HarveyCanal"a distraction from my main thesis." 13,234 Posts
/font1
font class="small"1Quote:
/font1
h,121
b,121Obama's never run as an anti war candidate - he's always supported the war in Afghanistan.
b,121
b,121
h,121
font class="post"1b,121b,121Perfect.b,121b,121I suppose that all of us who thought that after all of the bitching about the war on terror that the Dems would automatically put up an anti-war candidate. This marks 2 elections in a row that they haven't. b,121b,121And I suppose all of us who were listening to Obama speeches a year and a half ago where his prime campaign focus was on the how ludicrous the war on Iraq is without any mention of his stance on Afghanistan were just engaging in wishful-thinking that Obama might be even somewhat of an anti-war candidate. b,121b,121NOONE CAN WIN A LAND WAR IN AFGHANISTAN! IT WAS A STUPID MOVE FOR THE SOVIETS IN THE 80'S AND IT'S A STUPID MOVE FOR THE US NOW. b,121b,121I can't even believe that Obama is now trying to have swagger about how tough he will be on Afghanistan. b,121b,121I am truly disgusted...as are plenty1everywhere. b,121b,121F*ck if a single American should die trying to oust guerillas that were trained by the US to fight and win against the Soviets from those mountains.b,121b,121And if the Pakistanis get in the way...OBAMA MAGNUM FORCE.b,121b,121AWFUL, AWFUL, AWFUL, AWFUL, AWFUL, JUST PLAIN AWFUL PLAN. b,121 b,121How that is any1better than Bush, I have no earthly idea.
HarveyCanal"a distraction from my main thesis." 13,234 Posts
/font1
font class="small"1Quote:
/font1
h,121
b,121aren't stupid polls based on conversations with real people? Are they polling mice?
b,121
b,121
h,121
font class="post"1b,121b,121Polls are very easy to manipulate.
His prime focus, militarily speaking, is still how ludicrous the war in Iraq is - he scored last night just by reminding us of it.b,121b,121I agree that the odds of victory in a land war in central Asia are fair at best. But most in America believe that we need to win a decisive victory against the groups that attacked us on September 11th.b,121b,121Cue conspiracy theories.
b,121Not sure if he's gonna pick up some undecided voters in the process, but Obama as of late is losing people who formerly wanted to vote for him.
b,121
b,121Of course his blind support of the bail-out for one. His now-ridiculously hawkish stances as another.
b,121
b,121
h,121
font class="post"1b,121b,121Bud, look: I thought that McCain "won" this debate, but your above points are ludicrous. He DOES NOT blindly support the bailout, and gave 4 or 5 bold points last night that he said NEEDED to be changed. We realistically have to minimally bail the banks out, or our entire country will fail. I don't like it one bit, but I'm looking at NUMBERS and not ideals. That's what you get when a corrupt credit system pushed by greedy banks rule the country. But necessary regulations are coming as well, and there's never been a1better time for this to take place. The bailout is designed to be a temporary measure. I hope that it works, too.b,121b,121He is not "ridiculously hawkish." Are you kidding me? That's called saber-rattling, and every U.S. President needs to do it well. See Jimmy Carter for a man who Obama cannot be typified as.b,121b,121/font1
font class="small"1Quote:
/font1
h,121
b,121And then how about dissecting his 10-year energy plan to get us off of dependence on foreign oil. He proposes more at-home production. Well, the Gulf Coast is in shambles...and it has already been over-exploited to the point that it's probably not a good idea to make a moive towards increased extraction/production there. If he wants to instead turn Alaska into Grand Isle...another bad idea. We've been down this road far too long for Obama to be so vague about how we're going to increase proiduction at home.
b,121
b,121
h,121
font class="post"1b,121b,121Obama has never been for ANWR drilling, and I think that his call for drilling is a nominal push for the undecideds. Did you hear him talk about the facts last night - when he said that we as a nation consume 25% of the world's oil but only have 5% to offer? Those are not the stats of a man who tinks that we can1drill to daylight. Those quotes make him sound like a Strutter.b,121b,121/font1
font class="small"1Quote:
/font1
h,121
b,121Also, look at his second point of his energy plan. The US is going to become the vanguard in the field of producing fuel-efficient vehicles. Umm, does he realize that US auto manufacturers at this stage of the game are barely holding on for their lives? Does he realize that the US has a labor cost disadvantage that has caused much of the US auto industry to be exported overseas over the course of the past 20 years? Why didn't Obama just say he was going to provide free spaceships to all of us courtesy of the Martians, because that would probably be just as feasible as the plan he expects people he must be thinking as naive and stupid to accept at face value.
