You conflate “exposed to” and “associated with”. “Exposed to” is not the same as embracing, working with, and maintaining an affirmative relationship with.
I am exposed to all kinds of excesses, left and right. That isn’t the issue. And that isn’t Obama’s problem.
I’m angry at racism - who isn’t? This is a red herring.
It isn’t just about “who he hangs out with”. If you spent some time - any time - educating yourself as to the depth of his relationships and how those relationships directly contradict the very campaign message is trading on, you might have something interesting to say on the matter.
I am not just picking on poor Obama because he happens to have weird friends - I am asserting that Obama’s associations belie the very message he is selling to the American public. I don’t care if Obama has those relationships out of hand - I do care if he traffics in radicalism and then shakes my hand and tells me he isn’t radical.
I never said those are the only ones: those are the ones we are debating, and ones that his airheaded supporters can’t offer much explanation for, despite being asked to rebut.
C’mon, Vroom, I can only type it so plainly. Over and over, in these threads, myself and others have constantly explained that mere association isn’t the issue - it is his Judgment.
Naturally, given your limitations, you are trying to raise a straw man, despite my explaining the contrary in my post above.
Obama says he has great Judgment - “Judgment to Lead”, in fact - and so we go looking for examples of his Judgment. His associations are part of that examination, as well as his public record. His associations suggest that his Judgment is left wanting, so it undermines his very claim of why is capable of leading the country.
If it bothers you that myself or someone else actually decides to measure a candidate’s words versus his action, too bad.
Nope, but great try. But you’re right about one thing - it is something that can discussed further, by anyone willing to avail themselves of the relevant facts. You, as of yet, have not.
And I amused at the unintentional humor provided by Vroom’s Spin-O-Meter - "this statement has little bits of spin, but less "…“this statement has a light glaze of spin, but the other one is chock full o’ spin”…“this paragraph is spintastic, this other one is only peppered gently with spin”.
Sure, his repudiation of his pastor is a perfect example of dishonesty. When Wright went on TV and continued his crackpottery recently, he was saying nothing novel or new - same old radical nonsense. But suddenly, Obama repudiated Wright, saying Wright “went too far”. Horseshit - Wright was saying the kinds of things he always said, even the kinds of things just weeks before Obama said were “merely misunderstood by people unfamiliar with that style”, in his apologetic in Philadelphia.
Suddenly, Obama “discovered” that Wright was “going too far” - this despite defending the same nonsense only weeks earlier.
It was patently dishonest - and pure cynical calculation on Obama’s part.
It’s not personal, and hasn’t been personal. Myself and others here have been attacking Obama substantively - you just insist it’s all “personal” or “about sensibilities”. Nope.
Stop wasting my time, Vroom. I can’t do all your homework for you. I dig into the evidence, and have been - nothing I have ever criticized in these threads regarding Obama is “personal”.
I have layered comment after comment criticizing what I believe to be Obama’s partisan approach cloaked in non-partisan rhetoric, and there is plenty of evidence available. Voting record. Relationships with fringe political elements. No history of reaching across the aisle on legislation.
All of these things I consider baseline information when discussing Obama, since it is mostly common knowledge. For you, though, it is a starting point, as you are apparently a blank slate for all of this relevant information.
And I think I have found the problem - what I base my arguments on is a set of facts I consider as given. By my best guess, you really don’t know much about those facts, and you argue as if they don’t exist. You ask for evidence of things that is fairly common knowledge about the candidate.
Even if true - and I don’t think it is - what you are suggesting is that many who maintain identity politics will “realize” their grievances are unfounded (which, ironically, should be demonstrated by Obama’s candidacy, whether he wins or not). I think it is the height of naivete to expect that.
Well, here we are butted up against your limitations again. First, my list of executive responsibilities included a laundry list of serious policy issues, but note how Vroom the high-minded non-partisan reduces it down to “waging war” and “reshaping the world”. Heh - partisan hackery at its finest.
Second, there are plenty of good reasons to think Obama might come up short in these areas - if for no other reason, lack of experience. Period. Even Obama’s supporters must concede that is an issue.
Here is an example of both Judgment and Experience - Democrats have talked about the importance of re-establishing good relationships with other countries after the Bush administration, particularly Europe. As Chair of the Sub-Committee on European Affairs, how many meetings has the esteemed and capable Obama held to further this very important goal? Zero. A topic of critical importance to the future policy of cleaning up Bush’s mess, and Obama has shown exactly zero leadership in the area, despite him having the gavel.
Senator Obama doesn’t need the Presidency to affect important public policy at the federal level. He could have been doing all of these important things as a Senator. But in that role, with all of that influence, he has done nothing.
Why suddenly think as a President, he has the bona fides to do it when he did practically nothing as a Senator?
And, as an aside, did you even know about Obama’s lack of work as Chair of the Sub-Committee on European Affairs before you opined that he has done nothing to make you think he wouldn’t do a good job in the role of executive?
If you “haven’t seen anything that suggests Obama wouldn’t be up for it”, there is any easy answer - you simply are opining without educating yourself to the relevant facts.
That doesn’t mean you have to agree with my assessment of Obama’s abilities - it means you simply don’t have a good-founded basis for all these opinions you’re offering. Period.
I don’t need to - you demonstrate it with every post.
I do think he is being painted with too broad a brush. If he isn’t out to get whitey, and you are only worried about judgment, then things get much less significant. Who cares what excesses a person is exposed to. We’ve all been exposed to a lot of things, developed our understanding of issues over time, as we expand our contact with viewpoints and ideas.
You conflate “exposed to” and “associated with”. “Exposed to” is not the same as embracing, working with, and maintaining an affirmative relationship with.
I am exposed to all kinds of excesses, left and right. That isn’t the issue. And that isn’t Obama’s problem.
You may feel otherwise, but I don’t mind if people are or have been angry about racism and so forth. People have the right to be angry, to voice their opinion about things, and to say it in ways that pisses other people off. Listening to other people do that, and not doing so yourself, doesn’t seem like such a big deal to me.
I’m angry at racism - who isn’t? This is a red herring.
We are basically looking at this issue and saying Obama might not be a good president because we don’t like the type of people he hangs out with. I think that is a very suspect criteria for determining the quality of a candidate.
It isn’t just about “who he hangs out with”. If you spent some time - any time - educating yourself as to the depth of his relationships and how those relationships directly contradict the very campaign message is trading on, you might have something interesting to say on the matter.
I am not just picking on poor Obama because he happens to have weird friends - I am asserting that Obama’s associations belie the very message he is selling to the American public. I don’t care if Obama has those relationships out of hand - I do care if he traffics in radicalism and then shakes my hand and tells me he isn’t radical.
That’s it? Those are the only choices? I think you can do better than that.
I never said those are the only ones: those are the ones we are debating, and ones that his airheaded supporters can’t offer much explanation for, despite being asked to rebut.
His capacity? We don’t like his friends, so we don’t think he has the “capacity” to be President? Great, now all the leaders we choose are going to have the friends we’d want to have for ourselves. What a sad election criteria that is.
C’mon, Vroom, I can only type it so plainly. Over and over, in these threads, myself and others have constantly explained that mere association isn’t the issue - it is his Judgment.
Naturally, given your limitations, you are trying to raise a straw man, despite my explaining the contrary in my post above.
Obama says he has great Judgment - “Judgment to Lead”, in fact - and so we go looking for examples of his Judgment. His associations are part of that examination, as well as his public record. His associations suggest that his Judgment is left wanting, so it undermines his very claim of why is capable of leading the country.
If it bothers you that myself or someone else actually decides to measure a candidate’s words versus his action, too bad.
There are little bits of spin slipping in… but not as egregious as before. The above is probably the best chance at coming out as non-spun decision based on issues. It’s something that can be discussed and teased apart further.
Nope, but great try. But you’re right about one thing - it is something that can discussed further, by anyone willing to avail themselves of the relevant facts. You, as of yet, have not.
And I amused at the unintentional humor provided by Vroom’s Spin-O-Meter - "this statement has little bits of spin, but less "…“this statement has a light glaze of spin, but the other one is chock full o’ spin”…“this paragraph is spintastic, this other one is only peppered gently with spin”.
For example, do you have any serious evidence of him being “dishonest” throughout his life? Now, don’t forget that people of all stripes will have mistakes in judgment and understanding, and that isn’t the same. What has he done that truly shows some type of dishonesty, other than befriend people with viewpoints that challenge your sensibilities.
Sure, his repudiation of his pastor is a perfect example of dishonesty. When Wright went on TV and continued his crackpottery recently, he was saying nothing novel or new - same old radical nonsense. But suddenly, Obama repudiated Wright, saying Wright “went too far”. Horseshit - Wright was saying the kinds of things he always said, even the kinds of things just weeks before Obama said were “merely misunderstood by people unfamiliar with that style”, in his apologetic in Philadelphia.
