Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Tue 22 Jul, 2008 10:15 am
okie wrote:
Obama could win, I admit, but he also could lose.


Wow, thanks for clearing that up.

Quote:
It is incredible really that he isn't ahead by 25 points given how much press and how the press has ignored McCain.


Actually, this is a bullshit meme that I've often seen displayed by the right wing.

The truth is that Obama is as far ahead as anyone has been in the last decade of presidential elections. Kerry or Gore or Bush never had leads on each other as big as the ones Obama has had.

McCain is a familiar, known, and flawed commodity; the press is of course going to focus more on the new guy. This isn't always a positive thing, though.

Quote:
I think the upside for Obama is limited, but the downside is huge. Admit it, you are worried that your beloved party has again screwed up big time for jumping on the Obama bandwagon.


I don't feel like that at all. I'm not worried in the slightest; I think it's by far the best choice we could have made. I think the upside could be very high to an Obama presidency, and he certainly isn't going to do any worse then the last guy, even in a worst-case scenario.

You are projecting, for that's exactly the way you bunch feel about McCain. You know that at best he's half a liberal and is going to get kicked around by the Dem congress, to pass a bunch of environmental and other liberal policies. Even if you win, you're still going to lose. That's where your worry is coming from, and I don't envy you.

Quote:
Just how good of a wagon it is, we don't know, but the press will protect him as much and as often as they can, barring disastrous stumbles by Obama.

I would love to see Obama have to answer many questions, unscripted. The guy would not have the answers.


I disagree. Now, when you ask McCain questions, you are exactly right; he doesn't know the answers and is downright uncomfortable talking about many social issues, such as gays or contraception. He's really shot himself in the foot with his inability to answer certain questions this cycle. And if you like, I can link to plenty of videos showing this.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Tue 22 Jul, 2008 10:37 am
I don't blame McCain for being uncomfortable talking about gays and contraception, cyclops. After all, is that the most pressing issue for a president to deal with? And it is hardly that interesting of a topic, I agree with McCain.

Rush today is bringing up the issue of Obama talking with leaders, in regard to policy, possibly making deals, or implying deals if he is elected, and Rush's point is the guy has no authority to do any of this, that it is undermining, or could undermine our foreign policy. There are laws against that. I never thought of this in regard to Obama's trip, but I agree there is a fine line, a line over which Obama should not be crossing, and I am not so sure that he has much respect for that line. I think there is an arrogance there, as if he is virtually the president already. I am not saying Obama has crossed the line, but I am suspicious of how he conducts himself. He has no business saying anything about how he will govern to anybody over there with any authority.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Tue 22 Jul, 2008 10:39 am
okie wrote:
Obama could win, I admit, but he also could lose. It is incredible really that he isn't ahead by 25 points given how much press and how the press has ignored McCain. I think the upside for Obama is limited, but the downside is huge. Admit it, you are worried that your beloved party has again screwed up big time for jumping on the Obama bandwagon. Just how good of a wagon it is, we don't know, but the press will protect him as much and as often as they can, barring disastrous stumbles by Obama.

I would love to see Obama have to answer many questions, unscripted. The guy would not have the answers.
What precisely do you have in mind when you say points? Surely not electoral votes, right?
How does ahead by [size=29]79[/size] strike you?

http://img217.imageshack.us/img217/4077/gobama6pi0.jpg
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Tue 22 Jul, 2008 10:41 am
okie wrote:
I don't blame McCain for being uncomfortable talking about gays and contraception, cyclops. After all, is that the most pressing issue for a president to deal with? And it is hardly that interesting of a topic, I agree with McCain.

Rush today is bringing up the issue of Obama talking with leaders, in regard to policy, possibly making deals, or implying deals if he is elected, and Rush's point is the guy has no authority to do any of this, that it is undermining, or could undermine our foreign policy. There are laws against that. I never thought of this in regard to Obama's trip, but I agree there is a fine line, a line over which Obama should not be crossing, and I am not so sure that he has much respect for that line. I think there is an arrogance there, as if he is virtually the president already. I am not saying Obama has crossed the line, but I am suspicious of how he conducts himself. He has no business saying anything about how he will govern to anybody over there with any authority.


I wonder where guys like you and Rush were on this issue when Reagan was negotiating with Iran to get hostages home behind Jimmy Carter's back. I somehow doubt we'll hear you denounce Reagan for doing the same thing you are attacking Obama for now.

Maliki can see the way this thing is going as well as you or I, Okie; and he's not wasting time.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
woiyo
 
  0  
Tue 22 Jul, 2008 11:02 am
Cycloptichorn wrote:
okie wrote:
I don't blame McCain for being uncomfortable talking about gays and contraception, cyclops. After all, is that the most pressing issue for a president to deal with? And it is hardly that interesting of a topic, I agree with McCain.