b,121
b,121
h,121
font class="post"1b,121b,121Are you opposed to america's auto industry adopting responsible innovation? Look up the Chevy Volt. Our auto manufacturers are indeed desperate, and that means that they'll have to adapt or die. There has never been a1better juncture for the auto industry to take up alternate fuels. That is a GOOD thing.b,121b,121That, plus Obama has proposed tax burdens for those that would outsource U.S. labor. You're picking and choosing through his arguments and making a Frankenstein's monster of his talking points.b,121b,121...and I figured that you, of all people, would clearly be in favor of spaceships, as long as there weren't lizards on them.b,121b,121/font1
font class="small"1Quote:
/font1
h,121
b,121]It's this kind of insensitivity, on top of already turning his back on several of the issues that brought many1people to his feet to begin with, that is going to lose this election for Obama by Obama.
b,121
b,121And trust me, a McCain win is not something I want to see. This shit should be a slam dunk...but once again the Dems are dropping the ball.
b,121
b,121
h,121
font class="post"1b,121b,121Look at the polls. Obama is climbing rapidly. If I may flip the aphorism, don't miss the trees for your mental forest.
b,121aren't stupid polls based on conversations with real people? Are they polling mice?
b,121
b,121
h,121
font class="post"1
b,121
b,121Polls are very easy to manipulate.
b,121
b,121
h,121
font class="post"1b,121b,121I agree. Lizards are very adept at this.
HarveyCanal"a distraction from my main thesis." 13,234 Posts
/font1
font class="small"1Quote:
/font1
h,121
b,121
/font1
font class="small"1Quote:
/font1
h,121
b,121
/font1
font class="small"1Quote:
/font1
h,121
b,121a question i have, what did y'all think of obama saying we haven't [bold]killed[/bold] osama yet, and saying that if pakistan interfered with us we should "take them out"...obviously im thinking those nervous comments were more geared towards the undecided voters who don't like his wishy washy stances and questioned his strength?
b,121
b,121
h,121
font class="post"1
b,121
b,121I thought that "take them out" referred to al Qaida and not Pakistan.
b,121
b,121
h,121
font class="post"1
b,121
b,121ah, that makes sense, that was a WTF moment for me. i guess the scary part is others could have taken it the wrong way too...especially internationally.
b,121
b,121
h,121
font class="post"1b,121b,121Especially when everyone favorite speaker confuses his point, leading many1to believe he meant going after the Pakistanis, not just once but twice in a row. b,121b,121But even considering the Obama-accurate version of what he was saying: b,121b,121If we have to in order to get Al Queda, we're going to go into Pakistan whether Pakistan likes it or not. b,121b,121Umm, how is that not at the very least an indirect threat to Pakistan? b,121b,121So yes, even knowing exactly what Obama was trying to say...it's news to a lot of people that here we are with Bush's replacement in line to take over, and he's already talking up beef with yet another country.
font class="post"1b,121b,121Why does anyone bother arguing with you?
HarveyCanal"a distraction from my main thesis." 13,234 Posts
/font1
font class="small"1Quote:
/font1
h,121
b,121His prime focus, militarily speaking, is still how ludicrous the war in Iraq is - he scored last night just by reminding us of it.
b,121
b,121I agree that the odds of victory in a land war in central Asia are fair at best. But most in America believe that we need to win a decisive victory against the groups that attacked us on September 11th.
b,121
b,121Cue conspiracy theories.
b,121
b,121
h,121
font class="post"1b,121b,121Cue any1clear-as-day fact you refuse to believe being a "conspiracy theory".
