A vote for Hillary is a vote for McCain is a vote for Bush

[Phokus]

This week, Hillary threatened to destroy Iran if they so much as sneeze on Israel and McCain has been acting 'tough' himself (i.e. 'bomb bomb bomb Iran', 100 years, 10,000 years, kick Russia out of the G-8, etc. etc. etc.).

Is there any real difference between voting for Hillary/McCain or lobbying to allow Bush to be dictator for life?

 

[senseamp]

A vote for Obama is a vote for Bush. 4 more years of inexperience in the white house.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: senseamp
A vote for Obama is a vote for Bush. 4 more years of inexperience in the white house.

Since when is a state governor inexperienced?

 

[nageov3t]

do you think Obama would act any differently if Iran attacked Israel?

 

[senseamp]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: senseamp
A vote for Obama is a vote for Bush. 4 more years of inexperience in the white house.

Since when is a state governor inexperienced?

Since GWB

 

[Lemon law]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: senseamp
A vote for Obama is a vote for Bush. 4 more years of inexperience in the white house.

Since when is a state governor inexperienced?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

When that State is Texas and the governor of Texas is a largely only ceremonial post without any real political power.

But in the case of GWB, he started out as an inexperienced President who has learned nothing in 7.3 years. With GWB&co, power matters and results don't matter.

But getting back to the thread title, Iran does not need to directly attack Israel. Nor can Israel
directly attack Iran in any meaningful way without using Nukes. And has to violate the the air space of quite a few neutral nations in the process. The distance between Iran and Israel is simply too great.

Instead what we have in the mid east is two conflicting proxy wars going on at the same time. While the US arms Israel and enables it to repress the Palestinians and surrounding Arab States, Iran and other surrounding Arab nations help fund terrorists who attack Israel.

In MHO, both proxy wars are equally immoral and neither side will back down as this ongoing conflict moves into year 60 with no end in sight. Hopefully some future US President will finally see this a negative sum game and negotiations focused more on binding arbitration is the only way to avoid a future bloodbath in the mideast.

As terrorist technology improves, the only way Israel can protect itself will be to establish
an impossibly large buffer zone it cannot justify having. As it is, Israel cannot claim any land won in the 1967 war while it settles on any of this disputed land with any value. Making any negotiated settlement now impossible. We have now wasted two decades pretending Israel will be a honest partner in peace while we pretend Stateless terrorists can build a viable Palestinian State out of thin air.

Actually the Hamas vision is the more realistic one based on a State that can be co governed by Jews and Palestinians. Instead we have the State of Israel based on the principles that only Jews have right with a basic apartheid philosophy quite similar to that of the former South Africa.

 

[lupi]

If iran nukes israel and we then don't make a large quantity of glas in iran, that would be a total failure starting at the presidential level.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: senseamp
A vote for Obama is a vote for Bush. 4 more years of inexperience in the white house.

That's a really bad comparison. Bush's policies are not awful because of a lack of experience.

 

[Lemon law]

Originally posted by: lupi
If iran nukes israel and we then don't make a large quantity of glas in iran, that would be a total failure starting at the presidential level.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------]

Why?

From an immediate perspective, such Iranian nuclear capacity will not be possible until the 2016 time line. So why are we worried now when we don't even know if Iran intends on developing nukes that can't possibly match the nukes Israel has now until 2020 or longer.

At the rate terrorists are developing better technologies, Israel will likely be in deep doo doo
long before any Iranian nuclear technology can take hold. Long gone are the gentle days of 1990 when all the terrorists had were rocks and bottles to throw at Israeli tanks.

Without taking any sides, how can we fail to realize that the terrorists rockets will acquire longer ranges and the war heads may start to contain chemical and biological weapons that will start to kill large numbers of Israeli's inside of the safety of Israel.

Until then, Israel can afford to safely ignore the general anger of their neighbors. After what I see coming as inevitable, nukes will be the least of Israeli worries.

The handwriting is on the wall, 2006 was only two years ago, and the world will not tolerate another Israeli type rape of Lebanon or other surrounding neighbors.

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: senseamp
A vote for Obama is a vote for Bush. 4 more years of inexperience in the white house.

Since when is a state governor inexperienced?

Since when does experience in <insert your state/local/federal position> matter?

Several good presidents haven't had lots/any expereince, several bad ones have.

Doesn't mean anything

 

[tweaker2]

Originally posted by: Phokus
This week, Hillary threatened to destroy Iran if they so much as sneeze on Israel and McCain has been acting 'tough' himself (i.e. 'bomb bomb bomb Iran', 100 years, 10,000 years, kick Russia out of the G-8, etc. etc. etc.).

Is there any real difference between voting for Hillary/McCain or lobbying to allow Bush to be dictator for life?

well, considering they share many of the same supporters, i don't see a difference from that point of view.

 

[b0mbrman]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: senseamp
A vote for Obama is a vote for Bush. 4 more years of inexperience in the white house.

That's a really bad comparison. Bush's policies are not awful because of a lack of experience.

Bush's policies are awful because he's too young and his only talent is making good speeches

As for Hillary, I don't think she'd be a bad leader in practice. She's only talking the way she is to get elected.

 

[Lemon law]

The bOmrman contention is----Bush's policies are awful because he's too young and his only talent is making good speeches

Since when has GWB ever made a good speech? His speeches are more a one trick pony that he is some simplistic bubba type who somehow shares American values. Strip that phony act away, and you are left with a moral degenerate with a megalomaniac vision of getting his own way without any heed to anything but his own personal power.

