even blamed Coleman for not making negative ads against him and saying he was taking some sort of false moral high ground. I don't care that he's liberal, he's just a douchebag. Coleman is an idiot too. Coleman critisized Al Franken for asking for a recount, when Minnesota state law demands a recount if the vote is that close. God both of them are idiots, but I'd choose Coleman over Franken. My God.

This basically sums up my view as well. I was leaning towards voting Independent, but I figured...Dean Barkley won't win. And I sure as hell don't want Franken to be our Senator. So I voted for Coleman. I just sucks that we will have to wait a few weeks before we find out who is the Senator. Normally I lean towards Democrat, but Franken is "unfit for office". It sucks that we have to have a recount because now all this new crap is coming in. How do votes basically get misplaced? Geesh.

GhostAnime
8th November 2008, 3:13 PM
heh, you're ****** off about Minnesota senate? i'm ****** off that our democratic governor won only because of bush and obama. wasteful spending isnt my style locally.

also, the democratic senator kay hagan won in a landslide over dole, but dole used an attack ad on her religion..

that made me vote hagan as soon as i saw that. =P

BigLutz
8th November 2008, 4:43 PM
Al Qaeda in Iraq has posted a message to Obama on one of their websites. They expect him to keep his promise and withdraw the US troops from Iraq as fast as possible. I guess they hate losing right now and expect Obama to hold up to his promise to withdraw as fast as possible so that they can get back to terrorizing the Iraqi People.

"Two Iraqi insurgent groups called on President-elect Barack Obama to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq and abandon the war on terror, an Internet monitoring service reported Friday.

Abu Omar al-Baghdadi, self-styled head of the al-Qaida front group the Islamic State of Iraq, said in a speech posted on an extremist Web site that it would be better “for you and us” to “withdraw your forces,” according to the SITE Intelligence Group that monitors militant Web sites. …

In a separate statement, the Mujahedeen Army, a Sunni insurgent group, urged Obama to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq or face “days that will be more difficult than the nightmare experienced by his predecessor.”"

Bobby Frank JR
8th November 2008, 8:54 PM
Where does NZ politics come into this. We got a new prime minister last night.

Requiem's Eclipse
8th November 2008, 9:48 PM
Al Qaeda in Iraq has posted a message to Obama on one of their websites. They expect him to keep his promise and withdraw the US troops from Iraq as fast as possible. I guess they hate losing right now and expect Obama to hold up to his promise to withdraw as fast as possible so that they can get back to terrorizing the Iraqi People.

"Two Iraqi insurgent groups called on President-elect Barack Obama to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq and abandon the war on terror, an Internet monitoring service reported Friday.

I think that a speedy withdrawal from Iraq would be disastorous for one it can leave an opening from Al Qaeda to take over the region once again. But, then again that isn't the reason why we're there is it?

I think rather then going to Iraq we should bring our troops to Afghanistan where Osama is. Iraq turned out to have no WMD's right now and we already took out Sadam Hussein why are we there?

Either way we should focus our efforts on Afghanistan and not Iraq. It's ridiculous how Bush focused us around a joke of a regime change. If we are doing this War on Terror, shoudn't we also going to war with friggin North Korea? It just doesn't make any sense.

Bobby Frank JR
8th November 2008, 10:12 PM
I have been thinking for a while that if they withdraw from Iraq, wouldn't the Iraqi's just attack the USA?

Kyogre35
8th November 2008, 10:55 PM
I have been thinking for a while that if they withdraw from Iraq, wouldn't the Iraqi's just attack the USA?

Wow....wow.wow.wow.. >.<

Duh no. They don't have the inferstructure. And why would they do that to the country that helped their's stand on there feet? Mabye Al Queda might try but not the Iraqi's...

ironknight42
9th November 2008, 1:08 AM
"I have been thinking for a while that if they withdraw from Iraq, wouldn't the Iraqi's just attack the USA?"
Bobby Frank say what...the Iraqi's first off most likely would not be capable of attacking the US to begin with but they would have to be crazy to do that...no seriously
"I think that a speedy withdrawal from Iraq would be disastorous for one it can leave an opening from Al Qaeda to take over the region once again. But, then again that isn't the reason why we're there is it?"
That's why our favorite presidential elect wants to pull out slowly...lets hope that it works if it doesn't so much for the Democrats little foreign policy

kev40293
9th November 2008, 5:27 AM
we have to pull out of iraq and i dont thingk the iraqis would attack us. maybe al queda would byt then again they're suposedly in pakistan. put we can't pull out to quickly and risk a civil war in iraq because that could send the entire middle east into a gigantic power struggle and wed have to get reinvolved

GrizzlyB
9th November 2008, 7:00 AM
Iraq wouldn't attack us for pulling out. Terrorist organizations might, however. Plus, if we pull out before they're ready, the Iraqis will probably end up hating us, as well. Which would make going back to rout any terrorist organizations that may attempt to take hold there if we pull out prematurely that much more difficult.

crobatman
9th November 2008, 7:01 AM
Can't we just say new topic:
What do you guys think President Bush is going to do after he leaves office?
I am going to miss the Talk Shows making fun of his speeches.

About the Iraq topic, slow and steady wins the race.... So I guess, if we start leaving Iraq, then we have to pull out cautiously. I wonder how long it will take until the American military is out of there.

BigLutz
9th November 2008, 7:04 AM
Can't we just say new topic:
What do you guys think President Bush is going to do after he leaves office?
I am going to miss the Talk Shows making fun of his speeches.

He will retire to Dallas Texas and make a nice living writing books and giving speeches and staying out of the spot light.

Also outside of Chris Mathews and his stupid Vow to "Make this Presidency work" when talking about Obama. I have no doubt that we will be seeing Talk Shows making fun of Obama's speeches soon, especially if his first Press Conference was any indication of what is to come.

If not then there is always Joe Biden.

Mr. Mudkip
9th November 2008, 7:05 AM
we have to pull out of iraq and i dont thingk the iraqis would attack us. maybe al queda would byt then again they're suposedly in pakistan. put we can't pull out to quickly and risk a civil war in iraq because that could send the entire middle east into a gigantic power struggle and wed have to get reinvolved

Isn't iraq always engaged in a civil war?

BigLutz
9th November 2008, 7:06 AM
Isn't iraq always engaged in a civil war?

Right now Iraq is incredibly safe, Al Qaeda in Iraq is in ruins, Iran is taking a wait and see approach, and US deaths in Iraq are at the lowest point possibly ever. But then again you wouldn't see that on the news.

George Bush basically handed Obama a victory in Iraq. All he has to do is sit on his butt and let the Generals pull out in how they see fit. Lets see if he screws that simple job up and messes up the victory that Bush, McCain, and Petraeus gave him.

crobatman
9th November 2008, 7:06 AM
Iraq's "civil war" is what happens because of terrorism.

BigLutz, you are right. We would not see too much of that on the media.

About John Mcain, Do you think he could have had a better chance if he picked a different running mate?
I am kind of glad he picked Palin. I overheard people saying they would have voted him for if he picked Lieberman as vp.

I am a little ticked off at some people voting for Obama just because he is black or a democrat. My great uncle voted for him because he always has voted for democrats since the 50's.

Raichu4u
9th November 2008, 7:08 AM
Can't we just say new topic:
What do you guys think President Bush is going to do after he leaves office?
I am going to miss the Talk Shows making fun of his speeches.

About the Iraq topic, slow and steady wins the race.... So I guess, if we start leaving Iraq, then we have to pull out cautiously. I wonder how long it will take until the American military is out of there.

"Hello fellow Iraqis, I am proud to be your dictator..."

crobatman
9th November 2008, 7:16 AM
I can see it happening already! Another Saddam Hussein will take over the poor civilians. I am not saying we should pull out of Iraq yet. I just think that is going to be the majority parties decision. We have Dems all over congress, and soon the executive branch.
I do not believe this mid-east crisis will be solved for a long, long time.

ironknight42
9th November 2008, 3:53 PM
"I can see it happening already! Another Saddam Hussein"
they got Saddams laying around over there who knew
"I do not believe this mid-east crisis will be solved for a long, long time."
that is a certain fact my friend

Nikkolas
9th November 2008, 7:54 PM
Politics is disgusting. Anyone involved in politics is disgusting.
"Waaahhh! Obama won!! I sure hope he ****s up and screws up the country so we Republicans can get back in office!"
"Wahh! I sure hope this new Republican official screws up so we Democrats can get back in office!"

And if people lose jobs and suffer because of these screwings up, it's all the better.

It's sick and twisted to see all the people here, and elsewhere, frothing at the mouth and hoping Obama is terrible. This country really is a disgrace a lot of the time.

EDIT:
In case you're wondering, I don't hate America. I find the politcs of any country repulsive. As they say, same sh*t, different shovel.

ironknight42
10th November 2008, 3:28 AM
"Politics is disgusting. Anyone involved in politics is disgusting.
"Waaahhh! Obama won!! I sure hope he ****s up and screws up the country so we Republicans can get back in office!"
"Wahh! I sure hope this new Republican official screws up so we Democrats can get back in office!""
well with that attitude you won't ever get very far in improving your country...it is important to be active in politics so you can make an accurate choice of who should best lead your country

HoennMaster
10th November 2008, 5:17 AM
These days it is hard to know. Attack ads are there left and right and you never know the full story until action is actually taken.

legendary master Jose
10th November 2008, 6:49 AM
Right now Iraq is incredibly safe, Al Qaeda in Iraq is in ruins, Iran is taking a wait and see approach, and US deaths in Iraq are at the lowest point possibly ever. But then again you wouldn't see that on the news.

George Bush basically handed Obama a victory in Iraq. All he has to do is sit on his butt and let the Generals pull out in how they see fit. Lets see if he screws that simple job up and messes up the victory that Bush, McCain, and Petraeus gave him.

Isn't that the truth.

Bobby Frank JR
10th November 2008, 7:23 AM
"Politics is disgusting. Anyone involved in politics is disgusting.
"Waaahhh! Obama won!! I sure hope he ****s up and screws up the country so we Republicans can get back in office!"
"Wahh! I sure hope this new Republican official screws up so we Democrats can get back in office!""
well with that attitude you won't ever get very far in improving your country...it is important to be active in politics so you can make an accurate choice of who should best lead your country


Lol, politics is stuffed up. And politics stuffs up everything... *Sigh* I'm never gonna be a politian...

kochoupink
10th November 2008, 8:23 AM
But how to save the Republicans? I like this topic. We can't forget that America is a center-right country. Republicans/Conservative politics should always pull ahead. So what happened?

I think the biggest problem with the modern Republican party is that it ignores traditional Conservative values - or at least the ones that matter. The past administration massively expanded the government, draining huge amounts of money. Traditional Conservativism would never have allowed the deficit to get like this, because, though cutting taxes, it would have decreased the size of the government and its programs in order to make up the difference.

Unfortunately, people tend to ignore rational, fiscal Conservativism and focus on the face of the modern Republican party: morals. Morals have no place in government. Ethics do. By allowing fluff issues like gay marriage to get in the way of real problems (the economy, for instance), the Republican party allowed itself to be destroyed as the American people voted for someone who shared their morals, and then realized they actually wanted someone who shared their ethics (hard work=good pay, live within you means, etc.).

And we cannot forget the wholesale destruction of the environment that is allowed by the Republican status quo. Conservativism should extend to Conservationism: The greatest good for the greatest number for the greatest time. A true conservative would understand the need to manage resources so that they can be used as needed; the administration's refusal to sign the Kyoto protocol, its undermining of the Endangered Species Act, and its inability to recognize the need to adapt to Peak Oil, show that it does not understand the concept of wise resource management, a must for any government. Gifford Pinchot, the father of Conservationism, was a Conservative. We would do well to remember that.

So:
Spend less, stay out of people's lives, manage resources wisely.
Conservative principles lost to the Moral Majority.
It will be interesting to see if they come back.

Nikkolas
10th November 2008, 11:04 AM
well with that attitude you won't ever get very far in improving your country...it is important to be active in politics so you can make an accurate choice of who should best lead your country

How does one improve their country? The Democrats and Republicans both want to improve this country but they're obviously doing it in different ways.
Which is the right way? Kinda like asking which is the right religion as far as I'm concerned.

Look at it this way. If someone tries to say Bush was a terrible president, Neo-Cons will say it was reallY Clinton's fault. If Obama bombs, Democrats will say it's Bush's fault.

Why try to get involved in an argument with no end? Where the simplest questions have different answers depending on the people you talk to?

Ethan
10th November 2008, 6:15 PM
Isn't that the truth.

Yes it is, but simply quoting someone and agreeing with them is clearly against the rules as you must contribute to the topic in some way, shape, or form.


Lol, politics is stuffed up. And politics stuffs up everything... *Sigh* I'm never gonna be a politian...

You too buster.

The Admiral
10th November 2008, 7:29 PM
Right now Iraq is incredibly safe, Al Qaeda in Iraq is in ruins, Iran is taking a wait and see approach, and US deaths in Iraq are at the lowest point possibly ever. But then again you wouldn't see that on the news.

George Bush basically handed Obama a victory in Iraq. All he has to do is sit on his butt and let the Generals pull out in how they see fit. Lets see if he screws that simple job up and messes up the victory that Bush, McCain, and Petraeus gave him.

He has not yet handed Obama a victory, but will hand it off in two months. In that two month period, is a pull-out feasible? If so, will it be done before Obama gets in, or is this George Bush saying "Welcome to the occupation" to Obama? I can see the Republicans giving Obama a challenge right off the bat, because I highly doubt the Republicans trust Obama 100% with this country just yet. ("Inexperienced" will likely be the word still tossed around for a bit.)

randomspot555
10th November 2008, 8:40 PM
Honestly, I don't think Obama is going to pull out as quickly as he's said in the past or as quickly as more liberal and libertarian minded people think he will. Now, is that going to come about due to national security issues that information is only given to the POTUS and thus a change of heart, or due to political pressure from some Democrats and Republic or some other sort of political pressure, will be a mystery, at least for a while.

BigLutz
10th November 2008, 9:06 PM
He has not yet handed Obama a victory, but will hand it off in two months. In that two month period, is a pull-out feasible? If so, will it be done before Obama gets in, or is this George Bush saying "Welcome to the occupation" to Obama? I can see the Republicans giving Obama a challenge right off the bat, because I highly doubt the Republicans trust Obama 100% with this country just yet. ("Inexperienced" will likely be the word still tossed around for a bit.)

We must have a difference of opinion on what "Victory" means. Basically right now Al Qaeda is defeated in Iraq, and Iran has pulled back it's efforts to cause any damage. That in and of itself should be considered a victory. If you think a full pull out is a victory, then barring any disaster, that would happen when Iraq is fully able to govern itself. Pulling out before hand would be a disaster and be a loss, but the loss would be because of Obama pulling out before the time was right, not because of George Bush of anyone else.

The Admiral
10th November 2008, 9:19 PM
We must have a difference of opinion on what "Victory" means. Basically right now Al Qaeda is defeated in Iraq, and Iran has pulled back it's efforts to cause any damage. That in and of itself should be considered a victory.

But don't we have to pull out, anyway? Otherwise, it's not really over... right?


If you think a full pull out is a victory, then barring any disaster, that would happen when Iraq is fully able to govern itself. Pulling out before hand would be a disaster and be a loss, but the loss would be because of Obama pulling out before the time was right, not because of George Bush of anyone else.

Well, it will be Obama's fault, if Obama does it. If Bush does it (which I don't see, but...), then wouldn't it be his fault?

Ah well... this is a bit of a theory-driven thing, anyway.

legendary master Jose
10th November 2008, 10:09 PM
But don't we have to pull out, anyway? Otherwise, it's not really over... right?

havent you ever heard the phrase "keep your friends close and your enemys closer?" while we proabably will do a large scale pull out in the future were proably still gonna have troops there for a long time afterwards. so that al quada or another terrorist group wont come back to power

BigLutz
10th November 2008, 10:27 PM
But don't we have to pull out, anyway? Otherwise, it's not really over... right?

Depends on your view of what "over" really is. Is World War 2 over? We still have troops in Germany and Japan, we still have bases there, but the war is effectively over. Right now most of our troops are providing support operations and very few are actually leading operations now. I wouldn't say the war is 'over' but it is very close to being.

The Big Al
11th November 2008, 11:59 PM
*Throws gauntlet in*

Last time I checked, we don't have over a 100,000 troops in Germany or Japan, they aren't engaged in any action regarding the governance of Germany or Japan, and we are there at the leisure of Germany and Japan. The reason those bases were put there was to have resources at the edge of the Soviet sphere of influence. None of that is the case in Iraq.

So you're comparison fails.

Actually, the war is over and has been over for years. What we have been fighting is the occupation. You don't win an occupation, you end it on preferably a good note. Now would be as good a time as any to start handing over the country to the Iraqis. And considering Iraq's ability to do what is asked of it, I don't think we have to really worry about them.

BigLutz
12th November 2008, 12:08 AM
Last time I checked, we don't have over a 100,000 troops in Germany or Japan, they aren't engaged in any action regarding the governance of Germany or Japan, and we are there at the leisure of Germany and Japan. The reason those bases were put there was to have resources at the edge of the Soviet sphere of influence. None of that is the case in Iraq.

Well lets see, most if not almost all of our troops are not engaged in any action regarding the governance of Iraq, since the Iraqi Military is leading most combat operation and even controlling many areas of Iraq. We are there mainly in a Peace Keeping/Backing up position, many of the troops do not even see Military action over there. We are there at the pleasure of the Iraq Government, if they demanded we leave tomorrow we would leave. And the reasons we want bases there are to have resources at the edge of the Iranian Sphere of Influence on one side, and the Al Qaeda Sphere of influence in Syria on the other side. As for the number of troops, lets see how many troops we have in Iraq come 60 years from now.

Any idiot knows that if we have troops in Iraq on the same basis as we have troops in Germany and Japan, that the condition would be that they would not be in active combat. It is beyond stupidity to think anything different.


Actually, the war is over and has been over for years. What we have been fighting is the occupation. You don't win an occupation, you end it on preferably a good note. Now would be as good a time as any to start handing over the country to the Iraqis. And considering Iraq's ability to do what is asked of it, I don't think we have to really worry about them.

If you havn't noticed, since the peace brought by the Surge we have been handing over the country to the Iraqis. Infact just two months ago we handed over a fairly major area to the Iraqis in the form of Anbar Provence.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/middle_east/july-dec08/iraq_09-01.html

Infact 12 of 18 Provences are now within Iraqi control. I would say that is a pretty big success.

randomspot555
12th November 2008, 6:21 PM
Sarah Palin's post interview with Greta Van...I can never spell her last name. But it was fairly tame. I'm not expecting wonders out of Matt Laugher either, but hopefully not every other question will be a soft ball.

Though I have to give Greta points on the location. It's basically Interviewing Someone 101 that you want to get an interview in an environment where the subject is most uncomfortable in. And that place is usually the home or office/work place. And the mistake almost every talk radio, print journalist, television journalist, pundit, and cable news commentator host does is they do interviews on their shows, in their studios, where they hold the power. O'Reilly and Chris Matthews and Joe Scarborough might be the nicest people in the world, but almost anyone would be intimidated by someone since you are on their turf.

Though I actually heard someone on Matthews, or O'Reilly, or Hannity/Colmes...I don't know, I get them all mixed up eventually. Anyway, I heard a guest say that Palin probably doesn't have much in the future as a national candidate. He went on to say he thinks it's best for her to finish out her term as governor, and then either run for a Senate seat, pick up a chair on the RNC, or start lobbying for a think tank. In Alaska, she's probably guaranteed a life time Senate seat if one is available after her 1-2 terms as governor. But she could exercise more influence by lobbying and speaking for the social conservatives that she represents, either as part of the RNC or as a lobbyist.

The Big Al
12th November 2008, 10:08 PM
Why are we supposedly making all this progress and handing over all this territory to the Iraqis and yet our troops are coming home or going to other places where they're more needed coughAfghanistancough? It makes is seem even more stupid to have our troops wasting their time and our resources doing nothing. Either we're winning and we can draw down our troops or we're not winning and they need to stay there. And don't give me the evil terrorists or Iranians will move in argument because then we might as well break down make Iraq a protectorate of the United States. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

BigLutz
12th November 2008, 10:24 PM
Why are we supposedly making all this progress and handing over all this territory to the Iraqis and yet our troops are coming home or going to other places where they're more needed coughAfghanistancough?

Is that really a question? Maybe you structured it wrong or I am reading it wrong. But mind you even though we have been bringing troops home and not sending them back, we still need troops over there to train Iraqi forces and to back them up if need be.


It makes is seem even more stupid to have our troops wasting their time and our resources doing nothing. Either we're winning and we can draw down our troops or we're not winning and they need to stay there.

Actually it isn't a "if/or", we are winning, and we are slowly drawing down our troops. This isn't something you be absolutely stupid about and just rush troops out. You bring them out slowly when you are sure the Iraqi forces are able to fully step in and handle the situation. Yes we are winning, yes we have many troops there just sitting on their butts. But right now Iraq doesn't have the man power to fully replace all of those troops. They are getting there, but for each troop removed, a Iraqi soldier has to be there to fully take over the position, and even then we have to make sure that they are fully performing their duties and the US troop wont be needed again.

It is a very slow process, but it should be done slow and correctly, than fast and sloppy.


And don't give me the evil terrorists or Iranians will move in argument because then we might as well break down make Iraq a protectorate of the United States. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

If we move out too fast, and Iraq is unable and unequipped to replace the troops and equipment that we move out, then yes the populous will turn back to anyone that offers protection, and that includes Iran and Al Qaeda. Luckily enough right now we are not moving out too fast, we are taking it slow and making sure the job is done correctly.

Something I would expect you would want when you have so many lives on the line.

The Big Al
12th November 2008, 11:20 PM
Here's a brilliant idea. Let's trust the Iraqis to take care of their own country. They're already running a surplus and could easily take on the non-military costs of their reconstruction. If they already control two thirds of the country, we should be able to pull out two thirds of our troops.

This has nothing to do with the preparedness Iraqis. This has everything to do with the private contract companies who are making money hand over fist in Iraq. The longer they can drag this occupation out, the more money they can make. The more troops that require their "services", the more money they make This was why war profiteering was banned during the second world war.

That is why we're dragging our heels in Iraq. Too many people are making too much money. Hopefully, President Obama will put these death merchants in their place.

BigLutz
13th November 2008, 12:01 AM
Here's a brilliant idea. Let's trust the Iraqis to take care of their own country. They're already running a surplus and could easily take on the non-military costs of their reconstruction. If they already control two thirds of the country, we should be able to pull out two thirds of our troops.

They are running a projected surplus, not to mention that Saddam screwed up that country so much, that much if not all of that money will go to repair infrastructure such as roads, water pipes, and electricity.

And just because they control two thirds of the country does not mean that we do not need our troops in there to train Iraqi troops. Nor does it mean that the country is divided up equally, many of the Provinces given to Iraqi hands are smaller in size than the several big ones.

But it is nice to know that not having been in Iraq, nor a General, you are able to decide what we should do in that country.


This has nothing to do with the preparedness Iraqis. This has everything to do with the private contract companies who are making money hand over fist in Iraq. The longer they can drag this occupation out, the more money they can make. The more troops that require their "services", the more money they make This was why war profiteering was banned during the second world war.

Ahh yes it's all for the private contractors, you know what, I truly do not care. If doing it slow and preparing the Iraqis saves lives in the end, then I do not give a damn as to who makes money. But apparently you believe we should get out faster instead of making absolutely sure Iraq does not fall into chaos again. Why? Because of the big mean evil Private Contractors.


That is why we're dragging our heels in Iraq. Too many people are making too much money. Hopefully, President Obama will put these death merchants in their place.

Hopefully President Obama is not that freaking stupid.

We are "dragging our heels" in Iraq because the top Generals over there, who have way more experience than you, and who walk the streets of Iraq instead of sitting behind a Computer in Michigan, say we need to take this steady and slow to make sure that Al Qaeda in Iraq does not resurge again and so that Iran does not try to regain their foothold, and so that Iraqi troops can be fully capable of stepping up in situations.

THAT is why we are taking it slow, and I do not blame the President for listening to them, instead of the Conspiracy nuts who believe that we are only there to make money.

My God I can only hope that Obama has the brains to listen to the people on the ground and follow what they are telling him to do.

The Big Al
13th November 2008, 12:59 AM
You honestly don't believe the Iraqis can't wipe their own *** without our help. And what is this almighty level of preparedness? I don't see why they need to be a military police state. If that's the case, then we've truly failed in Iraq.

BigLutz
13th November 2008, 1:08 AM
You honestly don't believe the Iraqis can't wipe their own *** without our help.

The Iraqis in many cases over the summer were leading the fight against Al Qaeda in Iraq. So don't look now but the Iraqis have learned to wipe their own ***


And what is this almighty level of preparedness? I don't see why they need to be a military police state. If that's the case, then we've truly failed in Iraq.

Were you asleep between 2003 and 2006? Do you have amnesia of those years? Have you completely forgotten them? I ask those questions because I cannot truly imagine why you would even think of such a thing.

We have proof of what happens when there are not enough troops around to protect the Iraqis, we see what kind of people the local population turns to, and we see the horror that brings. I believe some news outlets were even using the words "Civil War" to describe it?

So please forgive me for having to ask if you are suffering from some version of amnesia when you say you do not see the need for a heightened police presence in Iraq.

The Big Al
13th November 2008, 1:42 AM
The Iraqis have the right as human beings and citizens of a sovereign nation to decide what they're going to do with themselves. Either we let them be what they'll be or we end this charade and make Iraq a protectorate. If we can't trust them to run their own country without a gun to their head, then we have failed. We've flushed a trillion dollars and over 4000 American lives down the toilet for nothing except to change the name of the military regime in charge of Iraq.

BigLutz
13th November 2008, 1:46 AM
The Iraqis have the right as human beings and citizens of a sovereign nation to decide what they're going to do with themselves.

Yes they do, and right now they are seeking our protection until their country is completely ready to sustain itself militarily.


Either we let them be what they'll be or we end this charade and make Iraq a protectorate.

We are going to do that but what you seem to be unable to grasp is that that you cannot flip a switch and create a million man army, it takes time, resources, and training to do so.


If we can't trust them to run their own country without a gun to their head, then we have failed.

We have trusted them to run their country, we are just providing support to their military resources so that they are able to properly govern with out bombs going off ten feet from the Capital.


We've flushed a trillion dollars and over 4000 American lives down the toilet for nothing except to change the name of the military regime in charge of Iraq.

See that is a absolutely pathetic and disgusting comment. And shows that you have absolutely no idea the horror and pain that Saddam brought during his regime. You seriously should be ashamed of yourself.

The Big Al
13th November 2008, 2:22 AM
I am not ashamed of myself. I'm ashamed of people like you who fail to see that we haven't changed a thing. What's to stop the new military regime we leave in place to do the exact same thing?

You proved in your post we've done nothing to change the political situation in Iraq. It was a military police state when we went in, it'll be a military police state when we leave. We just have to hope this new one is nicer to the citizens.

BigLutz
13th November 2008, 2:27 AM
I am not ashamed of myself. I'm ashamed of people like you who fail to see that we haven't changed a thing. What's to stop the new military regime we leave in place to do the exact same thing?

The Democracy we have installed.

And to think that we havn't changed a thing shows a blind disregard for history. Where are the Government sanctioned Rape squads roaming the street? Where is Saddam's Goons at the voting booth making sure you vote the right way? Where are the holes in the desert filled with hundreds of thousands of freshly killed bodies? Where is the Government experimenting on it's own people with Chemical Weapons?

If you truly believe this is the same you can easily answer these questions. But you can't, why? Because you truly do not know what you are talking about.


You proved in your post we've done nothing to change the political situation in Iraq. It was a military police state when we went in, it'll be a military police state when we leave. We just have to hope this new one is nicer to the citizens.

You seem to have a very thin line between Police State and all out anarchy. As well as a very lacking knowledge of how it was before we went in, as well as what happens in Iraq when we fail to have a Police/Military Presence in cities. I would suggest brushing up on these if you do not want to continue to lose this debate.

The Big Al
13th November 2008, 1:52 PM
Since when does a democracy required armed troops walking the streets to protect the people from themselves? I'm not saying it is the same at the moment. I'm saying it would have the exact same environment for another person to come in and do the same thing. You once again miss the forest from the trees.

And the fact is, no one can solve the Iraqis' problems for them. If they truly live in a democracy they should have the right to solve it themselves by whatever means they see fit. Whether for good or for ill, it's their right as people.

BigLutz
13th November 2008, 3:26 PM
Since when does a democracy required armed troops walking the streets to protect the people from themselves? I'm not saying it is the same at the moment. I'm saying it would have the exact same environment for another person to come in and do the same thing. You once again miss the forest from the trees.

