Freedom = $1.05
Banned
I'm walking the streets tomorrow in FL. We gonna fix that shit : )
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PoliGAF Interim Thread of cunning stunts and desperate punts
- Thread starter Amir0x
- Start date
- Status
The Lamonster
Member
So I just sent this e-mail to my family in response to some crazy shit they sent me:
---
Lesa, you wanted me to watch this video. Here are my thoughts:
This is a guy that's basically saying he is offended when the Democratic Nominee for President and U.S. Senator Barack Obama says the Iraq War was a mistake. This guy lost friends, he lost a leg, and he lost a lot of valuable time he could have spent in this great country instead of in a foreign desert that is infected with people trying to kill him.
Obama says the war is a mistake because this country needlessly tossed away a ton of resources, including human life (and their extremities), and continues to do so. I say "needlessly" because the reason we went into Iraq was because Saddam Hussein was said to have WMD's (weapons of mass destruction) that he was planning to use against the United States of America. We never found WMD's in Iraq, and believe me - we've looked everywhere. As of September 11th, 2008, we've lost 4,155 American soldiers in the Iraq War. For comparison, we lost 2,999 Americans in the September 11 attacks. Also, we never did sufficiently hunt down the man chiefly responsible for the 9/11 attacks, Osama bin Laden, and now our resources are stretched too thin to have a significant military presence on the Afghanistan/Pakistan border (where bin Laden is probably still hiding).
The guy in the video is also saying the Iraqi people are better off than they were in 2002. I assume he means they're safer from terrorists. There was no Al Qaeda in Iraq before we invaded. Al Qaeda didn't show up to the party until 2005 (we invaded in March '03), and besides - when did America decide to be the "World Police?" We aren't at that point yet on this planet. A country would have to possess unimaginable resources to have the ability to police the world. Even if we did police the planet, one has to realize that there are people suffering in far more areas of the world than Iraq alone.
The veteran in the video also says Obama doesn't understand or support the principles of freedom. He pretty much pulled that one out of his ass.
Stuff like this shouldn't affect anyone's vote. No one should be using this video to make a point about who is the better candidate for the job. It's someone's opinion. It's a diary entry. There are no facts, and voting should be about the facts. There is obviously going to be a lot of spin and rhetoric in a presidential election. This specific election is one of the most important decisions the American people will ever make.
So what are the issues? What kinds of facts should we look at? The 2008 presidential election is primarily about money. Our economy sucks, and we're $9.7 trillion in debt and wasting more and more money on the failed policies from the lowest-rated administration in American history. The Iraq War alone is costing U.S. taxpayers $1.9 trillion. Who is going to be the best choice for our economy? Check out the attached political cartoon about "fiscal conservatism," I think it makes a good point.
Also, look at the attached chart about presidential spending, going back to the early 1960's. Which presidents saved more than they spent? The Democrats.
One common misconception about Barack Obama (and Democrats in general) is that they're going to raise your taxes. An Obama administration will actually cut taxes for 95% of Americans. The only people seeing a tax increase will be individuals making over $250,000 annually. Basically, that's where middle-class becomes upper-class. Take a look at the attached chart about the candidates' tax plans for an easy-to-read comparison.
And how experienced is Obama? Is he "ready to lead?" Take a look at the attached chart concerning Obama's record in the Illinois Senate. It details a handful of more than 800 bills that Obama sponsored. This was all before he became a U.S. Senator (D-IL.) in 2004.
John McCain probably would have made a good president if he were elected in 2000. But by now, in 2008, he's adopted over 90% of President Bush's failed policies. He's also 72 years-old, which would make him the oldest elected president in history. There is a 1/3 chance he will not survive his first term. If McCain gets critically ill while in the presidency, his vice president will have to step in - and he's chosen one of the most inexperienced (on the national scale) and most hateful vice presidential candidates ever.
On the other hand, Obama chose Joe Biden to be his running-mate. I probably don't have to talk about Biden's record. He is Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, and has served as the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. He also led the creation of the Violence Against Women Act, which has been heralded as "the greatest breakthrough in civil rights for women in nearly two decades" by the National Organization for Women. Biden is currently in his sixth consecutive term as a U.S. Senator (D-DE) and is up for re-election this year. What do their vice presidential running-mate choices say about the candidates?
Please think through the facts before you go into the voting booth on November 4th. Please take a look at all sides and consider who will lead our country in the best direction. Please consider we need a change from the last 8 years of George W. Bush.
Although I wrote this myself and it's not some chain e-mail, feel free to pass this on to other undecided (or misguided) friends, relatives, and co-workers. Still not convinced? I dare you to fact-check everything I just said!
