Thoughts on Obama's Speech at Invesco.

[TeleHoar]

Stage is set up like a Greek Temple.

No liquor for sale at concessions (You know the boxes will be overflowing)

Great a Toga party with no beer!

Instead of the "Parthenon" or the "Acropolis" I say we name this greek temple the "Stephanoupolis."

Celebrities will be spilling out all over the place.

American Idol's Oscar winner Jennifer Hudson to sing the Star-Spangled Banner. (BTW: no banners allowed!) Bruce Springsteen to sing afterwards.

The hottest ticket in Chicago will be in Denver tonight. Obama, Oprah, Chicago's Jennifer Hudson, no wonder Invesco is decorated to look like Soldier Field...all we need now is Mike Ditka pacing the sidelines.

Who's going??

Will it snow tonight??

[CUBUCK]

I just hope they don't tear up the field too bad before Sunday nights game

[Tippster]

It'll be covered.

I think it's overkill and whoever thought of it should have thought some more.

[13]

It'll be covered.

I think it's overkill and whoever thought of it should have thought some more.

seconded. will it even fill up invesco field?

[MrZach]

I'll be there.

The wif scored me a ticket and a ride down.

No beer sales is somewhat saddening.

Anyone else going? Beuller?

[lax]

i think the backdrop was supposed to allude to

http://media.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/content/img/photos/2008/08/28/3284850_t600.jpg

fwiw

[timvwcom]

Here is the stage under construction;

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/stage.gif


And the idea of using classic architecture as a back drop is old news in politics. Hell here is a recent image to prove that;

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/vagop.gif


And like a hudge percent of our public building are fronted by Greek columns, no?

[Rideski]

I'll be there.

The wif scored me a ticket and a ride down.

No beer sales is somewhat saddening.

Anyone else going? Beuller?

You can park at my house and walk if you want. Not positive I will be here might go mtn biking, but it's one of the safer locations within a dozen blocks of the stadium.

[BmillsSkier]

I agree with Tippster that this whole fiasco is poised to blow up in their face. It may not happen tonight, or tomorrow, but this thing is prime fodder for 501c ads down the road.

Oh, and to the OP, I think this speech would have been much more interesting (http://tetongravity.com/forums/showthread.php?t=130820)

[MrZach]

You can park at my house and walk if you want. Not positive I will be here might go mtn biking, but it's one of the safer locations within a dozen blocks of the stadium.

Thanks Rideski! I'm ending up somewhere by the convention center (getting a busride from Fort Collins there - so I won't need a parking spot) and then taking a shuttle or the lightrail (?) to Invesco. I'm pretty much just following the wif around since she's the meal ticket for the night.

[Smokey McPole]

Barry should have made the set look more like that movable palace that Xerxes had in the movie 300. Then he could come out all pierced up and say "That mean John McCain wants you to stand - I only ask that you kneel!".

[surrender_monkey]

i would really like to hear him

[Mott the Hoople]

I'm sure it'll have the same atmosphere ( and socialist rhetoric) of Fidel doing a soccer stadium in Cuba. Sad.

[Dexter Rutecki]

Yeah, but that's just because you're an idiot.

[Smokey McPole]

Yeah, but that's just because you're an idiot.

Dex - we've been through this a thousand times: an idiot calling somebody else an idiot cancells out the idiotness.

[Mach Looney]

Bushopolis 2004:

http://dailykos.com/images/user/19005/30_24_090204_bush_waving_450.jpg

[Smokey McPole]

Cool - Barry's following Bush's lead now?

FOUR MORE YEARS!!!!

[GordonShumway]

Barry should have made the set look more like that movable palace that Xerxes had in the movie 300. Then he could come out all pierced up and say "That mean John McCain wants you to stand - I only ask that you kneel!".

Who is Barry?

[P_McPoser]

Who is Barry?

Barrack Obama. Barry for short. Welcome to 2008. He's kind of big right now.

[Smokey McPole]

adc3MSS5Ydc

[GordonShumway]

Barrack Obama. Barry for short. Welcome to 2008. He's kind of big right now.

Oh I get it, he's doing a little thing there with his name. That's cute.

[smmokan]

I love listening to his sob stories of "average Americans" who have suffered under Bush, who are suddenly going to flourish under him. Give me a fucking break.

Who are the morons that get pumped up over this shit? They meed to get out more, that's for sure.

[72Twenty]

Go Broncos.


oh, wait...

[CUBUCK]

Who are the morons that get pumped up over this shit? They meed to get out more, that's for sure.

Have you been on this message board the past 6-9 months? They are everywhere.

[smmokan]

Yeah, I know.... I guess I just don't associate with the kind of person that gets that fired up. None of my friends are psycho political fucks. Then again, if they were like that, they wouldn't be my friend.

[Summit]

It's a pretty good speech and well delivered.

It's pretty different than what he has been saying in the past. Obama is now pro nuclear power, pro tax cuts, and wants to cut spending? Ummm...

[CUBUCK]

Obama is now pro nuclear power, pro tax cuts, and wants to cut spending? Ummm...

YES WE CAN! YES WE CAN! :rolleyes2

[montanaskier]

while I am far from a political nut or am far from believing that he can do all he says.....I am ready to get some new blood in the white house. I can definately say that Obama, imo, is much fresher and what our country needs right now instead of a 70+ year old man that is out of touch.

Yeah he waffles a bit, but so does McSame and I personally see nothing wrong with evolving your ideas to fit what is actually best.



OBAMA!!!!!

[Dexter Rutecki]

It's a pretty good speech and well delivered.

It's pretty different than what he has been saying in the past. Obama is now pro nuclear power, pro tax cuts, and wants to cut spending? Ummm...

Ummmm, he's said pretty much exactly the same things in every stump speech for the past six months, at least. And all of the above is in accord with the stated policy positions he put out long ago.

Funny how the board conservatives enjoy mocking the idea that anything could possibly change--as if abject failure is the inevitable result.
Things haven't always been like this, and unless the McSame dirty tricks work things will be different.

[altagirl]

It's a pretty good speech and well delivered.

It's pretty different than what he has been saying in the past. Obama is now pro nuclear power, pro tax cuts, and wants to cut spending? Ummm...

How much money have we been blowing in the last several years in Iraq, etc?

[Blurred]

Yup. Great speech. Liking him more and more.
Best statement was "it's not about me, it's about you".....

So far, he hasn't been a douchebag.
If he keeps it up, he'll be the next POTUS.

[David Witherspoon]

Well, I was pretty uncertain about this whole thing, had planned to vote for Putin and move to Puerto Montt, but ... I think there's still a chance here. I think this guy can really run an intelligent, pragmatic, above-the-belt campaign and not only win, but reach out to a big chunk of the traditional conservatives & get some unified action going on.

I think I'm gonna vote for Obama this November.

[truth]

I think I'm gonna vote for Obama this November.

I'm still hoping for a Blurred / Witherspoon ticket.

[Pow4Brains]

He's charismatic that's for sure.

[iceman]

Yup. Great speech. Liking him more and more.
Best statement was "it's not about me, it's about you".....

So far, he hasn't been a douchebag.
If he keeps it up, he'll be the next POTUS.

At least there's a CHANCE he'll help us get back on track.

With McCain there is no such chance.

Excellent speech, good points and well-delivered.

America may once again be the "city on a hill" that it should and could be, my time and money will certainly be working to that end.

[timvwcom]

It's a pretty good speech and well delivered.

It's pretty different than what he has been saying in the past. Obama is now pro nuclear power, pro tax cuts, and wants to cut spending? Ummm...

For those that get most of their news from teh right wing media sources... I could see how this probably IS news. For anyone else who has been paying attention, not so much.

Anyone still doubt this race is already over? Say it out loud; President Barack Obama.

[Blurred]

Anyone still doubt this race is already over? Say it out loud; President Barack Obama.

There's 2 sides to every story.
McCain gets his shot next.

Anyone who has made up their mind before the debates is ignorant.

Obama has a good shot at my vote, but my mind won't be made up until I see the both of them debate. It's easy to rah rah crowds with generalized blanket statements without getting into details.

[nick > jesus]

It's a pretty good speech and well delivered.

It's pretty different than what he has been saying in the past. Obama is now pro nuclear power, pro tax cuts, and wants to cut spending? Ummm...

he has been saying all of those things for months, though not in always in speeches they were in his policy papers. Previously, for a while at least, all he ever said was Change! Hope! etc etc. I was glad to see that he actually talked about some specifics tonight, though I am eagerly awaiting the debates, though i think that McCain will have a hard time hanging with the youthful charismatic speaker that Obama is.

but still he made some rather large promises, that i don't think are achievable. Could i have heard right when he said end dependence on middle eastern oil by 2010? He's only giving himself 11 months to achieve that massive goal. I call bull shit

Also, That stadium was packed. I think it was a really good call to open the speech to the public, making it seems more as if he is the candidate of the people, and lessening the snob/elitist factor

[timvwcom]

...Anyone who has made up their mind before the debates is ignorant...

I don't want 4 more years of Bush/Cheney policies. If that makes me "ignorant", I'm thrilled to be so. :yourock:

[iceman]

Could i have heard right when he said end dependence on middle eastern oil by 2010? He's only giving himself 11 months to achieve that massive goal. I call bull shit

I thought he said (or maybe I just inferred it somehow) "in ten years".

Obviously there's no way for 2010, he knows that at least as well as us. He may have simply misspoken, I'll need to see a transcript.

[nick > jesus]

I thought he said (or maybe I just inferred it somehow) "in ten years".

Obviously there's no way for 2010, he knows that at least as well as us. He may have simply misspoken, I'll need to see a transcript.

No, i think you are correct, i misheard, or, as they say, "misremembered"

[Dexter Rutecki]

He said in ten years, not eleven months. He didn't do that much coke.

And that's still pretty ambitious, but not nearly as impossible as McCain etc. would have you believe.

[13]

i liked it, but i still want to see mccain make his speech next week and then of course there's the debate(s), which obama essentially said "bring 'em on, bitch!"

what i wanna know was, where were the teleprompters? i'm so used to seeing the glass up close to the podium. if it was in the podium itself, he sure as shit wasn't looking.

[GrizzlyFD]

Obama has a good shot at my vote, but my mind won't be made up until I see the both of them debate. It's easy to rah rah crowds with blanket statements without getting into details.

Yea, exactly what I noticed. A lot of over generalizations about government, foreign policy, taxes, economy. But I guess that's how you get a supportive crowd excited.

One thing I didn't like was the hypocrisy all throughout the speech. He started out by saying that the republican economist to McCain saying we have become a nation of whiners was wrong. Then he starts complaining about anything and everything from government to family to education.