Ever since the people decided to turn to armed terrorist to protect themselves and decided to try to push the country into a Civil War. Ever since Al Qaeda and Iran decided to make a push in controlling the country. You keep neglecting that this isn't Michigan, these people were teetering on the edge of a Civil War because there were not Police men and Military on the streets.


And the fact is, no one can solve the Iraqis' problems for them. If they truly live in a democracy they should have the right to solve it themselves by whatever means they see fit. Whether for good or for ill, it's their right as people.

And they have, they have voted in a Congress, they have voted in a Prime Minister, they have a able body Government that is working for them. What you continue to not be able to grasp is at this moment the Iraqi Military is not able to completely protect the entire country. It is getting there but at this moment it is not equipped or staffed enough to stretch itself over the entire country. Which is why we are training them and backing them up, and in places taking their place.

After the events that transpired between 2003 and 2006 it is pure insanity to believe that we should sit back and let the Iraqi Military stretch itself so thin that it cannot possibly protect the entire country. Now do not get me wrong, they are gaining in strength every day, and they will soon be able to protect the entire country. But until then they do require our assistance.

The Admiral
13th November 2008, 3:51 PM
If you havn't noticed, since the peace brought by the Surge we have been handing over the country to the Iraqis. Infact just two months ago we handed over a fairly major area to the Iraqis in the form of Anbar Provence.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/middle_east/july-dec08/iraq_09-01.html

Infact 12 of 18 Provences are now within Iraqi control. I would say that is a pretty big success.

But did we not, then, hand it over, which means that we had control of it?

I'm not going to argue that there was no reason at all for going in; Saddam was definitely a prick who should not have been allowed to run a government, but I think we went about ti the wrong way, charging in and saying **** about WMDs, when the evidence wasn't there or wasn't proven at the time, or whatever the case was. We killed off most of our reputation in the process; is this a worthy price, that our nation's credibility has taken a drop, that Bush had disturbingly low approval ratings... no doubt this contributed to the Republicans losing the election, right, mate?

BigLutz
13th November 2008, 4:38 PM
But did we not, then, hand it over, which means that we had control of it?

Umm... we handed control of it over to Iraqi forces if that is what you are wondering. Meaning that Iraqis now have control over that area.


I'm not going to argue that there was no reason at all for going in; Saddam was definitely a prick who should not have been allowed to run a government, but I think we went about ti the wrong way, charging in and saying **** about WMDs, when the evidence wasn't there or wasn't proven at the time, or whatever the case was. We killed off most of our reputation in the process; is this a worthy price, that our nation's credibility has taken a drop, that Bush had disturbingly low approval ratings... no doubt this contributed to the Republicans losing the election, right, mate?

Well for one you have to remember that not one but two administrations believed Saddam had WMDs, as well as various other Governments, so the evidence was there and pretty much proven at the time. Mind you we could have had all the evidence in the world, but when you wait half a year, to go in when your enemy has that amount of time to prepare. Those WMDs could have ended up anywhere.

As for what contributed to the Republicans losing the election. No, no, and no. The Iraq War situation was in the back of people's minds. Infact if it were at the forefront McCain may have won the election as polls are swinging more and more in favor of actually winning the war than pulling out.

The Admiral
13th November 2008, 5:17 PM
As for what contributed to the Republicans losing the election. No, no, and no. The Iraq War situation was in the back of people's minds. Infact if it were at the forefront McCain may have won the election as polls are swinging more and more in favor of actually winning the war than pulling out.

Well, it can't have helped. I'm referring more to the process we chose for engaging the enemy (no real declaration of war, &c.) and the idea that there were no nukes in Iraq. I'm perfectly willing to accept that this could be a load of bollocks proliferated by liberal media, &c., though, since I really don't trust either side that much any more. (Let's just admit that, on the whole, people suck.) Also, the delay you mentioned is problematic, and wouldn't reflect well on Bush and likely, by extension, a part of the GOP. In six months, these WMDs could have been put to use against whoever Saddam decided he hated that week. I dare say that such things wouldn't have much of a positive effect on the public's faith in the GOP... Or, at least, there's some probability of such. (Probably only applies to us pinko commie liberals, though, who don't have any faith in the GOP to begin with... and it just keeps dropping.)

I'm not really going to argue which side (Democrat or Republican) is better. We probably have different conditions for "better" for that, anyway.

The Big Al
13th November 2008, 10:24 PM
Actually, those siting the Iraq war as their top issue voted for Obama by a decent margin.

Back to our argument.

That's not democracy, Lutz. I don't care what you say. A state where the people are being protected from themselves is never a democracy.

It's funny you bring up Michigan because we're a fairly good analogue for Iraq. Many Iraqi ex-patriots settled here. We have Shiites and Sunnis living together in the Detroit area. And guess what, they're about the only people not killing each other. They found a way to live here peacefully without being up their armpits in troops. I don't see why their brethren in Iraq can't do the same.

If anything, I think its the lack of jobs and necessities that drove the civil war from 2003 to 2006. Idle hands are the Devil's playthings you know. Instead of protecting the people from themselves, perhaps we should be more concerned with making sure they have something to do with themselves than fight.

BigLutz
13th November 2008, 10:57 PM
That's not democracy, Lutz. I don't care what you say. A state where the people are being protected from themselves is never a democracy.

Yeah it is, it's called the Police Department, it's called preventing anarchy. The thing is that the military in there is not hindering anyone, they are acting as the peace keepers in a area that if they were not there the natives turn to


It's funny you bring up Michigan because we're a fairly good analogue for Iraq. Many Iraqi ex-patriots settled here. We have Shiites and Sunnis living together in the Detroit area. And guess what, they're about the only people not killing each other.

Good for you we have many in Euless... I believe, one of the cities in North Texas.


They found a way to live here peacefully without being up their armpits in troops. I don't see why their brethren in Iraq can't do the same.

Because the US Military isn't worried about Iraqi Citizens starting a fight with eachother, as has been shown in the past year or so, most Iraqi Citizens want to live in peace and carry on their every day lives. Something I have said over and over again.

What the US Military is worried about is Al Qaeda or Iranian trained soldiers coming into these areas, holding these town hostage with their superior fire power and strapping suicide bombs onto them at gunpoint.

The populous isn't the problem, it's the evil people in Syria and Iran that want to control the populous and create living bombs out of them.

The US Military isn't there to hinder people, it isn't there to force them to vote at gun point or swear the Pledge of Allegance or what ever. It is there because they are the only Police Force available until Iraq can get it's own army off the ground. And if they are not there the populous will turn to the next available group for protection.


If anything, I think its the lack of jobs and necessities that drove the civil war from 2003 to 2006. Idle hands are the Devil's playthings you know. Instead of protecting the people from themselves, perhaps we should be more concerned with making sure they have something to do with themselves than fight.

And again you show your ignorance of history in Iraq. It wasn't jobs, it wasn't people not having anything to do. If that were so we would still be having the two sides going at it. You know what it was? You know what it was proven to be?

It was a lack of any protection or presence in many areas of Iraq. The Iraqis want to live daily lives, they want to live peaceful lives, but when push comes to shove they are going to go with which ever side says "We will protect you.". We didn't have enough troops, countries were pulling out, and Shiite and Sunni extremists were going "We will protect you, if you let us walk around freely and fight these guys."

It was protection, it was always about protection. You have people blowing themselves up right down the street and the American and Iraqi army is no where to be seen. You cannot walk down the block to get groceries with out worrying that some one is hiding bombs.

Some very evil people said "We will protect you." and they had been pushed to the point that the populous of these cities were begging for protection.

Carlisle
13th November 2008, 11:28 PM
Well, more and more people are being put in Obama's administration, and many likely people being brought up.

Many of the people being put in are people where a part of the Clinton Administration. I wonder how having all these Clintonites will pay off, and where Bill and Hillary themselves will be put in.

The Big Al
13th November 2008, 11:49 PM
I'm hoping Obama names Bill Secretary of State. I don't know if he'll get it but they'll likely some role, officially or not in particularly early stages of the Obama Administration.

Oh please, Lutz. There is a difference between a police department and a police state. Saddam's troops were peace keepers I'll have you know. They didn't mess with people's lives unless they happened to get on his bad side. Again, what have really changed there?

BigLutz
13th November 2008, 11:56 PM
Oh please, Lutz. There is a difference between a police department and a police state.

Yes there is, there is also a major difference between what is happening in Iraq and a Police State as well.


Saddam's troops were peace keepers I'll have you know. They didn't mess with people's lives unless they happened to get on his bad side. Again, what have really changed there?

Well for one are you comparing US and Iraqi troops to Saddam's troops? I mean seriously are you comparing these two.

Second I have already told you what changed, I see you have forgotten that.

Third if we were to act like Saddam's troops or have a police state, do you honestly believe that the protests that happen in Iraq would have happened? Do you honestly believe that Saddam would have allowed thousands of Iraqis to gather to protest his Government? Do you think that would happen in a Police State?

You already know the answer: No.

So cut the ignorance that it is a Police State, and cut the ignorance that the US troops are like Saddam's troops, and truly cut the ignorance that nothing has changed.

You are better than that.

The Big Al
14th November 2008, 1:14 AM
Explain how what we're creating in Iraq is not a police state.

And I find your lack of foresight and ability to see the big picture astounding. Just because everything is fine at the moment doesn't mean squat. I'm talking about the environment here. The environment we've created in Iraq is no different from what Saddam created. It doesn't take a genius to understand that the same abuses of power can easily take place again.

And I find it funny you call my unwillingness to buy into your shallow, hypernationalist world view ignorance.

randomspot555
14th November 2008, 1:53 AM
I'm hoping Obama names Bill Secretary of State. I don't know if he'll get it but they'll likely some role, officially or not in particularly early stages of the Obama Administration.

As much as I respect Clinton as a statesmen, there is nothing he carries that really makes him a good candidate for anything in the cabinet. Candidates that I'd like to see:

Senator Dick Lugar: Yes, this is partially because he's my senator. He's an expert on foreign relations, well respected amongst his colleagues on both sides. However, his name usually gets mentioned every 4 years, and either he turns it down publicly or they don't choose him. Maybe he's not enough of a partisan, or maybe it's because he's not a very charismatic person, or maybe he just really likes being a senior senator.

Powell: He's just on the list. He seems to be semi-retired from politics, and I have my doubts that he'll ever serve in a presidential administration again.

Former Senator Sam Nunn: Moderate Democrat, well respected , work with Lugar on one of the best bills that produces results as long as it's funed (Nunn-Lugar), moderate Dem, and he's currently an advisor in the transition team.

I wouldn't be surprised if these 3 were somewhere on MCCain's list of cabinent members too.


I'd have to think about anyone else on my all-star wish list.

The Big Al
14th November 2008, 3:12 AM
I think Lugar as said he's not interested in serving in a cabinet position.

If Powell comes in he will likely take a lower position like education. He's probably done being in a high profile position.

Nunn might be likely cabinet member if he accepts it.

I was off. There is speculation that Hillary Clinton is being considered for Secretary of State. She will likely be asked and we'll have to see what she does.

Kate
14th November 2008, 5:11 AM
Alright, let's break it down.

Future of the GOP, right.

They need someone with the gift of explaining complex scenarios to people with short attention spans. The Democrats have perfected the art: "We will give you money for whatever you want." We see how well this works a la the GM and banking collapses. Nonetheless, the population needs to be wrenched away from TV and Facebook so they can understand world realities. And if the GOP can pull off a real miracle, the abortion-obsessed women may have the veil of subjugation removed whereafter they will realize that being counted on to kill their own child may not have been in their best interests.

I wasn't aware that the GOP had their ears to the lips of God either. After seeing 8 years of "Godliness" in the form of the current administration I am wondering if you would have me "obey the lord" and continue to vote for policies outlined by President Bush. The strongest argument for Republicans as Godly is on the abortion issue, but even that can be improved by adopting what used to be a Republican idea: don't wait for government to solve your problems. Donate to Pregnancy Resource Center & other organizations who, instead of criminalizing women, reach out to these women, and offer them financial and emotional support in hopes that they'll choose life. I've seen that work a lot better than stuffing the ballot for pro-life candidates and calling it God's finished work. I respect people who vote solely on this issue, but remind all of us that thinking that this sort of thing completes our duty is naive and allows one political party to monopolize a group of people (evangelicals) without having to fear losing their vote if the do something (or many things) that are unacceptable as we've seen over the past 8 years.

Republicans fail when they try to be like Democrat light. Dems want to spend $100 billion, we will only spend $80 billion. If voters want big government, they will go for the real thing every time. If Republicans would stand for limited government, competition in our schools, a strong defense, and offer policies that encourage entrepreneurism and economic growth, people would support them. Or in laymans terms; get back to the things they stand for. Government should help those that truly can't help themselves. It should provide a safety net, not a hammock. Republicans start to believe what the media says about them. What made Reagan great is that he stood to his principles despite great media criticism. If you believe the media, you would be amazed that he was so successful as they always protrayed him as a old washed up actor. Two landslide victories prove otherwise.

In addition, the idea that the Republicans lost because they tried to shove morality and religion down everyones throat is nonsense. During the entire campaign trail God was never brought up in regards to political issues, but only speaking of ones personal faith. The GOP did talk about morals though. Funny. There was a time in this country when being "moral" was actually considered a good thing (if not the foundation of the entire legal system). But now we can't impose "morality" on anyone, right? Who are we to judge you when you cheat on your spouse, or your taxes? Who are we to judge you when you get AIDS, herpes, or have an abortion because you just wanted a few irresponsible "hook ups"? Who are we to judge you because you ran up thousands in credit card debt or bought a home you couldn't afford?

tl;dr

Tim Pawlenty 2012

GhostAnime
14th November 2008, 6:16 AM
nice above post, though im edgy on what you say about abortion.

BigLutz
14th November 2008, 6:31 AM
Explain how what we're creating in Iraq is not a police state.

Well lets break down what a Police State is with my handy dictionary.com.

police state

–noun
a nation in which the police, esp. a secret police, summarily suppresses any social, economic, or political act that conflicts with governmental policy.

Well as seen by the protests the Police nor the Secret Police have suppressed Political Acts that conflicts with Governmental Policy.

Strike One, lets see if we can try again.

police state
n. A state in which the government exercises rigid and repressive controls over the social, economic, and political life of the people, especially by means of a secret police force.

Doesn't sound like Iraq to me, again with the freedom of speech and protest and all that.

Strike Two, lets give it one more try!

police state

A nation whose rulers maintain order and obedience by the threat of police or military force; one with a brutal, arbitrary government.

Hmm does that sound like the Iraqi Government a Brutal Arbitrary Government?

Strike Three, You're Out!

Now Iraq under Saddam was a police state, a Brutal Government which used it's Military force to silence people and to brutally exorcised it's will upon the populous. But seeing how you seem to lack knowledge of Iraqi history, I can see how you could be confused.

So until I see the US or Iraqi Military, shoving Iraqi Citizens off the top of buildings to see how many bones they can break, just because those Citizens decided to voice opposition against the Government. I would shut up about what is and isn't a Police State if I were you.


And I find your lack of foresight and ability to see the big picture astounding.

Says the guy who is unable to understand why the Iraqis were turning toward Militias like Al Qaeda and Sadr.


Just because everything is fine at the moment doesn't mean squat.

Yeah it does, peace is returning when just two years ago we were on the brink of a Civil War. That means everything. Now violence could return, especially if we pull out too fast and leave the Iraqi Military over stretched and unable to provide protection for the populous.


I'm talking about the environment here. The environment we've created in Iraq is no different from what Saddam created. It doesn't take a genius to understand that the same abuses of power can easily take place again.

Well the same abuses of power can take place in any democracy, so if you want to go that route the Environment in the US is no different from what Saddam created, but see that is a very wide and very blind view of it.

No the environment is not the same, you do not have a Governmental Leader with aspirations to become a dictator, and you have a Constitution in place to keep power distributed. The Environment in Iraq is not the same.


And I find it funny you call my unwillingness to buy into your shallow, hypernationalist world view ignorance.

Well I tend to call my "Shallow, Hypernationalist World View Ignorance" reality, and you know what it is? It is Reality, which is why you have been losing this debate so horribly.

The Big Al
14th November 2008, 9:08 PM
If your world view was reality, I'd shoot myself. And the only place you're winning this debate is in your sick, twisted, little mind.

I'd take a look at your definitions again. Then look at your explanations as to why we need to stay in Iraq to train an absurd amount of troops. I believe your explanation was to protect the people from themselves. How is that not using police/military force to suppress the people?

To use a metaphor, the examples your using to describe a police state are the camel is the camel completely in the tent. Right now he's in the tent to about his shoulders. These things don't happen instantly. Though, you can't seem to grasp that.

And I had to laugh at your excuse about abuses of power. I suggest you take a close look at the situation in the United States and read the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights. Our founding fathers had the foresight to prevent such abuses of power. We're setting the stage for them intentionally (if we go by your logic) in Iraq.

BigLutz
14th November 2008, 9:14 PM
I'd take a look at your definitions again. Then look at your explanations as to why we need to stay in Iraq to train an absurd amount of troops. I believe your explanation was to protect the people from themselves. How is that not using police/military force to suppress the people?

No I said we are training troops so that they have enough Military and Police force so that when we do leave they are not stretched to thin to protect the country. I said it was to protect the people from Al Qaeda and Sadr's Iranian Trained Militias and a wide variety of other evil threats that will try to come in and take over the area. I never said it was to protect people from themselves, but to keep them from turning to Al Qaeda and the others because there is no one else around to protect them.


To use a metaphor, the examples your using to describe a police state are the camel is the camel completely in the tent. Right now he's in the tent to about his shoulders. These things don't happen instantly. Though, you can't seem to grasp that.

So let me get this straight, you say it is a Police State, but the Police State isn't happening instantly and may not even happen at all. Infact unless you can provide a different definition that fits your view, there is no indication of a Police State actually happening in Iraq.

Just making sure.


And I had to laugh at your excuse about abuses of power. I suggest you take a close look at the situation in the United States and read the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights. Our founding fathers had the foresight to prevent such abuses of power. We're setting the stage for them intentionally (if we go by your logic) in Iraq.

Well for one I have looked at all three, second we do have a Seperation of Powers as does Iraq right now. Now unless you want to make the case that Nouri al-Maliki right now is the dictator of Iraq that is not bound by any Constitution or Checks and Balances. Then you can.

If not... Next.

The Big Al
14th November 2008, 9:34 PM
They're going have enough troops to control the country through force. Their military will be active on their own soil despite no true enemy being out there. Instead, there's a specter enemy. You've said it yourself the military would be enforcing the peace of the gun. Tell me where this is or has been true and a police state did not form.

The central problem is we haven't solved the problem. We haven't convinced the Iraqis they don't need over whelming protection from each other. We haven't convinced they can just live in peace with one another. So, we've done nothing to prevent the next Saddam from coming along.

BigLutz
14th November 2008, 9:47 PM
They're going have enough troops to control the country through force. Their military will be active on their own soil despite no true enemy being out there. Instead, there's a specter enemy. You've said it yourself the military would be enforcing the peace of the gun. Tell me where this is or has been true and a police state did not form.

Well let me remind you that we also have enough troops to control our own country by force, does that make it a Police State?

Second, I cannot believe you are so blind to say that there is no true enemy out there. Have you forgotten Al Qaeda in Iraq's operations for the last few years? Have you forgotten Sadr and his thugs? Have you forgotten the Iranian Militamen that are being trained just right next door to their own country before being sent back to create chaos in havoc? Have you truely forgotten that?

Because honestly that is absolutely the only excuse I can come up with as to why you would say there is no true enemy there.

Also lets not forget that law enforcement in any country control the peace at Gunpoint. Lets also not forget that in times where there has been extraordinary trouble that the National Guard tends to control the peace at gunpoint.

Until a person's right to protest, or worship, or vote, or to even speak out against the Government is infrenged apon by the Government using the Police or Military to enforce their view, it is not by definition a Police State.


The central problem is we haven't solved the problem. We haven't convinced the Iraqis they don't need over whelming protection from each other. We haven't convinced they can just live in peace with one another. So, we've done nothing to prevent the next Saddam from coming along.

Actually we have done alot of things to prevent the next Saddam from coming along. Things you continue to fail to acknowledge.

Second we have convinced the Iraqis that they can live in peace with one another, if we hadn't they would still be having a Civil War in their country.

Third there are terrorists coming in with state of the art weapons supplied by Syria, Iran, and a host of other nations. As shown during the Saddam uprising in 92, these people are lucky to have shot guns to fight back with. If you think that they do not need overwhelming force to protect them against a enemy so well supplied and manned that they would overwhelm many National Armies, then... there are just no words to describe how wrong that is.

The Big Al
14th November 2008, 11:27 PM
I'd never thought I'd do this but I'm going to pick your post apart because it's so full of BS.

Well let me remind you that we also have enough troops to control our own country by force, does that make it a Police State?
They're not actively patrolling our streets and "maintaining the peace". You arguments fails yet again.

Second, I cannot believe you are so blind to say that there is no true enemy out there.
Where are they?

Have you forgotten Al Qaeda in Iraq's operations for the last few years?
Haven't their fellow Sunnis turned on them? Weren't they effectively eliminated as a threat before the surge was even proposed. Their influence is laughable at best.

Have you forgotten Sadr and his thugs?
Did he stop the fighting himself. He and his people also have no problem with their fellow Iraqis. He wants us out of his country.

Have you forgotten the Iranian Militamen that are being trained just right next door to their own country before being sent back to create chaos in havoc?
There's no way to keep Iran out of Iraq through simple force. That's something that will require a political and diplomatic solution. Fortunately, we have a president elect more willing to talk than shoot his mouth off.

Have you truely forgotten that?
I haven't forgotten. I just don't seem them as immediate threats to peace in Iraq anymore. Or there's no military solution to them. Either way, the level of troops you think they need is unfounded.

Also lets not forget that law enforcement in any country control the peace at Gunpoint. Lets also not forget that in times where there has been extraordinary trouble that the National Guard tends to control the peace at gunpoint.
I don't see a cop everywhere I turn and those I do see aren't heavily armed. They don't need to exert peace on people because people can live together in peace. They're there to handle the small minority of people who turn to crime.

And instances when the National Guard is called in are extraordinary and short lived. If a country is in a such a situation constantly, there's something seriously wrong.

Until a person's right to protest, or worship, or vote, or to even speak out against the Government is infrenged apon by the Government using the Police or Military to enforce their view, it is not by definition a Police State.
But it always starts with "we need to protect you".

Actually we have done alot of things to prevent the next Saddam from coming along. Things you continue to fail to acknowledge.
Like what?

Second we have convinced the Iraqis that they can live in peace with one another, if we hadn't they would still be having a Civil War in their country.
But your argument is they'll start another civil war unless they have enough military to control their country. Which is it or are you talking out your *** again.

Third there are terrorists coming in with state of the art weapons supplied by Syria, Iran, and a host of other nations. As shown during the Saddam uprising in 92, these people are lucky to have shot guns to fight back with. If you think that they do not need overwhelming force to protect them against a enemy so well supplied and manned that they would overwhelm many National Armies, then... there are just no words to describe how wrong that is.
If Syria or God forbid Iran decided to invade Iraq, it would make no difference how many Iraqi troops have been trained. They're out manned and out gunned. Saddam was able to keep them out with the threat of WMD's (which is why he claimed to have them when he didn't). There's no military solution to this.

BigLutz
14th November 2008, 11:54 PM
I'd never thought I'd do this but I'm going to pick your post apart because it's so full of BS.

This should be good!


They're not actively patrolling our streets and "maintaining the peace". You arguments fails yet again.

No but then again we do not have a Al Qaeda or Iranian trained Militia invading our border and taking control of our towns for prolonged periods of time. You're argument fails yet again.

If Canada or Mexico was practicing the same terrorism tactics that Al Qaeda and Iran are practicing, detonating bombs at bus stops, invading towns, etc etc, for not months but years. Do you honestly believe we wouldn't have the National Guard on every street corner in every major city sporting heavy duty weapons?


Where are they?

Hidden in various safe houses in Iraq as the weekend bomb attacks proved, a couple of outlying towns, as well as across the border in Syria and Iran.


Haven't their fellow Sunnis turned on them? Weren't they effectively eliminated as a threat before the surge was even proposed. Their influence is laughable at best.

The Sunni's turned on them but it is stupidity to believe they were effectively eliminated as a threat before the surge. If it wasn't for the surge the Sunni uprising would have been gunned down in it's infancy.

Second Al Qaeda in Iraq's Operations still exist in some areas in Iraq, and majorly across the border in Syria where they continue to plot.

Saying their influence is laughable shows a severe lack of understanding, and underestimating of them.


Did he stop the fighting himself. He and his people also have no problem with their fellow Iraqis. He wants us out of his country.

He also wants to bring about change his way, and through violent means. Not to mention in many ways he is a proxy for the Iranian Government, which mind you is where he is being protected right now.


There's no way to keep Iran out of Iraq through simple force. That's something that will require a political and diplomatic solution. Fortunately, we have a president elect more willing to talk than shoot his mouth off.

Which is absolutely stupid because Iran will continue to try it's operations in Iraq no matter how much we want to talk. You can't keep Iran out of Iraq, just like you cannot keep Al Qaeda out of Iraq. But you can bring about counter measures to keep them from doing any damage.


I haven't forgotten. I just don't seem them as immediate threats to peace in Iraq anymore. Or there's no military solution to them. Either way, the level of troops you think they need is unfounded.

Well for one no it isn't and that shows your lack of knowledge of the situation in Iraq. Before even the surge we would only be able to go into towns, take out the Al Qaeda base, and leave. And you know what? Al Qaeda would go right back in and rebuild. Afterwards we would go in, take out the base, and stay in the town. The troop levels are what build confidence in people. Confidence that we wont leave them, that we will protect them. THAT IS A FACT.

No immediate threats to the peace is laughable beyond belief. We still have Al Qaeda planning attacks in Iraq, we still have weapons being smuggled in, and we have new sets of Iranian trained militia coming in each day. All of those are threats to the peace. And if you start having towns with little to no protection because of lack of troops. That is the opening they need to turn things right back into 2005.


I don't see a cop everywhere I turn and those I do see aren't heavily armed. They don't need to exert peace on people because people can live together in peace. They're there to handle the small minority of people who turn to crime.

Well for one I don't think you live in Iraq so you cannot state that there are Troops "Everywhere you see." Second blow up some bombs in a few buildings, have a few suicide bombers, take a town or two hostage, and see if they are not heavily armed.

People can live together in harmony and peace, that is being proven in Iraq. What you continue to neglect that it isn't the people that anyone is afraid of, it's the terrorist that are actively trying to destroy that country through violent force.


And instances when the National Guard is called in are extraordinary and short lived. If a country is in a such a situation constantly, there's something seriously wrong.

There is something seriously wrong it is called being attacked by two sides by massively huge enemies who are well funded, and want to take over your country to turn it into a backwards run theocracy.


But it always starts with "we need to protect you".

Yes followed by the Tin Foiled Hats and the Stocking up of Guns in belief that the "Evil Government" is out to get you.


Like what?

Well a well crafted constitution, open elections, a Iraqi Parliament. Three things off the top of my head that would prevent a dictatorship from arising again.

Not to mention Article 69 in the Constitution: The President of the Republic's term in office shall be limited to four years and may be elected for a second time and no more.

Can't really have a dictatorship when you get kicked out in 4 years, 8 at the most.


But your argument is they'll start another civil war unless they have enough military to control their country. Which is it or are you talking out your *** again.

Ahh from the master of talking out of his ***.

No my argument is that if we do not have enough military to provide protection, that both sides will begin to look after themselves again. They will have believed the Iraqi Government has failed them, and will go looking elsewhere for protection from the bombings and attacks.

And if the Iraqi or US Government cannot provide adequate protection in the towns so that the people do feel safe, and so that they wont have to turn to Al Qaeda or Sadr or Iran for Protection. I think we can both agree that they have failed the people.


If Syria or God forbid Iran decided to invade Iraq, it would make no difference how many Iraqi troops have been trained. They're out manned and out gunned. Saddam was able to keep them out with the threat of WMD's (which is why he claimed to have them when he didn't). There's no military solution to this.

See that is what you are not getting, Syria or Iran do not have to invade Iraq using their military, they are already doing it right now through Proxy Fighters supplied by Al Qaeda and Iranian trained militia.

They both have been trying to invade the country for the last few years with state of the art weapons supplied to them from both Governments. Would either Governments actually try to invade the country? Hell no. Why have the UN and NATO and everyone else crawl up your *** and face retaliation, when you can give the guns to extremists who support your Government.

The Big Al
15th November 2008, 1:24 AM
There's plenty of threats to peace here in the United States. There are violent extremists for every cause. However, these people are marginalized not because the military is occupying its own country but because the mainstream has rejected them. I don't see why the Iraqi's can't do the same without replacing the American occupying force with their own occupying force.

BigLutz
15th November 2008, 3:03 AM
There's plenty of threats to peace here in the United States. There are violent extremists for every cause.

