McCain/Palin v. Obama/Biden

[Tyen]

Originally Posted by Astrocreep

Obama looked like an idiot in that second oreilly clip. i like how people apologize for his stuttering by saying he is "well thought out." just admit he is a rubbish speaker when he doesnt have a script in front of him.

He chooses his words carefully. When you know every single word of what you just said will be thrown all over the news you have to walk on ice.

What's the deal with McCain blinking a lot?

[Shaof]

You know we attacked almost 350 separate targets in Iraq with aircraft between June of 2002 and the start of the war right? Over 250,000 pounds of bombs were dropped. All of this in response to Iraq shooting at our aircraft in no-fly zones imposed from the early 90s.

In my opinion, if you invade another country (see: Kuwait) and get decimated where the decimators impose no-fly zones, and then you attack aircraft enforcing those zones, you are grounds for declared war. WMD are irrelevant at that point.

So while Bush is seeking approval for declared war, he bombs them. Clinton bombs them in retaliation in the same way but it's never questioned because of the end result? Because there was no invasion?

In 1998 Clinton authorized Desert Fox, a 70 hour bombing campaign with over 100 targets in response to Iraq not allowing weapon inspectors in. There were others as well but it's pointless to mention them since the point has been made.

Do liberals think bombing campaigns and attacks on foreign soil are just fine so long as ground forces are not sent in to occupy? I can't seem to figure them out. Someone please explain it for us in laymans terms.

[Khorum]

Originally Posted by Eomer

But your talking points sound better, for sure, and make sense to me. But I think it's pretty obvious she had no fuckign clue what she was talking about.

Again, I'm not arguing any of that. I'm arguing she didn't know when to shut her fucking mouth.

Why do you say that?

How much more SENSE do you need than the fact that these two companies, whose loan processing practices, credit verification and investment procedures represent more than HALF of the same mortgage industry that has been vilified during the last six months for extending more credit to less qualified loaners, have been shown to have exaggerated their claims after some scrutiny by the treasury department?

She was right about her interpretations that those companies had excessive economic influence on the lives of Americans.

She was right that those companies had insufficient oversight and accountability since Paulson himself discovered that they had exaggerated their numbers (which precipitated the takeover).

And she was right that they have incurred direct and indirect Taxpayer burdens since Economists have explained how FNMA's behavior has had a direct cost to the taxpayer, beyond Congress's approval and blank check to Paulson this summer.

What do you think she was running her mouth about? Are you curious about what role Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had in extending mortgages to people who clearly couldn't sustain them? I dunno man, what gaffe did you think she made?

If you think her 'gaffe' some kind of misunderstanding that the "taxpayers" hadn't incurred any large costs because of this incident, that's a stretch at best because the "taxpayers" through congress authorized the commitment of resources that Paulson is employing now. In fact, if you think Palin made a "gaffe" based on those semantics, then OBAMA MADE THE SAME GAFFE IN WRITING in a letter to Treasury about the CEO pay of the FNMA executives:

Originally Posted by Barack Hussein Obama

"Under no circumstances should the executives of these institutions earn a windfall at a time when the U.S. Treasury has taken unprecedented steps to rescue these companies with taxpayer resources," Obama said in a letter to Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Federal Housing Finance Agency Director James Lockhart.

Was Obama wrong? No. Was Palin wrong? No. Who was wrong then? Oh right, the usual suspects: the yapping jackals over at Daily kOS.

[Arbuste]

Originally Posted by Eomer

Again, for the second time, this sentence does not make sense. I'm not disagreeing with your statement, because you didn't make one. She's correct about the consequences.... what? What are the consequences? What can no one argue with? If you've got an explanation for what appears to be a colossal gaffe, I'd love to hear it. But you're really not saying, well, anything in the above sentence.

Are you daft? He just accidentally the consequences. The whole consequences.

[Khorum]

Originally Posted by Arbuste

Are you daft? He just accidentally the consequences. The whole consequences.

huh?

I'm curious if anyone is still trying to run with this angle now that Obama's letter to Paulson essentially said the EXACT SAME POSITION about the commitment of taxpayer resources. But Obama put it in writing.

[Malakriss]

Originally Posted by Khorum

huh?

