irving_forbush on 18/9/2008 at 15:00
Quote Posted by Starrfall
Yeah Obama was really living the high life while he was out trudging through the streets of Chicago trying to help people living in poverty do things like registering to vote and employment retraining after steel plants closed and left hundreds without jobs and cleaning up local neighborhoods so children could play in areas not covered in trash and broken glass. If you call making $13,000 a year the high life.
He might have lived the high life while fighting for useless things like civil rights in a fancy law firm, but by that time I think McCain had already abandoned his injured first wife in order to marry a multi-millionaire.
You mean while he was working for ACORN & illegally registering people, both living & dead, to vote? (hey, if you can cite left-wing blog crap as 'fact' then I can certainly use the right-wing version as well. Thanks for the opportunity.)
Matthew on 18/9/2008 at 15:02
Or you could not be a tard and think that two wrongs make a right.
Starrfall on 18/9/2008 at 15:22
Quote Posted by irving_forbush
You mean while he was working for ACORN & illegally registering people, both living & dead, to vote? (hey, if you can cite left-wing blog crap as 'fact' then I can certainly use the right-wing version as well. Thanks for the opportunity.)
You're so stupid. The fact that he worked as a community organizer and did those things is not in question. There are a million sources for it. It is not a "fact," it is reality, and when you question it you reveal how delusional republicans have become, and confirm that you aren't thinking for yourself when it comes to politics.
Here's what I was pulling from, you'll find it's a rag, rather than a blog. (
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070416/moberg) There are a billion other sources that confirm all of this. You still haven't posted yours.
But if you really want to start that game, I'm
happy to play. I didn't really want to get into more boring reality like the Keating 5 scandal, which has even more disturbing implications given the recent crisis. Did you know that John McCain beats his wife? He even jokes about it in interviews.
It's not working right now because youtube sucks :(
I think the aerial hunting thing is lame, but not particularly germane to her VP abilities. That ad really did get a crazy high score for effectiveness though, and I think it's interesting that talk about the economy or housing issues or healthcare and all the things that matter to us have less of an advertising impact than people being mean to animals.
I'd also like to suggest that the reason Bush wasn't able to accomplish much even with a republican congress is because his ideas were so dumb (or so contentious) that congress couldn't give him support because their constituents would be pissed. I think this is what happened with the social security thing (for an example of a dumb one) and the immigration thing (for a contentious one).
irving_forbush on 18/9/2008 at 15:40
Quote Posted by Starrfall
You're so stupid.
Ah, name-calling. One of the last refuges of the incompetent.
Quote Posted by Starrfall
Here's what I was pulling from, you'll find it's a rag, rather than a blog. (
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070416/moberg) There are a billion other sources that confirm all of this. You still haven't posted yours.
Why should I, since you already conceded it's not in question?
Quote Posted by Starrfall
But if you really want to start that game, I'm
happy to play. I didn't really want to get into more boring reality like the Keating 5 scandal, which has even more disturbing implications given the recent crisis.
Since you seem to believe everything from one party, and nothing from the other, what's your take on Bob Bennett (Democrat), Legal Counsel for the Keating 5 investigation? His opinion was to excuse McCain from the investigation, but the Democratic Senate refused, in his opinion, since he was the sole Republican under investigation and they didn't want the spectacle of only having Democrats on trial?
Stitch on 18/9/2008 at 16:00
Quote Posted by irving_forbush
Ah, name-calling. One of the last refuges of the incompetent.
Quote Posted by irving_forbush
ObaMessiah
Right.
Starrfall on 18/9/2008 at 16:02
Quote Posted by irving_forbush
Ah, name-calling. One of the last refuges of the incompetent.
Observation darling, not name calling. :)
Quote:
Why should I, since you already conceded it's not in question?
Glad to see you're willing to accept the fact that you're wrong.
Quote:
Since you seem to believe everything from one party, and nothing from the other, what's your take on Bob Bennett (Democrat), Legal Counsel for the Keating 5 investigation? His opinion was to excuse McCain from the investigation, but the Democratic Senate refused, in his opinion, since he was the sole Republican under investigation and they didn't want the spectacle of only having Democrats on trial?
Your insistence on inventing opinions for me is intersting - first the "lol blogs" thing when it wasn't a blog, now the "you believe everything" thing when the only thing you know about my thoughts on the Keating 5 is that I'm going to mention it when you start bringing up questionable associations from the candidate's pasts.
You haven't cited any source, but I'll point out that McCain was found to be culpable on the same level as one of the democratic senators, and that democratic senator was also not excused from the investigation. Here's McCain's ties to Keating, from Wikipedia:
Quote:
McCain and Keating had become personal friends following their initial contacts in 1981,[10] and McCain was the closest socially to Keating of the five senators.[21] Like DeConcini, McCain considered Keating a constituent as he lived in Arizona.[18] Between 1982 and 1987, McCain had received $112,000 in political contributions from Keating and his associates.[22] In addition, McCain's wife Cindy McCain and her father Jim Hensley had invested $359,100 in a Keating shopping center in April 1986, a year before McCain met with the regulators. McCain, his family, and their baby-sitter had made nine trips at Keating's expense, sometimes aboard Keating's jet. Three of the trips were made during vacations to Keating's opulent Bahamas retreat at Cat Cay. McCain did not pay Keating (in the amount of $13,433) for some of the trips until years after they were taken, when he learned that Keating was in trouble over Lincoln.
