PDA

View Full Version : Special Anti-Drug Mideast Edition


Bloggingheads
05-18-2008, 11:13 PM

Abu Noor Al-Irlandee
05-18-2008, 11:28 PM
Not only is Barack Obama a secret Muslim at and the same time a radical Black Christian but he is at the same time a Muslim apostate whose very existence will enrage Muslim fundamentalists and the endorsed candidate of the Muslim fundamentalists (Hamas). Got it?

http://abunooralirlandee.wordpress.com

graz
05-19-2008, 12:24 AM
Not only is Barack Obama a secret Muslim at and the same time a radical Black Christian but he is at the same time a Muslim apostate whose very existence will enrage Muslim fundamentalists and the endorsed candidate of the Muslim fundamentalists (Hamas). Got it?

http://abunooralirlandee.wordpress.com

No I haven't got it yet. Could you hammer it into my head from now till November? Please. I would prefer to respond with a serious minded point. Sometimes words fail.

David Thomson
05-19-2008, 12:29 AM
Barack "Barry" Obama apparently once was a practicing Muslim. Thus, some Islamic nihilists will be upset by his "apostasy." But what is he today? That is a relatively easy question to answer: Obama is an ambitious Harvard educated yuppie. The dude seeks power and learned long ago how to manipulate the guilt of white liberals. This is most assuredly why he abandoned "Barry" and started to refer to himself publicly as Barack. The latter sounds so Third Worldish and authentically black. Obama is similar to a fascist leader. His political campaign essential demands that followers cease asking hard questions and simply trust the "great leader."

graz
05-19-2008, 12:34 AM
His political campaign essential demands that followers cease asking hard questions and simply trust the "great leader."

But does he eat Brie?

David Thomson
05-19-2008, 01:21 AM
"But does he eat Brie?"

Barack "Barry" Obama eats Brie with the best of them. He instinctively gravitates to anything which might help him gain power. Obama is a yuppie! He legitimately sensed that by changing his public name to Barack would be a door opener. It resulted in Obama receiving a $40,000 book advance for his first "autobiography." A "Barry" would have been ignored! The publisher wanted an "authentic voice of the black community." Barry sounds too assimilated, too much of an "oriole cookie." "Barack" also sounds like he's got that Franz Fanon thing going on. A wimpy white left-winger might also conclude that a Barack may kick his rear end if he didn't cooperate.

A number of Republicans foolishly do not fear Obama. They consider a charming "man of color" to be perhaps another Sidney Poitier. This is a serious mistake. John McCain may leave something to be desired---but Obama is downright dangerous. In many respects, he has too much in common with Benito Mussolini. His followers often remind me of the true believers Eric Hoffer wrote about some six decades ago.

graz
05-19-2008, 02:04 AM
Shout out to Joel Cairo, Bloggin' Noggin and B.J. Keefe from Eli.
You all are having an impact on the Right after all.
I can't dingalink due to wmv, but if you make it to the end... there it is.

r108dos
05-19-2008, 02:08 AM
Eli doesn't give Matthew enough time to make his points. It was a little annoying. I really wanted to hear more from Matthew.

Wonderment
05-19-2008, 03:11 AM
Good job, Eli!

I find his views thoroughly contemptible, but he scored a Hat Trick (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hat_trick) at the undingalickable end of this conversation: 1) acknowledged the comments section; 2) conceded the election to Obama; 3) stood up to two outrageous charges that any respectable human being would be offended by -- the potsmoking smear and the you're-ugly nonsense.

Hats off to Eli.

bjkeefe
05-19-2008, 07:19 AM
Wonderment:

Great minds think alike department: Here are dingalinks that you hinted at.

Eli's version of "I'm smart, I'm good-looking, and damn it, people like me." (http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/11081?in=66:12&out=66:17)

and

What truth did Eli reveal with his curiously precise denial? (http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/11081?in=65:27&out=65:32)

bjkeefe
05-19-2008, 07:27 AM
graz:

Thanks for noting that.

Eli:

Thanks for making the effort to read the comments.

Also, I appreciate your receptivity to constructive criticism and different points of view. Makes it much easier to reciprocate.

bjkeefe
05-19-2008, 07:31 AM
... too much of an "oriole cookie."