I had to view your response just because everyone knew you would never the meaning of Arbuste's post.

[Khorum]

Originally Posted by Malakriss

I had to view your response just because everyone knew you would never the meaning of Arbuste's post.

LOL yeah because you really the question.

LOL so you have NO GAFFE. Or at best you have Obama making the exact same gaffe and so you stick to Semantics?

Right, just the fuck up.

[Khorum]

I just discovered some new-found respect for Jeremiah Wright. I knew he had it in him, every former marine does.

According to Payne’s estranged husband, Fred Payne, 64, Wright e-mailed Elizabeth Payne and told her he was going to leave his wife, Ramah, for her.

Wright married Ramah more than 20 years ago after he unsuccessfully provided marriage counseling for her and her former husband.

Now that's pro.

[Kaosu]

Originally Posted by Khorum

The woman passed a REAL windfall tax oil company profits and then created a "Energy Debit Card" program that handed out debit cards to every Alaskan so they pay for their bills.

Aside from cutting costs and slashing the state budget of 231 million in wasteful spending, there really isn't much of a record of "tough fiscal conservatism" in her record. She's even raised the oil dividend payouts for alaskans.

As a side note and perhaps a counter point, she has dramatically increased the operating budget for government expenditures when she was governor to the largest ever in Alaska.

Here is the first:

adn.com | opinion : No vetoes here

Where she set a 6.6 billion operating budget, though, she had only vowed 250 million in cuts in over five years.

A little less than a year later:

Legislators lament larger operating budget: Alaska News | adn.com

11.2 Billion in operating budget, whereas their main (and pretty much only) source of money came in from Oil, to 7.8 billion of that year, in terms of revenue. Considering that oil is generally about 88-90% of Alaska's unrestricted revenue; yeah.

Fiscally conservative, indeed.

[Draegan]

Daily Kos: Alaska National Guard General Changes Story; Palin Promotes

I wonder how if this story will hit the national circuit. I wonder if there is any truth in it.

[Khorum]

Originally Posted by Kaosu

As a side note and perhaps a counter point, she has dramatically increased the operating budget for government expenditures when she was governor to the largest ever in Alaska.

Here is the first:

adn.com | opinion : No vetoes here

Where she set a 6.6 billion operating budget, though, she had only vowed 250 million in cuts in over five years.

A little less than a year later:

Legislators lament larger operating budget: Alaska News | adn.com

11.2 Billion in operating budget, whereas their main (and pretty much only) source of money came in from Oil, to 7.8 billion of that year, in terms of revenue. Considering that oil is generally about 88-90% of Alaska's unrestricted revenue; yeah.

Fiscally conservative, indeed.

I agree, that's a pretty legitimate attack on her since her record is clearly closer to left of center on spending. I mean, the windfall tax ALONE is a serious objection for fiscal conservatives.

I was actually kinda pleased when I heard that she reduced funding to some heavily underutilized social services in Alaska but she actually raised funding to extraneous 'special needs' services and some kind of teen parenthood program which smacks of planned parenthood.

The cabinet-level authority to police greenhouse gases and other climate issues was workable since Nixon essentially did the same thing, but the energy debit card program and her decision to prop up the state-owned dairy business to bail out the partner farmers puts her well off track for a "fiscal conservative".

[Khorum]

Oh fucking lol.

William Ayers is getting ready to out-Wright Jeremiah Wright. Ayers has decided to come out to defend his part in declaring war on America and Bombing the US Capitol, the Pentagon and many other Federal buildings as an avowed terrorist....with a comic:



It's important to note that his "bombs weren't meant to harm" bullshit is just that, since Ayers and his fellow terrorists designed ANTI-PERSONEL bombs that murdered policemen and many of their other bombings resulted in the deaths of bystanders and even some WUO members.

As far as Ayers' ridiculous delusion of the nobility of his terrorist group's actions, they were nothing more than base thugs. They took money from another radical group to break convicts out of prison and even participated on bank heists to bankroll their drug habits.

[Lleauaric~EW]

I gotta give you credit Khorum.

You post on this thread until like 3am in the morning, then start posting again at 6am, and continue with about 1 post per hour. Lengthy posts too. Respond to one post and you are 17 more deep before I respond and I have to about 45 minutes of reading and checking links to get caught up.

Meth is a helluva drug!

I bet if you got a good nights sleep you would wake up as a liberal.

[Khorum]

Originally Posted by Lleauaric~EW

I bet if you got a good nights sleep you would wake up as a liberal.

Thus the uppers.

[Lleauaric~EW]

lol

anyway.. a good article I saw the other day on Palin. (sorry if it was posted already)

FiveThirtyEight.com: Electoral Projections Done Right: Sarah Palin Is Not a Hockey Mom

Sarah Palin Is Not a Hockey Mom

She's a hockey player. She’s a fourth-line hockey agitator, beloved by the home crowd, loathed by the opponents, injecting passion into both fan bases, the kind of home-team hero that no Stanley Cup winner goes without.

Once upon a time, I applied an NFL-replay mentality to hockey playoffs, holding on to outrages over missed calls, blatantly unfair officiating, double standards, and outright getting-away-with-stuff (which always led to an early spring exit for my beloved Blues). I wanted – and unreasonably expected – bad behavior to be proportionally punished.

And then several years ago I had an epiphany about the hockey playoffs – nobody is coming to save you. Initiators win, reactors lose. Expect adversity, because it's built in. The fourth-line, no-scoring-talent, pest agitators (or as we now call them, “energy guys”) have a specific job. Skate in, take a cheap shot, make it after the whistle. Make it against the rules. Stir something up. Put a wet glove in the other guy's face and rub it. Get the outrage flowing. Get the opponent not thinking about the game, get them thinking about your shenanigans. And what happens? The “victimized” team loses its composure, hitting back. The guy who hits second is always the guy who goes to the penalty box.

Watching Sarah Palin this week, and the reaction to her by both sides, and all the talk of hockey mommery, I realized that this is who she is. She skates into the corner, throws up an elbow, and the Democrats cry: “Foul!” Hey! She said Obama has never passed a major bill – this is an objective lie! Hey! She ridiculed community organizing the day after Service was the theme! Technically people should punish her by not voting for her over this infraction!

It’s whining, and whiners hit back second and go to the penalty box on top of it.

Sarah Palin is a person who by her own admission found out about the Iraq surge – the centerpiece of the McCain judgment argument – from television. Apologies to conservatives, but technically, objectively, inarguably, this alone makes her unqualified to be President. But we don’t live in that technical or objective world. Political campaigns – as distinct from policy and governance – are the NHL playoffs. It’s only about who survives the war of attrition to the finish line first. Is Brett Hull’s skate still in Dominik Hasek’s crease and was that same situation disallowed in every previous instance throughout that season? Yes, but so what? Dallas had a parade.

In the hockey analogy, Palin wouldn’t get within a thousand miles of an NHL All-Star Game because she’s not a scoring talent. She’s a role player, an emotion-rouser. Emotion messes with the chalkboard-drawn game plan and thus achieves a specific strategic objective. She can make game-changing agitation plays that rouse her home team and provoke the other side into counterattacks that – 100% of the time – end up punishing the team who hits back. Democrats would be smart to understand her as such, and I see a lot of reaction that doesn't seem to grasp what Palin is doing and the value she's providing. I see a lot of Democrats taking a lot of bait.

This applies more to Democratic surrogates than it does to the top-ticket duo. Joe Biden had the smart response yesterday – naming the behavior – expecting it, and then riding through without taking the bait:

“It was about how well placed -- and boy she is good -- how a left jab can be stuck pretty nice. It’s about how Barack Obama is such a bad guy.”

And that’s all he says of Palin’s antics. Name the behavior, even praising the skill with which the agitation was attempted, and then back to focus. It's "the economy, stupid."

Finally – is the analogy complete? In the end a great hockey agitator who rouses both sides emotionally (and successfully gets the other team to lose focus) still needs the home team scoring talent to come through. Successful agitator Kris Draper of the Detroit Red Wings had the clutch Steve Yzerman for a lot of years. That worked. Detroit won Cups. They had parades.

Successful agitator Tyson Nash, when he was on my Blues, was stuck with the antithesis of playoff clutch, the easily thrown-off-his-game Keith Tkachuk. That didn’t work. No Cup. Even if Palin is successful in her task of agitation and distraction, which one is John McCain?