Speech on racism and equality (Obama vs McCain, economics, war)

Embeded:

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWe7wTVbLUU[/media]

It's 40 minutes long, but well worth the watch.

When comparing this man to the likes of John Bush McCain, you can only hope that Obama is put into power, for America's sake, and the world's in consequence.

I second that. A great speech. Apparently he wrote this one himself... the first presidential candidate/president to do so since Nixon's exit speech. Very impressive and very heartfelt. This guy rocks. Now let's hope some nutter doesn't shoot him... :(

This man is just an inadequate David Palmer-wannabe.

I vote David Palmer for first black president!

Quote from Jaian;347066:
This man is just an inadequate David Palmer-wannabe.

I vote David Palmer for first black president!

lol... It disturbs me that you're willing to vote television characters into office.

Obama will be the best thing that happened to America, and by proxy, the rest of the world.

+1

Smart, articulate yank pres - surely they'll find a way to **** this one up...

they're american.

why do you all keep forgetting this.

It's either him or another redneck who thinks Net Neutrality is bad and telecom companies should have complete control over what content you see on their pipes.

After bush, I cant see anyone voting for anything other than the extreme opposite.

The Govt. is controlled by the christian voting majority remember.
At least a video told me it was so!

Not even those guys want a redneck in this time around. Also the bible belt is shrinking dramatically every year.

One would hope that common sense prevails. But if we believe that Bush stole the presidency in the first place, who knows what will happen this time around. I just know it's going to be an even scarier world if McLiar gets in...

On a side note. Some of the press shots of McCain and Bush really indicate that they're f*cking. It's gross... lol. Also, is it just me, or does McLiar's smile really scare the sh!t out of you?

Quote from grandinferno;347087:
I just know it's going to be an even scarier world if McLiar gets in...

Why? McCain isn't my candidate of choice but he has many better qualities and policies than Bush...

Quote from grandinferno;347087:
On a side note. Some of the press shots of McCain and Bush really indicate that they're f*cking. It's gross... lol.

What?.. How about you keep your opinions to the characters and policies of the candidates. I'm not a Republican supporter nor do I support McCain or Bush but those statements are really, really stupid.

but it's cool to bash republicans, dontcha know. just like it's cool to spell microsoft with a $.

I actually think McCain isn't so bad. I think as a person, he's a hell of a lot smarter then Bush has been. He's also very wise to 'reality' though he may air on the scarier side. Ultimately though, he's daughter is hot. :p

That said, I like Obama as well, as for change though... I'd find it a hard choice between the two candidates at this stage. It's well known that McCain dissagree's with a lot of the Bush administrations objectives, and has been vocal about it in the past.
But now it's not the time to fight him. He's on his way out (bush)... And regardless of what Penn (Penn and Teller) said, bush & administration is evil, but only so through his and their ignorance.

How can any of you speak so positively about McCain? I think you need to watch and read a few more interviews with him regarding his objectives and ideas.

He has openly admitted to not agreeing or caring about what the majority of American citizens think or want, has suggested we should stay in Iraq for another 50-100 years, and even hints towards invading Iran.

He's an absolute, bonafide, f*cking idiot.

I don't know very much about politics and less so about the American side of things but certainly from what ive seen and read Obama certainly seems like the man for that country.

Though he'll probably be assassinated or something, it's bound to happen..

Quote from uber tard;347089:
Why? McCain isn't my candidate of choice but he has many better qualities and policies than Bush...

McCain has been exposed time and time again as a liar by the US media. Just because you have better policies than a retarded monkey doesn't make them effective or good. What difference does it make if he has better policies than Bush anyway? How relevent is that? He isn't running again because he can't.

The US presidency is basically the face of the USA. Kind of the same way people are used in advertising - ie. Nicole Kidman for whatever it is she promotes in perfume... Obama is seen as a peaceful, articulate man. McCain is seen generally as another warmonger. At the end of the day if Bush solely made decisions for the US Government then we'd be seeing a lot more bedlam than we are now. My point is that this world needs a peaceful leader with an ability to communicate with everyone. Don't think for a second that the US president is just the face of the US. He is the face of the western world to those outside it. As long as Australia and the UK side with them, then we are part of that system.

Quote from uber tard;347089:
What?.. How about you keep your opinions to the characters and policies of the candidates. I'm not a Republican supporter nor do I support McCain or Bush but those statements are really, really stupid.

As far as my little splatter of mirth regarding the Bush and McCain relationship, I'm sorry, I must have missed the 'no joking around' clause at the start of this thread. I didn't realise the gaming community was so serious about their foreign politics. Perhaps you should share your opinion instead of your drive-by one-liner comments.

I'd also appreciate it if people actually watched the video at the start of the thread and not just chime in when they want to bang out a few sentences strewn from their ill-informed brains. This statement is not directed at anyone in particular. I've just noticed it happens a lot around here (see Zeitgeist thread).

Just to reiterate. Stop saying 'McCain is smarter than Bush'. It may be fact (I don't know), but it's absolutely irrelevant.

a lying politician? what world do you live in that there are any other kind?

isnt invading iran a good thing and what they shoulda done in the first place?

ba dum psh?

No, I think he's being serious (I think this, because DoWhatUWant is known for having outlandish and completely idiotic views on just about everything).

McCain wants to abolish Net Neutrality. Thats enough reason alone to never vote for him.

So I asked why you said the world would be a scarier place if McCain gets elected and your answer is because he's lied and because people think he's a war monger?

Quote from grandinferno;347108:
As far as my little splatter of mirth regarding the Bush and McCain relationship, I'm sorry, I must have missed the 'no joking around' clause at the start of this thread. I didn't realise the gaming community was so serious about their foreign politics. Perhaps you should share your opinion instead of your drive-by one-liner comments.

I honestly wasn't sure if you were jokin or not. Ah well, guess I missed the joke. I'm happy to share my opinion if you really want it.

Quote from grandinferno;347108:
Just to reiterate. Stop saying 'McCain is smarter than Bush'. It may be fact (I don't know), but it's absolutely irrelevant.

Who said that again?

Quote from uber tard;347140:
So I asked why you said the world would be a scarier place if McCain gets elected and your answer is because he's lied and because people think he's a war monger?

I honestly wasn't sure if you were jokin or not. Ah well, guess I missed the joke. I'm happy to share my opinion if you really want it.

Who said that again?

You can't get much more scarier than someone who's comfortable with war. It's all he knows about... He's even admitted that he knows f*ck all about economics and his strength is 'foreign policy'.

Quote from uber tard;347140:
Who said that again?

I wasn't talking to you specifically. I can read you know... and I do want your opinion man. This is a topic ripe for discussion. Seriously. ;)

Quote from Kagetsu;347094:
I actually think McCain isn't so bad. I think as a person, he's a hell of a lot smarter then Bush has been.

THAT'S what I'm talking about.... :(

Quote from DoWhatUWant;347122:
isnt invading iran a good thing and what they shoulda done in the first place?

I hope for all our sakes that you're not serious. Try reading a bit and forming an opinion of your own... not just based on what you see on commercial television while you're eating your dinner... "Attack, ATTACK". Are you people f*cking insane?? Enough already. Don't you understand that if you take, take, TAKE from these f*cking people, then there's nothing more for them to lose and they have no problem blowing themselves and you up. Don't you understand?? If some country started bombing Australia. Invaded and started kicking down our doors and shooting your friends and family what would you do? What extremes would you go to? Just because it's not you it's easy to say INVADE. But hey, the way this world is turning it could be you quite soon. Who f*cking knows.

Peace. To those who want it.

Did we even have a battle of egos on gu for our own election?

Quote from Jay;347144:
Did we even have a battle of egos on gu for our own election?

Arguing about politics in Australia isn't interesting. I kind of like to talk about whether this planet is going to be here (or how it'll be) for my kids, not f*cking IR laws. Probably a strange perspective I know (and perhaps a little misguided) but I find it really uninteresting. You see we're lucky here in Australia... we've got nothing to whinge about... yet. Our lives are still well within our control - or at least we like to think so.

