nimh wrote:Ah, but you forget - I'm an anarchist.
It's open season on anarchists and wild pigs 365 days a year here in MI. All you need is a valid hunting license.
kickycan wrote:revel wrote:woiyo wrote:"The wrong change looks not to the future but to the past for solutions that have failed us before and will surely fail us again," McCain, 71, said in suburban New Orleans. "I have a few years on my opponent, so I am surprised that a young man has bought into so many failed ideas."
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080604/D9137A880.html
Just the beginning of a fun filled campaign.
What are those failed ideas and how are they failed is the question. I imagine he is talking about Obama's statement about talking with Iran. That is not a failed idea. The failed idea is not talking with our enemies which is the same ole same ole policies of this administration.
I think he's talking about liberalism in general. I heard Karl Rove on Fox "News" saying exactly that last night during his "objective analysis" of Obama's speech.
Obama shouldn't let the Rove machine get away with vague generalizations with catchy phrases. Make them be specific and then debate the issues one by one.
Ticomaya wrote:Quote:Obama's Evolving Position on Talking to Iran
June 04, 2008 11:29 AM
ABC News' Jonathan Karl Reports: Sen. Barack Obama's position on talking to Iran has been evolving since last year's CNN/Youtube debate, when he said he would be willing to meet "without precondition" with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea during the first year of his administration.
During a speech before a pro-Israel group on Wednesday, however, Obama, D-Ill., who clinched the delegates necessary to claim the Democratic nomination on Tuesday, presented an entirely different position:
"Contrary to the claims to some, I have no interest in sitting down with our adversaries just for the sake of talking. But as president of the United States, I would be willing to lead tough and principled diplomacy with the appropriate Iranian leaders at a time and place of my choosing if and only if it can advance the interest of the United States. That is my position. I want to be absolutely clear."
Compare that with what Obama said during the CNN/Youtube debate:
QUESTION: Would you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea?
OBAMA: "I would. And the reason is this: the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them--which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration -- is ridiculous. Ronald Reagan constantly spoke to Soviet Union at a time when he called them an evil empire. He understood that we may not trust them and they may pose an extraordinary danger to this country, but we had the obligation to find areas where we can potentially move forward. And I think that it is a disgrace that we have not spoken to them."
But now Obama has put a major condition on his willingness to meet with Iran: he will meet only if such a meeting advances the interests of the U.S.
That is not much different from the Bush Administration's position on negotiations with Iran.
Secretary Rice has said repeatedly that she would meet with Iran if it agreed to suspend its enrichment program. As she says often, "The question is not why won't the U.S meet with Iran. The question is why won't Iran meet with the U.S."
He's such a noob.
He's going to kick Grandpa John's teeth right in.
Cycloptichorn
Ticomaya wrote:Quote:Obama's Evolving Position on Talking to Iran
June 04, 2008 11:29 AM
ABC News' Jonathan Karl Reports: Sen. Barack Obama's position on talking to Iran has been evolving since last year's CNN/Youtube debate, when he said he would be willing to meet "without precondition" with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea during the first year of his administration.
During a speech before a pro-Israel group on Wednesday, however, Obama, D-Ill., who clinched the delegates necessary to claim the Democratic nomination on Tuesday, presented an entirely different position:
"Contrary to the claims to some, I have no interest in sitting down with our adversaries just for the sake of talking. But as president of the United States, I would be willing to lead tough and principled diplomacy with the appropriate Iranian leaders at a time and place of my choosing if and only if it can advance the interest of the United States. That is my position. I want to be absolutely clear."
Compare that with what Obama said during the CNN/Youtube debate:
QUESTION: Would you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea?
OBAMA: "I would. And the reason is this: the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them--which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration -- is ridiculous. Ronald Reagan constantly spoke to Soviet Union at a time when he called them an evil empire. He understood that we may not trust them and they may pose an extraordinary danger to this country, but we had the obligation to find areas where we can potentially move forward. And I think that it is a disgrace that we have not spoken to them."
But now Obama has put a major condition on his willingness to meet with Iran: he will meet only if such a meeting advances the interests of the U.S.
That is not much different from the Bush Administration's position on negotiations with Iran.
Secretary Rice has said repeatedly that she would meet with Iran if it agreed to suspend its enrichment program. As she says often, "The question is not why won't the U.S meet with Iran. The question is why won't Iran meet with the U.S."
He's such a noob.
What in the world is a noob?
Anyway; the two statements are not different. Obama didn't say in the second statement he would only talk to Iran if they quit their enrichment program. He said if it benefits the US he would talk to them. Makes sense.
Ticomaya wrote:Quote:Obama's Evolving Position on Talking to Iran
June 04, 2008 11:29 AM
ABC News' Jonathan Karl Reports: Sen. Barack Obama's position on talking to Iran has been evolving since last year's CNN/Youtube debate, when he said he would be willing to meet "without precondition" with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea during the first year of his administration.
