Posted by: Boldwin
- [3013265] Tue, Feb 12, 2008, 05:03
McCain is actually propped up by George Soros even between elections.
McCain founded the Alexandria, Va.-based Reform Institute as a vehicle to receive funding from George Soros’ Open Society Institute and Teresa Heinz Kerry’s Tides Foundation and several other prominent non-profit organizations. McCain used the institute to promote his political agenda and provide compensation to key campaign operatives between elections.
Something McCain forgot to feature in his recent appearance at CPAC.
Soros and Moveon.org have both major party candidates in their pocket.
Only the 50 most recent replies are currently shown. Click on this text to display hidden posts as well. [Lengthy or complex threads may require a slight delay before updating.]
113
Perm Dude
ID: 10136157 Fri, Feb 15, 2008, 17:13
Heh.
Unity for Obama is the means, not the ends, Madman.
As to why Congress isn't already fixed, I think Congress has made some strides in the last few years. Sending contempt citations is one. Voting down a FISA with retroactive immunity is another.
As is Pelosi refusing to consider impeachment proceedings against Bush or Cheney.
Congress is defined by its relationship to the President. In that way Obama would not only be better for Congress, but have a better chance of getting an honest assessment of his policy initiatives.
114
Madman
ID: 230542010 Fri, Feb 15, 2008, 17:26
I also think he has the smarts and desire to roll up his sleeves and look at particular issues with enough depth that he can help Congress find a reasonable middle-ground that is good for our nation.
That sentence cuts to the heart of my concern.
If he's elected, we'll have a significant majority Democratic Congress & a Democratic President. Barack is also proposing fairly run-of-the-mill liberal policy prescriptions.
Exactly why should anyone believe that the result of that will cooperation and moderation? To convince people like me, he's got to articulate exactly how he's going to steer the country to the middle. So far, he's been doing the reverse to the extent he's addressing it at all.
I think PD 113 is right. Unity for him is a means, not an end. In which case, I'm not terribly interested, as you could guess.
Although I do think he'll bring other intangibles to the table, at least.
Probably a bad sign that a McCain thread is talking about Obama. ;)
115
Pancho Villa
ID: 495272016 Fri, Feb 15, 2008, 17:28
A successful Obama presidency will be determined by who he designates as his advisors and cabinet members and how well he interacts with them and responds to their advise and counsel.
The first indication of his saavy will be his pick for VP. If it's a Bill Richardson, Evan Bayh, Jane Harman or Jim Matheson, then that's a good sign. If it's an Al Sharpton, Dennis Kucinich or Barney Frank, then for me it will time to see who the Libertarians candidate is this year.
116
biliruben
ID: 5610442715 Fri, Feb 15, 2008, 17:51
He's said he will appoint Republicans to his cabinet.
I find him much more honestly centrist than Hillary "Where the Polling Winds Blow" Clinton or John "I'm only moderate when it suits me" McCain.
In particular, it would have been easy to take the left stance on universal health care, and potentially promise more than he could deliver. He took the more reasonable, centrist, road. I don't agree with him, but I respect him.
He is going against the polls on immigration as well. There I agree with him. Jingoistic race-baiting and scapegoating shouldn't be condoned or pandered to. Here the majority is in the wrong.
I also like that he doesn't first scream "bailout" regarding the mortgage crisis. He will attempt to force those who profited to foot some of the bill in the fix.
I also like the mortgage credit instead of interest deduction idea. He understands the the tax incentives are perverse for homeownership, and that it helps folks much more who already have a home than those struggling to afford their first one.
117
nerveclinic
ID: 105222 Fri, Feb 15, 2008, 18:24
Nerveclinic, nice revisionist history
So you are taking the position that he didn't give missiles to Iran after they had held 400 of our citizens hostage for over a year?
I just want to get you on record here Jag?
Oh maybe you "can't remember".
118
Boldwin
ID: 3013265 Fri, Feb 15, 2008, 19:53
but you are implying he is something very different than what we already know. - Walk
False. I have no idea what sort of person Obama is and I have yet to meet anyone who can say they do.
Sidenote: I have been accused of being immoderate for asking whether his second father was a radical Moslem. Why is asking about the character of his family out of bounds? I imply nothing. I just think it's one of thousands of logical essential questions anyone aspiring to that level of leadership should be scrutinized for. You think in these times, that a president's stance towards Islamist' version jihadism is an untimely innappropriate question?
