thegreyfox
Member
siamesedreamer said:
sure np. now tell me how many of those change their mind?
-
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 Tears/Lapel Pins (ScratchingHisCheek-Gate)
- Thread starter Rur0ni
- Start date
- Status
sure np. now tell me how many of those change their mind?
You claimed that something that wasn't McCain's point was his point. Then you claimed that his point was contradictory. Then you claimed that he didn't say what he said, and took issue with how I interpreted what he said (which was pretty straight-forward and not at all "vague;" it was literally, "will we be there x years?" "no"). Then you started badgering me for info on when McCain would withdraw troops. Your entire posting sequence this evening has been arguing points for the sake of arguing. That's not me being too full of myself--that's you wanting to be full of me. Sorry guy, I'm spoken for.quadriplegicjon said:
siamesedreamer
Banned
scorcho said:
What's the distortion then? The people in America who want us out are largely DEMs who could give two shits about the consequences of our departure. The people in Iraq who want us out are those who intend to gain by whatever means necessary. I could give a rat's ass about the poll you posted. Get back to me when they start asking questions about whether or not they want Americans troops to leave even if it means hundreds of thousands of their fellow countrymen will be killed in the ensuing violence and millions of them will be living in refugee camps at the borders.
Do you really think the US/World would be better off with Iraq in complete genocidal chaos? Do you recognize the drastic consequences it would entail for your favored party? Do you think effects felt by the US as a result of the invasion won't be felt tenfold for willingly inviting the humanitarian calamity a withdrawal would ensure?
Particle Physicist
between a quark and a baryon
APF said:
circles.. are we really gonna do this? you kept trying to steer my argument towards that '100 years' remark, which had nothing to do with what i was saying. your whole tactic is to try and make it seem like my arguments/comments/etc. are completely unrelated, or to steer me towards an argument i am not making.. if you arent going to just answer questions or arguments directly, i'd much rather you ignore me.. otherwise you'll just keep crying about me and end up wasting both of our time.
grandjedi6
Master of the Google Search
Tamanon said:
I would love to see Bill get angry at a Carter endorsement of Obama. Somehow I think Carter would actually win the fight for once :lol
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
APF said:
APF you are crazy. No for real you are! What you are showing tonight is that McCain is now becoming a flip flopper. First he says staying in Iraq for 100 is cool, but now when its polically bad he is flipping his answer.
And if it isn't a flip flop then at best it was a "senior" moment.
No, I think you're misinterpreting what he's saying in these two instances. He's saying he wouldn't have a problem with an American presence there conceptually, if Americans weren't at war / dying / getting attacked / etc, but in a realistic sense, that's not going to happen because of the unique sociopolitical situation in Iraq which makes it a different ballgame than in places where we do have those long-standing presences. It's not too difficult to understand, if you just ... try to understand.mckmas8808 said:
so you only want to read polls that have leading questions that generate answers that conform to your ignorance on the matter. check.siamesedreamer said:
but please, tell me more about this re-adaptation of white man's burden. we're maknig them better! we're saving their lives, even if they're ungrateful! we'll make sure we win even if it kills them!
if you can't be bothered to read what actual people in the country we're fucking at think of our actions then everything you have to say is fucking moot. the fucking arrogance of your argument is amazing.
i don't believe in false premises, except the Domino Theory.siamesedreamer said:
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
APF said:
Well conceptually we would all like to have sex with Beyonce or Jessica Biel, but if it isn't remotely possible then why say it?
See the thing you don't understand APF is that when a voter asks a presidential canidate how long would you like for us to stay in Iraq. You don't give people non-realistic answers when lots a people (yes even republicans) think staying in Iraq forever in some form is good.
If he really thinks its not possible to stay there long then why didn't he say this repeatedly when asked about it when Obama and Hillary first started bombing him with that quote?
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
And what's up with protecting McCain's 100 year in Iraq quote anyway? He said it! He defended it! His staff defended it! Just get over it all ready.
The man screwed up big time. He needs to flip flop off those statements NOW AND FAST!
The man screwed up big time. He needs to flip flop off those statements NOW AND FAST!
siamesedreamer said:
Yeah, I'm sure you gave a fuck about the good probability of Iraq 'genocidal chaos' during the lead up to the invasion, and the consequences of said invasion. It's cute how suddenly there's all these alligator tears from people who couldnt give a rats ass about the Iraqi people otherwise, until now since its a nice and convenient argument to stay in Iraq. Just like how some suddenly gave a fuck about Iraqi human rights and suddenly decided to care that kurds were gased before going to war, and now suddenly we need to stay in 'for the Iraqis'. Right. Stop lying to yourself and using moral justifications when it suits your political agenda.
I think the situation summed itself best when I heard Anne Coulter the other day yet again argue for staying in Iraq 'for the good of Iraqis', while she's had such great moments such as calling all arabs goat-fuckers and suggesting the nuking of the middle-east in the past. She's an extreme example, but you get the point. Crocodile tears from people who feign concern of human rights when it suits their needs- while continuing to support policies encouraging the gross violation of these rights- I think you fall under that category.
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
Slurpy said:
Thank you man. How many cared about Iraqis over the last 4 years when tens of thousands have died, millions misplaced, and many without basic utilities right now?
Incognito said:
Oh, and awesome article. I'm a graphic designer on the side, and since the beginning I've been extremely impressed with this aspect from the Obama campsign. I consider everything such as font, spacing, colors, etc, and its pretty much flawless from a theoretical design point of view. He clearly has some top tier people that know what the hell they're doing when it comes to this stuff. Everything, from the logos, to the website, to the overall presentation is simply on another level compared to the other candidates.
