| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/07/2008 01:47:08 PM · #176 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Has Obama discussed any of the issues? |
See the OP for one. Look here for more.
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by yanko:
In what way has Obama been "just as guilty" of stretching the truth? |
Why? |
Because you said "just as guilty" matter-of-factly, and I want to know if it IS a fact or just an assumption.
Originally posted by yanko:
1. Go to factcheck.org and look up the Obama articles....
2. Do a Google search and look for the transcripts of any of the quotes Obama and McCain are using in their speeches and their ads.... |
I did both. The discrepancies on each are far from equal in nature or number. |
|
|
|
09/07/2008 04:00:38 PM · #177 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by yanko:
Has Obama discussed any of the issues? |
See the OP for one. Look here for more. |
I didn't realize you and metatate were the same person or that you worked for the BBC. I ask why aren't YOU discussing them (i.e. the part you left out in my quote)?
Originally posted by scalvert:
In what way has Obama been "just as guilty" of stretching the truth?
Originally posted by yanko:
Why? |
Because you said "just as guilty" matter-of-factly, and I want to know if it IS a fact or just an assumption. |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by yanko:
1. Go to factcheck.org and look up the Obama articles.... |
I did both. The discrepancies on each are far from equal in nature or number. |
So those are just discrepancies not lies? You said earlier that McCain lied about a jet being sold. Obama has been saying this repeatedly:
Obama: âWe are bogged down in a war that John McCain now suggests might go on for another hundred years.â
Translation (i.e. me): McCain now suggests this war will go on for another hundred years.
What McCain actually said:
Townhall question to McCain: President Bush has talked about our staying in Iraq for fifty yearsâ¦
McCain's answer: Maybe a hundred. Make it one hundred. Weâve been in South Korea, weâve been in Japan for sixty years. Weâve been in South Korea for fifty years or so. Thatâd be fine with me as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed. Then itâs fine with me. I would hope it would be fine with you if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world where Al Qaeda is training, recruiting, equipping and motivating people every single day.
Translation (i.e. me): McCain wants to keep a troop presence in Iraq like what we have in South Korea and Japan, which last I checked we were weren't waging war with. Now if you think he really means something else and he can't be trusted that's one thing but to say he's been suggesting this war in Iraq will go on for another hundred years is at best a gross distortion of what he said or at worst a flat out lie. Do you agree?
Message edited by author 2008-09-07 16:19:50.
|
|
|
|
09/07/2008 08:16:08 PM · #178 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by yanko:
Has Obama discussed any of the issues? |
See the OP for one. Look here for more. |
I didn't realize you and metatate were the same person or that you worked for the BBC. I ask why aren't YOU discussing them (i.e. the part you left out in my quote)? |
I didn't realize Obama and I were the same person either. He can discuss issues. I'm content to laugh at news clips.
Originally posted by yanko:
Translation (i.e. me): McCain wants to keep a troop presence in Iraq like what we have in South Korea and Japan, which last I checked we were weren't waging war with. Now if you think he really means something else and he can't be trusted that's one thing but to say he's been suggesting this war in Iraq will go on for another hundred years is at best a gross distortion of what he said or at worst a flat out lie. Do you agree? |
The Koreas ARE still in a state of war, so Obama is technically correct. "Sporadic outbreaks of violence due to North Korean hostilities has killed over 500 South Korean soldiers and 50 U.S. soldiers along the DMZ between 1953 and 1999." More importantly, Iraq ain't Korea (or even Kuwait), and I doubt the people would tolerate any significant American presence there for even 10 years, let alone 50, particularly with influential people like al-Sadr stirring up distrust. No amount of troops can impose peace on Iraq, and a long-term presence will only encourage more hatred. |
|
|
|
09/07/2008 08:21:12 PM · #179 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by yanko:
Has Obama discussed any of the issues? |
See the OP for one. Look here for more. |
I didn't realize you and metatate were the same person or that you worked for the BBC. I ask why aren't YOU discussing them (i.e. the part you left out in my quote)? |
I didn't realize Obama and I were the same person either. He can discuss issues. I'm content to laugh at news clips.
