posted
Yep. That's why if you look at the photos on dating sites a good 60% of 'em feature people dressed up as Cardinal Richelieu.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
To be fair, a full 10% of those people are actually me, wearing a variety of wigs and cosmetic disguises. I'm trying to make C-Rich style happen.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
You know, it IS possible to experience marijuana without enjoying it. I remember the one time (in Amsterdam) that I was around the stuff - plenty of second-hand smoke, and then I stole the apple-pen combo that was their pipe and ATE the thing because I was hungry and pissed off that here we were in Amsterdam and all the group wanted to do was sit around in a crappy room and smoke pot. I then left to visit the art museum. I didn't enjoy any of the marijuana effects at all, and I was angry that I was experiencing them without choosing deliberately to smoke. (The small group I was with had made the decision, and we were all on our own in Europe and we had to share a train ticket)
Posts: 3141 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Pot should be legalized if for no other reason that to stop making politicians talk about it. They always sound like those squares who feel the need to brag about their drug use, but still want to seem cool to every group of people, so they won't commit to what they actually did.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: To be fair, a full 10% of those people are actually me, wearing a variety of wigs and cosmetic disguises. I'm trying to make C-Rich style happen.
Truly, you are the man of a thousand faces (all of which have the C-Rich thing going on).
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Anecdotal evidence to the contrary the overwhelming majority of people who smoke marijuana, do so because they want to because they enjoy it.
Posts: 1458 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Anecdotal evidence to the contrary the overwhelming majority of people who smoke marijuana, do so because they want to because they enjoy it. "
I would assume that logic holds for most of our vices... smoking, drinking, fornication, etc.
Posts: 571 | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I hate pot. Just being in the room with it makes me sick, and I don't even want to know what smoking it is like. I didn't enjoy the contact buzz I got, so I doubt I would care for it.
And I don't care if that makes me a square. Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by luthe: Anecdotal evidence to the contrary the overwhelming majority of people who smoke marijuana, do so because they want to because they enjoy it.
That isn't evidence to the contrary. Jenny wasn't making an absolute point; she merely said that it was possible for a person to experience pot and not enjoy it. That many people experience pot and do enjoy it doesn't invalidate her point at all.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:And I don't care if that makes me a square. [Smile]
That would be being unnecessarily mean to squares. I'd say you're closer to a trapezoid. No one likes them. Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
No I didn't eat the pen! Nor much of the apple, really.
I don't find Palin "hot", but my husband thinks she's pretty. Of course, she's LOTS nicer to look at than many of the old men so prevalent in politics. I just find her style of beauty less attractive than some other cultural figureheads.
Posts: 3141 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not very good at making absolute points, as Noemon shows. But I'm really good about being open to possibility.
Posts: 3141 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
PS: Palin is quite photogenic as well, and she has a sprightly go-for-it demeanor that really seems to animate the room.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Vyrus: Has anyone else noticed the hypocrisy of McCain bashing Obama for his inexperience and then turning around and choosing Palin, who has even less?
Maybe it's just me.
I just hope for McCain's sake that no one else on the Internet, in the mass media, or in the Obama campaign makes that connection. Maybe you should delete your post before anyone catches on. Posts: 2804 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Funny how the polls say most people believe Gov. Palin is more qualified to be president than Obama. In fact, she has a higher approval rating than Sens. Obama or McCain. She also has many years of actual executive experience that the other three candidates do not have.
Dems have not done themelves any favors by inviting comparisons between Palin and Obama in regard to experience. As for Sen. Biden, what he has ever been in charge of running?
I think people will be surprised by how handily Gov. Palin ("Sarah Barracuda") deals with Sen. Biden in the vice presidential debate. She manifestly has twice his I.Q. and a hundred times his moxie. And unlike him, she does not need to plagiarize anyone. (Biden has been described as a "serial plagiarist.") All she needs is for McCain's people to give her adequate prepping. And she is known as a quick learner.
[ September 07, 2008, 03:03 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ron, you are even more full of it than usual. When did intelligence become a hallmark of Republican Presidential candidates? Or experience?
Bush Jr had little of either. He was the weakest Gov in the country for little to no time, and all of his executive experience were for companies that failed.
Wait....maybe past experiences ARE an accurate predictor of future behavior. You don't have to look much further than our economy or our foreign relations to see what I mean. He has succeeded in doing to our country what he did to all of his business ventures....with the added benefit of ruining our international reputation and creating more terrorist problems for us in the future( by insuring the new group of kinds from the middle east hate us even MORE than their parents, for far greater reason).
Politicians all borrow from each other. If you want I can show you many, many examples....as you seem too unmotivated to do the 5 min of research it took me to find them.
PS: Palin is quite photogenic as well, and she has a sprightly go-for-it demeanor that really seems to animate the room.
CT, the sexiest picture is Obama's wedding picture, sprawled together on the bench. It is lovely.
As for Scary Sarie, what you see as "sprightly" I see as an evil sneer. Watch her eyes dart to the side. Ugh. Sorry, dislike her.
Posts: 10890 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jenny Gardener: I'm not very good at making absolute points, as Noemon shows. But I'm really good about being open to possibility.
Lol . . . are you me?
Posts: 3149 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kwea, you asked me: "When did intelligence become a hallmark of Republican Presidential candidates?"
Probably about the same time that schizophrenia became a hallmark of Democratic Presidential candidates.
Schizophrenia = split off from reality.
Actually, there have been intelligent candidates among the Republicans, and sane candidates among the Democrats. But they are not the ones the parties nominated. For some reason, ever since McGovern, the Dems have been nominating people who do not comprehend reality--especially that evil actually exists in the world, and needs to be opposed by those who champion good. Before then, the Dem nominees at least had some basic sense about standing up to American's enemies and the enemies of freedom.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Kwea, you asked me: "When did intelligence become a hallmark of Republican Presidential candidates?"
Probably about the same time that schizophrenia became a hallmark of Democratic Presidential candidates.
Schizophrenia = split off from reality.
Actually, there have been intelligent candidates among the Republicans, and sane candidates among the Democrats. But they are not the ones the parties nominated. For some reason, ever since McGovern, the Dems have been nominating people who do not comprehend reality--especially that evil actually exists in the world, and needs to be opposed by those who champion good. Before then, the Dem nominees at least had some basic sense about standing up to American's enemies and the enemies of freedom.
You have Fox news on the brain.
I don't call Republican's dumb, I just question specifics.
How is it good to torture people in the name of freedom? How does lying about justifications for war and having American's die in a country where we are not (and have never been) wanted good for our country? Who the hell made Republican's the arbitrators of what is and isn't American behavior? Since when has not agreeing with someone been treason? What justifies exposing classified information to further a political grudge?
I know a lot of good, honest people. The funny thing is that we can discuss politics, and even disagree with each other on key points, without resorting to name calling and divisiveness. Washington seems to have lost that ability, and it pisses me off. I am tired of attack ads, smear campaigns, and sore losers.
It is time for a change, and McCain has lost ALL of his ability to impress me. He is as dirty, if not more so, than the rest of them.
It is time for a change, and McCain has lost ALL of his ability to impress me. He is as dirty, if not more so, than the rest of them.
IMO, of course. [/QB]
I have to disagree with you Kwea, while John McCain has done his share of 'playing the game', I think he has kept it considerably cleaner than most of his counterparts. He is cooperative with his opposition and (relatively) clean of allot of the special interest dirt that plagues Washington. Up until the general election he was even reletively well liked by the opposition, making regular appearances on the Daily Show and working on cross partisan bills such as the McCain Fiengold (Sorry if I slaughtered the latter senators name) bill and others. Allot of republicans hated that bill because it threatened to take away more from their pockets than those of the democrats (didn't exactly work out as planned, but you see the point).
The rhetoric of both parties at this point isn't informative at all. If you look at both senators records, (I mean check into it yourself, not just take someone else's word for it) you might draw a similar conclusion.
And yes Palin is pretty damn hot for an older woman. I also have to admit that I wouldn't be angry if I had Barak Obama's looks either.
Posts: 278 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Isn't it funny how someone (Kwea) says something about republicans and then immediately goes off the point and uses our current president to draw derogatory conclusions about John McCain.
Almost every "fact" mentioned about Bush in that post came from Fahrenheit 9/11. Be careful about Michael Moore. He is more than comfortable telling you a lie if it means swaying your opinion, just some friendly advice.
