Campaign 2008

[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.

 

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.....

Im not voting for Mccain..thought I made that pretty clear last month. Im just saying Id rather have someone with some actual experience if this scenario were to occur..too bad I cant trust the one guy with experience but I would rather have McCain over Obama in a heartbeat if there was a terrorist attack, I just wouldnt be voting for him.

 

And as far as the 2nd paragraph goes...It says something that 1/2 of the democrats in the Senate at the time voted for the resolution based on the information they were given leading up to the vote. While we know now that intelligence was severely flawed/eroneous/lies/etc, but at the time in 2003 it was compelling enough to get some 20+ democrats to go against party lines and vote for it. Obama has said he never felt that there was a case made for the invasion Iraq but he was never "in the know" enough to get the information to make a justifyable case for it one way or another.

 

Its pretty easy to say he was against the Invasion of Iraq at the time, and I doubt he is lying when he says it, but its easy to be against something if you dont have any information concerning what it is you are supposedly against. Just like everyone else that you say that were against it, I doubt most of these people were getting the daily intelligence reports on the situation that the senators and representatives were.

[SuperJerk 0]

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.

 

Let's review:

Barack Obama gave a speech on October 2, 2002 denouncing the war (look it up).

Obama gave some reasons for being against the war that later proved correct, despite the fact he did not have access to the same information the U.S. Congress did.

The U.S. Congress voted to authorize the war on October 11, 2002.

The war didn't start until March 20, 2003.

2002 happened before 2003.

Therefore, Obama gave the speech BEFORE the war started.

 

 

So tell us, Marvin, how is that hindsight, exactly?

[NoCalMike 0]

Well not to mention that most Democrats were looking out for their own political careers, and too afraid of being called "weak on terror" Lets not forget, the climate was a lot different in 2002/2003, the Bush administration and national media were having a wonderful time blurring the line between Al Qaeda and Iraq, voting for the authorization of force was the popular thing to do to look like you were a real tough guy that was going to "take it to the terrorists" It took guts for the few, back then to actually stand up and do the politically UNPOPULAR thing to do, which is what Obama did.

 

I am sure a lot of Democrats felt that they could vote for the authorization, and then possibly there still wouldn't be an actual war when all was said and done, and that way they could win on both ends because then they could say they voted to be tough, but the war was avoided anyway, well the eggs is on their face now.

 

And this whole "in the know" thing, honestly, how in the hell do you know how "in the know" he was or was not?

[SuperJerk 0]

[MarvinisaLunatic 0]

Well not to mention that most Democrats were looking out for their own political careers, and too afraid of being called "weak on terror" Lets not forget, the climate was a lot different in 2002/2003, the Bush administration and national media were having a wonderful time blurring the line between Al Qaeda and Iraq, voting for the authorization of force was the popular thing to do to look like you were a real tough guy that was going to "take it to the terrorists" It took guts for the few, back then to actually stand up and do the politically UNPOPULAR thing to do, which is what Obama did.

 

I am sure a lot of Democrats felt that they could vote for the authorization, and then possibly there still wouldn't be an actual war when all was said and done, and that way they could win on both ends because then they could say they voted to be tough, but the war was avoided anyway, well the eggs is on their face now.

 

And this whole "in the know" thing, honestly, how in the hell do you know how "in the know" he was or was not?

 

 

NY Times 2004

 

In a recent interview, he declined to criticize Senators Kerry and Edwards for voting to authorize the war, although he said he would not have done the same based on the information he had at the time."But, I'm not privy to Senate intelligence reports," Mr. Obama said. "What would I have done? I don't know. What I know is that from my vantage point the case was not made."

 

That video is swell and all..he can predict the future. More than enough reason to elect him..he can see the future!

[SuperJerk 0]

He can accurately forsee problems other more "experienced" people do not. Its called having good judgement, and it actually is an excellent reason to vote for someone.

[Dobbs 3K 0]

He can accurately forsee problems other more "experienced" people do not. Its called having good judgement, and it actually is an excellent reason to vote for someone.

 

What? Really? You mean our leaders shouldn't make decisions based purely on emotion or gut reactions? Who would have ever known?

[EricMM 0]

Glenn Beck ( ) didn't say that so it must not be true.

 

I hereby accuse Marvin of trolling, at this point. He's passed the line.

[Gary Floyd 0]

Glenn Beck ( ) didn't say that so it must not be true.

 

I hereby accuse Marvin of trolling, at this point. He's passed the line.

I've been thinking that since he started posting in this thread.

[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.

 

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

When old memes attack.

 

 

He can accurately forsee problems other more "experienced" people do not. Its called having good judgement, and it actually is an excellent reason to vote for someone.