Originally posted by yanko:
Translation (i.e. me): McCain wants to keep a troop presence in Iraq like what we have in South Korea and Japan, which last I checked we were weren't waging war with. Now if you think he really means something else and he can't be trusted that's one thing but to say he's been suggesting this war in Iraq will go on for another hundred years is at best a gross distortion of what he said or at worst a flat out lie. Do you agree? |
The Koreas ARE still in a state of war, so Obama is technically correct. "Sporadic outbreaks of violence due to North Korean hostilities has killed over 500 South Korean soldiers and 50 U.S. soldiers along the DMZ between 1953 and 1999." More importantly, Iraq ain't Korea (or even Kuwait), and I doubt the people would tolerate any significant American presence there for even 10 years, let alone 50, particularly with influential people like al-Sadr stirring up distrust. No amount of troops can impose peace on Iraq, and a long-term presence will only encourage more hatred. |
Iraq can probably be equated to Vietnam though.
|
|
|
|
09/07/2008 09:02:35 PM · #180 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
... so Obama is technically correct.
... Iraq ain't Korea (or even Kuwait), and I doubt the people would tolerate any significant American presence there for even 10 years, let alone 50, particularly with influential people like al-Sadr stirring up distrust. No amount of troops can impose peace on Iraq, and a long-term presence will only encourage more hatred. |
No, Obama is pulling more of his word twisting/wordsmithing that he is so good at (you know those laywers are quite talented that way). You are correct about the difference in Iraq vs other nations and the likelyhood of problems with a long-term presence.
McCain acknowledged that. Reread the statement that Yanko posted earlier. It's pretty clear that McCain is not opposed to being there for a duration that is helpful (and non-violent) to the area. There's a big difference between "maintain(ing) a presence" and being in a state of war.
Originally posted by yanko:
McCain's answer: Maybe a hundred. Make it one hundred. Weâve been in South Korea, weâve been in Japan for sixty years. Weâve been in South Korea for fifty years or so. Thatâd be fine with me as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed. Then itâs fine with me. I would hope it would be fine with you if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world where Al Qaeda is training, recruiting, equipping and motivating people every single day. |
|
|
|
|
09/07/2008 09:24:56 PM · #181 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by yanko:
Translation (i.e. me): McCain wants to keep a troop presence in Iraq like what we have in South Korea and Japan, which last I checked we were weren't waging war with. Now if you think he really means something else and he can't be trusted that's one thing but to say he's been suggesting this war in Iraq will go on for another hundred years is at best a gross distortion of what he said or at worst a flat out lie. Do you agree? |
The Koreas ARE still in a state of war, so Obama is technically correct. "Sporadic outbreaks of violence due to North Korean hostilities has killed over 500 South Korean soldiers and 50 U.S. soldiers along the DMZ between 1953 and 1999." More importantly, Iraq ain't Korea (or even Kuwait), and I doubt the people would tolerate any significant American presence there for even 10 years, let alone 50, particularly with influential people like al-Sadr stirring up distrust. No amount of troops can impose peace on Iraq, and a long-term presence will only encourage more hatred. |
Riight. I didn't realize we were at war with Korea. Must be some war too since based on your own quote there hasn't been an American causality in about 10 years. Are we at war with Japan too or did you just conveniently leave that out because wikipedia couldn't supply you with any ammo to make that claim too? *sigh* Let me know when your blinders are being clean so then maybe we can have an honest discussion? :)
Message edited by author 2008-09-07 21:25:38.
|
|
|
|
09/07/2008 10:11:58 PM · #182 |
Wow - the wok is a bit heated.
Why are people calling this the most important election of our lifetimes?
Are we not desperate for a new vision? -
Do we not have the technology to overcome the oil "addiction" in a few years if we encourage it?
It's sitting right in front of us. An end to our future wars ...
Obama knows we can be the leader again - we have much of the infrastructure to be the new energy capital.
Everything revolves around energy. Now the "tree-huggers" are telling the people that voted for Bush "I told you so".
McCain's choice of Palin certainly helps confirm that he thinks the future is oil and that "God" should help us build the pipelines (Palin's paraphrased words not mine) ... But of course he seems to think everything will fix itself from the top down (ambiguity intended).
Do we not need the world to know that we agree we messed up 7.x years ago with GWB?
Honestly, how different are Bush and McCain?
|
|
|
|
09/07/2008 10:31:43 PM · #183 |
Originally posted by metatate:
Do we not need the world to know that we agree we messed up 7.x years ago with GWB?
Honestly, how different are Bush and McCain? |
Bush is also a swaggering maverick who does whatever the heck he feels like. I think Obama should be putting out "Bush the maverick" ads. |
|
|
|
09/07/2008 10:50:59 PM · #184 |
Honestly how different are Obama and McCain?
Maybe instead of gushing over the popular candidates we should have been voting for the ones who haven't been taking lobbyist/corporate interest money all this time (i.e. the ones with the 0 next to bundlers in the first link).
Message edited by author 2008-09-07 22:53:08.
|
|
|
|
09/07/2008 11:38:41 PM · #185 |
Originally posted by yanko:
I didn't realize we were at war with Korea. Are we at war with Japan too or did you just conveniently leave that out because wikipedia couldn't supply you with any ammo to make that claim too? |
We aren't, and neither are we at war with Japan or Kuwait. I left them out because they are irrelevant to this situation. We are in those countries at the request of the people to protect them against outside aggressors. That's not the case with this war, where we are trying to protect Iraqis from Iraqis. Do you really think these are similar situations? The war planners apparently thought so... we'll just 'liberate" these people and they'll all live happily ever after. Riiight. More than five years after the big "mission accomplished" speech, it seems like Americans can't walk the streets outside of military bases and the Green Zone without bodyguards and armored vehicles.
There is a vast difference between "maintaining a presence" and serving as the local police for a foreign country where the people have been taught to hate America even more than each other. The real security linchpin is not the troop surge, but the "Awakening Councils" that we bribe to be our friends. We are there to try and maintain a stalemate while Shiites and Sunnis throw jabs at each other. With such deeply held hatred, a continuous state of simmering war is far more likely to continue indefinitely than any semblance of non-violent peacekeeping. |
|
|
|
09/07/2008 11:58:28 PM · #186 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Maybe instead of gushing over the popular candidates we should have been voting for the ones who haven't been taking lobbyist/corporate interest money all this time (i.e. the ones with the 0 next to bundlers in the first link). |
Perhaps, but not every fundraiser is trying to buy influence or special favors. I'm sure there are people on both sides who are just enthusiastic supporters. |
|
|
|
09/08/2008 12:14:42 AM · #187 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by yanko:
I didn't realize we were at war with Korea. Are we at war with Japan too or did you just conveniently leave that out because wikipedia couldn't supply you with any ammo to make that claim too? |
We aren't, and neither are we at war with Japan or Kuwait. I left them out because they are irrelevant to this situation. We are in those countries at the request of the people to protect them against outside aggressors. That's not the case with this war, where we are trying to protect Iraqis from Iraqis. Do you really think these are similar situations? The war planners apparently thought so... we'll just 'liberate" these people and they'll all live happily ever after. Riiight. More than five years after the big "mission accomplished" speech, it seems like Americans can't walk the streets outside of military bases and the Green Zone without bodyguards and armored vehicles.
There is a vast difference between "maintaining a presence" and serving as the local police for a foreign country where the people have been taught to hate America even more than each other. The real security linchpin is not the troop surge, but the "Awakening Councils" that we bribe to be our friends. We are there to try and maintain a stalemate while Shiites and Sunnis throw jabs at each other. With such deeply held hatred, a continuous state of simmering war is far more likely to continue indefinitely than any semblance of non-violent peacekeeping. |
Go tell McCain that. I am just pointing out the fact that McCain said he would be in favor of a military presence in Iraq upwards of 100 years and not that we will be at war with Iraq for 100 years like what Obama is claiming. I'm not supporting McCain on this position but merely offering it as an example, which you requested.
