EPTI mean, how could you miss his input on that?! Would be madness!!!
/sarcasm
2008 US Presidential Election - Page 62
| Forum Index > Closed |
|
D10
Brazil3409 Posts
I mean, how could you miss his input on that?! Would be madness!!! /sarcasm | ||
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
On September 26 2008 19:29 D10 wrote: No shit. Congrats Republicans, McCain just made the stock market drop another 400 points and likely more before a deal is reached, for this ridiculous election move. This ranks up there with the 2000 Fl. vote counting and the fucking 1876 Hayes-Tilden election in terms of dirty election politics.Just watched the news, I guess he really saved the country eh?! I mean, how could you miss his input on that?! Would be madness!!! /sarcasm A bill is drawn up that most Rs support express for and is about to be fast tracked and then we have a ridiculous presidential meeting where heavy emphasis is given to the two candidates, NEITHER of which serve on finanical committees or took part in the deliberations. and then the House Rs pull out a new bill they just came up with, even though they had said they agreed with the previous version. McCain is the one who urged Bush to call the meeting, not even having read any of the fucking proposals yet. Obama wanted nothing to do with this, for good reason. This is entirely a political play to portray McCain as some type of authority. HE IS FUCKING IRRELEVANT. Paulson and everyone else on the planet was praying for this to pass, except the McCain camp because if the House Rs don't cooperate, the Democrats are forced to push through the bailout on their own (which will be unpopular, no matter WHAT) and then they'll lay the blame on the Democratic party for all of this. That is the move they're trying to make, and they're putting the whole fucking country in jeopardy to try it. The snafu spawned a round of political finger-pointing, with most Democrats blaming Sen. John McCain, whose decision to return to Washington and meet with congressional Republicans appears to have complicated days of negotiations. Sen. McCain "goes to a meeting and all of a sudden, we lose all the Republicans who have been working with us for the last five days," said Rep. Ellen Tauscher, a California Democrat. "This has to be a bipartisan deal. Unfortunately Republicans walked off the field." McCain aides argue there was no deal at hand because there wasn't enough support among Republicans to move an agreement through the Congress. Instead, aides cast Sen. McCain as working to put together an agreement that can pass. His aides said the Arizona senator wants the Treasury to have flexibility to make loans as well as buy assets. That's biased because it's from the Democrat's side, you say? In a private meeting Thursday on Capitol Hill, a group of House Republicans, with the blessing of Minority Leader John Boehner (R., Ohio), urged Sen. McCain to consider a more market-based alternative to the Bush-backed plan. At a Senate Republican meeting, some Republicans including Utah's Robert Bennett, who had been a vocal supporter of the earlier tentative agreement, appeared unhappy. "They weren't too happy with McCain," said one aide to Sen. McCain, adding that there was some "grousing" that the candidate wasn't fully embracing the emerging compromise. Asked late Thursday if having the presidential candidates at the tabled distracted from the process, Sen. Bennett said: "I'm not going to comment on that." ... Rep. Barney Frank, chairman of the House Financial Services Committee and a top negotiator on the bill, said Sen. McCain spoke only in generalities at the White House meeting. "At this point, we don't know what the House Republicans want," he said. In an interview with ABC News, Sen. McCain said he went into the White House meeting believing there was no deal. He said the meeting "gave us a renewed sense of urgency and I'm confident we will move forward, and I'm confident that we will reach a conclusion." This is all from the WSJ, btw. | ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10761 Posts
On September 26 2008 10:41 Flaccid wrote: McCain can point out Czechoslovakia ;-) I can't even spell that. I hope you made a joke... Czechoslovakia (Tschechoslowakei in german) is split for like... 20 years or something? Its Czechia (Tschechien) and Slowakia (Slowenien) now.. 2 countrys... | ||
|
Falcynn
United States3597 Posts
On September 26 2008 22:44 Velr wrote: Or Czech Republic and Slovakia as it's known in the states (not correcting you, just clarifying on the off-chance anyone might be confused).I hope you made a joke... Czechoslovakia (Tschechoslowakei in german) is split for like... 20 years or something? Its Czechia (Tschechien) and Slowakia (Slowenien) now.. 2 countrys... | ||
|
DrainX
Sweden3187 Posts
| ||
|
Falcynn
United States3597 Posts
Guess I should move to Romania. | ||
|
QuanticHawk
United States32075 Posts
hahahahahaha | ||
|