Even at the height of the KKK's power they are no comparison to the numbers, funding, or psychotic devotion that Al Qaeda has.


However, these people are marginalized not because the military is occupying its own country but because the mainstream has rejected them. I don't see why the Iraqi's can't do the same without replacing the American occupying force with their own occupying force.

Again maybe I am misunderstanding you or you worded it wrong, but I really have no idea what you are getting at here.

The Big Al
15th November 2008, 4:14 AM
Like you've made any sense. You've contradicted yourself in your own posts. I still can't decide whether you think the Iraqis want peace or they'll start killing each other.

BigLutz
15th November 2008, 4:18 AM
Like you've made any sense. You've contradicted yourself in your own posts. I still can't decide whether you think the Iraqis want peace or they'll start killing each other.

Umm I was just saying I was misunderstanding or misreading what you were saying and if you could please restate it. As for me, I have made it painfully clear that the Iraqis want peace, but when you get desperate for security you will go to who ever is offering it. I don't think I can make that any more clear.

aquajet16
16th November 2008, 1:58 AM
First things first, does anyone know here about Obama's move concerning the War on Terrorism?
Okay let's start

I dislike Obama really, as a Filipino myself. I see that making him president will revitalize and strengthen America's economy but the the Americans' priority when it comes to employment really is bad for our economy here since our country just relies on that kind of income from our OFW's or our overseas workers so it will be a bumpy ride on our part.

ImJessieTR
16th November 2008, 3:16 AM
In addition, the idea that the Republicans lost because they tried to shove morality and religion down everyone's throat is nonsense.
No, it wasn't that, I agree.


There was a time in this country when being "moral" was actually considered a good thing (if not the foundation of the entire legal system).
It still is. Where liberals and conservatives disagree is WHAT is moral and what is not, or at least, what is worth dragging the government into, and what isn't.


But now we can't impose "morality" on anyone, right?
We can't impose religion. "Religion" and "morality" are not synonyms. I expect liberals to have a relativist position on morals. What irks me is when I'm lectured by conservatives who seem to claim the backing of God Himself, when they also sin (rather a lot, in some cases). If you ("the government") want to convince me you are taking the high road, I expect you to be actually on it.


Who are we to judge you when you cheat on your spouse, or your taxes?
You can still get a divorce and the IRS will (if they're smart) get you if you cheat. From what I've seen of the Alaska race and the Republican campaign, being a conservative (in name only, apparently) gets you diplomatic immunity ... or at least social immunity. Immorality isn't the monopoly of liberals, it's just more hypocritical when the "moral" people do it.


Who are we to judge you when you get AIDS, herpes, or have an abortion because you just wanted a few irresponsible "hook ups"?
We shouldn't judge because you can be an innocent victim of someone else's sins, at least with the diseases. For abortion, I'm pro-choice, but I also want to stop or at least reduce abortion. However, the conservative position of banning it is a band-aid to the real problem: sex is encouraged in this country. Stop congratulating boys on scoring and stop telling girls their self-worth must be measured in men and you will see a reduction in unwanted pregnancies. I'm not saying get rid of sex, we just need to stop commercializing or worshipping it.


Who are we to judge you because you ran up thousands in credit card debt or bought a home you couldn't afford?
Yes, those people were stupid. Who are we to judge when the conservative CEOs took our money and ran with it to buy yachts and vacations? Who are we to judge when industry bribes (oops, I mean, "contributes to campaigns") Congresspeople and then whines that they're broke? It seems fair that if we're going to judge and condemn poor idiots, we should do the same thing for rich ones.

BigLutz
16th November 2008, 5:34 AM
Yes, those people were stupid. Who are we to judge when the conservative CEOs took our money and ran with it to buy yachts and vacations? Who are we to judge when industry bribes (oops, I mean, "contributes to campaigns") Congresspeople and then whines that they're broke? It seems fair that if we're going to judge and condemn poor idiots, we should do the same thing for rich ones.

We should, but if we are going to start blaming every corrupt idiot, then I would like to add a few. Lets start with those idiots that pushed "Affirmative Action" housing, so that means lets go after those Liberals in Congress that made the law in 96, and go after Clinton who signed it into law. Then lets go after the Liberal Activist Groups that protested and used sleazy tactics to force banks to give out the banks to give out the bad loans or face merger problems down the line. Then lets go after the absolute idiots like Barney Frank and the other Democrats and some Republicans that believed that everything was okay in 2003 and blocked attempts to reform.

Poor Idiots, Rich Idiots, both of them are going to have to pay eventually for their stupidity, and they should be forced to pay. Personally, I want to start going after the Corrupt Idiots, who bent over backwards to get us into the hole we are in now. Infact lets not go after the Corrupt Idiots, lets also go after those that are hiding the Corrupt Idiots, because of the Political Embarrassment it would bring to the Democrats.

randomspot555
16th November 2008, 7:07 AM
Those "liberals in Congress" were led by Newt Gringrich. Republicans had pretty good majorities in both houses.

BigLutz
16th November 2008, 7:26 AM
Yeah that was my fault, as upon further reading it looks like that Congressional Action may not have happened in 1995, and it was just Clinton telling Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin to revise the act. Personally though the entire stuff with the CRA and how much it did or didn't hurt the bubble may never be known. We could have hearings on it, bring in experts, etc etc. But it was nearly 15 years ago and many of those that voted for it are gone. Now don't get me wrong, if Republicans voted for it, and we find out the CRA played any possible action in the crisis, they need to be brought infront of Congress with their Democrat Colleges as well as Clinton and Rubin.

Really what pisses me off the most though, and is something more recent are investigating those at the hearings in 2003/2004 and were bought and paid for by Mae and Mac, such as Barnie Frank and Chris Dodd and see if any of their actions, or any actions by the Republicans at that time to protect Fannie and Freddie helped continue these problems. Problem is the Pelosi/Reed Congress doesn't really care about that or we would have had hearings months ago, and now there are whispers that there wont be any investigations. Too few (R)s, too many high ranking (D)s.

ImJessieTR
16th November 2008, 5:32 PM
I'm all for getting rid of corruption, liberal or conservative. Corruption hurts our economic bottom line. It also makes it very hard to convince other countries we are as good as we say we are.

The_Panda
16th November 2008, 9:16 PM
I don't the the problem BigLutz is that there are too many Democrats or too few Republicans, it's just the nature of Congress. While I accept that Congress is an institution that needs to be there and is an incredible safeguard, the majority of Congressmen are purely awful. All they really care about is the interests of a few select people in their electorate: the donors and special interest groups. Both Republican and Democrat, congress is filled with people like Ted Stevens: people who really don't care about the common good only their highly select viewpoint of some redneck filled town and repetitively bow down to partisan an business groups. Oh and as for the C.R.A., it's an incredibly bogus piece of legislation of course, but it's not the entire picture of the misguided actions of government. The act was repetitively strengthened and yes Clinton bears some blame for that, but also under the Bush administration the regulatory offices allows Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to satisfy the "affordable housing goals" through sub-prime mortgages. Anyway I don't really think we should blame the last five presidents for this: none of them had any idea what troubles would rack the mortgage market and as far as they were concerned they were doing a service for the community by providing low cost housing.

May I also say that another aspect has been ignored... a quite literal housing bubble where two million more houses exist than are needed. It seems to me (sarcastically) that the best way to get out of this crisis is by employing the unemployed to pull down those houses... then rebuild enough that are needed xD

HoennMaster
17th November 2008, 6:59 AM
You know, having a recount to find out your senator just sucks, but what also sucks is how these two (Norm Coleman and Al Franken from Minnesota) are still going at each other. I can't wait for this to be figured out already.

BigLutz
17th November 2008, 8:12 PM
The Panda: I don't the the problem BigLutz is that there are too many Democrats or too few Republicans

No that is the exact reason why there isn't any investigations that are going to happen. Off the top of my head I can name 4 High Ranking Democrats that would be put under the microscope if a investigation into Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac were to happen, two will be in the White House next year, the other two are in key positions in our Government when it comes to banking and finance.

You have Barney Frank, who once had a sexual relationship with a Fannie Mae executive and is now Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee. Which could represent a conflict of interest when it comes to how he handled Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

You have Chris Dodd who was the top receiver of Campaign Donations from Fannie Mae and Freddie mac between the period of 1989 - 2008. Not to mention the Countrywide Loan scandal. He is the Chairman of the Senate Banking Committee. Again another Conflict of Interest in a high powered position dealing with the Mortgage Crisis.

You have Rahm Emanuel, who is the upcoming Chief of Staff for the Obama White House, and was previously was appointed onto the board of directors of Fannie Mae by Bill Clinton. He held that position on the board during the height of the scandals that helped led to the collapse of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Finally you have Barck Obama himself, who in just 4 years, has received so many donations from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that he has come close to tying Chris Dodd's total. Meaning he has gotten nearly as much money in 4 years, as Chris Dodd has gotten in 20.

Those 4 people I named off are in extremely high places in the Government when it comes to the mortgage mess. 2 in the White House, 2 in Congress. Do you think Pelosi/Reed want to spend the next year investigating this? To have the Obama White House spend alot of their time focusing on defending their Chief of Staff and Campaign Contributions? Do you think Pelosi/Reed want to have Dodd and Frank go through two very embarrassing investigations who's findings will still be fresh come mid terms time?

To put it another way, if McCain had won, and had the baggage Obama and Emanuel have. And that Dodd and Frank had (R)s by their names instead of (D)s. Do you honestly think Pelosi would be going around whispering that there wont be a "Witch Hunt"? Assuring people there wont be investigations?

It's Congressional Politics, it is all about (D)s and (R)s. You have a guy who was at ground zero of the Fannae Mae collapse, and Pelosi tells him that there wont be any investigations? Funny how I find it a little hard to believe that she wont be doing investigations because she is a "Nice Guy" instead of him being a top ranking Democrat.

Kyogre35
18th November 2008, 12:56 AM
Well now I'm going to list what Obama will do for this country IMO:

1: He will raise taxes on everyone. I mean do you really expect him to not raise taxes on everyone when he's proposing a 1 trillion dollar Health Care plan? When the Gov. is already in debt? He has to raise taxes and the top 5% isn't enough.

2. He will end the war in Iraq. THis one hopefully will not be as it might be. Seeing the US has handed over 13 out of 18 provinces to Iraq gives me hope that it might hold Iran coming in if it does...but it might not be enough.

3. National Health Care. THis is one of the big issues of his presidency. So it will be emplimented. But I remember in Hawaii they implemented State Health Care for Children so every Child got Health Care....in 6 months they were asking the Feds for more money.

4. We might be attacked again. I'm almost certain the terroist's groups of the world arn't the least bit afraid of Obama and can't imagine he'll go after them if they attack...so we might get attacked again. I Pray it won't happen...but I fear it might.

5. Abortion. He will grant Abortion....no doubt about it. He will give 17 year olds the ability to get an abortion without telling there parents...and late term abortions. So I except that to pass sometime.

6. Bring out the Bailouts. My god they might come in bunches. The auto indristy. Banks. And any other companies that need it might get that 50 Billion they need from a Gov. that is running in the red.

Well that's what I think.

Manamanah
18th November 2008, 4:12 AM
Um, Kyogre35, really? Its not just a matter of me disagreeing with what you just said, its that they're factually incorrect.

NUMBAH 1: He will not raise taxes on everyone. Yes he's proposing to do many things with government money. This ties directly into.....

NUMBAH 2: The money that we pour into Iraq is insane. If/when Obama stops the war in Iraq, that will bring back billions (trillions?) of dollars back where america needs it. IN AMERICA.

NUMBAH 3: This is not a bad thing.

NUMBAH 4: We could be attacked under any president at any time, yes. However, Obama said in his interview with 60 minutes that he would put money into funding the National Guard so we can prevent such things.

NUMBAH 5: I'm not a religious Christian so I see nothing wrong with abortion. If it is against your religion, then don't utilize your new option. We still sell pork in the USA even though Jewish people can't eat it.

NUMBAH 6: Where are you getting your facts from? I see you have written IMO at the top of your post so then what facts are you basing your opinion on?

Much love

GhostAnime
18th November 2008, 4:15 AM
i dont see anywhere that says obama is actually for late-term abortion.

but abortion being legal period isnt really that bad.

BigLutz
18th November 2008, 4:28 AM
i dont see anywhere that says obama is actually for late-term abortion.

but abortion being legal period isnt really that bad.

Obama has truly had a horrible record on abortion, and well, killing the children after they had been born. But I think the whole "Late term Abortion" thing is him wanting to sign the Freedom of Choice act, which does a variety of things that have ****** the Pro Lifers off, from what I have been able to gleam from it, it would abolish or State or Local level restrictions on Abortion. Which apparently means that even hospitals that wont have abortions on religious grounds would be forced to. It also apparently would remove any State or Local law on Late Term Abortions, although I haven't been able to verify that.

Manamanah
18th November 2008, 4:34 AM
Abortion is tricky to deal with. If we go all pro life, the pro choice people will go insane. If we go all pro choice, the pro life people will go insane. Its a no win situation, and although pro choice may make you crazy, know that if a national pro life bill was passed, you might me more happy, but the other half of the country would not.

Ethan
18th November 2008, 5:04 AM
NUMBAH 1: He will not raise taxes on everyone. Yes he's proposing to do many things with government money. This ties directly into.....


Whoa back up. You honestly think that Obama can fund all his promises like universal healthcare etc by taxing a 5% tax base, when the top 10% already pay 70% of the government budget? You don't anyone else will see a dime in taxes go up? It's time be realistic, not hopeful pal.


NUMBAH 2: The money that we pour into Iraq is insane. If/when Obama stops the war in Iraq, that will bring back billions (trillions?) of dollars back where america needs it. IN AMERICA.

No, the money is gone. We do not get any of the money back. All of the money we spent in Iraq *poof* gone. No money returns. The government get it's money back by taxing us. WE will be paying for the war in the years to come. So yeah, dead wrong on this one.


NUMBAH 3: This is not a bad thing.

So it's not a bad thing when a state asks the federal government for funding of a program that doesn't work? GOOD TO KNOW.


NUMBAH 4: We could be attacked under any president at any time, yes. However, Obama said in his interview with 60 minutes that he would put money into funding the National Guard so we can prevent such things.

Funny how the national guard does not combat terrorism.



NUMBAH 5: I'm not a religious Christian so I see nothing wrong with abortion. If it is against your religion, then don't utilize your new option. We still sell pork in the USA even though Jewish people can't eat it.

He was talking about the fact that teens can legally have an abortion without telling their parents which you completely ignored. THAT IS bad and supports complete irresponsibility.

The_Panda
18th November 2008, 8:29 AM
I'm sorry either I misunderstood you BigLutz or you misunderstood me, or both. To clarify, my post was about dealing with the financial crisis in general not just hearings on Fannie and Freddie.


He was talking about the fact that teens can legally have an abortion without telling their parents which you completely ignored. THAT IS bad and supports complete irresponsibility.

Babylon, the compulsory notification for parents completely undermines one of the most central tenants of medical ethics; doctor-patient confidentiality. Doctors should not be allowed to tell anyone of the name and medical information of patient by default and doctors are under the duty to not tell others rather than to tell regardless of who they are, parent or otherwise. May I clarify the law in the U.S. and in most countries for you: for standard medical procedures, the consent of the parent is required for minors. However for issues of pregnancy, contagious diseases, sexually-transmitted diseases, rape, sexual assault, mental health and substance abuse minors of age twelve and older are allowed to consent without a parent (although the greater than or equal to twelve figure does not apply to pregnancy matters specifically, rather, the law states that it is the choice of the mother-to-be alone). This means that the doctor is under oath to respect the consenting patient's privacy and not inform anybody of that patient's medical status. Quite simply the compulsory notification of parents is a complete violation of medical ethics and undermine the system; medical officers are forbidden under all circumstances to release the information of a legally authorising patient unless required to by a court or with the patient's written permission.

May I provide particular support for doctor patient confidentiality in this situation. The choice to have medical care in the cases described above are solely the choice of the consenting patient: nobody else. The choice whether or whether not to have a child is again solely in the hands of the mother. Releasing information to parents may undermine this: for example, parents may punish the child, or worse they may force the child to have or not to have an abortion thus denying the minor of the right to consent; something that is completely against the law and all medical ethics. And the second reason why confidentiality must be respected is that when doctors have to tell parents children may be scared off medical care. There is extraordinary stigma attached to teenage pregnancy, drug abuse, rape, sexually transmitted diseases, et cetera; and children may not want their parents to find out about this for fear of disdain, virtual exile and punishment. What this means is that if parents must be notified minors may abstain from medical assistance; quite simply minors want confidentiality and many fear that confidentiality may not be respected. Nobody should be turned off seeing a doctor or medical care. In addition, no parental consent is required to have a baby, nor is there parental consent required to not have a baby. It seems absurd to me that somebody is allowed to have a baby and not allowed to have an abortion. The authority over whether a child should be born lies in the baby's parents not its grandparents.

If getting yourself into a mess is irresponsible, but it is even more irresponsible to not try help yourself. I concede it is possible that if doctor patient confidentiality is relinquished for this some minors may be more hesitant about getting pregnant, but I would think this number is actually negligible. Think inside the mind of a teenager who is seeking an abortion. Do you think they would have planned their pregnancy? Do you think they would have thought deeply about the consequences (enough to trace to parents through doctors at least) of getting pregnant? Do you think they thought they could get pregnant in the first place (kid me not, the number of delusions held by people on this is astounding)? And if these laws were past and minors did now about it, how many would abstain from sexual intercourse just because of this? Irresponsibility would only ever be "encouraged" if minors who are likely to get pregnant would know about all these laws, want to get pregnant (by the way, regardless of whether abortion is available almost everybody who doesn't want a child will avoid pregnancy) and have thought deeply about doctors telling their parents before fertilisation. Your argument only holds before pregnancy and not after it, and while I do not want to stereotype I'm thinking quite realistically here, the teenagers who become pregnant are hardly described by those who would be turned off by one law like this. And regardless almost all teenagers who have sex don't want to get pregnant in the first place but still do it: many either don't think they'll pregnant, forget about it when the time comes or value the pleasure of sex over the small chance you might get pregnant. Do you think this law will add any more of a deterrent realistically? Because I really don't, and if it does (and I concede it is possible) it will most likely only effect a very small amount of people such that the price of undermining medical ethics, destroying rightful consent and turning minors away from medical care is just not worth it.

Genome
18th November 2008, 11:33 AM
May I also say that another aspect has been ignored... a quite literal housing bubble where two million more houses exist than are needed. It seems to me (sarcastically) that the best way to get out of this crisis is by employing the unemployed to pull down those houses... then rebuild enough that are needed xD
This is why we need to bring out those napalm bombs..

GhostAnime
18th November 2008, 2:37 PM
He was talking about the fact that teens can legally have an abortion without telling their parents which you completely ignored. THAT IS bad and supports complete irresponsibility.
how so? it's the woman's body; the parents shouldnt have any control at all.

though this probably has more to do with your views on abortion period.

edit: actually i think i get what you're saying now. you're saying that the parents would have never found out if she had sex or not.

though that depends on HOW they had sex if you want to talk about responsibility.

poke poke
18th November 2008, 3:08 PM
No, the money is gone. We do not get any of the money back. All of the money we spent in Iraq *poof* gone. No money returns. The government get it's money back by taxing us. WE will be paying for the war in the years to come. So yeah, dead wrong on this one.

You totally misunderstood him.

If the war continues, you people will have to continue paying taxes just for the war. If Obama pulls you out, the money that you were paying for war will stay in America instead. It then can be used for the sole purpose of aiding American growth instead of some idiotic war.

randomspot555
18th November 2008, 3:38 PM
You totally misunderstood him.

If the war continues, you people will have to continue paying taxes just for the war. If Obama pulls you out, the money that you were paying for war will stay in America instead. It then can be used for the sole purpose of aiding American growth instead of some idiotic war.

The war is currently not being supported by taxes at all. Congress votes for supplemental increases a few times a year, which is outside of the federal budget.

As to the abortion issue: I find it quite ironic that the talking point on Obama's health care plan is "Do you want the government standing between you and your doctor?" but that's exactly what happens in many of these laws supported by conservatives. The War on Drugs has made doctors fearful of prescribing pain medication and has made it harder for chronic pain patients to obtain such, and these abortion laws are no different.

If the government wants to decrease abortions, then it needs to backup programs that can do that. Give these pregnant women some options, so that if they choose to have the kid, they'll be able to support it.

BigLutz
18th November 2008, 6:47 PM
You totally misunderstood him.

If the war continues, you people will have to continue paying taxes just for the war. If Obama pulls you out, the money that you were paying for war will stay in America instead. It then can be used for the sole purpose of aiding American growth instead of some idiotic war.

Well for one like it or not Obama cannot pull out for another 3 years. 2 at the most. Second that would only be possible if we were funding the war out of our own pockets. Problem with your idea is that we are racking up a defecit just funding the war. So even if we we stopped funding it tomorrow its not like we will have that money since we are already borrowing it to pay for the war.

Not to mention that alot of money will be diverted to Afghanistan.

Either way lets say we were not borrowing the money to pay for the war and we took all the money out of Iraq to pay for Obama's plans. It STILL wouldn't come to the total based on some estimates. Infact if we took the half a trillion that we use to pay for our army it wouldn't pay for all of Obama's plans.

Ethan
18th November 2008, 9:54 PM
Okay Tim, can you not respond to my argument with a damn wall of text? I don't know about others, but I find that really annoying.




Babylon, the compulsory notification for parents completely undermines one of the most central tenants of medical ethics; doctor-patient confidentiality. Doctors should not be allowed to tell anyone of the name and medical information of patient by default and doctors are under the duty to not tell others rather than to tell regardless of who they are, parent or otherwise. May I clarify the law in the U.S. and in most countries for you: for standard medical procedures, the consent of the parent is required for minors. However for issues of pregnancy, contagious diseases, sexually-transmitted diseases, rape, sexual assault, mental health and substance abuse minors of age twelve and older are allowed to consent without a parent (although the greater than or equal to twelve figure does not apply to pregnancy matters specifically, rather, the law states that it is the choice of the mother-to-be alone). This means that the doctor is under oath to respect the consenting patient's privacy and not inform anybody of that patient's medical status. Quite simply the compulsory notification of parents is a complete violation of medical ethics and undermine the system; medical officers are forbidden under all circumstances to release the information of a legally authorising patient unless required to by a court or with the patient's written permission.


Ho hum, here's the part where I don't give two shits to be honest. As with all policies Tim you should no boundries should be drawn and personal discretion should be used. Doctor-patient confidentiality. Awesome, stellar even. However using that as blanket ethics for single case is nonsense, and especially here. You can talk about medical ethics all you want, and privacy too, but teens are under the legal authority of their parents. Bottom line. I don't care if it violates the teens privacy. They are still under the legal authority of their parents, so the parents have every single right to know something that directly effects the well being and health of their child.


May I provide particular support for doctor patient confidentiality in this situation. The choice to have medical care in the cases described above are solely the choice of the consenting patient: nobody else. The choice whether or whether not to have a child is again solely in the hands of the mother. Releasing information to parents may undermine this: for example, parents may punish the child, or worse they may force the child to have or not to have an abortion thus denying the minor of the right to consent; something that is completely against the law and all medical ethics.

And here you flat out misunderstand the argument. I'm not saying that teens should require permission from their parents to have an abortion, or whether the parents should have the authority whether she keeps the child or not. I agree with you there, but this entire post was directed at a straw man. I'm saying that when something directl effects the well being of the child the parents should be notified. Period. I don't care if the parents take disciplinary measures either. Sure, it's your right to go and have an abortion, but it's also the right of the parent to take disciplinary measures to prevent that from happening. ie grounding you, what have you.



And the second reason why confidentiality must be respected is that when doctors have to tell parents children may be scared off medical care. There is extraordinary stigma attached to teenage pregnancy, drug abuse, rape, sexually transmitted diseases, et cetera; and children may not want their parents to find out about this for fear of disdain, virtual exile and punishment. What this means is that if parents must be notified minors may abstain from medical assistance; quite simply minors want confidentiality and many fear that confidentiality may not be respected. Nobody should be turned off seeing a doctor or medical care. In addition, no parental consent is required to have a baby, nor is there parental consent required to not have a baby. It seems absurd to me that somebody is allowed to have a baby and not allowed to have an abortion. The authority over whether a child should be born lies in the baby's parents not its grandparents.

And having an abortion without notifying the parent undermines the parents authority and their ability to provide mental and emotional support for their child. The blanket argument you are making is that all parents are neo conservative religios demons that want to punish their child because sex is icky and gross, which is not the case. You are preventing the parent from doing their job, which is care and be their for their child in serious situations, by God I'd think abortion would be one of them. I hardly think this an argument when it can lean the other way too.

The rest of your post you can bring up again in a tl;dr version.

GhostAnime
18th November 2008, 10:02 PM
oooh, you mean the parents simply knowing? .. well, i have no stance on that.

i thought this was about the parents having authority over the whole operation. =P

BigLutz
18th November 2008, 10:21 PM
People tend to forget that before the age of 18 or becoming a emancipated minor, or court order, children have very few rights in the United States. If a child is engaging in sexual activities before the age of 18, then the parents have every right to know about it. Unless the child want's to pay for their own insurance and possibly everything that comes with being pregnant. Than the parents should be informed, if the child were to get pregnant or even a STD it will be the parent's insurance that pays for the doctor visits.

Personally I do not give a damn if it "Makes the child uncomfortable" to go to the doctors office and have to tell their parents. They made a stupid decision and the parents deserved to be informed as most of the time they will be the ones paying for it, not to mention most parents care for the health of their own child.

And like it or not, if the child were to get pregnant, eventually they will have to seek treatment, when they do the parents or a guardian should absolutely be informed, to make sure that kind of behavior stops until they are a adult and can pay for the abortions and HIV drugs and what ever else themselves.

Edit: To get back on the political topic, Hillary Clinton may be the Secretary of State. If you care anything about Hillary you better hope she doesn't take the job. If she does I would suspect that means she has given up running for President. It would take away her biggest complaint if the DNC lets her run in 2012. Being able to say "I told you so.". Also as Secretary of State she would be the biggest one next to Obama tied to the Obama White House Foreign Policy. We all know that the world is trying to test Obama, if he fails that test, he brings Hillary down with him.

Carlisle
19th November 2008, 3:51 AM
Ted Stevens loses the election. The Democrats get a seat from Alaska. Two seats still undecided, Joe Lieberman still in, and Democrats now have 58 seats in the House. The votes still aren't 100% in every state, so it's crazy to think how many people voted. Some places still aren't calling Missouri, as well as some House seats. Obama is only behind McCain by 4,000 votes in Missouri. The voter technicians only had until today, however. So looks like it failed to be a bellwether. The Electoral College votes casts their votes on December 15th, and on January 8th the votes are officially tallied. 12 days later, Inauguration! Crazy to think this thing is over and that this administration is, too. Just 62 days of Bush left. The only thing that surprises me the most is how many Clinton people are being put into the Obama administration, including Hillary herself most likely. It seems like it will be a very Liberal 1993-2000 era. Lets just hope Obama keeps true to his word!

BigLutz
19th November 2008, 3:57 AM
Crazy to think this thing is over and that this administration is, too. Just 62 days of Bush left. The only thing that surprises me the most is how many Clinton people are being put into the Obama administration, including Hillary herself most likely.

Yeah you better seriously hope Hillary doesn't take the job if you want her to have any opportunity in the future to run for President.


It seems like it will be a very Liberal 1993-2000 era. Lets just hope Obama keeps true to his word!

Oh lets hope so, 4 years of absolute uncontrollable spending in a down economy, a naive Foreign Policy plan that will see a resurgence of Russia, Iran, and other nations that wish to take us down a peg or two. Staying true to his words would be disastrous to this country and this world, but it lets people have a view of Liberalism not seen since the Glory Days of Jimmy Carter.

HoennMaster
19th November 2008, 4:05 AM
Ted Stevens loses the election. The Democrats get a seat from Alaska. Two seats still undecided

I'm in one of those states (Minnesota), and it is seriously annoying. These two are still going after each other and they aren't helping themselves. Hopefully we will find out Minnesota's Senator on December 5 or 6. The recount results are required to be submitted by December 5.

Kate
19th November 2008, 4:45 AM
Babylon, the compulsory notification for parents completely undermines one of the most central tenants of medical ethics; doctor-patient confidentiality. Doctors should not be allowed to tell anyone of the name and medical information of patient by default and doctors are under the duty to not tell others rather than to tell regardless of who they are, parent or otherwise. May I clarify the law in the U.S. and in most countries for you: for standard medical procedures, the consent of the parent is required for minors. However for issues of pregnancy, contagious diseases, sexually-transmitted diseases, rape, sexual assault, mental health and substance abuse minors of age twelve and older are allowed to consent without a parent (although the greater than or equal to twelve figure does not apply to pregnancy matters specifically, rather, the law states that it is the choice of the mother-to-be alone). This means that the doctor is under oath to respect the consenting patient's privacy and not inform anybody of that patient's medical status. Quite simply the compulsory notification of parents is a complete violation of medical ethics and undermine the system; medical officers are forbidden under all circumstances to release the information of a legally authorising patient unless required to by a court or with the patient's written permission.

