Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Crooks & Liars)   New Obama scandal: "Fake" interviews   (crooksandliars.com) divider line 701
    More: Strange  
•       •       •

30074 clicks; posted to Main » on 22 Jul 2008 at 11:50 AM (6 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



701 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all
 
2008-07-22 04:59:19 PM  
BojanglesPaladin: Are we currently in a world theater where the United States is frequently called on to intervene militarily? In fact, forget the last 8 years for the sake of argument. Prior to 2000, was America in need of a strong and robust military?


First answer: No. We choose to, much to our detriment.

Second answer: "strong and robust"?

Can you try again without begging the question? My actual stance: We need a much, much, much smaller military. Not a weak or insipid one.

If we are not engaged in the Cold War, why are you using our military stance during the Cold War to support your argument?
 
2008-07-22 04:59:48 PM  
BojanglesPaladin

For every Bevets or Jerry Fallwell, there are thousands of Mother Theresas who get no airtime or coverage.

Not so fast (new window)

/know what you mean, though
 
2008-07-22 05:00:12 PM  
RetiredTroll: Any Questions?

Why is the flag on fire behind John McCain?
 
2008-07-22 05:02:56 PM  
RetiredTroll: Any questions?

Only one question here, sir... do you pre-treat, use a stain stick, or just scrub like hell to get the drool stains off your shirts?
 
2008-07-22 05:03:25 PM  
"The spirit of this country is totally adverse to a large military force."

--Thomas Jefferson to Chandler Price, 1807. ME 11:160

"There are instruments so dangerous to the rights of the nation and which place them so totally at the mercy of their governors that those governors, whether legislative or executive, should be restrained from keeping such instruments on foot but in well-defined cases. Such an instrument is a standing army."

--Thomas Jefferson to David Humphreys, 1789. ME 7:323


"A standing army is one of the greatest mischief that can possibly happen"

--James Madison
 
2008-07-22 05:04:21 PM  
obdicut
We don't need a military that has an expenditure higher than every other military on earth combined.

Except for the fact that it is almost invariably the United States military that provides the brute force for all those countries that have under-powered militaries when military action is called for. The reason we spend so much more than many other countries is due to two primary factors:

a) we have much better technology and deeper inventory of military equipment than most other countries. Although we frequently use them to the direct benefit of those countries with smaller militaries. We have more aircraft carriers, more missiles, more humvees, more airplanes, etc. than most other nations.

b) Even when it doesn't come to direct military action, as it did on UN efforts like Somalia, Kosovo, Korea, etc. just the deterant factor brings a benefit to our allies, who in turn can rely on us to defend them, and subsequently they spend less on their own militaries. That many countries have smaller militaries is directly due to the fact that we are their allies and have a much larger one. Even Saudi Arabia falls under our umbrella.

In short, we spend on our military, so others don't have to.

/it's also not bigger than 'every other military on earth combined'. Just most. At least not the stats I've seen. Russia and China, for instance spend quite a bit as well.
 
2008-07-22 05:04:21 PM  
Friction8r: when you exude that rhetoric you sound like a baboon.

Did your parents abandon you before or after you started embarrassing them in public?

/btw, one does not excoriate with one's adversary; one excoriates one's adversary.
//it's not sex.
 
2008-07-22 05:05:41 PM  
It is amusing how after the MSM attacks Obama (see original article), people start talking about Obama being "the media's candidate."
 
2008-07-22 05:07:26 PM  
CanisNoir: The Opening Song to Civilization IV Computer Game.

Baba Yetu
Baba Yetu uliye mbinguni,
jina lako litukuzwe;
ufalme wako ufike,
utakalo lifanyike
duniani kama mbinguni.
Utupe leo mkate wetu wa kila siku,
utusamehe makosa yetu,
kama nasi tunavyowasamehe waliotukosea.
Usitutie katika kishawishi,
lakini utuopoe maovuni.
Amina
______________________________________________

If you've never heard it, you are missing something; almost anyone who has played the game will honestly tell you they sit at the menu screen for minutes at a time just listening to it. The funny thing is, when translated the song is thus...

Our Father, who art in heaven,
hallowed be thy name;
thy kingdom come,
thy will be done,
on earth as it is in heaven.
Give us this day, our daily bread,
and forgive us our trespasses
as we forgive those who trespass against us.
And lead us not into temptation,
but deliver us from evil.
Amen.
______________________________________________________

Subliminal Conversion FTW!!!!!!

/End Threadjack


Horse shiat.
 
2008-07-22 05:10:32 PM  
Fark-the-Fnord

graphs

So, instead of paying taxes, maybe I could just send a few boxes of ammo? On second thought, it would bug me to know that they would just end up in a brown person's brain on the floor of an adobe hut halfway around the world.

I guess I'll just keep writing checks. Thanks for letting me know what they're for.
 
2008-07-22 05:10:53 PM  
buzzvert: RetiredTroll: Any questions?

Only one question here, sir... do you pre-treat, use a stain stick, or just scrub like hell to get the drool stains off your shirts?


Of course, because anyone who doesn't buy into the Obama hype must be a right wing neanderthal. Well, guess what? I am supposedly one of Obama's core constituencies: originally from CT, young, highly educated, libertarian leanings, etc etc. Well, I have listened to both men speak, I have thoroughly read through their published material, and I have come to the conclusion that I am going to vote Republican for the first time in my life. McCain is a solid candidate, a little old perhaps, but a steady hand at the helm. Obama has some serious holes in his background, and he has been a Senator for only a few years, and that only happened because one of his opponents got caught in a sex scandal. Yes, great that he is black, and went to Harvard, and helped people in Chicago, but that is very different from understanding national security. I think it was wrong to go into Iraq, but once we were there, McCain has had the right instincts time after time, whereas all Obama could manage was the tired old Pelosi Democrat bring home the baby-killing troops line. Interestingly enough, he has had to shift gears since the surge started working.
 
2008-07-22 05:12:44 PM  
obdicut
If we are not engaged in the Cold War, why are you using our military stance during the Cold War to support your argument?

I'm not. And you know I'm not.

I am simply pointing out the historical truth that in the wake of WWII, and during the advent of the Cold War era, it became clear that it was in America's best interest to maintain a powerful and strong military. Even following the collapse of the Soviet Union (which arguably was exacerbated by our aggressive military spending), we found that the post-cold war era still required us to maintain a large and powerful military, partly because no one else was, and partly because there are still a whole lot of combat zones throughout the globe, where we may be called upon to act. Perhaps you remember Kuwait?.

Even when we are acting as part of a UN or NATO peace keeping effort, as we did in Kuwait, Kosovo, Somalia, etc. it is OUR large military that provides much of the heavy lifting.

You may wish that we lived in a more ideal world where we could substantialy down-size our military and retire from our uncomfortable role as 'global policeman', but were we to do so, someone else would fill the spot. And while there are considerable draw backs, it is most likely in our national best interst to make sure WE are the most powerful military in the world, rather than the other likely candidates - Russia and China.
 
2008-07-22 05:12:57 PM  
RetiredTroll: libertarian

nuff said
 
2008-07-22 05:12:58 PM  
Obdicut: RetiredTroll: Any questions?

Why do you think people won't immediately put you on their ignore list, as I'm doing?


Ahhh, censhorship, the defining characteristic of the slavish Obama followers.
 
2008-07-22 05:14:04 PM  
Nina Harley's Ass btw, one does not excoriate with one's adversary; one excoriates one's adversary

What I had meant to had said, which was what I had did said, is "dispatch with." I had done articulated what you den misstated as you lactated while exasperated.
 
