Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

The American Presidency: This Thread Is 'Inartful'.

1356763

Posts

  • DeaconBluesDeaconBlues __BANNED USERS
    edited July 2008
    Does this mean the words "democrats helped pass the Patriot Act" will leave your vocabulary?

    That's not an inconsistent response to the idea that Republicans are entirely responsible for it.

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • DeaconBluesDeaconBlues __BANNED USERS
    edited July 2008
    He alludes to his POW experience all the time and used footage of himself recovering in a military hospital for his first general election ad, but I don't recall him saying that it directly qualifies him to be president.

    So then he's not actually "pressing the POW button" all the time - at least, not in a way that what Clark said would contradict or prevent.

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • YodaTunaYodaTuna Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    Zoolander wrote: »
    The controversy will have been worth it if it keeps McCain from pressing the POW button all the time.

    Yeah uh if I can ask a stupid question, does McCain himself make the case that his military record directly qualifies him for the Presidency? I know I've heard him diss Obama about not being in the military on some policy point, but... does he actually go around saying this all the time?
    - During an interview with National Journal, John McCain was asked if “military service inherently makes somebody better equipped to be commander-in-chief.” McCain said, “Absolutely not…I absolutely don’t believe that it’s necessary.” [National Journal, 2/15/2003]

    - I believe that military service is the most honorable endeavor an American may undertake. But I’ve never believed that lack of military service disqualifies one from occupying positions of political leadership or as Commander and Chief. In America, the people are sovereign, and they decide who is and is not qualified to lead us. [American Legion Speech, 9/7/1999]

    - Earlier this year at Washington’s Gridiron Club, where humor is the required fare, McCain lay bare what underlies his candidacy. Wearing a jacket outlandishly festooned with dozens of fake military medals, McCain said, “The question I ask myself every morning while shaving in front of the mirror is: OK, John, you’re an incredible war hero, an inspiration to all Americans. But what qualifies you to be president of the United States?” [Minneapolis Star Tribune, 11/7/1999]
    He alludes to his POW experience all the time and used footage of himself recovering in a military hospital for his first general election ad, but I don't recall him saying that it directly qualifies him to be president.

    I don't think McCain is saying it qualifies him to be president, just that it's an advantage he has. Here's the general idea of what's going on:

    McCain: I'm running for president. Don't forgot I was a POW.
    Clark: So?

    Clark isn't attacking McCain's service, he's just saying that the fact that he was a POW really has no influence on his possible presidency. Clark is right and McCain isn't wrong for trying to foster votes in this fashion. The media is the villian in this equation.

  • Rufus_ShinraRufus_Shinra Registered User
    edited July 2008
    And if you want a black and white party it's the Republicans. Muslims are evil, America is good.

    There isn't a rolleyes big enough for this hoseshit. No single party owns fearmongering. No single party owns bullheaded thinking on certain issues. If you believe that, you're simply ignorant of history or incapable of instrospection. Want to know who overreacted after 9/11? 98% of America.
    True, the Democrats are in no way innocent of overreaction to 9/11 and terrorism in general. True, Democrats simplify some issues just as much as Republicans, and some issues more than the Republicans (see free trade/protectionism). But, I think when it comes to the matter of the war on terrorism it is fact that the leaders of the Republican party have consistently painted this as an issue of us vs. them. It has gotten to the point that our government denies suspected terrorists of human rights. This is not a case of confirmed terrorists not getting their POW rights, this is an infringement on the most basic rights of not being tortured and the right to habeas corpus.

    It is not just a matter of our values, but of our foreign policy in general. The issue of whether we should go to war in Iraq was a matter of "we fight them over there so we don't have to fight them over here" and the issue of why was simple, "They hate us for our freedom". There is a constant conflagration of Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan and Muslims as one collective entity responsible for terrorism. All of these things have lead to a severely distorted picture of the conflict we currently engage in. This sentiment has been encouraged, facilitated and even created by the Bush administration.

