2008 US Presidential Race

[Devious]

hmmm, did the media make George Bush look bad? i think he did that on his own. the media just does a really good job of pointing out his idiocy. right now Bush is the face of the Republicans, and judging by his popularity, i don't think they are doing too well. the elections in '06 that took out a lot of republicans also shows that Americans are tired of the bullshit they've been dealt by the Republican party. it seems pretty clear to me that the American people want change, and they don't see the Republicans as harbingers of that change. it's not just the media saying it, the people are and have ben taking action.

it is funny the people don't like hillary because they say she lies too much. but they let it slide with obama. his recently fired foreign policy adviser admitted that all the stuff he was saying about pulling troops out is all pandering and politics. so here is a guy that is saying he wants to change the typical way of politics but he is playing the same game.

i don't know whether this guy is telling the truth or not, but are you really gonna take the word of a guy who just got fired? he wouldn't just be saying this to get back at his former employer, would he? of course not.

 

[PuffnScruff]

hmmm, did the media make George Bush look bad? i think he did that on his own. the media just does a really good job of pointing out his idiocy. right now Bush is the face of the Republicans, and judging by his popularity, i don't think they are doing too well. the elections in '06 that took out a lot of republicans also shows that Americans are tired of the bullshit they've been dealt by the Republican party. it seems pretty clear to me that the American people want change, and they don't see the Republicans as harbingers of that change. it's not just the media saying it, the people are and have ben taking action.

the media has been anti bush before he became president, while he was running in 2000...but you knew that already right?

since you bring up the 06 elections, the american public doesn't seem to be too satisfied with the democrats that took over in congress seeing as how they had almost single digit approval ratings and have not lived up to anything the promised in the elections. so that could very well come back to bite them in the ass.

i don't know whether this guy is telling the truth or not, but are you really gonna take the word of a guy who just got fired? he wouldn't just be saying this to get back at his former employer, would he? of course not.

obviously you do not follow the elections as close as you would like to believe you do. that person i was talking about is a woman and she was fired for calling hillary a monster. the quote about what she said (in regards to obama pandering and telling people what they want to hear and calling hillary a monster) was actually suposed to be off the record but was printed anyways. also, she wasn't exactly fired, she resigned.

 

[Devious]

no i don't follow the elections too extremely closely, but being a Canadian and not having to participate in the actual election may have something to do with that. so i don't know everything about every situation but i try to stay informed. i made the mistake of assuming the person you were talking about was a man. but you were the one who said "recently fired" and now you say she resigned, so that's where i got that idea from. so you misled me there lol. maybe you should read what you post a little better

but that doesn't make it much better. she clearly is biased against him, so i should take her on her word...why? besides, as i clearly stated previously i do not support Obama, or Clinton, or anyone in this race to be honest. i'm not for or against anyone involved, so whether or not she is telling the truth really doesn't matter to me. and when it comes to politicians i expect them to lie, so this does not exactly come as a bombshell. anyone who believes election promises is a sucker anyway.

 

[Jokerman]

his recently fired foreign policy adviser admitted that all the stuff he was saying about pulling troops out is all pandering and politics.

No she didn't, unless you can provide a link to it. What she (Samantha Power) said was that Obama's talk of withdrawing all US troops from Iraq within 16 months is a “best-case scenario” – and that any new president would have to look at the situation in Iraq as it stood in January 2009. That's her own personal (and anyone with a brain's) assessment of what can be realistically expected, not a comment on Obama's sincerity or desire to get us the hell out as soon as possible.

By the way she is a Harvard professor who won a Pulitzer Prize for her book A Problem from Hell: America and the Age of Genocide. Very good book. She's very smart but not politically shrewd, saying whatever she feels like on the record.

 

[Devious]

^^^Puff just did what most people do: take words and twist them to fit their point. or maybe he just misunderstood what she meant. i was woefully under informed on this situation (as evidenced by not even knowing that it was a woman we were discussing lol) but i looked it up and Jokerman is right, she never said anything along the lines of what Puff thought she was saying. she just pointed out that any new president hoping to pull troops out immediately will have to assess the situation first, rather than just going in and ordering all the troops out, and that in a best case scenario it will still take months and months to get the troops home. she never said anything to the effect that Obama was lying or that it's just all political pandering.

 

[S O F I]

obama threw a fit and walked out of a room full reporters that started to actually ask him tuff questions. that makes him look pretty bad, even though most will still follow the cult of obama

the media is portraying that the county doesnt want another repbulican in the office but the media does not speak for the country. they speak for their inner circle, shareholder, ceos, and business partners of their parent companies.

it is funny the people don't like hillary because they say she lies too much. but they let it slide with obama. his recently fired foreign policy adviser admitted that all the stuff he was saying about pulling troops out is all pandering and politics. so here is a guy that is saying he wants to change the typical way of politics but he is playing the same game.

so, onto todays questions. is Ferraro right when she said this?
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/03/clinton-backer.html

Make the claim that the American people prefer a Republican in the White House again.

 

[Jokerman]

Puff just did what most people do: take words and twist them to fit their point.

Hillary Clinton did the same thing with what Power said. Pretended it meant that what Obama said was just an empty campaign promise. Puff, you need to stop watching Hillary's speeches.

So let's see, when Power calls Hillary a monster and criticizes her, Hillary wants Obama to fire her. But when Power says something that Hillary can twist to her advantage, she's quotable and knows what she's talking about.

 

[Farzin]

Bush 2008.

 

[PuffnScruff]

but you were the one who said "recently fired" and now you say she resigned, so that's where i got that idea from. so you misled me there lol. maybe you should read what you post a little better

.

hey, at least i corrected myself

No she didn't, unless you can provide a link to it. What she (Samantha Power) said was that Obama's talk of withdrawing all US troops from Iraq within 16 months is a “best-case scenario” – and that any new president would have to look at the situation in Iraq as it stood in January 2009. That's her own personal (and anyone with a brain's) assessment of what can be realistically expected, not a comment on Obama's sincerity or desire to get us the hell out as soon as possible.
.

i think i was confusing her a bit with the other aid and policy advisor, Goolsbee, for obama that got some heat recently for saying, or not saying some things in regards to nafta

^^^Puff just did what most people do: take words and twist them to fit their point. or maybe he just misunderstood what she meant. i was woefully under informed on this situation (as evidenced by not even knowing that it was a woman we were discussing lol) but i looked it up and Jokerman is right, she never said anything along the lines of what Puff thought she was saying. she just pointed out that any new president hoping to pull troops out immediately will have to assess the situation first, rather than just going in and ordering all the troops out, and that in a best case scenario it will still take months and months to get the troops home. she never said anything to the effect that Obama was lying or that it's just all political pandering.

regardless of confusing her with the other advisor, it is still claimed that "should be viewed as more about political positioning than a clear articulation of policy plans." was said by Austan Goolsbee. if this was said it still goes to show that obama is playing the same old political games which he talks against

besides, comments by politicians, advisors, etc are always subject to be examined and interpreted by the public to break down what they really mean. we all know they dont exactly come out and say things in a clear cut manner and they do this on purpose.

Make the claim that the American people prefer a Republican in the White House again.

again? have i made that claim once before? i think i have been making the claim that john mccain does have a chance, despite popular opinion, but that is not the same as what you are saying i am claiming.

obviously you are refering to this "the media is portraying that the county doesnt want another repbulican in the office but the media does not speak for the country. they speak for their inner circle, shareholder, ceos, and business partners of their parent companies." but i am not saying the general populartion wants another republican in the white house. i would say the majority doesn't want any of these canidates in the white house. my point was that the media has had an obvious agenda that they are pushing and have been for a few years now on what the public opinion is or should be.

 

[ill-matic]

obama threw a fit and walked out of a room full reporters that started to actually ask him tuff questions. that makes him look pretty bad, even though most will still follow the cult of obama

the media is portraying that the county doesnt want another repbulican in the office but the media does not speak for the country. they speak for their inner circle, shareholder, ceos, and business partners of their parent companies.

it is funny the people don't like hillary because they say she lies too much. but they let it slide with obama. his recently fired foreign policy adviser admitted that all the stuff he was saying about pulling troops out is all pandering and politics. so here is a guy that is saying he wants to change the typical way of politics but he is playing the same game.

so, onto todays questions. is Ferraro right when she said this?
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/03/clinton-backer.html

pandering politics? from the sources i read the advisor merely said that the troop withdrawal would be a couple of months longer than that proposed by Obama, as it would be more realistic. political pandering is a bit of an overstatement...

 

[S O F I]

hey, at least i corrected myself



i think i was confusing her a bit with the other aid and policy advisor, Goolsbee, for obama that got some heat recently for saying, or not saying some things in regards to nafta



regardless of confusing her with the other advisor, it is still claimed that "should be viewed as more about political positioning than a clear articulation of policy plans." was said by Austan Goolsbee. if this was said it still goes to show that obama is playing the same old political games which he talks against

besides, comments by politicians, advisors, etc are always subject to be examined and interpreted by the public to break down what they really mean. we all know they dont exactly come out and say things in a clear cut manner and they do this on purpose.



again? have i made that claim once before? i think i have been making the claim that john mccain does have a chance, despite popular opinion, but that is not the same as what you are saying i am claiming.

obviously you are refering to this "the media is portraying that the county doesnt want another repbulican in the office but the media does not speak for the country. they speak for their inner circle, shareholder, ceos, and business partners of their parent companies." but i am not saying the general populartion wants another republican in the white house. i would say the majority doesn't want any of these canidates in the white house. my point was that the media has had an obvious agenda that they are pushing and have been for a few years now on what the public opinion is or should be.

You're very politically ambivalent. You never have an argument for one thing, you just look to where you can point out that somebody is incorrect. Say something, Puff!!! Where do you stand in this election?

 

[PuffnScruff]

pandering politics? from the sources i read the advisor merely said that the troop withdrawal would be a couple of months longer than that proposed by Obama, as it would be more realistic. political pandering is a bit of an overstatement...

when obama says that it is either pandering and telling the people what they want to hear or he IS completely naive and just plain stupid. there is no way on earth all the troops will come home 6 months after being inaugurated. not even 9 months or 2 years. some troops will be able to come home but for the most part the u.s. will be in iraq for decades to come. i'm not saying they will be fighting a war in 20 years but we will still be there rebuilding, providing security, and training.

You're very politically ambivalent. You never have an argument for one thing, you just look to where you can point out that somebody is incorrect. Say something, Puff!!! Where do you stand in this election?

you know where i stand. we have talked about this. NONE of the people running are good canidates for president and it is a sad, sad outlook for our country when these 3 people are the best we could come up with.

 

[Euphanasia]

^the candidates are a hell of a lot better than any we've had recently

 

[S O F I]

but for the most part the u.s. will be in iraq for decades to come. i'm not saying they will be fighting a war in 20 years but we will still be there rebuilding, providing security, and training.

:thumb:

you know where i stand. we have talked about this. NONE of the people running are good canidates for president and it is a sad, sad outlook for our country when these 3 people are the best we could come up with.

GO RON PAUL!!!