McCain's the true man, socking it to Obama before either were running for President

College Confidential Community
21

<p>
[quote]
What? Showing that McCain exhibited sincerity and bipartisanship while calling out Obama for being a pawn of the Democrats is "antiprogressive"?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>No, Pug, I was just asking you generally why you have such a vitrolic hatred of progressivism. I don't read your posts anymore. I stopped reading after your bigotry against Muslims post. I don't tolerate people who imply that someone educated by Muslims when he was in elementary school is automatically a Muslim or terrorist. </p>

<p>Of course Democrats had something to do with the financial crisis. But there was plenty of time to fix it when Republicans had absolute control. You're seeing the collapse of unregulated market systems due to greed and fear - just as they collapsed in Europe long ago. As Jeffrey Sachs said today, it's an ideology that failed back when Reagan introduced it and it has continued to fail (at least in our primitive state). That's why Obama's winning - the core ideology of McCain is misguided (if anyone can figure out what that ideology is).</p>

<p>It's kind of scary when you use phrases like "Let's have some straight talk", word for word out of McCain's mouth. That combined with your word-for-word talking points from Hannity leaves me wondering where you are in all of this. </p>

<p>Don't let politics consume you. It's all just opportunism and ideas for how to run a primitive civilization.</p>

22

<p>I'll miss your responses :(</p>

<p>Though always of course, I will stick to the arguments, and let others ramble into psychoanalyzations and personal advice.</p>

<p>I have no problems with Muslims. I do have a problem with the MSM doing anything they can in their power to deflect questions about Obama. Just some guy in his neighborhood. PASS. Never heard anything incendiary from Wright/Pfleger/Farrakhan. It's a repeated pattern. If he can't be straight with people on these issues, why is it such a surprise that many people doubt what he says?
FOXNews.com</a> - 10/10/08 FOX News Poll: The Candidates and Character - Polls | AP Polls | Gallup Poll | Opinion Polls
41-26 think Obama is more shady about his past associations. Of course those 26% are partisan Obama fans. I'm not alone in my view.</p>

<p>I'm sorry to have upset you because you can't accept the fact that Obama, of all people (look above) could possibly have had once been a Muslim. The horror! The concern isn't his religion, it's his frankness. I'm sorry that you take criticism of Obama as somehow against progressivism, but whatever validates your feelings to baselessly accuse me of being so mean. </p>

<p>Of course Democrats had something to do with the financial crisis.</p>

<p>Well, I'm glad that you quit the partisan/emotional shouting and are actually talking about something.</p>

<p>You're right, it's not solely the Democrat's fault for everything wrong with this economy. Bush and many Republicans also acted under the pretense that money didn't matter and spent wildly, leaving us, with a quote, "poison spill" for new spending and whatnot. If he hadn't had done so, we would've had more room to breathe now... But again, he didn't cause this, though certainly, the Republicans didn't take advantage to govern well.</p>

<p>But again, I don't think it's wrong to assert that the current financial storm has much to do with the housing crisis, under policies designed to get people that couldn't afford them to, thinking that they could. This housing crisis was no surprise, as it has plagued already and previously other nations like the UK and Japan. And that wasn't all, institutions that were presented as private entities acted as if they had unlimited backing. Financials weren't sound, cronies got rich, banks were stuck with crap they couldn't get back and incurred huge losses and the taxpayers got stuck with the bill. </p>

<p>Hillary today:"We are in a financial crisis in America," she cautioned. "And it is a crisis born and bred by failed Republican policies, championed by George Bush, John McCain, and the Washington Republicans.</p>

<p>lol</p>

<p>CHRIS CUOMO, ABC NEWS: A little surprising for you to hear the Democrats saying, "This came out of nowhere, this is all about the Republicans. We had nothing to do with this." Nancy Pelosi saying it. She signed the '99 Gramm Bill. She knew what was going on with the SEC. They're all sophisticated people. Is that playing politics in this situation?</p>

