2008 Presidential Primaries

Who ya got?

  • Clinton

    Votes: 6 15.8%
  • McCain

    Votes: 7 18.4%
  • Obama

    Votes: 25 65.8%

  • Total voters
    38
S

Sanguinius

Guest
Griffith No More! said:
I think we must admit, this thread was rather quiet when Obama was taking his licks last week, of course, there also hasn't been any actual primary news in a while. Anyway, frivolous as I think it ultimately is, this thing with Wright could cost Obama the election, and our silence speaks to that. I personally didn't much care, but it raises some legitimate questions about his judgement, which he could have answered better. As important as his speech might have been, it still took him off message and may have turned him into the "race" candidate, which will turn off a large segment of voters. In any case, Obama's lost some luster, Hillary's spinning her wheels and damaging the party, and it's good times for John McCain. And hey, how about the fact that Florida and Michigan are officially out?

Of course, all that doesn't change the fact that Sang is acting like a bitter little troll about it. I don't ask that you change your tune, just your tone.

There's nothing bitter or trolling about my posts, just because some people here didn't like my past posts hardly makes them trolling or bitter. Through all these posts I'm not the one who generally calls other people names and makes personal insults constantly. The only thing I directed at a person in that post was at the end , and that was just mocking how CnC said not to bitch anymore and then immediately says how I should be happy to know how his opinion will matter and have an affect while I'm wasting my time. If you call that me being a troll so be it.

If I wanted to bring up the past I could have brought up the very similar situation with Ron Paul where someone else wrote an article in a paper with his name over 10 years ago and how that smeared him. I didn't see that "frivolous as I think it ultimately is" attitude said by anyone here when that happened to him. Not that I'm trying to bring up Ron Paul, CnC just brings him up whenever I post, I'm not trying and I don't want to talk about him here. I would be quite happy not to speak about him again here, so don't act like I'm constantly trying to shift the conversation onto him when that's not what I want at all.
 

Griffith

With the streak of a tear, Like morning dew
Sanguinius said:
There's nothing bitter or trolling about my posts

Uh huh...

Sanguinius said:
The blind eyed loyalty of all these comments is hilarious, lets sweep all bad news about our rightful leader under the rug, then we can all follow our glorious leader without giving anyone a reason (other than being a RACIST!!!) to not follow our glorious leader and allow him to herald in a new world order of peace & prosperity for all under the Pax Obama.

Yeah...

Sanguinius said:
Another difference with my support of Ron Paul is that I listed very concise reasons why I supported Ron Paul, clear objectives don't seem too compatable with the thought processes of most members of this board. The personality of "the leader" seems more important than what they will actually do in office, at least that's the impression given from your talks. Where personal factors are listed but objectives in office (you know, those things that connect the soap opera of the political dance to real life) seem absent.

Mmm hmmmm...

Sanguinius said:
Well it was concise at first but then nothing seemed to be getting through, I thought I might not have been very clear so I lengthened it. I don't think unwilling ears (or eyes) can pick up on what they don't want to hear.

Bitter.

Sanguinius said:
Well I just thought that was a polite term to use for the self agreeing commentary that most people had going on here.

Little.

Sanguinius said:
I'm not really expecting to change your mind or anything and I'm not even focusing all this solely on you so don't feel any obligation to rebuke me. By the way, very noble to say stop the bitching then write a sentence stroking your own ego and belittling me :carcus: very noble indeed :casca:

Troll.

Don't shit a shitter. Anyway, that fun aside, like I said, I don't mind your objections, and yes, Ron Paul was thrown in your face more than you brought him up this time, but unfortunately being the better person means the onus is on you to influence people without alienating them, a higher standard you put upon yourself I'm afraid. =)

