-
Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Access to private conversations with other members.
- Fewer ads.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
LiveStrong
Active Member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2004
- Messages
- 1,964
Joe Rossi said:
BO-RING
John D. Villarreal
New Member
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2007
- Messages
- 1,251
Ok the thread thriller & lady killer is back - well rested from Tahoe.
Well, maybe not - but well rested after Tahoe.
Ha ha,
I am assuming this thread is directed at me.
Couple quick points as this thread is boring.
1.) I don't agree with everything this admin does nor I am responsible or a cheerleader for all the military plans they have.
2.) That being said I DO hope that we win in Iraq and think of the safety of our country and troops fighting a WAR way way way way before any political implications of the war.
3.) The idea that we can pull out of Iraq and just come home and chill and the terrorists and dangerous countries building Nukes will just leave us alone is nuts. Go ask the Israelis how much peace their pullouts gave them from Hezbollah, Iran, Syria & Hammas. If only it were that simple life would be great right?
4.) As someone that knows Republican politics let me tell you McCain is a media candidate NOT a great Republican candidate. Not saying he can't win but saying he is going to have MAJOR problems. No serious conservative likes or trusts the guy. Maybe that will change but that is the state of play now.
5.) It is WAY WAY too early to say who is going to win - who knows. IF I had to bet know I would say Guiliani on the Rep & Obama in a coin flip on the Dems, but I am sure all that will change as we go forward. I do give Guiliani the best odds of winning the whole thing.
6.) The idea that if war is bad = ANY Dem winning is just nutso. The reality (or at least history) is that it is tough for any Dem, more precisely non-conservative, to win the White House.
7.) To that end, I think Hillary is losing a LOT of edge and would always have a tough time winning for many reasons. Her negs are high & are not going down. Her war vote also hurts her on the left. That being said she will be in it till the end as she has tons of cash and name recog so she can outlast most (although with primaries front loaded that may not matter).
8.) Obama, has good mo and charisma but he has not been vetted and shows signs of being too sensitive. We will see. The main question is how much of his current heat is FOR him as opposed to being for ANYONE BUT Hillary. That is a big Q.
It will be a fun few years to be sure.
John
Well, maybe not - but well rested after Tahoe.
Ha ha,
I am assuming this thread is directed at me.
Couple quick points as this thread is boring.
1.) I don't agree with everything this admin does nor I am responsible or a cheerleader for all the military plans they have.
2.) That being said I DO hope that we win in Iraq and think of the safety of our country and troops fighting a WAR way way way way before any political implications of the war.
3.) The idea that we can pull out of Iraq and just come home and chill and the terrorists and dangerous countries building Nukes will just leave us alone is nuts. Go ask the Israelis how much peace their pullouts gave them from Hezbollah, Iran, Syria & Hammas. If only it were that simple life would be great right?
4.) As someone that knows Republican politics let me tell you McCain is a media candidate NOT a great Republican candidate. Not saying he can't win but saying he is going to have MAJOR problems. No serious conservative likes or trusts the guy. Maybe that will change but that is the state of play now.
5.) It is WAY WAY too early to say who is going to win - who knows. IF I had to bet know I would say Guiliani on the Rep & Obama in a coin flip on the Dems, but I am sure all that will change as we go forward. I do give Guiliani the best odds of winning the whole thing.
6.) The idea that if war is bad = ANY Dem winning is just nutso. The reality (or at least history) is that it is tough for any Dem, more precisely non-conservative, to win the White House.
7.) To that end, I think Hillary is losing a LOT of edge and would always have a tough time winning for many reasons. Her negs are high & are not going down. Her war vote also hurts her on the left. That being said she will be in it till the end as she has tons of cash and name recog so she can outlast most (although with primaries front loaded that may not matter).
8.) Obama, has good mo and charisma but he has not been vetted and shows signs of being too sensitive. We will see. The main question is how much of his current heat is FOR him as opposed to being for ANYONE BUT Hillary. That is a big Q.
It will be a fun few years to be sure.
John
Z
zeke12
Guest
You're assuming this thread is directed at you?
Why?
Why?
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2002
- Messages
- 18,515
Dude, it had nothing to do with you.
E
Ellis Redding
Guest
JDV had every reason to assume this thread was directed at him. It's not like John is a common name, or anything. :
Duane Postum
Member
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2005
- Messages
- 917
statrat said:
I vote for the latter.
JDV:
You must be new to the Fenian biscuit posting pattern. It goes pretty much as follows:
(1) Wait for some after-the-fact expert to issue a groundbreaking revelation. "Iraq still unsettled after 4 years" is a prime example.
(2) Run here and post about it. Use a title as vague as possible. (Of course, seeing the originator's handle clears up the confusion.)
(3) Wait for the sj lemming ftards to nod in agreement. The dittoheads have nothing on the sj lemming ftards.
(4) Repeat often.
