|
Post by ladytera on Aug 7, 2008 18:16:27 GMT -5
Okay, so this may be a loaded question, and I know not all of you are going to be 18 come November, and at least one of you is not a citizen here. But, never the less, I'd be interested to here who you'd vote for, and just as importantly, why? What issues would you decide your vote on, why do you think one candidate represents those issues better than the other? Is character important to you in making a choice for political office? What criteria would you use to determine who the best person for the job is? BTW, it doesn't just have to be about the President of the US for this, it can be about your Congressmen and Senators, local leadership, or for those of you not here in the US, the leaders in your own countries elections whenever the next ones may be.
|
|
|
Post by bdole on Aug 7, 2008 22:43:42 GMT -5
OBAMA. reason is, islamic terrorism is a real threat, and the republicans have no idea how to properly fight global criminals on this level. and yes ISLAMIC terrorism. the proper way to fight it is to treat it as a criminal organization and obamas the only guy who, pardon my french, doesnt have his head up his ass about the entire deal.
|
|
|
Post by misaki on Aug 8, 2008 5:54:37 GMT -5
Hmm, I'm not sure yet. I'll probably vote Groen Links (turning 18 this Nov) which is a progressive, left wing political party in my country. I'm not sure what left/right wing is about in the US, but..GroenLinks is the social-environmental party here. They want to withdraw from the whole Iraq situation, since our prime minister has been as stupid as to let the US FORCE him to send our troops to a war we have absolutely nothing to do with. They're kinda socialist-liberal-mix with other things. They support initiatives to spread the money equally - which doesn't mean they're communists, they're just trying to keep up what the Netherlands have been for years, a so called Caring State - poor people here get enough money from the government to live in normal houses, and get extra help finding jobs etc. Homeless people are rare because of it. They're also against the whole thing that idiot Geert Wilders stirred up with his dumbass movie Fitna; most Dutch Muslims are very much westernized, the man was just trying to split the people up, make them afraid, so he'd gain power. Blerg. Reminds me of what Hitlet did with the Jews. Luckily, contraty to Hitler, Geert Wilders doesn't have much of a brain, plus the somewhat pragmatic attitude of the people in general here doesn't really help to create Hitler-esque situations. And like I said, GroenLinks are also an environmental party, which means they're trying to preserve the little nature we've left, and try to stop the wrecked Bio-Industry. Which I completely agree with; I already volunteered a bit for Greenpeace, so that's certainly where my sympathies lie. Plus, the party leader, Femke Halsema, is one of the few ministers who don't seem to try to put things as softly and politically correct (and lying as much as) possible. She usually just says what's really going on, in a witty way. I do appreciate the directness xD So that's what I'm gonna vote *nod nod* As for determining by character...welll..no. I'll vote GroenLinks because I've done a lot of research about the party goals and the past decisions, influence and behaviour of the party. Femke happens to be an interesting party leader, but that's far from the reason. I'll vote for them because I believe in their goals.
|
|
|
Post by Tar-Mika on Aug 11, 2008 1:38:22 GMT -5
I'm also saying Obama. Mainly for the reason that McCain is way too war-mongering for my tastes. Did you hear his comment about Iranians? Reporters asked him about what his opinion was on the rise of exporting cigarettes to Iran, and he said something to the effect of "Good, anything to kill them faster." Are you kidding me right now? Not to say that I'm just saying I'm against McCain, I'm a fan of Obama because it would be nice to have an intelligent president of the US for once. It'd be a nice change.
|
|
|
Post by ladytera on Aug 11, 2008 20:28:17 GMT -5
I'm also saying Obama. Mainly for the reason that McCain is way too war-mongering for my tastes. Did you hear his comment about Iranians? Reporters asked him about what his opinion was on the rise of exporting cigarettes to Iran, and he said something to the effect of "Good, anything to kill them faster." Are you kidding me right now? Not to say that I'm just saying I'm against McCain, I'm a fan of Obama because it would be nice to have an intelligent president of the US for once. It'd be a nice change. Just out of curiosity, how do you define intelligence, and what evidence do you have to support the idea that Obama has some? BTW, that isn't a slap, nor intended to insult him or you, I just want to know the criteria before I jump into the fray. Sorry I haven't had a chance to play much on this thread so far. I've been slammed for a week straight, but, I'll try to come back in the next day or two on this. OBAMA. reason is, islamic terrorism is a real threat, and the republicans have no idea how to properly fight global criminals on this level. and yes ISLAMIC terrorism. the proper way to fight it is to treat it as a criminal organization and obamas the only guy who, pardon my french, doesnt have his head up his ass about the entire deal. Okay, Islamic terrorist are not criminals. They are military organizations that do not claim a particular country, which makes them difficult to annihilate, not because they are worthy opponents, but because we don't want to kill non-combatants when we can avoid it. Obama is an idiot when it come to the threat of Islamic terrorism. He wants to unconditionally sit down with the Iranian leader, who is one of the largest remaining state sponsors of terrorism. On the other hand, he wants to nuke Pakistan, who happens to be an ally in the current war. If that is the only issue you are looking at when considering who to vote for, so be it, although that makes no more sense than people voting strictly on a politicians abortion position or death penalty position, or any other one position. But, if that is the only issue you'd consider, take the time to do the research on the candidates position on it before deciding that's who you'd go with. Hmm, I'm not sure yet. I'll probably vote Groen Links (turning 18 this Nov) which is a progressive, left wing political party in my country. I'm not sure what left/right wing is about in the US, but..GroenLinks is the social-environmental party here. They want to withdraw from the whole Iraq situation, since our prime minister has been as stupid as to let the US FORCE him to send our troops to a war we have absolutely nothing to do with. They're kinda socialist-liberal-mix with other things. They support initiatives to spread the money equally - which doesn't mean they're communists, they're just trying to keep up what the Netherlands have been for years, a so called Caring State - poor people here get enough money from the government to live in normal houses, and get extra help finding jobs etc. Homeless people are rare because of it. They're also against the whole thing that idiot Geert Wilders stirred up with his dumbass movie Fitna; most Dutch Muslims are very much westernized, the man was just trying to split the people up, make them afraid, so he'd gain power. Blerg. Reminds me of what Hitlet did with the Jews. Luckily, contraty to Hitler, Geert Wilders doesn't have much of a brain, plus the somewhat pragmatic attitude of the people in general here doesn't really help to create Hitler-esque situations. And like I said, GroenLinks are also an environmental party, which means they're trying to preserve the little nature we've left, and try to stop the wrecked Bio-Industry. Which I completely agree with; I already volunteered a bit for Greenpeace, so that's certainly where my sympathies lie. Plus, the party leader, Femke Halsema, is one of the few ministers who don't seem to try to put things as softly and politically correct (and lying as much as) possible. She usually just says what's really going on, in a witty way. I do appreciate the directness xD So that's what I'm gonna vote *nod nod* As for determining by character...welll..no. I'll vote GroenLinks because I've done a lot of research about the party goals and the past decisions, influence and behaviour of the party. Femke happens to be an interesting party leader, but that's far from the reason. I'll vote for them because I believe in their goals. I admire the research you've done on your chosen party. Can't say I agree with their positions, but that kind of the point of a free election, we don't all have to agree. Sounds like your left and right wing are about the same as ours. Couple points, equal outcome IS a tenet of communism, whether the party supporting it wants to admit it or not. We have programs here as well that help poor people with money, jobs, food, housing etc., and there is not as much of a homeless problem in the US as Hollywood likes to make out. Truth be told, people here who are homeless are so because of their own choices, they don't want to be in the system, they are running from something, etc. Do people fall through the cracks? Yeah, probably