As to the torture issue. McCain is steadfast against it, to the ire of his party, and to my own ire as well. I believe that if we have good enough reason to believe that an enemy has the knowledge necessary to save American lives, do it. McCain and Obama are on the same page on that issue.
Lying about the reason to go to war? No way Kwea, no way. Do you really believe that? That is another idea that Fahrenheit 9/11 pushes really hard. Do you know how many UN sanctions Saddam just shrugged off concerning his weapons buildup? Do you realize that everyone, and I mean all credible sources, said the same thing about the intelligence on Iraq? Hell, even the French thought had WMDs capable of imminent threats to many countries. Viewing that intelligence, his lack of honesty in the past, his unwillingness to conform to UN sanctions, almost everyone from both parties was on board for the invasion of Iraq. President Bush gave a speech long before we invaded, in front of the UN, giving Saddam an ultimatum concerning his actions. It wasn't heeded.
The democratic party jumped ship quicker than rats fleeing a burning building once the war became unpopular. How is that for spine? How is that for putting conviction? Instead of standing by their votes to go in, they began to make very strange accusations that they were "lied to" or that they were "misled by Bush's intelligence."
How strange that when it was the popular idea, they were all fine with the intelligence. Once it became unpopular, instead of seeking out why the intelligence had failed, they chose to slander the President to make the case that they hadn't been wrong in the first place. Again, how about that conviction?
Looking at the intelligence leading up to the Iraq war, I wonder about Obama's initial opposition. I agree, in hindsight, it was a mistake to invade. But the intelligence pointed to a serious threat to our national security. Remember that we'd been very recently attacked on our soil and lost over three thousand of our citizens. Things look different now when we look back. But the threat felt very real when we, as a nation, watched those hearings when Colin Powell explained the danger facing us. He was on board, with all his long years of experience and good judgment.
I used to think like you Kwea, because I swallowed without asking most of the crap fed to me by CNN and Michael Moore. If you stop though, and take a long, hard look at the situation we're in, you'll find that it isn't too difficult to realize how we actually got here.
Do you know what our former president was doing while Osama and his allies were formulating and executing the plan that led to September 11th?
I'd explain but I think going into graphic detail about what his mind was on might violate the decency policy around here.
Our economy?
Things were going pretty good in our economy until 2006. The war was very unpopular and President Bush stuck to his (correct) conviction that pulling out and losing due to popular opinion would be disastrous. So the American people elected a Democratic congress. Congratulations. Look at where we are now.
Since they've taken office we've had the housing bubble crisis, a near recession, ridiculous gas prices, meanwhile Nancy Pelosi is more concerned about making it illegal to hire based on language barriers.
Yeah, that is what we need to focus on.
I feel sorry for longtime democrats. I really do. The party's elected officials have moved further and further left and the party will hear nothing from a centrist or republican. That isn't the way this game is supposed to work. But the party is good at one thing though, propaganda.
They've made the only halfway honest news team into a "right-wing propaganda machine." Of course I'm talking about Fox News. And I'm not talking about Hannity. He is very forthcoming about being a conservative. I'm talking about the actual news team. You don't see the Fox News team spewing the crap that the Daily Kos rumored about. But can you say that about CNN and MSNBC?
They've made John McCain seem like Bush Jr, which is about as far from the truth as you can get. He's the only candidate running with a long history of bi-partisanship.
When is the last time Barack Obama did anything bipartisan?
He votes party line democrat.
Look at what the democratic machine did to Joe Lieberman. He stood on his convictions and they refused to fund him anymore. He had to run as an independent to retain his seat. Thank god he did. He has integrity.
Anyway, this stuff just makes me depressed. Kwea, take a few days to reply, go out and really, objectively read and research most of the things that CNN and Michael Moore have armed you with. You'll find that most are either misdirections, half-truths, or sometimes outright deceptions. It is an unfortunate thing, a sad thing.
There are millions of people who think this kind of thing, even though there are little facts to back it up.
Posts: 4 | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Posted by String: I have to disagree with you Kwea, while John McCain has done his share of 'playing the game', I think he has kept it considerably cleaner than most of his counterparts.
I would have agreed with you before this campaign started. He's learned a lot in a very short period of time. I've seen a couple of bad Obama ads, but nothing compared to the avalanche of crap that I've seen on TV coming from McCain. Half-truths, bald faced lies, and a lot of misdirection from him. I've yet to see him actually talk about his own plans, it's all just attack ads.
