0
   

THE GENERAL ELECTION 2008

 
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Reply Fri 18 Jul, 2008 11:16 am
mysteryman wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Extemperaneous, my ass. You wish to hang Obama over every line he makes, ever, but wish to give McCain a pass on a very clear statment of his.

I'll reprint it here:

Quote:


Q: You flip-flop on drilling, on tax cutsÂ…

McCain: Actually, I didn't. Actually, on the drilling issue, when gasoline reached $4 a gallon, we've got to do things that we otherwise haven't done in the past. I have not changed my mind on any other issue. On immigration, I said we need comprehensive immigration reform, it failed twice, so we've got to do what's going to succeed.


First of all, he flip-flopped on tax cuts, completely. You know he did, Fox. There's no argument that he did. But he denies he did. And he specifically and clearly says, in the context of flip-flops, that he has not 'changed his mind on any other issue.'

You could not possibly get a more clear context, and who gives a damn if it is extemporaneous? You and other Republicans have been saying for months that this is McCain's best format, and that he does the worst in set speeches. When are you going to show even the slightest bit of balance, and admit that McCain has flip-flopped on MANY issues, and what more, he lies about it!

Cycloptichorn


As soon as you admit that Obama has flip-flopped on many issues, I will be glad to admit that McCain has also.


Obama's most notable Flip-flop is on FISA, with a secondary one being campaign Public financing (which I'm completely relieved about, as McCain NEVER was going to play by the actual rules). I'm sure there are other issues which could be shown he had changed on as well.

Fox, you've basically abandoned the field at this point; you know that McCain isn't telling the truth, but refuse to call it a 'lie.' I guess you are correct in a way; he is old enough that he may just be genuinely confused about the past. I'm happy with that interpretation as well.

The point hasn't been 'do rightwingers admit that McCain has flip-flopped.' Of course you guys have, he's done so in some ways you don't like. But you claimed that McCain himself also admitted it. He clearly does nothing of the sort, and goes so far as to claim that he hasn't changed his mind on anything. If Obama had said that, even extemporaneously during an interview, you bunch would be all over him, and you know it! Stop sticking up for the guy when he makes such obvious errors.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Jul, 2008 11:28 am
Cyclop, you can say that red is blue or black is white or green is purple until the cows come home purely because you want to believe that. But saying it over and over and over again does not make it true no matter how long you keep it up, nor is that going to persuade anybody that you have any support for your opinion other than you want to hold the opinion.

And saying what I have not done, when posts entered a few minutes ago directly contradict what you are saying, such makes you look more and more shrill, blindly partisan, and irrational.

Come up with something substantive, because this 'did too, did not' and 'your mama wears army boots' kind of argument reallly REALLY becomes tiresome and boring very quickly.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Jul, 2008 11:35 am
Cyclo,
Can you name one candidate for President in your lifetime that has NOT flip-flopped about issues?

Or that has admitted to it?
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Jul, 2008 12:35 pm
mysteryman wrote:
Cyclo,
Can you name one candidate for President in your lifetime that has NOT flip-flopped about issues?

Or that has admitted to it?


No, but it was Fox who claimed that McCain had admitted it, not I.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Jul, 2008 12:42 pm
Foxfyre wrote:

And saying what I have not done, when posts entered a few minutes ago directly contradict what you are saying, such makes you look more and more shrill, blindly partisan, and irrational.


Perhaps you could be more specific. I have alleged that you falsely claim that McCain 'admits his flip-flops and explains them,' and provided evidence that he does not do so. With video, no less. His spoken statements clearly contradict your claim. You try and sidestep this, saying his statements were 'extemporaneous' or 'out of context.' The first is no excuse, the second is clearly untrue. You are incorrect, Fox, in your initial assessment, and it would behoove you to simply admit it.

You were also incorrect about the 'prepared remarks' line of attack. Extremely wrong. You dropped that point, but once again, if you are the sort of open-minded and fair person you constantly claim to be, it would behoove you to admit that you were wrong on that issue as well.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Jul, 2008 12:52 pm
I didn't agree with your interpretation of the video....which ended before McCain may have expanded on his statements....or he was not allowed to expand on them.....and I gave you the reason that I did. The statement he said could be interpreted in too many different ways within that context to draw any kind of firm conclusion about it.

Saying that I'm wrong about that is your opinion, but unsupported with anything substantive. And I will not continue with any more 'did too, did not' silly exchange on this as it is certainly boring for anybody reading the thread and is suffocatingly boring for me.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Jul, 2008 12:58 pm
It's a common tactic, for those who drop points completely to fail to admit it while claiming 'boredom.' I have included facts and links, and shown how your arguments were flawed from the very beginning on both issues. The fact you wish to give up the arguments, but are too stubborn to admit that you were wrong, is as unsurprising as it is unoriginal on your part.

