McCain/Palin v. Obama/Biden

[Khorum]

Originally Posted by I'm Rich Bitch

I think cocky wacko describes McCain's base of which Khorum is a proud member.

Luckily, nothing you "THINK" has ever proven to be right at all. Ever.

[earthfell]

Originally Posted by Khorum

AYERS LIPSTICK VIDEO TELEPROMPTER AYERS CHICAGO LIPSTICK VIDEO STUTTER RED AYERS TELEPROMPTER AYERS LIPSTICK STUTTER AYERS CHICAGO EDUCATION AYERS TELEPROMPTER LIPSTICK VIDEO RED TELEPROMPTER

fixed

[JerleMinara]

Originally Posted by gn0me

Honestly, I've heard it discussed a lot in the past 5-7 years... It doesn't come up in casual conversation very often, but reading political news and commentary on a daily basis it's a pretty frequently referenced and discussed concept.

A daily basis? I think that's stretching it, but if you claim so. Perhaps you were looking at a certain subsection vastly different from my own. I read a lot of political commentary and discussion and news, and I haven't seen it that frequently. In fairness, I read conservatively-focused and oriented sites, so perhaps it's a more common phrase in the more liberal communities.

[AladainAF]

Originally Posted by chaos

QFT. I never could understand this, why do such a large number of self identified "conservatives" (nevermind that no party follows a true conservative doctrine these days) have some irrational hatred of everything liberal, to the point where if you disagree with their views in any way you are written off as a liberal. It is as if a large portion, specifically of the right in this country, has no motivation other than to be against "liberalism".

I'm a self defined conservative (though not a Bush supporter, or really republican supporter at this point), and I can tell you that its the exact same way the other side of the isle. If you do not see it, it is because you are choosing not to.

How can you possibly point at only self-defined conservatives and say this behavior comes only from them? As an example, every idea/debate I've ever brought to the table on this board that doesn't confirm to a liberal agenda has resulted in me being called a war-mongering, Bush cock sucking, Halliburton loving, Fox news robot, Rush Limbaugh listening, Sean Hannity ordered religious zealot republican. I have consistently, since I've posted on this forum stated that I am not a Bush supporter, don't really identify with the republican party (nor democrats for that matter), and am not religious. But it doesn't matter, because I still get accused of it, because my view doesn't conform to a specific agenda.

Its like impossible to have a real debate on these boards anymore, and in many cases just anywhere - its just not worth the frustration of it.

Until both sides can actually have a real debate, and actually say "You know what, I didn't see it that way, good point - I was wrong", and maybe even identify themselves as an "american" instead of a "red" or "blue" person -- all its ever going to be is going back and forth of liberals accusing conservatives being ultra extremists, and conservatives accusing liberals being ultra extremists, with both sides allowing, excusing, and even going as far as defending their agendas extremist views.

[Melchizedek]

This is just another reason why Republicans are doing so well. This will not hit home with the big libs but hits home with small town America.

[Kirby]

no way that's an official ad.

Edit: oops ya don't think it is my bust.

[Badass]

Originally Posted by JerleMinara

There is no such thing as a simple definition of the Bush Doctrine. Bush's foreign policy declarations and actions are a multifaceted concept that not everyone agrees on the definition of. The Bush Doctrine can be interpreted in many ways, encompassing many precepts.

A lot of the talking heads disagree on the nature of the Doctrine. Some feel that the promotion of Democracy is a key precept, whereas others feel it's a secondary element. Some argue that the Doctrine is simply the edict of preemption, others claim that it's simply "terrorist sponsoring states are treated as terrorists".

The truth is, the Bush Doctrine is not something that comes up outside of the capital, which Palin is very clearly not a part of. It's a vaguely defined term that not everyone agrees upon, and while it was partially enumerated in September of '02, it's not a self-consistent policy that is thoroughly applied.

