|
Post by Rifles on May 4, 2011 18:54:51 GMT -5
Dude, it's not what you're saying, it's how you're saying it.
I agree the economy is going to be the #1 issue come election time, but you make it seem as if NOTHING else will matter and the bin Laden thing will have no effect on anything. It has no effect on YOU because you think Obama's the anti-christ and nothing will change that, but in the general political spectrum it gives him some immediate credibility and dilutes the argument that he's weak militarily and has no backbone.
If the job market starts to turn, that, coupled with the bin laden deal will probably instill enough confidence in the majority to vote him back in. That is, unless he totally fucks up between now and then.
|
|
|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on May 4, 2011 19:21:14 GMT -5
Here's a spectrum, judge it in November 2012 if you want:
Unemployment <7.5% - Obama wins in a landslide, ala Reagan style Unemployment 7.6%-8.2% - Obama most likely wins Unemployment 8.3%-8.7% - 50/50 chance Unemployment 8.8% > - GOP win
Rough estimates, to be sure. But the take away here is that anything under 7.5 is a lock for Obama, anything around 9 or above is a lock for the GOP. Anything in between depends how close to either end of the spectrum that number is.
OBL will not matter in Nov 2012. I promise you this. Come back then, and we'll see.
|
|
|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on May 4, 2011 19:44:41 GMT -5
As for quotes - earlier in the thread - I wouldn't play that game if I were you. -- www.commentarymagazine.com/2011/05/03/intellectual-dishonesty-of-nancy-pelosi/Here’s Nancy Pelosi from a press conference on September 7, 2006: [E]ven if [Osama bin Laden] is caught tomorrow, it is five years too late. He has done more damage the longer he has been out there. But, in fact, the damage that he has done . . . is done. And even to capture him now I don’t think makes us any safer. And here’s Nancy Pelosi yesterday: The death of Osama bin Laden marks the most significant development in our fight against al-Qaida. . . . I salute President Obama, his national security team, Director Panetta, our men and women in the intelligence community and military, and other nations who supported this effort for their leadership in achieving this major accomplishment. . . . [T]he death of Osama bin Laden is historic. . . . This devastating then-and-now comparison comes to us courtesy of John Hinderaker of Power Line. It underscores the degree to which partisanship can ravage people’s fair-mindedness and, in the process, make them look like fools and hacks. Such things aren’t uncommon in politics—but what is rare is to see such intellectual dishonesty proven so conclusively. -- Amazing, isn't it?
|
|
|
Post by Rifles on May 4, 2011 19:58:26 GMT -5
Uhhh...her first statement was talking about safety. I don't think anyone considered bin laden a threat for years. He was just a symbol and the mastermind behind 911. From a safety standpoint its probably not significant, but to pretend killing the person seen as most responsible for 911 is not significant...that makes no sense. Its a HUGE deal.
That's like if someone killed your mom and they didn't find the guy for 10 years...you're trying to tell me that wouldn't be a significant event? Its just more right wingers trying to downplay this because their guy didn't didn't do it.
|
|
|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on May 4, 2011 19:59:03 GMT -5
Uhhh...her first statement was talking about safety. I don't think anyone considered bin laden a threat for years. He was just a symbol and the mastermind behind 911. From a safety standpoint its probably not significant, but to pretend killing the person seen as most responsible for 911 is not significant...that makes no sense. Its a HUGE deal. That's like if someone killed your mom and they didn't find the guy for 10 years...you're trying to tell me that wouldn't be a significant event? Its just more right wingers trying to downplay this because their guy didn't didn't do it. You're trying to imply Pelosi would have reacted the same way if Bush took the guy out? What nonsense. Almost every conservative gives Obama credit. Very few liberals give Bush any sort of credit. That's pretty telling.
|
|
|
Post by Rifles on May 4, 2011 20:13:58 GMT -5
Of course she is going to suck off obama. She's in his camp but the quote you chose doesn't help your case because she was stating a general opinion. She wasn't shitting on Bush or saying catching bin laden wouldn't be significant in any way, only from a safety standpoint as it was widely agreed that he was no longer active.
