OT: 2008 Elections

Jackdog · Post by **Jackdog** » Tue Jan 08, 2008 2:50 pm

08 Presidential candidates = This year's BCS match-ups. Exhibitions for failure.

JRod · Post by **JRod** » Tue Jan 08, 2008 3:45 pm

RobVarak wrote:
JRod wrote: I liken Obama's speeches to JFK with one major exception. JFK could also rally the people behind his cause but he had specifics behind them. His themes weren't change for the sake of change. But freedom around the world, a responsible foreign policy, civil rights changes here in America to name just a few. My main criticism of Obama right not is that all he brings to the table right now is change. I just want to see more from him.
It's becomng a meme to comare now to 1960 and Obama to JFK. Oddly enough, there seems to be some sort of positive connotation attached to this comparison...

Of course it's positive. Any comparision to JFK is going to be that. That's also why I said, I want more details from Obama.

Post by **Jared** » Tue Jan 08, 2008 5:06 pm

JRod wrote: Of course it's positive. Any comparision to JFK is going to be that. That's also why I said, I want more details from Obama.

I think a couple of people in this post have mentioned that they want more details from Obama. He's got a bunch of basic policy positions on his webpage.

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/

Do these not count? Or are people commenting more on not liking the style of Obama's speeches?

RobVarak · Post by **RobVarak** » Tue Jan 08, 2008 5:06 pm

JRod wrote:
RobVarak wrote:
JRod wrote: I liken Obama's speeches to JFK with one major exception. JFK could also rally the people behind his cause but he had specifics behind them. His themes weren't change for the sake of change. But freedom around the world, a responsible foreign policy, civil rights changes here in America to name just a few. My main criticism of Obama right not is that all he brings to the table right now is change. I just want to see more from him.
It's becomng a meme to comare now to 1960 and Obama to JFK. Oddly enough, there seems to be some sort of positive connotation attached to this comparison...
Of course it's positive. Any comparision to JFK is going to be that. That's also why I said, I want more details from Obama.

LOL I think you failed to detect the sarcasm in my post. I humbly submit that said favorable comparisons are...let's say inconsistent with the historical record of what actually happened as a result of that election in 1960.

webdanzer · Post by **webdanzer** » Tue Jan 08, 2008 5:10 pm

Ron Paul a bigoted whackjob?

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html? ... 32a7da84ca

Yes, the source is liberal, but if the cited 'newletters' do exist, they're pretty hard to explain away.

wco81 · Post by **wco81** » Tue Jan 08, 2008 5:24 pm

If Obama wins the nomination (and expectations are that he wins tonight ad his momentum just keeps building), he'll be taken down for being too liberal.

They'll go after his likely tax policies, stance on things like gun control and abortion.

So all this talk about change, inspiring a "wave" and so on may become forgotten in November.

XXXIV · Post by **XXXIV** » Tue Jan 08, 2008 5:39 pm

wco81 wrote:
They'll go after his likely tax policies, stance on things like gun control and abortion.

.

Thats nuts!!!....Attack actual policies??? No way will the media do that...

What have we learned about Ron Paul for instance in this very thread. Someone I knew nothing about before this thread..That he is a bigoted whack job...Now thats the media I know.

wco81 · Post by **wco81** » Tue Jan 08, 2008 6:05 pm

Not the media, the other party.

They will trot out the tried and true slogans, "tax and spend," "cut and run," etc.

XXXIV · Post by **XXXIV** » Tue Jan 08, 2008 6:10 pm

wco81 wrote:Not the media, the other party.

They will trot out the tried and true slogans, "tax and spend," "cut and run," etc.

ya true dat part...

Save social security? from fear monger party A

and

Save our children from fear monger party B

Inuyasha · Post by **Inuyasha** » Tue Jan 08, 2008 6:21 pm

I can see the Obama to JFK connection since they're both young when running for president.

But I noticed how Huckabee sort of looks like Nixon up close missing the nose.

I like both Obama and Huckabee just because they're somewhat outsiders. Hillary, Guliani, Mcain.....they're more of the same.

TheGamer · Post by **TheGamer** » Tue Jan 08, 2008 6:51 pm

webdanzer wrote:Ron Paul a bigoted whackjob?

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html? ... 32a7da84ca

Yes, the source is liberal, but if the cited 'newletters' do exist, they're pretty hard to explain away.

wow, first I've heard of that. (picking up the rock I've been living under and tossing it aside. although it did provide good shade in the summer) I did a google search on this guy and with all the information out there on him, I'm suprised there hasn't been much mainstream coverage on this. I suspect/hope that he won't last too long.

JRod · Post by **JRod** » Tue Jan 08, 2008 7:07 pm

TheGamer wrote:
webdanzer wrote:Ron Paul a bigoted whackjob?

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html? ... 32a7da84ca

Yes, the source is liberal, but if the cited 'newletters' do exist, they're pretty hard to explain away.
wow, first I've heard of that. (picking up the rock I've been living under and tossing it aside. although it did provide good shade in the summer) I did a google search on this guy and with all the information out there on him, I'm suprised there hasn't been much mainstream coverage on this. I suspect/hope that he won't last too long.

Rule of media is to only take down the front runners. And don't question policies or platform. Those things are boring.

Brando70 · Post by **Brando70** » Tue Jan 08, 2008 7:29 pm

RobVarak wrote:LOL I think you failed to detect the sarcasm in my post. I humbly submit that said favorable comparisons are...let's say inconsistent with the historical record of what actually happened as a result of that election in 1960.