 

What? Really? You mean our leaders shouldn't make decisions based purely on emotion or gut reactions? Who would have ever known?

That's the kind of solid leadership that made W's presidency so successfull. Thinking and reasoning is for weaklings.

[Guest Vitamin X]

The New York Times and The New Republic both had some interesting articles, albeit prematurely, about the differences in the Obama and Clinton campaigns and why the Clinton campaign has failed to reach people the same way the Obama one has.

 

From the NYT:

Given that Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama offer marginally different policy prescriptions--laid out in voluminous detail by both, by the way, on their Web sites--it’s not clear what her added-value message is. The “experience” mantra has been compromised not only by her failure on the signal issue of Iraq but also by the deadening lingua franca of her particular experience, Washingtonese....

 

As for countering what she sees as the empty Obama brand of hope, she offers only a chilly void: Abandon hope all ye who enter here. This must be the first presidential candidate in history to devote so much energy to preaching against optimism, against inspiring language and--talk about bizarre--against democracy itself. No sooner does Mrs. Clinton lose a state than her campaign belittles its voters as unrepresentative of the country.

And from TNR:

The real difference between the Obama campaign and, say, Hillary Clinton's, is twofold. First, while many of the Obamanauts had previously served in the Clinton administration, they tended to be younger or less influential than the officials who signed on with Hillary. Clinton advisers like former secretary of state Madeleine Albright and former U.N. ambassador Richard Holbrooke tend to be "more invested in justifying or glorifying" the Clinton record, says one Obama foreign policy hand, whereas the Obamanauts don't have the same "permanent need to fight for the legacy of your time in government."

 

The second difference is that the Obama hands tend to feel less hemmed in by establishment opinion. As one Obama adviser puts it, "Democrats want to be just a little bit different from Republicans, but not so different that they get attacked for being weak." Like Hamilton, the Obamanauts generally reject this calculus--not because they favor some radical alternative, but because clinging to received foreign policy wisdom can preclude highly practical courses of action.

I like the term "Obamanaut."

[Atticus Chaos 0]

 

 

Yes, Hillary is now Tracy Flick.

[SuperJerk 0]

He can accurately forsee problems other more "experienced" people do not. Its called having good judgement, and it actually is an excellent reason to vote for someone.

 

What? Really? You mean our leaders shouldn't make decisions based purely on emotion or gut reactions? Who would have ever known?

That's the kind of solid leadership that made W's presidency so successfull. Thinking and reasoning is for weaklings.

 

 

"I was elected to lead, not to read."

[MarvinisaLunatic 0]

I hate to harp on O'malley on here some more since theres only like 3 posters from MD here, but it does show ultimate stupidity when the Governor, in plans to save a whopping $327,000 in his 09 budget decides.."Hey..lets close down the State Police Barracks in Annapolis" UGH.

 

I lived in Annapolis for 6 months, and I can only say I hope that the State Police aren't needed at rush hours...its almost impossible to get around the downtown area of Annapolis at any time, let alone rush hour and cosolidating the two barracks over to the Glen Burnie facility will mean quite a long travel time for the police to get to Annapolis.

 

I cant wait to see what other "cuts" he's going to make to get the budget straight for next year. They need to spend less money, not eliminate Police Barracks, especially in the State's Capital for crying out loud. I cant wait til the slots referendum doesn't pass and then taxes go up even more.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[snuffbox 0]

Spending ridiculous amounts of taxpayer money wont lower taxes, Marvin, no matter how bad you and Glen Beck wish it were so.

[MarvinisaLunatic 0]

Spending ridiculous amounts of taxpayer money wont lower taxes, Marvin, no matter how bad you and Glen Beck wish it were so.

 

You got that backwards there. If they were to cut spending instead of spending more and more, they wouldnt have to keep raising taxes to cover it..

 

Next year will bring new taxes on alcohol. $1.50-$4 a gallon on liquor and up to $.50 on beer.

 

Hopefully Maryland is the new New Jersey and everyone flees for Delaware or elsewhere instead of putting up with the high taxes. We also have some of the highest electricity rates in the whole country which the state caused itself through deregulation.

[ZGangsta 0]

Hopefully Maryland is the new New Jersey and everyone flees for Delaware or elsewhere instead of putting up with the high taxes. We also have some of the highest electricity rates in the whole country which the state caused itself through deregulation.

Wait haven't you spent this thread mostly screaming that "DA GUB'MENT SHULD STAY OUTTA POEPLEZ BIZNESS" and now you're complaining about how the government removing restrictions (deregulation) on electrical companies has caused higher electricity rates??