Why would anyone jump to give Bush credit when he ran off to Iraq and ignored bin laden, the one guy every US citizen wanted captured or killed. If he was killed right after obama took office then you would have an argument but I don't see how he deserves much credit for this.
|
|
|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on May 4, 2011 20:24:09 GMT -5
Of course she is going to suck off obama. She's in his camp but the quote you chose doesn't help your case because she was stating a general opinion. She wasn't shitting on Bush or saying catching bin laden wouldn't be significant in any way, only from a safety standpoint as it was widely agreed that he was no longer active. Why would anyone jump to give Bush credit when he ran off to Iraq and ignored bin laden, the one guy every US citizen wanted captured or killed. If he was killed right after obama took office then you would have an argument but I don't see how he deserves much credit for this. OBL shouldn't have been our priority, and as I said before it hasn't been for several years. The man is simply irrelevant. Go back to 2008, even. OBL was barely - if at all - mentioned. No one cares anymore. The guy was simply irrelevant. Bush did the right thing by going after AQ generally (who popped up in Iraq eventually, so Iraq did become very important), rather than going after one irrelevant man. If Clinton did his job better, we wouldn't have had to worry about Osama in the first place. Because Bush acted, it allowed Obama to get into a position to kill him. In fact, the war in Afghanistan, harsh interrogation and Gitmo helped lead to his killing. All 3 of which Obama opposed. Funny how that works. If this was volleyball, and someone sets you and you spike it, does the spiker deserve all the credit? Like fuck he does. Bush set Obama up for the spike. It's as simple as that. To deny Bush any significant credit here is outrageous. Again, GHWB was at like 92% after Desert Storm, and one year later dramatically lost the election. People need to learn history and what drives elections. OBL won't do anything for Obama. Again, come back to me in November 2012. Let's also not forget Bush got a 6-8% bounce in the polls after he captured Saddam. That disappeared within 2 months, too. You guys are still living off of the high from Sunday. Once reality sinks in, you'll see that I'm right.
|
|
|
Post by Rifles on May 4, 2011 20:42:14 GMT -5
Because Bush acted? We were frickin attacked! Stop giving him credit for things he was supposed to do. How can you possibly agree with the Iraq situation? Bunch of douchers attack us and its well known they are concentrated in areas outside of Iraq but our awesome leader decides to go in the other direction. There's just no logical reason for that.
You're so blinded by partisan bs all you care about is discrediting non-republicans. Bush was in office for 8 months before 911 and I think there is proof he was given documents somewhat warning him of the possibility of hijacked airplanes attacking etc. And he didn't act on that. Maybe its Clinton's fault they didn't make the font big enough or something.
|
|
|
Post by Rifles on May 4, 2011 20:46:41 GMT -5
OBL is not significant from a terror standpoint but he is very significant to PEOPLE. Why do you think people were gathering and cheering all over the country? Its important. Will Obama win the election if its the only positive thing he did during his first term? No, but its still a historical moment that means a lot to a lot of people.
|
|
|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on May 4, 2011 20:51:05 GMT -5
So Bush was at fault for everything but for this? This is laughable. Simply outrageous. Talk about partisan blindness. Grow up and give credit where credit is due.
Also, you just contradicted yourself. You just said why should we give Bush credit for doing something he was supposed to do, yet previously said Bush didn't do anything relevant. Well, which is?
Also, you still give credit when someone does their job correctly. That's like saying - if Obama gets unemployment down to 7.5% we shouldn't give him credit because that's what he was suppose to do. Again. Outrageous.
If it wasn't for Bush, Sunday would never have happened. How do you not understand this? I'm done with such a short sighted 'debate'
|
|
|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on May 4, 2011 20:51:28 GMT -5
OBL is not significant from a terror standpoint but he is very significant to PEOPLE. Why do you think people were gathering and cheering all over the country? Its important. Will Obama win the election if its the only positive thing he did during his first term? No, but its still a historical moment that means a lot to a lot of people. If he's so significant, then release the god damn photos. Oh, but no, we have a weak president who cares too much about being PC. I'm sorry, but post-Sunday's killing this whole situation has been an absolute farce by this administration. No real surprise though.