Suddenly, Obama “discovered” that Wright was “going too far” - this despite defending the same nonsense only weeks earlier.
It was patently dishonest - and pure cynical calculation on Obama’s part.
If it’s there, not in conjecture but in reality, then it is certainly worthy of bringing out. If it’s only a personal feeling, then that is a very different thing.
It’s not personal, and hasn’t been personal. Myself and others here have been attacking Obama substantively - you just insist it’s all “personal” or “about sensibilities”. Nope.
Again, the quality of this type of statement if much different than presented earlier. Now, let’s dig into the evidence, try to convince me – show us the proof. I know, perhaps you feel you just did, but if so, then you have some flimsy evidence that supports your personal viewpoint, but not necessarily much else at this point.
Stop wasting my time, Vroom. I can’t do all your homework for you. I dig into the evidence, and have been - nothing I have ever criticized in these threads regarding Obama is “personal”.
I have layered comment after comment criticizing what I believe to be Obama’s partisan approach cloaked in non-partisan rhetoric, and there is plenty of evidence available. Voting record. Relationships with fringe political elements. No history of reaching across the aisle on legislation.
All of these things I consider baseline information when discussing Obama, since it is mostly common knowledge. For you, though, it is a starting point, as you are apparently a blank slate for all of this relevant information.
And I think I have found the problem - what I base my arguments on is a set of facts I consider as given. By my best guess, you really don’t know much about those facts, and you argue as if they don’t exist. You ask for evidence of things that is fairly common knowledge about the candidate.
I disagree. I don’t think Obama would have to “do” anything to have a large impact on race relations. If a black man was elected as President the thought that whitey was holding anyone back would be an idea that would be forced to die. This in itself would quite likely do a lot to silently put an end to generations of rhetoric by the likes of reverend Wright.
Even if true - and I don’t think it is - what you are suggesting is that many who maintain identity politics will “realize” their grievances are unfounded (which, ironically, should be demonstrated by Obama’s candidacy, whether he wins or not). I think it is the height of naivete to expect that.
Also, I have to suggest, that the job of the President is not simply to wage war and otherwise try to shape the planet. I haven’t seen anything that suggest that Obama would not be able to make hard decisions and take action as needed.
Well, here we are butted up against your limitations again. First, my list of executive responsibilities included a laundry list of serious policy issues, but note how Vroom the high-minded non-partisan reduces it down to “waging war” and “reshaping the world”. Heh - partisan hackery at its finest.
Second, there are plenty of good reasons to think Obama might come up short in these areas - if for no other reason, lack of experience. Period. Even Obama’s supporters must concede that is an issue.
Here is an example of both Judgment and Experience - Democrats have talked about the importance of re-establishing good relationships with other countries after the Bush administration, particularly Europe. As Chair of the Sub-Committee on European Affairs, how many meetings has the esteemed and capable Obama held to further this very important goal? Zero. A topic of critical importance to the future policy of cleaning up Bush’s mess, and Obama has shown exactly zero leadership in the area, despite him having the gavel.
Senator Obama doesn’t need the Presidency to affect important public policy at the federal level. He could have been doing all of these important things as a Senator. But in that role, with all of that influence, he has done nothing.
Why suddenly think as a President, he has the bona fides to do it when he did practically nothing as a Senator?
And, as an aside, did you even know about Obama’s lack of work as Chair of the Sub-Committee on European Affairs before you opined that he has done nothing to make you think he wouldn’t do a good job in the role of executive?
If you “haven’t seen anything that suggests Obama wouldn’t be up for it”, there is any easy answer - you simply are opining without educating yourself to the relevant facts.
That doesn’t mean you have to agree with my assessment of Obama’s abilities - it means you simply don’t have a good-founded basis for all these opinions you’re offering. Period.
You keep telling yourself that.
I don’t need to - you demonstrate it with every post.[/quote]
Of course nevermind McCain has chosen to associate with far worse crackpots, actively seeking them out for political gain long after they had said far crazier things, and then ditching them after they became liabilities. And McCain still continues to maintain crackpot advisors they may actually have an effect on American policy (unlike Obama’s minister) all of whom have had a history of being repeatedly and laughably wrong on the major issues facing us today and tomorrow. Again McCain is giving the “straight talk” on lobbyists while his campaign manger is a lobbyist for murderers. He gives us the “straight talk” on the mortgage crisis, while his main economic advisor lobbies for UBS (no stake I’m sure in this mortgage mess) and has the piss poorest record on economics imaginable. McCain can’t admit when he’s wrong on Iraq, which lately has been frequently…the point is serious voters are going to be looking at judgment in slightly more grown up ways than you.
Sure Barry should have the judgement to know 20 years ago that we was going to run for president and that rovian politics would surely try to pin Wright’s philosophical outlook on Obama, even if everybody actually knew Obama didn’t subscribe to those views, but that’s a much different thing from being repeatedly wrong on the war and the economy in real time and actively surrounding yourself with others who were dead wrong over and over, while ebbing with the tide on your own political views (rebublican, then approaches Daschle to caucus with Dems, then very conservative Rebublican, what’s next?) and trying mightily to appeal and get the endorsement of absolutely insane people for short-term political gain( knowing they were insane to boot!) That is poor judgement to most grown-ups, and worse the kind of judgement that has RUINED/TAKEN lives.
Yet, we’ll continue to discuss Obama elitism because he drinks OJ instead of coffee!!!OMG!!!
When you’re as wrong as McCain has been for as long as he’s been, you got to change the subject I guess, but still it’s sad that some voters are so easily distracted from real life issues.
OJ!!! vs. Jetting to multiple mansions on your own private plane!!!
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
You conflate “exposed to” and “associated with”. “Exposed to” is not the same as embracing, working with, and maintaining an affirmative relationship with.
I am exposed to all kinds of excesses, left and right. That isn’t the issue. And that isn’t Obama’s problem.
[/quote]
Ah, back to the old tricks I see. And you were doing so well too.
Let’s see. If your uncle was convicted of some crime, would that mean that you have poor judgment? Because this is a political issue you are crossing a divide on very weak and tenuous logic.
You can talk to, associate with and work with people having very different viewpoints than your own. Hell, most of us with real jobs coexist with people who’s views we don’t fully agree with, but we are still able to productively work together towards common goals in some areas. We are also able to keep our own viewpoints though we have people with various views in our lives to various degrees.
Keep on panicking though.
[quote]You may feel otherwise, but I don’t mind if people are or have been angry about racism and so forth. People have the right to be angry, to voice their opinion about things, and to say it in ways that pisses other people off. Listening to other people do that, and not doing so yourself, doesn’t seem like such a big deal to me.
I’m angry at racism - who isn’t? This is a red herring.[/quote]
A red herring? I was talking about Wright. This is the heart of the matter at this point in the discussion, isn’t it? The way Wright discusses race and other issues and the inappropriateness of it?
I like the language here. The “depths of those relationships”. Is Obama sleeping with Wright or something? Come on, your language sounds almost hysterical. OMG vroom, it’s an emergency, don’t you see!
I’ll ask you once again. What, if any, actions or speeches of Barack’s can you point to that actually have anything to do with radicalism. You are leveling very serious charges but apparently have absolutely nothing but fear to peddle. OMG, Barack is a radical! At the same time, when I say that Barack is not out to get whitey, you agree. Which is it? Is he a dangerous radical out to get whitey or isn’t he.
In what way is he a radical? OMG, he’s a muslim radical extremist isn’t he?
You gave an either or choice set – as if those were the only choices available. So, what other choices are available then? And why should people waste time addressing stupidly framed choices in the first place?
[quote]C’mon, Vroom, I can only type it so plainly. Over and over, in these threads, myself and others have constantly explained that mere association isn’t the issue - it is his Judgment.
Naturally, given your limitations, you are trying to raise a straw man, despite my explaining the contrary in my post above.[/quote]
Okay, so it’s not his association with Wright and/or the church that has you questioning his Judgment. Okay, now that we have that clear, let’s see…
Oh, wait, it is his association that suggests he has poor judgment. Do you read the stuff you type?
I keep asking you to point out actual actions, but all you can do is wave your hands and try to scare people due to his associations with people you find unsavory.
Really, let’s see his actions. OMG, vroom, he consorts with supposed radicals, he’s dangerous. I don’t like his friends, so he has poor judgment!
When you get films of Barry and Wright doing coke behind the alter, you just let me know, and I’ll suggest Barack has exceedingly poor judgment.
I keep asking for facts, but in reading your posts nary a single fucking lonely fact can be found to be sourced… other than Barack’s association with a scary black man that rants and raves from the pulpit about things you don’t like. OMG, he is the devil, come to get revenge on whitey, I know it.
Trust me, it amuses me more.