Credit where credit is due, GWB&co. have been very good at what they do. But in the larger analysis, they have been an unmitigated disaster for this country. And unless conditions now radically change, we will only be shed of GWB&co when 1/20/2009 comes and goes.

 

[RY62]

Originally posted by: Phokus
This week, Hillary threatened to destroy Iran if they so much as sneeze on Israel and McCain has been acting 'tough' himself (i.e. 'bomb bomb bomb Iran', 100 years, 10,000 years, kick Russia out of the G-8, etc. etc. etc.).

Is there any real difference between voting for Hillary/McCain or lobbying to allow Bush to be dictator for life?

Man, you guys are getting desparate. First, let's see some proof of where she threatened to destroy Iran "if they so much as sneeze on Israel".

Has the Obama camp become so rattled that they now have to fabricate stories like this and the doctored video yesterday?

Do you realize how stupid it sounds to say a vote for Clinton is a vote for Bush or a vote for Obama is a vote for Wright? At least keep some truth to it and say- A vote for Clinton is a vote against Obama. Right now, I would probably rather vote for Bush than Obama. Well, maybe it's not quite that bad, but I would sit out before voting for Obama.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: b0mbrman

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: senseamp
A vote for Obama is a vote for Bush. 4 more years of inexperience in the white house.

That's a really bad comparison. Bush's policies are not awful because of a lack of experience.

Bush's policies are awful because he's too young and his only talent is making good speeches

As for Hillary, I don't think she'd be a bad leader in practice. She's only talking the way she is to get elected.

I'm speechless :Q

Fern

 

[jonks]

Of course Obama wouldn't bomb Iran, considering they are fellow muslims.

Which makes about as much sense as your OP.

The panic and need for constant reassurance among Obama supporters is hysterical.

 

[Superrock]

Originally posted by: sirjonk
Of course Obama wouldn't bomb Iran, considering they are fellow muslims.

Which makes about as much sense as your OP.

The panic and need for constant reassurance among Obama supporters is hysterical.

I really don't understand this muslim thing. A. It's not true. B. Even if it were true why would it make any difference?

 

[lopri]

Originally posted by: Superrock
I really don't understand this muslim thing. A. It's not true. B. Even if it were true why would it make any difference?

He agrees with you. Please read the second sentence of his post.

How anyone thinks Hillary = McCain is beyond me. Aren't these the same people who used to argue that Obama's policies are 95% same as those of Clinton's?

Listen. It is understandable that folks get upset, but equating Hillary/Obama with any GOP candidate is an oxymoron. Do you guys know that GOP has not even a single black person in the Senate/House? (and for how long?)

I am confident whoever lose the nomination will support the winner, and while that will be critical (how they deal with the loss) for uniting the party, I have no doubt that Hillary and Obama will respect each other. The problem will be the 'super's who flocked/switched with the vested interested, which can be handled by party leaders.

 

[lopri]

Here. For you both Obama partisans and Hillary partisans.

http://andrewsullivan.theatlan...5/two-straws-in-t.html

These two people got a lot bigger heart for the country (and the party) than you guys.

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: lopri
Here. For you both Obama partisans and Hillary partisans.

http://andrewsullivan.theatlan...5/two-straws-in-t.html

These two people got a lot bigger heart for the country (and the party) than you guys.

Well if you're going to link andrewsullivan...

http://andrewsullivan.theatlan...5/what-do-economi.html

See? Hillary = Bush after all!

 

[Moonbeam]

Hillary has no illusions that the average American voter is a moron. She has no personal dignity or organic shame. It's all about winning and if she does we will have elected another swine.

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Hillary has no illusions that the average American voter is a moron. She has no personal dignity or organic shame. It's all about winning and if she does we will have elected another swine.

and on that point here is an example:

Sunday rhetoric.

Clinton, for her part, disputed Obama's suggestions that she and Republican candidate John McCain were the same because they both support a gas tax holiday.

''Senator McCain has said take off the gas tax, don't pay for it, throw us further into deficit and debt. That is not what I've proposed,'' Clinton said, adding that she wants the oil companies to pay the gas tax instead of consumers this summer.

Pressed to name an economist who supports such a holiday, Clinton demurred. ''I'm not going to put my lot in with economists because I know if we did it right, if we actually did it right, if we had a president who used all the tools of his presidency, we would decide it in such a way that it would be implemented effectively.''

So in other words, don't worry what actual professional economists think about a "gas tax holiday" SHE knows better than any of them..trust her.

yeah...sure Hillary.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Superrock

Originally posted by: sirjonk
Of course Obama wouldn't bomb Iran, considering they are fellow muslims.

Which makes about as much sense as your OP.

The panic and need for constant reassurance among Obama supporters is hysterical.

I really don't understand this muslim thing. A. It's not true. B. Even if it were true why would it make any difference?

It's just as true as saying a vote for hillary is a vote for mccain is a vote for bush, that is to say, completely untrue.

It makes a difference because this country goes into a fit every time a Catholic runs for office, and a Mormon caused the right to freak out. America may be ready for a black president or a woman president, but America is definitely not going to elect a muslim president any time soon.

Why? because.

 

[nageov3t]

Phokus, seriously... what the hell are you even trying to say in this thread?

the only criticism Obama could muster up over Hillary's words was a criticism of rhetoric, not content. the idea that any sitting president would let Iran attack one of our closest allies at will is absurd.

Obama said that an attack on Israel would be considered an attack on the United States itself... you're telling me that we wouldn't obliterate Iran if they launched missiles on DC?