so, but it's not due to a lack of funding. I'm not sure what environmental party means there. Here they holler an awful lot about preserving our lost wilderness, but the fact is, we've got millions of acres of pristine wilderness here in this country that is off limits to development. The consequence of the idiot stuff they do is wild fires in California because they won't let them clear dead wood, no exploration or exploitation of natural resources, even when minimal to no impact can be proven, and various other junk. Essentially, the lawyers get really rich, and business are forced into bankruptcy or overseas, but not much that actually improves the environment. As to your comment on voting for the party and not the person, I can understand that. A lot of folks here vote a straight party ticket rather than researching the individuals. The only problem there is that if the candidates are not people of character, with firm principles, they'll run on one platform, and govern by the polls, which leads to no leadership, and a lot of people complaining about their government. I know because that's where the conservatives in this country are at. Like I said though, whether I agree with your ideals or not (which is really moot since you're in another country), I applaud the fact that you know the issues that are important to you and took the time to find out who best represents them. I'm also saying Obama. Mainly for the reason that McCain is way too war-mongering for my tastes. Did you hear his comment about Iranians? Reporters asked him about what his opinion was on the rise of exporting cigarettes to Iran, and he said something to the effect of "Good, anything to kill them faster." Are you kidding me right now? Not to say that I'm just saying I'm against McCain, I'm a fan of Obama because it would be nice to have an intelligent president of the US for once. It'd be a nice change. As to McCain's comment, that was a joke, perhaps in poor taste, but a joke none the less. As for him being war-mongering, there you are wrong. There is no man or woman who has worn the uniform of an American Service Member, especially in times of war, who wants to be at war with anyone. That goes doubly for anyone who was a member of our military during the Vietnam era. Not only does McCain understand the horrors of war, he also understands the danger of politicians turning it into a political tug of war instead of leaving it up to the military to prosecute. As for Obama, the only evidence of intelligence I've seen is that he managed to get through law school, and run for President. The first tells me he's good at memorizing. The second tells me he has good handlers. The man can't speak to save his life when he's off the teleprompter. If his positions or policy statements are questioned, he splutters and gets angry that anyone dares to question him, rather than answering the questions. He's very good at reading speeches filled with flowery words that mean absolutely nothing when you listen to the content. Worse than that, he promotes himself as a candidate for change, when if you actually listen to his policy positions they are a regurgitation of failed policies dating from the 50s-the 70s. Don't believe me, go back and listen to what Jimmy Carter had to say about high gas prices. I remember, even as young as I was then, and the similarity and inanity is frightening. There was a reason Carter was a single term president. You couldn't slide a razor blade into the difference between most of their ideas. So, if you're of voting age for this November, before you pull the lever for anyone, I would urge you to determine what you believe the President's job is, what the most important aspects of that job are to you, and then find out where each candidate actually stands and what their voting records are on those issues before you make up your mind. Don't just listen to speeches. MODEDIT: Trying to conserve posts, don't mind me. -Ammy
|
|
|
Post by ladytera on Aug 16, 2008 2:52:19 GMT -5
I totally forgot to say who I was voting for and why! Duh. Okay, so I'll be voting for McCain for President. And Tom Price for Congress if I'm still in his district. I haven't researched the rest of the ballot yet, so I can't say who else.
McCain - I disagree with a number of his past policies, most particularly Campaign Finance Reform (violation of the 1st Amendment), and Immigration Reform (violation of the Federal Governments sworn duty to protect our borders and our citizens from foreign invasion). I think his gang of 14 that forstalled a Constitutional showdown on appointing judges was severely misguided, and I think the fact that he believes that working with the other side is a goal in an of itself is downright stupid. Then again, I'm a conservative, and he isn't. So, now that I've given all the reasons why I was furious when he became the Republican nominee, I'll go into the ones that explain why I can and will still vote for him. John McCain does not share my principles, but he has principles, and when it comes down to it, he does not compromise them. He believes ear marks in spending bills is wrong, and he has consistently refused to include them in his own legislation and fought to keep others from doing so as well. He believes in naming names and holding people accountable for their actions in Congress. He believes that the primary role of the Federal Government is to protect our country, and to deal with foreign powers. While you don't see it so much in the campaign, he is not afraid to say precisely what he thinks and why. As importantly, he's not afraid to admit when he's wrong. With the immigration bill, he admits that he believes the measures that were in it for dealing with our current illegal population are necessary, he also admits that it is necessary for the Federal Government to first and separately secure our borders from further illegal entry, both for economic reasons, national security reasons, and respect for the rule of law. More importantly, that change in his position also showed that he is aware of the fact the he works for the American People, not the other way around, and when we speak with one voice, it is the job of our elected officials to abide by our wishes. With the Bush tax cuts, he originally voted against them, which I didn't agree with, but his reasoning was sound. He objected because it did not include a reduction in spending as well. Which is sound economic policy. Now, he supports making those tax cuts permanent, which is still consistent, because to allow them to expire will effectively cause a massive tax increase at a time when our economy will be seriously hindered by such a policy. He believes in his country, and it's people, and believes it would be a privilege to be our leader, rather than his right. And he is running on his record, good and bad, rather than the color of his skin. Lastly, he's not Barak Obama, who is not only inept, naive, and disingenuous if not an outright liar, he's down right dangerous, and is regurgitating former communist policy initiatives as his idea of change for my country.
Tom Price has my vote for the simple reason that he stayed in Washington over the summer recess to continue fighting on the floor of Congress to force the Democrat majority to pass a good, workable bill to address drilling for oil here at home. He takes the time to speak to the people who have shown up to see what the Republicans are up to. And if nothing else, this behavior demonstrates that he too knows that he works for us, and that it is time that Congress and the Senate were made accountable for their poor management of our resources, and more importantly that they correct that mismanagement immediately. I like that in a politician.
Flame away!
|
|
|
Post by ladytera on Aug 18, 2008 3:45:03 GMT -5
Yes, I have posted the first link in the research section! If you don't know your answer to this question yet, but want to get a better picture of who the main candidates are, check it out.
|
|
|
Post by melissacato on Sept 8, 2008 9:46:41 GMT -5
Ron Paul of course. Gotta take America back ya know... the sooner the better.
|
|
|
Post by corgilove on Sept 8, 2008 13:52:01 GMT -5
I'll be voting for Obama. TBH, I don't think he will win. I hope he does, but I just am not counting on it lol.
There are a lot of reasons why, mostly because I agree with nearly everything he wants to do with the US. I think the US is ready for a change, and I honestly believe that if McCain wins, there won't be much, if anything at all. I do believe it's time for a change. The past 8 years have been terrible, I don't care who says it hasn't been. And McCain will be just another GWB, he just won't stutter as much.
Another thing I hate about McCain is the VP he chose. There are so many things about her that make me want to puke, and to honestly say he didn't pick her because she is a woman and he wanted some woman voters is idiotic. She said one month before she was chosen that: +She did not know what a VP does. +That if she was asked to be the VP she'd say no. She said no to adding Polar Bears on the endangered list because it would conflict with drilling in Alaska.. She's being investigated for being corrupt in office. I mean, seriously? Can it get any worse?