...and battle of the egos? Snap out of it mate. I don't see how ego has crept into this topic...

This forum is so full of 'drive-by commenters' (from now on referred to as DBCs). Did you watch the video dude? Has anyone here watched the freakin' video???

Yeah I did watch it, in fact I watched it within a few hours from it happening live.

I've even read a few US political books written by the politicians there.

However I don't comment on it in all seriousness because I don't live in America, I don't live in Iran or Iraq or other goddamn country. It does affect us which is why I keep close tabs on it, but otherwise I don't give a flying ****.

You seem to be the one getting worked up easily and writing the walls of text. Meanwhile who are you again?

Quote from grandinferno;347142:
You can't get much more scarier than someone who's comfortable with war. It's all he knows about... He's even admitted that he knows f*ck all about economics and his strength is 'foreign policy'.

Well condsidering the candidates current economic policies, McCain is the only one who has a both a track record of voting for and policy proposals of small government, fiscal conservatism and free trade. He's also got by far the best track record in promoting immigration reform. Which is far more than any of the other candidates could say.

You can't boil this election down to just the war in Iraq. Recent polls in the US show that the economy is the number 1 issue, as it would be in my mind if I lived there. McCain may be the better candidate to handle that issue, maybe not.

I think supporting the war in Iraq is one of the few similarities in policies between McCain and Bush. I also think that the world would be a much better place with McCain as president rather than Bush. He's still not the candidate I would choose.

Maybe you should calm down and stop getting so riled up when you're responding to people. That's half the reason I wasn't sure if you were joking or spouting rabid fanboi-ism. Cut down on the swearing, you come off as just another frothing at the mouth lefty on the intarwebz.

Quote from grandinferno;347142:
This forum is so full of 'drive-by commenters' (from now on referred to as DBCs). Did you watch the video dude? Has anyone here watched the freakin' video???

Aha, people not doing what you want them to in an online forum!? Quick call the internet police!

edit: woops, replaced 'election' with 'economy'

Quote from paladin;347090:
but it's cool to bash republicans, dontcha know. just like it's cool to spell microsoft with a $.

But it's cool to payout ppl bashing those that deserve it - dontchaknow?

But seriously - semantics aside, if you are a republican, you're a **** - fullstop.

;)

What about a republican like Ron Paul? Republicans used to be much more libertarian compared to their neo-con reincarnation that we see these days.

too bad ron paul would never get elected. what, with wanting people to actually take responsibility for themselves.

Quote from Jay;347148:
You seem to be the one getting worked up easily and writing the walls of text. Meanwhile who are you again?

What do you mean who am I? What is that supposed to mean? I'm nobody, just like everybody else. ;)

Quote from uber tard;347149:

Maybe you should calm down and stop getting so riled up when you're responding to people. That's half the reason I wasn't sure if you were joking or spouting rabid fanboi-ism. Cut down on the swearing, you come off as just another frothing at the mouth lefty on the intarwebz.

In all seriousness you're right. I just get a bit upset at people who just take what commercial media says as gospel.

In all honesty I think humanity needs to take the 'citizen of the world' approach as opposed to the 'it doesn't affect me' approach. You guys know what I mean?

I honestly don't think McCain is economically sound, or sound full stop. Have a look at some of the videos on him, especially the presidential running debates. He's even admitted to the media that economics is his weakness. They have committees for that kind of thing anyway... the kind that he openly admitted he would disband and replace with 'people he's been working with for years'... He's just a worry imho...

Well I pointed out 3 areas where he has a proven track record of economic credibilty. Which of his economic policies do you think are weak?

Quote from uber tard;347171:
Well I pointed out 3 areas where he has a proven track record of economic credibilty. Which of his economic policies do you think are weak?

HE thinks he's weak. That's my point. If he has no faith in his economic credentials how can anyone else?

"The issue of economics is something that I've really never understood as well as I should. I understand the basics, the fundamentals, the vision, all that kind of stuff,'' McCain said. "But I would like to have someone I'm close to that really is a good strong economist. As long as Alan Greenspan is around I would certainly use him for advice and counsel."

"I've never been involved in Wall Street, I've never been involved in the financial stuff, the financial workings of the country, so I'd like to have somebody intimately familiar with it..."

... and as a quick observation, any potential presidential candidate who uses the word 'stuff' in that manner is a worry in my book.

An alternate way of looking at it is a man who knows and acknowledges his weaknesses and is willing to admit to it - no president will ever be omniscient, it's somewhat refreshing to see a politician admit to having limits.

Yeah, shame about the wanting to invade more countries and publically acknowledging he doesn't care what the majority of American's think etc.

isn't it pretty much gospel that the majority of americans are stupid? i'd ignore them too!

Quote from paladin;347178:
isn't it pretty much gospel that the majority of americans are stupid? i'd ignore them too!

If I was going to generalise like that, I'd probably use the word 'ignorant' instead of 'stupid'...

Quote from paladin;347175:
An alternate way of looking at it is a man who knows and acknowledges his weaknesses and is willing to admit to it - no president will ever be omniscient, it's somewhat refreshing to see a politician admit to having limits.

Yup.

Quote from grandinferno;347174:
HE thinks he's weak. That's my point. If he has no faith in his economic credentials how can anyone else?

Well it's not much of a point really, it it? I've pointed out areas where he has a proven history of performing strongly when it comes to economic issues. So it wouldn't really be that difficult to beleive he could handle economic issues effectively considering he has done so in the past. Admitting that he personally doesn't have extensive knowledge or experience with finance doesn't mean he can't head an administration which is economically sound. Just the same as I'm sure you would argue that just because Obama doesn't have the political or foriegn policy experience McCain has doesn't mean he would necessarily be worse at it. Which other candidates can you point out that have consistently voted for and supported fiscal conservatism, free trade and small government?

In fact your entire argument so far has had absolutely nothing to do with either McCain's economic policies, past or present, nor his opponents. I'm not trying to support McCain, I'm just trying to work out what would make you think he couldn't manage the US economy, and so far I've got nothing.

Quote from grandinferno;347179:
If I was going to generalise like that, I'd probably use the word 'ignorant' instead of 'stupid'...

Haha, pretty sure he was joking dude. Lighten up, the internet is serious business.

edit: @ pala. heh.

Dilbert: "I started hating people in advance today."

Dogbert: "It saves time."

I was, sort of. But i genuinely believe the majority of ALL people are stupid, and do my best to listen to none of them!

Quote from paladin;347185:
I was, sort of. But i genuinely believe the majority of ALL people are stupid, and do my best to listen to none of them!

^ I'm with stupid.

Quote from grandinferno;347142:
Try reading a bit and forming an opinion of your own... not just based on what you see on commercial television while you're eating your dinner... "Attack, ATTACK". Are you people f*cking insane?? Enough already. Don't you understand that if you take, take, TAKE from these f*cking people, then there's nothing more for them to lose and they have no problem blowing themselves and you up. Don't you understand??

Um, Iran is the country which trains and arms terrorists and suicide bombers who go on to other countries to wreak havok and destruction. The Iranian President has openly stated he wants to wipe an entire country off the map.

I suppose we could just let the Iranians do whatever they want as long as they don't directly attack our own country. Isn't that what Neville Chamberlain did when Nazi Germany attacked and invaded Austria and Czechoslovakia without repercussion?

But hey, when we have a racist, religious-nut leader of a country which trains suicide bombers and is seeking nuclear weapons, I say we not mention war and instead write letters of condemnation which will cow the Iranian religious nuts into submission and peace.

Better nuke 'em eh.... ffs

Quote from OverDrive;347192:
Better nuke 'em eh.... ffs

Giant glass plate ftw. :grin:

F*ck me Jaian. *sigh

Some of the comments in this thread are honestly making my head spin.

