Trae Posted July 26, 2008 Author Share Posted July 26, 2008 http://www.gallup.com/poll/109099/Gallup-D...Lead-48-41.aspx July 26, 2008 Gallup Daily: Obama Retains Lead, 48% to 41%Second day with Obama holding a significant lead over McCain http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_con...l_tracking_poll Daily Presidential Tracking Poll Saturday, July 26, 2008 The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Saturday shows that the bounce is continuing for Barack Obama. The presumptive Democratic nominee attracts 46% of the vote while John McCain earns 40%. When "leaners" are included, it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
20thStDad Posted July 26, 2008 Share Posted July 26, 2008 I was hoping that reading and following this thread would get me more interested in the election and politics in general. Nope. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedScare Posted July 26, 2008 Share Posted July 26, 2008 I was hoping that reading and following this thread would get me more interested in the election and politics in general. Nope.When modern day campaigns have been reduced to making fun of candidate's names, looks and ages, making assertions based on generalizations based on party affiliation, and outright fabrications, it is hard to stay interested for very long. Besides, both parties, and therefore their nominees, were taken over by corporate interests long ago, making real reform impossible, if said reform means making the corporate interests more accountable to the citizenry. The only difference in the two parties is which interests control them. Ironically, John McCain secured the nomination based on his "maverick" status, and Barack Obama on his message of "change". Unfortunately, McCain has since spent every waking moment trying to convince his base that he is NOT a maverick, and Obama has made several statements suggesting that the only change will be the name on the presidential stationery.We have become the corporate nation. The victory is so complete that we ridicule those who take vacations as lazy, and mock Europeans who do not work as many hours as we do. We view unions as the enemy, and union members as selfish ingrates for wanting health care. Corporate executives who secure $400 million retirement packages are seen as successful and deserving of their reward.Besides, no one cares until the Olympics are over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
20thStDad Posted July 26, 2008 Share Posted July 26, 2008 I think you're right on. And the whole 2 party system is working less and less for me personally as I get older. There are just a lot of issues where I sit on different sides of the fence, so there isn't one candidate that feels right for me. I just don't get excited about picking the lesser or two "others". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeebus Posted July 26, 2008 Share Posted July 26, 2008 Besides, no one cares until the Olympics are over.No, no one cares about the olympics. At least no one I've spoken with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trae Posted July 26, 2008 Author Share Posted July 26, 2008 Man, talk about flip-flopping:McCain: '16 months a good timetable'In an interview on CNN today -- which the DNC is passing around -- McCain said that withdrawal from Iraq in 16 months is "a pretty good timetable." That answer came when McCain was asked about Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki's earlier claim to Der Spiegel that Obama's 16-month plan "would be the right timeframe for a withdrawal, with the possibility of slight changes."Of course, McCain did stress that such a withdrawal would "have to be based on conditions on the ground." But calling 16 months a "good timetable" is something McCain hasn't said before -- and probably never would have said a week ago.rofflesAlso, thought you all might find this interesting:"When is the MSM going to get this right? The surge in troops would not have succeeded without the Sunni Awakening. The reason that violence has decreased in Iraq has four etiologies (not withstanding the fact that our troops have always fought well pre and post surge and that I have to agree with Gary Shear's acknowledgement of Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KinkaidAlum Posted July 26, 2008 Share Posted July 26, 2008 When modern day campaigns have been reduced to making fun of candidate's names, looks and ages, making assertions based on generalizations based on party affiliation, and outright fabrications, it is hard to stay interested for very long. Besides, both parties, and therefore their nominees, were taken over by corporate interests long ago, making real reform impossible, if said reform means making the corporate interests more accountable to the citizenry. The only difference in the two parties is which interests control them. Ironically, John McCain secured the nomination based on his "maverick" status, and Barack Obama on his message of "change". Unfortunately, McCain has since spent every waking moment trying to convince his base that he is NOT a maverick, and Obama has made several statements suggesting that the only change will be the name on the presidential stationery.We have become the corporate nation. The victory is so complete that we ridicule those who take vacations as lazy, and mock Europeans who do not work as many hours as we do. We view unions as the enemy, and union members as selfish ingrates for wanting health care. Corporate executives who secure $400 million retirement packages are seen as successful and deserving