[quote]Sure, his repudiation of his pastor is a perfect example of dishonesty. When Wright went on TV and continued his crackpottery recently, he was saying nothing novel or new - same old radical nonsense. But suddenly, Obama repudiated Wright, saying Wright “went too far”. Horseshit - Wright was saying the kinds of things he always said, even the kinds of things just weeks before Obama said were “merely misunderstood by people unfamiliar with that style”, in his apologetic in Philadelphia.
Suddenly, Obama “discovered” that Wright was “going too far” - this despite defending the same nonsense only weeks earlier.
It was patently dishonest - and pure cynical calculation on Obama’s part.[/quote]
Congratulations, you’ve deduced that Barack is a politician. How astute! Perhaps that should disqualify him from running for office.
Dude, you haven’t said anything of substance yet. You keep saying it’s out there, and it’s scary, but you haven’t been able to actually point to anything.
I know, you think you did when you talked about Obama walking away from Wright. However, you have to understand, while Wright said some things you and I may not like, they really weren’t very significant. His statements do not represent Obama, or he’d very well be making those same fucking statements himself.
No, what you really have so far is assumptions. Your own fears and assumptions about big bad Barry.
LOL. The person making the fucking claim has the responsibility of proof wondernut. Nice try. Seriously, if you have something realistic, just fucking point to it. The world is waiting. Or, alternately, cling to your repudiation argument. All you’ve shown is that Barack is a politician and has to stay away from people that the public finds distasteful.
Congratulations Sherlock!
Obama has not said that he doesn’t have beliefs and that he’ll vote republican in an effort not to be partisan. So, really, you don’t like his democratic viewpoints, but that’s hardly the same as saying he’s partisan. Can you show he’s voting the party line without regard to his own positions? That would fucking well be partisan! He’s pretty liberal dude, but you can try if you like.
Relationships, associations, voodoo dolls. Anything else he does that is fairly non-substantial that scares yous? Here, find examples of him saying things, himself, that don’t match his current campaign statements. Pushing guilt by association is pretty low.
Well, you are getting closer. The problem is that you accept things as given when there isn’t anything there yet – and you assume everyone else is an asshole when they don’t accept your personal “given” concepts and ask you to find a way to prove them… and you don’t think you should have to even if you would force other people to do so or dismiss their claims.
Repeat after me… you make the claims, you do the work to support them or see them dismissed.
LOL. Of course you do. Assuming Obama does not get thrown under the bus, and runs for President, then it proves that anyone, even a black man, can get there. Well, as long as the race is won or lost fair and square – avoiding a Florida fiasco for example. If you think about it, it really takes the teeth out of people such as Wright.
The fact that you don’t understand the power of symbols, of examples, and their ability to counter years of negative bullshit over the ages by the likes of Wright, or simply people who gave up and taught the same to their children, is your issue.
Dude, you are the wonk suggesting that his judgment is impaired, and that he’d be incredibly dangerous. I can only assume you mean he’d give Florida to terrorists or something as equally scary because of his inability to deal with serious issues. I didn’t realize the rest of your laundry list was such a dire threat in comparison!
Fuck, finally, something based on real substance instead of your personal interpretation of something very arguable. Now the world can debate how much experience previous presidents had and how vital it actually was (did you see Newt’s reflection on that point).
[quote]Here is an example of both Judgment and Experience - Democrats have talked about the importance of re-establishing good relationships with other countries after the Bush administration, particularly Europe. As Chair of the Sub-Committee on European Affairs, how many meetings has the esteemed and capable Obama held to further this very important goal? Zero. A topic of critical importance to the future policy of cleaning up Bush’s mess, and Obama has shown exactly zero leadership in the area, despite him having the gavel.
Senator Obama doesn’t need the Presidency to affect important public policy at the federal level. He could have been doing all of these important things as a Senator. But in that role, with all of that influence, he has done nothing.[/quote]
Well, that sounds impressive, but I’m not sure it is as significant as it sounds. When it comes to setting foreign policy, or conducting diplomacy, who wears the pants?
Does this committee focus the majority of it’s efforts on areas other than diplomacy? How does it relate to the Department of State and that department’s work to support the policy positions as put forth by president Bush?
I’d imagine that most people expect new policy initiatives, after the next election, to open the doors to building better relations with other countries. However, having Senator Obama set up meetings with world leaders may be a better way to go about it.
Good plan!
Do the words “power” and “authority” ring a bell?
Low and behold, I’m not even convinced yet. Here is some junk about Obama’s work on the committee… I’m not sure of its pedigree:
[i]Obama service on the Foreign Relations committee has placed him in an unique position in that he is the Chair of the Subcommittee on European Relations and serves on the Subcommittees on African Affairs; East Asia and Pacific Affairs; and International Development and Foreign Assistance, Economic Affairs, and International Environmental Protection. This cross-section of subcommittees places Obama in a unique position of having knowledge about Asian, African and European issues. The only other member of the Foreign Relations committee who is running for President is Democrat Joseph Biden who is Chairman of the full Foreign Relations Committee yet unlike Obama he does not serve on any of the other foreign policy committees and his experience is limited to foreign policy issues covered by the Foreign Relations Committee.
Obama has also traveled extensively in his capacity as a member of the Foreign Relations Committee and has visited Russia, Ukraine, and Azerbaijan in Asia; Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Kuwait, and the Palestinian Territories in the Middle East; and Chad, Djibouti, Ethiopia, Kenya, and South Africa in Africa. Obama has also co-sponsored the “Lugar-Obama Act” with Republican Senator Richard Lugar who was Chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations at the time. This act was a bi-partisan effort to increase U.S. security in terms of the elimination of conventional weapons and weapons of mass destruction. This legislation came out of Obama’s trip with Senator Richard Lugar to Russia, the Ukraine and Azerbaijan.
Obama has also sponsored legislation such as the “Democratic Republic of Congo Relief, Security, and Democracy Promotion Act” which was signed into law by President Bush on December 22, 2006. Obama has co-sponsored immigration related bills related to his service on the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee including the Secure America and Orderly Immigration Act. His extensive foreign policy experience exceeds that of every other Presidential candidate including his trips abroad in the performance of his official duties as a member of committees dealing with foreign relation issues.
While some have criticized Obama’s foreign travel claiming that he is the most traveled freshman Senator in doing so they often fail to mention that as a result of his extensive trips abroad is legislation such as the Lugar-Obama Act instead preferring to make the political connection between his travels abroad to his run for President yet others will recognize the experience he has gained as a result of his foreign trips and recognize that as a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that he is expected to travel extensively and that his travels often were with the Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee.[/i]
A lot of travel, some bi-partisan legislation, I’d never have imagined that if I’d listened only to you. I had thought he’d been playing tiddlywinks all this time – thanks for the heads up.
You are making the claims – you have the burden of proof to deal with. Reading the above made it look like Obama gained experienced traveling around sponsoring bi-partisan legislation and so forth.
Wow, I also read that he spent a fair amount of time in the Illinois legislature – doing something or other during his time there that resonates with his current campaign messages. Can you figure out what it was?
Ah, back to the old tricks I see. And you were doing so well too.
Let’s see. If your uncle was convicted of some crime, would that mean that you have poor judgment? Because this is a political issue you are crossing a divide on very weak and tenuous logic.[/quote]
Bad comparison - you don’t choose your uncle. Your argument was made about five months ago. It’s unoriginal, try something new.
[quote]You can talk to, associate with and work with people having very different viewpoints than your own. Hell, most of us with real jobs coexist with people who’s views we don’t fully agree with, but we are still able to productively work together towards common goals in some areas. We are also able to keep our own viewpoints though we have people with various views in our lives to various degrees.
Keep on panicking though.[/quote]
I wasn’t aware you had a real job - congratulations.
Your conventional wisdom is not helpful - the issue isn’t co-workers. The issue at stake is Judgment, and if McCain spent 20 years as a member of a white nationalist church and had the same relationship Obama did with Wright, it would be the same issue.
That won’t fit your narrative, but it doesn’t matter.
You think is about Wright? Wright is a racist Black Liberation crackpot lunatic whose colors have never changed. But he isn’t running for president. Keep up.
This has become unintentionally funny. Vroom the non-partisan wiseman has become nothing but a naked partisan apologist.
Give me a break. The depth of a candidate’s relationships have always mattered for any political election. Now you are just dithering in order to avoid the subject. If you aren’t up for a serious discussion of it, then bow out instead of putting on the theatrics of a hysterical 14 year old (“OMG Vroom!!”).
Obama’s choice of confidantes - never forget both Wright and Pfleger were advisors to the campaign until they became a political liability with the mainstream - matters, even if you don’t want them to.
I am beginning to realize I overestimated you.
“Being a radical” doesn’t mean he is “out to get whitey!” and I have never suggested so. What I suggested was that Obama’s voting record combined with his associations with fringe politics - Wright, Pfleger, Ayers, for starters - suggest Obama is not the person he is advertising in his campaigns.
As in - wait for it, Vroom - Obama is a stealth candidate. Now before you react in your predictable hysterics - “OMG Vroom! Stealth like he will destroy the government from within???” - a “stealth” candidate means something very particular in American political culture: it is a candidate who has a very partisan agenda but markets him/herself as a moderate centrist in order to get elected knowing full well his hard-left/right stance would prevent him from getting elected, and a result keeps the policy stuff very vague and talks in broad and vacuous platitudes that keep from hurting his chances in a general election.
Now, realizing that you naturally love a candidate that speaks in broad, meaningless, vacuous, content-free platitudes, the argument I have made and have been making though it soars over your head apparently is thusly: Obama is not who he is advertising himself to be.
Predictably, you will bleat out “congratulations! You discovered he is a politician!” - but that is the exact problem: Obama is campaigning on the promise he is not a politician, so when you strip him down to his base as a political animal, you have to ask what is left (other than legions of disappointed navel-gazing left-liberals)? The answer is: not much.
That has been my song and dance since we started up here on the 2008 election. If you can’t be bothered to join that debate - which is substantive in nature, based on the facts available - then find something else to do with your time when you aren’t working a real job.
See above, Vroom. Yep, this just in - Vroom is the “cheerleader” he claims to stand against. An “evolution”, apparently.
No, his association is exactly the problem. His association is on of absolute control, not happenstance (we happen to work at the same place), or familial (I married into a nutty family) - it is one of choice and investment (20 years worth, plus being married by this crackpot and having him baptize your kids).
Yup, see above. I can lead to water, but I can’t make you think.
My guess is Obama’s association with the church was one to help his political career (urban Chicago) more than anything, and now that the church hurts him (mainstream America), he has, naturally and conveniently, severed that association.
[quote]I keep asking you to point out actual actions, but all you can do is wave your hands and try to scare people due to his associations with people you find unsavory.
Really, let’s see his actions. OMG, vroom, he consorts with supposed radicals, he’s dangerous. I don’t like his friends, so he has poor judgment! [/quote]
Hilarious, Vroom. This would be more fun if you were better.
I have pointed out actions - it’s not my problem if you won’t read them. Let’s see, in short order, a few: “present” votes on legislation in the Illinois Senate, undistinguished Senate career, shady dealings with Chicago fixer, associations with radical elements, lack of leadership in his Senate sub-committee, a glass jaw when challenged…thus and such.
Again, I don’t think Obama is evil, just not a good candidate for the presidency. When you grow up and grow out of your “cheerleader” phase, you’ll learn the difference. Maybe.
OMG Vroom, seriously, stop arguing like a child. It’s downright embarrassing to read.
No, many issues have been covered, usually in different threads, instead of one big one that reads “All of Obama’s Electoral Problems”. Haven’t read them? Why is that my problem?
That’s good, because then at least your posts have entertainment value in lieu of the informational value.
And when Obama gets the sheen scratched up that he is a regular ole politician, what does that mean for his soaring rhetoric regarding “changing the tone of Washington” and “bringing us all together” and “entering a new, post-partisan era of politics”?
Clearly, you haven’t spent any time thinking about the next move. If Obama is sullied as a straight politician, that is bad for him: his whole schtick is undermined. What is he going to campaign on when it is clear he isn’t “post-partisan”?
That is an interesting debate - too bad you haven’t the qualifications to add to it.
Heh.
Setting aside whether Wright’s comments reflect poorly on Obama (the both do and don’t), your last sentence is the most laughable thing I have read in these threads for months: of course Obama would make those same statements - he’s running for national office.
My God, how stupid is this? Obama is a sharp guy - there isn’t a chance in hell he would offer up such extremism as a politician.
I don’t think he shares Wright’s view (to the extreme Wright does, he does share the basic Marxist assumptions), but your comment is beyond parody.
A silly caricature of my position, but not surprising, given your limitations. I actually think that far from being “big and bad”, Obama would be quite a weak executive.
[quote]LOL. The person making the fucking claim has the responsibility of proof wondernut. Nice try. Seriously, if you have something realistic, just fucking point to it. The world is waiting. Or, alternately, cling to your repudiation argument. All you’ve shown is that Barack is a politician and has to stay away from people that the public finds distasteful.
Congratulations Sherlock![/quote]
No, it’s there - I don’t have time to bring you up to speed on all the relevant information. There’s lots out there, and I am not into hold-handing people for purposes of the discussion.
The arguments I make are based on available information - I assume a certain level of competence and understanding of publicly available facts. In your case, my mistake.
I base my arguments on knowledge of his Illinois state career, career as a Senator, activities in Chicago, and information regarding his own statements.
You want color-by-numbers - sorry, Vroom, no can do. Either know about the candidate you are defending, or have the humility to say “I have no idea what I am talking about”.
All of the above matter - I know they certainly would if other candidates had such problems - plus the relevant lack of experience and intellectual inconsistency.
Do you have a relevant, substantive argument that Obama would be a good executive?
Incorrect. I am taking existing facts - ones you are completely unaware of - and drawing conclusions from them. No one has to agree with my conclusions, no problem, but that isn’t the issue.
The problem is you want to challenge me on my arguments without any basis for doing so. I haven’t “accepted anything as given” except the actual information itself. My opinion is based on a judgment of those facts.
Others can come to different judgments based on the same facts - and completely disagree with me.
You are in a third category - you don’t know much about the subject, but you want to attack the arguments. It’s weak, and a little dull.
More straw men. I have attempted a debate on Obama a number of times - I can’t get any takers. I clearly don’t think people are assholes for disagreeing with me, but I do expect someone to add some value.
Vroom trying to act tough is always a treat.
Who has dismissed them, Vroom? You have no idea if my arguments have merit or not - you simply don’t know enough. You try and drag the argument away from the merits by mischaracterizing viewpoints. That is the lazy way out.
I backed my claims fine, Vroom - I have argued them based on the information. I am still waiting on a decent rebuttal. I know there is plenty of good rebuttal available, can you direct me to someone who can do it?
I am happy to discuss arguments based on facts - for example, a new problem for Obama when he ran for a state position: he had other candidates disqualified because their petitions of collected signatures weren’t technically correct, so he coasted to victory. Yet, Obama wants to appoint judges that read the law favorably to the disenfranchised, even when it requires “being the rules based on mercy”. So how does Obama square that circle? Law and order for Obama when he wants to get elected, but sympathetic judges for everyone else?
Let’s see, in roughly 3 posts I have raised Obama’s lack of leadership on the subcommittee, his poor judgment w/r/t his associations, his inconsistency on the law w/r/r the “disenfranchised”…
But I haven’t raised any substantive issues. Right. Got it. Heh - you can always count on Vroom for amateur hour.
[quote]100meters wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
vroom wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
No, the race is over at the convention, the super-delegates get their say and they could decide the election either way. They are being pressured to make their decision and end it now, before the convention. The Democratic Party leadership is trying to give Hillary the shaft and is not giving her a fair shake.
It’s funny to hear you come across as a Clinton supporter.
It is funny to be in this position. I do not want her as president but she cannot be squeezed out like this just because she is inconvenient. She has approximately 50% of the popular vote, 2 state primaries that may not be counted and a super-delegate system is in place to deal with this exact situation. The leading Democrats don’t want to use it because it reeks of shady back room deals, but it is the system that is in place.
Obama will obviously most likely get the nomination but Hillary deserves to stay in it until the end and have all votes cast and counted and time to make her case for the super-delegates at the convention.
Not because she is a good person, she deserves it because millions of Americans voted for her and put her in this position.
Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid should STFU and let the votes be counted and let the system work.
This is not a case of idiot Ron Paul staying it it to raise money and pad his retirement fund although 90% of the people are voting against him. She has ~ 50% of the vote! She is not even demanding a recount, just stay in it until the end and let all votes be cast and counted, including the ones to be cast at the convention.
Again, this is decided by delegates not popular vote. Obama has more delegate. If you count every vote ever casted even elections that don’t count and shouldn’t count by Hillary and her advisors own words, Obama has more votes.
And for the millionth time the party IS letting her stay in till the end. She’s still in the race NOW (do you have a TV?) The elections end Tuesday. The remaining superdelegates who all clearly support Obama will then endorse him after Tuesday.
That is the exact opposite of being forced out.
Jeez!
[/quote]
In the interview, Mrs. Clinton resisted the push of some Democratic leaders �?? among them, Howard Dean, the party chairman, and Nancy Pelosi, the House speaker �?? for superdelegates to quickly chose sides as soon as the voting is over Tuesday. �??I know that people are hopeful that we get a nominee, and we will,�?? she said. �??But I don�??t think it�??s as important to do it fast as it is to do it well.�??
