PDA

View Full Version : McCain Vs. Obama.


Pages : [1] 2

HdVaderII
06-04-2008, 07:51 AM
As Obama has finally obtained all of the delegates he needs for the Democratic Nominee, he's now facing McCain.

What are your thoughts on who would make a better president?
I like Obama, but I'm open to hear what other people think about both of them.

Ghost Down
06-04-2008, 11:36 AM
McCain gets my vote (If I could vote :xp:)

America needs a strong leader, who can defend it's country and allies. Besides, the goverment ain't gonna let a black man be President.

Arcesious
06-04-2008, 01:53 PM
the goverment ain't gonna let a black man be President.

Don't be so sure... If it comes to a stupid battle over skin color, Obama will probably deliver anti-racism speech, turning a lot of people on his side.

Mccaine seems like a good, serious president, but I honestly have looked at both of their presidential plans, and I have to say that IMO, Obama's plan for the economy is better than Mccaine's plan.

Sure I don't want Clinton as VP, but it's important that the democratic party gets united again. Whoever Mccaine makes VP, I don't know yet, but I may sway slightly in his favor if he picks Ron Paul or Mitt Romney.

The only reason my father is voting for Mccaine is because of conflicting beleifs with Obama, IE, Obama's stance on Gay Marriage while still being a Christian. The only reason he wants to vote for Mccaine is becuase of that, and that he hopes that Paul or Romeny is Mccaine's VP. :disaprove

Ghost Down
06-04-2008, 01:56 PM
I'm not a racist or anything, but I just can't see a black man as the President of the US of A. Especially when his full name is Barrack Obama.

Just imagine: ''Ladies and Gentlemen, the President of the United States of America. Barrack Obama'' *shivers*

Arcesious
06-04-2008, 02:08 PM
I'm not calling you racist, but I don't see what his name has to do with anything. He's not muslim. I can see what you mean, as John Mccaine's name being announced sounds more 'proper', but I doubt that kind of feeling will make much of a differene in voting.

Web Rider
06-04-2008, 02:09 PM
I'm not a racist or anything, but I just can't see a black man as the President of the US of A. Especially when his full name is Barrack Obama.

Just imagine: ''Ladies and Gentlemen, the President of the United States of America. Barrack Obama'' *shivers*

For somebody who's not even from the US you seem a rather bigoted person. Perhaps you believe a black man will never be a US president because you know there will never be a black man as the PM or President of yours.

Personally, I think McCain will obliterate Obama. Which is really sad because McCain sucks now that he's not holding to his own ideas. If he was, I'd be voting for him, but since he's just toting BS party line, I might as well be electing Bush again, and that's just not gonna fly.

mimartin
06-04-2008, 02:11 PM
I'm not a racist or anything, but I just can't see a black man as the President of the US of A.I cannot see it at this time either, but in 229 days 10 and around 52 minutes I hope to see an African American take office. Although I will be doing a dance no matter who wins the election. I will just be glad the last guy is moving out. Only hope he does not move back to Texas and ruin the neighborhood.

Ghost Down
06-04-2008, 02:14 PM
Personally, I think McCain will obliterate Obama.

Yeah, I agree on you with that. The only ones who are gonna vote on Obama are afro-Americans and some liberal sissies. The majority of America, the working white class will vote on McCain for sure.

Web Rider
06-04-2008, 02:17 PM
Yeah, I agree on you with that. The only ones who are gonna vote on Obama are afro-Americans and some liberal sissies. The majority of America, the working white class will vote on McCain for sure.

Can you please kindly stop making comments about how Americans will vote considering you aren't one? For one it's very insulting, and secondly it's entirely incorrect.

The black population has supported both Obama and Hillary(when it comes to democrats), and "working class" has generally been in favor of Hillary, and Obama has largely been voted for by educated whites.(still talking about democrat voters).

Arcesious
06-04-2008, 02:23 PM
Yeah, I agree on you with that. The only ones who are gonna vote on Obama are afro-Americans and some liberal sissies. The majority of America, the working white class will vote on McCain for sure.

Yeah... See, the thing is, that's an argument using Ad hominem... Web Rider already pointed out what else I was going to say, so I won't go on about that.

MdKnightR
06-04-2008, 04:04 PM
What are your thoughts on who would make a better president?


Isn't it obvious? :lol:

HdVaderII
06-04-2008, 04:36 PM
Isn't it obvious?
I completely forgot about Ron Paul!:lol:
I support Obama, and I don't know if I like the idea of him and Hillary teaming up.
They might be able to semi-unite the party, but I wouldn't want them both in the white house.
I might as well be electing Bush again
*Shivers *

Web Rider
06-04-2008, 05:06 PM
*Shivers *

Considering that McCain gave up his nice, reasonable, level-headed ideas that he's held for years to tote party line, yeah, it is.

Det. Bart Lasiter
06-04-2008, 05:13 PM
I'm hoping McCain selling out will cost him enough votes for Obama to win. Him not supporting the GI bill and being essentially a really old version of Bush now can't make a lot of people happy, and I'm hoping they're ticked enough to vote for Obama.

ForeverNight
06-04-2008, 05:24 PM
If I could vote for anybody in this election, it would be with McCain.

Mainly because I don't think negotiating with Iran is such a good idea, sure, one can pull out the Soviet Union and point out that we negotiated with them, but the Soviet Union was a real threat at the time as compared to Iran. In Iran they're working on a nuclear weapons program -so I've seen reported by the Media- but they don't have nukes... yet.

So, what are we going to do, wait until they have nukes, then negotiate with them? This country that hates our guts is going to get nukes one of these days, and Obama wants to negotiate??? What the heck?!?!?!

If crazed man is pointing a gun at you and your pointing a gun at him, do you negotiate with him, ("I'll put my gun down first and I will not hurt you, but in exchange, you have to let me take out five bullets from your clip." Or do you pray and shoot him?

Or, even better, prevention is better than a cure. We prevent them from getting nukes, not try to take away the nukes that they've somehow managed to get.

Of course, that's horribly simplistic, but it gets my point across, hopefully. Do I think McCain selling out some of his ideas is a good thing? No! Do I think that McCain will be similar to Bush? Yes! Do I think Bush is this horrible, stupid, ninny who can't find his rear with a map, both hands, a group of friends, and a dog? No!

So, because of that... and the fact that I disagree with most every policy I've seen Obama put forward on his running platform, I'd vote McCain if I could...

...2012... ...come closer...

Web Rider
06-04-2008, 05:31 PM
I'm hoping McCain selling out will cost him enough votes for Obama to win. Him not supporting the GI bill and being essentially a really old version of Bush now can't make a lot of people happy, and I'm hoping they're pissed enough to vote for Obama.

Yeah, he's not even as religious as Bush and he can't lie about that, and that makes him unappealing to the religious right that got Bush elected.

Honestly, I don't understand how an injured POW veteran can NOT support the GI bill.

Mainly because I don't think negotiating with Iran is such a good idea, sure, one can pull out the Soviet Union and point out that we negotiated with them, but the Soviet Union was a real threat at the time as compared to Iran. In Iran they're working on a nuclear weapons program -so I've seen reported by the Media- but they don't have nukes... yet.

So, what are we going to do, wait until they have nukes, then negotiate with them? This country that hates our guts is going to get nukes one of these days, and Obama wants to negotiate??? What the heck?!?!?!
Obama said nothing about negotiation, he said "talk" to them. And remember, Iran agreed with the US in our war against the Taliban. Perhaps talking with them will stop them from hating the US? A lot of their "hate" is just saber rattling anyway.

If crazed man is pointing a gun at you and your pointing a gun at him, do you negotiate with him, ("I'll put my gun down first and I will not hurt you, but in exchange, you have to let me take out five bullets from your clip." Or do you pray and shoot him?
That's called Mutually Assured Destruction, it did nothing good for the Cold War aside keeping everyone from nuking each other. Iran does not have the capability to nuke the US. Please don't say "they might sell them to terrorists!" Terrorists can get nukes from the Ukraine if they want them.

Or, even better, prevention is better than a cure. We prevent them from getting nukes, not try to take away the nukes that they've somehow managed to get.
and by talking to them, we may prevent them from building nukes, or at least using them(which I HIGHLY doubt they'd do). Iran is not some pushover nation like Afghanistan and Iraq.

ForeverNight
06-04-2008, 05:54 PM
Obama said nothing about negotiation, he said "talk" to them. And remember, Iran agreed with the US in our war against the Taliban. Perhaps talking with them will stop them from hating the US? A lot of their "hate" is just saber rattling anyway.

Alright, Talk to them does not mean negotiation? When did that happen? If you say that you'll talk to somebody in politics, that will usually mean negotiation. Right? So, I can reasonably assume that by saying that you'll talk to when you are running for election for [Insert Random Title for Executive Office Here] you're just going to be asking them what the weather is like?

Sure, you tell yourself that.

That's called Mutually Assured Destruction, it did nothing good for the Cold War aside keeping everyone from nuking each other. Iran does not have the capability to nuke the US. Please don't say "they might sell them to terrorists!" Terrorists can get nukes from the Ukraine if they want them.

I wasn't going to bring up the selling to terrorists, since I'm more concerned with a nation that has a government that's openly hostile to us having the capability to use nukes. If Iran pushed the figurative button, do you think that we would?

I wish I could say that I think we would push the button right back and glass the country, but we wouldn't. Why? Because we're the "Good Guys" and they don't nuke other countries, even when nuked.

At least, that's the feeling I get from Politicians... (All of which are slimy B*****ds)

and by talking to them, we may prevent them from building nukes, or at least using them(which I HIGHLY doubt they'd do). Iran is not some pushover nation like Afghanistan and Iraq.

So by asking nicely we're going to get them to stop?

"Excuse me, but you're working on building nukes, and we won't you to stop?"

Yeah, sure. That [i]might work, but, it's like the 'I' Sentences that we were supposed to memorize in 4th grade (I don't like what you're doing and I want you to stop.) that you were supposed to say to bullies... I can't see that working with an openly hostile nation.


Honestly, I don't understand how an injured POW veteran can NOT support the GI bill.

Glad to see that I do see eye to eye with you on something though!

Det. Bart Lasiter
06-04-2008, 05:55 PM
So, what are we going to do, wait until they have nukes, then negotiate with them? This country that hates our guts is going to get nukes one of these days, and Obama wants to negotiate??? What the heck?!?!?!So, attack them? An incredibly basic military strategy is to make your enemy fight himself. We attack Iran, spread out our troops even more, create more debt, increase civil unrest, and simultaneously increase the amount of the support the average citizen in the Middle East would be willing to give terrorists and decrease the international community's support of our actions. By doing such a thing, we would "bleed out" and guarantee a complete lack of national security.

You're also seeing the people of Iran as war-loving *******s. Many young people there are against the current government there. In addition, even if they could launch a nuclear weapon against us, they'd have even more to lose than us due to our massive nuclear arsenal. Mutually Assured Destruction, they wipe out one of our cities, we almost automatically wipe out their entire country.

As for them selling nuclear weapons to terrorists, I'm not too worried. The nuclear material needed can be traced (once again BAD END for them), and there are already quite a few former Soviet republics whose citizens have ICBMs with nuclear warheads sitting in their front lawns.

If crazed man is pointing a gun at you and your pointing a gun at him, do you negotiate with him, ("I'll put my gun down first and I will not hurt you, but in exchange, you have to let me take out five bullets from your clip." Or do you pray and shoot him?Negotiate. I'm not about to risk both of us dying because of a dick waving contest. And nice touch with the bull**** compromise, it really makes negotiation look like the bitch route.

Or, even better, prevention is better than a cure. We prevent them from getting nukes, not try to take away the nukes that they've somehow managed to get.And we can't do that through negotiation? I'm not saying we just have to ask politely for them to stop their nuclear weapons program (if it exists) and then sit around with our thumbs up our asses while they think about whether they will or not, at this point the U.S. is the most powerful nation on earth, and the threatening the use of force will go a long way because of that -- I'd rather take a more civilized approach, however.


All in all, I see your post as fear of not being the world's Sheriff character anymore, who swaggers into town and starts a gun fight in the town square. The thing is, the people buying groceries in the town square usually get shot, and that's unacceptable when the bandits could be persuaded to become deputies.

Web Rider
06-04-2008, 06:01 PM
Alright, Talk to them does not mean negotiation? When did that happen? If you say that you'll talk to somebody in politics, that will usually mean negotiation.
No, not really. You don't have to bring facts and figures to the tables in order to get along better with the world community.

Right? So, I can reasonably assume that by saying that you'll talk to when you are running for election for [Insert Random Title for Executive Office Here] you're just going to be asking them what the weather is like?
By talking to them, they can attempt to persuade them to be allies instead of enemies. If that is done, their possession of nukes won't matter because they won't use them on us.

I wasn't going to bring up the selling to terrorists, since I'm more concerned with a nation that has a government that's openly hostile to us having the capability to use nukes. If Iran pushed the figurative button, do you think that we would?
Russia is outwardly hostile to us. N Korea is outwardly hostile to us. Pakistan isn't our best of friends. Heck, most of Europe isn't real fond of us right now, and a good selection of Europe has nukes. And yeah, I'm pretty sure if we were nuked we'd nuke back, but there's two problems with this logic: It assumes Iran plans to attack the US, so far, the US is the only country I've seen with plans to attack Iran. And two, that even if they did want to go to war with us, they'd be crazy enough to use nukes.

I wish I could say that I think we would push the button right back and glass the country, but we wouldn't. Why? Because we're the "Good Guys" and they don't nuke other countries, even when nuked.
I think you're kidding yourself, but ok.

So by asking nicely we're going to get them to stop?

"Excuse me, but you're working on building nukes, and we won't you to stop?"
Well, it'd be a better start than "IF YOU DON'T STOP BUILDING NUKES WE'RE GONNA BOMB YOU AND PUT SANCTIONS ON YOU!!!!"

Yeah, sure. That [i]might work, but, it's like the 'I' Sentences that we were supposed to memorize in 4th grade (I don't like what you're doing and I want you to stop.) that you were supposed to say to bullies... I can't see that working with an openly hostile nation.
Perhaps it's because we've got the proverbial gun in their face too? Why should they play nice when we're just as willing as you assume they are to bomb them flat?

Glad to see that I do see eye to eye with you on something though!
always a silver lining! :-p

ForeverNight
06-04-2008, 06:08 PM
You're also seeing the people of Iran as war-loving *******s.

Sorry, didn't mean to sound like that, I know that the people aren't war mongers, but the Government at least gives the impression of being such.

Negotiate. I'm not about to risk both of us dying because of a dick waving contest. And nice touch with the bull**** compromise, it really makes negotiation look like the bitch route.

Yeah, over a dick waving contest. However, when a crazy guy (I'm talking at least with the M'Naughten Rule: Cannot tell the difference between Right and Wrong) does the same, that changes it. A crazy man by definition does not know the difference between right and wrong, and may decide to pull that trigger because it looks like fun, not because he hates you. That's what has me worried in that situation.

Yeah, wimpy compromise, but if what I've heard about SALT is true, and I honestly haven't done as much research into it as I should have -with summer I'll be able to remedy that- the Soviets didn't really abide by it, did they? So, yeah, that's what those looked like.

Also, with Diplomacy, you always will have to agree with the guy you're negotiating with if he/she has an advantage over you, or an apparent advantage, so why bother, you might get a concession, but rarely what you seem to want out of it.

All in all, I see your post as fear of not being the world's Sheriff character anymore

Yeah, if somebody has to 'police the world' I sure as H*** don't want it to be the UN! And, as the world's sole superpower, currently, who else is going to do the job? The EU? They like appeasement. China? Sorry, don't want the communists doing it. So, that leaves us.

Do I wish somebody else was available for the job? Yes!

Also, I wouldn't want to fight fair and give the other guy a chance of living through it if I were the Sheriff that needs to clear out [Random Bandits] who have been terrorizing the town for x [Random Period of Time]. Nope, not happening, we want them gone, and we don't want them able to start again.

Could some of them conceivably become deputies in the next year? Yeah, sure, but what's going to happen in that space of a year?

ForeverNight
06-04-2008, 06:19 PM
ussia is outwardly hostile to us. N Korea is outwardly hostile to us. Pakistan isn't our best of friends. Heck, most of Europe isn't real fond of us right now, and a good selection of Europe has nukes. And yeah, I'm pretty sure if we were nuked we'd nuke back, but there's two problems with this logic: It assumes Iran plans to attack the US, so far, the US is the only country I've seen with plans to attack Iran. And two, that even if they did want to go to war with us, they'd be crazy enough to use nukes.

Russia, yeah they dislike us and they have nukes. However, how many of them are in working condition? Do I think they are a problem, yes, but do I think that they are the most pressing problem? Nope.

N. Korea, also a problem, and probably more pressing than Iran, however I thought that Obama also recognized this and had plans more than negotiation with them... I should probably check that again...

Well, it'd be a better start than "IF YOU DON'T STOP BUILDING NUKES WE'RE GONNA BOMB YOU AND PUT SANCTIONS ON YOU!!!!"

So, flat out saying that is worse than the "I don't like it..."? Wow... I would rather start with something like you said, but to each their own. However, if I were to start with that, I wouldn't yell it, I would try to say it in a calmer voice, and drop the sanctions bit, just the 'we're gonna bomb you to H***' bit.

Perhaps it's because we've got the proverbial gun in their face too? Why should they play nice when we're just as willing as you assume they are to bomb them flat?

By we're I'm assuming to mean that you mean they're.

So its okay for them to wave the gun, but not us? But, the main difference in the situation that you're describing and the one I can see is that they don't have the gun, yet, however they are in the process of acquiring one, and have at least given off every appearance of wanting to use it right away on some live targets. That and they couldn't bomb us flat, we could probably blast the country to heck, but not them us.


Is this really off-topic or is this just me? Also, thanks for not having much more the respond to, My fingers are complaining of having to type out the [Quote=Web Rider] over and over!

Edit: Sorry about the Double post!

ET Warrior
06-04-2008, 06:27 PM
but we wouldn't. Why? Because we're the "Good Guys" and they don't nuke other countries, even when nuked.I'm confused...what is the only country that has ever used nuclear weapons on another one?

Arcesious
06-04-2008, 06:28 PM
Honestly, I think that we need to negotiate with Russia and Europe some more. If we can become allies with them after we pull out of the middle east, then maybe terrorists would start to think twice about trying to contend with us, and maybe the world will cool down a bit. We have to get out of other people's buisness. We never should have gone into the middle east in the first, place, with the first president bush. We should have waited until we were stable. We shouldn't do something stupid like this ever again until our technology advances far enough for us to be self-dependent. Maybe, if we pull out there, and start negotiating again, we'll get some respect from other countries. And Mccaine isn't the kind of president that Europe, Russia, and other countries are going to respect. We've got to stop fighting these people, and start rebuilding our economy. Mutually Assured destruction should be enough, hopefully.

Is this really off-topic or is this just me? Also, thanks for not having much more the respond to, My fingers are complaining of having to type out the (quote=Web Rider) over and over!

You could just do what I do, and either just put the signs without naming the person posting, or click the quote/reply button.

[quote]I'm confused...what is the only country that has ever used nuclear weapons on another one?

The USA may be the only country that's ever done that, but times change. I say we bulk up our defense technology to be able to counter all that Russian ICBM technology, and then nengotiate with the other countries, being completely (Okay, maybe not totally, as there are soem things best left unsaid) honest about everything, once we have the defenses to counter anything they'd throw at us if they found out about certain things about us. We have to earn the trust of other countries. I don't know about you, but Putin seems to be a reasonable person.

mimartin
06-04-2008, 06:42 PM
I wish I could say that I think we would push the button right back and glass the country, but we wouldn't. Why? Because we're the "Good Guys" and they don't nuke other countries, even when nuked.
First let me say I agree with Truman's call. The U.S. would not use nukes against other countries, because we are the good guys? Does that mean the U.S. was the bad guys in WWII when we did use nukes? What other country in the world has used nukes against another country besides the U.S.?

TK-8252
06-04-2008, 06:44 PM
Vote for McCain if you would like to see four more years of George Bush's policies. That's all there is to it. If you like the current state of our economy and our foreign policy, then John McCain is your man.

While I'm not a liberal (I voted for Ron Paul in my state's primary), I will be voting for Obama in 2008. While I may not agree with him on some things, such as those policies which would give more power to the government, I actually agree with him on more things than McCain. Besides, the Republicans are the ones who actually expand government, despite their empty rhetoric of lower taxes and smaller government. Republicans just use different means to expand government... such as by claiming that their expansions are vital to "national security," which is the authoritarian way to power.

When I see McCain talking on TV I just can't help but think he's a really weak candidate who is in no way prepared to take on the charisma of Obama. I really have to hand it to Obama... the man can work a crowd.

ForeverNight
06-04-2008, 06:46 PM
First let me say I agree with Truman's call. The U.S. would not use nukes against other countries, because we are the good guys? Does that mean the U.S. was the bad guys in WWII when we did use nukes? What other country in the world has used nukes against another country besides the U.S.?

Never meant it to sound like I disagreed with Truman's decision, nor to make it sound like we were the bad guys during WWII... But in this day and age, the Nukes are seen as the tools of the bad guys, not stuff that the good guy would lower himself to use.

As for the last question, the only answer available is nobody, since we're the only ones to have used them in war.

It was just poor execution on my part.

Edit, extra responses: Besides, the Republicans are the ones who actually expand government, despite their empty rhetoric of lower taxes and smaller government. Republicans just use different means to expand government... such as by claiming that their expansions are vital to "national security," which is the authoritarian way to power.

I'll agree that we have expanded government too much over the past eight years. However, look at every president who was in office prior to Bush and after Ike.

If I recall correctly -God, I wish I had a history text book with me right now- every one expanded Government, and there are a lot more people with "D's" after their names than "R's". The most notable one that comes to mind is Jimmy Carter and the Department of Education. I don't know about you, but the Education is something that should have a lower bar, and then let the states work with it -at least as I see it- but a whole new Department?

So, saying that Republicans are the ones that actually increase Government's size is a fallacy. Do they, heck yeah! But are they the only ones, nope. Should they edit their rhetoric, yeah, that or start following it.

I would like to see Obama's slogan change to say "Higher Taxes" along with what he says though, E.G. Change for more taxing! Tax hikes you can believe in! Et cetera

mur'phon
06-04-2008, 07:31 PM
ForeverNight: You seem to think of Iran as a dangerous irational country (a madman with a gun in your face), but look at what they do, not what they say. Tell me, what mad (as in irrational) actions have they taken on the international stage? I don't worry about Iran nuking anyone, I'm more concerned about it triggring an arms race in the middle-east.

Besides, I'm very curious about how you intend to prevent Iran from getting nukes without negotiating. Before you answer bomb them, remember that Iran has done a damn good job of keeping its facilities hidden, so bombing those known sites won't stop the nukes.

Also, with Diplomacy, you always will have to agree with the guy you're negotiating with if he/she has an advantage over you, or an apparent advantage, so why bother, you might get a concession, but rarely what you seem to want out of it.

Wrong, both of you have different goals and priorities, so you can easily end up with a deal that both benefit from.

But, the main difference in the situation that you're describing and the one I can see is that they don't have the gun, yet, however they are in the process of acquiring one, and have at least given off every appearance of wanting to use it right away on some live targets. That and they couldn't bomb us flat, we could probably blast the country to heck, but not them us.

But they can turn Iraq/Afghanistan into a firestorm of death, disrupt oil prices, sink warships with missiles, commit terrorist attacks in the U.S etc.
Sure, the U.S would end up on top, but at what cost?

Russia, yeah they dislike us and they have nukes. However, how many of them are in working condition?

More than enough to wipe out every major U.S city...

I don't know about you, but Putin seems to be a reasonable person.

If you mean as in doing what is best for himself and to a lesser extent Russia, sure, I'll still hate to call him my president when I move there.

Det. Bart Lasiter
06-04-2008, 07:38 PM
Sorry, didn't mean to sound like that, I know that the people aren't war mongers, but the Government at least gives the impression of being such.Almost every government does that.

Yeah, over a dick waving contest. However, when a crazy guy (I'm talking at least with the M'Naughten Rule: Cannot tell the difference between Right and Wrong) does the same, that changes it. A crazy man by definition does not know the difference between right and wrong, and may decide to pull that trigger because it looks like fun, not because he hates you. That's what has me worried in that situation.Metaphor aside, I'm fairly sure the government of Iran is at least legally sane. In the case of crazy gun-toting man, I'm not confident in my ability to dodge a bullet point-blank, so I'll go with the choice that ends with the greatest possibility of surviving.

Yeah, wimpy compromise, but if what I've heard about SALT is true, and I honestly haven't done as much research into it as I should have -with summer I'll be able to remedy that- the Soviets didn't really abide by it, did they? So, yeah, that's what those looked like.Iran is quite a bit weaker than the Soviet Union.

Also, with Diplomacy, you always will have to agree with the guy you're negotiating with if he/she has an advantage over you, or an apparent advantage, so why bother, you might get a concession, but rarely what you seem to want out of it.So... who are you saying has the advantage. Personally, I think the most powerful country on earth has it.

Yeah, if somebody has to 'police the world' I sure as H*** don't want it to be the UN! And, as the world's sole superpower, currently, who else is going to do the job? The EU? They like appeasement. China? Sorry, don't want the communists doing it. So, that leaves us.I can't tell if you're joking. And no I'm not joking by saying this.

Also, I wouldn't want to fight fair and give the other guy a chance of living through it if I were the Sheriff that needs to clear out [Random Bandits] who have been terrorizing the town for x [Random Period of Time]. Nope, not happening, we want them gone, and we don't want them able to start again.So the Sheriff brings himself down to their level, gets innocent people killed, kills potential allies, and makes way for new bandits. Fun! And when we switch back to reality, we've not only cleared the way for some other group to raise hell, but we've also stirred up support for them. Double fun!

Could some of them conceivably become deputies in the next year? Yeah, sure, but what's going to happen in that space of a year?Negotiating with them and convincing them to become deputies?

Rev7
06-04-2008, 07:40 PM
If I could vote, out of the two choices, I would pick McCain.

Arcesious
06-04-2008, 09:45 PM
If you mean as in doing what is best for himself and to a lesser extent Russia, sure, I'll still hate to call him my president when I move there.

Turns out that he's prime minister. Also, look at this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Putin

In international affairs, Putin has been publicly increasingly critical of the foreign policies of the US and other Western countries. In February 2007, at the annual Munich Conference on Security Policy, he criticised what he calls the United States' monopolistic dominance in global relations, and pointed out that the United States displayed an "almost uncontained hyper use of force in international relations". He said the result of it is that "no one feels safe! Because no one can feel that international law is like a stone wall that will protect them. Of course such a policy stimulates an arms race."

Explains a good reason for Russia to be 'hostile' huh?

I don't know much about Dmitry Medvedev though... Still, Prime Minister is a strong position.

Pho3nix
06-04-2008, 09:53 PM
I don't know much about Dmitry Medvedev though... Still, Prime Minister is a strong position.
Medvedev isn't the one pulling the strings, as prime minister Putin still has a lot of influence and power. Calling Russia a democracy is laughable. :)

HdVaderII
06-04-2008, 10:14 PM
As for democracy in Russia, read this. Doesn't sound quite that democratic to me.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/03/world/europe/03russia.html?_r=1&scp=2&sq=Vladimir%20Putin&st=nyt&oref=slogin

Web Rider
06-04-2008, 10:20 PM
Russia, yeah they dislike us and they have nukes. However, how many of them are in working condition? Do I think they are a problem, yes, but do I think that they are the most pressing problem? Nope.
They're currently building a new generation of nuclear submarine that will be the largest to date and still ICBM capable. It wont be armed with nukes, but it has the capability to be. So lets try this again, is Russia can afford to build the next generation of nuclear subs, they're not going to be letting their nuclear stockpile go to waste. In addition, it doesn't take very many nukes, and Russia has many thousands, if only 400 work, that's enough.

So, flat out saying that is worse than the "I don't like it..."? Wow... I would rather start with something like you said, but to each their own. However, if I were to start with that, I wouldn't yell it, I would try to say it in a calmer voice, and drop the sanctions bit, just the 'we're gonna bomb you to H***' bit.
Yes, it's my general approach to start off nicely, and work from there. If your first motion when entering a room is to flip the other guy the bird, their reaction is not going to be one of wanting to shake your hand. They'll either do likewise or up the ante, like punching you in the face.

By we're I'm assuming to mean that you mean they're.
sorry, I'm not practiced in debating with non-Americans about American issues.

So its okay for them to wave the gun, but not us? But, the main difference in the situation that you're describing and the one I can see is that they don't have the gun, yet, however they are in the process of acquiring one, and have at least given off every appearance of wanting to use it right away on some live targets. That and they couldn't bomb us flat, we could probably blast the country to heck, but not them us.
Question: why is the US allowed to have "guns" and not them? Because they're the badguys? From their perspective, the US is the badguy.

Is this really off-topic or is this just me?
yeah, it is.

EnderWiggin
06-04-2008, 10:51 PM
I'm not going to say much, if only because everyone else here is doing an excellent job of demolishing you. I do need to get my left hook in, though.
However, when a crazy guy (I'm talking at least with the M'Naughten Rule: Cannot tell the difference between Right and Wrong) does the same, that changes it. A crazy man by definition does not know the difference between right and wrong, and may decide to pull that trigger because it looks like fun, not because he hates you. That's what has me worried in that situation.

This is the most ridiculous metaphor I've ever heard. The Iranian government is not insane. They're not going to do anything unless they're ready to accept the consequences. And if I remember cold war politics right, that means mutually assured destruction.

So... no.


Also, with Diplomacy, you always will have to agree with the guy you're negotiating with if he/she has an advantage over you, or an apparent advantage, so why bother, you might get a concession, but rarely what you seem to want out of it.


What advantage are you insinuating here? The Iranians have no advantage.


Yeah, if somebody has to 'police the world' I sure as H*** don't want it to be the UN! And, as the world's sole superpower, currently, who else is going to do the job? The EU? They like appeasement. China? Sorry, don't want the communists doing it. So, that leaves us.


I can't tell if you're joking. And no I'm not joking by saying this.

If you're not joking here, then you're ridiculously arrogant. I can't believe that you actually are arguing these points. And what's your problem with the UN?

That's all.

_EW_

*Don*
06-04-2008, 10:53 PM
Getting back on track, if I could vote, I'd wholeheartedly vote for Obama.
Even though the whole Rev Wright fiasco shook me up a bit, I still support him.

mimartin
06-04-2008, 11:12 PM
Never meant it to sound like I disagreed with Truman's decision, nor to make it sound like we were the bad guys during WWII... But in this day and age, the Nukes are seen as the tools of the bad guys, not stuff that the good guy would lower himself to use.Forgive me, but the Truman remark was due to a debate in the Hiroshima and Nagasaki: Was it right? (http://www.lucasforums.com/showthread.php?t=187341&page=2) thread were I defended Trumanís decision. I just wanted to make it clear that Ray Jones had not changed my mind. ;)

IMPO It is not the weapon that defines the bad guys or the good guys, it is the use of the weapon that defines the bad guy and the good guy. That is why I will vote for Obama. I believe he has the self-control not to use the American Military to flex our national strength, but has the intelligence to use it if it is truly needed. Besides, I look better in a white hat over the black one Iíve been wearing the last eight years.

Arcesious
06-04-2008, 11:18 PM
When talking about Russia, let's not use a double standard about military forces. We build just as many WMD's as they do...

But, now, I'll get back on topic.

I think it will matter quite a bit who is the VP candidate for each candidate. As theorized on CNN, if Obama doesn't have Clinton as his running mate, he's more likely to lose. But if he does, he's more likely to win. How Mccaine's runnign mate will effect the election, I don't know. But it seems that without Clinton, Mccaine will get more electoral votes... I honestly loathe this uneven electoral college system...

What strategy do you think Mccaine should use? How about Obama?

EnderWiggin
06-05-2008, 12:13 AM
Mccaine's
Mccaine
Mccaine should use?


For god's sake.

It's McCain.

_EW_

Achilles
06-05-2008, 12:24 AM
Considering that McCain gave up his nice, reasonable, level-headed ideas that he's held for years to tote party line, yeah, it is.I'm hoping McCain selling out will cost him enough votes for Obama to win. Him not supporting the GI bill and being essentially a really old version of Bush now can't make a lot of people happy, and I'm hoping they're ticked enough to vote for Obama.QFT

Mainly because I don't think negotiating with Iran is such a good idea, sure, one can pull out the Soviet Union and point out that we negotiated with them, but the Soviet Union was a real threat at the time as compared to Iran. In Iran they're working on a nuclear weapons program -so I've seen reported by the Media- but they don't have nukes... yet.The National Intelligence Estimate that was most recently published indiciated that Iran abandoned their nuclear weapon program years ago.

They say that they're trying to develop nuclear energy options. Bush is insisting that they're developing weapons. And because no one is talking to one another, both sides are basically succeeding in doing nothing but escalating tensions.

So, what are we going to do, wait until they have nukes, then negotiate with them? This country that hates our guts is going to get nukes one of these days, and Obama wants to negotiate??? What the heck?!?!?! What alternative to open talks do you suggest?

If crazed man is pointing a gun at you and your pointing a gun at him, do you negotiate with him, ("I'll put my gun down first and I will not hurt you, but in exchange, you have to let me take out five bullets from your clip." Or do you pray and shoot him? Except we don't know that they have a gun. If some guy walks up to you, points a gun at your head, and start insisting that you give up your gun, yet you don't have one, is he honestly protecting himself or just simply insane?

Or, even better, prevention is better than a cure. We prevent them from getting nukes, not try to take away the nukes that they've somehow managed to get.Indeed but what are you suggesting we do? And how do we justify the stance that we can have nukes but they can't (assuming that they do)?

So, because of that... and the fact that I disagree with most every policy I've seen Obama put forward on his running platform, I'd vote McCain if I could...If you don't mind me asking, which of his positions do you disagree with him on?

Thanks for your post.

I'm confused...what is the only country that has ever used nuclear weapons on another one?Sorry...that shouldn't be funny...but :rofl:

MdKnightR
06-05-2008, 02:06 AM
I think it will matter quite a bit who is the VP candidate for each candidate. As theorized on CNN, if Obama doesn't have Clinton as his running mate, he's more likely to lose. But if he does, he's more likely to win.

Lots a folks around these parts are theorizing that Obama may ask Sam Nunn to be his running mate. I think that would be an excellent choice. Sam has a really good track record in Washington and may be able to temper the "change" with wisdom......but that still doesn't mean I'll vote for him.



While I'm not a liberal (I voted for Ron Paul in my state's primary), I will be voting for Obama in 2008.


I'll still be voting for Ron Paul providing that he stays in the race. If not, I'll have to do some research on Bob Barr. I am a Libertarian, but I still like to do research before casting my vote.....a trait that I wish most Americans would share.

Arcesious
06-05-2008, 02:11 AM
It's McCain.

Thanks for the correction EnderWiggen. ;)
I also have noticed that I tend to spell Clinton's name on accident alot, (I kept spelling it with one L one accident, when intending two L's) so I started referring to her by her last name... :xp:

HdVaderII
06-05-2008, 07:48 AM
Hey, If anybody didn't know this already was going to happen
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/05/us/politics/04cnd-campaign.html?_r=1&pagewanted=2&hp&oref=slogin
Clinton leaves Race and will Endorse Obama.
No word on the VP spot, but they might be talking.

mimartin
06-05-2008, 09:47 AM
Lots a folks around these parts are theorizing that Obama may ask Sam Nunn to be his running mate. I think that would be an excellent choice. Sam has a really good track record in Washington and may be able to temper the "change" with wisdom......but that still doesn't mean I'll vote for him.
Yes, and the same could be said for Ron Paul. Ron Paul could get Earl Campbell (my childhood hero) to be his running mate and I still would not vote for Ron Paul for President. Heck, he could bring back John Adams, John F Kennedy, John Wayne or he could have the first triple VPs of Crockett, Bowie and Travis, and I still would not vote for Ron Paul. Ron Paul is my congressional representative and I know his voting record. He is not someone that will cut pork on principle. Ron Paul is against everything. Fine for a congressman, not for a President.

Corinthian
06-05-2008, 04:00 PM
Ron Paul is irrelevant anyway. His odds of winning this race were about as good as the odds of me ascending to Godhood and they haven't improved any since.

mur'phon
06-06-2008, 07:24 PM
Corint: Paul might be irelevant, but the number of people voting for him long after McCain has the nomination in his pocket means Barr can become a nasty stumbling block.

Arc: Sorry, I should have said "dear leader" or "furer", it dosen't matter, Med isn't press untill he tells Putin to plow himself. Prime minister isn't really a strong possition (yet), so hopefully Med will get a spine as his influence increases.

Arcesious
07-14-2008, 03:38 PM
I thought I'd bring this topic back up again, because I have a large opinion about all of this that I would like to bring forth. I don't want Obama or Mccain, and I'll explain why. (I made this thread because I don't want to necro the old ones.)

http://www.barackobama.com/index.php

Okay, my points against Obama:

No Nuclear Power (Nuclear power isn't harmful to the enviroment, but, somehow, he thinks it is.)

Use of Biofuel (Biofuels require use of foods such as corn, which can drive up food prices. The problem is, I haven't heard of a very efficient way to mass produce it. What it sounds like from the debates we've had before is that the Ethanol biofuels level out in cost, and don't make much of difference in lowering costs. IMHO, biofuels do not benefit us in the longrun.)

No offshore drilling (It can't hurt the enviroment that badly, can it? We need a temporary fix in order to have the time to build up clean energy availability.)

His plan to raise taxes on the rich and the corporations- it sounds like it will work, but this plan not only effects rich buisness owners, but also poor ones.

His economic plan does seem to balance out though.

I agree with him on most all of the other issues, but I'm not entirely sure about his foreign policies.

Equal rights for all and whatnot is great, but it makes me question his plans for that, especially due to the wiretapping bill he voted for.

His whole plan is different than Bush's & Mccain's, but just because it's different doesn't mean that it will work.

Now, about Mccain...

http://www.johnmccain.com/

I don't agree with his plan to utilize fossil fuels on such a large scale. I do agree with his plan for use of nuclear power.

His Energy plan isn't sound. It's too slow of a plan to implement. Same for Obama.

John Mccain wants all kinds of tax cuts. That's a really stupid thing to do, when you plan to have a very expensive plan.

Iraq- it's ruining our economy to keep fighting there. There are good reasons to stay in Iraq, but I think that it would be smarter to focus on homeland defense and security of our country specifically.

The US government needs lots of money to fulfill its promises. That means that it needs taxes. Tax cuts will make it harder to fund projects and programs it has.

The whole problem with Mccain is that his plans sound just like Bush's policies, which are not working. I do kind of like the overall idea of his economy plan, minus the fossil fuel overusage though.

---------------------

Raising taxes on the rich will bring in more money. I don't care how much the rich people complain about their taxes- they've got way mroe money than the middle class. The trickle-down-theory does not work. We have oil available offshore. We can drill for it, but getting all of it can take many years. The cost of oil production depends on how deep the oil is, or how hard it is to refine it. Canada's oil sands have lots of oil, but it's pretty expensive overall to refine it and remove it from the sand. Also, the cost of oil depends on taxes, demand, supply, and costs of transportation of oil.

Nuclear power is extremely powerful and efficient, and lasts a long time. It does not harm the enviroment, because all 'radiation' and whatnot is well contained and can be safely disposed according to today's stanadards and levels of technology.

Creating oil, coal, and natural gas refineries, whether it be 'clean' or unclean, still hurts the enviroment, because refineries require clearing out all life in the entire area where the refinery is built. I guess it's the same way with nuclear power, but nuclear power plants take up much less space, and they are more energy-productive. Wind power is clean and non-harmful to the enviroment. Problem is, it doesn't make that much energy. Same with solar power. But solar power does have better potential as microwave power.

Hydroelectric power- I see potential in this system of energy due to all the water there is on this planet, but again, just like solar and wind, it isn't as productive as nuclear power.

The economies of all countries would work better if all of the middle class were equal and dominant. However, balancing the economy lowers competition, and competition is needs to keep big corporations bringing in money, so that they can get richer, and also pay their workers. The economy needs soem elements of instability in order to thrive and grow. Balancing everything would end up creating some sort of wierd capitalist-communist economy system.

The American economy needs a boost in supply, and I think I see the perfect solution for awhile- Africa. However, China's already tapping into Africa's potential. In the end, I think it's all going to lead up to a huge economic competition between the US and China.

I'm open to refutation and critiquing/criticism of this... That's just my current opinion of all of this. And I bet I've missed a lot of issues. Neither candidate sounds better than the other to me.

My question- Who's the better of two evils? Or is there none? Because I can't decide. (Yeah, it's not a very solid rant, I admit, but I just wanted to throw my veiws out there, which I've found that they seem to be leveling off without a definite economic conclusion.)

mur'phon
07-14-2008, 04:10 PM
No Nuclear Power (Nuclear power isn't harmful to the enviroment, but, somehow, he thinks it is.)

Nuclear power is less harmfull than many other alternatives, uranium dosen't pop up ready for use at your command however, it needs to be messily aquired and transported. That and we still have thespent fuel problem. Still, I'm in favour of nyclear power.

Use of Biofuel (Biofuels require use of foods such as corn, which can drive up food prices. The problem is, I haven't heard of a very efficient way to mass produce it. What it sounds like from the debates we've had before is that the Ethanol biofuels level out in cost, and don't make much of difference in lowering costs. IMHO, biofuels do not benefit us in the longrun.)

While the common way of making biofuels in the west is a waste, don't write off biofuel yet, look to Brazils sugar cane ethanol, which is competetive with oil. Besides GMOs are about to enter the scene, which could make biofuels a viable alternative.

No offshore drilling (It can't hurt the enviroment that badly, can it? We need a temporary fix in order to have the time to build up clean energy availability.)

Trust me, it can, Norway essentially lives of it's ofshore oil, making us top of the polution list. Besides it wrecks marine life quite bad. Finaly, the simplest way to "go green" is to make oil epensive, the more costly it gets, the more green technology becomes competetive.

His economic plan does seem to balance out though.

No suprise there, I don't think any candidate have ever had a plan that can be turned into a balanced budget.

I agree with him on most all of the other issues, but I'm not entirely sure about his foreign policies.

Which ones?

is hopefully well contained and can be safely disposed according to today's stanadards and levels of technology, at least we think so

Fixed:D

Wind power is clean and non-harmful to the enviroment. Problem is, it doesn't make that much energy.

Oh, but it can do that, heck it's allready competetive in many places, as the oil price rises, you'll see just how much we can get out of wind.

Same with solar power. Hydroelectric power- I see potential in this system of energy due to all the water there is on this planet, but again, just like solar and wind, it isn't as productive as nuclear power.

Hydroelectric power is damn cheap, while the total amount of energy is limited by geography, as a bonus you can use the dams as a "battery for solar/wind power.

MdKnightR
07-14-2008, 04:29 PM
At this point, since Ron Paul dropped out of the race, I don't know who I'll vote for. Maybe Bob Barr.

Arcesious
07-14-2008, 04:38 PM
Which ones?

Oh, negotiating with terrorist governments. I think it's smart to try to negotiate to avoid conflict, but a lot of times it just doesn't work that well. Iran is starting to get so hateful of isreal that I don't think negotiation will work there in the long run.

you'll see just how much we can get out of wind.

I just re-researched on that. It looks like you're right.

jawathehutt
07-14-2008, 04:48 PM
I prefer Obama, because like most democrats, he understands that when you cut taxes, money doesnt begin to magically fall out of the sky like most republicans seem to believe. that being said, there's a fair share of things I dont like about him also that Im not going to mention for now since I have things to do.

mur'phon
07-14-2008, 04:57 PM
Arc: How exactly is not talking going to do any good?

Arcesious
07-14-2008, 05:04 PM
I'm just saying that I don't beleive anymore that Iran can be negotiated with without bribing them. They want to destroy Isreal. Iran, Isreal, and Palestine all need a peice of humble pie, and dose of chill pills.

EnderWiggin
07-14-2008, 05:35 PM
No offshore drilling (It can't hurt the enviroment that badly, can it? We need a temporary fix in order to have the time to build up clean energy availability.)


Yes, in fact it can.

_EW_

Rev7
07-14-2008, 05:38 PM
No offshore drilling (It can't hurt the enviroment that badly, can it? We need a temporary fix in order to have the time to build up clean energy availability.)
Link (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/14/bush.offshore/index.html)

Litofsky
07-14-2008, 06:33 PM
Raising taxes on the rich will bring in more money. I don't care how much the rich people complain about their taxes- they've got way mroe money than the middle class. The trickle-down-theory does not work. We have oil available offshore. We can drill for it, but getting all of it can take many years. The cost of oil production depends on how deep the oil is, or how hard it is to refine it. Canada's oil sands have lots of oil, but it's pretty expensive overall to refine it and remove it from the sand. Also, the cost of oil depends on taxes, demand, supply, and costs of transportation of oil.

Oil! I would say be done with all of the oil, but that would bring humanity to its knees. We're a world dependent upon a resource that cannot, and will not last, and nothing is changing (at least, at a rate that matters). Oh, how I wish oil were a thing of the past... :( Alas, this is not the case. We need a leader that will change things, and I don't believe that is either Barack Obama or John McCain.

Nuclear power is extremely powerful and efficient, and lasts a long time. It does not harm the enviroment, because all 'radiation' and whatnot is well contained and can be safely disposed according to today's stanadards and levels of technology.

I support nuclear power as a temporary measure, to ease the transition from oil and fossil fuels to clean, renewable energy such as solar or hydroelectric power. If we still use it in fifty years-- fine. As long as fossil fuels and oil take a backseat to cleaner methods.

Hydroelectric power- I see potential in this system of energy due to all the water there is on this planet, but again, just like solar and wind, it isn't as productive as nuclear power. The Itaipu Dam (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Itaipu_Dam) proves that hydroelectric power is useful. If I remember correctly, the USGS said that the Dam provided 25% of Brazil's power, and 75% of Paraguay's power. Of course, Wikipedia says 93% for Paraguay and 20% for Brazil (as of 2005). Either way, it's pretty impressive, if you ask me.

The American economy needs a boost in supply, and I think I see the perfect solution for awhile- Africa. However, China's already tapping into Africa's potential. In the end, I think it's all going to lead up to a huge economic competition between the US and China.

Would you mind explaining how Africa is going to solve the United States' economic problems? Do you mean to say that if we invest in Africa, it will pay off in the future?

My question- Who's the better of two evils? Or is there none? Because I can't decide. (Yeah, it's not a very solid rant, I admit, but I just wanted to throw my veiws out there, which I've found that they seem to be leveling off without a definite economic conclusion.)

I say that they are both pretty bad, but if I had to choose, I'd vote for Obama, mainly because he is trying things different from the past eight-year reign Presidency.

Arcesious
07-14-2008, 07:14 PM
Alright, well I agree on you all about what you've said, thnaks for the corrections.

As for Africa, Africa has a lot of unused potential, AFAIK. There are many 'primitive' (IE, living in worse conditions than modern society, not that they themselves are primitive people) Africans, with great potential. Africa has huge resource potential. These huge areas of potential, off the top of my head, are Agriculture, meat, energy, and minerals. Africa has tons of room for more farmland, and farmland that could be used more efficiently.

The huge amount of Africans gives great potential for a productive, emerging industrial continent. Because Africa isn't yet being used to it's greatest potential, it could possibly be invested in and helped along in a way avoiding the primitive ways of fossil fuels and inefficient systems. It still has the potential to become a highly advanced, enviromentally friendly place that could provide stability to the economies of the world.

