Max Fischer Posted August 31, 2008 Posted August 31, 2008 Including her oldest son...In the Army Infantry. McCain's son also served in Iraq. I'm sure they wouldn't support the war unless they truley believed it was the right thing to do. Hopefully we draw down in Iraq and get on to winning the war in Afgahnistan. In other words, you agree with Obama and not McCain.
finknottle Posted August 31, 2008 Posted August 31, 2008 She was also for the bridge to nowhere, something that hasnt been mentioned here yet. And she's also going to eat your babies!
finknottle Posted August 31, 2008 Posted August 31, 2008 How can somebody say that they support Hillary and then vote for McCain... Obama is CLOSER to Hillary than McCain is. What is the rationale? By your logic, if I ran and adopted her platform exactly, they should all vote for me. Positions oly go so far. Many people voted for her and against Obama on the basis of the person, the type of leadership they thought they would bring, and what they thought they could really accomplish. If you want somebody who talks loftily about change, vote Obama. But, for better or for worse, some people respond to the less glamerous candidate that excudes technocrat and policy wonk, and has mapped out their plans in excrutiating detail. That may not be McCain, but it is the antithesis of Obama's image - that is, as he put it in the debates, old and out-moded. If you want somebody who talks airily about transcending bipartisanship, vote Obama. But forgive those their folly for responding to candidates who have a history of reaching across the isle on contentious issues, and bucking their party establishment.
finknottle Posted August 31, 2008 Posted August 31, 2008 Vision without action is a daydream. Action without vision is a nightmare. We are living the nightmare with Bush and hence McCain. Hence? Because if one republican is without vision every republican is? I suppose that when McCain began criticizing the administration in Iraq, he was doing it out of political expediency, not because he had a vision of how to bring stability? And bucking his party on global warming isn't because he has a vision about how his administration would fight it, it's because he likes being beat up? And McCain-Feingold wasn't about a vision for reforming politics, it was just something to do that the establishment would thank him for?
finknottle Posted August 31, 2008 Posted August 31, 2008 In other words, you agree with Obama and not McCain. Yeah, and anyone in January 1944 who thought we should finish things up in Europe before finishing off the ones in Asia who actaully attacked us would certainly have supported a candidate whose view of how to do that was to announce to the Germans a binding timetable for withdrawing our troops.
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted August 31, 2008 Posted August 31, 2008 Yeah, and anyone in January 1944 who thought we should finish things up in Europe before finishing off the ones in Asia who actaully attacked us would certainly have supported a candidate whose view of how to do that was to announce to the Germans a binding timetable for withdrawing our troops. Jeez, now there is a non-sequitor. What are you talking about???? I get it you support war in Iraq but your conclusions that someone's kid goes off to Iraq so they support war is off. My cousin's son went off and they support him but are adamantly opposed to the war. Get over it. This reference to WWII doesn't apply. Different time, different war. Even Bush has talked about a timetable to move out. Obama has said that we need to focus on the where the original cause of 911 came from, Afganistan. We were not at war with Iraq before Bush invaded and it was not needed, it was a neo-con dillusion. That being said, even Obama has stated that we need to responsibly withdraw. Duh, I don't think either side would disagree with that statement, whether they would agree or disagree with why we are over there. It appears both sides are moving towards similar conclusions with the latest talk out of the WH on Iraq, trying to pump it up as a success and turning Iraq over to self governance. Whatever, dude.
JK2000 Posted August 31, 2008 Posted August 31, 2008 Yeah, and anyone in January 1944 who thought we should finish things up in Europe before finishing off the ones in Asia who actaully attacked us would certainly have supported a candidate whose view of how to do that was to announce to the Germans a binding timetable for withdrawing our troops. Ahem.....Germany declared war on us, not vice versa.
finknottle Posted August 31, 2008 Posted August 31, 2008 That being said, even Obama has stated that we need to responsibly withdraw. Duh, I don't think either side would disagree with that statement, whether they would agree or disagree with why we are over there. It appears both sides are moving towards similar conclusions with the latest talk out of the WH on Iraq, trying to pump it up as a success and turning Iraq over to self governance. NOW he say's it. But during the early debates, it was a very different story - that's what distinguished him from Clinton. He would announce a *public* timetable and just do it - it was the unilateralism itself that was to prompt the Iraqi's to get their act together. His opponents said you have to withdraw rationally, based on progress and events on the ground, and under no circumstances to you make the timetable public, letting the insurgents know just how long they needed to lay low. For better or for worse, it was Obama's view that carried the day with the party activists. That is the key point that is being glossed over by the democrats today. They would have us believe that the difference between the candidates is that Obama wants a thoughtfull, carefull withdrawl, and McCain wants to be there for 100 years. They ignore the real difference in philosophy that became evident: in a war, do you announce your plans and your intention to follow them unilaterally, or do you keep your timetables secret from your enemies and adjust them as the situation dictates.
