[BadKosh]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

The leaps you are taking here are absolutely staggering. One addiction and he has an addictive personality (assuming you are speaking to this in a clinical sense)? Easy to compromise? How the hell did you reach that conclusion, or was this simply a tangential emotional response of yours?

Having addictions of some kinds and you can't get a security clearance. The feds will tell you that having an addiction can get you compromised. No reach at all. Get back on your meds and maybe you won't be so emotional.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by spacefreak 

I clearly explained my issue with people who rip GWB for things like past alcohol and/or drug abuse, or speaking gaffes, or alleged lying, then when the focus is similarly on Obama, they'll respond with stuff like "There are far far far more important things for us to be talking about as a nation than this crap."

So who here has been doing this unfairly? Do you have any specifics?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

Having addictions of some kinds and you can't get a security clearance. The feds will tell you that having an addiction can get you compromised. No reach at all. Get back on your meds and maybe you won't be so emotional.

And what is your basis for stating that I'm being overly emotional?

Again, how did we go from smoking cigarettes to having an addictive personality, and now evidently to apparently being addicted to things that are illegal and would deny security clearance? I'm trying to follow your train of thought, but you are losing me.

[MacosNerd]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

Having addictions of some kinds and you can't get a security clearance.

So if Obama becomes president and smokes he'll not have security clearance. That sound extremely lame. I bet there's a bunch of smokers that have all sorts of security clearences.

[besson3c]

Like this guy:

[zwiebel_]

Originally Posted by spacefreak 

....blah blah blah

I heard that Fox News is hiring. That way you at least get paid for scrapping the bottom of the barrel.

[Starsixer]

Can you even smoke in the White House anymore? Or was that just Clinton that banned it....

[besson3c]

Well, since Bush's dog Barney can romp around and crap everywhere, maybe he has eased up on the Whitehouse rules. When the next president inherits it, they'll probably find lots of beer cans and Playboys lying all over the place, old pieces of hot dogs (Bush liked to eat hot dogs with John McCain), and chewed up furniture...

[zwiebel_]

Originally Posted by Starsixer 

Can you even smoke in the White House anymore? Or was that just Clinton that banned it....

Can't say for the White House, but Arni has setup a smoking area inside the Capitol of Cali for his cigar sessions, or at least he did when his term started. Don't know about now.

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by chris v 

Strong work, there, opposition party.

It's not work at all. Obama provides almost all the material himself.

YouTube - Obama: Don't Bring The Troops Home

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by spacefreak 

It's not work at all. Obama provides almost all the material himself.

YouTube - Obama: Don't Bring The Troops Home

You did notice that the date on this clip was from April 2004, right?

Just checking...


You've got the ball now in this neverending game of partisan football. Where is that hot dog guy when you need him?

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

You did notice that the date on this clip was from April 2004, right?

Yup. No deadlines was his stance on that particular day. Less than a year later he calls for withdrawal. A year later, he's got timetables, then the following year as the surge is gearing up, he calls for removal of all troops. Sound about right?

He was against the surge, and even as it was clearly working he claimed numerous times that it was not.

Missing from his years of speaking out on the war: any real focus on achieving victory.

[besson3c]

So it would have been better if his war strategy was precisely consistent over the course of 4+ years, with no adjustments made to reflect reality and his evolving perceptions?

I'm not following your train of thought...

[paul w]

He had better be careful, muslims who smoke have recently been targeted by extremists. Perhaps it's proof he's merely a moderate muslim who has embraced our decadent ways.

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

So it would have been better if his war strategy was precisely consistent over the course of 4+ years, with no adjustments made to reflect reality and his evolving perceptions?

So the surge hasn't worked... that's the reality? That's his evolved perception? He's still not giving a completely truthful assessment.

This is not an adjustment. The surge is an adjustment. What we see here with Obama is a complete reversal in position, made within a short time period. If the US and our allies had a penchant for doing this whenever setbacks were encountered, we'd all be speaking German.

Day One: "Jerusalem must remain undivided"
Day Two: "Well, not really. It's not practical."

Perhaps he evolved during the prior night's sleep.

