Obama Website WTF



  • Howdy fellas. Long time lurker, first time poster.

    Heard on the radio this morning that Obama had chosen a running mate. With nothing better to do I decided to check who this guy is, who I guess is supposed to be the next vice president and second in command of the imperialists.

    Therefore I go to the Obama campaign site, who in an ideal world would be the ones with all the information about the candidates.

    Too bad they, several hours after the world got the news didn't know anything and showed that by redirecting visitors to the startpage to the page in the screenshow below. Obama webmaster - unfit for command. Or at least Obama should start talking to his campaign staff and tell them the news.

    Screenshot:
    http://www.screenshots.cc/images/481_obama.png

    PS. Can't understand how anyone can vote on John McCain after his incredibly awkward acting in the movie Wedding Crashers. DS.



  • @TheSwedishChef said:

    PS. Can't understand how anyone can vote on John McCain after his incredibly awkward acting in the movie Wedding Crashers. DS.

     

    TRWTF are some of american voters...



  •  His official tweet was sent out at 3AM today.  Pretty sure it was premature due to the rumor about Evan Bayh that came up last night:

    Probably had everything scheduled to go off at 7:00 or so. I know that if Obama called me at 3 in the morning telling me to go update the website, I'd tell him to fuck off and go to bed.



  • @TheSwedishChef said:

    ...who I guess is supposed to be the next vice president...

    The only way Biden would become VP is if everyone in America except Biden was killed by a super virus and he still remembered to vote for himself.

     

    @TheSwedishChef said:

    ...second in command of the imperialists.

    The VP is just a hot spare in case the President becomes unable to serve.  Given the history of the US, I think "unable to serve" is interpreted very loosely.  Oh, he also is one of the handful of people who can provide secondary authorization for nuking whatever hellhole country you live in.

     

    Personally, I think Obama could have chosen a better running mate.  I favor Dave Chappelle's idea of choosing a Mexican for insurance against assassination.  I mean, some people might want to kill a black president but nobody wants a Hispanic president to fill his shoes.  As it is, Obama has to fear that one of Biden's half-dozen supporters would assasinate him just to see Biden take charge.  Of course, this is all speculation as it would require Obama to win which isn't going to happen.

     

    @TheSwedishChef said:

    PS. Can't understand how anyone can vote on John McCain after his incredibly awkward acting in the movie Wedding Crashers. DS.

    You could also interpret it to mean that McCain is an awkward actor because he isn't used to putting on a show or being dishonest.



  • @viraptor said:

    TRWTF are some of american voters...

    Agreed.  I've been trying to convince people to elect me president on my platform of "conquering pussy nations like the UK and enslaving all of their grammar-abusing citizens", but very few seem to go for it.



  •  puts Wedding Crashers at top of Netflix queue



  • @vt_mruhlin said:

    His official tweet was sent out at 3AM today.

    This is how I know the Obama campaign and Web 2.0 have both jumped the shark.

     

    @vt_mruhlin said:

    I know that if Obama called me at 3 in the morning telling me to go update the website, I'd tell him to fuck off and go to bed.

    How dare you talk like that to the future newest member of Gore and Kerry's weekly consolation potluck!



  •  I would just like to say that I signed up for Hussein's text message for VP and I never received it.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    @TheSwedishChef said:

    PS. Can't understand how anyone can vote on John McCain after his incredibly awkward acting in the movie Wedding Crashers. DS.

    You could also interpret it to mean that McCain is an awkward actor because he isn't used to putting on a show or being dishonest.

    You do realize you're talking about a politician, right?



  • @Lord of the Gerbils said:

    You do realize you're talking about a politician, right?

    Yes, and I believe McCain is probably as shameless as they come.  I was simply countering the incredibly weak argument that McCain would be a bad president because of his acting for a bit part in a comedy movie with a slightly less weak argument advocating for him.



  • @tster said:

    I would just like to say that I signed up for Hussein's text message for VP and I never received it.

    I've heard that a lot of people aren't getting the text messages.  Then again, it's mainly a gimmick to attract the youth vote so maybe O's people are trying to come up with a positive way to spin Great Grandpappy Biden to the kids.  I suggest they play up the age angle, having him do the sketch comedy and fake news circuit, with a lot of gratuitous incontinence jokes thrown in for good measure.  Watching Joe Biden do a keg stand followed by a massive-ass bong rip would be the highlight of an otherwise dreary election.  Not to mention that the "Obama / Biden" logo is hilariously close to "Osama / Bin Laden".  There is so much potential for comedy gold here.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    @tster said:

    I would just like to say that I signed up for Hussein's text message for VP and I never received it.

