Election 2008

[Josh]

I didn't see any other topics on the subject so i figured i'd ask everyone's opinion though i understand it's a little touchy or private for some so feel free not to comment.

Personally i'm for Obama all the way, and will really lose all faith in this country if it elects McCain. To me it's a no brainer on every single issue, i really don't understand how it's even a contest. Anyway i could go on and on about politics, rhetoric, and policy all day long but i'd like to hear some responses and rationale from all the intelligent people on this forum first.

Anyone have strong opinions one way or the other?

[PHS Philip]

I don't like Obama, but I don't like McCain more. Obama's gone back on too many of his positions and pandered too much for me to like him anymore, but his claimed policies are still better than McCain.

[Karamazov]

Same with me. I'm sure it'll be an ecstatic election for many forthright voters.

[Tenacious B]

I don't really like McCain, but I can't stand Obama, so the choice is pretty easy. It is sad when our country can only put up these two.

[Josh]

I hated Obama at first, i've always been more sympathetic to republican ideals, i actually was pulling for Ron Paul. But yes, i do think Obama is by far the lesser of two evils at this point. Just the shear amount of money we are wasting in iraq (15 million dollars every single MINUTE) and all the good things we could be doing with it instead are enough to vote for him imo.

I've never been one for welfare, i think it promotes complacency and leeching, but with the trillion dollars we've spent over the last 5 years, we literally couldv'e wiped out the national debt, homelessness, made our education system truly the top in the world, and given healthcare to everyone. John McCain may know how to fight a war but he can't see outside his little box and realize that it is merely our presence there that is inflaming the situation, not the fact that we don't have enough guys with guns to scare people into behaving.

On top of that McCain wants to continue tax breaks for corporations and the wealthiest tax bracket, and blatantly lies to americans about how offshore drilling will lower the price of gas. He stood on an oil rig a few weeks ago boasting that it produces 10,000 barrels a day, relying on the ignorance of the public who don't understand that we are using 20,000,000 barrels a day and its continually increasing. Again i have more but for the sake of brevity i will stop.

[phantasma]

I wouldn't vote for either one. It's yet another lesser of the two evils election. Though the candidates are significantly different, the current lies and delusions will continue. It's either Obama (he comes off as very insincere, and resembles a dictator-to-be in many ways) or McCain, George Bush's loud mouthed hawkish marionette. Both of them are the last thing this country needs.

[void]

I hated Obama at first, i've always been more sympathetic to republican ideals, i actually was pulling for Ron Paul. But yes, i do think Obama is by far the lesser of two evils at this point. Just the shear amount of money we are wasting in iraq (15 million dollars every single MINUTE) and all the good things we could be doing with it instead are enough to vote for him imo.

I've never been one for welfare, i think it promotes complacency and leeching, but with the trillion dollars we've spent over the last 5 years, we literally couldv'e wiped out the national debt, homelessness, made our education system truly the top in the world, and given healthcare to everyone. John McCain may know how to fight a war but he can't see outside his little box and realize that it is merely our presence there that is inflaming the situation, not the fact that we don't have enough guys with guns to scare people into behaving.

On top of that McCain wants to continue tax breaks for corporations and the wealthiest tax bracket, and blatantly lies to americans about how offshore drilling will lower the price of gas. He stood on an oil rig a few weeks ago boasting that it produces 10,000 barrels a day, relying on the ignorance of the public who don't understand that we are using 20,000,000 barrels a day and its continually increasing. Again i have more but for the sake of brevity i will stop.

Hate is a pretty strong word to use for a politician ... then again, maybe not! I'd like to see a source for the 15 million figure you threw out. The math clearly doesn't make sense, since the most common estimate for the total cost of the Iraq invasion is $490 billion (total). At the rate you quoted, the government would have spent $490 billion in under 23 days - clearly false. However I do agree with you that it's a senseless waste of money.

McCain comes across as frighteningly incompetent. He is absolutely clueless about the economy, foreign affairs and technology issues. Saint Obama looks like a damn genius compared to him in this regard (and that's saying a lot). Then there is also the fact that he has sold his principles down the river to kiss GOP derriere and get a shot at the presidency. Oh and "POW POW POW".

The offshore drilling issue cemented the fact that Obama is just another pandering politician. Not that one would have any doubts about it after his abominable retroactive telco immunity vote and the promotion of "faith-based initiatives" (going for the evangelicals there). It is saddening to realize that so many Americans have been conned into believing there is no alternative to the existing two-party system.