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by paul w 

He had better be careful, muslims who smoke have recently been targeted by extremists. Perhaps it's proof he's merely a moderate muslim who has embraced our decadent ways.

The smoking thing has floated around Obama for a while now, and I haven't yet seen Hamas pull their endorsement, so I think they are willing to let that slide even though it goes against their strict edicts. Actually, I don't know that this is a Hamas edict, but I've heard about what you are talking about.

Specifically, what Muslim-inspired groups have the no-smoking edict that is punishable by death or maiming? Al Qaeda in Iraq was one I think. Taliban as well?

He's not Muslim, though. Do extremists care what edicts the infidels violate, or are they only concerned about Muslims following those edicts?

[Atomic Rooster]

If he's smoking Camel cigarettes he's a closet Muslim and he's with the terrierists.

Spacefreak, you're taking a good whacking and still standing. Atta boy. Show these libbys that pubbies can take crap even when they're running downhill backwards in cowslop.

Proud of ya.

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by Atomic Rooster 

If he's smoking Camel cigarettes he's a closet Muslim and he's with the terrierists.

Had Obama supported the new Dubai port deal, could it be assumed that Obama likes menthols?

[besson3c]

space: I think paul w was speaking with tongue in cheek..

I'm still not really following your train of thought, but I feel like I'm being lulled into a pointless game of trying to comb through and explain quotes and attributions, so don't bother with trying to clarify whatever it is you are trying to say...

What I will say in terms of the present, speaking for myself and what I believe is Obama's position as well: the surge was designed to give the Iraqi government time to get their **** together. They haven't. It's a no-brainer that if you throw more resources at any sort of problem, it will help the problem will subside, but keeping our troop levels set as they are is simply not sustainable. So, it depends on how you define the surge "working". If working is decreasing violence, again, it doesn't take a PhD to predict that ahead of time that an increase in troops will result in a decrease of violence. If "working" is really setting roots in setting up a political infrastructure for the government to effectively govern its people and keep the peace, it hasn't worked. There is no military solution to this problem, all the military can do is treat the symptoms of this problem.

[BRussell]

My secretary told me today that she wouldn't vote for Obama because she heard he smokes.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by spacefreak 

Oh, I wasn't necessarily only referring to cigarettes with regards to Obama. We all know about his admitted usage of illegal substances. My reply was to the "Don't say anything negative about Obama, because we have more important issues facing our nation" crowd who just got back from writing asinine things about GWB.


Did I touch a nerve? Has your little Mac message board experience been so hurt by this thread? If so, I suggest using the "ignore" feature on me. That's probably best, for I am not going to refrain from posting here, and I don't want any more of my posts to inadvertently anger you.

Maybe the truth must hurt, because there isn't anything asinine to say about GWB, as it is the truth that he was a drunk and more than occasional drug user until he was 40 years old, and the only reason he's in the White House is because of Daddy War Bucks' political connections. Sadly, you undoubtedly can't (don't want to) see the difference between the two.

Don't flatter yourself, thinking that your posts hurt me; it's abundantly clear what you're up to here, and I'm not the only one who's pointed it out.

[- - e r i k - -]

I'd be pissed off if I were a republican and had people like spacefreak and BadKosh on my side.

[Dork.]

I'm going to go ahead and wade into this poopfest of a thread now, because I was concerned about the claim that Obama had only released a "scant summary" of his medical records, whatever that means. I do believe that a candidate's medical history is fair game in a Presidential campaign, so that voters can feel confident that any candidate, if elected, will be able to serve out their term. Being President is a tough and strenuous job, after all.

Then I found this article from a few weeks ago, detailing what was actually released:

Obama in 'excellent health,' his doctor says - Los Angeles Times

Although he hasn't had a physical in 16 months, Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama has been in "excellent health" and is medically fit to serve as president, his longtime doctor wrote in a letter released by the campaign Thursday.
The one-page medical overview came with no supporting documentation.
Still, campaign spokeswoman Jen Psaki said, "With no surgery or hospital stays, this is a complete summary of his doctor visits and medical records for the past two decades."

