Campaign 2008

[SuperJerk 0]

The scenario where Mccain beats Obama is simple - another terrorist attack between the conventions and the election in November.

Because the Republicans have done such a great job combatting terrorism so far?

[MarvinisaLunatic 0]

The scenario where Mccain beats Obama is simple - another terrorist attack between the conventions and the election in November.

Because the Republicans have done such a great job combatting terrorism so far?

 

No one in their right mind would trust Obama over McCain in that scenario unless we're completely ignoring everything that actually matters now.

 

Of course if your a conspiracy nut you would immediately say "But..Bush will just suspend the elections for a couple years til the threat is over..besides how could we possibly hold elections with our country in a state like it was in the months after 9/11.."

 

So I guess I have nothing to worry about really.

[Dobbs 3K 0]

The scenario where Mccain beats Obama is simple - another terrorist attack between the conventions and the election in November.

Because the Republicans have done such a great job combatting terrorism so far?

 

No one in their right mind would trust Obama over McCain in that scenario unless we're completely ignoring everything that actually matters now.

 

Of course if your a conspiracy nut you would immediately say "But..Bush will just suspend the elections for a couple years til the threat is over..besides how could we possibly hold elections with our country in a state like it was in the months after 9/11.."

 

So I guess I have nothing to worry about really.

 

I could be mistaken, but I'm pretty sure the president doesn't actually have any power to suspend elections.

[MarvinisaLunatic 0]

The scenario where Mccain beats Obama is simple - another terrorist attack between the conventions and the election in November.

Because the Republicans have done such a great job combatting terrorism so far?

 

No one in their right mind would trust Obama over McCain in that scenario unless we're completely ignoring everything that actually matters now.

 

Of course if your a conspiracy nut you would immediately say "But..Bush will just suspend the elections for a couple years til the threat is over..besides how could we possibly hold elections with our country in a state like it was in the months after 9/11.."

 

So I guess I have nothing to worry about really.

 

I could be mistaken, but I'm pretty sure the president doesn't actually have any power to suspend elections.

I think I posted this once before, but you are mistaken..

 

In May 2007, Bush issued a major presidential National Security Directive (National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive NSPD 51/HSPD 20), which would suspend constitutional government and instate broad dictatorial powers under martial law in the case of a "Catastrophic Emergency" [note: the nature of a "catastrophic emergency is undefined and left to the president's discretion; clearly it could be either an outside attack or a natural disaster.]

 

NSPD 51 grants unprecedented powers to the Presidency and Homeland Security, overriding the foundations of Constitutional government. It allows the sitting president to declare a “national emergency” without Congressional approval. The implementation of NSPD 51 would lead to the de facto closing down of the Legislature and the militarization of justice and law enforcement.

 

One of the most obvious things that would be put on hold is the elections.

[Dobbs 3K 0]

I'm not sure where you got that, but I'm pretty sure there is nothing in the constitution of the US that grants the president the right to do that. The president can issue any directive he wants, but that doesn't mean it would be legal or even possible.

 

At any rate, if that ever happened, it's my firm belief that it would be in the best interest of the US people to do whatever possible at that point to preserve freedom.

[EricMM 0]

This isn't like the eighteenth or nineteenth centuries.

 

Even the most well-armed American can't stand up to the American army.

[MarvinisaLunatic 0]

I'm not sure where you got that, but I'm pretty sure there is nothing in the constitution of the US that grants the president the right to do that. The president can issue any directive he wants, but that doesn't mean it would be legal or even possible.

 

At any rate, if that ever happened, it's my firm belief that it would be in the best interest of the US people to do whatever possible at that point to preserve freedom.

 

The people of this country are too fucking lazy to revolt and probably dont even know the Premable to the Declaration of Independence enough to realize they have a right to do so..

 

Oh, and 57 years ago today, George Bush was prevented from running for a 3rd term...praise the lord.

[Dobbs 3K 0]

Anyway, we're looking at a conspiracy theory scenario.

 

Honestly, knowing what we know about George W. Bush, my guess is that he's _really_ looking forward to next January, and being able to retire into private life.

[MarvinisaLunatic 0]

Im going to listen to Cunningham on WLW on XM at noon after Glenn Beck. I dont normally listen to his show (I normally listen to the Mike McConnell replay at noon from 9am) but Im interested in what he has to say about last night.

[EricMM 0]

The sun is going to kill us all!