Yes, Africa does already have lots of inneficient industry already, but it still has lots of 'green' to spare; giving it a better chance of reaching the efficient, green potential America and others countries want.

I also see potential in the Sahara. Is it possible that the Sahara desert could become filled with life again, and turned into farmland?

As for meat, there's lots of animals. I bet Africa's animal population could be curtailed into a healthy and big meat industry.

However, africa has lots of disease, so it first needs modern healthcare made available to all Africans and used in it's food industry. All of these things are already being done and are int he process of being done, somewhat, but I beleive it could be done much more efficiently, with the right support.

Minerals- I wonder just how much mineral resources Africa has. Metals, valuable minerals and whatnot...

Energy- I see lots of potential for Africa in energy. Possibly Solar power in the Sahara?

Africa is already being massively tapped into for resources, but it's still got a lot to spare, which, if used wisely, could benefit the rest of the world.

Litofsky
07-14-2008, 07:29 PM
As for Africa, Africa has a lot of unused potential, AFAIK. There are many 'primitive' (IE, living in worse conditions than modern society, not that they themselves are primitive people) Africans, with great potential. Africa has huge resource potential. These huge areas of potential, off the top of my head, are Agriculture, meat, energy, and minerals. Africa has tons of room for more farmland, and famrland that could be used more efficiently.

Indeed it does. However, in order to access these resources, we would need to invest a great deal, and, even then, we are in debt trillions of dollars (I believe that the National Deficit is around $9,500,000,000,000). First, we need to clear our debt, or at least invest in something that would clear our debt before we begin changing Africa.

Of course, investing in Africa might very well solve our economic problems. Ergo, investing in Africa would clear our debt, and increase the quality of living all around the world (mainly America and parts of Africa). Even then, it's going to be a long time before these results begin to show.

The huge amount of Africans gives great potential for a productive, emerging industrial continent. Because Africa isn't yet being used to it's greatest potential, it could possibly be invested in and helped along in a way avoiding the primitive ways of fossil fuels and inefficient systems. It still has the potential to become a highly advanced, enviromentally friendly place that could provide stability to the economies of the world.

I mean no disrespect, but you make it seem like Africa is a giant, docile play-toy. That is not true at in most places. After the Europeans left and established the modern borders, chaos ensued. It would be the equivalent of putting you and your worst enemy in a caged fight. It wasn't pretty (and it still isn't).

In order to tap these 'resources' of which you speak, Africa would need to be pacified. And, in order for that to happen, I see the Military involved. There might be a possible way to do what you describe, but we would have to find many, many countries willing to help the United States.

Yes, Africa does already have lots of inneficient industry already, but it still has lots of 'green' to spare; giving it a better chance of reaching the efficient, green potential America and others countries want.

Again, how is it possible to tap these resources without some kind of military-- or diplomatic-- intervention ?

I also see potential in the Sahara. Is it possible that the Sahara desert could become filled with life again, and turned into farmland?

I see a use for the desert as well-- a massive solar panel installation. Finally, the Sahara will have its uses! :p

Africa is already being massively tapped into for resources, but it's still got a lot to spare, which, if used wisely, could benefit the rest of the world.

Is China doing all of this "tapping?" If so, I'd think that the US would be eager to jump and stall our economic ally (and enemy).

EnderWiggin
07-14-2008, 07:41 PM
I'm just saying that I don't beleive anymore that Iran can be negotiated with without bribing them. They want to destroy Isreal. Iran, Isreal, and Palestine all need a peice of humble pie, and dose of chill pills.


Ah. And ignoring them will help them chill.

_EW_

El Sitherino
07-15-2008, 01:39 AM
I'm just saying that I don't beleive anymore that Iran can be negotiated with without bribing them. They want to destroy Isreal. Iran, Isreal, and Palestine all need a peice of humble pie, and dose of chill pills.
Talking can do that, I've talked myself out of worse situations.

Totenkopf
07-15-2008, 02:33 AM
Such as? I've gotta think you mean your life was threatened, literally, by that kind of response.

Achilles
07-15-2008, 04:59 AM
I promised myself that I wouldn't post in this thread but...

Okay, my points against Obama:

No Nuclear Power (Nuclear power isn't harmful to the enviroment, but, somehow, he thinks it is.)Nuclear waste? It has to go somewhere.

Also, nuclear power is not a long-term solution to our problem. The fissile materials that are necessary are not renewable. In fact, if the world decided to make the switch to nuclear, we'd run out pretty fast. So do we really want to invest a lot of money in a non-renewable, non-clean source of power that no matter how "safe" it is has potentially catastrophic downsides if "an accident" does occur seem like a good idea to you? It doesn't to me.

Use of Biofuel (Biofuels require use of foods such as corn, which can drive up food prices. The problem is, I haven't heard of a very efficient way to mass produce it. What it sounds like from the debates we've had before is that the Ethanol biofuels level out in cost, and don't make much of difference in lowering costs. IMHO, biofuels do not benefit us in the longrun.) Hehe, not to mention that currently it takes more energy to produce biofuels than the biofuels can produce themselves (i.e. we lose energy by producing biofuels). Maybe this will change at some point, specifically if we can produce a low-cost source of biofuels on land that would otherwise be un-farmable. I suspect that either a) Obama has a plan for this later scenario or b) this is an attempt to pander to the farm belt. Here's hoping for scenarion a.


No offshore drilling (It can't hurt the enviroment that badly, can it? We need a temporary fix in order to have the time to build up clean energy availability.)Whether it's bad for the environment or not is irrelevant. It isn't a short-term fix. It isn't even really a long-term fix. And it's completely inconsistent with his larger position on U.S. energy. So to me it isn't a matter of "why isn't he supporting it" so much as it is a matter of "why on earth would he".

His plan to raise taxes on the rich and the corporations- it sounds like it will work, but this plan not only effects rich buisness owners, but also poor ones. Okay. How?

I agree with him on most all of the other issues, but I'm not entirely sure about his foreign policies. If you don't mind me asking, what do you agree with specifically?

Equal rights for all and whatnot is great, but it makes me question his plans for that, especially due to the wiretapping bill he voted for.Yeah, I was unimpressed by that as well. :(

His whole plan is different than Bush's & Mccain's, but just because it's different doesn't mean that it will work. This is absolutely true, but it isn't much of an argument against him either.

Now, about Mccain...

I don't agree with his plan to utilize fossil fuels on such a large scale. I do agree with his plan for use of nuclear power. Okay.

His Energy plan isn't sound. It's too slow of a plan to implement. Same for Obama.Hmmm...if this is true, then the two candidates would be a wash then.

John Mccain wants all kinds of tax cuts. That's a really stupid thing to do, when you plan to have a very expensive plan. Technically, so does Obama. I think where those cuts come from, how they are accounted for, etc becomes the imporant point. Agreed?

Iraq- it's ruining our economy to keep fighting there. There are good reasons to stay in Iraq, but I think that it would be smarter to focus on homeland defense and security of our country specifically.I would agree wholeheartedly with the latter part of this last sentence.

The US government needs lots of money to fulfill its promises. That means that it needs taxes. Tax cuts will make it harder to fund projects and programs it has. Hmmm, need more taxes, but he's promise tax cuts. Something doesn't add up. Where will this money come from? (hint: option A is to finance more of our country to foreign powers or B cut spending on domestic programs).

The whole problem with Mccain is that his plans sound just like Bush's policies, which are not working. I do kind of like the overall idea of his economy plan, minus the fossil fuel overusage though. McCain's problem is that he's all over the board on everything. If being "a flip-flopper" was a valid reason to keep John Kerry out of the White House, then it should be a valid reason to keep McSame out as well. I'm ashamed of the fact that he represents my state in the Senate :(

Raising taxes on the rich will bring in more money. I don't care how much the rich people complain about their taxes- they've got way mroe money than the middle class. I usually find this (http://www.faculty.fairfield.edu/faculty/hodgson/Courses/so11/stratification/income&wealth.htm) sobering. Yes, you're reading that right: the top 5% of the U.S. population controls nearly 60% of the wealth (or the top 10% controls about 71%). :(

The trickle-down-theory does not work. Please don't tell the Republicans. If we really wanted to be honest we'd call this the "trickle into rich peoples' investment portfolio" theory.

We have oil available offshore. We can drill for it, but getting all of it can take many years. The cost of oil production depends on how deep the oil is, or how hard it is to refine it. Canada's oil sands have lots of oil, but it's pretty expensive overall to refine it and remove it from the sand. Also, the cost of oil depends on taxes, demand, supply, and costs of transportation of oil.I'll give you a lot of credit for being well informed, but I don't agree with where your thinking appears to be going. Oil is a fixed resource. The less of it there is, the more it costs. The more it costs the more profitable it becomes to produce. The answer is not finding more oil. The answer is finding another (clean and renewable) source of energy.

Homework: Ask yourself if oil companies making billions of dollars a year in profits have a vested interest in making sure that renewable energy solutions don't make it to market until they decide they should. Remember that there are still hundreds of billions, if not trillions, of dollars in oil still available.

Nuclear power is extremely powerful and efficient, and lasts a long time. It does not harm the enviroment, because all 'radiation' and whatnot is well contained and can be safely disposed according to today's stanadards and levels of technology.I repeat: not a long-term solution.

Creating oil, coal, and natural gas refineries, whether it be 'clean' or unclean, still hurts the enviroment, because refineries require clearing out all life in the entire area where the refinery is built. I guess it's the same way with nuclear power, but nuclear power plants take up much less space, and they are more energy-productive. Wind power is clean and non-harmful to the enviroment. Problem is, it doesn't make that much energy. Same with solar power. But solar power does have better potential as microwave power.Hmmm...solar power was sufficient to power all life on earth up to the industrial revolution. There's something to think about.

Hydroelectric power- I see potential in this system of energy due to all the water there is on this planet, but again, just like solar and wind, it isn't as productive as nuclear power.I hope I'm not an ass for pointing out that it's not all or nothing. We can invest in wind, solar, tidal power, geothermal, etc all at the same time. People can have solar panels and a windmill and so on on their property. It's not as though they have to pick one option and hope that it will someday be adequate to completely replace what they had.

The economies of all countries would work better if all of the middle class were equal and dominant. However, balancing the economy lowers competition, and competition is needs to keep big corporations bringing in money, so that they can get richer, and also pay their workers. The economy needs soem elements of instability in order to thrive and grow. Balancing everything would end up creating some sort of wierd capitalist-communist economy system.I suspect that the economic factors are much more complicated than either you or I can hash out in an internet thread.

The American economy needs a boost in supply, and I think I see the perfect solution for awhile- Africa. However, China's already tapping into Africa's potential. In the end, I think it's all going to lead up to a huge economic competition between the US and China. Hehe, not much competition there. If we remain the world's chief economic superpower into the next generation, it will be because China dropped the ball.

I'm open to refutation and critiquing/criticism of this... That's just my current opinion of all of this. And I bet I've missed a lot of issues. Neither candidate sounds better than the other to me.The reality is that the candidates have to appear to have a position set out on a myriad of issues. The reality is that no plan survives first contact with the enemy (in this case, reality). So no matter who says what, at some point they are going to have to compromise. Something will have to get left by the way side. Some crisis will go bump in the term and distract them from their master scheme. So your best bet (imo) is to figure out who demonstrates better leadership. Which candidate is in a better position politically to be able to get things done, etc. Who is going to step into the White House owing favors and having others to whom he is answerable. Think about it and then make your decision based on that. Again, my 2 cents.

My question- Who's the better of two evils? Or is there none? Because I can't decide. (Yeah, it's not a very solid rant, I admit, but I just wanted to throw my veiws out there, which I've found that they seem to be leveling off without a definite economic conclusion.)I'm betting on Obama. And for what it's worth, I don't consider him "an evil" (still lots of time until November though).

El Sitherino
07-15-2008, 11:19 AM
Such as? I've gotta think you mean your life was threatened, literally, by that kind of response.

Yes, yes I have. If I can talk someone with a gun to my head out of shooting me despite my life obviously meaning nothing to them. Then our government (or any other) can speak with Iran and find a compromise. But no one wants a compromise, they want their way.

Totenkopf
07-15-2008, 12:09 PM
I think your final statement is key. A compromise is only as good as the true intentions of either party. Just as a cease-fire is not an end to a war, a political compromise is no guaranty that either side will live up to it, just a high visibility distraction while either side goes about pursuing its original plans. The US and the western countries don't trust Iran to have a nuke capability and the Iranians want it to stave off the west and also to become a serious regional player. I'm not sure how much room for compromise there's going to be here, seeing as how both sides are working at cross-purposes.

On the personal front, I'm glad you were able to talk him out of it, but it's apples and oranges to the topic at hand.

Arcesious
07-15-2008, 12:38 PM
Achillles: Your post made a lot of sense to me, so we're in agreement.

If you don't mind me asking, what do you agree with specifically?

Pretty much everything your average Athiest Liberal-Democrat would agree with... Obama's plan sounds pretty good, but I don't think he'll be able to accomplish everything he's saying he will. (Although, after reading your post, I have to agree with Obama's plans more than I used to.)

Yes, yes I have. If I can talk someone with a gun to my head out of shooting me despite my life obviously meaning nothing to them. Then our government (or any other) can speak with Iran and find a compromise. But no one wants a compromise, they want their way.


Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. The thing is, the United States and Isreal have guns pointed at Iran. Iran has guns to, but because we also have guns, the question is- who's more likely to fire? (Answer: The person with the more jumpy trigger finger) The United States likes to negotiate using subliminal threats. A bribe can work, or the person can take the bribe and then ask for more. But I agree that it's smart to try to negotiate anyways. The middle east just sounds too unstable for bribes to work.

Achilles
07-15-2008, 12:52 PM
Obama's plan sounds pretty good, but I don't think he'll be able to accomplish everything he's saying he will.Of course he won't. Neither will McCain or any of the candidates who will ever run for that office in the future. This isn't to say that he won't be able to accomplish any of it. :)

El Sitherino
07-15-2008, 01:06 PM
I think your final statement is key. A compromise is only as good as the true intentions of either party. Just as a cease-fire is not an end to a war, a political compromise is no guaranty that either side will live up to it, just a high visibility distraction while either side goes about pursuing its original plans. The US and the western countries don't trust Iran to have a nuke capability and the Iranians want it to stave off the west and also to become a serious regional player. I'm not sure how much room for compromise there's going to be here, seeing as how both sides are working at cross-purposes.

On the personal front, I'm glad you were able to talk him out of it, but it's apples and oranges to the topic at hand.

Hardly, granted as it involves more than a few people it will take much longer than an hour, however discussion is always a viable option and should never be over looked simply because the other party doesn't wish to speak at this time.

Make them talk, continue to bring up discussion with them. There's no reason that we cannot solve our problems through communication without action.

Totenkopf
07-15-2008, 01:55 PM
@Arc--

Originally Posted by El Sitherino
Yes, yes I have. If I can talk someone with a gun to my head out of shooting me despite my life obviously meaning nothing to them. Then our government (or any other) can speak with Iran and find a compromise. But no one wants a compromise, they want their way.

fixed. ;)


Hardly, granted as it involves more than a few people it will take much longer than an hour, however discussion is always a viable option and should never be over looked simply because the other party doesn't wish to speak at this time.

Make them talk, continue to bring up discussion with them. There's no reason that we cannot solve our problems through communication without action.

Only works as long as both parties want to reach a peaceful end that doesn't give them what they say they wanted in the first place. Your last statement is more conjecture and hopeful than real.

mimartin
07-15-2008, 02:46 PM
Only works as long as both parties want to reach a peaceful end that doesn't give them what they say they wanted in the first place. Your last statement is more conjecture and hopeful than real. I disagree with the both parties have to want to reach a peaceful end for it to work. I believe both parties have to get something they want out of the agreement is the key to making any kind of agreement work. Iran will want to save face with the rest of the Muslim world, so I will say a peaceful solution will be difficult. However, a diplomatic solution would still be preferable to them than the alternative of the U.S. rebuilding their country after a destructive war. The real question is how far is the U.S. willing to bend in order to allow Iran to save face. Would it be easier to just use our usual gunboat diplomacy? Possibly unless you are one of the men or women called upon to sacrifice their lives and body parts to support our kill them all mentality. Saying something is impossible as an excuse for not trying is what has gotten the world and this country in the mess it is in today.

Totenkopf
07-15-2008, 04:04 PM
I disagree with the both parties have to want to reach a peaceful end for it to work. I believe both parties have to get something they want out of the agreement is the key to making any kind of agreement work. Iran will want to save face with the rest of the Muslim world, so I will say a peaceful solution will be difficult. However, a diplomatic solution would still be preferable to them than the alternative of the U.S. rebuilding their country after a destructive war. The real question is how far is the U.S. willing to bend in order to allow Iran to save face. Would it be easier to just use our usual gunboat diplomacy? Possibly unless you are one of the men or women called upon to sacrifice their lives and body parts to support our kill them all mentality. Saying something is impossible as an excuse for not trying is what has gotten the world and this country in the mess it is in today.

As long as one side wants the conflict, diplomacy fails. The whole point of diplomacy is to get to the point where both sides believe they can live with the new situation better than one side or both getting its teeth kicked in (or worse). The type of "diplomatic" solution you refer to is not really diplomatic at all, just an ultimatum that postpones violent conflict. Chamberlain thought that diplomatic concessions were better than confronting a militarily weaker Germany. We all know what that got us. I guess your idea of a solution would be to widen the MAD doctrine to encompass these countries as well. Iran will get its nukes at the current rate of things (and Pakistan has them anyway).

mimartin
07-15-2008, 04:15 PM
Really? According to history that isn’t always the case. Diplomacy has been used to avert wars in the past. Anyways without dialogue, how do you know that Iran wants war? Or are you saying that you know U.S. wants war, so diplomacy will fail because we want another fight? I know under Bush diplomacy will fail and I expect under McCain the same would be true. Under Obama, I don’t have a clue, but I do believe he will give diplomacy a shot before placing our armed services personal in harm’s way.

Totenkopf
07-15-2008, 04:20 PM
As I never said which side was which (who wanted war and who peace), not sure what the point of your reply was there. I was talking generally in regard to the idea of both sides having to want a peaceful resolution (where they survive intact) for diplomacy to really work.

mimartin
07-15-2008, 04:29 PM
As I never said which side was which (who wanted war and who peace), not sure what the point of your reply was there. Sorry, I misunderstood I thought you were impling that Iran wanted war. My mistake. I was talking generally in regard to the idea of both sides having to want a peaceful resolution (where they survive intact) for diplomacy to really work.
And as I said I disagree, the stronger must want peace (or at least care about the deaths of its own troops), the weaker side must just want to survive.

Arcesious
07-15-2008, 04:49 PM
fixed. Oh... whoops. Sorry... I did it again...

Totenkopf
07-15-2008, 05:13 PM
Sorry, I misunderstood I thought you were impling that Iran wanted war. My mistake.
And as I said I disagree, the stronger must want peace (or at least care about the deaths of its own troops), the weaker side must just want to survive.


Originally Posted by Totenkopf
I was talking generally in regard to the idea of both sides having to want a peaceful resolution (where they survive intact) for diplomacy to really work.

Essentially what I said above. Afterall, short of complete annihilation, most enemies tend to survive their losses.

mimartin
07-15-2008, 06:24 PM
Essentially what I said above. Afterall, short of complete annihilation, most enemies tend to survive their losses.

I still disagree; some of these leaders don't even care about their citizens or their country only their power matters. Setting down and showing them how peace is in their own self interest could do wonders. I wonder if Saddam would have been a little less defiant if he knew where he would end up. He may have even given up his imaginary WMD along with his unicorns and pink elephants.

While I see where you are coming from, I just don't belive we need to rule out diplomacy immediately and go straight to war. I believe we owe it to those serving our country to make war the last option not the first.

Totenkopf
07-15-2008, 06:34 PM
FTR, I don't advocate rushing to war either. I merely don't share the naive asumption that you can talk anyone into doing what you want if they perceive it to be against their interests. I agree that "gunboat diplomacy" has its uses, but then that's not really diplomacy (ie give and take), just an ultimatum. But as a wise man once said..."the only diplomat I know is a fully loaded phaser bank" (or words to that effect) :D Or, in the real world,...."speak softly, but carry a BIG stick" (TR).

Jae Onasi
07-16-2008, 02:28 AM
Merged 'Election '08' thread with this one. Please keep all discussions about the '08 US Presidential election in this thread. Thanks.

Jae Onasi
08-19-2008, 02:28 PM
Well, the VP nominees for both parties are going to be announced soon. Who do you think will be the ones chosen by Obama and McCain?

Totenkopf
08-21-2008, 07:09 PM
..... And what's your problem with the UN?

_EW_

:rofl: While this was addressed to someone else, I couldn't help but laugh at the sentiment. Are you serious, Ender? The UN is basically a worthless and corrupt institution. It's also powerless if only 1 of 5 members (out of ~200 total) spikes a proposed course of action. Just as the LoN didn't work in the 30s, the UN is effectively useless except for dog and pony shows in the diplomatic arena. Nice for soundbites and inefficient "good works" that could probably be better performed by NGOs.

EnderWiggin
08-21-2008, 11:00 PM
While this was addressed to someone else, I couldn't help but laugh at the sentiment. Are you serious, Ender? The UN is basically a worthless and corrupt institution.

It seems that when I posted that sentence it was poorly worded. I was trying to explain that American arrogance does not give us the right to police the world.

I'm aware with the current issues the UN is facing and the problems that it has.
However, I'd still say that a league of states such as the UN should have more claim in 'policing' the world than we should.

Plus, it's a good concept in theory, just not in execution.

_EW_

Druganator
08-21-2008, 11:36 PM
I agree with you on the issue of American arrogance, and policing the world should be done by the united nations, we should stay out of it. I don't care who wins because either way we are all gonna be proper ****ed in the ass by uncle sam, either by taxes from Obama or conservative religious bull**** from McCain

Da_Man_2423
08-21-2008, 11:49 PM
It seems that when I posted that sentence it was poorly worded. I was trying to explain that American arrogance does not give us the right to police the world.

I'm aware with the current issues the UN is facing and the problems that it has.
However, I'd still say that a league of states such as the UN should have more claim in 'policing' the world than we should.

Plus, it's a good concept in theory, just not in execution.

_EW_

QFT. Still, someone's gonna have to do the "policing" in the meantime if the organization that was supposed to isn't gonna. I'd rather be it us than no one.

Totenkopf
08-22-2008, 02:29 AM
It seems that when I posted that sentence it was poorly worded. I was trying to explain that American arrogance does not give us the right to police the world.

I'm aware with the current issues the UN is facing and the problems that it has.
However, I'd still say that a league of states such as the UN should have more claim in 'policing' the world than we should.

Plus, it's a good concept in theory, just not in execution.

_EW_

I'd agree that it's both arrogant and foolish to even think we should be trying to "police" the world. The most we should strive to do is protect our interests (which should be somewhat narrowly defined) and realize that we don't have the resources, nevermind the right or even collective will, to "rule the world".

However, not really sure that "policing" the world is a job an international organization is up to anyway, let alone it's having any right to do so in the first place.

Web Rider
08-22-2008, 04:32 PM
the problem here stands with the fact that most of the UN member nations have no power. Militarily or economically, they are small and their commitment to the UN and what it does is mostly vocal. The UN member nations with power, US, Europe(some of), Russia, China, and a handful of other nations, are often at odds with each other over getting involved, since the UN doing something about Africa would harm a number of these nations interests.

And at the same time, many of these nations are more than happy to sit back and do nothing. Europe has never lost it's "we're above this, let somebody else do it" attitude. Nobody WANTS Russia to patrol the world except Russia, and feelings about China doing it are much the same. So it falls to the only other UN member nation with any sort of significant policing power to do it.

It's a very annoying "rock and a hard place" IMO. If we police the world, people hate us for being "oppressors", if we don't, people hate us for not doing our "job" that they're so keen on assigning us. Between the two I'd much rather take heat for doing nothing than take heat for at least trying.

