Rush tells the ditto heads who to vote for, and they all say "Yes mien Fuehrer."
Can I interest you in a little race baiting?
- Thread starter John_Wensink
- Start date
AAA knows a bit more about policy than you do. I presume you're sort of young (under 30?). I had stupid ideas then too.
As you get older and more experienced there's a few fallacies that one uncovers. For one, glibness is not tantamount to depth. In fact it's often a contrary indicator. Smooth talking used to be recognized as con-man behavior. Politicians in more enlightened times would be assailed as "silver tongued".
Obama has been dangerously opaque on important issues. Iraq is NO LONGER an issue. It's over. Dead. Nothing worth having in depth discussions about. What IS important is Afghanistan/Pakistan. Obama gives little hint to his intentions other than STEPPING UP American troop presence. Assholes find no duplicity in his positions. The anti Iraq War crowd will suddenly find religion at empty rhetoric about âfighting the REAL terroristsâ and âthe war in Iraq detracts from the fight against Afghanistanâ ect. Why fight in Pakistan? For friggin' REVENGE over 9/11? Gee there's a good policy. Let's rile up a nation with nukes-150 million strong-who just deposed a pro-American leader because they hate our guts. Yes let's do EVERYTHING WE CAN to war with those guys. I'll tell you something right now-we'll get SMOKED if we get into a war with Pakistan. We'll need to kill literally MILLIONS to make a military impact there. And yes, I see the future. That's how I get paid. The economy is going to continue contracting-dangerously so-and the ONLY WAY to get the millions and millions of unskilled, under educated minority youths BACK TO WORK will be through a draft. How the fuck do you think wars start? No tech collapse-no Iraq. The economy improved so Americans didn't want war. If the economy had continued to slip American's would've REVELED in war. I'm not going to be drafted so I don't have a stake but Obama is a war monger, a socialist and a WEIRD dude. Christian father doesn't celebrate Christmas with his kids? Vote for him. All of you. From my own selfishness this market volatility is nirvana and I hope it continues. Everyone's going to die anyway, right?
AAA knows a bit more about policy than you do. I presume you're sort of young (under 30?). I had stupid ideas then too.
Nice try pabst. I'm young, but I'm not stupid. You've known for a while that I'm under 30. You are trying to convince me that you just "presumed" it because my posts somehow reveal my naivety. haha, it won't work.
As you get older and more experienced there's a few fallacies that one uncovers. For one, glibness is not tantamount to depth. In fact it's often a contrary indicator. Smooth talking used to be recognized as con-man behavior. Politicians in more enlightened times would be assailed as "silver tongued".
Glibness? Glibness has nothing to do with Obama's appeal. I live in Denver and the line to invesco (where he gave his acceptance speech) was over a mile long. 80,000 people didn't line up for hours for his glibness. What did they line up for? I'm sure they all had their own reasons. Obama is a great orator. Does that mean he will be a great president? Of course not. But it's a damn good skill to have as a politician. Orators have been a powerful force for good and bad throughout all of human history. So far he has used that skill to get hundreds of thousands of new voters registered and more involved in the political process. Once again I don't believe this alone is reason enough to vote for him. I do think it will be helpful in uniting our country and hopefully the world to worthwhile causes. However you seem to equate his speaking with that of some kind of used car salesman...as if Obama is some kind of "empty suit". I doubt many salesman can do what Obama has done thusfar. I want to stress that I do not believe this alone is reason enough to vote for him, but his oratorical skills are a pretty powerful weapon that he has, and I for one would be glad to see him put them to use for the good of our country. Equating them with the same kind of smooth talk you get at a furniture store is to try to deny the impact that his speeches have already had...and they have had an impact and we all know it.
Obama has been dangerously opaque on important issues. Iraq is NO LONGER an issue. It's over. Dead. Nothing worth having in depth discussions about.
What? How is it "dead"? We are still spending billions every month, there are still 150,000 troops in Iraq, risking their lives everyday. How is this issue dead?? Tell that to the tax payers (us) who are become billions more in debt to countries like china and saudia arabia every month. Tell that to families who's dad is over there right now. I'm not arguing for us staying or leaving iraq, but I simply don't understand why you think its a non-issue.
