[unreality]

It's fast approaching! Discuss, vote, etc

Edited September 14, 2008 by unreality

[unreality]

Mekal, the point is to abort while the baby is just a couple cells. I agree that if you wait too long, the baby can feel pain and the pregnancy will have already affected the mother's body partway and it just isn't a good idea. But if done in the earliest stages of the pregnancy (ie, when nobody - possibly not even the mother - can tell they're pregnant), there's nothing wrong with it. It's like wearing a condom - you're possibly preventing a fetus from being created. So you do you suggest that condoms be outlawed, just like abortions?

I see where you're coming from with the abortion being done later in the pregnancy, and I agree 100%. I agree 110%. I couldn't agree more (I think you get the idea ), and it's a horrible thing for both bodies to change so much, and for the fetus to start developing, before aborting it. It has to be done in the earliest stages, and then it's okay

And for anyone that's going to say that this is off-topic, abortion has a lot to do with politics, unfortunately (since I think it's up to the mother. If she does want to go through the pregnancy and either raise it or have it adopted, that's perfectly fine. But there are circumstances where you just can't. Abortion should be pro-choice, without a doubt)

[Guest]

I see where you're coming from with the abortion being done later in the pregnancy, and I agree 100%. I agree 110%. I couldn't agree more (I think you get the idea ), and it's a horrible thing for both bodies to change so much, and for the fetus to start developing, before aborting it. It has to be done in the earliest stages, and then it's okay

I'm with you there. If you think about, banning abortion altogether is pointless, and if anything, worse. Just because something is against the law doesn't mean people won't do it. People do drugs, and yet it's against the law. Besides, if abortions were outlawed, the people that still have them wouldn't have safe procedures in a hospital.

[Mekal]

I don't haave any problems with condems, and i don't mind as long as the baby is only a few cells... but almost nobody notices quickly enough... so by the time they do decide to get one the baby is already starting to develop. anyway... it is the peoples choice... i just refuse to believe in it. and if a person isn't willing to have a chance of a baby then they shouldn't risk it.

[itachi-san]

I'm with you there. If you think about, banning abortion altogether is pointless, and if anything, worse. Just because something is against the law doesn't mean people won't do it. People do drugs, and yet it's against the law. Besides, if abortions were outlawed, the people that still have them wouldn't have safe procedures in a hospital.

It's a moot point really. If a pro-life candidate gets elected they won't be able to get a law passed to make abortion illegal. There's no way that's going to happen.. not on a National level at least.

[Guest]

quite odd more peple liked obama better but are voting for mccain didnt read all 8 pages so might have already been posted if so sorry!

[unreality]

Pieman: yeah it must be that the non-Americans are more pro-Obama than the Americans are

[Brandonb]

Knowing a candidates stance on issues is important. It helps to find out whether or not they are likely to veto a Bill that you would not approve of.

However, one thing you can count on is what will happen if one party takes control of both Executive and Legislative branches,(I think it would actually be all 3), is that government will grow, and it will grow fast. Good policies, bad policies, it doesn't matter. The majority of bills made in the legislative branch will be heavily heavily influenced by the majority party. Since this is the case, the Executive of the same party will likely just let ANYTHING pass. That's bad... no matter what party you belong to.

[Guest]

She hasn't really been around long enough to make judgments. I say wait for the debates when she goes up against Biden. I do think she was a terrific choice though. McCain did what Obama failed to do: put a women in the VP slot. It totally energized McCain's ticket and so far, I like her. I think her record is actually pretty intriguing and more accomplished than McCain, Obama and Biden combined. I also find it funny how she is always being compared to Obama. He is running for President, while she is running for VP... there's a big problem there if the Presidential nominee is being compared to someone running for a lesser position.

I'm not sure where you're getting your information on Palin, but personally, the more I hear about her, the more concerned I get. More about that in a sec. It really seems that McCain picked Palin precisely because Obama didn't pick a woman for VP. Palin wasn't vetted (that's seems fairly obvious with all of the stories about her in the news right now,) and she's certainly no Hillary. If you were referring to Obama not picking Hillary, I think that was wise on his part. I'm all for a woman president; in the end, I don't care what the president looks like or believes, just so long as the content of his or her character is worthy of the position and I just didn't see Hillary with all the right stuff. IMO, she had too much political baggage and as much as it might have got Hillary voters on board with Obama to pick her as VP, the right wing would have been able to drag Obama through the mud with their passionate dislike of Hillary. Also, I think any Hillary voter who intends to vote McCain, is seriously confused, since McCain (and Palin) are opposed to pretty much everything Hillary stands for.