The team in charge of maintaining Nabisco brand recognition weeps.

brucds
05-19-2008, 10:13 AM
I was going to write a comment to the effect that David Thomson was a babbling hysteric with zero credibility. Then I realized there was no point since David Thomson had already written several to the same effect.

Thus Spoke Elvis
05-19-2008, 12:38 PM
What truth did Eli reveal with his curiously precise denial? (http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/11081?in=65:27&out=65:32)

The truth was revealed long ago when Eli mentioned his enormous collection of jazz records.

bjkeefe
05-19-2008, 12:42 PM
The truth was revealed long ago when Eli mentioned his enormous collection of jazz records.

Great catch!

AemJeff
05-19-2008, 01:36 PM
Eli makes a point here (http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/11081?in=00:40:40&out=00:40:51), that those of who oppose this war need to allow for in our arguments.

I'm not convinced that, despite my overall opposition to the engagement overall, it would be the best move to withdraw now. I'm not advocating staying, either - I accept Powell's "Pottery Barn" formulation, so the question that I think needs answering is "Would the Iraqi people be made to suffer more or less by a particular choice." Nor am sure what the strategic value of a withdrawal, in the shorter term, would be.

My guess is that, whoever wins the election, the beginning of a long, slow drawdown is initiated, and that a decade out, we'll still have a presence, albeit much diminished.

bjkeefe
05-19-2008, 01:51 PM
Eli makes a point here (http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/11081?in=00:40:40&out=00:40:51), that those of who oppose this war need to allow for in our arguments.

As Eli narrowly defines it, yes, I agree -- bringing up the incorrectness of the decision to invade and the poor execution of the occupation after "Mission Accomplished" doesn't help.

On the other hand, it works both ways. It would be a lot easier to talk about realistic scenarios if those who sold the war and then mismanaged it made an honest apology. Also, there has to be an admission on their part that this is not something we can "win," which I think is a stance adopted at least in part due to their uncomfortable awareness of recent history. In other words, I believe they are still seeking a result that's good enough to erase the mistakes made at the beginning, and are not open to discussing exit strategies that, realistically, amount to trying to pick the least bad one.

I'm overgeneralizing here, I realize, and I acknowledge that not all of those who still support the ongoing occupation are this absolutist. But I think those emotions are at work here in some supporters' minds, along with a more general refusal by some to admit that America can't "win" every war it starts.

Given the anti-GOP mood of the country right now, it also seems politically sensible to just rip the whole band-aid off quickly, so to speak. Right after the elections, those who are trying to preserve the Republican "brand" by avoiding the perceived domestic political consequences of admitting "failure" or "defeat" should just realize, "It can't get any worse than it is right now. Might as well just get it over with."

AemJeff
05-19-2008, 02:14 PM
As Eli narrowly defines it, yes, I agree -- bringing up the incorrectness of the decision to invade and the poor execution of the occupation after "Mission Accomplished" doesn't help.

On the other hand, it works both ways. It would be a lot easier to talk about realistic scenarios if those who sold the war and then mismanaged it made an honest apology. Also, there has to be an admission on their part that this is not something we can "win," which I think is a stance adopted at least in part due to their uncomfortable awareness of recent history. In other words, I believe they are still seeking a result that's good enough to erase the mistakes made at the beginning, and are not open to discussing exit strategies that, realistically, amount to trying to pick the least bad one.

I'm overgeneralizing here, I realize, and I acknowledge that not all of those who still support the ongoing occupation are this absolutist. But I think there's at least some of those emotions at work here, along with a more general refusal by some to admit that America can't "win" every war it starts.

Given the anti-GOP mood of the country right now, it also seems politically sensible to just rip the whole band-aid off quickly, so to speak. Right after the elections, those who are trying to preserve the Republican "brand" by avoiding the perceived domestic political consequences of admitting "failure" or "defeat" should just realize, "It can't get any worse than it is right now. Might as well just get it over with."

I'm generally in agreement with much of what you've said here. I have a (slightly) premature, medium term, worry. Assuming a Democratic sweep in the fall, I think that hubris is going to be a huge problem. As an aside: my favored composition for elected Federal officials is Dem President, Dem Senate, Republican House. Without some legislative friction, our governments tend toward unwisdom, if you will. My fear is that triumphant Dems attempt to reward the base by trying to appear to give them as much of what's on their wish list as possible. Making strategic mistakes in Iraq will damage the Democratic brand just as badly as it has for the Republicans. I don't want a return to dominant Republicanism eight or twelve years from now. My hope is for restraint, and as much of an analytical approach to major strategic decision as they can muster. I'm afraid we (Democrats) are in danger of celebrating ourselves right back into the minority, and I think foreign policy is where it's going to be easiest to make that mistake.

