"J-O-B-S" is a three letter word:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bq-eeWow_WU

Here's a more serious one. Obama's VP guarantees that the world will test Obama with an international crisis within 6 months of his presidency because he is percieved as being weak.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IpiNfuG8YY8

So if you want a another terrorist attack or something similar, vote for Obama! Which doesn't jive because I thought Obama was going to solve all of our international relationships that Bush messed up. Guys like Hugo Chavez & Mahmoud Ahmadinejad are gonna listen and obey Obama's demands because he's so smart & eloquent, right?

Biden is a gaffes machine:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Jf17Yo7 ... re=related

Is this guy ready to be President?

Quote:

Guys like Hugo Chavez & Mahmoud Ahmadinejad are gonna listen and obey Obama's demands because he's so smart & eloquent, right?

Cause threatening with war has worked so well thus far.

Seriously though, mocking a Palin scandal thread while starting a Biden gaffe thread....it takes away from your previous mock.

Yah, Biden has been racking up the stupid points lately, almost as badly as Palin.

However, regarding the "test the president" stuff...

History does show that the presidents of the United States are often tested by events when they first take office. Now, I know conservatives have taken this statement and ran with it because they have nothing better to talk about, but if they were honest with themselves, they'd see what Biden was trying to say.

And let's also consider the traits of the men who might be president and who might face by this so-called "test". How might they react?

One of them has shown the country that he can respond to a crisis with calmness. He can come up with well thought-out plans and speak about them with confidence.

The other one has shown he gets angry almost instantly when things do not go his way. He says one thing one day and turns around and says another, even if it's the exact opposite of what he had previously said. Again, examine McCain's record on Iraq and how we would be greeted as liberators, how he could walk down the streets of Baghdad without body armor or escorts, or how he's always supported the troops and vets. He also cannot stick to any plan or talking point for very long before he veers off in another direction. His campaign is a showcase of this behavior.

So, yah, if the new president is tested, I at least have a little bit of faith that Obama, even lacking McCain's decades of experience, will tackle the problem with reason and care.

If tested as president, I can't fathom how McCain will respond beyond becoming visibly angry and lashing out at people or demanding apologies from the world or something.

McCain scares me shitless. He's not crazy, but he's hardly the embodiment of presidential calm and thoughtfulness.

pbmax wrote:

Is this guy ready to be President?

He's a ton better than the alternative.

Obama's campaign out right lies to senior citizens.

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008 ... claim.html

This is the typical & disgusting Democrat tactic used in every Presidential election to scare vulnerable seniors into thinking that the mean spirited & greedy Republicans will take away their Medicare benefits. Taking advantage of seniors... how Presidential!

I though Obama was about "CHANGE"? Why is he allowing his campaign to revert the same old untruthful attacks on Republicans? Sounds like typical dirty Washington politics, not the "CHANGE" we need in the White House.

Hey, one incorrect assessment about health care "cuts" vs "savings." That makes Obama a dirty liar.

Oh, but then you have McCain saying Obama is a "socialist" and his running mate says he "pals around with terrorists," etc. etc. etc.

That makes McCain a old dirty disgusting rat-bastard liar extreme.

If you bothered to READ THE REST OF FACTCHECK.ORG, you'd see that McCain's false claims and wild accusations are far beyond Obama's in both scale and number. In other words, McCain tells far worse and far bigger lies and tells them far more often.

But yeah, let's grasp at straws and peddle just one side of the story, eh pbmax?

Let's just run though September...

Obama: He accuses McCain of proposing to cut benefits. Not true.

McCain: McCain makes exaggerated claims of "voter fraud." Obama soft-pedals his connections.

McCain: McCain calls Obama's refundable tax credits "welfare," but calls his own "reform."

McCain and Obama: McCain and Obama each make false claims about the other's health care plan. We sort through the misinformation.

McCain: A McCain-Palin ad twists Obama's words.

McCain: McCain cranks out some false and misleading attacks on Obama's connection to a 1960s radical.

McCain and Obama: McCain and Obama accuse each other of falsehoods, and both have good reason.

Obama: His radio ad is wrong: McCain still supports federal funding for stem cell research.

McCain: A McCain-Palin ad claims the Obama-Biden ticket opposes clean coal. Not true.

Obama: An Obama ad implies that a Pennsylvania plant sent jobs overseas and says that McCain is to blame. That's wrong.