During a speech before a pro-Israel group on Wednesday, however, Obama, D-Ill., who clinched the delegates necessary to claim the Democratic nomination on Tuesday, presented an entirely different position:
"Contrary to the claims to some, I have no interest in sitting down with our adversaries just for the sake of talking. But as president of the United States, I would be willing to lead tough and principled diplomacy with the appropriate Iranian leaders at a time and place of my choosing if and only if it can advance the interest of the United States. That is my position. I want to be absolutely clear."
Compare that with what Obama said during the CNN/Youtube debate:
QUESTION: Would you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea?
OBAMA: "I would. And the reason is this: the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them--which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration -- is ridiculous. Ronald Reagan constantly spoke to Soviet Union at a time when he called them an evil empire. He understood that we may not trust them and they may pose an extraordinary danger to this country, but we had the obligation to find areas where we can potentially move forward. And I think that it is a disgrace that we have not spoken to them."
But now Obama has put a major condition on his willingness to meet with Iran: he will meet only if such a meeting advances the interests of the U.S.
That is not much different from the Bush Administration's position on negotiations with Iran.
Secretary Rice has said repeatedly that she would meet with Iran if it agreed to suspend its enrichment program. As she says often, "The question is not why won't the U.S meet with Iran. The question is why won't Iran meet with the U.S."
He's such a noob.
It only illustrates points previously made. Obama, the rock star, the annointed one, the messiah of all of Democratic Partydom, is after all a politician that will be effecting no obvious change that can be used to make him look bad. Hopefully that won't be the best we can expect.
Cycloptichorn wrote:Ticomaya wrote:Quote:Obama's Evolving Position on Talking to Iran
June 04, 2008 11:29 AM
ABC News' Jonathan Karl Reports: Sen. Barack Obama's position on talking to Iran has been evolving since last year's CNN/Youtube debate, when he said he would be willing to meet "without precondition" with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea during the first year of his administration.
During a speech before a pro-Israel group on Wednesday, however, Obama, D-Ill., who clinched the delegates necessary to claim the Democratic nomination on Tuesday, presented an entirely different position:
"Contrary to the claims to some, I have no interest in sitting down with our adversaries just for the sake of talking. But as president of the United States, I would be willing to lead tough and principled diplomacy with the appropriate Iranian leaders at a time and place of my choosing if and only if it can advance the interest of the United States. That is my position. I want to be absolutely clear."
Compare that with what Obama said during the CNN/Youtube debate:
QUESTION: Would you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea?
OBAMA: "I would. And the reason is this: the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them--which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration -- is ridiculous. Ronald Reagan constantly spoke to Soviet Union at a time when he called them an evil empire. He understood that we may not trust them and they may pose an extraordinary danger to this country, but we had the obligation to find areas where we can potentially move forward. And I think that it is a disgrace that we have not spoken to them."
But now Obama has put a major condition on his willingness to meet with Iran: he will meet only if such a meeting advances the interests of the U.S.
That is not much different from the Bush Administration's position on negotiations with Iran.
Secretary Rice has said repeatedly that she would meet with Iran if it agreed to suspend its enrichment program. As she says often, "The question is not why won't the U.S meet with Iran. The question is why won't Iran meet with the U.S."
He's such a noob.
He's going to kick Grandpa John's teeth right in.
Cycloptichorn
now that's raising the game...maybe you could beat the **** out of your grandma's bridge club too....maybe
If they step up to it, maybe so.
McCain won't get any passes due to his upcoming senescence. He knew what he was getting into...
Cycloptichorn
Cycloptichorn wrote:Ticomaya wrote:Quote:Obama's Evolving Position on Talking to Iran
June 04, 2008 11:29 AM
ABC News' Jonathan Karl Reports: Sen. Barack Obama's position on talking to Iran has been evolving since last year's CNN/Youtube debate, when he said he would be willing to meet "without precondition" with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea during the first year of his administration.
During a speech before a pro-Israel group on Wednesday, however, Obama, D-Ill., who clinched the delegates necessary to claim the Democratic nomination on Tuesday, presented an entirely different position:
"Contrary to the claims to some, I have no interest in sitting down with our adversaries just for the sake of talking. But as president of the United States, I would be willing to lead tough and principled diplomacy with the appropriate Iranian leaders at a time and place of my choosing if and only if it can advance the interest of the United States. That is my position. I want to be absolutely clear."
Compare that with what Obama said during the CNN/Youtube debate:
QUESTION: Would you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea?
OBAMA: "I would. And the reason is this: the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them--which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration -- is ridiculous. Ronald Reagan constantly spoke to Soviet Union at a time when he called them an evil empire. He understood that we may not trust them and they may pose an extraordinary danger to this country, but we had the obligation to find areas where we can potentially move forward. And I think that it is a disgrace that we have not spoken to them."
But now Obama has put a major condition on his willingness to meet with Iran: he will meet only if such a meeting advances the interests of the U.S.