Message edited by author 2008-09-08 00:18:57.
|
|
|
|
09/08/2008 12:48:44 AM · #188 |
Kucinich was my first choice, but he's not running any more.
Anyway, McCain has a poop-load more lobbyist bundlers - but how does that tell me he's not like Bush?
We can get into a big thing about election reform, but the line isn't blurry for me right now ⦠at least for me of course.
McCain's judgment has been seriously compromised and Palin (assuming you think HE made the decision) is a frightening choice in many ways. Obviously he was pandering - Then they actually turned people's scepticism and doubt into a martyrdom for her.
And people say "that was brilliant of the Republicons (oops)" ... but honestly, is this some sort of joke? - we distract people from the real issues they care about using personalities? I thought maybe we could progress forward this time but it looks like the opposite will be true.
I get the feeling if this goes down, we're gonna be wishing Cheney and GW were back.
Originally posted by yanko:
Honestly how different are Obama and McCain?
Maybe instead of gushing over the popular candidates we should have been voting for the ones who haven't been taking lobbyist/corporate interest money all this time (i.e. the ones with the 0 next to bundlers in the first link). |
|
|
|
|
09/08/2008 02:47:13 AM · #189 |
Actually, the U.S. never signed any peace treaty with N. Korea, so, even as late as 2007, GW Bush has made reference to ending the War with N Korea. We're just as much at "war" with N. Korea as we were in 1952.
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by yanko:
I didn't realize we were at war with Korea. Are we at war with Japan too or did you just conveniently leave that out because wikipedia couldn't supply you with any ammo to make that claim too? |
We aren't, and neither are we at war with Japan or Kuwait. I left them out because they are irrelevant to this situation. We are in those countries at the request of the people to protect them against outside aggressors. That's not the case with this war, where we are trying to protect Iraqis from Iraqis. Do you really think these are similar situations? The war planners apparently thought so... we'll just 'liberate" these people and they'll all live happily ever after. Riiight. More than five years after the big "mission accomplished" speech, it seems like Americans can't walk the streets outside of military bases and the Green Zone without bodyguards and armored vehicles.
There is a vast difference between "maintaining a presence" and serving as the local police for a foreign country where the people have been taught to hate America even more than each other. The real security linchpin is not the troop surge, but the "Awakening Councils" that we bribe to be our friends. We are there to try and maintain a stalemate while Shiites and Sunnis throw jabs at each other. With such deeply held hatred, a continuous state of simmering war is far more likely to continue indefinitely than any semblance of non-violent peacekeeping. |
|
|
|
|
09/08/2008 09:07:42 AM · #190 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Honestly how different are Obama and McCain?
Maybe instead of gushing over the popular candidates we should have been voting for the ones who haven't been taking lobbyist/corporate interest money all this time (i.e. the ones with the 0 next to bundlers in the first link). |
Kucinich was my candidate. The two party system reminds me a lot of the good cop/bad cop routine. It amazes me how often the U.S. votes for the bad cop. The reason I vote for the Democrats is because their lies sound nicer. The Republicans, man, even their ideals are evil. |
|
|
|
09/08/2008 09:48:09 AM · #191 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by yanko:
I didn't realize we were at war with Korea. Are we at war with Japan too or did you just conveniently leave that out because wikipedia couldn't supply you with any ammo to make that claim too? |
We aren't, and neither are we at war with Japan... |
Ah, but we WERE at war with Japan ( remember WWII? ) and our military forces entered Japan as an occupation force over 60 years ago. And we still maintain a military presence there of over 47,000 personnel, though our military presence is currently supported by a treaty with Japan.
