PDA

View Full Version : Some Ponderings



MoFinz
09-13-2008, 12:59 PM
1. How can Dems complain that people blindly defend Sarah palin when its quite obvious with the extraordinary number of false media stories that the news media is more interested in a headline than a substantive debate?

2. How is it OK for Obama to misspeak about how many states there are or his own faith, but McCain has his feet held to the fire when he misspeaks?

3. Other than the furniture, what change will either man bring to the White House? I'm sincere here, i'm not asking for talking points, or "he says". I'm looking for a track record and results that show past results can relate to future successes

4. To all Sarah Palin bashers, i ask.....what do you see in Joe Biden that's about change? How do you dismiss his remarks about Indians at 7-11 or Dunkin' Donuts or his history of plagarism? And how is that more forgivable than any unproven scandal that palin is alleged to have been involved in or fabrication you hope to catch her in?

5.How many people actually knew all four facets of the infamous "Bush Doctrine" before Charlie Gibson asked? Honestly. I didn't.

6.Does anyone besides Whoopi Goldberg think McCain will re-institute slavery?

7.Has anyone besides me ever farted in a voting booth? ;)

poornate
09-13-2008, 01:46 PM
How is it OK for Obama to misspeak about how many states there are or his own faith, but McCain has his feet held to the fire when he misspeaks?

To all Sarah Palin bashers, i ask.....what do you see in Joe Biden that's about change?

;)

1. Silly slip of the tongue there.... 57 states... you know it... i know it... say what you will, you know Obama is a smart man... you may dislike him, but his intelligence IMHO cannot be questioned...

2. Biden? Palin?... the last thing on my mind now is change... Now I concentrate on national stability... I'd vote for Bush to be in again before I'd want to see Palin a whisper from the executive seat... and her selection begs me to doubt any of McCain's motives, whereas before I just questioned his positions.

MDFINFAN
09-13-2008, 02:52 PM
1. How can Dems complain that people blindly defend Sarah palin when its quite obvious with the extraordinary number of false media stories that the news media is more interested in a headline than a substantive debate?

2. How is it OK for Obama to misspeak about how many states there are or his own faith, but McCain has his feet held to the fire when he misspeaks?

3. Other than the furniture, what change will either man bring to the White House? I'm sincere here, i'm not asking for talking points, or "he says". I'm looking for a track record and results that show past results can relate to future successes

4. To all Sarah Palin bashers, i ask.....what do you see in Joe Biden that's about change? How do you dismiss his remarks about Indians at 7-11 or Dunkin' Donuts or his history of plagarism? And how is that more forgivable than any unproven scandal that palin is alleged to have been involved in or fabrication you hope to catch her in?

5.How many people actually knew all four facets of the infamous "Bush Doctrine" before Charlie Gibson asked? Honestly. I didn't.

6.Does anyone besides Whoopi Goldberg think McCain will re-institute slavery?

7.Has anyone besides me ever farted in a voting booth? ;)

I don't think Palin should be bashed, I do think she should be vetted like all other canidates...None of us know Palin really, so I don't see how anyone could bash her or defend her.. At least not at this point.

This is where I question ppl who support McCain.

Foreign affairs: Ppl automatically give him the nod...but

1. Obama said we should pull out of Iraq within a timeline.
McCain--against.
Reality-- Iraq agreed, the WH has changed and agreed, McCain being pulled along, but still trying to resist.

2. Obama said if we have actionable targets in Pakinstan and the Pak gov't won't take action, we should.
McCain, that country has nukes and that's a naive position.
Reality--The WH followed Obama's position and we've had 2 stricks, one took out the #2 guy in Al Qeada and now the 4 guys who were a big part of their communications network.

3. Obama said we shouldn't be afraid to talk to our enemies just like we shouldn't afraid to talk to our friends.
McCain, that's a naive, inexperience person, who don't how the world works.
Reality--Bush WH follows Obama's lead, and we get talks done thru China with NK and now have an agreement that we couldn't get done before because we weren't willing to talk.
We're now talking to Iran and now there's not daily news flashes of Iran threating us with this or that.. and other countries are now taking a positive step in helping us with Iran..just because we open dialog.

4. Obama said we should be tempered and measured in our response with Russia on the invasion into georgia and have the UN intercede.
McCain, Russia this, Russia that and we're all Georgians as though he was going to war with Russia over this.
Reality, WH talks to Russia, have UN nations attack Russia diplomatically, apparently told McCain to shut up.. and the WH asked Joe Biden to go to Georgia to handle the situation and get a sense of what's best, next thing Russia agrees to withdraw and we're monitoring the situation. McCain may have had us in another war with his craziness and lack of diplomacy.

5. Obama properly pointedly out, while giving the military credit that the Surge consisted of the awakening, shiites cutting al qeada out and agreeing to a cease fire, the Sunni's getting pay by us to stand down, and stop the Iran support, BEFORE, our troops got there, and then our troops helping with cleaning up the rest of what was left of Al qeada by the Shiites, and separating the 3 tribes to stop the civil war and with all that, a level of tolerable violence exsist now that didn't before, and we're able to return troops home. McCain has only pointed to military surge and not given the whole truth, we as Americans wouldn't get the whole picture.. that's important, because in the future we would know what things work..and our military don't always have to be our diplomatic arm as well as our war arm.
But the key that ppl love to miss is that the surge was suppose to give time for the Iraq gov't to iron out it's gov't..i.e, how it's going to share power, and divide country revenues, and take over it's own security..Obama has properly pointed out that hasn't taken place, thus the surge is not complete, therefore only 3/4 successful, not fully successful..hopefully the final 4th comes into place soon.

