Neither of you are discussing real issues and instead focus on arguments based on making the other side look less ________ (Choose one: Patriotic, Intelligent, American). If you ever feel like discussing real issues, let me know. Otherwise, shut the fuck up.
-Andrew
I believe it was Steve that brought this up. Joe is just pointing out Steve's willful misunderstandings.
Does this mean he only intended to visit the military hospital so he could use it as a photo-op?
Most definitely.
By going he sends the message that he is going as a sign of support and not just as a photo-op.
The only reason we need to "support our troops" in the first place is the disastrous, ill-conceived, and failed invasion/occupation by our current president of a foreign nation based on a fraudulent premise.
You are close. What I am trying to point out is the hypocrisy among certain forum members who will quickly jump on McCain's back and call him old/senile/etc but excuse the same thing when Obama does it.
There is a difference between pointing out a candidates CONTINUAL gaffs and ignorance and taking ONE SINGLE EXAMPLE and saying "Ha, ha... you mess up, too!" I do not know of anyone on this forum that thinks Obama is infallible. Those that support Obama are not ignoring his failings, they just feel that his failing pale in comparison to his strengths. No one is perfect and there will never, ever be a perfect candidate.
There is a difference between pointing out a candidates CONTINUAL gaffs and ignorance and taking ONE SINGLE EXAMPLE and saying "Ha, ha... you mess up, too!" I do not know of anyone on this forum that thinks Obama is infallible. Those that support Obama are not ignoring his failings, they just feel that his failing pale in comparison to his strengths. No one is perfect and there will never, ever be a perfect candidate.
I think you didn't read the rest of my post. I will try to say it more clearly.
I don't think Steve actually believes the rhetoric bs of either side, though he makes it very hard to tell. Whereas I go around saying "look at all this poop" Steve attempts to take a different route. He simply posts the rhetoric of one side to balance out the rhetoric of the other side. He then goes on to defend said rhetoric against the very true rebuttals. In the end, he admits it was bs in a not so obvious fashion.
In other words, he's in a similar camp to myself, but his methods make him appear to be a moron.
There is a difference between pointing out a candidates CONTINUAL gaffs and ignorance and taking ONE SINGLE EXAMPLE and saying "Ha, ha... you mess up, too!" I do not know of anyone on this forum that thinks Obama is infallible. Those that support Obama are not ignoring his failings, they just feel that his failing pale in comparison to his strengths. No one is perfect and there will never, ever be a perfect candidate.
I think you didn't read the rest of my post. I will try to say it more clearly.
I don't think Steve actually believes the rhetoric bs of either side, though he makes it very hard to tell. Whereas I go around saying "look at all this poop" Steve attempts to take a different route. He simply posts the rhetoric of one side to balance out the rhetoric of the other side. He then goes on to defend said rhetoric against the very true rebuttals. In the end, he admits it was bs in a not so obvious fashion.
In other words, he's in a similar camp to myself, but his methods make him appear to be a moron.
I honestly think you are giving him benefit of the doubt on this one. He has repeatedly made it clear that he usually leans toward the republican/conservative side of the argument. I think you are projecting too much of you on to him. Also, I was responding to his statement, not yours.
I don't think Steve actually believes the rhetoric bs of either side, though he makes it very hard to tell.
Exactly. I am trying to play the part of the right-wingnut. Sometimes I can't get my head behind their arguments so they come off badly.
I honestly do not believe that an Obama Presidency would be a bad thing for this country. I also do not think that an Obama presidency will fix everything either.
I do feel that some members of the forum are too quick to deride McCain for slips he makes while speaking publicly while also being too quick to excuse slips made by Obama.
It's one thing to say, "Candidate A believes this and I agree/disagree with that position and here is my reason why." It is another thing entirely to just say, "Candidate B doesn't know there is no border between Iraq and Pakistan. Obviously everything else he says must be wrong." OR "Candidate A is not candidate B and therefor that makes him better."
Both Liberalism and Conservatism have their place. Neither one should have a monopoly. All things in moderation. Neither candidate will destroy the country if they get elected.
I'm reminded of the Dole vs. Clinton election. I had a very liberal friend at the time and all she would say was, "if you vote for Dole abortion will be illegal." That was it. When I asked her why she was voting for Clinton she had no real answer. See, she was not voting for Clinton she was voting against Dole.