What IS important is Afghanistan/Pakistan. Obama gives little hint to his intentions other than STEPPING UP American troop presence.
In afghanistan, yes he would like to add more troops.
Why fight in Pakistan? For friggin' REVENGE over 9/11? Gee there's a good policy. Let's rile up a nation with nukes-150 million strong-who just deposed a pro-American leader because they hate our guts. Yes let's do EVERYTHING WE CAN to war with those guys.
Who wants to "fight" Pakistan? I saw the comments Obama made about Pakistan and the fact that you extrapolated, from those comments, that he wants to invade the country and get into a nuclear exchange is amazing to me. He was simply saying the the war we should be in is a war on terror. A war on the people who would do anything they can to destroy our country and a war on , yes, the kind of people who attacked us on 9/11. Thats the war our country and the world supports. And if Pakistan is harboring terrorists then the US and the rest of the world should focus on that.
I'll tell you something right now-we'll get SMOKED if we get into a war with Pakistan. We'll need to kill literally MILLIONS to make a military impact there. And yes, I see the future. That's how I get paid. The economy is going to continue contracting-dangerously so-and the ONLY WAY to get the millions and millions of unskilled, under educated minority youths BACK TO WORK will be through a draft. How the fuck do you think wars start? No tech collapse-no Iraq. The economy improved so Americans didn't want war. If the economy had continued to slip American's would've REVELED in war.
Just to be clear, are you suggesting that the only time the US goes to war is to end economic woes?
I'm not going to be drafted so I don't have a stake but Obama is a war monger, a socialist and a WEIRD dude. Christian father doesn't celebrate Christmas with his kids? Vote for him. All of you. From my own selfishness this market volatility is nirvana and I hope it continues. Everyone's going to die anyway, right?
No one is going to be drafted. This isn't world war 2. This is a completely seperate issue from above, but war has changed. Have you ever read "the guns of august"? War is a computer based technology game now.
About the christmas thing, please provide a link for such claims. I would bet a lot of money that that simply is not true, but I don't know so please provide some factual basis for why you think obama doesnt celebrate christmas with his kids.
Nice try pabst. I'm young, but I'm not stupid. You've known for a while that I'm under 30. You are trying to convince me that you just "presumed" it because my posts somehow reveal my naivety. haha, it won't work.
As you get older and more experienced there's a few fallacies that one uncovers. For one, glibness is not tantamount to depth. In fact it's often a contrary indicator. Smooth talking used to be recognized as con-man behavior. Politicians in more enlightened times would be assailed as "silver tongued".
Glibness? Glibness has nothing to do with Obama's appeal. I live in Denver and the line to invesco (where he gave his acceptance speech) was over a mile long. 80,000 people didn't line up for hours for his glibness. What did they line up for? I'm sure they all had their own reasons. Obama is a great orator. Does that mean he will be a great president? Of course not. But it's a damn good skill to have as a politician. Orators have been a powerful force for good and bad throughout all of human history. So far he has used that skill to get hundreds of thousands of new voters registered and more involved in the political process. Once again I don't believe this alone is reason enough to vote for him. I do think it will be helpful in uniting our country and hopefully the world to worthwhile causes. However you seem to equate his speaking with that of some kind of used car salesman...as if Obama is some kind of "empty suit". I doubt many salesman can do what Obama has done thusfar. I want to stress that I do not believe this alone is reason enough to vote for him, but his oratorical skills are a pretty powerful weapon that he has, and I for one would be glad to see him put them to use for the good of our country. Equating them with the same kind of smooth talk you get at a furniture store is to try to deny the impact that his speeches have already had...and they have had an impact and we all know it.
Obama has been dangerously opaque on important issues. Iraq is NO LONGER an issue. It's over. Dead. Nothing worth having in depth discussions about.
What? How is it "dead"? We are still spending billions every month, there are still 150,000 troops in Iraq, risking their lives everyday. How is this issue dead?? Tell that to the tax payers (us) who are become billions more in debt to countries like china and saudia arabia every month. Tell that to families who's dad is over there right now. I'm not arguing for us staying or leaving iraq, but I simply don't understand why you think its a non-issue.
What IS important is Afghanistan/Pakistan. Obama gives little hint to his intentions other than STEPPING UP American troop presence.
In afghanistan, yes he would like to add more troops.