I agree with Totenkopf though, I'm not exactly sure who should be keeping people in check, be it a nation or organization. Though, I have to say IMO, it is good to have somebody out there to at least attempt to do something. Though at this point I have to wonder if "policing" is the wrong word. Isn't even the multilateral diplomacy that prevents an all-out nuclear war between Pakistan and India "policing"? It doesn't feel like it, but talking people down is one thing police do.

mimartin
08-23-2008, 02:25 AM
Well, the VP nominees for both parties are going to be announced soon. Who do you think will be the ones chosen by Obama and McCain?
Fox News (http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/08/23/obama-picks-joe-biden-for-veep/) is reporting Joe Biden is going to Obama running mate.

Achilles
08-23-2008, 02:30 AM
Obama's first act as President: Outsource Fox News to the bottom of the ocean. I'll even write my congressperson to let him or her know that I approve.

mimartin
08-23-2008, 02:38 AM
Obama's first act as President: Outsource Fox News to the bottom of the ocean. I'll even write my congressperson to let him or her know that I approve.
Isn't your congressperson a Republican? :D

Achilles
08-23-2008, 02:46 AM
Both of my Senators are. My Representative isn't. :)

Det. Bart Lasiter
08-23-2008, 03:19 AM
Obama's first act as President: Outsource Fox News to the bottom of the ocean. I'll even write my congressperson to let him or her know that I approve.O'REILLY SMASH

http://electricityandlust.files.wordpress.com/2008/05/bioshock.jpg

Arcesious
08-23-2008, 02:09 PM
CNN confirms it is Obama-Biden.

My current stance on this:

Obama's plans sound good, but he seems inconsitent, and playing it far too safe. Mccain's plans seem to be really stupid, but Mccain seems more consistent and willing to give a clear answer to a question than Obama.
Biden sounds great, overall though.

My family will most likely vote for Mccain, as my father and mother are hoping Romney will be Mccain's VP candidate. They think that Romney is economically smart. That he is, somewhat, but the GOP's policies = FAIL, imo.
Biden sounds pretty tough, and smart. He works for civil rights, helping the middle class, and trying to make college more affordable.
Mccain seems more experienced when it comes to life, what with making hard decisions and whatnot, but his foreign polices and economic plans are utter crap.

Compare Mccain's website to Obama's- you see far more detailed plans on Obama's site. Obama has a lot of focus int he area of civil liberties, but mccain's plans are typical Bush-style polices. Mccain has voted with Bush 86% of the time. But Obama has been a flip-flop voter.

If there's something I'd like to see an improvement in Obama, it's for him to be more decisive, to address the issues without political BS tactics, and to quit with the pandering. If there's an improvement I'd like to see in Mccain, it would be for him to reconsider his economic, foreign policy, and civil rights stances, and not so negative and aggressive.

Da_Man_2423
08-23-2008, 02:18 PM
Biden sounds great, overall though.

Biden sounds pretty tough, and smart. He works for civil rights, helping the middle class, and trying to make college more affordable.

Don't forget talking too much.

mimartin
08-23-2008, 02:39 PM
But Obama has been a flip-flop voter.
ĎWhen youíre finished changing, youíre finished.í
Only a fool stands by their decision when new evidence overwhelming confirms they are wrong.

http://www.rubinville.com/dailydave/uploaded_images/George_Bush-744618.jpg

Who's the more foolish: The fool, or the fool who follows him?

El Sitherino
08-23-2008, 02:48 PM
Only a fool stands by their decision when new evidence overwhelming confirms they are wrong.

http://www.rubinville.com/dailydave/uploaded_images/George_Bush-744618.jpg

Quoted for Emphasis.

Simply labeling him as a flip-flopper is ignoring the bigger picture of what the topics were. Sometimes changing your mind is a good thing. Remember how we changed our minds about Government enforced hatred?

Web Rider
08-23-2008, 03:15 PM
But Obama has been a flip-flop voter.

I did not realize that voting for sandals or with sandals was an option in Congress, I was under the impression that they generally wanted a "yes" or "no" answer.

Don't forget talking too much.
Yes.

Arcesious
08-23-2008, 04:57 PM
Flip-flopping isn't neccessarily bad, as a change of mind can always be a good thing, indeed. But I'll explain why Barack's changes of mind concern me. For example, the offshore oil drilling issue. He gave into peer pressure about his policies on not doing that that. Giving into peer pressure is a flip-flopping characteristic- one that makes me question his charcter and ability to make the right decisions. Hopefully Biden will provide a firm resistance by counteracting peer pressure. If Biden has the guts to correct Obama when he is about to make a mistake, then I won't have anythng to worry about. Still, that is my biggest cause for concern.

Achilles
08-23-2008, 05:15 PM
Even though I'm a little miffed with Obama right now, I still think I need to chime in here.

Barack Obama has displayed extraordinary leadership in many ways. Yes, his change of heart re: offshore drilling probably was a "cave" on an unpopular viewpoint during a tightly contested election campaign. Just like any number of other cave ins we've seen from other politicians in the past during other elections. To somehow insinuate that it's a tragic character flaw unique to this candidate is either short-sighted or dishonest.

I'm not saying that the change of heart was right, or okay, or something I agree with, however I do think that if you're going to use such incidents as a measure of a candidate, you should at least be realistic and consistent when doing so. So make sure you're measuring everyone with that stick, okay?

Sorry for the rant.

Web Rider
08-23-2008, 05:58 PM
Flip-flopping isn't neccessarily bad, as a change of mind can always be a good thing, indeed. But I'll explain why Barack's changes of mind concern me. For example, the offshore oil drilling issue. He gave into peer pressure about his policies on not doing that that. Giving into peer pressure is a flip-flopping characteristic- one that makes me question his charcter and ability to make the right decisions. Hopefully Biden will provide a firm resistance by counteracting peer pressure. If Biden has the guts to correct Obama when he is about to make a mistake, then I won't have anythng to worry about. Still, that is my biggest cause for concern.

The biggest point of my post was how stupid a term "flip flopping" has become. It's getting overused in place of actual discussion and thought. I dunno why they abandoned "waffling", it was so much better, waffles are tasty, I hate flip-flops. give me regular sandals any day. At least talking about waffling made me want to go to IHop.

It's just one of those things that bugs me.

Litofsky
08-23-2008, 06:32 PM
Biden sounds pretty tough, and smart. He works for civil rights, helping the middle class, and trying to make college more affordable.
Biden definitely seem to be a good choice. He's the chairman of the Foreign Relations committee, was the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and has been in the Senate for quite some time. He seems to cover most (if not all) of the points that Obama has been hit for.

Overall, I'd say that choosing Biden as his running mate is a good choice. Now, the question is, "Who will McCain choose?"

But his foreign polices and economic plans are utter crap.
McCain, McCain. I seem to recall him saying that the economy was his weakest point? That's definitely not comforting, especially considering the state we're in.

Web Rider
08-23-2008, 06:47 PM
Overall, I'd say that choosing Biden as his running mate is a good choice. Now, the question is, "Who will McCain choose?"

McCain, McCain. I seem to recall him saying that the economy was his weakest point? That's definitely not comforting, especially considering the state we're in.

Alright, I'll start the bidding with a Huckabee.

anyone want to raise me a Romney or Cheney?

Litofsky
08-23-2008, 06:51 PM
Alright, I'll start the bidding with a Huckabee.

anyone want to raise me a Romney or Cheney?

I see your Huckabee, and raise you a Romney. If it were Cheney, I think the country would go into riots. :xp:

mur'phon
08-23-2008, 07:18 PM
Both of them are waflers.

Obamas tried and tested move to the centre is both expected, and, on average, it makes me like him more (his protectionism, in particular had me worried). Now, if only he could get down and dirty, he should be set for the white house. Biden as VP might provide that, for hidden amongst his jabberings are one liners worthy of a spinnmeister.

McCain, on the other hand, seems to have forgotten that you pander to the base during the primaries, not when you are fishing for independents. Here's to hoping the old McCain will return, even if it means breaking promises.
As for VP, in his current mood, I won't be terribly surprised if he picks Huckabee, though Romney would definitely be better suited for the job.

Web Rider
08-23-2008, 07:33 PM
IIf it were Cheney, I think the country would go into riots. :xp:

I agree, but it is a possible outcome, if McCain continues on his campaign-long process of trying to look more like Bush. I'm actually quite fond of Huckabee, save for being such a hardcore Baptist, he's got some pretty sound ideas. Some of them are a little far out, but it's nice to see Republicans who propose real change instead of more tax breaks.

I don't know how accepting people will be of Romney's Mormanism, even as a VP, the religious right has been concerned primary-long over McCain's lack of religiousness compared to Bush, so I don't think a Mormon would do well to reassure them.

Litofsky
08-23-2008, 07:38 PM
I agree, but it is a possible outcome, if McCain continues on his campaign-long process of trying to look more like Bush. I'm actually quite fond of Huckabee, save for being such a hardcore Baptist, he's got some pretty sound ideas. Some of them are a little far out, but it's nice to see Republicans who propose real change instead of more tax breaks.

Religion really doesn't play a role in elections for me. It might garner a moment of attention, but I look at their policies. As for Huckabee, I have friends who were singing his praises at school. Needless to say, I had a nice debate with them. But I digress.

I don't know how accepting people will be of Romney's Mormanism, even as a VP, the religious right has been concerned primary-long over McCain's lack of religiousness compared to Bush, so I don't think a Mormon would do well to reassure them.

I'm sure that most people will allow that to weigh in on their decision. Romney did well in the 'Red States,' where as, during the primaries, McCain took the generally 'Blue States.' So, truthfully, I'm not sure. And, really, I don't care. As long as we have a smart President, who makes decisions based on the facts, and not let their beliefs get in the way.

mur'phon
08-23-2008, 07:50 PM
That won't happen before we putt a machine in charge

Jae Onasi
08-23-2008, 08:48 PM
I still think Obama-Clinton would have been unbeatable, but Biden will shore up the foreign policy experience side of things.

Rev7
08-24-2008, 02:26 AM
Thoughts? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fU4sVQV3Lhk)

Web Rider
08-24-2008, 02:33 AM
Thoughts? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fU4sVQV3Lhk)

his choice of words is very poor, his ideas aren't bad. Military spending is wasteful and reckless, no argument there, what he did say could have been phrased a lot better.

Totenkopf
08-24-2008, 02:44 AM
Typical of his type. Starry eyed idealists who don't really understand the world. Hopefully just more leftist rhetoric. Fact is, China and Russia (and anyone else) aren't going to just disarm b/c BO would like them too. Space WILL be weaponized (if it hasn't secretly been already) regardless of Obama's naivete`. Nothing wrong with cleaning up wasteful spending, but we already had 8 years of Clinton wrecking the defense budget and don't need 4-8 more of someone like BO picking up where he left off. Hopefully Biden will have enough sense to explain to him that the other side isn't going to be nice and cooperative just b/c you ask. Not counting on it though. ;)

Barack Obama has displayed extraordinary leadership in many ways.

How so?

Rev7
08-24-2008, 02:51 AM
Typical of his type. Starry eyed idealists who don't really understand the world. Hopefully just more leftist rhetoric. Fact is, China and Russia (and anyone else) aren't going to just disarm b/c BO would like them too. Space WILL be weaponized (if it hasn't secretly been already) regardless of Obama's naivete`. Nothing wrong with cleaning up wasteful spending, but we already had 8 years of Clinton wrecking the defense budget and don't need 4-8 more of someone like BO picking up where he left off. Hopefully Biden will have enough sense to explain to him that the other side isn't going to be nice and cooperative just b/c you ask. Not counting on it though. ;)
I totally agree.

mimartin
08-24-2008, 03:41 AM
Nothing wrong with cleaning up wasteful spending, but we already had 8 years of Clinton wrecking the defense budget and don't need 4-8 more of someone like BO picking up where he left off. :lol: Ask yourself honestly answer this question. You do not have to reply because I already know the answer. Is the American Military in better shape today than it was 8 years ago?

Det. Bart Lasiter
08-24-2008, 05:40 AM
:lol: Ask yourself honestly answer this question. You do not have to reply because I already know the answer. Is the American Military in better shape today than it was 8 years ago?agreein wit dis

You may bitch and moan about Obama reducing the defense budget, but right now most of our defense budget is fluff that goes to stupid bull****. He could reduce the budget by quite a bit and still ending up spending the same about or even more on actual defense.

Totenkopf
08-24-2008, 06:01 AM
@mimartin--the flipside of your equation is what shape would the military be in if Clinton hadn't gutted it to perform his "economic miracle" ( :rolleyes: ). No doubt Shinseki and Powell's vision of overwhelming force would have made for a different situation in Iraq.

@Jmac--that's pretty much true of most govt spending. There's a lot of fat, duplication and waste in every unnecessary social program as well (at all levels of govt, no less). Your conclusion that the budget could be trimmed significantly and still buy a lot of "actual defense" is dubiuos.* Perhaps you can elaborate. I suppose if we went back to the draft we could significantly reduce personell expenditures (~66% or so of peacetime budgets). Seriously doubt any of his "savings" would end up being spent on anything other than boondoggles like Steven's "bridge to nowhere"/ Murtha's train museum or any other pork (either side of aisle) you can think of.

*frankly, I think more money could be spent on spare parts, extra ammo and extra training than some of the gold plated disasters (like the DIVAD) that have been indulged.

Det. Bart Lasiter
08-24-2008, 06:30 AM
@Jmac--that's pretty much true of most govt spending. There's a lot of fat, duplication and waste in every unnecessary social program as well (at all levels of govt, no less). Your conclusion that the budget could be trimmed significantly and still buy a lot of "actual defense" is dubiuos.* Perhaps you can elaborate. I suppose if we went back to the draft we could significantly reduce personell expenditures (~66% or so of peacetime budgets). Seriously doubt any of his "savings" would end up being spent on anything other than boondoggles like Steven's "bridge to nowhere"/ Murtha's train museum or any other pork (either side of aisle) you can think of.So your solution to the problem is to just throw more money at it?

Litofsky
08-24-2008, 10:14 AM
:lol: Ask yourself honestly answer this question. You do not have to reply because I already know the answer. Is the American Military in better shape today than it was 8 years ago?

Quoted for truth.

Obama may want to reduce the defense budget, but I recall that Clinton did the same a decade ago. Perhaps because we don't need to spend billions and billions on the military? Imagine things that could be fixed if the defense budget was cut by even five or ten percent!

Now, I know that we have many enemies in the world (I have a feeling Bush didn't help with that, either) and that keeping a strong military is important. But when a society reaches a point in time when their spending on the military is higher than social projects, you know that they're in trouble.

mimartin
08-24-2008, 10:53 AM
No doubt Shinseki and Powell's vision of overwhelming force would have made for a different situation in Iraq.
:lol:

For some reason, I thought Donald Rumsfeld and Tommy Franks made the decision about troop strength sent to Iraq, I did not know Clinton was involved in that decision.

Arcesious
08-24-2008, 12:04 PM
If Mccain picks Romney as VP, his chances of winning might become greater than Obama's... And if that happens... Hope for America will be lost. Romney may be 'good' with economics and all, but these Republican policies just don't work.

And my parents still want to vote for Mccain, despite that fact that I've explained that Obama's plans would help the middle class considerably, and Mccain's plans just don't add up to a positive amount of money.

Mccain wants to keep fighting in the middle east...

"Old men wage wars- it's the young who suffer."

Plus, Earth is the only planet we've got. Let's not destroy it over stupid prejudices, and agendas. Carl Sagan makes it quite clear:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p86BPM1GV8M

Da_Man_2423
08-24-2008, 02:44 PM
If Mccain picks Romney as VP, his chances of winning might become greater than Obama's... And if that happens... Hope for America will be lost. Romney may be 'good' with economics and all, but these Republican policies just don't work.

Aren't you being a bit overdramatic? Clearly Republican policies have been working if they're getting into office. Bribery perhaps?



And my parents still want to vote for Mccain, despite that fact that I've explained that Obama's plans would help the middle class considerably, and Mccain's plans just don't add up to a positive amount of money.

Plans look good when people can explain how they work from their mouths. Situations change in a heartbeat on a global scale.

Mccain wants to keep fighting in the middle east...

Not a lot of people left for him to fight in Iraq, except Iran I guess. Afghanistan is a bit to the east.


"Old men wage wars- it's the young who suffer."

Isn't that a quote from Call of Duty?


Plus, Earth is the only planet we've got. Let's not destroy it over stupid prejudices, and agendas. Carl Sagan makes it quite clear:

Now that's just not true. We have several other planets that need messing up before we become extinct.

mur'phon
08-24-2008, 03:15 PM
If Mccain picks Romney as VP, his chances of winning might become greater than Obama's... And if that happens... Hope for America will be lost. Romney may be 'good' with economics and all, but these Republican policies just don't work.

Really? None of them? Please elaborate.

And my parents still want to vote for Mccain, despite that fact that I've explained that Obama's plans would help the middle class considerably, and Mccain's plans just don't add up to a positive amount of money.

What do you mean by "positive amount of money". Do you mean a budget surplus?

Mccain wants to keep fighting in the middle east...

So does Obama

Plus, Earth is the only planet we've got. Let's not destroy it over stupid prejudices, and agendas.

Prejudices, eh? Thread carefully here Arc.

Arcesious
08-24-2008, 03:38 PM
Aren't you being a bit overdramatic? Clearly Republican policies have been working if they're getting into office. Bribery perhaps?

Sure... Policies that are dishonest, inefficient, and bigoted.

Plans look good when people can explain how they work from their mouths. Situations change in a heartbeat on a global scale.


Sure, situations can change. But do people change to changing situations?
Times have changed, and the Republican Party has not changed. Their ways are old, innefficient, and not up to par with the current time. The thing I like about Obama's plan is that perhaps it can show the world that we can change, and that we can get the job done IF we work together.
If letting down our guard a little to fix things gives idiots an opportunity to strike, then I don't care.

At least that would mean that at least some of humanity didn't lower themselves to that level before 'doomsday'. I would mean that at least we, as a race, went out trying to do the right thing, instead of fighting and hoping for some huge stroke of good luck or some invisible dude in the sky to fix everything for us. At least it would mean that we were on the right track.

If I die for trying to make progress- for beleiving that humanity was not circling the drain- then that worries me. That we're so blind-sighted not to see that we can live in peace- that we can make progress- that's what saddens me.

It can be done. We can overcome our crutches and prejudices. And if beleiving we can gives others the opportunity to take advantage of our trying to do something about the issues- then that only makes it more imperative that something different must be done.

Not a lot of people left for him to fight in Iraq, except Iran I guess. Afghanistan is a bit to the east.

Mccain's got a whole world left to fight if he wants to.... I bet Asia and Europe are on his 'to do' list. (Jk, but you get my point.)

Isn't that a quote from Call of Duty?


As for the quote.... I didn't know where it came from, but I had heard it before. If it came from Call of Duty, that doesn't make any difference. It's meaning is still valid.

Now that's just not true. We have several other planets that need messing up before we become extinct.

Oh sure, like we even have the resources to start over on another planet at this time. We'll wipe ourselves out if we try to colonize another planet before we restabilize ourselves. There's planets out there will potential to harbor life, yes, but that doesn't make it right to not try to fix our home planet. We must face the issues before us- and do the right thing. I want to do what works- what makes sense. Think about the next generation after you. What future are we making for those who will live 2050 and 2100? Let's do the right thing for a change. Let's 'think before we think'.

Really? None of them? Please elaborate.

You are correct. Some of them do work. A lot of things done by Republicans have been useful improvements. Cutting taxes and spending more on the military does not work. When military spending costs more than social and commercial services- then there's something wrong. Resiticting the rights of others due to religious prejudice- that doesn't work either. Spending more than we make doesn't work either. Did you know that, in seven US states, you can only hold office if you're religious? There's a lot more than that.

There are a lot of bigoted, unconstitutional laws. When I hand a store employee a dollar or a quarter, do you know what it says on it? "In God we trust." What do you think the 25 Million Americans who aren't religious think about that? Although, I also find it bigoted that Great Britian is insensitive enough to have Charles Darwin on their currency...

What do you mean by "positive amount of money". Do you mean a budget surplus?
Yes, perhaps. Either that or a stable, well flowing budjet that can go with the flow with the rest of the world economy and still stay afloat.

So does Obama
True, but at least he wants to end the conflict and start diplomacy again ASAP.

Prejudices, eh? Thread carefully here Arc.

I guess I have my own 'prejudices' too. But I'm ready to defend them reasonably.

Web Rider
08-24-2008, 04:07 PM
Mccain's got a whole world left to fight if he wants to.... I bet Asia and Europe are on his 'to do' list. (Jk, but you get my point.)

I don't recall if it was expressed here by myself or someone else, or somewhere else, but it was McCain's eagerness that showed through when talk of doing something militarily about Russia came to his doorstep is rather frightening.

I will never elect somebody who is eager to go to war with Russia. Underestimation of Russia has been the downfall of every invader of their country. I would rather assume a fight with them would be folly than bet on victory.

Gargoyle King
08-24-2008, 05:31 PM
Mccain's got a whole world left to fight if he wants to.... I bet Asia and Europe are on his 'to do' list.Could try i suppose, wouldn't get too far though. ;)

Now i'm British, but personally i would like Obama to become the next President. Not because of the whole "Ohh a Black President, how revolutionary!" thing but because i feel he's the better candidate.

mur'phon
08-24-2008, 05:57 PM
Sure, situations can change. But do people change to changing situations?
Times have changed, and the Republican Party has not changed. Their ways are old, innefficient, and not up to par with the current time.

Please tell me their goals, why they are innefficent in achieving them, and why the alternative(s) would be better. And who get to decide what is "up to par with the current time"?

At least that would mean that at least some of humanity didn't lower themselves to that level before 'doomsday'. I would mean that at least we, as a race, went out trying to do the right thing, instead of fighting and hoping for some huge stroke of good luck or some invisible dude in the sky to fix everything for us. At least it would mean that we were on the right track.

Three questions: What is "that level"? And what is the "right thing", and how do we know it is?

If I die for trying to make progress- for beleiving that humanity was not circling the drain- then that worries me. That we're so blind-sighted not to see that we can live in peace- that we can make progress- that's what saddens me.

Don't worry, don't stick your neck out, and it won't get chopped.

It can be done. We can overcome our crutches and prejudices. And if beleiving we can gives others the opportunity to take advantage of our trying to do something about the issues- then that only makes it more imperative that something different must be done.

History says your odds aren't good, but whatever floats your boat, as long as it floats the boats it'll affect.

Mccain's got a whole world left to fight if he wants to.... I bet Asia and Europe are on his 'to do' list. (Jk, but you get my point.)

Not entierly joking, if Russia goes back to bullying, he'll get a nice list of possible countries to defend, which I hope he does.

Cutting taxes and spending more on the military does not work.

Determine the goals you are trying to acheive, then say they don't work. Both tax cuts, and increased military spending can work in certain situations, and while it might not be good to do it right now, the situation might well change.

Resiticting the rights of others due to religious prejudice- that doesn't work either. Spending more than we make doesn't work either. Did you know that, in seven US states, you can only hold office if you're religious? There's a lot more than that.

While I agree with you, this sounds more like a state issue. (Granted, it applies to the reps there, and I asked for it.)

There are a lot of bigoted, unconstitutional laws. When I hand a store employee a dollar or a quarter, do you know what it says on it? "In God we trust." What do you think the 25 Million Americans who aren't religious think about that?

The same way the more than 50% of the Norwegian population that aren't religious feel about having the head of the church on money, they don't care much. And why would they?

Yes, perhaps. Either that or a stable, well flowing budjet that can go with the flow with the rest of the world economy and still stay afloat.

"A stable, well flowing budget that can go with the flow of the rest of the world economy and still stay a float"? Nice words, mind explaining what they mean?

True, but at least he wants to end the conflict and start diplomacy again ASAP.

I don't believe McCain wants to see the conflict continuing either:)

I guess I have my own 'prejudices' too. But I'm ready to defend them reasonably.

But only those you admit having, eyh?:D I'll hold you to it once I get more spare time.

Totenkopf
08-24-2008, 06:32 PM
@mimartin--You're forgetting one thing though, Clinton left the military too small to do anything other than take Rummy's/Frank's approach (or nothing at all) as they no longer had the force structure to do anything else. ;)

@jmac--actually, that seems to be your solution to anything other than military spending.

@ litofsky--imagine what could be fixed if ALL wasteful spending ("social" and military) were eliminated period.

El Sitherino
08-24-2008, 06:57 PM
@mimartin--You're forgetting one thing though, Clinton left the military too small to do anything

BS. All the tech we have now was developed under Clinton's control. In fact it was because of the budget structured under his administration that allowed this technology to be greatly developed. This has not only saved military funding, but it is saving lives of American troops.

Who's really supporting the troops, our citizens?

Det. Bart Lasiter
08-24-2008, 06:58 PM
@jmac--actually, that seems to be your solution to anything other than military spending.Yeah well one would naturally come to that conclusion based on how much I post seriously in this forum.

Totenkopf
08-24-2008, 07:38 PM
@jmac--so, you're merely a sniping troll? :lol: But if you object to this observation, perhaps you should be silly elsewhere. ;) Otherwise...still waiting (probably forlornly) for your explanation of how BO will make us safer.

@sithy--BS your ass pal. ;) There's ultimately no substitute for troops on the ground, unless annihilation is your intent. Technology is all nice and fine, but just like we learned in the intelligence arena, all that stuff isn't worth as much as people in the right place. As far as Iraq goes, I think they should've used more troops too if they knew they were going to be hanging around for the next several years (though the Clinton cutbacks made that unlikely). I really don't see BO as any better than Clinton, and probably a lot worse. I have yet to hear anyone put forth any real examples of accomplishments or "leadership" (unless you count empty rhetoric in that category) by this man in his political career. He appears to be little more than an un(der)vetted cypher.

El Sitherino
08-24-2008, 08:09 PM
Believe what you want, but you should also remember the Iraq debacle was created by the Bush administration.

Just a little thought.

zelda 41
08-24-2008, 08:19 PM
If it were legal for me to vote, Obama.
Mccain, in my opinion, is a bit....narrowminded, on some issues; especially same-sex marrige.

Det. Bart Lasiter
08-24-2008, 08:26 PM
@jmac--so, you're merely a sniping troll? :lol: But if you object to this observation, perhaps you should be silly elsewhere. ;)No thanks.Otherwise...still waiting (probably forlornly) for your explanation of how BO will make us safer.I already gave you an explanation. Your response was essentially that since all the other government expenditures are filled with pork and useless crap it's okay for the defense budget to spend massive amounts of money on useless crap. Truly an example of FLAWLESS LOGIC.

mimartin
08-24-2008, 08:32 PM
@mimartin--You're forgetting one thing though, Clinton left the military too small to do anything other than take Rummy's/Frank's approach (or nothing at all) as they no longer had the force structure to do anything else. ;)
Wrong. We had the troops, we just did not call them up. Let’s give Rumsfeld and Franks some credit. They had the right amount of troops to take out a 2nd rate military such as the Iraqi Military was. What their plan lacked was the foresight to deploy enough troops to keep the peace after the military campaign was won. Rumsfeld was naive enough to believe an invading army would be welcomed as conquering heroes.

Lehrer: Do you expect the invasion, if it comes, to be welcomed by the majority of the civilian population of Iraq?

Rumsfeld: There's obviously the Shia population in Iraq and the Kurdish population in Iraq have been treated very badly by Saddam Hussein's regime, they represent a large fraction of the total. There is no question but that they would be welcomed. Go back to Afghanistan, the people were in the streets playing music, cheering, flying kites, and doing all the things that the Taliban and the Al-Qaeda would not let them do. Saddam Hussein has one of the most vicious regimes on the face of the earth. And the people know that.

Now, is there a risk when that dictatorial system isn't there that there could be conflicts between elements within the country, get even type things, yes. And we've got to be careful to see that that doesn't happen.


Of course, Rumfeld denies every saying this, but you can judge for yourself as there is a Transcript (http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=1938) of the interview on the Department of Defense website.

The Commander and Chief has the ultimate responsibility. If the military was in such dire need of replenishment, why open up a second front? I do hope this is one instance where McSame differs from Bush. I believe McSame will listen to the military personal on the ground. However, I honesty hope I do not get the opportunity to prove my theory.

Believe what you want, but you should also remember the Iraq debacle was created by the Bush administration.

Just a little thought.
Not in the Republican version of things, in their version it is Clinton, Carter or Congress’ fault. Problem with blaming Congress this time is that at the time it was control by the Republicans, so Clinton becomes the scapegoat.

Web Rider
08-24-2008, 09:15 PM
@jmac--so, you're merely a sniping troll? :lol: But if you object to this observation, perhaps you should be silly elsewhere. ;) Otherwise...still waiting (probably forlornly) for your explanation of how BO will make us safer.

It's not a matter of what he will do so much as a matter of what he won't do. I know you asked somebody else to answer this but I wanted to pick up on it anyway. Bush did a wonderful job of pissing people off and getting a good portion of the world angry at us when they were previously apathetic. What was one of his first moves? Oh yeah, announcing which countries he thought were an "axis of evil".

Yeah, the government knew that, the people knew that, but you don't announce those things to your enemies, it's stupid. And the neighbors you seek are the neighbors you'll find, everything the Administration has done in the last 8 years has done nothing to make me feel safer and personally, has done nothing to make this country safer.

and don't say "oh well there wasn't another 9/11!!" Yeah, that's cause the "bad guys" are too busy blowing us up over there to do it here. If that's saftey, count me out.

Barack Obama can do a lot to make us safer, by simply not being an idiot and claiming to be doing everything to make us "safer". I would be much happer if a president worked to make our economy stronger than our borders more secure.

Jae Onasi
08-24-2008, 09:42 PM
OK, loves, I'm seeing more expletives in these posts than is necessary (i.e. it's getting to be too frequent). Use something more creative and clean, please. It's also getting a bit heated with the baiting remarks. There's no reason to be sniping at each other. Thanks.

Arcesious
08-24-2008, 10:08 PM
There's no reason to be sniping at each other.

Aw man... But sniping's fun! :xp:

El Sitherino
08-24-2008, 10:35 PM
http://www.militarycity.com/gallery/photos/sniper/sniper1.jpg
Can I join?

Sure--you get the ones on the left, I'll get the ones on the right. :xp: --Jae

Rev7
08-25-2008, 03:50 AM
I don't entirely agree with either canidates, to tell you the truth. :/

mimartin
08-25-2008, 01:20 PM
I don't entirely agree with either canidates, to tell you the truth. :/ Does anyone entirely agree with the candidate they vote for on every position? The only person that entirely agrees with McCain is McCain and the only person that entirely agrees with Obama is Obama. If you ever want to cast your vote for someone you entirely agree with then you better run for president yourself because that will be the only way you will ever agree entirely with a candidate. That is, unless you are one of those that allow others to tell you what you think.

Find the candidate who best mirrors your position on key issues. If I were honest McCain before he became McSame mirrors my positions best, but in this election my biggest issues are: the war, education, economy, health care, veteran care, illegal immigration, American’s world image and terrorism.

While I don’t agree with Obama entirely, in most of these key issues he does seem to be closer to me than McCain. He also has the gift to inspire and even though some are critical about that gift, I believe that is important gift for the leader of the free world to have. Imagine if George Bush would have had that gift after September 11, 2001. He could have mobilized this entire nation to action for the greater good instead of telling us to go shopping.

Web Rider
08-25-2008, 03:06 PM
Find the candidate who best mirrors your position on key issues. If I were honest McCain before he became McSame mirrors my positions best, but in this election my biggest issues are: the war, education, economy, health care, veteran care, illegal immigration, Americanís world image and terrorism.

While I donít agree with Obama entirely, in most of these key issues he does seem to be closer to me than McCain. He also has the gift to inspire and even though some are critical about that gift, I believe that is important gift for the leader of the free world to have.

That is undoubtedly almost my exact sentiments regarding the candidates today. Up until this election, I had always regarded McCain as "the only republican I'd vote for(for president)."

Rev7
08-25-2008, 03:53 PM
Does anyone entirely agree with the candidate they vote for on every position? The only person that entirely agrees with McCain is McCain and the only person that entirely agrees with Obama is Obama. If you ever want to cast your vote for someone you entirely agree with then you better run for president yourself because that will be the only way you will ever agree entirely with a candidate. That is, unless you are one of those that allow others to tell you what you think.
Well, of course you never agree entirely with the canidate.
Find the candidate who best mirrors your position on key issues. If I were honest McCain before he became McSame mirrors my positions best, but in this election my biggest issues are: the war, education, economy, health care, veteran care, illegal immigration, Americanís world image and terrorism.
Yes those are very key issues. I have been talking to my dad a little bit about who he wants as president. He has said that he really doesn't want either, but if he had to choose it would be McCain. My Dad thinks that if Obama were president he would be exactly like Carter. I don't remember all of the details though...

mimartin
08-25-2008, 04:29 PM
My Dad thinks that if Obama were president he would be exactly like Carter. It is not about what your dad thinks, it is about what you think.

I don't set much stock about political predictions. Eight years ago, when I stepped into that voting booth, I never would have predicted I was voting for arguably the worst President in American history, but I did. Saying Obama will be exactly like Carter, would be like me saying McCain will be exactly like Nixon, farfetched at best.

Rev7
08-25-2008, 07:49 PM
It is not about what your dad thinks, it is about what you think.

I don't set much stock about political predictions. Eight years ago, when I stepped into that voting booth, I never would have predicted I was voting for arguably the worst President in American history, but I did. Saying Obama will be exactly like Carter, would be like me saying McCain will be exactly like Nixon, farfetched at best.
Yes; however, it doesn't matter all that much, other than it is/would be my opinion, because I am not old enough to vote yet, so...

Yeah, that is what makes them predictions. My Dad believes that Obama will set this country back, so :giveup:

Arcesious
08-25-2008, 08:27 PM
So, what would be the best candidate, if it could be someone tailored to each of our veiws?

My custom candidate:

*Lots of political experience.
*Good economic backround, good with forieng relations.
*A peacemaker, but not a pacifist.
*A tactical and economical genius.
*Has both political degrees and some minor degrees in various realms of
science and buisness.
*Reasonable, logical, realistic.
*Civil rights activist backround.
*Motivational speaker, who isn't a pandering faker.
*Independent, liberal leaning.
*Be a/an Athiest/Agnostic/Deist
*Works for advanced technology and peaceful global solutions.
*Plans to pull out of most of the other countries and focus all military force within US territory as defense.
*Advance military tech, get rid of old military tech, cut defense budget by transitioning to more easily and cheaply maintained military tech.
*Progress relationships with neighboring countries
*Work to break foriegn dependences
*Build self-sustaining, efficient, enviroment-friendly country
*Balance tax budget, fix education and healthcare
*Eliminate insurance and loans over time
*Stay out of other people's buisness until the country has the stability and strength to help the world again.

and much, much more...

What would your custom candidate be?

Rev7
08-25-2008, 08:44 PM
*Advance military tech, get rid of old military tech, cut defense budget by transitioning to more easily and cheaply maintained military tech.
Huh? We have the most advanced military in the world, Arc..

You definately cannot cut the defense budget by transitioning to even more advanced military technology. ;) It would go up considerably.
http://www.jetplanes.co.uk/pictures/f22/raptor.jpg
One of these babies cost $137 million. One! It is the most advanced military fighter jet in the world, and the most expensive. Boy they are advanced, I have seen what they can do first hand, but that is a different story. :)

Why not upgrade the planes (equipment in general) that we already have? ex. upgrade the F-15 Eagle, F-16 ect.
What would your custom candidate be?

politically experianced
become less (much) dependant on oil/create and use alternative energy
is realistic, and a resonable person
Civil Rights
Better Education plan
Foreign relations
Educated Person
Great speaker, motivational
Actually follow-through and do what he/she says
Better Health Care
Environmental friendly country
Experianced leader
Puts money to use in a wise fashion
Keep the military strong/make stronger
Tactical
Takes care of veterans
Less dependant on foreign countries (I don't think that we can fully be dependant ;))
Takes care of his people


...just a few that I can think of that the moment...

Litofsky
08-25-2008, 09:58 PM
What would your custom candidate be?

Ah, so we're fantasizing? :xp: Although I'm nearly sure that our 'custom candidates' will never fully appear, I'd want my candidate to have a majority of the following qualities:


Smart
Willing to change. Staying with a belief that's been proven wrong or is just ineffective isn't in the benefit of the populace.
Plans to completely revamp our education system. Right now, we're setting ourselves up for failure.
Plans to reduce our dependence on oil (not just foreign), and make renewable sources account for over 50% of our energy consumption by 2018.
Cuts unnecessary spending.
Stands up for what s/he believes in, and doesn't bend to the will of their party.


There's a bit more that would help, such as experience, but those are my major concerns.

Nedak
08-25-2008, 10:03 PM
I would say Obama is the lesser of the evils

On the McCain commercials it uses the fact that Obama may raise taxes as a concern.

I'm sure the families who are losing their loved ones in "The War on Terror" don't care about their taxes being raised, as long as their loved ones come back alive.

mimartin
08-25-2008, 10:09 PM
On the McCain commercials it uses the fact that Obama may raise taxes as a concern.
Well if McCain plans to keep the war going for another 100 years, he is going to have to raise taxes too. The rest of the world is not going to loan us money forever.

Litofsky
08-25-2008, 10:22 PM
Well if McCain plans to keep the war going for another 100 years, he is going to have to raise taxes too. The rest of the world is not going to loan us money forever.

I'm surprised other countries continue to do so! Either way, if I had to choose between the candidates, I'd go with Obama. He seems more sensible than McCain. But that's just from what I've seen.

Nedak
08-25-2008, 10:32 PM
Well if McCain plans to keep the war going for another 100 years, he is going to have to raise taxes too. The rest of the world is not going to loan us money forever.

Also a good point.

Darth_Yuthura
08-26-2008, 12:20 AM
Huh? We have the most advanced military in the world, Arc..

You definately cannot cut the defense budget by transitioning to even more advanced military technology. ;) It would go up considerably.
http://www.jetplanes.co.uk/pictures/f22/raptor.jpg
One of these babies cost $137 million. One! It is the most advanced military fighter jet in the world, and the most expensive. Boy they are advanced, I have seen what they can do first hand, but that is a different story. :)

Why not upgrade the planes (equipment in general) that we already have? ex. upgrade the F-15 Eagle, F-16 ect.



The cost of the original equipment isn't as great as the upkeep. Although I would discourage extravagant expenditures of money on pointless fighters like the F-22, it would make more sense to reduce the level of upkeep required to operate so many fighters.

And fighters are only a small fraction of the whole military budget. Consider the sheer number of people the military employs and stack that on top of fuel, food, equipment, repairs, and other expenses and you'll realize that the capital costs don't represent all the spending that goes on in the military.

PS. The F-15's and F-16's are decades old and upgrading them can't conquer their age. I encourage it before buying a generation 5 fighter, but aging fighters eventually have to be retired.

Da_Man_2423
08-26-2008, 12:38 AM
Well if McCain plans to keep the war going for another 100 years, he is going to have to raise taxes too. The rest of the world is not going to loan us money forever.

I've read that 40% of the money is being borrowed from China. They need our consumer money, so they ain't cutting us off anytime soon. Raising U.S. taxes = less money for the Chinese. Who else is loaning us money, and in what percentages?

@Darth_Yuthura and Rev: Aren't you guys a bit off topic?

mimartin
08-26-2008, 12:52 AM
I am sorry, but you cannot borrow and spend indefinitely and maintain a viable economy. No economy = no jobs = no consumer spending = no money for China (in more than one way, trade, loan payments or interest payments)

With our dependence on foreign oil and our competition with China for that addiction to oil, we do not want to continue our dependence for their money. It makes no economic sense. It does not take an Ivy League education to figure that out.

This country has constantly put off our problems until tomorrow, one of these days we are going to wake up and it will be tomorrow.

Achilles
08-26-2008, 01:26 AM
I think "borrowed" is a slight misunderstanding. We auction off treasury bonds and China buys them. If China ever decides to dump them, they will do so at a loss.

The problem we face is that just like any system of supply and demand, the more we produce, the less value they have. So don't worry about China trying to cash in. Worry about what happens to our economy when they stop buying (and/or how this effects the likelihood that we'll be able to slap them around if they deserve it).

Sorry for interrupting. Please continue.

Rev7
08-26-2008, 01:27 AM
The cost of the original equipment isn't as great as the upkeep. Although I would discourage extravagant expenditures of money on pointless fighters like the F-22, it would make more sense to reduce the level of upkeep required to operate so many fighters.

And fighters are only a small fraction of the whole military budget. Consider the sheer number of people the military employs and stack that on top of fuel, food, equipment, repairs, and other expenses and you'll realize that the capital costs don't represent all the spending that goes on in the military.

PS. The F-15's and F-16's are decades old and upgrading them can't conquer their age. I encourage it before buying a generation 5 fighter, but aging fighters eventually have to be retired.
This is definately something that I know DY. ;) This is like all that I do on my free time. I was thinking more along the lines of really re-vamping the fighters. Yes aging fighters do need to be retired, but why not get the most out of them as we can? I mean the F-16 is scheduled to stay in service until 2025. The F-15 Eagle is also scheduled to remain in service until 2025. Yes, they are aging. Most of the world's air forces are not 5th generation, though, and won't be for quite some time if at all. At worse we could re-open production and make huge upgrades on them. At worse. Saves money.

We have that option, or we could just continue to keep producing 5th generation fighters. I do have to tell you though, what they can do is literally unbelieveable. And that is just the little bit that the military is showing us. ;)
@Darth_Yuthura and Rev: Aren't you guys a bit off topic?
Ya, I guess so. :indif: What we (or I) am talking about could save us some money though.

Totenkopf
08-26-2008, 05:53 AM
Believe what you want

Don't we all, though..... :)

but you should also remember the (current) Iraq debacle was created by the Bush administration.

Just a little thought.

Never contended otherwise.

@mimartin--actually, not wrong. Didn't contend that 135k+ troops weren't enough to knock out the Iraqi govt. Franks performed well given his limitations. What I contended was that staying longer than just decapitating the govt was where they failed. Given the drawdown in US personel during the 90s, the active forces were insufficient for an occupation force. Limits of a peacetime military, I suppose. While the surge has helped, it's been a bumpy ride.

I already gave you an explanation. Your response was essentially that since all the other government expenditures are filled with pork and useless crap it's okay for the defense budget to spend massive amounts of money on useless crap. Truly an example of FLAWLESS LOGIC.

Actually, jmac, that's YOUR interpretation of my remarks. So much for your "flawless logic". Btw, you also failed to explain anything, just made a nebulous pronouncement about BO and his (hoped for) ability to make us safer. Nice try, I suppose.

@WR--actually, wouldn't make 911 claim anyway. While that was certainly a dramatic way to shake things up, our enemies can afford to be a lot more subtle than that and still be deadly effective. America's openness has always beeen its Achilles heel.

As an aside, Reagan was also actively (but unsuccessfully) advised not to make the Evil Empire comment. He did anyway and the USSR was no more not too long afterward. If Bush had merely stuck to rhetoric, the "axis of evil" comment would have been largely forgotten not too long afterward. TR had it right a century ago, speak softly but carry a BIG stick (and have the will to use it, too).

At the current rate of things I see two possible courses: Americans lose their rights in the name of being protected from foreign enemies or they lose their rights to an increasingly suffocating govt that seeks to "protect" them from life.

Det. Bart Lasiter
08-26-2008, 07:28 AM
Actually, jmac, that's YOUR interpretation of my remarks.Damn, I thought it was my neighbor's interpretation of your remark http://i34.tinypic.com/nzrkvk.gif

So much for your "flawless logic".Well, perfection is the enemy of progress.

Btw, you also failed to explain anythingI didn't fail to explain anything, from what I've gathered (and I haven't read a large portion of this thread so correct me if I'm wrong), you said Obama would make the U.S. less safe by lowering the defense budget, I said even if he lowered it he would most likely decrease the amount of needless spending (outsourcing of jobs normally given to military personnel, etc) and use the lowered defense budget more efficiently. In addition I believe his policy of actual considering talking to countries we have a less than perfect relationship with will go a long way in the eyes of the international community. I also believe that this policy is far better than our current policy (and McCain's policy) of bombing the people who are pissed at us for bombing them/helping the people bombing them and sending more soldiers into the region full of people pissed at us for having soldiers there.

just made a nebulous pronouncement about BO and his (hoped for) ability to make us safer.Hey it's just like your pronouncement that McCain will make us safer because he's older and was in Vietnam and and talks bigger. I respect the man for having served his country and would have loved for him to have been elected in 2000 instead of Bush. This time around though, an entirely different McCain is running. In my eyes, he is a sell-out who sacrificed most of what he stood for in 2000 for the GOP nomination.

In the end, neither of us knows who will do what, candidates will promise to fellate anyone who votes for them in an attempt to win (calling that this happens if anyone with supermodel looks ever runs), and neither of us knows how their policies will actually play out or if they'll even stand by their policies when/if they they win the election. The paragraph above should explain why this is relevant and why it adds to my reluctance to support McCain.

Nice try, I suppose.Back at you, I love when people ignore what others say in a discussion and act like that is an argument unto itself.

mimartin
08-26-2008, 09:46 AM
I think "borrowed" is a slight misunderstanding. No, it is not a misunderstanding, it is an overly simplification of the term. We auction off treasury bonds and China buys them. If China ever decides to dump them, they will do so at a loss. Unless they hold them until maturity in which case we will owe the face amount of the bond. Since the treasury bonds mature at different times, it is like making payments on the debt and the yield paid at maturity is the interest.

If we borrow too much, then the risk will go up and we will have to sell the bonds at a greater discounted rate in order to get the world markets to purchase them. This will also cause interest rates to go up in the consumer markets.
The problem we face is that just like any system of supply and demand, the more we produce, the less value they have. So don't worry about China trying to cash in. Worry about what happens to our economy when they stop buying (and/or how this effects the likelihood that we'll be able to slap them around if they deserve it).. Agreed, but I'm also worried about the ‘real’ and the ‘perceived’ risk of our debt and how it is seen in the world market.

Totenkopf
08-26-2008, 12:06 PM
Damn, I thought it was my neighbor's interpretation of your remark http://i34.tinypic.com/nzrkvk.gif

I'm pretty sure it was yours. ;) Fact is, though, you seem to be putting a lot of words in my mouth.


I didn't fail to explain anything, from what I've gathered (and I haven't read a large portion of this thread so correct me if I'm wrong), you said Obama would make the U.S. less safe by lowering the defense budget, I said even if he lowered it he would most likely decrease the amount of needless spending (outsourcing of jobs normally given to military personnel, etc) and use the lowered defense budget more efficiently. In addition I believe his policy of actual considering talking to countries we have a less than perfect relationship with will go a long way in the eyes of the international community. I also believe that this policy is far better than our current policy (and McCain's policy) of bombing the people who are pissed at us for bombing them/helping the people bombing them and sending more soldiers into the region full of people pissed at us for having soldiers there.


Actually, you inferred a lot of it. I asked you to explain how reducing the budget was going to give about the same or more "actual defense" and you dropped the ball. All I said about the defense budget was that I thought it could be allocated a lot more efficiently and gave a few specific examples of what I meant. From that you concluded that I said "throw money at it". Also, like your candidate, you were long on hopeful statements and short on details about how he could make us any safer.

The problem isn't that there's no dialogue between us and our enemies, but that BO has declared he will set no conditions whatsoever and take the use of force off the table as a negoiating tool. I also have to question the sanity and integrity of a man who asserts he was aginst the war in Iraq but then states he would attack Pakistan. Where's the logic in that? >160 million people (w/nukes) in very mountainous terrain vs ~25 million in a flatter country. BO sure can pick 'em. :rolleyes: The following is a good example of the limitations of "dialogue". Sometimes it just goes nowhere, esp if the other guy doubts your resolve.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080826/ap_on_re_as/koreas_nuclear



Hey it's just like your pronouncement that McCain will make us safer because he's older and was in Vietnam and and talks bigger. I respect the man for having served his country and would have loved for him to have been elected in 2000 instead of Bush. This time around though, an entirely different McCain is running. In my eyes, he is a sell-out who sacrificed most of what he stood for in 2000 for the GOP nomination.

Putting words in my mouth again. Never brought up McCain. As I've said elsewhere, don't even know how he got selected. Merely trust BO less than McCain (which ain't saying much).





In the end, neither of us knows who will do what, candidates will promise to fellate anyone who votes for them in an attempt to win (calling that this happens if anyone with supermodel looks ever runs), and neither of us knows how their policies will actually play out or if they'll even stand by their policies when/if they they win the election. The paragraph above should explain why this is relevant and why it adds to my reluctance to support McCain.

Still not clear about what you see specifically about BO other than he's not Bush/McCain. You're right that no one can see the future, but then I still wouldn't trust a pedophile to watch children (even though I couldn't say with certainty that he or she would actually do anything w/o oversight). Given what I know about BO and his background, I couldn't vote for him even if I wanted too.


Back at you, I love when people ignore what others say in a discussion and act like that is an argument unto itself.

Enjoyed your strawmen too. ;)

Det. Bart Lasiter
08-26-2008, 05:55 PM
Actually, you inferred a lot of it. I asked you to explain how reducing the budget was going to give about the same or more "actual defense" and you dropped the ball. All I said about the defense budget was that I thought it could be allocated a lot more efficiently and gave a few specific examples of what I meant. From that you concluded that I said "throw money at it". Also, like your candidate, you were long on hopeful statements and short on details about how he could make us any safer.Seriously doubt any of his "savings" would end up being spent on anything other than boondoggles like Steven's "bridge to nowhere"/ Murtha's train museum or any other pork (either side of aisle) you can think of.This seems to me like you're saying we shouldn't try to spend more efficiently or any attempts to do so would fail?

The problem isn't that there's no dialogue between us and our enemies, but that BO has declared he will set no conditions whatsoever and take the use of force off the table as a negoiating tool. I also have to question the sanity and integrity of a man who asserts he was aginst the war in Iraq but then states he would attack Pakistan. Where's the logic in that? >160 million people (w/nukes) in very mountainous terrain vs ~25 million in a flatter country. BO sure can pick 'em. :rolleyes: The following is a good example of the limitations of "dialogue". Sometimes it just goes nowhere, esp if the other guy doubts your resolve.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080826/ap_on_re_as/koreas_nuclearThere's no dialogue with our enemies because we've made no attempt to open dialogue with them. As for Pakistan, I wasn't aware we started picking countries to invade based solely on how easily we could defeat them. And the article on North Korea you linked seemed to say that we didn't hold up our end of the deal so North Korea said it would restart its nuclear energy program.

Putting words in my mouth again. Never brought up McCain. As I've said elsewhere, don't even know how he got selected. Merely trust BO less than McCain (which ain't saying much).I assumed not Obama meant McCain.


Still not clear about what you see specifically about BO other than he's not Bush/McCain. You're right that no one can see the future, but then I still wouldn't trust a pedophile to watch children (even though I couldn't say with certainty that he or she would actually do anything w/o oversight). Given what I know about BO and his background, I couldn't vote for him even if I wanted too.Pretty much the only thing I see in him is that he's not Bush/McCain and if I were to vote I'd vote for him because I hate McCain and not because I like Obama.

Achilles
08-26-2008, 06:37 PM
No, it is not a misunderstanding, it is an overly simplification of the term. FWIW, I was addressing the post above yours. Apologies for any confusion.

Unless they hold them until maturity in which case we will owe the face amount of the bond. Since the treasury bonds mature at different times, it is like making payments on the debt and the yield paid at maturity is the interest. That is true, but again, I was trying to address the misperception that we're "borrowing" money from China the way I might borrow money from a friend. The reality is much different. China can't just up and demand their money back at any time.

If we borrow too much, then the risk will go up and we will have to sell the bonds at a greater discounted rate in order to get the world markets to purchase them. This will also cause interest rates to go up in the consumer markets. Precisely. Thanks for expanding on this.

Agreed, but I'm also worried about the Ďrealí and the Ďperceivedí risk of our debt and how it is seen in the world market.As am I. The reality is that no one is any under obligation to finance our nation (except us, I suppose). If we don't get our financial bearings, we're screwed.

On a side note: The U.S. paid off most of its debt after WWII by selling bonds to citizens. I might be inclined to particpate in something like that today if I didn't fear that the gov't would just use the money to bomb the bejesus out of more countries.

mimartin
08-26-2008, 08:40 PM
FWIW, I was addressing the post above yours. Apologies for any confusion. No need to apologize, I deal with the public all day at work and I get use to letting simple things go by in the name of customer service. It was my bad for leaving thing overly simplified. I would not have responded if I thought I had not done something wrong.

On a side note: The U.S. paid off most of its debt after WWII by selling bonds to citizens. I might be inclined to particpate in something like that today if I didn't fear that the gov't would just use the money to bomb the bejesus out of more countries.Well that all going to depend on who is elected isn't it. :D I would be willing to participate too, provide I had that guarantee and something larger than a 41/2 yield. ;)

Totenkopf
08-26-2008, 09:41 PM
This seems to me like you're saying we shouldn't try to spend more efficiently or any attempts to do so would fail?

No, just that I doubt any "savings" he would generate from slashing the military budget wouldn't be wasted in the first place on other crap that was unnecessary.


There's no dialogue with our enemies because we've made no attempt to open dialogue with them. As for Pakistan, I wasn't aware we started picking countries to invade based solely on how easily we could defeat them. And the article on North Korea you linked seemed to say that we didn't hold up our end of the deal so North Korea said it would restart its nuclear energy program.

The point about NK is that talking often ends up yielding nothing. Also, the NKs wanted bilateral negotiations w/the US (like under the Clinton, where they cheated massively), but this administration chose a multilateral approach instead. Hence an apparent deadend. Iran's "negotiations" with the EU show pretty much the same thing...the futility of thinking your enemy/adversary is going to do what you want b/c you took the time to sit and talk. You obviously missed the point about Pakistan. If you think that a war based on tenuous evidence with a smaller power is illegal or illogical, you can't credibly suggest taking on an even bigger country where the situation is even murkier. Plain insane. [/quote]





I assumed not Obama meant McCain.

I noticed. ;)


Pretty much the only thing I see in him is that he's not Bush/McCain and if I were to vote I'd vote for him because I hate McCain and not because I like Obama.

Proving that what I've said elsewhere, this is an election about who you're (generically speaking)voting against--rather than for. I suspect a lot of people are voting against the "other guy" rather than for their choice.

-----------------------------------------------
On a side note: The U.S. paid off most of its debt after WWII by selling bonds to citizens. I might be inclined to particpate in something like that today if I didn't fear that the gov't would just use the money to bomb the bejesus out of more countries.

...or more pork barrel projects on the domestic side either. I think that's one of the reasons a lot of people are opposed to higher taxes for, say, infrastructure repair or paying down the debt. No one really believes it would be spent on those problems.

El Sitherino
08-26-2008, 09:45 PM
That's why you vote closer to what fits your ideals until it comes.

You can't have everything you want the moment you demand it, some things you have to work for.

Totenkopf
08-26-2008, 09:49 PM
Fair enough, but sort of irrelevant. Sometimes the guy "closer" to your ideals only seems that way b/c the other guy is so far, thus presenting you with a Hobson's choice.

Arcesious
08-26-2008, 10:45 PM
So we know the problems of all of this... What is the solution? Because it sounds that, no matter how we do it, we still have economic collapse.

Achilles
08-26-2008, 11:06 PM
We only have economic collapse if nothing changes. If people start being smarter with their money and demanding more accountability from their government, then we'll probably be fine. Unfortunately, I suspect that many of us will continue to vote against our own best interests because we don't care to know better.

mimartin
08-26-2008, 11:21 PM
IMO – The number one thing we must do is survive 146 more days. Whoever is elected will have to change our course.

Personally, I not going to predict what McCain or Obama will do as President. I would never have guess George W Bush would have stripped away liberties, incurred a massive debt, stated an unnecessary war or been such a polarizing figure when I voted for him 8 years ago. As governor of Texas, he had brought both parties together and fought to reduce the state’s debt.

Sure, you are going to hear others preach against the Democrats spending, but look at what the Republicans did when they controlled congress with a Republican President. Look at the two Presidents that ran up more debt during their terms than all the other Presidents in the history of this country combined. History speaks for itself despite the rhetoric.

Arcesious
08-29-2008, 12:34 AM
Well Obama's most recent speech was great, but it seesm that, in order to sway religious voters, he alienated the unreligious. :giveup:

El Sitherino
08-29-2008, 12:46 AM
Well Obama's most recent speech was great, but it seesm that, in order to sway religious voters, he alienated the unreligious. :giveup:

How so? Just because the religious had a ceremony?

They're people too, ya know.

Arcesious
08-29-2008, 01:31 AM
Eh, you're probably right. I don't think it would be intentional on his part, not at all, but, to me, saying 'God Bless America' means 'Nothing Bless America.' He sounds sincere, but IMO, I don't think 'God' has any effect on how things work. Kind of just like the universe will work the way it works, and won't work with every hypothesis (IE, I could say the Earth is flat, but that won't change how the Earth really is and how it works.) The events in the country, from my athiestic point of veiw, are not the cause of a God; only what Humanity does, experiences, and is capable of on it's own without any truly real, invisible help. (IE, things like a person overcoming a drug addiction by turning to religion is not a miracle done by a God. It's just resolve and determination achieved via a crutch, IMHO. Or simply a stroke of chance that someone wins the lottery, or a random occurence if a natural disaster strikes somewhere.)

Meh...

Rev7
08-29-2008, 01:34 AM
Well Obama's most recent speech was great, but it seesm that, in order to sway religious voters, he alienated the unreligious. :giveup:
Religion really doesn't have a play in this. ;) His opinion.

Totenkopf
08-29-2008, 04:46 AM
BO hasn't alienated the athiest vote b/c most of them realize he has to run center right in a general election if he hopes to get elected.

Gargoyle King
08-29-2008, 06:20 AM
What do you all think of Hilary now backing Obama?

Tommycat
08-29-2008, 07:00 AM
What do you all think of Hilary now backing Obama?

Did she? I thought her speech sounded more like, "Just don't vote for McCain"

Gargoyle King
08-29-2008, 07:17 AM
Did she? I thought her speech sounded more like, "Just don't vote for McCain"Well apparently she's been actively getting her own supporters to now back Obama, so she does seem to be backing him.

Tommycat
08-29-2008, 08:36 AM
Well apparently she's been actively getting her own supporters to now back Obama, so she does seem to be backing him.

Yeah, but they are still more of, "Since you can't vote for me, vote for Obama instead of McCain."

To be honest the best advertisements for McCain are the ads that she ran during the primaries. And he doesn't even have to fact check... It's what Obama's own party member said about him.

Still semi undecided as to who to vote for. I wish McCain would have stuck to his guns rather than going full party line like he did.

Just because I'm a Republican doesn't mean I agree with everything the Republican party stands for. And even less so with the current stand on spying on citizens... What ever happened to the party that agreed with "The scariest words in the English language are 'I'm from the government, and I'm here to help'"

El Sitherino
08-29-2008, 10:37 AM
What ever happened to the party that agreed with "The scariest words in the English language are 'I'm from the government, and I'm here to help'"

Neo-Conservativism and the GOP changing course.

I think Hillary is understanding that the best thing for this country is someone with policy and ideals that will change this country for the better, or at least make every attempt to change the country for the better.

I think it's important that people remember it doesn't ultimately matter who you're voting for, but that they are capable of the position and will impact good change to progress the country forward. What Hillary was saying was "Were you backing me because I'm a woman, or were you backing me because I stood up for the same ideals you hold"
With this speech she was stating that Obama will offer the change she can't, so they need to think about what they really want. Do they want to vote McCain just because they can't vote Hillary, or do they want to vote Obama because they can't vote Hillary, but they want to see those policies and ideals they believe supported in the office?

Web Rider
08-29-2008, 12:47 PM
BO hasn't alienated the athiest vote b/c most of them realize he has to run center right in a general election if he hopes to get elected.

I'm an atheist, I don't feel alienated...I mean, especially since I realize what he's doing. If I didn't understand it at all, sure, but I do and it makes good sense. Besides, Atheists make up what, 10% of the population? We're not talking about a group the size of the Religious Right here.

Also: McCain picked: Sarah Palin...and to be honest, I dunno where he's going with that.

Totenkopf
08-29-2008, 01:41 PM
Also: McCain picked: Sarah Palin...and to be honest, I dunno where he's going with that.


Not sure, but her resume and accomplishments sound more fit for the executive branch than either Barak or Biden. Maybe he'll snag some votes from women who resent BO's veep choice. We'll just have to wait and see. Maybe she'll end up the Rep Geraldine Ferarro. Only remaining question is what kind of skeletons are in her closet (couldn't be wrose than Wright or Ayers).

Re your sig......you are probably in a very small group of people...those w/an affinity for Juhani. Well.....no one's perfect. ;)

mimartin
08-29-2008, 01:49 PM
Not sure, but her resume and accomplishments sound more fit for the executive branch than either Barak or Biden.
You may want to check the resume of Biden again. While he may not be your choice, but I find it really difficult to doubt his resume. As to Obama, he has the same/more experience in National Politics than 3 of the past 4 Presidents. (and he will help fight gingivitis) .

Totenkopf
08-29-2008, 02:27 PM
Sitting in the Senate for 30+ years doesn't really qualify one for the executive branch, or there'd probably be a lot more senators becoming president. Biden may be eminently qualified to sit on a Senate committe, but that's about it. BO's 160+ "present" votes in IL and his marxist street organizer experience in Chicago politics are hardly inspiring. His Senatorial exp has been lackluster, to be kind.

mimartin
08-29-2008, 03:10 PM
Sitting in the Senate for 30+ years doesn't really qualify one for the executive branch, or there'd probably be a lot more senators becoming president. So does that mean John McCain does not have the experience for the executive branch, or is that only a Democratic handicap? :roleyess:

El Sitherino
08-29-2008, 03:51 PM
So does that mean John McCain does not have the experience for the executive branch, or is that only a Democratic handicap? :roleyess:

I'm gonna go ahead and quote this for emphasis, because all the excuses I see being used against the Democratic party can easily be used with the Republican party.

Nedak
08-29-2008, 04:25 PM
I love how McCain chose a (decent looking) woman to be his Vice President.

Yeah, he's not just trying to appeal to Hilary supporters or anything. ;)

Litofsky
08-29-2008, 04:59 PM
I love how McCain chose a woman to be his Vice President.

Yeah, he's not just trying to appeal to Hilary supporters or anything. ;)

Quote for truth. I haven't seen many pictures of her, so I'm not sure if she's decent looking or not. :xp:

However, Palin seems like a single-minded attempt to siphon off woman voters from Hillary's fan-base. Personally, I think it's a rather bad choice, but I guess it's up to the people in November. :giveup:

mimartin
08-29-2008, 05:18 PM
I haven't seen many pictures of her, so I'm not sure if she's decent looking or not. :xp: http://www.usmagazine.com/files/palin-miss-alaska-b.jpg

I'd set in a class room listening to her teach me about creationism and anti-women’s rights. I don’t know how much she will help with the women’s vote, but she will do wonders for the horndog vote.

Achilles
08-29-2008, 05:46 PM
There are other, hawter pics of her on the interwebs.

Or, err, so I've been told by some of my friends. :D

Web Rider
08-29-2008, 05:59 PM
Now, if we wanted to see hawt women while running, we all would be voting for Kusinich(sp), 'cause his wife is smokin'.

As for her record? I don't see it doing anything to help McCain.

Achilles
08-29-2008, 06:03 PM
Now, if we wanted to see hawt women while running, we all would be voting for Kusinich(sp), 'cause his wife is smokin'. :lol:

As for her record? I don't see it doing anything to help McCain.Depends on what you mean by that. There's some stuff that will help him with the Republican base, but that's about it.

I, personally, think that he made a horrible mistake and I'm really hoping that it blows up in his face.

Web Rider
08-29-2008, 06:16 PM
:lol:

Depends on what you mean by that. There's some stuff that will help him with the Republican base, but that's about it.

I, personally, think that he made a horrible mistake and I'm really hoping that it blows up in his face.

All I really saw that she had going for her was stuff McCain was already doing, no abortions, no gay marriage, drilling for more oil, ect... I mean, Biden has stuff Obama doesn't, but this lady? All she's got is more years to live.

mimartin
08-29-2008, 06:43 PM
There are other, hawter pics of her on the interwebs.Yea, but Jae may have something to say if I were to go too much hawter. :xp:

It is probably my bias, but I’m not impressed with her resume and definitely not with her on the issues I consider important.

All she's got is more years to live. And hair.

I don’t like that the candidates are getting closer to me in age, Palin is only about 9 months older than me.

Achilles
08-29-2008, 07:11 PM
All I really saw that she had going for her was stuff McCain was already doing, no abortions, no gay marriage, drilling for more oil, ect... I mean, Biden has stuff Obama doesn't, but this lady? All she's got is more years to live.She has legitimacy. Many people fear that McCain's positions are pandering and nothing more (on some issues due to his record).

Selecting a bona fide hater gives him more cred with the hater vote.

It is probably my bias, but Iím not impressed with her resume and definitely not with her on the issues I consider important. I concur.

I have a proposal for how she and I can settle our difference in viewpoint which I will submit to her via a personal letter. *happy thoughts*

And hair. And glasses :)

I donít like that the candidates are getting closer to me in age, Palin is only about 9 months older than me.Err...you do know you're getting older, right? :xp:

Arcesious
08-29-2008, 07:36 PM
Now that Mccain hasn't picked Romney, perhaps my father will consider voting for Obama... Or maybe not.

Sarah seems unremarkable compared to Joe Biden, IMO. Not that she's a bad politician, just that she doesn't sound like a very good choice.

El Sitherino
08-29-2008, 07:48 PM
McCain picked: Sarah Palin...and to be honest, I dunno where he's going with that.

Oil.

jrrtoken
08-29-2008, 08:35 PM
Oil.They all go after that, don't they?:xp:

El Sitherino
08-29-2008, 08:50 PM
They all go after that, don't they?:xp:

No, just these guys. Her husband is a longtime BP worker and she's the Governor of Alaska. Huge oil ties there.

Anyway, something (http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/08/29/1307122.aspx) I thought was interesting and worth a look at by people.

Achilles
08-29-2008, 09:14 PM
No, just these guys. Her husband is a longtime BP worker and she's the Governor of Alaska. Huge oil ties there. QFT.

Anyway, something (http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/08/29/1307122.aspx) I thought was interesting and worth a look at by people. Hehe, nice find! I think McCain's reputation as a womanizer is going to come back and bite him on this one. I don't think Obama will bring it up, but then again, I also don't think he'll need to.

Arcesious
08-29-2008, 10:12 PM
Yep, my father can't see past his religious objections to abortion and gay marriage. I talked to my father about it tonight... Basically it's as follows:

Me: "Sounds like Mccain picked some random governor from Alaska named Sarah Palin.... Sarah sounds extremely inexperienced for a VP. The biggest reason he picked her was to appeal to Hilary supporters. Obviously, Mccain is a bad decision maker, as Sarah is not very well suited to be in a position as high as VP. But Barack's plans are clearly better than Mccain's. I have to say that Barack is the lesser of the two evils. He's got a pretty good economy plan. Mccain doesn't offer anything better than the last eight years. Frankly, right now, I think Bush did a really bad job, and the whole Iraq War is a lost cause."

My Father: "I just don't understand why he didn't pick Romney... Still, I can't vote for Barack... My beleifs just aren't the same as his. His beleifs are really messed up. I guess my only choice is to vote for Mccain."

Me (Backing off): "Or you could just not vote at all... But yeah, I guess you're right."

Yep, this same exact debate has been had about a dozen times before between me and him... same outcoem every time... I have to back off to avoid being deemed as 'unchristian' about the moral issues.

Edit; But Meh, what's one more democratic vote in a conservative state? It wouldn't make any difference... I should probably just leave it alone, since I obviosuly won't have any effect on the election, living in a conservative state. Oh well. I hope all you voting Dems' come through and get Barack elected! ;)

Nedak
08-29-2008, 10:53 PM
Anyway, something (http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/08/29/1307122.aspx) I thought was interesting and worth a look at by people.

If that doesn't spell out "I'm desperate for your votes, so here is a woman" then I'm Big Bird.

Jae Onasi
08-30-2008, 12:04 AM
Well, since we're talking about Palin's hawtness, let's go ahead and bring up the fact that Obama has the cutest tight little ass of any of the candidates. :roleyess:

What does Palin have? A female gender, which Obama's ticket pointedly does not have now. She supports ANWAR drilling (no surprise--oil revenue for her state), is pro-life, conservative, an NRA member who goes hunting regularly, conservationist without being viewed as ultra-flakey environmentalist (not to be confused with sane environmentalists), and did I mention FEMALE? She's going to appeal to the far right wing of the party with her conservative views, and draw some of the moderate female vote that had gone to Clinton but aren't convinced to vote for Obama. How much of an impact Palin has on the ticket is too early to tell right now, however.

Arcesious--the argument about experience would not be a wise one for the Obama campaign to bring up--he has 4 years' experience as a Senator, which is not a whole lot when you're looking at McCain's 22 years. In an executive capacity, Palin has 8 years as mayor and 2 as governor--that's 10 more than Obama has, though on a national level he has her beat hands down. They would be wise to leave foreign policy arguments alone too--with 2 1/2 miles separating an Alaskan island from a Russian one in the Bering Strait, I'd be surprised if Palin has not taken the time to familiarize herself with Russians. There are better areas for the Obama campaign to focus on--health care, higher education, economy--all those are areas that need a lot more attention than Bush has been giving them.

Da_Man_2423
08-30-2008, 12:12 AM
They would be wise to leave foreign policy arguments alone too--with 2 1/2 miles separating an Alaskan island from a Russian one in the Bering Strait, I'd be surprised if Palin has not taken the time to familiarize herself with Russians.

Eh, distance is one thing, actually talking to people is another. I couldn't dig up anything about her related to foreign policy experience (perhaps because she has none), can someone find anything?

I'm sure her Wikipedia page has just gotten a serious increase in page views.

El Sitherino
08-30-2008, 12:17 AM
She has no foreign experience as far as I have found from any form of news, even local.

I'm gonna say if we talk pure experience, Obama + Biden = a hell of a lot more beneficial and meaningful experience.

Wah, so John McCain went to Vietnam. So did a lot of people, doesn't mean they can run a country. I'm sorry the guy got tortured, but what can I say, mercy voting because he's crippled just degrades everything.

Litofsky
08-30-2008, 12:22 AM
She has no foreign experience as far as I have found from any form of news, even local.

I'm gonna say if we talk pure experience, Obama + Biden = a hell of a lot more beneficial and meaningful experience.

Wah, so John McCain went to Vietnam. So did a lot of people, doesn't mean they can run a country. I'm sorry the guy got tortured, but what can I say, mercy voting because he's crippled just degrades everything.

Quote for truth. I'm not sure what will actually happen, but I know that Obama has the charisma and ideas that could make a significant positive difference, and Biden has the experience that adds credibility to the ticket.

If I could vote, I'd do so for Obama/Biden. Of course, I've gotta wait for the next election to vote. :(

Tommycat
08-30-2008, 12:45 AM
This election is a great one. Honestly either way it goes this year it will be a historic first.

Obama wins, we have the first African-American president ever.

McCain wins, we have the first woman VP.

I'm happy that some boundaries are being broken down.

Achilles
08-30-2008, 01:59 AM
Arcesious--the argument about experience would not be a wise one for the Obama campaign to bring up--he has 4 years' experience as a Senator... Plus 7 years as a state senator. I say that his 7 years at state level beats her two and probably nulls her 8 years at city. Unless of course you want to argue executive vs legislative, which is probably a good argument to have but at the same time probably one that she won't win.

...which is not a whole lot when you're looking at McCain's 22 years. *shrugs* As someone from his home state that has never voted for him, I think it's fair to say that I'm biased. With that said, I think "amount accomplished" is probably more important than "years served". Am I saying the McCain hasn't had any accomplishments or implying that he doesn't have a record to speak of? Not. But I am saying that that the numbers don't get to be an argument unto themselves.

There are better areas for the Obama campaign to focus on--health care, higher education, economy--all those are areas that need a lot more attention than Bush has been giving them.Agreed! :D

Totenkopf
08-30-2008, 04:26 AM
So does that mean John McCain does not have the experience for the executive branch, or is that only a Democratic handicap? :roleyess:


Since I'm not building up McCain, that bounces off my teflon postion. :D I'd say we've got a fairly even match in some ways. Two old white Senators and two others in their forties that can appeal to a "minority" base. Face it, there's nothing compelling about a Barak/Biden ticket (except to its choir---and yeah, the same goes for the other side too).

*shrugs* As someone from his home state that has never voted for him, I think it's fair to say that I'm biased. With that said, I think "amount accomplished" is probably more important than "years served". Am I saying the McCain hasn't had any accomplishments or implying that he doesn't have a record to speak of? Not. But I am saying that that the numbers don't get to be an argument unto themselves..........Plus 7 years as a state senator. I say that his 7 years at state level beats her two and probably nulls her 8 years at city. Unless of course you want to argue executive vs legislative, which is probably a good argument to have but at the same time probably one that she won't win.

So.....which is it? Number of years or not? :rolleyes:

Also, exec exp pwns legislative when running for an executive office.

Tommycat
08-30-2008, 11:32 AM
Wait.... I just read about Todd Palin... He's not tied to big oil like some are thinking. He's an oil worker. Blue collar guy, not some exec that would make money off big oil. If people go after him for his ties to big oil, that'd be stupid. And I would not want to mess with him. Big guy.

At any rate she has shown that she can break with the party line, She's more conservative on a few issues than McCain, and more believable on the anti abortion stance than McCain. See McCain was less anti abortion til he started going for the republican nod in the primary. But hey it's all in how you spin it right?

Web Rider
08-30-2008, 03:35 PM
Also, exec exp pwns legislative when running for an executive office.

Well, she's not running for exec office, she's just tagging along. Bush W was a governor and we've seen the wonderful job he's done. Cheney has no exec exp unless you include Halliburton. Clinton Had several years as governor of Arkansas, so you could claim his(what is historically considered successful) presidency was bettered by governorship. Though you could draw ties to both Palin and Clinton having scandals due abuse of their position and have a whole "power corrupts" here.

George H Bush was not a governor, and possible correlations could be drawn about him not getting reelected because of it. Ronald Reagen was Govenor of California and we all saw the positive he did for the state and it's educational system.(/sarcasm) And the wonders that Reaganomics did for business and the middle class(/sarcasm), so paralells could again be drawn that having executive exp does not qualify one to be a good president, of course Reagen did a lot of good for the Cold War too, so a positive correlation could be drawn as well.

In short, over the last 4 presidents, executive experience has proven to be very iffy in terms of it actually making a better president. I'm sure the same will stand true continuing back in history. Perhaps it makes a statement about career politicians? But that wouldn't work as Clinton is generally regarded as a fairly effective presidency and Bush W is not.

So I think that in the big picture, executive experience stands as a fairly minor or inconsequential factor in determining how good a president WILL be. Now I'm sure you'd get a more solid answer if you looked at the actual details of their pre-presidential executive experience, but I'm fairly certain that a successful political career, regardless of the actual position, will speak louder for the person than the level of position they held.

"Executive experience" is as empty a term as "political experience". Stalin, Mao, Hitler, JFK, Bush, they all have "political experiance", most have "executive experiance", but their records are all very different. And I'm sure you'd be more willing to elect Obama over Stalin even though Stalin has "executive experience".

Totenkopf
08-30-2008, 06:37 PM
Well, she's not running for exec office, she's just tagging along. Bush W was a governor and we've seen the wonderful job he's done. Cheney has no exec exp unless you include Halliburton. Clinton Had several years as governor of Arkansas, so you could claim his(what is historically considered successful) presidency was bettered by governorship. Though you could draw ties to both Palin and Clinton having scandals due abuse of their position and have a whole "power corrupts" here.

George H Bush was not a governor, and possible correlations could be drawn about him not getting reelected because of it. Ronald Reagen was Govenor of California and we all saw the positive he did for the state and it's educational system.(/sarcasm) And the wonders that Reaganomics did for business and the middle class(/sarcasm), so paralells could again be drawn that having executive exp does not qualify one to be a good president, of course Reagen did a lot of good for the Cold War too, so a positive correlation could be drawn as well.

In short, over the last 4 presidents, executive experience has proven to be very iffy in terms of it actually making a better president. I'm sure the same will stand true continuing back in history. Perhaps it makes a statement about career politicians? But that wouldn't work as Clinton is generally regarded as a fairly effective presidency and Bush W is not.

So I think that in the big picture, executive experience stands as a fairly minor or inconsequential factor in determining how good a president WILL be. Now I'm sure you'd get a more solid answer if you looked at the actual details of their pre-presidential executive experience, but I'm fairly certain that a successful political career, regardless of the actual position, will speak louder for the person than the level of position they held.

"Executive experience" is as empty a term as "political experience". Stalin, Mao, Hitler, JFK, Bush, they all have "political experiance", most have "executive experiance", but their records are all very different. And I'm sure you'd be more willing to elect Obama over Stalin even though Stalin has "executive experience".

Actually, VP is an executive postion/office, so neither she nor Biden are just tagging along. At least during the post war era, almost all of the past presidents had some level of executive experience before assuming the presidency, which is more relevant than "successful political experience" (whatever that is) in evaluating someone's quals for the job. In the case of GHB, I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that DQ and G's being suckered by duplicitous dems on the tax issue are a large part of what hurt his reelection chances. If Reagan had been such a detriment, that pathetic loser Dukakais would've won in '88.

I think you should remove your rosy glasses when discussing Clinton. And his tenure as gov of AR had little to show for it, less even than Reagan's of CA. As far as Obama and Stalin go......I'd vote Ron Paul first (I think the temp in hell just hit freezing. :D ). Beisdes, both being marxists at their core, I wouldn't have to worry b/c both would be at home in the modern dem party. That decision would more likely have been YOUR dilemma. :xp:

Ok, if someone ran for the office of dog catcher and held it over several "terms", that person would be as qualified as Obama and Biden? :xp:

Since I don't claim that "exec exp" gaurantees a president will be a good one (neither, however, does your nebulous qualifier of successful political exp), that seems largely irrelevant. I don't reject BO b/c I think he's less qualified in terms of intellectual capacity, but rather b/c I don't trust him and have low regard for the underpinnings of his political philosophy. It's apparent that many dems don't really know who they're voting for either (few of whom, here or elsewhere, have been able to identify any accomplishments by him).

Arcesious
08-30-2008, 08:55 PM
I heard this in a random commerical on TV, but it is something I thought worth thinking about:

"As long as people can change, the world can change."

The question is- is the USA too 'fundamental' and the ideologies of people too 'dogmatic' to allow significant change?

Totenkopf
08-30-2008, 09:24 PM
I heard this in a random commerical on TV, but it is something I thought worth thinking about:

"As long as people can change, the world can change."

The question is- is the USA too 'fundamental' and the ideologies of people too 'dogmatic' to allow significant change?

Depends on what type of change you're talking about, though, doesn't it...

Web Rider
08-30-2008, 09:25 PM
At least during the post war era, almost all but the past presidents had some level of executive experience, which is more relevant than "successful political experience" (whatever the hell that is) in evaluating someone's quals for the job.
And which "post war" time was that? WWI? WWII? Korean War? Vietnam? Gulf War? Gulf War II?

If Reagan had been such a detriment, that sorry loser Dukakais would've won in '88.
If you had read my post, which you didn't, apparently, seeing as you aren't reading what I wrote, I left Reagan at 50/50.

I think you should remove your rosy glasses when discussing Clinton. And his tenure as gov of AR had little to show for it, less even than Reagan's of CA.
I don't know what you thought I wrote, but I only mentioned Clinton WAS governor of Arkansas, I didn't make comment on if it was a good or bad term.

As far as Obama and Stalin go......I'd vote Ron Paul first (I think the temp in hell just hit freezing. :D ). Beisdes, both being marxists at their core, I wouldn't have to worry b/c both would be at home in the modern dem party.
Okay, I admit it, that made me laugh and almost spit out my drink. Stalin, a marxist? That'd almost be funny if you didn't normally say smart things, as it is, that's just stupid. Stalin espoused Marxism to win the support of the people, he was a paranoid power hungry authoritarian. He'd be more likly to kill somebody who read a memo to him instead of letting him read it himself than support a workers revolution.

Ok, if someone ran for the office of dog catcher and held it over several "terms", that person would be as qualified as Obama and Biden?
Your parallel is stupid and frankly I have no idea what you're trying to say with it. Dog catcher? lolwut?

Since I don't claim that "exec exp" gaurantees a president will be a good one (neither, however, does your nebulous qualifier of successful political exp), that seems largely irrelevant.
My qualifier was "political experience". I did not state it as successful or unsuccessful. You did not claim it, but you would be lying to say that you did not imply that holding an executive position, regardless of how low on the totem pole it is, makes a person better prepared to be president(and would therefore imply they'd be a better president).

I don't reject BO b/c I think he's less qualified in terms of intellectual capacity, but rather b/c I don't trust him and have low regard for the underpinnings of his political philosophy. It's apparent that many dems don't really know who they're voting for either (few of whom, here or elsewhere, have been able to identify any accomplishments by him).
I didn't realize that these magical "accomplishments" made a better candidate. I better start accomplishing things right now! Oh look! I just accomplished a sentence! /sarcasm

So far you have made a series of vague statements indirectly implying a number of mystical "things" about people based on no factual basis and vague qualifiers that don't really mean anything. Point is: A lot of words seem to have come out of your mouth, but you don't seem to have said anything beyond: "Say no to Obama just 'cause."

Totenkopf
08-30-2008, 10:08 PM
And which "post war" time was that? WWI? WWII? Korean War? Vietnam? Gulf War? Gulf War II?

The Boer War. :rolleyes: :lol: Didn't realize you were so clueless. :D When people talk about the post war era in general (at least in the modern age), it's understood to be post 1945.


If you had read my post, which you didn't, apparently, seeing as you aren't reading what I wrote, I left Reagan at 50/50.

You're being slightly disingenous here. Your implication was that Bush might have been handicapped by lack of "exec exp" (though he did hold exec postions w/in several administrations, head of CIA being one of them) and that Reaganomics hurt the country and by extension Bush's chances.


Okay, I admit it, that made me laugh and almost spit out my drink. Stalin, a marxist? That'd almost be funny if you didn't normally say smart things, as it is, that's just stupid. Stalin espoused Marxism to win the support of the people, he was a paranoid power hungry authoritarian. He'd be more likly to kill somebody who read a memo to him instead of letting him read it himself than support a workers revolution.

That Stalin was a raving paranoid doesn't exclude the fact that he aligned himself with a bastardized marxist system. The beauty of being in absolute power is that you get to define what "supporting a workers revolution" is in the first place (till your dead, anyway.). Btw, did Stalin tell you he didn't believe in marxism/communism? ;) Ftr, if you espouse a particular kind of philosophy, you can fairly be labled an adherent of it (your inner motivations notwithstanding, as they can only often be guessed at anyway).



Your parallel is stupid and frankly I have no idea what you're trying to say with it. Dog catcher? lolwut?

No, it points out how openended and meaningless an expression like "political experience" is anyway. I can only conclude from your statement that you irrationally believe that "unsuccessful" political experience is equally qualifying as "successful", as you make no attempt to assert otherwise. Seems equally silly to assume that unsuccessful political experience would somehow trump successful exec exp. in considering someone qualified.


My qualifier was "political experience". I did not state it as successful or unsuccessful. You did not claim it, but you would be lying to say that you did not imply that holding an executive position, regardless of how low on the totem pole it is, makes a person better prepared to be president(and would therefore imply they'd be a better president).

Here I'm going to have to figure you have trouble reading: Since I don't claim that "exec exp" gaurantees a president will be a good one (neither, however, does your nebulous qualifier of successful political exp), that seems largely irrelevant.


I didn't realize that these magical "accomplishments" made a better candidate. I better start accomplishing things right now! Oh look! I just accomplished a sentence! /sarcasm

Needs work....:D


So far you have made a series of vague statements indirectly implying a number of mystical "things" about people based on no factual basis and vague qualifiers that don't really mean anything. Point is: A lot of words seem to have come out of your mouth, but you don't seem to have said anything beyond: "Say no to Obama just 'cause."

Not really sure what you're trying to say here. I've not implied anything specific about anyone. Perhaps the mysticism derives from your own inferences. You, however, have yet to offer anything, really, as a reason to vote for BO in the first place, which basically affirms my point that many of his supporter know little to nothing about the cypher they've chosen for Nov.

El Sitherino
08-31-2008, 12:58 AM
LOL OBama is a communist!!!11!!

Druganator
08-31-2008, 01:09 AM
i think that if Obama was a communist that it wouldve been made public considering he does hold public office. The last thing america needs is a 70sum year old dude dying leaving the country in the hands of a 44 year old governor with 3 years experience.

Nedak
08-31-2008, 01:41 AM
i think that if Obama was a communist that it wouldve been made public considering he does hold public office. The last thing america needs is a 70sum year old dude dying leaving the country in the hands of a 44 year old governor with 3 years experience.

BUT SHE'S SO PRETTY!

http://wonkette.com/assets/resources/2008/05/sarapalinlego.jpg

:lol:

Totenkopf
08-31-2008, 06:25 AM
LOL OBama is a communist!!!11!!


His major political influences are marxists. Your own ignorance about the man you support is telling. However, if you're implying I'm saying he belonged to the communist party, that's something you obviously inferred. It still strikes me as interesting that you guys have yet to come up with anything that supports BO fitness (not his right to run, mind you) to be elected. Most of the comments here fall into the category that BO ain't Bush/McCain and that seems to be enough. Others into nebulous claims that somehow BO will talk the rerst of the world into liking us again, b/c gosh, he's such an eloquent speaker with all these "new" ideas. :rolleyes:

Arcesious
08-31-2008, 09:50 AM
Marxism isn't entirely bad... Sure, it's got some retarded concepts in it with relation to communism, but it does have some good concepts that can be used to improve a capitalist democracy to be more fair to people.

Corinthian
08-31-2008, 12:06 PM
Wow. The hypocrisy here is making me choke. You're lambasting Palin because...she's not especially experienced.

Isn't that the same kind of thing that the Democrats get pissed about when it's said about Obama?

Ugh. I need to go wash my mouth out.

Druganator
08-31-2008, 12:41 PM
She's even more inexperienced than Obama She's got 3 years of experience as governor of Alaska, my county has more people in it than the entire state of Alaska, and before she was governor she was a mayor, the republicans are being hypocritical by claiming Obama is not ready to lead and then choosing her as vice president. Typical Republican bull****, but McCain is a good Candidate i just don't agree with his policies, and Obama has great ideas, but thats just it they're ideas and i dont think they will become a reality because of the way congress works now, as you can tell i don't want either but i dislike mcain more than Obama so I choose the lesser of two evils. Go Obama

Corinthian
08-31-2008, 12:58 PM
Obama has no experience in the Executive branch whatsoever. All of her experience is in the Executive branch. See the difference?

Astor
08-31-2008, 12:58 PM
She's even more inexperienced than Obama She's got 3 years of experience as governor of Alaska, my county has more people in it than the entire state of Alaska, and before she was governor she was a mayor, the republicans are being hypocritical by claiming Obama is not ready to lead and then choosing her as vice president. Typical Republican bull****, but McCain is a good Candidate i just don't agree with his policies, and Obama has great ideas, but thats just it they're ideas and i dont think they will become a reality because of the way congress works now, as you can tell i don't want either but i dislike mcain more than Obama so I choose the lesser of two evils. Go Obama


But really, at the end of the day, they're al inexperienced. None of them (both Presidential and VP candidates) have any experience of being President.

They're all unknown quantities until they actually get to sit in the big chair.

Druganator
08-31-2008, 01:46 PM
Congressional Experience is better than being the governer of Alaska, the president is gonna have to deal with congress in order to get anything done. and I personally think the most qualifying job to have if u want to run for president would be the CEO of a large corporation because its essentially the same thing

Web Rider
08-31-2008, 01:53 PM
His major political influences are marxists. Your own ignorance about the man you support is telling.
I suppose I shouldn't find it strange, but I still do, continually hearing "you're wrong and you know nothing" coming from your posts. Yet, you, like us, have been lacking in providing any evidence to show us you know what you're talking about. Perhaps you would like to support YOUR claims before you tell us that our claims are wrong? If not, I respectfully request you stop calling us all ignorant.

It still strikes me as interesting that you guys have yet to come up with anything that supports BO fitness (not his right to run, mind you) to be elected. Most of the comments here fall into the category that BO ain't Bush/McCain and that seems to be enough. Others into nebulous claims that somehow BO will talk the rerst of the world into liking us again, b/c gosh, he's such an eloquent speaker with all these "new" ideas. :rolleyes:
It strikes me as interesting that you have yet to provide any evidence against him except a vague allusion to him being a communist, and that he doesn't have enough experience. A qualification you seem to only apply to Democratic candidates. Palin, who has fewer years than Obama, either is also lacking in experience, or you are being hypocritial.

To be honest, considering your strategy in simply saying "you're wrong!" or "obama is evil!" I'm hesitant to waste my time pulling up facts and figures about Obama's plans as President. I'm not going to go around and get these things just to sit here and have you go: "lol he's stupid."

But really, at the end of the day, they're al inexperienced. None of them (both Presidential and VP candidates) have any experience of being President.

They're all unknown quantities until they actually get to sit in the big chair.

QFT

We can go on and on about how Obama might be worse or Palin might be better ot McCain might do the wrong thing or how Biden might help but in the end, we're simply grasping at straws. None of them have been president, and unlike previous candidates like Al Gore, none of them have been close enough to the executive office to even wager a guess at how well they might do.

Astor
08-31-2008, 02:06 PM
none of them have been close enough to the executive office to even wager a guess at how well they might do.

Exactly.

To use a crude expression, the only thing you can do is make a choice, stick your head between your legs and hope it's the right one.

SD Nihil
08-31-2008, 04:59 PM
I know I've come late to this thread, but let me see if I can catch up.

I'm voting for McCain because he will make the tax cuts that Bush did permanent. When you have more money in your pocket you have more money to spend. You can use it to buy more and overall that stimulates the economy.
Oboma wants to tax those that make more than 150 thousand a year. It sounds more than it is when you talk about gas prices being so high. Also the cost of living, and house ownership is high. 150 thousand is actually the new mid class income. 200 thousand slightly above mid clas.

Simply because you are successful in this system of capitalism and in life is no reason to punish you for working hard. We live in a free country where we are free to persue self determinatin.

If you feel jelous that someone has more then get out there and work. If you have to live out of your car do it. Make more to get an appartment. Work. Freedome doesn't mean a hand out. It means free to live as poor or as rich as "you" strive to be.

Oboma is wrong when he says McCain wants to give a tax break to the wealthyest 1 percent. McCain has said he wants to give "everyone" the bush tax cuts.

Oboma wants to retreat from Iraq. Or as he puts it redeploy elsewhere. Most Americans by most polls show that we when we go into a war want to fight to win. The majority of us do not want our troops to be in arms way. But if they are we should support them.

You can support your troops and still disagree with a war. Infact just this week I heard on the radio that Anbar provence we plan to Sep 1st had over complete control to the Iraqies. No news is good news as they say. Meaning you didn't hear this on the public news channels.

It's not Veitnam. Were winning. McCain is for us finishing in Iraq. Oboma is for leaving. We are doing so well there that the Iraq government is starting to talk about us leaving. This is not a typical war. It's a gorila type warefare. Not a conventinal war like WWII where you were fighting a true army. So comparing it to WWII that it's taken longeris not an appropriate comparison.

We went into Iraq because Saddam disobayed the cease fire. This may be news to some of you, but the Gulf War never ended. Saddam agreed to surrender. We said okey Saddam we'll stop beating the snot out of you if you A get out of Kuwait, and B let inspectors in.

The inspectors were to make sure he didn't create any new weapons that could harm his neighbors. Meaning to prevent another Kuwait type situation. For a time he agreed. Then Saddam would drag his feet saying we can't go here or there yet. They would make our inspctors wait and stall us. Maybe Saddam's guys were moving weapons out and hiding them, or maybe he was just being a jerk.

So one time our inspectors say you better let us in. We get kicked out. We then say Saddam your violating the cease fire agreement we made. Saddam is like no you can't come in.

We then impose sanctions. Still no you can't come in. We pass 14 resolutions. Which are basically warnings saying Saddam you better let us in or we are coming in. Then we invaded.

9/11 simply escalated this. We were going in anyway. We didn't go in immediatly because Clinton cared more about his popularity than making the unpopular decision. All he did was send over some cruise missiles sending Saddam back a couple years.

Again maybe he had weapons, or maybe he didn't. Doesn't matter though. Saddam already had proven to be untrustworthy.

Think of it this way. Your child brings to school a knife that he had in his room and threatens another child. We take the knife away. We say to the child we are going to be coming into their room to make sure they have no more knives. For a while the child agrees. Then they don't want to. You punish them. Still no you can't come in from the child. Then we come into the child's room that he had locked. Same thing. An untrustworthy individual that wasn't being forthcoming.

From our intel it told us what he had. All Saddam had to do is produce documentation about what thy did to destroy the weapon, take us to where he destroyed the weapon, and then we'd just check that off the list. We can test for the weapon.

WMD doesn't simply mean bio or nuke. It means even a simple long range missile that could strike the soil of a neighbor of Iraq. Again trying to prevent anothe Kuwait.

Here's how it wasn't about oil. If were after oil we would've invaded Saudi Arabia which is where we are getting oil from. We are vulnerable to the whim of those there that sell us the oil. They can ask how much they want us to pay them to get their oil. Since we reley on them. The very people that we are fighting they are jacking up the prices. If were so afte oild why haven't we drilled at home yet. It's because we listen to a few environmental extremists. McCain's running mate Paten is for us drilling in Alaska and Anwar. Had we starting drilling in Anwar back when Cliinton was in office and it was on the table to drill, but was never done. It would've only taken 10 years to start. We would'n't have this problem now if we had started back thn with gas prices.

Oh and if our intel on Saddam's weapons was wrong it's Clinton's fault. He doesn't like the military and our intelligence agrncies. He cut funding and chiped away at the FBI and CIA.

Now onto McCain's VP Govoner Paten. She alone has more executive experience than the deomocrate presidential candidate Oboma. Her approval rating in Alaska is 88 percent before her public VP announcement. Now it's over 90 percent. She can speak with experience on the oil drilling issue since Alaska is full of oil.

Oboma after McCain picked Paton said that McCain is putting a Mayor of a town of only 9000 a few feet away from the prsidency.

How foolish of a statement. She's a Govoner. That's like saying SD Nihil is an elementary student that has gotten 2 B's. I'm a College Grad.

Paten use to be a Mayor and is now a Govoner. Has fought corruption in even the Republican party of her state.

Oboma says she has no foreign experience. The only experience Oboma has had is on the campaign trail going over to Iraq or so. The facts are clear that when you look at Senator Oboma's presidential creditinals and Patens she alone has more than he does.

Oboma has charisma and can speak very elequently. He's good at dodging questions too, but in the end what speaks louder words or actions. Actions speak louder than words.

Aside from talking about redepolying and redistribution of wealth we don't know how Oboma plans to do this or that. Never in my life have I seend a man take an hour to talk about that he's going to do this and that, but never tell how he's going to do this and that.

I know my post is long, but please before you respond to it read it. To speak without reading what the other has said is ignorant. Not dumb, but ignorant. Ignorant meaning there's knowledge there, but you chose not to look at it.

I hope I've persauded some to vote for McCain. Let me know why your still voing for Oboma and I'll try to educate you some more.

Nedak
08-31-2008, 05:13 PM
I'm voting for McCain because he will make the tax cuts that Bush did permanent. When you have more money in your pocket you have more money to spend. You can use it to buy more and overall that stimulates the economy.
.

This is what I just gathered.

You want McCain because you want tax cuts?

Is that what life is these days? Is it just based on money? What about the soldiers in Iraq who want to come home? A lot of them don't even think we should be there. How about the fact McCain wants to stay in Iraq, kill more Americans for an unjust war, and maybe even war Iran. Doesn't that sound dandy!?

But I'm sure money is worth more then all of those people's lives.

Or how about other countries starting to hate us because of our "bully" status? I bet they're just delusional as well.

In the long run, all the money we will be spending on war.. His tax cuts won't help.

EDIT: P.S There is no winning or losing when we don't even know why we're there in the first place.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=120ZAtBMXj4

Web Rider
08-31-2008, 05:55 PM
I'm voting for McCain because he will make the tax cuts that Bush did permanent. When you have more money in your pocket you have more money to spend. You can use it to buy more and overall that stimulates the economy.
My parents, who's combined income is probably around 90k(thanks to mom bringing home the bacon at 70k), are pretty solid middle class, and you wanna know how much we got out of the Bush "tax cuts"? $1,200, give or take. We used it to pay a month's rent.

Yeah, we really stimulated the economy. /sarcasm

Obama wants to tax those that make more than 150 thousand a year. It sounds more than it is when you talk about gas prices being so high. Also the cost of living, and house ownership is high. 150 thousand is actually the new mid class income. 200 thousand slightly above mid class
$150 is not the new middle class income. It's still very high upper middle class. $200k(which my aunt alone makes) can allow her to rent a home, put her daughter through Berkley, pay $1000+ monthy child support, and a number of other things. She lives a very comfortable lifestyle, something most middle class people still see as the "american dream".

Simply because you are successful in this system of capitalism and in life is no reason to punish you for working hard. We live in a free country where we are free to persue self determinatin.
You know what's funny? My aunt works for the state. Tax cuts have hampered my education, yet employees in her field continue to get raises. Hmmm, at least tax and spend makes sense. Taxing makes the government money, then it spends that money. Lowering taxes and spending seems to FAIL at the logic that in order to spend, you need money, spending more with less income does not work. That's why we're so indebted to China atm.

If you feel jelous that someone has more then get out there and work. If you have to live out of your car do it. Make more to get an appartment. Work. Freedome doesn't mean a hand out. It means free to live as poor or as rich as "you" strive to be.
Would you like a pulpit to go with that soapbox?

Obama is wrong when he says McCain wants to give a tax break to the wealthyest 1 percent. McCain has said he wants to give "everyone" the bush tax cuts.
Okay, I've corrected it twice, it's Obama O-B-A-M-A. And lets see, considering that my family is solid middle class, and at making almost 100k a year we only got 1200 back, that means that most of the country would get squat.

Obama wants to retreat from Iraq. Or as he puts it redeploy elsewhere. Most Americans by most polls show that we when we go into a war want to fight to win. The majority of us do not want our troops to be in harms way. But if they are we should support them.
So, we should support people we don't want in harms way by putting them in the way of more harm? That doesn't make sense. Also: we need to start withdrawing for the good of the Iraqi's, they need to start running their country now. We also need to refocus. Where's Bin Laden? You know, the mastermind of 9/11? Or did we forget 9/11 was his doing? And it's Obama, with an "A" after the "B".

You can support your troops and still disagree with a war. Infact just this week I heard on the radio that Anbar provence we plan to Sep 1st had over complete control to the Iraqies. No news is good news as they say. Meaning you didn't hear this on the public news channels.
Yes, and once we hand it over, we need to start leaving.

It's not Vietnam. Were winning. McCain is for us finishing in Iraq. Obama is for leaving. We are doing so well there that the Iraq government is starting to talk about us leaving. This is not a typical war. It's a gorila type warfare. Not a conventional war like WWII where you were fighting a true army. So comparing it to WWII that it's taken longer is not an appropriate comparison.
yes, a war like Vietnam, where we didn't know where our enemy was and we weren't sure if our friends were our enemies or not. I agree that a WWII comparason is wrong. And maybe, if their government is talking about us leaving, maybe we should do so.

We went into Iraq because Saddam disobeyed the cease fire. This may be news to some of you, but the Gulf War never ended. Saddam agreed to surrender. We said okay Saddam we'll stop beating the snot out of you if you A get out of Kuwait, and B let inspectors in.
Um, Saddam didn't attack any other countries.

The inspectors were to make sure he didn't create any new weapons that could harm his neighbors. Meaning to prevent another Kuwait type situation. For a time he agreed. Then Saddam would drag his feet saying we can't go here or there yet. They would make our inspctors wait and stall us. Maybe Saddam's guys were moving weapons out and hiding them, or maybe he was just being a jerk.
Hey, Putin's a jerk too! Lets attack Russia! Oh, Sarkozky is a jerk too, damn Frenchie, lets attack France too! And Hugo Chavez! Now there's a jerk, lets attack him too.

Face it, you don't attack countries 'cause their leader is a jerk. Bush is a jerk to a lot of people, under your logic, most of the world would be OK to attack us.

So one time our inspectors say you better let us in. We get kicked out. We then say Saddam your violating the cease fire agreement we made. Saddam is like no you can't come in.
That would be an agreement made through the UN, and action taken against Saddam should be done THROUGH THE UN.

We then impose sanctions. Still no you can't come in. We pass 14 resolutions. Which are basically warnings saying Saddam you better let us in or we are coming in. Then we invaded.
Yeah, 'cause passing resolutions in your own country really make other leaders give a ****.

9/11 simply escalated this. We were going in anyway. We didn't go in immediately because Clinton cared more about his popularity than making the unpopular decision. All he did was send over some cruise missiles sending Saddam back a couple years.
Maybe 'cause, here's a surprise, Saddam used to be out puppet.

Again maybe he had weapons, or maybe he didn't. Doesn't matter though. Saddam already had proven to be untrustworthy.
gawd I hate people like you. You think everyone should just kiss America's ass. jeeze, every heard of national sovereignty? It means a country can make it's own decisions, they don't have the OK with the US.

Think of it this way. Your child brings to school a knife that he had in his room and threatens another child. We take the knife away. We say to the child we are going to be coming into their room to make sure they have no more knives. For a while the child agrees. Then they don't want to. You punish them. Still no you can't come in from the child. Then we come into the child's room that he had locked. Same thing. An untrustworthy individual that wasn't being forthcoming.
SOVEREINGTY! Jeeze, would you like the UN telling the US what to do? no? I didn't think so. What gives the US the right to tell everyone else what to do? And don't say "might gives us the right" because Russia and China might want to take you to par with that.

From our intel it told us what he had. All Saddam had to do is produce documentation about what thy did to destroy the weapon, take us to where he destroyed the weapon, and then we'd just check that off the list. We can test for the weapon.
Okay, why are you giving us a play-by-play replay of how we went into Iraq? This is about McCain and Obama. There will be no Iraq discussion from here on out.

Now onto McCain's VP Governor Palin. She alone has more executive experience than the Democrat presidential candidate Obama. Her approval rating in Alaska is 88 percent before her public VP announcement. Now it's over 90 percent. She can speak with experience on the oil drilling issue since Alaska is full of oil.
Okay, I'm going to ask: are you dyslexic? It's "Governor" "Palin" and "Obama" and "democrat". Lol, so is California. I guess Arnie should get the VP spot if he was native born.

Obama after McCain picked Palin said that McCain is putting a Mayor of a town of only 9000 a few feet away from the presidency.
"Obama" "Palin" "presidency". And he is correct.

How foolish of a statement. She's a Governor. That's like saying SD Nihil is an elementary student that has gotten 2 B's. I'm a College Grad.
She WAS mayor of a tiny town of about 8000. Of course, since you don't even know her name, or Obama's, I wouldn't expect you to know this.

Palin use to be a Mayor and is now a Governor. Has fought corruption in even the Republican party of her state.
Yes and?

Obama says she has no foreign experience. The only experience Obama has had is on the campaign trail going over to Iraq or so. The facts are clear that when you look at Senator Obama's presidential creditably and Palins she alone has more than he does.
lolwut? Palin has no foreign experience, Obama has no foreign experience. This puts them ON THE SAME LEVEL. It does not make Palin sit higher.

Obama has charisma and can speak very eloquently. He's good at dodging questions too, but in the end what speaks louder words or actions. Actions speak louder than words.
You know that about 6 years ago McCain supported things like abortion rights? Equality for gays? And not letting his party be run by "agents of intolerance" like the religious right? I'd say McCain's actions of dropping all the things he believed in to get the love of the religious right speak louder than his previous words.

Aside from talking about redeploying and redistribution of wealth we don't know how Obama plans to do this or that. Never in my life have I seend a man take an hour to talk about that he's going to do this and that, but never tell how he's going to do this and that.
then you don't watch enough politics. Which doesn't surprise me considering McCain and Saddam are the only names you've spelled right so far.

I know my post is long, but please before you respond to it read it. To speak without reading what the other has said is ignorant. Not dumb, but ignorant. Ignorant meaning there's knowledge there, but you chose not to look at it.

I hope I've persuaded some to vote for McCain. Let me know why your still voting for Obama and I'll try to educate you some more.
hahahaha, man, that's funny. You can't spell most of the people's names you're talking about, you've spelled "Palin" as "Paton" and "Paten" and consistently spelled Obama's name wrong. You've wandered from a discussion about the candidates into a play-by-play of Iraq. Speaking of ignorance, you've shown a great deal of it.

You've only persuaded me that I am right to side against people like you who would vote for McCain.

Corinthian
08-31-2008, 06:08 PM
Okay, just going to say one thing.

The U.N. can't tell the U.S. what to do - the United Nations is a powerless entity that doesn't do jack squat. Whereas the United States, love it or hate it, is one of the most powerful nations on the face of Earth, militarily, with a pretty significant economy, recession or no, and a LOT of nukes.

Web Rider
08-31-2008, 06:11 PM
Okay, just going to say one thing.

The U.N. can't tell the U.S. what to do - the United Nations is a powerless entity that doesn't do jack squat. Whereas the United States, love it or hate it, is one of the most powerful nations on the face of Earth, militarily, with a pretty significant economy, recession or no, and a LOT of nukes.

So might makes right? So it's OK for Russia to conquer Georgia if nobody feels like stopping them? After all Russia is one of the most powerful nations on the earth.

Corinthian
08-31-2008, 06:29 PM
Of course Might Makes Right. What world do you think you're living on? This isn't Paradise, this is Earth. The world doesn't care about what's right or wrong, only about what is beneficial. If Russia had really tried to conquer Georgia, nobody would have stepped in unless they either feared that Russian territorial ambitions would eventually effect them, or they decided they wanted a piece of the Georgian pie.

Astor
08-31-2008, 06:30 PM
Maybe 'cause, here's a surprise, Saddam used to be out puppet.

Yeah, it was only around 25 years ago that we (the UK and the US, and France, too) were selling arms to Iraq at a discounted rate so they could fight Iran. Back then Saddam was a freedom fighter, bravely facing the oppression of a larger country.

Perceptions change over time. I seem to remember that Bush was being hailed in 2001 for steering the country through a difficult and harrowing time. Now, you'd think he's the most hated man in the world.

You think everyone should just kiss America's ass. jeeze, every heard of national sovereignty? It means a country can make it's own decisions, they don't have the OK with the US.

"Ummm, excuse me, America? Can I go play with my new warplanes?"

Web Rider
08-31-2008, 06:30 PM
Of course Might Makes Right. What world do you think you're living on? This isn't Paradise, this is Earth. The world doesn't care about what's right or wrong, only about what is beneficial. If Russia had really tried to conquer Georgia, nobody would have stepped in unless they either feared that Russian territorial ambitions would eventually effect them, or they decided they wanted a piece of the Georgian pie.

Okay, remind me to tell you to suck it when you get beat up next time.

And you know why we're still in a world like that? Because people like who who are too ignorant to think there's any other way to do things keep promoting it.

Corinthian
08-31-2008, 06:35 PM
I don't get beat up often, and when I do, I suck it down on my own. Thanks anyway.

No, we're still in a world like that because we're an inherently evil and violent race. It's not that I'm ignorant - it's that you're naive, and I'm a cynic.

Nedak
08-31-2008, 06:37 PM
No, we're still in a world like that because we're an inherently evil and violent race. It's not that I'm ignorant - it's that you're naive, and I'm a cynic.

No, not all humans are evil. A large portion, yes. But not all.

Sadist..

Corinthian
08-31-2008, 06:40 PM
Maybe not all of us, but we have a natural tendency towards it. I believe the technical term is 'Original Sin'.

Nedak
08-31-2008, 06:42 PM
Maybe not all of us, but we have a natural tendency towards it. I believe the technical term is 'Original Sin'.

Don't get me started with the religion bull****.

If you're going to hide behind Original Sin go ahead.

I just hope when/if McCain is elected you don't get drafted.

Web Rider
08-31-2008, 06:47 PM
No, we're still in a world like that because we're an inherently evil and violent race. It's not that I'm ignorant - it's that you're naive, and I'm a cynic.

No, you're just ignorant, you choose to look only at the evil in mankind instead of the good and assume that's all we're capable of.

Maybe not all of us, but we have a natural tendency towards it. I believe the technical term is 'Original Sin'.

The "technical term" is "load of BS". We are only what we choose to be. Nothing more, nothing less. People are evil because of the choices they made, people are good because of the choices they make.

I'm not naive, I'm giving humanity the benefit of the doubt and look at what's good in people instead of assuming the worst in them.

Corinthian
08-31-2008, 06:48 PM
I'm willing to take that chance. And I'd prefer it if you did not refer to my religion as 'Bull***'. I much prefer 'Christ Crap'. And it's not 'hiding behind'. Sin is not exactly something one hides behind. That's like hiding behind a SADM that's counting down from ten.

EDIT: What makes you think we're capable of much more? The world is a ticking time bomb, the U.N. is a failure, and the only reason we haven't had anybody try to dominate the world in the past sixty-three years is because of all the bloody nukes.

As for that LAUGHABLE suggestion that we are what we choose to be, you're missing stuff that isn't even metaphysical. It's called PSYCHOLOGICAL CONDITIONS.

Nedak
08-31-2008, 07:01 PM
I'm willing to take that chance. And I'd prefer it if you did not refer to my religion as 'Bull***'. I much prefer 'Christ Crap'. And it's not 'hiding behind'. Sin is not exactly something one hides behind.
No, you're using the excuse of us all having "Original Sin" as an excusable reason for people's actions.

EDIT: What makes you think we're capable of much more? The world is a ticking time bomb, the U.N. is a failure, and the only reason we haven't had anybody try to dominate the world in the past sixty-three years is because of all the bloody nukes.

Why do you use those in power as the basis of all humanity? Most people don't want to rule the world, most people don't want to kill hurt other people or living animals. Of course we're capable of much more.

Corinthian
08-31-2008, 07:08 PM
Because those in power have power because the people let them have power, even in a non-democratic society. Regicide is a MAGNIFICENT cure for lunatic Kings. Maybe most people don't want to rule the world, but that's a simple matter of pragmatism. But I'm not talking about human ambition, although that's certainly a massive force, I'm talking about human cruelty.

I'm aware that humans are capable of a great deal, but the fact remains that we tend towards Evil. If humanity really weren't an evil race, why haven't we changed at all in the past ten, twenty, fifty thousand years? To quote a certain game, "War Never Changes." It seems pretty accurate to me. If we really didn't have a tendency to Evil, why is it that World Peace is quite obviously unattainable? Why is it that petty dictators crop up EVERYWHERE?

Can anyone prove me wrong?

Web Rider
08-31-2008, 07:17 PM
I'm willing to take that chance. And I'd prefer it if you did not refer to my religion as 'Bull***'. I much prefer 'Christ Crap'. And it's not 'hiding behind'. Sin is not exactly something one hides behind. That's like hiding behind a SADM that's counting down from ten.
Maybe when you're done using it as a crutch and a shield to hide from reality and avoid thinking for yourself.

EDIT: What makes you think we're capable of much more? The world is a ticking time bomb, the U.N. is a failure, and the only reason we haven't had anybody try to dominate the world in the past sixty-three years is because of all the bloody nukes.
Maybe nobody wants to. Ever think that people can change? I doubt it even crossed your mind.

As for that LAUGHABLE suggestion that we are what we choose to be, you're missing stuff that isn't even metaphysical. It's called PSYCHOLOGICAL CONDITIONS.
lolwut? I've been talking about the psychological choices we make, and "conditions" what "conditions"? Everyone is different, do you mean to tell me that everyone's brain works the same way and we're all just waiting for a chance to kill everyone?

I'm aware that humans are capable of a great deal, but the fact remains that we tend towards Evil. If humanity really weren't an evil race, why haven't we changed at all in the past ten, twenty, fifty thousand years? To quote a certain game, "War Never Changes." It seems pretty accurate to me. If we really didn't have a tendency to Evil, why is it that World Peace is quite obviously unattainable? Why is it that petty dictators crop up EVERYWHERE?
people aren't perfect, we never have been, and we never will be. We don't always learn the lessons we should. If imperfection is evil, then it's no wonder humanity can never be good, because perfection for an imperfect creature is IMPOSSIBLE.

Corinthian
08-31-2008, 07:24 PM
Since I'm on a roll, I'll quote another game. What can change the nature of a man? Of course I've considered that humans might be able to change. Then I took a look at the world and realized that we were taking our sweet bloody time.

*Sigh* Since you apparently lack a basic education about psychology even from cultural osmosis...perhaps we can start with a little Love of Death, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necrophilia) But you should probably remember that talking about it can help... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopathy)

I could go on.

Imperfection isn't evil. It's natural. But the fact remains that we aren't moving at all. We're proceeding on a steady linear course, advancing technologically but not sociologically.

Show me something. Show me an example of humanity as a race improving (Gandhi doesn't count, because he was one man.). Show me how we've changed since Babylon. Or since the Roman Empire. Or since Nazi Germany.

Web Rider
08-31-2008, 07:27 PM
Show me something. Show me an example of humanity as a race improving (Gandhi doesn't count, because he was one man.). Show me how we've changed since Babylon. Or since the Roman Empire. Or since Nazi Germany.
Where, exactly? Humanity cannot be judged as a whole. Some places are more improved than others. I'm not going to sit here and say: "in Canada they have great health care." and have you counter with "well in Saudi Arabia women are property!"

And that "one man" made more difference in the world than a dozen wars.

Corinthian
08-31-2008, 07:30 PM
Thank you, Rider, for making my point for me.

Nedak
08-31-2008, 07:50 PM
Because those in power have power because the people let them have power


Record everything a politician says and then listen to it again. You will notice that they dodge questions, they change their opinions to confuse and appease people, and they hide all bad motives.

As a normal citizen you get confused. You don't know what to believe because of everything being jammed into your head at once.

Every voter has had good intentions, most are just uninformed.

Corinthian
08-31-2008, 07:52 PM
Voter? I'm not talking about an election, I'm talking about revolution.

Web Rider
08-31-2008, 07:53 PM
Voter? I'm not talking about an election, I'm talking about revolution.

No, you're just saying random things with not even the slightest casual relation to each other because you have no idea what you're talking about.

Corinthian
08-31-2008, 07:55 PM
Feisty. It's a good thing I don't take this seriously.

Really, Web Rider, you're one of the worst debaters I've seen in some time. I give you some credit, you never actually drop to ad hominem, you just never go to the effort of actually challenging what I say with anything more than emotional response.

Nedak
08-31-2008, 08:07 PM
Voter? I'm not talking about an election, I'm talking about revolution.

How easy would you say it is to revolt against one of the most powerful governments in the world?

Also, how easy would you say it would be to assemble that many people?

My point could be made for either an election or a revolution. They don't know what to do. Why would they have a revolution if it seems like everything will be okay? Things keep failing but the government constantly gives more things to us to make us happy.

HERE, go watch more TV don't worry about the world.

It's not just the people, sir. It's bigger then that.

Corinthian
08-31-2008, 08:11 PM
*Snort* Yeah, a bunch of under-trained, poorly-equipped, and outnumbered civilians could never defeat the army of the greatest empire in the world, could they?

Oh.

Wait. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Revolution)

But frankly, we're digressing from my original point, which is that humanity has a tendency towards Evil, not anything about rebellion or revolution.

Web Rider
08-31-2008, 08:11 PM
Feisty. It's a good thing I don't take this seriously.

Really, Web Rider, you're one of the worst debaters I've seen in some time. I give you some credit, you never actually drop to ad hominem, you just never go to the effort of actually challenging what I say with anything more than emotional response.

It's the most logical choice. I am more likly to win a debate by appealing to emotion than to actually put forth facts. Although Ironically, that is a fact.

It's also because the basis for your argument is "original sin" and that humanity is "inherently evil" two things derived from religion, and religion is one big emotional argument. It appeals to the non-rational parts of your brain with scares of fire and damnation and rewards of pleasure and paradise. Those are emotional arguments if I've ever seen one.

Furthermore, you are attempting to judge humanity as a collective whole. Humanity is not a collective whole, even if we all share the same basic genes. Because of this, humanity cannot be judged as a whole, societies here and societies there do not progress at the same rates, at the same times, because they are not exposed to the same stimuli.

Even if they were, no two people can experience the same stimuli in the same manner. A person on each side of a road will see the red car going south differently. And it will have a different impact on each of them.

Western society has made great leaps in terms of where it was, we no longer do things like the Spanish Inquisition, and killing people for a different religion has been reduced to a very low number. We no longer enslave people because they are a different color, and violence and hate against them has dropped from a societal norm to a societal taboo. Women are no longer property and are almost equal with men in many areas. At the same time, more men are being seen as acceptable persons to take the roles normally assigned to women, such as caregivers and child-rearers.

Yet you sit there on your white horse and look down on the whole of humanity for the wrongs of a few. You refuse to see the good a person or people do and belittle one of the greatest do-gooders of history to "just one man". Ghandi did great things for people, greater things than many will ever hope to do. And because of what he did, more people are able to be happy, free and do good themselves.

You're religious, yet you insist on playing God and judging people. Why don't you remove the blinders from your eyes and realize that there is a LOT of good in humanity. Simply because there are a few problems does not mean that society is inherently evil, deeply desires to do wrong, or psychopathic necrophiliacs.

You frustrate me to no end with your constant blathering about how horrible society is because some of it isn't improving. We are leaps and bounds beyond where we were when we were Greeks, socially, technologically, and culturally. And you perpetuate the notion that we have no changed by not changing yourself. You are part of the problem you find so despicable about mankind, you hold on to old prejudices and apply them to all of humanity.

I do not debate with you because you provide no room for debate, you counter facts with misinformation, you decry the whole for the failure of some of it's parts. You take the extreme and claim it representative of the whole. I do not debate with you because I cannot debate with you as you provide no material to debate with and shoot down any attempt to present real facts to the contrary of your opinion as hearsay and blasphemy.

I'm tired and I'm annoyed and I'm angered at your continued ignorance and propaganda. If you want to debate, present some facts, some figures, some REAL HARD EVIDENCE.