JFK is very, very overrated. Not his fault since his legacy has been a media creation, but he just wasn't in office long enough to be considered a great president. Although he did set the bar for presidential infidelity very, very high.

TheGamer · Post by **TheGamer** » Tue Jan 08, 2008 7:40 pm

Brando70 wrote:
RobVarak wrote:LOL I think you failed to detect the sarcasm in my post. I humbly submit that said favorable comparisons are...let's say inconsistent with the historical record of what actually happened as a result of that election in 1960.
JFK is very, very overrated. Not his fault since his legacy has been a media creation, but he just wasn't in office long enough to be considered a great president. Although he did set the bar for presidential infidelity very, very high.

Yeah, but Thomas Jefferson was the original player in the white house.

Brando70 · Post by **Brando70** » Tue Jan 08, 2008 7:58 pm

TheGamer wrote:
Brando70 wrote:
RobVarak wrote:LOL I think you failed to detect the sarcasm in my post. I humbly submit that said favorable comparisons are...let's say inconsistent with the historical record of what actually happened as a result of that election in 1960.
JFK is very, very overrated. Not his fault since his legacy has been a media creation, but he just wasn't in office long enough to be considered a great president. Although he did set the bar for presidential infidelity very, very high.
Yeah, but Thomas Jefferson was the original player in the white house.

The list of presidential infidelities (proven and alleged) is quite long. I think Jefferson was the first. Andrew Jackson, Grover Cleveland, Warren Harding, FDR, Eisenhower (although his was in the war), JFK, and of course the Clenis are just a few that come to mind (no pun intended). I think Nixon and/or LBJ were also accused.

The most unbelievable one is Cleveland, who may have had a child out of wedlock and still won. That would be pretty difficult for a candidate to overcome today, let alone in the 19th Century.

RobVarak · Post by **RobVarak** » Tue Jan 08, 2008 8:14 pm

To paraphrase something you heard a lot of in the late 90's, it wasn't that JFK was f-----g Marilyn that troubles me. I have more of a problem with the way he was screwing the rest of the country

wco81 · Post by **wco81** » Tue Jan 08, 2008 8:34 pm

JFK gave great speeches, real memorable ones. He inspired people with the call to serve in the Peace Corps, to land on the moon and the solidarity with East Berliners.

One thing also that is rare compared to day was that he took the blame for Bay of Pigs, even though it was a plan conceived by the CIA.

He also handled the Cuban Missile Crisis just right. He was counseled to go after the Cubans and Soviets aggressively but he chose a path that gave the Soviets a way to back out and save face.

The whole Camelot thing with the beautiful family persisted long after JFK's life, until at least JFK Jr. died.

XXXIV · Post by **XXXIV** » Tue Jan 08, 2008 8:40 pm

Good to see someone can be a party stooge 50 years after the fact.

wco81 · Post by **wco81** » Tue Jan 08, 2008 8:47 pm

And haters don't let go either, do they?

Seriously, it's ridiculous to reduce his presidency to womanizing.

He may not have been great but he didn't just screw women while he was in office.

XXXIV · Post by **XXXIV** » Tue Jan 08, 2008 8:50 pm

wco81 wrote:And haters don't let go either, do they?

Seriously, it's ridiculous to reduce his presidency to womanizing.

He may not have been great but he didn't just screw women while he was in office.

Hater?...lamo!!! get a grip.

Dude...
Im refering to your the blaming the CIA for the BoP....you blame Bush for Iraq and the WMDs or the CIA intel?...I blame Bush.

Hate will be your partisan prison.

wco81 · Post by **wco81** » Tue Jan 08, 2008 9:09 pm

I didn't blame the Bay of Pigs on the CIA. I said it was their plan, conceived before JFK took office and presented to him.

He gave the green light and took the blame, as he should.

XXXIV · Post by **XXXIV** » Tue Jan 08, 2008 9:11 pm

wco81 wrote:I didn't blame the Bay of Pigs on the CIA. I said it was their plan, conceived before JFK took office and presented to him.

He gave the green light and took the blame, as he should.

Fair enough...

We will agree then....The man in charge is the man in charge.

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Tue Jan 08, 2008 9:17 pm

wco81 wrote:And haters don't let go either, do they?

Seriously, it's ridiculous to reduce his presidency to womanizing.

He may not have been great but he didn't just screw women while he was in office.

You're overlooking the greatest gaffe of his presidency: The major escalation of U.S. military involvement in Vietnam. Plus LBJ did a lot more for civil rights than JFK.

On a 1-10 scale of PR, Kennedy was a 10. On a 1-10 scale of results, he was about a 5 or a 6. I give the man credit for the Peace Corps and the Apollo program.

Take care,
PK

JRod · Post by **JRod** » Tue Jan 08, 2008 9:25 pm

I didn't see Clinton and Obama being too close to call. I thought Obama would have ran away with NH.

McCain wins NH. Looks like Huckabee and McCain will slug it out.

There was a book about Presidential indiscretions and I think they said over 75% of President's had affairs.

XXXIV · Post by **XXXIV** » Tue Jan 08, 2008 9:26 pm

JRod wrote:

There was a book about Presidential indiscretions and I think they said over 75% of President's had affairs.

So basically 25% were impotent...