Why fight in Pakistan? For friggin' REVENGE over 9/11? Gee there's a good policy. Let's rile up a nation with nukes-150 million strong-who just deposed a pro-American leader because they hate our guts. Yes let's do EVERYTHING WE CAN to war with those guys.
Who wants to "fight" Pakistan? I saw the comments Obama made about Pakistan and the fact that you extrapolated, from those comments, that he wants to invade the country and get into a nuclear exchange is amazing to me. He was simply saying the the war we should be in is a war on terror. A war on the people who would do anything they can to destroy our country and a war on , yes, the kind of people who attacked us on 9/11. Thats the war our country and the world supports. And if Pakistan is harboring terrorists then the US and the rest of the world should focus on that.
I'll tell you something right now-we'll get SMOKED if we get into a war with Pakistan. We'll need to kill literally MILLIONS to make a military impact there. And yes, I see the future. That's how I get paid. The economy is going to continue contracting-dangerously so-and the ONLY WAY to get the millions and millions of unskilled, under educated minority youths BACK TO WORK will be through a draft. How the fuck do you think wars start? No tech collapse-no Iraq. The economy improved so Americans didn't want war. If the economy had continued to slip American's would've REVELED in war.
Just to be clear, are you suggesting that the only time the US goes to war is to end economic woes?
I'm not going to be drafted so I don't have a stake but Obama is a war monger, a socialist and a WEIRD dude. Christian father doesn't celebrate Christmas with his kids? Vote for him. All of you. From my own selfishness this market volatility is nirvana and I hope it continues. Everyone's going to die anyway, right?
No one is going to be drafted. This isn't world war 2. This is a completely seperate issue from above, but war has changed. Have you ever read "the guns of august"? War is a computer based technology game now.
About the christmas thing, please provide a link for such claims. I would bet a lot of money that that simply is not true, but I don't know so please provide some factual basis for why you think obama doesnt celebrate christmas with his kids.
Sad.
Glibness? Glibness has nothing to do with Obama's appeal. I live in Denver and the line to invesco (where he gave his acceptance speech) was over a mile long. 80,000 people didn't line up for hours for his glibness. What did they line up for? I'm sure they all had their own reasons. Obama is a great orator. Does that mean he will be a great president? Of course not. But it's a damn good skill to have as a politician. Orators have been a powerful force for good and bad throughout all of human history. So far he has used that skill to get hundreds of thousands of new voters registered and more involved in the political process. Once again I don't believe this alone is reason enough to vote for him. I do think it will be helpful in uniting our country and hopefully the world to worthwhile causes. However you seem to equate his speaking with that of some kind of used car salesman...as if Obama is some kind of "empty suit". I doubt many salesman can do what Obama has done thusfar. I want to stress that I do not believe this alone is reason enough to vote for him, but his oratorical skills are a pretty powerful weapon that he has, and I for one would be glad to see him put them to use for the good of our country. Equating them with the same kind of smooth talk you get at a furniture store is to try to deny the impact that his speeches have already had...and they have had an impact and we all know it.
Question? Other than winning a couple of elections, what has he accomplished? List those "accomplishments" at your leisure. Has he fought for an end of the Iraq war on the Senate floor? Did he seek solutions for this lending crisis? Has he sponsored in either Illinois or D.C. even a single piece of important legislation? Isn't actually doing something weightier than just talking a good game?
What? How is it "dead"? We are still spending billions every month, there are still 150,000 troops in Iraq, risking their lives everyday. How is this issue dead?? Tell that to the tax payers (us) who are become billions more in debt to countries like china and saudia arabia every month. Tell that to families who's dad is over there right now. I'm not arguing for us staying or leaving iraq, but I simply don't understand why you think its a non-issue.
Troops are rapidly coming home. Casulties are at their lowest point since the war started. Iraq is WAR WEARY. These things often just burn themselves out. This thing is as good as done. No matter who becomes President we'll maintain 30,000 troops in Iraq and still suffer occasional deaths. Obama has NEVER hinted at a COMPLETE withdrawl.
In afghanistan, yes he would like to add more troops.
