US 08 Presidential Campaign General Discussion Thread #8

[mobvok]

Bush Said To Give Orders Allowing Raids in Pakistan

WASHINGTON — President Bush secretly approved orders in July that for the first time allow American Special Operations forces to carry out ground assaults inside Pakistan without the prior approval of the Pakistani government, according to senior American officials.

Link

Providing a potential sneak preview of his general election talking points, McCain asked, “Will we risk the confused leadership of an inexperienced candidate who once suggested bombing our ally, Pakistan?”

I await Strongbow telling us how happy he is that Obama has finally come around to McCain and Bush's long held position on bombing Pakistan without their government's approval.

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by anitram

Maybe the educated elite libruls devote their time reading more academic elitist works as opposed to lowest-common denominator political gotcha books.

this homo-communist-librul-elitist-urbanist-northeasterner just looks down his *nose* at the common flyover state folks.

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by MaxFisher

Is Biden trying to step aside?....

Political Radar: Biden: Hillary a Better Pick Than Me

"Make no mistake about this, Hillary Clinton is as qualified or more qualified than I am to be vice president of the United States of America. Let’s get that straight. She’s a truly close personal friend, she is qualified to be president of the United States of America, she’s easily qualified to be vice president of the United States of America, and quite frankly, it might have been a better pick than me. But she’s first rate, I mean that sincerely, she’s first rate, so let’s get that straight."

FAR BE IT FROM ME TO SPREAD RUMORS ... but it has been whispered that Biden has prostate cancer. again, I AM NOT ENDORSING THIS OR SAYING THAT IT IS TRUE NOR AM I SAYING ANYTHING AT ALL REALLY.



could be another fascinating wrinkle.

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by Strongbow

Well, if integrity and Sarah Palin are the things team Obama want to talk about, I'm sure the McCain campaign won't mind. You can't prove someone lacks integrity because of a flap over pigs, lies and lipstick, especially someone like John McCain. Acting like your running against Sarah Palin rather than John McCain also is unlikely to be a winning strategy.

how do you sleep?

[Strongbow]

Originally Posted by mobvok

Bush Said To Give Orders Allowing Raids in Pakistan



Link


I await Strongbow telling us how happy he is that Obama has finally come around to McCain and Bush's long held position on bombing Pakistan without their government's approval.

So your admitting that Obama was for bombing Pakistan without their approval?

Congratulations, perhaps you might have finally found one idea that Obama could say he was for before others decided to jump on board, although at a different time and because of changed conditions. The administration clearly weighed and considered the consequences of such actions, and had previously felt that the negative consequences of that type of action outweighed the benefits. But with the changes in the political situation in Pakistan, the inability or unwillingness of the Pakistani military to bring security to the border areas, and the increased insurgent activity from there, appears to have changed the caculation on this particular issue.

[Harry Vest]

Originally Posted by BonoVoxSupastar

Well not to spread any rumors, but today on a certain radio show they were talking about Obama's private meeting with Clinton in Harlem, some were speculating a change of VP to counteract McCain's pick and of course right radio had a field day with this... but there was a caller that claimed he "knew" Biden had cancer and that this may have been a meeting to discuss this. The caller was more than likely full of shit, or maybe he had read deep's post earlier about Biden... who knows

If the Dems do this it will look like the final act of desperation and will backfire on them tenfold.

[namkcuR]

Originally Posted by Harry Vest

If the Dems do this it will look like the final act of desperation and will backfire on them tenfold.

They won't do it. I'd be shocked if they did it. Hilary doesn't want it.

[mobvok]

Originally Posted by Strongbow

So your admitting that Obama was for bombing Pakistan without their approval?

Congratulations, perhaps you might have finally found one idea that Obama could say he was for before others decided to jump on board, although at a different time and because of changed conditions. The administration clearly weighed and considered the consequences of such actions, and had previously felt that the negative consequences of that type of action outweighed the benefits. But with the changes in the political situation in Pakistan, the inability or unwillingness of the Pakistani military to bring security to the border areas, and the increased insurgent activity from there, appears to have changed the caculation on this particular issue.

"admitting" seems a weird choice of words. With articles like these:

"If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will," Obama said.

it seemed pretty straightforward that he'd operate without Musharraf's approval if they had the intelligence.

[Irvine511]

Palin is still a sham. as those who excuse her inexperience like to remind us, it's still about the top of the ticket.

and when it comes to the top of the ticket, it's clear who the American people prefer.

[flybabe]

Originally Posted by BonoVoxSupastar

That's classic

Thank you, I thought you were actually serious for awhile.

No this is just Priceless,you think your right about everything so WTF ever...

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by flybabe

No this is just Priceless,it is going to be cause you think your right about everything so WTF ever...

here's your big chance ... can you offer us anything other than snark?