My point is that the US President is a figure-head. It's not how good HE is at it, but how good his government is. My point is that if elected he's the face of America. The face of foreign policy and the face of the country's economic strength. If he has no confidence in himself and an inability to communicate properly, then what good is he? I just think my understanding of the role of the president is and your understanding are very different. It's all about perspective I guess.

All I'm saying is that I think it's all about how they market themselves to the world, and thus far, McCain has done a really poor job and Obama has done a lot better... in my opinion.

Quote from Jaian;347191:
Um, Iran is the country which trains and arms terrorists and suicide bombers who go on to other countries to wreak havok and destruction. The Iranian President has openly stated he wants to wipe an entire country off the map.

I suppose we could just let the Iranians do whatever they want as long as they don't directly attack our own country. Isn't that what Neville Chamberlain did when Nazi Germany attacked and invaded Austria and Czechoslovakia without repercussion?

But hey, when we have a racist, religious-nut leader of a country which trains suicide bombers and is seeking nuclear weapons, I say we not mention war and instead write letters of condemnation which will cow the Iranian religious nuts into submission and peace.

TRY READING A BIT AND FORMING AN OPINION OF YOUR OWN. I believe I just said that. If you believe for a second that the west is right and honourable and that the middle east are nut bags you are doing nothing but feeding the war machine. The biggest terrorists in the world are the US. Fact. Not conspiracy. FACT. Try reading some history...

Refer back to my previous post about war in the ME and stop believing everything you see on TV. Warmongering is the LAST thing this world needs. Leave the poor Persians alone.

...and don't bash on about 'waiting for the Iranians to attack our own country'. The US will not get involved unless there's money to be made. Don't . You. See. The. Correlation.

Quote from grandinferno;347196:
My point is that the US President is a figure-head. It's not how good HE is at it, but how good his government is.

And how would you judge how a government would perform in terms of the economy? By looking at their economic policies and aims. You appear to have little to no knowledge in either economics or the policies proposed by McCain and his opponent.

Quote from grandinferno;347196:
My point is that if elected he's the face of America. The face of foreign policy and the face of the country's economic strength. If he has no confidence in himself and an inability to communicate properly, then what good is he? I just think my understanding of the role of the president is and your understanding are very different. It's all about perspective I guess.

Again, someone admitting that they have a weakness and someone having 'no confidence in themselves' are two completely different things.

What's the point of having a president who can speak articulately if he/she inmplements poor policy? You seem to have this idea that the president is just a pretty face for the world to look at and quote on the news.

Quote from Jaian;347191:
I suppose we could just let the Iranians do whatever they want as long as they don't directly attack our own country. Isn't that what Neville Chamberlain did when Nazi Germany attacked and invaded Austria and Czechoslovakia without repercussion?

Haha, no that's not quite it.

[QUOTE=grandinferno;347196]If he has no confidence in himself and an inability to communicate properly, then what good is he? I just think my understanding of the role of the president is and your understanding are very different. It's all about perspective I guess.[/quote]

He's also stated outwright he will trust leading economists to deal with his economic policy. Most people would rather know that a knowledgeable economist helps formulate national economic policies rather than an ex-soldier (McCain) or an ex-lawyer (Obama).

Yes, you are criticising him for being honest about his weakness, yet you also brand him 'McLiar'. If you're going to so virulently hate someone try at least be consistent in your reasons.

[quote]All I'm saying is that [b]I think it's all about how they market themselves to the world[/b], and thus far, McCain has done a really poor job and Obama has done a lot better... in my opinion.[/quote]

You probably haven't realised this, but McCain is actually running for the American Presidential office, not for Secretary-General of the UN.

It's all about how he markets himself to the American people, not to the world.

[quote]TRY READING A BIT AND FORMING AN OPINION OF YOUR OWN.[/quote]

I'm most curious, if not my own, who's opinion have I taken?

[quote]I believe I just said that.[/quote]

I know, but I'm not sure if you exactly understand what having an individual opinion involves. Having an opinion which contradicts your own does not automatically invalidate it.

[quote]If you believe for a second that the west is right and honourable and that the middle east are nut bags you are doing nothing but feeding the war machine.[/quote]

I've never said anything about [i]the west[/i].
I also did not say the Middle East are nut bags. In fact I did not say anything about the Middle East at all.

I specifically mentioned a single Iranian who happens to lead one specific non-Arab country in the Middle East.

Your hyberbole and generalisation are unwarranted and are a sign you have reached your rabid opinions not by rationality or the facts.

[quote]The biggest terrorists in the world are the US. Fact. Not conspiracy. FACT. Try reading some history...[/quote]

That's an opinion, not a fact. I see you are unable to distinguish between the two, no doubt why you are raving about me lacking my own opinion and confusing facts I've presented with as someone else's opinion.

Facts are information which is known to be correct.
An opinion is a personal belief based on informatino which may or may not be true.

Can you clarify whether you understand that your comment "[/i]The biggest terrorists in the world are the US[/i]" is NOT a fact, but in fact an opinion.

[quote]Refer back to my previous post about war in the ME and stop believing everything you see on TV.[/quote]

I don't watch TV.

[quote]Warmongering is the LAST thing this world needs.[/quote]

That's an opinion. I personally think a new Ice Age or global flooding due to climactic changes are the last thing this world needs.

[quote]Leave the poor Persians alone.[/quote]

It works both ways, they also need to stop training terrorists and suicide bombers.

Unless you believe they should have a free reign to promote violence, given you claim that the Americans are the 'biggest terrorists' in the world?

[quote]...and don't bash on about 'waiting for the Iranians to attack our own country'. The US will not get involved unless there's money to be made. Don't . You. See. The. Correlation.[/QUOTE]

Nope, you just wrote two thoughts of yours which independantly would make some sense, but together lack any coherence. Care to clarify?

WOW... some people obviously had fark all to do today!

The democratic race has only just begun.....
l
l
l
V

id hit it

I f*cking hate people that respond to someone with millions of block quotes. Die.

i'm bailin' out of this one. gg.

edit: no i understood exactly what you were saying... i was just trying to get you to provide some kind of justification for the comments you made. which you either couldn't or wouldn't do.

Quote from Jaian;347191:
Um, Iran is the country which trains and arms terrorists and suicide bombers who go on to other countries to wreak havok and destruction. The Iranian President has openly stated he wants to wipe an entire country off the map.

I suppose we could just let the Iranians do whatever they want as long as they don't directly attack our own country.

You most certainly didn't just "specifically mentioned a single Iranian". You mentioned him and the rest of the country as a place that breeds terrorists.

Quote from Jaian;347191:
Can you clarify whether you understand that your comment "The biggest terrorists in the world are the US" is NOT a fact, but in fact an opinion.

No my friend. It's a fact. Look at history. You can't possibly rank any one group higher than the US as far as terrorists in this day and age. You simply cannot. Look at what's going on in Iraq at the moment. It's horrific.

Ponder this definition: ter·ror·ism n. The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

I'm not going to trawl through the internet for hours and gather information on what is blatantly obvious. I'll just leave you with a quote from the great Noam Chomsky (whose clout I dare say is far superior to mine, and who devotes his life to studying such things):

"...the United States happens to be the only state in the world that has been condemned by the World Court for international terrorism, would have been condemned by the Security Council, except that it vetoed the resolution. This referred to the U.S. terrorist war against Nicaragua, the court ordered the United States to desist and pay reparations. The U.S. responded by immediately escalating the crimes, including first official orders to attack what are called soft targets -- undefended civilian targets. This is massive terrorism. It is by no means the worst, and it continues right to the present..."

They, my friend, are FACTS.

Quote from Jaian;347191:
Unless you believe they should have a free reign to promote violence, given you claim that the Americans are the 'biggest terrorists' in the world?

Are you insane? Listen to yourself. Look at America's invasion of Iraq. Can you seriously make that statement and not think twice about it? That statement is laughable.

...