You're so STUPID!![/Asian guy from UHF]

[MarvinisaLunatic 0]

Evil Teenage Global Warming Propaganda Band

 

Evil Teenage Global Warming Propaganda Song

 

Please don't melt our glaciers

Please don't kill us all

Please don't destroy our atmosphere

The sun will kill us all

 

Global warming

It's not just a prediction anymore

It's not just a prediction anymore

It's true

Help

 

Bush is such an idiot (I know)

He won't sign the Kyoto Treaty

Why doesn't he care?

Why won't he help?

 

Global warming

It's not just a prediction anymore

It's not just a prediction anymore

It's true

Help

 

Icebergs are falling into the ocean

The ozone layer is thinning

Make good choices

Don't use so many resources

Every single day

Don't drive your car as much

Find alternatives

Don't be careless

Recycle

Don't use so much electricity

Don't use styrofoam

Be friendly to the earth

It will be friendly back

 

Global warming

It's not just a prediction anymore

It's not just a prediction anymore

It's real

Help

 

--

 

The Sun Must Be Destroyed!

[NoCalMike 0]

Both Hillary & Obama kind of dropped the ball yesterday when Tim Russert started blabbering about hypothetical situations concerning Iraq if we withdrawl our troops. I believe Russert said something along the lines of "If we withdrawl the troops and Al Qaeda comes back in and starts to take over again would you reserve the right to re-invade"

 

This question was not only a hypothetical which has no business being asked, but it was another intellectually dishonest question in the first place, because Al Qaeda has never been in "control" of Iraq. It is a false premise. Reports and studies by independent groups have already come to the conclusion that at their PEAK Al Qaeda had/has only been responsible for 5% of the violence in Iraq, and it is actually Iraqi militias themselves that are the biggest threat in Iraq. You know, the guys who want us the hell out of their country. Now common knowledge says that if our military leaves, any type of alliance/agreement they had with Al Qaeda to drive us out would come to an end because we are gone. The Bush administration keeps trying to sell the Iraq conflict as some type of friendly alliance between Al Qaeda and "Other extremists" however the truth is, Iraqis are fighting to get us out of there, while Al Qaeda is just there taking advantage of the situation. Iraqis don't want Al Qaeda there anymore then we do, but right now the U.S. Military is a common target.(Not to mention all the different Iraqi factions that are at civil war with each other which is another scenario that catches our troops in the middle) This is why the simple explanation of "Us vs. Them" that Bush and his cronies have been trying to sell the american people is a bunch of bullshit and shows that a complex makeup in a region such as the middle east cannot be solved by the Bush/McCain strategy.

 

 

[MarvinisaLunatic 0]

They dont have to worry about Al Qaeda in Iraq as much as they do Iran getting in there. But its easy to say Al Qaeda because Americans are more familiar with them being a threat than Iran.

[NoCalMike 0]

They dont have to worry about Al Qaeda in Iraq as much as they do Iran getting in there. But its easy to say Al Qaeda because Americans are more familiar with them being a threat than Iran.

 

Or because Al Qaeda is who attacked us and not Iraq/Iran and it is more effective to keep blurring the line between reality and bush's fantasy land. I mean really, you just summed up Bush's foreign policy ever since 9/11 which is to claim anything troubling "Al Qaeda" and then claim anyone who isn't aligned with his strategy is "aiding the terrorists"

[ZGangsta 0]

I'm not sure where you got that, but I'm pretty sure there is nothing in the constitution of the US that grants the president the right to do that. The president can issue any directive he wants, but that doesn't mean it would be legal or even possible.

At any rate, if that ever happened, it's my firm belief that it would be in the best interest of the US people to do whatever possible at that point to preserve freedom.

Did anyone else feeze when Invader wrote that? I'm just going to pray for the president's continuing safety.

[Atticus Chaos 0]

Anyway, we're looking at a conspiracy theory scenario.

 

Honestly, knowing what we know about George W. Bush, my guess is that he's _really_ looking forward to next January, and being able to retire into private life.

 

Man, what does his future hold?

 

It's not like Clinton who left in fairly high regard and had a cushy book deal waiting for him. He's one of the most hated men in world, even his own party can't stand him. They're not going to cart him out in the future like the Dems do with Bill, either.

 

I would also hate to be him, when in his secret service protection runs out, in like, 10 years from now.

[2GOLD 0]

Anyway, we're looking at a conspiracy theory scenario.

 

Honestly, knowing what we know about George W. Bush, my guess is that he's _really_ looking forward to next January, and being able to retire into private life.

 

Man, what does his future hold?