    I've heard that a lot of people aren't getting the text messages.  Then again, it's mainly a gimmick to attract the youth vote so maybe O's people are trying to come up with a positive way to spin Great Grandpappy Biden to the kids.  I suggest they play up the age angle, having him do the sketch comedy and fake news circuit, with a lot of gratuitous incontinence jokes thrown in for good measure.  Watching Joe Biden do a keg stand followed by a massive-ass bong rip would be the highlight of an otherwise dreary election.  Not to mention that the "Obama / Biden" logo is hilariously close to "Osama / Bin Laden".  There is so much potential for comedy gold here.

    They might very well go with the age route to target the youth vote -- after all, "I'm old enough to be your grandfather, but I'm still younger than McCain" wouldn't actually be a bad campaign slogan against John McCain, the guy who admits he can't use a computer. None of the people voting for an Obama/Biden ticket are expecting Biden to actually have to do much of anything, after all -- you don't vote on the presumption that your candidate is going to die.

    For that matter, the similarities with the logo may be deliberate, too -- after all, OBL is getting to be an embarrassment to the Republicans, who can't seem to decide whether the guy is dead or not, but have to admit that he was too smart for them to find for the last seven years either way. In fact, since the Republicans have basically screwed up everything they've touched for the last ten years or so, there's a lot of jokes waiting to be made. ("Lieberman was the Democratic candidate for VP eight years ago, so why is he speaking at the Republican convention?" "They didn't have enough unindicted party members to fill out the schedule without an Independent.") The only question is whether Obama's campaign will start making those jokes. Biden seems to have a reputation for doing stuff like that, so I suspect we'll start to hear them. Heck, there are so many sarcastic comebacks to McCain's "I'd follow Osama Bin Laden to the gates of hell" comment that I can't make up my mind which one to use. Comedy gold, indeed.



  • @The Vicar said:

    They might very well go with the age route to target the youth vote -- after all, "I'm old enough to be your grandfather, but I'm still younger than McCain" wouldn't actually be a bad campaign slogan against John McCain, the guy who admits he can't use a computer. None of the people voting for an Obama/Biden ticket are expecting Biden to actually have to do much of anything, after all -- you don't vote on the presumption that your candidate is going to die.

    Left-leaning youth voters are a notoriously fickle crowd.  They are vocal about their opinions and can generally be lured into campaign events for the social aspect, and because they will be seen by their peers as "impassioned" or "caring" or whatever.  However, when it comes to actually voting they mostly flake out.  Obama had a chance for awhile of mobilizing this group and actually getting them to vote for him.  I mean, what's more awesome than voting for the black guy?  It will totally piss off your parents, maybe more than that belly button piercing.  Obama's sheen has been wearing off for awhile now, but choosing Biden is going to make the younger voters lose interest right away.  Most of these people probably weren't going to vote anyway, and they certainly weren't going to show up for McCain, but Obama managed to lose one of the strategic blocs his campaign needs.

     

    @The Vicar said:

    For that matter, the similarities with the logo may be deliberate, too -- after all, OBL is getting to be an embarrassment to the Republicans, who can't seem to decide whether the guy is dead or not, but have to admit that he was too smart for them to find for the last seven years either way.

    If the similarities were deliberate then Obama should be ostracized from polite society.  And I don't think Osama bin Laden is an embarrassment to the Republicans -- it is our military who has failed to find him and I don't think you're going to find many Americans who view the failure to kill the fucker as a political failing.

     

    @The Vicar said:

    In fact, since the Republicans have basically screwed up everything they've touched for the last ten years or so, there's a lot of jokes waiting to be made.

    [citation needed]

     

    @The Vicar said:

    "Lieberman was the Democratic candidate for VP eight years ago, so why is he speaking at the Republican convention?" "They didn't have enough unindicted party members to fill out the schedule without an Independent."

    Lieberman has always been fairly right-wing and has been sick of his own party for awhile now.  Also, I don't think there have been an exceptional number of criminal charges filed against Republicans in the last 7 years or so.  Where the hell do you get your news from?  And having Lieberman speak is probably a pretty smart move, because it underscores how fractured and weak the Democrats really are.  They had Zell Miller speak at the 2004 convention.

     

    @The Vicar said:

    The only question is whether Obama's campaign will start making those jokes. Biden seems to have a reputation for doing stuff like that, so I suspect we'll start to hear them.

    Biden makes me want to take a nap just looking at him.  The thought of him trying to pull off a joke makes my stomach turn.

     

    @The Vicar said:

    Heck, there are so many sarcastic comebacks to McCain's "I'd follow Osama Bin Laden to the gates of hell" comment that I can't make up my mind which one to use. Comedy gold, indeed.

    Really?  I can't think of anything particularly funny about that statement.  I guess you could make some joke about McCain already being hellbound as it is.  McCain has said enough stupid things in the past to provide fertile comic ground, but this doesn't seem bad at all.  In fact, if O'Biden ticket tried to crack a joke about that McCain would probably score some great points by calling them out on it.  My point about comedy gold was more that Obama has picked what has to be one of the most hilariously bad VPs possible.  Normally the election season is depressing, but I think Biden may very well be the best VP candidate from a comedy standpoint since Quayle.  Except, you know, Quayle's guy won.



  • Y'know, I had a feeling morbiuswilters was a conservative, and now he's confirmed that impression by being so desperate to mock the Democrats. (Of course, I'm pretty sure he'll claim to be an "independent", which is what conservatives do in public forums to pretend they aren't being partisan.)

    I don't feel like doing a point-by-point reply to his post, because that's just begging for a 15-quote-deep "no you misunderstand me" back-and-forth exchange, and you can get that almost anywhere on the web, but here are some of the (many!) possible comebacks to McCain saying "I'll follow Osama Bin Laden to the gates of hell" (links added for the benefit of those who don't actually know much about McCain's history):

    Mind you, those aren't all the McCain jokes I could come up with, those are just the ones that came to mind which were easy to work into responses to his comment. The man's been flip-flopping like crazy his entire life (he was anti-war, until he was pro-war; he fought against making MLK Jr.'s birthday a holiday, but now claims he was for it; he voted against the recent veteran's benefits bill, then took credit for its passage, etc. etc. etc.), and I'm sure the campaign will afford many more openings for such comebacks. Where's Al Jaffee now that we need him? (Hey, maybe if you fold Bush vertically and mush his shoulders back, he looks like McCain. Stranger things have happened.)



  • @The Vicar said:

    Y'know, I had a feeling morbiuswilters was a conservative, and now he's confirmed that impression by being so desperate to mock the Democrats. (Of course, I'm pretty sure he'll claim to be an "independent", which is what conservatives do in public forums to pretend they aren't being partisan.)
    How can you tell he's desperate?  It's such fertile ground, it's more difficult to resist.  And he's absolutely right about the comic gold value of Biden.  Anyone remember the 7-11 crack?  Seriously, neither of these two should be allowed to talk unscripted.

    Anyway, an 'independent' is just someone not smart enough to make up their mind.



  • @The Vicar said:

    Y'know, I had a feeling morbiuswilters was a conservative, and now he's confirmed that impression by being so desperate to mock the Democrats. (Of course, I'm pretty sure he'll claim to be an "independent", which is what conservatives do in public forums to pretend they aren't being partisan.)

    Considering I never made it a point to hide my political leanings, I'm shocked it took you this long.  Oh, and I'm a libertarian/conservative or "classicly liberal" and I guess I'm an independent because I don't really care for either major party.  Oftentimes the Republicans are worse spendaholic control freaks than the Democrats are.  The perfect refutation of liberal "philosophy" is that Bush has been one of the most socialist presidents in our history.  Regardless, I like mocking anyone I can, it's just that Obama/Biden are extra fun.

     

    So basically all of your jokes fall into the following categories: 1) jokes about him going to hell (which I already made -- and your first one kind of made me chuckle, honestly); 2) jokes about him being married to someone with a lot of money, cuz that's obviously a really terrible thing!;  3) jokes about him not being particularly good with technology even though that has absolutely no bearing on his ability to lead the country.  Then there's the one with the birthday cake which may have reflected poorly on Bush, but hardly does on McCain.  Katrina was horrible, but I wouldn't call off my birthday for it.  I guess Obama stayed at home and flagellated himself during the worst of Katrina.

     

    There are plenty of better jokes that could be made, but whatever.  You don't seem particularly suited to comedy to begin with.  Don't quit your day job, kid. 