HarveyCanal"a distraction from my main thesis." 13,234 Posts
/font1
font class="small"1Quote:
/font1
h,121
b,121
/font1
font class="small"1Quote:
/font1
h,121
b,121now-ridiculously hawkish
b,121
b,121
h,121
font class="post"1
b,121
b,121
/font1
font class="small"1Quote:
/font1
h,121
b,121More like they seem spineless.
b,121
b,121
h,121
font class="post"1
b,121
b,121Why does anyone bother arguing with you?
b,121
b,121
h,121
font class="post"1b,121b,121Spinelss is acting as if the war in Iraq is wrong and following that up with grandstanding about how the war in Afghnistan is right.b,121b,121The so-called perpetrators of 9/11 have strong ties both in Iraq and Afghanistan.b,121b,121So which is it?b,121b,121
b,121NOONE CAN WIN A LAND WAR IN AFGHANISTAN! IT WAS A STUPID MOVE FOR THE SOVIETS IN THE 80'S AND IT'S A STUPID MOVE FOR THE US NOW.
b,121
b,121
h,121
font class="post"1b,121b,121Who's talking about a land war? Not even McCain is. Hell, we already did a necessary job in Afghanistan (before the Iraq bullshit). You're straw-manning the discussion. I'm for defending our country, and I feel that all reasonable folks believe the same thing.b,121b,121Of course, if you're a "9/11 Truther," then I'm not sure if any1of us can sustain a ground zero upon which to have a discussion with you.
b,121Spinelss is acting as if the war in Iraq is wrong and following that up with grandstanding about how the war in Afghnistan is right.
b,121
b,121The so-called perpetrators of 9/11 have strong ties both in Iraq and Afghanistan.
b,121
b,121So which is it?
b,121
b,121
b,121
b,121
h,121
font class="post"1b,121b,121You're surreal. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. You're sounding like a far-rightist. NOW, al-Qaida is there. Afghanistan was and had been harboring terrorist groups. I know that "brown people" exist in both, but these are clearly these are two different countries. And I'm not even getting into Sunni-Shia.
HarveyCanal"a distraction from my main thesis." 13,234 Posts
/font1
font class="small"1Quote:
/font1
h,121
b,121
/font1
font class="small"1Quote:
/font1
h,121
b,121NOONE CAN WIN A LAND WAR IN AFGHANISTAN! IT WAS A STUPID MOVE FOR THE SOVIETS IN THE 80'S AND IT'S A STUPID MOVE FOR THE US NOW.
b,121
b,121
h,121
font class="post"1
b,121
b,121Who's talking about a land war? Not even McCain is. Hell, we already did a necessary job in Afghanistan (before the Iraq bullshit). You're straw-manning the discussion. I'm for defending our country, and I feel that all reasonable folks believe the same thing.
b,121
b,121Of course, if you're a "9/11 Truther," then I'm not sure if any1of us can sustain a ground zero upon which to have a discussion with you.
b,121
b,121
h,121
font class="post"1b,121b,121Even as a 9/11 believer, what's more important to our safety? Securing our home so that something as negligent on the part of our military never happens again the way it did on 9/11? Or exacting revenge halway around the world on boogiemen that our own intelligence agancies created? b,121b,121What the F*ck is either candidate telling us that speaks to our security? b,121b,121They both just want to increase the number of people around the world who might wish to harm us with their idiotic cowboy missions. b,121b,121NOT A SOLDIER TO SPARE.
b,121As far as this micro-soulstrut-debate-thread which is not really representative of the greater discussion going on in this country, Robert's been hammering away at Obama for months now and it's rather transparent. It's hard to take seriously as someone really looking to be swayed, as he seemed to have made up his mind long ago.
b,121
b,121
b,121
h,121
font class="post"1
b,121
b,121It doesn't look like you take anything outside of everyone-must-support-Obama seriously. My mind has been made up for months that Obama isn't what too many1believe him to be. But I keep going back and forth on whether or not to vote for him.
b,121
b,121And here I am as someone on the fence giving you a heads-up on what real people are talking about outside of your bubble and you'd rather listen to stupid polls.
b,121
b,121I know I'm not a trusted source around here, but if y'all would just open your minds and ears a little bit more than they are now...you'll definitely hear what I'm talking about.
b,121
b,121And for an Obama win, it needs to be addressed pronto.
b,121Spinelss is acting as if the war in Iraq is wrong and following that up with grandstanding about how the war in Afghnistan is right.
b,121
b,121The so-called perpetrators of 9/11 have strong ties both in Iraq and Afghanistan.
b,121
b,121So which is it?