|
|
|
Post by NYR on May 4, 2011 20:56:45 GMT -5
if this had been saddam hussein instead of osama bin laden, then i'd absolutely agree. but it wasn't. george bush's main target was saddam. simply because bush had troops in afghanistan means nothing. bin laden was not bush's target, and i don't think he ever was post-january 2002.
unless you think bill clinton was miss cleo, he couldn't have known that osama bin laden was going to plan and execute the september 11, 2001 attacks. stop trying to slide the blame off of bush and onto clinton. bush couldn't have known much either, even after the august 2001 presidential daily briefing, but since it did say "bin laden to attack the u.s." and was credible, he could have tightened up security even just a little bit.
torture did not lead to osama bin laden's hiding place. that is a lie. we got our information from one or two couriers in pakistan who apparently volunteered the information to us intelligence. anyone saying that waterboarding was behind it is only covering his/her own ass because said person supports the illegal breaking of the eighth amendment of the constitution.
|
|
|
Post by NYR on May 4, 2011 21:00:18 GMT -5
OBL is not significant from a terror standpoint but he is very significant to PEOPLE. Why do you think people were gathering and cheering all over the country? Its important. Will Obama win the election if its the only positive thing he did during his first term? No, but its still a historical moment that means a lot to a lot of people. If he's so significant, then release the god damn photos. Oh, but no, we have a weak president who cares too much about being PC. I'm sorry, but post-Sunday's killing this whole situation has been an absolute farce by this administration. No real surprise though. if you mean showing pictures that will anger islamic militants in a tumultuous region where they're seeing changes they haven't seen in decades, then yes, it's caring about being pc. but i forgot. you're the political scientist here.
|
|
|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on May 4, 2011 21:00:48 GMT -5
May I ask why OBL was irrelevant post-9/11? That's surely more important than a dead OBL who was already irrelevant. Sorry, but Bush's actions were more important. Obama's, though, were more symbolic.
|
|
|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on May 4, 2011 21:04:28 GMT -5
if this had been saddam hussein instead of osama bin laden, then i'd absolutely agree. but it wasn't. george bush's main target was saddam. simply because bush had troops in afghanistan means nothing. bin laden was not bush's target, and i don't think he ever was post-january 2002. unless you think bill clinton was miss cleo, he couldn't have known that osama bin laden was going to plan and execute the september 11, 2001 attacks. stop trying to slide the blame off of bush and onto clinton. bush couldn't have known much either, even after the august 2001 presidential daily briefing, but since it did say "bin laden to attack the u.s." and was credible, he could have tightened up security even just a little bit. torture did not lead to osama bin laden's hiding place. that is a lie. we got our information from one or two couriers in pakistan who apparently volunteered the information to us intelligence. anyone saying that waterboarding was behind it is only covering his/her own ass because said person supports the illegal breaking of the eighth amendment of the constitution. How does this argument make any consistent sense? You're assuming Clinton had no like minded warnings, when that's not event he case - remember the Boijonka plot, which was stopped (credit there, at least). Clinton had chances to kill Osama. He understood the danger of Osama. To say Clinton shouldn't be blamed but Bush should be because of the Aug 2001 memo is beyond silly. But regardless, there's a big difference here: Bush acted seriously after OBL attacked under his watch. Clinton didn't do anything of note despite 3 attacks and a declared warning from the man under his watch. Stop trying to pass the buck.
|
|
|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on May 4, 2011 21:08:37 GMT -5
If he's so significant, then release the god damn photos. Oh, but no, we have a weak president who cares too much about being PC. I'm sorry, but post-Sunday's killing this whole situation has been an absolute farce by this administration. No real surprise though. if you mean showing pictures that will anger islamic militants in a tumultuous region where they're seeing changes they haven't seen in decades, then yes, it's caring about being pc. but i forgot. you're the political scientist here. That's a nonsensical argument. The terrorists/anti-americans don't need any more reason to hate us. Picture or not, they hate us already. What, do you really think that not releasing those pictures would make those who would be inflamed become our friends instead? Talk about being naive. If people aren't already offended by OBL death and America in general, they wouldn't become angry just because a photo was shown. This is a nonsensical and typical liberal response. But hey, we're not spiking the football, like, say, visiting ground zero in the coming days (even though celebrating the fall of the Berlin Wall didn't warrant an appearance) and trying to score political points to the election. No, that would be wrong, of course. Sigh.