of their reward.Besides, no one cares until the Olympics are over.Which is why I am leaning towards a vote for Nader again. I don't believe everything Nader says, but I do believe he believes his own words. That means something. I also believe in your above rant. I just HOPE that in our "democracy" we can make way for Nader and the nut from Georgia to be a part of the debates. Apparently, that was too much to ask for in 2000 and 2004 with mainly the Democrats to blame.I hate saying it, but the only way we'll ever get change is to create 1 or more new parties. The Greens seem to be taking the long way by focusing more on local elections but that might just be the way to do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trae Posted July 27, 2008 Author Share Posted July 27, 2008 (edited) McCain's New Attack Ad In the new attack ad by the McCain campaign, the footage they use of Obama in the gym (claiming he didn't visit the troops) is actually the video of Obama visiting the troops in Kuwait. They blur out the troops. Prove Obama won't visit the troops by showing video... ... of Obama visiting the troops. Another Epic Fail for the McCain team. I'm out. Edited July 27, 2008 by Trae Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barracuda Posted July 27, 2008 Share Posted July 27, 2008 (edited) I think you're right on. And the whole 2 party system is working less and less for me personally as I get older. There are just a lot of issues where I sit on different sides of the fence, so there isn't one candidate that feels right for me. I just don't get excited about picking the lesser or two "others".I don't think most people feel that way this election. There is a strong desire to see new leadership in this country. Even 200,000 Germans felt it important enough to listen to an American presidential candidate speak. I for one feel desperate for a president who will at least make decisions based on consensus and facts rather than misguided idealistic crusades. Even if the winner is not my first choice, I would be at least content if the next president choses to include people in discussion rather than only follow paths that are chosen by a few special interests. Sure, politics is not a perfect science, and we will never have a candidate who's completely independent. But you certainly can weigh the candidates and come to a conclusion as to how they're influenced. Some candidates are clearly more 'bought' than others, and it's usually clear who those people are by which issues they support and how they vote. I find it hard to believe that anyone who's really followed the events of the last eight years wouldn't see a difference between the two major political parties. Certainly, they both have their own share of special interests, but one party has clearly and overwhelmingly become far too corrupt for it's own good. And one party certainly seems more concerned about the environment, equal rights, ending the occupation in Iraq, aiding the poor rather than the corporate rich, etc. To me, these and other policy differences make this an incredibly important election. Edited July 27, 2008 by barracuda Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barracuda Posted July 27, 2008 Share Posted July 27, 2008 Which is why I am leaning towards a vote for Nader again. I don't believe everything Nader says, but I do believe he believes his own words. That means something. I also believe in your above rant. I just HOPE that in our "democracy" we can make way for Nader and the nut from Georgia to be a part of the debates. Apparently, that was too much to ask for in 2000 and 2004 with mainly the Democrats to blame.I hate saying it, but the only way we'll ever get change is to create 1 or more new parties. The Greens seem to be taking the long way by focusing more on local elections but that might just be the way to do it.I'd love to see more independent parties gain traction as well, even if it's only to force the other parties to consider issues and positions they otherwise ignore. But for 2008, it is a two-party election. Ralph Nader has done great things for consumer rights, but this doesn't mean he should be running the country. The only thing he has going for him is his independence of corporate influence. At this point, he seems more interested in running out of spite rather than genuine interest in becoming president. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TJones Posted July 27, 2008 Share Posted July 27, 2008 (edited) Man, talk about flip-flopping:McCain: '16 months a good timetable'rofflesAlso, thought you all might find this interesting:Hmm...http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/200...25/1225053.aspxI'm glad you are "OUT" now, because you obviously don't bother to listen to your own soundbites. Why don't you try printing the WHOLE statement for a change instead of taking out half of it ? McCain CLEARLY says that "16 months is a good timetable BASED on the conditions on the ground," If you don't understand what that means Trae, it means that Yes, we could get ALL our troops out in 16 months but at what cost to the Iraqi people? Based on the conditions on the ground, i.e. looting, pilaging, roaming bands of terroizing gangs such as Al-Queda leftovers, Iranian punks, Sunni on Shite violence and vice versa. In order to insure that the new Iraqi police force is in place and that our presence is not neccesary anymore it will take longer than 16 months, Malaki knows this and has talked with McCain about it. Gen. Petraus doesn't believe in a 16 month timetable, and you would have to think that HE would know better than McCain ,Obama, or Malaki. No wonder you like Obama so much, you hear what you want to hear just like him. I'll ask you this Trae, what would be the "slight changes" needed to be made within that 16 month timetable? Do you think it would be a prolonged presence if violence continued to increase in those 16 months?'Cuda, I would like to see the independants get a better hold also. THat would mean less votes for Obama, and an easier task at hand in November. I am glad you see that as well. Going "GREEN" is definately the way to go. Nader in '08 !!! Edited July 27, 2008 by TJones Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