A 12 year old cannot even go out and get a damn library card on their own, and you support them being able to have an abortion without any notification to their parents at all?

BigLutz
19th November 2008, 6:24 AM
Just some Misc Stuff for possible discussion. Zogby did a poll of voters, I believe Obama voters on election day, the results were this:

Edit: The poll surveyed over 500 self-professed Obama voters and has an MOE of 4.4&#37;, with 55% having a college degree and over 90% having a high-school diploma. It asked 12 multiple-choice questions; only 2.4% got at least 11 correct. Only .5% got all them correct.

* 57.4 could NOT correctly say which party controls congress (50/50 shot just by guessing)

* 81.8 could NOT correctly say Joe Biden quit a previous campaign because of plagiarism (25% chance by guessing)

* 82.6 could NOT correctly say that Obama won his first election by getting opponents kicked off the ballot (25% chance by guessing)

* 88.4% could NOT correctly say that Obama said his policies would likely bankrupt the coal industry and make energy rates skyrocket (25% chance by guessing)

* 56.1 % could NOT correctly say Obama started his political career at the home of two former members of the Weather Underground (25% chance by guessing).And yet…..

* 86.3% identified Palin as the person their party spent $150,000 in clothes on

* 93.8% identified Palin as the one with a pregnant teenage daughter

* And 86.9 % thought that Palin said that she could see Russia from her “house,” even though that was Tina Fey

Draw your own conclusions although that is a pretty accurate poll about freaking biased the news coverage was for Obama through out the election.

Also the Big 3 Auto Manufactures are wanting a bail out now, something I am surprised hasn't been mentioned here. A major reason American Cars have slowly lost their dominance around the world is the absolutely toxic union known as the UAW. Yes Unions were good back in the day when they were actually needed. Now days they tend to do alot more harm then good. If the Big 3 Auto Manufactures want to be competitive again, they need to get the grip of the UAW off of their throats.

GhostAnime
19th November 2008, 1:37 PM
nah, i wouldnt put that all on bias; it just shows how powerful the media has over people.

legendary master Jose
19th November 2008, 10:08 PM
The only thing that surprises me the most is how many Clinton people are being put into the Obama administration, including Hillary herself most likely. It seems like it will be a very Liberal 1993-2000 era. Lets just hope Obama keeps true to his word!

it suprises me to considering obama was the canidate of change not old but thtas politics for you and anyone who honestly thinks obama is gonna make any new changes doesnt know the first thing about politics

GhostAnime
19th November 2008, 10:11 PM
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7737710.stm

In a message purportedly from Ayman al-Zawahiri, the al-Qaeda deputy accused US President-elect Barack Obama of betraying his Muslim roots.

dont betray the homies.

legendary master Jose
19th November 2008, 10:23 PM
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7737710.stm

In a message purportedly from Ayman al-Zawahiri, the al-Qaeda deputy accused US President-elect Barack Obama of betraying his Muslim roots.

dont betray the homies.

you know i remember reding somewhere that the Quran allows you to say your part of another religion if it will help out the islamic cause perhaps Al-Zawahiri is calling this to early

Kyogre35
20th November 2008, 12:07 AM
Just some Misc Stuff for possible discussion. Zogby did a poll of voters, I believe Obama voters on election day, the results were this:

Edit: The poll surveyed over 500 self-professed Obama voters and has an MOE of 4.4&#37;, with 55% having a college degree and over 90% having a high-school diploma. It asked 12 multiple-choice questions; only 2.4% got at least 11 correct. Only .5% got all them correct.

* 57.4 could NOT correctly say which party controls congress (50/50 shot just by guessing)

* 81.8 could NOT correctly say Joe Biden quit a previous campaign because of plagiarism (25% chance by guessing)

* 82.6 could NOT correctly say that Obama won his first election by getting opponents kicked off the ballot (25% chance by guessing)

* 88.4% could NOT correctly say that Obama said his policies would likely bankrupt the coal industry and make energy rates skyrocket (25% chance by guessing)

* 56.1 % could NOT correctly say Obama started his political career at the home of two former members of the Weather Underground (25% chance by guessing).And yet…..

* 86.3% identified Palin as the person their party spent $150,000 in clothes on

* 93.8% identified Palin as the one with a pregnant teenage daughter

* And 86.9 % thought that Palin said that she could see Russia from her “house,” even though that was Tina Fey

Draw your own conclusions although that is a pretty accurate poll about freaking biased the news coverage was for Obama through out the election.

Also the Big 3 Auto Manufactures are wanting a bail out now, something I am surprised hasn't been mentioned here. A major reason American Cars have slowly lost their dominance around the world is the absolutely toxic union known as the UAW. Yes Unions were good back in the day when they were actually needed. Now days they tend to do alot more harm then good. If the Big 3 Auto Manufactures want to be competitive again, they need to get the grip of the UAW off of their throats.

Yeah I saw that on Fox News....it's not that there stupid...there ilinformend.

See they don't get informed and get the Actual facts. THey don't bother, they just go with the hot sexxy pick in Obama (No I'm not saying he's sexxy). It's like peer pressure.

And the question about Congress and who's holding it...that's why people hate BUsh so much. They don't know also Congress screwed up so let's vote out the party in the White House. And that's why 98% of incumbants get re-elected...Because no one pays attention...oh and there's a bit of news about the..."fairness doctrine" which would FORCE radio talk show stations to put as much liberal commentators on as Conservative....this is wrong. THis is a violation of the First admendment. Yes there are basically no Liberal Radio talk show hosts...do you know why? THey fail....they've tried to do it but they end up in the hole and bankrupt..Air America anyone? So this January or next year sometime...be ready Conservatives..Here it comes.

Edit: I've ranked up.

randomspot555
20th November 2008, 2:54 AM
^^Voters are ill informed. News at 11. It's a pointless story.


you know i remember reding somewhere that the Quran allows you to say your part of another religion if it will help out the islamic cause perhaps Al-Zawahiri is calling this to early

Prove to me the Koran says that.

And Barack Obama isn't a Muslim.

"But I didn't say he was!" is probably your response. But then again, your post would be pointless if that wasn't the point you're trying to make.

EDIT: Looks like Obama doesn't support the Fairness Doctrine. http://www.broadcastingcable.com/CA6573406.html

BigLutz
20th November 2008, 3:03 AM
EDIT: Looks like Obama doesn't support the Fairness Doctrine. http://www.broadcastingcable.com/CA6573406.html

That's good, now the million dollar question is would he sign it into law if Congress tried to pass it, or knowingly appoint people to the FCC that do support it. And the bonus question for double the reward: Does he support Localization. Which is basically the Fairness Doctrine 2.0

legendary master Jose
20th November 2008, 4:48 AM
^^Voters are ill informed. News at 11. It's a pointless story.



Prove to me the Koran says that.

And Barack Obama isn't a Muslim.

"But I didn't say he was!" is probably your response. But then again, your post would be pointless if that wasn't the point you're trying to make.

EDIT: Looks like Obama doesn't support the Fairness Doctrine. http://www.broadcastingcable.com/CA6573406.html

your right i never did say he was but that doesnt mean i dont think he is.

---

but like biglutz said he may not support it but will he think the same way when it lands on his desk cause vetoing it would cause him to lose a lot of support

randomspot555
20th November 2008, 5:15 AM
your right i never did say he was but that doesnt mean i dont think he is.

Find me one piece of evidence that he is. You don't "think" someone is or isn't a member of a religion. It's not up for debate. Barack Obama has said he's a Christian. There's been no evidence otherwise. Hell, one of the scandals was about a Christian minister.

However, as Colin Powell said, the answer shouldn't be "Yes, he's a Christian, and those who think otherwise are wrong", but "So what if he was a Muslim?" Because there's nothing inherently wrong about Islam.

BigLutz
20th November 2008, 5:52 AM
However, as Colin Powell said, the answer shouldn't be "Yes, he's a Christian, and those who think otherwise are wrong", but "So what if he was a Muslim?" Because there's nothing inherently wrong about Islam.

Yeah sadly right now there is, especially in a place of such very high office while we are at war with Islamic Extremists. 20 years from now if the Middle East were calmer and we weren't at a war over there then I think most of this country would welcome a Muslim into the White House. Now I am not saying a Muslim President would go secret Al Qaeda on us, but I do believe that if they do hold true to their beliefs of Islam that they would have second thoughts to sending US Troops to invade a muslim country and attack other muslims. And he or she would almost absolutely have second thoughts about sending US Troops into Mecca or any other areas of the Islamic Holy Land.

So people can say "So what if he was a Muslim?" The question we should of asked is. "If we elect a Muslim President, would he or she hesitate and go against their religion to go after Muslim in some of their Religions holy lands."

HoennMaster
20th November 2008, 7:57 AM
anyone who honestly thinks obama is gonna make any new changes doesnt know the first thing about politics

Aw, such stupidity. Let's see, going from Republican to Democrat. Nope, there can't honestly be ANY changes.

randomspot555
20th November 2008, 2:04 PM
So people can say "So what if he was a Muslim?" The question we should of asked is. "If we elect a Muslim President, would he or she hesitate and go against their religion to go after Muslim in some of their Religions holy lands."

Again, that's a double standard. I've never heard that question asked about a Christian president that might need to attack a Christian holy land, or another Christian nation. Has anyone doubted that a Christian president would go to war with a Christian nation if they were a threat to the US? Have people feared that [insert denomination here] would start pushing for bills based on their sect's view of morality? Has anyone questioned that Joe Lieberman would hesitate to attack Israel if they posed a threat to the US/the world, were he elected President?

ImJessieTR
20th November 2008, 3:25 PM
Also, BigLutz, the terrorists who are killing their own countrymen are Muslims themselves. So, one can be a Muslim and hit Muslim targets.

BigLutz
20th November 2008, 4:26 PM
Again, that's a double standard. I've never heard that question asked about a Christian president that might need to attack a Christian holy land, or another Christian nation. Has anyone doubted that a Christian president would go to war with a Christian nation if they were a threat to the US? Have people feared that [insert denomination here] would start pushing for bills based on their sect's view of morality? Has anyone questioned that Joe Lieberman would hesitate to attack Israel if they posed a threat to the US/the world, were he elected President?

No... because we are not at war with Christians, nor does the Bible have very stricked wars with attacking Christians or what is considered a Holy Land. Now if we were to have a Jewish President and were afraid of possibly going to war with Israel the exact same questions would be raised. Difference is we don't have a Jewish President, and we are not at war with Radical Judism.

So no there is not a Double Standard, thanks for playing though.


Also, BigLutz, the terrorists who are killing their own countrymen are Muslims themselves. So, one can be a Muslim and hit Muslim targets.

The terrorists have a way around that, they do not believe they are killing Muslims but traitors to the faith, they believe their faith is the original version of Islam and that the traitors deserve to die for supporting the infidels.

A President on the other hand knows that there is not a super special magic decoder ring in war that tells the difference between a true and fanatical Muslim. In war both will die.

Bukhari 9,85,83 Mohammed: “A Muslim is a brother to other Muslims. He should never oppress them nor should he facilitate their oppression.”

Bukhari 8,73,70 Mohammed: “Harming a Muslim is an evil act; killing a Muslim means rejecting Allah.”

ImJessieTR
20th November 2008, 4:58 PM
But that's all a Muslim president would have to do as well.

BigLutz
20th November 2008, 5:02 PM
But that's all a Muslim president would have to do as well.

Again unlike terrorists a Muslim President knows that not all the muslims that were to die because of a invasion would be Radical Muslims. Not all of them would be infidels. Because of that by invading he would be turning his back on not one but two of the most sacred teachings of Mohammad, as well as rejecting Allah.

Kyogre35
20th November 2008, 11:20 PM
^^Voters are ill informed. News at 11. It's a pointless story.



Prove to me the Koran says that.

And Barack Obama isn't a Muslim.

"But I didn't say he was!" is probably your response. But then again, your post would be pointless if that wasn't the point you're trying to make.

EDIT: Looks like Obama doesn't support the Fairness Doctrine. http://www.broadcastingcable.com/CA6573406.html (http://www.broadcastingcable.com/CA6573406.html [/quote)


It's not pointless...so your saying it doesn't matter that people who voted for Obama don't know what Party holds Congress...but know that Palin has a pregnant teenage Daughter? Because if that's what your saying then I completly disagree.

We need people to be more informed about candinates other than there teenage daughter. And people didn't know:


* 57.4 could NOT correctly say which party controls congress (50/50 shot just by guessing)

* 81.8 could NOT correctly say Joe Biden quit a previous campaign because of plagiarism (25% chance by guessing)

* 82.6 could NOT correctly say that Obama won his first election by getting opponents kicked off the ballot (25% chance by guessing)

* 88.4% could NOT correctly say that Obama said his policies would likely bankrupt the coal industry and make energy rates skyrocket (25% chance by guessing)

* 56.1 % could NOT correctly say Obama started his political career at the home of two former members of the Weather Underground (25% chance by guessing).

I'd say more fault of the media than anything...but still even though the media..they should know what party owns Congress....

Those questions should've been told by the media...but instead they talked about...


* 86.3% identified Palin as the person their party spent $150,000 in clothes on

* 93.8% identified Palin as the one with a pregnant teenage daughter

* And 86.9 % thought that Palin said that she could see Russia from her “house,” even though that was Tina Fey

Which ecpecially the Clothes...is completly irrelevant to the presidency. Or Vice-Presidency in her case. So I mean to say that a research by a Documentary Film Maker...AND a Zogby poll say the same thing is good enough evidence to make this an issue.

charizardfan
21st November 2008, 1:59 AM
On the whole Palin thing, I'm not surprised. The tragedy of the American people is that so many of them rarely take the time to research a topic themselves, relying on the media or the someone else to tell them. Although I'm not a fan of Palin, I find that poll/survey very sad.

On another topic, something bothers me...

Obama said he was all for bipartisanship, but I don't see much in the way of any Republican people in his new cabniet. I'm aware it's pretty early to judge, but I'd like to see at least a few of the senior Republicans in there. It may have its risks, but it does pay to have a varied team who can offer different opinions and, ultimately, solutions to a wide range of problems. To put it another way, having a single partisan team can be a problem if faced with an issue in which Democrats have it all wrong. Although, as I said, it's still early.

Hell, maybe I'm wrong and someone could straighten me out.

But the cabinet is a hint of how Obama would run the country. It's great that he wants to have several Washington veterns that could make up for Obama's biggest problem: experience, but it's unsettling if it's an entirely partisan team that could undermine his entire message of "change".

randomspot555
21st November 2008, 2:12 AM
On the whole Palin thing, I'm not surprised. The tragedy of the American people is that so many of them rarely take the time to research a topic themselves, relying on the media or the someone else to tell them. Although I'm not a fan of Palin, I find that poll/survey very sad.

I'm not saying it's bad or good, it just doesn't surprise me. Americans are ignorant on the issues, generally dumb, etc... It's not really all that news.

You know that thing Jay Leno does where he asks people trivia questions that are taught in like 5th grade history, and so many get them wrong? Those are the same people that are voting. And I'm sure either side of the political isle is just as ignorant on the issues as the other.

I learned in some Intro Sociology course that people generally pick up political beliefs as their parents had, even if the family wasn't overtly political in nature. Same goes for religion and a variety of other issues. People adapt these and don't really know why they vote the way they vote, they just do. These are basically the 80ish% of the country that are almost always decided and can't be swung to the other side.

And an anecdotal story I always thought was interesting. Ages ago, in my senior government class (my only honors course), we had a mock Congress because we were learning about the 3 branches of government. We had to choose to be Republican or Democrat. I was one of 3 Democrats (they wouldn't allow me to be a Libertarian), out of a class of 30. But when time to actually vote for issues, the vote was pretty much down the middle, but usually slightly in the Democrat's favor.

In that year's mock election, George W. Bush overwhelming won the school's vote.


Obama said he was all for bipartisanship, but I don't see much in the way of any Republican people in his new cabniet. I'm aware it's pretty early to judge, but I'd like to see at least a few of the senior Republicans in there. It may have its risks, but it does pay to have a varied team who can offer different opinions and, ultimately, solutions to a wide range of problems. To put it another way, having a single partisan team can be a problem if faced with an issue in which Democrats have it all wrong. Although, as I said, it's still early.

It's pretty much tradition to pick a hold over from the previous administration, and the talk is for Gates to stay on as Secretary of War. I think Clinton's transportation secretary stayed on for all 8 years with Bush. And just because it's an all one party cabinet doesn't mean he won't govern in a bi-partisan manner, nor will it determine what Obama's relationship will be like with Congressional Republicans. I think it matters much more how he deals with the Congressional Republicans rather than which Republicans he does or doesn't appoint to his administration. But you have to think how many qualified Republicans would be able to work without undercutting, and then you have to narrow it down from that list who would even accept a position in his administration.

BigLutz
21st November 2008, 2:17 AM
Problem with your "It's not the news" theory, is that the Sarah Palin questions except for the Tina one would have received just the same piss poor response. The truth is, and you really cannot deny this, is that most of the media was dramatically in the tank for Obama and did very little research on him and Biden. While putting Palin and McCain under a microscope each and every night. Which is why we get Journalistic *******s like Olbermann and Mathews basically flat out saying how they love Obama and that they will do everything they can to help the Obama Administration.

charizardfan
21st November 2008, 3:03 AM
It's pretty much tradition to pick a hold over from the previous administration, and the talk is for Gates to stay on as Secretary of War. I think Clinton's transportation secretary stayed on for all 8 years with Bush. And just because it's an all one party cabinet doesn't mean he won't govern in a bi-partisan manner, nor will it determine what Obama's relationship will be like with Congressional Republicans. I think it matters much more how he deals with the Congressional Republicans rather than which Republicans he does or doesn't appoint to his administration. But you have to think how many qualified Republicans would be able to work without undercutting, and then you have to narrow it down from that list who would even accept a position in his administration.

You have a point and I agree with you for the most part. But both candidates have preached bipartisanship in their campaign and Obama has said that he would want a bipartisan cabinet. You're right in that Obama's bipartisanship shows in how he tries to reach out to Congressional Republicans, but it also shows in the people that he picks as his cabinet members. It wouldn't hurt for Obama to truly have a varied cabinet, or as Lincoln called "party of rivals", to reach out to said Republicans, as well as have a varied amount of solutions to a problem in which the Democratic ideology alone may not be able to solve. And finally, it not only shows to the Republicans, but to the people, that Obama meant what he said.

randomspot555
21st November 2008, 4:12 AM
^^^ Lincoln's cabinent had a party of rivals, not enemies. Democrats did not populate his administration. You can read more about it here (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/20/opinion/20oakes.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=party&#37;20of%20rivals&st=cse).


Problem with your "It's not the news" theory, is that the Sarah Palin questions except for the Tina one would have received just the same piss poor response. The truth is, and you really cannot deny this, is that most of the media was dramatically in the tank for Obama and did very little research on him and Biden. While putting Palin and McCain under a microscope each and every night. Which is why we get Journalistic *******s like Olbermann and Mathews basically flat out saying how they love Obama and that they will do everything they can to help the Obama Administration.

Olderman and Matthews aren't journalists, at least not in the reporting sense. They have cable news shows that they host because they have an opinion to present in a way that's appealing to viewers. Same as any other cable news show that has TV personalities, such as Hannity and Colmes, Morning Joe, Greta Van whatever, and so on.

And yes, I can in fact argue that the media is in the tank for Obama. I'd even argue that Republicans have been screaming wolf/liberal bias for so long, that the media can be actively afraid of publishing actual facts that happen to be true of a Democrat.


But reporters cannot ignore the facts, even if it looks like they are skewing the stories toward one candidate or another, he said. In a story the Plain Dealer did comparing the work of the Democrats in organizing the election in Ohio compared to Republicans, he said, the evidence was so overwhelmingly in favor of the Democrats that the paper feared it would look like biased reporting.
"Are we supposed to make up this fake fairness?" Naymik asked. "That itself creates a bias because the reality was McCain didn't have something equal to Obama."

story (http://www.marke****ch.com/news/story/Political-Reporters-Defend-Election-Coverage/story.aspx?guid={5D801B84-A2F1-4F97-AFA1-0CF4CC4490DD})

Making up fairness...sounds familiar

Like it or not, the media covers the new, the unique, and the winners. Every campaign had some of these, but Obama's had a bit of an edge due to race in matters of historical importance. And while both had a long fought primary, Obama's battle was much longer so just in total number of articles about him will be skewed due to McCain taking a good 2 month break from the trail.

BigLutz
21st November 2008, 4:28 AM
Olderman and Matthews aren't journalists, at least not in the reporting sense. They have cable news shows that they host because they have an opinion to present in a way that's appealing to viewers. Same as any other cable news show that has TV personalities, such as Hannity and Colmes, Morning Joe, Greta Van whatever, and so on.

Except on Hannity and Colmes they have a Liberal and a Conservative voice to balance it out, and Greta is a Ambulance Chaser who deals more on "Latest Kidnapping" stories than Politics.


And yes, I can in fact argue that the media is in the tank for Obama. I'd even argue that Republicans have been screaming wolf/liberal bias for so long, that the media can be actively afraid of publishing actual facts that happen to be true of a Democrat.

The Republicans have every right to scream Media Bias, especially after the 2004 election. Or have you forgotten Rather Gate? And I do find it hilarious how you believe the media was anything but biased in this election. How many stories did we hear about Palin. Did we hear even close to the same amount of trash on Obama? On Biden? Nope.


"Are we supposed to make up this fake fairness?" Naymik asked. "That itself creates a bias because the reality was McCain didn't have something equal to Obama."

So let me get this straight, the media instead of doing it's job of being objective and trying to learn as much as they can about both candidates and present the information in a even handed manner. They decide to throw that all out the window because Obama is "Kewl" Because that is what this is telling me. McCain wasn't "Kewl!" enough so they decided to pile on him while doing puff pieces on Obama.

Thanks for proving my point.


Like it or not, the media covers the new, the unique, and the winners.

Well if the media was going to give "Good Coverage" to the person that was New and Unique then we would have never seen the amount of digging and dirt that happened to Palin. As the second Female Candidate on a Major Ticket who hadn't gotten any national exposure, she would certainly be qualified as New and Unique.

Instead they send hoards of reporters down to Alaska to dig up every piece of dirt they could on her. Let me ask, where were those reporters when Obama announced he was running?


Every campaign had some of these, but Obama's had a bit of an edge due to race in matters of historical importance.

So having possibly the first Female Vice President wasn't a matter of historical importance? Really if this is the best you can spin it is quite pathetic.


And while both had a long fought primary, Obama's battle was much longer so just in total number of articles about him will be skewed due to McCain taking a good 2 month break from the trail.

Excuse me but Obama no where near had the amount of scrutiny on him that McCain, Palin, or even Hillary had. I believe one number was 1 to 6 in total of Bad Articles to Good for Obama. If the media was to treat Obama like they did Palin, why is it it took Sean Hannity to break the story about Ayres, and the net to pretty much break the story on Wright?

Arguing anything but the fact that Obama got nearly a free pass by the media while his opponents no matter how new or fresh were piled upon. Is pure ignorance.

Edit: Uh OHHHHH

Comments made by sources, voters, reporters and anchors that aired on ABC, CBS and NBC evening newscasts over the past two months reflected positively on Obama in 65 percent of cases, compared to 31 percent of cases with regards to McCain, according to the Center for Media and Public Affairs.

The center analyzed 979 separate news stories shown between Aug. 23 and Oct. 24, and excluded evaluations based on the campaign horse race, including mention of how the candidates were doing in polls

ABC recorded 57 percent favorable comments toward the Democrats, and 42 percent positive for the Republicans. NBC had 56 percent positive for the Democrats, 16 percent for the Republicans. CBS had 73 percent positive (Obama), versus 31 percent (McCain).

73 to 31. Yeah, no bias at all ~.^

Ethan
21st November 2008, 4:48 AM
Yeah randomspot, I think it's really really stupid that you're trying to explain away the inherent media bias in this election. Argue you that you weren't, it sure does come off that way.


It's pretty much tradition to pick a hold over from the previous administration, and the talk is for Gates to stay on as Secretary of War. I think Clinton's transportation secretary stayed on for all 8 years with Bush. And just because it's an all one party cabinet doesn't mean he won't govern in a bi-partisan manner, nor will it determine what Obama's relationship will be like with Congressional Republicans. I think it matters much more how he deals with the Congressional Republicans rather than which Republicans he does or doesn't appoint to his administration. But you have to think how many qualified Republicans would be able to work without undercutting, and then you have to narrow it down from that list who would even accept a position in his administration.

A 90&#37; liberal voting record just screams bi partisanship.


I'm not saying it's bad or good, it just doesn't surprise me. Americans are ignorant on the issues, generally dumb, etc... It's not really all that news.

No, that doesn't indicate that Americans are "less intelligent" It's just plain human nature. When things suck people are bound to reach out towards the opposite side. Countless elections this has happened, seen especially when Hoover ran against FDR. This happens in every area of the world, not just the United States. So please refrain from making foolish statements like this.

Manamanah
21st November 2008, 4:50 AM
on Palin: Yes, if Barack Obama was put under the same standards as Palin by the media, he probably would have won less of the vote. He won by a huge amount of electoral votes, and for republicans to complain about how the popular vote was close is total crap. Now you can imagine how democrats felt in 2000.
Anyway, John McCain's pick of Sarah Palin doesn't make Sarah Palin any worse. There were definitely picks he could have made that would have made the election much closer. John McCain's pick of Sarah Palin showed how impulsive and irresponsible John McCain was, and how he did not care whether or not the woman was to become president, the pick was purely strategical.

on Olberman and Matthews: I do not approve of them. In a time where america needs to come together, they and fox news are bringing us farther apart. Yes, being a democrat, it is sometimes fun to hear exactly what I want to hear, but at the same time, getting the actual truth can also be nice.

on Islam: Yes, if we were to have a president who had a moral dilemma with fighting al qaeda because of religion, then at this time, a moslem president would not be a good way for america to go. Fortunately, we have a religious Christian president elect who's name sound a little bit arab. Okay, a lot arab. But it doesn't make him any more or less moslem than John McCain.

Ethan
21st November 2008, 5:07 AM
By the way I hear we bombed Syria and Pakistan to blow up some terrorists, and Syria especially is pretty ticked. Anyone got the story on that? Oh, and Russia and France are calling us imperialist again. Figures. Oh yeah, and France declared war on "American capitalism"


on Palin: Yes, if Barack Obama was put under the same standards as Palin by the media, he probably would have won less of the vote. He won by a huge amount of electoral votes, and for republicans to complain about how the popular vote was close is total crap. Now you can imagine how democrats felt in 2000.
Anyway, John McCain's pick of Sarah Palin doesn't make Sarah Palin any worse. There were definitely picks he could have made that would have made the election much closer. John McCain's pick of Sarah Palin showed how impulsive and irresponsible John McCain was, and how he did not care whether or not the woman was to become president, the pick was purely strategical.

And this is based off what?

randomspot555
21st November 2008, 5:12 AM
Except on Hannity and Colmes they have a Liberal and a Conservative voice to balance it out, and Greta is a Ambulance Chaser who deals more on "Latest Kidnapping" stories than Politics.

That's not the point. The point is commentators, analysts, and cable news hosts are not indicative of a bias. It's indicative of that host's opinion, because that's what they are there for: to present one.


The Republicans have every right to scream Media Bias, especially after the 2004 election. Or have you forgotten Rather Gate? And I do find it hilarious how you believe the media was anything but biased in this election. How many stories did we hear about Palin. Did we hear even close to the same amount of trash on Obama? On Biden? Nope.

Your kidding yourself that there wasn't the same amount of trash on Obama. You're still talking as if Ayers and Wright are these unheard of characters that the "blogosphere" are the only ones who know them. There was no shortage of coverage on Obama and his associations. Little places like CNN, the New York Times did full investigations into Obama and Ayers.

As for Rather, he trusted a bad source and it back fired on him. That's not indicative of a bias. It's indicative that in the years of cable news and Drudge, journalists are more willing to jump the gun in fear of not getting the scoop. That's why Matt Drudge and the National Enquire get credit for breaking news stories, literally being the first to report on it. Because they don't have the standards for sources that others in the media do, and do it enough, and you'll get a few.


So let me get this straight, the media instead of doing it's job of being objective and trying to learn as much as they can about both candidates and present the information in a even handed manner. They decide to throw that all out the window because Obama is "Kewl" Because that is what this is telling me. McCain wasn't "Kewl!" enough so they decided to pile on him while doing puff pieces on Obama.