6. Obama said we should add to Afgan (20 months ago) as that's where the war on terror is really being fought...
McCain initial response was Afgan wasn't as important as Iraq, and we had it under control, as time has gone by, we find that we don't have it under control
Reality, the US Army Cdr has come out and said we needed more troops in Afgan.. and the WH is following, yet again Obama's lead and doing just that.

7. Obama said we should have never, from day 1 of the Iraq war, attacked Iraq, as it was not the enemy that attacked us.
McCain disagrees
Reality, none of the reasons for going to war with Iraq has been proven, and now we been there for 7 years and borrowing to stay there, a waste of our resources.

8. and this will get into conservatives heads, a recent survey found that 45 of 47 countries would vote for Obama.. Now I bring that up because 60% if foreign affairs is at least other countries being willing to talk to you..and the 40% different can either cause conflict or peace... If we have 60% accomplish going in, then it's much easier to accomplish foriegn policy objectives if someone respects you and want to work with you..Obama has that going for him, McCain doesn't..I like the security of countries taking a chance on Obama...peace seem to be more reasonable under him.

9. Finally, the military will do just as good under Obama, who's shown a willingness to support the military, not with just words but throught legislation, that McCain opposed... and the fact that the soldiers are supporting Obama financially 6 to 1 should say something to the country..for those willing to listen to the military that is.. As ex Officer, I understand them.. Obama proposal for modernizing the military are right on time, at the same time stopping foolish dollars spent on stupid R& D programs that are obsolete...thank god a politician finally sees that.

The maverick vs judgement, I'll take judgement..

MoFinz
09-13-2008, 02:54 PM
1. Silly slip of the tongue there.... 57 states... you know it... i know it... say what you will, you know Obama is a smart man... you may dislike him, but his intelligence IMHO cannot be questioned...

2. Biden? Palin?... the last thing on my mind now is change... Now I concentrate on national stability... I'd vote for Bush to be in again before I'd want to see Palin a whisper from the executive seat... and her selection begs me to doubt any of McCain's motives, whereas before I just questioned his positions.

I agree with you...slips of the tongue are to be expected. I dont think either man is a fool.....i just wondered how people could dismiss one while chastising the other.

As far as 2 goes, i don't understand how someone thats actually run a state could be as grossly underqualified as she is painted. I don't particularly like Tim kaine, however, i do not see him as underqualified, merely the wrong policies for our country based on what he's done here.
If you truly dont like her policies, i can respect that. if it's just based off innuendo and her "lack of experience", well, i think that's flat out wrong.

MoFinz
09-13-2008, 02:55 PM
I don't think Palin should be bashed, I do think she should be vetted like all other canidates...None of us know Palin really, so I don't see how anyone could bash her or defend her.. At least not at this point.

This is where I question ppl who support McCain.

Foreign affairs: Ppl automatically give him the nod...but

1. Obama said we should pull out of Iraq within a timeline.
McCain--against.
Reality-- Iraq agreed, the WH has changed and agreed, McCain being pulled along, but still trying to resist.

2. Obama said if we have actionable targets in Pakinstan and the Pak gov't won't take action, we should.
McCain, that country has nukes and that's a naive position.
Reality--The WH followed Obama's position and we've had 2 stricks, one took out the #2 guy in Al Qeada and now the 4 guys who were a big part of their communications network.

3. Obama said we shouldn't be afraid to talk to our enemies just like we shouldn't afraid to talk to our friends.
McCain, that's a naive, inexperience person, who don't how the world works.
Reality--Bush WH follows Obama's lead, and we get talks done thru China with NK and now have an agreement that we couldn't get done before because we weren't willing to talk.
We're now talking to Iran and now there's not daily news flashes of Iran threating us with this or that.. and other countries are now taking a positive step in helping us with Iran..just because we open dialog.

4. Obama said we should be tempered and measured in our response with Russia on the invasion into georgia and have the UN intercede.
McCain, Russia this, Russia that and we're all Georgians as though he was going to war with Russia over this.
Reality, WH talks to Russia, have UN nations attack Russia diplomatically, apparently told McCain to shut up.. and the WH asked Joe Biden to go to Georgia to handle the situation and get a sense of what's best, next thing Russia agrees to withdraw and we're monitoring the situation. McCain may have had us in another war with his craziness and lack of diplomacy.

5. Obama properly pointedly out, while giving the military credit that the Surge consisted of the awakening, shiites cutting al qeada out and agreeing to a cease fire, the Sunni's getting pay by us to stand down, and stop the Iran support, BEFORE, our troops got there, and then our troops helping with cleaning up the rest of what was left of Al qeada by the Shiites, and separating the 3 tribes to stop the civil war and with all that, a level of tolerable violence exsist now that didn't before, and we're able to return troops home. McCain has only pointed to military surge and not given the whole truth, we as Americans wouldn't get the whole picture.. that's important, because in the future we would know what things work..and our military don't always have to be our diplomatic arm as well as our war arm.
But the key that ppl love to miss is that the surge was suppose to give time for the Iraq gov't to iron out it's gov't..i.e, how it's going to share power, and divide country revenues, and take over it's own security..Obama has properly pointed out that hasn't taken place, thus the surge is not complete, therefore only 3/4 successful, not fully successful..hopefully the final 4th comes into place soon.