The man is 46 years old, and hasn't been to the hospital or had surgery in the past 21 years. I'd say a summary should be adequate because, quite frankly, his medical history is boring. There's not much there. Younger folks simply don't need to go to the doctor quite as often as older folks.. I'm 33, and I think I could count the number of visits I've made to my Primary doctor in my adult life on both hands. When I got my first physical at 25, the doctor said "Thank you very much, now come back for another in 10 years". (Now, visits to my allergist are a different story altogether).

Folks like McCain and Cheney, while healthy enough to perform their duties, will have more medical information available simply because, at their advanced ages, they see doctors more often.

Should Obama release more information? I'm not sure of it would benefit his campaign at all to do so, and the opposition may just go digging through it to find things they can overexaggerate about, so I'm not sure if he's ever going to.... I suppose it depends on whether or not you trust his doctor....

[Mrjinglesusa]

Originally Posted by chris v 

Let's see... on the one hand, we've got endless war, fear, fear, and more fear, unfettered corporatism and lobbyists running the White House, a profound misunderstanding of the Middle-East, an acknowledged weakness of understanding "the economy," endless stupid gaffes, misstatements, and bewilderment...

and on he other hand, we've got...

Cigarettes.

Strong work, there, opposition party.

Think I'll go smoke one now, in his honor.

I approve of this post.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I'm still not really following your train of thought

Open your eyes, Obama was compromised! He changed his position on withdrawal in order to get his next fix of that sweet nicotine! The cut-and-run lobby bought him for two cartons and a box of cubans. It's clear as day if you look at the facts: smokers do anything you tell them to, and Obama is a smoker. Check-mate.

[besson3c]

Uncle Skeleton: that is quite the smoking gun you have provided us! Or, should I say "smoker's gun", because no doubt Obama likes to shoot things with his gun, since people who smoke need to protect their cigarettes from the government that wants to take cigarettes away. Also, terrorists and 9/11.

[Dork.]

Obama's a liberal, he doesn't have a gun. And even if he did, a liberal is too much of a pansy to actually use it.

[besson3c]

Yeah, but he is black, so that must mean that he likes to pop a cap in people's asses for no reason. He is also a secret Muslim, so he probably has some machine guns stashed away for when Al Queda will take over America once he's president. I know this because I saw him perform the TERRORIST FIST BUMP with his baby mama.

[Dork.]

He's a clean, articulate black, though, (at least that's what Sen. Biden told me), and they don't normally flout their guns and gold chains in public. But the secret muslim thing is something I hadn't considered, it makes sense, though. I guess I missed Fox News that night.

Call him a "crypto-muslim" though, it sounds more official.

[chris v]

BREAKING NEWS!! Obama wore a dorky-looking bike helmet!!

MCCAIN O8!!!111!!!!

YYEEEAARRRGGHH!!!!!!!

[paul w]

Hey everyone, did you hear his middle name's Hussein?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

He's a clean, articulate black, though, (at least that's what Sen. Biden told me), and they don't normally flout their guns and gold chains in public. But the secret muslim thing is something I hadn't considered, it makes sense, though. I guess I missed Fox News that night.

Call him a "crypto-muslim" though, it sounds more official.

National Treasure 3: Crypto-muslim

Opening scene: Nicholas Cage finds a secret terrorist code etched on the back of a pack of Obama's cigarettes that is only visible under infra-red lighting

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by paul w 

Hey everyone, did you hear his middle name's Hussein?

Not only that, but his first name sounds like Osama!

[Dork.]

Maybe he's really Saddam Hussein and Obama bin Laden's love child from a tryst in Hawaii....

[besson3c]

Then when does Michelle Obama come from? Don't you find it odd that nobody has ever talked about her parents and family background? It only makes sense that she is actually a cyborg, and that the kids are young jihadists in training that were not conceived from Michelle's womb. Cyborg's cannot biologically reproduce.

Michelle looks sweet and harmless, but she could also be a terminator cyborg sent from the future to kill us all by transforming her hands into some sort of weapon, possibly something that shoots laser beams. Logically, it would follow that Obama is being used by Al Queda and the terminator cyborgs from the future as a trojan horse.

Don't be surprised if you turn on to Fox News to see a crawler: "Is Michelle Obama Really a Terminator Cyborg From the Future?"

[spacefreak]

It's always a pleasure to see immediate compliance with the latest Obama web strategies.

Just like how the rebuttal to all examination of Obama character or policy resulted in the widespread echoing across the internet of "there are so many more important things facing this nation", the latest strategy of driving all discussion into the ground with drivel is being obeyed just as well.

Soon, expect to see the term "dead-end" or "dead-ender" floating around here very soon. Perhaps not, since focus group testing last weekend didn't yield nearly as effective a result as had been hoped for. And the focus of that strategy is more to counter Hillary supporters voicing their dislike of Obama and refusal to vote for him. Since I don't see too many Hillary folks here, it looks like we may be spared that one.

It's nice to know that at least some of the posters are being paid by Obama's campaign or their newly acquired entity, the DNC.

As for the non-paid posters, it's got to be a little frustrating that Obama is turning out to be more like the leftist-created GWB caricature than GWB himself. Maybe not, since reality and truth is hardly a major consideration for the left. Remember, the leftist philosophy in shaping public opinion regarding truth is that "it is not the truth that counts, but the seriousness and volume of accusations that do.". So kudos to the many for their consistent adherence to this policy.

[besson3c]

spacefreak: if you want to have this debate, the onus is on you to apply some focus to your points so that they are clear to all. Until then, I'm done with trying to coax this out of you, sorry.

[spacefreak]

If you can't understand my points, then maybe you should go back to school and study reading comprehension.

As for wanting to debate, it's pretty obvious that this is the last thing you want. I'd find it hard to believe that people with decent comprehension skills could come to a different conclusion based on the content of your recent posts here.

Why not embrace free speech and expression instead of always trying to hold it down? It seems that more times than not, when faced with a rebuttal or solid argument, you make excuses as to why you are not going to argue on point while attempting to dictate conditions on behalf of "all".

[besson3c]

I guess we're done then. It's always a shame when one uses personal insults as a debate tactic, I got over doing this in high school...

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

I'd be pissed off if I were a republican and had people like spacefreak and BadKosh on my side.

Uh…yeah.

I'm at a loss as to why being a smoker…closet or not…somehow means a damned thing about anything.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

Uh…yeah.

I'm at a loss as to why being a smoker…closet or not…somehow means a damned thing about anything.

It's great to know that not everyone who is right wing in here is heavily invested in partisan football...

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I guess we're done then. It's always a shame when one uses personal insults as a debate tactic, I got over doing this in high school...

I meant no harm to you as a person On the contrary. I wish upon you the greatest success and happiness. I enjoy your web technology insights thoroughly, as you often chime in with an angle that most aren't necessarily aware of.

I just like posting thoughts on things, however serious or ridiculous those thoughts may be. If you feel like arguing or agreeing with a post of mine, great. If not, simply move on. However, I simply do not see why you feel the need to assert and/or apply conditions to my posts, stating that you're not going to respond unless I phrase something differently, or rewrite my post, or present it in such-and-such a format, or in such-and-such a tone.

Trying to dictate the style, conditions, context, or content of my posts will never go over easy on me, especially not on a sub-forum of a sub-forum of a Mac message board where free expression should be encouraged. Just understand that if I respond to your post(s) specifically, it is the content of your post(s) that I am agreeing with or arguing against. If a bot or friend or family member was behing some of these posts, I'd respond the same way.

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

It's great to know that not everyone who is right wing in here is heavily invested in partisan football...

Have you ever read your own posts? You are about as non-partisan as Howard Dean. To claim you are not invested in such "political football" is downright disingenuous and deceitful.

Yes, I am a proud conservative. I am not the least bit afraid or ashamed to admit it, unlike many liberals who constantly try to duck and dodge the label, and who try their hardest to fraudulently misrepresent themselves as being objective.

[tie]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

The man is 46 years old, and hasn't been to the hospital or had surgery in the past 21 years. I'd say a summary should be adequate because, quite frankly, his medical history is boring.

This is way too sensible for you. Spacefreak is floundering here and could really use some help. Don't you think that Obama not releasing thousands of pages of medical documents makes him a terrorist?

[spacefreak]

I'm glad to see that there will be no further discussion of health or age in this election debate from you all.

