Obama versus McCain (versus the rest)

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by cartman

Based on some of what you posted in the Recession thread, forgive me if I take anything you say about planning for retirement with a huge grain of salt.

It doesn't change the fact that everyone should be planning for retirement without Social Security in mind. The sooner, the better. I didn't erase thousands of dollars of school debt by failing to budget wisely.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

Flasch,

Wouldn't you say we would have a better chance of finding out the truth and less of a chance of this matter being contaminated by politics if French were to recuse himself from handling the investigation?

It seems to me like that would be the easiest thing to do, because there's going to be a ready made excuse of "Well, the guy in charge of the investigation is a huge supporter of Obama" if the investigation were to turn up evidence of impropriety.

Do you not find it troubling that the announcement that she wouldn't cooperate came not from her or the Governor's office, but from the McCain campaign?

[ISiddiqui]

LOL @ Obama, their explination for why Taheri lied was because he violated the Logan Act in another way!

RedState: Obama to McCain: Hey, we violated the Logan Act *completely differently* than the way you said!

(Yes, its biased, but fairly well sourced)

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Interesting change in Pakistan. They've told the Pakistan military to attack any U.S. troops entering Pakistan. This likely tells us a couple of things.........

1. The government is still trying to rein in the people supporting the Taliban without pissing them off.

2. They likely won't have to worry about this situation anyway, as Pakistan has little, if any troop presence in the area being attacked.

FOXNews.com - Pakistan Orders Troops to Open Fire on U.S. Forces to Stop Raids - International News | News of the World | Middle East News | Europe News

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by ace1914

I agree with the fool's gold idea, but hell, they sure as hell take it out of every check so I why shouldn't I expect it to be there when I retire?

exactly. and if it's not going to be there, you bet your sweet ass i'm going to start a class-action lawsuit demanding fucking payback of all the money i've poured into it. and you know in this lawsuit-happy society i wouldn't be the only one.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

exactly. and if it's not going to be there, you bet your sweet ass i'm going to start a class-action lawsuit demanding fucking payback of all the money i've poured into it. and you know in this lawsuit-happy society i wouldn't be the only one.

Lawsuits and entitlements......just what we need more of in this country.

[ace1914]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

LOL @ Obama, their explination for why Taheri lied was because he violated the Logan Act in another way!

RedState: Obama to McCain: Hey, we violated the Logan Act *completely differently* than the way you said!

(Yes, its biased, but fairly well sourced)

So we should believe Taheri over Obama, but not Putin over Bush? You believe what you want to.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Lawsuits and entitlements......just what we need more of in this country.

hey i fuckin was forced to pay into that shit and told that it was essentially a government-sponsored pyramid-scheme and that i'd get mine someday. if they're going to fuck me over by taking it away (even if i budget for retirement without it and it's extra) you can be damn sure that i'm going to seek legal recourse to get mine back (note: i'm not speaking of myself personally, because TBH that sounds like a lot of work. but you know somebody somewhere will take action based on this idea).

be different if people were given the option, but it was compulsory.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by ace1914

So we should believe Taheri over Obama, but not Putin over Bush? You believe what you want to.

Um... no. We should believe Obama's campaign... which basically admitted it tried to influence the Iraqis to not do anything until Bush was out of office.

[JPhillips]

Reading the AFP story that RedState cites is very confusing. There seem to be several contradictory paragraphs, and I can't make much out of it. I do agree, though, regardless of when the agreement is signed the Congress should have to ratify it. A treaty by another name is still a treaty.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

hey i fuckin was forced to pay into that shit and told that it was essentially a government-sponsored pyramid-scheme and that i'd get mine someday. if they're going to fuck me over by taking it away (even if i budget for retirement without it and it's extra) you can be damn sure that i'm going to seek legal recourse to get mine back (note: i'm not speaking of myself personally, because TBH that sounds like a lot of work. but you know somebody somewhere will take action based on this idea).

be different if people were given the option, but it was compulsory.

