Why Nobama

[denuseri]

This election has me very worried. So many things to consider. About a year ago I would have voted for Obama. I have changed my mind three times since than. I watch all the news channels, jumping from one to another. I must say this drives my husband crazy. But, I feel if you view a variety of news sorces not just MSNBC, CNN, and Fox News, you might get some middle ground to work with. About six months ago, I started thinking "where did the money come from for Obama".

I started looking into Obama's life.

Around 1979 Obama started college at Occidental in California. He is very open about his two years at Occidental, he tried all kinds of drugs and was wasting his time but, even though he had a brilliant mind, did not apply himself to his studies. "Barry" (that was the name he used all his life) during this time had two roommates, Muhammad Hasan Chandoo and Wahid Hamid, both from Pakistan.

During the summer of 1981, after his second year in college, he made a "round the world" trip. Stopping to see his mother in Indonesia, next Hyderabad in India, three weeks in Karachi, Pakistan where he stayed with his roommate's family, then off to Africa to visit his father's family. My question - Where did he get the money for this trip? ! Nether I, nor any one of my middle class friends would have had money for a trip like this when they where in college. When he came back he started school at Columbia University in New York. It is at this time he wants everyone to call him Barack - not Barry. Do you know what the tuition is at Columbia? It's not cheap! to say the least. Where did he get money for tuition? Student Loans? Maybe. After Columbia, he went to Chicago to work as a Community Organizer for $12,000. a year. Why Chicago? Why not New York? He was already living in New York.

By "chance" he met Antoin "Tony" Rezko, born in Aleppo Syria, and a real estate developer in Chicago. Rezko has been convicted of fraud and bribery this year. Rezko, was named "Entrepreneur of the Decade" by the Arab-American Business and Professional Association". About two years later, Obama entered Harvard Law School.

Do you have any idea what tuition is for Harvard Law School? Where did he get the money for LawSchool? More student loans?

After Law school, he went back to Chicago. Rezko offered him a job, which he turned down. But, he did take a job with Davis, Miner, Barnhill & Galland. Guess what? They represented "Rezar" which Rezko's firm. Rezko was one of Obama's first major financial contributors when he ran f! or offi ce in Chicago. In 2003, Rezko threw an early fundraiser for Obama which Chicago Tribune reporter David Mendelland claims was instrumental in providing Obama with "seed money" for his U.S. Senate race. In 2005, Obama purchased a new home in Kenwoood District of Chicago for $1.65 million (less than asking price). With ALL those Student Loans - Where did he get the money for the property? On the same day Rezko's wife, Rita, purchased the adjoining empty lot for full price. The London Times reported that Nadhmi Auchi, an Iraqi-born Billionaire loaned Rezko $3.5 million three weeks before Obama's new home was purchased. Obama met Nadhmi Auchi many times with Rezko.

Now, we have Obama running for President. Valerie Jarrett, was Michele Obama's boss. She is now Obama's chief advisor and he does not make any major decisions without talking to her first. Where was Jarrett born? Ready for this? Shiraz, Iran! Do we see a pattern here? Or am I going crazy?

On May 10, 2008 The Times reported, Robert Malley advisor to Obama was "sacked" after the press found out he was having regular contacts with "Hamas", which controls Gaza and is connected with Iran. This past week, buried in the back part of the papers, Iraqi newspapers reported that during Obama's visit to Iraq, he asked their leaders to do nothing about the war until after he is elected, and he will "Take care of things".

Oh, and by the way, remember the college roommates that where born in Pakistan? They are in charge of all those "small" Internet campaign contribution for Obama. Where is that money coming from? The poor and middle class in this country? Or could it be from the Middle East?

And the final bit of news. On September 7, 2008, The Washington Times posted a verbal slip that was made on "This Week" with George Stephanapoulos. Obama on talking about his religion said, "My Muslim faith". When questioned, "he make a mistake". Some mistake!

All of the above information I got on line. If you would like to check it - Wikipedia, encyclopedia, Barack Obama; Tony Rezko; Valerie Jarrett: Daily Times - Obama visited Pakistan in 1981; The Washington Times -September 7, 2008; The Times May 10, 2008.

Now the BIG question - If I found out all this information on my own, Why haven't all of our "intelligent" members of the press been reporting this?

A phrase that keeps ringing in my ear - "Beware of the enemy from within"!!!

[Ragoczy]

There's a lot of stuff floating around out there about Obama either being a Muslim or being tied to Muslims -- neither of which I'd particularly have a problem with -- but the "being" has no evidence to back it up and the "ties" are fairly circumstantial. The "my Muslim faith" comment is reasonably explained by a simple slip of the tongue -- common on a long campaign; he was, after all, talking about Muslim and

Christian at the same time, and it's common for people to make a slip like that. I think if there really was something there, then the mainstream media, "tingly feelings down their legs when he talks" and all, wouldn't ignore it. It's possible to make a lot of connections and suppositions when viewing the entirety of someone's life, especially when they and their family have traveled as widely as Obama has. A friend of ours forwarded an email alleging that Obama's father is only very little Black, and primarily of Arab descent. I have to admit that this, coupled with Obama's refusal to release his birth certificate, makes me wonder a bit -- and curious to what the Jesse Jackson/Al Sharpton reaction would be if it were found that America's first "Black" President's birth certificate listed only Caucasian and Arab parentage.

But, if true, should all of that make a difference to us? I'd argue that if he is Muslim, it speak ill of anyone who refused to vote for him solely for that reason. What we have to remember, and possibly keep harshly reminding ourselves in these times, is that we are not at war with the Muslim faith or Muslims in general. We are in a battle against isolated, radical sects within Islam that hate us (the free, secular West) -- and even within that group that hates us, we're only really at war with those relatively few who want to kill us and actively try.

When we object to Muslims in general or hold their faith against them, we (Americans) are violating one of the fundamental precepts of our country's founding. We may legitimately object to them trying to impose those beliefs on others or when thier practice infringes on the rights of others, but simply having a different faith shouldn't bar one from public office so long as first in the execution of that office is held the nation's fundamental precepts.

Keith Ellison is the first Muslim to be elected to Congress and there was a certain, small but vocal, segment of the population that objected to his being sworn in on the Quran, fools; in my opinion, since forcing a Muslim to swear an oath on the Bible seems self-defeating if you want him to actually feel bound by that oath.

Personaly, I find enough to object to about Obama without supposition about his faith. And less than a year ago I was seriously considering voting for him -- my reason being that the damage of his policies might be light enough to be offset by the benefit to race-relations in having a Black President. But upon looking into his actual positions and actions, I found too much I object to.

In policy, I fundamentally disagree with most of his positions.

His proposed increases in entitlement programs will effectively double what's being spent on Social Security and Medicare -- and we know how well they've worked out. Socialized medicine doesn't work anywhere that it's been tried -- primarily because government is only good at two things: killing people and blowing things up, everything else they fuck up beyond recognition, and neither of those two things is conducive to quality health care.

His tax policies are confiscatory. The tax power of government is to pay for government services not social "fairness". He actually admits that his tax policy would lower revenue to the government (raising capital gains) and potentially harm the economy -- but he wants to do it anyway in the name of "fairness".

Regardless of one's stance on whether we should have gone into Iraq in the first place, we're there -- and his stated willingness to abandon twenty-five million people to terrorists and sectarian violence, I find reprehensible. Even if you think the mess is all our fault, doesn't that mean we should try to help the Iraqis clean it up? Even a vacuum

In the midst of this financial idiocy, I think it's ridiculous to even consider making President someone who managed to take more money from two of the biggest offenders in just three years than anyone else did in twenty (save Chris Dodd, who's still number one).

I object to his cordial associations with Reverend Wright and Bill Ayers. The company we keep says something about us and if someone I knew, personally or professionally, was a terrorist, proud of it, and only regretted he hadn't blown more shit up, I'd have nothing more to do with him and I'd publicly excoriate him.

I could go on further, but my point is: there are plenty of proven, documented reasons to oppose Obama without resorting to supposition.

[gagged_Louise]

Well, concerning Obama's college gap year round-the-world tour, it's not that difficult to raise money to get out on a long trek abroad. I have buddies who have been to China, India and South America, all staying for months (not on student grants). One friend did a summer round trip to Greece,Turkey, Iran, Georgia and Turkmenistan before flying home over Russia, being out about seven weeks. It wasn't that expensive and he didn't work in any of those countries to raise money on the way, nor smuggle drugs, nor did he have a string of pre-set up arrangements for hospitality; he mostly stayed in low-range hotels. I have no idea how much of a backpacker Obama was but it's been possible ever since WW2 to travel cheap for young people. I don't think those costs need to have been prohibitive. And he obviously had free accomodation much of the time.

The idea that Obama is a "cloaked muslim" is laughable I think, but it's true that both Obama and McCain are unlike most earlier US presidents (and recent presidential/VP nominees I think) in that their growing-up and background directly mirrors that the USA is still an immigrant country (Obama) and that some people growing up in the US spend a sizable part of those years abroad (both of them). John McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone.and followed his dad to a number of naval posts around the US and the Pacific; Obama stayed in Indonesia, age 6 to 10.


On May 10, 2008 The Times reported, Robert Malley advisor to Obama was "sacked" after the press found out he was having regular contacts with "Hamas", which controls Gaza and is connected with Iran. This past week, buried in the back part of the papers, Iraqi newspapers reported that during Obama's visit to Iraq, he asked their leaders to do nothing about the war until after he is elected, and he will "Take care of things".

Hamas is more than merely a league of bomb-throwers and a terrorist organization though in US news it's often portrayed only as such. They won the election in January 2006 on the Palestinian areas, and they have thorough support from ordinary people on the ground; long before 2006 they would promote many local social activities (sports, schooling, food support to the poor) in Gaza where the Israelis would do nothing of the kind. It's true they don't recognize Israel and that they probably support acts of terrorism even now, but I think you have to weigh in that they are at war anyway and represent a people who have been embroiled in a running conflict over their own existence for sixty years. After Prime Minister Rabin was assassinated in 1995, the Israelis have not been a very fruitful counterpart in this conflict either, in my opinion they have been downright abrasive much of the time and acting with gross disregard for human life and dignity, and of the need for giving any kind of options to the leadership on the Palestinian side.

National Public Radio, a non-commercial broadcaster in the U.S summed it up in these words: "Israel and many Western powers have struggled with how best to interact with a group that is at once labeled terrorist and, at the same time, is the legitimately elected leadership of the Palestinian National Authority.". I would pretty much exclude "Israel" from that statement as the latest Israeli governments would like nothing better than to see Hamas crash and burn pure and simple, but it's true that they are the legit representatives of the Palestinian people under free and fair.elections. Have to remember though that they don't really have the kind of power and bureaucratic control that you can count on in a normal government, because Palestine isn't really a full state, rather a semi-state, a kind of troubled "home rule" arrangement.

There's nothing strange about Mr. Malley having had meetings with people from Hamas, and some government ministers, many local political people and university teachers in Europe have done the same..For the record, I do support Israel's right to exist securely in peace but they need to get down out of their tree, you know. Their attitude that "we can do anything and you can't get us cause we have the US behind us, ta-ta" is getting disastrous. I hope an Obama White House could help engineer a more reasonable positioning here, both with the Israelis and the Palestinians.

[denuseri]

It is certianly not his religion I am against, get real people, I am a half Lebanonse Jew, raised as a Lutheran that converted to Bahai, (also probably one of the last people of jewish desent born in Beruit thanks to Hamas and thier ilk).

As for Hamas and or the legitamancy of terroist orginizations, talk to me about them after your people have been brutalized and pushed off the land they lived on for many generations for no other reason that thier religion.

If Brittian hadnt mis-managed the whole situation during the transition in the 1940's and 50's the whole region would be different.

But of course the thing between Lebanon and Isreal has nothing to do in the slightest with the thread topic and why Obama has been lieing.

Which is my main beef with Obama: he lies about so much about so many things, including his back door dealings with the enemies of western civilization.

[Euryleia]

This piece has already been debunked at snopes.com. An almost word for hoax email is going around with smears about Obama. Check this out: http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/money.asp

"The above-quoted piece combines a good deal of supposition and some elaborate conspiracy theory to question exactly where Senator Barack Obama obtained the money for his education and the purchase of a house in Chicago in 2005. The answers are fairly straightforward.

As both Barack Obama and his wife, Michelle, have noted many times, they paid for their educations via scholarships and student loans/ (http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/04/09/michelle-obama-baracks-book-sales-paid-off-our-student-loans/), in the process (like many people) incurring debts which were not fully paid off until many years later. (In the Obamas' case, it was the revenue derived from Barack's pair of best-selling books that finally allowed them to retire their student loan debts.)

Likewise, the Obamas' financing of their house in Chicago was no mystery. As their tax returns (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23796726/) demonstrate, the couple had a significant jump in income from 2000 onwards (largely from royalties on book sales), and they purchased their Chicago home in 2005, a year in which their combined income was $1.6 million.

[Ragoczy]

Likewise, the Obamas' financing of their house in Chicago was no mystery. As their tax returns (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23796726/) demonstrate, the couple had a significant jump in income from 2000 onwards (largely from royalties on book sales), and they purchased their Chicago home in 2005, a year in which their combined income was $1.6 million.

One does have to wonder, though, about the events surrounding that home purchase.

Obama buys a property for $300,000 below the asking price -- not a bad deal. On the same day, Tony Rezko buys the adjacent parcel from the same seller for the asking price. I have to wonder how an experienced real estate developer pays list while Obama is able to bargain the price down by several hundred thousand dollars.

Rezko and Obama toured both properties together -- Obama has publicly stated this. And the accepted offer was the third he made. So Obama and Rezko get along well enough to tour real estate together, but they don't talk about the offer each will make? And an experienced real estate developer doesn't bargain, doesn't make a lower offer?

[Euryleia]

Well, if you check Fact Check.org (http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/rezko_reality.html) the issue is is a pretty real estate deal for both of them.

Here is the gist:
Million-Dollar Mansion

As for that claim about Rezko helping Obama buy his house, well, we've dealt with that one before. The gist of the story: In 2005, Barack and Michelle Obama found a house that they wanted to purchase. The property had been divided into two parcels, one containing a house and the other undeveloped land. The owner had listed the properties separately. After considerable haggling, the seller accepted the Obamas' third bid of $1.65 million for the parcel containing the house. Tony Rezko's wife, Rita, purchased the adjoining lot for $625,000.

When the Obamas wanted to increase the size of their yard, they approached the Rezkos about purchasing a strip of the adjacent parcel. Obama told the Sun-Times that a 10-foot strip of the 60-foot lot appraised for $40,000. The Obamas nevertheless paid Rita $104,500 (or 1/6 of the total purchase price of her lot) for the strip. In 2007, Rita sold the remaining lot for $575,000 (or roughly a $54,500 profit on the overall property).

McCain's ad is worded in a way that could leave a false impression. It says Rezko "helped him buy his million-dollar mansion" by "purchasing part of the property he couldn't afford." That's true, but only because the seller wanted to sell the two parcels as a unit and the Obamas couldn't afford both. Rezko did not make a gift of any property to the Obamas. Furthermore, the fact that his wife sold her lot for more than she paid for it contradicts any suggestion that the Rezkos overpaid for their part of the deal as a way of getting the seller to lower the price to the Obamas for their part.

[Ragoczy]

Rezko did not make a gift of any property to the Obamas. Furthermore, the fact that his wife sold her lot for more than she paid for it contradicts any suggestion that the Rezkos overpaid for their part of the deal as a way of getting the seller to lower the price to the Obamas for their part.

It doesn't contradict anything -- some profit on real estate during that time of huge increases in value is to be expected.

The fact remains that Rezko didn't even bargain on the price of their property, the property (based on the reports I've read) is too small to build on and they sold it to their own attorney.

It's that only one of the transactions was discounted from the asking price that bothers me. In my opinion, it smells.

If the two of us go to buy cars together and we strike a bargain with the dealer, but I pay MSRP and you take all of the bargained discount on your deal, is it a gift?

That's what this transaction feels like to me.

[mkemse]

Acutaly Rezko, donated to alot of Campaigns both Democrats and Republicans both in Illinois and out of Illinois
Is it also possible at the time the Obama's had no idea of his past, if you go to buy a house or car do you do a background check into the saleperson or real estate agent,??

[Ragoczy]

Acutaly Rezko, donated to alot of Campaigns both Democrats and Republicans both in Illinois and out of Illinois
Is it also possible at the time the Obama's had no idea of his past, if you go to buy a house or car do you do a background check into the saleperson or real estate agent,??

My concern would remain if Rezko were squeaky clean.

A politician's involved in transaction in which there appears to be a transfer of several hundred thousand dollars and it makes me suspicious.

[Ragoczy]

One other thing to consider is that the Rezko "parcel" is quite small. When I first heard about this transaction I thought: "So there were probably like five acres and Obama could only afford three of them, so Rezko bought the other two as an investment. It's a favor, but not that big a deal in the grand scheme of things."

But use Google Earth to view Obama's house and something different emerges. This isn't acres of property, it's a residential lot -- and what Rezko bought is too small to build anything on. After the initial purchase, the Obamas had unfettered use of the Rezko property as part of their yard (note the original hedge on the street side of the Rezko property) -- and only after questions were asked did the Obamas purchase ten feet of the Rezko "parcel" and put up a fence.

Now the Rezko property, or rather their attorney's property, since they sold it to him, is even smaller -- still too small for a home to be built on it. So where's the benefit to Rezko or his attorney in owning it? That piece of land is useless to its current owners, but not to the owners of the Obama property.

[ElectricBadger]

So far everything stated is mere theory, supposition based on lack of information, most of which would be available if seriously researched (such as college loans, stated income, and so on).

I believe the short of it is that while Obama's family was middle class, it was at the higher end of that. Obama himself, as one would expect from a best selling author and senator with a Harvard education has done well for himself. A harsh reality of American politics is that poor people don't run for high offices, so that's fairly unexceptional. And I'll point out that the McCains are worth several multiples of the Obamas, so not voting for Obama because he can afford things is a bit strange in my opinion. And I believe there have been some allegations against Cindy McCain's fortune with much more evidence behind them.

As for purchasing property, it was clearly a favor from one friend to another. If I had as much money as Razko, would I buy a property I could resell later for profit to make a situation easier for a friend? Certainly. Even if I were squeaky clean ethically, which Obama (by all reports) had no reason to doubt Razko was.

Religion...gah. This one drives me nuts. If - and this is a huge if, as there's NO evidence at all that Obama has been Muslim - but if Obama has to lie about his religion to be elected, I find that a MUCH sadder commentary on American bigotry than on him.

And in our current political situation, heavily invested in the future of two muslim countries, under attack by religious extremists, I'm heavily encouraged to vote for a president that has more experience with the Muslim faith than comes from college textbooks. Discounting him for his experiences with the Muslim faith and countries is comparable to refusing to hire a spanish teacher because they used to live in Mexico.

[Ragoczy]

As for purchasing property, it was clearly a favor from one friend to another. If I had as much money as Razko, would I buy a property I could resell later for profit to make a situation easier for a friend? Certainly. Even if I were squeaky clean ethically, which Obama (by all reports) had no reason to doubt Razko was.

A $500,000+ favor to a politician from a slumlord (http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/353829,CST-NWS-rez23.article) doesn't make you at all suspicious?

And he did have reason to doubt Rezko was "squeaky clean", saying, in fact, that he was "bone headed" to enter the deal when it had been reported that Rezko was under grand jury investigation. (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chicago/chi-0702240237feb24,0,1468124.story)

The "profit" came from selling it to their own attorney for "development", despite the fact that the property's too small to build anything on? There are only three possibilities there -- the attorney's "development company" is run by idiots, was bilked by the Rezkos or is in on a deal to make Obama look better -- which does Occam's Razor support?

Also, the reported "profit" doesn't include taxes and other expenses over the years.

The purchase of ten feet of the the Rezko property and putting up a fence only occurred a few months before Rezko was indicted.

Until that fence went up Obama mowed the freakin' lawn on that property. (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chicago/chi-0702240237feb24,0,1468124.story)

A politician gets this kind of "favor" from someone convicted of influence-peddling and it doesn't make you suspicious? It doesn't make you concerned about, at least, his judgment in doing so?

[Ragoczy]

And I believe there have been some allegations against Cindy McCain's fortune with much more evidence behind them.

This is a bit disingenuous. There has never been an allegation, to my knowledge, against Cindy McCain for any type of financial wrong-doing. Cindy McCain inherited the bulk of her estate and now invests it -- with a large amount going to charity through the McCain's foundation. There were accusations against her father sixty years ago, but nothing against her. Whereas the discussion of Obama's finances here have had to do with his direct actions, decisions and judgment.

[js207]

A $500,000+ favor to a politician from a slumlord (http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/353829,CST-NWS-rez23.article) doesn't make you at all suspicious?


Particularly when said slumlord received tens or even hundreds of millions of dollars in federal and state funding for building and maintaining those slums.

The funding for his travel and studies isn't that hard to explain, though: the "typical white" grandmother who raised him in Hawaii was VP of a fairly large bank, so throwing him a few $k here and there to help with tuition or fund his vacation wouldn't be a stretch for her.

[Logic1]

What I find as an outside observer of this election is that americans cant seem to have an election without trashtalking the other candidate and digging up dirt. That is incredibly sad and as I see it speaks volumes..

[lucy]

What I find as an outside observer of this election is that americans cant seem to have an election without trashtalking the other candidate and digging up dirt. That is incredibly sad and as I see it speaks volumes..
I second that. However, as most things popular in the US, also the mudthrowing has made or is making its way across the Atlantic.

[mkemse]

thereason our candidates are "trash talking" is the Sen McCain has no real answers for our issues, and when a person is desprite they will do what they need to t win and election, Obamam is always talking about the issues, even Sara Palin keeps bring up Obamam hanging out with a 60's Radical, who threw fire bombs, she refers to obama "friend" as a Deomestic Terrorist, what she DOES NOT mention is that Obama was only 8 years old at the time,

[Logic1]

I second that. However, as most things popular in the US, also the mudthrowing has made or is making its way across the Atlantic.

You are right naturally, but the real question is "why that is" and why the people of USA seems to like/want/need/feel it is right..

I am honestly curious.

[js207]

You are right naturally, but the real question is "why that is" and why the people of USA seems to like/want/need/feel it is right..

I am honestly curious.

I suspect the root is quite simple: it works. It's much easier to dig up some scary dirt on the other guy to convince undecided voters to vote against him than it is to convince those voters to vote for you.

It would be nice if someone were to come forward with a well-thought out economic strategy for the nation and try persuading the nation of its virtues ... but somehow, I can't imagine that working, or indeed imagine the public understanding it well enough to judge its merits properly.

[Ragoczy]

There's a difference between "trash-talking" and bringing up legitimate concerns.

It's reasonable to be concerned that a candidate for President has financial ties and was taking financial favors from someone convicted of using money to bribe politicians, don't you think?

[ElectricBadger]

Bringing up concerns, bad decisions, potential issues, and such of a rival candidate is a valid campaign issue. We need to know the down side of our choices, not hear just the happy tidbits - that's a sure route to despotism. The issue is not negative campaigning to me, it's limiting such to realistic and respectful levels. As to why that is, I think it's the tendency of the modern mind not to react strongly to anything but the truly dramatic (and I don't limit this to America...I've seen enough other countries have their own little fits to be sure it's a human phenomenon).

[damyanti]

Regardless of one's stance on whether we should have gone into Iraq in the first place, we're there -- and his stated willingness to abandon twenty-five million people to terrorists and sectarian violence, I find reprehensible. Even if you think the mess is all our fault, doesn't that mean we should try to help the Iraqis clean it up? Even a vacuum


Oh goody Americans who screwed it up are now going to clean it up. If? You invaded the wrong country, your establishment fabricated evidance and when one claim after another was prooven false, you simply made up another.

Its this superiority attitude and arrogance, which we have no idea where you derive it from, that breeds anti-american contempt. Your country is two hundred years old. Iraq, historically known as Mesopotamia, has been here since the start of the civilization, we are talking thousands of years. My country was founded in the seventh century. What gives you the right to meddle into our business? What gives you the right to tell us how to live?

I do believe Ragoczy that you are a noble man, one with values and that your attentions are good. But I have a first hand experiance where US presence prolonged the war unnecessarily and murkied things up. Its their land, you invaded it with no justifiable cause and you are continuing that occupation against their will. Sectarian violence? Again, its none of your business, its up to them to either learn to coexist or fight it out. You cant stop that, and as long as you are there terrorists will prosper.

[js207]

There's a difference between "trash-talking" and bringing up legitimate concerns.

It's reasonable to be concerned that a candidate for President has financial ties and was taking financial favors from someone convicted of using money to bribe politicians, don't you think?

Certainly a valid concern, which is why it was so unfortunate Obama reneged on his earlier pledge to use public funding for his campaign rather than relying on private sources which now turn out to have included quite a few made-up people. Similarly, I think it's reasonable to care about any candidate's friends and role models - there was at least some justification for people's interest in that wacky "guru" woman Tony Blair's wife was spending time with, although less so than if it had been the PM himself doing the same thing.

