Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Go matty, end him.

We'll turn a blind eye.

youbedead wrote:In related news the North Arizona Teaparty wants to recall McCain

“Go to hell, Senator, it’s time for you to take your final dirt nap,” Harris concludes.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/24/wes-harris-arizona-tea-party_n_1697793.html?1343139298&ncid=edlinkusaolp00000009

I didn't even read the article, that quote alone has got me so angry I've got a headache.
I honestly can't coherently say anything else that wouldn't be advocating violence against this scum sucking troglodyte.

What a nauseating piece of gak.

RatBot wrote:

youbedead wrote:In related news the North Arizona Teaparty wants to recall McCain

“Go to hell, Senator, it’s time for you to take your final dirt nap,” Harris concludes.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/24/wes-harris-arizona-tea-party_n_1697793.html?1343139298&ncid=edlinkusaolp00000009

I didn't even read the article, that quote alone has got me so angry I've got a headache.
I honestly can't coherently say anything else that wouldn't be advocating violence against this scum sucking troglodyte.

What a nauseating piece of gak.

Agreed.
I weep for this country. Thats it. The rest of you off my planet! Who's with me?

Your planet?
I think you mean our planet...

Actually...

purplefood wrote:Your planet?
I think you mean our planet...

This planet belongs to no one but the Mole People. I am their representative and they bid me to tell you that for centuries they have bided their time and now the time of reckoning has come.

A Town Called Malus wrote:

purplefood wrote:Your planet?
I think you mean our planet...

This planet belongs to no one but the Mole People. I am their representative and they bid me to tell you that for centuries they have bided their time and now the time of reckoning has come.

I think you'll find it belongs to us...

RULE BRITANNIA
BRITANNIA RULES THE WAVES

Albatross wrote:I think the fact that he appointed a psychopath as a running mate is basically just a fig-leaf excuse that people can point to as reason for McCain's failure. He was never going to beat Obama, no-one could have. Obama swept to power on a wave of emotion - he was a viable candidate for first black president, and the country needed something to feel good about after a difficult decade.

Actually, McCain was running right about even with Obama until the economic crisis, which the GOP horribly bungled through a combination of some poorly timed comments (the economy is fundamentally sound) and simple association. Palin hurt McCain, but it was the economy that really killed him. Well, that, and the larger GOP which continues to show that it hasn't learned how to move past Rove's approach to campaigning.

Rove is my hero. I love it when he wears that robe like the Emperor in Star Wars.

MrDwhitey wrote:Rove is my hero. I love it when he wears that robe like the Emperor in Star Wars.

Wh-where does your food go?

Inside me.

A Town Called Malus wrote:

purplefood wrote:Your planet?
I think you mean our planet...

This planet belongs to no one but the Mole People. I am their representative and they bid me to tell you that for centuries they have bided their time and now the time of reckoning has come.

Beware mole people. We are ready.
We are Wienie. We are Legion.

A Town Called Malus wrote:

According to the Times, Harris believes Muslims are incapable of being loyal to the U.S., because he claims that their faith in Islam and the Quran trumps any other allegiance.

Kareem Rashad Sultan Khan, a muslim, died fighting for America at 20 years old. There are nearly 15,000 muslims fighting in the US Armed Forces right now. Fighting so gaks like Wes Harris can spew their ignorant filth.

I want to find this guy Harris and beat him with that picture until the cops drag me away. People like him are a cancer to this country. They have forgotten what America actually stands for. John McCain is a war hero. Who does Wes Harris think he is? He's a schmuck from the biggest hell hole in Arizona. Screw him.

“Go to hell, Senator, it’s time for you to take your final dirt nap,” Harris concludes.

Clearly, when presented with carefully prepared rhetoric none of us could ever hope to stand in opposition.

I particularly like the idea of a "final dirt nap." Harris has obviously realized the horrifying truth that John McCain died in Vietnamese internment, and was raised from the dead by a Voodoo priestess employed by the Rothschild family; who are the true masters of the Islamists attempting to infiltrate the State Department.

And his Facebook page is public. Public, and hilarious. One particular gem:

Over a half a million people have viewed this video. Could Obamacare and this administration be fulfilling Revelations and 'the mark of the beast'? A mico chip required for all of us by March of 2013 could be just that...The Mark of The Beast.

That sounds far too plausible, dogma. Punch up the language a bit.

dogma wrote:

“Go to hell, Senator, it’s time for you to take your final dirt nap,” Harris concludes.

