OT: 2008 Elections/Politics thread, Part 2

[XXXIV]

Megyn Kelly vs. Us Weekly magazine

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kjQhiarI ... ture=bz301

[XXXIV]

I just saw a great post. It said:

"Note to Sara Palin:
Jesus was a community organizer"

Jesus was a pure communist. Im not kidding and I dont mean like Stalin or Mao Tse Tung.

[wco81]

First of all, that quote was widely reported and that clip got played for several days.

Second, McCain is accusing Obama of putting self-interest ahead of country. IOW, Obama isn't patriotic. In addition, we're talking about a war so by saying Obama wants the country to lose a war, he might as well accuse Obama of treason.

Think of the last time a candidate for president accused someone else of wishing that the US lost a war.

It's a remarkable accusation. It probably plays well to the base, those people waving "Country First" signs, as if those outside the GOP are into self-aggrandizement or who knows what?

Oh that's right, if you're not GOP, not only are you not patriotic, you're "anti-American," and have loyalties elsewhere.

When have we heard this before? Are the "anti-American" accusations the new version of the "un-American" accusations of yore?

[XXXIV]

What you really learn in a thread like this.

How republicans see democrats.








How democrats see republicans.

[RobVarak]

Nope, I tend to see Democrats like this:



Scarier than Vader. Sure the dark side is bad, but have you ever smelled a hippy in the wild? You'd beg for Grand Mof Tarkin's fate LOL

[GameSeven]

So you have character assassination on Obama, starting with the assertion that he'd rather lose a war to win a campaign.

That's a blatant mischaracterization, but unsurprising since every GOP attack on Obama is treated as "character assasisnation." McCain is not only distinguishing himself from Obama on that issue, but from the wider world of politicians. I've never once heard McCain suggest that Obama would sacrifice the war for his own ambition.

This is *the* fundamental issue I have with today's DNC. It seems election after election the "character assassination" mantra is parroted by much of the DNC faithful. I'm weary of the victim complex espoused by many of these people. Is it really as if no one has uttered a cross word about a Republican candidate or office holder? Michael Dukakis was on the radio last night and he mentioned the attack ads (in 1988!) against him three times but did not own up to such dirty politics when faced with his own smear attacks on Biden (and, later, Gephardt) to win the nomination in the first place.

Quick, tell me what comes to mind with any of these names: Bush (Sr. or Jr.), Cheney, Condi, Rumsfeld, Newt, Reagan, *Quayle* I'm not even the greatest fan of all of these folks, but you can't say that their characters have been spared attack.

And the transgressions that are deemed "character attacking" by the DNC are often so broad as to be laughable. It's reminiscent of the scene with Dennis in "Monty Python and the Holy Grail"

[webdanzer]

I just saw a great post. It said:

"Note to Sara Palin:
Jesus was a community organizer"

So you're finally acknowledging the 'Obama as Messiah' link?

[RobVarak]

Second, McCain is accusing Obama of putting self-interest ahead of country. IOW, Obama isn't patriotic. In addition, we're talking about a war so by saying Obama wants the country to lose a war, he might as well accuse Obama of treason.

I think there's an enormous logical leap between putting your interests ahead of the nation's and being treasonous. People decide every day to stay home and make money rather than join the armed forces...putting their self-interest first. People move their businesses to other countries in their interest.

Obama wanting us to lose the war in Iraq in order to get him elected is disgusting and reprehensible, but does not rise to the level of treason.

[MACTEPsporta]

Nope, I tend to see Democrats like this:



Scarier than Vader. Sure the dark side is bad, but have you ever smelled a hippy in the wild? You'd beg for Grand Mof Tarkin's fate LOL

You are losing your objectivity points. Put up a picture of a redneck immediately.

[JackB1]

Nope, I tend to see Democrats like this:

Scarier than Vader. Sure the dark side is bad, but have you ever smelled a hippy in the wild? You'd beg for Grand Mof Tarkin's fate LOL

Hippies aren't interested at all in politics. All they care about is where to get some good weed

[RobVarak]

You are losing your objectivity points. Put up a picture of a redneck immediately.

Just having fun. I know that not all Democrats are hippies. Some are just socialists.

[MACTEPsporta]

I don't know if Obama wants US to lose the war, but even if he does, it may be the more patriotic thing to do. Paradox, I know.

Any war at remote location: read - invading country, and the one being invaded are not in close proximity -- will result in a loss. So, the quicker it's over, the more lives will be saved, as the end result will remain a loss, regardless of what anyone will say.

[wco81]

Obama wanting us to lose the war in Iraq in order to get him elected is disgusting and reprehensible, but does not rise to the level of treason.

Nice, easy how that accusation rolls off, isn't it?

What is your evidence for Obama wanting us to lose the war?

Withdraw equals losing the war? "Cut and run" wasn't strong enough, now it's wanting to lose the war?

[MACTEPsporta]

Just having fun. I know that not all Democrats are hippies. Some are just socialists.