If you were enthusiastic about Ron Paul because of his (somewhat) libertarian ideas, then perhaps Bob Barr most accurately represents your interests this time. Just a thought.

[meanlittlechimp]

I'd like to see a source for the 15 million figure you threw out. The math clearly doesn't make sense, since the most common estimate for the total cost of the Iraq invasion is $490 billion (total). At the rate you quoted, the government would have spent $490 billion in under 23 days - clearly false. However I do agree with you that it's a senseless waste of money.


You have to consider veteran's benefits, post war health care, the cost of recalling our troops, opportunity costs (like lost tax revenue by having those soldiers not pay taxes, and working jobs that increase our GNP - instead of draining it). You have to calculate the interest on the debt for financing the war, and other things that I'm forgetting.

There are now saying Nobel Prize winner (in economics), Joseph Stiglitz, was conservative when he estimated 3 trillion dollars. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[SShack]

I voted for Obama in the primary, but I think I may end up voting Barr in November. I don't have to worry about helping McCain, as I'm in California and he has absolutely no chance here (some conservatives I know are even supporting Obama instead).

I suspect that Obama, despite my disagreement with some of his big government solutions, actually will do a lot more to break down some of the polarization between the parties, which will work to maybe cut back on some government involvement in people's lives. But I figure giving Barr some decent numbers will give him more of an incentive to consider the libertarian minority, especially if those numbers are enough to put Obama over the top.

[Josh]

I'd like to see a source for the 15 million figure you threw out. The math clearly doesn't make sense, since the most common estimate for the total cost of the Iraq invasion is $490 billion (total). At the rate you quoted, the government would have spent $490 billion in under 23 days - clearly false. However I do agree with you that it's a senseless waste of money.

I sincerely apologize for the mathematical error, it's 15 million an hour, not minute. Roughly a quarter million per minute. Either way an exorbitant amount of money and i stand by my point.

I have heard it's been around 1 trillion thus far, but as meanlittlechimp pointed out, there are many intangible and indirect financial consequences that have not been factored in.

And yes Obama has definitely went back on more than a few of his previous positions, but after all he has to win first by pandering to the middle, to me the ends justify the means in this particular case.

And i'd love to make the vote based on principle and go for Barr, but i have to be realistic, if he has no chance of winning, why wouldn't i vote for the better of the two who do? Either way i'm in the same boat as you SShack, IL is going blue no matter what.

[void]

You have to consider...

Thanks for the link. Yes $3 trillion makes sense when considering the overall impact. I suppose my earlier figure ($474 million as of 12/07, courtesy of Wikipedia) only accounts for combat operations.

I voted for Obama in the primary ...

My sentiments exactly.

And i'd love to make the vote based on principle and go for Barr, but i have to be realistic, if he has no chance of winning, why wouldn't i vote for the better of the two who do? Either way i'm in the same boat as you SShack, IL is going blue no matter what.

I guess the stakes are much higher this time, for one of the front-runners appears genuinely insane (dare I say worse than GWB). Your reasoning is somewhat justified for this reason alone, as it would keep McCain away from the big red button he so eagerly wants to press.

[Mechanical Messiah]

I'll vote for Obama... because that other guy is an asshole who'd get us into WWIII.

But I really don't care much for either one.

[Dave C C]

We have gone from voting for the lesser of two evils, to the lesser of two elitist evils. What a great country.

[Wufnu]

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[TheLastMohican]

The general impression I get from observing Obama's rallies and campaigning style is that his supporters are enthusiastic about him, and they are voting for him. Many vote for him because he's black (let's face it, if he was white, Hillary's "first female president" card would have trounced him), and many because he says he's all about change. McCain's supporters, in contrast, tend to support him as the alternative to Obama, while being intensely dissatisfied with his moderate views. The election seems to be all about Obama, good or bad, with McCain being the afterthought whose votes depend on how Obama presents himself.

The comments in this thread seem to be less enthusiastic for both candidates. I did not expect that everyone would dislike Obama. Perhaps such contempt for politicians in general is more common among those of our type.

[Lights]

I actually like both candidates.

*Waits to be stoned to death*

Obama is passionate and a visionary. Contrary to what many others have to say, I think he is very authentic and sincere about his desire to bring about good and productive change. He worked as a civil rights attorney and he came from a humble background. Both of those score big points with me because it makes me feel like he is much more in touch with voters than the average politician. The big score against him is his lack of experience, but unless you have served as a General or cabinet member, I don't think anyone really can claim to have excellent experience for the job. Picking Biden as his running mate was an exceptionally smart move since it counteracts his experience and foreign affairs weakness.

