Thread: Dear Mr. Obama

Originally Posted by Nord Jim

Suppose we assume for a second that guilt by association is valid. Your problem with them is precisely what? Please be specific.

j

Guilt by association has been the cornerstone of the Obama campaign. just listen to the ads. All they say is "Bush-McCain, Bush-McCain, Bush-McCain" you would think that McCain's full name is George W. Bush-McCain.

Matt

Originally Posted by mhailey

Guilt by association has been the cornerstone of the Obama campaign. just listen to the ads. All they say is "Bush-McCain, Bush-McCain, Bush-McCain" you would think that McCain's full name is George W. Bush-McCain.

Matt

Yep! And McCain/Palin have NEVER tried to distract voters from the issues by highlighting Obama's associations...the GOP would never do that.......

And which party would be sending out flyers or making calls in heavily Democratic areas, telling voters that Republicans vote today and Dems tomorrow? Or, if you do show up, the police will check to see if you have any outstanding tickets....or to college students, if you vote, your parents will not be able to claim you on their taxes (this happened in Colorado Springs where the local GOP County Gruppenfueherer...er...clerk was caught doing this...only got a slap on the wrist from the GOP Sec of State...who was just ordered by a Federal Judge to stop purging voter rolls....)....

The Dems have pulled their own tricks in the past recent elections, but nothing like I have the GOP doing. McCain is going after the Oval Office like Gollum went after the Ring...."my precious...."

Originally Posted by WireBeard

Yep! And McCain/Palin have NEVER tried to distract voters from the issues by highlighting Obama's associations...the GOP would never do that.......

And which party would be sending out flyers or making calls in heavily Democratic areas, telling voters that Republicans vote today and Dems tomorrow? Or, if you do show up, the police will check to see if you have any outstanding tickets....or to college students, if you vote, your parents will not be able to claim you on their taxes (this happened in Colorado Springs where the local GOP County Gruppenfueherer...er...clerk was caught doing this...only got a slap on the wrist from the GOP Sec of State...who was just ordered by a Federal Judge to stop purging voter rolls....)....

The Dems have pulled their own tricks in the past recent elections, but nothing like I have the GOP doing. McCain is going after the Oval Office like Gollum went after the Ring...."my precious...."

Obama's associations are with Ayers (a known domestic terrorist and socialist, and in who's living room he launched his political career), with Wright, (a blatent racist of a pastor, who was his spiritual advisor until the tapes of Wright's sermons became public), and the toasting of a PLO leader at a dinner party, with Ayers in attendance.

The Colorado House of Representatives, Senate, and Governor's office are all controlled by which party? if there is an issue, have your party investigate the SOS office. If there was anything more than purging the names of dead and ineligible voters, then bring on the prosecution. I agree. However, DO NOT STATE that the Colorado political system is so right winged that the Republican's are controlling the democratic process. That is a flat out lie.

Matt

Originally Posted by Nord Jim

It's really easy when you're overcome with hatred of a political figure, to call him a "socialist." Doesn't make it so, and adds absolutely nothing to the discussion.

Who said anything about hatred towards Obama? Please don't put words in my mouth. I don't hate Barak Obama, I just don't think he is the one that should be leading this country right now. He is extremely inexperienced. A community organizer with 187 or so days as a US Senator in my eyes falls well short of the experience needed to become president. (as if there was some sort of an experience prerequesite)

My father taught me to try to see things from both sides. Odd advice from a man who was spit on by a group of hippies in a California airport on his way home from Vietnam in 1969. Trying to see things on an even playing field for this election has been difficult for me. But one thing my father also taught me was respect for the Commander in Chief. If Barak Obama wins the election and becomes our next President, then so be it. Will I hate him? Absolutely no!. Will I respect him. You bet! In the end, the person who runs our country has a tough job and I can't imagine the burden. Calling Barak Obma a socialist is nothing more than my opinion. Call it fear, call it what you will, but in the end it is simply an opinion. It is afterall a great freedom we have, to be able to disagree.

I believe I read a post from you, or was it another SRP user, that told us that Obama really isn't all that bad. For the sake of the country, I hope you or whomever wrote that was right.

So, to you Nord Jim, I say that I respect your opinion and though I disagree with your views I need to look towards the very thing that brought us here to this site. Straight Razors. And so, to you I say Happy Shaving!