Since Ron Paul has unfortunately come to the forefront of this thread again, I'll say, hopefully, my last word on him since he's now even less relevant than he was perceived not to be during the election. I'll point out that you are equally unwilling to listen to what you don't want to hear, and unwilling to accept people's reasoning because it doesn't meet what I'd call an unrealistic standard. Ron Paul was a candidate with a minority view, contrary to the mainstream American today, which is why his candidacy was not politically viable. He generated enough publicity that if his ideas were going to capture the imagination of the America people, they would have. What he wanted to do, people didn't want, or at least not how he was going to do it. It wasn't politically believable, and you fail to take this into consideration. Personally, I didn't believe in Paul's ability to make the types of changes he was proposing. Even with the powers of executive office, there's an entire infrastructure, that must be worked within, in place to stop such changes (and in any case, I'd like our next President to not have so much power). If elected, Ron Paul would have been the President with the most overturned vetoes of all time. Not a great prospect. Also, it's ridiculous to criticize people for judging a prospective leader on their personality and leadership style, which can be even more important to what they can actually do than what they want to do, and thus what they will do. So, you're mistaken if you think personality and leadership style pale in comparison to a list of would-be policy. You elect a party for policy, you elect a person for leadership, and you try to get the best of both. You'd be fooling yourself to think that Paul's personality and leadership qualities did little to sell his candidacy to you, probably more than the reality of those objectives he couldn't very well have achieved. You can disagree with this assessment all you want, or just plain not like it, but don't play dumb and act like it isn't legitimate for us to consider all this when choosing our President, please.
 
S

Sanguinius

Guest
Griffith No More! said:
Don't shit a shitter. Anyway, that fun aside, like I said, I don't mind your objections, and yes, Ron Paul was thrown in your face more than you brought him up this time, but unfortunately being the better person means the onus is on you to influence people without alienating them, a higher standard you put upon yourself I'm afraid. =)

Since Ron Paul has unfortunately come to the forefront of this thread again, I'll say, hopefully, my last word on him since he's now even less relevant than he was perceived not to be during the election. I'll point out that you are equally unwilling to listen to what you don't want to hear, and unwilling to accept people's reasoning because it doesn't meet what I'd call an unrealistic standard. Ron Paul was a candidate with a minority view, contrary to the mainstream American today, which is why his candidacy was not politically viable. He generated enough publicity that if his ideas were going to capture the imagination of the America people, they would have. What he wanted to do, people didn't want, or at least not how he was going to do it. It wasn't politically believable, and you fail to take this into consideration. Personally, I didn't believe in Paul's ability to make the types of changes he was proposing. Even with the powers of executive office, there's an entire infrastructure, that must be worked within, in place to stop such changes (and in any case, I'd like our next President to not have so much power). If elected, Ron Paul would have been the President with the most overturned vetoes of all time. Not a great prospect. Also, it's ridiculous to criticize people for judging a prospective leader on their personality and leadership style, which can be even more important to what they can actually do than what they want to do, and thus what they will do. So, you're mistaken if you think personality and leadership style pale in comparison to a list of would-be policy. You elect a party for policy, you elect a person for leadership, and you try to get the best of both. You'd be fooling yourself to think that Paul's personality and leadership qualities did little to sell his candidacy to you, probably more than the reality of those objectives he couldn't very well have achieved. You can disagree with all you want, or just plain not like it, but don't play dumb and act like it isn't legitimate for us to consider these things when choosing our President, please.

Well to try and be a little bit better I won't comment any more on your thoughts of my previous posts, other than this sentence. As for the Ron Paul thing, I don't know how many times I said it, but I said many times that he didn't stand a snowball's chance in hell of winning. I never even expected him to win a single state never mind the nomination and I did say that several times before. Anyway, as to Obama, it's not that personal differences are irrelevant but in current debates they have not only dominated they've had a virtual monopoly on the comparisons between the candidates. I've actually looked at what policies Obama seems to have and what he did in the senate and I really can't see anything new. Perhaps the "liberal" side of America just wants their own dream President like Bush was for many Americans on the "conservative" side, in his early days at least. Personally I think you will all be disappointed if he does win with what he will actually do in office, but what the hell, live and learn, time will tell.
 

