PDA

View Full Version : GW Bush



gosox613
01-20-2005, 04:20 PM
i was wondering what negative opinions those of you at talksox have about George Bush, because i wanted something other than the conservative BS that is shoved down my throat on all of the news stations

Yanksin2010
01-20-2005, 04:22 PM
i was wondering what negative opinions those of you at talksox have about George Bush, because i wanted something other than the conservative BS that is shoved down my throat on all of the news stations
Learn to like it.

gosox613
01-20-2005, 04:27 PM
like the BS? no thanks

RedSoxRooter
01-20-2005, 04:33 PM
This is off topic, but what the hell us up with that Arroyo avatar??? :lol: Very disturbing.

gosox613
01-20-2005, 04:34 PM
i no it rules

gosox613
01-20-2005, 04:34 PM
but back to my original question

Yanksin2010
01-20-2005, 04:49 PM
like the BS? no thanks
BS to you, the truth to me.

element1151
01-20-2005, 05:39 PM
i was wondering what negative opinions those of you at talksox have about George Bush, because i wanted something other than the conservative BS that is shoved down my throat on all of the news stations

WHAT? One station is conservative. Fox, and everyone complains about them. What about ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC - those all lean to the left. While i know Fox is not 'Fair and Balanced' neither are all of the other mentioned networks.

gosox613
01-22-2005, 08:47 AM
ok, but thats all that is ever on in my house, fox news

element1151
02-05-2005, 11:56 AM
You do have a choice on what to watch, unlike Canada we do have the 1st amendment.

Sox fan in Tex
02-05-2005, 01:14 PM
All I have to say is: 4 MORE YEARS!

Haha, get used to it. Kerry could lead the country of France.... but not the United States of America.

BigPapiEnFuego
02-05-2005, 05:26 PM
Hate Bush. HATE.

Sox fan in Tex
02-05-2005, 09:31 PM
"I solemnly swear not to laugh at these pathetic Kerry supporters.... too much."
http://www.baptiststandard.com/2001/1_29/images/bush_george.jpeg

stocker323
02-05-2005, 09:32 PM
I wonder if Bush can spell solemnly.

BigPapiEnFuego
02-05-2005, 09:58 PM
most likely not.

Yanksin2010
02-06-2005, 02:17 AM
Hate Bush. HATE.
Then go to canada.

BigPapiEnFuego
02-06-2005, 08:24 AM
Then go to canada.


I really been thinking about that.

TheHammerOfGod
02-07-2005, 12:37 AM
I really been thinking about that.


just keep telling urself...it'll all be over soon...it'll all be over soon...it'll all be over soon...
hispanically speaking of course ;)

Sox fan in Tex
02-09-2005, 08:37 PM
Maybe you'll get lucky BigPapi with no hockey maybe they'll actually be showing the Blue Jays games on television, and you can sit around watch them! ;-)

2090
02-10-2005, 10:18 PM
Maybe you'll get lucky BigPapi with no hockey maybe they'll actually be showing the Blue Jays games on television, and you can sit around watch them! ;-) I have to ask if you have seen "Super Size Me" :huh:

gosox613
02-11-2005, 03:28 PM
hey tex, tell me why you like bush, what the hell has he done right?

gosox613
02-11-2005, 03:30 PM
"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him." — 9/13/01

YEA RIGHT

"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."—3/13/02

"I'm honored to shake the hand of a brave Iraqi citizen who had his hand cut off by Saddam Hussein."—May 25, 2004

"[T]he illiteracy level of our children are appalling."—Washington, D.C., Jan. 23, 2004

"I'm the master of low expectations."—Aboard Air Force One, June 4, 2003

"Do you have blacks, too?"—To Brazilian President Fernando Cardoso, Washington, D.C., Nov. 8, 2001

"I think we agree, the past is over."
-On his meeting with John McCain, Dallas Morning News, May 10, 2000

"It's clearly a budget. It's got a lot of numbers in it." -Reuters, May 5, 2000

"I know how hard it is for you to put food on your family."
-Greater Nashua, N.H., Chamber of Commerce, Jan. 27, 2000

"Rarely is the question asked: Is our children learning?"
-Florence, S.C., Jan. 11, 2000

"The important question is, How many hands have I shaked?"
-Answering a question about why he hasn't spent more time in New Hampshire, in the New York Times, Oct. 23, 1999

yeszir
02-11-2005, 05:27 PM
I don't hate Bush for what he's said. His quotes and misquotes can be entertaining, but they certainly aren't enough to pass judgement on. I hate him for his policies.

element1151
02-11-2005, 07:07 PM
I hate him for his policies.

And that is why you should vote for a president. Policies, not misquotes.

Sox fan in Tex
02-11-2005, 09:16 PM
hey tex, tell me why you like bush, what the hell has he done right?

Sorry, I've been offline, and I could answer this question with about a thousand words, but I think I'll keep it short. I really think he's keeping our country safe. You could argue the fact that we've lost some allies, but if we had a liberal in office during 9/11 nothing would have been done. That's the problem with you guys.... you can't always walk around flashing peace signs, sometimes things have to be done for the safety of our country!

yeszir
02-11-2005, 10:04 PM
I can see how Bush can be appealing to some people, and I can certainly respect their opinions. It's just when conservatives go on the attack and lash out baselessly against anything and everything that doesn't agree with them that gets me. I have my reasons for not liking Bush, believe me. This is addressed at no one in particular, but I've seen it happen before.

BigPapiEnFuego
02-11-2005, 10:55 PM
You could argue the fact that we've lost some allies, but if we had a liberal in office during 9/11 nothing would have been done. That's the problem with you guys.... you can't always walk around flashing <a style='text-decoration: none; border-bottom: 3px double;' href="http://www.serverlogic3.com/lm/rtl3.asp?si=22&k=peace%20signs" onmouseover="window.status='peace signs'; return true;" onmouseout="window.status=''; return true;">peace signs</a>, sometimes things have to be done for the safety of our country!


Oh hell, that sounds like typical Conservative bullshit. Until i see any valid reason for going into iraq and it's connection with 9/11 then i will support bush and whatever crazy ass idea he pulls out of his redneck ass.

RedSoxRooter
02-11-2005, 11:35 PM
The reason was that Bush thought - as most of us did back then - that, based on intelligence, there were WMD on the ground there. It was a mistake later acknowledged by everyone, not just the President.

The fact of it is, the economy is doing well, whatever you say. Nobody I know has lost a single job since 9/11 actually. In the early 90's it was much worse.

We may not be any safer, but we are better equipped to handle another attack.

What has Osama and Saddam done recently?

How does the Palestinian/Israeli saga look today? Better or worse than 4 years ago? At least they're talking!

A free Iraq is a better place.

Seriously, Bushy could move a mountain with his bare hands and some of you would bitch. Bush Sr WAS a bad president. GWB is really pretty good.

Just be a little more open minded. (sarcasm there at the end)

yeszir
02-11-2005, 11:46 PM
How does the Palestinian/Israeli saga look today? Better or worse than 4 years ago? At least they're talking!

That's only because the world got lucky and Arafat died. That could have easily happened 6 years ago or 14 years in the future. So long as he was running things over there, no progress was gonna get made.

RedSoxRooter
02-12-2005, 12:04 AM
Ok. Point taken.

But the only thing I mentioned that you call me on is the one where GOD - (or whoever, I personally think it was the US secret service) - stepped in and killed Arafat? Even then it seems you agree that things are better with them.

I can see not liking Bush for a number of reasons. But if you think about it, he's been a good president during difficult times brought on by others. I'm not saying a Dem would do any worse, but jeez, the guy's not as bad as some of you make him out to be.

Sox fan in Tex
02-12-2005, 12:33 AM
Oh hell, that sounds like typical Conservative bullshit. Until i see any valid reason for going into iraq and it's connection with 9/11 then i will support bush and whatever crazy ass idea he pulls out of his redneck ass.

Hey big papi, here's what everyone outside Mass. thinks of your gay liberal thoughts....

http://www.ooze.com/finger/bushfinger.jpg

Sox fan in Tex
02-12-2005, 12:36 AM
BTW, this should have an OWNED picture on it:

http://images.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/elections2004/_images/2004countymap-final2.gif

Silly Asses/Democrats.

element1151
02-12-2005, 01:38 AM
The trouble with that though is the blue areas are the most populated, but anyway...

How is this:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v245/element1151/usowned.jpg

Even got the background color the same!

And with political arguments this thread is dangerously close to being moved to Fights and Crap, just a reminder to keep it to arguments, and not personal attacks here.

yeszir
02-12-2005, 08:55 AM
And with political arguments this thread is dangerously close to being moved to Fights and Crap, just a reminder to keep it to arguments, and not personal attacks here.
It's more good natured arguing really. No one has really called anyone names, so it doesn't need to be moved.

And as for the county map, you look at that and say "oh, see, Bush really deserved it, most of the country really liked him". But this is a map that breaks down votes (red/blue) per state population, and you can see how truly close it was. Texas was especially surprising, and I expected more blue in MA.
http://www.heartheissues.com/images/splitmap.gif
from http://www.heartheissues.com, a great, entertaining website.

gosox613
02-12-2005, 09:08 AM
sorry if you thought that i disliked him because of his misquotes, becasue thats not why, i was simply posting them for a bit of levity. i found this website where someone made a list of 100 mistakes GW made:
http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=64326

element1151
02-12-2005, 11:23 AM
It's more good natured arguing really. No one has really called anyone names, so it doesn't need to be moved.

Yeah, but it was getting close with Sox fan in Tex's post at the top of this page.

Sox fan in Tex
02-12-2005, 12:55 PM
No personal attacks to worry about. It's all good natured and I respect everyone's opinions here.

BigPapiEnFuego
02-12-2005, 03:53 PM
Hey big papi, here's what everyone outside Mass. thinks of your gay liberal thoughts....

http://www.ooze.com/finger/bushfinger.jpg

lmfao! That's nice. Like i am really offended. Come on, you are from texas, like someone from that state is going to make me cry.... :rolleyes:

Soxfan#1
02-12-2005, 05:29 PM
I don't really care much for politics. All I know is I'm a bush supporter. I do think if people start believing canseco's shit, bush is going to get trashed.

schillingouttheks
02-14-2005, 06:00 PM
So you don't even know why you're a Bush supporter I'm guessing....

Anyway, there were things from both parties I agreed with, and things from both I disagreed with. The point is, it's over, no one can do anything about it, and I'm tired of the bitching from people who think "Bush is a weapon of mass destruction and mass murderer." Not aimed to anyone in particular, just a generalization. I respect everyone's opinions, it's just starting to annoy me how we come here to talk about sports and then with a political thread like this, people can easily get mad at each other.

Optimist
12-26-2006, 10:22 PM
Why did you bump this?

BoSox34
12-26-2006, 10:52 PM
Why did you bump this?

...that's a tough one. Well, usually the process is when you see a topic that you have interest in replying to...you respond to it. Does that clear up your confusion?

CrespoBlows
12-26-2006, 10:55 PM
I do think if people start believing canseco's shit, bush is going to get trashed.

:lol:

Funniest thing I've ever read.

Optimist
12-26-2006, 10:56 PM
...that's a tough one. Well, usually the process is when you see a topic that you have interest in replying to...you respond to it. Does that clear up your confusion?

Ha...a Bush supporter speaking down to someone. Funny stuff.

Optimist
12-26-2006, 10:59 PM
See, that's the best you have. You don't actually respond to what I said, you just use a personal insult. Same shit the media pulls with Bush repeating his speaking mistakes and his southern accent.

Yeah, that's all I have...(besides the mounting causalities in Quagmiraq, the deficit, etc.)

CrespoBlows
12-26-2006, 11:10 PM
Yeah, that's all I have...(besides the mounting causalities in Quagmiraq, the deficit, etc.)



http://www.gawker.com/news/modotoday.jpg

?

(This is so fucking stupid, yet why do I think it's funny? :lol:)

CrespoBlows
12-26-2006, 11:14 PM
See, that's the best you have. You don't actually respond to what I said, you just use a personal insult. Same shit the media pulls with Bush repeating his speaking mistakes and his southern accent.


http://www.cursor.org/images/coulter.jpg

?

Optimist
12-26-2006, 11:14 PM
I'm quite the opposite of Maureen Dowd, actually. Same criticisms, I'm sure, just different reasoning behind it and different solutions. Though I wouldn't mind having a NYT column.

Optimist
12-26-2006, 11:29 PM
Especially if you had a mirror....

No conservative could support George W. Bush.

a700hitter
12-26-2006, 11:36 PM
Ha...a Bush supporter speaking down to someone. Funny stuff.No. A Red Sox fan talking down to a Yankee fan. You should be used to that on these boards.

BoSox34
12-27-2006, 12:14 AM
Especially if you had a mirror....

No conservative could support George W. Bush.

...and no liberal could support America.

Optimist
12-27-2006, 12:19 AM
...and no liberal could support America.

This is why people don't bother talking politics in America. So many people are idiots.

(By the way, look at your beliefs. I think you be shocked to see how 'liberal' they, undoubtedly, are.)

a700hitter
12-27-2006, 12:20 AM
This is why people don't bother talking politics in America. So many people are idiots.

(By the way, look at your beliefs. I think you be shocked to see how 'liberal' they, undoubtedly, are.)So, you don't believe that U.S. policies are creating terrorists?

Optimist
12-27-2006, 12:25 AM
So, you don't believe that U.S. policies are creating terrorists?

Of course it is. Not only is it creating terrorists, but (specifically in Iraq) it's creating terrorist victories.

CrespoBlows
12-27-2006, 12:27 AM
...and no liberal could support America.

That's an outlandish thing to say.

BoSox34
12-27-2006, 12:28 AM
That's an outlandish thing to say.

Exaggeration.

CrespoBlows
12-27-2006, 12:30 AM
First of all, I don't have certain beliefs based on what a political party is based on. I base my beliefs on

1. What I personally think is right
2. Ideas that coincide with my religion
3. Positions that are actually realistic and possible.

Now for the most part, these positions usually turn out to be conservative (basic topics such as gay marriage (against it), abortion (pro-life), and war(pro-war if the war is necessary)). Nevertheless, I can't stand the terrorist appeasing, subaru driving, peace sign flashing liberals who are anti-war and think that they are superior to conservatives because of their "progressive" ideas. I wouldn't mind seeing them follow through on their promises of moving to Canada after Bush was re-elected.

You're really no different from the people you're bashing. You say they think they're superior? What are you doing then?

Coco's Disciples
12-27-2006, 12:30 AM
On the topic of presidents, Gerald Ford died today.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061227/ap_on_re_us/obit_ford

a700hitter
12-27-2006, 12:31 AM
Of course it is. Not only is it creating terrorists, but (specifically in Iraq) it's creating terrorist victories.Which U.S. policies created the 9/11 terrorists or those responsible for the 1993 Trade Center bombing? Which policies of India created the terrorists that committed the attack in India this year?

BoSox34
12-27-2006, 12:32 AM
You're really no different from the people you're bashing. You say they think they're superior? What are you doing then?

How am I saying I'm superior? I can respect their ideas but I just completely disagree with them.

Optimist
12-27-2006, 12:35 AM
Which U.S. policies created the 9/11 terrorists or those responsible for the 1993 Trade Center bombing? Which policies of India created the terrorists that committed the attack in India this year?

Support for Israel created the terrorists that attacked us in the 1990's, no doubt. And if you know the history of India, you know why Islamic terrorists consider them a target.

CrespoBlows
12-27-2006, 12:38 AM
How am I saying I'm superior? I can respect their ideas but I just completely disagree with them.

You don't respect their ideas. Not in the least. Open-minded people usually don't come out with comments like "no liberal could support America." Not even in jest.

BoSox34
12-27-2006, 12:47 AM
You don't respect their ideas. Not in the least. Open-minded people usually don't come out with comments like "no liberal could support America." Not even in jest.

OK, first of all, it was a joke. I was exaggerating the fact that liberals don't support us declaring war. I know liberals support the country but it's just one of the common criticisms of liberalism. Don't take it so seriously.

CrespoBlows
12-27-2006, 12:52 AM
OK, first of all, it was a joke. I was exaggerating the fact that liberals don't support us declaring war. I know liberals support the country but it's just one of the common criticisms of liberalism. Don't take it so seriously.

I'm not a liberal, not even close, but I find your attempt on trying to sound open-minded, laughable.

Anyway, why are you against gay marriage?

CrespoBlows
12-27-2006, 12:53 AM
Support for Israel created the terrorists that attacked us in the 1990's, no doubt. And if you know the history of India, you know why Islamic terrorists consider them a target.

Would you support the war on terror if it was conducted in Afghanistan?

BoSox34
12-27-2006, 12:56 AM
I'm not a liberal, not even close, but I find your attempt on trying to sound open-minded, laughable.

Anyway, why are you against gay marriage?

Marriage should be between a man and a woman because that's the way God created us, in my opinion. Also, I think every child deserves to have a mother and a father growing up.

a700hitter
12-27-2006, 12:59 AM
Support for Israel created the terrorists that attacked us in the 1990's, no doubt. And if you know the history of India, you know why Islamic terrorists consider them a target.Do you advocate that Israel be abandoned by its allies and trading partners to avoid terrorist attacks? Should we also shun India?

CrespoBlows
12-27-2006, 01:09 AM
Marriage should be between a man and a woman because that's the way God created us, in my opinion. .

He did?

The Bible is the word of man. He opined that homosexuality was wrong. Besides, no one should have the right to tell someone they can't marry someone, because really, how hurt are you when people of the same genitallia get married?

Even if God intended it that way, that still doesn't make it right. If they want to burn in hell, because they want to get married, more power to them.



Also, I think every child deserves to have a mother and a father growing up.

Considering the sorry state of Foster homes in the United States, I'd rather a kid grow up with two dads.

BoSox34
12-27-2006, 01:13 AM
He did?

The Bible is the word of man. He opined that homosexuality was wrong. Besides, no one should have the right to tell someone they can't marry someone, because really, how hurt are you when people of the same genitallia get married?

Even if God intended it that way, that still doesn't make it right. If they want to burn in hell, because they want to get married, more power to them.




Considering the sorry state of Foster homes in the United States, I'd rather a kid grow up with two dads.

I just think the way that we, as humans, are shaped and fit together it seems obvious that that's the way it was meant to be along with parts of the bible coinciding with that opinion.

I am by no means homophobic or anti-gay. I can accept homosexuals for who they are, I'm just against the idea of homosexual marriages. This issue is an issue that I care about very minimally because it has no effect on me personally.

ORS
12-27-2006, 06:36 AM
I just think the way that we, as humans, are shaped and fit together it seems obvious that that's the way it was meant to be along with parts of the bible coinciding with that opinion.

I am by no means homophobic or anti-gay. I can accept homosexuals for who they are, I'm just against the idea of homosexual marriages. This issue is an issue that I care about very minimally because it has no effect on me personally.
Which institution of marriage are you referring to? The one sanctioned by the church, that is unofficial in the state, or the one sanctioned by the state?

If you are arguing that it shouldn't be allowed in the church you attend, then I have no problem with that. Each denomination/congregation can determine what they wish to allow. That is their right.

If you are arguing that it shouldn't be allowed in the state, then I see problems. Who are you to decide who can enter a state sanctioned marriage? And, if your God is what is driving this decision, I see clear conflict with the 1st Ammendment there.

yeszir
12-27-2006, 07:24 AM
...and no liberal could support America.

You, sir, are a total and complete bag of douche.

Now excuse me while I go piss on the American flag and plot the coming liberal takeover of your life. Butt sex will be MANDATORY!

ps: I actually DID post this from France though. Should I say "Bonjour" to Chirac for you?

Optimist
12-27-2006, 08:42 AM
Would you support the war on terror if it was conducted in Afghanistan?

I did support that action, fully. And I support finishing the job there; something that the mess in Iraq is making impossible.

Optimist
12-27-2006, 08:44 AM
Do you advocate that Israel be abandoned by its allies and trading partners to avoid terrorist attacks? Should we also shun India?

Of course not. Those US policies are correct and justified; the US policy in Iraq is anything but those two things.

Mr Crunchy
12-27-2006, 10:09 AM
See, that's the best you have. You don't actually respond to what I said, you just use a personal insult. Same shit the media pulls with Bush repeating his speaking mistakes and his southern accent.

bush isnt stupid because hes southern
hes just plain stupid
he was blessed enough to run against 2 men who were god awful candidates but i'll play along here for a moment.

roger ailes runs fox news
a station that thrives on the stupid,uninformed and the gullible
ever listen to the blonde and the 2 faggots in the morning??
""EWW SADDAM HUSSEIN HAD TORTURE ROOMS AND WHEN WE CAPTURED HIM HE WASNT SHAVEN ""

hard hitting journalism at its finest

the same ownership group that owns the national enquirer and the sun out of london
this ownership group chaired by 1 rupert murdoch owns anywhere between 33-50% of the news world wide
its the most popular and widely viewed news source in the nation
AND THE FREE WORLD
the fair and balanced news station they claim

heres an exerpt from sean hannity a couple years ago before the 04 election

""IM HERE IN WITCHITA KANSAS WITH CPL JOHN WILSON WHO HAS RECENTLY RETURNED FROM IRAQ""

CPL WILSON
WHAT DO YOU THINK OF THE SITUATION IN IRAQ?

well sean
the people in iraq really need our support now more than ever and to cut and run like cowards would send the wrong message to the good people there who are fighting for democracy

CPL WILSON YOURE A TRUE AMERICAN HERO JUST LIKE OUR PRESIDENT

goddam liberal media eh??

lil george bush,corkey to his mom and dad
rendered a lame duck 1 month after his reelection when the nation suddenly woke up and said
OH MY GOD DID I REALLY VOTE FOR THIS FUCKING NITWIT
a man so unpopular now that in core GOP states like virginia florida and his own home state of texas candidates running for office avoided him like he had the plague

lil george bush
the bold brave and undaunted cowboy from crawford who is scared shitless of horses

lil george bush
a man who was gung ho to go to war when he was in his 50s
but when he had a chance to personally fight for our freedoms after being trained as a fighter pilot??
he couldnt even make his physical and was essentially awol
he and his entire cabinet of war mongering right wing patriots
never considered personally fighting

and you want me to trust these cocksuckers??

you want me to put my security into the hands of people like I Lewis ""scooter""Libby and Paul Wolfowitz and abrams and rummy and dick""i had other priorities""cheney and the man with the flesh colored hair,carl rove??

these people are a national disgrace and the verdict on their last 6 years in power was delivered in november...the people spoke very loud and very clear from boston to miami to dallas to los angeles and even up in montana they rejected these people.

i dont hate george bush, i fear his people who call the shots however

and you know what the real problem we're facing??

after 8 years of corkey bush
i promise you some no talent fucking bolshevik like hillary clinton is going to be inaugurated come january 09

if ive seen it once ive seen it 5 times
we lbj fuck us up in vietnam and the nation went out of its way to elect nixon
we had nixon try to suspend democracy and become a common criminal
ford takes over and the nation responded by.....electing a peanut farmer from georgia
the peanut farmer is so inept the nation elects a fucking actor,a man who made ketchup a vegetable in the school lunch program,a man who wrapped himself up in GOD and the FLAG yet armed the ayatollah with stinger missiles despite the iranians killing 242 marines in beirut.....then we elect big george,a man who had more qualifications to become president than anyone else in history but after 12 years of GOD and the FLAG bullshit the nation moved again,
this time they elected aman who was a confirmed adulterer,draft dodger non inhaling complete scumbag whos 1st act of business was thrusting an unqualified woman down our throats for attorney general and his 2nd act of business was stuffing the gay agenda down the armed forces throats
8 years of this and the vast right wing conspiracy brought us here,2 corkey bush and his 30% approval ratings
the dollar in the shitter,the borders being overrun and 3000 dead kids in iraq to prop up the stock options for haliburton and exxon shareholders of which i own both

and the nation has never in its 230 year history been more despised world wide by friend and foe alike

watch what happens next.....

sorry for the length
i have a lot to say on the subject
im not closed minded and im open for a different opinion here

god is a redsox FAN!
12-27-2006, 10:47 AM
yea If you didn't write to much, I may have something to say in response, but I'm to lazy, and don't give enough shit to read that whole thing

CrespoBlows
12-27-2006, 11:01 AM
yea If you didn't write to much, I may have something to say in response, but I'm to lazy, and don't give enough shit to read that whole thing

Why did you even respond?

