Obama '08?

Cycloptichorn wrote:

maporsche wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
okie wrote:
Susan Estrich: Could Obama Be Another Dukakis?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,354989,00.html

Lol, she's the authoritative source I turn to on, yeah, nothing at all.

Cycloptichorn

Did you read it?

Yes, and it was nothing more or less then what I expected.

Cycloptichorn

Well, I thought it was an article about the good chance that that Obama has to win come November, specifically this part:

Quote:

Today, the equivalent numbers are 80% wrong track. Ask any pollster and they'll tell you that there is no better indication of which party will win an election than the right track-wrong track numbers. This should be a Democratic year. Obama, if he is the candidate, will face a negative machine. But in the end, that machine cannot change the way people feel about the direction the country is heading, or the party that is responsible for it.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

okie wrote:
So I take it you can't name anything that Bush Cheney did to take away your rights. Please do not post anything you can't support with facts. This forum should be about more than somebody's vivid imagination.

I'll help - they have removed the 4th amendment rights from American citizens, in the name of 'security.'

Cycloptichorn

Nonsense, cyclops.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
okie wrote:
So I take it you can't name anything that Bush Cheney did to take away your rights. Please do not post anything you can't support with facts. This forum should be about more than somebody's vivid imagination.

I'll help - they have removed the 4th amendment rights from American citizens, in the name of 'security.'

Cycloptichorn
Nonsense, cyclops.

Sorry, but you apparently aren't up to speed on the arguments presented by the administration re: the illegal NSA wiretapping program, which is doing exactly that.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

okie wrote:
Is that a little like him having 10,000 people die in Greensburg, Kansas from the tornado? If this was McCain doing this, the media would have McCain with advanced Alzheimers and practically dead.

Yeah, like the time McCain mixed up Shiite and Sunni extremists -- the media were all over that for weeks and weeks, going on about how McCain was senile and confused.

Oh wait, that never happened. The media meekly bought McCain's excuse that he was confused and that was the end of it. Sorry, okie, we'll just have to keep searching for that elusive media double-standard. In the meantime, I'm sure it's enough that you know it exists.

You probably don't remember the endless grief given Dan Quayle for supposedly mis-spelling potato, which it turned out his spelling was also a correct spelling, but of course that was ignored. I remember hearing about that for weeks upon end, with ridicule of how stupid Quayle was. It is the media that is stupid.

In regard to Obama, it does turn out that there are 57 Islamic states, so just perhaps Obama had the wrong states on his mind?

0 Replies

okie wrote:

joefromchicago wrote:
okie wrote:
Is that a little like him having 10,000 people die in Greensburg, Kansas from the tornado? If this was McCain doing this, the media would have McCain with advanced Alzheimers and practically dead.

Yeah, like the time McCain mixed up Shiite and Sunni extremists -- the media were all over that for weeks and weeks, going on about how McCain was senile and confused.

Oh wait, that never happened. The media meekly bought McCain's excuse that he was confused and that was the end of it. Sorry, okie, we'll just have to keep searching for that elusive media double-standard. In the meantime, I'm sure it's enough that you know it exists.

You probably don't remember the endless grief given Dan Quayle for supposedly mis-spelling potato, which it turned out his spelling was also a correct spelling, but of course that was ignored. I remember hearing about that for weeks upon end, with ridicule of how stupid Quayle was. It is the media that is stupid.

In regard to Obama, it does turn out that there are 57 Islamic states, so just perhaps Obama had the wrong states on his mind?

You're being an ass, Okie.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

okie wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
okie wrote:
So I take it you can't name anything that Bush Cheney did to take away your rights. Please do not post anything you can't support with facts. This forum should be about more than somebody's vivid imagination.

I'll help - they have removed the 4th amendment rights from American citizens, in the name of 'security.'

Cycloptichorn
Nonsense, cyclops.

Sorry, but you apparently aren't up to speed on the arguments presented by the administration re: the illegal NSA wiretapping program, which is doing exactly that.

