Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Looks like McCain has picked his VP...

Options
1…1011121416

Comments

  • Options
    #392
    axer
    Registered Users Posts: 5,517 ✭✭✭axer


    is_that_so wrote: »
    And what will the whole of the rest of the US government and Senate be doing when this dangerous person is running amok? Where will the money for adventures come from?
    Same thing could have been said about bush.
    is_that_so wrote: »
    McCain needs those "nutjobs" to stay in the election but to win the election both sides will need to win undecideds and Independents. Seeing as they could plump either way how would these be categorised?
    Yes, they will both need the unundecideds and Independents but the democrats don't need the nutjobs as a base.
    is_that_so wrote: »
    Israel has threatened to attacked Iran at least twice this year. Russia has been muttering under its breath for weeks. Sabre-rattling is part of international diplomacy.
    How well has their foreign policys worked for them so far?
    is_that_so wrote: »
    Just because the GOP spawned one of the worst Presidents in US history does not make them intrinsically evil. Carter was pretty inept, Johnson oversaw most of Vietnam and Reagan in common with Clinton produced balanced budgets.
    Extemists are dangerous and the republicans are extremists.
    is_that_so wrote: »
    Iraq had been softened up by 13 years of sanctions and a previous war. It had no air force, extremely limited air defences, a demoralised army and any number of factions itching to get some payback on the Ba'athist regime.
    The regime was little-loved outside. and the US had enough willing partners to go after them, based on those lies. It was also a war that could be "won" easily. Iran is a very different proposition.
    Which willing partners would they be now? The US and the UK?
    is_that_so wrote: »
    Now the US is involved in two conflicts and has serious economic problems. It is facing a likely Dem double majority in Congress and all of its "friends" are gone. Iran also has a degree of support from Russia. The EU is part of the coalition negotiating with them and China is very unlikely to allow another conflict that would engulf the region. On that basis I think it is extremely unlikely to happen but I suspect we'll just have to disagree on that.
    The US needs a president that can restore peace and try and fix the USA's image abroad. McCain is not the man to do that.


  • Options
    #393
    norbert64
    Registered Users Posts: 1,192 ✭✭✭norbert64


    I don't think the US really has any leg to stand on, when we have sh*t like this.
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/06/atomic-club-approves-us-i_n_124542.html

    In other Sarah Palin news, let's all ''Pray away the gay'' :P:P:P:P:P:P
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/06/palins-church-promotes-co_n_124536.html


  • Options
    #394
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #395
    irish_bob
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,271 ✭✭✭irish_bob


    donegalfella wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.



    reverend wright didnt send thousands of american soldiers to thier death in a war of choice
    he did spell out a few home truths though which were obviously to close to the bone for some


  • Options
    #396
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #397
    The Raven.
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,008 ✭✭✭The Raven.


    donegalfella wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    And more ‘scary’ stuff here:

    http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/4821

    It is interesting that the YouTube clip is ‘no longer available’. Never mind. Here it is from another site.

    http://election.newsmax.com/sutton_mansour.html

    The sad thing is that all of this had roots in tragic historical facts that have been highlighted in simple, clear-cut, articulate sermons from the ‘friend’ in this article. However, I don’t want to assist in the spread of this lingering bitterness.


  • Options
    #398
    LolaLuv
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,496 ✭✭✭LolaLuv


    The Raven. wrote: »
    However, I don’t want to assist in the spread of this lingering bitterness.

    But you just did?


  • Options
    #399
    The Raven.
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,008 ✭✭✭The Raven.


    PillyPen wrote: »
    But you just did?

    I thought somebody might say that. However, it is not quite as simple as it seems. I think it is important to point out the relevance of the content of the article without lending support to inflammatory speeches by posting them here.

    Just a reminder that Percy Sutton is the civil rights activist, lawyer, who represented Malcolm X.


  • Options
    #400
    LolaLuv
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,496 ✭✭✭LolaLuv


    The Raven. wrote: »
    I thought somebody might say that. However, it is not quite as simple as it seems. I think it is important to point out the relevance of the content of the article without lending support to inflammatory speeches by posting them here.