He also talks about no opportunity and basically the government not helping or handing out to the poor, then he discusses his own family succeeding from modest beginnings. He talks about a lack of progress from government, though he has been part of the senate that has a historically low approval rating. Then he talks about success from bipartisan bills that have been passed.

Overall I found myself rolling my eyes a lot thinking wow he's leaving out the other side of the story, how's he going to do that or where the money is going to come from to do that. We'll see what happens during the debates.

[AKA]

i liked it, but i still want to see mccain make his speech next week .

I already feel uncomfortable just thinking about it.

[The Dad]

what i wanna know was, where were the teleprompters? i'm so used to seeing the glass up close to the podium. if it was in the podium itself, he sure as shit wasn't looking.

I'd be very surprised if (a) he didn't write this one himself (albeit with thematic input), and (b) he didn't talk from memory (at most, the teleprompter would've been a safety net).

Say whatever else you want to say about him, but he's one of the best public speakers I've ever seen.

[AKA]

It's a pretty good speech and well delivered.

It's pretty different than what he has been saying in the past. Obama is now pro nuclear power, pro tax cuts, and wants to cut spending? Ummm...

what have you been listening to for the past year?

[Blurred]

McCain released this ad tonight-pretty classy
8v_ioN5SyBM

[timvwcom]

...One thing I didn't like was the hypocrisy all throughout the speech. He started out by saying that the republican economist to McCain saying we have become a nation of whiners was wrong. Then he starts complaining about anything and everything from government to family to education...

Understanding..................................... ........................................You


Gramm Stands by Recession Comments (http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/07/10/gramm_stands_by_recession_comm.html)

...But the top adviser to Sen. John McCain repeated his assertion that the economy is not in recession, and he declined to retract the comments quoted yesterday in the Washington Times.

"I'm not going to retract any of it. Every word I said was true," Gramm said.

Gramm stirred up controversy when he called the nation's economic malaise a "mental recession," then added, "We have sort of become a nation of whiners," he said. "You just hear this constant whining, complaining about a loss of competitiveness, America in decline."...

Calling the recession only "mental" and those who complain "whiners" is not the same as discussing actual problems we are experiencing now.

[brice618]

What I think is most sad is that people are making excuses to vote for whoever the are voting for. Why do it, if you can't actually see yourself standing behind the guy? It's bullshit to say "well, at least he's not as gay as the other guy!" (not that there is anything wrong with that).

I can't let myself vote for either, so I'm not going to make the excuse to vote for either. Not voting is a right, sadly its abused by many people who just don't care, but shouldn't it stand for disgust of the options?

[iceman]

That's fine, Brice, it's up to you to do what you want with your vote.

Me, I'm voting for the guy who I think might actually help us, Barack Obama.

But knock yourself out not voting, dude.

[Tippster]

Yup. Great speech. Liking him more and more.
Best statement was "it's not about me, it's about you".....

So far, he hasn't been a douchebag.
If he keeps it up, he'll be the next POTUS.

How the fuck did you get Brett's Password?

Great speech. Nice that now nobody can say anymore "but what is he for..."

I actually think they pulled off the Invesco Field thing pretty well.

[iceman]

McCain released this ad tonight-pretty classy
8v_ioN5SyBM

I hesitated to watch that, thnking you were being sarcastic, but you're right - pretty classy.

[brice618]

That's fine, Brice, it's up to you to do what you want with your vote.

Me, I'm voting for the guy who I think might actually help us, Barack Obama.

But knock yourself out not voting, dude.

I'm glad you're voting with conviction Ice. I just don't seem to find many people on either side doing so.

[Cono Este]

There's 2 sides to every story.
McCain gets his shot next.

.


Not around here dude. You'd need to blast with dynamite first to open some of these minds.


However, McCain will never match Obama's performance tonight, not even on his best day, 20 yrs ago. THis reminds me of 92. Old, stiff, grumpy man vs. young, sharp, well spoken honkey.

[72Twenty]

Anyone still doubt this race is already over? Say it out loud; President Barack Obama.

Heh, you sound like a Patriots fan after the last game of the regular season last year. :D


The playoffs are wrapping up, but they haven't kicked off the Super Bowl just yet.


Just sayin'. ;)



And I miss the old Mile High.

[Tippster]

I already feel uncomfortable just thinking about it.

So does McCain.

We should turn it into a drinking game - everyone chugs when he says "My Friends."

[timvwcom]

So does McCain.

We should turn it into a drinking game - everyone chugs when he says "My Friends."

For the VP debate, when Biden says "Ladies and Gentlemen"...

[nick > jesus]

McCain released this ad tonight-pretty classy
8v_ioN5SyBM

Classy, but kind of sarcastic sounding...

Probably a good move though.

[AKA]

So does McCain.

We should turn it into a drinking game - everyone chugs when he says "My Friends."

I can't hold my booze nearly well enough for a game like that.

[timvwcom]

Heh, you sound like a Patriots fan after the last game of the regular season last year. :D

The playoffs are wrapping up, but they haven't kicked off the Super Bowl just yet.

Just sayin'. ;)

And I miss the old Mile High.

Your doubting is duly noted...

[iceman]

Not around here dude. You'd need to blast with dynamite first to open some of these minds.


However, McCain will never match Obama's performance tonight, not even on his best day, 20 yrs ago. THis reminds me of 92. Old, stiff, grumpy man vs. young, sharp, well spoken honkey.

I know you grew up in some third-world hellhole where you were emotionally traumatized for life, and i feel for you, I do, but who do you think is the "honkey" in this scenario?

Feel free to consult a slang dictionary, you might have more luck looking under "honkie", though.

[Phill]

Could i have heard right when he said end dependence on middle eastern oil by 2010? He's only giving himself 11 months to achieve that massive goal. I call bull shit

i think he said ten years

[ObamasWart]

I can't believe you people fell for that shit. :nonono2:

Just wait for the debates. Still waters run deep. McCain hasn't even started yet, and Obama's already blown his load.

[nick > jesus]

i think he said ten years

yeah he did, which is ambitious, but possible

[The AD]

Who are the morons that get pumped up over this shit? They meed to get out more, that's for sure.

I don't know how you can't be moved by great oration. Obviously you've got to agree with the message, of course.

[jon turner]

What I think is most sad is that people are making excuses to vote for whoever the are voting for. Why do it, if you can't actually see yourself standing behind the guy? It's bullshit to say "well, at least he's not as gay as the other guy!" (not that there is anything wrong with that).

I can't let myself vote for either, so I'm not going to make the excuse to vote for either. Not voting is a right, sadly its abused by many people who just don't care, but shouldn't it stand for disgust of the options?

Why wouldn't you at least pick a third party to vote for instead. Not voting doesn't say much at all, where giving an extra vote to an alternate viewpoint might just make someone in one of the primary parties wonder what policies they need to change to get your vote in the next election instead of going to a 3rd party. A little hopeful perhaps, but it definitely says more in my mind than not voting.

[David Witherspoon]

but shouldn't it stand for disgust of the options?
It stands for shirking.

[Tippster]

BTW - the prompters were there. The Glass squares on stands to his right and left are reflectors for upward facing prompters, and there is usually a huge one right above the center camera position.

[The Dad]

Excellent line on TDS's faux Obama video intro: "Every time Obama speaks, an angel has an orgasm."

[Blurred]

tall-eee-ban

Any of you get the memo?

[ObamasWart]

http://www.tetongravity.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=45634&stc=1&d=1219984422

http://www.tetongravity.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=45635&stc=1&d=1219984436

[Rubicon]

Calling the recession...

The only thing recessing around here is the Obamiac's connection to reality.

"GDP grew at a 3.3 percent annual rate in the April-June quarter"

I give most people credit for being smart enough to know that a smooth talker does not equal a competent leader yet this guy, who has a non existent resume, is causing a lot of people to swoon every time he recites a speech. Maybe I give people too much credit.

All things being equal though, I don't see any way McCain will be able to top Obama's speech tonight. Obama is just good at this kind of thing.

I'm looking forward to hearing McCain's speech next week. But more than that I'm looking forward to the debates. I really hope the debates are structures so that the two candidates have to interact on the issues, rather than just recite position statments.

[Rubicon]

I can't hold my booze nearly well enough for a game like that.

I don't think any of us around here can, and that's saying something.

[ObamasWart]

http://www.tetongravity.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=45636&stc=1&d=1219984873

[timvwcom]

The only thing recessing around here is the Obamiac's connection to reality.

"GDP grew at a 3.3 percent annual rate in the April-June quarter"...

If I was a betting man I'd say the Business Cycle Dating Committee at NBER will end up calling this a recession even WITHOUT 2 consecutive quarters of GDP decreases... But I'm a financial maroon, what do I know?

[TJ.Brk]

I can't believe you people fell for that shit. :nonono2:

Just wait for the debates. Still waters run deep. McCain hasn't even started yet, and Obama's already blown his load.


Hey Suit. I thought you banned GW? :fm:

[jon turner]

The only thing recessing around here is the Obamiac's connection to reality.

"GDP grew at a 3.3 percent annual rate in the April-June quarter"

I give most people credit for being smart enough to know that a smooth talker does not equal a competent leader yet this guy, who has a non existent resume, is causing a lot of people to swoon every time he recites a speech. Maybe I give people too much credit.



GDP isn't everything, and there are more and more people arguing for more ways of measuring the economy than the traditional tallies which don't always show the whole picture.

Read a good summary here of what has happened to the middle class:

http://www.epi.org/content.cfm/webfeatures_snapshots_20080827

"Compared to 1990s, middle-class working families lose ground in the 2000s

by Jared Bernstein

The economy expanded over the 2000s, and working families were highly productive, as output per hour rose 18% from 2000 to 2007. But despite their contributions to the economy's growth, middle-income, working-age households—those headed by someone less than 65—lost ground over these years. Their median income, after adjusting for inflation, fell $2,000 between 2000 and 2007, from about $58,500 to $56,500 (2007 dollars).

The trend was very different in the 1990s. After declining in the recession (and the jobless recovery that followed), the median income of working-age households reversed course and rose consistently up through 2000. In fact, over the 1990s (1989-2000) median income was up almost 10%, or about $5,200. Had this 10% growth rate prevailed in the 2000s, the median income of working-age households would have gone up $3,600 instead of falling $2,000."

[Gnarlito]

Here is the stage under construction;

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/stage.gif


And the idea of using classic architecture as a back drop is old news in politics. Hell here is a recent image to prove that;

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/vagop.gif


And like a hudge percent of our public building are fronted by Greek columns, no?

"Nothing says 'I've got money and power' like marble columns (http://www.clipjunkie.com/SNL---Marble-Columns-vid1119.html)".

[orange]

What a terribly fucking boring alias...