As for Palin, I fail to see what's so good about her. She bolsters McCain's support among the Religious Right (which I personally see as a bad thing) and that's about it. They say that first impressions are important and my initial first impression was "How can anyone think she has the credentials for being a 'heart-beat away' from the top spot..." but then I remembered Dan Quayle. So giving her a second look, I am noticing that she seems rather vengeful and cronyistic. She seems to blindly post close person friends to important posts and anyone who stands in her way tends to find themselves floored. (The last person to handle things in this fashion is still in office and see how that turned out... )

Also, in her relatively short tenure as governor (~20 months,) she has managed to wave what I see as a few red flags. At some point near the beginning of her administration, she and her advisers decided to try to use private email accounts to bypass subpoenas. Here's a link to a NYT article on Palin, not the best, but here's an excerpt:

Interviews show that Ms. Palin runs an administration that puts a premium on loyalty and secrecy. The governor and her top officials sometimes use personal e-mail accounts for state business; dozens of e-mail messages obtained by The New York Times show that her staff members studied whether that could allow them to circumvent subpoenas seeking public records.

She's only been in power for 20 months, and one of the first things that her administration dealt with was how to avoid turning over documents to the legislature? Why would someone even consider that possibility? If I were in a similar position, I wouldn't be thinking about how to circumvent subpoena power; I would be trying to avoid doing anything that might warrant a subpoena. What does that say about her and her administration that one of their first concerns out of the gate is how to avoid public accountability?

Also, I think that saying that Palin is "more more accomplished than McCain, Obama and Biden combined" is a false argument. It's been stated before that there is no way to fully prepare for the role of President of the US. So, I fail to see why "executive experience" is a defining feature of what makes someone "presidential" material. Lincoln, arguably the best President we ever had, was in the Illinois legislature for a few years and briefly moved to the US Congress before taking the top spot and he managed to hold the country together in a very trying time of US history beyond the expectations of many without any of that vaunted "executive experience." It matters more on how people use the judgment they have than how much actual experience they have, IMO.

That's a (probably not) brief (enough) summary of my grievances with Sarah Palin.

[Brandonb]

...in the end, I don't care what the president looks like or believes, just so long as the content of his or her character is worthy of the position...

I see no point in reading past that line. You must have an unholy ability to judge character, or you see them the same as the rest of us. In either case it is important to realize that every politician is the one that you are choosing to act in your favor. Looking good and speaking well are not indicators of their intentions.... I'm speechless.

[itachi-san]

I'm not sure where you're getting your information on Palin

The feeling's mutual

It really seems that McCain picked Palin precisely because Obama didn't pick a woman for VP.

Yes, this is what I believe. That is why she was such a good choice for McCain. If Obama picked Hillary, Palin would not have been the VP nominee.

Palin wasn't vetted (that's seems fairly obvious with all of the stories about her in the news right now,)

Was/wasn't. I've heard it both ways and this seems to only hurt McCain if it does anything, which I'm fairly sure it won't.

-the stories 1) the pregnancy - Democrats shouldn't want to touch this one even though they did. It's like the parties switched sides on family values for this one.

2) The DUI - her husband got a DUI at around the same time Obama was smoking pot and blowing coke.

3) The scandal - I'm still up in the air on this. But it was well documented before she was nominated. The cop (brother-in-law) still has his job and did tazer a kid and did get caught drinking in his police car. The state official she tried to get fired goes deeper than the family feud. She will appear in court soon, so I'm waiting to hear what happens then.

and she's certainly no Hillary.

good. I really don't like Hillary. Though, I think she would make a better President than Obama and Biden himself admitted she would make a better VP than him.

If you were referring to Obama not picking Hillary, I think that was wise on his part. I'm all for a woman president; in the end, I don't care what the president looks like or believes, just so long as the content of his or her character is worthy of the position and I just didn't see Hillary with all the right stuff.