[Logic1]

To me there is a difference between digging up dirt and throwing it around and real concerns. This isnt the concerned citizen asking real questions, but rather digging up dirt and throwing it around but... each to his/her own right?
I personally would be pissed off if MY politicians couldnt have a real debate/run for office or whatever if he couldnt use real arguments instead of that. I sure wouldnt want somebody I voted for that doesnt have real arguments but have to step "down" to that.
To me it just shows that you arent good enough to run for office but I might be the only one that thinks so.

yeah high horse and all that ;)

[mkemse]

My feeling is that MCCain is throwing all this dirst around becausehe is trailing reald bady in the Polls, roughly 3 weeks to go, and desprite times leads to desprite measure, and a CNN Poll yesterday (1-08-08) shoews Obamam puling away with 52%-41%
The REpublicans seems to be getting very desprite and will do what ever they need to to try and slow Obama's Campaign dwn, but as one Anylist said last night "It may be too little to late"

[denuseri]

If you really watch the thing they both (as I have allways said) will be trash talking the other.

That hasnt changed about politics since democracy was adopted by the greeks 400years before the common era. Heck the trash talking part probably started long long before that even. It is certianly not only present in the states, its just that the media grandizes it by giving it a viable platform to thrive.

The impression of americans as being self superiour or condensending to the world is a cultural phenomena left over from the nationalist leanings many countries adopted in the preceeding ages that lead eventually to ww2 and the subsiquient cold war it happens with every country that reaches out to control others in an imperial fashion.

Go back to the 17 and 18 hundreds, pretty much anytime before ww2 and people said the same thing about brittian and france when they were at the hieght of their empires.

The sad thing is that America appears to be making many of the same mistakes its two primary political parents made when they were trying to run things.

We sure didnt set out to do it this way when we came out of our isolationist period to help save europe and the pacific in world war 2.



The road to perdition is paved with good intentions.

[Muskan]

I wish America get some Ronald Reagan again.
I wish America get some Ayn Rand, Ludwig Von Mises again.
I know Obama will take America to further turmoils and deeper pits.
I understand Maccain is not much better option than Obama.
I wonder when Americans will try to step up towards miniarchy and than freedom.

[Ragoczy]

Oh goody Americans who screwed it up are now going to clean it up. If? You invaded the wrong country, your establishment fabricated evidance and when one claim after another was prooven false, you simply made up another.

Its this superiority attitude and arrogance, which we have no idea where you derive it from, that breeds anti-american contempt. Your country is two hundred years old. Iraq, historically known as Mesopotamia, has been here since the start of the civilization, we are talking thousands of years. My country was founded in the seventh century. What gives you the right to meddle into our business? What gives you the right to tell us how to live?

I do believe Ragoczy that you are a noble man, one with values and that your attentions are good. But I have a first hand experiance where US presence prolonged the war unnecessarily and murkied things up. Its their land, you invaded it with no justifiable cause and you are continuing that occupation against their will. Sectarian violence? Again, its none of your business, its up to them to either learn to coexist or fight it out. You cant stop that, and as long as you are there terrorists will prosper.

My reason for supporting the ouster of Hussein was simple:

The 2001 Gulf War never ended, no cessation of hostilities was ever signed, only a ceasefire, the terms of which were not complied with. US Troops were already in the area, on and around the Iraq-Kuwait border and enforcing the no-fly zones. All of this was at the behest and agreement of the international community. However, there was no plan in place to ever end the situation and the historical precedent for this was undesirable: 50 years from now we'd have 50,000 US troops and three million land mines on the Iraq-Kuwait border "containing" Hussein's idiot son. Sound familiar? It should, because it's the current state of the Korean Peninsula.

So, yeah, I do think if we're going to be the ones faced with that likelihood, we should have the right to say "fuck that, we're going to end it now and get it over with".

And ultimately, no, Iraq has not been there since the start of civilization. Any number of geographical borders have come and gone in that region over the last millennia and the national entity known as "Iraq" is a leftover of an area granted to British control by the League of Nations and forged out of traditionally hostile groups. Short of dividing the country amongst those groups or the arrival of another dictator strong enough to terrorize them, I have doubts that they'll make it without a lot of sectarian bloodshed. But we are where we are today, and I think it's better for the US to stay until the Iraqi government feels comfortable than to just precipitously pull out. Leaving the Iraqi government unstable and not in control of the provinces would simply guarantee sectarian violence and bloodshed, while staying at least provides the possibility of avoiding it.

[Ragoczy]

I wish America get some Ronald Reagan again.
I wish America get some Ayn Rand, Ludwig Von Mises again.
I know Obama will take America to further turmoils and deeper pits.
I understand Maccain is not much better option than Obama.
I wonder when Americans will try to step up towards miniarchy and than freedom.

Vote Zombie Reagan 2008 (http://www.thebloviater.com/2008/07/vote-zombie-reagan-in-2008.html)

[gagged_Louise]

Ragoczy, I honestly don't see what kind of hope you could have that an Iraqi government will become stable and sane, and neither give in to sects and tribes nor become a mere puppet of the US. The first seems the outcome of your view that it's a ragbag of a country that would dissolve fast unless kept together by force (isn't that what Saddam Hussein realized too?), and the other alternative, a puppet regime, means the US troops will stay for decades to come - and become a permanent recruitment poster for those militant movements that do not accept the idea of being puppeted. And anytime in the future when that unrest flares really high, more of those troops - young American men and women - would have to be sent in. So? This is exactly the quandary that the US found itself in as soon as the hot phase of the war was over and Hussein had fallen. They had no real idea how to build a civilian regime, to restore democracy. Some of the "leaders" they wanted to work with were the very kind of angry old mullahs that are the fear of every American schoolboy when they are reigning in Iran, just across the border.

As for your idea that the US can and should do what it wants - yeah okay, but then you'd have to agree that the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was a daring and extremely skillful act of war, don't you? And motivated too, because the Japanese felt hemmed in by the presence of the US navy and air force in the Pacific, and they could see that the age of European colonies in Asia was coming to an end. Who could argue with them if they aim to take the naval base out and run for the booty of east Asia and the Pacific?

I guess we've come a bit off the subject of what Obama will do if he's elected, but at least I think he sees that the matter of US presence in the Middle East isn't as simple as "our boys are there as a benevolent peacekeeper and to make sure things don't slide back to barbarism".

[Ragoczy]

Ragoczy, I honestly don't see what kind of hope you could have that an Iraqi government will become stable and sane, and neither give in to sects and tribes nor become a mere puppet of the US. The first seems the outcome of your vierw that it's a ragbag of a country that would dissolve unless kept together by foirce (isn't that what Saddam Hussein realized too?), and the other alternative, a puppet regime, means the US tropps will stay for decades to come - and become a constant recruitment poster for those militant movements that do not accept the idea of being puppeted. So? This is exactly the quandary that the US found itself in as soon as the hot phase of the war was over and Hussein had fallen. They had no real idea how to build a civilian regime, to restore democracy. Some of the "leaders" they wanted to work with were the very kind of angry old mullahs that are the fear of every American schoolboy when they are reigning in Iran, just across the border.

First of all, if I gave the impression I was calling the Iraqis a "ragbag", then I need to clarify. I meant nothing derogatory about the Iraqi people, simply that they have thousands of years of history behind their tribes and sects as something other than Iraqi. This is the same issue faced by so many African "nations" after the Europeans pulled out, having forged countries based on geography out of what had traditionally been multiple, hostile peoples. Overcoming that will be difficult for them, I think, but I hope they can and I also think they have a better chance of success if their new government is stable and in control before the US leaves.

Ultimately, I have a great deal of respect for the Iraqi people. I find it somewhat humbling that they had such a high percentage of voter turnout when there was the very real possibility of getting killed for voting -- when in America most people take it so much for granted that they don't bother.

But, yeah, the situation sucks. The question I have to ask myself is: Will the Iraqi people be better served by the US pulling out immediately or waiting until the Iraqi government tells us they're ready? I think, and always have, that it's the latter -- and there's significant progress toward that.


As for your idea that the US can and should do what it wants - yeah okay, but then you'd have to agree that the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was a daring and extremely skillful act of war, don't you? And motivated too, because the Japanese felt hemmed in by the presence of the US navy and air force in the Pacific, and they could see that the age of European colonies in Asia was coming to an end. Who could argue with them if they aim to take the naval base out and run for the booty of east Asia and the Pacific?

I'm not entirely sure what your point is. The Japanese were an aggressor long before Pearl Harbor, taking significant land in Asia before attacking the US.

My point was that the US, faced with guarding another country's border for the next fifty years, might be reasonably expected to eliminate the need to do that. If you're comparing the US's involvement in Iraq with, say, the Japanese invasion of Korea, then I think your analogy is faulty. The US has never had the intent of conquering and ruling Iraq -- the intent has always been to stabilize an elected Iraqi government and then leave.

As to Pearl Harbor, I think it was a brilliantly executed military operation and those who characterize it as a "cowardly sneak attack" are fucking idiots. In war, you're supposed to try and catch the other bastard sleeping.


I guess we've come a bit off the subject of what Obama will do if he's elected, but at least I think he sees that the matter of US presence in the Middle East isn't as simple as "our boys are there as a benevolent peacekeeper and to make sure things don't slide back to barbansm".

Are their ulterior motives to being in Iraq? Sure. It's certainly not an altruistic desire to bring democracy and freedom to the Iraqi people. One of those motives is to not spend the next five decades defending Kuwait. Another is the hope that a democratic Iraq will be cordial to the US. Another reason for staying now is, hopefully, a lesson learned from Afghanistan after the Soviets left -- that abandoning a country to a power vacuum results in Bad Things happening.

No, if it was entirely altruistic, we'd also be in Darfur and wouldn't have left the Rwandans so totally fucked.

But yes, ranging far afield from the thread's topic.

Obama has a different perspective on the Middle East than I do, which is one of the reasons I don't support him. I don't think unconditionally sitting down with the leaders of Iran is the answer and he's willing to do that. I don't think lessening support for Israel is the right thing to do, and he will.

[mkemse]

We invaded Iraq, so the GBush Jr. could finish the job his Father did not or could not finish

[gagged_Louise]

Well, I didn't imagine you were despising the Iraqis as individuals, or as a "nation" - and of course this is a country with a cultural heritage that goes far back into history, back to Sumer. With "a ragbag" I was pointing to your assertion that the country doesn't have any real unity, and so it can be freely redrawn. I agree the borders of Iraq and Syria today are an outcome of the colonial era, but if the country is so tribalized it can blow apart at any moment unless it's kept down by the military, then what chances ar there of bringing about a democratic state? The Kurds want a state of their won, today they are effectively living in their own country but many of them, and many exile Kurds, wish to have a "larger Kurdistan" including large parts of present Turkey and some of NW Iran. That's not going to happen for reasons of big politics, but as long as Iraq is as tribal as this, building democracy isn't just a question of arranging elections and setting up an Iraqi government.

The country is pretty much walking on crutches and is not choosing how to handle its own trade, business, foreign policy and so on. The American influence on all of those fields, and on the economy, is overwhelming.

By the way, the United Nations is under no obligation to safeguard the precise borders that existed in 1945 or at any point after, and do it indefinitely. If that was it they would have tried to stop the German reunification in 1990. You're casting the UN and the "international community" (mostly enemies of the USA it seems) as a slow, conserving force that doesn't accept any kind of change in borders or state system. Now, the UN involvement in Iraq was more about trying to prevent aggressive war and trying to assure the people were not put to more suffering. This may be niff-naff to you, but the human costs of the embargo in the 1990s (medicines, milk, foodstuffs) and the Iraq war since 2003 have been huge and there is really no reason why the Iraqi people should pay. Let's be honest, if Saddam had been a dictator of Mali or Kenya the US would not have tried to oust him, it would have been a too obscure affair.


I'm not entirely sure what your point is. The Japanese were an aggressor long before Pearl Harbor, taking significant land in Asia before attacking the US.
My point was that the US, faced with guarding another country's border for the next fifty years, might be reasonably expected to eliminate the need to do that. If you're comparing the US's involvement in Iraq with the, say, the Japanese invasion of Korea, then I think your analogy is faulty. The US has never had the intent of conquering and ruling Iraq -- the intent has always been to stabilize an elected Iraqi government and then leave.

As to Pearl Harbor, I think it was a brilliantly executed military operation and those who characterize it as a "cowardly sneak attack" are fucking idiots. In war, you're supposed to try and catch the other bastard sleeping.


The US may not have any major land possessions in the Middle East but its presence through military bases, subsidies to regimes and corporate power is overwhelming. In the fifties the US and British effectively deposed the Iranian prime minister Mossadeq when he became too uppity and tried to nationalize the oil industry - as all major oil companies in the countyry were foreign (mostly English and American) and oil was the major export goods of the country, those companies and could easily kill any budding independent competing private companies before they grew big, so nationalization was really the only option to create your own oil industry. I think the Iranians were right in viewing it as a national interest - just consider what would happen in war if their oil industry had been foreign controlled - but it wasn't hard for the US to put him out of action. In Iran and among politically interested people in the Middle East, they have never forgotten that, just as you have never forgotten the Tehran Embassy occupation of 1979-81. Both of those are kind of defining symbols to either side.

That kind of meddling has been going on all through the past century, and I would not agree that the US soldiers guarding the Kuwait -Iraq border between 1991 and 2003 were just keeping up a UN resolution or a ceasefire for the good of Kuwait - it was about US political and corporate interests too. We can argue till Hell freezes over about how much of a real chance the Iraqis had to successfully rebel against Saddam on their own or about how sane the US-Saddam tug-of-war really was after the mid-90s. The main points to me are that
1)the US would become an aggressor too when conflict flared up - as it did several times in those years, airspace control and so on. When war broke out in 2003, triggered by the US, America became the instigator.

2)Saddam was not a potentially powerful man outside Iraq after ca 1993; and not any big threat to peace. From most evidence, he had been forced by then to give up all resources to manufacture any WMD's (=any kind of ABC-weapons), and he had lost the respect he needed to stir up major terrorist attacks on other countries. He never rebuilt his WMD capacity; the technical evidence has proved hopelessly elusive after years of post-2003 search. There have been lots of those "petty dictators" and mostly the USA doesn't move in for any reason.

[gagged_Louise]

I'd like to add I also think the Japanese raid on Pearl Harbor was tactically brilliant, and you could argue the Japanese were bound to land in a war with the US soon anyway, so from their óbjectives the Emperor and his generals were right to take that route. I'm happy you recognize this. Which is not the same as saying that Pearl Harbor (or earlier Japanese attacks, the massacres in China etc) were morally straight.

[Ragoczy]

Well, I didn't imagine you were despising the Iraqis as individuals, or as a "nation" - and of course this is a country with a cultural heritage that goes far back into history, back to Sumer. With "a ragbag" I was pointing to your assertion that the country doesn't have any real unity, and so it can be freely redrawn. I agree the borders of Iraq and Syria today are an outcome of the colonial era, but if the country is so tribalized it can blow apart at any moment unless it's kept down by the military, then what chances ar there of bringing about a democratic state? The Kurds want a state of their won, today they are effectively living in their own country but many of them, and many exile Kurds, wish to have a "larger Kurdistan" including large parts of present Turkey and some of NW Iran. That's not going to happen for reasons of big politics, but as long as Iraq is as tribal as this, building democracy isn't just a question of arranging elections and setting up an Iraqi government.

The country is pretty much walking on crutches and is not choosing how to handle its own trade, business, foreign policy and so on. The American influence on all of those fields, and on the economy, is overwhelming.

If I'm understanding you correctly, you're saying redrawing Iraq as multiple countries is your preferred solution? Or that you think it's mine? (My a/c broke and it's ninety-degrees outside, so I may be missing something.)

If it wasn't for the oil, multiple nations might be feasible, but the oil wealth is so centralized in one region that it would screw the others -- and result in conflict.

My point is simply that we have to deal with what we have -- and that's an Iraq that does have these challenges. For them to arrive at a real national identity is made harder by those challenges -- the impression I get is that the typical Iraqi outside of the large cities identifies first as something local before identifying as an Iraqi. That presents problems. I simply think they have a better chance as one nation -- and that they have a better chance of achieving that with support until their government's ready. Something they've already begun the process of -- telling the US it's time to talk about withdrawal.

Of course there's more to it than just arranging elections and setting up a government. And most of that more has to come from inside Iraq -- and they may, ultimately, not want it at all. My opinion is that they should, but it's really for them to decide -- I just think we should provide an environment where they might actually be able to, rather than chaos by default.


By the way, the United Nations is under no obligation to safeguard the precise borders that existed in 1945 or at any point after, and do it indefinitely. If that was it they would have tried to stop the German reunification in 1990- You're casting the UN and the "international community" (mostly enemies of the USA it seems) as a slow, conserving force that doesn't accept any kind of change in borders or state system. Now, the UN involvement in Iraq was more about trying to prevent aggressive war and trying to assure the people were not put to more suffering. This may be niff-naff to you, but the human costs of the embargo in the 1990s (medicines, milk, foodstuffs) and the Iraq war since 2003 have been huge and there is really no reason why the Iraqi people should pay. Let's be honest, if Saddam had been a dictator of Mali or Kenya the US would not have tried to oust him, it would have been a too obscure affair.

And if it had been a border dispute between two insignificant countries in 1991, the UN never would have agreed to anyone getting involved then. Iraq has greater import on the world stage because of its oil -- the Rwandans can die by the millions and no government will take action, because it is too obscure.

For the record, I cast the UN as a bloated, corrupt, ineffectual body whose uselessness and venality is rivaled only by the US Congress, most of whom I think should be keelhauled. Regardless, what I think should have happened in 1991 was a continuation on to Baghdad, the ouster of Hussein and a UN administration of supporting the Iraqis in forming a new government and determining their course. "Sanctions" are a fucking joke -- it seems like every sadistic, murdering dictator on the face of the planet is under some form of UN "sanctions" and the only people actually hurt by it are the innocent citizens of those countries. But don't tell me that UN programs to administer "humanitarian" aid did a damn bit of good, because there's too much evidence that the only thing those programs aided was the bank accounts of a few UN and Iraqi officials.


The US may not have any major land possessions in the Middle East but its presence through military bases, subsidies to regimes and corporate power is overwhelming. In the fifties the US and British effectively deposed the Iranian prime minister Mossadeq when he became too uppity and tried to nationalize the oil industry - as all major oil companies in the countyry were foreign (mostly English and American) and oil was the major export goods of the country, those companies and could easily kill any budding independent competing private companies before they grew big, so nationalization was really the only option to create your own oil industry. I think the Iranians were right in viewing it as a national interest - just consider what would happen in war if their oil industry had been foreign controlled - but it wasn't hard for the US to put him out of action. In Iran and among politically interested people in the Middle East, they have never forgotten that, just as you have never forgotten the Tehran Embassy occupation of 1979-81. Both of those are kind of defining symbols to either side.

That kind of meddling has been going on all through the past century, and I would not agree that the US soldiers guarding the Kuwait -Iraq border between 1991 and 2003 were just keeping up a UN resolution or a ceasefire for the good of Kuwait - it was about US political and corporate interests too. We can argue till Hell freezes over about how much of a real chance the Iraqis had to successfully rebel against Saddam on their own or about how sane the US-Saddam tug-of-war really was after the mid-90s. The main points to me are that

Yeah, the history sucks. What should we do?


1)the US would become an aggressor too when conflict flared up - as it did several times in those years, airspace control and so on. When war broke out in 2003, triggered by the US, America became the instigator.

I don't see it that way. From my perspective, the US was, primarily, left holding the bag on that border. With choices of stay forever, leave or remove the reason for being there.


2)Saddam was not a potentially powerful man outside Iraq after ca 1993; and not any big threat to peace. From most evidence, he had been forced by then to give up all resources to manufacture any WMD's (=any kind of ABC-weapons), and he had lost the respect he needed to stir up major terrorist attacks on other countries. He never rebuilt his WMD capacity; the technical evidence has proved hopelessly elusive after years of post-2003 search. There have been lots of those "petty dictators" and mostly the USA doesn't move in for any reason.

True, very little in the way of WMDs have been found (not none). But he did continue to act like he had them -- so do you take the risk or act if your neighbor says he has a gun and wants to shoot you?

[Ragoczy]

I'd like to add I also think the Japanese raid on Pearl Harbor was tactically brilliant, and you could argue the Japanese were bound to land in a war with the US soon anyway, so from their óbjectives the Emperor and his generals were right to take that route. I'm happy you recognize this. Which is not the same as saying that Pearl Harbor (or earlier Japanese attacks, the massacres in China etc) were morally straight.

And yet another tangent discussion miles from the original topic -- but what the hell, I'm having fun.

I don't think there's a moral equivalency between Pearl Harbor and massacres in China. And I realize you weren't really implying equality.

So, yes, it should have been clear to the Japanese at the time that the US was eventually going to get into the conflict. Whether it would have been better strategically for them to have waited and consolidated their other positions is arguable, but they may have known or believed that our entry was imminent, in which case their attack made sense. I don't believe in "fair fights", so I don't fault them for not sending us a "Hi, we're going to be at war with you ... Tuesday good to start things off?"-note -- sudden, unexpected, overwhelming force is ideal. Also, their attack was on primarily military targets, to the extent that it was possible with the technology of the time. So I see no moral issue with Pearl Harbor.

Their actions against civilians in China, Korea, etc. -- morally reprehensible.

[Ragoczy]

Can an Obama supporter please explain how you support his position on this from the ABC Primary debate:


GIBSON: All right. You have, however, said you would favor an increase in the capital gains tax. As a matter of fact, you said on CNBC, and I quote, “I certainly would not go above what existed under Bill Clinton,” which was 28 percent. It’s now 15 percent. That’s almost a doubling, if you went to 28 percent.

But actually, Bill Clinton, in 1997, signed legislation that dropped the capital gains tax to 20 percent.

OBAMA: Right.

GIBSON: And George Bush has taken it down to 15 percent.

OBAMA: Right.

GIBSON: And in each instance, when the rate dropped, revenues from the tax increased; the government took in more money. And in the 1980s, when the tax was increased to 28 percent, the revenues went down.

So why raise it at all, especially given the fact that 100 million people in this country own stock and would be affected?

OBAMA: Well, Charlie, what I’ve said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness.

Obama wants to raise the capital gains tax ... he admits it will reduce government revenue ... but he wants to do it anyway ...

Lower capital gains taxes spur investment, investment creates jobs, jobs are good for people who don't have one ...

[mkemse]

Can an Obama supporter please explain how you support his position on this from the ABC Primary debate:



Obama wants to raise the capital gains tax ... he admits it will reduce government revenue ... but he wants to do it anyway ...

Lower capital gains taxes spur investment, investment creates jobs, jobs are good for people who don't have one ...

If you look at the quote you posted he does not say he will raise captial gaines taxes all he said was he would lok at it, many thing have changed in the last couple weeks
I also saw a CBS new poll tonigh that has Obama up 15%

And ealiertoday (Oct 14, 2008 the Chairman of the RNC said if Mccain does not get a huge bump in the Polls aftertomorrows debate, he plans to redirect someo f the money foing to Mccain to other GOP races so even the GOP seems to be loosing faithi n Mcaain ability to win

On the upside, the rock Groups Heart, Jackson Brown Survior and John Cougar Mellencamp have all filed lawsuits again the McCain/Palin ticket using thier songs in their campaign and at the covention without prior permission, as jackson brown said "I do not want any of my songs used by them, i have asked them to stop and they didn't so i filed a law suit, I do not support them or thier ticket and i do not want any one who hears my songs associated with them to think I do, it misrepresents who I am"

I love what was said last night, at Mccain rally he said yes he was concerned about loooisng the race andwanted to focus onthat, later that day Obamam said he want to concentrate on those who may loose their homes, jobs, 401k's, seem ot me big difference in priorities right now
To Bad Ron Paul isn't in this

[Ragoczy]

If you look at the quote you posted he does not say he will raise captial gaines taxes all he said was he would lok at it, many thing have changed in the last couple weeks

Right ... that's the other thing he said recently, that he might have to put off implementing his economic plan because it might have a negative effect on the economy ...

Should the next President have an economic plan that he thinks might make the economy worse?


I love what was said last night, at Mccain rally he said yes he was concerned about loooisng the race andwanted to focus onthat, later that day Obamam said he want to concentrate on those who may loose their homes, jobs, 401k's, seem ot me big difference in priorities right now

What was the question being asked and the context of the two quotes?

At various times in the last couple months, I've said:

My top priority is getting users of the application I'm writing something mocked and, ultimately, useless, so they can test the user-interface.

That doesn't change that my longer-term top priority is to get them an application that's useful to them. Or that my top priority in a different context is to do everything I can to ensure the continued success of the company I work for. And none of that takes away from my ultimate top-priority of taking care of my family.

But what I describe as my "top priority" changes with the context and the specific question I'm answering.

Seems that, right now, yeah, a candidates "top priority" would be winning the election -- since if they don't do that, none of their other priorities really matter.

[hopperboo]

NObama - The Big Spender
NObama - The Supporter of BIG GOVERNMENT

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/02/obamas_gloomy_biggovernment_vi.html

[mkemse]

Nobama and our next President

[lucy]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/02/obamas_gloomy_biggovernment_vi.html
Looks like a pretty good plan to me.

However, i don't get to vote so i won't comment further. What i really hope tho is that whoever will be your next president he's capable of bringing you guys and gals closer together again. From over here in Europe it sure looks as if you could use a president that unifies and doesn't alienate Americans further from each other.

[hopperboo]

Looks like a pretty good plan to me.

We don't need a Socialist as our president. (IMHO)



But I do agree with you. It would be nice to have a president that could bring the people together. I think a lot of it has to do with the people though...extremists on both sides will not be in favor of sharing something "together." People tend to look first for the differences, and hold onto those issues, instead of the things that would bring them together.

I am not a supporter of big government OR Obama's taxing plan, his plan for Iraq, his stance (the actual voting history, not what he says) on late term abortion, etc. I could very easily deal with a democratic president if there were major points I agreed with. Obama is not that case however.