McCain is perhaps the only Republican candidate who would have had a chance at winning this election. His voting record is incredibly moderate and he has a substantial amount of Washington experience. He also has his military experience and the fact that he was a POW seems to be working well for him. So while McCain may be about more of the same kind of policies we have seen in the last eight years, he is arguably more qualified to be president. His temper is his big downside, but that is what used to make him original and charismatic. Now he is just as big a panderer as Obama, if not more so. He will no doubt pick Romney to be his running mate, and that will guarantee some unity within his party and make this a really close race.

The cons are apparent for both candidates. The campaign ads have made both candidates look like elementary kids throwing mud at each other. The level that this campaigns has sunk to shows how little both candidates seem to respect the intelligence of the average American. But seeing as how this is a country that elected Bush Jr., not once, but twice, they may have a point. McCain has decided to utilize the traditional Republican tactics of taking things out of context and selectively using information and generalizing it, in order to attack his opponent, and I find that to be atrocious, but Republicans have won using those kind of weak minded attacks consistently, so it may actually be intelligent to do so. Obama's rhetoric is also very tiring. I love the passion, but I would also love to hear more substance.

I'm definitely going for Obama, but purely for my own selfish social reasons. I want the health care, civil unions for gays, and tuition money.

[Karamazov]

I actually like both candidates.

*Waits to be stoned to death*

I'm definitely going for Obama, but purely for my own selfish social reasons. I want the health care, civil unions for gays, and tuition money.

No, that's pretty valid. I disagree with it from top to bottom, but it's a fair assessment.

At least you're being honest about what you want. I'd vote for you.

[zibber]

McCain is in deep (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) with the neocons, electing him would mean four more years of what we've all become very familiar with. I see people disliking Obama for being elitist, pandering or "dictator-like" (?!), which is fine I guess, but would be a terrible, terrible, utterly inane and also possibly clinically retarded reason not to vote for an entire party.

[Josh]

Your reasoning is somewhat justified for this reason alone, as it would keep McCain away from the big red button he so eagerly wants to press.

I've actually used those exact words many a time in the past, i honestly think he would have absolutely no compunction doing so if he thought it was necessary, and when you couple this with his temper, stubbornness, and unwillingness to listen to anyone contradicting what he has personally decided is "right" i would quite literally be afraid for the entire world, America included, if he was elected.

Thanks to his immature, black and white we're good they're bad view of the world, he is completely blind to the fact that these types of people don't hate us for our freedom, they hate us because we put military bases in their countries for god sakes. The sad thing is that he really does love this country insanely, and that is exactly what makes him so dangerous. He would use that passion and drive in a horribly misguided attempt to solve international crises through force, all the while refusing to see he was compounding the problems exponentially as events spiraled downward leaving the one option of war, the thing he knows best. This man said 3 months after 9/11 "Baghdad here we come." Are you kidding me?

[Double Victory]

I actually like Obama....

I'm not thrilled about the negative campaigning, but his pluses make up for any of that, for me. He at least wants to allot money for R&D for alternative energy sources, whereas McCain has all these claims about lowering our dependence on foreign oil.... by drilling for oil here.... I don't see how that's shoving the planet in a forward motion very much.

Plus, from what I saw of Obama, he did not come out and attack Russia for "invading" Georgia, which McCain did. It makes me wonder if Obama was actually on top of the news, instead of going all OMFGRUSSIA?!!!?!11 like the rest of the country.

I love America the same way I love my family, but there are a lot of things I hate about it, and I absolutely cannot stand double standards and believing that America is above all the rules. Obama talks so much about working with the UN on issues, which is music to my ears. Can you imagine America working with the rest of the world instead of taking the liberty of promoting "freedom" on it's own? Oh boy!!! :D

[ScurvyRose]

I was very impressed with the convention last night. It was my first hearing of Bidden. I also think the two are very well paired for the agenda that is ahead of us!

[SShack]

We have gone from voting for the lesser of two evils, to the lesser of two elitist evils. What a great country.

Most of our presidents were considered the elites of their time. Our Founding Fathers were insufferable know-it-alls, God bless them. I really don't take that as a criticism.

[ScurvyRose]

Only an elitist would run for President!

[PHS Philip]

Most of our presidents were considered the elites of their time. Our Founding Fathers were insufferable know-it-alls, God bless them. I really don't take that as a criticism.

I second that. Look at our last president. Most people said that they'd go out for a drink with him, given the opportunity. Do we want another average person running our country?