McCain: A McCain-Palin ad claims Obama has been "mum" on the economic crisis. That's false.

McCain: McCain once again tries to tar Obama with the controversies of others.

Obama: An Obama-Biden ad says McCain supports "cutting benefits in half" for Social Security recipients. False!

McCain and Obama: A Spanish-language ad from Obama calls McCain a friend of Rush Limbaugh and says Limbaugh called Mexicans "stupid." A McCain ad in Spanish misrepresents Obama's role on immigration legislation.

McCain: Palin says Alaska supplies 20 percent of U.S. energy. Not true. Not even close.

McCain: A McCain-Palin TV ad accuses Obama of being "disrespectful" of Palin, but it distorts quotes to make the case.

Obama: An Obama ad plays fast and loose with McCain's voting record on education and proposals as a presidential candidate.

McCain: A McCain campaign ad claims Obama's "one accomplishment" was a bill to teach sex ed to kindergarten kids. Don't believe it.

McCain: McCain ad misrepresents Obama's tax plan. Again.

McCain: Those attacks on Palin that we debunked didn't come from Obama.

McCain: He made some flubs in accepting the nomination.

McCain: Palin trips up on her facts, and Giuliani and Huckabee have their own stumbles on Night 3 of the Republican confab.

McCain: A McCain ad comparing Palin to Obama isn't all above board.

Obama: An Obama ad running in Michigan claims McCain didn't support loan guarantees for the auto industry. In fact, he does support them.

McCain: A McCain ad wrongly claims Obama plans "painful tax increases" for working families. And who's talking about deficits?

===

I didn't even include the ones by partisan political groups, which would have inflated the ratio towards McCain even worse.

Whoppers of 2008:
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008 ... _2008.html

Oh yeah, and the new RNC mailer has the words: "TERRORISTS"

Then in smaller text: "Don't care who they hurt"

Flip open the cover:

Big picture of Obama with the text:

"Barak Obama. Not who you think he is..."

Now, seriously, who's distorting the truth and telling lies, hmmm?

I'm not defending McCain or his campaign ads. I'm not voting for him either.

But you're all for Obama, the "CHANGE" President. So I ask you, that false scare tactic ad that takes advantage of senior citizens' insecurities doesn't bother you at all?

Actually, I'm "for" Obama simply because he's the best choice out there and I refuse to allow another underqualified moron into office like when Bush was selected by a bunch of judges to rule this nation.

I disagree with a lot of what Obama says and have different beliefs... but he's far more sensible than McCain.

I voted independent in 2000 because I thought it was smarter to vote my true voice instead of voting for the "lesser of two evils" of Al Gore versus Bush. In hindsight, I have huge regrets over doing so since it allowed Bush a chance to get close enough to a tie where he and his dad's buddies could hand over the election to him, giving him a platform from which he could then run the country into the ground.

Let's not even get started on Bush's handling of 9/11 and subsequent war crimes and abuses for which I hope he is someday tried and convicted in a court of law.

So, yeah, for now, I'm very willing to vote the "lesser of two evils" if it means a chance to reign in the insanity and arrogance that has permeated the executive branch and houses of Congress for the last eight years.

You can't possibly hope to amass the kind of support needed to get a third party candidate elected in the short time we have left between now and November 4th. But I applaud your determination and resolve. You're much more optimistic than I am.

The way I see things, Obama probably has this election wrapped up and if you're bound and determined to stop him you're best off voting for McCain. I'd rather you didn't but I'd be lying if I didn't admit that McCain is the only candidate who stands a chance in hell pulling ahead of Obama.

None of the third party candidates are going to win this election. That's a far off fantasy that's well beyond our grasp at this point and it's our own fault. We don't hear about third parties because we're fat and happy with two choices. We've allowed the debates to become exclusionary and the questions to be screened. We're complacent when the press fails to do it's job. And even when we're aware of all the faults in the system, we don't have the courage to do what we know is right when we get to the polls.

With third parties rendered effectively null and void by the public at large, I've come to terms with both remaining possibilities and I honestly don't care who wins. Either way, you've all demonstrated that marginally better than the other guy is where the bar is set. And when 90+% of the people here share this "lesser of two evils" mentality, sometimes I wonder what the hell we're trying to salvage. It seems to me like this experiment has been a complete failure if you're unable to vote for someone you genuinely want in office.

pbmax wrote:

So if you want a another terrorist attack or something similar, vote for Obama!

