U.S. Presidential Election 2008

Actually I have a suspicion that the drop in violence could possibly have more to do with secret talks with Iran rather than the surge.

and Conqy, just for once could you stop ramping up the patronising/insulting tone when you contribute.

You have a suspicion, yes. That's nice. Of course, then you would have to admit to Iran previously playing a very malevolent role in Iraq.


I am well within my rights to criticize your comments and will continue to do so. I would hardly characterize saying that you read selectively and that your comments need scrutiny as "insulting"- an analysis of a number of your posts to which I have posted a rebuttal on these politcal threads (and the rebuttals) would confirm this. Then again, maybe you consider the truth to be "insulting"?

Of course, BTC, you are always more than welcome to drop your own "insulting tone". Let's discuss the issues- can you handle that?

Here's an article from January 2007 on Obama's then-current position on troop withdrawal (note that it foresaw a 14-month withdrawal period and would have prevented the surge).
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...7013001586.html

which I have always admitted. But their malevolent role was as much a creation of being cut out of any of the early consultation on the Iraq conflict aftermath. That doesn't excuse it of course but when the US is restoring diplomatic relations alongside a sudden drop in Iran-sponsored militia violence it does rather look as if the Iranian strategy paid off in the end . . .


If you stuck to that it would be okay. But your grandiose pomposity is out of all proportion to the thread and to the people you so gratuously insult. It is the main reason why most people on thois site now loathe you, which is silly when you DO have usefiul and interesting things to say. You really are your own worst enemy on that front.

So does that mean that you believe the Iranians are behind the unrest and violence that has been ongoing in Iraq?

Edit-oops, should have read farther, damn work keeps getting in the way!

some of it yes. I would have thought that was obvious. Several of the militias are very upfront about their relationship with Iran.

I should add that this salient fact is one reason I have strongly backed face to face talks with Iran for a long time. Iran is the solution as well as the problem.

So now Obama is able to capitalize on the success of the current administration and their military and diplomatic efforts. Some of which he opposed and actually said were not working. Irony?

Nah, it has to do with us making a devil's deal with the Shiite insurgents and paying them off with US taxpayer's money to the tune of missing billions! It is the Sunnis that want us to stay to protect their collective asses and we are doing so because of Saudi Arabia and oil.

Well fucking said!

Selective logic and misrepresentations bordering on outright lies. It was the current administration that opposed all this and had zero diplomatic efforts going on. It was the Dems pushing diplomatic efforts and inclusion of neighboring countries. Now, show me what Obama opposed and said was not working?

If you are talking about the surge, it didn't work. Making deals with and paying off the insurgents did and extra troops were not needed to do that. Don't be a fool!

One problem for your assumption is that there is also the nuclear issue, and it is likely that is the one tied to the increased US diplomacy. You also ignore the possibility of more effective tactics by Iraqis and Americans against those committing violence, and there is always the possibility that the Iran may have been concerned that the US would finally take action against it for arming the militias. The Iranian strategy in armimg the militias was to cause as much harm to the US as possible- a task that got considerably more difficult with the surge and more effective Iraqi participation.


As for your claim of "most people on this site now loathe me" even if accurate (and I doubt it) the loathing is clearly evidenced as coming from very opinionated people on the left (probably not the moderate left) and is clearly tied to disagreements on political issues and issues related to political debate- perhaps the most salient example was the hateful behavior of you and others towards me when I expressed my opposition to same sex marriage- a pet issue for you. Your real problem is that I argue against you too effectively for your taste, and you have shown little to no tolerance for opinions that differ from your own.

Tell you what, BTC, why don't you list the monikers of the people you claim "hate me"? If you don't it will be taken as evidence of the falsity of your statement- and remember there is a need to scrutinize what you post.

EDIT: BTC and eurovol complaining about "grandiose pomposity" is comical. How about you show what excised you so much? I'll bet I can find worse from both of you (especially the guy who boasts about an IQ in the 130s).

Billions, eurovol? Are you sure about that? Also, given that Obama wanted to withdraw voluntarily- remember his January 2007 bill to withdraw by the end of March 2008, where do you see evidence on his part of a significant and relevant desire to negotiate? There is not much need to negotiate with a party that has little to no leverage, and one that is in the process of a statutory voluntary withdrawal has none. Nor does a party voluntarily withdrawing usually have much to negotiate about.

Then again, what else would the President of a Democrats Abroad chapter say?

I agree with the bad guys above.

The course of iraq is far more complex than just a troop surge and to give the credit for drop in violence 100% to that is as "selective" as anything else.

What obama should do in addition, is to show americans that he has a sense of humor. mccain is making the rounds on snl and late night talk shows, and for a lot of americans, such tv is as close to "fair and balanced" as they'll ever get. kerry made this mistake, people voted for bush because he was the guy they'd go drink beers with.

What obama is doing however is truly amazing and revolutionary. he has the chance to redefine american politics and bring the us into the 21st century, where it belongs. funny how the old fogies were all about american unilateral domination a la project for the new american century, but that's not working out so well, thank the gods.

Evan Obama admits the surge worked (check out his website), but I'd like to know where you find evidence of paying off insurgents, can you provide a link?

(Oh, and during the political posturing surrounding GEN Petraus's last testimony before Congress Sen. Obama said the surge was clearly not working)

Can you elaborate on this? What exactly is he doing that is Amazing and revolutionary? In what ways has he redefined Amrican politics?

I'm not ignoring any of that Conqy. just presenting the fact that we made a VERY stupid move by cutting them out back in 2003 and it is hard not to see this as an avoidable climbdown on the US' part making the Iranian policies of beligerace and brinkmanship look effective.


Actually, I was thinking of the people I went to the Tegernsee Waldfest with on Saturday who were all from the right and came from Canada, US and UK. I had always wondered whether it was just us lefties that get sick of your argumentative style and seems it is not just us.


what was "hateful" about my behaviour there? I asked you a very simple question that you could have answered easily but your squirming evasions and repeated claims to have "already told" me the answer were quite extraordinary óver about 6 or 7 pages during which you earned the derision of even people who had originally agreed with you.


I don't think either of those remarks are true. You can find plenty of civil discussions on this board where I have differed quite profoundly withg others. I do not think the same could remotely be said for you.


It is not up to me to post names but there a good few people who used to post to political threads who avoid them now that you participate. And that is NOT because of the fact you "argue against [them] too effectively for [their] taste[s]"

Political threads here are the same people going back and forth with the same thing mixed up with badbob inserting youtube clips and saying 'lol nobama' for 50 pages.

I don't mean to burst your bubble, but you're not exactly the varsity football team captain/prom king either, you know? Neither am I, but that comes with territory when you have strong opinions on issues. You may not like his style or what he says, however you cannot possibly argue against the fact that he has contributed a wealth of well though-out posts since he has joined TT, and that's something that can be said about very few people, regardless of their political persuasion. Stick to debating, and lay off the personal shit.

@lilplatinum

exactly! And I admit that I am part of the problem here.

But there are a whole lot of intelligent, interesting people who used to post and now they don't. And I think that is sad.

Names. Give me the names of three quality contributors who don't post anymore because of God knows what.

I'm not sure I qualify as one of those 'quality' contributors you ask about Jules, but Conky has definitely driven me off this thread. His point-counter-point posts bore the crap out of me. It's 59 pages now and I can honestly say I've only browsed through maybe half of it.

And the only reason I'm responding now is because I want to make sure Conky knows that he has, in fact, not seen that I've run away screaming and pulling my hair out. {insert smiley here?}

Nothing wrong with point-counterpoint arguing, its thorough.. I don't agree with alot of whant conqy says but he does make some valid posts once in a while.. Whats a turn off is when people start crawling up on the cross over a stupid messageboard.

The contortions you go through to come up with some of your conclusions boggle the mind sometimes. In 2003 negotiations began with Iran over its nuclear program, and this is at a time when you say Iran was "cut out" on Iraq. Thus, we can't assume the recent US increase in diplomacy on the nuclear negotiations has anything to do with Iran's malevolent actions in Iraq.


Name one person (or better yet, all of them) who "originally agreed with me who derision I earned". You were far from the most virulent offender, but your behavior on that thread is nothing to be proud of. You did have your answer there on that and the other thread, but you couldn't be bothered (not that you would have accepted any view diverging from your own).


You are wrong, but hey, it's easier to make a sweeping statement you can't substantiate, right, BTC?


When you make a sweeping claim that most TTers personally loath me, you sure do need to substantiate that. Of course (see below) how do we know that they aren't avoiding you or someone else?


You blame me, yet you finally admit you are part of the problem! Furthermore, you have backed off your earlier claim of "most people on TT".

