2008 U.S. Presidential Election Mega thread

[Royal]

So's this:

http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/k/C/2/mccain-media-lk0723d.jpg

[Samurai]

So's this:

http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/k/C/2/mccain-media-lk0723d.jpg

Unfortunately, that's true as well... the bias has seldom been so blatant, and the media is doing everything it can to ignore McCain and build up Obama.

[Joe Rice]

Was he allowed to have photographers and reporters there in Iraq? If so, that explains why he was able to find the time in his busy schedule...

Funny that earlier you were complaining about smarm. My irony-meter just busted.

Also, good job continuing not to check any facts before making disparaging remarks!

Stop lying, Samurai. Stop misrepresenting, Samurai. Stop spewing racist, bigoted filth, Samurai.

[Samurai]

Funny that earlier you were complaining about smarm. My irony-meter just busted.

Also, good job continuing not to check any facts before making disparaging remarks!

Stop lying, Samurai. Stop misrepresenting, Samurai. Stop spewing racist, bigoted filth, Samurai.

Ah, the old "if you don't support Obama, you're a racist" claptrap... so very typical. The man is simply not Presidential material, and it has nothing to do with his race.

[Royal]

Unfortunately, that's true as well... the bias has seldom been so blatant, and the media is doing everything it can to ignore McCain and build up Obama.

Yeah. Like covering up for him just to make him sound smart and stuff. Damn that media.

[Joe Rice]

Unfortunately, that's true as well... the bias has seldom been so blatant, and the media is doing everything it can to ignore McCain and build up Obama.

Maybe McCain should try being more interesting. Or having something to say that isn't just the same bullshit Bush has been forcing down our throats. Or be a candidate that plans on helping this country rather than digging it deeper into the moral quagmire.

[Joe Rice]

Ah, the old "if you don't support Obama, you're a racist" claptrap... so very typical. The man is simply not Presidential material, and it has nothing to do with his race.

That's not what I said, you amazing liar, and you know it. Your racist filth isn't "not supporting Obama." Your reasons for not supporting Obama might be bigoted, but they're not racist.

Other things you say are racist filth. This has been pointed out to you often. It's not because you don't support Obama. Plenty of people don't support him and don't spew racist filth either.

[the4thpip]

http://www.spiegel.de/img/0,1020,1253055,00.jpg

Les présidents.

[Paul McEnery]

http://www.spiegel.de/img/0,1020,1253055,00.jpg

Les présidents.

It's amazing how much Obama DOESN'T look like the chuckleheaded caricature from the far right, isn't it.

[kingdom2000]

Believe it or not Sam, the world's reception of Obama IS news. McCain on the campaign trail saying the same things over and over again isn't really news. Thats just the sad reality. Now if BOTH where doing a world tour and McCain was getting no news coverage, we might have an argument but your comparing apples and oranges.

For you to not know this either means a) your as stupid as many people here thing or b) you do know this and think we are too stupid to pick up on it. which is it?

[Mr.EZ]

Believe it or not Sam, the world's reception of Obama IS news. McCain on the campaign trail saying the same things over and over again isn't really news. Thats just the sad reality. Now if BOTH where doing a world tour and McCain was getting no news coverage, we might have an argument but your comparing apples and oranges.

For you to not know this either means a) your as stupid as many people here thing or b) you do know this and think we are too stupid to pick up on it. which is it?

He's a republican. He fears the world changing around him, so he lashes out by talking down to those that have accepted the change. He considers himself a patriot, when he's actually part of a dying breed of old time thinkers.

[David O Burcham]

What I find so facinating about Obama and Bush is how similar, yet different they are when it comes to public speaking.

Bush can't cut his way through a prepared speech with a machette and a blowtorch. However, when W is speaking off the cuff he's as brilliant as any orator to hold the office.

On the other hand, Obama has the magic touch when it comes to prepared speeches and can inspire anyone who listens regardless of their polictical leanings. Take away the teleprompter, Barry becomes just as big a bumbling moron as Bush.

[David O Burcham]

Except he's visited other troops before, even in Iraq recently.

So, yeah, maybe he was too busy campaigning.

The excuse the Obama capaign used today was that they felt it would have been an insult to the hospitalized troops for a presidential candidate to visit them on a campain tour.

Yet, at the very beginning of his speech in Berlin yesterday, Obama stressed with heavy importance that he WASN'T campaigning in Berlin as a presidential candidate.

Just another typical career politician. Nothing new to see here.

[Mr.EZ]

The excuse the Obama capaign used today was that they felt it would have been an insult to the hospitalized troops for a presidential candidate to visit them on a campain tour.

Yet, at the very beginning of his speech in Berlin yesterday, Obama stressed with heavy importance that he WASN'T campaigning in Berlin as a presidential candidate.

Just another typical career politician. Nothing new to see here.

Are the injured American troops registered voters? Possibly and probably.

Are Germans registered American voters? Nope.

There's your clarification.

[Charles RB]

Sorry, I haven't been following the Obama World Campaign Tour closely at all... too much of a media stunt.

You could have just said "whoops, no, I didn't know that, my bad". Possibly even "oh, sorry I insinuated that he only visited the troops before as a media stunt even though the media wasn't with him at the time and so my remark was foundless".

the media is doing everything it can to ignore McCain

I thought he had people who's job it was to promote him and get press attention. Or maybe they suck at their job, and that's why he's getting less coverage.

Or maybe he's not doing much that's noteworthy at the moment (and, due to sucking, his press bods can't spin it as being noteworthy).

http://www.spiegel.de/img/0,1020,1253055,00.jpg

Les présidents.

So that's two major European leaders he's met and smiled alongside.

God, I've got this image of him photographed with Brown and trying to stifle a yawn. :frown:

[LtMarvel]

Unfortunately, that's true as well... the bias has seldom been so blatant, and the media is doing everything it can to ignore McCain and build up Obama.
You mean like McCain's trip to an oil platform to demonstrate the safety of off-shore drillling this week?

Oops. The event was cancelled because it wasn't safe for McCain (or the press).

In fact, quite a few of McCain's stops this week were cancelled or scheduled at the last minute... Think that could have an effect on media coverage?

[David O Burcham]

I thought he had people who's job it was to promote him and get press attention. Or maybe they suck at their job, and that's why he's getting less coverage.

Or maybe he's not doing much that's noteworthy at the moment (and, due to sucking, his press bods can't spin it as being noteworthy).



McCain is a HORRIBLE campaigner with an even worse staff. Obama has been taking his lunch money at every turn the last few weeks with the 2000 plus people working on his campain.

Yet, the gap between the two is narrowing within the margin of error in every recent poll. Obama's numbers are at the same point now as John Kerry's was four years ago.

[David O Burcham]

You mean like McCain's trip to an oil platform to demonstrate the safety of off-shore drillling this week?

Oops. The event was cancelled because it wasn't safe for McCain (or the press).


It really is a sad statement about this country when, out of the millions of people who live here, these two career politican fucktards are the "best" the two big parties can pick as presidential contenders.

[LtMarvel]

Not if you include the third party candidates (http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/080723_Released.pdf).

John McCain ....................................35
Barack Obama .................................48
Bob Barr ...........................................2
Ralph Nader .....................................5
Depends (VOL) ..............................1
Neither/other (VOL) ........................3
Not sure ..........................................6

[kingdom2000]

Sorry, I haven't been following the Obama World Campaign Tour closely at all... too much of a media stunt. I just find it revolting that he'd cancel a visit to wounded troops simply because he couldn't bring his campaign staff and reporters with him.

And as usual, Faux News continues to screw with Sams ability to get perspective:

"Planning for a stop at the Landstuhl Regional Medical Center had been in the works for three weeks. But an Obama adviser said he was told in recent days by the Pentagon that the military would consider it a campaign event."

And what do you know, McCain did the EXACT same thing:
With Department of Defense rules prohibiting political campaigning on military bases, it was determined that in some cases McCain could visit the installations as a senator but could not engage in any political activity or have news media present. McCain campaign officials said Thursday they intentionally did not campaign on military property.

“We follow the rules,” said senior McCain adviser Steve Schmidt.

Double standards much?

[Samurai]

And as usual, Faux News continues to screw with Sams ability to get perspective:

"Planning for a stop at the Landstuhl Regional Medical Center had been in the works for three weeks. But an Obama adviser said he was told in recent days by the Pentagon that the military would consider it a campaign event."

And what do you know, McCain did the EXACT same thing:
With Department of Defense rules prohibiting political campaigning on military bases, it was determined that in some cases McCain could visit the installations as a senator but could not engage in any political activity or have news media present. McCain campaign officials said Thursday they intentionally did not campaign on military property.

“We follow the rules,” said senior McCain adviser Steve Schmidt.

Double standards much?
So many things wrong in this post...

1) I don't have cable TV or a satellite dish, so I never watch Fox News Channel or any other cable news. So your slam is 100% wrong.

2) You don't provide a link to the quote you posted. Is that because it comes from some far left blogosphere source you'd rather not admit to, like Huffington Post or Daily Kos? Almost definitely.

3) Nowhere in your quote does it say McCain canceled a meeting with the troops because he couldn't campaign there. It says that he followed the rules. Which means either he did attend and did not campaign, or he was not allowed to attend. Both of those are very different from Obama's case, where he was specifically told he could attend, and that they were ready, willing, and able to receive him, but he could not campaign while he was there. So it was OBAMA who then chose not to attend if he couldn't bring his entourage and reporters. Do you have any cases where it was McCain's decision not to visit the troops because he couldn't campaign there? If so, cite some credible sources on it.

4) If you can do that, then I'll criticize McCain as well. I don't have a double standard on this. But I'd be surprised to hear if McCain chose to do that.

[Spike-X]

...when W is speaking off the cuff he's as brilliant as any orator to hold the office.


What planet have you been living on for the past seven years?!

[rick]

Was he allowed to have photographers and reporters there in Iraq? If so, that explains why he was able to find the time in his busy schedule...


Now, now, nobody likes a bad sport.

Sen. McCain straight out challenged Sen. Obama to go overseas to both the warzone and to Europe. And then, like a kid daring somebody to step over a line drawn on the sidewalk, guys such as yourself made all sorts of snide remarks about what kind of political disaster Obama’s trip was going to be if he went, along with subtle hints of cowardice if he didn’t go anyway.

So no point in being all pouty when the Senator went ahead and took up the challenge and then proceeded to turn it into a major political victory that gave Obama the gravatas of a world leader and statesman and reduced his opponent to looking like not much more than a little old man in the cheese aisle of the supermarket.

Better luck next time.


http://img92.imageshack.us/img92/984/obhq0.jpg
World Statesman




http://img257.imageshack.us/img257/8725/cheeseaz2.jpg
I enjoy a nice mild cheddar

[Buzz Dixon]

Now, now, nobody likes a bad sport.

Sen. McCain straight out challenged Sen. Obama to go overseas to both the warzone and to Europe. And then, like a kid daring somebody to step over a line drawn on the sidewalk, guys such as yourself made all sorts of snide remarks about what kind of political disaster Obama’s trip was going to be if he went, along with subtle hints of cowardice if he didn’t go anyway.

So no point in being all pouty when the Senator went ahead and took up the challenge and then proceeded to turn it into a major political victory that gave Obama the gravatas of a world leader and statesman and reduced his opponent to looking like not much more than a little old man in the cheese aisle of the supermarket.

Better luck next time.


http://img92.imageshack.us/img92/984/obhq0.jpg
World Statesman




http://img257.imageshack.us/img257/8725/cheeseaz2.jpg
I enjoy a nice mild cheddarYou've just created a new cliche': "He's in the freezer section."

Nice going! :wink:

[LtMarvel]

Apparently the Defense Department told Obama staff the day before that only his Senatoral staff would be allowed to see the wounded. The campaign staff was not allowed. The Senatoral staff had already returned to the states.

So it appears it was the Bush Administration trying to torpedo the visit.

[FalconX2000]

This is great:

http://ibdeditorials.com/IMAGES/CARTOONS/toon071508.gif

Well, that is funny. lol.

So's this:

http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/k/C/2/mccain-media-lk0723d.jpg

Good Stuff.:biggrin:

Sorry, I haven't been following the Obama World Campaign Tour closely at all... too much of a media stunt. I just find it revolting that he'd cancel a visit to wounded troops simply because he couldn't bring his campaign staff and reporters with him.

The thing wasn't even on his campaign schedule, which confused reporters because they didn't know what was being cancelled. Very likely the campaign was simply considering adding one more stop to the already ultra packed time frame and decided that, with the Pentagon's advice, that it was better to make sure Obama had enough time to either sleep or not be late for his meeting with Sarkozy in France. Robert Gibbs dropped the ball by talking about it when he didn't need to.

McCain and Obama both missed plenty of places caring for wounded troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. Why should either one be given a hard time for not making a stop that wasn't even scheduled at one such place in Germany?

[FalconX2000]

Unfortunately, that's true as well... the bias has seldom been so blatant, and the media is doing everything it can to ignore McCain and build up Obama.

If the media paid the kind of attention to McCain that they've been paying to Obama, he'd be known as Dan Quayle Mk II by now.

Ah, the old "if you don't support Obama, you're a racist" claptrap... so very typical. The man is simply not Presidential material, and it has nothing to do with his race.

The racist thing may be a legitimate gripe. I've seen that you're equally prejudiced against all liberals and will stoop to any low to try to bring any of them down.

You know what the great tragedy is though? You're not dumb. And despite what others sometime say, unlike Brareos, you're a pretty convincing writer. If it weren't for your blatant disdain for inconvenient truths, you'd be a pretty credible conservative voice.

What I find so facinating about Obama and Bush is how similar, yet different they are when it comes to public speaking.

Bush can't cut his way through a prepared speech with a machette and a blowtorch. However, when W is speaking off the cuff he's as brilliant as any orator to hold the office.

On the other hand, Obama has the magic touch when it comes to prepared speeches and can inspire anyone who listens regardless of their polictical leanings. Take away the teleprompter, Barry becomes just as big a bumbling moron as Bush.

I've seen plenty of Obama's town halls Q&A sessions. He handles himself very well. Not as consistently brilliant as on the teleprompter, but the notion that he is useless away from the teleprompter is a media myth. He answers about as well as he does during interviews.

[KevinTBrown]

So many things wrong in this post...

1) I don't have cable TV or a satellite dish, so I never watch Fox News Channel or any other cable news. So your slam is 100% wrong.

No, but you do seem to have access to a computer, correct...? There are these new fangled things called "websites" in which you can visit and read things or even see videos. Oh, look, here's one: http://www.foxnews.com/ :rolleyes:

2) You don't provide a link to the quote you posted. Is that because it comes from some far left blogosphere source you'd rather not admit to, like Huffington Post or Daily Kos? Almost definitely.

Hmm, will Stars & Stripes do instead? I know it's not liberal or anything like that, so you can't find anything wrong with it, but here you go: http://www.stripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=52460&archive=true

3) Nowhere in your quote does it say McCain canceled a meeting with the troops because he couldn't campaign there. It says that he followed the rules. Which means either he did attend and did not campaign, or he was not allowed to attend. Both of those are very different from Obama's case, where he was specifically told he could attend, and that they were ready, willing, and able to receive him, but he could not campaign while he was there. So it was OBAMA who then chose not to attend if he couldn't bring his entourage and reporters. Do you have any cases where it was McCain's decision not to visit the troops because he couldn't campaign there? If so, cite some credible sources on it.

Damn, while I did find a Huffington Post article about it, I'll instead post CNN, ok? Again, I know it's not liberal and you can't find fault in it, but what the hell, here you go: http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/04/03/mccain.pentagon/index.html

4) If you can do that, then I'll criticize McCain as well. I don't have a double standard on this. But I'd be surprised to hear if McCain chose to do that.

Oh, and it says in that last link I provided: The military spokesman points out that any U.S. senator could also request to visit the academy or any military installation.

But the Navy declined a McCain campaign request to speak at the Naval Aviation Museum at the naval base in Pensacola, Florida, because it is a military owned installation and is located on the base, the official said.

Yeah, those double standards sneak up on you and bite you in the ass, don't they..?

[FalconX2000]

No, but you do seem to have access to a computer, correct...? There are these new fangled things called "websites" in which you can visit and read things or even see videos. Oh, look, here's one: http://www.foxnews.com/ :rolleyes:



Hmm, will Stars & Stripes do instead? I know it's not liberal or anything like that, so you can't find anything wrong with it, but here you go: http://www.stripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=52460&archive=true



Damn, while I did find a Huffington Post article about it, I'll instead post CNN, ok? Again, I know it's not liberal and you can't find fault in it, but what the hell, here you go: http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/04/03/mccain.pentagon/index.html



Oh, and it says in that last link I provided: The military spokesman points out that any U.S. senator could also request to visit the academy or any military installation.

But the Navy declined a McCain campaign request to speak at the Naval Aviation Museum at the naval base in Pensacola, Florida, because it is a military owned installation and is located on the base, the official said.

Yeah, those double standards sneak up on you and bite you in the ass, don't they..?


To be fair, I think he uses a variety of websites. He'll take anything that suits his views, even from MSNBC.

[kingdom2000]

What Sam seems to be refusing to acknowledge is that the military itself is asking the candidates to not visit. This isn't a war thing, a party thing or anything else. Its simply two candidates respecting the requests of the military. Isn't that a good thing? Seems like it to me. There is a non-story here against neither candidate. Its just Faux News (and those copying them) spinning it into a negative because they are purposedly leaving out that very critical piece of information. Its what is called "context" and oh so important.

[KevinTBrown]

To be fair, I think he uses a variety of websites. He'll take anything that suits his views, even from MSNBC.

Ah, but he said, and I quote, "I never watch Fox News Channel."

You go to their website, you "watch" their channel. It's giving you the same stories they report on TV.

[FalconX2000]

What Sam seems to be refusing to acknowledge is that the military itself is asking the candidates to not visit. This isn't a war thing, a party thing or anything else. Its simply two candidates respecting the requests of the military. Isn't that a good thing? Seems like it to me. There is a non-story here against neither candidate. Its just Faux News (and those copying them) spinning it into a negative because they are purposedly leaving out that very critical piece of information. Its what is called "context" and oh so important.

http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/Story?id=5449455&page=2

I actually understand that part. There has been some confusion between the Obama campaign and the Pentagon on the issue.

The part I have a problem with Sam is how he goes from (not sure about stuff) to (assume all the most horrible things I can think of to fill the gaps and assert those basless opinions as fact). And that's the best case scenario, because otherwise he knew the facts and decided "bah they don't suit the picture I want to see".

[Nick Soapdish]

You know what the great tragedy is though? You're not dumb. And despite what others sometime say, unlike Brareos, you're a pretty convincing writer. If it weren't for your blatant disdain for inconvenient truths, you'd be a pretty credible conservative voice.


I think that's kinda the most important part though. At least with anyone that you have prolonged contact with. Sheer charisma or well-formulated phrases only work when the person is trustworthy.

If a person is trustworthy, then one might overlook some clumsiness with the language (like many did with Dubya), but once they aren't, it doesn't matter how well they say it, it's still tough to believe.

[Samurai]

No, but you do seem to have access to a computer, correct...? There are these new fangled things called "websites" in which you can visit and read things or even see videos. Oh, look, here's one: http://www.foxnews.com/ :rolleyes:



Hmm, will Stars & Stripes do instead? I know it's not liberal or anything like that, so you can't find anything wrong with it, but here you go: http://www.stripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=52460&archive=true



Damn, while I did find a Huffington Post article about it, I'll instead post CNN, ok? Again, I know it's not liberal and you can't find fault in it, but what the hell, here you go: http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/04/03/mccain.pentagon/index.html



Oh, and it says in that last link I provided: The military spokesman points out that any U.S. senator could also request to visit the academy or any military installation.

But the Navy declined a McCain campaign request to speak at the Naval Aviation Museum at the naval base in Pensacola, Florida, because it is a military owned installation and is located on the base, the official said.

Yeah, those double standards sneak up on you and bite you in the ass, don't they..?

What Sam seems to be refusing to acknowledge is that the military itself is asking the candidates to not visit. This isn't a war thing, a party thing or anything else. Its simply two candidates respecting the requests of the military. Isn't that a good thing? Seems like it to me. There is a non-story here against neither candidate. Its just Faux News (and those copying them) spinning it into a negative because they are purposedly leaving out that very critical piece of information. Its what is called "context" and oh so important.

What you seem to be missing is just who is making the choices here. Let me lay it out for you:

McCain asked to speak at the Naval Acadamy, and was turned down. They canceled on him, not the other way around.

Obama was not refused access to the military hospital. Other Seantors had visited it recently, and they told Obama they were willing and ready to have him visit. It was Obama that refused, after being told that while he was welcome, campaign staff and reporters were not. Only him, just like the other Senators. That wasn't good enough, so Obama canceled, surprising the officials at the hospital.

See the difference there?

[Samurai]

Ah, but he said, and I quote, "I never watch Fox News Channel."

You go to their website, you "watch" their channel. It's giving you the same stories they report on TV.

Except, I don't "go to their website" either. I may take an occasional news story from there, same as any other network, when I find a link to it. I don't visit the Fox News website, or any other news channel website, on a regular basis.

[BnL]

What you seem to be missing is just who is making the choices here. Let me lay it out for you:

McCain asked to speak at the Naval Acadamy, and was turned down. They canceled on him, not the other way around.

Obama was not refused access to the military hospital. Other Seantors had visited it recently, and they told Obama they were willing and ready to have him visit. It was Obama that refused, after being told that while he was welcome, campaign staff and reporters were not. Only him, just like the other Senators. That wasn't good enough, so Obama canceled, surprising the officials at the hospital.

See the difference there?

Since you seem to have missed this:

Apparently the Defense Department told Obama staff the day before that only his Senatoral staff would be allowed to see the wounded. The campaign staff was not allowed. The Senatoral staff had already returned to the states.

So it appears it was the Bush Administration trying to torpedo the visit.

[Samurai]

If the media paid the kind of attention to McCain that they've been paying to Obama, he'd be known as Dan Quayle Mk II by now.



The racist thing may be a legitimate gripe. I've seen that you're equally prejudiced against all liberals and will stoop to any low to try to bring any of them down.

You know what the great tragedy is though? You're not dumb. And despite what others sometime say, unlike Brareos, you're a pretty convincing writer. If it weren't for your blatant disdain for inconvenient truths, you'd be a pretty credible conservative voice.



I've seen plenty of Obama's town halls Q&A sessions. He handles himself very well. Not as consistently brilliant as on the teleprompter, but the notion that he is useless away from the teleprompter is a media myth. He answers about as well as he does during interviews.

Off the teleprompter, Obama is a lousy speaker, constantly stumbling over words and inserting "ummm" and "uhh" between every other word. There are tons of youtube videos on this, and even David Letterman makes fun of it with his "umm meter", counting the "uhhs and umms" in an Obama speech.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BGymYfJ61R0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qp0hU1THjuc&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDJSVPAx8xc&feature=related

[Joe Rice]

Since you seem to have missed this:

Shocking that Samurai would either lie, misrepresent, or totally not understand something.

COMPLETELY SHOCKING!!!

[Samurai]

Since you seem to have missed this:

Obama was still allowed to go. They were still expecting Obama. Obama is the one that refused to go.

A U.S. military official tells NBC News they were making preparations for Sen. Barack Obama to visit wounded troops at the Landstuhl Medical Center at Ramstein, Germany on Friday, but "for some reason the visit was called off."

One military official who was working on the Obama visit said because political candidates are prohibited from using military installations as campaign backdrops, Obama's representatives were told, "he could only bring two or three of his Senate staff member, no campaign officials or workers." In addition, "Obama could not bring any media. Only military photographers would be permitted to record Obama's visit."

The official said "We didn't know why" the request to visit the wounded troops was withdrawn. "He (Obama) was more than welcome. We were all ready for him."

Lt Marvel doesn't know what he's talking about, there was no Bush conspiracy here. It is the rules of a campaign, everyone has to follow them. Obama refused to visit the wounded soldiers because they wouldn't break the rules for him.

[Joe Rice]

Obama was still allowed to go. They were still expecting Obama. Obama is the one that refused to go.

I'm not sure if, in between hating people that are different from you and misrepresenting what people say, you understand what it's like to be a part of a large organization, even the head. And, no, when you pretended that the 101st or whatever fighting keyboards was like being in the Army, no, that doesn't count. But Barack Obama is not exactly in the position to go off places on his lonesome these days. He's got bigger fish to fry, like saving this country from Fascist Torturing Imperialism that you so love to defend.

Stop lying, stop misrepresenting, stop spewing bigoted garbage.

[Samurai]

I'm not sure if, in between hating people that are different from you and misrepresenting what people say, you understand what it's like to be a part of a large organization, even the head. And, no, when you pretended that the 101st or whatever fighting keyboards was like being in the Army, no, that doesn't count. But Barack Obama is not exactly in the position to go off places on his lonesome these days. He's got bigger fish to fry, like saving this country from Fascist Torturing Imperialism that you so love to defend.

Stop lying, stop misrepresenting, stop spewing bigoted garbage.

Yeah, riiiiight. His security guards and secret service would still be able to go with him, if widdle Obama was afraid to visit the wounded US soldiers without back-up. I guess, in his mind, it is sort of like entering enemy territory...

Or maybe, next time, he should think ahead and realize that if he absolutely needs someone to hold his hand while he visits wounded American troops, he should ask his campaign advisers if there's a possibility that his campaign staff and media acolytes won't be allowed into a military base, since these are hardly new rules. Any campaign manager worth a damn should be able to look at past examples and anticipate there may be an issue, and if so, keep a Senate staffer or 3 around for Obama's entourage...

Oh, and the 101st Fighting Keyboardists was just an avatar I used for a while, I didn't say it was like being in the army. So stop lying, stop misrepresenting, stop spewing bigoted garbage.

[Joe Rice]

Yeah, riiiiight. His security guards and secret service would still be able to go with him, if widdle Obama was afraid to visit the wounded US soldiers without back-up. I guess, in his mind, it is sort of like entering enemy territory...

No, liar, that's not what anyone is saying. The point is that when you are a part of a large organization, you can't just change all the plans last minute and screw everyone else over. The man has seen plenty of soldiers. And he, interestingly, isn't behind the idea of sending them to die needlessly like your idols. He doesn't need security, he needs to save this country from your torturing heroes.


Oh, and the 101st Fighting Keyboardists was just an avatar I used for a while, I didn't say it was like being in the army. So stop lying, stop misrepresenting, stop spewing bigoted garbage.

What was bigoted about what I said, you racist garbage? You had a little fake badge on the internet like a boy pretending to play army, except you're a grown man. It was utterly insulting to anyone who's ever served and fought or died for this country. Your idiotic parroting of far-right bullshit talking points is nowhere near comparable to service in this great country's military. To even jokingly compare yourself to these people is a goddam insult to all of them, including both of my grandfathers.

[Joe Rice]

So stop lying, stop misrepresenting, stop spewing bigoted garbage.

By the way, find one place where I've lied about a conservative government figure and I will take the 300 dollars I'm going to donate to children's education charities and give it to the RNC.

FIND IT. I GODDAM DARE YOU TO TRY.

[Samurai]

By the way, find one place where I've lied about a conservative government figure and I will take the 300 dollars I'm going to donate to children's education charities and give it to the RNC.

FIND IT. I GODDAM DARE YOU TO TRY.

I didn't say you lied, misrepresented, or were bigoted toward a governmental figure. But you do go out of your way to lie, misrepresent, and act bigoted toward me and some other conservative posters around here. You enjoy doing so, and indulge in it at every opportunity, and you know full well you can't deny that.

So, again, stop lying, stop misrepresenting, stop spewing bigoted garbage.

[the4thpip]

God, I've got this image of him photographed with Brown and trying to stifle a yawn. :frown:

Don't worry, there won't be any pictures. He's meeting Brown behind closed doors and then has the media meeting with... Tony Blair.

You can't make this shit up!

[the4thpip]

McCain is a HORRIBLE campaigner with an even worse staff. Obama has been taking his lunch money at every turn the last few weeks with the 2000 plus people working on his campain.

Yet, the gap between the two is narrowing within the margin of error in every recent poll. Obama's numbers are at the same point now as John Kerry's was four years ago.

Actually, no. Yesterday's Rasmussen report poll had Obama open a lead.

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Friday shows a bounce for Barack Obama. The presumptive Democratic nominee attracts 46% of the vote while John McCain earns 41%. When "leaners" are included, it’s Obama 49% and McCain 44%. Just three days ago, the candidates were tied at 46% (with leaners).
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

Same thing at Gallup and NBC:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls/
(note that not a single poll had McCain ahead. The only one that seems to be within the margin of error is, surprise, Fox"News."

So what are you talking about?

And anyway, much more important in your country is the balance of power calculation for the electoral collage, where Obama has been looking unbeatable for weeks now.

Barack Obama 322 John McCain 216

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/maps/obama_vs_mccain/?map=10

[FalconX2000]

Off the teleprompter, Obama is a lousy speaker, constantly stumbling over words and inserting "ummm" and "uhh" between every other word. There are tons of youtube videos on this, and even David Letterman makes fun of it with his "umm meter", counting the "uhhs and umms" in an Obama speech.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BGymYfJ61R0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qp0hU1THjuc&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDJSVPAx8xc&feature=related

The Ums and Ahs, which btw have been cut down, do not make someone a bad speaker.

Obama does it when leading from one thought to another, rather than some others do when they draw a blank. I've seen him do it plenty of times, I always get a clear picture of what he's talking about. That shows me he's thinking about it, even if it takes him a second longer to come up with it.

Terrible public speaking is this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d4qtgTAg_7o

I didn't say you lied, misrepresented, or were bigoted toward a governmental figure. But you do go out of your way to lie, misrepresent, and act bigoted toward me and some other conservative posters around here. You enjoy doing so, and indulge in it at every opportunity, and you know full well you can't deny that.

So, again, stop lying, stop misrepresenting, stop spewing bigoted garbage.

If he was doing what you say he was doing (I don't feel like keeping track), then perhaps you know how it feels like to read your posts.

[Samurai]

The Ums and Ahs, which btw have been cut down, do not make someone a bad speaker.

Obama does it when leading from one thought to another, rather than some others do when they draw a blank. I've seen him do it plenty of times, I always get a clear picture of what he's talking about. That shows me he's thinking about it, even if it takes him a second longer to come up with it.

Terrible public speaking is this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d4qtgTAg_7o



If he was doing what you say he was doing (I don't feel like keeping track), then perhaps you know how it feels like to read your posts.

The difference is that I don't set out to attack and insult other posters, I stick to the issues. If someone can't stand discussing the issues with someone they disagree with, to the point that they feel the need to engage in personal attacks instead of talking about the issue, then something's wrong there. So no, I don't know how it feels to read my posts, since almost all I ever hear are personal attacks.

And Obama very often has umms and uhhs in the middle of sentences, and he loses track of what he was talking about. Just listen to the recent speech he gave in Amman Jordan.

[Alix Harrower]

I guess, in his mind, it is sort of like entering enemy territory...

Actually, the troops seem to like Obama quite a lot, judging by the standing ovation he got in Afghanistan: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G5MO1hTL8F0 .

It's almost like they know something you don't.

And how many wounded soldiers have you visited?

[FalconX2000]

The difference is that I don't set out to attack and insult other posters, I stick to the issues. If someone can't stand discussing the issues with someone they disagree with, to the point that they feel the need to engage in personal attacks instead of talking about the issue, then something's wrong there. So no, I don't know how it feels to read my posts, since almost all I ever hear are personal attacks.

And Obama very often has umms and uhhs in the middle of sentences, and he loses track of what he was talking about. Just listen to the recent speech he gave in Amman Jordan.

When people know that you're lying, you really can't blame them for getting angry with you and for forming prejudices about you. I've seen you attacked once or twice and felt it might have been unfair, but on the vast majority of the time I've been thoroughly convinced that you delibrately skewed the truth or even outright lied about the supporting evidence to try to convince people to your side on the 'issue'.

That's worse than a personal attack, which may be annoying, because when you misconduct yourself that horribly on the issues it's actually dangerous. It violates fundamental journalistic principles.

Obama didn't give any speech in Jordan. Berlin was the only time he did it. Are you perhaps talking about an interview or press conference?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/25850269#25840263

[king mob]

The difference is that I don't set out to attack and insult other posters, I stick to the issues. If someone can't stand discussing the issues with someone they disagree with, to the point that they feel the need to engage in personal attacks instead of talking about the issue, then something's wrong there. So no, I don't know how it feels to read my posts, since almost all I ever hear are personal attacks.

Do you not think that's because you mainly post a load of bigoted hateful lies & people here are tired of it?

And Obama very often has umms and uhhs in the middle of sentences, and he loses track of what he was talking about. Just listen to the recent speech he gave in Amman Jordan.

Is this the best you can do? Really, you're sounding increasingly desperate.

[king mob]

White House hopeful Barack Obama has said he had a "terrific conversation" with British Prime Minister Gordon Brown in London.

Speaking outside 10 Downing Street, Mr Obama said a strong transatlantic relationship was needed to deal with a wide range of world issues.

He said these included climate change, terrorism and the financial markets.

The Democratic presidential candidate is on the final part of the European leg of his tour.

Before travelling to Downing Street, Mr Obama had a breakfast meeting with former Prime Minister Tony Blair who is now the international Middle East envoy.

Keynote speech

The Illinois senator is also due to meet Conservative leader David Cameron.

Mr Obama has already visited Germany, where he gave a keynote foreign policy speech in Berlin, and France where he met President Nicolas Sarkozy.

After flying into London, Mr Obama was greeted by the American ambassador and his wife, Robert and Maria Tuttle, before being taken to a city centre hotel.

In contrast to the public reception he received in Berlin and Paris, Mr Obama's London visit is being kept deliberately low key.

BBC News diplomatic correspondent Bridget Kendall says there is a risk the London leg of Mr Obama's tour will look "decidedly lacklustre".

The Downing Street talks were expected to cover a wide range of issues, including Iran, Iraq and the rest of the Middle East, climate change and worries about fuel and food price rises.

While in Paris, Mr Obama said Iran should not wait for the next US president to be elected before resolving its dispute with the West.

He said Tehran should promptly accept an international call to freeze its "illicit nuclear programme".

Iran insists its nuclear campaign is peaceful.