Can we discuss experience and character, or are those off limits as well?

[paul w]

Originally Posted by spacefreak 

Have you ever read your own posts? You are about as non-partisan as Howard Dean. To claim you are not invested in such "political football" is downright disingenuous and deceiptful.

Yes, I am a proud conservative. I am not the least bit afraid or ashamed to admit it, unlike many liberals who constantly try to duck and dodge the label, and who try their hardest to fraudulently misrepresent themselves as being objective.

Speaking of disingenuous. A true conservative would support his right to smoke cigarettes.

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by tie 

Don't you think that Obama not releasing thousands of pages of medical documents makes him a terrorist?

I doubt it, but a more thorough medical report would help ease the discrepancy in transparency between the two candidates.

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by paul w 

Speaking of disingenuous. A true conservative would support his right to smoke cigarettes.

I never said he couldn't smoke cigarettes, and I surely never claimed to want to take away his right to smoke. To infer that I did is an outright lie.

As a matter of fact, I said that I thought he'd be better off smoking all of the time instead of constantly fighting off withdrawal pangs throughout each and every day.

But go ahead, continue to lie in order to reshape and frame my position however you see fit. Just know that I'll call you on it whenever I am made aware of such lowlife-like tactics being used to misrepresent my positions.

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by tie 

Don't you think that Obama not releasing thousands of pages of medical documents makes him a terrorist?

Only if he bumps his fist while he's doing it.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by spacefreak 

I meant no harm to you as a person On the contrary. I wish upon you the greatest success and happiness. I enjoy your web technology insights thoroughly, as you often chime in with an angle that most aren't necessarily aware of.

I just like posting thoughts on things, however serious or ridiculous those thoughts may be. If you feel like arguing or agreeing with a post of mine, great. If not, simply move on. However, I simply do not see why you feel the need to assert and/or apply conditions to my posts, stating that you're not going to respond unless I phrase something differently, or rewrite my post, or present it in such-and-such a format, or in such-and-such a tone.

Trying to dictate the style, conditions, context, or content of my posts will never go over easy on me, especially not on a sub-forum of a sub-forum of a Mac message board where free expression should be encouraged. Just understand that if I respond to your post(s) specifically, it is the content of your post(s) that I am agreeing with or arguing against. If a bot or friend or family member was behing some of these posts, I'd respond the same way.

I have no idea where you are getting this from and where you are coming from here, but to clarify, you can write however you want and say whatever you want, I don't care. I think certain kinds of conversation are counter-productive and like to coax people to focus their ideas and bring out more rational thought, but this is not meant as some sort of demand. You are welcome to blather on about whatever you want, I'm just making it clear as to what kinds of conversation I'm personally interested in being involved with. If the conversation goes outside of these boundaries, I'll either choose to abstain, or at least choose to not put very much time into thoughtful responses. Since getting my attention is obviously the golden egg of all of MacNN, I would assume that my comments would carry weight since I'm obviously the best there is around here.

Seriously, I think you know full well what sorts of comments I think are dumb. As long as you are trying to make a rational and focused thought, we can have discussion all day long even if I disagree with you. I do this with people in real life constantly. If you're not making any sense to me, I'll let you know. If you don't want to make yourself clear to me, fine, but don't act belligerent and assume that I have some sort of chronic short-coming for not being able to understand you. That is both rude and unfair.

I also grow impatient with people that aren't interested in entertaining alternate points of view, but simply insist on turning up the volume of what they have been saying. Abe used to do this a lot, as do you and others around here. There have been dozens of times when people here have convinced me that I'm wrong about something, and I say so, it's not a big deal...

In this thread, we are at the point of mocking the original idea and ideas like it that are sort of a caricature of a lot of the silly, baseless, bottom-feeding tripe that people have said in places like YouTube/CNN comments and on Fox News. We are doing this because you have not successful made your point enough in a compelling enough manner to anyone in this thread, and it is consequently starting to feel like a MacGeek thread. My advice is to just admit that smoking is really not an issue deserving our concern, and to back out of this one. I'm sure there have been other occasions where you have been right, but this thread is really not looking like it is going to end up well for you.