119
Boldwin
ID: 3013265 Fri, Feb 15, 2008, 19:58
PD
He's your guy. Did you read the Obama's PDF in whole or in part? Did you even go thru the pull down menu at his site and skim thru each one like I did? Why not?
120
Boldwin
ID: 3013265 Fri, Feb 15, 2008, 20:05
Madman
In fairness, this thread wouldn't be so Obama friendly if I were a Republican or if I was committed to a Republican victory. You won't meet too many of those so free to concede an Obama presidency, certainly not at this early date.
121
Boldwin
ID: 3013265 Fri, Feb 15, 2008, 20:13
Nerveclinic
Realpolitic really isn't your thing.
Reagan's in effect buying a communist free central america at the price of a swap involving 400 missiles aimed at Saddam who had recently attacked a USA warship and featuring a return of financial support for anti-communist forces...well Ollie North wasn't the only one who thot it was a perfectly acceptable deal and not 'treason' as you call it. Now the Dems in congress at that time...fit my definition of anti-american.
122
Pancho Villa
ID: 495272016 Fri, Feb 15, 2008, 20:37
Reagan's in effect buying a communist free central america
I suppose you don't know who the current democratically elected president of Nicaragua is. It appears Reagan's buyout had a pretty lousy return.
123
Seattle Zen
ID: 529121611 Fri, Feb 15, 2008, 20:46
It's nice to see Madman back.
Post 114:To convince people like me, he's got to articulate exactly how he's going to steer the country to the middle.
I think that Obama's camp would tell him that no matter how much he tried to address "people like you", and I mean this as politely as I can, your camp would not be convinced. Or the types of policies you would favor, things that would make people in your camp satisfied that he will steer the country to the middle, would cause him to loose many, many people in the middle.
You can't convince 'em all. I don't think Obama will be Mr. 51% part two, more like Mr. 60%, which in this day and age is Mr. Landslide.
124
sarge33rd
ID: 76442923 Fri, Feb 15, 2008, 20:47
Now the Dems in congress at that time...fit my definition of anti-american.
And just when precisely has a Dem (in Congress or not), failed to fit your definition of "anti-american"?
125
Boldwin
ID: 3013265 Fri, Feb 15, 2008, 21:38
I could find a few who weren't.
126
Boldwin
ID: 3013265 Fri, Feb 15, 2008, 21:48
Claiborne Pell decidedly not among them. Yes I know he is no longer 'serving' if that word ever applied to him for a moment.
127
Boldwin
ID: 3013265 Fri, Feb 15, 2008, 23:54
The achilles heel of George Soros' philosophy...
With the demise of communism, the present state of affairs, however imperfect, can be described as a global open society. It is not threatened from the outside, from some totalitarian ideology seeking world supremacy. The threat comes from the inside, from local tyrants seeking to establish internal dominance through external conflicts. It may also come from democratic but sovereign states pursuing their self-interest to the detriment of the common interest. The international open society may be its own worst enemy.
The disingenuous hole in this argument, and as former chairman of the CFR he is well aware, is that Soros' circle of friends fully intend on setting up a world government. He'll even make veiled admission of this. A world dictatorship no matter how well intentioned at the start will be unaccountable to anyone and the power that corupts would be unchecked and overwhelming. The world is indeed threatened by a totalitarian ideology and it is Soros' vision.
128
Boldwin
ID: 3013265 Fri, Feb 15, 2008, 23:55
Words in Blockquote were those of George Soros.
129
Madman
ID: 230542010 Mon, Feb 18, 2008, 13:40
BR 116 -- Re: republicans in his cabinet ... I didn't know he said that. Interesting.
One report ... "Barack Obama has often said he'd consider putting Republicans in his cabinet and even bandied about names like Sens. Dick Lugar and Chuck Hagel. He's a added a new name to the list of possible Republicans cabinet members - Arnold Schwarzenegger."
That does help somewhat. Keep the ideas flowing.
130
Madman
ID: 230542010 Mon, Feb 18, 2008, 13:55
SZ 123 -- Perhaps. I would vote for a Dem for President if I were convinced that the policy prescriptions of Clinton's second term would happen.
I'd even throw in the Clinton tax rates of the first term, so long as they chopped into Ag. spending and the like, correspondingly (not likely to happen), the AMT was put on a stable footing, the "death" tax was compromised on, and there was a commitment to the stable funding of our long-term entitlements.
What I don't want is an increase in our taxes that goes to the creation of any large, new government programs, or expansions of existing ones. I also don't want a significant increase in federal government regulation in most areas.