Who said anything about puff pieces? "Due to a poorly funded effort, the [campaign] is closing offices all across the state of [whatever]" is negative reporting, and both campaigns closed offices in states they thought they had a chance in (McCain in Michigan, Obama in Arizona, Alaska, and I think Texas). But is reporting a negative fact indicative of bias? Is running a poor campaign and running reports on aspects of a badly run campaign a bias? Is running a good campaign and reporting on aspects of a good campaign indicative of a positive bias?

And yes, the media covers what is kewl. That's why Sarah Palin is making the interview rounds right now. She has an interesting and unique story to tell at this time. But if wanting to report on a unique story is what you think is a bias, then...that means there's a conservative bias? Nah, that'd be crazy talk.


Well if the media was going to give "Good Coverage" to the person that was New and Unique then we would have never seen the amount of digging and dirt that happened to Palin. As the second Female Candidate on a Major Ticket who hadn't gotten any national exposure, she would certainly be qualified as New and Unique.

It didn't help that Sarah Palin basically had a media blackout when she started http://embeds.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/09/23/palin-media-blackout-continues/ .


Instead they send hoards of reporters down to Alaska to dig up every piece of dirt they could on her. Let me ask, where were those reporters when Obama announced he was running?

I'm pretty certain Obama's dirty had been dug up too. Remember, none of us here are insiders to anything. But we've heard about every association of every candidate. That's due to the media and us hearing or reading it.


So having possibly the first Female Vice President wasn't a matter of historical importance? Really if this is the best you can spin it is quite pathetic.

Wait. Now it's important? Before, whenever something about Palin comes up, I hear the talking points go "Well, she's not running for President so it's not important for her to have experience or be vetted" and so on.


Excuse me but Obama no where near had the amount of scrutiny on him that McCain, Palin, or even Hillary had. I believe one number was 1 to 6 in total of Bad Articles to Good for Obama. If the media was to treat Obama like they did Palin, why is it it took Sean Hannity to break the story about Ayres, and the net to pretty much break the story on Wright?

Running bad articles or good articles is not indicative of a bias. A fact is a fact. Reporting a good fact about a Democrat does not make a liberal bias, just as reporting a good fact about a Republican doesn't make a conservative bias. Reporting more good facts of one than the other isn't indicative of a bias because not everything is newsworthy (and yes, what is newsworthy varies in so many ways, but mainly on audience).


Arguing anything but the fact that Obama got nearly a free pass by the media while his opponents no matter how new or fresh were piled upon. Is pure ignorance.

And I'm simply not buying that he got a free pass. Where are these unheard of, unexplored scandals that are alluding me?

And as for Hannity breaking Ayers, Hillary seems to have talke to a reporter about Ayers on the 15th, the same day that Hannity suggested it be asked at the next debate on the 16th. I don't see anywhere that Hannity broke the story, only that he was one of many conservatives to talk about it that day.


No, that doesn't indicate that Americans are "less intelligent" It's just plain human nature. When things suck people are bound to reach out towards the opposite side. Countless elections this has happened, seen especially when Hoover ran against FDR. This happens in every area of the world, not just the United States. So please refrain from making foolish statements like this.
Reply With Quote

I'm not going to refrain from making statements that uh..well, state what I mean. I didn't intend for it to be an anti-American statement, and I agree that it's human nature to blame the opposite. I'm just arguing that coming here and posting WOW, look at how dumb these voters are! doesn't really prove anything other than human nature. People are dumb, they don't know the basics of what they should know. Stupidity doesn't have a political bias.

Double edit: as for Syria, Israel bombed it on the 19th, but I can't find anything more.

HoennMaster
21st November 2008, 5:17 AM
As a way to put some light on this topic. The Minnesota Senate Recount started yesterday. As of 10 PM Central Time tonight, 43&#37; of the ballots have been recounted and incumbent Republican Norm Coleman is ahead. How much I didn't catch.

Manamanah
21st November 2008, 5:20 AM
John McCain's basic stategy before the RNC was this: attack Obama's inexperience, and to be a maverick who crossed party lines. Had he really wanted to cross party lines, he could have picked a person who also had a history of crossing party lines. When he picked her, all of his arguments about inexperience were thrown away, so Obama was then seen as the candidate who was more steady, and McCain was seen as more impulsive. He has only met Sarah Palin once, Palin herself was not expecting the nomination, and he didn't look into her past or her family's past (who cares if it was important many people care about it anyway), or whether she could name all three countries in North America.

randomspot555
21st November 2008, 5:21 AM
^^^I have no doubt in my mind that the McCain camp vetted Palin. Vetting someone doesn't mean rejecting them at the first sight of something negative. It means you're aware of anything negative and are prepared to deal with it if it becomes an issue. Just becuase I don't agree with his choice doesnt inherently make it a bad one, nor does "only meeting her x times" since it shouldn't be a relationship, but beliefs that matter.

Ethan
21st November 2008, 5:27 AM
John McCain's basic stategy before the RNC was this: attack Obama's inexperience, and to be a maverick who crossed party lines. Had he really wanted to cross party lines, he could have picked a person who also had a history of crossing party lines. When he picked her, all of his arguments about inexperience were thrown away, so Obama was then seen as the candidate who was more steady, and McCain was seen as more impulsive. He has only met Sarah Palin once, Palin herself was not expecting the nomination, and he didn't look into her past or her family's past (who cares if it was important many people care about it anyway), or whether she could name all three countries in North America.

Yeah problem is you can't flip flop the experience argument. She was a VP pick, so McCain could still attack Obama's inexperience as he was going directly into the white house. Palin wasn't. Then dems complained about the experience argument McCain was using, but she has nearly as much experience as Obama himself does, so what's to whine about? VP =/= President. The only reason the argument was brought up in the first place is because everyone was scared to death that McCain would die and Palin would be in charge. Further more the North American things is hardly credible as it came from ANONYMOUS McCain aids, and yet people are spouting it off as truth, such as the notion she didn't know Africa was a continent. That is nonsense. Good God.

Manamanah
21st November 2008, 5:28 AM
to randomspot: Yes, i'm sure he had been vetting her, but had they done a good job of doing so, they would have found that she ruined everything that the McCain campaign previously stood for. I don't agree with his choice and I also think it's a bad one, and by only meeting with her once I mean only has spoken to her or had a conversation with her once.

to Babylon: What people were scared about here in a blue state was that he would continue to put people like Sarah Palin in positions of power, not that she herself was terrible (which most people believed she was) but that John McCain would continue to make bad decisions such has his pick for vice president. When John McCain or Brack Obama introduced an entirely new face into the campaign, such as Sarah Palin, Joe the plumber, Michelle Obama to an extent, the media jumps all over them and want to know everything about them. And for the record, it is not an urban legend that she and her followers in the alaska campaign wrote "baby killer" on top of her mother in-law's campaign ads.

randomspot555
21st November 2008, 5:31 AM
to randomspot: Yes, i'm sure he had been vetting her, but had they done a good job of doing so, they would have found that she ruined everything that the McCain campaign previously stood for. I don't agree with his choice and I also think it's a bad one, and by only meeting with her once I mean only has spoken to her or had a conversation with her once.

But it shouldn't matter how much someone has met or how much you personally know about them. We aren't electing Barbie and Ken. We're electing people for President and Vice President. Political positions that aren't based on who's the bestest friends foreverest.


Further more the North American things is hardly credible as it came from ANONYMOUS McCain aids, and yet people are spouting it off as truth, such as the notion she didn't know Africa was a continent. That is nonsense. Good God.

Just because something is from an anonymous source doesn't make it more or less credible. It's often the only way to do these post-election exposes that the magazines publish 1-2 weeks after the election. Without promising that it'll only be aired/written after the election, and with anonymity, then they won't get much. Sources that are on the record can be just as bad as anonymous ones.

HoennMaster
21st November 2008, 8:20 AM
Oh yeah, I looked and didn't find anything related to what you were talking about Babylon.

ImJessieTR
21st November 2008, 4:29 PM
Again unlike terrorists a Muslim President knows that not all the muslims that were to die because of a invasion would be Radical Muslims. Not all of them would be infidels. Because of that by invading he would be turning his back on not one but two of the most sacred teachings of Mohammad, as well as rejecting Allah.

Prove to me that terrorists don't know that either. It's not about religion, it's about "who gets to control the hood". They know full well that they're killing innocent people. They don't care. The Muslim dictators and stuff we have now show that Muslim leaders can kill their citizens directly and not give one thought to what Allah wants. Being a leader doesn't make you willing or unwilling to attack ... you have that personality well before you're sworn in.


We aren't electing Barbie and Ken.
Heh ... considering how useful the government is, whether you're Democrat or Republican, I'd say there are a few hollow plastic people running around.


You're still talking as if Ayers and Wright are these unheard of characters that the "blogosphere" are the only ones who know them.
Don't forget ... Wright is an evil man who dissed Christian Americans everywhere ... but when white preachers tell us fictional characters wearing "purses" contribute to our sinful nature and create 9/11 and Katrina ... you hear nary a peep. There are still people trying to convince us that "those evil homosexuals" are worse than using our tax money or our money period to buy themselves a couple of yachts. Do people know what it feels like to work in a nursing home, trying to take care of patients in their own filth without adequate supplies for minimum wage ... while the owner of the corporation brags about his new summer home and his yacht?

BigLutz
21st November 2008, 7:38 PM
That's not the point. The point is commentators, analysts, and cable news hosts are not indicative of a bias. It's indicative of that host's opinion, because that's what they are there for: to present one.

Except the Commentators/Hosts are also usually Journalists and should provide a unbiased view of the information. I mean my God have we gone so far from the 1950s and 60s that we forgot that Hosts for News Shows are supposed to be unbiased?


Your kidding yourself that there wasn't the same amount of trash on Obama.

You're right, there was MORE.


You're still talking as if Ayers and Wright are these unheard of characters that the "blogosphere" are the only ones who know them. There was no shortage of coverage on Obama and his associations. Little places like CNN, the New York Times did full investigations into Obama and Ayers.

And they had to be dragged kicking and screaming to it. When Palin was announced as the VP, how long did it take the NYT and CNN and everyone else to be on the ground in Alaska digging up dirt on her? My guess was with in 24 hours.

On Feb 11 2007 Obama announced his candidacy for President.

It wasn't until Feb 2008, one year later, that the Wright Scandal broke.

It wasn't until April 2008, one year and two months later, that the Ayres Scandal was even mentioned, and even then it was buried until later this year.

One Year after Obama announced his Candidacy before his associations even got any spot light. Palin is announced as the VP and the next day the Press is swarming Alaska. And you are honestly going to tell me that there was no shortage of coverage?


As for Rather, he trusted a bad source and it back fired on him. That's not indicative of a bias. It's indicative that in the years of cable news and Drudge, journalists are more willing to jump the gun in fear of not getting the scoop. That's why Matt Drudge and the National Enquire get credit for breaking news stories, literally being the first to report on it. Because they don't have the standards for sources that others in the media do, and do it enough, and you'll get a few.

No Rather was so quick to jump on Bush that they did not vet the information, they were willing to put it on the air so quick that they ignored the warnings and rushed it on. THAT IS indicative of a bias. When you are so out to get a guy that you will take any thing possible and rushing it on the air before finding out if it is even true.


Who said anything about puff pieces? "Due to a poorly funded effort, the [campaign] is closing offices all across the state of [whatever]" is negative reporting, and both campaigns closed offices in states they thought they had a chance in (McCain in Michigan, Obama in Arizona, Alaska, and I think Texas). But is reporting a negative fact indicative of bias? Is running a poor campaign and running reports on aspects of a badly run campaign a bias? Is running a good campaign and reporting on aspects of a good campaign indicative of a positive bias?

Excuse me but you and I both know that there was plenty of bad news out there. So please do not bring out the rank stupidity that Obama was as clean as snow, and McCain was absolutely horrible, dirty, and scandal plagued. Because not only is it a lie, but it is a absolutely pathetic one at that.


And yes, the media covers what is kewl. That's why Sarah Palin is making the interview rounds right now. She has an interesting and unique story to tell at this time. But if wanting to report on a unique story is what you think is a bias, then...that means there's a conservative bias? Nah, that'd be crazy talk.

So Sarah Palin is Kewl so... that must mean the Journalists are giving her puff pieces or soft ball questions right? They must be showing her the same easy treatment they showed Obama? Right?


It didn't help that Sarah Palin basically had a media blackout when she started http://embeds.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/09/23/palin-media-blackout-continues/ .

Unless I am wrong, the media was asking questions at the time such as "Can you provide birth records that Trig is your baby." and oh my favorite "Did your **** daughter have the baby and you are covering for her."

The media was asking horrid questions like that and you don't think the McCain camp was going to have a media black out? How about the media stop getting it's questions from the freaking Daily Kos first.


I'm pretty certain Obama's dirty had been dug up too. Remember, none of us here are insiders to anything. But we've heard about every association of every candidate. That's due to the media and us hearing or reading it.

How much did you hear about Pflager? How much did you hear about ACORN even though Obama lied about it on national tv?

Obama broke Campaign Laws through the donations on his website, how much did you hear about that?

Oh wait, sorry the news time was too filled with stories of the RNC buying Palin clothes. My mistake.


Wait. Now it's important? Before, whenever something about Palin comes up, I hear the talking points go "Well, she's not running for President so it's not important for her to have experience or be vetted" and so on.

Er thanks for bringing up something that had absolutely nothing to do with what I said, care to try again?


Running bad articles or good articles is not indicative of a bias. A fact is a fact.

And the stupid belief that there are not enough bad articles out there on both is insane. A fact is a fact, but when you search desperately for bad articles on one side, while leaving the other side alone, that is.... BIAS!


Reporting a good fact about a Democrat does not make a liberal bias, just as reporting a good fact about a Republican doesn't make a conservative bias. Reporting more good facts of one than the other isn't indicative of a bias because not everything is newsworthy (and yes, what is newsworthy varies in so many ways, but mainly on audience).

And you know what, if the average was around 53/47 or 52/48 then you may be right. The truth is it was so staggeringly one sided in many cases that it went beyond just simply airing the facts. You know this, and you are smart enough to realize that.


And I'm simply not buying that he got a free pass. Where are these unheard of, unexplored scandals that are alluding me?

Where was Pflager? Rezko barely got touched, where was ACORN? Where was Joe Biden's Son the Lobbiest? Where was the illegal website contributions? Where is Black Liberation Theology?

And these are things I am just thinking of off the top of my head.

To say that Obama got any less than a free pass, shows absolute blindness on your part.


And as for Hannity breaking Ayers, Hillary seems to have talke to a reporter about Ayers on the 15th, the same day that Hannity suggested it be asked at the next debate on the 16th. I don't see anywhere that Hannity broke the story, only that he was one of many conservatives to talk about it that day.

Hannity had been talking about Ayres long before the 16th.



John McCain's basic stategy before the RNC was this: attack Obama's inexperience, and to be a maverick who crossed party lines. Had he really wanted to cross party lines, he could have picked a person who also had a history of crossing party lines

Kind of forgetting that Palin did cross Party Lines multiple times to work on Corrupt Republicans as well as other things.


Prove to me that terrorists don't know that either. It's not about religion, it's about "who gets to control the hood". They know full well that they're killing innocent people. They don't care.

Terrorists don't care that they are innocent, they believe that by working with the infidels they are guilty. That has been proven in countless interviews with terrorists.


The Muslim dictators and stuff we have now show that Muslim leaders can kill their citizens directly and not give one thought to what Allah wants. Being a leader doesn't make you willing or unwilling to attack ... you have that personality well before you're sworn in.

Muslim Dictators work on their own code of conduct outside of the religion. Are you saying we should have a Muslim President that also does not truly follow Islam but has his own code of conduct outside of the islamic faith?


Just because something is from an anonymous source doesn't make it more or less credible. It's often the only way to do these post-election exposes that the magazines publish 1-2 weeks after the election. Without promising that it'll only be aired/written after the election, and with anonymity, then they won't get much. Sources that are on the record can be just as bad as anonymous ones.

I cannot... well I guess I can believe you fell for the stupidity of the North American thing. Wanna know why it is from a anonymous source? Because it is a few Campaign Staffers that are truly wanting to cover their own Asses. They are looking for a scape goat and they are using anything they can on Palin no matter if it is a lie or the truth. The phrase I heard best describing it was "Circular Firing Squad"

The McCain staffers are doing their best to pin the blame on Palin so that if they ever apply for another Political job they can say "It wasn't me! It was so-so that was the idiot that caused us problems."

My God it is hilarious and at the same time pathetically sad how you guys fall for some of these things and believe it is anything more than a high level staffer covering his ***.

randomspot555
21st November 2008, 9:54 PM
Except the Commentators/Hosts are also usually Journalists and should provide a unbiased view of the information. I mean my God have we gone so far from the 1950s and 60s that we forgot that Hosts for News Shows are supposed to be unbiased?

Those prime time shows on CNN, Fox, and MSNBC are not for unbiased news coverage, and have never been advertised as such. You are completely deluding yourself if you think you can watch someone like O'Reilly or Matthews and get news coverage, rather than opinions on the news. You are correct that these hosts should not be out in the field doing reporting, and they generally aren't. That's why Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann were kicked from doing MSNBC's main coverage of the RNC



And they had to be dragged kicking and screaming to it. When Palin was announced as the VP, how long did it take the NYT and CNN and everyone else to be on the ground in Alaska digging up dirt on her? My guess was with in 24 hours.

It's dirt digging when the media does it...what is it called when a presidential campaign looks into someone's background? I think it's vetting. And from everything I've heard, the vetting gets pretty personal, well beyond the realm of politics and someone's professional life. So anything that a campaign wants to know, I see it that the public should know too.

There's not one iota of evidence that they were "dragged kicking and screaming to it." You can think of it that way, but I've read the Chicago Tribune and the New York Times report on it. They're quite lengthy, and not something that could've been published in 24 hours. I'd rather have a lengthy report that takes long and is right, than a short one that is wrong.


One Year after Obama announced his Candidacy before his associations even got any spot light. Palin is announced as the VP and the next day the Press is swarming Alaska. And you are honestly going to tell me that there was no shortage of coverage?

Considering nothing was known about Palin, and much was known about Obama, yes. In this political scene, every realm of someone's life is deemed information the public should know. If or not that is good is for another debate.


No Rather was so quick to jump on Bush that they did not vet the information, they were willing to put it on the air so quick that they ignored the warnings and rushed it on. THAT IS indicative of a bias. When you are so out to get a guy that you will take any thing possible and rushing it on the air before finding out if it is even true.

I've never seen anything to show a bias. Shoddy reporting and bad sources don't equate to a bias without more evidence. The Thornburgh-Boccardi Report, which was done by the independent panel who investigated into the Killian documents, said the cause was "primarily because of a rush to air that overwhelmed the proper application of the CBS News Standards."




Excuse me but you and I both know that there was plenty of bad news out there. So please do not bring out the rank stupidity that Obama was as clean as snow, and McCain was absolutely horrible, dirty, and scandal plagued. Because not only is it a lie, but it is a absolutely pathetic one at that.

I've never once suggested otherwise. What I have been saying is that the information on Obama is out there, whereas you view it as almost unheard of.


So Sarah Palin is Kewl so... that must mean the Journalists are giving her puff pieces or soft ball questions right? They must be showing her the same easy treatment they showed Obama? Right?

Viewing some of these post election interviews, soft ball is a pretty good term for most of the interviews.


Unless I am wrong, the media was asking questions at the time such as "Can you provide birth records that Trig is your baby." and oh my favorite "Did your **** daughter have the baby and you are covering for her."

Which media and which journalists asked those?

And yes, there are some less than polite reporters out there. But just because the McCain camp thinks they need(ed) to protect her doesn't mean they should've given the media a blackout, such as they did when she met with many international leaders in NYC. I'm sure Sarah Palin has had less than quaint moments with the press before, and I don't see why she needed protection this time either.

How much did you hear about Pflager? How much did you hear about ACORN even though Obama lied about it on national tv?

I heard tons about Acorn. I read about Acorn in my daily paper, and heard it on cable news channels nearly every night leading up to the election when I started watching them two weeks before the election.


Obama broke Campaign Laws through the donations on his website, how much did you hear about that?

So what lawsuits or charges were filed and what's the status of them?


A fact is a fact, but when you search desperately for bad articles on one side, while leaving the other side alone, that is.... BIAS!

I'm still not finding these unheard of news stories.


And you know what, if the average was around 53/47 or 52/48 then you may be right. The truth is it was so staggeringly one sided in many cases that it went beyond just simply airing the facts. You know this, and you are smart enough to realize that.

Or it shows that McCain ran a really bad campaign. If you have 30 different media stations covering the aspects of local and city and what the local Republican effort is doing, multiply that by 50, it adds up, quickly. This isn't entirely his fault, since so much of his campaigning wasn't done by his actual campaign, but rather left to the RNC and local Republican officials.

But back to the point: You leave it up to local organizers, with no central base, and the "negative" reporting adds up. You have people like Karl Rove saying the Democrats made the extra effort in campaigning in red states and registering voters, and you multiply that by 50 for all the local sources covering the day to day operations, and you cans see how the positive news articles add up.

As for associations, they've all been covered. Really.


Where was Pflager? Rezko barely got touched, where was ACORN? Where was Joe Biden's Son the Lobbiest? Where was the illegal website contributions? Where is Black Liberation Theology?

Oh cmon. No Republican would touch Father Pfleger. Obama quickly said he didn't agree or endorse Pfleger, and conservatives have been saying worse about Hillary for years. Should he be saying that from the pulpit is ano

Biden's son? A google search turns up Washinton Post, USA Today, LA Times and ABC News articles, along with a blog post on the Wall Street Journal, and a few major political blog names that I recognized. Doesn't seem like some unheard of story.

Black Liberation Theology? Depends. What is the story? I don't think an entire theological idea is a story.


Hannity had been talking about Ayres long before the 16th.

I'm talking specifically in connection with Obama. If that also is what you're talking about it, than source?


I cannot... well I guess I can believe you fell for the stupidity of the North American thing. Wanna know why it is from a anonymous source? Because it is a few Campaign Staffers that are truly wanting to cover their own Asses. They are looking for a scape goat and they are using anything they can on Palin no matter if it is a lie or the truth. The phrase I heard best describing it was "Circular Firing Squad"

The McCain staffers are doing their best to pin the blame on Palin so that if they ever apply for another Political job they can say "It wasn't me! It was so-so that was the idiot that caused us problems."

My God it is hilarious and at the same time pathetically sad how you guys fall for some of these things and believe it is anything more than a high level staffer covering his ***.

Just because they're spreading blame doesn't inherently make it more or less true. I never said what claims I believed in, or think are valid, and so on. I'm just pointing out that there's no reason to go lol ANONYMOUS SOURCE?!?! PLZ. An anoymous source doesn't make it a bad one, just as an on the record source doesn't make it a good one.

seveguy
21st November 2008, 10:24 PM
Okay I might be a tad off on things but I am hear to get rid of some of my political anger.

First thing on my list is Barack Obama winning.

A few days before John McCain chose Sarah Palin as his running mate, I did some research on the GOP's platform and everything suits me so much better than the Democratic platform. Even though I am too young to vote, I did everything I could to help John McCain win. I donated money towards the campaign. I wore my button to school everyday. I put I sign in my yard. I convinced other people my age (14) that Republicans are better than Democrats, and I inspired a lot of people in my class. Hopefully by next Presidential election they'll all be registered Republicans. I know I will be. I am mad that Barack won, and I don't believe he won fair and square. John McCain had more experience and has sacrificed way more for the country. Sarah Palin was the only governor on the ticket, and I felt that was better than the two senators on the Democratic ballot. Barack Obama didn't really win the election, I think he bought the election with his loads of money. I think it was unfair for the people at Saturday Night Live to criticize Palin so much. I think that got a lot of people to view her as trash. She's a wonderful person as John McCain is, and I cannot wait to throw Obama out of the White House in 2012.

The next order of business is Hillary Clinton being offered Secretary of State.

Hillary Clinton promised a lot of people that if Barack Obama offered her a place in the Cabinet, she would say no. However, she looks like she's really leaning to take up Barack Obama's offer. I have no idea what was going on in Hillary's mind the past months. Did she really think that Obama wouldn't offer a place in his Cabinet if he won? Of course he would. And she must have thought that Barack Obama would offer her a smaller place in the Cabinet. Now I can see why people think Hillary is a hypocrite. But don't get me wrong, I like Hillary.

Now onto something that has really been bothering me lately. Its the Senate Race between Kay Hagan and Elizabeth Dole in North Carolina.

How dare you Kay Hagan? How dare you the state of North Carolina for stripping Elizabeth Dole of her place in the Senate? Elizabeth Dole has done so much for this country as the Secretary of Transportation and Secretary of Labor and as the former President of the Red Cross. She could have even been the First Lady! Kay Hagan was in the State Senate. And then people get mad at Elizabeth Dole for running that stupid commercial. People have criticized her too much for that. Hasn't anybody heard the term 'desperate times, desperate measures'? I'm not from North Carolina, but I think that state made the wrong choice.

Lastly, I want to talk about the 2012 Presidential Election and the future of the Republican Party.

By 2012, I'll be old enough to vote for President. Right now, there are a lot of people I would like to see on the ticket. The one I want to see most is the return on McCain/Palin, but that most likely won't happen.

But anyways, I would love to see these people on the ballot, whether it be for President or Vice.

(In no particular order)

Sarah Palin
Bobby Jindal
Rudy Giuliani
John McCain
Mike Huckabee
Condoleezza Rice

That's about as political as I can get right now.

Kyogre35
21st November 2008, 11:27 PM
Those prime time shows on CNN, Fox, and MSNBC are not for unbiased news coverage, and have never been advertised as such. You are completely deluding yourself if you think you can watch someone like O'Reilly or Matthews and get news coverage, rather than opinions on the news. You are correct that these hosts should not be out in the field doing reporting, and they generally aren't. That's why Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann were kicked from doing MSNBC's main coverage of the RNC

Yeah your right the commentators arn't and should not be relied on for news...but the bias is in the Hard news...not just the commentators. I mean a Study had Fox News have it perfectly even coverage on both Presidential Candinates...but of MSNBC 74% bad stories on McCain....16% Obama...Now that is bias on HARD news.





It's dirt digging when the media does it...what is it called when a presidential campaign looks into someone's background? I think it's vetting. And from everything I've heard, the vetting gets pretty personal, well beyond the realm of politics and someone's professional life. So anything that a campaign wants to know, I see it that the public should know too.

Yeah we know some people like Michael Savage were saying he's Muslim; He's not. But within 12 hours of the Pick of Palin there were hundreds of reporters in Alaska...which is perfectly fine if they did the same when oh..the Ayers, Rezco, Wright stories broke...in which they didn't...so that is so biased.


There's not one iota of evidence that they were "dragged kicking and screaming to it." You can think of it that way, but I've read the Chicago Tribune and the New York Times report on it. They're quite lengthy, and not something that could've been published in 24 hours. I'd rather have a lengthy report that takes long and is right, than a short one that is wrong.

Well two things:

1. It didn't take them that long to go up to Alaska...but only 3 days before the election..Tom Browkaw an actual reporter said "We don't know anything about Obama" Yes he said that. Well Tom it's a little to late. You didn't do your job.

2. But I know within 24 hours they didn't have a story...but they went there within 24 hours...probably within 12.

So to say the coverage of Palin vs. Obama was the same is so wrong.




Considering nothing was known about Palin, and much was known about Obama, yes. In this political scene, every realm of someone's life is deemed information the public should know. If or not that is good is for another debate.

But Tom says we don't know anything about Obama? I say I don't know what the relationship's magnitude is. I mean I don't even know if he did anything in the Senete. I don't know anything except he was a Senator, his wife's name is Michelle, he's African American, he wants to raise taxes, he wants National Health Care, and other Policy stuff not his personal life, which for some reason for Palin was WIDE open. And yet...





I've never once suggested otherwise. What I have been saying is that the information on Obama is out there, whereas you view it as almost unheard of.

But the problem is that the Networks job is to report, yes there job. That's why they have freedom of the press, to find and give the American people the facts about EACH candinate. And as I recall I don't remember NBC, CBS, or ABC really running a full report on Ayers and such that had multiple details. And yeah the stories are out there...but it's the job of the...well...second most watched News corps to report the news fairly and unbiased. Not the crap we're getting.




Viewing some of these post election interviews, soft ball is a pretty good term for most of the interviews.

Oh but during the election...

"What is your view of the Bush Doctrine?"

Which they're are many "Bush Doctrine's" and she named one...but the media used that to say she didn't know it was ____ when the one they named was another Bush Doctrine..but they failed to say she did name one.





I heard tons about Acorn. I read about Acorn in my daily paper, and heard it on cable news channels nearly every night leading up to the election when I started watching them two weeks before the election.

In what context did you hear ACORN? I mean they couldv'e said.