For more on John McCain: http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=GEtZlR3zp4c
---
Okay, GAF. Let me know if I made any factual errors! I doubt it, though. Also thanks everyone for the handy charts! :lol
---
Lesa, you wanted me to watch this video. Here are my thoughts:
This is a guy that's basically saying he is offended when the Democratic Nominee for President and U.S. Senator Barack Obama says the Iraq War was a mistake. This guy lost friends, he lost a leg, and he lost a lot of valuable time he could have spent in this great country instead of in a foreign desert that is infected with people trying to kill him.
Obama says the war is a mistake because this country needlessly tossed away a ton of resources, including human life (and their extremities), and continues to do so. I say "needlessly" because the reason we went into Iraq was because Saddam Hussein was said to have WMD's (weapons of mass destruction) that he was planning to use against the United States of America. We never found WMD's in Iraq, and believe me - we've looked everywhere. As of September 11th, 2008, we've lost 4,155 American soldiers in the Iraq War. For comparison, we lost 2,999 Americans in the September 11 attacks. Also, we never did sufficiently hunt down the man chiefly responsible for the 9/11 attacks, Osama bin Laden, and now our resources are stretched too thin to have a significant military presence on the Afghanistan/Pakistan border (where bin Laden is probably still hiding).
The guy in the video is also saying the Iraqi people are better off than they were in 2002. I assume he means they're safer from terrorists. There was no Al Qaeda in Iraq before we invaded. Al Qaeda didn't show up to the party until 2005 (we invaded in March '03), and besides - when did America decide to be the "World Police?" We aren't at that point yet on this planet. A country would have to possess unimaginable resources to have the ability to police the world. Even if we did police the planet, one has to realize that there are people suffering in far more areas of the world than Iraq alone.
The veteran in the video also says Obama doesn't understand or support the principles of freedom. He pretty much pulled that one out of his ass.
Stuff like this shouldn't affect anyone's vote. No one should be using this video to make a point about who is the better candidate for the job. It's someone's opinion. It's a diary entry. There are no facts, and voting should be about the facts. There is obviously going to be a lot of spin and rhetoric in a presidential election. This specific election is one of the most important decisions the American people will ever make.
So what are the issues? What kinds of facts should we look at? The 2008 presidential election is primarily about money. Our economy sucks, and we're $9.7 trillion in debt and wasting more and more money on the failed policies from the lowest-rated administration in American history. The Iraq War alone is costing U.S. taxpayers $1.9 trillion. Who is going to be the best choice for our economy? Check out the attached political cartoon about "fiscal conservatism," I think it makes a good point.
Also, look at the attached chart about presidential spending, going back to the early 1960's. Which presidents saved more than they spent? The Democrats.
One common misconception about Barack Obama (and Democrats in general) is that they're going to raise your taxes. An Obama administration will actually cut taxes for 95% of Americans. The only people seeing a tax increase will be individuals making over $250,000 annually. Basically, that's where middle-class becomes upper-class. Take a look at the attached chart about the candidates' tax plans for an easy-to-read comparison.
And how experienced is Obama? Is he "ready to lead?" Take a look at the attached chart concerning Obama's record in the Illinois Senate. It details a handful of more than 800 bills that Obama sponsored. This was all before he became a U.S. Senator (D-IL.) in 2004.
John McCain probably would have made a good president if he were elected in 2000. But by now, in 2008, he's adopted over 90% of President Bush's failed policies. He's also 72 years-old, which would make him the oldest elected president in history. There is a 1/3 chance he will not survive his first term. If McCain gets critically ill while in the presidency, his vice president will have to step in - and he's chosen one of the most inexperienced (on the national scale) and most hateful vice presidential candidates ever.
On the other hand, Obama chose Joe Biden to be his running-mate. I probably don't have to talk about Biden's record. He is Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, and has served as the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. He also led the creation of the Violence Against Women Act, which has been heralded as "the greatest breakthrough in civil rights for women in nearly two decades" by the National Organization for Women. Biden is currently in his sixth consecutive term as a U.S. Senator (D-DE) and is up for re-election this year. What do their vice presidential running-mate choices say about the candidates?
Please think through the facts before you go into the voting booth on November 4th. Please take a look at all sides and consider who will lead our country in the best direction. Please consider we need a change from the last 8 years of George W. Bush.
Although I wrote this myself and it's not some chain e-mail, feel free to pass this on to other undecided (or misguided) friends, relatives, and co-workers. Still not convinced? I dare you to fact-check everything I just said!
For more on John McCain: http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=GEtZlR3zp4c
---
Okay, GAF. Let me know if I made any factual errors! I doubt it, though. Also thanks everyone for the handy charts! :lol
adamsappel
Member
The Lamonster
Member
This story has nothing to do with Palin. It will be ignored.adamsappel said:
Deku said:
down three in Rasmussen and down in the electoral college and released three commercials. One's a negative ad painting McCain as out of touch, another is a positive ad about change. The third is a Planned Parenthood 527 ad responding to the 'teaching kids about sex' McCain ad.
