Obama versus McCain (versus the rest)

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

That wasn't per capita, it was total value. A city of 7K got as much as one of over 200K.

SI

whoops. my fault i misheard my father when he mentioned that last night.

that's even more fucking ridiculous then, eh?

[KWhit]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

Prior to war, we should discuss, protest, do whatever you deem necessary within the bounds of the law to make yourself heard. Once we are involved in a war, we should all be working towards resolving the war as quickly as possible, by bringing all our forces to bear, keep our mouths shut, and provide a unified front to the world.

Those two statements don't add up.

[ace1914]

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

I think this excerpt from a recent column addresses your question:

Nobody is mocking community organizers in church basements and community centers across the country working to improve their neighbors' lives. What deserves ridicule is the notion that Obama's brief stint as a South Side rabble-rouser for tax-subsidized, partisan nonprofits qualifies as executive experience you can believe in.

What deserves derision is "community organizing" that relies on a community of homeless people and ex-cons to organize for the purpose of registering dead people to vote, shaking down corporations and using the race card as a bludgeon.

Full Text of Column

Can I get facts. Please explain the connection between Obama and Acorn, please. The whole "guilty by loose association: is pretty lame. A "community of homeless people and ex-cons?" That's fucking insane.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

That was one strike, and a pretty big one at that. But another thing that I look at is who people associate themselves with. Who they appoint, what type of people they surround themselves with, etc. Again, Obama has failed here as well. The whole Jeremiah Wright issue. I'm not crazy about his wife, but I gave him a pass on that. Then we get Biden as his VP pick. Let's put it this way, 3 people that I've seen him make choices to associate himself with, and 3 people I don't like.

I'm pretty sure that if you eliminate every political figure that associates with 3 people you don't like, you're going to get rid of every member of Congress.

SI

[larrymcg421]

First the Drudge Report and now Michelle Malkin.

Heh. You guys are funny.

I'd go to DailyKos to find a good article to quote, but it's blocked here at work. Fucking conservatives.

[KWhit]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

That wasn't per capita, it was total value. A city of 7K got as much as one of over 200K.

SI

Clearly she's for smaller government.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

whoops. my fault i misheard my father when he mentioned that last night.

that's even more fucking ridiculous then, eh?

Well, yeah- in a perfect world, all places would get the same per capita if they had the same needs so Boise and, uh, W-- Wa-- Whatever, AK, would get roughly the same.

SI

[VPI97]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

whoops. my fault i misheard my father when he mentioned that last night.

that's even more fucking ridiculous then, eh?

The nonpartisan organization Taxpayers for Common Sense is reporting the Palin-Silver-Stevens connection earned Wasilla $27 million over the four-years from 2000 to 2003.

But that number, (now parroted by the national media) is an exaggeration. It’s inflated more than twofold by giving Wasilla credit for receiving $15 million in 2001 for a commuter rail project between Girdwood and Wasilla.

Alaskans ought to be incensed. The anti-earmark taxpayers organization don’t seem to be reading earmarks very well. Wasilla doesn’t own, or run, a railroad.

The state-owned Alaska Railroad Corporation is spending millions to straighten track—it landed a $20 million earmark to rehabilitate tracks in 2001. In the six years form 1997 to 2002, the railroad received almost $300 million in federal cash, according to reports in the Anchorage Daily News.

Taxpayer’s for Common Sense alleges the feds earmarked nearly $11.9 million to be spent in Wasilla in 2003. Palin left office in October 2002 because of term limits. Still, Wasilla’s planning department had requests for water and sewer improvements, airport improvements and a new dispatch center for their cops. The Palin administration led the charge on the dispatch center. It got a $750,000 earmark after she’d been gone a year. The water and sewer improvements got $900,000 the same year. The sewer system improvements landed $1.5 million the previous year.

Anchorage Press | Home

[Galaril]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Interesting non-denial denial by Oprah concerning the Drudge Report rumor. She says they haven't discussed a Palin appearance and they'd be happy to have her on the show after the campaign is over. In other words, she can come on my show when she's not campaigning against my candidate anymore..........

FOXNews.com - Oprah Denies Report She's Balking at Having Palin on Show - Celebrity Gossip | Entertainment News | Arts And Entertainment

I say so what? Like others have said it is her show and she is free to have on it who she wants. She isn't a news media source like Fox, CNN, etc so she has no obligation to have her on. Everyone knows Oprah is a supporter of Obama. Is Dennis Miller getting Obama on his show.....ah oh that's right he doesn't have a show anymore.

[ace1914]

Since everyone is getting so partisan, I thought I'd join.

http://abcnews.go.com/images/Polling...ePalinPick.pdf

[Vegas Vic]

Originally Posted by Galaril

Is Dennis Miller getting Obama on his show.....ah oh that's right he doesn't have a show anymore.

That's probably a good thing, seeing how Obama excruciatingly parsed every response to the questions on the O'Reilly Factor and the Saddleback Forum. He would probably have a brain aneurysm trying to parse his responses to Miller.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

That's probably a good thing, seeing how Obama excruciatingly parsed every response to the questions on the O'Reilly Factor and the Saddleback Forum. He would probably have a brain aneurysm trying to parse his responses to Miller.

Is that what you think or what Michelle Malkin thinks?

[Vegas Vic]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Is that what you think or what Michelle Malkin thinks?

That's above my pay grade.

[ace1914]

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

That's probably a good thing, seeing how Obama excruciatingly parsed every response to the questions on the O'Reilly Factor and the Saddleback Forum. He would probably have a brain aneurysm trying to parse his responses to Miller.

Wow. He thinks too much?

[Vegas Vic]

Originally Posted by ace1914

Wow. He thinks too much?

Exactly.

He thinks too much about how to give a non-committal response to a question.

[ace1914]

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

Exactly.

He thinks too much about how to give a non-committal response to a question.

So you'd rather have a president that just spurts the first unintelligent thing that comes from his mouth, than a president that actually thinks about what he's going to say before saying it?

[Cringer]

Wouldn't surprise me if this has been up here before, but I am just now seeing it. If he said what this video says he does, then it's a combo of f*****g hilarious and a bit..........not hilarious.

[VPI97]

The actual breakdown of the Wasilla earmarks appears to be this:

Project	Amount	Bill	Fiscal Year
Wasilla intermodal facility	$1,000,000	Transportation	FY2000
Kids are People, Inc. for a transitional living program for homeless youth and an emergency shelter in Wasilla, Alaska	$500,000	VA-HUD	FY2001
Life Quest Community Mental Health Center in Wasilla, Alaska	$500,000	Omnibus	FY2001
Girdwood to Wasilla, Alaska, commuter rail project	$15,000,000	Transportation	FY2001
Wasilla Regional Dispatch Center in Alaska for technology and communications upgrades	$1,000,000	CJS	FY2002
Federal lands: Mat-Su Borough/Wasilla, Alaska	$500,000	Transportation	FY2002
Bus and bus facilities: City of Wasilla bus facility	$600,000	Transportation	FY2002
New starts: Wasilla, Alaska, alternative route project	$2,500,000	Transportation	FY2002
Wasilla, Alaska water and sewer improvements	$1,500,000	VA-HUD	FY2002
City of Wasilla, Alaska for a regional dispatch center	$750,000	Omnibus	FY2003
Wasilla Airport, AK	$800,000	Omnibus	FY2003
Wasilla Intermodal Facility	$900,000	Omnibus	FY2003
Mananuska-Susitna Borough for an agricultural processing facility in Wasilla, Alaska	$450,000	Omnibus	FY2003
Wasilla, Alaska for water and sewer improvements	$900,000	Omnibus	FY2003
Total	$26,900,000

Even without the $15 mil chunk that went to the Railroad (not Wasilla), it still looks like a hefty amount. But I get the impression that it's par for the course in Alaska, though.

By the way, here's a neat spreadsheet that contains all the approved earmarks for the 2008 fiscal year. It's pretty interesting.

http://www.fof-ihof.com/upload/VPI97/bigkahuna.xls

[Scarecrow]

Originally Posted by ace1914

So you'd rather have a president that just spurts the first unintelligent thing that comes from his mouth, than a president that actually thinks about what he's going to say before saying it?

- I'd rather have an intelligent president that can spurt what he believes from his mouth.

- I'd rather have a president that tells me what he believes is right as opposed to a president that tells me what a group of consultants have briefed him as to what is right.