I feel the last two pages of this thread show a real exercise in idiocy on your part, and it's clear for anyone who reads it. You had many opportunities to either clarify or walk back your silly assertions, and chose not to do so, all the time whining about personal attacks, as if that matters at all to anyone. It's exchanges like this that have directly lead to your status as a somewhat comical poster here on A2K.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Jul, 2008 03:16 pm
Moving on with a little comic relief here, I especially liked the comment that those who wind up in jail during the Democrat convention will be released in time to make the Republican convention.

Protesters, police educate, gear up for convention
By Sara Burnett
Rocky Mountain News
July 17, 2008

Ron Lewis shoots video and transmits it to his Web site, ronlewis.com/live, at an event Thursday by We Are Change Colorado. The organization said it plans to video DNC protests and police, posting clips on YouTube.com for the public to see.

Who's protesting the DNC?A sample of groups, some of their causes and what they're planning:

* Students for Peace and Justice: Grass-roots movement against the war in Iraq. Supports immigrant rights, more diplomacy with Iran and end to death penalty. Part of Alliance for Real Democracy, which plans concerts and classes in City Park.

* Escuela Tlatelolco de Estudios: Denver private school for young Hispanics, also active in issues affecting immigrants and indigenous communities. Has permit for an immigrant-rights parade on Aug. 26.

* CODEPINK: Opposes the war in Iraq, wants resources put into health care and education. Name is a play on President Bush's color-coded terror alert levels. Part of Alliance for Real Democracy events at City Park.

* Americans for Safe Access: Advocates for safe and legal access to marijuana for medical and other scientific use. Has permit for a parade on Aug. 28.

* Unconventional Denver: Uses direct action to hold Democrats accountable for policies such as environmental degradation, war and corporate funding of political campaigns and conventions.

Direct actions could include targeting delegate hotels and parties, trying to block delegate access to DNC.

Dozens of protest groups are planning a full schedule of classes, concerts, marches and other actions during the Democratic National Convention, hoping to capture the world's attention and recruit new activists.

They are both energized and organized, and most insist they are not looking for trouble.

"We are completely peaceful," said Rob Weiland, a 37-year-old courier from Denver and member of the group We Are Change Colorado. "We follow the ideals of Ghandi."

The organization will be videotaping other groups and police during the DNC, scheduled for Aug. 25 to 28.

They'll post the videos on YouTube.com or the group's Web site so the public may see what's happening without the filter of mainstream media, Weiland said.

If any protest groups are provoking police, he said, "our cameras will be on them."

The Alliance for Real Democracy, a coalition of 18 groups, is planning a week of classes in City Park on topics such as non violence and how to organize a demonstration. A concert with Denver band the Flobots also is in the works.

The large-scale effort is being planned by six or seven different committees, focusing on areas such as fundraising, promotions and working with city officials, member Duke Austin said.

"This is on a much bigger scale than anything we've done so far, so it requires additional organizing," said Austin, a 33-year-old Ph.D. candidate at the University of Colorado who leads the group Students for Peace and Justice.

"I think it will be an incredible learning experience for everybody there," he said.

Police, meanwhile, are doing some preparing of their own.

By the time the convention starts, most officers working the DNC will have completed at least 30 hours of special training, Mayor John Hickenlooper said. It includes how to diffuse problems, so that nonviolent situations don't escalate.

While the majority of protesters don't want to break the law, the city is readying for "some bad characters," Hickenlooper said.

Denver received a $50 million federal grant for security that will be used for personnel and equipment.

The city won't say what type of equipment it's buying with the money.

But a local company announced last month it had sold Denver 88 guns that fire a pepper spray-like substance instead of bullets for use during the DNC. The weapons may be used to incapacitate people, stop riots or disperse crowds.

Those purchases worry Ben Yager, 23, of Unconventional Denver, a local offshoot of the national group Unconventional Action.

The group is often mentioned as one most likely to cause problems for police during the convention.

Its approach is one of direct action, such as blocking access to corporate-funded parties or blocking delegates from leaving their hotels to go to the convention and vote.

The activities could land members in jail, the group's Web site acknowledges.

But the site also states that if people are arrested, they're expected to be released in time to join a caravan to the Republican National Convention in Minnesota.

Asked whether the group was planning violence in Denver, Yager said, "Absolutely not."

"We're preparing for the police to be violent," he said, adding that the equipment purchased by police is likely to be used first on groups like his.

The group held a camp in the mountains last weekend, where they readied for the DNC.

Participants won't discuss details of the camp, but Yager said among the topics was how to protect oneself from police, and how to "do it in a way that won't get you sent to jail."

Protesters who do end up behind bars will have some allies.