2008-07-22 05:14:27 PM  
BojanglesPaladin: Except for the fact that it is almost invariably the United States military that provides the brute force for all those countries that have under-powered militaries when military action is called for. The reason we spend so much more than many other countries is due to two primary factors:

You see, I disagree with interventionist foreign policy, so I disagree with your basic premise there. I understand that you think that military interventionism is a good foreign policy, but I don't.



BojanglesPaladin: b) Even when it doesn't come to direct military action, as it did on UN efforts like Somalia, Kosovo, Korea, etc. just the deterant factor brings a benefit to our allies, who in turn can rely on us to defend them, and subsequently they spend less on their own militaries. That many countries have smaller militaries is directly due to the fact that we are their allies and have a much larger one. Even Saudi Arabia falls under our umbrella.

Defend themselves from whom?


/it's also not bigger than 'every other military on earth combined'. Just most. At least not the stats I've seen. Russia and China, for instance spend quite a bit as well.


Link (new window)

I'm going to assume ignorance here. We not only spend more than every other country individually, we do spend more than every other country combined (that chart does not account for debt expenditure from past military). Even if you take that chart as a whole, we take up 48% of the entire world's spending on military.

In addition, since Europe are our allies, the total spending of us and our allies in world perspective is 68% of all military spending.
 
2008-07-22 05:16:09 PM  
RetiredTroll:
Any questions?

*having just read your profile*

God, you're an idiot.
 
2008-07-22 05:16:36 PM  
BojanglesPaladin: I am simply pointing out the historical truth that in the wake of WWII, and during the advent of the Cold War era, it became clear that it was in America's best interest to maintain a powerful and strong military.

Begging the question yet again.

It became US policy to outspend the Soviet's for a war that never came-- thank god. The rationale post-WWII has been the "global policeman" argument.

These two arguments are not the same, in any way, shape, or form, and using them as though they fit with each other weakens your argument greatly.
 
2008-07-22 05:16:44 PM  
UnkleKrakker: Is writing in your own name or the name of another person a vote?

Yes, if that person is a Presidential candidate.

UnkleKrakker: Neither I, nor Canyoneer, said that a cartoon character was a valid choice. You threw that in there. Strawman? I think so.

Baba Booey is not a cartoon character. I threw in Mickey Mouse, because, for purposes of this discussion there is no difference between a fictitious cartoon being and any other person not running in the election you're voting in. You're into making up rules about what constitutes a vote, such as: "must be a real person". Do you think writing in "Baba Booey" is a real vote?

Here:

In Texas, there are rules about who's a valid write-in candidate. Each state has their own rules regarding this. An important one here in Texas is that the candidate and any vice-presidential candidate must have at least signed a form consenting to their candidacy. So, assuming that the write-in voter has checked with the rules of their state, and the candidate has consented to his or her candidacy, then the write-in voter is participating in the process. Otherwise, their vote is not valid and they have merely written something down on a piece of paper, which is not necessarily voting.

The process has its own set of rules, created by governmental regulatory bodies. If you make up your own rules, you are no longer participating in the same process, you are participating in a process that you yourself have designed. While that may be interesting to you or a form of protest, it is no different than abstaining, except to waste resources.

Please let's be clear on this because I can't figure out another way of explaining it.
 
2008-07-22 05:17:27 PM  
RetiredTroll: Obdicut: RetiredTroll: Any questions?

Why do you think people won't immediately put you on their ignore list, as I'm doing?

Ahhh, censhorship, the defining characteristic of the slavish Obama followers.


Ultra-fail. Putting you on ignore doesn't prohibit you from talking. You have a right to free speech, but not to be heard.

/highly educated, HA
 
2008-07-22 05:22:55 PM  
Obdicut
I understand that you think that military interventionism is a good foreign policy, but I don't.

Interesting assumption. Completely unsupported by my statements. Your conclusions: you jump to them too fast. Because I state that things have happened does not mean that I support or even agree with them. Stating a fact is not condoning a fact. This is important to remember when you are drawing your 'partisan poster' conclusions. One should also remember that in the majority of military interventions the US has been involved in, we have done so under sanction of the United Nations, NATO, or both. So the international community seems to think that military intervention is sometimes regretably neccessary, though you may disagree.