Cycloptichorn

I hope they keep wire tapping terrorist suspects, cyclops, and if they happen to check a phone call of mine in a computer summary or whatever, I don't happen to care because my phone company already has the information, and I don't think it is a violation of the 4th Amendment. You and your ilk do not have a corner on all interpretations of law, contrary to what you might believe.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

So I take it you can't name anything that Bush Cheney did to take away your rights. Please do not post anything you can't support with facts. This forum should be about more than somebody's vivid imagination.

Should be but it isn't! 1. Patriot Act, 2. Calling any person a terrorist and holding them with out charge, indefinitely; see Gitmo, 3. Warrantless Wiretaps, (illegal search and seizure). Just 3 of the most infamous charges of illegality. One more, investigating the backgrounds of the presidential candidates! See: State Department, who claims they know nothing! Anything else?
Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

teenyboone wrote:

okie wrote:
So I take it you can't name anything that Bush Cheney did to take away your rights. Please do not post anything you can't support with facts. This forum should be about more than somebody's vivid imagination.

Should be but it isn't! 1. Patriot Act, 2. Calling any person a terrorist and holding them with out charge, indefinitely; see Gitmo, 3. Warrantless Wiretaps, (illegal search and seizure). Just 3 of the most infamous charges of illegality. One more, investigating the backgrounds of the presidential candidates! See: State Department, who claims they know nothing! Anything else?

Oh, one more; thought Congress declared war! Forgot! The dunces gave their authority to the President, who is now the dictator of the US!
Cool

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

teenyboone,

I can understand and sympathize with your reactions. However, I don't think you should give way to them. I believe the essential feature of the American system (overall, compared to most others, a very successful one) is that we look to ourselves, in our own lives, our families and our local community for the principal solutions to our problems. If we give up and simply hand all this over to a government we will get all the indifference and incompetence for which governments and bureaucrats are so famous. Some of it is necessary, but the essential chores for orghanizing our lives are ours to solve.

Policicians are what they are - an uncertain combination of good and bad; of self-interest and interest in those they serve; of wisdom and foolishness; etc.

Our system forces the turnover of our leaders so that no one stays too long; and divides power among competing Executive, legislative, and Judicial bodies, so that none can completely dominate the whole. I further think it works best when the House & Senate are dominated by one party while the president is of another -- that forces them to seek compromise and limits the damage they can do.

This was one of the important defects of the Bush Administrations - with Republican control of both the White House and the Congress there was no one to limit their bad ideas. I fear the same will continue in the next Administration, only that it will be Democrats in both places - with no one to limit their bad ideas.

Each of the candidates is flawed in his/her particular way, and all of them present us with some uncertainties as to what they really are and what they really will do once in office. Do you recall G.W. Bush's promises in 2000, as he took office, for a lower profile, more "humble" and cooperative U.S. foreign policy and for added restraint on public spending? I wonder what happened to it all, and I wonder what surprises the current crop of candidates may offer us down the road.

Georgebob:
We agree on one thing, ALL of the candidates, ALL are flawed! That's why they're called: Politicians! They LIE like a rug! If you think Obama is the answer, think again! He's seems to be a buffer between us and THEM! Make up whoever you want THEM, to be!
:wink:

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
okie wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
okie wrote:
So I take it you can't name anything that Bush Cheney did to take away your rights. Please do not post anything you can't support with facts. This forum should be about more than somebody's vivid imagination.

I'll help - they have removed the 4th amendment rights from American citizens, in the name of 'security.'

Cycloptichorn
Nonsense, cyclops.

Sorry, but you apparently aren't up to speed on the arguments presented by the administration re: the illegal NSA wiretapping program, which is doing exactly that.

Cycloptichorn

I hope they keep wire tapping terrorist suspects, cyclops, and if they happen to check a phone call of mine in a computer summary or whatever, I don't happen to care because my phone company already has the information, and I don't think it is a violation of the 4th Amendment. You and your ilk do not have a corner on all interpretations of law, contrary to what you might believe.

In this case, it's not really a question of whether or not they are violating the law. They are violating the law. They have admitted to doing so. Their only argument is that the law shouldn't apply. But that's for the courts to decide; as things stand currently, the laws DO bind them and they are in violation of it.