    Just a reminder that Percy Sutton is the civil rights activist, lawyer, who represented Malcolm X.

    I think it is as simple as it seems. If you say you're not going to do something then don't spend the preceding part of the post doing just that. If you want to do it, just do it and own it. No harm, no foul.


  • Options
    #401
    axer
    Registered Users Posts: 5,517 ✭✭✭axer


    The Raven. wrote: »
    I thought somebody might say that. However, it is not quite as simple as it seems. I think it is important to point out the relevance of the content of the article without lending support to inflammatory speeches by posting them here.

    Just a reminder that Percy Sutton is the civil rights activist, lawyer, who represented Malcolm X.
    Lol, you sound like Fox News.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #402
    axer
    Registered Users Posts: 5,517 ✭✭✭axer


    donegalfella wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.
    A nanny state run by communists who would offer government health insurance - no no the communists no no "you dont want a bureaucrat between you and your doctor". That kind of attitude is whats wrong with the USA.
    donegalfella wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.
    but yet he managed to pass through an illegal war on iraq because Saddam tried to kill his daddy.
    donegalfella wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.
    What about it? Have you ever heard him say anything racist or act in a racist way? Does Obama have to agree with everything his pastor says?
    donegalfella wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.
    Now what association would that be? They were both on an anti-poverty board together 29 years after the weathermen were active and Bill Ayers is a professor of education at the University of Illinois-Chicago. That Bill Ayers gave a $200 contribution to the Obama re-election fund? You do realise that Obama was only 8 years old when the Weathermen were active?

    Sounds scary - huh?
    donegalfella wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.
    Yes, to negotiate with the likes of Iran without saying you'd better agree with us or we will blow you apart. The latter is not exactly what I would call negotiations and is the reason the USA is in the state it is today i.e. with so many enemies. As Obama has said he will not hesitate to use the army to protect the USA but he won't go use it as a threat upfront.


  • Options
    #403
    The Raven.
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,008 ✭✭✭The Raven.


    PillyPen wrote: »
    I think it is as simple as it seems. If you say you're not going to do something then don't spend the preceding part of the post doing just that. If you want to do it, just do it and own it. No harm, no foul.

    Well I’m sorry you see it that way. It wasn’t intended like that. I posted a website with information relevant to the thread. If that is construed as assisting in the spread of bitterness then that is your interpretation. What I was referring to at the end of my post was in relation to material I didn’t post. I don’t ‘own’ it. It’s out there and it could indeed be ‘harmful’.
    axer wrote: »
    Lol, you sound like Fox News.

    That would seem to suggest that anyone who posts material that isn’t pro-Obama should be ridiculed.


  • Options
    #404
    axer
    Registered Users Posts: 5,517 ✭✭✭axer


    The Raven. wrote: »
    That would seem to suggest that anyone who posts material that isn’t pro-Obama should be ridiculed.
    No, I mean it in the sense that Fox constantly report rumours and then try to act innocent in it as if they are not doing it with intent and as if they are being fair and balanced.


  • Options
    #405
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #406
    axer
    Registered Users Posts: 5,517 ✭✭✭axer


    donegalfella wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.
    What access did they have to the intelligence reports?

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/15/AR2005121501813.html


  • Options
    #407
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #408
    axer
    Registered Users Posts: 5,517 ✭✭✭axer


    donegalfella wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    People voted on the USA invading and neutralising a country that had weapons of mass destruction. If Iraq had such weapons then it could have been justified but claims were made that were complete lies and unsupported by intelligence which the congress did not have access to verify i.e. had to assume they were being told the complete story.
    The major key judgments in the NIE, particularly that Iraq "is reconstituting its nuclear program," "has chemical and biological weapons," was developing an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) "probably intended to deliver biological warfare agents," and that "all key aspects - research & development (R&D), production, and weaponization - of Iraq's offensive biological weapons (BW) program are active and that most elements are larger and more advanced than they were before the Gulf War," either overstated, or were not supported by, the underlying intelligence reporting provided to the Committee.
    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5403731/


  • Options
    #409
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #410
    axer
    Registered Users Posts: 5,517 ✭✭✭axer


    donegalfella wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.
    They were told they had the information but they did not know it was distorted to suit Bush's agenda. There is only so much information that congress would be granted access to, after that they have to rely on who is giving them the information.

