StarDestroyer.Net BBS

[R_H] wrote: Which would put him in opposition of the Bush Doctrine and the neocons?

I suppose so. He also seemed to have somewhat of a reality-based view on war.

Tribun wrote:I just read something interesting. Basically it boils down to that Palin is just a huge diversion to disact everyone from the real man behind her, McCain. She tries to stay vague and mysterious, so that all attention is pulled to her.

It's almost as if the Republitards present her as the main candidate but in case of win, the old man is the boss.

An evening program from my local news station interviewed McCain - he spent the entire interview (clumsily) selling Palin as an opponent to Obama. Thinkprogress has a little article about it.

Given how unexciting McCain has been, it's no surprise that his campaign has used Palin as window dressing - she is an unknown and can be presented however the campaign wants to present her, while McCain is staid, crusty, and pretty thoroughly plumbed. That McCain goes on TV interviews to pimp his running mate is a pretty obvious indicator that his campaign knows that it seriously needs to revivify itself.

Simplicius wrote:

Tribun wrote:I just read something interesting. Basically it boils down to that Palin is just a huge diversion to disact everyone from the real man behind her, McCain. She tries to stay vague and mysterious, so that all attention is pulled to her.

It's almost as if the Republitards present her as the main candidate but in case of win, the old man is the boss.

An evening program from my local news station interviewed McCain - he spent the entire interview (clumsily) selling Palin as an opponent to Obama. Thinkprogress has a little article about it.

Given how unexciting McCain has been, it's no surprise that his campaign has used Palin as window dressing - she is an unknown and can be presented however the campaign wants to present her, while McCain is staid, crusty, and pretty thoroughly plumbed. That McCain goes on TV interviews to pimp his running mate is a pretty obvious indicator that his campaign knows that it seriously needs to revivify itself.

That's actually a confession that he true has no ideas any longer. So he simply takes cover and hopes that all those blind idiots will think that Ms. Alaska will become President, while he will get the real beef.

The call was made for people who are backing Senator McCain, so here it goes.

For the record, I'm a registered republican, former Young Republican, small business owner, and I voted for President Bush in '04. I am right now heavily leaning toward Senator McCain. My vote this year isn't so much for Senator McCain as it is against Senator Obama. Maybe it's because the messianic complex that I see around Senator Obama. Maybe it's the fact that from how I see his record he only seems to use his current office to run for the next one. Maybe it's the fact that Senator Obama picked a person so opposed to my view of the Second Amendment. Maybe it is all of the above, or none of the above, but until Senator Obama comes out and says "I support Missile defense NOW", it's hard for me to justify voting for him. The other option is to kick Biden off the ticket, but I doubt that will happen.

Give me a Pro-Gun, Pro-Nuke, Pro-ABM Democrat and I'll vote for them in a heart beat.

MariusRoi wrote:The call was made for people who are backing Senator McCain, so here it goes.

For the record, I'm a registered republican, former Young Republican, small business owner, and I voted for President Bush in '04. I am right now heavily leaning toward Senator McCain. My vote this year isn't so much for Senator McCain as it is against Senator Obama. Maybe it's because the messianic complex that I see around Senator Obama. Maybe it's the fact that from how I see his record he only seems to use his current office to run for the next one. Maybe it's the fact that Senator Obama picked a person so opposed to my view of the Second Amendment. Maybe it is all of the above, or none of the above, but until Senator Obama comes out and says "I support Missile defense NOW", it's hard for me to justify voting for him. The other option is to kick Biden off the ticket, but I doubt that will happen.

Give me a Pro-Gun, Pro-Nuke, Pro-ABM Democrat and I'll vote for them in a heart beat.

Has McCain ever openly supported ABM, or Obama openly opposed it? It's not like Obama's ever really had a chance to take a stand on it (unless you count the Polish ABM sites, and there are arguments to be made against putting them there that aren't completely against ABM); the ABM Treaty was voided back in 2001, before he ever held national office.

In the meantme you'll happly vote for a person who is pretty much guaranteed to fuck you over in favour of his rich friends?