[edit] the wart. that is... [edit]

[timvwcom]

"Nothing says 'I've got money and power' like marble columns (http://www.clipjunkie.com/SNL---Marble-Columns-vid1119.html)".

Too true!!!





Psst... you McCain supporters;

http://www.bobcesca.com/images/mccain_official_portrait.jpg
(official portrait BTW)

http://www.bobcesca.com/images/mccain_columns2.jpg

http://www.bobcesca.com/images/mccain_columns3.jpg

http://www.bobcesca.com/images/mccain_columns4.jpg

[gorms]

I give most people credit for being smart enough to know that a smooth talker does not equal a competent leader

I would put communication in the top of the skill set necessary for leadership.

[tarkman1]

I can't believe you people fell for that shit. :nonono2:

Just wait for the debates. Still waters run deep. McCain hasn't even started yet, and Obama's already blown his load.

Are you kidding me, McCain will not know what hit 'em in a debate. Winning a debate has little to do with the position you defend, but how you defend it. The better debater will probably win regardless of position. I think a former editor of the Harvard Law Review knows a formidable amount of being able to see two sides of an issue and have an inherent advantage.

[Pow4Brains]

The only thing recessing around here is the Obamiac's connection to reality.

"GDP grew at a 3.3 percent annual rate in the April-June quarter"

I give most people credit for being smart enough to know that a smooth talker does not equal a competent leader yet this guy, who has a non existent resume, is causing a lot of people to swoon every time he recites a speech. Maybe I give people too much credit.

All things being equal though, I don't see any way McCain will be able to top Obama's speech tonight. Obama is just good at this kind of thing.

I'm looking forward to hearing McCain's speech next week. But more than that I'm looking forward to the debates. I really hope the debates are structures so that the two candidates have to interact on the issues, rather than just recite position statments.

Isn't that the purpose of a leader though, to motivate and inspire people? Reagan was an actor for christ's sake.

[iceman]

The only thing recessing around here is the Obamiac's connection to reality.

"GDP grew at a 3.3 percent annual rate in the April-June quarter"

I give most people credit for being smart enough to know that a smooth talker does not equal a competent leader yet this guy, who has a non existent resume, is causing a lot of people to swoon every time he recites a speech. Maybe I give people too much credit.

All things being equal though, I don't see any way McCain will be able to top Obama's speech tonight. Obama is just good at this kind of thing.

I'm looking forward to hearing McCain's speech next week. But more than that I'm looking forward to the debates. I really hope the debates are structures so that the two candidates have to interact on the issues, rather than just recite position statments.

Pigs get fed and hogs get slaughtered.

which one are you?

[Rubicon]

GDP isn't everything, and there are more and more people arguing for more ways of measuring the economy than the traditional tallies which don't always show the whole picture.


I agree. But when a concept is being used to further a political agenda, accepted definitions need to apply. We are in danger of loosing the language otherwise.


Thanks for the link. I'll take a look at it.




I would put communication in the top of the skill set necessary for leadership.

I wouldn't. It's up there, but good judgment is more important if I were forced to choose one over the other. Good judgment is something that is gained through experience, of which Obama has painfully little and nothing to show for what little he does claim to have.

[timvwcom]

I agree. But when a concept is being used to further a political agenda, accepted definitions need to apply. We are in danger of loosing the language otherwise.

Thanks for the link. I'll take a look at it.

The "accepted definition" of a recession is what ever NBER says it is... PERIOD.


I wouldn't. It's up there, but good judgment is more important if I were forced to choose one over the other. Good judgment is something that is gained through experience, of which Obama has painfully little and nothing to show for what little he does claim to have.

Ummm... by this standard George W Bush with 7.5 years of "experience" as the ACTUAL President would have fantastically "good judgment". This description is clearly FAIL.

[iceman]

I wouldn't. It's up there, but good judgment is more important if I were forced to choose one over the other. Good judgment is something that is gained through experience, of which Obama has painfully little and nothing to show for what little he does claim to have.

Well at least he wasn't 894th out of a class of 899.

Fifth from last.

And if you want a good laugh, look up his flight records. They wouldn't even let him fly the good planes anymore, so he wrecked a cheaper one the last time.

Anything McCain has is because of his father and his wife.

Of course it's still better than being a fucking male cheerleader like GWB, how the Democrats decided to give him a pass on that is beyond me.

[gonehuckin]

Go Broncos.


I named my TGR fantasy football team "Go Broncos". That way everytime some refers to me kicking their ass they have to say "Go Broncos".


If you think GDP is the only measure (or even a good one) of a healthy economy then I suggest an Intro to Econ class at your local institution of higher learning.

Obama's speech was articulate and well written. It was even better delivered. Possibly one of the best political speeches of my political lifetime (which is only ten years). It could be the context of it occuring in my hometown, it being the first black man to accept a major party nomination, and that its from the party that I typically vote for. As weird as it sounds, it kind of makes me proud.

I don't think McCain is nearly that good at huge venue speeches and its too bad for his camp that he can't do a small townhall style acceptance. And I like McCain but he's reached too far to the right over recent history for my taste and I think its mostly for political expediency. Kinda like Leiberman.

Whoever you're going to vote for, if you haven't figured it out by now then you're way too impressionable to be making rational decisions.

I'm all for having an open mind and discovering each's individual policies positions and attitude but wholly goodness, we've been listening to this guys for a long time.

And to be honest, for better or worse, McCain doesn't have the confidence that Obama has. At least not the overt confidence.


And the race continues.......

[Rasputin]

Of course it's still better than being a fucking male cheerleader like GWB, how the Democrats decided to give him a pass on that is beyond me.

Especially the second time around, because that was his primary function in the Cheney administration during the first term. :wink:

[Rubicon]

Isn't that the purpose of a leader though, to motivate and inspire people? Reagan was an actor for christ's sake.


Depends on who you listen to. Obama would tell you that the purpose of a leader is to make your life better and solve societies problems. A lot of people are being inspired by that idea. The American dream has it's roots in people being inspired by what they can accomplish for themselves if the government stays out of their way. Obama's message seems to be that the American dream has it's roots in what the government can do for you, if you just let it. I find this shift in mindset to be very disturbing.




Pigs get fed and hogs get slaughtered.

which one are you?

Still looking for the balance and not happy with what I am finding.

[Dexter Rutecki]

I agree. But when a concept is being used to further a political agenda, accepted definitions need to apply. We are in danger of loosing the language otherwise.


Sounds like quite a bit of hyperbole in discussing whether or not the benchmarks for recession (which we never are quite sure of reaching until after the case anyway) have been met. Could 'loosing' the language also put us in danger of losing it?



I wouldn't. It's up there, but good judgment is more important if I were forced to choose one over the other. Good judgment is something that is gained through experience, of which Obama has painfully little and nothing to show for what little he does claim to have.

Timvw has already pointed out the very painful irony in this. Obama's judgment has been better on all the current issues, and that's all that matters.
Funny that GWB's nearly complete lack of experience (to wit, his part time job as governor) or serious attention to anything relevant was an issue to the conservatives in 2000.

[gorms]

Depends on who you listen to. Obama would tell you that the purpose of a leader is to make your life better and solve societies problems. A lot of people are being inspired by that idea. The American dream has it's roots in people being inspired by what they can accomplish for themselves if the government stays out of their way. Obama's message seems to be that the American dream has it's roots in what the government can do for you, if you just let it. I find this shift in mindset to be very disturbing.

I find his message to have more mass appeal. Give everyone a chance to find the golden ticket-not just the girl who knows what a snozberry tastes like.

[Rasputin]

Depends on who you listen to. Obama would tell you that the purpose of a leader is to make your life better and solve societies problems. A lot of people are being inspired by that idea. The American dream has it's roots in people being inspired by what they can accomplish for themselves if the government stays out of their way. Obama's message seems to be that the American dream has it's roots in what the government can do for you, if you just let it. I find this shift in mindset to be very disturbing.


Don't you get dizzy spinning like that? Don't you feel a little dirty being so consistently intellectually dishonest? It's like you have a program that takes every circumstance and converts it into Rove-speak. I suppose for those who lack their own perspective, and higher brain functions, it's as close to thought as they can get, but it's really pretty sad. :nonono2:

[iceman]

Snozberries tastle like burning. Wait, never mind, they taste like snozberries.

[Rubicon]

Well at least he wasn't 894th out of a class of 899.

Fifth from last.

And if you want a good laugh, look up his flight records. They wouldn't even let him fly the good planes anymore, so he wrecked a cheaper one the last time.



Yeah, I know. He also managed to blow up a US aircraft carrier during his deployment. USS Forrestal I believe. He caused more damage to the US Navy than the Vietcong did.


I'm not saying McCain is a good choice. But I do think Obama is a very bad choice. Unfortunately we have to choose one or the other.

[iceman]

Yeah, I know. He also managed to blow up a US aircraft carrier during his deployment. USS Forrestal I believe. He caused more damage to the US Navy than the Vietcong did.


Don't get me wrong, I think it's hilarious and it's about what I would do.

But i don't think I should be President.

[Rasputin]

Yeah, I know. He also managed to blow up a US aircraft carrier during his deployment. USS Forrestal I believe. He caused more damage to the US Navy than the Vietcong did.




In all fairness, I have an acquaintance who was on the flight deck of the Forrestal during the incident in question, and he claims it was NOT McCain's fault.

Not to take away from his incompetence, he still deserves his reputation for mediocrity, but I like to be fair, that's why I'm not a Republican. :smile:

[Dexter Rutecki]

I thought John Kerry was responsible for the Forrestal fire. That's what the Swiftboat people told me.

[The Dad]

I think its mostly for political expediency. Kinda like Leiberman.

Lieberman has always been a DINO. Specifically, he's one of a particular variety of Jewish DINO -- he really would be a Republican if he didn't know how they talk about us at the Club, when they think we're not around.

[Rubicon]

Obama's judgment has been better on all the current issues, and that's all that matters.

He said the Surge in Iraq wouldn't work. He was wrong.
He said the DC gun ban was constitutional. He was wrong.
He said the economy is in trouble yet he picks a VP who ABC news is reporting is responsible for hundreds of thousands of Americans going into foreclosure and losing their homes.
He said that airing up your tires will save as much energy as would be gained from drilling new wells.
He said that a major problem in Afghanistan was that the Arabic translators were tied up in Iraq(psst, Arabic isn't spoken in Afghanistan).
He said that the Georgian dispute should be brought before the UN security council, seemingly oblivious to the fact that Russia sits on the security council and holds veto power there.

There's more...

When it comes to current issues it sounds like his judgment is sucking pretty hard and he hasn't even been elected yet.

[Rubicon]

Could 'loosing' the language also put us in danger of losing it?


I spell the way you think.