On the topic of outr relative spending, I have seen it calculated in different ways. In your example, if we take up 48% of gloabl military spending, how can we spend more than everyone else combined? Shouldn't we then be at least 51% of global spending?

But either way, I'm not disputing that we spend militarily far in excess of our competitors. I'm questioning why you think it should be otherwise. How does one maintain easily the most powerful military in the world and NOT easily outspend everyone else?
 
2008-07-22 05:22:57 PM  
mccallcl: UnkleKrakker: Is writing in your own name or the name of another person a vote?

Yes, if that person is a Presidential candidate.

UnkleKrakker: Neither I, nor Canyoneer, said that a cartoon character was a valid choice. You threw that in there. Strawman? I think so.

Baba Booey is not a cartoon character. I threw in Mickey Mouse, because, for purposes of this discussion there is no difference between a fictitious cartoon being and any other person not running in the election you're voting in. You're into making up rules about what constitutes a vote, such as: "must be a real person". Do you think writing in "Baba Booey" is a real vote?

Here:

In Texas, there are rules about who's a valid write-in candidate. Each state has their own rules regarding this. An important one here in Texas is that the candidate and any vice-presidential candidate must have at least signed a form consenting to their candidacy. So, assuming that the write-in voter has checked with the rules of their state, and the candidate has consented to his or her candidacy, then the write-in voter is participating in the process. Otherwise, their vote is not valid and they have merely written something down on a piece of paper, which is not necessarily voting.

The process has its own set of rules, created by governmental regulatory bodies. If you make up your own rules, you are no longer participating in the same process, you are participating in a process that you yourself have designed. While that may be interesting to you or a form of protest, it is no different than abstaining, except to waste resources.

Please let's be clear on this because I can't figure out another way of explaining it.


I kind of expected better than this from you. You keep throwing in strawmen, like Baba Booey, which, in case you didn't know, WAS a cartoon character before the Stern show made it a nickname. If that doesn't help you, how about the fact that it's not a legal name.
A write in vote is a valid choice. Just not YOUR choice. How someone exercises their right is really not your business. The laws vary from state to state. If the vote doesn't get counted, then so be it. It is still a huge step above not voting at all.
 
2008-07-22 05:23:00 PM  
RetiredTroll: Interestingly enough, he has had to shift gears since the surge started working.

Oh, just stop it. Do you even know the original goals of "the surge"?
 
2008-07-22 05:24:10 PM  
Why is McCain just standing there while that flag burns behind him?
i.cdn.turner.com
 
2008-07-22 05:24:28 PM  
obdicut
These two arguments are not the same, in any way, shape, or form, and using them as though they fit with each other weakens your argument greatly.

Right. Which is why I specificaly stated the change "after the collapse of the Soviet Union".
 
2008-07-22 05:24:44 PM  
RetiredTroll: I am supposedly one of Obama's core constituencies: originally from CT, young, highly educated

Is that what they call the eighth grade on CT?
 
2008-07-22 05:25:28 PM  
Friction8r: "dispatch with."

btw, one does not dispatch with one's adversary; one dispatches one's adversary.

/it's not sex.
 
2008-07-22 05:26:11 PM  
Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Friction8r: "dispatch with."

btw, one does not dispatch with one's adversary; one dispatches one's adversary.

/it's not sex.


Then you aren't doing it right.
 
2008-07-22 05:27:11 PM  
Friction8r: Nina Harley's Ass btw, one does not excoriate with one's adversary; one excoriates one's adversary

What I had meant to had said, which was what I had did said, is "dispatch with." I had done articulated what you den misstated as you lactated while exasperated.


Please, stop.

/I was enjoying it at first but now, its sad.
 
