Thursday, September 04, 2008

Republican Speeches

Ok, credit where credit is due; Palin gave a good speech and I would like to give credit to who ever wrote it for her. She recited it well.

Apparently being the Mayor of a town of 8,000 people in Alaska does make you more qualified to be president than someone who has more political experience than Hillary Clinton and Bush did before he was elected President and someone who graduated from Harvard and taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago, a University neither McCain nor Palin could ever even dream of attending. And apparently, Palin is even more qualified than the top of her ticket since he has never held an executive office and has never had to lead anyone. So, creating ordinances to deal with raccoons in people's trash cans is the type of experience America needs when that call comes in at three in the morning and the Russian bear in trying to get in through our door.

I didn't catch Romney's speech but what really stood out was Giulani's speech. Not only did he sound like he was telling his estranged children a bed time story which he made up as he went along but I was surprised about how either wrong he was about 90% of it or how he was flat out lying through his teeth.

Here's his speech and my retort in red:

Almost exactly one year ago during a Republican presidential debate in Durham, N.H., I said that if I weren't running for president myself, I'd be supporting John McCain. Well, I'm not, (Thankfully) and I do. How many times has he said "I do"?

Every four years, we are told that this presidential election is the most important election of our lifetime. This year — 2008 — IS the most important. It wouldn't have been if the Supreme Court hadn't handed Bush the job in 2000.

This has already been historic. It is the longest presidential campaign in history. And it sometimes felt even longer. Longer? As in one leg longer than the other? Reminds me of what happened to McCain's first wife before he cheated on her and then dumped her for a rich cheerleader 16 years her junior and then married a month after his divorce was final.

The American people realize this election represents a turning point. In two months they will decide the future direction of our nation. It's a decision to follow one path or another. In other words, the same path as Bush or a completely new one.

"We the people" — the citizens of the United States — get to decide our next president ... not the media, not Hollywood celebrities, not anyone else. Well, actually, in the past two elections it has been shady local governments, the Electoral College and the Republican appointed Supreme Court.

This is a time for choosing — and to those Americans who still feel torn in this election, I'd like to suggest one way to think about the choice you have to make in 2008:

You're hiring someone to do a job — an important job that involves the safety and security of your family.
But isn't part of the job also making sure your family doesn't go broke and has food to eat and has an income? Imagine that you have two job applications in your hand — with the names and party affiliations taken off the top. They're both good and patriotic men — with very different life experiences that have led them to this moment in history.

You've got to make this decision right. Who would you hire?
The Legacy student who got in to the Naval Academy because of his parents and grandparents and graduated 894th out of 899 from the Naval Academy or the one who got a B.A. in Political Science and International Relations From Columbia University and then later graduated Magna Cum Laude from Harvard with a law degree where he became the first black President of the Harvard Law Review managing a staff of 80 people?

On the one hand, you've got a man who has dedicated his life to the service of his country. He's been tested time and again by crisis. He's passed every test. Actually, you have two who have dedicated their life to the service of their country; one happened to do it with guns and firepower the other did it with his organizational skills.

Even his adversaries acknowledge that he is a true American hero. He loves America as we all do — but he's sacrificed for it as few do. It's not like he volunteered to be a POW. As a young man, he joined the military ... and being a "Top Gun" kind of guy, he became a fighter pilot. He was on a mission over Hanoi when his plane was shot down.

He was tortured in a POW camp, but he refused his captors' offers of early release. Because this is a man who believes in serving a cause greater than self-interest. He came home a national hero.

He had earned a life of peace and quiet, but he was called to public service again, running for Congress and then the Senate as a proud foot soldier in the Reagan revolution. His principled independence never wavered. He stood up to special interests, fought for fiscal discipline, ethics reform and a strong national defense.
So where does the Keating 5 play into ethics?

That's one man.

On the other hand, you have a résumé from a gifted man with an Ivy League education.
Ok, so he's a self made, smart, educated man. I can already see the contrast between him McCain and Bush. He worked as a community organizer, and immersed himself in Chicago machine politics. Except for the fact that he never held office in the city of Chicago. Then he ran for the state legislature — where nearly 130 times he was unable to make a decision yes or no. He simply voted "present." You mean like not being able to decide if condoms can help prevent the spread of AIDS or trying to decide how many houses you own?

As mayor of New York City, I never got a chance to vote "present." And you know, when you're president of the United States, you can't just vote "present." You must make decisions. McCain has made some "tough decisions" too. Such as, "should I divorce my old, fat, crippled wife for a young rich cheerleader who can launch my political career?"

