VP Debate: Biden shoots down Palin's smears
By SilentPatriot Thursday Oct 02, 2008 5:40pm
Two of McCain/Palin's most effective (and vile) smears about Obama are are that he voted to raise taxes on those making $42,000 a year, and that he voted to "cut off funding for our troops in the field." Obama refuted McCain on the later in the first debate, but he let the second one slide. Obama can learn a lot from Biden about how to diasrm this line of attack.
First on taxes:
The charge is absolutely not true. Barack Obama did not vote to raise taxes. The vote she's referring to, John McCain voted the exact same way. It was a budget procedural vote. John McCain voted the same way. It did not raise taxes. Number two, using the standard that the governor uses, John McCain voted 477 times to raise taxes. It's a bogus standard.
Now, on funding for the troops:
With regard to Barack Obama not quote funding the troops, John McCain voted the exact same way. John McCain voted against funding the troops because of an amendment he voted against had a timeline in it to draw down American troops. And John said I'm not going to fund the troops if in fact there's a time line. [...]
John McCain voted to cut off funding for the troops. Let me say that again. John McCain voted against an amendment containing $1 billion, $600 million that I had gotten to get MRAPS, those things that are protecting the governor's son and pray god my son and a lot of other sons and daughters. He voted against it. He voted against funding because he said the amendment had a time line in it to end this war. He didn't like that.
These smears are so transparently false, it's almost surprising that they're still repeated ad nauseum. Almost because attacks and smears are all the GOP has left. The troop funding one really irks me. While it's technically true that Obama voted no on a funding bill that provided money for the troops, he didn't vote against it on that basis. Biden did a hell of a job pointing out that McCain "voted against funding for the troops" too when he voted against the bill that included a time line. But that's a fundamental difference between Democrats and Republicans. While you can twist and distort a vote to accuse your opponent of hating the military, the Democrats choose not to. I wish McCain's "honorable" campaign compelled him to adhere to the same standard.
Login or Register to post comments.
All they've got is lies and dirty tricks.
Politically correct:
Biden was great.
Palen sucked.
Reality: Each and everyone of us got fucked today, by the HOUSE.
Hope you like the feeling.
Me? I'd join a revolt.
I've actually watched the debate a couple of times now and am more impressed with Biden than the first time I saw it. His defense of Obama against the Palin smears followed by his pivots to attach McCain were great.
I had a conversation the other day with some morons that actually thought Obama was a muslim.
So establishing a time line for withdrawing is a smart move and not a tool for surrendering a victory? Letting our enemies know when we will be departing in ok in your mind? Do you think that taking a win from the very people who are fighting is immoral? Do you ever expect to need the use of our armed force ever in the future? You keep treating them with so little regard an they would be there when needed.
When asked what he would do to help end the partisanship in the Congress, Biden replied that he learned to never attack the motives of his opponents. Attack their positions, attack their votes, but never attack the motive. This in opposition to the repubs who only attack motive. Honestly, with the example the repubs have set these last several years, can we expect them to do anything at all to reduce poison partisanship?
Airborneranger @ 5:
Is this Airhead Ranger? Come in Airhead
Ranger. What is your position?
Airborneranger @ 5:
As soon as you can define what "victory" constitutes in Iraq I'll be happy to answer your question.
Airborneranger @ 5:
You are a jerk who has never been in a war.
I wish McCain’s “honorable” campaign compelled him to adhere to the same standard.
Don't hold your breath waiting for the right to "play fair!"
Do you know that we're PAYING the Sunnis not to fight against us? What happens when the money train dries up?
If, say Paraguay decided to liberate us from Bush and then decided to stay, building Military bases in Cleveland, and Florida and elsewhere, wouldn't you pick up a gun and fight like hell to get them the hell out of your country?
There was no AlQaida in Iraq before we got there, now anyone shooting at us is labeled AlQaida, its a circle jerk and we need to get the hell out!
Ron @ 7:
That's right, disrespect me stupid. I could of guessed this would happen. Don't even try to address the message.
A good part of the problem is that the citizenry doesn't understand the intricacies of the voting procedures in both houses of Congress. Trying to explain them is a "no go" given the rushed, MTV-jacked, faux journalism that is peddled by the MSM. Language is at the heart of a democracy and the power elites know that well in that their cronies/sycophants/courtiers (Blitzer, Brokaw and a thousand other fawning shitheads) are rewarded for intentionally doing away with thoughtful, civil and polite discourse. Solution? There's only two. Bring back regulation for broadcasting licenses and resurrect the fair and balanced content in those bills. Second, fund a non-commercial public broadcasting system a la CBC in Canada and the BBC in the UK. It's ain't perfect but the alternative is classic corporate media control, the numero uno tool for corporatists/fascists.
Airborneranger @ 5:
Treating them with little regard? I think keeping them there without a exit strategy is treating them with little regard. Nobody on the right can define victory, but they can't withdraw until they have victory. So it seems you want them there forever. Makes no sense.