6. Obama said we should add to Afgan (20 months ago) as that's where the war on terror is really being fought...
McCain initial response was Afgan wasn't as important as Iraq, and we had it under control, as time has gone by, we find that we don't have it under control
Reality, the US Army Cdr has come out and said we needed more troops in Afgan.. and the WH is following, yet again Obama's lead and doing just that.

7. Obama said we should have never, from day 1 of the Iraq war, attacked Iraq, as it was not the enemy that attacked us.
McCain disagrees
Reality, none of the reasons for going to war with Iraq has been proven, and now we been there for 7 years and borrowing to stay there, a waste of our resources.

8. and this will get into conservatives heads, a recent survey found that 45 of 47 countries would vote for Obama.. Now I bring that up because 60% if foreign affairs is at least other countries being willing to talk to you..and the 40% different can either cause conflict or peace... If we have 60% accomplish going in, then it's much easier to accomplish foriegn policy objectives if someone respects you and want to work with you..Obama has that going for him, McCain doesn't..I like the security of countries taking a chance on Obama...peace seem to be more reasonable under him.

9. Finally, the military will do just as good under Obama, who's shown a willingness to support the military, not with just words but throught legislation, that McCain opposed... and the fact that the soldiers are supporting Obama financially 6 to 1 should say something to the country..for those willing to listen to the military that is.. As ex Officer, I understand them.. Obama proposal for modernizing the military are right on time, at the same time stopping foolish dollars spent on stupid R& D programs that are obsolete...thank god a politician finally sees that.

The maverick vs judgement, I'll take judgement..


Thanks...that's just the kind of reply i was looking for to help me understand some viewpoints better.
:up:

poornate
09-13-2008, 03:16 PM
..and our military don't always have to be our diplomatic arm as well as our war arm.....


....The military will do just as good under Obama, who's shown a willingness to support the military, not with just words but throught legislation, that McCain opposed... and the fact that the soldiers are supporting Obama financially 6 to 1 should say something to the country..for those willing to listen to the military that is.. As ex Officer, I understand them.. Obama proposal for modernizing the military are right on time, at the same time stopping foolish dollars spent on stupid R& D programs that are obsolete...thank god a politician finally sees that.


Less of the budget should be committed to traditional military hardware, like planes and tanks, and more should be invested in diplomacy and new and viable technology. We cannot throw money into outdated modes of warfare and hope that the next conflict our nation enters will be more traditional than the last ones have been. Our new leadership must realize and address the needs of our military with technology developed for urban and non-traditional warfare. We also cannot operate exclusively under a quick strike philosophy that easily employs the use of the military. If more resources were diverted to foreign aid and diplomacy it would encourage democracy and a freer world. But when we say we are attempting to bring freedom to the world while carrying guns it dilutes our message and makes the world question our motives and tactics. Currently only 1/16th of our security budget outside of war funding, and we all know what that costs, goes to national security, foreign diplomacy, and other preventive efforts.

Dolphan7
09-13-2008, 03:58 PM
The White House taking the lead from Obama? Really?

Or maybe Obama capitalizing on what the WH is doing and calling it as his own? More likely.

poornate
09-13-2008, 04:06 PM
The White House taking the lead from Obama? Really?

Or maybe Obama capitalizing on what the WH is doing and calling it as his own? More likely.

I think the dates are easy enough to verify... Obama can't sneeze without it being on record.

I also want to go outside the button to tell MD what a great and thought out post that was....Thanks!!!

MDFINFAN
09-13-2008, 09:55 PM
The White House taking the lead from Obama? Really?

Or maybe Obama capitalizing on what the WH is doing and calling it as his own? More likely.

Funny how history is forgotten, D7, all the things I posted, let's see how clearly you remember them.

When obama started running for president, he articulated all these positions..now did the WH agree to a time horizon before or after his campaign started.
Did we get the agreement with NK before or after his campaign started.

Actually any of the things I name did they happen before or after his campaign started..

Let's not try to spin, and put the egg before the chicken.. but good try.

MoFinz
09-13-2008, 10:09 PM
Funny how history is forgotten, D7, all the things I posted, let's see how clearly you remember them.

When obama started running for president, he articulated all these positions..now did the WH agree to a time horizon before or after his campaign started.
Did we get the agreement with NK before or after his campaign started.

Actually any of the things I name did they happen before or after his campaign started..

Let's not try to spin, and put the egg before the chicken.. but good try.

Yeah, because this administration has no interest in getting mcCain elected.....they'll just follow the Chosen One and then the left will remember The Bush Admin more fondly, because he was the first to acknowledge the summary greatness that is Obamatron:rolleyes:

ohall
09-13-2008, 10:25 PM
Funny how history is forgotten, D7, all the things I posted, let's see how clearly you remember them.

When obama started running for president, he articulated all these positions..now did the WH agree to a time horizon before or after his campaign started.
Did we get the agreement with NK before or after his campaign started.