KE Spires -
Welcome. It's always nice to have someone from the other side (of the political spectrum) around to make things interesting. I'm not a Democrat, but I still disagree with pretty much everything you said.
quote:Lying about the reason to go to war? No way Kwea, no way. Do you really believe that? That is another idea that Fahrenheit 9/11 pushes really hard. Do you know how many UN sanctions Saddam just shrugged off concerning his weapons buildup? Do you realize that everyone, and I mean all credible sources, said the same thing about the intelligence on Iraq? Hell, even the French thought had WMDs capable of imminent threats to many countries. Viewing that intelligence, his lack of honesty in the past, his unwillingness to conform to UN sanctions, almost everyone from both parties was on board for the invasion of Iraq. President Bush gave a speech long before we invaded, in front of the UN, giving Saddam an ultimatum concerning his actions. It wasn't heeded.
Hah, how was he EVER going to meet the burden of proof that Bush laid out? He said to come clean with your weapons program, so Saddam opened Iraq to inspectors and turned over tens of thousands of pages of documents. A few weeks later we deemed that insufficient and invaded to find that Saddam didn't have anything. There were plenty of people in the intelligence community that doubted the nature of the intel we have on Saddam, and several of them warned, rightly, that Saddam might be lying just to put on a good face for countries like Iran. The opinion of Iraq's having WMDs was NOT universal in the intelligence community. There was no way to avoid war given Bush's drive. And there's also no way the American people would have supported it if A. They knew all the facts that were knew even then, or B. That there weren't WMDs. We knew then that Saddam was actually the enemy of the people that attacked us, and Bush used our fears and desire for retribution as a catalyst for the war. He didn't bother to disclose that little tidbit. I won't even go into the ridiculously horrible way in which Bush prosecuted the war and what a botched job that was. Not even McCain disputes his horrible leadership in the early years of the war.
quote:The democratic party jumped ship quicker than rats fleeing a burning building once the war became unpopular. How is that for spine? How is that for putting conviction? Instead of standing by their votes to go in, they began to make very strange accusations that they were "lied to" or that they were "misled by Bush's intelligence."
How strange that when it was the popular idea, they were all fine with the intelligence. Once it became unpopular, instead of seeking out why the intelligence had failed, they chose to slander the President to make the case that they hadn't been wrong in the first place. Again, how about that conviction?
Meh, Democrats were never in favor of the war. They voted for it for two reasons: 1. I really think they thought Bush was going to give diplomacy a try. They foolishly believed that he was sincere when he said he'd exhaust every option before using force. 2. I think they wussed out and feared what the Republicans would do to them if they voted against the measure. They knew Republicans would wave the bloody shirt and cry havoc and they'd get trounched in the next election. Once the people turned on the war, they felt justified in voicing their opinions. I'm not a big fan of their behavior, but for different reasons than you.
quote:Looking at the intelligence leading up to the Iraq war, I wonder about Obama's initial opposition. I agree, in hindsight, it was a mistake to invade. But the intelligence pointed to a serious threat to our national security. Remember that we'd been very recently attacked on our soil and lost over three thousand of our citizens. Things look different now when we look back. But the threat felt very real when we, as a nation, watched those hearings when Colin Powell explained the danger facing us. He was on board, with all his long years of experience and good judgment.
Maybe because Obama realized that rushing to war was silly since Saddam had been there for years without taking action against us in any way, and that the people who were out to get us, Al Qaeda, were the enemies of Saddam, and not the people he would hand WMDs off to. We had time to do it the right way. To investigate, to build a coalition of allies to secure the country and to help share the financial burden. I think if we had Europe on our side, and had truly exhausted all other options, then Democrats, Obama included, might have been on board with a First Gulf War style invasion. We'll never know, but Obama's reasoning for opposing it is sound enough. Using the recent attack as justification to attack would have been like attacking Russia after Japan bombed Pearl Harbor. It actually helps the guys who just attacked you.
quote:Do you know what our former president was doing while Osama and his allies were formulating and executing the plan that led to September 11th?
Launching attacks on middle eastern terror targets, and stopping a genocide in the Balkans. Come on, don't get mad about Kwea going after Bush and then do the exact same thing and go after Clinton.
quote:Since they've taken office we've had the housing bubble crisis, a near recession, ridiculous gas prices, meanwhile Nancy Pelosi is more concerned about making it illegal to hire based on language barriers.