[anitram]

That's not snark, it's just plain rudeness.

[Strongbow]

Originally Posted by Harry Vest

If the Dems do this it will look like the final act of desperation and will backfire on them tenfold.

McGovern did that in 1972 and many claim it increased Nixons margin of victory. Nixon won with 61% of the popular vote in 1972 to 38% for McGovern. But given the situation with Hillary, maybe this would be different.

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by anitram

That's not snark, it's just plain rudeness.

my apologies.

with a VP nominee who has this as her chief political asset, i tend to get these things confused.

[Strongbow]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

Palin is still a sham. as those who excuse her inexperience like to remind us, it's still about the top of the ticket.

and when it comes to the top of the ticket, it's clear who the American people prefer.

Thats a bit much to presume at this point considering the top of the Democratic ticket barely won his own party's nomination and although he had a small average lead of 3 points during the summer, that lead was still within the margin of error. Also, still no sign of the Obama Tsunami.

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by Strongbow

Thats a bit much to presume at this point considering the top of the Democratic ticket barely won his own party's nomination and although he had a small average lead of 3 points during the summer, that lead was still within the margin of error. Also, still no sign of the Obama Tsunami.

i know, right? with McCain's obvious experience, his GOP opponents being little more than freak show punchlines, and the fact that he was "right" on "the surge" and the super-cool $380 rimless running mate Sarah Palin has given him, on average, a tie in the polls, i guess we can conclude that Obama was just a flash in the pan?

or could it be that, when it all settles, most people will come to realize that Obama has actual policies to stand by and defend whereas McCain has sold his soul for some flash and sizzle, but what else?

[diamond]

but joe does botox and hairplugs.
that's flash and schnizzle.



<>

[Strongbow]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

i know, right? with McCain's obvious experience, his GOP opponents being little more than freak show punchlines, and the fact that he was "right" on "the surge" and the super-cool $380 rimless running mate Sarah Palin has given him, on average, a tie in the polls, i guess we can conclude that Obama was just a flash in the pan?

Hey, you were the one who claimed in early June that Obama's 6 point lead in the Gallup poll would be the closest McCain would ever get to him for the rest of the election season. This is the Democrats year remember, McCain is supposed to be defeated by a large margin. I mean it has to be a large margin since "McCain is a third Bush term", and "Bush is the worst President in US History". At this point, he shouldn't even be mentioning his opponent, let alone his running mate.

or could it be that, when it all settles, most people will come to realize that Obama has actual policies to stand by and defend whereas McCain has sold his soul for some flash and sizzle, but what else?

McCain is NOT the one who has been wrong about Iraq from the begining like Obama. He was not for leaving Saddam in power, abandoning Iraq before it is rebuilt, did not claim certain counter insurgency strategies would make violence increase, and does not support splitting Iraq into different countries.

He is not going to raid the US defense budget to pay for pet domestic programs, or restrict free trade. Unlike Obama he actually does have a record of working with people in the other party and of opposing his own party on various issues.

I think these things will appeal to many Americans, but given that in modern times, the country rarely stays with one party for more than two terms, Obama already has a leg up, not because of anything he has actually proposed, but just because he is not apart of the party in the White House at the moment.

So yes, things could very well fizzle and Obama could walk across the finish line with New Mexico, Colorado and Iowa in his pocket, just enough to become President.

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by Strongbow

Hey, you were the one who claimed in early June that Obama's 6 point lead in the Gallup poll would be the closest McCain would ever get to him for the rest of the election season. This is the Democrats year remember, McCain is supposed to be defeated by a large margin. I mean it has to be a large margin since "McCain is a third Bush term", and "Bush is the worst President in US History". At this point, he shouldn't even be mentioning his opponent, let alone his running mate.

hey, kiddo, we all speculate. if you're so desperate to feel good about yourself that you're going to bring up speculation that, even at the time itself was labeled by me as speculation, go right ahead. it simply make syou look more pathetic.

McCain is a 3rd Bush term, and, yes, Bush is the worst president at least in my lifetime. why do you think he literally phoned in his address to the RNC? why do you think McCain didn't mention him in his acceptance speech? why do you think McCain won't mention him when he's stumping? why do you think McCain has tried to steal not just Iraq policy from Obama but the overall platform of "change" from him as well?

it is the Democrats year. they are set to win big time in congress. McCain spent his RNC repudiating everything Bush stood for. had it been any nominee other than McCain, the man the Bush people savaged in 2000, it wouldn't even be a contest.

Bush is poison. his policies are the worst we've ever had in my lifetime.

i know you know this.

