• 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 USA General Elections (DAWN OF THE VEEP)

Status
Not open for further replies.
M

maximum360

Member
PhoenixDark said:
Is there any evidence that he's gay, outside of transparent rumors and shit?
Click to expand...


I don't believe so, but a label like that is kryptonite for Republicans (especially one looking for veep considerations).
 
H

HylianTom

Banned
Karma Kramer said:
I have a few things to ask of NeoGAF for the sake of a debate I am having with my mother.

What are the policies that McCain has flip-flopped on from 2000 to 2008?

And I need some article that sums up why offshore drilling is just a gimmick and will not lower gas prices. It needs to be from an un-biased source.

If anyone here could help that would be fantastic.
Click to expand...

Not sure if it's officially a "flip-flop," but it's a bit disingenuous to be sooooo passionate about campaign finance reform, only to pledge that he'll nominate judges who'll surely end-up voting to knock those same laws down. Not like campaign finance is a signature issue for him or anything.. /sarc

Also, Bush tax cuts were bad back in the day. Now? They're grrrreeaat!
 
G

Gaborn

Member
maximum360 said:
I don't believe so, but a label like that is kryptonite for Republicans (especially one looking for veep considerations).
Click to expand...

Not that a gay Democrat has a whole lot of chance to be Obama's VP. (I'm not disagreeing with you, I just think parsing out Republican implying that the Dems would nominate a gay candidate or running mate is a little silly in today's climate)
 
R

reilo

learning some important life lessons from magical Negroes
Karma Kramer said:
I have a few things to ask of NeoGAF for the sake of a debate I am having with my mother.

What are the policies that McCain has flip-flopped on from 2000 to 2008?

And I need some article that sums up why offshore drilling is just a gimmick and will not lower gas prices. It needs to be from an un-biased source.

If anyone here could help that would be fantastic.
Click to expand...

Olbermann had a segment on this last week, actually. He listed all of McCain's flip-flops.

Might find it here:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/

EDIT: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/#25465984

Watch that. June 30th, segment #3, "Can McCain be trusted?"
 
T

Tamanon

Banned
PhoenixDark said:
Is there any evidence that he's gay, outside of transparent rumors and shit?
Click to expand...

Evidence? There's no pictures of him doing the nasty.

One of his old cohorts in the Florida GOP admitted to an affair with him and that he had a relationship with another GOP worker.

Of course, he denies it, because you can't be gay and Republican in the South.
 
A

artredis1980

Banned
Obama responds to FISA criticism

I want to take this opportunity to speak directly to those of you who oppose my decision to support the FISA compromise.

This was not an easy call for me. I know that the FISA bill that passed the House is far from perfect. I wouldn't have drafted the legislation like this, and it does not resolve all of the concerns that we have about President Bush's abuse of executive power. It grants retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies that may have violated the law by cooperating with the Bush administration's program of warrantless wiretapping. This potentially weakens the deterrent effect of the law and removes an important tool for the American people to demand accountability for past abuses. That's why I support striking Title II from the bill, and will work with Chris Dodd, Jeff Bingaman and others in an effort to remove this provision in the Senate.

But I also believe that the compromise bill is far better than the Protect America Act that I voted against last year. The exclusivity provision makes it clear to any president or telecommunications company that no law supersedes the authority of the FISA court. In a dangerous world, government must have the authority to collect the intelligence we need to protect the American people. But in a free society, that authority cannot be unlimited. As I've said many times, an independent monitor must watch the watchers to prevent abuses and to protect the civil liberties of the American people. This compromise law assures that the FISA court has that responsibility.

The Inspectors General report also provides a real mechanism for accountability and should not be discounted. It will allow a close look at past misconduct without hurdles that would exist in federal court because of classification issues. The recent investigation (PDF) uncovering the illegal politicization of Justice Department hiring sets a strong example of the accountability that can come from a tough and thorough IG report.

The ability to monitor and track individuals who want to attack the United States is a vital counter-terrorism tool, and I'm persuaded that it is necessary to keep the American people safe -- particularly since certain electronic surveillance orders will begin to expire later this summer. Given the choice between voting for an improved yet imperfect bill, and losing important surveillance tools, I've chosen to support the current compromise. I do so with the firm intention -- once I'm sworn in as president -- to have my Attorney General conduct a comprehensive review of all our surveillance programs, and to make further recommendations on any steps needed to preserve civil liberties and to prevent executive branch abuse in the future.

