This has got to be the funniest New York Times editorial I’ve ever seen. This from a paper supporting Senator Obama? Really?
This is just embarrassing.
Defending the liberal tradition in history, science, and philosophy.
Defending the liberal tradition in history, science, and philosophy.
This has got to be the funniest New York Times editorial I’ve ever seen. This from a paper supporting Senator Obama? Really?
This is just embarrassing.
{ 41 comments }
I’m going to go out and say the following:
Anyone that says Palin isn’t qualified to be VP for her lack of experience, and yet votes for Obama, is intellectually bankrupt.
There’s no other explanation.
Well, there is…
They have the emotional maturity of a child and wants, like a child, to be taken care of rather than take care of themselves.
So, there it is Obama supporters:Â Intellectually bankrupt or emotionally stunted.
Take your pick.
There may be some way to view Senator Obama as more qualified than Governor Palin, but darned if I can figure out what. Is it spending time in Indonesia as a child? Growing up in Hawaii? Having an Ivy League degree? I’m just scratching my head and wondering how you get there from here.
That’s not comedy – check out this week’s SNL, I’m sure it will be up on Youtube - they nailed Palin. Great job!
Here you go imbed that if you want real comedy.
http://embeds.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/09/14/palin-catches-snl/
"I can see Russia from my house!"
LOL! That was pretty good.
Dean: it’s the fact that he can do more than awkwardly regurgitate talking points after weeks of catch-up cramming. Â That he actually has thought out positions on things of national importance, like them or not, and understands them. Â You can try to claim the same about Palin, but you’d just come off looking silly.
Of course, McCain thinks she knows more about energy policy than anyone else in the country, so at least you’d be in the company of a Presidential candidate in such silliness.
Bad:
Heh, dream on. I love this. The smear campaign continues on every level possible, from the anchor chairs of the major media outlets to the cheap-seat comments of major and minor blogs.
Y0u go Bad! Oh, you nailed her! I don’t know WHAT I was thinking!
ROTFLMAO!!!!!
CosmicConservative’s last blog post..Toon of the Day
Many Obama supporters are, like Bad, simply delusional.  They don’t apply logic when choosing their leaders.  It’s all about feelings and perception.  Facts that don’t fit their view simply get ignored, or explained away. They’ll often project their own leader’s weaknesses on their “enemiesâ€. Â
Obama is perfect for those folks. Â He is the ultimate Mr. Teleprompter. He has a true talent for delivering canned, pre-parsed talking points. Â Â
Other Obama supporters are hard core party loyalists who will vote for whoever happens to be on the ticket. Â Some of that is corruption based, some is more honest quid pro quo voting. Â Others will vote for him because someone else told them to.
Seems the New York Times isn’t good enough anymore to wrap old fish in.
And Bad: Well thought out positions? Like the original grab bag of policy suggestions on the Russian invasion of Georgia, many of which were being done by the Bush administration, which included Obama suggesting going to the UN (not understanding that Russia held veto power and this from the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on European Affairs) only to have Obama to finally change his position to the one McCain originally took?
Please, put down the Kool Aid and, for yourself and your fellow citizens, start thinking for yourself.
Bad: I’m often surprised how such an intelligent guy like you actually believes the talking points of the Obama campaign. The man is an intellectual lightweight with no foreign policy credentials beyond one single visit to Iraq and a rock-star style tour of Europe as part of his Presidential campaign. Oh, right, and he spent some time in Africa and Indonesia as a kid.
So what you’ve got here is a candidate who’s been in constant cram-session mode to put out the right, carefully focus-grouped responses to foreign policy questions for a year or so, vs. one who’s only been doing it a month, but who has at least had to deal with Canadian government and with major international corporate executives. And you’ve also got a guy with ZERO executive experience that matters. AND, your guy is at the TOP of his ticket.
Good lord. You guys put an intellectual and experiential and intellectual lightweight on your ticket, and now you want to talk about the Vice Presidential candidate of the other party? REALLY?
Dean:
You are trying to use rataionality and logic on Bad.
It won’t work, because it doesn’t matter.
Democrat = smart, loving, good, kind, decent,, worldly
Republican = stupid, hateful, evil, nasty, cruel, redneck.
Didn’t you get the memo? I think it’s been made pretty clear.
CosmicConservative’s last blog post..Toon of the Day
I really don’t see Bad that way at all. He’s rational, he’s just enthralled with his candidate’s campaign.