A few years later, he ran for the U.S. Senate. He won and has spent most of his time as a "celebrity senator." As opposed to McCain and Giuliani who have both been on Saturday Night Live and are typically seen front row of big name boxing matches? No leadership or major legislation to speak of. Except his leadership in the community, his leadership of the Harvard Law Review, his state legislation on tax cuts for families with children, on making it mandatory for police to video tape murder suspect interrogations and his work with Lugar in securing Russia's nuclear arsenal and keeping it off the black market, among others. His rise is remarkable in its own right — it's the kind of thing that could happen only in America. But he's never run a city, never run a state, never run a business. Neither has McCain. McCain's story could actually happen anywhere. Children born to powerful families and marrying into wealth somehow shuttled him to the rank of the richest and most powerful people in the Senate.

He's never had to lead people in crisis. Neither has McCain or Palin. In fact, McCain has never had any combat command or ever led any troops into battle. His only executive assignment was a peace time flight squadron he trained.

This is not a personal attack ... it's a statement of fact — Barack Obama has never led anything. Again, except for an entire community and the staff of the prestigeous Harvard Law Review which is more than McCain can say.

Nothing. Nada. McCain, McCain

The choice in this election comes down to substance over style. John has been tested. Barack Obama has not. Well, McCain certainly doesn't have style and I would say it's a leap of faith that he has substance. This is a guy who dumps his wife for a rich woman 17 years younger than he and flip flops on everything from tax cuts, abortion, torture and his own religion. How's that for substance?

Tough times require strong leadership, and this is no time for on-the-job training. Which is why Palin needs to go back to Alaska and get her first passport signed.

It's about who can answer that crisis call — yes, Hillary, at 3 o'clock in the morning. McCain wouldn't even hear the phone ring.

Well, no one can look at John McCain and say that he is not ready to be commander in chief. Are you kidding, no one could look at him and say he wasn't ready for a nursing home.

So, our opponents want to reframe the debate. They would have you believe that this election is about change versus more of the same. But that's really a false choice. Because "change" is not a destination ... just as "hope" is not a strategy. So I suppose choosing to invade Iraq was a good strategy?

John McCain will bring about the change that will create jobs and prosperity. How? He will lower taxes so our economy can grow. He will lower taxes on people making over $200,000 per year but his tax cuts will actually be less than Obama's for everyone else. He will reduce government spending to strengthen our dollar. How, by spending 100 years in Iraq and giving more subsidies to drill for oil in deep water? He will expand free trade so we can be even more competitive. So CEO's severance packages will be more competitive. He will lead us toward an America that will be independent of foreign oil by an all-of-the-above approach, including nuclear power and offshore drilling. Really? So you are saying that America has enough oil reserves to meet all of our demands for the next 50 years; all we have to do is drill in ANWR?? If that were the case we would already be doing it. A Republican that will get us off foreign oil, that will be the day as Republican candidates wouldn't exist without oil money. They do what they are told, if that is invading Iraq that's what they do, if that's buying from the Saudi's that's what they will do.

This is the kind of change we need. Actually, a little change is all you will have left after McCain gives all your money away to top corporations who raise your gas prices and exports your jobs. Hopefully that change will be enough to pay your mortgage even though your tax dollars were already used to bail out banks and mortgage companies who thought it was a good idea to give loans to homeless people.

And he will keep us on offense against terrorism at home and abroad. Offense is what we are scared of. What would be nice is to actually attack the right countries and finish the job before we move on to our next conquest. For four days in Denver and for the past 18 months, Democrats have been afraid to use the words "Islamic terrorism." During their convention, the Democrats rarely mentioned the attacks of Sept. 11. But you sure do, in fact, your scare tactics are all you guys have. Not once in the Republican convention mentioned failure of intelligence in Iraq.

They are in a state of denial about the threat that faces us now and in the future. No actually, they are in denial of the made up threats such as Iraq and very aware of the real threats in Afghanistan which McCain and Bush both ignored. During the Democrats "denial" both Iran and N. Korea have gone or are about to go Nuclear. It appears the Bush policies of threat and intimidation have only made other nations realize they need to build nuclear weapons to deter the US from invading their country and taking their resources. Bang up foreign policy Mr. Republican.

You need to face your enemy in order to defeat them. John McCain will face this threat and lead us on to victory. Where, In Iraq, Georgia, certainly not in Afghanistan where the terrorists are.