I too am going finish up my input on this topic. I think people are either not picking up what I'm putting down and are just on a different page (uber tard) or are just plain ignorant (porn avatar man I was just addressing).

I really don't give a rats about the US economy or any of that. I care about this world and what will happen to it. I strongly believe we need a (apparently) peaceful man like Obama to be the so-called 'leader of the "free" world'. It's all I care about. I want this craziness to end, I really do. That's all I'm saying...

This topic was originally about Obama's inspirational speech and we should have really stuck to that... I'm sorry I even mentioned McCain's name...

Over and out ladies. Enjoy your evening...

;)

i love the smell of flamebait in the morning.

makes you feel like a man

Bottom line. America will almost certainly invade Iran if McCain is ellected.

The funny thing is, Germany, France and the United Kingdom governments don't believe their nuclear facilities are for anything except civil oriented. Rushing to the United State's aid with haste isn't something I can see any country doing, despite alliances.

The not so funny thing is considering what Iran's so called "allies" would do in retaliation if the USA did attack. North Korea, China, Syria, and probably Russia... it's a clouded subject, but perhaps France and Germany too.

That entire frightening-as-f*ck scenario is what I want to avoid completely. I'm with Grand Inferno completely here... I don't give a f*ck about American economics, I'm paying attention to their election debate for one reason; to see if the world will be burdened with further conflict, or if there's a genuine opportunity for a move in a different direction.

As far as I'm concerned, Obama offers a step forward, while McCain offers another few decades in Iraq and the prospect of invading more countries. I know who I'm rooting for.

rec, I agree with pretty much everything you said. I was just trying to get grandinferno to try and justify this comment:

Quote:
I honestly don't think McCain is economically sound, or sound full stop.

Which his only response for was that he saw a few videos on youtube where McCain admitted economics was not his strong point. He either ignored or was ignorant of McCain's past strong record of tacking economic issues effectively. I pointed out several areas where that had been the case. He also didn't make reference to any economic policies proposed by any candidates. How you could comment on a political candidates economic credentials without citing a single policy, past or present, is utterly mind-boggling.

I was just taking issue with someone putting a pretty strong comment like that out there and having absolutely nothing to back it up with. I guess I was trying to figure out if he was just spouting rabid fanboi-ism or actually had a decent argument.

For the record I would much prefer Obama to win over McCain.

Quote from uber tard;347240:
rec, I agree with pretty much everything you said. I was just trying to get grandinferno to try and justify this comment:

Which his only response for was that he saw a few videos on youtube where McCain admitted economics was not his strong point. He either ignored or was ignorant of McCain's past strong record of tacking economic issues effectively. I pointed out several areas where that had been the case. He also didn't make reference to any economic policies proposed by any candidates. How you could comment on a political candidates economic credentials without citing a single policy, past or present, is utterly mind-boggling.

I was just taking issue with someone putting a pretty strong comment like that out there and having absolutely nothing to back it up with. I guess I was trying to figure out if he was just spouting rabid fanboi-ism or actually had a decent argument.

For the record I would much prefer Obama to win over McCain.

Well I retract that comment then. Sounds like you were just arguing for the sake of arguing... There has been nothing I have seen from any source that has made me think for a second that McCain isn't an idiot. Sure I probably haven't researched it as heavily as you obviously have, and I probably shouldn't have made that comment - but I don't really understand your feverish pursuit of me. FYI I read about McCain's lack of confidence in economics on Economist's View

Glad to have boggled your mind.

maybe he just doesn't like rabid partisanship.

Quote from paladin;347242:
maybe he just doesn't like rabid partisanship.

Offering useless comments as always... Thanks for your input.

discussing politics IS useless, practically everyone is so polarised that they can't bring themselves to admit all sides can have valid points.

as for it being a useless comment - hate to be one to break it to you snowflake, but your posts WERE rabidly partisan. untwist your panties and get on with life.

also,

I'm sorry, I must have missed the 'no joking around' clause at the start of this thread. I didn't realise the gaming community was so serious about their foreign politics.

The fact all sides have valid points but all sides also have bad points is why I ****ing hate voting. Unless its as clear cut as Obama or totally ****ed I never know what to do because every party has dumb as dogshit policies that I dont want my name attached to.

Quote from paladin;347244:
discussing politics IS useless, practically everyone is so polarised that they can't bring themselves to admit all sides can have valid points.

as for it being a useless comment - hate to be one to break it to you snowflake, but your posts WERE rabidly partisan. untwist your panties and get on with life.

also,

I'm sorry, I must have missed the 'no joking around' clause at the start of this thread. I didn't realise the gaming community was so serious about their foreign politics.

Fantastic. Once again, thanks for your input. Glad to have drawn more than a sentence out of you. See you at the next debate.

As I said before, I haven't seen anything from McCain that has impressed me. I'm not blind to it either... I'll admit when I do see such a thing... I'm just going on what I've seen matey.

I have no political persuasion from ANY perspective. I have no party I always vote for and have no real opinion on the internal workings of the US government.

...

I just want to say that this thread was originally about Obama's speech. I, and others started a political discussion which I kind of regret. I would have much preferred this debate to be about the contents of what he said in his speech. Unfortunately nobody did that..

I just enjoy the balance he is trying to introduce to the world. A new way (or an old for some) of thinking. From his views on the relationships between races through to the public and their relationship with the corporation.

I just feel that Obama's perspective is one that needs to be adapted the world over... I just enjoy what I see as his balanced view. I find him interesting, that's all - and marvel at the potential of his leadership of the US as far as foreign policy is concerned.

Quote from Jaian;347254:
If he were stating a fact it would read as follows: "the United States happens to be the only state in the world that has been condemned by the World Court for unlawful use of force".

Sorry, should be the United States happens to be a state in the world that has been condemned by the World Court for unlawful use of force

I'm assuming you're quoting from your now deleted post, thus my initial confusion when I first read #65 and couldn't find where you were referencing from...

I think there is more concrete history that shows the US has been responsible for more terrorist acts than any other country, or individual group. I honestly don't think you can deny that and put it down to 'opinion'. If you honestly think you can, then in turn aren't the 'terrorists' that the media is constantly referring to also merely the government/media's opinion? Surely that logic works. Surely.

The lesson to learn, is that you're allowed to be derogatory and defamatory as long as you agree with rec :P

having read the post, you'd probably just be better off not posting unless you agree with rec.

[QUOTE=grandinferno;347264]I'm assuming you're quoting from your now deleted post, thus my initial confusion when I first read #65 and couldn't find where you were referencing from...[/QUOTE]

I guess I'll have to rewrite this, without that single line referrring to Michael Jackson, yourself, and whatever allegations may have been made about him.

[quote]I just want to say that this thread was originally about Obama's speech. I, and others started a political discussion which I kind of regret. I would have much preferred this debate to be about the contents of what he said in his speech. Unfortunately nobody did that..[/quote]

Let me start this debate then:

The speech shows to me a man who has attended the church of a crazy whitey-hating religious conspiracist nut for 20 years, even appointed that nutjob to his "African American Religious Leadership Committee" last year, without realising that someone would tape his speech and show it to the world.

Once it became public knowledge and threatened to derail his presidential bid, he gradually, in slow steps, began to distance himself from this albatross, ending with a beautifully written speech which tries to deflect all the criticism that his spiritual advisor blames white America for the ills of the world.

"[i]But the remarks that have caused this recent firestorm weren't simply controversial. They weren't simply a religious leader's effort to speak out against perceived injustice. Instead, they expressed a profoundly distorted view of this country - a view that sees white racism as endemic, and that elevates what is wrong with America above all that we know is right with America[/i]" - Obama

To explain this away, he says this man has good and bad sides to him and that he cannot disown him anymore than his family.

Yet after the worlds media broadcasts the speech of his reverend, Obama resigns from the Church claiming outrage.