I don't disagree with your assertion at all. My point is that it's currently broken (though I do believe it could be fully funded if they put their mind to fixing it). People assume that because the federal government runs the system, that money is a given. The government is just like any other business......if they screw up the management of it, it won't be there whether you like it or not. I guess I don't trust them enough to keep it going. There's a reason why pension funds have disappeared from most private businesses.

[Vegas Vic]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

DailyKos daily poll has Obama up by 4.

What a joke.

The Xinhua News Agency has Hu Jintao up big in China, also.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

What a joke.

The Xinhua News Agency has Hu Jintao up big in China, also.

I was trying to present all sides of the polling data.

[ace1914]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Um... no. We should believe Obama's campaign... which basically admitted it tried to influence the Iraqis to not do anything until Bush was out of office.

Please show me the "basically admitted" part because I don't see it.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

What a joke.

The Xinhua News Agency has Hu Jintao up big in China, also.

It's a commissioned Research 2000 poll. I don't trust the numbers, but it's a respectable polling firm.

[miked]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Um... no. We should believe Obama's campaign... which basically admitted it tried to influence the Iraqis to not do anything until Bush was out of office.

So is this is a reputable source and paper? From what I understand, is it more related to the expiration of a UN mandate and not wanting a crappy president to commit us to a new agreement that could span years when he's leaving office in a few months? If I were McCain OR Obama, I'd not want Bush negotiating our future presence with the Iraqis.

[JPhillips]

John McCain invented the Blackberry!

Asked what work John McCain did as Chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee that helped him understand the financial markets, the candidate's top economic adviser wielded visual evidence: his BlackBerry.

"He did this," Douglas Holtz-Eakin told reporters this morning, holding up his BlackBerry. "Telecommunications of the United States is a premier innovation in the past 15 years, comes right through the Commerce committee so you're looking at the miracle John McCain helped create and that's what he did."

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

John McCain invented the Blackberry!

In related news, Al Gore announces from his new 100 foot houseboat that the Blackberry wouldn't be worth sh$% if it weren't for the internet that he invented.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Reading the AFP story that RedState cites is very confusing. There seem to be several contradictory paragraphs, and I can't make much out of it. I do agree, though, regardless of when the agreement is signed the Congress should have to ratify it. A treaty by another name is still a treaty.

That is a different argument though. Saying they should do a Strategic Forces Agreement until after President Bush leaves office, even though the President is currently pushing for one, seems to be undermining the Administration, and seems to be against the text of the Logan Act.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by ace1914

Please show me the "basically admitted" part because I don't see it.

AFP: Obama camp hits back at Iraq double-talk claim

But Obama's national security spokeswoman Wendy Morigi said Taheri's article bore "as much resemblance to the truth as a McCain campaign commercial."

In fact, Obama had told the Iraqis that they should not rush through a "Strategic Framework Agreement" governing the future of US forces until after President George W. Bush leaves office, she said.

I'm wondering how Democrats would have reacted if say, a Republican Senator told a country not to sign a treaty with President Clinton in mid 2000 and wait until after the election.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

That is a different argument though. Saying they should do a Strategic Forces Agreement until after President Bush leaves office, even though the President is currently pushing for one, seems to be undermining the Administration, and seems to be against the text of the Logan Act.

I agree, I just can't get exactly what's going on in the AFP story. I don't know if it's a translation issue or what, but the story makes contradictory claims and doesn't really come to a conclusion. Here's the relevant section.

But Obama's national security spokeswoman Wendy Morigi said Taheri's article bore "as much resemblance to the truth as a McCain campaign commercial."

In fact, Obama had told the Iraqis that they should not rush through a "Strategic Framework Agreement" governing the future of US forces until after President George W. Bush leaves office, she said.

In the face of resistance from Bush, the Democrat has long said that any such agreement must be reviewed by the US Congress as it would tie a future administration's hands on Iraq.

