OT: Elections/Politics thread, part 5

JackB1 · Post by **JackB1** » Mon Oct 13, 2008 11:40 am

matthewk wrote: Isn't part of being our own worst enemy canstantly taking shots at one another instead of uniting against the real enemy? That was good advice you gave there at the end. Maybe you should be taking some of your own advice.

The World and this country WAS united against the real enemy. Unfortunately our President thought our real enemy was Iraq.

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Mon Oct 13, 2008 11:40 am

GTHobbes wrote:Read the article, PK...it's a long one, but it's pretty informative.

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/covers ... ohn_mccain

I read it when you first posted it, thanks. The sourcing of it was just as biased as it was the first time I read it. The story relies on Butler and Dramesi; did the author make any attempts to contact or quote someone else who was with McCain in the Hanoi Hilton?

Of course not.

Again, that story does nothing to dispel the fact that he was held captive for years and suffered injuries while serving in the military.

Take care,
PK

JackB1 · Post by **JackB1** » Mon Oct 13, 2008 11:43 am

matthewk wrote:
JackB1 wrote:
kevinpars wrote:George W. Bush gave more terrorists a free ride back to Saudi Arabia on 09/12/2001 than Obama could befriend if he lived to be 100 - and Bush did it with our tax dollars as we sat in our houses and prayed for those who died in the terrorist attacks.
Guys. Instead of mocking, please tell me what exactly isn't true here?

Point #1) Bush gave all of Bin Laden's family members a free ride out of the country after 9/11. What's not true? This is documented fact.
What is not true is that they were terrorists.

I personally never said they were terrorists (read my original reply), but to give them all a free plane ride out of the country immediately after the attack and not hold them for a while at least for questioning is beyond inexcusable.

Naples39 · Post by **Naples39** » Mon Oct 13, 2008 11:44 am

I find it rather shocking that anyone would treat such a biased piece from such a flimsy, biased source as the final word on any issue.

GTHobbes · Post by **GTHobbes** » Mon Oct 13, 2008 11:45 am

pk500 wrote:
GTHobbes wrote:Read the article, PK...it's a long one, but it's pretty informative.

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/covers ... ohn_mccain
I read it when you first posted it, thanks.

Again, that story does nothing to dispel the fact that he was held captive for years and suffered injuries while serving in the military.

Take care,
PK

Okay...thanks. I stand by my comments.

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Mon Oct 13, 2008 11:49 am

GTHobbes wrote:
pk500 wrote:
GTHobbes wrote:Read the article, PK...it's a long one, but it's pretty informative.

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/covers ... ohn_mccain
I read it when you first posted it, thanks.

Again, that story does nothing to dispel the fact that he was held captive for years and suffered injuries while serving in the military.

Take care,
PK
Okay...thanks. I stand by my comments.

I have updated my post above, but I'll repeat it here: The sourcing of that story was HORRIFICALLY biased.

The writer relies solely on Dramesi and Butler for the account of McCain's behavior as a POW. Did the author attempt to even speak to someone who has a different account? Did he even quote that person for balance?

Of course not. This Rolling Stone piece was just as much of an example of partisan journalism as something printed in the National Review against Obama.

Take care,
PK

JackB1 · Post by **JackB1** » Mon Oct 13, 2008 11:54 am

pk500 wrote:
That frazzle-haired broad at the end of this McCain video -- the one who called Obama an Arab -- IS the typical American voter. They don't base their voting decisions on careful study of issues. Instead, they either hang on to ideologies of the past or fasten themselves to smears and myths either spread by media or the Internet.

Take care,
PK

You are 100% correct Paul. We here at DSP are nowhere near representing the typical US voter. If we were, Bush wouldn't be in the oval office today, as witnesses by our voting poll 4 years ago. If anyone watches Bill Maher when he goes out and talks to "Average Joe" about who he's voting for and why, they would see what you talking about.
Would it be so crazy to have to pass a rudimentary IQ test before you are allowed to vote?

GameSeven · Post by **GameSeven** » Mon Oct 13, 2008 11:57 am

JackB1 wrote:
matthewk wrote:
JackB1 wrote: Guys. Instead of mocking, please tell me what exactly isn't true here?

Point #1) Bush gave all of Bin Laden's family members a free ride out of the country after 9/11. What's not true? This is documented fact.
What is not true is that they were terrorists.
I never said they were terrorists (read my original reply), but to give them all a free plane ride out of the country immediately after the attack and not hold them for a while at least for questioning is beyond inexcusable.

Jack, you asked what was not true with Kevin's post and Matt responded. Nobody cared to address your comments vis-a-vis "Bin Laden's family members". You took issue with the response to Kevin's post, requested information, then ignored it.