I really do not care who you choose to vote for as long as you make an informed vote. Don't fall into the trap of voting against the other guy. HungryJoe has publicly stated that the only issue he cares about is judges. That's fine. I can respect that. He believes that an Obama administration will appoint judges that coincide with his political views. Nothing wrong with holding that position. I would have a problem if Joe's argument was not one of, "Obama will appoint good judges" but was instead one of "McCain will appoint bad judges."
My vote is not yet decided. I'm looking for a reason to vote for someone. So far I have not seen much of a reason to vote for Obama (in this thread) other than Joe's argument about judges.
I honestly think you are giving him benefit of the doubt on this one. He has repeatedly made it clear that he usually leans toward the republican/conservative side of the argument. I think you are projecting too much of you on to him. Also, I was responding to his statement, not yours.
He does lean more republica, this is true, however, he said this.
I'm not trying to "find an issue", I'm trying to find some intellectual honesty. If person A (whom you do not like) does something bad and you impugn them for it why do you ignore it when person B (whom you like) does the same thing?
I'm not so much trying to defend him, as I am trying to help him help himself. If he really does believe that Obama not visiting this place is actually a valid point worthy of valuable discussion, then he's an idiot. Just as much of an idiot as someone who argues that McCain is old and senile, without hyperbole. If he's just presenting that point to demonstrate the hypocrisy and rhetoric of both sides, that's fine.
It's just that because of what he writes, it is very ambiguous what his true beliefs and intents are. He might not believe the rhetoric, but intentionally present it to get people riled up. He might be presenting the rhetoric to try to make the deeper point which fails, so I advise him to attempt a different, more direct, course. He might actually believe the bs, in which case I think we've all pointed out how much bs everything is many times over. Really, Steve just needs to say what he means. Doing anything else leaves us guessing whether or not he's stupid, a troll, or bad at communicating.
I'm not trying to "find an issue", I'm trying to find some intellectual honesty. If person A (whom you do not like) does something bad and you impugn them for it why do you ignore it when person B (whom you like) does the same thing?
Except that you are assuming we are impugning one and not the other. Your example, the walls metaphor, just illustrated that you didn't understand metaphor. People didn't defend Obama, they just pointed out your lack of understanding. Also, I think McCain jokes are funny. I think that jokes about liberals are funny too. I might laugh a little harder at McCain because, to me, he represents a lot of ideas that I consider incredibly harmful and it is better to laugh than to cry, but that is my own personal coping mechanism. If people want to make fun of Obama, they certainly can. It may be difficult because he is much more polished and thoughtful in his speech and because the race issue is touchy for a lot of people, but go ahead and laugh. I think you are putting words and ideas into peoples mouths and it is just not working.
HungryJoe has publicly stated that the only issue he cares about is judges. That's fine. I can respect that. He believes that an Obama administration will appoint judges that coincide with his political views. Nothing wrong with holding that position. I would have a problem if Joe's argument was not one of, "Obama will appoint good judges" but was instead one of "McCain will appoint bad judges."
That is not what I said. I said
As for me, I'm going to vote for Obama even if he abandons every position he's ever had. I have one reason for doing this: the number of Supreme Court Justices and the number of Federal Court Judges the next President will appoint.
There is no way you can read that to mean that the only issue I care about is judges. Please read it again.
Furthermore, the importance I place on the issue is not whether Obama's judges will have right political views. It's whether those judges are actually fair and impartial arbiters that would NOT be swayed by politics, like so many of the judges appointed by Republican presidents.
Steve, you do not have the authority to speak for me. You cannot restate my opinions because it's clear that you do not understand them. Please do not attempt to do this again.
See, I told you Steve, you are posting conservative arguments to troll us and vex us! How is that different from what I said before?
When did I ever say Obama was perfect? He's a human, he misspeaks and makes mistakes every once in a while. He's a politician, and while he seems to be a pretty decent individual, I am sure he will do a handful things that I do not approve of, like signing that surveillance bill. Bush was a very bad president, in my opinion, and screwed things up royally, so I think people are being extra cautious this time around in choosing a leader. However, I do not see what hanging on either candidates every little slip-up does for greater good.
I bring up the issue of Obama canceling his visit to the military hospital not because of that but because of how it was played out.
The early accounts from the Obama campaign said that the Pentagon told Obama not to come. It was after that when the Pentagon clarified that they never said Obama could not come, only that it would be viewed as a campaign event and fall under those rules.
Now you have to ask yourself something. Did the Obama campaign think that the visit would not be treated as a campaign stop when they planned the event? The Pentagon rules did not change because of something Obama did, they have been in place for a while. This also means his campaign staff must have known ahead of time what to expect when visiting the military hospital.