Somehow the word 'socialist' became offensive in this country. It is the most successfull type of government in recent history. Of course as any type of government it had its perversions, but so have all the all the other types of democracy, not to mention monarchies.

[Jared]

Obama wanting us to lose the war in Iraq in order to get him elected is disgusting, reprehensible, and completely untrue, but does not rise to the level of treason.

FTFY

[GameSeven]

Somehow the word 'socialist' became offensive in this country.

For me it's when I saw this T-s*** for the millionth time:

[GameSeven]

IMHO, Obama wanting us to lose the war in Iraq in order to get him elected is disgusting, reprehensible, but does not rise to the level of treason.

FTFY

FTFY. We don't have to put words in someone's mouth if we disagree

[matthewk]

One of the major flaws with our system: One Party President + Other Party in Congress = Not Much Getting Done.

I hate to respond to one of your posts after going so beyond the pale earlier that you clearly don't even know where the pale is, but many people would describe that as a positive, not a flaw.

How is it a positive when Congress sits on their hands for 2 years?

WHen it's one with Pelosi and Reid in charge

[MACTEPsporta]

Somehow the word 'socialist' became offensive in this country.

For me it's when I saw this T-s*** for the millionth time:

I am not sure what Che Guevara has to do with socialism. He was a habitual revolutioner, he wasn't building anything, but destroying.

[RobVarak]

Obama wanting us to lose the war in Iraq in order to get him elected is disgusting and reprehensible, but does not rise to the level of treason.

Nice, easy how that accusation rolls off, isn't it?

What is your evidence for Obama wanting us to lose the war?

Withdraw equals losing the war? "Cut and run" wasn't strong enough, now it's wanting to lose the war?

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtex ... l=s110-433

He co-sponsored a bill which opposed the surge and wanted to "redeploy" troops from Iraq beginning in May 2007.

Retreating at the time that Obama and the Democrats advocated was losing. Yes.

Technically when we withdrew from Vietnam there was a functioning South Vietnamese state, but was that withdrawal a victory? Do people reflect on Vietnam as they do Korea and see it as a stalemate? Of course not. We cut bait and retreated...and it was a strategic loss, perversely built on a foundation of tactical victories.

Obama wanting us to lose the war in Iraq in order to get him elected is disgusting, reprehensible, and completely untrue, but does not rise to the level of treason.

FTFY

By his actions he made argument about whether he "wanted" to lose the war irrelevent. He initiated action that in fact would have lost the war. He was fully prepared to lose the war.

If I advocate a policy that burns down a house, discerning whether that's what I wanted or not becomes an academic exercise. Although I suppose that I could introduce the bill to burn down the house but talk about how what I'm really doing is redeploying the house and I really do want the house to survive.

[pk500]

Second, McCain is accusing Obama of putting self-interest ahead of country. IOW, Obama isn't patriotic. In addition, we're talking about a war so by saying Obama wants the country to lose a war, he might as well accuse Obama of treason.

First off, whether the war in Iraq was "won" or "lost" won't be determined during Obama or McCain's administration, even if they are two-termers, because how are we defining victory there?

There won't be a rail car in Versailles. There won't be a mahogany desk on the deck of the Missouri. And I sure as hell hope there won't be a "Mission Accomplished" banner on a carrier.

Victory or defeat in Iraq will be determined by whether that country is stable, democratic and with a self-sufficient government and armed forces. That won't be determined for quite a while.

It's not a conventional war, and there aren't conventional standards of victory or defeat. So the whole topic is pretty moot other than Democrats accusing McCain of spreading treason rumors about Obama and Republicans spreading rumors that McCain wants to stay in Iraq for 100 years.

We're not going to be in Iraq for 100 years, but it will be quite a long time, regardless of who wins in November. We'll have an occupying force there just like we do in South Korea. As Tom Friedman wrote, we conquered it, now we own it.

Take care,
PK

[RobVarak]

. It is the most successfull type of government in recent history.

We almost certainly have a fundamentally different definition of what constitutes "successful" government.

[JackB1]

I don't know if Obama wants US to lose the war, but even if he does, it may be the more patriotic thing to do. Paradox, I know.

Any war at remote location: read - invading country, and the one being invaded are not in close proximity -- will result in a loss. So, the quicker it's over, the more lives will be saved, as the end result will remain a loss, regardless of what anyone will say.

Couldn't agree more. I guess it's not "patriotic" to want to end the loss of American lives in a war that we never belonged in to begin with. As soon as we leave it's just a matter of time before it turns right back into what it was before we invaded. Unless we plan on keeping an indefinite military presence there (which sadly looks like a strong possibility) the sooner we get out, the better, IMO.

[XXXIV]

. It is the most successfull type of government in recent history.

We almost certainly have a fundamentally different definition of what constitutes "successful" government.

No kidding.

[MACTEPsporta]

. It is the most successfull type of government in recent history.

We almost certainly have a fundamentally different definition of what constitutes "successful" government.

That's a point hardly worth arguing. My criteria are: lower crime rates, accessible and inexpensive healthcare, economic stability, stable foreign relations, people's approval of government. Are yours different?