Actually any of the things I name did they happen before or after his campaign started..

Let's not try to spin, and put the egg before the chicken.. but good try.

You don't get it do you? He's taking opposing stances on almost every major issue facing this country!

IMO he is one of the BIGGEST fakes to try and win the WH.

milldog
09-13-2008, 10:29 PM
"Change is coming", one way or another! Can't wait till this election is over and we can go back to talking football... this is a football site, right?

MDFINFAN
09-14-2008, 12:02 AM
Yeah, because this administration has no interest in getting mcCain elected.....they'll just follow the Chosen One and then the left will remember The Bush Admin more fondly, because he was the first to acknowledge the summary greatness that is Obamatron:rolleyes:

Is that like the Palintron thing that's sweeping the country now??:D

MDFINFAN
09-14-2008, 12:07 AM
You don't get it do you? He's taking opposing stances on almost every major issue facing this country!

IMO he is one of the BIGGEST fakes to try and win the WH.

Rethink these comments ohall, I understand what you're trying to imply..but.

To say we should go after targets in pakinstan when everyone and their mother thought that's crazy I wouldn't say is a good way of looking the opposite way, but stating a position we should take.

I can go on..but the real deal was we should talk to our enemies from a position of strength, hell we're the USA, why should we be afraid to talk to anyone, that's from a position of strength..that's leadership.. and btw, Ohall, he presented a time table about Iraq, that started the whole conversation about that, the WH was opposing him, not the other way around..:up:

MDFINFAN
09-14-2008, 12:08 AM
"Change is coming", one way or another! Can't wait till this election is over and we can go back to talking football... this is a football site, right?

The overall site is, but this is a political forum..and we can do both, the main board and here...we too, can multitask..:sidelol::sidelol:

Dolphan7
09-14-2008, 12:08 AM
Funny how history is forgotten, D7, all the things I posted, let's see how clearly you remember them.

When obama started running for president, he articulated all these positions..now did the WH agree to a time horizon before or after his campaign started.
Did we get the agreement with NK before or after his campaign started.

Actually any of the things I name did they happen before or after his campaign started..

Let's not try to spin, and put the egg before the chicken.. but good try.Right, like the WH is waiting with baited breath for every little morsel Obama spewsout ..... and then adds it to their list of things to do.......talk about spin.

Funny you mention spin, cause you could put a room full of spinsters to shame with your talking points memo's from the Obama Express.

Give it a rest MD. Neither side can take the high road. These candidates are just as much the same pile of crap as they are different.:lol:

MDFINFAN
09-14-2008, 01:00 AM
Right, like the WH is waiting with baited breath for every little morsel Obama spewsout ..... and then adds it to their list of things to do.......talk about spin.

Funny you mention spin, cause you could put a room full of spinsters to shame with your talking points memo's from the Obama Express.

Give it a rest MD. Neither side can take the high road. These candidates are just as much the same pile of crap as they are different.:lol:

D7, the judgement of the next president is important to me after this last admin and president. I'm just pointing out some things that ppl take for granted the other way around..I've never seen you write that McCain isn't the greatest on foreign affairs, again it's taken for granted he is, so I was just pointing out some judgement calls in that area as to why I don't think he's better than Obama, and how some of the things obama has called for, seem to be working out pretty well for us when tried..that's all.. again this is as much about our opinions doing a debate as well as the facts we present to support our opinions, I'm just making my facts known..:up:

PS, I don't disagree with your last sentence, but they do think a little differently, so I have to factor that in when making my decision.

Roman529
09-14-2008, 11:20 AM
I think the Dems are slowly realizing that their ticket of Obama-Biden is gradually losing this election. Obama is like the guy behind the curtain in the Wizard of Oz.....lots of flash, but when you take away the teleprompter he clearly doesn't know the issues. People also seem to forget that it is Obama running for President, not Palin. :lol:

Had the Dems picked Hillary Clinton as the Presidential candidate, or possibly the VP candidate on the Obama ticket, they may have had a chance.

The Polls had Obama up by 47 to 41% about a month ago, and now McCain-Palin have a 3% lead. Women tend to decide elections and more of them are moving over to the McCain-Palin camp. Looks like a repeat of the Gore loss in 2000, and the Kerry loss in 2004.

ohall
09-14-2008, 02:09 PM
Rethink these comments ohall, I understand what you're trying to imply..but.

To say we should go after targets in pakinstan when everyone and their mother thought that's crazy I wouldn't say is a good way of looking the opposite way, but stating a position we should take.

I can go on..but the real deal was we should talk to our enemies from a position of strength, hell we're the USA, why should we be afraid to talk to anyone, that's from a position of strength..that's leadership.. and btw, Ohall, he presented a time table about Iraq, that started the whole conversation about that, the WH was opposing him, not the other way around..:up:

Good lord you spin so much you don't even remember things properly any more.