Who else but moctoj (a leftist "bored" by my responses) doesn't post here anymore? Cinzia stopped posting on political threads during the primaries because eurovol and other Obama supporters hounded her, but since they're leftists and supporters of Saint Barack, I guess that's acceptable, right, BTC?


That's a far cry from BTC's claim, which had nothing to say about "boredom". That's what happens when he pretends to speak for everyone else.

Of course, moctoj, it's fair to ask when someone you agree with (such as BTC) does point-counterpoint, does that person's posting bore you? Also, if someone's posts bore you, why would that keep you from posting in response to others or on your own?

Care to name these people (allegedly on the right")? Since you have admitted that you are part of the problem, did they have a problem with your arguing? It takes two or more people to argue, after all.

No, it sounds to me as though you simply want to try to silence me, which won't work. Make your arguments, I'll make mine- you simply are going to have to accept the fact that some people will disagree with you when you post on these threads, no matter how inconvenient that may be to you.

Please don't put words in my mouth which is one reason I don't post or respond to your word twists and rants before now! I don't post against you because you'll come back and nit-pick every word I use. For example, I said your posts bore me. Well, the words I really wanted to use are much fouler and frankly as a lady, I try not to use those words, especially in print and when they are directed AT SOMEONE. And I don't want to be accused of 'attacking' you and breaking TT's rules. I never said I hated you Conky, but you certainly test my patience.
For the record, I've never been called a Leftist. I don't know whether to laugh or cry at that accusation. A leftist. Wow, I just thought I was an independent. One of the reasons I don't post on the political threads is because for the first time in my adult life, I've been interested in politics. (Hear that Obama haters?) I registered as a Dem this winter so I could vote for Obama because I believe in his vision. I never said he was a God or the savior for the US, especially because he's a politician. My political history is very short so I don't feel worthy of contributing. I'm too 'green' in politics to know right from left or liberal from conservative. If truth be known, I had to look up those terms because even though I've heard them, I didn't know what they meant. Pretty bad for a middle aged american eh? So please back off of me. I just wanted you to know - I don't like you. Period.
Bwwhhaaaaaa.

okay you win Conqy. I am utterly sick to the back teeth with debating anything with you. You bore my socks off, let alone all the poor people who have to read our point-counterpoints. I'm not going to post names of the people I went to Tegernsee with because apart from one I do not know their TT names (it was arranged through facebook). I have stated that you have useful and interesting things to say but just a very unpleasant way of going about it that just kills off any reasonable and educative debate.

I stopped posting to political discussions on TT mainly because I observed an inverse relationship between the lucidity of Conquistador's posts and the viciousness of the replies ... to the point when the name-calling and impugning of his integrity inevitably begins ... ending up in distinctly unhelpful anti-US rants. Ironically, if his arguments are too articulately worded and/or have too many external supporting links, then he's too clever by half ... if he'd shoot back one-line non sequiturs, then he'd be deemed a troll, and everyone would bash him all over again.

He may be further to the right than my own middle-of-the-road political beliefs, but he's a thought-provoking poster and I'd hate to see him hounded off.

Get over yourself, its the internet - no one is trying to 'silence you' - you aren't that important.

Crap like this devalues the often well thought out volumes you write and makes you sound like a petulant child.

Don't worry Expaticus, I will still be posting here. If others want to discuss issues, let's discuss them, if they want to engage in rants or venting, I believe there is a thread for that.

hey guys, do you know that you can just go to the user preferences and add people you don't want to read to your ignore list.

i agree about conquistador. whenever i've made any kind of disagreement with his view, he automatically labels me as a liberal/democrat/whatever, and presumes that my opinion conforms to whatever idea he has sketched out about me in his imagination.

@conq you don't know the first thing about me and your attempts to generalize are as shallow as your ego is over-inflated. You are a loquacious badbob. fortunately i'm not required to read what you have to say, otherwise i'd be out of here. as if i take the time to actually read your epic retorts, which invariably are more about conquistador then they are about the presidential vote.

Petulant child!

