You Can Put Lipstick on a Community Organizer

[Michael Tee]

<<It is far into the game to conclude it has been succesful to this point. >>

"To this point" means what?  It succeeded for about 10 months in reducing violence and therefore it'll hold for the next ten?  Bullshit.

<<it produced the necessary security buffer, in order for diplomacy to do its thing. >>

Ludicrous assessment.  Diplomacy can occur anywhere, any time, with hostilities proceeding or during lulls.  Makes no difference whatsoever.  The idea that diplomacy can "do its thing" has not yet been borne out.  So far, there is not resolution of the conflict and no indication that it's anywhere near.

<< Judgement score, McCain 1, Obama 0>>

In your dreams.  On the basis of any permanent good coming from the surge, judgment score, McCain 0, Obama 5.


<<Quote from: Michael Tee on Today at 02:36:57 PM
<<However, even if McCain is right on the surge,

<<ahhhh, here's the even/if tact...even if I'm wrong, I'm right, because..>>

All I was trying to say, which I think everyone in this group understands except you, is that you are wrong because the surge is not working and you are wrong if the surge is working.

You have a problem understanding how you can be wrong in BOTH cases?  Here, let me help you out with a simple analogy, it really is not all that difficult.  A guy goes to the store to buy his favourite salami, Maple Leaf salami.  Not only is the store out of Maple Leaf salami, but (unknown to him) the brand has been taken off the shelf because it's infected with Listeriosis bacteria.   He comes home and tells his wife they were out of his favourite salami so this must be his unlucky day.  Wife says, "No, it's not your unlucky day because I just bought some Chicago 58 salami and it's in the back of the fridge.  But EVEN IF the fridge is empty, you're still wrong about it not being your lucky day because the brand you went to buy has been condemned.

I feel sorry for you as a guy who's wrong if the surge is not working and wrong also if it is, but that's because your thinking is so disorganized and full of holes that you make more than just one single mistake almost every time you open your mouth.  That's not my fault, and there's nothing wrong with the argument that points that out.

<<Which again [being right or wrong] is a matter of stark opinion. >>

I agree with that.

<< Intel made it clear it was the right choice at the time.  David Kay, weapon's inspector, was stunned to find the levels of concealment Saddam had produced, on his WMD programs.  >>

As I've said to plane, we've been round and round this too many times, you have not convinced me and I have not convinced you.  At this point the only aspect of this issue worthy of further debate is "How are the voters going to take this?"  I am saying the voters will see that Obama's judgment on the war not only was better than McCain's but that there is either no verdict on the surge because it's too early, or that McCain won that one and gets minimal points because the total disaster of his big error in judgment washes out the insignificant matter of being right on the surge.

<<And we won't even go into bizarro world of Bush lying us into war for the oil.  >>

Bizarro World is NOT believing Bush lied, and NOT understanding that oil was probably the only and certainly one of the leading motives for the lies.

<<McCain 2, Obama 0>>

Wrong again.  On the war, McCain 0, Obama 20; on the surge, McCain 0, Obama 0, or if you believe that the surge is a success, McCain 1, Obama 0; net result best case for McCain, Obama20, McCain 1. 

<<Oh yea, VP choices    Judgement score, McCain 3, Obama 0>>

No comment, that's just too crazy, a three for that nutbar who's willing to take Georgia and Ukraine into NATO, obligating the U.S. to defend them - - that's a McCain MINUS TEN, Obama 1.

[BT]

waits for mikey to check Obama's position on nato and the former soviet slave states.

[Michael Tee]

<<waits for mikey to check Obama's position on nato and the former soviet slave states. >>

Mikey doesn't give a shit what Obama says about it because he knows Obama's just saying stuff he thinks he has to say to get elected.

I believe that Obama doesn't give a shit about Georgia or Ukraine, there's absolutely no reason on earth why he or anyone else should give a shit about those two hell-holes, unless you're a Cold War zealot or a religious fanatic anxious to speed the End of Days, and so I hope Obama will just concentrate on the more important problems the country faces if and when elected.

I wouldn't bet my life on Obama maintaining a hands-off policy in Eastern Europe, his hand might be forced (Democrats have a pathological fear of being outflanked on their right by the Republicans) but at least I feel Obama will find more reasons NOT to get involved than McCain and/or Palin would.   The latter two would look for ways to get in, Obama would look for ways to stay out.

[BT]

Mikey doesn't give a shit what Obama says about it because he knows Obama's just saying stuff he thinks he has to say to get elected.

Don't you think it hypocritical to give a shit about what McCain and Palin say?

[Michael Tee]

<<Don't you think it hypocritical to give a shit about what McCain and Palin say [and not give a shit what Obama says]?>>

No because there's a difference between lying about the past and statements of future intent.  The past is fixed, it is what it is.  McCain and Palin lie about the past, and Obama doesn't.  They say they did one thing but they did another.  Obama never does that.

Now about the future.  Obama says "We can't afford to let Iran have nukes," stupid shit like that.  He says it because he HAS to say it to get elected, otherwise the special interests will crucify him.  This isn't outright lying, it's "talking trash" or pandering or both and I know you have to talk a lot of trash in a country which runs on lies and bullshit.  It's unfortunate, but that's what American politics is.  There's a certain amount of pandering and trash talking necessarily involved and if you're not gonna pander and talk trash, you're not gonna win.  Fact of life.

[Amianthus]

They say they did one thing but they did another.  Obama never does that.

ROFLMAO

You actually believe that, don't you?

[sirs]

He has to.  It's the only way to rationalize away the blatant hypocrisy

[Michael Tee]

<<You actually believe that, don't you?>>

I'm not aware of Obama lying about a past event, no.  I wouldn't be shocked to death if he did, but at this point, he seems pretty clean.  Unlike McCain and Palin, who lie about anything and everything, including the entire basis upon which Palin is supposedly ready to take over from McCain at any time if need be.

If you have proof to the contrary that goes beyond your usual "ROTFL/LOL" formula, I'd be interested to see it."

[Amianthus]

If you have proof to the contrary that goes beyond your usual "ROTFL/LOL" formula, I'd be interested to see it."

This should give you plenty to look at:
http://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1GGLS_enUS291&ie=UTF-8&q=obama+lie

[Michael Tee]

Ahh, the usual bullshit.  Lies about what sermons he heard, lies about where the money comes from.  Bullshit stuff.  Penny-ante stuff. 

McCain's and Palin's lies go right to the heart of her qualifications, the definition of her persona - - she's the "anti-earmark" lady, the "fighter" who refuses pork-barrel projects and federal waste: only she isn't.

McCain's essential appeal - - he's the guy who bled for his country, who endured torture for his country.  Only his own jailer denies that he was tortured, there is no specific evidence that he was, he's known as a liar and a perjurer who showed zero respect for his marriage vows and yet expects his word to be taken as gold regarding "tortures" which no one but he has been able to confirm first-hand.

So both of them lie about teh essentials, Obama only (if at all) about the non-essentials.

[Plane]

"...lies about where the money comes from.  Bullshit stuff.  Penny-ante stuff.  "

So she is lieing about where the money went or came from?

[Amianthus]

So both of them lie about teh essentials, Obama only (if at all) about the non-essentials.

I wouldn't trust someone to not lie about important stuff if the truth can't be spoken about "non-essentials" - in other words, if he's willing to lie about stuff that doesn't matter, why would you trust on stuff that DOES matter.

[Michael Tee]

<<So she is lieing about where the money went or came from?>>

She's not lying about that - - everyone knows it came from the Fed and everyone knows it went to the City of Wassilla or the State of Alaska.  She's lying about being the Great Earmark Fighter, which is the core of her political identity.

<<I wouldn't trust someone to not lie about important stuff if the truth can't be spoken about "non-essentials" - in other words, if he's willing to lie about stuff that doesn't matter, why would you trust on stuff that DOES matter.>>

The simple fact is everything about Obama's past is as he states it, and whether you trust him or not, he's backed up by others and he told the truth about who he is.  The small stuff, if he lied at all, it's stuff like how many donors gave above or below this level or that level and I just don't give a shit.  They're all gonna lie about their campaign finances.  McCain is supported by lobbyists, lobbyists run his campaign, I don't expect him or his campaign to be truthful about where their money comes from and I don't give a shit because I already assumed the worst regardless of what they say.

[Plane]

<<So she is lieing about where the money went or came from?>>

She's not lying about that - - everyone knows it came from the Fed and everyone knows it went to the City of Wassilla or the State of Alaska.  She's lying about being the Great Earmark Fighter, which is the core of her political identity.

<<I wouldn't trust someone to not lie about important stuff if the truth can't be spoken about "non-essentials" - in other words, if he's willing to lie about stuff that doesn't matter, why would you trust on stuff that DOES matter.>>

The simple fact is everything about Obama's past is as he states it, and whether you trust him or not, he's backed up by others and he told the truth about who he is.  The small stuff, if he lied at all, it's stuff like how many donors gave above or below this level or that level and I just don't give a shit.  They're all gonna lie about their campaign finances.  McCain is supported by lobbyists, lobbyists run his campaign, I don't expect him or his campaign to be truthful about where their money comes from and I don't give a shit because I already assumed the worst regardless of what they say.

How is money penny ante when Obama is looseing track of its path , but important when Palin is?

[Michael Tee]

<<How is money penny ante when Obama is looseing track of its path , but important when Palin is?>>

What do you mean, "losing track of its path?"

And who says Palin was losing track of the path of money, and what money would that be?