The only reason the gov't hasn't been sued in court, is because 3 different Bush-appointed judges have ruled that the people bringing the cases lack standing to do so; these cases are all under appeal at the moment.

The push for Telecom immunity that Bush has hung his hat on has little to do with the telephone companies themselves and a lot to do with immunity for the Executive branch. But I think that we both know that you wouldn't care if they were breaking the law. Would you?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

okie wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
okie wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
okie wrote:
So I take it you can't name anything that Bush Cheney did to take away your rights. Please do not post anything you can't support with facts. This forum should be about more than somebody's vivid imagination.

I'll help - they have removed the 4th amendment rights from American citizens, in the name of 'security.'

Cycloptichorn
Nonsense, cyclops.

Sorry, but you apparently aren't up to speed on the arguments presented by the administration re: the illegal NSA wiretapping program, which is doing exactly that.

Cycloptichorn

I hope they keep wire tapping terrorist suspects, cyclops, and if they happen to check a phone call of mine in a computer summary or whatever, I don't happen to care because my phone company already has the information, and I don't think it is a violation of the 4th Amendment. You and your ilk do not have a corner on all interpretations of law, contrary to what you might believe.

In this case, it's not really a question of whether or not they are violating the law. They are violating the law. They have admitted to doing so. Their only argument is that the law shouldn't apply. But that's for the courts to decide; as things stand currently, the laws DO bind them and they are in violation of it.

The only reason the gov't hasn't been sued in court, is because 3 different Bush-appointed judges have ruled that the people bringing the cases lack standing to do so; these cases are all under appeal at the moment.

The push for Telecom immunity that Bush has hung his hat on has little to do with the telephone companies themselves and a lot to do with immunity for the Executive branch. But I think that we both know that you wouldn't care if they were breaking the law. Would you?

Cycloptichorn

I'll chime in and remind Okie about...

1) The death of Habaes corpus - You can be detained without charge.
2) The death of probable cause - You home can be entered when you are not present. So much for due process.
3) As for you wanting terrorists to be watched, that's fine, but it's a joke that you believe that the system works. It was leaked that Nelson Mandela was on the watch list of over 500,000 people. When asked, Condeleeza Rice mentioned how this was "frankly embarrassing."
4) As mentioned already domestic wiretapping.

As a side note to that, they've used mercenary groups like Black Water which answer to nobody but them and we can offer no accountability for. I can't even begin to tell you the horror stories about what those twisted people are doing in Iraq. My friend is on his third tour now, and he has told me. It's all very disturbing. It's defaced our presence in Iraq, and it shames us.

T
K
O

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

In this case, it's not really a question of whether or not they are violating the law. They are violating the law. They have admitted to doing so. Their only argument is that the law shouldn't apply. But that's for the courts to decide; as things stand currently, the laws DO bind them and they are in violation of it.

That sort of blows away your whole "Bush has removed our 4th Amendment rights" screed, doesn't it?

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

I'll chime in and remind Okie about...

1) The death of Habaes corpus - You can be detained without charge.

Who can be detained without charge?

Quote:

2) The death of probable cause - You home can be entered when you are not present. So much for due process.

What has changed here? You think you needed to be present for a search warrant prior to the Patriot Act?

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

Diest TKO wrote:
I'll chime in and remind Okie about...

1) The death of Habaes corpus - You can be detained without charge.

Who can be detained without charge?

My answer is that if they wish to detain someone, they will. All they will have to do is justify it with the buzz phrase "terrorist suspect."

I understand we have to do investigations, but you are innocent until proven guilty in this country, even if you are foreign. If we are going to detain individuals, like this, then charge them, and send them to trial.

Ticomaya wrote:

Quote:
2) The death of probable cause - You home can be entered when you are not present. So much for due process.

What has changed here? You think you needed to be present for a search warrant prior to the Patriot Act?

Perhaps I didn't make this clear enough. It's not so much that you aren't there, but at least you knew then (prior to PA) that they were there at all.

T
K
O

0 Replies

teenyboone wrote:

teenyboone wrote:
okie wrote:
So I take it you can't name anything that Bush Cheney did to take away your rights. Please do not post anything you can't support with facts. This forum should be about more than somebody's vivid imagination.