musicman Posted July 27, 2008 Share Posted July 27, 2008 Prove Obama won't visit the troops by showing video... ... of Obama visiting the troops.the military recommended to obama that cameras would be a bad idea, so no cameras, no obama. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TJones Posted July 27, 2008 Share Posted July 27, 2008 the military recommended to obama that cameras would be a bad idea, so no cameras, no obama.Because the troops had some very interesting questions for Obama that Obama wouldn't have been able to field off the cuff.I have recieved a couple of emails from supposed military personnel that are miffed about Obama "dissing" them. I have read them but don't know what to make of them yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barracuda Posted July 27, 2008 Share Posted July 27, 2008 Well, Obama did visit troops who are fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. He has also visited wounded wounded soldiers at Walter Reed several times. There was also no mention of cameras being prohibited in the military hospital in Germany where he canceled his visit.McCain is playing dirty politics with this one. He himself said, "How can we possibly find honor in using the fate of our servicemen to score political advantage in Washington?" (McCain, 2007). McCain is breaking with his values by doing just that right now. He complains when Obama visits the troops, and now he complains when he doesn't visit the troops. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark F. Barnes Posted July 27, 2008 Share Posted July 27, 2008 Because the troops had some very interesting questions for Obama that Obama wouldn't have been able to field off the cuff.I have recieved a couple of emails from supposed military personnel that are miffed about Obama "dissing" them. I have read them but don't know what to make of them yet.The emails floating around are BS, so don't make too much of them. http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/afghanistan.asp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedScare Posted July 27, 2008 Share Posted July 27, 2008 Because the troops had some very interesting questions for Obama that Obama wouldn't have been able to field off the cuff.I have recieved a couple of emails from supposed military personnel that are miffed about Obama "dissing" them. I have read them but don't know what to make of them yet.Just a hunch, but I bet it wasn't any of these troops. FWIW, I certainly hope NEITHER candidate is setting foreign policy agendas based on whether "troops" agree with them. And, I can think of few sillier reasons to oppose a candidate than whether he travelled the world to shake hands with every soldier stationed there. If I was a wounded soldier, I'd be a lot more concerned with the candidate providing quality medical care than shaking my hand. But, maybe warm fuzzy conservatives think a slap on the butt and an "attaboy" works just as well.I wonder if American voters showed that they actually cared about important things like failing financial systems, rather than flag pins and photo ops with soldiers, then the candidates would actually address those important things. I sense that we will never know the answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TJones Posted July 27, 2008 Share Posted July 27, 2008 Well, Obama did visit troops who are fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. He has also visited wounded wounded soldiers at Walter Reed several times. There was also no mention of cameras being prohibited in the military hospital in Germany where he canceled his visit.There was also NO MENTION from the media about the 2 VERY popular German bands that played before Obama which was a free concert on a ticket that would have cost about $35 to $40 US dollars. Now it is a little more clear how he got 200,000 Germans to come hear you speak. Hire the hottest bands to open for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westguy Posted July 27, 2008 Share Posted July 27, 2008 Scandalous! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedScare Posted July 27, 2008 Share Posted July 27, 2008 (edited) Scandalous! Slightly off topic question...ARE there 2 popular German bands? Edited July 27, 2008 by RedScare Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barracuda Posted July 27, 2008 Share Posted July 27, 2008 There was also NO MENTION from the media about the 2 VERY popular German bands that played before Obama which was a free concert on a ticket that would have cost about $35 to $40 US dollars. Now it is a little more clear how he got 200,000 Germans to come hear you speak. Hire the hottest bands to open for you.You're right, there is no mention of a concert. So how do you know about it? If it's true, the MSM certainly let us down by not mentioning anything about a free concert. That would seem to be a very important thing to point out when 200,000 people show up. Not a single MSM outlet mentioned it (at least that I can find). Not even the conservative ones mention a concert. So either the media failed us or it's just a rumor. Since were talking about rumors, maybe people are just misconstruing what was a "concert-like atmosphere" that was reported in some media outlets.http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=206...