Does his not going mean anything? No. The only real questions are:
1. If the rules in place did not change, why did he cancel? 2. If the trip was meant as a campaign stop in the first place who screwed up? 3. Why did the campaign try to pin the cancellation on the Pentagon?
These are character questions. Questions that more than likely reflect upon his staff and not him.
My assumption is that this was all planned out by staffers and someone confused the fact that Obama's first leg was as a Senator (trip to bases in Iraq are OK) while the second leg was a campaign trip (trip to bases more restricted). I'm just guessing here and could be entirely wrong.
The only thing nagging at me is that the press was excluded from the Iraq base trips as well. You may recall some on the right were pissed about this and pointed to the footage released by the military. Footage created without journalists being present which led some of them to wonder what might have ended up on the cutting room floor.
So, the campaign may have decided to avoid a repeat of that my nixing this trip.
So, my main point in bringing it up is to ask why the Obama campaign tried to pin the blame on the Pentagon instead of simply owning up to it and saying it was their decision.
"I am a candidate for president," he said. "But there's a wonderful tradition in the United States, that's not always observed, but I think is a good one. Which is that you don't spend time criticizing a sitting president when you're overseas."
Steve, this could have been a fun political debate about real issues, and now it is just Steve poking the liberals to get a rise out of them and then self-importantly claiming that you are getting us to look deeper into our political views - when almost all of the people you are arguing with seem to maintain a fairly high level of awareness of politics, social issues, economic problems, etc. Your supposed questioning (which is actually needling) might do well in other forums and other places, but you are "helping" no one here. I am taking my husband's advice and not taking the bait on your non-issue conservative talking points anymore. I am out, I am done. Thank you for ruining what could have been fun and enlightening. I will only respond to real points and real issues from now on.
Hungryjoe - I apologize for misrepresenting your views on judges. When I wrote:
He believes that an Obama administration will appoint judges that coincide with his political views
It was not meant to imply that you expected Obama to appoint left-wing judges but to imply that he would appoint the sort of judges you believe should be appointed (fair and not swayed by politics/"good" judges).
It was not meant to imply that you expected Obama to appoint left-wing judges but to imply that he would appoint the sort of judges you believe should be appointed (fair and not swayed by politics/"good" judges).
I got a thing to say about judge picks. I've found that when I read the opinions of any supreme court justice, even those I disagree with, I can tel they are doing a good job. It seems that they are in a position that is somehow semi-incorruptible. They have jobs for life, like monarchs, but they don't have any large amount of direct political power that enables them to become tyrannical. This trend has instilled me with a, perhaps naive, confidence, that even if evil Republican judges are picked, they'll be totally cool.
For example, I once read a position of Scalia's (wish I could remember the case) that I strongly disagreed with. However, he made his decision based on state's rights and the constitution. In reality I know he disagreed with the actual issue at hand, but in his position it seemed as if he didn't even consider that in his decision. I found myself conflicted, because as much as I thought it would be better for the country if the decision went differently, I also couldn't deny his decision was constitutionally correct.
I get the feeling that supreme court justices take their jobs very seriously. For the most part, they take legal precedent and the constitution into consideration above their own personal political values. As long as they continue this proud tradition, I do not fear a straight set of evil judges ruining the country.
Read Thomas and Alito. They basically just agree with whatever Scalia and Roberts say. It's like Scalia and Roberts have two votes. That's not cool at all.
Read Thomas and Alito. They basically just agree with whatever Scalia and Roberts say. It's like Scalia and Roberts have two votes. That's not cool at all.
I don't deny it, because I haven't read them, but maybe they all just think alike? Benefit of the doubt?
There have been cases of incapacitated judges remaining on the bench but in those instances the other judges usually band together to insure the incapacitated one does not decide anything. I think Joe knows who I am talking about even though the name escapes me.
Read Thomas and Alito. They basically just agree with whatever Scalia and Roberts say. It's like Scalia and Roberts have two votes. That's not cool at all.
I don't deny it, because I haven't read them, but maybe they all just think alike? Benefit of the doubt?
No. Neither of them belong there.
It's not just the SCOTUS. The POTUS appoints hundreds of Federal Judges as well.
It's not just the SCOTUS. The POTUS appoints hundreds of Federal Judges as well.
This I know., but I'm pretty cure the trustly old California circuit court isn't going anywhere anytime soon.