Griffith

With the streak of a tear, Like morning dew
Sanguinius said:
Perhaps the "liberal" side of America just wants their own dream President like Bush was for many Americans on the "conservative" side, in his early days at least. Personally I think you will all be disappointed if he does win with what he will actually do in office

We're used to disappointment, I'm not expecting Obama to do wonderful things or change the whole world, just to be more reasonable hopefully. But hey, that stuff's not bad to hope for if there's a shot for it, right? Anyway, I wouldn't fall into despair or anything if McCain or Hillary won, Hell, I might vote for one of them yet. The point I was trying to make was that your way of thinking was just as naive and idealistic as ours' in its own way, and speaking of which, I think someone with no chance to be elected would make for a great "dream president." =)

Sanguinius said:
but what the hell, live and learn, time will tell.

That's the spirit, I hope we all do.
 

Aazealh

Administrator
Staff member
CnC said:
A spoof trailer about Hillary's "death defying, experience qualifying adventure" in Bosnia:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=It6JN7ALF7Y

Well, just wanted to say I found this funny, but I see the thread has moved on rather quickly.

Sanguinius, whether it's in this thread or another, I'd appreciate if you didn't act like you're being persecuted everytime more than one person disagrees with you. It's not like there's a group of people secretly concerting themselves about how they're for Obama. It's just various folks agreeing on an issue. What you've been saying in your last few posts strikes me as calumnious and quite arrogant. You know, it doesn't necessarily take name calling to become antipathic to others (acting like you're more enlightened than everyone else on politics works well enough).
 

Uriel

This journey isn't ov--AARGH!
Sanguinius said:
The blind eyed loyalty of all these comments is hilarious, lets sweep all bad news about our rightful leader under the rug, then we can all follow our glorious leader without giving anyone a reason (other than being a RACIST!!!) to not follow our glorious leader and allow him to herald in a new world order of peace & prosperity for all under the Pax Obama.

Agreeing with a chap is hardly blind-eyed loyalty, Sanguinius.

And by brush under the carpet, I mean the unnecessary attention this has gotten -- not the issue itself. I'd willingly keep the forum of race open, because it's relevant as a lingering social dilemma in this country. If it was the Clinton campaign leading the charge against the pastors behaviour, I'd be just as impressed.

Now, let's just go back to the kind of loyalty you specified for a moment, shall we? If anything, your hatred and disagreement for anything that is not Ron Paul is far more narrowminded.. and borderline fanatical, if we're all honest. Is the crow calling the raven black here, or are you simply tired of lurking under your bridge waiting for mild mannered travelers to pass your way? All in all, you've proven yourself to be quite the annoyance -- not because of your opinions (the validity of which remains to be seen), but because of your manner. Make like a proper Englishman, man, and show some decorum. :)

Aazealh said:
Well, just wanted to say I found this funny, but I see the thread has moved on rather quickly.

It does that, doesn't it!
 

CnC

Ad Oculos
Oh man, this thread is now going down the dark road the Ron Paul thread went. Thanks Sang. I keep breaking the first rule on dealing with trolls, in that I respond to them. :judo:

So in an attempt to switch gears a bit here,

Griffith No More! said:
I think we must admit, this thread was rather quiet when Obama was taking his licks last week, of course, there also hasn't been any actual primary news in a while.

You're right. I think it has more to do with there being no primaries to discuss. All the stuff in between can get rather silly. I posted the spoof trailer on Hillary embellishing her trip to Bosnia mostly 'cause I thought it was funny, and not because I thought I was reporting something new to people.
I didn't really bring up the bit's about McCain saying Iran was training Al'Queda or Obama's calling his grandmother "a typical white person" because frankly I thought these were red herrings. I believe McCain meant to use the blanket term "insurgents", but had a senior moment or something, and Obama was speaking of her grandmother as a product of a different era rather than a representation of an entire race. The "outrage" over either is a bit extreme.

Anyways, for the sake of clarity, here's Rev. Wrights speech that got everyone pissed:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=QOdlnzkeoyQ

Not nearly as bad as what Fallwell and Robertson said at the same time (McCain's pandering to this part of the base, now)
 
Ramen4ever said:
I don't have to worry about all the nukes Iran will launch when McCain gets elected and decides to invade Iran.