2008-07-22 05:29:55 PM  
BojanglesPaladin: Interesting assumption. Completely unsupported by my statements. Your conclusions: you jump to them too fast. Because I state that things have happened does not mean that I support or even agree with them. Stating a fact is not condoning a fact. This is important to remember when you are drawing your 'partisan poster' conclusions. One should also remember that in the majority of military interventions the US has been involved in, we have done so under sanction of the United Nations, NATO, or both. So the international community seems to think that military intervention is sometimes regretably neccessary, though you may disagree.

So you do not believe that we should be military interventionist? When you stated that

BojanglesPaladin: On the topic of outr relative spending, I have seen it calculated in different ways. In your example, if we take up 48% of gloabl military spending, how can we spend more than everyone else combined? Shouldn't we then be at least 51% of global spending?

As I stated, that graph does not take into account the amount of our national debt that is from past military. However, I'm happy to take my claim down to "We spend 48% of the world spending on military", if you like. Please also note that we and our allies spend more than 68%, by that same metric.

But either way, I'm not disputing that we spend militarily far in excess of our competitors. I'm questioning why you think it should be otherwise. How does one maintain easily the most powerful military in the world and NOT easily outspend everyone else?

What part of me thinking we should have a much, much, much smaller military are you not understanding? I don't think we should have the most powerful military in the world. There is no inherent good in it, and there is a very high cost.

Oh, and:

it is most likely in our national best interst to make sure WE are the most powerful military in the world, rather than the other likely candidates - Russia and China.

Great, we can cut military spending by a huge amount! Let's be generous and decide that somehow, some way, we'd have to attack both Russia and China at the same time. Let's equally decide that nobody will help us. This is an impossible, idiotic situation, but let's do it:

Their military spending accounts for 13% of world spending. We can cut ours down from 48% to 14%, and still have them beat. That's a huge reduction-- great, innit?
 
2008-07-22 05:31:08 PM  
BojanglesPaladin: Right. Which is why I specificaly stated the change "after the collapse of the Soviet Union".

Then none of your talk about WWII or the Cold War has any relevance to our current use of and spending on our military, right?
 
2008-07-22 05:32:32 PM  
Ohhh, I get it. We should be outraged that he's giving fake interviews to non-journalists instead of fake interviews to REAL journalists like Chris Matthews. Got it.

Jesus Christ, you can almost hear the desperate.
 
2008-07-22 05:35:38 PM  
RetiredTroll: Of course, because anyone who doesn't buy into the Obama hype must be a right wing neanderthal. Well, guess what? I am supposedly one of Obama's core constituencies: originally from CT, young, highly educated, libertarian leanings, etc etc. Well, I have listened to both men speak, I have thoroughly read through their published material, and I have come to the conclusion that I am going to vote Republican for the first time in my life. McCain is a solid candidate, a little old perhaps, but a steady hand at the helm. Obama has some serious holes in his background, and he has been a Senator for only a few years, and that only happened because one of his opponents got caught in a sex scandal. Yes, great that he is black, and went to Harvard, and helped people in Chicago, but that is very different from understanding national security. I think it was wrong to go into Iraq, but once we were there, McCain has had the right instincts time after time, whereas all Obama could manage was the tired old Pelosi Democrat bring home the baby-killing troops line. Interestingly enough, he has had to shift gears since the surge started working.

What does that have to do with pictures of Pinocchio, arm casts and flags?
 
2008-07-22 05:40:01 PM  
obdicut
I don't think we should have the most powerful military in the world. There is no inherent good in it, and there is a very high cost.

Finally, a statement of position.

If you believe that America should not be the most powerful military on the planet, who do you think should? Because someone will be if we are not. So who would you choose?

Then none of your talk about WWII or the Cold War has any relevance to our current use of and spending on our military, right?

Actually, it is relavent for a contextual understanding of how we came to be where we are today. But is was directly relavent to another poster's comments about our military build up for WWII and then the role the Korean War played in establishing a permanant standing (and peacetime) army. But you knew that.

Stop trying to get a dog to hunt down a rabbit trail.
 