[Darkmist]

On McCain, and no I cannot verify the accuracy of this, but it is interesting.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

BTW, McCain labeling Obama an elitist for his wealth is the pot calling the kettle black. McCain is far more wealthy than Obama. (though not as bright from what I see, so maybe that's the actual slant of the attack)

No, I do not like the man. For more reasons than the above and his politics, he comes across to me as a sleazy guy. (I see Obama as an idealist, who likely will get shot down a few pegs but might take take us in the right direction at least) Unfortunately though I have done a fair amount of research on McCain, I can't cite sources. When I research it is everything, everywhere and I can't remember the where as well as the what. So this is my opinion, which I am sure many will disagree with.

Oh, and why does being shot down in a war make him a hero and qualified to serve as our president? To fail in a war is not great war experience IMHO. As well, his papa and grandpapa got him his post, and his education, the latter of which he graduated from at the bottom of his class.

His medals were awarded to other POWs as well, as part of the government "This is what we do' list. Others may have come from papa's influence. Vets don't like him for many reasons, nor do other POWs, who feel he not only doesn't support them but does exploit their sacrifices by using his captivity as an sympathy vote.

A brilliant man, an able statesman, and of course, with his crass kill them all you bitch attitude, a diplomat. And we all know how much we don't need diplomacy to protect ourselves from enemies, gain allies and make us look better in world view since the shrub took over as King George the Ruinous.

I could go on and on. Instead, I say do your research. A good place to start is the Huffington Post, biased yes, but the articles are interesting enough to make one dig deeper for the reality hidden in the fiction.

[Double Victory]

I see Obama as an idealist, who likely will get shot down a few pegs but might take take us in the right direction at least

That's the way I see it. It's better to at least try for a little bit of good change, rather than stay content with a government that obviously isn't working very well. The worst that could happen is that Obama could turn into a regular politician.

[Darkmist]

Every small step . . .

[Karamazov]

On McCain, and no I cannot verify the accuracy of this, but it is interesting.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Interesting, yes. Factual?, not likely

As much as I thoroughly dislike the idea of his attaining the presidency, this is about as true as his allegedly having an illegitimate black baby, in the 2000 election.

Virtually all POWs in the "Hanoi Hilton" that were subjected to that kind of brutality, eventually made statements, or "collaborated" as that article put it. It was a publicity stunt that the NVA employed to play up sympathy for their cause and to show coerced statements from American servicemen that conditions were great, and approved by the Geneva Conventions; which they weren't. It's just the inverse of the "Swift Boating" Kerry was subjected to in 2004.

It's purely conventional that politicians play up whatever can garner votes. Evoking God, Military service, etc; all used consistently and successfully in politics throughout history. They, however, need to accept the consequences for whatever they choose to bring up as an issue, especially when it makes one look like a hypocrite. The whole "elitist" tripe, being an example of this.

[Darkmist]

True, and I wouldn't fault McCain for collapsing under duress if that was the case. (I mean, how strong would I be under those circumstances?) But if it is true and he's lying, it's another instance of hypocrisy. Also, if he was out because of papa and his status, which is possible bearing in mind important captives through the ages, he did not suffer as others did. Likewise, if he was ordered by his commanders not to accept release until the other POWs with him gained it, he is no hero for waiting.

My question is, what is the truth? He is notorious for keeping records secret until he absolutely must open them to public eyes. That suggests to me that the man is hiding too much. I know, I know, they all hide too much, and all are hypocrites.

Some are just worse than others, and he seems to me, (personal opinion again), to fit right up there with the shrub in more ways than one.

I say don't use it if it can slam you back in the face. His use of wha, I was a POW as an explanation for his lack of policies and as a diversion when he doesn't want to answer a question, leaves him open to a dissecting of the truth and his motives. Don't play the sympathy card if you don't deserve it. Even if you do, campaign by merit, not 'elect me because I was a captive.' Waaaaa!

That's all I have to say.

[starztimehalo]

I don't like McCain. He's not in tune enough with the world to know where we need to be going next. He doesn't even understand how to use the internet. If he can't keep up with new technology, how can he keep up with new politics? He's old school, and closed-minded. He's got a set view of the world which largely depends on further oil and gas dependence. Additionally, personally I think he is unethical. He left his first wife after he came back from being a POW when he saw that she did not look the same as before he left. She had been seriously injured in a car accident.