LOL

goliathvt wrote:

However, regarding the "test the president" stuff...

Do you think tested is code for assassinated? :shock:

This is just too rich!

Obama is adamantly against any photo ID voting laws, but you gotta have one to attend his over-the-top victory party...

http://minx.cc/?post=276796

http://obama.senate.gov/press/050920-ob ... /index.php

Note the words "national voter ID card". I'd like to emphasize the "national" part because that excludes some forms of ID like for instance your state issued drivers license.

Remember that Real ID crap with the RFID chips and how they had such a hard time trying to get that passed. If only they had some legitimate reason to push a national ID card through. Wait for it...

Oh. Hey! How convenient! But never mind that. This is about how Obama's a hypocrite.

One again pbmax, you've latched onto a perfectly harmless story, twisted one half of it to make it seem sinister and tried to connect Obama to it.

"THE SKY IS FALLING! THE SKY IS FALLING!"

*yawn*

goliathvt wrote:

"THE SKY IS FALLING! THE SKY IS FALLING!"

i just thought it was funny...

I imagine you were as serious about posting this topic as you were typing this one out:

"So if you want a another terrorist attack or something similar, vote for Obama!"

Do you really believe Obama = terrorist attack and somehow McCain != terrorist attack?

Think about this for a moment... even top defense officials and military strategists in our own government agree that Al Qaeda has seen its most massive recruitment and expansion directly because of Bush's aggressive nature... a trait that McCain would probably continue, especially in the wake of another attack.

Obama, on the other hand, shows a more measured and diplomatic approach where he might be less inclined to make rash calls for invasions of sovereign nations at the defiance of the entire world.

In other words, an attack during a McCain presidency pretty much assures massive Al Qaeda recruitment given the likely response by the United States. Whereas an attack during an Obama administration has the chance of being resolved through focused military action that doesn't necessarily push the U.S. into making unilateral, aggressive and occupying action against sovereign nations.

Bush-esque foreign affairs will play right into the hands of the enemy. Al Qaeda's biggest threat is an administration that has enough diplomacy to actually rally the entire world, not divide it and "go it alone." I see Obama's camp as having a chance at doing so "if" the worst were to happen and we were again attacked.

"J-O-B-S" is a three letter word:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bq-eeWow_WU

Here's a more serious one. Obama's VP guarantees that the world will test Obama with an international crisis within 6 months of his presidency because he is percieved as being weak.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IpiNfuG8YY8

So if you want a another terrorist attack or something similar, vote for Obama! Which doesn't jive because I thought Obama was going to solve all of our international relationships that Bush messed up. Guys like Hugo Chavez & Mahmoud Ahmadinejad are gonna listen and obey Obama's demands because he's so smart & eloquent, right?

Biden is a gaffes machine:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Jf17Yo7 ... re=related

Is this guy ready to be President?

Quote:

Guys like Hugo Chavez & Mahmoud Ahmadinejad are gonna listen and obey Obama's demands because he's so smart & eloquent, right?

Cause threatening with war has worked so well thus far.

Seriously though, mocking a Palin scandal thread while starting a Biden gaffe thread....it takes away from your previous mock.

Yah, Biden has been racking up the stupid points lately, almost as badly as Palin.

However, regarding the "test the president" stuff...

History does show that the presidents of the United States are often tested by events when they first take office. Now, I know conservatives have taken this statement and ran with it because they have nothing better to talk about, but if they were honest with themselves, they'd see what Biden was trying to say.

And let's also consider the traits of the men who might be president and who might face by this so-called "test". How might they react?

One of them has shown the country that he can respond to a crisis with calmness. He can come up with well thought-out plans and speak about them with confidence.

The other one has shown he gets angry almost instantly when things do not go his way. He says one thing one day and turns around and says another, even if it's the exact opposite of what he had previously said. Again, examine McCain's record on Iraq and how we would be greeted as liberators, how he could walk down the streets of Baghdad without body armor or escorts, or how he's always supported the troops and vets. He also cannot stick to any plan or talking point for very long before he veers off in another direction. His campaign is a showcase of this behavior.

So, yah, if the new president is tested, I at least have a little bit of faith that Obama, even lacking McCain's decades of experience, will tackle the problem with reason and care.

If tested as president, I can't fathom how McCain will respond beyond becoming visibly angry and lashing out at people or demanding apologies from the world or something.

