While We Wait: Part 5

[Luckymoose]

So, Luckymoose, the media hates McCain so much that even when presented with a juicy story that would gain them immense prestige (ie: that Obama is a Secret Muslim Sleeper Agent) they just pass it up? Really now. That's interesting to me.

You see, John McCain keeps bringing up Ayers and, aside from the people who think it's kosher to shout things like "Terrorist!" or "Treason!", nobody takes him seriously. Did you ever wonder why that is?

Because he's fearmongering and using a story that was already disproved to try and slander his opponent maybe? See, when your attack doesn't connect? That's not hammering. It's whiffing. It's failing to connect. In this case, it's failing precisely because anyone who has actually done more than listened to McCain knows it's not true.

Well, all the media doesn't hate McCain, just a majority. If you don't think there is a liberal bias you probably shouldn't continue this argument on the media.

Obama is fearmongering aswell. Did you notice how he keeps saying things like, our economy will collapse if we have four more years of reaganomics? That is fearmongering without any form of evidence to back it up. Obama has repeatedly shown his tactic to be lying about his past and making empty promises while focusing all the attention on the conservatives and putting all the blame on them.


@Silver: Still a very extreme form of support. I would never sing for McCain.

 

[Symphony D.]

Who's the bigger fear mongerer? He who says the world's going to end unless Obama's elected? Or he who points out a connection between Obama and terrorists?

"Hrm, I don't have an argument to make against these points. I know, I'll impeach Symphony D.'s character and stated bias against McCain and say that somehow disproves everything he cites from outside sources, and hope that it also somehow reflects poorly upon the Obama campaign at large since he supports them. Thus, I will secure victory locally and substantiate myself. Flawless."

Well, all the media doesn't hate McCain, just a majority. If you don't think there is a liberal bias you probably shouldn't continue this argument on the media.

Obama is fearmongering aswell. Did you notice how he keeps saying things like, our economy will collapse if we have four more years of reaganomics? That is fearmongering without any form of evidence to back it up. Obama has repeatedly shown his tactic to be lying about his past and making empty promises while focusing all the attention on the conservatives and putting all the blame on them.

1. Way to completely dodge the point. You don't deny what McCain is doing, you simply change topics.
2. Media bias cancels out when the media is biased in different ways and aggregate it all together. Guess what, not even FOX News takes Ayers seriously, except for Sean Hannity.
3. Reaganomics have gotten us into this position. Reaganomics are fundamentally about deregulation, which is what caused this financial crisis. Do you know what a definition for insanity is? Repeating the same thing over and over again and expecting different results!
4. Your last line is the same thing you have said about five billion times, which I have repeatedly demanded proof for, which you have failed to provide. It has been 24 hours, Sarah Palin, and I am still waiting for your list of citations.

 

[Amon Savag]

Reaganomics is about less taxes and de-regulation and the government STAYING OUT of the economy. unfortunately, McLame isn't of the same mind-set as Reagan on this issue, as he called for regulation on fannie and freddie 3 years ago.... Like it or not, if you like regulations, McLame's your guy.

 

[Luckymoose]

"Hrm, I don't have an argument to make against these points. I know, I'll impeach Symphony D.'s character and stated bias against McCain and say that somehow disproves everything he says, and hope that it also somehow reflects poorly upon the Obama campaign at large since he supports them. Thus, I will secure victory locally and substantiate myself. Flawless."


1. Way to completely dodge the point. You don't deny what McCain is doing, you simply change topics.
2. Media bias cancels out when the media is biased in different ways and aggregate it all together. Guess what, not even FOX News takes Ayers seriously, except for Sean Hannity.
3. Reaganomics have gotten us into this position. Reaganomics are fundamentally about deregulation, which is what caused this financial crisis. Do you know what a definition for insanity is? Repeating the same thing over and over again and expecting different results!
4. Your last line is the same thing you have said about five billion times, which I have repeatedly demanded proof for, which you have failed to provide. It has been 24 hours, Sarah Palin, and I am still waiting for your list of citations.

What do you want proof of?