Anyway.. I've always been blown away by Obama and he definitely has my vote.
|
|
|
Post by ladytera on Sept 10, 2008 3:25:37 GMT -5
Um, I'm going to argue *cough*.. I mean debate with you one this, but first, I have a couple of questions. I'll be voting for Obama. TBH, I don't think he will win. I hope he does, but I just am not counting on it lol. Why do you think he won't win? What specifically, policy wise, do you agree with Obama on, other than you think we need change? What, specifically, do you believe needs to change, and why specifically do you believe McCain won't bring any change? What specifically, do you believe has been terrible about the last 8 years? What, specifically about her makes you want to puke, and on what do you base the idea that she is purely a pick to get the female vote? Where are you quoting this information from? I will address these when you get back to me on the other stuff. I have to double check my facts on some of what I have to say. What, specifically, about Obama blows you away? I know that sounds like a lot of questions, but I can't have a debate without a little more information on why you feel the way you do. Thanks, and I'll be checking back later.
|
|
|
Post by keyodie on Sept 10, 2008 6:44:54 GMT -5
Ladytera - About the "she didn't know what a VP does" part, she was recently interviewed on some network and when asked a question she replied with "I can't answer that question unless someone answers for me, what exactly is it that the VP does every day?" Or something along those lines. www.youtube.com/watch?v=006axc2aELEAlso, I didn't write this and I don't know how much of it is true, but the sources will be posted at the end. Some of the sources are iffy (especially wikipedia haha), but there might be some truth in there. And I think it is absolutely horrible about how much sexism Hilary had to deal with and how much "Stop crying just because you're a woman 'Waaa the big boys are picking on me'" crap was going on, and now the same people are saying things like "You know, a male wouldn't have had to deal with blah blah I'm surprised with all the sexism blah blah." when it comes to Sarah Palin. Of course, the last part is something I saw on the Daily Show with John Stewart... And I know, that sounds pathetic. ;D But hey, you can't argue with video evidence.
|
|
|
Post by Bubba's Dad on Sept 10, 2008 18:59:25 GMT -5
Wow, our country is in bigger trouble then I thought if any of you folks are old enough and energetic enough to vote.
I would vote for Sara Palin by way of McCain. I have too. I love the Constitution, I love this country, and being a small business owner, I love capitalism. I am also patriotic, though i know some of you in the Netherlands may have a hard time with that subject. Here are some of my thoughts on this.
Sara Palin has more executive experience as as mayor and Governor in her six years in those posts then do McCain, Biden or Noboma. Noboma can not make a decision on his own, as his 100 plus "here" votes as a Senator prove.
Sara Palin has dealt with Russia and Canada when finalizing fishing contracts, limited yet more direct foreign policy experience then Biden or Noboma. Remember, Biden was wrong about the War in Iraq, the surge, and most of the decisions he voted for during the Cold war with Russia were also proven wrong and short sighted.
McCain and Sera Palin have gone agents their own party to do what they thought right. Noboma and Biden are both lock step party members.
Sara Palin enjoyed a 80-90% positive rating as Governor, what is the US Congress at now? Is it single digit yet?
She is pro-Life, why is that a bad thing? I do not want people to feed their unborn babies to a blender either. And Sara Palin lives her convictions, when 80% of fetuses diagnosed with Downs are blended, Sara chose Life and had her Downs child brought into this world despite the difficulties.
She brought here overblown state spending in line, by cutting spending, not raising taxes.
She fought big oil, and forced a renegotiation of oil-state contracts to get a dividends check for every Alaska resident.
Every "scandal" about Noboma and Biden have proven true, every Scandal about Sara Palin so far has proven false.
I can go on, but I have to eat.
All this is not to say that I think a McCain-Palin ticket is perfect, but when put up agents the other choice...well there is no choice.
And why do you all think that the last eight years have been so bad?
By the way, why would you use anything from Move On as "proof" to reinforce your argument? They lie just like Media Matters dose.
|
|
|
Post by keyodie on Sept 10, 2008 19:59:42 GMT -5
I don't. Simple answer. xD I said in my post that I knew that the sources were iffy, I just wanted to add to the discussion.
I won't be too present in this thread though because I'm not a very big politics person. Thanks for the reply, though.
|
|
|
Post by pendergrast on Sept 12, 2008 16:12:38 GMT -5
More power to the kids! Look at how they’ve developed websites like this one through their own initiative. This has as much to do with ‘the American Way’ as anything I can think of. And, in good part, it’s Obama who has galvanized them.
Don’t you think people who are for Obama love their country?
She’s a first term governor of the state with the smallest population in the US, not to mention an atypical state. This is not going to prepare her for dealing with the U.S. government. In fact, I suspect the average US Senator knows a lot more about such things. Not to mention one as brilliant or widely knowledgeable as Obama. In fact, Obama’s experience, though unusual, is quite impressive. Read his books, if you don’t think so.
In general the talk about ‘executive experience’ is pretty phony. If ‘executive experience’ as you define it were so important, the Republicans would have gone for Mitt Romney, or McCain would have picked any number of people with more experience than Palin.
Why do you think Biden was wrong about his decisions? Could you be specific? If I’m not wrong, McCain has often praised his old buddy Biden’s expertise in foreign affairs. At the very least, Biden’s been there, involved himself with all the decisions, met and talked with all the world leaders. For a long time.
But the Obama/Biden party IS the party of change. The Republicans have been in power for years. So they’ve been in lockstep for a good reason. And McGame has voted with Bush 91 percent of the time. And has flip-flopped on his most reformist views. How could anyone believe him to be an agent of change?
Palin may turn out to be a good governor, but after 20 months, who knows?
Abortion is a terribly hard personal decision for anyone. Pro-Life people want to legislate what ought to be a private decision.
Again, you do nothing to justify your points.
Well, McGame and Palin seem to think so too. They hardly mentioned Bush at the convention, and are talking tough about ‘change’, as if the Republicans hadn’t been in total control of the the country for the past 8 years. Of course, how can anyone believe them? I think the general opinion in the country is that change is needed, so M and P opportunistically hopped on the bandwagon.