b,121
b,121
b,121
b,121
h,121
font class="post"1b,121b,121Harvey is on to something in one sense. I think Obama will likely let Petraeus run the war on terrorism. For those on the left who think the war on terrorism is a power grab to "occupy" other countries and to steal our civil liberties, Obama will be a disappointment. And when he leaves tens of thousands of troops in Iraq, he will likely kill the already dying anti-war movement. b,121b,121Maybe it's just me, but I get the impression that many1of his supporters would be fine with these outcomes. I think the biggest knock on Bush is that he is incompetent. Obama, by virtue1of his campaign against the CLintons, proves that he knows what he is doing. b,121b,121I dissent from many1other conservatives in that I think McCain had a bad week overall. I actually take back my earlier comment that his campaign suspension was a good move. It turned out awful. For one, McCain went to Washington and the likelihood of a bailout diminished. The Washington Post says he may have sided with the House republicans on this as well. This makes sense in that McCain is likely to oppose this kind of bail out for ideological reasons, he is a small government conservative. Then at least in the beginning of the debate, he kind of endorsed the bail out and then went on to talk about earmarks to study bear dna in Montana. Let's be honest. One thing is $5 million (lots of money no doubt), the other is $700 billion. It made no sense to me and seemed robotic. b,121b,121I think Obama has made a conscious decision to embrace a center right position on the war. He supports the designation of Iran's revolutionary guard now as a terrorist organization, he won't meet with Iran's president, he will leave an undertermined number of forces in Iraq and he supports Bush's multilateral diplomacy with North Korea and thinks Russia is a serious threat and that Georgia ought to be a member of NATO. I applaud all of this. But if you thought Obama was the progressive anti-war candidate who would change the mindset of foreign policy, you are not getting that at least in the campaign. Maybe he will govern through praxis and really does take a hard left view of things. But I think he is a chameleon more than anything else. He believes the fact of his presidency is more important than any particular policies he will pursue when he is president. And to a degree he is right. But in this sense he is a lot more like Clinton who provided on welfare, crime and fiscal policy the final refutation of the Democratic party's 20th century big government liberalism. He was a democrat who made possible the policy agenda of the right.
Good poast Eli. Good to have you here.b,121b,121I think you are correct that Obama is telling people what they want to hear, to a degree; he's also leaving options on the table so that, should he become president, he won't have to directly contradict something he said while campaigning. I think this is a bit different than a "flip flop" in that it doesn't register in the voters' guts the same way and allows the candidate more freedom in the long run.b,121b,121I'm sorry but even as a fairly center-left resident of NYC and product of the Bay Area I do *not* want a pacifist leading our country right now. I do not want more war, more dead, more instability... but we need to rebuild our armed forces and we can't possibly do that if the Democrat's agenda calls for reducing defense budgets and weakening the pentagon. Also, I want a president that, should such a horrible situation happen, will not hesitate to mobilize our military. I wish we lived in a more peaceful, stable time... we don't. I'm glad Obama is aware of this, at least in theory.
I'm hesitant to agree... the defense budget isn't just about maintaining our armed forces, it's about billions of wasted and lost funds to defense contractors that do nothing to keep this country safe and a whole lot to keep us poor. b,121b,121one could drastically reduce waste in the military budget without compromising our military whatsoever. b,121b,121i'm not saying you can run with that notion in your platform, but that's the reality as I see it... and I come from a family of career military who agree.
I'm sorry, I was pretty unspecific about that and I do agree - however, the traditional Democratic platform isn't just against the wholesale giveaways to the Military Industrial Complex that have characterized the last 8 years. I don't think anyone would disagree with that even many1Republicans. But I do not think that's what Robert/Harvey_Canal and many1on the left are arguing for.b,121b,121For instance, right now there is a post on Crooks & Liars criticizing Obama for striking a hawkish tone last night, selectively quoting intel on Iran to justify a stance that is against any1form of confrontation with that country.b,121b,121As much as we need to right the reckless policies of the Bush administration we should avoid military isolationism as well.
yeah, the trick for a Democrat to be elected is to look strong while distancing themselves from "Axis of Evil"-type rhetoric. b,121b,121I'm of the mind that we created most of the tension between Iran and the rest of the world, have an obligation to try to fix our mess with diplomacy, and I guess in that light I share some dissapointment about any hawkishness in their direction coming from Obama.