GameSeven · Post by **GameSeven** » Mon Oct 13, 2008 11:59 am

JackB1 wrote:You are 100% correct Paul. We here at DSP are nowhere near representing the typical US voter. If we were, Bush wouldn't be in the oval office today, as witnesses by our voting poll 4 years ago. If anyone watches Bill Maher when he goes out and talks to "Average Joe" about who he's voting for and why, they would see what you talking about.
Would it be so crazy to have to pass a rudimentary IQ test before you are allowed to vote?

Where to begin

RobVarak · Post by **RobVarak** » Mon Oct 13, 2008 12:01 pm

JackB1 wrote: Would it be so crazy to have to pass a rudimentary IQ test before you are allowed to vote?

Sometimes Japanese RPG's say it best, "..."!

I think that given the response to even the most incredibly low "barriers" to voting like requirind ID, as well as the history of literacy tests etc., I think that's...unlikely.

Teal · Post by **Teal** » Mon Oct 13, 2008 12:04 pm

GTHobbes wrote:Read the article, PK...it's a long one, but it's pretty informative.

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/covers ... ohn_mccain

It's not informative...it's a bunch of biased bullshit. It's hardly objective, and, being Rolling Stone, it's hardly journalism, either. This is the same kind of s*** that those turdheads wearing the 'Sarah Palin is a c***' shirts would write.

I'm sorry, but any so-called 'journalist' that would put this:

on it's 'news article', is not a journalist, but a partisan hack. There's absolutely nothing to read there. Nothing. This is the same kind of s*** from the same kind of nuts who put out some videography of McCain causing the fire on his aircraft carrier. (A videography, mind you, that someone posted here earlier that was from a pedophilia-gay man website).

So tell me again why this is something to be taken seriously?

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Mon Oct 13, 2008 12:05 pm

JackB1 wrote:Would it be so crazy to have to pass a rudimentary IQ test before you are allowed to vote?

Yes, it would be crazy. You're an American whether you're a MENSA member or a moron.

Jack, you also stretched my response to then add your editorial comment about the re-election of Bush. That wasn't my point, and I want that to be clear.

My only point was that those at DSP active in political discussion -- from both sides of the aisle -- often overestimate the level of political knowledge of the average American voter. That's it.

Take care,
PK

Teal · Post by **Teal** » Mon Oct 13, 2008 12:06 pm

GameSeven wrote:
JackB1 wrote:You are 100% correct Paul. We here at DSP are nowhere near representing the typical US voter. If we were, Bush wouldn't be in the oval office today, as witnesses by our voting poll 4 years ago. If anyone watches Bill Maher when he goes out and talks to "Average Joe" about who he's voting for and why, they would see what you talking about.
Would it be so crazy to have to pass a rudimentary IQ test before you are allowed to vote?
Where to begin

Uh...BILL MAHER?

Teal · Post by **Teal** » Mon Oct 13, 2008 12:08 pm

pk500 wrote:
JackB1 wrote:Would it be so crazy to have to pass a rudimentary IQ test before you are allowed to vote?
Yes, it would be. You're an American whether you're a MENSA member or a moron.

Take care,
PK

Hey, Jack: Would it be so crazy to have to show a valid ID before you are allowed to vote? (Of course, that might 'disenfranchise' some dead people, rock stars, and certain members of the Dallas Cowboys)

JackB1 · Post by **JackB1** » Mon Oct 13, 2008 12:15 pm

GameSeven wrote: Jack, you asked what was not true with Kevin's post and Matt responded. Nobody cared to address your comments vis-a-vis "Bin Laden's family members". You took issue with the response to Kevin's post, requested information, then ignored it.

I didn't ignore it, I asked what wasn't true about what I said. Kevin's characterization of all Bin Laden's family members as being "terrorists" wasn't exactly correct, but I would imagine they would all be worth a closer look, at the very least. We have no way of now knowing if any of them were in fact terrorists or knew anything that would have lead us to Bin Laden or assisted in his capture.

JackB1 · Post by **JackB1** » Mon Oct 13, 2008 12:19 pm

Teal wrote:
GameSeven wrote:
JackB1 wrote:You are 100% correct Paul. We here at DSP are nowhere near representing the typical US voter. If we were, Bush wouldn't be in the oval office today, as witnesses by our voting poll 4 years ago. If anyone watches Bill Maher when he goes out and talks to "Average Joe" about who he's voting for and why, they would see what you talking about.
Would it be so crazy to have to pass a rudimentary IQ test before you are allowed to vote?
Where to begin
Uh...BILL MAHER?

Yeah I know. Because it's Bill Maher's show, there can't possible be one thing worthwhile on it. The way you flat out dismiss things because you don't like the source is unbelievable.