Why have the last 8 years been bad? Books have been written, but let’s review a few key points: -Bush lied to us about the reasons for the Iraq War, citing intelligence he knew was false in his 2003 State of the Union address. -Bush claimed Iraq had WMD, when no evidence supported it. He claimed that Iraq was associated with Al Quaeda, which was untrue. -The US case for war against Iraq failed in the UN Security Council, so the US acted unilaterally anyway, creating anger and resentment around the world, showing the US to be a lawless in dealing with other countries. -In doing so, Bush created the Bush Doctrine, which means that if we think another country means us ill, we can attack them first. A very big change from any stated US policy, and very frightening to other countries. -We attacked Iraq and deposed Saddam, but caused untold damage in the process, for example destroying 8000 year old artifacts. Arab hatred of the US increased immeasurably. -The war was disastrously poorly prepared, creating resentment and probably more than 100,000 Iraqi deaths. But of course, they were Muslims, and received few American prayers. Of course, our boys suffered terribly too, and then, because the war was such a mess, were redeployed again and again. And the ones who came back injured were given poor care and poor treatment. McCain, by the way, voted ‘no’ on a bill to help returnees get a college education. -Instead of raising taxes to support the hundreds of billions for the war effort, Bush cut taxes. This resulted in the biggest deficit in the country’s history, after Clinton had started paying off the debt for the first time in our lifetimes. -Since there was no money to pay for all this, the US government relied on enormous borrowing. We now owe China 2 trillion dollars and rising! Do you wonder why the US doesn’t criticize Chinese human rights violations in a voice above a whisper? -Speaking of human rights violations, the scandal at the Abu Gharaib prison, which proved that ordinary soldiers were treating prisoners sadistically, and the prison at Guantanamo Bay Cuba, where the US put prisoners so that they couldn’t be protected by US law, further added to the international loathing of the US. (To McCain’s credit, he actually opposed this, having been a prisoner of war himself.) Meanwhile, far too little effort was given to fighting Al Quaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan, where they actually headquartered. This Afghanistan war is going worse and worse. At the same time, the US Army is incredibly stretched and the US is unable to Protect its interests in other countries. -Bush has grossly mismanaged and misunderstood his Russian ‘friend’ Putin, putting our countries at nearly Cold War status once again. -Bush and his cronies ignored the global warming threat, for example, for 8 years refusing to use the EPA to enforce carbon emissions standards, even after a Supreme Court decision finally defeated the administration argument that they had no right to enforce them. -Bush badly mismanaged the disaster of Hurricane Katrina, at first totally ignoring the threat, while FEMA, the federal agency charged with dealing with such disasters, was badly disorganized, in no small part because it was put in the hands of an old golfing buddy of the President’s, who had no experience dealing with emergency situations at all. Bush further infuriated storm survivors when he finally made it down to the storm scene, by reserving his most heartfelt comments for the plight of his politico buddy Trent Lott, who had lost his multi-million dollar residence.
Want more? I have to go eat too.
Example please? And even if they do…how do they compare with the Swift Boaters, Rush Limbaugh, etc? Or, even Sarah ‘Bridge to Nowhere’ Palin? (Yes, she campaigned for it as a gubernatorial candidate, and turned against it when it was plainly as dead as a doornail.)
|
|
|
Post by Bubba's Dad on Sept 13, 2008 18:27:34 GMT -5
Do I think Obama supporters love their country too? Short answer is no, I do not. The thousands of US flags tossed out in to the trash at INVESCO field after their big rah-rah session is but one small insight into how they regard their country. All any of them can do is point out perceived wrongs in this country and talk about how great it would be if we could just change everything. This is nothing but drivel repeated from Obama’s favorite book, Rules For Radicals, a book written by a total American hating Marxist.
As for executive experience, I do not give it a lot of weight, but I just use it to point out that she has some. It is the left in the country who question her experience. It comes down to decision making, and both McCain and Palin have done so in a consistent and honorable manner. They bring life experience as well as government experience to the ticket. What is impressive about Obama? Can you name one thing that he has done, and don’t give me the generic garbage about being a community organizer, everyone by now knows he was working in part for ACORN, the corrupt organization for furthering voter fraud.
And what was Biden wrong on? Well again, he was wrong about the surge working, and about the fact that we are winning this war. He was wrong when he opposed the ‘91 Gulf war. He was wrong when he opposed the use of force to liberate Granada in 1983, a country that has flourished under a now democratic government. He opposed Regan’s hard stand against Russia, and he was proven wrong in that too. What good is Foreign Policy experience if you are always on the wrong side?
As for the lock step comment I made, it comes back to decision making. Yes, John McCain has voted with the Republicans most of the time, that might be why he is a Republican? What is interesting is the other times when he felt like he needed to vote the other way, he did so. Obama has never showed that willingness, ever. As for flip flop, Obama is the flip flop king. He was publicly against wire tapping to collect info on terrorists, but then voted for it. He was all for using only public funds for his campaign, right up until he decided that donations would be better. He says he voted against the use of force in Iraq, but was not even in the US Senate for that vote.
You admit that Sarah Palin has been a great Governor so far, but after 20 months who knows? What was that line about? It reminds me of how many Socialist Democrats and closet communist handle everything that is counter to their position. Such as, “Sure communism has failed every time it has been tried, but…” When you cannot argue the facts, you pull a “what if?”
And for the abortion question, OK. I do concede your point that murdering your unborn child is an intensely hard and personal decision, but for most people, so is the decision to kill your wife, lawyer, or accountant. We have laws in the country against the act of murder, regardless of who the victim is. Everyone is endowed by their creator to the right to life, and that right can not be legally taken from you without due process. To call Row VS. Wade the due process needed to justify the removal of the right to life for millions for babies is a farce. I find it amazing that so many of the same people who support the right to murder babies also condemn the death penalty, which is the legal outcome of a persons own actions in which due process was clearly given.
As to justifying my points, what do you want? She did cut taxes and spending in her state. She did force the oil companies to renegotiate contracts, getting a better deal for the State of Alaska as well as a $2000 yearly dividend to every Alaskan resident. All of that is public record, and can be checked if any of the media and bloggers had bothered to take the time. As for the ongoing Sarah Palin scandal attacks, let me count them for you, at least the ones that I remember off the top of my head.
1) She’s a mom of five, she can’t work an important job and be a mom. This was an early one, but they never considered that this is an intact loving family with the father active in the household. 2) She faked her own pregnancy to cover up her daughters. Again, proven false. 3) She is a Nazi sympathizer. This because she turned out as Mayor for a visit from Pat Buchanan, as mayors generally do as a courtesy for any visiting politician. 4)She used eminent domain to take land for the sports complex when she was mayor. This was false, and a look at some dates on paperwork prove that, although she set up the project, and got the money authorized to build it, it was the following mayor that started the project on privately owned land. 5) She tried to have books banned. A look at a list of the books people claim she wanted banned will show that many of them were not even published yet while she was mayor. 6) She wants creation taught in schools. Well as a Christian she probably would like to see that, but she never tried to have this done, she has stated publicly that she would like to see creationism discussed as another theory along with evolution if the subject comes up.
As for the last part of your rant, here are some responses to the highlights. Bush did not lie about anything. Did you ever here or read his address were he mentions WMD as one of many reasons to go to war. And we did find WMD components there, including a whole boat load of yellow cake. Everyone, including your hero BJ Clinton, (convicted felon, disbarred attorney and rape suspect) believed that Saddam Hussein had WMD, and that he had the intent to used them, there were 14 UN resolutions condemning him for this as well as many other things. To say Bush lied about this one aspect in his address that justified our many reasons for the use of force would imply that the President knew what every intelligence agency in the world did not know, and that he had the intent to mislead everyone because of it. The whole Bush lied, people died mantra has been so totally disproved I am surprised that it still pops up. On top of that, to claim that the US acted unilaterally to attack Iraq is not only ludicrous on its face, it is an insult the the British, Australian, Polish, Canadian, and other coalition forces who have given their service, treasure, and all too often their lives in cooperation and support of the US LED invasion of Iraq and reconstruction efforts. The Bush Tax cut actually brought in more Federal Revenue than ever before, again, this has been so proven that even some on the left have been forced to admit it. As for the Arab-Muslim world hating us, in the words of Jeff Dunham’s dead terrorist, they would kill us for a Klondike bar. The Arab-Muslim world hates us because we are not Muslim, that is all there is to it. As to McCain voting against giving our returning troops a collage education, it is because the GI bill was already in place that did a better job of encouraging retention, mostly because the GI bill gives more money to those who are in the Armed forces longer. This approach is in line with both McCain and Obama's stance that the Federal Government needs to have policies that promote national service. And what about Katrina? Did you know that the Federal government can do nothing within state borders until asked by the state Governor? The old Governor of LA waited three days to ask for help! Bush could do nothing until then. Notice how well things went this time with a Republican governor in place? And what is with all this Bush stuff? I did not know he was on the ticket this time.