I think voting against veterans benefits is treating them with so little regard.
Your simplistic argument doesn't work.
Airborneranger @ 5:
I think that putting the armed forces in the way of danger by attacking and occupying a foreign country that did nothing to us is immoral.
I think that co opting the armed forces for the purpose of stealing a sovereign nation's resources on the behalf of corporations is obscene.
I think that attacking a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 while removing troops from a nation that might have had responsibility is, militarily idiotic.
Republican talking points do not play well here.
All you have to do is imagine something horrible happening to either of the presidential nominees should they win and have to be replaced by one of the two people you saw last night. Which would you prefer ? If you say Sarah Palin, you're lying.
VietVet8666 @ 9:
Let's not get into you're sloppery put upon Vietnam crap. You don't know me.
Airborneranger @ 5:
Your enemies are defending their sovereign nation from an invading army -- i.e., yours. In a sane world (i.e., one that acknowledged reality), your politicians and military leaders would be on trial in the Hague for the killing of 300,000 civilians.
Airborneranger @ 12:
What message? You couldn't even string two complete sentanves together.
Wow... I just finished watching a McCain attack ad talking about Obama's vote to cut funding.
What a coinky dink.
No matter what party they are in, Americans sure like to wage war.
Airborneranger @ 17:
Ron @ 19:
Ouch! I shouldn't laugh at that.
I tried to understand what Airborneranger was talking about on another thread and gave up.
Biden should have explained what an MRAP is.
Outsider @ 21:
HEY MAN, I'LL KICK YOUR ASS...! ...a-a-at Nintendo.
(I totally kid...I suck at Nintendo)
:)
Palin is a FEMBOT.
They just had to update her OS and load some new software for this debate...
Since the subject was brought up, who is the enemy in Iraq?
John S @ 14:
What the hell is an exit strategy? Is this some kind of new warfare? You want me to define victory? I can do that easily. Having a democratic elected, pro US government in place with a military and police force able to defend the sovereignty of Iraq. Simple enough for you?
I thought Biden did a solid job under the circumstances. He had to walk a very fine line....and I think he did. He stayed focused, didn't lose his temper, and hammered away at McC*nt's silly maverick image. He also did a nice job of linking McC*nt with Chimpy.
Just too bad this VP debate wasn't under the same rules as the first presidential debate. I would have loved direct questioning between the candidates. I also would have liked some follow-up questions from Gwen Ifel. However, after the GOP raised a stink about her book and "connection" to Obama, there was no way she could press Palin for specifics.
Palin has shown an ability to read a teleprompter and regurgitate talking points—whether they relate to the question or not. Gosh, that's impressive. Of course, there are plenty of dumbshit Americans waddling around proclaiming that Palin really came through.
You know, I just can't figure out why America is in a ever-quickening decline.
Actually in the 1st debate Barack shot back at McCain about the troop funding issue by pointing out that McCain did the same thing because a bill contained a timeline.
Outsider @ 27:
Same as in the USA.
Airborneranger @ 28:
Since we have done that and Maliki says we can leave now, can our soldiers come home?
"What the hell is an exit strategy? Is this some kind of new warfare? You want me to define victory? I can do that easily. Having a democratic elected, pro US government in place with a military and police force able to defend the sovereignty of Iraq. Simple enough for you?"
Having attacked and occupied their country, I think "democratic elected" and "pro US government" are mutually exclusive conditions.
Palin is a FEMBOT
They just upgraded her OS and loaded some new software for this debate...
I wish Obama would just come right out in the next debate and call McCain a liar. Why can't they use that word! If Obama would say something to impugn McCain's honesty or questionable honor, the viewing public would have the opportunity to witness McCains "head spin around with smoke coming out of his ears". This would effectively end the race. If the general public could witness Johnnie's performance with the Des Moines Register this week the election would end. Check and Mate Obama!!!
I'm confused.
If we establish a deadline the enemy will know when we leave.
If we don't establish a timeline and leave do you think they won't notice?
Airborneranger @ 28:
Bang up job so far.
By the way, what bloody business was it of ours to invade a sovereign nation and turn it into one of ours? And anyway: I thought we went there to find "wippins o' mass destruckshun"? Now we are there to establish a democracy that WE approve of? If they keep moving the goal posts, you'll have to forgive us if we think Bushco is, was and always will be totally full of crap.
Airborneranger @ 5:
Yeah, and don't forget that other favorite...they hate us for our freedoms. So douchebag, just how do you define "victory" in this case??? When exactly will you know when this war has been won??? Do you even know who the US is fighting??? After five years of this costly disaster, there are still more questions than answers.
But hey, keep waving your flag.
Wait, why did Obama vote against it?
Airborneranger @ 5:
The stated goal of this war is for the Iraqis to stand up so that we can stand down. It really doesn't make sense to fight a war with an end goal of losing that war. Why not save everybody the hassle and just sign a cease fire agreement and leave.
pookers @ 36:
Palin didn't notice when her campaign left Michigan did she?
