Clinton, Obama on collision course tonight

But actually what I said wasn't condescending or offensive, I just had a feeling it would be taken that way, so to avoid changing the topic I was going to edit one small irrelevant comment out, not the entire post as you felt was needed. :rolleyes:

Calling the Vietnamese "armed combatants" is an idiotic comment for anyone to make, that's nothing personal. Anyone with a gun can be considered an "armed combatant". The majority of American citizens can be considered "armed combatants" for simply owning a gun. The Vietnam war was an ideological war against communism, it wasn't a war against a threatening country. Russia was our threat, not Vietnam, but our politicians didn't have the balls to go to war with Russia, so instead we go to war with one of their piss poor allies in an attempt to fight against the communism ideology. I should also point out that much of the weaponry came from Russia, so Russia was essentially arming and feeding a poor country that didn't know any better. Demonizing the Vietnamese is a pathetic way of justifying our actions against a country caught in the middle of two highly militarized nations.

Obviously that war failed, and a lot of innocent Vietnamese died because of it. Ideological wars can never succeed, our war against communism ended with the self implosion of Russia, but communism still exists today and we have managed to live at peace with these differences in ideologies. The same is going on with terrorism, the war on terror is another ideological war. Just like communism, terrorism is not something that can be won militarily. No matter how evil we try to paint our enemies, this war will never end because of our military might. That only emboldens our enemy and makes them stronger and more united against us.

The very word terrorist is a loosely used word tossed around like we tossed around the word communist, it's another modern day witch hunt. Anybody can be labeled as a terrorist, or a sponsor of terror. These loosely defined words are used as justifications for the horrors we commit against non-threatening people in the world. So as I pointed out with my McCain example, ANYBODY can be considered a terrorist, even someone who obviously loves his country and would never want to intentionally cause harm to his countrymen. So making any connections to Obama and terrorism is completely ridiculous and idiotic, just as my connection of McCain to being a terrorist was idiotic had I been serious.

If you disagree, then I'd love to hear you explain how Obama can be compared to the same mentality that caused a group of alienated people to fly commercial jets into buildings full of innocent people. If you honestly believe any presidential candidate, such as Barack Obama, can in anyway sympathize with people like that, then I'd love to hear your explanation of how those two mentalities have any connection at all. Or will you do as you normally do, and just remove my posts when you can't argue against it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nailhead

But actually what I said wasn't condescending or offensive, I just had a feeling it would be taken that way, so to avoid changing the topic I was going to edit one small irrelevant comment out, not the entire post as you felt was needed. :rolleyes:

---

Actually I would have IF we had the edit option for user posts in here. People in here aren't "idiots" and that type of insult is no longer allowed. NOT my rules...the sites!

That gives me one of two choices....just delete the post and give a bit of a hint OR give an infraction which I'd just as soon not do. Either way would result in the same thing, deletion/closing of the post/thread. We ALL have our own beliefs and I believe we are all old enough to debate issues without insulting each other.

Have a good one!:jointsmile:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nailhead

If you disagree, then I'd love to hear you explain how Obama can be compared to the same mentality that caused a group of alienated people to fly commercial jets into buildings full of innocent people. If you honestly believe any presidential candidate, such as Barack Obama, can in anyway sympathize with people like that, then I'd love to hear your explanation of how those two mentalities have any connection at all. Or will you do as you normally do, and just remove my posts when you can't argue against it?

---

McCain may be considered as a terrorist in Vietnam but he's considered a hero here in the states. Likewise, Osama and friends are considered hero's in their region but terrorists here. William Ayers is considered a terrorist, self admitted, in the states and the good Rev. Wright is considered a racist. I'm NOT saying that Obama is either but I do say he has a bad choice for friends and mentors. Makes ya think; Do birds of a feather tend to flock together?

Have a good one!:s4:

My post above points out how it WASN'T a personal attack, I would like to assume everyone is smart enough to understand calling a comment idiotic is not the same as calling a person an idiot, but some people don't always make that connection. This is normal and why I was going to edit out that comment so this topic wouldn't go into an irrelevant he said, she said argument, but thanks for taking it that direction and away from anything worth discussing.