Mr Obama's tour has also taken in the Middle East where he visited Jordan, Israel and the Palestinian territories.

After the UK, Mr Obama will return to the US where he faces Republican rival John McCain in November's presidential election.

The latest opinion polls in the US show Mr Obama leads Mr McCain by between one and six percentage points with some polls showing the race tightening in key states.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7526544.stm

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/44865000/jpg/_44865267_edbed5fb-ba1f-45ff-b3e0-8fd7a8b2f5c9.jpg

Which one of these men is likely to be leading their country in a year's time? Hint: it isn't the Scottish geezer.

[the4thpip]

http://images.salon.com/comics/tomo/2008/07/22/tomo/story.jpg

[the4thpip]

Not if you include the third party candidates (http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/080723_Released.pdf).

And even if PhoneyBone only gets his news from Fox"News" - they have about the same numbers.

McCain 37

Obama 40

Nader (I) 2

Barr (L) -

Other (vol.)/ 20
Unsure

http://www.pollingreport.com/wh08gen.htm

So Phoney, where did you pull that claim about the polls tightening from?

[Spike-X]

Probably the same place he pulled the one about W being 'as brilliant as any orator to hold the office' from.

[the4thpip]

Probably the same place he pulled the one about W being 'as brilliant as any orator to hold the office' from.

But of course!

http://www.quickstopentertainment.com/comics101/images/2003/sep24/bizarroworld.jpg

[KevinTBrown]

Actually the polls are remaining somewhat consistant.... Though Obama has opened it up just a bit after it stayed at an average of 4.0-4.2% lead for the past 2 weeks. It's now 4.8%.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_obama-225.html

No surprise though, Fox has the smallest amount....

[Royal]

Embassy workers denied right to go hear Obama. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/23/AR2008072303388.html)

"When a German sees you there, they're not going to think, 'Oh, he or she is on their off time.' It's 'Oh, they are a Democrat, a Republican, an independent,' God knows what," Kennedy said in an interview.

The American Foreign Service Association, the union of the diplomatic corps, objected to the ruling, calling it an "unnecessarily narrow interpretation" of the Foreign Affairs Manual. "The fact that you are working for the U.S. government overseas should not preclude political activity that you could engage in in the United States," one retired senior Foreign Service officer said.

At least McCain is following the rules. (http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/06/19/democrats_question_ambassadors.html)

[Joe Rice]

I didn't say you lied, misrepresented, or were bigoted toward a governmental figure. But you do go out of your way to lie, misrepresent, and act bigoted toward me and some other conservative posters around here. You enjoy doing so, and indulge in it at every opportunity, and you know full well you can't deny that.

So, again, stop lying, stop misrepresenting, stop spewing bigoted garbage.

Show me one post where I lie about you Samurai.

Show me one.

[FalconX2000]

In addition, Obama talked with reporters for the first time about his decision to cancel a planned visit to Landstuhl in Germany. "We had scheduled to go. We had no problem at all in leaving press -- we always leave press and staff out, that's why we left it off the schedule," he said, explaining that the campaign had planned to treat the trip the same way they treated a recent visit to Walter Reed, which the senator made without press.

Obama added, "I was going to be accompanied by one of my advisers, a former military officer. And we got notice that he would be treated as a campaign person and it would therefore be perceived as political, because he had endorsed my candidacy but he wasn't on the Senate staff," Obama said, referring to Gen. Scott Gration, who had worked to organize the trip.

"That triggered then a concern that maybe our visit was going to be perceived as political, and the last thing that I want to do is have injured soldiers and the staff at these wonderful institutions having to sort through whether this is political or not or get caught in the crossfire between campaigns. So rather than go forward and potentially get caught up in what might have been seen as a political controversy of some sort, what we decided was that we would not make a visit and instead I would call some of the troops who were there. So that's essentially the extent of the story."

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/07/26/1226532.aspx


And that should settle the matter entirely.

[Joe Rice]

The difference is that I don't set out to attack and insult other posters, I stick to the issues. If someone can't stand discussing the issues with someone they disagree with, to the point that they feel the need to engage in personal attacks instead of talking about the issue, then something's wrong there. So no, I don't know how it feels to read my posts, since almost all I ever hear are personal attacks.


The issues you lie about affect real human beings. I would be less offended if you were personally attacking me than if you were repeating propaganda that gets human beings tortured and killed.

[FalconX2000]

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/07/26/mccain-offers-praise-for-obamas-troop-withdrawal-timetable/

OH COMON!:eek:

Hammer him! Hammer him! HAMMER HIM!

*pant pant*

McCain now agrees with Obama's troop withdrawal plan on Iraq. He said it himself. Even Fox News has it.

[Tetsuo_man]

I just talked to my mom. She has not voted since 92. She plans to re-register to vote purely so she can vote for obama. mind you this is a woman who continualy voted republican on the presidential level till she stopped voting (her first vote was for nixon in 72 and she still defends him as a man with many flaws). when dole came around she felt the party she had grown up in (both of my grandparents voted republican their whole lives with the exception of voting for lyndon johnson) had changed and decided never to vote again. but she feels that while she think obama may not win but she hopes so because she doesn't even want to think about how bad the country will be in mccain's hands.

[Charles RB]

I am stunned that I just read posts criticising Obama for saying "um" and "ah" when talking. That never happens to anyone.

Don't worry, there won't be any pictures. He's meeting Brown behind closed doors and then has the media meeting with... Tony Blair.

You can't make this shit up!

If I was Obama, I'd want to AVOID being seen or associated with Blair - people might start wondering if I'll turn out like him!

[Samurai]

I'm not sure if, in between hating people that are different from you and misrepresenting what people say, you understand what it's like to be a part of a large organization, even the head. And, no, when you pretended that the 101st or whatever fighting keyboards was like being in the Army, no, that doesn't count. But Barack Obama is not exactly in the position to go off places on his lonesome these days. He's got bigger fish to fry, like saving this country from Fascist Torturing Imperialism that you so love to defend.

Stop lying, stop misrepresenting, stop spewing bigoted garbage.

Show me one post where I lie about you Samurai.

Show me one.
You do it constantly. The most recent I just quoted above. I never "pretended I was like being in the army", anymore than your avatar means that you are pretending to be Loady McGee, Angry Youth. I never equated my avatar to serving in the military. You LIED about that, and you know it.

Here is the background on it:

http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/006857.php
http://www.imao.us/archives/005329.html

I doubt hardly a week has gone by that you haven't lied or misrepresented something I said by warping it in your twisted lens.

[Samurai]

I am stunned that I just read posts criticising Obama for saying "um" and "ah" when talking. That never happens to anyone.


Few people do it as frequently as Obama off-the-cuff, no teleprompter. And most people don't try to tout their messianic oratory skills like he and his supporters do, calling him an incredible speaker, inspiring, etc, etc. No, he really isn't, especially when he isn't reading a prepared speech.

[king mob]

Few people do it as frequently as Obama off-the-cuff, no teleprompter. And most people don't try to tout their messianic oratory skills like he and his supporters do, calling him an incredible speaker, inspiring, etc, etc. No, he really isn't, especially when he isn't reading a prepared speech.

You're shitting it about Obama winning if you're trying to carry this 'but he goes um' thing on rather than trying to address what he actually says. In a few days Obama has offered a glimmer of hope that perhaps America's going to stop being arrogant towards it's European allies & it might try to correct mistakes made in the last 8 years. You know those mistakes; illegal invasions of countires, killing hundreds of thousands of innocent civillians, torturing innocent people & so on.

Basically Obama has been offering a message of hope to Americans & Europeans this week, something far better than the lies, hate & arrogance that we've become to hearing from American politicians & their supporters (people like you Samurai) in the last 8 years.

[king mob]

I doubt hardly a week has gone by that you haven't lied or misrepresented something I said by warping it in your twisted lens.

Are you suggesting that Joe's making up your constant lies & bigotry? You've got some bollocks to try to play the innocent with your track record.

[Samurai]

Are you suggesting that Joe's making up your constant lies & bigotry? You've got some bollocks to try to play the innocent with your track record.

Like you should talk, with your lying sig...

And yes, he frequently lies and misrepresents, the most recent being the accusation that my avatar meant I was pretending to be in the military, or something like the military.

[Joe Rice]

You do it constantly. The most recent I just quoted above. I never "pretended I was like being in the army", anymore than your avatar means that you are pretending to be Loady McGee, Angry Youth. I never equated my avatar to serving in the military. You LIED about that, and you know it.

Here is the background on it:

http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/006857.php
http://www.imao.us/archives/005329.html

I doubt hardly a week has gone by that you haven't lied or misrepresented something I said by warping it in your twisted lens.

That's completely full of shit. I've got enough military in my family to find that old avatar pretty offensive. You don't just give yourself a semi-military name. It's ridiculous. I didn't lie or misrepresent. You proudly showed a blogger avatar based on the US military, an avatar you in no way earned. I know too many people that DID earn such distinctions to let that shit fly.

Like you should talk, with your lying sig...

And yes, he frequently lies and misrepresents, the most recent being the accusation that my avatar meant I was pretending to be in the military, or something like the military.

You have yet to show a time that I've lied about you. You have been a proven liar many times. Deal with that and maybe learn from it.

But, please, show me a time I lied about you. Talking shit about your bullshit pretensions toward military service doesn't count.

[Sabrinaset]

Well! Looks like it's time to discuss the election news, isn't it! Why, it sure is! And here's some MORE stories of various importance we can discuss ...

What's Barack's half-brother been up to? (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article4406813.ece)

McCain camp says Obama shortchanged injured troops. (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080726/D925R9J01.html)

Was Obama treated more like the President while on tour? (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080726/D925LV0G0.html)

Gallup Poll says Obama retains the lead, 48% to 41%. (http://www.gallup.com/poll/109099/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Retains-Lead-48-41.aspx)

[Cam63]

Few people do it as frequently as Obama off-the-cuff, no teleprompter. And most people don't try to tout their messianic oratory skills like he and his supporters do, calling him an incredible speaker, inspiring, etc, etc. No, he really isn't, especially when he isn't reading a prepared speech.

Yeah... Like saying " um " is an important world issue.

I'd check to see if you have a gas leak, Sam.

[Royal]

I say um when I talk to.

It usually happens when I have a lot to talk about and have to pace myself.

[Typo Lad]

"Um"ing does give you points of in public speaking, generally.

I can't think of a non-uming President, especially off the cuff.

[KevinTBrown]

Few people do it as frequently as Obama off-the-cuff, no teleprompter. And most people don't try to tout their messianic oratory skills like he and his supporters do, calling him an incredible speaker, inspiring, etc, etc. No, he really isn't, especially when he isn't reading a prepared speech.

Um, I don't see them problem.

McCain, when speaking off the cuff, decides to tell off-color and bad jokes, like the one about the ape raping a woman.

I'd rather have someone use "um" instead of that. :eek:

[KevinTBrown]

Hey, I like this blogger!!!

http://joerepya.typepad.com/eaglesnest/2008/07/bill-clinton-no.html

Such awesome spelling and grammatical skills we haven't seen since Olney....

[Samurai]

That's completely full of shit. I've got enough military in my family to find that old avatar pretty offensive. You don't just give yourself a semi-military name. It's ridiculous. I didn't lie or misrepresent. You proudly showed a blogger avatar based on the US military, an avatar you in no way earned. I know too many people that DID earn such distinctions to let that shit fly.



You have yet to show a time that I've lied about you. You have been a proven liar many times. Deal with that and maybe learn from it.

But, please, show me a time I lied about you. Talking shit about your bullshit pretensions toward military service doesn't count.

And my dad was a Staff Sgt, his dad was in the military, and I had uncles on my mom's side in the military too. I might well have joined too (I took the ASVAB test and looked into it) except for my eyesight... turns out being 9x over legally blind is more than they allowed.

It was an obviously non-real badge, and I never claimed it "was the same as being in the military", as your lie claimed. You lie and misrepresent constantly, but you'll never have the balls to admit it, will you? You'll just deny everything, no matter what. Man, what a piece of work you are.

[BnL]

You lie and misrepresent constantly, but you'll never have the balls to admit it, will you? You'll just deny everything, no matter what. Man, what a piece of work you are.

http://go-dl3.eve-files.com/media/0608/pot_kettle_black.jpg

[the4thpip]

Hey, I like this blogger!!!

http://joerepya.typepad.com/eaglesnest/2008/07/bill-clinton-no.html

Such awesome spelling and grammatical skills we haven't seen since Olney....

Why does he consider General Wesley Clark a "blunder"? :confused:

[FalconX2000]

http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080727/NEWS07/807270617/1009/NEWS07

Obama raised more money in Arizona than McCain did.

[king mob]

Like you should talk, with your lying sig...

You mean you've never ever suggested that the American media shouldn't report acts of torture? You're talking bollocks & lying again.

And yes, he frequently lies and misrepresents, the most recent being the accusation that my avatar meant I was pretending to be in the military, or something like the military.

I remember that avatar & just thought you were being a wanker.

[the4thpip]

http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080727/NEWS07/807270617/1009/NEWS07

Obama raised more money in Arizona than McCain did.

McCain is gonna be like Gore... losing his home state.

[Joe Rice]

And my dad was a Staff Sgt, his dad was in the military, and I had uncles on my mom's side in the military too. I might well have joined too (I took the ASVAB test and looked into it) except for my eyesight... turns out being 9x over legally blind is more than they allowed.

It was an obviously non-real badge, and I never claimed it "was the same as being in the military", as your lie claimed. You lie and misrepresent constantly, but you'll never have the balls to admit it, will you? You'll just deny everything, no matter what. Man, what a piece of work you are.

Looks like you're the one not owning up to misrepresentation.

Find a lie and I'll admit it.

You can't. Because you are the liar.

And my thanks to your father, grandfather, and uncles.

(I should add that when you had that avatar, I really did think you were in the military, in some obscure accountancy division or something. Naive of me, yes, but proof that it was misleading.)

[KevinTBrown]

Looks like you're the one not owning up to misrepresentation.

Find a lie and I'll admit it.

You can't. Because you are the liar.

And my thanks to your father, grandfather, and uncles.

(I should add that when you had that avatar, I really did think you were in the military, in some obscure accountancy division or something. Naive of me, yes, but proof that it was misleading.)

Give it up, Joe. 99% of the people on here know you're right. Samurai will never admit to being wrong or a liar, even when faced with irrefutable proof that he is. He's like a bloody politician all the time: You give him a "yes" or "no" question, he'll find a way to not answer it directly or make it someone else's fault. Just keep posting the truth and/or proving him wrong, ignore the rest.

[rick]

Hi Bree. :smile:

Well! Looks like it's time to discuss the election news, isn't it! Why, it sure is! And here's some MORE stories of various importance we can discuss ...

What's Barack's half-brother been up to? (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article4406813.ece)


Completly irrelevent.



McCain camp says Obama shortchanged injured troops. (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080726/D925R9J01.html)


By that same logic, so did McCain when he was overseas a few months ago.



Was Obama treated more like the President while on tour? (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080726/D925LV0G0.html)


Yes, he most certainly was.

My favorite line of the week was John Stewart's mention about how nice it was to see American flags in another country that weren't on fire.




Gallup Poll says Obama retains the lead, 48% to 41%. (http://www.gallup.com/poll/109099/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Retains-Lead-48-41.aspx)

He has a lead, but it certainly isn't a huge one, and despite my jokes about McCain in the cheese aisle, it is still very much an open race.

[rick]

It was an obviously non-real badge, and I never claimed it "was the same as being in the military", as your lie claimed. You lie and misrepresent constantly, but you'll never have the balls to admit it, will you? You'll just deny everything, no matter what. Man, what a piece of work you are.


I don't know if you recall this but at the time it deeply offended me as a veteran.

It was a despicable avatar and an extremely unfunny joke that showed huge disrespect to the people who actually have fought for their country.

In my own opinion you should just chalk it up as the mistake it was, say so, and let it drop.

[the4thpip]

He has a lead, but it certainly isn't a huge one, and despite my jokes about McCain in the cheese aisle, it is still very much an open race.

He does have a VERY comfortable lead in electoral college projections, which counts a lot more than national polls.

[rick]

He does have a VERY comfortable lead in electoral college projections, which counts a lot more than national polls.


That's nice to hear.

[the4thpip]

That's nice to hear.

Keep in mind that Vice Presidential choices might affect this quite a bit:

Without "leaners" :
Barack Obama 238

John McCain 163


With "leaners" states:

Barack Obama 322 John McCain 216

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/maps/obama_vs_mccain/?map=10

[Adam C]

It was a despicable avatar and an extremely unfunny joke that showed huge disrespect to the people who actually have fought for their country.

I dunno, I thought it was funny.

But after hearing Ian Gould kept referring to it, I couldn't help but see it as a pathetic symbol of what a bunch of gutless wonders the chicken-hawks were.

[the4thpip]

McCain's spokesman Tucker Bounds called Obama's Berlin audience "throngs of fawning Germans" and politicians here are not too happy about that.

[FalconX2000]

McCain is gonna be like Gore... losing his home state.

I certainly hope that potential similarity doesn't extend too far. Having McCain win the popular vote but lose a disputed and controversial final state with a supreme court ruling isn't the ideal outcome to me.:tongue:

[Sabrinaset]

Hi Bree. :smile:

Completly irrelevent.


Hello!

Well, it was a bit light, but I didn't even know he *had* a half-brother until I saw that story, so I figured, what the heck. And besides, the thread was turning into this ...

http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o131/questoutpost/an71-1.gif

Anyways!

Obama says he's not basing his VP pick on geography (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0708/12083.html)... I'm not QUITE sure I completely believe that as I'm sure it has to factor in somewhere, but then again, he could pick Carrot Top for the spot at this point and still win easily.

Blackwater Got the Gig Securing Obama in Afghanistan (http://www.usnews.com/blogs/washington-whispers/2008/7/25/blackwater-got-the-gig-securing-obama-in-afghanistan.html)

Gallup Daily: Obama 49%, McCain 40% (http://www.gallup.com/poll/109102/Gallup-Daily-Obama-49-McCain-40.aspx) ... looks like Barack got a post-trip bounce ... can he build on it?

[Buzz Dixon]

http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080727/NEWS07/807270617/1009/NEWS07

Obama raised more money in Arizona than McCain did.McCain is officially toast.

[Charles RB]

McCain's spokesman Tucker Bounds called Obama's Berlin audience "throngs of fawning Germans" and politicians here are not too happy about that.

See what I mean about McCain's marketing guys sucking?

[KevinTBrown]

McCain is officially toast.

Oh yeah....

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/candidates_affirmative_action

While I think so aspects of affirmative action need to be eased up a bit, I definitely do not think it should be banned.

McCain obviously doesn't want to win his own state... or the Presidential election.

[Nick Soapdish]

McCain is officially toast.

See what I mean about McCain's marketing guys sucking?

Honestly, this sort of stuff worries me.

As poorly as McCain is running his campaign and as uninspiring as his base seems to find him, it's still a race. Maybe it's just shades of 2000 and 2004 where I couldn't really figure out how people would vote for a candidate with such a short and undistinguished public record (6 years as a governor and a number of failed businesses before that) and that constantly bumbles on the campaign trail and then re-elect him after he's bungled his first term. Sure in both cases, the Dems managed to select less than inspiring candidates of their own. But still ...

Just because McCain's campaign seems to be flailing, doesn't mean that I'm inclined to count him out.

[Sabrinaset]

Honestly, this sort of stuff worries me.

As poorly as McCain is running his campaign and as uninspiring as his base seems to find him, it's still a race. Maybe it's just shades of 2000 and 2004 where I couldn't really figure out how people would vote for a candidate with such a short and undistinguished public record (6 years as a governor and a number of failed businesses before that) and that constantly bumbles on the campaign trail and then re-elect him after he's bungled his first term. Sure in both cases, the Dems managed to select less than inspiring candidates of their own. But still ...

I'm so tempted right now to start a Rumbles thread ... McCains Campaign vs. Mondales...or maybe Carter's (against Reagan). Although I personally see McCain as the Second Coming of Bob Dole right now.

Honestly, it's almost like John wants to lose big. Maybe he's trying to beat the point spread? He could be betting huge on this one.

[Samurai]

Honestly, this sort of stuff worries me.

As poorly as McCain is running his campaign and as uninspiring as his base seems to find him, it's still a race. Maybe it's just shades of 2000 and 2004 where I couldn't really figure out how people would vote for a candidate with such a short and undistinguished public record (6 years as a governor and a number of failed businesses before that) and that constantly bumbles on the campaign trail and then re-elect him after he's bungled his first term. Sure in both cases, the Dems managed to select less than inspiring candidates of their own. But still ...

Just because McCain's campaign seems to be flailing, doesn't mean that I'm inclined to count him out.

Hmmm, very little experience, undistinguished record, bumbler on the campaign trail... so why ARE you supporting Obama? You now have a chance to vote for someone with a very long and distinguished career instead!

If you can answer that question, maybe you'll figure out why people voted for Bush before...

[LtMarvel]

I like this site: http://www.electoral-vote.com/

Obama 292 McCain 195 Ties 51

If you drop the "barely" (which are statistical ties), we find: Obama 246, McCain 174 (270 needed to win).

McCain still has a 10 point lead in Arizona.

The exact ties are Florida, Virginia, and my state Missouri. Words out that Obama will be in Missouri Wednesday. I might make a road trip out of it as one of his stops is about an hour away.

[rick]

.......bumbler on the campaign trail.....

Not so far, but I guess you guys can always hope.

[FalconX2000]

Hmmm, very little experience, undistinguished record, bumbler on the campaign trail... so why ARE you supporting Obama? You now have a chance to vote for someone with a very long and distinguished career instead!

If you can answer that question, maybe you'll figure out why people voted for Bush before...

Not so far, but I guess you guys can always hope.

On top of that, Obama has a fine record and has been in Senatorial politics for 12 years. He just hasn't been in the (Federal) Senate that long.

[FalconX2000]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/27/mccain-spokesman-obama-ha_n_115223.html

In fact, [Obama's] never met with President Uribe in Colombia, as John McCain has. He has still yet to take a trip to Mexico City to have those meetings there and his relationship with Canada, I think, took a turbulent roll through the primaries. So I think actually if you're to look at the experience of both candidates, that there are very telling differences.

Oh for the love of...:rolleyes:

[Joe Rice]

Samurai, I'm still waiting to see where I lied about you.

[the4thpip]

Three of the last four polls now have Obama ahead in Florida. Including Rasmussen, where McCain had a 15 point lead 3 months ago.

I hope that will make McCain pick Jeb Bush as his running mate and then end up with a single digit amount of electoral votes.

[KevinTBrown]

Oh, look, McCain has a new ad coming out where he accuses Obama of being a flip-flopper!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20080728/pl_politico/12092

:rolleyes:

[FalconX2000]

Oh, look, McCain has a new ad coming out where he accuses Obama of being a flip-flopper!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20080728/pl_politico/12092

:rolleyes:

Well, if you're flipping and flopping as fast and hard as McCain is, it sure must seem like the other guy is moving around your vision really fast.

[rick]

Obama has a fine record and has been in Senatorial politics for 12 years. He just hasn't been in the (Federal) Senate that long.

I'm just wondering why you would think I was saying otherwise?

[Charles RB]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20080728/pl_politico/12092


On Saturday, though, McCain released a new television advertisement in which the announcer says that on his trip, Obama “made time to go to the gym, but cancelled a visit with wounded troops. Seems the Pentagon wouldn't allow him to bring cameras.”

"John McCain is always there for our troops," adds the announcer,

Well, I can sure see how using wounded troops as a tool to attack a rival political candidate is being there for them.

EDIT: And I just noticed this:

Kathie Steigerwald, a Dearborn, Michigan businesswoman who said she voted for Hillary Clinton but now plans to support McCain, offered an especially succinct recital of a narrative on which other interviewees offered numerous variations:

"I feel John McCain is a true American and I want to support a true American," she said.

But isn't Obama a "true American?" she was asked.

"I don't know," she said after a measured pause. "I question it."

Why?

"I don't know—maybe because of his name?"

Y'know, I used to think people in business had to NOT be thickos, in order to work there. Silly me.

PS Your name's from Germany, so under your own logic you're not a true American.

[the4thpip]

Such a silly Kraut, that woman.

[Charles RB]

It'd be extra-funny if she was second-generation.

[Royal]

most people from Dearborn are.

[FalconX2000]

I'm just wondering why you would think I was saying otherwise?

After I posted, I wanted to make 2 immediate edits to the post. The second edit was to put something along the lines of "adding to what rick said" but I must have forgot after making the original edit. I've edited again, so it should be more clear now.

[FalconX2000]

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/07/25/politics/politicalplayers/main4296173.shtml

I hope all of Obama's supporters are able to demonstrate even half the knowledge of him that Debbie Wasserman Schultz does.

[Buzz Dixon]

Hmmm, very little experience, undistinguished record, bumbler on the campaign trail... so why ARE you supporting Obama? You now have a chance to vote for someone with a very long and distinguished career instead!

If you can answer that question, maybe you'll figure out why people voted for Bush before...They voted for Bush in 2000 because Clinton had left a bad taste in everyone's mouth. Even people who felt he shouldn't have been impeached for lying under oath and suborning perjury in his particular case still felt he brought that misery upon himself and, had he been more honorable -- like, oh, say Richard Nixon -- could have spared the country a lot of grief by resigning.

If he had, Gore would have been President in 1998, probably elected on his own in 2000, and probably re-elected in 2004.

Instead, a lot of people felt disgusted with Democrats as a whole and the Democratic administration in particular. That provided enough space of Bush to win in 2000. The fact that Gore comes across as an absolute lox when campaigning didn't help.

In 2004 the Democrats ran Kerry and tried to have it both ways. Kerry had maligned his fellow Vietnam vets back in the 1970s and had never publicly atoned for it. If the Dems wanted to run him, they should have run him as the anti-military, anti-war candidate and gone full out; instead they tried to make him "veteran friendly" and encountered a lot of opposition from vets who remembered what he had said 25 years earlier.

Plus, CBS got caught forging documents in an effort to put the kibosh to Bush, and that just blew back in the Democrats' faces even if they had nothing directly to do with it.

(It's always hard to dislodge a President in the middle of a war, BTW; I can't think of any instance where a president running for re-election during a war was voted out of office. LBJ chose not to run, which ain't the same thing as getting voted out.)

[Charles RB]

CBSNews.com: But it is true that the candidate you supported at the time disagreed with the notion of doing talks without preconditions with these leaders. She did call that policy naïve and irresponsible. Do you think that the policy has been clarified since then? Or have you seen it in a different way?

Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz: Well, I think if you sat down with Hillary Clinton and asked her whether she thought she was closer to Barack Obama or to John McCain on this question about the direction that we should take our foreign policy, and the pursuit of diplomatic communication, that she would agree that she is much closer to Barack Obama's approach than she is to John McCain's.

Did she just dodge the question? I rather think she did...

Someone call Paxman! (http://youtube.com/watch?v=1KHMO14KuJk)

[Buzz Dixon]

I don't know why people don't think Barack isn't American when he's got a perfectly good Irish name like O'Bama. :tongue:

Seriously, if Obama isn't "American" 'cuz it's from Kenya, then McCain isn't either since it's from Scotland by way of Ireland.

http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/mccain.jpg

No foolin', he's the whitest guy ever to run for the office.

[FalconX2000]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/25882303#25882303

It seems like every piece on the Middle-East chessboard is falling Obama's way. Iran is starting to respond positively to talks with the U.S.

[Samurai]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/25882303#25882303

It seems like every piece on the Middle-East chessboard is falling Obama's way. Iran is starting to respond positively to talks with the U.S.

Because Ahmadinajad wants Obama elected... he knows he can twist the naive, trusting Obama around his little finger.

[Charles RB]

Not that we're expecting you to prove he's naive and trusting, dear me no, that'd take effort.

[Typo Lad]

Because Ahmadinajad wants Obama elected... he knows he can twist the naive, trusting Obama around his little finger.
Didn't know you had a Direct Line to Iran.

Intersting.

Calls DHS

[Samurai]

Not that we're expecting you to prove he's naive and trusting, dear me no, that'd take effort.

Obama proves it in nearly every talk he gives. Just listen to him. He's full of ridiculous ideas and silly proposals that are at odds with reality.

Mark my words, if Obama is elected, Iran will have nuclear weapons before he leaves office. That's my prediction.

[Buzz Dixon]

Because Ahmadinajad wants Obama elected... he knows he can twist the naive, trusting Obama around his little finger.Dude, he took down the Clintons...

[Buzz Dixon]

Mark my words, if Obama is elected, Iran will have nuclear weapons before he leaves office. That's my prediction....as opposed to iran having them before Bush leaves office...?

[KevinTBrown]

By the way, as of today, we have 99 days until the election.

[Samurai]

Dude, he took down the Clintons...

So?

She had massively high negative numbers, even among many Democrats, they were eager for someone else (someone non-Clinton).

He's a minority candidate that captured 90%+ of the black vote, which made up for his losing the white vote in many places.

He never pinned down his proposals and ideas (and kept changing them when he did), keeping it to an abstract and simplistic message of "CHANGE! HOPE!" that was enough to inspire younger voters and many others.

He appealed to the farther-left of the party much more than Hillary by always staunchly opposing victory in Iraq and saying he'd bring the troops home as soon as he got into office.

He has a good campaign team that packaged and marketed him well.

He's more photogenic than Hillary, and can be a decent speaker when prepared ahead of time.



There are a lot of reasons why Obama won the primary from Hillary despite being naive and inexperienced.

[Samurai]

...as opposed to iran having them before Bush leaves office...?

You think Iran will have them in the next few months? It's possible, though a bit ahead of the supposed timetable the watchdog agencies are claiming. But they've been wrong before.

[Dreadstar]

You think Iran will have them in the next few months? It's possible, though a bit ahead of the supposed timetable the watchdog agencies are claiming. But they've been wrong before.

I think the point he's making is that nukes are an inevitability at this point, Bush or Obama or McCain, and considering that the groundwork towards that end product took place during this administration's watch, you can't very well lay it at the feet of the next administration. Whether that next administration is Obama or McCain, Iran *will* be nuclear before the 2012 election.

[FalconX2000]

Not that we're expecting you to prove he's naive and trusting, dear me no, that'd take effort.

Hey, I'm sure it takes a huge amount of work to twist your mind's inner workings to the level Samurai does. :smile:

Obama proves it in nearly every talk he gives. Just listen to him. He's full of ridiculous ideas and silly proposals that are at odds with reality.

Mark my words, if Obama is elected, Iran will have nuclear weapons before he leaves office. That's my prediction.

If they somehow manage to be allowed nuclear reactors while making large concessions elsewhere that makes even Isreal happy through the negotiations, I bet you'll say "I told you so".:rolleyes:

[Samurai]

I think the point he's making is that nukes are an inevitability at this point, Bush or Obama or McCain, and considering that the groundwork towards that end product took place during this administration's watch, you can't very well lay it at the feet of the next administration. Whether that next administration is Obama or McCain, Iran *will* be nuclear before the 2012 election.

I don't believe it's necessarily a done deal. Especially if Israel has something to say about it, but if they are forced to handle it themselves it could lead to another war against Israel by Iran and other Arab states, as opposed to other countries putting enough pressure on Iran to make sure they don't develop nuclear weapons. Also, even if Israel does try to bomb Iran to stop the program, I think Iran is cagey enough to hide its work in enough places and under enough cover that they may not be stopped by such an attack, only slowed down a bit. We need to lead the world to put pressure on Iran to prevent them from getting the bomb, and verifying that fully. A weak and trusting President who doesn't feel Iran is any threat will find out just what can spiral out of that...

[Dreadstar]

Not that we're expecting you to prove he's naive and trusting, dear me no, that'd take effort.

Sorry to interrupt, but the following bit of innuendo:

... he knows he can twist the naive, trusting Obama around his little finger.

...is *very* much the stock-in-trade of a *lot* of people in the political CBR threads, right and left both. It's thrown out there as a sort of (god I hate this word) "meme" intended to sink into the reader's subconscious and surface as an unreinforced repetition later when a similar subject comes up. Objections to it are also easily deflected by combinations of the subjective and semantics, allowing for plausibly saying that what you said wasn't quite what he meant, or not quite what you read, or a it's a bit of hyperbole. And yet the poster *still* gets the message into the readers head. I don't even think Sam's the biggest abuser of this form of propaganda (though certainly not far behind), but you'll probably never object to the #1 abuser because he plays for your team.

All-in-all, it's best to just point it out as being contrived of less than hard facts, and then get on with the hard facts at hand.

[Dreadstar]

Sam, I believe Iran will be nuclear by 2012, during the next administration, whether it be McCain or Obama.


EDIT! Sorry, I should have added the OBVIOUS QUALIFIER so as not to be accused of putting forth the same kind of "meme" I was describing prior.

[Typo Lad]

I don't believe it's necessarily a done deal. Especially if Israel has something to say about it, but if they are forced to handle it themselves it could lead to another war against Israel by Iran and other Arab states, as opposed to other countries putting enough pressure on Iran to make sure they don't develop nuclear weapons. Also, even if Israel does try to bomb Iran to stop the program, I think Iran is cagey enough to hide its work in enough places and under enough cover that they may not be stopped by such an attack, only slowed down a bit. We need to lead the world to put pressure on Iran to prevent them from getting the bomb, and verifying that fully. A weak and trusting President who doesn't feel Iran is any threat will find out just what can spiral out of that...
Israel's not bombing Iran. Neo-con fantasy with no actual basis in reality.

[Typo Lad]

[QUOTE=Samurai;7268372 A weak and trusting President who doesn't feel Iran is any threat will find out just what can spiral out of that...[/QUOTE]

Have you read his speeches? Where does he come off as saying it's not a threat? Saying that he'd talk to them? C'mon Sam, our current administration is doing just that.

You're being silly.

[the4thpip]

Obama proves it in nearly every talk he gives. Just listen to him. He's full of ridiculous ideas and silly proposals that are at odds with reality.

Mark my words, if Obama is elected, Iran will have nuclear weapons before he leaves office. That's my prediction.

It's weird how you make Obama sound like a Neocon...

[Samurai]

Have you read his speeches? Where does he come off as saying it's not a threat? Saying that he'd talk to them? C'mon Sam, our current administration is doing just that.

