You're being melodramatic. Most of the posters here a very well informed about politics and Obama specifically. It think it's disingenuous to pretend that we're some silly twelve year old kids with crushes, or that we're members of a mindless cult of Kool Aid drinkers. It's just not true and it makes your arguments silly and personal when you do accuse us of such things. I'm not a dumb-dumb and I don't appreciate when you insult my intelligence by reducing my preference for Obama to a man crush, although Obama does give me a boner. And doesn't the fact that we can be self-deprecating or that we can make fun of Barry Hussein prove that we're more grounded in reality than you'd care to admit?
You're confusing tactics and strategy. That's how losers think. source/link? I disagree. Following up on my tactics vs. strategy point, McCain's strategy is for Iraq to be a subject of US imperialism. In fact, if you look at his statements about Maliki (paraphrasing, JM says that Maliki won't ask us to leave, JM knows the man, etc.) it's obvious that McCain wants Iraq to be like the Philippines was from ~1908 until we took out our bases recently. To the extent people were saying McCain wanted to be fighting in Iraq for 100 years, sure, that was unfair. But McCain's tactical goal is to make Iraq safe for US imperialism. That's his overall strategy.
Yeah, I just now joined the club. In "Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot," Al Franken opined that the purpose of Rush's show was to punish people who knew something. That's how AM's posts are. It's a constant, pounding assault on people who want to be polite, but who actually have been following the campaign and are well informed. At least ITN is funny. AM is just tedious.
People can use the negative rep button, can't they? I think that's why it exists. I'm sorry for your loss, though.
At some point do you decide that out of courtesy you are going to give people a break? I defended you a few threads ago, but ever since then, it seems like you are a recurring topic of discussion, and not just with 1 or 2 posters. Do you have any regard for the folks who posts here or are everyone deluded kool-aid drinkers?
Oh of course not. Sometimes a good discussion breaks out. It was nice to see people admit that Obama has flipped on a number of issues a few pages ago. Unfortunately we now can't go back in time to re-think the premise of Obama's campaign, that he believes what he says and is a new kind of candidate, has a strong moral center. Apparently many of his beliefs only extend to the next news cycle. Now it's just Democrat vs. Republican and those lines were drawn a long time ago and no one will give an inch. Any kind of discussion where something negative is said about a Democrat is immediately attacked. I myself, if McCain picks Romney, will probably make one of two choices. Either not vote or vote for Obama. I'm reminded of that bit by Carlin where he says that politicians don't come out from under rocks but that we create them. It's the people who DON'T vote that have the right to complain and those who do should apologize to the rest of us.
AM, I thought you said you volunteered for Obama's campaign, canvassing door-to-door for him. Was that a lie?
You're not addressing what I said. Right or wrong, people seem to have intense AM fatigue here -- you continue to be a topic of discussion which really isn't the point of these threads. I'm suggesting that sometimes it's just polite to recognize when most folks aren't appreciating your approach to a different viewpoint.
Now I know AM is a Republican. Cuz he's such a WATB. EDIT: Dark Knight, I just want to add on to your post. The problem I, personally, have with AM is that he keeps posting (without sources or links) things that aren't true, and then using those to make a sweeping statement about Obama and/or his supporters. It's just a bad posting style. I would be interested if AM would explain whether he really doesn't know what the ******** he's talking about, in which case he's pretty aggressive in his pursuit of ignorance, or he think we don't know what the ******** he's talking about, in which case he's insulting us every time he posts crap like Obama's position of keeping a residual force in Iraq is new. It's NOT new. Hell, it was something that he was mildly attacked for a year ago, when Iraq was really hellish, because the thinking was that if 120-150K US soldiers couldn't keep the peace in Iraq, 30K would just be walking targets. Frankly, that was a viewpoint that, at the time, I agreed with more than disagreed with. But Obama, again, had better foresight than those who disagreed with him. Obama is like Wayne Gretzky. Wayne wasn't a fast skater, but he made a ton of plays because he was always the smartest guy on the ice, and he kept getting "lucky" that he skated to the place the puck ended up at. It's funny how the media made it sound like Obama was lucky that Maliki endorsed his withdrawal plan. It wasn't luck, at all. Obama just is smart enough to come to the best decision. Sometimes it takes other people time to come around.
It is absolutely true. Sure and agree. However when Obama now promises things like Logistics and Intelligence support to Iraqis, I will point it out. I think if we could go back in time, knowing what we know now, a lot of Obama supporters would have gone to Edwards. I wonder if BenRiley gets some satisfaction out of this turn of events.
McCain's base keeps working for him http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-onthemedia27-2008jul27,0,6802141.story
I can't speak for BenReilly, but the way I remember it he was concerned first and foremost - like many Democrats - with electability, something Edwards didn't and doesn't have.
So you thought then that Obama should be the next president, but you don't think that now. Is that correct?
These two statements seem incompatible, and I think the latter statement is untrue. I know I get upset when you refuse to admit our defense of Obama when we're bending over backwards to provide links, quotes and other direct evidence. Sometimes it appears that you're misrepresenting Obama's position in order to criticize him and you're unwilling to accept any evidence that we provide to the contrary.
Sorry, this looks like another what's wrong with AM question. If you want to go PM's, I'd be glad to. (BTW - Has anyone ever notices the apostrophe is necessary when replying to a lady?)
I think AM made a detour through Hillary-land before settling on a Romney-free McCain candidacy. Is this correct, AM?
Ibid #491 Not a dodge at all. If you want to talk about it in PM's, I'd be glad to. I'm trying to do those who are sick and tired of these kinds of discussions a courtesy.
How odd, given that you engendered these discussions with your bizarre 180. Now you're not willing to engage with others in reasoned discussion, out of courtesy. Yet you refuse to explain your highly unusual switch, out of courtesy. You have a weird notion of courtesy. But whatever. You're transparent.
That !@#$% Steffi never returned my phone calls, man. Bogus! EDIT: Current awareness, anyone? Seriously, White Riot, you may want to see if your country has its own version of Intrade. I'd put the country estate and a footman or two on Attlee beating Churchill.