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
Honestly Savio, your personal leanings aside (guns, abortion, etc.) are you comfortable with this woman being the President? Like Nixon said, the President can leave domestic matters to congress but their top priority has to be foreign policy, and she is 95% clueless. It's one thing to be an ultra neo-realist like McCain, even if that camp is wrong, but she doesn't have any coherent standing on the geo-political spectrum. The only thing you gain from watching the interview is that Couric is significantly more intelligent than Palin. | ||
|
Flaccid
8843 Posts
On September 26 2008 23:42 Falcynn wrote: bah, I suck at sarcasm, that's like the 5th time this week I think. Guess I should move to Romania. The point of the joke is that McCain, himself, referenced 'Czechoslovakia' several times in the last few years. As if it still exists. So it seemed fitting since we were talking about who could identify countries on a map. It was my way of saying that McCain would write "USSR" on half of Europe/Asia and "Not USSR" on the other half. | ||
|
starcraft911
Korea (South)1263 Posts
Savio, if we gave Palin a blank map on central-eastern Europe, how many countries would she get right? Honestly, I don't think McCain would be able to get more than 50%, unless he labeled the entire eastern bloc as USSR. I can identify them all so vote for me... clearly I have foreign policy skills! OH WAIT.... | ||
|
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
On September 27 2008 01:28 starcraft911 wrote: I can identify them all so vote for me... clearly I have foreign policy skills! OH WAIT.... It's a necessary condition. It's not a sufficient condition. | ||
|
starcraft911
Korea (South)1263 Posts
On September 27 2008 01:29 Jibba wrote: It's a necessary condition. It's not a sufficient condition. Then both parties need to find new candidates is what you're saying? I'd put a grand down @ 20:1 on NONE of the 4 being able to name them all correctly on the first go. | ||
|
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
| ||
|
Falcynn
United States3597 Posts
On September 27 2008 01:26 Flaccid wrote: oh no, I got it now, I didn't catch the joke you were trying to make at first, but then DrainX pointed out you were being sarcastic and then I got it.The point of the joke is that McCain, himself, referenced 'Czechoslovakia' several times in the last few years. As if it still exists. So it seemed fitting since we were talking about who could identify countries on a map. It was my way of saying that McCain would write "USSR" on half of Europe/Asia and "Not USSR" on the other half. | ||
|
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
The Ugly New McCain By Richard Cohen Wednesday, September 17, 2008; Page Following his loss to George W. Bush in the 2000 South Carolina primary, John McCain did something extraordinary: He confessed to lying about how he felt about the Confederate battle flag, which he actually abhorred. "I broke my promise to always tell the truth," McCain said. Now he has broken that promise so completely that the John McCain of old is unrecognizable. He has become the sort of politician he once despised. The precise moment of McCain's abasement came, would you believe, not at some news conference or on one of the Sunday shows but on "The View," the daytime TV show created by Barbara Walters. Last week, one of the co-hosts, Joy Behar, took McCain to task for some of the ads his campaign has been running. One deliberately mischaracterized what Barack Obama had said about putting lipstick on a pig -- an Americanism that McCain himself has used. The other asserted that Obama supported teaching sex education to kindergarteners. "We know that those two ads are untrue," Behar said. "They are lies." Freeze. Close in on McCain. This was the moment. He has largely been avoiding the press. The Straight Talk Express is now just a brand, an ad slogan like "Home Cooking" or "We Will Not Be Undersold." Until then, it was possible for McCain to say that he had not really known about the ads, that the formulation "I approve this message" was just boilerplate. But he didn't. "Actually, they are not lies," he said. Actually, they are. McCain has turned ugly. His dishonesty would be unacceptable in any politician, but McCain has always set his own bar higher than most. He has contempt for most of his colleagues for that very reason: They lie. He tells the truth. He internalizes the code of the McCains -- his grandfather, his father: both admirals of the shining sea. He serves his country differently, that's all -- but just as honorably. No more, though. I am one of the journalists accused over the years of being in the tank for McCain. Guilty. Those doing the accusing usually attributed my feelings to McCain being accessible. This is the journalist-as-puppy school of thought: Give us a treat, and we will leap into a politician's lap. Not so. What