    How do you think it is "Self-exculpatory revisionism by mewling Democrats who voted for the invasion" when the report I linked to above was created by the Senate Intelligence Committee which comprises of both democrats and republicans?

    Obama actually saw it was a stupid war that would carry on too long and cost too much in 2002 - 6 months before it began.


  • Options
    #411
    MCMLXXXIII
    Closed Accounts Posts: 412 ✭✭MCMLXXXIII


    donegalfella wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.
    Words like "scary," "frightening," etc. are often used by the Conservatives to describe "Terrorists" so that everyone runs to the GOP crying "Mommy, mommy, help me!" Thus turning the Republicans into the National Mavericks they claim to be.
    donegalfella wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.
    First, the Senate is part of Congress. Congress consists of the Senate and the House of representatives. Although the President needs the approval from Congress to pass a Bill, the President may also Veto a bill that both sides of Congress approves.
    The President also appoints some pretty important positions such as the Supreme Court Justices. What do you think would happen if someone tried Roe v. Wade today? What if McCain wins to give the pro-life Republican party at least a 12-year run of the highest court? Also, the Supreme court defines whether or not something is unconstitutional or not. After the Patriot Act was pushed through, a liberal Judge in the Federal Court in Detroit declared it unconstitutional. The mostly Republical-appointed Supreme Court in Washigton took the case immediately and overturned the original decision. The right to privacy went right out the window. Congress does not vote on any of those issues after it becomes law.
    donegalfella wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.
    ...aaaaaaand an extremely slight majority voted for GW Bush for a second term (remember he lost the majority vote the first time), eventually for his nationwide approval rating to drop below 30%.

    Back on topic:
    I don't hate Palin, but I definately disagree with a few things she is saying. I think the move was extremely political, but IMO it really boosted McCain's campaign so far.
    I do, however, find it interesting that as soon as she was nominated that media put a complete stop to talking about Obama's personal life (religion, upbringing, race, etc.). This is the first election where the personal/family life of the nominees are not being discussed. It's still early in the race though - I guess we will just have to wait and see what happens.

    Funny


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #412
    is_that_so
    Registered Users Posts: 32,136 ✭✭✭✭is_that_so


    A Gallup Poll today has McCain ahead for the first time in quite a while. The closeness of the two conventions appears to have muted the Dems' bounce.

    http://www.gallup.com/poll/110050/Gallup-Daily-McCain-Moves-Ahead-48-45.aspx


  • Options
    #413
    Manic Moran
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 16,401 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    The President also appoints some pretty important positions such as the Supreme Court Justices. What do you think would happen if someone tried Roe v. Wade today?

    Sortof. He makes recommendations which are confirmed by Congress. This is why recommended persons get grilled by Congresscritters before they are confirmed.

    Honestly, I think RvW would stand.
    The mostly Republical-appointed Supreme Court in Washigton took the case immediately and overturned the original decision.

    As it stands, the court is pretty evenly divided, and it has been for quite some time. There are two hardline conservatives, two hardline liberals, two each lesser conservatives and liberals, and a swing vote in Kennedy. It's why there are so many 5-4 rulings which oftentimes nobody knows in advance which way the court will go.

    As it happens, I dislike the current appointment system, but it's not going to change any time soon.

    NTM


  • Options
    #414
    Pocono Joe
    Closed Accounts Posts: 795 ✭✭✭Pocono Joe


    Hypothetical question… What would you all think of the democrats if McCain/Palin’s bounce in polls doesn’t drop, and suddenly within the next month or so Biden mysteriously develops “health” issues which causes him to drop out of the race... opening up the VP slot to Hillary?