<p>Asked about the financial meltdown, unpressed about the GSEs</p>

<p>BILL CLINTON: Well, maybe everybody does that a little bit. I think the responsibility the Democrats have may rest more in resisting any efforts by Republicans in the Congress or by me when I was President to put some standards and tighten up a little on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.</p>

23

<p>The fact that you used FOX News in your analysis should automatically be discredited. That's the same as a liberal turning to Michael Moore for unbiased political analysis.</p>

24

<p>
[quote]
If he can't be straight with people on these issues, why is it such a surprise that many people doubt what he says?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>And why do you not lash out equally against McCain's epic level of flip-flopping on every single issue, denying almost all he once stood for? McCain has built an entire campaign on lies and Palin has repeated lie after lie after lie, even after they have been soundly debunked - from her own past to Obama's "palling around with terrorists". It's disgusting. People have lost faith in McCain/Palin ever telling them the truth. If I could ask them one question, it would be, "If we can't trust you to be honest with us as candidates, how can we trust you as our leaders?" </p>

<p>Seems like you're only accusing one side of not being straight forward. I've seen the MSM talk quite a bit about Ayers and they certainly skewered Obama about Wright. Now they're trying to make everyone scared about Obama's race to keep tension. The problem is - no one really cares. It's all your side has left - going after character rather than solving problems. It's sad, really. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Though always of course, I will stick to the arguments, and let others ramble into psychoanalyzations and personal advice.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>What you don't understand is that you're not just sticking to any coherent arguments. It is necessary to address your deeper psycho-motivations because you present an extremely biased perspective and have proven that credibility is not going to come from you, despite your insistance that you focus on the facts and arguments. That's why it's important to get to the core of YOU and not just address the endless string of meaningless talking points you ramble off.</p>

<p>btw - some more personal advice. I don't know if you ever go to class or have a job, but you spend a lot of time on your arguments. You should know that you're not going to change anyone's mind on these boards. Might as well stop trying.</p>

25

<p>neener neener fox news boo neener I can't accept the article on its own merits I'll rant about the most watched cable news network in America. CNN/MSNBC/ABC/NBC/CBS are completely unbiased and are willing to dig for both sides of the story, FOX is terrible :rolleyes:</p>

<p>You can't resist, huh? Still responding I see :D</p>

<p>You're twisting my words again I see. You've twisted an assertion that Obama has been less than forthright about his past into an assertion that McCain is somehow equally a flipflopper on the issues. 1, I wasn't talking about Obama's pivoting from liberal hero during the primaries into camouflaged centrist, 2, to change your positions to reflect different circumstances is not flip flopping. We can go back and forth on each candidate's flips and flops, but that's not the point. The point is that you're so sensitive to criticism of Obama that you can't even comprehend what I'm getting across.</p>

<p>You can claim media neutrality all that you want, but the fact is, that if the media had done its job, we would be facing two skilled debaters, two experienced candidates, two that agreed on the strategy that has reduced violence by 90% in Iraq, and two that share a moderate view of America (not one that sees us as "basically decent" or sees a big part of America as bitter because he thinks guns/religions are some pillow they hold to keep them comfy in hard times, someone that sees nothing wrong with continuing to work with terrorists that hurt us).</p>

<p>You can think what you want...
Summary</a> of Findings: Many Say Press Has Been Too Tough on Palin
15% of Americans think McCain's been treated too easily, 23% too tough. Barack Obama... 31% think he's been treated with kid gloves, 7% think they've been too mean. 9% D, 8% I pity him too. ???? How is it that more D's and I's see the media being tougher on McCain? </p>

<p>You mean trying "reporting" on Wright, Fleger, Ayers, is tough? Chumming up with the guy and distorting all kinds of things about McCain, telling the people that his campaign is over, touting unsound polls, labeling Republicans as conservatives/right-wing but rarely saying liberal/left-wing. Identifying Republican crooks as R but Democratic crooks as...politicians.</p>

<p>More polls showing how blind you are to what's obvious to most Americans, even Democrats.
Rasmussen</a> Reports™: The most comprehensive public opinion coverage ever provided for a presidential election.
3 months ago...</p>