You're being silly.

Obama says "Iran is not a serious threat to us" and "they wouldn't stand a chance":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ew5qP2oPdtQ

[KevinTBrown]

So much for McCain's promise of not running a smear campaign: http://www.thenation.com/blogs/campaignmatters/339869

[the4thpip]

It's Veep speculation time!

This week comes speculation from Noam Scheiber at the New Republic that not only may McCain move first, but there are some signals indicating his choice will be Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty.

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Pawlenty

http://images.publicradio.org/content/2008/03/19/20080319_pawlenty_33.jpg

[LtMarvel]

Obama says "Iran is not a serious threat to us" and "they wouldn't stand a chance":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ew5qP2oPdtQ
So you are saying that Iran is about to invade the United States?

[Michael P]

He's right on both counts.

[Charles RB]

Obama proves it in nearly every talk he gives. Just listen to him. He's full of ridiculous ideas and silly proposals that are at odds with reality.

Like in the speech in Germany where he mentioned the silly proposal of America and Europe working together on mutually beneficial stuff, including security issues.

Y'know, like has been done before.

I don't believe it's necessarily a done deal. Especially if Israel has something to say about it, but if they are forced to handle it themselves it could lead to another war against Israel by Iran and other Arab states

Wait, wouldn't it be a war against Iran and by Israel if Israel's "forced to handle it themselves"? It's Israel, they like hitting hard and fast, I don't see them letting Iran get the first punch in if they genuinely think Iran will attack and they genuinely are on their own.

And while I think of it, I remember Typo pointing out a whole bunch of Middle Eastern states are musing about doing anti-nuke talks. Shockingly, that includes Israel and Arab states. This sort of implies the Arab states might not be on Iran's side - or, at least, they're thinking "if Iran nukes Israel the fallout will come here" (which it would).


Obama says "Iran is not a serious threat to us" and "they wouldn't stand a chance"

And he's right. They can't hit the US mainland, they can only undermine US interests to a limited degree, and in a fight you would be able to hold off & decimate Iran (occupying it would be near-impossible currently though, and damn hard even without Iraq/Afghan commitments) and that's assuming the US would be fighting Iran on its own. The US would have allies in that sort of conflict.

I can't offhand think of any country who'd be willing to help Iran in a war against the US.

Even if it did gain nuclear weapons, it would be constantly outgunned by America.

And also the UK and France, who you might've noticed take a dim view of Iran.

you'll probably never object to the #1 abuser because he plays for your team.

I can't really answer that as I don't know who you mean.

Though if you mean Paul, I've gotten into slanging matches with him over terminology and ideology repeatedly - it's almost in cycles.

[Corrina]

...as opposed to iran having them before Bush leaves office...?

I'm pretty sure Iran has nuclear weapons or is close to having them right now.

But, hey, if we start blaming Obama now, before he's in office, it might stick after he gets in. :)

[Buzz Dixon]

By the way, as of today, we have 99 days until the election....and two more banks have been taken over by the Feds...

[Buzz Dixon]

Whether that next administration is Obama or McCain, Iran *will* be nuclear before the 2012 election.If they don't watch out, I think Israel can pretty much guarantee their going nuclear... :wink: :biggrin: :tongue:

[Buzz Dixon]

Obama says "Iran is not a serious threat to us" and "they wouldn't stand a chance":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ew5qP2oPdtQTwo true statements. They aren't a serious threat because (a) they have no reliable long range delivery system and (b) they wouldn't stand a chance. It's Mutual Assured Destruction all over again, only this time it's Unilateral They Will Pound Us So Silly It Ain't Even Funny.

[rick]

Obama says "Iran is not a serious threat to us" and "they wouldn't stand a chance":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ew5qP2oPdtQ


Just jumped onto the page and don't really know what context you guys are looking for here, but what's the problem with the statements?

Iran is not a serious military threat to the US and if somehow we did have a war with them they wouldn't stand a chance.

What's the point?

[Buzz Dixon]

And while I think of it, I remember Typo pointing out a whole bunch of Middle Eastern states are musing about doing anti-nuke talks. Shockingly, that includes Israel and Arab states. This sort of implies the Arab states might not be on Iran's side - or, at least, they're thinking "if Iran nukes Israel the fallout will come here" (which it would).The Iranians are PERSIANS, not Arabs. They are just barely co-religionists with the Arab world (Shi'ite Muslim vs. Sunni Muslim, a relationship roughly analogous to Protestant vs. Catholic. In Northern Ireland.). The Arab world certainly doesn't want the Iranians blustering about in the Middle East with nukes and since Pakistan -- no great lovers of the Persians, either -- have their own nukes (not to mention the Indians and the Chinese, all of whom have reasons to be nervous re Tehran, and who also pack thermonuclear heat), I can see plenty of reasons why the Saudis and the Gulf states would be highly desirous on a non-nuclear treaty.

[KevinTBrown]

Obama says "Iran is not a serious threat to us" and "they wouldn't stand a chance":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ew5qP2oPdtQ

They're about as serious of a threat as a marshmellow is to a bonfire.....

As Buzz pointed out already, they have no reliable long range delivery system. If they did try to launch, odds are it would be a massive fail and they'd probably end up causing their own destruction.

So, yeah, Obama is dead on when he says they wouldn't stand a chance. That's not false bravado, that's the most accurate statement any politician can make.

[section 8]

Every Military threat is Serious.

[rick]

Every Military threat is Serious.


Some are more serious then others though.

[the4thpip]

Every Military threat is Serious.

http://www.bigfoto.com/europe/italy/rome/schweizer-garde.jpg

O RLY?

[KevinTBrown]

Pip, the armed forces could easily be incapacitated by those guys!!!!


Mainly because the armed forces would be laughing their asses off and couldn't defend themselves.

[Corrina]

The threat from Iran would be that they would give nuclear weapons to the Hamas or some other terrorist organization to use and they hide their tracks, or so I'd guess.

But Governments are funny about giving people that they don't completely control nuclear weapons for fear of that biting them in the ass later on. It's not always the gift that keeps on giving.

[Adam C]

The threat from Iran would be that they would give nuclear weapons to the Hamas or some other terrorist organization to use and they hide their tracks, or so I'd guess.

But Governments are funny about giving people that they don't completely control nuclear weapons for fear of that biting them in the ass later on. It's not always the gift that keeps on giving.

Exactly. These nightmare scenarios about Iran (which earlier was Iraq in the lead-up to this disasterous war) fail to take into account the simple reality that the governments in question aren't going to give such weapons to rogue political groups to strike against their enemies. Which was never anything more than a phantom fear existing in the minds of neoconservative policy makers who couldn't seem to grasp that foreign policy decisions made by enemy states are actually more complex than they make them out to be.

And before the usual suspects start on about Ahmadinejad's bombastic rhetoric might want to take note that the President of Iran doesn't have any real power, let alone over the nuclear program, and that Iran has already moved from a policy of trying to forment revolution in the Middle East (as they did in the 1980s) to trading with the rest of the Middle East, and developing trade and diplomatic ties with the rest of the world as they did in the 1980s. And crucially this came after Ayatollah Khomeini's death and was pursued by his successor Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the current real leader of Iran. So it's not as though they make their decisions divorced entirely from the concerns of real-world geopolitics with a suicidal mania for serving the cause the way neocons have claimed (with much evidence I might add).

[Nyarlathotep]

Because Ahmadinajad wants Obama elected... he knows he can twist the naive, trusting Obama around his little finger.

Really? I'd think he'd want McCain elected, since McCain is the candidate ignorant enough to think Ahmadinajad is the leader of Iran.

Exactly. These nightmare scenarios about Iran (which earlier was Iraq in the lead-up to this disasterous war) fail to take into account the simple reality that the governments in question aren't going to give such weapons to rogue political groups to strike against their enemies. Which was never anything more than a phantom fear existing in the minds of neoconservative policy makers who couldn't seem to grasp that foreign policy decisions made by enemy states are actually more complex than they make them out to be.

Well when it came to Iraq it wasn't a case of failing to take something into account. It was a case of the Bush administration actively covering up intelligence reports that said Iraq was not a threat and would not give weapons to terrorists unless it was in a last ditch effort of revenge after being attacked by the US.

[the4thpip]

Barack Obama has taken the largest lead yet against rival John McCain in Gallup’s daily tracking poll released Sunday with a 49%-40% edge. The nine percentage point margin comes on the heels of Obama’s nine-day trip abroad.

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/07/28/obama-takes-widest-lead-yet-in-gallup-poll/

[Adam C]

Well when it came to Iraq it wasn't a case of failing to take something into account. It was a case of the Bush administration actively covering up intelligence reports that said Iraq was not a threat and would not give weapons to terrorists unless it was in a last ditch effort of revenge after being attacked by the US.

True, though I'm also referring to the pundits who supported the war and often flagged up these scenarios as though they were somehow plausible. (And to underscore the point, one of the editors of the right-wing National Post in Canada, Jonathan Kay, once referred to Saddam as a Middle Eastern Saddam ready to roll over the rest of the region like it was Eastern Europe.) And these people continue to posit these nightmare scenarios in regards to Iran.

[Grazzt]

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/07/28/obama-takes-widest-lead-yet-in-gallup-poll/

I don't know. Is it really a good sign when you leaving the country causes your popularity to increase? :tongue:

[section 8]

The threat from Iran would be that they would give nuclear weapons to the Hamas or some other terrorist organization to use and they hide their tracks, or so I'd guess.
.

Or Iran could form an alliance W/ N Korea,
N Korea is already allied with China,
Iran could drag us into WWIII.

and Pip, i hate to shatter your little joke but there was a time when Al Queda was not considered a serious military threat either.

[Nyarlathotep]

True, though I'm also referring to the pundits who supported the war and often flagged up these scenarios as though they were somehow plausible. (And to underscore the point, one of the editors of the right-wing National Post in Canada, Jonathan Kay, once referred to Saddam as a Middle Eastern Saddam ready to roll over the rest of the region like it was Eastern Europe.) And these people continue to posit these nightmare scenarios in regards to Iran.

I just find it important to always point out that the Bush administration was not just inept and wrong, but actively dishonest and deliberately hid any truth that disagreed with their idealogy. Unfortunately it seems that people are still falling for the same tricks and fictional nightmare scenarios.

We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud after all.

[Royal]

and Pip, i hate to shatter your little joke but there was a time when Al Queda was not considered a serious military threat either.

still isn't.

[Grazzt]

Or Iran could form an alliance W/ N Korea,
N Korea is already allied with China,
Iran could drag us into WWIII.

and Pip, i hate to shatter your little joke but there was a time when Al Queda was not considered a serious military threat either.

Al Qaeda isn't a serious military threat though. They're more of a political or criminal threat.

[section 8]

Al Qaeda isn't a serious military threat though. They're more of a political or criminal threat.

so they may run for office or snatch a purse?

[Michael P]

*Why* would Iran ally themselves with North Korea? It's not like either side has anything the other wants.

[Grazzt]

so they may run for office or snatch a purse?

Swap "snatch a purse" for terrorist activities, and "run for office" with "bully and bribe Iraqi officials", and yes.

Politics and crime aren't limited to the way that Americans do them.

[Charles RB]

The threat from Iran would be that they would give nuclear weapons to the Hamas or some other terrorist organization to use and they hide their tracks, or so I'd guess.

But Governments are funny about giving people that they don't completely control nuclear weapons for fear of that biting them in the ass later on. It's not always the gift that keeps on giving.

Not to mention Hamas is highly unlikely to have a delivery system. I suppose they could strap it to a suicide bomber's head and he can butt the target...

[Adam C]

Or Iran could form an alliance W/ N Korea,
N Korea is already allied with China,
Iran could drag us into WWIII.

Yeah and Hitler's brain could telepathically hook up with the Trilateral Commission in order to solidify Darkseid's hold on the world. All while operating from Rick's fireplace mantle no less.

Seriously, what in your scenario is based on reality? As Michael said, neither really has anything the other wants and if Iran's going to ally with some east-Asian power it would be China, which actually has geopolitical heft as opposed to a shit-poor neo-Stalinist state which only stirs up trouble but has no real pull in region. And that's without taking into account that North Korea has been moving even closer to a negotiated settlement with the U.S. and South Korea over the issue. They even allowed U.S., South Korean, and Chinese officials to visit the Yongbyon reactor to determine ways to permanently shut it down and handed over 60 pages of documents detailing its nuclear reactor and weapon capabilities.

...and Pip, i hate to shatter your little joke but there was a time when Al Queda was not considered a serious military threat either.

And they're not, nor were they ever that much of a military threat. They've managed one serious, devastating attack on the U.S. that was partly pulled off because U.S. law enforcement and intelligence agencies weren't keeping their eyes on the ball. Al-Qaeda, the original version of such, is sequestered away in the Pashtun mountains. The Al-Qaeda operating in Iraq is an unrelated organisation that struck some sort of alliance with Bin Laden's organisation and took up their name for publicity's sake. Even then they are one of many competing organisations causing grief for the U.S. and the Iraqi government, and they only got anywhere because of the U.S.' massive ineptitude in handling the post-war occupation of Iraq.

[section 8]

Is a N Korea Iran Alliance so far fetched?

When N Korea began developing nuclear weaponry, there were two tests,

and Iranian Scientists just happened to be there for the second test.\

EDIT: I know how much you love links so,
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1548883/Iran-%27is-seeking-N-Korea%27s-nuclear-expertise%27.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1540429/N-Korea-helping-Iran-with-nuclear-testing.html

[Royal]

Is a N Korea Iran Alliance so far fetched?



uummmmm

Yes.

[Adam C]

Is a N Korea Iran Alliance so far fetched?

When N Korea began developing nuclear weaponry, there were two tests,

and Iranian Scientists just happened to be there for the second test.

So the because Iranian Scientists were there for the second test, there's a good likelihood that the two countries will unite in a disasterous alliance that will lead to WWIII, even though the two have not really collaborate on developing their nuclear programs, North Korea has little to offer Iran in such an alliance, and in any case is cooperating more and more with the U.S. on allowing its nuclear sites to be inspected?

Really, what basis is there for such an alliance?

[Samurai]

Like Obama, you're all missing the bigger picture. It isn't about "How can Iran strike directly against the American mainland with only its own resources." It is "How can Iran screw up the world in such a way that it's majorly detrimental to the US, our allies, and our interests?"

It doesn't need to launch a volley of nukes at the US, half a world away. Just blow up Israel and kill a few million people there, and you'll have WW3. Or more likely, if Israel thinks Iran has or will soon have the capability to back up its genocidal rhetoric, it may well attack Iran's nuclear sites for self-preservation, and WW3 could follow from that.

The idea that Iran would arm terrorists to act as their proxies is not at all far-fetched, they've been doing it for decades. And they would definitely want maximum deniability when a mushroom cloud blooms over Tel Aviv. They know full well that if there is no clear link back to them, they could blame a lost Russian nuke, a Pakistani nuke, or a N Korean nuke falling into the hands of Hezbullah or Hamas, and that would likely be enough "reasonable doubt" to prevent a nuclear retaliation that would kill millions of Iranian civilians and ruin "the world's sympathy for Israel's unforeseeable tragedy."

[section 8]

So the because Iranian Scientists were there for the second test, there's a good likelihood that the two countries will unite in a disasterous alliance that will lead to WWIII, even though the two have not really collaborate on developing their nuclear programs, North Korea has little to offer Iran in such an alliance, and in any case is cooperating more and more with the U.S. on allowing its nuclear sites to be inspected?

Really, what basis is there for such an alliance?

oh i don't know, maybe the links posted?

the fact that we aren't cozy with either one ,the old proverb '"the enemy of my enemy is my friend"

i'm not recommending an invasion, but we defiantly keep an eye on them Obama saying that Iran isn't a serious threat isn't necessarily accurate.

[Nyarlathotep]

Like Obama, you're all missing the bigger picture. It isn't about "How can Iran strike directly against the American mainland with only its own resources." It is "How can Iran screw up the world in such a way that it's majorly detrimental to the US, our allies, and our interests?"

Israel isn't worth WW III, ally or not. Some of our allies in Europe were smart enough not to get involved when we went off half-cocked into Iraq. The US government should do the same thing if Israel tries to pull a pre-emptive strike on Iran based on similarly non-existent evidence.

I mean, how many people don't know 1.) Ahmedinajad is not the leader of Iran and 2) never said he had intentions to "wipe Israel off the map." He didn't say that he basically said he hoped the current regime in Israel crumbles like other evil regimes. Not a nice thing to say, but certainly not any sort of direct threat (the mistranslation was by Iran's own news service, an unintentional gift to the neocons).

[Adam C]

oh i don't know, maybe the links posted?

Fair enough. I wasn't aware of that level of collaboration, though your claim that Iran could lead the US to WWIII is still far fetched. All your links mention only mention them collaborating insofar as the nuclear program is concerned, but I couldn't find any follow-up. And these stories occurred before agreed to shut down it's major nuclear facility (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/14/AR2007071400293.html), confirmation of the shut down (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/6900184.stm), U.S. officials touring the site (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/12/AR2007091200198.html), or U.S. diplomat Sung Kim returning to the U.S. with 18,000 documents turned over by Pongyang (http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/dprk/2008/dprk-080510-voa01.htm).

i'm not recommending an invasion, but we defiantly keep an eye on them Obama saying that Iran isn't a serious threat isn't necessarily accurate.