And, by the way, the Swift Vote veterans did not lie, that is why they were so effective in crushing John Kerry, did you know he served in Vietnam? Rush always backs up everything that he states as fact with his famous stack of stuff, links to were he found what he is talking about, and the factual information it is based on. Rush dose have opinions, but states them as such. Media Matters used misrepresented words they claimed Rush said about our troops, as Harry Reid found out, to his detriment, when it was proven that the allegations were a complete fabrication. Move On took out a full page ad in the NY Times stating that General Petraeus was a traitor, also untrue, and as the success of the surge has proven, it is more apt to say those calling for our surrender and defeat in the Middle East have betrayed us.
|
|
|
Post by ladytera on Sept 13, 2008 21:44:40 GMT -5
Sept 8, 2008, 9:46am, melissacato wrote: Ron Paul of course. Gotta take America back ya know... the sooner the better.
Hi! Thanks for joining the conversation, and it's nice to see a different point of view. I have to say, I like Ron Paul, and what he stands for. I considered voting for him in the primary, and chose a different candidate for several reasons. One of the main ones is that I like, Mr. Paul am a pragmatist, and I did not believe he could win. I also am of the firm opinion that any of the Democrat candidates for President would not only be bad for the very foundational ideas and values of my country, but that in this time and place they would be down right dangerous. They have all shown far to much willingness to shirk the primary responsibility and reason behind creating a central government, protection of the citizenry from enemies both domestic and foreign. Instead, they place their desire to be liked above that most sacred duty. So, because I felt Ron Paul would fail in a general election, and because I happen to disagree with him on foreign policy, and I genuinely believe that while our foreign policy needs some adjustment, isolationism is not only impossible but dangerous in the world we inhabit, I could not vote for him in the primary. On almost every other domestic issue, however, I agree very strongly with him, which is why I hope he remains in the Congress, and continues to advocate his ideas, lead others to his cause, and help to facilitate the changes the American people want and need. The secret that you never hear in a Presidential Campaign, is that domestic policy is not the purview of the President. The President signs laws. But while he can advocate for policies he wants, and against policies he doesn't, he cannot create nor vote on legislation. The much touted Bush Tax Cuts, and No Child Left Behind, and Prescription Medicaid, stuff were NOT authored by Bush. They were advocated by Bush, they were signed into law by Bush, but they were not passed by Bush. It is the Congress and Senate that control the Federal Budget, thus the Federal Deficit. It is the Congress and Senate that control entitlement programs. It is the Congress and Senate that must take back control of our country when it comes to domestic spending and domestic policy. And it is the Congress and Senate, on both sides of the proverbial aisle that have failed miserably in this regard.
Before McCain chose Sarah Palin for the VP slot, I had serious concerns about Bobb Barr on the Libertarian Ticket. He is a proven conservative, with a political record to point to. I would not have voted for him, for reasons that I outlined in my post about why I'm voting for McCain. But I could see why conservatives who had been exposed to years of the media, liberal and conservative, branding McCain as a liberal in conservative clothing. Mrs. Palin has energized a lethargic base, and my fears on that score have receded somewhat. Other than the fact that I still do not believe that Ron Paul, or Mr. Barr can win the general, I fear that if by some miracle either of them were elected, it would sound the final death knell for the movement toward the original intent of the Constitution that both of them hold so dear. As President, with a Congress and Senate that were controlled by either major party, and had few to no supporters from their own, one of two things would happen. Either they would fail to follow through on any of their promised changes, and then be dismissed as incompetent, irrelevant kooks who should never have been given power. Or, they would give up so much of the executive branches power, in an effort to show that they were trying to abide by their principles, and to set an example for Congress and the Senate, that they would be helpless to stop those bodies from taking total control of the central government. In which case they would be branded incompetent, irrelevant, kooks who should never have been given power. Either way, it will take decades of more of the same from the current careers politicians in charge before another movement like theirs could get off the ground, and by then the damage that can be caused is incalculable. I much prefer Mr. Thompson's approach of finding and supporting constructionist politicians to every level of government. Helping to bring the message of the Founding Fathers to the forefront of politics, and in the process building a strong elected coalition of public servants at all levels dedicated to bringing America, responsibly, back on the track that was laid out for us 200 years ago. I believe that that is the only way to allow a third party president, when one is finally elected, the ability to make the changes I would dearly love to see. So, in the mean time, I will vote for Mr. McCain. I will continue to speak my views about Mr. Obama. I will continue to vocally inform my elected representatives that it is their job to constitutionally serve the people of this nation, and I will look for and support, in any way I am able, those people who want to become elected public servants to help bring this country back to the principles and ideals of its founding.
I did hit the links you posted in the reference section. And I'll get into some of that later. However, I'd like to point out that while Congress can make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or the right to peaceably assemble, there is nothing in the constitution that states that a state, county or city may not have ordinances that must be followed for large gathering, and demonstrations. The is also nothing that states the local governments cannot enforce those laws and ordinances. And peaceable assembly does not include setting off fireworks in a city without a permit, it does not include rioting, it does not include defacing public property. The protesters who were breaking the law knew that they faced arrest for doing so, and therefor should not now be whining about being incarcerated for it. The protesters who refused to heed a lawful order from a peace officer should not now be whining that force was used to effect those arrests. In a civilized society, which is what our founders were creating, there are laws and rules of conduct. There are consequences for breaching those rules and laws. If you feel the rule or law is unjust, you can do one of two things. You can try to have it changed, which takes time. Or you can knowingly break it, which is your right, but you must at the same time accept the consequence of that decision. In other words, our policemen are not jack booted oppressors stamping out freedom, they are sworn peace officers who took an oath to uphold the law.
There was another point from those I wanted to hit, but my train of thought derailed and I have to put my youngest to bed, so I'll have to get to it later.
LT
|
|
|
Post by pendergrast on Sept 13, 2008 22:31:49 GMT -5
Short reply this time. Methinks you are ranting rather than arguing. I'm for Obama, though he's not ideal, and I'm a vet, I'm pretty sure I love my country as much as you or anybody else. Noticed a lot of military brass supporting Obama at the stadium in Denver. I do indeed 'perceive' wrongs about this country, perhaps because I lived overseas for many years in close contact with people who see ONLY shortcomings about it. So I'm anxious to see some of them fixed. For one example, every other developed country has national health insurance, and yet no country pays so much per person as we do. Because someone wants to fix things doesn't make them 'communists' or 'socialists', it means they want to fix them! Just like you'd like to fix a beloved old car. How about McCain's incredible lies about Obama? Now he's OK'ed a commercial saying Obama supported sex education for kindergarteners! Straight talk, indeed. Obama signed on to a bill that tried to help little kids avoid sex predators... And McCain chose Palin only to help him win over suckers from the right and from Hillary Clinton, not to help him govern the country. I honestly think he doesn't know her very well, and she clearly doesn't know much outside of Alaska. Pretty irresponsible of him. Yes, some stories about Palin aren't true...but some things she said aren't either. I'm sure you don't know much about her either, unless you're from Alaska. Say what you will about Bill Clinton...we'll gloss over Newtie Gingrich and Larry Craig, etc. Bill gave us PEACE and PROSPERITY. And Bush got us into war and debt. And ruined America's international reputation to boot. Obama did nothing? Well, he came from dire circumstances...I'm pretty sure his family was poorer than the Palins...and managed to become the first black editor of the Harvard Law Review, then went back to Chicago to organize, giving up the opportunity for Wall Street millions...I think he can talk, motivate, lead. His answers to questions are thoughtful and organized, or how did he get through 20 debates with Hillary? He conceptualizes problems in a big way, appears to understand the world. I do think Obama is inexperienced, I wish he had waited at least four more years to run. But at least he has potential. It's impossible to guess what McCain will do, probably just more of Bush. He could be even worse. Hard to tell, since he's claiming to be an 'agent of change.' But he is running a SERIOUSLY dishonest campaign. (Latest ad, in Spanish, telling latinos Obama voted against helping them with the last immigration bill. Fact: McCain and Obama voted exactly the same way.) I don't see any possiblity of agreeing with you... I'm sure you'll vehemently contest every single thing I say. But I'm enjoying the chance to express myself anyway. Have a nice evening!
|
|
|
Post by ladytera on Sept 14, 2008 0:54:34 GMT -5
pendergrast - I just wanted to say a quick welcome. I'll get into the argument *cough* debate in this thread with you a little later tonight, but I have to get back to work in a couple of minutes, so I can't give the conversation the full attention that it deserves at the moment. So, until later, welcome to the forum, I hope you continue to enjoy the conversation, and I look forward to a spirited debate.
|
|
|
Post by ladytera on Sept 14, 2008 7:46:41 GMT -5
Sir, I'm actually going to address your first and last points first, and then I'll get to the rest. I may have to do this in bits and pieces, as times allows, so look for updates to the post if there hasn't been further conversation in between them. If there has, I'll just post things separately as I get them done.
More power to the kids indeed. My daughter is one of the kids who started this incredible forum as a result of a disagreement they were having with the mods on another forum. Instead of getting grouchy, and whining, they decided to put their own place together, and I have to say (biased as my opinion may be) it's a pretty awesome site, and I am honored that she invited me to come play here. As for Mr. Obama, I can't say that I entirely disagree that he has stirred excitement within a new group of people in this country, and that is all to he good. My problem with him arises with the message beyond vague promises of hope and change that has failed to materialize.
Bravo! The entire point of this site, those like them, is to give people a chance to get informed. You can't do that with only one point of view. So, once again, welcome, and I'll probably vehemently contest a little myself, but that is all to the good. Men and women, such as yourself have fought and died for more than 200 years to assure us the right to speak our minds, and to vote for those we believe will lead our country well. It is our obligation as citizens to use our minds and our voices to be as well informed as possible when we make those decisions. That requires challenging our perceptions and ideas to be sure they are based in truth, and in understanding of what makes this country the amazing place it is.
Please forgive me if I hit this point a little later, as you addressed it more fully in your second post. And thus, I have the opportunity to be more circumspect than Bubba's Dad (who also happens to be my wonderful husband) in my response to the question.
While I tend to agree with both you and Bubba's Dad that this is a pretty phony point, I would like to point out that this point was NOT raised by conservatives and Republicans. It was raised by the Democrats and the media. The Republican response has been to counteract the charge of "no experience" that was broadcast almost immediately after the selection was made, and then repeated by Mr. Obama and his campaing. The comparison has been made about executive experience to highlight the fact that Sarah Palin does, in fact, have experience, does in fact, have a record of reform that she can point to, and that Obama, to date, has been hesitant to actually state anything in his record that he can point to as an accomplishement for change, or anything that can point to him being qualified to be president of the United States. As you stated later, his inexperiece is also a concern for you. It isn't particularly out of bounds for the Republicans to point out that their number two on the ticket, who is "a heartbeat away" from the Presidency, has at least as much experience as the heart beat running for President on the other side.
As to Mr. Obama's books, I must admit I have not read them. But I'd be interested in doing so. I may try to get a hold of them in an effort to further this conversation.
Bubba's Dad hit on this already, so I'm going to skip over them for now. If you want me to come back to it later, let me know and I'll do the research on it. I must say that I have much less familiarity with Biden than I do with the other people on the tickets. Short version, from what I do know of him, he is a straight party democrat who has been in Washington for decades. To me this does not much indicate a desire for change on the part of the Obama campaign, and I frankly thing Biden was a tactical mistake, designed to try to counteract Mr. Obama's lack of experience, that has backfired on them.
I have to dispute your facts here. First of all, until 1994 the democrats had been in control of congress, to one degree or another for 40 years. Please keep in mind when I say that what I said in my earlier post to melissacato. It is Congress and the Senate that determine domestic policy to a large degree. The President has little power, beyond being the party leader, to effect the kind of change you're talking about here. From 1994 to 2006, the Republicans had majority, but not super majority control of the House and Senate. From 1994 to 2000, the Democrats still held the White House. In 2000, you are correct that the Republicans again gained control of the White House, still with a marginal majority in the House and Senate. The huge spending bills passed by both houses of Congress, and signed by the President to fund Prescription Medicaid, and No Child Left Behind, as well as the debacle over immigration reform that did not require a secure border first, led to the loss of majority status in both houses in the 2006 election. In the two short years since the Democrats have been back in power in the houses of Congress, they have fulfilled none of their campaign promises, they have allowed gas prices to DOUBLE without putting forth coherent legislation to address this issue, they have hemmed and hawed and ranted on the floor of the Senate and in the well of Congress about the war in Iraq, but have done nothing to stop it, and worse have by their words tried to hinder American success, because to do otherwise (either defund the war and cause us to lose outright, or tell their base that what we were doing was fixing the problems and would lead to victory) would have been political suicide. Instead, we have them ranting about political policy suddenly becoming criminalized, smears against their opposition, and them blatantly ignoring corruption in their own ranks (Harry Reid - Land Deals in Nevada, William Jefferson - 90,000 in cash stuffed in his freezer, Charlie Rangel, tax evasion, misuse of rent controlled property in violation of state law, and use of his office for solicitation of funds not related to his office, please note, he's in charge of the committee that writes the tax codes, Nancy Pelosi - holdings in the T Boone Pickens organization for water rights and wind power that were significant enough, to most people, to pose a conflict of interest to her pressing legislation to benefit that company). In the last two years American's approval of how Congress and the Senate are doing their jobs has dropped to single digets, not that it had far to go, as it was in the teens when the Republicans were in control as well.
Two points on McCain's votes, first Mr. Bush wanted things conservatives do not want several times, so to us, those votes with Mr. Bush really don't count. Secondly, Mr. McCain has a record of speaking his mind and voting his conscience, and political consequences be damned. While I don't always agree with him, I have to say I admire that in a politician. As to your comment on him flip flopping on his most reformist views, could you please be specific in what you are referring to, because I'd like to respond, but I'd like to know what I'm responding to.