<p>Rasmussen report recently (last couple of days) on media bias again. Format: R/D/I</p>

<p>Are Reporters Unbiased or Try To Help Candidate They Want to Win?
23% (7/35/24) - Offer unbiased coverage
68% (88/50/68)- Try to help candidate they want to win</p>

<p>Which Candidate Received Best Media Treatment?
61% (87/45[/52) - Obama
11% (4/13/18) - Clinton
14% (4/20/15) - McCain</p>

<p>In Campaign Most Reporters Will.....
51% (87/26/43) - Try to help Barack Obama
28% (7/45/28) - Offer unbiased coverage
9% (1/12/13) - Try to help John McCain</p>

<p>Would Reporters Hide Info That Will Hurt Candidate They Want to Win?
44% (73/23/40) - Yes
33% (13/50/33) - No</p>

<p>Trust on Info About Presidential Campaign?
35% (19/46/38) - News reporters
44% (56/40/35) - Family and friends</p>

<p>Yup, all McCain has left is talking about Obama's lack of character... :D That's all that he talks about in his stumps, right? Yup. It's completely different than Obama mocking McCain's lack of expertise in technology, buying green rather than American cars, mocking his wife's houses/cars. Nope, Obama is all issues, all hope, post partisan, unpolitical. Yup yup. :rolleyes:</p>

<p>You wanna talk about bias... I'm not so biased that I would be able to comprehend that I was talking about Obama's shady associations and his pivoting, but you're too blind to see that and immediately took the opportunity to divert attention to flip flopping. If I had bias, I would think that the media is being mean in barely touching Wright, Ayers, and being completely out of touch from what other Americans can clearly see. If it heats you so much, why don't you spare yourself and let it go? Quit trying to figure me out, and do something that you like. :)</p>

26

<p>Ah, good point, polls that say the media is biased must mean the media is biased. A good portion of Americans polled also disbelieve evolution. Sorry, but polls are an insufficient proof of bias.</p>

<p>Now, as for the "merits" of your argument... well, what is your argument again? That Obama has associated with some people who have done less than desirable things? That's true - and I deem it insignificant, because I don't think those associations shape the way Obama will govern. Do you?</p>

27

<p>
[quote]
The point is that you're so sensitive to criticism of Obama that you can't even comprehend what I'm getting across.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>No. I'm wide open to criticism of Obama - legitimate, reasoned criticism that does not contradict your own candidate. </p>

<p>When you make statements like this:</p>

<p><a href="not%20one%20that%20sees%20us%20as%20%22basically%20decent%22%20or%20sees%20a%20big%20part%20of%20America%20as%20bitter%20because%20he%20thinks%20guns/religions%20are%20some%20pillow%20they%20hold%20to%20keep%20them%20comfy%20in%20hard%20times,%20someone%20that%20sees%20nothing%20wrong%20with%20continuing%20to%20work%20with%20terrorists%20that%20hurt%20us">quote</a>.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I don't see criticism. I see childish twisting of reality to smear another human being. </p>

<p>Look - the title of this thread says it all. You like violence and attacking and all that. Some of us are ready to move on from that, ready to grow up. Bush represented the last stand of a very archaic worldview. Now it's time to move on. That's all. </p>

<p>Is Obama the savior? No. But he's a pretty intelligent guy who makes smart decisions and has withstood the most powerful political machines in the country.</p>

28

<p>Depends on what you mean by evolution. Many Americans accept the fact that species adapt and certain traits become more prominent and dominant over time.</p>

<p>They don't accept the fact that we arose from proteins into bacteria into fish and monkeys and apes. Oh, a good portion of Americans disbelieve such a theory, they're crazy :rolleyes: You're right, they're wrong.</p>

<p>Keep telling yourself the media is mainly objective.</p>

<p>Bailout</a> Talks Go on Amid Presidential Scuffle</p>

<p>ABC News reports:</p>

<pre><code>House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., reportedly said, "We're not the ones trying to blow this up. It's the House Republicans."