impressed me most about McCain was the effect he had on his audiences, particularly young people. When he talked about service to a cause greater than oneself, he struck a chord. He expressed his message in words, but he packaged it in the McCain story -- that man, beaten to a pulp, who chose honor over freedom. This had nothing to do with access. It had to do with integrity. McCain has soiled all that. His opportunistic and irresponsible choice of Sarah Palin as his political heir -- the person in whose hands he would leave the country -- is a form of personal treason, a betrayal of all he once stood for. Palin, no matter what her other attributes, is shockingly unprepared to become president. McCain knows that. He means to win, which is all right; he means to win at all costs, which is not. At a forum last week at Columbia University, McCain said, "But right now we have to restore trust and confidence in government." This was always the promise of John McCain, the single best reason to vote for him. America has been cheated on too many times -- the lies of Vietnam and Watergate and Iraq. So many lies. Who believes that in Afghanistan last month, only five civilians were killed by the American military in an airstrike, instead of the approximately 90 claimed by the Afghan government? Not me. I first gave up on the military during Vietnam and then again when it covered up the death of Pat Tillman, the Army Ranger and former NFL player who was killed in 2004 by friendly fire. McCain was going to fix all that. He was going to look the American people in the eyes and say, not me. I will not lie to you. I am John McCain, son and grandson of admirals. I tell the truth. But Joy Behar knew better. And so McCain lied about his lying and maybe thinks that if he wins the election, he can -- as he did in South Carolina -- renounce who he was and what he did and resume his old persona. It won't work. Karl Marx got one thing right -- what he said about history repeating itself. Once is tragedy, a second time is farce. John McCain is both. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/15/AR2008091502406.html BTW, apparently McCain already won the debate. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/images/26Sep_Friday_WSJ.JPG | ||
|
Flaccid
8843 Posts
Fun article, Jibba. Here's another one from National Review that calls on Palin to remove herself from the ticket. + Show Spoiler + Palin Problem She’s out of her league By Kathleen Parker If at one time women were considered heretical for swimming upstream against feminist orthodoxy, they now face condemnation for swimming downstream — away from Sarah Palin. To express reservations about her qualifications to be vice president — and possibly president — is to risk being labeled anti-woman. Or, as I am guilty of charging her early critics, supporting only a certain kind of woman. Some of the passionately feminist critics of Palin who attacked her personally deserved some of the backlash they received. But circumstances have changed since Palin was introduced as just a hockey mom with lipstick — what a difference a financial crisis makes — and a more complicated picture has emerged. As we’ve seen and heard more from John McCain’s running mate, it is increasingly clear that Palin is a problem. Quick study or not, she doesn’t know enough about economics and foreign policy to make Americans comfortable with a President Palin should conditions warrant her promotion. Yes, she recently met and turned several heads of state as the United Nations General Assembly convened in New York. She was gracious, charming and disarming. Men swooned. Pakistan’s president wanted to hug her. (Perhaps Osama bin Laden is dying to meet her?) And, yes, she has common sense, something we value. And she’s had executive experience as a mayor and a governor, though of relatively small constituencies (about 6,000 and 680,000, respectively). Finally, Palin’s narrative is fun, inspiring and all-American in that frontier way we seem to admire. When Palin first emerged as John McCain’s running mate, I confess I was delighted. She was the antithesis and nemesis of the hirsute, Birkenstock-wearing sisterhood — a refreshing feminist of a different order who personified the modern successful working mother. Palin didn’t make a mess cracking the glass ceiling. She simply glided through it. It was fun while it lasted. Palin’s recent interviews with Charles Gibson, Sean Hannity, and now Katie Couric have all revealed an attractive, earnest, confident candidate. Who Is Clearly Out Of Her League. No one hates saying that more than I do. Like so many women, I’ve been pulling for Palin, wishing her the best, hoping she will perform brilliantly. I’ve also noticed that I watch her interviews with the held breath of an anxious parent, my finger poised over the mute button in case it gets too painful. Unfortunately, it often does. My cringe reflex is exhausted. Palin filibusters. She