Yeah, you're probably right. I'm too far out there for a Dem like Obama.
131
Perm Dude
ID: 2138188 Mon, Feb 18, 2008, 14:01
An overview of his fiscal plan (the "more details" pdf is just the same page--in pdf!
The PAYGO system is a key, IMO.
132
nerveclinic
ID: 105222 Mon, Feb 18, 2008, 14:38
Jag I am not knocking the guy, just stating facts. The vast majority of Americans have no clue what this guy is about.
That wouldn't be shocking, the vast majority of Americans can't name the current Secretary of State, why would they know anything about someone who is only running for office?
For the most part, the American people just "size up a man" running for President (ah woman too Hillary)
They stand back and look him/her in the eye and see how he fits.
Yeah they might know a issue or two, they might know his religion or where he stands on abortion, for the most part though they just want to hear him/her talk, see how he feels, and vote with their gut.
That's why Kennedy won, that's why Reagan won, that's why Clinton won... (The two Bushes won because of family connections 8-} )
Really a large number of the American people don't care as much about the issues as they do about the man/woman.
Oh they love to vote for a winner too, that's why once someone wins a few primaries the band wagon gets crowded.
So are there large numbers of supporters who, like Baldwin, can't be bothered to skim his 60 page position paper?...undoubtedly.
They know what Bush sounds like though, they know how Bush sounds to the world, has sounded to the world the last 8 years.
They know we have a black eye right now. They see their rights being taken away in the name of fighting terrorism. They know that the world is scratching their head that a country that has stood for freedom and hope is losing it's shine...
So yeah they hear Obama, they like the way he feels, they like the lofty vision and speechs. Whether the act is real or not, his supporters have a glimmer of hope that we still haven't lost what America is supposed to stand for, that it's not too late, and that Obama is the movement to reverse this train wreck.
They think he would be a good ambassador for us to start the healing process with the large portions of the world who are shaking their head about the last 8 years.
Begin to Reverse the Damage.
They think he would be someone who could actually make us look sympathetic against the likes of Putin.
So if you take the concepts articulated above, it starts to make sense that they don't know every one of his positions...the American people (Large percentage anyway) don't really get too far into nuts an bolts.
In any case it's just the Dem primaries, not the general election yet. He hasn't won yet.
The Republican war machine will come out swinging. The frightened little whispers about his weird soundin' name that the Baldwin types will start murmuring about will take on a resonance...this is America after all.
It's not over yet.
The above is not an endorsement of Obama, just an opinion about some of what is driving the movement at the moment, and the reason that charges like Jag's and Baldwin's that his supporters "don't know what he stands for" doesn't really matter.
133
nerveclinic
ID: 105222 Mon, Feb 18, 2008, 15:25
Reagan's in effect buying a communist free central america at the price of a swap involving 400 missiles aimed at Saddam who had recently attacked a USA warship and featuring a return of financial support for anti-communist forces...well Ollie North wasn't the only one who thot it was a perfectly acceptable deal and not 'treason' as you call it. Now the Dems in congress at that time...fit my definition of anti-american.
I guess you only believe in conspiracy theory when your boyfriend isn't involved?
134
nerveclinic
ID: 105222 Mon, Feb 18, 2008, 16:38
Reagan's in effect buying a communist free Central America at the price of a swap involving 400 missiles
AHH but he didn't, the Sandinistas won.
So I want to make sure YOU are on record Baldy. You are OK with the fact that Ronnie gave 400 missiles to an 1slamy Fascist who had held 400 of our citizens hostage for over a year.
You are fine with that?
That's a yes or no question we don't need any embellishment, the forum members who have followed history know the details.
What ever the justification (Alzheimer's or anti communist or otherwise)
Your OK with that?
at the price of a swap involving 400 missiles
Yeah just 400 missiles, just thousands of dead humans, ah the moral supremacy of the Christian right.
This was the same argument made about Viet Nam wasn't it? (We have to stop the commies and protect the fascist banana republic allies)
In both cases we lost, the Sandinistas won, the Contras ran with their tails between their legs.
Oh look, the world is still here and the Sandinistas haven't invaded America yet (neither have the Vietnamese run amok in SE Asia). Or were they both behind 9/11 too?
You only like conspiracy theories when they fit your right wing Christian thesis...you aren't really a conspiracy theorist, unless the results are convenient.
Your a Republican.