I would imagine that such a "peacetime" treaty will also be in effect with Iraq.
|
|
|
|
09/08/2008 10:33:57 AM · #192 |
Originally posted by RonB:
I would imagine that such a "peacetime" treaty will also be in effect with Iraq. |
You have a good imagination. Japan had a strong central government that the people followed. Iraq does not, and would require separate treaties with the Shiites, Sunnis, Kurds, and many smaller factions and tribes to achieve a similar peaceful occupation. Those groups' opinions of the West and each other amount to long odds against such a scenario. |
|
|
|
09/08/2008 10:50:43 AM · #193 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by RonB:
I would imagine that such a "peacetime" treaty will also be in effect with Iraq. |
You have a good imagination. Japan had a strong central government that the people followed. Iraq does not, and would require separate treaties with the Shiites, Sunnis, Kurds, and many smaller factions and tribes to achieve a similar peaceful occupation. Those groups' opinions of the West and each other amount to long odds against such a scenario. |
Easily solved. We just need to install a ruthless dictator. Let's see, we don't want to give the Shiites too much power, so it should probably be Sunni. I know! We'll prop up some real mean sunovabitch from the Baathist party!
This all sounds so familiar somehow... |
|
|
|
09/08/2008 11:23:27 AM · #194 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by RonB:
I would imagine that such a "peacetime" treaty will also be in effect with Iraq. |
You have a good imagination. Japan had a strong central government that the people followed. |
You have a better imagination. From Wikipedia:
"Political parties had begun to revive almost immediately after the occupation began. Left-wing organizations, such as the Japan Socialist Party and the Japan Communist Party, quickly reestablished themselves, as did various conservative parties. The old Seiyukai and Rikken Minseito came back as, respectively, the Liberal Party (Nihon Jiyuto) and the Japan Progressive Party (Nihon Shimpoto). The first postwar elections were held in 1946 (women were given the franchise for the first time), and the Liberal Party's vice president, Yoshida Shigeru (1878-1967), became prime minister. For the 1947 elections, anti-Yoshida forces left the Liberal Party and joined forces with the Progressive Party to establish the new Democratic Party of Japan (Minshuto). This divisiveness in conservative ranks gave a plurality to the Japan Socialist Party, which was allowed to form a cabinet, which lasted less than a year. Thereafter, the socialist party steadily declined in its electoral successes. " |
|
|
|
09/08/2008 11:40:46 AM · #195 |
| The U.S. has political parties, too, but it still has a strong central government. A better example would be the Confederates and Yankees. A treaty with one won't keep you from being shot by the other. |
|
|
|
09/08/2008 01:03:01 PM · #196 |
Since media bias has been discussed here, I'll share this:
//news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080908/ap_en_tv/tv_nbc_olbermann
I find it very interesting. It would be nice if the whole "opinion-as-news" thing would go away. If NBC can get it's house in order, perhaps others will follow. |
|
|
|
09/08/2008 01:58:24 PM · #197 |
Originally posted by eqsite:
It would be nice if the whole "opinion-as-news" thing would go away. |
What would Fox do then? |
|
|
|
09/08/2008 02:03:36 PM · #198 |
The NY Times reported on May 13, 2008:
"If elected president, Senator Barack Obama said Sunday, he would seek to repeal President Bushâs tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans and use the money to pay for health care, but he did not suggest he would raise other taxes to pay for expanded services." - ( New York Times, May 13, 2008 )
In light of that [former] stated position on "President Bush's (sic) tax cuts for the wealthy Americans", I also find this interesting:
From the Huffington Post, September 7, 2008:
"Democrat Barack Obama says he would delay rescinding President Bush's tax cuts on wealthy Americans if he becomes the next president and the economy is in a recession, suggesting such an increase would further hurt the economy."
Now, what do you suppose candidate Obama means when he says that increasing the tax rate on wealthy Americans ( the effect of rescinding the tax cuts ) would "hurt the economy"?
And what effect would the tax cuts have on the economy if they were left in place?
And if leaving them in place would NOT "hurt the economy", what benefit would there be in rescinding them? |
|
|
|
09/08/2008 03:21:35 PM · #199 |
Originally posted by RonB:
And if leaving them in place would NOT "hurt the economy", what benefit would there be in rescinding them? |
Well, duh, different measures are good for the economy depending on what condition the economy's in.
Even so, I'm unhappy to hear him say this. Just like I was unhappy to hear him say that the surge was a big success. But I've known from the start that Obama is not a true leftie. He's a Clintonian centrist. |
|
|
|
09/08/2008 11:39:09 PM · #200 |
|