[mkemse]

If Obama wins and all inidcation w/3 weeks to go are he will do so, let's all give him a chance to prive himaelf
I f you are looking for a New Car, don't NOT buy it because you have a neighbor who does not likes his, YOU try drivinf irt and see f you like it

After 8 years of Bush, we ayt least need to give him chance to prove himself, we don't like he, we vote again in 4 years
I do not want a "Bush Clone" for another 4 years

[hopperboo]

If Obama wins and all inidcation w/3 weeks to go are he will do so, let's all give him a chance to prive himaelf
I f you are looking for a New Car, don't NOT buy it because you have a neighbor who does not likes his, YOU try drivinf irt and see f you like it

After 8 years of Bush, we ayt least need to give him chance to prove himself, we don't like he, we vote again in 4 years
I do not want a "Bush Clone" for another 4 years
McCain is not Bush, and he has shown it with his solid plans and his ability to speak without someone holding his hand. He has shown it with his ability to cross party lines and not be a total dunce in general. I don't want a Bush clone either. I have been keeping up since this campaign started and I wasn't a big fan of McCain until a little later on. Funny thing is, I almost trust McCain. With Obama...I wouldn't trust him as far as I could throw him. He is an eloquent speaker, but it plays to whichever type crowd he thinks will bring him the most votes.

I don't want Obama to prove himself. If half of what he supports comes to pass we will have a lot less of our freedoms in disguise of having freedom. (Doesn't make sense does it?) Big government is not our friend.



***"Sentor Obama, I am not President Bush. You wanted to run against President Bush, you should have run four years ago." - McCain

[DesertDom]

Looks like a pretty good plan to me.

However, i don't get to vote so i won't comment further. What i really hope tho is that whoever will be your next president he's capable of bringing you guys and gals closer together again. From over here in Europe it sure looks as if you could use a president that unifies and doesn't alienate Americans further from each other.


Purely on past records, McCain would be the president who could attempt brings the parties together. He has worked throughout his career for the general good, stepping across the party lines many times. I live in Arizona, his home state, and many times, he has mystified us because he appeared to support a socialist cause. In talking to him and I have does so a few times, he really tries to do what is best for the country.

Obama, well, he is the typical party hack, who says what each crowd wants to hear. It really mystifies me as to why the media does not go down the road of exposing his past and his varying stances on issues depending on what crowd he is speaking to. If the media would have done half the investigations into his past and his true stances that they did trying to find dirt on Sarah Palin, Hillary Clinton probably would be running against mcCain now.

If Obama is elected and he starts to put his program in, the divisions in this country will get worse than they are now. There will eventually be no middle ground.

[mkemse]

Purely on past records, McCain would be the president who could attempt brings the parties together. He has worked throughout his career for the general good, stepping across the party lines many times. I live in Arizona, his home state, and many times, he has mystified us because he appeared to support a socialist cause. In talking to him and I have does so a few times, he really tries to do what is best for the country.

Obama, well, he is the typical party hack, who says what each crowd wants to hear. It really mystifies me as to why the media does not go down the road of exposing his past and his varying stances on issues depending on what crowd he is speaking to. If the media would have done half the investigations into his past and his true stances that they did trying to find dirt on Sarah Palin, Hillary Clinton probably would be running against mcCain now.

If Obama is elected and he starts to put his program in, the divisions in this country will get worse than they are now. There will eventually be no middle ground.

If Mccain wins we have 4 more years of Bush Polucy as MCcAin has supported 95% of all Bush Policies

They can go back on Barack's life, but why bring up what happens in the 60's when he was 8 years old

We need the Candidates to use the last 3 weeks we have to STOP attacking each other to any degree and discuss the issues and their solutions, I personaly do not care who Obamam hung around with when he was 8 years old, he does not associate withthose people now, except on 1 board of directs he is on which has 5 Repulicans on it already anyway

Lets discuss the Housing Issue, Let's Discuss how us taxpayers get our $750 Billoin Dollars back after the Bail Out, Or how they plan to stock AIG for asking for money every other week then taking a $400 weekened outing

These issue concenr me far more the what Obamam did in the 60's

What impresses me, is after Barack got his College DEgree, he turned down countless "Wall Strreet" Job offer with Golden Parachutes, but chose instead to return to Chicago and work in the Inter City, haven't hear MccAin do anything like that
As far as an American Heroe, yes no question McCain is an American Heroe, but so is Bruce Jenner and Nicheal Phelps, but all in different ways
And I do not mean to discredit McCain for his Heroe for survinig being a POW, or his service to his country, but thses qualitfictions alone do not qualify you to be a President

The REality is, if you are drowing 50 yards out from the shore, and see a person standing there with a rope and life presever, you want to know if they can throw the preserver to you and not if they are a Repbulican, Democrat, White, Black, Asian ect
The REality is, when Clinton left office we HAD a $450 Billion Dollar SURRPLUS and Gas was only $1.75 a gallon,

When Bush leaves, we will have a Defecit of almost $1 TRilloin Dollars and be paying $2.50-$3.00 for a Gallong of gas,

I bring this up only because McCain supports most of the current Policies the we have now and needless to say, i can honeslty say NO I AM NOT BETTER NOW THEN I WAS 4 or even 8 YEARS GO, Mccain will simply be 4 more years of Failed Bush Policies

[DesertDom]

If Mccain wins we have 4 more years of Bush Polucy as MCcAin has supported 95% of all Bush Policies

Really hard to discuss on a cogent basis politics when tired political talking points are the only thing being used. To say that McCain is 4 more years of Bush is absurd. McCain has been known for years as going his own way, he thought about leaving the RP because of his beliefs not being mainstream Republican and he is not well thought of here in Arizona amongst conservatives because of his tendency to reach across the aisle and support non conservative issues. I am not a big fan of McCain for his tendency to compromise conservative principles, but out of the 2 choices, he is the better choice for me.



What impresses me, is after Barack got his College DEgree, he turned down countless "Wall Strreet" Job offer with Golden Parachutes, but chose instead to return to Chicago and work in the Inter City, haven't hear MccAin do anything like that

I wold tend to agree with you there about McCain not serving as a community organizer hobnobbing with the likes of Rezko (sp?), McCain was busy serving in the military defending the right to free speech in his younger days.



The REality is, when Clinton left office we HAD a $450 Billion Dollar SURRPLUS and Gas was only $1.75 a gallon,

If you look beyond the political talking points again, you will find that most of the Clinton 'surplus' was achieved by removing money from the SS Genral Fund and was nothing more than an accounting manuever.

[mkemse]

Really hard to discuss on a cogent basis politics when tired political talking points are the only thing being used. To say that McCain is 4 more years of Bush is absurd. McCain has been known for years as going his own way, he thought about leaving the RP because of his beliefs not being mainstream Republican and he is not well thought of here in Arizona amongst conservatives because of his tendency to reach across the aisle and support non conservative issues. I am not a big fan of McCain for his tendency to compromise conservative principles, but out of the 2 choices, he is the better choice for me.



I wold tend to agree with you there about McCain not serving as a community organizer hobnobbing with the likes of Rezko (sp?), McCain was busy serving in the military defending the right to free speech in his younger days.



If you look beyond the political talking points again, you will find that most of the Clinton 'surplus' was achieved by removing money from the SS Genral Fund and was nothing more than an accounting manuever.


ok i will give you that, but so have milloins of other in the service Mccain is/was not the only servinbg our coutry to defend our right nor was he the only POW we ever had, THIS IS IN NO WAY TO DISCREDIT HIM for what he did and went through
Bush only served in the Texas National Guard
I have no issue exceot that Mccain as President to me, is 4 more years of Bush Policies, he has recently tried to distance himself from BUsh, BIG MISTAKE he should have done that MONTHS AGO and not waited til he was a far behind in the Polls ect as he is now, distancing him now to me was nothingf more then a Politcal move based on his past support of Bush, andwithout sounded sexist which iam sure is how this will come out
I think he made a HUGE Mistake is selecting Palin,It was said he did this to attrack Clinton Followers, I seriously doubt alot of her followers would support him, since Palin and Clinton Politicaly are as differnet as summner and winter, but this is just my opnion
and i real apprciate your remarks and comments on thisthread

thank you

[mkemse]

Really hard to discuss on a cogent basis politics when tired political talking points are the only thing being used. To say that McCain is 4 more years of Bush is absurd. McCain has been known for years as going his own way, he thought about leaving the RP because of his beliefs not being mainstream Republican and he is not well thought of here in Arizona amongst conservatives because of his tendency to reach across the aisle and support non conservative issues. I am not a big fan of McCain for his tendency to compromise conservative principles, but out of the 2 choices, he is the better choice for me.



I wold tend to agree with you there about McCain not serving as a community organizer hobnobbing with the likes of Rezko (sp?), McCain was busy serving in the military defending the right to free speech in his younger days.



If you look beyond the political talking points again, you will find that most of the Clinton 'surplus' was achieved by removing money from the SS Genral Fund and was nothing more than an accounting manuever.

even if that WAS thecase, we never the less have almost a Trilloin Dollar deficit right now, the largst in UnistedStates Histiry and oil has gone from $35 a Barrel with cliton to as high as $145 with Bush now back down to about $70 no commodity in US Histry has ever gone up that much in 8 years, if so kindly tell me which one, i have heard omtheradio from Commodities Brokers who said over the last 8 years no commodity has ever gone up 150% in 8 years much less oil
Mccain may have "gone his own way" but he suupported the Iraq invasion, he supported the Tx Rebates, almost every Bill that Bush has signed he has agreed with

Actualy Ron Paul would have been a great choice

Let's have Ron Paul as a Democrat and let the Republicans have Joe Liberman, who to me anyway is a Party Traitor but that is only my opnion

thanks again for all your replies and feeback

I for one will be THRILLED after November 4 is over, just to have it over, enough is enough already

[denuseri]

I actually believe the democratic party betrayed Lieberman. Just as it did Kilpatrick so many years ago.

[Ragoczy]

Looks like a pretty good plan to me.

However, i don't get to vote so i won't comment further. What i really hope tho is that whoever will be your next president he's capable of bringing you guys and gals closer together again. From over here in Europe it sure looks as if you could use a president that unifies and doesn't alienate Americans further from each other.

That's not going to happen. Obama is so far-left that I simply can't support him -- and I voted for Bill Clinton twice. (I also think Clinton should have been charged with perjury, but that's a different issue.)

The Left in this country will simply not be satisfied with a centrist, which McCain actually is (by American standards). His history of bipartisan legislation (McCain-Feingold, -Leiberman, -Kennedy, etc.) is irrelevant to a large, vocal horde.

[Ragoczy]

If Obama wins and all inidcation w/3 weeks to go are he will do so, let's all give him a chance to prive himaelf
I f you are looking for a New Car, don't NOT buy it because you have a neighbor who does not likes his, YOU try drivinf irt and see f you like it

After 8 years of Bush, we ayt least need to give him chance to prove himself, we don't like he, we vote again in 4 years
I do not want a "Bush Clone" for another 4 years

"Let's give him a chance" only works if there's doubts about his policies. I know I don't want socialized medicine in this country and that's his plan. I know, because it's been historically proven, that increasing capital gains taxes will harm the economy and cost jobs. I know that increasing the minimum wage results in job losses and is primarily a tactic to increase union wages.

I don't need to give the man a chance to know I don't want him doing these things.

[mkemse]

I actually believe the democratic party betrayed Lieberman. Just as it did Kilpatrick so many years ago.

No Lieberman betrayd the Dems. not sure how you seem the Dems betyraying him??
He was the Dem who lost his election, He WAS THE DEM who Decided to Run as an Independnt, he was The Dem who indorsed MCCain and spoke at The Repbulcan Convention,, i seem NO Democratic Beytrayl here, i see lots of Lieberman betryal here however, please clarify that

thanks

[mkemse]

That's not going to happen. Obama is so far-left that I simply can't support him -- and I voted for Bill Clinton twice. (I also think Clinton should have been charged with perjury, but that's a different issue.)

The Left in this country will simply not be satisfied with a centrist, which McCain actually is (by American standards). His history of bipartisan legislation (McCain-Feingold, -Leiberman, -Kennedy, etc.) is irrelevant to a large, vocal horde.


Mccain will be 4 more years of unsucceful Bush policy Obama at least brings a clean slte in, the country seems to be behind Obamam and I believe thier anger towards Bush is the reason MCcain will loose, not necessarily because MCcAn supports most of Bush's Policy, but I believe America is just tried of Republican Ruler (or lack there of) over the last 8 years, McCain's loss if he does loose is more of Bush's fault the his own and rhe RNC sais ysetrday that if he did NOT score a huge win in the last Debate, that they will strat to funnel there money to stater and local election where REubplcans are trying to hold onto seats in both houses
Seems to me The RNC is abandoning thier own choice for President, and they formal took all ad moey out of Michigan today as well as cancelling all future ads there, McCain said he wants to keep runing ads there to try and catch up, the RNC said NO

[Ragoczy]

Let's have Ron Paul as a Democrat and let the Republicans have Joe Liberman, who to me anyway is a Party Traitor but that is only my opnion

The treatment of Leiberman by the Democrat Party was despicable in my opinion.

He disagreed with the party-line on a single issue and had the moral courage to stick with his convictions, so they go after him politically. Is there actually no room for disagreement with the party-line? Is it really all-or-nothing?

I've never heard of the Republican Party doing something like that. In fact, my own Representative is a Republican and voted against the surge -- he didn't think it was a good idea. There were no political repercussions -- the Party didn't withdraw their support and throw it behind a challenger for his seat.

You know, believe it or not, I self-identified for years with the Democrat Party -- and it's crap like their treatment of Leiberman and Zel Miller that drove me away.

[denuseri]

It is funny how the former VP pick for the party of Al Gore has been literally blacklisted for standing up for whats right.

The Dems and especially the media often have hung him out to dry becuase he refused to allow Ned Lamont (a party yes man) to walk in and take his seat?! Or becuase he is Jewish and subsecuntly supports Isreal?

Sounds to me its the ussuall liberal propaganda at work yet again, if you disagree with even a small position on the party dogma and dont allways do as your told, watch out we will brand you a traitor or kick you to the curb unless your Ted Kennedy then your excused becuase your drunken royalty?!


"I'm a loyal Democrat, but I have loyalties that are greater than those to my party, and that's my loyalty to my state and my country."

Joe Lieberman

I have allways liked Lieberman becuase he doesnt follow party lines so much as he follows whats right.

[DesertDom]

I actually believe the democratic party betrayed Lieberman. Just as it did Kilpatrick so many years ago.


No kidding, Lieberman did an incredibly courageous thing in backing someone who he felt was the right choice irregardless of party lines. He knew what it would cost him and did so anyway. He deserves a lot of respect for having the courage to follow through on his convictions.

And it is incredibly telling for those who bother who to pay attention how the Democratic party treated him.

[Ragoczy]

No Lieberman betrayd the Dems. not sure how you seem the Dems betyraying him??
He was the Dem who lost his election, He WAS THE DEM who Decided to Run as an Independnt, he was The Dem who indorsed MCCain and spoke at The Repbulcan Convention,, i seem NO Democratic Beytrayl here, i see lots of Lieberman betryal here however, please clarify that

thanks

That scenario only holds water if you start at him losing the primary. Look at the reason he lost the primary: he didn't follow the party-line on one issue and the party threw all its support behind a challenger for his seat. What follows isn't him "betraying", it's him standing on principle and not rolling over.

Again I ask: Is there no room in the Democrat Party for personal conviction? Is it all party-line?

[mkemse]

That scenario only holds water if you start at him losing the primary. Look at the reason he lost the primary: he didn't follow the party-line on one issue and the party threw all its support behind a challenger for his seat. What follows isn't him "betraying", it's him standing on principle and not rolling over.

Again I ask: Is there no room in the Democrat Party for personal conviction? Is it all party-line?

Yes there, is but there do not seem to be ANYONE currently in the Adm of Repbublicans who have ANY convictions at all,do not misunderstand, I am NOT saying Repbulicans have no convictions, only those Associated with the current President
There are in general as many Bad Democratic as Republicans, this i am sure is something we can all agree on??
Could I have voted for McCain if the Economy was bette, yes but he is in my opion still to closly alligned to Bush, he may be trying to distance himself from Bush in genenral,, but it is too late to do that now with just 3 weeks to go
Yes McCain stands up for his beliefs,yes he served with honor in the Srvice, Yes he was a POW NO that in and of itself to me does not Qualify anyone bethey a Democrat or Republican to Run and Become President, not to mention I am not at all comfortable with Sara Paling,
If God Forbid anything happened to the President be it Obama or MccAin, YES I feel far more comfortable with Biden taking over then I do with Pain, Governor for less then 2 years abd a Mayor of a town of 6,000 who only has 45% turn out for her election, so even in a town of 6.000 she still could not manage to get 50% of the vote

[Kuskovian]

Funny how Biden changed his tune about Obama; especially when he said he would be proud to stand as McCain's VP and didn't think Obama had what it took to lead the nation.

McCain is a good solid leader that has actually fought for his country.

Obama hasn't done anything other than pull the wool over his followers eyes. He is going to lead our nation to ruin if given half a chance.

Just becuase McCain is from the same party doesnt mean he is another Bush. But hey any analogy that works, even if it has no basis in fact, is fair game for most democrats right?

We shall just ignore the fact that for his entire career McCain has been on the opposite side from Bush's in the struggle to see who leads the Republican Party's ideology.

Sara Palin might be brand new, she may not have been my first pick (Lieberman was) but at least she is honest, especially compared to the alternative, besides she has real spirit. I believe she has more of what it takes by far than his majesty Barrak Hussien Obama.

The economey isnt going to be fixed by taxing the piss out of the small business owners. Joe the Plumber will be in the poor house in less than a year with Obama in charge.

The war with the nazi influenced terroists isn't going to end just becuase a democrat says so. They will only grow stronger if we pull out of the middle east and other areas that they are congregating in. It is going to take a leader with great resolve and wisdom to defeat them. Not some self serving naive pedagogue with "good intentions" on his lips and no balls in his pants who couldn't lead spit into battle.

[mkemse]

Funny how Biden changed his tune about Obama; especially when he said he would be proud to stand as McCain's VP and didn't think Obama had what it took to lead the nation.

McCain is a good solid leader that has actually fought for his country.

Obama hasn't done anything other than pull the wool over his followers eyes. He is going to lead our nation to ruin if given half a chance.

Just becuase McCain is from the same party doesnt mean he is another Bush. But hey any analogy that works, even if it has no basis in fact, is fair game for most democrats right?

We shall just ignore the fact that for his entire career McCain has been on the opposite side from Bush's in the struggle to see who leads the Republican Party's ideology.

Sara Palin might be brand new, she may not have been my first pick (Lieberman was) but at least she is honest, especially compared to the alternative, besides she has real spirit. I believe she has more of what it takes by far than his majesty Barrak Hussien Obama.

The economey isnt going to be fixed by taxing the piss out of the small business owners. Joe the Plumber will be in the poor house in less than a year with Obama in charge.

The war with the nazi influenced terroists isn't going to end just becuase a democrat says so. They will only grow stronger if we pull out of the middle east and other areas that they are congregating in. It is going to take a leader with great resolve and wisdom to defeat them. Not some self serving naive pedagogue with "good intentions" on his lips and no balls in his pants who couldn't lead spit into battle.

Thanks for your feedback and may the Best Man win, the one the VOTERS want be it MCcain or Obama, 3 weeks from tonight we will all know
I will just be glad all the Ad will be over

[mkemse]

Thanks for your feedback and may the Best Man win, the one the VOTERS want be it MCcain or Obama, 3 weeks from tonight we will all know
I will just be glad all the Ad will be over

Actualy as I understand it thr RNC said No Way to Lieberman
Palin Lack in experiece to be VP, Joe Biden doesn't, and as far as lack of experience ot be President, that is what everyone said about JFK., not to mention he was Roman Cathlic, so beteen these to things Kennedy had "against him" he did win

Wonder what it would be like today if JFK, RFK and MLK were still around, makes for instrestingthought if nothing else

[Kuskovian]

Ironic how Palin has more executive experience than Barry Obama and the democrats still want to bring up experience. LOL.

JFK bumbled and got inordinately lucky at best yet he was at least willing to put his life on the line for his people so I don't begrudge him that and I would pick him over Barry any day. Hubert Humphrey however would have made a far better President, too bad he wasn't rich enough to have a chance at beating John out of the primary.

My bet is things would be far worse if the three stooges of American royalty were still around. A good example is Teddy, drunk as a self intitled skunk.

Unfortunatly as Plato pointed so deftly out so long ago; in a democracy the best man very often doesnt win as opposed to the one that currys favor to the mob.

With Barry having so many advantages in the twisted politically correct world view of lies, it will be very hard for the best man {McCain} to win.

Our only hope is that enough people will come forward out of thier complacency to vote becuase they are fed up with the liberals bullshit and thier agenda of destroying everything good and true about America.

[DesertDom]

Palin Lack in experiece to be VP,

This is another liberal talking point that would be entertaining if it wasn't so sad.

A huge media focus on Palin's perceived lack of experience, so much that she can't be trusted to be VP. But, no one says a word about obamas only 3+ years of experience in the Senate. The last 18 months or so he has been running for office and not even tending to his job in the Senate.

And he is qualified to be Pres based on that? Quite the double standard.

[Ragoczy]

Let not him who is houseless pull down the house of another, but let him work diligently and build one for himself, thus by example assuring that his own shall be safe from violence when built. -- Abraham Lincoln


The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not. -- Thomas Jefferson


"Your new tax plan is going to tax me more, isn't it?" the plumber asked, complaining that he was being taxed "more and more for fulfilling the American dream."

"It's not that I want to punish your success. I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they've got a chance for success too," Obama responded. "My attitude is that if the economy's good for folks from the bottom up, it's gonna be good for everybody ... I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."

Which one doesn't belong?

[hopperboo]

Which one doesn't belong?
Oh, oh, oh!

*Hopping up and down raising hands.*

I know, I KNOW!

The third one!!!

[denuseri]

Poor poor joe, he aint alone in this, i am paying my fair share too. Of course i shall be equally screwed in November if Obama wins.

Though i bet hezbolla and iran will be just peachy.

[Muskan]

Accoring to me, both maccain and Obama are wrong and epreciating for america.

McCain promises to "take on" the drug companies, as if those who produce and market the medicines that improve and save human lives must be fought; he promises to ration energy by means of a cap-and-trade scheme, as if the government has a moral or constitutional right to dictate how much energy a company may purchase or use; he promises to "battle" big oil, as if those who produce and deliver the lifeblood of civilization need to be defeated; he promises to "reform" Wall Street, as if those who finance the businesses that produce the goods and services on which lives of americans depend are thereby degenerate; he seeks to uphold the ban on drilling in ANWR, as if the government has a moral or constitutional right to prevent Americans from reshaping nature to suit their needs; and so on.

Obama promises to socialize health care (under the tired euphemism of "universal health care"), as if insurance companies, doctors, and patients have no right to use or dispose of their property or to contract with one another according to their own judgment; he promises to increase the minimum wage, as if employers and employees lack those same rights; he promises to pour taxpayer money into "alternative energy," as if the government has a moral or constitutional right to confiscate money from productive citizens in order to subsidize tilting windmills; he promises to force oil companies to fund government handouts to Americans, as if the owners of oil companies have no right to their property or profits; he promises to bail out homeowners who cannot pay their mortgages, as if the government has a moral or constitutional right to make some people pay for the financial mistakes or hardships of others; he promises to "incentivize" students to do "community service" by offering them taxpayer-funded college tuition, as if the government has a moral or constitutional right to do so; and so on.

In regard to foreign policy, McCain promises to "respect the collective will of US democratic allies," as if America has no moral right to defend her citizens according to her own best judgment; and he promises to finish the "mission" of making Iraq "a functioning democracy" even if it takes "one hundred years," as if the U.S. government has a moral or constitutional right to sacrifice American soldiers to spread democracy abroad.

Obama promises to uphold the idea that "America's larger purpose in the world is to promote the spread of freedom. . . . dignity, and opportunity," as if Americans have a moral responsibility to minister to the uncivilized and the unfortunate across the globe; and he promises to negotiate with jihadists who chant "Death to America," as if Americans will be safe from these lunatics when the lunatics give Obama their word.

Both candidates hold that the purpose of government is to manage the economy, to regulate businesses, to redistribute wealth, to bring freedom or democracy to foreigners, and to defer to the will of others on matters of American security.
But this is not the proper purpose of government.
A government is an institution with a monopoly on the use of physical force in a given geographic area. The proper purpose of government is, as the Founding Fathers recognized, to protect each individual's right to live his life as he sees fit (the right to life); to act on his own judgment, free from coercion (the right to liberty); to keep, use, and dispose of the product of his efforts (the right to property); and to pursue the goals and values of his choice (the right to the pursuit of happiness). The way government achieves this vital purpose is by banning the use of physical force from social relationships and forbidding foreigners to physically harm citizens or their property. And, crucially, because government is an agent of force, it too must be prohibited from misusing force, which is why the founders wrote the U.S. Constitution, the purpose of which is to limit the power of government to the protection of individual rights. A proper government does everything necessary to protect individual rights and nothing that in any way violates individual rights.
Should a businessman be free to keep, use, and dispose of the wealth he produces—or should he be forced to hand some (or all) of it over to those who did not produce it? The answer one gives depends on whether one thinks a person is morally entitled to the product of his effort—or morally obligated to serve others.