|
|
|
Post by Rifles on May 4, 2011 21:10:54 GMT -5
So Bush was at fault for everything but for this? This is laughable. Simply outrageous. Talk about partisan blindness. Grow up and give credit where credit is due. If it wasn't for Bush, Sunday would never have happened. How do you not understand this? I'm done with such a short sighted 'debate' Where did I say Bush at fault for everything? My point was we never should have hit Iraq like we did. It was a total fuck up but I haven't heard a single republican admit that. How are you supposed to improve anything if you can't admit obvious mistakes? Im not partisan. If someone does something stupid, I say its stupid, I don't try to twist facts to fit my agenda and pretend a shit decision was a good one. I think its extremely stupid on Obama's part to not release photos. They should have immediately released hardcore proof. If they don't then this whole thing will stink and lose all of its luster. I'm no debate or political expert but if you hope to be a political scientist you should kind of be ashamed of yourself. You call people ignorant when they don't agree with you and constantly try to dismiss other people's comments instead of actually considering them. The stubborn right-wing attitude is just as shitty as super liberal attitudes. No one wants to even consider another side of the story or another point of view. A perfect example of why the govt is so ineffective.
|
|
|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on May 4, 2011 21:16:15 GMT -5
So Bush was at fault for everything but for this? This is laughable. Simply outrageous. Talk about partisan blindness. Grow up and give credit where credit is due. If it wasn't for Bush, Sunday would never have happened. How do you not understand this? I'm done with such a short sighted 'debate' Where did I say Bush at fault for everything? My point was we never should have hit Iraq like we did. It was a total fuck up but I haven't heard a single republican admit that. How are you supposed to improve anything if you can't admit obvious mistakes? Im not partisan. If someone does something stupid, I say its stupid, I don't try to twist facts to fit my agenda and pretend a shit decision was a good one. I think its extremely stupid on Obama's part to not release photos. They should have immediately released hardcore proof. If they don't then this whole thing will stink and lose all of its luster. I'm no debate or political expert but if you hope to be a political scientist you should kind of be ashamed of yourself. You call people ignorant when they don't agree with you and constantly try to dismiss other people's comments instead of actually considering them. The stubborn right-wing attitude is just as shitty as super liberal attitudes. No one wants to even consider another side of the story or another point of view. A perfect example of why the govt is so ineffective. Hindsight is 20/20. Coming off of 9/11 - if you believe that Bush truly believe Sadam had WMD - it made sense. In fact, if you think Bush lied about the fact, then so did Clinton in the 90s, and so did most of America and the world in 2002 for that matter. It was bad intel, and nothing to do with lying. But coming on the heels of 9/11, we saw that we couldn't afford to wait to see if a threat materialized. Bush's pre-emption made sense in context. To deny that is absurd. That being said, once we got into Iraq, it became very important. It's where AQ ran into. It became an essential battle. So while you can argue, with your 20/20 hindsight, that we shouldn't have gone in originally, once we did it was essential that it became our essential focus, if you will. The Iraq War was more important than killing one man. --- What's also notable is that Bush denied joining Obama at Ground Zero. It's nice to see a (former) politician not milking anything. Bush was (and still is) genuine, and I admire that.
|
|
|
Post by Let It Bleed on May 4, 2011 21:24:53 GMT -5
NL4E, you really need to get your head out of George W. Bush's ass. all in all, you're just a classic example of a bigot, and it's the reason you get so much shit.