"Many talk show host are saying Obama is connected with ACORN, but this is completly false and just a rumor"

So did you know he served as a lawyer for ACORN? He donated money to the group? So they didn't mention that....and they never will..and they never will in the next election.




I'm still not finding these unheard of news stories.

Well it's kinda obvios about the bias...oh "Yes we can!" a DVD by NBC....i mean the media is praying at Obama's feet. And to say you can't see it is....baffling me. I know your smart..Look around..





Or it shows that McCain ran a really bad campaign. If you have 30 different media stations covering the aspects of local and city and what the local Republican effort is doing, multiply that by 50, it adds up, quickly. This isn't entirely his fault, since so much of his campaigning wasn't done by his actual campaign, but rather left to the RNC and local Republican officials.

But back to the point: You leave it up to local organizers, with no central base, and the "negative" reporting adds up. You have people like Karl Rove saying the Democrats made the extra effort in campaigning in red states and registering voters, and you multiply that by 50 for all the local sources covering the day to day operations, and you cans see how the positive news articles add up.

As for associations, they've all been covered. Really.


But were are the 50 other good facts about the Republicans? Were are the 50 bad facts about Dem's? So really come on you know that the media is so biased except for Fox News who is fair.

And the Associations are not covered. Ayers? Rezco? They are people I don't know the situation of the relationship with Obama. Randomspot give me a detailed description of the relationship's and I'll look.



Oh cmon. No Republican would touch Father Pfleger. Obama quickly said he didn't agree or endorse Pfleger, and conservatives have been saying worse about Hillary for years. Should he be saying that from the pulpit is ano

Biden's son? A google search turns up Washinton Post, USA Today, LA Times and ABC News articles, along with a blog post on the Wall Street Journal, and a few major political blog names that I recognized. Doesn't seem like some unheard of story.

Black Liberation Theology? Depends. What is the story? I don't think an entire theological idea is a story.

You forgot ACORN? And BIden's son I don't care..Biglutz will explain it. But come on they didn't touch ACORN, they didn't touch the illegal contributions by websites. So they didn't do the job.





Just because they're spreading blame doesn't inherently make it more or less true. I never said what claims I believed in, or think are valid, and so on. I'm just pointing out that there's no reason to go lol ANONYMOUS SOURCE?!?! PLZ. An anoymous source doesn't make it a bad one, just as an on the record source doesn't make it a good one.

Yeah but in a Greta Van Sustern Interview she said she knew that NAFTA involved Mexico, Canada, and the USA. She knew Africa was a continent...I mean do you really belive someone taht is above the age of 7 doesn't know Africa is a continant? So to say she didn't is so wrong. And it's just McCain campaign staff trying to improve there image.

But anonymous sources are good. Watergate. So I'm not saying they're bad it's just come on she didn't know Africa was a continent?

randomspot555
21st November 2008, 11:52 PM
^^^You did actually see that Greta interview, right? I wouldn't consider that something to counter what was reported. The question Greta asked was basically "Tell me why these people are wrong." Of course, what would anyone expect her to say if it was true? Did anyone honestly think she'd fess up to it, or at least give a semi-legit excuse such as her mis-speaking?

As to what I read, my state's attorney general is filing a lawsuit based on how they registered voters mainly in the college areas of the state. The articles also semi-extensively covered what ACORN and their legal battles in other states.


How dare you Kay Hagan? How dare you the state of North Carolina for stripping Elizabeth Dole of her place in the Senate?

How are Kay Hagan do something like run for a political office! How dare that people support and vote for her! What do they think this is? A democracy?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!!??

As for your list of Republican hopefuls:

Guliani is horribly unqualified for any type of national elected position. He hasn't held a political office for quite some time. He seems to come around every 4 years to stump for POTUS, and that's about it.

Palin would be best served by completing her 1-2 terms as governor. I don't see her though as a national candidate. Maybe an RNC seat or think tank working.

Jindal is Missouri's governor, right? I'm not familiar with anything he's done as governor, but I don't see a lot of southern governers would be attractive to the electorate outside of the southern US.

And as for Hillary, I never remember her saying, let alone "promising", that she wouldn't accept a cabinet position.

Kyogre35
22nd November 2008, 12:12 AM
Jindal is Missouri's governor, right? I'm not familiar with anything he's done as governor, but I don't see a lot of southern governers would be attractive to the electorate outside of the southern US.

Ah..no. I would know I live in Missouri. He's the Louisiana Gov. He's started to get corruption and greed out of Politics there. He's the Sarah Palin of the South.

BigLutz
22nd November 2008, 12:26 AM
Those prime time shows on CNN, Fox, and MSNBC are not for unbiased news coverage, and have never been advertised as such. You are completely deluding yourself if you think you can watch someone like O'Reilly or Matthews and get news coverage, rather than opinions on the news. You are correct that these hosts should not be out in the field doing reporting, and they generally aren't. That's why Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann were kicked from doing MSNBC's main coverage of the RNC

Problem is they shouldn't be, we should be having news commentators that do not let their personal opinion effect the story because like it or not it does. I do give props for O'Reilly and Mathews not being too heavy handed at times and not letting their bias slip through, but Olbermann has lost all journalism ethics.


It's dirt digging when the media does it...what is it called when a presidential campaign looks into someone's background? I think it's vetting. And from everything I've heard, the vetting gets pretty personal, well beyond the realm of politics and someone's professional life. So anything that a campaign wants to know, I see it that the public should know too.

And when exactly did the media "Vet" Barack Obama? A major Democratic Candidate? It seems in reality the only person they "Vetted" early on was Hillary Clinton. Again as I have already proven, the media did not even want to go into Obama's past, they wanted to create a image of him, and not show the real Barack Obama.

When they got to that point, when they started applying Entertainment Journalism Rules to Political Journalism. Not only did get pathetic it got dangerous.


There's not one iota of evidence that they were "dragged kicking and screaming to it."

I gave you the proof, over a year to report on a major relation, over a year and two months to report on the second. Both of which are very well known. Sorry but that pathetic investigative journalism, IS being dragged kicking and screaming to the story.


You can think of it that way, but I've read the Chicago Tribune and the New York Times report on it. They're quite lengthy, and not something that could've been published in 24 hours. I'd rather have a lengthy report that takes long and is right, than a short one that is wrong.

Excuse me but is this the New York Times that in Feb of 2008 published a lengthy story about McCain having a affair with a intern that ended up being a lie that had been debunked years before? Or a number of other stories that have ended up being lies.

See you lost the moment you brought up the New York Times, a news paper during this election cycle that has dropped so far in slime journalism that they do not even care about little things like ethics or truth. They dropped a first page story about McCain that ended up being a lie, but did not have the guts or time to find out Obama started his Political Career in the living room with a terrorist? Pathetic.


Considering nothing was known about Palin, and much was known about Obama, yes. In this political scene, every realm of someone's life is deemed information the public should know. If or not that is good is for another debate.

Excuse me but that is a lie, in Feb of 2007 NOTHING was known about Barack Obama, not his past Political History outside a year or so in the Senate, not his associations, nothing, so that pathetic excuse does not fly.

Infact in Feb of 2008 nothing was known about Barack Obama's past.


I've never seen anything to show a bias.

Then you are blind.


Shoddy reporting and bad sources don't equate to a bias without more evidence. The Thornburgh-Boccardi Report, which was done by the independent panel who investigated into the Killian documents, said the cause was "primarily because of a rush to air that overwhelmed the proper application of the CBS News Standards."

A report sponsored by CBS said there wasn't any bias, yeah what a freaking surprise. Let me ask, why was it rushed on the air? A politically damaging piece on Bush and was rushed on the air with out any source check? Either CBS is stupid and untrustworthy and does not even have the Journalism Standards of a High School Newspaper, or they are bias. Take your pick.


I've never once suggested otherwise. What I have been saying is that the information on Obama is out there, whereas you view it as almost unheard of.

No it truly isn't, there are massive stories on Obama that never got past the blogs and websites. Never making it on the National News Cast, and obviously never getting the attention that less informative stories on McCain and Palin got.


Viewing some of these post election interviews, soft ball is a pretty good term for most of the interviews.

Key Word: Post Election.


Which media and which journalists asked those?

You want a list?



I heard tons about Acorn. I read about Acorn in my daily paper, and heard it on cable news channels nearly every night leading up to the election when I started watching them two weeks before the election.

Correct, you heard tons about ACORN. You did not how ever hear about Obama's extensive involvement in ACORN.


So what lawsuits or charges were filed and what's the status of them?

Obama won so the FEC wont look into it since he is the new administration. But the RNC has fired charges on Obama for Election Fraud due to the poor security on his website for donations.


I'm still not finding these unheard of news stories.

Obama has extensive connections with a group that participated in Voter Fraud and that isn't news?

Biden's Son is a high paid Lobbiest who possibly influenced many of his father's vote and that isn't news?

Obama is friends with a radical priest who testimony was placed on the Campaign Website and that isn't news?

Obama helped funnel funds to Rezko who used it to create apartments that eventually were so poor they had to be condemed and that isn't news?

Obama used underhanded tactics to win his first election by kicking all his opponents off the ballot, and that isn't news?

The church Obama sat in for 20 years preached hatred of Whites and to "Kill God if he loves Whites" and that isn't news?

Obama got in millions of dollars through his website that could have come from Foreign Companies or people getting around FEC laws, and that isn't news?

Oh wait I forgot the standard of news we are placing here.

Who is Trig's real mother?

Why did the RNC spend 50,000 dollars on clothes for Palin?

Did McCain have a affair with a intern?

Did Palin say I can see Russia from my house?

Sorry I forgot what PATHETIC standard of News we were applying here.


Or it shows that McCain ran a really bad campaign. If you have 30 different media stations covering the aspects of local and city and what the local Republican effort is doing, multiply that by 50, it adds up, quickly. This isn't entirely his fault, since so much of his campaigning wasn't done by his actual campaign, but rather left to the RNC and local Republican officials.

I cannot believe what astounds me more, that you just said what you said, or that you actually believe it.

I have proven here, proven what information was out there, and you still believe that the RNC and McCain ran such a horrible and piss poor Campaign that it was deserving of such coverage. And the Democrats were all clean and spotless and perfect.

Again I cannot decide, which is worse, what you said, or that you believe what you just said.


But back to the point: You leave it up to local organizers, with no central base, and the "negative" reporting adds up. You have people like Karl Rove saying the Democrats made the extra effort in campaigning in red states and registering voters, and you multiply that by 50 for all the local sources covering the day to day operations, and you cans see how the positive news articles add up.

Except that makes absolutely no difference, unless you believe the Democrats bought off the local news stations to report nicely on them, and attack the Republicans.


As for associations, they've all been covered. Really.

Really? How much do you know about Pflager? About Rezko? About ACORN? About Mayor Daily? How much do you know about Obama's involvement in all three?

Since the associations have been covered I am sure you would be able to give detailed information about Obama's involvement with all three correct?

See I am not holding my breath on that because you can't. In fact his association with Ayres wouldn't have even been covered except for one question in a debate if it wasn't for McCain pouncing on it later in the Campaign.


Oh cmon. No Republican would touch Father Pfleger. Obama quickly said he didn't agree or endorse Pfleger, and conservatives have been saying worse about Hillary for years. Should he be saying that from the pulpit is ano

So when Obama used P***er for his Campaign, even putting him on his website. That was just him being silly right?


Biden's son? A google search turns up Washinton Post, USA Today, LA Times and ABC News articles, along with a blog post on the Wall Street Journal, and a few major political blog names that I recognized. Doesn't seem like some unheard of story.

And how many actually made it onto the air?


Black Liberation Theology? Depends. What is the story? I don't think an entire theological idea is a story.

Like Wright it gives you a idea of Obama's past, what he believes, and what not. As the poisonous and racist Black Liberation Theology was taught in Obama's church since Wright got there, and for the 20 years that Obama was there.

Just for fun here are some quotes.

"To be Christian is to be one of those whom God has chosen. God has chosen black people!"

"All white men are responsible for white oppression."

"Racism is a complete denial of the Incarnation and thus of Christianity...If there is any contemporary meaning of the Antichrist (or "the principalities and powers"), the white church seems to be a manifestation of it"

This is what was taught in Obama's church for twenty years. Where was any in depth reporting on it?

I'm talking specifically in connection with Obama. If that also is what you're talking about it, than source?


Just because they're spreading blame doesn't inherently make it more or less true. I never said what claims I believed in, or think are valid, and so on. I'm just pointing out that there's no reason to go lol ANONYMOUS SOURCE?!?! PLZ. An anoymous source doesn't make it a bad one, just as an on the record source doesn't make it a good one.

In this instance a Anonymous Source actually is proof that it's a lie or has been stretched as the Palin Africa thing has. These people do not want to go on Larry King Live and tell their story, they want to get the information out there, make it look like Palin was the ills of the Campaign, and leave it at that.

chuboy
22nd November 2008, 6:46 AM
Just out of interest BigLutz, do you believe Palin was an asset to the campaign? Or do you think McCain could have made a wiser choice of running mate?

BigLutz
22nd November 2008, 6:59 AM
Just out of interest BigLutz, do you believe Palin was an asset to the campaign? Or do you think McCain could have made a wiser choice of running mate?

I take into consideration two things with that question: A: Was it able to energize the Republican base in a way that McCain couldn't?

The answer to that is of course, the Republicans by and large hated McCain. He had thumbed his nose at the party for so long, and he was doing very little to energize them for this election. Palin was able to find that "Juice" that "Energy" that was missing.

B: Was she the best choice at the time?

People seem to forget that McCain was very limited in his choice. Romney was the best and worse choice. Best choice in that he would have schooled Obama during the economic crisis and probably have kept the election even closer. Worse Choice because no one knew a economic melt down would happen and McCain at the time was facing a onslaught about his houses. A problem only compounded by Romney.

Lieberman was never the choice, McCain had already spent ten years pissing off the Republican Party, adding on a Independent that votes Democrat on everything but Foreign Policy would be a death wish.

Jindal would have been great but Jindal had just as little experience as Palin although more star power. Problem is Jindal was facing a Hurricane with the possibility of more on the way. He was needed in his state not on the Campaign Trail. He wasn't even able to show up to the RNC because of the Hurricanes.

So, that leaves Palin and Pawlenty. Both very good and capable choices, both very new. The deciding factor seemed to be is that Palin had more experience being a maverick, taking on both Republicans and Democrats on the issue of corruption. Which was a issue Obama was trying to hammer on at that time.

I truly think Palin or Pawlenty would both have been good choices, I would have truly had perfered Romney. But McCain was a victim of circumstance. Some of his best choices were taken away from him either through Obama or through Natural Disasters.

Edit: I also wouldn't be surprised if Pawlenty turned it down, he is setting himself up for a possible 2012 run, and unlike Palin his state isn't so far out of reach that he doesn't get national exposure.

randomspot555
22nd November 2008, 7:24 AM
Problem is they shouldn't be, we should be having news commentators that do not let their personal opinion effect the story because like it or not it does. I do give props for O'Reilly and Mathews not being too heavy handed at times and not letting their bias slip through, but Olbermann has lost all journalism ethics.

You just said it yourself. They are news commentators, not reporters. They're paid to give opinions, not report. You or anyone else watching prime time cable news expecting to get just the story are completely deluding yourself, because not a single major cable news host in prime time (that I can think of) is presenting their show as a straight news format. It's all opinion of the hosts, and opinions of the guests. Unless an actual news reporter is on, there is never anyone there who is there just to report.

Whether or not cable news should take this direction is a different topic, but it has. Ever since Fox started, and CNN followed, with the sensationalistic talk show-ish format, ratings have boomed and advertisers flock to them. As evident in the major news network newscasts, which mostly present straight news, their ratings are plummeting especially in the target 18-49 male demographic while prime time cable news are sky rocketing.


I gave you the proof, over a year to report on a major relation, over a year and two months to report on the second. Both of which are very well known. Sorry but that pathetic investigative journalism, IS being dragged kicking and screaming to the story.

That's proof of a date and how long it took to publish That's not proof of a cover up or proof of a bias. You'll have to give more than that.


Excuse me but is this the New York Times that in Feb of 2008 published a lengthy story about McCain having a affair with a intern that ended up being a lie that had been debunked years before? Or a number of other stories that have ended up being lies.

You mean like the imaginary 6'0 black man that beat up the white McCain supporter and had a backwards "B" carved into her face? You mentioned it in the election thread, claiming that both sides have crazy supporters. That woman was arrested for fraud, and it was later found out that she wasn't even at the ATM she claimed to be attacked at.


See you lost the moment you brought up the New York Times, a news paper during this election cycle that has dropped so far in slime journalism that they do not even care about little things like ethics or truth. They dropped a first page story about McCain that ended up being a lie, but did not have the guts or time to find out Obama started his Political Career in the living room with a terrorist? Pathetic.

No where can I find that Obama started his political career at the coffee party in Ayer's house, and I have no reason to believe a McCain ad (which is the only source I can find) is true. An early bit of political support, yes. The first? Nothing that I can find.

What I can believe, though, is that Obama wasn't there because of Ayers' domestic terrorism methods. They worked on education, on boards that had no partisan slant, and the only goal was to make Chicago schools better.



A report sponsored by CBS said there wasn't any bias, yeah what a freaking surprise. Let me ask, why was it rushed on the air? A politically damaging piece on Bush and was rushed on the air with out any source check? Either CBS is stupid and untrustworthy and does not even have the Journalism Standards of a High School Newspaper, or they are bias. Take your pick.

No, I don't take my pick. You're the one claiming bias. You get to back it up.


No it truly isn't, there are massive stories on Obama that never got past the blogs and websites. Never making it on the National News Cast, and obviously never getting the attention that less informative stories on McCain and Palin got.

And I searched on all of them and had no trouble finding information from major news sources.


You want a list?

I'd expect nothing less.


Correct, you heard tons about ACORN. You did not how ever hear about Obama's extensive involvement in ACORN.

Are we talking about the Republican taking point of ACORN committing voter fraud (false, totally), or the investigations of voter registration fraud? There has yet to be a single charge against ACORN that's been to make illegal voting accessible. Hell, ACORN even flags suspicious applications (which they have no legal authority to actually reject or dispose of, since only state authorities can do that)


ACORN also says it cannot simply discard suspicious forms on its own, but is required by law in most states to submit to local election officials all the forms its canvassers bring in. ACORN's Whelan told us that its own legal counsel strongly advises that the group do the same in states that don't explicitly require it, because "only election officials are legally able to determine the validity of a voter registration application." But ACORN says that it first flags all suspicious registrations. Staffers call the phone numbers written on completed registration forms to make sure they're valid and also take note of incomplete or duplicate forms. The group says that it alerts election officials to forms that look fishy when it sends them in.

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/acorn_accusations.html

As to his association, it's all been overblown. Obama's downplayed it heavily. It's more than just being endorsed by their organization. He worked indirectly through some boards with them over the years. But there's nothing to suggest (from the link above) that it is anything deep or incriminating.



Obama has extensive connections with a group that participated in Voter Fraud and that isn't news?

This is a Republican talking point and is completely false. ACORN can not actually commit voter fraud. Only voters can do that.


Biden's Son is a high paid Lobbiest who possibly influenced many of his father's vote and that isn't news?

I googled "Biden son lobbyist" and got several results from major news agencies. You dismiss it by "What was actually aired or shown". It's not my fault you didn't see it. You have to back up your claim that it wasn't reported about.

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/Story?id=5640118&page=1

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/23/AR2008082302200.html

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/09/12/bidens-son-quits-lobbying-business/

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-08-24-Biden-son_N.htm

The Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, and USA Today are some of the biggest names in journalism. Now you have to show me that it wasn't reported.


Obama is friends with a radical priest who testimony was placed on the Campaign Website and that isn't news?

You're completely deluding yourself that this wasn't reported on, to death, in every kind of way. There wasn't a single cable news talk show that hasn't talked about it, extensively. On November 4th, Wright was one of the first people news agencies tracked down to get a sound bite out of him.


Obama helped funnel funds to Rezko who used it to create apartments that eventually were so poor they had to be condemed and that isn't news?

...it was news. It was big news. Even Salon said it was big news, in their big news article on it.

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/02/01/rezko/

I've also found ABC News and Newsweek with articles on it. Hell, I remember hearing about this story on cable news and reading about it during primary season.

FactCheck has a fairly large page on it, and Factcheck doesn't cover every little conspiracy out there. They cover the big stories. Rezko was one of them.

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/rezko_reality.html


Obama used underhanded tactics to win his first election by kicking all his opponents off the ballot, and that isn't news?

I'd sure like to read about that one (seriously, I'm not baiting you).


The church Obama sat in for 20 years preached hatred of Whites and to "Kill God if he loves Whites" and that isn't news?

Same question phrased differently. You must've been under a rock to not hear about this story.


Obama got in millions of dollars through his website that could have come from Foreign Companies or people getting around FEC laws, and that isn't news?

I heard this said by multiple commentators throughout the talk show circuit of the last 2 weeks of the election, including some finance guy from Reagan's administration. However, there's been no conviction.


Who is Trig's real mother?

Never read a story on this outside of the blogosphere.



Really? How much do you know about Pflager? About Rezko? About ACORN? About Mayor Daily? How much do you know about Obama's involvement in all three?

Probably just about as much as I've outlined on all the other undercovered, unheard of stories that you keep pushing about. I'm not going to go through every major media source and keep finding stories about these unheard of subjects. It's your job to prove to me they aren't widely heard of and aren't widely reported on.


Like Wright it gives you a idea of Obama's past, what he believes, and what not. As the poisonous and racist Black Liberation Theology was taught in Obama's church since Wright got there, and for the 20 years that Obama was there.

...I think this is ignorance of what Black Liberation Theology actually is, rather than being against it. It's applying Christian theology that the black community can be attracted to, because for decades and centuries, Christian theology and the Bible has been used to justify racist laws, treatment of nonwhites, and justifying slavery. And black liberation theology is an extension of what Christianity has been about: promoting a better life now. Just becuase we're promised heaven when we die doesn't mean we have to suffer right now. And I don't see how any of that is bad. Fighting for equal rights is bad? Trying to make Christianity appeal to blacks is bad?


"To be Christian is to be one of those whom God has chosen. God has chosen black people!"

It may or may not be offensive, but I don't see how it's any different than Jews or Christian sects claiming that they're the chosen people.


"All white men are responsible for white oppression."

Taken out of context, this doesn't even make sense. But what it really says is that, when a portion of society has a problem, then it is society's problem and society's responsibility. Just because my neighbor has a bad belief that I don't support, doesn't wash my hands of it if I don't try to change his incorrect and immoral belief (such as racism or sexism).


"Racism is a complete denial of the Incarnation and thus of Christianity...If there is any contemporary meaning of the Antichrist (or "the principalities and powers"), the white church seems to be a manifestation of it"

Racism is bad...what's wrong with this again?



In this instance a Anonymous Source actually is proof that it's a lie or has been stretched as the Palin Africa thing has. These people do not want to go on Larry King Live and tell their story, they want to get the information out there, make it look like Palin was the ills of the Campaign, and leave it at that.

No, it isn't. An anonymous soruce means it's an anonymous source. You can't say "Well, this anonymous source in this case is true, but in this it isn't" just because it suits your political desires. Hell, you guys have been spouting off Fox News as having good coverage, but it was their correspondant who broke this story on Bill O Reilly's show!

superluis5
22nd November 2008, 10:01 AM
What is Electoral Collage???

Kyogre35
22nd November 2008, 3:19 PM
What is Electoral Collage???

THe Electoral College is how America votes. Let's say your American, so you go vote in your state, who ever wins the state (Obama or McCain) get's the amount of Electoral College votes for that state based upon Population. So for the winner to win he/she has to get 270 Electoral college votes..taht's basically it.

BigLutz
22nd November 2008, 7:11 PM
You just said it yourself. They are news commentators, not reporters. They're paid to give opinions, not report.

They are paid to run the program, it is sad that we have gotten so far that "News Commentators" now cannot give a unbiased program.


You or anyone else watching prime time cable news expecting to get just the story are completely deluding yourself, because not a single major cable news host in prime time (that I can think of) is presenting their show as a straight news format. It's all opinion of the hosts, and opinions of the guests. Unless an actual news reporter is on, there is never anyone there who is there just to report.

I would go as far as saying even the reporters tend to provide a bias view point. The last good news commentator we had that left his opinions at the door seemed to be Tim Russert.


That's proof of a date and how long it took to publish That's not proof of a cover up or proof of a bias. You'll have to give more than that.

Wait you actually think that they were investigating Wright for over a year? That it took that long to publish it? I mean you seriously are entering the territory of absurdity. The News Papers didn't want to touch Obama's past, Wright, Ayres, Pflager, they are all proof of this, they didn't cover Wright and Ayres until they were absolutely forced to. Compared to the digging they did on Palin and McCain, yes that is proof of bias.


You mean like the imaginary 6'0 black man that beat up the white McCain supporter and had a backwards "B" carved into her face? You mentioned it in the election thread, claiming that both sides have crazy supporters. That woman was arrested for fraud, and it was later found out that she wasn't even at the ATM she claimed to be attacked at.

Congratulations on posting something that has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with what we are talking about. Last thing I checked that woman made up the stupid lie on her own, she was not part of a major publication, that sells thousands if not millions of news papers all over the US.

Now if the NYT or Washington Post or the WSJ actually had posted a story saying that "Barack Obama raped a woman." then you would have a comparison, instead you just have a piss poor rebuttal.


No where can I find that Obama started his political career at the coffee party in Ayer's house, and I have no reason to believe a McCain ad (which is the only source I can find) is true. An early bit of political support, yes. The first? Nothing that I can find.

Obama started his political fund raising at that house, he was trying to go for a Senate Seat and he allowed a very close friend to have a "Coming out" party for him where he met many of the Chicago Big Wigs who could connect him to high places and donate to him. Is this the start of his political carreer? Pretty much as that evening allowed him to make many connections that helped catapult him into that Senate Seat.


What I can believe, though, is that Obama wasn't there because of Ayers' domestic terrorism methods. They worked on education, on boards that had no partisan slant, and the only goal was to make Chicago schools better.

Except the functions on the board had a extreme partisan slant

CAC translated Mr. Ayers's radicalism into practice. Instead of funding schools directly, it required schools to affiliate with "external partners," which actually got the money. Proposals from groups focused on math/science achievement were turned down. Instead CAC disbursed money through various far-left community organizers, such as the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (or Acorn).

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122212856075765367.html



No, I don't take my pick. You're the one claiming bias. You get to back it up.

I have, they released a document on the air that numerous sources were saying they could not verify and could be wrong. What kind of news agency does that? Lowers their standards for one story so that they can rush it on the air as fast as possible?

For there to be no Political Bias involved, CBS News would have such pathetically low standards that they wouldn't even pass a High School Newspaper class. The problem is Rather hated the Bushes steaming from incidents from Bush 41, and he and others at CBS were willing to run a story that they did not fact check and many were telling them they could not verify.

That is bias, straight unfiltered bias.


And I searched on all of them and had no trouble finding information from major news sources.

And I ask again, how many got on the air? See what you need to learn is there is a difference between promoting a story, and


Are we talking about the Republican taking point of ACORN committing voter fraud (false, totally),

False? So you deny that ACORN has a long history of committing voter fraud? That 12 members in 1986 were convicted into Voter Fraud? That 6 in 2004 pled guilty to dozens of election law violations? That 8 in this year pled guilty to federal election fraud for submitting bogus voter registrations?

Oh and that is just Missouri alone.

In Ohio in 2004, a worker for one affiliate was given crack cocaine in exchange for fraudulent registrations that included underage voters, dead voters and pillars of the community named Mary Poppins, Dick Tracy and Jive Turkey. During a congressional hearing in Ohio in the aftermath of the 2004 election, officials from several counties in the state explained ACORN’s practice of dumping thousands of registration forms in their lap on the submission deadline, even though the forms had been collected months earlier.

And then now over a dozen states are now investigating ACORN? Is all of that false?


or the investigations of voter registration fraud? There has yet to be a single charge against ACORN that's been to make illegal voting accessible. Hell, ACORN even flags suspicious applications (which they have no legal authority to actually reject or dispose of, since only state authorities can do that)

They have flagged some, some of them how ever were found by others.

North Carolina — State Board of Elections officials have found at least 100 voter registration forms with the same names over and over again. The forms were turned in by ACORN. Officials sent about 30 applications to the state Board of Elections for possible fraud investigation.

Ohio — The New York Post reported that a Cleveland man said he was given cash and cigarettes by aggressive ACORN activists in exchange for registering an astonishing 72 times.

Indiana — More than 2,000 voter registration forms filed in northern Indiana’s Lake County filled out by ACORN employees turned out to be bogus. Officials also stopped processing a stack of about 5,000 applications delivered just before the October 6 registration deadline after the first 2,100 turned out to be phony.