Clearly, when presented with carefully prepared rhetoric none of us could ever hope to stand in opposition.

I particularly like the idea of a "final dirt nap." Harris has obviously realized the horrifying truth that John McCain died in Vietnamese internment, and was raised from the dead by a Voodoo priestess employed by the Rothschild family; who are the true masters of the Islamists attempting to infiltrate the State Department.

No, you see McCain is actually rambo, and you can't kill rambo. I'm just waiting for him to just go completely crazy and start attacking senators because he thinks they're charlies

dogma wrote:

“Go to hell, Senator, it’s time for you to take your final dirt nap,” Harris concludes.

Clearly, when presented with carefully prepared rhetoric none of us could ever hope to stand in opposition.

I particularly like the idea of a "final dirt nap." Harris has obviously realized the horrifying truth that John McCain died in Vietnamese internment, and was raised from the dead by a Voodoo priestess employed by the Rothschild family; who are the true masters of the Islamists attempting to infiltrate the State Department.

Hands down. Dogma wins.

Any relation to former U.S. Senator Joseph McCarthy? Damn near sounds like it.

According to the Times, Harris believes Muslims are incapable of being loyal to the U.S., because he claims that their faith in Islam and the Quran trumps any other allegiance.

This kind of poison has sadly always been a part of the American political landscape. His kind of awful Protestant bigot said the exact same thing about Catholics. JFK was very careful to make public statements about keeping his religious beliefs separate from his political decision making, exactly because of people like this scumbag.

I always wonder how, if one's Muslim identity trumps all other affiliations, Iran and Iraq were able to fight a war.

Melissia wrote:So you're talking about the same Iraq we finished withdrawing from completely last year, right?

Aah... Iraq continued right on the schedule it had been on. Obama, like anyone else who isn't a complete nut, wanted to ensure that withdrawal was done as quickly as possible, without leaving behind chaos. Which ultimately means withdrawal is left in the hands of the military, not presidential policy.

As for civil rights, I don't know if you're really paying much attention on that front. Obama's done more for civil rights than Clinton and caused far fewer steps back for the movement as a whole, given the latter's creation of the Defense of Marriage Act.

Really? There was DOMA? Well golly jee willickers thanks for enlightening me. That's an issue that ultimately reflects how vast the change in view on homosexual rights has been in the last 15 to 20 years. Both Clintons now argue for its repeal - while back then DADT was actually a progressive move forward, and the best anyone could hope to push through against the military establishment.

At the same time, Obama's sudden change on that gay rights is all about him throwing a bone to the left wing, and it seems to be a bone they've been very willing to take, and use to pretend Obama never thought any differently.

What you seem to be missing here is that we're on the same side - Obama is clearly the best option to be the next president - it's just that I'm not willing to pretend he, or his presidency, is actually anything more than what it really is.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

gorgon wrote:IIRC, Obama and team felt Clinton wasn't a transformative president, and didn't want to follow the same course. After getting slapped down on health care, Clinton settled for a bunch of smaller accomplishments, but no great achievement in his 8 years in office. He was trying right up to the end to broker some kind of deal between the Israelis and Palestinians, but fell short.

On some level, I kinda agree with Obama's team. Why not go for broke and try to actually do something? Clinton repealed Glass-Steagall, fer chrissakes. I guess he can hang his hat on that.

I think that's what every president hopes for at first, to be honest. Some land that great achievement, but most don't, and instead settle for as many little things as they can. Considering Obama's healthcare reform ended up being about half the job, at best, and given the nature of the presidential campaign so far that even if he wins he won't have any kind of mandate and so will be unlikely to install greater reforms in his second term, I think we're probably looking at a guy who's legacy will end up looking a lot like Clinton's.

In a lot of ways that's probably not such a bad thing, either.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:Actually, McCain was running right about even with Obama until the economic crisis, which the GOP horribly bungled through a combination of some poorly timed comments (the economy is fundamentally sound) and simple association. Palin hurt McCain, but it was the economy that really killed him. Well, that, and the larger GOP which continues to show that it hasn't learned how to move past Rove's approach to campaigning.

McCain running level with Obama was one of those misleading things that's never properly gone away. Basically for a short period McCain caught Obama in the polls, as a combination of the post convention bump (which was always going to drop away in the latter weeks) and polling models continuing to use 2004 likely voter models as a predictor of who was likely to vote in this election (given the massive change in enthusiasm they were always going to give misleading figures) - once they switched to to the numbers provided by directly asking 'are you likely to vote?' then the polls starting showing clearly that Obama was always the strong favourite.