Now, if you would like to get back on topic and argue against my points, be my guest. :thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nailhead

This is normal and why I was going to edit out that comment so this topic wouldn't go into an irrelevant he said, she said argument, but thanks for taking it that direction and away from anything worth discussing.

---

To bad ya didn't. That edit feature works great! Keep it peaceful, not insultive, and you'll have no problems with posts in the future.

Have a good one!:jointsmile:

That assumption is assuming Obama is too stupid to talk to people of different beliefs. I enjoy talking to people with different views than my own, so I don't see anything wrong with being friends with someone you call a terrorist. Another point is that you continue to use this word terrorist even after I have clearly pointed out how loose that word can be used. It makes me wonder if any of the 5 people visiting the politics section is even reading my posts, if not then I'm wasting my time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Psycho4Bud

To bad ya didn't. That edit feature works great! Keep it peaceful, not insultive, and you'll have no problems with posts in the future.

Have a good one!:jointsmile:

---

It wasn't insulting, how many times do I have to point that out to you? Again you ignore the substance of my posts because you can't argue against what I am saying regarding the topic at hand. Instead, you are trying to change the topic because that is all you can argue against.

So again, back on topic or do you want to continue this irrelevant discussion about nothing?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nailhead

It wasn't insulting, how many times do I have to point that out to you?

---

I'm done with this bullshit! Debate without the insults or find a site that goes for that. Easy enough. Your choice but from here on this line of discussion WILL be deleted and I'll only waste my time doing it for so long.

"Now go think about that for a little while before conjuring up an idiotic response"....this is insultive and not allowed in here not to mention it probably would have been the base for a flame war between you and the other member. IF this is your regular attitude, you may want to explore other sites.

Have a good one!:jointsmile:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nailhead

That assumption is assuming Obama is too stupid to talk to people of different beliefs. I enjoy talking to people with different views than my own, so I don't see anything wrong with being friends with someone you call a terrorist.

---

I talk with people that hold other beliefs also...to a point. When/if they come across as racists I say GOODBYE! If they were to brag about acts of terrorism that resulted in setting off bombs that caused innocent people to die...once again GOODBYE!

``He says what he has to say as a politician. I say what I have to say as a pastor,'' Wright said in an interview with PBS's ``Bill Moyers Journal'' scheduled to air tonight. ``They are two different worlds.''
Bloomberg.com: Worldwide

As for the return of his controversial former pastor Rev. Jeremiah Wright who gave a recent interview to Bill Moyers and said Obama played politics in his response to the controversy, Obama said Wright's response was "to be expected".
Political Radar: Obama: Rev. Wright's Response 'To Be Expected'

Seems even the good Rev. thinks Obama is just playing politics regarding his statements.

Have a good one!:s4:

..........I know I say this a lot on here but.....I'm still baffled why people are actually going to VOTE one of these terrible people into office. I mean, it's not like things are actually going to get BETTER in the U.S. I mean come on, let's face it, we are on a downhill slope that theres no fuckin' way out of. Regardless of who decides to sit their fat ass in the Oval Office (well, except Obama, he's pretty slim), we're going to continue being hated and no one in America will actually get along and get anything done.

The only real way for change is complete revolution, starting with everyone refusing to vote. Eventually we'd probably have to move on to armed resistance and invoke our 2nd amendment rights and establish our own state-militias. Thats what I'm banking on and expecting. Ugh, I sound like some backwoods Montana radical but I guess they have it right. I'm sorry, but if any of you REALLY think this election will cause any kind of good vibes, you're just silly. I'd like to pat you on the head.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Psycho4Bud

McCain may be considered as a terrorist in Vietnam but he's considered a hero here in the states. Likewise, Osama and friends are considered hero's in their region but terrorists here. William Ayers is considered a terrorist, self admitted, in the states and the good Rev. Wright is considered a racist. I'm NOT saying that Obama is either but I do say he has a bad choice for friends and mentors. Makes ya think; Do birds of a feather tend to flock together?

Have a good one!:s4:

---

You put it better than I could have.

People don't realize that we're not accusing Obama of anything but rather that we have to consider the company he keeps when thinking about choosing Obama for either the Dem party nominee or as our president.