Today at the University of Denver, the People's Law Project will train attorneys who are volunteering to represent people who believe their First Amendment rights are violated during the DNC.

The group encouraged any activists or other members of the community to attend a noon lunch on free speech rights
ROCKY MOUNTAIN NEWS
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Jul, 2008 11:56 am
Matt Yglesias wrote:
[McCain had] spent, several weeks with the main theme of his campaign being, quite literally, to criticize Barack Obama for not having been physically present in Iraq recently. This (of course) got Obama to go to Iraq, thus setting up a dilemma. Either Obama would survey the "progress" in Iraq and change his position, thus making him a flip-flopper, or else he would refuse to change his position, thus making him obstinate and out of touch with reality.

But instead of either of those things happening, Obama went to Iraq and Iraqi leaders said he'd been right all along! That's about as close to "game, set, match" as you get in terms of real world events influencing your political campaign. What's more, given the domestic situation and John McCain's inability to talk about domestic issues persuasively, he can't afford to play for a draw on Iraq.


(Emphasis mine.)

http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/07/mccains_waterloo.php
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Jul, 2008 11:57 am
Read that, almost posted it, thanks Soz!

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Jul, 2008 03:39 pm
From a linked source that is certainly not pro-Bush or pro-McCain but at least not blatantly anti-Bush and anti-McCain:


Quote:
(CNN) -- A German magazine quoted Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki as saying that he backed a proposal by presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq within 16 months.


Nuri al-Maliki told Der Spiegel that he favors a "limited" tenure for coalition troops in Iraq.

"U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama talks about 16 months," he said in an interview with Der Spiegel that was released Saturday.

"That, we think, would be the right time frame for a withdrawal, with the possibility of slight changes," he said.

But a spokesman for al-Maliki said his remarks "were misunderstood, mistranslated and not conveyed accurately."

Government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh said the possibility of troop withdrawal was based on the continuance of security improvements, echoing statements that the White House made Friday after a meeting between al-Maliki and U.S. President Bush.

In the magazine interview, Al-Maliki said his remarks did not indicate that he was endorsing Obama over presumptive Republican presidential nominee Sen. John McCain.

"Who they choose as their president is the Americans' business. But it's the business of Iraqis to say what they want. And that's where the people and the government are in general agreement: The tenure of the coalition troops in Iraq should be limited," he said.

"Those who operate on the premise of short time periods in Iraq today are being more realistic," al-Maliki said.

The interview's publication came one day after the White House said President Bush and al-Maliki had agreed to include a "general time horizon" in talks about reducing American combat forces and transferring Iraqi security control across the country. . . .
http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/07/19/almaliki.obama/


Meanwhile, I wonder what the odds are that Senator Obama will ever have the honesty to admit this?. . .

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/mrz072208dAPR.jpg
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Jul, 2008 03:45 pm
We don't know what Iraq would look like today if things were different, so I'm not sure why you say it would take 'honesty' to admit it.

This line is a lie.

Quote:

But a spokesman for al-Maliki said his remarks "were misunderstood, mistranslated and not conveyed accurately."


A complete lie. Why?

http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archive/2008/07/22/maliki-s-endorsement-not-lost-in-translation.aspx

Quote:

German magazine Der Spiegel caused quite a commotion this week by printing an interview with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki in which he endorsed Obama's Iraq plan by name. Some tried to downplay the significance of this endorsement by saying that Maliki had been misquoted by the magazine. But it turns out that Maliki actually got a copy of the interview before it was printed and had the option to make any changes. A writer at Der Spiegel sent us this tidbit of info:

"The reason the magazine scores so many high level interviews is that the editors agree to allow the subjects to "authorize" the interviews before they go to press. It wasn't just a slip of the tongue, in other words: Maliki not only endorsed Obama's plans for withdrawing from Iraq, but his office then explicitly approved the endorsement before it was printed. The denials, then, were doubly facetious. Spiegel couldn't say so, though, without revealing its embarrassing authorization policy."

Der Spiegel has gotten flak in the past for this policy. According to Ingrid Kolb, director of the Henri Nannen School for Journalism in Hamburg:

"The long interviews that Der Spiegel publishes with famous public figures, their so-called talks, are known for this ... They can go back and forth a dozen times, with each side bringing their argument a bit more to the point, refining it, improving it. In a best-case scenario, it serves the interests of both sides."

So much for Maliki's message being lost in translation.