Badboob won't answer questions, Jules ignores anything even remotely resembling facts and Conky answers the questions he decided you actually meant to ask with twists and turns thrown in to get you off the scent. God I love this place!

i said barack obama has the chance to redefine american politics.

what is amazing/revolutionary is that he is black, that he has opted out of public funding, while raising amazing amounts of money and running circles around mccain. that he is presenting himself as an intelligent person (ie an intellectual rather than a doofus); that he is attacking like a mo-fo and making inroads on the red states. that he plays the media like a 21st century politician should. in general i'm just pleasantly surprised that there is a candidate who i can respect, for his political acumen as much as his slickness and ability to get into the ring. and i think that, despite whatever shortcomings/deceptions that might be made apparent, as president he will do wonders for america's image at home and abroad. i hope barack obama, who has been lampooned for the stupidest possible reasons (like his middle name) by the stupidest people, who remind me of one reason why i left the us, kicks the shit out of mccain in november ... but like a gentleman rather than a sleazy bastard. that would redefine american politics.

go ahead and say whatever you might, that i'm hoodwinked, blah blah blah ... and go right ahead and assume i'm a democrat, and a liberal, blah blah ... at least i never voted for the nutjob who is in office at this present time.

He can't lose now.

he's a badass!

Wrong (certainly if these disagreements are any indication):
http://www.toytowngermany.com/forum/index...te=%2Bkrositzer

Maybe you have been labeled a liberal or a Democrat, krostitzer, but I don't recall it, and I'd sure like to see it substantiated within context. You are another person who has had political disagreements with me, particularly over Israel. Just another unsubstantiated allegation, much like BTCs. and probably untrue.

As for "labeling" eurovol engages in himself. But I guess standards are different for him.


The personal attacks on me are also more about me than they are about the presidential vote- do you think I should not defend myself? Maybe you should suggest to people like BTC and eurovol that they shouldn't post about me, instead sticking to the election.

Another interesting article in the Gruadina on Obama, why Europeans are so enamoured and while the wishy washy liberal are going to be disapointed:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/20...uselections2008

here's a thought: better to bring the war to the streets of america than have it in iraq. see how confident the old man is about it then.

"do we leave the region?" "I don't see how we can" pretty much sums up mccain.

McCain needs a cue card to remember the price of milk is over $4/gallon, unbelievable.

i think that's a little unfair. I wouldn't have a flipping clue how much a gallon of milk cost . ...

And here's some more...

The Daily Show - "Obama Quest & McCain Quest"

I think I'd be able to ask ahead of time and be able to remember it to the nearest dollar value, especially if I planned on saying it in a speech later

still, its better than the UK Liberal Democrat leader, Charles Kennedy, who on the first day of the 2005 election was so drunk/hungover he could not actually remember what his own party's economics policies were when asked by a TV journalist . ...

In all fairness, try to imagine how many things are on a candidate's mind at any given time. He's also got a family.

Ron Paul Please

Nasty. Did the Princess of Darkness, Mandeldaughter feed you that one?

No, I saw it on the news like everyone else in the UK during the 2005 election. The newsreader did not say he was drunk but he clearly stumbled over his words and could not remember his own policy when questioned and anyone who had ever been in the Commons bars would know his reputation in the House. Frankly it is astonishing that the parliamentary liberal democrats tolerated him as leader for so long.

Propagandizing Of Media Is Suppose To Be Illegal in America, so can someone explain why this continues ...

Thanks Kitty: it's shocking yet again, not surprising for me.
Here's another favorite of mine.
Link

Fast forward to today, July 29


*The referendum involves a constitutional amendment to bar preferential treatment by public entities on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin. Supporters say the measure levels the playing field, giving everyone an equal chance at every job. I say, definetly not, if all Americans are not provided the same opportunities in education, training and employment. And Americans know, that is not and will never be the case. As I see it, unless you are a hardcore female conservative, McCain's policy on Women's Rights is not something I would want to support.

You assume that all Caucasian males receive better opportunities in education, training, and employment than all non-Caucasian males, a serious error in reasoning. Nor do all Caucasian males have equal chances at every job when competing against other Caucasian males, nor do they all have the same oportunities in education and training.

BTW, over one million African-Americans alone make over 100K USD annually.

Despite the above attempt at misrepresentation by KK, it's clear that what McCain doesn't want to see a proliferation of lawsuits over pay issues which could clog up the court system and make employers leery of hiring women for fear of being sued. BTW, trial lawyers are a significant Democratic special interest group.

What an eyeopener .. from your link which I enjoyed reading:


I would rather have the first, goes without saying. I know a lot of non-Americans who consider America to be mean...a bully no less.