Obama in Europe

[BriarFox]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/25/us/politics/25assess.html?_r=1&th=&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&emc=th&adxnnlx=1216988660-dmbUxJZKjCVt5EjG54wYbA

Obama, Vague on Issues, Pleases Crowd in Europe

"PARIS — For Senator Barack Obama, who came to Europe once in the last four years, making a stop in London on his way to Russia, the response of many Europeans to his potential presidency has been gratifying — emotional, responsive, replete with the sense of hope he seeks to engender about a more flexible, less ideological America. ..."

Meanwhile, McCain tried to squeeze Obama's trip for all it was worth. He attempted to portray the senator for Illinois as more interested in foreign policies than "kitchen-table" politics, playing on the typically short-sighted view of rural America:

http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2008/07/24/mccain.html?sid=101&rfr=nwsl

McCain doubts rival's motives

"On a day when Barack Obama basked in adulation on a Berlin stage, John McCain was far less adoring, using some of his toughest rhetoric of the campaign to accuse his Democratic rival of politicizing the war in Iraq.

In an interview in Columbus today before a summit on cancer, McCain didn't mince words: He said Obama has used the war for political reasons, including to win the Democratic presidential nomination."

[Gan]

I have a feeling that Obama's European tour is going to backfire on him with the electorate.

[Parkbandit]

I have a feeling that Obama's European tour is going to backfire on him with the electorate.

What do you mean... like he's pretending he's the President and that the Nov. election is merely a formality?

[Clove]

I don't know, I hear those Germans have a lot of votes.

[Daniel]

Like the liberal conspiracy team would ever let that happen. Pish posh

[Fallen]

I thought what McCain said about the issue was quite funny. Something along the lines of, "I would very much enjoy giving a few speeches in Germany, but I would rather do so once I am the Presidant and not a candidate."

[BriarFox]

I have a feeling that Obama's European tour is going to backfire on him with the electorate.

McCain's definitely trying to make it. I hope, though, that Obama and his aides thought of the obvious ways it could be spun against him (more European than American, less interested in home than abroad) and have a response prepared.

The obvious response would go like this:

McCain: Obama is ignoring his responsibilities to the US by gallivanting around the globe, and he's acting like President when he isn't!

Obama: As the entire 20th century has taught us and the last several years have reinforced, we cannot imagine ourselves as a nation isolated from the world. Our policy and our lifestyle at home are intimately connected to events around the globe. My trip there has garnered the goodwill of Europe and has given me a firsthand perspective on the conflicts in the Middle East, factors that will only further American interests if I am elected President. As to Senator McCain's second objection, isn't the whole point of an election to judge who would be the most successful as President? Doesn't the country need to see its candidates "acting Presidential" to do that?

[NocturnalRob]

Obama: As the entire 20th century has taught us and the last several years have reinforced, we cannot imagine ourselves as a nation isolated from the world. Our policy and our lifestyle at home are intimately connected to events around the globe. My trip there has garnered the goodwill of Europe and has given me a firsthand perspective on the conflicts in the Middle East, factors that will only further American interests if I am elected President. As to Senator McCain's second objection, isn't the whole point of an election to judge who would be the most successful as President? Doesn't the country need to see its candidates "acting Presidential" to do that?

the unilateral argument that liberal nut-huggers love to bring up is so fucking passe. and there's no way that Obama taking a tour of europe and the middle east over such a short timeframe gives him the "firsthand perspective" necessary to run this country, so nip that shit in the bud right there.

his international experience is lacking. they're (the infamous THEY) are trying to make him appear more experienced, well-traveled, and well-versed in international affairs. instead, he's coming off like a presumptuous douche. and i'm going to revel in his loss.

[BriarFox]

his international experience is lacking. they're (the infamous THEY) are trying to make him appear more experienced, well-traveled, and well-versed in international affairs. instead, he's coming off like a presumptuous douche. and i'm going to revel in his loss.

I'm sure McCain's time in a POW camp gives him more international perspective than Obama's time on the Foreign Policy Committee.

[CrystalTears]

So sick of politics. A few weeks ago McCain and others were bitching because Obama hadn't been in Iraq for years. So he makes a trip to Europe and Middle East and now it's not good enough because he's focusing too much on that. Never fucking satisfied.

[Parkbandit]

I'm sure McCain's time in a POW camp gives him more international perspective than Obama's time on the Foreign Policy Committee.

Wait, I thought Obama was the Chair on the Banking Committee...

[BriarFox]

Wait, I thought Obama was the Chair on the Banking Committee...

Ignoring the sarcasm, here: http://obama.senate.gov/about/

[NocturnalRob]

I'm sure McCain's time in a POW camp gives him more international perspective than Obama's time on the Foreign Policy Committee.

4 years on FPC does not an expert make, especially as a junior senator. let's also not forget the fact that he hasn't done a goddamned thing in his role as chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee's Subcommittee on European Affairs. not a single meeting.

the only thing that obama has over mccain as a result of mccain's time as a pow is better posture.

[BriarFox]

4 years on FPC does not an expert make, especially as a junior senator. let's also not forget the fact that he hasn't done a goddamned thing in his role as chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee's Subcommittee on European Affairs. not a single meeting.

the only thing that obama has over mccain as a result of mccain's time as a pow is better posture.

It's kinda hard to call meetings when you've been campaigning for the last year. Ask McCain how many things he voted on in the last Congress. And what experience does McCain have to compare to Obama's being on the Foreign Relations Committee? Or are we just equating age with experience? In that case, he must have loads!

[Daniel]

i'm going to revel in his loss.

Because he went to Europe?

[NocturnalRob]

Because he went to Europe?

no, Daniel. Because he's black.

[Parkbandit]

Ignoring the sarcasm, here: http://obama.senate.gov/about/

So, he's NOT the chair on the Banking Committee?




Barack Obama misidentified his own committee assignment Wednesday in Israel.

The Illinois senator made the slip while defending his position on the status of Jerusalem during a press conference in Sderot.

“I continued to say that Jerusalem will be the capital of Israel,” Obama said, pointing to recent legislation as proof of his support for peace in the region.

“You don’t have to just look at my words, you can look at my deeds. Just this past week, we passed out of the U.S. Senate Banking Committee, which is my committee, a bill to call for divestment from Iran, as a way of ratcheting up the pressure to ensure that they don’t obtain a nuclear weapon.”

Only Obama is not on the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs, which Connecticut Sen. Chris Dodd chairs. Obama sits on four other committees.

The Republican National Committee was quick to point out the error.

They sent around an e-mail with a link to the video of those remarks, under the headline: “Barack Obama’s Gaffe Machine Rolls Into Israel.”


http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/07/24/obama-lays-claim-to-wrong-committee-in-israel/

Maybe because he's barely done his job for the past 2 years.. he simply forgot which committees he was on and which committees are 'his'.

[radamanthys]

America's besmirched name abroad is something of great import to a not-insignificant portion of the American electorate. If he appears more able to assuage the poor international perception of the US, then he is indeed more electable. The voters who'll take offense wouldn't have voted for him anyway.

[Warriorbird]

Bush didn't have a passport before he was President. I doubt he's ever drawn this many people in Europe during his Presidency.

McCain looks bitter trying to knock something he stirred up.

[Parkbandit]

America's besmirched name abroad is something of great import to a not-insignificant portion of the American electorate. If he appears more able to assuage the poor international perception of the US, then he is indeed more electable. The voters who'll take offense wouldn't have voted for him anyway.


One of my favorite tag lines.. right after "Bush Lied and People Died". You should make some bumperstickers!

[Clove]

Improving our world image isn't really all that complicated. We only need to stop issuing passports to New Jersey residents....

[Warriorbird]

I love it when you bash folks who are theoretically on your side but just have slightly different viewpoints. Caught that twice in the past week.

[Gan]

America's besmirched name abroad is something of great import to a not-insignificant portion of the American electorate. If he appears more able to assuage the poor international perception of the US, then he is indeed more electable.

/Agreed

Its a fine line to walk between being the golden boy of the USA for the next election and being crucified for the very same thing.

I think the DNC might want to revisit the risks of overselling their candidate.

[Parkbandit]

I love it when you bash folks who are theoretically on your side but just have slightly different viewpoints. Caught that twice in the past week.


I like how you would never consider bashing or criticising a liberal on this message board.

Unlike you, I don't let party affiliations determine who I will criticise and who I won't. I'm an equal opportunity basher.

[Stanley Burrell]

I'm sure that about 10% of around 99% of the politics that are at least 110% at play here are illustrating Obama's positive social attitude towards repairing European relations.

The other half is mental.