I was. I think he was foolish picking Biden. If he picked Hillary the election would be over already. Like I said before I'm looking forward to Biden vs. Palin, I just hope the debate isn't horribly run.

IMO, she had too much political baggage and as much as it might have got Hillary voters on board with Obama to pick her as VP, the right wing would have been able to drag Obama through the mud with their passionate dislike of Hillary. Also, I think any Hillary voter who intends to vote McCain, is seriously confused, since McCain (and Palin) are opposed to pretty much everything Hillary stands for.

They're definitely on opposite sides of the spectrum when it comes to issues, but as for women's progress the Democrats really shot themselves in the foot. If Palin becomes the first woman VP, then Hillary won't be a big deal when she runs in four years and the Democrats lost a battle they have been waging (supposedly) for women's progress. This was the perfect time for them to band together and put Hillary in the VP slot and they blew it.

As for Palin, I fail to see what's so good about her. She bolsters McCain's support among the Religious Right (which I personally see as a bad thing) and that's about it.

I am an atheist and think that the religious stuff is bad too, but when has a religious President or VP effected your life through Religion? Separation of church and state has worked pretty well IMO. Plus, there's no way an atheist will win a National election anytime soon.

They say that first impressions are important and my initial first impression was "How can anyone think she has the credentials for being a 'heart-beat away' from the top spot..." but then I remembered Dan Quayle. So giving her a second look, I am noticing that she seems rather vengeful and cronyistic. She seems to blindly post close person friends to important posts and anyone who stands in her way tends to find themselves floored. (The last person to handle things in this fashion is still in office and see how that turned out... )

Did you also remember Obama who is actually running for President? He was a sitting Senator for less than 2 years which amounts to nearly nothing. He totes that running for election is his executive experience... and what has he been doing this long election cycle? certainly not his job which he has mostly just voted 'present' for. I can't believe Senators are even allowed to vote 'present'. They're elected to make decisions and Obama has proven to me that he is a very indecisive guy. As for vengeance, have you heard a word from Rev. Wright (Obama's pastor for 20 years) since he began to shout down Obama? I think his family was threatened or something.

[itachi-san]

Also, in her relatively short tenure as governor (~20 months,) she has managed to wave what I see as a few red flags. At some point near the beginning of her administration, she and her advisers decided to try to use private email accounts to bypass subpoenas. Here's a link to a NYT article on Palin, not the best, but here's an excerpt:

She's only been in power for 20 months, and one of the first things that her administration dealt with was how to avoid turning over documents to the legislature? Why would someone even consider that possibility? If I were in a similar position, I wouldn't be thinking about how to circumvent subpoena power; I would be trying to avoid doing anything that might warrant a subpoena. What does that say about her and her administration that one of their first concerns out of the gate is how to avoid public accountability?

I've read about this issue from both perspectives and have still yet to make up mind. It's like a tale of 2 stories when heard with each spin. NY Times is definitely part of the Liberal media though. Like I said, I don't know about this yet, but she will be in court soon to discuss this so I will wait until then.

Also, I think that saying that Palin is "more more accomplished than McCain, Obama and Biden combined" is a false argument.

I don't. What's the closest thing to President aside from VP? 1) State Governor, then probably 2)Mayor, then probably 3) a Business owner or CEO. and she's been all 3 of those and the other people aren't even close to that.

It's been stated before that there is no way to fully prepare for the role of President of the US. So, I fail to see why "executive experience" is a defining feature of what makes someone "presidential" material. Lincoln, arguably the best President we ever had, was in the Illinois legislature for a few years and briefly moved to the US Congress before taking the top spot and he managed to hold the country together in a very trying time of US history beyond the expectations of many without any of that vaunted "executive experience." It matters more on how people use the judgment they have than how much actual experience they have, IMO.

It doesn't have to be the "defining feature", but it certainly helps a great deal. If you don't think having executive experience over a State and its budget and its people (with a VERY high approval rating) is experience for being President then I don't know what to say. Yes, Lincoln was great (he was a Republican FYI), but let's not go back centuries to make comparisons. -and again she is being compared to a President which is very bad for Obama.

[Guest]

It doesn't have to be the "defining feature", but it certainly helps a great deal. If you don't think having executive experience over a State and its budget and its people (with a VERY high approval rating) is experience for being President then I don't know what to say. Yes, Lincoln was great (he was a Republican FYI), but let's not go back centuries to make comparisons. -and again she is being compared to a President which is very bad for Obama.

I'd have to think more before I respond to the rest of your statements, but for one thing, Alaska is the most federally subsidized state (because of the oil,) so the tax cuts she gave back to the people came from the windfall profits tax she pushed through on the oil companies and out of the rest of the country's pocket (to an extent.) She was strongly supportive of getting earmarks from Congress through the likes of Ted Stevens and others (before she was against it) and she got something in terms of $3000 per person in earmarks for Wasilla when she was mayor (not for everyone, but in excess of $27 million for a town of 9000 people.) If I could do some of those things for a town and a state, I imagine that I would be pretty popular too.

Bush was a CEO and governor of Texas for a couple years before he ran for president, was that useful experience for the job? It's just that the "need" for "executive experience," seems like false arguments in my mind. It may give an indication for who could be good for the job, but the lack of that experience does not necessarily make one less qualified for the post. Besides, I fail to see what's the problem with being a "community organizer." That shows something of a civic-minded initiative on Obama's part. That seems like something I would want in a President. He could have been making 6 figures as a corporate lawyer, but instead chose to help a community in need.

As for Obama being compared to Palin, I don't see that as a bad thing for Obama. After all, the VP does replace the President in the event of the President's untimely death. McCain is the most senior candidate to ever run for office and I don't expect him to get any healthier. The average lifespan for an American man is around 72 years isn't it and McCain has already reached that mark. As it is, I've heard a rumor that McCain was a POW for five years in Vietnam (not sure where ) and I don't see that that would be terribly beneficial to his longevity. So it is very likely in my mind (and I'm sure in others) that his VP may become president over the next for years should he win the election. That person in this case is Sarah Palin, so it make perfect sense in my mind to consider how she would be for the top spot. I mean regardless of what happens, I wish McCain four (and many more) years of good health, but there is a significant chance that his VP may actually have to exercise her Constitutional duty to take over the reigns and we need to be prepared for that possibility.

(And of course I know that Lincoln was a Republican, in fact the first Republican to run for the presidency. But they were also known as the "Radical Republicans" because the Democrats were the conservatives back then. The two parties began to switch roles during the early 20th century and that's why when Theodore Roosevelt ran for president again, he ran as a Progressive, since the party had moved out from under him. Sorry for the history trivia, it just seemed to fit into the discussion. )

[itachi-san]

I'd have to think more before I respond to the rest of your statements, but for one thing, Alaska is the most federally subsidized state (because of the oil,) so the tax cuts she gave back to the people came from the windfall profits tax she pushed through on the oil companies and out of the rest of the country's pocket (to an extent.) She was strongly supportive of getting earmarks from Congress through the likes of Ted Stevens and others (before she was against it) and she got something in terms of $3000 per person in earmarks for Wasilla when she was mayor (not for everyone, but in excess of $27 million for a town of 9000 people.) If I could do some of those things for a town and a state, I imagine that I would be pretty popular too.

Here's the thing about Alaska: it's always been a surplus state. Alaska's budget always has a huge state-developed surplus that is given back to the people. Basically, people are payed to live there, to put it simply. But this does not equate to a good reputation for the Governor. The last Gov. of Alaska had a bad approval rating. About the Wasilla $3,000 you mentioned, are you sure that it was done by her as Mayor there or was it a State-wide thing? If it was specific to Wasilla, then I haven't heard that before and will definitely check it out when I get a moment.

Bush was a CEO and governor of Texas for a couple years before he ran for president, was that useful experience for the job? It's just that the "need" for "executive experience," seems like false arguments in my mind. It may give an indication for who could be good for the job, but the lack of that experience does not necessarily make one less qualified for the post. Besides, I fail to see what's the problem with being a "community organizer." That shows something of a civic-minded initiative on Obama's part. That seems like something I would want in a President. He could have been making 6 figures as a corporate lawyer, but instead chose to help a community in need.