Dean:
I’m sure in general Bad is a decent, caring, kind and rational person.
But every post I’ve seen from him since the Sarah Palin thing has been mindless talking point Leftist drone stuff.
If he doesn’t want to be called on it, then he should apply some of that rational thought he has to the situation and reach reasonable, logical conclusions.
They are out there to reach.
Here’s an example:
Barack Obama is a very intelligent man who has risen from very humble beginnings to a situation of national prominence. He has demonstrated many enviable qualities, most notably the ability to write and speak well. He has gotten through his chosen careers so far without major scandal, although there are questions about several of his associations with marginal or radical people. He ran a very good campaign for the first year or so he was running for President and in general he presents a very knowledgeable and reasonable face to the world. He has energized millions of people in this country and around the world with his uplifting oratory and his idealistic approach to politics. It is quite possible that he will handle the day to day management and executive decision making processes that go with being President as well as most of our Presidents have done. In spite of his obvious lack of experience, there have been other Presidents with similar lack of experience and some of them are now ackowledged as among the greatest to have served. My primary beef with Obama is that he has throughout his career demonstrated a severe Leftist agenda, and I am on the exact opposite side of him on a large number of major issues. I do not agree with his POLICIES and I think he would appoint SCOTUS justices in the mold of Ruth Bader Ginsberg or Stephen Breyer, and I don’t want more of them. So I oppose Obama. He has a tendency to get caught up in his own rhetoric and he has demonstrated remarkable ignorance or naivetee on many subjects since he has been in the public eye, but he has learned quickly and in spite of those mistakes, I have no doubt that he is intellectually capable of serving in the office of President Of The United States.
Now, that that entire paragraph and change the orientation and I could say virtually EXACTLY the same thing about Sarah Palin EXCEPT THAT I AGREE WITH MANY OF HER POLICIES, as I understand them so far.
I don’t need to call Obama an ignorant hayseed in order to justify why I oppose him and support McCain/Palin. I can stick to the policy issues.
In my opinion, of all of the four people on the two tickets, it is Sarah Palin who has the MOST experience in running an executive administration with all the things that go along with that. McCain and Biden have VASTLY more experience than Palin in national or international politics. Each of them has over 30 years in that role, as compared to Obama’s FOUR years, and only TWO when he began to run for office.
If EXPERIENCE of the sort that OBAMA has was really the KEY issue in this campaign, then JOE BIDEN should be at the top of the Democrat ticket.
If you aren’t willing to make that argument, then any argument you make about Palin is simply pandering to the ignorance and bias of the Left.
Any of the four could turn out to be great Presidents. Any could turn out to be horrible ones. My personal opinion is that McCain/Palin brings more to the table than Obama/Biden, but that’s because I agree more with their policies.
I wish Bad, and Mikeca and others here could address the election without dropping into the gutter and attacking the PEOPLE. I try to attack the policies.
I actually think that Obama is proabably a sincere, dedicated public servent who truly believes his ideology is the RIGHT ideology. I don’t question his intelligence, his ability, his willingness or his potential.
I question his IDEOLOGY and his POLICIES and I like McCain/Palin’s better.
The bottom line is that the two tickets have remarkable similarities and one striking difference.
The similarities are that both have a long-time, well-known, highly experienced national figure and a brand new, unknown person with very little national or foreign policy experience.
The DIFFERENCE between the two is that the Republicans have the EXPERIENCED one at the TOP of their ticket, while the Democrats have put their EXPERIENCED one at the BOTTOM.
So basically STFU about experience unless you want to put Biden as President and Obama as VP. OK?
CosmicConservative’s last blog post..Toon of the Day
Does anyone think Oz…bama’s time working in the southside of Chicago gives us a reason to pause? I believe more will come out about, Acorn and how he learned dirty politics. I hope McCain’s people will come out with more information on this as well as an indepth look into Oz’s pal that helped him buy the 1/4 acre of land next to his home.
Did you know that the govenor of Illinois (forget his name, Mike something, a Democrat) stuck up for Palin and her work experience. The media is so awful towards Palin (my Toto), that I just cringe. It is true that Oz…, is behind the lawyers and media wanting her to suffer the TROPPERGATE. They plan a big October surprise and I just hope the McCain’s can find the truth about Oz…bama. I know there are things to find out, I just feel it real strong.
Oh, and does it make sense when Oz…, says he will give 95% of Americans a tax break? Isn’t that just about what McCain is offering?
I’m sorry if I seem to ask dumb questions but many times I am trying to help my girlfriend that is for the first time ever, getting into politics.
Dean:
Bad: I’m often surprised how such an intelligent guy like you actually believes the talking points of the Obama campaign. The man is an intellectual lightweight with no foreign policy credentials beyond one single visit to Iraq and a rock-star style tour of Europe as part of his Presidential campaign.
Obama, Oct 2, 2002:
[Saddam]’s a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.
But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.
I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.
I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars.
Barack Obama in 2002 knew far more about the situation in Iraq and the consequences of a war with Iraq than most of the so called "foreign policy experts." You continue to slander him as an intellectual lightweight. I guess true foreign policy "experts" are the ones who have spend years being completely wrong.
"Â I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East,…."
Wrong
Â
"….and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, "
Wrong
"….and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda."
Wrong.
Quite the expert.
This is actually good news. Nobody cares what the Editorial Board of the NY Times thinks. If those Cappuccino drinkin’ whiners are worried about something, usually, that "something" is good.
HB
Jaymaster:
"I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East,…."
Wrong
"….and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, "
Wrong
"….and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda."
Wrong.
Quite the expert.
Is this a joke Jaymaster? Are you really that poorly informed. Perhaps if you did not spend all day watching FOX and listening to hate radio, you would know that all of those are all true.
Reality has a liberal bias. Learn to live with it rather than denying reality.
Kevin D;
Anyone that says Palin isn’t qualified to be VP for her lack of experience, and yet votes for Obama, is intellectually bankrupt.
There is no question that Obama has less experience than John McCain, but it is experience being right on issue, especially foreign policy issues. John McCain has a mixed record. He has sometimes taken reasonable positions on domestic policy, but in his run for president he has flip-flopped on everyone of those issues. John McCain has a long record of being wrong on foreign policy issues. Experience being wrong does not really count, unless you can show you learned something from being wrong. McCain has not learned from being wrong.
Palin simply is not a serious candidate. She is a small town mayor and a small state governor, who has never really thought or said much about national or foreign policy issues. If John McCain were a young health man, that would not make much difference, but he is not.
In the end this is not about Palin. It is about John McCain’s judgment, or rather lack of judgment.
Â
Not a joke. Â
The first one is still a bit of a toss up, I’ll admit, but all are arguably wrong today. Â
Now, they were probably true two years ago. Â Â And if we would have withdrawn as Obama wished, all would have most likely turned out still true today.Â
This is the basis of the “he would rather lose a war than lose an election†line, which, IMO, is a bit of a stretch.  But that’s politics. There’s a kernel of truth there.
Jaymaster:
You have to understand that in the world Mikeca, Bad and Obama live in, ALL THOSE THINGS ARE STILL TRUE.
That’s why Mikeca can, with NOT A HINT OF IRONY ask you "is this a joke?" You see, to HIM it is. I wonder if mikeca and Bad still think of Patreus as "General Betray-us".
When you have invested your entire self-worth into a belief, FACTS DON’T MATTER.
And for the most part, neither do tactics. The ends justifies the means. That’s why these “kind, decent, tolerant, inclusive” people can slime a woman and her family without a hint of shame. To them IT’S WORTH THE COST TO KEEP A RETHUGLICAN OUT OF OFFICE.
CosmicConservative’s last blog post..Toon of the Day
You have to understand that in the world Mikeca, Bad and Obama live in, ALL THOSE THINGS ARE STILL TRUE.
That’s why Mikeca can, with NOT A HINT OF IRONY ask you "is this a joke?" You see, to HIM it is. I wonder if mikeca and Bad still think of Patreus as "General Betray-us".
Perhaps you missed this: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7610405.stm
Oh, I forgot. These kind of facts never penetrate the information bubble is which you are hiding.
There is no question that 8 years stupid, wrong headed domestic and foreign policy has greatly weakened the United States. Fighting two wars, while cutting taxes and not growing the military has left the US poorer and weaker. John McCain is promising to continue those policies, fight even more wars, cut even more taxes.
If you want a president who will make the US still poorer, weaker and more isolated, vote for McCain. McCain will lie to you about how well everything is going to make you feel better.
CC, There’s some truth to what you’re saying.  But I keep giving them the benefit of the doubt.Â
If patience truly is a virtue, it’s the last one I’ve got….
Loved the Obama quotes from 2002. He was wrong then, and has been wrong throughout most of his Presidential campaign, and although he has moderated his stance in admirable ways, he has so far lacked the intestinal fortitude to say so openly even as he’s backpeddled.
Like I said: an intellectual lightweight with no meaningful experience. Watching his fans try to spin Sarah Palin as the one lacking experience merely because they like his opinion on the issues more than they like hers is, quite literally, laugh-out-loud funny.
I don’t like to taunt, I really don’t. But it’s hard not to. What are you guys smoking?
Mike:
Seriously, I can’t tell if you are habitually disingenuous or if you are literally so blinded by your partisanship that you cannot comprehend straight English anymore.
I’ll overlook that the BBC is a highly biased "news" organization…
This is so similar to the "100 years in Iraq" nonsense that I just love how willfully people are in interpreting "facts" to support their ideology.
Patreus says he won’t declare victory in Iraq. Well, guess what, NEITHER WOULD I! That’s because the only VICTORY that can be declared in Iraq would have to be declared by a FREE and INDEPENDENT IRAQI DEMOCRATIC GOVERNMENT.
Nobody else CAN claim victory. But it is not necessary to DECLARE VICTORY to call the surge a SUCCESS. All you have to do is look at actual facts, such as this one: "Fewer American men were violently killed in Iraq this summer than were killed in BARACK OBAMA’s HOME TOWN OF CHICAGO." That’s some community organizer you got there mikeca.
As far as Afghanistan is concerned, here’s a news flash for you mike…. There’s a REASON things are getting tougher in Afghanistan at the same time that they are getting better in Iraq. That’s because our enemies have decided they can’t fight a TWO-FRONT battle against us and are focusing now on ONE FRONT.
That, if you are unable to realize it, is a STRATEGIC ADVANTAGE for the good guys.
This is why the Left is accused of wanting to lose. Because you seem to be taking some satisfaction in the current worsening situation in Afghanistan. Just think how bad you’d feel if it were going great too!
And give it time. It will. If Obama can be kept out of office.
You can try to spin things however you like.
Man, I can’t imagine what your state of mind is going to be like if Obama loses.
CosmicConservative’s last blog post..Toon of the Day
And this is why Democrats cannot believe that when they lose elections it’s because America rejected their argument. They know the average American agrees with their worldview and therefore when they lose elections they know their political opponents must have done something dishonest/unlawful/immoral.
Bush stole the election from Gore. Kerry was Swift-boated.
And when Obama loses? America is racist.
It’s impossible for their argument to be rejected and the above statement proves that mindset be true. This is why liberals must shut down debate whenever they can. Pro-life? You hate women. Discussion over. Don’t buy into global warming? "Consensus" says you’re wrong. Discussion over. Want secure borders? You’re xenophobic. Discussion over. Pro-traditional marriage? You hate gays. Discussion over.
Reality has a liberal bias? The only thing liberalism and reality have in common is that they’ve never met.
Kevin:
That’s what I meant by mikeca, Bad and Obama living on an alternate world. I’m not kidding. They really do. Their world-view is so dramatically different from mine that when they open their eyes and move around in the physical world, they see a different world than I do.
Now, I’m just egalitarian enough (ironically, they are not) to consider that BOTH OF US are seeing a false world, and that the REAL world is somewhere in between, but I am firmly convinced that the world I see is closer to objectively true than their world is.
But it’s two totally different worlds.
I like mine better, and that’s why conservatives are generally more optimistic and happier than liberals. We sort of LIKE the country we see around us. Liberals DESPISE it.
I mean imagine what your life would be like if you got a nasty taste in your mouth and a knot in your stomach every time you saw a McDonalds or WalMart, or saw a pickup truck with a gun rack in it?
Now imagine you felt that way and you found yourself SHOPPING at Wal-Mart or EATING at McDonalds…
Time to get out the Rolaids man…
CosmicConservative’s last blog post..CNN spins, spins, spins?
This is really getting sad. Even the Army Times has figured out that John McCain is a liar.
http://www.armytimes.com/news/2008/09/defense_mccain_FCS_091208/
John McCain is morally unfit to be president.
It all boils down to lefties = emotion, righties = reason.
Therefore, when liberals are not in charge, they are depressed. When a Clinton or Carter type is in charge, they feel much better, even though in reality the country may not be going so great.
I still remember Whoopi Goldberg on O’Reilly proudly proclaiming her views were based on emotion – not reason. O’Reilly did not challenge or remark on that, just let it fly.Â
Very interesting.