Should be but it isn't! 1. Patriot Act, 2. Calling any person a terrorist and holding them with out charge, indefinitely; see Gitmo, 3. Warrantless Wiretaps, (illegal search and seizure). Just 3 of the most infamous charges of illegality. One more, investigating the backgrounds of the presidential candidates! See: State Department, who claims they know nothing! Anything else?

Oh, one more; thought Congress declared war! Forgot! The dunces gave their authority to the President, who is now the dictator of the US!

No. 1, holding enemy combatants is the responsibility, not just a right, but a responsibility of any president, to protect the country. There is no violation or usurping of any rights that you have as a citizen of this country. No. 2, the Patriot Act, you need to thank your lucky stars for it, as it has been not only needed, but necessary to fight the war on terrorism. Unless you want the president to do nothing so that you can have the next 911 be dropped on where you live, I would suggest you be grateful, and no rights of yours have been taken away. Gitmo is a place to hold enemy combatants, and I read just a couple of days ago that one person that was released turned up in Iraq setting deadly bombs against our military personnel. By the way, even though we treat prisoners according to the Geneva Conventions, terrorists do not qualify for that treatment, as they do not wear a uniform or represent any country that ever signed onto the agreement. It is only our due benevolence that we treat our prisoners better than they do ours. They sever the heads of ours. 3. - Warrantless wiretaps, this is an errant interpretation of the 4th Amendment, and is not taking away any of your rights. It is entirely within the rights and responsibilities of the commander in chief in the course of protecting the country.

Lastly, investigating the backgrounds of presidential candidates, I seem to remember the Clintons illegally having FBI files on lots of people and nobody seemed to care at the time.

0 Replies

I hate to disappoint the koolaid drinkers here, but Bush Cheney have never taken away anybody's rights, relax. Thank goodness they take the jobs seriously, and because of that, no more 911s like what happened after the Clintonistas were goofing off and ignoring their duties for 8 years.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

okie wrote:
joefromchicago wrote:
okie wrote:
Is that a little like him having 10,000 people die in Greensburg, Kansas from the tornado? If this was McCain doing this, the media would have McCain with advanced Alzheimers and practically dead.

Yeah, like the time McCain mixed up Shiite and Sunni extremists -- the media were all over that for weeks and weeks, going on about how McCain was senile and confused.

Oh wait, that never happened. The media meekly bought McCain's excuse that he was confused and that was the end of it. Sorry, okie, we'll just have to keep searching for that elusive media double-standard. In the meantime, I'm sure it's enough that you know it exists.

You probably don't remember the endless grief given Dan Quayle for supposedly mis-spelling potato, which it turned out his spelling was also a correct spelling, but of course that was ignored. I remember hearing about that for weeks upon end, with ridicule of how stupid Quayle was. It is the media that is stupid.

In regard to Obama, it does turn out that there are 57 Islamic states, so just perhaps Obama had the wrong states on his mind?

You're being an ass, Okie.

Cycloptichorn

No, I'm just looking for explanations. I heard the tape of Obama, and it didn't seem like he said it quickly without thinking, he paused and obviously tried to get the number right, or it seemed so, just before saying 57. I honestly don't think Obama is that astute anymore, not after reading his book, and particularly at the end of the book after I read all of his acknowledgements of help on the foreign policy, etc. When I was reading the book, I thought yes, the man is pretty intelligent, but toward the end my confidence level dropped considerably.

The more Obama is held accountable for providing specific facts and substance on actual policy details, I think there is a real risk he falls flatter than a pancake. As long as he has a tele-prompter or his handlers preparing his answers for him ahead of time, fine, and thats why prepared speeches go over better than unscripted moments. I think many people have been led to believe he is more intelligent or informed than he is. I think he is intelligent, but informed, I am more skeptical than ever.

0 Replies

teenyboone wrote:

Georgebob:
We agree on one thing, ALL of the candidates, ALL are flawed! That's why they're called: Politicians! They LIE like a rug! If you think Obama is the answer, think again! He's seems to be a buffer between us and THEM! Make up whoever you want THEM, to be!
:wink:

Indeed we do agree on that ! Regrettable though it is.

