Obama/Clark '08

Automatic Jack said:
Well that's the upside of having no goals beyond the ones you can't mention (oil). You can define victory any number of ways! Saddam's out of power, we won! Saddam's dead, we won! The Iraqis had an election, hell they had seven! We won!

And yet we are still shipping our best volunteers home in boxes that are illegal to photograph.

When do the troops stop being shot, in your plan?
Click to expand...

Mccain is not a neocon.

You're going to have to come up with a whole new line of tinfoil hat bullshit. :D

The goal for Mccain in iraq is peace. I think he's damn sincere about that and i think he's ready to declare "victory" if the generals on the ground indicate the current wave of peace is going to stick. And i think he's prepared to RESPECT iraqi demands pertaining control of oil and controlling their own security. If they want us out, i think Mccain wont spend another moment discussing it. Nor do i imagine him doing "favors" for oil companies by exerting pressure.

He's not Bush and folks trying to paint him as Bush on issues of war... are either stupid or insincere.
 
Last edited:
First of all, i think its hard to make the argument that a man in his early 70's is having a change of heart on issues such as abortion, gay rights, the Bush Tax Cuts, pandering to the Religious Right, and even HIS OWN bill on immigration...

To me, and prove me wrong if you can, he isn't making informed decision changes based on new-found information. He is simply flip-flopping given the audience and the circumstances.
 
Chavey said:
First of all, i think its hard to make the argument that a man in his early 70's is having a change of heart on issues such as abortion, gay rights, the Bush Tax Cuts, pandering to the Religious Right, and even HIS OWN bill on immigration...

To me, and prove me wrong if you can, he isn't making informed decision changes based on new-found information. He is simply flip-flopping given the audience and the circumstances.
Click to expand...
 
TseTse said:
I think he's damn sincere about that and i think he's ready to declare "victory" if the generals on the ground indicate the current wave of peace is going to stick. And i think he's prepared to RESPECT iraqi demands pertaining control of oil and controlling their own security. If they want us out, i think Mccain wont spend another moment discussing it. Nor do i imagine him doing "favors" for oil companies by exerting pressure.

He's not Bush and folks trying to paint him as Bush on issues of war... are either stupid or insincere.
Click to expand...

I have no idea, but he seems to praise Bush a lot, vote with him 95% of the time, and doesn't inspire confidence in his diplomacy when he sends Joe Lieberman to Georgia to pretend he's Condoleeza Rice.

I am skeptical on all those points and I don't understand how you can be so credulous. I don't know that he is identical to Bush, I only know that he isn't far enough away for my taste.
 
Chavey said:
First of all, i think its hard to make the argument that a man in his early 70's is having a change of heart on issues such as abortion, gay rights, the Bush Tax Cuts, pandering to the Religious Right, and even HIS OWN bill on immigration...

To me, and prove me wrong if you can, he isn't making informed decision changes based on new-found information. He is simply flip-flopping given the audience and the circumstances.
Click to expand...

I think all the GOP candidates started pandering to social conservatives and Mccain has tried to repackage himself into something he is not. It's pathetic.

Obama, however, has done exactly the same in trying to beat Hillary. He moved way back to the left after pushing himself as a pragmatist.

The main difference is that Obama has promised a "new type of politics" and his flipping better fits his image whereas Mccain is ALSO flip flopping on his promises to run an ideas-oriented positive campaign.
 
Automatic Jack said:
I have no idea, but he seems to praise Bush a lot, vote with him 95% of the time, and doesn't inspire confidence in his diplomacy when he sends Joe Lieberman to Georgia to pretend he's Condoleeza Rice.

I am skeptical on all those points and I don't understand how you can be so credulous. I don't know that he is identical to Bush, I only know that he isn't far enough away for my taste.
Click to expand...

The mere fact that you are criticizing him for having A DEMOCRAT (lieberman) on his team doing foreign policy outreach... is ironic. :nuts:

I think you have to be either really blind or really young (i.e. not paying attention) not to understand that Mccain is a genuine maverick and far from a GOP lapdog (and certainly not a neocon). I'm not gonna pretend i can defend everything Mccain has said/done, and nor would i expect to knee-jerk defend him if elected.

I just know that the REAL mccain is not a partisan douchebag but instead is a bi-artisan asshole who knows when to compromise to get shit accomplished.

I absolutely confess that some of his foreign policy comments make me concerned and i do NOT like the cowboy rhetoric (even on iran), but it's campaign season not him in the WHite House. I just wish he'd present the real mccain.

And i reject the argument that his campaign is going well...
 
TseTse said:
The mere fact that you are criticizing him for having A DEMOCRAT (lieberman) on his team doing foreign policy outreach... is ironic.
Click to expand...