"Barack Obama has never urged a delay in negotiations, nor has he urged a delay in immediately beginning a responsible drawdown of our combat brigades," Morigi said.

Morigi is quoted in two paragraphs, but the controversial part is paraphrased. Why didn't that get quoted? It may be exactly as RedState describes, but this story is so poorly written it's hard to determine.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

AFP: Obama camp hits back at Iraq double-talk claim



I'm wondering how Democrats would have reacted if say, a Republican Senator told a country not to sign a treaty with President Clinton in mid 2000 and wait until after the election.

Can't speak for anybody else, but I don't think a President should be negotiating major agreements that don't require congressional approval his last year in office.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Can't speak for anybody else, but I don't think a President should be negotiating major agreements that don't require congressional approval his last year in office.

+1. Absolutely not. And that's the key point - Obama isn't saying "don't do it at all!" He's saying "don't do it without putting it up for review before congress." Which IMO is actually a very responsible and admirable thing to do. It's the way things should be done.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Pretty funny stuff. Palin evidently dressed up as Tina Fey for Halloween last year......

FOXNews.com - Palin Finds Tina Fey's 'Saturday Night Live' Impression of Her 'Quite Funny' - Celebrity Gossip | Entertainment News | Arts And Entertainment

Palin Finds Tina Fey's 'Saturday Night Live' Impression of Her 'Quite Funny'
Tuesday, September 16, 2008

AP

NEW YORK — Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin was amused by Tina Fey's impression of her on this weekend's "Saturday Night Live," especially as she once dressed up as Fey for Halloween.

"She thought it was quite funny, particularly because she once dressed up as Tina Fey for Halloween," her spokeswoman Tracey Schmitt said, according to CBS News. Fey bears a much-remarked-upon resemblance to Palin, and they wear similar glasses.

In the skit, Fey appeared with Amy Poehler as Hillary Clinton and the two talked about sexism in the media and their own ideas about politics. "I don't agree with the Bush doctrine," Poehler said at one point.

"I don't know what that is," Fey responded, poking fun at the recent Charlie Gibson interview in which some said Palin appeared to be unfamiliar with the Bush doctrine on terrorism.

In preliminary numbers measuring major U.S. cities, "SNL's" 34th-season premiere logged a 7.4 rating and 18 percent share of audience — the largest viewership for a "SNL" season debut since 2001, and up 64 percent from last year's opener, according to Nielsen Media Research.

So will Fey, who stars in NBC's weekly prime-time comedy "30 Rock," return to play Palin again?

"We are taking it day-by-day," said "SNL" spokesman Marc Liepis on Monday.

Could she be back as soon as this Saturday's show?

"We don't even have a script written yet," Liepis replied.

Under any circumstances, it was unlikely Fey would make an encore appearance on this week's "SNL," inasmuch as the New York-based show will air the night before Sunday's Emmy broadcast, live from Los Angeles. With "30 Rock" having snagged several nominations, including Fey as best comic actress, she is expected to be on hand for those festivities.

For the long term, "SNL" executive producer Lorne Michaels reportedly has an as-yet-undisclosed "Plan B" and "Plan C" for a Palin impersonator, in lieu of Fey.

In the meantime, as Liepis noted, "She has a day job."

[ace1914]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

AFP: Obama camp hits back at Iraq double-talk claim



I'm wondering how Democrats would have reacted if say, a Republican Senator told a country not to sign a treaty with President Clinton in mid 2000 and wait until after the election.

Don't parse it.

In fact, Obama had told the Iraqis that they should not rush through a "Strategic Framework Agreement" governing the future of US forces until after President George W. Bush leaves office, she said.


In the face of resistance from Bush, the Democrat has long said that any such agreement must be reviewed by the US Congress as it would tie a future administration's hands on Iraq.


"Barack Obama has never urged a delay in negotiations, nor has he urged a delay in immediately beginning a responsible drawdown of our combat brigades," Morigi said.

