T1B

Posted: **Tue Jun 17, 2008 7:26 pm**

mvscal wrote:McCain doesn't have to pretend that he is a moderate centrist. He is one.

Yeah, but there are other labels his campaign will assign him during the coming months that clearly will fit your FTFY. Depends on who he is trying to appeal to at the moment. His managers will cast him in whatever the most favorable light is for the audience whom he is trying to woo, and there will be times when he will be portrayed as someone who he clearly is not. It's American politics, and you know that better than most. You may win the argument that Obama's camp will have to go to greater lengths, but both sides will engage in this chicanery.

Posted: **Tue Jun 17, 2008 7:53 pm**

Smackie Chan wrote:
BSmack wrote:NJ didn't bother to publish their definitions, so you can't say what their consensus definition of those terms are.
I'll send 'em an email and see if they'll provide their definitions.

I won't hold my breath.

The fact remains that terms like liberal and conservative are dependent upon the time and perspective of the ones doing the defining of the terms.

Posted: **Tue Jun 17, 2008 7:58 pm**

Smackie Chan wrote:
mvscal wrote: His managers will cast him in whatever the most favorable light is for the audience whom he is trying to woo, and there will be times when he will be portrayed as someone who he clearly is not. It's American politics, and you know that better than most. You may win the argument that Obama's camp will have to go to greater lengths, but both sides will engage in this chicanery.

Case in point,

http://www.blog.newsweek.com/blogs/stum ... -term.aspx" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This is the the McCain Camp's stance.

The article talks about how McCain drifted right, embraced Bush's policies, to consolodate right wing support. But the crux of the article is that he won't be Bush's third term because he won't bow down to the right.

So basically, he won't be Bush's third term because he's lying to the right wing.

I'm not even sure you can argue that Obama's camp will have to go to greater lengths.

Posted: **Tue Jun 17, 2008 7:58 pm**

mvscal wrote:
Smackie Chan wrote:His managers will cast him in whatever the most favorable light is for the audience whom he is trying to woo,
But the audience he will need to woo is moderates, right?

McCain is trying to woo moderates, conservatives, and liberals.

He's a "maverick" that just does whatever the fuck he wants. Haven't you heard?

Posted: **Tue Jun 17, 2008 8:03 pm**

This surely is entertaining. It's amazing to see the Right swing all the way around on McCain...a guy who was a sponge for their abuse for a number of years. I didn't know their tricycles went that fast.

I think they're gonna get their asses WHIPPED this November.

John fucking McCain is your candidate? BWAAAHAHAHAHAHA!!

Posted: **Tue Jun 17, 2008 8:04 pm**

JayDuck wrote:He's a "maverick" that just does whatever the fuck the wealthiest of lobbyists wants. Haven't you heard?

FTFY

Posted: **Tue Jun 17, 2008 8:11 pm**

mvscal wrote:
Smackie Chan wrote:His managers will cast him in whatever the most favorable light is for the audience whom he is trying to woo,
But the audience he will need to woo is moderates, right?

For the most part, but he'll also try to win over nutjobs on the far right. A moderate stance won't go over well with them, and they're still a force (although perhaps not as much of one as they've been in the past) within the GOP. Obama's challenge goes the other direction. He won't have to do much to win the left's lunatic fringe (deservedly or not), but he'll need to go chameleon to win the center, either because of reality or perception.

Posted: **Tue Jun 17, 2008 8:15 pm**

mvscal wrote:
Smackie Chan wrote:His managers will cast him in whatever the most favorable light is for the audience whom he is trying to woo,
But the audience he will need to woo is moderates, right?

Did you just say "woo"?

Posted: **Tue Jun 17, 2008 8:21 pm**

McCain, in case you forgot, is the guy who lost the 2000 R Nomination to Chimpy Bush - himself a man who any rational observer would be bound to admit was a giggling simpleton, dangerously stupid on his best day. Nice work, John.