Who wants to "fight" Pakistan? I saw the comments Obama made about Pakistan and the fact that you extrapolated, from those comments, that he wants to invade the country and get into a nuclear exchange is amazing to me. He was simply saying the the war we should be in is a war on terror. A war on the people who would do anything they can to destroy our country and a war on , yes, the kind of people who attacked us on 9/11. Thats the war our country and the world supports. And if Pakistan is harboring terrorists then the US and the rest of the world should focus on that.
Harboring terrorists? Pakistan LOVES terrorists. This war in Afghanistan is NOT ABOUT Afghanistan. It's all about Pakistan. If you think the depth of terrorism in Pakistan is just a few Taliban guys who need to be smoked out then you're not hip to the dynamic. Pakistan is the end game.
Just to be clear, are you suggesting that the only time the US goes to war is to end economic woes?
The only time ANYONE goes to war is in bad economic times. Wars fought in good times quickly lose consensus with happy go lucky citizens.
No one is going to be drafted. This isn't world war 2. This is a completely seperate issue from above, but war has changed. Have you ever read "the guns of august"? War is a computer based technology game now.
Oh really? Tell that to the 150,000 ground troops that were in Iraq. We had a draft for three decades after WWll. We put 600,000 draftees in Vietnam. Do you think Europe (who opposes U.S. aggression in Pakistan) are going to condone casualty heavy U.S. airstrikes in Pakistan? Do you think nuclear Pakistan is just going to grin at U.S. bombing? Do you know how many Pakistani immigrants live in the U.S? Do you think THEY are going to remain silent when we wholesale level Pakistani "targets"?
About the christmas thing, please provide a link for such claims. I would bet a lot of money that that simply is not true, but I don't know so please provide some factual basis for why you think obama doesnt celebrate christmas with his kids.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0708/12035.html [/QUOTE]
Question? Other than winning a couple of elections, what has he accomplished? List those "accomplishments" at your leisure. Has he fought for an end of the Iraq war on the Senate floor? Did he seek solutions for this lending crisis? Has he sponsored in either Illinois or D.C. even a single piece of important legislation? Isn't actually doing something weightier than just talking a good game?
What? How is it "dead"? We are still spending billions every month, there are still 150,000 troops in Iraq, risking their lives everyday. How is this issue dead?? Tell that to the tax payers (us) who are become billions more in debt to countries like china and saudia arabia every month. Tell that to families who's dad is over there right now. I'm not arguing for us staying or leaving iraq, but I simply don't understand why you think its a non-issue.
Troops are rapidly coming home. Casulties are at their lowest point since the war started. Iraq is WAR WEARY. These things often just burn themselves out. This thing is as good as done. No matter who becomes President we'll maintain 30,000 troops in Iraq and still suffer occasional deaths. Obama has NEVER hinted at a COMPLETE withdrawl.
In afghanistan, yes he would like to add more troops.
Who wants to "fight" Pakistan? I saw the comments Obama made about Pakistan and the fact that you extrapolated, from those comments, that he wants to invade the country and get into a nuclear exchange is amazing to me. He was simply saying the the war we should be in is a war on terror. A war on the people who would do anything they can to destroy our country and a war on , yes, the kind of people who attacked us on 9/11. Thats the war our country and the world supports. And if Pakistan is harboring terrorists then the US and the rest of the world should focus on that.
Harboring terrorists? Pakistan LOVES terrorists. This war in Afghanistan is NOT ABOUT Afghanistan. It's all about Pakistan. If you think the depth of terrorism in Pakistan is just a few Taliban guys who need to be smoked out then you're not hip to the dynamic. Pakistan is the end game.
Just to be clear, are you suggesting that the only time the US goes to war is to end economic woes?
The only time ANYONE goes to war is in bad economic times. Wars fought in good times quickly lose consensus with happy go lucky citizens.
No one is going to be drafted. This isn't world war 2. This is a completely seperate issue from above, but war has changed. Have you ever read "the guns of august"? War is a computer based technology game now.
Oh really? Tell that to the 150,000 ground troops that were in Iraq. We had a draft for three decades after WWll. We put 600,000 draftees in Vietnam. Do you think Europe (who opposes U.S. aggression in Pakistan) are going to condone casualty heavy U.S. airstrikes in Pakistan? Do you think nuclear Pakistan is just going to grin at U.S. bombing? Do you know how many Pakistani immigrants live in the U.S? Do you think THEY are going to remain silent when we wholesale level Pakistani "targets"?