2008-07-22 05:42:11 PM  
UnkleKrakker: You keep throwing in strawmen, like Baba Booey, which, in case you didn't know, WAS a cartoon character before the Stern show made it a nickname. If that doesn't help you, how about the fact that it's not a legal name.

Why do you insist on creating rules on the fly in order to invalidate these examples rather than just researching the rules for your state?

So far we have:

-Must be real person
-Must be legal name

Why not go all the way and actually follow the procedures put in place by the authorities responsible for defining the process you claim to be participating in? You, UnkleKrakker do not make the rules. If you don't follow the rules, you're not participating.
 
2008-07-22 05:42:14 PM  
mcsestretch:
Subliminal Conversion FTW!!!!!!

/End Threadjack

Horse shiat.


Link (new window)

Afraid not - completely true, though I left out a part...

CHORUS
Our Father, Jesus, who art
in Heaven. Amen!
Our Father, Jesus
Hallowed be thy name.
(x2)

Give us this day our daily bread,
Forgive us of
our trespasses
As we forgive others
Who tresspass against us
Lead us not into temptation, but
deliver us from Evil, and you are forever and ever!

CHORUS

Your kingdom come, your will be done
On Earth as it is in Heaven. (Amen)

CHORUS

Give us this day our daily bread,
Forgive us of
our trespasses
As we forgive others
Who tresspass against us
Lead us not into temptation, but
deliver us from Evil, and you wake the dead (?)

Our Father, Jesus who art...
Hallowed be thy name.
(x2)
 
2008-07-22 05:44:02 PM  
RetiredTroll: Option 1:

Option 2:

Any questions?


Yeah.
When did you come out of retirement?
 
2008-07-22 05:44:03 PM  
UnkleKrakker: Baba Booey, which, in case you didn't know, WAS a cartoon character before the Stern show made it a nickname

Actually, it was Baba Looey that became Baba Booey
 
2008-07-22 05:44:47 PM  
DroxInxThexWind I was enjoying it at first

I understand, and I will respect your wishes. I feel the same way. Back when Run-DMC came out, I enjoyed it too. Now it's mostly garbage. Rap has made many no-talent hacks into recording "artists," but give them a guitar, fiddle, mandolin, piano, banjo, trumpet etc. and they are lost. Most of them now only excel at playing the upright organ and the pink piccolo. Perhaps as President, Obama can guide us to more Marvin Gaye, Al Green, Ray Charles and Charlie Pride goodness.
 
2008-07-22 05:45:01 PM  
mccallcl: Why not go all the way and actually follow the procedures put in place by the authorities responsible for defining the process you claim to be participating in? You, UnkleKrakker do not make the rules. If you don't follow the rules, you're not participating.

That was really deep.
 
2008-07-22 05:45:23 PM  
farm4.static.flickr.com
 
2008-07-22 05:46:58 PM  
Koichi: RetiredTroll: Obdicut: RetiredTroll: Any questions?

Why do you think people won't immediately put you on their ignore list, as I'm doing?

Ahhh, censhorship, the defining characteristic of the slavish Obama followers.

Ultra-fail. Putting you on ignore doesn't prohibit you from talking. You have a right to free speech, but not to be heard.

/highly educated, HA


Regardless, you are ignoring views that you don't like. That's something a lot of Obamatons are doing. Obama has gotten an easy ride all his life, from the press, and of course, from his own supporters. That's why it's so clear he's not ready. The only thing he's got experience with is Illinois corruption with that poor community that he organized into the ground to enrich Rezko. If any reporter points that out, they get kicked off Obama's campaign plane.

Obama is Bush's 3rd term when it comes to civil rights and openness to the media. His supporters on fark aren't all hateful, but those that are... man, they are just about as stupid as anyone you'll find on the internet.

Why won't Obama agree to real town-hall meetings with Mccain? Why has Obama quibbled so much and moved so far from what his campaign strongly implied about Iraq? Why was Obama so wrong on the surge? Because he's not ready.

