tojo2000 wrote:

Zookeeper wrote:

tojo2000 wrote:

Once again, based on what?  Obama's been hounded by "issue" after "issue" since he first started running.  The media has been all over any negative rumors the instant they hit.  Where did he get a free pass from anyone?

"Based on what?"  Were you asleep during the primaries?  You honestly don't know what I'm referring to?

Yes, I watched as much primary coverage as any one person can possibly watch while holding down a full-time job.  Now put up or shut up.

You're just playing dumb if you say you don't remember the love affair the press had with Obama nor the controversy over the Clinton campaign getting the short end of the stick.  If you want to claim I'm making this up I won't bother argue with you.  It isn't worth the hassle.

tojo2000 wrote:

Zookeeper wrote:

It's easy to dismiss bias by couching it in extreme terms like "conspiracy".  I suppose that Obama's  getting an easier ride than Hillary in the primaries was a "conspiracy" too.

Once again, based on what?  Obama's been hounded by "issue" after "issue" since he first started running.  The media has been all over any negative rumors the instant they hit.  Where did he get a free pass from anyone?

It's only a free pass because none of it stuck.

Obama has had to deal with:

1. Being erroneously labeled a Muslim;
2. Michelle's "proud of America" moment;
3. Tony Rezko
4.  Bill Ayers
5.  Khalidi
6.  lack of experience
7.  lack of record
8.  Admission in his book that he did drugs in his youth
9.  Reverened Wright
10. Accusation that he is  not a US citizen.
11.  Accusation that he attended muslim school and trained as a terrorist
12.  Accusation that he's rich and does nothing financial for his poor African 1/2 brothers and sisters.

I'm sure I'm leaving something out.  To claim that Obama got a pass is just insane.  They've thrown everything at him that they could and the bottom line is that voters simply don't care.  This time they care about the issues.

headkicker_girl wrote:

tojo2000 wrote:

Zookeeper wrote:

It's easy to dismiss bias by couching it in extreme terms like "conspiracy".  I suppose that Obama's  getting an easier ride than Hillary in the primaries was a "conspiracy" too.

Once again, based on what?  Obama's been hounded by "issue" after "issue" since he first started running.  The media has been all over any negative rumors the instant they hit.  Where did he get a free pass from anyone?

It's only a free pass because none of it stuck.

Obama has had to deal with:

1. Being erroneously labeled a Muslim;
2. Michelle's "proud of America" moment;
3. Tony Rezko
4.  Bill Ayers
5.  Khalidi
6.  lack of experience
7.  lack of record
8.  Admission in his book that he did drugs in his youth
9.  Reverened Wright
10. Accusation that he is  not a US citizen.
11.  Accusation that he attended muslim school and trained as a terrorist
12.  Accusation that he's rich and does nothing financial for his poor African 1/2 brothers and sisters.

I'm sure I'm leaving something out.  To claim that Obama got a pass is just insane.  They've thrown everything at him that they could and the bottom line is that voters simply don't care.  This time they care about the issues.

I would say O8ama has been tested pretty hard by now. The test came from a U.S. Senator and not from AlQueda. I don't think Bin Laden would have played as dirty as McSame.

Do you REALLY believe Obama is or is buddies with terrorists? That he has duped every one of his supporters and will let loose a fury or terrorism upon us when he becomes president?
Put down the Kool Ade cup.
People should have to pass a common sense test before being allowed to vote.

phreddy wrote:

headkicker wrote:

1. Being erroneously labeled a Muslim;
2. Michelle's "proud of America" moment;
3. Tony Rezko
4.  Bill Ayers
5.  Khalidi
6.  lack of experience
7.  lack of record
8.  Admission in his book that he did drugs in his youth
9.  Reverened Wright
10. Accusation that he is  not a US citizen.
11.  Accusation that he attended muslim school and trained as a terrorist
12.  Accusation that he's rich and does nothing financial for his poor African 1/2 brothers and sisters.

I'm sure I'm leaving something out.  To claim that Obama got a pass is just insane.  They've thrown everything at him that they could and the bottom line is that voters simply don't care.  This time they care about the issues.

But these ARE the issues.  They go to the core of the man we are electing as our president.  Would you hire a babysitter who refused to answer questions about why she hangs out with local criminals?  What if she said, "forget all that, let's discuss the issues, like, I'm good at watching children".  I have a hunch that her character would be of issue with you.  Well, Obama's character is of issue with me.

Bullshit.  Give me one question that Barack Obama has refused to answer.

phreddy wrote:

Bigcat wrote:

Do you REALLY believe Obama is or is buddies with terrorists? That he has duped every one of his supporters and will let loose a fury or terrorism upon us when he becomes president?
Put down the Kool Ade cup.
People should have to pass a common sense test before being allowed to vote.

Yes, I do believe Obama is buddies with terrorists.  That's fairly clear.  I don't believe he's going to promote domestic terrorism, but his Marxist ideals will certainly have a profound effect on our culture and economy.  And, yes, people should have to pass a common sense test before being allowed to vote.  But then, Americans have always gone for "glib and flashy" over "solid and sensible".

Puh-leeze.  Obama has shown no evidence of "marxist ideals," unless wanting every American to have a fair shake at a decent life is marxist. 

Also, he has answered questions about his ties to Ayers, REPEATEDLY.  Unfortunately, it's not the answer that people like you want to hear.  He has said that they lived in the same neighborhood, their kids attended the same school, they were on a board together and the dude hosted a fundraiser back in 1995.  Maybe where you're from that means you are buddies, but Obama's neighborhood, Hyde Park, has 30,000 residents, and is probably the size of your home town.  Ayers was and is a respected fundraiser and community organizer.  Neither he nor his wife are sitting around talking about bombing the country any more than Bush is sitting around talking about the days when he was doing blow and dodging service.  It didn't stick because people don't care and there's nothing there.  Fuck, McCain was actively involved in the Keating 5.  Obama didn't help Ayers bomb anything.

headkicker_girl wrote:

Zookeeper wrote:

headkicker_girl wrote:

But the bottom line is that people care more about the economy and Palin's lack of qualifications than anything about Biden.  Biden is a non-issue because no one really cares about him one way or the other, not because of some media conspiracy.

Bull.  To say that the fact that people care more about the economy makes Middle East policy a non-issue is foolish.  It matters to a lot of people whether they are Democrats or Republicans.  Palin got LOTS of questioning on foreign policy.  Odd considering how, as you say, nobody cares about foreign policy...

Did the people question her or did reporters question her?  I think it was reporters.

Yep.  The same reporters that don't think Biden should be asked any questions.  After all, having a voting record that is counter to where the voters stand isn't important so long as there's a barbi doll to attack.  Like you said, it just isn't an issue to the voters anymore.  None of them really care about their loved ones in Iraq.  All they care about is the economy.

Last edited by Zookeeper (2008-10-30 18:50:53)

Bigcat wrote:

Marxism itself isn't entirely evil- Not that Obama is Marxist. Also,We do have a Socialist party in America and it belongs here.

I fully agree that people of all political persuasions should be allowed to speak and organize in this country.  However, if you're running for president you shouldn't get away with hiding your core beliefs from the electorate. 

In his own words. ""To avoid being mistaken for a sellout, I chose my friends carefully. The more politically active black students. The foreign students. The Chicanos. The Marxist professors and structural feminists."  Yes, this is from his own book.  And, yes, it refers to his college days, but if you look at his more recent relationships, the pattern remains the same.

Zookeeper wrote:

Yep.  The same reporters that don't think Biden should be asked any questions.  After all, having a voting record that is counter to where the voters stand isn't important so long as there's a barbi doll to attack.  Like you said, it just isn't an issue to the voters anymore.  None of them really care about their loved ones in Iraq.  All they care about is the economy.

Yes, because Biden alone is responsible for the quagmire in Iraq.  I see where this should be a focus of the national media.  I stand corrected.

Do you realize how ridiculous you sound?  The surge, that Biden didn't support, put MORE of our soldiers into harms way, and we shouldn't be over there in the first place.  McCain supports killing more American soldiers because he doesn't want to back down.  McCain has never adequately explained his 100 year remark, but the media isn't hammering him on it either.  It must be nice to live in your world where you create your own reality.

phreddy wrote:

In his own words. ""To avoid being mistaken for a sellout, I chose my friends carefully. The more politically active black students. The foreign students. The Chicanos. The Marxist professors and structural feminists."  Yes, this is from his own book.  And, yes, it refers to his college days, but if you look at his more recent relationships, the pattern remains the same.

If we have learned anything from Bush Jr. it is that we want individuals who have exposed themselves to many ideas.  For example the Swiss socialism enables them to allow gun ownership at a level unimaginable here in the states - so we learn that socialism can allow additional freedoms.  We also embrace communism with certain parts of our culture - National Parks come to mind.

Not knowing is a far larger danger than knowing; remember that our hubris is what has brought us the the brink we now stand on as a country.

Dookie, you seem to be having trouble putting these things into context.  If we decided that we didn't like Biden because he'd voted for Iraq, our alternative would be McCain, who not only voted to go to Iraq, but was a cheerleader for attacking Iraq starting well before the actual invasion and to this day thinks the problem with going into Iraq wasn't that it was a bad idea, but that we didn't do it his way.  McCain has promised to try to keep us in Iraq, whereas while Biden might have made that vote that I disagree with, we will actually have a specific goal of leaving if he becomes the VP, while both McCain and Palin have vowed to stay until we "win", which they cannot define.  Why would anyone in their right mind hang their vote on that? 

BTW, Palin still thinks we're in Iraq fighting the people who attacked us on 9/11, too, because she's an ignorant fool.  That's much worse than having voted to go in the first place.

Palin's not opposed to spreading the wealth when it benefits her home state.

Zookeeper wrote:

tojo2000 wrote:

Dookie, you seem to be having trouble putting these things into context....

Look, it's a really simple concept I'm trying to put out.  If you think that Biden's foreign policy votes are aren't relevant then we just disagree.  But I can't help but suspect that all the folks here who don't give a shit are some how influenced by the fact that they intend to vote for the guy.

We don't give a shit because it's irrelevant now.  Biden and McCain both voted for the war.  Biden changed his mind on the war; McCain still thinks it the right thing to do.  That alone is enough for me to vote for someone other than McCain ON THAT ISSUE ALONE.  Even if I go with your original premise that the majority of Americans thought the surge was the right thing to do (which the majority of Americans did not support), I would still support Biden's vote against the surge for the reasons I stated above.

headkicker_girl wrote:

Zookeeper wrote:

tojo2000 wrote:

Dookie, you seem to be having trouble putting these things into context....

Look, it's a really simple concept I'm trying to put out.  If you think that Biden's foreign policy votes are aren't relevant then we just disagree.  But I can't help but suspect that all the folks here who don't give a shit are some how influenced by the fact that they intend to vote for the guy.

We don't give a shit because it's irrelevant now.  Biden and McCain both voted for the war.  Biden changed his mind on the war; McCain still thinks it the right thing to do.  That alone is enough for me to vote for someone other than McCain ON THAT ISSUE ALONE.

Well, if you have your mind made up ON THAT ISSUE ALONE then reporters should certainly not report on anything else.  After all, headkicker_girl has her mind made up.

Zookie,

You brougt up a valid point about Biden's war voting record. Inquiry into why it doesn't have traction is relevant. Tojo put it best in his response below. Take a look at it again. Sometimes past voting records can matter, but in the end they only add color to what the candidate proposes to do or stand for.

They can be usefull targets by his opponent for discrediting him or calling hypocrite.  But on this issue it seems the elactorate has accepted what the difference is between Biden/ Obama's and McCain's.

If you wonder why this issue is not more hammered in the press ask your self why the McCain campaign isn't working harder to make Biden's past votes a centerpiece. Just throwing out some possibilities without weighting them:

1.    The financial crisis has superceded foreign policy as the key issue

2.    The war is unpopular. Even amongst Republicans who supported Bush's invasion. McCain may cast himself as the pro war candidate, but he doesn't want to come off as too pro war. Whatever McCain may gain by attacking Biden's past record he may also lose something when his is compared.

3.    Obama/Biden have succesfully crafted their war position in the publics mind over time.  Using the previous election's strat of "He was for it before he was against it" or "He was against when he should have been for it" isn't testing as having traction this go round.

4.    McCain has decide to concentrate on smearing Obama's associations as being the reason to question his judgement rather then associating his policy as the reason to question him. Particularly in regards to foreign policy. I don't see him spending most of his time trying to make the case against Obama he was using in the Spring. Only since last week has he been pushing hard to tie Obama's policies as "tax and spend" or paint them as socialist.



Let me point out that your exact question wasn't completely ignored in the press. After Biden was selected I heard his war voting record first on CNN and then on Fox. The war postions of the candidates were more in the fore before the first debate which was on foreign policy. But with the war taking second seat to current crisises, even Fox news has not mentioned Biden's foreign policy credentials or past votes in over 5 weeks. Nor has the McCain campaign attacked Biden's record or foreign policy credentials since the weeks after he was selected.

tojo2000 wrote:

Dookie, you seem to be having trouble putting these things into context.  If we decided that we didn't like Biden because he'd voted for Iraq, our alternative would be McCain, who not only voted to go to Iraq, but was a cheerleader for attacking Iraq starting well before the actual invasion and to this day thinks the problem with going into Iraq wasn't that it was a bad idea, but that we didn't do it his way.  McCain has promised to try to keep us in Iraq, whereas while Biden might have made that vote that I disagree with, we will actually have a specific goal of leaving if he becomes the VP, while both McCain and Palin have vowed to stay until we "win", which they cannot define.  Why would anyone in their right mind hang their vote on that? 

BTW, Palin still thinks we're in Iraq fighting the people who attacked us on 9/11, too, because she's an ignorant fool.  That's much worse than having voted to go in the first place.

Last edited by Johnny_Rotten (2008-10-31 05:48:31)

tojo2000 wrote:

Now you're falling back on "we just disagree" while again accusing us of being unreasoning sycophants.  We've thought out our opinions.  We've stated the reasoning behind them.  You're the one who has not only been stating things for which you have no evidence (and are wrong about in many cases), but are trying to tell us what our opinion should be.

You pick one out of three issues and ignore the other two.  But it's true that I've presented no hard evidence that the majority of Americans think that Desert Storm was a success and worth while.  And I've presented no evidence that the majority of Americans now feel that going to war with Iraq in 2003 was a bad idea.  And while more Americans feel that the surge was a good move than those who feel it was a bad move you are correct that it's only a plurality and not a majority.

tojo2000 wrote:

Did you want more detail on the other issues, the Surge, for example?  Because I can explain my rationale if you really want, but I really don't get the impression that you want to know why I support the Obama/Biden ticket.  I think you just want to vent about perceived unfairness against the opposing side.

Your personal views on the surge or the Obama/Biden ticket aren't the point.  But it really doesn't seem to matter how often that central point is voiced.  You can't get past personalizing the question.  If a conservative here and said it didn't matter to them how little experience Palin had that wouldn't really be an argument that it's something the press should ignore.   If they said her lack of experience was a non-issue since Obama also lacks experience that doesn't make it a non-issue.  If they said they had already decided to vote for McCain/Palin and experience isn't an issue - only the economy - that doesn't make it a non-issue.  That it's a non-issue for a voter whose mind is made up doesn't mean it is not an issue worth raising.  That Biden voted the same as McCain on one of the three issues I cited does not make his past Middle East foreign policy record a non-issue for the rest of the electorate.  It's certainly a non-issue to people who don't care.  You think nobody cares about Biden's past foreign policy experience.  The funny thing is a sizable portion of the electorate don't care about things they have not yet heard reported on. But  since reporters apparently never report on things you don't personally think people care about then there's no reason they should question Biden on his past foreign policy calls.

phreddy wrote:

Bigcat wrote:

Marxism itself isn't entirely evil- Not that Obama is Marxist. Also,We do have a Socialist party in America and it belongs here.

I fully agree that people of all political persuasions should be allowed to speak and organize in this country.  However, if you're running for president you shouldn't get away with hiding your core beliefs from the electorate. 

In his own words. ""To avoid being mistaken for a sellout, I chose my friends carefully. The more politically active black students. The foreign students. The Chicanos. The Marxist professors and structural feminists."  Yes, this is from his own book.  And, yes, it refers to his college days, but if you look at his more recent relationships, the pattern remains the same.

I don't give a fuck what he did in college.  In college I smoked weed,  dyed my hair orange, hung out with flaming fags, and went to  an interview with the CIA while on acid.  I still managed to graduate, go to law school, get a good job, and I'm actually fairly moderate in my views.  Also, I worked on a project with Ayers wife, and I'm on a board with some fairly leftist leaning people.  Does that make me a "pal" of terrorists?  If you don't want to vote for Obama because he's black, just say so, but please don't try to convince us that you honestly believe he is a marxist and is going to detroy the fabric of American Democracy.

By the way, another prominent REPUBLICAN says she's unqualified.   Palin was so unfocused she barely graduated from college, yet her 2 years of experience of "spreading the wealth" in Alaska is sufficient for her to lead.  Pakin is more socialist than Obama, and if she wasn't actually knew what the word meant, she'd have to admit it.  I notice you didn't comment on the article I posted about Alaskan welfare and Palin's support of it.   I guess socialism is ok for Alaska.

headkicker_girl wrote:

Zookeeper wrote:

Johnny_Rotten wrote:

Let me point out that your exact question wasn't completely ignored in the press. After Biden was selected I heard his war voting record first on CNN and then on Fox. The war postions of the candidates were more in the fore before the first debate which was on foreign policy.

OK, I'm fine with conceding the point in that case.  My original post asked "Has anyone interviewing him bothered to ask him to defend his judgment in voting against the first Gulf War?"  If the answer to that question is yes and the issue never gained traction then that's the answer.  Thanks for giving a response that wasn't just another variation of "Well, it doesn't matter to me."

No, your first post started with the statement that Biden got a free ride from the press.

Yes, and I added the qualifier I quoted above.  But if you want the entire quote here it is: "Biden has gotten a veritable free ride from the press.  Has anyone interviewing him bothered to ask him to defend his judgment in voting against the first Gulf War?"  The qualifier put the statement in context.

headkicker_girl wrote:

Zookeeper wrote:

Yes, and I added the qualifier I quoted above.  But if you want the entire quote here it is: "Biden has gotten a veritable free ride from the press.  Has anyone interviewing him bothered to ask him to defend his judgment in voting against the first Gulf War?"  The qualifier put the statement in context.

Now you're just backpeddling.  The question was clearly rhetorical.  It was not a qualifier.

Now you're just pretending to be a mind reader.  I'm the one who asked the question.  I wasn't asking a rhetorical question.

Last edited by Zookeeper (2008-10-31 16:47:13)

Zookeeper wrote:

Johnny_Rotten wrote:

Let me point out that your exact question wasn't completely ignored in the press. After Biden was selected I heard his war voting record first on CNN and then on Fox. The war postions of the candidates were more in the fore before the first debate which was on foreign policy.

OK, I'm fine with conceding the point in that case.  My original post asked "Has anyone interviewing him bothered to ask him to defend his judgment in voting against the first Gulf War?"  If the answer to that question is yes and the issue never gained traction then that's the answer.  Thanks for giving a response that wasn't just another variation of "Well, it doesn't matter to me."

I wouldn't say the war policies of the candidates, of which your question is part, doesn't have some significant importance to the electorate, I just think the campaign has been moved on from those issues. Current events and even the present course of the war, ie no longer spinning fast out of control, have superceded it. Your issue seems to me to speak to a central campaign point in the 2004 election. Both the war and the public have moved on from there. If our election was held during the 2006 phase of the war, it might be a different story.

Why any issue gets more play in the media can seem  puzzling. I am sure our former newspaper men could shed some light on the ins and outs. One thing for sure, the media are whores. Getting them to push policy as prime content gets in the way of  their tabloid business plan. They are just peachy covering the backbiting. How little time have they spent breaking down policy in this campaign anyways?

In addition a large part of the canditate's media outreach is often designed to divert your attention away from policy.  I guess discussing sensitive and split  policy issues  has too many risks, better to try and get everybody riled up and occupied with smears.

headkicker_girl wrote:

By the way, another prominent REPUBLICAN says she's unqualified.   Palin was so unfocused she barely graduated from college, yet her 2 years of experience of "spreading the wealth" in Alaska is sufficient for her to lead.  Pakin is more socialist than Obama, and if she wasn't actually knew what the word meant, she'd have to admit it.  I notice you didn't comment on the article I posted about Alaskan welfare and Palin's support of it.   I guess socialism is ok for Alaska.

Ok I done being magnimanimous with zookie, back to the backbiting and personel smears we do best here at high-street.com

I can't say that she would be a genius in the job, but I think she would be enough to get us through a four-year — well, I hope not. ... Get us through whatever period of time was necessary, and I devoutly hope that it would never be tested."

You wouldn't hire a temp replacement dog walker with a reccomendation like that.

Heh, his groveling is even worse then his initial observations on Palin.

...no, not in a few days no...