gustavratzenhofer
 
  2  
Sat 9 Aug, 2008 04:55 pm
Give me five, snood.
0 Replies
 
Ramafuchs
 
  1  
Sat 9 Aug, 2008 04:57 pm
Michael Moore
an American reflects my views in better English.Read slowly and reflect deeply.

Let's snatch defeat from the jaws of victory."
"We never met an election we'd like to win."
"Why get elected when you can be defeated!"

These have been the mantras of the Democratic Party. Beginning with their stunning inability to defeat the most detested politician in American history, Richard Nixon, and continuing through their stunning inability to defeat the most detested politician in the world, George II, the Democrats are the masters of blowing it. And they don't just simply "blow it" - they blow it especially when the electorate seems desperate to give it to them.

After eight years of Ronald Reagan in the Oval Office, the public had seen enough. The Democrats chose Michael Dukakis as their nominee. Two months before the election, he was ahead of Bush I in the polls. Then he went to an army tank factory in Michigan, put on some kind of stupid-fitting helmet and rode around in a tank with a goofy smile on his face. Weeks later, when asked what kind of punishment he would like to see given to someone who might rape his wife, he started mumbling some sort of bleeding-heart gibberish instead of just saying what anyone would say: "I'd like to tear the bastard limb from limb!" The voters were so put off by his wimpiness, they elected an actual wimp over him, George H W Bush.

For years now, nearly every poll has shown that the American people are right in sync with the platform of the Democratic Party. They are pro-environment, pro-women's rights, pro-choice, they don't like war, they want the minimum wage raised, and they want a single-payer universal healthcare system. The American public agrees with the Republican Party on only one major issue: they support the death penalty.

So you would think, with more than 200 million eligible voters, the Dems would be cleaning up, election after election. Obviously not. The Democrats appear to be professional losers. They are so pathetic in their ability to win elections, they even lose when they win! Al Gore won the 2000 election, but for some strange reason he didn't become the president of the United States.

If you are unable as a party to get the landlord to turn over the keys to a house that is yours, what the hell good are you?

Well, in 2006, the Dems had a come-to-Jesus meeting with themselves and, under the leadership of Rahm Emanuel, won so many House seats, they just waltzed in and took the place over. What a great day that was, seeing Nancy Pelosi bang the gavel down to open Congress. And what was her first act? To declare that any discussion of the impeachment of George W Bush was verboten and no one was ever to bring it up again. And that was that. It sent a clear message to Bush that he could just keep doing what he'd been doing for the first six years. The result? That's exactly what he did, with Congress authorising every war funding bill he sent to them. How did the American people respond? Congress's approval rating sank lower than Bush's. How disgusting do you have to be to sink lower in the public's eyes than a man who can't even successfully choke himself on a pretzel?

So when you hear Democrats and liberals and Obama supporters say they are worried McCain has a good chance of winning, they ain't a-kidding. Who would know better than the very people who have handed the Republicans one election after another on a silver platter? Yes, be afraid, be very afraid.

After the debacles of Iraq, Katrina, gas prices, home foreclosures, our standing in the world, the failure to capture Bin Laden, and revealing the identity of a CIA agent in an act of revenge, it would seem that Barack Obama should be on a cakewalk to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. The man should be able to sleep his way through the rest of the campaign season.

Ha! Think again. How many Democrats does it take to lose the most easily winnable election in American history? Not many. Just a few "close advisers" to Barack Obama who tell him a bunch of asinine stuff and he ends up listening to them instead of his own heart. As the party hacks in the past two elections have proven, once they get the candidate's ear, the rest of us might just as well order pizza and stay inside for the next four years.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article20473.htm
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  2  
Sat 9 Aug, 2008 05:05 pm
gustavratzenhofer wrote:
Give me five, snood.


I only got 2 right now, but I'll owe ya 3.
0 Replies
 
maporsche
 
  1  
Sat 9 Aug, 2008 06:28 pm
Quote:
Just a few "close advisers" to Barack Obama who tell him a bunch of asinine stuff and he ends up listening to them instead of his own heart.


