Terrorist Fist Bumps All Around (politics) Thread

by **VoxOrion** » Sat Jun 28, 2008 15:19:21

Okay...

I WAS JUST KIDDING ABOUT THE ONE PARTY THING

I guess it goes to the fact that one can only expect someone to read the first few sentences in a long post.

by **dajafi** » Sat Jun 28, 2008 15:53:51

I thought this article on immigration politics was kind of interesting. Ultimately, I'd trust both of these guys to more or less do the right thing on immigration... but the politics are toxic, certainly for McCain and somewhat for Obama.

McCain's statement that he wouldn't vote for his own legislation is embarrassing, but understandable. (And part of me would like to see him win just to watch the nativists on the Right squeal with rage when he gives Reid and Pelosi honorary pens after signing the comprehensive reform into law.) He really needs Hispanics and I have no doubt he'll do much better than any other Republican could have... but if he's too loud and proud for immigration, he might send people rushing toward Barr or just sitting home.

Obama's problem is that I can't imagine immigration reform is very popular with the Clinton supporters in PA and Ohio... but he can't very well embrace Lou Dobbs after pretty much calling him an "agent of intolerance." I suspect on this one he'll lay low, attack McCain and hope for the best. Not admirable but probably the smart way to proceed.

by **The Red Tornado** » Sat Jun 28, 2008 16:08:46

The only solution

by **Woody** » Sat Jun 28, 2008 16:20:25

The Red Tornado wrote:The only solution

Please please tell me this is a gag. I don't think I can read stuff like this without laughing out loud and punching inanimate objects

We know that George Bush was God's Candidate in 2000. We know that George Bush was God's candidate again in 2004. And George Bush has been God's president for the last 8 years.

Trust in God and vote your faith. Keep America safe. Write-in George W. Bush for President in 2008.

by **jerseyhoya** » Sat Jun 28, 2008 16:23:53

What about "term limits"

The important thing to understand about so-called "term limits" is that they are man's law, not God's Law. The God who parted the Red Sea is surely not worried about so-called "term limits". When you vote your faith you let Almighty God take care of the details.

Presidential term limits are not in the Bible. And they were not in our Constitution until added by an activist congress in 1951.

by **Woody** » Sat Jun 28, 2008 16:28:25

Comedy gold, intentional or not

by **jerseyhoya** » Sat Jun 28, 2008 16:31:43

Baha, I think this clinches that it's a gag.

Funny site, though.

by **TenuredVulture** » Sat Jun 28, 2008 16:46:28

The funniest part of the gag was that Woody was worried it might not be.

by **Woody** » Sat Jun 28, 2008 16:59:00

My faith in humanity has temporarily been restored.

by **Laexile** » Sat Jun 28, 2008 17:38:24

Monkeyboy wrote:
Laexile wrote:Monkeyboy, I'm not sure I get your point. First it seemed like you were saying John McCain was saying he supported torture. Now you're saying that he's saying he's against torture but voted for it. It's called compromise. The White House threatened a veto and Republicans threatened a fillibuster. If it's a choice between no bill and a compromise bill you choose a compromise.
.

I don't want my future president to compromise on torture, and the old John McCain wouldn't have compromised on torture. I really don't have anything else to say. I've reported his two-faced actions in regard to torture, reviewing what he did in regards to the MCA and the DTA and all the other stuff. If you want to call blasting a practice in public and then quietly insuring its existence behind the scenes compromise, then that's fine. I'm not going to change your mind, but hopefully I showed a few other people that McCain's tough on torture talk is just that, talk.

Did you ever meet the "old" John McCain? I did. I worked on the campaign in 2000. What about the current John McCain? While I haven't talked to him this time around I've talked to a lot of people that have. I'm just not sure where you get the idea that you knew who John McCain was eight years ago and you know who he is today. If you didn't talk to him extensively on torture how do you know exactly where he stood and stands now?

John McCain compromised on torture because he had two choices, get 95% of torture banned or 0%. You'd prefer 0% if you don't want your President to compromise.

And just what is it okay to compromise on? In the last two weeks Barack Obama has moved to the right on the death penalty, gun control, Iraq, NAFTA, government spying of its own citizens, campaign finance reform, and social security. Are all those okay, but torture isn't?

You may have convinced people that McCain's tough talk on torture is just talk, but the only evidence you provided to back it up was more tough talk on torture. You seem certain to stick to your guns even after I've provided a lot of evidence to the contrary. And yet you're the one hoping to convince people, not me.