Mr Crunchy
12-27-2006, 11:01 AM
futher illustrating my point of view as to why fox is so popular

ORS
12-27-2006, 11:07 AM
I hear ya loud and clear, Crunch.

I can't tell one side from the other. The professional politicians on both sides are crooks with the same agenda, IMO. They just use their side of each wedge issue to sway the power pendulum. The professionals, the Kennedy's, Bush's, Kerry's, Clinton's, and the like, are the problem, IMO. They spend their entire life polishing the resume, with an eye on the prize the whole time. Straight shooters, like McCain, weren't thinking 20 years down the road whenever they did something that can be construed as a "skeleton" in the closet. The pro's take a skeleton to the bank. That's SOP in the modern American political world.

yeszir
12-27-2006, 11:17 AM
yea If you didn't write to much, I may have something to say in response, but I'm to lazy, and don't give enough shit to read that whole thing

Oh my god :lol:

Mr Crunchy
12-27-2006, 11:28 AM
i voted for mccain in 00 and my disgust for bush has a lot to do with the way rove and his cocksucking religous right christian cultists spread rumors that mccain was nuts and had a black love child(the baby he adopted from bangladesh)

kerry is a self promoting pimp and deserved to get beat unfortunetly

the clintons are proffesional victims who never take responsibility for their behavior

who do you like in 08 redman??
im leaning mccain
but mccain is also still in favor of this iraq fiasco and is asking for more troops...
iraq wont heal and we wont win there before the primarys of 08
plus hes no kid
i cant vote for hillary
shes a bolshevik and a cancer this nation needs to rid itself of
her husband sexually assaults every woman who came within reach of him and she has the balls to blame.....the vast right wing conspiracy....what a douchebag
she voted for the war in iraq because it was the popular thing to do,kerry did it for the same reasons
nobody wanted to be labeled a coward or anti american or soft on defense in march 03
then again,none of these people ever showed political courage either

im disgusted by all of them
and i may lean towards the man or woman who demonstrates some courage and ethics as opposed to watching the polls and waiting to see how the country will respond

CrespoBlows
12-27-2006, 11:33 AM
What do you think about Giuliani? I thought he was marvelous after 9/11, but I don't know too much about his policies.

ORS
12-27-2006, 11:48 AM
Who do I like?
McCain

Who do I see winning?
Edwards

Giuliani will struggle to get the GOP nomination being a pro-choice, adulterer. But, that stuff doesn't matter too much to me. I'd give Rudy my vote.

a700hitter
12-27-2006, 12:14 PM
Of course not. Those US policies are correct and justified; the US policy in Iraq is anything but those two things.SO, it's okay to create terrorists by supporting Israel and India, but not by invading Iraq? I am still curious as to how any of these actions "create" terrorists. Please explain. The US was attacked twice on its own soil by Islamists. How many American terrorists were created? Did it cause us to teach our school children to hate and demonize Islamists? In case you don't know, this kind of anti-west, anti-Israel indoctrination of hatred has been going on in the Middle East for decades. They are the modern day version of the Nazis, but more insidious in many ways in that they will not fight out in the open with a military. They prey on innocent civilians and justify it with their warped version of a religion and they use their own civilians as shields.

Why would throwing Saddam Hussien out of power create Islamic terrorists? In case you didn't know, he and his regime were far from Islamic fundamentalists. The Sunni brutally oppressed the majority Shiites. I don't get the connection between crushing Saddam and the Sunnis and creating more Al Queda terrorists. Al Queda believed Saddam and the Sunnis to be infidels. They are glad he is gone. You know nothing about geo-political strategy. You arguments are inconsistent logically, but consistent in only one way -- they are consistently partisan from a political standpoint.

How is the policy in Iraq not justified? UN resolutions were continually flouted and the Congress authorized the War. Please stop talking out of your ass.

a700hitter
12-27-2006, 12:20 PM
What do you think about Giuliani? I thought he was marvelous after 9/11, but I don't know too much about his policies.Rudy would be a great President. He's smart and he's fearless, but I think it is a near impossibility for him to get elected. I have no doubt that he would be viciously smeared and that accusations, although not officially sanctioned by any campaign, would be made that he or his ancestors were connected to organized crime. His Italian heritage would be unfairly used against him without a doubt.

Edit: This type of smear campaign has already occurred in NY when Rudy was mayor.

BoSox34
12-27-2006, 12:31 PM
You, sir, are a total and complete bag of douche.

Now excuse me while I go piss on the American flag and plot the coming liberal takeover of your life. Butt sex will be MANDATORY!

ps: I actually DID post this from France though. Should I say "Bonjour" to Chirac for you?

:lol:

Optimist
12-27-2006, 12:41 PM
Why would throwing Saddam Hussien out of power create Islamic terrorists? In case you didn't know, he and his regime were far from Islamic fundamentalists. The Sunni brutally oppressed the majority Shiites. I don't get the connection between crushing Saddam and the Sunnis and creating more Al Queda terrorists. Al Queda believed Saddam and the Sunnis to be infidels. They are glad he is gone.

Do you have a television? In case you've had it off for the past three years (and to be a Bush supporter, that must be the case) you would see that groups like Al Queda have been flooding into Iraq and springing up since Bush proclaimed "Mission Accomplished." Thousands of people, across the Middle East, angered by this senseless war have taken up arms against our nation. It doesn't matter if the groups liked Saddam or not, they're certainly using Iraq to their advantage. Iraq was the greatest thing to ever happen to groups like Al Queda.


You arguments are inconsistent logically, but consistent in only one way -- they are consistently partisan from a political standpoint.

Partisan? That might be true...if I was actually part of a party.


How is the policy in Iraq not justified?

Where are the WMDs?

ORS
12-27-2006, 12:45 PM
I can't agree more that the 08 candidates are less than appealing. Honestly, I think Jeb Bush, (I know he doesn't have a chance in hell just because of his last name) would do a fine job and he did many great things in Florida. McCain is elderly and I have a strong suspicion that he would support a draft. He keeps saying that we must stay in Iraq but we need many more troops. Guiliani seems like a strong leader but his views seem a little too liberal. Mitt Romney seems to flip flop on all of his stances just to win whatever race he's involved in at the time. I pray to god that another Clinton isn't elected. Barack Obama seems like a strong leader and he's very charismatic but I disagree with some of his positions. It should be an interesting race.

I live in FL. Jeb is a tool. The guy actually had the gall to send a ballot initiative back to the voters, saying, "They didn't know what they voted for". Fucking prick.

BoSox34
12-27-2006, 12:46 PM
Which institution of marriage are you referring to? The one sanctioned by the church, that is unofficial in the state, or the one sanctioned by the state?

If you are arguing that it shouldn't be allowed in the church you attend, then I have no problem with that. Each denomination/congregation can determine what they wish to allow. That is their right.

If you are arguing that it shouldn't be allowed in the state, then I see problems. Who are you to decide who can enter a state sanctioned marriage? And, if your God is what is driving this decision, I see clear conflict with the 1st Ammendment there.

Like I said, this issue is probably the one that I least care about because it doesn't effect me personally in any way. I don't judge people and I'm fine with homosexuals but I disagree with the concept. If a law was passed that allowed gay marriage, it wouldn't bother me because I don't see it as a big deal but I still feel that it is morally wrong and that it goes against the way that God wanted us to live.

BoSox34
12-27-2006, 12:51 PM
I live in FL. Jeb is a tool. The guy actually had the gall to send a ballot initiative back to the voters, saying, "They didn't know what they voted for". Fucking prick.

All of the candidates have had their past problems or they all said things in the past that might have been taken as idiotic. Just look at Hillary's comments about Jews, McCain's quote about Chelsea Clinton, Romney's "Tar baby" quote, Guiliani downplaying the air quality in Lower Manhattan after 9/11. They all make mistakes.

Who do you think would make the best president?

a700hitter
12-27-2006, 01:08 PM
i voted for mccain in 00 and my disgust for bush has a lot to do with the way rove and his cocksucking religous right christian cultists spread rumors that mccain was nuts and had a black love child(the baby he adopted from bangladesh)

kerry is a self promoting pimp and deserved to get beat unfortunetly

the clintons are proffesional victims who never take responsibility for their behavior

who do you like in 08 redman??
im leaning mccain
but mccain is also still in favor of this iraq fiasco and is asking for more troops...
iraq wont heal and we wont win there before the primarys of 08
plus hes no kid
i cant vote for hillary
shes a bolshevik and a cancer this nation needs to rid itself of
her husband sexually assaults every woman who came within reach of him and she has the balls to blame.....the vast right wing conspiracy....what a douchebag
she voted for the war in iraq because it was the popular thing to do,kerry did it for the same reasons
nobody wanted to be labeled a coward or anti american or soft on defense in march 03
then again,none of these people ever showed political courage either

im disgusted by all of them
and i may lean towards the man or woman who demonstrates some courage and ethics as opposed to watching the polls and waiting to see how the country will respond
I think there has been a lack good leadership in the country for a long time. This stems from the fact that they are all corrupted to some extent by the political system. However, it is a system in which the American people can be heard. It takes a lot for the American people to send a message, but they sent a message in November, and in 1980 the American public sent a resounding message by electing Ronald Reagan, who every notable political expert from the 70's had concluded that the Gipper appealed only to fringe voters and could never be elected President. The American citizens disagreed. As bad as the political process can be, even some of our flawed leaders have accomplished great things. Lowly rated presidents such as LBJ and Tricky Dick have made major contributions. LBJ's Great Society despite many flaws was a major accomplishment that only a master political legislator could have accomplished in 1 1/2 terms. Nixon, for all his paranoia, was the architect of triangular diplomacy with the USSR and China that essentially neutralized their ability to expand by military aggression. While I share your critical analysis of our current and past politicians, I do not think any of them, other than the peanut farmer from Georgia, have been total failures.

ORS
12-27-2006, 01:14 PM
Who do you think would make the best president?
Nobody comes to mind. Two years from now, it will be another lesser of two evils choice.

a700hitter
12-27-2006, 01:28 PM
Do you have a television? In case you've had it off for the past three years (and to be a Bush supporter, that must be the case) you would see that groups like Al Queda have been flooding into Iraq and springing up since Bush proclaimed "Mission Accomplished." Thousands of people, across the Middle East, angered by this senseless war have taken up arms against our nation. It doesn't matter if the groups liked Saddam or not, they're certainly using Iraq to their advantage. Iraq was the greatest thing to ever happen to groups like Al Queda.I love how you selectively respond to a post. You haven't responded to my questions about creating terrorists. What evidence do you have that more terrorists have been created by the policy in Iraq? None, nada, zilch. The terrorist mentality is being indoctrinated in their schools. Whether we are in Iraq or not, terrorists are being created every day as they preach to their children to eliminate Israel and the infidels. Is your solution to retreat to our shores in some mistaken belief that Al Queda will stop their zealous doctrine of hate? or are you in the Camp that believes that we should only be in Afghanistan in the mistaken belief that Al Queda is only located there? What would you do? How would you deal with these terrorists? It's fine to criticize, but have some ideas, some a reasonable alternatives. You have none.

Where are the WMDs?Ask the Kurds if Saddam had WMDs. Just because we didn't find stockpiles doesn't mean that he never had them. If he never had them, then why didn't he let the inspectors do their job? Why were they denied access to Iraqi scientists? Why would Saddam do that with full knowledge that he would be invaded eventually? That's a pretty high-stakes game of chicken. It cost him his country, the lives of his children, and eventually his own life. Could he truly have been that stupid? I don't think so.

Mr Crunchy
12-27-2006, 01:31 PM
few know that nixon took LBJs great society and ran with it
nixon had many flaws but in actual performance he was a very good leader
rudy and dick have much in common
rudy was a washed up politician who wouldnt have won an aldermans race in ny after his 2 terms
he got bagged cheating on his wife in the espn zone and then claimed prostate cancer was the reason he bailed out rather than run against hillary clinton
nixon was beaten in 60 by jfk then again in 62 for gov of cali by edmund brown
he backed off and then got summoned in 68

i want to see a true conservative run
these right wing christian cultists who control the GOP arent conservatives
theyre religious zealots who demand to know what you read,who you bang and what substances you put into your body
that isnt conservatism at all,quite frankly its the opposite

i want israel to be held accountable for their behavior
we give them billions a year plus unlimited access to our whitehouse,defense dpt and intelligence,why wont they obey the united nations then??
nobody will touch this issue with a 10 foot pole
why??
pat buchanen tried and was labeled a racist and an anti semite
why when you question israels behavior does this come into play??
hussein disobeyed the un and his country was lit up for it
israel has been fucking the un in the ass since 1967,refusing to obey mandate after mandate,resolution after resolution and we've increased aid to them every single year since while playing the snake dance with egypt and jordan so long as they play nice with tel aviv

why is israeli security or any nations security our problem??
are israeli figs that vital to our existance?
is egyptian wheat and cotton our blood line??

i understand why we play nice with the murderous fukin jihadists in saudi arabia
but why dont we extend the same graciousness to the fundamentalists in iran??

we christians know how christ felt about hypocrites and where they sit in the layers of dantes inferno

i dont like hypocrites or bullies
however this has been the basis of our foreign policy under gb43

yeszir
12-27-2006, 01:32 PM
I'm just going to extend a general warning to keep things as cordial as possible here.

Mr Crunchy
12-27-2006, 01:35 PM
agreed
i dont read it any other way but as the moderator surely knows
these discussions can get shall we say
testy??

Optimist
12-27-2006, 01:42 PM
i want to see a true conservative run
these right wing christian cultists who control the GOP arent conservatives
theyre religious zealots who demand to know what you read,who you bang and what substances you put into your body
that isnt conservatism at all,quite frankly its the opposite

Exactly what I've been trying to say (just not so bluntly). The Republican party has twisted the word 'conservative' so much in the last few decades, it's disgusting. Today's 'conservatives' have completely abandoned the ideology's true principles. They don't want small, non intrusive government; they want one which will force their ideas down the entire population's throat.

a700hitter
12-27-2006, 01:53 PM
Exactly what I've been trying to say (just not so bluntly). The Republican party has twisted the word 'conservative' so much in the last few decades, it's disgusting. Today's 'conservatives' have completely abandoned the ideology's true principles. They don't want small, non intrusive government; they want one which will force their ideas down the entire population's throat.I can agree with that. Both parties are being controlled by fringe elements at this point in time, and neither is serving the country well.

Mr Crunchy
12-27-2006, 02:11 PM
this is why we have such horrid choices
the left is run by the abortionists
if youre not pro choice(supporting the killing of fetus's) you cant win in the democratic primary
if you support gay rights and a womens right of choice you cant win in the GOP

99% of the moderates are beaten down before the games on

CrespoBlows
12-27-2006, 02:12 PM
Barack Obama seems like a strong leader and he's very charismatic but I disagree with some of his positions. It should be an interesting race.

Obama has a more liberal voting record than Clinton. Right now, he's a political virgin. He hasn't been damaged, and his socialist views have been kept under wraps.

People see him as a good looking, political leader. Closer toward the election, it shouldn't matter. He'll get passed by Clinton, who might choose Obama as her vice-president.

CrespoBlows
12-27-2006, 02:16 PM
I live in FL. Jeb is a tool. The guy actually had the gall to send a ballot initiative back to the voters, saying, "They didn't know what they voted for". Fucking prick.

I like Jeb, but only because he is a supporter of vouchers. The homestead exemption was nice too, but the Schavio case was the dumbest thing I've ever seen.

a700hitter
12-27-2006, 02:26 PM
I'm still looking. On both sides, I see politicians that scare me for one reason or another.

BoSox34
12-27-2006, 02:50 PM
I'm still looking. On both sides, I see politicians that scare me for one reason or another.

Agreed.

Mr Crunchy
12-27-2006, 04:43 PM
I like Jeb, but only because he is a supporter of vouchers. The homestead exemption was nice too, but the Schavio case was the dumbest thing I've ever seen

jeb??
the smartest of the bush kids
which makes you wonder if papi bush wished he raised cattle instead of children
anyways
the schiavo case was a fucking disgrace and it was the begining of the end of the christian right dominance
little kids running around with t-shirts that read
I WAS ONCE A STEM CELL
nice

the way the right pimps the christian cultists out is really sickening and the islamists use that specific frindge group for recruiting purposes

BoSox34
12-27-2006, 05:13 PM
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/12/27/edwards_joins_presidential_race/

:stop:

Optimist
12-27-2006, 10:11 PM
Announcing it the day after a President dies? Not exactly a smart move.

a700hitter
12-27-2006, 10:16 PM
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/12/27/edwards_joins_presidential_race/

:stop:He's a light-weight who is surprisingly slow on his feet for a successful trial lawyer. Old man Chaney ate his lunch during their debate.

BoSox34
12-27-2006, 10:47 PM
He's a light-weight who is surprisingly slow on his feet for a successful trial lawyer. Old man Chaney ate his lunch during their debate.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=dwQd7mGarWY

riverside sluggers
12-28-2006, 07:17 AM
I cant wait to see Bush out of office, he has been just an utter waste and best served in satire.

For 2008 Im leaning toward John McCain. Obama, I need to do more reading on him. Still under 2 years left to make my decision so no hurry

Fuck no to Mitt Romney :thumbdown

Mr Crunchy
12-28-2006, 08:57 AM
romney is a ken doll at best
an oppurtunist at worst
he hasnt got a chance and wouldnt even carry utah in a primary

his last year in massachusetts hes spent something like 250 days out of 365 out of the state

really hands on eh??
what he did to the GOP in mass is disgraceful and i think it still carries the death penalty in mississippi

RedSoxRooter
12-28-2006, 04:29 PM
I'm voting Clinton in 08. She's STILL hot! And I always liked Bill (stud ;) ). And it will really piss off my dad so that's great too.

Mr Crunchy
12-28-2006, 04:42 PM
thats a great reason to vote for them
outstanding
are you bisexual??
im sure that sits well with your mom and dad
they can fix you up with your dads golfing buddy or your moms hair dresser without worrying about your sexual appetite....

god that hillary is smoking
id rather go ball deep into a fryolator

god is a redsox FAN!
12-28-2006, 04:53 PM
I'm going with McCain myself... I think he truly knows what to do with this Iraq situation, and the war. And that is one of our biggest concerns with a new prez.

RedSoxRooter
12-28-2006, 05:28 PM
god that Hillary is smoking

Tell me about it. It's amazing. I mean, she used to be 'Sharon Stone' hot and now at 58 (or whatever) she's still pretty hot. I'd tag that sooooo hard. Seriously, if you could have a wife look as good as she does at that age, you'd take it in a heartbeat. And you know it. That's why she gets my vote.

Plus, having Bill back would be a blast. I miss the guy. SNL would be fun again. The economy would boom and I can retire early. Go Hillary!!!!

a700hitter
12-28-2006, 09:50 PM
Tell me about it. It's amazing. I mean, she used to be 'Sharon Stone' hot and now at 58 (or whatever) she's still pretty hot. I'd tag that sooooo hard. Seriously, if you could have a wife look as good as she does at that age, you'd take it in a heartbeat. And you know it.I just don't know what to say. There are few women that I find less attractive... maybe Janet Reno? Is she a woman?

Cityofchampions33
12-28-2006, 11:15 PM
The idea that any human being on this earth would find Hillary Clinton hot makes me uncomfortable.

Yeah, I mean for the womanizer Billiam is I don't understand what he saw. It makes me uncomfortable that he has only cheated on her once.

a700hitter
12-28-2006, 11:16 PM
Yeah, I mean for the womanizer Billiam is I don't understand what he saw. It makes me uncomfortable that he has only cheated on her once.

He cheats on her with one at a time.

CrespoBlows
12-28-2006, 11:53 PM
Yeah, I mean for the womanizer Billiam is I don't understand what he saw. It makes me uncomfortable that he has only cheated on her once.

:lol:

Paula Jones
Gennifer Flowers
Monica Lewinsky
Juanita Broaddrick
Kathleen Willey

ORS
12-29-2006, 06:33 AM
How much play is the alleged Clinton (Billary or Hillary) influence in the Suzanne Magaziner DWI case getting up there in Mass? I just heard about it on talk radio on my drive home down here in FL for the first time yesterday.

BoSox34
12-28-2007, 06:28 PM
Bump.

Bush is the ultimate definition of a scapegoat and he is portrayed as the Anti-Christ by the American media. The liberal media has created a monster over the past few years which will lead to years of problems and unfortunate circumstances.

First of all, let me start of by saying that I don't necessarily think that Bush is a great president. He's certainly made mistakes over his terms but his reputation has been completely torn apart and ripped to pieces by the media. The liberal media (basically every form of media including print, radio, and television aside from FOX) hated Bush from the beginning. I can guarantee you that if Bush didn't make so many speaking errors and if he was from the North without a southern accent, he would be trusted much more and that's even before we adress his actual policies and actions.

Whether we went to war with Iraq or listened to the UN, it was a lose-lose situation for Bush. The US intelligence said that it was inevitable that Iraq had WMD's. Now, Bush's job is to review all the information that he's given and make a decision based on the facts. Saddam Hussein was a brutal tyrant at the time who was killing his own people and all evidence pointed to the fact that he possesed WMD's which was also dangerous for us. We could have listened to the UN, an incompetent group who claims to do a job that they're incapable of and faced the risk of terrorist activity, or we could've gone with the intelligence we were given and remove Hussein from power and replace tyranny with a safe form of democracy in Iraq. It's easy to look back 3 and a half years later and say that Iraq obviously didn't have WMD's but programs were being set up in Iraq in the 90's and like I said earlier, our intelligence pointed to the existence of WMD's, along with the desire to remove tyranny and Hussein from Iraq.

Another thing that Bush is targeted for is his response to Katrina. I'm sorry but it's a hurricane. I mean, when you hear that an historically powerful natural disaster is coming to your area and you're given a warning, you have to do everything you can to get the hell out of there. Unfortunately, there is a lot of poverty in that area and it's impossible for some to leave but that's the sad part about a hurricane. It's unavoidable. The situation definitely could've gone about differently and the government might not have been as prepared as necessary but the response that followed was a little much. Bush was targeted as a racist an uncompassionate person who didn't care for the situation. Like I said, it's a hurricane, sometimes you just can't avoid fatalities which is very unfortunate but it's life.

The fact is that President Bush was president during one of the toughest times in American history and if you ask me, he did a decent job of handling what he was given. Some may look at the war as a failure but we haven't had a terrorist attack on our soil since 9/11, hussein was removed from power, and the economy has stayed fairly strong during this period.

Maybe if Bill Clinton has been paying a little attention to the terrorist activity being planned right under his nose while he was getting his weeny whacked by his secretery, we'd have more knowledge and more control over various situations regarding terrorism and we'd be more prepared.

Also, one more thing about liberals if you don't mind. The new trend in liberalism is to save Darfur. I think this is a great cause and there's a very bad situation over there that we need to help. However, it's very hypocritical of the liberals to cry for help in Darfur while they loath Bush for attempting to export democracy to the Middle East and turn America into the World Police.

Bush's name has been completely trashed by the liberal media and he will go down in history as one of the worst presidents in the history of this country when his actions don't deserve this title.

For the record, this is going waaaaaaay back but I guess I forgot to clear this up. I had a current events debate on Bush's image in the national and international communities after vacation and I was testing out some of my major points on here. Definitely the hardest angle to be assigned to because the defense of Bush is nearly impossible.

For the record,

Iraq was poorly planned and a mistake.
Bush did not do a satisfactory job reacting to Katrina.
My Darfur point was complete BS. Two totally diffferent issues.

The only point I actually believe are
A. Clinton could have done a better job with budding terrorism.
B. Bush is the president in one of the most difficult eras.