The fact that she didn't know what it was really doesn't bother me: I've heard the term "the Bush Doctrine" bandied about perhaps a half dozen time in the same number of years, always by people attempting to sound highbrow. Had the question been "what are your thoughts on President Bush's policies of preemption" or "how do you feel about the belief that terrorist sponsoring states are considered accomplices in terrorist activities", it would have been the same question without trying to come across as a 'Gotcha!' moment.

Can you people honestly say you've heard the idea of "the Bush Doctrine" used in any frequent or regular way prior to this evening?

Edit: That's not to say it's not used in very specific think tank summaries, but as a sweeping, foreign-policy outlook, I don't think it's accurate to say that it's the be all and end all. I'm sure I'll be linked to studies spanning a dozen brain trusts and 5 years worth of documents, but in the political world, beyond the Washington thinktank establishment, the phrase doesn't have much in the way of legs and never has. Not yet. In time, I'm sure it will.

The "Bush doctrine" is absolutely well known to those who follow politics to any significant degree. I would strongly assume that military folks know what it is. It is at least as well known as the Powell doctrine.

While the Powell doctrine is commonly described as "overwhelming force" the Bush doctrine is commonly described as post 9/11 "pre-emptive use of force". She should at least know that much - I wouldnt fault her for not knowing any more than that at this point - but she should know that. That was a pretty big mistake on her part considering she could very soon be commander in chief.

[Melchizedek]

Originally Posted by I'm Rich Bitch

I think cocky wacko describes McCain's base of which Khorum is a proud member.

Really?!!?

Did our whackos (cuz we do have em) receive (or steal) press passes to get into areas of the DNC convention? Code Pink did.

Did our whackos threaten news agencies? Code pink did.

Grasping at straws are we?

[Melchizedek]

Originally Posted by Kirby

no way that's an official ad.

Edit: oops ya don't think it is my bust.

Really, who did it then?

It is not an official add.. Spin baby spin. That is just a soldier who has sacrificed for his country and knows what really is on the line here. People will see that. It will hit home. And liberal democrats are powerless against it.

[Goliath]

Originally Posted by Melchizedek

This is just another reason why Republicans are doing so well. This will not hit home with the big libs but hits home with small town America.

Stupid. I'm so sick of the fallacy that if you think the Iraq war was a mistake then you are disrespecting all the soldiers that died and are spitting in their faces.

Okey dokey, I guess I'm doing the same thing when I say the holocaust was a mistake. I spit in all those soldiers faces who died doing what they were ordered, same thing, right? Oh wait, I'm allowed to spit in their faces and disrespect them?

If Bush ordered the military to kill children and a few children killed the soldiers and I said the entire ordeal was a mistake, I guess I'm disrespecting all those people ain't I?

Shit just because they died doesn't mean whatever they were doing or the leadership that put them there was actually right. You people are so mind-numbingly retarded sometimes.

[Gilgamel]

You might be the dumbest person ever to post in this thread.

[chaos]

Originally Posted by AladainAF

I'm a self defined conservative (though not a Bush supporter, or really republican supporter at this point), and I can tell you that its the exact same way the other side of the isle. If you do not see it, it is because you are choosing not to.

How can you possibly point at only self-defined conservatives and say this behavior comes only from them? As an example, every idea/debate I've ever brought to the table on this board that doesn't confirm to a liberal agenda has resulted in me being called a war-mongering, Bush cock sucking, Halliburton loving, Fox news robot, Rush Limbaugh listening, Sean Hannity ordered religious zealot republican. I have consistently, since I've posted on this forum stated that I am not a Bush supporter, don't really identify with the republican party (nor democrats for that matter), and am not religious. But it doesn't matter, because I still get accused of it, because my view doesn't conform to a specific agenda.

Its like impossible to have a real debate on these boards anymore, and in many cases just anywhere - its just not worth the frustration of it.

Until both sides can actually have a real debate, and actually say "You know what, I didn't see it that way, good point - I was wrong", and maybe even identify themselves as an "american" instead of a "red" or "blue" person -- all its ever going to be is going back and forth of liberals accusing conservatives being ultra extremists, and conservatives accusing liberals being ultra extremists, with both sides allowing, excusing, and even going as far as defending their agendas extremist views.