[Daniel]

no, Daniel. Because he's black.

Oh? So, you were on the fence before and him going to Europe to talk to people is what sent you over?

Man.

[Stanley Burrell]

I like how you would never consider bashing or criticising a liberal on this message board.

Unlike you, I don't let party affiliations determine who I will criticise and who I won't. I'm an equal opportunity basher.

HAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAhAAHAHAHahaHHAHAAHAAHAHAIAAaAI aaaaahhhaaa.

Ah.

AH!

.

Continue.

[Daniel]

I like how you would never consider bashing or criticising a liberal on this message board.

Unlike you, I don't let party affiliations determine who I will criticise and who I won't. I'm an equal opportunity basher.

Pure Comedy

[Stanley Burrell]

I'm an equal opportunity basher.

No one who reads this forum has a difficult time in believing that you have a distinct set of beliefs regarding equal opportunity.

[Stanley Burrell]

Pure Comedy

I'm just wondering what damage control card he's going to pull. I'd personally stick to the I'm-immune-to-Freudian-slips-because-I'm-better-than-you-are-and-am-able-to-insert-what-appear-to-be-subconscious-jeers-at-myself-in-a-humbling-manner-using-my-super-sophisticated-sense-of-humor.

Subject change or "I don't care man" would be pretty decent.

[Daniel]

I'm going for a combination of him trying to deflect it with some silly statement like "Stanley go do drugs" or "You're pathetic, :rofl:". and then avoiding this thread like the plague.

[Stanley Burrell]

He'll probably have to hash out the personal comments in a patronizing I-feel-sorry-for-you manner or he'll think it looks like e-defeat is being admitted.

Ignore seems pretty good.

The two person attack where he'll go back and try and reiterate his thought pattern and lump us together as liberals who can only one-up each other might work as well.

How about I just call you a dumbass'd be O.K. too.



He could try moving like a ninja, then leap like a FREAK and throw in a back stabbing eel-strike, but we'd have a clear shot at his ribs.

He could also pretend he's a bird, but that would just look stupid and leave his small sensitive balls exposed.

.

Ultimately, that was the most entertaining thing ParkBandit has ever expunged, on two levels, and is now new signature material.

[Warriorbird]

Every once in a while I get totally bored of the PC (and especially the Politics folder). Then serious serious :rofl: ensues and it draws me right back in.

Thanks for rising to the proper level, Parkbandit. I think that was enough to sustain me for months.

[Keller]

Unlike you, I don't let party affiliations determine who I will criticise and who I won't. I'm an equal opportunity basher.

Sarcasm should be in italics.

Unless you're referring to "downgrading" posters level of conservatism based soley on whether they're considering (as if citizens should consider individual candidates, pfft!) voting for a democrat.

[Fallen]

America's besmirched name abroad is something of great import to a not-insignificant portion of the American electorate. If he appears more able to assuage the poor international perception of the US, then he is indeed more electable. The voters who'll take offense wouldn't have voted for him anyway.

This actually a decent argument.

[Parkbandit]

I'm going for a combination of him trying to deflect it with some silly statement like "Stanley go do drugs" or "You're pathetic, :rofl:". and then avoiding this thread like the plague.

Avoiding.. you mean like the thread you posted the quote in my sig line.. then 'conveniently' said you were oh so busy? Sorry chump, that's your schtick.

Might want to ask crb, CT, Clove, etc.. if I've ever bashed them. Pretty sure they would agree with me.

[Parkbandit]

Every once in a while I get totally bored of the PC (and especially the Politics folder). Then serious serious :rofl: ensues and it draws me right back in.

Thanks for rising to the proper level, Parkbandit. I think that was enough to sustain me for months.


Thanks for getting 4 sentences in.. instead of your typical one. I realize the great amount of effort you must have had to generate and I for one appreciate it.

Really.

[Clove]

This actually a decent argument.x10

[Keller]

Might want to ask crb, CT, Clove, etc.. if I've ever bashed them. Pretty sure they would agree with me.

The funny thing is you bash them because they aren't conservative.

You're a fucking joke. You just made all of our points!

[CrystalTears]

CRB is conservative though. I've been cast aside, but Clove has always been in the middle. Neither side wants him.

[Gan]

Clove = Lieberman!??!

[radamanthys]

ooh, Lieburned!

[Keller]

CRB is conservative though. I've been cast aside, but Clove has always been in the middle. Neither side wants him.

What points has he criticized crb on?

[Latrinsorm]

Playing a nancy profession?

[Fallen]

Yeah, you have to suck at GS to be a REAL man.

[Keller]

Playing a nancy profession?

I don't read the GS part of the forums.

I must have missed that.

[Clove]

Clove = Lieberman!??!
I knew that was coming

"Joe Lieberman says the word `god' more than a nymphomaniac at an orgy"- Bill Maher
And no. Clove=Marion Barry :D

[Clove]

What points has he criticized crb on?crb has points?

[Daniel]

Avoiding.. you mean like the thread you posted the quote in my sig line.. then 'conveniently' said you were oh so busy? Sorry chump, that's your schtick.

Might want to ask crb, CT, Clove, etc.. if I've ever bashed them. Pretty sure they would agree with me.

I did what, where?

I'm pretty sure I posted the congressional testimony I used as the basis for my statements. If you fail to see what I was saying despite that and despite the several occasions where you've attempted to, and failed to, throw that into my face then there is nothing I can tell you.

I sincerely doubt you want to start comparing times when you've backed out of a thread when called out. You can take the last time you tried to bring it up as an example.

As for your second point: I doubt the former semi conservatives would attest to that statement.

[CrystalTears]

What points has he criticized crb on?
I haven't seen him do so. Not in a political discussion, anyway.

[Keller]

crb has points?

Some better than others.

[Keller]

I haven't seen him do so. Not in a political discussion, anyway.

I wouldn't be surprised if he had. I count crb among the pc's many thoughtful conservatives. I've definately found myself agreeing with him in the past. Not on a majority of the discussions, but on enough that I'm sure he has offended pb's handful of talking points. Climate change and energy policy come to mind.

[Parkbandit]

I did what, where?

I'm pretty sure I posted the congressional testimony I used as the basis for my statements. If you fail to see what I was saying despite that and despite the several occasions where you've attempted to, and failed to, throw that into my face then there is nothing I can tell you.

I sincerely doubt you want to start comparing times when you've backed out of a thread when called out. You can take the last time you tried to bring it up as an example.

As for your second point: I doubt the former semi conservatives would attest to that statement.


Please post again the 'source' you had on the US military uses 60% of the total US energy.. because somehow I missed you sourcing it.

As for sourcing the 2nd 'Oh, I meant'.. bullshit, even then you fucking read the thing wrong.

The only thread I've ever back out wasn't because you called me out on anything.. it was because I was sick of your bullshit fabrication... to which you've been called out on NUMEROUS times.

Dude. You are a joke. One that I laugh at every day I read posts from you.

[Parkbandit]

I haven't seen him do so. Not in a political discussion, anyway.

Politically, I agree with crb. Should I just criticise him for the sake to make you happy? Please show me where you have ever criticised someone you agree with.. I'd love to see it.

Where I didn't agree with crb on was his whole "I save GS by myself!" bullshit... and I called him out on it.

It's cute how Keller is still trying to stalk me though. Really. Poor little bastard.

[Keller]

Politically, I agree with crb. Should I just criticise him for the sake to make you happy? Please show me where you have ever criticised someone you agree with.. I'd love to see it.

Where I didn't agree with crb on was his whole "I save GS by myself!" bullshit... and I called him out on it.

It's cute how Keller is still trying to stalk me though. Really. Poor little bastard.

This may surprise you but I can still read your bullshit regardless of whether you can read mine.

Sincerely,
Keller Shehan

[CrystalTears]

Politically, I agree with crb. Should I just criticise him for the sake to make you happy? Please show me where you have ever criticised someone you agree with.. I'd love to see it.
Why are you so defensive? Keller mentioned that you criticize people for not being conservative, where the quote listed crb as well. I mention that crb is a conservative. Keller asked where you've criticized crb and I said you haven't politically. That's all that was about. Maybe I misunderstood his intent or post from the getgo.

That said, you DO criticize people who are not conservative in your mind. You're not an equal opportunity basher when it comes to politics. If they don't mesh with your opinion, they are defectors or idiots. Not saying people on the other side don't do it, but let's try not to pretend otherwise.

It wouldn't make sense to criticize someone when you're agreeing with them on a certain issue. However I have disagreed with people openly whom I generally agree with. Gan for one.