JackB1 · Post by **JackB1** » Mon Oct 13, 2008 12:24 pm

GameSeven wrote:
JackB1 wrote:You are 100% correct Paul. We here at DSP are nowhere near representing the typical US voter. If we were, Bush wouldn't be in the oval office today, as witnesses by our voting poll 4 years ago. If anyone watches Bill Maher when he goes out and talks to "Average Joe" about who he's voting for and why, they would see what you talking about.
Would it be so crazy to have to pass a rudimentary IQ test before you are allowed to vote?
Where to begin

If you went around the country and heard the reasons people use to choose their candidates, you wouldn't think the was so crazy. Of course I know it will never happen, but should people be allowed to vote for someone because of the color of their skin? They interview and choose jury members carefully. Why not just pick some random people off the street? Isn't the choice of who leads our country just as critical as who sits on a jury?

matthewk · Post by **matthewk** » Mon Oct 13, 2008 12:28 pm

JackB1 wrote:
matthewk wrote:
JackB1 wrote: Guys. Instead of mocking, please tell me what exactly isn't true here?

Point #1) Bush gave all of Bin Laden's family members a free ride out of the country after 9/11. What's not true? This is documented fact.
What is not true is that they were terrorists.
I personally never said they were terrorists (read my original reply), but to give them all a free plane ride out of the country immediately after the attack and not hold them for a while at least for questioning is beyond inexcusable.

You asked "What's not true?" about point #1. I assumed your points were in reference to Kevins, otherwise why quote him? You can read his original line that says they were terrorists.

JackB1 · Post by **JackB1** » Mon Oct 13, 2008 12:28 pm

Teal wrote: Hey, Jack: Would it be so crazy to have to show a valid ID before you are allowed to vote? (Of course, that might 'disenfranchise' some dead people, rock stars, and certain members of the Dallas Cowboys)

Of course not. Why this isn't strictly enforced is beyond me. The inadequacies of our "voting system" is a whole other discussion.

matthewk · Post by **matthewk** » Mon Oct 13, 2008 12:29 pm

JackB1 wrote:Would it be so crazy to have to pass a rudimentary IQ test before you are allowed to vote?

Must......resist.......comment......

GTHobbes · Post by **GTHobbes** » Mon Oct 13, 2008 12:31 pm

Teal wrote: It's not informative...it's a bunch of biased bullshit. It's hardly objective, and, being Rolling Stone, it's hardly journalism, either. This is the same kind of s*** that those turdheads wearing the 'Sarah Palin is a c***' shirts would write.

There's absolutely nothing to read there. Nothing. This is the same kind of s*** from the same kind of nuts who put out some videography of McCain causing the fire on his aircraft carrier. (A videography, mind you, that someone posted here earlier that was from a pedophilia-gay man website).

So tell me again why this is something to be taken seriously?

C'mon, Teal...let's try not to get this thread locked up yet again.

Teal · Post by **Teal** » Mon Oct 13, 2008 12:36 pm

JackB1 wrote:
Teal wrote:
GameSeven wrote: Where to begin
Uh...BILL MAHER?
Yeah I know. Because it's Bill Maher's show, there can't possible be one thing worthwhile on it. The way you flat out dismiss things because you don't like the source is unbelievable.

No...Bill Maher is unbelievable. It has nothing to do with liking or disliking the source. It's that the source is an idiot. And where there's smoke...

JackB1 · Post by **JackB1** » Mon Oct 13, 2008 12:36 pm

matthewk wrote: You asked "What's not true?" about point #1. I assumed your points were in reference to Kevins, otherwise why quote him? You can read his original line that says they were terrorists.

They were in reference to Kevin's quote. I just rephrased the basic points.
You are focusing his wording to literally. The point was that Bush did a lot more damage to our country by his actions, then by Obama's shaky connection to Ayers.

Teal · Post by **Teal** » Mon Oct 13, 2008 12:37 pm

GTHobbes wrote:
Teal wrote: It's not informative...it's a bunch of biased bullshit. It's hardly objective, and, being Rolling Stone, it's hardly journalism, either. This is the same kind of s*** that those turdheads wearing the 'Sarah Palin is a c***' shirts would write.

There's absolutely nothing to read there. Nothing. This is the same kind of s*** from the same kind of nuts who put out some videography of McCain causing the fire on his aircraft carrier. (A videography, mind you, that someone posted here earlier that was from a pedophilia-gay man website).

So tell me again why this is something to be taken seriously?
C'mon, Teal...let's try not to get this thread locked up yet again.

Don't post dumb s*** as serious journalism, then. It's not aimed at you, and is in no way personal. The stupid s*** in that article is the subject of my ire.

GameSeven · Post by **GameSeven** » Mon Oct 13, 2008 12:43 pm

JackB1 wrote:
matthewk wrote: You asked "What's not true?" about point #1. I assumed your points were in reference to Kevins, otherwise why quote him? You can read his original line that says they were terrorists.
They were in reference to Kevin's quote. I just rephrased the basic points.
You are focusing his wording to literally. The point was that Bush did a lot more damage to our country by his actions, then by Obama's shaky connection to Ayers.

Don't lecture on taking words too literally when you were just cautioned against taking license with someone's quotes by PK. There is no authority that justifies you "rephrasing the basic points" (which, incidentally, did not seem to mention Ayers at all) and then criticizing Matt who was addressing the original poster.