You must be new to the Fenian biscuit posting pattern. It goes pretty much as follows:
(1) Wait for some after-the-fact expert to issue a groundbreaking revelation. "Iraq still unsettled after 4 years" is a prime example.
(2) Run here and post about it. Use a title as vague as possible. (Of course, seeing the originator's handle clears up the confusion.)
(3) Wait for the sj lemming ftards to nod in agreement. The dittoheads have nothing on the sj lemming ftards.
(4) Repeat often.
tyler durden 71351
Active Member
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2004
- Messages
- 2,862
Whatever
John D. Villarreal
New Member
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2007
- Messages
- 1,251
Indeed, my mistake.
I read the title and posts without reading FB's first link to the McCain article - so my apologies for the assumption I guess.
Anyway, yeah I NEVER got the McCain hype, other than in the media.
Look, I respect the guy for his service and his personal story. Plus he has historically been good on taxes (not so much recently), defense, and spending (deficit).
The problem has come in say the last 4-6 years when he has become so in love with air time that he has sold out conservative principals and become "Mr. Moderate" ...err...the "Maverick" John McCain. Anyway, no one on my side has forgotten these many slights &/or betrayals (whatever you want to call it) & few trust him.
Yet, he has to win a Rep primary and tact back to the right which loses him his media support (as has happened to a large degree) and he ends up screwing himself. Much like the left is upset with Hillary and does not fully trust her.
I am not for hyperpartisanship or whatever, but there are differences and it is ok to hash those out in a campaign. After all it should be about these things and give the voters a choice.
McCain, is another example of why these "independent" candidates fail. It is like standing in the middle of the road - you just get hit. I think the whole idea of this "independent movement" is a myth (many of those people have no spine and just want to appear "open minded" or be able to follow the winning side. Thus they want to appear "high-minded" but in the end they are really sheep).
Or to put another way - it is one thing for someone like Arnold, Joe L, or Rudy G to say "hey I agree with the Dems on these issue and the Reps on these issues." That may even help you expand your voting base & is ok - if that is what you really believe - it is entirely another thing when you stick your finger in the wind every day trying to be some great "independent" - the net result is no side wants you.
I mean seriously, does anyone know what Hillary's belief/values on the war REALLY are at this point???
I THINK it is "well I never liked the war, but had to vote for it post 9/11 to look tough & couldn't change my mind and look weak/flip-floppy like Kerry - but now have to change it to stave off the Kerry/Lamont wing of the party and keep the hard left happy"
That is what I think her true feelings are, but I couldn't really tell you, nor do I know the Clinton's have any feeling about war one way or the other except as a political calculation & that is the rub. Nor am I the only one.
Which is one reason she is going to have a tough time with the Dem primary as a lot of the left care a lot about the war issue & are seriously anti-war.
I read the title and posts without reading FB's first link to the McCain article - so my apologies for the assumption I guess.
Anyway, yeah I NEVER got the McCain hype, other than in the media.
Look, I respect the guy for his service and his personal story. Plus he has historically been good on taxes (not so much recently), defense, and spending (deficit).
The problem has come in say the last 4-6 years when he has become so in love with air time that he has sold out conservative principals and become "Mr. Moderate" ...err...the "Maverick" John McCain. Anyway, no one on my side has forgotten these many slights &/or betrayals (whatever you want to call it) & few trust him.
Yet, he has to win a Rep primary and tact back to the right which loses him his media support (as has happened to a large degree) and he ends up screwing himself. Much like the left is upset with Hillary and does not fully trust her.
I am not for hyperpartisanship or whatever, but there are differences and it is ok to hash those out in a campaign. After all it should be about these things and give the voters a choice.
McCain, is another example of why these "independent" candidates fail. It is like standing in the middle of the road - you just get hit. I think the whole idea of this "independent movement" is a myth (many of those people have no spine and just want to appear "open minded" or be able to follow the winning side. Thus they want to appear "high-minded" but in the end they are really sheep).
Or to put another way - it is one thing for someone like Arnold, Joe L, or Rudy G to say "hey I agree with the Dems on these issue and the Reps on these issues." That may even help you expand your voting base & is ok - if that is what you really believe - it is entirely another thing when you stick your finger in the wind every day trying to be some great "independent" - the net result is no side wants you.
I mean seriously, does anyone know what Hillary's belief/values on the war REALLY are at this point???
I THINK it is "well I never liked the war, but had to vote for it post 9/11 to look tough & couldn't change my mind and look weak/flip-floppy like Kerry - but now have to change it to stave off the Kerry/Lamont wing of the party and keep the hard left happy"
That is what I think her true feelings are, but I couldn't really tell you, nor do I know the Clinton's have any feeling about war one way or the other except as a political calculation & that is the rub. Nor am I the only one.
Which is one reason she is going to have a tough time with the Dem primary as a lot of the left care a lot about the war issue & are seriously anti-war.
John D. Villarreal
New Member
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2007
- Messages
- 1,251
statrat said:
SWEET, I always provide top quality entertainment.
It just gets better.