About the christmas thing, please provide a link for such claims. I would bet a lot of money that that simply is not true, but I don't know so please provide some factual basis for why you think obama doesnt celebrate christmas with his kids.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0708/12035.html [/QUOTE]
If I recall didn't Jesus hang out with some pretty bad dudes? With the way McCain has been acting and the party keeping Palin under wraps, I'm willing to take a leap of faith that this bright young guy will overcome racism and grow into the role rapidly. I don't think McCain is ready to lead this country and he obviously can't multitask or delegate.
Question? Other than winning a couple of elections, what has he accomplished? List those "accomplishments" at your leisure. Has he fought for an end of the Iraq war on the Senate floor? Did he seek solutions for this lending crisis? Has he sponsored in either Illinois or D.C. even a single piece of important legislation? Isn't actually doing something weightier than just talking a good game?
Besides the fact that he has been a state senator, is a senator and was the editor of the Harvard law review...because we all know just about anybody can do those things.
About legislation I would be hard pressed to locate them all. In the state senate he sponsored 820 bills. He co-sponsored 427 bills since in the US senate. Oh and he has authored 152 bills. In fact "Sen Obama's 2007 Ethics Reform bill was described by many as the most sweeping package of its kind since Watergate". Thats quite a few more than just a "single" piece of legislation.
Troops are rapidly coming home. Casulties are at their lowest point since the war started. Iraq is WAR WEARY. These things often just burn themselves out. This thing is as good as done. No matter who becomes President we'll maintain 30,000 troops in Iraq and still suffer occasional deaths. Obama has NEVER hinted at a COMPLETE withdrawl.
How could casualties be lower now the beginning of the war? There were 0 then and theres a few thousand now. You say we will maintain 30,00 troops there, that means we would have to withdraw over 100,000. Are you saying that no matter who is elected we will withdraw over 100,00 troops?
Harboring terrorists? Pakistan LOVES terrorists. This war in Afghanistan is NOT ABOUT Afghanistan. It's all about Pakistan. If you think the depth of terrorism in Pakistan is just a few Taliban guys who need to be smoked out then you're not hip to the dynamic. Pakistan is the end game.
What makes you even think that? You may or may not be right. But I'm damn sure you don't know. I could say this war is all about invading iran and who would know if i was right or not. Anyways if pakistan is the terrorist state that you claim it is do you think john mccain would be LESS aggressive towards them?
The only time ANYONE goes to war is in bad economic times. Wars fought in good times quickly lose consensus with happy go lucky citizens.
First you say the "only time anyone goes to war is in bad economic times" then you go on to talk about "wars fought in good times". That in itself doesn't make sense. Besides I think if i looked back into every period before a war in this country not every single on of those wars would be precluded by economic hardships. Just off the top of my head, what was the economy like during the revolutionary war? Hmmmm there was no economy, I doubt it was an issue.
Oh really? Tell that to the 150,000 ground troops that were in Iraq. We had a draft for three decades after WWll. We put 600,000 draftees in Vietnam. Do you think Europe (who opposes U.S. aggression in Pakistan)
The number of people going into battle is simply not as big a factor has it was decades ago. Our military is by far the most dominant in the world, is that because we have the most people? No. It's because we spend as much on our military alone as the entire rest of the world combined. We have lost around 4,000 troops in iraq, yet we have killed an estimated (by the pentagon) just under 700,000 since 2003. Thats with 150,000 or so troops (US and coalition). We have around 2.2 million soldiers in our military and reserve. In iraq we killed just under 5 of their soldiers per 1 of ours. Just how large of a war would we have to be in to enact the draft? More than simply pakistan I think.
Even so what does Pakistan have to do with anything?
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0708/12035.html [/QUOTE]
I read the article in people magazine and as I thought, you were wrong. They do celebrate christmas.
Besides the fact that he has been a state senator, is a senator and was the editor of the Harvard law review...because we all know just about anybody can do those things.
About legislation I would be hard pressed to locate them all. In the state senate he sponsored 820 bills. He co-sponsored 427 bills since in the US senate. Oh and he has authored 152 bills. In fact "Sen Obama's 2007 Ethics Reform bill was described by many as the most sweeping package of its kind since Watergate". Thats quite a few more than just a "single" piece of legislation.
Troops are rapidly coming home. Casulties are at their lowest point since the war started. Iraq is WAR WEARY. These things often just burn themselves out. This thing is as good as done. No matter who becomes President we'll maintain 30,000 troops in Iraq and still suffer occasional deaths. Obama has NEVER hinted at a COMPLETE withdrawl.
How could casualties be lower now the beginning of the war? There were 0 then and theres a few thousand now. You say we will maintain 30,00 troops there, that means we would have to withdraw over 100,000. Are you saying that no matter who is elected we will withdraw over 100,00 troops?
Harboring terrorists? Pakistan LOVES terrorists. This war in Afghanistan is NOT ABOUT Afghanistan. It's all about Pakistan. If you think the depth of terrorism in Pakistan is just a few Taliban guys who need to be smoked out then you're not hip to the dynamic. Pakistan is the end game.
What makes you even think that? You may or may not be right. But I'm damn sure you don't know. I could say this war is all about invading iran and who would know if i was right or not. Anyways if pakistan is the terrorist state that you claim it is do you think john mccain would be LESS aggressive towards them?
The only time ANYONE goes to war is in bad economic times. Wars fought in good times quickly lose consensus with happy go lucky citizens.
First you say the "only time anyone goes to war is in bad economic times" then you go on to talk about "wars fought in good times". That in itself doesn't make sense. Besides I think if i looked back into every period before a war in this country not every single on of those wars would be precluded by economic hardships. Just off the top of my head, what was the economy like during the revolutionary war? Hmmmm there was no economy, I doubt it was an issue.
Oh really? Tell that to the 150,000 ground troops that were in Iraq. We had a draft for three decades after WWll. We put 600,000 draftees in Vietnam. Do you think Europe (who opposes U.S. aggression in Pakistan)
The number of people going into battle is simply not as big a factor has it was decades ago. Our military is by far the most dominant in the world, is that because we have the most people? No. It's because we spend as much on our military alone as the entire rest of the world combined. We have lost around 4,000 troops in iraq, yet we have killed an estimated (by the pentagon) just under 700,000 since 2003. Thats with 150,000 or so troops (US and coalition). We have around 2.2 million soldiers in our military and reserve. In iraq we killed just under 5 of their soldiers per 1 of ours. Just how large of a war would we have to be in to enact the draft? More than simply pakistan I think.
Even so what does Pakistan have to do with anything?
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0708/12035.html [/QUOTE]
I read the article in people magazine and as I thought, you were wrong. They do celebrate christmas.
Sad. I would insult you, but I know a lot of people feel this way. "I know nothing about this guy Obama but he looks like someone I would like to have coffee with, so I'll vote for him to be President."
You know zero about Obama. What you think you know is the creation of a sophisticated media campaign orchestrated by David Axelrod and enthusiastically adopted by the media. People see this pleasant looking guy with no track record and project all their hopes and desires on him. They go into denial about all the ugly stuff, the Rev. Wrights, the Tony Rezkos, the chicago corruption, the whole Ayers saga, his angry wife, etc.
I knew a lot about George Bush
I know enough about Obama and not from the sources you quote. I have seen the look of trust in the eyes of his children, I have heard his wife speak of him with justified pride in the man he has become. I know he was raised in part by his grandparents who share mid American values. I know daddy didn't pay his way thru Harvard. Could I end up disappointed....sure but I would be willing to bet all the money I have he will not disappoint me as much as Bush has.Facts? The fact is Obama is clearly unqualified to be president. He is the most unqualified person to run for the office in my lifetime on a major party ticket. Can you dispute that? This is not American Idol. Even Joe Biden recognized he was unqualified and that the Oval Office is not the place for on the job training.
Don't bother telling me he is a very intelligent guy who reads a teleprompter well and you think he will do fine. That is just your hope, hope that you have been manipulated into believing.
If the media had attacked him or even reported objectively on him, he would never had gotten the nomination. The media would have given him the Palin treatment, basically looking at him dismissively and saying who the hell are you or just ignoring him altogether. But they were never going to do that to a liberal, well educated black guy, someone they would love to be able to show off to their friends at dinner parties. And the sheep obediently fall into line.