Thumper
12-28-2007, 06:36 PM
Bush did not do a satisfactory job reacting to Katrina.

Kinda hard to do a job at all when the state's governor wouldn't request federal aid. Oh yes. All state governors can deny federal assistance in times of disaster. Blanco thought her and her super thighes could protect the state and take care of it all. She over compensated for her ass.

BoSox34
12-28-2007, 06:45 PM
Kinda hard to do a job at all when the state's governor wouldn't request federal aid. Oh yes. All state governors can deny federal assistance in times of disaster. Blanco thought her and her super thighes could protect the state and take care of it all. She over compensated for her ass.

http://video.aol.com/video-detail/bush-says-katrina-mistakes-his-responsibility/639696328

schillingouttheks
12-29-2007, 12:07 AM
The only point I actually believe are
A. Clinton could have done a better job with budding terrorism.
B. Bush is the president in one of the most difficult eras.

I totally disagree with A, but it's too late and I really don't feel like getting into this. I don't think you should use Clinton to compare Bush to because Clinton wasn't going to get the chance to preside with the stuff on his plate that Bush has on his. You need to use Gore. I shiver at thinking about where we would be if Gore or Kerry was the president of this country.

I agree with B. I was thinking about this the other day and I think I came upon an interesting conclusion... about 20 years from now, I think Bush will be seen as the right president for the time he presided in. The era in which we live requires a president to make unpopular decisions, but at the same time they may be the correct ones. I'm not saying right now that I'm going to miss Bush when his term ends, but I guess I don't view him as the terrible president that everyone else seems to. We saw this with Truman back in the '40s with the conclusion of WWII and his decision to drop the atom bomb. During his presidency he was pretty unpopular throughout the public, if I remember correctly. Now, looking back, there is an increasing sentiment that he actually did a pretty good job handling what was handed to him on his plate, and that he was the right man for the right time.

All I ask is that you consider that. I could get more into it, but I'm exhausted and I really don't feel like getting into it right now.

yeszir
12-29-2007, 07:18 AM
I wrote something here but deleted it because I think discussing politics is stupid.

Lets just say that I don't see people 20,40,60,100 years down the road looking back and considering Bush the right man for the job.

a700hitter
12-29-2007, 01:18 PM
I wrote something here but deleted it because I think discussing politics is stupid.

Lets just say that I don't see people 20,40,60,100 years down the road looking back and considering Bush the right man for the job.
I don't know how he will be viewed eventually, but it may take decades to give his Presidency a proper context. It will be even more difficult to evaluate GW 's presidency, because of the preemptive invasion of Iraq. How will History be able to evaluate what would have occurred had that not happened?

After WWII Churchill was not re-elected. I'm not making any comparison between the two. I am only making a point that history takes some time to get a better perspective.

BoSox34
12-29-2007, 02:07 PM
I totally disagree with A, but it's too late and I really don't feel like getting into this. I don't think you should use Clinton to compare Bush to because Clinton wasn't going to get the chance to preside with the stuff on his plate that Bush has on his. You need to use Gore. I shiver at thinking about where we would be if Gore or Kerry was the president of this country.


I agree.

Neither Gore, Kerry, or Bush are fit for the job in my opinion.

TheKilo
12-30-2007, 01:03 PM
I totally disagree with A, but it's too late and I really don't feel like getting into this. I don't think you should use Clinton to compare Bush to because Clinton wasn't going to get the chance to preside with the stuff on his plate that Bush has on his. You need to use Gore. I shiver at thinking about where we would be if Gore or Kerry was the president of this country.

Can I ask why exactly? I vehemently disagree, but that's just me.


I agree with B. I was thinking about this the other day and I think I came upon an interesting conclusion... about 20 years from now, I think Bush will be seen as the right president for the time he presided in. The era in which we live requires a president to make unpopular decisions, but at the same time they may be the correct ones. I'm not saying right now that I'm going to miss Bush when his term ends, but I guess I don't view him as the terrible president that everyone else seems to. We saw this with Truman back in the '40s with the conclusion of WWII and his decision to drop the atom bomb. During his presidency he was pretty unpopular throughout the public, if I remember correctly. Now, looking back, there is an increasing sentiment that he actually did a pretty good job handling what was handed to him on his plate, and that he was the right man for the right time.

All I ask is that you consider that. I could get more into it, but I'm exhausted and I really don't feel like getting into it right now.

The key difference is Truman didn't get us into WWII. The war was already taking place. Bush created his war.

Jayhawk Bill
12-30-2007, 07:54 PM
The key difference is Truman didn't get us into WWII. The war was already taking place. Bush created his war.

I see your point. Korea just happened. :rolleyes:

TheKilo
12-30-2007, 07:58 PM
I see your point. Korea just happened. :rolleyes:

:rolleyes: <_< :angry: :harhar: :damon: :wtf: :dance: :dance: :shock:

I hate discussing politics on message boards.

Jayhawk Bill
12-30-2007, 08:21 PM
:rolleyes: <_< :angry: :harhar: :damon: :wtf: :dance: :dance: :shock:

I hate discussing politics on message boards.

I see your point. It's tough knowing when you'll run into a guy old enough to get worked up over Harry Truman issues. ;)

Paradisecity
12-31-2007, 11:53 AM
I'm just glad that people actually ARE getting worked up over politics still, regardless of the side.

As a majority this country is so apathetic to world issues and it, combined with the desire for excess here, will eventually be the downfall of the U.S. Empire, IMO.

Mr Crunchy
01-03-2008, 02:28 PM
sean
relax,youre stuttering today

Mr Crunchy
01-03-2008, 02:29 PM
3 things i love discussing ad nauseum
sports and history with current events being a close 3rd

harry truman
the man who had the balls to drop 2 nukes saving perhaps millions of japs and certainly 1/2 a million american gi's.
the man who refused to listen to his generals on the ground in korea and got crucified for it yet may have been responsible for saving humanity because of this same reason.

who knows what wouldve happened had we gone balls deep into china?

i suspect japan and taiwan wouldnt have been habitable until 2030? for openers as they wouldve faced an all out sino/russian nuke attack....

i dont know if stalin woudlve turned on europe but seeing as though he was a close 2nd in 20th century mass murderers with the majority of his victims russian leads me to believe he wouldve jerked off watching the mayhem unfold...

i have my suspicions that paris and perhaps london wouldve been nuked as well...
russia was exploding H bombs then,how many they had and how far they could be delivered is a question i cant answer and unless anyone here was working for alan dulles in 1950 i doubt theyre privy to this info either.

many believed that america couldve waltzed thru soviet russia in april 1945
i am not of that opinion
i think we couldve taken out stalin but at a cost of 3-4M americans as well as our other allies....many have tried to beat the ruskies but on their turf theyre a fucking bear best left alone...

george bush isnt qualified to be president of the usa
when a man opens every other statement with ''MY DADDY"" you should be in texas selling oil or plowing the back 40.....
go get yourself a yoo hoo corkey
leave the important stuff to your administration...oh yeah,theyre fucking pathetic too...

where big george surrounded himself with men like jim baker and colin powell, corkey surrounded himself with the xenophobic zionists like I lewis ""scooter"" libby like rummy like wolfowitz like abrams like feith and like cheney....the only guy with any military experience(colin powell) had his career destroyed trying to sell a bullshit story that the world wouldnt buy even if americans did buy it hook line and sinker....
all these men are hard core hawks
none served a fucking day in the mlitary
most of them had pulled every string and lever at their disposal to avoid serving their nation when they were needed the most..
in cheneys case he had 6 different deferments?

then they question the patriotism of john kerry (and the sanity of mccain)
and it works??

all these men had visions of an iraqi invasion long before bush and the 00 election....
the invasion went swimmingly,the occupation and rape of the iraqi resources hasnt gone quite as well and with oil at 100.00 a barrel i want to know who thinks this was a good idea now....

iraq had no planes
iraq had no navy(husseins yacht)
iraq had no armor
iraqs military was under an american and un microscope for 12 fucking years before we invaded in march of 03.....we hadnt captured hussein or halted al queda when we sent 125,000 men into iraq and kept 16,000 nato forces in afghanistan.

we fucked up
more importantly
anyone who was paying attention knew we fucked up in march 03...
this eliminates hillary as a viable candidate in my eyes,this also destroyed kerry as well
they read the polls,they knew americans wanted someone to pay for 9-11,they didnt give a fuck that iraq was harmless to us as much as they wanted to be viewed as one of those hawks on terror...

they fucked up
all the democrats who claim that they were in the dark before they voted to go to war were less informed than me??
bullshit
they knew it was the popular thing to do and despite this fact they went in anyway

this in my eyes makes them worse than the scumbag cowards like cheney like feith like abrams who knew this was their plan of attack when they formed their little right wing think tanks back in the mid 90s..

being wrong is 1 thing
lets face it,stupid is as stupid does
doing wrong knowingly is something totally different and morally reprehensible and heres where hillary comes in..

i voted mccain in 00
i voted kerry with a hand over my nose in 04
im taking mccain again in 08
the man has virtue and thats about all im looking for after 16 fucking years of bubba and corkey...
the man has virtue he has principle he will defend america and has defended america and he has a legitimate idea when dealing with illegal labor as opposed to others who would consult the gallop polls before coming up with a plan...or worse,he could be like romney,demanding illegals be deported unless theyre working on your estate in belmont...

his and the administrations plan in iraq(the recent assault) seems to be working a bit better and i trust him more than anyone else to get us out of there..

does anyone think that hillary or any other candidate has more international muscle than this guy??
rudy??
come on....

ps
anyone who looks at willard""mitt""romney as a mans man needs to go get a book on anatomy...theres no doubt in my mind hillary has a bigger,hairier set of balls than this faggot does...mitt romney is a douchebag
""i saw my dad march with dr king""
""i am a big game hunter from waaaay back""
""i am for the womans right to choose""
""i support gay rights""

really willard
go back to your core base in utah where they appreciate the fact that you named your kid tagg...

YAZMAN
01-03-2008, 03:33 PM
I agree on McCain, he'll make the tough choices, increase accountability, and cut out a lot of the bullshit. He won't tell America what it wants to hear, he'll tell America what it needs to hear.

chacha
01-03-2008, 05:48 PM
"anyone who looks at willard""mitt""romney as a mans man needs to go get a book on anatomy...theres no doubt in my mind hillary has a bigger,hairier set of balls than this faggot does...mitt romney is a douchebag
""i saw my dad march with dr king""
""i am a big game hunter from waaaay back""
""i am for the womans right to choose""
""i support gay rights""

C'mon sean patrick- tell the fine people here that
Mitt did a bang up job here in mass- and he never took a pay check!
The state of mass has never been in better shape..OMG

YAZMAN
01-03-2008, 06:48 PM
He shouldn't get paid, he started his presidential campaign practically the day after he took office as governor. Fkn' carpetbagger.

example1
01-03-2008, 10:50 PM
Barack Obama will be an amazing President. Read his books, listen to his speaches, dude is sharp and more than capable. He hasn't slipped up at ALL during this campaign so far and he commands a room on par with Clinton and has a much more nuanced and realistic view of the democratic mission and the Democratic mission than those who lump him in with Clinton give him credit for.

African father, caucasian mother. Grew up mostly in Hawaii living with his grandparents, moved to Jakarta for four years before he was a teenager; was a real kid: played sports, experimented with drugs and alcohol and rebellion toward authority. Goes to Occidential for two years and after a few political sciences and philosophy classes and a period of continued realization and maturity (reflecting particularly on his racial make up) he goes to Columbia, where he gets a degree in Political Science (Specializing in International Relations). He then turns down really high paying jobs and goes into social work on the south side of Chicago for 5 years, doing community organizing.

From there he goes into Harvard Law and became the first Black head of the Harvard Law Review. After graduating Magna Cum Laude he leaves and goes to work for a Chicago firm representing the disenfranchised on issues like discrimination and voter rights. He then goes and teaches Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago for 11 years.

And when you listen to him, there is no doubt why. The dude can explain the most complicated issues in a gentle, non-condecending way. What this country needs now, more than ever, is for a majority of people to take the wool out of their eyes and realize that we, the PEOPLE, have the power to make life better if we speak up about the shit that passes for 'moral' around here. This guy would be a walking attorney general and we would have much less of this absurd "we'll get back to you later about whether or not that's legal" bull.

Then there's his wife:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkM183H13yw

If you watch the whole thing there is no way you will not be impressed.

She would be an unbelievable first lady. Princeton bachelor's, Harvard J.D., They epitomize the american ideal, starting from humble roots and improving themselves while retaining the values that matter to those who are most downtrodden. She doesn't care about her relation to the media, you can see how she spurns that relation to the media in favor of connecting to individuals and in favor of being real. It is so refreshing, and both Obamas have that skill. GREAT politicians sell themselves when they walk into the room and everything else is just gravy. Mediocre politicans (who may be really good politicians but this is the BIG LEAGUES here) have to sell themselves. Obama just has 'it' and he is right when he says that if everyone could meet and listen to his wife he wouldn't need to campaign.

I know I'm only one man's opinion, but I too love political discussions and Obama is the most impressive package of a candidate that I've seen in my lifetime. Clinton had that facade, but he didn't follow through with it.

As Michelle Obama basically says, one way or another Barack Obama is going to be leading this country. The Democrats had him as a keynote speaker in the 04 campaign and he blew the roof off; he is virtually assured of a high level position with any of the other candidates as they would all be happy to have him as a VP. Just skip the middle man. Obama is just the unique type of character that this country needs to move into this next century when our ability to understand the world and the viewpoints of others will be more important than ever in ensuring our safety and global well-being.

chacha
01-04-2008, 07:29 AM
He shouldn't get paid, he started his presidential campaign practically the day after he took office as governor. Fkn' carpetbagger.


hey yaz- my comments were tongue in cheek
i hate that fkn asshole

Mr Crunchy
01-04-2008, 09:45 AM
sung to the tune of camptown races

ohhhhhhhh romney takes it up the ass
doo dah
doo dah
ohhhhhhhh romney takes it up the ass
all doo dah day

was there anything quite as amusing as the look mitt had on his face last night??
hillary had that look
the look that says ""wow is that what cock tastes like""
the look that says""who shit in the creek""...the look that says""17M and i cant beat this fucking snake handler"' the look that says ""i am a senator from ny,i interned during the watergate hearings,i was 1st lady for 8 years and i just got the beating of my life by a black man named hussein in a white state""

ya
it was a great nite to be an american

Paradisecity
01-04-2008, 10:27 AM
I'd like to vote for Barack Obama. In a different time, I definitely would.

However, his stance of getting out of Iraq now is shortsighted and will do 10 to 100 times the global harm of staying the course and continuing what is working there.

Anyone read the paper yesterday? Al-Qaeda in Iraq (through OBL) has warned the sunni tribes- the FORMER insurgents, their former allies, not to foster peace in their country.

The tribes are doing it anyway. AQIR has resorted to bombing their former allies that are now working to clean up the country. 7 dead yesterday, including 2 officials from the 1920's Revolution Brigade.

This group used to blow up our boys alongside AQIR. Now they are working to clean up the country with our military. What does it say when they are being blown up by their former allies? AQIR is desperate. We are doing something right for a change. People who used to suicide bomb and potshot us on the corners have joined us to try to clean up their country. These former enemies were blowing themselves up for what they believed in. Does anyone doubt their resolve once they are behind a cause?

Leaving sounds great. But we started this gigantic fucking mess, and we need to clean it up. I don't care if Obama didn't vote for it in the first place. Thats great- congrats- you have the common sense of a high schooler outside the bible belt. Just because you've vocalized that doing something was a bad idea doesn't mean you are all knowing in how to fix it, and it doesn't mean you can reverse the country's bad work by just "stopping"

Imagine a football game- the team we're following is a balanced attack team. Lets say they are the University of Kansas playing in the Orange Bowl, in that this is the most important game for their team in 30 years. Their ENTIRE future depends on a strong showing in this game: Future recruits, financial funding, publicity, and fan base. They throw and pass equally and each piece of the offense somewhat depends on the regularity and success of the other. Its the first half and the head coach decides wants to come out and throw 90% of the time. The offensive coordinator says, "Its a tough opponent we're facing, so if we do this we need to increase our options and play 5 wide so that we have the manpower to accomplish this, but I am for the idea" Further down the ranks, the quarterback coach disagrees. The head coach proceeds anyway WITHOUT the 5 wide, and at halftime the team is down 45-0. During halftime, the owner comes down and fires the head coach. He asks the other two for their pitch to be head coach. The OC says, "I was for this strategy, but it didnt work and was poorly designed and now we are in an almost insurmountable hole. If we are to stand any chance of winning, however, we need to continue this attack with a few substantial changes, and bolster our defensive line so that we can hold the opposition where we know they will now attack." The quarterback coach says: "I was the only one who knew this wouldn't work. Nobody listened. We tried passing. It didn't work. We need to just mail this one in. No more passing. Lets cut our losses, and get ready for next year."

Neither option sounds great, but they rarely do when placed in a dire situation. I'll take the OC's personally

I can't decide which side of the fence I am on with John McCain

Its refreshing to see someone who truly believes in what he says and has a clear vision of how to get this country back on the right track.

Of course a similar version of that statement was spoken millions of times in the late 1920's early 1930's in Germany.

I truly believe John McCain will do what he believes in his heart and mind to be correct. Half the reason he didn't defeat GW in the first primary was his refusal to concede certain pieces of his campaign. He's also the person that I come closest to agreeing with regarding the situation in Iraq right now.

How he would deal with Iran, on the other hand, is a scary, scary thing to think about.

YAZMAN
01-04-2008, 11:10 AM
hey yaz- my comments were tongue in cheek
i hate that fkn asshole


Yep, I got that. How have you been darlin'?

Mr Crunchy
01-04-2008, 11:55 AM
she sucks yaz

nice post tom
good to see some of our up and comers have some common sense and see the larger picture ahead.
mccain cant be pimped off for a vote
principle,ethics,honesty
all things that john mccain brings to the table

rician blast
01-04-2008, 12:00 PM
mccain cant be pimped off for a vote
principle,ethics,honesty
all things that john mccain brings to the table


Characteristics of a virtuous man......unfortunately for us, the same characteristics that could unfortunately derail his aspirations.

chacha
01-04-2008, 12:06 PM
she sucks yaz




hey you i didnt deserve that

wheres your dignity?

YAZMAN
01-04-2008, 12:07 PM
hey you i didnt deserve that

wheres your dignity?

G,

I thinks it's time he got a haircut, eh?

Paradisecity
01-04-2008, 12:31 PM
mccain cant be pimped off for a vote
principle,ethics,honesty
all things that john mccain brings to the table

This is very true, and it is also true of Obama. If these two are the nominees I will be both haappy and sad- happy that each party's best, and most REAL candidate was put forth, and sad because each have so much potential with glaring flaws in their perspective.

If the Iraq issue wasn't one my vote would go to Obama, but its just too important to overlook, especially now that the bandwagon idiots of the country that listen to whatever the media says (which is why public opinion got us In Iraq in the FIRST PLACE) think that we need to pack up and evict ourselves.

The sad part is, ignoring the polls, this country is split on the war.

48% want us to incorrectly pull out for all the right reasons
48% want us to stay to "finish the job" for all the wrong reasons

And the other 4% know that for the long term health and security of the world and the people in our nation we HAVE to stay and try to put out the ignited tinder that we decided to hold a magnifying glass over for no apparent reason.

I would be about halfway through my first tour as a 2nd Lieutenant in the USMC right now if my knee had held up.

Before I left the people's republic of Vermont, people would get mad when I told them where I was going. "How can you support a war like this?"
The more imporant question, and the question that I would ask back is: After we made the crucial mistake of messing with the geopolitical scheme by starting this war, how can we as citizens not do everything within our power to try to improve this situation as much as possible for both the people of Iraq and the rest of the world, ourselves included?

rician blast
01-04-2008, 03:08 PM
Obama is certainly an intelligent, articulate young man. (Young cuz he's not much 0lder than me).

But like any politician, he'll flip and flop if it means votes.

He flopped regarding his support on coal-to-liquid energy when environmentalists were angered by his stance with a press conference that, IIRC, stated he'd support research into the issue but wouldn't support implemention until the technology was perfected. Support research but not more? Wait, isn't this is the same guy that was supporting use of coal as an alternative means of motor vehicle power not long ago....until environmentalists called him out?

More of an inconsistency...Of Iraq he said that we need to pull put, there've been "too many flag covered coffins, too many heartbrtoken families, etc."...yet in August 2007 he stated he'd redeploy forces to Afghanistan, and possibly Pakistan.

Most egregious, however, is when he stated that his favorite TV show was Sportscenter...then later said it was The Wire...could he be hiding the fact that his favorite programming is Fuse's Pants-off Dance Off and when not available he'll watch a selection from his midget-porn collection?

Just kidding...point is, they all flip and flop, sometimes i think their positions really do change, sometimes I think they're just shooting from the hip but at times I think all politicians pander to a particular voting segment to some extent.

Some are just much more obvious (vote whores) than others.

example1
01-04-2008, 03:21 PM
I'd like to vote for Barack Obama. In a different time, I definitely would.

However, his stance of getting out of Iraq now is shortsighted and will do 10 to 100 times the global harm of staying the course and continuing what is working there.

Anyone read the paper yesterday? Al-Qaeda in Iraq (through OBL) has warned the sunni tribes- the FORMER insurgents, their former allies, not to foster peace in their country.

The tribes are doing it anyway. AQIR has resorted to bombing their former allies that are now working to clean up the country. 7 dead yesterday, including 2 officials from the 1920's Revolution Brigade.

This group used to blow up our boys alongside AQIR. Now they are working to clean up the country with our military. What does it say when they are being blown up by their former allies? AQIR is desperate. We are doing something right for a change. People who used to suicide bomb and potshot us on the corners have joined us to try to clean up their country. These former enemies were blowing themselves up for what they believed in. Does anyone doubt their resolve once they are behind a cause?

Leaving sounds great. But we started this gigantic fucking mess, and we need to clean it up. I don't care if Obama didn't vote for it in the first place. Thats great- congrats- you have the common sense of a high schooler outside the bible belt. Just because you've vocalized that doing something was a bad idea doesn't mean you are all knowing in how to fix it, and it doesn't mean you can reverse the country's bad work by just "stopping"

Imagine a football game- the team we're following is a balanced attack team. Lets say they are the University of Kansas playing in the Orange Bowl, in that this is the most important game for their team in 30 years. Their ENTIRE future depends on a strong showing in this game: Future recruits, financial funding, publicity, and fan base. They throw and pass equally and each piece of the offense somewhat depends on the regularity and success of the other. Its the first half and the head coach decides wants to come out and throw 90% of the time. The offensive coordinator says, "Its a tough opponent we're facing, so if we do this we need to increase our options and play 5 wide so that we have the manpower to accomplish this, but I am for the idea" Further down the ranks, the quarterback coach disagrees. The head coach proceeds anyway WITHOUT the 5 wide, and at halftime the team is down 45-0. During halftime, the owner comes down and fires the head coach. He asks the other two for their pitch to be head coach. The OC says, "I was for this strategy, but it didnt work and was poorly designed and now we are in an almost insurmountable hole. If we are to stand any chance of winning, however, we need to continue this attack with a few substantial changes, and bolster our defensive line so that we can hold the opposition where we know they will now attack." The quarterback coach says: "I was the only one who knew this wouldn't work. Nobody listened. We tried passing. It didn't work. We need to just mail this one in. No more passing. Lets cut our losses, and get ready for next year."

Neither option sounds great, but they rarely do when placed in a dire situation. I'll take the OC's personally

I can't decide which side of the fence I am on with John McCain

Its refreshing to see someone who truly believes in what he says and has a clear vision of how to get this country back on the right track.

Of course a similar version of that statement was spoken millions of times in the late 1920's early 1930's in Germany.

I truly believe John McCain will do what he believes in his heart and mind to be correct. Half the reason he didn't defeat GW in the first primary was his refusal to concede certain pieces of his campaign. He's also the person that I come closest to agreeing with regarding the situation in Iraq right now.