If it was up to Obama we wouldn't have won in Iraq. Sorry he was wrong about the surge, and he will have to live with that. I doubt Americans appreciate someone who waves a white flag to our enemies.

ohall
09-14-2008, 02:11 PM
D7, the judgement of the next president is important to me after this last admin and president. I'm just pointing out some things that ppl take for granted the other way around..I've never seen you write that McCain isn't the greatest on foreign affairs, again it's taken for granted he is, so I was just pointing out some judgement calls in that area as to why I don't think he's better than Obama, and how some of the things obama has called for, seem to be working out pretty well for us when tried..that's all.. again this is as much about our opinions doing a debate as well as the facts we present to support our opinions, I'm just making my facts known..:up:

PS, I don't disagree with your last sentence, but they do think a little differently, so I have to factor that in when making my decision.

Agreed, that's why I want a President that will fight the terrorist rather than a President that will try and debate with the terrorist about the pros and cons of global warming.

MDFINFAN
09-14-2008, 04:52 PM
Agreed, that's why I want a President that will fight the terrorist rather than a President that will try and debate with the terrorist about the pros and cons of global warming.

Then you want Obama, because he wants to take the fight to the terrorist in afgan and pakinstan mountains.. I hope you don't want the McCain of staying in Iraq and allowing the terrorist to come over and take pot shots.. Attack them where they are and they won't have time to come to Iraq..:up:

ohall
09-14-2008, 06:30 PM
Then you want Obama, because he wants to take the fight to the terrorist in afgan and pakinstan mountains.. I hope you don't want the McCain of staying in Iraq and allowing the terrorist to come over and take pot shots.. Attack them where they are and they won't have time to come to Iraq..:up:

No I don't want a book smart person. I want someone that has actually done something in his life. That's why I wanted Guiliani, but he didn't win, so I have to go with plan B not plan we're screwed.

If you think McCain is not going to want to now switch to Afghanistan now that Iraq is settled you are just fooling yourself. For me I want someone that showed the foresight to know that the surge would have worked rather than Obama who wanted to surrender in Iraq a year ago.

MDFINFAN
09-14-2008, 07:16 PM
No I don't want a book smart person. I want someone that has actually done something in his life. That's why I wanted Guiliani, but he didn't win, so I have to go with plan B not plan we're screwed.

If you think McCain is not going to want to now switch to Afghanistan now that Iraq is settled you are just fooling yourself. For me I want someone that showed the foresight to know that the surge would have worked rather than Obama who wanted to surrender in Iraq a year ago.

That's funny, we always say the creme of the crop never gets in gov't, well we get a cream of the crop and he's for real, and then we call him book smart, even though he's shown plenty of political savvy, as well as good foreign policy judgement...we used to like intelligent ppl as leaders, now we want fools... If McCain switches to Afgan, he's following Obama's lead..a stance Obama took 20 months ago with he first started his campaign..open your eyes Ohall, all of Obama's calls during this campaign in terms of our foreign policy has been right on.. McCain during this campaign calls have been off.. the only one he's called right was while he was in the senate and that's backing the military part of the surge, other than that, he's been lost...I real person would admit that, a bias one won't.

poornate
09-14-2008, 09:54 PM
[QUOTE=ohall;1062622738]...(For President).... I don't want a book smart person....QUOTE]

Now that is the quote of the year for me... I suggest that you support the right ticket then.....

ohall
09-15-2008, 01:23 AM
That's funny, we always say the creme of the crop never gets in gov't, well we get a cream of the crop and he's for real, and then we call him book smart, even though he's shown plenty of political savvy, as well as good foreign policy judgement...we used to like intelligent ppl as leaders, now we want fools... If McCain switches to Afgan, he's following Obama's lead..a stance Obama took 20 months ago with he first started his campaign..open your eyes Ohall, all of Obama's calls during this campaign in terms of our foreign policy has been right on.. McCain during this campaign calls have been off.. the only one he's called right was while he was in the senate and that's backing the military part of the surge, other than that, he's been lost...I real person would admit that, a bias one won't.

lol without the surge bud there would have been no re-awakening. A non-biased person would admit that. I'm not going to hold my breath!

Obama was wrong, big time.

And Obama hasn't taken a lead on anything. He's a empty suit that simply follows what others do. And when he is forced to make a decision on his own, he's more wrong than right. He usually get's things correct on the his 4th try.

ohall
09-15-2008, 01:26 AM
[QUOTE=ohall;1062622738]...(For President).... I don't want a book smart person....QUOTE]

Now that is the quote of the year for me... I suggest that you support the right ticket then.....

Wow, thx. I can now vote with a clear conscience.

MDFINFAN
09-15-2008, 11:22 AM
lol without the surge bud there would have been no re-awakening. A non-biased person would admit that. I'm not going to hold my breath!

Obama was wrong, big time.

And Obama hasn't taken a lead on anything. He's a empty suit that simply follows what others do. And when he is forced to make a decision on his own, he's more wrong than right. He usually get's things correct on the his 4th try.

See, you always say others rewrite history, but here you go again...the awakening started before we got our troops there...

Exactly what has McCain taken the lead in.. He followed a Dem's request for a surge, he didn't ask first...keep history intact, it was Dem member who first suggested a surge, McCain as he always does hops on the bandwagon, not lead it. But Obama said we should talk to our enemies, we should strike terrorist targets in Pakinstan if they won't, He said it first, the Wh has now shown that method works.. NK, now Iran in talks, #2 al qeada and 4 communication leaders for Al qeada in 2 strikes in Pakinstan..

btw, McCain has now hop on Obama's message of change...he's a follower, not a leader Ohall..