How does MM know what's in Obama's heart? Maybe it's just wishful thinking.
0 Replies
 
Ramafuchs
 
  1  
Sat 9 Aug, 2008 06:44 pm
No, sir . It is not.
0 Replies
 
maporsche
 
  1  
Sat 9 Aug, 2008 10:39 pm
"The public sucks; F*&k hope!"

http://www.youtube.com/v/0u6lCBnRoHQ&hl=en&fs=1
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Sun 10 Aug, 2008 02:46 am
maporsche wrote:
Quote:
Just a few "close advisers" to Barack Obama who tell him a bunch of asinine stuff and he ends up listening to them instead of his own heart.


How does MM know what's in Obama's heart? Maybe it's just wishful thinking.


I just went thru my posts on this thread.
Would you care to show me where I ever said that?
0 Replies
 
Butrflynet
 
  1  
Sun 10 Aug, 2008 03:36 am
MM, it's a quote from the Michael Moore article posted above by Ramafuchs. It's the last or second to last paragraph.

I have no explanation as to the workings of the Maporche mind that enabled a connection to you. A guess would be that the connection is that you were the last to post a question about an issue in the campaign.



Moving on, any additional thoughts about the bit in the article Nimh posted about the circular connection with the Wall Street Journal behind it all?

The whole thing seems like an orchestrated ratings stunt to me. Too bad it won't backfire on the WSJ.
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Sun 10 Aug, 2008 06:17 am
Butrflynet wrote:
MM, it's a quote from the Michael Moore article posted above by Ramafuchs. It's the last or second to last paragraph.

I have no explanation as to the workings of the Maporche mind that enabled a connection to you. A guess would be that the connection is that you were the last to post a question about an issue in the campaign.




Maporsche asked 'How does MM know what's in Obama's heart?'

He was referring to Michael Moore, not mysteryman.
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Sun 10 Aug, 2008 06:26 am
Moving on, (so to speak), I think it's obvious that MM (Michael Moore) is an accomplished demagogue.

'Americans don't like war, therefore they agree with the Democrats' as if the Republican position is 'we like war'.

I'm tempted to say 'what an idiot'. But he's not. He's actually quite bright.

He is , however, counting on many Americans being idiots and not reading past his demagoguery.

Neither political party is 'pro-war'. Hatred of war is nearly universal among Americans (granted there are a few in both camps who probably can't qualify for the mainstream here).

The fact is that most Republicans understand that avoiding war isn't always possible.

The Dems have apparently taken the position that NO war can ever be justified under any circumstances.

Or else they just think we're all idiots.

Democrats who don't understand (or don't want to understand ) our responsibility in Iraq extends in an unbroken line from 1990 are simply playing politics with this current phase of that war.

Shame on them.
0 Replies
 
Butrflynet
 
  1  
Sun 10 Aug, 2008 07:12 am
"Invasion of Georgia" a "3 a.m. moment" for the candidates Read more details of the statements and reactions at the link.


Quote:

'Invasion of Georgia' a �'3 a.m. moment'
By: Ben Smith
August 9, 2008 09:23 PM EST
When the North Caucasus slid into war Thursday night, it presented John McCain and Barack Obama with a true "3 a.m. moment," and their responses to the crisis suggested dramatic differences in how each candidate, as president, would lead America in moments of international crisis.

...

While Obama offered a response largely in line with statements issued by democratically elected world leaders, including President Bush, first calling on both sides to negotiate, John McCain took a remarkably �- and uniquely �- more aggressive stance, siding clearly with Georgia's pro-Western leaders and placing the blame for the conflict entirely on Russia.

...

Obama's statement put him in line with the White House, the European Union, NATO and a series of European powers, while McCain's initial statement �- which he delivered in Iowa and ran on a blog on his Web site under the title "McCain Statement on Russian Invasion of Georgia" �- put him more closely in line with the moral clarity and American exceptionalism projected by President Bush's first term.

A McCain adviser suggested that Obama's statement constituted appeasement, while Obama's camp suggested that McCain was being needlessly belligerent and dangerously quick to judge a complicated situation.

...
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Sun 10 Aug, 2008 08:33 am
Butrflynet wrote:
"Invasion of Georgia" a "3 a.m. moment" for the candidates Read more details of the statements and reactions at the link.


Quote:

'Invasion of Georgia' a �'3 a.m. moment'
By: Ben Smith
August 9, 2008 09:23 PM EST
When the North Caucasus slid into war Thursday night, it presented John McCain and Barack Obama with a true "3 a.m. moment," and their responses to the crisis suggested dramatic differences in how each candidate, as president, would lead America in moments of international crisis.

...

While Obama offered a response largely in line with statements issued by democratically elected world leaders, including President Bush, first calling on both sides to negotiate, John McCain took a remarkably �- and uniquely �- more aggressive stance, siding clearly with Georgia's pro-Western leaders and placing the blame for the conflict entirely on Russia.

...

Obama's statement put him in line with the White House, the European Union, NATO and a series of European powers, while McCain's initial statement �- which he delivered in Iowa and ran on a blog on his Web site under the title "McCain Statement on Russian Invasion of Georgia" �- put him more closely in line with the moral clarity and American exceptionalism projected by President Bush's first term.

...


Bull.

A) John McCain is simply right here, and he shouldnt be upbraided just because the EU leaders (whom I supposed are meant with the "democratically elected world leaders" bit) lack the balls to speak up against Russia's interventionism.

B) McCain's assertive denouncement of Russia's invasion and bombing of Georgian territory doesnt put him in line with Bush's first term. If anything, Russia's invasion of Georgia puts Putin in line with Bush's first term and its sabrerattling hunger for military action, invasion and creating a zone of influence through military means. It puts McCain in line with the minority of Western heads of state who dared to speak up against Bush's invasion.
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Sun 10 Aug, 2008 09:08 am
nimh wrote:
B) McCain's assertive denouncement of Russia's invasion and bombing of Georgian territory doesnt put him in line with Bush's first term. If anything, Russia's invasion of Georgia puts Putin in line with Bush's first term and its sabrerattling hunger for military action, invasion and creating a zone of influence through military means. It puts McCain in line with the minority of Western heads of state who dared to speak up against Bush's invasion.


That's an interesting interpretation, nimh. I like it.

However, you could also argue that South Ossetia, even though nominally part of Georgia, has been an independent region with a different ethnic makeup, de facto a country within a country, for quite a while.

Saakashvili - even though democratically elected and with an education from American universities - has been running on a nationalist platform. The bombing of Tskhinvali, the accusations of ethic cleansing, the nationalist rhetoric - all of this has a whiff of the Balkans conflict.

Which would put South Ossetia in the position the Kosovo, and Saakashvili's Georgia in the position of the Serbs.

And that, in turn, would put McCain in line with the Clinton administration.
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Sun 10 Aug, 2008 09:21 am
And as a P.S. to what nimh already pointed out...

Quote:
John McCain's top foreign policy adviser, Randy Scheunemann, defended McCain's direct criticism of Russia in the early hours of the crisis.

"Sen. McCain is clearly willing to note who he thinks is the aggressor here," he said, dismissing the notion that Georgia's move into its renegade province had precipitated the crisis. "I don't think you can excuse, defend, explain or make allowance for Russian behavior because of what is going on in Georgia."



That last sentence, in particular, is almost exactly the same position that critics in Europe took when America invaded Iraq. That despite of the legitimate concern about what Saddam had been doing, it didn't warrant a unilateral military intervention and violation of sovereignty of a small, militarily inferior country by a superpower - with a vested interest in the region.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Sun 10 Aug, 2008 09:28 am
old europe wrote:
And as a P.S. to what nimh already pointed out...

Quote:
John McCain's top foreign policy adviser, Randy Scheunemann, defended McCain's direct criticism of Russia in the early hours of the crisis.

"Sen. McCain is clearly willing to note who he thinks is the aggressor here," he said, dismissing the notion that Georgia's move into its renegade province had precipitated the crisis. "I don't think you can excuse, defend, explain or make allowance for Russian behavior because of what is going on in Georgia."



That last sentence, in particular, is almost exactly the same position that critics in Europe took when America invaded Iraq. That despite of the legitimate concern about what Saddam had been doing, it didn't warrant a unilateral military intervention and violation of sovereignty of a small, militarily inferior country by a superpower - with a vested interest in the region.


There's irony there that I'm sure McCain missed by a mile. LOL
0 Replies
 
maporsche
 
  1  
Sun 10 Aug, 2008 11:31 am
real life wrote:
Butrflynet wrote:
MM, it's a quote from the Michael Moore article posted above by Ramafuchs. It's the last or second to last paragraph.

I have no explanation as to the workings of the Maporche mind that enabled a connection to you. A guess would be that the connection is that you were the last to post a question about an issue in the campaign.




Maporsche asked 'How does MM know what's in Obama's heart?'

He was referring to Michael Moore, not mysteryman.


Yes...meant Michael Moore...sorry for the confusion.

Still curious how he knows the inner workings of Obama....
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  2  
Sun 10 Aug, 2008 12:57 pm
old europe wrote:
And as a P.S. to what nimh already pointed out...

Quote:
John McCain's top foreign policy adviser, Randy Scheunemann, defended McCain's direct criticism of Russia in the early hours of the crisis.

"Sen. McCain is clearly willing to note who he thinks is the aggressor here," he said, dismissing the notion that Georgia's move into its renegade province had precipitated the crisis. "I don't think you can excuse, defend, explain or make allowance for Russian behavior because of what is going on in Georgia."



That last sentence, in particular, is almost exactly the same position that critics in Europe took when America invaded Iraq. That despite of the legitimate concern about what Saddam had been doing, it didn't warrant a unilateral military intervention and violation of sovereignty of a small, militarily inferior country by a superpower - with a vested interest in the region.


Exactly. Which makes McCain right on Georgia like he was wrong on Iraq.

If the Obama campaign is hitting on McCain on this (and apparently it is, hinting that McCain's position is just informed by having a lobbyist for Georgia on its campaign), it's well misguided about what the salient issue here is. It would be nice if sometimes people could look further than what points can be scored domestically for their campaign.

Anyway, there's a good, ongoing thread on Georgia that's been revived/updated occasionally, and now again, which has some good links etc.
0 Replies
 
Ramafuchs
 
  1  
Sun 10 Aug, 2008 01:03 pm
Branding all critical persons around the globe as Anti Americans will pave way for more humanbeings than the flag-waving parochial party affliated consumers
0 Replies
 
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Sun 10 Aug, 2008 02:50 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
old europe wrote:
And as a P.S. to what nimh already pointed out...

Quote:
John McCain's top foreign policy adviser, Randy Scheunemann, defended McCain's direct criticism of Russia in the early hours of the crisis.

"Sen. McCain is clearly willing to note who he thinks is the aggressor here," he said, dismissing the notion that Georgia's move into its renegade province had precipitated the crisis. "I don't think you can excuse, defend, explain or make allowance for Russian behavior because of what is going on in Georgia."



That last sentence, in particular, is almost exactly the same position that critics in Europe took when America invaded Iraq. That despite of the legitimate concern about what Saddam had been doing, it didn't warrant a unilateral military intervention and violation of sovereignty of a small, militarily inferior country by a superpower - with a vested interest in the region.


There's irony there that I'm sure McCain missed by a mile. LOL


I think McCain is right about condemning Russia's acts, but I'd note that Obama didn't support them as much as called for a thought out bureaucratic response.

Condemning Russia is one thing, but what would McCain have the US do? Are we so used to flexing our military muscles that we've atrophied in our other ones? If we are to help Georgia, I think we should be organizing interantionally.

Is Russia going to take us seriously? We are stretched out in two wars already.

T
K
O
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Sun 10 Aug, 2008 03:00 pm
That's the reason Russia acted now when the US is already over-stretched in our military, and our ability to call in our allies have been weakened to the point our superpower status has been degraded to impotence.

Bashing Russia for what we've done to Iraq is counter-productive. I'm sure most in Europe and Asia just laugh at our rhetoric.
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 1053
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.21 seconds on 01/13/2025 at 11:08:22