Where I didn't agree with crb on was his whole "I save GS by myself!" bullshit... and I called him out on it.
I know, that's why I said you didn't politically.


It's cute how Keller is still trying to stalk me though. Really. Poor little bastard.
I know they love to see you answer him, but really, stop talking to someone you have on ignore. It's pretty fucking pointless.

[Daniel]

:rofl: hard

[Parkbandit]

Why are you so defensive? Keller mentioned that you criticize people for not being conservative, where the quote listed crb as well. I mention that crb is a conservative. Keller asked where you've criticized crb and I said you haven't politically. That's all that was about. Maybe I misunderstood his intent or post from the getgo.

That said, you DO criticize people who are not conservative in your mind. You're not an equal opportunity basher when it comes to politics. If they don't mesh with your opinion, they are defectors or idiots. Not saying people on the other side don't do it, but let's try not to pretend otherwise.

I criticised you for suddenly becoming an Obama supporter.. since your past posts have generally slanted conservative. Obama is the direct opposite of conservative... and even McCain isn't close.. but far closer than Obama. When your posts slanted conservative, there was nothing to criticise you about.. since I agreed with them for the most part.



It wouldn't make sense to criticize someone when you're agreeing with them on a certain issue. However I have disagreed with people openly whom I generally agree with. Gan for one.


Fantastic. If Gan posts something I disagree with, then you can count on me to criticise him or question him.



I know they love to see you answer him, but really, stop talking to someone you have on ignore. It's pretty fucking pointless.

I just like pointing out how much of a troll Keller is. If you take a look at his past 50-100 posts, I'm sure he has responded more to my posts or directed them towards me than anyone else. Like I've said before, he's acting like some jilted lover who can't let things just go. I seriously used to just dislike him.. now it's more that I just pity him.

[Keller]

I just like pointing out how much of a troll Keller is. If you take a look at his past 50-100 posts, I'm sure he has responded more to my posts or directed them towards me than anyone else. Like I've said before, he's acting like some jilted lover who can't let things just go. I seriously used to just dislike him.. now it's more that I just pity him.

I did the math.

Of my past 50 posts, 9 of them are in some way related to you or something you've posted.

3 from other threads. One age joke in response to whether you'd kick Clove's ass when you got back, one helpful response to your request for good iPhone apps, one mocking how you "called" Edwards on being an ambulance chaser, and then 6 in this thread.

I've got just about that many responses to Back's posts. Maybe I'm acting like a jilted lover with him, too?

Or maybe I just recognize bullshit and call people on it. I guess the PC will have to decide for themselves.

[CrystalTears]

I criticised you for suddenly becoming an Obama supporter.. since your past posts have generally slanted conservative. Obama is the direct opposite of conservative... and even McCain isn't close.. but far closer than Obama. When your posts slanted conservative, there was nothing to criticise you about.. since I agreed with them for the most part.
See that's what I'm talking about. We have two options. Someone who is really liberal, and someone rather liberal with a conservative label. What exactly am I supposed to do here? Just vote for McCain because he has an R by his name? No sir, I can't do that. So forgive me for trying to figure which one of the two best jives with my issues and not voting strictly by party lines. I have never done that and I never will. Just because I tend to lean towards conservative views doesn't mean that it's always the best choice. Hell for local issues I nearly always vote Green Party.

I just like pointing out how much of a troll Keller is. If you take a look at his past 50-100 posts, I'm sure he has responded more to my posts or directed them towards me than anyone else. Like I've said before, he's acting like some jilted lover who can't let things just go. I seriously used to just dislike him.. now it's more that I just pity him.
Dude, what does that say about you? Someone who openly says you have him on ignore yet make statements about him and his posts that supposedly you don't read?

I know he's said and done jerk things. We've all done it though. I honestly can't understand why you're singling him out. I mean for all we know he's baiting you just to respond knowing you will, and you fall for it. How about you actually ignore him as you said you would?

[Daniel]

Stop trying to ruin my fun CT. Let PB be a raging hypocrite if he wants to.

[Parkbandit]

See that's what I'm talking about. We have two options. Someone who is really liberal, and someone rather liberal with a conservative label. What exactly am I supposed to do here? Just vote for McCain because he has an R by his name? No sir, I can't do that. So forgive me for trying to figure which one of the two best jives with my issues and not voting strictly by party lines. I have never done that and I never will. Just because I tend to lean towards conservative views doesn't mean that it's always the best choice. Hell for local issues I nearly always vote Green Party.


Hey.. I'm done debating this with you.. as we have done it over and over and over and over again. Politically, you are pretty damn close to Ilvane in my book. We all laughed at her for saying she would vote for McCain instead of Obama because she supported Hillary.. but somehow you should get a pass?

Sorry, I'm fresh out of passes.

[Parkbandit]

Stop trying to ruin my fun CT. Let PB be a raging hypocrite if he wants to.


This post is chuck full of irony.

[Daniel]

:rofl: hard

^

[Parkbandit]

^

Did you realize that the US Military uses 60% of the total energy in the US?

That's a big :rofl: hard.

[Daniel]

Awww cute. Look at the little puppy who thinks he has a bone.

[CrystalTears]

Hey.. I'm done debating this with you.. as we have done it over and over and over and over again. Politically, you are pretty damn close to Ilvane in my book. We all laughed at her for saying she would vote for McCain instead of Obama because she supported Hillary.. but somehow you should get a pass?

Sorry, I'm fresh out of passes.
I realize that I'm just like Ilvane in your eyes, and frankly that's fine, as I suppose it would seem like that from some angles so we'll agree to disagree. I just don't see it as the same thing since I was never FOR someone for their issues from the beginning, and then run to the other side because my candidate didn't make it, regardless of the issues at hand.

[Latrinsorm]

Politically, you are pretty damn close to Ilvane in my book.Ladies and gentlemen, PB jumping the shark.

[Keller]

Ladies and gentlemen, PB jumping the shark.

10 minutes BEFORE PB's post I explained to CT how he resorts to random personal attacks when he's backed into a corner. I am a fucking prophet -- or he is just predictable.

[Parkbandit]

I realize that I'm just like Ilvane in your eyes, and frankly that's fine, as I suppose it would seem like that from some angles so we'll agree to disagree. I just don't see it as the same thing since I was never FOR someone for their issues from the beginning, and then run to the other side because my candidate didn't make it, regardless of the issues at hand.


So, you are saying you don't pick candidates by their position on issues?

That would explain alot.

[Parkbandit]

Awww cute. Look at the little puppy who thinks he has a bone.


Not at all actually. You've said dumb things in the past.. or just made them up to suit your purpose.

That quote though was possibly the dumbest thing ever posted on the PC. Like I originally said, you would have to just dismiss all logic to be able to post something that retarded... something you seem to do with ease. My favorite part was how you tried to link the Kyoto protocol with it... that was fucking awesome.

[CrystalTears]

So, you are saying you don't pick candidates by their position on issues?

That would explain alot.
No, you just misunderstood what I was trying to say. I AM for issues, but I haven't chosen anyone yet because my views are divided. I never had a definite candidate to begin with. Ilvane did. She knew she wanted Hillary based on her issues and "experience". When Hillary wasn't chosen, she went to someone who is completely opposite from Hillary's issues. That's what was in question with her decision all along.

Why is it that you haven't called Gan a former semi-conservative since he's considering Obama as well? Even though he's leaning more towards McCain, he's still giving Obama the chance.

[Stanley Burrell]

Nuh-uh, you dumb.

[Daniel]

Still rofling hard

[Keller]

Still rofling hard

You'll have to bookmark this thread for the next time you need a good laugh.

[Clove]

Hey.. I'm done debating this with you.. as we have done it over and over and over and over again. Politically, you are pretty damn close to Ilvane in my book. We all laughed at her for saying she would vote for McCain instead of Obama because she supported Hillary.. but somehow you should get a pass?

Sorry, I'm fresh out of passes.Yeah, you pretty much haven't been reading PB. Gan, CT and I had been saying we were undecided between McCain and Obama from the beginning. And if you're a moderate or independent that's not such an extreme call. However, Ilvane (who has posted consistent with a hardcore Democrat) said she was voting for Hillary and would vote for McCain, essentially in protest if Obama won the candidacy.

If you can't tell the difference between an undecided and a protest vote, then you really do need Aricept.

[Keller]

Yeah, you pretty much haven't been reading PB. Gan, CT and I had been saying we were undecided between McCain and Obama from the beginning. Ilvane said she was voting for Hillary and would vote for McCain, essentially in protest if Obama won the candidacy.

If you can't tell the difference between an undecided and a protest vote, then you really do need Aricept.

Does this post make you an I-team cheerleader?