Complacency, thy name is Scott.
Rule of Scott 56: As long as Scott Rubin is not disturbed in consuming his superior tastes in media, the rest of the world will just sort of run on autopilot and everything will be swell.
I have plenty of peoples to be with, I have good food to eat, I have access to transportaiton, the Internet exists, I am in great health, and it's convention season. It's hard not to be complacent.
Exactly. I am trying to play the part of the right-wingnut.
Well stop it, it's fucking annoying.
More accurately, you play the part so well that people believe it. If you aren't actually a right-wingnut, and you don't want people to think you are, don't pretend to be one.
If, in order to get that passed, we have to compromise in terms of a careful, well thought-out drilling strategy that was carefully circumscribed to avoid significant environmental damage - I don't want to be so rigid that we can't get something done," Obama said.
And the republicans:
“We need oil drilling and we need it now. We need it offshore. The only thing I’ve heard him say is we should inflate our tires,†McCain said at a press conference in Panama City Beach accompanied by Gov. Charlie Crist.
So here's my understanding: Obama: It takes careful planning if we need to resort to offshore drilling. McCain: JESUS CHRIST, IT'S A LION! DRILL, DAMN YOU, DRILL! DRILL EVERYWHERE AND NOW!
I refer to my earlier comment to you, Steve. Knock it off, it's fucking annoying and no one believes you're "just playing" the part of the painfully stupid neocon.
It came up earlier in this very thread that there are two kinds of Obama supporters. Those who think he can do no wrong and always try to explain away his shifts and flops and those who are honest with themselves and call it for what it is: political expediency.
Obama's sudden shift on oil drilling puts him at odds with Nancy "I'm trying to save the world" Pelosi and Harry Reid. If Obama truly means what he says he should call Pelosi up and have her reconvene the house to put the drilling bill up for a vote. Just give it a vote...
How many of Obama's positions have to "evolve" before you realize that the Obama running for President is not the same Obama who ran in the primary. Why are all of these positions changing now? What position will change next? Is there anything that he believes in that he will not change on when the polls change?
Comments
I don't think Steve actually believes the rhetoric bs of either side, though he makes it very hard to tell. Whereas I go around saying "look at all this poop" Steve attempts to take a different route. He simply posts the rhetoric of one side to balance out the rhetoric of the other side. He then goes on to defend said rhetoric against the very true rebuttals. In the end, he admits it was bs in a not so obvious fashion.
In other words, he's in a similar camp to myself, but his methods make him appear to be a moron.
I honestly do not believe that an Obama Presidency would be a bad thing for this country. I also do not think that an Obama presidency will fix everything either.
I do feel that some members of the forum are too quick to deride McCain for slips he makes while speaking publicly while also being too quick to excuse slips made by Obama.
It's one thing to say, "Candidate A believes this and I agree/disagree with that position and here is my reason why." It is another thing entirely to just say, "Candidate B doesn't know there is no border between Iraq and Pakistan. Obviously everything else he says must be wrong." OR "Candidate A is not candidate B and therefor that makes him better."
Both Liberalism and Conservatism have their place. Neither one should have a monopoly. All things in moderation. Neither candidate will destroy the country if they get elected.
I'm reminded of the Dole vs. Clinton election. I had a very liberal friend at the time and all she would say was, "if you vote for Dole abortion will be illegal." That was it. When I asked her why she was voting for Clinton she had no real answer. See, she was not voting for Clinton she was voting against Dole.
I really do not care who you choose to vote for as long as you make an informed vote. Don't fall into the trap of voting against the other guy. HungryJoe has publicly stated that the only issue he cares about is judges. That's fine. I can respect that. He believes that an Obama administration will appoint judges that coincide with his political views. Nothing wrong with holding that position. I would have a problem if Joe's argument was not one of, "Obama will appoint good judges" but was instead one of "McCain will appoint bad judges."
My vote is not yet decided. I'm looking for a reason to vote for someone. So far I have not seen much of a reason to vote for Obama (in this thread) other than Joe's argument about judges.
It's just that because of what he writes, it is very ambiguous what his true beliefs and intents are. He might not believe the rhetoric, but intentionally present it to get people riled up. He might be presenting the rhetoric to try to make the deeper point which fails, so I advise him to attempt a different, more direct, course. He might actually believe the bs, in which case I think we've all pointed out how much bs everything is many times over. Really, Steve just needs to say what he means. Doing anything else leaves us guessing whether or not he's stupid, a troll, or bad at communicating.