Like I said, executive experience does not have to be the "defining feature" of the candidate. I've already said Bush was a failure and he actually did a poor job in his executive experience prior to his Presidency, mostly in the businesses he ran. Palin has high approval ratings and has done well in her ventures. Again, I can't see how this is anything but a positive for her.

I wouldn't come down on a community organizer as much as the Republicans did, but it's no Mayor, that's for sure. The responsibilities of a community organizer and a mayor or governor do not compare. And to argue that Obama went for a "civic-minded" position instead of money is rediculous. Obama has a multi-million dollar house and made 3-4 Million dollars last year. I could say he went for power and money instead of just money.

As for Obama being compared to Palin, I don't see that as a bad thing for Obama. After all, the VP does replace the President in the event of the President's untimely death. McCain is the most senior candidate to ever run for office and I don't expect him to get any healthier. The average lifespan for an American man is around 72 years isn't it and McCain has already reached that mark. As it is, I've heard a rumor that McCain was a POW for five years in Vietnam (not sure where ) and I don't see that that would be terribly beneficial to his longevity. So it is very likely in my mind (and I'm sure in others) that his VP may become president over the next for years should he win the election. That person in this case is Sarah Palin, so it make perfect sense in my mind to consider how she would be for the top spot. I mean regardless of what happens, I wish McCain four (and many more) years of good health, but there is a significant chance that his VP may actually have to exercise her Constitutional duty to take over the reigns and we need to be prepared for that possibility.

I hope you recognize this is entirely hypothetical. He could live to 100. Maybe his survival of the POW camp proves that he has a very strong body. The bottom line is that the Dem President candidate is being compared to the Rep VP candidate. It is in the Democrats' and Obama's best interest to go after McCain, the guy he is actually running against. Obama just seems all the more weaker when compared to Palin, and as I see it, he even falls short of her credentials, let alone McCain's.

(And of course I know that Lincoln was a Republican, in fact the first Republican to run for the presidency. But they were also known as the "Radical Republicans" because the Democrats were the conservatives back then. The two parties began to switch roles during the early 20th century and that's why when Theodore Roosevelt ran for president again, he ran as a Progressive, since the party had moved out from under him. Sorry for the history trivia, it just seemed to fit into the discussion. )

Yeah, that's why it's mostly pointless to bring up the distant past. It is important to know the nation's history, but anything beyond 30 years ago is pretty much off topic when it comes to a current election.

On a side note: I'm glad we can discuss politics and not have a nasty argument over it. I know my stance isn't popular, particularly among people of my age-group, so I catch a lot of flack when the subject comes up. I was actually going to shy away from discussing it, but I was right in trusting everyone here that a political discussion was possible Also, I'd like to hear more about that $3,000 per person in Wasilla.

[Mekal]

Pieman: yeah it must be that the non-Americans are more pro-Obama than the Americans are

not in canada! "the media there is trashing the democrats"

and i liked this forum BEFORE all the extreamly long posts...

Edited September 17, 2008 by Mekal

[Guest]

Yeah, that's why it's mostly pointless to bring up the distant past. It is important to know the nation's history, but anything beyond 30 years ago is pretty much off topic when it comes to a current election.

On a side note: I'm glad we can discuss politics and not have a nasty argument over it. I know my stance isn't popular, particularly among people of my age-group, so I catch a lot of flack when the subject comes up. I was actually going to shy away from discussing it, but I was right in trusting everyone here that a political discussion was possible Also, I'd like to hear more about that $3,000 per person in Wasilla.

I have to disagree with the statement regarding bringing up the distant past. In 1860, the country was on the brink of war and they brought in a Washington outsider, with almost no national experience, who was just a good orator and, (as it turns out,) a brilliant mind and Lincoln was able to manage the South's attempted succession from the Union and the war that ensued with as much tact and diplomacy as he could before the war came out in full. While the conflicts of today are of a different nature, I think that if nothing else, it's a good thing to remember, like you said, but also I think that the phrase "no man is an island" can be extended to say "no event is an island." By that I mean that every event can be traced back to previous events and nothing can really be cut out of the loop.

Certainly, recent history is more topical to what is happening right now, but there are important things to keep in mind that occurred much earlier in time. Just because some things have changed (and perhaps gotten more complicated) doesn't mean that a situation that happened a century ago (or longer) is not an important illustration of how events could play out now or how they should be handled. The adage "those who forget history are doomed to repeat it" comes to mind right now. The Bush Doctrine of preemptive strike may have seemed a good idea to them in the short term, and trying to build a democracy in Iraq may seem a "noble" cause, but it completely ignores centuries of strife between the Shi'ites and Sunnis and Kurds and other groups living in the region and the long-term ramifications of those actions on the world at large and our place in it. I think that in order to see the best path into the future, you sometimes have to look a long way back into the past. Especially in the global environment we live in now.

Bush (and McCain) have stated that they will not allow the US to "lose" in Iraq without ever defining what it means to win or to lose. If you don't define the terms of the engagement, then I fail to see how it is useful to make such an argument in the first place unless you are just blathering empty phrases. Even though many people are resistant to the idea of associating Iraq to Vietnam, I think that there are important parallels that many people are ignoring. In the documentary, "The Fog of War," Johnson's Secretary of Defense, Robert McNamara, talked about, among other things, how he went back to Vietnam in the 1990s and talked with some of the generals that he had been fighting in the '60s. Together, they had something of an epiphany that each side had been fighting a different war. We had been there to keep China and the Russians from creating a "puppet" government in Vietnam (since every Communist government had to answer to Moscow, ) completely ignoring the centuries of history that showed that the Vietnamese had been at war with China for most of their existence. The Vietnamese had just won their independence from France, and they were not about to let anyone come in and turn them into another colony (which is what they thought the US was going to do.) If the people in charge of our foreign policy had any knowledge of prior events for either of these conflicts (Iraq and Vietnam) I think things may have come out differently. We can't just examine what we think is best for ourselves; we have to at least look at how other people will see it, even if we don't agree with that view. Then we will be able to make a more informed decision going into the situation.

I'm worried by McCain's repeated statements guaranteeing "victory" without ever identifying what that might mean. As a military man, one would hope he understands the costs of war and seeks to find the best solution for as many people involved as possible. Obama at least has a clear goal in mind that he has stated as policy. McCain just seems to say whatever he believes the people he is talking to want to hear. There is a lot more I could say on the subject (including more history examples, ) but this was supposed to be a short response to itachi's statement (sorry Mekal, ) so I think that I'll leave it here for now.

[itachi-san]

In an effort to please Mekal, I'll just bullet point a few things

- Obama is not Lincoln, and he will not be Lincoln. Lincoln was one of the best Presidents we've had in our history. What in Obama's past suggests that he will comparable to Lincoln? If anyone, McCain will and he has the history of reaching out to both parties and uniting them. That is what Lincoln did. His cabinet was made of friends and enemies (politically) so that he could hear the opinions of all. Obama is an extreme leftist (most Left in the Senate) and has only associated with Democrats, Socialists and Communists. He has no conservative friends. I just saw him interviewed, and he couldn't name one single conservative friend. I know McCain has plenty of liberal friends including Joe Biden. And McCain has said on the record that he would put liberals in his cabinet, even Obama himself if possible.

- Linda Rothchild now supports McCain Long-time Democrats and people who wanted Hillary Clinton are moving to support McCain, because they are looking at what's left: McCain or Obama? Like Linda Rothchild, I'm just looking at the character and the policies. I don't care about who belongs to which party.

- Victory in Iraq is when the Iraqi's take over for themselves and lead on with a Democratic Govt. Hopefully this will inspire other countries' people in the area (like Iran) to want to personally remove their dictators and become free on their own so the US doesn't feel inclined to do this again. I doubt we will without worldly support again. Let's learn from History right?

- The Iraq war was not a good thing and neither was the Bush Doctrine.

But now that it's happened, there's no undoing the past, however bad it may have been. The only answer is to take what we have and make the best out of it. Europe's new leaders are already starting to align back with us (even France and Germany) so they will hopefully be able to press Russia economically and stop a war there.

[Guest]

In an effort to please Mekal, I'll just bullet point a few things

- Obama is not Lincoln, and he will not be Lincoln. Lincoln was one of the best Presidents we've had in our history. What in Obama's past suggests that he will comparable to Lincoln? If anyone, McCain will and he has the history of reaching out to both parties and uniting them. That is what Lincoln did. His cabinet was made of friends and enemies (politically) so that he could hear the opinions of all. Obama is an extreme leftist (most Left in the Senate) and has only associated with Democrats, Socialists and Communists. He has no conservative friends. I just saw him interviewed, and he couldn't name one single conservative friend. I know McCain has plenty of liberal friends including Joe Biden. And McCain has said on the record that he would put liberals in his cabinet, even Obama himself if possible.

- Linda Rothchild now supports McCain Long-time Democrats and people who wanted Hillary Clinton are moving to support McCain, because they are looking at what's left: McCain or Obama? Like Linda Rothchild, I'm just looking at the character and the policies. I don't care about who belongs to which party.

- Victory in Iraq is when the Iraqi's take over for themselves and lead on with a Democratic Govt. Hopefully this will inspire other countries' people in the area (like Iran) to want to personally remove their dictators and become free on their own so the US doesn't feel inclined to do this again. I doubt we will without worldly support again. Let's learn from History right?

- The Iraq war was not a good thing and neither was the Bush Doctrine.

But now that it's happened, there's no undoing the past, however bad it may have been. The only answer is to take what we have and make the best out of it. Europe's new leaders are already starting to align back with us (even France and Germany) so they will hopefully be able to press Russia economically and stop a war there.

I'll try to be brief. You can see how well that's worked in the past.

First, I'm not trying to say that Obama is Lincoln. I may have overused references to Lincoln, but I'm just saying that "executive experience" and such is not a requirement to be a good president (we seem to be in agreement on this point. ) Second, the fact that Democrats are moving to McCain isn't really that significant. Certainly, there are long time Democrats going to McCain, but there are also plenty of Hillary supporters moving Obama's way as well, so I don't see why that's really important. There are some Republicans who don't support McCain. All of these people are picking based on policies rather than party...that's good, but hardly a ringing endorsement for one candidate over the other. The most important thing is for people to look at the issues and make an informed decision.

As for Iraq, is that McCain's stated definition of victory? I haven't heard anything that specific and in any case, is it really a feasible goal? It's certainly the ideal, but is it realistic? Iraq (and the rest of the Middle East) was divided up by the British after World War I specifically to split up ethnic and cultural groups to increase tensions so that the people would need the British military presence to keep the peace. As Britain's power waned and countries gained their independence, the tensions didn't go away as those hatreds and mistrusts have existed for centuries. Such an environment is not suitable for a stable democracy. Democracy requires that the people be able to trust that their elected officials will do what's best for everyone in the country and not just those who share their heritage or religious beliefs. Even if such fears are unwarranted in Iraq and other mid East countries, they still exist and they will continue to dominate the atmosphere there unless a lot of people are willing to put a lot of time, money and effort (at great personal risk) into overcoming these ancient tensions.

We can continue to pour billions of dollars into the region to try to stabilize the government, but unless (or maybe not even if ) these underlying problems are addressed, the region is unlikely to become stable simply because the government is able to control it's own destiny to some extent. If we stand down when the Iraqi government has control, we may find that the government that takes the reins to be something other than we desire. Is it victory if the government in Iraq is stable, but less than democratic or less than friendly to the West? While I would say that democracy should be an ultimate goal to promote fairness and decency for all people, it may not yet be a feasible reality for all regions of the world. What should be more important in those regions right now is to find some mechanism for different sides of the conflict to come together and peacefully work out their differences, but unfortunately, I don't see any obvious way to achieve that.

As such, whoever takes the reins of government here needs to be sensitive to these realities and to the history of the region so as to be able to make the best judgment with the information available. McCain seems determined to "win at all costs" without even examining if that "victory" is attainable. I could be completely wrong on this point, but whenever he talks about the subject, that's the feeling that I see him exuding. Obama seems far more interested in taking cultural understanding of the region into account in adopting a policy for the war and its ramifications. McCain still has to be reminded that the Sunnis and Shi'ites have significant differences of belief and that hardly seems reassuring in a president that will have to deal with the region.

These are the conclusions that I've drawn from the data that I've seen and given the choice, I trust Obama's judgment far more than McCain's in this and other regards. Obama's B.A. was in political science with a specialization in international relations and Biden has B.A.s in history and political science. There's no guarantee that either will put their degrees to good use, but their credentials seem far better in that regard than the alternative.

Hmm, so much for trying to be brief... Part of the problem arises from the fact that I see most things as inherently interconnected and in order to understand a situation, you have to understand the connections between it and other situations or events.

[unreality]

Don't worry dawh, I like reading your long posts (And I agree with you about the Iraq situation)

Edited September 19, 2008 by unreality

[itachi-san]

The victory I stated is the end result of Obama's plan, yet you don't agree? I agree, which is why I said it. Obama also wants Iraq to pay us back for the war since they have such a high surplus, which I also agree with.

Both campaigns are extremely general when talking about anything and frankly each one's rhetoric are easily interchangeable. Change, change, reform, reform, blah, blah.

Part of the problem arises from the fact that I see most things as inherently interconnected and in order to understand a situation, you have to understand the connections between it and other situations or events.

Well I guess I don't see connections between anything... shame on me for not being able to think on your level.

Here's another quote I liked:

The most important thing is for people to look at the issues and make an informed decision.

This is exactly what I was trying to prove with the Rothchild move, because this is exactly what she and I did.

Here's another good one:

I trust Obama's judgment far more than McCain's in this and other regards. Obama's B.A. was in political science with a specialization in international relations and Biden has B.A.s in history and political science.

So was one of my housemates. I guess he's just as qualified for Presidency.

---

I wanted to move this discussion forward into the current economic crisis, so let's see if that happens and we don't start talking about the Founding Fathers and comparing them to today's politicians.

Bush just proposed a Trillion dollar bail out - this is very bad

McCain switched his stance on govt. regulation and now supports the bail out - this is very bad

Obama is refusing to make an economic plan to help this crisis and is letting the Bush Administration (who he is so outspoken against and rightly so) take full control. - this is also bad

Nancy Polosi (sp) - is pushing a bill to add even more money that we can't afford into the bail out in an effort to make the Republican look even worse - this is bad as well

So again, I'm disappointed on all fronts. Hopefully Congress will do something right when they receive Bush's final proposal, but based on current history, I doubt it.

[itachi-san]

In regard to the huge bail out, there is a hopeful positive, but if that doesn't happen our economy is really done for. Basically, the govt. is going to auction all the capitol (like houses, etc...) retrieved from the financial companies that went belly-up like Fannie May, AIG and the like. Hopefully investors will buy into this and then in the long-term our economy will benefit and the tax-payers won't get screwed. They fixed the short-term and Wall Street went back to being stable, but it's this long-term plan that has to be achieved for economic success. But if the govt. doesn't sell it's intended target, then I can see how the US will lose its status as a super-power.

As I stated in the previous post, I am not for govt. regulations and think that having to bailout the stock market like this is absurd, but that is the situation we are presented with and everyone is coming up with a plan, except for Obama of course, who can't make a decision about anything. His indecisiveness about any major event is really unprecedented when coming to a candidate who has about a 50% chance of winning the election. I just don't get what anyone sees in him, if they look beyond the charm that is.

[unreality]

I think we should have a revolution and throw out our government! Who's with me? Our Founding Fathers would be flabberghasted if they could see the state of affairs today, and they would be wondering why we didn't take up their example and have a {peaceful} coup of our corrupt government, and establish something new and free in relation to the current times

[unreality]

One thing I've noticed is that you can spin numbers any way you want and make it sound either very good or very bad, depending on your aim....

Changing the subject, what do you guys think of this 'economic bailout' plan? The $700 billion one, in case there's some ambiguity

[Guest]

I think we should have a revolution and throw out our government! Who's with me? Our Founding Fathers would be flabberghasted if they could see the state of affairs today, and they would be wondering why we didn't take up their example and have a {peaceful} coup of our corrupt government, and establish something new and free in relation to the current times

Because it would require us to leave our comfortable chairs and get away from our computer screens...

[Guest]

Hmm wondering....

How many of you get your news from FOX?

[akaslickster]

Hmm wondering....

How many of you get your news from FOX?

I get Google news if I want. Never cared for FOX except the sports.