FinFatale
09-15-2008, 11:54 AM
See, you always say others rewrite history, but here you go again...the awakening started before we got our troops there...

Exactly what has McCain taken the lead in.. He followed a Dem's request for a surge, he didn't ask first...keep history intact, it was Dem member who first suggested a surge, McCain as he always does hops on the bandwagon, not lead it. But Obama said we should talk to our enemies, we should strike terrorist targets in Pakinstan if they won't, He said it first, the Wh has now shown that method works.. NK, now Iran in talks, #2 al qeada and 4 communication leaders for Al qeada in 2 strikes in Pakinstan..

btw, McCain has now hop on Obama's message of change...he's a follower, not a leader Ohall..


In what presidential election has the nominee, from either side not advocated CHANGE...........it's not a new message at all.

Dolphan7
09-15-2008, 12:23 PM
See, you always say others rewrite history, but here you go again...the awakening started before we got our troops there...

Exactly what has McCain taken the lead in.. He followed a Dem's request for a surge, he didn't ask first...keep history intact, it was Dem member who first suggested a surge, McCain as he always does hops on the bandwagon, not lead it. But Obama said we should talk to our enemies, we should strike terrorist targets in Pakinstan if they won't, He said it first, the Wh has now shown that method works.. NK, now Iran in talks, #2 al qeada and 4 communication leaders for Al qeada in 2 strikes in Pakinstan..

btw, McCain has now hop on Obama's message of change...he's a follower, not a leader Ohall..When the subject comes up of campaign finance reform and pork barrel spending and cutting government spending......the first person that comes to mind, and the minds of many, is John McCain. He has been advocating this since Obama was in diapers. He has lead that charge.

Eshlemon
09-16-2008, 04:09 PM
I don't think Palin should be bashed, I do think she should be vetted like all other canidates...None of us know Palin really, so I don't see how anyone could bash her or defend her.. At least not at this point.

This is where I question ppl who support McCain.

Foreign affairs: Ppl automatically give him the nod...but

1. Obama said we should pull out of Iraq within a timeline.
McCain--against.
Reality-- Iraq agreed, the WH has changed and agreed, McCain being pulled along, but still trying to resist.

2. Obama said if we have actionable targets in Pakinstan and the Pak gov't won't take action, we should.
McCain, that country has nukes and that's a naive position.
Reality--The WH followed Obama's position and we've had 2 stricks, one took out the #2 guy in Al Qeada and now the 4 guys who were a big part of their communications network.

3. Obama said we shouldn't be afraid to talk to our enemies just like we shouldn't afraid to talk to our friends.
McCain, that's a naive, inexperience person, who don't how the world works.
Reality--Bush WH follows Obama's lead, and we get talks done thru China with NK and now have an agreement that we couldn't get done before because we weren't willing to talk.
We're now talking to Iran and now there's not daily news flashes of Iran threating us with this or that.. and other countries are now taking a positive step in helping us with Iran..just because we open dialog.

4. Obama said we should be tempered and measured in our response with Russia on the invasion into georgia and have the UN intercede.
McCain, Russia this, Russia that and we're all Georgians as though he was going to war with Russia over this.
Reality, WH talks to Russia, have UN nations attack Russia diplomatically, apparently told McCain to shut up.. and the WH asked Joe Biden to go to Georgia to handle the situation and get a sense of what's best, next thing Russia agrees to withdraw and we're monitoring the situation. McCain may have had us in another war with his craziness and lack of diplomacy.

5. Obama properly pointedly out, while giving the military credit that the Surge consisted of the awakening, shiites cutting al qeada out and agreeing to a cease fire, the Sunni's getting pay by us to stand down, and stop the Iran support, BEFORE, our troops got there, and then our troops helping with cleaning up the rest of what was left of Al qeada by the Shiites, and separating the 3 tribes to stop the civil war and with all that, a level of tolerable violence exsist now that didn't before, and we're able to return troops home. McCain has only pointed to military surge and not given the whole truth, we as Americans wouldn't get the whole picture.. that's important, because in the future we would know what things work..and our military don't always have to be our diplomatic arm as well as our war arm.
But the key that ppl love to miss is that the surge was suppose to give time for the Iraq gov't to iron out it's gov't..i.e, how it's going to share power, and divide country revenues, and take over it's own security..Obama has properly pointed out that hasn't taken place, thus the surge is not complete, therefore only 3/4 successful, not fully successful..hopefully the final 4th comes into place soon.

6. Obama said we should add to Afgan (20 months ago) as that's where the war on terror is really being fought...
McCain initial response was Afgan wasn't as important as Iraq, and we had it under control, as time has gone by, we find that we don't have it under control
Reality, the US Army Cdr has come out and said we needed more troops in Afgan.. and the WH is following, yet again Obama's lead and doing just that.

7. Obama said we should have never, from day 1 of the Iraq war, attacked Iraq, as it was not the enemy that attacked us.
McCain disagrees
Reality, none of the reasons for going to war with Iraq has been proven, and now we been there for 7 years and borrowing to stay there, a waste of our resources.