I didn't say ONLY conservatives, but it's certainly more pronounced in the conservative community than it is in the more liberal ones. You will never hear a self described liberal use the word "conservative" as an insult. However, to see the opposite you only have to look at the post directly following your's. What I notice from self identified liberals is that they tend to react irrationally to anything related to Bush, not necessarily conservatism or the word "conservative". I think this is largely due to the lack of Hannitys and Limbaughs on the more liberal side and thus lack of organization, there is no real "liberal movement" in this country, at least not on the scale of the conservative one. Listen to Chuck Norris talk on that Larry King episode, he uses the word "liberal" like you would use the word "motherfucker".

I totally agree on the debate thing though. Haven't you noticed that this thread and others like it see a dramatic drop in traffic outside the "usual suspects" on these boards? More and more reasonable people get turned off or shouted down by the Khorums and IRBs of the world. In this case, the FOH General boards are a metaphor for real life.

It happens in politics too. Each side plays to their most extreme base.

[earthfell]

Originally Posted by Melchizedek

This is just another reason why Republicans are doing so well. This will not hit home with the big libs but hits home with small town America.

[Gilgamel]

You may not agree with him, but this is some interesting analysis. Here.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read:

Obama's Altitude Sickness
By Charles Krauthammer
WASHINGTON -- The Democrats are in a panic. In a presidential race that is impossible to lose, they are behind. Obama devotees are frantically giving advice. Tom Friedman tells him to "start slamming down some phones." Camille Paglia suggests, "be boring!"

Meanwhile, a posse of Democratic lawyers, mainstream reporters, lefty bloggers and various other Obamaphiles are scouring the vast tundra of Alaska for something, anything, to bring down Sarah Palin: her daughter's pregnancy, her ex-brother-in-law problem, her $60 per diem, and now her religion. (CNN reports -- news flash! -- that she apparently has never spoken in tongues.) Not since Henry II asked if no one would rid him of his turbulent priest, have so many so urgently volunteered for duty.


But Palin is not just a problem for Obama. She is also a symptom of what ails him. Before Palin, Obama was the ultimate celebrity candidate. For no presidential nominee in living memory had the gap between adulation and achievement been so great. Which is why McCain's Paris Hilton ads struck such a nerve. Obama's meteoric rise was based not on issues -- there was not a dime's worth of difference between him and Hillary on issues -- but on narrative, on eloquence, on charisma.

The unease at the Denver convention, the feeling of buyer's remorse, was the Democrats' realization that the arc of Obama's celebrity had peaked -- and had now entered a period of its steepest decline. That Palin could so instantly steal the celebrity spotlight is a reflection of that decline.

It was inevitable. Obama had managed to stay aloft for four full years. But no one can levitate forever.

Five speeches map Obama's trajectory.

Obama burst into celebrityhood with his brilliant and moving 2004 Democratic convention speech (#1). It turned an obscure state senator into a national figure and legitimate presidential candidate.

His next and highest moment (#2) was the night of his Iowa caucus victory when he gave an equally stirring speech of the highest tones that dazzled a national audience just tuning in.

The problem is that Obama began believing in his own magical powers -- the chants, the swoons, the "we are the ones" self-infatuation. Like Ronald Reagan, he was leading a movement, but one entirely driven by personality. Reagan's revolution was rooted in concrete political ideas (supply-side economics, welfare-state deregulation, national strength) that transcended one man. For Obama's movement, the man is the transcendence.

Which gave the Obama campaign a cult-like tinge. With every primary and every repetition of the high-flown, self-referential rhetoric, the campaign's insubstantiality became clear. By the time it was repeated yet again on the night of the last primary (#3), the tropes were tired and flat. To top himself, Obama had to reach. Hence his triumphal declaration that history would note that night, his victory, his ascension, as "the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal."

Clang. But Obama heard only the cheers of the invited crowd. Not yet seeing how the pseudo-messianism was wearing thin, he did Berlin (#4) and finally jumped the shark. That grandiloquent proclamation of universalist puffery popped the bubble. The grandiosity had become bizarre.

From there it was but a short step to Paris Hilton. Finally, the Obama people understood. Which is why the next data point (#5) is so different. Obama's Denver acceptance speech was deliberately pedestrian, State-of-the-Union-ish, programmatic and only briefly (that lovely coda recalling the March on Washington) lyrical.

The problem, however, was that Obama had announced the Invesco Field setting for the speech during the pre-Berlin flush of hubris. They were stuck with the Greek columns, the circus atmosphere, the rock star fireworks farewell -- as opposed to the warmer, traditional, balloon-filled convention-hall hug-a-thon. The incongruity between text and context was apparent. Obama was trying to make himself ordinary -- and serious -- but could hardly remember how.

One star fades, another is born. The very next morning McCain picks Sarah Palin and a new celebrity is launched. And in the celebrity game, novelty is trump. With her narrative, her persona, her charisma carrying the McCain campaign to places it has never been and by all logic has no right to be, she's pulling an Obama.

But her job is easier. She only has to remain airborne for seven more weeks. Obama maintained altitude for an astonishing four years. In politics, as in all games, however, it's the finish that counts.

[Horse]

Originally Posted by Melchizedek

Really?!!?

Did our whackos (cuz we do have em) receive (or steal) press passes to get into areas of the DNC convention? Code Pink did.

Did our whackos threaten news agencies? Code pink did.

Grasping at straws are we?

Yeah, it would be a bit unbecoming for the fuckin' power holders to protest the underdogs and lesser classes, now wouldn't it?

Of course the protestors will be a bit more aggressive towards that side.


Let's get it straight:
being aggressive and FIGHTING wars: ok
being aggressive and PROTESTING wars: waaaah your warmonger pussy hurts.


Sure.



Just look at all of the rampant hyporcritical bullshit the various reps have all over the news. Pfotenhauer and Palin criticised Clinton for pulling the gender card. What do they do? Talk about how its very sexist to criticize Palin. Snore. I guess I must be watching the liberal media's version of the words that come out of these fucking moron's mouths.

The pregnant teenage daughter is awesome. I bet they are biting their fuckin tongues at this point. O'Reilly slamming britney spears' sister saying it was the irresponsible parents' fault and they're pinheads. Laff. Pinheads.

I love how Obama has run so fucking amazingly obviously the cleanest campaign possible, and every single step of the way there's some clown trying to distort and detract to "win the election" rather than moving forward with any sort of substance in their own campaign.


What is 100% bullshit is the abortion/choice issue in Palin's case.

Bristol Palin made the decision on her own to keep the baby
In November 2006, then gubernatorial candidate Sarah Palin declared that she would not support an abortion for her own daughter even if she had been raped.

Yes, lets elect someone who preserves their own simple freedoms while in turn shitting on everyone elses.

Oh, wait, the democrats - of which the majority of the voters in this country are - are the elitist ones.

I personally hope the elitist retards' campaign finally crashes and burns. I will not be surprised if it doesn't. I will also not be surprised if Obama gets in and basically amounts to nothing.

I'd love to see the rich elite taken down quite a few notches in the name of social equality. These stupid fucks smirking at "community organizer" (yeah, and a professor at a school where he personally touched many people's lives in a pursuit of equality and reform) have some rather large balls when what the fuck have they really ever done for the little po folk? It's always some corporation or blood money interest at heart.


In summation, I skimmed some new numbers and I love the stat that there are 11 million more dems registered to vote than reps, yet reps are winning all of these phony polls.

Shrug. I'd be pretty impressed if I met even one republican who could convince me differently on any issue. Just one. Any issue. Take your pick. Something your party overlords have shoved down your throat, that I don't agree with. Make me see things differently without resorting to bullshit.

Piece of shits talking about honor from a podium. Talking about saving face because they "broke" something. Such ridiculous bullshit.

Lawnchair patriotism.