None of what happened is the fault of the Democrats, and I think you know it. That stuff was all YEARS in the making, and the Republicans had been in control of Congress for the previous 14 years. I don't know how you can foist off the blame on the guys who were in charge for a year when that stuff started happening instead of on the guys who sat idly by and did nothing for a decade and a half while those problems mounted.
quote:You don't see the Fox News team spewing the crap that the Daily Kos rumored about.
Oh come on. Terrorist fist bumps? Obama's a Muslim? Baby mama references? They aren't even trying to hide it.
quote:They've made John McCain seem like Bush Jr, which is about as far from the truth as you can get. He's the only candidate running with a long history of bi-partisanship.
::shrug:: Bush worked with Democrats to try and pass an immigration reform bill that Congressional Republicans killed. McCain has voted with Bush 89% of the time in the last year, and has averaged in the high 80's/low 90's for the earlier years of Bush's presidency, which pretty much matches Obama's voting rate with fellow Democrats. I care less about his bi-partisan credentials than I do about his actual policies. Some of them aren't bad. Obama's are just better.
quote:Anyway, this stuff just makes me depressed. Kwea, take a few days to reply, go out and really, objectively read and research most of the things that CNN and Michael Moore have armed you with. You'll find that most are either misdirections, half-truths, or sometimes outright deceptions. It is an unfortunate thing, a sad thing.
I can't speak for Kwea, as I doubt he'd agree with me here, but I've more or less moved on from the whole Iraq debacle. I'm more interested in how we get out and move on with fixing domestic problems that the Republicans totally ignored for the six years they controlled the Legislative and Executive branches of government. We have huge problems that need fixing. And I'm sick to death of seeing misleading ads on tv from the GOP and from McCain about how Democrats are singlehandedly to blame for high gas prices. It's lying, and it's preying on the ignorance of a population that doesn't fully understand the issue. You're telling people exactly what they want to hear and pointing them in the direction of someone to blame. It's descpicable.
McCain isn't Bush Jr., but he's also far from the centrist maverick that he claims to be. It would be nice if he'd actually discuss some policy once and awhile. I want to know what HE wants to do to the country, not just how awesome he was 40 years ago when he was a POW and how much he hates Obama. Stop waving the flag and start waving some position papers.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The economy was not doing fine until 2006. At the beginning of the Bush presidency there was a recession, and after that recession was the worst recovery in decades of recoveries. Job growth was there, but far less than usual. GDP growth was there, but far less than normal. Et cetera.
That was happening well before 2006. That you didn't notice the problems with the economy until after 2006 speaks to the Bush administration's ability to make things sound good, not to any actual high quality in the economy.
Almost all of the recover problems can be attributed to one, simple thing: huge amounts of deficit spending on the war.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think Moore is an idiot, and no more truthful than Bush and Cheney, so try again.
Your sweeping, informed generalizations of people who disagree with you only serve to show how little you care about actual information.
You should look into a new career...perhaps becoming a Rush Limbaugh fact-checker.
I was able to find PLENTY of errors on ALL of Moore's pictures (those that I have bothered to see, which is only 2...and 9-11 wasn't one of them, actually) without any help.
I don't like McCain because of his willingness to work for the same people who did a hatchet job on him the first time he tried to run. I also don't like most of his political views, which I HAVE researched.
And comparing him to Bush IS fair game...because until Obama became such a force, McCain was trying to run on Bush's coat tails. Now all of a sudden is is for CHANGE. Give me a break. The only thing he wants to change are 3 or 4 SCOTUS justices.
Despite his newfound love of change....except where HE is concerned, of course, because HE is different....he has toed the party line, even when doing so went against his well know personal values (back when he had some, that is), in order to get the nomination this time around. NOW all of a sudden he want to bring change....with a voting record that is aligned with Bush almost 90% of the time.
Unlike your allegations of where I get my information.....an accusation made with NO experience on this board, with no personal interaction with me ever before, and made with no attempt to actually ask what I believe....I made a rational inference based on his past behaviors and voting records. I also made sure I phrased it as my personal opinion, saying I had lost respect for him.