135
Boldwin
ID: 3013265 Tue, Feb 19, 2008, 01:07
When you run out of bullets because your 'allies' enemies cut off the supply, I don't think it counts as cowardice to withdraw.
Given that communism killed off hundreds of millions of their own people, yes I can overlook the fate of 50 diplomats in the process of preventing more of that. Wait, the diplomats were freed in the process.
If you are asking me to take sides between the Komeini and Saddam I have to say I really didn't care.
The deal did not bother me.
No.
136
nerveclinic
ID: 105222 Tue, Feb 19, 2008, 05:19
The deal did not bother me.
Of course not...Ronnie boy did it. Your golden boy.
If Clinton or carter did it you would be screaming treason and that my friend is a FACT.
FACT.
137
Perm Dude
ID: 2138188 Tue, Feb 19, 2008, 08:44
Fact.
Looks at his braying over Carter & South Korea--an accord which actually worked.
138
Boldwin
ID: 3013265 Tue, Feb 19, 2008, 22:25
Nerve
Ridiculous to use Carter as you counterexample. The man was a naive fool in the cold war arena, a fact which even he was forced to admit in hindsight.
PD
I have no idea what S. Korea accord you could be speaking of.
139
nerveclinic
ID: 105222 Wed, Feb 20, 2008, 04:40
That really wasn't my point Baldwin.
My point was it's OK to give missile to an 1slammo Facista since it was Reagan that did it. Given the exact same circumstances, if Clinton had been the one, you would be calling for his impeachment.
140
Boldwin
ID: 3013265 Wed, Feb 20, 2008, 05:45
Equally hard to imagine Clinton winning the cold war for us or upholding the Monroe Doctrine.
141
sarge33rd
ID: 76442923 Wed, Feb 20, 2008, 09:13
just cant answer a direct question of that nature, with a direct response can you?
and re PDs comment Carter-Korea....pretty sure you are aware he meant the accord with NK. Couldnt answer that either huh? Had to take the "cheap shot" instead?
142
Boldwin
ID: 3013265 Wed, Feb 20, 2008, 11:59
I'm the guy they allegedly have to spoon feed but now I gotta mindread and answer those questions chop chop, right away sir.
143
sarge33rd
ID: 99331714 Wed, Feb 20, 2008, 12:02
Mindread? Your own mind? Hardly a difficult task Boldy, and one NC and PD have already done for you. All you had to do, was acknowledge the truth of their contention(s).
144
Boldwin
ID: 3013265 Thu, Feb 28, 2008, 12:39
No one brings up the 'Hussein' issue. Odd.
Has anyone ever apologized to Bush for abusing his middle initial?
145
Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 454491514 Thu, Feb 28, 2008, 12:55
the 'Hussein' issue
Please, spell it out for me. What exactly is the Hussein issue? Dumb it down as much as possible.
146
Boldwin
ID: 3013265 Thu, Feb 28, 2008, 13:02
McCain apologizing for someone sharing time on his podium actually using Obama's full name, oh the horror!
147
biliruben
ID: 5610442715 Thu, Feb 28, 2008, 13:12
I think he was apologizing more for Cunningham calling Obama a hack, and implying he was corrupt.
Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 454491514 Thu, Feb 28, 2008, 13:32
You think referring to him as Barack Hussein Obama is entirely innocent, without any inferred reference or suggested accusations?
You think Cunningham just happened to throw Obama's middle name in there in the same casual, without an afterthought way that some people refer to the President as George W. Bush as easily as they refer to him without his middle initial?
In a speech where he Cunningham said Obama was going to "saddle up next to Hezbollah."?
150
Boldwin
ID: 3013265 Thu, Feb 28, 2008, 13:34
I think most posters on this forum think that their pronunciation of Bush's middle initial makes Bush a dumb uneducated redneck.
151
biliruben
ID: 5610442715 Thu, Feb 28, 2008, 13:40
Well, Molly Ivins coined the term back in the 90's. It caught on, not because she repeated it imho, but because it fit. I don't think Bush minded so much as he likes to think of himself as a good ol' boy from Texas rippin' out scrub on the weekends.
152
Tree
ID: 3533298 Thu, Feb 28, 2008, 13:44
I think most posters on this forum think that their pronunciation of Bush's middle initial makes Bush a dumb uneducated redneck.
well, that is how *HE* pronounces it. and never mind the fact that there were a million pro-GW bumper stickers that were simply "W".
153
Boxman
ID: 337352111 Thu, Feb 28, 2008, 13:48
You think referring to him as Barack Hussein Obama is entirely innocent, without any inferred reference or suggested accusations?
Now we can't call The Great Leader by his birth name? No wonder I call him The Great Leader.
154
biliruben
ID: 5610442715 Thu, Feb 28, 2008, 13:52
This is turning into "How disingenuous can Conservatives be as to the obvious ulterior motive of using Obama's middle name in a time where there is still a large, ignorant minority who think we are in a holy war with all A-rabs and muslims" thread.
I can just picture Boxman tittering behind a partially covered mouth every time he says Hussein.
155
Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 454491514 Thu, Feb 28, 2008, 13:55
Baldwin There are several differences. The first is that I've never heard a political opponent refer so suggestively to Bush as 'Dubya'. Of course anyone who took exception to a political opponent so referring to President Bush would be right to do so.
The second is that Bush is casually known by friends as Dubya. It is a well known term of endearment for him.
The third is that posters on this forum are not Bush's political opponents, not in the sense of someone who delivers an opening speech at a John McCain rally. For example, while I consider your pondering the National security implications of President Obama having an "islamist" stepfather to be kneejerk partisan, ignorant and bigoted, it isn't quite the same as if it came from someone speaking for Clinton or McCain. Boxman Now we can't call The Great Leader by his birth name? Who said that? You are free to call him whatever you want. You're also free to continue believing you are mocking anyone other than yourself.
In fact, by all means, I urge you to continue posting every clever little quip that pops into your head. You are the perfect representative for the political right in an election year.
156
Tree
ID: 3533298 Thu, Feb 28, 2008, 14:03
if all people like Boxman and Baldwin have to be critical of in Obama is his middle name, then we're in pretty good shape.
then again, actually researching his stance on various issues was a bit overwhelming for them, so they had to find something to attack...
As TPM points out, Obama has taken considerable heat for an unsolicited endorsement he received from Louis Farrakhan. He's repeatedly stated that he did not seeks that endorsement and has repeatedly publicly denounced (and then rejected - just in case 'denounce' and 'reject' don't mean the same thing) Farrakhan.
Meanwhile, McCain finds himself standing on a stage with Hagee with no public backlash at all. You'd think MSM would have been all over this if they're really so rabidly liberal.
160
Tree
ID: 12158295 Fri, Feb 29, 2008, 07:02
The Great Leader's middle name cannot be spoken anymore and the picture of him in Kenya is now out of bounds.
Wow, I thought we'd have to wait for him to get into office first before we start with the revisionist history, but let the party start early.
no one's revising anything, but the RNC is intelligent enough to see using such things in an attacking manner could very well backfire, and paint the party in a very unflattering light with large blocks of voters.
of course, rank-and-file posters on this board aren't intelligent enough to see that, and since they have nothing else to attack because they won't read the stances on the issues, they'll continue to hammer it home, perhaps in an affort to look even more foolhardy?
161
Mattinglyinthehall Leader
ID: 01629107 Fri, Feb 29, 2008, 07:15
Tree no one's revising anything It struck me as well that Boxman apparently doesn't understand the concept of 'revisionist history' but then it's always hard to pick out genuine ignorance in someone who is nipple deep in his own disingenuousnes. Who knows which it is.
rank-and-file posters on this board aren't intelligent enough to see that Shhhhh! Let them talk. If they choose the gambit of shamelessly appealing directly to those who are ignorant enough to be turned from a candidate because of his given middle name (despite the dissuasive efforts of party leaders who know that such rhetoric casts them in a very ugly light) let them talk all they want. Personally, I have much more faith in the intelligence and acumen of average Americans than they do.
162
Pancho Villa
ID: 495272016 Fri, Feb 29, 2008, 09:29
Revisionist history?
That would be the lie that Obama attended a madrassa as a child and that his stepfather was a radical Muslim. The reason for prominently using Obama's middle name is to perpetrate those lies.
I applaud McCain and the RNC for denouncing such tactics. Those who fashion themselves as real conservatives and champion such irrelevance shouldn't be suprised at their further marginalization. Moving even further into irrelevance, Cunningham provided us with this gem.
Cunningham said McCain "embarrassed himself," and then made up a name of his own for the Arizona senator, "John Juan Pablo McCain,"
And these so-called conservatives have the audacity to claim that they are in line with America's values. Cunningham is the one who embarrassed himself, as well as Boxman.
If you believe a recent post violates the policy on Civility and Respect, you may report the abuse via email to moderators@rotoguru1.com