  • @The Vicar said:

    there's a lot of jokes waiting to be made. ("Lieberman was the Democratic candidate for VP eight years ago, so why is he speaking at the Republican convention?" "They didn't have enough unindicted party members to fill out the schedule without an Independent.") The only question is whether Obama's campaign will start making those jokes.

     

    Wow, you really are clueless.  O'biden won't make those jokes because: a) they aren't funny, and b) they are a net loss for the Dem ticket.  Saying that they have a conservative Democrat at their convention because they can't find enough Republicans would be quite a stupid thing for O'biden to say because there has been rumors from people high in the Obama campaign that they were trying to get Colin Powwell to speak at their convention.  If anything, it's a powerful message to have a Democrat at your convention blasting the Democrat nominee.  Anyways, after how the Dems treated Lieberman during his last re-election run, I have no doubt that he will give them hell this election cycle.  

     BTW, In case you are planning on making ad hominim attacks on me like you did Morbius, I'm a semi-libertarian who is registered Republican and I vote mostly straight ticket.  



  • @The Vicar said:

     

    This should be on Letterman's Top 10.

    Well done.



  • You really think O'biden should utter any of these lines?

    @The Vicar said:

    • (To get it over with:) You might as well learn the route now and save yourself time.

    the "your going to hell" card won't play well with anybody, especially the people that have any inclination to vote for BO.  @The Vicar said:

    • (Oh, sorry, one more non-McCain-position-related one:) Hey, just wait a couple years, and you'll probably be there to ambush him instead!
    This is pretty much the same as the last with a shot at his age thrown in there.  Obviously the age thing has been played and hasn't worked yet.  McCain will have to start showing some major signs of his age (beyond mental lapse gaffs) for this to actually play to BO's favor.  Consider that Obama will be trying to win over older voters.[quote user="The Vicar"][/quote]So they bring up something that happened longer ago that BO was even a public figure?  Also, if they want to make a claim that Keating is going to Hell and McCain will go with him, what are they going to do about Renko and Ayers?[quote user="The Vicar"]
    • Okay, but be careful not to crash another plane there; your daddy can't get you another one any more.
    [/quote]So being a bad pilot makes you a bad leader?  Also this would too easily make people think of the fact that McCain spent over 5 years in a POW camp.  Obama doesn't want people thinking about that.[quote user="The Vicar"][/quote]Most people in America don't really care if someone marries someone richer than them.  This isn't even a good attack considering McCain is not famous for self-financing his campaign.[quote user="The Vicar"][/quote]I really don't get this one.  Are you saying that there is a problem that the McCains spend a lot of money and that they use credit cards to spend it?  Hell that article says that they probably pay it off every month, so I don't get it.  Anyways, many voters have credit problems and credit card debt, so this could actually be a plus for McCain.  I pay for things with credit cards all the time, but I don't see the humor in someone asking if I'm going to be putting a purchase on my credit card.[quote user="The Vicar"][/quote]How is this a comeback at all the follow OBL to the gates of Hell?  Gramm was talking about the economy, not OBL.[quote user="The Vicar"][/quote]This might be funny, but only if you actually could find the gates of hell on google maps.  Otherwise it's just a lie.[quote user="The Vicar"][/quote]First off, he said Pakistan, not that that's any better.  But it's pretty obviously that he meant Afghanistan-Pakistan border because they were talking about Afghanistan.  He confused the two because they were both combat zones with US troops.  Not too funny really.  Besides, most American's wouldn't catch that mistake, especially compared to the 57 states BO quote.[quote user="The Vicar"][/quote]Oh no, he referred to a place by it's old name!  No one's ever done that before![quote user="The Vicar"][/quote]Most people like a self-depricating sense-of-humor.  Also, McCain doesn't have to rely on his GPA in school, because he has 25 years of service in the US Congress to speak for him.  Turns out that school doesn't matter when you have a 25 year record at the highest levels of government.  Although, Obama might have to use his GPA as a reference since his record is so thin elsewhere.[quote user="The Vicar"][/quote]I don't think people are going to be too bothered that a rich person has 7 houses.  Besides, this opens the door to talk about Obama's $1.4 million house and his Rezko connection.  Not too smart.[quote user="The Vicar"]
    • Just make sure you keep him somewhere harder to get out of than a "cone of silence".
    [/quote]It's usually a loosing strategy to claim the other side cheated whenever you perform very poorly.  The problem with assuming McCain had actually violated the "cone of silence" is that it assumes those were hard questions, which they really weren't.  Of course, when you have positions like "above my paygrade" they might be tought.  Anyways, Warren already said that he told the candidates what kind of questions he would be asking, and they should haven't known some of the others because he is an evangelical minister.  It's not too hard to prepare for the question "When does a child get human rights."  The real problem with this is that I think a lot of people could answer these questions as fast as McCain because they actually have strongly held beliefs and they know what those beliefs are, and they don't have to try and hide them and dodge the questions.[quote user="The Vicar"][/quote]He has always said that he will listen to the recommendations of the commanders on the ground.  What he didn't support was a timetable determined for political expediancy.[quote user="The Vicar"]
    • Sure you will... as long as nobody offers you a slice of birthday cake instead.
    [/quote]So, what was McCain suppose to do?  Fly down there and shore up the levies himself?  Katrina was not a federal problem at that point.  The governor of Luisiana had full authority over the situation and told the feds to stay out of the way.  Later when the feds realized that the state government was a worthless pile of shit and took the situation over, it was too late.  You can argue that the federal government should have intervened sooner, but that's a different story.  Furthermore, on August 29th, Obama was also NOT going to the area.  [quote user="The Vicar"]
    • Hey, that's a switch! You said something other than 'noun verb P.O.W.'!
    [/quote]Most people I talk to think McCain doesn't talk about that much.  Only when it's an answer to a question or there is something pertinent to talk about.  I know lots of people think he should talk about it more.  I think if you count the times McCain has said "POW" and contrast it with the times BO has said "Hope" or "Change" it might be illuminating to you.  Not that I'm saying message consistency is a bad thing.  I'm just saying that McCain really hasn't talked about that as much as you claim.  McCains major campaign slogan really has been: BO might be a celebrity, but is he ready to lead?


  • @tster said:

    So being a bad pilot makes you a bad leader?  Also this would too easily make people think of the fact that McCain spent over 5 years in a POW camp.  Obama doesn't want people thinking about that.

    Cracking a joke like that would be political suicide.  "Ha ha, you served your country but weren't very adept at flying and ended up being imprisoned in Vietnam for 5+ years!"  I don't even see how it is relevent to anything, as you said.  McCain probably shouldn't have been a pilot if he wasn't that good, but he continued to try and he didn't chicken out of real combat even though he knew he wasn't top notch.  That takes some guts.

     

    @tster said:

    So, what was McCain suppose to do?  Fly down there and shore up the levies himself?  Katrina was not a federal problem at that point.  The governor of Luisiana had full authority over the situation and told the feds to stay out of the way.  Later when the feds realized that the state government was a worthless pile of shit and took the situation over, it was too late.  You can argue that the federal government should have intervened sooner, but that's a different story.  Furthermore, on August 29th, Obama was also NOT going to the area.

    Exactly.  What's more, this was a problem for the executive branch, not the legislative.  I'm sure McCain kept up on the news but it wasn't like he had the power to mobilize the National Guard.  In my opinion, Bush should have done that a lot sooner but the guy is notorious for avoiding strong decisions in favor of slow, bungled political messes.  I don't think there was any ill-will involved, just a President who wasn't very good at making the big calls and who liked to defer to his deputies ("Brownie" in this case).

     

    @tster said:

    Most people I talk to think McCain doesn't talk about that much.  Only when it's an answer to a question or there is something pertinent to talk about.  I know lots of people think he should talk about it more.  I think if you count the times McCain has said "POW" and contrast it with the times BO has said "Hope" or "Change" it might be illuminating to you.  Not that I'm saying message consistency is a bad thing.  I'm just saying that McCain really hasn't talked about that as much as you claim.  McCains major campaign slogan really has been: BO might be a celebrity, but is he ready to lead?

    Agreed.  He's not like Guiliani with the 9/11 bullshit in response to every question.  I think if anything, McCain has been pretty low-key about the whole thing, considering that in 2004 a real veteran (albeit a pretty crappy one) was attacked on his service record by a guy who spent most of his time in the Air National Guard drinking and screwing off.  McCain has real military credentials but he hasn't done the showy thing of flaunting it, nor the underhanded thing of attacking Obama over his lack of service.  I respect that highly, because having a service record is definitely something to be proud of, but it doesn't mean you would be a good president and it reeks of cheap patriotism instead of real dedication to the job.  Meanwhile, Obama is one of the most vapid candidates I've seen in awhile.  He says nothing and people love it.  It makes me sad because I would prefer that our first black presidential candidate be somebody of substance rather than a charismatic, one-trick pony.  Even if I vehemently disagreed with the guy's opinions at least I could respect that he was debating the issues and not just riding to the top on his youthful appearance, race and empty "change"/"hope" rhetoric.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    @tster said:
    So, what was McCain suppose to do?  Fly down there and shore up the levies himself?  Katrina was not a federal problem at that point.  The governor of Luisiana had full authority over the situation and told the feds to stay out of the way.  Later when the feds realized that the state government was a worthless pile of shit and took the situation over, it was too late.  You can argue that the federal government should have intervened sooner, but that's a different story.  Furthermore, on August 29th, Obama was also NOT going to the area.
    Exactly.  What's more, this was a problem for the executive branch, not the legislative.  I'm sure McCain kept up on the news but it wasn't like he had the power to mobilize the National Guard.  In my opinion, Bush should have done that a lot sooner but the guy is notorious for avoiding strong decisions in favor of slow, bungled political messes.  I don't think there was any ill-will involved, just a President who wasn't very good at making the big calls and who liked to defer to his deputies ("Brownie" in this case).
    Plus, first responders to natural disasters have always been state and local.  And as you alluded, the governor has to call out the national guard.  And lets be honest, FEMA being a bit slow to deliver aid (they were never meant to be first responders) is nothing compared to having a huge fleet of school buses sitting there, and not evacuating more people...or waiting to ask for federal help (which is another responsibility of the governor).  Compare the state and local responses between Katrina and this year's flooding in the midwest.



  • @The Vicar said:

    "Lieberman was the Democratic candidate for VP eight years ago, so why is he speaking at the Republican convention?" "They didn't have enough unindicted party members to fill out the schedule without an Independent."
     

    owned?



  • @tster said:

    @The Vicar said:

    "Lieberman was the Democratic candidate for VP eight years ago, so why is he speaking at the Republican convention?" "They didn't have enough unindicted party members to fill out the schedule without an Independent."
     

    owned?

    Obviously not.  When it comes to politics, the other side is never ever ever right, no matter how much evidence, logic and reason they have on their side.  I mean, obviously this is so very different from Lieberman speaking at the RNC.  I will stand aside and let someone else explain exactly how it is different.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    When it comes to politics, the other side is never ever ever right, no matter how much evidence, logic and reason they have on their side.

     

    Incorrect. When the evidence becomes undeniable, "the other side just copied our ideas!".



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    When it comes to politics, the other side is never ever ever right, no matter how much evidence, logic and reason they have on their side.
    Quoted for truth.  Maybe this is why I love arguing about politics.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    Agreed.  I've been trying to convince people to elect me president on my platform of "conquering pussy nations like the UK and enslaving all of their grammar-abusing citizens", but very few seem to go for it.
     

    Are you older than 35? If so, I might have just found my new write in candidate.  No point in wasting my write in on someone who's not even eligible (or I'd vote for myself) :)

     



  • @taylonr said:

    @morbiuswilters said:

    Agreed.  I've been trying to convince people to elect me president on my platform of "conquering pussy nations like the UK and enslaving all of their grammar-abusing citizens", but very few seem to go for it.
     

    Are you older than 35? If so, I might have just found my new write in candidate.  No point in wasting my write in on someone who's not even eligible (or I'd vote for myself) :)

    For a chance to be president, I'll be any age you want.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    @Lord of the Gerbils said:

    You do realize you're talking about a politician, right?

    Yes, and I believe McCain is probably as shameless as they come.  I was simply countering the incredibly weak argument that McCain would be a bad president because of his acting for a bit part in a comedy movie with a slightly less weak argument advocating for him.

    Right, but how is being unable to put on a show or be dishonest a qualification to be president?

    I mean, he'd be eaten alive!



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    And I don't think Osama bin Laden is an embarrassment to the Republicans -- it is our military who has failed to find him and I don't think you're going to find many Americans who view the failure to kill the fucker as a political failing.

    At least part of the reason the military has failed to find him is because we've been pissing about in Iraq for the last half-decade, and that can be blamed on the republicans.



  • @Random832 said:

    Right, but how is being unable to put on a show or be dishonest a qualification to be president?

    I mean, he'd be eaten alive!

    Yeah, but that's what people want from a candidate.



  • @Random832 said:

    At least part of the reason the military has failed to find him is because we've been pissing about in Iraq for the last half-decade, and that can be blamed on the republicans.

    So you say, but does anyone have any proof that more troops in Afghanistan would have found bin Laden any faster?  It may have, but it also might have been a huge expense with no benefit at all.  At least Iraq has some conceivable benefit that is starting to slowly be realized.  Also, remember that many Democrats voted in favor of the war and it's a bit difficult for them to effectively criticize the Republicans, especially with the recent progress the Bush administration has shown there.  Like it or not, Kerry proved in 2004 that no amount of screaming and bawling about the Iraq war will help a poor candidate win.  Add the fact that the outlook in 2004 for Iraq was far more bleak than the outlook today and the utility of Iraq as a political wedge to tear the country apart seems fairly diminished.



  • @The Vicar said:

    Y'know, I had a feeling morbiuswilters was a conservative, and now he's confirmed that impression by being so desperate to mock the Democrats.

     

    Ya think?   Frankly, if he's a conservative then so are Stephen Colbert (on the Colbert report) and "Bucky" the cat from the comic strip "Get Fuzzy".  They're all parodies and figments of someone's imagination.



  • @operagost said:

    They're all parodies and figments of someone's imagination.

    Are you saying I'm not a real boy??

     

    D: 



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    Are you saying I'm not a real boy??

    Did you wish upon a Starr Report?



  • @Random832 said:

    @morbiuswilters said:
    And I don't think Osama bin Laden is an embarrassment to the Republicans -- it is our military who has failed to find him and I don't think you're going to find many Americans who view the failure to kill the fucker as a political failing.

    At least part of the reason the military has failed to find him is because we've been pissing about in Iraq for the last half-decade, and that can be blamed on the republicans.

     

    I would rather have a friendly, democratic, free Iraq than the imprisonment of a single man.  You do realize that if we kill OBL, someone else would become the new big bad terrorist wolf.  If we turn the middle-east into a stable political zone with strong democratic governments then we can get rid of big bad terrorist wolfs entirely.



  • @tster said:

    I would rather have a friendly, democratic, free Iraq than the imprisonment of a single man.  You do realize that if we kill OBL, someone else would become the new big bad terrorist wolf.  If we turn the middle-east into a stable political zone with strong democratic governments then we can get rid of big bad terrorist wolfs entirely.

    Agreed.  Osama is little more than a figurehead, anyway, and probably doesn't have much to do with the day-to-day operations.  I mean, he may be dead or he may be dying of kidney failure and it's certainly difficult for him to get orders out without attracting attention.  I'd love to see the man executed publicly and spectacularly in Times Square, but mostly just for the joy of it, not because I expect it to do anything other than put a smile on my face.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    If we turn the middle-east into a stable political zone with strong democratic governments then we can get rid of big bad terrorist wolfs entirely.
     @morbiuswilters said:
    Agreed.

    Oh, crap. Something I never thought I'd see here: two people actually posting sensible, factual, and intelligent comments! Well done, gentlemen.



  • @KenW said:

    @tster said:

    If we turn the middle-east into a stable political zone with strong democratic governments then we can get rid of big bad terrorist wolfs entirely.
     @morbiuswilters said:
    Agreed.

    Oh, crap. Something I never thought I'd see here: two people actually posting sensible, factual, and intelligent comments! Well done, gentlemen.

     

    fixed your quotes.  Otherwise you'll make Morbius look a bit crazy ;)



  • @tster said:

    fixed your quotes.  Otherwise you'll make Morbius look a bit crazy ;)
     

    Thanks. Just used the "highlight and click the Quote button" without checking the results.

    Although I'm not sure you helped Morbius look less crazy. <g> 



  •  @morbiuswilters said:

    Like it or not, Kerry proved in 2004 that no amount of screaming and bawling about the Iraq war will help a poor candidate win.
    Like it or not, Plessy v. Ferguson proved in 1896 that no amount of screaming or bawling about separate, inferior facilities will help the poor colored folk use the same facilities whites use.



  • @krg said:

    @morbiuswilters said:
    Like it or not, Kerry proved in 2004 that no amount of screaming and bawling about the Iraq war will help a poor candidate win.
    Like it or not, Plessy v. Ferguson proved in 1896 that no amount of screaming or bawling about separate, inferior facilities will help the poor colored folk use the same facilities whites use.

    Wow, that's completely off-topic and moronic.  And it only proved that the Supreme Court simply wasn't interested in ruling at that time.  Kerry lost in 2004 despite his best efforts to use Iraq as a wedge to split Americans apart.  It is not a viable strategy. 



  • @krg said:

     @morbiuswilters said:

    Like it or not, Kerry proved in 2004 that no amount of screaming and bawling about the Iraq war will help a poor candidate win.
    Like it or not, Plessy v. Ferguson proved in 1896 that no amount of screaming or bawling about separate, inferior facilities will help the poor colored folk use the same facilities whites use.

     

    nominated for dumbest first post ever.  Completely off topic, and condescending in that it parrots the sentence structure of the post it quotes.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    Wow, that's completely off-topic and moronic.  And it only proved that the Supreme Court simply wasn't interested in ruling at that time.  Kerry lost in 2004 despite his best efforts to use Iraq as a wedge to split Americans apart.  It is not a viable strategy. 
    John Kerry's strategy wasn't viable four years ago because the American Public simply wasn't sufficiently interested in Iraq as a wedge issue in 2004.  As much as I dislike wedge issues (and oh boy howdy, do I ever), Americans are indeed more interested in Iraq as a wedge issue today.  Look at a poll sometime.

    My point, which went flying way over the sack of rocks that you appear to call your "head," is that attitudes and priorities change; things that are "important" to voters one year are not necessarily as important the next cycle, and the reverse is true as well.

    Iraq really isn't that important to me as an election issue, but it is for a lot of people.



  • @krg said:

    John Kerry's strategy wasn't viable four years ago because the American Public simply wasn't sufficiently interested in Iraq as a wedge issue in 2004.... Americans are indeed more interested in Iraq as a wedge issue today.  Look at a poll sometime.

     

    O RLY?   

    CNN exit poll 2004: 15% said Iraq was the most important issue

    <font size="1" color="#808080" face="Arial"><font size="2" color="#004080" face="Arial">USA
    Today/Gallup Poll
    . Aug. 21-23, 2008: 
    </font></font> 15% said Iraq was the most important issue

     In the future, if you want to state bullshit as fact and say that polling backs you up.  I suggest you put up or shut up.  This community isn't stupid enough to fall for made up shit.

    PS, this article might interest you.



  • @krg said:

    John Kerry's strategy wasn't viable four years ago because the American Public simply wasn't sufficiently interested in Iraq as a wedge issue in 2004.  As much as I dislike wedge issues (and oh boy howdy, do I ever), Americans are indeed more interested in Iraq as a wedge issue today.  Look at a poll sometime.
    Are you living in 2006?  It's only a wedge issue for the far-left bitter enders.  Pretty much everyone else has recognized that we've effectively won the war.  It's just a matter now of staying long enough to make sure the Iraqis can sustain it.  But even that has been drowned out by figuring out how we can save real estate speculators from losing money.

     @krg said:

    My point, which went flying way over the sack of rocks that you appear to call your "head," is that attitudes and priorities change; things that are "important" to voters one year are not necessarily as important the next cycle, and the reverse is true as well.
    Yeah, but that's a pretty lame way to do it.  It took what, ~60 years for that to be overturned?  That's a lifetime compared to the 4 years between Kerry and Obama.  But it's kinda hard to imagine that advocating defeat could be a serious path to the US presidency, which has been the wedge that the Democrats have been using until it became evident even to them that we weren't going to lose (not that they didn't think that we shouldn't have gone ahead and lost anyway).



  • @krg said:

    John Kerry's strategy wasn't viable four years ago because the American Public simply wasn't sufficiently interested in Iraq as a wedge issue in 2004.  As much as I dislike wedge issues (and oh boy howdy, do I ever), Americans are indeed more interested in Iraq as a wedge issue today.  Look at a poll sometime.

    Doubt it.  Iraq is doing very well today and I don't really here people talking about it any more.

     

    @krg said:

    My point, which went flying way over the sack of rocks that you appear to call your "head," is that attitudes and priorities change; things that are "important" to voters one year are not necessarily as important the next cycle, and the reverse is true as well.

    So you chose to illustrate this with a Supreme Court case, which has nothing to do with voters.  And that backed-up sewage treatment facility you call a mouth decided it was best to pick something inflammatory and ridiculous, implying that Iraq is somehow like segregation.


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.