The man who faux-conservatives and Hannity stooges excoriated for saying he had "lost confidence in Don Rumsfeld" is now their new hero?

Posted: **Tue Jun 17, 2008 8:24 pm**

mvscal wrote:
I don't disagree. It is also a enormous tactical advantage for McCain. He already has the squishy moderates locked up. All he needs to do now is convince enough people from the right to hold their nose and vote for him.

His best play would be to play it straight and make the case that he wouldn't be quite as bad as the other clown. That might work to a certain extent. What will fail utterly is any attempt to convince conservatives that he's one of them.

He has to do more than convince them of that. The conservatives already know that, for the most part. McCain actually has to get them excited enough about him to turn out and vote in high percentages

Registered dems outnumber republicans by a considerable amount right now and they are going to get better than usual turnout. McCain and Obama have been splitting the independants right down the middle for months now. Its unlikely McCain's going to take an overwhelming advantage with Independants enough to win.

Posted: **Tue Jun 17, 2008 8:28 pm**

mvscal wrote:He already has the squishy moderates locked up. All he needs to do now is convince enough people from the right to hold their nose and vote for him.

He might have the squishies on the right locked up, but there are moderate liberals who he'll have to convince to switch to the dark side, and that is where his balancing act will have to be good. Trying to capture both the moderates on the left and the fundies on the right will be no easy task

His best play would be to play it straight and make the case that he wouldn't be quite as bad as the other clown. That might work to a certain extent. What will fail utterly is any attempt to convince conservatives that he's one of them.

The pressure to kowtow to conservatives will be very hard to resist. Not sure that a campaign platform of "Vote for me, 'cuz I don't suck as much as the other guy" is a winning strategy, either.

Posted: **Tue Jun 17, 2008 8:28 pm**

JayDuck wrote:McCain actually has to get them excited enough about him

Never happen, now his second wife on the other hand .......

Talk about a GMILF grrrr baby grrrrrr..

Edit for rules

Posted: **Tue Jun 17, 2008 8:33 pm**

mvscal wrote:
Mikey wrote:Did you just say "woo"?
Who?

Wendy_Lou?

Posted: **Tue Jun 17, 2008 8:43 pm**

mvscal wrote:
JayDuck wrote:McCain and Obama have been splitting the independants right down the middle for months now. Its unlikely McCain's going to take an overwhelming advantage with Independants enough to win.
Rubbish. This race hasn't even started yet. Onogga will steadily lose ground with moderates for the simple reason that he is going to have to lie to them to get their votes. While credulous dolts have never been in short supply, it really isn't going to take a superhuman intellect to see through Onogga's tissue of lies and bullshit.

Bullshit. There are moderates on the left and the right, and not all Independants are even moderates in the first place.
Pro Life & Pro-War in Iraq, by itself, is going to be enough to keep nearly half of the independants on Obama's side. Its doubtfull that either of them wins the Independant vote by a huge margin.

Obama doesn't have to do much lying to the Independants at all, because the current administration has done such a good job of pissing people off. There isn't going to be anything McCain will be capable of doing or saying to get much more than half of that vote.

Posted: **Tue Jun 17, 2008 8:57 pm**

mvscal wrote:
JayDuck wrote:Obama doesn't have to do much lying to the Independants at all, because the current administration has done such a good job of pissing people off.
Sure he does. Or have you been sleeping while the "McSame" meme has made the rounds?

The McSame shit doesn't even matter. Bush pissed off people enough that they'll vote against the GOP, whether or not they think McCain's going to continue on as Bush III.

McCain won't win the Independant vote by much, if he's able to at all, and its not because of any lying that Obama has to do. Its because a lot of people aren't going to think about it much more than "Bush was a asshat and a republican, so I'm not going to vote republican".

Posted: **Wed Jun 18, 2008 9:28 am**

1 being far left and 10 being far right, I would say Obama is a 2 ... perhaps leaning toward a 1.