Rush today is bringing up the issue of Obama talking with leaders, in regard to policy, possibly making deals, or implying deals if he is elected, and Rush's point is the guy has no authority to do any of this, that it is undermining, or could undermine our foreign policy. There are laws against that. I never thought of this in regard to Obama's trip, but I agree there is a fine line, a line over which Obama should not be crossing, and I am not so sure that he has much respect for that line. I think there is an arrogance there, as if he is virtually the president already. I am not saying Obama has crossed the line, but I am suspicious of how he conducts himself. He has no business saying anything about how he will govern to anybody over there with any authority.


I wonder where guys like you and Rush were on this issue when Reagan was negotiating with Iran to get hostages home behind Jimmy Carter's back. I somehow doubt we'll hear you denounce Reagan for doing the same thing you are attacking Obama for now.

Maliki can see the way this thing is going as well as you or I, Okie; and he's not wasting time.

Cycloptichorn


LOL. All of a sudden Maliki is a genious because he shares a point of view you happen to agree with?
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Tue 22 Jul, 2008 11:04 am
woiyo wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
okie wrote:
I don't blame McCain for being uncomfortable talking about gays and contraception, cyclops. After all, is that the most pressing issue for a president to deal with? And it is hardly that interesting of a topic, I agree with McCain.

Rush today is bringing up the issue of Obama talking with leaders, in regard to policy, possibly making deals, or implying deals if he is elected, and Rush's point is the guy has no authority to do any of this, that it is undermining, or could undermine our foreign policy. There are laws against that. I never thought of this in regard to Obama's trip, but I agree there is a fine line, a line over which Obama should not be crossing, and I am not so sure that he has much respect for that line. I think there is an arrogance there, as if he is virtually the president already. I am not saying Obama has crossed the line, but I am suspicious of how he conducts himself. He has no business saying anything about how he will govern to anybody over there with any authority.


I wonder where guys like you and Rush were on this issue when Reagan was negotiating with Iran to get hostages home behind Jimmy Carter's back. I somehow doubt we'll hear you denounce Reagan for doing the same thing you are attacking Obama for now.

Maliki can see the way this thing is going as well as you or I, Okie; and he's not wasting time.

Cycloptichorn


LOL. All of a sudden Maliki is a genious because he shares a point of view you happen to agree with?


No, he's not a 'genious' Laughing

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
woiyo
 
  0  
Tue 22 Jul, 2008 11:07 am
Cycloptichorn wrote:
woiyo wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
okie wrote:
I don't blame McCain for being uncomfortable talking about gays and contraception, cyclops. After all, is that the most pressing issue for a president to deal with? And it is hardly that interesting of a topic, I agree with McCain.

Rush today is bringing up the issue of Obama talking with leaders, in regard to policy, possibly making deals, or implying deals if he is elected, and Rush's point is the guy has no authority to do any of this, that it is undermining, or could undermine our foreign policy. There are laws against that. I never thought of this in regard to Obama's trip, but I agree there is a fine line, a line over which Obama should not be crossing, and I am not so sure that he has much respect for that line. I think there is an arrogance there, as if he is virtually the president already. I am not saying Obama has crossed the line, but I am suspicious of how he conducts himself. He has no business saying anything about how he will govern to anybody over there with any authority.


I wonder where guys like you and Rush were on this issue when Reagan was negotiating with Iran to get hostages home behind Jimmy Carter's back. I somehow doubt we'll hear you denounce Reagan for doing the same thing you are attacking Obama for now.

Maliki can see the way this thing is going as well as you or I, Okie; and he's not wasting time.

Cycloptichorn


LOL. All of a sudden Maliki is a genious because he shares a point of view you happen to agree with?


No, he's not a 'genious' Laughing

Cycloptichorn


Then why bring him up? You know a time table or even the perception of a time table is a recipe for disaster.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Tue 22 Jul, 2008 11:10 am
woiyo wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
woiyo wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
okie wrote:
I don't blame McCain for being uncomfortable talking about gays and contraception, cyclops. After all, is that the most pressing issue for a president to deal with? And it is hardly that interesting of a topic, I agree with McCain.

Rush today is bringing up the issue of Obama talking with leaders, in regard to policy, possibly making deals, or implying deals if he is elected, and Rush's point is the guy has no authority to do any of this, that it is undermining, or could undermine our foreign policy. There are laws against that. I never thought of this in regard to Obama's trip, but I agree there is a fine line, a line over which Obama should not be crossing, and I am not so sure that he has much respect for that line. I think there is an arrogance there, as if he is virtually the president already. I am not saying Obama has crossed the line, but I am suspicious of how he conducts himself. He has no business saying anything about how he will govern to anybody over there with any authority.