As I said, I know I'm a little premature, we haven't even officially ended the primaries, yet.

bjkeefe
05-19-2008, 02:37 PM
AemJeff:

I am not that worried about hubris. I don't know if it's wishful thinking or not, but I'd at least like to believe that should the Dems run the table in November, there will be enough of them who carry haunted memories of both 1994 and 2000-2008 that they will be determined to govern responsibly. Also, given all that needs to be undone from the past eight years, I think the best chance to fix things lies with letting one party take an unhampered stab at it for a few years.

I agree that, in general, there's a potential for worry if the same party controls the White House and both branches of Congress. On the other hand, I don't expect the Dems to get a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, so that's one set of brakes right there. And, of course, the midterm elections come rolling around in 2010. Given the Dems legendary ability to form a circular firing squad every time they appear to have an insurmountable advantage, I don't think they'll go too crazy in two years.

BrendanM
05-19-2008, 03:46 PM
John McCain is old--_really_ old. This is not a "young" old man. He endured many beatings and forms of torture whole a P.O.W. He looks old. He tires quickly. And increasingly he gives signs of cranky, simplistic thinking. The rebel of old has given way to the embrace of sound-bite based reasoning. This was not just pandering, it also suggests a serious decline of mental flexibility. He took one to many blows to the head, the trauma of which only partially heals through time. Add together his age and the deterioration resulting from his long captivity and we have real reason to fear a potentially mentally disabled president.

AemJeff
05-19-2008, 03:50 PM
John McCain is old--_really_ old. This is not a "young" old man. He endured many beatings and forms of torture whole a P.O.W. He looks old. He tires quickly. And increasingly he gives signs of cranky, simplistic thinking. The rebel of old has given way to the embrace of sound-bite based reasoning. This was not just pandering, it also suggests a serious decline of mental flexibility. He took one to many blows to the head, the trauma of which only partially heals through time. Add together his age and the deterioration resulting from his long captivity and we have real reason to fear a potentially mentally disabled president.

I don't think a word of this is justified. It reads to me like a parody of Kidneystones' or David Thompson's ravings.

Wonderment
05-19-2008, 04:08 PM
The team in charge of maintaining Nabisco brand recognition weeps.

Team in charge of identifying mangled and incoherent metaphors (eg."you can't kill two barns with one stone) concurs.

Disturbing news of miscegenation (http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://sdakotabirds.com/diffids/bullocks_oriole.jpg&imgrefurl=http://sdakotabirds.com/diffids/orioles.htm&h=369&w=400&sz=39&hl=en&start=3&sig2=burFlSerR1J-vPVUUpiFag&um=1&tbnid=-iAPEwoa9HUKXM:&tbnh=114&tbnw=124&ei=2c8xSO62EZaypgTU7dzNAQ&prev=/images%3Fq%3Doriole%2B%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26client %3Dfirefox-a%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26sa%3DN) though:

BrendanM
05-19-2008, 04:20 PM
What I said was very un-p.c. and very uncomfortable. I don't like thinking this, but I lived through Ronald Reagan who I saw deteriorate seriously from 1976 to 1988.

The things McCain is saying now seem routinely fantastical and sometimes little more than empty slogans. In the press, this has been portrayed as pandering to the "christian right" and other elements of the GOP Base, but I just don't buy it. There are just too many hypocrisies and odd representations of reality. The 2000 McCain would not have resorted to these things. I cannot square this and the nasty, personal line of attack against OBama that Senator McCain has so quickly dropped into with a calculated move to kick the partisanship up a notch. It looks like a much cruder, manichean thinking process.

I think if this guy somehow wins, this judgment will be vindicated.

AemJeff
05-19-2008, 04:25 PM
During the 2000 campaign, McCain was subjected to whispering campaign that his imprisonment had made him mentally ill. There was about as much evidence for that smear as what you wrote here. The man's age is a valid concern. Speculation about his mental health or acuity, especially without some clinical basis, is out-of bounds.

Wonderment
05-19-2008, 04:29 PM
I don't know if it's wishful thinking or not...

A clear case of counting your orioles before they've hatched.