Even when he drew level in those polls, McCain was always the rank underdog. This is something McCain always knew, even if the media never quite figured it out. It's why McCain moved from one attempted big game changing moment to next, and kept shifting his campaign strategy. He knew he had to do something to make a big catch up.

It's also why Obama never focussed on the swing states, and instead spent his assets relatively evenly across the nation. If anything, he focussed more on states with close senatorial races than presidential swing states, because he knew he was an overwhelming favourite for the whitehouse, but that every senate seat they picked up meant more of his reforms were likely to get up (well that didn't quite work out as planned, but still).

Notice how the two candidates haven't acted in the same way this campaign? I mean its early days, but so far it sounds like Obama is narrowing in on those swing states, and Romney has kept a consistent message. It's because this campaign really is on.

sebster wrote:
McCain running level with Obama was one of those misleading things that's never properly gone away. Basically for a short period McCain caught Obama in the polls, as a combination of the post convention bump (which was always going to drop away in the latter weeks) and polling models continuing to use 2004 likely voter models as a predictor of who was likely to vote in this election (given the massive change in enthusiasm they were always going to give misleading figures) - once they switched to to the numbers provided by directly asking 'are you likely to vote?' then the polls starting showing clearly that Obama was always the strong favourite.

Until October the gap between McCain and Obama was relatively small, topping out at around 3-4 points barring some spikes. This is very much surmountable in the general, though it clearly places McCain as the underdog. What really decided the election was the economic crisis, after which we start seeing Obama with an 8-10 point advantage.

Either way, the polls I've seen that feature the "Are you likely to vote?" question haven't produced hugely distinct numbers from the traditional methodology. I've also never been a huge fan of that approach because it relies too much on an honest response, though it is a useful comparison against an established baseline.

sebster wrote:
Even when he drew level in those polls, McCain was always the rank underdog. This is something McCain always knew, even if the media never quite figured it out. It's why McCain moved from one attempted big game changing moment to next, and kept shifting his campaign strategy. He knew he had to do something to make a big catch up.

Interestingly I think that's what killed his campaign. I think had he been able to cast himself in a manner consistent with his established image while focusing on incremental gains he would have done better. He still wouldn't have won, he simply didn't have the money, but he would have done better. He certainly could have kept some Senate seats from going to the Democrats.

sebster wrote:
It's also why Obama never focussed on the swing states, and instead spent his assets relatively evenly across the nation. If anything, he focussed more on states with close senatorial races than presidential swing states, because he knew he was an overwhelming favourite for the whitehouse, but that every senate seat they picked up meant more of his reforms were likely to get up (well that didn't quite work out as planned, but still).

I'm not sure polling was a major factor. Rather, I think it was Obama's massive funding advantage that drove their strategy. Even spreading their resources across the entire nation, the Obama campaign was still able to outspend McCain in Presidential swing states, states in which he had a natural advantage to begin with due to Bush's disastrous exit approval.

sebster wrote:
Notice how the two candidates haven't acted in the same way this campaign? I mean its early days, but so far it sounds like Obama is narrowing in on those swing states, and Romney has kept a consistent message. It's because this campaign really is on.

I think this time around, while Obama still has the funding advantage over Romney, the Democrats recognize that there is a lot more third-party investment on the Republican side in this election. The polls are much closer as well, but the absence of the ability to simply outspend the opposition is a huge issue.

dogma wrote:Until October the gap between McCain and Obama was relatively small, topping out at around 3-4 points barring some spikes. This is very much surmountable in the general, though it clearly places McCain as the underdog. What really decided the election was the economic crisis, after which we start seeing Obama with an 8-10 point advantage.

As I said before, those polling results were very misleading, because that 3-4 point lead was based around 2004 turnouts. The increase in likely voters among core Democrat voting blocs, particularly black people and the under 25s, was a major driver in Obama's win.

Either way, the polls I've seen that feature the "Are you likely to vote?" question haven't produced hugely distinct numbers from the traditional methodology. I've also never been a huge fan of that approach because it relies too much on an honest response, though it is a useful comparison against an established baseline.

All elements of polling requires an honest answer, and so all polling has problems. But polling on likelihood of turning out to vote needs to be accounted for, because you cannot assume similar turnout for each demographic from one election to the next... when those turnout numbers are 90% of what determines a winner in the first place.

When polling numbers shifted from one to the other you saw Obama's lead increase significantly. This was mistakenly reported as being driven by the economic news.