That is not much different from the Bush Administration's position on negotiations with Iran.
Secretary Rice has said repeatedly that she would meet with Iran if it agreed to suspend its enrichment program. As she says often, "The question is not why won't the U.S meet with Iran. The question is why won't Iran meet with the U.S."
He's such a noob.
He's going to kick Grandpa John's teeth right in.
Cycloptichorn
Apparently, you have a bias against older, experienced people.
I just love that tough rhetoric from you cyclo.... it's so... McCain-ish and Clintonesque.
Or maybe more like bush. We're going to kick grandpa's teeth in.... not me personally of course...
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:I just love that tough rhetoric from you cyclo.... it's so... McCain-ish and Clintonesque.
Or maybe more like bush. We're going to kick grandpa's teeth in.... not me personally of course...
That's what America wants, right? A Fighter! Hillary kept telling us that this was the case, so it must be true. Wouldn't you agree?
Cycloptichorn
yeah, but I get the feeling you ain't it...
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:yeah, but I get the feeling you ain't it... although you talk a good game from behind the screen door...
Well, we're talking about Obama, not me.
He's thin - but tough. Has the reach advantage.
Cycloptichorn
revel wrote:Obama shouldn't let the Rove machine get away with vague generalizations with catchy phrases. Make them be specific and then debate the issues one by one.
No. He shouldn't. This isn't terribly complicated so there's no reason to complicate it. Our Iraq policy is immensely unpopular (2 to 1), so Obama should simply stick to that backed by Health Care (McCain has no answer) and Bush's Tax Cuts (McCain flip-flopped in favor of the rich). It's a no-brainer if he doesn't say or do anything
too stupid. Head to head, style-wise, even people who like McCain (like me) will look at the difference in
.
and wouldn't talk like a middle school boy about kicking John's grandpa teeth in... why would he?
He has an army of people to talk that kind of nonsense for him while he keeps his hands clean... surrogates, lackeys, people who believe he has some personal interest in them...
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:and wouldn't talk like a middle school boy about kicking John's grandpa teeth in... why would he?
He has an army of people to talk that kind of nonsense for him while he keeps his hands clean... surrogates, lackeys, people who believe he has some personal interest in them...
Your bitterness is showing, Bear.
It's not nonsense. We're going to clobber McCain. Just listening to the two competing speeches last night was enough to show that...
Cycloptichorn
Cycloptichorn wrote:Bi-Polar Bear wrote:and wouldn't talk like a middle school boy about kicking John's grandpa teeth in... why would he?
He has an army of people to talk that kind of nonsense for him while he keeps his hands clean... surrogates, lackeys, people who believe he has some personal interest in them...
Your bitterness is showing, Bear.
It's not nonsense. We're going to clobber McCain. Just listening to the two competing speeches last night was enough to show that...
Cycloptichorn
Show what? All the handsome young man said was IT IS OUR TIME. While the wise man told us WHY it is his time.
woiyo wrote:Cycloptichorn wrote:Bi-Polar Bear wrote:and wouldn't talk like a middle school boy about kicking John's grandpa teeth in... why would he?
He has an army of people to talk that kind of nonsense for him while he keeps his hands clean... surrogates, lackeys, people who believe he has some personal interest in them...
Your bitterness is showing, Bear.
It's not nonsense. We're going to clobber McCain. Just listening to the two competing speeches last night was enough to show that...
Cycloptichorn
Show what? All the handsome young man said was IT IS OUR TIME. While the wise man told us WHY it is his time.
Funny thing is; presentation matters. And likability matters. McCain's presentation is horrible and won't attract anyone who isn't already ideologically in his camp.
Both candidates have their strengths and weaknesses...
Cycloptichorn
Obama open to McCain's townhall proposalRAW STORY
Published: Wednesday June 4, 2008
Barack Obama indicated Wednesday that he would be open to appearing in a series of joint town-hall meetings proposed by presumptive GOP nominee John McCain.
"As Barack Obama has said before, the idea of joint town halls is appealing and one that would allow a great conversation to take place about the need to change the direction of this country. We would recommend a format that is less structured and lengthier than the McCain campaign suggests, one that more closely resembles the historic debates between Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas. But, having just secured our party's nomination, this is one of the many items we will be addressing in the coming days and look forward to discussing it with the McCain campaign," Obama's campaign manager David Plouffe said in an e-mail after McCain broached the idea in a letter to the presumptive Democratic nominee.
McCain, the Republican nominee-in-waiting, sent his Democratic rival a letter Wednesday outlining the offer. He suggested the first town hall be held June 12 in New York.
He said President Kennedy had made such an agreement with former Senator Barry Goldwater for the 1964 election before Kennedy's assassination.
"I don't think we need any big media-run production, no process question from reporters, no spin rooms," McCain said. "Just two Americans running for office in the greatest nation on earth, responding to the questions of the people whose trust we must earn."