Lieberman is not an ambassador, and McCain isn't the president yet to be sending one, and the trip is a pathetic campaign season joke was my point actually.

You trust Lieberman to represent US interests with the Russians? Seriously?
 
TseTse said:
Barely.

And apparently some people still havent learned the lesson... that one party shouldnt control everything.
Click to expand...

Haven't learned the lesson? What are you talking about? The lesson is that the Bush administration's policies were bad. It's not that a single party guarantees bad policies. Democrats were able to block things whenever they wanted...if they would've used their power of filibuster. They didn't however...mainly due to patriotism after the September 11 attacks. Hell the major policies like the Iraq war were given the green light by Democrats. It had nothing to do with Republicans controlling government (which in my opinion they didn't due to them not having 60 Republicans in the Senate).
 
Last edited:
Automatic Jack said:
Lieberman is not an ambassador, and McCain isn't the president yet to be sending one, and the trip is a pathetic campaign season joke was my point actually.

You trust Lieberman to represent US interests with the Russians? Seriously?
Click to expand...

Huh?

You're blaming him for communicating? I dont remember Mccain claiming to be president.

And i dont remember Lieberman claiming to represent the USA. A bunch of senators and various folks have been flying around over there, including BIDEN.

Are you gonna say the same shit about Biden? Of course not... :lol:

You've become the lefty Triple...
 
fartiusstinkius said:
Haven't learned the lesson? What are you talking about? The lesson is that the Bush administration's policies were bad. It's not that a single party guarantees bad policies.
Click to expand...

I disagree.

I dont see this in ideological terms.

Both sides are equally capable of excess, corruption, arrogance, abuse of power and bad policies. When policy is driven by IDEOLOGY (i.e. bush), you usually get shitty consequences. Neither side has a monopoly on good policy ideas. And good policy ideas by themselves arent enough. You need argument, compromise, etc.

Good policy ideas dont by themselves lead to good consequences. Reality is very complicated and compromise let's the sausage factory move closer to acceptable consequences for both side, whereas purely ideological policy tends to pop out crap that fucks shit up.
 
Last edited:
TseTse said:
I think all the GOP candidates started pandering to social conservatives and Mccain has tried to repackage himself into something he is not. It's pathetic.

Obama, however, has done exactly the same in trying to beat Hillary. He moved way back to the left after pushing himself as a pragmatist.

The main difference is that Obama has promised a "new type of politics" and his flipping better fits his image whereas Mccain is ALSO flip flopping on his promises to run an ideas-oriented positive campaign.
Click to expand...

This still fails to address that McCain has changed his position on numerous things (many of which are considered incredibly important to conservatives) over the past 8 years.

The only major thing Obama has flip-flopped on, is regarding Iraq in terms of when and if he would make a withdrawl. The difference is that Iraq is a fluid situation and given the way things go, staying or leaving could have different results from day to day. This does admittedly make him look like he doesn't know really what to do with Iraq, but we already know Obama has weak foreign policy credentials.

Furthermore, if you can find me the person who can tell me the correct strategy in Iraq, I will give you all my money. The fact of the matter as far as I can see is that it's a fucked situation no matter what we do. We either leave and see things go up in flames and get blamed for losing American lives and Iraqi lives for nothing, or we continue to stay while losing life on both sides and spending ourselves into an inescapable financial hole.

McCain may say he is for being strong and be successful in Iraq but honestly, he has no idea how things are going to play out. If Sunnis and Shiites can't get their shit together and find a way to unite, you think that the presence of a foreign super power that is responsible for killing thousands on both sides is gonna convince them to play nice-nice?

The choice in Iraq is between getting fucked in the ass and having someone shit in your mouth every morning for the next 10 years. Either way, the result ain't gonna be sweet.
 
TseTse said:
I dont see this in ideological terms.
Click to expand...
I honestly don't know what you mean by that.

Both sides are equally capable of excess, corruption, arrogance, abuse of power and bad policies.
Click to expand...
In general, I would agree.

When policy is driven by IDEOLOGY (i.e. bush), you usually get shitty consequences.
Click to expand...
What does it mean for a policy not to be driven by ideology?

Neither side has a monopoly on good policy ideas.
Click to expand...
I would agree.


...and yet I see no compelling argument in this post why we shouldn't allow the parties to set policy if they hold power. Why make two parties with completely different visions work out policy together? Why not let them compete and try to come up with the best policies? The American voters could decide. Hell that's even a parallel to capitalism there...I don't see why Americans wouldn't like that....
 