Should doctors, patients, and insurance companies be free to contract voluntarily with one another—or should the government dictate the terms of their agreements? The answer one gives depends on whether one thinks individuals have a moral right to act on their own judgment for their own sake—or a moral "duty" to sacrifice for their neighbors or "the poor" or society.

Should a nation's leaders rationally, self-interestedly decide, given all the relevant facts, how best to defend their country's citizens from foreign aggression and then act accordingly—or should those leaders selflessly defer to the judgments of leaders of other nations? The answer one gives depends on whether one regards acting on independent judgment as morally correct—or deferring to a "collective will" as the right thing to do.


I use to love America, I use to think that it woul be great if I get a chance to be a citizen of America, my brother lives there and it was so easy for me to shift, but I gave up that idea, its not the america which I used to love.
This america which Maccain or Obama are promising, is no better than India, America is depreciating its values.
This crisis, Ohh comeon! I am not talking of economic crisis, (actually there's no economic crisis its just a hoax) The crisis I am talking about is the Moral Ethical crisis. Americans lost their ethical identity. I wish they retain it somehow.
I see america NOT as a country fastly moving towards freedom of Individual providing soveriegnity for each an every individual in himself, on the other hand, America is slowly becoming a collectivists state under the statist government. America is becoming socialist and communist, I fear America itself will turn out to be a new soviet union. what a disgrace!

[DesertDom]

Last One Turn Out the Lights: Marines Quietly Begin Leaving Bases in Iraqi Cities
Friday , October 17, 2008

By Jennifer Griffin


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,439612,00.html



Interesting how good news out of Iraq is not reported by the 'unbiased' main stream media. This story, whether you like the war in Iraq or not, is substantive proof that George Bushs surge policy is working. The policy which John McCain supported wholeheartedly.


But if CCN and the 'unbiased' media outlets would report on Irag progress and successes, that would give props to McCains past decisions. Does anyone else wonder why the many Iraq successes aren't reported to the masses who don't bother to figure things out for themselves?

[DesertDom]

Accoring to me, both maccain and Obama are wrong and epreciating for america.



Muskan, very well thought out post. I agree with quite a few points that you have made. Given where our country is going and anyones realistic ability to stop the slide, I adhere to a policy of supporting the least damaging candidate in elections now. Not a big fan of McCain for some of his positions, but given the other guys blatant socialist plans, there is really no other choice for me in this election, since 'none of the above' is not a viable choice. :)

[denuseri]

Which is exactly why i am voting for McCain and Palin, (especially Palin in my book) the best chance for us to reclaim our traditional values lays with those two.

[DesertDom]

Which is exactly why i am voting for McCain and Palin, (especially Palin in my book) the best chance for us to reclaim our traditional values lays with those two.

I happened to be in Jueanu the night of Palin's RNC speech and Anchorage for the following week. I asked a lot of people what they thought of her and they were almost to a person extremely complimentary of her, saying that she had reduced state spending, got rid of of unnecessary state jobs and pushed to get more revenue in by trying to expand energy options. The only guy that did not like her was someone who lost a job due to a cutback, understandable I guess. How people spoke in glowing terms said a lot about here, I wonder if she realized the hack job that DNC was going to do to her when she accepted the VP offer?

The art of the political smear is not restricted to the DP, but they sure are damn good at it. You have to wonder if they would have put up a woman on their ticket with similiar experience levels howe they would have defended her?

In any case, I have to agree with you, I was supportive, but not too enthused about McCain until he chose Palin. She is a breath of fresh air with a great moral compass. If McCain manages to win, there is a good chance she could be the first female president. Now wouldn't that be something?

[Muskan]

Barack Obama is currently campaigning on the promise of a middle class tax cut, just like candidate Bill Clinton did in 1992. Clinton exhorted that the top 2% of earners pay 'just a little bit more' to make this tax cut a reality. 43% of the people bought it, and Clinton won the presidency. Isn't it similar to the case of Obama?


In February 1993, President Bill Clinton addressed the country by saying "I've worked harder on this than anything I've ever done in my life, and while I said I'd like to lower your taxes, I can't." He then increased federal income taxes on all four brackets. Later that year, the Senate faced the issue and with a 50-50 deadlock, Al Gore cast the deciding vote. It determined the vote for increasing taxes was going to pass. And they got a chance to take out more money forcibly from the citizens as compulsory taxation.
Barack Obama has also used same tactics of social welfare.
I feel that maybe more americans now just don't really care, and are letting media biases determine their thoughts and actions. There are plenty of first time voters in this election that are eager for the chance to vote against the Republican Party, and will obviously have no recollection of the "big lie" Clinton played on the masses.
How far into an Obama presidency will he retract his middle class tax cut promise? Will he wait several weeks, a few weeks like Clinton, or will he renounce it before he even takes office? It's not a matter of if, it's a matter of when.
How can anyone trust that Obama will keep his word about tax cuts, when he also has so many expensive programs on his agenda? How can anyone trust what is being presented in Obama's campaign?

[Dr_BuzzCzar]

"Make it a hundred...That would be fine with me." -to a questioner who asked if he supported President Bush's vision for keeping U.S. troops in Iraq for 50 years

"I'm going to be honest: I know a lot less about economics than I do about military and foreign policy issues. I still need to be educated."

"My friends, we have reached a crisis, the first probably serious crisis internationally since the end of the Cold War." --on Russia's invasion of Georgia, forgetting crises such as the Gulf War, 9/11, and the Iraq war, Aspen, Colorado, Aug. 14, 2008

"In the 21st century nations don't invade other nations." --on Russia's military action against Georgia, Birmingham, Mich., Aug. 13, 2008

"We have a lot of work to do. It's a very hard struggle, particularly given the situation on the Iraq-Pakistan border." --referring to a border that does not exist, ABC News interview, July 21, 2008

"I was concerned about a couple of steps that the Russian government took in the last several days. One was reducing the energy supplies to Czechoslovakia." --referring to a country that no longer exists, Phoenix, Arizona, July 14, 2008

"The issue of economics is not something I've understood as well as I should. I've got Greenspan's book."

"You know that old Beach Boys song, Bomb Iran? Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran." --breaking into song after being asked at a VFW meeting about whether it was time to send a message to Iran, Murrells Inlet, South Carolina, April 18, 2007

"Well, it's common knowledge and has been reported in the media that Al Qaeda is going back into Iran and receiving training and are coming back into Iraq from Iran. That's well known. And it's unfortunate." -before correcting himself by saying Iran was training "extremists," not Al Qaeda (There's that Sunni, Shia thing again, right John?)

"No one has supported President Bush on Iraq more than I have."

"The fact is that I have agreed with President Bush far more than I have disagreed. And on the transcendent issues, the most important issues of our day, I've been totally in agreement and support of President Bush. --"Meet the Press" interview, June 19, 2005

"It's not social issues I care about."

"There are neighborhoods in Baghdad where you and I could walk through those neighborhoods today." --prior to visiting a Baghdad market while being flanked by 22 soldiers, 10 armored Humvees, and two Apache attack helicopters

"Our economy, I think, is still -- the fundamentals of our economy are strong." --Jacksonville, Fla., Sept. 15, 2008

"Opening up the health insurance market to more vigorous nationwide competition, as we have done over the last decade in banking, would provide more choices of innovative products less burdened by the worst excesses of state-based regulation." --in the Sept./Oct. issue of Contingencies

..and John McCain has zero "executive experience" or for that matter he has had zero private sector experience either.

Another Republican with "Daddy" issues.

I already voted...care to guess who for?

[denuseri]

I voted early today at the local polling station.

Thanks for the preeceeding post providing a bunch of quotes (alltough it would be nice to know who said them) personifing the smear campagin of Obama and the media against the Republicans.

It just proves as Muskan said that they are willing to say anything they can get away with to win.

[Dr_BuzzCzar]

I voted early today at the local polling station.

Thanks for the preeceeding post providing a bunch of quotes (alltough it would be nice to know who said them) personifing the smear campagin of Obama and the media against the Republicans.

It just proves as Muskan said that they are willing to say anything they can get away with to win.

100% of the quotes are by John McCain. No smearing, just quoting what the man said.

[DesertDom]

100% of the quotes are by John McCain. No smearing, just quoting what the man said.

I'm sure that you would not mind providing the journalistic atribution for these quotes. Please don't point to some wacko blog making things up speaking to the "talking point kiddies".

I would expect to see dates, times, witnesses, etc.

[hopperboo]

I'm sure that you would not mind providing the journalistic atribution for these quotes. Please don't point to some wacko blog making things up speaking to the "talking point kiddies".

I would expect to see dates, times, witnesses, etc.
+1

I'm sure some of them where taken out of context also.

That is what they were doing on the Obama T.V. adds, showing clips of his speeches that made it seem like he was talking about a whole other topic.

Total B.S.

[DesertDom]

+1

I'm sure some of them where taken out of context also.

That is what they were doing on the Obama T.V. adds, showing clips of his speeches that made it seem like he was talking about a whole other topic.

Total B.S.

What is sad is when the "talking point kiddies" read something somewhere and either are 1) ideologically driven, don't have the 2)time or 3)intelligence or )4 just plain lazy and don't bother to investigate what they are reading, no matter how absurd it is.

Too bad there are those on both sides of any issue who vote and have no idea what they are voting on or for.

[Dr_BuzzCzar]

I'm sure that you would not mind providing the journalistic atribution for these quotes. Please don't point to some wacko blog making things up speaking to the "talking point kiddies".

I would expect to see dates, times, witnesses, etc.

Most (but not all) are annotated with when and where. They are snapshots of the changes this particular politician has made in his stances and what I believe to be insights into him as a man. I worked for Sen McCain in 2000 in SC. I was badly disappointed in the turns he took after 2004. I no longer believe I know where he really stands. Couple that with an overspending administration and incredibly ineffective foreign policy decisions and I am ready for a change. From my perspective the Republicans have lost their way as a party. The party of Rockefeller, Goldwater, Reagan is not well represented by this current crop. maybe they resurface as the fiscally conservative, small government party that really does care about people. I hope so.

[Ironwulf]

What is sad is when the "talking point kiddies" read something somewhere and either are 1) ideologically driven, don't have the 2)time or 3)intelligence or )4 just plain lazy and don't bother to investigate what they are reading, no matter how absurd it is.

Too bad there are those on both sides of any issue who vote and have no idea what they are voting on or for.

Yes, you are correct and this thread is sadly proof of that. I recommend that anyone who really wants to know the facts regardless of the candidate you happen to support, go to this site and read the facts.

http://www.factcheck.org/

Then VOTE, you only get the goverment you want if you VOTE.

Letting others VOTE so you don't have to be bothered with making the effort to get the change you want only gets you the goverment they VOTED for.

[mkemse]

I agree and as someone once said "If you do not vote, do not complain about who won"

[Diablo]

I wasted my time reading 'nobama' supporters and 'McCan't' supporters talk past each other.

truly sad

If you don't want to even bother trying to see the truth then none of you should vote.

[lucy]

hehehe, Diablo, you sure got a point there. And if the president of the United States wouldn't make decisions which likely affects people all over the world it would just be plain fun to follow the campaign. The way it is, it is scary rather than funny.

[DesertDom]

Most (but not all) are annotated with when and where. They are snapshots of the changes this particular politician has made in his stances and what I believe to be insights into him as a man. I worked for Sen McCain in 2000 in SC. I was badly disappointed in the turns he took after 2004. I no longer believe I know where he really stands. Couple that with an overspending administration and incredibly ineffective foreign policy decisions and I am ready for a change. From my perspective the Republicans have lost their way as a party. The party of Rockefeller, Goldwater, Reagan is not well represented by this current crop. maybe they resurface as the fiscally conservative, small government party that really does care about people. I hope so.


Sorry, that is not journailistic attribution, what you have provided really gives no way for an intelligent thinker to determine if the quote ever was 1)actually said, 2) taken out of context or is 3) true. If a person did not actually hear something being said in a live context (video, etc) or in person, that person should take the time (as previously mentioned) to validate some of the outlandish things being attributed to politicians in this election or any other.


There is a good defintion of attribution and journalistic ethics on this url: http://www.dailypress.com/services/site/dp-attribution,0,3251750.htmlstory.

excerpts:


ATTRIBUTION

Attribution is to a newspaper story what footnoting is to a dissertation. It lets readers know where our information comes from. Relatively little of what we report is based on our own direct observation; we rely mostly on information gathered from others: human sources, government documents, library research, etc.

The attribution we attach to the information we publish allows our readers to judge for themselves the quality of our sources and of the information those sources provide. It tells them we have done our homework, that we don't just invent what we print.

Part of any complete attribution is a complete identification of the source, particularly a human source. The motives of those who press their views upon journalists must be routinely examined, and, where appropriate, revealed to the reader. That way, the reader can judge just as the reporter did the quality of the information being presented, whether it's from an impartial observer or from someone who gains by a particular spin on the truth.

end of excerpt

With the growth of the wacko partisan blogs and weakening of overall journalistic integrity, validating a statement and source is more important than ever when you try to make an informed decision.

[Ironwulf]

I wasted my time reading 'nobama' supporters and 'McCan't' supporters talk past each other.

truly sad

If you don't want to even bother trying to see the truth then none of you should vote.


What you say is correct, however the problem in America goes far beyond talking past each other. In America we are seeing a polarized nation which BECAUSE people do not vote our leaders are selected by just a small percentage of the citizens and knowing this they do not feel beholden to the general population that did not elect them in the first place.

The problem with that is the people who do vote are the people who's beliefs are on the extreme edges of the political ideal spectrum. The two sides hate each other and what they believe in, for them the only truth is their truth.

Whether that truth is valid for the masses is not important.

The politicians have learned that to win only requires taking one or the other extreme positions then moderating it just enough to get a majority of the undecided people who do still go out and vote to lean their way.

Politicians who try and take the center ground lose because the center no longer votes in numbers great enough to win a election without one of the extreme sides help.

Knowing this has allowed politicians to run wild in Washington and it has only become worse as time passes and more and more of the idealogical center stops voting.

People in this country need to wake up and realize that having conserative or liberal ideals is not unamerican nor unpatriotic and that both are just parts of the idealogical compromise required by people of different backgrounds with different hopes and dreams trying to live on the same planet.

Thats all I have to say about that.
.

[Diablo]

The polarization is in large part based on the labeling from the NeoCon movement and Americans being dumb enough to fall for it.

Ex. The real america/americans and small town values.

An American is an American regardless of state or income but if they question anything they are are labeled extreme, dangerous, eltitist.

As a libretarian I should want to vote republican but for the past 10 years the party has fallen into the hands of the neocons and religious right. A very dangerous combination. They hide behind values and the flag while attempting to take liberties and increase power. They scare you about those liberal elitists over there, and say that they want to take from you and ruin your way of life.

So if I have to choose I'll choose the socialist over the despot but I prefer option C.

[Muskan]

America needs something like..... Atlas Shrugged Revisited!
America now needs Jhon Galts and Howard Roarks!

[Kuskovian]

Unfortunately in our current political system, its a matter of trying to choose the lesser of two evils.

As my Seri said in a different thread, we in America often are forced to vote based upon which cantidate we would most like to be "fucked" by at the time.

Voter apathy is a direct result of our own prosperity and it is that same prosperity which history reminds us is a breeding ground rife for complacency.

[Kuskovian]

The polarization is in large part based on the labeling from the NeoCon movement and Americans being dumb enough to fall for it.

Ex. The real america/americans and small town values.

An American is an American regardless of state or income but if they question anything they are are labeled extreme, dangerous, eltitist.

As a libretarian I should want to vote republican but for the past 10 years the party has fallen into the hands of the neocons and religious right. A very dangerous combination. They hide behind values and the flag while attempting to take liberties and increase power. They scare you about those liberal elitists over there, and say that they want to take from you and ruin your way of life.

So if I have to choose I'll choose the socialist over the despot but I prefer option C.

One could just as easily say the polarization is the fault of the elitest ultra left wing radical socialist democrats.

The fact of the matter is it is a combination of both!

Our political system itself is designed in such a fashion that it propogates opposition by nessesity for the focusing of political clout.

[hopperboo]

They hide behind values and the flag while attempting to take liberties and increase power. They scare you about those liberal elitists over there, and say that they want to take from you and ruin your way of life.
I must totally disagree with you.

It's the liberal left that is wanting to increase their power. They hide behind more freedom and rights, when really all they are doing is making more laws against one's rights.

Look at the Democratic's with their smoking bans in public for one shining example.

[mkemse]

I am not sure the the smoking ban is strickly a Democratic thing, plus if you were a non smoker, would you want those who do to smoke around you?? second hand smoke is a legthal a smoking yourself, and I am a smoker and i have learned non smokers and reformed smokers do liketo be around anynow that smoke, be it cigs, pipes or cigars

[hopperboo]

I am not sure the the smoking ban is strickly a Democratic thing, plus if you were a non smoker, would you want those who do to smoke around you?? second hand smoke is a legthal a smoking yourself, and I am a smoker and i have learned non smokers and reformed smokers do liketo be around anynow that smoke, be it cigs, pipes or cigars
No, some Reps support it too, but in the majority they believe each business should choose for itself. It's the Dems that really are pushing for it, as a ban on society.

And I am a non-smoker. I hate that people smoke around me. But if I support taking away their right to smoke because it's unhealthy for me, what is next? Maybe we should take away guns because there have been killings? Or maybe we should take away bars, because some people drink and drive after going out.

If one starts taking away some rights...it's just going to have a domino effect.

[js207]

I am not sure the the smoking ban is strickly a Democratic thing, plus if you were a non smoker, would you want those who do to smoke around you?? second hand smoke is a legthal a smoking yourself, and I am a smoker and i have learned non smokers and reformed smokers do liketo be around anynow that smoke, be it cigs, pipes or cigars

That doesn't justify absolute smoking bans even outdoors - I can understand not wanting to be in a confined space with a smoker, but banning them even in dedicated smoking areas or outside? That's just draconian.

[DesertDom]

That doesn't justify absolute smoking bans even outdoors - I can understand not wanting to be in a confined space with a smoker, but banning them even in dedicated smoking areas or outside? That's just draconian.

Its the slippery slope.

Once people willingly allow some freedoms and rights to be taken away, there is continual pressure by social reformers or those with agendas to 'improve' , close 'loopholes' or otherwise adjust the current version to protect more of us.

On the smoking thing, there have been attempts by cities to ban smoking within the complete city limits.

Sometimes you just got to wonder when it is all going to stop. George Orwells book '1984' was incredibly prescient.

[mkemse]

That doesn't justify absolute smoking bans even outdoors - I can understand not wanting to be in a confined space with a smoker, but banning them even in dedicated smoking areas or outside? That's just draconian.

True but most places I have seen that ban smoking outside are Governement Funded and it was a Federal Mandate not State
And Most if not all Major Corporations now prohbit and have for years prohbitied smoking within 50-100ft of their property
If you look at places like Abbott Labs, Baxter Labs, ect they banned smoking within 50-100ft of their property long before it was mandated to do so saying it was a health issue with 2ns Hand Smoke and I nkow of 1 Corporation (sorry I do not recall the name right of hand) that has exteneded no smoking beyond their property, they will not hire smokers (health insurance reasons) or allow them to even smoke in their homes or cars, but when you think aboutthat, a person apllying to wor there knows that before they are hired, so they have no reasonto complain about that Corporate Policy

[Diablo]

I must totally disagree with you.

It's the liberal left that is wanting to increase their power. They hide behind more freedom and rights, when really all they are doing is making more laws against one's rights.

Look at the Democrat's with their smoking bans in public for one shining example.

Look at Bush and especially Cheney trying to expand the power of the executive branch. How the religious wing of the party tries to ban gay marriage.

While I do smoke the smoking bans are along the lines of seat belt laws.

Under Bush and the neocons the size of the government has grown to its biggest size ever and the rights of Americans have been reduced. I can be arrested and detained indefinitely of secret warrants, is it likely to happen? Of course not, but they have made a system where it is possible.

So as I already said I will choose a socialist over a despot but would rather have a libertarian.

[mkemse]

Bush & Company have placed themselves abovethe law, what ever they want to do, they do

[hopperboo]

I agree. I think Bush is a POC, but disregarding him, it's the reps that want less laws, more freedoms.

[Thorne]

I nkow of 1 Corporation (sorry I do not recall the name right of hand) that has exteneded no smoking beyond their property, they will not hire smokers (health insurance reasons) or allow them to even smoke in their homes or cars, but when you think aboutthat, a person apllying to wor there knows that before they are hired, so they have no reasonto complain about that Corporate Policy

That's true, but the other side of the coin should also be considered. To my, admittedly uncertain, knowledge, it is illegal in most states for any business to declare themselves a smoking establishment. You cannot post a sign on your door that says "Smokers Only". And the same rationale applies: anyone wanting to work in that business, or enter the business, knows beforehand that smoking will be occurring, and shouldn't have any complaints because of it.

And for the record, I am a reformed smoker, been smoke free for over 17 years now and I'm glad of it. But I still don't like the idea of discriminating against smokers. I would venture to guess that more people die of second-hand alcohol related causes (victims of drunk drivers, for example) than do of second-hand smoke.

[Thorne]

I agree. I think Bush is a POC, but disregarding him, it's the reps that want less laws, more freedoms.

It's in the nature of any politician or bureaucrat, regardless of party affiliation, to want more laws, not less. That is how they attempt to maintain control of an increasingly intelligent and angry electorate.

[Ironwulf]

I agree. I think Bush is a POC, but disregarding him, it's the reps that want less laws, more freedoms.

All americans, republicans or democrates want less laws and more freedoms.

The problem is in deciding which republician sponsored laws should be kept and which democrate sponsored laws should be kept.

Who decides?

Many women feel that the law giving the right of choice is a fundamental right for all women. However, there are constant attempts by the republicans to take this freedom of choice away.

Many people feel the right to bear arms is a freedom that must be protected but each year there are democrate sponsored bills to reduce those rights.

Who decides?

You see that is the problem that results when any group of people wants to impose their values on the masses. It would be nice to say "ok everybody just stop it and let each of us live our lives as we want" but do you think they will?

No, they won't, if for no other reason then some media personality has told them that our country can not survive if you let those other people choose how to live their lives. Those people are not responsible enough to do the right thing without someone forcing them to live like they are told and of course they know who is the right person to do the telling, just ask them.

Until we as a nation grow up enough to take responsibility for ourselves and no longer rely on others to tell us how we should live and how others should not live we will continue as a nation who's polices are based on intolerance not freedom.

.

[mkemse]

It's in the nature of any politician or bureaucrat, regardless of party affiliation, to want more laws, not less. That is how they attempt to maintain control of an increasingly intelligent and angry electorate.

No, in Bushes Case it isn't more laws, it is simply making Laws to suit his needs
He as President has violated more Law then virutaly any President in our History

[Thorne]

No, in Bushes Case it isn't more laws, it is simply making Laws to suit his needs
He as President has violated more Law then virutaly any President in our History

Congress repeatedly passes laws which tend to apply to everyone but the Congress. It doesn't really matter whether it is controlled by Democrats or Republicans. The only difference is in the types of laws enacted. And remember, too: the President cannot pass laws. Only the Congress can do that. I don't think the President can even propose laws directly. Only his cronies in the Congress can propose them, though he no doubt initiates many of them.

And one other thing to remember. Although the Republicans have raised the national debt to record levels, the real problems with our economy didn't start until after the Dem's took control of Congress. I don't think we can honestly blame the current problems on only one person or party. It's everyone's fault, President, Congress, the banks, Wall Street, even the average American, who sees nothing wrong with building massive credit card debts. We are all to blame, to one degree or another.

[Muskan]

"I like to think of fire held in a man's hand. Fire, a dangerous force, tamed at his fingertips. I often wonder about the hours when a man sits alone, watching the smoke of a cigarette, thinking. I wonder what great things have come from such hours. When a man thinks, there is a spot of fire alive in his mind--and it is proper that he should have the burning point of a cigarette as his one expression."
Ayn Rand!

None of this has changed, nor has the danger of smoking changed, nor even the knowledge of it; any honest smoker can tell you that his stamina and health are affected by smoking, and that it can be difficult to stop smoking. (Ayn Rand smoked for many years, until her doctor told her to quit. She put the cigarette out in his office and never smoked again.)

What has changed is that today's liberals have decided that they can build a more totalitarian government by attacking cigarette companies. By creating a "public awareness" about the dangers of smoking they create the impression that the government is more concerned with your health than you are, thus the need for Medicare and the FDA. By painting the tobacco company executives as manipulative crooks, they create the impression that only the government can control the "ruthless greed" of all businessmen, and so justify the Antitrust Division of the Justice Department. Through legislation and prosecution, they have empowered a generation of litigious, anti-business, anti-conceptual lawyers who will sue anyone for anything. (The lawyers behind the anti-tobacco lawsuits are also behind suits against gun manufacturers and HMOs, to name but two popular targets.)

I can now understand why Ayn Rand said she isn't libertarian!

[mkemse]

Congress repeatedly passes laws which tend to apply to everyone but the Congress. It doesn't really matter whether it is controlled by Democrats or Republicans. The only difference is in the types of laws enacted. And remember, too: the President cannot pass laws. Only the Congress can do that. I don't think the President can even propose laws directly. Only his cronies in the Congress can propose them, though he no doubt initiates many of them.

And one other thing to remember. Although the Republicans have raised the national debt to record levels, the real problems with our economy didn't start until after the Dem's took control of Congress. I don't think we can honestly blame the current problems on only one person or party. It's everyone's fault, President, Congress, the banks, Wall Street, even the average American, who sees nothing wrong with building massive credit card debts. We are all to blame, to one degree or another.