Read about it here: To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

While McCain voted to start the Iraq War, Obama spoke out against it saying we needed more evidence before we invaded. Obama seems like a good person. As stated by others, he came from a humble background and really knows what it means to struggle through hard times. McCain still doesn't even know how many houses he has. Obama worked hard to get to where he is today, while McCain manipulated and cheated his way there.

There is not a choice in this Presidential Election between two evils. There is only one evil and that is McCain.

[Karamazov]

Read about it here: To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I don't think it really matters in the long run. Marriages always dissolve due to military service, regardless of whatever reason. McCain isn't the first and won't be the last.

While McCain voted to start the Iraq War, Obama spoke out against it saying we needed more evidence before we invaded. Obama seems like a good person. As stated by others, he came from a humble background and really knows what it means to struggle through hard times. McCain still doesn't even know how many houses he has. Obama worked hard to get to where he is today, while McCain manipulated and cheated his way there.

Obama had to play the game just like McCain did to get where he was. That means attending those late night poker games at city hall, pandering to interest groups, and using whatever connections they have to get leverage. It's happening in the election right now, so that doesn't make McCain anymore "ethical" than Obama.

[starztimehalo]

Marriages always dissolve due to military service, regardless of whatever reason. McCain isn't the first and won't be the last.


Marriages do not ALWAYS dissolve due to military service. I know many people personally who had happy lengthy marriages after one spouse served in the military. One guy did four tours in Vietnam in the special forces, and he experienced some pretty messed up stuff. He's still married to his wife. My uncle served in WWII and was married to his wife afterwards for many years. He passed away recently. Military service does not necessarily end a marriage.


Obama had to play the game just like McCain did to get where he was. That means attending those late night poker games at city hall, pandering to interest groups, and using whatever connections they have to get leverage. It's happening in the election right now, so that doesn't make McCain anymore "ethical" than Obama.

All you have really shown is that Obama is maybe socializing. How does that attack Obama's ethical values? Obama respects women. McCain doesn't really seem to. Look at the way they treat their wives, it's a great indicator of this.

Obama is playing a different game than McCain. Look at the tactics that the McCain ads have taken versus the ones of Obama. McCain attacks by relating Obama to Spears and Hilton. McCain marries a very rich lady as a connection device. Obama marries a normal person he seems to love. McCain has called his present wife numerous names. Obama's wife would kick his rear if he did that. She's an intellectual as well as Obama with the same kind of family values.

[Karamazov]

Marriages do not ALWAYS dissolve due to military service. I know many people personally who had happy lengthy marriages after one spouse served in the military. One guy did four tours in Vietnam in the special forces, and he experienced some pretty messed up stuff. He's still married to his wife. My uncle served in WWII and was married to his wife afterwards for many years. He passed away recently. Military service does not necessarily end a marriage.
Perhaps I wasn't clear. I meant that marriages always dissolve, in the sense that it occurs regularly. No, being in the military does not automatically destroy your marriage, but it is exceedingly difficult.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Just because you've met some individuals that managed to keep it together, doesn't mean that there aren't twice as many who don't. The stats show otherwise.
All you have really shown is that Obama is maybe socializing. How does that attack Obama's ethical values? Obama respects women. McCain doesn't really seem to. Look at the way they treat their wives, it's a great indicator of this.

How are you so sure of this? Rumors and conjecture aren't good enough to base a conclusion on and politicians are never transparent when in the public eye. It's a facade. Plus, this isn't about attacking Obama's ethics but to show that he's had to do what every politician has to do, to get elected.
Obama is playing a different game than McCain. Look at the tactics that the McCain ads have taken versus the ones of Obama. McCain attacks by relating Obama to Spears and Hilton. McCain marries a very rich lady as a connection device. Obama marries a normal person he seems to love. McCain has called his present wife numerous names. Obama's wife would kick his rear if he did that. She's an intellectual as well as Obama with the same kind of family values.
Hey, it's business as usual and it's an election year. Again, you're not basing this on anything credible but on what you feel is going on. You talk as if you actually know Obama's wife.

McCain did what he wanted to do in order to get elected. Ethical? probably not, but since when is getting into office ethical?

[SeaCzar]

I guess I'll get stoned to death for this, but I think it is a bit early to trash GWB. It is possible, however unlikely, that in 10-20 years, the actions of GWB's administration will look brilliant (and I am no fan of this administration).

There is something about Obama that I just do not like. He had no business globe trotting through the Middle East and Europe, aside from getting his mug on the evening news using exotic backgrounds. Further, while he is very eloquent and obviously educated, he has very little political experience, and through all that eloquence and intelligence, he does not seem to say much.

