Troopergate - Page 2 - Dallas-Mavs.com Forums

dude1394 · 10-11-2008, 07:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

Rezko, Wright, Ayers . . . If you want to reflect on Palin like this, then you should look equally into Obama.

badda-bump.

Mavdog · 10-11-2008, 10:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

Rezko, Wright, Ayers . . . If you want to reflect on Palin like this, then you should look equally into Obama.

so you have evidence of obama using his position to aid or influence on behalf of these people?

no?

ok, we looked equally and found nothing.

case closed.

Silk Smoov · 10-11-2008, 10:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mavdog

so you have evidence of obama using his position to aid or influence on behalf of these people?

no?

ok, we looked equally and found nothing.

case closed.

Yes, exactly case closed. Let me go re-open the McCain radical ties thread and see if we can get some closure there

Usually Lurkin · 10-11-2008, 10:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mavdog

so you have evidence of obama using his position to aid or influence on behalf of these people?

no?

ok, we looked equally and found nothing.

case closed.

you don't think Obama's relationships with these people reveal errors in judgement?

chumdawg · 10-11-2008, 10:39 PM

Juneau--or Wasilla--is a long way from DC. In all respects.

Usually Lurkin · 10-11-2008, 10:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chumdawg

Juneau--or Wasilla--is a long way from DC. In all respects.

well, we'll likely get to see DC get much closer to Chicago in the next few years.

chumdawg · 10-11-2008, 11:05 PM

It's about time, isn't it?

Mavdog · 10-11-2008, 11:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

you don't think Obama's relationships with these people reveal errors in judgement?

wright? no.

rezko? clearly he made an error in doing business with the man, and in fact obama admitted such.

ayers? no, to me the man should be viewed for what they are doing today rather than over 30 years ago. after all this person was chicago's citizen of the year in 1997!

still no one who obama used his position to aid or to exert influence on their behalf. and certainly no instance of obama using his office for a petty personal vendetta.

Usually Lurkin · 10-11-2008, 11:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mavdog

wright? no.

rezko? clearly he made an error in doing business with the man, and in fact obama admitted such.

ayers? no, to me the man should be viewed for what they are doing today rather than over 30 years ago. after all this person was chicago's citizen of the year in 1997!

still no one who obama used his position to aid or to exert influence on their behalf. and certainly no instance of obama using his office for a petty personal vendetta.

I thought Rezko was a quid pro quo, swap of favors.
You're crazy if you think wright wasn't a favor. Obama promoted him. If his relationship with Wright wasn't an error in judgment, then that's because it was calculated politics.
Ayers is admittedly unrepentent. Wwhy would you not judge him on his past when he does so - favorably? If he was Chicagos citizen of the year, that should tell chummy why we don't want DC closer to chicago.

chumdawg · 10-11-2008, 11:56 PM

UL, a president probably can't do much of anything if he doesn't have a strong base supporting him. Obama seems to have a strong base, from Chicago and elsewhere. McCain seems to have a much weaker one (even if their voices are loud). There is only so much noise you can make thumping on your bible.

I think we are getting ready to witness a sea change in electoral politics. The Republican party looks to be regionalized and diminished in national importance. They, of course, will bounce back in time...but it will take a while...and it will require them to shake off the burdens that they now welcome.

Usually Lurkin · 10-12-2008, 12:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chumdawg

UL, a president probably can't do much of anything if he doesn't have a strong base supporting him. Obama seems to have a strong base, from Chicago and elsewhere. McCain seems to have a much weaker one (even if their voices are loud). There is only so much noise you can make thumping on your bible.

I think we are getting ready to witness a sea change in electoral politics. The Republican party looks to be regionalized and diminished in national importance. They, of course, will bounce back in time...but it will take a while...and it will require them to shake off the burdens that they now welcome.

that's the magic of Obama - on the one hand, Change and a new style of politics is great, so vote for him. Now, suddenly, old style politics is great! and McCain isn't ingrained in the political community! So vote Obama because he's a master at Chicago politics. And abra-cadabra - McCain's problem is that he doesn't represent his base - but if he's not electable, it signifies a problem with the base!

chumdawg · 10-12-2008, 12:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

that's the magic of Obama - on the one hand, Change and a new style of politics is great, so vote for him. Now, suddenly, old style politics is great! and McCain isn't ingrained in the political community! So vote Obama because he's a master at Chicago politics. And abra-cadabra - McCain's problem is that he doesn't represent his base - but if he's not electable, it signifies a problem with the base!

No, the problem with McCain is in first part that his base isn't large enough for him to win the election and in second part that he doesn't reach out across his base.

That's really it, in a nutshell. To the victor go the spoils, so in that respect you have to give Obama credit for playing a better game.

Usually Lurkin · 10-12-2008, 12:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chumdawg

No, the problem with McCain is in first part that his base isn't large enough for him to win the election and in second part that he doesn't reach out across his base.

you were arguing something about the Republican party taking time to shake of burdens or something?

Quote:

That's really it, in a nutshell. To the victor go the spoils, so in that respect you have to give Obama credit for playing a better game.

no you don't.

chumdawg · 10-12-2008, 12:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

you were arguing something about the Republican party taking time to shake of burdens or something?

Yes, they are on the road to being a regional party with no real impact on national politics. What they would need to rid themselves of in order to reverse the trend is their handcuffed adherence to cultural determinism. That's their burden.