Neo-classical secular humanist @ 18:
Whoa, slow down there, N-CH. Didn't the surge work? And if the answer to that is "yes", then why the hell should we have troops there? It worked, the war is over, and any withdrawal of those troops can't, by definition, be a surrender, right? I mean, we won, didn't we?
*snark off*
Airborneranger @ 28:
Simple?
Ahem, yeah; that would sum it up quite well.
Oh, yes. Against international law too.
But weshould be proud, having killed over a million Iraqis and throwing thousands of civilians into prison.
Hey, we're tough!
We even have a thousand juvenile civilians locked away.
One false move and it's off to a secret prison and
torturefreedom tickling!We've destabilized the whole region; the next fifty years of warfare will make for some very wealthy civilian contractors!
Which country that hasn't harmed us should we bully next?
Georgia?
In any case, I'm sure that a true believer such as yourself will be right on the front line, right?
Nicky @ 41:
I'll talk straight with ya. She did notice. She sent John an e-mail saying "Send me and Todd to those auto plants." Cindy just hasn't opened it for him yet.
upchuck @ 4:
Did they also bring up Jeremiah Wright?
Both Biden and Palin played fast and loose with facts.
Palin did so more than did Biden.
The best way to deal with a snake in the grass with lipstick is to step on it. Joe was successful in doing just that.
Nicky @ 41:
Again I'm confused.
Are you giving Palin the same powers of observation
of an Iraqui?
Meditating Upside-Down @ 45:
Why?
Did Wright exorcise the witches out of Obama?
Booga Booga BOO!
I'm still confused about why anyone expects or thinks mccain capable of acting honorably. He's given no indications of it in the past.
POW is something that unfortunately he was subjected to. He didn't volunteer to be tortured so the other prisoners wouldn't be, so on what basis is he a hero?
lie and smile, smile and lie...
Airborneranger @ 28:
If we leave a democratic government in place; the Iraqis will vote in people that don't like us. People tend to hold grudges when you kill their relatives and blow up their villages.
Airborneranger @ 28:
And if that doesn't work, [Deleted. Abusive. Site Monitor] , the US can always install their very own puppet dictator who will do America's bidding.
That is, until that puppet dictator stops taking orders and the US has to invade another "outlaw" nation.
iraqconcilable @ 16:
Or an Evangelical, Rapture-hungry nutjob.
Countering smears is the one thing representing a departure from the past years of the Democratic Party. Although they are still not as assertive as I would like, they quickly engage in damage control before the Republicans have the upper hand.
I loved the fact that Biden went on the offensive against this lying, clueless woman. He was able to cut through all the hyperbole and make some points there. That alone helped to pull the rug from under Sarah Palin.
The gopervs have never had ANYTHING other than the fear and smear campaign they always run.
The Truth Hurts @ 53:
Do you mean somebody like. maybe, Saddam Hussein?
The guy that Ronnie Raygun and Rumsfield armed with chemical weapons so that he could kill the Kurds?
upchuck @ 4:
The so called "Christians" have fucked the country up so bad there isn't much more damage a so called Muslim could do at this point anyway. What is it about this these morons can't grasp?
Atheist, Muslim, Buddhist, Wiccan, Snakehandler....I'm willing to give just about anyone else a chance at this point besides some corrupt charlatan who claims to be a Christian.
Airborneranger @ 17:
What conflicts have you fought in?
I also find it curious that you would disrespect VietVet's tenure in Vietnam given that one of McCain's primary selling points is that he was a POW during the Vietnam War.
What is left out of the discussion is what a good job Joe Biden did at tying up all the loose ends Obama left hanging in his debate with Angry McOldguy. He walked the tightrope on the Middle East with grace. I am not a Biden fan, and I cringed when he said he was Israel's biggest supporter in the Senate. What I heard boiled down to, the Likud Party is a threat to peace in the region, and instead of demonizing a regime that we share interests with (Iran) we should be pressuring a regime that supports the Taliban.
Think back before 9/11 at how pissed you were before those assholes blew up the Buddhist sculptures. The one thing I agree with Bush on is that we need to throw our support behind India. The only reason we ever supported Pakistan was that the Russians were supporting India. USA support for India (the world's largest democracy) should cross party and social lines.
The debate was a complete joke, setup to be way to comfortable for both parties. Democracy Now! had some very interesting things to say about how the parties signed a secret agreement not only to exclude the independents but also to not cross certain subjects that are harmful to both. This collusion is certainly not your best interest.
No Debate: How the Republican and Democratic Parties Secretly Control the Presidential Debates
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/10/2/no_debate_how_the_republican_and
Ruthless People @ 57:
Heh, none of them seem to notice that their ideal world/desired public policies eerily mirror the Shar'ia laws they frequently decry.