This presumes that Iran would be dumb enough to fulfill any of the nightmare scenarios that neocons keep irrationally suggesting.

[Buzz Dixon]

Like Obama, you're all missing the bigger picture. It isn't about "How can Iran strike directly against the American mainland with only its own resources." It is "How can Iran screw up the world in such a way that it's majorly detrimental to the US, our allies, and our interests?"

It doesn't need to launch a volley of nukes at the US, half a world away. Just blow up Israel and kill a few million people there, and you'll have WW3. Or more likely, if Israel thinks Iran has or will soon have the capability to back up its genocidal rhetoric, it may well attack Iran's nuclear sites for self-preservation, and WW3 could follow from that.

The idea that Iran would arm terrorists to act as their proxies is not at all far-fetched, they've been doing it for decades. And they would definitely want maximum deniability when a mushroom cloud blooms over Tel Aviv. They know full well that if there is no clear link back to them, they could blame a lost Russian nuke, a Pakistani nuke, or a N Korean nuke falling into the hands of Hezbullah or Hamas, and that would likely be enough "reasonable doubt" to prevent a nuclear retaliation that would kill millions of Iranian civilians and ruin "the world's sympathy for Israel's unforeseeable tragedy."No nuclear weapon will explode in Israel, ever. If one did, Mecca and Medina would be vaporized within the hour.

Everybody knows that.

Iran will not give nuclear weapons over to terrorists. Two can play that game. If terrorists set off a nuke in a Western city, "terrorists" will set off nukes in a dozen Iranian cities.

Iran, Libya, North Korea, and other rouge states ofter act in concert with one another to maximize their leverage in their particular corner of the world, to create the impression they are stronger and better allied than they are. The moment things get Real Serious, however, they abandon one another, as Libya did and as North Korea is doing now.

The Great Unspoken here is that if the U.S. has a president named Barack Obama, then a lot of Middle Eastern saber rattlers have a face saving way of backing down from their positions.

[section 8]

Fair enough. I wasn't aware of that level of collaboration, though your claim that Iran could lead the US to WWIII is still far fetched. All your links mention only mention them collaborating insofar as the nuclear program is concerned, but I couldn't find any follow-up. And these stories occurred before agreed to shut down it's major nuclear facility (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/14/AR2007071400293.html), confirmation of the shut down (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/6900184.stm), U.S. officials touring the site (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/12/AR2007091200198.html), or U.S. diplomat Sung Kim returning to the U.S. with 18,000 documents turned over by Pongyang (http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/dprk/2008/dprk-080510-voa01.htm)

Of coarse N Korea shut down the nuclear program after the second test. My guess is because they already made their sale.

Granted, that is only my opinion/theory given the timeline of events, Iran's desire to obtain nuclear status, and N Korea's economical situation.

This presumes that Iran would be dumb enough to fulfill any of the nightmare scenarios that neocons keep irrationally suggesting.

Neo Conservative crying "wolf"? you don't say.

true enough but that doesn't automatically make them wrong on this particular one.

But as far as WWIII is concerned it wouldn't take much.
all that would be needed is for things to snowball out of control

[FalconX2000]

http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/steve_chapman/2008/07/obama-and-media.html

A study by the Center for Media and Public Affairs at George Mason University, which conservatives have always regarded as sympathetic, says the three broadcast networks have been more critical of Obama than of John McCain in their recent news coverage. Most of what the networks air is neutral, according to the study. But when reporters offer opinions, 72 percent of those about Obama are negative--compared to 57 percent for McCain.

Much of what is perceived as media bias is simply bias toward what's newsworthy. Obama's trip abroad was worth the coverage it got because of his inexperience, particularly in world affairs. It gave him a chance to send back some great footage of cheering crowds--but it could also have produced embarrassing coverage had he made a major misstep. In which case, McCain's campaign people would have been thrilled to have three network anchors on hand to report it firsthand.

[KevinTBrown]

N. Korea and Iran working together?

I place better odds of the KKK and NAACP working together.

Time to get a better handle of world politics. Something Samurai hasn't grasped yet through his veil of hatred & bigotry, nor has 8 obviously.


I readily admit that I'm not always the most informed when it does come to world politics, but it doesn't take a genius to see who might work with whom. And as others, such as Buzz, have said, if a nuke goes off in a western city, you can guarantee there won't be much left of what's currently called the Middle East. The terrorists might be crazy, but they're not THAT crazy.

Besides, pure and simple logic suggests that if there were to be any alliances made, they would have been made by now.

[Typo Lad]

And while I think of it, I remember Typo pointing out a whole bunch of Middle Eastern states are musing about doing anti-nuke talks. Shockingly, that includes Israel and Arab states. This sort of implies the Arab states might not be on Iran's side - or, at least, they're thinking "if Iran nukes Israel the fallout will come here" (which it would).

Yeah, nukes aren't the best idea when you have five nations in the general fallout area of any possible strike.


As for the Obama quotes Samurai cites... seems to me he's saying 'yeah, know what? We cna kick thier asses. Bring it."

[Joe Rice]

By the way, Samurai, I am still waiting for a single lie I have told about you.

[Royal]

Sam ducks fights.

And logic.

[Typo Lad]

Like Obama, you're all missing the bigger picture. It isn't about "How can Iran strike directly against the American mainland with only its own resources." It is "How can Iran screw up the world in such a way that it's majorly detrimental to the US, our allies, and our interests?"

It doesn't need to launch a volley of nukes at the US, half a world away. Just blow up Israel and kill a few million people there, and you'll have WW3. Or more likely, if Israel thinks Iran has or will soon have the capability to back up its genocidal rhetoric, it may well attack Iran's nuclear sites for self-preservation, and WW3 could follow from that.

The idea that Iran would arm terrorists to act as their proxies is not at all far-fetched, they've been doing it for decades. And they would definitely want maximum deniability when a mushroom cloud blooms over Tel Aviv. They know full well that if there is no clear link back to them, they could blame a lost Russian nuke, a Pakistani nuke, or a N Korean nuke falling into the hands of Hezbullah or Hamas, and that would likely be enough "reasonable doubt" to prevent a nuclear retaliation that would kill millions of Iranian civilians and ruin "the world's sympathy for Israel's unforeseeable tragedy."

This is such nonsense it's not funny.

No leader with even a slight Muslim population of any kind is going to lob bombs on Israel. End of fucking story.

You'd have your own people rise up against you, plus you'd be facing every Christian nation, and for the cherry on the sundae, you'd have to deal with the surviving portions of Egypt and/or Lebanon depending on where you drop it.

There's no gain to actually using nukes. We're not talking MAD here, we're talking insanely poor strategy.

But don't let reality get in the way of your excuses.

[Adam C]

Of coarse N Korea shut down the nuclear program after the second test. My guess is because they already made their sale.

Granted, that is only my opinion/theory given the timeline of events, Iran's desire to obtain nuclear status, and N Korea's economical situation.

Well that's a bit off considering North Korea has capitulated a great deal in the talks with the U.S. already and far more to gain economically. More likely they were dealing with Iran while hedging their bets and then moved towards the U.S.' demands when they say they could gain more benefit from them.


But as far as WWIII is concerned it wouldn't take much.
all that would be needed is for things to snowball out of control

But it requires for the nuke to actually be detonated when the whole point (at least for states) of having one is to not to detonate it, but use it as a bargaining chip in talks and a security guarantee. Is it any surprise that the Iranian program really took off after Bush's Axis of Evil sabre rattling?

[Samurai]

I'm not sure if, in between hating people that are different from you and misrepresenting what people say, you understand what it's like to be a part of a large organization, even the head. And, no, when you pretended that the 101st or whatever fighting keyboards was like being in the Army, no, that doesn't count. But Barack Obama is not exactly in the position to go off places on his lonesome these days. He's got bigger fish to fry, like saving this country from Fascist Torturing Imperialism that you so love to defend.

Stop lying, stop misrepresenting, stop spewing bigoted garbage.You do it constantly. The most recent I just quoted above. I never "pretended I was like being in the army", anymore than your avatar means that you are pretending to be Loady McGee, Angry Youth. I never equated my avatar to serving in the military. You LIED about that, and you know it.

Here is the background on it:

http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/006857.php
http://www.imao.us/archives/005329.html

I doubt hardly a week has gone by that you haven't lied or misrepresented something I said by warping it in your twisted lens.

Since you must have missed it the 1st time, Joe, here again are just a couple of your bald-faced lies. I don't "hate people who are different from me"... in fact, I constantly go well out of my way to spend time and talk with "people who are different from me", including moving to a country where I didn't speak the language at all when I first got off the plane, and choosing, from the entire bay area, a community that was less than 20% white instead of numerous other choices where there were a lot more whites, or heck, just spending so much time on these boards debating "people who are not like me" instead of kicking back at Conservative Underground or LGF all day long. So, that's your first, very easily disproven lie.

The 2nd was when you claimed that I supposedly compared my avatar to being in the military, which you STILL haven't substantiated in the least bit (and you can't, because it's a flat out lie, so you can only bluster). Having an avatar in no way whatsoever means that a person is comparing themselves to the figure. Or are you really Mr Loady McGee? And besides, there was nothing at all wrong with that avatar, it was not and did not claim to be a real military badge, obviously wasn't a real badge, I never said it was a real badge or compared it to a real badge, and you LIED when you claimed that I did.

So, Joe, or Loady if you prefer, stop lying, stop misrepresenting, stop spewing bigoted garbage!

[Joe Rice]

Since you must have missed it the 1st time, Joe, here again are just a couple of your bald-faced lies. I don't "hate people who are different from me"... in fact, I constantly go well out of my way to spend time and talk with "people who are different from me", including moving to a country where I didn't speak the language at all when I first got off the plane, and choosing, from the entire bay area, a community that was less than 20% white instead of numerous other choices where there were a lot more whites, or heck, just spending so much time on these boards debating "people who are not like me" instead of kicking back at Conservative Underground or LGF all day long. So, that's your first, very easily disproven lie.

The 2nd was when you claimed that I supposedly compared my avatar to being in the military, which you STILL haven't substantiated in the least bit (and you can't, because it's a flat out lie, so you can only bluster). Having an avatar in no way whatsoever means that a person is comparing themselves to the figure. Or are you really Mr Loady McGee? And besides, there was nothing at all wrong with that avatar, it was not and did not claim to be a real military badge, obviously wasn't a real badge, I never said it was a real badge or compared it to a real badge, and you LIED when you claimed that I did.

So, Joe, or Loady if you prefer, stop lying, stop misrepresenting, stop spewing bigoted garbage!

Work on your reading comprehension. "Hating people different from you" doesn't mean you hate all people different from you. Some bigots are fine with certain groups. But your prejudice against Muslims has been well-documented. So, no, not a lie.

And, really, work on your reading comprehension. That doesn't say you compared your avatar to being in the military. I said that avatar was offensive not because you were going around saying "HEY LOOK I AM IN THE ARMY SEE?!?!?" but because the entire "joke" behind it was in poor taste. For God's sake, man, read the words you quoted. Like I said, it led me to believe you were in the Army, which was shocking to me because the servicemen I know love the constitution and tend to abhor torture. Yeah, I would have worded it better but I never said you claimed to be in the army. Your avatar was just an offensive imitation thereof that confused at least me for a while and definitely offended some vets.

[Samurai]

Sam ducks fights.

And logic.

I don't see much point in an internet fight. I'd rather discuss issues. Besides, with Joe "Loady" Rice, it goes like this:

Joe: "Show me a lie, I DARE you!"

Me: "Ok, here's a lie you told. **posts recent example**

Joe: That wasn't really a lie, even though you never said what I claimed you said! C'mon, show me a lie, I'm waiting!"

Me: "Ok, here's that same lie and another you made as well."

Joe: (not posted yet, but he's too predictable) "That's not a lie either! I'm still waiting for a lie, c'mon!"

And so it would go, on and on, me digging through past posts, pointing out all his lies, and him denying each and every one, no matter what. What is the point to that again? He's acting like a little kid looking for a schoolyard fight of "Is not!" "Is too!", and I don't feel like indulging him in his silliness. He's a proven liar, he'll never admit when he was wrong, and I don't feel like wasting my time on him. I simply have better things to do.

[Joe Rice]

The 2nd was when you claimed that I supposedly compared my avatar to being in the military, which you STILL haven't substantiated in the least bit (and you can't, because it's a flat out lie, so you can only bluster). Having an avatar in no way whatsoever means that a person is comparing themselves to the figure. Or are you really Mr Loady McGee? And besides, there was nothing at all wrong with that avatar, it was not and did not claim to be a real military badge, obviously wasn't a real badge, I never said it was a real badge or compared it to a real badge, and you LIED when you claimed that I did.


That's not what I claimed. But maybe it looked like I did. If so, I duly apologize for that. My claim was supposed to be that your offensive avatar confused me at first and offended me later, as to take on the style and method of a US Military Badge is something that shouldn't be taken lightly by a bunch of bloggers. Our Boys and Girls in uniform deserve more than that.

I am trying to say this calmly and rationally, as your positions on just about everything really piss me off due the the effects they'd have on just about anyone near and dear to me.

[Joe Rice]

I don't see much point in an internet fight. I'd rather discuss issues. Besides, with Joe "Loady" Rice, it goes like this:

Joe: "Show me a lie, I DARE you!"

Me: "Ok, here's a lie you told. **posts recent example**

Joe: That wasn't really a lie, even though you never said what I claimed you said! C'mon, show me a lie, I'm waiting!"

Me: "Ok, here's that same lie and another you made as well."

Joe: (not posted yet, but he's too predictable) "That's not a lie either! I'm still waiting for a lie, c'mon!"

And so it would go, on and on, me digging through past posts, pointing out all his lies, and him denying each and every one, no matter what. What is the point to that again? He's a little kid looking for a schoolyard fight of "Is not!" "Is too!", and I don't feel like indulging him in his silliness. He's a proven liar, he'll never admit when he was wrong, and I don't feel like wasting my time on him. I simply have better things to do.

This is not true. I am not trying to rationally discuss why you would think something is a lie when I do not. I said you hate people that are different from you. That's true. Do you hate all people different from you? No, not at all. In fact, I doubt you're racist against blacks, Asians, or Jews at all. (Or whites.) But you obviously hate Muslims . . .of course you don't hate every single one, but you're very willing to throw most of them in the same category as terrorists. Me saying, "while you're not busy hating people different from you" in no way was me saying "you hate everyone different from you." No one here believes that, and it would be a retarded thing to say.

The badge thing suffered from poor wording, which I have and still apologize for. I truly didn't mean to say that you were really pretending to be in the Army, merely that the badge seemed to say that you thought your "courageous fight" on the internet against Muslims and liberals was akin to actual Military service; that the badge was at best a joke in terrible taste and at worst totally delusional.

[Joe Rice]

He's a proven liar, he'll never admit when he was wrong, and I don't feel like wasting my time on him. I simply have better things to do.

And boy did my irony-meter go haywire on this one. And I had just gotten it fixed . . .

[Samurai]

Work on your reading comprehension. "Hating people different from you" doesn't mean you hate all people different from you. Some bigots are fine with certain groups. But your prejudice against Muslims has been well-documented. So, no, not a lie.

And, really, work on your reading comprehension. That doesn't say you compared your avatar to being in the military. I said that avatar was offensive not because you were going around saying "HEY LOOK I AM IN THE ARMY SEE?!?!?" but because the entire "joke" behind it was in poor taste. For God's sake, man, read the words you quoted. Like I said, it led me to believe you were in the Army, which was shocking to me because the servicemen I know love the constitution and tend to abhor torture. Yeah, I would have worded it better but I never said you claimed to be in the army. Your avatar was just an offensive imitation thereof that confused at least me for a while and definitely offended some vets.

You didn't specify "Muslims", you claimed that I "hate people different from me"... not "some people", "a few people", "certain groups"... but "people different from me". That was a lie, and you know it.

Second, I don't hate Muslims in general. You never see me attacking Maac for example, we get along just fine. I only hate radical Islamists who are willing to kill innocent people and who push a hateful, twisted version of their religion. Yes, them I hate. And I don't have any problem with saying that.

As for the avatar, I can't help it if a badge with a keyboard and a chickenhawk and the words "101st Fighting Keyboardists" fooled you into thinking I was in the military. That's your own wrong conclusion you jumped to. If you had asked "Are you in the military?", I would have told you "no." I can't help it if you made a wrong assumption and didn't ask about it.

Oh, I guess I need to mention now that I'm not really a saumurai warrior, despite the name and avatar (though I did dress up as one for a festival when I was in Japan). Also, I'm not really a cat, a woman, or any of the other avatars I've had.

[Joe Rice]

You didn't specify "Muslims", you claimed that I "hate people different from me"... not "some people", "a few people", "certain groups"... but "people different from me". That was a lie, and you know it.

No, Samurai. That's not how the English language works. "Hating people different from you" does not equate with "Hating all people different from you." I would never say the latter about you; it's obviously untrue. But you're bigoted against Muslims in general. You don't hate them all, like I said, but you've got a huge issue with them in general.

As for the avatar, I can't help it if a badge with a keyboard and a chickenhawk and the words "101st Fighting Keyboardists" fooled you into thinking I was in the military. That's your own wrong conclusion you jumped to. If you had asked "Are you in the military?", I would have told you "no." I can't help it if you made a wrong assumption and didn't ask about it.