BrendanM
05-19-2008, 05:15 PM
Being President is not like being a running-back. The manifold physical aspects of aging are far less relevant than the possible mental decline some elderly people experience. Why is the candidate's age a consideration at all if a particular--I would say the single most important--potential infirmity of aging for the job, the deterioration of mental acuity, is out of bounds. In the last few years we have seen that the public has routinely been shielded from information about various politicians' health -- Jack Kennedy, for example. I think we are absolutely entitled to consider this. It is not an outrage. I see a very different John McCain than 4 years ago. Some may conclude, if they see this, that it's just a calculated political move or a change of heart. I think it is very reasonable to suspect that instead a sort of narrowmindedness is taking hold. On this, I guess we're not going to agree.

AemJeff
05-19-2008, 05:26 PM
Being President is not like being a running-back. The manifold physical aspects of aging are far less relevant than the possible mental decline some elderly people experience. Why is the candidate's age a consideration at all if a particular--I would say the single most important--potential infirmity of aging for the job, the deterioration of mental acuity, is out of bounds. In the last few years we have seen that the public has routinely been shielded from information about various politicians' health -- Jack Kennedy, for example. I think we are absolutely entitled to consider this. It is not an outrage. I see a very different John McCain than 4 years ago. Some may conclude, if they see this, that it's just a calculated political move or a change of heart. I think it is very reasonable to suspect that instead a sort of narrowmindedness is taking hold. On this, I guess we're not going to agree.

But you're stepping around the objection. If there's evidence, then you're perfectly justified in "whipping it out," as it were. (The evidence, that is.) It's not cool just to assert a baseless belief that X is true about Y, especially when X could be damaging to Y. You need something specific that other people will agree actually contributes to a rational case for your assertion. Suspicion and innuendo based on circumstance and long distance observation aren't sufficient to that purpose. Do you remember Charles Krauthammer's long-distance diagnosis ("I'm the only one here who actually is a psychologist...") of Al Gore? I'm betting that you're not trolling, that you're trying to make a sincere case, but I think you need to provide more than what you've shown so far to make your case.

BrendanM
05-19-2008, 06:10 PM
I have a doctorate, but not that kind. But here I am just a poster on a comments blog. If I were a psychiatrist and if I had evidence for a prima-facie diagnosis, I'd put it in a letter to the Washington Post. What I see is a fellow who has recently shifted positions and do things over the last year that strike me as very different than his previous record. I am not talking about mere slips like al-Qaeda being shiite. He once proclaimed himself a crusader against the special interests and lobbyists -- Luke Skywalker fighting his way out of the DeathStar. Now he's surrounded himself with campaign advisors who are special interest lobbyists. He once was highly critical of the Christian right. Now he embraces some of the very people he's slammed. He follows the leader in slamming Obama as reckless and an appeaser for willingness to talk with Iran, forgetting that he himself had indicated Hamas would have to be talked with, and forgetting that other administration officials now talk to Hizzbolah and advocate talks with Iran. He used very strong attack language against Obama this AM regarding the Soviet-Iranian threat comparison. What world is he living in? What I see is a guy who maximally escalates rhetoric in a fight rather than attempt any sort of nuanced argumentation. All these can be interpreted as mere political ploys, but they are such crappy ploys I don't find that believable. I think he actually believes his own BS, forgets, temporarily, what his previous line of reasoning was, and gets angry quickly when called on it. I had an experience in my own family -- a family member became an opiner of religious platitudes, more narrow-minded, critical and forgetful of (and annoyed by the recall of) her former more latitudinarian views not in harmony with her current views. It's eerily similar. It looks like mental decline to me.