What this indicates is that Obama is just as deceitful and untrustworthy/backstabbing as Hillary, Bush or McCain is. The only difference being he is too young to have a long track record with which to judge him, and he's extremely charismatic. And the fact that he's a minority, which draws bleeding heart lefties the world over to him.

[quote]You most certainly didn't just "specifically mentioned a single Iranian". You mentioned him and the rest of the country as a place that breeds terrorists.[/quote]

Now you're trying to blur two different statements together to form a new claim which I did not make.

Three things I have said in that post:

"[i]Iran is the country which trains and arms terrorists and suicide bombers"
"The Iranian President has openly stated he wants to wipe an entire country off the map."
"we have a racist, religious-nut leader of a country[/i]"

The first sentence more or less indicates the country 'breeds terrorism'.
The other two sentences are specific to one man, the Iranian President.

You managed to translate that and claim that I said (in your own words) "the middle east are nut bags".

My opinion of a single man in power does not mean I automatically tar 16 independant countries in the Middle East with the same brush.

I suppose though, if you think all ragheads are the same, your interpretation of what I said would make sense.

[quote]No my friend. It's a fact. Look at history. You can't possibly rank any one group higher than the US as far as terrorists in this day and age. You simply cannot.[/quote]

Yes I can, for one very good reason:

[b]The USA is not a terrorist nation.[/b]

[quote]Look at what's going on in Iraq at the moment. It's horrific.[/quote]

I don't have any doubt of that. Most of those horrific acts are being carried out by terrorist Islamic groups. In fact, Iran has a substantial share of responsibility for this.

[quote]Ponder this definition: ter·ror·ism n. The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.[/quote]

Among the many great and wondrous things I have pondered, one has been your definition. These ponderings led me to think of the following incident:

Saturday night I was at Shennanigans and witnessed a bouncer tell an unruly drunk that he would break his face into the pavement if he did not shut up and leave. This was an illegal threat of force by that person against another person with the intent of intimidating him.

Under your defintion he is a terrorist.

You of course use this ridiculous definitition as it suits your needs to claim the USA is the biggest terrorist nation/group in history.

[quote]I'll just leave you with a quote from the great Noam Chomsky (whose clout I dare say is far superior to mine, and who devotes his life to studying such things):[/quote]

I was under the impression that he devotes his life and occupation to studying language.

[quote]***Snip Chomskys quote***

They, my friend, are FACTS.[/quote]

No, he has included facts in his OPINION.

An opinion interlaced with facts does not in itself become a fact.

Once again you have not only shown not only do you leech on other people's opinions rather than form your own, but you cannot distinguish between fact and opinion.

The very first line by Chomsky you quoted is "[i]the United States happens to be the only state in the world that has been condemned by the World Court for [b]international terrorism[/i][/b]"

This is an opinion.

If he were stating a fact it would read as follows: "[i]the United States happens to be a state in the world that has been condemned by the World Court for [b]unlawful use of force[/b][/i]".

The difference is I used the exact wording used by the International Court of Justice, and Chomsky's [b]opinion[/b] is that this is equivalent to international terrorism.

[quote]Are you insane? Listen to yourself. Look at America's invasion of Iraq. Can you seriously make that statement and not think twice about it? That statement is laughable.[/quote]

I don't understand your point. Am I supposed to look at stories of innocent people being accidently killed by American soldiers and say 'Hey look, the Americans are killing people, so let's ignore Iran sending suicide bombers killing hundreds of civilians at local markets'.

You're too busy focusing your rage at the USA that you seem to have forgotten (or perhaps wilfully ignore) that other countries also engage in violent acts, some of which have leaders who openly call for genocide.

Obama himself has said he would attack iran to prevent them getting nuclear weapons as its a country in which a uprising could put those weapons in the hands or extremists....
look it up

PS: Rec go drink a chimet

i undeleted jaian's post because censoring valid debate is a mugs game, suppressing opposing opinions doesn't accomplish anything and if you're going to make it your goal to prevent people from having their feelings hurt on the internet you'll die quite unsatisfied. if you really DO take offense to an off the cuff, undirected paedophile remark, edit te remark, not the entire goddamn post because it doesn't meet your own political agenda.

too bad it made the thread read disjointedly.

Quote from grandinferno;347264:
I think there is more concrete history that shows the US has been responsible for more terrorist acts than any other country, or individual group. I honestly don't think you can deny that and put it down to 'opinion'. If you honestly think you can, then in turn aren't the 'terrorists' that the media is constantly referring to also merely the government/media's opinion? Surely that logic works. Surely.

Not really, I think the main problem stems from defining terrorism.

Personally I think any organisation which has an official policy of targeting civilians would automatically fall under the terrorist umbrella. I'm very hesitant about labelling entire countries as 'terrorist countries', as opposed to 'countries which support terrorism', as it seems more of a sensationalist approach. When countries are at war and committ actions which would be considered terrorism if committed by a para-military/guerilla, they are classified as war crimes as it. eg. The bombing of Nagasaki/Hiroshima was a war-crime, whereas Palestinian suicide bombers targeting nightclubs would be terrorism.

I don't know, I'm bored of this discussion.

ASD

Having no img tags confuses me.

[media]http://www.fingerpuppetmafia.com/jay/2n19swnjd8.gif[/media]

Quote from Harbinger;347268:
The lesson to learn, is that you're allowed to be derogatory and defamatory as long as you agree with rec :P

having read the post, you'd probably just be better off not posting unless you agree with rec.

He wasn't disagreeing with me? He wasn't even replying to me at all.

Quote from paladin;347288:
i undeleted jaian's post because censoring valid debate is a mugs game, suppressing opposing opinions doesn't accomplish anything and if you're going to make it your goal to prevent people from having their feelings hurt on the internet you'll die quite unsatisfied. if you really DO take offense to an off the cuff, undirected paedophile remark, edit te remark, not the entire goddamn post because it doesn't meet your own political agenda.

too bad it made the thread read disjointedly.

Offence was taken, and I was alerted to the post by a member of the community who considered it inappropriate. Low-blows that use things like race or paedophilia as ammunition don't really have a place in a political discussion, or in any debate at all.

The post has been perma-deleted and his revised post has been un-deleted.

Its funny that people are mentioning fiscal responsibility as being a strong point of Senator McCain however his insistance on continuing occupation in Iraq and his strong view on Iran points to Fiscal Irresponsibility.
The biggest drain on the US at this point in time is the War in Iraq. The increase in government spending to continue the fruitless occupation has been a big contributor to inflationary pressures.
McCains economic views over and above the war err on a highly conservative economic rational. His belief in free trade is only due to the fact that the USA will be able to exploit developing nations of primary resources to further build USA's economic advantage.

Quote from Jaian;347273:
Once again you have not only shown not only do you leech on other people's opinions rather than form your own, but you cannot distinguish between fact and opinion.

How do you develop an opinion? Out of thin air? Do you just make it up on the spot? No, you read, listen and see. Because I quote Chomsky you automatically come to the conclusion that can't form my own opinion? Your logic doesn't make sense. I've been giving you my opinion all this time and I break out a quote and I'm 'leeching'? Give me a break.

FYI Chomsky has written many books on America's foreign policy and in fact extensively tours the US and gives talks on that exact topic. He IS a professor in Linguistics. You are right there... but that's not all he does.

Quote from Jaian;347273:
I don't understand your point. Am I supposed to look at stories of innocent people being accidently killed by American soldiers and say 'Hey look, the Americans are killing people, so let's ignore Iran sending suicide bombers killing hundreds of civilians at local markets'.

No. I'm not saying that. I'm not saying ignore anything. I'm stating that instead of just blowing these countries to dust the international community should consider WHY things are the way they are. It almost always leads back the US foreign policy. I've stated this clearly before. You think attacking another middle eastern country is going to stop terrorism. That's WHY there are terrorists. It's a ridiculous proposition.

Quote from Jaian;347273:
You're too busy focusing your rage at the USA that you seem to have forgotten (or perhaps wilfully ignore) that other countries also engage in violent acts, some of which have leaders who openly call for genocide.

Other countries do. Most definitely. But the main power in the world chooses to ignore those countries that continually exercise the most horrific genocide - like most of Africa - and continue focussing its energy on countries that can make them money. In doing this they create more terror around the world - and therefore more terrorists.

You should read a book called 'Tales of an Economic Hitman'. It's an interesting insight into US foreign policy around the world, mostly in the eighties.

Quote from rec;347292:
He wasn't disagreeing with me? He wasn't even replying to me at all.

Offence was taken, and I was alerted to the post by a member of the community who considered it inappropriate. Low-blows that use things like race or paedophilia as ammunition don't really have a place in a political discussion, or in any debate at all.

The post has been perma-deleted and his revised post has been un-deleted.

it wasn't used as ammunition, it was used as a wildly exaggerated example. off-hand deletion of the entire post was a gross overreaction.

Whether it was a gross overreaction or not is completely opinionative. The person offended and the person who contacted me would probably beg to differ, for example (please take note that this example contains no remarks about paedophilia).

If it was used as example to outline a point, without any malice (as you suggest), then there are thousands of better "wild examples," most of which excluding what might be perceived as harshly offensive.

If there was no offence intended, then one of those could have been used, or he could have simply avoided using the poster (grandinferno) in the example altogether.

End of discussion on the issue, and back on topic (or as close to it as anyone has been).

Quote from paladin;347242:
maybe he just doesn't like rabid partisanship.

That actually summed it up pretty well. But yeah, I'm done here for now. =)

edit: hahaha jay that's awesome!

Uber; I noticed that "Kiwifx" made a comment which has answered your passionate search for some justification to grandinferno's comment...

Quote from grandinferno:
I honestly don't think McCain is economically sound, or sound full stop."

Just incase you missed it...

Quote from Kiwifx:
Its funny that people are mentioning fiscal responsibility as being a strong point of Senator McCain however his insistance on continuing occupation in Iraq and his strong view on Iran points to Fiscal Irresponsibility.
The biggest drain on the US at this point in time is the War in Iraq. The increase in government spending to continue the fruitless occupation has been a big contributor to inflationary pressures.
McCains economic views over and above the war err on a highly conservative economic rational. His belief in free trade is only due to the fact that the USA will be able to exploit developing nations of primary resources to further build USA's economic advantage.

No comment on that? Would rather bail? :P

Quote from Jaian;347273:
What this indicates is that Obama is just as deceitful and untrustworthy/backstabbing as Hillary, Bush or McCain is. The only difference being he is too young to have a long track record with which to judge him, and he's extremely charismatic.

I understand your point, but that's politics isn't it? You have to continually cover your arse. You could probably safely say that a majority of politicians are unsavory to some extent or do things in an attempt to keep the majority happy. My point is that I admire Obama's perspective and will to change the way we think about each other and our prejudices, etc. I think it's a bit early to state that he's as 'deceitful and untrustworthy' as Hillary, Bush or McCain and this is contradicted by your own statement that he's 'too young to have a long track record'.

Quote from Jaian;347273:
My opinion of a single man in power does not mean I automatically tar 16 independant countries in the Middle East with the same brush.

I suppose though, if you think all ragheads are the same, your interpretation of what I said would make sense.

If you read my earlier posts, you'll see that that's the last thing I would do or say. If I indicated that in any way it was definitely unintended.

Quote from Jaian;347273:
Most of those horrific acts are being carried out by terrorist Islamic groups. In fact, Iran has a substantial share of responsibility for this.

I don't buy that. Just because the government is funneling propaganda to the media and they report it, it doesn't make it so. I don't deny that they're involved in terrorist activities (especially given the aggressive statements from their leader), but a 'substantial' share?

Quote from Jaian;347273:
Among the many great and wondrous things I have pondered, one has been your definition. These ponderings led me to think of the following incident:

Saturday night I was at Shennanigans and witnessed a bouncer tell an unruly drunk that he would break his face into the pavement if he did not shut up and leave. This was an illegal threat of force by that person against another person with the intent of intimidating him.

Under your defintion he is a terrorist.

That's a ridiculous comparison. Re-read the definition and you'll find that you are extracting the portions you wish to relate to your example. Your pursuit of dissecting the semantics of my argument suggests you are running out of ammunition.

Quote from Jaian;347273:
Personally I think any organisation which has an official policy of targeting civilians would automatically fall under the terrorist umbrella.

Sounds familiar. Talk to a US soldier and he'll tell you what the policy of the US military is in Iraq. I have read endless stories and seen endless documentaries of soldiers stating that they're told to shoot first ask questions later. So just INVADE a country and shoot and bomb their civilians. How does that sit under the umbrella for you?

Once again, I'll reiterate. A new attitude towards the relationship between the west and the middle east needs to be forged. Otherwise we're heading for certain doom. That's all I'm trying to get at. People need to start thinking for themselves then just gorging on what they hear on the news or read in the newspaper.

...

I have addressed the rest of your response in an earlier post.

Sorry, but when you're fighting a war against people who look EXACTLY LIKE THE CIVILIANS, ie, they're not wearing any uniform or flying any flag, you have no CHOICE but to shoot first and ask questions later. Leaving aside the debate over whether they should be there or not, they ARE there and to act otherwise would be placing their own lives at even greater risk.

Quote from paladin;347314:
Sorry, but when you're fighting a war against people who look EXACTLY LIKE THE CIVILIANS, ie, they're not wearing any uniform or flying any flag, you have no CHOICE but to shoot first and ask questions later. Leaving aside the debate over whether they should be there or not, they ARE there and to act otherwise would be placing their own lives at even greater risk.

But dude, that's my point. Who put them there? The US Government. All it does is support my argument that the US government are the biggest terrorist group on this planet atm. It's awful.

I know what you're saying (you can't argue with that - self preservation is a our number one instinct) but I'm talking about the bigger picture.

Quote from rec;347309:
No comment on that? Would rather bail? :P

Haha, I was trying to leave this thread alone. His first point that the war in Iraq is fiscally irresponsible is completely corrent. I was more playing devil's advocate to see if grandinferno had anything to back his statement up with rather then trying to legitimately defend McCain.

His second point is completely unfounded and likely to be utterly wrong. Trying to suggest that McCain's defence of free trade is due to his desire to exploit the developing world is a pretty huge claim. I'd like to see some kind of evidence as to how he could possibly know McCain's personal reasons for defending free trade. More likely is that both economic theory and history have shown that in the majority of cases minimising the barriers to trade increases economic growth and welfare for all parties involved.

Quote from uber tard;347330:
Haha, I was trying to leave this thread alone. His first point that the war in Iraq is fiscally irresponsible is completely corrent. I was more playing devil's advocate to see if grandinferno had anything to back his statement up with rather then trying to legitimately defend McCain.

His second point is completely unfounded and likely to be utterly wrong. Trying to suggest that McCain's defence of free trade is due to his desire to exploit the developing world is a pretty huge claim. I'd like to see some kind of evidence as to how he could possibly know McCain's personal reasons for defending free trade. More likely is that both economic theory and history have shown that in the majority of cases minimising the barriers to trade increases economic growth and welfare for all parties involved.

Although I can't purely speak for McCains individual thought process/rational I can summise from his fiscal conservatism and 'realist' train of thought that he would look to press the USA advantage in economic power over those economies who are suceptible to outside influence (i.e developing economies).
And yes in a perfect world free trade works, with each country finding a source of competitive advantage. However this theory only works when economies are at the same stage of development. At last check the worlds economies do not have this privillage. There are numerous examples in Africa alone, where such economic exploitation is taking place. When large multinational corporations/enterprises have entered developing economies and crushed competition, leaving them as sole traders/monopolists who can in turn make outrageous and often exploitative demands.