McCain is NOT the one who has been wrong about Iraq from the begining like Obama. He was not for leaving Saddam in power, abandoning Iraq before it is rebuilt, did not claim certain counter insurgency strategies would make violence increase, and does not support splitting Iraq into different countries.

oh, goodnes, STING, are you still going on about this? everyone knows that Iraq is over and the troops are coming home and that it was a mistake to begin with and the Bushies lied about everything to get us in there and it's been a colossal waste of money.

stop pretending like any serious person thinks any different.

He is not going to raid the US defense budget to pay for pet domestic programs, or restrict free trade. Unlike Obama he actually does have a record of working with people in the other party and of opposing his own party on various issues.

wow, what original thought. eloquent, too.

I think these things will appeal to many Americans, but given that in modern times, the country rarely stays with one party for more than two terms, Obama already has a leg up, not because of anything he has actually proposed, but just because he is not apart of the party in the White House at the moment.

i take this to mean that you, like me, think that Palin is a flash in the pan and that when things settle down and she's revealed to be the fraud that she is, and when you really look at the electoral math, you realize that this is Obama's election to lose.

which he could. i know you people are betting the farm on racism. as you always do.

So yes, things could very well fizzle and Obama could walk across the finish line with New Mexico, Colorado and Iowa in his pocket, just enough to become President.

and race could be too much of a barrier and we could all be dumbed down by 24/7 cable news to the extend where garbage McCain outrages actually stick.

but i think you know as well as i do that on the issues Obama is far better for the country than McCain.

and if you had any sort of integrity, you'd denounce the current McCain campaign.

[Strongbow]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

hey, kiddo, we all speculate. if you're so desperate to feel good about yourself that you're going to bring up speculation that, even at the time itself was labeled by me as speculation, go right ahead. it simply make syou look more pathetic.

The above paragraph looks real good.

McCain is a 3rd Bush term, and, yes, Bush is the worst president at least in my lifetime. why do you think he literally phoned in his address to the RNC? why do you think McCain didn't mention him in his acceptance speech? why do you think McCain won't mention him when he's stumping? why do you think McCain has tried to steal not just Iraq policy from Obama but the overall platform of "change" from him as well?

Just politics of the moment. No different then Harry Truman deciding not to run for re-election in 1952 in order to help is party.

Bush is poison. his policies are the worst we've ever had in my lifetime.

i know you know this.

If that were the case, Bush never would have been re-elected in 2004. Nor would this country have removed two of the worst and most threatening regimes on the planet in Iraq and Afghanistan. Nor would the Bush administration have the 3rd lowest average poverty rate of any Presidential administration in history.

oh, goodnes, STING, are you still going on about this? everyone knows that Iraq is over and the troops are coming home and that it was a mistake to begin with and the Bushies lied about everything to get us in there and it's been a colossal waste of money.

stop pretending like any serious person thinks any different.

Please, tell us all how Kuwait would be safer today if Saddam was still in power? Explain how the Persian Gulf would be safer if Saddam was still in power?

The United States continues to have 15 combat brigades on the ground in Iraq and while there have been amazing accomplishments over the past several years, there is still much that needs to be done and it would be risky to withdraw troops pre-maturely. McCain will only withdraw troops from Iraq as conditions on the ground there warrent their withdrawal. Obama continues to flip flop between getting out completely on a set timetable and advocating the Bush/McCain policy of only withdrawing when conditions warrent it.

When Obama met privately with General Patreus(for the first time I might add), Obama admitted the General did not agree with his ideas for Iraq over the next 12 months.

The majority of the military and national security experts continue to support the removal of Saddam and not withdrawing from Iraq until the Iraqi's can handle the situation on their own. Colin Powell, Norman Swartzkopf, Kenneth Pollack, Michael O'Halon, Meghan O'Sullivan all enormously knowledgeable people on the issue of Iraq continue to support Saddam's removal and the proper rebuilding of Iraq.

Instead of repeating outdated liberal talking points on Iraq, try reading a little history about Saddam and Iraq prior to 2003.

i know you people are betting the farm on racism. as you always do

and race could be too much of a barrier and we could all be dumbed down by 24/7 cable news to the extend where garbage McCain outrages actually stick.

Well, at least we know what your excuses will be on November 5 if the Obama Tsunami does not wash McCain and all the Republicans away.

but i think you know as well as i do that on the issues Obama is far better for the country than McCain.

Sorry, I don't want someone in the White House who thinks Kuwait, the Persian Gulf, the United States and the world would be better off with Saddam still in power in Iraq. That thought that a sound counter insurgency strategy in Iraq would make violence worse. That believes the US defense budget can be his piggy bank for increased domestic spending. That wants to restrict free trade instead of expanding it. That would prefer to appease Russia when it comes to supporting the new countries of the former Soviet Union.

and if you had any sort of integrity, you'd denounce the current McCain campaign.

Oh my, now were questioning the integrity of other forum members because they disagree with their political views. Interesting.