 

It's not like Clinton who left in fairly high regard and had a cushy book deal waiting for him. He's one of the most hated men in world, even his own party can't stand him. They're not going to cart him out in the future like the Dems do with Bill, either.

 

I would also hate to be him, when in his secret service protection runs out, in like, 10 years from now.

 

If serial killers can sell books, so can a hated former President of the United States. People will buy it just to see what stories he has, bullshit or maybe even some truth behind stuff. End of the day, still a former Prez no matter how much he sucked.

[NoCalMike 0]

McCain, Obama tilt over al-Qaida in Iraq

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080227/ap_on_...xPrfzBElxph24cA

 

By LIBBY QUAID and TOM RAUM, Associated Press Writers

1 hour, 1 minute ago

 

TYLER, Texas - Republican presidential hopeful John McCain mocked Barack Obama's view of al-Qaida in Iraq, and the Democratic contender responded that GOP policies brought the terrorist group there.

 

The rapid-fire, long-distance exchange Wednesday underscored that the two consider each other likely general election rivals, even though the Democratic contest remains unresolved.

 

McCain criticized Obama for saying in Tuesday night's Democratic debate that, after U.S. troops were withdrawn, as president he would act "if al-Qaida is forming a base in Iraq."

 

"I have some news. Al-Qaida is in Iraq. It's called `al-Qaida in Iraq,'" McCain told a crowd in Tyler, Texas, drawing laughter at Obama's expense. He said Obama's statement was "pretty remarkable,"

 

Obama quickly answered back while campaigning in Ohio. "I do know that al-Qaida is in Iraq and that's why I have said we should continue to strike al-Qaida targets," he told a rally at Ohio State University in Columbus.

 

"But I have some news for John McCain," Obama added. "There was no such thing as al-Qaida in Iraq until George Bush and John McCain decided to invade Iraq. ... They took their eye off the people who were responsible for 9/11 and that would be al-Qaida in Afghanistan, that is stronger now than at any time since 2001."

 

Obama said he intended to withdraw U.S. forces from Iraq "so we actually start going after al-Qaida in Afghanistan and in the hills of Pakistan like we should have been doing in the first place."

 

While he praised McCain as a war hero and saluted his service to the country, Obama said the Arizona Republican was "tied to the politics of the past. We are about policies of the future."

 

Noting that McCain likes to tell audiences that he'd follow Osama bin Laden to the "gates of hell" to catch him, Obama taunted: "All he (McCain) has done is to follow George Bush into a misguided war in Iraq."

 

McCain said he had not watched Tuesday night's Democratic presidential debate but was told of Obama's response when asked if as president he would reserve the right to send U.S. troops back into Iraq to quell an insurrection or civil war.

 

Obama did not say whether he'd send troops but responded: "As commander in chief, I will always reserve the right to make sure that we are looking out for American interests. And if al-Qaida is forming a base in Iraq, then we will have to act in a way that secures the American homeland and our interests abroad."

 

On Wednesday, Obama expanded slightly that he "would always reserve the right to go in and strike al-Qaida if they were in Iraq" without detailing what kind of strike that might be — air, ground or both.

 

Throughout the primary season, McCain has repeatedly attacked Obama and Clinton for saying they would withdraw troops from Iraq.

 

"And my friends, if we left, they (al-Qaida) wouldn't be establishing a base," McCain said Wednesday. "They'd be taking a country, and I'm not going to allow that to happen, my friends. I will not surrender. I will not surrender to al-Qaida."

 

He said that withdrawing troops would be "waving the white flag."

 

In the debate, Clinton did not answer the question about re-invasion of Iraq on grounds it contained "lots of different hypothetical assessments."

 

For years, McCain has urged sending more troops into Iraq, even before President Bush adopted such a strategy about a year ago.

 

"I knew enough from talking to the men and women who are serving that this new strategy was what we needed, and I'm telling you, it is succeeding," McCain said. "So what needs to happen, we need to continue this strategy. It should be General Petraeus' recommendation, not that of a politician running for higher office, as to when and how we withdraw."

 

He was referring to Gen. David Petraeus, the top American commander in Iraq.

 

As he began a swing through President Bush's home state, which holds a presidential primary election on Tuesday, McCain made sure to play up a line he always uses: "I also think it might be nice for President Bush to get a little credit that there's not been another attack on the United States of America," he said to applause.

 

Both Obama and Clinton campaigned in Ohio on Wednesday. Obama was heading later in the day for at least three days of campaigning in Texas.