  • Options
    #415
    Manic Moran
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 16,401 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    You been listening to Limbaugh again? Just saw that proposed on another site, apparently that's where they got the idea.

    NTM


  • Options
    #416
    Black Swan
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 47,258 CMod ✭✭✭✭Black Swan


    Pocono Joe wrote: »
    Biden mysteriously develops “health” issues which causes him to drop out of the race... opening up the VP slot to Hillary?
    This would be the ultimate Republican nightmare, because the Democrats significantly outnumber the Republicans, and if the Democrats were to unite both halves of their party (Obama and Hiliary halves), and none of them stayed home during the election, they would not need Republican or Independent votes (but would probably draw a lot of Independents). Furthermore, the gender appeal of Sarah Palin, with her plea to allow little girls to dream of someday being in the White House will dilute to nothing.

    Sure, GOP, Rush What's-His-Face, and Bill O'Whatever could claim they predicted this move, but the Dems would smile and go to the election booths in droves, laughing all the way, flipping their noses at Carl Rove.

    But the Dems will not do this, unfortunately, so the McCain-Palin War Party has a good chance of winning the election.


  • Options
    #417
    axer
    Registered Users Posts: 5,517 ✭✭✭axer


    Pocono Joe wrote: »
    Hypothetical question… What would you all think of the democrats if McCain/Palin’s bounce in polls doesn’t drop, and suddenly within the next month or so Biden mysteriously develops “health” issues which causes him to drop out of the race... opening up the VP slot to Hillary?
    The problem with hillary is that she would be very hard to control for Obama if he is president since she is so strong headed. I think that is why obama didnt pick her - she would have her own agenda instead of following the president.


  • Options
    #418
    Awayindahils
    Registered Users Posts: 2,024 ✭✭✭Awayindahils


    Pocono Joe wrote: »
    Hypothetical question… What would you all think of the democrats if McCain/Palin’s bounce in polls doesn’t drop, and suddenly within the next month or so Biden mysteriously develops “health” issues which causes him to drop out of the race... opening up the VP slot to Hillary?

    I think the amount of flack that it would cause could have serious represcussions for the Democrats. And there will be a whole lot of 'well they didn't think she was good enough in the first place' from the Republicans. Had they chosen Hillary, despite her headstrong tendencies, from the start the democrats would have put themselves in a very strong postion with a very united party, they don't have that now. However at the same time, Hillary does irk the hell out of many independents. I think it was foolish, but I think doubling back now would be even worse for the Dems.

    (Oh and I love the Republicans for playing better politics. I don't want them to win but a certain part of me is just in awe. Palin, with all the scandels, is managing to be a 21st century candidate, one who spends as much time in the tabloids as she does in higher brow media. Obama may be a celebrity, but it's Palin who's on all the glossies on the newstands, reaching all those people who pick up a copy of People before the NY Times.)


  • Options
    #419
    Lirange
    Registered Users Posts: 2,099 ✭✭✭Lirange


    Actuaries estimate that McCain has a 1 in 3 chance of not making it through one full term as president.


  • Options
    #420
    irish_bob
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,271 ✭✭✭irish_bob


    axer wrote: »
    The problem with hillary is that she would be very hard to control for Obama if he is president since she is so strong headed. I think that is why obama didnt pick her - she would have her own agenda instead of following the president.

    replace the word hillary with bill and the post is exactly why obama didnt choose clinton as his vp


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #421
    Pocono Joe
    Closed Accounts Posts: 795 ✭✭✭Pocono Joe


    So... what are your early predictions of the ABC News interview with Sarah Palin, the Republican Vice Presidential choice? According to Charlie Gibson, no issues are off the table.

    Do you think she will get a softball or hardball interview? Will it be politically fair or done with trepidation? Will she come across as a country hick and fall flat on her face, or savvy and intelligent? Will it make your head explode? Will you all be stocking up on water and duct tape, and start building bomb shelters?

    Personally I think she will delight the right and infuriate the left. The post analysis will be completely opposite depending on which side of the fence you're on. If nothing else, she will come across as a capable executive worthy of McCain's pick as VP.


Advertisement