Interestingly I think that's what killed his campaign. I think had he been able to cast himself in a manner consistent with his established image while focusing on incremental gains he would have done better. He still wouldn't have won, he simply didn't have the money, but he would have done better. He certainly could have kept some Senate seats from going to the Democrats.

It didn't help, but then I think McCain knew that it was probably not going to. Going for the long bomb into the endzone will generally end up in you scoring nothing, and maybe setting the opposition up to score, but if you're down by a load of points you might as well try it - the safe play might see you lose by less, but still lose.

I think that's the thing a lot of people never really thought through - McCain isn't an idiot, nor is he a political rookie. He isn't going to go for any out there craziness when there's no need - the fact that he did is strong evidence that his position was pretty dire.

I'm not sure polling was a major factor. Rather, I think it was Obama's massive funding advantage that drove their strategy. Even spreading their resources across the entire nation, the Obama campaign was still able to outspend McCain in Presidential swing states, states in which he had a natural advantage to begin with due to Bush's disastrous exit approval.

That only really holds if 'more' funding means that's all the advantage you're going to get. If instead Obama hadn't just spent more than McCain, but 2 or 3 times as much he could have pushed his lead out in those key states - which is exactly what he would have done if the election was on the line. But instead he used his brand, which was incredibly strong at the time, to get other Democrats over the line.

Remember the number of stops he made in states that were safe in the presidential race, just to stand next to some Democrat facing a tough election?

sebster wrote:Both Clintons now argue for its repeal - while back then DADT was actually a progressive move forward, and the best anyone could hope to push through against the military establishment.

And yet, they still have both DADT and DoMA as marks against them.

Obama has also pushed for various laws and programs to help women, the disabled, and other minorities as well, such as the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act for women and other such laws, and he ordered a stop to "enhanced interrogation" methods. He hasn't closed gitmo yet, but a good deal of that is because there's really nowhere else to put those prisoners. So don't think I'm focusing entirely on the gay rights agenda.

Claiming it's nothing more than "throwing a bone" seems unusually ignorant of you, Seb.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Over a half a million people have viewed this video. Could Obamacare and this administration be fulfilling Revelations and 'the mark of the beast'? A mico chip required for all of us by March of 2013 could be just that...The Mark of The Beast.

Oh goddamnit.

I think I need to take some tylenol and lay down. My brain is rebelling. It's tired of this cruel world...

AHA! It all becomes much clearer! You see, the pod peopl... I mean muslims, have infected McCain as well! He's one of them now!

Tea Party Congressman Louie Gohmert (R-TX) lashed out at Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) for criticizing him and his fellow conservative members for suggesting that a senior aide to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood. Gohmert is part of a small group of five Republican members, led by Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN), who are demanding an investigation into whether Clinton deputy chief of staff Huma Abedin is connected to the group.
“Normally you don’t go blast somebody on the floor who is a colleague on the same side of the aisle unless you touch base with them,” Gohmert complained during an appearance on the Dennis Miller Show on Tuesday, referring to McCain’s denunciation of the group’s allegations as “nothing less than an unwarranted and unfounded attack.” The fiery Texan then launched into a personal attack against McCain, calling him “numb nuts” and suggesting the Muslim Brotherhood is now influencing him too:

GOHMERT: Well, it’s obvious that John McCain didn’t even read the letter because of what he said in accusing Michele and us of making these horrible accusations. There were five letters and there were many things that are stated that are facts in each letter. And I wish some of these numb nuts would go out and read the letter before they make these horrible allegations about the horrible accusations we’re making. But we also know that John McCain himself had said back in the early stages of stuff going on in Egypt that he was, in his words, “unalterably opposed to helping the Muslim Brotherhood.” Well, obviously the unalterable person has been altered, so he is okay with it now.

Gohmert has long believed that Muslim extremist organizations have infiltrated the American government. At a recent Congressional hearing, he furiously questioned Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano about whether Mohamed Elibiary, a member of DHS’s Combatting Violent Extremism Working Group (CVE) and a Muslim is part of a terrorist organization.
While Bachmann and her small group of supporters are doubling down on their attacks, a growing number of Republicans are distancing themselves from the charges.

"They're everywhere?!?!?!?!"

Ok. I actually like the original body snatchers a good bit better.

Yeah, Texas congressmen tend to be a bit trashy and scum.

Melissia wrote:Yeah, Texas congressmen tend to be a bit trashy and scum.

Yes.

It's bipartisan then.