From all accounts so far, she was a good city council member from 1992-1996, and a good mayor from 1996-2002, and a good Chairwoman of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, with a history of reform there, and has been a good governor since being elected to that post, by beating an incumbent Governor of her own party, in the primary, and then beating a former Governor of the opposing party in the general. Apparently Alaskans saw her as an agent of change too. I would say that resume pretty much bodes well for the future of her governorship. However, we're looking at the future of her Vice Presidential career, and in that respect, I'd say that resume looks pretty good for that job too.
Bubba's Dad went into this issue quite vehemently as you put it. Here's the thing about the abortion issue. There is no constitutional right to an abortion, regardless of how the Rowe vs. Wade desicion has been twisted. There is a right to life that is protected by the Constitution. Regardless of your religious views, personal beliefs, or moral values, in this country it is considered unacceptable to take the life of an innocent human being. It's that simple, and that black and white. I used to actually agree with you on this point, and actually, so did Bubba's Dad, as he is a strong supporter of individual rights. As we looked more and more at the subject, read more and more from both sides, and grew in our own experiences, what I know I came to believe is that the mother's right to free choice is in no way violated by not allowing her to kill her child. Were I to ask you if it would be okay for a woman to kill her newborn baby, because she didn't feel like caring for it, and it interfered with her freedom of her own body because she had to breast feed, would you consider that to be okay? I doubt it. The very idea would be abhorrent to most people. But in essence, that is what the pro-abortion groups advocate. They say that it is a woman's body, and because the baby is dependent on her body, it should be her right to commit sanctioned murder. I don't want new legislation to be put in place, I want the rights of a United States citizen to be applied equally to all of her citizens, including baby's in the womb. I know there are the arguements about rape and incest. These days, that's a moot point. If something like that happens to you, all you have to do is walk into any hospital or clinic and ask for a morning after pill, problem solved. And yes, I did call the pro-abortion groups, because they are NOT pro-choice groups. The choice comes when you decide to have sex, and everyone should have take responsibility for the consequences of their choices, even women who get pregnant by accident.
Fox News just ran a story researching Sarah Palin's fiscal record in Alaska that addressed these very issues. I can't remember the name of the show I was watching, it was just background while I worked, but it had a lot of actual detail and was relatively informative. And basically, once the background had been looked into, it supported the points that Bubba's Dad was making.
I won't deny that it was a somewhat brilliant stroke for them to have taken the idea of change, and then start actually advocating policies to enact specific changes. And I won't deny that the fact that Sarah Palin is about as far from a Washington insider as you can get has helped to cement the idea that their ticket is about change. I will say that neither Mr. McCain nor Sarah Palin have said the last 8 years were bad, nor have they indicated anything less then great admiration and respect for the country and her citizens. That they did not mention Mr. Bush was as much a function of the hallabaloo over hurricane Gustave as it was anything else. The entire first day of the convention was truncated and all the speakers postponed or cancelled, in particular Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney. The rest of the convention, focused on the future and what they intended to do if they were elected.
Unfortunately, yes they have, and movies have been made, and many of them have since been proven to be false. Bubba's Dad addressed a lot of this, but I'm going to hit some of these one by one. If you just see a BD, that just means check out his post on it for my opinion.
This mantra, while catchy and all, was patently false on its face from the beginning. No one knew the intelligence wasn't 100% accurate, the entire world perceived Hussein as a threat, including all the Democrats who voted to authorize the war in Iraq, and none of it mattered a damn. The cease fire agreement that Hussein agreed to at the end of Desert Storm was repeatedly violated, incurring 14 resolutions by the UN against Iraq, and the US was completely within it's legal rights to RESUME, not start hostilities, to finish what was started in 1991.
Both claims were proven false, both during the investigation of the whole Plame affair, and in the documents that were discovered and later disclosed subsequent to the removal of the Hussein regime. I honestly can't remember the site that contains the information, and I don't really have time to read through everything, even if I did. However, I did read through the relevant parts of it at the time, and it conclusivley debunked both of these statements. You can probably Google it if you are so inclined. One other point, in addition, that came out at the time and was downplayed in the media. Senator Rockefeller, of the Senate Intelligence committee, visited the Syrian leader shortly before operations commenced, and informed him of the coming invasion. Shortly after that visit, Israeli satellite footage showed large convoys of trucks moving from suspected WMD sites in Iraq across the border into Syria. Considering we know that Sryian and Iraqi leadership were if not friendly, at least cooperative in certain aspects, it is not unreasonable to assume that word was passed to Hussein of the coming invasion, and the WMD were moved.
BD dealt with most of this. One other point. The case for was failed in the UN Security council because the French and Germans were afraid that the Oil For Food fraud that they had all been getting rich on was going to come out and bite them in the butt. Which is subsequently did. Aside from that, Russia and China also had an interest in blocking any action in Iraq. All of this led to a stalemate in the security council. But the simple fact remains that it is the sworn duty and responsibility of the US government, and most particularly her commander in cheif to protect the rights and interest of the American people first, not subjugate our safety and security to the will of a world body.
Incorrect. According to Karl Rove, and he should know, there were actually four different policies that the media dubbed the Bush Doctrine at different points during his administration. The one you are referring to does not state that if we think another country means us ill, we can attack them first. It does state that if we have evidence and intelligence that says another country means us harm, or if that country has acted to cause us harm in the past, and is preparing to do so again, we can act preemptively to prevent loss of American civilian life. I'm not sure if that's a change from any US policy, although I'm certain it is a change from Mr. Clinton's policy. And as for it being very frightening to other countries, I have to say that I think it is about time countries who intend us harm were very frightened of the consequences. Peace does not come through weakness, no matter how much the Democrats would have it so, it comes through strength, tempered with reason and compassion.
Please state your sources, or at least specifics on this. The only artifacts that I recall reading about being destroyed were destroyed not by us, but first by Hussein and his troops, and later by terrorist action. The responsibility for that lies with them. As to the untold damage, well, we stuck around to repair that damage, as we invariably do, and today, the Iraqi infrastructure, economy and standard of living is better than it has been in 30 years. Is there more work to do? I'm sure. 30 years of corrupt dictatorship and the destruction it causes can take a while to reverse, but we've made great strides, as have the Iraqi people, and there is every reason to believe that progress will continue. As to Arab hatred of the US, I don't think so. Those countries who already hate us, kept right on hating us. Those countries who keep their neighbors from invading them by posturing over Arab solidarity and anti-US sentiment, went right on posturing, and silently prayed to Allah that the Great Satan would stay and finish the job so Iran didn't take over the entire region. The Iraqis, for the most part, like us, and appreciate the opportunity for freedom we have helped them achieve. To what extent anti-American sentiment has actually increased, that was not cause by our presence, nor our invasion of Iraq, that was caused by propaganda from the enemy, and a lack of a good PR strategy on our side, exascerbated by a press bent on defeat because it makes better news.
I'm not sure of the death toll to the actual Iraqi civilians. I don't consider the military and terrorist deaths something to bemoan. It is a war, people who chose to be combatants, lawful or unlawful, in a war are going to die. Sorry if that sounds harsh. However, the strategy in Iraq, as if was in Afghanistan, was designed to minimize civilian casualties as much as possible. Do I mourn the loss of life, civilian, or otherwise? Of course. And no, the Iraqis are not just Muslims, and very few conservatives or any other Americans view them that way. And you would probably be surprised by the number of American prayers that went out to everyone on both sides of that conflict. It is silly and a bit insulting to assume otherwise, unless you have some factual evidence to back up that allegation. As for poor preparation, and the "mess" you claim, there are several factors involved there that I know of, and many more I probably do not. First of all, a great man once said (and who escapes me) Battle plans rarely survive first contact, or something to that effect. It is impossible to plan for every contigency. First, Mr. Bush took office with a greatly reduced military force and military budget, and was still in the process of rebuilding our strength at the time the war began. You might argue that he should have waited, but that point is pretty much moot at this time. Second, our hands were tied in a way they have never been in any previous war. We were required to approach the war in Iraq not with overwhelming force, but with surgical precision to minimize the loss of life and property. You may argue that there was loss of life and property, I refer you to the statistics from WWI, WWII, and Vietnam. Third, and just as debilitating in the reconstruction efforts after the initial military victory, was that we had to spend years rebuilding the Iraqi trust in the American's willingness to finish the job and not leave them twisting in the wind. Thousands were tortured, killed, or forced to flee when we left the job unfinished in 1991, this left the Iraqi citizenry, and more importantly the new leaderrship, unsure if they could trust that we would stay long enough to keep them from facing the same thing from a reemergence of the Ba'athist regime, a take over bid from Iran, or a take over bid from the terrorist organizations. It took several years of unwavering support from President Bush to reestablish that trust. Once that trust was reestablished, the tide began to turn against the terrorists that continued the fighting after Hussein's regime fell.
BD addressed this too. My .02. Econ 101 teaches that you cut taxes to raise revenue. It ALWAYS works that way. Tax cuts have never in our history, failed to stimulate the economy and raise the overall revenue of the federal government. While tax increases almost always lead to economic slow down and an over all loss of revenue for the governement.
As to Mr. Clinton, he started paying off the debt two ways, first by slashing the military and intelligence budgets dangerously low, leading to my point above, and by including the Social Security Fund, which is supposed to be separate from the rest of the federal budget, in the general fund numbers, but not including the projected payouts from social security in his long term deficit projections. Lastly, part of whatever economic balance was achieved during the Clinton administration was due to the Republican controlled congress ramming welfare reform down his throat, and shutting down the government for a bit when the spending he wanted was too high. Worse than that, in this glowing report of Mr. Clinton's achievements, that is so often overlooked, the reason Mr. Bush had to look at tax cuts was because Mr. Clinton left the country slowly heading for a recession that began when the dot.com bubble burst on Wall Street, and continued until he left office. Despite the current media hype, by all economic indicators, that have been used since the economy has begun to be analyzed, we are not in a recession, and have not been in a recession at any time during the last 8 years. Growth is up 3.5% last quarter, which is admittedly less than the first 5 or 6 years of the Bush administration, and it's up for the second quarter running. Unemployment is down last quarter, and consumer confidence is up last quarter. Is there a huge deficit? Yep. It just jumped by 5.3 trillion dollars when your Democract congress (admittedly supported by many idiot Republicans) socialized a large sector of our mortgage market. However, the bulk of our deficit does not come from the war, it comes from entitlement programs like Medicare, Medicade, and Social Security that were poorly constructed from the get go, but everyone is afraid to fix because they'll be called mean to old people, poor people, and small children. You could cut out every other program the government has, including defense, IRS, FBI, CIA, the President, Congress, and the Senate, and we would still be running a huge deficit due to the entitlement programs instigated and added to with from the New Deal on.
Actually, you get no arguement from me here. It is unconcsionable, and it is also the reponsibility of Congress and the Senate, rather than the President.
The proof you speak of here was in many cases proven to be false. Again, it was a while ago, and I don't have links on hand. And quite frankly, the terrorists idea of sadistic and my idea of sadisitic appear to be two very different things. As to the prisoners not being protected by US law, that's true and false at the same time. Our laws regarding prisoners of war are in force at the Guantanamo Bay facility, and always have been. What we have denied them is access to the protection an American citizen derives from our Constitution, which under the Geneva convention and any other international treaty or law that we are a party to, we are not required to give them. More importantly, they are not criminals, they are prisoners of war, and until such time as that war is concluded, they are entitled to humane treatment and nothing else, legally speaking, nor should they be as a matter of national security. It was not our actions that caused international outcries, but the misrepresentation of those actions, and the misrepresentation of the prisoners as criminals rather than combatants, lawful or otherwise. IMH, it would have saved everyone a lot of hassle if we'd used the same take no prisoners attitude our adversaries have, and shot them all on the battlefield taking the whole issue off the table. But, hey, that's just me. Someone tries to kill me or mine, my goal is to simply, efficiently, and permanently eliminate the threat.
As for Afghanistan, we were doing just fine there, until the terrorists started getting their asses handed to the in Iraq. At which point, they started funnelling into Afghanistan and heating things up there. The difference is, that while things have gotten hotter there, Afghanistan already has a standing military that can assist us in our efforts, and while we may need to send in more troops, it won't turn into the same kinds of difficulties we saw in Iraq. As for Pakistan, it is an allied, sovereign nation who has told us in no uncertain terms that our military assistance was not welcome. As much as we might like to, we cannot invade their borders, as they have done nothing to harm us, at least that we can prove, and they have been cooperative in our efforts in both Afghanistan and Iraq. In short, to conduct operations in Pakistan, at this time, would actually make us guilty of what you accuse us of doing in Iraq.
I don't know the data here, so I won't say much. Which interests, in particular, are of concern?
Mostly, I agree with you here. But I have to say you don't "manage" a foreign leader. And it is not Mr. Bush who had pushed us to Cold War status, but Mr. Putin, with his invasion of a soveriegn, democratic nation who is our ally that has placed us so close to that footing once again.
Okay, I gotta stop for now. I've got to get some sleep or I'm going to be wrecked later. I should have time to get back to this later on tonight.
PS Please forgive the length of this post, I forgot I wasn't writing a term paper. But you had such great points of debate, and I am a firm believer in backing up my point of view, so I kind of had a lot to say. I can't promise the next one will be any shorter either. ;D
PSS Please forgive the typos, I promise I'll come back and fix them later. I didn't have time to proof read and spell check.
|
|
|
Post by pendergrast on Sept 14, 2008 10:06:22 GMT -5
Wow! I appreciate your long and thoughtful post. I will be trying my best to reply over time, but can't spend hours and hours. On first reading, your weakest points are saying that Obama's ideas 'didn't materialize' or something of that nature... He has detailed plans hashed out ad nauseum in his debates with Clinton (the press complained that they were discussing the issues too much!) and of course they haven't materialized, he hasn't been elected yet. I wish McCain especially, but also Obama, WOULD discuss issues instead of mudslinging, but not very many people would have the patience to listen...Maybe during the debates. I do not believe many prayers were uttered for the Iraqi dead in this country. I didn't hear any, among the thousands for our boys. Somebody was praying very silently, I guess. And you answer to the questions of torture and mistreatment of prisoners is, I'm afraid, not convincing at all. We can't judge these things by the standards of those fanatical militants, but by our own standards. Abu Gharaib was absolutely disgusting. As for Gitmo many legal protests have been made, some reaching the Supreme Court. In any case, I will reread and hopefully respond to your points. Thanks for your patience.
|
|