McCain is certainly a hot-head, but I can not see this leading him to push the "button". While I have serious reservations about McCain (and I DO NOT like Romney), I have yet to make up my mind. I'll wait to see the GOP convention.

I can only imagine the invective this will create, but, IMHO, this country's last decent president was Ronald Reagan.

[Krazy P]

I can see I am much older than you - if your photo is accurate.

There is a saying: "If you are conservative when you are young, you have no heart. Iif you are liberal when you are old, you have no brain."

I supported McGovern back in the day. Was a precinct committee person.

Rather than labels, I look at the specifics. So, let's start with an issue that I think both of the candidates are lying about and pandering about - energy independence.

Can someone explain to me why this isn't the most stupid issue of this campaign - energy independence?

The absolute value of the imports of computer parts from Asia is greater than the absolute value of the imports of oil from the MidEast.

Do we need "computer part" independence? Gosh, if those Asian countries cut us off, we would be in a world of hurt. Everything runs on computer parts!

It's called TRADE!

We make movies. France makes champagne. It's called TRADE! Makes the world go round. I guess neither Obama or McCain has read any history.

[Double Victory]

I can see I am much older than you - if your photo is accurate.

There is a saying: "If you are conservative when you are young, you have no heart. Iif you are liberal when you are old, you have no brain."

I supported McGovern back in the day. Was a precinct committee person.

Rather than labels, I look at the specifics. So, let's start with an issue that I think both of the candidates are lying about and pandering about - energy independence.

Can someone explain to me why this isn't the most stupid issue of this campaign - energy independence?

The absolute value of the imports of computer parts from Asia is greater than the absolute value of the imports of oil from the MidEast.

Do we need "computer part" independence? Gosh, if those Asian countries cut us off, we would be in a world of hurt. Everything runs on computer parts!

It's called TRADE!

We make movies. France makes champagne. It's called TRADE! Makes the world go round. I guess neither Obama or McCain has read any history.

Yes, because the recent rise in computer parts has severely impacted the wallets of Americans.

Also, there are no possible reasons that the USA would be hesitant about trading what is currently a necessity with the MidEast.

[Josh]

To respond to you Krazy P, i do agree that energy independence is an utterly ridiculous idea if we interpret that to mean we can drill our way to enough oil to power the country without imports. Our domestic reserves peaked decades ago and there simply isn't enough to satisfy the united states insatiable need. I would hope you agree however, that what is vitally important is getting off oil so that we are not forced to do it.

There is an inherent problem with the vast majority of the reserves being located in the middle east. The market reacts to every single sign of instability in the region and when you consider that nearly every aspect of our economy is dependent on it's price, it's plain to see that it's an out of control situation. I recall you saying you were in the financial industry, i'm sure you know that the safety net (forget the correct term) i.e. amount that is needed subtracted from the amount that is produced is something like 2 percent, which is why the market is so explosive and which is in no small part a contributing factor to the economical crisis we find ourselves in.

And there is absolutely nothing wrong with free trade, it IS what makes the world work and honestly the proliferation of it is the best hope for the people of this planet to one day live in harmony with one another. But i do not see the need to continue to rely on countries with turbulent political climates and anti American sentiments for energy in the long term if we have the ability to put infrastructure in place to supply it ourselves in the form of nuclear or hydrogen power.

If you are liberal when you are old, you have no brain

Care to elaborate? I understand you look at each issue individually but which particular conservative ideals do you agree with? I'd love to debate.

[Qweevox]

What's the difference between McCain and Obama? Does anyone really think Obama will get the United States out of Iraq any faster then McCain. Obama's already backed off his early campaign promise on the time frame. As far as the economy, both the candidates will have the same effect...not much. GDP last quarter was over 3%, the economy ain't that bad. If you where one of the idiots who thought house flipping could go on forever....well, you've already had your wake-up call. Real estate is just another equity.

Oh, and if you where one of the poor fools who got an adjustable rate mortgage so you could afford a house you couldn't....you better pack your bags and remember, no one forced you to buy it. If you are a financial institution who made them the loans, or you currently hold the debt...better hope their house prices don't drop to far before you can get back some of your investment through the sale of the foreclosure. Freedom is a bitch. If you are an idiot freedom give you enough rope to screw yourself BIG TIME. What's the answer...less freedom?

I would rather live in a country with no safety nets and individual liberty then one with safety nets and BIG DADDY GOVERNMENT....any day. Both of these guys are big daddy government types. The only thing different that I can see is that McCain has at least "said" he won't take more of my money while Obama has said he will....with a smile on his face.