I don't see how he's interfering with foreign policy by saying this. You've got to be kidding me.

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Can't speak for anybody else, but I don't think a President should be negotiating major agreements that don't require congressional approval his last year in office.

It seems to me that even if that's your opinion, you take it up with the current administration, NOT the leaders of the other country involved in the agreement.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

It seems to me that even if that's your opinion, you take it up with the current administration, NOT the leaders of the other country involved in the agreement.

Totally agree with this. Congressional members and former presidents have no business discussing policy overseas by going around the conventional diplomatic channels. There's plenty of ways to get this done here at home.

[JPhillips]

Funny, this didn't come up with McCain and Georgia.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by ace1914

Don't parse it.

I don't see how he's interfering with foreign policy by saying this. You've got to be kidding me.

Says the person who is parsing it.

You don't think it is interfering with foriegn policy by telling another country to hold back on signing an agreement with the US? Really?

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

It seems to me that even if that's your opinion, you take it up with the current administration, NOT the leaders of the other country involved in the agreement.

I think the point is that the Dems have been stonewalled by Bush on this, he's basically told them to F-off, so by taking it public (who even knows what exactly he said to the Iraqi's word-for-word anyways - do we have it on tape?), the Dems (I would guess as a whole) hope to force Bush to do what is reasonable.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Funny, this didn't come up with McCain and Georgia.

McCain never told Georgia to do anything vis-a-vis the US. The Logan Act is somewhat specific in that it talks about influencing a country's relations with the US.

Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

What a joke.

The Xinhua News Agency has Hu Jintao up big in China, also.

Heh.

You sure liked the Research 2000 poll when it showed McCain with a 17 pt lead in North Carolina.

Of course, Taz posted it as an R2K poll, whereas MBBF is trying to make it sound like Kos is calling people and doing the polling himself.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I agree, I just can't get exactly what's going on in the AFP story. I don't know if it's a translation issue or what, but the story makes contradictory claims and doesn't really come to a conclusion. Here's the relevant section.

Morigi is quoted in two paragraphs, but the controversial part is paraphrased. Why didn't that get quoted? It may be exactly as RedState describes, but this story is so poorly written it's hard to determine.

It seems to me Morigi (who is pretty poor as a PR person) is saying Obama's informing the Iraqis not to rush into the agreement wasn't meant to delay it. Which, to me, seems like a silly thing to say.

It may not be a smoking gun, but it is something that should invite deeper investigation.

[Flasch186]

I think I agree with both sides here. The Congress and politicians should deal with this with their current admin, in this case W....However, the current admin, W, should be willing to work with those that want to be involved, or help, or give their opinion. What happens when there is a breakdown in this communication, which is likely now (W is known for this)? Hmmm, not sure I know of the solution but when the sides arent working with eachother it leads to some options that maybe arent the best to have to choose from.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

It seems to me Morigi (who is pretty poor as a PR person) is saying Obama's informing the Iraqis not to rush into the agreement wasn't meant to delay it. Which, to me, seems like a silly thing to say.

It may not be a smoking gun, but it is something that should invite deeper investigation.

you'd better hold both party's to this, 'it isnt what was meant' standard, sir. Not sure what I mean? flip back in this thread and read the last few pages where almost all explanations of everything were, 'that isn't what s/he meant'.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

McCain never told Georgia to do anything vis-a-vis the US. The Logan Act is somewhat specific in that it talks about influencing a country's relations with the US.

I wasn't talking about the Logan Act. I was commenting on MBBF's post.

[ISiddiqui]

Except for the "that wasn't what s/he meant" in the past few pages have usually been backed up by the entire quote showing context.

In other words, try again.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

It seems to me Morigi (who is pretty poor as a PR person) is saying Obama's informing the Iraqis not to rush into the agreement wasn't meant to delay it. Which, to me, seems like a silly thing to say.