Furthermore, the importance I place on the issue is not whether Obama's judges will have right political views. It's whether those judges are actually fair and impartial arbiters that would NOT be swayed by politics, like so many of the judges appointed by Republican presidents.
Steve, you do not have the authority to speak for me. You cannot restate my opinions because it's clear that you do not understand them. Please do not attempt to do this again.
When did I ever say Obama was perfect? He's a human, he misspeaks and makes mistakes every once in a while. He's a politician, and while he seems to be a pretty decent individual, I am sure he will do a handful things that I do not approve of, like signing that surveillance bill. Bush was a very bad president, in my opinion, and screwed things up royally, so I think people are being extra cautious this time around in choosing a leader. However, I do not see what hanging on either candidates every little slip-up does for greater good.
The early accounts from the Obama campaign said that the Pentagon told Obama not to come. It was after that when the Pentagon clarified that they never said Obama could not come, only that it would be viewed as a campaign event and fall under those rules.
Now you have to ask yourself something. Did the Obama campaign think that the visit would not be treated as a campaign stop when they planned the event? The Pentagon rules did not change because of something Obama did, they have been in place for a while. This also means his campaign staff must have known ahead of time what to expect when visiting the military hospital.
Does his not going mean anything? No. The only real questions are:
1. If the rules in place did not change, why did he cancel?
2. If the trip was meant as a campaign stop in the first place who screwed up?
3. Why did the campaign try to pin the cancellation on the Pentagon?
These are character questions. Questions that more than likely reflect upon his staff and not him.
My assumption is that this was all planned out by staffers and someone confused the fact that Obama's first leg was as a Senator (trip to bases in Iraq are OK) while the second leg was a campaign trip (trip to bases more restricted). I'm just guessing here and could be entirely wrong.
The only thing nagging at me is that the press was excluded from the Iraq base trips as well. You may recall some on the right were pissed about this and pointed to the footage released by the military. Footage created without journalists being present which led some of them to wonder what might have ended up on the cutting room floor.
So, the campaign may have decided to avoid a repeat of that my nixing this trip.
So, my main point in bringing it up is to ask why the Obama campaign tried to pin the blame on the Pentagon instead of simply owning up to it and saying it was their decision.
Obama camp says Pentagon nixes hospital visit
Pentagon says it was Obama's choice to skip hospital
Score one for the Obama team!
For example, I once read a position of Scalia's (wish I could remember the case) that I strongly disagreed with. However, he made his decision based on state's rights and the constitution. In reality I know he disagreed with the actual issue at hand, but in his position it seemed as if he didn't even consider that in his decision. I found myself conflicted, because as much as I thought it would be better for the country if the decision went differently, I also couldn't deny his decision was constitutionally correct.
I get the feeling that supreme court justices take their jobs very seriously. For the most part, they take legal precedent and the constitution into consideration above their own personal political values. As long as they continue this proud tradition, I do not fear a straight set of evil judges ruining the country.
There have been cases of incapacitated judges remaining on the bench but in those instances the other judges usually band together to insure the incapacitated one does not decide anything. I think Joe knows who I am talking about even though the name escapes me.
It's not just the SCOTUS. The POTUS appoints hundreds of Federal Judges as well.
Rule of Scott 56: As long as Scott Rubin is not disturbed in consuming his superior tastes in media, the rest of the world will just sort of run on autopilot and everything will be swell.
Obama: It takes careful planning if we need to resort to offshore drilling.
McCain: JESUS CHRIST, IT'S A LION! DRILL, DAMN YOU, DRILL! DRILL EVERYWHERE AND NOW!
I refer to my earlier comment to you, Steve. Knock it off, it's fucking annoying and no one believes you're "just playing" the part of the painfully stupid neocon.
It came up earlier in this very thread that there are two kinds of Obama supporters. Those who think he can do no wrong and always try to explain away his shifts and flops and those who are honest with themselves and call it for what it is: political expediency.
Obama's sudden shift on oil drilling puts him at odds with Nancy "I'm trying to save the world" Pelosi and Harry Reid. If Obama truly means what he says he should call Pelosi up and have her reconvene the house to put the drilling bill up for a vote. Just give it a vote...
How many of Obama's positions have to "evolve" before you realize that the Obama running for President is not the same Obama who ran in the primary. Why are all of these positions changing now? What position will change next? Is there anything that he believes in that he will not change on when the polls change?