-------------------------------------------------------------

 

It has begun. *grabs popcorn*

[Gary Floyd 0]

Evil Teenage Global Warming Propaganda Band

 

Evil Teenage Global Warming Propaganda Song

 

Please don't melt our glaciers

Please don't kill us all

Please don't destroy our atmosphere

The sun will kill us all

 

Global warming

It's not just a prediction anymore

It's not just a prediction anymore

It's true

Help

 

Bush is such an idiot (I know)

He won't sign the Kyoto Treaty

Why doesn't he care?

Why won't he help?

 

Global warming

It's not just a prediction anymore

It's not just a prediction anymore

It's true

Help

 

Icebergs are falling into the ocean

The ozone layer is thinning

Make good choices

Don't use so many resources

Every single day

Don't drive your car as much

Find alternatives

Don't be careless

Recycle

Don't use so much electricity

Don't use styrofoam

Be friendly to the earth

It will be friendly back

 

Global warming

It's not just a prediction anymore

It's not just a prediction anymore

It's real

Help

 

--

 

The Sun Must Be Destroyed!

Well, if there's anybody who needs to worry about the sun, it's you.

[Dobbs 3K 0]

I'm not sure where you got that, but I'm pretty sure there is nothing in the constitution of the US that grants the president the right to do that. The president can issue any directive he wants, but that doesn't mean it would be legal or even possible.

At any rate, if that ever happened, it's my firm belief that it would be in the best interest of the US people to do whatever possible at that point to preserve freedom.

Did anyone else feeze when Invader wrote that? I'm just going to pray for the president's continuing safety.

 

Why would you "feeze" (freeze?) over what I wrote? You don't agree with it?

[cbacon 0]

Invader is a freedom fighter

[Edwin MacPhisto 0]

McCain is such a fucking idiot. Obama's people should have smoked him on this one and let him off easy.

 

Al Qaida barely exists anymore. Does nobody get that? Al Qaida in Iraq is just one of Zarqawi's insurgent groups with hardly any connection to those 9/11 dudes. He's just trading off the name. It's like if I started a basketball team and called them the Chicago Bulls in Virginia.

[Nightwing 0]

I was going to respond to SuperJerk's response to my response, but the absolute stupidity of Marvin right now is preventing me from accessing my higher brain functions.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Leave Marvin Alone!

 

[SuperJerk 0]

The scenario where Mccain beats Obama is simple - another terrorist attack between the conventions and the election in November.

Because the Republicans have done such a great job combatting terrorism so far?

 

No one in their right mind would trust Obama over McCain in that scenario unless we're completely ignoring everything that actually matters now.

 

That's one of those arguments that is so irrational, I don't even know where to begin. Do I attack the "no one in their right mind" part as being a variation on an argument from incredulity; or do I go after the complete arrogance of Marvin for not only claiming he knows what "everything that actually matters now" is but it is so obvious that he need not define it?

 

Decisions, decisions.

[Gary Floyd 0]

Leave Marvin Alone!

 

Milky's new crush, believe it or not.

[MarvinisaLunatic 0]

The scenario where Mccain beats Obama is simple - another terrorist attack between the conventions and the election in November.

Because the Republicans have done such a great job combatting terrorism so far?

 

No one in their right mind would trust Obama over McCain in that scenario unless we're completely ignoring everything that actually matters now.

 

That's one of those arguments that is so irrational, I don't even know where to begin. Do I attack the "no one in their right mind" part as being a variation on an argument from incredulity; or do I go after the complete arrogance of Marvin for not only claiming he knows what "everything that actually matters now" is but it is so obvious that he need not define it?

 

Decisions, decisions.

 

I thought it was pretty obvious it was John Mccain's experience. Who would want someone with almost no foreign policy and war experience in that situation?

 

Maybe Obama can hope that the terrorists change their minds and decide not to kill us.

 

 

 

 

[SuperJerk 0]

The scenario where Mccain beats Obama is simple - another terrorist attack between the conventions and the election in November.

Because the Republicans have done such a great job combatting terrorism so far?

 

No one in their right mind would trust Obama over McCain in that scenario unless we're completely ignoring everything that actually matters now.

 

That's one of those arguments that is so irrational, I don't even know where to begin. Do I attack the "no one in their right mind" part as being a variation on an argument from incredulity; or do I go after the complete arrogance of Marvin for not only claiming he knows what "everything that actually matters now" is but it is so obvious that he need not define it?

