The Official American Election 2008 Thread

[Asaspades]

What he says and what he does are really two different things. If he leaves Iraq with them not being able to take full control over everything and maintain control over everything that sets Iraq up for a disaster. Lets say he fully pulls out in 16 months? I believe he said that was around the date that he would pull most of the troops out. Well 16 months from January is very close to the mid term elections.

i highly doubt that if things are *this* close to reaching stability, that he will pull out. And yes, what he says and what he does are two different things, so won't know wether he will pull them out or not for 16 months.

Having a Iraq disaster then would let Republicans scream how Obama's inexperience is causing a disaster in Iraq, snatched defeat from the jaws of victory, etc etc. They tie the Democrats to Obama's decision on that, and you have a reverse 2006 with the Republicans gaining control of both Houses of Congress.

mm...possibly, but an easy counter to that would be that it was the republicans who got us into Iraq in the first place, and it took them 4 years to even start to get their act together.

As for Pakistan, he says he will do cross border raids into Pakistan to go after Al Qaeda. While that is admirable, Pakistan in the last few months have shown that they care more about securing their boarders than stopping Al Qaeda within their boarders. If he starts even more raids then we already have Pakistan will become even more aggressive in their attacks on US Troops. And the Pakistani Government will start demanding more and more boarder protection. Meaning even more dead American soldiers returning home.

HA! dead americans...which is why we're in Iraq right? Those men in pakistan pose an imminent threat to our national security. that is not the case for those in iraq. They are dangerous, however they didn't have anything to do with attacks executed on American soil. we should absolutly apprehend the men that perpetrated attacks, as opposed to those we are fighting in Iraq.

Eventually if Obama wants to continue these cross boarder raids, while talking about them on National Television, the American troops will have to start killing Pakistani Soldiers.

Will US troops also have to attack north korea and bomb iran because it was talked about on tv?

 

[BigLutz]

The bailout failing was quite the shock. Obama keeps saying it's going to pass eventually. Where do you think we go from now?

I think Nancy Pelosi needs to be shot or muzzled, that is what I think.

Sorry I am a bit ******, my father is in the Housing industry, and our money has grown very tight becuase banks wont loan, Nancy Pelosi's speech basically pushed back any pay check from the builders for another week.

* Deep Breaths *

As for now, both Obama and McCain need to get down to Washington, we have to find a bill that works correctly, this one barely had Republicans on board, and any chance that they will come back to the same thing is gone now.

The amount of Partisan Politics by both parties right now is absolutely stupid. And when they sit down again on Wednesday ( Tomorrow is a Jewish Holiday ) they need to find a direction that will satisfy more Republicans and the voters at large.

mm...possibly, but an easy counter to that would be that it was the republicans who got us into Iraq in the first place, and it took them 4 years to even start to get their act together.

And Republicans will point back that it was a Bi Partisan Resolution to give Bush authorization to attack Iraq, and that the war in Iraq was almost done when Barack decided to go and mess it up. Now that it is messed up we will have to devote more troops, more money, and more lives, to a country who's populous won't trust us.

HA! dead americans...which is why we're in Iraq right? Those men in pakistan pose an imminent threat to our national security. that is not the case for those in iraq. They are dangerous, however they didn't have anything to do with attacks executed on American soil. we should absolutly apprehend the men that perpetrated attacks, as opposed to those we are fighting in Iraq.

You do realize Al Qaeda is in Iraq right now? I mean my God they call themselves "Al Qaeda in Iraq" those men in Pakistan that are a imminent threat to our national security want to establish bases in Iraq. Or did you gloss over that? Them establishing a base in Iraq IS a imminent threat to our national security!

Will US troops also have to attack north korea and bomb iran because it was talked about on tv?

If Obama is STUPID enough to say on National TV "I am going to attack North Korea when I get in office" or "I am going to bomb Iran when I get in office" like he has said "I am going to send troops into Pakistan when I get into office" expect those countries to use preemptive measures and to fight off any attack.

Guess who is saying the Fundamentals of our Economy are going to help us out in the end?

 

[heirokee]

I'm not a fan of the bailout.

Socialism is all well and good and all, but I'd rather not have to deal with it. If businesses fail, they fail. Too bad for them. If people relied on businesses making stupid decision, then that's just too bad. Poor business choices necessitate poor business, that's just how the system works. Even if the problem is as ridiculously huge as what we are currently seeing, it can't be acceptable for people to get a get out of jail free card. That's simply not how it works. America made poor choices, and now America needs to suffer the consequences.

I reserve the right to change my opinion if it in any way effects my ability to get out of college without any student loans. It has not yet, but I'm just gonna keep that card with me.

 

[Ipwnyou]

Guess who is saying the Fundamentals of our Economy are going to help us out in the end?

Nothing like an 8 second clip that cuts off in the middle of a sentence to prove your point.
But then again it's stilll better than the BLOG links you've been using in all of your debates with me...

 

[BigLutz]

Nothing like an 8 second clip that cuts off in the middle of a sentence to prove your point.
But then again it's stilll better than the BLOG links you've been using in all of your debates with me...

So far the full transcript of what he was saying hasn't appeared anywhere.

Either way you still lose to those Blogs, or to paraphrase your name, I have pwned you.

 

[Ipwnyou]

So far the full transcript of what he was saying hasn't appeared anywhere.

Either way you still lose to those Blogs, or to paraphrase your name, I have pwned you.

Blogs are not a reliable source of information.
Even when that blog is linking to a real source (and your blogs weren't even doing that) they are still not a good source of information.

 

[BigLutz]

Blogs are not a reliable source of information.
Even when that blog is linking to a real source (and your blogs weren't even doing that) they are still not a good source of information.

What a horrible memory you must have, out of the last 6 replies to your posts, only one of them contained links, in the linked post it contained.

Real Change.org a Political Website
Decision08.net a Political Website/Blog
blogs.com 1 blog
nytimes.com a Liberal Newspaper
Volokh - A semi Blog/Political Website

All of them containing the same information, and all of them from the first search page, I posted various websites to provide overwhelming proof. Of those there was 1 1/2 Political Website, a Political News Paper, and 2 Blogs.

The Blogs were not used as my only source as proven but used to provide overwhelming proof of my argument from a wide variety of sources. And mind you, with all of those websites, you were not able to refute the information presented, in fact you ran away.

On the 8th Reply I used NY Daily News a News/Newspaper site

None before that but a Youtube posting.

 

[Ipwnyou]

The only one that actually had anything to do with what you were saying was a blog.
So again you fail.

 

[BigLutz]

The only one that actually had anything to do with what you were saying was a blog.
So again you fail.

Umm no, you were asking for information about Biden's grades at the time. In relation to John McCain's Graduating Status. I replied with these links, each of which found in my post, each of which containing the following information.

NY Times

In his statement today, Mr. Biden, who attended the Syracuse College of Law and graduated 76th in a class of 85, acknowledged: ''I did not graduate in the top half of my class at law school and my recollection of this was inacurate.''

Volokh

And Biden graduated 76th out of 85 students at Syracuse Law School, another middling law school.

Real Change

Biden ended up 76th out of 85 in his law school class; the law school dean described him as an academic "disappointment" but praised his "confidence," "general physical appearance" and "general speaking ability" in recommending him as a lawyer.

Decision 08

(reporters dug into the senator’s transcripts and discovered that he finished 76th out of 85 in his Syracuse law class)

Beldar's Blog copying a LA Times Article

[in addition to the course in which he originally was given an F for plagiarism, but was allowed to retake, upon which he received a B,] and graduated 76th out of the 85 students

Want to continue this public embarrassment?

 

[Ipwnyou]

Umm no, you were asking for information about Biden's grades at the time. In relation to John McCain's Graduating Status. I replied with these links, each of which found in my post, each of which containing the following information.

NY Times

In his statement today, Mr. Biden, who attended the Syracuse College of Law and graduated 76th in a class of 85, acknowledged: ''I did not graduate in the top half of my class at law school and my recollection of this was inacurate.''

Volokh

And Biden graduated 76th out of 85 students at Syracuse Law School, another middling law school.

Real Change

Biden ended up 76th out of 85 in his law school class; the law school dean described him as an academic "disappointment" but praised his "confidence," "general physical appearance" and "general speaking ability" in recommending him as a lawyer.

Decision 08

(reporters dug into the senator’s transcripts and discovered that he finished 76th out of 85 in his Syracuse law class)

Beldar's Blog copying a LA Times Article

[in addition to the course in which he originally was given an F for plagiarism, but was allowed to retake, upon which he received a B,] and graduated 76th out of the 85 students

Want to continue this public embarrassment?

I was referring to your ridiculous "Obama used his middle name for political purposes" claim.

 

[BigLutz]

I was referring to your ridiculous "Obama used his middle name for political purposes" claim.

Which I used the NY Daily News as my source

Now unless NY Daily News is pulling a massive fake out on all of us, it is a News Paper website, in fact the banner claims "New York City's Hometown Newspaper"

http://www.nydailynews.com/index.html

And here is the page I linked to with the quote.

"It's conceivable that there are those in the Arab world who say to themselves, 'This is a guy who spent some time in the Muslim world, has a middle name of Hussein and appears more worldly and has called for talks with people, and so he's not going to be engaging in the same sort of cowboy diplomacy as George Bush,' and that's something they're hopeful about."

 

[Ipwnyou]

That is from the OPINION section.
Which is little more than a glorified blog.
And the guy who is making these claims isn't even providing any quotes or facts to back up what he's saying.
He's basically saying "people in the middle east like him because of his name and therefore he is abusing it" and blah blah blah.

 

[BigLutz]

That is from the OPINION section.
Which is little more than a glorified blog.
And the guy who is making these claims isn't even providing any quotes or facts to back up what he's saying.

Even if it is in the opinion section it is still from a news website. Not a glorified blog as you put it, Opinion sections tend to have editors who check articles like this one, something that Blog's don't have. Either way the quote posted in there, is noted to come from Jeffrey Goldberg. Which is a highly publisized interview from the Atlantic.com. A Magazine Website.

http://jeffreygoldberg.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/05/obama_on_zionism_and_hamas.php

So it isn't as if the information came out of thin air, it came from the Interview at the Atlantic, and was reprinted in the NY Daily News Article.

 

[Asaspades]

I think Nancy Pelosi needs to be shot or muzzled, that is what I think.

i think the Republicans in the house need to grow up, and stop playing partisan politics at a time like this, its ridiculous.

Sorry I am a bit ******, my father is in the Housing industry, and our money has grown very tight becuase banks wont loan, Nancy Pelosi's speech basically pushed back any pay check from the builders for another week.

No, the republicans that voted agaisnt it pushed back any paycheck. Not pelosi.

As for now, both Obama and McCain need to get down to Washington, we have to find a bill that works correctly, this one barely had Republicans on board, and any chance that they will come back to the same thing is gone now.

Obama and McCain in washington isn't going to make a difference because the house still hasnt passed it yet.

The amount of Partisan Politics by both parties right now is absolutely stupid. And when they sit down again on Wednesday ( Tomorrow is a Jewish Holiday ) they need to find a direction that will satisfy more Republicans and the voters at large.

No, the amount of partisan politics being played by republicans is absolutly stupid.

And Republicans will point back that it was a Bi Partisan Resolution to give Bush authorization to attack Iraq, and that the war in Iraq was almost done when Barack decided to go and mess it up. Now that it is messed up we will have to devote more troops, more money, and more lives, to a country who's populous won't trust us.

What did Barack Obama do specificly? Was it really just him? one man that changed the course of the war?

You do realize Al Qaeda is in Iraq right now? I mean my God they call themselves "Al Qaeda in Iraq" those men in Pakistan that are a imminent threat to our national security want to establish bases in Iraq. Or did you gloss over that? Them establishing a base in Iraq IS a imminent threat to our national security!

yes, but the men who lead and organized the attacks are in pakistan. Besides, the primary reason given for Iraq was not Al Queda in Iraq.

If Obama is STUPID enough to say on National TV "I am going to attack North Korea when I get in office" or "I am going to bomb Iran when I get in office" like he has said "I am going to send troops into Pakistan when I get into office" expect those countries to use preemptive measures and to fight off any attack.

i think you missed my point, oh well. wasnt even relevant really. i dont think Obama would be stupid enough to say that. And he hasnt said "im goign to send troops to pakistan when i get in office," he has said that if we had intelligence on the exact location of the men who perpatrated attacks on America, and pakistan will not act, then we will apprehend said terrorists. no one would even know it was happening most likely, it wouldnt be a fll scale invasion, just elimination a few targets.

Guess who is saying the Fundamentals of our Economy are going to help us out in the end?[/QUOTE]

guess who took a quote out of contex!

 

[BigLutz]

i think the Republicans in the house need to grow up, and stop playing partisan politics at a time like this, its ridiculous.

Since the Democrats are the leaders of the House, how about they lead by example?

No, the republicans that voted agaisnt it pushed back any paycheck. Not pelosi.

Funny but it was PELOSI that made the stupid speech which ****** off the GOP. It was PELOSI that did not check to see which Democrats were voting for or against. It was PELOSI that gave Democrats in unsafe seats the okay to vote against. It was PELOSI that tabled the movement for a revote on that day.

Obama and McCain in washington isn't going to make a difference because the house still hasnt passed it yet.

Both are leaders of their party and contain a large amount of Political Power. Obama could do Pelosi's job and basically get Democrats to vote for this.

No, the amount of partisan politics being played by republicans is absolutly stupid.

Was it the Republicans that made the stupid speech? Was it the Republicans that cut their own party out of most of the meetings on this? Was it the Republicans that announced a deal had been made with out meeting with the House Republican Leadership? Was it the Republicans that tried to use Paulson to gang up on the House Republican Leadership at the White House Meeting?

What did Barack Obama do specificly? Was it really just him? one man that changed the course of the war?

We are talking about what he would do in the future if President and he decides on pulling out in 16 months. So a better question would be "What WOULD Barack Obama do specifically?" And the answer to that would be as Commander in Chief he would do a risky and quick retreat out of Iraq with the Iraqi Army unable to maintain control over all provinces. Doing that would be the opening for Al Qaeda to return, so yes one man can change the course of a war.

yes, but the men who lead and organized the attacks are in pakistan. Besides, the primary reason given for Iraq was not Al Queda in Iraq.

No it was a multitude of reasons, one of which is that we had intel that Iraq was supplying "Substantial Support" for Al Qaeda, which turned out false.

But mind you even though the intel turned out to be false, that did not mean Iraq was any less of a Gathering Threat that had to be dealt with, if not then, in the next five years following it. After 9/11 the Bush Administration had to get involved in the Middle East, if we were so busy trying to take care of the Taliban and Al Qaeda, and neglected the next gathering threat it would be absolute stupidity.

As for the people organizing the attacks, most of them are powerless in Pakistan, the main thrust of Al Qaeda's army has been in Iraq for the past few years, under the control over various Al Qaeda generals. The war with Al Qaeda wasn't in Pakistan in 2005, 2006, 2007, it was in Iraq.

i think you missed my point, oh well. wasnt even relevant really. i dont think Obama would be stupid enough to say that. And he hasnt said "im goign to send troops to pakistan when i get in office," he has said that if we had intelligence on the exact location of the men who perpatrated attacks on America, and pakistan will not act, then we will apprehend said terrorists. no one would even know it was happening most likely, it wouldnt be a fll scale invasion, just elimination a few targets.

Which is basically that "If Pakistan wont do it, we will invade your sovereignty and do it." That tends to put Pakistan on edge don't you think? And that will cause them to add even more men onto their boarder.

As for anyone not knowing. They are shooting at our troops right now as we go after terrorists in Pakistan. I think they know we are trying it already. We keep doing it and we risk getting more soldiers killed, and the possibility of Pakistan pulling out the big guns.

 

[heirokee]

I don't really care if Pelosi made some speech (which btw, you should probably watch, it's really not that bad, she just explains that the Bush administration has failed miserably... which it has and we all know that already) if Republicans really believed in the bill they shouldn't have gone off and had a little temper tantrum. For Christ's sake, you're grown men and women, get your sh*t together and just vote already. I could really care less whether or not some bully is picking on your friend. The bill failed because Republicans didn't believe in it and they're using Pelosi's speech as a terrible excuse for this and are trying to save their butts from the media maelstrom that would ensue, or they're all 4 year olds and need to be booted out of office immediately because they are clearly incapable of making rational decisions.

Also, does anybody else just find it f*cking ridiculous that congress decided to skip today because of Rosh Hashana? Seriously, you don't get to take a vacation in the middle of a national crisis. You're job is to fix it, you can't just decide to ignore you're job. Also, there is no freaking way that congress should be allowed to get off for a Jewish holiday, maybe the Jews get to sleep in or something, but come on, even Utah gets off? WTF! Your holiday is labor day, deal with it and move on.

I propose an almost entirely new congress this time... the current one clearly has its collective head up its a**.

 

[BigLutz]

Heirokee I don't think you understand that it wasn't "ALL" Republicans that were ****** off at Pelosi's speech, out of 132 that voted against in the Republican party, and only 12 needed to pass. I bet there were a good 6 or 7 or maybe even 8 that went "You know what, I really do not like this thing, and now I am going to do a vote where I will probably lose my job, after being attacked on the House Floor?"

There needed to be 12 votes, if like I said 6 or 7 or even 8 were swayed by that speech then it was enough to tip it over the deep end. If the vote were closer like 4 or 5 needed to pass then I bet there could be a few who's arms could be twisted.

And of course you have to take in the mindset during the voting. They had just been insulted, they were about to do a vote that could end their career, and they see Pelosi giving Okay to Democrat after Democrat in unsafe districts to vote no so that the Republicans could take the fall.

Yeah it is conceivable that at that moment that a bunch of Republicans were not feeling bi partisan after being attacked and then being set up to politically take the fall for a unpopular bill.

And then of course you have this that happened the day of the Bail Out Vote.

Asked about Monday’s vote on the bailout bill, House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn tells reporters: “We haven’t started whipping.” Asked if he’s going to start whipping, Clyburn says: “The speaker hasn’t told me yet. I do what I’m told.”

Now why didn't the Speaker ask the Whip to start Whipping the 95 Democrats and come up with the last 6? Or Hell if she really wanted it to pass the last 12? Why not get the 12 Democrats on Barney Frank's Committee that didn't vote? Why not get 12 safe Democrats out of the Black Caucus who were not going to lose their seat no matter what to vote?

I just cant understand, ( and maybe this is where alot of my anger at Pelosi comes from ) but I can't understand on a vote that she knew was going to be close, that she goes out there on the day of the vote, attacks Republicans, and then fails to signal the Whip to get more Democratic votes for the bill. I mean she had to know that it was possible, just possible that her speech could cause this bill to lose votes in a vote that was going to be extremely close. So why go and insult people, and then not go "Well after that speech I should go lean on another 5 or 10 Democrats to prevent any possible bleed that could happen."

I mean she can have her speech, that is fine. But then not to go and signal the Whip to provide more votes as a safety net for the speech? That is just mind boggling stupid, unless of course she wanted the bill to fail, if so she did a damn good job of that.

 

[Carlisle]

Wow, does McCain really know what to do anymore? How is he going to catch up to Obama? Obama is leading by five or six points in national polls, and CNN has placed the electoral map as 250 for Obama, and only 189 for McCain. Obama is up by [b[nine[/b] in Virginia, and four in Florida. If he can keep those two states, he's the winner.

If things keep up the way CURRENTLY, this is how I see the election going:

Alabama - McCain
Alaska - McCain
Arizona - McCain
Arkansas - McCain
California - Obama
Colorada - Obama
Connecticut - Obama
Delaware - Obama
Florida - Obama
Georgia - McCain
Hawaii - Obama
Idaho - McCain
Illinois - Obama
Indiana - Obama
Iowa - Obama
Kansas - McCain
Kentucky - McCain
Louisiana - McCain
Maine - Obama
Maryland - Obama
Massachusetts - Obama
Michigan - Obama
Minnesota - Obama
Mississippi - McCain
Missouri - McCain
Montana - Obama
Nebraska - McCain
Nevada - McCain
New Hampshire - Obama
New Jersey - Obama
New Mexico - Obama
New York - Obama
North Carolina - McCain
North Dakota - McCain
Ohio - Obama
Oklahoma - McCain
Oregon - Obama
Pennsylvania - Obama
Rhode Island - Obama
South Carolina - Obama
South Dakota - McCain
Tennessee - McCain
Texas - McCain
Utah - McCain
Vermont - Obama
Virginia - Obama
Washington - Obama
West Virginia - McCain
Wisconsin - Obama
Wyoming - McCain
Washington D.C. - Obama

So the calculations?

Obama: 344
McCain: 194

Maybe even more for Obama if he can sieze Missouri, Montana, and Nevada and another state or two.

 

[Harkett]

For the vice-presidential debate tomorrow, there will be a moderator who goes by the name of Gwen Ifill. She wrote a book praising Obama.

"How in the world is this going to be a bipartisan debate?" - Brit Hume

"I don't see a problem here; it's a black woman writing a book about a great black man" - Bill Bishop

Personally, I don't see this as reasonable, and since the book was in progress earlier than August yet she was picked as a moderator during August, the selection was flawed, leaning towards the left by the chooser.

I don't have too much doubt that little to no bias will come of this, but it sounds like it was intended, or blindly missed.

 

[BigLutz]

Polls are pretty useless right now Carlisle, infact Polls are pretty useless next week, or the week after. Anything can happen in these debates, in fact anything can happen in the next few weeks. What happens on Election Day wont be based on a poll five weeks before it. It will be a snap shot of what happens on Election Day.