So basically, since you guys think that no one cared about the people of iraq, we should leave and not atleast stable the country that we fucked up?
I believe that bush fucked us and lied about WMDs, but we are in a shitty hole right now and we must dig ourselves out. Its pretty silly to bail out while civilians over there is caught within a civil war who could care less about their well being.
I believe that bush fucked us and lied about WMDs, but we are in a shitty hole right now and we must dig ourselves out. Its pretty silly to bail out while civilians over there is caught within a civil war who could care less about their well being.
grandjedi6
Master of the Google Search
grandjedi6
Master of the Google Search
Tamanon said:I need to work on more rhetorical flourishes, yes.
To be fair, we all fall into habits over time
User 10639
Member
Like not ending our sentences with periodsgrandjedi6 said:
Thunder Monkey
Banned
Very true.grandjedi6 said:
I find it damn near impossible to keep my pants on at K-Mart.
grandjedi6
Master of the Google Search
.icarus-daedelus said:
User 10639
Member
That's just a Kansas thing, dude. Nothing to feel bad about!Thunder Monkey said:
grandjedi said:
platypotamus
Member
This last series of posts has been amazing.
You guys have probably heard about it: HRC told Richardson "Obama can't win" This comes after Mark Halperin's statement that in public, the Clintons can't argue half of what they feel privately about Obama's chances (here's Kos' interpretation). The question is if they honestly believe it or are just trying to plant a meme.
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
ari said:
Its their country now Ari. Im all for supporting them when they need it, but not at 150,000 levels. Im all for spending a few billion a year on Humantarian aid. Im all for helping build some more infrastructure.
But again Im not for spending 10 billion a month in that country.
siamesedreamer
Banned
scorcho said:
You call it arrogance. I call it wanting to protect our interests.
Besides our moral duty to fix what we fucked, we have significant economic ties to the region that must be protected. I don't like gambling with downside risks.
Slurpy said:
I did.
That's not actually what the voter asked; the voter mentioned Bush suggesting there might be troops in Iraq for 50 years; McCain said, "hey 100 years would be cool with me if they're not being attacked--wouldn't it be fine with you?" Dems have erroneously labeled that as McCain being ok with 100 years of war, which obviously is a gross mischaracterization (ie Obama lied to smear him, just admit it and move on) of what he was trying to say. When asked by Rose how long he realistically felt troops would be in Iraq, and whether or not he sees a realistic possibility of a S Korea / Japan / Europe situation there, McCain said he didn't see a long-standing presence in Iraq due to the unique sociopolitical situation there. Again, none of this is hard to understand, neither point is contradictory, and neither is a "flip-flop" (I thought we were trying to get away from the politics of personal destruction, the failed politics as usual etc etc, but now you're literally trying to smear a combat veteran and war hero with charges of flip-flopping? Outrageous). One point is made about a hypothetical, one point is made about the realistic possibility of that hypothetical coming to pass.mckmas8808 said:
Edit: oh and BTW the Charlie Rose interview is from before the "100 years" comment.
Lv99 Slacker
Member
Last night, Olbermann cited a poll that showed 64% of Republicans believe that Obama has a better chance of beating McCain as opposed to Hillary's 22%. Does anyone have a link to it? I have no idea who conducted the polling. The transcript for last night's airing isn't available yet, otherwise I would've tried to look it up myself.
Edit: never mind. I found it.
Edit: never mind. I found it.
FactCheck.org said:A widely forwarded e-mail claims that Obama's bills are more substantive and numerous than Clinton's. Don't believe it.
A misleading e-mail has been making the rounds, alleging that Clinton has fewer legislative accomplishments than Obama, and that they are less substantive. We've had questions about it from a number of readers, and blogs have jumped into the fray. So what's the real story on the Senate careers of the Democratic presidential candidates?
We find that the e-mail is false in almost every particular:
* It sets up a face-off between apples and, well, broccoli, comparing only the Clinton-sponsored bills that became law with all bills sponsored or cosponsored by Obama, whether they were signed into law or not.
* It includes legislation Obama sponsored in the Illinois state Senate, a very different legislative body.
* It tells us that Obama has sponsored more legislation than Clinton, when in fact he has sponsored less.
* It implies that Obama has passed more bills into law than Clinton, when the opposite is true.
Contrary to the e-mail's assertions, Clinton's and Obama's contributions are not qualitatively different, and quantitatively, Clinton has the edge.
[...]
What impresses us is how misleading the e-mail is. Its anonymous author doesn't apply the same standards to Clinton's record and Obama's, thus leading to false conclusions about their legislative records. For Clinton, the e-mail claims to examine bills that the senator has sponsored and that were passed into law during her Senate career. For Obama, however, it counts both sponsored and cosponsored bills, whether they were passed or not. And something the e-mail doesn't state clearly it counts bills Obama sponsored in the Illinois state Senate, before he was a United States senator.
[...]
Here's how FactCheck.org tallies the real breakdown of bills and resolutions sponsored by the candidates in the U.S. Senate.
[...]
An accurate comparison with the Clinton bills listed in the e-mail would have included only the bills Obama has sponsored that have been signed into law. This comparison favors Clinton heavily, since 19 of her bills in seven years have become law, while Obama has had just two in his three years:
* S. 2125, A bill to promote relief, security, and democracy in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
* S. 3757, A bill to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 950 Missouri Avenue in East St. Louis, Illinois, as the "Katherine Dunham Post Office Building."
[...]
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/substance_abuse.html
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked