*NOTE: Politics, especially US politics can be heated. Please remember the dakka rules before posting. Flame wars and baiting will not be tolerated*

Any predictions for the US presidential elections?

As an outsider I'm suprised that Guliani is not the front runner for republicans. Sure he's a moderate (centerist) republican but he's the only one who can hold up a definite record of actually doing things that have helped/ made something better rather than being a vague and mysterious politician.
Also he would have good cross over appeal to democrats who know that as a moderate he won't be lumping US policy to the right.

Which is why he's struggling with the christian conservatives. They want policy to stay to the right.

But given a vote between Guliani and Hillary I'm sure they'll pick the guliani.


Hillary vs Edwards vs Obama.

I think barring a debacle of epic proportions it will end up being an Obama vs Hillary race for nomination. Which is why Edwards should cut his losses and join one of the other 2 as VP candidate. the votes he drags with him should get the one he joins with over the line decisively.

Hillary will struggle if she wins as people love her or hate her and she won't drag too many republican votes across.

Obama is the wildcard. Noone knows what he stands for, he doesn't give detailed policy directions and works crowds fantastically. Kevin rudd won the Australian parliamentary elections this year doing exactly the same thing. He has the ablty to drag a wide cross section of voters to him. However what would be assumed to be his base (african americans) mostly vote democrat anyway.

You have to understand the primaries to see why Giuliani
isn't leading in the Republicans. They're not simultaneous,
so State primaries that occur earlier have a much more
profound effect on the campaign than primaries later in
the election. Who are our first primaries? Iowa and New
Hampshire. Who's probably not going to do well in Iowa
anyway? Giuliani.

For the rest of the political discussion, I turn this over to
Ravening Hordes.

Guliani is leading in all the national polls, he just did not win the Iowa caucus, but then he was not trying to win it either. It is complicated and a pain, but the Iowa and New Hampshire Caucasus's are polls people pay to be a part of and have no bearing often on the final presidential election. Guliani is going for a Super Tuesday win in states that have lots more delegates.

I agree with your assessment of the situation Guliani is in. Centrist that will be attacked by the Religious Right. Huckabee is a one trick pony that I don't think will make it through national elections, not enough broad support.

I don't think Obama is that much of a wild card. He is fairly young but his stance is fairly clear. I'd rather he get the Democratic nomination then Clinton. Edwards won't get a presidential nod; always the bridesmaid, never the bride.

If nothing I think we'd look like a(n even bigger) nation of idiots if we elect Clinton so that our history books show Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton. How boring is that? Might as well make a House of Lords and let some families elect the President every four years from within their ranks.

I haven't paid much attention to the Republican canadites as religion seems to be a huge topic that keeps surfacing among them and right now I think we could do with a little less religion in politics (Whole nother thread, obviously).

As far as the Democrats go though, Clinton just scares me. Who wants a President that can't even say what her favorite baseball team is because she's so scared of offending someone? Edwards just doesn't seem strong to me and will probably get run out on Super Tuesday. Obama is where my money is. Someone a little younger and without a long list of political ties and obligations. It would be nice though to have a military veteran in the white house for once so that maybe these fat cat politicians won't be so gung ho to send our boys and girls to the front lines (again, another thread).

HOWEVER! Overiding all of this is the fact that Huckabee had Chuck Norris standing behind him at the Iowa Primary. Ladies and Gentlemen, this simply means that whoever dares oppose Huckabee will recieve a pimp slap to the neck fat. CHUCK NORRIS FOR VP!

I vote in the New York Primary, by which point these things are normally decided. This year it might be close though.

Obama is a really great speaker. I liked Hillary more going in, but he's really starting to win me over. Honestly, I think either of them could win in November and both would be great Presidents. I'm still undecided at the moment, but increasingly leaning towards Obama. Obama at least has a chance to rise above the fray a bit, whereas Hillary might be as divisive as GWB.

Edwards has been really playing the class-warfare card a lot and hasn't really impressed me this time out. I voted for him in the 2004 primary, but not this time.

On the Republican side McCain is the only candidate I could see myself supporting. He's honest and he knows his stuff - even if I disagree with him on most policy issues. Giuliani's personal life makes Bill Clinton look like a nun and I don't want those distractions when he's trying to do the job. Romney comes across as a bit two-faced and I'm a social liberal so Huckabee is pretty much diametrically opposed. I don't see Thompson being able to win.

I'm hoping an Obama-McCain match-up would be a nice change from previous elections. They both seem like decent people, so hopefully there would be less of the Swiftboating this time out.

Stormtrooper X wrote:I haven't paid much attention to the Republican canadites as religion seems to be a huge topic that keeps surfacing among them and right now I think we could do with a little less religion in politics (Whole nother thread, obviously).

As far as the Democrats go though, Clinton just scares me. Who wants a President that can't even say what her favorite baseball team is because she's so scared of offending someone? Edwards just doesn't seem strong to me and will probably get run out on Super Tuesday. Obama is where my money is. Someone a little younger and without a long list of political ties and obligations. It would be nice though to have a military veteran in the white house for once so that maybe these fat cat politicians won't be so gung ho to send our boys and girls to the front lines (again, another thread).

HOWEVER! Overiding all of this is the fact that Huckabee had Chuck Norris standing behind him at the Iowa Primary. Ladies and Gentlemen, this simply means that whoever dares oppose Huckabee will recieve a pimp slap to the neck fat. CHUCK NORRIS FOR VP!

I think she just doesn't like baseball...

Asmodai, I am curious about your opinions or understanding of the Internet social network darling candidates... Kucinich (D) and Paul (R)? Also who do you get from: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/page?id=3623346 ?

legoburner wrote:Asmodai, I am curious about your opinions or understanding of the Internet social network darling candidates... Kucinich (D) and Paul (R)? Also who do you get from: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/page?id=3623346 ?

I'm somewhat familiar with Ron Paul. He has a relatively small base of very dedicated supporters, but I think he's a bit too radical to be successful. Lots of Republicans talk about abolishing the IRS, but there's an understanding that it's just rhetoric. When Ron Paul says that, he means it. Although I can sympathize with Ron Paul's principles, I don't think they'd work out in actual practice. The world is a little too complicated for strict Constitutionalism to really be a viable philosophy.

I don't know a lot about Kucinich aside from the UFO thing. I understand he's on the far left of the Democratic party. That's probably a bit too extreme for me.

The poll thing gives me McCain, then Huckabee then Dodd. With most of the questions none of the answers really reflected my views (most only offered one solution, where a combination of them is necessary).

Who won in the republican Caucus?
I know Obama was first for the Dem. and Edwards was 2nd.

snorkle wrote:Who won in the republican Caucus?
I know Obama was first for the Dem. and Edwards was 2nd.

Huckabee first, Romney second, Thompson and McCain basically tied for 3rd (Thompson had 300 or so votes extra), Ron Paul in 5th, Rudy and Hunter in the rear.

Interesting stuff. From here in the UK all I ever hear about from the various places I read is Kucinich, Paul and Obama. I need the daily show and colbert report to come back so that I can follow what is going on without having to read the tedious 'real' news

http://www.politics1.com/

Excellent site for beginning US Politics as well as campaign coverage. My Political Science Prof told me about it so i know you will like it.

Well, I think Clinton would make a better President than Obama.
I think Obama has a lot of ability, and I'd vote for him in 8 years... but Hillary has experience over him.
Additionally, she has Bill.
Say what you want about the man's indescretions, he WILL go down in US History as one of the "great presidents."
He made some flubbs and errors, but he did some real good.
Hillary will be as much of an "individual" president as he was.
What I mean is that she was deeply tied into his politics and presidency, and he'll be the same with hers. It's like getting 2 presidents for the nomination of one.

Where Obama is a great candidate, he just needs more experience. He's simply TOO new to "big" politics for me to feel comfortable.

That all being said, anyone that the Democrats nominate, short of a talking guinea pig, is a shoe-in. The American public, in general, had blamed the last 8 years on Dubya and the rest of the Republicans. Our currency is weak, our society/culture is waning and we're losing popularity in all sectors of foreign countries. Let's not even talk about immigration. "We" blame the Republicans. "We" showed it with the state elections and I think "we" will do it again for president.

I wish Obama was willing to be Hillary's Vice-Pres. It would give him the experience in the White House that he needs to be taken seriously and given respect by everyone who, like me, feels that he's just too inexperienced.

That being said, if the Democrats nominate him, he'll have my vote 100%, unless Hillary runs Independent... Then, I'm 50/50. I'm not sure if Hillary would win as an independent and I wouldn't want my vote to be wasted on her and help a Republican slip in the back door (I feel like I've had my "back door" slipped into by the Republicans enough in the last 8 years).

For the record, "We" meant the GENERAL population and is not meant to include anyone in specific.
This is all MY PERSONAL opinion and not meant to be set forth as gospel.


Eric

Is there word of Clinton running as an Independent in the
face of an Obama selection? And is there word of Obama
unwilling to work under Clinton? Are they really that
divided?

Hillary as an independent?

That sounds extremely implausible. Both she and Bill have been lifelong Democrats (didn't they meet on McGovern's campaign or something?).

Obama had to suggest that he wouldn't want to work under Clinton because at that point she was the 'inevitable' nominee and he needed to distinguish himself. If Hillary were to actually win the nomination then he might reassess that decision. (I think Richardson or Biden are more likely VP picks for her though.) I've heard (conspiracy?) theories that Obama would be a good choice since he could apply the $100 million or so that he raised to the general election pool if he ran with Hillary. I'm not sure if there's any truth to that, or how much of that money has already been spent.

I agree with MagickalMemories that the Democrats have the edge going in because of Bush fatigue. A lot could change be November though, so it's too early to stop holding our breath.

As far as independents, both Bloomberg and Lou Dobbs have been mentioned. I'm not sure either will run though. Both are ego-maniacs and wouldn't want to lose. Dobbs would also fail horribly in a debate where he didn't control the set and script. I think Bloomberg would only run if one of the major candidates imploded somehow.

Hillary has experience, but not executive experience. She has always been a background player. I don't hold any personal ill will toward her, I just do not want her for president, nor do I think she will be it. She brings way to much baggage and a built in hate machine against her. Even with Bush fatigue I think it would be a tough win.

Like Kennedy, Clinton will be remembered as a popular President, but he will not be remembered as a great President. He will certainly be better remembered in the long run than Bush. I think Bush will be remembered as a strong arm President who made many mistakes under pressure, similar to John Adams pushing the Alien and Sedition Acts.

I think Bush will be remembered. As possibly the stupidest president we ever have. Well more that his decisions were incredibly stupid.

MagickalMemories wrote:Well, I think Clinton would make a better President than Obama.
I think Obama has a lot of ability, and I'd vote for him in 8 years... but Hillary has experience over him.
Additionally, she has Bill.
Say what you want about the man's indescretions, he WILL go down in US History as one of the "great presidents."

So I watched the New Hampshire Republican debate last night to get an idea of what the Republicans are about.

Ron Paul is an angry little man. It's great that he's passionate about things, but he needs to focus a little more when he's trying to give his rundown. I noticed that if he talked for more than about 20 seconds on something he just wasn't making much sense anymore.

Giuliani needs to get over the 9/11 thing. The reason you were right there when things went down was because you put your headquarters in the WTC after being told that it's not such a great idea since it's a prime target for attack. But, since you were lazy and just wanted to walk across the street to get to work you endangered the lives of your co-workers.

Huckabee is the epitome of a politician as well as Romney. I don't mean that in a good way. Last night after quoting a chunk of the Constitution Huckabee stated that the people of America should live free and in the pursuit of happiness withouth the Government interfering with their lives. Now, Mr. Huckabee, if you could, give us your standing on abortion and gay marriage...

Romney = pancake. That was pretty much what I picked up last night from him. That, and the fact that the rest of the candidates all liked to bash him. Whether this is out of fear that he has a great shot at Presidency, the fact he's a Mormon, or just the fact that he likes to think he's right and you're dumb I don't know.

That leaves me with McCain and Thompson. Now, I've always had a soft spot for McCain. He's a veteran and back in the day he used to lay out the smackdown when it was needed. However, he seems to be lacking testicles these last few years. Especially after all the crap that Bush has drug him through and then to continue to stand by his side. Talk about me all you want, but talk about my family the way Bush did and I'd... well we'll leave it with a simple . He does stick by his principles though even when they aren't popular.

Thompson... I just don't know about Thompson. I guess I'd just need to see more from him.

malfred wrote:Is there word of Clinton running as an Independent in the
face of an Obama selection? And is there word of Obama
unwilling to work under Clinton? Are they really that
divided?

No re: Hillary.
I was not attempting to imply that she'd made any statements of the sort. I was merely discussing hypotheticals.

As far as Obama, I can't recall the exact point, but I do remember when he said -not implied- that he would not be Hillary's VP.

JFrazell... Should I take that to mean you disagree? Agree or not, I understand either way.

Asmodai... I think we could "win" in Iraq (please, note the quotation marks) and get the rest of our boys safely home before November, see the Dollar back to about $1.50 = 1 British pound and gas back at $70 a barrel and the Republicans still wouldn't stand a chance.

Granted, that's just my opinion and we all know what opinions are like... LOL

Ahtman... I think that you saying Hillary doesn't have Executive Experience shows that our thoughts on her involvement in Bill's presidency are quite different. I think she was as big an advisor to him as anyone else.

I think Bush will be remembered as a strong arm President who made many mistakes under pressure

Amen, Brotha!


Snorkle... I think you're right... but I think it'll be about him AND his decisions.

Eric

And his administration. Scary bunch there.

Magickalmemories you're right. If you're stupid but make good decisions then nobody will notice. Or at least people won't care.

I like Obama and Edwards. Edwards has a nice, coherent message. Obama actually listens to people and thinks about his answers to questions. Both are very intelligent, hardworking people, and either would be a 1000% improvement on the criminal atrocities we've been dealing with for the past eight years.

I tend to favor the one that taught Consitutional Law for ten years.

I liked the Hillary we had at the beginning of Bill's administration, when she was actually trying for healthcare reform, before her morale and principles were crushed, and the healthcare industry bought her out.

Nobody talks seriously about Kucinich here. That said, I love the guy for having real principles, and ideas that would be genuinely good for the country.

-----------

Mitt Romney is a relatively empty-headed rich politician. Similar to Bush Jr. Thankfully his having been Governor of Massachusetts means that he had to be relatively centrist during that time, a fact that will cause the religious fanatics who represent the strongest and most devoted part of the Republican base to turn on him like a heretic.

Rudy has the same problem, having been Mayor of NYC. His personal and social views and practices have been as or more hedonistic/free than those of most liberals.

Both of them are now trying to make up for this by saying bats**** insane things that they think will endear them to the rightwing nutjobs, like Rudy's endorsement of building and staffing a wall across the entire 1969 mile US/Mexico border, or Mitt's memorable line about doubling Guantanamo. It is my hope that if either actually got elected that they would not pander to the crazies or to corporate interests as much as Bush has. But I have no faith in either of them.

Huckabee is Satan. He talks a good game, and that makes him genuinely scary, as I find his policy ideas morally repellent, and they are exactly what the religious nutjobs are looking for.

Most of Ron Paul's stuff is attractive to me, as I was raised in a Libertarian home (both my parents ran for office in NH on the Libertarian ticket). That said, as I grew up I came to believe that a lot of governmental programs that aren't supported by the Constitution really ARE necessary to avert a great deal of human suffering and injustice. Libertarianism would work in a more ideal world, but not in ours.

McCain had a great deal of my respect, until he sold a lot of his soul and credibility down the river with his steadfast support to an immoral and criminal administration. One that smeared and attacked him personally in the 2000 primary race. Back in 2000 I had several liberal friends who actually were going to switch sides to back him. We were that impressed by his principles, experience, and intelligence. He's a huge disappointment. That said, I do have some centrist friends who are registering Republican so that they can vote for him in opposition to the Republican frontrunners. (Here in NH we can register the day of the primary, and registered Independents can temporarily register R or D to vote in the primary, then switch back). McCain's still showed signs of real principle, intelligence, and morality in the debates and on TV (such as his appearances on the Daily Show). So he's far and away the best of the lot on the Republican side of the fence.

MagickalMemories wrote:

JFrazell... Should I take that to mean you disagree? Agree or not, I understand either way.

Disagree wholeheartedly. Clinton's big claim to fame was the great sucking sound of NAFTA and letting the ATF point a machine gun at a child (that and Gore taking campaign contributions from the Chinese). Well that and the intern thing.

He will also be known as the President who let Bin Laden get away (well the first one anyway but there's always hope).

Hillary espouses 35 years of experience. Sorry, looking the other way while the President is banging interns does not count as experience.

Edwards is a bloodsucking smoker trial attorney. He represents everything that is wrong with our legal system. He's a populist who spends $400 on haircuts. He had his shot, now get off the stage.

Kacinich is just a wackjob. He, Paul, and the corpse of Perot can form the Cookoo Party.

I want to see an Obama / McCain fight. I like McCain, and wouldn't be disgusted if Obama won.

****Manny none of this is directed at you in any way.

Mitt Romney is a relatively empty-headed rich politician. Similar to Bush Jr. Thankfully his having been Governor of Massachusetts means that he had to be relatively centrist during that time, a fact that will cause the religious fanatics who represent the strongest and most devoted part of the Republican base to turn on him like a heretic.
****Sorry you're brilliantly wrong. He's run Fortune 100 corporations. He's no bubble head. But he is a flip flopping poll watcher.

Rudy has the same problem, having been Mayor of NYC. His personal and social views and practices have been as or more hedonistic/free than those of most liberals.
****And you say it like its a bad thing Anyone who will contiue to work while under mob death threats is my kind of guy.

Both of them are now trying to make up for this by saying bats**** insane things that they think will endear them to the rightwing nutjobs, like Rudy's endorsement of building and staffing a wall across the entire 1969 mile US/Mexico border,
****Nothing wrong with that. When the terrorists cross the border that way or heaven forbid cart a nuke across-how will you feel then?

Huckabee is Satan. He talks a good game, and that makes him genuinely scary, as I find his policy ideas morally repellent, and they are exactly what the religious nutjobs are looking for.
****He's not Satan. Satan's not in this game-but has already signed up Clinton to represent him


Most of Ron Paul's stuff is attractive to me, as I was raised in a Libertarian home (both my parents ran for office in NH on the Libertarian ticket). That said, as I grew up I came to believe that a lot of governmental programs that aren't supported by the Constitution really ARE necessary to avert a great deal of human suffering and injustice. Libertarianism would work in a more ideal world, but not in ours.
*****Ron Paul believes 9/11 was a government conspiracy. Many of supporters reflect anti-semetic views. Sorry but he left the heat lamp on too long and fried his brain.

McCain had a great deal of my respect, until he sold a lot of his soul and credibility down the river with his steadfast support to an immoral and criminal administration. One that smeared and attacked him personally in the 2000 primary race. Back in 2000 I had several liberal friends who actually were going to switch sides to back him. We were that impressed by his principles, experience, and intelligence. He's a huge disappointment. That said, I do have some centrist friends who are registering Republican so that they can vote for him in opposition to the Republican frontrunners. (Here in NH we can register the day of the primary, and registered Independents can temporarily register R or D to vote in the primary, then switch back). McCain's still showed signs of real principle, intelligence, and morality in the debates and on TV (such as his appearances on the Daily Show). So he's far and away the best of the lot on the Republican side of the fence.
****McCain-recently I agree and I don't like his Bushesque stance on illegal immigration. But it becomes a case of best of the worst.

jfrazell wrote:

MagickalMemories wrote:

JFrazell... Should I take that to mean you disagree? Agree or not, I understand either way.

Hillary espouses 35 years of experience. Sorry, looking the other way while the President is banging interns does not count as experience.

Exactly. She should at least have the decency to watch.

Exactly Malfred.

Actually President Clinton will probably be remembered for his massive Welfare reform more then NAFTA, and for tax cuts for small business.

I know it is hard for people to remember when the only reminders come from Rush Limbaugh or Michael Moore, but Clinton was much more moderate then pundits make him out to be, and Bush is not as conservative as he is painted. Talk to a full on conservative and they will paint a different picture of how Bush isn't conservative enough.

jfrazell wrote:I want to see an Obama / McCain fight. I like McCain, and wouldn't be disgusted if Obama won.

I hear ya there.

I wouldnt mind either of them getting elected. Atleast I can respect their stances.
I like others more, but I feel these two have the most solid chance of become nominees of their respective parties.

Personally there is not one of the candidates i really favor. As a lifelong Democrat and a big supporter of Bill Clinton i think i [i[should[/i] favor hillary but she has done nothing to inspire me the way her husband did. Obama sometimes inspires me but does not have the level of experience i would really like when it comes to running the country.

As to the republicans i cant stand a single one of them. admittedly thats a pretty basic state for me and republicans but still.

I guess at this point I'm leading more to Obama because I think he has the greatest chance in the general. (admittedly i doubt heavily that in the wake of bush any republican could win, but there is still a lot of residual clinton hate around and i wouldn't want to risk it. i mean if anyone can lose an election the democrats can.)

Well outside of Kacinich, Clinton would be the only one I would actively vote against and fill the campaign coffers of anyone running against her, short of Ron Paul.

Ahtman wrote:Actually President Clinton will probably be remembered for his massive Welfare reform more then NAFTA, and for tax cuts for small business.

I know it is hard for people to remember when the only reminders come from Rush Limbaugh or Michael Moore, but Clinton was much more moderate then pundits make him out to be, and Bush is not as conservative as he is painted. Talk to a full on conservative and they will paint a different picture of how Bush isn't conservative enough.

Welfare reform was good. But that will not be what he is remembered for. Wag the Dog anyone?
Tax cuts? He stood watch over a series of tax increases. Tax cutting is not exactly his reason d etre.

Wag the Dog? Are you serious?

Tax increases were part of balancing the budget and actually developing a budget surplus. Which was then squandered by an ostensibly “conservative” President and congress.

jfrazell wrote:****Manny none of this is directed at you in any way.

No worries.

jfrazell wrote:****Sorry you're brilliantly wrong. He's run Fortune 100 corporations. He's no bubble head. But he is a flip flopping poll watcher.

Mea Culpa on Romney. I’ll happily concede that he’s smarter and better than Bush, particularly since I don’t think a worse president is actually possible. That said, he has a habit of saying similarly inane things.

jfrazell wrote:

mannahnin wrote: Rudy has the same problem, having been Mayor of NYC. His personal and social views and practices have been as or more hedonistic/free than those of most liberals.

]****And you say it like its a bad thing Anyone who will contiue to work while under mob death threats is my kind of guy.

It’s not a bad thing IMO, except insofar as it makes him say/do crazy things to try and make for it via pandering to nutjobs.

jfrazell wrote:

mannahnin wrote: Both of them are now trying to make up for this by saying bats**** insane things that they think will endear them to the rightwing nutjobs, like Rudy's endorsement of building and staffing a wall across the entire 1969 mile US/Mexico border,

****Nothing wrong with that. When the terrorists cross the border that way or heaven forbid cart a nuke across-how will you feel then?

Where are we supposed to get the money or the people? I honestly don’t see a nuke coming across that way anyway.

jfrazell wrote:*****Ron Paul believes 9/11 was a government conspiracy. Many of supporters reflect anti-semetic views. Sorry but he left the heat lamp on too long and fried his brain.

Can you provide a quote from Paul to that effect? I know he’s said some stupid things that sounded pretty racist. And he does have a lot of weirdos supporting him (both good weirdos and bad weirdos, IMO).

Surplus was built up on taxing the internet boom (bubble).

Bubble burst + 911 = no more surplus.

DarthDiggler wrote:Surplus was built up on taxing the internet boom (bubble).

Bubble burst + 911 = no more surplus.

9/11 didn’t kill the budget. Wasteful spending, a stupid, murderous, and wrongheaded war, and unnecessary tax cuts killed the budget and created the largest deficit in history.

You're forgetting about the 2002 recession, and military spending on the war which blew the budget before Iraq.
but yes, it seems once the war started someone rang the dinner bell for all the hogs to come feed (of both parties). Easily remedied-tie Congressional salaries to the budget. If they don't balance Congress gets no paycheck. Problem solved almost instantly.

All that tying individual salaries to the budget would accomplish is to force honest politicians into taking money from lobbyists (either before or after they leave office) and reduce the options for dealing with economic crisis (e.g. the New Deal and WWII ran at a deficit - both got America out of the Great Depression).

I don't think it would solve the problem at all.

The problem is when the deficit continues for too long and when it exists for the wrong reason. Quite separate from any assessment of the Iraq war, there did need to be a temporary rise in taxes to pay for it.

So, er how would that be differeent than now?

New Deal didn't get us out of the Depression. WWII got us out fo the Depression.

It wouldn't be much different, just a little worse.

"Almost the same, but worse!" makes for a lousy campaign slogan.

As Asmodai said, you need to pay for a war. GWB completely blew it after 9/11, when everyone in the US (and nearly everyone in other countries) said “What can we do to help?” Instead of accepting our willingness to make some economic sacrifices (though it wouldn’t have been anything like WWII), he said “No, keep everything totally the same, be wasteful and selfish and keep those tax breaks.” While we had pretty much unilateral support in Afghanistan, going after the culprits, he then proceeded to squander international support by engaging in a completely unnecessary war of choice with an uninvolved country.

For me (and I think a lot of other people), a critical issue in this election is moving away from 8 years of bad policies and destructive decisions. IMO that’s the main reason independents are leaning toward the left, even if most of us aren’t as big lefties as I am personally.

I’m also hoping that McCain and Obama’s leads represent a referendum on honesty and integrity as important values. 8 years of this much lying, deceit, and secrecy (substantially worse than the Nixon administration) is more than enough.

Mannahnin wrote:IHuckabee is Satan. He talks a good game, and that makes him genuinely scary, as I find his policy ideas morally repellent, and they are exactly what the religious nutjobs are looking for.

I would step back from language like that. I am a pastor who is all too often lumped in with the "religeous nutjobs" even though I am placing all my
political hopes on Obama. People should not be regarded as one group based on their professed religeon. I am part of a young postmodern group of
Christians who vote on the left because they are interested in the plight of those in poverty and the restoration of the marginalized.

I do think Huckabee is reading his Bible backwards or something because he says so many things that I find apalling. I was hoping the republican party was starting
to get over its adherance to a small but loud part of the religous community. I guess not.

Oh and did I say Obama rocks.

http://www.factcheck.org/

Great site devoted completely to debunking the lies and misleading statements / comercials / debate claims of US politicians. Very even handed and very good about sighting (and linking) their sources. Best resource I've ever found to root out political lies.

7 out of 3 facts on factcheck.org are outright lies. I saw
this on wikipedia.

Jezrael wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:IHuckabee is Satan. He talks a good game, and that makes him genuinely scary, as I find his policy ideas morally repellent, and they are exactly what the religious nutjobs are looking for.

I would step back from language like that. I am a pastor who is all too often lumped in with the "religeous nutjobs" even though I am placing all my political hopes on Obama.

Thanks for not going too harsh in your reproval.

I did not mean in any way to imply that all religious people are nutjobs. I’m a religious person myself.

To clarify, there is a large population of religious persons within the US whose interpretation of Christianity, and whose ideals of how it should be applied to our government and society, absolutely appall and frighten me. People who seem never to have heard of Thomas Jefferson or James Madison, or to know anything about the concept of Separation of Church & State except to attack and deride it. Further, most of the Republican party seems to have a clear policy of pandering to and using this base, either due to sharing the same values, or simply through cynical manipulation of them to further their personal ambitions.

Jezrael wrote: People should not be regarded as one group based on their professed religeon. I am part of a young postmodern group of Christians who vote on the left because they are interested in the plight of those in poverty and the restoration of the marginalized.

IMO that seems much more like the original message of Christianity. Helping the poor, sick, and needy. Not creating more through “holy war”, or by dismantling government assistance programs (which ironically tend to be used more by the residents of states which politically trend conservative).

1 out of 2 facts on wiki are lies. I saw that on factcheck.org.
So there!

Was Hillary's sob fest the other day a benefit or a loss for her.

I think for the first time ever you acctually saw a non contrived emotional side to a candidate (at least if it was set up she did a brilliant job). Something missing from her (and all the candidates).

However it can be viewed as weakness and it seems alot of Americans hate weakness in a president.


Superobama:

Also Obama's slogan 'CHANGE We Can Believe In'. What is he changing?
Almost all he wants is pretty similar to the status quo but with a lefter leaning as would be expected from a democratic standpoint.

Someone needs to an image of 'Obama Llama'

Change. I believe in getting six singles for a five.

Change:
Make Abercrombie and Fitch turn down their music and turn some lights on.

Make southern whites stop naming their kids with hyphenated double first names.

Raise the minimum wage and get rid of tipping.

Make Malfred Secretary for Education...

Thank you, thank you I'll be here all week. Try the schnitzel, its great!

Clint, right now we've got a deceitful and secretive administration which...

A) Blatantly flouts the constitution and "lesser" laws
B) Wiretaps innocent citizens & tortures prisoners
C) Led us into an unneccesary war (and shows signs of looking for another)
D) Lies to our troops (Ref the press conference in which Rumsfeld lied right to the men's faces about body armor) while endangering them unnecessarily
E) Lacks any semblance of fiscal responsibility or budget control
F) Panders shamelessly to the energy industry (see: Enron) and to corporate polluters (Clear Skies Act)
G) Enriches its corporate sponsors (Enron, Halliburton, KBR) with no-bid contracts at taxpayer expense
H) Supports social and domestic policies which are by turns anti-freedom (anti-choice, anti gay-rights) and flat out destructive to our children (unfunded No Child Left Behind, abstinence-only sex ed) for the sake of gratifying the religious right and getting their votes.

"Change", to me, means stopping all the above crap.

I literally wept in 2004 when Kerry dropped the ball and we as a people let this administration stay in office. It was a lesson to me in the willful ignorance, greed, and selfishness of my nation.

My wife already wants to move to Denmark. I've always thought the idea of moving away was cowardly, but if we let the Republicans keep the White House this year, I'm not sure what to think about us as a nation.

Mannahin: What you'd HAVE to think.

There are a lot of scary people out there.

jfrazell wrote:Welfare reform was good. But that will not be what he is remembered for. Wag the Dog anyone?
Tax cuts? He stood watch over a series of tax increases. Tax cutting is not exactly his reason d etre.

I kind of threw those two together and that was my fault. With the tax cuts was pointing out that he was not the uber-liberal he is often painted as. As for Wellfare reform I guess it depends on what group you are hanging out with. It is the difference between cummunal history (Boston Tea Party was a great rebellion and they stuck it to the British!) and actual history (they did it quietly and did not talk about it for 50 years and was little known).

Mannahnin wrote:
My wife already wants to move to Denmark. I've always thought the idea of moving away was cowardly, but if we let the Republicans keep the White House this year, I'm not sure what to think about us as a nation.

And you are absolutely right. It is monstrously cowardice. Your choice can't win every election, and in a nation of 300 million not everything you want is going to happen. On the other hand if you just bitch out it seems that you don't think what you have to say is worth standing up for, just running away from.

If you don't like something your child does should you throw them out and never have anything to do with them? Or do you discipline them and/or try and help them get to a better place? (discipline does not mean beating or even touching, though the threat of a chainsword goes a long way.)

Ahtman's right.

At least wait until they kick you out.

jfrazell wrote:So, er how would that be differeent than now?

New Deal didn't get us out of the Depression. WWII got us out fo the Depression.

Only if you believe the revisionists. The New Deal turned your country around. In Canada, where RB Bennet did as the neo cons now suggest Rooseevelt should have done Bennet is now best remembered for horse drawn Model T's (Bennet Buggies). As bad as the Us depression was it was largely done before the war. Pre depression proseperity hadn't returned, but the depression had ended. Some of the backwaters may not have seen improvements until the war. The war led to prosperity, but the economy had stabilised and returned to normal before the war began.

For what it's worth the wikipedia article is in agreement with my now long distant university memories. By 1935 there was a 9% unemployment rate (which while bad is better then Canada had during the 1990s.) There was another dip in the year 1937-1938, but not as bad as the initial fall.

The New Deal worked and helped set America up for a prolonged period of prosperity after the war.

Edit: and the successful projects and programs of the New Deal enriched America

-Federal Writers' Project
-Works Progress Administration
- FDIC, Securities and Exchange Commission and Securities Act of 1933
- Minimum wages
- National Labor Relations Board
- NRA board to set labor codes and standards
- Social Security

Which would you do without and more importantly why?

Mannahnin wrote:As Asmodai said, you need to pay for a war. GWB completely blew it after 9/11, when everyone in the US (and nearly everyone in other countries) said “What can we do to help?” Instead of accepting our willingness to make some economic sacrifices (though it wouldn’t have been anything like WWII), he said “No, keep everything totally the same, be wasteful and selfish and keep those tax breaks.” While we had pretty much unilateral support in Afghanistan, going after the culprits, he then proceeded to squander international support by engaging in a completely unnecessary war of choice with an uninvolved country.

The least problem for America is how it handled it's allies, sadly we're used to it. It's dumb to be insulting to the people who want to help.
I think that the American people traded liberty for security in the yeasrs following 9/11 was worse. The Bush Administration made democracy look bad. Dumber
I think ultimatley in 20 years time the great failing of the Bush Administration may be viewed as the tax cuts during a time of war. Dumberest.

I don't care who you are and what your economic leanings are. A 100-200 billion dollar a year war is a recipe for economic disaster in the postwar period. To mkae matters worse, it's a trillion dollar a year occupation... with no end in sight. There are no positives. Your government is like a crack whore trying to pay it's dealer (Halliburton) with a credit card. Find some crack whores and ask them how well that worked for them in the long run.

Out of everything stupid/bad/awful that GWB has done, the one thing that stands out in my mind is how he managed to take the single biggest worldwide outburst of support and good wishes for the US, her government and her people after 9/11, in which no nation state said a bad thing about the US - even the palestinian government put out a 'we are sorry for your loss' propaganda piece, and then GWB managed to turn it around and made more citizens of earth hate the US than at any other time in history whilst polarizing the nation. A better man would have been able to completely change the world with that level of support but it was utterly destroyed by the administration. Bravo!

legoburner wrote:Out of everything stupid/bad/awful that GWB has done, the one thing that stands out in my mind is how he managed to take the single biggest worldwide outburst of support and good wishes for the US, her government and her people after 9/11, in which no nation state said a bad thing about the US - even the palestinian government put out a 'we are sorry for your loss' propaganda piece, and then GWB managed to turn it around and made more citizens of earth hate the US than at any other time in history whilst polarizing the nation. A better man would have been able to completely change the world with that level of support but it was utterly destroyed by the administration. Bravo!

To be fair, I think a lot of that support was very superficial to begin with. He could have done more with it, but I don't think any human could have turned most of it into anything permanent.

Even in Canada, which is one of America's closest allies it took less than a week for the editorial line of the left-wing newspapers to change to 'Well they deserved it.'

Interesting thread.
I was unaware of the depth of dislike for the clintons (though my brother did point out the Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton possibility), and I'm suprised at how popular Obama is. I would prefer to see him get it for mostly whimsical reasons: He's personally more charming than Hillary, he's not an irratating feminist, and he shows less evidence of selling out to my cursory glance.
I stopped caring about US presidential elections after Bush got voted in for the second time. I find it hard to care about it now too much, though I do read the pieces in the Irish times. (And I'll continue to follow this thread).

The US system seems so wierd to me, since almost all Irish governments have to be coalitions of conflicting factions.

Impressive. Bush is evil. Of course Bush isn't running so its irrelevant.

Da Boss wrote:Interesting thread.
I was unaware of the depth of dislike for the clintons (though my brother did point out the Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton possibility), and I'm suprised at how popular Obama is. I would prefer to see him get it for mostly whimsical reasons: He's personally more charming than Hillary, he's not an irratating feminist, and he shows less evidence of selling out to my cursory glance.
I stopped caring about US presidential elections after Bush got voted in for the second time. I find it hard to care about it now too much, though I do read the pieces in the Irish times. (And I'll continue to follow this thread).

The US system seems so wierd to me, since almost all Irish governments have to be coalitions of conflicting factions.

Hillary isn't really a radical feminist. At least not by our standards. She might have been in the past, but I think that America has caught up with her.

Yeah, I didn't say she was one.
Just irratating.
(TBH I don't know much about the candidates, but this stage of things would require too much investment of time for me at the moment to get properly educated)

I'm sure if I took the time to look into Obama I could find some stuff that annoys me about him.

efarrer wrote:Your government is like a crack whore trying to pay it's dealer (Halliburton) with a credit card. Find some crack whores and ask them how well that worked for them in the long run.

efarrer... I don't know you, and I don't know where you're from... but I have a line.
You crossed it.

While I don't begrudge anyone in ANY country their right to criticize our government, I would appreciate it if, in the future, you would do it with just a little more class than that. As, apparently, a citizen of another country (jugding from the phrase "Your government"), what I -as an American- will ignore has its' limits.

If you're a citizen of the US... then you've got more leeway to criticize it in such a way... but I'd still have said something about it.

No anger here & no insult intended. I just needed to address that.

---back on subject---

Re: B.Clinton & Nafta... It's the one real thing I could throttle him over.
I don't think it's fair to say he's the guy that let Bin Ladin get away. Granted, he wasn't on our "Warm & Fuzzy" list at the time... and I think that, in Bill's place, I might have made the decision to do it... it's easy to criticize him in retrospect. Hindsight being 20/20, we can all say how much better we'd have done things.
Even if he HAD ordered Bin Ladin killed, there were plenty of other nutjobs in line who would have taken his place.
It wouldn't have gotten us anywhere substantially. Shoot! He wasn't even the planner of 9/11... So, there you go.

Mannahnin wrote:While we had pretty much unilateral support in Afghanistan, going after the culprits, he then proceeded to squander international support by engaging in a completely unnecessary war of choice with an uninvolved country.

Wow!
Talk about kicking a guy square in the Jiggly What-Nots!
I don't know whether to agree or disagree with you.

That being because I'm squarely in the middle of the road on this issue and just have not yet decided which direction I'm going to turn.

On one hand, I agree re: unilateral support in Afghanistan & that it was a war of choice with an uninvolved country. Like most people, I was completely taken in with his "evidence" of Iraq's wrongdoing. Hindsight -as I mentioned earlier- being what it is, I believe now that he KNEW the "evidence" was "questionable" and went after Hussein for personal reasons.

That being said, if he'd have said "My only reasons are because Saddam Hussein is a horrible person and a tyrannic dictator who needs to be stopped," I'd still be supporting Bush now. I don't support him anymore because I feel that I was lied to.

Now, the part of me that disagrees does so because I don't think it was an unnecesary war. I think Hussein needed to be stopped before he got too out of hand. I think the Elder Bush dropped the ball by letting him stay in power and not sending him into exile. I'm glad we went in & did what we did (though I hate the lying part), and I'm glad we stayed instead of just leaving, once he was gone, as it shows out willingness to help clean up after we've accomplished our goal. I DO think we need to get out, but I think to set a date is recipe for disaster.

I think Bush did the right thing for the wrong reasons. I don't know yet how the history books are going to apint that decision. Obviously, he's going to be "hit" for a lot of errors, mistakes & blunders he made, I'm just not sure if history will paint iraq as one of them. I guess it depends on how the next presidency or 2 handles the after effects.


Eric

I don't mean to start any sort of fight, but why do you feel an american has more right to vigorously criticise your government than a non-american? What if he were a non american living in america or something, would that be different? I agree the analogy lacks taste, but it is just an analogy.
Do you feel that people who have been screwed over by your government in other countries have less right to criticise also?
I am interested primarily in what you think on this subject. I'm not particularly judgemental about this sort of thing but I find your stance interesting. I know many Irish people with similar veiws but limited to the British Government.

I don't think he's saying that people can't criticize, just that we should try to actually criticize and not insult, or go for the cheap laugh. Which is hard for me since its the only laughs I ever go for. It is like talking about one's children I suppose. You can talk about what you don't like about your own kids all you want, but if someone else insults your children (even if they say the same thing perhaps) you will get angry. I don't have a problem with what efarrer said other being glib and poorly thought out. I suppose if your only experience with the US is Farenheit 9/11 it is to be expected.

I'm just going to copy and paste what I wrote about the New Hampshire Primaries elsewhere here:

Well the hag beat out Obama by 2%. That is not much of a win, even though they seem very excited at her camp, after losing to Obama in Iowa. If I have to pick a Democratic candidate it would be Obama. Hillary and Edwards can go kick rocks.

McCain won and beat Romney by 5%. Ron Paul had a better showing here (9%) but I think he's should acknowledge that it is over. The big joke, to me anyway, is that Fred Thompson (1% of votes) got beat by write-ins (2% of votes). I still don't know who I would want to be the Republican candidate yet. Possibly because they all look the same (old, white) or because it's still to early. I don't care for Romney to much, but that is just a gut impression. I like Gulliani kinda, but mostly because he's not afraid of the mob or to wear a dress.

I think it would be hard to find a person with an internet connection who has only had one exposure to america.

Patriotism is wierd to me as I'm not from a particularly patriotic background. I'm pro-Europe, but highly critical of it at the same time. Emotion rarely comes into it where my national identity is concerned, except with the gradual death of the Irish language perhaps. So I'm interested in the other side of things.

After a wee bit more research, I'm thinking I'd like to see a race between Obama and McCain. At least that way, whoever wins, I won't be too depressed.

(On a side note, I love political discussions and I'm always arguing with friends and on another forum about politics. I like arguing here too though because it is primarily american, and I get to see the various posters in two contexts. So for example, I disagree with many of the stances taken by jfrazell politically, but he's obviously an intelligent and well informed bloke. I might not have seen that on a site more focused on debate, but here it's obvious, which makes me evaluate everything he says differently. Hurrah! )

MagickalMemories wrote:

efarrer wrote:Your government is like a crack whore trying to pay it's dealer (Halliburton) with a credit card. Find some crack whores and ask them how well that worked for them in the long run.

efarrer... I don't know you, and I don't know where you're from... but I have a line.
You crossed it.

While I don't begrudge anyone in ANY country their right to criticize our government, I would appreciate it if, in the future, you would do it with just a little more class than that. As, apparently, a citizen of another country (jugding from the phrase "Your government"), what I -as an American- will ignore has its' limits.

If you're a citizen of the US... then you've got more leeway to criticize it in such a way... but I'd still have said something about it.

No anger here & no insult intended. I just needed to address that.
.

Meh. Why be insulted? I come from a nation which has been routinely described as pinko liberals who are "soft on terror" socialists who aren't willing to protect freedom (even as we die at a faster rate then any of our allies). If you don't like my comparison, ignore it, and ignore me if you want. Otherwise if you don't like something I say, please dispute it. Prove to me why my analogy sucks.

I'll break down the sentence which offended you to explain what I meant very carefully.
Crack whore - That was meanspirited, I should have simply said addict, but which is a better term for a collection of people willing to sell thier souls and the souls and lives of tens or even hundreds of thousands of your citizens into a meat grinder for what? Revenge, one upsmenship on daddy, a desire to show that they were the biggest on the block. War, I hate, but will accept it as a neccassary option (Afganistan), but torture on a wide scale, murders, and a criminal lack of planning, and to then send the victims (your injured soldiers) to disgraces such as Walter Reed where outsourced contracting has left soldiers in buildings I would not enter by choice and take photo ops with those victims in the nicer wards and shuffle them back. If you can find a better word to describe the deseased behavior of your government I would like to see it. For the record, I consider the current Canadian government to be as bad for supporting the effort to move towards a war in Iran.

Drug dealer- Haliburton gets my wrath in the original example but others (such as Blackwater) exist. Any corperation which has gotten as much as Haliburton has for so little is deplorable, but Halliburton takes the cake, both for it's efforts at home and abroad (although since it's registered in Dubai I guess I should say in America and Iraq). Your government is paying a disturbing amount of money to people who aren't doing thier jobs, and not questioning it. Blackwater and the outsourced intelligence "contractors" are the next on the list. These so called contractors make more then any American soldier so that the government can lie about the total number of troops on the ground in Iraq.

Credit card- This was the important point in the analogy really. The war isn't being paid for in the present. It's being paid for by people in the future, possibly. either that or like a drug addict who tries to use a credit card to pay for drugs it will cause the addict to go bankrupt. That scares me and that was my point.

Don't just say I'm classless for making the comparison, prove me wrong.

I am a Canadian and have heard so many vile things said about my country by members of your government and media that I really do wonder what you (the American people ) think of us, but I can't say I care one way or another.

I could have been nicer, I suppose, but I wanted to make sure I got my point across. America is in trouble. As a neighbour, I'm scared for you guys. And I'm not just scared because I don't want to see you collapse, I'm scared because I think you might harm us when things go downhill. Was my description over the top? Yes, but have you really looked at you situation? The economic realities of America are frightening me.

You, I notice, did not address anything else I said. Do you agree about how bad America's shape really is, or do you even care? I should note that I am very concerned by the fact I hear none of your candidates seriously discussing that debt, and what it will mean.

And to be perfectly clear, your government does not equal your nation. I may have many problems with the American government, but I have never had a bad encounter with an American person. Please remember to seperate the two in your mind when reading what I write.

That is the difference between America(USA) and Europe. In America you say the pledge of Allegiance every day and dying for your country is a good thing.
In Europe nobody even knows the word patriotism (at least not in Switzerland). They just think their country is better(logically, doesn't evrybody?). I've lived here for 5 years and only recently found out they have a national Anthem.

And of course, being Canadian, erfarrer is also american. Or at least, hailing from the continent known as North American, so he's american in the same way a Kenyan is African.
[/pointless niggling for the sake of it]

Da Boss wrote:

(On a side note, I love political discussions and I'm always arguing with friends and on another forum about politics. I like arguing here too though because it is primarily american, and I get to see the various posters in two contexts. So for example, I disagree with many of the stances taken by jfrazell politically, but he's obviously an intelligent and well informed bloke. I might not have seen that on a site more focused on debate, but here it's obvious, which makes me evaluate everything he says differently. Hurrah! )

flattery will get you everywhere.

and yes, Obama and McCain would be sweet. I'm surprised no one has brought up the specter of ballot stuffing by the Clinton camp . To have so many pols so wrong on the eve of the election...

Da Boss wrote:I don't mean to start any sort of fight, but why do you feel an american has more right to vigorously criticise your government than a non-american? What if he were a non american living in america or something, would that be different? I agree the analogy lacks taste, but it is just an analogy.
Do you feel that people who have been screwed over by your government in other countries have less right to criticise also?
I am interested primarily in what you think on this subject. I'm not particularly judgemental about this sort of thing but I find your stance interesting. I know many Irish people with similar veiws but limited to the British Government.

Don't worry. I'm pretty even keeled.
You almost have to be looking for a fight to find one with me (which you'd, then, succeeed at. LOL).

I think Ahtman said it well. It's not about criticizing. It's about insulting.
It's also about the topic.
He was speaking generally and not specifically.

If you want to criticize.. heck, even insult to a degree... the way ou government handled/is handling the war in Iraq, I'll let you without thinking twice about it. If you want to talk about our foreign policy, or our immigration "reform" issues, or our fethed up voter polls in Florida... Go for it. I'm all ears.

It's sitting back and issuing general "you suck' statements that I stand up for.

I do feel, however, than an American has the most right to make those statements. We're "here," and the government is "ours."
A non-American living here would put a sour taste in my mouth (provided he wasn't on the path to citizenship), but I'd stay as quiet as if it was an American. A non-American on the path to citizenship is as good as American in my eyes, so I'd afford him the same courtesy as another American.

Do you feel that people who have been screwed over by your government in other countries have less right to criticise also?

I do, provided it's "appropriate." Yes, I do understand that I'm using MY definition of appropriate... but it's my opinion, so it is only subject to facts where they influence my opinion. By appropriate, I'm referring to the specifics I mentioned above... that it make sense. KWIM? Criticize the heck out of the government. That's fine. Don't insult us.

I'd like to reiterate that I didn't take efarrer's opinions personally and I felt/feel no anger. I just felt the need to step up.
I don't want it to become a flame war. I hope it doesn't.

Eric

snorkle wrote:That is the difference between America(USA) and Europe. In America you say the pledge of Allegiance every day and dying for your country is a good thing.
In Europe nobody even knows the word patriotism (at least not in Switzerland). They just think their country is better(logically, doesn't evrybody?). I've lived here for 5 years and only recently found out they have a national Anthem.

I certainly don't think my country is the best. It's a nice place to live (hurrah for free education), yup, and Europe in general is pretty great in terms of comfort. But the US has many advantages too.
But there is a lot of patriotism in Europe. It's a good thing, even from my perspective: it keeps the federalists or the nationalists from gaining the upper hand, and means that instead of standing united and being hated, we are veiwed benignly as a collective which pulls in many different directions.

It's interesting that so much in the US comes down to the personality of one person. I really can't wait to visit. (I plan on making Adepticon one of these years!)

Edited to add: Magickal Memories, cool, thanks for the reply. I didn't initially catch the distinction between insulting and criticising.

George Bush should have zero impact on Adepticon.

at least so I hope.

Yeah Da Boss, I was exaggerating slightly. But I do believe that most people view their homecountry as the best or at least it's the one they like the most.
I also feel you shouldn't insult other people's countries. It's childish and gets you nowhere. Though yes countries who have been screwed over by the US or any other country have a right to criticize more openly.
Have loads of fun at Adepticon. I wish I could go to.

malfred wrote:George Bush should have zero impact on Adepticon.

at least so I hope.

I heard where he was running SAFH Space Marines.
What will have the biggest impact is my personal finances and the state of my thesis.

I fully expect a State of the Thesis speech every few
months.

I heard he's in the team tournament with air force fighter
pilots helping him with the rules

MagickalMemories wrote:

Don't worry. I'm pretty even keeled.
You almost have to be looking for a fight to find one with me (which you'd, then, succeeed at. LOL).

I think Ahtman said it well. It's not about criticizing. It's about insulting.
It's also about the topic.
He was speaking generally and not specifically.

If you want to criticize.. heck, even insult to a degree... the way ou government handled/is handling the war in Iraq, I'll let you without thinking twice about it. If you want to talk about our foreign policy, or our immigration "reform" issues, or our fethed up voter polls in Florida... Go for it. I'm all ears.

It's sitting back and issuing general "you suck' statements that I stand up for.

As pointed out above I am an American in general, just not a United States of America American.

But I really wasn't trying to make a you suck statement, I was in my post trying to discuss the very real problem that I don't think anyone in the current adminstration or the next as far as I can tell from the front runners. To restate my point fromt the original point.

"I think ultimately in 20 years time the great failing of the Bush Administration may be viewed as the tax cuts during a time of war. Dumberest."

I will admit the original post contained two innaccurate numbers only one of which I caught at the time (the cost is in the hundreds of billions (not a trillion dollars a year). That debt is going to be crushing when the time comes to pay the piper and the government must surely realize it by now. Why is the government not addressing it? Why aren't the intelligent people who can ask asking "What is going to be done about the debt?"

I do, provided it's "appropriate." Yes, I do understand that I'm using MY definition of appropriate... but it's my opinion, so it is only subject to facts where they influence my opinion. By appropriate, I'm referring to the specifics I mentioned above... that it make sense. KWIM? Criticize the heck out of the government. That's fine. Don't insult us.

I'd like to reiterate that I didn't take efarrer's opinions personally and I felt/feel no anger. I just felt the need to step up.
I don't want it to become a flame war. I hope it doesn't.

Eric

I wasn't accussing americans in general of being crack whores and I regret using the analogy, if only because it has distracted from my original point.

I wonder if Pakistanis refer to themselves as 'Indian' when they're being pedantic since they're from that sub-continent?

When someone says 'American' you can usually assume it has the generally ascribed meaning that it's held for the last 200 years. If someone means it generally, they need to be specific. The same if some says the French but means Frankish peoples generally.

It only gets troublesome when you're trying to figure out if Turkey, Russia and Britain are 'European' since the usage tends to vary so much.

I agree with Snorkle that most people (in the Western world) tend to think of where they live as being 'the best'. If they didn't, they'd live somewhere else. It's not universal, but I think it's generally pretty accurate.



As a note on the tax cuts angle, the President isn't an autocrat. If Congress had passed tax raises and had sufficient support (to override the veto) then Bush couldn't do much about it. It's just so much easier to blame one person than hundreds of faceless Congressmen no one outside of their home district has every heard of.

Ah I know, I was just poking semantic fun.

The US political structure has been on my list of things to learn for ages. Must get round to it.

Asmodai wrote:I wonder if Pakistanis refer to themselves as 'Indian' when they're being pedantic since they're from that sub-continent?

When someone says 'American' you can usually assume it has the generally ascribed meaning that it's held for the last 200 years. If someone means it generally, they need to be specific. The same if some says the French but means Frankish peoples generally.

Since I was just having fun (hence the wink) I think it's allowable.

Fair enough. Sorry for missing the wink. I've dealt with that concept enough times with very dense people thinking that they're smarter than everyone else, that I'm a bit thin-skinned with respect to it.

Carry on.

Asmodai wrote:
As a note on the tax cuts angle, the President isn't an autocrat. If Congress had passed tax raises and had sufficient support (to override the veto) then Bush couldn't do much about it. It's just so much easier to blame one person than hundreds of faceless Congressmen no one outside of their home district has every heard of.

I agree. I think it's really hard for a person to resist the urge to spend and ask for more money. But it's needed and I don't think anyone has the courage to say that. THe congress and the senate are as complicite in the looming problem as the president. But the piper is going to need to be paid, and I don't want to be around when he's told there is no money.

snorkle wrote:That is the difference between America(USA) and Europe. In America you say the pledge of Allegiance every day and dying for your country is a good thing.

Well, in America, some of us WANT TO say the Pledge of Alliegence every day but aren't allowed to because of some stupid laws passed with the support of the vocal minority. D@maned silent majority!

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
efarrer:

The perceived "tone" of your post makes e think i might have insulted you, or come close.
It wasn't my intent - and I hope I didn't - so, I'm going to comment piece by piece to be certain i covered everything.

Meh. Why be insulted? I come from a nation which has been routinely described as pinko liberals who are "soft on terror" socialists who aren't willing to protect freedom (even as we die at a faster rate then any of our allies). If you don't like my comparison, ignore it, and ignore me if you want. Otherwise if you don't like something I say, please dispute it. Prove to me why my analogy sucks.

I don't want to ignore you. I didn't have a problem with everything you said. Just that one point. As has been said, it wasn't that you were criticizing something specific, you were insulting the government in general. I understood what you meant in your analogy, and I thought the credit card bit was a valid - even witty - choice. It was the "Crack Whore" piece that disturbed me.

I'll break down the sentence which offended you to explain what I meant very carefully.
Crack whore - That was meanspirited, I should have simply said addict, but which is a better term for a collection of people willing to sell thier souls and the souls and lives of tens or even hundreds of thousands of your citizens into a meat grinder for what? Revenge, one upsmenship on daddy, a desire to show that they were the biggest on the block.

LOL This makes your opinion on the war pretty clear. Truth be told, however, it isn't the fault of our government.
Well, it is... in a way... But it lies (no pun intended) on the deeds of our president and his cronies who presented falsified "evidence" and "facts" that drew us over there in the first place. Without his "evidence," he'd have never been able to get the support of Congress like he did.
Fact is, I think he wanted to finish what his father didn't. Not necessarily for one-upsmanship. IMO, it's probably more as a Christmas present
"Look, daddy. I got Saddam out of power for you."

War, I hate, but will accept it as a neccassary option (Afganistan), but torture on a wide scale, murders, and a criminal lack of planning, and to then send the victims (your injured soldiers) to disgraces such as Walter Reed where outsourced contracting has left soldiers in buildings I would not enter by choice and take photo ops with those victims in the nicer wards and shuffle them back.

Re: Torture... That is a matter of opinion. Whether I agree or disagree with you on whether or not there's torture going on, there is unfortunately little definitive evidence to prove either side. Both sides of the arguement have enough "evidence" to cast doubt on the other. I'm trying to stay neutral at the moment.

Re: Walter Reed & the treatment of Vet's (all vet's. Not just wounded ones). The US can do better. Period. No arguing with you. No disagreeing. the government just does not watch out for its' Vet's enough.

For that matter, neither does its' citizenry.

I'm certain we've all heard about the outporing of support for the 5 year old Iraqi child, Youseff, who had his face horribly burned by some terrorists in Iraq. Right? ... And how Americans pulled together to bring him here & fix his face the best we can... and footed the bill...

Did you hear about the horribly disfigured US soldiers who had THEIR faces burned in Iraq? The victims of the IED attacks who, when their story made it to CNN, we (Americans) all pitched in to get THEM fixed for free? Did you hear about those? No?
That's because it didn't happen.
I'm glad we pitched in to help little Youseff... but ashamed that nobody has done it for our own boys who got that way trying to make Youseff & his family free.

If you can find a better word to describe the deseased behavior of your government I would like to see it. For the record, I consider the current Canadian government to be as bad for supporting the effort to move towards a war in Iran.

Diseased is a bit harsh.
Misguided.
Thoughtless.
Asinine.
Shameful.
Those might be more appropriate for certain members of our government.

As for an effort to move towards a war with Iran... Who's doing that? Not the US? We couldn't afford it. there certainly is a lot of rhetoric going around... but you have to expect that when the little kid on the playground keeps provoking the big kid to prove how tough he is.
Truth is, it's Iran (or, Ahmedinijad - I'm sure I messed up THAT spelling- anyway) that is the one who wants the war. Think about it. Now, the "big bad US," who can't stop meddling in the affairs of other countries, wants to start a war with poor little them, too... and they weren't doing ANYTHING to the US first...

Drug dealer- Haliburton gets my wrath in the original example but others (such as Blackwater) exist. Any corperation which has gotten as much as Haliburton has for so little is deplorable, but Halliburton takes the cake, both for it's efforts at home and abroad (although since it's registered in Dubai I guess I should say in America and Iraq).

Haliburton is another point I won't argue.
Keep in mind that -though I don't claim to like it- our government is bloated enough as is. In order to get the kind of oversight we need, it would be an even further burden on the American taxpayer to get more people hired to supervise the myriad areas that need it. god knows that the lazy *donkeys* in Washington aren't going to do it. they already have "too much to do" already.

Your government is paying a disturbing amount of money to people who aren't doing thier jobs, and not questioning it. Blackwater and the outsourced intelligence "contractors" are the next on the list. These so called contractors make more then any American soldier so that the government can lie about the total number of troops on the ground in Iraq.

Now, I do disagree there.
Americans question everything. once we start asking questions, our government does. It's unfortunate that it works that way. Granted... but it does. As for lying about the # of troops on the ground... you're just wrong.
Any American who wants to know can find out how many (roughly) soldiers are in Iraq (etc.) right now with a little internet research. Same thing goes for employees of private security firms.

Credit card- This was the important point in the analogy really. The war isn't being paid for in the present. It's being paid for by people in the future, possibly. either that or like a drug addict who tries to use a credit card to pay for drugs it will cause the addict to go bankrupt. That scares me and that was my point.

No arquements on the whole "Credit card' thing!

Don't just say I'm classless for making the comparison, prove me wrong.

Umm... I didn't.

I am a Canadian and have heard so many vile things said about my country by members of your government and media that I really do wonder what you (the American people ) think of us, but I can't say I care one way or another.

That's about the same as it is down here. We know there's enough BS out there about our government that people trickle it down to us. We just don't care anymore (mostly).
Truth is, the majority of us feel quite fondly towards Canadians.
It's nice to know that, in this world, we have a global next door neighbor who we know isn't going to try anything nasty with us.

I could have been nicer, I suppose, but I wanted to make sure I got my point across. America is in trouble. As a neighbour, I'm scared for you guys.

Many of us are scared for us guys, too.

And I'm not just scared because I don't want to see you collapse, I'm scared because I think you might harm us when things go downhill. Was my description over the top? Yes, but have you really looked at you situation? The economic realities of America are frightening me.

It's comments like that... those are the ones that start arguements.
You think we'd harm you if things went downhill? That's absurd and proves you don't know nearly as much about us as you'd like to think.

You, I notice, did not address anything else I said. Do you agree about how bad America's shape really is, or do you even care? I should note that I am very concerned by the fact I hear none of your candidates seriously discussing that debt, and what it will mean.

I addressed what I had a problem with.
I care about America. I kind of resent the way you asked it, too... "or do [I] even care?" That's ridiculous. I love my country and I care about every wax and wane of its' strength.
Every problem we face in America weighs on the heart of every "true blooded" American. I am one of those.

Yes, I agree that America is having a serious down turn. I think that people who don't know better, however, tend to paint us with a bit too wide of a brush. Just because a man is holding on for dear life... just because he's holding onto a wet rope in a thunderstorn... it doesn't mean that he isn't going to get both hands onto that rope and, through sheer willpower and determination, pull himself back up to safety. It just means he's in danger and needs to draw on his reserves of strength and willpower to do it. We're holding on with one hand in a thunderstorm here... but we haven't dipped far into our reserves of determination, yet.

I'm not concerned about the lack of discussion on debt. It's a no-win topic. Politicians avoid those as much as possible.

And to be perfectly clear, your government does not equal your nation. I may have many problems with the American government, but I have never had a bad encounter with an American person. Please remember to seperate the two in your mind when reading what I write.

I understand all that.
A comparison was made to insulting our children earlier. let me make a differen analogy.

The governemt is the parent, where the people are the children.
It is the job of the parent to do the very best it can for it's kids.
Sometimes, the parent screws up.
Sometimes, you don't like what it's doing.

Sometimes, you think your mom is just a big B!TCH, and you make sure all your friends know it.

You with me, so far?
Now, imagine yourself in that situation and one of your friends says, "I swear. Your mom is such a b!tch!"

How long would it take YOU to tell him to shut up?

Nobody talks about my parents but ME and my siblings. I'd imagine most people agree.


Eric

Da Boss wrote:The US political structure has been on my list of things to learn for ages.

Me, too.

Eric

.

jfrazell wrote:Impressive. Bush is evil. Of course Bush isn't running so its irrelevant.

It’s not just Bush. It’s his entire administration, to some extent the rest of the party that supports him, and beyond that even to the Democrats and others in the government who’ve been unwilling to mount strong challenges to them. And certainly some guilt flows down to the people who voted to keep them in office.

But most immediately relevant is the fact that his party (and the candidates now representing it) are for the most part completely uncritical of what’s been going on.

I was directly responding to Clint’s comment:

.

Waagh Gonads wrote:Also Obama's slogan 'CHANGE We Can Believe In'. What is he changing?
Almost all he wants is pretty similar to the status quo but with a lefter leaning as would be expected from a democratic standpoint. .

What we have now should not be status quo. It represents a significant degradation of our government and our nation. We need to fix it. Insofar as the Republican Party is invested in supporting the corrupt and immoral policies and practices I summarized above, or likely to actually CONTINUE them, all their candidates are complicit. Even McCain, though in last night’s speech I was pleased to hear indications that he recognizes that the way things have been run since 2000 has been Wrong. When watching the Republican debates last year, it became obvious that most of them were not only unwilling to repudiate the Bush administration’s policies, they were practically guaranteeing that they’d continue them. The enthusiasm they expressed at the prospect of torturing a terror suspect was repugnant, and McCain was the big drag with his old-fashioned insistence that torture is wrong, immoral, unacceptable, and unreliable. Amazing that they had the gall to put on that display in front of someone who’s actually been tortured. That particular incident by itself was enough to demonstrate that most of the Republican candidates are completely unsuitable.

Da Boss wrote: The US system seems so wierd to me, since almost all Irish governments have to be coalitions of conflicting factions.

Our system used to be more like this, once upon a time. Originally the VP was the candidate who came in second in the Presidential race.

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

There’s a book I’ve heard great things about called Team of Rivals, about the Lincoln presidency, and how he assembled his cabinet from political opponents who he thought were still the best people for the jobs.

http://www.amazon.com/Team-Rivals-Political-Abraham-Lincoln/dp/0743270754

efarrer, I liked your crack whore analogy. It got a really good laugh from me. The kind of laugh where you’re slightly shocked, but as much by the accuracy of the insight as by the crudity of its expression. It kind of hit the comedic sweet spot for me. Good stuff.

Calling an entire political party evil - pretty much one third of the electorate - pretty much just ends the discussion. Its not a rational statement.

Oh well.

@MagickalMemories:
I wasn't saying that I don't want to recite the pledge of allegiance. I am extremely patriotic to the point of being srupid sometimes(I argue dumb points with my foreign friends,...). I just meant that nowhere in Europe do they practice such patriotism. It's a shame.

jfrazell wrote:Calling an entire political party evil - pretty much one third of the electorate - pretty much just ends the discussion. Its not a rational statement.

Oh well.

I think one of the distinguishing features of the US system is just how 'big tent' the major parties really are. People from parliamentary systems tend to lump all Republicans together. That's not very accurate. Both parties are huge and overarching. Giuliani is arguably further from Tancredo than he is from Hillary Clinton. The Republican party is a conglomeration of mostly right wing movements (Christian Democrats, small and big C conservatives, 'light' libertarians, etc.) and the Democratic likewise on the left (socialists, trades unionists, New Dealers, civil rights progressives, etc.) and there's a huge amount of overlap in the middle.

There is also a huge amount of dissent within the parties - for example Evangelicals tend to dislike Guiliani, and small government types dislike Huckabee. This is especially apparent in places like L.A. or Washington D.C. where all the political competition happens within the Democratic Party and the general election is just a formality to annoint the winner (Washington D.C. votes ~90% Democrat).

The US also doesn't have party discipline like in other countries. In Canada if a politician from the same party flouts the Prime Minister he'll be kicked out of his party and not able to run in the next election. In the US, there's really nothing Bush can use aside from strong language when a Republican upstages him and sides with the Democrats.

I think it's a mistake to try to define either party too narrowly - and that applies equally as much for value judgments like 'evil'.

snorkle wrote:@MagickalMemories:
I wasn't saying that I don't want to recite the pledge of allegiance. I am extremely patriotic to the point of being srupid sometimes(I argue dumb points with my foreign friends,...). I just meant that nowhere in Europe do they practice such patriotism. It's a shame.

No. No.
I understood your meaning.

You just caused me to lament the fact that the Pledge isn't as popular as it used to be.


WTF is wrong with pledging allegience to your dang country? Don't like the phrase "under God?" We can change it!
KWIM?

@ Asmodai... That thur wuz perty well sed fer a ferriner!

Eric

MagickalMemories wrote:
@ Asmodai... That thur wuz perty well sed fer a ferriner!

Eric

Well, I do have dual-citizenship and spent much of my formative years in Buffalo, NY.

legoburner wrote:Out of everything stupid/bad/awful that GWB has done, the one thing that stands out in my mind is how he managed to take the single biggest worldwide outburst of support and good wishes for the US, her government and her people after 9/11, in which no nation state said a bad thing about the US - even the palestinian government put out a 'we are sorry for your loss' propaganda piece, and then GWB managed to turn it around and made more citizens of earth hate the US than at any other time in history whilst polarizing the nation. A better man would have been able to completely change the world with that level of support but it was utterly destroyed by the administration. Bravo!

Preach on brother.

MagickalMemories wrote:Re: Torture... That is a matter of opinion. Whether I agree or disagree with you on whether or not there's torture going on, there is unfortunately little definitive evidence to prove either side. Both sides of the arguement have enough "evidence" to cast doubt on the other. I'm trying to stay neutral at the moment.

If the guy who wrote the book on surviving torture for the US governemnt calls it torture, I'm willing to accept his decision.

As for an effort to move towards a war with Iran... Who's doing that? Not the US? We couldn't afford it. there certainly is a lot of rhetoric going around... but you have to expect that when the little kid on the playground keeps provoking the big kid to prove how tough he is.
Truth is, it's Iran (or, Ahmedinijad - I'm sure I messed up THAT spelling- anyway) that is the one who wants the war. Think about it. Now, the "big bad US," who can't stop meddling in the affairs of other countries, wants to start a war with poor little them, too... and they weren't doing ANYTHING to the US first....

Given the lead up with Iran has been scripted so far. I respectfully disagree.

WMD threat? Check
Accusastions of terrorist attacks? Check
Villifaction by subserviant press/freindly think tanks? check
Friendly governments providing dubious proof? check
Silly stories like six motorboats attacking a flottilla? Chack (and come on, like really)

Haliburton is another point I won't argue.
Keep in mind that -though I don't claim to like it- our government is bloated enough as is. In order to get the kind of oversight we need, it would be an even further burden on the American taxpayer to get more people hired to supervise the myriad areas that need it. god knows that the lazy *donkeys* in Washington aren't going to do it. they already have "too much to do" already..

If you spend money, spend 1% on oversight. It'll save you millions in the long run.

And I'm not just scared because I don't want to see you collapse, I'm scared because I think you might harm us when things go downhill. Was my description over the top? Yes, but have you really looked at you situation? The economic realities of America are frightening me.

It's comments like that... those are the ones that start arguements.
You think we'd harm you if things went downhill? That's absurd and proves you don't know nearly as much about us as you'd like to think..

If the American economy collapses, so does ours. Your downfall= our harm. No need for active malice. You just don't know as much about our international relationship as I do, and nor should you. It really doesn't matter to you except in an abstract way. America's condition is as important to Canada as our own.

I addressed what I had a problem with.
I care about America. I kind of resent the way you asked it, too... "or do [I] even care?" That's ridiculous. I love my country and I care about every wax and wane of its' strength.

But it's a legit question. all the same, insulting to you personally, perhaps. It's not intended thus. If you answered, it doesn't matter to that then any discussion of the ecnomy is pointless as the respondent is simply looking for a fight. I'm not actually trying to rile you up. You just get offended at areas where I a Canadian don't see the point.

I'm not concerned about the lack of discussion on debt. It's a no-win topic. Politicians avoid those as much as possible.


But it became an important point in Candian politics for almost 15 years. It can happen, if people are couragous.
....

Eric

Well I haven't lived in the states recently so I didn't know that people stopped saying the pledge of allegiance. That is a real shame. I think that the simple pledge probably brings the usa together more than we know. Every day we recited it and I always felt proud to say it.

Also we had a jehovah's witness he just didn't have to say it with us. Why not just make a law like that?

efarrer wrote:

MagickalMemories wrote:Re: Torture... That is a matter of opinion. Whether I agree or disagree with you on whether or not there's torture going on, there is unfortunately little definitive evidence to prove either side. Both sides of the arguement have enough "evidence" to cast doubt on the other. I'm trying to stay neutral at the moment.

If the guy who wrote the book on surviving torture for the US governemnt calls it torture, I'm willing to accept his decision.

As an aside, I remember in the Republican debate where Romney was lecturing McCain on whether water-boarding was torture. That removed the last vestige of faint hope that I would ever consider voting for Romney.

After WWII we prosecuted Japanese interrogators who used waterboarding for torture. It's not necessary, it's not reliable, and we shouldn't be doing it.

If the American economy collapses, so does ours. Your downfall= our harm. No need for active malice. You just don't know as much about our international relationship as I do, and nor should you. It really doesn't matter to you except in an abstract way. America's condition is as important to Canada as our own.

Now that Canada is a petro-economy because of Alberta, we should be a little more resilient. Manufacturing in Ontario and the Maritimes will bear the brunt of it (like it is already). I think a US recession wouldn't really effect Alberta that much until it started reducing demand for energy.


As another aside, I find in interesting that Canada may have an election called, campaigned for and resolved between now and when the US election takes place. (Both have their merits, the Canadian system is cheaper and quicker, the American system gives people a lot more time to educate themselves on the issues and the candidates and the primary system is much more open, whereas in Canada no one suspected that Stephane Dion would emerge as the Liberal leader until the last day of the Liberal convention when it was a done deal.)

Canada's main export is america and vice versa so if America goes down both will suffer (canada 25% of exported goods to america's 17% to canada, or so).

jfrazell wrote:Calling an entire political party evil - pretty much one third of the electorate - pretty much just ends the discussion. Its not a rational statement.

Oh well.

jfrazell, if that's what you got out of my posts, I appreciate your restraint.

But that's not what I meant at all. And I don't think it's what I wrote.

IMO, GWB and his administration have done extremely immoral and destructive things out of what I perceive to be a combination of greed, selfishness, shortsightedness, arrogance and ignorance. Just to focus on Iraq for a minute, war is evil. A necessary evil, at times (see= the allies in WWII, and our invasion of Afghanistan), but inherently evil. The war with Iraq was not necessary. It's led to 4000 American dead, many times more permanently disabled, and approximately 600,000 Iraqis dead. And that's just counting the cost in human lives so far. Not the damage to our economy or theirs. Or the effect on our military and its capacity to fight the battles and wars we may actually NEED to fight in the future.

I'm not calling the entire Republican party evil. I said that the people who vote for someone who does evil bear a measure of responsibility for the consequences. I feel some responsibility too, even though I voted against him both times. Maybe I should have volunteered more. Or donated more. Or otherwise done a better job of taking some concrete action to stop it. I don't know.

I'm not calling the Republican nominees other than McCain evil. Even though I think espousing support for torture is beyond ethically questionable, right into the realm of morally repugnant. I did call them "completely unsuitable", which is my genuine opinion.

I'm not sure I even think GWB is evil. Though I'm not sure what else to think. When you see something like this...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BEsZMvrq-I

It makes you wonder what the actual rationale behind the war was, when they had a good sense nine years before about the likely consequences of invasion.

efarrer wrote:
If the American economy collapses, so does ours. Your downfall= our harm. No need for active malice. You just don't know as much about our international relationship as I do, and nor should you. It really doesn't matter to you except in an abstract way. America's condition is as important to Canada as our own.

I'm with you, now.
No. I won't argue that point.
My take on the way you worded it (without qualification) was that you meant intentional harm.
I'm with you, now.

MagickalMemories wrote:I addressed what I had a problem with.
I care about America. I kind of resent the way you asked it, too... "or do [I] even care?" That's ridiculous. I love my country and I care about every wax and wane of its' strength.

efarrar wrote:But it's a legit question. all the same, insulting to you personally, perhaps. It's not intended thus. If you answered, it doesn't matter to that then any discussion of the ecnomy is pointless as the respondent is simply looking for a fight. I'm not actually trying to rile you up. You just get offended at areas where I a Canadian don't see the point.

Well, I understand that you're not TRYING to be insulting. It's why we aren't arguing. If I thought you were insulting me intentionally, I'd be far more confrontational. I think it's just the braod brush-strokes of language you're using and I'm misinterpreting.

No harm, no foul.

Since you've cleared it up that you're not trying to say anything in an insulting manner, I can overlook it if the wording on something you have to say "gets to me." Unfortunately, there are enough people on Dakka who seem to love a good disruptive arguement that it affects the rest of the comversations.

I do have to admit that I'm a little surprised that nobody has really gotten into any arguements yet, with the volatility of the subject.
--------------------------------
Re: Waterboarding.

I didn't know that the japanese were tried for it after WWII. Interesting.
It does tend to lend weight to the whole "torture" thing but, on the other hand, back then, a movie that said the *F* word or showed a woman's bare breast would've been considered outrageous. Now it's considered what? PG-13? A SOFT R rating?
They were far more uptight back then.

I honestly can't opine on waterboarding because, though I HEAR it's bad, the description I've heard of it makes me think it's all in the mind of the "tortured."
I would genuinely like to be submitted to waterboarding voluntarily by someone who is well trained in its' execution and that I trust. If I could experience it myself, then I could form a solid opinion. Until then, I can only say that it SOUNDS bad... but kinds doesn't sound THAT bad.

That's not flame-bait. Just a guy who can't seem to "picture" it.

Eric

Yeah I know what you mean. But I think it's so bad for the prisoners because they have a horrible life in guantanomo or where ever and everything just overwelmes them that much more.
But having only heard it's terrible I can't imagine how it actually is.

snorkle wrote:Yeah I know what you mean. But I think it's so bad for the prisoners because they have a horrible life in guantanomo or where ever and everything just overwelmes them that much more.
But having only heard it's terrible I can't imagine how it actually is.

yes lord knows we don't want terrorists to have to wear orange.

Cap 'em and be done with it.

MagickalMemories wrote:Re: Waterboarding.

I didn't know that the japanese were tried for it after WWII. Interesting.
It does tend to lend weight to the whole "torture" thing but, on the other hand, back then, a movie that said the *F* word or showed a woman's bare breast would've been considered outrageous. Now it's considered what? PG-13? A SOFT R rating?
They were far more uptight back then.

I honestly can't opine on waterboarding because, though I HEAR it's bad, the description I've heard of it makes me think it's all in the mind of the "tortured."
I would genuinely like to be submitted to waterboarding voluntarily by someone who is well trained in its' execution and that I trust. If I could experience it myself, then I could form a solid opinion. Until then, I can only say that it SOUNDS bad... but kinds doesn't sound THAT bad.

That's not flame-bait. Just a guy who can't seem to "picture" it.

Eric

Says it better and with far more authority then I ever could.

http://www.smallwarsjournal.com/blog/2007/10/waterboarding-is-torture-perio/

jfrazell that is a very cold way to look at things.

psst...we need the information, capping 'em get's you nothin' but satisfaction...

not saying I feel sorry for the inmates but that was just my view on why they think it's so bad(probably not true anyways).

::shrug::

I still don't have a clear picture of what it does.
I know the EFFECTS. I know how he says (and I believe it) that it will make you feel... but there was still no step-by-step "this happens, then that happens."
That was what I was referring to.

That being said, I was annoyed by a small part of the article:

Forget threats, poor food, the occasional face slap and sexual assaults. This was not a dignified ‘taking off the gloves’; this was descending to the level of our opposition in an equally brutish and ugly way. Waterboarding will be one our future enemy’s go-to techniques because we took the gloves off to brutal interrogation. Now our enemies will take the gloves off and thank us for it.

When was the last time an enemy "took off the glaves" in a dignified way. Viet nam? Al Qaeda? The taliban? Come one. All of these people use tactics this bad and worse already.
When is the last time the US hacked off a living - and conscious- person's head on video?

Waterboarding will not LEAD to our soldiers being treated similarly.
They already are.

But, I digress. This is not necessarily about the elections.

Eric

Does anybody think Hillary will make a comeback? She did it in NH but I think overall Obama still has the lead and NH and IA are only like 2%of the total votes.

One theory for the NH win despite the massive polling against her (besides skullduggery which you can never ignore when it involves Clintons) is that the NH party machine went for her and actively worked in her favor. If true that doesn't bode well for Obama unless he can pursuade the other state machines to his side or remain neutral.

MagickalMemories wrote:::shrug::

I still don't have a clear picture of what it does.
I know the EFFECTS. I know how he says (and I believe it) that it will make you feel... but there was still no step-by-step "this happens, then that happens."
That was what I was referring to.

That being said, I was annoyed by a small part of the article:

Forget threats, poor food, the occasional face slap and sexual assaults. This was not a dignified ‘taking off the gloves’; this was descending to the level of our opposition in an equally brutish and ugly way. Waterboarding will be one our future enemy’s go-to techniques because we took the gloves off to brutal interrogation. Now our enemies will take the gloves off and thank us for it.

When was the last time an enemy "took off the glaves" in a dignified way. Viet nam? Al Qaeda? The taliban? Come one. All of these people use tactics this bad and worse already.
When is the last time the US hacked off a living - and conscious- person's head on video?

Waterboarding will not LEAD to our soldiers being treated similarly.
They already are.

But, I digress. This is not necessarily about the elections.

Eric

Amen Brother.

snorkle wrote:Does anybody think Hillary will make a comeback? She did it in NH but I think overall Obama still has the lead and NH and IA are only like 2%of the total votes.

I hope so.

Separating my desires from reality, it will be a tough climb. Obama has a ton of money and a ton of a support. Hillary does have a strong base in the February 5th states though. She'll certainly win NY (and Obama will certainly win Ill.), but I think that she's likely to take California too. If she takes both NY and Cali, then she can afford to split the remaining Feb 5 states with Obama and still have a big lead in delegates going forward.

snorkle wrote:Does anybody think Hillary will make a comeback? She did it in NH but I think overall Obama still has the lead and NH and IA are only like 2%of the total votes.

For Dem's, I think that Obama is the emotional / knee-jerk choice & Hillary is the wise choice.
It depends on what people want, really.

I think that, overall, people aren't stupid. I think they know they need wisdom & experience.

I think Hillary's going to win, based on experience. People can talk about JFK all they want, but we have never EVER had a person as politically inexperienced as Obama in the White House and, with the state that our nation is in, I don't think now is the time to start.

I think Hillary's going to carry it, and I think that, in the end, it won't be as close- not nearly so- as it is right now.


Eric

Interesting fact. To register to vote in the New Hampshire primaries you just have to declare that you are planning on moving there someday. Watch some of the footage and you'll notice parking lots full of cars but none are from New Hampshire.

Maybe they're reporter cars?

Or tourists?

(lol election tourists)

You could call me an election tourist. I happened to be in Iowa with my family for christmas so we went and saw Obama and Hillary.

snorkle wrote:You could call me an election tourist. I happened to be in Iowa with my family for christmas so we went and saw Obama and Hillary.

Cool. What were your impressions of them?

MagickalMemories wrote:::shrug::

I still don't have a clear picture of what it does.
I know the EFFECTS. I know how he says (and I believe it) that it will make you feel... but there was still no step-by-step "this happens, then that happens."
That was what I was referring to.

Malcolm Nance wrote:2. Waterboarding is not a simulation. Unless you have been strapped down to the board, have endured the agonizing feeling of the water overpowering your gag reflex, and then feel your throat open and allow pint after pint of water to involuntarily fill your lungs, you will not know the meaning of the word.

Waterboarding is a controlled drowning that, in the American model, occurs under the watch of a doctor, a psychologist, an interrogator and a trained strap-in/strap-out team. It does not simulate drowning, as the lungs are actually filling with water. There is no way to simulate that. The victim is drowning. How much the victim is to drown depends on the desired result (in the form of answers to questions shouted into the victim’s face) and the obstinacy of the subject. A team doctor watches the quantity of water that is ingested and for the physiological signs which show when the drowning effect goes from painful psychological experience, to horrific suffocating punishment to the final death spiral.

Waterboarding is slow motion suffocation with enough time to contemplate the inevitability of black out and expiration –usually the person goes into hysterics on the board. For the uninitiated, it is horrifying to watch and if it goes wrong, it can lead straight to terminal hypoxia. When done right it is controlled death. Its lack of physical scarring allows the victim to recover and be threaten with its use again and again..

Ahtman wrote:Interesting fact. To register to vote in the New Hampshire primaries you just have to declare that you are planning on moving there someday. Watch some of the footage and you'll notice parking lots full of cars but none are from New Hampshire.

No, you have to be a resident. If you're registering for the first time (or the first time in a given ward), they ask you for government-issued photo ID, and a utility bill showing your current NH address. There is also a provision for you to sign a sworn affidavit affirming that you are a US citizen & NH resident, and giving your NH address. See RSAs 654:1, 654:7, 654:7-a, 654:8-a, and 654:12 in particular.

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/lxiii/654/654-mrg.htm

At every NH election I've participated in, there have been a lot of out of state volunteers. Particularly from Massachusetts, IME, as I live in Manchester, which is in the southern part of the state and is the most populous city. In 2004 I volunteered for a get-out-the-vote group. The day and night before the election, and the day of, we drove around dropping off flyers at registered voters’ doors, reminding them of their polling locations and encouraging them to go vote. Both days, I was the one local guy in the car, driving volunteers from out of state. The night before the election I had a couple of cute college chicks up from Boston. I was almost sad that I had a girlfriend.

Re: the Pledge: The ruling of Judge Goodwin in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals was that the “under god” part does constitute a state-sponsored endorsement of religion, and is thus a violation of the First Amendment.

The Supreme Court overturned the ruling back in 2004 primarily on procedural grounds, ruling that the parent who originally brought the suit wasn’t entitled to do so, as he was non-custodial at the time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elk_Grove_Unified_School_District_v._Newdow

That said, Chief Justice Rehnquist, and justices Day O’Conner and Thomas disagreed on the procedural point, so went ahead and examined the constitutional question. Their conclusion was that the pledge is not an endorsement of religion, but merely an acknowledgement of our religious heritage.

However, to me this seems to miss the entire point of the law that added "under god" to the pledge, as expressed by President Eisenhower when he signed it. From the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals’ ruling:

• Decided - the 1954 insertion of "under God" was made "to recognize a Supreme Being" and advance religion at a time "when the government was publicly inveighing against atheistic communism" -- a fact which (according to the court) the federal government did not dispute. The court also noted that when President Dwight D. Eisenhower signed the act which added the phrase "under God," he also announced "From this day forward, the millions of our school children will daily proclaim in every city and town, every village and rural schoolhouse, the dedication of our Nation and our people to the Almighty."
• Judge Alfred Goodwin from the 9th circuit remarked: "A profession that we are a nation “under God” is identical, for Establishment Clause purposes, to a profession that we are a nation “under Jesus,” a nation “under Vishnu,” a nation “under Zeus,” or a nation “under no god,” because none of these professions can be neutral with respect to religion."

There’s a great article about the Pledge and how it and similar expressions of religion were inserted into and tacked onto our national expressions on Slate.com:

http://www.slate.com/?id=2067499

jfrazell wrote:One theory for the NH win despite the massive polling against her (besides skullduggery which you can never ignore when it involves Clintons) is that the NH party machine went for her and actively worked in her favor. If true that doesn't bode well for Obama unless he can pursuade the other state machines to his side or remain neutral.

This was the biggest piece of the puzzle for me. When I heard that Lou D’Allesandro was campaigning for her, I knew Obama might be screwed in Manchester, where I previously expected Obama to do well.

I'm sorry, in my rush to post before heading out I did not make it clear that was a conspiracy theory I had heard about the New Hampshire Primaries as it was related.

Of course it is the same group that thinks that Latino grocery stores are fronts for illegal immigrant hotels to.

Some of them are (at least around here).

There are workers who are housed in dormitories who
are illegal. These people are abused, threatened, etc.

Yes, they are breaking the law. But I'm still struggling with
the fact that our rights only apply to our citizens and not
humanity as a whole.

(Which is why torture on off-shore sites is so hard to
wrap my head around)

They have rights under the Constitution.

Like every other CRIMINAL.

Hell, I say tag 'em and release 'em. We need the cheap labor, and we can get tax money out of 'em!

Oh, and if you're uninsured and cause a car accident, we take a kidney, lung, or something like that in payment.

~evil grin~

We need the cheap labor if you don't want wage levels to rise.

jfrazell wrote:They have rights under the Constitution.

Like every other CRIMINAL.

Well, no, not really. If that were the case Chinese political prisoners could say that they shouldn't be in prison because the US Constitution gives them the freedom of speech. Immigration policy sets about the procedures for dealing with non citizens. The states also have a say as well. We can not force the Constitution on other people. It is a fun and overly complicated part of our exciting legal system. Steady work though I would bet. Just being inside the border of the USA doesn't automatically give one constitutional protections, unless you give birth here, then your kid would. Of course most American's don't really understand their constitutional rights either.

I am not saying that. I am saying those who are in the US have similar rights. Thats why the terrorists are kept in Cuba, not here.

@Asmodai:
I thought Hillary was the best organized and she stated what she would do.
Obama was a better speaker but he was less organized and he didn't state what he would do as president in as much detail. His main argument was that his lack of experience was a good thing, because politics in Washington are broken(didn't like it too much). I got to shake his hand! Yeaaahhh
I also saw Bill even though he isn't(obviously) running and he was the best of the three. Too bad he can't run.

Don't know if anybody cares but both candidates had Secret Service guys standing around. I don't think any other candidates had those dudes with them.

jfrazell wrote:We need the cheap labor if you don't want wage levels to rise.

I often find myself wondering if the illegal's situation (and the degree to which they are despised) is a trowback to the slavery era. Obviously they are second class citizens with limited rights, who occuppy the same economic niche as the slaves did (doing the work full citizens will not do at prices that fall well below minimum standards). Are they effectively untouchables for the uppercaste to look down on as a problem- but not actually repair the situation.

I have to ask are the citizens of the US prepared to deal with severe rises in the cost of food, and other goods, if the illegal immigrants are removed? Since I get much of my fresh fruit and vegtables through thier work, I find it hypocritical not to wonder how much of a vested intrest I have in the maintence of the status quo.

And if you want to deal with the problem, why is the focus on the immigrants rather than the people who are willing to pay them? Slap some big fines on thier employers and you'll see the problem grinnd to a halt in short order. Basically, no jobs=no immigrants.

Or is the problem that there really is no desire to actually deal with the problem? That the ultra cheap labour for some big industries (and lets not kid ourselves farming is labour intensive still and a huge employer of the illegal immigrants) is an addiction which makes them willing to discourage senators and congressmen from actually doing something.

Allowing a faster greencard recognition might alleviate the problem, in particular if it were located at the border, and worked in a much simpler fashion then the process for permanent immigration.

Well, I'm allergic to fresh fruit and many fresh vegetables, so I'm not the person to ask.

jfrazell wrote:I am not saying that. I am saying those who are in the US have similar rights. Thats why the terrorists are kept in Cuba, not here.

I really hope, for the reputation of the United States, that the practice of placing prisoners on foriegn soil ends with the current adminsitration and the people of Gitmo are brought to American soil to face fair trials and those who are judged to be guilty of having committed crimes (and in combat deaths, while sad, are not crimes) are then subjected to the full punishment accord by US military law as per the United States Military Code of Conduct (or Amercian Criminal law if they are unlawful combatants).

I hope to see whoever takes office quit hopscotching around the issue and try them using existing laws, without hiding evidence behind walls of legal fictions. If the villians from WWII could be tried (German and Japanese) so can these. Many probably do deserve to quite rightly hang, but get it done and done in the light of day.


Edit: While I'm throwing out my wishlist, I'd like to see a return to America's economic prosperity during the Clinton years. Our economy depends on the American economy.

And a resoultion to the blinking border troubles, American's needing passports to get back into the states is playing heck with our tourism business, even before it's law.

Military acquisitions fall under a whole different heading, plus being under arrest changes the status of things as well. I agree that some of the legal loopholes that have jumped through to keep Guantanamo prisoners for years without a trial is bad and reflects poorly on us.

I also am not saying we shouldn't treat other people as if they have the same protections as citizens, but legally there is a difference and it is applied differently.

As to the elections I am curious what kind of policy shifts will actually be made and passed after the election from any of the candidates. Election promises and hopes aren't worth a damn. Just look at all the promises the Democrats made in the general election, got the majority, albeit slim, and really nothing has substantially changed.

To my ears, Hillary has not been any more straightforward then Obama. As for secret Service, they all have them to a degree. I would bet the Hillary and Obama are getting the lions share of death threats so they have more.

Bush could never have started the deficit snowball moving this way if he hadn't had a functional majority in the House. The Dems have had trouble getting crap done in part because they barely have a majority (only counting a couple of independents), and they need a 2/3 majority to override a Bush veto. Hard to make real changes to the guy's policies when he can just say "No."

There's a committee (consisting of the Homeland Security secretary, the speaker of the House and the minority leader, the majority and minority leader of the Senate, and a fifth member selected at large) that decides whether a candidate gets a secret service detail. The guideline is just supposed to be that they're considered a "major candidate", which they base on poll results and fundraising. The candidate has to ask, too. Hillary had one already as a former First Lady. Obama got his last May.

I understand why they have not been able to move around as much as they would like. What I am talking about is that promises are made knowing that there may be no way to keep them. Political winds shift. We could get Obama or Hillary and a Republican majority in Congress. Yay for change. Or some other event could make it happen that we can't even begin to predict.

Its true. They do tend to overpromise. Still, a step in the right direction is better than a leap in the wrong one.

"Keeping the terrorists in cuba"
Suspected terrorists, surely? That's the most disturbing thing to me.

Thanks for the links relating to the american political system by the way. Interesting stuff.

If you're caught on the battlefield in Afghanistan shooting at US soldiers I'd say terrorists. Else they're spies (not in uniform) so no problem capping them.

Everything you said has a right AND wrong (disagree and agree, etc) answer.
I'll do my best to answer.

efarrer wrote:I often find myself wondering if the illegal's situation (and the degree to which they are despised) is a trowback to the slavery era. Obviously they are second class citizens with limited rights, who occuppy the same economic niche as the slaves did (doing the work full citizens will not do at prices that fall well below minimum standards). Are they effectively untouchables for the uppercaste to look down on as a problem- but not actually repair the situation.

It's not a throwback to slavery. You're right about the second class citizen part, but they don't occupy the same niche, really. Although not as much as an "American" would want, they get paid far better. A slave (usually) got fed and housed and nothing more... except beaten and abused. Your parenthetical comment on it was accurate, though too general, IMO. As far as being untouchable, etc... It really depends on who you ask. This is an issue that crosses socio-economic boundaries. People from all walks of life are on both sides of the fence on this one (no pun intended). There are rich & poor in support and against it, etc. The people who don't want to repair the situation are typically the people who are snowed into believing that there would be disastrous price increases needed on all sorts of daily necessities & companies benefitting from the cheap labor (more on this later).

efarrer wrote:I have to ask are the citizens of the US prepared to deal with severe rises in the cost of food, and other goods, if the illegal immigrants are removed? Since I get much of my fresh fruit and vegtables through thier work, I find it hypocritical not to wonder how much of a vested intrest I have in the maintence of the status quo.

Yes... and No.
*I* am, as are many people I know (and know OF). Some, however, will absolutely freak out at the price increase. Myself, i'd HATE is (because I think it unnecessary), but I'd deal with it over supporting illegal immigration.
The problem isn't in the price increase, alone. It's in the weak dollar. We'd shirk FAR less at the price increase if the dollar didn't buy so precious little right now. THAT is the main factor keeping people from being TOO gung-ho about getting motivated, IMO... Of course, that would lead to an entirely different topic tangent.

efarrer wrote:And if you want to deal with the problem, why is the focus on the immigrants rather than the people who are willing to pay them? Slap some big fines on thier employers and you'll see the problem grinnd to a halt in short order. Basically, no jobs=no immigrants.

You're right and wrong again. Everything you said was pretty accurate, until you got to the part where you said that the companies would grind the jobs to a halt. They'd just pass the fines along to the consumer as a price increase, then get sneakier about it... I honestly don't believe they'd stop.
I don't think we should focus on the employers. I think we should have 2 departments... one focuses on the illegal immigrants & the other focuses on their employers. I think it needs to be a 2 pronged attack to be successful.

efarrer wrote:Or is the problem that there really is no desire to actually deal with the problem? That the ultra cheap labour for some big industries (and lets not kid ourselves farming is labour intensive still and a huge employer of the illegal immigrants) is an addiction which makes them willing to discourage senators and congressmen from actually doing something.

There is no desire for those who knowingly employ illegal labor to deal with it. Every hour an illegal employee works for them is that much more profit in their corporate pocket (I'll elaborate momentarily). It's the average citizen who isn't afraid to pay a bit more that has the problem with it.

efarrer wrote:Allowing a faster greencard recognition might alleviate the problem, in particular if it were located at the border, and worked in a much simpler fashion then the process for permanent immigration.

There's no such thing reasonably possible.
An illegal immigrant who wants in today will just "run for the border." he's not going to wait the month(s?) it would take to get him approved in a secure manner. The tragedy of 9/11 taught us the lesson we shouldn't have needed to learn. People want us hurt and dead because of the basic freedom's and liberties we enjoy. They will try to get into our country and injure us from within. We need effective screenings to keep these ne'er-do-well's at bay. A streamlined process, while a GREAT idea on paper, would not be beneficial to our security needs.

As far as what I referred to earlier (more profit in the employers pocket):

It is my firm and unswayable belief that a move from illegal labor to legal labor -100% across the entirety of all sectors currently employing illegal labor- would not have to include any price increases (or minimal increases). I believe that the profit margin these companies currently realize, due to illegal labor, is substantial. I feel that removing the illegal labor and introducing LEGAL labor would lower their profit margins to a level they would not like (in comparison to their current level), but not to a level where they would NEED to increase prices (not much, if at all, anyway). The companies would still enjoy a healthy bottom line, just not one so bloated as the current ones.
I don't feel that their corporate earnings statements are typically accurate, as these companies give excessive millions away to corporate big-wigs in unrealistic salaries, bonuses, gifts, expense accounts, ad nauseum.

Hey, you! Yeah, you! The guy in the corporate office who makes more a YEAR than many of us will make in a lifetime... How about reducing your salary by 25% (and still make MILLIONS a year) and help the company's bottom line?


Eric

People don't want to hurt you because of the basic freedoms you enjoy. That's rubbish.
They want to hurt you because you're part of the global economic and military superpower, that has negatively impacted them in some way, whether it be physically or idealogically, by interfering in "their" affairs.

Not saying that they are right for wanting to hurt you, just that you may need to take a closer look at their reasons for wanting to hurt you. Because it's never just as simple as "By Allah, those americans are pretty free. Man that pisses me off. Think I'll explode myself at them, to register my dissent!"

Da Boss is right. Although isn't that why the English attacked the colonies back in 1700whatever? The colonies were to free(from taxes). Or am I just bad at history?

Da Boss wrote:People don't want to hurt you because of the basic freedoms you enjoy. That's rubbish.
They want to hurt you because you're part of the global economic and military superpower, that has negatively impacted them in some way, whether it be physically or idealogically, by interfering in "their" affairs.

Not saying that they are right for wanting to hurt you, just that you may need to take a closer look at their reasons for wanting to hurt you. Because it's never just as simple as "By Allah, those americans are pretty free. Man that pisses me off. Think I'll explode myself at them, to register my dissent!"

So why are "they" hurting Hindus in India, killing buddhist priests and teachers in southern Thailand?

You can be a target for doing nothing, just being.

jfrazell wrote:

Da Boss wrote:People don't want to hurt you because of the basic freedoms you enjoy. That's rubbish.
They want to hurt you because you're part of the global economic and military superpower, that has negatively impacted them in some way, whether it be physically or idealogically, by interfering in "their" affairs.

Not saying that they are right for wanting to hurt you, just that you may need to take a closer look at their reasons for wanting to hurt you. Because it's never just as simple as "By Allah, those americans are pretty free. Man that pisses me off. Think I'll explode myself at them, to register my dissent!"

So why are "they" hurting Hindus in India, killing buddhist priests and teachers in southern Thailand?

You can be a target for doing nothing, just being.

Precisely... and, if you DO believe that the radical Muslim's only reason for wanting ME dead is because of my government, you've fallen for their "spin."

They want my wife & daughters dead because they wear pants & don't cover their faces in public. They want me dead for my earrings & tattoos. We drink alcohol & eat pork. Those are the things they hate about everyone. Americans are just their most "popular" target. Of course, the policies of our government don't help. They want us dead because their religion, in the "strictest," most radical extreme, preaches that anyone who is not Islamic should be dead.

Of course, the policies of our government don't help.

Yes, I'm generalizing.
Yes, I know that not ALL Muslims... or even MOST Muslims are like that.

I'm simply referring to the radical point of view that uses their religion and the RAW of their Koran to find a way to want everyone else dead.

LOL, I worked a gaming term into my view on religion & foreign relations.
That means I need a break.


...probably from foreign relations. LOL
DEFINITELY not gaming.


I know Americans take a lot of heat on the world stage... and we deserve some of it, due to some of our governemntal policies/actions. I wonder, though... without qualification of WHY you feel that way (a simple yes or no will suffice), do the Non-Americans (USA, that is) on the boards feel like the world would be better off if we kept our noses out of the world's politics & business, except where it directly involved (not influenced) us? I won't be offended, I'm just curious.

Thanks!

Eric

jfrazell wrote:
So why are "they" hurting Hindus in India, killing buddhist priests and teachers in southern Thailand?

You can be a target for doing nothing, just being.

The Hindus in India have given as good as they've gotten. If not better. The crappy job the English did in creating Pakistan and India is a pretty good reason historically, for the Hindu Muslim conflict in India.

I don't know enough to speak on the situation in Thialand but my memory says there's racial stuff as well as religous stuff at play there.

So in answer to your question, In India, the wieght of history (something we as North Americans have very little of), and in Thialand it appears to be racial. Unfortunatley I can't find legitmate sources regarding the Thialand conflict to confirm this.

In all fairness they did kill Hindu's and Buddhist pretty much for just not being Muslim, but that was long before there was a nation state of India, let alone a breakaway called Pakistan. Just went in and burned the temples with the priests in them.

Of course before then the Sufi muslims and Hindu religious leaders and mystics had some grand conversations about the nature of God/Allah/Brahman. Of course most of the Sufi brotherhoods were killed of or driven out by the Shia or Sunni so take that as you will.

I think it is great we were generally able to stay on the elections for 5 pages before the wheels really came off and became a free for all American politics ranting thread.

Returning to the election a little, Michigan's primary is today.

Personally, I think Michigan deserves kudos for having the balls to stand up to the national party organizations and schedule their primary early enough that it gets tons of attention and all the (Republican) candidates promising to do stuff for Michigan's economy once elected.

Likewise, this gives me a positive feeling about Hillary. The fact that she was willing to stand up for Michigan against the Democratic apparatus gives me a lot of confidence that she won't just be a mouth-piece for Soros/MoveOn when she's in the Oval Office.

I live close enough to Detroit that I get their radio stations and TV. I think it's pretty clear that Michigan is hurting because its needs have been largely ignored in the drive towards free trade. Meanwhile Iowa has been high on ethanol subsidies for decades. I can certainly understand their point and wanting to get into the pandering action. It also points to the need to reform the current system and possible move towards a national primary day. If there's a national primary day and a majority of the electoral college passes popular vote laws than a lot of the distortions and market failures caused by the current system would go away.

In terms of predictions, I expect Hillary to dominate over Gravel and Kucinich on the Democratic side (which is irrelevant since no delegates are at stake).

I expect McCain to get a narrow victory over Romney for the Republicans, but mostly since Democrats and Independents will be voting in the Republican primary. This will probably result in both sides claiming victory.

Which primarys have already happened? Just NH and Ia?

snorkle wrote:Which primarys have already happened? Just NH and Ia?

Wyoming took place after Iowa, and Michigan today.

I'm keeping my fingers crossed for Fred Thompson.

While I could see myself voting for a democrat like Zell Miller, or Joe Leiberman, I refuse to even consider supporting a democratic candidate who panders to the radical left like all the current ones do.

Fred Thompson is the only Republican candidate (really, only candidate Democratic or Republican period) that I believe actually cares about "serving" this nation. The rest seem more interested in "running" this nation. And thats why he has my support.

Fred Thompson has a shot in South Carolina. He's basically ignoring the other primaries to focus on that one.

He's definitely a long shot. I could see a McCain/Thompson ticket being very strong though (Thompson would appeal to conservatives and McCain would bring in moderates).

I agree with you that I wish Joe Lieberman was running this time.

Today's Democratic Party scares me. It honestly does. I have one fear for this country that I've sworn to defend with my life, and it's that people like John Edwards, or Hillary Clinton will run it. Not when they climbed to power through people who wish for the death of US Soldiers. Who honestly believe that our government caused September 11th. Who would sooner help an illegal alien sneak into this country, then open a door for a wounded Veteran.

Whether or not I agree with their politics (which I don't), they refuse to disavow these people. They take their money, and they take their support. And anyone who will do that, honestly doesn't care about doing anything good for this country. They care about gaining power, and nothing else.

Asmodai wrote:
In terms of predictions, I expect Hillary to dominate over Gravel and Kucinich on the Democratic side (which is irrelevant since no delegates are at stake).

I expect McCain to get a narrow victory over Romney for the Republicans, but mostly since Democrats and Independents will be voting in the Republican primary. This will probably result in both sides claiming victory.

I didn't understand this bit. What did you mean about it being irrelevant because there are no delegates at stake? And why would Democrats be voting in a republican primary?

Da Boss wrote:

Asmodai wrote:
In terms of predictions, I expect Hillary to dominate over Gravel and Kucinich on the Democratic side (which is irrelevant since no delegates are at stake).

I expect McCain to get a narrow victory over Romney for the Republicans, but mostly since Democrats and Independents will be voting in the Republican primary. This will probably result in both sides claiming victory.

I didn't understand this bit. What did you mean about it being irrelevant because there are no delegates at stake? And why would Democrats be voting in a republican primary?

The national Democratic Party stripped Michigan of all its delegates because they scheduled their primary before February 5th without special permission. As a result Obama and Edwards requested that their names be removed from the ballot in Michigan - leaving Hillary, Kucinich and Gravel on the ballot. That undermines the influence of Michigan (and Florida which is in the same situation) on the Democratic process and removes it from its role in a brokered convention, if there is one.

Whether the party will stick to its position is up for debate given that both Michigan and Florida are swing states and alienating the voters there could be fatal in the general election.

The Republicans in contrast only stripped them of half their delegates and Republican candidates are actively campaigning there.

Michigan has an 'open' primary meaning that anyone can vote in either primary - you just can't vote in both. (As a contrast, California has a closed primary and only registered Republicans can vote in the Republican primary.) As a result since the Democratic Primary isn't competitive or interesting many independents and even some Democrats will be voting in the Republican primary. McCain is perceived as the most moderate of the Republican field and is likely to get the majority of cross-over votes. Thus, McCain is likely to win a plurality of the votes, but Romney will win among registered Republicans. McCain's line will be that he won the state, Romney's line will be that he won among Republicans.

It's a confusing process, hopefully this post clears things up rather than adding to the fog.

Thanks for that. Man, US elections are complicated!
It's wierd that they can strip the delegates from a state like that.

Some things I have learned in my short time on Earth.

Every Presidential election is the most important one in in recent history. I hear this every election.

If you are right leaning or a Republican then the Democrats or left hate America and want to destroy it. If their candidate wins it will be a killing blow for the country.

If you are left leaning or a Democrat then the Republicans or right hate America and want to destroy it. If their candidate wins it will be a killing blow for the country.

You know djones for a country that you say you've sworn to defend with your life you seem to have no faith in it whatsoever. Even if Hillary wins it won't be the end of the country. In 4 years she'll have to reapply. In the meantime there are also congressional elections to help balance it out. Even if she does get elected twice she can't get elected again. There are people that dislike George Bush and think he is destroying the country but his time is almost up. That is how it works. If you love the country you have to accept you aren't always going to get every election or law passed. Buck up, support who you like, and don't base your loyalty on the outcome. It is the system that is important. That is why even if Hillary wins GW will be right there at the inauguration to shake her hand, and maybe give here a little pinch on the rear. Just kidding, no one wants to do that.

Good points Ahtman. The most important thing for a functional democracy is the ability of the losing side to accept the loss. This is what keeps the US and UK so relatively stable (not withstanding some of the sour grapes in recent close elections). There was grumbling when Gore lost, but there wasn't a civil war as would happen many places in Africa or Asia.

You can contrast that to places like Kenya or Pakistan where the party that loses turns to violence rather than waiting in opposition. That can permanently undermine the process.

The elections are important, but I don't think any of the major candidates would or could actually destroy it. Some might cause lasting harm (e.g. Ron Paul's economic ideas), but there's a pretty solid foundation there.

The ties of some Democratic candidates to the fringe left is concerning to me, at least as much as the ties of some Republicans to the fundamentalist right. Overall though, whoever gets elected is going to need to adopt a moderate and pragmatic approach in order to govern. Anything too extreme will get blocked by Congress or the courts.

Ahtman wrote:Some things I have learned in my short time on Earth.

Every Presidential election is the most important one in in recent history. I hear this every election.

If you are right leaning or a Republican then the Democrats or left hate America and want to destroy it. If their candidate wins it will be a killing blow for the country.

If you are left leaning or a Democrat then the Republicans or right hate America and want to destroy it. If their candidate wins it will be a killing blow for the country.

You know djones for a country that you say you've sworn to defend with your life you seem to have no faith in it whatsoever. Even if Hillary wins it won't be the end of the country. In 4 years she'll have to reapply. In the meantime there are also congressional elections to help balance it out. Even if she does get elected twice she can't get elected again. There are people that dislike George Bush and think he is destroying the country but his time is almost up. That is how it works. If you love the country you have to accept you aren't always going to get every election or law passed. Buck up, support who you like, and don't base your loyalty on the outcome. It is the system that is important. That is why even if Hillary wins GW will be right there at the inauguration to shake her hand, and maybe give here a little pinch on the rear. Just kidding, no one wants to do that.

No, it won't be the end of the world, but the damage dealt would be severe, and it will take a long time to repair. Progressivism will be allowed to grow, and it will cause simple idea's like "Personal Responsibility" to be something to be ignored. Why worry about the consequences of your actions when the government will bail you out?

Whatever people may think about President Bush, he has not made this country into a Nanny state. And that is the way todays Democratic party is trying to take it. They want to make the government provide for you. That is not what this country was founded apon. No where in our Constitution does it say that our Government will provide you with Healthcare, and a monthly welfare check.

So whether or not a Democrat wins this next election, I will still wear this uniform. I will still follow their orders. I will still defend America. But that doesn't change that they will "change" America. A change that I whole heartedly believe is for the worst.

@djones
Democrats have so far strengthened the military far more than republicans have. So if your problem with dems is that they aren't militaristic I don't get it.
But yeah I don't like Hillary or EDwards very much. Edwards is a pretty boy lawyer. Like DC isn't complicated enuff.
And I just don't like Hillary's main points. In Iowa all she talked about was breast cancer. We have more pressing issues in the USA right now

Your hitting all the conservative press keywords (Progressive, Nanny State) like it came straight from Limbaugh himself and I love it

It's not going to be severe. 9/11 made a severe change. They aren't neutron bombs after all. Now if the Democrats take a much greater majority in Congress and a far left Democrat gets the Presidency we might have something to worry about. Just getting a Democrat into the Presidency isn't enough, but that is the way it is supposed to be.

Ahtman wrote:Your hitting all the conservative press keywords (Progressive, Nanny State) like it came straight from Limbaugh himself and I love it

It's not going to be severe. 9/11 made a severe change. They aren't neutron bombs after all. Now if the Democrats take a much greater majority in Congress and a far left Democrat gets the Presidency we might have something to worry about. Just getting a Democrat into the Presidency isn't enough, but that is the way it is supposed to be.

Have you ever bothered to look at what the front line candidates actual policies are? I'm not talking about what they spout at the podium. I'm talking about what they have tried to push while in Congress, behind close door, when most people aren't looking.

These people are far left. Their not Kucinich types, thankfully, but they are still socialist democrats. And whether or not I'm using those keywords *rolls eyes* they are still true. Moderate Democrats are people like Joseph Leiberman. And we saw what the DNC had to say about him.

djones520, I find your point of veiw interesting, but I think it'll only drag this thread off topic if I ask you about it here, so I'm gonna start another thread.

as a member of the so called far left i can assure you that obama clinton and edwards are not far left, they are liberal centerists. both by their policies and their voting records.

Joeseph Lieberman is a Conservative Democrat not a moderate democrat. a true moderate democrat is someone like Ritchardson, Sarbanes or Kaine

For some reason I thought Lieberman jumped parties. Shows
you how much I pay attention.

malfred wrote:For some reason I thought Lieberman jumped parties. Shows
you how much I pay attention.

The Democratic party dumped him because he wasn't Left enough for them. He still caucases with them though.

the democratic party did not dump lieberman. another democrat gave him a primary challange and won it. lieberman then ran and won his seat as an independant. the DNC did not kick him out or even for that matter, fund his opposition very much. if the DNC really had wanted to kick out Lieberman they could have thrown enough money at the democratic candidate in the election for him to win it. they did not. (why should they if joe was going to caucus with them anyway...)

There's an inherent flaw in your arguments, djones: it's that your POV is so far right, centrists look like leftists. That's alright; America is built on the right to have different POVs. It just skews your perceptions of those who don't reside within your personal political horizons.

lord_sutekh wrote:There's an inherent flaw in your arguments, djones: it's that your POV is so far right, centrists look like leftists. That's alright; America is built on the right to have different POVs. It just skews your perceptions of those who don't reside within your personal political horizons.

Actually, I'm very centrist. Pro-Choice Atheists who support Gay Marriage aren't generally considered right wingers. I have strong views on both ends of the spectrum. I honestly haven't begun to even delve into my full POV, so please with hold from saying what it is in the future. I could call a lot of you left wing nut balls, but I haven't because in the 2 or 3 sentence posts we're making it's impossible to know what all of your beliefs are.

djones520 wrote:

lord_sutekh wrote:There's an inherent flaw in your arguments, djones: it's that your POV is so far right, centrists look like leftists. That's alright; America is built on the right to have different POVs. It just skews your perceptions of those who don't reside within your personal political horizons.

Actually, I'm very centrist. Pro-Choice Atheists who support Gay Marriage aren't generally considered right wingers. I have strong views on both ends of the spectrum. I honestly haven't begun to even delve into my full POV, so please with hold from saying what it is in the future. I could call a lot of you left wing nut balls, but I haven't because in the 2 or 3 sentence posts we're making it's impossible to know what all of your beliefs are.

Hi Mr. Guiliani, thanks for posting on the thread!


I think it's fairly typically for people to have different spectrums of beliefs. The Right/Left divide was popularized after the French Revolution. It's inaccurate and confusing when used in any context that isn't post-Revolution France.

In other news, Romney won convincingly in Michigan. Apparently it was cold and snowing so turn out was around 20%. The Republican race is really tough to call right now.

I think we can safely say Ron Paul will not be the Republican Presidential Candidate, so thats a positive.