Unfortunately for you there is no "thought check" add on for Firefox to make you seem normal.

[rideit]

The American dream has it's roots in people being inspired by what they can accomplish for themselves if the government stays out of their way (and they are allowed to FUCK OVER the little people/natives/etc) along the way...



Still looking for the balance and not happy with what I am finding.
Rube, I luv ya, pastrami eating brethren, but you do know that the 'American Dream' has involved lots-n-lots of carcasses and nightmares along the way. The 'Robber-Barrons' didn't exactly enrich the lives of the folks who died building the railroads, often of horrible work related deaths. Just a counterpoint...many, many people died (and were horribly maimed) in order to make the 'American Dream' possible for a few. A VERY few. A very, VERY,VERY few.

I know it's a bit of a downer...but if your family immigrated (poor) way back when, they definitely suffered from 'rampant capitalism'.

And if you can't acknowledge that (that) is a part of 'the 'merican' dream, well...you are in denial.
Reality is brutal, and can support many takes on economics. But the truth is, most suffer.

[timvwcom]

He said the Surge in Iraq wouldn't work. He was wrong.
He said the DC gun ban was constitutional. He was wrong.
He said the economy is in trouble yet he picks a VP who ABC news is reporting is responsible for hundreds of thousands of Americans going into foreclosure and losing their homes.
He said that airing up your tires will save as much energy as would be gained from drilling new wells.
He said that a major problem in Afghanistan was that the Arabic translators were tied up in Iraq(psst, Arabic isn't spoken in Afghanistan).
He said that the Georgian dispute should be brought before the UN security council, seemingly oblivious to the fact that Russia sits on the security council and holds veto power there.

There's more...

When it comes to current issues it sounds like his judgment is sucking pretty hard and he hasn't even been elected yet.

OMG... I won't take on each and every one of these, cuz you probably pulled half of them out of your butt (doubt you could cite links to back them up), and to properly respond you'd have to cite the actual words Obama used... but here's a quick CNP dissection of a couple.

-"He said the Surge in Iraq wouldn't work. He was wrong."
I don't even know what specific quote of Obamas you refer to... but I can correct the record here even without it. Remember what Obama said about the Iraq war BEFORE the Iraq war? Maybe HIS OWN WORDS will remind you? http://www.tetongravity.com/forums/showthread.php?t=117956 Obama was right first, way back in late 2002... Then, you have to think it was the surge that "worked" to even have a claim here in the first place. Funny that Petraeus Disagrees With McCain, Says Success In Iraq Was Possible Without The Surge (http://thinkprogress.org/2008/08/25/petraeus-mccain-victory/).

Newsweek reported that while Petraeus recognized that al-Qaeda in Iraq has been significantly diminished, he refused to say the terror group had been “defeated.” Moreover, Petraeus acknowledged that the recent successes in Iraq may have been possible without the surge

-"He said that airing up your tires will save as much energy as would be gained from drilling new wells."
The funny part here is McCain had to come back in the days after he ridiculed Obama for the tire inflation/car maintenance comments... and admit Obama was right. (http://thinkprogress.org/2008/08/04/mccain-obama-tires/)
Part of McCain’s solution to energy independence and high gas prices is to “immediately (http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0808/03/cnr.04.html)” start “drilling off shore.” Such an approach would yield a savings of 6 cents/gallon two decades from now (http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2008083204/yes-conservatives-inflated-tires-beats-coastal-drilling), in addition to putting to the planet in peril (http://thinkprogress.org/wonkroom/2008/07/31/bush-coal-sprint/). By contrast, car maintenance can save 12 cents/gallon immediately (http://thinkprogress.org/2008/08/01/gingrich-tires-loony-tunes/).

The Department of Energy estimates that (based on gas costing $3.96/gallon), “you can improve your gas mileage by around 3.3 percent by keeping your tires inflated to the proper pressure” which would ultimately save “up to $0.12/gallon”

I'm getting lazy and won't spend the time to try and find out what the hell you base each of your comments on... then debunk it easily. You can consider this a gift from someone who just got back from the bars and is headed off to slumber. G'night.

[Cono Este]

I know you grew up in some third-world hellhole where you were emotionally traumatized for life, and i feel for you, I do, but who do you think is the "honkey" in this scenario?

Feel free to consult a slang dictionary, you might have more luck looking under "honkie", though.

The second black President of course.

But I am glad to see that spell check has not completely put you out of business around here. Now I dont feel so sorry for you.

[Nathan Explosion]

Didn't watch the speech because of work, won't comment.


Part of McCain’s solution to energy independence and high gas prices is to “immediately” start “drilling off shore.” Such an approach would yield a savings of 6 cents/gallon two decades from now, in addition to putting to the planet in peril. By contrast, car maintenance can save 12 cents/gallon immediately.

The Department of Energy estimates that (based on gas costing $3.96/gallon), “you can improve your gas mileage by around 3.3 percent by keeping your tires inflated to the proper pressure” which would ultimately save “up to $0.12/gallon”

I'm not questioning the veracity of these statistics, but their basis often puzzles me. I feel like the way the numbers are expressed is potentially inaccurate, in that it's almost written such that the baselines are not equal. The statistic about tire inflation does not explain whether the number reflects the improvement based upon some source of numbers of the average number of misinflated tires in this nation, or it assumes that all tires are misinflated. And to what degree of misinflation does it refer? It would seem to me that there would be a fairly substantial differential in the friction coefficient to create such gains, so it would imply to me rather dramatic misinflation. Either way, it is a statistic based upon a statistic of a quantity which is very hard to determine. Whereas an estimate of an increase in refining capacity can be seen as a very concrete idea, because the production values as related to price are related on precise numbers, not statistical averages. I feel like an average built on hard numbers has more potential for accuracy than an average built upon an average.

I'm not sure how much sense that's going to make to anyone else, and I'm betting somebody can debunk it for me.

[Rasputin]

Didn't watch the speech because of work, won't comment.



I'm not questioning the veracity of these statistics, but their basis often puzzles me. I feel like the way the numbers are expressed is potentially inaccurate, in that it's almost written such that the baselines are not equal. The statistic about tire inflation does not explain whether the number reflects the improvement based upon some source of numbers of the average number of misinflated tires in this nation, or it assumes that all tires are misinflated. And to what degree of misinflation does it refer? It would seem to me that there would be a fairly substantial differential in the friction coefficient to create such gains, so it would imply to me rather dramatic misinflation. Either way, it is a statistic based upon a statistic of a quantity which is very hard to determine. Whereas an estimate of an increase in refining capacity can be seen as a very concrete idea, because the production values as related to price are related on precise numbers, not statistical averages. I feel like an average built on hard numbers has more potential for accuracy than an average built upon an average.

I'm not sure how much sense that's going to make to anyone else, and I'm betting somebody can debunk it for me.

OK, I really feel distressed at how close this is to what I was thinking as I read Tim's post. :wink:

However, I expect there is likely a huge percentage of the populace that are too lazy to check their tire pressure, so I expect Obama was close to correct, even if the methodology for the numbers is suspect.

Oh, and here's the speech. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/08/28/barack-obama-democratic-c_n_122224.html)

[Spats]

The only thing recessing around here is the Obamiac's connection to reality.

"GDP grew at a 3.3 percent annual rate in the April-June quarter"

The only way to believe GDP actually grew by 3.3% is if you also believe in the 1% GNP deflator, when real inflation is north of 10%. Do you still believe in the tooth fairy, too?

There are arguments against Obama -- but arguing that we're not in a recession isn't one of them, unless you're exceedingly naive or deliberately lying.

[The AD]

Whereas an estimate of an increase in refining capacity can be seen as a very concrete idea, because the production values as related to price are related on precise numbers, not statistical averages.

But we're talking about driling for oil offshore. The amount of oil in the ground must be estimated, too.

[Rubicon]

OMG... I won't take on each and every one of these, cuz you probably pulled half of them out of your butt (doubt you could cite links to back them up), and to properly respond you'd have to cite the actual words Obama used...


OK


He said the Surge in Iraq wouldn't work.

P_igpyewuzQ



He said the DC gun ban was constitutional.

-wu9jE1MnAE



He said the economy is in trouble yet he picks a VP who ABC news is reporting is responsible for hundreds of thousands of Americans going into foreclosure and losing their homes.

Experts say hundreds of thousands of Americans may have lost their homes due to a bill championed by Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Del., Barack Obama's vice-presidential running mate.

But Biden – who has enjoyed hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign donations from credit industry executives – endorsed the measure early on and worked to gather Democratic support for it.

Biden's early and vocal support was "essential" to the bill's passage, said Travis Plunkett of the Washington D.C.-based advocacy group Consumer Federation, which opposed the measure. Biden "went out of his way to undermine criticism of the legislation," and his efforts helped convince other Democrats to support the bill.

"Biden was a fairly strong proponent of that bankruptcy bill," said Philip Corwin, a consultant for the American Bankers Association, which represents banks and lenders. "

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/Story?id=5670703&page=1



He said that airing up your tires will save as much energy as would be gained from drilling new wells.

Mkkgk25ToqE

Nathan was a bit verbose and convoluted in his response to you about this, but I agree with his reasoning.



He said that a major problem in Afghanistan was that the Arabic translators were tied up in Iraq(psst, Arabic isn't spoken in Afghanistan).

Obama posited -- incorrectly -- that Arabic translators deployed in Iraq are needed in Afghanistan -- forgetting, momentarily, that Afghans don't speak Arabic.

"We only have a certain number of them and if they are all in Iraq, then its harder for us to use them in Afghanistan," Obama said.

The vast majority of military translators in both war zones are drawn from the local population.
Naturally they speak the local language. In Iraq, that's Arabic or Kurdish. In Afghanistan, it's any of a half dozen other languages -- including Pashtu, Dari, and Farsi.

No sooner did Obama realize his mistake -- and correct himself -- but he immediately made another.

"We need agricultural specialists in Afghanistan, people who can help them develop other crops than heroin poppies, because the drug trade in Afghanistan is what is driving and financing these terrorist networks. So we need agricultural specialists," he said.

So far, so good.

"But if we are sending them to Baghdad, they're not in Afghanistan," Obama said.

Iraq has many problems, but encouraging farmers to grow food instead of opium poppies isn't one of them. In Iraq, oil fields not poppy fields are a major source of U.S. technical assistance."

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/05/obama-gaffes-on.html

I will give you this one, it is more of a gaffe than a show of poor judgment.



He said that the Georgian dispute should be brought before the UN security council, seemingly oblivious to the fact that Russia sits on the security council and holds veto power there.


ailYX8xQJeM


Your turn.