Let me get this out of the way, since you are so uninformed (and don't seem to be likely to change that on your own); I am also a US veteran, and are at least 6 other members of my family, and have a level 2 TS clearance with the Army, so I am not Un-American, or a traitor either. I have a lot of respect for McCain because of his wartime experiences, but I don't think he is owed a Presidency for them.
I also think he will be a good President if he is elected, or he will try to be one at least. Not one I will agree with most of the time, but one I could respect. I just worry because I honestly feel he has been compromised at this point.
Most elections are between two choices that was FAR worse than this one will be. Either way we should have a decent President. I just don't want more of the same one crap.
I just don't like what Washington has done to him the past 8 years. Then again, considering what Washington has done to this country in the same time frame, what else could I have expected.
So please...stop. Stop trying to say war was a Democrat's idea. Stop pretending Congress wasn't deceived at worse, misinformed at beast regarding Iraq. Stop pretending that the economy only crashed a year ago, and that health care is working for anyone but the richest of Americans.
You know, the McCain "middle class American" who makes up to 5 million a year.
Let's talk about alternative energy as well as the actual effectiveness of our current means of producing such fuels. Let's talk about the infrastructure that is crumbling, and what we can do about it.
Who freaking cares how Palin wears her hair. Hell, she will be VP....I am not sure how much her opinion of most of this matters, unless something happens to McCain.
And let's ask Palin where the hell the money for that bridge to nowhere went, since she love to take credit for not building it. She had the funds reclassified, and then kept the cash and spent it on other things. She had the right to do so....no doubt about it...but why the hell is she trying to say that keeping the cash saved tax dollars?
That isn't cutting costs to me. It is earmarking it without letting Congress have any say how it is spent.
Lets hear about what TYPE of changes they both want to bring about, and start looking at where they agree as well as where they differ.
posted
I don't think she's that hot-- but I envy any woman who has had multiple children, including one recently (our babies are about the same age), and has that kind of figure. Wow.
I do think it's crazy that someone with a very small baby (ESPECIALLY one with Down Syndrome) is running for VP, though. And I'd say the same if she was not a woman. I can't imagine committing to that kind of thing while I had a baby this age, never mind a baby this age who needs extra medical care.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Posted by String: I have to disagree with you Kwea, while John McCain has done his share of 'playing the game', I think he has kept it considerably cleaner than most of his counterparts.
I would have agreed with you before this campaign started. He's learned a lot in a very short period of time. I've seen a couple of bad Obama ads, but nothing compared to the avalanche of crap that I've seen on TV coming from McCain. Half-truths, bald faced lies, and a lot of misdirection from him. I've yet to see him actually talk about his own plans, it's all just attack ads.
The ads are all worthless. If everyone realized that campaign ads are just like any other ad, 15-30 seconds of bull. As far as ads or rhetoric are concerned, I have not heard much of anything of substance from either party. Although I do think that the McCain campaign's V.P. choice has made for some great press. It's taken away allot of what Obama has going for him, Novelty. Now all the cameras are on Palin and her new baby. Doesn't help inform anyone, but it has been good for the polls. I just can't believe that Obama has shifted focus to her as well. He needs to stay on McCain flaws if hopes to win, not focus on his V.P.
quote:Lying about the reason to go to war? No way Kwea, no way. Do you really believe that? That is another idea that Fahrenheit 9/11 pushes really hard. Do you know how many UN sanctions Saddam just shrugged off concerning his weapons buildup? Do you realize that everyone, and I mean all credible sources, said the same thing about the intelligence on Iraq? Hell, even the French thought had WMDs capable of imminent threats to many countries. Viewing that intelligence, his lack of honesty in the past, his unwillingness to conform to UN sanctions, almost everyone from both parties was on board for the invasion of Iraq. President Bush gave a speech long before we invaded, in front of the UN, giving Saddam an ultimatum concerning his actions. It wasn't heeded.
quote:Hah, how was he EVER going to meet the burden of proof that Bush laid out? He said to come clean with your weapons program, so Saddam opened Iraq to inspectors and turned over tens of thousands of pages of documents. A few weeks later we deemed that insufficient and invaded to find that Saddam didn't have anything. There were plenty of people in the intelligence community that doubted the nature of the intel we have on Saddam, and several of them warned, rightly, that Saddam might be lying just to put on a good face for countries like Iran. The opinion of Iraq's having WMDs was NOT universal in the intelligence community. There was no way to avoid war given Bush's drive. And there's also no way the American people would have supported it if A. They knew all the facts that were knew even then, or B. That there weren't WMDs. We knew then that Saddam was actually the enemy of the people that attacked us, and Bush used our fears and desire for retribution as a catalyst for the war. He didn't bother to disclose that little tidbit. I won't even go into the ridiculously horrible way in which Bush prosecuted the war and what a botched job that was. Not even McCain disputes his horrible leadership in the early years of the war.
