US Presidential Elections 2

[Walsingham]

The bombing occurred in the 60's and Obama worked on completely unrelated education reform with Ayres in the 90's. I think it's safe to say he's completely unrelated to them, yes?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Ayers#Co...to_Barack_Obama

 

Re the 'surge': But McCain continually claims that the 'surge' ended sectarian violence. This is, of course, after he claimed that there was no record of sectarian violence between Sunni and Shi'ia. Much like he claimed the economy was fundamentally sound the same day Wall Street was crumbling.

surge derailment:

 

Without the surge it is unlikely we would have seen an end to the violence. Just as the political initiatives were critical. It's like two guys arguing about which is critical in a fire, the wood or the spark. As for saying the economy was strong, he may have been wrong, but he was certainly not starved for company. Do you know anyone who was running around that morning shaking people and going "It's all rotten I tells ya!"

 

 

The days of rage and other street protests were in the 1960s, but they bombed the Pentagon and other targets in the 1970s. Activity really only dropped off after the end of the Vietnam war because the Cubans and Vietnamese withdrew financing and training. The Brinks robbery in 1981 was aimed at securing cash to continue the 'struggle'; police officers and security guards were shot and killed. Bill Ayers was strongly implicated [edit: in earlier attacks, not the Brinks robbery] in all levels, from organising, to training, to bomb delivery. I know this because I've studied evidence directly, not because I've read Wikipedia {i don't mean to sound overbearing, but I really have got you trumped].

 

The important question is how much can we blame Obama for associated with Bill Ayers in the 1990s. I personally am outraged, but by the same token I'm outraged that the little bastard is strolling around feeling smug, full stop. I don't think mere association proves anything about Obama. But I do have to wonder about anyone who had long association with a man who he must have known had engaged in acts of terrorism. I wouldn't share a bus with the guy.

[Humodour]

Obama worked with this guy on anti-poverty work and education fundraising 40 years after those events and you're telling me that somehow makes Obama a bad man?

 

If so, please stop there, because I'm disgusted with you and don't want to discuss this with you anymore.

[Guard Dog]

Let's put all our cards on the table here. I do not like John McCain. He is the very thing he claims he is running against. A Washington insider. He favors big government meddling in the economy, he favors a bellicose and interventionist foreign policy. He is a Democrat circa 1980. I do not think he would make a very good President.

 

I do not like Barack Obama. He is arrogant and small minded. He disdains traditional American values and thinks ill of the majority of his countrymen. He favors an economic plan that is a strange hybrid of planned and highly regulated demand side driven capitalism. He actually believes taxes are a tool to modify behavior and strongly favors the federal government having s dominant role in every aspect of American life. He has demonstrated no understanding of the affects of high tax burdens on the economy and has been outright hostile to the concerns of small business owners. I believe his foreign policy will be one dictated by a desire for international friendship and cooperation as Western thought understands it but it will be seen as weak in places like China, Russia and the Middle East. Because of that he will be challenged by one or all of them to see how much he will give without a fight. I think he will make a terrible President.

 

So faced with two candidates I intensely dislike I'd normally vote Libertarian (I did in 2004) but with the possibility of two vacancies of the Supreme Court, I must vote vote McCain and encourage as many others as I can to do the same.

 

I have stated here many times that insofar as government policy goes the US will not make any great changes in the next four years no matter who wins. Political direction takes decades to change in a country like the US. We have been in a slow drift to the right ever since 1980 and that will not change in four years. Or even eight. If Obama wins two terms and is succeeded by a like minded democrat and congress remains controlled by the left you will begin to see the difference 10-12 years out and it will be as lasting as the current trend has been. But here is the thing, modern US history tells us that is a very unlikely outcome. The real legacy of this, the next, or any US President that is real and lasting is their picks for the Supreme Court. On that point alone I must support McCain over Obama. If there were not a real likelihood of SCOTUS vacancies I'd be much less concerned about the outcome of this election.

 

Obama once co-authored an article in the Harvard Law Review in which he argued constitutional jurisprudence should be updated in a similar way that Einstein's theory of relativity replaced Newtonian mechanics, a view that would release judges from the original intent of the Founders of America. Anyone who believes in the concepts of Federalism and limited powers of government should cringe at the thought of who Obama might nominate.

[Guard Dog]

Obama worked with this guy on anti-poverty work and education fundraising 40 years after those events and you're telling me that somehow makes Obama a bad man?

 

If so, please stop there, because I'm disgusted with you and don't want to discuss this with you anymore.

 

 

Let

[Strix]

He disdains traditional American values and thinks ill of the majority of his countrymen.

 

And pray what are the "traditional values" of America?

[samm]

The values of a young, vast country filled by armed religious emigrants

 

Not to be too off topic: a Palin flow chart.

Edited October 6, 2008 by samm

[Killian Kalthorne]

I will not vote for McCain, no matter what, Guard Dog. The main reason is Sarah Palin. I do not want that nutjob anywhere near the presidency. She would be far far worse than Obama. For godsakes she had some guy from Africa do some "ritual" to protect her from "witchcraft" just prior her governorship. If McCain had someone normal, maybe I could be convinced but as long as Palin is on the ticket, hell freakin' no.

[Strix]

Not to be too off topic: a Palin flow chart.

 

The link doesn't work - it's censored.

 

http://www.4****r.com/365b2b80d175/f/9/1/8/0/f918008308.jpg

Edited October 6, 2008 by Strix

[Volourn]

"For godsakes she had some guy from Africa do some "ritual" to protect her from "witchcraft" just prior her governorship."

 

Weird.. Aren't 'hardcore' Christians anti witchcraft? Hmmm.. Maybe she's more open minded than people think. Thumbs up to her.

[Killian Kalthorne]

Um, Volourn, that is to protect her from as in against witchcraft, meaning she is against it and she sought protection from it. The fact she thinks that witchcraft has any sort of "supernatural" power that she needs protection from tells me that she is a Class-A nutjob. I think you need to brush up on your reading comprehension skills, Volourn.

Edited October 6, 2008 by Killian Kalthorne

[Guard Dog]

I will not vote for McCain, no matter what, Guard Dog. The main reason is Sarah Palin. I do not want that nutjob anywhere near the presidency. She would be far far worse than Obama. For godsakes she had some guy from Africa do some "ritual" to protect her from "witchcraft" just prior her governorship. If McCain had someone normal, maybe I could be convinced but as long as Palin is on the ticket, hell freakin' no.

Who are we kidding here? You said back over the summer you would only vote for McCain if Hillary was nominated. Besides, I fully realize the futility of trying to change anyones mind on a forum like this. There is little else we can do here but express an opinion and (if we are lucky) the logical reasoning you used to arrive at it. If I had photographic proof of Obama selling poison milk to school children everyone now in the tank for him will still vote for him because they will convince themselves the proof was wrong or faked. If someone will reject proof that he is the wrong guy for the job, how could words on an internet forum change their minds?

 

 

Besides most of the posters here (not just this thread but the "Economic Meltdown" thread as well) have demonstrated a remarkable lack of understanding of the US, it's political system, what it's government can and cannot do, and politics in general. And thats OK because a little over half of the posters are not US citizens anyway so they get a pass. The rest of you thread pundits and internet intellectuals who actually DO reside in the US who seem to have no clue how your own country works.... well what can I say.

[Volourn]

"Um, Volourn, that is to protect her from as in against witchcraft, meaning she is against it and she sought protection from it. The fact she thinks that witchcraft has any sort of "supernatural" power that she needs protection from tells me that she is a Class-A nutjob. I think you need to brush up on your reading comprehension skills, Volourn."

 

Um.. The guy from Afrika used a 'ritual'. Sounds like witchcraft to me. Just like a mage in D&D uses magic to protect themselves from magic, she used witchcraft to protect herself from witchcraft. Makes sense. Afterall, a modern bullet proof fest won't protect one from withcraft, right? Come on, everyone knows this!

[Hell Kitty]

The "guy from Africa" is a Kenyan bishop, a Christian, and Christians would call it a blessing, and any Christian would find it pretty insulting to have their ceremonies dismissed as witchcraft, although non-evangelicals find this stuff rather odd.

[Hurlshort]

Wow, that's messed up. Just because a guy is from Africa doesn't mean he practices Voodoo.

[Laozi]

The real legacy of this, the next, or any US President that is real and lasting is their picks for the Supreme Court. On that point alone I must support McCain over Obama. If there were not a real likelihood of SCOTUS vacancies I'd be much less concerned about the outcome of this election.

 

Obama once co-authored an article in the Harvard Law Review in which he argued constitutional jurisprudence should be updated in a similar way that Einstein's theory of relativity replaced Newtonian mechanics, a view that would release judges from the original intent of the Founders of America. Anyone who believes in the concepts of Federalism and limited powers of government should cringe at the thought of who Obama might nominate.

 

 

This is all rhetoric, nominees have to make it through the Senate to sit on the SCOTUS. Their backgrounds are generally people who have either been federal judges for a significant period of time or occupied important chairs at prestigious law schools. So where are these bat$hit crazy judges who only want to tear down freedom going to come from? Todays SCOTUS leans heavily to the right which puts many more personal freedoms at stake, stagnates progressivism, and panders to corporate interest. The Court needs balance which is even more reason to vote in a Democrat, plus I hear they'll still have to vote on things and aren't going to let the possible two new justices make all the decisions. Your argument is much more then, "Red team is great, blue team stinks, nah." its also "Everything from blue team is badness"

Edited October 7, 2008 by Laozi

[Killian Kalthorne]

Who are we kidding here? You said back over the summer you would only vote for McCain if Hillary was nominated. Besides, I fully realize the futility of trying to change anyones mind on a forum like this. There is little else we can do here but express an opinion and (if we are lucky) the logical reasoning you used to arrive at it. If I had photographic proof of Obama selling poison milk to school children everyone now in the tank for him will still vote for him because they will convince themselves the proof was wrong or faked. If someone will reject proof that he is the wrong guy for the job, how could words on an internet forum change their minds?

 

 

Besides most of the posters here (not just this thread but the "Economic Meltdown" thread as well) have demonstrated a remarkable lack of understanding of the US, it's political system, what it's government can and cannot do, and politics in general. And thats OK because a little over half of the posters are not US citizens anyway so they get a pass. The rest of you thread pundits and internet intellectuals who actually DO reside in the US who seem to have no clue how your own country works.... well what can I say.

 

Well, back in 2000 I was actually for McCain. I found him being the better choice than Bush and Gore. It was a damn shame Bush didn't pick him VP over Cheney. I just think that with all things considered, with the running mates, the current world situation, and after 8 years of Bush, Obama is the best choice out of the two. Would be nice if the Libertarians, the REAL Republicans some will say here in Iowa, had a real shot but that isn't going to happen any time soon. Besides, if you only had one source of that photo then it is probably would be faked but if you had multiple sources, independent of each other that can confirm the photo was real then you would have a much stronger case.

[Volourn]

"The "guy from Africa" is a Kenyan bishop, a Christian, and Christians would call it a blessing, and any Christian would find it pretty insulting to have their ceremonies dismissed as witchcraft, although non-evangelicals find this stuff rather odd."

 

It's witchcraft. I'm insulted to think that they expect people to believe these 'rituals' actually work. L0L

 

 

"Wow, that's messed up. Just because a guy is from Africa doesn't mean he practices Voodoo."

 

Stereotypes are only fun when it's about white people, Amerikans, and rednecks I guess.

 

And, oh, I never claimed he used voodoo. I claimed - quite sarcastically btw - that he used 'witchcraft' to counter 'witchcraft'. The fact that he happens to be Christian is absolute irrelevant to me. He uses 'rituals' *cough* withcraft *cough* to 'protect' people from witchcraft. L0L

Edited October 7, 2008 by Volourn

[Pop]

Newspaper column from Bobby May, the McCain campaign chair in Buchanan County, Virginia and correspondence secretary for the Buchanan County Republican Party. It just gets worse and worse.

 

Looks like they've started playing up Obama's middle name, and recent speeches by McCain and Palin aren't particularly subtle in their attempts to portray Obama as an honest-to-God terrorist. The Republican Party will certainly have earned the 4+ years out of power that the financial market crisis have handed them.

[Brdavs]

Stereotypes are only fun when it's about white people, Amerikans, and rednecks I guess.

 

you would only vote for McCain if Hillary was nominated. Besides, I fully realize the futility of trying to change anyones mind on a forum like this. There is little else we can do here but express an opinion and (if we are lucky) the logical reasoning you used to arrive at it. If I had photographic proof of Obama selling poison milk to school children everyone now in the tank for him will still vote for him because they will convince themselves the proof was wrong or faked. If someone will reject proof that he is the wrong guy for the job, how could words on an internet forum change their minds?

 

 

Besides most of the posters here (not just this thread but the "Economic Meltdown" thread as well) have demonstrated a remarkable lack of understanding of the US, it's political system, what it's government can and cannot do, and politics in general. And thats OK because a little over half of the posters are not US citizens anyway so they get a pass. The rest of you thread pundits and internet intellectuals who actually DO reside in the US who seem to have no clue how your own country works.... well what can I say.

 

 

Oddly enough, I do feel a redneck joke coming up heh... It has it all... BEing attacked on values, the delusion one can have and furthermore atm has a good measure of independance from the big bad state which ofc. needs to be protected, an all out laissez-faire approach to economy whilst that particular approach is going boobies up in RL.

Oh, and the ever so important russo/chineese threat to safeguard the poor nation from. Did I miss something or did russa allready stood up to bush heh? And you can hardly call his policies perception of weakness inducing. Christ, he`s the scurge of god, mark 2 lol. Fact is that the way the world is going, powers like Russia and China will be standing up to the US meddling in their interests, nommater who the president. So pick one less "redneckish" that`ll be able to deal with it and wont possibly start a war over the fall from the throne thing would be my advcie.

As far as the SC goes, after Scalia, you can hardly go very wrong heh. On a sidenote, watch McCain win, appoint his justices and change the tune about "legislating from the bench" lol.

Edited October 7, 2008 by Brdavs

[Killian Kalthorne]

Newspaper column from Bobby May, the McCain campaign chair in Buchanan County, Virginia and correspondence secretary for the Buchanan County Republican Party. It just gets worse and worse.

 

Looks like they've started playing up Obama's middle name, and recent speeches by McCain and Palin aren't particularly subtle in their attempts to portray Obama as an honest-to-God terrorist. The Republican Party will certainly have earned the 4+ years out of power that the financial market crisis have handed them.

 

The thing is they could have played this being one of the key issues. The whole financial meltdown and mortgage crisis stems from the Carter Administration when the democrats had power both in Congress and the Presidency. The Reinvestment Community Act is the nutshell that accumulated to our current financial woes. Mind you a Republican congress and presidency, like what we had prior to 2006 could have reversed it if they pushed it so that is a failing on their part.

[Walsingham]

Bush couldn't have picked McCain over Cheney. Cheney would have shot his face off!

[Killian Kalthorne]

Bush couldn't have picked McCain over Cheney. Cheney would have shot his face off!

I fail to see a problem here.

[Walsingham]

Bush couldn't have picked McCain over Cheney. Cheney would have shot his face off!

I fail to see a problem here.

 

Rudimentary as the CinC's strategic thinking is, I fear even he would baulk at a jowel full of buckshot.

[Guard Dog]

Oddly enough, I do feel a redneck joke coming up heh... It has it all... BEing attacked on values, the delusion one can have and furthermore atm has a good measure of independance from the big bad state which ofc. needs to be protected, an all out laissez-faire approach to economy whilst that particular approach is going boobies up in RL.

Oh, and the ever so important russo/chineese threat to safeguard the poor nation from. Did I miss something or did russa allready stood up to bush heh? And you can hardly call his policies perception of weakness inducing. Christ, he`s the scurge of god, mark 2 lol. Fact is that the way the world is going, powers like Russia and China will be standing up to the US meddling in their interests, nommater who the president. So pick one less "redneckish" that`ll be able to deal with it and wont possibly start a war over the fall from the throne thing would be my advcie.

As far as the SC goes, after Scalia, you can hardly go very wrong heh. On a sidenote, watch McCain win, appoint his justices and change the tune about "legislating from the bench" lol.

 

First of all I have stated often enough I do NOT like George W Bush, did not vote for him in 04, and I believe he has been a terrible President that has squandered a historic opportunity. That said he has at time acted in the best interests of the US despite objections from the global community. For example, the Chinese and Russians have both loudly objected to the development of a missile defense system. Bush has authorized and funded it anyway because it is in the best interests or OUR country. I think Obama would have dropped it the moment he was challenged. He has already promised to kill the project. Failing to do the best thing for you own people because of the objections of enemies and competitors. How is that anything but weak?

 

As for your "laissez-faire approach to economy" there has been no such thing in the US since FDR was President. This current "crisis" is the result of GOVERNMENT meddling. the GOVERNMENT passed the CRA that insisted a certain number of loans be to low income. The GOVERNMENT lowered credit requirements for CRA loans. The GOVERNMENT guaranteed bad loans buy buying them. And finally the GOVERNMENT compelled the artificially low interest rates that drove the housing boom. Had the not deregulated the banks in the 1980s and 90s, and left well enough alone with the CRA in the 90s and 2000s, or for that matter not regulated at all in 1934 none of this would have happened. I get a good chuckle when I hear the Internet Intellectuals spouting their screed about how this is a failure of capitalism. That would only be true if we actually had it.

 

And you're correct. McCain may give us another David Souter, he was appointed by a Republican (and what a dark day that was) or John Paul Stevens who was put up by Ford. But Obama will certainly give us more of Breyer and Bader-Ginsburg who have never failed to see the Constitution as a tool to empower the state over the rights of citizens rather than a limit government power as the founders intended.

[taks]

I get a good chuckle when I hear the Internet Intellectuals spouting their screed about how this is a failure of capitalism. That would only be true if we actually had it.

no kidding, a socialist implementation fails and what do the euro-snobs and pseudo-intellects do? they blame capitalism. oy vey!

 

oh, and you really have to go back farther than FDR to find "capitalism" in the US, though it was closer then than now.

 

taks

Edited October 7, 2008 by taks