&refer=home Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trae Posted July 27, 2008 Author Share Posted July 27, 2008 http://www.gallup.com/poll/109102/Gallup-D...-McCain-40.aspx Gallup Daily: Obama 49%, McCain 40% the military recommended to obama that cameras would be a bad idea, so no cameras, no obama. This wasn't true. Which was made up made up by the right wingers. In Iraq, Obama visited wounded troops without the media. They wouldn't let him do it in Germany since he was not with the Senators (Congregational Delegation), like he was in Iraq. Because the troops had some very interesting questions for Obama that Obama wouldn't have been able to field off the cuff.I have recieved a couple of emails from supposed military personnel that are miffed about Obama "dissing" them. I have read them but don't know what to make of them yet. roffles This has been proved wrong already. http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/afghanistan.asp The email was not accurate at all. Here is his followup: I am writing this to ask that you delete my email and not forward it. After checking my sources, information that was put out in my email was wrong. This email was meant only for my family. Please respect my wishes and delete the email and if there are any blogs you have my email portrayed on I would ask if you would take it down too. Thanks for your understanding. And more to really end it: Army Officials Refute Claim of Barack Obama Snub in Afghanistan By James Gordon Meek DAILY NEWS WASHINGTON BUREAU Updated Friday, July 25th 2008, 10:05 AM WASHINGTON - The latest chain e-mail smear against Barack Obama: He "blew off" troops at an Afghan base to shoot hoops for a publicity photo. The letter was apparently written by a Utah Army National Guard intelligence officer in a linguist unit at Bagram Airfield who claimed the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee was rude to G.I.s. "As the soldiers where [sic] lined up to shake his hand he blew them off," wrote the Task Force Wasatch "battle captain." But angry Army brass debunked the Obama-bashing soldier's allegations, which went viral Thursday over the Web and on military blogs such as Blackfive. The e-mail claims Obama repeatedly shunned soldiers on his way to the Clamshell - a recreation tent - to "take his publicity pictures playing basketball." "These comments are inappropriate and factually incorrect," said Bagram spokeswoman Army Lt. Col. Rumi Nielson-Green, who added that such political commentary is barred for uniformed personnel. Obama didn't play basketball at Bagram or visit the Clamshell, she said. Home-state troops were invited to meet him, but his arrival was kept secret for security reasons. "We were a bit delayed ... as he took time to shake hands, speak to troops and pose for photographs," Nielson-Green said. E-mails to the officer who made the charges and a call to his wife were not returned. ~~~~ More and link: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2..._barack_ob.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deut28Thirteen Posted July 28, 2008 Share Posted July 28, 2008 Anyone that was willing to believe that nonsense has not looked at Barack Obama. If you are going to vote for McCain and have been following the election, then you would have to at least admit Obama is a man of genuine good charter. If you dont believe that and think he is just a politician, then what politician in their right mind would snub the American troops? Knew it was not true when I heard it. 100 Days to next President. So excited! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
20thStDad Posted July 28, 2008 Share Posted July 28, 2008 Slightly off topic question...ARE there 2 popular German bands? Hasselhoff and....Scorpions!!! Seriously, I don't believe for a second that 200,000 Germans would have gone out JUST to see an American politician. Think about it people. It was a good event no doubt, but don't get caught up in the so-called Obama-love. That was only part of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trae Posted July 28, 2008 Author Share Posted July 28, 2008 Hasselhoff and....Scorpions!!! Seriously, I don't believe for a second that 200,000 Germans would have gone out JUST to see an American politician. Think about it people. It was a good event no doubt, but don't get caught up in the so-called Obama-love. That was only part of it.Well, take it from an actual German who was there:Some here, especially FstarCstar, seem to overlook that the speech and event in Berlin were not solely aimed at Germans. Not only did the major TV networks broadcast the event live for the audience in the US to watch, but also you need to know that there were thousands of american voters in the audience! Many here seem to forget that a lot of american citizens currently live in Europe, either as soldiers stationed on US bases or working for european branches of american and international companies. Also there are many american tourists visiting Berlin on vacation. The organisation "Democrats abroad" helped to organise the event, and many Americans, Democrats as well as Republicans, came to listen to what Senator Obama had to say. In