The NY Times begs to differ with you.
The party leadership is trying to close this one early and give it to Obama and not let it play out they way it is supposed to.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
100meters wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
vroom wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
No, the race is over at the convention, the super-delegates get their say and they could decide the election either way. They are being pressured to make their decision and end it now, before the convention. The Democratic Party leadership is trying to give Hillary the shaft and is not giving her a fair shake.
It’s funny to hear you come across as a Clinton supporter.
It is funny to be in this position. I do not want her as president but she cannot be squeezed out like this just because she is inconvenient. She has approximately 50% of the popular vote, 2 state primaries that may not be counted and a super-delegate system is in place to deal with this exact situation. The leading Democrats don’t want to use it because it reeks of shady back room deals, but it is the system that is in place.
Obama will obviously most likely get the nomination but Hillary deserves to stay in it until the end and have all votes cast and counted and time to make her case for the super-delegates at the convention.
Not because she is a good person, she deserves it because millions of Americans voted for her and put her in this position.
Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid should STFU and let the votes be counted and let the system work.
This is not a case of idiot Ron Paul staying it it to raise money and pad his retirement fund although 90% of the people are voting against him. She has ~ 50% of the vote! She is not even demanding a recount, just stay in it until the end and let all votes be cast and counted, including the ones to be cast at the convention.
Again, this is decided by delegates not popular vote. Obama has more delegate. If you count every vote ever casted even elections that don’t count and shouldn’t count by Hillary and her advisors own words, Obama has more votes.
And for the millionth time the party IS letting her stay in till the end. She’s still in the race NOW (do you have a TV?) The elections end Tuesday. The remaining superdelegates who all clearly support Obama will then endorse him after Tuesday.
That is the exact opposite of being forced out.
Jeez!
In the interview, Mrs. Clinton resisted the push of some Democratic leaders �?? among them, Howard Dean, the party chairman, and Nancy Pelosi, the House speaker �?? for superdelegates to quickly chose sides as soon as the voting is over Tuesday. �??I know that people are hopeful that we get a nominee, and we will,�?? she said. �??But I don�??t think it�??s as important to do it fast as it is to do it well.�??
The NY Times begs to differ with you.
[/quote]
Or they don’t:
“as soon as the voting is over Tuesday.”
That is still the opposite of being pushed out.
Typically “after” means you were in till the end.
Get it now?
Hint:
What you’re looking for is a quote from Reid, Pelosi saying a decision needs to be made BEFORE the voting is over.
It’s going to be hard, cuz you’ll have to make it up.
[quote]100meters wrote:
Or they don’t:
“as soon as the voting is over Tuesday.”
That is still the opposite of being pushed out.
Typically “after” means you were in till the end.
Get it now?
Hint:
What you’re looking for is a quote from Reid, Pelosi saying a decision needs to be made BEFORE the voting is over.
It’s going to be hard, cuz you’ll have to make it up.
[/quote]
Here’s a quote for you:
The pledged delegate voting is over on Tuesday. Neither candidate will have enough pledged delegates to claim the nomination. Superdelegates do not vote until the convention. The above is a quote of Nancy Pelosi saying a decision needs to be made BEFORE superdelegates vote at the convention, just as you asked for. There’s also a quote of Reid saying the same thing in the article.
Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are trying to get the superdelegates to say who they’re going to vote for in order push one of the candidates out before the actual vote is held, at the convention.
Either you mistakenly thought that superdelegates are voting now, and were wrong on the facts, or you’re being willfully ignorant and trolling. Either way the argument is over.
Pelosi, the California congresswoman who is chairwoman of the Democratic National Convention in late August, said if necessary, she will “step in” to resolve the nomination fight by late June.
“Because we cannot take this fight to the convention,” she said in an interview with the San Francisco Chronicle’s editorial board published today. “It must be over before then.”
The pledged delegate voting is over on Tuesday. Neither candidate will have enough pledged delegates to claim the nomination. Superdelegates do not vote until the convention. The above is a quote of Nancy Pelosi saying a decision needs to be made BEFORE superdelegates vote at the convention, just as you asked for. There’s also a quote of Reid saying the same thing in the article.
Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are trying to get the superdelegates to say who they’re going to vote for in order push one of the candidates out before the actual vote is held, at the convention.
Either you mistakenly thought that superdelegates are voting now, and were wrong on the facts, or you’re being willfully ignorant and trolling. Either way the argument is over.[/quote]
Well, no, this is just silly. The pledge delegates too, can vote for whomever they want at the convention. Generally speaking we can expect that they won’t just as superdelegates willing to endorse now probably won’t change their minds later when they actually vote. The point is still, Hillary has clearly not been “forced out” of the race. She’s in it now. It ends tomorrow. Then she’ll quit (because she needs more delegates than are now available). In the real world this isn’t an argument, but in the land of Swift Boat Veterans NEVER told a lie, when they did nothing but lie, I guess “forced out” might mean something totally different.
Again the point is the Democratic leadership did the exact opposite of forcing out a candidate who hasn’t had a chance to win since before Pennsylvania, by saying nothing till AFTER the elections are over.
Now do you get it?
A. Currently in the Race!
B. Race ends Tomorrow!
C. 20 supers endorse barry!
D. Barry has enough confirmed delegates to say he’s secured nomination!
E. Hillary Quits!
it’s really not that hard if you put your mind to it!
[quote]100meters wrote:
Well, no, this is just silly. The pledge delegates too, can vote for whomever they want at the convention. Generally speaking we can expect that they won’t just as superdelegates willing to endorse now probably won’t change their minds later when they actually vote. The point is still, Hillary has clearly not been “forced out” of the race. She’s in it now. It ends tomorrow. Then she’ll quit (because she needs more delegates than are now available). In the real world this isn’t an argument, but in the land of Swift Boat Veterans NEVER told a lie, when they did nothing but lie, I guess “forced out” might mean something totally different.
Again the point is the Democratic leadership did the exact opposite of forcing out a candidate who hasn’t had a chance to win since before Pennsylvania, by saying nothing till AFTER the elections are over.
Now do you get it?
A. Currently in the Race!
B. Race ends Tomorrow!
C. 20 supers endorse barry!
D. Barry has enough confirmed delegates to say he’s secured nomination!
E. Hillary Quits!
it’s really not that hard if you put your mind to it!
[/quote]
Well I’m glad you admit that voting isn’t over until the convention. As intellectually dishonest as you are, are I figured you would continue lying about the facts. It’s laughable that you’re trying to spin the exact opposite of what you said before into you somehow being right now, but like I said just getting an admission of simple facts from you is a milestone. Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid want superdelegates to commit now, instead of waiting for the convention (which exists exactly for the purpose of delegates coming together and choosing a candidate) so that Obama will be declared the nominee. So if in your twisted world not allowing the convention to fulfill its EXPRESSED PURPOSE because the leadership wants one of the candidates out before then is not the same thing as “pushing a candidate out”, so be it. I’ll allow you that semantic spin if it helps you save face and makes your argumentative loss more graceful.
As for the swift boat issue. So far all I’ve gotten for you is: O’Neill said in 1971: “I was in Cambodia, sir. I worked along the border on the water.” In 2004 he said he was “55 miles off the border of Cambodia”. You want me to believe that those two statements are incompatible, (because obviously “55 miles off the border of Cambodia” is not the same thing as “along the border”, right?) and thus by some miraculous logical obfuscation, everything John Kerry said in his testimony about “atrocities” and “genocide” being “the rule, not the exception” in Vietnam must be true, right? Weak. It’s funny that you’re willing to argue as facts things that John Kerry already admitted as the “exaggerations of an angry youth”. You’re arguing something he has already conceded. We could end this quickly by pointing out that no criminal charges were brought as a result of the “testimony” of the “winter soldiers”, but it’s fun watching you flail. That’s because what a third of them described seeing did not even qualify as “war crimes”, about another third refused to cooperate, and roughly another third gave information that was inconsistent or outright debunked. The fact is that John Kerry went before Congress and presented as fact hearsay and tall tales spread around anti-war types. Do I think that war crimes occurred in Vietnam? Of course. Do I think Kerry was brave to speak on his experiences in Vietnam? Yes. Do I think Kerry did our soldiers (still in battle) a grave disservice by aggrandizing rumors and debunked innuendo? Yes.
I can understand how someone of your nature, that seems to have a general disdain for facts and evidence, could see nothing wrong with that. Most rational people though look upon slandering our entire armed forces as genocidal murders without any tangible evidence in a negative light.
I can understand how someone of your nature, that seems to have a general disdain for facts and evidence, could see nothing wrong with that. Most rational people though look upon slandering our entire armed forces as genocidal murders without any tangible evidence in a negative light.