IIRC, the only thing I heard from Obama on ABM was criticizing the problem-ridden ground based missiles that were failing tests. I could be wrong.

I also heard something on SM-2's getting better; could someone who watches such tell me if that's true or not, or guide me where I might find out?

Obama gives a kind of vague answer on ABM on his website. Here it is

Obama campaign website wrote:
National Missile Defense: An Obama administration will support missile defense, but ensure that it is developed in a way that is pragmatic and cost-effective; and, most importantly, does not divert resources from other national security priorities until we are positive the technology will protect the American public.

On the other hand, he pales next to McCain's blurb on his website:

McCain Campaign Website wrote:
John McCain strongly supports the development and deployment of theater and national missile defenses. Effective missile defenses are critical to protect America from rogue regimes like North Korea that possess the capability to target America with intercontinental ballistic missiles, from outlaw states like Iran that threaten American forces and American allies with ballistic missiles, and to hedge against potential threats from possible strategic competitors like Russia and China. Effective missile defenses are also necessary to allow American military forces to operate overseas without being deterred by the threat of missile attack from a regional adversary.

John McCain is committed to deploying effective missile defenses to reduce the possibility of strategic blackmail by rogue regimes and to secure our homeland from the very real prospect of missile attack by present or future adversaries. America should never again have to live in the shadow of missile and nuclear attack. As President, John McCain will not trust in the "balance of terror" to protect America, but will work to deploy effective missile defenses to safeguard our people and our homeland.

Obama's been more conservative in some ways than people give him credit for; it's entirely possible that he'll keep developing the missile defense that's already been started, unless one of his defense advisors is known to be vehemently against it. But then, his support of it is more vague than McCain's.

Vendetta wrote:In the meantme you'll happily vote for a person who is pretty much guaranteed to fuck you over in favor of his rich friends?

I haven't sent any money to a campaign this year (I did send $20 to the Thompson Campaign last year). And I'm strongly considering voting third party this year. For those who don't know I live in Ohio, and thus I know my vote always matters, so I always exercise my right to vote.

SirNitram wrote:IIRC, the only thing I heard from Obama on ABM was criticizing the problem-ridden ground based missiles that were failing tests. I could be wrong.

I read that a while back myself, and knowing that most programs have teething issues, this was something that put me off.

I also heard something on SM-2's getting better; could someone who watches such tell me if that's true or not, or guide me where I might find out?

The SM-3 (ABM version of the Standard Missile) was used to shoot down that satellite earlier this year.

Guardsman Bass wrote:Obama gives a kind of vague answer on ABM on his website. Here it is

Obama campaign website wrote:
National Missile Defense: An Obama administration will support missile defense, but ensure that it is developed in a way that is pragmatic and cost-effective; and, most importantly, does not divert resources from other national security priorities until we are positive the technology will protect the American public.

And it's the Vagueness that concerns me.

I could probably see Obama continuing the ABM program in auto-pilot, without seriously making any efforts to expand or contract it unless the costs really start to balloon. Assuming, of course, that he doesn't have any real nasty anti-ABM people on his team (I don't know who his primary defense advisors are, although I know he's being advised by Brezinski).

MariusRoi wrote:My vote this year isn't so much for Senator McCain as it is against Senator Obama. Maybe it's because the messianic complex that I see around Senator Obama.

What do you mean by that?

Gandalf wrote:

MariusRoi wrote:My vote this year isn't so much for Senator McCain as it is against Senator Obama. Maybe it's because the messianic complex that I see around Senator Obama.

What do you mean by that?

A lot of the more devout Republicans think he's as arrogant as all hell - that he thinks he's some type of messiah come at a a Truly Historic Moment in Time to save us as part of a greater movement. McCain hinted at something like this in his Convention Speech. They especially think so because Obama's experience isn't exactly that deep on the national level.

MariusRoi wrote:The call was made for people who are backing Senator McCain, so here it goes.

For the record, I'm a registered republican, former Young Republican, small business owner, and I voted for President Bush in '04. I am right now heavily leaning toward Senator McCain. My vote this year isn't so much for Senator McCain as it is against Senator Obama. Maybe it's because the messianic complex that I see around Senator Obama.

You're aware the "Messianic complex" bullshit is little more than a Republican smear, yes? In one sentence Palin managed to dismiss Obama as being a Messiah figure for wanting to heal the planet, while McCain said in the same fucking speech earlier that he'd be working to fix the health of the planet. Not much of a difference as far as I can see, yet Obama's the one being criticized.

Fact-Check.org wrote: McCain: We must use all resources and develop all technologies necessary to rescue our economy from the damage caused by rising oil prices and restore the health of our planet.

The previous evening, however, McCain's running mate, Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska, ridiculed Obama for using similar high-sounding words:

Palin, Sept. 3: What does he actually seek to accomplish after he's done turning back the waters and healing the planet?

Hooray for blatant double standards?

Further Explination of the following quote:

Maybe it's because the messianic complex that I see around Senator Obama.

Note the "Around".

What I was trying to say is this: I see a lot of his supporters as seeing him as a messianic figure "Here I come, to Save the Day!" I've been wrong with my decisions before, and I'll be wrong again, and there is a chance I might vote for Obama, but it's a slim one right now.

Note: I'm not going to be online for the rest of the night, and to be honest, I just wanted to explain why I wasn't leaning toward voting for Senator Obama.

MariusRoi wrote: What I was trying to say is this: I see a lot of his supporters as seeing him as a messianic figure "Here I come, to Save the Day!" I've been wrong with my decisions before, and I'll be wrong again, and there is a chance I might vote for Obama, but it's a slim one right now.

Only the Republicans would decry putting your hope in someone who promises to fix government corruption as having a "Messiah" complex, when we have an idiot in the White House right now with a literal Messiah complex and thinks the war he's waging is endorsed by God.

Obama wants to turn back the rising tides and help the poor. That selfish fucker, how dare he.

Only in American politics can someone wanting to do good be seen as a fucktard. At least over here, when someone promises the Earth in order to help the people, the shadow party simply points out how hard it can be, not that it's an arrogant and "Messianic" act.

MariusRoi wrote:The call was made for people who are backing Senator McCain, so here it goes.

Well at least someone is.

For the record, I'm a registered republican, former Young Republican, small business owner, and I voted for President Bush in '04.

So what you're saying is...you're a lifelong democrat?

Maybe it's because the messianic complex that I see around Senator Obama.

I do not see this. The guy inspires a few people to hope for something better, and now he's messianic? I understand if maybe you're uncomfortable with people maybe blinding following him, but that is true of either candidate. If anything, I sense a lot of MLKness from some of his speeches, that hope for a better future. Was MLK messianic as well? Regardless, this seems primarily an emotional, illogical reaction, perhaps brought on because you don't like the guy anyway.

Maybe it's the fact that Senator Obama picked a person so opposed to my view of the Second Amendment.

The first legitimate reason here, I think. An actual issue you oppose from someone on the ticket.

Maybe it is all of the above, or none of the above, but until Senator Obama comes out and says "I support Missile defense NOW", it's hard for me to justify voting for him.

Item two that may be a legit difference of opinion. (I tend to agree with Bass as a best case scenario. Given the wording of that stance, I'd say the best you could hope for is "autopilot", though I might be wrong.) But so far, that's only two things that seem more than just gut reactions or mis-characterizations of the man. Do these two or three issues override

-Economy
-Health Care
-Redistribution of Wealth back to the Middle Class
-Equal rights
-Palin (I have to ask)

And a host of other things I'm forgetting?

Missile defense? Are you joking? Did Osama Bin Laden recently acquire ICBM capabilities?

Durandal wrote:Missile defense? Are you joking? Did Osama Bin Laden recently acquire ICBM capabilities?

I'm sure he's thinking of a possible resurgent Russia.

MariusRoi wrote:And it's the Vagueness that concerns me.