Big Wayne
05-19-2008, 06:35 PM
I have a doctorate, but not that kind. But here I am just a poster on a comments blog. If I were a psychiatrist and if I had evidence for a prima-facie diagnosis, I'd put it in a letter to the Washington Post. What I see is a fellow who has recently shifted positions and do things over the last year that strike me as very different than his previous record. I am not talking about mere slips like al-Qaeda being shiite. He once proclaimed himself a crusader against the special interests and lobbyists -- Luke Skywalker fighting his way out of the DeathStar. Now he's surrounded himself with campaign advisors who are special interest lobbyists. He once was highly critical of the Christian right. Now he embraces some of the very people he's slammed. He follows the leader in slamming Obama as reckless and an appeaser for willingness to talk with Iran, forgetting that he himself had indicated Hamas would have to be talked with, and forgetting that other administration officials now talk to Hizzbolah and advocate talks with Iran. He used very strong attack language against Obama this AM regarding the Soviet-Iranian threat comparison. What world is he living in? What I see is a guy who maximally escalates rhetoric in a fight rather than attempt any sort of nuanced argumentation. All these can be interpreted as mere political ploys, but they are such crappy ploys I don't find that believable. I think he actually believes his own BS, forgets, temporarily, what his previous line of reasoning was, and gets angry quickly when called on it. I had an experience in my own family -- a family member became an opiner of religious platitudes, more narrow-minded, critical and forgetful of (and annoyed by the recall of) her former more latitudinarian views not in harmony with her current views. It's eerily similar. It looks like mental decline to me.

This reminds me of an disturbing fact: Every year, a lot of people sitting at dinner tables start to choke on their food. Embarrassed and not wanting to make a scene, they get up from the table and go to the bathroom, where they die. Obviously they hoped they would be able to cough up the obstructing object and not make a scene. A costly mistake.

Considering the overwhelming importance of the job and the vast powers available to the president, it seems dangerous to declare the question of his mental fitness, even the generic mental fitness of 72 year olds, as out of bounds. While I think it is important to be respectful, I personally think your concerns are valid and it would be a shame if we made a bad choice for president because we were too polite to ask important questions.

AemJeff
05-19-2008, 10:08 PM
This reminds me of an disturbing fact: Every year, a lot of people sitting at dinner tables start to choke on their food. Embarrassed and not wanting to make a scene, they get up from the table and go to the bathroom, where they die. Obviously they hoped they would be able to cough up the obstructing object and not make a scene. A costly mistake.

Considering the overwhelming importance of the job and the vast powers available to the president, it seems dangerous to declare the question of his mental fitness, even the generic mental fitness of 72 year olds, as out of bounds. While I think it is important to be respectful, I personally think your concerns are valid and it would be a shame if we made a bad choice for president because we were too polite to ask important questions.

Come on, Wayne. Whispering campaigns, unsourced allegations, blank assertions - these are the things that are out of bounds. If you can't back it up, don't bring it up. That works for Democrats and Republicans.

Big Wayne
05-19-2008, 10:35 PM
Come on, Wayne. Whispering campaigns, unsourced allegations, blank assertions - these are the things that are out of bounds. If you can't back it up, don't bring it up. That works for Democrats and Republicans.

I agree that whispering campaigns and unsourced allegations are out of bounds. But what about general concern about McCain's age? Is that allowed? I mean, 72 is pretty darn old. Is it out of bounds to worry that a man of McCain's age might not have the physical stamina or the mental agility to be president? Do we need actual proof that McCain personally has degraded capacity before we can raise the issue?

To be more specific: I think you're right that it's out of bounds to hint darkly that McCain's abuse in Vietnam may have rendered him unfit. That really is unsourced and unfounded (as far as I know). Also: If it were true, you think we'd have seen evidence of it over the past 40 years. But I think general concern about age is valid. In fact, I think it's an important consideration when evaluating his candidacy.

I will grant that the arguments in McCain's favor on these grounds are pretty strong: He seems to have a lot of stamina, and seems to remain mentally agile. However I do think he might lack some of the sharpness we saw 4 and 8 years ago.

In any event, I would agree there are far better ways to go after McCain than his age.

AemJeff
05-19-2008, 10:38 PM
I agree that whispering campaigns and unsourced allegations are out of bounds. But what about general concern about McCain's age? Is that allowed? I mean, 72 is pretty darn old. Is it out of bounds to worry that a man of McCain's age might not have the physical stamina or the mental agility to be president? Do we need actual proof that McCain personally has degraded capacity before we can raise the issue?

To be more specific: I think you're right that it's out of bounds to hint darkly that McCain's abuse in Vietnam may have rendered him unfit. That really is unsourced and unfounded (as far as I know). Also: If it were true, you think we'd have seen evidence of it over the past 40 years. But I think general concern about age is valid. In fact, I think it's an important consideration when evaluating his candidacy.

I will grant that the arguments in McCain's favor on these grounds are pretty strong: He seems to have a lot of stamina, and seems to remain mentally agile. However I do think he might lack some of the sharpness we saw 4 and 8 years ago.

In any event, I would agree there are far better ways to go after McCain than his age.

I think I said, somewhere back there in this thread that of course his age isn't out of bounds. But whispering "mental incapacity" while mentioning his age isn't a fair tactic. How about insisting that he provide his medical records? That has the advantage of not appearing unfair to him and if there really is a problem he'll either have to reveal it or deal with the appearance that he has something to hide.

Wonderment
05-19-2008, 11:28 PM
I agree that age should not be a factor in assessing McCain. Even if he were 90 instead of 72, the question should not be age-based. Either he's competent or he isn't. The rest is ageism.

For example, if McCain can't tell Sunni from Shia, he's not qualified to be president. Period. That would be true of a 35-year-old or a 90-year-old.

There's no reason to bring his age into the equation.

His health records should be of no more concern than Clinton's or Obama's.

bjkeefe
05-20-2008, 06:26 AM
How about insisting that he provide his medical records?

For the record:

MSNBC noted (http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/05/19/1037763.aspx) briefly (scroll down/search for "Time's Scherer and Park take a look at McCain's personal health") that McCain plans to release his medical records on Friday, albeit after considerable delay (http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/15098.html).

bjkeefe
05-20-2008, 06:36 AM
Wonderment:

Mostly I agree with you. This part I quibble with:

His health records should be of no more concern than Clinton's or Obama's.

Being older does make one more susceptible to the onset of any of a number of problems; e.g., loss of mental acuity, reduced vigor, longer healing times for illnesses, etc. There is also the fact that McCain has been treated for melanoma in the past.

I grant that all accounts so far indicate that he is as energetic as anyone could ask, and he does have the added weight of the genes displayed by his mother.

Still, it is reasonable to be extra concerned about his prospects for the next four years. It means that scrutinizing his VP choice becomes a lot more important, for one thing. Also, he hasn't helped matters by delaying the release of his medical records. (Link (http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/15098.html) from earlier post.)

johnmarzan
05-20-2008, 09:12 AM
About robert malley, matthew said that malley was smeared and forced out of the obama campaign by the rightwing.

Nonsense.

it was a pre-emptive move on obama's part.

Because mccain brought up the issue of a hamas advisor, Ahmed Yousef, (http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=Y2UzYzkwMTA5YTNiY2E1NzU3ZjMzNjUyNWYxZDNiM2M) who publicly endorsed obama.

obama must have been confused because he instead fired his own advisor Robert Malley, who was in talks to hamas.

before the firing, most people don't know malley was on obama's team, or that he was talking to hamas. brzinski and carter's role were more public.

Wonderment
05-20-2008, 04:05 PM
Being older does make one more susceptible to the onset of any of a number of problems....

So does being a lot of things: gay, female, spouse of sex addict, drug user, etc.

Do you want sexual histories in these reports? (Do we need to know if Hillary Clinton has genital herpes? Or if Barack Obama ever slept with a man?)

Drug use histories? (antidepressants, sleep aids, etc.) What if Hillary is zonked on Lunesta and Scotch at 3 a.m.? What if Barack took acid in college?

Just askin'

look
05-20-2008, 04:27 PM
So does being a lot of things: gay, female, spouse of sex addict, drug user, etc.

Do you want sexual histories in these reports? (Do we need to know if Hillary Clinton has genital herpes? Or if Barack Obama ever slept with a man?)

Drug use histories? (antidepressants, sleep aids, etc.) What if Hillary is zonked on Lunesta and Scotch at 3 a.m.? What if Barack took acid in college?

Just askin'

Even if you leave age aside there are factors in McCain's past that raise questions of possible mental decline. Anger is a symptom of PSTD, and there have been stories recently of how his flashes of anger really scare some of his colleagues. Also, PTSD tends to subside after its first manifestations, only to re-surface in later years.

As far as his two bouts with melanoma, radiation and chemotherapy can affect cognitive function. Also, I recently heard that his melanoma has a 40%chance of recurrence, though I can't recall if there was a timeframe mentioned.

I marveled at Hillary's energizer bunny stamina on the trail. I wondered how much sleep she was getting, etc. Who knows if she took any sort of pick-me-ups countered with Lunesta...I kind of doubt it, though.

Big Wayne
05-20-2008, 05:47 PM
About robert malley, matthew said that malley was smeared and forced out of the obama campaign by the rightwing.

Nonsense.

it was a pre-emptive move on obama's part.

Because mccain brought up the issue of a hamas advisor, Ahmed Yousef, (http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=Y2UzYzkwMTA5YTNiY2E1NzU3ZjMzNjUyNWYxZDNiM2M) who publicly endorsed obama.

obama must have been confused because he instead fired his own advisor Robert Malley, who was in talks to hamas.

before the firing, most people don't know malley was on obama's team, or that he was talking to hamas. brzinski and carter's role were more public.

Your post is written in such a way that it could leave people with a several misimpressions.

Let me clear them up for you.

(1) You make it sound like Malley was "in talks with Hamas" on behalf of the Obama campaign. He was not. He was in contact with Hamas as part of his day job "with the International Crisis Group, which, he says, requires him to meet with Hamas and others." It had nothing to do with the Obama campaign.

(2) You say that "brzinski and carter's role were more public," implying that the relationship between Zbigniew Brzezinski and Jimmy Carter is somehow analagous to the relationship between Malley and Obama. It is not.

(3) You say Malley was part of the "Obama campaign," and "on Obama's team," and "[Obama's] own advisor." In fact, he had "a very informal relationship" with the campaign, and was not a formal advisor or member of the campaign team.

(4) You use the loaded phrase "in talks with," which is synonymous with "in negotiations with." Malley was not "in talks with" anyone, nor was he negotiating anything.

The implication of your post as a whole is that Malley was designated by Obama to negotiate with Hamas. But, of course, that's completely untrue.

Worth noting: "Malley worked for six and a half years at the Clinton National Security Council."

Source: http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/05/09/1005411.aspx

Wonderment
05-20-2008, 06:02 PM
Even if you leave age aside...

That's all I'm suggesting.

Every voter is obviously free to speculate about how crazy or sick a candidate is. I have plenty of reasons to reject McCain because of what he says and what he stands for. Don't need to play the age card per se.

I would also be happy to vote for an older person as president: Jimmy Carter, for example.

I marveled at Hillary's energizer bunny stamina on the trail.

Really! She's my age, and I couldn't keep up with that schedule in a million years.

If I wanted to play amateur psychologist, I'd say she has an addiction to the thrill of the game -- like a compulsive gambler. They can go long periods without sleep too, when they're on a roll. I wonder what the crash will look like when she goes bust.

johnmarzan
05-21-2008, 12:04 AM
The implication of your post as a whole is that Malley was designated by Obama to negotiate with Hamas. But, of course, that's completely untrue.

don't be too defensive. i just pointed out the fact that malley was an advisor for the obama campaign. AND he is/was in talks with the Hamas. as to whether he is communicating with HAMAS on behalf of the obama campaign or for himself, i leave that up for the geniuses at BHTV here to decide.

(3) You say Malley was part of the "Obama campaign," and "on Obama's team," and "[Obama's] own advisor." In fact, he had "a very informal relationship" with the campaign, and was not a formal advisor or member of the campaign team.

sure, that's why he was forced to "resign" publicly by obama's team.

and matthew duss' claim that the rightwing "smeared" and forced the obama campaign to sack malley is what we call a lie. and he's going to be exposed if he makes such claims here. more likely a strawman argument was used.

(2) You say that "brzinski and carter's role were more public," implying that the relationship between Zbigniew Brzezinski and Jimmy Carter is somehow analagous to the relationship between Malley and Obama. It is not.

is this also what bush was talking about? at least there are "low level" talks now taking place between the terror organizations/supporters and the "carter administration," lol. And obama won't have to stick to his silly "without preconditions" statement.

johnmarzan
05-21-2008, 03:54 AM
a tip for the MSM: they should ask brzezinski and carter re da "concessions" they got from syria and hamas, and if these terror groups and financiers are now willing to recognize israel's right to exist and stop their support for terrorism in iraq, israel and lebanon.

look
05-22-2008, 02:34 AM
If I wanted to play amateur psychologist, I'd say she has an addiction to the thrill of the game -- like a compulsive gambler. They can go long periods without sleep too, when they're on a roll. I wonder what the crash will look like when she goes bust.
One can imagine her showing up on the Senate floor still in PJs, hair mussed, with a thousand-yard stare. But I really think she'll just keep on trucking.

osmium
05-23-2008, 12:54 PM
once again thinking eli's my kinda dude.