[Latrinsorm]

I-team is a hilarious term.

[Gan]

For the record, I'm still undecided on who I will vote for.

And yes, I'm really trying to poke holes in the Obama campaign platform because if it cant stand up to scrutiny then it doesnt deserve my vote.

My doubts about McCain have more to do with him as a candidate than his platform. And McCain as a candidate is already something I'm well read up on from past elections.

It will also be telling whom is selected to be the running mates of both candidates.

[Stanley Burrell]

I-team is a hilarious term.

I'm a registered member of the I-team, and despite the fact that I will rarely, if ever vote for a Republican in the span of my life, we have this strange debacle we call "the primaries": And I'd rather have a vote that can count towards whichever candidate, during aforementioned primaries, out of my own admittedly naïve sense of principle.

The more level-headed people I know in the regular world outside these forums are either of R, I or D-team (besides non-declared) -- I'd almost be interested in knowing if registered Libertarians or Greens (i.e.) get the same 1/2 primary vote count if going either Republican or Democrat when state primaries take place.

[Clove]

For the record, I'm still undecided on who I will vote for.

And yes, I'm really trying to poke holes in the Obama campaign platform because if it cant stand up to scrutiny then it doesnt deserve my vote.

My doubts about McCain have more to do with him as a candidate than his platform. And McCain as a candidate is already something I'm well read up on from past elections.

It will also be telling whom is selected to be the running mates of both candidates.Running mates are really going to be a big factor. Obama hasn't convinced me that he's not going to continue a trend of deficit spending. McCain hasn't shown me he has a strong grasp on economic issues. Which evil, which evil. Hmmm.

[Back]

Obama has all the options right now. How many people do you think are lining up to be his VP vs how many people are lining up for McCain?

[Keller]

Obama has all the options right now. How many people do you think are lining up to be his VP vs how many people are lining up for McCain?

I'm moving to the DC metro area soon.

I seriously need the number of your "guy." You smoke some seriously good shit.

[Back]

I'm moving to the DC metro area soon.

I seriously need the number of your "guy." You smoke some seriously good shit.

I do not advocate illegal activities. But I’d be happy to buy you a beer.

[Keller]

I do not advocate illegal activities. But I’d be happy to buy you a beer.

I do believe Gan has a private message which might disprove that assertion.

In all honesty though -- what the hell makes you think that "Obama has all the options"? Because common VP candidates have expressly told him they don't want the job? Or because no one has told McCain they don't want the job? It's like there is the truth -- and then there is what Backlash says. And those two are necessarily mutually exclussive by reason of natural law.

Or at least that's all that I can assume.

[Back]

I do believe Gan has a private message which might disprove that assertion.

Really? Do you want to post it and argue about the merit of your, or Gan’s, or anyone’s assumption that it was incriminating?

You are a law student.

[Stanley Burrell]

Really? Do you want to post it and argue about the merit of your, or Gan’s, or anyone’s assumption that it was incriminating?

You are a law student.

Why do you do this?

[Latrinsorm]

Why do you do this?It's the bends... it's the flu! Gosh, I wish we had a clue.

[Keller]

Really? Do you want to post it and argue about the merit of your, or Gan’s, or anyone’s assumption that it was incriminating?

You are a law student.

First, explain to me why you said Obama has all the options as compared to McCain. Specific examples would be helpful.

Then, and only then, will I draw the carefully plotted premises that could lead even the most autistic among us to the conclusion that you were advocating illegal activity.

[Back]

I would have but you’ve already stated that you think what I say is opposite of the truth by not only reason, but nature.

What hope could I have of convincing you when you’ve already decided.

But seriously, who would you want to jump on the bandwagon with?

Can we commence with your drawing skills now?

[Stanley Burrell]

I know you're not the next unibomber, Backlash. No matter how many creepy/psycho comments you beget. Regardless of whether or not you've earned them in full.

I still want to know why you've recreated yourself in such a dramatic fashion from the way you used to post, C. There was no transition, even. What the motherfuck? What is this?

[Back]

Other people do not define me. I yam what I yam and thats all that I yam.

[Keller]

I would have but you’ve already stated that you think what I say is opposite of the truth by not only reason, but nature.

What hope could I have of convincing you when you’ve already decided.

But seriously, who would you want to jump on the bandwagon with?

Can we commence with your drawing skills now?

Give it a good faith effort.

What evidence supports your position that Obama has all the VP options?

[Stanley Burrell]

Other people do not define me. I yam what I yam and thats all that I yam.

You wouldn't quote Popeye when you hooked me up with a new avatar, or when I spoke to you in the past, etc. I just don't understand. You fleshed out normal malarkey for this board -- You had a totally different persona about you. I don't get it.

[Back]

Give it a good faith effort.

What evidence supports your position that Obama has all the VP options?

Why are you asking for evidence when I have only stated opinion?

Also, why are you now backing out of the deal?

[Keller]

Why are you asking for evidence when I have only stated opinion?

Are your opinions not formed by evidence?


Also, why are you now backing out of the deal?

Since the deal was that you would give your reasons for saying that Obama has all the options and now you expect me to perform -- I assume that your hypothetical of "who would you want to jump on the bandwagon with" was your reasoning.

Is this correct?

[Ravenstorm]

You wouldn't quote Popeye when you hooked me up with a new avatar, or when I spoke to you in the past, etc. I just don't understand. You fleshed out normal malarkey for this board -- You had a totally different persona about you. I don't get it.

This is irony, right?

[Paradii]

Shootz, Back came and ruined a perfectly good thread about PB being a jackass.

For shame....for shame.

[Back]

Are your opinions not formed by evidence?



Since the deal was that you would give your reasons for saying that Obama has all the options and now you expect me to perform -- I assume that your hypothetical of "who would you want to jump on the bandwagon with" was your reasoning.

Is this correct?

Dur?

[Stanley Burrell]

This is irony, right?

I am still the same asshole with more one-liners than run-on sentences and I lol @ Methais more frequently. Uh, yeah, I guess that's a tad ironic.

We don't have any long-term posters who haven't changed aspects about how they present themselves through their main userhandles. I'm bringing it up because it pisses me off that any one person could change that much, that quickly and never bother returning to anything remotely close to what they once were.

I wouldn't ask someone in real life if a relative died/witnessed a murder/was raped/eating disorder/drugs/divorce/fired/etc. to explain their wholly new personalities. I get to hide behind this computer screen and remain morbidly curious and ask questions at the same time.

So, in summation, that is why I am all WTF mate^^?!?!11one all up in this electronic brick beotch of a forum, my good Ravenstorm.

[Keller]

Dur?

I don't speak retard. Is that a yes or a no?

[Back]

Keller, the deal has now changed...

When you tell me about how I’ve been remiss about illegal behavior, which is a very strong accusation, I’ll clue you in to how I’ve come to the opinion that I have.

[Sean of the Thread]

rofl

Give it up you fucking fruitloop.

[Keller]

Keller, the deal has now changed...

When you tell me about how I’ve been remiss about illegal behavior, which is a very strong accusation, I’ll clue you in to how I’ve come to the opinion that I have.

Remiss about illegal behavior? Do you just use words you've heard in an approximation of their function in the english language? Anyways.

You said you've not advocated illegal activity. You also advocated that you and Gan should "smoke some stuff and chill out."

Take a random sampling of the American population and present them with the suggestion, "We should smoke some stuff and chill out" and see what they would infer your implication to be. Let's be generous to you and say that maybe 3 out of 100 would say something other than marijuana. Perhaps tobamel or another derivitive of tobacco. The other 97 would say you implied the use of marijuana. Marijuana is a controlled substance and as such the unsanctioned use or possession is a crime. Crimes are necessarily illegal.

So the overwhelmingly obvious inference of "We should smoke some stuff and chill out" is that the "stuff" is marijuana, a controlled substance that is illegal, a crime, to possess or use in a non-sanctioned environment. Even if you did not intend for Gan and you to smoke marijuana, the public at large, upon hearing your suggestion, would take your statement to mean that you should smoke marijuana. Therefore, REGARDLESS OF YOUR SUBJECTIVE INTENT, the objective inference is that you advocate the use of marijuana -- a controlled substance which is illegal to use of posses -- therefore making you the advocate of an illegal activity.

[Back]

Dude, I don’t want some of whatever you are smoking.

[Keller]

Dude, I don’t want some of whatever you are smoking.

You continue to exceed my expectations for you. It's like I keep expecting you to at least maintain some consistent level of effortful-irrationality and you consistently up the ante.

I wont be waiting up for you to explain "Obama has all the options."