According to our own intelligence, Iran does not have nukes and isn't trying to get any. Of course, that doesn't come up during the debates and it makes no difference to a neocon like McCain.
 
Peregrine_Falcon said:
According to our own intelligence, Iran does not have nukes and isn't trying to get any. Of course, that doesn't come up during the debates and it makes no difference to a neocon like McCain.

Well the States have already proven their intelligence reports aren't worth diddly squat. And I'm not about to put full confidence in the EU's abilities either. I'm actually more curious what Iran's relationship with China is. What country is China's lead supplier of Oil?
 
Ramen4ever said:
Well the States have already proven their intelligence reports aren't worth diddly squat.

Obviously they're not 100% reliable, but it makes the justification for a war in Iran even more flimsy when we have even less proof that they have nuclear weapons than we did for the invasion of Iraq. Even if we were 100% sure that they did have nukes, invading Iran would still be a terrible idea.
 

Aazealh

Administrator
Staff member
I'd be really surprised if the US invaded Iran. It would be a very stupid decision, and the result would likely be catastrophic. I'm not even sure it's feasible in the first place.
 
Peregrine_Falcon said:
Even if we were 100% sure that they did have nukes, invading Iran would still be a terrible idea.

Agreed.
In fact nukes don't even justify an invasion.

Aazealh said:
I'd be really surprised if the US invaded Iran. It would be a very stupid decision, and the result would likely be catastrophic. I'm not even sure it's feasible in the first place.

Well by the sound of things, they are seriously considering it. They're accusing Iran for funding "insurgents" whatever the F#ck that means, by they're vague definition of the term, you could be a kid playing in the wrong playground and be labeled as an insurgent.
Though catastrophic, it would actually be interesting if Iran had nukes, then when a few major cities in the states go up in smoke, people might realize they picked on someone they're own size.
 

CnC

Ad Oculos
Should an attack on Iran occur I have no doubt it'd be disastrous.

Ramen4ever said:
Well by the sound of things, they are seriously considering it.

Where are you hearing that? Not that I'm accusing you but I'd like to know your source.
 
CnC said:
Should an attack on Iran occur I have no doubt it'd be disastrous.

Where are you hearing that? Not that I'm accusing you but I'd like to know your source.

They just showed that U.S. general on Tv, forget his name, he's in charge of blowing shit up in Iraq. He was talking about how Iran supplied the weapons and funded the insurgents and now they have "proof". Plus with McCain already labeling Iran, one can't help but assume they are considering moving in. It's all BS as far as I'm concerned but it's BS with big consequences.
 
Aazealh said:
I'd be really surprised if the US invaded Iran. It would be a very stupid decision, and the result would likely be catastrophic. I'm not even sure it's feasible in the first place.


CnC said:
Where are you hearing that? Not that I'm accusing you but I'd like to know your source.

I wouldn't be worried if our society was sane and not so bent on building a fake case against Iran, but it isn't. Far too many people are under the impression that Mahmud Ahmadinejad is a modern Hitler with plans to nuke Israel and then America.

The media keeps on saying that Mahmud Ahmadinejad spoke of plans to "wipe Israel off the map" when his actual quote neither mentioned the words 'Israel' nor 'map'. They also don't clarify that he does not have the power to drop any of Iran's hypothetical nukes, Ayatollah Khamenei, who has been the supreme leader of Iran since 1989, would. They also don't mention the fact that not even our own intelligence could prove that Iran has any nukes or is trying to get any. They also don't mention the fact that India, Pakistan, and Israel have nukes, because we would laugh at anyone who proposed invading them on those grounds (we have plenty of nukes as well).

I'm also worried because AIPAC, an organization that controls millions of dollars of funding to both the Democratic and Republican party and that will cut funding to any candidate who dares to oppose their policies thus killing his/her chances of getting elected, want us to fight and die there so badly and all of our main candidates are in a race to who can sell out our country to them the quickest. Even Barack, the supposed anti-war candidate of change, has been pandering to AIPAC throughout this election.