I know only Congress can pass laws, but Bush seems to have the ability to "skirt" the law or interpret it the way that suits him regardless of the result
and he did the same thing as Governor Of Texas, he did it HIS WAY
He set some very ugly 1st's as Governorand has continued to as President, but Iwill give him credit for being consistant and he did not even win 1 term in Office, the Repulican Supremem Court gift wraped 1 term after Florida's Hanging Chad Fiasco

[mkemse]

All americans, republicans or democrates want less laws and more freedoms.

The problem is in deciding which republician sponsored laws should be kept and which democrate sponsored laws should be kept.

Who decides?

Many women feel that the law giving the right of choice is a fundamental right for all women. However, there are constant attempts by the republicans to take this freedom of choice away.

Many people feel the right to bear arms is a freedom that must be protected but each year there are democrate sponsored bills to reduce those rights.

Who decides?

You see that is the problem that results when any group of people wants to impose their values on the masses. It would be nice to say "ok everybody just stop it and let each of us live our lives as we want" but do you think they will?

No, they won't, if for no other reason then some media personality has told them that our country can not survive if you let those other people choose how to live their lives. Those people are not responsible enough to do the right thing without someone forcing them to live like they are told and of course they know who is the right person to do the telling, just ask them.

Until we as a nation grow up enough to take responsibility for ourselves and no longer rely on others to tell us how we should live and how others should not live we will continue as a nation who's polices are based on intolerance not freedom.

.


Most House Resolutions if not all are Public Record including it's Sponsor
Any Bills Passed in Congress are Public REcord and they always idicated who sponsored a particular bill

[QuietMaster]

Bush & Company have placed themselves abovethe law, what ever they want to do, they do


... plus McCain and Palin project the belief that they are the legimitate heirs to the White House, by royal decree.

Consequently, it is their rights for the electorate to proceed with their coronation ceremonies on November 04.

Interesting concept, indeed.

[QuietMaster]

So as I already said I will choose a socialist over a despot but would rather have a libertarian.



Sharing these videos.

Enjoy !!


PS: I participated on a political forun regarding the UN representatives, and foreign countries perspectives on the US elections.

Sharing two of the videos I presented during that discussion as an example on how others view Obama.

======================

Barack the Magnificent -- by Mighty Sparrow

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ntSalB09uzM

Caribbean people for Barack the Magnificent
Obama-Mania is spreading and there's no cure or vaccine :)

Why not Obama?

http://www.barackobama.com

Song by the Mighty Sparrow:
The calypso king has been writing, performing and recording for almost 50 years.

http://www.mightysparrow.com

======================

Barack We Love You

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sgy6vL8ch8w

[Muskan]

The US are the most important economy in the world for ONE SINGLE FACTOR:

- It is the ONLY large economic area where there are still free markets and entrepreneurship is valued.

Switzerland, Hong Kong, Singapore and to a much lesser degree New Zealand and a few other areas are also rather good, but they are very, very small compared to the US.

In economic terms, they do matter: Switzerland is the 7th largest exporter of services and the 13th largest exporter of industrial goods, which is an absolutely stunning performance for a country of just 7 million, but the US achieve performances not that far off with 300 million people.

No economy that is less free than the US can ever compete with the US, period!

The only way any other economy will ever be able to compete and overtake the US is if either:

- the US see their economic AND individual freedom substantially reduced (and I hope even Obama, if he were elected president, would not be able to do that, although it's exactly what he'd want)

- some other large country increases their level of freedom substantially to the point of being equal to or better than the US for at least 2 generations.

A bureaucratic monster like the EU will NEVER be competitive.

Anyone who thinks the EU as it is now could compete with the US is a fool.

As for China, it's easy to have massive growth rates as long as you're just catching up with the status quo, but once you're close to that level, things can only improve through INNOVATION and that only happens when there is both, economic AND individual freedom.

Economic freedom has gained substantially, it is now possible to be an entrepreneur in China, but the limits are there: after a certain point, you have to cozy up with government or one of the groups close to government and that's the end of the entrepreneurial freedom.

That's why a falling US market means a falling Chinese market.

This is a fact!

So why is America choosing the ideas of Redistribution of Wealth"?
Everyone working according to his abilities and getting according to his needs" That's what Marxism is, that's what curse is. We all know that without proper discrimination of abilities and profits, no development can ever happen, because it is detrimental.
So are the americans ignoring that reality?


Barack Obama on Chicago Public Radio WBEZ-FM, 2001: The Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society... and one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was, um, because the civil rights movement became so court focused I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change. In some ways we still suffer from that...

Is Obama a Marxist? Bidden gets angry!
http://in.youtube.com/watch?v=sQXcImQfubM

2001 OBAMA: 'TRAGEDY' THAT 'REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH' NOT PURSUED
http://www.drudgereport.com/

[mkemse]

... plus McCain and Palin project the belief that they are the legimitate heirs to the White House, by royal decree.

Consequently, it is their rights for the electorate to proceed with their coronation ceremonies on November 04.

Interesting concept, indeed.

Then that explains why the RNC ordered 2 Thrones for the White House (sorry, could not resist that after your reply :)) Plus McCain supports 95% of Bush's Policies andsince most jave veeb so succeful, and plans to continue on the same basic path, wht no feel they have an inherent right to the White House

[QuietMaster]

So why is America choosing the ideas of Redistribution of Wealth"?


Redistribution/distribution of "wealth" has existed for millenia and millenia, etc., -- through taxation.

This is nothning new whether in the "western" economies and/or the centrally planned economies [ Russia and the former soviet/commumist bloc ].

The tier/structure of income levels are the focused issues regarding the differences with Obama's and McCain's proposals.

Obama's proposal places more money into the hands/pockets of wider segments of society where each individual/business.corporation can use the money for his/her specific preferences.

McCain's proposal places more money into the hands of the super-rich individuals/corporations with the hope that benefits will "trickle down" to the broader base of society.

[QuietMaster]

Then that explains why the RNC ordered 2 Thrones for the White House (sorry, could not resist that after your reply :))


They also ordered a third throne for the "first Dude of Alaska". *LOL*

[mkemse]

They also ordered a third throne for the "first Dude of Alaska". *LOL*

I hear that also, byw Palin said if she wins she wants to present herslef as a more Middle Clas Women and wil only buy her clothes from Neiman Marcus to make her point

[mkemse]

The Heritage Foundation which is Ultra Right Wing, even said today that Obama's Tax Plan is Far better for Middle Class workers then McCain's is

[hopperboo]

The Heritage Foundation which is Ultra Right Wing, even said today that Obama's Tax Plan is Far better for Middle Class workers then McCain's is
Until Obama ups his taxes again.

It's not going to help jobs. It's not going to help small businesses that are trying to grow.

And it certainly won't help the middle class long term.

The 'poor' (I use this term loosely) people will remain poor and the rich people are just going to be pissed about taxes.

[skp2bear]

After voting Republican for many years I am voting today for Obama. We are forgetting in our government laws may be proposed by the president but short of martial law only congress can enact laws. 90% of Bush's proposals were rejected or just ignored by Congress. It was congress who gave Bush his powers. Inmy eyes Iraq was the wrong move but the faulty information came from outside the US through the Clinton white house. I feel we need someone who may bring a much needed breath of fresh air be it right or wrong. Maybe it will get us out of our rut. To me Palin is another Clinton just guilty of a different moral sin.

[mkemse]

Until Obama ups his taxes again.

It's not going to help jobs. It's not going to help small businesses that are trying to grow.

And it certainly won't help the middle class long term.

The 'poor' (I use this term loosely) people will remain poor and the rich people are just going to be pissed about taxes.


Only time will tel, let's see what happens let'sd also see who wins, i feel a Sunami coming nov 4th
I am 100% far worse now theni was in 2000

if all tha is coreect, then why are all the Conservative Columnists supporting Obama, why is Palin own home neewpaper not even supporting her??

[mkemse]

After voting Republican for many years I am voting today for Obama. We are forgetting in our government laws may be proposed by the president but short of martial law only congress can enact laws. 90% of Bush's proposals were rejected or just ignored by Congress. It was congress who gave Bush his powers. Inmy eyes Iraq was the wrong move but the faulty information came from outside the US through the Clinton white house. I feel we need someone who may bring a much needed breath of fresh air be it right or wrong. Maybe it will get us out of our rut. To me Palin is another Clinton just guilty of a different moral sin.

I knoe alot of very conservatives people, who have told me after 8 years they simply at least in 2008 can not vote Republican again

[mkemse]

Until Obama ups his taxes again.

It's not going to help jobs. It's not going to help small businesses that are trying to grow.

And it certainly won't help the middle class long term.

The 'poor' (I use this term loosely) people will remain poor and the rich people are just going to be pissed about taxes.

Go to Taxcutfacts.org, type in your income it will compare the tax break difference between Obamam and McCAin, it is an INDEPENDENT company, not affiliated with any Political organization
on a comparison, the person that recieive as $1,000 tax credit on Obama's Plan will only get $100 back on McCains check thesite out yourself and see

I just went their, on any annual income of $40,000 with zero dependdent, under Obam's Plan you get $500 back under McCain's you only get $473, rgranted it is not to much different but thereality is you still get back more on Obama's plan then on McCain, the site is setup specialy to compare your income, dependns ect versus their Tax Plan try it out see who will give you more back
This is NOT based on "fantasy" but thereality of informat of the site

[mkemse]

If you make $20,000 no depedent ect under the Obamam Plan you will get $1,000 back under McCain's Plan you get $0.00 back yes you get nothing back under McCains plan being single, with an annual income of $20,000

[denuseri]

Please!!! does anyone really think Obama is going to enact any of the Total BS he is promising to get into office other than to raise taxes and reduce the freedom of the people?

I find it hard to believe but it looks like Machieavelli is right, the masses may really be ignorant sheep.

A vote for Obama is a vote for the decline of weastern civilization and the fall of America.

The Liberal agenda has been, in one way or another, slowly eroding both of these since its advent around the turn of the last Century. We can thank Marx for that snowball.

Every single traditional value that has made us great is attacked and destroyed by them every chance they get, allways under the guise of trying to promote so called politically correctness and tolerance when they are the least tolerant people in the world. In actuallity all they have ever done is inadvertantly feed the burecratic beast and erode freedom.

It's change they want all right, change to a faceless tyranny of inividualistic wellfare state whorship.

Orwell was certianly right to fear the "left". Just as Plato and others before him.

[tazzinnc]

If you make $20,000 no depedent ect under the Obamam Plan you will get $1,000 back under McCain's Plan you get $0.00 back yes you get nothing back under McCains plan being single, with an annual income of $20,000

Thats because you would be paying ZERO income tax to start with !!!!
If you make under 20 grand now you pretty much get it all back anyway, so how do you need a tax cut ?

You should NEVER be able to get back more than you paid in, and that does not include paying into the scheme known as Social Security.

[mkemse]

Please!!! does anyone really think Obama is going to enact any of the Total BS he is promising to get into office other than to raise taxes and reduce the freedom of the people?

I find it hard to believe but it looks like Machieavelli is right, the masses may really be ignorant sheep.

A vote for Obama is a vote for the decline of weastern civilization and the fall of America.

The Liberal agenda has been, in one way or another, slowly eroding both of these since its advent around the turn of the last Century. We can thank Marx for that snowball.

Every single traditional value that has made us great is attacked and destroyed by them every chance they get, allways under the guise of trying to promote so called politically correctness and tolerance when they are the least tolerant people in the world. In actuallity all they have ever done is inadvertantly feed the burecratic beast and erode freedom.

It's change they want all right, change to a faceless tyranny of inividualistic wellfare state whorship.

Orwell was certianly right to fear the "left". Just as Plato and others before him.
After 8 years of what we have gone through, Obamam desrve a shot, Mccain will follow what Bush has done his Senate voting record support his supporting Bush 95% of thetime, thisi s a public records
If McCain win, gas will go up to $10 a galoon and we will be in Iraq til then end of time
Nobody yet has shown that Obamam will not do his tax cuts, he dersrve a chance to show he will McCain in another 4 years of failed Bush Policies

[mkemse]

Thats because you would be paying ZERO income tax to start with !!!!
If you make under 20 grand now you pretty much get it all back anyway, so how do you need a tax cut ?

You should NEVER be able to get back more than you paid in, and that does not include paying into the scheme known as Social Security.

Under Obama's plan id you make $40,000 you get approx $1,800 back under McCain you get $157

Even the Heritage Foundation and Ultra Conservative Right Wing Group has Publicly stated Obama's Tax program offer more the McCaons does

Wewill see what happens a vote for McCain isa vote for 4 more years of Bush Policies

[mkemse]

Please!!! does anyone really think Obama is going to enact any of the Total BS he is promising to get into office other than to raise taxes and reduce the freedom of the people?

I find it hard to believe but it looks like Machieavelli is right, the masses may really be ignorant sheep.

A vote for Obama is a vote for the decline of weastern civilization and the fall of America.

The Liberal agenda has been, in one way or another, slowly eroding both of these since its advent around the turn of the last Century. We can thank Marx for that snowball.

Every single traditional value that has made us great is attacked and destroyed by them every chance they get, allways under the guise of trying to promote so called politically correctness and tolerance when they are the least tolerant people in the world. In actuallity all they have ever done is inadvertantly feed the burecratic beast and erode freedom.

It's change they want all right, change to a faceless tyranny of inividualistic wellfare state whorship.

Orwell was certianly right to fear the "left". Just as Plato and others before him.


I have no seen anytying that he will not enacted it, til i see that I can't say he won't, i lie to see evidence that soemthing will not happen, rather then assuming it won't

Nobody thought JFK hasd a chance in the World to win in the 60's to youg, too inexperieinced and at the time anyway Roman Cathlicx, loo at histroy on that

I have no see anything not believe believe in his tax program

[mkemse]

Thats because you would be paying ZERO income tax to start with !!!!
If you make under 20 grand now you pretty much get it all back anyway, so how do you need a tax cut ?

You should NEVER be able to get back more than you paid in, and that does not include paying into the scheme known as Social Security.

Not true, i had a job years ago that paid me $19.500 a year, i had to PAY income taxes never got anything back

[mkemse]

Please!!! does anyone really think Obama is going to enact any of the Total BS he is promising to get into office other than to raise taxes and reduce the freedom of the people?

I find it hard to believe but it looks like Machieavelli is right, the masses may really be ignorant sheep.

A vote for Obama is a vote for the decline of weastern civilization and the fall of America.

The Liberal agenda has been, in one way or another, slowly eroding both of these since its advent around the turn of the last Century. We can thank Marx for that snowball.

Every single traditional value that has made us great is attacked and destroyed by them every chance they get, allways under the guise of trying to promote so called politically correctness and tolerance when they are the least tolerant people in the world. In actuallity all they have ever done is inadvertantly feed the burecratic beast and erode freedom.

It's change they want all right, change to a faceless tyranny of inividualistic wellfare state whorship.

Orwell was certianly right to fear the "left". Just as Plato and others before him.

I am far more fearful of Sarah Palin becoming President then I am of Obamam winnig, even her own hom town paper said she is too much of a risk

If McCAin looses, he will loosei n part because of his choice of a runnig mate
He wanted to appeal to Hilalry Democrats so he chooses someone who is 100%the oposite of Clinton, not a lot of sensethere
Plus in an interview she wasaksedwhat t he VP actualy does mher reply "I run the Senate" no shedoes not, all shedoes is cast tie breaking votes and even the RNC aid her answerwas not rright
Shewill sink McVains boat

[hopperboo]

Please!!! does anyone really think Obama is going to enact any of the Total BS he is promising to get into office other than to raise taxes and reduce the freedom of the people?

I find it hard to believe but it looks like Machieavelli is right, the masses may really be ignorant sheep.

A vote for Obama is a vote for the decline of weastern civilization and the fall of America.

The Liberal agenda has been, in one way or another, slowly eroding both of these since its advent around the turn of the last Century. We can thank Marx for that snowball.

Every single traditional value that has made us great is attacked and destroyed by them every chance they get, allways under the guise of trying to promote so called politically correctness and tolerance when they are the least tolerant people in the world. In actuallity all they have ever done is inadvertantly feed the burecratic beast and erode freedom.

It's change they want all right, change to a faceless tyranny of inividualistic wellfare state whorship.

Orwell was certianly right to fear the "left". Just as Plato and others before him.


Sorry. I just had to quote this again.

Because I think it needs to be...

Read.

Again.



And then re-read.



Did you re-read it?

Now are you seriously going to vote for Obama?




...I think I need to take a step back. At least until this crap is over, because I am starting to get really pissed.

[hopperboo]

Seriously though. Re-read it.

[mkemse]

Sorry. I just had to quote this again.

Because I think it needs to be...

Read.

Again.



And then re-read.



Did you re-read it?

Now are you seriously going to vote for Obama?




...I think I need to take a step back. At least until this crap is over, because I am starting to get really pissed.

I live in the United State Of America, where I have Freedom Of Choice, yes I fully plan to vote for the person I feel is right forthe job and they are not part of the current party in office

i end my portion of this thread for myself here

Let's see what happens Tuesday

[mkemse]

My not Supporting McCain has more to do with HIS choive of a VP then anything else
I grindge at the slighity chance she has to become President if McCain is unable to fulfill his full term
And yes I could support other Feamles as VP just no Palin sorry

[hopperboo]

I live in the United State Of America, where I have Freedom Of Choice, yes I fully plan to vote for the person I feel is right forthe job and they are not part of the current party in office

i end my portion of this thread for myself here

Let's see what happens Tuesday
Yup. I guess we'll agree to disagree. :)




And I have to agree with you in part about Sarah Palin. I don't think she is VP material even if I like(ish) her as a person. She doesn't step back enough on topics, among other things in my opinion.

:wave: for now! :D





p.s. And sorry about using the "you" in my last post. I am really trying not to do that because it's more offensive and finger pointing towards people. I just didn't take the time to breathe and re-read my post before I posted it. It wasn't meant as an attack on "you."

[mkemse]

Yup. I guess we'll agree to disagree. :)




And I have to agree with you in part about Sarah Palin. I don't think she is VP material even if I like(ish) her as a person. She doesn't step back enough on topics, among other things in my opinion.

:wave: for now! :D





p.s. And sorry about using the "you" in my last post. I am really trying not to do that because it's more offensive and finger pointing towards people. I just didn't take the time to breathe and re-read my post before I posted it. It wasn't meant as an attack on "you."

No offense taken
but I am glad we agree on Palin, if i had any doubts about her, the fact that the Alaks Tribune enfodred Obama and the fatc that she told a 3rd grader that the VP controls congress and the RNC had to step in scare me, she is runnig for an office and does nor even knowwhat her job intales
she just scars me, and many havesaid if McCain does loose it may be mre do it his terible choice of a bad VP then anything else, she could very well cost him the White House

[Torq]

OK,,Folks time for my ""Fair Warning"" post!!!!

STAY ON TOPIC,,,,AND,,,, EVERYONE IS ENTITLED TO THEIR OPINION

http://www.bdsmlibrary.com/forums/showthread.php?t=14615

As my old saying goes;;;

""Opinions are just like assholes,,everyone has one and most of em stink"""

LMAO!!!!!!!!!

Thanks

T

[mkemse]

Thanks and no problem

[hopperboo]

Yep. And I think we had it all hashed out before hand. :)

I got a little too grumpy and had already (as one can tell) apologized for it.

[QuietMaster]

A vote for Obama is a vote for the decline of weastern civilization and the fall of America.

The Liberal agenda has been, in one way or another, slowly eroding both of these since its advent around the turn of the last Century. We can thank Marx for that snowball.

Every single traditional value that has made us great is attacked and destroyed by them every chance they get, allways under the guise of trying to promote so called politically correctness and tolerance when they are the least tolerant people in the world. In actuallity all they have ever done is inadvertantly feed the burecratic beast and erode freedom.


:wave: Would appreciate an indication of the: :)

1. Specific tenets that would be the decline of weastern civilization and the fall of America.

2. The traditional values under attack.

3. Specific areas of freedon that are eroded.

[denuseri]

I would hope that it is obvious. Why for me NObama:

Specific tennents include but are not limmited to the following mainly becuase they are far too numerous to expound upon without writing a book:

One symptom is we have a negative birth rate now in both weastern Europe and America which is a direct result of the decline of family values, more and more family is pushed aside for the sake of individual feedom or choice. Low or negative birth rates all too often are a warning sign of cultural decline, it happened to the Greeks, and the Romans, Now it happens to us. Number one offender for this, liberal feminism.

Why?
Becuase Ordinary Men and Women are no longer considered to be capable of raising or educating thier families with out forced intervention by the state. A state sponsered education includes the indoctronation of Dewey's one sided view of liberal principles. Leading to an overall lowering of educational standards. As opposed to the study of the classics and applicable science. Virtue is no longer stressed, honor means dont get cuaght, and how to think is trumped by what to think.

Traditions involving the family, religion and morality have been shoved aside as backwards or ignorant. And replaced with the worship of the scientific state, be politically correct or be branded a dinosuar, speak aginst it and you are a fanatic.

The home is no longer sacrosant! The state is allowed to intervine at will (especially into homes of the poor) demoting the traditional will of the parents and introducing regardless of good intentions chaos into the home, you cant even punish your children or enforce disipline (which directly leads to higher crime later) without fear that the state will confiscate your children or imprison you.

Shuttleing the child off to be taken care of by the state from the single parent home, since mom or dad or both probably wouldnt put up with each other and have left. Pervading dependence on the mercy of society to take care of you.

Socialism is the primary focus of the liberal state, its anti business and pro redistribution of welf approach decries the end of personal ownership and promotes total dependence on the wellfare of the state. In the pursuit of individual entitlement (the twisted liberal view of freedom) one eventual will find only the tyrantical totalitarian control of the faceless buracracy.It wont carry on any kind of endeavor that requires great effort, it will simply plod complacenty along until it succumbs to anarchy or the rise of a dictator.

Its also a state that lacks real fortitude or any sence of survival. It will nuckle under to terroists and any other boogy man that wishes to extort it. The complacent lack of will to deal with Terroism and illegal imigration are two prime examples of decline.

Just like the Romans...

... our own barbarians are very much at the gates.

Which is why I didnt vote fo Obama, what he believes in will only usher in our fall

[lucy]

One symptom is we have a negative birth rate now in both weastern Europe and America which is a direct result of the decline of family values, more and more family is pushed aside for the sake of individual feedom or choice. Low or negative birth rates all too often are a warning sign of cultural decline, it happened to the Greeks, and the Romans, Now it happens to us. Number one offender for this, liberal feminism.
That's wrong. The most important reasons for declining birthrates are, tataaa!!!: Growing wealth and better education (especially of women) Feminism is playing a part too, but not in the way you are implying.
Look at scandinavian countries, or France, where equality and chances for women are amongst the best in the western world (and one could pretty safely assume that this is due to liberal feminism): They have also the highest birthrates.
Of course you could try and turn back time to that ooooh soooo glorious times when women where just working slaves and birth machines. However, i think (and hope) you would be pretty much alone.

Btw, i never heard of liberal feminism in classic Rome or Greece, but i could be mistaken.

[mkemse]

:wave: Would appreciate an indication of the: :)

1. Specific tenets that would be the decline of weastern civilization and the fall of America.

2. The traditional values under attack.

3. Specific areas of freedon that are eroded.

Nonoeo f this will happen everyone is assumingthat becase of BarCk's middle ame that he isa Muslum and will distroythiscountry even colin powelsaid"So wha if he is a Muslum, ntall muslumsare Terrorists"

People need to judge him based on who he is, what he wants to do to improve the country and focus lesson his name and color

BTW McCain was born in Panama, there are some that claim he was born in Panama before we took over, if this is the case McCAin is NOT a natural born citizen of the USA and does not even quaify to run

Let;s concentrate on the issues and not on names, heritage ect

Or is is very possible even in 2008, that some do not want Obama simply because he is Black??

[skp2bear]

They said our country wound be ruined when a Catholic was elected - JFK. We're still here. I'm not worried at all about his religion. His ideas are fresh. My hopes and prayers are that he can get at least some of what he suggests through the demigods who think they are running the government through their congressional positions.

[denuseri]

Not my words but the analogy is is oh so right on target:

"Once upon a time, there was a charismatic and eloquent young leader who decided his nation needed a change and that he was the one to implement it. The people were receptive and ready for change.

He spoke passionately when denouncing the existing system and the media loved him. Nobody questioned what he believed in or who his friends were. He would help the poor and bring free medical care and education to all. He would bring justice and equality. He said I am for hope and change, and I will bring you both. Few people bothered to ask about the change, and by the time the executioner's guns went silent, all personal firearms had been confiscated, along with most personal freedoms.

When everyone was finally equal, they were (and are) equally poor, hungry and miserable. Their free education was (and is) all but worthless. Their free and universal health care was (and remains) a travesty. When the change was fully implemented, the country had been reduced to Third World status. More than a million people fled in small boats and rafts.

The charismatic young leader was Fidel Castro; the nation is Cuba.

The citizens of the United States would never fall for a charismatic, eloquent young leader who promises hope and change without asking, "what kind of change, and how much will it cost us?" – would we?"

[denuseri]

For clarification purposes:

"One symptom is we have a negative birth rate now in both weastern Europe and America which is a direct result of the decline of family values, more and more family is pushed aside for the sake of individual feedom or choice. Low or negative birth rates all too often are a warning sign of cultural decline, it happened to the Greeks, and the Romans, Now it happens to us. Number one offender for this, liberal feminism."
I am not saying liberal feminisim cuased rome and greece's populations to fall I am saying the liberals promotion of it is leading directly to the fall of our own populations. Read the post in context please.