Here's senator Glenn's (D) ties (Glenn and McCain got the same punishment from the senate ethics committee, which was the most minimal):
Quote:
Glenn had received $34,000 in direct contributions from Keating and his associates for his 1984 presidential nomination campaign, and a political action committee tied to Glenn had received an additional $200,000.[4] Glenn considered Keating a constituent because one of Keating's other business concerns was headquartered in Ohio.
You'll also find that the senate was not in charge of the investigation, the senate ethics committee was. This committee is required to be evenly divided between republicans and democrats.
So I'm not seeing any bias or improper singling-out of McCain here, but once again you've neglected to post your source so I'm working with what I have.
Here's what McCain has to say about it, by the way:
Quote:
The appearance of it was wrong. It's a wrong appearance when a group of senators appear in a meeting with a group of regulators, because it conveys the impression of undue and improper influence. And it was the wrong thing to do.
If McCain admits that what he did was the wrong thing to do, then surely investigating it to determine the full extent of his actions was
vital. Keep in mind that if McCain had been excused from the investigation, this would be a much bigger problem for him than it is now because there wouldn't be any official findings on the matter and people would be speculating with free reign.
irving_forbush on 18/9/2008 at 16:05
Quote Posted by BEAR
Christ you are a fucking tool.
Show me proof he
doesn't care about the opinions of military commanders! Why would he not?
He was criticized for not going to Iraq, then he was criticized when he went, I really don't think it matters what he does.
What do you want? Do you actually think that a non-president can know exactly how things are going to go before taking office? Do you think Obama can actually put less thought into getting out than Bush did getting us in? I've seen nothing to say that they are not thoughtful intelligent people who know that we can't pull out immediately.
Not too bad. Try to not resort to name-calling next time - the issues are too important to degrade the conversation.
Of course the
other party will criticize him, but have you heard any criticism of him from the military commanders? And he still refuses to take their counsel.
And yes, I do think it would be best if candidates would refrain from definitive statements such as "On my first day I'll do this & this & this...". The circumstances of
wanting power and actually
attaining it are sufficiently different that a candidate can't possibly know the intricacies of the office without access to all the information available to the President. I recall the reaction of Bill Clinton when he assumed the Presidency and realized his hands were tied by policies put in place decades ago: "We're all Eisenhower Republicans now", he exclaimed disgustedly.
I for one would prefer a campaign without all the name-calling, mud-slinging, and other tactics associated with the politics of personal destruction. I would like a campaign to focus on the philosophical differences between the candidates and their
proposed solutions to problems. I want to know how they
think, not see how they can lie.
Stitch on 18/9/2008 at 16:16
Quote Posted by irving_forbush
Not too bad. Try to not resort to name-calling next time - the issues are too important to degrade the conversation.
Being bereft of such a guide on disciplined discourse is precisely why I've taken to referring to the nine years prior to June 2008 as "the dark ages."
pavlovscat on 18/9/2008 at 17:09
Quote Posted by Starrfall
Yeah Obama was really living the high life while he was out trudging through the streets of Chicago trying to help people living in poverty do things like registering to vote and employment retraining after steel plants closed and left hundreds without jobs and cleaning up local neighborhoods so children could play in areas not covered in trash and broken glass. If you call making $13,000 a year the high life.
He might have lived the high life while fighting for useless things like civil rights in a fancy law firm, but by that time I think McCain had already abandoned his injured first wife in order to marry a multi-millionaire.
The idea that the only way to serve your country is to let yourself get shot at (or shot down) in stupid wars is pretty ridiculous.
It doesn't matter what your salary is when you are receiving perks & promises from the political machine. Who wouldn't suck up a few years of low pay and politically expedient community service when the rich prize of pay-offs from special interests is right around the corner. Now, before you fire off at me, I am not saying that this is exclusively true of Obama or even the Dems. Corruption is widespread in our government and touches both parties equally. It is not difficult to find evidence of corruption throughout our government from the local levels up to the national level.
Of course there are many ways to serve our country. I never said that military service is the only avenue. Many everyday Americans volunteer their time and efforts to do what they can because they believe in helping others and doing the right thing with no thoughts of acknowledgement or accolades. I take exception to people who choose to serve in other ways for political gains rather than a simple need to help others. I can't swear that this is Obama's reason, but I have no evidence that leads me to believe otherwise, especially when it is found that he has taken money from a failing mortgage company and employed some of its incompetent former executives in his campaign. I simply don't trust Obama & his motives.
Given your tone of disdain towards "stupid wars", I hope you don't think that the people who fight in these wars are stupid as well. I honor the sacrifices of our military. These people have risked the ultimate sacrifice - their lives. My father was in the Air Force during the Viet Nam era. My grandfather was in the Navy during WWII. My husband was in the Army Guard during Desert Storm. My husband's father was a Marine in WWII. I was turned down for the Air Force due to physical issues (which you can see in another thread). I have the deepest respect for those who serve our country. I have no respect for those who disrespect the men & women who sacrifice so much to protect our freedom and our right to be here discussing this.
irving_forbush on 18/9/2008 at 17:18
Quote Posted by Stitch
Quote Posted by irving_forbush
Ah, name-calling. One of the last refuges of the incompetent.
Quote Posted by irving_forbush
ObaMessiah
Right.
You're correct - I apologize. Thanks for pointing this out to me.
I was trying to express my frustration with the impartiality :rolleyes: of the "media" when talking about Obama, e.g. when someone gets a thrill up their leg when hearing him speak. I should have stated that in a separate post.
Again, thanks for the observation. This will not happen again.
irv