b,121yeah, the trick for a Democrat to be elected is to look strong while distancing themselves from "Axis of Evil"-type rhetoric.
b,121
b,121I'm of the mind that we created most of the tension between Iran and the rest of the world, have an obligation to try to fix our mess with diplomacy, and I guess in that light I share some dissapointment about any hawkishness in their direction coming from Obama.
b,121
b,121
h,121
font class="post"1b,121b,121To be fair, he did go to great pains to stand up for diplomacy, while McCain attempted to hammer him for his willingness to "sit down at a table" with Ahmadidinididinijad. b,121b,121Also, as it pertains to the C&L post, Iran is ramping up enrichment activities. I wish they weren't. I wish it would all go away. But unfortunately it is what it is.
b,121yeah, the trick for a Democrat to be elected is to look strong while distancing themselves from "Axis of Evil"-type rhetoric.
b,121
b,121I'm of the mind that we created most of the tension between Iran and the rest of the world, have an obligation to try to fix our mess with diplomacy, and I guess in that light I share some dissapointment about any hawkishness in their direction coming from Obama.
b,121
b,121
h,121
font class="post"1
b,121
b,121To be fair, he did go to great pains to stand up for diplomacy, while McCain attempted to hammer him for his willingness to "sit down at a table" with Ahmadidinididinijad.
b,121
b,121Also, as it pertains to the C&L post, Iran
is ramping up enrichment activities. I wish they weren't. I wish it would all go away. But unfortunately it is what it is. b,121b,121h,121
font class="post"1b,121b,121true -- but partially because at least two countries already all nuked up -- "us" and Israel -- are keeping the rhetoric fierce. b,121b,121if my next-door neighbor and the neighborhood bully both kept saying they were going to come to my house and shoot me, and moving wasn't an option, I'd probably go buy a gun.
b,121yeah, the trick for a Democrat to be elected is to look strong while distancing themselves from "Axis of Evil"-type rhetoric.
b,121
b,121I'm of the mind that we created most of the tension between Iran and the rest of the world, have an obligation to try to fix our mess with diplomacy, and I guess in that light I share some dissapointment about any hawkishness in their direction coming from Obama.
b,121
b,121
h,121
font class="post"1
b,121
b,121To be fair, he did go to great pains to stand up for diplomacy, while McCain attempted to hammer him for his willingness to "sit down at a table" with Ahmadidinididinijad.
b,121
b,121Also, as it pertains to the C&L post, Iran
is ramping up enrichment activities. I wish they weren't. I wish it would all go away. But unfortunately it is what it is. b,121b,121h,121
font class="post"1
b,121
b,121true -- but partially because at least two countries already all nuked up -- "us" and Israel -- are keeping the rhetoric fierce.
b,121
b,121if my next-door neighbor and the neighborhood bully both kept saying they were going to come to my house and shoot me, and moving wasn't an option, I'd probably go buy a gun.
b,121
b,121
h,121
font class="post"1b,121b,121b,121This is why I vote Republican. Iran has not been provoked. It's regime (not the people, the regime) are terrorists. Their military threat, their coercive statecraft, is its ability to deliberately kill civilians. No this is not rhetoric. You can find this in the prosecution of the AMIA Cultural Center bombings or the Israeli embassy in Buenos Aires. The Argentine judge implicated the former president, Hashemi Rafsanjani. The emancipatory act of the Islamic Republic of Iran was to take American diplomats hostage for 444 days. They blew up the American embassy in Beirut and a Airforce barracks in Saudi Arabia. They funded the ethnic cleansers of Baghdad and supplied Iraqi terrorists with explosive roadside mines. They bankroll Hamas and Hezbollah. In a post 9-11 era, it's hard to accept how this regime can or should exist in the international system without a fundemental change in their behavior. And this says nothing of Iran's treatemnt of their people. They hang gay people on the tops of trains, they beat and torture college demonstrators and in 2004, when there was a moderate government that may have changed this long history of terrorism, what did the conservative clerics do? They told everyone in Khatami's reformist party that they were excluded from the ballot and could not run for office. Today the president is someone who once hosted a "holocaust cartoon contest," whose winning entry was Anne Frank in bed with Hitler with the Fuhrer saying, "put that in your diary." b,121b,121So no it is not our fault. Iran is not being bullied. This kind of tripe is what Lenin called useful idiocy. Iran is a threat to world peace today and if you care about international security, the rights of women, the survival of a Jewish state or nuclear proliferation you should be committed to ending this ghastly regime so Iranians can have their country back.
