OT: 2008 Elections

greggsand · Post by **greggsand** » Fri Feb 08, 2008 5:53 pm

pk500 wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:But he never did that and adhered to our country's seperation of church and state.
Really?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/government/fbci/mission.html

Take care,
PK

Good stuff PK, I only fear Huckabee could be 10x worse... Be afraid, be very afraid.

JRod · Post by **JRod** » Fri Feb 08, 2008 6:04 pm

There's a difference between talking TO god, and having god talking back.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,1 ... 78,00.html

XXXIV · Post by **XXXIV** » Fri Feb 08, 2008 6:24 pm

I am definately not going to vote for Bush now

wco81 · Post by **wco81** » Fri Feb 08, 2008 9:00 pm

Romney cited the Iraq war as the main reason he's dropping out -- not the low vote totals despite spending $40 million of his own money.

That is, if he keeps fighting McCain, Obama or Clinton is more likely to win and they supposedly have a plan to "surrender."

Strange that talk radio considered him the true conservative. Supposedly McCain had an ad prepared but never aired which showed Romney saying opposite things on many issues, especially opposite of the conservative positions he tried to espouse in this campaign.

Speculation is that he's bowing out now to run again in 2012. So he's going to put more money in? What kind of a return can you get if tens of millions of your personal fortune gets you the presidency?

The pension benefits are generous and I guess he'll get good book deals, lot of speaking fees. Those are the deals people know about anyways.

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Fri Feb 08, 2008 10:09 pm

wco81 wrote:Romney cited the Iraq war as the main reason he's dropping out -- not the low vote totals despite spending $40 million of his own money.

That is, if he keeps fighting McCain, Obama or Clinton is more likely to win and they supposedly have a plan to "surrender."

Strange that talk radio considered him the true conservative. Supposedly McCain had an ad prepared but never aired which showed Romney saying opposite things on many issues, especially opposite of the conservative positions he tried to espouse in this campaign.

Speculation is that he's bowing out now to run again in 2012. So he's going to put more money in? What kind of a return can you get if tens of millions of your personal fortune gets you the presidency?

The pension benefits are generous and I guess he'll get good book deals, lot of speaking fees. Those are the deals people know about anyways.

Romney reported his personal worth at $247 million in campaign disclosure forms. So even if he spent $40 million, he's still worth north of $200 mill.

His ever-shifting reasons for withdrawal from the race reflect his moving-target positions on nearly every issue in this campaign. The guy is a phony, through and through.

Take care,
PK

Dave · Post by **Dave** » Fri Feb 08, 2008 10:58 pm

I usually don't dip into the political threads, but I found Romney's exit speech to be disgusting. If he's the true conservative than that group is even more delusional and hate-filled than I thought.

That dude makes my skin crawl.

wco81 · Post by **wco81** » Sat Feb 09, 2008 11:46 am

But is all of that $247 million in cash?

If it isn't, $40 million could be a big chunk of the cash or liquid assets he had.

Even if it is, $40 million is still like 16% of his net worth.

Maybe it's best that he didn't get that many votes. Because if he got enough votes to continue, how much would he have poured in, especially if he was running all the way to November?

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Sat Feb 09, 2008 2:36 pm

True, true, WCO. But one would think that if he became the nominee that he would get more contributions now headed to McCain or Huckabee. Probably not enough to cover his original big splash of $40 million, though.

Take care,
PK

wco81 · Post by **wco81** » Sat Feb 09, 2008 4:33 pm

On the Slate podcast, they mentioned that Clinton and Obama pretty much got the same number of votes in Syracuse.

Wonder if either or combined they got more than McCain.

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Sat Feb 09, 2008 9:14 pm

wco81 wrote:On the Slate podcast, they mentioned that Clinton and Obama pretty much got the same number of votes in Syracuse.

Wonder if either or combined they got more than McCain.

Depends on whether they mean the city of Syracuse or Onondaga County, the county in which Syracuse is located.

The city is predominantly Democratic; the county is predominantly Republican. More residents in the county than the city.