Look at just one example in a lifetime of principled stands — John McCain's support for the troop surge in Iraq. But then there's his support for the war in Iraq which is the main question. And let's be honest, the troop surge is not the only or even main reason violence is down. When we stop paying off the militias we will see what happens. McCain thought this war would be over in 3 weeks. If you keep guessing, odds are you will eventually guess the right outcome even if it is for the wrong reasons. The Democratic Party had given up on Iraq. Or you could say they had given up on our soldiers being used as cannon fodder and Iraq sitting on billions of dollars while the American tax payer flipped the bill. And I believe, ladies and gentlemen, that when they gave up on Iraq they were giving up on America. No they were giving up on Imperialism, high oil prices, connected military contractors, spending 450 million per day and troops in body bags. The Democratic leader in the Senate said so: "America has lost." Quite the opposite, we said we won, let's go home. The objectives were to get the WMD's; there were none so we can check that off the list, remove Saddam, check, hold elections and install a new government, check check, train the Iraqi army and get oil prices to record highs, check, check. Mission Accomplished; albeit, 4 years too late.

Well, if America lost, who won? Al-Qaeda? Bin Laden? Wait, are we talking about Iraq or Afghanistan? Don't change the subject, Bin Laden was never in Iraq and Al-Qaeda wasn't there until we got there. Bin Laden certainly hasn't lost anything except he had to trade one cave for another. In the single biggest policy decision of this election, John McCain got it right, and Barack Obama got it wrong. No, McFrankencain was wrong about invading Iraq and Obama was right. Obama was right about meeting with Iran which Rice eventually did and Obama was right in saying that we should have never lost focus on Afghanistan and let the person who attacked us get away.

If Barack Obama had been president, there would have been no troop surge and our troops would have been withdrawn in defeat. If Obama would have been President there would have been no war in Iraq, there would be no terrorists in Iraq, oil wouldn't be at an all time high, the dollar wouldn't be at an all time low and Bin Laden would be dead now and Afghanistan would be secure. Iraq and Iran would have probably gone to war with each other agian taking care of both problems for us.

Sen. McCain was the candidate most associated with the surge. You mean the surge the administration was told they needed from the get go? And it was unpopular. And it is also not the only reason the violence in Iraq is down now.

What do you think most other candidates would have done in that situation? They would have acted in their own self-interest by changing their position. How many times have we seen Barack Obama do that? I don't know but I'll bet it isn't as many as McCain.

Obama was going to take public financing for his campaign, until he didn't. McCain was for abortion then against it.

Obama was against wiretapping before he voted for it. McCain voted against the tax cuts and now wants to keep the tax cuts; was against torture and then voted for it.

When speaking to a pro-Israel group, Obama favored an undivided Jerusalem. Until the very next day when he changed his mind. McCain was Episcopalian and then he was Baptist. Oh, and good thing neither of them are running for the presidency of Israel.

I hope for his sake, Joe Biden got that VP thing in writing.

John McCain said, I'd rather lose an election than a war. Because that's John McCain.
Wow, he should have been a philosopher.

When Russia rolled over Georgia, John McCain knew exactly how to respond. How did he respond, by saying "we are all Georgians"?? Wow, Russia will think twice before they do that again. Way to stand strong against aggression and tyranny. Oh wait, you voted for Iraq... My bad.

Having been to that part of the world many times and having developed a clear worldview over many years, John knew where he stood. Within hours, he established a very strong, informed position that let the world know exactly how he'll respond as president. At exactly the right time, John McCain said, "We're all Georgians." That's what I thought. I am sure the Russians are trembling in their boots.

Obama's first instinct was to create a moral equivalency — that "both sides" should "show restraint." The same moral equivalency that he has displayed in discussing the Palestinian Authority and the state of Israel. And he is right. Fist off, I love how it's ok when we go to war for oil but when Russia goes to war for oil pipelines it's somehow evil. Israel shouldn't kill and displace any Palestinian on a whim or because God supposedly said they could.

Later, after discussing it with his 300 foreign policy advisers, he changed his position and suggested that "the UN Security Council" could find a solution. Really, he has 300? Do they all travel with him on his bus and plane at the same time? Apparently, none of his 300 advisers told him that Russia has a veto on any U.N. action. That's because according to Article 27 of the UN Charter, a party involved in the conflict must abstain from voting. Surely with all of McCain and Palin's infinite wisdom on foreign policy and international affairs they would know that this is the case. Either they don't know, exposing their lack of knowledge on such affairs or they allowed Guiliani to lie on their behalf. Finally Obama put out a statement that looked ... well, it looked a lot like John McCain's. Which was of no significance to begin with and accomplished nothing.

Here's some free advice: Sen. Obama, next time just call John McCain. Unless of course you wan't to know how the UN works or want to learn about Iraq's nuclear weapon program.

Like Ronald Reagan, John McCain will enlarge our party. And like Bush, will also enlarge our government, tax burden and further decline America's staning in the world. He's the candidate with the real record of bipartisan cooperation. As is Obama. He's the candidate who can credibly reach out for the votes of Independents and Democrats. Or maybe just Lieberman.