- I'd rather have a president that tells me what he wants me to hear as opposed to a president that tells me what he thinks I want to hear.

[JPhillips]

Even without the $15 mil chunk that went to the Railroad (not Wasilla), it still looks like a hefty amount. But I get the impression that it's par for the course in Alaska, though.

Alaska is as close to a socialist shangri-la as it comes. They survive on oil taxes and taking money from the federal government.

[Flasch186]

it doesnt sound like there was space enough in McCains sentences to fit an F-bomb in there, Im not buying.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by Scarecrow

- I'd rather have an intelligent president that can spurt what he believes from his mouth.

- I'd rather have a president that tells me what he believes is right as opposed to a president that tells me what a group of consultants have briefed him as to what is right.

- I'd rather have a president that tells me what he wants me to hear as opposed to a president that tells me what he thinks I want to hear.

So you want a President that couldn't possibly win an election.

[Cringer]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

it doesnt sound like there was space enough in McCains sentences to fit an F-bomb in there, Im not buying.

Which is why I said "if this is real" or whatever disclaimer I threw in there. Some of those don't fit IMO.

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

That's probably a good thing, seeing how Obama excruciatingly parsed every response to the questions on the O'Reilly Factor and the Saddleback Forum. He would probably have a brain aneurysm trying to parse his responses to Miller.

Originally Posted by ace1914

Wow. He thinks too much?

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

Exactly.

He thinks too much about how to give a non-committal response to a question.

Originally Posted by ace1914

So you'd rather have a president that just spurts the first unintelligent thing that comes from his mouth, than a president that actually thinks about what he's going to say before saying it?

This is some fine UIC here. I'd give great props to ace if I thought he was intentionally mis-parsing the arguments he is responding to.

[ace1914]

Originally Posted by BrianD

This is some fine UIC here. I'd give great props to ace if I thought he was intentionally mis-parsing the arguments he is responding to.

Just call me a young, black, independent, good-looking version of Bill O'Rieilly. Being an ass everyday...why? Just because.

[Cork]

The bottom line is this.

If you want 4 more years of Bush and his policies, you vote for McCain. If you want something else, you vote for Obama. Those are the choices.

-Cork

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I'd agree with this POV more if Congress actually got off their asses and declared war. As it stands the executive has far too much authority to commit our troops to battle and in your way of thinking all of those decision become immune to criticism once the fighting starts. There has to be room for criticism of the engagement itself, especially when the President can and in many cases since Vietnam, has committed troops without a debate that a declaration of war would force.

I agree with you 100%. We need to declare war. Congress should get of their asses and declare war. I have no problem with debate. I really don't. But once we have our boys in there it puts them in harms way and does affect morale when people are questioning why they are there, etc., etc.

Yeah, sorry, but that's ridiculous. If a President has a fucked up military strategy, the people have a duty to to let him know it. If the President is sending people to die for suspect reasons, then the people have a duty to let him know it. I will exercise my duty no matter what kind of accusations people throw at me.

Its not ridiculous at all. You have the debate before you go in. If you did that, you wouldn't have all this crap about fighting wars in a political manner. That is when we get in trouble. We didn't lose Vietnam in the field, we lost Vietnam on the home front. We fought with a hand behind our back, and we wound up losing. Kind of funny that everytime we fought with both hands, we brought North Vietnam to the table. When we left, North Vietnam supported by Russia violated the cease fire, and all we did was protest. The result was a North Vietnam take over of the South.

Right now in Iraq, we are very close to achieving our goals to leave. The one thing that made that possible was the surge. Good thing we didn't leave that up to the people because it never would have happened. As it is, when we leave, we will be giving Iraq the best opportunity to stand on their own, with no one holding a gun to the head of their government.

What is in the best interest of our military is that whenever we go to war, we have the generals fight the damn war rather than the politicians and the public. When we have done that, we tend to win, and win with fewer casualties.

I think we are aiding and abetting our enemies when we stifle dissent, which makes us look like hypocrites when we talk about the "freedom" we want to spread to the rest of the world. I think we are aiding and abetting our enemies when we let a President continue a disastrous military policy without really challenging him on it. I think we are aiding and abetting our enemies when we don't question a President for misdirecting our resources and potentially letting our greatest enemy to get away.