Now, I understand why some of you feel differently about the current bill, and I'm happy to take my lumps on this side and elsewhere. For the truth is that your organizing, your activism and your passion is an important reason why this bill is better than previous versions. No tool has been more important in focusing peoples' attention on the abuses of executive power in this administration than the active and sustained engagement of American citizens. That holds true -- not just on wiretapping, but on a range of issues where Washington has let the American people down.

I learned long ago, when working as an organizer on the South Side of Chicago, that when citizens join their voices together, they can hold their leaders accountable. I'm not exempt from that. I'm certainly not perfect, and expect to be held accountable too. I cannot promise to agree with you on every issue. But I do promise to listen to your concerns, take them seriously, and seek to earn your ongoing support to change the country. That is why we have built the largest grassroots campaign in the history of presidential politics, and that is the kind of White House that I intend to run as president of the United States -- a White House that takes the Constitution seriously, conducts the peoples' business out in the open, welcomes and listens to dissenting views, and asks you to play your part in shaping our country's destiny.

Democracy cannot exist without strong differences. And going forward, some of you may decide that my FISA position is a deal breaker. That's ok. But I think it is worth pointing out that our agreement on the vast majority of issues that matter outweighs the differences we may have. After all, the choice in this election could not be clearer. Whether it is the economy, foreign policy, or the Supreme Court, my opponent has embraced the failed course of the last eight years, while I want to take this country in a new direction. Make no mistake: if John McCain is elected, the fundamental direction of this country that we love will not change. But if we come together, we have an historic opportunity to chart a new course, a better course.

So I appreciate the feedback through my.barackobama.com, and I look forward to continuing the conversation in the months and years to come. Together, we have a lot of work to do.
Click to expand...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/barack-obama/my-position-on-fisa_b_110789.html
 
X

XxenobladerxX

Member
Tamanon said:
Right....he posted it in response to someone asking for an unbiased source about oil drilling:p
Click to expand...
Oh shit my bad. Ive been to eager to say that line for sometime now.

its still older than yo momma though
 
G

Gaborn

Member
Thunder Monkey said:
I... love you?
Click to expand...

LoveHeart.gif
 
N

NewLib

Banned
XxenobladerxX said:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/01/stephen-baldwin-on-fox-ne_n_110169.html

Good,less jerks like this in the country is a good thing.
Click to expand...


You know I was wondering. Everytime a Republican wins, liberals come out of the woodwork saying they are going to Canada/Europe. What happens if a Democrats wins? Do Conservatives do the same? I mean Canada/Europe are more liberal. Where do Conservatives threaten to move to? Or do they just threaten to secede?
 
R

reilo

learning some important life lessons from magical Negroes
MMm, this redhead on CNN is nice. Looks good in HD, too.

But I got it on mute and I'm afraid I'll be disappointed if I hear her speak.
 
K

KRS7

Member
NewLib said:
You know I was wondering. Everytime a Republican wins, liberals come out of the woodwork saying they are going to Canada/Europe. What happens if a Democrats wins? Do Conservatives do the same? I mean Canada/Europe are more liberal. Where do Conservatives threaten to move to? Or do they just threaten to secede?
Click to expand...

I hear Iran and Saudi Arabia are pretty conservative.
 
Jinfash

Jinfash

needs 2 extra inches
KRS7 said:
I hear Iran and Saudi Arabia are pretty conservative.
Click to expand...

HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAaa :lol
seriously don't give them any ideas!! we can barely handle the ones we have here.
 
R

reilo

learning some important life lessons from magical Negroes
This guy on CNN has more make-up on than Hillary. Looks really bad in HD.
 
T

Tamanon

Banned
NewLib said:
It does get them close to the oil...

But then there is that Muslim thing...
Click to expand...

Ya know, I bet if they got together and talked through their philosophies, they'd find a lot more in common than you'd think!
 
R

reilo

learning some important life lessons from magical Negroes
Tamanon said:
Ya know, I bet if they got together and talked through their philosophies, they'd find a lot more in common than you'd think!
Click to expand...

They'd instantly agree on what to do with gay people. And women! And guns!

Holy shit I think we're onto something.
 
S

speculawyer

Member
I was thinking about the Obama/Dobson flare up . . .

In the speech, Obama suggested that it would be impractical to govern based solely on the word of the Bible, noting that some passages suggest slavery is permissible and eating shellfish is disgraceful.

"Which passages of scripture should guide our public policy?" Obama asked in the speech. "Should we go with Leviticus, which suggests slavery is OK and that eating shellfish is an abomination? Or we could go with Deuteronomy, which suggests stoning your child if he strays from the faith? Or should we just stick to the Sermon on the Mount?