Assignment for BSkunk:

On that same 1-10 scale, and based on your own criteria, where do you say Obama falls?
What number is he?

And if you say he is anything other than a 1 or 2, name a handful of issues on which he has shown himself to be moderate or even right.

ty

Posted: **Wed Jun 18, 2008 11:07 am**

poptart wrote:Assignment for BSkunk:

On that same 1-10 scale, and based on your own criteria, where do you say Obama falls?
What number is he?

Too subjective. Waste of time. Can't be done.

Oot.

Posted: **Wed Jun 18, 2008 12:25 pm**

mvscal wrote:While credulous dolts have never been in short supply, it really isn't going to take a superhuman intellect to see through Onogga's tissue of lies and bullshit.

If Obama is really that objectionable to you, why not hold your nose and vote for the only person who has a ghost of a chance of beating him?

McCain is going to need all the help he can get at the polls, obviously.

Posted: **Wed Jun 18, 2008 1:30 pm**

Terry in Crapchester wrote:
mvscal wrote:While credulous dolts have never been in short supply, it really isn't going to take a superhuman intellect to see through Onogga's tissue of lies and bullshit.
If Obama is really that objectionable to you, why not hold your nose and vote for the only person who has a ghost of a chance of beating him?

McCain is going to need all the help he can get at the polls, obviously.

Nice map. And if Quinnipiac's latest findings are to be believed, you can put Florida in the learning Obama column.

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x2882.xml?ReleaseID=1187" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Book it, Obama will have an electoral landslide before this is all over.

Posted: **Wed Jun 18, 2008 1:40 pm**

BSmack wrote:Obama will have an electoral landslide before this is all over.

Waaaaay too early to start making book.

Posted: **Wed Jun 18, 2008 1:42 pm**

I know it’s been said before, but I think a lot of people are going to have a hard time voting for a black man asking for change.

Posted: **Wed Jun 18, 2008 1:52 pm**

I love this board.

Why do you hate Florida?

Posted: **Wed Jun 18, 2008 2:23 pm**

TVO wrote:I love this board.

Why do you hate Florida?

1. Tasteless, salmonella infested tomatoes.

2. Wolfman

3.

Posted: **Wed Jun 18, 2008 3:24 pm**

If by some fucked up chance he does get elected, then

Posted: **Wed Jun 18, 2008 3:35 pm**

mvscal wrote:
BSmack wrote:Book it, Obama will have an electoral landslide before this is all over.

Barack Obama’s foreign policy advisers said Tuesday that Osama bin Laden, if captured, should be allowed to appeal his case to U.S. civilian courts,

http://www.examiner.com/printa-1446818~ ... ourts.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Not bloody likely.

Obama has pledged to uphold the recent Supreme Court ruling regarding the rights of detainees. Were bin Laden to be captured, he would be entitled to the same rights as other detainees until such time as he is convicted. It is not a case of "should bin Laden be allowed to appeal his case", it is a simple matter of enforcing the existing SCOTUS ruling.

And you people have a PROBLEM with that?

Posted: **Wed Jun 18, 2008 3:39 pm**

BSmack wrote:
mvscal wrote:
BSmack wrote:Book it, Obama will have an electoral landslide before this is all over.

Barack Obama’s foreign policy advisers said Tuesday that Osama bin Laden, if captured, should be allowed to appeal his case to U.S. civilian courts,

http://www.examiner.com/printa-1446818~ ... ourts.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Not bloody likely.
Obama has pledged to uphold the recent Supreme Court ruling regarding the rights of detainees. Were bin Laden to be captured, he would be entitled to the same rights as other detainees until such time as he is convicted. It is not a case of "should bin Laden be allowed to appeal his case", it is a simple matter of enforcing the existing SCOTUS ruling.

And you people have a PROBLEM with that?

You ignorant fuck up.

Why do you hate God?

Posted: **Wed Jun 18, 2008 3:50 pm**

BSmack wrote:
Smackie Chan wrote:
BSmack wrote:NJ didn't bother to publish their definitions, so you can't say what their consensus definition of those terms are.
I'll send 'em an email and see if they'll provide their definitions.
I won't hold my breath.

Good news and bad news: Got a response, but it was essentially unresponsive...

National Journal wrote:Hi Smackie,

I have been trying to find more specific information on this, and I am trying to get in touch with the editorial staff. But as far as I understand, the Vote Ratings are tabulated in a relative format to one another. Please let me know if you have further questions. Also you should know that if you want a more specific answer to this question you can email letters@nationaljournal.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" which is the general editorial inbox for the National Journal. Thanks!

Sincerely,

Samuel Johnson

Assistant, Reader Relations

Office of the Publisher

National Journal Group

The Watergate

600 New Hampshire Ave, NW

Washington, DC 20037

(p) 202-266-7249

I'll email their letters dept and see what happens.

Posted: **Wed Jun 18, 2008 4:30 pm**

MadRussian wrote:If by some fucked up chance he does get elected, then

I get a kick out of this assertion - that Obama will get clipped if he's elected President. Even funnier is the idea that a black pol would shy away from the spotlight because of the inherent danger from KKK-type assailants.

Dude, wake the fuck up - EVERY POTUS is targeted, pretty much non-stop. If you think that security isn't a concern for Bush, or that it would somehow be less for a white POTUS than it would be for a black one, then you're hopelessly addled - not that we should be at all surprised by that.

Posted: **Wed Jun 18, 2008 10:45 pm**

poptart wrote:Assignment for BSkunk:

On that same 1-10 scale, and based on your own criteria, where do you say Obama falls?
What number is he?

And if you say he is anything other than a 1 or 2, name a handful of issues on which he has shown himself to be moderate or even right.

ty

Posted: **Wed Jun 18, 2008 10:53 pm**

Seems to me it wasn't too long ago that the Dems/leftists were saying that Bin Laden had already been captured/killed and Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Haliburton/evil oil companies/ every lefty bogeyman was waiting for the right moment to reveal it.
What a bunch of fucking idiots ! Heaven help us all if they get into the White House again.

Posted: **Wed Jun 18, 2008 11:06 pm**

Well, that's interesting. What Dem in a position to enter the White House asserted that they though bin-Laden had been killed, and that our leaders just weren't telling us?

Where are you getting this from? Sounds pretty kooky to me, but in all fairness, let's see if you can substantiate it...

Posted: **Wed Jun 18, 2008 11:16 pm**

PSUFAN wrote:
Where are you getting this from? Sounds pretty kooky to me, but in all fairness, let's see if you can substantiate it...

Dude, have you not figured it out yet?

Dude claims to be some educated guy, a certified teacher, no less.

Yet he can't write a fucking paragraph properly if his life depended on it.

He doesn't know which side of the quotation marks periods and commas go on, for chrissake.

I'll help you out, PSU -- he's a compulsive liar. The something-or-other out front should have told you.

Posted: **Wed Jun 18, 2008 11:29 pm**

I'd like the prior challenge to stand unchanged, but as a sidebar - I think it's pretty damn unlikely that the Bush Administration would have sat on a verified OBL kill,if not IMPOSSIBLE. Shit, they have been so eager for something positive to trumpet for years. They even kept the details of Pat Tillman's death under wraps until they had wrung every last ounce of PR juice out of it. That doesn't sound like an Administration that would sit on an OBL kill, nosiree.

Posted: **Wed Jun 18, 2008 11:36 pm**

They made up the details just like did with that Jessica Lynch chick.

Posted: **Thu Jun 19, 2008 1:01 am**

mvscal wrote:No, they just ran with the first report they got without bothering to verify it.

Heh, kind of like the mainstream press.

Posted: **Thu Jun 19, 2008 2:20 am**

mvscal wrote:No, they just ran with the first report they got without bothering to verify it. Of course they should have known better. First reports are very frequently wrong.