Populations fall for a varity of reasons and it allmost allways signals the fall or decline of a given cultural group throught history from the romans and greeks to the american indians and the aborigionies of austrailia to western civilizations today

[DesertDom]

BTW McCain was born in Panama, there are some that claim he was born in Panama before we took over, if this is the case McCAin is NOT a natural born citizen of the USA and does not even quaify to run



Please, you really need to investigate a talking point before repeating it. Its easy to spend a few minutes researching something before accepting it as the truth.

The Panama Canal Zone was created on November 18, 1903 with the signing of the Hay-Bunau Varilla Treaty. From 1903 to 1979 the territory was controlled by the United States of America, which had built and financed the canal's construction.

Since McCain was born August 29, 1936, he was born into what was legally considered a US territory.
A Senate bipartisan legal review agreed that McCain is a natural-born citizen of the United States, a constitutional requirement to become president. Here also is reporting of a federal law suit which ruled on the issue.
http://www.wtopnews.com/?sid=1354301&nid=213

[DesertDom]

They said our country wound be ruined when a Catholic was elected - JFK. We're still here. I'm not worried at all about his religion. His ideas are fresh. My hopes and prayers are that he can get at least some of what he suggests through the demigods who think they are running the government through their congressional positions.


I'm not concerned about his religion or his racial background. I am concerned about his socialistic bent of wealth distribution ( all clearly documented ) and his long associations with radical extremists.


Socialism has proven to fail everywhere it has been tried, why does anyone think it will work here?

[mkemse]

Please, you really need to investigate a talking point before repeating it. Its easy to spend a few minutes researching something before accepting it as the truth.

The Panama Canal Zone was created on November 18, 1903 with the signing of the Hay-Bunau Varilla Treaty. From 1903 to 1979 the territory was controlled by the United States of America, which had built and financed the canal's construction.

Since McCain was born August 29, 1936, he was born into what was legally considered a US territory.
A Senate bipartisan legal review agreed that McCain is a natural-born citizen of the United States, a constitutional requirement to become president. Here also is reporting of a federal law suit which ruled on the issue.
http://www.wtopnews.com/?sid=1354301&nid=213

and thats the point, of his being born in Panama is as irreveleavnt as wether Obama is Muslim, SO WHAT if he is, so what if Mccain was born on Panama, i am FAR more concenred about whehre they stand on issues then about their religion or place of birth

Even Clin POwell said abou Obamam being Muslim, "So what, do the Terrists make ALL Muslims bad people??"


i just want next Tusday Nov 4th to come and go so all these TV ads, radio ect ect will follow time out the door, enough of all of it now, let's vote and let the winner rejoice and let us gt our daily lives back o the way they were before the campaigns syarted

[Muskan]

FOX News Poll: Obama's Edge Over McCain Narrows
The race for the White House has tightened significantly -- with Barack Obama now ahead of John McCain by three percentage points -- according to a FOX News poll released Thursday.

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/30/fox-news-poll-obamas-edge-mccain-narrows/

[mkemse]

FOX News Poll: Obama's Edge Over McCain Narrows
The race for the White House has tightened significantly -- with Barack Obama now ahead of John McCain by three percentage points -- according to a FOX News poll released Thursday.

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/30/fox-news-poll-obamas-edge-mccain-narrows/

Then it comes as an equal balance, Fox is very conservative as a network and they will find pols that show Mccain creping up
In reality the ONLY pol that counts is the one that start Tuesaday Night after all the voting is done

CNN has Obama with 307 Electorl Votes McCain with 157, based on States that are projected to go either Red or Blue, but until the real toals come in Tuesday night, nobody real knows, and ifg they did i recommend the buy lotso f lottery tickets

[mkemse]

FOX News Poll: Obama's Edge Over McCain Narrows
The race for the White House has tightened significantly -- with Barack Obama now ahead of John McCain by three percentage points -- according to a FOX News poll released Thursday.

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/30/fox-news-poll-obamas-edge-mccain-narrows/

and do i believe the CNN poll showing Obama with 307 Electorla Votes and McCain at 156 or 167 NO I qill only believe what I see and hear Tueday night, when reality sets in, that won't bespecyulation it will be fact baed on votes actualy cast and counted

[Dr_BuzzCzar]

Socialism has proven to fail everywhere it has been tried, why does anyone think it will work here?

There's a huge difference between Social Democracies and Socialism. Just as no pure Democracy has ever worked long-term, no pure Socialist government has worked long term. This isn't exactly new news.

Reference: Central Intelligence Agency World Factbook (online edition)

The U.S. pays more for health care than any nation on earth yet there are 44 countries with infant mortality rates lower than ours. There are 42 countries with life spans greater than ours. We lag behind in education level, literacy, and prison population as a % of general population to name a few more. One thing that stands out is those that are ahead of us in those areas are overwhelmingly Social Democracies. Social programs aren't all automatically bad because the word "Social" is in them.

[QuietMaster]

FOX News Poll: Obama's Edge Over McCain Narrows

The race for the White House has tightened significantly -- with Barack Obama now ahead of John McCain by three percentage points -- according to a FOX News poll released Thursday.


The aggregate national support does not determine the election of the President.

Obama's lead over McCain varies from 3% to 11% -- with a national average of 6% -- as of October 30.

Obama has solidified the states that traditionally supports the Democrats while McCain is struggling to maintain those that are traditionally Republicans.

The actual support from state to state determines the outcome of the Presidential election based on the Electoral College votes gained by each party.

There are indications that McCain might perhaps even loose his home state - Arizona - support for Obama and McCain are very close. That is not good news for McCain in the last days of the election.

The real and true poll will be determined after the votes are counted on November 04, 2008.

[QuietMaster]

I would hope that it is obvious. Why for me NObama:

....

Which is why I didnt vote fo Obama, what he believes in will only usher in our fall


Each individual, of course, arrives at conclusion to vote for a candidate, based on his/her specific assesment.

I recognize and appreciate your explanation of your views.

Some of your points were addressed by others.

I will address one item in another post.

[QuietMaster]

Socialism has proven to fail everywhere it has been tried, why does anyone think it will work here?


1. In what specific ways do you see that happening in the United States?

2. Is the US Government's "bail out / support" to financial institutions a capitalist or societal intervention -- recognizing that it is a form of nationalization and direct government's management?

[QuietMaster]

One symptom is we have a negative birth rate now in both weastern Europe and America which is a direct result of the decline of family values, more and more family is pushed aside for the sake of individual feedom or choice.

Low or negative birth rates all too often are a warning sign of cultural decline, it happened to the Greeks, and the Romans,

Now it happens to us.

Number one offender for this, liberal feminism.


Feminism ... or women's rights is not the cause for low birth rate nor the decline in family values.

Historically, women in the United States, [ in the 1700's and 1800's ] were deprived of their basic rights to vote. I believe that is was in 1920, that women gained the right to vote.

In Canada, women were considered as " non persons" with no rights. When a group of women presented their case, in April, 1928, the Supreme Court of Canada determined/reconfirmed that women were not considered persons by the law of the land.

The matter was presented to the Privy Council in Great Britain which overruled the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada and declared in October 1929 that "Women are persons".

From that time, women in Canada gained the right to vote and the rights to numerous things that were deprived from thrm.

Historically, this is known as the "Women as Persons" case, a significant era for women in Canada.

The achievement, both in Canada and in the United States, can hardly be considered as liberal feminism that negatively impacts the advancements for women, their individual freedon and abilities to make their own personal choices.

[QuietMaster]

Traditions involving the family, religion and morality have been shoved aside as backwards or ignorant. And replaced with the worship of the scientific state, be politically correct or be branded a dinosuar, speak aginst it and you are a fanatic.


Both in Canada and the United States, there is a distinct separation of State and Church.

Belief/non-belief in religion is a personal matter between an individual, his/her family and his/her place of worship.

Each individual should respect another person and should not foist his/her religious beliefs and traditions on others.

Can you elaborate on where/how the State/Government has enacted laws, regulations, directives, etc., for people to:

a. Worship the scientific state.

b. Neglect their religious beliefs and traditions?

[mkemse]

The aggregate national support does not determine the election of the President.

Obama's lead over McCain varies from 3% to 11% -- with a national average of 6% -- as of October 30.

Obama has solidified the states that traditionally supports the Democrats while McCain is struggling to maintain those that are traditionally Republicans.

The actual support from state to state determines the outcome of the Presidential election based on the Electoral College votes gained by each party.

There are indications that McCain might perhaps even loose his home state - Arizona - support for Obama and McCain are very close. That is not good news for McCain in the last days of the election.

The real and true poll will be determined after the votes are counted on November 04, 2008.

Youyr last line of your post, is the TRUE story of it all, the REAL Poll will tell lthre whole story and that one will not be complete til Nov 4th or early Nov 5th depeprnding on how long itt ake to count ACTUAL votes the results turdays are the oinly ones that coun,t you can loo a a milloin polls but tuesdays rersults are all that matter now

[Muskan]

Which Obama association troubles you most?
Partial list:
*Tony Rezko
*William Ayers
*Rashid Khalidi
*Rev. Michael Pfleger
*ACORN
*Frank Marshall Davis
*Rev. Jeremiah Wright
*Rev. James T. Meeks
*Other(s)
*All
*None, I support Obama unconditionally
For more information (click on link below each name): http://www.barackobamaassociates.info/ (http://www.barackobamaassociates.info/)

[Muskan]

Here's a prediction of the future if McCain is elected, in picture form:
http://www.slashfilm.com/wp/wp-content/images/johnhurtv.jpg
Here's a prediction of the future if Obama is elected, in picture form:
http://www.cineclub.de/images/2006/03/v-wie-vendetta-2.jpg
The election is more than just close in terms of likely victor; it's an alarming future no matter what.
Neither of them are worth the paper the ballot is printed on. It's not just people like George W. Bush, but the fact that Americans have been lulled into things like "War on Drugs" or "War on Poverty" or "The New Deal" and a false dichotomy of two and only two selections for president, or any Congressional seat for that matter. That's what bothers me. It's why I feel America deserves to be fucked for another four years - because the last 8 years didn't teach anyone any lessons.
I miss Ron Paul in the race. Well he never was, what a shame! (not that Ron Paul is excellent for the post, but he is surely the best amongst the present)!

Anyways, GoodLuck America for the further exploitation of four years.

But, who can predict what will happen after four years?

I fear Obama getting the populist votes, will change the basic definitions of liberty in america and will cause an un-erasable effect. While Maccain is not that much effective, thats why he is lesser evil of the two great evils.

[mkemse]

Which Obama association troubles you most?
Partial list:
*Tony Rezko
*William Ayers
*Rashid Khalidi
*Rev. Michael Pfleger
*ACORN
*Frank Marshall Davis
*Rev. Jeremiah Wright
*Rev. James T. Meeks
*Other(s)
*All
*None, I support Obama unconditionally
For more information (click on link below each name): http://www.barackobamaassociates.info/ (http://www.barackobamaassociates.info/)

1. All he did was buy land from the guy, if i wasassociatedwith people i bought hings from and later they turned ou t bad i woiuld be alienatedfrom the world
2. Wlliams Ayers: he association was when is was 8 years old Obmama was raisedi n Haieaii and did not rretuen to work in chicago til he finished college

Rashid Khalidi- Khaldi started an community based serivce organiszation JOHN MCAin was the Chair of that committee, based on a article posat on yahoo new on wednesday oct 28 or 29

asfat as the other, if you make friend with people as you grow up in this world and of your 30 friends, 5 or 6 come under suspicion for missdeads or illegal activities but oyu have only asscoaited withthat or those people a few tiems, i hard feel that is guilt by association, as far as the Reverands go, Wright and meeks Obmam has countless times, denouced Wrights Remarks, the same with some ofthe others

what is impied herei s GUILT ONLY buy association

If i buy a house from someone convicted of fraud, am i guilty of guilt by associaition 5 years later simply because i knew the guy, therei s on proff i haveseem that Obmam had along term friendship with Resko, and r#zko donated to many Republicans and Democrats in various states over the years
What our nation has to do, is concentrate on the issue we face, where Obmam and MccAin stnad on ect issue and vote basedo n that, not on who they associatedwithy ears agom who Obmam hung outwith when he was 8 which is 40 years isago, i could care ess, did McCainrealy chair an community sercie organization Started by Rashid Khalidi?? if he did but is no longer associatedwith him, who cares, let';s get back to theissues in thiselection and get away from insults insinuationsd and dirt throuwing, enough is enough already on the dirst throwing

BTW Fox news conducteda surrey on Wed Oct 28, and found poeple felt his commcerial were more attacking on Obam then Obmama's on him, they sya that 585 of Obmam's commcerials, dela with thei ssues inthis campaign season, were 23% feel McCain is NOT explainig his view on most usses and if simlpy aatacking Obmama

Let's get throughthis stop all theattacks, insunuations, insult, wha tthe candidate did 5, 10 or 40 years ago and simpyl discuss what each candicate plans to do on each issue, I have only heard 1 candidate continuoulsy tell there plan for our issues

NOT thisi s not in defense of Obmama, NO thisi s not in defense of McCaobn or insupport of either

YES thisi s saying with 5 days left to go, let's deal with inssues that will effetc us then next 4 years and vehins, what their solutionbs are andstop the name calling enough of the namecalling aready i can't wait til 12am Wednesday Nov 5, all comcercials will be over, wh everwuins wins and we can move on with our lives
This repy does not support or is not intended to sUpporteither Candidate but rather just say let's move on. vote and be done with it

btw who do you want in 20102?? (LOL coulnd't reisist that)

I would like to add to part of my posth ere this is from yahoo new on oct 28 2008 regarding Rashid Khalidi- McCain Chair this organization that Khaldi started see the article below

ELECTION 2008
McCain gave funds to group co-founded by Khalidi
But organization pro-Western, Obama supported professor's anti-Israel efforts

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: October 29, 2008
6:29 pm Eastern


By Aaron Klein
© 2008 WorldNetDaily



Rashid Khalidi
JERUSALEM – Sen. John McCain chaired an organization that granted substantial funding to a Palestinian research group co-chaired by Mideast professor Rashid Khalidi, a harsh critic of Israel and apologist for Palestinian terror.

The report – first carried by the Huffington Post website – comes amid harsh criticism from McCain's campaign of Sen. Barack Obama for his personal and financial ties to Khalidi.

The website documented how in the 1990s, while he served as chairman of the International Republican Institute (IRI), McCain distributed several documented grants, including one worth about half a million dollars, to the Center for Palestine Research and Studies, or CPRS, a West Bank organization associated with Khalidi.

Unreported by the Huffington Post is that the CPRS, with which Khalidi was for a time moderately involved, is pro-Western and can be characterized as pro-Israel.

Its work has been condemned by the Palestinian leadership and by local terror groups as "Zionist propaganda."

In contrast, the Khalidi organization Obama helped fund as a board member for a nonprofit, alongside domestic terrorist William Ayers, has taken a flagrantly anti-Israel line. Khalidi's Arab American Action Network has hosted scores of Israel-bashing events, including at least one reportedly attended by Obama.

[Muskan]

btw who do you want in 20102?

Neither I want Obama in 2008, nor I would like to see him in 2012.

He is a curse, and he won't change, he may cause a change to america though, making it a hell!

[Muskan]

And mksme,

you just needed to opt for the last option
*None I support Obama unconditionally!

You wasted aot of words you know!
When an Individual doesnot like REGULATING his own words by his own self, how can he support regulating whole/everybody's economy? How can he support socialism?

He should NOT!

[mkemse]

btw who do you want in 20102?

Neither I want Obama in 2008, nor I would like to see him in 2012.

He is a curse, and he won't change, he may cause a change to america though, making it a hell!

I will wait to 2012 to decide that, i might even writei n a Candicate 1 Person I would lke to see run but they would neevr gain enough support to make a serious run is Ron Paul but beforei decide about 4 yearsfrom now i would like to see who wins days days from now

Christohper Buckley, son of the Late William F Buckely has endorsed obmama

Mike Huckabee's form Campaign Manager I believe from New Jersey was the same for MccAin annoounced 2 days ago he is leaving the MccAin campaign and endoring Obmam, Colin Powel has endorsed Obam The Alaks Tribune Palins own Paper has endorsed Obmam, the Chicago Tribune who in it's entire histiry has neevr ever endorsed a Democrac for Prseodent has endorsed Oama if Obmam is soo bad for this Country why are all these well know Conservatives and Conservative newspaper enditong Baravck and why won't Sarah Palin own Alaska's Tribune even endorse her?? makes one think

My insticnts tell me if McCain loses it will be do far more to his VP selcltion then his stand on issues those who have endorsed Obmama say as did the Alaska Tribune that Palin is just to risky to take of for Mccain if need be

[mkemse]

And mksme,

you just needed to opt for the last option
*None I support Obama unconditionally!

You wasted aot of words you know!
When an Individual doesnot like REGULATING his own words by his own self, how can he support regulating whole/everybody's economy? How can he support socialism?

He should NOT!


I do not see where i posted that i support Obmam unconditionaly, i do not recall posting that??

[mkemse]

FINI (on this thread anyway)

[Muskan]

Obama is a Socialist.

He will do the final blow to a dying republic.
The founding fathers of this great republic feared Democracy, which is why they wanted the citizens armed.
Democracy has a terrible flaw. When the vote spreads out to all the people, instead of just the productive people, the masses begin to vote themselves bigger shares of the treasury. Thus begins the decline and fall of every democracy and it plunges into tyranny.

Tyranny ends in violent overthrow, but this most often just leads to more tyranny. It is rare that a Republic such as the United States is established.

[lucy]

Wow, that's one hot discussion here. One could think you're voting for the next God for the next 2000 years.
Lemme reassure you: You're not.
You're merely voting for a president. If he fucks up, you have the next chance to correct your decision in two years, by voting republicans into congress. That's one of the many great things about democracy: It's rather tolerant towards errors because decisions can be revised.

And: Whether Western civilization in general and American in particular will fall is way beyond every president's power. At least that's what i think and very much hope.

[Muskan]

Lemme reassure you: You're not.

Both of the candidates are EVIL!

Theres no doubt about it!

Its the discussion about who is lesser EVIL.

And nothing is forever!

Even a body needs care and safety precautions!

[skp2bear]

Please remember that most of the trouble this country is in came from Congress who enacts the laws.
Presidents can only make proposals. Nowadays it seems like many of those in Congress only do what increases their own wealth and power.

[DesertDom]

Please remember that most of the trouble this country is in came from Congress who enacts the laws.
Presidents can only make proposals. Nowadays it seems like many of those in Congress only do what increases their own wealth and power.


The flaw in this belief is that the president can make an immediate law by issuing either a directive or an executive order. These basically bypass the checks and balances written into the constitution and have the full force and effect of a law. The constitution originally set up controls where one branch of the government can overrule another by following its normal procedure. EO's and directives basically work outside of those procedures.

Very, very bad thing if used unwisely. I'm not even sure if a court can overrule an executive order, I need to research this more.

[DesertDom]

You're merely voting for a president. If he fucks up, you have the next chance to correct your decision in two years, by voting republicans into congress.


I do have to agree with you here. When Clinton went off the deep end and tried to socialize a lot of stuff early in his first term, voters woke up and turned Congress conservative in 1996.

How soon the average voter forgets the past. We seem doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past.

[lucy]

How soon the average voter forgets the past. We seem doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past.
Indeed, how else could anyone explain that Americans voted for Dubyou twice ;)
But no worries, we're not smarter in Europe, usually.

[hopperboo]

Indeed, how else could anyone explain that Americans voted for Dubyou twice ;)
But no worries, we're not smarter in Europe, usually.
...you know...I have to say I agree.

But honestly, I don't think anyone knew what a mess He would make in the next 4 years.

The only reason he got the predenciy again was because of 9/11. I think people didn't have enough faith in how John Kerry would handle things.



Obviously faith in Bush was misplaced. He may very well go down in history as the worst American president.

I stayed up with politics during this whole running because I don't want to make a mistake again. And I truly don't believe McCain would be a second Bush, or a mistake.



(Haha, I couldn't help myself to post again).

[DesertDom]

Indeed, how else could anyone explain that Americans voted for Dubyou twice ;)
But no worries, we're not smarter in Europe, usually.

That is perhaps an unfair question based on current perceptions vs perceptions of 4 years ago, but go ahead and take your shot.

Bush was riding a decent popularity wave at the time and had broad based support across the political spectrum except for the extreme kook left wing. Kerry was viewed as an east coast european style ( French, worst of all at the time) elitest who had very little broad based support and was supported by most liberals only because he was their candidate.

It is not surprising he lost, the Dems picked a lousy choice at the time. Kind of how the Reps could have picked a much better candidate this time.

[Dr_BuzzCzar]

That is perhaps an unfair question based on current perceptions vs perceptions of 4 years ago, but go ahead and take your shot.

Bush was riding a decent popularity wave at the time and had broad based support across the political spectrum except for the extreme kook left wing. Kerry was viewed as an east coast european style ( French, worst of all at the time) elitest who had very little broad based support and was supported by most liberals only because he was their candidate.

It is not surprising he lost, the Dems picked a lousy choice at the time. Kind of how the Reps could have picked a much better candidate this time.

Bush - 50.7% of the popular vote, Kerry - 48.3% of the popular vote
Bush - 286 Electoral votes, Kerry - 251 Electoral votes

Now exactly where is this "broad based support across the political spectrum" you speak of? Rovian tactics worked in 2004. Fear won.

[Dr_BuzzCzar]

The flaw in this belief is that the president can make an immediate law by issuing either a directive or an executive order. These basically bypass the checks and balances written into the constitution and have the full force and effect of a law. The constitution originally set up controls where one branch of the government can overrule another by following its normal procedure. EO's and directives basically work outside of those procedures.

Very, very bad thing if used unwisely. I'm not even sure if a court can overrule an executive order, I need to research this more.

..and don't forget "Signing Statements" that Bush has used more than any President in history. If I recall correctly he has doubled the total of all Presidents before him. This will probably end up playing out in the Supreme Court somewhere along the line as it is a real challenge to the checks and balances endemic to the constitution.

(For those who don't know, a signing statement is a formal document signed by the President that states certain parts of the law he is signing will not be enforced.)

[Dr_BuzzCzar]

Obama is a Socialist.

He will do the final blow to a dying republic.
The founding fathers of this great republic feared Democracy, which is why they wanted the citizens armed.
Democracy has a terrible flaw. When the vote spreads out to all the people, instead of just the productive people, the masses begin to vote themselves bigger shares of the treasury. Thus begins the decline and fall of every democracy and it plunges into tyranny.

Tyranny ends in violent overthrow, but this most often just leads to more tyranny. It is rare that a Republic such as the United States is established.

Obama is not a socialist, not even close.

The Founding Fathers did not fear Democracy. They created a representative democracy based primarily on Lockian ideals that utilized the best of democratic principles of one person, one vote. It was an extraordinary accomplishment of creating a government from an idea, instead of along tribal, racial, or conquerored lines.

The second amendment will be debated ad infinitum I am quite sure. Remember this was the 18th century and was written in the aftermath of a long and vicious war. It wasn't democracy they wanted an armed citizenry to be able to overthrow, it was the fear of a tyrannical leader taking charge and not living up to the constitution. I am personally certain it wasn't written into the constitution so some group of lame-brained idiots could get their jollies by going to indiscriminately shoot their AK-47's, Uzi's, Desert Eagles, and .50 cal Barretts in the pathetic assumption it will make them more of a man.

Edit: Anyway, I'm out of here until post-vote. Its always fun playing with the other side. Thanks for the chance.

[hopperboo]

Obama is not a socialist, not even close.
I beg to differ.

(Get it, I'm a sub and I am begging to differ...). ;)

Seriously though, he is a Socialist.

[DesertDom]

Bush - 50.7% of the popular vote, Kerry - 48.3% of the popular vote
Bush - 286 Electoral votes, Kerry - 251 Electoral votes

Now exactly where is this "broad based support across the political spectrum" you speak of? Rovian tactics worked in 2004. Fear won.

Hmm, the actual numbers speak for themselves.

Bush won a majority of the votes in 31 states vs 19 states for Kerry. Of those 31 states, Bush had a greater than 10% margin of victory in 17 of them. Sounds pretty broad based to me.

Viewed in that fashion, you could call it a landslide, couldn't you?

Given that CA and NY account for 86 electoral votes, take those 2 states out of the count and Kerry would have had less than 170 electoral votes and +- 11 million fewer votes.

I stand by my earlier statements, Bush's popularity was much higher in 2004 and Kerry was a weak candidate.

I am not looking forward to the red / blue map next week, though.

[skp2bear]

Early voting ended here in Houston, Tx. (Harris County). at 7 pm. They just announced that 700,000 people which is 40% of all registered voters have already vored.

[DesertDom]

Early voting ended here in Houston, Tx. (Harris County). at 7 pm. They just announced that 700,000 people which is 40% of all registered voters have already vored.



The early voting is way beyond expectations here in Arizona also. Since they can not announce any counts, no clue as to what this trend means.

[mkemse]

The early voting is way beyond expectations here in Arizona also. Since they can not announce any counts, no clue as to what this trend means.

My understanding from the radio is that these trends mean nothing but more younger people then usual or first time voting for them more Black voters are voting maybe for the first time both both
But they said a huge early voting is do to young adults and Black Americans who do not want to risk waiting in line on Tuesday so they are voting early to avoid lines.
they can NOT take exit polls ect til after poles start to close on Tuesdays, the votes cast early are simply locked away and neither counted or merged with other votes til tuesday, they are NOT allowing exit pols on early voting from what I understand

[skp2bear]

During my 3 hours in line there were few young people or blackes heavy hispanic, seniors,small business people, and Islamics. From those I talked to McCain may not have Texas so locked up. Thirty people I spoke with were republicans voting fer Obama.

