Comments on: Analysis of an Obama Supporter

By: Aquinas

Aquinas — Sat, 24 May 2008 21:43:40 +0000

The point, Mike, is that Obama pretended no clarification had been made by McCain when he knew better. Obama is a fraud, a hypocrite, the same old politico…not the Political Faith Healer his acolytes “believe in”.

By: Mike Thomas

Mike Thomas — Sat, 24 May 2008 19:04:42 +0000

McCain fully deserves all the grief he is getting for his moronic statement about a 100 year war. He was asked how long he would support keeping our troops in Iraq and he snapped out his 100 year answer before offering the clarification that he only means if it is like our troops in Japan or Germany after WWII when they weren’t getting shot and killed everyday. But he never answered the real question, which was how long do we keep our troops there under the current violent conditions? He wouldn’t say, so all we were left with was his smartass 100 year response. And now it has come back to bite him in the ass.

By: Mike Thomas

Mike Thomas — Sat, 24 May 2008 18:58:16 +0000

So, Nick, does that mean that an invasion and occupation is a good idea for any country with an oppresive form of government that doesn’t have nukes? Then why haven’t we invaded Mynamar yet? Or Libya? Oh, wait! Bush cut a deal with Gadaffi, so it’s OK for those people to live under his oppressive rule now.
And isn’t the message we are sending that if you don’t already have nukes you better get them quick?
Also, if you think North Korea has nukes because of Clinton, then you clearly aren’t up on your current history. Most of N. Korea’s advancement in that area came after Bush took office and began atagonizing the North Koreans as part of the “Axis of Evil”.

And I did not say that terrorism was an abberation that would not be repeated. I said the 9/11 hijack an airline and fly it into a building scheme was. As for the Sept. 10th mentality, I assume you mean what Bush had prior to 9/11 when he ignored the warnings of his terror experts like Richard Clarke and went on vacation rather than deal with such threats.
Democrats are not saying we should go back to ignoring such threats like Bush did, but neither can we allow them to totally rule our lives and dictate our foreign policy.

By: Aquinas

Aquinas — Sat, 24 May 2008 00:21:14 +0000

“taking someone’s words out of context to make them sound as if he/she is saying, or implying, something that he/she is not”

We can be confident, then, that Ann has repudiated Barack Obama’s slanderous implication that John McCain wants to wage war in Iraq for “100 years”?

Press needs to call Obama on distortion of McCain’s statement

By the way, the source at that link is no partisan blogger, but the Columbia Journalism Review…

By: Nick Marinelli

Nick Marinelli — Fri, 23 May 2008 21:11:05 +0000

Mike:

The difference between Iraq and North Korea is that North Korea, thanks to Mr. Clinton and Ms. Albright, now has nuclear weapons. Add to that the unstable nature of Kim Jong Il, and invasion isn’t such a good idea.

As for the September 11, 2001 attack being an “abberation that will never be repeated,” how can you be so sure? Maybe no one is going to hijack several planes using box cutters again, but there are many ways small groups of determined terrorists can attack this nation and cause just as much, or more, damage, destruction, and death. Just ask the people in Israel if they like riding the bus or going to a pizza parlor anymore. Ask them if they are comfortable going to any large gathering of people anymore. The answer is more than likely “No” because they know what it is to deal with terrorism on a day-to-day basis. They also have military guards and soldiers everywhere and the bombs continue to blow up and kill men, women, and children.

An “abberation that will never be repeated”? Behold, the September 10th mentality on display for all to see.

By: Mike Thomas

Mike Thomas — Thu, 22 May 2008 22:47:27 +0000

Nick,
Please go back and read what I actually said. I did not say that “these guys are not a threat”. I said they are less of a threat “compared to the Soviet Union”.
Got that? Just like Obama said, as Ann’s link makes quite clear.
Sure these little countries are still a threat, but it’s like the difference between stepping on a cactus (Ouch!) and stepping on a landmine (Boom!).
As for 9/11, the damage was more psychological than anything. The loss of life was horrific, of course, but it did not come close to defeating us as a nation. And one must understand that it was an abberation that will never be repeated. They couldn’t even pull it off completely as it was happening. Once the passengers of the Pennsylvania flight figured out what was going on they revolted and brought the airline down. There will never again be an unchallenged hijacking of an airliner on U.S. soil.
Finally, the dig at Obama trying to compare him the Saddam Hussein does not even merit a response because it is so ridiculous.
Since you think that because I oppose our occupation of Iraq, I must therefore want the people there to live under a dictatorship, then I can only assume that your failure to demand an immediate invasion of North Korea means you support having those people live under that dictatorship.

By: Ann

Ann — Thu, 22 May 2008 19:55:51 +0000

Luv the scare quotes around “prove.” No, Nick, it is not “all opinion” – there are, believe it or not, such things as “facts” and there is such a thing as taking someone’s words out of context to make them sound as if he/she is saying, or implying, something that he/she is not. If you want to debate some issue that Obama talks about, fine, but the least you could do is be honest about his positions and not resort to Malkin tactics – they’re cheap.

By: Nick

Nick — Thu, 22 May 2008 18:14:13 +0000

No more predictable than the problems of using a liberal blogger to “prove” that a conservative is wrong. It is all opinion, and everyone has one. You might agree with the liberal, but that alone doesn’t make the liberal right.

By: Ann

Ann — Thu, 22 May 2008 15:07:59 +0000

Nick, there's a predictable problem with relying on Michelle Malkin for "evidence".

By: Nick

Nick — Thu, 22 May 2008 13:19:17 +0000

Ann:

No evidence, huh? I guess even his own words, spoken in public, aren’t good enough. Words mean things, and when Obama said, “You know, Iran, they spend 1/100th of what we spend on the military. I mean, if Iran ever tried to pose a serious threat to us, they would — they wouldn’t stand a chance”, to me it sounds like he is saying that because Iran spends 1/100th of what we do on their military, they are not a serious threat. But then again, the next day he said that Iran was a “grave” threat. I guess it all depends on which side of his mouth he is speaking from on a particular day.

Mike:

Tiny little armies are more thasn enough to bring a country like the US to its knees; do you recall September 11, 2001? 19 whack-jobs with box cutters brought the entire country to a standstill for days and dealt a huge blow to our economy. Are you serious when you say these guys are not a threat?

Here we go again with the “force the people to live the way we want them to” canard. What we gave the Iraqi people was freedom so that they could choose the way they wanted to live. We didn’t force anything on them; we freed them from tyrannical rule. Of, I can understand why a big government liberal would see a tyrant’s dictatorship as a viable option for these people, given that it would run their entire lives for them. It kinda sounds like what Obama wants to do if he gets elected here.