<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/WynLgJFBxSs&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/WynLgJFBxSs&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>
Half of that could have been written by the WH (and probably was) while the other half could have been written by a Dem. And here I thought only Dems were wishy-washy. When else in history have the fundamentals been sound while so many sectors of the economy are in trouble and people are hurting? Perhaps you could point to a period where we were coming out of a recession, but in this case, we're just starting one. Here's the quote of contention: Let's break it down like we did the 100 years quote: That means he's taking ownership of what follows. This says nothing but implies a lot. First, the only specific piece of the economy he mentions is jobs, even though most non-ideological non-Chicago School economists would have a hard time agreeing that the jobs picture is anything to brag about. Second, that's probably for a reason... they've figured out that the dead-ender W lovers are so conditioned to Bushspeak that they will mentally fill in the blanks so McCain doesn't have to do it for them. Notice that while he initially takes ownership of the overall record and the job creation achievements of the Bush administration, he now qualifies his support with "you could make an argument." He then goes on to throw the dead-enders another bone... "there's been great progress." I'm really surprised he didn't qualify this further by referencing 9-11. And now back to the qualifiers. People are facing challenges. He later talks about how the fundamentals are strong. It's clear he values the fundamentals more than the people because his economic "plan" focuses so much on the former and so little on the latter. At any rate, if he had said what he said without the "I think" intro, basso's tribe might have a point. But he did start with "I think" and if you take out the prepositional phrases and qualifiers and write the statement like any HS English teacher who was concerned with clarity would make you, you end up with: I think that there's been great progress economically over that period of time. And really, even if you don't agree with how I interpret the statement, what's worse: being tied to a President of your own party or being tied to terrorists and Hamas? A McCain fundraising letter: It's says a lot about the current Republican leadership that being tied to terrorists and Hamas might not be as bad as being tied to W.
It's not fair for Obama to complain about having a single quote taken out of context and beaten to death while he harps on "100 years" and brings up "great progress" from McCain. -However- I think there are shades of gray here, and these two examples are not as far out of context as others.
Basso you are increasingly posting threads without providing any of your own thoughts on the subject matter -- if you are going to post a biased one sided video that 'speaks for it self' you should at least provide us with an opinion (your own) on why it is accurate.
So what's the big deal? McCain basically says... 1) A lot of Americans are in financial difficulties right now 2) Statistically, the enconomy could be argued to be better, even though not everyone will feel that way. 3) The fundamental of the U.S. is still strong. McCain basically makes the case that there's a problem, he recognize it, but we really shouldn't worry too much.
and o'bama quotes him out of context, just as he has the 100 year remark. so when one says o'bama is going to bring a new kind of politics, how can that be so when he's so ready to engage in the same old style of campaigning?
Basso, it doesn't matter. Obama could hold a press conference tomorrow saying he's the Antichrist and his supporters will put a positive spin on it. The man can say anything he wants and the media and his cult followers will defend him. Just take solace in the fact that most Americans in the general election will see this guy for who he really is.
Obama is just as guilty of 'slash and burn' politics as anyone else. What a fraud this guy is. I can't believe how naive some of his supporters are. It's shocking. This economics lie from Obama, and of course, the well documented 100 years lie from Obama are the worst. McCain can take 5+ years of torture for our great nation, but Obama can't even take one 90 minute debate without becoming a whiny puss. It's unbelievable and ridiculous that Obama is even a part of this race. Really, he is so under-qualified it's a joke. One big marketing campaign...
<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/TFDc4M_PMNk&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/TFDc4M_PMNk&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>
The 100 years quote in context by McCain didn't make any sense. That's been pointed out. So that leaves it up for many different kinds of interpretations on it. Obama chose one.
Here are a few great lines from a blog entry... Some are downright disgusted by the gap between Obama’s high-minded appeal to “new politics” and the cynical realities of his campaign. Some are disappointed by the fact that “it’s still true that after so many months of promising hard truths, Obama doesn’t really force people to accept any.” But all this fretting is really to be expected: Obama has staked everything on his verbal acuity. When that fails, he has no safety net. He cannot point to tough campaigns or great legislative achievements to assure his base that he’s been through worse. So it all comes down to sustaining the balloon of excitement and novelty he has created. http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/rubin/3464
To nobody in particular, but... Obama has said repeatedly he wants to change the way of politics in this country. I've never heard him say he won't engage in the current standard to get to a position to try and effect the changes he wants.
some guy says we could be in iraq for 100 years, it needs to be challenged on the face value of its stupidity especailly comparing the situation to korea or germany or japan. as far as the media not challenging obama on his criticism of the remark, the media shouldn't be expected to protect mccain from his stupidity just as it didn't protect obama from his comments on gun owners in PA.