And here's a fact: Had Obama been president for the past year instead of Bush, it's completely obvious he'd have not used Mccain's surge to keep winning Iraq. In other words, anyone who bothers to look knows that Obama is actually worse than Bush (which appears to be who Obama is running against, since Obama refuses to agree to any sort of appearance where he and Mccain can debate).

I don't actually like Mccain or Obama very much, but democrats who care about change were duped. Obama is to the right of Hillary. He's changed drastically and he's lied and he won't answer to anyone for anything. He's not a reformer or a symbol of change. Vote fo Nader if you want the DNC to ever get their ass in gear.
 
2008-07-22 05:47:31 PM  
Hideously Gigantic Smurf: RetiredTroll: Of course, because anyone who doesn't buy into the Obama hype must be a right wing neanderthal. Well, guess what? I am supposedly one of Obama's core constituencies: originally from CT, young, highly educated, libertarian leanings, etc etc. Well, I have listened to both men speak, I have thoroughly read through their published material, and I have come to the conclusion that I am going to vote Republican for the first time in my life. McCain is a solid candidate, a little old perhaps, but a steady hand at the helm. Obama has some serious holes in his background, and he has been a Senator for only a few years, and that only happened because one of his opponents got caught in a sex scandal. Yes, great that he is black, and went to Harvard, and helped people in Chicago, but that is very different from understanding national security. I think it was wrong to go into Iraq, but once we were there, McCain has had the right instincts time after time, whereas all Obama could manage was the tired old Pelosi Democrat bring home the baby-killing troops line. Interestingly enough, he has had to shift gears since the surge started working.

What does that have to do with pictures of Pinocchio, arm casts and flags?


Exactly. Highly educated but is forced to resort to baseless attacks in order to make a point for their candidate, sure, I'll believe that.

After GWB, I'd say the last thing we need is another president who makes decisions based on their gut feeling rather than by using their intellect.

I also love the fact that he used national security as his voting point despite McCain being the person who keeps proving their ineptitude at the subject and Obama's plans being the ones chosen by Iraq and our current government.
 
2008-07-22 05:48:01 PM  
BojanglesPaladin: Finally, a statement of position.

Finally? I've stated this, and variants of it, several times. I have no idea why'd you be confused as to whether I think the US needs to vastly decrease its military spending and adopt a non-interventionist policy. I'm not trying to hide that in the least.


If you believe that America should not be the most powerful military on the planet, who do you think should? Because someone will be if we are not. So who would you choose?


It's really irrelevant. I'd go with Canada, though, or Australia. They're bad-ass.

I'm also actually fine if we're "the most powerful military in the world" by a very, very small amount. Just nowhere near our current levels.
 
2008-07-22 05:49:33 PM  
Arcanum

According to the rules of Fark, you are now equivelant to Anne Coultier and Rush Limbaugh you fascist right wing hate-monger.
 
2008-07-22 05:50:22 PM  
glad we sorted that out.
 
2008-07-22 05:51:17 PM  
BojanglesPaladin: According to the rules of Fark, you are now equivelant to Anne Coultier and Rush Limbaugh you fascist right wing hate-monger.

Well, his logic is as bad as Rush's, but not quite as bad as Coulter's. But the "right-wing" aren't really very fascist in America.
 
2008-07-22 05:51:51 PM  
Arcanum: I don't actually like Mccain or Obama very much, but democrats who care about change were duped. Obama is to the right of Hillary. He's changed drastically and he's lied and he won't answer to anyone for anything. He's not a reformer or a symbol of change. Vote fo Nader if you want the DNC to ever get their ass in gear.

Not bad. 6/10
 
2008-07-22 05:52:40 PM  
Before anyone else responds to retiredtroll I would advise you to read his profile.
 
2008-07-22 05:54:05 PM  
Judasbot: God, you're an idiot attention whore.
 
Displayed 50 of 701 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report