[Parkbandit]

Yeah, you pretty much haven't been reading PB. Gan, CT and I had been saying we were undecided between McCain and Obama from the beginning. And if you're a moderate or independent that's not such an extreme call. However, Ilvane (who has posted consistent with a hardcore Democrat) said she was voting for Hillary and would vote for McCain, essentially in protest if Obama won the candidacy.

If you can't tell the difference between an undecided and a protest vote, then you really do need Aricept.

Wait.. when did Ilvane say she was voting for McCain as a protest vote? My understanding was that she simply didn't like Obama.

Are you pulling a Daniel here, or did I just miss Ilvane's revelation?

[Parkbandit]

Other people do not define me. I yam what I yam and thats all that I yam.

You should let your yam post for you.. I imagine we would understand it better.

At the very least, I doubt the yam would be as big of a joke as you've become.. especially baked with brown sugar and butter.

[Gan]

Wait.. when did Ilvane say she was voting for McCain as a protest vote? My understanding was that she simply didn't like Obama.

Are you pulling a Daniel here, or did I just miss Ilvane's revelation?

I dont recall Ilvane ever saying she was voting McCain as a protest.

I do recall her saying she was voting McCain because she identified more with him than Obama (but not Hillary - which gave us almost a thousand posts in multiple threads to have fun with ).

[Gan]

Dude, I don’t want some of whatever you are smoking.

ROFL at your 'smoke some stuff" PM coming back to haunt you.

http://i68.photobucket.com/albums/i3/3strangedays/BacklashandCher-1.jpg

[Fallen]

lol at saving PMs from 06 as HARD EVIDENCE.

[Clove]

I dont recall Ilvane ever saying she was voting McCain as a protest.

I do recall her saying she was voting McCain because she identified more with him than Obama (but not Hillary - which gave us almost a thousand posts in multiple threads to have fun with ).She didn't ever say she would vote for McCain in protest- but given her line of reasoning it would either be a protest vote, or she has no clue what she's voting for or why; I give her the benifit of the doubt :D.

And by protest I mean, not voting against someone by voting for their competition- regardless of their position.

http://gravity.dnsprotect.com/~gsplayer/forum/showpost.php?p=668111&postcount=18

http://gravity.dnsprotect.com/~gsplayer/forum/showpost.php?p=669503&postcount=71

As far as Angela was concerned it was all about NOT voting for Obama, from the very beginning. Not so much "I like both candidates for different reasons and haven't decided which is best yet." which has been CT's reasoning from the beginning.

[Parkbandit]

lol at saving PMs from 06 as HARD EVIDENCE.

You make it sound like Gan saved that PM JUST for proof... When in fact it takes more effort to delete a PM than to do nothing. Bob type logic there.

I have over 3k PMs... But I can assure you none are being saved for evidence.

[Parkbandit]

She didn't ever say she would vote for McCain in protest- but given her line of reasoning it would either be a protest vote, or she has no clue what she's voting for or why; I give her the benifit of the doubt :D.


OK

(sounds like something Daniel would post)

[Gan]

lol at saving PMs from 06 as HARD EVIDENCE.

Photobucket FTW. I've had that thing photobucketed since I posted it initially 2 years ago. If its being hosted for free and not taking up space on my hard drive - why delete it?

lol @ you thinking this is one big conspiracy against Backlash.

[Latrinsorm]

You make it sound like Gan saved that PM JUST for proof... When in fact it takes more effort to delete a PM than to do nothing. Bob type logic there.

I have over 3k PMs... But I can assure you none are being saved for evidence.l2computer, plz.

[Parkbandit]

l2computer, plz.


I'm not surprised that confused you. Please do elaborate though as I am bored and could use an idiot to entertain me.

[Clove]

OK

(sounds like something Daniel would post)"I don't know which I would rather, almond or pistachio"

"I'll take anything but pistachio."

If you can't see a distinction between these two statements, then maybe you shouldn't be voting at all.

[Parkbandit]

"I don't know which I would rather, almond or pistachio"

"I'll take anything but pistachio."

If you can't see a distinction between these two statements, then maybe you shouldn't be voting at all.

I just call it like I see it man. You first claimed that Ilvane is voting for McCain out of protest... Now you claim that it's just your logical conclusion... That in fact Ilvane made no such claim.

Sounds much like the way Daniel's debate technique... If the fact doesn't support your claim, then make it up. If called out, claim logical conclusion.

[Daniel]

If you can't see a distinction between these two statements, then maybe you shouldn't be voting at all.

Welcome to the light.

[Parkbandit]

I rest my case.

[CrystalTears]

I just call it like I see it man. You first claimed that Ilvane is voting for McCain out of protest... Now you claim that it's just your logical conclusion... That in fact Ilvane made no such claim.
It sounded to me like he was using reasoning from the beginning.


However, Ilvane (who has posted consistent with a hardcore Democrat) said she was voting for Hillary and would vote for McCain, essentially in protest if Obama won the candidacy.

[Clove]

I just call it like I see it man. You first claimed that Ilvane is voting for McCain out of protest... Now you claim that it's just your logical conclusion... That in fact Ilvane made no such claim.

Sounds much like the way Daniel's debate technique... If the fact doesn't support your claim, then make it up. If called out, claim logical conclusion.Oh I'm sorry. I didn't realize making inferences wasn't allowed.

I claimed Ilvane is voting for McCain out of protest against Obama, which I inferred from her posts, and I gave you the links to some of the posts that led me to this conclusion. I have never said that Ilvane claimed to be voting for McCain in protest of Obama- and I don't NEED her to. There is plenty of evidence from which to safely draw that conclusion.

I can also infer that you don't have much respect for Daniel's opinions, from the posts between you two, without needing your express claim. And I don't think anyone here would dispute that conclusion.

PB, you sound like an ass. Don't take it out on me, just because Ashliana is on vacation and Daniel and Keller aren't keeping you entertained.

[Keller]

this has got to be thread of the year. So much entertainment!

[Parkbandit]

Oh I'm sorry. I didn't realize making inferences wasn't allowed.

I claimed Ilvane is voting for McCain out of protest against Obama, which I inferred from her posts, and I gave you the links to some of the posts that led me to this conclusion. I have never said that Ilvane claimed to be voting for McCain in protest of Obama- and I don't NEED her to. There is plenty of evidence from which to safely draw that conclusion.

I can also infer that you don't have much respect for Daniel's opinions, from the posts between you two, without needing your express claim. And I don't think anyone here would dispute that conclusion.

PB, you sound like an ass. Don't take it out on me, just because Ashliana is on vacation and Daniel and Keller aren't keeping you entertained.

I believe Ilvane has actually stated that her vote for Mccain isn't a protest vote, so I less likely to just take your inference over what she actually posted.

Like I said, you need us to believe that is her reason to help your overall conclusion... So you simply wish us to believe you assertion and hope we just forget what she actually posted (since that doesn't work for you)

I do apologize for calling your debate tactics very Daniel like... That is pretty rude, but overall accurate.

[CrystalTears]

I believe Ilvane has actually stated that her vote for Mccain isn't a protest vote, so I less likely to just take your inference over what she actually posted.

Like I said, you need us to believe that is her reason to help your overall conclusion... So you simply wish us to believe you assertion and hope we just forget what she actually posted (since that doesn't work for you)

I do apologize for calling your debate tactics very Daniel like... That is pretty rude, but overall accurate.
It makes me gaffaw that you're on Ilvane's side politics-wise.

You seem to be the only one at this point who was convinced by her reasoning for going from Hillary to McCain.

[Clove]

I believe Ilvane has actually stated that her vote for Mccain isn't a protest vote, so I less likely to just take your inference over what she actually posted.

Like I said, you need us to believe that is her reason to help your overall conclusion... So you simply wish us to believe you assertion and hope we just forget what she actually posted (since that doesn't work for you)

I do apologize for calling your debate tactics very Daniel like... That is pretty rude, but overall accurate.Right because if she denies the inference, it mustn't be true.

I need to point out that it was her attempts to construct an alternate reason that caused her to take heat from the board about the ridiculousness of her reasoning.

Had she owned up and said, "I just don't want to vote for Obama under any circumstances" well, that would be one thing. It was when she began the tapdance on how McCain was really a quality candidate, etc. that posters raked her over the coals.

[Parkbandit]

It makes me gaffaw that you're on Ilvane's side politics-wise.

You seem to be the only one at this point who was convinced by her reasoning for going from Hillary to McCain.

There are some issues that Hillary is closer to McCain than she is to Obama and depending on what you deem more important to you, it's not that much of a reach for you to vote for him when Hillary dropped out.

