Barrack Obama 46% Arabic

[Dav]

the whole stupidity of the 46% argument is mostly irrelivant when the considerations of why something like this exists, and the rection it generates.

 

Quite simply some anti-obama people are willing to use rasism to influence the vote, they don't care how they do it (tapping into racial sterotypes of crime or terrorism). They dont care about the accuracy of their claims either, whilst many inteligant people can denounce something like this many will take it at face value. You throw in osama bin laden and people become afraid and the rasict properganda had served it purpose.

[Aileron]

SeVeR POW Camp != Prison. One is for soldiers, the other is for criminals. How about instead of Charles Manson, we get behind the Weatherman Bomber like Obama has!!

 

 

 

Bak, being patriotic and being blind are too entirely different things. Blindness can go with patriotism, true, but it can also go with anti-patriotic sentiment, support of a 'scientific' theory, political stance, religious support, economic stand, sports team preference, and even the desire to stay in the neutral moderate position. To sum it all up: any opinion under the Sun. Suffice to say one cannot be too patriotic; one can only be blind.

 

 

 

I think the fault in the choice of topic has been established. Its impossible to be 46% arabic anyway, I think. You can only get intervals of 1/2, 1/4, 1/8, etc.

[Bak]

he's 471/1024th arabic

[PaRa$iTe]

You'll need to define patriotic here though. If by patriotic you mean always choosing what benefits your own country the most, regardless of what else it causes - then it is, in my opinion, possible to be too patriotic. In fact, even if it just means you love your country, excessive patriotism can be embarr!@#$%^&*ing, and have negative impact on foreign relations (as it annoys the people you're talking to).

[Dav]

I think the fault in the choice of topic has been established. Its impossible to be 46% arabic anyway, I think. You can only get intervals of 1/2, 1/4, 1/8, etc.

 

you could get 42% but to be sure of it you would have to trace a family tree quite far back. Usually people only look back a couple of generations gioving 1/8th as a minimal incriment.

 

the fact that it is unlikly the origonators of this argument did that thouigh makes it impossible.

[Samapico]

46 is kind of a nice number, though.

[PaRa$iTe]

0.455 =< n / 2^x <= 0.46499..

59/128 would be good enough.

[Aileron]

Kinda mean, but relevant to this topic:

 

 

[FMBI]

Relevant in what way? Stupidity factor? I could point out that many people accuse McCain of collaborating with the DRVN.. Edited July 1, 2008 by Finland My BorgInvasion

[Bak]

mccain looks like a pimp in that photo haha

 

if only being a war hero was a sufficient condition for being president (if it was, every war hero that ran would be president because that's what sufficient means; why people get so upset)

[AstroProdigy]

Being a POW makes you qualified to be president of the United States about as much as being a slave laborer makes you qualified to be a mathematician. Sure you went through hardship, but what does it have to do with you being a competent president or mathematician? If a man got a divorce does that qualify him to be the CEO of Microsoft?

 

Aileron: Either that's funny satire at how stupid some Americans can be to which i commend you for bringing to us or oops you're one of them.

[Aileron]

Bak, there are a lot of times where being a war hero is the only needed qualification. It has happened in the history of the US, and a good number of them have turned out to be good presidents as well. Generally, it takes a Colonel or higher, which McCain is. Look, if you intend to make the argument that McCain doesn't have enough experience, just give up now because you'll never make that argument work.

 

 

Astro, how can a couple of unedited photos be 'stupid'? A camera doesn't have an agenda. They only record what they scan. I guess what passes for 'intelligence' nowadays is blind support for everything liberal, in which case a camera's tendency to be unbiased is very 'stupid' indeed.

[Bak]

if you intend to make the argument that McCain doesn't have enough experience

No! I'm just saying that a war hero is not the "only needed qualification." Wes Clark was most likely asked how can he support Obama when McCain was in the military, to which he replied that being the military is not a sufficient condition for being president, which is perfectly reasonable. He didn't say it was meaningless or irrelevant, he just said it wasn't sufficient, i.e. there are other qualifications needed.

 

A camera doesn't have an agenda.

lol, yeah maybe if you showed their entire "earlier years" side by side you would be right, but if you don't think people can pick and choose which photos to show with an agenda in mind you've clearly never seen the tabloids.

[AstroProdigy]

Bak, there are a lot of times where being a war hero is the only needed qualification. It has happened in the history of the US, and a good number of them have turned out to be good presidents as well. Generally, it takes a Colonel or higher, which McCain is. Look, if you intend to make the argument that McCain doesn't have enough experience, just give up now because you'll never make that argument work.

 

 

Astro, how can a couple of unedited photos be 'stupid'? A camera doesn't have an agenda. They only record what they scan. I guess what passes for 'intelligence' nowadays is blind support for everything liberal, in which case a camera's tendency to be unbiased is very 'stupid' indeed.

The only way I'd give to people in the military a special qualification is when they lead armies. That is something McCain has not done and, therefore, he is no more qualified than Obama who at least is a generally very smart guy.

 

The photo is "stupid" because it !@#$%^&*erts blind loyalty and !@#$%^&*umes military service is naturally superior to understanding other cultures in terms of leadership. Being a soldier makes you a good follower whereas understanding the world makes you more adept at dealing with others who are different from you.

[Bak]

I'd say being in the military is a special qualification even if you're not the general leading the armies. Just willing to risk your life for the country's interests says a lot about loyalty and patriotism.

[AstroProdigy]

Or maybe you're doing it because your father and grandfather both did it and you basically had to. Maybe you wanted a scholarship and didn't expect a war to break out. Maybe you joined the military for the prestige, but had special family connections to keep you out of any real fighting (Bush anyone?).

[Aileron]

pfft...that argument is sad Astro. Everyone knows the best way to stay out of the real fighting is to join the Navy. You don't need 'connections'. Also, the reason many of the soldiers are going over to Iraq 3 or 4 times isn't because they feel they need to to get a scholarship. No one has to sign on for a second tour of duty. Fair to say the ones that keep going over are borderline psychotic terrorist killing machines.

 

I'd mark the line of qualification for military counting towards presidential qualification lies at the officer level. All officers have to lead, though it can be weak at the 2nd Lieutenant/Ensign level. McCain however ended at a Navy Captain, which is a high rank that many officers retire off of. By 'retire' I mean really retire. As in 'quit working because you have finished your career'. (Navy Captains are not to be confused with Army Captains. The equivalent rank of a Navy Captain is Colonel in the Army.)

 

All fighter pilots command the support staff for their planes, which is about a dozen. Additionally, McCain eventually commanded a wing of fighters, meaning he was in charge of other pilots. If you count the support staff for those pilots, which is fair to do as the whole reason for mid ranking officers in the first place is so one man doesn't have to micromanage everyone, then McCain indeed was in charge of an 'army' of sailors.

 

I'll admit that when a politician comes forward who reached the rank of Lieutenant and commanded a patrol boat, it shows patriotism but not leadership. However, when somebody reached the rank of Navy Captain, the rank alone signifies leadership, because people just don't get that high without it. I mean, 'leading armies' is something Army and to a much lesser extent Marine officers do. Navy officers will lead group of people on a ship, in McCain's case a large group of people devoted to the F4 Phantoms on an aircraft carrier.

 

Okay, so he wasn't quite an Admiral...he was one rank below that, but he also spent a lot of time in Congress. Keep in mind Theodore Roosevelt was a Colonel, which is the same level.

 

Overall Astro, you are essentially holding the fact that McCain joined the Navy rather than the Army against him. I don't. Hey, not everyone has the stones for the Army. That doesn't quite make people in the Navy 'weak'. It just means the Army is stronger. As I said earlier, in a two party system I guess I'll have to settle for a Navy guy.

[AstroProdigy]

Soldiers are going into Iraq 3 or 4 times because they don't have a choice. No one has to sign up for a second tour of duty? WOOOOOOOOOOOW! That is some major ignorance. If I tell you I know people who didn't have a choice in the matter and that it's a well known fact that people don't get to choose going on a second tour of duty what would you say? Where did you get this little gem of information? FOX News? I don't think even they would say something like this. This is epic ignorance here someone who doesn't even know this very common fact proves they have no real understanding of the subject matter beyond propaganda and what they convince themselves so they can sleep at night.

 

Actually enemy soldiers have more rights than terror suspects. They have a nice defined set of rights whereas you can do whatever you want to terror suspects since torture is only what you define torture to be and if you change the definition then you haven't tortured anyone.

 

What I meant is that Generals who lead the actual armies are more capable of understanding military strategy and thus have an extra qualification, but besides that point military service doesn't automatically make you a good president anyway as Grant's failure as president proves quite nicely. Congressional experience does help McCain's experience credentials, but I never argued it doesn't.

 

Fighter pilot training does nothing to make you a good leader for hundreds of millions of people and millions of troops. Unless McCain was going to personally lead a squad of fighter planes into Iraq this is utterly bogus. In fact no matter what part of the military McCain was in and what position he held you would say it's perfect leadership experience.

 

I'm not holding anything against McCain. All I'm saying is that his military portfolio didn't give him actual leadership experience to use as President so while the military service itself is honorable it still doesn't make him a good president. In a two party system you'll settle for the same party you always pick, Aileron. Back when it was Kerry the war veteran with shrapnel in his leg versus Bush the National Guard deserter you picked Bush because he was the Republican. Don't lie that there was ever a chance of you voting for Obama over any Republican. If Hitler was the Republican you'd come up with elaborate reasoning for voting for him.

Edited July 2, 2008 by AstroProdigy

[Bak]

haha... I think given a bad enough candidate we could convince ail to vote democrat, although it would take some arm twisting

[Aileron]

Astro, that 'pearl of wisdom' comes from the friends I have who actually went into the Army and were shipped over to Iraq. When somebody enlists they do so for several years, usually four. Between how long a tour lasts and the amount of off time for training and re-equipping, it takes enough time that the Army can only squeeze one, maybe two tours in before a soldier's enlistment ends. To get tours three and four they have to re-enlist. There just isn't enough time for the Army to put a wannabe college student through four foreign tours over the course of a single enlistment. Now, the enlistment for the reserves are longer, but they still couldn't do what you are describing.

 

 

Bak, actually its true but only opposite. If the Democrats put forward a good enough candidate I could vote for him. I would for instance vote for Harry Truman if I had a time machine, maybe John Kennedy as well. Obama isn't like Harry Truman at all. The worst thing about him is that everything is an 'irrelevant' topic regarding him.

 

You can't talk about his lack of experience. It isn't relevant.

You can't talk about the fact that if elected, the Presidency will be the first job in Obama's life where he will actually be the boss of somebody else. It isn't relevant.

You can't talk about the issues because he hasn't been around long enough to take a stand on any issues, so that would be talking about his inexperience, which isn't relevant.

You can't talk about his connections to Chicago's organized crime. It isn't relevant.

You can't talk about the fact all of his personal life contacts are left-wing radicals. It isn't relevant.

 

Apparently the only fair subject Obama supporters consider relevant is the fact that he's black, can smile real good, and that he stands for 'change', a vague concept which every non-in!@#$%^&*bent Democratic politician claimed to have campaigned on in the past 30 years.

 

You know what? That's why this topic got started. What do you expect to happen when your candidate is so inexperienced that he doesn't have a record to criticize?

[nahtaiveL gniK]

I think using a photoshopped image from a biased website lacks class.

[AstroProdigy]

Astro, that 'pearl of wisdom' comes from the friends I have who actually went into the Army and were shipped over to Iraq. When somebody enlists they do so for several years, usually four. Between how long a tour lasts and the amount of off time for training and re-equipping, it takes enough time that the Army can only squeeze one, maybe two tours in before a soldier's enlistment ends. To get tours three and four they have to re-enlist. There just isn't enough time for the Army to put a wannabe college student through four foreign tours over the course of a single enlistment. Now, the enlistment for the reserves are longer, but they still couldn't do what you are describing.

 

 

Bak, actually its true but only opposite. If the Democrats put forward a good enough candidate I could vote for him. I would for instance vote for Harry Truman if I had a time machine, maybe John Kennedy as well. Obama isn't like Harry Truman at all. The worst thing about him is that everything is an 'irrelevant' topic regarding him.

 

You can't talk about his lack of experience. It isn't relevant.

You can't talk about the fact that if elected, the Presidency will be the first job in Obama's life where he will actually be the boss of somebody else. It isn't relevant.

You can't talk about the issues because he hasn't been around long enough to take a stand on any issues, so that would be talking about his inexperience, which isn't relevant.

You can't talk about his connections to Chicago's organized crime. It isn't relevant.

You can't talk about the fact all of his personal life contacts are left-wing radicals. It isn't relevant.

 

Apparently the only fair subject Obama supporters consider relevant is the fact that he's black, can smile real good, and that he stands for 'change', a vague concept which every non-in!@#$%^&*bent Democratic politician claimed to have campaigned on in the past 30 years.

 

You know what? That's why this topic got started. What do you expect to happen when your candidate is so inexperienced that he doesn't have a record to criticize?

 

That's really news to me consider official US policy allows for soldiers tours to be extended without their permission. It's called Stop-loss policy and it allows the military to keep extending your tour as much as they want. Sure some might be able to avoid this, but others don't.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationw...0,4947941.story

 

The topic got started because Picard is an ignorant !@#$%^&*bag who buys anything that's fed to him as long as it supports his racist beliefs.

[darkhosis]

haha... I think given a bad enough candidate we could convince ail to vote democrat, although it would take some arm twisting

said something else but nm, misread this. haha.

 

but personally i would have preferred the dem nominee over the republican one for the first time in my life if anyone but obama had won their nomination process (of their top 4 or 5 nominees), seeing as how rep nominee is mccain. this is the guy that wants to increase military size, probalby invade iran within 4 years. guy is just totally beholden to the worst special interest group.

Edited July 5, 2008 by darkhosis

[Bak]

darkhosis: what difference in policy is there between hillary and barrak that upsets you? (or is it a character trait?)

[darkhosis]

darkhosis: what difference in policy is there between hillary and barrak that upsets you? (or is it a character trait?)

Obama is the most liberal senator in congress. Open to debate, but national journal agrees. 1st in 2007 and states that he was 10th most liberal in 2006. Clinton in contrast was 16th and 32nd. There are 49 democrat senators (and 2 "independants" that are basically democrats). This makes clinton a relative moderate in terms of democrats. I dont really want to get into specifics since I havent put a whole lot of study in it.... this being because..

 

I would never vote for Obama anyway once I learned of the whole Reverand Wright bull!@#$%^&*. This guy is in this hate whitey, !@#$%^&* america, blame everyone else for your problems church for 20 years and just realizes it after he becomes a presidential nominee. Then you have Ms. Obama who has never felt pride for her country before, her thesis, there's all kinds of !@#$%^&* you could hit at. It's not too hard to swing and miss. so, yes, it's basically a character trait.

 

I'm guessing if I actually did compare their actual voting records though, that i'd prefer hillary's. at a quick 3 minute glance, here's one example I found:

 

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll...&vote=00189

Edited July 6, 2008 by darkhosis