John McCain hasn't wavered on what he'd do about torture as President, even when challenged by his own party's right wing. The way Barack Obama is changing his stances these days I wouldn't be surprised if he started advocating torture to get Republican votes.

by **Shore** » Sat Jun 28, 2008 17:50:43

Tell John I said hi.

by **Laexile** » Sat Jun 28, 2008 17:52:40

dajafi wrote:McCain's statement that he wouldn't vote for his own legislation is embarrassing, but understandable.

Except he never said he wouldn't vote for it. What he says here, is that he wouldn't introduce the same bill in the Senate today because "the people want the border secure first." He realizes that what he wants to do on immigration won't fly in this country until after the borders are secure. Asking John McCain this question is roughly equivalent to asking Bill Clinton in 1995 if he'll send a comprehensive social healthcare package to Congress.

McCain recognizes that his plan won't get support now. So he'll wait to do it. His position hasn't changed. Of course when you aren't anti-immigrant in Michigan, you get booed.

Edit: Three days before that debate he does answer the question. He'd sign it. "But it isn't going to come."

by **jerseyhoya** » Sat Jun 28, 2008 17:54:06

LA, what did Obama change on Social Security?

by **Laexile** » Sat Jun 28, 2008 18:08:34

jerseyhoya wrote:LA, what did Obama change on Social Security?

This is on his website

Currently, the Social Security payroll tax applies to only the first $102,000 a worker makes. Obama supports increasing the maximum amount of earnings covered by Social Security and he will work with Congress and the American people to choose a payroll tax reform package that will keep Social Security solvent for at least the next half century.

That seems pretty clear. Obama's plan is to remove caps on social security tax. That's what everyone thought. Obama's campaign said that his plan is to have no increase in social security taxes on income between $102,000 and $250,000 and that he'd only increase social security taxes on those making more than $250,000. The campaign claims this was always his plan. If it was, then why not add a sentence saying that? It still isn't up.

It's possible that this was the plan all along. Obama isn't running on the issues more than "I'll solve all your problems." His website is long on detailing the problems and that he'll solve all of them, but very short on how. Specifics can be picked apart by the public and the media, especially if he doesn't have a good plan to solve all the problems. So he's avoided giving his actual plans out. Of course that doesn't stop people from examining the limited info he actually does point out. It does allow Obama to change the plan by saying that his plan always meant to include that information.

by **pacino** » Sat Jun 28, 2008 21:12:33

right on the death penalty, gun control, Iraq, NAFTA

If you have read his opinions on these topics, he has done nothing of the sort. He is a pragmatist, and has always tried to appear as such. His NAFTA rhetoric was during the primary season in Ohio and PA where such topics are a big deal. Candidates and politicians always tailor their message to the person listening.

Reading his books help delve into his ideas a lot more than some stump speech in Feb/March 08. He stated his views on guns and the death penalty in his 2nd book. They haven't changed. You have assigned a perceived viewpoint to him. edit: I should add that I disagree with him on the death penalty. I agree with him on gun control...there is that 2nd amendment thing allowing gun ownership, but i don't see why local governments can't restrict use. so if he has actually changed views, then good...it's closer to what i believe.

How did he change anything on Social Security? Looks like he simply doesn't elaborate on his website. You are quite picky sir. What of the merit of his idea? Or do you simply care whether he's stated it enough times and not actually care to debate the actual solvency of it? This gotcha game is lame, and you are supposed to be all about the 'issues'.

I also like how politicians aren't allowed to have changing viewpoints on topics over decade or generational careers. It looks like many of McCain's views have changed. Why bother debating that when you can debate what he now believes? His changing views on many issues have turned me off...when I used to look at him as a good 2nd option to Joe Biden back in 2006. It's not that he changed, it's that he changed to ideas I don't like.

by **Philly the Kid** » Sat Jun 28, 2008 21:21:08

So my poll was locked.

I really believe that some kind of bombing of Iran, is still in-play with the Bush/Cheney White-House. There has still be scary talk coming out in the last few weeks. I also fear that Democrats are so pressed to show we're "tough guys too" and have allowed the propoganda of a scary world filled with evil terrorists who will do us in, without any reflection on our misdeeds or the millions of lives that we've impacted -- will preclude any kind of new image in the world. Our economy is weak, the dollar is weak, our reputation is weak. And if Bush does go in to Iran (certain military has gone in all ready continually) -- but bombs them -- it's going to be very very messy for either president.

I can see McCain if he wins, getting ill or senile and a puppet govt behind him running things anyway.

by **pacino** » Sat Jun 28, 2008 21:23:27

Philly the Kid wrote:So my poll was locked.