I wonder where guys like you and Rush were on this issue when Reagan was negotiating with Iran to get hostages home behind Jimmy Carter's back. I somehow doubt we'll hear you denounce Reagan for doing the same thing you are attacking Obama for now.

Maliki can see the way this thing is going as well as you or I, Okie; and he's not wasting time.

Cycloptichorn


LOL. All of a sudden Maliki is a genious because he shares a point of view you happen to agree with?


No, he's not a 'genious' Laughing

Cycloptichorn


Then why bring him up? You know a time table or even the perception of a time table is a recipe for disaster.


Actually, I know the opposite is true.

I bring Maliki up, because he is the head of Iraq's government at this time, and it was relevant to the topic. I'm not sure where you got the idea that I was calling him a 'genious' Laughing

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  0  
Tue 22 Jul, 2008 11:16 am
Cyclops, to remind you where we are now, despite you guys saying Iraq was a hopeless cause, even Obama is forced to admit, which is still contrary to Reid and Pelosi, that things are looking good enough that we can turn more over to the Iraqis. This has always been our policy from Day 1, well shasam, johnny come lately Obama finally shows up on the scene and learns this and acts as if he can take credit for it. It has been George Bush and McCain that have never wavered, and have taken the political hits constantly for the last few years, through thick and thin, and have stood by the Iraqis and the soldiers.

Obama has done nothing and deserves no credit whatsoever. Obama is a babe in the woods, and has not much clue about much of this. He is triangulating his policy, still trying to figure out what his policy is to please anyone and everyone, truth is he has no firm policy, and he would still be just talking, "this is a difficult issue, uh, ooh, uh,"on and on, and we would still be haggling over U.N. resolutions and weapons inspections, cyclops, and our credibility would be zilch.

Truth is, it is President Bush that deserves credit. Bush has shown himself to be a leader, staunchly committed to the policy decisions, and has never wavered in this, and he is the one that deserves credit, not Obama, who is nothing more than a footnote in history at this point.
0 Replies
 
woiyo
 
  0  
Tue 22 Jul, 2008 11:18 am
Cycloptichorn wrote:
woiyo wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
woiyo wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
okie wrote:
I don't blame McCain for being uncomfortable talking about gays and contraception, cyclops. After all, is that the most pressing issue for a president to deal with? And it is hardly that interesting of a topic, I agree with McCain.

Rush today is bringing up the issue of Obama talking with leaders, in regard to policy, possibly making deals, or implying deals if he is elected, and Rush's point is the guy has no authority to do any of this, that it is undermining, or could undermine our foreign policy. There are laws against that. I never thought of this in regard to Obama's trip, but I agree there is a fine line, a line over which Obama should not be crossing, and I am not so sure that he has much respect for that line. I think there is an arrogance there, as if he is virtually the president already. I am not saying Obama has crossed the line, but I am suspicious of how he conducts himself. He has no business saying anything about how he will govern to anybody over there with any authority.


I wonder where guys like you and Rush were on this issue when Reagan was negotiating with Iran to get hostages home behind Jimmy Carter's back. I somehow doubt we'll hear you denounce Reagan for doing the same thing you are attacking Obama for now.

Maliki can see the way this thing is going as well as you or I, Okie; and he's not wasting time.

Cycloptichorn


LOL. All of a sudden Maliki is a genious because he shares a point of view you happen to agree with?


No, he's not a 'genious' Laughing

Cycloptichorn


Then why bring him up? You know a time table or even the perception of a time table is a recipe for disaster.


Actually, I know the opposite is true.

I bring Maliki up, because he is the head of Iraq's government at this time, and it was relevant to the topic. I'm not sure where you got the idea that I was calling him a 'genious' Laughing

Cycloptichorn


You are so transparent. Laughing
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Tue 22 Jul, 2008 11:32 am
Quote:
I wonder where guys like you and Rush were on this issue when Reagan was negotiating with Iran to get hostages home behind Jimmy Carter's back. I somehow doubt we'll hear you denounce Reagan for doing the same thing you are attacking Obama for now.


Even if this was true (which it isnt, and has been debunked many times), what does it matter?

Reagan isnt the President now, and neither is Carter.
To mention either one of them in the current discussion is meaningless and an avoidance of the issue.
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Tue 22 Jul, 2008 11:37 am
mysteryman wrote:
Quote:
I wonder where guys like you and Rush were on this issue when Reagan was negotiating with Iran to get hostages home behind Jimmy Carter's back. I somehow doubt we'll hear you denounce Reagan for doing the same thing you are attacking Obama for now.


Even if this was true (which it isnt, and has been debunked many times), what does it matter?