 

[snuffbox 0]

No, Marvin, I didn't get jackshit backwards. You've already toed the Beck line on a border wall, Iraq, and drugs. Neither you nor he have ANY room complaining about taxation when you're so adamently supporting the biggest expenditures in the history of mankind.

 

 

[MarvinisaLunatic 0]

No, Marvin, I didn't get jackshit backwards. You've already toed the Beck line on a border wall, Iraq, and drugs. Neither you nor he have ANY room complaining about taxation when you're so adamently supporting the biggest expenditures in the history of mankind.

Iraq - we can't just leave Iraq all at once in 13 months, it will end up costing more money when he have to go bail the middle east out again, and we will unless we stick our heads in the sand and adopt isolationist views on the world again, which we wont.

 

Border - we need some sort of fence built whether it be real or virtual to control the border. the alternative over the long haul will cost more than building the fence.

 

Drugs - I dont remember posting an opinion on here about drugs other than when I said it was rediculous to think they'll legalize marajuana since the government is moving towards banning things (trans fats, cigarettes, etc). Id be all for legalizing drugs because I really dont give a damn what other people do to their lives and if it meant that we wouldn't have 1 out of 100 people in america sitting in a prison somewhere, most of them for drug violations, go for it. Im surprised they haven't legalized drugs so they could tax the hell out of them like cigarettes but that tax would be so easily avoided anyway..

 

 

What we cant afford is to spend billions of dollars on Global warming, hundred of millions of dollars to bail out stupid idiots who applied for interest only loans and cant pay them, and more money to send kids to college free that don't even appreciate the free education they get now. We cant afford to spend "0.7 percent of gross national product on foreign aid" through the Global Poverty Act which was sponsored by Barack Obama in the Senate and passed 2 weeks ago, which is almost a trillion dollars more than we already spend on foreign aid now over the next 13 years. We can't afford to completely ignore Social Security and Medicare, keep on borrowing money from China to pay off debt..etc..etc.

 

Its not the governments responsibility to bail out stupid people, nor is it to make sure kids go to college or to make sure that someone in Africa isn't living in poverty.

[MarvinisaLunatic 0]

Hopefully Maryland is the new New Jersey and everyone flees for Delaware or elsewhere instead of putting up with the high taxes. We also have some of the highest electricity rates in the whole country which the state caused itself through deregulation.

Wait haven't you spent this thread mostly screaming that "DA GUB'MENT SHULD STAY OUTTA POEPLEZ BIZNESS" and now you're complaining about how the government removing restrictions (deregulation) on electrical companies has caused higher electricity rates??

 

I think theres a quite a difference between your own personal business and the businesses of large companies.

 

I could be wrong on that..

[ZGangsta 0]

Iraq - we can't just leave Iraq all at once in 13 months, it will end up costing more money when he have to go bail the middle east out again.

 

Its not the governments responsibility ... to make sure that someone in Africa isn't living in poverty.

 

 

[MarvinisaLunatic 0]

Iraq - we can't just leave Iraq all at once in 13 months, it will end up costing more money when he have to go bail the middle east out again.

 

Its not the governments responsibility ... to make sure that someone in Africa isn't living in poverty.

 

 

 

Were going to have to bail out the middle east again cause they have a neat little thing called oil and if someone makes a fuss there and threatens the supply of it, were screwed as long as we continue to be against new domestic energy sources.

[cbacon 0]

How is that "bailing out" the Middle East?

[SuperJerk 0]

Anyone know who the top exporters of oil to the U.S. are?

 

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petrole...ent/import.html

 

Africa, Canada, and Latin America are just as important sources of oil as the Middle East.

[CheesalaIsGood 0]

Well at least he admits it is all about oil and not about this spreading freedom nonsense.

 

 

See? A silver lining. Who ever said I wasn't an optimist.

[Guest Michael Myers Resplendent]

I agree with Glenn Beck that we should have a fence along the Texas-Mexico border, but I also feel that the fence should surround Texas's other borders.

[Guest Vitamin X]

I knew Canada, in particular the Alberta Tar Sands, was a big oil partner, but I didn't know they were by far our largest one. If they ever piss us off enough..

 

Also, Bill Clinton endorses Barack Obama (sorta, from four years ago..)

[Guest Michael Myers Resplendent]

Somehow, in some way, I feel like this is my fault.

[PUT THAT DICK IN MY MOUTH! 0]

Okay, the chanting in that was kinda creepy/cultish. I'm starting to sort of see where you're coming from on this, Czech. I'd probably be incredibly irritated with the whole Obama movement by now if I didn't agree with most of his policy stances.

[King Kamala 0]

Well now that I know Luis Guzman and Malcolm Jamal Warner are supporting him, he's got my vote!