• Obama's socialist plans

• His plan to lower taxes on 95% of Americans while raising expenditures

• His Civilian Army

• Him saying he would invade Pakistan to get Al Qaeda

• Him saying the surge wouldn't work

• His plans to talk with anti-American leaders without precondition

• Him wanting to severely limit gun rights or remove them entirely

• His association with a voter fraud organization

• His working against banks so they would give loans to low or no income people

 

[Symphony D.]

Reaganomics is about less taxes and de-regulation and the government STAYING OUT of the economy. unfortunately, McLame isn't of the same mind-set as Reagan on this issue, as he called for regulation on fannie and freddie 3 years ago.... Like it or not, if you like regulations, McLame's your guy.

Right, which is why McCain was a self-avowed Deregulator and proponent of small-government up until about two weeks ago.

Uh... huh. I suppose from the perspective of an extreme laissez-faire capitalist, he might be considered a regulator... in the same sort of fashion that a diehard Stalinist might consider Obama a freewheeling capitalist fat-cat with his one house and one car.

 

[Amon Savag]

His plan to lower taxes on 95% of people bringing a paycheck's so dumb, because 50% of those people don't even pay taxes to the federal government.

 

[Luckymoose]

Right, which is why McCain was a self-avowed Deregulator and proponent of small-government up until about two weeks ago.

Uh... huh. I suppose from the perspective of an extreme laissez-faire capitalist, he might be considered a regulator... in the same sort of fashion that a diehard Stalinist might consider Obama a freewheeling capitalist fat-cat with his one house and one car.

And the reason Fannie Mae failed? Democrats on the payroll were against reforming the system. Your buddy Barack could have helped prevent this crisis, but he was to busy spending his backroom cash.

 

[Amon Savag]

Obama's just as capitolist as the rest of us. He bought that one car and one house by doing what? Writing a book? Hard worker, that Obama... He really relates to the rest of us who're struggling to pay bills, doesn't he? If you've made a living for yourself, there's no reason you shouldn't share the wealth by getting things. Getting things helps the economy. Hording wealth hurts the economy.

While McLame now spouts sometimes that he's a deregulator and other times that he's a regulator... His record shows him favoring regulations. He's a believer in global warming, for one thing... That's the biggest reason used by big-government types to curb our liberties nowdays. He's voted plenty for regulations. On the bright side, he's nowhere near as big government as Osama.

 

[Symphony D.]

And the reason Fannie Mae failed? Democrats on the payroll were against reforming the system. Your buddy Barack could have helped prevent this crisis, but he was to busy spending his backroom cash.

Uh huh, and so was your buddy John McCain, who has methodically failed to prevent our current course since 1998 and helped precipitate the last financial crisis. What have you proved? Nothing.

Again, you're missing the point. I'm not saying Barack Obama is perfect. Please pay attention. I am saying he is better than McCain. You are categorically failing to disprove that assertion.

Obama's socialist plans

How vague and nebulously fear-inspiring! Evidence.

His plan to lower taxes on 95% of Americans while raising expenditures

Which is different from McCain's plan... how?

His Civilian Army

Evidence.

Him saying he would invade Pakistan to get Al Qaeda

Where's the problem? You're alright with John McCain wanting to annihilate North Korea and singing Bomb Iran but you're hesitant about Obama violating sovereignty to get Public Enemy Number One? The hell?

Him saying the surge wouldn't work

Which nobody could have predicted. He has continued to be reticent about acknowledging it's success, which is a flaw, but ultimately he was correct that we should not have entered Iraq.

His plans to talk with anti-American leaders without precondition

Ah, so sort of like what Bush did by starting talks with Iran (until he canceled them because it might look bad for McCain) and taking less hardline stances against North Korea. Right. So, tell me why America, the world's superpower, should be afraid to talk to its enemies in an official capacity? It shows weakness? No, acting like a spoiled brat and saying you want talk to people unless they kowtow first is weakness.

Him wanting to severely limit gun rights or remove them entirely

You sure do need that M-4 carbine with M203 grenade launcher to hunt you some deer. Ayup. Everyone knows bullmoose are packing AKs and Kevlar these days.

His association with a voter fraud organization

Evidence.

His working against banks so they would give loans to low or no income people

Dramatic oversimplification and you'll need some Evidence besides.

While McLame now spouts sometimes that he's a deregulator and other times that he's a regulator... His record shows him favoring regulations.

Again, compared to whom? You are aware of the idea of a continuous scale, right? Of the concept of relativism? Not just Platonic absolutes? And that John McCain is very far on the deregulator side of that scale when compared with most people in the United States government?

 

[Luckymoose]

We can bet on a planned economy with Obama.

@Symphony: Sorry, I posted nearly the same time as you. Give me a minute.


Socialism by Obama: Lower taxes on a scale to increase the income of the lower class and decrease it of the upper, to make them closer together and to shorten the wealth gap. State run healthcare, civilian army, his formerly free education which is now a work for your government and gain aid system. It all fits.

On taxes:

McCain has lower taxes on the upper class as well, though his lower income tax reductions aren't as great as Obama's, he has a well balanced, across the board reduction in taxes. Obama seems to not understand most small business owners file taxes as individuals and not companies, meaning his higher taxes on those with incomes higher than 227$k will effect many companies. Small businesses can have hundreds of employees I remind you.

On Pakistan and Wars:

Pakistan is amazingly different than Iran or North Korea. Which I never said I supported a war in, as I do not agree completely with McCain. Pakistan has nuclear weapons, a massive army and the economic means to do us some serious harm in a conflict. Iran would be minimal in comparison.

On Iraq and Surge:

The plan was commonsense, more troops means you can do more security operations in more areas. We should have entered Iraq to begin with, Saddam should have been taken out of power in the Gulf War to begin with. The man wasn't fit to lead.

On foreign leaders:

Obama is not the person you send to talk with these people, he lacks the foreign policy experience to know what is going on. If he has an awesome, experienced person do it for him, then maybe.

On hunting and firearms:

The right to firearms is constitutional, we have the right to any weapon we see fit and he has no right to change that. Not everyone hunts, some people just love to shoot at ranges and buying ammunition and weapons puts money into the hands of companies. Some of which work with the military. It's not gun laws we need, it's proper gun safety and more therapists for all these psychos that ruin it for everyone else. I do not support school shootings.


Obama and ACORN:

Barack Obama has in the past and currently been in association with ACORN, who you may know from the recent FBI raids and evidence of voter fraud. Some names used as many as twelve times and even names of atheletes used by people from different states. All of this not surprisingly comes up after a large point jump for Obama.

ACORN as well as other groups were the recipients of foundation money from both the Woods Fund and Joyce Foundation. Why is this important? Obama sat on both boards.

Link.

Obama on Loans:

He did work against the banks and with people of little to no documentation of their source of income for loans. Link.

 

[Amon Savag]

People should have to kowtow when they've been acting like a reject for so long, before they can meet with the United States on an official level. It doesn't benefit us to meet with them. It benefits them to meet with us.

Difference between Iran, North Korea, and Pakistan? Pakistan's our ally. The others continuously spew anti-american bullcrap. So... Go ahead and bow down to our enemies, while attacking our allies. That's a good message to send the rest of the world.

 

[silver 2039]

Pakistan's our ally.

Which is why they've been firing on US forces along the border, harboring the Taliban and Al-Qaida members. They even signed a treaty with the Taliban.

If those are your allies I really hate to see what your enemies do.

 

[Amon Savag]

It's the best we can do, given the situation... You want to tick off the Pakistani people off to the point to where some idealistic regime like is in Iran takes over Pakistan, WHO HAS NUCLEAR CAPABILITIES. Granted, I don't like Pakistan as much as the next guy, but I don't want Pakistan's government to change into an Iran-style government. That'd be MUCH worse than what we've got in pakistan at the moment. I don't see why people don't get this.

 

[Symphony D.]

People should have to kowtow when they've been acting like a reject for so long, before they can meet with the United States on an official level. It doesn't benefit us to meet with them. It benefits them to meet with us.

So it pays for us to start a thousand small cold wars which we constantly have to allocate resources to guard against instead of working out a solution where the other side deescalates in return for some token diplomatic concessions?

So, depriving North Korea of nuclear weapons by offering it electricity is more dangerous than having a Nuclear Mexican Standoff with North Korea? Ditto Iran? You must be the most awesome hostage negotiator ever.

Difference between Iran, North Korea, and Pakistan? Pakistan's our ally. The others continuously spew anti-american bullcrap. So... Go ahead and bow down to our enemies, while attacking our allies. That's a good message to send the rest of the world.

Uh huh, which is why Pakistan is currently harboring Al Qaeda and the Taliban in the northwest territories and Waziristan, in full knowledge that they are crossing the border into Afghanistan and killing American soldiers, and they don't lift a damn finger to stop it. Because they're our allies. Right. That makes perfect sense. We can't risk ticking them off... but we can go start a third and fourth war in Iran and North Korea no problem, amirite? And bully Russia at the same time too! Your grasp of the situation is truly extraordinary.

 

[silver 2039]

It's the best we can do, given the situation... You want to tick off the Pakistani people off to the point to where some idealistic regime like is in Iran takes over Pakistan, WHO HAS NUCLEAR CAPABILITIES. Granted, I don't like Pakistan as much as the next guy, but I don't want Pakistan's government to change into an Iran-style government. That'd be MUCH worse than what we've got in pakistan at the moment. I don't see why people don't get this.

Yes. I want to see exactly that. It would result in a complete collapse of the Pakistani state as the Army and ISI on one side, jockey for power with the civilian government and the fundamentalists on another side.

Throw in some US and Indian intervention and we have a reception for Pakistan's dismemberment.

One of the reasons I'm voting for Obama really. I'm finally glad that someone has decided to reverse the US's policy on Pakistan a complete and utter failed state.

 

[Amon Savag]

We Don't Gain Anything From Negotiating With These Countries.

 

[Symphony D.]

We Don't Gain Anything From Negotiating With These Countries.

I guess you're not familiar with the idea that people are more prone to violence the more you corner them. See, when go hardline on these people we make them build up huge military forces to protect themselves. Then we have to allocate lots of money and soldiers to counterbalance their forces so that we're ready to kill them if they do something stupid. If we deescalate, we can put those forces somewhere elsewhere or decrease our budgeting for them because we won't need them so badly all the time. Instead we can save them for the countries that really are totally unwilling to negotiate.

We don't gain anything? Amon, when you treat everyone like an enemy, you have to spend an awful goddamn lot on defense. Seriously, try thinking.

 

[Amon Savag]

So we don't want to spend money on something the constitution allows us to... Defense.... But we're DEFFINETLY ok with spending money on socialised medicine... Something the Constitution must have forgot to put in.

 

[Symphony D.]

So we don't want to spend money on something the constitution allows us to... Defense.... But we're DEFFINETLY ok with spending money on socialised medicine... Something the Constitution must have forgot to put in.

You are aware that even the US military has its limits? That in its currently volunteer form it cannot police or intervene everywhere in the world simultaneously? Are you aware of that fact?

I'll assume yes. Then you must also be aware that with Afghanistan and Iraq alone we are woefully overstretched and cannot commit to defense deployments somewhere else--like Iran or North Korea--unless we were to do something drastic, like institute a draft. Knowing this, you must therefore be aware that threatening people with military force while in a position of weakness--bluffing--is stupid when you can't back the threat up.

To pursue a policy of opposing every country that you marginally don't like is to smear your forces across the globe, tie yourself down sitting on a bunch of borders watching some guy you don't like, and depriving yourself of the ability to fight when you really need to because you have to make sure the bad guys you're already watching don't do something when you leave.

Knowing all this, either you (1) don't support taking a hardline stance when it isn't necessary, because you know it will weaken your military reaction ability... or you (2) support enacting a massive draft and starting WWIII right now to remake the world in America's image.

Which is it? One or two? Because if you advocate anything else, you are uninformed and ignorant of the realities of geopolitics, and indeed, of the capabilities of this country's military.

 

[Amon Savag]

My stance has nothing to do with starting WW3 or enacting a massive draft. You forget our military capabilities aren't just "Boots on the ground". While our manpower capable of taking and holding ground is limitted, that matters not. We can send either of these countries in question, or any other country in the world, for that matter, back to the 3rd century via air raids. Let their own populace do the rest.