    Now all of these oversimplifications are not the fault of the permanent Republican Party, and the Democratic Party has been party to many of the same things. But the fact is that the Republican party as run by George W. Bush, which is to say the Republican party of the last eight years, has dominated these sentiments and will continue to do so at least for the entirety of this election season.

    I stand by statement.

  • LawndartLawndart Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    And if you want a black and white party it's the Republicans. Muslims are evil, America is good.

    There isn't a rolleyes big enough for this hoseshit. No single party owns fearmongering. No single party owns bullheaded thinking on certain issues. If you believe that, you're simply ignorant of history or incapable of instrospection. Want to know who overreacted after 9/11? 98% of America.

    The over-reactions of the GOP-run Executive branch are both more numerous and more sweeping than the over-reactions of the bipartisan Congress. Attempting to downplay how the Bush Jr. administration has used 9/11 as an excuse for massive foreign policy blunders and a repeated skullfucking of the Constitution with the equivalent of "Well mom, everyone else was doing it" is laughable historic revisionism.

  • wwtMaskwwtMask Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    Guys, guys, we've had this conversation with Deacon like 10 times now. Let's not do this again. He's content to view the world through his black republican eye-glasses, we're content to instead wear our more stylish liberal/Obamacan/Not republican glasses. Who knows which set of eye wear is the least distorting, allowing the wearer to see reality more clearly.
    Spoiler:

    When he dies, I hope they write "Worst Affirmative Action Hire, EVER" on his grave. His corpse should be trolled.
    Twitter - @liberaltruths | Google+ - http://gplus.to/wwtMask | Occupy Tallahassee
  • SalSal Damnedest Little Fellow Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    Man, I don't really like any of these choices. Clark eliminated himself, Biden has his foot in his mouth, Sebelius isn't exciting at all, Gore should keep doing what he's doing now, and Richardson is a huge tool.

    Damn it.

  • ZephyrZephyr Registered User
    edited July 2008
    obama is exciting enough for two

    sebelius!

    16kakxt.jpg
  • unilateralunilateral Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    I'm really pulling for Richardson. I think he did pretty good in those last few debates with just him, Obama and Hillary. He has a lot of foreign policy experience apparently, which is what everyone keeps saying Obama needs. He also seems to have some good experience and positions on energy policies. Plus, he just seems like a nice dude.

  • ScalfinScalfin __BANNED USERS regular
    edited July 2008
    unilateral wrote: »
    I'm really pulling for Richardson. I think he did pretty good in those last few debates with just him, Obama and Hillary. He has a lot of foreign policy experience apparently, which is what everyone keeps saying Obama needs. He also seems to have some good experience and positions on energy policies. Plus, he just seems like a nice dude.

    Yes, but did you hear his explanation for his favorite SCotUS gaffe? He just assumed that anybody appointed by JFK would be the best, with no forethought. With that kind of clumsiness, how is there even a chance that he wouldn't make a mule's ass of himself at least once?

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    The rest of you, I fucking hate you for the fact that I now have a blue dot on this god awful thread.
  • unilateralunilateral Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    Scalfin wrote: »
    unilateral wrote: »
    I'm really pulling for Richardson. I think he did pretty good in those last few debates with just him, Obama and Hillary. He has a lot of foreign policy experience apparently, which is what everyone keeps saying Obama needs. He also seems to have some good experience and positions on energy policies. Plus, he just seems like a nice dude.

    Yes, but did you hear his explanation for his favorite SCotUS gaffe? He just assumed that anybody appointed by JFK would be the best, with no forethought. With that kind of clumsiness, how is there even a chance that he wouldn't make a mule's ass of himself at least once?

    Ah. I admit I haven't really followed him since the primaries. I did a bit of research during that time, but not too in depth. I knew I shoulda done a litte bit more before posting that here.

    But hey, maybe he could be the comic relief of the white house, like Quayle.