And this is why Democrats cannot believe that when they lose elections it’s because America rejected their argument. They know< the average American agrees with their worldview and therefore when they lose elections they know their political opponents must have done something dishonest/unlawful/immoral.
This is just plain silly. Democrats have lost elections because they have not been willing to sling as much mud as Republicans and to lie the way Republicans lie.
It use to be when the press caught Republicans lying, they would just drop the claim and move on to some new claim. McCain has simply continued to lie even after the press has published stories all over the place pointing out that McCain is lying.
McCain routinely says that Obama will raise "your" taxes, when actually Obama will cut taxes for 95% of Americans by more than McCain. McCain is just plain lying.
McCain says Obama wants to teach sex education in kindergarten. This is a wild claim that Alan Keys made up when running against Obama for the Senate. Do you really think that the voters of Ill. would elect someone who wanted to teach sex education in kindergarten to the US Senate? The media has fact checked this claim and found it absolutely false. McCain is just flat out lying.
McCain stands by the Palin lie that she told Congress "thanks but no thanks" for the bridge to nowhere. Interesting, apparently Palin dropped that line from her stump speech when she was in Alaska, because everyone in Alaska knows it is a lie, but now that she is back in the lower 48, she is back to lying again.
McCain claims Palin never requested any earmarks as governor, even though she requested $236 million last year and $197 million this year. Those are the highest per capita earmarks of any state. McCain is just lying.
If John McCain is lying about all these things that can be fact checked, then he is probably lying about almost everything. You cannot trust anything he says to be the truth. John McCain is simply consumed by his ambition to be President, and he willing to sell his soul to the devil to be president.
John McCain is morally unfit to be president.
Oh geez mikeca… where to start?
First – the mud-slinging advantage is demonstrably to the Dems this time around at least. Surely you can admit that much? The squealing that erupts from Obama as soon as someone asks him about Ayers or Wright is deafening, but contrast this with Palin’s stoic refusal to comment on the slagging she has received from the left-wing press and blogosphere.
And let’s see Obama reduce income taxes for the 40% of Americans that don’t pay any. If he cut taxes across the board, he would still only reach 60%.
Regarding the bridge – Palin made a decision not to build the bridge, right? This really should be the end of the argument, but in the interests of Dem mudslinging (!), the story must be parsed and resucitated repeatedly in a desperate bid to undermine her.
You may argue that her reason for making that decision was not to your liking, that’s a whole different debate - but you cannot deny the fact that her decision is the reason that there is no bridge to Ketchikan.
krontekag:
You are making the same mistake as Jaymaster. You are assuming mikeca lives in the same world you do.
He doesn’t!
Every misstatment of a conservative means they are liars. Every misstatement of a liberal means they were misunderstsood.
Now I am no fan of John McCain and haven’t been for years, and I do think he is making an error in his ads by allowing his surrogates to misrepresent some things. But to suggest that his campaign is doing this more than Obama’s is just plain ridiculous.
First we had Obama publicly opposing the Free Trade agreement while sending his aides to Canada to say "no, really, that’s just campaign talk, ignore that." Now we have him publicly demanding troop withdrawals from Iraq while telling the Iraqi leaders to not make any decisions until HE is in office so HE can take the credit for them."
Of course mikeca will not see it this way because that’s not what happened in his world.
You guys just don’t get it. Let me repeat it for you:
Democrat = smart, loving, good, kind, decent, worldly
Republican = stupid, hateful, evil, nasty, cruel, redneck.
mikeca doesn’t need to know any more than that.
CosmicConservative’s last blog post..CNN spins, spins, spins?
Oh, mikeca, for the record, the Army Times article you linked reveals two things.
1. Not everyone in the military is a fan of John McCain’s. Some of them have been upset by his lack of support for some proposed weapon systems. Gee, this is a shock, politics exists even in the military.
2. Comparing John McCain’s lack of support for SPECIFIC BUDGET ITEMS for some proposed weapons systems to Obama’s BLANKET STATEMENT about developing new weapons systems is enough of a twisting of the actual facts that I can plausibly say that it is the Army Times itself that is playing fast and loose with the facts.
They are playing "gotcha" with McCain to get him back for cutbacks in the research and development budgets of the military.
In my world anyway. In your world I’m sure it looks a whole lot different.
CosmicConservative’s last blog post..CNN spins, spins, spins?
1. Not everyone in the military is a fan of John McCain’s. Some of them have been upset by his lack of support for some proposed weapon systems. Gee, this is a shock, politics exists even in the military.