Connecticut — Officials are looking into a complaint alleging ACORN submitted fraudulent voter registration cards in Bridgeport. In one instance, an official said a card was filled out for a 7-year-old girl, whose age was listed as 27. 8,000 cards were submitted in Bridgeport.

Missouri — The Kansas City election board is reporting 100 duplicate applications and 280 with fake information. Acorn officials agreed that at least 4&#37; of their registrations were bogus. Governor Matt Blunt condemned the attempts by ACORN to commit voter fraud.

Pennsylvania — Officials are investigating suspicious or incomplete registration forms submitted by ACORN. 252,595 voter registrations were submitted in Philadelphia. Remarkably, 57,435 were rejected — most of them submitted by ACORN.

Texas — Of the 30,000 registration cards ACORN turned in, Harris County tax assessor Paul Bettencourt says just more than 20,000 are valid

Michigan — ACORN in Detroit is being investigated after several municipal clerks reported fraudulent and duplicate voter registration applications coming through. The clerk interviewed said the fraud appears to be widespread.

New Mexico – The Bernalillo County clerk has notified prosecutors that some 1,100 fraudulent voter registration cards were turned in by ACORN.

Shall I go on?


As to his association, it's all been overblown. Obama's downplayed it heavily. It's more than just being endorsed by their organization. He worked indirectly through some boards with them over the years. But there's nothing to suggest (from the link above) that it is anything deep or incriminating.

Well lets start off what Obama has admitted to, in 1994 he represented ACORN in court for a lawsuit on Voter Registration. Surprise Surprise.

Now lets go to what he has not admitted to, and what you seem to not know.

Obama donated nearly a million dollars to Citizens Services Inc, a subsidiary of ACORN. Originally the money was said to be for "Lights and Services." This was a lie, and eventually the report on the money was amended for the "get-out-the-vote" projects.

In the early 1990s Obama actually trained ACORN Employees.

Obama has admitted that ACORN was "Smack Dab" in the middle of Project Vote when he was running it in 1991. "I've been fighting alongside ACORN on issues you care about my entire career. Even before I was an elected official, when I ran Project Vote voter registration drives in Illinois, ACORN was smack dab in the middle of it, and we appreciate your work,"

When Obama was on the Woods Fund, the Woods Fund gave several grants to ACORN. $45,000 (2000), $30,000 (2001), $45,000 (2001), $30,000 (2002), and $40,000 (2002)


This is a Republican talking point and is completely false. ACORN can not actually commit voter fraud. Only voters can do that.

ACORN can register fraudulent voters and then drive people around to registrations to vote for who they ask for using those names.


I googled "Biden son lobbyist" and got several results from major news agencies. You dismiss it by "What was actually aired or shown". It's not my fault you didn't see it. You have to back up your claim that it wasn't reported about.

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/Story?id=5640118&page=1

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/23/AR2008082302200.html

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/09/12/bidens-son-quits-lobbying-business/

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-08-24-Biden-son_N.htm

The Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, and USA Today are some of the biggest names in journalism. Now you have to show me that it wasn't reported.

Lets see, you have two blogs, ABC News, and WSJ, meaning they most likely didn't make it on the air or in the paper. And two Newspapers. Now are you going to claim those news papers actually ran those stories? and did not bury them?


You're completely deluding yourself that this wasn't reported on, to death, in every kind of way. There wasn't a single cable news talk show that hasn't talked about it, extensively. On November 4th, Wright was one of the first people news agencies tracked down to get a sound bite out of him.

You do realize I am talking about Pfleger.



I've also found ABC News and Newsweek with articles on it. Hell, I remember hearing about this story on cable news and reading about it during primary season.

FactCheck has a fairly large page on it, and Factcheck doesn't cover every little conspiracy out there. They cover the big stories. Rezko was one of them.

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/rezko_reality.html

Rezko was one of them because of the housing purchase, something that if you noticed I did not mention in my post. Or do you have a reading problem? It also shows how little was reported on this.

Obama was an attorney with a small Chicago law firm -- Davis Miner Barnhill & Galland -- that helped Rezmar get more than $43 million in government funding to rehab 15 of their 30 apartment buildings for the poor.

Through out the years Obama worked on a variety of projects through the law firm with Rezko, something his Campaign admitted to earlier on.

"Senator Obama did not directly represent Mr. Rezko or his firms. He did represent on a very limited basis ventures in which Mr. Rezko's entities participated along with others,''


I'd sure like to read about that one (seriously, I'm not baiting you).

I have posted on it multiple times, but since you seemed to not read those... Not to mention it was one of the questions on the Survey of Obama voters posted here.

"Instead Obama performed his first real act of political jujitsu. He sent his aides to the courthouse to carefully examine all of Alice Palmer's signatures to see if enough could be disallowed to knock her off the ballot altogether. And indeed, some of Alice's signatures were fake. The aides also found enough other fake signatures on opponents' ballot initiatives to knock them off the ballot as well."

In other words in a heavily democratic district, Obama was able to knock all of his opponents off the ballot so that he could run unopposed to the Democratic Nomination to the Senate Seat, and thus win it easily.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/01/obamas_alinsky_jujitsu.html

"As a community organizer, he had helped register thousands of voters. But when it came time to run for office, he employed Chicago rules to invalidate the voting petition signatures of three of his challengers.

The move denied each of them, including incumbent Alice Palmer, a longtime Chicago activist, a place on the ballot. It cleared the way for Obama to run unopposed on the Democratic ticket in a heavily Democrat district."

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/29/obamas.first.campaign/index.html

Again the media buried this story, proof? Check how many voters actually knew about this story in the poll. Hell even you did not know of this story.


Same question phrased differently. You must've been under a rock to not hear about this story.

They talked about Obama and Wright's ties, NOT what Wright was preaching as I have said. Black Liberation Theology is a incredibly racist theology, and was taught in Wright's church, again not a peep out of it.



Probably just about as much as I've outlined on all the other undercovered, unheard of stories that you keep pushing about. I'm not going to go through every major media source and keep finding stories about these unheard of subjects. It's your job to prove to me they aren't widely heard of and aren't widely reported on.

I would think that your actual ignorance on these subjects would prove that they were not really even touched on by a variety of news services.


...I think this is ignorance of what Black Liberation Theology actually is, rather than being against it. It's applying Christian theology that the black community can be attracted to, because for decades and centuries, Christian theology and the Bible has been used to justify racist laws, treatment of nonwhites, and justifying slavery. And black liberation theology is an extension of what Christianity has been about: promoting a better life now. Just becuase we're promised heaven when we die doesn't mean we have to suffer right now. And I don't see how any of that is bad. Fighting for equal rights is bad? Trying to make Christianity appeal to blacks is bad?

And thus your absolute ignorance of Black Liberation Theology shows again. It is a extreme racist theology as shown from the quotes below, teaching there is no such thing as Black Racism, that every white person is responsible for the white oppression on blacks. It is nothing more than a hate filled theology based on believing Whites are evil and that if God loves Whites that he should be killed.

"Black theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community. If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him. The task of black theology is to kill Gods who do not belong to the black community ... Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy."


It may or may not be offensive, but I don't see how it's any different than Jews or Christian sects claiming that they're the chosen people.

Except instead of dividing it into religions it is further dividing it into racists, and is just a clue of what else lays in Black Liberation Theology.


Taken out of context, this doesn't even make sense. But what it really says is that, when a portion of society has a problem, then it is society's problem and society's responsibility. Just because my neighbor has a bad belief that I don't support, doesn't wash my hands of it if I don't try to change his incorrect and immoral belief (such as racism or sexism).

Well lets look at the full quote.

"All white men are responsible for white oppression. It is much too easy to say, "Racism is not my fault," or "I am not responsible for the country's inhumanity to the black man...But insofar as white do-gooders tolerate and sponsor racism in their educational institutions, their political, economic and social structures, their churches, and in every other aspect of American life, they are directly responsible for racism...Racism is possible because whites are indifferent to suffering and patient with cruelty. Karl Jaspers' description of metaphysical guilt is pertinent here. 'There exists among men, because they are men, a solidarity through which each shares responsibility for every injustice and every wrong committed in the world, and especially for crimes that are committed in his presence or of which he cannot be ignorant.' "

So in other words, because you are white, you are guilty of racism.


Racism is bad...what's wrong with this again?

And your reading problem appears again.

"Racism is a complete denial of the Incarnation and thus of Christianity...If there is any contemporary meaning of the Antichrist (or "the principalities and powers"), the white church seems to be a manifestation of it"

White Church = Manifestation of the Antichrist.

Care to try again?


No, it isn't. An anonymous soruce means it's an anonymous source. You can't say "Well, this anonymous source in this case is true, but in this it isn't" just because it suits your political desires. Hell, you guys have been spouting off Fox News as having good coverage, but it was their correspondant who broke this story on Bill O Reilly's show!

And where it was broken means absolutely nothing, except possibly that it was a Conservative Source or some one affiliated with the Republican Campaign. An Anonymous Source means everything in the context that if the person truly cared about what happened in the McCain/Palin Campaign they would come out and tell how high ranking they were. That way they could prove if they were even around Palin or had access to the information.

They wont, why? Because as I have said over and over again and what you seem to not be able to get. Is that this is a smear job to paint Palin as all the Campaigns ills and the reason they lost so that the "Anonymous Source" can get hired some place else.

But you seem to be neglecting that tidbit of information.

Bad Religion
22nd November 2008, 7:57 PM
Has Obama changed the world yet guise?

BigLutz
22nd November 2008, 8:14 PM
Has Obama changed the world yet guise?

He hasn't even changed the White House yet.

"The office he will oversee has been strongly denounced by some Republicans and Democrats, including Obama's former opponent Sen. John McCain, who vowed to abolish the office if he were elected, and House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.), who issued a report last month recommending its elimination."

Office decried by both the right and the left will remain (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1108/15880.html)

Change you... well can't believe in!

Manamanah
23rd November 2008, 3:15 AM
Change you... well can't believe in!

OMG he hasn't changed anything in his first two and a half weeks as president elect? I'm SO SURPRISED.


The office he will oversee has been strongly denounced by some Republicans and Democrats, including Obama's former opponent Sen. John McCain, who vowed to abolish the office if he were elected, and House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.), who issued a report last month recommending its elimination.

I've also personally never heard of this issue beforehand, and it wasn't one of the things that he was really advertising against in his campaign.

That article you linked to also has this gem in it:
"An Obama White House will be focused on meeting the next challenge, not winning the next election," transition spokeswoman Jen Psaki wrote in an e-mail Friday evening. "That is what he promised in the campaign and that is how he will govern."


Originally posted by BigLutz
They wont, why? Because as I have said over and over again and what you seem to not be able to get. Is that this is a smear job to paint Palin as all the Campaigns ills and the reason they lost so that the "Anonymous Source" can get hired some place else.

But you seem to be neglecting that tidbit of information.

You keep accepting your opinion as a fact, and you're using that as proof that your opinion is correct. I don't follow your non-existent argument. It may or may not be a cover up, but stating your opinion over and over again will not make their reason for releasing the "information" any different.

BigLutz
23rd November 2008, 3:21 AM
OMG he hasn't changed anything in his first two and a half weeks as president elect? I'm SO SURPRISED.

OMG he is keeping a office decried by the left as being used for Political Gain by Bush! What happened to changing and shaking up Washington? So far we have Obama getting a bunch of Clinton Staffers and keeping a very Partisan and Political Office in the White House.


I've also personally never heard of this issue beforehand, and it wasn't one of the things that he was really advertising against in his campaign.

Obama has kept mum about it but both the Democrats and the Republicans have been wanting to get rid of the office. Comparing it to "Karl Rove style Politics."


You keep accepting your opinion as a fact, and you're using that as proof that your opinion is correct. I don't follow your non-existent argument. It may or may not be a cover up, but stating your opinion over and over again will not make their reason for releasing the "information" any different.

Problem is that like you and others in here, you guys seem to know very little about Politics, especially the blame game that happens after the loss of a Presidential Election. Why do I accept it as fact? Because it is fact, these staffers want to get a job, and they do not want to have the blame being put on their shoulders. So they lash out at any body, taking things that are absolutely out of context, such as the Palin/Africa thing. To save their own asses.

If you knew something about Politics, you would know this happens, but obviously you don't.

Don't like my opinion? How about CNN's?

They are the top advisers to John McCain's failed campaign and they are desperate to find someone to blame for their long, long list of mistakes. They have been launching grenades at Palin and her supporters. CNN has found some of their allegations to be patently false.

You will hear people say, "This is what always happens with a losing campaign," and hopefully, this is the last time we will be talking about these people. But what they have done just in the last few days to save their own skins is worth a final comment.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/11/06/campbell.brown.palin/#cnnSTCText

It tells you everything that the Palin smear stories come from anonymous staffers. There is no documentation. There is no way to prove the rumors false. Think graffiti in a junior high school girls' room.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/nov/15/palin-smear-leaves-prints/

And another interesting mention in the WaTimes

The political press corps doesn't win any awards in this episode, either. Remember when the pack would not jump on National Enquirer stories about John Edwards' relations with Rielle Hunter and child - because the story had not been nailed down? It seems there is a different standard for Sarah Palin - to wit, anything goes.

But hey, no bias right? ~.^

Carlisle
23rd November 2008, 3:37 AM
Sorry it took me so long to respond. I've been really busy. ^^;;

Looks like Hillary is going to be Secretary of State. I think she is well qualified, and it will keep her career going VERY well. BUT. There are SO many factors to Hillary possibly running in 2012/2016. IF Obama's administration goes HORRIBLE, then she gets tied down to it. If it goes great...well, then great. I think being in charge of health care is more for her, and it doesn't tie her down to Obama so much.

And yeah, there are a lot of great stars on the rise for the GOP.

...but Mike Huckabee is NOT one of them.

legendary master Jose
23rd November 2008, 4:25 AM
Sorry it took me so long to respond. I've been really busy. ^^;;

Looks like Hillary is going to be Secretary of State. I think she is well qualified, and it will keep her career going VERY well. BUT. There are SO many factors to Hillary possibly running in 2012/2016. IF Obama's administration goes HORRIBLE, then she gets tied down to it. If it goes great...well, then great. I think being in charge of health care is more for her, and it doesn't tie her down to Obama so much.

And yeah, there are a lot of great stars on the rise for the GOP.

...but Mike Huckabee is NOT one of them.

The only reason i can thinnk of why he would pick hillary is so that he can pacify her and prevent her from causing any trouble for him later.

and why not huckabee?

BigLutz
23rd November 2008, 4:57 AM
Interesting article from Time Magazine's Mark Halperin and Politico on Media Bias during the election.

Media bias was more intense in the 2008 election than in any other national campaign in recent history, Time magazine's Mark Halperin said Friday at the Politico/USC conference on the 2008 election.

"It's the most disgusting failure of people in our business since the Iraq war," Halperin said at a panel of media analysts. "It was extreme bias, extreme pro-Obama coverage."

"I think it's incumbent upon people in our business to make sure that we're being fair," he said. "The daily output was the most disparate of any campaign I've ever covered, by far."

But hey, no Media Bias during the Campaign Right?

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1108/15885.html

legendary master Jose
23rd November 2008, 8:07 AM
Interesting article from Time Magazine's Mark Halperin and Politico on Media Bias during the election.

Media bias was more intense in the 2008 election than in any other national campaign in recent history, Time magazine's Mark Halperin said Friday at the Politico/USC conference on the 2008 election.

"It's the most disgusting failure of people in our business since the Iraq war," Halperin said at a panel of media analysts. "It was extreme bias, extreme pro-Obama coverage."

"I think it's incumbent upon people in our business to make sure that we're being fair," he said. "The daily output was the most disparate of any campaign I've ever covered, by far."

But hey, no Media Bias during the Campaign Right?

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1108/15885.html

Thats not surprising it seems as though the most balanced media coverage was Fox News


Source (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/rich-noyes/2008/11/01/no-doubt-about-it-all-fox-news-tipping-obama-s-way)

In reports this week, the Center for Media and Public Affairs (CMPA) and the Pew-funded Project for Excellence in Journalism (PEJ) found the most balanced campaign coverage was on the Fox News Channel, although PEJ claimed FNC’s balance was actually a right-leaning bias, since it deviated from the “norm” of other big media:


CMPA found nearly two-thirds of soundbitess on the three broadcast networks were pro-Obama (65%), while less than one-third could be rated as positive towards McCain (31%). An earlier report from CMPA (assessing coverage through the end of September) showed a similar level of good press for Obama, but pegged McCain’s positive press at 36%, indicating that the networks have become even more hostile towards the Republicans in October.

and im sure you can all guess were most of the 31 - 36% of positive mccain bites came from

Carlisle
23rd November 2008, 6:16 PM
The only reason i can thinnk of why he would pick hillary is so that he can pacify her and prevent her from causing any trouble for him later.

and why not huckabee?
Because Huckabee appeals to nobody except hardcore Christian social conservatives. NO independents, Democrats, moderates, or even liberal Republicans would vote for him. Not to mention his policies and views are the most idiotic things to come out of any candidate's mouth.

BigLutz
23rd November 2008, 6:17 PM
Because Huckabee appeals to nobody except hardcore Christian social conservatives. NO independents, Democrats, moderates, or even liberal Republicans would vote for him. Not to mention his policies and views are the most idiotic things to come out of any candidate's mouth.

Add in Moderate Republicans and Economic and Government Conservatives. Personally I couldnt stand his religion chest beating, and it got alot worse when he acted like a child toward Sarah Palin after the election.

Carlisle
23rd November 2008, 6:22 PM
Add in Moderate Republicans and Economic and Government Conservatives. Personally I couldnt stand his religion chest beating, and it got alot worse when he acted like a child toward Sarah Palin after the election.
Yeah, you're definitely right. If Sarah Palin became more Federalist on the Social Issues like McCain was, I think she'd be better off. Sarah Palin even comes off as a better and more likable person than Huckabee with her message and the way she spoke. She had the whole, "I truly understand how you guys are feeling, so lets go and shake up Washington." attitude.

GhostAnime
23rd November 2008, 6:42 PM
are you serious? huckabee? the guy that didnt even believe in evolution?

he doesnt deserve to run for office that way.

randomspot555
23rd November 2008, 7:32 PM
The fiscal Republicans don't like him either. From my understanding, he enacted and supported a number of social programs while governor.

seveguy
23rd November 2008, 10:13 PM
How are Kay Hagan do something like run for a political office! How dare that people support and vote for her! What do they think this is? A democracy?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!!??


Sarcasm? Okay let me talk a little. I just thought it was disrespectful for the state of North Carolina to elect Kay Hagan over Elizabeth Dole, a very well respected woman in politics. Kay Hagan must have a lot of guts. I'm just mad that North Carolina picked a State Senator over: a potential First Lady, Former President of the Red Cross, and former Secretary of Labor, and Transportation. I know this might start controversy, but if I ever ran for a place in the Senate, I would never ever take money from atheists.


Guliani is horribly unqualified for any type of national elected position. He hasn't held a political office for quite some time. He seems to come around every 4 years to stump for POTUS, and that's about it.


Okay, lets get things straight. Rudolph Giuliani was the Mayor of New York City. Let me repeat New York City. That's like being a Governor in itself. Any mayor who governs a populated city is almost like a Governor.
Palin would be best served by completing her 1-2 terms as governor. I don't see her though as a national candidate. Maybe an RNC seat or think tank working.


And as for Hillary, I never remember her saying, let alone "promising", that she wouldn't accept a cabinet position.

I guess you didn't watch the aftermath of the Final Presidential Debate on CNN. I can't find a video on Youtube right now, but Anderson Cooper asked Hillary a question whether or not she would go into Obama's cabinet if he won, and she flatly said no.

Oh and one more thing I might add. Didn't Obama winning Ohio seem a little hard to believe? If you look on Wikipedia and go to this certain map, it shows Ohio divided up into counties. Red for McCain, blue for Obama. There's a lot of red on that map. A lot.

Oh, and another thing. Even though I will be to vote by the next election, why can't kids vote? It seems like a load of kids are interested in politics.

Carlisle
23rd November 2008, 10:22 PM
Sarcasm? Okay let me talk a little. I just thought it was disrespectful for the state of North Carolina to elect Kay Hagan over Elizabeth Dole, a very well respected woman in politics. Kay Hagan must have a lot of guts. I'm just mad that North Carolina picked a State Senator over: a potential First Lady, Former President of the Red Cross, and former Secretary of Labor, and Transportation. I know this might start controversy, but if I ever ran for a place in the Senate, I would never ever take money from atheists.
That's great, but nobody cares. And it's not disrespectful. It's called politics and a democracy. People wanted something new, and they had that choice.


I guess you didn't watch the aftermath of the Final Presidential Debate on CNN. I can't find a video on Youtube right now, but Anderson Cooper asked Hillary a question whether or not she would go into Obama's cabinet if he won, and she flatly said no.
Do you honestly think during the primary season people would be saying they'd be willing to work for their opponents? Uh, no.


Oh and one more thing I might add. Didn't Obama winning Ohio seem a little hard to believe? If you look on Wikipedia and go to this certain map, it shows Ohio divided up into counties. Red for McCain, blue for Obama. There's a lot of red on that map. A lot.
Uh, no. It doesn't matter who won more counties. Obama won the counties with more population.


Oh, and another thing. Even though I will be to vote by the next election, why can't kids vote? It seems like a load of kids are interested in politics.
Because the average teenager is a moron and would only vote for the "cool" person or what their parents want. It's something reserved for adults.

BigLutz
23rd November 2008, 10:26 PM
One of the most interesting conspiracies or at least possible back room deals being done. Is that at the Convention or just before it, Obama made the offer for SoS for Hillary if she and her Husband would make a hearty endorsement for him at the convention. Now this may not have happened, but it could explain how Bill Clinton went from calling Obama a Chicago Thug and wanting McCain to win, to giving Obama such accolades.

seveguy
24th November 2008, 1:47 AM
Do you honestly think during the primary season people would be saying they'd be willing to work for their opponents? Uh, no.

It was after the Final Presidential Debate between John McCain and Barack Obama, and by that time, Clinton and Obama weren't opponents anymore. Hillary endorsed Obama. And Clinton said no then.


Now this may not have happened, but it could explain how Bill Clinton went from calling Obama a Chicago Thug and wanting McCain to win, to giving Obama such accolades.

Now I know for sure that the Clintons are a tad hypocritical.


That's great, but nobody cares. And it's not disrespectful. It's called politics and a democracy. People wanted something new, and they had that choice.

I care! God cares! But yeah, I do sort of agree I'm sort of being a sore loser about this, but still, I liked Elizabeth Dole! : (

BigLutz
24th November 2008, 6:02 AM
Now I know for sure that the Clintons are a tad hypocritical.

Nah the Clintons are Political Opportunists at the best. They took a small gamble that being Secretary of State would give Hillary the same exposure that Condi got, in the hopes that Obama's Presidency works out. Instead of being able to have the Ultimate "I told you so." It's a risk but that is the game of politics.

Manamanah
24th November 2008, 10:54 PM
I think that if I were Hilary, I would rather run for office after 8 years of a terrific Obama administration than 4 years of a terrible Obama administration. She would want to run in a year when the Democrats are supposed to win.

Re: Kay Hagan
I'm fairly certain that there has to e a democratic nominee in each senate race, so....yeah I don't see what is so bad with her running. The majority of the people in North Carolina liked her more, I guess, so she is now the senator.

There were Republicans running for senate in New England, it's just that they didn't win. Had they won, it wouldn't have been a disgrace because in order to win they have to have a majority of the vote, they just didn't.

I think that the way congress is split between Democrats and Republicans, I think, that Obama winning was not just a fluke, or just media bias. America did not want any more of the Republican party in general.

Carlisle
24th November 2008, 10:57 PM
It was after the Final Presidential Debate between John McCain and Barack Obama, and by that time, Clinton and Obama weren't opponents anymore. Hillary endorsed Obama. And Clinton said no then.
Oh, well, it still doesn't change anything. She's not being a hypocrite, she's looking at her political future. Secretary of State has a LOT more to offer and a lot more...coverage and a famous factor and a lot more work compared to being part of the Senate.



I care! God cares! But yeah, I do sort of agree I'm sort of being a sore loser about this, but still, I liked Elizabeth Dole! : (
Well, I don't have an opinion either way. It's not my state, so I could care less. Maybe she was more qualified, maybe she wasn't. Don't have much to say about her, except that's how democracy works. I was angry about Hillary losing, but hey, those are the rules. And bringing God into this is fairly stupid.

randomspot555
24th November 2008, 11:02 PM
I think that if I were Hilary, I would rather run for office after 8 years of a terrific Obama administration than 4 years of a terrible Obama administration. She would want to run in a year when the Democrats are supposed to win.

There are so many parts of this equation that could fluctuate in between now and 2 months from now, let alone 4 or 8 years from now. I mean, we can speculate (and I'm sure we will), but it's going to be like computers: Whatever is said will be outdated and useless in 3 weeks.


I think that the way congress is split between Democrats and Republicans, I think, that Obama winning was not just a fluke, or just media bias. America did not want any more of the Republican party in general.

I don't like the talking point of "it's a center-right country" either, but there is a nugget of truth to it. If the party who has near-complete power in Washington is anything less than perfect, the Republicans could gain a lot of ground in Congress. And the first seats to be targeted will be all the Democrats in traditionally conservative districts. The Dems have pretty solid leads in both houses, but I wouldn't be surprised to see a Democratic majority be whittled down to something like 52&#37; or 51% of the legislative branch.


I would never ever take money from atheists.

Atheists, or at least "none of the above", are more numerable in the US than any other religion besides Christianity. Not to mention that there's nothing wrong with being an atheist, and it's completely irrelevant (as far as I'm concerned) with politics.

BigLutz
24th November 2008, 11:07 PM
I think that if I were Hilary, I would rather run for office after 8 years of a terrific Obama administration than 4 years of a terrible Obama administration. She would want to run in a year when the Democrats are supposed to win.

You are right that she wouldn't want to be the sacrificial lamb in a Obama Failure in 4 years, like McCain was this year. But then again she would have the ultimate "I told you so" as well as a "Bring the Glory days of the Clintons back". But if Obama screws up the next 4 years and doesn't get re-elected her political future is finished.


I think that the way congress is split between Democrats and Republicans, I think, that Obama winning was not just a fluke, or just media bias. America did not want any more of the Republican party in general.

Yeah I would say the Republican brand was pretty damaged, but Media Bias did help contribute to a Obama Victory. Either way the media dug themselves a hole, they can't be silent forever when Obama starts screwing up, and if you are to listen to his advisers, and left wing supporters. He already has by bringing back so many from the Clinton Admin.

Ethan
24th November 2008, 11:12 PM
Didn't one of Obama's future staff want to pardon the guy that shot Reagan? This is what I've heard anyway, what's up with that? I hear there were some other controversial pardons.

GhostAnime
24th November 2008, 11:15 PM
the media loved obama. this is undeniable.

but does anyone here seriously think that obama would have lost WITHOUT the media constantly talking about him and "oh yeah he'll make history"?

randomspot555
24th November 2008, 11:17 PM
Didn't one of Obama's future staff want to pardon the guy that shot Reagan?

Considering he was found not guilty due to insanity, the pardon would be relatively pointless. From my understanding, a Presidential Pardon has to be pardoning a specific federal crime (or pardoning a sentencing of a crime, and so on), and since Reagan's attempted assassin hasn't committed/been convicted of a federal crime, it's not likely to be true. The POTUS can't just write a blank check for a pardon as in "This guy is not guilty of any crimes he may or may not have committed."

Gregory Craig however, did defend Regan's attempted assasin and got him the insanity plea. And Craig is part of Obama's White House council.

BigLutz
24th November 2008, 11:24 PM
I havn't heard about the Reagan thing, but Lawrence Summers for his Economic Adviser has a bit of a rocky past, being President of Harvard where he questioned whether women had the right DNA to do well in math and science.

But since he wont face Senate Confirmation, and the Media is unlikely to report on it, that is a potential save for Obama.

Asaspades
25th November 2008, 4:06 PM
[QUOTE=BigLutz;9024484]I havn't heard about the Reagan thing, but Lawrence Summers for his Economic Adviser has a bit of a rocky past, being President of Harvard where he questioned whether women had the right DNA to do well in math and science.[QUOTE]

Thats not what he said. He said that there were difference is the innate abilities of men and women regarding science and math. Which is factually accurate. It'd be like saying "women give birth" and calling it discrimination. It's not discrimination, it's just fact. Just like the fact that women mature a bit faster then men. Not sexist, fact.

BigLutz
25th November 2008, 4:14 PM
Thats not what he said. He said that there were difference is the innate abilities of men and women regarding science and math. Which is factually accurate. It'd be like saying "women give birth" and calling it discrimination. It's not discrimination, it's just fact. Just like the fact that women mature a bit faster then men. Not sexist, fact.

Not according to the Politico Article.

Summers likely would have been confirmed. But his rocky tenure as president of Harvard University, particularly when he questioned whether women had the right DNA to do well in math and science, would have surely made for some excruciating televised moments for the Obama administration during the confirmation hearings.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1108/15903.html

Not to mention the reactions from his remarks were so bad that they led to a vote of no confidence at Harvard. So I don't think it was just "Woman give birth" thing.

HoennMaster
26th November 2008, 6:57 AM
So I heard that Obama plans to keep Robert Gates at his post, or maybe I read it wrong. Interesting decision, but I guess I don't necessarily disagree.

chuboy
26th November 2008, 8:22 AM
By the way, women genetically are not as good as males at maths and some sciences because of their inherent difficulty in spatial awareness, etc. Things like imagining three-dimensional space. That is also why women have trouble reading maps.

Before you cry 'men rulz' women are also inherently better at multitasking as well as numerous other things. It stems from our ancestry as hunter/gatherer tribes in which the male would be forced to leave a camp and go and hunt for food while the female remained at home to raise the young and forage.

BigLutz
26th November 2008, 8:31 AM
By the way, women genetically are not as good as males at maths and some sciences because of their inherent difficulty in spatial awareness, etc. Things like imagining three-dimensional space. That is also why women have trouble reading maps.

Before you cry 'men rulz' women are also inherently better at multitasking as well as numerous other things. It stems from our ancestry as hunter/gatherer tribes in which the male would be forced to leave a camp and go and hunt for food while the female remained at home to raise the young and forage.

Problem is while that may be true, it is very hard to defend to feminists.

Not to mention it would be politically embarrassing for a President who's first major Political Victory was destroying the first really major Female Presidential Candidate, to bring some one in front of a Senate committee where in the past he has alluded or hinted to that women are inferior possibly because of genetics in the field of Math and Science.

The Republicans would have a freaking field day with it, not to mention the Obama White House would have to take time out of getting their economic message out to defend their choice.

chuboy
26th November 2008, 8:34 AM
I'm not making a political statement, I'm simply stating what is scientifically correct.

Of course, historically, scienctific correctness has had very little to do with the government :rolleyes:

BigLutz
26th November 2008, 8:37 AM
I'm not making a political statement, I'm simply stating what is scientifically correct.

Of course, historically, scienctific correctness has had very little to do with the government :rolleyes:

Oh I know, I am just basically stating or talking about the political ramifications of this choice. Sorry if it seemed as if I was actually trying to debate this post. It's just that putting this guy beyond a small role would be the first big White House disaster for Obama. Especially if the media decides to turn on him and wants a embarrassing political story.

Nukada
26th November 2008, 3:47 PM
Media won't turn on him, why would you say something bad to the guy you were campaigning for?

Personally I have a problem with the media being blatantly liberal, but if they would just admit it instead of claiming to be balanced, it would be fine.

Thank God for talk radio.

grounder
27th November 2008, 10:45 PM
Personally I have a problem with the media being blatantly liberal, but if they would just admit it instead of claiming to be balanced, it would be fine.

Do you include C-Span as being blatantly liberal? Because technically, they're a part of the media, as they report news as well.

randomspot555
28th November 2008, 5:36 PM
Do you include C-Span as being blatantly liberal? Because technically, they're a part of the media, as they report news as well.

Just because they don't inject opinions into their broadcasts doesn't mean they can't have a bias.

grounder
28th November 2008, 10:56 PM
Just because they don't inject opinions into their broadcasts doesn't mean they can't have a bias.

True. But their widespread coverage of both sides of the political system seem to point to a nonpartisanship view. Maybe there's bias in that, but I don't see how that could be liberal or conservative bias.

BigLutz
28th November 2008, 11:06 PM
The only time that I can think of any bias coming in on CSPAN was during the recent Republican Protests when Pelsoi shut down the CSPAN cameras to keep any of the protests from getting out on TV. But then again that wasn't really CSPAN's fault.

LizXOXO
1st December 2008, 3:17 PM
Do you include C-Span as being blatantly liberal? Because technically, they're a part of the media, as they report news as well.

The mass media is liberal, television news is super liberal as well as many print media. YES EVEN FOX NEWS, except for Sean Hannity all the others have buckled. Talk radio is the only conservative dominated media, but I still watch television news and read the newspaper as well. CNN or Fox I really don't care, because I know I'm intelligent enough to wade through all the bias and liberalism to get the big picture. Oh yeah and you gotta love Jim Kramer on CNBC

Talk radio is still growing as well. With newspapers going out of print and layoffs happening left and right in the newsrooms, listenership to talk radio has not wavered. And I would still hate CNN even if they did say they were knee-jerk liberals. Anyone that can't figure something like that out on their own needs to get their head out of their ***

and on and on.... don't get me started on Obama... I seriously don't know where to begin.

Carlisle
1st December 2008, 6:01 PM
Well, Obama just announced his national security team! Hillary Clinton will be our next Secretary of State as expected! :] Clinton will do an OUTSTANDING job as SoS, and I wish all the luck to her. So, there's only four more cabinet spots to assign! Secretary of Energy, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Secretary of Education, and Secretary of Commerce. Al Gore, Bill Richardson, Linda Darling-Hammond, and Tom Daschle are the top contenders to fill those four roles. Looks like Obama is choosing everything carefully with extremely vetting. Looks like he knows what he is doing so far, his cabinet is very...muscular to say the least.

BigLutz
1st December 2008, 6:08 PM
Well Obama fans can see a up side to this and a down side to this. Upside being that he has just neutered a potential opponent in the 2012 election. Downside is that the Clintons are attention *****s who work for themselves, and you can be sure that any argument between Obama and Clinton will be leaked to the press to make Obama look bad.

Clinton fans, there is only a real downside to this. Hillary traded in a chance for the Presidency for Secretary of State, any chance she has on running on the good days of the Clintons will be forgotten in favor of her time as Secretary of State. She will be placed in charge of a potentially failed Foreign Policy that most likely will see renewed tensions in the Middle East including a nuclear Iran, a Russia that is returning to the Soviet Union days, and China expanding its influence into South America.

Congrats Obama fans, you have your scapegoat, your 'devil', for when you can't use "Bush" anymore after the first year.

Me? I'm just sitting back and watching.

HoennMaster
1st December 2008, 6:53 PM
At least Hillary will get to do more then a sentor. Still think it should be the opposite way around though.

Kate
1st December 2008, 7:23 PM
Hilary... Christ I cannot stand that woman.

What the hell is he thinking? I'm still wondering exactly what foriegn policy experience Clinton has that would even prepare her for the job. This is nonsense. This is the woman that said it's "a vast right wing conspiracy" when Bill was rumored to have cheated on her. Give me a break. This is the woman that siad she wanted to pull all troops out of Iraq within a year no matter what. Which shows me she isn't going to listen to a damn thing our generals on the field are saying, or even our defense secretary Robert Gates who's been doing a wonderful job. I don't want this convoluted twit in charge of foriegn policy matters, especially a tall order like an Iraq exit strategy when she's already made comments that show clear ignorance. Congratulations Obama, you won this election and then handed it over to the Clintons. Hilary Clinton couldn't even manage her own campaign properly, and she wants manage a huge foriegn policy bureacracy? Apparently everyone that thinks this such a great phenomenal decision really don't understand the concept of dual loyalties.

Good God.

LizXOXO
2nd December 2008, 12:30 AM
Obama was clearly not prepared for any of this. The pressure started setting in so he buckled and rehired Bill Clinton's entire second term staff.

BigLutz
2nd December 2008, 12:58 AM
Obama was clearly not prepared for any of this. The pressure started setting in so he buckled and rehired Bill Clinton's entire second term staff.

Woah hold on there, lets not go so fast, I mean look at the list of all the things Obama was planning to do once elected.

1: Bring Change to Washington by bringing in Fresh thinkers.
2: Stay away from Lobbyist.
3: Close down Guitmo
4: Tax the Rich
5: Pull out of Iraq in 16 months
7: Turn back the Seas and Heal the Planet
8: Talk to Rogue Nations with out Preconditions
9: Bend over and take it in the *** by far left organizations

Well okay 1 - 8 are pretty much cut out in one way or the other, as for number 9, the jury is still out on that one.

LizXOXO
2nd December 2008, 1:11 AM
9: Bend over and take it in the *** by far left organizations

Well okay 1 - 8 are pretty much cut out in one way or the other, as for number 9, the jury is still out on that one.

Touche... I think he's long gone on that one with his senate voting record... You know.. the few times he didn't vote "present"

Oh yeah don't count out Volcker either. In Obama's words, that old prune is "about as fresh a face as you can get"

Edit: Here goes number 9! http://www.onenewsnow.com/Politics/Default.aspx?id=335060

Carlisle
2nd December 2008, 1:21 AM
What the hell is he thinking? I'm still wondering exactly what foriegn policy experience Clinton has that would even prepare her for the job.
She was probably one of THE most active first ladies, visiting MANY nations, she's met with many important leaders and she still does, and she is an extremely respected person by the rest of the world. She's smart, she knows what she is doing, she's tough, and she's loved by many.


This is nonsense. This is the woman that said it's "a vast right wing conspiracy" when Bill was rumored to have cheated on her.
Her husband, the president, was being accused of cheating on her. Yeah, I'm sure she's going to let loose SOME statements out of fear and anger. Of course no one else in politics has EVER made a mistake and said something stupid.


Give me a break. This is the woman that siad she wanted to pull all troops out of Iraq within a year no matter what.
Looks like Obama will do the same.

Which shows me she isn't going to listen to a damn thing our generals on the field are saying, or even our defense secretary Robert Gates who's been doing a wonderful job.
Not really. She has to listen, her political future will go along with this.

I don't want this convoluted twit in charge of foriegn policy matters, especially a tall order like an Iraq exit strategy when she's already made comments that show clear ignorance.
Mmmhmm. And Condi has been the perfect SoS who was THE most qualified and had never said anything stupid in her life?


Congratulations Obama, you won this election and then handed it over to the Clintons. Hilary Clinton couldn't even manage her own campaign properly, and she wants manage a huge foriegn policy bureacracy?
Uh. First of all, Hillary isn't solely in charge of her campaign. Two, didn't you support McCain? Hello...his campaign was horribly managed, and he had Sarah Palin as his vice. Try handing over the country to HER.

BigLutz
2nd December 2008, 1:39 AM
She was probably one of THE most active first ladies, visiting MANY nations, she's met with many important leaders and she still does, and she is an extremely respected person by the rest of the world. She's smart, she knows what she is doing, she's tough, and she's loved by many.

She was and you know what is Ironic is that Obama just earlier this year was trashing her Foreign Policy Creds.


Looks like Obama will do the same.

Looks but wont accomplish, even if we started withdrawing forces today it would take over 2 years to get all of our equipment out. Even when Obama mentioned it earlier he made himself a out of "But I am talking to Military Commanders"

I mean yeah Obama is pretty thick headed on well... anything concerning Foreign Policy. But now that Iran is near completion of its nukes, and India and Pakistan at each other's throats. He is going to play it safe on Iraq to make sure that it doesn't become another hot bed in a already exploding region.

Edit: Little Known Fact: It is actually Unconstitutional for Hillary to be Secretary of State, through the Emoluments Clause of Article I, Sec. 6. But the law hasn't been followed by a variety of Presidents.

Kate
2nd December 2008, 4:34 AM
She was probably one of THE most active first ladies, visiting MANY nations, she's met with many important leaders and she still does, and she is an extremely respected person by the rest of the world. She's smart, she knows what she is doing, she's tough, and she's loved by many.

Visiting other nations promoting peace, love, and handing out fresh cookies on a silver platter while singing Cumbaya is not foriegn policy experience. Dealing directly with foriegn leaders and embassadors and coming to negotiations is foriegn policy experience, that which Hilary Clinton has never done. Which important leaders may I ask has she met with? And what have they discussed? What agreements did they make? Do tell.



Her husband, the president, was being accused of cheating on her. Yeah, I'm sure she's going to let loose SOME statements out of fear and anger. Of course no one else in politics has EVER made a mistake and said something stupid

Somehow excusing her with the "Well everyone does it" card doesn't really cut it for me.


Looks like Obama will do the same.

Even worse.


Not really. She has to listen, her political future will go along with this.

Well based on her words she's saying that she's not going to listen. Saying that you will pull out regardless of situation in the field is not blind, but foolish as well. Fine, get out of Iraq, but at least have an exit strategy based on some sort of discretion.


Mmmhmm. And Condi has been the perfect SoS who was THE most qualified and had never said anything stupid in her life?

Passing the buck? Awesome.



Uh. First of all, Hillary isn't solely in charge of her campaign. Two, didn't you support McCain? Hello...his campaign was horribly managed, and he had Sarah Palin as his vice. Try handing over the country to HER.

Considering she had just as much experience as Obama did if not more, I truly wonder what's the worse that could happen. A theocracy? Please.

BigLutz
2nd December 2008, 7:09 AM
Also I hope no one in here is stupid enough to say "Oh Obama is great he is building a cabinet of opponents/people that will challenge him" or "Oh he is being so Lincoln like." Just because he choose Hillary. People saying that are idiots with no real knowledge of politics, or just stupid Partisans.

Yes Lincoln had a cabinet of Political Enemies, but that was also back in the day before 24 Hour Media/Blackberries/Cell Phones and a wide variety of instant message tools. Not to mention Politicians and the Media back in that day and age had a bit of decorum.

Politicians these days including the ones Obama's cabinet are whiny people that like things their way, and if it isn't their way it is the end of the world and the death of the US.

The tightly controlled Campaign that so many like to preach about has become fractured with ice burg sized leaks. Add in a group of people with egos bigger than the building ( and many small states ), and you have twenty or so different people who think they are right, and who will throw a temper tantrum if Obama doesn't use their opinion.

I can predict with almost certainty that two major problems will plague the Obama Administration: Joe Biden's Mouth, and leaks from angry Cabinet Member's or their staff.

BigLutz
3rd December 2008, 3:09 AM
Well it looks like Georgia is going to for the Republicans as AP just called it. So the Dems just lossed the Super Majority, and there is a good bet that the nut ball known as Franklin is going to lose in Minn. But hey the Dems can still moan about how the Republicans are obstructionists, and there are plenty good RINOs out there like John McCain eager to prove they are not Conservatives. So you guys get to moan about Republicans while not on paper but in reality have a Super Majority.

Then again all of this is moot because under the Dems Congress Job Approval Rating has dropped historically low, and probably wont rebound. And as we saw from the stupid Obama people "The party in the White House controls Congress." So you guys are still screwed on that!

Edit: BTW with this win it's technically Palin: 1 Obama: 0 in who pulls more post election power ~.^

randomspot555
3rd December 2008, 3:23 AM
How is John McCain a RINO? RINO means Republican-in-name-only. Which means he's really a Democrat. So what are all these non-Republican political beliefs he has? He's pro-gun, pro-life, supports a ban on gay marriage at the state level, loves to cut taxes, big on defense...

Wait. That sounds like a Republican.

The only real issue he has a liberal belief on is immigration, and that seems to be a common theme with border-state politicians, regardless of party.

McCain Feingold? Okay, there's TWO whole issues where he has a liberal belief. That doesn't make him a secret Democrat.

EDIT:


But seriously, I wonder what he'll say when that issue is brought up.

The administration and Congress could pull a Saxbe.

BigLutz
3rd December 2008, 3:41 AM
How is John McCain a RINO? RINO means Republican-in-name-only. Which means he's really a Democrat. So what are all these non-Republican political beliefs he has? He's pro-gun, pro-life, supports a ban on gay marriage at the state level, loves to cut taxes, big on defense...

Wait. That sounds like a Republican.

Open Borders/Amnesty, Campaign Finance Reform, and a myriad of other things. I believe even Rush Limbaugh calls him the original RINO.

As for being Pro Gun, that is a bit tricky since he has a history of going on TV in Oregon and Colorado. Infact the President of Handgun Control Inc said: "Senator McCain has shown courage and just plain common sense in offering his voice in support of these measures,"

So lets not go overboard on McCain being some pro gun nut.


The only real issue he has a liberal belief on is immigration, and that seems to be a common theme with border-state politicians, regardless of party.

Not really, unless you think Kay Bailey and John Cornyn are not from a Border State, which would really be news to me. And you seemed to forget Campaign Finance Reform which while not a big issue now, was one about ten years back.


McCain Feingold? Okay, there's TWO whole issues where he has a liberal belief. That doesn't make him a secret Democrat.

Ahh you do remember. Of course it also helps to remember the multiple times John McCain threatened to leave the Republican party, or had it leaked he was close to leaving the Republican party.

Oh and you can add to the list of the various "Gangs" McCain went on, one of which famously went against the Republican party when Democrats were obstructing Bush's Judicial Appointments. And then there is his whole thing against Guitmo.

randomspot555
3rd December 2008, 4:00 AM
Open Borders/Amnesty, Campaign Finance Reform, and a myriad of other things. I believe even Rush Limbaugh calls him the original RINO.

And Rush Limbaugh is a conservative talking head. Anyone to the right of him is a RINO.

As for him threatening to leave the Republican Party, McCain has denied these allegations. Democrats said they were trying to persuade him, but no source says he took it seriously

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/democrats-say-mccain-nearly-abandoned-gop-2007-03-28.html

And Kerry said his people approached him about a VP pick, but as we have learned from this campaign, staff can and do act out of line.

http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/4/3/11936/97033


As for being Pro Gun, that is a bit tricky since he has a history of going on TV in Oregon and Colorado. Infact the President of Handgun Control Inc said: "Senator McCain has shown courage and just plain common sense in offering his voice in support of these measures,"

Instead of quoting some think tank head, let's look at the votes:

http://www.votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=53270&type=category&category=37

Pro-gun votes:
Against regulation at Gun Sale Shows
Against Semi-Automatic posession ban
Against a waiting period on handguns
Against the Brady Handgun bill
For Firearm Manfuacturers protection (twice)
Against firearm confiscation amendment

And then on the Anti-gun side:
For a child lock

...

Looks pretty pro-gun to me.

And unfortunately, I have to cut this post short due to time.

BigLutz
3rd December 2008, 4:04 AM
And Rush Limbaugh is a conservative talking head. Anyone to the right of him is a RINO.

As for him threatening to leave the Republican Party, McCain has denied these allegations. Democrats said they were trying to persuade him, but no source says he took it seriously

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/democrats-say-mccain-nearly-abandoned-gop-2007-03-28.html

And Kerry said his people approached him about a VP pick, but as we have learned from this campaign, staff can and do act out of line.

http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/4/3/11936/97033

What happened and who contacted who on the Kerry thing remains up in the air. As for threatning to leave, it's called leaking it out after losing. McCain isn't going to go straight out and say it but let it leak that he hates Bush after what happened in 2000 and is thinking of leaving so that both sides could court him. I mean honestly you do realize McCain isn't stupid enough to come out right and say it, instead of sending test balloons up right?


Instead of quoting some think tank head, let's look at the votes:

http://www.votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=53270&type=category&category=37

Pro-gun votes:
Against regulation at Gun Sale Shows
Against Semi-Automatic posession ban
Against a waiting period on handguns
Against the Brady Handgun bill
For Firearm Manfuacturers protection (twice)
Against firearm confiscation amendment

And then on the Anti-gun side:
For a child lock

...

Looks pretty pro-gun to me.

And unfortunately, I have to cut this post short due to time.

Kind of misread the entire post about me saying it was up in the air because of his appearing on the whole Anti Gun Amendment Commercial endorsing the Amendment didn't cha?

As for more things to add to McCain's more Liberal side yes you can add Global Warming and Cap and Trade laws.

Carlisle
3rd December 2008, 5:22 AM
Well it looks like Georgia is going to for the Republicans as AP just called it. So the Dems just lossed the Super Majority, and there is a good bet that the nut ball known as Franklin is going to lose in Minn. But hey the Dems can still moan about how the Republicans are obstructionists, and there are plenty good RINOs out there like John McCain eager to prove they are not Conservatives. So you guys get to moan about Republicans while not on paper but in reality have a Super Majority.
Don't count your blessings just yet, Franken has pulled ahead in the recount by a few thousand votes. This is with 92.69% of the ballots counted in.

http://electionresults.sos.state.mn.us/20081104/SenateRecount.asp (http://electionresults.sos.state.mn.us/20081104/SenateRecount.asp)

BigLutz
3rd December 2008, 6:58 AM
Don't count your blessings just yet, Franken has pulled ahead in the recount by a few thousand votes. This is with 92.69% of the ballots counted in.

http://electionresults.sos.state.mn.us/20081104/SenateRecount.asp (http://electionresults.sos.state.mn.us/20081104/SenateRecount.asp)

Gotta agree with Hoenn above, even this afternoon the Hill reported the Franklin representatives believed they were "Within 50" and that is their best spin after losing several legal battles. So not only did this come as a shock to me, but seems a little too fishy.

HoennMaster
3rd December 2008, 7:13 AM
Which is yet another reason why I don't like Franken. He seems way to desperate to win and it is unappealing. I can't believe he has this many votes.

BigLutz
3rd December 2008, 7:33 AM
Which is yet another reason why I don't like Franken. He seems way to desperate to win and it is unappealing. I can't believe he has this many votes.

I wouldn't believe it either with out some sort of massive explanation. The election has been close between 700 to 300 vote difference between the two, and as of yesterday things were looking dire for Franken. Not to mention the Star Tribune's own website was updated at the same time and has Coleman leading by 303, which seems to be the number that has been in place the last week.

http://www.startribune.com/politics/national/senate/

Infact from the latest article there posted at 10 pm states this: By the end of Tuesday, with 93 percent of the total vote recounted, the Republican's lead stood at 303 votes with the state Canvassing Board set to finalize results Dec. 16

So SOMETHING is up, either the Star Tribune got it wrong, or the recount website has gotten it wrong. And seeing how the swing was around 2,500 with out any reason given. I'm leaning toward the recount website being wrong.

HoennMaster
3rd December 2008, 8:33 AM
I think it is the recount website because Star Tribune is not the only one reporting the 303 lead.3

Edit: OK, tonight's number have come in. With almost 98&#37; of the votes in, Coleman is still in a 300+ lead.

BigLutz
4th December 2008, 6:23 AM
Edit: OK, tonight's number have come in. With almost 98% of the votes in, Coleman is still in a 300+ lead.

Funny how that one website Carlisle posted has Franken at +11,000 which seems... strange. I truly would love a answer by well.. anyone as to why that website is so messed up.

HoennMaster
4th December 2008, 7:16 AM
I know, you would think that the Secretary of State would have the correct numbers, but everyone else is report Coleman leading. Obviously Franken can't pull off an upset with 2 percent (I'm pretty sure it's near impossible), so hopefully the challenged votes don't go to him.

Carlisle
5th December 2008, 3:58 AM
I don't know who to believe. :/ I could care less who wins, but it IS the Secretary of State's website...

BigLutz
5th December 2008, 4:00 AM
Don't worry we will know what tomorrrow? When the report comes out? Or is it next Friday? Either way I guess its useless to guess unless the major wire services say that Franken is winning.

Carlisle
5th December 2008, 4:10 AM
Don't worry we will know what tomorrrow? When the report comes out? Or is it next Friday? Either way I guess its useless to guess unless the major wire services say that Franken is winning.
By tomorrow every ballot is supposed to be counted. THEN they start reviewing challenged ballots on the 16th.

BigLutz
5th December 2008, 4:11 AM
Challenged Ballots wont make a difference, both sides have nearly equal amount of Challenges, I think Coleman may have a few more than Franken. So it's a bit of a wash, not to mention there is a good chance Challenges may not even be added to the overall total.

Carlisle
5th December 2008, 4:30 AM
Challenged Ballots wont make a difference, both sides have nearly equal amount of Challenges, I think Coleman may have a few more than Franken. So it's a bit of a wash, not to mention there is a good chance Challenges may not even be added to the overall total.
So if the Minnesota SoS website really is correct, what does this mean? 59 Democrats in the Senate, of course...But is Franken horrible for Minnesota and a horrible person to have a position of power?

BigLutz
5th December 2008, 4:43 AM
So if the Minnesota SoS website really is correct, what does this mean? 59 Democrats in the Senate, of course...But is Franken horrible for Minnesota and a horrible person to have a position of power?

Well Franken is pretty much a horrible person just by himself. From his Temper Tantrums to the problems with Air America, and just has some horrible decorum. Of course all that aside there is still the problem that he has gained the image of the last month of trying to steal the election and creating ballots out of thin air.

Plus it doesn't help when even Democrats are saying they don't want Al Franken to win. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qb8hFNR0QCo&eurl=http://hotair.com/archives/2008/10/10/chuck-todd-top-democrats-want-franken-to-lose/)

"They are scared of Franken winning."

HoennMaster
5th December 2008, 6:13 AM
As Carlisle said, tomorrow is the last day of the recount. Results must be submitted by 8 PM Central Time.

Franken gained 100 votes today narrowing Coleman's lead.

BigLutz
5th December 2008, 6:12 PM
Interesting video making the rounds of Senator Byrd telling Bill Richardson "You will never again receive support of the Senate of the United States for any office to which you might be appointed.”

This was all because of the Los Alamos spy thing that happened a few years back. We can all agree that the Los Alamos thing was a screw up of near epic proportions nearly ten years ago, and Bill Richardson who is the proposed new Commerce Secretary was smack dab in the middle of it. The question remains though, does Byrd and the rest remember it?

Edit: Here is a article detailing it from when it happened.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4182/is_/ai_n10136928

"You have shown an extreme contempt... of this Congress," Byrd lectured Richardson

"You've had a bright and brilliant career. But you will never again receive the support of the Senate of the United States for any office to which you might be appointed. It's gone. You've squandered your treasure," Byrd said.

Ethan
5th December 2008, 6:16 PM
Yeah Al Franken is pretty bad. My opinion turned sour of him when he made some pretty raunchy jokes about child pornography, I have a sense of humor, but it has its limits. Or when he failed to provide workers comp insurance for his own employees. As to why this loser even stood a chance in the first place I have no clue.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WOAN07SKsaw

Yeah this is why I don't like him.

MiniBob
5th December 2008, 6:22 PM
Obama-sama will fix up this country. We're going through economic hell, our environment's being poisoned, bigoted *ssholes are discriminating against gays and Jews and other minorities, we're in a pointless war that is getting thousands of our people killed, terrorism is on the rise, and people hate on nerds. Obama has the solutions to all of these problems (except maybe the nerd one).

BigLutz
5th December 2008, 6:25 PM
Obama-sama will fix up this country. We're going through economic hell, our environment's being poisoned, bigoted *ssholes are discriminating against gays and Jews and other minorities, we're in a pointless war that is getting thousands of our people killed, terrorism is on the rise, and people hate on nerds. Obama has the solutions to all of these problems (except maybe the nerd one).

You do realize Blacks voted overwhelmingly for Prop 8 so I guess we can count the Black Populous into the bigoted *ssholes catagory? And mind you the only ones acting like '*ssholes' right now, are the Gay Marriage supporters.

I love blind lemmings like you who believes Obama will solve all the problems. Newsflash he isn't going to get out of Iraq until he can be sure the Iraqi Police and Military will be able to take control of the country and provide safety. You're "Obama-sama" isn't a idiot and doesn't want a genocide on his hands.

He also isn't going to help stop the "Environment from being poisoned" when the economy is in the slumps and strickter Environmental Regulations would only cost more jobs right now.

So go back to praying to your statue of Obama, but the cold slap of reality is about to smack you across the head.

Carlisle
5th December 2008, 11:03 PM
Coleman is up ahead again by the SoS website. Three hours and fifty eight minutes until the numbers are due! Lets see how the challenged ballots go. With only a 1,000 vote separation, it could be a determining factor.

HoennMaster
6th December 2008, 7:50 PM
Ok, so results were due at 8 last night, yet everyone is still reporting the only 99.93&#37; are in...strange.

Carlisle
8th December 2008, 3:55 AM
Well, Obama's made another announcement today. Shinseki as Secretary of Veteran Affairs - another great pick by Obama.

But something to note. Even though it is way too early, CNN did a poll asking if you had to choose someone for the Republican nominee in 2012, who would it be.

The majority chose Huckabee.

...HUCKABEE?

I'm sorry, but the Republicans REALLY need to get their act together. Huckabee would only give them another thrashing by the Democrats. They need to get people who know what they are doing, and start appealing to people other than the religious nutjobs. But if Obama does a good job, I definitely would want Republicans to choose someone bad. Huckabee/Palin would be just great for the Democrats! Dumb and Dumber 2012! Half the people who went for the Republican nomination this election couldn't even run a lemonade stand. :/

randomspot555
8th December 2008, 3:58 AM
...HUCKABEE?

The people who are actually going to respond to a poll like that, on either "side" of politics, are the most dedicated. Very right/left, single issues, and so on.

But Huckabee does surprise me, since he'll never make it past a primary. He supported a number of social programs that get conservative think tanks all wound up. I could see him in a number of political positions, elected and appointed, but not POTUS or VP.