  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    unilateral wrote: »
    Scalfin wrote: »
    unilateral wrote: »
    I'm really pulling for Richardson. I think he did pretty good in those last few debates with just him, Obama and Hillary. He has a lot of foreign policy experience apparently, which is what everyone keeps saying Obama needs. He also seems to have some good experience and positions on energy policies. Plus, he just seems like a nice dude.

    Yes, but did you hear his explanation for his favorite SCotUS gaffe? He just assumed that anybody appointed by JFK would be the best, with no forethought. With that kind of clumsiness, how is there even a chance that he wouldn't make a mule's ass of himself at least once?

    Ah. I admit I haven't really followed him since the primaries. I did a bit of research during that time, but not too in depth. I knew I shoulda done a litte bit more before posting that here.

    But hey, maybe he could be the comic relief of the white house, like Quayle.

    ...Obama wants a second term. And Richardson's foreign policy credentials only exist on his resume. Beyond that he's just meh, and arguably behind Obama himself. Either go full bore for the foreign policy experience, like a less gaffe prone Biden/Clark, or go economics.

    tea-1.jpg
  • matisyahumatisyahu Registered User
    edited July 2008
    He alludes to his POW experience all the time and used footage of himself recovering in a military hospital for his first general election ad, but I don't recall him saying that it directly qualifies him to be president.

    So then he's not actually "pressing the POW button" all the time - at least, not in a way that what Clark said would contradict or prevent.

    Regardless of whether McCain frequently advertises his military experience as a presidential qualification, there's a public perception that he's going to be good on foreign policy because he is a famous soldier. That is a wishy-washy sentiment, because being "good on foreign policy" can mean a lot of things, but it's just a prevailing notion in the campaign coverage and it's supported by opinion polls. This is the idea that Clark was trying to contradict, he wasn't trying to "smack down" McCain or whatever the media is running with, by pointing out that McCain's military experience did not include a large command etc etc.

    i dont even like matisyahu and i dont know why i picked this username
  • polajumpolajum Registered User
    edited July 2008
    And if you want a black and white party it's the Republicans. Muslims are evil, America is good.

    There isn't a rolleyes big enough for this hoseshit. No single party owns fearmongering. No single party owns bullheaded thinking on certain issues. If you believe that, you're simply ignorant of history or incapable of instrospection. Want to know who overreacted after 9/11? 98% of America.

    I confess myself a bitter, follow-the-money cynic.

    Who benefited by the overreaction after 9/11? The hawk wing of the Republican party. Who was in charge pushing the overreaction? The same.

  • DracomicronDracomicron Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    Isn't the "POW button" the thing that Mario or Luigi jumps up and hits to knock all the turtles over? I don't think McCain is that spry...

    Okay, Morning Joe just reported that the "enhanced interrogation techniques" taught to operatives in 2002 were the same as those implemented by Red China during the Korean War. Disregarding basic human rights sure didn't take long.

    Of course, my impression of Bush's torture/detainment policy is that it's similar to Henry VIII's.

    "Milord, the Duke of Normandy has been seen in the young lady's company."
    "Throw him into the dungeon!"
    "But, milord, there's no evidence of..."
    "Just do it!"

    Gary Gygax wrote:
    ''The secret we should never let the gamemasters know is that they don't need any rules.''
  • HedgethornHedgethorn Associate Professor of Historical Hobby Horses In the Lions' DenRegistered User regular
    edited July 2008
    Former Black President Happy that he Paved the Way for Obama.
    I...may have helped open the eyes of the American people. And I mean the American people from across the board -- from the poorest to the richest, every color and creed, every religious base -- to prove the possibility there could be an African-American president, a female president, any type of president that puts the people first.

  • ZoolanderZoolander Registered User
    edited July 2008
    Zoolander wrote: »
    The controversy will have been worth it if it keeps McCain from pressing the POW button all the time.