 

Decisions, decisions.

 

I thought it was pretty obvious it was John Mccain's experience. Who would want someone with almost no foreign policy and war experience in that situation?

Experience is worthless if it doesn't provide you with good judgement. For example, John McCain's experience told him it was a good idea to invade Iraq. Obama's experience told him it was a bad idea. McCain may have more experience, but Obama has better judgement.

[MarvinisaLunatic 0]

The scenario where Mccain beats Obama is simple - another terrorist attack between the conventions and the election in November.

Because the Republicans have done such a great job combatting terrorism so far?

 

No one in their right mind would trust Obama over McCain in that scenario unless we're completely ignoring everything that actually matters now.

 

That's one of those arguments that is so irrational, I don't even know where to begin. Do I attack the "no one in their right mind" part as being a variation on an argument from incredulity; or do I go after the complete arrogance of Marvin for not only claiming he knows what "everything that actually matters now" is but it is so obvious that he need not define it?

 

Decisions, decisions.

 

I thought it was pretty obvious it was John Mccain's experience. Who would want someone with almost no foreign policy and war experience in that situation?

Experience is worthless if it doesn't provide you with good judgement. For example, John McCain's experience told him it was a good idea to invade Iraq. Obama's experience told him it was a bad idea. McCain may have more experience, but Obama has better judgement.

 

Obama was a state senator at the time, hardly in the position to know enough about the invasion of Iraq in 2003 to pass judgment one way or the other 5 years later when hindsight is 20/20. I doubt he was getting briefings on that matter or had any access to information about it that the people in the HR and Senate had. And if he had been in the Senate at the time, he may have voted for it anyway despite partisan politics since some democrats that did vote for the Resolution given the intelligence reports that were presented to them at the time.

 

He's fooling a lot of casual voters with his "I did not vote for the Iraq war" crap, which isn't a lie but only because he wasn't eligible to vote for it. Most people who have been pulled into his following probably have no idea he was in the Illinois State Senate in 2003 or probably think that state senators had some say in the war.

[NoCalMike 0]

The scenario where Mccain beats Obama is simple - another terrorist attack between the conventions and the election in November.

Because the Republicans have done such a great job combatting terrorism so far?

 

No one in their right mind would trust Obama over McCain in that scenario unless we're completely ignoring everything that actually matters now.

 

That's one of those arguments that is so irrational, I don't even know where to begin. Do I attack the "no one in their right mind" part as being a variation on an argument from incredulity; or do I go after the complete arrogance of Marvin for not only claiming he knows what "everything that actually matters now" is but it is so obvious that he need not define it?

 

Decisions, decisions.

 

I thought it was pretty obvious it was John Mccain's experience. Who would want someone with almost no foreign policy and war experience in that situation?

Experience is worthless if it doesn't provide you with good judgement. For example, John McCain's experience told him it was a good idea to invade Iraq. Obama's experience told him it was a bad idea. McCain may have more experience, but Obama has better judgement.

 

Obama was a state senator at the time, hardly in the position to know enough about the invasion of Iraq in 2003 to pass judgment one way or the other 5 years later when hindsight is 20/20. I doubt he was getting briefings on that matter or had any access to information about it that the people in the HR and Senate had. And if he had been in the Senate at the time, he may have voted for it anyway despite partisan politics since some democrats that did vote for the Resolution given the intelligence reports that were presented to them at the time.

 

He's fooling a lot of casual voters with his "I did not vote for the Iraq war" crap, which isn't a lie but only because he wasn't eligible to vote for it. Most people who have been pulled into his following probably have no idea he was in the Illinois State Senate in 2003 or probably think that state senators had some say in the war.

 

So if I am voting for Obama because he is fooling me, then at least I have the excuse of being fooled, however you are voting for McCain who really isn't fooling anyone with his poor judgement on the war from the beginning and flip-flopping on key issues, so what exactly is your excuse?

 

Oh and I love this notion that he was "hardly in any position to know enough about....etc" Fuck that noise, plenty of people were opposing the potential invasion during the run up to Iraq and being quite vocal about it, not to mention other nations, and all the protesting the actual citizens of America were doing that was going largely ignored by the media because they were too busy cheerleading for the "with us or against us" administration. All this utter bullshit about "everyone was for the war in 2002, and now they are trying to monday morning QB" is just more revisionist history trying to be peddled. There were people damn angry with what was about to go down, but they were being attacked and labeled "unamerican" "terrorist sympathizers" "soft on terror" etc etc etc.....