This is all stuff that should take place when we are deciding whether or not to use force. At what point is military policy disastrous? When do we challenge? Is it the first body, or the second? Or is it the 32nd?

Do you know and understand military strategy? Do the people you are protesting with understand it? If no, how do we know our strategy is disastrous?

In World War II, we invaded Iwo Jima, primarily to provide an emergency airfield for damaged bombers returning from Japan. We lost 6,821 men in little over a month. The sacrifice of those men potentially saved over 20,000 bomber pilots that used the emergency facilities there over the rest of the war. Is that enough of a return?

Prior to World War II, Hitler reoccupied the Rhineland. He later called it one of the most anxious times in his life. He knew that if the French resisted he career was finished politically. The German Army at the time was no match for the French. But, the British would not back up the French, and the French were afraid to fight themselves without British support. Rather than sacrifice maybe 1,000 men, Europe was set on the course to WWII and the loss of over 20 million lives.

I ask the questions, because when everything is on the table we are opening it up to every person that thinks they know a better way. Many times, it that is a path to greater destruction. Plus, there are times when a population does not see the greater ends that are accomplished with the use of force. But, there are times when it is the only thing that will suffice and solve a situation.

The one thing I do know, is that I am not qualified to make these decisions, and that is why I try my best to elect those that are qualified and best prepared to make them.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

I'm pretty sure that if you eliminate every political figure that associates with 3 people you don't like, you're going to get rid of every member of Congress.

SI

Not sure I like very many people in Congress either.

EDIT: Not saying that it is a 3 people I don't like and you're out either. But, when I look at the decisions he's made, and he has not much of a prior record to run on either, I use what I know to base my decisions upon. In the case of the people he has surrounded himself with, I do not like any of them. Its just one factor in the whole decision making process.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Scarecrow

- I'd rather have an intelligent president that can spurt what he believes from his mouth.

- I'd rather have a president that tells me what he believes is right as opposed to a president that tells me what a group of consultants have briefed him as to what is right.

- I'd rather have a president that tells me what he wants me to hear as opposed to a president that tells me what he thinks I want to hear.

Unfortunately, Ron Paul didn't win the nomination.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by Cringer

Wouldn't surprise me if this has been up here before, but I am just now seeing it. If he said what this video says he does, then it's a combo of f*****g hilarious and a bit..........not hilarious.

I don't think she's going to vote for him.

[ace1914]

Originally Posted by Cork

The bottom line is this.

If you want 4 more years of Bush and his policies, you vote for McCain. If you want something else, you vote for Obama. Those are the choices.

-Cork

Dammit man, thanks for that sparkling new pair of obvious glasses.

[Flasch186]

well Ron Paul seemed a bit krazy to me. maybe honest, which is good....David Duke was honest for a while...

[Calis]

The video for that McCain cursing thing even says it isn't real in the info for it.

"Proof of John McCain's temper and him cursing at a Senate hearing. This video is so true... since you can't find video evidence ANY place else on YouTube to dispute it. So just so the idiots are happy, its satire. THIS IS A JOKE PEOPLE! "

Pretty good job though.

[ace1914]

Originally Posted by molson

Unfortunately, Ron Paul didn't win the nomination.

He wasn't going to be too popular with that non-interventionism crap.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Cork

The bottom line is this.

If you want 4 more years of Bush and his policies, you vote for McCain. If you want something else, you vote for Obama. Those are the choices.

-Cork

Did you run John Kerry's campaign?

[molson]

Originally Posted by ace1914

He wasn't going to be too popular with that non-interventionism crap.

He made the Republican debates highly entertaining though. I kept thinking - what the hell is this guy doing up there?

[ace1914]

McCain-The Illusionist?

For my friend Vegas Vic. We all can find articles that prove one thing or the other. Just some of them are actually based on facts and not complete opinion or "guilty by association" techniques.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Cork

The bottom line is this.

If you want 4 more years of Bush and his policies, you vote for McCain. If you want something else, you vote for Obama. Those are the choices.

-Cork

Or not.

[Cork]

Originally Posted by molson

Did you run John Kerry's campaign?