    Yeah uh if I can ask a stupid question, does McCain himself make the case that his military record directly qualifies him for the Presidency? I know I've heard him diss Obama about not being in the military on some policy point, but... does he actually go around saying this all the time?

    Have you seen any of his commercials?

  • Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    Also, those techniques were used to elicit false confessions.

    Brilliant.

    2ezikn6.jpg
  • deowolfdeowolf Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    Vice President Biden had this to say: "Get those fuckin cameras out of my face, I'm trying to watch a ballgame here."

    In my dreams.

    [SIGPIC]acocoSig.jpg[/SIGPIC]
  • deowolfdeowolf Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    And how sad is this this?

    [SIGPIC]acocoSig.jpg[/SIGPIC]
  • DeaconBluesDeaconBlues __BANNED USERS
    edited July 2008
    wwtMask wrote: »
    Guys, guys, we've had this conversation with Deacon like 10 times now. Let's not do this again. He's content to view the world through his black republican eye-glasses, we're content to instead wear our more stylish liberal/Obamacan/Not republican glasses. Who knows which set of eye wear is the least distorting, allowing the wearer to see reality more clearly.

    Well, there's a big difference between the younger Shinra's two posts. The second contains some well thought out, specific critiques - if you think you can get away with "lol republicans think in black and white and hate muslims", think again.

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • DracomicronDracomicron Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    Also, those techniques were used to elicit false confessions.

    Brilliant.

    "Hey, the Communists got people to say exactly what they wanted to hear; that's exactly what we're going for!"

    Gary Gygax wrote:
    ''The secret we should never let the gamemasters know is that they don't need any rules.''
  • wwtMaskwwtMask Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    The fist bump thing is by far the stupidest nontroversy of a campaign season that seems to have been defined by nontroversies.

    When he dies, I hope they write "Worst Affirmative Action Hire, EVER" on his grave. His corpse should be trolled.
    Twitter - @liberaltruths | Google+ - http://gplus.to/wwtMask | Occupy Tallahassee
  • DeaconBluesDeaconBlues __BANNED USERS
    edited July 2008
    Zoolander wrote: »
    Yeah uh if I can ask a stupid question, does McCain himself make the case that his military record directly qualifies him for the Presidency? I know I've heard him diss Obama about not being in the military on some policy point, but... does he actually go around saying this all the time?

    Have you seen any of his commercials?

    Obama mentions biographical stuff in his commercials too. Does the fact that he mentions he was raised by a single mom mean that qualified him to be President? You can call attention to character-shaping issues without making the case they directly qualify you.

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • wwtMaskwwtMask Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    wwtMask wrote: »
    Guys, guys, we've had this conversation with Deacon like 10 times now. Let's not do this again. He's content to view the world through his black republican eye-glasses, we're content to instead wear our more stylish liberal/Obamacan/Not republican glasses. Who knows which set of eye wear is the least distorting, allowing the wearer to see reality more clearly.

    Well, there's a big difference between the younger Shinra's two posts. The second contains some well thought out, specific critiques - if you think you can get away with "lol republicans think in black and white and hate muslims", think again.

    I honestly think you guys are torn over the Muslim hate thing. The smarter Republicans like Muslims because they make for easy scapegoating and fearmongering. The not so smart Republicans don't like Muslims because of scapegoating and fearmongering. I'll concede that there's a very small minority that are sensible and not trying to demonize Muslims.

    When he dies, I hope they write "Worst Affirmative Action Hire, EVER" on his grave. His corpse should be trolled.
    Twitter - @liberaltruths | Google+ - http://gplus.to/wwtMask | Occupy Tallahassee
  • wwtMaskwwtMask Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    Zoolander wrote: »
    Yeah uh if I can ask a stupid question, does McCain himself make the case that his military record directly qualifies him for the Presidency? I know I've heard him diss Obama about not being in the military on some policy point, but... does he actually go around saying this all the time?

    Have you seen any of his commercials?

    Obama mentions biographical stuff in his commercials too. Does the fact that he mentions he was raised by a single mom mean that qualified him to be President? You can call attention to character-shaping issues without making the case they directly qualify you.

    Considering the almost ridiculous deference given to military service in this country, the fact that almost every president in the last 100 years has been in the military at least once, and the fact that you can still find a decent number of people that think it should be a requirement for the presidency, I'm going to say that your Obama example isn't the same as the McCain example. There is clearly an implication of authority on military matters when you mention military service (and combat experience in particular) the way McCain does, whereas the mention of Obama's family is an implication that he's a regular guy.

    When he dies, I hope they write "Worst Affirmative Action Hire, EVER" on his grave. His corpse should be trolled.
    Twitter - @liberaltruths | Google+ - http://gplus.to/wwtMask | Occupy Tallahassee
  • DeaconBluesDeaconBlues __BANNED USERS
    edited July 2008
    wwtMask wrote: »
    I honestly think you guys are torn over the Muslim hate thing. The smarter Republicans like Muslims because they make for easy scapegoating and fearmongering. The not so smart Republicans don't like Muslims because of scapegoating and fearmongering. I'll concede that there's a very small minority that are sensible and not trying to demonize Muslims.

    What specifically are you talking about.

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • ZoolanderZoolander Registered User
    edited July 2008
    Zoolander wrote: »
    Yeah uh if I can ask a stupid question, does McCain himself make the case that his military record directly qualifies him for the Presidency? I know I've heard him diss Obama about not being in the military on some policy point, but... does he actually go around saying this all the time?

    Have you seen any of his commercials?

    Obama mentions biographical stuff in his commercials too. Does the fact that he mentions he was raised by a single mom mean that qualified him to be President? You can call attention to character-shaping issues without making the case they directly qualify you.
    He comes close enough.

  • DeaconBluesDeaconBlues __BANNED USERS
    edited July 2008
    wwtMask wrote: »
    Considering the almost ridiculous deference given to military service in this country, the fact that almost every president in the last 100 years has been in the military at least once, and the fact that you can still find a decent number of people that think it should be a requirement for the presidency, I'm going to say that your Obama example isn't the same as the McCain example.

    So your problem is with widely-held public attitudes and beliefs rather than with McCain himself.

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • DeaconBluesDeaconBlues __BANNED USERS
    edited July 2008
    Zoolander, he's on the record saying that military service isn't a qualification for the Executive.

    So I'm not sure why the Clark thing is such a "a-HA! Take that!" moment.

    They agree.

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • ZoolanderZoolander Registered User
    edited July 2008
    Zoolander, he's on the record saying that military service isn't a qualification for the Executive.

    So I'm not sure why the Clark thing is such a "a-HA! Take that!" moment.

    They agree.
    So tell me, why is the McCain campaign raising such a fuss?

  • CauldCauld Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    Zoolander, he's on the record saying that military service isn't a qualification for the Executive.

    So I'm not sure why the Clark thing is such a "a-HA! Take that!" moment.

    They agree.

    I agree that they agree. But I don't think Clark's comment is an "a-HA! Take That!" moment, I think its more of a "He can't SAY that!" moment.

  • SalSal Damnedest Little Fellow Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080702/ap_on_el_pr/ap_yahoo_poll_candidates_barbecue
    WASHINGTON - People would rather barbecue burgers with Barack Obama than with John McCain.

    ADVERTISEMENT

    While many are still deciding who should be president, by 52 percent to 45 percent they would prefer having Obama than McCain to their summer cookout, according to an Associated Press-Yahoo News poll released Wednesday.

    Men are about evenly divided between the two while women prefer Obama by 11 percentage points. Whites prefer McCain, minorities Obama. And Obama is a more popular guest with younger voters while McCain does best with the oldest.

    Having Obama to a barbecue would be like a relaxed family gathering, while inviting McCain "would be more like a retirement party than something fun," said Wesley Welbourne, 38, a systems engineer from Washington, D.C.

    Party label means a lot, with three-quarters of Democrats picking the Democrat Obama and the same number of Republicans picking McCain, a Republican. Independents are about evenly split.

    "John and I would probably have a lot to talk about," said Republican Michael Mullen, 53, of Merrimac, Mass., like McCain a Navy veteran.

    One in six people saying they'd vote for McCain prefer Obama as their barbecue guest; just one in 20 Obama backers would invite McCain.

    The AP-Yahoo News survey of 1,759 adults was conducted online by Knowledge Networks from June 13-23 and had an overall margin of sampling error of plus or minus 2.3 percentage points. The margin of sampling error for subgroups was larger.

    Barbecuebility, guys!

  • wwtMaskwwtMask Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    wwtMask wrote: »
    Considering the almost ridiculous deference given to military service in this country, the fact that almost every president in the last 100 years has been in the military at least once, and the fact that you can still find a decent number of people that think it should be a requirement for the presidency, I'm going to say that your Obama example isn't the same as the McCain example.

    So your problem is with widely-held public attitudes and beliefs rather than with McCain himself.

    Partly. The other part of the problem is that the McCain campaign is bitch moaning, trying to make it seem like Gen. Clark's comments were out of bounds and that even asking a legitimate question about how his military experience relates to his ability to be president is "swift-boating". We can't fix the problems with public attitudes towards military service when McCain's getting in a hissy fit over this sort of thing.

    When he dies, I hope they write "Worst Affirmative Action Hire, EVER" on his grave. His corpse should be trolled.
    Twitter - @liberaltruths | Google+ - http://gplus.to/wwtMask | Occupy Tallahassee
  • DeaconBluesDeaconBlues __BANNED USERS
    edited July 2008
    I guess that's my question Cauld.. he's not really saying that.
    So tell me, why is the McCain campaign raising such a fuss?

    I personally wouldn't have made such hay about it, but I guess on some level you have to respond if the issue or soundbyte sounds bad. Like, Obama had to respond to the Hussein thing because it sounded bad.

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • CauldCauld Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    I guess that's my question Cauld.. he's not really saying that.


    I admit, I might not be the brightest, especially when it comes to politics, but all these pronouns are confusing me. Who's "he" now?

  • MKRMKR Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    Cauld wrote: »
    I guess that's my question Cauld.. he's not really saying that.


    I admit, I might not be the brightest, especially when it comes to politics, but all these pronouns are confusing me. Who's "he" now?

    "I agree that they agree. But I don't think Clark's comment is an "a-HA! Take That!" moment, I think its more of a "He can't SAY that!" moment."

    I think.

  • Robos A Go GoRobos A Go Go Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    I guess that's my question Cauld.. he's not really saying that.
    So tell me, why is the McCain campaign raising such a fuss?

    I personally wouldn't have made such hay about it, but I guess on some level you have to respond if the issue or soundbyte sounds bad. Like, Obama had to respond to the Hussein thing because it sounded bad.

    The McCain campaign is actually attacking Obama over this, though, saying that he has literally condoned smear attacks.

    That goes beyond responding out of obligation to attempting to make this the kind of issue that decides votes.

  • Gnome-InterruptusGnome-Interruptus Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    I guess that's my question Cauld.. he's not really saying that.
    So tell me, why is the McCain campaign raising such a fuss?

    I personally wouldn't have made such hay about it, but I guess on some level you have to respond if the issue or soundbyte sounds bad. Like, Obama had to respond to the Hussein thing because it sounded bad.

    Or because it feeds into a common misconception that he isnt a Christian.

    I'm not aware of any common misconception that McCain's service record is something he is trying to keep under wraps or should be ashamed of.

    steam_sig.png
    MWO: Adamski
    Brave Frontier: Adamski (481 077 56)
    Puzzles & Dragons: Adamski@pa (313 842 296)
This discussion has been closed.