I'll stick with the Libertarian Party. The Republican Party is dead, unless it can get a better message then "Hey, we'll let you keep a little more of the money you earn then THEY will!". The Democrats do well with those dumb enough to believe that government can fix everything. The country was founded on the ideals of INDIVIDUAL liberty....man how we've grown....

[PHS Philip]

Further, while he is very eloquent and obviously educated, he has very little political experience, and through all that eloquence and intelligence, he does not seem to say much.

Well, that's certainly true since his campaign started, but if you look at Obama a few years ago, you can get a good picture of him.

[zibber]

I guess I'll get stoned to death for this, but I think it is a bit early to trash GWB. It is possible, however unlikely, that in 10-20 years, the actions of GWB's administration will look brilliant (and I am no fan of this administration).

It is quite clearly traceable what the neoconservatives have been up to these past 7 or so years; what's the use of these generic statements?

Qweevox, they represent two different political parties. The big difference is that the democrats are not knee deep in neocon muck. By all means stick with Babar, though ;)

[Josh]

The only thing different that I can see is that McCain has at least "said" he won't take more of my money while Obama has said he will....with a smile on his face.

I see...so it was a good idea to go from a surplus in 2000 to 13 billion in federal debt and screw up the economy because they didn't take as much of your money. Wow ok. You do not fight a war by lowering taxes, it's one of the most ridiculous policies we've had in decades and it's the primary reason why we're in this mess today. Furthermore, i'm sorry you fell for McCain's lies about Obama raising taxes on the middle class, he is only raising them for corporations and the wealthy.

And as for your comments about big daddy government and social programs, as i said in a previous post i don't like welfare but i'd much rather see my taxes go toward education and people's pensions than funding iraq and making the fundamentalists even more pissed off at us than they already were.

[void]

What's the difference between McCain and Obama? Does anyone really think Obama will get the United States out of Iraq any faster then McCain. Obama's already backed off his early campaign promise on the time frame. As far as the economy, both the candidates will have the same effect...not much. GDP last quarter was over 3%, the economy ain't that bad. If you where one of the idiots who thought house flipping could go on forever....well, you've already had your wake-up call. Real estate is just another equity.

You have to literally stick your head in the sand to think that McCain and Obama are alike in terms of policies. Yes, I do think Obama is committed to his (new) 16 month time-frame, although he has said that the generals' analysis trumps hard-and-fast deadlines. McCain's insistence on staying there indefinitely makes absolutely no sense. I agree that presidents generally have minimal effect on economic performance, but Obama's proposed incentives for entrepreneurs and technological innovation will have a non-trivial impact. The economy is indeed "that bad". It is intellectually dishonest to take the GDP as the sole measure of economic performance, as is explained in introductory macroeconomics courses.

Oh, and if you where one of the poor fools who got an adjustable rate mortgage so you could afford a house you couldn't....you better pack your bags and remember, no one forced you to buy it. If you are a financial institution who made them the loans, or you currently hold the debt...better hope their house prices don't drop to far before you can get back some of your investment through the sale of the foreclosure. Freedom is a bitch. If you are an idiot freedom give you enough rope to screw yourself BIG TIME. What's the answer...less freedom?

I mostly agree with what you have said here.

I would rather live in a country with no safety nets and individual liberty then one with safety nets and BIG DADDY GOVERNMENT....any day. Both of these guys are big daddy government types. The only thing different that I can see is that McCain has at least "said" he won't take more of my money while Obama has said he will....with a smile on his face.

Agree on the government bit, but you really need to explain the whole "ZOMG!!1 Hussein is teh s0cial1st! IRS in my wallet!!eleventy!" thing. Especially since he has gone on the record stating that 95% of Americans will see tax cuts (increases reserved for the uber-rich).

I'll stick with the Libertarian Party. The Republican Party is dead, unless it can get a better message then "Hey, we'll let you keep a little more of the money you earn then THEY will!". The Democrats do well with those dumb enough to believe that government can fix everything. The country was founded on the ideals of INDIVIDUAL liberty....man how we've grown....

Fair enough.

[PHS Philip]

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

It sounds like Obama might actually get it about science! *tries not to get hopes up*

[Samvega]

Noticed something interesting last night. I don't have cable, so my channel choices are limited to about 10. Last night, the republican national convention was being shown live on: MSNBC, CBS, ABC, and PBS. WTF???? I coouldn't get past it. It just kept popping up as I channel surfed. This comprises every major national network except FOX (interestingly). When the democratic convention was on, the only channel I could find it on was PBS (remember I don't have cable).