any case, it was a good event. People started to fill the 17th June Street and the area around the Victory Column about three hours before Senator Obama's speech. The crowed was in a good mood overall, and the long wait was made more bearable by beer and snack vendors and the bands that played before Obama's speech. (And no, the bands were not the only reason people came. The music stopped half an hour before Obama entered the stage, but the crowd kept growing. ) According to interviews, many people came to support Obama, others came to hear what he had to say and then pass judgement, others simply to see the famous "rising star". Overall, the speech was received pretty well by the people. While some were disappointed that not much new was revealed, people liked the overall foundation of Senator Obama's foreign policy and his commitment to diplomacy and international cooperation. An excellent speech overall, aimed at both the American and European audicence. Senator Obama's oral skills and charsima were also much admired, specially compared to the rather dull style of Germany's politicians. Overall the crowed was friendlier to Obama than I would have predicted. I expected more hecklers and demonstrators against Obama and his call for an increase of the military presence in Afghanistan. But the crowed was very open towards him, and ready to give him a chance. It all went very well, overall. But let's not forget that the speech in front of the victory column was not today's only event in Berlin. Senator Obama also met chancellor Merkel, foreign- secretary Steinmeier, and mayor Wowereit. While there was not press conference, and details about the one-hour talk between Merkel and Obama were not released (since it could have been interpreted as chancellor Merkel endorsing a certain candidate in a foreign election), sources indicate that the chancellor and the senator get along quite well, and found a lot of political common ground.http://www.politicalcrossfire.com/forum/vi...hlight=#2912290 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
20thStDad Posted July 28, 2008 Share Posted July 28, 2008 Ok, some German dude posted that on some random forum. Good for him. I didn't say there wasn't anyone there to excited see Obama, and I did say it was a good event for him overall. But 200,000 people did not go there JUST to see Obama. People, anywhere in the world, need more motivation than that. There was alcohol being served according to that guy, there's half the reason people stuck around, we're talking about Germans here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trae Posted July 28, 2008 Author Share Posted July 28, 2008 They could have left. Instead, kept filling in after the events had stopped and people were just waiting for Obama. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TJones Posted July 28, 2008 Share Posted July 28, 2008 (edited) Trae, 200k may have heard Obama give a speech, 200k didn't come out SOLELY to listen to Obama. Like I said, Free beer and a Free concert to make it more bearable to listen to Obama spew for 30 minutes? SURE, after I've been drinking for 3 to 4 hours, I'll go as far as to listen to Red and you try to convince me about how apple pie and hot dog Obama is.The point was, our media made it look like everyone was there waiting for the supposed "headliner" Obama, with absolutely NO MENTION of a free concert by popular German bands, and you along with 1000s of diluted others have bought into it. I am sure the exits were being flooded as soon as the beer and bratwurst ran out.Acts that played the "warm up" were the Reggae artist: Patrice, and the German Rock Band: Reamonn. The lead singer for Reamonn also is feat. on a track from one of my favorite DJs, Paul Van Dyk. Raemonn is very popular throughout Europe.Looks like your media failed you Cuda. Your Uncle TJ won't lie to you. Edited July 28, 2008 by TJones Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crunchtastic Posted July 28, 2008 Share Posted July 28, 2008 (edited) I am sure the exits were being flooded as soon as the beer and bratwurst ran out.You make Berlin sound like Milwaukee. Not the same, not by a longggggg shot!! Berlin has been one of the most culturally progressive cities on the planet since the turn of the last century. I have a couple of continental and brit friends, and their take, and of their freinds, is that people in the ROW are just amazed that the US could potentially have its first black president. People all over the world, rightly or wrongly, think the US might stop being such an asshole with a black democrat president. Edited July 28, 2008 by crunchtastic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TJones Posted July 28, 2008 Share Posted July 28, 2008 You make Berlin sound like Milwaukee. Not the same, not by a longggggg shot!! Berlin has been one of the most culturally progressive cities on the planet since the turn of the last century.Right, thanks for the 3rd Reich Germany. Yes, VERY progressive indeed !!! Ooops, almost forgot The Berlin Wall, good job again Germany. I thought it was a nice touch to have the words "Seig Heil" behind Obama as he made his speech, might be a precursor of whats to come with the dawning of Obama's NEW FASCISM, but I digress. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crunchtastic Posted July 28, 2008 Share Posted July 28, 2008 Now TJ, I know you are better educated in your world history that to ascribe to a entire city the ____tard crazy antics of a power hungry Bavarian. Right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts