AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › How to lose an election
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

How to lose an election - Page 4

post #121 of 123
6/4/08 at 4:44pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

No. You've obviously missed the lesson if you think it was to denigrate the idea of "change." Change, in and of itself, is not "worthy of mockery and ridicule." Change is unavoidable...

My problem is with Obama claiming to be the embodiment of "CHANGE" is because, in your fawning over The Big O, you miss that there is nothing new or innovative about BHO. His solutions are not "Change"- they are "Return," as in "Return to the policies of Mondale, Carter, LBJ, FDR, and Dukakis."

Barack Obama... "RETURN TO CARTER'S MALAISE WE CAN BELIEVE IN"

Uh, last I checked Mondale and Dukakis were never president. But I get your point.

However, to reiterate my point I'll...speak...very...slowly....

I have not found a single piece of evidence that proves Obama is claiming to be the embodiment of change. I do, however, find a TON of evidence that Obama is using the "idea" of Change as a marketing slogan.

You know, like "Yes, American Can" and "Moving America Forward" and "Compassionate Conservatism".

All campaigns use marketing gimmicks, rhetoric and symbolism. I just think it's utterly laughable that you guys have zero'd in Obama's campaign marketing and have mocked and ridiculed it while McCain pissily stumps in front of a green backdrop that he's the agent of change dammit!

Actually, you know what would be a great campaign slogan for McCain...

"GET OFF MY LAWN!" People might actually vote for him.
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
post #122 of 123
6/4/08 at 4:45pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Look at the list of countries that make up OPEC. Where two thirds of the world's oil comes from.

Most of them don't like us mainly because of Bush. Now consider how you would treat a customer you don't like. And it's not like they haven't done this before. Look up the oil embargo in the early 70's. Also it's easy to do because larger profits are made all the way around. Maybe China's growing appetite is part of this but it's not enough to account for this rapid rise in price.

U.S., Congress, Committee on International Relations, Special Subcommittee on Investigations,
Oil Fields as Military Objectives: A Feasibility Study, Report Prepared by the Congressional Research Service, 94th Cong., 1st sess., August 21, 1975, (Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 1975), Parts I and II, pp. 1-39.

Quote:
The possible use of U.S. military force to occupy foreign oil fields in exigency first surfaced as a serious issue in January 1975. This paper provides perspective, so that the Congress if need be could participate most meaningfully in deliberations to determine the desirability and feasibility of any such action.

Analysis indicates that sustained sanctions by all or most of OPEC's members would disrupt America's fundamental lifestyle and degrade U.S. security, although survival would never be at stake. By way of contrast, the vital interests of our major allies could quickly be compromised.

Any decision to ease agonies at home and (if need be) assist allies would be conditioned by political, economic, social, legal, and moral factors, but if nonmilitary facets were entirely favorable, successful operations would be assured only if this country could satisfy all aspects of a five-part mission:

--Seize required oil installations intact.
--Secure them for weeks, months, or years.
--Restore wrecked assets rapidly.
--Operate all installations without the owner's assistance.
--Guarantee safe overseas passage for supplies and petroleum products.

American abilities to cope with steps one through four would be suspect if sabotage were the only serious threat. U.S. parachute assault forces are too few to cover all objectives quickly. Amphibious forces are too slow. Skilled teams could wreak havoc before we arrived.

Presuming sufficient assets remained intact to serve U.S. interests, long-term security would remain a challenge. Two to four divisions plus substantial support would be tied down for a protracted period.

Shortages in specialized manpower and materials would make damaged facilities hard to repair or replace. Indeed, drafting U.S. civilian workers to supplant foreign counterparts might be mandatory.

This all sounds so familiar...oh wait...

Reply
Reply
post #123 of 123
6/4/08 at 6:38pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

jimmac:

Yeah, you really got me. Good one. Except of course, I'm not pointing out spelling errors. I'm pointing out major grammatical mistakes that show you have a poor comprehension of the written language.



On what do you base that? Your ass?



Yes, we'll see. And look...you may be right. Obama might win. I'm just saying that in terms of the math, I don't see how its possible given what we know today. In 6 months the polls could show something different. If Obama is leading in major swing states and nailing down the liberal base, my view will certainly change.



So you just said it: Your entire position is based on intuition. Man, I wish you were advising Obama. McCain's election would be friggin guaranteed.


All your doing SDW is showing that you're desperate and really don't have anything to add.

I'm sure you've got it all figured out. Just like you had it all figured out that the democrats couldn't take the senate in 2006.

What I'm basing this on is knowing people and having seen enough of these elections to know how things will probably go.

You are completely discounting how much of a bad taste Bush has left in the mouths of the voters out there. You don't think Bush has been all that bad. You've made that quite clear.


" On what do you base that? Your ass? "


If you haven't noticed lately Bush hasn't really been getting good press.

No I read and watch the news. Oh! I forgot you think it's all under the control of the " Criminal Liberal Media ". Geez!
Well most people don't think that way and they don't want a repeat of the same situation. What they want is change. Something new. McCain doesn't even come close to that discription in people's minds. You don't think that way so naturally you don't get it.

Sorry.

And SDW this one : " Yeah, you really got me. Good one. Except of course, I'm not pointing out spelling errors. I'm pointing out major grammatical mistakes that show you have a poor comprehension of the written language. "

Is based solely on your sour opinion because you don't like what's going on. It's a personal attack. You can " Cite " what ever you want but my time on this computer for sparing on PO is limited these days as my friend's teenage daughter ( who's like my daughter even though her mother and myself aren't married ) who lives with me uses it for her homework. So I don't have as much time to counter your sillyness and personal troll like attacks like I used to. However it's almost summertime for her as she graduates on friday and I'll probably have more of a chance to point out the error of your ways soon.

Most of us ( even you ) are lousy spellers when we're in a hurry and it has nothing to do with our understanding of the subject at hand. Which when backed into a corner you seem to want to avoid.

My comprehension of the written language is just as good as yours. This is just utter bullshit that you're making up. Really I thought you could come up with something better. All one has to do is look at the way you view current events and one can see that you have a poor comprehension of reality.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › How to lose an election