Douglas Craig claimed at WSI that members of his battalion had fired mortar rounds each night into a local dump, intentionally killing civilians who were scavenging for food. Craig told investigators he had no direct knowledge of these events and expressed misgivings about making allegations in Detroit he could not substantiate.
Larry Craig claimed at WSI that he watched US soldiers murder a Vietnamese civilian and, on another occasion, desecrate Vietnamese graves. Craig admitted to investigators that the man who was killed could have been Vietcong, and that the soldier allegedly digging in a cemetery could have been looking for weapons caches.
Donald Donner claimed at WSI that Army personnel had murdered a Vietnamese male, intentionally wounded a 14-year-old Vietnamese girl, indiscriminately slaughtered livestock and failed to bury enemy dead. Donner admitted to the CID that his stories were actually lies, rumors and accounts of accidental events.
[/quote]
You said never lied. I said they lied. Fact.
I said he was in Cambodia. You said not in cambodia. He said Cambodia. Fact. You concede the point, while critiquing me?
I can understand how someone of your nature, that seems to have a general disdain for facts and evidence, could see nothing wrong with that. Most rational people though look upon slandering our entire armed forces as genocidal murders without any tangible evidence in a negative light.
Douglas Craig claimed at WSI that members of his battalion had fired mortar rounds each night into a local dump, intentionally killing civilians who were scavenging for food. Craig told investigators he had no direct knowledge of these events and expressed misgivings about making allegations in Detroit he could not substantiate.
Larry Craig claimed at WSI that he watched US soldiers murder a Vietnamese civilian and, on another occasion, desecrate Vietnamese graves. Craig admitted to investigators that the man who was killed could have been Vietcong, and that the soldier allegedly digging in a cemetery could have been looking for weapons caches.
Donald Donner claimed at WSI that Army personnel had murdered a Vietnamese male, intentionally wounded a 14-year-old Vietnamese girl, indiscriminately slaughtered livestock and failed to bury enemy dead. Donner admitted to the CID that his stories were actually lies, rumors and accounts of accidental events.
You said never lied. I said they lied. Fact.
I said he was in Cambodia. You said not in cambodia. He said Cambodia. Fact. You concede the point, while critiquing me?
[/quote]
Absolutely. I already said that I concede the “never lied” statement. I have no idea what gaffes these guys made on a tape 30 years ago. If O’Neill lied about his max bench 30 years ago while shooting the shit with Nixon over cocktails and LSD, so be it.
I’m talking about John Kerry, and my point was to Vroom. It’s pretty clear at this point that Kerry came back from the war he passed along hearsay and rumors as true stories for dramatic impact, and those stories cast all of our troops (troops still in battle) as war criminals and genocidal maniacs.
He did so for political gain (I think he was running for senate a few months after his congressional testimony). That was a valid reason to question his character.
[quote]100meters wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
100meters wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
vroom wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
No, the race is over at the convention, the super-delegates get their say and they could decide the election either way. They are being pressured to make their decision and end it now, before the convention. The Democratic Party leadership is trying to give Hillary the shaft and is not giving her a fair shake.
It’s funny to hear you come across as a Clinton supporter.
It is funny to be in this position. I do not want her as president but she cannot be squeezed out like this just because she is inconvenient. She has approximately 50% of the popular vote, 2 state primaries that may not be counted and a super-delegate system is in place to deal with this exact situation. The leading Democrats don’t want to use it because it reeks of shady back room deals, but it is the system that is in place.
Obama will obviously most likely get the nomination but Hillary deserves to stay in it until the end and have all votes cast and counted and time to make her case for the super-delegates at the convention.
Not because she is a good person, she deserves it because millions of Americans voted for her and put her in this position.
Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid should STFU and let the votes be counted and let the system work.
This is not a case of idiot Ron Paul staying it it to raise money and pad his retirement fund although 90% of the people are voting against him. She has ~ 50% of the vote! She is not even demanding a recount, just stay in it until the end and let all votes be cast and counted, including the ones to be cast at the convention.
Again, this is decided by delegates not popular vote. Obama has more delegate. If you count every vote ever casted even elections that don’t count and shouldn’t count by Hillary and her advisors own words, Obama has more votes.
And for the millionth time the party IS letting her stay in till the end. She’s still in the race NOW (do you have a TV?) The elections end Tuesday. The remaining superdelegates who all clearly support Obama will then endorse him after Tuesday.
That is the exact opposite of being forced out.
Jeez!
In the interview, Mrs. Clinton resisted the push of some Democratic leaders �?? among them, Howard Dean, the party chairman, and Nancy Pelosi, the House speaker �?? for superdelegates to quickly chose sides as soon as the voting is over Tuesday. �??I know that people are hopeful that we get a nominee, and we will,�?? she said. �??But I don�??t think it�??s as important to do it fast as it is to do it well.�??
The NY Times begs to differ with you.
Or they don’t:
“as soon as the voting is over Tuesday.”
That is still the opposite of being pushed out.
Typically “after” means you were in till the end.
Get it now?
Hint:
What you’re looking for is a quote from Reid, Pelosi saying a decision needs to be made BEFORE the voting is over.
It’s going to be hard, cuz you’ll have to make it up.
[/quote]
As soon as the voting is over Tuesday. They are not giving Hillary time to persuade the super delegates. Why have super delegates and why have a convention if you are going to pressure them to decide earlier than required?
You are a very dishonest person. You belong in politics.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
100meters wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
100meters wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
vroom wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
No, the race is over at the convention, the super-delegates get their say and they could decide the election either way. They are being pressured to make their decision and end it now, before the convention. The Democratic Party leadership is trying to give Hillary the shaft and is not giving her a fair shake.
It’s funny to hear you come across as a Clinton supporter.
It is funny to be in this position. I do not want her as president but she cannot be squeezed out like this just because she is inconvenient. She has approximately 50% of the popular vote, 2 state primaries that may not be counted and a super-delegate system is in place to deal with this exact situation. The leading Democrats don’t want to use it because it reeks of shady back room deals, but it is the system that is in place.
Obama will obviously most likely get the nomination but Hillary deserves to stay in it until the end and have all votes cast and counted and time to make her case for the super-delegates at the convention.
Not because she is a good person, she deserves it because millions of Americans voted for her and put her in this position.
Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid should STFU and let the votes be counted and let the system work.
This is not a case of idiot Ron Paul staying it it to raise money and pad his retirement fund although 90% of the people are voting against him. She has ~ 50% of the vote! She is not even demanding a recount, just stay in it until the end and let all votes be cast and counted, including the ones to be cast at the convention.
Again, this is decided by delegates not popular vote. Obama has more delegate. If you count every vote ever casted even elections that don’t count and shouldn’t count by Hillary and her advisors own words, Obama has more votes.
And for the millionth time the party IS letting her stay in till the end. She’s still in the race NOW (do you have a TV?) The elections end Tuesday. The remaining superdelegates who all clearly support Obama will then endorse him after Tuesday.
That is the exact opposite of being forced out.
Jeez!
In the interview, Mrs. Clinton resisted the push of some Democratic leaders �?? among them, Howard Dean, the party chairman, and Nancy Pelosi, the House speaker �?? for superdelegates to quickly chose sides as soon as the voting is over Tuesday. �??I know that people are hopeful that we get a nominee, and we will,�?? she said. �??But I don�??t think it�??s as important to do it fast as it is to do it well.�??
The NY Times begs to differ with you.
Or they don’t:
“as soon as the voting is over Tuesday.”
That is still the opposite of being pushed out.
Typically “after” means you were in till the end.
Get it now?
Hint:
What you’re looking for is a quote from Reid, Pelosi saying a decision needs to be made BEFORE the voting is over.
It’s going to be hard, cuz you’ll have to make it up.
As soon as the voting is over Tuesday. They are not giving Hillary time to persuade the super delegates. Why have super delegates and why have a convention if you are going to pressure them to decide earlier than required?
You are a very dishonest person. You belong in politics.[/quote]
Dude! What the hell aren’t you getting? It’s over. There aren’t enough delegates for her to persuade. She can’t win, which is why she’s dropping out?
You do understand the concept of presumptive nominee right?
[quote]100meters wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
100meters wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
100meters wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
vroom wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
No, the race is over at the convention, the super-delegates get their say and they could decide the election either way. They are being pressured to make their decision and end it now, before the convention. The Democratic Party leadership is trying to give Hillary the shaft and is not giving her a fair shake.
It’s funny to hear you come across as a Clinton supporter.
It is funny to be in this position. I do not want her as president but she cannot be squeezed out like this just because she is inconvenient. She has approximately 50% of the popular vote, 2 state primaries that may not be counted and a super-delegate system is in place to deal with this exact situation. The leading Democrats don’t want to use it because it reeks of shady back room deals, but it is the system that is in place.