Are you telling me that John McCain has a treasure trove full of unique ideas that are completely different from those used by the Bush whitehouse? Are you saying that John McCain in no way supports the Republican/Bush policies?

If so, then by all means lets hear them. I was under the impression that John McCain does what the far right tells him to do.

-Cork

[Scarecrow]

Originally Posted by Cork

Are you telling me that John McCain has a treasure trove full of unique ideas that are completely different from those used by the Bush whitehouse? Are you saying that John McCain in no way supports the Republican/Bush policies?

If so, then by all means lets hear them. I was under the impression that John McCain does what the far right tells him to do.

-Cork

Yeah, the far right were the spearheads behind the McCain/Feingold reform act and the McCain/Kennedy Immigration Reform Act.

[ace1914]

Originally Posted by Cork

Are you telling me that John McCain has a treasure trove full of unique ideas that are completely different from those used by the Bush whitehouse? Are you saying that John McCain in no way supports the Republican/Bush policies?

If so, then by all means lets hear them. I was under the impression that John McCain does what the far right tells him to do.

-Cork

No, I think he means that's the same method Mr. Congeniality used in 04.

[ace1914]

Originally Posted by Scarecrow

Yeah, the far right were the spearheads behind the McCain/Feingold reform act and the McCain/Kennedy Immigration Reform Act.

That Immigration bill didn't pass, did it?

[molson]

Originally Posted by Cork

Are you telling me that John McCain has a treasure trove full of unique ideas that are completely different from those used by the Bush whitehouse? Are you saying that John McCain in no way supports the Republican/Bush policies?

If so, then by all means lets hear them. I was under the impression that John McCain does what the far right tells him to do.

-Cork

John Kerry's slogan was basically, "I'm someone else!" That doesn't really get people fired up.

Certainly they've at least learned THAT lesson this time around.

[CamEdwards]

Lotta anger in this thread. Mind if I pose a question to both sides? If, on Election Day, your candidate loses in a close race, what will your reaction be? I just got back from the convention in St. Paul and was talking with a left-leaning blogger about this, and what was interesting to me is that we both predicted some violence if Obama loses in a close election.

Also, I'm curious to know how many folks participating in this thread are A) actively volunteering for their candidate of choice and B) have donated money to their campaign. Maybe I'll start a poll on that one.

[Flasch186]

1. I predict no violence
2. I'd say complaints about disenfranchised this and that
3. Crestfalleness

A. no
B. yes

[ace1914]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

Lotta anger in this thread. Mind if I pose a question to both sides? If, on Election Day, your candidate loses in a close race, what will your reaction be? I just got back from the convention in St. Paul and was talking with a left-leaning blogger about this, and what was interesting to me is that we both predicted some violence if Obama loses in a close election.

Also, I'm curious to know how many folks participating in this thread are A) actively volunteering for their candidate of choice and B) have donated money to their campaign. Maybe I'll start a poll on that one.

Violence? I doubt that. Now if he gets assassinated, that's a different story.

A. No.
B. Yes.

[molson]

If Obama loses closely, there will be allegations that things weren't on the level, and that will spark some general rowdiness from the likes of those we saw on the that Denver Fox News clips a few pages back. It wouldn't really be motivated by politics, just people that would revel in an excuse to destory property.

The news will cover it as if it's real political unrest, and that will convince others across the country that burning shit in the street is a good idea.

[Vegas Vic]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

Lotta anger in this thread. Mind if I pose a question to both sides? If, on Election Day, your candidate loses in a close race, what will your reaction be? I just got back from the convention in St. Paul and was talking with a left-leaning blogger about this, and what was interesting to me is that we both predicted some violence if Obama loses in a close election.

I predict that there won't be any violence if McCain loses in a close election.

[ISiddiqui]

I think in some inner cities there would be violence if Obama loses in a close election, but it won't be that bad.

A. No
B. No, but I think I'm about to.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by Cork

The bottom line is this.

If you want 4 more years of Bush and his policies, you vote for McCain. If you want something else, you vote for Obama. Those are the choices.

-Cork

I wonder if any of the Obama supporters has a good feeling on what that "else" will be. I think they'll find it's going to be very close to "4 more years of Bush and his policies" on most major issues (war, health care, education, taxes, social security, energy).