Obama '08?

cicerone imposter wrote:

hanno, That would include the Geneva Conventions and the UN; they are international orgs.

Which we founded to help Europe control themselves and have disobeyed in the past when those losers bit the hand that fed and tried to use 'em to tell us what to do. There is no order of sovereignty higher than that enjoyed by the US - if we quit agreeing with something we used to agree with, what are they going to do, arrest us? Trade sanctions? I wish, it would be like keeping jobs in America but without the isolationism and letting them work over their own economies a bit. Nobody is going to step in on us and there's no intrinsic authority in international law - invariably it's a more squalid, half corrupt, makeshift compromise than federal law.

0 Replies

realjohnboy wrote:

The god named Odin was the boss god. Note that Nimh and Odin both are four letters long and share two letters.

Heh. I doubt that he thought it through that far, but you are definitely clever for thinking of it.

However, Holland is hardly Northern Europe - we never had anything to do with those Vikings and stuff.

0 Replies

I know that London and Amsterdam are on, roughly, the same latitude,. The Hague and Rotterdam are even closer. I thought I could slip the refenence to Northern Eupope by unnoticed. Geography is not much taught in the states anymore, I fear.

Why does this relate to Obama? I can't recall, but it made sense at the time.

0 Replies

In response to this post

Quote:

It seems to upset you mightily if someone has a differing opinion of what she actually said, though. Why is that?

Because it is taking something clearly meant in a good way for good reason and putting negative tones to it when I don't think she meant it that way when you consider her words in the context surrounding them.

But never mind; you have you mind made up and that is that.

0 Replies

hanno, It does't matter the reasos why we helped create the UN or why we participated in the Geneva Convetion; that does not excuse our ignoring laws we are signatores of. If we make agreements with other countries to abide by its laws, we must comply. If you can't see that simple truth, there's no use even discussing these issues with you.

0 Replies

revel wrote:

In response to this post

Quote:
It seems to upset you mightily if someone has a differing opinion of what she actually said, though. Why is that?

Because it is taking something clearly meant in a good way for good reason and putting negative tones to it when I don't think she meant it that way when you consider her words in the context surrounding them.

But never mind; you have you mind made up and that is that.

So, just for clarification, you think that the British journalist took her words out of context and spun them in a negative way out of hate for Obama?

And your fellow Democrats who criticize Obama (there are a few of them, believe it or not), are they also 'haters'? Don't be afraid to speak your mind here.

0 Replies

Getting a bit lost here. Who was the "British journalist?"

0 Replies

nappyheadedhohoho wrote:

revel wrote:
In response to this post

Quote:
It seems to upset you mightily if someone has a differing opinion of what she actually said, though. Why is that?

Because it is taking something clearly meant in a good way for good reason and putting negative tones to it when I don't think she meant it that way when you consider her words in the context surrounding them.

But never mind; you have you mind made up and that is that.

So, just for clarification, you think that the British journalist took her words out of context and spun them in a negative way out of hate for Obama?

And your fellow Democrats who criticize Obama (there are a few of them, believe it or not), are they also 'haters'? Don't be afraid to speak your mind here.

Some of them are haters, yes. Now, is a hater a person who quite literally is full of hate? Not always. The term in popular parlance is used to describe someone who seeks to tear others down, b/c they've nothing positive to put up instead.

For example, you are a hater. You attack Obama in lieu of promoting a different, positive idea.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Some of them are haters, yes. Now, is a hater a person who quite literally is full of hate? Not always. The term in popular parlance is used to describe someone who seeks to tear others down, b/c they've nothing positive to put up instead.

For example, you are a hater. You attack Obama in lieu of promoting a different, positive idea.

Cycloptichorn

Do you assume that anyone who offers a criticism of Obama's candidacy is necessarily a hater because of that?

Do you also assume that anyone who enthisiastically endorses Obama, while at the same time attempting to silence his critics, is necessarily not a hater?

Sounds like doubletalk to me.

0 Replies

JPB wrote:

not disagreeing with your positions, ci, just saying that folks have probably made up their minds within the parties as to who they will support, but much less so in the general.

There are folks like me (anyone but Hillary or a theocrat), folks like maporsche (anyone but Obama), and I'm sure there are plenty of anyone but McCain folks wandering around. Obama vs McCain will be a very interesting race in the general.

To clarify, "anyone by Obama or a theocrat" would be a more accurate take on my position as well. I could not imagine Huckabee in the WH, although personally I like the guy.

Now that Nader is running, the guy has my vote. I've always liked Nader.

0 Replies

nappyheadedhohoho wrote:

revel wrote:
In response to this post

Quote:
It seems to upset you mightily if someone has a differing opinion of what she actually said, though. Why is that?

Because it is taking something clearly meant in a good way for good reason and putting negative tones to it when I don't think she meant it that way when you consider her words in the context surrounding them.

But never mind; you have you mind made up and that is that.

So, just for clarification, you think that the British journalist took her words out of context and spun them in a negative way out of hate for Obama?

And your fellow Democrats who criticize Obama (there are a few of them, believe it or not), are they also 'haters'? Don't be afraid to speak your mind here.

Perhaps haters is not quite the right word; but; there does seem to be a huge dislike for Obama from even some (though not many as there are so many Obama supporters) democrats who have been trying to take anything to turn into a negative for Obama and his campaign. The same can be said for Bush 'haters' but unlike Bush criticism; his is all provable and deserved. The criticism of Obama has not been accurate and in some cases like the one we are discussing; twisted out context. IMO

0 Replies

maporsche wrote:

JPB wrote:
not disagreeing with your positions, ci, just saying that folks have probably made up their minds within the parties as to who they will support, but much less so in the general.

There are folks like me (anyone but Hillary or a theocrat), folks like maporsche (anyone but Obama), and I'm sure there are plenty of anyone but McCain folks wandering around. Obama vs McCain will be a very interesting race in the general.

To clarify, "anyone by Obama or a theocrat" would be a more accurate take on my position as well. I could not imagine Huckabee in the WH, although personally I like the guy.

Now that Nader is running, the guy has my vote. I've always liked Nader.

Can you provide us with the "reasons" (both the good and the bad) you are picking Nader? You might convince me to look at his candidacy.

0 Replies

Well, for one, Nader is older than McCain. So he's got that going for him.

I really think you ought to vote for Nader, c.i.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Can you provide us with the "reasons" (both the good and the bad) you are picking Nader? You might convince me to look at his candidacy.

He doesn't have much on his website right now as far as current issues and proposals. I imagine that will change over the next few weeks (he is about a year behind everyone else).

Some highlights for me though:

For a single payer healthcare system.
For cutting the military budget.

http://www.votenader.org/issues/

0 Replies

Heh...!

Starting with Swimpy in Iowa I've been so interested in people's takes as the primaries roll into town -- things have certainly gotten crazy in Ohio. Phone is ringing off the hook. In the space of about half an hour we got a) a robo-call from Hillary, b) a real-person call, asking for me by name, from a Hillary supporter in Ohio, and c) a call for a poll.

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

Well, for one, Nader is older than McCain. So he's got that going for him.

Heh :wink:

And Maporsche, since I saw you say elsewhere that you'd vote for McCain over Obama, Nader sounds like a good alternative Cool

0 Replies

And nine days to go Sozobe!

0 Replies

A good list of Nader initiatives, but realistically, how many will he be able to pass?

I don't agree with a single payer health care system, but all the others sounds like the right direction for our country.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

A good list of Nader initiatives, but realistically, how many will he be able to pass?

Same question for either Cliton or Obama.

0 Replies

realjohnboy wrote:

And nine days to go Sozobe!

Yep! Lots of ground to make up if the goal is a win, though. (I think a more realistic goal is to not lose by a lot.)

Interesting info about Ohio from Pollster.com:

http://www.pollster.com/blogs/the_differences_between_ohio_a.php

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know