Time was, the party was about fiscal conservatism. That time has long, long passed.

Usually Lurkin · 10-12-2008, 12:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chumdawg

Yes, they are on the road to being a regional party with no real impact on national politics. What they would need to rid themselves of in order to reverse the trend is their handcuffed adherence to cultural determinism. That's their burden.

Time was, the party was about fiscal conservatism. That time has long, long passed.

fiscal and social conservatism.
McCain doesn't represent the party well enough to be an obvious win. Because of that, you can't judge the state of the party by how well he's doing. The reps didn't come up with a great candidate this time around. The last couple, they put up someone that they only half agreed with and still won. The problem with the republicans this time around is that they aren't desperate enough to get all gung ho and fired up about someone that could very likely be a bad president, just to get him elected.

remember the last time a party was just about dead in the water, looking for decades worth of recovery time? it was about 3 years ago. What do you think of the Democrats now? And the last time it was the Republicans? That lasted just a couple years, too.

chumdawg · 10-12-2008, 12:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

fiscal and social conservatism.
McCain doesn't represent the party well enough to be an obvious win. Because of that, you can't judge the state of the party by how well he's doing. The reps didn't come up with a great candidate this time around. The last couple, they put up someone that they only half agreed with and still won. The problem with the republicans this time around is that they aren't desperate enough to get all gung ho and fired up about someone that could very likely be a bad president, just to get him elected.

remember the last time a party was just about dead in the water, looking for decades worth of recovery time? it was about 3 years ago. What do you think of the Democrats now? And the last time it was the Republicans? That lasted just a couple years, too.

No, you can't include fiscal conservatism. You just can't. The Republicans had in this election season the most fiscally conservative of all fiscally conservative Reopublicans, and they didn't give any credence to Ron Paul.

The Republicans simply are NOT fiscally conservative, these days. We had eight years of a Republican president and six years of a Republican Congress...and it wasn't fiscally conservative.

Nobody is fiscally conservative these days. There's no room for it. So, this is not a selling point.

And if that isn't a selling point, what is left? Well...exactly what I alluded to earlier. There's Jesus on the one hand and secularism on the other. Jesus ain't winning, bro.

And that's because Jesus don't belong in government. Separation of church and state, and all.

Usually Lurkin · 10-12-2008, 12:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chumdawg

No, you can't include fiscal conservatism. You just can't. The Republicans had in this election season the most fiscally conservative of all fiscally conservative Reopublicans, and they didn't give any credence to Ron Paul.

Ron Paul is a kook. The Dems haven't put up Ralph Nader. Does that mean they aren't green?

Quote:

The Republicans simply are NOT fiscally conservative, these days. We had eight years of a Republican president and six years of a Republican Congress...and it wasn't fiscally conservative.

the base is - and complained about Bush for 8 years and congress for 5.

Quote:

And that's because Jesus don't belong in government. Separation of church and state, and all.

First, social conservatism isn't just Jesus. Second, I'll get my religion out of your government when you get your government out of my religion.

chumdawg · 10-12-2008, 12:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

I'll get my religion out of your government when you get your government out of my religion.

Huh? Get government out of your religion? What are you talking about?

Ron Paul is certainly not a kook. I supported him from the beginning, like the good Republican that I was. Ron Paul is the staunchest Republican that the party can offer.

But of course, you don't want staunch Republicans. You call them kooks. You want, rather, someone who can win you the election. That's why you have a freakin' Democrat masquerading in Republican clothing in this election. You should have nominated Lieberman. You'd have had a better chance.

That's how bad off the Republican party is. No candidate better than McCain. That is SAD.

It's a restructuring. Maybe '12 will be better. But '08 is a freakin' disaster.

Usually Lurkin · 10-12-2008, 12:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chumdawg

Huh? Get government out of your religion? What are you talking about?

Ron Paul is certainly not a kook. I supported him from the beginning, like the good Republican that I was. Ron Paul is the staunchest Republican that the party can offer.

But of course, you don't want staunch Republicans. You call them kooks. You want, rather, someone who can win you the election. That's why you have a freakin' Democrat masquerading in Republican clothing in this election. You should have nominated Lieberman. You'd have had a better chance.

That's how bad off the Republican party is. No candidate better than McCain. That is SAD.

It's a restructuring. Maybe '12 will be better. But '08 is a freakin' disaster.

Ron Paul is asmuch a kook as Ralph Nader. And if you really thought in terms of "freaking Democrat," then you wouldn't be at the altar of Obama like you are around here.

"electability" is part of the equation, and it doesn't take many "electability" failures to remember that the base is important.

If by "in time" and "it will take a while" you meant 1 presidential election cycle, then I've got no disagreement with you on that point.

chumdawg · 10-12-2008, 12:59 AM

No, these things don't happen in one election cycle. The cycle is more like twenty or more years. There are outliers, of course. But if Obama does a decent job, you can probably rack up twelve years right off the bat. It easily gets to around twenty.

Usually Lurkin · 10-12-2008, 01:00 AM

As for McCain's electability:

There are other factors at work

Dirkadirkastan · 10-12-2008, 01:24 AM

Ron Paul was the old kook that kept whining the past year, making these ridiculous claims about government overspending and the trashing of the dollar. Good thing nobody listened to him.

rabbitproof · 10-12-2008, 02:02 PM

I'm leaning Obama, though I may go third party for the hell of it since my state is a lock, but I would've gone Paul hands down.