Chavey said:
This still fails to address that McCain has changed his position on numerous things (many of which are considered incredibly important to conservatives) over the past 8 years.

The only major thing Obama has flip-flopped on, is regarding Iraq in terms of when and if he would make a withdrawl. The difference is that Iraq is a fluid situation and given the way things go, staying or leaving could have different results from day to day. This does admittedly make him look like he doesn't know really what to do with Iraq, but we already know Obama has weak foreign policy credentials.

Furthermore, if you can find me the person who can tell me the correct strategy in Iraq, I will give you all my money. The fact of the matter as far as I can see is that it's a fucked situation no matter what we do. We either leave and see things go up in flames and get blamed for losing American lives and Iraqi lives for nothing, or we continue to stay while losing life on both sides and spending ourselves into an inescapable financial hole.

McCain may say he is for being strong and be successful in Iraq but honestly, he has no idea how things are going to play out. If Sunnis and Shiites can't get their shit together and find a way to unite, you think that the presence of a foreign super power that is responsible for killing thousands on both sides is gonna convince them to play nice-nice?

The choice in Iraq is between getting fucked in the ass and having someone shit in your mouth every morning for the next 10 years. Either way, the result ain't gonna be sweet.
Click to expand...
 
TseTse said:
Are you gonna say the same shit about Biden? Of course not... :lol:

You've become the lefty Triple...
Click to expand...

Why wouldn't I criticize Biden? But he sent himself, and he doesn't look like a cartoon character.

McCain is the one who said Obama is looking too presidential visiting Berlin, then he sends his own ambassadors to Georgia? You can spin it however you like, but McCain said he sent them. That hypocrisy, combined with the absurdity of sending Droopy Dog to represent us is what makes me think negatively of it.
 
TseTse said:
Reality is very complicated and compromise let's the sausage factory move closer to acceptable consequences for both side, whereas purely ideological policy tends to pop out crap that fucks shit up.
Click to expand...

I'm still not sure what you mean by "purely ideological", but I'd like to know on what basis you make the claim that it "tends to" pop out crap. What would be your case studies?
 
Chavey said:
This still fails to address that McCain has changed his position on numerous things (many of which are considered incredibly important to conservatives) over the past 8 years.
Click to expand...

I said i think he's been pandering to the social conservatives, yes.

On the other hand, like on iraq, he finally broke form the neocon insanity and started speaking the truth and being openly critical of the Bush admin.

Similarly, he's increasingly harsh about the fiscal mismanagement of the Bush admin.

It cuts both ways with Mccain...

Chavey said:
The only major thing Obama has flip-flopped on, is regarding Iraq in terms of when and if he would make a withdrawl. The difference is that Iraq is a fluid situation and given the way things go, staying or leaving could have different results from day to day. This does admittedly make him look like he doesn't know really what to do with Iraq, but we already know Obama has weak foreign policy credentials.

Furthermore, if you can find me the person who can tell me the correct strategy in Iraq, I will give you all my money. The fact of the matter as far as I can see is that it's a fucked situation no matter what we do. We either leave and see things go up in flames and get blamed for losing American lives and Iraqi lives for nothing, or we continue to stay while losing life on both sides and spending ourselves into an inescapable financial hole.

McCain may say he is for being strong and be successful in Iraq but honestly, he has no idea how things are going to play out. If Sunnis and Shiites can't get their shit together and find a way to unite, you think that the presence of a foreign super power that is responsible for killing thousands on both sides is gonna convince them to play nice-nice?

The choice in Iraq is between getting fucked in the ass and having someone shit in your mouth every morning for the next 10 years. Either way, the result ain't gonna be sweet.
Click to expand...

I honestly think the positions regarding Iraq are almost indistinguishable when you peel back the rhetoric.

Both want out. Both want peace there. Neither want occupation or to engage in more neocon imperial fantasies. Both see taking on al qaeda as the primary mission, not nation building. Both want this all to happen as quickly as possible.

The main difference is just how they say that.
 
Who Posted?
Total Posts: 158
User Name Posts
TseTse 37
Automatic Jack 27
Chavey 10
fartiusstinkius 9
KnightMare 9
sven137 8
Le Sean 7
clu 6
-§trife- 6
Yogi 4
Fool 4
oDDable 4
Enlightened One 3
ptavv 3
Zelgaddiss 2
Rilke 2
[Golbez-RG-] 2
Dangerdoggie 1
Morbid 1
Senty 1
Jasp 1
NoFiX 1
Thingfish 1
hudu 1
Shoddy 1
P Masta Flex 1
Stilgar 1
Bad_CRC 1
HomeSlice 1
ZOD 1
olaf 1
Prop 1
Show Thread & Close Window
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top