"So before we get carried away, let's read our Bible now," Obama said, to cheers. "Folks haven't been reading their Bible." He also called Jesus' Sermon on the Mount "a passage that is so radical that it's doubtful that our Defense Department would survive its application."

In the comments aired Tuesday, Dobson said Obama should not be referencing antiquated dietary codes and passages from the Old Testament that are no longer relevant to the teachings of the New Testament.
Click to expand...

So if Dobson thinks "Obama should not be referencing antiquated dietary codes and passages from the Old Testament that are no longer relevant to the teachings of the New Testament" then doesn't that mean Dobson should OK with homosexuality and gay marriage?

Jesus didn't say a word about homosexuality. Homosexuality is only in one of those "passages from the Old Testament that are no longer relevant to the teachings of the New Testament".


Of course Obama's main point is that people interepret the Bible in different ways . . . . thus as soon as Dobson opened his mouth to question Obama's interpretation he proved Obama's point.
 
R

reilo

learning some important life lessons from magical Negroes
speculawyer said:
Of course Obama's main point is that people interepret the Bible in different ways . . . . thus as soon as Dobson opened his mouth to question Obama's interpretation he proved Obama's point.
Click to expand...

I don't think he's that smart to realize that. If he was, he would have no problem with what Obama said.
 
mckmas8808

mckmas8808

Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
siamesedreamer said:
TIME

What the fuck is he trying to say? :lol
Click to expand...


What the fuck is the problem with you man? It's so damn easy to see what he is saying there. Get out more careful than we got in.
 
T

Tamanon

Banned
It's like people don't remember how much Hillary bitched when Obama said he would be open to changes in the plan after listening to the situation on the ground but would still push for measured withdrawal. Hillary tried to make it out like he was making this huge change and said that no matter what she would stick to her pledged plan. It's the same position he's held this entire time, in fact I'd say that some of the editorial people knew this and just portrayed it as an eventual softening when it was something that had always been there.

"I will be as careful getting out of Iraq as we were careless getting in" has been in the stump forever.
 
G

Gaborn

Member
speculawyer said:
That guy is nuts.
Click to expand...

I know, I just mentioned him because at one point he was trying to argue that the right has more cultural similarity with radical Islam as compared to the American left. He's a bit of a nutty neo-con with some wacky theories, but it sounded pretty much like what Tamanon was suggesting. (sort of a "for further reading..." comment)
 
S

speculawyer

Member
Gaborn said:
I know, I just mentioned him because at one point he was trying to argue that the right has more cultural similarity with radical Islam as compared to the American left. He's a bit of a nutty neo-con with some wacky theories, but it sounded pretty much like what Tamanon was suggesting. (sort of a "for further reading..." comment)
Click to expand...
Yeah . . . he wrote a whole book about how 9/11 was the fault of liberals because of our Hollywood movies and Rock & Roll. If we were all nice little church going conservatives there would be no problems. He managed to outrage even the right with that book.

Basically, it seems to be Falwell's post-9/11 gaff in book form:

51ShlLT%2BXtL._SL500_AA240_.jpg

The Enemy At Home: The Cultural Left and Its Responsibility for 9/11
 
G

Gaborn

Member
speculawyer said:
Yeah . . . he wrote a whole book about how 9/11 was the fault of liberals because of our Hollywood movies and Rock & Roll. If we were all nice little church going conservatives there would be no problems. He managed to outrage even the right with that book.

Basically, it seems to be Falwell's post-9/11 gaff in book form:

51ShlLT%2BXtL._SL500_AA240_.jpg

The Enemy At Home: The Cultural Left and Its Responsibility for 9/11
Click to expand...

Yep, thanks, was too lazy to look up the specific book :D
 
D

Diablos

Member
Wow, his statement on FISA was refreshing...

I trust this guy. Really, I do. It is rare in this day and age to trust a politician at face value, but I really, really do.

I think half of the problem here is that everyone's associating FISA with a Bush administration mentality.
 
G

Gaborn

Member
Diablos said:
Wow, his statement on FISA was refreshing...

I trust this guy. Really, I do. It is rare in this day and age to trust a politician at face value, but I really, really do.

I think half of the problem here is that everyone's associating FISA with a Bush administration mentality.
Click to expand...

I trust Obama marginally more than Bush but no politician or President should ever have the powers that bill gives them and the telecomms should have never been granted immunity.

After all, let's say Obama gets elected, has these powers and uses them 100% responsibly. Then, in either 4 years or 8 another Bush type who WILL abuse them is elected. Unfortunately this kind of thing isn't easily removed once given to a President.
 