In choosing Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate, John McCain has chosen the future. The only future I see with her is a bunch of trailers parked out on the White House lawn. Gov. Palin represents a new generation...of white trash. She's already one of the most successful governors in America — and the most popular. She hasn't even completed one term and has fired all her adversaries. And she already has more executive experience than the entire Democratic ticket. I was the executive of my lemonade stand when I was 9 years old, it doesn't mean I am ready to lead the free world. She's led a "city" (small town) and a state. One of the least populous states in the union. She's reduced taxes and government spending. They pay taxes in Alaska?

And she's actually done something about moving America toward energy independence — taking on the oil companies while encouraging more energy exploration here at home. How, by marrying a guy who works for one? Ya, I am sure she is really tough on BP.

Taxpayers have an advocate in Sarah Palin — she even sold the former governor's private plane on E-Bay. She's the governor of Alaska, where would she possibly need to go? Does this mean she will sell Airforce 1?

And as a former U.S. attorney, I am impressed by her success in combating corruption — when she found unethical and illegal behavior among the power-brokers of her own party, (They can't be hard to find, she probably has a house next to Ted Stevens) she did not hesitate — she acted courageously and independently. That's the kind of reformer we need — she shook up Alaska. She'll shake up Washington. By the number of kids she has, I think she's been shaking more than Alaska.

And we sure need that. Well, with a little Viagra, I think that's what McCain is hoping for.

And as we look to the future never let us forget that — when we are at our best — we are the party that expands freedom. Such as the Patriot Act, Expanding wiretaping, and holding prisoners without charging them for years at a time. We began as a party dedicated to freeing people from slavery. Everything goes in cycles. ... And we are still the party that is willing to fight for freedom at home and around the world. Or at least fighting for the freedom of corporate interests abroad. We are the party that wants to expand individual freedom (unless you are gay, a woman, want to use the internet, watch tv or listen to the radio but if you want the freedom to take a gun to school we've got your back) and economic freedom (for Exxon and people who want to use offshore tax shelters and outsource American jobs) ... because we believe that the secret of America's success is not central government, it is self-government. Because self government worked so well for Enron, the mortgage and oil industries. We are the party that believes in giving workers the right to work...for less, especially if you are an illegal immigrant and it means higher corporate profits. The party that believes parents should choose where their children go to school. Everyone is free to choose where they send their kids to school. It's not illegal to move to another neighborhood or send your kids to any private school of your choosing. Where are you going with this?

And we are the party that believes unapologetically in America's essential greatness (And no one else's) — that we are a shining city on the hill, a beacon of freedom that inspires people everywhere to reach for a better world.

So my fellow Republicans and my fellow Americans — over the next eight weeks, remember that the results of this election are in your hands. You get to determine America's future. You can decide America's
(same) direction.

Thank you very much. And God Bless America
...and no one else.

With that much red ink, he would have probably received an F, if this were a High School paper.

9 comments:

Patrick M said...

I'll save space and not argue with everything. But a few points.

Reminds me of what happened to McCain's first wife before he cheated on her and then dumped her for a rich cheerleader 16 years her junior and then married a month after his divorce was final.

I thought we got past this nastiness when the GOP elected Reagan, who divorced his first wife. I'm not going to defend what he did, because John acknowledges his failings, and his ex is okay with him. And if you didn't notice, his current marriage has lasted over 25 years, to someone who appears to be pretty close to a saint.

I could hold Obama to the same standard, back in the day when Barry was getting all drugged out. However, he's managed to turn himself around and work his ass off for a couple of decades. So it becomes a part of his learning process.

There's a point when the past is just that.

But isn't part of the job also making sure your family doesn't go broke and has food to eat and has an income?

No, that's not the job of government. The job of government is to protect the freedom for us to do it ourselves.

It's not like he volunteered to be a POW.

It's lines like this that make it necessary to call you an idiot sometimes.

Actually, a little change is all you will have left after McCain gives all your money away to top corporations who raise your gas prices and exports your jobs.

It's not giving money to big corporations when you buy something. Giving money is what happens when the government takes money from someone, burns half of it, then gives it out in checks.

Quite the opposite, [The Democratic leader in the Senate} said we won..."

No, Harry Reid said, and I quote, "I believe ... that this war is lost, and this surge is not accomplishing anything, as is shown by the extreme violence in Iraq this week." That doesn't sound like "We Won" to me.

The only future I see with her is a bunch of trailers parked out on the White House lawn.

I could probably come up with something like that for Obama. Something about his parentage, a rag on his head, and a word that starts with the letter n. But that would just be ignorant garbage of the ethnocentric.