I would think YOU would understand that... Since you reasoning is that you can't decide who to vote for.

I'm just amused how you are trying to portray yourself as this enlightened voter who is trying to decide between a moderate Republican and a flaming liberal... But Ilvane is just some bitter bitch for not automatically voting for Obama.

[CrystalTears]

Whatever PB. Just as long as you rake everyone else who is considering Obama as well over the coals, because I'm not the only one.

[Clove]

There are some issues that Hillary is closer to McCain than she is to Obama and depending on what you deem more important to you, it's not that much of a reach for you to vote for him when Hillary dropped out.Possibly. You're welcome to elaborate on them. Even still "some issues that Hillary is closer to McCain" on than Obama is a fairly weak argument for Ilvane especially since (among other things) one of issues Ilvane seemed most strongly interested in was national healthcare, which Obama is more similar to Hillary on. Ilvane's retort? Hillary will make it happen but Obama won't. So of course it makes sense to just drop the issue entirely and go for "the other guy".

Let's not forget that as "close" to "some issues" as Hillary and McCain may be, McCain became an option after Hillary, after Edwards and only in response to Obama winning the candidacy. In fact she initially said that if Obama won the candidacy she might vote Republican. That really doesn't imply that someone is on the line between Hillary and McCain, now does it?

But you know, as long as she denies it. It's like you're defending the closet homosexual that lives with her partner for 10 years, dresses and behaves as butch as possible and hangs out at the "gay friendly" bar every weekend but "never said she was gay... and denies it when called bisexual, or a lesbian." Okayy.


I don't need you, or anyone to agree with my inferrence on Angela's reasons for voting McCain over Obama- the evidence is there in her posts. You can go "lalalalalalala" if you like.

[Sean]

Originally Posted by Parkbandit
There are some issues that Hillary is closer to McCain than she is to Obama and depending on what you deem more important to you, it's not that much of a reach for you to vote for him when Hillary dropped out.

It is when you've already indicated your core issues and they align most with Obama and not McCain but then change your issues when your candidate loses. On top of that she changed her entire criterion for voting when her candidate was eliminated from issues to character judgments and hinged her vote on things like "well Obama might compromise too much." or that arbitrarily McCain will be a better leader.


Originally Posted by Ilvane

1. Since McCain's issues are pretty much polar opposite from Hillary's, how can you take that stance?

I can tell you exactly why. McCain's stance on Immigration is closest to how I think. I don't agree with Hillary entirely on it. Also, I really his plans for the Veterans, and specifically disabled veterans. It's important to me.

I also appreciate his candor, and his ability to stay strong in what he believes in.

2. Who will you vote for if the final candidates are Clinton and McCain? And for what reasons?

If it's Clinton and McCain it would be Clinton, because she is closer to my stance on issues than he is.


Originally Posted by Gan
First lets go back to the "what are your issues poll". In it you selected the following issues are whats most important to you:

1. Healthcare
2. Education
3. Poverty
4. Rural Aid
5. Iraq war
6. National Security
7. Foreign policy

Keep in mind this poll was posed without any specific candidate in mind. It was generic to ALL candidates.

So now, lets look at the issues specifically with regards to Clinton, Obama, and McCain.

1. Healthcare: Clinton and Obama are almost identical, McCain is the opposite
2. Education: Clinton and Obama are almost identical, McCain seems to back the No Child Left Behind effort as it stands.
3. Poverty/Rural Aid: Clinton and Obama are again, almost identical. McCain's approach is through GOP platform of tax cuts etc. (opposite of DNC).
4. Iraq War: Obama wants the troops out now. Clinton supports phased redeployment. McCain is the opposite.
5. National Security: Clinton - not an issue on her site. Obama - focuses on domestic efforts. McCain includes domestic and international efforts.
6. Foreign Policy: Clinton - non-protectionist social driven foreign agenda. Obama - non-protectionist diplomatic driven policy. Both similar to each other with the main difference of military expansion supported by Obama. McCain - aggressive stance against terrorist organizations/states, supports military expansion, less focus on diplomacy and greater emphasis on defense structures - way different than Obama and Clinton.

As you'll notice, Obama and Clinton's stances are pretty much the same according to the issues that matter to you the most.


Originally Posted by Ilvane

Actually there is a such a thing as compromising too much, and not compromising at all.

I think, from what I've read on Obama, and looked into, that he would be willing to compromise too much.

Angela


Originally Posted by Ilvane

Healthcare
Education
Poverty

Those are my top three. Yes, I agree. I also feel that Immigration is also important, being that my mother was an immigrant and her family had to go through it the tough way.

I like McCain on his ideas of security. When faced with a choice between Obama, who I would not trust to be a strong leader, and McCain who I would trust to be that, I would pick McCain, for those very reasons, that I feel he would be a principled, strong leader.

[Clove]

Careful Sean... she never SAID she was voting against Obama....

[Gan]

I'm just amused how you are trying to portray yourself as this enlightened voter who is trying to decide between a moderate Republican and a flaming liberal...

You know, this brings up an interesting issue and one specifically that I'm going through this election season.

For all intents and purposes I'm more a Republican than a Democrat if one were to adhere to lables. However, I am not a straight ticket voter and I disagree with some of the previous GOP platform issues (and possibly this election season's issues once they're finalized/adopted) while agreeing to some of the platform issues of the DNC.

The issue is voting for the candidate that not necessarily is best for me or my issues but on a larger scale who will be the best candidate/thing for this country at this point in time in history. Do we need a Democrat or a Republican president right now and in the next 4 years... thats my delimma. And this does not only represent our position domestically but now globally, moreseo than ever now that we are in a global information/market age.

This is why I'm undecided. This is why I consider myself an independant - because I refuse to be forced into voting for a party ideal/platform over the bigger picture as best as I can interpret it.

As far as the Ilvane nonsense, she was outed early on because she appeared (to me at least) as racist in her (illogical) reasoning for supporting Hillary and her platform up until and if she would be defeated by Obama - then she would vote for McCain. Thats how I interpreted her posts, her reasonings, and how I posted. I'm really suprised that its come up again - that horse has been beat to death quite a while ago.

[Gan]

Thanks for posting Sean.

That sums up the Ilvane issue nicely.

[Clove]

Thanks for posting Sean.

That sums up the Ilvane issue nicely.And that's also the second time you called me "Daniel", PB and I expect an apology.

[Valthissa]

The issue is voting for the candidate that not necessarily is best for me or my issues but on a larger scale who will be the best candidate/thing for this country at this point in time in history. Do we need a Democrat or a Republican president right now and in the next 4 years... thats my delimma.

I came to the conclusion in the early 90's that divided government was the best government I could hope for. In practical terms that means I only have to examine the candidates positions when divided government is assured and I can vote my conscience. In this cycle I'm almost certainly voting straight Republican because there is a very real threat that Democrats could control the House, Senate, and the Presidency.

Unfortunately that means that since I live in Virginia I'll be voting for Gilmore, a proven douche, over Warner who appears unusually normal for a politician.

C/Valth

[Daniel]

Oh I'm sorry. I didn't realize making inferences wasn't allowed.



You obviously don't read a lot of PB posts.

Re: The rest of this thread

:rofl: ing hard.

[Clove]

You obviously don't read a lot of PB posts.

Re: The rest of this thread

:rofl: ing hard.Well, it's possible I missed prior bans. I usually skip the stuff between you and PB and Keller and PB.

[Clove]

I came to the conclusion in the early 90's that divided government was the best government I could hope for...

C/ValthI came to a similar conclusion and I've been voting, Democrat, Republican and Green (that's right bitches! http://southdakotapolitics.blogs.com/south_dakota_politics/images/cynthia_mckinney.jpg for Pres 2008!!!) ever since- despite this conclusion I do still try my utmost to vote for candidates who support issues that are important to me as much as I can.

[Daniel]

Well, it's possible I missed prior bans. I usually skip the stuff between you and PB and Keller and PB.

Yea. PB doesn't like "Logical inferences" he calls it 7 degrees of keven bacon or some other nonsense. It's best if you just stick to hyperbole and unsubstantiated personal attacks.

If all else fails, say the person doesn't have a job.

[CrystalTears]

It's best if you just stick to hyperbole and unsubstantiated personal attacks.
That would explain his undying love for Ashliana.

[Parkbandit]

And that's also the second time you called me "Daniel", PB and I expect an apology.


I already apologized for that. It was over the top and rude as hell.

Sorry again.

[Parkbandit]

Yea. PB doesn't like "Logical inferences" he calls it 7 degrees of keven bacon or some other nonsense. It's best if you just stick to hyperbole and unsubstantiated personal attacks.