Take care,
PK

JackB1 · Post by **JackB1** » Mon Feb 11, 2008 12:48 pm

McCain is now really pissing me off.... He's starting his rant against the Democrats. He stated how Democracts will increase govt spending and "big govt". How the Democrats can't fight Al Queda in Iraq, etc. Does McCain think that we are blind to the spending the Republicans have done in the past 7 years? The way the government has tried to intrude into State and personal levels more than ever? Can anyone say that the Republican's have been a shining example of "small govt" and pure conservative principles over the past 7 years?

We are back to this brainwashing again that we are "Fighting Al-Queda" in Iraq and we "can't let the terrorists beat us". Al Queda makes up less than 5% of the violence in Iraq, but that's not what McCain/Romney would have you believe. The Republican's are going to try to win this election on the "Politics of Fear" again, but I don't think that strategy will work this time around. Americans at the exit polls have the Economy as the #1 issue, so whichever candidate that focuses on that more will do better.

RobVarak · Post by **RobVarak** » Mon Feb 11, 2008 1:23 pm

JackB1 wrote: Does McCain think that we are blind to the spending the Republicans have done in the past 7 years?

Indeed, but at least the GOP has the decency to keep taxes lower while spending more. The Democrats will raise taxes, and still spend 3x more than the amount of the tax increase. It's your classic lose-lose situation

greggsand · Post by **greggsand** » Mon Feb 11, 2008 1:28 pm

RobVarak wrote:
JackB1 wrote: Does McCain think that we are blind to the spending the Republicans have done in the past 7 years?
Indeed, but at least the GOP has the decency to keep taxes lower while spending more. The Democrats will raise taxes, and still spend 3x more than the amount of the tax increase. It's your classic lose-lose situation

I'll take my chances...

XXXIV · Post by **XXXIV** » Mon Feb 11, 2008 2:59 pm

JackB1 wrote:McCain is now really pissing me off.... He's starting his rant against the Democrats. .

..He didnt ?...Really?...Shocking!

Naples39 · Post by **Naples39** » Mon Feb 11, 2008 3:21 pm

Most republicans don't approve of Bush's spending. I don't see why Bush's spending prevents McCain from saying the Democrats will spend more than he will. They are two different people, and the important issue is how much McCain would spend vs Clinton/Obama. The issue of Bush outspending Clinton/Obama isn't really relevant.

I do expect McCain to play the 'politics of fear' card though, because perhaps the single biggest difference between him and the other candidates is his war experience and his military views. If people want to call it 'politics of fear' so-be-it, but it's not like al-qaeda just went away and that there isn't a threat simply because there haven't been any high profile attacks recently.

Personally I am still really torn between McCain and Obama, assuming they are the nominees.

JackB1 · Post by **JackB1** » Mon Feb 11, 2008 4:17 pm

Naples39 wrote: If people want to call it 'politics of fear' so-be-it, but it's not like al-qaeda just went away and that there isn't a threat simply because there haven't been any high profile attacks recently.

Nobody is claiming Al Queda just "went away", but is having 200,000 troops in Iraq the best way to fight Al Queda? Remember, Al Queda's presence in Iraq is a byproduct of our being there. We didn't initially send our troops over there to fight Al Queda. That is just the "objective of the day" since all the prior objectives failed. The government has skewed the truth behind this war from day one and now McCain/Romney are continuing down that road.

Smurfy · Post by **Smurfy** » Mon Feb 11, 2008 4:42 pm

JackB1 wrote:
Naples39 wrote: If people want to call it 'politics of fear' so-be-it, but it's not like al-qaeda just went away and that there isn't a threat simply because there haven't been any high profile attacks recently.
Nobody is claiming Al Queda just "went away", but is having 200,000 troops in Iraq the best way to fight Al Queda? Remember, Al Queda's presence in Iraq is a byproduct of our being there. We didn't initially send our troops over there to fight Al Queda. That is just the "objective of the day" since all the prior objectives failed. The government has skewed the truth behind this war from day one and now McCain/Romney are continuing down that road.

Absolutely Jack. The "War on Terrorism" is just as much a branding trick as the "War on Drugs". It's not much different from Obama's "Vote for change" or whatever it's called. It's an easy way to take the discussion away from the finer details of what's wrong with the world - After all, if you're not with them, then you must be for narcotics and terrorism.

Naples39 · Post by **Naples39** » Mon Feb 11, 2008 5:11 pm

JackB1 wrote:
Naples39 wrote: If people want to call it 'politics of fear' so-be-it, but it's not like al-qaeda just went away and that there isn't a threat simply because there haven't been any high profile attacks recently.
Nobody is claiming Al Queda just "went away", but is having 200,000 troops in Iraq the best way to fight Al Queda? Remember, Al Queda's presence in Iraq is a byproduct of our being there. We didn't initially send our troops over there to fight Al Queda. That is just the "objective of the day" since all the prior objectives failed. The government has skewed the truth behind this war from day one and now McCain/Romney are continuing down that road.

Jack, I'm losing track of what we are talking about. Are we talking about the 'politics of fear', or are we talking about the Iraq war? My comment concerned the former, but not the latter. They are related issues, but they certainly are not one in the same, unless you believe merely supporting a continued presence in Iraq is automatically playing the politics of fear. That strikes me as a pretty unbelievable premise, so I assume that is not what you meant.

JackB1 · Post by **JackB1** » Mon Feb 11, 2008 5:32 pm

Naples39 wrote: Jack, I'm losing track of what we are talking about. Are we talking about the 'politics of fear', or are we talking about the Iraq war? My comment concerned the former, but not the latter. They are related issues, but they certainly are not one in the same, unless you believe merely supporting a continued presence in Iraq is automatically playing the politics of fear. That strikes me as a pretty unbelievable premise, so I assume that is not what you meant.

Naples, what I was trying to say was that McCain looks like he will continue to link the war in Iraq to fighting Al Queda and that if the Dem's want to pull out of Iraq, that means that the "terrorists win". Simply stated, he is saying if you are against the terrorists, than you should be for the Republicans. Since most American's agree that we should get out of Iraq, the only way to convince them we should stay there is somehow creating the illusion that our presence in Iraq is somehow keeping us safe from another attack from Al Queda. This strategy worked for Bush in his re-election, so I am assuming McCain thinks it may work again for him.

Exit polls are clearly stating that Americans are most concerned with the economy right now, so not playing to that would be a mistake, IMO.

Naples39 · Post by **Naples39** » Mon Feb 11, 2008 6:19 pm

JackB1 wrote:Naples, what I was trying to say was that McCain looks like he will continue to link the war in Iraq to fighting Al Queda and that if the Dem's want to pull out of Iraq, that means that the "terrorists win". Simply stated, he is saying if you are against the terrorists, than you should be for the Republicans. Since most American's agree that we should get out of Iraq, the only way to convince them we should stay there is somehow creating the illusion that our presence in Iraq is somehow keeping us safe from another attack from Al Queda. This strategy worked for Bush in his re-election, so I am assuming McCain thinks it may work again for him.

Exit polls are clearly stating that Americans are most concerned with the economy right now, so not playing to that would be a mistake, IMO.

Okay, I understand your perspective. I'm not quite sure if I agree that McCain is saying that if you are against the terrorists you have to vote for the republicans, but I do think he is implying that his experience and views will make americans safer from terrorists, which is pretty debatable in my mind, and I'm pretty sure you completely disagree with that.

ProvoAnC · Post by **ProvoAnC** » Mon Feb 11, 2008 8:36 pm

JackB1 wrote:
Nobody is claiming Al Queda just "went away", but is having 200,000 troops in Iraq the best way to fight Al Queda?

so what's the solution to fighting smelly bearded men in dresses? Hold hands? f*** sheep as a sign of solidarity? Let them blow more of our s*** up so we can show how tolerant we are of their views?

We either fight them over there or we fight them here...f*** it-leave Iraq, let them come here, and I'll be more than happy to face-shoot a moose-limb everyday, but America better be ready to face the consequences. Its time we start worrying less about what some donkey-f***ers from Douchebagistan think of how we do things and a little more about protecting our own.

America is not at war....the Marines and Army are at war...America is at the mall.

RobVarak · Post by **RobVarak** » Mon Feb 11, 2008 9:52 pm

Smurfy wrote: Absolutely Jack. The "War on Terrorism" is just as much a branding trick as the "War on Drugs".

That's so ignorant that it's dangerous. Unfortunately, much of the electorate seems to agree with you.

There really is no realistic debate about whether or not we are in direct conflict with Islamic extremism in a variety of guises. They are trying to kill us, and we are trying to kill them. It's not really that ambiguous. There are a range of battlefields, ranging from the shooting wars in Afghanistan and Iraq to the "cold" war of espionage and law enforcement, and even a cultural war of ideas. The war on drugs is indeed a brand...essentially a conflict of choice by the US which grows out of the way it opts to enforce certain laws. Two totally different things with enormously different ramifications if we fail.

Provo wrote:

America is not at war....the Marines and Army are at war...America is at the mall.

That may indeed be part of the problem. Unfortunately, the fact that they aren't dying at the mall like they did in the WTC or Pentagon seems to be lulling this nation into a ridiculous sense of complacency. What's worse is that anyone who tries to pierce the veil of this complacency is branded a war monger! It's a b*tch of a Catch-22.

Keeping a nation of this size and diversity on a war-footing in a war like this is essentially unprecedented. s***, people are still having hissy fits over airport security delays! Poor babies! Imagine if they had to live in the Israeli domestic security environment...OTOH maybe compulsory military service would go some ways to disposing of notions that this war is a "branding trick."

XXXIV · Post by **XXXIV** » Mon Feb 11, 2008 10:03 pm

RobVarak wrote:
Smurfy wrote: Absolutely Jack. The "War on Terrorism" is just as much a branding trick as the "War on Drugs".
That's so ignorant that it's dangerous. Unfortunately, much of the electorate seems to agree with you.

.

The eloctorate is lead by the nose by television and radio demagogy.

Good thing we dont have a true democracy...can you imagine self serving political douchebags like bill mawr and rush limbaugh driving the nation?

No matter who wins in November I am pretty confident that what is right will be done with respect to the war on terror...

RobVarak · Post by **RobVarak** » Mon Feb 11, 2008 10:19 pm

Apparently, Obama isn't kidding when he talks about "change." LMFAO This image is from a news story on the opening of a new campaign office in Texas:

Here's a link to the video.

http://www.myfoxhouston.com/myfox/pages ... geId=1.1.1

I see him amending his stump speech:

John McCain won't be able to accuse me of voting for the War in Iraq, because I didn't. I was busy gathering around me those people who find inspiration in the murdering, thieving Marxist revolutionary movement in Cuba...

This oughta play well in FLA.

Honestly, it's so bad that I am willing to suspend judgment until confirmation that this wasn't a dirty trick by FOX or some internet hoax. Obviously, I don't blame the half-term Senator from Illinois directly. I suspect he may (at least publicly) disavow any affection for Che. But if true, it is an indictment of his campaign to the extent that it's emblematic of some portion of his grass roots support.

Post by **Jared** » Mon Feb 11, 2008 10:55 pm

RobVarak wrote:Obviously, I don't blame the half-term Senator from Illinois directly. I suspect he may (at least publicly) disavow any affection for Che. But if true, it is an indictment of his campaign to the extent that it's emblematic of some portion of his grass roots support.

Are you insinuating that Obama is a Communist and/or revolutionary sympathizer, by saying that Obama "may (at least publicly) disavow any affection for Che"? And would you like to clarify what you mean by saying that the Che flag is "emblematic of some portion of his grass roots support"? Are you saying that his campaign is being supported by Communists?

As for the flag issue, the Fox cameras were there at the opening of a new Obama office, and someone there was stupid enough to put a Che flag up. If higher-ups in the campaign find out (which, now that this is a right-wing meme, they probably will), I'm sure that the flag will come down.

But in the meantime, it's good to know that people will use this to insinuate that Obama (and his grass roots support) hearts Communists. Hooray politics.