Everyone is free to choose where they send their kids to school. It's not illegal to move to another neighborhood or send your kids to any private school of your choosing. Where are you going with this?

I can answer that. We all have to pay taxes into the school system. But the poor that you are so hellbent on "helping" cna't just pick up and move easily, and they sure can't afford private school. So they're stuck with the NEA-run indoctrination centers that are co-run by Washington mandate.

With that much red ink, he would have probably received an F, if this were a High School paper.

If it's a government school, that is.

The WordSmith from Nantucket said...

I'll save space and not argue with everything.

Ditto.


It's not like he volunteered to be a POW.

You're an idiot!

The objectives were to get the WMD's

Oh? Anything else?

Bin Laden was never in Iraq and Al-Qaeda wasn't there until we got there.

Al Qaeda most certainly did have a presence there. What is not known is the extent. President Bush never said bin Laden was in Iraq, never said Iraq had a hand in 9/11, and made it clear that the war we were engaging in went beyond going after one terror organization.

The boundaries that separates al Qaeda from other Islamic groups becomes blurred, btw. We should refer to "al Qaeda network and affiliates", as there are cross-over and cooperation between various Islamic terror cells. Egyptian Islamic Jihad definitely had a presence in Iraq, 2/3rds of which became the al Qaeda leadership.

If Obama would have been President there would have been no war in Iraq,

How do we know this? As Obama himself said, he was not in the Senate at the time, and therefore not privy to the 2002 NIE. Based upon what was known at the time, the irresponsible course of action in a post 9/11 era would be to go along with the status quo of leaving Saddam to go on violating the original cease-fire agreements, Food-for-Scam profiteering, and working toward the lifting of sanctions (and consequently, the reconstitution of wmd programs- re: Duelfer Report).

there would be no terrorists in Iraq,

Buddy....read the Iraqi Perspectives Project. Or just the exclusive summary. Saddam had plenty of ties to terrorists; part of the "intelligence failure" you mentioned about earlier was the failure on the part of CIA intell analysts to examine evidence that didn't fit their preconceived, entrenched notion that a secular Saddam would ever be willing to collaborate with Islamic radicals.

oil wouldn't be at an all time high,

Proof, please.


the dollar wouldn't be at an all time low

All because of the war in Iraq? Rofl!

and Bin Laden would be dead now and Afghanistan would be secure.

Uh...yeah. General Obama would have accomplished all of this in your pipe dream.




McCain was for abortion then against it.

What is his record in abortion? On voting for Supreme Court Justices?

McCain voted against the tax cuts and now wants to keep the tax cuts; was against torture and then voted for it.

Why did he vote against the tax cuts, at the time?

He's still against torture. Try to look deeper into the reasons for his decisions and you won't make yourself dizzy with so much spin.

And he is right. Fist off, I love how it's ok when we go to war for oil but when Russia goes to war for oil pipelines it's somehow evil.

Oil is a part of the geopolitical decision to invade; but how exactly? And what was the primary reason(s) given for invading Iraq, as opposed to any other terrorist-sponsoring regimes? What was the case put forth?



He's the candidate with the real record of bipartisan cooperation. As is Obama.

Please provide the pudding of proof.

Toad734 said...

Patrick:

I love how Democrats are slammed for family values and you can never get around those issues and its ok and fair game to call them on anything. A Democrat, like the Spitzer, gets in trouble and he has to resign or get impeached. Larry Craig, David Vitter are both still in Office because "it's not fair to dwell on the past and anyone can change with Jesus". That’s bullshit. If McCain’s past was Obama's past, you would never hear the end of it. But, if you want to hear the end of it for McCain that is fine, he just can't use the morals / family values/conservative small town values bullshit with his past and if he does, that’s when we have to hit him with the Hypocrite label.

And of course McCain would be crazy to cheat on Cindy. He owes everything to her (and his POW story). Would you cheat on a blonde 17 years younger than you who happened to be uber wealthy? You would have to be out of your mind to do that.

And no, Obama wasn't "all drugged out". It's not like he was on the street corner with a needle in his arm. He, like many people in the 60s and 70s, got high a few times. Good luck finding someone who grew up in that era who didn't. And it's hardly the same thing since smoking a joint doesn't affect anyone but yourself and you didn't break any moral promises while doing it.

So, if it's not the responsibility of our government to make sure there are jobs and to make sure the economy holds up, then I guess that means you would be against them signing trade agreements, adjusting mortgage rates, deciding how much currency to circulate, guaranteeing bank deposits, subsidizing food production, inspecting food to make sure it's safe, etc..

Give me a break.

How am I an idiot? McCain exploits his plot in life and tries to make it sound like he knows how to manage a country because he was so noble to volunteer his time for his country in a POW camp. It didn't happen that way. Volunteering for military service during a war is one thing, refusing special treatment...wait, no, he didn't refuse special treatment, he refused to go free before it was his turn, and those are admirable. But people pretend that him getting shot down and held as prisoner was an extra sacrifice he decided to forgo for his country but it isn't. Flat out, he volunteered for military service, which is more than what I would have done in that time, and he refused to be released before other prisoners. That is the only part of that story which credits his character. Plenty of people have taken beatings; it doesn't mean they chose that fate or that they are ready to be President.

So you are saying the US is buying something when they give subsidies to big corporations? I don't get that. When you take funds away from schools and roads, so you can give the most profitable company in the world tax breaks, and when you take money out of my check and hand it to more of these rich companies for doing nothing, that is income redistribution which Bush, McCain and the Republicans have been doing for years and will continue to do. You say you need to give Exxon more tax breaks because they will be more competitive and create more jobs if they can make a little more cash. I say bullshit; they already have more money than they know what to do with and are now asking for more?? Fuck them. You would rather your taxes go up than theirs?? That’s what would happen if you voted for McCain.

Harry Reid is an idiot. He doesn't speak for the rest of us. The facts are that we did everything we set out to do but Blackwater, Halliburton, UDI and Exxon hadn't made enough money yet so we stayed and stayed while oil went through the roof and soldiers died. The surge is not the reason Iraq has seen a decrease in violence, you are being lied to.

As for the school system, the problem is not that there just happens to be bad schools in poor areas; the problem is that schools aren't funded the way they should be. School funding is too localized. Funds should be distributed at a state, if not federal level. Of course there would be problems with doing it on either of those levels but not as many problems as we have today. Just closing one school and crowding another is just going to move that problem, not fix it. You may say bad teachers need to be held accountable but the "bad" teachers I see are the white ones in suburban high schools who fuck 14 year olds, not overwhelmed black women in the inner city whose kids come from single parent homes, ate led paint chips and asbestos for breakfast and are crowded into too small of a class room and have to worry about getting shot at during class. You work under those conditions and see how you do. Or you could go to a Suburban school which has state of the art sports facilities, computers and extra curricular activities which keep the kids interests. Which do you think you would be more likely to succeed in?

Toad734 said...

Wordsmith:

Ill say the same thing I said to Patrick about POWs:
McCain exploits his plot in life and tries to make it sound like he knows how to manage a country because he was so noble to volunteer his time for his country in a POW camp. It didn't happen that way. Volunteering for military service during a war is one thing, refusing special treatment...wait, no, he didn't refuse special treatment, he refused to go free before it was his turn, and those actions are admirable. But people pretend that him getting shot down and held as prisoner was an extra sacrifice he decided to forgo for his country but it isn't. Flat out, he volunteered for military service, which is more than what I would have done in that time, and he refused to be released before other prisoners. That is the only part of that story which credits his character. Plenty of people have taken beatings; it doesn't mean they chose that fate or that they are ready to be President.

WMDs?? Was that a question? Oh, right, they wanted to "spread freedom". Uh hu. Ya there was something else, it begins with the letter O and ends with the letter L.

What news have you been reading that puts an Al-Qaeda operation in Iraq before 2003?? There was one guy who was hiding in Iraq. He had little to do with Bin Laden and nothing to do with 9/11 and there were plenty worse people than him and plenty more high profile targets in places like Afghanistan but we never got those guys.

Apparently you don't understand dick about the world Economy. You don't think there is a connection between the war in Iraq, the price of oil, our debt and the value of the dollar and our economy? Are you serious?? Ill try to be quick and simple about this:
Oil is traded in US dollars
In the early part of the decade Iraq decided to stop selling oil in Dollars in lieu of the Euro. Iran just did this as well
The US economy has always been strong, along with the dollar, because anyone who wanted to buy oil had to buy dollars first.
We invaded Iraq to prevent them from selling oil in Euros.
In the instability, very little oil was flowing. Simple supply and demand means the price of oil went up. When it takes more dollars, to buy the same amount of oil, the value of that dollar goes down. When our dollar goes down, other countries stop investing in US markets because they can put their money in a place where the currency is increasing in value. Lower the price of oil, you raise the value of the dollar. The dollar has rebounded lately, why? Because Iraq is pumping more oil (and selling it in dollars) and with a greater supply, the price of oil goes down. The dollar can now buy more oil, more gas, more everything, thus it's more valuable.