McCain scares me shitless. He's not crazy, but he's hardly the embodiment of presidential calm and thoughtfulness.

pbmax wrote:

Is this guy ready to be President?

He's a ton better than the alternative.

Obama's campaign out right lies to senior citizens.

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008 ... claim.html

This is the typical & disgusting Democrat tactic used in every Presidential election to scare vulnerable seniors into thinking that the mean spirited & greedy Republicans will take away their Medicare benefits. Taking advantage of seniors... how Presidential!

I though Obama was about "CHANGE"? Why is he allowing his campaign to revert the same old untruthful attacks on Republicans? Sounds like typical dirty Washington politics, not the "CHANGE" we need in the White House.

Hey, one incorrect assessment about health care "cuts" vs "savings." That makes Obama a dirty liar.

Oh, but then you have McCain saying Obama is a "socialist" and his running mate says he "pals around with terrorists," etc. etc. etc.

That makes McCain a old dirty disgusting rat-bastard liar extreme.

If you bothered to READ THE REST OF FACTCHECK.ORG, you'd see that McCain's false claims and wild accusations are far beyond Obama's in both scale and number. In other words, McCain tells far worse and far bigger lies and tells them far more often.

But yeah, let's grasp at straws and peddle just one side of the story, eh pbmax?

Let's just run though September...

Obama: He accuses McCain of proposing to cut benefits. Not true.

McCain: McCain makes exaggerated claims of "voter fraud." Obama soft-pedals his connections.

McCain: McCain calls Obama's refundable tax credits "welfare," but calls his own "reform."

McCain and Obama: McCain and Obama each make false claims about the other's health care plan. We sort through the misinformation.

McCain: A McCain-Palin ad twists Obama's words.

McCain: McCain cranks out some false and misleading attacks on Obama's connection to a 1960s radical.

McCain and Obama: McCain and Obama accuse each other of falsehoods, and both have good reason.

Obama: His radio ad is wrong: McCain still supports federal funding for stem cell research.

McCain: A McCain-Palin ad claims the Obama-Biden ticket opposes clean coal. Not true.

Obama: An Obama ad implies that a Pennsylvania plant sent jobs overseas and says that McCain is to blame. That's wrong.

McCain: A McCain-Palin ad claims Obama has been "mum" on the economic crisis. That's false.

McCain: McCain once again tries to tar Obama with the controversies of others.

Obama: An Obama-Biden ad says McCain supports "cutting benefits in half" for Social Security recipients. False!

McCain and Obama: A Spanish-language ad from Obama calls McCain a friend of Rush Limbaugh and says Limbaugh called Mexicans "stupid." A McCain ad in Spanish misrepresents Obama's role on immigration legislation.

McCain: Palin says Alaska supplies 20 percent of U.S. energy. Not true. Not even close.

McCain: A McCain-Palin TV ad accuses Obama of being "disrespectful" of Palin, but it distorts quotes to make the case.

Obama: An Obama ad plays fast and loose with McCain's voting record on education and proposals as a presidential candidate.

McCain: A McCain campaign ad claims Obama's "one accomplishment" was a bill to teach sex ed to kindergarten kids. Don't believe it.

McCain: McCain ad misrepresents Obama's tax plan. Again.

McCain: Those attacks on Palin that we debunked didn't come from Obama.

McCain: He made some flubs in accepting the nomination.

McCain: Palin trips up on her facts, and Giuliani and Huckabee have their own stumbles on Night 3 of the Republican confab.

McCain: A McCain ad comparing Palin to Obama isn't all above board.

Obama: An Obama ad running in Michigan claims McCain didn't support loan guarantees for the auto industry. In fact, he does support them.

McCain: A McCain ad wrongly claims Obama plans "painful tax increases" for working families. And who's talking about deficits?

===

I didn't even include the ones by partisan political groups, which would have inflated the ratio towards McCain even worse.

Whoppers of 2008:
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008 ... _2008.html

Oh yeah, and the new RNC mailer has the words: "TERRORISTS"

Then in smaller text: "Don't care who they hurt"

Flip open the cover:

Big picture of Obama with the text:

"Barak Obama. Not who you think he is..."

Now, seriously, who's distorting the truth and telling lies, hmmm?

I'm not defending McCain or his campaign ads. I'm not voting for him either.

But you're all for Obama, the "CHANGE" President. So I ask you, that false scare tactic ad that takes advantage of senior citizens' insecurities doesn't bother you at all?

Actually, I'm "for" Obama simply because he's the best choice out there and I refuse to allow another underqualified moron into office like when Bush was selected by a bunch of judges to rule this nation.

I disagree with a lot of what Obama says and have different beliefs... but he's far more sensible than McCain.

I voted independent in 2000 because I thought it was smarter to vote my true voice instead of voting for the "lesser of two evils" of Al Gore versus Bush. In hindsight, I have huge regrets over doing so since it allowed Bush a chance to get close enough to a tie where he and his dad's buddies could hand over the election to him, giving him a platform from which he could then run the country into the ground.

Let's not even get started on Bush's handling of 9/11 and subsequent war crimes and abuses for which I hope he is someday tried and convicted in a court of law.

So, yeah, for now, I'm very willing to vote the "lesser of two evils" if it means a chance to reign in the insanity and arrogance that has permeated the executive branch and houses of Congress for the last eight years.

You can't possibly hope to amass the kind of support needed to get a third party candidate elected in the short time we have left between now and November 4th. But I applaud your determination and resolve. You're much more optimistic than I am.

The way I see things, Obama probably has this election wrapped up and if you're bound and determined to stop him you're best off voting for McCain. I'd rather you didn't but I'd be lying if I didn't admit that McCain is the only candidate who stands a chance in hell pulling ahead of Obama.

None of the third party candidates are going to win this election. That's a far off fantasy that's well beyond our grasp at this point and it's our own fault. We don't hear about third parties because we're fat and happy with two choices. We've allowed the debates to become exclusionary and the questions to be screened. We're complacent when the press fails to do it's job. And even when we're aware of all the faults in the system, we don't have the courage to do what we know is right when we get to the polls.

With third parties rendered effectively null and void by the public at large, I've come to terms with both remaining possibilities and I honestly don't care who wins. Either way, you've all demonstrated that marginally better than the other guy is where the bar is set. And when 90+% of the people here share this "lesser of two evils" mentality, sometimes I wonder what the hell we're trying to salvage. It seems to me like this experiment has been a complete failure if you're unable to vote for someone you genuinely want in office.

pbmax wrote:

So if you want a another terrorist attack or something similar, vote for Obama!

LOL

goliathvt wrote:

However, regarding the "test the president" stuff...

Do you think tested is code for assassinated? :shock:

This is just too rich!

Obama is adamantly against any photo ID voting laws, but you gotta have one to attend his over-the-top victory party...

http://minx.cc/?post=276796

http://obama.senate.gov/press/050920-ob ... /index.php

Note the words "national voter ID card". I'd like to emphasize the "national" part because that excludes some forms of ID like for instance your state issued drivers license.

Remember that Real ID crap with the RFID chips and how they had such a hard time trying to get that passed. If only they had some legitimate reason to push a national ID card through. Wait for it...

Oh. Hey! How convenient! But never mind that. This is about how Obama's a hypocrite.

One again pbmax, you've latched onto a perfectly harmless story, twisted one half of it to make it seem sinister and tried to connect Obama to it.

"THE SKY IS FALLING! THE SKY IS FALLING!"

*yawn*

goliathvt wrote:

"THE SKY IS FALLING! THE SKY IS FALLING!"

i just thought it was funny...

I imagine you were as serious about posting this topic as you were typing this one out:

"So if you want a another terrorist attack or something similar, vote for Obama!"

Do you really believe Obama = terrorist attack and somehow McCain != terrorist attack?

Think about this for a moment... even top defense officials and military strategists in our own government agree that Al Qaeda has seen its most massive recruitment and expansion directly because of Bush's aggressive nature... a trait that McCain would probably continue, especially in the wake of another attack.

Obama, on the other hand, shows a more measured and diplomatic approach where he might be less inclined to make rash calls for invasions of sovereign nations at the defiance of the entire world.

In other words, an attack during a McCain presidency pretty much assures massive Al Qaeda recruitment given the likely response by the United States. Whereas an attack during an Obama administration has the chance of being resolved through focused military action that doesn't necessarily push the U.S. into making unilateral, aggressive and occupying action against sovereign nations.

Bush-esque foreign affairs will play right into the hands of the enemy. Al Qaeda's biggest threat is an administration that has enough diplomacy to actually rally the entire world, not divide it and "go it alone." I see Obama's camp as having a chance at doing so "if" the worst were to happen and we were again attacked.