How he would deal with Iran, on the other hand, is a scary, scary thing to think about.


The comment about Obama pulling out of Iraq immediately is out of left field. He's not pandering to any particular group of democrats. His campaign is about putting an intelligent person in office, a person who knows the laws and is aware of history (both of which GWB was woefully inadequate with). If you think that someone who was head of the Harvard Law review and a longtime professor at University of Chicago would so naively pull out of Iraq then you don't have much trust in an individuals ability to simultaneously tolerate a policy they don't like and the consequences of simply stopping that policy cold-turkey.

I haven't heard any of the democratic front runners say they will "just pull out" without any contingency planning. That would be stupid, your right. It's a convenient straw-man argument, but it isn't the case.

example1
01-04-2008, 03:22 PM
Obama is certainly an intelligent, articulate young man. (Young cuz he's not much 0lder than me).

But like any politician, he'll flip and flop if it means votes.

He flopped regarding his support on coal-to-liquid energy when environmentalists were angered by his stance with a press conference that, IIRC, stated he'd support research into the issue but wouldn't support implemention until the technology was perfected. Support research but not more? Wait, isn't this is the same guy that was supporting use of coal as an alternative means of motor vehicle power not long ago....until environmentalists called him out?

More of an inconsistency...Of Iraq he said that we need to pull put, there've been "too many flag covered coffins, too many heartbrtoken families, etc."...yet in August 2007 he stated he'd redeploy forces to Afghanistan, and possibly Pakistan.

Most egregious, however, is when he stated that his favorite TV show was Sportscenter...then later said it was The Wire...could he be hiding the fact that his favorite programming is Fuse's Pants-off Dance Off and when not available he'll watch a selection from his midget-porn collection?

Just kidding...point is, they all flip and flop, sometimes i think their positions really do change, sometimes I think they're just shooting from the hip but at times I think all politicians pander to a particular voting segment to some extent.

Some are just much more obvious (vote whores) than others.

So Abraham Lincoln and George W Bush were the same? FDR and Hoover? I don't think so.

Paradisecity
01-04-2008, 03:28 PM
I wouldn't call pulling out of Iraq and deployment to Afghanistan and Pakistan inconsistency at all seeing how they are entirely different conflicts and, with the exception of considering utilization and capacity numbers, require thinking completely independant of one another.

My favorite show changes too. In 1995 it was sportscenter. Sportscenter is one of the worst shows on television now. And if he said his favorite show is the wire, then good n him because its the best show on television. My favorite show changed to the wire too....once I watched the Wire....

Changing in thinking and adapting your views aren't flip flopping- they are openminded-ness, and those who can't change stances on an issue after realizing there is more than they know (which is almost always the case in ANY facet of ANYONES life) are creating more problems than they are going to solve.

A president, or any sort of leader for that matter, can't know everything. The concept of, and EXPECTATION of infallibility in reference to our leaders is one of the largest problems that exists in this nation.

I respect leaders who can look for help, adapt their views, take a new stance given new information, or strictly change them when wrong much more than those who stand fast.

YAZMAN
01-04-2008, 03:29 PM
I think history is going to be a little kinder to GWB than many of his modern critics are.

Time will tell.

rician blast
01-04-2008, 03:52 PM
I wouldn't call pulling out of Iraq and deployment to Afghanistan and Pakistan inconsistency at all seeing how they are entirely different conflicts and, with the exception of considering utilization and capacity numbers, require thinking completely independant of one another.

My favorite show changes too. In 1995 it was sportscenter. Sportscenter is one of the worst shows on television now. And if he said his favorite show is the wire, then good n him because its the best show on television. My favorite show changed to the wire too....once I watched the Wire....

Changing in thinking and adapting your views aren't flip flopping- they are openminded-ness, and those who can't change stances on an issue after realizing there is more than they know (which is almost always the case in ANY facet of ANYONES life) are creating more problems than they are going to solve.

A president, or any sort of leader for that matter, can't know everything. The concept of, and EXPCETATION of infallibility in reference to our leaders is one of the largest problems that exists in this nation.

I respect leaders who can look for help, adapt their views, take a new stance given new information, or strictly change them when wrong much more than those who stand fast.

- With respect to Iraq, if he is going to use the "too many dead US soldiers" line as a reason to pull out, how can he justify going into a conflict elsewhere? Dead bodies will still be shipped back, no?

- The TV show thing was simply a joke

- The reversal on the coal issue however was a direct reply to environmentalists griping...this all took place within a matter of months and IMO represented pandering.

I hear you, 'Dise, politicians need to be open-minded, not static, and at the end of my post I commented that they all do it and sometimes changes in position represent a true change of heart. Perhaps I'm using the term flip-flop a little too agressively.

What prompted my post was that someone stated earlier that Obama was of the same character as McCain in that he couldn't be bought and I tend to disagree. I think it would be naive to think any politician isn't playing to the numbers to some extent. Their campaigns are extremely carefully planned. Their strategists are constantly monitoring where they stand. And when they need a bump, they'll shift positions if need be. It's politics.

Edit: In the 200 campaign when McCain fell in primaries to GWB there was some thought that lack of support from conservative Christians was a main factor. In 2006, he began to toughen his stance on gay marriage and related issues. Whether this represents a change in his beliefs or a change designed to eleicit more votes is debatable. I'm of the mind that politicians will shift positions to gain votes and I recognize it as part of the political process.

rician blast
01-04-2008, 03:54 PM
So Abraham Lincoln and George W Bush were the same? FDR and Hoover? I don't think so.

I'm not that strong on presidential history, so I can comment without research...however we're talking about politics as they are now, and pandering is a major part of the game. Some do it subtlety, others overtly.

YAZMAN
01-04-2008, 04:01 PM
I'm not that strong on presidential history, so I can comment without research...however we're talking about politics as they are now, and pandering is a major part of the game. Some do it subtlety, others overtly.

And some have one as a pet:

http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/images/pander_bear_032007.jpg

rician blast
01-04-2008, 04:11 PM
Funny you posted that pic, Yaz, I read earlier that Republicans had sent that character to a Hillary fund raiser sometime in 2007.

Paradisecity
01-04-2008, 04:22 PM
The comment about Obama pulling out of Iraq immediately is out of left field. He's not pandering to any particular group of democrats. His campaign is about putting an intelligent person in office, a person who knows the laws and is aware of history (both of which GWB was woefully inadequate with). If you think that someone who was head of the Harvard Law review and a longtime professor at University of Chicago would so naively pull out of Iraq then you don't have much trust in an individuals ability to simultaneously tolerate a policy they don't like and the consequences of simply stopping that policy cold-turkey.

I haven't heard any of the democratic front runners say they will "just pull out" without any contingency planning. That would be stupid, your right. It's a convenient straw-man argument, but it isn't the case.

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/iraq/

"In January 2007, he introduced legislation in the Senate to remove all of our combat troops from Iraq by March 2008."

After the damage and upheaval that we caused in Iraq, removal of all troops by March of next year would be "getting out of Iraq now", particularly when experts, both officer enlisted and private sector who have been there, constructed there, fought there, and rebuilt there say we need military presence at least another 5-15 years.

it isnt convenient. Its his platform, out of his mouth, and on his website. A year ago this March, he called to "bring home our sons and daughters now" only about 3 miles from where I'm sitting.

And I don't care what school he went to. A fundamentally flawed strategy regarding the most important world event since the cold war is a still flawed whether or not you went to Harvard, Podunk, or the school of hard knocks.

And I certainly don't care what a wonderful first lady his wife would be. We're talking about the fate of the world and western civilization, not who can be charismatic and win over the women's social conventions.

Listen I like the guy. If i had to classify myself i'd say I'm a democrat. I voted for Gore in 00 and wincingly for Kerry in 04. I was for Afghanistan and against Iraq, all the while listening to my father buy into the bullshit on tv about WMDs and scolding him for doing so. Now he is buying into the same bullshit about poor him and the wool over his eyes thats broadcast by the same people who helped pull it there. I actually wrote Obma a very long letter after his speech here last year asking him to please look further into his stance on the war in IRaq because i WANTED to be able to vote for this man.

I like Barack Obama. I like his message, and i think anytime that a world-changing, fourth-generation-war that never should have started and needs to be completed ISN'T occuring, that he'd be one of the best things to happen to this country since sliced bread. But If you think that removal of our military from Iraq by March 2008 is whats best for the world over the next decade/century, then you need to start doing a lot more reading about the middle east and its problems, or be prepared to work in a factory for the Chinese/Saud depending on which capitalizes on the opportunity that rises after our downfall.

rician blast
01-04-2008, 05:03 PM
Our downfall may be in the works as we speak...via multiculturalism and weak immigration policies.

In 2005 former Colorado Gov. Dick Lamm gave a speech on how to destroy America. (link below to article with the entire speeach and some analysis).

http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/lamm.asp

Some excerpts: First to destroy America,

(1) "Turn America into a bilingual or multi-lingual and bicultural country. History shows that no nation can survive the tension, conflict, and antagonism of two or more competing languages and cultures. It is a blessing for an individual to be bilingual;

(2)Invent 'multiculturalism' and encourage immigrants to maintain their culture. I would make it an article of belief that all cultures are equal. That there are no cultural differences. I would make it an article of faith that the Black and Hispanic dropout rates are due to prejudice and discrimination by the majority. Every other explanation is out of bounds.

(3) "We could make the United States a 'Hispanic Quebec' without much effort. The key is to celebrate diversity rather than unity. "

(4) "Fourth, I would make our fastest growing demographic group the least educated. I would add a second underclass, unassimilated, undereducated, and antagonistic to our population. I would have this second underclass have a 50% dropout rate from high school."

(5) "My fifth point for destroying America would be to get big foundations and business to give these efforts lots of money. I would invest in ethnic identity, and I would establish the cult of 'Victimology.' I would get all minorities to think their lack of success was the fault of the majority. I would start a grievance industry blaming all minority failure on the majority population."

(6) "My sixth plan for America's downfall would include dual citizenship and promote divided loyalties. I would celebrate diversity over unity. I would stress differences rather than similarities. Diverse people worldwide are mostly engaged in hating each other - that is, when they are not killing each other. A diverse, peaceful, or stable society is against most historical precedent. People undervalue the unity!"

(7) "Next to last, I would place all subjects off limits ~ make it taboo to talk about anything against the cult of 'diversity.' I would find a word similar to 'heretic' in the 16th century - that stopped discussion and paralyzed thinking. Words like 'racist' or 'x! xenophobes' halt discussion and debate."

(8) "Having made America a bilingual/bicultural country, having established multi-culturism, having the large foundations fund the doctrine of 'Victimology,' I would next make it impossible to enforce our immigration laws. I would develop a mantra: That because immigration has been good for America, it must always be good. I would make every individual immigrant symmetric and ignore the cumulative impact of millions of them."

All of these things are happening today and bode poorly for our future.

Paradisecity
01-04-2008, 05:18 PM
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/iraq/

"In January 2007, he introduced legislation in the Senate to remove all of our combat troops from Iraq by March 2008."

After the damage and upheaval that we caused in Iraq, removal of all troops by March of the following year would be "getting out of Iraq now", particularly when experts, both officer enlisted and private sector who have been there, constructed there, fought there, and rebuilt there say we need military presence at least another 5-15 years. And this was written a year ago, when things were far far worse.

it isnt convenient. Its his platform, out of his mouth, and on his website. A year ago this March, he called to "bring home our sons and daughters now" only about 3 miles from where I'm sitting.

And I don't care what school he went to. A fundamentally flawed strategy regarding the most important world event since the cold war is a still flawed whether or not you went to Harvard, Podunk, or the school of hard knocks.

And I certainly don't care what a wonderful first lady his wife would be. We're talking about the fate of the world and western civilization, not who can be charismatic and win over the women's social conventions.

Listen I like the guy. If i had to classify myself i'd say I'm a democrat. I voted for Gore in 00 and wincingly for Kerry in 04. I was for Afghanistan and against Iraq, all the while listening to my father buy into the bullshit on tv about WMDs and scolding him for doing so. Now he is buying into the same bullshit about poor him and the wool over his eyes thats broadcast by the same people who helped pull it there. I actually wrote Obma a very long letter after his speech here last year asking him to please look further into his stance on the war in IRaq because i WANTED to be able to vote for this man.

I like Barack Obama. I like his message, and i think anytime that a world-changing, fourth-generation-war that never should have started and needs to be completed ISN'T occuring, that he'd be one of the best things to happen to this country since sliced bread. But If you think that removal of our military from Iraq by March 2008, or March 2009 for that matter is whats best for the world over the next decade/century, then you need to start doing a lot more reading about the middle east and its problems, or be prepared to work in a factory for the Chinese/Saud depending on which capitalizes on the opportunity that rises after our downfall.

example1
01-04-2008, 07:26 PM
I wouldn't call pulling out of Iraq and deployment to Afghanistan and Pakistan inconsistency at all seeing how they are entirely different conflicts and, with the exception of considering utilization and capacity numbers, require thinking completely independant of one another.

My favorite show changes too. In 1995 it was sportscenter. Sportscenter is one of the worst shows on television now. And if he said his favorite show is the wire, then good n him because its the best show on television. My favorite show changed to the wire too....once I watched the Wire....

Changing in thinking and adapting your views aren't flip flopping- they are openminded-ness, and those who can't change stances on an issue after realizing there is more than they know (which is almost always the case in ANY facet of ANYONES life) are creating more problems than they are going to solve.

A president, or any sort of leader for that matter, can't know everything. The concept of, and EXPCETATION of infallibility in reference to our leaders is one of the largest problems that exists in this nation.

I respect leaders who can look for help, adapt their views, take a new stance given new information, or strictly change them when wrong much more than those who stand fast.

I agree. Watch Obama speak, and listen to what he and his wife say when they are campaigning. They don't give a rat's ass what the media think. They really don't. Of course they believe they have to keep up a good public image, and they need to pay attention to how people view them, but the ENTIRE basis of their argument is that it is time for Americans who are worried about our standing in the world, who are worried about corporate greed in policy, who are worried about our troops being deployed stupidly, who are worried about our education system and the lack of engagement of the populous at large, to join together. The petty bickering about right-vs-left has been the mainstay for politics for a long time now and it has proven entirely ineffective. If people want to be caught up in their fundamentalist Christian cloud they can, they simply won't be the ones making change and they won't be the ones supporting their government. Obamas message is that we need transparency in government and we need a re-articulation of what American values are all about.

Rachel Maddow on MSNBC (and Air America) referred to both Obama and Huckabee's message as being largely "post-partisan" and I think she is right on. Our ice caps are melting, our dollar is sinking, our troops are dying, OUR government (not owned by corporations and money) is literally dying before our eyes and is infected from within that the amount of cynicism spewing forth, even from otherwise smart and politically aware folks, has become toxic.

Somehow, an important and large group of Americans became convinced that this is a Christian nation founded on Christian morals and with Christian ethics at its base. But that is simply untrue, and it is not the way that the majority of Americans have seen the country for the majority of its existence. In essence, the American people--what has made them so damn impressive over the two-plus centuries of existence--are pragmatists, and they want their government to be pragmatic. If it takes negotiating with "terrorists" (i.e., nations we don't like) with the full force of American education, constitutional law and military might behind us, then what the hell are we afraid of?

we all agree that it is okay to negotiate with a madman holding hostages in a mall, but it is not okay to negotiate with a man like Kim Jung Il who has his finger on the nuke button holding the world hostage? That makes no sense at all. You don't work with the insane by applying deadly force, you work with the insane through discussion, reassurance, role modeling and trust. Lord knows that if we make a genuine attempt to reach out to these 'rogue' nations, and we are attacked or dissed or just shut down, THEN the military option is still available. But to blatently say that we will not negotiate with a particular class of people (i.e., world leaders who do not run their countries according to modern ideas of human rights and who have been aggressive verbally toward us in the past) is just stupid, especially since we are supposedly the most important and powerful nation the world has ever seen.

So I simply ask that people put the cynicism aside when looking at a new candidate. It is all well and good to just assume that there is not anyone out of the 300 million Americans who could approach the job with a genuine sense of passion, but, frankly, I think that's an old way of looking at things and a pretty ineffective one. What is the point of talking about how great "America" is if we're really just a bunch of disjointed, cynical, money-driven fools who can't prioritize world affairs above Terri Schaivo.

personally, I think Obama is not just better than that prior establishment, but he is better by leaps and bounds. The guy is a once per-generation talent and we would be stupid not to "draft" him simply because he hasn't spent that much time in the bigs.

example1
01-04-2008, 07:34 PM
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/iraq/

A fundamentally flawed strategy regarding the most important world event since the cold war is a still flawed whether or not you went to Harvard, Podunk, or the school of hard knocks.

So you're dissing the guy who had the policy right all along? Hmmm... <_<




And I certainly don't care what a wonderful first lady his wife would be. We're talking about the fate of the world and western civilization, not who can be charismatic and win over the women's social conventions.



Charisma doesn't matter when we're talking about trying to reestablish America as a leader throughout the world? :thumbdown

To express that he desires to have the troops home is different from blindly pulling them out to leave chaos and ruin. Did he pull them out to chaos and ruin? Did he even have the ability?

Clearly you are one of those who he referrs to as acting out of "fear" rather than hope. You fear that Iraq will fall apart. You fear that Sadam had weapons.

Between Clinton's indescressions and Bush's blatent mistruths, you seem to have lost the ability to trust a person who has devoted his entire life to public service and who, as far as anyone can tell, does not have a propensity toward mistruth or cloudy, behind-the-scenes dealing. That's sad.

As for his wife, it's fine if you don't want to evaluate someone's character by the people they put around them. It's fine if you don't look at education as a marker for ability. I just think it is naive.


EDIT: in rhetrospect, I find it sad that you think a guy would be a once-in a generation presedential talent but he shouldn't be able to lead our country now because George Bush and a bunch of nodding jerks sent us into a bad war that we don't know how to get out of. It is a sad state that Obama is being evaluated by you because of the quagmire caused by someone else. When the only other answer is "stay there until we win" I don't think that is adequate.

Paradisecity
01-04-2008, 08:59 PM
So you're dissing the guy who had the policy right all along?

Wow. Point the finger, twist the words, point and scream THEY did it. You are right. THEY did it. WE did it. YOU did it. I did it. HE had it right. Congrats. So did I. So did millions of others. You probably did too. That doesn't change anything. You, WE need to realize that its done and focus on the best course of action now, seeing how we invaded Iraq almost 5 years ago. Stop focusing on whats done and focus on what needs to be done.



Clearly you are one of those who he referrs to as acting out of "fear" rather than hope. You fear that Iraq will fall apart. You fear that Sadam had weapons.


I never feared Saddam had weapons. Apparently you aren't reading my posts, you are just skimming for material to shoot back at and throwing out random accusations. I specifically said that I was against the war in Iraq before we invaded. Miss that part? Or were you too blinded by your open rubber stamp approval for everything the man does, just as the right was for GW 3,5, 7 years ago?

I agree with you, it is a sad state that Obama has to be evaluated in the light that a war is going on. But is that not the present state of affairs? Aren't we in a mess that an agenda driven government led us into? And isn't it our job, responsibility, and more importantly isnt it necessary to our well being and survival to clean up our mess? The naive perspective is to dismiss a problem just because someone else created it and look for the quick fix rather than biting the bullet and trying to make things as right as you can.

Why does it matter who made it? Bush made it. YOU made it. I made it. As citizens of this country we are ultimately responsible for the actions that our leaders take. Just because you like a guy and he's right for lots of jobs doesn't mean he's the best candidate for the job you have sitting in front of you today.

I'm looking at the facts. It is a FACT that Obama drew up legislation to pull out the troops in less than 15 months 12 months ago. And it is an educated opinion, and one that few would disagree with, to say that if we left this march even having already drawn ourselves down over that proposed time, Iraq, the middle east, and following in coming years, THE WORLD would be a gigantic mess because of it. Obama himself said "I worried about, ‘an occupation of undetermined length, with undetermined costs, and undetermined consequences." Bravo. He got it. Nobody else did. But if we can't determine the length, how are we setting a timeline to determine it? We can't yet. We are too far away from this, in my opinion.

"And you think this will fix it?" Probably not. There is no "fix". There is no "win". But there ARE better, and worse. At this point our efforts in Iraq can only make things better given the course that we are on. Removing ourselves can only make things worse.




you seem to have lost the ability to trust a person who has devoted his entire life to public service and who, as far as anyone can tell, does not have a propensity toward mistruth or cloudy, behind-the-scenes dealing. That's sad.

You further seem to have missed where I insinuate that I do trust Obama and thing he is a man of convictions. I'm not sure how, since I reiterated it multiple times and you replied to an entire post where i defend him. You seem to be missing that my contention with Obama is a matter of opinion on the best course of action regarding the war in Iraq. It has nothing to do with trust, or fear, or any word from a speech that you can conjure up to try to defeat an argument. It is a difference of opinion on one issue. It just happens that the issue is too important to me because I believe it is possibly the largest singular event in 30 years, one that will shape the future of the world. Where is this fear of mine? Where is this mistrust? You are grossly misrepresenting my statements, ironic as that is since thats more of Mitt Romney's line of work than is is Barack Obama's.


Please, please, please, stop putting words into my mouth and turning what i say into something else, especially without first reading and comprehending what I've written. Thank you.

a700hitter
01-04-2008, 09:49 PM
I am finding one thing very annoying about this political season. I can appreciate a certain amount of demagoguery if it is at least somewhat creative and thoughtful. It doesn't bother me when a politician says that his/her policies will stimulate the economy, put America on the move, etc., but they lose me when they try to whip up the crowd by saying that "we're going to take back our country." Well, forgive me for asking, but who has the country? When was it taken from us? How was it taken? Did I miss the Coup D'etat? That's too bad. I really hate to miss a good Coup.

example1
01-04-2008, 09:51 PM
First of all Paradisecity, I apologize if I misinterpreted or didn't noted things you said. Truth be told, I was at work and potentially had my boss looking over my shoulder. I'm much more invested in the specifics of your argument now. :thumbsup:


Wow. Point the finger, twist the words, point and scream THEY did it. You are right. THEY did it. WE did it. YOU did it. I did it. HE had it right. Congrats. So did I. So did millions of others. You probably did too. That doesn't change anything. You, WE need to realize that its done and focus on the best course of action now, seeing how we invaded Iraq almost 5 years ago. Stop focusing on whats done and focus on what needs to be done.


What "WE" need to realize is that the world is taking an enormous look at how America behaves right now. Electing a democrat would be a good first step, because knocking out the party that got us into this mess would be a smart move. You can place the blame squarely on everyone's shoulders if you want, but I believe there is a very specific group that is to blame for this mess and a subset of people who, thanks to their votes and sheepish ways, were accountable but who have now apoligized for that vote. The group and ideology that is responsible for our decision to invade that country is ultimately the neo-conservatives, from Bush on down. Everyone else is simply looking for a solution at this point.

I don't believe that Obama will really draw the troops out immediately. I DO believe that he would draw the troops out immediately if, say, the UN were willing to step in, or if other countries started an actual coalition. I think he will work his ass off to make that happen, but I can't assure anyone that it will. If that is the case I think that it is true that we will have to finish what we started.

Again, though, who would you want articulating that fairly complex chain of world events to the voters who insalls the next president? Edwards, who voted for the war in the first place? Clinton, who still supports her vote, and if she is waffling on that it hasn't been supported by any sort of apology or strong statement like "I was wrong". No, the most eloquent and intelligent of the group is Obama. The man can explain many things and one of the most important thing that the next president has to explain is a) how we got into this mess (not, as you implied, to harp on an otherwise dead issue, but rather so we don't do it again) and b) how we can re-articulate what America is all about. Is America special because of corporate wealth, white farmers in the midwest, conservative Christian ethics, the death penalty, low taxes at all costs, etc.? Or is America special because it offers its members a specific combination of a unique history, a unique social and ethnic layout, a large, wealthy and caring populace, etc.,

Furthermore, how does the rest of the world see us? The rest of the world certainly finds it ironic that we are the wealthiest nation in the world but we can't educate our kids. The rest of the world laughs at the fact that we are supposedly a tolerant society based on "all men are created equal", and we are willing to go to war for that, yet one party of our two party system (essentially) refuses to elect people of color to important positions, and the other party--while being the more 'tolerant'--has not done so either. It is time to start showing the world that, yes, the American dream really does exist, and yes, the American people really are as tolerant and intelligent as they appear.

