|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
posted May 18, 2008 09:29 AM |
|
|
Ok I heard a rumor, and I am hoping it is not true. Somebody please tell me it is just spin. Somebody said that Obama made a speech about how he had been through all 57 states and still had one to go. Not including Alaska and Hawaii.
Now I realize that this isn't so horrible, that half the people on the streets don't know how many states there are. Stiil, if true, you'd hope the President would be an exception.
Of course I still wouldn't vote for McCain or Clinton regardless, but I would hope that somebody would at least clue him in how many states there are. Wonder how many of them know the preamble?
____________
Message received.
|
|
The_Gootch
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Kneel Before Me Sons of HC!!
|
|
posted May 18, 2008 09:44 AM |
|
|
Sounds like there's been commingling between the people of Ohio and West Virginia.
____________
|
|
Binabik
Responsible
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted May 18, 2008 10:35 AM |
|
|
Careful what you say about Ohio....
____________
|
|
Drako_the_noob
Known Hero
Banned
|
|
posted May 18, 2008 10:43 AM |
|
|
|
TitaniumAlloy
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Professional
|
|
posted May 18, 2008 10:45 AM |
|
|
Yeah what's wrong with 57 states...
Don't forget Syria, Iran, Jordan, Palestine, Lebanon, Saudia Arabia, and Mexico 
lol... it was a slip of the tongue, if he couldn't go to Alaska and Hawaii and had one to go he obviously meant 47. Give him a break.
Apart from the fact it might be fun to laugh at to take it as a serious flaw or to call him stupid for messing up one word is stupid in itself.
Not as bad as George W. Bush asking the Brazilian President "Do you have blacks, too?" 
____________
John says to live above hell.
|
|
friendofgunnar
Honorable
Legendary Hero
able to speed up time
|
|
posted May 18, 2008 11:08 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Ok I heard a rumor, and I am hoping it is not true. Somebody please tell me it is just spin. Somebody said that Obama made a speech about how he had been through all 57 states and still had one to go. Not including Alaska and Hawaii.
Now I realize that this isn't so horrible, that half the people on the streets don't know how many states there are. Stiil, if true, you'd hope the President would be an exception.
There's several quasi-states, like Virgin Islands, Guam, Puerto Rico, Washington D.C., and...dunno, guantanomo bay?
|
|
Minion
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted May 18, 2008 11:08 AM |
|
Edited by Minion at 11:11, 18 May 2008.
|
Quote:
Ok I heard a rumor, and I am hoping it is not true. Somebody please tell me it is just spin. Somebody said that Obama made a speech about how he had been through all 57 states and still had one to go. Not including Alaska and Hawaii.
Florida and Michigan are not counted, he emphasizes that.
Edit, ok I didn't notice it was 57  That is bad.
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted May 18, 2008 11:15 AM |
|
|
Hey if he is man enough to admit a slip of the toungue, I'd even have more admiration for him. Yes, I admire Obama, and want him as our next president. A slip of the tongue will also not change the fact that I have and will vote for him (though it made little difference where I was at hehe). We all make mistakes, the key is admitting them
____________
Message received.
|
|
TitaniumAlloy
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Professional
|
|
posted May 18, 2008 12:37 PM |
|
|
There's nothing to admit
It's not even a mistake, it's not like he temporarily forgot how many states there were, or did the math wrong, or miscounted, or misremembered how many he'd been to. It has nothing to do with his intelligence as a person.
There's nothing to apologize for.
A 'slip of the tongue' is not something hard to admit to or embarassing, so there would be no point in pretending it didn't happen. He doesn't need to go out and make a public statement for something as insignificant as a stutter.
It's been blown way out of proportion.
Saying 57 instead of 47 doesn't mean he actually thinks that there are 57 states. I am 100% sure that he knows how many states there are.
____________
John says to live above hell.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 18, 2008 03:38 PM |
|
|
Of course he meant 47. It was just a slip of the tongue. Kind of like how McCain said that Iran was aiding Al-Qaeda.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Minion
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted May 18, 2008 03:54 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Of course he meant 47. It was just a slip of the tongue. Kind of like how McCain said that Iran was aiding Al-Qaeda.
LOL, mvass. Nice try.
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted May 18, 2008 05:09 PM |
|
|
LoL
Quote:
maybe I'd become a little more responsible if you decided to show your face a bit more
What are the odds of that happening? I still remember the picture he decided to post in the Real Life Pics thread all those years ago. The stadium filled with fans and he describes himself as being something like 3rd row, seat 243. Hahaha....
And it isn't that he won't but that he can't. It took me years to figure out the real reason why he can't post here with some semblance of his real self. The poor devil is probably serving in some political capacity. It all made sense to me once I finally figured it out.
____________
Roses Are Red And So Am I
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 18, 2008 05:16 PM |
|
|
Quote:
LOL, mvass. Nice try.
No, I'm serious. Obama didn't mean to say "57 states", and McCain didn't mean to say that Iran was aiding Al-Qaeda.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted May 20, 2008 07:38 AM |
|
|
Now waiting to find out the truth behind something else (it is rather hard to wade through this junk. So much disinformation by all the parties it is hard to tell fact from fiction).
Supposedly McCain opposes a bi-partisan increase in the colledge fund for Veterns because it would cost too much 'financially' and hurt reenlistment.
Now I can understand the reenlistment part (if it would hurt it that is) but financial reasons? Oh so we can spend 10 billion a month fighting a war, but heaven help us if we increase colledge funds?
Can somebody please shed more light on this? Tired of wading through so much garbage to find out the truth. Which is of course why a lot of campains are ran this way. People get tired of trying to find the truth and stop trying.
____________
Message received.
|
|
Peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
|
posted May 20, 2008 05:12 PM |
|
|
Mytical -- check McCain's website. You might find it there. I kind-of doubt it but it's worth a try.
Something tells me it's spin though. It doesn't sound like something McCain would do.
On GI bill: IF McCain really did take that position it is fallacious. In a 1986 CRS report, the stats on the GI bills of the past indicate that providing college education for veterans proved extremely cost-effective over the long haul. Vets are trained responsibility-mongers and they make better workers. When they are well-educated and well-employed they become a source of revenue for the economy. The revenue increase was like an average of seven or eight bucks for every dollar spent funding the WWII GI bill. You can't get that kind of return anywhere else.
http://www.answers.com/topic/gi-bill
In this one it looks like it was Bush who took the alleged position, not McCain.
http://www.armytimes.com/news/2008/01/military_gibill_stimulus_080128w/
Another great article (man, Bush is such an idiot -- doesn't he realize that by extending the GI bill he'd be luring more people to enlist, and that by failing to do so he'll be losing recruits???)
http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2008/GI-Bill-Lure4may08.htm
____________
I have menopause and a handgun. Any questions?
|
|
The_Gootch
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Kneel Before Me Sons of HC!!
|
|
posted May 20, 2008 06:18 PM |
|
|
Interesting articles. Interesting questions. As a son of Illinois, I am currently enjoying 10 consecutive semesters free tuition at any state university. To my knowledge, only Texas offers something similar to what Illinois does.
This is separate from the GI Bill, which I agree has not scaled well with the rising costs of education. If it weren't for the Illinois Veteran's Grant, I would have had to take out loans and worked jobs to supplement the cost of my tuition. And it is a rather deceitful practice on the part of the military to advertise the GI Bill as taking care of our education in this day and age when it clearly doesn't.
The cost/benefit analyses done over the years speak in clear favor of the economic benefits of college educated veterans. The current system is inadequate. All it requires to change this program is the will of congress. I have enjoyed the fruits of a free education and would love nothing more than to see it extended for all veterans. The government spent a considerable amount of money on us to become warriors. Many of those skills don't translate well in our transition to a civilian life. There is no reason why it cannot spend a similar amount of money to help us to become scholars.
____________
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted May 20, 2008 08:20 PM |
|
Edited by Corribus at 20:20, 20 May 2008.
|
@Mytical
Let me just throw something out there for you to think about.
Generally speaking, Bills in congress are often not simple "this" or "that" affairs. For the bill in question (education dollars for GIs), I recall vaguely that that bill was actually tied to a bill about war spending. I think that that bill may have been discarded and a new one with no strings attached put forth. Anyway. The point is, that sometimes politicians oppose a bill, not because of what the bill is trying to accomplish, but because of other bills that it is tied to - i.e., to pass this bill, you ALSO have to pass this other bill. This happens a lot. For obvious reasons.
In any case, I'm just saying you have to be careful when a campaign says "Well so and so voted AGAINST such and such." While it's probably not a lie, it may be omitting small details like, "He voted against such and such BILL because he didn't agree with the other 10 unrelated issues that were attached to it." It is also probably neglecting to mention the other similar bills that were being considered at the time. I'm not saying that's what happened here - just that you should take what campaigns say about the voting records of their opponents with a grain of salt.
|
|
The_Gootch
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Kneel Before Me Sons of HC!!
|
|
posted May 20, 2008 09:09 PM |
|
|
Quote:
@Mytical
Let me just throw something out there for you to think about.
Generally speaking, Bills in congress are often not simple "this" or "that" affairs. For the bill in question (education dollars for GIs), I recall vaguely that that bill was actually tied to a bill about war spending. I think that that bill may have been discarded and a new one with no strings attached put forth. Anyway. The point is, that sometimes politicians oppose a bill, not because of what the bill is trying to accomplish, but because of other bills that it is tied to - i.e., to pass this bill, you ALSO have to pass this other bill. This happens a lot. For obvious reasons.
In any case, I'm just saying you have to be careful when a campaign says "Well so and so voted AGAINST such and such." While it's probably not a lie, it may be omitting small details like, "He voted against such and such BILL because he didn't agree with the other 10 unrelated issues that were attached to it." It is also probably neglecting to mention the other similar bills that were being considered at the time. I'm not saying that's what happened here - just that you should take what campaigns say about the voting records of their opponents with a grain of salt.
QFT.
The venerable Max Cleland was a victim of just this sort of thing. John Kerry also was a victim of it when republicans ran attack ads saying he voted against body armor for the troops. I'm sure there are examples of democrats doing this but man, republicans really take this sort of thing to a special level.
____________
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted May 20, 2008 09:26 PM |
|
|
I don't know what the statistics are for who does it more, but it is really misleading and underhanded strategy to do it.
I mean, if I'm a politician I might have faced a bill that is primarily about war spending, for example, but has a bunch of other stuff "piggy-backing" that has no relationship to war spending at all. For example, there might be a part about this, and that, and whatever, and then a section about giving money to soup kitchens for the homeless. As a politician, of course, I may very much be against whatever the war-spending part of the bill is about and thus I vote against it even though I would have been fine with the other, minor unrelated proposals.
Four years later, I'm running for president and "the other guy" puts out a claim that says, "Corribus voted against giving money to soup kitchens for the homeless!! FOR SHAME!!!"
I mean, it's technically true but the context has been completely misrepresented.
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted May 21, 2008 06:36 AM |
|
|
Yes, I know to take a lot of what is said with a grain of salt, that is why I asked. Unfortunately it is because of all the misinformation, mud slinging, and dirty politics that it is almost impossible to distinguish fact from fiction. Again I don't know how accurate, but some believe that campains even put out negative things about their own canidate so people could find out it is false and accuse the rival of doing it. If so, all I have to say is...what a world huh?
____________
Message received.
|
|
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