Well, That's bullshit. The people who created the first wrong reports are part of the "They", and it was intentional propaganda to pride up the war in Americans eyes. It's not like the government relied on an independent news organization to fluff up a couple of touching hero stories. That shit followed after.

Jessica Lynch claimed, concerning the Pentagon: "They used me to symbolize all this stuff. It's wrong......"General Vincent Brooks, US spokesman in Doha, said: "Some brave souls put their lives on the line to make this happen, loyal to a creed that they know that they'll never leave a fallen comrade."

Lt. Gen. Stanley McChrystal approved Pat Tillmans Silver Star citation on April 28, 2004, which gave a detailed account of Tillman's death including the phrase "in the line of devastating enemy fire", however the very next day McChrystal sent a P4 memo warning senior government members that Tillman might actually have been killed by friendly fire.

Posted: **Thu Jun 19, 2008 11:08 am**

BSmack wrote:finding a clear definition of the words liberal and conservative that fits all possible votes is just about impossible.

Seems the National Journal agrees with you.

NJ wrote:Mr. Chan

Thanks for your inquiry. We don't have any formal definitions of conservatism and liberalism that we use. When we're reviewing possible votes to include in the vote ratings, we typically discuss among ourselves whether the vote in question serves to differentiate liberals from conservatives, based on how we perceive the terms. For instance, we would classify votes in favor of abortion rights as liberal, and votes in support of drilling for oil in ANWR as conservative. I'm not sure there are any definitions of conservatism and liberalism that would apply to all the votes that we consider for inclusion in Vote Ratings in a given year.

Hope that helps.

Charles Green
Editor
National Journal

Posted: **Thu Jun 19, 2008 11:20 am**

He just trolled you because he hates slants, chinks and gooks ... Mr Chan.

Posted: **Thu Jun 19, 2008 11:35 am**

poptart wrote:He just trolled you because he hates slants, chinks and gooks ... Mr Chan.

Are those num-chucks in your pants or are you just happy to see me?

Let me take you back to the day that I met my China girl
When I landed a 'Pam' like on the San Fran Real World
I was sweating like a vegetable inside of a wok
I'd never been to Asia Minor but I was gonna Bangkok
Like Kristy Yamaguchi I had to break the ice
Should I talk about Mothra, M*A*S*H, or shrimp-fried rice?
I was sharp as a Chinese star but it's a line I threw
Just thirty seconds over Tokyo and this Johnny would Woo
I took a shot like Jeanette Lee, put on my moves like Bruce Lee
I told her every Soon Yi needs a little Woody
She said for all the tea in China my vagina's not free
But my love will linger longer than the Ming Dynasty
I said I needed her to do and her to do my laundry
I knew she needed a way to stay legally within the country
She was made in Taiwan, I said I'm O.K. with that
Just promise me you'll never try to eat my cat

Chinky chinky bang bang I love you
Chinky chinky bang bang I know you love me too

In Japan the hand is used as a knife
In Japan a man's wife's hand job than can cost him his life
But now this Captain Kirk has his own Sulu
I'll shampoo her Foo Man Chu with Lo Hung Wang Goo
'Cause I ride my slant-eyed slope like a brand new Kawasaki
Oh me chinky she's so kinky got me hot like Nagasaki
Burnin' up like Napalm, burstin' like an A-bomb
I think I got that jungle fever but I caught it in 'Nam
She's like an oriental rug cause I lay her where I please
Then I blindfold her with dental floss and get down on her knees
I'm a diving Kamikaze eating out Chinese
First I'll have the poo-poo platter than some tuna sushi
She'll be screaming like Godzilla and kickin' like Smackie Chan
I'll get her redder than China, wetter than the Sea of Japan
Like the Chinese New Year she's gonna see fireworks
Now be a good chinky and press poptart's shirts

Chinky chinky bang bang I love you
Chinky chinky bang bang I know you love me too

Sing chinky sing
One more time

Chinky chinky bang bang I love you
Chinky chinky bang bang I know you love me too
Chinky chinky bang bang chinky bang
Chinky chinky bang biddily biddily biddily bang

Posted: **Sun Jun 22, 2008 11:40 am**

Smackie Chan wrote:
BSmack wrote:finding a clear definition of the words liberal and conservative that fits all possible votes is just about impossible.
Seems the National Journal agrees with you.