Reagan isnt the President now, and neither is Carter.
To mention either one of them in the current discussion is meaningless and an avoidance of the issue.


If it were true, it probably meant that they were scared to death of Reagan.

And that would be a good thing.

Frightening America's enemies is something I'd encourage anyone to do.

Subverting a relationship between America and an ally is a different issue, however.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Tue 22 Jul, 2008 11:54 am
Obama should not be saying anything over there. It should be a fact finding trip, period. He knows nothing about anything pertinent there, and everything he knows, he has been told. He brings nothing to the table, nothing, period. And when you hear him chastise the reporters with him for asking for specific answers, he says he can't be boxed into any answers. Heck, I thought he had all the answers. This is so nonsensical. He is in over his head.

He has gotten where he is by opposing the war, period, thats about it, and for a speech, and now he is essentially rubber stamping the Bush policy. Whoopsy doo, this guy is an intellectual, "uh oh, ooh, um, uh, that is an excellent question" guy, thats about it.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Tue 22 Jul, 2008 12:00 pm
okie wrote:
Obama should not be saying anything over there. It should be a fact finding trip, period. He knows nothing about anything pertinent there, and everything he knows, he has been told. He brings nothing to the table, nothing, period. And when you hear him chastise the reporters with him for asking for specific answers, he says he can't be boxed into any answers. Heck, I thought he had all the answers. This is so nonsensical. He is in over his head.

He has gotten where he is by opposing the war, period, thats about it, and for a speech, and now he is essentially rubber stamping the Bush policy. Whoopsy doo, this guy is an intellectual, "uh oh, ooh, um, uh, that is an excellent question" guy, thats about it.


Let me ask you: what did McCain learn in Iraq, that he wasn't 'told?' How did he learn these things?

Your complaints are bullshit, Okie. Seriously. Just the same post recycled over and over. And I'd really like you to explain in depth how he is 'rubber stamping the Bush policy.' For this is 100% opposite from the truth; which is that Maliki is agreeing with OBAMA'S policy positions and this is deeply embarrassing for McCain and Bush.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Tue 22 Jul, 2008 12:03 pm
Agreed, it is just recycled posts, cyclops, as is yours.

McCain has been in and out of Iraq how many times, he is a military guy, hes been there. He understands sacrifice, he understands country, he understands the military, he understands alot of things that Obama simply can't, even if he tried. Big difference, cyclops.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Tue 22 Jul, 2008 12:07 pm
I don't think Bush and McCain suffer from any "embarrassment" no matter what the issue.

That Obama is making strides not only with the governments of Iraq, some other Middle East countries, and Europe, is a big plus for Obama. Can you imagine the hoopla McCain has been making when he visits Iraq? He still doesn't know where Pakistan is located in relation to Iraq. Maybe a few more dozen trips to that part of the world will sink in for McCain.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  0  
Tue 22 Jul, 2008 12:08 pm
The Maliki thing, it turns out he does not endorse 16 months or a timetable set in stone. People jumped the gun on that one. Leaving Iraq when secure has always been the mission, period, that is Bush's policy from day 1, and Obama cannot claim it. He wanted to simply get out of Iraq, and to heck with victory, but he is now come off of that, all the way almost to the Bush policy.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Tue 22 Jul, 2008 12:10 pm
okie wrote:
The Maliki thing, it turns out he does not endorse 16 months or a timetable set in stone. People jumped the gun on that one. Leaving Iraq when secure has always been the mission, period, that is Bush's policy from day 1, and Obama cannot claim it. He wanted to simply get out of Iraq, and to heck with victory, but he is now come off of that, all the way almost to the Bush policy.

Are you naturally this deluded, or do you work at it?
0 Replies
 
H2O MAN
 
  0  
Tue 22 Jul, 2008 12:10 pm
okie wrote:


The Maliki thing, it turns out he does not endorse 16 months or a timetable set in stone. People jumped the gun on that one.

Leaving Iraq when secure has always been the mission, period, that is Bush's policy from day 1, and Obama cannot claim it.

He wanted to simply get out of Iraq, and to heck with victory, but he is now come off of that, all the way almost to the Bush policy.




+1
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  0  
Tue 22 Jul, 2008 12:11 pm
I just read the news, joe, maybe you don't?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

So....Will Biden Be VP? - Question by blueveinedthrobber
My view on Obama - Discussion by McGentrix
Obama/ Love Him or Hate Him, We've Got Him - Discussion by Phoenix32890
Obama fumbles at Faith Forum - Discussion by slkshock7
Expert: Obama is not the antichrist - Discussion by joefromchicago
Obama's State of the Union - Discussion by maxdancona
Obama 2012? - Discussion by snood
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Obama '08?
  3. » Page 1002
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.18 seconds on 07/28/2025 at 11:33:30