[mkemse]

During my 3 hours in line there were few young people or blackes heavy hispanic, seniors,small business people, and Islamics. From those I talked to McCain may not have Texas so locked up. Thirty people I spoke with were republicans voting fer Obama.

In my area we have no seen this kind of early voting before but this is the first time our State (Il) has allowed early voting outside of primaries)
I was lucky i livei n asmall town and got in and out in 15 minutes during thre week right before 12pm byt they said their lines had dissapeared about a week ago
Ill is projecting a state wide turnout of 75-80%, which may be a bit to high but they said it will be the biggest we have had in years if ever

[mkemse]

The early voting is way beyond expectations here in Arizona also. Since they can not announce any counts, no clue as to what this trend means.

Thanks, you are 100% correct no early totals can be annouced nor can exit polls be taken til tuesday til polls close on Tuesaday just lock them up til tursday

[X]

surely political policies should be the reason to vote for the new leader of the free world. during an economic chrisis that is only going to get much much worse. your vote should be cast on who is best equiped to lead us all out of a recession. who did "this and that" should be put to one side in this very hard and extremely taxing time. again wich will only get worse. vote for the man with the best policies not the man who can give the best speach or tell the best jokes. use your heads dont be sheep. do whats right. end of rant

[skp2bear]

The final totals in Harris County, Texas were just ynder 800,00 the largset in history and they expect another 700,00 on Tuesday! If nothing else They've got the voters motivated. I'll bet the ratings on election returns Tuesday night will be sky high.

[mkemse]

The final totals in Harris County, Texas were just ynder 800,00 the largset in history and they expect another 700,00 on Tuesday! If nothing else They've got the voters motivated. I'll bet the ratings on election returns Tuesday night will be sky high.

As I underastand it Nation Wide, they say the National Turn Out this year could be the biggest in History or if not the biggest in many decades
No one seems to recall voters regeristing in as large numbers nation wide as they are or have this year

Who ever wins, this will be an Historic Election, either the First Female VP or the First Black President

[Dr_BuzzCzar]

Hmm, the actual numbers speak for themselves.

Bush won a majority of the votes in 31 states vs 19 states for Kerry. Of those 31 states, Bush had a greater than 10% margin of victory in 17 of them. Sounds pretty broad based to me.

Viewed in that fashion, you could call it a landslide, couldn't you?

Given that CA and NY account for 86 electoral votes, take those 2 states out of the count and Kerry would have had less than 170 electoral votes and +- 11 million fewer votes.

I stand by my earlier statements, Bush's popularity was much higher in 2004 and Kerry was a weak candidate.

I am not looking forward to the red / blue map next week, though.

Counting states is just acreage, area, square miles. That has absolutely no bearing on the subject. So, if you subtract electoral college votes from Kerry he would have less. Wow...that's insightful. Support of the people is the measure. Bush received a whopping .7% plurality against a weak candidate that ran a weak race. Ah heck, I'm just disagreeing for fun and entertainment.

I will agree on one point though, Bush was much more popular in 2004.....compared to Bush in 2008, that is...22% approval rating. He's tied Harry Truman's rating after he fired Gen. McArthur.

[DesertDom]

Counting states is just acreage, area, square miles. That has absolutely no bearing on the subject. So, if you subtract electoral college votes from Kerry he would have less. Wow...that's insightful. Support of the people is the measure. Bush received a whopping .7% plurality against a weak candidate that ran a weak race. Ah heck, I'm just disagreeing for fun and entertainment.

I will agree on one point though, Bush was much more popular in 2004.....compared to Bush in 2008, that is...22% approval rating. He's tied Harry Truman's rating after he fired Gen. McArthur.


Hmm, I had assumed that you were aware of the Electoral College process. Since the US uses that quaint system, winning a state ( acreage, area, square miles, etc) is the most important thing that can be done in a presidential election. Win the state, get the electoral votes. First one to 270 wins.

**** I am sure that you are aware of the electoral process and were being deliberately obtuse in your response. :) *****

The point about CA and NY is that they are bastions of liberalism and are usually check marks in the Dem electoral count total. Take those totals away and the race was even more one sided.

I'm not a fan of the Electoral process, does not seem quite right for someone to win the popular vote, but lose the election. But, maybe the writers of the constitution knew what they were doing when they foresaw heavily populated states overshadowing rural states. The system we have now still gives too much power to large populations.

Popular voting totals is not the answer and giving 1 vote to each state is not the way to go either. I'm not sure what the best way would be, but given how things are bogged down, the chances of a constitutional amendment to revise this are slim and none.

[Dr_BuzzCzar]

Hmm, I had assumed that you were aware of the Electoral College process. Since the US uses that quaint system, winning a state ( acreage, area, square miles, etc) is the most important thing that can be done in a presidential election. Win the state, get the electoral votes. First one to 270 wins.

**** I am sure that you are aware of the electoral process and were being deliberately obtuse in your response. :) *****

The point about CA and NY is that they are bastions of liberalism and are usually check marks in the Dem electoral count total. Take those totals away and the race was even more one sided.

I'm not a fan of the Electoral process, does not seem quite right for someone to win the popular vote, but lose the election. But, maybe the writers of the constitution knew what they were doing when they foresaw heavily populated states overshadowing rural states. The system we have now still gives too much power to large populations.

Popular voting totals is not the answer and giving 1 vote to each state is not the way to go either. I'm not sure what the best way would be, but given how things are bogged down, the chances of a constitutional amendment to revise this are slim and none.

Damn, another of my seemingly wonderful(to me) sarcasm shots went off track. My point was you can't just "take away" votes to make your point seem better. So following your line of reasoning if I remove those bastions of conservatism that always vote Republican my point would be better made?

Couldn't agree more that the anachronistic electoral college system is woefully in need of repair. Maybe a parliamentary system of sorts? I'm unsure, really. In the end it kind of works more than it doesn't work, primarily to that free speech and free press thing we have going,

[denuseri]

With the election day finally here I figured I would leave the thread with a parting view written by someone else. I got this in an email from a friend and alltough I dont agree with all of it, far far too much of it rings true.

I also got a disturbing email from another friend with a clip from the howard stern show were they were interviewing people on the street that said they were going to vote for Obama, The interviewer then proceeded to ask them questions representing McCain and Palins views as those of Obamas instead, it was rather shocking when the people claimed to be deciding thier votes based on the issues yet they all sat there and betrayed thier total ignorance of the actual issues and aggreeded that they were for the (Republican way of doing things) if Obamas name was on it.
(i couldnt get the media clip to load here)

They said yeah sure they supported the war in iraq, were against abortion and thought Palin would make a great VP etc etc, (all the time thinking that Obama was the man, smh they didnt even know who his vp pick was)

Pretty sad

This election is making the founding fathers roll over in thier graves of that much I am sure.


The following 'speech' was written recently by an ordinary Maine-iac [a resident of the People's Republic of Maine. While satirical in nature, all satire must have a basis in fact to be effective. This is an excellent piece by a person who does not write for a living.


The speech George W. Bush might give:



Normally, I start these things out by saying 'My Fellow Americans.' Not doing it this time. If the polls are any indication, I don't know who more than half of you are anymore. I do know something terrible has happened, and that you're really not fellow Americans any longer.

I'll cut right to the chase here: I quit. Now before anyone gets all in a lather about me quitting to avoid impeachment, or to avoid prosecution or something, let me assure you: There's been no breaking of laws or impeachable offenses in this office.



The reason I'm quitting is simple. I'm fed up with you people. I'm fed up because you have no understanding of what's really going on in the world. Or of what's going on in this once-great nation of ours. And the majority of you are too damned lazy to do your homework and figure it out.

Let's start local. You've been sold a bill of goods by politicians and the news media.



Meanwhile, all you can do is whine about gas prices, and most of you are too damn stupid to realize that gas prices are high because there's increased demand in other parts of the world, and because a small handful of noisy idiots are more worried about polar bears and beachfront property than your economic security.

We face real threats in the world. Don't give me this 'blood for oil' thing. If I were trading blood for oil I would've already seized Iraq 's oil fields and let the rest of the country go to hell. And don't give me this 'Bush Lied...People Died' crap either. If I were the liar you morons take me for, I could've easily had chemical weapons planted in Iraq so they could be 'discovered.' Instead, I owned up to the fact that the intelligence was faulty.



Let me remind you that the rest of the world thought Saddam had the goods, same as me. Let me also remind you that regime change in Iraq was official US policy before I came into office. Some guy named ' Clinton ' established that policy. Bet you didn't know that, did you?

Now some of you morons want to be led by a junior senator with no understanding of foreign policy or economics, and this nitwit says we should attack Pakistan , a nuclear ally. And then he wants to go to Iran and make peace with a terrorist who says he's going to destroy us. While he's doing that, he wants to give Iraq to al Qaeda, Afghanistan to the Taliban, Israel to the Palestinians, and your money to the IRS so the government can give welfare to illegal aliens, who he will make into citizens, so they can vote to re-elect him. He also thinks it's okay for Iran to have nuclear weapons, and we should stop our foreign aid to Israel. Did you sleep through high school?

You idiots need to understand that we face a unique enemy. Back during the cold war, there were two major competing political and economic models squaring off. We won that war, but we did so because fundamentally, the Communists wanted to survive, just as we do. We were simply able to out spend and out-tech them.



That's not the case this time. The soldiers of our new enemy don't care if they survive. In fact, they want to die. That'd be fine, as long as they weren't also committed to taking as many of you with them as they can. But they are. They want to kill you, and the bastards are all over the globe.

You should be grateful that they haven't gotten any more of us here in the United States since September 11. But you're not. That's because you've got no idea how hard a small number of intelligence, military, law enforcement, and homeland security people have worked to make sure of that. When this whole mess started, I warned you that this would be a long and difficult fight. I'm disappointed how many of you people think a long and difficult fight amounts to a single season of 'Survivor.'



Instead, you've grown impatient. You're incapable of seeing things through the long lens of history, the way our enemies do. You think that wars should last a few months, a few years, tops.

Making matters worse, you actively support those who help the enemy Every time you buy the New York Times, every time you send a donation to a cut-and-run Democrat's political campaign, well, dang it, you might just as well Fed Ex a grenade launcher to a Jihadist. It amounts to the same thing.

In this day and age, it's easy enough to find the truth. It's all over the Internet. It just isn't on the pages of the New York Times, USA Today, or on NBC News. But even if it were, I doubt you'd be any smarter. Most of you would rather watch American Idol or Dancing with Stars.

I could say more about your expectations that the government will always be there to bail you out, even if you're too stupid to leave a city that's below sea level and has a hurricane approaching.



I could say more about your insane belief that government, not your own wallet, is where the money comes from. But I've come to the conclusion that were I to do so, it would sail right over your heads.

So I quit. I'm going back to Crawford. I've got an energy-efficient house down there (Al Gore could only dream) and the capability to be fully self-sufficient for years. No one ever heard of Crawford before I got elected, and as soon as I'm done here pretty much no one will ever hear of it again. Maybe I'll be lucky enough to die of old age before the last pillars of America fall.



Oh, and by the way, Cheney's quitting too. That means Pelosi is your new President. You asked for it. Watch what she does carefully, because I still have a glimmer of hope that there are just enough of you remaining who are smart enough to turn this thing around in 2008.

So that's it. God bless what's left of America.

Some of you know what I mean. The rest of you, kiss off.


PS - You might want to start learning Farsi, and buy a Koran.



I would just like to say it has been nice talking politics with you all and I hope despite everyones differeing viewpoints we can all be friends after the election no matter who wins.

Despite how things may be going in Washington and the rest of the world I scincerly desire that all of you can be safe and happy during the upcoming holiday season.

I also pray that God will grant our law makers and leaders the wisdom nessesary to protect and guide us in the coming years ahead.





Ps: Again Thank You all so much for the interesting debates.

[mkemse]

With the election day finally here I figured I would leave the thread with a parting view written by someone else. I got this in an email from a friend and alltough I dont agree with all of it, far far too much of it rings true.

I also got a disturbing email from another friend with a clip from the howard stern show were they were interviewing people on the street that said they were going to vote for Obama, The interviewer then proceeded to ask them questions representing McCain and Palins views as those of Obamas instead, it was rather shocking when the people claimed to be deciding thier votes based on the issues yet they all sat there and betrayed thier total ignorance of the actual issues and aggreeded that they were for the (Republican way of doing things) if Obamas name was on it.
(i couldnt get the media clip to load here)

They said yeah sure they supported the war in iraq, were against abortion and thought Palin would make a great VP etc etc, (all the time thinking that Obama was the man, smh they didnt even know who his vp pick was)

Pretty sad

This election is making the founding fathers roll over in thier graves of that much I am sure.


The following 'speech' was written recently by an ordinary Maine-iac [a resident of the People's Republic of Maine. While satirical in nature, all satire must have a basis in fact to be effective. This is an excellent piece by a person who does not write for a living.


The speech George W. Bush might give:



Normally, I start these things out by saying 'My Fellow Americans.' Not doing it this time. If the polls are any indication, I don't know who more than half of you are anymore. I do know something terrible has happened, and that you're really not fellow Americans any longer.

I'll cut right to the chase here: I quit. Now before anyone gets all in a lather about me quitting to avoid impeachment, or to avoid prosecution or something, let me assure you: There's been no breaking of laws or impeachable offenses in this office.



The reason I'm quitting is simple. I'm fed up with you people. I'm fed up because you have no understanding of what's really going on in the world. Or of what's going on in this once-great nation of ours. And the majority of you are too damned lazy to do your homework and figure it out.

Let's start local. You've been sold a bill of goods by politicians and the news media.



Meanwhile, all you can do is whine about gas prices, and most of you are too damn stupid to realize that gas prices are high because there's increased demand in other parts of the world, and because a small handful of noisy idiots are more worried about polar bears and beachfront property than your economic security.

We face real threats in the world. Don't give me this 'blood for oil' thing. If I were trading blood for oil I would've already seized Iraq 's oil fields and let the rest of the country go to hell. And don't give me this 'Bush Lied...People Died' crap either. If I were the liar you morons take me for, I could've easily had chemical weapons planted in Iraq so they could be 'discovered.' Instead, I owned up to the fact that the intelligence was faulty.



Let me remind you that the rest of the world thought Saddam had the goods, same as me. Let me also remind you that regime change in Iraq was official US policy before I came into office. Some guy named ' Clinton ' established that policy. Bet you didn't know that, did you?

Now some of you morons want to be led by a junior senator with no understanding of foreign policy or economics, and this nitwit says we should attack Pakistan , a nuclear ally. And then he wants to go to Iran and make peace with a terrorist who says he's going to destroy us. While he's doing that, he wants to give Iraq to al Qaeda, Afghanistan to the Taliban, Israel to the Palestinians, and your money to the IRS so the government can give welfare to illegal aliens, who he will make into citizens, so they can vote to re-elect him. He also thinks it's okay for Iran to have nuclear weapons, and we should stop our foreign aid to Israel. Did you sleep through high school?

You idiots need to understand that we face a unique enemy. Back during the cold war, there were two major competing political and economic models squaring off. We won that war, but we did so because fundamentally, the Communists wanted to survive, just as we do. We were simply able to out spend and out-tech them.



That's not the case this time. The soldiers of our new enemy don't care if they survive. In fact, they want to die. That'd be fine, as long as they weren't also committed to taking as many of you with them as they can. But they are. They want to kill you, and the bastards are all over the globe.

You should be grateful that they haven't gotten any more of us here in the United States since September 11. But you're not. That's because you've got no idea how hard a small number of intelligence, military, law enforcement, and homeland security people have worked to make sure of that. When this whole mess started, I warned you that this would be a long and difficult fight. I'm disappointed how many of you people think a long and difficult fight amounts to a single season of 'Survivor.'



Instead, you've grown impatient. You're incapable of seeing things through the long lens of history, the way our enemies do. You think that wars should last a few months, a few years, tops.

Making matters worse, you actively support those who help the enemy Every time you buy the New York Times, every time you send a donation to a cut-and-run Democrat's political campaign, well, dang it, you might just as well Fed Ex a grenade launcher to a Jihadist. It amounts to the same thing.

In this day and age, it's easy enough to find the truth. It's all over the Internet. It just isn't on the pages of the New York Times, USA Today, or on NBC News. But even if it were, I doubt you'd be any smarter. Most of you would rather watch American Idol or Dancing with Stars.

I could say more about your expectations that the government will always be there to bail you out, even if you're too stupid to leave a city that's below sea level and has a hurricane approaching.



I could say more about your insane belief that government, not your own wallet, is where the money comes from. But I've come to the conclusion that were I to do so, it would sail right over your heads.

So I quit. I'm going back to Crawford. I've got an energy-efficient house down there (Al Gore could only dream) and the capability to be fully self-sufficient for years. No one ever heard of Crawford before I got elected, and as soon as I'm done here pretty much no one will ever hear of it again. Maybe I'll be lucky enough to die of old age before the last pillars of America fall.



Oh, and by the way, Cheney's quitting too. That means Pelosi is your new President. You asked for it. Watch what she does carefully, because I still have a glimmer of hope that there are just enough of you remaining who are smart enough to turn this thing around in 2008.

So that's it. God bless what's left of America.

Some of you know what I mean. The rest of you, kiss off.


PS - You might want to start learning Farsi, and buy a Koran.



I would just like to say it has been nice talking politics with you all and I hope despite everyones differeing viewpoints we can all be friends after the election no matter who wins.

Despite how things may be going in Washington and the rest of the world I scincerly desire that all of you can be safe and happy during the upcoming holiday season.

I also pray that God will grant our law makers and leaders the wisdom nessesary to protect and guide us in the coming years ahead.





Ps: Again Thank You all so much for the interesting debates.


Thank you for your comment here, I apprciate, altho i do not agree with most of the letter you recieived from your friend, i will defend with my life their right o type what they did, why you may ask, very simple, this is America where people can agree to disagree, but all disagree without concenr of beingthrown in Jail for their views

I also hope you have a Happy and Joyous Holiday Season 2008

And if NOTHING else comes out of tonight, all the TV Ads, Radio Ads ect ARE FINAL DONE AND GONE for 2 years anyway (til then ext Mid term electionsi n 2010) thanksfor your contributions to this thread:wave:

[mkemse]

some of the results are in, since Obama has started to announce who will be on his Economic Team and work on the Issues we face now with the Economy, since he started and finished his annocments last week, the stock mark over that period of time asi understand it went up 1,500 points this has never happenend before in that short a period a time and Sen. Joe LIberman and even Sen Lindsey Grahman have both said "He selections and appoitments were as close to being exact or perfect as they could be" which means to me he knows what he is doing ans had a good head on his shoulders and has choosesen his Economic Advisers well
Let's wee what ha does next
It was also mention on CNN today (Nov 28) that 58% of the public nowbelieve and feel hewill keep us safer the McCain would have
Seems to to be chaging for the better and he isn't een in office yet, even Obama said "Til Jan 20, we still only have one President at a time"
I am beingi mpressed witrh in Transition moves and annoucements so far

[denuseri]

All we can do is hope.

I am sure the media and general public will give him all the credit as well as the blame (abiet softened becuase of his party affiliation) for everything that occurs under his adminsitration just as they have for all his predecessors.

Clinton took credit for the upswing in the economy that was started before he was in office too, though as I understand it outside of minor stock fluctuations cuased by having the tresury department F with the value of the dollar; the market truely turns on much more long term instigations instituted from a variety of sources often beyound the direct power of any president.

Unfortunately most of the economic proposals I have heard Obama make have been all too simular to those introduced by FDR, which as history shows had little if any benifical effect for getting us out of the great drepression compared to our involvment in WW2. (which would not work today due to the way the military industrial support system functions)

[mkemse]

All we can do is hope.

I am sure the media and general public will give him all the credit as well as the blame (abiet softened becuase of his party affiliation) for everything that occurs under his adminsitration just as they have for all his predecessors.

Clinton took credit for the upswing in the economy that was started before he was in office too, though as I understand it outside of minor stock fluctuations cuased by having the tresury department F with the value of the dollar; the market truely turns on much more long term instigations instituted from a variety of sources often beyound the direct power of any president.

Unfortunately most of the economic proposals I have heard Obama make have been all too simular to those introduced by FDR, which as history shows had little if any benifical effect for getting us out of the great drepression compared to our involvment in WW2. (which would not work today due to the way the military industrial support system functions)


Yes, but if they work successfully who cares where they originated

And as far as other issues go with him as he enter office in Jan I love the JFK quote he has used

"Never Negotiate Out Of Fear
But Never Fear To Negotiate"

something that Bush never would did or would do

As someone said, i believe it was former Sen. James Baker "There are times,
when even if you do not want to, you have to sit down with your Enemies and Negotiate"

To bad Bush did not follow this advice, he had the chance and simply refused to

[denuseri]

"Yes, but if they work successfully who cares where they originated" by mkemse

The programs FDR established didnt work successfully the first time around what makes you think they are going to work again?

I wish more politicians would actually study history then they might not keep trying to make the same mistakes.

Also what does your dislike of the previous organization have to do with this at all?

We are pretty much stuck with Obama now aren't we.

Now that he is elected, I hope he finds the wisdom to lead effectivly as opposed to only amassing enough power to solitify his tenure and or ruin the country in the proccess as allmost half of the voteing population fears.

[mkemse]

"Yes, but if they work successfully who cares where they originated" by mkemse

The programs FDR established didnt work successfully the first time around what makes you think they are going to work again?

I wish more politicians would actually study history then they might not keep trying to make the same mistakes.

Also what does your dislike of the previous organization have to do with this at all?

We are pretty much stuck with Obama now aren't we.

Now that he is elected, I hope he finds the wisdom to lead effectivly as opposed to only amassing enough power to solitify his tenure and or ruin the country in the proccess as allmost half of the voteing population fears.

I i am still very much with Obama, I can't wait til Jan 20, i was reply to those who critizised the fact that he has used "insiders" to set up his Economic Plan ect
All I was sayting is that if his plans work, and hopefully they will, who cares where they came from, what difference does it make who come up with plans he may use, if they work that is what is most important, sorry ifi was not clear
btw as I understand it, this will be the first Adminstraioin n years if not the first in History that has 2 Consitutional Scholars in the White Houes, Obama and Binden, coreect me if this is wrong

[denuseri]

I fail to see how using a plan that failed in the past or was ineffectual is going to work now without a change of some kind having taken place that would alter the conditions of the economy.

My guess is that they will have to formulate the standards of which ever plan they do eventually come up with the realities of thier parties influence as opposed to the realities of the actual economic situation.

Constitutional Scholars?, oh my that is rich, and it is relevant how? Its going to change something about politics? I seriously doubt it.

I too was initially with Obama before he showed his true colors.

But I shouldn't have expected much he is afterall a politician to begin with.

[mkemse]

I fail to see how using a plan that failed in the past or was ineffectual is going to work now without a change of some kind having taken place that would alter the conditions of the economy.

My guess is that they will have to formulate the standards of which ever plan they do eventually come up with the realities of thier parties influence as opposed to the realities of the actual economic situation.

C
onstitutional Scholars?, oh my that is rich, and it is relevant how? Its going to change something about politics? I seriously doubt it.

I too was initially with Obama before he showed his true colors.

But I shouldn't have expected much he is afterall a politician to begin with.

Yes he is ,but as I hace said let's give him a chance he has 8 years of Garbadge and Mess to clean up

A Consitutional Scholar to make sure that Bush's Law WAter Boardingv ect do not continue they I presume would know what is Constitutional and what isn't, with Bush it made no difference he did what he wanted to

After 8 years of Busg Obama still to me desrves a chace to show what he WILL do not what he can do, what he will do is what will determine his true term in office
If we do not like him in 2012 we replace him
By Constitional Scholar I mean maybe for once we will have a President and VP who actual function within the Law, within the Constitution rather then just doing it "their way"

[denuseri]

You seem to have several presumtions that the current administration somehow opperated further outside the law than any of its predesessaors or making more mistakes. Yet I don't see any impeachment proceedings forthcomming and other than the ussual rumors of such during his term I dont believe thier was sufficient merit to wiegh any unlike some of our former presidents who so clearly did break the law and eaither resigned or wiggeled out from under impeachment.

It is the Surpreme Court that will make any Constitutional judgments.

As for garbage, some would argue that Obama is just going to take the two steps forward one back analogy to the next step.

It is like a tug of war over power in our country, and very many people are getting sick of no real progress being made, while at the same time a few of us are starting to realize the two sides are still only pulling on the rope so they can stay in the field and in the game, lest we come down from the stands and replace them.

[mkemse]

You seem to have several presumtions that the current administration somehow opperated further outside the law than any of its predesessaors or making more mistakes. Yet I don't see any impeachment proceedings forthcomming and other than the ussual rumors of such during his term I dont believe thier was sufficient merit to wiegh any unlike some of our former presidents who so clearly did break the law and eaither resigned or wiggeled out from under impeachment.

It is the Surpreme Court that will make any Constitutional judgments.

As for garbage, some would argue that Obama is just going to take the two steps forward one back analogy to the next step.

It is like a tug of war over power in our country, and very many people are getting sick of no real progress being made, while at the same time a few of us are starting to realize the two sides are still only pulling on the rope so they can stay in the field and in the game, lest we come down from the stands and replace them.