|
|
|
Post by NYR on May 4, 2011 21:25:48 GMT -5
How does this argument make any consistent sense? You're assuming Clinton had no like minded warnings, when that's not event he case - remember the Boijonka plot, which was stopped (credit there, at least). Clinton had chances to kill Osama. He understood the danger of Osama. To say Clinton shouldn't be blamed but Bush should be because of the Aug 2001 memo is beyond silly. But regardless, there's a big difference here: Bush acted seriously after OBL attacked under his watch. Clinton didn't do anything of note despite 3 attacks and a declared warning from the man under his watch. Stop trying to pass the buck. i know clinton knew osama was a terrorist doing bad things, but nobody knew that he could have done something as bad as 9/11. bush didn't either. all i'm saying is that if you get a memo like the one bush got in august 2001, then don't sit on your ass doing nothing. tighten up security. That's a nonsensical argument. The terrorists/anti-americans don't need any more reason to hate us. Picture or not, they hate us already. What, do you really think that not releasing those pictures would make those who would be inflamed become our friends instead? Talk about being naive. If people aren't already offended by OBL death and America in general, they wouldn't become angry just because a photo was shown. This is a nonsensical and typical liberal response. But hey, we're not spiking the football, like, say, visiting ground zero in the coming days (even though celebrating the fall of the Berlin Wall didn't warrant an appearance) and trying to score political points to the election. No, that would be wrong, of course. Sigh. the middle east is going through some drastic changes this year. it's pretty naive to suggest that showing violent pictures of a dead militant leader to people in a fragile area wouldn't fuck things up there. and yes, they would become angry if that photo was shown. look at their reaction at a fucking cartoon from denmark. these are not rational people you are dealing with. btw, obama invited bush to ground zero. you think that's scoring political points? i think that's showing class-- and it's giving bush more credit than he deserves to get.
|
|
|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on May 4, 2011 21:29:29 GMT -5
NL4E, you really need to get your head out of George W. Bush's ass. all in all, you're just a classic example of a bigot, and it's the reason you get so much shit. Whoa. Wow. I'm not going to lie, I take great offense of that. I have given credit to Obama for this. And I have given credit to Obama for continuing Bush's policies, even if he didn't want to. But to call me a bigot or a racist because I simply don't like his liberalism? Wow. Could you sink any lower? Not only are you playing the standard liberal race card, you're playing it without any sort of evidence. I am truly shocked and appalled. In no way am I bigot. I expected better, LIB. I truly did.
|
|
|
Post by Let It Bleed on May 4, 2011 21:36:13 GMT -5
NL4E, you really need to get your head out of George W. Bush's ass. all in all, you're just a classic example of a bigot, and it's the reason you get so much shit. Whoa. Wow. I'm not going to lie, I take great offense of that. I have given credit to Obama for this. And I have given credit to Obama for continuing Bush's policies, even if he didn't want to. But to call me a bigot or a racist because I simply don't like his liberalism? Wow. Could you sink any lower? Not only are you playing the standard liberal race card, you're playing it without any sort of evidence. I am truly shocked and appalled. In no way am I bigot. I expected better, LIB. I truly did. i didn't say you were racist, i said you're a bigot. you can spew all the facts out you want but you're just a glorified ignorant educated bigot and it kills all your credibilty.
|
|
|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on May 4, 2011 21:39:05 GMT -5
Whoa. Wow. I'm not going to lie, I take great offense of that. I have given credit to Obama for this. And I have given credit to Obama for continuing Bush's policies, even if he didn't want to. But to call me a bigot or a racist because I simply don't like his liberalism? Wow. Could you sink any lower? Not only are you playing the standard liberal race card, you're playing it without any sort of evidence. I am truly shocked and appalled. In no way am I bigot. I expected better, LIB. I truly did. i didn't say you were racist, i said you're a bigot. you can spew all the facts out you want but you're just a glorified ignorant educated bigot and it kills all your credibilty. Not only does "ignorant educated" not make any grammatical sense (it should be "ignorantly educated"), it's also contradictory. But ok.
|
|
|
Post by Let It Bleed on May 4, 2011 21:44:11 GMT -5
i didn't say you were racist, i said you're a bigot. you can spew all the facts out you want but you're just a glorified ignorant educated bigot and it kills all your credibilty. Not only does "ignorant educated" not make any grammatical sense (it should be "ignorantly educated"), it's also contradictory. But ok. it's quite possible to be educated and ignorant. maybe a more relatable term, educated and stupid - a common occurence.
|
|
|
Post by spaneli on May 4, 2011 21:43:44 GMT -5
"A bigot is a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices, especially one exhibiting intolerance, and animosity toward those of differing beliefs."
Just to clear things up. Bigot is associated with being a racist, but its not being a racist. Most people use the word bigot wrong. It's not calling someone a racist, even though it's associated with that. A racist is something completely different, which NL4E is clearly not (that's not to say that I agree with calling him a bigot either.
|
|