repeats words, filling space with deadwood. Cut the verbiage and there’s not much content there. Here’s but one example of many from her interview with Hannity: “Well, there is a danger in allowing some obsessive partisanship to get into the issue that we’re talking about today. And that’s something that John McCain, too, his track record, proving that he can work both sides of the aisle, he can surpass the partisanship that must be surpassed to deal with an issue like this.” When Couric pointed to polls showing that the financial crisis had boosted Obama’s numbers, Palin blustered wordily: “I’m not looking at poll numbers. What I think Americans at the end of the day are going to be able to go back and look at track records and see who’s more apt to be talking about solutions and wishing for and hoping for solutions for some opportunity to change, and who’s actually done it?” If BS were currency, Palin could bail out Wall Street herself. If Palin were a man, we’d all be guffawing, just as we do every time Joe Biden tickles the back of his throat with his toes. But because she’s a woman — and the first ever on a Republican presidential ticket — we are reluctant to say what is painfully true. What to do? McCain can’t repudiate his choice for running mate. He not only risks the wrath of the GOP’s unforgiving base, but he invites others to second-guess his executive decision-making ability. Barack Obama faces the same problem with Biden. Only Palin can save McCain, her party, and the country she loves. She can bow out for personal reasons, perhaps because she wants to spend more time with her newborn. No one would criticize a mother who puts her family first. Do it for your country. | ||
|
Savio
United States1850 Posts
On September 27 2008 01:14 Jibba wrote: Honestly Savio, your personal leanings aside (guns, abortion, etc.) are you comfortable with this woman being the President? Like Nixon said, the President can leave domestic matters to congress but their top priority has to be foreign policy, and she is 95% clueless. It's one thing to be an ultra neo-realist like McCain, even if that camp is wrong, but she doesn't have any coherent standing on the geo-political spectrum. The only thing you gain from watching the interview is that Couric is significantly more intelligent than Palin. Putting my leanings aside, I would find it hard to vote for Palin for President. But, her lack of knowledge and experience is not enough to make me vote for the inexperience of Obama over McCain. Now of course, McCain COULD die. But we all know that that is very unlikely. But if Obama is elected, there is a 100% chance that he would be President (unlike Palin's 1% or whatever). Like I said before, of the candidates and running mates, 2 are what you could call "experienced". That is Biden and McCain. Putting your experienced man in the #1 slot and the inexperienced in the #2 seems more reasonable to me than the other way around. That last sentence pretty much sums it up. On a side note, this has been a very bad week for McCain and his campaign imo. | ||
|
Savio
United States1850 Posts
So we end up with 3 debates that will focus more on the economy. That worked out pretty dang well for Obama imo. This election is getting crazy. BTW, everybody watch it tonight so we can tear it apart tomorrow. | ||
|
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
We're not talking about Palin's inexperience. We're talking about Palin's lack of knowledge. Those are two fundamentally distinct aspects. She has not proven to be a quick learner and she does not understand any of the issues she's talking about. Energy, foreign policy, economics, etc. Furthermore, I think you overstate the importance of experience far too much, as experience in the Senate does not translate into Presidential experience. Kerry, Gore, Dole, Dukakis all had significantly more experience than their opposition, so why is it of importance now? And what does his experience actually entail? You cite foreign relations as his strong point but as an IR major, I see it as one of his worst points, as would most academics. He may be tougher in standing up to Putin, but nearly every comment he's made regarding the middle east has been false and not supported by anyone in the intelligence community. And when talking about foreign policy, you have to bring up the other countries. The rest of the world, including Israel, favor Obama to McCain in that regard. So why is McCain's foreign service held to such a high standard when there's little substance behind it? Like I said before. "I crashed four planes. Respect me." | ||
|
Savio
United States1850 Posts
1. The public sees him as more "trust worthy" on Iraq, foreign policy, treaties, and everything else foreign source: See my post a few pages ago with the Rasmussen poll. 2. He has always been on committees that deal with foreign relations. 3. That is what he loves more than anything. | ||
| ||