It may not be a smoking gun, but it is something that should invite deeper investigation.

Just getting the actual quote of what was paraphrased would likely clear it up a lot.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I wasn't talking about the Logan Act. I was commenting on MBBF's post.

Ah, ok. That's fine. I don't agree with MBBF's post either, aside from the small exemption that Sens and Reps shouldn't be trying to influence relations between a foriegn government and the US by seperate discussions not authorized by the executive (which has been given power over the foriegn affairs realm by the Curtis-Wright decision).

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Except for the "that wasn't what s/he meant" in the past few pages have usually been backed up by the entire quote showing context.

In other words, try again.

that's BS of the highest order. When she didnt know what the Bush Doctrine was, the widely accepted one by Journalists in this country, she didn't know. So be it. I honestly dont care but the spin afterwards is disheartening and dishonest. When she says that Alaska produces 20% of this countries energy, she's wrong. So when the shit comes out, 'that's not what she meant' you have to have the standard the same for both parties. The list goes on and on of things that have been said over the past few weeks that are lies or attempts to get the country to assume things (Ie. the Aide saying she visited the military theatre in Iraq and Ireland) so you either are going to spin things in a way that you can backpedal by saying, 'that wasnt the intent' or youre going to go by what is said. If it's the latter than I'd ask you to hold the standard of ads and accusations to a much higher level than has currently been accepted.

[CamEdwards]

Boy, I've written and deleted at least a half dozen posts in this thread this morning. My snarkometer is off the charts today!

[Flasch186]

I find myself having to go through and delete some of my more pointed moments if nothing else than to save my blood pressure

[JPhillips]

Don't know if this will mean anything in the polls, but I thought it was interesting.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Of course, Taz posted it as an R2K poll, whereas MBBF is trying to make it sound like Kos is calling people and doing the polling himself.

I didn't make it sound like anything. Daily Kos posts the poll on a daily basis and the link I provided clearly states the source of the data.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Funny, this didn't come up with McCain and Georgia.

McCain visited Georgia and told the government in private to do something that contradicted current U.S. foreign policy? I guess I missed that trip.

[larrymcg421]

Two national polls listed on RCP so far...

Rasmussen has narrowed to 48-47 in favor of McCain.

RCP also has put up a Battleground poll showing a 48-44 McCain lead. However, that poll is several days old, covering Sept. 7-11

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Two national polls listed on RCP so far...

Rasmussen has narrowed to 48-47 in favor of McCain.

RCP also has put up a Battleground poll showing a 48-44 McCain lead. However, that poll is several days old, covering Sept. 7-11

so the RCP one would be before the "palin honeymoon" wore off (to coin a phrase for it) - we'll see I guess in the next one they post if that correlates to a loss in votes for the Republicans, or if people will hold their nose, or what?

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

McCain visited Georgia and told the government in private to do something that contradicted current U.S. foreign policy? I guess I missed that trip.

McCain said he was in contact with the Georgian President several times a day. His Chief Foreign Policy advisor was a paid agent of the Georgians. He sent Lieberman and Graham to Georgia to meet with the President. His wife went to Georgia and met with the President.

Given that McCain was publicly pushing a more confrontational line than the administration do you think he never mentioned it to the Georgians?

[larrymcg421]

http://www.gallup.com/poll/110416/Ga...Dead-Heat.aspx

Gallup poll just released, showing a 47-46 lead for McCain.

They also mention that Obama did really well in Monday night polling, which could be a good sign, or it could be an anomaly.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

McCain said he was in contact with the Georgian President several times a day. His Chief Foreign Policy advisor was a paid agent of the Georgians. He sent Lieberman and Graham to Georgia to meet with the President. His wife went to Georgia and met with the President.

Given that McCain was publicly pushing a more confrontational line than the administration do you think he never mentioned it to the Georgians?

I'd be interested in seeing the article mentioning that he was pushing a policy contrary to the administration stance.