Our country is in danger when its system allows for people who say that they will not rule out a nuclear strike on Iran, sing "Bomb, bomb, bomb Iran", or people who want us to believe that Iran has plans to commit a second holocaust to have a very good chance of winning the election.

Ramen4ever said:
Though catastrophic, it would actually be interesting if Iran had nukes, then when a few major cities in the states go up in smoke, people might realize they picked on someone they're own size.

Before you talk about it that way, just remember that those nukes would kill thousands of innocent civilians (including children).
 
Peregrine_Falcon said:
Before you talk about it that way, just remember that those nukes would kill thousands of innocent civilians (including children).

I'm fully aware of that and I would project it more around a few million. But also realize that the people who decide all these things don't care about how many people die on either side. They're the ones pushing for the conflict, not the general population.
 

Aazealh

Administrator
Staff member
I'm aware of most of what you say, Peregrine_Falcon, but I'm still not seeing the US actually do anything. Talking is one thing, doing it is another.
 

Vampire_Hunter_Bob

Cats are great
Ramen4ever said:
Well the States have already proven their intelligence reports aren't worth diddly squat.

Yes and no, the intelligence reports used for the war in Iraq were 100% true, but the catch was they were done back in the 80's when Iraq was at war with Iran and we had given them all those weapons we invaded them for.

The reports done before the Iraq war were not used when Bush was trying to go to war because they said Iraq didn't have WMDs.

Ramen4ever said:
They just showed that U.S. general on Tv, forget his name, he's in charge of blowing shit up in Iraq. He was talking about how Iran supplied the weapons and funded the insurgents and now they have "proof".

They do have proof actually of Iranian and Syrian commandos training insurgents and supplying them with weapons. The Iranian army even had battalion sized elements inside of Iraq as early as 2003. Just because they are not showing you the evidence doesn't make it bs, it just means they are trying to black mail iran out of iraq.
 
Vampire_Hunter_Bob said:
Yes and no, the intelligence reports used for the war in Iraq were 100% true, but the catch was they were done back in the 80's when Iraq was at war with Iran and we had given them all those weapons we invaded them for.

The reports done before the Iraq war were not used when Bush was trying to go to war because they said Iraq didn't have WMDs.

Where did you hear this?
 
Vampire_Hunter_Bob said:
They do have proof actually of Iranian and Syrian commandos training insurgents and supplying them with weapons. The Iranian army even had battalion sized elements inside of Iraq as early as 2003.

in·sur·gent (n-sûrjnt)
adj.
1. Rising in revolt against established authority, especially a government.
2. Rebelling against the leadership of a political party.

They're only insurgents while the U.S. control the country. After that they're called the national guard.
 

Vampire_Hunter_Bob

Cats are great
Ramen4ever said:
They're only insurgents while the U.S. control the country. After that they're called the national guard.

Insurgent is a fitting term for people that would chop of your head for money. They are more like gangs that know how to make bombs.

Edit: Peregrine what I was talking about was on page 128 on this report: http://intelligence.senate.gov/phaseiiaccuracy.pdf

Edit: Edit: You think with this information the Democrats would have had enough evidence to kick bush out of office.
 
Vampire_Hunter_Bob said:
Edit: Peregrine what I was talking about was on page 128 on this report: http://intelligence.senate.gov/phaseiiaccuracy.pdf

THANK YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :)

Aazealh said:
Talking is one thing, doing it is another.

That is true, but the talking is coming from both sides, the organization (which is a lobbyist group that does not need to lie about its goals and beliefs since they aren't elected by the public) that puppeteers the two major parties also wants to invade Iran, and the media keeps trying to make Iran into a global threat. These were the almost identical events that also led to the invasion of Iraq. When all of this happens together, I worry.

Ramen4ever said:
I'm fully aware of that and I would project it more around a few million. But also realize that the people who decide all these things don't care about how many people die on either side. They're the ones pushing for the conflict, not the general population.

That is true, but civilians are not "someone their own size".
 
Top Bottom