Does that mean I would vote for Obama because he's black? Hell no. I would vote for Obama because he is the most charasmatic thinker and speaker to run for the office since Bobby Kennedy. He also has a tremendous resume. He espouses the very values that liberals claim to hold dear (tolerance for difference, willingness to give back to the community in taxes and public service, the desire for Americans to have health care) while also modeling a solid family and those 'down home' American values. THAT is why I see his wife as so important. She has made it abundently clear that this is a pain in the ass for their family. They COULD both be making hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars on Wall Street or as lawyers. They are both Harvard Law graduates. Instead, Michelle Obama realizes that her husband is the most qualified person to run this country right now and she is 'willing' to let him do it.





I agree with you, it is a sad state that Obama has to be evaluated in the light that a war is going on. But is that not the present state of affairs? Aren't we in a mess that an agenda driven government led us into? And isn't it our job, responsibility, and more importantly isnt it necessary to our well being and survival to clean up our mess? The naive perspective is to dismiss a problem just because someone else created it and look for the quick fix rather than biting the bullet and trying to make things as right as you can.


Iraq is costing us hundreds of billions of dollars. It is very hard to articulate an argument for social spending when we're spending a thousand dollars per american citizen on a misguided war. That's the basis of the entire argument for leaving. It isn't that it will make things better for Americans or for Iraqis, it is that it will save a shit load of money and that money can be spent to make American's lives better. In the past, when America has done well, so has much of the rest of the world. It's not a 1:1 ratio, but certainly well-meaning Americans have done remarkable things to help this world, from the peace corps, to teaching in other countries, to contributing to science and health in other parts of the world.



Why does it matter who made it? Bush made it. YOU made it. I made it. As citizens of this country we are ultimately responsible for the actions that our leaders take. Just because you like a guy and he's right for lots of jobs doesn't mean he's the best candidate for the job you have sitting in front of you today.


I still haven't read a single argument from you about why he ISN'T the best candidate for the job, or why someone else is.



I'm looking at the facts. It is a FACT that Obama drew up legislation to pull out the troops in less than 15 months 12 months ago. And it is an educated opinion, and one that few would disagree with, to say that if we left this march even having already drawn ourselves down over that proposed time, Iraq, the middle east, and following in coming years, THE WORLD would be a gigantic mess because of it. Obama himself said "I worried about, ‘an occupation of undetermined length, with undetermined costs, and undetermined consequences." Bravo. He got it. Nobody else did. But if we can't determine the length, how are we setting a timeline to determine it? We can't yet. We are too far away from this, in my opinion.


Currently, the US dollar is weaker than the Canadian loney. We owe more money to other nations than any nation has owed in the history of the world, by a landslide. We've gone from being a creditor nation to a debter nation. How long do you want to pump money into Iraq, fanning the flames of fundamentalist nut jobs while simultaneously draining the entirity of our bank account?

We are far away from being able to withdraw, but it would be--and is, in my opinion--absolute folly to say that presenting yourself as someone who desperately wants to put an end to the death and spending is a bad idea. That should be the common sentiment, not one to avoid. If you truly trust him then you should trust that he's smart enough to know not to leave a country in absolute ruin IF AT ALL POSSIBLE.

That said, I hope you would also agree that if people determine it is NOT possible to leave Iraq without it being a mess, that it is NOT our responsiblity to stay there and let OUR country go down the tubes out of some moral obligation to Iraq. God love the Iraqi's, and it IS our fault that their country is busted now (though it was busted before too). However, if your argument is that we MUST stay with the Iraqi's till the end, no matter HOW much it hurts our international standing and bank account, I'm not willing to follow you there. Neither is most of America.




"And you think this will fix it?" Probably not. There is no "fix". There is no "win". But there ARE better, and worse. At this point our efforts in Iraq can only make things better given the course that we are on. Removing ourselves can only make things worse.


If there is a terrorist attack in LA tomorrow I guarantee people will forget about Iraq so quickly its not even funny. I don't know how you feel comfortable saying our efforts in Iraq can only make things better... Make things better where? In Iran? North Korea? Pakistan? South Side of Chicago? Where exactly are we making life better? The entire point of this ill-fated venture was to make America SAFER and, as a 12th goal, to make Iraq better. Now, suddenly, we're doing Extreme Makeover Iraq edition and we're hoping--pie in the sky style--that we will leave it a better place than when we got there. Again, meanwhile our country is dissolving into a worse state than ever before.

I think the point is not that it is the moral thing to do to leave Iraq or at least reprioritize. The point is that we are reaching a stage where it is literally a black or white choice: continue with this path of spending absurd resources abroad with no international help, or pull back and reinvigorate our international standing with a different approach. Seriously, the gap between rich and poor is growing and growing, billions are going into the middle east, China owns more and more of the US every day, and the only reason people aren't willing to take the relatively 'small' issue of Iraq off the table is some sense of obligation to the nation because we don't want to look like the bad guy for messing it up. Guess what... it is messed up already.

If we wanted to look better in the eyes of the world, how about capturing Osama Bin Laden, and putting an end to genocide in Darfur? That, to me, seems like a much more altruistic and positive way of stamping "America" on the world.

You treat it like it isn't a choice. Like it is inconceivable that we could redeploy or reallign our financial and military forces elsewhere. As if Iraq really IS the center of the war on terror. I don't get it. I hear half 'media sell-line' and half 'logical progressive' in your argument.




You further seem to have missed where I insinuate that I do trust Obama and thing he is a man of convictions. I'm not sure how, since I reiterated it multiple times and you replied to an entire post where i defend him. You seem to be missing that my contention with Obama is a matter of opinion on the best course of action regarding the war in Iraq. It has nothing to do with trust, or fear, or any word from a speech that you can conjure up to try to defeat an argument. It is a difference of opinion on possibly the largest singular event in 30 years. Where is this fear of mine? Where is this mistrust? You are grossly misrepresenting my statements, ironic as that is since thats more of Mitt Romney's line of work than is is Barack Obama's.


Your mistrust and fear is that Obama is incapable of seeing the world the way you see it. As far as I can tell, EVERYONE sees the world the way you see it man :lol: Everyone knows Iraq is a huge mess. Everyone knows the situation needs to be handled with a lot of nuance and care. However, I don't see how sticking with people who have the same talking points is going to change anything.

I don't see how the party line of "not negotiating with terrorists" works in this day and age.

Further, I don't see how Iraq is "the largest singluar event in 30 years". What I see as the largest singluar event in 30 years is not an event at all. It is the loss of Americas standing abroad, of which Iraq is a central, but not the ONLY event. What matters now is not how Iraq is resolved. What matters now is how the rest of the WORLD is resolved. Does America keep the elitest blinders on and continue with this 'my way or the highway' mentality, or do we reenter the stage of world-players? Do we continue with the same things that got us here--including the views of Edwards and Clinton that rogue nations are to be dealt with by essentially ignoring them until we attack them on our terms--or do we have a continual open dialogue with them.

Iraq =/= foreign policy. They are separate. There is IRAQ policy, much like there is Immigration policy. You don't judge our next president's ability to work with other nations simply on how he handles the Mexican immigration crisis, do you? It seems wrong to lump an enormous and complex issue like "foreign policy" into the telescopic lense of "Iraq". yes, Iraq is where our foreign policy is being exercised now, but it isn't going to be the issue for the rest of our lifetimes or the rest of America's lifetime. There will be--and presently are--other issues.



Please, please, please, stop putting words into my mouth and turning what i say into something else, especially without first reading and comprehending what I've written. Thank you.

You're welcome and I apologize profusely. Like I said, I was at work and didn't take the time to integrate your disperate views into a coherent one.

Overall, I gather that you are somewhat liberal and quite aware of the global situation. However, I continue to belive that Obama, of all the democratic candidates, is best positioned to lead this country in the 21st centruy. Our presidents haven't always had the best foreign policy experience, and they haven't always known what to do when asked a question in a vacuum about Iraq. Frankly, I don't think you or I have any CLUE what is going on in Iraq right now. Perhaps it is my mistrust of the Bush administration playing too heavily on my mind, but do you really feel like ANYONE in that crowd can give you a clear picture of how things are going there? I certainly do not.

Would I be off base to assume that you, like many of the rest of us, would want our next President to actually KNOW what is going on there, rather than only being privy to what a Senator or Representative is allowed to see? With all the lies and deceit that this administration has spewed, I think we all lack any real clarity about what the next job of the president will be.

Will that job be to continue an otherwise intelligent Iraq policy that is working, or are all the statistics and numbers we're hearing distorted like so many other Bush Admin press releases? Are we actively torturing people? If so, how does that impact our country in the future? If not, why hasn't waterboarding etc., been explicitly written into law?

I want the most "renaissance" prepared candidate as our next president. I and you and everyone else has NO CLUE what is behind the Wizard's White-House Curtain and what exactly will show up when there is a different type of leader in there. I have a lot of confidence in Edwards, Clinton or Obama, but the other two--while bright and accomplished--do not have the presenting abilities and lucidity that Obama does.

The goal of the next administration will be to repair our country in the face of unbelievable world scrutiny and economic hardship. I want the most articulate visionary we have to be in charge of that.

Finally, it is unfair to compare Obama and Bush. Bush was very clear about what he planned to do. He said, essentially, I"m going to finish the job my dad was unable to in Iraq IF I have the political capital. He didn't hide it, he didn't really lie about it (then). He said the wealthy deserved a tax cut because their money would trickle down to the poorest among us. Bush was blatent about his plans for this country and, for whatever reason, people looked at the image more than the message.

In this case, the image and the message are both polished and positive. Simply because they are strong and both claim to be 'real' is not reason enough to lump them together. That is cynicism at its worst.

apologies again for misinterpreting your statements before.

example1
01-04-2008, 09:55 PM
I am finding one thing very annoying about this political season. I can appreciate a certain amount of demagoguery if it is at least somewhat creative and thoughtful. It doesn't bother me when a politician says that his/her policies will stimulate the economy, put America on the move, etc., but they lose me when they try to whip up the crowd by saying that "we're going to take back our country." Well, forgive me for asking, but who has the country? When was it taken from us? How was it taken? Did I miss the Coup D'etat? That's too bad. I really hate to miss a good Coup.

Well, for the past 7 years a majority of people were led to believe by their president that the majority of people were recieving the majority of a tax cut, when that was blatently untrue. We were led to believe that we were not torturing people and that the rule of law still applied to things like torture and wiretapping. We were led to believe that we were in capable hands and were not simply going to be handing out no-bid contracts to companies that would happily waste 2,000 dollars to supply 10 toothbrushes to the US Army (I made that last part up, but will cite absurd spending on military subcontracting issues if you wish... but you shouldn't wish because the list is bad).

For the past 30 years we've had a battle between two parties, one of whom argues that the government is there to do good for its citizens, the other of which is trying to get government so small that it should can be drowned in the bathtub.

That the American people could ever be convinced that government IS the problem, even though it is largely one of the only things that unites us under a code of law, is indicative--to me at least--that something is wrong in the control room and that Americans are no longer the most important constituants.

a700hitter
01-04-2008, 10:06 PM
Well, for the past 7 years a majority of people were led to believe by their president that the majority of people were recieving the majority of a tax cut, when that was blatently untrue. We were led to believe that we were not torturing people and that the rule of law still applied to things like torture and wiretapping. We were led to believe that we were in capable hands and were not simply going to be handing out no-bid contracts to companies that would happily waste 2,000 dollars to supply 10 toothbrushes to the US Army (I made that last part up, but will cite absurd spending on military subcontracting issues if you wish... but you shouldn't wish because the list is bad).

For the past 30 years we've had a battle between two parties, one of whom argues that the government is there to do good for its citizens, the other of which is trying to get government so small that it should can be drowned in the bathtub.

That the American people could ever be convinced that government IS the problem, even though it is largely one of the only things that unites us under a code of law, is indicative--to me at least--that something is wrong in the control room and that Americans are no longer the most important constituants.
Didn't a duly elected Congress pass the tax cuts, authorize the war, etc.? Stick to baseball, Example. You are talking so far out of your ass that you must have been upside down when you typed your last post.:lol:

Paradisecity
01-04-2008, 10:46 PM
There is trust and there is blind faith. There are a million different kinds of trust. I trust that Obama will do what he truly believes is right. In this specific case, I don't agree with what he believes. It isn't a matter of trust- its one of ideals. I agree with most of his messages and his ideals but I don't agree with his position on the war. He has specifically diagrammed plans to drawn them out ASAP. Is that a hazy term? Absolutely. But If his plan was for a 15 month drawdown 12 months ago I can only imagine his new one as president will be as quick or quicker.

I wouldn't compare Obama to Bush. They are two VERY different people.

rician blast
01-04-2008, 11:31 PM
Watch Obama speak, and listen to what he and his wife say when they are campaigning. They don't give a rat's ass what the media think.


If that were the case Obama would not be where he is now. There is a reason they call it campaign "strategy."

Taliesin
01-04-2008, 11:56 PM
I'm with 700. I hate when I miss a coup. And whoever commented (I'll go out on a limb and say it was Example, just don't have the energy to scroll back, exhausted w/ the naive ramblings of those who shall not be named and that pesky thing called living in reality) FDR was no Hoover. Agreed. Easily the worst President of our time and set our culture back centuries. I imagine you meant "stop that reverse it" ala Willie Wonka. I'll have a 400 page thesis typed and notarized in the morning for the perusal of the Gentry and the Proletariat amongst us. Atlas is still shrugging.

I'm waiting with bated breath for our next leader to lead us to the land of milk and honey. Meanwhile, I'll actually take charge of my own life and think deep thoughts and plan a tiny revolution of my own. I'm thinking we take over Schenectady. No one would notice. What say you all. Stop being sheep. There is no savior. It is us. We. Infuriating that people are so ineffectual when we have all the power in the world and choose not to use it. Stop looking outside of yourself for some elusive Nirvana that the bright and beautiful are not going to bring to you and find some cojones to exact change on your own. "and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all"

Also the Christian right has certainly bastardized the original intent, but the foundation was soundly built on Judeo-Christian morality. Any thought contrary is revisionist history whether you agree with it or not. Did I say Republic? Any mention of a democracy here and there will be pain brought forth like Jules Winnfield. Here's also a hint. Barack Obama ain't no savior. He's very polished and forgive me if I'm not overly impressed w/ a Harvard graduate. Whoop de do. None of them impress me, but rarely any of them do. Give me Churchill reincarnated and we can talk.

example1
01-05-2008, 03:35 AM
Didn't a duly elected Congress pass the tax cuts, authorize the war, etc.? Stick to baseball, Example. You are talking so far out of your ass that you must have been upside down when you typed your last post.:lol:

The stuff that comes out of my ass is much more impressive, a700, believe me!! :lol:

Duly elected? I hold them responsible for the votes they cast, which is why I'm not supporting Edwards or Clinton. I hate the tax cuts for the rich and I hate the vote to authorize the war. I'm not explicitly supporting any who were involved in the cowtowing to George Bush. If I end up voting for the best of a bad thing then I will support Clinton. I think she would be a fine president, but I think she should be docked considerable points for supporting Bush and never fully taking responsiblity.

I think the people who see "it" realize that the generation of people who want a new set of arguments and new players and new standards realize that Obama is above the fray and is the only person running who, if he is all that he appears to be, is of a unique character and background and skill set that matches the greatest Presidents in American history.

I want to ask two very simply questions because I'm curious.

1) Has anyone ever read any of his books?

2) Did anyone watch his speech on Thursday night?



Those of you saying he is playing to the media simply don't know how to look at this with relative perspective. Watch Hilary Clinton answer questions in a debate or give her speeches. Then compare them.

Of course they pay attention to the media. Of course they try not to say things that will get them de facto eliminated from the race (i.e., the Dean Scream, "I voted for it before I voted against it", etc.,) but compared to just about every politican over the past 20 years he is genuinely preaching his philosophy and it resonates strongly with people who feel like America is in the lowest of the lows at this point. Perhaps it is glorifying someone because of the otherwise dour situation, but if this is the man that comes along and saves America's standing abroad and improves the lives of Americans at home that would be huge but unsurprising given his pedegree and obvious skill set.

How do I know he is genuinely preaching his philosophy? I read "Dreams for My Father" and "The Audacity of Hope". He wrote Dreams in 1995 years before entering public office. Was it to win an election to he can eventually get on the board of a big company? No, in the preface he writes that he hoped the story of his life and background "might speak in some way to the fissures of race that have characterized the American experience, as well as the fluid state of identity—the leaps through time, the collision of cultures—that mark our modern life."


From Wikipedia:

Time magazine's Joe Klein wrote that the book "may be the best-written memoir ever produced by an American politician."

We are talking not about a political automaton here, we're talking about perhaps the most introspective and grounded public figure you will ever find. Jesus, the agenda he is talking about--other than perhaps his views on how to get out of Iraq--is set to improve the lives of average Americans directly. He's not grinding a religious axe, he's not pushing for a philosophy of extreme liberalism. He's talking about getting pragmatic and putting aside the small stuff.

Shit, if people want to freak out about abortion and affirmative action and the death penalty and the trapping of fur and Terri Schaivo and Evolution and a number of other relatively insignificant things, that's fine. They will be, and should be, marginalized from the federal politic. One thing republicans and democrats can agree upon is that if the government is good for ANYTHING, it is good for national defense and good for providing a safety net--whether in the form of FIMA or the Centers for Disease Control or Medicaid or Social Security. There are huge issues out there that seriously need addressing.


Feel free to convince me. Which of these other candidates is going to get Americans together to change the country without continuing the cancerous cycle of Right vs. Left, Red vs. Blue? Huckabee, Romney, Guliani, Thompson, Paul, Kucinich, Edwards, Clinton?

We're the most powerful nation in the world for Christsakes, and we have an aenemic political mechanism NOT because all politicians are inherently morally currupt, and NOT because we are incapable of having an effective government. We are tied up from the attempt to destroy the government from within, starting in the 80s and from the battle over "moral" issues that started in the 90s and zealously carried on until Shaivo and with the continual 'conservative' moral scandals. We have been sidetracked from the mission that the United States drove world wide from the mid 1800s through the 1980s and which started with the words "we hold these truths to be self-evident".

example1
01-05-2008, 03:52 AM
If that were the case Obama would not be where he is now. There is a reason they call it campaign "strategy."

I was arguing against the idea that Obama, like "all politicans", is simply pandering and flip-flopping his values and views to meet a pre-existing politican feeling in the country.

I feel that the country is BEGGING for someone to present them with the answer, someone who represents America in its best light. They don't want to be pandered to, they want someone to convince them that we need to do something.

Remember: we were asked to sacrifice NOTHING as common American citizens after 9/11. Average Americans have been asked to sacrifice NOTHING to go to war. At best, we are in a serious and difficult battle, yet we have been asked to do nothing by our government. For many of us, even those of us who work with poor and downtrodden populations, this doesn't feel right. How come in WWII they stopped using certain supplies and produced that sense of civic pride? How come in Vietnam they were willing to have a draft, thus forcing people to be highly aware of the war and thus allow Democracy to play itself out as public opinion and military facts met in an honest media? How come now, we are asked to keep going to the shopping malls, yet our dollar is dying and our moral standing is shit?

Perhaps you think its all about politics and 'looking good' for the cameras. I've read the man's books, I've read his obviously very well articulated views on these issues. It's not about the camera, it is about a philosophical devotion to helping others that used to exist but which has largely disappeared in our American Idle culture.

a700hitter
01-05-2008, 12:50 PM
For the past 30 years we've had a battle between two parties, one of whom argues that the government is there to do good for its citizens, the other of which is trying to get government so small that it should can be drowned in the bathtub.Are you and the other demagogues trying to take back the country from the party that is trying to shrink and drown the government? Which party would that be? You are a facts and figures guy. How much has the federal government shrunk in the last 30 years? Don't make me laugh. The phony Reagan Democrats and Republicans who came to power by riding Reagan's coat tails and the revival of Conservatism among the American population spent like crazy once they had a majority and they increased the size of the government. BTW, it was the country that became more conservative, not the Congress. It was the American people that overwhelmingly spoke out at the ballot box on the basis of wanting a smaller less intrusive federal government. You may not have been alive when it happened or you may be reading some revisionist history, but the last revolution that occurred at the ballot box was a Conservative revolution led by Ronald Reagan. If you don't believe that there was a popular uprising against liberalism and big government, I offer as proof that a Conservative Presidential candidate won NY. Take a look at the electoral map. The Republicans also gained 12 Senate and 35 House seats that year. Unfortunately, the country never got the smaller government that it wanted, and it is for that reason alone that the phony conservative republicans in Congress are being shown the door. It is not because of an energized democratic party. Open your eyes. There is nothing new going on there. A recycled Clinton with different genitalia... is that new? A trial lawyer running on a platform based on class envy... is that new? Puhlease. The problem is that there are no more conservatives. None. Conservatives (and I am not talking about the evangelicals) are not energized and they have no candidates. The modern conservative movement embodied by Ronald Reagan was based on three principles: 1. Lower taxes 2. A smaller less intrusive federal government and 3. a strong military. There isn't a single candidate that I can see that can honestly run on that platform.


That the American people could ever be convinced that government IS the problem, even though it is largely one of the only things that unites us under a code of law, is indicative--to me at least--that something is wrong in the control room and that Americans are no longer the most important constituants.Most of the federal government apparatus--- probably well in excess of 75%--- are career bureaucrats with no accountability to anyone other than other bureaucrats. This enormous bureaucracy is so entrenched that I don't even know how you could begin to shrink it. Do you want every aspect of your life regulated and taxed by nameless faceless bureaucrats who are unelected and unaccountable? Add to this army of bureaucrats thousands of unelected unaccountable judges creating law without any constitutional basis and you have a situation that is very frightening. Your individual freedoms are being eroded. You are leading your lives according to the dictates of bureaucrats. Is that what you want? Do you want them to tell you what doctors you can see and what medical procedures you can get? Do you want the government telling you that you have to go get serviced by a doctor on a schedule, for preventative purposes, and if you don't, you will not be entitled to medical coverage? Do you want a government that will dictate what you can and cannot eat so that the government can control health care costs? Do you want a system where the best surgeon in the country has to get paid the same fee for a procedure as the worst surgeon in the country? Is this the rule of law that unites us?

example1
01-05-2008, 08:10 PM
Are you and the other demagogues trying to take back the country from the party that is trying to shrink and drown the government? Which party would that be? You are a facts and figures guy. How much has the federal government shrunk in the last 30 years? Don't make me laugh. The phony Reagan Democrats and Republicans who came to power by riding Reagan's coat tails and the revival of Conservatism among the American population spent like crazy once they had a majority and they increased the size of the government. BTW, it was the country that became more conservative, not the Congress. It was the American people that overwhelmingly spoke out at the ballot box on the basis of wanting a smaller less intrusive federal government. You may not have been alive when it happened or you may be reading some revisionist history, but the last revolution that occurred at the ballot box was a Conservative revolution led by Ronald Reagan. If you don't believe that there was a popular uprising against liberalism and big government, I offer as proof that a Conservative Presidential candidate won NY. Take a look at the electoral map. The Republicans also gained 12 Senate and 35 House seats that year. Unfortunately, the country never got the smaller government that it wanted, and it is for that reason alone that the phony conservative republicans in Congress are being shown the door. It is not because of an energized democratic party. Open your eyes. There is nothing new going on there. A recycled Clinton with different genitalia... is that new? A trial lawyer running on a platform based on class envy... is that new? Puhlease. The problem is that there are no more conservatives. None. Conservatives (and I am not talking about the evangelicals) are not energized and they have no candidates. The modern conservative movement embodied by Ronald Reagan was based on three principles: 1. Lower taxes 2. A smaller less intrusive federal government and 3. a strong military. There isn't a single candidate that I can see that can honestly run on that platform.

Most of the federal government apparatus--- probably well in excess of 75%--- are career bureaucrats with no accountability to anyone other than other bureaucrats. This enormous bureaucracy is so entrenched that I don't even know how you could begin to shrink it. Do you want every aspect of your life regulated and taxed by nameless faceless bureaucrats who are unelected and unaccountable? Add to this army of bureaucrats thousands of unelected unaccountable judges creating law without any constitutional basis and you have a situation that is very frightening. Your individual freedoms are being eroded. You are leading your lives according to the dictates of bureaucrats. Is that what you want? Do you want them to tell you what doctors you can see and what medical procedures you can get? Do you want the government telling you that you have to go get serviced by a doctor on a schedule, for preventative purposes, and if you don't, you will not be entitled to medical coverage? Do you want a government that will dictate what you can and cannot eat so that the government can control health care costs? Do you want a system where the best surgeon in the country has to get paid the same fee for a procedure as the worst surgeon in the country? Is this the rule of law that unites us?


I'm a county worker. I'm not nameless or faceless and I have worked "on the ground" providing direct services to children and families before taking a county job. I, along with all the other people I know at work, work my ass off and deserve the relative 'security' affored by a county job administering mental health dollars from medicaid to those who need it most. My job is to ensure that people are getting the services they need and not taking advantage of their services.

The short answer to all of your one-sided questions is, of course, no. I don't want everything dictated to me. However, I would gladly have all of those things dictated to me rather than live in a selfish 'me first' country where things like having every extravagant opportunity with my healthcare is less important than children getting care when they need it or families running into poverty because of something like cancer.

a700hitter
01-05-2008, 11:01 PM
I'm a county worker. I'm not nameless or faceless and I have worked "on the ground" providing direct services to children and families before taking a county job. I, along with all the other people I know at work, work my ass off and deserve the relative 'security' affored by a county job administering mental health dollars from medicaid to those who need it most. My job is to ensure that people are getting the services they need and not taking advantage of their services.

The short answer to all of your one-sided questions is, of course, no. I don't want everything dictated to me. However, I would gladly have all of those things dictated to me rather than live in a selfish 'me first' country where things like having every extravagant opportunity with my healthcare is less important than children getting care when they need it or families running into poverty because of something like cancer.I never said that local government was the problem. Conservatives believe that states, county and other local governments should have more power over our lives than the federal government. Local government, by virtue of the fact that it is so much smaller than the federal behemoth, is much more accountable. If a constituent doesn't like the services that your department provides, he/she might be able to get the attention of your department head very quickly by making a few well-placed calls to local politicians. How could a single individual get the attention of the head of FEMA? You need a scandal that is on TV 24/7 just to get them to answer questions.

If you are providing health services at the county level, I am wondering if your department doesn't get some sort of Federal subsidy. I am also wondering what kind of hoops that have to be jumped through to get those dollars. There is probably a faceless, nameless federal bureaucrat that decides the amount of the subsidy.

I worked for the IRS when I graduated from law school more than 20 years ago and my son is working for the Social Security Administration. My uncle worked an entire career as a federal meat inspector. I know a little something about the nameless, faceless federal bureaucracy. I was not dumping on federal workers who are generally underpaid, but there is a ton of waste at management levels. Look at your pay stub and compare the amount of federal taxes you pay (including FICA and FICA-Medicare) to your local income taxes, then compare the services that you and your family get from your local government to the services you get from the federal government. It might be hard to think of any federal services that you use. I realize that you pay other local taxes like real estate taxes and sales taxes. Nevertheless, other than the protection of the military, what federal services do you use? Police and firefighters are local. Trash removal is local. Schools are still mainly local. Library is local. Your parks are mostly local. Road repair is mostly local. The same with snow removal. I support a strong military, but that is a small part of the federal budget. I hope to get Social Security and Medicare someday, but I don't get anything now. Also, there is a separate tax for those benefits. What do I get for my federal income taxes? I'll tell you what I get for those dollars. I get to fund the bloated budgets of an unelected, unaccountable permanent federal bureaucracy. Doesn't that piss you off, because it should? Conservatives believe that government services can be provided at the state and local level more efficiently and more equitably than at the federal level, and we are right.

example1
01-06-2008, 06:03 AM
I never said that local government was the problem. Conservatives believe that states, county and other local governments should have more power over our lives than the federal government. Local government, by virtue of the fact that it is so much smaller than the federal behemoth, is much more accountable. If a constituent doesn't like the services that your department provides, he/she might be able to get the attention of your department head very quickly by making a few well-placed calls to local politicians. How could a single individual get the attention of the head of FEMA? You need a scandal that is on TV 24/7 just to get them to answer questions.

This argument basically say that the states should be able to do whatever they want. This would be fine if each state acted like a liberal european country, a700. If wealthy folks in Alabama wanted to give lots of money to help the poorest among them, whether those folks were black, gay, mentally handicapped, or ill, then there would be no problem. However, as you appear to have overlooked from the past few elections there are a number of states that do not simply believe in small federal government, but they believe in small government in all respects. Yet again, you are a traditional fiscal conservative. I have no problem with that, as long as you are willing to concede that states should at least be forced to enforce a high standard for civil rights. THAT is the combination that would be best in this country. Allow states to pick and choose their various programs, as long as the programs that provide a healthy, educated and tolerant society are treated as if they are important.



If you are providing health services at the county level, I am wondering if your department doesn't get some sort of Federal subsidy. I am also wondering what kind of hoops that have to be jumped through to get those dollars. There is probably a faceless, nameless federal bureaucrat that decides the amount of the subsidy.


Those people are faceless and nameless, of course they are. We have a country of 300,000,000 faceless and nameless people. Look at the job descriptions for those positions. They require at least a bachelors degree, but to get to that level you either need to have succeeded at previous positions or have a master's or above. We're talking about the direct implementation of policy here. Not everyone is as knowledgeable as you or I about things like this, but that doesn't mean that they aren't capable of understanding the implications of a very specific argument. The leadership of those organizations can certainly spread a philosophy that is both stringent and friendly. The point is to put greater emphasis on the importance of those jobs.

The current cost of Social Services basically breaks down like this:

$$ for services needed + bureaucratic costs (facilities, insurance, documentation for transparency and accountability) .

What you get is a system that pretty much serves everyone. Public schools are currently able to handle every student that comes their way. They can reach into the furthest corners of this country to provide that public service. My county provides many entitlement services based on solid assessment tools for entitlement. Everyone gets served, by law. The problem isn't providing service. What is missing from the equation above?

Salaries. Just like teaching. It should be merit based, but those merits can be determined at the point of hire. If we had intelligent people running these positions--instead of avoiding public service because of low pay--we would be in much better shape. In a lot of instances the people in those positions ARE intelligent and aware of the responsibility they carry when administering the service. In some they are not. This can be improved.



I worked for the IRS when I graduated from law school more than 20 years ago and my son is working for the Social Security Administration. My uncle worked an entire career as a federal meat inspector. I know a little something about the nameless, faceless federal bureaucracy. I was not dumping on federal workers who are generally underpaid...


Exactly. Yet you don't want to pay for it. :rolleyes: When was the last time you heard about these federal agencies having to shut down because people don't show up? When was the last time you heard about them having catastrophic failures to perform? To a large degree, the more certain you are that you need a service (mail, taxes, military) the better it performs. It is because you value it more and so do most people, so our elected officals are likely to support them whole-heartedly.

If they're underpaid it is because people don't want them to be paid well. I can assure you that the head of the Department of Human Services is not making 500 times more than the lowest paid full time worker. The money that is being spent on bureaucracy is being spent on transparancy and the ability to be accountable. A lot of people spend a lot of time writing down that they did something and filing it away in case it is ever needed. Again, get better workers who can type and file faster, and you will get more done.




, but there is a ton of waste at management levels.

Again, with the pay and the hiring. Why shouldn't a person who runs social security for a county be paid as much as, say, a private trial lawyer or private psychologist? Want good people, hire good people. I could go on and on about education incentives such as paying back education loans for public service, and other such plans to motivate good people into those "most important" positions we outlined above.



Look at your pay stub and compare the amount of federal taxes you pay (including FICA and FICA-Medicare) to your local income taxes, then compare the services that you and your family get from your local government to the services you get from the federal government.

Hey man, I don't know about you, but I spend a lot more time thinking about how--despite its social warts--this is an amazing country. I spend a lot more time enjoying the freedoms this place allows and observing those freedoms being put into play through art, music and sports, than I do being pissed off about the money. Yeah, when I think about the fact that I deserve more money for my job I get frustrated, but I never begrudge the money that comes out for the common good. It just seems natural.



It might be hard to think of any federal services that you use.


Really? Is it that hard? Most state programs are at least supported by federal mandates, regardless of the percentage (though for many it is substantial).



I hope to get Social Security and Medicare someday, but I don't get anything now.


You DO understand how those programs work, right? They are clearly important to you.



Also, there is a separate tax for those benefits.


RIght, and if you support it then you are saying it is important to you.



What do I get for my federal income taxes? I'll tell you what I get for those dollars. I get to fund the bloated budgets of an unelected, unaccountable permanent federal bureaucracy.


I get peace of mind and feel like I have a leg to stand on when I talk about America being a great nation.



Doesn't that piss you off, because it should? Conservatives believe that government services can be provided at the state and local level more efficiently and more equitably than at the federal level, and we are right.

Nah, it doesn't piss me off. My parents raised me to believe that paying money to provide services for those who can't possibly pay for them themselves--either because they are too poor, as in inner-cities, or because it is physically impossible, as in the military. It is just part of being a good person, but I believe that people who are willing to make that sacrifice should be rewarded by having a society that gives incentives for thinking that way...

THUS, more social programs to support the middle class. I like public television, I like college, I like the olympics and historical markers. These are all things that bring people together. It is a cycle that continues itself unless enough people are convinced to be selfish, as they were in the 80s.

a700hitter
01-06-2008, 08:46 PM
This argument basically say that the states should be able to do whatever they want. This would be fine if each state acted like a liberal european country, a700. If wealthy folks in Alabama wanted to give lots of money to help the poorest among them, whether those folks were black, gay, mentally handicapped, or ill, then there would be no problem. However, as you appear to have overlooked from the past few elections there are a number of states that do not simply believe in small federal government, but they believe in small government in all respects. Yet again, you are a traditional fiscal conservative. I have no problem with that, as long as you are willing to concede that states should at least be forced to enforce a high standard for civil rights. THAT is the combination that would be best in this country. Allow states to pick and choose their various programs, as long as the programs that provide a healthy, educated and tolerant society are treated as if they are important. The Constitution protects civil rights, and discrimination on the basis of age, gender, race, or religion is prohibited by federal law. The problem is that the federal government is increasingly stepping beyond its constitutional powers.


Those people are faceless and nameless, of course they are. We have a country of 300,000,000 faceless and nameless people. Look at the job descriptions for those positions. They require at least a bachelors degree, but to get to that level you either need to have succeeded at previous positions or have a master's or above. We're talking about the direct implementation of policy here. Not everyone is as knowledgeable as you or I about things like this, but that doesn't mean that they aren't capable of understanding the implications of a very specific argument. The leadership of those organizations can certainly spread a philosophy that is both stringent and friendly. Again, let me state that I am not criticizing the competence of Federal workers, and some agencies are accountable. You mentioned the Post Office. My cousin is a letter carrier about to retire. The post office is self-supporting and they perform a valuable service and they perform as reliably as private delivery companies. My problem is with bloated levels of unnecessary and redundant management. One example of redundancy and inefficiency is a story that my cousin told me. Someone sent a gun through the mail that was discovered by a postal worker. A ridiculous jurisdictional battle ensued on the premises of this one little branch post office among officers of the Postal Police, FBI, ATF and Homeland Security. While this ridiculous battle dragged on, no one was investigating the case.


Salaries. Just like teaching. It should be merit based, but those merits can be determined at the point of hire. A merit system needs to be applied on an ongoing basis for there to be true accountability. People who are qualified on paper at the time of hire frequently do not perform up to expectations.


Hey man, I don't know about you, but I spend a lot more time thinking about how--despite its social warts--this is an amazing country. I spend a lot more time enjoying the freedoms this place allows and observing those freedoms being put into play through art, music and sports, than I do being pissed off about the money. Yeah, when I think about the fact that I deserve more money for my job I get frustrated, but I never begrudge the money that comes out for the common good. It just seems natural. You are missing my point. Money is only part of the story. What bothers me is how the federal government erodes our personal freedoms under the guise of protecting us.


Nah, it doesn't piss me off. My parents raised me to believe that paying money to provide services for those who can't possibly pay for them themselves--either because they are too poor, as in inner-cities, or because it is physically impossible, as in the military. It is just part of being a good person, but I believe that people who are willing to make that sacrifice should be rewarded by having a society that gives incentives for thinking that way...You would be surprised how much money that I give to various charitable organizations. I probably give more to charities each year than most people pay in Federal income taxes, but that is my choice. Why should the federal government tell me and others which causes are worthy to support? If all federal agencies were like the Post Office there would not be any problem. We pay for those services as we use them. The Post Office is self supporting to the best of my knowledge. Sadly, we have no choice about our continued support of most of the permanent bureaucracy, and our elected officials, both Republican and Democrat, have refused to do anything to get the situation under control.

example1
01-07-2008, 01:54 AM
That's about as nice a resolution to a heated political discussion that I've had in a long time a700.

It is clear that we understand each other and agree to disagree on a number of issues about how much invasiveness is appropriate, and about the intent of that invasiveness in particular. We probably also disagree about whether or not a solid effort has been made to make the social programs as potent as possible or to recruit people of the highest caliber.

Otherwise, I think we both agree that there is no room in the federal government for petty arguments basing themselves in holier than thou morality.

Post offices do get a huge chunk of their change from fee-for-service collection, like stamps and handing over of money. However, they are federally protected in the sense of having particular regulations around national security, transportation and prioritizing. In other words, if there were a federal emergency the postal service would likely be one of the things that will be high priority to keep it running.

That said, you must realize that there are certain circumstances where the person getting the service simply cannot pay for it. Welfare in the form of medicaid and SSI is exactly this type of service. It costs money. Some roads have tolls to pay for them. Some states don't have enough traffic to justify even setting up the infrastructure for tolls. Situations are different for everyone, but our country should be able to accomodate the poorest and most disenfranchised--especially when those disenfranchised are such by our own hand (native americans, african americans, etc.,). There simply needs to be a lot of tolerance for the ATTEMPT to make life better for others, even if it is imperfect.

ORS
01-07-2008, 09:47 AM
The petty bickering about right-vs-left has been the mainstay for politics for a long time now and it has proven entirely ineffective.
I agree. Good see someone of like mind. But wait....


What "WE" need to realize is that the world is taking an enormous look at how America behaves right now. Electing a democrat would be a good first step, because knocking out the party that got us into this mess would be a smart move.
I thought we were dropping the left/right nonsense and electing the best candidate?


For the past 30 years we've had a battle between two parties, one of whom argues that the government is there to do good for its citizens, the other of which is trying to get government so small that it should can be drowned in the bathtub.
Another massive left/right generalization.

In the end, despite the length of the blather, I'm left no choice but to dismiss it as more empty rhetoric.

Look at what Paradise is saying. It's not left/right dogmatic dissonance. It's about the issue. Obama is on record trying to enact policy that is antithetical to what someone feels is the most important issue. According to you, he should ignore that proposed policy and blindly have "faith" that he'll do what Paradise feels is right because he wrote a book 13 years ago. Are you serious? That is an absolute case of discarding the issue in order to align left or right, the thing you supposedly feel is a terrible ailment in our political system. Have some consistency.

rician blast
01-07-2008, 10:59 AM
The rest of the world certainly finds it ironic that we are the wealthiest nation in the world but we can't educate our kids. The rest of the world laughs at the fact that we are supposedly a tolerant society based on "all men are created equal", and we are willing to go to war for that, yet one party of our two party system (essentially) refuses to elect people of color to important positions, and the other party--while being the more 'tolerant'--has not done so either. It is time to start showing the world that, yes, the American dream really does exist, and yes, the American people really are as tolerant and intelligent as they appear.


Does that mean I would vote for Obama because he's black? Hell no. I would vote for Obama because he is the most charasmatic thinker and speaker to run for the office since Bobby Kennedy. He also has a tremendous resume. He espouses the very values that liberals claim to hold dear (tolerance for difference, willingness to give back to the community in taxes and public service, the desire for Americans to have health care) while also modeling a solid family and those 'down home' American values. .



Couple of thoughts:

(1) We can't educate our kids? Tell me what measurement is being used to support this statement. Also, how many countries do a better job of educating their children (I'm not saying there are not any, just want to know which you consider more successful in educating their people) and then let's look at their politics, economy, demographics and quality of life and see if we really want to be like them.

(2) Go back a few pages and read my post about Dick Lamm's article on "How to Ruin America"...it'll give some insights on how U.S. tolerance, which IMO is progressive when compared to other nations, is working out... and further, why we need citizens to meld within and adapt to the country, not have the country continually fragmenting to acquiesce to various segments of society.

(3) Voting for charisma scares me.

-Did you know Hitler was considered extremely charismatic, theatrical, persuasive in his speaking?

-Jim Jones was so charismatic that he convinced 900 followers to drink cyanide-laced kool aid in the jungles of Guyana.

-Bill Clinton had tons of charisma...but woulda screwed a pile of rocks if he thought there was a snake underneath. Life was good under Bill...wait, let me rephrase that...we experienced some good years with Clinton at the helm, but his charisma belied his character in some respects.

I like Obama...I really do. But I think too many folks are drawn to his charisma and are buying into the tried and true "It is time for a change" without really knowing...or caring for that matter...what he really stands for. I simply urge caution, not to anyone specifically, but in general, in that respect.

FYI, anyone notice he's been using the light blue tie, similar to GWB?

Paradisecity
01-07-2008, 11:03 AM
Ever see the movie "The Candidate?"

rician blast
01-07-2008, 11:34 AM
Ever see the movie "The Candidate?"

Yes...a candidate with principle has no shot (or so it seemed)...but when he starts to gain in the polls, largely due to his charisma, his intergrity goes down the shitter. Good flick.

example1
01-07-2008, 03:53 PM
I agree. Good see someone of like mind. But wait....


I thought we were dropping the left/right nonsense and electing the best candidate?


Moving past partisanship due to the importance of current events is not at ALL an exoneration of those who have bad policies. The truth is that the RIght has pulled us off track with issues that, although important in some corner of most of our souls, it simply isn't what the government should be talking about now. People on both sides realize that now, hence the huge increase in people (partiuclarly Independents) being active in the primary process.

Moving past partisanship: good.

Forgetting that people have REAL political philosophies that drive their arguments: impossible.



Another massive left/right generalization.

I suppose. Pretty significant leaders in the Republican party have indicated that they want to get rid of the federal government in as many areas as possible. Grover Norquist was specifically the one who mentioned that "I don't want to abolish government. I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub."

Norquist and the rest of the Gang of Five had regular meetings and considerable influence on President Bush, Newt Gingrich etc., who have both been the figureheads of the conservative republican movement for the past 15 years. In fact, both vp Cheney and GW Bush were sending delegates to his regular Wednesday meeting even before they were elected to office. So, to say that I'm overstating it a bit, perhaps I am. They represent the far right of the Republican party, but for better or worse, it is indesputable that a majority of republicans bought the Bush/Cheney picture of Republicanism hook, line and sinker.

I'm happy to move past partisanship, but not if those characters are included. When Republicans say that they disagree with that radical neo-con approach to government, then they will be part of the AMERICAN GOVERNMENT'S political process.

Look, everyone complains about the fact that the government has grown. The fact is that the government is HERE TO STAY. It isn't going to get smaller to the point of being drowned, so that will need to be given up. The days of people legitimately wanting to squash the federal government are over. Those who want to IMPROVE it should get on board, those who don't should get off. A majority of those who do not want to improve it are on the Right. Hence my continued alluding to the right/left divide. But if we want to talk change, I'll let it go.



In the end, despite the length of the blather, I'm left no choice but to dismiss it as more empty rhetoric.


So you're incapable of moving beyond it yourself? When you hear the idea of moving past partisanship you no longer tolerate the generalities that make up the duality of Republican vs. Democrat? That seems like a hasty jump, given that there are legitimate, longstanding differences of opinion between the parties. The difference that was intolerable is the difference in the believe of whether or not the Federal government should exist in any capacity other than a military machine. If that difference is on the table then so is partisanship, if it is not then it is merely a political discussion. Too bad you'll give up the discussion because you can't see that distinction.



Look at what Paradise is saying. It's not left/right dogmatic dissonance. It's about the issue. Obama is on record trying to enact policy that is antithetical to what someone feels is the most important issue. According to you, he should ignore that proposed policy and blindly have "faith" that he'll do what Paradise feels is right because he wrote a book 13 years ago. Are you serious? That is an absolute case of discarding the issue in order to align left or right, the thing you supposedly feel is a terrible ailment in our political system. Have some consistency.

I have plenty of consistency. All four democratic candidates said they will begin a careful withdrawl if they become president. All of them. It isn't a radical approach. Furthermore, just two days ago Obama said, verbatim, "I will be as careful getting out as we were careless getting in". I don't know what you make of that. To me it sounds like he isn't saying "let's just pull them all out, damn them". That's not what he's saying.

If you're so thorough with your analysis, why not look at what they actually say. The proposed withdraw had the following characteristics (wikipedia source):

--Binding legislation that would not be able to be bypassed without explicit Congressional approval.
--Caps the number of U.S. troops at the January 10, 2007 level.
--Does not affect the funding of the troops.
--Initiates a phased redeployment beginning on May 1, 2007 with a goal of total redeployment of combat forces on March 31, 2008, consistent with the bipartisan Iraq Study Group's Report.
--Enforces benchmarks for Iraq's government including Security, political reconciliation and economic reform. If the benchmarks are met, the redeployment could be temporarily suspended upon congressional approval.
--Maintains a military presence in the region for force protection, training of Iraqi forces, and pursuing international terrorists.
--Requires Congressional oversight with the President reporting a progress report on Iraq to Congress every 90 days.
--Intensifies training of Iraqi security forces to enable Iraqi's to take over the security responsibilities for Iraq.
--Puts conditions on economic assistance to the Government of Iraq based on progress towards benchmarks.
--Attempts to create more regional diplomacy with key nations in the region to help achieve a political settlement among the Iraqi people, and prevent a humanitarian catastrophe and regional conflict.[/B]

Sure looks like a blind, thoughtless withdrawl to me. How about you ORS?

Here's what the Iraq Study Group proposed:

"According to a report in late November, the Iraq Study Group had "strongly urged" a large pull back of American troops in Iraq. The final report was released December 6, 2006, included 79 recommendations, and was 160 pages in length."

So, Obama is not a maverek, going out on a limb to propose this policy. He was merely taking the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group and moving from that.

What are your contentions with that recommendation? What pieces of information do you have, ORS, that gives you a better idea of what to do? What would you prefer he do? Just guess at how things are going? Just assess the situation based on a trip into Iraq with a full brigade giving him protection, like McCain?

It is disappointing that, instead of looking at where the idea came from, you are blindly assuming that he's just coming up with it on his own. Furthermore, a redeployment to other parts of the region is hardly a plan to just stop paying attention to Iraq.

Paradisecity
01-07-2008, 04:24 PM
--Binding legislation that would not be able to be bypassed without explicit Congressional approval.
--Caps the number of U.S. troops at the January 10, 2007 level.
--Does not affect the funding of the troops.
--Initiates a phased redeployment beginning on May 1, 2007 with a goal of total redeployment of combat forces on March 31, 2008, consistent with the bipartisan Iraq Study Group's Report.
--Enforces benchmarks for Iraq's government including Security, political reconciliation and economic reform. If the benchmarks are met, the redeployment could be temporarily suspended upon congressional approval.
--Maintains a military presence in the region for force protection, training of Iraqi forces, and pursuing international terrorists.
--Requires Congressional oversight with the President reporting a progress report on Iraq to Congress every 90 days.
--Intensifies training of Iraqi security forces to enable Iraqi's to take over the security responsibilities for Iraq.
--Puts conditions on economic assistance to the Government of Iraq based on progress towards benchmarks.
--Attempts to create more regional diplomacy with key nations in the region to help achieve a political settlement among the Iraqi people, and prevent a humanitarian catastrophe and regional conflict.[/B]

Sure looks like a blind, thoughtless withdrawl to me. How about you ORS?

Here's what the Iraq Study Group proposed:

"According to a report in late November, the Iraq Study Group had "strongly urged" a large pull back of American troops in Iraq. The final report was released December 6, 2006, included 79 recommendations, and was 160 pages in length."

So, Obama is not a maverek, going out on a limb to propose this policy. He was merely taking the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group and moving from that.



It is disappointing that, instead of looking at where the idea came from, you are blindly assuming that he's just coming up with it on his own. Furthermore, a redeployment to other parts of the region is hardly a plan to just stop paying attention to Iraq.

The Iraq Study Group's report and findings are now over 13 months old. To assume that the situation and geopolitics surrounding it are the same, or even similar to those of 13 months ago would be an error of gigantic proportions.

example1
01-07-2008, 04:32 PM
Couple of thoughts:

(1) We can't educate our kids? Tell me what measurement is being used to support this statement. Also, how many countries do a better job of educating their children (I'm not saying there are not any, just want to know which you consider more successful in educating their people) and then let's look at their politics, economy, demographics and quality of life and see if we really want to be like them.

I don't know what you're looking for here. Just about all the countries that do education better than us, also beat us in poverty levels, quality of life, life expectancy etc., and there are a whole lot of countries who beat us in those areas, quite handily too, I might add.

See what you can find. Here's someplace to start:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/09/13/national/main838207.shtml

But you could also look at Wikipedia, like here:

The Program for International Student Assessment. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Programme_for_International_Student_Assessment

Shouldn't be shocking, right? I mean, we're still arguing about whether evolution should be taught in schools and whether kids should waste their time learning about Creationism. We're not AHEAD of the world in that regard, we are far, far behind.



(2) Go back a few pages and read my post about Dick Lamm's article on "How to Ruin America"...it'll give some insights on how U.S. tolerance, which IMO is progressive when compared to other nations, is working out... and further, why we need citizens to meld within and adapt to the country, not have the country continually fragmenting to acquiesce to various segments of society.

Our tolerance is not progressive when compared to those nations who beat us in life expectancy, education levels, standard of living etc., We are progressive compared to a majority of nations, but not those that beat us in those areas.

[QUOTE]
(3) Voting for charisma scares me.

-Did you know Hitler was considered extremely charismatic, theatrical, persuasive in his speaking?

-Jim Jones was so charismatic that he convinced 900 followers to drink cyanide-laced kool aid in the jungles of Guyana.

-Bill Clinton had tons of charisma...but woulda screwed a pile of rocks if he thought there was a snake underneath. Life was good under Bill...wait, let me rephrase that...we experienced some good years with Clinton at the helm, but his charisma belied his character in some respects.


Wow, you hear the word "charisma" and come out with Hitler, Jim Jones and Clinton? Why didn't you mention FDR, JFK, Ghandi and Martin Luther King Jr?
Do you think I would vote for Hitler and drink the Kool-Aid of Jones?
Do you think Clinton's charisma was used for the same purposes as Hitler and Jones?

Relevant definition of charisma:
A rare personal quality attributed to leaders who arouse fervent popular devotion and enthusiasm.

So, you're afraid to vote for someone who is capable of uniting the people under them by their words and actions, rather than needing to hold everyone's hand and force them into doing things...? You would rather vote for a candidate WITHOUT charisma? Someone WITHOUT the "rare personal quality"?



I like Obama...I really do. But I think too many folks are drawn to his charisma and are buying into the tried and true "It is time for a change" without really knowing...or caring for that matter...what he really stands for. I simply urge caution, not to anyone specifically, but in general, in that respect.

I agree. I encourage people to look into it and am trying to personally provide sources for people to do so.

Believe me, I put a lot of thought into these things. I am not blindly supporting Obama. I have watched the debates, I have read the policy statements, I have looked into all of it. Obama is not a threat to this country. He is an intelligent and capable leader. IN ADDITION to that, he is charasmatic. The charisma is not the driving factor for those who are capable of looking at what he is talking about and how his actions back up his values. People who aren't willing to spend the time to look at that--people not going by the nickname exmaple1--are able to move past the charisma when discussing policy.



FYI, anyone notice he's been using the light blue tie, similar to GWB?

I typed in "light blue tie" online, but, alas, aparently they haven't completed filing the patent application for Bush to lay claim to it as his own. :lol: Bush was the first one to wear a light blue tie?

It's funny that you aren't willing to accept charisma as a valid reason to at least LOOK at a candidate, but you are willing to look at the color of his tie as indicative of something. What does the color of his tie matter?

example1
01-07-2008, 04:36 PM
The Iraq Study Group's report and findings are now over 13 months old. To assume that the situation and geopolitics surrounding it are the same, or even similar to those of 13 months ago would be an error of gigantic proportions.


Obama's proposal is from 12 months ago. What is your point?

MY point is that the proposal he made at the time was based not on a political agenda of pulling troops out, it was based on the--at the time--recent findings of the Iraq study group.

You criticize him for his position--stated 12 months ago--and criticize his sources as being old, but don't take the time to put the two together and realize that, when he stated his position, that finding was EXTREMELY current. Next.

example1
01-07-2008, 04:48 PM
According to you, he should ignore that proposed policy and blindly have "faith" that he'll do what Paradise feels is right because he wrote a book 13 years ago. Are you serious? That is an absolute case of discarding the issue in order to align left or right, the thing you supposedly feel is a terrible ailment in our political system. Have some consistency.

Just to elaborate...

How come you can trust other candidates more than Obama? How come if Huckabee says he will stay in you will "trust" that, but if Obama says he will be as careful coming out as we were careless getting in you don't "trust" that. It is ALL ABOUT TRUST ORS. Perhaps you see some people as having rock-solid reliability and others as being unreliable, but aside from some a priori determination of that you are trusting one candidate over the other.

As a social organizer, as someone who could clearly make a lot more money elsewhere, as someone who has been transparent with his life (admitting his own experimentation with drugs in a non-ghost written book, for instance), I simply don't see why you don't trust him that his actions will follow his stated beliefs.

That's not to say that you should blindly trust him to do something in Iraq that has the RESULTS you want, but at this point that is impossible from any candidate. John McCain is saying that we could stay in Iraq for 100 years if need be. Does that guarantee success? No, it does not.

I think you're niticking and trying to make my cllaims be more narrow minded than they are. The point about the book was that if you want to know more about him, he isn't hiding. he wrote an extremely introspective book long before he was running for office.

The level of trust you are wanting--something outside of judging character and prior decision-making history--is impossible to attain. If looking at his books as a clue to his philosophy is a crime then I'm guilty. Otherwise, it seems like a valuable source to figure out what he would want for this country. Furthermore, his record of public service is perfectly consistent with his stated devotion to making lives better.

Many other presidents have written books before becoming president, with Bush, Kennedy and Jefferson all coming to mind, but I'm sure there are many more. Look at those books and see if they are consistent with how they ended up as people. Only then can you criticize the validity of such assessments for consistency.

You may not agree with me, but I still feel strongly that my methods for vetting this candidate are not naive.

example1
01-07-2008, 04:59 PM
Finally (for now), just as a reminder, this is the preface to paradisecity's comment about Obama's naive view about pulling out of Iraq, to which I was responding with the Iraq Study Group:


After the damage and upheaval that we caused in Iraq, removal of all troops by March of next year would be "getting out of Iraq now", particularly when experts, both officer enlisted and private sector who have been there, constructed there, fought there, and rebuilt there say we need military presence at least another 5-15 years.

Obama's response was based on findings by the Iraq Study Group, which apparently disagreed with the "experts, both office enlisted and private sector who have been there, constructed there, fought there, and rebulit there".

But then why would the main response be that the ISA advice was simply OLD, not that they were out of touch or that they didn't know as well as those on the ground.

My guess is that you thought Obama was coming up with it on his own and didn't realize it was from the ISG findings. Otherwise you would have criticized the ISG instead of Obama, right? My guess is that you also assume he is too inflexable to realize that, if his bill was not passed in January of 07, he would have to change the timetable.

CrespoBlows
01-07-2008, 05:09 PM
Shocking, but I'm going to agree with a700hitter.

You should stick to baseball.

Paradisecity
01-07-2008, 05:27 PM
Finally (for now), just as a reminder, this is the preface to paradisecity's comment about Obama's naive view about pulling out of Iraq, to which I was responding with the Iraq Study Group:



Obama's response was based on findings by the Iraq Study Group, which apparently disagreed with the "experts, both office enlisted and private sector who have been there, constructed there, fought there, and rebulit there".

But then why would the main response be that the ISA advice was simply OLD, not that they were out of touch or that they didn't know as well as those on the ground.

My guess is that you thought Obama was coming up with it on his own and didn't realize it was from the ISG findings. Otherwise you would have criticized the ISG instead of Obama, right? My guess is that you also assume he is too inflexable to realize that, if his bill was not passed in January of 07, he would have to change the timetable.


Your guess would be completely incorrect (big shock!). I didn't think he was coming up with it on his own, whatsoever, in fact very few of his actionable"what'd I'd do"'s are ideas he has come up with on his own ( I dont think that is necessarily a bad thing either).

How can I criticize the ISG when they weren't brought up until this point? I have no need to criticize the ISG. They aren't running for president. It is Obama's responsibility to determine what recommendation he would or won't adopt, since he would he in charge of the executive branch, and not the ISG. The ISG could say that all New Yorkers should wear green on Wednesdays. It doesn't matter what they say. They won't be signing little pieces of paper in 13 months.

Its ALL about trust huh? I'm surprised we aren't nominating Jimmy Carter for his Nth consecutive term. He was a SUPER president! Everyone trusted him though.

If you want to argue semantics, you could say that since the war is far and away the most important issue to me, and since I "trust" John McCain's recommendations about the war will work better than Barack Obama's (or whoever's recommendation he adopts) that I "trust" John McCain will be a better president for me than Barack Obama.

Or, you could just understand it using other words, the way a normal, less-argumentative person would.

Please, by all means, continue pontificating. Ironically (again) it is exactly the attitude that you present through words that your favorite candidate is seeking to abolish.

rician blast
01-07-2008, 05:44 PM
Thanks for the cites regarding education comparisons...one thing that hit me right off:

From the first link you provided:
"Top performers included Finland, Korea, the Netherlands, Japan, Canada and Belgium."

Not surprised to see Finland and Canada on the list, and I'd suspect Sweden, Switzerland and France would be ahead of the U.S too...why? Because of substantially socialist tendencies. Also, we're quite different in terms of demographics, economics, political system, and shear population than most of these countries and these factors make it difficult to accuratley compare the education system versus other "wealthy" nations.

I think countries that are economically diverse like the U.S. and Germany are at a disadvantage...there are career paths that can be followed which don't require specific educational training, economic opportunity that doesn't require tons of education, etc. In the U.S. case I also believe increasing immigrant populations and a severly flawed immigration system, combined with a pretty substantial poverty gap, are also to blame for these measures indicating the US educaiton system to be weaker than that of socialist-leaning countries. Would you or I, given the exact same socio-economic standing get a better education in another country?

I'm not a proponent of adopting socialist principles so that we can be more like those countries ranking higher than us in these studies...we're different in many ways and that's not being captured in the comparisons.


As for tolerance, I still consider the US at the forefront in that regard. We encourage immigrants to maintain their culture and not assimilate. We stress differences between people, not common ground. Any expectation of someone to learn the language or adapt to US culture is met with cries of racial discrimination. In these respects I find the US to be very tolerant. All of these traits have become cemented into our fiber as a nation.

And the tie comment...the tie doesn't matter...it was an observation of a similarity between the wardrobe choice of two people who are incredibly dissimilar. Sort of an irony I guess. Surprised you didn't catch my sarcasm.

Look, I never said I wouldn't consider Obama because he's charismatic...I'm simply saying I think too many people are being persuaded by that charisma...not by his positions...and that this sort of approach to selecting a candidate frustrates me and in historical context has resulted at times in horrible consequences...I'm certainly, however, not comparing him to Hitler.

ORS
01-07-2008, 07:05 PM
Moving past partisanship due to the importance of current events is not at ALL an exoneration of those who have bad policies. The truth is that the RIght has pulled us off track with issues that, although important in some corner of most of our souls, it simply isn't what the government should be talking about now. People on both sides realize that now, hence the huge increase in people (partiuclarly Independents) being active in the primary process.

Moving past partisanship: good.

Forgetting that people have REAL political philosophies that drive their arguments: impossible.



I suppose. Pretty significant leaders in the Republican party have indicated that they want to get rid of the federal government in as many areas as possible. Grover Norquist was specifically the one who mentioned that "I don't want to abolish government. I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub."

Norquist and the rest of the Gang of Five had regular meetings and considerable influence on President Bush, Newt Gingrich etc., who have both been the figureheads of the conservative republican movement for the past 15 years. In fact, both vp Cheney and GW Bush were sending delegates to his regular Wednesday meeting even before they were elected to office. So, to say that I'm overstating it a bit, perhaps I am. They represent the far right of the Republican party, but for better or worse, it is indesputable that a majority of republicans bought the Bush/Cheney picture of Republicanism hook, line and sinker.

I'm happy to move past partisanship, but not if those characters are included. When Republicans say that they disagree with that radical neo-con approach to government, then they will be part of the AMERICAN GOVERNMENT'S political process.

Look, everyone complains about the fact that the government has grown. The fact is that the government is HERE TO STAY. It isn't going to get smaller to the point of being drowned, so that will need to be given up. The days of people legitimately wanting to squash the federal government are over. Those who want to IMPROVE it should get on board, those who don't should get off. A majority of those who do not want to improve it are on the Right. Hence my continued alluding to the right/left divide. But if we want to talk change, I'll let it go.



So you're incapable of moving beyond it yourself? When you hear the idea of moving past partisanship you no longer tolerate the generalities that make up the duality of Republican vs. Democrat? That seems like a hasty jump, given that there are legitimate, longstanding differences of opinion between the parties. The difference that was intolerable is the difference in the believe of whether or not the Federal government should exist in any capacity other than a military machine. If that difference is on the table then so is partisanship, if it is not then it is merely a political discussion. Too bad you'll give up the discussion because you can't see that distinction.



I have plenty of consistency. All four democratic candidates said they will begin a careful withdrawl if they become president. All of them. It isn't a radical approach. Furthermore, just two days ago Obama said, verbatim, "I will be as careful getting out as we were careless getting in". I don't know what you make of that. To me it sounds like he isn't saying "let's just pull them all out, damn them". That's not what he's saying.

If you're so thorough with your analysis, why not look at what they actually say. The proposed withdraw had the following characteristics (wikipedia source):

--Binding legislation that would not be able to be bypassed without explicit Congressional approval.
--Caps the number of U.S. troops at the January 10, 2007 level.
--Does not affect the funding of the troops.
--Initiates a phased redeployment beginning on May 1, 2007 with a goal of total redeployment of combat forces on March 31, 2008, consistent with the bipartisan Iraq Study Group's Report.
--Enforces benchmarks for Iraq's government including Security, political reconciliation and economic reform. If the benchmarks are met, the redeployment could be temporarily suspended upon congressional approval.
--Maintains a military presence in the region for force protection, training of Iraqi forces, and pursuing international terrorists.
--Requires Congressional oversight with the President reporting a progress report on Iraq to Congress every 90 days.
--Intensifies training of Iraqi security forces to enable Iraqi's to take over the security responsibilities for Iraq.
--Puts conditions on economic assistance to the Government of Iraq based on progress towards benchmarks.
--Attempts to create more regional diplomacy with key nations in the region to help achieve a political settlement among the Iraqi people, and prevent a humanitarian catastrophe and regional conflict.[/B]

Sure looks like a blind, thoughtless withdrawl to me. How about you ORS?

Here's what the Iraq Study Group proposed:

"According to a report in late November, the Iraq Study Group had "strongly urged" a large pull back of American troops in Iraq. The final report was released December 6, 2006, included 79 recommendations, and was 160 pages in length."

So, Obama is not a maverek, going out on a limb to propose this policy. He was merely taking the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group and moving from that.

What are your contentions with that recommendation? What pieces of information do you have, ORS, that gives you a better idea of what to do? What would you prefer he do? Just guess at how things are going? Just assess the situation based on a trip into Iraq with a full brigade giving him protection, like McCain?

It is disappointing that, instead of looking at where the idea came from, you are blindly assuming that he's just coming up with it on his own. Furthermore, a redeployment to other parts of the region is hardly a plan to just stop paying attention to Iraq.
Wonderful. Another 2000 words of hot air that missed the point. Here, since it seems rather difficult I'll say it as plainly as I can manage. I think your vacillating between wanting non-partisan open-mindedness from those opposed to your views while being extremely partisan in your support of your candidate makes you hard to take seriously.

The withdrawal isn't my issue. Ask Paradise what problems he has with it. I only brought it up as an example of how phony your call for non-partisanship was, because your comments about "trusting" Obama will do the right thing simply because you read his memoirs is as partisan as it gets. Partisan politics is all about the emotion for the candidate/party, the "trust", the "charisma", etc.

example1
01-07-2008, 07:15 PM
Your guess would be completely incorrect (big shock!). I didn't think he was coming up with it on his own, whatsoever, in fact very few of his actionable"what'd I'd do"'s are ideas he has come up with on his own ( I dont think that is necessarily a bad thing either).

How can I criticize the ISG when they weren't brought up until this point? I have no need to criticize the ISG. They aren't running for president. It is Obama's responsibility to determine what recommendation he would or won't adopt, since he would he in charge of the executive branch, and not the ISG. The ISG could say that all New Yorkers should wear green on Wednesdays. It doesn't matter what they say. They won't be signing little pieces of paper in 13 months.

I have no reason to believe that you even knew it was the ISG that had made that recommendation in the first place. If you had you wouldn't have blamed Obama for the recklessness of the policy, you would have criticized his decision to follow ISG recommendations instead of, say, those of Bush or the generals on the ground. It's a minor point, but it reflects where the criticism should be layed.



Its ALL about trust huh? I'm surprised we aren't nominating Jimmy Carter for his Nth consecutive term. He was a SUPER president! Everyone trusted him though.

My point wasn't that the decision should be based solely on trust--though I acknowledge the reading comes off that way, rather than how I would have said it. Sorry it wasn't clear. It is all about trust in that ANY candidate you are picking you are trusting, whether that is Obama or Edwards or McCain. You trust based on past performance and on things they have said in the past. It IS all about trust. The voters not only trusted Carter, they trusted every President ever elected because they have cast their votes such.



If you want to argue semantics, you could say that since the war is far and away the most important issue to me, and since I "trust" John McCain's recommendations about the war will work better than Barack Obama's (or whoever's recommendation he adopts) that I "trust" John McCain will be a better president for me than Barack Obama.


That's fine. I have no problem prioritizing who you vote for based on the issues that are most important to you. If you feel like McCain is far and away more knowledgeable about the war than Obama, and that Obama's strengths in other areas do not outweight the potential benefit that McCain can give the country with regard to the war, then of course you ought to vote for McCain. The valuation of the war in Iraq vs. the war against terror vs. social issues is one that each person needs to make for themselves. Personally, I think that the war in Iraq is very important, and the economy is very imortant, and the war on terror is very important, and that each of them is more important than they were 4 years ago. Different strokes, but my hunch is that the majority of Americans have a broad list of things that are important to them in their next president, not simply his or her ability to handle the war.



Please, by all means, continue pontificating. Ironically (again) it is exactly the attitude that you present through words that your favorite candidate is seeking to abolish.

So now you're an Obama expert? You know what he is seeking to abollish better than I do? Thanks for the insight, I guess I've wasted my time reading his books, watching the debates, reading the newspaper and watching Meet the Press every Sunday morning. Thanks for the advice!

ORS
01-07-2008, 07:17 PM
Since the topic of "trust" has come up, how does the only one of the lot to attend a Wahabi school get a vote?

example1
01-07-2008, 07:35 PM
Wonderful. Another 2000 words of hot air that missed the point. Here, since it seems rather difficult I'll say it as plainly as I can manage.

Thanks for dumbing it down for me ORS...



I think your vacillating between wanting non-partisan open-mindedness from those opposed to your views while being extremely partisan in your support of your candidate makes you hard to take seriously.


It's not that I want non-partisan open-mindedness. I want the government to move on with the business that, regardless of political orientation, we all agree is a role of the federal government: military, social upkeep, civil rights, etc., Perhaps you see that as partisan, but I think we will find that a huge central portion of the country will vote for Obama because he touches on all of the things that we share, and largely brushes aside those things we do not share and should not waste our time arguing about.

It appears liberal because the mainstream policies of liberals are now important to most americans. 10 years ago liberals were being called reactionary for believing in global warming. Now they are not. 20 years ago liberals were being called tree-huggers for talking about cleaner forms of electricity and the problem with relying on fossil fuels. 20 years ago liberals were calling for health care for all because we are the only developed nation that doesn't have every citizen covered. Now that is important to both parties. In some areas, strong national defense for instance, the right could come out and say the same thing (i.e., aren't you glad we worked hard to get the strongest military in the world). It goes both ways.

I would say that the fact that a few Republican candidates are now talking about traditionally leftist ideas, and that those candidates are doing well, it is a vindication that those ideas were, in a sense, right to begin with. That doesn't mean that Republicans need to be reminded of it at every turn, unless they still refuse to believe it.

If someone tells me that our education system is the best I will throw out stats to the contrary. If someone tells me that our health care system is the best I will throw out stats to the contrary. Unfortunately, I don't do it with the brevity or lucidity that you do. My apologies. :)



The withdrawal isn't my issue. Ask Paradise what problems he has with it. I only brought it up as an example of how phony your call for non-partisanship was, because your comments about "trusting" Obama will do the right thing simply because you read his memoirs is as partisan as it gets. Partisan politics is all about the emotion for the candidate/party, the "trust", the "charisma", etc.

You like to jump into conversations that aren't yours and tell people how off base they are, even if you don't actually agree with the premise of the discussion. I've seen you do it on numberous occasions and, frankly, I don't mind it. However, you missed the point. I'm not calling for all people to be non-partisan. I'm saying that those who are still stuck in partisanship are going to be left behind and marginalized. Not by my choice but by the gravity of the situation we find ourselves in and the lack of time we have to address it. I'm not going to be perfect about it, and at times I'm going to get fired up about things to a degree that isn't healthy. Again, sorry.

Instead of complaining about the way I write, or the length of my posts, you could simply not read them. That's what I tend to do when someone is doing something that doesn't strike me the right way.

I came on this thread and, instead of responding to other people's views, just laid out a long post about my views to which many responded strongly. I didn't put my tail between my legs and run, I answered their questions and sometimes become passionate about these things. Again, if you don't like it, don't respond or don't read it.

We've "known" each other for long enough that you know you don't have to read EVERY word that Example1 writes! :D (I will preempt your answer of "change the word 'EVERY' to "ANY' and you're spot on!) :thumbsup:

example1
01-07-2008, 07:39 PM
Since the topic of "trust" has come up, how does the only one of the lot to attend a Wahabi school get a vote?

What are you talking about?

ORS
01-07-2008, 07:49 PM
What the fuck is up with people here? That's like the second time in a month I've been told I don't have to respond if I don't like something. No shit. However, this a forum for discussion, so I feel like sharing my feedback. A more appropriate plea for restraint of thought would be for me to ask those of you who are uncomfortable with receiving feedback to refrain from sharing said thoughts. Once they are out there, they are open game. Thems the rules.

example1
01-07-2008, 07:51 PM
What the fuck is up with people here? That's like the second time in a month I've been told I don't have to respond if I don't like something. No shit. However, this a forum for discussion, so I feel like sharing my feedback. A more appropriate plea for restraint of thought would be for me to ask those of you who are uncomfortable with receiving feedback to refrain from sharing said thoughts. Once they are out there, they are open game. Thems the rules.

Dude, I love your feedback. Seriously, I would have voted for you and JHB as smartest posters (if I had seen the thread in time) even though we often disagree. I know you know you don't have to respond. But if you're going to act irritated, as if I got in your way from having an otherwise enjoyable day, then I'm going to remind you that I did not in fact get in your way, you came here and chose to respond. That's all.

example1
01-07-2008, 07:59 PM
Since the topic of "trust" has come up, how does the only one of the lot to attend a Wahabi school get a vote?

Here's a bit of what I found on the topic, but I'm sure you're talking about something else because this is so obviously a fabrication and you're a good poster and wouldn't just take a cheap shot like that to make a point.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/237/

From the article:

"No. Indonesia is a Muslim country, and Obama attended a public school there, which taught a small amount of religion. CNN, the Associated Press, the Los Angeles Times and the Chicago Tribune investigated the e-mail claims by visiting the school and interviewing former teachers and students who were there at the same time as Obama. These investigations found a public school where students wore Western clothing and prayer was a small part of the curriculum. The Chicago Tribune reported the school was “so progressive that teachers wore miniskirts and all students were encouraged to celebrate Christmas.”

I'm not a huge fan of truth vs. untruth sites, becaues it is easy (as we've already mentioned) to manipulate what people say to mean one thing or another. However, when a truth vs. untruth site has a flaming "Pants on Fire" about something that has been clearly documented as untrue, I figure it is probably right.

So what ARE you talking about One Red Seat? Why shouldn't we trust him?

ORS
01-07-2008, 08:01 PM
What are you talking about?
I recall reading one of the schools he attended in Jakarta was a madrassa. However, after looking to verify it, that article has since been debunked.

Paradisecity
01-07-2008, 08:54 PM
I have no reason to believe that you even knew it was the ISG that had made that recommendation in the first place. If you had you wouldn't have blamed Obama for the recklessness of the policy, you would have criticized his decision to follow ISG recommendations instead of, say, those of Bush or the generals on the ground. It's a minor point, but it reflects where the criticism should be layed.

Criticism (and praise) should be put on whoever adopts an idea or policy. If the ISG was running for president I would criticize them, given, that is, that they didn't change their strategy. You don't blame Fleetwood Mac for President Clinton blasting their stupid song during his campaign, you blame Clinton, because he made the choice to take it and use it.



My hunch is that the majority of Americans have a broad list of things that are important to them in their next president, not simply his or her ability to handle the war.

I would most certainly agree with you. Its pretty sad when you think that we've been in a major war for 5 years, one that is going to change the future of the world and an issue that will decide the long term fate of this country more than any other issue, and our next president's ability to handle that situation isn't the most important issue to them, regardless of their candidate.




So now you're an Obama expert? You know what he is seeking to abollish better than I do? Thanks for the insight, I guess I've wasted my time reading his books, watching the debates, reading the newspaper and watching Meet the Press every Sunday morning. Thanks for the advice!

Once again, thank you for putting words in my mouth. I have never claimed to know more than you do about Obama. I can tell you that if I was as passionate about him as a candidate as you are, I would try to live my those same ideals rather than engaging in hypocrisy. You do seem to know a good deal about Obama, much more than I know, I am sure, from your religious watching of "meet the press". Your knowledge of Obama seems to be eclipsed only by your inabilities to write what you mean, to come off without sounding arrogant, and to outwardly possess the qualities that your candidate hopes that our government can expel one day.

I hope for Obama's sake, that you are not campaigning for him, as your attitude will no doubt turn off undecided voters. When it comes time for me to vote, I will try my best to not think of your attitude, lack of reading attention, retention and comprehension, as well as your quick dismissal of others opinions through the use of trigger words and accusations and pair them to your candidate. With those things in mind, Obama may get my vote in a few months. I applaud you for your passion, as the apathy that has surrounded this nation (particularly in my generation) regarding the political process is one that will destroy our culture sooner or later (sooner) and the passion that you have for the future of our country no doubt eclipses in importance the attitude that you've conveyed here.

Paradisecity
01-07-2008, 08:57 PM
And, yes, I am humping a gigantic woman made out of sand.

Thumper
01-07-2008, 09:19 PM
And, yes, I am humping a gigantic woman made out of sand.

You know you could probably make money off of people who are into that sorta weird stuff.

Paradisecity
01-07-2008, 10:32 PM
When The Mean Walrus told me to go pound sand I took it literally.

Taliesin
01-08-2008, 12:43 AM
When The Mean Walrus told me to go pound sand I took it literally.

Please speak of him reverently. I now refer to him as He Who Shall Not Be Named. Like M. Night Shyamalan in that awful movie he did which was all of them. The Chosen One who shall return. Ya know w/ porn and stuff. As they do. I wear a teeny tiny cape in his honor at all times. It's very small. The movement. Or the Cape. Who knows. He only has the 4 disciples...no 3.

example1
01-08-2008, 02:36 AM
Criticism (and praise) should be put on whoever adopts an idea or policy. If the ISG was running for president I would criticize them, given, that is, that they didn't change their strategy. You don't blame Fleetwood Mac for President Clinton blasting their stupid song during his campaign, you blame Clinton, because he made the choice to take it and use it.

I don't blame Fleetwood Mac for anything. They are teflon!! :lol:

Seriously though, here's basically what I was responding to:


But If you think that removal of our military from Iraq by March 2008 is whats best for the world over the next decade/century, then you need to start doing a lot more reading about the middle east and its problems, or be prepared to work in a factory for the Chinese/Saud depending on which capitalizes on the opportunity that rises after our downfall.

and also:



But If his plan was for a 15 month drawdown 12 months ago I can only imagine his new one as president will be as quick or quicker.


It sure sounds to me like you're saying his plan was reckless and not thought through.

The Iraq study group thought it was the best decision, and it was comprised of:

--Republicans
Former Republican Secretary of State James Baker
Former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor
Former Secretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger
Former US Attorney General Edwin Meese III
Former US Senator from Wyoming Alan K. Simpson

--Democrats
Former Democratic US Representative Lee Hamilton
Businessman Vernon Jordan
Former White House Chief of Staff Leon Panetta
Former US Secretary of Defense William Perry
Former Virginia Governor and Senator Charles Robb

I only got defensive because you claimed that I needed to do more reading about the Middle East in order to understand. Presumably, you agree that the above list understands the Middle East and did some reading on their own and you are willing to acknowledge that your most significant criticism of Obama--his reckless approach to Iraq--was not entirely his, nor was it entirely unresearched.



I would most certainly agree with you. Its pretty sad when you think that we've been in a major war for 5 years, one that is going to change the future of the world and an issue that will decide the long term fate of this country more than any other issue, and our next president's ability to handle that situation isn't the most important issue to them, regardless of their candidate.


The war in Iraq is a huge deal, but the war on terror is the one we can't take our eyes off of. That's my concern about John Edwards. I love his populist message about the middle class, but in the speeches and debates I've seen he doesn't seem to address the macro-direction of the country like Obama and Clinton (and most of the republicans) both appear to.



I can tell you that if I was as passionate about him as a candidate as you are, I would try to live my those same ideals rather than engaging in hypocrisy.


Is it hypocracy to argue passionately about something like his plan for Iraq? If you are arguing that he's just going to pull out, and not commenting at all about how that plan came from the ISG, and telling me I need to read more about the situation, then I'm not just going to say "thanks for the advice, I really appreciate it and I'll read more so I can finally understand it better". Frankly, my time would likely have been better spent reading the findings of the ISG, since they cut through the middle man.



You do seem to know a good deal about Obama, much more than I know, I am sure, from your religious watching of "meet the press".

I attend the church of Tim Russert. :lol:



Your knowledge of Obama seems to be eclipsed only by your inabilities to write what you mean, to come off without sounding arrogant, and to outwardly possess the qualities that your candidate hopes that our government can expel one day.

I feel like I write what I mean, but it is hard to pick up on the inflection. I may sound arrogant sometimes, but often I think people who are feeling attacked feel like their attacker seems arrogant. Appologies, I didn't mean to make you feel attacked.



I hope for Obama's sake, that you are not campaigning for him, as your attitude will no doubt turn off undecided voters. When it comes time for me to vote, I will try my best to not think of your attitude, lack of reading attention, retention and comprehension, as well as your quick dismissal of others opinions through the use of trigger words and accusations and pair them to your candidate.


Wow, I hope you don't have to work too hard to keep from thinking of me when you're making your choice in what I'm sure you consider the most important election of our lifetimes--thus far.



With those things in mind, Obama may get my vote in a few months. I applaud you for your passion, as the apathy that has surrounded this nation (particularly in my generation) regarding the political process is one that will destroy our culture sooner or later (sooner) and the passion that you have for the future of our country no doubt eclipses in importance the attitude that you've conveyed here.

I think this is a compliment..?..? If so, thanks. I can get passionate about things. I apologize if you feel like I was attacking you personally. Again, I get fired up sometimes. Kudos to you for remaining balanced and actually responding. You are clearly an open minded guy so here's a piece from Audacity of Hope showing, what I think, is a pretty even handed and optimistic view about the democratic process and the process we go through--even in arguments just like this one :D --because we care:

So if the founders themselves didn’t agree; if strict construction will not work, then how do we determine what the constitution should mean? The answer I settle on which is by no means original to me, requires a shift in metaphors--one that sees our democracy not as a house to be built but as a conversation to be had. According to this conception the genius of Madison’s design is not that it provides us a fixed blueprint for action the way a draftsman plots a building’s construction. It provides us with rules, a framework; fidelity to these rules will not guarantee a just society, or assure agreement on what’s right. What the rules and framework of our constitution can do is organize the way that we talk about our future. They force us into a conversation, a deliberative democracy, in which each and every citizen is required to engage in a process of testing his or her ideas against an external reality, persuading others to their point of view, and building shifting alliances of consent. The process requires us to persuade rather than coerce, it forces us to entertain the possibility that we are not always right and to sometimes change our minds. It challenges us to examine our motives and our interests, constantly, and suggest that both our individual and collective judgments are at once legitimate and highly fallible.



Anyway, I hope you stay open minded and listen to him for him, not for me.

With that, I shall duck out of the political discussion for awhile, and pray that Theo Epstein has something for me to think about soon!

a700hitter
01-08-2008, 11:06 PM
The results are in. The vote for change went down in flames, unless you consider Clinton Part II as change.

a700hitter
01-08-2008, 11:24 PM
Hillary talked about a call to greatness, and she is running for the "invisible" people? Do invisible people vote? What a frigging hypocrite! She bashed all the big industries; oil, health care, Drug cos. etc. Of course those industries probably provide most of the medical coverage and retirement plans for American workers, but she will bash them nonetheless. Damn those evil industries that provide health care and retirement plans for millions of Americans. They must be eliminated so everyone can be a ward of the state. BTW, she took a boatload of money from fundraisers run by the CEO of my evil Company. What a hypocrite! Change is in the air. Change indeed.

Taliesin
01-08-2008, 11:26 PM
The results are in. The vote for change went down in flames, unless you consider Clinton Part II as change.

Someone needs to run on the Spare Change ticket. I don't think Edwards says change enough nor Mill. I want him to talk about his daddy working in the Mill some more from his 20,000 square foot mansion. And change. WTF is a Mill anyway? Reminds me of fairy tales where they wore leggings and the tough dad was always sending away the good son and I think there were trolls under bridges and the like.

To quote Jack "Is this As Good as it Gets?"

Taliesin
01-08-2008, 11:32 PM
Do invisible people vote?


Just Wade Boggs.

a700hitter
01-08-2008, 11:35 PM
Someone needs to run on the Spare Change ticket. I don't think Edwards says change enough nor Mill. I want him to talk about his daddy working in the Mill some more from his 20,000 square foot mansion. And change. WTF is a Mill anyway? Reminds me of fairy tales where they wore leggings and the tough dad was always sending away the good son and I think there were trolls under bridges and the like.

To quote Jack "Is this As Good as it Gets?"... and all the poor vets living under bridges with those trolls. My family is full of vets. Some worked in factories, some are letter carriers, and some drove cabs and none of them ever lived under bridges and they all were able to get medical care when they got sick. How demeaning to our vets to paint that picture. What demagogues!

Taliesin
01-09-2008, 12:18 AM
Every person in my family going back as far as I've been able to research has been amongst the working class. Fishermen, veterans of various wars, shoemakers, a few crazed musicians, fishermen, more musicians, more veterans, artists, Native Americans, a brief period in the early part of the century when they were part of the genteel crowd, then gambled it all away in about 2 minutes. Business owners. Ancestry.com for those who are interested is fascinating if you have a few bucks to spare. I didn't know much until I started digging around. The census records alone are worth the money. I traced one side of my family to the 1700's in Maine. I lost the trail because I didn't have some maiden names. The other side I lost in Scotland in 1850 because of the unfortunate last name of Smith.

a700hitter
01-09-2008, 12:31 AM
Every person in my family going back as far as I've been able to research has been amongst the working class. Fishermen, veterans of various wars, shoemakers, a few crazed musicians, fishermen, more musicians, more veterans, artists, Native Americans, a brief period in the early part of the century when they were part of the genteel crowd, then gambled it all away in about 2 minutes. Business owners. Ancestry.com for those who are interested is fascinating if you have a few bucks to spare. I didn't know much until I started digging around. The census records alone are worth the money. I traced one side of my family to the 1700's in Maine. I lost the trail because I didn't have some maiden names. The other side I lost in Scotland in 1850 because of the unfortunate last name of Smith.I got your sarcasm. I was just adding to it. I get pissed when Edwards keeps talking about our vets living under bridges. I know you feel the same way. :D

YAZMAN
01-09-2008, 08:22 AM
The crocodile tears worked for her.

Funny, that's what coincided with the start of Romney's slide a few weeks back.

Paradisecity
01-09-2008, 09:52 AM
Every time I hear crocodile tears I think of Philip Seymour Hoffman in Along came Polly and can't help but laugh.

LET IT RAIN!!!!

rician blast
01-09-2008, 10:40 AM
Good to see so many people actually paying attention to politics.

My Dad used to say that as much as he tried to identify the candidate he felt was the best fit for the country given its current challenges and issues, he spent much more time trying to identify how he could benefit from the election results, in terms of portfolio allocation, etc. Example...if he thought the democrats would win, he might back off of healthcare stocks, defense stocks. Good old fashioned capitalist.

ORS
01-09-2008, 11:13 AM
Speaking id'ing the best candiate, here's a neat tool. "Candidate Calculator" will help you ID the candidate that best aligns with your stance on the issues.

My top-3/bottom-3

Rudy - 93.05%
McCain - 92.70%
Thompson - 92.06%
......
Edwards - 77.75%
Paul - 75.10%
Kucinich - 69.56%


http://www.votehelp.org/

YAZMAN
01-09-2008, 12:33 PM
Speaking id'ing the best candiate, here's a neat tool. "Candidate Calculator" will help you ID the candidate that best aligns with your stance on the issues.

My top-3/bottom-3

Rudy - 93.05%
McCain - 92.70%
Thompson - 92.06%
......
Edwards - 77.75%
Paul - 75.10%
Kucinich - 69.56%


http://www.votehelp.org/

There was only a 1.7% spread among my top seven candidate matches. Now I know what you're thinking, it's because the candidates are telling everyone exactly what they want to hear, which I'd agree to if I wasn't absolutely correct about everything all the time.

Jayhawk Bill
01-09-2008, 12:34 PM
Speaking id'ing the best candiate, here's a neat tool. "Candidate Calculator" will help you ID the candidate that best aligns with your stance on the issues.

http://www.votehelp.org/

I found it misleading.

My political position doesn't match any major party's platform nor any candidate's stated positions. If I were graphing on issues, though, I'd expect something like this:

1: Paul
2: McCain
3: Richardson

Reading through the detailed breakdown by candidate, I still subjectively believe those to be my closest matches.

What I got was this:

1: Huckabee 91.90%
2: Thompson 85.57%
3: Romney 80.95%

The answer may lie in the weights assigned for the various categories, or in how candidates were assigned positions in areas outside the core of their personal platforms. I disagree with Huckabee on a third of the issues, including several critical issues, and it rates me as 91.9% in agreement with him--that doesn't make sense. In either case, a system that gives a pretty well-informed voter a candidate he considers somewhere between unqualified and disturbing as his top candidate may be suboptimally designed. :dunno:

YAZMAN
01-09-2008, 12:39 PM
Here's another:

http://www.wqad.com/Global/link.asp?L=259460

example1
01-09-2008, 01:57 PM
I got:
Obama
Edwards
Clinton

and

Thompson
Paul
Guilianni

ORS
01-09-2008, 02:27 PM
I found it misleading.

My political position doesn't match any major party's platform nor any candidate's stated positions. If I were graphing on issues, though, I'd expect something like this:

1: Paul
2: McCain
3: Richardson

Reading through the detailed breakdown by candidate, I still subjectively believe those to be my closest matches.

What I got was this:

1: Huckabee 91.90%
2: Thompson 85.57%
3: Romney 80.95%

The answer may lie in the weights assigned for the various categories, or in how candidates were assigned positions in areas outside the core of their personal platforms. I disagree with Huckabee on a third of the issues, including several critical issues, and it rates me as 91.9% in agreement with him--that doesn't make sense. In either case, a system that gives a pretty well-informed voter a candidate he considers somewhere between unqualified and disturbing as his top candidate may be suboptimally designed. :dunno:
Never said it was perfect, just interesting.

I think more of the problems may lie in the ambiguity of the questions. One that comes to mind is the question about whether or not you favor maintaining strict adherence to current immigration laws. A "Disagree" answer could fall on either side, be it finding them too soft or too stringent, yet all would be lumped together.

rician blast
01-09-2008, 03:25 PM
Using ORS' link I got Mitt, Giuliani, then Huckaby then McCain then Obama.

Seemed like if I tweaked the abortion and immigration issues I got a significant swing.

According to the link Yaz provided I'm for Duncan Hunter, then Hillary, then Giuliani, Then Edwards. I feel very strongly that our immigration system is flawed and is a huge, huge issue going forward...the candidate quiz seems to really take into account your weighting of issues. Funny thing is in this one McCain is down at the bottom...but he is the candidate I really like, save for his position on immigration.

Jayhawk Bill
01-09-2008, 05:19 PM
Here's another:

http://www.wqad.com/Global/link.asp?L=259460

By which my top Republican is McCain, and my top Democrat is Richardson--a better fit.

It's notable that I disagree with every candidate on the two issues I ranked highest. :(


Never said it was perfect, just interesting.

I think more of the problems may lie in the ambiguity of the questions.

Concur, but I found it exceptionally unrepresentative of my preference for candidates based upon issues.

rician blast
01-09-2008, 05:42 PM
I wonder if Bush can spell solemnly.


Teacher: "Let's do a little vocabulary lesson...Ok? Uhhh...George Bush, use "solemn" in a sentence.

GWB: "My friend is a great skier and he competes in the giant solemn"

Teacher (Kiddingly, under her breath): "Fucking great George...you should be President someday."

Mr Crunchy
01-10-2008, 08:49 AM
i would like to see someone with ethics get in.
just for a change i would like an honest man in the white house
not a pimp for special interests
not a token black or woman
not a bleeding fucking idiot who cant read
not someone who opens each statement with ""MY DADDY SAYS""
christ
just someone who says what they mean and mean what they say.
im willing to sacrifice my selfish dogma if i can get some fucking ethics in the white house
the field is narrow,very very narrow.

i want these 20 sumthin voters and the kids coming up to see an honest man in action
i want my kid to have a president he can look to for leadership and strong advice.
i want him to see a president that can say NO to special interests and foreign governments and take painful measures in protecting our nation and salvaging whats left of our dollar.

are we capable of electing a man who tells the truth?
we know taxes are going to be raised,its only a question of whos getting it in the ass worse
someone has to pay for young ali's clean water and manjullah's purple thumb,someone has to cover the cost of the blackwater mercenaries who are raking in the billions over there.

that someone is me you and the other guys who work for a living.

any politician that mentions tax cuts this year is full of shit
.

YAZMAN
01-10-2008, 11:43 AM
I found this one came closet to the candidates I feel I agree with:

http://www.selectsmart.com/president/2008.html

Jayhawk Bill
01-10-2008, 01:02 PM
I found this one came closet to the candidates I feel I agree with:

http://www.selectsmart.com/president/2008.html


Yeah, I see your point. My highest support percentage for any candidate actually on the New Hampshire ballot was 60%, reflecting my differences with all of the candidates.

My support for Stephen Colbert, however, was at 63%. :thumbsup:

rician blast
01-10-2008, 01:40 PM
Yeah, I see your point. My highest support percentage for any candidate actually on the New Hampshire ballot was 60%, reflecting my differences with all of the candidates.

My support for Stephen Colbert, however, was at 63%. :thumbsup:


Ha, My closest match was Colbert at 63% as well.

Then I think it was Mitt and McCain at 60% or so. I was glad to see this one pushed Huckabee down the list for me, in the others he was coming in pretty high...that made me afraid of me.

Taliesin
01-10-2008, 09:41 PM
Ha, My closest match was Colbert at 63% as well.

Then I think it was Mitt and McCain at 60% or so. I was glad to see this one pushed Huckabee down the list for me, in the others he was coming in pretty high...that made me afraid of me.

Ha! 65 percent for my top guy and 63 percent for Colbert. I do have his bumper sticker on my car. Truthiness and justice for all. I'm not sure he would do that worse of a job and I'm not being facetious.

Crunchy...when have we had a President who fits your Utopian ideals? Filtered through your broken extreme left wing rose colored glasses. Except everything you adhere to is actually the opposite of your espoused opinions and your avowed way of life. Ethics. I flunked the course my first semester in college. Taught by a philosophy professor who got caught w/ a few 17 year olds a few years later. I don't like to cast stones. I like the term ethics over morality however.

Mr Crunchy
01-11-2008, 08:16 AM
i like to pretend the people i vote for have the courage of their convictions
jamie
evidently you dont pay too much attention to what i have written over the years because you insist on labeling with a left wing collar when i am further to the right in most arena's than father coughlin dreamed of being and you could even imagine.
asking for fairness in taxation isnt a left wing idea

asking for our nation to abide by common sense and decency is an american virtue,not a left wing plot to fuck over the sitting president.

Hammer
01-11-2008, 04:32 PM
i would like to see someone with ethics get in.
just for a change i would like an honest man in the white house
not a pimp for special interests
not a token black or woman
not a bleeding fucking idiot who cant read
not someone who opens each statement with ""MY DADDY SAYS""
christ
just someone who says what they mean and mean what they say.
im willing to sacrifice my selfish dogma if i can get some fucking ethics in the white house
the field is narrow,very very narrow.

i want these 20 sumthin voters and the kids coming up to see an honest man in action
i want my kid to have a president he can look to for leadership and strong advice.
i want him to see a president that can say NO to special interests and foreign governments and take painful measures in protecting our nation and salvaging whats left of our dollar.

are we capable of electing a man who tells the truth?
we know taxes are going to be raised,its only a question of whos getting it in the ass worse
someone has to pay for young ali's clean water and manjullah's purple thumb,someone has to cover the cost of the blackwater mercenaries who are raking in the billions over there.

that someone is me you and the other guys who work for a living.

any politician that mentions tax cuts this year is full of shit
.

great post sean. that's why I am right behind that guy who at age 17 went off to defend his country.....and who later on went to washington because he loved his country....something about John McCain that just rings true to me that he is the right man for the job.

whooooooooooooooooouh!!!