The liberal 527s have been unmuzzled, there's one ad by some Parenthood group that slams McCain hard for that pedo commercial, and another one that's by a wildlife committee that slams Palin for endorsing shooting wolves from planes (it's pretty graphic too.)Deku said:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQobIUE1zTU&eurl=http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/
those poor doggies ;_;
Xisiqomelir
Member
gkrykewy said:
No, it's the same one. I pull out the screencap whenever someone says Bams might lose the same way speculawyer busts out fiscalconservatives.jpg whenever someone talks about "tax and spend liberals".
jesus christ, the now amorphous definitions of preemptive and preventive are such that now i'm even confused about the actual meaning. my man-crush on Fallows continues, and it looks like i've remembered things backwards - http://jamesfallows.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/09/the_palin_interview.php
Bush and co. framed Iraq as a preemptive war when many scholars have argued (like what APF suggests and i agree to) that it was a preventive war. i had the legalese and some of the definition backwards though - preemptive is internationally sanctioned and recognized, but preventive is not. preemptive refers to an imminent threat, preventive refers to nascent threats.
http://www.csbaonline.org/4Publicat...rming_the_L/R.20040114.Transforming_the_L.pdf
hell, even wikipedia is setting me straight on this. god my memory is failing me, and i'm a grad student for crying out loud.
Bush and co. framed Iraq as a preemptive war when many scholars have argued (like what APF suggests and i agree to) that it was a preventive war. i had the legalese and some of the definition backwards though - preemptive is internationally sanctioned and recognized, but preventive is not. preemptive refers to an imminent threat, preventive refers to nascent threats.
http://www.csbaonline.org/4Publicat...rming_the_L/R.20040114.Transforming_the_L.pdf
hell, even wikipedia is setting me straight on this. god my memory is failing me, and i'm a grad student for crying out loud.
speculawyer
Member
It warms my heart to see all that fiscal conservative stuff.The Lamonster said:
Freedom = $1.05
Banned
eznark said:
He's one corrupt mofo.
adamsappel said:
So Zach Braff is a McCain supporter? Whats the big deal?
I'll be here all week! Try the shrimp cocktail!
Byakuya769
Member
Odrion said:
So who is worse.. Michael Vick or Sarah Palin?
Xisiqomelir
Member
Odrion said:
Holy fuckballs, I knew about the bill, but I didn't know about the $150/leg.
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
Doesn't anybody think that McCain using Palin as a shield will only hurt McCain?
I mean seriously don't people vote for the top of the ticket? Does McCain really think millions will vote for him because of Pain?
I mean seriously don't people vote for the top of the ticket? Does McCain really think millions will vote for him because of Pain?
Fragamemnon
Member
The Defenders ad with the aerial hunting is probably one of the best political ads I've ever seen an environmental org put together. Usually their ads are terrible, and their influence in the election season is mainly due to endorsements-having the LCV and DoW endorsements means a lot to upscale voters.
PepsimanVsJoe
Member
What in the world is Palin's beef with wolves?
CharlieDigital
Banned
Byakuya769 said:
Sarah Palin's not black, so it's all good.
The Lamonster
Member
Awesome, feel free to copy+paste it liberally!gkrykewy said:
CharlieDigital
Banned
sp0rsk said:
First time I saw this video, I considered it, but the issue is that it's in the middle of nowhere such that they even need a plane just to get there; it doesn't seem as if these wolves are posing an imminent threat to any human population which makes it all the more vile.
PepsimanVsJoe
Member
CharlieDigital said:
Apparently the only serious threat the wolves present is towards the caribou in the region, and even that's debateable.
$150 a foreleg just comes off as needlessly cruel and sick.
I'm not disputing that and in fact that only supports my point. He's made great inroads against traditional cultural stigmas/schisms in America. He has appealed to the rationality of Americans and found many willing to listen.Agent Icebeezy said:
As for Clinton, "incumbent" favorite or not, that still overlooks the fact that we would so easily attribute a female candidate could even be such a thing in the first place. It's progress.
I no more want McCain in office than you do. But losing hope betrays having had any real belief in the changes Obama espouses since much of what he's proclaimed is the power of bottom-up movements. It's not rational, so if we're going to talk about American idiocy, that becomes a big part of it - I think the biggest part.Phatsaqs said:
Outdoor Miner
Member
Wow that wolf ad hits hard.
TheFightingFish
Member
sp0rsk said:
http://hunt.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=wolf.control
Not saying if I agree or disagree, but that is the justification for the hunts.
They're predators, but they're shy around humans. They only become dangerous when you crossbreed them with their domesticated relatives which have absolutely no reservations in approaching humans. More importantly, they hold an important ecological niche. After wolves disappeared from Yellowstone, trees started thinning out and river banks became more erratic.sp0rsk said:
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked