Obama's real patriotism problem

[j2k4]

2. I don't make this reply to defend Obama

Well, that's fine, then.

As to Obama, I can't say I've heard him actually answer a question yet; he seems more concerned with reformulating everyone's question according to his own sense of propriety.

McCain, for whom my loathing is well-known, is much less shy about offering his views, and with a degree of specificity Obama does not countenance.

Perhaps your media is shielding/steering you again

Although McCain has been clear in how he plans to create a border between Iraq and Pakistan-- "♫bomb bomb bomb, ♫bomb bomb Iran♫"

(you have heard about his Iraq/Pakistan border gaffe?)

It's not the only geographical gaffe he has made, perhaps he's doing it deliberately to try to seem more in touch with Americans than Obama. You see to some it's anti-American to be able to point other countries out on a map


Details of policy and roughly how to achieve them are out there for both the main and most of the third party candidates. Perhaps you are looking in the wrong places or not actually looking. Perhaps you have seen specifics but as you don't like them have chosen to ignore them and convinced yourself they don't exist. Okay the last one is just yanking your chain, but come on when have you ever heard much in the way of details from any campaign?

You have failed to note the distinction I have attempted to make, which is that, right or wrong, McCain is creating some sort of 'trail of accountability' he can be hooked with down the road, whether or not he is elected.

Obama's entire campaign is, on the other hand, almost perfectly evasive...odd, isn't it, that the relative few things available for quibble have to do with the mis-steps of others (Rev. Wright, Michelle, et. al.) or information he himself has inadequately digested (57 states, etc.).

That such things do not capture the attention of the major media is a constant enigma.

[Squeamous]

I'd like to hear someone reconcile what plenty of people tout as the 'stupendous achievement that is national health care' in the U.K., Canada, Germany, France, Cuba, etc., with those who coincidentally say it shirks on timely care, availability of doctors/facilities, and is a runaway freight-train of fiscal ruin.

There's nothing to reconcile. Health care is expensive. Our own was virtually ruined by Margaret Thatcher and her ilk, but it's had a massive cash injection in the last 10 years after we got rid of her. Waiting lists are down and we've now got to the stage where people are arguing for being given expensive and dubious new drugs instead of arguing for a hip replacement. My only complaint is that it doesn't really include dental care. That was rescinded some time ago, and sure enough rates of dental ill health have increased massively.

You get what you pay for, and I've always said I'd be more than happy to pay more National Insurance if the NHS needed it. No civilised country scrimps on the health of its inhabitants.

[devilsadvocate]

You have failed to note the distinction I have attempted to make, which is that, right or wrong, McCain is creating some sort of 'trail of accountability' he can be hooked with down the road, whether or not he is elected.

Obama's entire campaign is, on the other hand, almost perfectly evasive...odd, isn't it, that the relative few things available for quibble have to do with the mis-steps of others (Rev. Wright, Michelle, et. al.) or information he himself has inadequately digested (57 states, etc.).

That such things do not capture the attention of the major media is a constant enigma.

My reply was that perhaps your media is shielding/steering you again. I even used your whistle thing.

I suggest that you notice McCains "trail" because the left is attacking him on substance. The right on the other hand mostly avoids substance attacking Obama

You may or may not have noticed my disgust at the way we treat the election process with almost childish lack of respect (not child like, childish). Seeing as you raise substance when it comes to reporting Obama, why do you think that is?

I think it's because, in the case of Obama, the right wing noise machine MAKES it that way because they don't want anyone to hear the substance of his message. To a certain degree it works well for them.

After 8 years of the republicans shooting the messenger instead of answering the question the negative sensationalism doesn't appear to be working as well this time.

My observations.

Edit-

This is not to say that the right does no substance attacks on Obama or the left does no character attacks on McCain.

[j2k4]

[
You get what you pay for, and I've always said I'd be more than happy to pay more National Insurance if the NHS needed it. No civilised country scrimps on the health of its inhabitants.

If I take this as a capsule defense of the idea of national health care, I see resignation to, rather than concern for, the continually-spiraling costs.

Ten points if you can sort a way to throttle escalating costs by any method other than competition.

We need not resign ourselves to a runaway locomotive.

[j2k4]

[QUOTE=devilsadvocate;2905691]

You have failed to note the distinction I have attempted to make, which is that, right or wrong, McCain is creating some sort of 'trail of accountability' he can be hooked with down the road, whether or not he is elected.

Obama's entire campaign is, on the other hand, almost perfectly evasive...odd, isn't it, that the relative few things available for quibble have to do with the mis-steps of others (Rev. Wright, Michelle, et. al.) or information he himself has inadequately digested (57 states, etc.).

That such things do not capture the attention of the major media is a constant enigma.

My reply was that perhaps your media is shielding/steering you again. I even used your whistle thing.

My media?

What is my media telling you?

Do you really believe I start and stop at Fox news and Rush Limbaugh?

That's kind of offensive, truth.

I suggest that you notice McCains "trail" because the left is attacking him on substance. The right on the other hand mostly avoids substance attacking Obama

Yes, yes, the left and substance.

The two don't go together at all, if you get much beyond "hope" or "change".

I'm willing to listen, however, if you decide you can change my mind.

As to the other, you are quite correct to point out the right doesn't attack Obama on substance; you see, insofar as we may try, we are confronted with the chicken/egg, cart/horse proximity problem: No substance.

When creative or incisive criticism is levied, it is universally condemned as "racist".

You may or may not have noticed my disgust at the way we treat the election process with almost childish lack of respect (not child like, childish). Seeing as you raise substance when it comes to reporting Obama, why do you think that is?

"We" who?

I can't let you get away that cheaply...examples, please.

I think it's because, in the case of Obama, the right wing noise machine MAKES it that way because they don't want anyone to hear the substance of his message. To a certain degree it works well for them.

Tell me something:

Does the left wing have a "noise machine"?

Or are you one of those "centrists/moderates" who don't even acknowledge the existence of a "left"?

You defend Obama, AND-

You defend the media's lack of concern over his lack of everything.

You imply all criticisms of McClain are substantive.

You claim to be unbound by simple ideology.

Sorry-

It doesn't work that way.

You, sir, are a liberal; there is no denying the fact.

I, on the other hand, am a conservative.

After 8 years of the republicans shooting the messenger instead of answering the question the negative sensationalism doesn't appear to be working as well this time.

You are right as to the 8 years of republicans, however, you overestimate their sniping ability; they couldn't hit a messenger with the broad side of a barn, yet they can't avoid shooting themselves in the foot.

They can't even do "negative sensationalism" to any effect - luckily, though, it hasn't been necessary, as Obama will destroy his own chances when it is discovered (as it will be, about the time of the first presidential debate) not only that he has no clothes, but that Michelle has forgotten to even shop for them.

And (once again), I am a conservative.

(Here's a hint that will help: If you want to know what a conservative thinks, ask one - don't rely on republicans for your info).

Unless McCain dies before the election, it's his to lose, guaranteed.

Remember I said that.

My observations.

Edit-

This is not to say that the right does no substance attacks on Obama or the left does no character attacks on McCain.

Nice try, if a bit late.

[devilsadvocate]

[quote=j2k4;2906177]

My reply was that perhaps your media is shielding/steering you again. I even used your whistle thing.

My media?

What is my media telling you?

Do you really believe I start and stop at Fox news and Rush Limbaugh?

That's kind of offensive, truth.
I've stated previously regarding your observations of the media I must be watching a different media, so yes your media, whatever that may be. Interesting that you went straight on the defensive when I mentioned no station or commentator. You made an assumption.

I suggest that you notice McCains "trail" because the left is attacking him on substance. The right on the other hand mostly avoids substance attacking Obama

Yes, yes, the left and substance.

The two don't go together at all, if you get much beyond "hope" or "change".

I'm willing to listen, however, if you decide you can change my mind.

As to the other, you are quite correct to point out the right doesn't attack Obama on substance; you see, insofar as we may try, we are confronted with the chicken/egg, cart/horse proximity problem: No substance.
No, they started the "empty suit" mantra (one can predict this each election) So they can't attack him on substance because it would kind of knock that mantra on the head.
When creative or incisive criticism is levied, it is universally condemned as "racist".
Again I remind you I am not defending Obama or his policies, what I am doing is making observations. I don't agree with much of Obamas or McCains substance, but they do have it. Perhaps I should revise this

Perhaps you have seen specifics but as you don't like them have chosen to ignore them and convinced yourself they don't exist

from yanking your chain to serious possibility.

You may or may not have noticed my disgust at the way we treat the election process with almost childish lack of respect (not child like, childish). Seeing as you raise substance when it comes to reporting Obama, why do you think that is?

"We" who?

America in general. Elections are treated with the seriousness of a sideshow attraction.
I can't let you get away that cheaply...examples, please.

I think it's because, in the case of Obama, the right wing noise machine MAKES it that way because they don't want anyone to hear the substance of his message. To a certain degree it works well for them.

Tell me something:

Does the left wing have a "noise machine"?

Yes of course it does, I've already mentioned them.

Or are you one of those "centrists/moderates" who don't even acknowledge the existence of a "left"?

See above

You defend Obama, AND-

You defend the media's lack of concern over his lack of everything.
The only defending I am even close to doing is his patriotism. The man is as patriotic as anyone and I made my feelings about the questioning known in my reason for calling the original article junk. Did you miss my point?
You imply all criticisms of McClain are substantive.

See edit on previous post, I did that BEFORE you replied as when I read it a little later I guessed you might do what you just did if I failed to cover every possibility. I can't decide if you are paranoid or just overly sensitive.

You claim to be unbound by simple ideology.

Sorry-

It doesn't work that way.

You, sir, are a liberal; there is no denying the fact.

I, on the other hand, am a conservative.

I have no wish to be connected to liberals or conservatives, they both want government to run their lives for them, just in different ways. I have my own ideology and neither fits. I don't claim to be a centrist either as that would imply I'm split between the two main parties. You need your left/middle/right straight line categories, my chart is more 3 dimensional. I don't expect you to get that and have no desire to explain.

After 8 years of the republicans shooting the messenger instead of answering the question the negative sensationalism doesn't appear to be working as well this time.

You are right as to the 8 years of republicans, however, you overestimate their sniping ability; they couldn't hit a messenger with the broad side of a barn, yet they can't avoid shooting themselves in the foot.

They can't even do "negative sensationalism" to any effect - luckily, though, it hasn't been necessary, as Obama will destroy his own chances when it is discovered (as it will be, about the time of the first presidential debate) not only that he has no clothes, but that Michelle has forgotten to even shop for them.

And (once again), I am a conservative.
And I notice you like to question are conservativism of others in the same way Golberg likes to question patriotism. It does seem a very with me or against me type of conservatism you have.
(Here's a hint that will help: If you want to know what a conservative thinks, ask one - don't rely on republicans for your info).

Who said I rely on republicans? There are enough of those self proclaimed conservatives about. It's funny however, when it comes to McCain I've heard more character assassination from conservatives, but in the end they will vote for him because he's rebublican and are already trying to justify not voting their principles by saying they will "hold their nose"

Unless McCain dies before the election, it's his to lose, guaranteed.

Remember I said that.

My observations.

Edit-

This is not to say that the right does no substance attacks on Obama or the left does no character attacks on McCain.

Nice try, if a bit late.

Apparently, when you use red ink you have to post something after the quote.

I've probably left you an opening in there somewhere to make you worry about precious bodily fluids - have at it.

[j2k4]

I have my own ideology...my chart is more 3 dimensional. I...have no desire to explain.

Handy for maintaining a certain distance, though it can leave one open to the "empty suit" charge, you see.

I have my own ideology as well, but the necessity of operating within the current "framework" of culture and politics dictates my methodologies, at least until I find others who want to go back to the Constitution; I would say a return to the part-time legislature would be a good start - going to represent your district in Washington ought to be more of an "Oh, shit, I lost" event, if you ask me.