8. and this will get into conservatives heads, a recent survey found that 45 of 47 countries would vote for Obama.. Now I bring that up because 60% if foreign affairs is at least other countries being willing to talk to you..and the 40% different can either cause conflict or peace... If we have 60% accomplish going in, then it's much easier to accomplish foriegn policy objectives if someone respects you and want to work with you..Obama has that going for him, McCain doesn't..I like the security of countries taking a chance on Obama...peace seem to be more reasonable under him.

9. Finally, the military will do just as good under Obama, who's shown a willingness to support the military, not with just words but throught legislation, that McCain opposed... and the fact that the soldiers are supporting Obama financially 6 to 1 should say something to the country..for those willing to listen to the military that is.. As ex Officer, I understand them.. Obama proposal for modernizing the military are right on time, at the same time stopping foolish dollars spent on stupid R& D programs that are obsolete...thank god a politician finally sees that.

The maverick vs judgement, I'll take judgement..

1. Obama wrong, McCain right. Maliki seized on Obama's timeline to remove all US troops in 16 months...even the troops Obama stated must remain to prevent genocide and fight terrorism. Most recently changed it to a 'compromise' to a 2011 deadline tied to getting other Iraq demands, military and non-military.

2. http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,17835401-1702,00.html?from=rss US boming Pakistan--McCain, January 16th, 2006

"It's terrible when innocent people are killed, he said. " We regret that. But we have to do what we think is necessary to take out Al-Qaeda, particularly the top operatives."
"We regret it. We understand the anger that people feel, but the United States' priorities are to get rid of al-Qaeda, and this was an effort to do so," the Republican lawmaker said.

McCain right then hard to fault then wrong. Above original-put to much faith in Must/Bhutto coming together and attacks destabilizing that-not going back to original because of politics. But doubt McCain won't if necessary if elected.

3. McCain and Obama originaly both wrong, now both right. Before McCain to much stick and Obama all carrots.

4. ? Both strongly condemed it with harsher from McCain and made multi-lateral diplomatic double speak to resolve it. And McCain for the last 10 years has stated that we're not taking Russia serious enough.

5. Despite the BS the troops already increasing, other stuff did it, etc. McCain still right, Obama still wrong.

McCain, Nov 10, 2005 Winning the War in Iraq
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/2005/11/iraq-051110-mccain01.htm


To enhance our chances of success with this strategy, and enable our forces to hold as much territory as possible, we need more troops.

And not only troop increases but changes in strategies in Iraq both military and non-military in dealing with the various factions. When vast majority of others are split up in stay the course, reduce troops, or get out immediatley. Don't know which one Obama was at that time.


6. I don't know when your info on Obama is based. McCain has been calling for increased troops in Afghanistan and presence in both countries.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2006/12/16/international/i045814S12.DTL


McCain Seeks More Troops in Afghanistan

7. Initially yes, but who knows depending on politics, metamorpising ideas, or maybe it was just above his paygrade.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2007/11/obama-speak.html


RUSSERT: You were not in the Senate in October of 2002. You did give a speech opposing the war. But Sen. Clinton’s campaign will say since you’ve been a senator there’s been no difference in your record. And other critics will say that you’ve not been a leader against the war, and they point to this: In July of '04, Barack Obama, “I’m not privy to Senate intelligence reports. What would I have done? I don’t know,” in terms of how you would have voted on the war. And then this: “There’s not much of a difference between my position on Iraq and George Bush’s position at this stage.” That was July of '04. And this: “I think” there’s “some room for disagreement in that initial decision to vote for authorization of the war.” It doesn’t seem that you are firmly wedded against the war, and that you left some wiggle room that, if you had been in the Senate, you may have voted for it.

OBAMA: Now, Tim, that first quote was made with an interview with a guy named Tim Russert on "Meet the Press" during the (2004 Democratic National) convention when we had a nominee for the presidency and a vice president, both of whom had voted for the war. And so it probably was the wrong time for me to be making a strong case against our party’s nominees’ decisions when it came to Iraq.

Before anyone jumps on the bold as Obama for the war, if I remember right at the time it was in reference to the stance Obama had at the time that we could not leave Iraq until Iraq was whole again.

8. If McCain win the first thing I want him to do is appoint Obama for ambassador for the UN where he can get elected Secretary-General and rule the world.

9. Neither candidate will have problems with military after getting elected the Commander in Chief. McCain has been for military advancements and modernization on all levels his entire career...and both are going to be so even more so during an election year.

Foreign policy advantage: still McCain.

MDFINFAN
09-16-2008, 04:21 PM
When the subject comes up of campaign finance reform and pork barrel spending and cutting government spending......the first person that comes to mind, and the minds of many, is John McCain. He has been advocating this since Obama was in diapers. He has lead that charge.

No D7, he started that as a part of reinventing himself at the Keating scandal.. preception is everything I must admit.. I haven't seen out beating Bush into submission about the nat'l debt D7, I just haven't seen it.

MDFINFAN
09-16-2008, 04:24 PM
In what presidential election has the nominee, from either side not advocated CHANGE...........it's not a new message at all.