As far as "General Obama" is concerned, it doesn't take a genius to know that the terrorists and Taliban were in Afghanistan, not Iraq. If we had focused as much attention in Afghanistan, as Iraq, it would have been Bin Laden we were pulling out of a hole, not Saddam. It doesn't matter if Obama was President or not, if Bush would have done that we could have had em at Tora Bora. But again, the Republican policies failed.

Abortion, Justices? He has a pretty anti woman, voting record, Ill give you that. But he voted to confirm the two Clinton appointees which he later said he would have never let get on the Supreme Court. Thanks for exposing the fact that he is both a flip flopper and liberal when it comes to appointing judges who are pro choice.

McCain probably voted against the tax cuts because it was fiscally irresponsible going into a war, after 9/11 with a deficit, which is why he should be against them now but he isn't.

McCain voted "NO" on the bill which would have held the CIA to interrogation techniques described in the Army Field Manual and condoned by the Geneva Convention. That is a vote for torture.

As far as war and oil, I don't know exactly what you are asking. We were told we had to go to war to get the WMDs but instead we gave Exxon and Halliburton 3 record profit years. What do you mean "other" terrorist sponsoring regimes?? What act of Terrorism against the US did Saddam sponsor?

As far as bipartisan legislation, look at his international work with Lugar and then his bills with Coburn and McCain. Obama hasn't voted with Bush 90% of the time.

Patrick M said...

Wordsmith: You like exercises in futility too?

Toad: Larry Craig, David Vitter are both still in Office because "it's not fair to dwell on the past and anyone can change with Jesus". That’s bullshit.

I actually can agree with you there. If their constituents don't throw their asses out, then they're part of the problem. Craig, in particular, should have either resigned, or been tossed out on his ass.

As for hypocrisy, McCain can use family values if Obama can talk about the virtues of not doing drugs.

Would you cheat on a blonde 17 years younger than you who happened to be uber wealthy?

I'll have to modify because I won't cheat, period. But age and money aren't worth anything if you're not happy. Plus, there's alimony.

I'm going to divide this one out: So, if it's not the responsibility of our government to make sure there are jobs and to make sure the economy holds up, then I guess that means you would be against them signing trade agreements,
no
adjusting mortgage rates,
somewhat
deciding how much currency to circulate,
no
guaranteeing bank deposits,
somewhat
subsidizing food production,
YES
inspecting food to make sure it's safe,
sort of no
etc..


The problem with this assinine laundry list is there's no nuance, no subtlety, and no principle. Some of these, such as trade agreements with other countries, are legitimate functions of government. Some, like the inpections, may require some oversight, but should have the minimum necessary government. And when the word subsidy, which is government support by transfer of wealth, comes up, you can bet your ass it's not a legitimate function of government.

How am I an idiot?

Let me count the ways...
1...2...3... But seriously...

There are certain things that define our lives. Some are small, as the point in my life where I lost my anger at everything. That was simply a chance meeting, lasted two minutes, has rippled through my life for five years, and is the reason I don't answer you with something along the lines of "Fuck you you fucking fuckhole" or something equally angry.

John McCain's experience was something that profoundly shaped his life, his viewpoint, his love for his country, his relationships (including his first wife to a degree), and the direction he would take. It's such a part of him that it will always come to mind as he looks at the second greatest challenge of his life. Usually, the Presidency is the greatest challenge any man (or woman (Palin 2012!!!)) ever faces.

To belittle it as though it's simply a political crutch is absolutely idiotic.

The surge is not the reason Iraq has seen a decrease in violence, you are being lied to.

Obama's lying too now? Yeah. He said the surge worked. First part of his O'Reilly interview. Look it up. Live in the now.

You would rather your taxes go up than theirs??

Whether you're referring to big businesses or that 1% you despise, you have this assumption that one person's tax cut has to be paid for by an increase on someone else. Here's a novel concept: If we start shrinking government spending, redundancy, and complexity, we don't need as much in taxes. Then everybody gets a cut.

the problem is that schools aren't funded the way they should be.

Bullshit. I'd have to look up the stats, but if you look at the amount spent per child here in New Bremen compared to that spent in Chicago, I bet you're spending an assload and getting shit for results. And the idea of more funding coming from the state and the uber-wasteful federal levels is exactly the problem we have been exacerbating for decades. With the current resources out there, we should be able to cut more and more money and federal control (including No Child Left Behind), turn the bulk of oversight back to the states, and give control and money back to the people who are responsible for educating their children. Then, we can help the ones who really need help, because the responsible parents will step up to the challenge. Come to think of it, I'm already formulating ideas.

Okay, lost interest. It's Friday night and high school football calls.

Toad734 said...

But isn't part of the job also making sure your family doesn't go broke and has food to eat and has an income?

"No, that's not the job of government. The job of government is to protect the freedom for us to do it ourselves."