The concept is called comparative advantage, and no it works even when economies are at different stages of development. If you understood exactly what comparative advantage is and what it implies for global trade you would realise that statement is incorrect. I understand what it means because I have basically completed an economics degree, just doing 2 more years to turn it into an economics/commerce(finance) dual degree (3 more years with honors).

I don't disagree that there are instances of multinationals creating monopolies in Africa. However, most African states don't have in place policies and/or economic environments that are condusive to competition. Across most of Africa levels of human capital are extrmely low compared to the developed world. Additionally, corruption is rife and insitutions such as law and order are often lacking in maturity. Many states have authoritarian and bureaucratic regimes in place. Transport and utility infrastructure is typically inadaquate and any states are or were burdened by civil strife. Lastly, many African states have policies in place which restrict their openness to the outside world. Some artificially peg their exchange rates so the wealthy elite can buy luxury goods relatively cheaply, while putting controls on capital flows and maintaining high barriers to trade on goods and services.

These factors all mean that the cost of investing and doing business in Africa can be extremely high. In a sense this is discouraging economic activity and competition and encouraging monopolistic and rent seeking behaviour. I think that if African states remedied many of these problems, (easier said than done and the Western world needs to contribute to some of these problems) they'd have firms around the world competing for business in Africa and you'd see much of the monopolistic activity disappear.

While it is very easy for the bleeding-heart lefties to point the finger at multinational corporations for 'exploiting' Africa, they often neglect to mention that the foreign direct investment these companies provide is often vitally important to these countries. African states typically have very low domestic savings and investment rates for the reasons i listed above. Accumulation of physical capital is fundamentally important for economic growth (or in other words, reducing poverty in Africa). If African states can't get this capital domestically and they've got restrictions on foreign capital flows where are they supposed to get it from? Foreign direct investment provides a source of this capital, as well as transferring technology and skills to the workers in the developing economy.

So while some of what you say is correct, it's not quite as simple as you're making it out to be.

By the way, I noticed that these posts have been your first and only contributions to this community. Are you planning on sticking around in this community/forum? Or did you just find this thread via google or something and decided everyone needed to hear your 2c?

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lST-VU9bgPY[/media]

They ate him for breakfast... big time. Destroyed.

*facepalm

The choice of Palin is a big worry IMO. What do you guys think about the possibility she could be leader of the free world? Are you as worried as Matt Damon? lulz. No seriously. What's your take fellas?

I don't see how he was destroyed? He faced a hostile interviewer (supported by others), and answered the questions asked. Barbara Walters was just being stupid eg. trying to downplay Palin selling the plane on ebay saying she sold it at a loss. Of course it was sold at a loss..it's a freaking second hand plane...planes/cars/boats don't usually sell second-hand for the same amount it was bought when new.

I notice the clip ended after they accused him of supporting lies before giving him a chance to address that accusation.

As for Palin, I don't see how she is as big a worry as Obama is; both are inexperienced, yet it's Obama who's running for President, not Palin.

Quote from Jaian;353318:
Barbara Walters was just being stupid eg. trying to downplay Palin selling the plane on ebay saying she sold it at a loss. Of course it was sold at a loss..it's a freaking second hand plane...planes/cars/boats don't usually sell second-hand for the same amount it was bought when new.

True. That was a stupid point to bring up...

Quote from Jaian;353318:
I notice the clip ended after they accused him of supporting lies before giving him a chance to address that accusation.

He addressed it. He addressed it by crying 'oh Obama does that too'. It's bs man. It's typical of any political smear campaign that is inflicted prior to any election. The big issue here was the fact that McCain used the EXACT same phrase weeks earlier, so making such an advert would only make him sound like a hypocrite. Which he did, so now he should pay the price for being so petty. They're all guilty of it and I think it's disgusting... but that's politics.

Quote from Jaian;353318:
As for Palin, I don't see how she is as big a worry as Obama is; both are inexperienced, yet it's Obama who's running for President, not Palin.

Palin becomes president if something happens to (old man) McCain. You know that right? I'd hardly put Obama and Palin in the same inexperienced basket. A mayor of a shitty little town (one quarter the size of Palmerston if you're from around Darwin - to get some perspective) and then Governer of Alaska (one of the smallest states in the US) for the last two years. As opposed to Obama who's was a state senator for 7 years and has been a US senator for the last 3...

I don't like Palin's already war-mongering like attitude either. I know this will piss people off me saying this (as it often does), but I'm sick of the war talk.

"I mean, that is the agreement when you are a NATO ally, is if another country is attacked, you're going to be expected to be called upon and help. And we've got to keep an eye on Russia. For Russia to have exerted such pressure in terms of invading a smaller democratic country, unprovoked, is unacceptable,"

Great, start trash talking one of the biggest countries in the world before you're even elected. Smart.

"...keeping our eye on Russia and Putin and some of his desire to control and to control much more than smaller democratic countries.

His mission, if it is to control energy supplies, also, coming from and through Russia, that's a dangerous position for our world to be in, if we were to allow that to happen."

Hmmmm... a mission to control energy supplies... that sounds familiar.

(Have a read of the CNN interview with Putin... I posted a link in the Georgia topic).

*taps chin

"It is, but I want you to not lose sight of the fact that energy is a foundation of national security. It's that important. It's that significant."

Great basis for 'national security experience'. Hold on to your barrels oil producers around the world!

"Our national leaders are sending U.S. soldiers on a task that is from God."

F*ck me. Who are the extremists?

"They're our next door neighbors and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska."

*facepalm

Interviewer: "So if it felt necessary, if it felt the need to defend itself by taking out Iranian nuclear facilities, that would be all right."
Palin: "We cannot second guess the steps that Israel has to take to defend itself."

pew pew

I won't go on. She didn't know what the Bush Doctrine was (pre-emptive strike malarky) and started to babble something about 'ridding the world of Islamic terrorism'.

You CANNOT put this person in the same boat as Obama.

Btw, all these quotes are from the ONLY interview I have heard. She managed to cram all this bullshit into one interview. Impressive.

My vote would be with Obama. Not only have the Republicans put the US economy into the poo with their war spending and corporate tomfoolery, they've pushed a war that never should have happened... and things will get worse if they stay in (as a party). Now their even bailing home lenders out to the tune of over US$50 billion over the last few months. I despise Hillary Clinton, but if she was the candidate I probably would have voted for her.

As it was in Australia after 11 or so years of Liberal, it's time for a change. Only time will tell if it's a change for the better...

I hope the yanks make a smart choice... I won't keep my fingers crossed.

I thought that given we were (or I was) discussing war I'd sit down and watch Full Metal Jacket again. So many parallels with the situation in Iraq it's unbelievable.

F*ck, enough of the shit hey. Humanity is better than this... aren't we? Unfortunately not yet. Not yet.

"And Joker, you will take off that damn button. How's it gonna look if you get killed wearing a peace symbol?"

Palin is a bit of a nut job. Obama's ticket isn't without its weaknesses, but voting libertarian isn't a serious choice so I'd be going Democrat.

it's such a shame that over the last two decades the conservative side of politics (in the US, but it seems to trickle to other countries as well) has jumped on the batshit ****ing insane neocon bandwagon. Wars, budget deficits and religion aren't what conservative politics are, (or used to be, anyway) about.

Quote from grandinferno;353319:
He addressed it. He addressed it by crying 'oh Obama does that too'. It's bs man. It's typical of any political smear campaign that is inflicted prior to any election.

Not really, Joy accused him of lying, he started defending himself, while he was still talking Walters cut him off, and soon after the clip was ended. He wasn't really given a chance to address the accusations. I've checked just now, he began speaking in defence of himself at the 3:41 mark, and was cut off by Walters at the 3:45 mark midspeech.

I'm not sure how he is expected to address accusations in 4 seconds. All it gives him is time to deny the accusations.

Quote from grandinferno;353319:
The big issue here was the fact that McCain used the EXACT same phrase weeks earlier, so making such an advert would only make him sound like a hypocrite.

He did use it, but there's a difference.