[Grange]

It depends on which speech you watched according to the pundits. Did you watch the one Obama gave on the major networks, PBS, MSNBC, CNN, C-Span or basically any other channel or did you watch the "spectacle" he gave on Fox News? Because one was inspiring, detailed, forthright, charismatic, and very well received while the one Obama gave on Fox News was boring, uninformative, conceited, full of lies and pandering, not well received by non die-hard Democrats, and given by an un-experienced individual.

I happened to watch the one from the major networks because I thought it was very good. I would have liked him to go into more detail about how he would pay for his proposals. Saying ending programs that don't work and cutting out tax loopholes is too vague for me. I would have also liked to hear him talk about how he wants to solve the Social Security problem.

However aside from those criticisms I thought much of the speech was great. Attacking McCains plans to target Obama as less patriotic than himself was spot on. His ability to paint McCain's maverick status as worn out and tie him to GWB was well received. The way he made himself look like he was just an average mid western kid growing up was smart. How he ended the speech by going straight at the "moral conservatives" base arguements on abortion, gun rights, and gay rights helped define him even more.

I want to see the Fox speech and try and figure out where he screwed up.

[tarkman1]

Criticizing Obama's position on opposing the Surge make an assumption that the Surge actually produced the intended results.

Okay, can someone prove to me that the Surge caused later results? Correlation does not equate to causation.

[gretch6364]

I watched the speech last night. He is a good speaker no doubt. I basically took the following main points from it:

Obama thinks....

Republicans suck
Bush sucks
McCain sucks
America as it stands today, sucks
I will enact change....I don't know why...but I will change EVERYTHING!

That about sums it up. I wish he would of spent some more time talking about his policies rather than how much everything sucks in America. Oh well....I guess this is suppose to be a rally the troops speech, and we will hear about his policies in the debates. It is just a shame because more people probably watched this than will watch the debates. (just a guess based on no facts).

[Cono Este]

OMG... I won't take on each and every one of these, cuz you probably pulled half of them out of your butt (doubt you could cite links to back them up)


=PWNED :p

[timvwcom]

=PWNED :p

Rubi... AWESOME!!!

I am working right now, but will stop back later this evening to reply in detail. Strong work, I enjoy a vigorous debate partner!!!

[MashedPotatoes]

CHANGE!!!!! for a nickel..:fmicon:

[Nathan Explosion]

But we're talking about driling for oil offshore. The amount of oil in the ground must be estimated, too.

Yes, but this can be determined with a great deal of accuracy, and verified in many methods. Most untapped oil reserves are proved by working backwards from a difference in gravity related to the oil in the ground. There's no massive count, merely formulas and proven methods which bring definable results with a great deal of accuracy.

[The AD]

Yes, but this can be determined with a great deal of accuracy, and verified in many methods.

Yes, but they are still estimates. On the other hand, you can actually go out and measure real data on the tire pressure of cars on the road. Granted, I don't know how the underinflation data was gathered, but it certainly could be gathered with a great deal of accuracy.

[David Witherspoon]

... a great deal of accuracy.
You're a veritable fountain of irony. Like, an entire relatively large quantity of it. Lasting for a definably longer than normal time. I bet you could like, type entire paragraphs devoid of definable claims. Just one more arrow in your quiver of suberhuman talents.

[Tippster]

Well, I'm sure they went out and checked the tire pressure of XXXXXX cars and extrapolated. Seems fair to me, at least a bit more solid than the estimates and timetables claimed by the Offshore Drilling proponents. Like I said - it SEEMS fair to me - I am not an expert.... but neither is (are?) 99.99999% of the electorate.

Also the immediacy is incontrovertible. Even if I only drop my fuel cost by 4% .... it happens NOW, not in a decade.

[jon gaper]

and dennis jacobsen"s "Doing Justice" for marxist community organisers

[Dirty Hoar]

If you haven't seen Obama's speech from last night I STRONGLY encourage you to do so. In fact... why wouldn't you?

ato7BtisXzE

[Grange]

I watched the speech last night. He is a good speaker no doubt. I basically took the following main points from it:

Obama thinks....

Republicans suck
Bush sucks
McCain sucks
America as it stands today, sucks
I will enact change....I don't know why...but I will change EVERYTHING!

That about sums it up. I wish he would of spent some more time talking about his policies rather than how much everything sucks in America. Oh well....I guess this is suppose to be a rally the troops speech, and we will hear about his policies in the debates. It is just a shame because more people probably watched this than will watch the debates. (just a guess based on no facts).


You must have watched his Fox News Speech or possibly Dumbo on the Disney Channel because you missed the parts where talked very highly of the USA.

[MrZach]

I had the opportunity to go to Obama's speech last night courtesy of my wife's hookups through her work. I went in with pretty low expectations since I generally despise the two party system and have never been really excited about a presidential ticket in my lifetime.

Many of the lead-up speeches were typical and didn't really perk my ears too much. I really enjoyed the speeches from the "regular" folks that had apparently been plucked from the "field" throughout the campaign; all brought poignant, heartfelt, real-life experiences with issues that often seem more like a political scorecard line item than a problem that actually effects Americans. I also liked Obama's speech and thought many of his "points of change" were well though-out (albeit a few pretty ambitious) and well-needed.

[The Dad]

saul alinsky

You seem to have quite a bug up your butt about this Alinsky guy.

What happened -- he wouldn't give you a reach-around?

[gretch6364]

You must have watched his Fox News Speech or possibly Dumbo on the Disney Channel because you missed the parts where talked very highly of the USA.

He did talk highly about the US's PAST...but he made it pretty clear that we currently suck in his opinion

[Tippster]

Newsflash: We currently do.

[Dirty Hoar]

He did talk highly about the US's PAST...but he made it pretty clear that we currently suck in his opinion

Quit being stubborn. Our country IS in trouble and if you can't come to that conclusion with your own non-biased investigation then you should... oh shit, sorry man... I forgot, you're in 5th grade right? So, uh... what day is chocolate milk day? I love chocolate milk!

[MrZach]

It's all about the bubbles

http://i210.photobucket.com/albums/bb118/lindyshoots/milk5464.jpg

[Dirty Hoar]

That one "milky" bubble is kind of spooky.

[hutash]

No one has commented on the near total lack of religion in Ob's speech, and all the main stream speeches during the convention. The occasional God bless you and God bless America at the end were about it.

I guess it means god is really on GWB's side, and not with the dems. It will be interesting to see where McSame will go with religion and pandering to the religious right.

I, for one, prefer to keep god out of the White House.


Good speech, but he still has a long way to go with specifics to show how he is actually going to do it (which is where most politicians fall down.)

I have to disagree with GoneHuckin'. I pay little attention to primaries since it is mostly infighting, but now comes the time for real information to be put up, or shut up.

[gretch6364]

I have to disagree with GoneHuckin'. I pay little attention to primaries since it is mostly infighting, but now comes the time for real information to be put up, or shut up.

You should go back and read some of the statements made during the primaries. It gives a little insight on what people inside the party think of the candidates.

You can find some pretty harsh opinions of both B.Hussein and McCain from other party members.

[David Witherspoon]

I guess it means god is really on GWB's side, and not with the dems.
Huh? Didn't you see the Sign?
It didn't rain.
God himself endorsed Obama.

[Tippster]

You should go back and read some of the statements made during the primaries. It gives a little insight on what people inside the party think of the candidates.

You can find some pretty harsh opinions of both B.Hussein and McCain from other party members.
Because...?

They had horses in the race. Same thing happens every 4 years - it certainly happened with the Republicans in 1980, 1996, and 2000. Now that both parties have their tickets they will circle the wagons.

[gretch6364]

Because (IMHO) it gives the voter another angle from which to look at the candidates. Who knows these individuals (from a professional standpoint) better than their colleagues?

If a bunch of high ranking Dems say that Obama lacks the necessary experience, and high ranking Republicans say McCain isn't a true conservative...then everyone suddenly changes their mind 12 months later because the troops are rallying, have they really changed their minds?

It seems like you get a clearer degree of truth (they are all liars anyhow) during the primaries than you do during most of the election.

[Powow]

Because (IMHO) it gives the voter another angle from which to look at the candidates. Who knows these individuals (from a professional standpoint) better than their colleagues?

If a bunch of high ranking Dems say that Obama lacks the necessary experience, and high ranking Republicans say McCain isn't a true conservative...then everyone suddenly changes their mind 12 months later because the troops are rallying, have they really changed their minds?

It seems like you get a clearer degree of truth (they are all liars anyhow) during the primaries than you do during most of the election.
Well in that case, McCain really does have an illegitimate black child!

[agentorange]

I'm still trying to get my head around what happened last night. Somehow I found the 3-dimensional experience incredibly surreal.

http://www.tetongravity.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=45647&stc=1&d=1220041354

Throughout the convention I think the democrats have done a nice job introducing Obama through other speakers, and through the short films. Last night I felt that Obama was more stern than he has been perviously, and he did an excellent job of distilling his major ideas into very matter-of-fact points. I think average americans will find very tangible elements that they can hold on to, and embrace his reasons for not electing another republican.

[gorms]

^^^^cool shot!

[TJ.Brk]

I for one am extremely proud of my country with what has transpired in the last 48hours.

I remember being in Cincinnati during the riots. My sister was a freshman at UC. I was 7 years old. Cops on every corner. I remember asking my sister why this was happening. She told me because some people cannot get past the color of another persons skin whether they are black or white.

I so thankful I'm old enough to understand where, and how far we have come in the last 45 years of my life. And I'm rejuvenated in the possibilities of our future.

Say what you will about Barrack. Last night he came out swinging at McCain. And he connected.

[Smokey McPole]

Newsflash: We currently do.

..yet you continue to suffer through citizenship.:rolleyes2

Seriously, tipp - don't you feel bad about raising your little miracles in such a fucked up country? I mean - yeah, if Barry's elected the rivers will run with chocolate and the US will become a utopia overnight. But what if (gasp!) McCain wins? Are you finally gonna move to someplace "better" for your childrens sake, or are you gonna continue to expose their impressionable little minds to such a horrible country?

I think the US could be better, but I won't go as far as Dippster here and say the US sucks.

[Nathan Explosion]

You're a veritable fountain of irony. Like, an entire relatively large quantity of it. Lasting for a definably longer than normal time. I bet you could like, type entire paragraphs devoid of definable claims. Just one more arrow in your quiver of suberhuman talents.

You fucking idiot. Feel free to call me an idiot on other subjects, but this is the shit I've been learning for years. It's simple fucking physics, you fucking daft fucking moron. They teach it in the intro classes. I guaran-fucking-tee calculations about oil reserves are the fuck of alot more accurate than some bullshit about tire inflation. For the record, I did the research on how most of those studies are done. Extrapolation from 1,000 cars. Do you get that? 1,000 cars. We multiply that out over SIXTY FUCKING MILLION. IT'S NOT ACCURATE YOU FUCKING DOLT. Oil companies and engineers can determine, in 90% of cases (ie: not oil shale) the amount of oil in the ground to a margin of error of less than ONE FUCKING PERCENT. Do you understand? Not to mention NOWHERE does any study quantify "underinflation". Are we talking about .5 psi, or 8?

Care to speculate on the margin of error of the tire study?

Any and every engineer with even any petroleum education will back me up on this. You are wrong. Deal with it. Anyone with a background in stats will agree that there is a huge potential for error in a study based upon 1,000 cars extrapolated across the nation.

[Powow]

Care to speculate on the margin of error of the tire study?

Any and every engineer with even any petroleum education will back me up on this. You are wrong. Deal with it. Anyone with a background in stats will agree that there is a huge potential for error in a study based upon 1,000 cars extrapolated across the nation.
The fountain of irony strikes again!

The margin of error with a sample size of 1067 is 3%.

[Tippster]

Edited because I'm gonna just post my rant in a separate thread so it's not buried in some stupid Political thread.

[Nathan Explosion]

The fountain of irony strikes again!

The margin of error with a sample size of 1067 is 3%.

How's that College Algebra course working for you?

Statistics are not that simple. Take the intro course, they'll explain that to you.

[Smokey McPole]

I'm sorry that you haven't found that special someone yet that will share your "life" and can carry your seed to term giving birth to and succoring the next generation of long haired metal-dorks.

If you really try hard I'm sure you can find some kind of pale tatooed land-whale at the next "concert" in whatever backwater you live in featuring really cool things like skulls and goat's blood and upsidedown crosses to take you home and rub you off by proxy... just get her home by midnight.

In the meantime I will take my several years senior to you, my experience of multiple administrations as a contributor to society, and make an actually informed opinion on what is good or not good policy-wise for myself and those I care about. Do not flatter yourself.

Bluster and pose all you want, you little puissant, but it's all an act. We know it's an act, and it's getting very very old... "gay" to use your terminology. The douchebag you ridicule and vilify on this web forum is behind your keyboard.

You want to impress me? Hire or fire me or make a difference to those around you. Little snot-rags who criticize and invent stupid little "words" like "Librodouche" impress me as much as my latest bowel movement. Sometimes I kick back and think "wow - that was big/smelly/cornladen/whatever..." but in the end I always flush.

I don't care how you ski, where you ski, what kind of music you like, what politicians you hate, or any other little opinion you have about yourself or anything else. I don't care about the "bets" you make or the friends you think you have. Basically I don't care about you at all, and I'm done with you.

I just wanted to share that with you. Now go start a couple of aliases quoting me in their signatures and have fun being the loner little loser you are. You suck for making this place shittier. Fuck you.

Bye, Jer.

Oh no!! I've pissed off tipp once again!! Your post is so chock-full of butthurt whiney "dammit!!- this little corner of the interwebz used to be soooo cool 'til you came along" hilarity that I don't even know where to start. So I won't. I'll merely quote it so that even if you wise up and decide to delete the long-winded embarrassment you typed, it'll still live on for all the normal people here to see.

Two things I would like to know (yeah - I know - after your little pissy diatribe you probably put me on ignore like all the other e-weaklings):

1) Just how old are you? 'Cause I'm gonna be 40 in a few months.
2) If you "don't care about me", then why did you bother typing out your long-winded diatribe? Doesn't really make any sense.

Oh - one more: does this mean I'm off your buddy list?

:(

[Smokey McPole]

Edited because I'm gonna just post my rant in a separate thread so it's not buried in some stupid Political thread.

Man - I'm glad I saved it, Petunia.

So you're gonna start a "I Hate ______" thread, just like you and all you gay little buddies usually do. That'll work really well. I'm sure you'l embarass me right into leaving TGR forevar.

FULL-BLOWN AIDS.

[Powow]

How's that College Algebra course working for you?

Statistics are not that simple. Take the intro course, they'll explain that to you.
I can't stop laughing at you.

You pitch this big ass I'm-better-than-you speeches about how petroleum engineers, i.e. you are smarter than god, and simultaneously post this:

For the record, I did the research on how most of those studies are done. Extrapolation from 1,000 cars. Do you get that? 1,000 cars. We multiply that out over SIXTY FUCKING MILLION. IT'S NOT ACCURATE YOU FUCKING DOLT.
Do you really think you are smarter than all commercial polling companies in existence?

Still laughing.

One day you are going to realize that you are downright stupid compared to your opinion of yourself. Don't kill yourself when that happens, ok buddy?

[Nathan Explosion]

I am smart enough to realize that most polls are quoted with an agenda. In this case, it's to deter offshore drilling. Clearly you aren't even smart enough to realize that.

One day you'll figure out that you aren't as smart as you think you are. This is my sole area of expertise, and you should note that only yourself and Witherspoon are disagreeing with the intent of my post. I think that says quite enough.

But that's okay. Go back to Boulder, you worthless silver spoon having, trustafarian freak. Let the math majors discuss the math. You can debate your politics, that's no longer my area. Mathematically, you are wrong, and that's all that matters to me.

[LegoSkier]

Anyone with a background in stats will agree that there is a huge potential for error in a study based upon 1,000 cars extrapolated across the nation.


Hows your poor understanding of statistics treating you? Actually anyone with a backgournd in stats would say that it all depends on what you are measuring and how you structure your data gathering and that it does not depend on your sample size. Correctness with a large sample size is easier because it covers up for poor data gathering methodology.
And the sample size was actually 11,530 automobiles and the tests were done in randomly selected stations in randomly selected zip codes chosen to acurately represent the distibution of cars in the US. The numbers of each type of car tested were also chosen to acurately reflect the distribution of that type of vehicle in the general population. Finally results were weighted by the probabilities of all the conditions of the survey. This led to a final calculated confidence interval of 95% which is a dam fine result to be basing policy off of if you ask me.
Study Methodology: http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/ncsa/ResearchNotes/809-315.pdf

Observation Data: http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/ncsa/ResearchNotes/809-317.pdf

I guess the only gripe I have with this is that it was conducted in 2001 so it does not accurately reflect the distribution of cars today. But as there are a significantly higher number of large SUV's and light trucks on the road today which use more gas, I would think the overall gas savings from proper tire inflation would in fact be higher.

[Nathan Explosion]

It appears I was looking at the wrong study, the one I found wasn't from the NHTSA. Thanks for the correction, and consider this a retraction of the gripes I expressed, other that I still feel that it would be difficult to quantify "underinflation" in such a study, since pressures are relative to the tire, vehicle, and its intended usage.

My issue was with the lack of mention of the structure of the data, or the sample size, hence how I found the wrong study. I agree that the sample size is less important to the outcome of the study than the structure of the data, I merely picked it as an easy point of comparison against calculations of oil reserves, because we agree that a larger sample size covers data collection errors and inconsistencies. It would be more difficult, at least for me, to relate data structure with the variety of physics concepts used to determine the amount of oil beneath our feet without putting up a bunch of equations and writing the hell of alot more than I have any interest to. Because of this I reduced it to the two most simplistic concepts I could, relative gravity and sample size, because I felt the two related well, and I still do.

I'm not trying to make the claim that there's no point in inflating your tires, nor am I claiming that there aren't significant gains to be made. I am suggesting that the way the data was used was potentially misleading. As I've said about a hundred times, I am no expert at expressing concepts well over the internet, nor do I do a good job of expressing my thought process which leads to me being frequently misinterpreted. That's a huge reason why I'm done arguing politics, other than I figure I'd never do it in person, why the hell should I do it at all.

[David Witherspoon]

Statistics are not that simple. Take the intro course, they'll explain that to you.With all due respect, Nate - and I mean that most precisely - you don't know stats.
Admit it and head for safer waters, you're in way over your head.

[spook]

wall street jesus doesn't even win harvard moot court with that crap. even if he had managed not to misspeak, stammer and destroy all momentum in his delivery, the speech was doomed by horrible writing. that was nothing more than a mediocre jumble of stump speeches with no flow or thematic continuity.

i was more than willing to give obama his due if he was adequate, but given that that was his last chance on a huge home field, he choked. the only thing that saved him was the slavish and delusional adoration of his supporters, who are so desperate for change in the "Greatest most powerful nation on earth" that they will believe any bullshit that comes out of his mouth, no matter how fanciful and contradictory.

obama was lucky if his was the third best speech at the convention. i'm sure there had to be at least a few dems who thought "i picked the wrong candidate" longing for a second chance at hillary for empire manager. hillary would have had that place rocking and she would have been doing the heavy lifting.

fortunately, the media gorged themselves on obama's organ afterward. i actually heard a "progressive" radio host correct a caller who said it was "the best speech by any politician in the last 30 years." thom hartmann said "no, it was the best speech by any politician in the last 100 years." i kid you not.

so not only did obama not win the nomination in a landslide, he had the gall to blow off the person who took half the votes and might have allowed him to claim the change bullshit with a little more credibility than picking joe biden. and then he asks the clintons to kneel at his feet at the convention. which they did. and fortunately for obama, not on the same night he spoke, because he suffered by comparison.

rule no. 1: if anybody can lose a sure thing, the dems can lose a sure thing.

obama has opened the door, just like gore and kerry. and after those two ran two of the worst campaigns in the history of the universe, they had the gall to blame the media, blame scotus, blame the black boxes, blame nader.

get your scapegoats ready, kids. anything can happen.

[squatch]

Nathan: you should stop. At the very least stop being so arrogant as to think you're an expert on anything.

[Nathan Explosion]

By all means, reiterate what I just said.

[Powow]

Pedal backwards any faster and the chain is going to fall off!

[Nathan Explosion]

I'm not backpedaling. I made the same points as LegoSkier in my first post. I then had the wrong study for the second, so the numbers are not accurate. My concerns still are.

[The AD]

Oil companies and engineers can determine, in 90% of cases (ie: not oil shale) the amount of oil in the ground to a margin of error of less than ONE FUCKING PERCENT.

If they can predict so accurately how do you explain this?

In 1998, the USGS estimated that between 5.7 and 16.0 billion barrels (2.54×109 m3) of technically recoverable crude oil and natural gas liquids are in the coastal plain area of ANWR

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_Refuge_drilling_controversy#Department_of_E nergy_projections_and_estimates

I'm not saying you're wrong. I know nothing about how the size of oil fields is estimated, but I don't understand a spread of 5.7 to 16.0 if this can be predicted so accurately. Yes, this is an estimate for ANWR, not the total size of the offshore fields, but I don't see the difference. If there is one, what is it?

[Dexter Rutecki]

I spell the way you think.

Unfortunately for you there is no "thought check" add on for Firefox to make you seem normal.

If my thinking were as shitty as your spelling (and idiotic ranting) I'd stop posting. Unfortunately for you, public embarrassment has yet to stop you.

[Tippster]

I'm not trying to make the claim that there's no point in inflating your tires, nor am I claiming that there aren't significant gains to be made. I am suggesting that the way the data was used was potentially misleading.
So you're saying there are lies, damn lies, and statistics? Doesn't that happen on both sides of an issue? What agenda does the pro-drilling faction have, and how could it best support its argument?

[Rubicon]

Criticizing Obama's position on opposing the Surge make an assumption that the Surge actually produced the intended results.



No it doesn't.

There are three areas where someone needs good judgment for making decisions like this.

The first one is their personal judgment. Do they have a good head on their shoulders? Do they make good decisions when their only considerations are their own experiences? A major pitfall for people here is making decisions based on their political beliefs rather than on what is called for by the situation. Someone who can be easily identified as "partisan" is doing this.

The second one is their judgment about their judgment. How good is their judgment in different areas? We aren't electing a god or a king. We are electing a man with a limited set of experiences. So him knowing where his judgment is good and where it's limits are is critical.

The third area is having good judgment on who to consult in areas where you don't have good judgment.

These last two are where Obama chocked hard when it came to the surge, regardless of the outcome of the surge. He has no military experience at all. His judgment about what was needed on the ground in Iraq is infantile at best. As it is for most of the politicians in Washington. They are not trained military men. So even with the best intelligence available they still need guidance in how best to archive military objectives. So if he made the decision by himself, he was lost from the very beginning. If he made his decision based on what someone else told him, he consulted the wrong people. And I say he consulted the wrong people, not because he was wrong about the surge, but because he didn't listen to the acknowledged expert in the field. Petraeus literally wrote the book on counter insurgency. Yet Obama thought his own judgment was better than Petraeus'.

Obama could have made the decision he did for political reasons. He could have made it because he didn't know the limits of his own judgment. Or he could have made it because he listened to the wrong people. Regardless, his poor judgment had nothing to do with the outcome on the ground in Iraq and had everything to do with how he went about making his decision.

[David Witherspoon]

I'm not saying you're wrong.
'sok, I'll fill the gap:
Natural Implosion: you're wrong.

[Cono Este]

So Obama claimed Iraq has a surplus of 80 billion this yr. WHat was he suggesting?

[ANON-505]

what speech where you watching? he didn't misspeak, stammer or destroy momentum. it was, by far, the best delivery of the convention.

we all know you're a whack job. But, now you look desperate, clingning to some drivel that you soak up from the cum-soaked mouths of the twats at fox news.


wall street jesus doesn't even win harvard moot court with that crap. even if he had managed not to misspeak, stammer and destroy all momentum in his delivery, the speech was doomed by horrible writing. that was nothing more than a mediocre jumble of stump speeches with no flow or thematic continuity.

i was more than willing to give obama his due if he was adequate, but given that that was his last chance on a huge home field, he choked. the only thing that saved him was the slavish and delusional adoration of his supporters, who are so desperate for change in the "Greatest most powerful nation on earth" that they will believe any bullshit that comes out of his mouth, no matter how fanciful and contradictory.

obama was lucky if his was the third best speech at the convention. i'm sure there had to be at least a few dems who thought "i picked the wrong candidate" longing for a second chance at hillary for empire manager. hillary would have had that place rocking and she would have been doing the heavy lifting.

fortunately, the media gorged themselves on obama's organ afterward. i actually heard a "progressive" radio host correct a caller who said it was "the best speech by any politician in the last 30 years." thom hartmann said "no, it was the best speech by any politician in the last 100 years." i kid you not.

so not only did obama not win the nomination in a landslide, he had the gall to blow off the person who took half the votes and might have allowed him to claim the change bullshit with a little more credibility than picking joe biden. and then he asks the clintons to kneel at his feet at the convention. which they did. and fortunately for obama, not on the same night he spoke, because he suffered by comparison.

rule no. 1: if anybody can lose a sure thing, the dems can lose a sure thing.

obama has opened the door, just like gore and kerry. and after those two ran two of the worst campaigns in the history of the universe, they had the gall to blame the media, blame scotus, blame the black boxes, blame nader.

get your scapegoats ready, kids. anything can happen.

[Dexter Rutecki]

It's not Fox News twats, in his particular case. It's programming from his prof.s at whatever midwestern shithole excuse for a school he goes to.

[ANON-505]

So Obama claimed Iraq has a surplus of 80 billion this yr. WHat was he suggesting?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23578542/

Do you really need it spelled out for you? Lets see...hmmm...we spend hundreds of millions a month (billions?) "rebuilding" there, yet they have a budget surplus that is nearing 100 billion, that they don't use.

[Cono Este]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23578542/

Do you really need it spelled out for you? Lets see...hmmm...we spend hundreds of millions a month (billions?) "rebuilding" there, yet they have a budget surplus that is nearing 100 billion, that they don't use.


Are you saying, that he is saying, we should TAKE their OIL (revenues)!!!!!

[gonehuckin]

One day you'll figure out that you aren't as smart as you think you are. This is my sole area of expertise......

After being proven completely WRONG, you're now agreeing that you're WRONG in your "SOLE area of expertise".

So why exactly do you even exist, much less pretend to play an expert on any topic?

Maybe its about time that you realize that "you aren't as smart as you think you are".

[spook]

what speech where you watching? he didn't misspeak, stammer or destroy momentum. it was, by far, the best delivery of the convention.

we all know you're a whack job. But, now you look desperate, clingning to some drivel that you soak up from the cum-soaked mouths of the twats at fox news.

yeah, i'm a fox guy. your observation skills are par of the course here and in the u.s. in general.

i watched the last speech of the convention. you know, the one that followed the week-long democrat hardon for the military. i suggest you watch it again.

[Cono Este]

yeah, i'm a fox guy. your observation skills are par of the course here and in the u.s. in general.

i watched the last speech of the convention. you know, the one that followed the week-long democrat hardon for the military. i suggest you watch it again.

A hard on for war with Iran on Israels behalf too.

They hear only what they want to spooker.

[Smokey McPole]

wall street jesus doesn't even win harvard moot court with that crap. even if he had managed not to misspeak, stammer and destroy all momentum in his delivery, the speech was doomed by horrible writing. that was nothing more than a mediocre jumble of stump speeches with no flow or thematic continuity.

i was more than willing to give obama his due if he was adequate, but given that that was his last chance on a huge home field, he choked. the only thing that saved him was the slavish and delusional adoration of his supporters, who are so desperate for change in the "Greatest most powerful nation on earth" that they will believe any bullshit that comes out of his mouth, no matter how fanciful and contradictory.

obama was lucky if his was the third best speech at the convention. i'm sure there had to be at least a few dems who thought "i picked the wrong candidate" longing for a second chance at hillary for empire manager. hillary would have had that place rocking and she would have been doing the heavy lifting.

fortunately, the media gorged themselves on obama's organ afterward. i actually heard a "progressive" radio host correct a caller who said it was "the best speech by any politician in the last 30 years." thom hartmann said "no, it was the best speech by any politician in the last 100 years." i kid you not.

so not only did obama not win the nomination in a landslide, he had the gall to blow off the person who took half the votes and might have allowed him to claim the change bullshit with a little more credibility than picking joe biden. and then he asks the clintons to kneel at his feet at the convention. which they did. and fortunately for obama, not on the same night he spoke, because he suffered by comparison.

rule no. 1: if anybody can lose a sure thing, the dems can lose a sure thing.

obama has opened the door, just like gore and kerry. and after those two ran two of the worst campaigns in the history of the universe, they had the gall to blame the media, blame scotus, blame the black boxes, blame nader.

get your scapegoats ready, kids. anything can happen.

Damn, spook - word.

Hilarious to see geniuses such as Dex and Anon accuse spook of being a Fox News Zombie.

[13]

wall street jesus doesn't even win harvard moot court with that crap. even if he had managed not to misspeak, stammer and destroy all momentum in his delivery, the speech was doomed by horrible writing. that was nothing more than a mediocre jumble of stump speeches with no flow or thematic continuity.

i was more than willing to give obama his due if he was adequate, but given that that was his last chance on a huge home field, he choked. the only thing that saved him was the slavish and delusional adoration of his supporters, who are so desperate for change in the "Greatest most powerful nation on earth" that they will believe any bullshit that comes out of his mouth, no matter how fanciful and contradictory.

obama was lucky if his was the third best speech at the convention. i'm sure there had to be at least a few dems who thought "i picked the wrong candidate" longing for a second chance at hillary for empire manager. hillary would have had that place rocking and she would have been doing the heavy lifting.

fortunately, the media gorged themselves on obama's organ afterward. i actually heard a "progressive" radio host correct a caller who said it was "the best speech by any politician in the last 30 years." thom hartmann said "no, it was the best speech by any politician in the last 100 years." i kid you not.

so not only did obama not win the nomination in a landslide, he had the gall to blow off the person who took half the votes and might have allowed him to claim the change bullshit with a little more credibility than picking joe biden. and then he asks the clintons to kneel at his feet at the convention. which they did. and fortunately for obama, not on the same night he spoke, because he suffered by comparison.

rule no. 1: if anybody can lose a sure thing, the dems can lose a sure thing.

obama has opened the door, just like gore and kerry. and after those two ran two of the worst campaigns in the history of the universe, they had the gall to blame the media, blame scotus, blame the black boxes, blame nader.

get your scapegoats ready, kids. anything can happen.

did you even watch the speech?

not only did he not misspeak or stammer, he thanked both hillary and bill clinton for their competition and now for their support.

[David Witherspoon]

Maybe its about time that you realize that "you aren't as smart as you think you are".
It must be time for a Dunning-Kruger reference about bayards.

[timvwcom]

OK... Now I'm sober again (Biker street party atmosphere rules!) and have the anniversarial duties with my future ex-wife perfomed, I can get back and tackle this. I know the Palin thing has moved the discussion to another field by now, but I'm not leaving this hanging.

Rubi, I was stupid to challenge you on backing up those statements though, but not because I'll regret my answers... just because it's too much fucking work! I think I'll have to break up these replies, cuz I might never find the number of hours this is gonna take in one block. Especially, when I should be outside painting the non-brick parts of my shack right now. Oh, anyone and everyone else is free to just ignore my follow-up here if you wish... this is MY penance, not yours. :redface:

Remember also, my goal isn't to defend Obama's every statement... he can do that if he wishes. I will try and reconcile your quoted statments to Obama's, and then fill in my thoughts where I think it's needed.




"He said the Surge in Iraq wouldn't work."

P_igpyewuzQ

...