Let's go back to the primaries, was Mccain advocating change when running against his republicans peers..I think not..it's only since he's gotten in the general election have we heard that...after what, his 5th campaign manager... one of the campaign managers he's had had to come up with something..we're tell americans we're the change canidate, and try to steal that from Obama....and now you're repeating it..:sidelol:

MDFINFAN
09-16-2008, 04:26 PM
1. Obama wrong, McCain right. Maliki seized on Obama's timeline to remove all US troops in 16 months...even the troops Obama stated must remain to prevent genocide and fight terrorism. Most recently changed it to a 'compromise' to a 2011 deadline tied to getting other Iraq demands, military and non-military.

2. http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,17835401-1702,00.html?from=rss US boming Pakistan--McCain, January 16th, 2006


McCain right then hard to fault then wrong. Above original-put to much faith in Must/Bhutto coming together and attacks destabilizing that-not going back to original because of politics. But doubt McCain won't if necessary if elected.

3. McCain and Obama originaly both wrong, now both right. Before McCain to much stick and Obama all carrots.

4. ? Both strongly condemed it with harsher from McCain and made multi-lateral diplomatic double speak to resolve it. And McCain for the last 10 years has stated that we're not taking Russia serious enough.

5. Despite the BS the troops already increasing, other stuff did it, etc. McCain still right, Obama still wrong.

McCain, Nov 10, 2005 Winning the War in Iraq
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/2005/11/iraq-051110-mccain01.htm



And not only troop increases but changes in strategies in Iraq both military and non-military in dealing with the various factions. When vast majority of others are split up in stay the course, reduce troops, or get out immediatley. Don't know which one Obama was at that time.


6. I don't know when your info on Obama is based. McCain has been calling for increased troops in Afghanistan and presence in both countries.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2006/12/16/international/i045814S12.DTL



7. Initially yes, but who knows depending on politics, metamorpising ideas, or maybe it was just above his paygrade.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2007/11/obama-speak.html



Before anyone jumps on the bold as Obama for the war, if I remember right at the time it was in reference to the stance Obama had at the time that we could not leave Iraq until Iraq was whole again.

8. If McCain win the first thing I want him to do is appoint Obama for ambassador for the UN where he can get elected Secretary-General and rule the world.

9. Neither candidate will have problems with military after getting elected the Commander in Chief. McCain has been for military advancements and modernization on all levels his entire career...and both are going to be so even more so during an election year.

Foreign policy advantage: still McCain.


:sidelol::sidelol::sidelol::sidelol: I stick by my original post on this subject...:up:

Eshlemon
09-16-2008, 04:52 PM
Let's go back to the primaries, was Mccain advocating change when running against his republicans peers..I think not..it's only since he's gotten in the general election have we heard that...after what, his 5th campaign manager... one of the campaign managers he's had had to come up with something..we're tell americans we're the change canidate, and try to steal that from Obama....and now you're repeating it..:sidelol:

Dude, you can play the primary card both ways. Candidates say stuff to win primaries they don't to win elections. More so it seems to me with both these candidates...probably because the elections been going on for a year and 8 months now. Or have you forgetten Obama with Fisa, Nafta, foreign policy w/ no pre-conditions, oil drilling, etc.

He's changed campaign manager one time...perhaps Obama should change his after the lead he's lost.

Dolphan7
09-16-2008, 06:53 PM
No D7, he started that as a part of reinventing himself at the Keating scandal.. preception is everything I must admit.. I haven't seen out beating Bush into submission about the nat'l debt D7, I just haven't seen it.He is not going to totally throw Bush under the bus. You miss the point. John McCain is the face of cutting pork and government spending. No other Washington figure has done more, or been as vocal about it than JM.

You know for all the research you "supposedly" do, you sure don't get it.:lol:

MDFINFAN
09-16-2008, 06:59 PM
He is not going to totally throw Bush under the bus. You miss the point. John McCain is the face of cutting pork and government spending. No other Washington figure has done more, or been as vocal about it than JM.

You know for all the research you "supposedly" do, you sure don't get it.:lol:

No, I didn't miss the point, I understood, just didn't agree....Ron Paul is more that face to me..

FinFatale
09-16-2008, 07:23 PM
Let's go back to the primaries, was Mccain advocating change when running against his republicans peers..I think not..it's only since he's gotten in the general election have we heard that...after what, his 5th campaign manager... one of the campaign managers he's had had to come up with something..we're tell americans we're the change canidate, and try to steal that from Obama....and now you're repeating it..:sidelol:

when during elections going back how far?????????? have the candidate not advocated CHANGE was my remark...................always otherwise what message would any of them be bringing to their voters during those times???????

Eshlemon
09-16-2008, 09:11 PM
when during elections going back how far?????????? have the candidate not advocated CHANGE was my remark...................always otherwise what message would any of them be bringing to their voters during those times???????


I teach, you learn.

http://www.finheaven.com/forums/f36/obama-plagiarizes-bono-in-berlin-speech-224297.html?highlight=eshlemon+bono


thank you. I guess Senator Obama's call for change is a message many politians and those illicting change ( Bono ) have used in the past. I guess " that call " for change is an age old political stand by.
Again, thank you.



:lol:J/k w/ the condesenting attitude...but that's the point again.

FinFatale
09-16-2008, 09:17 PM
I teach, you learn.

http://www.finheaven.com/forums/f36/obama-plagiarizes-bono-in-berlin-speech-224297.html?highlight=eshlemon+bono





:lol:J/k w/ the condesenting attitude...but that's the point again.

lol ok.........I love to learn..thanks!!