2. Comparing John McCain’s lack of support for SPECIFIC BUDGET ITEMS for some proposed weapons systems to Obama’s BLANKET STATEMENT about developing new weapons systems is enough of a twisting of the actual facts that I can plausibly say that it is the Army Times itself that is playing fast and loose with the facts.
They are playing "gotcha" with McCain to get him back for cutbacks in the research and development budgets of the military.
In my world anyway. In your world I’m sure it looks a whole lot different.
Ah, so now the Army Times is part of the liberal medial. LOL.
This is a good example of how you simply exclude facts from you personal reality that don’t fit in with your world view. John McCain was caught lying yet a again:
This is what Obama said: “I will cut tens of billions of dollars in wasteful spending. I will cut investments in unproven missile defense systems. I will not weaponize space. I will slow our development of Future Combat Systems.â€
In July the McCain campaign gave media an economic plan that said: “There are lots of procurements — Airborne Laser, [C-17] Globemaster, Future Combat System [sic] — that should be ended and the entire Pentagon budget should be scrubbed.â€
Now McCain says: “He promised them he would, quote, ‘slow our development of Future Combat Systems. This is not a time to slow our development of Future Combat Systems.â€
So in July McCain wanted to completely kill FCS, but now he is attacking Obama for suggesting we should slow development. That my friend is morally dishonest, and is why McCain is morally unfit to be president.
There is an interesting article on Political Slander:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/14/AR2008091402375_pf.html
The research shows that political slander can change peoples views of a candidate, even after they are informed that the slander is not true.
The most surprising thing, is that conservatives, and only conservatives, are more likely to believe a political lie, if they are also told the truth as well as the lie.
Er, I just read the Army Times piece, and it’s clearly an editorial, not a news report, written by one Bradley Peniston with help from one Antonie Boessenkool.Â
These two people are of course entitled to their opinions; that’s what editorials are for. In any case, they never call Senator McCain a liar (and by the way, for the record, calling someone a liar when you simply disagree with them is the most classic and common type low, dirty politics).
Senator McCain is highly critical of the Army’s "Future Combat Systems" program. I somehow doubt he is critical of development of new systems, but rather, is critical of that one program that goes by that name. And he wants to see the Pentagon budget gone over carefully to remove waste and unnecessary projects. Whether we agree with the specifics or not, I can’t criticize him for wanting to do that on general principles, and it’s pretty clear that Senator Obama also wants to cut defense spending significantly.
As is so common, Republicans go after Democrats for wanting to cut defense and Democrats go after Republicans for other things entirely (like abortion or helping the rich or whatever) even though on a policy level they’re usually far closer together than they let on.
I think McCain can both defend his own desires for cuts and believe Obama’s will be less responsible than his, which is all this seems to amount to. In any case, there’s no "liberal conspiracy" necessary at the Army Times for a couple of their employees to point out how they see this in an editorial.
For whatever all that’s worth.
mike, you have become so intellectually dishonest that it is frankly impossible to discuss anything with you.
You misrepresent and misstate positions as a matter of course, set up your straw men and then knock them down with glee while the real argument goes off in a direction you simply are incapable of following.
I had considered rebutting your comment, but there’s no point, and frankly you’re not worth the time. Besides Dean made some good points himself on this. As usual it’s all a matter of what color the sky is in your world. Mauve?
CosmicConservative’s last blog post..Dadman’s iPod Sampler
Heh, Mikeca uses an article in the Washington Post to demonstrate how stupid conservatives are.
Paint me surprised by that. rotflmao
CosmicConservative’s last blog post..Dadman’s iPod Sampler
This has to be one of my favorite lines in a long, LONG while…
Quotes mikeca:Â "Fighting two wars, while cutting taxes and not growing the military has left the US poorer and weaker"
Not growing the military ? A Democrat / Obama supporter is saying the NOT growing the military is a bad thing ? Wow.
As if there is anything on the planet WORSE for the US military than a Democrat in the White House. If you are honestly concerned that the US military is not currently big enough or strong enough, then there is no argument whatsoever for voting for Obama, ignoring the fact that his opponent is John McCain.Â
That is simply a ROTFLMAO moment if I have ever heard one.
Mikeca has lost his mind it would appear. Cosmic is correct: There’s no point in talking to him at this point. His view is so willfully distorted there can be no common meeting ground.
Comments on this entry are closed.