Oh and I think you took this out of context. The question was, if you were hiring someone by looking at their application, to do the job of "keeping your family safe", if you have a family, just keeping them safe from Arabs isn't your only responsibility. Maybe it isn't the government’s job to manage the economy and make sure there are decent paying jobs so you can work to feed your family but, having this family, that is something you have to do. Just keeping them safe from hijacked planes isn't enough, they have to eat and stay healthy. Now, in hiring a guy who needs to do all that, who is the best one for that job, the one that outsources American jobs, wants healthcare to be expensive, wants to allow illegal immigrants to do your job for less, wants to give tax breaks to the people who outsource your jobs, doesn't know how the economy works but still talks about how we need tax breaks for oil companies when we have a record deficit or someone who is well educated, wants to give you a tax break, not just rich people, and has a solid understanding of the economy and will reward companies who hire Americans and fight to lessen the burden of health care costs?

Toad734 said...

Now, on to your last comment:

Drugs: Again, it’s not like Obama was a drugged out junkie begging for change on the streets. Again, Obama broke no vows or promises he made by smoking weed. McCain defied God by divorcing his first wife..Ok, I don't believe in God but that's what conservatives say when they talk about two guys getting married and since the bible clearly talks about divorce but not gay marriage, McCain is going to hell, not only for that, but also for cheating and being rich.

How do you claim that the government has no responsibility in maintaining our economy or making sure there are jobs but you think its ok for them to sign trade agreements that send our jobs to Mexico? If they don't have the responsibility of creating jobs (TVA for instance) then why do we let them send our jobs away. You are going to have to defend that one. Either they can meddle in the economy and our source of jobs or not. You can't just give them a pass when they do something to make the CEO of Levi Strauss more money.

The Federal Government should let inflation go like in many African countries and let our dollar become worthless?? Well, ok, now I know why you voted for Bush because he has almost succeeded in doing just that. Don't you feel like if you work for your money and pay taxes to the Government that they have an obligation to make sure that dollar is worth something in the market place? Else, why work at all. And if you are for them insuring deposits, what's the difference?

So you don't agree with food stamps for single mothers with children but you do agree with subsidizing ADM's corn production so they can get more money for Corn than what it sells for on the open free market so Pepsi and Coke and McDonalds can use it as a cheap filler and sugar substitute and increase obesity and health care costs in America? You don't think taxes should pay for schools but you think they should pay for stuff to make us fat and raise health care costs???As long as some black kid in the projects doesn't get an education on your dime?? That makes no sense to me. I mean, when's the last time you ate corn?

And now, you think we should just trust multi-national companies based in China, that there food is plenty safe for us to eat. As long as the label says "Food" that's all you need? After contaminated food kills 4000 babies, the free market will stop demanding those products and thus that company will have to sell safe food or go out of business. That's an odd view for someone who is pro life? So the free markets, after how many deaths and illnesses, will manage the quality of the foods we eat...even the ones that cause long term damage that we won’t know about for 40 years?? Are you an anarchist or something?? If so, you should have been up there in Minnesota breaking windows out of cop cars.

I’m not belittling his experience, I am saying that it doesn't make him good presidential material and people act like he decided to go through that experience for his country and that isn't the case. There are thousands of vets who were POWs who will go to sleep in an alley somewhere tonight; I don't think you are going to contend they should be President since they were a POW. But, watching the GOP convention, I think that's all the qualifications one needs. It's like the Holy Grail to them.

Iraq is safer now, in part to the surge. If you keep guessing over the course of 5 years, eventually you will get it right. That's what McCain did. Let’s talk about the decision McCain made 5 years ago to go into Iraq and ignore Afghanistan and contrast that with what Obama was saying. Judgment.

If you want to shrink the government you are voting for the wrong people. Bush expanded the size and power of the federal government by what, 60%?

I'm not talking about cash spent per student. I'm talking about local tax bases supporting local schools. Sure, DC spends more per student than any other school district in the country and it's one of the worst. But look at the conditions of those school and their resources, they don't have the same facilities and class sizes they have in Suburban schools and the kids in the suburban schools don't come from the same social and economic conditions. Not all of that is a funding problem within the schools, some of it is the way society treats those people in those conditions and yes, some of it is the responsibility of the parents. But when one or both of the parents are in jail because of bad drug laws or because they had to steal to put food on the table when the factory closed and moved to Mexico, what do you expect?

Eric Sanders said...

Well of course we wouldn't be fighting a war in Iraq if Barack Osama were president; we would be fighting a war in America.

As far as being an idiot, you are the one who has supplied the evidence.

Toad734 said...

Really, Obama would invade Oklahoma? Is that what you are saying?