The Truth Hurts @ 53:
It was a different world growing up in the early 80s. Saddam was our friend, fighting the bad old Iranians. Osama was working for the CIA in Afghanistan, defending the poor Taliban warlords from the bad old Soviet Union. You really knew who your friends were back then. Those were good times... good times indeed.
Bwallace @ 51:
"O most pernicious woman!
O villain, villain, smiling, damnèd villain!
My tables—meet it is I set it down
That one may smile, and smile, and be a villain" --Hamlet Act 1, scene 5
Meditating Upside-Down @ 59:
Operation Pickynic Basket at Jellystone Park?
Mick Piobr @ 49:
I was thinking more along the lines of associating him with a 'radical' Christian preacher while simultaneously maintaining he is a Muslim.
upchuck @ 63:
Yup, it was a whole lot easier to strong arm other countries and engage in some good ol' nation building.
Andy K @ 65:
I'm guessing Operation Limp Dick in his parent's basement.
Meditating Upside-Down @ 62:
The Christian reich and the Taliban are cut from the same cloth. The only thing that prevents them from going to the same extremes is our constitution and laws which they are slowly dismantling.
Folks, i have some interesting things this morning regarding the Nukulur/ EyeRak/Eyeran thing. We had a discussion in the bar frequented by many Ex-Pats of different nations. We were discussing the fact that the R's all seem to have a hard time pronouncing those three words.
Two of the people in the bar were retired psychiatrist (both females) My wife was talking with them and they had come up with a plausible 'why'.
They think that the R's know how to pronounce those words, but they deliberately Mispronounce them so that they don't sound too intellectual to the people they represent in their districts. So they are just talking that way to sound the same as their dumbed down base.
Sounds pretty right on to me, but I'd like to know you peoples opinions so i can tell my friends when i see them.
Comments?
If I were Senator Biden, I would have replied to this comment thusly:
"The Bush plan for withdrawal was no better than Levi's plan for early withdrawal. We can have a shotgun wedding of the USA and Iraqi governments, but the situation on the ground will put us into divorce court before you can say, "Northern Exposure".
Meditating Upside-Down @ 59:
I've know quite a few Rangers and you need a minimum GT score of 110, just to be considered. You have to be fairly well educated to score that high on the ASVAB. I just don't picture you, being anything other than a tool. Anybody can come into a message board and pretend to be anybody. I'm sure that it is fun to sit in mommy and daddy's basement and pretend to be a grown up. The best advice that I can give is that opinions come in only 2 flavors; enlightened and unenlightened. I know they lie to you in school, saying things like every opinion is important. Well it's not true. Some opinions are enlightened and worth expressing; others are meaningless and trivial.
Professor Wagstaff @ 71:
The settlement for oil revenues will be the main thing for the judge to work out.
Airborneranger @ 28:
A 'pro US government in place'? You mean like a puppet state? I don't think you want to say that our policy in Iraq is to make them our friendly subservient puppets. Venezuela is a democracy. Their leader may not like our leaders, but he is the leader their people freely chose. That's what 'democracy' means. A pre-condition that we not leave Iraq until they finally 'like' us is a guarantee that we will stay there for a hell of a long time. Lots of people in the world don't like us and there are countries that we don't like either. We can try to get along with people - it's called 'diplomacy' - or we can invade every country that 'threatens' us and remake them into our 'friends' - it's called the conservative 'fraidy-cat pussy' theory of foreign policy. Years ago Sally Field won an Oscar and told the crowd 'You like me! You really like me.' It's sad to think that that's the sentiment driving U.S. foreign policy today.
☺☻Bangkok Bob☻☺ @ 70:
Probably true for some of 'em- I wish I could find the vid of Stupor Mundi accidentally slippin' into that upper-crust Connecticut accent!
But I really think Palin is that inarticulate.
Oh man, I see this meat is all wormy this morning. I wouldn't feed that thing.
upchuck @ 52:
Now, Iraqi public opinion might improve enough to elect a pro-US government if we actually succeeded in rebuilding their country. Or protected the civilian population. Or released wrongfully imprisoned detainees. Or apologized. Or left.
Yes, with these rosey criteria met, we could easily have a pro-US regime elected in Iraq... in 50-100 years. (Sooner if the election is rigged)
Airborneranger @ 5:
Should this have made sense?
Airborneranger @ 28:
So which of those things isn't in place?
Airborneranger @ 5:
Win what?
What the hell are you talking about. There is no winning an invasion, how many times does that have to be said. The so called war on terror is like the war on pornography, the war on drugs, its a catch-phrase to make you think the U.S. is in some concerted effort through which victory cannot escape the mighty forces of good against the supposed evil.
We sure as hell are not fighting Al Qaeda, the ones that have professed the inhuman attack in 911, so there is nothing to guage progress in that diversion except Bin Laden is free which in no progress at all.
You talk about "win", how or when do you say the U.S. has reached that point where it can say victory has been achieved, what is a win!
Meditating Upside-Down @ 77:
Face it guys, Iraq is another Vietnam, admit we should never have gone there (as all the rest of the world knows) and get out. The War has demoralized the country, cost us so much we are borrowing from our enemies to pay for it, and adding to the already failing economy of the US. Fact is we invaded when we had no business there.
☺☻Bangkok Bob☻☺ @ 76:
Hey, throw out a big ball of yarn and I'm gonna play with it 'til it unravels!
Ruthless People @ 69:
And the nonbelievers and moderates pay the price for their fascism.
The thing about McCain, Lieberman and Bush is they will never be able to solve the war because they do not understand it. They do not understand the players. Lieberman says Al Qaeda would be in control of Iraq today? That is just STUPID!!! The Iraqis will kick their sorry butts out (no matter what McCain and his best buddy forever thinks) in a matter of hours after the U.S. leaves. The Iraqis hate Al Qaeda as much as they hate the U.S. for invading. You can bet your bottom $ that no Iraqi will be told what to do by some Al Qaeda nut who all of Iraq hate. McCain (and it looks like Lieberman as well) does not even know who Al Qaeda is. Obviously the same is true with Bush. All you will see of Al Qaeda is the dust they kick up as they run for Afghanistan. Iraq will kick Al Qaeda out just like they will do to the Iranians, "Thanks for the help. Now get the hell out." They don’t get the dynamics of country being invade by foreign powers. What would happen if the U.S. pulled out of Iraq immediately? What would happen next? This is what would happen - The Shia tell Iran "Thanks for the help, now leave. Get out of our country." That is the part the neocon war mongers can't seem to understand. Everybody says that Iran will take over Iraq. Or they will have so much influence that Iraq will essentially become part of Iran. Well that will NOT happen. Iraq is Iraq. They don't want to be told what to do by Iran. Just like they don’t want to be told what to do by the U.S. Remember when Saddam invaded Kuwait, Saudi Arabia let the U.S. stage in their country to throw Saddam out of Kuwait. And Egypt helped the coalition in that war. Both those countries are Sunni. Saddam was Sunni. In fact Egypt harbored an exiled Saddam many years ago but Egypt helped throw Saddam out of Kuwait. Being from the same sect did not help Saddam. Saddam didn't listen to Saudi Arabia when it came to Kuwait and Saudi Arabia is Sunni like Saddam. Saudi Arabia let the coalition stage in Saudi Arabia to attack Saddam, a Sunni. Why would Iraq listen to any other country, i.e. Iran or Syria or anybody else? Why would they let Iran tell them what to do? So you see that just because part of Iraq and Iran are the same sect you cannot assume that Iraqi Shia will let Iranian Shia tell them what to do. The Iraqis are only letting Iran help them because Iraq wants the U.S. out! As far as the Kurds go they have it figured out. They're having BBQ on Saturday nights (probably). And the Sunni? They will have to figure out how to have their own area. Joe Bidden knows how this will work out. Most of them have left the country anyway. It will work out without us. The neocon war profiteers don't get it or they want this war to continue for financial reasons. You know this. I know this. 82% of the U.S. knows this. Getting out is the dilemma. The Republicans think that staying in is the dilemma. I'm sure the military can figure out how the hell to leave. They don't have to worry about all the junk they brought with them. Most of it is trash at this time anyway. It's worn out. Used up. Just get on a plane and leave. Remember Iraq was better off with Saddam. I've said it many times. Nobody wanted to say it at the time but it is true. Iraq will have to sell their oil to somebody just like Venazuela has to. So you see there is no problem. pack up and leave. Let's pack it up and leave tomorrow. You are either with me or... um... ah... won't get fooled again.
☺☻Bangkok Bob☻☺ @ 81:
But...but...9/11! WMD!
upchuck @ 72:
Umm, was that targeted at me or AirborneRanger?
Were sarah's smears pap?
Professor Wagstaff @ 71:
...or you could say
"Iraq was a mistake. We have built up so much ill will there and throughout world, that the best thing to do is just leave. I promise that we will stop stealing Iraq's oil. I promise the US will pay for all destruction we've caused. And to the Iraqi people I say on behave of all Americans, "Please forgive us." "
Andy K @ 85:
right, and yellow cake and tubes and mushroom clouds. The American Government LIED to its people for Oil. The Lie is uncovered already, face it and let it go. There is no victory in this.
Ok, gone to breakfast............
Godalo sera.
ciao
Mick Piobr @ 15:
You mean like when we went to war with Germany and Japan. Didn't they bomb Pearl Harbor? As opposed to allowing radical Islam to use the revenue from oil to attack us? I think it's best we benefit and use the oil ourselves. We are fighting extremists in over a hundred countries around the world. Should we just discontinue because they had nothing to do with 911? There were no troops removed from Afghanistan because of Iraq. Heavy division were involved in Iraq, which are unsuited for Afghanistan. You keep buying the lies. No kidding, republican talking points don't play good here. That's funny.
Let me point out something for you. Every tyrant and dictator ever, whether they be right or left has at one time or another professed to be a liberal. Just a little food for thought.
Meditating Upside-Down @ 86:
It was targeted at the chairborne ranger.
upchuck @ 4:
Yeah, recently when I was in the States, I had a woman say to me that he's the anti Christ (she meant it). I asked her why she thought that?? She said because he's a muslim. I said "that's your first mistake".
What bullshite.
And he's the anti Christ because he's a muslim? What filth is that? What a weird world we live in. For god's sake.
☺☻Bangkok Bob☻☺ @ 90:
How do we know it is not, "Manchurian Bob". Perhaps he worked out a secret deal to pork Jane Fonda, while he wa telling the VC all of our plans....
☺☻Bangkok Bob☻☺ @ 70:
Given how conservatives tend to glorify anti-intellectualism, I think your psychiatrist compatriots are half-right. The Republican party has been running on a cult of personality for the last few decades, an approach that does not require a candidate to be particularly intelligent or well-educated. Our oft-forgotten unpresident is a perfect example the genuinely stupid candidate.
Airborneranger @ 91:
I reckon you want to check what drink or drugs you're doing. Why on earth you guys swallow the tyrants and dictators 'out there' when you've got the administration you've got is beyond me.
Perhaps you should check what the Saudis had to do with 9/11??? That'd be a good start for readjusting your belief systems.
GAWD.
Airborneranger @ 91:
You truly are out of your mind. This is not WWII and we could have negotiated lesser santions and still gotten the oil. The diference would be that the Iraqis would own the oil.
Lynda from Australia @ 93:
It's drugs. People cook their brains on drugs then find Jesus in court ordered NA and AA meetings. Part of the 12 step recovery plan is to become a holly-roller. They literally have black cavities in their brains.
[Deleted. You've dragged this thread far enough off topic. Site Monitor]
Ron @ 7:
"Your enemies" don't have nearly the fire power that the States and Israel have, so I wouldn't be so concerned about them launching an attack on the US. It's laughable that people go on about this. Russia was NEVER going to attack the US... why the heck don't you wake up to the military industrial complex propaganda and get a life instead of filling your head with WAR, WAR, WAR?
upchuck @ 98:
Those cavities are what happens to your brain when you believe religious bullshit.
I have a sister who does not even drink who thinks Palin is the Light of the Lord" meant to lead us to salvation.
It ain't the 'drugs,' unless you count 'faith' as a narcotic (a case could be made).
[Deleted. He's done chattering for the evening, Ron. Site Monitor]
Airborneranger @ 91:
Ok. You are nuts.
Done with it! Scrolling past you now.
Lynda from Australia @ 99:
Yikes, now I see why John has nerve problems. This site will never survive the "election"
Airborneranger @ 91:
Check out #4 Airhead. You are wrong on every point you tried to make. Who are you anyway. Dick Cheney? Hey Dick, its nice of you to visit but when you spew old debunked right wing neocon Republican talking points you do yourself and your side a disservice.
Airborneranger @ 28:
will all the dead iraqys be able to vote for this democracy? if so maby it was worth murdering them!
Airborneranger Says:
Let me point out something for you. Every tyrant and dictator ever, whether they be right or left has at one time or another professed to be a liberal. Just a little food for thought.
Hitler. Kucinich. Yep, they seem about the same to me.
Ever think of changing your moniker from 'Airborneranger' to 'Ate A Lot Of Lead Paint Chips As A Kid'? I mean the name you got now- people are doubting if it's true. With my new name for you, you won't have that problem.
Airheadstranger@91 No, the Germans did not bomb Pearl Harbor.
And it was our "allies" from Saudi Arabia who attacked us on 9/11.
The proposition that some liberals become conservatives merely proves that senility is a terrible disease.
And since you think that we should just take what we need by force, I'd be willing to bet that you never saw a minute of action, anywhere.
Why are you not out risking your life for your passionate beliefs?
Capatain Bitter Elitist Kangaroo @ 105:
Do you mean Germany and Italy did attack Pearl Harbor? That it's ok for Muslim extremists to use oil revenue from Iraq to attack us? Ok hot shot, name one American unit that was removed from Afghanistan for Iraq? You people are buying the damn lies. I thought this was a place that tried to get to the facts? Guess not. Just another liberal cool aid stand.
Will someone please send this Palin bitch back to her goy hick ghetto?
Professor Wagstaff @ 60:
Yes, and he was great at brief machine-gun bursts at the end of each blurbfest.
☺☻Bangkok Bob☻☺ @ 81:
I read something interesting the other day. Do you know how many Americans were killed in Iraq between Sept 1 and Sept14? The answer is none. Iraq is not another Vietnam, not by a long shot. Looks like we are getting a handle on the security issues there. We have a pro west democractic government in place. The Iraqi security forces are taking over more of the responsibilities and yet, you want us to leave.
Airborneranger @ 108:
[Deleted Abusive. Site Monitor]
Idi Amin, Pol Pot, Ceausescu, Stalin, Franco, Milosevic Mao,yeah, all of these people said they were liberals./snark. sheesh.
Does your head hurt from exercising that over sized brain of yours?
[Deleted. There's a reason that your comments are being moderated: you are chattering. And now you're being abusive to others to boot! Here's the C&L commenting policy. Continue with the trollish behavior and I'll ban you from posting at this site. Site Monitor]
Airborneranger @ 111:
So if there's a pro-western government in place AND the Iraqi security forces are doing better every day, why do we need to keep the troops there? THEIR pro-western PM has said that he agrees with Obama's phased withdrawal (timetable). How is this surrender?
mudshark @ 112:
Read their history before you slobber all over yourself.
Airborneranger @ 114:
Hahahahahaa. Yeah sure thing . Idi Amin and Pol Pot. Stop embarrassing yourself.
Saddam Hussein was a liberal,
00000000000OOOOOOOooooooooooooooooooooHHHHHHHhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh! Shit!
My side hurts. LOL.
Airborneranger @ 5:
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
I am still amazed by people that think we do not need a timline for withdrawl. What? You think the Commander in Chief can simply snap his (or her) fingers and the troops and gear will be out? It will take YEARS to get us out of Iraq. Assuming there is a "victory", we still need to have a date by which we will be out of Iraq. THAT IS A TIMELINE. So someone somewhere in teh Government will need to establish a timeline. Based on this faulty logic above, that is defeat. So based on same faulty logic, we can never leave Iraq, because we can't say when we will be leaving. That's a deep hole you're digging there folks. Want me to toss some dirt in on top of you?
Actually our US corporations and/or their subsidiaries have been paying payola to Iraqi terrorists groups to leave them alone, that then finances attacks on other American corporations and/or their subsidiaries, and the Coalition of the Bribed.
Petraeus actually had weapons disappear because he didn't have the foresight to keep records of and trace serial numbers on missing weapons.
That's not counting about 9 billion dollars that are now totally unaccounted for.
To tie this into the topic of the thread I would say that these kinds of false charges that timelines equel surrender are typal smearing techniques.
We need timelines to focus our attention: What is our mission, what is our objective, how do we measure realitive success and failure?
Then we determine how we fund these morasses, and/or decide if the cost/ratio balance is prohibitive.
They had such smearing after the Civil War, that they called, the Red Shirt controversies.
It also happened in France after the fall of Vischy. To this day you have supposedly responsible pundits referring to France as cheese eating surrender monkeys, a plagiarism from the Simpson's Grounds Keeper Willy. There's rarely any mention of the minority but overly-aggressive fascist militant veterans group, the Creux de Feur who helped make France fall, and set up the collaborative government of Vischy, while French patriots organized themselves under Charles De Gaulle.
Only today the Creux de Feur are the so-called Neo-Cons.
Sorry for the typos, and perhaps lack of relevancy, because I can't measure them at the moment due to my present inebriation.
Did anyone else notice Biden's dig at the Repug's hero - Reagan?
When Palin was complaining about Obama raising taxes, Biden said the rich wouldn't be paying anymore than they did under Reagan.
Sorry, after the Civil War they were called Bloody-Shirt controversies, not red.
Airborneranger @ 28:
The GOP plays you like a fool, it makes no difference that a majority of smarter folks in this country know the schemes and lies of the neocons are only interested in their bottom line. They dont give a shit about you and never did, they only care about their oil futures. Flush out your headgear dumbass, and while your at it, ask the GOP why they vote to cut VA benefits and educational benefits and rotation time limits in between tours.
Dumbass.
for some reason they keep playing the McCain add about Obama not voting to fund the troops over and over and over again on the Chicago TV stations. personally, i'm sick of seeing it, but why would they think they have a rabbit turd of a chance of changing people's minds in Chicago, of all places. not only is it probably the strongest Democratic city in the country but Obama LIVES here!
Nicola @ 110:
[Deleted. Abusive. Civility, please. Site Monitor] I'm a gentile, you have a motherfucking problem with that?
Back in the 80's there was a joke band out called Kosher Club, with Goy George.
Their single from the album was, Yes We Really Want To Hurt You.
119 mudshark
Actually all the names listed above were nationalists. Often the first thing they do is nationalize oil fields, or other such primary goods that they might trade in the case of a peripheral state. However a Nationalist can be Fascist (conservative), Socialist or a Communist. Even the last two really aren't a description of the politics but rather the economics.
Where the distinction comes in is under whether they're authoritarian, totalitarian, egalitarian or have any guaranteed rights, and are respecters of human rights.
ysbaddaden @ 129:
The point I was making Y was that clown said all dictators said at one time that they were liberals.
And that just ain't the case.
130 mudshark
That was my point too. Far too many conservative types read a little, but form dangerous ideas based upon basic misunderstandings of the terms. Airborneranger was basically equating liberalism with nationalism which is a logical flaw. We now have such cretins as the home-schooled jonah goldbooger writing about the "liberal fascist," a contradiction in terms. The terms then melt down into an amorphous blob like the time you left your Donnie & Marie album on top the radiator.
And as for dictators all being liberals, many started as so called "liberators," again a difference in terms. But that would in effect make boosh and his peanut gallery liberals, since they claims we're trying to liberate Iraq. And in Hitler's and Stalin's cases another thing they held in common was being raised in strict hierarchical churches, and societies built around them, although of different denominations. So are churches the spawing ground for dicators?
Come to think of it one time ronnie ray gunn was the head of a labor union the SAG, which is supposedly liberal, so when he became a republican did he become a dictator?
My point, if I have one, is historical accuracy, and the correct use of the socio-political terms is tantamount in such discussions, and they were directed toward Airborneranger not to you. Because it can happen here. It won't be the VC or Al Qaeda marching down Main streets, but our own people, wrapped in a flag and carrying a Bible, leading the way as the US goose-steps toward becoming a fascist state.
ysbaddaden @ 131:
Yes, Y. I understand what you were trying to say. And you said it very well. But I sure miss that Donnie and Marie album.:)
They were just sooooooo hawtttttt.
I think I figured out my point.
It took me awhile because I'm hungover.
You might say I'm well hung-over.
But back to my point.
People come to this site, from right-wing sites spouting what they heard on their sites, spouting what they read from conservative book clubs--that inflate the sales of their writers--who then pass books on for a dollar. They also spout what they heard on conservative radio and TV. Although the original commentator is probably long gone, he doesn't hold his views in a vacuum. If one can refute comments like these dispassionately, with some erudition and sense of history, one has created a pin-prick in their hot air balloons.
And I like being a prick.
Widespread @ 126:
Oh, I get deleted for saying fuck you to someone who slurs my ethnicity, but the slur stays?
Can you please post a list of which ethnic slurs are permitted on this blog, and which are not?
Or maybe you should delete all such slurs, rather than just the angry responses to said slurs.
Here's a thought experiment: If someone called Barack Obama a swarze, would you delete it?
Policies should be based consistent principles, not on which particular slurs happen to cause worse flame wars.
er that should be schwarze
ysbaddaden @ 127:
That's pretty funny. And of course Kinky Friedman had his Texas Jewboys.
But that doesn't mean it's okay to say Joe Lieberman should drag his jewboy ass back to Kiketown.
At a time when Barack Obama is trying to repair some of the divisiveness caused by wedge politics, I just don't see how it's helpful to be calling each other ethnic slurs.
In a post about Joe Biden trying to refute scurrilous smears against him, I don't see the superiority of smearing his opponent's ethnicity.
134 Widespread
Can you please post a list of which ethnic slurs are permitted on this blog, and which are not?
______________________________________________________________________________
Because of all my drinking, I'm always slurring my speech.
Actually goy, (or as I'm more familiar with the term goyim) means a nation or a people, but historically has meant gentile or non-Jewish.
In other words it's descriptive, any disparagement would be in the tone of voice, which is not present on a blog.
It's not like using a physical attribute to describe a person, or by extension a whole group of people.
If one gets offended by being identified with their nation, they might just as well be offended by being called Americans.
Especially after boosh.
So you think the tone of "send this Palin bitch back to her goy hick ghetto" is unfathomable, just because it's on a blog?
I can usually tell when someone's joking. That was no joke.
Other descriptive terms: wetback, darkie, slope.
139 Widespread
Frankly I want her to go back too.
Do you honestly want her around for the next eight years as VP,
Or if not elected, some kind of republican leader?
You're assuming Nicola is Jewish.
A lot of us use Jewish terms, just because they sound funny, because some of our favorite comedians talk that way.
I notice that you did not pick up on a possible sexist charge
Or the possible elitist charge.
Some people employ rough language as a comic device
And as Steve Martin once said, "Comedy is not pretty."
Actually, I'm offended by palin's very presence on the ticket.
She belongs to some weird church, that comparatively, Romney's and Reid's Mormonism is more mainstream.
The republican party seem intent on running her teenaged daughters life, and rushing through a marriage as a way of espousing in both senses of the word their party's "family values."
palin starts off a debate with, "I may not answer your questions, because I want to talk to the American people," but the American people want her to answer the questions, or they wouldn't be tuning in.
All the you bet'chas and other colloquialisms make her sound ill-bred and poorly educated, so what does that say of her and her party's opinion of the rest of us "Joe Sixpacks?"
140 Widespread
Although I'm ex-Air Force, and have pretty salty language
If I find a word offensive, I do not use them as you did.
As my mother taught me, two wrongs don't make a right.
And even if I'm quoting someone else, I either rephrase or paraphrase the reference.
As a translator, I can't think of a word that I find offensive.
Usage is another matter.
It's interesting that you find my dispassionate typing of words more offensive than #110's childish rant about Sarah Palin.
Login or Register to post comments.