NJ wrote:Mr. Chan

Thanks for your inquiry. We don't have any formal definitions of conservatism and liberalism that we use. When we're reviewing possible votes to include in the vote ratings, we typically discuss among ourselves whether the vote in question serves to differentiate liberals from conservatives, based on how we perceive the terms. For instance, we would classify votes in favor of abortion rights as liberal, and votes in support of drilling for oil in ANWR as conservative. I'm not sure there are any definitions of conservatism and liberalism that would apply to all the votes that we consider for inclusion in Vote Ratings in a given year.

Hope that helps.

Charles Green
Editor
National Journal

Not surprising. I seem to recall some group in 2004 (not sure if it was the National Journal) claiming that John Kerry was the most liberal member of the Senate back then. Of course, even if it was the National Journal, it wouldn't technically be contradictory to claim that Obama is the most liberal member of the Senate now, given that he wasn't in the Senate in 2004. But it would be a rather strange coincidence that in two consecutive Presidential elections, the Democratic Party managed to nominate two different people, both of whom happened to be "the most liberal member of the Senate." I'm quite sure that Hillary, had she managed to win the nomination, somehow would have become magically "the most liberal member of the Senate."

In any event, the Senate now includes among its membership a self-described socialist (Bernie Sanders of Vermont). So any claim that Obama (or for that matter, Kerry or Hillary) is "the most liberal member of the Senate" is spurious at best, an outright partisan-motivated lie at worst.

BSmack wrote:
Smackie Chan wrote:Obama will have an electoral landslide before this is all over.
Waaaaay too early to start making book.

Agreed, but . . .

Given the neat balancing trick McCain will need to pull off in this race, as you and JayDuck pointed out, as well as the fact that the electoral map is looking pretty favorable to Obama right now, I don't think it's too early to say that this race is Obama's to lose.

Barring something completely unforeseen happening between now and early November, I'd give McCain a 30% chance of winning the election. And that's probably pretty generous.

T1B

4092 dead in Iraq

Re: 4092 dead in Iraq

Re: 4092 dead in Iraq

Re: 4092 dead in Iraq

Re: 4092 dead in Iraq

Re: 4092 dead in Iraq

Re: 4092 dead in Iraq

Re: 4092 dead in Iraq

Re: 4092 dead in Iraq

Re: 4092 dead in Iraq

Re: 4092 dead in Iraq

Re: 4092 dead in Iraq

Re: 4092 dead in Iraq

Re: 4092 dead in Iraq

Re: 4092 dead in Iraq

Re: 4092 dead in Iraq

Re: 4092 dead in Iraq

Re: 4092 dead in Iraq

Re: 4092 dead in Iraq

Re: 4092 dead in Iraq

Re: 4092 dead in Iraq

Re: 4092 dead in Iraq

Re: 4092 dead in Iraq

Re: 4092 dead in Iraq

Re: 4092 dead in Iraq

Re: 4092 dead in Iraq

Re: 4092 dead in Iraq

Re: 4092 dead in Iraq

Re: 4092 dead in Iraq

Re: 4092 dead in Iraq

Re: 4092 dead in Iraq

Re: 4092 dead in Iraq

Re: 4092 dead in Iraq

Re: 4092 dead in Iraq

Re: 4092 dead in Iraq

Re: 4092 dead in Iraq

Re: 4092 dead in Iraq

Re: 4092 dead in Iraq

Re: 4092 dead in Iraq

Re: 4092 dead in Iraq

Re: 4092 dead in Iraq