If all else fails, say the person doesn't have a job.

I could use your debating talents.. just make it up and if someone questions me on it, avoid the topic.. or at the very least post "I meant to say" and come up with something completely unrelated to the initial bullshit.

And really Danny boy, you shouldn't throw stones in that glass house you are probably renting.

[Parkbandit]

That would explain his undying love for Ashliana.


That must be it.

OR, it's just sarcasm and it went completely over your head.

[Clove]

That would explain his undying love for Ashliana.


That must be it.

OR, it's just sarcasm and it went completely over your head.Or maybe you're BOTH sarcastic. Now make nice and get back to tormenting Daniel and Keller.

[Daniel]

I could use your debating talents.. just make it up and if someone questions me on it, avoid the topic.. or at the very least post "I meant to say" and come up with something completely unrelated to the initial bullshit.

And really Danny boy, you shouldn't throw stones in that glass house you are probably renting.

I've avoided *what* topics again?

I've already told you where to find the congressional testimony. Don't expect me to hold your hand. Then again, it's not like you've ever avoided a topic or anything...

P.s. I own my place. thanks ;)

[Stanley Burrell]

I like how you would never consider bashing or criticising a liberal on this message board.

Unlike you, I don't let party affiliations determine who I will criticise and who I won't. I'm an equal opportunity basher.

See sig.

Edited five or six minutes later to add: Which is what this thread is about, btw. Actually, yes it is, so you can get the deez.

[Latrinsorm]

I'm not surprised that confused you. Please do elaborate though as I am bored and could use an idiot to entertain me.I was obliquely pointing out that the screenshot was dated from 2006, making your "DELETING P2PS IZ HARD" statement totally irrelevant.

:welcome:

[Parkbandit]

I was obliquely pointing out that the screenshot was dated from 2006, making your "DELETING P2PS IZ HARD" statement totally irrelevant.

:welcome:


So you just proved you have trouble understanding the written English language. Fantastic. Well done.

I'll go ahead and dumb this down for you as much as possible... as to not completely confuse you.

If you get a private message, it takes more effort to delete it than it does to do nothing to it. You aren't exactly 'saving' it as Fallen had originally inferred.

L2computer.

L2english.

Thanks for the laughs at your expense though.

[Parkbandit]

I've avoided *what* topics again?

I've already told you where to find the congressional testimony. Don't expect me to hold your hand. Then again, it's not like you've ever avoided a topic or anything...

P.s. I own my place. thanks ;)

I'm still waiting for the actual source for the US Military uses 60% of all the US energy and that is why we opted out of the Kyoto.

That shit never gets old though.. thanks.

[Keller]

Does anyone know the difference between a flaming liberal and an EXTREME liberal? I can't tell which label indicates a person is further along the libral spectrum. On the one hand there is powerful imagery but on the other hand someones shift key was depressed during multiple keystrokes.

[Latrinsorm]

If you get a private message, it takes more effort to delete it than it does to do nothing to it. You aren't exactly 'saving' it as Fallen had originally inferred.Screeeeenshot, means taking a piiiiiicture, and then explicitly going through the motions of saaaaaaving it. :)

[Back]

Take a random sampling of the American population and present them with the suggestion, "We should smoke some stuff and chill out" and see what they would infer your implication to be. Let's be generous to you and say that maybe 3 out of 100 would say something other than marijuana. Perhaps tobamel or another derivitive of tobacco. The other 97 would say you implied the use of marijuana. Marijuana is a controlled substance and as such the unsanctioned use or possession is a crime. Crimes are necessarily illegal.

So the overwhelmingly obvious inference of "We should smoke some stuff and chill out" is that the "stuff" is marijuana, a controlled substance that is illegal, a crime, to possess or use in a non-sanctioned environment. Even if you did not intend for Gan and you to smoke marijuana, the public at large, upon hearing your suggestion, would take your statement to mean that you should smoke marijuana. Therefore, REGARDLESS OF YOUR SUBJECTIVE INTENT, the objective inference is that you advocate the use of marijuana -- a controlled substance which is illegal to use of posses -- therefore making you the advocate of an illegal activity.

Your and Gan’s argument has never had legs.

Take a random sampling of people and ask them the most common slang term for “lets smoke some marijuana and chill out” and I guarantee you almost no one will call marijuana “stuff”.

No one here can conclusively state that I sent those actual words through a PM to Gan except Gan, myself, and the mods. I could have claimed Gan photochopped it, which would be effortless, but I have never denied I sent it.

Observe the intent of the PM. When you use the word “advocate” what do you think it was that I was actually “advocating”? It was early in the morning and I was trying to offer up an olive branch to Gan, in all honesty, to give the rest of the PC community a break from our back and forth ranting at each other. To this day I don’t understand why Gan bears this torch. It was a good faith PM on my part that he and I stop spamming bullshit and let things go.

I told him I had respect for him but his trying to use my good faith against me has changed my opinion of him. Just a little bit.

Were I to suggest that Gan and I smoke pot together and chill out I would have said so. But there are many things people smoke to chill out. Cigars, crack cocaine, ketamine, heroin, opium, catnip... the list goes on...

So to summarize... The intent of my PM to Gan was to advocate good behavior for this community, that a PM to one person is not exactly an advocation in the sense of proclamation, no matter how you interpret it “stuff” is a very vague term that could mean just about anything including atoms, and that its not uncommon for people to smoke things to relax.

I think a crackhead argument would have been much funnier.


Photobucket FTW. I've had that thing photobucketed since I posted it initially 2 years ago. If its being hosted for free and not taking up space on my hard drive - why delete it?

lol @ you thinking this is one big conspiracy against Backlash.

You aren’t the only person here who compulsively saves all kinds of things. Do you have a folder named Backlash where you save everything I post? How long have you been stalking me now? Do I need a restraining order?


And that's also the second time you called me "Daniel", PB and I expect an apology.

Consider it a compliment because you are no Daniel.

[Parkbandit]

Screeeeenshot, means taking a piiiiiicture, and then explicitly going through the motions of saaaaaaving it. :)

I think the rep you have of taking an insignificant piece of a post or series of posts and dwelling on that, even though it has zero to do with anything in the thread is perfectly illustrated in this series of posts by you.

When Fallen posted, he used the term "PM". I responded to that post. Gan chose to put it in a photobucket for some reason and THEN you decided to chime in with your fantastic insight that had nothing to do with my response to Fallen.

Well done dipsssssssshit.

[Parkbandit]

Your and Gan’s argument has never had legs.

Take a random sampling of people and ask them the most common slang term for “lets smoke some marijuana and chill out” and I guarantee you almost no one will call marijuana “stuff”.

No one here can conclusively state that I sent those actual words through a PM to Gan except Gan, myself, and the mods. I could have claimed Gan photochopped it, which would be effortless, but I have never denied I sent it.

Observe the intent of the PM. When you use the word “advocate” what do you think it was that I was actually “advocating”? It was early in the morning and I was trying to offer up an olive branch to Gan, in all honesty, to give the rest of the PC community a break from our back and forth ranting at each other. To this day I don’t understand why Gan bears this torch. It was a good faith PM on my part that he and I stop spamming bullshit and let things go.

I told him I had respect for him but his trying to use my good faith against me has changed my opinion of him. Just a little bit.

Were I to suggest that Gan and I smoke pot together and chill out I would have said so. But there are many things people smoke to chill out. Cigars, crack cocaine, ketamine, heroin, opium, catnip... the list goes on...

So to summarize... The intent of my PM to Gan was to advocate good behavior for this community, that a PM to one person is not exactly an advocation in the sense of proclamation, no matter how you interoperate it“stuff” is a very vague term that could mean just about anything including atoms, and that its not uncommon for people to smoke things to relax.

I think a crackhead argument would have been much funnier.



You aren’t the only person here who compulsively saves all kinds of things. Do you have a folder named Backlash where you save everything I post? How long have you been stalking me now? Do I need a restraining order?



Consider it a compliment because you are no Daniel.


Sweet fucking jesus.

http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e6/belike53/You-Are-Fucking_Retard.gif

[RichardCranium]

Your and Gan’s argument has never had legs.

Take a random sampling of people and ask them the most common slang term for “lets smoke some marijuana and chill out” and I guarantee you almost no one will call marijuana “stuff”.

No one here can conclusively state that I sent those actual words through a PM to Gan except Gan, myself, and the mods. I could have claimed Gan photochopped it, which would be effortless, but I have never denied I sent it.

Observe the intent of the PM. When you use the word “advocate” what do you think it was that I was actually “advocating”? It was early in the morning and I was trying to offer up an olive branch to Gan, in all honesty, to give the rest of the PC community a break from our back and forth ranting at each other. To this day I don’t understand why Gan bears this torch. It was a good faith PM on my part that he and I stop spamming bullshit and let things go.

I told him I had respect for him but his trying to use my good faith against me has changed my opinion of him. Just a little bit.

Were I to suggest that Gan and I smoke pot together and chill out I would have said so. But there are many things people smoke to chill out. Cigars, crack cocaine, ketamine, heroin, opium, catnip... the list goes on...

So to summarize... The intent of my PM to Gan was to advocate good behavior for this community, that a PM to one person is not exactly an advocation in the sense of proclamation, no matter how you interoperate it“stuff” is a very vague term that could mean just about anything including atoms, and that its not uncommon for people to smoke things to relax.

I think a crackhead argument would have been much funnier.



http://i84.photobucket.com/albums/k15/troydenh/image683887x.jpg

[Latrinsorm]

When Fallen posted, he used the term "PM". I responded to that post. Gan chose to put it in a photobucket for some reason and THEN you decided to chime in with your fantastic insight that had nothing to do with my response to Fallen.It's terrifying that you honestly remember it happening in that order, but that aside the post of Fallen you refer to in fact used the term "saving PMs" - that you were unable to piece together that the screenshot itself was 2 years old in no way indicates that no one else was. Given that your response to Fallen was entirely constituted by your erroneous defense, nothing could have more to do with it than a direct rebuttal of your proposed hypothesis for data storage.

Do you ever wonder what it would look like if someone had the same level of fascination with you as you have with Daniel? Your accusations of error on his part pale in comparison to your many undressings here, though I imagine it would grow just as tiresome.

[Parkbandit]

It's terrifying that you honestly remember it happening in that order, but that aside the post of Fallen you refer to in fact used the term "saving PMs" - that you were unable to piece together that the screenshot itself was 2 years old in no way indicates that no one else was. Given that your response to Fallen was entirely constituted by your erroneous defense, nothing could have more to do with it than a direct rebuttal of your proposed hypothesis for data storage.

Do you ever wonder what it would look like if someone had the same level of fascination with you as you have with Daniel? Your accusations of error on his part pale in comparison to your many undressings here, though I imagine it would grow just as tiresome.


Point taken. I didn't see Gan's post on the previous page, only his response to Fallen. My point still stands that you extract the tiniest morsel of a post and completely blow it out of proportion. We call that pulling a Latrine.

Well done though Latrine. You really got me. Kudos to you. Feel free to photobucket this post as evidence of your huge victory.

PS - I believe there is a gigantic difference between a missed post on my part and a repeated pattern of fabrication by Daniel. Unfortunately, I would never, ever expect someone with your 'talent' of focusing on tiny parts of a post or thread to see this, let alone understand it.

PPS - I hope I spelled everything correctly in this post, I wouldn't want you to go on and on and on again if I had a typo of any sort.

[Gan]

Your and Gan’s argument has never had legs.

No one here can conclusively state that I sent those actual words through a PM to Gan except Gan, myself, and the mods. I could have claimed Gan photochopped it, which would be effortless, but I have never denied I sent it.


Observe the intent of the PM. When you use the word “advocate” what do you think it was that I was actually “advocating”? It was early in the morning and I was trying to offer up an olive branch to Gan, in all honesty, to give the rest of the PC community a break from our back and forth ranting at each other. To this day I don’t understand why Gan bears this torch. It was a good faith PM on my part that he and I stop spamming bullshit and let things go.

I told him I had respect for him but his trying to use my good faith against me has changed my opinion of him. Just a little bit.

Were I to suggest that Gan and I smoke pot together and chill out I would have said so. But there are many things people smoke to chill out. Cigars, crack cocaine, ketamine, heroin, opium, catnip... the list goes on...

So to summarize... The intent of my PM to Gan was to advocate good behavior for this community, that a PM to one person is not exactly an advocation in the sense of proclamation, no matter how you interpret it “stuff” is a very vague term that could mean just about anything including atoms, and that its not uncommon for people to smoke things to relax.

I think a crackhead argument would have been much funnier.



You aren’t the only person here who compulsively saves all kinds of things. Do you have a folder named Backlash where you save everything I post? How long have you been stalking me now? Do I need a restraining order?



Consider it a compliment because you are no Daniel.
Actually, thats the only thing regarding you, aside from the demotivator "hypocrite" that resides in my misc. art photobucket file. For proof - run a search for users "3strangedays" and "Learningtewfly". Those are my two photobucket accounts (because I lost the password to 3strangedays...). You'll see all that I've saved regarding Fun with PC art.

So please, dont flatter yourself. The only information I have stored about you is only in mockery - and I only need that on rare occasions since you're still providing daily entertainment on your own accord.

[Back]

Actually, thats the only thing regarding you, aside from the demotivator "hypocrite" that resides in my misc. art photobucket file. For proof - run a search for users "3strangedays" and "Learningtewfly". Those are my two photobucket accounts (because I lost the password to 3strangedays...). You'll see all that I've saved regarding Fun with PC art.

So please, dont flatter yourself. The only information I have stored about you is only in mockery - and I only need that on rare occasions since you're still providing daily entertainment on your own accord.

Flattery gets you everywhere.

[Parkbandit]

Actually, thats the only thing regarding you, aside from the demotivator "hypocrite" that resides in my misc. art photobucket file. For proof - run a search for users "3strangedays" and "Learningtewfly". Those are my two photobucket accounts (because I lost the password to 3strangedays...). You'll see all that I've saved regarding Fun with PC art.

So please, dont flatter yourself. The only information I have stored about you is only in mockery - and I only need that on rare occasions since you're still providing daily entertainment on your own accord.

You didn't keep the retard poster he made for you.. that was self pwning?

I don't want to call you a fucking liar....

:)

[Daniel]

I'm still waiting for the actual source for the US Military uses 60% of all the US energy and that is why we opted out of the Kyoto.

That shit never gets old though.. thanks.

Uh.. It's in the post...that you have quoted in your signature.

I don't know how much more you fucking want.

[Daniel]

You didn't keep the retard poster he made for you.. that was self pwning?

I don't want to call you a fucking liar....

:)

Lol. @ the icing on the cake being PB talking about self pwning.

[Gan]

Flattery gets you everywhere.

Is that why you still live alone?

[Gan]

You didn't keep the retard poster he made for you.. that was self pwning?

I don't want to call you a fucking liar....

:)

You got me there - I do have the self-pwn poster he made. That was too classic not to save on photobucket.

[Clove]

Your and Gan’s argument has never had legs.

Take a random sampling of people and ask them the most common slang term for “lets smoke some marijuana and chill out” and I guarantee you almost no one will call marijuana “stuff”You're a fool. Even if "stuff" isn't usually used as slang for marijuana, or drugs the phrase, "lets smoke some stuff and chill out" would overwhelmingly be interpreted as "lets smoke some marijuana (or other illegal drug)" by the average American. A ten minute survey of the people around you in any given location will confirm this.

To put it another way, if you asked the average American for the first slang word that came to their mind for "penis" the most common word probably would not be "sausage". But if you said, "What a sausage fest" nobody would think you were talking about culinary event. Context FTW.

[CrystalTears]

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN2930446220080729?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democrat Barack Obama's highly publicized foreign trip does not appear to have increased confidence in his ability to be president and may have helped energize supporters of Republican John McCain, according to a poll published on Tuesday.

A USA Today/Gallup poll of 1,007 adults, conducted Friday through Sunday, showed a surge in likely Republican voters compared to a month ago and a country evenly divided about whether to withdraw U.S. forces from Iraq under a timetable.

The data published in USA Today's Tuesday editions showed Obama leading McCain 47 percent to 44 percent among registered voters, down from a 6-percentage point lead last month. Meanwhile, McCain led 49 percent to 45 percent among likely voters, reversing a 5-point Obama lead in group.

The margin of error was 4 percentage points for both registered and likely voters.

USA Today said majorities of voters told pollsters that Obama would do a better job than McCain in dealing with foreign leaders and handling relations with other countries.

But 41 percent said they did not think he could handle the job of commander-in-chief -- about the same as the 40 percent who said the same thing last month, before Obama's 10-day trip to Europe and the Middle East that ended over the weekend.

Obama's trip received good reviews from 35 percent in the poll, while about one-quarter viewed it negatively and 38 percent said they did not know enough to express an opinion.

Six in 10 Republicans said news media coverage of Obama's trip was "unfairly positive."

-------------

I wasn't completely against him making the trip, but in retrospect, it didn't need to be done at all.