Listen, it wasn't that I was mistaken that is offensive. Even jokingly comparing what you do (or what I do, for that matter) with what They do is offensive to me.

Oh, I guess I need to mention now that I'm not really a saumurai warrior, despite the name and avatar (though I did dress up as one for a festival when I was in Japan). Also, I'm not really a cat, a woman, or any of the other avatars I've had.


Well that certainly makes picturing this discussion a lot less interesting.

I, thankfully, am not a ginger or an inhabitant of one of Johnny Ryan's comics, just for the record.

(But I am Captain Marvel eating a hot dog. Sometimes.)

[Samurai]

That's not what I claimed. But maybe it looked like I did. If so, I duly apologize for that. My claim was supposed to be that your offensive avatar confused me at first and offended me later, as to take on the style and method of a US Military Badge is something that shouldn't be taken lightly by a bunch of bloggers. Our Boys and Girls in uniform deserve more than that.

I am trying to say this calmly and rationally, as your positions on just about everything really piss me off due the the effects they'd have on just about anyone near and dear to me.

My post above was written while you typed your 3 responses. So, with that in mind, I accept your apology, respectfully disagree that the badge was in any way an insult to the troops since the whole point of the group was to support the troops online against people who want to see their mission fail and for them to be killed and/or come home in disgrace, humbled, as a blow against "imperialist Amerikkka!" (Not saying you feel that way, just pointing out that it was to support the troops, not ridicule them or pretend to be in the military.)

But I'm soapboxing again. Shall we agree to drop this now, and go back to discussing the issues of the day rather than each other and posts or avatars from months or years ago? I know I would...

[Joe Rice]

My post above was written while you typed your 3 responses. So, with that in mind, I accept your apology, respectfully disagree that the badge was in any way an insult to the troops since the whole point of the group was to support the troops online against people who want to see their mission fail and for them to be killed and/or come home in disgrace, humbled, as a blow against "imperialist Amerikkka!" (Not saying you feel that way, just pointing out that it was to support the troops, not ridicule them or pretend to be in the military.)

But I'm soapboxing again. Shall we agree to drop this now, and go back to discussing the issues of the day rather than each other and posts or avatars from months or years ago? I know I would...

I dunno. I'd agree to do so if you were a female samurai cat. I have to think on it considering recent revelations.

[Samurai]

I dunno. I'd agree to do so if you were a female samurai cat. I have to think on it considering recent revelations.

Done! :biggrin:

[Joe Rice]

Done! :biggrin:

I'm actually backing away from the argument now, if only out of sheer terror at how quickly you found that image!

[Samurai]

I'm actually backing away from the argument now, if only out of sheer terror at how quickly you found that image!

My google-fu is pretty strong... I just typed in samurai catgirl and got this on page 1:

http://tn3-2.deviantart.com/fs20/300W/i/2007/251/e/0/Samurai_cat_girl_by_tickledpinky.jpg

[section 8]

N. Korea and Iran working together?

I place better odds of the KKK and NAACP working together.

Time to get a better handle of world politics. Something Samurai hasn't grasped yet through his veil of hatred & bigotry, nor has 8 obviously.


I readily admit that I'm not always the most informed when it does come to world politics, but it doesn't take a genius to see who might work with whom. And as others, such as Buzz, have said, if a nuke goes off in a western city, you can guarantee there won't be much left of what's currently called the Middle East. The terrorists might be crazy, but they're not THAT crazy.

Besides, pure and simple logic suggests that if there were to be any alliances made, they would have been made by now.

awareness isn't hatred nor is complacence an excuse for ignorance.
Here are the links again

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...ertise%27.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...r-testing.html

I am only presenting the facts and my interpretation of them, i have said nothing to even imply hatred or bigotry, and i do not appreciate that accusation Kevin.

[rick]

......respectfully disagree that the badge was in any way an insult to the troops since the whole point of the group was to support the troops online against people who want to see their mission fail and for them to be killed and/or come home in disgrace, humbled, as a blow against "imperialist Amerikkka!" (Not saying you feel that way, just pointing out that it was to support the troops, not ridicule them or pretend to be in the military......


Sam, intentionally or not, that badge was a direct insult to every man or woman who ever made the decision to serve their country and put their life on the line by putting on a uniform. It had nothing to do at all with representing or respecting the troops and was in fact a direct slap in the face to their sacrifice.

[Michael P]

the whole point of the group was to support the troops online against people who want to see their mission fail and for them to be killed and/or come home in disgrace, humbled, as a blow against "imperialist Amerikkka!"

These people do not exist. This is like "protecting" the troops from Sasquatch.

[Adam C]

...since the whole point of the group was to support the troops online against people who want to see their mission fail and for them to be killed and/or come home in disgrace, humbled, as a blow against "imperialist Amerikkka!"

So in other words, the symbol of the self-serving delusions a bunch of fanatics and gutless wonders.

[king mob]

Second, I don't hate Muslims in general. You never see me attacking Maac for example, we get along just fine. I only hate radical Islamists who are willing to kill innocent people and who push a hateful, twisted version of their religion. Yes, them I hate. And I don't have any problem with saying that.


So the months & months of you posting Islamophobic 'news' stories from such sources like the Daily Mail is actually striking against Muslim extremism and isn't really just trying to whip up irrational hatred of Muslims in general?
.

[Samurai]

So the months & months of you posting Islamophobic 'news' stories from such sources like the Daily Mail is actually striking against Muslim extremism and isn't really just trying to whip up irrational hatred of Muslims in general?
.

Duh! All the stories were about Islamic EXTREMISTS! Honor killings, terrorism, etc. I don't hate ordinary, everyday Muslims living their lives peacefully, which accounts for a whole ton of Muslims. I hate, and post about, the radicals, Islamists, and nut jobs who think it is (or should be) the 7th century.

With all the stories about "hateful Christian fundamentalists" who "push their Anti-reproductive choice and homophobic agenda" screeds on these boards, it would be so very, very easy to say "Oh, well obviously you must hate ALL Christians, and these stories are meant to whip up irrational hatred of all Christians!"

Would that be true? If so, I can see how you made a similar inference in my case. If not, then it should be simple for you to understand, since it would be no different from your own views on Christians.

[the4thpip]

and Pip, i hate to shatter your little joke but there was a time when Al Queda was not considered a serious military threat either.

How does that make your claim that ever military threat is serious any less silly?

[the4thpip]

Yeah and Hitler's brain could telepathically hook up with the Trilateral Commission in order to solidify Darkseid's hold on the world. All while operating from Rick's fireplace mantle no less.







And we could have gotten away with it if it wasn't for you meddling kids!! :evilangry:

[KevinTBrown]

I am only presenting the facts and my interpretation of them, i have said nothing to even imply hatred or bigotry, and i do not appreciate that accusation Kevin.

The hatred and bigotry comment was not directed at you.

[Charles RB]

It doesn't need to launch a volley of nukes at the US, half a world away. Just blow up Israel

Which would immediately retaliate with everything, so Iran would be wiped out soon after - and this is again assuming Israel wouldn't hit first if they genuinely thought they'd be nuked out - and every single Arab neighbour would be against Iran because, again, the fallout will blow over their border. Plus, as Typo pointed out, they'd have to go "sorry guys, we just irradiated Jerusalem and all its holy sites" to every Muslim in Iran, and that's a lot of Muslims.

Iran's not getting much out of it.

The idea that Iran would arm terrorists to act as their proxies is not at all far-fetched, they've been doing it for decades.

Which terrorist groups in the Middle East have the knowledge and capabilities to launch a nuclear missile?

Why would Iran want to create a nuclear weapon only to no longer have it, wasting huge amounts of money and it being very visible that it's gone missing, and to hand that level of power to a group they cannot control?

And they would definitely want maximum deniability when a mushroom cloud blooms over Tel Aviv.

You think Israel wouldn't quickly work out or assume Iran was behind it and retaliate? You think Iran thinks Israel wouldn't quickly work out or assume they were behind it and retaliate? And you think Iran thinks its other neighbours would give a shit if Israel retaliated against someone giving nuclear weapons to uncontrollable paramilitaries?

Your entire premise here is based on the idea of the entirety of Iran being retarded.

[Charles RB]

These people do not exist. This is like "protecting" the troops from Sasquatch.

And everyone knows the troops could handle Sasquatch on their own - he's a big ape thing with no armour or way to return fire, he'd have no chance.

[Nyarlathotep]

Duh! All the stories were about Islamic EXTREMISTS! Honor killings, terrorism, etc. I don't hate ordinary, everyday Muslims living their lives peacefully, which accounts for a whole ton of Muslims. I hate, and post about, the radicals, Islamists, and nut jobs who think it is (or should be) the 7th century.

With all the stories about "hateful Christian fundamentalists" who "push their Anti-reproductive choice and homophobic agenda" screeds on these boards, it would be so very, very easy to say "Oh, well obviously you must hate ALL Christians, and these stories are meant to whip up irrational hatred of all Christians!"

Would that be true? If so, I can see how you made a similar inference in my case. If not, then it should be simple for you to understand, since it would be no different from your own views on Christians.

They both suck, and those other guys too. But the Daily Mail is trash. You can find examples of asshole Muslims in better places than that.

[the4thpip]

With all the stories about "hateful Christian fundamentalists" who "push their Anti-reproductive choice and homophobic agenda" screeds on these boards, it would be so very, very easy to say "Oh, well obviously you must hate ALL Christians, and these stories are meant to whip up irrational hatred of all Christians!"

I'm sure the search feature on this board will allow you to post some links to those "screeds."

[KevinTBrown]

This is funny: http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20080729/pl_politico/12130

The GOP plans on linking Obama with those who are against offshore drilling.... Maybe it's just me, but I think that's a good thing.

[Typo Lad]

With all the stories about "hateful Christian fundamentalists" who "push their Anti-reproductive choice and homophobic agenda" screeds on these boards, it would be so very, very easy to say "Oh, well obviously you must hate ALL Christians, and these stories are meant to whip up irrational hatred of all Christians!"

Would that be true? If so, I can see how you made a similar inference in my case. If not, then it should be simple for you to understand, since it would be no different from your own views on Christians.

I know I've been called on my views of Christians before. The difference is I try to look at it, instead of sticking my fingers in my ears.

[Typo Lad]

Which terrorist groups in the Middle East have the knowledge and capabilities to launch a nuclear missile?

Well. Kach would, probably.

For those who don't know, Kach is a former "political party" in Israel, now legally considered a terrorist organization by the Israeli government. They have some pretty techy guys.

[Charles RB]

Maybe Iran will cunningly send nuclear weapons to Kach so, if they use them against Palestine or an Arab neighbour-state, the fallout will drift into Israel and decimate it.

And then they say "look at the growing threat over there, we need more nukes to defend ourselves!".

[Samurai]

Which would immediately retaliate with everything, so Iran would be wiped out soon after - and this is again assuming Israel wouldn't hit first if they genuinely thought they'd be nuked out - and every single Arab neighbour would be against Iran because, again, the fallout will blow over their border. Plus, as Typo pointed out, they'd have to go "sorry guys, we just irradiated Jerusalem and all its holy sites" to every Muslim in Iran, and that's a lot of Muslims.

Iran's not getting much out of it.



Which terrorist groups in the Middle East have the knowledge and capabilities to launch a nuclear missile?

Why would Iran want to create a nuclear weapon only to no longer have it, wasting huge amounts of money and it being very visible that it's gone missing, and to hand that level of power to a group they cannot control?



You think Israel wouldn't quickly work out or assume Iran was behind it and retaliate? You think Iran thinks Israel wouldn't quickly work out or assume they were behind it and retaliate? And you think Iran thinks its other neighbours would give a shit if Israel retaliated against someone giving nuclear weapons to uncontrollable paramilitaries?

Your entire premise here is based on the idea of the entirety of Iran being retarded.

They probably wouldn't give them a whole missile to launch, especially now that Israel is working on a missile defense system. They'd probably give them a bomb in a truck or steamer trunk and let them sneak it into the country.

Why do you think they'd be afraid of giving the bomb to a group with decades of close partnership, which Iran has funded and armed with tons of weapons for many years and never once have they turned around and attacked Iran instead of Israel? They know these people and their goals, personalities, etc. It's not like they'd contact some group they don't know and hand it over to them, they'd pick trusted friends and allies like Hezbullah, who they know would use the bomb on its intended target.

The Iranians are not like the mostly agnostic/atheist Russians. Some of their key leaders believe in the 12th Imam returning to save them and reward them. They believe they'll go to heaven if they die in a retaliatory strike by Israel after having blown up the "Zionist entity" as they call it.

Finally, let's say 1 bomb goes off in 1 Israeli city. Iran (and every other state) denies all responsibility and offers condolences. Hezbullah publicly takes responsibility for the attack. If Israel then turns around and nukes Iran's major cities, plus Mecca, killing millions of civilians, would you say "Well, they deserved it, they were asking for it, by giving Hezbullah a bomb!" Or would you condemn Israel for its actions, at least as or more strongly than any supposed connection to Iran? How do you think the world would react to such an event? And do you not think radical extremists not afraid to die or sacrifice others might see such a reaction as a worthy goal, worth the cost, to try to make Israel a hated pariah?

[Typo Lad]

Your highly paranoid post neglects a few facts:

1) Hezbullah isn't going to bomb Israel, because they'd not only be nuking the land they want back, but they're well within fallout range.

2) Israel is already a bit of a pariah.

3) The land of Israel is sacrosanct to the fanatics, so again, they're not going to nuke it.

At the end of the day, nukes just aren't gping to happen.

[Adam C]

The Iranians are not like the mostly agnostic/atheist Russians. Some of their key leaders believe in the 12th Imam returning to save them and reward them. They believe they'll go to heaven if they die in a retaliatory strike by Israel after having blown up the "Zionist entity" as they call it.

I hate to tell you this, but as I said earlier, Iran gave up its dreams of formenting Islamic revolution across in the mid-east after Khoemini died in favour of pursuing diplomatic and trade relations with much of the rest of the region, as well as Russia and China. Iran is just not as crazy-suicidal as to justify an attack on the country, despite your and other hawks' hopes.

If Israel then turns around and nukes Iran's major cities, plus Mecca, killing millions of civilians, would you say "Well, they deserved it, they were asking for it, by giving Hezbullah a bomb!" Or would you condemn Israel for its actions, at least as or more strongly than any supposed connection to Iran?

So Sam...when did you stop beating your wife?

[Charles RB]

They probably wouldn't give them a whole missile to launch, especially now that Israel is working on a missile defense system. They'd probably give them a bomb in a truck or steamer trunk and let them sneak it into the country.

Okay, so now Iran has to make a nuclear bomb and smuggle it out of their country - in a bomb-sized truck, no less - without anyone noticing.

Then the terrorists have to learn how to safely maintain and use the bomb. Without being noticed.

Then they have to get it into Israel. This is the tricky bit, as a big truck is probably going to get searched at checkpoints by the IDF.

Then they have to secretly reach a part of Israel where, once the bomb is detonated, fallout will be able to reach Palestine nor neighbouring Arab states, and a part of Israel they're not bothered about never being able to return to.

You'd need to be David Xanatos to pull all that off. Be a fuckton easier and less backfiring to just keep to conventional explosives.

Why do you think they'd be afraid of giving the bomb to a group with decades of close partnership, which Iran has funded and armed with tons of weapons for many years and never once have they turned around and attacked Iran instead of Israel?

Because it's a nuclear fucking bomb we're talking about: that goes off, the entire status quo is out the window even if, by some beknighted miracle, the fallout doesn't leave Israel. You honestly think anyone who isn't a total thicky will want an autonomous paramilitary wielding that, even a friendly one? You've suddenly got no control over that nuke and someone else does, and you will get the shit from it if it's ever triggered.

Can you stop it being used at an inopportune time for you? No.

So, er, why not just - this is advanced strategy here - keep the weapon for yourself?

They know these people and their goals, personalities, etc.

All the more reason why they'd think "I'm not giving them my nuke!", surely?

The Iranians are not like the mostly agnostic/atheist Russians. Some of their key leaders believe in the 12th Imam returning to save them and reward them. They believe they'll go to heaven if they die in a retaliatory strike by Israel after having blown up the "Zionist entity" as they call it.

In that case they'd fire the weapon themselves and wouldn't piss around with a proxy group, so this is an extremely irrelevant line of thinking.

And I somehow doubt there are enough suicidal Iranian leaders to actually get the nation to go into a nuclear war that will kill them all.

If Israel then turns around and nukes Iran's major cities, plus Mecca, killing millions of civilians, would you say "Well, they deserved it, they were asking for it, by giving Hezbullah a bomb!"

The nuclear powers would. There'd be no reprisals against Israel from them, and since the big five are the permanent Security Council there'd be nothing substantial from the UN. (You may remember Chiraq made a statement that France will nuke Iran if there's any nuclear terrorism on French soil.)

And Iran knows that.

[KevinTBrown]

Hmmm, I wonder how much Ted Stevens' indictment (Go here (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080729/ap_on_go_co/stevens_indictment)) may hurt McCain? They worked closely together on some committees throughout the years.....

[FalconX2000]

Hmmm, I wonder how much Ted Stevens' indictment (Go here (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080729/ap_on_go_co/stevens_indictment)) may hurt McCain? They worked closely together on some committees throughout the years.....

Well, Alaska's polling seemed pretty close last time I checked...

On another note, Obama and the Dems have dedicated $20 million dollars towards capturing the Hispanic vote, focused especially on Colorado, Florida, Nevada and New Mexico.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jul/29/barackobama.uselections20081?gusrc=rss&feed=networkfront

[Royal]

Hurry Ted! Jump Down A Tube!

[Royal]

BTW, why does everybody think it's so easy to sneak a nuclear device? It just blows my mind.

[Michael P]

Assuming for a moment the Tom-Clancy-wet-dream of Iran nuking Israel, why the hell would Israel include Mecca in a retaliatory strike? That would be like Japan responding to the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings by surrendering to Canada.

[Nyarlathotep]

BTW, why does everybody think it's so easy to sneak a nuclear device? It just blows my mind.

24, Hollywood action movies. That's why people think torture works as well. Funny how those same people aren't as willing to emulate the black President part.

This thread is pretty fast and furious, but did I miss where someone explained why we should stick our necks out for Israel if it jumps the gun on Iran?

[Buzz Dixon]

BTW, why does everybody think it's so easy to sneak a nuclear device? It just blows my mind.Because even the biggest H-bomb ever constructed, the 50 megaton Tsar Bomba (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsar_Bomba) would fit easily in a shipping container.

The U.S. and Soviet Union built but no longer deploy small nuclear fission (i.e., regular ol' "atomic" bombs, not fusion/thermonuclear) artillery projectiles small enough for a single strong person to carry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_artillery).

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/57/W48_155-millimeter_nuclear_shell.jpg

Take this with a grain of salt, but supposedly the CIA has a no-questions-asked bounty out for anyone who wants to turn in any stray nuclear warhead they may have "found" during the dissolution of the Soviet Union. Rumor has it they've already taken four such weapons off the market.

[Buzz Dixon]

Assuming for a moment the Tom-Clancy-wet-dream of Iran nuking Israel, why the hell would Israel include Mecca in a retaliatory strike? That would be like Japan responding to the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings by surrendering to Canada.To impress upon the terrorists' co-religionists the importance of no nuclear weapons going off in Israel.

Face it, if Israel gets nuked, it pretty much wipes out the country. they have nothing to lose at that point.

[Michael P]

To impress upon the terrorists' co-religionists the importance of no nuclear weapons going off in Israel.

If it's that important, you'd think they'd hold off on nuking a country who hadn't done anything to them.

[Buzz Dixon]

If it's that important, you'd think they'd hold off on nuking a country who hadn't done anything to them.So far they have, but when they perceive a threat (viz Saddam Hussein's nuclear weapons program and his long range artillery project) they act.

[section 8]

This is funny: http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20080729/pl_politico/12130

The GOP plans on linking Obama with those who are against offshore drilling.... Maybe it's just me, but I think that's a good thing.

It isnt just you, it is a very good thing, but the

GOP will try and say that Obama doesn't care about gas prices, probably ehy they want to link Obama to them, so they can make that argument

[KevinTBrown]

It isnt just you, it is a very good thing, but the

GOP will try and say that Obama doesn't care about gas prices, probably ehy they want to link Obama to them, so they can make that argument

Even if they started offshore drilling, say, right this second, the American public will begin to feel its affect in about..... oh, a decade or so.

America uses about 19.6 MILLION barrels of oil a DAY. OPEC produces approximately 32 million barrels a DAY on average. (I think the the 32 million barrels is low actually...) OPEC consists of 13 countries in the highest oil producing regions of the world. America imports 25% of what OPEC produces, the rest coming from here in the US and other countries.

How much oil can offshore drilling add to that? One oil rig can produce only 8 THOUSAND barrels a day. How many oil rigs does the US have available for offshore drilling? I have no idea. How many will be needed to make a dent in what we import? 1,000 rigs.



It's all smoke and mirrors by the McCain campaign.



By the way, I got many of those figures from OPEC's website.

[section 8]

Even if they started offshore drilling, say, right this second, the American public will begin to feel its affect in about..... oh, a decade or so.

America uses about 19.6 MILLION barrels of oil a DAY. OPEC produces approximately 32 million barrels a DAY on average. (I think the the 32 million barrels is low actually...) OPEC consists of 13 countries in the highest oil producing regions of the world. America imports 25% of what OPEC produces, the rest coming from here in the US and other countries.

How much oil can offshore drilling add to that? One oil rig can produce only 8 THOUSAND barrels a day. How many oil rigs does the US have available for offshore drilling? I have no idea. How many will be needed to make a dent in what we import? 1,000 rigs.



It's all smoke and mirrors by the McCain campaign.



By the way, I got many of those figures from OPEC's website.


Not to mention Supply is up, demand is down, but prices continue to rise.

[Sabrinaset]

Not to mention Supply is up, demand is down, but prices continue to rise.

No, (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/07/29/BUD6120SRG.DTL) they're (http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-gas29-2008jul29,1,5580738.story) not. (http://www.bizjournals.com/pittsburgh/stories/2008/07/28/daily24.html)

[DungeonmasterJim]

The gas stattion I go to has dropped prices for regular by almost 12 cents a gallon over the past couple of weeks. :smile:

DM Jim

[FalconX2000]

BTW, why does everybody think it's so easy to sneak a nuclear device? It just blows my mind.

Adding to what Buzz said, according to Obama 3% of shipping containers are currently scanned for such devices.

[Dry Observer]

No, (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/07/29/BUD6120SRG.DTL) they're (http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-gas29-2008jul29,1,5580738.story) not. (http://www.bizjournals.com/pittsburgh/stories/2008/07/28/daily24.html)

Yes, thank heavens that our banking system is looking at about a quadrillion dollars in derivative debts that's all going bad on them.

Think of it... an economic tsunami so great it makes running out of feasibly extractable oil almost irrelevant.

=)

[Sabrinaset]

Yes, thank heavens that our banking system is looking at about a quadrillion dollars in derivative debts that's all going bad on them.

Think of it... an economic tsunami so great it makes running out of feasibly extractable oil almost irrelevant.

=)

Which, uhm, still doesn't take away from the fact that someone saying that gas prices going up is wrong!

[the4thpip]

Which, uhm, still doesn't take away from the fact that someone saying that gas prices going up is wrong!

Section 8's confusing might stem from the fact that the supply/demand model is a little too simple to explain oil prices.

http://images.salon.com/comics/boll/2008/07/24/boll/story.gif

[FalconX2000]

Which, uhm, still doesn't take away from the fact that someone saying that gas prices going up is wrong!

While the stock market did recently see some deflation in oil prices (that might trickle down to the consumer if its sustained for a number of weeks) I think you meant to say

Which, uhm, still doesn't take away from the fact that someone saying that Obama is responsible for gas prices going up is wrong!

[FalconX2000]

Section 8's confusing might stem from the fact that the supply/demand model is a little too simple to explain oil prices.

http://images.salon.com/comics/boll/2008/07/24/boll/story.gif

Fuckin Saved.

[KevinTBrown]

Low Road Express (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/30/opinion/30wed1.html)

Excellent Op/ed piece on McCain's shift to the negative.

[FalconX2000]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/25928729#25902610

I never really liked Mike Murphy, but dammit this is his best 10 seconds ever.

In response to Joe Scarborough cherry picking 2 of the 3 polls he introduced just minutes ago and wondering why it looks like a toss up:

I think we need to get off the polling crack. All these polls: here's the problem. It's like you wanna know what a cake tastes like. So you...you make the cake, you put it in the oven for 30 seconds, pull it out and say, "wow, this cake doesn't taste very good. Of course it's not! It's not cooked. It's July!"

[Stressfactor]

Not to harp on the whole Iran/Nukes thing but, really, the two things Iran probably *doesn't* want to use in the region would be Nuclear weapons or biological weapons. All the countries are too close and fallout from nukes will poison the land for miles and kill many of their own people and allies. Likewise, using biological weapons -- particularly infectious diseases -- is likely to result in outbreaks that also spread to neighboring regions... although, it should be noted that this would not poison the land itself and would leave building still standing as well.

Really, if we were REALLY scared about Iran doing something to Israel the focus would be on chemical weapons. As Saddam really *did* show -- if you want to clear the *people* out of an area but still be able to use the land and buildings then gassing the hell out of them works wonders.

Nukes have the fear factor but chemical weapons are *far* more effective in terms of not leaving lasting effects behind and being a lot more controllable in terms of 'fallout'.

[section 8]

Not to harp on the whole Iran/Nukes thing but, really, the two things Iran probably *doesn't* want to use in the region would be Nuclear weapons or biological weapons. All the countries are too close and fallout from nukes will poison the land for miles and kill many of their own people and allies. Likewise, using biological weapons -- particularly infectious diseases -- is likely to result in outbreaks that also spread to neighboring regions... although, it should be noted that this would not poison the land itself and would leave building still standing as well.

Really, if we were REALLY scared about Iran doing something to Israel the focus would be on chemical weapons. As Saddam really *did* show -- if you want to clear the *people* out of an area but still be able to use the land and buildings then gassing the hell out of them works wonders.

Nukes have the fear factor but chemical weapons are *far* more effective in terms of not leaving lasting effects behind and being a lot more controllable in terms of 'fallout'.

True, Nukes are something of a status symbol for nations these days, but the idea of such things going unchecked disturbs me

[Nick Soapdish]

Even if they started offshore drilling, say, right this second, the American public will begin to feel its affect in about..... oh, a decade or so.

America uses about 19.6 MILLION barrels of oil a DAY. OPEC produces approximately 32 million barrels a DAY on average. (I think the the 32 million barrels is low actually...) OPEC consists of 13 countries in the highest oil producing regions of the world. America imports 25% of what OPEC produces, the rest coming from here in the US and other countries.

How much oil can offshore drilling add to that? One oil rig can produce only 8 THOUSAND barrels a day. How many oil rigs does the US have available for offshore drilling? I have no idea. How many will be needed to make a dent in what we import? 1,000 rigs.



It's all smoke and mirrors by the McCain campaign.



By the way, I got many of those figures from OPEC's website.

McCain may also have some difficulty explaining why he was against offshore oil drilling back in May.

If we do offshore drilling, we should get 1-2 billion barrels of oil a year in as soon as seven years (according to the oil industry). Demand is currently at around 87 billion barrels of oil and the US uses about 20 billion barrels.

It's not likely to have much impact IMO, but since oil is an inelastic good it may lower prices by more than the 1-2% increase in demand.

However, that's ignoring the refinery bottleneck.

[Stressfactor]

Plus, I don't care what people say about how much "cleaner" drilling is today... TRUE STORY TIME....

Used to go on family vacations every year. Made my first trip to the Florida beaches when I was 9 last visit to Florida was when I was 17. One year in Florida my swimsuit for that season was white. Swam most of the day in the ocean. Swimsuit stayed white. Florida has, up till now, banned off-shore drilling.

When I was in high school I was part of a church trip and we got to spend one afternoon on a beach in Alabama. Now Alabama DOES allow offshore drilling and, in fact, we could clearly see a drilling platform a ways off from the beach. My swimsuit that year was a color block affair and one, large area of the suit was white. After swimming several hours I climed out of the surf and the white area of my swimsuit had turned a light brown in color.

So, sorry, I'm not convinced that offshore drilling is as "clean" as they make it out to be.

[Buzz Dixon]

How close to the mouth of the Mississippi were you in Alabama? And in Florida, were you on the Atlantic (east) shore or the Gulf (west)? That might have contributed as well.

[Nick Soapdish]

I would've guessed that it was just more to do with regulations in Alabama and Mississippi. Although neither state has all that much Gulf-front property. They could easily be being affected by pollution in Louisiana (or Florida).

I think that the Gulf side of Florida (at least along the Panhandle) has cleaner water than the Atlantic. There's lots more development along the Atlantic and you get runoff from the cities.

[Stressfactor]

How close to the mouth of the Mississippi were you in Alabama? And in Florida, were you on the Atlantic (east) shore or the Gulf (west)? That might have contributed as well.

Nowhere near the Mississippi in Alabama and Gulf Coast in Florida (mostly. We did hit the Atlantic side a couple of times over the years).

[Dry Observer]

A big part of what people don't understand about oil production is that it's not just about how many barrels you can actually get out of the ground. There's also EROEI to be considered -- the Energy Return On Energy Invested.

In brief, when the U.S. started the modern oil industry in the 1850s, oil was found in pools on the ground in Pennsylvania. If you invested about 1 barrel's worth of energy on exploration, extraction, refinement and transportation to your market, you would get back about 100 barrels worth of energy in return. By the 1930s (the Great Depression) one barrel would get you about 30 barrels.

Today... well, you'll see slightly different numbers, but essentially one barrel of oil will provide you with 4, 5 or 6 barrels in return, on average. This is a major reason why Saudi Arabia and her superfield, Ghawar, are so important. Ghawar not only provided the Saudis with about half their oil, but it's the archetypal Saudi field -- a place that once gushed vast supplies of easily extracted, 'light sweet crude' (requiring little refinement).

Of course, these days they're apparently injecting massive amounts of seawater into Ghawar to keep the oil flowing -- thus lowering the EROEI -- and there are other signs that the entire field may be moving into (or already in) terminal decline. Saudi figures are very closely guarded data, however, and we mainly know what we do by looking at past reports by Saudi engineers on their innovations in dealing with particular problems (reports that revealing about the state of major fields and which can thus be counted on to be far more opaque in the future).

(On the positive side, Ghawar probably isn't crashing as badly as Cantarell, the Mexican superfield that until recently was providing 2/3 of Mexico's production. Cantarell is plummeting at a rate that is truly catastrophic...)

The Saudis can still extract a great deal of oil very cheaply from their fields, whether or not the country's oil production has already peaked. The EROEI on the much-lauded tar sands of Canada, on the other hand, is almost 1 to 1, and the EROEI of America's oil shale is actually negative. Why? Because you extract petroleum from the oil sands by blasting them with huge amounts of steam (derived from freshwater) a process taking great amounts of energy as well as being ecologically devastating. You extract petroleum from U.S. oil shale by heating it to hundreds of degrees to free the hydrocarbons.

Incidentally, that form of shale oil should not be confused with the Bakken oil reserves, which are actual conventional oil deposits found in shale. Shale is an extremely problematic rock to drill for oil, as it tends to break apart into many tiny sub-fields in which you can sometimes extract 10% of the oil, and sometimes 1%.

[Gail Simone]

A big part of what people don't understand about oil production is that it's not just about how many barrels you can actually get out of the ground. There's also EROEI to be considered -- the Energy Return On Energy Invested.

In brief, when the U.S. started the modern oil industry in the 1850s, oil was found in pools on the ground in Pennsylvania. If you invested about 1 barrel's worth of energy on exploration, extraction, refinement and transportation to your market, you would get back about 100 barrels worth of energy in return. By the 1930s (the Great Depression) one barrel would get you about 30 barrels.

Today... well, you'll see slightly different numbers, but essentially one barrel of oil will provide you with 4, 5 or 6 barrels in return, on average. This is a major reason why Saudi Arabia and her superfield, Ghawar, are so important. Ghawar not only provided the Saudis with about half their oil, but it's the archetypal Saudi field -- a place that once gushed vast supplies of easily extracted, 'light sweet crude' (requiring little refinement).

Of course, these days they're apparently injecting massive amounts of seawater into Ghawar to keep the oil flowing -- thus lowering the EROEI -- and there are other signs that the entire field may be moving into (or already in) terminal decline. Saudi figures are very closely guarded data, however, and we mainly know what we do by looking at past reports by Saudi engineers on their innovations in dealing with particular problems (reports that revealing about the state of major fields and which can thus be counted on to be far more opaque in the future).

(On the positive side, Ghawar probably isn't crashing as badly as Cantarell, the Mexican superfield that until recently was providing 2/3 of Mexico's production. Cantarell is plummeting at a rate that is truly catastrophic...)

The Saudis can still extract a great deal of oil very cheaply from their fields, whether or not the country's oil production has already peaked. The EROEI on the much-lauded tar sands of Canada, on the other hand, is almost 1 to 1, and the EROEI of America's oil shale is actually negative. Why? Because you extract petroleum from the oil sands by blasting them with huge amounts of steam (derived from freshwater) a process taking great amounts of energy as well as being ecologically devastating. You extract petroleum from U.S. oil shale by heating it to hundreds of degrees to free the hydrocarbons.

Incidentally, that form of shale oil should not be confused with the Bakken oil reserves, which are actual conventional oil deposits found in shale. Shale is an extremely problematic rock to drill for oil, as it tends to break apart into many tiny sub-fields in which you can sometimes extract 10% of the oil, and sometimes 1%.


I'm ashamed to say I didn't know any of that.

[LtMarvel]

McCain ad about Obama hitting the gym wasn't factual (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/july-dec08/attacksads_07-30.html).

Obama didn't cancel a trip to see wounded because cameras weren't allowed. Cameras aren't ever allowed. Like on Obama's previous visits to wounded troops.

Obama's campaign staff wouldn't be allowed in. That includes a former general. Trying to keep funding between Senate staffing and campaign staffing clear, the Senate staff was sent home by this point.