Paulson replied, "I know, I know; it's both sides," according to a Treasury Department spokeswoman.
</code></pre>

<p>And how it comes out in the New York Times: <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/26/business/26bailout.html?_r=1&hp=&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/26/business/26bailout.html?_r=1&hp=&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<pre><code>“I didn’t know you were Catholic,” Ms. Pelosi said, a wry reference to Mr. Paulson’s kneeling, according to someone who observed the exchange. She went on: “It’s not me blowing this up, it’s the Republicans.”

Mr. Paulson sighed. “I know. I know.”
</code></pre>

<p>LOL</p>

<p>People need to learn to read. 1, Yes it is bad that Obama has strange friends. 2, It's even worse that he's been less than forthright. And yes, who he chooses as his friends. I think they do matter :rolleyes:</p>

<p>Planned Parenthood: "Well, the first thing I'd do as president is, is sign the Freedom of Choice Act."</p>

<p>ACORN: Katherine Hughes says, "If elected president would you agree in your first 100 days to meet with a delegation of representatives from these various community organizations, the Campaign for Community Values, and so forth, can they count on you in your first 100 days to sit down with them?"</p>

<p>OBAMA: Yes. But let me seen say that before I even get inaugurated, during the transition we're going to be calling all of you in to help us shape the agenda. (cheering) We're going to be having meeting all across the country with community organizations so that you have input into the agenda of the next presidency of the United States of America!</p>

<p>Ayers: Praised his book. A book that compares our justice system to Apartheid. "The U.S.A. – The United States of Amnesia, full of sham innocence and counterfeit virtue. "</p>

<p>So yes, the friends you choose matter, especially when you're going to be president. Friends of hateful ministers, friends of unrepentant terrorists, friends of fraudulent community organizing organizations, friends of Socialist parties, friends of rich dirty slumlords, friends of a tyrant that their people don't like (Odinga), friends with a guy Blagojevich that only got elected because of Obama's support (his machine wielded influence). </p>

<p>Who are you kidding? Of course his friends matter.</p>

29

<p>smart guy</p>

<p>lol</p>

<p>smart decisions</p>

<p>lol</p>

<p>Poor Obama. His supporters can't take heart a figure of speech. If you get mad at Obama getting socked, Mccain said he'll whip Obama's you know what during the debates..:)</p>

<p>Beat the political machine...right... DNC's all pooey because the Clintons took the White House and wiped out the liberals from Congress. Pelosi (House), Carter (esteemed President), Brazile (DNC), wanted nothing to do with Hillary. The media didn't want her. They pushed the superdelegates to an unsurmountable edge but she still managed to get 18 million votes. Obama's activists did well in caucuses but Hillary did great when it was just voting, not convoluted processes.</p>

<p>Alice Palmer
Rezko
Odinga
Blagojevich </p>

<p>Yeah, this guy's just totally out of the political machines.</p>

<p>Obama</a> awarded Illinois grants to relative's group</p>

<p>Completely clean guy that favors the people over the cronies.</p>

<p>Congress.org</a> - Power Rankings 2008
Congress.org</a> - Power Rankings 2008</p>

<p>And as the original post showed, McCain was deeply dissapointed that Obama allowed himself to be a pawn in the Democrat's game rather than act as a truly sincere bipartisan Senator.</p>

30

<p>
[quote]
Mccain said he'll whip Obama's you know what during the debates..

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Still waiting... the town hall format was supposed to be the one for McCain. Guess not...</p>

<p>
[quote]
McCain was deeply dissapointed that Obama allowed himself to be a pawn in the Democrat's game rather than act as a truly sincere bipartisan Senator.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Hello Pot, I'd like you to meet a friend of mine, Kettle.</p>

<p>Now you can understand why many Americans are so disappointed in McCain. If he can't control his own campaign from the Bush / Rove machine, how can he lead a country? If McCain were allowed to be McCain, I can assure you this race would be a lot closer. It reminds me of Gore - after the election the real Gore came out and everybody was like, "Where was that guy?" Same thing will happen here once McCain stops pandering to the far right.</p>

<p>I was for Clinton in this one, but Obama's won me over. You can spend all your days and nights coming up with all these attacks, as if we expect our president to be a heavenly savior and any failing is reason to vote for McCain. </p>

<p>We don't. We expect mature, reasoned, leadership from people who have demonstrated a deep curiosity about life. Not political stunts.</p>

31

<p>


</p>

<p>I know I'm right.</p>

<p>As for your argument regarding Hillary vs. Obama, you'll get no argument from me that the liberal party leadership crowned Obama - I supported Hillary in the primaries - but what's your point? Unless McCain is a Democrat and this is the primaries (I'm more or less sure that's not the case, but hey, I could be wrong), that's irrelevant.</p>

<p>Your chosen example of media bias is very stupid, since the Treasury spokeswoman's account differs from others, and more importantly it was House Republicans who blew up the bailout the first time round. They blamed their no votes on Pelosi's speech, but whether or not it was insulting they still should've voted yes.</p>

<p>Now, your last items:</p>

<p>Planned Parenthood: So? I, like most of Obama's supporters, am pro-choice. What I think about abortion personally should have no bearing on whether or not someone else is allowed to get one.</p>

<p>ACORN: Sorry, but this quote is about community organizations. ACORN is one, but it's not the only one, nor is it necessarily even the most prominent. More importantly, despite the right wing's attempts to portray ACORN as a horrible fraudulent conspiracy, a number none of you ever refute is that over 99% of registrations are valid, and moreover ACORN is legally bound in most states to hand in all completed registration forms, even if they are known to be fake. What's your beef with ACORN again?</p>

<p>Now, your last laundry list of people is a joke. How is Odinga even relevant? Obama is not friends with him, not related to him (Odinga claimed he was, but this claim was dismissed by Obama's Kenyan paternal uncle, who said that they are absolutely not blood relatives), and to my knowledge has never made any indication, positive or negative, of his opinions of the man.</p>

<p>Look, pugfug, if you're going to debate, can we at least try to be honest and not distort. Ayers and ACORN might be slightly relevant (I'd prefer the issues, but you lot on the right seem to like character assassination), but as time goes on and you cast your net wider for anyone who you could tie even peripherally to Obama, your argument looks more and more like a joke.</p>

32

<p>
[quote]
you'll get no argument from me that the liberal party leadership crowned Obama

[/quote]
</p>

<p>If by that, you mean that the likes of the Kennedys and the Carters liked Obama more than Hillary, then that is true. But if you meant that somehow, the powers that be rigged the process to favour Obama, then that's simply not true. For example, Hillary's people got to decide which states voted on Super Tuesday. Do you think it's any coincidence that big states like New York and California, which usually vote much later, went on Super Tuesday? It wasn't. It was specifically designed so that Hillary could achieve her decisive victory by that day. It never happened because Obama was too good of a candidate.</p>

33

<p>Applepie, I'm glad that you're willing to engage in some semblance of debate, unlike others. I'm also glad that you conceded the many points I made.</p>

<p>To you, I say...some "town hall" debate. Brokaw picked the questions. In real town halls, people get picked spontaneously and interesting questions come up. He picked questions directly answerable from each's stump. The format was ridiculous (little room for rebuttal, etc.). Yes both campaigns agreed to the format, of course, to minimize impact and potential fallout, but that didn't make it any less of a failure of a format.</p>

<p>Now you can understand why many Americans are so disappointed in McCain.</p>

<p>???</p>

<p>You argue that Obama is a star rising from the corrupt political machines, I prove he's not, and then you somehow pivot all the way into America's "disappointment" with McCain? pivot swiftly, hope no one catches you, ignore getting called out when you are called out, just like before you pivoted my argument about Obama's lack of forthrightness about his strange friends into flip flopping. McCain: far-right meanie... HAHA</p>

<p>As I said, your constant ignoring and pivoting are telling. bla bla McCain Bush Rove scary I voted for Clinton but now Obama validation bla bla political stunts Obama great "leader"
haha</p>

<p><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/13/us/politics/13mccain.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/13/us/politics/13mccain.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>:)</p>

<p>Personally, I'm more inspired by McCain more than Obama. Traveling the world, community organizing by pressuring banks Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank Fed. Sav. Bank and "registering" voters with ACORN, working in law, serving on the boards of unAmerican haters... I just like McCain's idealism better :D</p>

<p>I know I'm right.</p>

<p><em>pats back</em></p>

<p>Chris, that is your opinion. Fact is, Obama got MI delegates when he pulled his name there. Fact is, DNC was firm in not awarding delegates to FL and MI...wonder why..who won there, and how much of those delegates would have brought it closer to Hillary, who had about the same number of votes, but a proportionally smaller number of delegates? After outrage by the people there, they said ok, you get 0.5 delegates. Obama was silent in representing the people's voice... Until he won and then he called out for the DNC to allow them to have full representation.</p>

<p>Florida</a> Democratic primary, 2008 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Republican legislature forced FL to pull their primary up...which the DNC punished them for... for what? Not following "rules"??? Okay, and you say the machine wasn't for Obama. mmkay.</p>

34

<p>
[quote]
In real town halls, people get picked spontaneously and interesting questions come up.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>...like making bigoted comments against Arabic people? Maybe we should let the elites ask the questions. They seem to know what they're talking about. :)</p>

<p>I can't really understand your arguments anymore. It seems that if anyone who offers a parallel between an attack you make against Obama and a very similar situation in McCain's life, it really throws your whole sense of reality and you resort to accusations of changing the subject.</p>

<p>I don't know if it's an issue of IQ or simply not being able to understand the complexities of the world. Seriously. I don't mean that as an insult. I hope by the time you graduate college you'll have learned to think for yourself and analyze both sides of an issue. That's why educated people tend to be more progressive.</p>

<p>One of the scientifically proven traits of conservatives is a firm mental construct of right versus wrong, good versus evil. </p>

<p>Best to you. Please don't bother to respond with your rambling diatribe. I get it. Nothing new is coming.</p>

35

<p>The thing is, pugfug, we could go around all day. Each candidate has past personal flaws/associations with potentially shady people. But that's not useful. What is useful is to look at those past associations and try to predict future behavior. If you really believe that Obama is itching to turn the country into a Communist regime with help from Ayers and all his other horrible shady acquaintances (note the sarcasm there), I have no more time for you than a person who believes that McCain believes Watergate was a good idea and that people should shoot federal agents in the head because he praised G. Gordon Liddy's "adherence to the principles and philosophies that make our nation great."</p>

<p>But have fun continuing to play in the political muck while the rest of us discuss things that matter.</p>

36

<p>pugfug,</p>

<p>Florida and Michigan got their votes taken away way back in 2007 when nobody knew that Hillary would need those states to keep up with Obama. She was fully in favour of stripping them, and her chief advisor Harold Ickes even voted yes to strip them of their delegates. Of course, they changed their tune in 2008 once they realized they desperately needed those states in order to keep up with Obama, but by then, that was simply cheating.</p>

<p>Amazing how some conservatives are so resentful and jealous of Obama that they're willing to commiserate with their once-sworn enemy, Hillary Clinton.</p>

37

<p>The fact remains that both Clinton and Obama got twisted by the DNC machine to oblige and screw over the state parties. Eventually, Clinton stood up for the people (yeah, it would've benefited her, poo). She called for full representation, Obama stood silent, said "rules rules rules" and only after he won, when before, he said if he won, said they still shouldn't be represented, but eventually caved into Hillary's position.</p>

<p>"Resentful". "Jealous". "My sworn enemy"</p>

<p>LOL yup yup exactly</p>

38

<p>Look, I didn't agree with MI and FL having their delegates stripped, but in no way did the DNC wrangle Clinton and Obama into screwing over the state parties. The state parties screwed themselves over when they decided to move up the primary dates, knowing full well that the rules said they would be stripped of all delegates. That was their choice, and it came with consequences.</p>

<p>By the way pugfug, still waiting for you to tell me why McCain's praise of G. Gordon Liddy doesn't amount to him endorsing shooting federal agents in the head to make sure to kill them.</p>