Mccain has been in public office for a fairly long time so we can come up with a pretty good fix on the strengths & weaknesses he has, the fixed and the variable principles that appear to guide his actions & choices; and we have a public record of his votes, agaist which to callibrate the promises and committments he makes in the current campaign. The result is (in my view) a pretty mixed bag of good & bad on various issues, but, despite that, a better-than-average (tho not perfect) record of truth-telling.

Clinton has a lot of time in the public eye - but most of it not in office - which gives us some reference points, but probably not as extensive as McCain's. Still, I think most of us are confident we know what to expect from her, given the Clinton tradition of "triangulation" (to avoid the extremes) on hotly disputed issues, and a general tendency towards centrism.

Obama presents, by far, the most in terms of hope and inspiration, but the least in terms of a public record, against which to measure his promises and evaluate his real character and beliefs. Not a lot he can do about that, but it is a fact nonetheless. This is what makes things like the Wright matter or his words to the San Francisco fat cat contributors so unselttling -- we just don't have much else to go on. I don't know whether he is just an eloquent and persuasive advocate of the far left in the Democrat party (as his Senate voting record to date appears to indicate) or the far-sighted visionary he claims to be in his very effective rhetoric. Potential high positives, but accompanied by high uncertainties.

Though we all approach the problem with different perspectives and equally different policy preferences, we all end up trying to deal with the same trade-offs and uncertainties. And all that is - the hell of it.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
okie wrote:
joefromchicago wrote:
okie wrote:
Is that a little like him having 10,000 people die in Greensburg, Kansas from the tornado? If this was McCain doing this, the media would have McCain with advanced Alzheimers and practically dead.

Yeah, like the time McCain mixed up Shiite and Sunni extremists -- the media were all over that for weeks and weeks, going on about how McCain was senile and confused.

Oh wait, that never happened. The media meekly bought McCain's excuse that he was confused and that was the end of it. Sorry, okie, we'll just have to keep searching for that elusive media double-standard. In the meantime, I'm sure it's enough that you know it exists.

You probably don't remember the endless grief given Dan Quayle for supposedly mis-spelling potato, which it turned out his spelling was also a correct spelling, but of course that was ignored. I remember hearing about that for weeks upon end, with ridicule of how stupid Quayle was. It is the media that is stupid.

In regard to Obama, it does turn out that there are 57 Islamic states, so just perhaps Obama had the wrong states on his mind?

You're being an ass, Okie.

Cycloptichorn

No, I'm just looking for explanations. I heard the tape of Obama, and it didn't seem like he said it quickly without thinking, he paused and obviously tried to get the number right, or it seemed so, just before saying 57. I honestly don't think Obama is that astute anymore, not after reading his book, and particularly at the end of the book after I read all of his acknowledgements of help on the foreign policy, etc. When I was reading the book, I thought yes, the man is pretty intelligent, but toward the end my confidence level dropped considerably.

The more Obama is held accountable for providing specific facts and substance on actual policy details, I think there is a real risk he falls flatter than a pancake. As long as he has a tele-prompter or his handlers preparing his answers for him ahead of time, fine, and thats why prepared speeches go over better than unscripted moments. I think many people have been led to believe he is more intelligent or informed than he is. I think he is intelligent, but informed, I am more skeptical than ever.

You're welcome to your opinion, of course, but the '57 Islaamic states' part was an example of you being an ass. Spreading a slur.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
In this case, it's not really a question of whether or not they are violating the law. They are violating the law. They have admitted to doing so. Their only argument is that the law shouldn't apply. But that's for the courts to decide; as things stand currently, the laws DO bind them and they are in violation of it.

That sort of blows away your whole "Bush has removed our 4th Amendment rights" screed, doesn't it?

Uh, nope?

Where have you become confused, one must wonder?

Just b/c the rights still exist doesn't mean that the gov't respects those rights; and we have little ability to stop them from doing so outside of legal action, which is ongoing.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know