They were going to start Impeachment Proceeding but it was to close to the Nov election for it make any difference they said if they procceded by the time all wassaid and done one way or the other Bush would have been gonefrom office
I know it is the Supremem Court, but I believe that Biden and Obama both being ConsituionalLayerswhich neither Bush or Cheney are havea better grasp of what is with in the Contitutioon and what isn't. they i both havedegrees as I understand it in Constitutional Law which neither our current Prsident or VP do

Constitutional law attorneys are well versed with the law and the application of court decisions that interpret the Constitution and its amendments in areas such as affirmative action and discrimination; freedom of speech, press, and religion; search and seizure protections; eminent domain; voting rights; prisoners' rights; freedom of information; and grand jury proceedings. If you feel your Constitutional rights have been violated (whether or not you are criminal defendant) or you've been accused of violating someone's Constitutional rights, use the form on this page to find a Constitutional law attorney that's best for you and your legal situation.

Obama is a Consitutional Layer there are question if Biden is
Neither Bush or Cheney are, neither Bush or Cheney are Lawyers at all, at leasr Biden and Obama are lawyers
Thishelps interpret the Consitution and dcsionsm ade by the supremem court and Constitutional Layers are taught and trained to now only know he Constitution but to know and Interpret how Suprmem Court Decsions effect the Consitution, what is legal, what is not legal withinthe document
Both Obama and Biden have a much beeter understandong of The Constitution according to what I have heard then Bush or Cheny because both have law degree in Contitutional Law

[Dr_BuzzCzar]

The programs FDR established didnt work successfully the first time around what makes you think they are going to work again?

I wish more politicians would actually study history then they might not keep trying to make the same mistakes.

A

A minority of economists feel that FDR's programs extended the depression, a majority of economists feel that his programs stopped the slide and started the U.S economy back in the right direction. (Robert J Samuelson, The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics)

Most of the criticism of FDR's policies come from the far left and the far right, so by my admittedly simple analysis that means it was probably about right.

[denuseri]

Thats funny the majority of college history textbooks state that it was our entry into WW2 with the full comitment of our industrial capacity that actually brought us out of the depression. (Something that won't very likely happen in this day and age) They also stated the ineffectiveness of the many programs instituted by FDR.

If Obama really wanted to unify his party he would have at least offered the VP to Clinton.

If he was truely serious about reaching accross the aisle he would have offered McCain and Palin cabinet positions.

Instead he chose a watchdog that said he had no leadship potential and was naive during the primaries.

Of course a move like that however popular it would have been with the people as a whole would alienate his ideological base and required far bigger balls than his wife or democratic handelers would ever let him have.

[mkemse]

Based on their differences Palin would not exisists in an Obama Adm, McCain might make it, but Palin and Obama are to far different to co exist in the same Adm.
Palin to m is far more Consercative then McCain is

[denuseri]

So what if she is, I am sure she is for America and would work well, far more so then Hillary who would and still harbors much resentment.

Misdirect all you want, it doenst change that he lacks the boldness and or capability to be such a leader that he could truely bring the country together.

[mkemse]

Maybe but he won the Electoral College vote by a 3-1 margin and 52% of the Popular Vote, someone wanted him in Office

[mkemse]

So what if she is, I am sure she is for America and would work well, far more so then Hillary who would and still harbors much resentment.

Misdirect all you want, it doenst change that he lacks the boldness and or capability to be such a leader that he could truely bring the country together.

How do you know he lacks the Boldness or Capabiltiy to be a good leader, he hasn't been in Office yet, they accused JFK of the same
And he certainly can't be ANY worse then the last eight years

It may also be noted the George Bush is the ONLY Presient in US History to enter Office with a Criminal Record, granite, it is a was a MinorOffensive, but none the less a Criminal Record which he pleased guilty to

[thewhiterabbit]

"Why Nobama?" WHY are we still talking about this? He's our president now. Bush had his term now Obama has his. No point in debating that now- he hasn't even been here a month yet for crying out loud.

[mkemse]

"Why Nobama?" WHY are we still talking about this? He's our president now. Bush had his term now Obama has his. No point in debating that now- he hasn't even been here a month yet for crying out loud.

That is what I have been trying to say, it is over a month til he even takes over, give him a chance
Not everyone he chooses for his ADm will be liked, but give him a chance to show what he will actualy do
even he said to his critics "We only have 1 President at a time" his does not start til Jan 20, 2009

[denuseri]

You have serious hate issues apparently with Bush, who by the way has nothing to do with the topic of this thread.

Nor does any other political leader unless it's a direct corrolation or in relation to Obama in a dipolmatic capacity(which kennedy certianly is not other than lack of experience, at least lets hope he is not as i will explain in a side bar)

One of which ( a foriegn religious leader) that was so eager to get him elected has now called him a rather derogative term refering to negro house servant/slave from the civil war era in a public challenge for him to surrender becuase he is seen as being "weak" by our enemies abroad.

As for Obama he certianly can be worse. Way way worse infact. Though that does remain to be seen, just as it does with every newly elected official.

If he really was so bold his selections for his running mate and cabinet positions etc would reflect that; alas they do not.

On a side bar:

As for Kennedy, oh my lets see, Mr flip flop, too scared to actually take on the Russians directly (hence the consolation prizes he offered the soviets to back down in cuba and his ability to get us going in Vietnam as overcompensation for past mistakes, disregarding the lessons of history so recent we allready learned them in Korea). I certianly hope Obama doesnt do anything like Kennedy did other than looking and speaking pretty that is, we allways want a pretty leader right?

Kennedy continued the cold war policies of his rivals administration inherited from the Truman and Eisenhower. (Sounds suspiciously like what Obama is planning to do now in the middle east, unless he actually plans on invading Pakistan as he suggested during the election; probably becuase he really doesnt have a better idea other than surrender but thats beside the point.)

In 1961, the USA had 50,000 troops based in Korea, and Kennedy faced a three-part crisis—the failure of the Bay of Pigs invasion, the construction of the Berlin Wall, and a negotiated settlement between the pro-Western government of Laos and the Pathet Lao communist movement.

These made Kennedy believe that another failure on the part of the United States to gain control and stop communist expansion would fatally damage U.S. credibility with its allies and his own reputation.

Kennedy determined to "draw a line in the sand" and prevent a communist victory in Vietnam, said to James Reston of The New York Times immediately after meeting Khrushchev in Vienna:

"Now we have a problem making our power credible and Vietnam looks like the place,"

Kennedy then increased the number of U.S. military in Vietnam from 800 to 16,300. Begining a failed policey of increasing troop levels to contain the esculating situation. Dont be surprised when Obama has this done in Afganistan and later Pakistan.

Which didnt ultimately work becuase it didnt enfranchise the local population with any real authority as General David Howell Petraeus stratagy has successfully done in Iraq (looks like Petraeus does study history). So mabey there is hope for Obama, alltough I doubt that America can afford to keep invading one country over there after another for long.

Doesnt sound like a successful administration for Kennedy by any account to me and if Obama's is anything like it it doesnt look promising for his.

Back to the actual topic of Obama and to address the election results you seem to claim give him such broad support:

The electoral college hardly reflects the voting publics endorsment or full support.

Where as the popular vote is much more indicative of opinion.

52% does not a mandate from heaven make by any ones count.

It means allmost half of the voting public has been dis-enfanchised.

Not the first time such a thing has happened in American history, nor the last, of that I am sure.

[mkemse]

sorry for hijacking the thread

enoy the test of the posts

[denuseri]

There is going to be a test of the posts?

Seriously:

Assuming the above about a test is not a typo. Like a poll? That might actually be funny I think.

I do enjoy debating with you mkemse despite our differences of opinion on different issues and would like to thank you and everyone else that has participated.

[mkemse]

no proble, will do more a bit later

[DesertDom]

Maybe but he won the Electoral College vote by a 3-1 margin and 52% of the Popular Vote, someone wanted him in Office

Correction on your statement: current electoral results are 365 to 173, slightly more than a 2 to 1 margin. 28 to 22 states with the liberal bastions of California and New York accounting for 86 of the 365 electoral votes.

Yeah your guy won, but try to keep the statements close to the facts.

[mkemse]

Correction on your statement: current electoral results are 365 to 173, slightly more than a 2 to 1 margin. 28 to 22 states with the liberal bastions of California and New York accounting for 86 of the 365 electoral votes.

Yeah your guy won, but try to keep the statements close to the facts.


sorry i was off on th margin of victory my point is that it was not a close victory

Also i never said I support him but simply said the margins he won by
People just need to give him a chance everyone is saying this and that, he won't even take office til Jan 2oth. give him a chance see what he does before everyone comes down on him, no he will not make 100% of the peole all the time, but who has or will?

[DesertDom]

sorry i was off on th margin of victory my point is that it was not a close victory

Also i never said I support him but simply said the margins he won by
People just need to give him a chance everyone is saying this and that, he won't even take office til Jan 2oth. give him a chance see what he does before everyone comes down on him, no he will not make 100% of the peole all the time, but who has or will?

Yeah, your guy won and by quite a bit. Given the economic situation, the ghost of Ted Kennedy could have won in that climate. It was a perfect storm situation made for an opposition party candidate to win.

I don't see many people dogging him yet. Most are simply sitting back and watching and hoping that he has enough sense to be pragmatic about his socialist instincts and attempt to remain centrist. Time will tell.

Surprised about some of his choices so far.

Clinton for State. During the campaign, he routinely villified her as unqualified to be president, not experienced enough as a leader, no foreign policy experience, etc. Why now all of a sudden is she qualified enough to be SOS and the leader of the Nat Sec Team? Could it be that Limbaugh is right on this? Keep your enemies close so that you can watch and control them. Why is no one asking him about this turnaround? The media honeymoon is not yet over.

Janet Napolitano for Homeland Security. I do have to laugh at this one. She is Gov of Arizona where 10% of the people in Maricopa County ( Phoenix area) are illegal and the cause of our high crime stats: shootouts between coyotes, kidnapping of Mexican nationals, crime between the Mexican drug cartels warring here and illegal drunk drivers. She has failed miserably at even planning anything to secure the Arizona border with Mexico over the last 6 years. And now she is going to head the agency tasked with protecting our borders? Lord help us all now, she was a horrible choice given what she has done so far. This choice was a blatant political payoff. Napolitano was one of the first ones to break ranks with the Clintons and endorse obama, so she gets a plum job.

But this sort of thing happens at the beginning of every administration, so just gonna sit back and watch and evaluate. We'll know after a year or so if 'change' is happening or just more of the same ole thing.

[denuseri]

Quote:
Originally Posted by gothichippiechick
"Why Nobama?" WHY are we still talking about this? He's our president now. Bush had his term now Obama has his. No point in debating that now- he hasn't even been here a month yet for crying out loud.

Quote:
Originally posted in response to gothichippiechick by mkemse
"That is what I have been trying to say..."

:rolleyes:

Complaining about this thread still being alive is kinda funny mkemse, I would have stopped participating in it back on post 194 back on ellection day, I asumed it was an obvious stopping point.

But: as you can see if you look back that is You mkemse decided to keep posting, You decided to keep debating and keep the thread alive, lol

Which is just fine with me as there are serious conserns over these issues.

Also as for election results yet again, I fail to see how 52% is a "Large" margin of victory by any stretch of the word.

And I will say again, allmost half of the people in the United States have yet again been dis-enfranchised by a narrow margin of the popular vote.

I also agree that Hillary Clinton alltough much more qualified than Obama for the office of President is not a good choice for Sec. of State and it is really just further proof that Obama is just trying to secure "POWER" and render his political enemies like Bieden and Clinton into submissive positions that they can be obscured out of condition.

Next we will see Obama pull another "Kennedy" and appoint a family member to a high post like attornry general or something.

[Matin]

bobby kennedy was a way better guy than his brother... should've been a president. a genuine idealist, not like jack.

lol has obama got a great younger brother?

the one thing i will say about him, tho, is that his ability to get my generation out and voting seems, to me, unprecedented in my lifetime.

so many inspired kids... man can you imagine the havoc if he fails us?

here's to political serenity *crossed fingers and a stiff drink*

[DesertDom]

bobby kennedy was a way better guy than his brother... should've been a president. a genuine idealist, not like jack.

lol has obama got a great younger brother?

the one thing i will say about him, tho, is that his ability to get my generation out and voting seems, to me, unprecedented in my lifetime.

so many inspired kids... man can you imagine the havoc if he fails us?

here's to political serenity *crossed fingers and a stiff drink*

Matin,

whats scares me about this past election: in 1992, Clinton campaigned on a platform of 'change' and the young ( at that time) mobilized for him. We all are now aware about how nothing really changed during his administration. Sometime a platform of 'change' is nothing more than a campaign strategy that is used to excite naive voters.

I have my opinion on how this administration is going to play out, but am willing to wait and see what happens over the next year.

[mkemse]

Matin,

whats scares me about this past election: in 1992, Clinton campaigned on a platform of 'change' and the young ( at that time) mobilized for him. We all are now aware about how nothing really changed during his administration. Sometime a platform of 'change' is nothing more than a campaign strategy that is used to excite naive voters.

I have my opinion on how this administration is going to play out, but am willing to wait and see what happens over the next year.

Thanks, let's all just give Obama a chance,remember alot has happenend since the campaign, yes he dropped his call for a Windfall Profits Tax on Oil Companies, but Oil is now $45.00 when he called for it, it was $145.00 a Barrel many changed havetaken place since the campaign and he may need to change some of his plages because of this

If you see a neighbor buliding a house, let's not critisize what i looks like basedo n a "Blue PrinT' but rather on the Finished Project
Give Obama a chance to prove who he is, what he WILL DO ect
he won't be in officefor another 50+ days so nobody has anyidea what will or will not happen, and eveh he said as situations change so will his plans

[denuseri]

PULLEEZE...............

When you see a nieghbor building a house and from the blueprints alone realize that the very foundation is all meesed up and his house if built is going to ruin the neighborhoods water and power supply not to mention allow the whole kit and caboodle go to pot do you still let him build it without saying a word?

Bobby Kennedy great?? PFFFFFT and allmost spits up my coffee, he was marginally less incompetent than his brother the president at the time mabye (and thats a big mabey).

Thank god Obama doesnt have a bunch of family member to inundate the white house cabinet with.

Next thing he will be putting his wife in charge of Health care reform and claim thats she is experienced and ready to handle it too.

Oh wait some other actually impeached President allready did that one.

[mkemse]

PULLEEZE...............

When you see a nieghbor building a house and from the blueprints alone realize that the very foundation is all meesed up and his house if built is going to ruin the neighborhoods water and power supply not to mention allow the whole kit and caboodle go to pot do you still let him build it without saying a word?

Bobby Kennedy great?? PFFFFFT and allmost spits up my coffee, he was marginally less incompetent than his brother the president at the time mabye (and thats a big mabey).

Thank god Obama doesnt have a bunch of family member to inundate the white house cabinet with.

Next thing he will be putting his wife in charge of Health care reform and claim thats she is experienced and ready to handle it too.

Oh wait some other actually impeached President allready did that one.


No i was talking about what the house itself would look like


why can't everyone simply give the guy a chance, he isn't even in office for another 50 some odd days

[denuseri]

He has his chance, four years of chance ahead of him unless he has a majior illegal screw up and even then as Clinton proved it is all too easy to weasel ones way out of it.

The reality of that is in no way shape or form reduced becuase conserned individuals exsercise thier 1st amendment rights to express an opinion on how successfl that chance may be.

Drawing such an analogy betwen housebuilding and political endeavors would be great if political masiations at all resembled construction. Far better that they were so organized. And yes for anyone experienced in such things one can tell exactly how a house will look from its bluprints.

However what is actually going to result from the blueprints of a house is much more easy to predict than the precarious and often volatile whims of statecraft. But it doesnt mean that one is totally blind when ascertaining the hand writing on the wall.

In fact every single leader has had his detractors and they begin challenging his authority from the get go, look at the Bush and Gore election if you need a recent example.

So is it a crime to speculate on such matters?

I think not.

[mkemse]

He has his chance, four years of chance ahead of him unless he has a majior illegal screw up and even then as Clinton proved it is all too easy to weasel ones way out of it.

The reality of that is in no way shape or form reduced becuase conserned individuals exsercise thier 1st amendment rights to express an opinion on how successfl that chance may be.

Drawing such an analogy betwen housebuilding and political endeavors would be great if political masiations at all resembled construction. Far better that they were so organized. And yes for anyone experienced in such things one can tell exactly how a house will look from its bluprints.

However what is actually going to result from the blueprints of a house is much more easy to predict than the precarious and often volatile whims of statecraft. But it doesnt mean that one is totally blind when ascertaining the hand writing on the wall.

In fact every single leader has had his detractors and they begin challenging his authority from the get go, look at the Bush and Gore election if you need a recent example.

So is it a crime to speculate on such matters?

I think not.

Nope not at all and thanks for your posts

where is Ron Paul when you need him??

[Dr_BuzzCzar]

Thats funny the majority of college history textbooks state that it was our entry into WW2 with the full comitment of our industrial capacity that actually brought us out of the depression. (Something that won't very likely happen in this day and age) They also stated the ineffectiveness of the many programs instituted by FDR.

If Obama really wanted to unify his party he would have at least offered the VP to Clinton.

If he was truely serious about reaching accross the aisle he would have offered McCain and Palin cabinet positions.

Instead he chose a watchdog that said he had no leadship potential and was naive during the primaries.

Of course a move like that however popular it would have been with the people as a whole would alienate his ideological base and required far bigger balls than his wife or democratic handelers would ever let him have.

1. Please cite your source for stating what is in the majority of all college history textbooks, thanks. There is no doubt that our entry into WW II was a tremendous boost to the U.S. economy through deficit spending (about 140% of GDP in 1943, as I recall but not certain on the precise amount) by necessity instead of by choice. That doesn't mean FDR's policies had not stopped the slide and headed the economy in the right direction prior to 12/7/41. I agree that the horrible state of our current manufacturing sector would not allow it to be utilized to pull us up by our boot straps. I've worked in manufacturing all of my adult life (post-Army service, that is) and the short-sighted actions by management and labor that I have witnessed enrage me still.

2. The Democratic party has not been unified in my lifetime and probably never will. There are significant differences between the fiscally conservative "Blue Dog" Dems and the much more liberal "Yellow Dog" Dems. They get together in varying degrees to fight Republicans but that's about it. Personally, I think that adding Sen. Clinton to the ticket as VP candidate would have played directly into the right-wing's hands. They have been salivating since 2000 for a chance at going after her. I think Pres-Elect Obama made a smart, political decision in how he's using Sen. Clinton.

3. I would love to have seen Sen McCain as Sec Def for instance, but doubt it would have been accepted or offered. He's a good man that I respect a great deal. I wish him well and much success. Offer a cabinet post to Gov Palin... that might be the single funniest thing I've read on these forums yet. Wow, that is truly mind-boggling.

[Matin]

Matin,

whats scares me about this past election: in 1992, Clinton campaigned on a platform of 'change' and the young ( at that time) mobilized for him. We all are now aware about how nothing really changed during his administration. Sometime a platform of 'change' is nothing more than a campaign strategy that is used to excite naive voters.

I have my opinion on how this administration is going to play out, but am willing to wait and see what happens over the next year.

i remember - vaguely - the clinton elections. they had nothing on the obama campaign.

he is the first candidate in recent history to effectively use a grass roots strategy to win.

its hard to explain but in the colleges and the coffee shops and malls it was just hard to not see someone young talking about it. and i swear these were all people who couldn't have previously been considered disenfranchised, because they'd never been so to begin with!

i'm nervous because hope is such a fragile thing.

sometimes hope and change are used to play on naive people. sometimes it's nice to try to believe in something.

senator mccain said something i very tremendously impressed by during the concession speech, about how we need to try to be together in this thing.

i think america is in too much shit for partisan politics. i want to try to let that go for a while. can anybody deny that we spend too much of our time and energy on this issue?

[denuseri]

1. Please cite your source for stating what is in the majority of all college history textbooks, thanks. There is no doubt that our entry into WW II was a tremendous boost to the U.S. economy through deficit spending (about 140% of GDP in 1943, as I recall but not certain on the precise amount) by necessity instead of by choice. That doesn't mean FDR's policies had not stopped the slide and headed the economy in the right direction prior to 12/7/41. I agree that the horrible state of our current manufacturing sector would not allow it to be utilized to pull us up by our boot straps. I've worked in manufacturing all of my adult life (post-Army service, that is) and the short-sighted actions by management and labor that I have witnessed enrage me still.

Oh indeed I was exagerating to some degree, alltough it is not only from my own observations I have heard this said by many a Proffessor in the lounge (and come accross it numerous times while doing other reaserch ) during our various discussions on history. Though it is not the war itself but what happened imediatey after in combination with it that brought us out ( all of FDR's efforts were more likened by my constituents and mentors to be likened to that of the dutch boy with his finger in the dam). I am not about to do a term paper to satify your curiousity on the issue however , you can look yourself if you dont believe me, I reccomend doing a boolean search as wiki is rather unreliable for its scource material.

2. The Democratic party has not been unified in my lifetime and probably never will. There are significant differences between the fiscally conservative "Blue Dog" Dems and the much more liberal "Yellow Dog" Dems. They get together in varying degrees to fight Republicans but that's about it. Personally, I think that adding Sen. Clinton to the ticket as VP candidate would have played directly into the right-wing's hands. They have been salivating since 2000 for a chance at going after her. I think Pres-Elect Obama made a smart, political decision in how he's using Sen. Clinton.

He was affriad to have her as his VP plain and simple. I aggree democrates just like republicans and other political parties are much more fluid on the inside than most people think.

3. I would love to have seen Sen McCain as Sec Def for instance, but doubt it would have been accepted or offered. He's a good man that I respect a great deal. I wish him well and much success. Offer a cabinet post to Gov Palin... that might be the single funniest thing I've read on these forums yet. Wow, that is truly mind-boggling.

I see Palin is to be somehow demonized or made to be silly?

As silly perhaps as putting ones wife in charge of health care?

It still doesnt change the fact the Obama is adhearing to "politics as ussuall" instead of following through with any really bold changes that would re-define how our two party system opperates.

[Dr_BuzzCzar]

"Though it is not the war itself but what happened imediatey(sic) after in combination with it that brought us out." If I read your earlier comments correctly you have access to university level professors. Good. Go find one that teaches Macroeconomics (and doesn't have a political axe to grind, which is always interesting) and ask him/her if the U.S economy was expanding in 1938? It was and continued to expand until 1945 or 1946, as I recall. Over 20% of the workforce that had lost their jobs had gone back to work by 1940. Unemployment was still at 11% before the war but was dramatically better than the mid-30's.

"I am not about to do a term paper to satify(sic) your curiousity(sic) on the issue however , you can look yourself if you dont(sic) believe me, I reccomend(sic) doing a boolean(sic) search as wiki is rather unreliable for its scource(sic) material."
I am not curious, I satisfied my curiosity about FDR policies many years ago so I don't require a term paper on the subject. I've researched the pros and cons and believe that overall his policies were successful in alleviating human misery and leading us out of a horrible economic situation.
I started using Boolean logic in 1971 while studying for my first degree (Computer Science) but I do appreciate your trying to help this old gray haired bumbler to find truth beyond wikki.


He was affriad(sic) to have her as his VP plain and simple. I aggree(sic) democrates(sic) just like republicans and other political parties are much more fluid on the inside than most people think.
You see fear where I see political acumen.



[B]I see Palin is to be somehow demonized or made to be silly?
As silly perhaps as putting ones wife in charge of health care?
It still doesnt change the fact the Obama is adhearing to "politics as ussuall(sic)" instead of following through with any really bold changes that would re-define how our two party system opperates.[/

Gov. Palin made herself look silly over and over and over, I just commented on it. I hope to all the gods and goddesses that she stays in the public eye as she is loads of fun. Also I've never once defended Pres.Clinton's health care plans but that is not germane to the discussion.

Let's at least let President-Elect Obama make it to January 21st before characterizing his policies as not being bold.

[denuseri]

(oooo sic a grammer nazi how wonderful) Thanks so much for resorting to that tactic I think I just might cry. Smh.

I will take your advice and go talk to one of the economics teachers to see if cross disiplinary studies match. Alltough based on our conversation here something tells me they do not.

As for political bias in the education system we might need a seperate thread.

Every single one of the history teachers in our department (out side of one lonely soul that cant rear his head lest it be chopped off) is a loudly self proffessed liberal.

I also have found with the execption of perhaps the math department (mainly becuase I dont hang with them) the vast majority of the teachers seem to have political axes to grind which they do with verve every chance they get?

In fact:

What the F does the war in Iraq have to do with "Latin" or public speaking or anatomy and physiology class?

Well if your opinion differs too much from the teachers its the difference between an A and sometimes an F thats what.

Guess they missed the ethical boat when they went through the peering system known as college.

Why do I even address it?

Well in my opinion it is one of the majior factors used to influence the younger voters and a grand political ploy that the other side (conservatives) have been losing for decades.

The educational peering system is also in part a liberal indoctronation proccess.

Not that some conservatives don't manage to slip through.

To bad most of the students blindly come out of it spouting dogma like so many medevil sicophants from the churches of old that they were taught to hate in there.

This is somthing I am sure did not go without notice by Obama as he experienced the proccess first hand.

I will give you that Obama is indeed a "politician" to the core.

Bold leader of change that he prophesied in his bid for office, I think not.

After all the only reason we are still having this discussion after the election is becuase some people (as previously stated in an earlier post) wanted it to continue for reasons beyond my comprehension.

I believe however so long as people wish to keep participating in this thread that I will continue to characterise in response all I want despite any derogatory comments made or infered about me.

Thank You.