I really believe that some kind of bombing of Iran, is still in-play with the Bush/Cheney White-House. There has still be scary talk coming out in the last few weeks. I also fear that Democrats are so pressed to show we're "tough guys too" and have allowed the propoganda of a scary world filled with evil terrorists who will do us in, without any reflection on our misdeeds or the millions of lives that we've impacted -- will preclude any kind of new image in the world. Our economy is weak, the dollar is weak, our reputation is weak. And if Bush does go in to Iran (certain military has gone in all ready continually) -- but bombs them -- it's going to be very very messy for either president.

I can see McCain if he wins, getting ill or senile and a puppet govt behind him running things anyway.

you make me feel like voting for another republican. i doubt we are going to war with iran. that's going to be very tough, and we may lose if we're so stretched out. what is the objective there sir? government higher ups dislike the US and Israel...the public really doesn't.

by **Philly the Kid** » Sat Jun 28, 2008 21:30:12

pacino wrote:
Philly the Kid wrote:So my poll was locked.

I really believe that some kind of bombing of Iran, is still in-play with the Bush/Cheney White-House. There has still be scary talk coming out in the last few weeks. I also fear that Democrats are so pressed to show we're "tough guys too" and have allowed the propoganda of a scary world filled with evil terrorists who will do us in, without any reflection on our misdeeds or the millions of lives that we've impacted -- will preclude any kind of new image in the world. Our economy is weak, the dollar is weak, our reputation is weak. And if Bush does go in to Iran (certain military has gone in all ready continually) -- but bombs them -- it's going to be very very messy for either president.

I can see McCain if he wins, getting ill or senile and a puppet govt behind him running things anyway.

I know a lot of foreigners and they are not liking the USA right now. Many of my EU friends won't even come here for a vacation anymore.
you make me feel like voting for another republican. i doubt we are going to war with iran. that's going to be very tough, and we may lose if we're so stretched out. what is the objective there sir? government higher ups dislike the US and Israel...the public really doesn't.

by **mpmcgraw** » Sat Jun 28, 2008 21:52:06

pacino wrote:
Philly the Kid wrote:So my poll was locked.

I really believe that some kind of bombing of Iran, is still in-play with the Bush/Cheney White-House. There has still be scary talk coming out in the last few weeks. I also fear that Democrats are so pressed to show we're "tough guys too" and have allowed the propoganda of a scary world filled with evil terrorists who will do us in, without any reflection on our misdeeds or the millions of lives that we've impacted -- will preclude any kind of new image in the world. Our economy is weak, the dollar is weak, our reputation is weak. And if Bush does go in to Iran (certain military has gone in all ready continually) -- but bombs them -- it's going to be very very messy for either president.

I can see McCain if he wins, getting ill or senile and a puppet govt behind him running things anyway.

you make me feel like voting for another republican. i doubt we are going to war with iran. that's going to be very tough, and we may lose if we're so stretched out. what is the objective there sir? government higher ups dislike the US and Israel...the public really doesn't.

We wouldn't lose.

Their military consists of extremely outdated frankenstein jets, tanks, etc... The only problem would be running out of bullets when they do their ole human wave attack.

The real problem would be that we would have Iraq except 3 times as large and o by the way Russia is Iran's ally so that's a great recipe for WWIII. Especially if Iran already has a nuke.

by **pacino** » Sat Jun 28, 2008 21:54:59

mpmcgraw wrote:
pacino wrote:
Philly the Kid wrote:So my poll was locked.

I really believe that some kind of bombing of Iran, is still in-play with the Bush/Cheney White-House. There has still be scary talk coming out in the last few weeks. I also fear that Democrats are so pressed to show we're "tough guys too" and have allowed the propoganda of a scary world filled with evil terrorists who will do us in, without any reflection on our misdeeds or the millions of lives that we've impacted -- will preclude any kind of new image in the world. Our economy is weak, the dollar is weak, our reputation is weak. And if Bush does go in to Iran (certain military has gone in all ready continually) -- but bombs them -- it's going to be very very messy for either president.

I can see McCain if he wins, getting ill or senile and a puppet govt behind him running things anyway.

you make me feel like voting for another republican. i doubt we are going to war with iran. that's going to be very tough, and we may lose if we're so stretched out. what is the objective there sir? government higher ups dislike the US and Israel...the public really doesn't.

We wouldn't lose.

Their military consists of extremely outdated frankenstein jets, tanks, etc... The only problem would be running out of bullets when they do their ole human wave attack.

The real problem would be that we would have Iraq except 3 times as large and o by the way Russia is Iran's ally so that's a great recipe for WWIII. Especially if Iran already has a nuke.

yeah, i know nothing about hte iranian army, i was going on the idea that iran is much larger than iraq and i would think more hooked up. they're also a fairly advanced society who is developing nuclear technology. why ptk thinks we're going to war with them within months...i don't know.

Archived

Terrorist Fist Bumps All Around (politics) Thread