Your turn.

OK... after some transcription I did a search and found the relevant part of the Obama statement you describe.


"I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there. In fact, I think it will do the reverse. I think it takes pressure off the Iraqis to arrive at the sort of political accommodation that every observer believes is the ultimate solution to the problems we face there. So I am going to actively oppose the president's proposal.

The obvious is that you and Obama are using different terms to describe success... You have used the term "work", where he was much more specific and said "solve the sectarian violence there." Obama further defined in that statement that he felt the surge would lessen the need for the Iraqis to find some political accommodation. And has also since suggested that the surge in Iraq, and corresponding lack of ability to beef up forces elsewhere, has left Al Quaeda able to regroup and grow in both Afghanistan and Pakistan.

I think it's 100% certain the the level of violence in Iraq is lessened from earlier in the conflict, this I do not question. But I do question to whom, or what the credit for that lessening is due. Rubi, you seem to credit it all to the surge? I also question that the entire problem at issue has been solved. By suggesting the surge worked, am I out of line wondering if you feel the violence issues are now solved?

I think a combination of forces, likely INCLUDING the surge, are due the credit for the lessening of violence in Iraq. My admittedly under informed position is that the more credit is due what is known as the "Sunni Awakening". If you doubt that, consider that even General Patreaus is unwilling to claim victory or give the surge full credit for this (http://www.newsweek.com/id/154587/output/print);

Petraeus is careful not to credit all the progress to the surge of U.S. troops in 2007. The sea change came last year from a series of movements now known as the Awakening, when Sunnis, organizing around traditional tribal leaders, decided to turn on Al Qaeda as "an organization that embraces an extremist ideology, employs indiscriminate violence, and practices oppressive social customs," in the general's words. One of those customs was a ban on smoking. "That was the turning point when they cut the fingers off the first person who was smoking," he jokes. "Can you imagine an Anbar sheik being told he can't smoke?" So would the Sunni Awakening have succeeded without the surge? Possibly, he concedes, but the surge came at that time and helped empower Sunni leaders, paying their fighters and backing them up on the streets. This is where Seneca the Younger comes in: "Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity."

And then to the issue of whether the violence is "solved"... Perhaps consider McCain's recent statement that Iraq "is a peaceful and stable country now". Ummm... Here is a daily Iraq violence update for TODAY August 31 (http://www.mcclatchydc.com/212/story/51266.html), basically NONE of which gets into the US headlines. How about a couple days ago? Here is July 28th (http://www.mcclatchydc.com/212/story/50988.html), and a few days before that on July, 24th (http://www.mcclatchydc.com/212/story/50392.html). Basically EVERY day there are numerous bombings, kidnappings, killing of hostages, and they admit that this stuff reported is just a fraction of what's going down. Yes, it has lessened, especially for our forces as they've pulled away, but Iraq is STILL a shit hole!!! If you want to say the "surge worked", hey... go for it.

I'm not even going to go into showing that very little has happened politically since the surge started, I've already wasted too much time on this one so far. Who "won" this point? Hell if I know... but I'm going to go paint for a few hours while listening to the end of the Brewers game. I hope I have the perseverance to get thru all 6 or 7 sentences of yours... I AM an idiot!!! :rolleyes2

[Rubicon]

Rubi, I was stupid to challenge you on backing up those statements though, but not because I'll regret my answers... just because it's too much fucking work! ... I AM an idiot!!! :rolleyes2


I appreciate the effort but, Good God man, just let it go. It took all of 5 min to find Obama's statments that I quoted. If you want to spend hours chewing through everything, parsing everything he said, knock yourself out. But, as you say, the discussion has moved on and there are more important things to talk about. AKPM fathered Bristol Palin's baby. Didn't you hear?

[H-wood]

Worth noting that the "success" of the surge has been arguably entirely dependent on the substantial cash payments we have been making to Sunni/Shiite militants and Sadr's boys to stay low.
They'll be back to take over as soon as we leave or those payments stop.

[timvwcom]

#2.
Rubicon, thanks for the offer to let it go... I may end up doing that if this drags out too long. But while I've got the gumption to get it done, want to get it off my conscience. There was a conversation with Tipp 8 or 10 months ago where I never went back and finished it up, still bugs me thinking about it today (not kidding :eek: ). I do also find it interesting to see how the facts of each issue have been filtered thru the lens of the media.

To everyone else, sorry for being such a dork and bumping this thread with more boring banter. :nonono2:


He said the DC gun ban was constitutional. He was wrong.

-wu9jE1MnAE

Ok... my research shows that the first mention by Obama or his campaign regards the DC handgun bans constitutionality comes in an article in the Chicago Tribune November 20, 2007 that reads exactly;

But the campaign of Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama said that he "...believes that we can recognize and respect the rights of law-abiding gun owners and the right of local communities to enact common sense laws to combat violence and save lives. Obama believes the D.C. handgun law is constitutional."
(Just a quick note here to point out it's quite clear this is a statement made by his campaign, and NOT a direct quote from Barack himself)

I also find that he has been asked at least twice about this statement over the months since then... including in the video you have quoted above. Both times he is consistent in the meat of his response. You can compare the comments in the video above, with this response below from an ABC debate on April 16, 2008, almost word for word in places; (note Obama himself NEVER claims/states that the ban is constitutional)

Gibson: Is that a law consistent with an individual's right to bear arms?

OBAMA: Well, Charlie, I confess I obviously haven't listened to the briefs and looked at all the evidence. As a general principle, I believe that the Constitution confers an individual right to bear arms. But just because you have an individual right does not mean that the state or local government can't constrain the exercise of that right, and, you know, in the same way that we have a right to private property but local governments can establish zoning ordinances that determine how you can use it.

And I think that it is going to be important for us to reconcile what are two realities in this country. There's the reality of gun ownership and the tradition of gun ownership that's passed on from generation to generation. You know, when you listen to people who have hunted, and they talk about the fact that they went hunting with their fathers or their mothers, then that is something that is deeply important to them and, culturally, they care about deeply. But you also have the reality of what's happening here in Philadelphia and what's happening in Chicago.

....GIBSON: But do you still favor the registration of guns? Do you still favor the licensing of guns? And in 1996, your campaign issued a questionnaire, and your writing was on the questionnaire that said you favored a ban on handguns.

OBAMA: No, my writing wasn't on that particular questionnaire, Charlie. As I said, I have never favored an all-out ban on handguns.

And lastly, this article from BEFORE the Supreme Court decision was announced regards the DC ban;

Obama Camp Disavows Last Year's 'Inartful' Statement on D.C. Gun Law (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/06/obama-camp-disa.html)

June 26, 2008 7:35 AM

ABC News' Teddy Davis and Alexa Ainsworth Report: With the Supreme Court poised to rule on Washington, D.C.'s, gun ban, the Obama campaign is disavowing what it calls an "inartful" statement to the Chicago Tribune last year in which an unnamed aide characterized Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., as believing that the DC ban was constitutional.

"That statement was obviously an inartful attempt to explain the Senator's consistent position," Obama spokesman Bill Burton tells ABC News.

The statement which Burton describes as an inaccurate representation of the senator's views was made to the Chicago Tribune on Nov. 20, 2007.

...

The Chicago Tribune clip from Nov. 20, 2007, is an inaccurate representation of Obama's views, according to Burton, because the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee has refrained from developing a position on whether the D.C. gun law runs afoul of the Second Amendment.

When Obama has been asked on multiple occasions to weigh in on the D.C. gun case he has regularly maintained that the Second Amendment provides an individual right while at the same time saying that right is not absolute and that the Constitution does not prevent local governments from enacting what Obama calls "common sense laws."

Although he has been willing to describe his general views on this topic, Obama has sidestepped the question of whether the ban in the nation's capital runs afoul of the Second Amendment.

...
So, did Obama say "the DC gun ban was constitutional" as your sentence claims. My answer; Well, it depends... Obamas campaign DID make a statement to a reporter on his behalf that did claim that, but they did also later correct it before the Supreme's decision, calling the prior statement from an aide "inartful" and that it did not represent Obama's views... It is also crystal clear that Obama himself was perfect in avoiding (read "dodging and weaving" if you wish) answering the specific question about the constitutionality of the DC ban in all the interviews and debates where gun control comes up, even when the questioner has mentioned the DC ban specifically.

Now with all this said... I do also agree with Tipp's comment earlier, that with a 5/4 split on Supreme Court on this issue, there clearly ARE valid arguments that can be made that the ban is constitutional. But in our system, the 44.44% minority loses to the 55.55% majority... for now. :D

Phew... 2 down.

[David Witherspoon]

Stop bumping this boring thread.

[Smokey McPole]

Rainbow Brite - big party on Bohemia's opening day (whenever that is going to be)! You should go! It'll be fun!

[timvwcom]

Stop bumping this boring thread.

Arghhh... OK, I'm gonna put some place holders in here so I can respond/reply without bumping this anymore.


Rainbow Brite - big party on Bohemia's opening day (whenever that is going to be)! You should go! It'll be fun!

I'd like to try Brohemia, but it's nearly an 8 hour drive from my place down here in Brew Town. For like 7 hours more driving (or an easy direct flight) I can be in Colorado and visit with my best friend Savage, plus stay for free and get free/discounted lift tickets to the real goods. If I can take 10 days or 2 weeks out west, I also can do the whole Ootah thing with my other Savage brother. Makes it hard to consider da UP these days. Any place more mid-state you shread? I usually hit Cascade/Devils Head or Granite Peak a time or two during the season when the snow forecast calls for fresh...

[timvwcom]

#3......

[timvwcom]

#4......

[timvwcom]

#5......

[timvwcom]

#6......

[Smokey McPole]

You've never even been to Bohemia?? My god, man!

They get "the real goods" up there, believe me. Last New Years Day was about all the real goods I could stand.

I don't ski in WI. It's a personal thing.

Really - you gotta go. It can't really be an 8 hour drive from Milwaukee. I think it's only like 4 1/2 hours from Green Bay and Milwaukee's only about 2 hours from GB max.

[timvwcom]

#7......

(OK, now I can be a total dork and not bother any of you nice people. :fuckyou: )

[gonehuckin]

bump


.......

[David Witherspoon]

I like this strategy. I'm gonna start putting placeholders in wherever I see a comment that I'd like to answer with a witty, insightful, encyclopedic and pithy response, but just don't have time to write up at the moment.

But no matter how hard you try to not bump a boring thread ... someone else will do it for you. :biggrin:

[spook]

i'm actually shocked and amazed by the strategy. i thought this place was for flippant stupidity. not well-thought out stupidity.

[jon gaper]

lets stick with e-motions. btw, how old was his slut unmarried wican mother when he was conceived? should he have been aborted?