and we destroyed their democracy in the 50s. we're JUST the people to come in and F*ck up their country, the region, and the world even more. b,121b,121the current regime there is horrible. so is ours. by voting Republican, you've empowered an insane tyrant to destroy hundreds of thousands of Iraqi and Afghani lives. Only because I'm polite did I keep reading your post after that initial admission. but yeah... you should be f*cking ashamed of yourself.
b,121This is why I vote Republican. Iran has not been provoked. It's regime (not the people, the regime) are terrorists. Their military threat, their coercive statecraft, is its ability to deliberately kill civilians. No this is not rhetoric. You can find this in the prosecution of the AMIA Cultural Center bombings or the Israeli embassy in Buenos Aires. The Argentine judge implicated the former president, Hashemi Rafsanjani. The emancipatory act of the Islamic Republic of Iran was to take American diplomats hostage for 444 days. They blew up the American embassy in Beirut and a Airforce barracks in Saudi Arabia. They funded the ethnic cleansers of Baghdad and supplied Iraqi terrorists with explosive roadside mines. They bankroll Hamas and Hezbollah. In a post 9-11 era, it's hard to accept how this regime can or should exist in the international system without a fundemental change in their behavior. And this says nothing of Iran's treatemnt of their people. They hang gay people on the tops of trains, they beat and torture college demonstrators and in 2004, when there was a moderate government that may have changed this long history of terrorism, what did the conservative clerics do? They told everyone in Khatami's reformist party that they were excluded from the ballot and could not run for office. Today the president is someone who once hosted a "holocaust cartoon contest," whose winning entry was Anne Frank in bed with Hitler with the Fuhrer saying, "put that in your diary."
b,121
b,121So no it is not our fault. Iran is not being bullied. This kind of tripe is what Lenin called useful idiocy. Iran is a threat to world peace today and if you care about international security, the rights of women, the survival of a Jewish state or nuclear proliferation you should be committed to ending this ghastly regime so Iranians can have their country back.
b,121
b,121
h,121
font class="post"1b,121b,121Okay, this is a valid and timely post, but what can you tell us about saudi arabia?
b,121and we destroyed their democracy in the 50s. we're JUST the people to come in and F*ck up their country, the region, and the world even more.
b,121
b,121the current regime there is horrible. so is ours. by voting Republican, you've empowered an insane tyrant to destroy hundreds of thousands of Iraqi and Afghani lives. Only because I'm polite did I keep reading your post after that initial admission. but yeah... you should be f*cking ashamed of yourself.
b,121
b,121
h,121
font class="post"1b,121b,121First off, the clerics of Qom, or the predecessors to the clericy that runs Iraq today, supported the action against Mossedegh. Second, the followers of Mossedegh were the first people to be purged after the 1980 referendum on the Islamic Republic constitution. So the heirs of the president the CIA and the MI6 helped Shah Reza Pahlavi oust were killed, jailed and exiled by Khomeini's apparats. The closest surviving remnant of Mossedegh's movement has pleaded for some time for America to aid them in ridding Iran of their terrorist overlords. As it turns out the MEK or People's mujahadin sided with Saddam in the 1980s and are themselves terrorists. But nonetheless the heirs of the man who represented the democracy you say was pilfered wouldn't mind America re-intervening as it were. Also you presume that I favor an invasion of Iran or for that matter that anyone does. That's a strawman argument. My point is that I have no tolerance for people who excuse away Iranian aggression as a natural response to American aggression. There are plenty1of people who say this kind of nonsense, so you are not alone, but it is my wish, in my own small way, to make them feel timid and stupid when they say it. b,121b,121Now is Bush an insane tyrant? IF you believe that, then words really have no meaning for you. There is an election scheduled for November. There is a very good chance that the party, whose base stupidly demands show trials against the Bush-Cheney junta, will win control of the Justice Department. If we were living in a tyranny, there is no chance this would happen. I could go on. But you get the picture.
Comments