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted August 31, 2008 Posted August 31, 2008 NOW he say's it. But during the early debates, it was a very different story - that's what distinguished him from Clinton. He would announce a *public* timetable and just do it - it was the unilateralism itself that was to prompt the Iraqi's to get their act together. His opponents said you have to withdraw rationally, based on progress and events on the ground, and under no circumstances to you make the timetable public, letting the insurgents know just how long they needed to lay low. For better or for worse, it was Obama's view that carried the day with the party activists. That is the key point that is being glossed over by the democrats today. They would have us believe that the difference between the candidates is that Obama wants a thoughtfull, carefull withdrawl, and McCain wants to be there for 100 years. They ignore the real difference in philosophy that became evident: in a war, do you announce your plans and your intention to follow them unilaterally, or do you keep your timetables secret from your enemies and adjust them as the situation dictates. If you are commander in chief obviously you don't, if you are a candidate, especially a primary candidate you do. So why did McCain announce his plans too?
BuffaloBorn1960 Posted August 31, 2008 Posted August 31, 2008 She was also for the bridge to nowhere, something that hasnt been mentioned here yet. Umm she actually stopped it and returned the funds.. She has been a reformer and has bucked the leadership in her state to side with the people... I luv it that she returned state surplus to the people
/dev/null Posted August 31, 2008 Posted August 31, 2008 http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews1547.html Zogby (take it FWIW) has released their first poll since Palin was announced as the nominee Head to head: McCain/Palin 47, Obama/Biden 45 Including 3rd party: Obama/Biden 44, McCain/Palin 43, Barr 5%, Nader 2%
BuffaloBorn1960 Posted August 31, 2008 Posted August 31, 2008 http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews1547.html Zogby (take it FWIW) has released their first poll since Palin was announced as the nominee Head to head: McCain/Palin 47, Obama/Biden 45 Including 3rd party: Obama/Biden 44, McCain/Palin 43, Barr 5%, Nader 2% nice bounce for Obama
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted August 31, 2008 Posted August 31, 2008 Umm she actually stopped it and returned the funds.. She has been a reformer and has bucked the leadership in her state to side with the people... I luv it that she returned state surplus to the people We have been through this on an earlier post. At first she supported it, then flip flopped when it became politically expedient.
BuffaloBorn1960 Posted August 31, 2008 Posted August 31, 2008 We have been through this on an earlier post. At first she supported it, then flip flopped when it became politically expedient. But she did the right thing...right? Do you argue that she should not have returned part of the state surplus to the people? after all it is their money... right? :
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted August 31, 2008 Posted August 31, 2008 nice bounce for Obama An initial positive reaction for Palin, I get, but a 2,000 sample size is hardly conclusive. Wait until this poll has been repeated a few dozen times. Also, the initial poll after the Dem convention was a positive 10. I think the biggest help she is going to be is on fundraising with energizing the conservative base. But McCain and she both buck the Republican political establishment occasionally and remains to be seen between now and November, how many they piss off. But the Republicans, as typically the do, are already overselling her. This is going to get ugly.
/dev/null Posted August 31, 2008 Posted August 31, 2008 An initial positive reaction for Palin, I get, but a 2,000 sample size is hardly conclusive. Wait until this poll has been repeated a few dozen times. Also, the initial poll after the Dem convention was a positive 10. After running the sample a few dozen times won't the difference just regress towards 3.5?
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted August 31, 2008 Posted August 31, 2008 After running the sample a few dozen times won't the difference just regress towards 3.5? Statistically speaking you are right, but as we both know stats can't account for all the error and often way off. Furthermore, they are moment in time reaction and I still don't believe the error margin no matter who is taking the poll. Stats are off way too much to be given much consideration at this point in time.
BuffaloBorn1960 Posted August 31, 2008 Posted August 31, 2008 An initial positive reaction for Palin, I get, but a 2,000 sample size is hardly conclusive. Wait until this poll has been repeated a few dozen times. Also, the initial poll after the Dem convention was a positive 10. I think the biggest help she is going to be is on fundraising with energizing the conservative base. But McCain and she both buck the Republican political establishment occasionally and remains to be seen between now and November, how many they piss off. But the Republicans, as typically the do, are already overselling her. This is going to get ugly. All I said was ..."nice bounce for Obama " I thought he was going to head out of the DNC with a double digit lead.. some thought 15pts +.... Are you saying McCains choice for VEEP erased such expectations? Instead of koolaid maybe you should have an adult beverage... .. cheers! Who do you think pisses off the "Republican political establishment" more? Obama Biden Mikey Moore McCain/Pallin I bet the 1st three piss em off more but i could be wrong
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted August 31, 2008 Posted August 31, 2008 All I said was ..."nice bounce for Obama " I thought he was going to head out of the DNC with a double digit lead.. some thought 15pts +.... Are you saying McCains choice for VEEP erased such expectations? Instead of koolaid maybe you should have an adult beverage... .. cheers! Who do you think pisses off the "Republican political establishment" more? Obama Biden Mikey Moore McCain/Pallin I bet the 1st three piss em off more but i could be wrong I just another poll stating the Obama was up by 3. http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_con...l_tracking_poll
justnzane Posted August 31, 2008 Posted August 31, 2008 I just another poll stating the Obama was up by 3. http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_con...l_tracking_poll FWIW, I would take Rasmussen as more accurate than Zogby, and for whatever reason Rasmussen also shows a more conservative slant in their polls compared to ABC et al.
Recommended Posts