Barack's supporters have already been accused of sexism by his own party (ie. the Hillary supporters), and talk about how the Democrats/media are showing sexist behaviour towards Palin. That's why many Hillary supports have said they will not support Obama after what they saw was a vicious gender-based campaign against their candidate.

Now in the last 8 or 9 days you have the media talking non-stop about Palin as a self-described 'pitbull with lipstick'. Then suddenly Obama brings out the phrase 'you can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig'.

Given the context of the situation, either Obama's camp was severely naive - which I find hard to believe since I think Obama's camp is easily the more intelligent and far-sighted group of the two - or they thought they could get away with it. Either way, Obama deserves the flack he got for using that phrase in the middle of the media constantly replaying her self description as a pitbull with lipstick.

It doesnt matter anyways since Palin got selected as VP candidate alot of polls are putting McCain ahead of Obama now. i.e. alot of americans are dumb....

Quote from grandinferno;353319:
I'd hardly put Obama and Palin in the same inexperienced basket. A mayor of a shitty little town (one quarter the size of Palmerston if you're from around Darwin - to get some perspective) and then Governer of Alaska (one of the smallest states in the US) for the last two years. As opposed to Obama who's was a state senator for 7 years and has been a US senator for the last 3...

Exactly!

Palin actually has real experience as commander-in-chief as opposed to Obama.

What experience exactly does Obama have in his 7 years as a state senator? Well, it meant for 7 years he was one of 50+ senators in Illinois who voted yes or no for bills/requests/budgets that were put to the state senator for approval. You don't make decisions, you vote along with 50 other people to pass or deny the decisions other people make. Aside from learning how to be a politician on a smaller scale, what is the similarity to running a country?
Compare that with being the mayor of a town; it is effectively being head of state/government on a smaller scale.

Let's move up to Obama's experience at the national level: yes, he did gain experience in introducing new bills and working on issues beyond the state level. But primarily his role was voting on issues brought up by others.

Palin became governer of Alaska. Commander in Chief of the Alaskan army/navy/airforce. Head of the state government. Basically a precursor to becoming President of the United States.

Obama was a professional voter, whereas Palin was a professional leader/decision maker, one who had the authority to veto legislation that the politician voters tried to pass through.

Do you know what Palin has in common with George W Bush and Bill Clinton? All three were/are governers of their state prior to making a bid for the White House. None of those three were senators either.

To summarise, Palin has experience more directly relevant to running a country than Obama has. And Obama, not Palin, is running for President.

p.s. DoWhatUWant has a fondness for smoking pole.

Quote from grandinferno;353319:
I don't like Palin's already war-mongering like attitude either. I know this will piss people off me saying this (as it often does), but I'm sick of the war talk.

"I mean, that is the agreement when you are a NATO ally, is if another country is attacked, you're going to be expected to be called upon and help. And we've got to keep an eye on Russia. For Russia to have exerted such pressure in terms of invading a smaller democratic country, unprovoked, is unacceptable,"

Great, start trash talking one of the biggest countries in the world before you're even elected. Smart.

Um, her policy is exactly the same as what Barack Obama's policy would be on the same issue. Unless Barack is planning on reneging on his country's agreement as part of the NATO treaty. The NATO treaty requires that member countries provide military aid should one of their own be attacked.

Georgia has applied to join NATO prior to the current spat with Russia, so it could very well be that next time Russia sends troops into Georgia, it will be a NATO country, which would necessitate the military intervention of over 20 NATO countries, the USA included.

Palin is simply emphasising two things:

1) They will honor their NATO agreement.
2) Invading democratic countries unprovoked is unacceptable.

Obama would never dare disagree with those two points.

That said, Obama has said he would be willing to send American forces into another democratic country against their will, which is a lot more war-like than anything Palin has said, so I'm not sure where you find this outrage against her.

Quote from grandinferno;353319:
"his mission, if it is to control energy supplies, also, coming from and through Russia, that's a dangerous position for our world to be in, if we were to allow that to happen."

Hmmmm... a mission to control energy supplies... that sounds familiar.

Yes, the American people are very concerned about control over their energy supplies. That's why Obama also talks abotu taking back control of their own energy supplies.

"Will we allow ourselves to be held hostage to the whims of tyrants and dictators who control the world's oil wells? Or will we control our own energy and our own destiny?" - Barack Obama, August 2008

You've made me realise though, Obama and McCain are both part of an evil oil-cabal multinational corporation, because no honest President would care about energy control, or how it could affect their country.

At least, that's what you seem to be insinuating. Did you actually have a point here?

Quote from grandinferno;353319:
"Our national leaders are sending U.S. soldiers on a task that is from God."

F*ck me. Who are the extremists?

She was speaking at a local church. Perhaps you think that's the wrong place to talk about God?

But while we're going to take comments out of context, I have to say I'm thoroughly scared of this Barack Obama fanatic:

"We're going to keep on praising together. I am confident that we can create a Kingdom right here on Earth." - Barack Obama, October 2007

This lunatic is obviously planning on creating a theocratic Christian fundamentalist world!

Quote:
Interviewer: "So if it felt necessary, if it felt the need to defend itself by taking out Iranian nuclear facilities, that would be all right."
Palin: "We cannot second guess the steps that Israel has to take to defend itself."

pew pew

What's wrong with this? She didn't say the USA would do anything, she just made it clear she wouldn't object to any steps that Israel would take against Iran. I'd be surprised if Barack or any future President would say otherwise. If you haven't noticed, the American government is quite supportive of Israel in the Middle East.

Quote from grandinferno;353319:
I won't go on. She didn't know what the Bush Doctrine was (pre-emptive strike malarky) and started to babble something about 'ridding the world of Islamic terrorism'.

You CANNOT put this person in the same boat as Obama.

Obama has said he will engage in pre-emptive strikes into democratic countries against their will.

How are they any different?

Quote:
My vote would be with Obama.

That's clear, even if they hold the same positions, you will abuse Palin for hers while praising Obama. Pure hypocrisy.

Quote:
Not only have the Republicans put the US economy into the poo with their war spending and corporate tomfoolery, they've pushed a war that never should have happened... and things will get worse if they stay in (as a party). Now their even bailing home lenders out to the tune of over US$50 billion over the last few months. I despise Hillary Clinton, but if she was the candidate I probably would have voted for her.

So you hate Republicans. That's fine. It would be far easier if you just said 'I hate Palin because she's a Republican, regardless of her experience and policies, but I love Democrats even if they are no different'. Then I wouldn't have had to post all these rebuttals.

Quote:
I hope the yanks make a smart choice... I won't keep my fingers crossed.

Do you honestly expect much of a change regardless of which party is elected?

I'm not going to argue for the sake of arguing as I know you like to Jaian,so I'm just going to address your last post.

1. I wasn't talking about the actual Bush Doctrine, I was talking about her IGNORANCE towards the doctrine (ie. having NO IDEA what the interviewer was talking about).

2. Obama comes across and an educated and his statements most of the time well thought out and well executed. Palin and McCain come across as idiots. They DO NOT hold the same positions as the Democrats on all major issues otherwise what would separate them in the political arena? How can you say that Democrats are no different from Republicans?? Politicians in essence are all the same, but it doesn't make their policies and perspectives the same does it?

I'm making my statement based on the FACTS, not on any political swaying. If the situation in the states were polar opposites then I'd be voting Republican. I base my view on what I see in the current climate, not on any long standing committment to a party.

I can only hope for change man. Hope. The whole world has thought the US were bullies for a while, but you can see their view on the US has gone downhill since Bush was elected...

Instead of bashing me, why don't you present YOUR thoughts on what's going on? Not your thoughts on my thoughts. What, would you vote Republican if you were a US citizen?

If anything doesn't make sense, it's because I just woke up. Prepare for editing...

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/13/opinion/13sat1.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/13/opinion/13herbert.html

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/09/a-first.html

Probably all pro-Democrat sources, but interesting reads none-the-less...