T

Tamanon

Banned
Gaborn said:
I trust Obama marginally more than Bush but no politician or President should ever have the powers that bill gives them and the telecomms should have never been granted immunity.

After all, let's say Obama gets elected, has these powers and uses them 100% responsibly. Then, in either 4 years or 8 another Bush type who WILL abuse them is elected. Unfortunately this kind of thing isn't easily removed once given to a President.
Click to expand...

The way I look at it, the Republicans will be working to have the bill removed if Obama takes office anyways so it's win-win. Suddenly there'll be a new surge of "Executive power must be constrained!"
 
G

Gaborn

Member
Tamanon said:
The way I look at it, the Republicans will be working to have the bill removed if Obama takes office anyways so it's win-win. Suddenly there'll be a new surge of "Executive power must be constrained!"
Click to expand...

Yeah, but by then the telecomms will still be immune (once immunity is granted I doubt it can be removed) from prosecution, and I'm not so sure that the Republicans (who will be in the minority in both houses of Congress) will be able to do anything to repeal this.
 
R

reilo

learning some important life lessons from magical Negroes
Gaborn said:
Yeah, but by then the telecomms will still be immune (once immunity is granted I doubt it can be removed) from prosecution, and I'm not so sure that the Republicans (who will be in the minority in both houses of Congress) will be able to do anything to repeal this.
Click to expand...

Olbermann pointed out that several lawyers have stated that the bill, as it stands, still allows for criminal prosecution against telecoms. The way the bill is worded, telecoms are only exempt from civil law suits.
 
G

Gaborn

Member
reilo said:
Olbermann pointed out that several lawyers have stated that the bill, as it stands, still allows for criminal prosecution against telecoms. The way the bill is worded, telecoms are only exempt from civil law suits.
Click to expand...

Yeah, good luck with that. Do you have any idea how hard it is to jail a CEO of a company over something like this? It's a lot easier to get money out of a corporation than it is criminally prosecute them, and it's a lot more effective. CEOs/boards of directors can be replaced, hit the company where it actually HURTS.
 
I

Incognito

Troll
A criminal prosecution is not going to happen. I mean not going to happen. These teleco's have been indemnified. They don't give two hoots about punitive damages. The only teeth in the bill was the aspect concerning civil prosecution and that has been negated by "conditional immunity." That should be insulting to everyone's intelligence.
 
mckmas8808

mckmas8808

Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
Karma Kramer said:
Obama has got to start getting on the offensive soon otherwise I see this snowball turning into an avalanche.
Click to expand...


Him typing that out on his website is great to me. And he is on the offensive right now. Look at all his speeches that he gave this week.
 
G

Gaborn

Member
Incognito said:
A criminal prosecution is not going to happen. I mean not going to happen. These teleco's have been indemnified. They don't give two hoots about punitive damages. The only teeth in the bill was the aspect concerning civil prosecution and that has been negated by "conditional immunity." That should be insulting to everyone's intelligence.
Click to expand...

Thank you. :D
 
S

Suikoguy

I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
S

speculawyer

Member
Gaborn said:
Yeah, good luck with that. Do you have any idea how hard it is to jail a CEO of a company over something like this? It's a lot easier to get money out of a corporation than it is criminally prosecute them, and it's a lot more effective. CEOs/boards of directors can be replaced, hit the company where it actually HURTS.
Click to expand...

Well the point isn't to jail a CEO. The point is to get discovery so they can find out what happened. And if some smelly stuff appears, some Bush administration people may end up as the ultimate targets.

But the whole possibility depends on Obama winning. No GOP DOJ would move forward on any investigation.
 
G

Gaborn

Member
speculawyer said:
Well the point isn't to jail a CEO. The point is to get discovery so they can find out what happened. And if some smelly stuff appears, some Bush administration people may end up as the ultimate targets.

But the whole possibility depends on Obama winning. No GOP DOJ would move forward on any investigation.
Click to expand...

True, but as long as they DON'T have civil immunity (which should've never been granted in the first place in any context) they're open to everyday citizens suing them for giving up their data in violation of the law.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

SCHiM | Review Thread
Analysis Review
7
821
Eiknarf replied
[IGN] Explaining – and Fixing – IGN's Face-Off Controversy
20
2K
March Climber replied
Sand Land | Review Thread
Opinion Analysis Review
16
2K
adamsapple replied
Sexualizing
Opinion Drama Science 2
62
6K
Raonak replied
[GI.biz] Cheap money and bad bets: How the games industry turned pandemic success into disaster
2
75
3K
sharp weiner replied
Top Bottom