Kyle

There must have been enough of an issue for a Federal judge to order Coffman to stop. And the BS perpetrated in Colorado Springs (aka Focus-on-the-Family-ville) was done by a Republican County Clerk and specifically targeted potential Democratic voters...unless the clerk was so intensely stupid to believe that election day was a good time to have the police clear up any outstanding tickets and the Clerk knows about a secret IRS reg where if you are in college and vote, you can no longer be declared as a dependent by your parents. I'm sure the clerk was just being civic minded........

Originally Posted by mhailey

I guess I have to type something down here to post this response.

Matt

There were dozens and dozens of resolutions. but there was no UN resolution to go to war. The US decided to do that on its own.

As for your example about shooting that man: you can shoot the moment you see a weapon. Not before. You don't have to wait until your wife is dead, but neither should you someone on just an assumption.
You were walking in a public place. If he had been entering your home, it would be something else.

And your example also doesn't translate into the situation you described.
Iraq wasn't threatening the US. Iraq was badmouthing the US, but the US does the same to Iran and North Korea.

The US leadership knew they went to Iraq without evidence. Saddam was also not an al qaeda supporter, and he didn't even have a delivery mechanism for the weapons he didn't have. He had some scuds with a very limited range; no ICBM capability.

Originally Posted by mhailey

Guilt by association has been the cornerstone of the Obama campaign. just listen to the ads. All they say is "Bush-McCain, Bush-McCain, Bush-McCain" you would think that McCain's full name is George W. Bush-McCain.

Matt

I'll throw in my 2c before this thing is over.

I would not call these ads 'guilt by association'. The way I understand the ads is:
Most of John McCain's policies are going to be the same as the republican policies that George W Bush has been implementing over the last 8 years.
Unless you have something against these policies, I fail to see any guilt. Whether the statement is correct is another issue - it is very plausible that McCain will adopt a completely different ideology, but he has not said that. He has just distanced from George W Bush the person, not what George W Bush the politician stands for. At least that's my impression. You were just defending the presidency of George W Bush - I take it you are fairly content with it, in which case I don't see why an association with him and his policies would be a bad thing.

May be you will notice that McCain has recently started to play the same line about Obama's policies, calling them 'socialist' and sometimes 'european'. Obama's line is far more convincing than McCain's just because the comparison is within the same party - but he is in a tough spot there - I don't think he'll do too well if he calls Obama's policies the same as Bill Clinton's.

On the policy front Republicans would prefer to be associated with Reagan, not Bush. Are the policies of both similar? I would say so. The problem is that they seem to have produced different results in different times and lately have not fared too well.


In the Obama's case the logic is competely different:
Obama is associated with shady people, therefore he is a shady person.
This is a reasonable logic, but it is very heavily dependent on the strength of such associations and it doesn't seem to be convincing to the people that are not already hard-core anti-Obama.

Originally Posted by Bruno

There were dozens and dozens of resolutions. but there was no UN resolution to go to war. The US decided to do that on its own.

As for your example about shooting that man: you can shoot the moment you see a weapon. Not before. You don't have to wait until your wife is dead, but neither should you someone on just an assumption.
You were walking in a public place. If he had been entering your home, it would be something else.

And your example also doesn't translate into the situation you described.
Iraq wasn't threatening the US. Iraq was badmouthing the US, but the US does the same to Iran and North Korea.

The US leadership knew they went to Iraq without evidence. Saddam was also not an al qaeda supporter, and he didn't even have a delivery mechanism for the weapons he didn't have. He had some scuds with a very limited range; no ICBM capability.

So what "serious consequences" should there have been for the failure to abide by the prior resolutions? Another resolution?

Originally Posted by gugi

You were just defending the presidency of George W Bush - I take it you are fairly content with it, in which case I don't see why an association with him and his policies would be a bad thing.

I was defending the original justification for the invasion of Iraq, not the Bush Presidency.

Matt

Originally Posted by mhailey

So what "serious consequences" should there have been for the failure to abide by the prior resolutions? Another resolution?

I don't know.
Iraq was harming nobody and imo, they could have gone on bickering until the end of time. Iraq is a sovereign nation. It doesn't have to care for anything the US or the UN says.
The UN isolated Iraq for failing to comply. Fair enough for me. Eventually Saddam would have fallen on his own.

The US ignores the nuclear non proliferation treaty and is still performing biological and chemical weapons research and development. How is the US different from what Iraq was accused of (but ultimately didn't do)?

The only difference is that the US has enough clout to badger the other countries into compliance, or at least into a position of non opposition. The only difference is that the US can get away with it.