Obama will obviously most likely get the nomination but Hillary deserves to stay in it until the end and have all votes cast and counted and time to make her case for the super-delegates at the convention.
Not because she is a good person, she deserves it because millions of Americans voted for her and put her in this position.
Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid should STFU and let the votes be counted and let the system work.
This is not a case of idiot Ron Paul staying it it to raise money and pad his retirement fund although 90% of the people are voting against him. She has ~ 50% of the vote! She is not even demanding a recount, just stay in it until the end and let all votes be cast and counted, including the ones to be cast at the convention.
Again, this is decided by delegates not popular vote. Obama has more delegate. If you count every vote ever casted even elections that don’t count and shouldn’t count by Hillary and her advisors own words, Obama has more votes.
And for the millionth time the party IS letting her stay in till the end. She’s still in the race NOW (do you have a TV?) The elections end Tuesday. The remaining superdelegates who all clearly support Obama will then endorse him after Tuesday.
That is the exact opposite of being forced out.
Jeez!
In the interview, Mrs. Clinton resisted the push of some Democratic leaders �?? among them, Howard Dean, the party chairman, and Nancy Pelosi, the House speaker �?? for superdelegates to quickly chose sides as soon as the voting is over Tuesday. �??I know that people are hopeful that we get a nominee, and we will,�?? she said. �??But I don�??t think it�??s as important to do it fast as it is to do it well.�??
The NY Times begs to differ with you.
Or they don’t:
“as soon as the voting is over Tuesday.”
That is still the opposite of being pushed out.
Typically “after” means you were in till the end.
Get it now?
Hint:
What you’re looking for is a quote from Reid, Pelosi saying a decision needs to be made BEFORE the voting is over.
It’s going to be hard, cuz you’ll have to make it up.
As soon as the voting is over Tuesday. They are not giving Hillary time to persuade the super delegates. Why have super delegates and why have a convention if you are going to pressure them to decide earlier than required?
You are a very dishonest person. You belong in politics.
Dude! What the hell aren’t you getting? It’s over. There aren’t enough delegates for her to persuade. She can’t win, which is why she’s dropping out?
You do understand the concept of presumptive nominee right?[/quote]
There are hundreds of delegates she could persuade. What if Obama’s wife did have a kill Whitey tape out there? The super delegates would flee Obama like rats on a sinking ship.
Presumptive is not official. It ain’t over until the votes are cast or she quits.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote: Repeat after me… you make the claims, you do the work to support them or see them dismissed.
Vroom trying to act tough is always a treat.[/quote]
It always amazes me to see what you consider “acting tough”.
If I were to claim “President Bush is pregnant”, I think you’d want me to reference material that you could review yourself or you would dismiss the claim outright.
[quote]Moriarty wrote:
I’m talking about John Kerry, and my point was to Vroom. It’s pretty clear at this point that Kerry came back from the war he passed along hearsay and rumors as true stories for dramatic impact, and those stories cast all of our troops (troops still in battle) as war criminals and genocidal maniacs.
He did so for political gain (I think he was running for senate a few months after his congressional testimony). That was a valid reason to question his character.[/quote]
All of your troops? Really?
I haven’t viewed the tapes, but I’d really have to see how Kerry presented his testimony to see whether or not what you say is an appropriate characterization.
It’s very easy to present hearsay and rumors and have that be appropriate – especially if you are suggesting that someone start an investigation because there are rumors and hearsay that suggest something untoward may be happening. It depends on the purpose and intent of the evidence or the group receiving the testimony.
However, as you say, it’s also possible to pass off the same as fact – which would be wrong.
I can understand how someone of your nature, that seems to have a general disdain for facts and evidence, could see nothing wrong with that. Most rational people though look upon slandering our entire armed forces as genocidal murders without any tangible evidence in a negative light.
Douglas Craig claimed at WSI that members of his battalion had fired mortar rounds each night into a local dump, intentionally killing civilians who were scavenging for food. Craig told investigators he had no direct knowledge of these events and expressed misgivings about making allegations in Detroit he could not substantiate.
Larry Craig claimed at WSI that he watched US soldiers murder a Vietnamese civilian and, on another occasion, desecrate Vietnamese graves. Craig admitted to investigators that the man who was killed could have been Vietcong, and that the soldier allegedly digging in a cemetery could have been looking for weapons caches.
Donald Donner claimed at WSI that Army personnel had murdered a Vietnamese male, intentionally wounded a 14-year-old Vietnamese girl, indiscriminately slaughtered livestock and failed to bury enemy dead. Donner admitted to the CID that his stories were actually lies, rumors and accounts of accidental events.
You said never lied. I said they lied. Fact.
I said he was in Cambodia. You said not in cambodia. He said Cambodia. Fact. You concede the point, while critiquing me?
Absolutely. I already said that I concede the “never lied” statement. I have no idea what gaffes these guys made on a tape 30 years ago. If O’Neill lied about his max bench 30 years ago while shooting the shit with Nixon over cocktails and LSD, so be it.
I’m talking about John Kerry, and my point was to Vroom. It’s pretty clear at this point that Kerry came back from the war he passed along hearsay and rumors as true stories for dramatic impact, and those stories cast all of our troops (troops still in battle) as war criminals and genocidal maniacs.
He did so for political gain (I think he was running for senate a few months after his congressional testimony). That was a valid reason to question his character.[/quote]
Things that you make up are not actual valid reasons to question Kerry’s character.
And of course the “stories” (reality) didn’t cast the troops as war criminals, I mean he was after all (in his senate testimony) representing the winter soldiers who had simply said what they themselves had done while in vietnam. So it’s abundantly clear Kerry’s critique is of American leadership, obviously the winter soldiers weren’t disparaging themselves. That doesn’t make sense, but hey Karl Rove said it and it was good enough for you.
Also the swift boat veteran’s lies aren’t gaffes, they are lies meant to disparage Kerry
O’Neil said no bullet holes in the boats…but there were.
O’Neil said crewmates didn’t support Kerry, but they did.
Said they had no political connections…they did.
Lied about political contributions to Republicans.
Lied about his co-author.
and on and on…
but most importantly said 60 men contributed to the book who served with John Kerry. Only 1 did, and as I said before he wasn’t present for the events leading to the medals.
And this is just O’Neil, but for sure he’s a liar.
Here’s a nice example of the typical crap pulled by the liars,
Thurlow on Hardball:
MATTHEWS (8/19/04): Tell me about the time you discovered that [Kerry] wasn�??t honest about his account of events. When did you first discover that habit of his, as you say?
THURLOW: Well, on a first-hand basis, I understood that the Purple Heart that he received at Cam Ranh Bay was fabricated and wasn�??t based on any factuality at all, but�??
MATTHEWS: How did you learn that, sir?
THURLOW: I learned that from the people who had been with him at that time, when he reported that he received an injury from hostile fire, when in fact, there was none.
MATTHEWS (continuing directly): Who was the person who told you this, that he didn�??t deserve the Purple Heart?
THURLOW: The people�??keep in mind�??
MATTHEWS: Can you give me a name, sir?
THURLOW: The name I would give you, after the fact, is Dr. Letson.
MATTHEWS: No. At the time. At the time. You said at the time this happened you discovered he had a habit of fabricating the truth.
THURLOW: I can�??t give you a specific name. It was a crew member that came from Cam Ranh Bay to our division.
MATTHEWS: But could you help us figure out who it might be? You�??re saying the man had a record of not being honest about his battle bravery. I just want to know how we know this is true or not.
THURLOW: OK. The only name that comes to mind now is a guy that is actually a member of our group. But what I�??m telling you is the story�??
MATTHEWS: What�??s his name? We want to talk to him.
THURLOW: Steve Gardner.
MATTHEWS: Since he�??s your�??since he�??s your source, we just want to know who he is.
THURLOW: Steve Gardner.
MATTHEWS: Steve Gardner. And he told you at the time that John Kerry received his first Purple Heart that he didn�??t deserve it?
THURLOW: Well, what happened is he said that he received an injury due to a mistake he made when he fired an M-79 close aboard and was hit by his own shrapnel. That doesn�??t constitute a Purple Heart. You�??ve got to be injured by hostile fire.
MATTHEWS: And he told you that at the time? Steve Gardner�??in other words, if I get him on the show, he�??ll say he told you, Mr. Thurlow, at the time this happened, that he didn�??t deserve�??
THURLOW: He�??s going to say�??
MATTHEWS: �??that John Kerry got an award he didn�??t deserve?
THURLOW: He�??s going to say that he reported�??John Kerry was awarded the Purple Heart eventually. Or actually, he�??s going to tell you that John Kerry applied for a Purple Heart that he did not merit.
So Thurlow is just spreading crap around (like you) but when pinned says it is what Steve Gardner said, the same Steve Gardner that WASN’T there for the event, or any of the events for that matter. Funny stuff.