I whole heartedly agree Lyrhawn. Bush's Wasteful and pointless war is a travesty. It went against over 200 years of this country's foreign policy. The war on terror has crippled out credibility and painted us (truthfully) as world police.
quote:Since they've taken office we've had the housing bubble crisis, a near recession, ridiculous gas prices, meanwhile Nancy Pelosi is more concerned about making it illegal to hire based on language barriers.
quote:None of what happened is the fault of the Democrats, and I think you know it. That stuff was all YEARS in the making, and the Republicans had been in control of Congress for the previous 14 years. I don't know how you can foist off the blame on the guys who were in charge for a year when that stuff started happening instead of on the guys who sat idly by and did nothing for a decade and a half while those problems mounted.
Come on guys, are we really arguing that republicans or democrats cause high gas prices?
quote:They've made John McCain seem like Bush Jr, which is about as far from the truth as you can get. He's the only candidate running with a long history of bi-partisanship.
quote:::shrug:: Bush worked with Democrats to try and pass an immigration reform bill that Congressional Republicans killed. McCain has voted with Bush 89% of the time in the last year, and has averaged in the high 80's/low 90's for the earlier years of Bush's presidency, which pretty much matches Obama's voting rate with fellow Democrats. I care less about his bi-partisan credentials than I do about his actual policies. Some of them aren't bad. Obama's are just better.
Not going to argue with you about your opinion on who's positions are better, but isn't a president who can listen to his opposition and work with them important to the governance of our country?
McCain voting with bush 90% of the time is not true. For one, Bush cannot vote in the senate, he's the president. Two most of those votes with his party were unanimous party votes, if you take all the votes that are not unanimous, McCain only votes with republicans about 48% of the time since bush has been in office. Over all his votes with party are something like 33 out of 46, which is no where near 90% of the time. But don't take my word for it, look it up.
Also nobody has mentioned what I brought up earlier. Everyone was a McCain fan when he ran against bush. He has not changed his entire person and character in the last year. He is simply doing what all politicians do gearing up to the general election, scrambling to please as many people as he can.
posted
I was using McCain's own words to describe his voting record. It isn't my fault if he doesn't even know what his won voting record is, or isn't above lying about it to further his political aims.
I know the President doesn't vote, but this was about how often he backs plans endorsed by Bush. Once again, in his own words.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
TomDavidson, most definitely I believe Gov. Sarah Palin would be a better president than Sen. Obama. All of our adversaries in the world would think that Obama would be a naive pushover, and act accordingly. This happened when Sen. John Kennedy was elected president, and the Russian leader, Nikita Khruschev, was emboldened to stash Russian nuclear-armed strategic missiles in Cuba. Kennedy had to bring us to the brink of WWIII by blockading Cuba and demanding that the missiles be removed, and that any Russian attempt to launch nuclear missiles at America would result in immediate, automatic, and total retaliation. Would we have to go through this with Obama? I think it could not be avoided, because the freshman senator from Illinois is so lacking in experience. Gov. Palin has a much better sense that there really is evil in the world that needs to be opposed. Her bio, and her record, show that she has a strongly ingrained sense of moral right and wrong, and does not hesitate to take down those who need to be taken down, no matter who they are.
And isn't it eye-opening how many comparisons are being made now between Palin and Obama, instead of between the two vice-presidential candidates? Even those comparisons show up Obama's threadbare lack of experience.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:TomDavidson, most definitely I believe Gov. Sarah Palin would be a better president than Sen. Obama.
That wasn't the question. I asked whether you felt she was, at this point in her life, more qualified.
quote:And isn't it eye-opening how many comparisons are being made now between Palin and Obama...
Yeah. I've been kind of surprised how many Republicans are willing to admit, straight-up, that they apparently expect McCain to die in office.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Monkeys]](graemlins/monkeys.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