He needs to be vague to avoid offending the moronic part of the Democratic base. That is also why he has been vague about nuclear power, despite the fact that he is pretty much Exelon's bitch, because all the Greenpeace morons vote Democrat.

This is similar to how Republican candidates need to back creationist bullshit and be anti-abortion in order to avoid offending their particular brand of imbecile.

Candidates need to tread carefully because, unfortunately, the votes of the idiots count as much as everyone else's.

As for the messianic complex you see around Obama... so what? What does it matter if other people think he is the Second Coming of Jesus come to make the world better?

CaptJodan wrote:

Durandal wrote:Missile defense? Are you joking? Did Osama Bin Laden recently acquire ICBM capabilities?

I'm sure he's thinking of a possible resurgent Russia.

For which the proposed NMD system would be completely inadequate as a defence.

Ah well... one can hope that, if it should come to pass during the rule of a Gimp/Barbie maladministration that Marius finds himself on the unemployment line or, worst-case, winds up with health issues and his insurance runs out (or the company simply fucks him over on honouring the policy), that the thought of having a pair of NRA and NMD whores in the White House will be a comfort to him.

Durandal wrote:Missile defense? Are you joking? Did Osama Bin Laden recently acquire ICBM capabilities?

Because that's obviously the only defense issue we have. Does it occur to you we had the base to fight and win in the Second World War because we continued innovating and planning, even during the Great Depression? Besides, our nuclear deterrent is aging greatly. Would you rather we deploy an essentially defensive technology to maintain a strategic defense, or follow the Russians into building new nuclear weapons delivery systems?

Durandal wrote:For which the proposed NMD system would be completely inadequate as a defence.

How would we ever acquire that is without first deploying a limited one, working out the kinks in the system and command and control, and then expanding it? This is like opposing air power in the First World War because you couldn't destroy battleships and the means of production with it. Furthermore, its much cheaper and easier to add missiles once you have the radars and command and control networks set up.

Adrian Laguna wrote:As for the messianic complex you see around Obama... so what? What does it matter if other people think he is the Second Coming of Jesus come to make the world better?

It may not matter logically but for some one not entirely certain about Senator Obama it can be very off putting. No one running seriously for President of the United States has a small ego but having people supporting you in that manner smacks of an unhealthy amount of ego. To potentially see that attitude in a politician you disagree with is quite a disturbing thing.

Which is not to say that I think Obama actually has that sort of opinion of himself. As I said in the Biden nomination thread, I'm glad to see Obama recognizing his own weaknesses and acting to strengthen them. So I don't think it's true but I can see why a dyed red Republican would be tempted to see otherwise.

On top of that, to have people with such fanatic attitudes hanging around makes it look like his supporters are a bunch of morons. To suggest that even a modern Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, or FDR deserves that kind of adulation is taking things a bit too far. We ridicule that sort of behavior in the Republicans for good reason.

Stormbringer wrote: On top of that, to have people with such fanatic attitudes hanging around makes it look like his supporters are a bunch of morons. To suggest that even a modern Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, or FDR deserves that kind of adulation is taking things a bit too far. We ridicule that sort of behavior in the Republicans for good reason.

I keep hearing people say that Obama has fanatics supporters hanging around him, but I don't recall ever seeing anything that indicates this besides the usual twits in news blogs, which both parties have. I don't suppose anyone has actual examples of something more high profile?

General Zod wrote:

Stormbringer wrote: On top of that, to have people with such fanatic attitudes hanging around makes it look like his supporters are a bunch of morons. To suggest that even a modern Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, or FDR deserves that kind of adulation is taking things a bit too far. We ridicule that sort of behavior in the Republicans for good reason.

I keep hearing people say that Obama has fanatics supporters hanging around him, but I don't recall ever seeing anything that indicates this besides the usual twits in news blogs, which both parties have. I don't suppose anyone has actual examples of something more high profile?

I'd say that even the news blog twits and forum retards are high profile enough for the people that actually see them. That said, I've gotten my election coverage from NPR, BBC America, and other sources so I couldn't tell you about what his media talking heads are like. The worst cases I've run into have been either on forums or in real life.