That same sentiment holds true for both Hillary and McCain.

WALLACE: ... don't voters have a legitimate interest in who you are and what your values are?

OBAMA: I don't think that the issue of Reverend Wright is illegitimate.
FOXNews.com - Transcript: Barack Obama on 'FOX News Sunday' - FOX News Sunday | Chris Wallace

There was more to the answer but this pretty much states that even Obama feels that this should be an issue worth discussion.

Oh yeah, I find it a bit ironic that the dems feel it's o.k. to go onto FOX to clear their names but not to have a debate. :wtf:

Have a good one!:s4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by daihashi

uhh don't look at the facts? How many times have I pointed out obama's voting record? I even provided links to it.

Several people in this thread whom I will leave unnamed have chosen just to argue for arguments sake instead of providing relevant evidence with references to back it up.

How is anyone supposed to take them seriously.

And yes you did miss the point entirely.

Just because a crackhead smokes crack, or a meth addict does meth it doesn't mean they would necessarily do something bad if elected as president. Sure he may never sell government secrets if elected, but it doesn't mean the possibility isn't higher because of it.

Now I ask you, despite that, would you want a heavy meth/heroin addict (currently addicted) in the most powerful office in the nation? Especially if the opposing candidate is not a crackhead/heavy drug abuser.

Situation is a bit different but the concepts are the same.

I accept everyone for who they are but it doesnt necessarily mean that I want them inside my home. Make sense?

If not then I give up because some people just can't see what's right in front of them. I used to be the same way between the ages of 18-23 or so.

I've yet to see one person who's been supporting obama to counter the voting record issue that I stated several times throughout this thread.

To me this seems to indicate there is no rebuttal, that the people on the forum supporting obama are not educated/informed on his political background, or they just find it easier to argue rather than provide evidence.

Again I have to say this again because I get the impression that some Obama supporters think I'm bashing him. I'm not, I'm simply stating his past and how I perceive his character. There aren't any Hillary or pretty good Mccain threads for me to jump in on and state their obvious flaws. At least no threads that interest me.

I don't like Hillary or McCain either. This entire election is a joke, just like 4 years ago.

---

1st for a record, I do want to say I do not support Obama in anyway. I think you are lumping me in the wrong catagory. When I made that statement I was speaking in general, not like "people that looks at facts will only vote for Obama." Voters tend to vote on their emotions rather than hard facts and the people that are associated with Obama tend to give voters pause due to their flaws on character. Rev. Wright is an example of such a polarizing figure.

With that said when you point to his voting record while it does show that he's not willing to take a stand on a lot of issues, a lot of those bills have earmarks added to that could have an entirely different outlook to the bill. It indicates he doesn't want to be politically trapped. In some ways it's crafty, but he'll take a hit because it's hard to solidfy his stances on issues.

With that said, I can agree with you on Obama's backpeddling. I don't like it either, especially on his statement refering to rural voters as "bitter." If he stuck with his guns rather than back-peddled, I would've respected him as a candidate a lot more.

However the question of character in association with Bill Ayers and Rev. Wright are blown out of proportion. Bill Ayers-Obama connection is at best a weak connection. When people speak of this connection as if it were solid, they haven't looked at the facts they simply listened to a commentators view of it and agrees with it.

I have a very good example of what I mean. Whether you choose to believe this or not isn't the point, but how would you associate my character.

When I lived in Switzerland I was in the same class with Kim Jong-Chol, the son of Kim Jong-il. At the time, I didn't know of his true identity. However, I was his friend and we hung out together just like kids would.

Now if I was running for president and this news came up, it would be painted in the exact way as Obama. I had ties with a dictator state that wanted to do harm against America would be the conclusion painted, exactly like the Bill Ayers story. Except it doesn't explain much. People are imaginative of how the connection to this person reflects what kind of character this person has when they fail to explore how strong this connection truly is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thcbongman

. . . There's no doubt McCain will milk this issue whether with Obama or Hillary (when Bill Clinton pardoned 2 weathermen will come into question if Hillary is nominated.)

---

aaah! i knew there was a Clinton connection, just couldn't remember. thanks.