--Zvika Krieger


And you fell for it, just like all the other Conservative morons who are desperately watching their prime argument against Obama's candidacy vanish in the wind, as he captures the initiative on the Iraq issue. It must suck to watch a long shot get even longer.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Jul, 2008 03:45 pm
Belief Growing That Reporters are Trying to Help Obama WinLINK
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Jul, 2008 04:29 pm
Further, Cyclop could save himself a great deal of time and trouble by making a copy of the following to paste after anybody's post he doesn't agree with:

Quote:
What you posted is a lie. Obama is perfect in every way and anybody who says different doesn't know what he or she is talking about. No criticism of Obama anybody has come up with is warranted nor is there any foundation to it. McCain doesn't base anything he says on fact. Whatever I think is right and whatever you think is a lie or is just stupid or ignorant or without basis and you don't know what you are talking about, and here's a link to a radical leftwing source/blog/opinion to prove it.


I think that should pretty well cover it.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Jul, 2008 04:32 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
Further, Cyclop could save himself a great deal of time and trouble by making a copy of the following to paste after anybody's post he doesn't agree with:

Quote:
What you posted is a lie. Obama is perfect in every way and anybody who says different doesn't know what he or she is talking about. No criticism of Obama anybody has come up with is warranted nor is there any foundation to it. McCain doesn't base anything he says on fact. Whatever I think is right and whatever you think is a lie or is just stupid or ignorant or without basis and you don't know what you are talking about, and here's a link to a radical leftwing source/blog/opinion to prove it.


I think that should pretty well cover it.


Truly written by someone whose argument was just eviscerated, and has no real response whatsoever. Typical, exaggerated and uninteresting.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Jul, 2008 04:40 pm
See? Just use the cut and paste. So much simpler. Saves so much time.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Jul, 2008 04:42 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
See? Just use the cut and paste. So much simpler. Saves so much time.


Your last post is a non-sequitur, as it does not directly relate to the topic at hand.

Look, you ought just be more honest and admit that the issue is a big loser for McCain, a winner for Obama, and no namby-pamby 'mistake in translation' bullshit is going to fix it for your side.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Jul, 2008 08:50 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
We don't know what Iraq would look like today if things were different, so I'm not sure why you say it would take 'honesty' to admit it.

Cycloptichorn


I believe this is rather important and should be considered by everyone that says that the Iraq war should not have happened.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Jul, 2008 11:28 pm
Speaking of Iraq, here is an interesting video re THAT 16 MONTH TIME TABLE FOR WITHDRAWAL

It's sorta summed up in this cartoon:
http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/lb0723cd.jpg
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Thu 31 Jul, 2008 09:40 pm
Obama possible VEEP picks are still ambiguous and controversial, but at least Obama is not boring. He's probably trying to find somebody who is unlikely to be indicted and/or be in a scandal on the front page of the National Enquiror between now and November.

While Lieberman and Huckabee are both polling well for McCain, and Romney remains the obvious best choice for credentials, some GOP 'intellectuals' are advising McCain not to pick another boring white guy for VEEP. So . . .

McCain veep talk turns to female candidates
Joseph Curl
Thursday, July 31, 2008

Sen. John McCain's growing popularity among women is fueling speculation about the possibility that he will select a female running mate, ripening talk about conservative favorite Sarah Palin, governor of Alaska, and former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina, one of his top economic advisers.

Political pundits, election strategists and even some Democrats say putting a dynamic woman on the Republican ballot would tip independents, especially the "security moms" who helped President Bush win re-election in 2004.

"If McCain picked a woman, it would certainly get the attention and perhaps votes of some Democrats and a number of independents who supported Hillary Clinton," said Democratic strategist Mary Anne Marsh.

What's more, with Mr. McCain not exactly a favorite of social and fiscal conservatives, prominent leaders of the party's right flank say choosing a bona fide member of their class could re-energize the GOP base.

"Sarah Palin is a great choice," said Grover Norquist, a Republican activist best known for his economic conservatism.

"She's got it all, and is a remarkable leader who brings a number of good qualities to the table," said Wendy Wright, president of Concerned Women for America.

Although Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney are still considered the frontrunners for the veep slot (with a growing hum about former Ohio Rep. Rob Portman), there is a new buzz that Mr. McCain will make a "transformative" pick outside the mainstream, perhaps even cross party lines to choose former Democratic Sen. Joe Lieberman.

While most insiders find that option unlikely, Newt Gingrich warns Mr. McCain not to pick "one more relatively boring normal mainstream Republican white guy."

"This fall, there's going to be a lot of energy surrounding the Obama campaign and we need to find ways to generate a substantial amount of energy around the McCain campaign, and an effective, dynamic different kind of vice presidential nominee, I think, would make a difference," the former House speaker said.

Mrs. Palin is "a mother of five, is a genuine Alaskan, is a hunter, is a dogsledder, is very much for drilling for oil, has a great reform reputation, took on big oil on behalf of the people of Alaska," Mr. Gingrich said. "I think she would bring a level of excitement and uniqueness that people would have to stop and say, 'Boy, this is kind of intriguing.' "
LINK
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/02/2024 at 02:33:22