Thank god you were able to come to your senses and admit that yes you were wrong, and yes, they were liars, but what in the hell took you so long…They were utterly debunked back in 04.
[i]Self-defeating myths Democrats must dispel
By TERRY MICHAEL | 6/3/08 5:02 AM EST
As Democrats prepare to do battle with John McCain this fall, we need to dispel two comforting but self-defeating myths about recent failed White House campaigns.
These canards are also shared by many editorial page pontificators, who ascribe 1988 and 2004 losses to crafty Republicans working their negative-advertising black magic, Willie Hortonizing Michael Dukakis and swift-boating John F. Kerry, who were either excessively noble or maybe too slow or too wimpy to fight back.
Evil may have lurked in the souls of those GOP operatives, and Democratic consultants may have been constrained by nominees unwilling to dirty their hands. But it wasn’t why we lost.
What the Republicans really did was to rope a couple of dopes. That’s the lesson Barack Obama should learn from the fate of Dukakis and Kerry. Engage with McCain on things voters care about and talk honestly about what they don’t like about Republicans. But don�??t make excuses about dirty GOP tactics to explain why the electorate rejects Democratic candidates, when what voters really eschew then and now is failure of judgment, lack of common sense and intellectual dishonesty.
The 1980s saw a bigger than usual glut of aggressive young males. Motivated by profits from the black market created by a brainless drug war, urban gangbangers were scaring aging children of the Depression known as Reagan Democrats.
So Lee Atwater and Roger Ailes, aided by minions in the basement of the Republican National Committee, dredged up a resonant metaphor for everything Reagan Democrats loved to hate about crime-coddling liberals: Willie Horton, the murderer sentenced to life in prison, who pillaged his way through Maryland on a weekend prison pass.
Yet that’s not what really happened.
The Massachusetts program, a rehabilitation effort signed into law in 1972, was applied to convicted murderers by the Commonwealth’s Supreme Court, and Dukakis, in his first term as Massachusetts governor, vetoed an attempt to overturn the court. After scores of Pulitzer Prize-winning stories by the Lawrence (Mass.) Eagle-Tribune, the law that allowed Horton his pass was overturned in a bill signed by Dukakis himself on April 28, 1988, after the issue was raised in presidential politics at a Democratic debate April 12 in New York by … Al Gore! Yes, the same Nobel laureate Hollywood liberals adore, not some fire-breathing, right-wing nut.
But to this day, in the left-liberal imagination, it was Republican racists who did poor Dukakis in.
No. It was Michael Dukakis who did himself in, because he seemed more interested in the privileges of criminals than the rights of victims. If Horton had been a blond, blue-eyed Minnesotan, letting him out on a pass still would have struck voters as taking rehab theory to its illogical conclusion.
That first comforting myth attempts to mask Dukakis’ lack of judgment and common sense (not uncommon in über-rational, otherwise decent men) by demonizing motives of the opposition. The Swift Boat canard goes directly to Kerry’s intellectual dishonesty in trying to have it both ways on the fundamentals of war and peace.
The Beltway Democratic geniuses who gave us Kerry were convinced they needed a military hero to carry an anti-war banner against a war-making weekend warrior.
The best and the brightest among the party elders did their best to push Howard Dean off the stage and nominate Lt. Kerry, who reported for duty in Boston with a speech performance that told the nation everything it needed to know: He was for the war in Vietnam. He was against the war in Vietnam. Just as he voted for the war in Iraq but now he was against the war in Iraq.
Or was he? Because, just weeks later, Kerry said he would have voted for authorizing the war, even if he’d known there were no weapons of mass destruction.
Enter Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, with its smarmy TV spot asking whether Kerry deserved those medals. Hapless voters must have wondered: “If he’s trying to be on both sides of two war debates at the same time, is he really a hero? Is he any better than the dolt who got us into this mess?”
So, Obama, don’t you delude yourself into thinking you win just by being quick to defend yourself against nasty demagogues. Take it right to them. Show no fear. You were right in 2002; McCain is still wrong in 2008. You’ve got judgment. He’s a stubborn old man.
Nobody wins an election, or leads a nation, by talking down to the collective common sense of citizens or by trying to split every difference. Take no comfort in those myths.
Terry Michael, the director of the nonpartisan Washington Center for Politics & Journalism, is a former Democratic National Committee press secretary and writes for his blog, www.terrymichael.net. [/i]
[i]Self-defeating myths Democrats must dispel
By TERRY MICHAEL | 6/3/08 5:02 AM EST
As Democrats prepare to do battle with John McCain this fall, we need to dispel two comforting but self-defeating myths about recent failed White House campaigns.
These canards are also shared by many editorial page pontificators, who ascribe 1988 and 2004 losses to crafty Republicans working their negative-advertising black magic, Willie Hortonizing Michael Dukakis and swift-boating John F. Kerry, who were either excessively noble or maybe too slow or too wimpy to fight back.
Evil may have lurked in the souls of those GOP operatives, and Democratic consultants may have been constrained by nominees unwilling to dirty their hands. But it wasn’t why we lost.
What the Republicans really did was to rope a couple of dopes. That’s the lesson Barack Obama should learn from the fate of Dukakis and Kerry. Engage with McCain on things voters care about and talk honestly about what they don’t like about Republicans. But don�??t make excuses about dirty GOP tactics to explain why the electorate rejects Democratic candidates, when what voters really eschew then and now is failure of judgment, lack of common sense and intellectual dishonesty.
The 1980s saw a bigger than usual glut of aggressive young males. Motivated by profits from the black market created by a brainless drug war, urban gangbangers were scaring aging children of the Depression known as Reagan Democrats.
So Lee Atwater and Roger Ailes, aided by minions in the basement of the Republican National Committee, dredged up a resonant metaphor for everything Reagan Democrats loved to hate about crime-coddling liberals: Willie Horton, the murderer sentenced to life in prison, who pillaged his way through Maryland on a weekend prison pass.
Yet that’s not what really happened.
The Massachusetts program, a rehabilitation effort signed into law in 1972, was applied to convicted murderers by the Commonwealth’s Supreme Court, and Dukakis, in his first term as Massachusetts governor, vetoed an attempt to overturn the court. After scores of Pulitzer Prize-winning stories by the Lawrence (Mass.) Eagle-Tribune, the law that allowed Horton his pass was overturned in a bill signed by Dukakis himself on April 28, 1988, after the issue was raised in presidential politics at a Democratic debate April 12 in New York by … Al Gore! Yes, the same Nobel laureate Hollywood liberals adore, not some fire-breathing, right-wing nut.
But to this day, in the left-liberal imagination, it was Republican racists who did poor Dukakis in.
No. It was Michael Dukakis who did himself in, because he seemed more interested in the privileges of criminals than the rights of victims. If Horton had been a blond, blue-eyed Minnesotan, letting him out on a pass still would have struck voters as taking rehab theory to its illogical conclusion.
That first comforting myth attempts to mask Dukakis’ lack of judgment and common sense (not uncommon in über-rational, otherwise decent men) by demonizing motives of the opposition. The Swift Boat canard goes directly to Kerry’s intellectual dishonesty in trying to have it both ways on the fundamentals of war and peace.
The Beltway Democratic geniuses who gave us Kerry were convinced they needed a military hero to carry an anti-war banner against a war-making weekend warrior.
The best and the brightest among the party elders did their best to push Howard Dean off the stage and nominate Lt. Kerry, who reported for duty in Boston with a speech performance that told the nation everything it needed to know: He was for the war in Vietnam. He was against the war in Vietnam. Just as he voted for the war in Iraq but now he was against the war in Iraq.
Or was he? Because, just weeks later, Kerry said he would have voted for authorizing the war, even if he’d known there were no weapons of mass destruction.
Enter Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, with its smarmy TV spot asking whether Kerry deserved those medals. Hapless voters must have wondered: “If he’s trying to be on both sides of two war debates at the same time, is he really a hero? Is he any better than the dolt who got us into this mess?”
So, Obama, don’t you delude yourself into thinking you win just by being quick to defend yourself against nasty demagogues. Take it right to them. Show no fear. You were right in 2002; McCain is still wrong in 2008. You’ve got judgment. He’s a stubborn old man.
Nobody wins an election, or leads a nation, by talking down to the collective common sense of citizens or by trying to split every difference. Take no comfort in those myths.
Terry Michael, the director of the nonpartisan Washington Center for Politics & Journalism, is a former Democratic National Committee press secretary and writes for his blog, www.terrymichael.net. [/i]
[/quote]
translation: another round of Obama’s a muslim emails to be sent out.
translation: another round of Obama’s a muslim emails to be sent out.
[/quote]
Incorrect. Translation: Another brush with self-induced implosion by the Dems if they try to create some “Republicans are mean liers” storyline while ignoring the underlying issues.