The Offical TIF American Elections thread

[Quoi_Tu]

 

I...will...kill...white people. 10/2/07-7/5/08

 

 

 

lolwut?

 

 

 

I believe jack is saying that [...] is his favorite part of journalism, ever. I'd have to agree.

[jackattack]

The Bill O'reilly thing is hilarious.

 

 

 

Ya just because they believe abortion is wrong or that marriage is between a man and a woman they are stupid homophobic rednecks. :thumbup:

 

Ya just because Obama has the most liberal voting record in the senate that means he's the force of evil whose real objective is to move America away from old Christian morality and give a kickin' to gun owners while he's at it. :thumbup:

 

 

 

We all have our stereotypes. It's not nice but that's the way it is and during elections those stereotypes come to the fore. You're just as guilty for them as we are.

 

 

 

 

 

There is a difference between disagreeing and thinking I am better than people who support Obama. I won't lie, sometimes I get a little heated and start thinking all democrats are prius driving, starbuck's drinking, hippies. I do come down when I am called on it or if I just realize it's a difference of opinion.

[Range_This11]

 

There is a difference between disagreeing and thinking I am better than people who support Obama. I won't lie, sometimes I get a little heated and start thinking all democrats are prius driving, starbuck's drinking, hippies. I do come down when I am called on it or if I just realize it's a difference of opinion.

 

What's wrong with driving a Prius? I had a buddy of mine that drove from Des Moines all the way up to St. Cloud to visit me, and he only used 3 gallons of gas. That's a 5 hour+ trip. If I could afford to buy one, I would do it in a heartbeat. And Starbucks ain't that bad either. Hippies do suck though. Personally I hate pacifism. It serves no purpose.

[jackattack]

Well driving a prius won't save you money unless you drive it for like 8 or 9 years. I really have nothing against it. It's just the opposite of saying redneck Sierra driving, gun toting, bible thumping conservative. And I hate starbucks. There actually is a place in the city where there are two right across the street from each other.

[Agunimon979]

 

There is a difference between disagreeing and thinking I am better than people who support Obama. I won't lie, sometimes I get a little heated and start thinking all democrats are prius driving, starbuck's drinking, hippies. I do come down when I am called on it or if I just realize it's a difference of opinion.

 

What's wrong with driving a Prius? I had a buddy of mine that drove from Des Moines all the way up to St. Cloud to visit me, and he only used 3 gallons of gas. That's a 5 hour+ trip. If I could afford to buy one, I would do it in a heartbeat. And Starbucks ain't that bad either. Hippies do suck though. Personally I hate pacifism. It serves no purpose.

 

 

 

Hippies are awesome. They're mellow, man.

[Ginger_Warrior]

This is probably the most stinging attack I've yet read on Palin, probably since this time, it's not actually from a Democrat so the Republicans can't simply dismiss it as "sexist" or something. It's certainly caused a stir on the BBC website - it's currently Most Read as I'm writing this.

 

 

 

BBC News - Top Republican says Palin unready[/url]":38ss5pko]Senior Republican Senator Chuck Hagel has voiced doubts about Sarah Palin's qualifications for the vice-presidency.

 

 

 

John McCain's running mate "doesn't have any foreign policy credentials", Mr Hagel told the Omaha World-Herald.

 

 

 

[...]

 

 

 

"I think it's a stretch to, in any way, to say that she's got the experience to be president of the United States," Mr Hagel told the Omaha World-Herald newspaper.

 

 

 

And he was dismissive of the fact that Mrs Palin, the governor of Alaska, has made few trips abroad.

 

 

 

"You get a passport for the first time in your life last year? I mean, I don't know what you can say. You can't say anything."

 

 

 

Mr Hagel also criticised the McCain campaign for its suggestion that the proximity of Alaska to Russia gave Mrs Palin foreign policy experience.

 

 

 

"I think they ought to be just honest about it and stop the nonsense about, 'I look out my window and I see Russia and so therefore I know something about Russia'," he said.

 

 

 

"That kind of thing is insulting to the American people."

[magekillr]

Chuck Hagel is about as right-wing as you can get: social conservative, low spending, small government, non-interventionism foreign policy.

 

 

 

Oh, this tickled me:

 

 

 

CEDAR RAPIDS, Iowa (CNN) Sarah Palin likes to tell voters around the country about how she put the government checkbook online in Alaska. On Thursday, Palin suggested she would take that same proposal to Washington.

 

 

 

Were going to do a few new things also, she said at a rally in Cedar Rapids. For instance, as Alaskas governor, I put the governments checkbook online so that people can see where their moneys going. Well bring that kind of transparency, that responsibility, and accountability back. Were going to bring that back to D.C.

 

 

 

Theres just one problem with proposing to put the federal checkbook online somebodys already done it. His name is Barack Obama.

 

 

 

In 2006 and 2007, Obama teamed up with Republican Sen. Tom Coburn to pass the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act, also known as Google for Government. The act created a free, searchable web site USASpending.gov that discloses to the public all federal grants, contracts, loans and insurance payments.

 

 

 

In June of this year, Obama and Coburn introduced new Senate legislation to expand the information available online to include details on earmarks, competitive bidding, criminal activities, audit disputes and other government information.

 

 

 

Palin might also have noted that her running mate, John McCain, was an original co-sponsor of the 2006 transparency bill that became law.

[jackattack]

Hagel hasn't even endorsed Obama. There is also a top democrat who has endorsed McCain. He's a little bigger than Hagel.

[magekillr]

Hagel hasn't even endorsed Obama. There is also a top democrat who has endorsed McCain. He's a little bigger than Hagel.

 

 

 

Whom? Joe Lieberman (who technically isn't even a democrat anymore)? Lady Rothschild? lol

[Saru Inc]

Tbh, how many of us can honestly vote? I miss the cut off to vote by so close omg lol.

 

 

 

 

 

And uhhh what about George Washing? He did a kick [wagon] job as President, and he had no experience, He was a kick [wagon] general in the army, and he had never been one before. Do you really need experience if you know how to do the job perfectly? I mean, yes experience is useful, but should not be a deciding factor. Which is why I don't bring up Obama's little experience.

[jackattack]

Hagel hasn't even endorsed Obama. There is also a top democrat who has endorsed McCain. He's a little bigger than Hagel.

 

 

 

Whom? Joe Lieberman (who technically isn't even a democrat anymore)? Lady Rothschild? lol

 

 

 

 

 

Joe Lieberman is a democrat. He was the Vice-Presidential nominee only 8 years ago. He's still the chairman of the homeland security committee. He still caucuses with the democrats. He's the only reason they have the majority. And unlike Hagel the thing he goes against his party on he's actually right about. I mean Hagel has been nearly as bad as Harry Reid.

[magekillr]

Joe Lieberman is a democrat.

 

 

 

False, Joe Lieberman is an independent.

 

 

 

He's still the chairman of the homeland security committee.

 

 

 

So? How does that show his party affiliation? Speaking of the Department of Homeland Security, I hope Obama gets rid of it.

 

 

 

He's the only reason they have the majority.

 

 

 

Not in 2009.

 

 

 

And unlike Hagel the thing he goes against his party on he's actually right about.

 

 

 

Hagel, Ron Paul, and their like all go against the Republican party all of the time, especially for foreign policy. What are you talking about? Lieberman votes with the Democrats EXCEPT for foreign policy, so I'd say you're talking out of your [wagon] again.

[jackattack]

He caucuses with the democrats and usually the chair of a committee is a member of the majority party. And in 2009 the democrats are going to throw one of the few democrats in the tradition of JFK completely under the bus. And what I meant is that mainly Lieberman goes against his party on the war, which he is right on. Hagel mainly goes against his party on the war also, but he is wrong. Just like Harry Reid.

[magekillr]

He caucuses with the democrats and usually the chair of a committee is a member of the majority party. And in 2009 the democrats are going to throw one of the few democrats in the tradition of JFK completely under the bus. And what I meant is that mainly Lieberman goes against his party on the war, which he is right on. Hagel mainly goes against his party on the war also, but he is wrong. Just like Harry Reid.

 

 

 

That's subject to interpretation. I would say that you, Lieberman, and the vast majority of Republicans are "wrong".

[jackattack]

Well I think the facts of the surge speak for themselves. Overall from the beginning of the war you might be right but over the last year the democrats have been completely wrong. They just don't like to admit it. I mean if the surge has been a success wouldn't you change your vote on it? It is ridiculous. Ya it's been successful but I was right in my opposition to it. :wall:

[Ginger_Warrior]

Well I think the facts of the surge speak for themselves. Overall from the beginning of the war you might be right but over the last year the democrats have been completely wrong. They just don't like to admit it. I mean if the surge has been a success wouldn't you change your vote on it? It is ridiculous. Ya it's been successful but I was right in my opposition to it. :wall:

 

The Democrats have been supporting the idea of a retreat. Unlike Republicans, they don't see this war is either being "won" or "lost", which itself is an attitude some commanders in the UK forces are starting to take caution with.

 

 

 

The surge may eventually be making this war at least partially fruitful. It evades the point however - we shouldn't be there, if not now, then definitely not in two years, five years, ten years or a hundred years time. Such an analysis completely fails to take into account the situation on the Afghan-Pakistan border, and Afghanistan itself too.

 

 

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the concept of a retreat hasn't even been discussed. How can you say it's therefore wrong, if it's never been tried out?

[jackattack]

Just because we were wrong going in doesn't mean we should withdraw. A year and a half ago when the violence was near the highest it had been should we have said "oh we shouldn't be here anyway lets just leave the Iraqis at the mercy of Iran, and Al Qaida". That is exactly what Obama and his buddies Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid wanted to do. Harry Reid even said that the war was "lost" How he is still Senate majority leader I have no idea. He should have been censured at the very least.

[NoMoreDead]

Just because we were wrong going in doesn't mean we should withdraw. A year and a half ago when the violence was near the highest it had been should we have said "oh we shouldn't be here anyway lets just leave the Iraqis at the mercy of Iran, and Al Qaida". That is exactly what Obama and his buddies Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid wanted to do. Harry Reid even said that the war was "lost" How he is still Senate majority leader I have no idea. He should have been censured at the very least.

 

 

 

Are you actually suggesting that even though we were wrong for going in, the fact that we are at war now means we must finish it?

 

 

 

Jeeze, haven't you ever heard of the gamblers rule of knowing when to quit? Sometimes it's just not worth going any farther.

[Lenticular_J]

Now a lot of it's world politics. Staying in Iraq is a show of strength. We're flexing our muscles perpetually there - which is one of the hottest spots in the world. Staying there has long-term benefits, no matter how crappy it is for the rest of us.

 

 

 

Note: War period is stupid. And war for politics is.

[NoMoreDead]

Now a lot of it's world politics. Staying in Iraq is a show of strength. We're flexing our muscles perpetually there - which is one of the hottest spots in the world. Staying there has long-term benefits, no matter how crappy it is for the rest of us.

 

 

 

Note: War period is stupid. And war for politics is.

 

 

 

I don't see any long term benefits. Right now I see an economy in shambles, gas prices through the roof, and a heck of a lot unhappy Americans.

[Lenticular_J]

Right now would be -present-. Perhaps long term does not mean the same thing, eh?

[NoMoreDead]

Right now would be -present-. Perhaps long term does not mean the same thing, eh?

 

 

 

Well, obviously. I hope you don't take me for a fool :P.

 

 

 

I'm saying that right now I see a whole lot of bad, and I cannot forsee anything good for the American citizens coming in the long run.

[Lenticular_J]

Right now would be -present-. Perhaps long term does not mean the same thing, eh?

 

 

 

Well, obviously. I hope you don't take me for a fool :P.

 

 

 

I'm saying that right now I see a whole lot of bad, and I cannot forsee anything good for the American citizens coming in the long run.

 

'Course not for the citizens, for the government.

[magekillr]

Right now would be -present-. Perhaps long term does not mean the same thing, eh?

 

 

 

Well, obviously. I hope you don't take me for a fool :P.

 

 

 

I'm saying that right now I see a whole lot of bad, and I cannot forsee anything good for the American citizens coming in the long run.

 

'Course not for the citizens, for the government.

 

 

 

Which government? How could it possibly be good for our government? The war is costing us billions of dollars; how on Earth will this EVER be seen as a good thing?

 

 

 

It's not even like we're making friends; the whole world hates us over this blunder.

[BlueTear]

Are you actually suggesting that even though we were wrong for going in, the fact that we are at war now means we must finish it?

Leaving an Iraq to be gobbled up by islamic extremists, civil war or just plain ol' Iran is a bad idea inasmuch as that it will not actually accomplish [cabbage] for the US or anyone else. Either law and order collapses - which is an excellent breeding ground for terrorists of all sorts - or Iran gets to take a significant bite, which would be bad all itself.

 

 

 

Keep in mind that while Saddam was a dictator, he was not one drawn from the islamic fundamentalist lot. The Ba'ath party is (was?) a socialistic party with some panarab nationalism thrown in. The previous government was secular and an enemy of Iran, who was (is) "exporting the revolution". Say whatever you want about Saddam, but he was a nice little counterweight to Irans ambitions. There is no easy way out.