I can tell you something about the media. There is no liberal mainstream media, contrary to what pundits like to roar about. There is no conservative mainstream media. But there is a CORPORATE media which keeps consolidating to the point where only a few people own EVERYTHING, and republicans have not shown that they really don't care much about that fact. So which party do you think the CORPORATE media is going to support?

[cncracer]

Has any of body tried to work out what their personality types are?

[Snowdragon]

McCain, ESTP.
Palin, ESFJ.
Obama, ENFP.
Biden, (I don't know).

[Aeroscoper]

Josh, you sound like a very intelligent person from the limited amount of posts I've read of yours. I really was fond of your stance on the global warming debate. This thread is a bit contrary to some of your views I've observed thus far. I didn't read every post, but I wanted to comment about your stance on a free market society.

For you to believe so strongly for free markets, and yet support Obama, is a complete contradiction.

I'm not a big fan of McCain, or the Bush administration, but every issue I have with both of those camps are liberal ideas/policies.

Regarding the war. My three best friends are flaming liberals, yet they ALL VERY MUCH SUPPORTED GOING INTO IRAQ. At the time this was a concept very much supported by the liberal media, neocons, and the rest of the pundits. I very much opposed going in, for the same reasons Bush Sr. didn't press the issue. Now that we're in there, we need to finish the job, or face the consequences, which is, bringing that swarm of angry hornets over here, or having our kids go back to finish what was started.

I agree that history will look very kindly on the Bush administration. Yeah he screwed up with the increase in the size of government, his lack of attention on the southern border, the whole NAFTA issue etc. But look at what he inherited from the Clinton administration. A stagnant to receding economy. The Wall street internet bubble, the housing crisis, the attack on 911, all with a defense that's been dismantled by Clinton's 2 terms in office.

After all of that Bush still kept the economy strong (until recently, coinciding with when the Democrats took over congress), employment still at levels when Clinton was in office, and prevented any further attacks from the Islamic Fundamentals.

If you think Obama represents any real "change", please comment in what way. He's a lawyer, his wife's a lawyer, Biden's a Lawyer with a son that's a hedgefund manager and lobbyist(that he helped get the job). Some of his biggest financial backers are Wall Street and financial institutions. His policies come straight from the Democratic playbook, basic socialism. The only thing that's different is that he's a few shades darker, and it's scary how much affect that has on a nation that's supposedly striving for "content of character, not color of skin".

McCain's not my favorite player in this game by far, but you know where he's coming from and you know what he's going to do. All we know about Obama is that he's a former "neighborhood activist" with nefarious mentors and friends. We have two on the national stage with that background, Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, would you vote them for pres as well?

And of course no one would want to war, but history shows that the opposite of war isn't peace, but slavery and tyranny. I thought the NF's were the idealists out there??





Aeroscoper added to this post, 7 minutes and 31 seconds later...

Here's a clearer definition of "community organizer".

National Review had a pretty good article a couple of months ago about BHO's "community organizer" role. It actually gave the clearest indication of what he did.

The Organizer
What did Barack Obama really do in Chicago?

BYRON YORK

Chicago
Barack Obama often cites his time as a community organizer here in Chicago as one of the experiences that qualify him to hold the nation’s highest office. “I can bring this country together,” he said in a debate last February. “I have a track record, starting from the days I moved to Chicago as a community organizer.”

When Obama says such things, the reaction among many observers is: Huh?

Audiences understand when he mentions his years as an Illinois state legislator, or his brief tenure in the U.S. Senate. But a community organizer? What’s that?

Even Obama didn’t know when he first gave it a try back in 1985. “When classmates in college asked me just what it was that a community organizer did, I couldn’t answer them directly,” Obama wrote in his memoir, Dreams from My Father. “Instead, I’d pronounce on the need for change. Change in the White House, where Reagan and his minions were carrying on their dirty deeds. Change in the Congress, compliant and corrupt. Change in the mood of the country, manic and self-absorbed. Change won’t come from the top, I would say. Change will come from a mobilized grass roots.”

If you substitute “Bush” for “Reagan,” you have a fairly accurate description of Obama’s 2008 campaign. That’s not a coincidence; it suggests that something about community organizing was central to Obama’s world view back then, and has remained central to his development as the politician he is today. What was it?

I counted myself among those who didn’t have a good idea of what a community organizer does. So I came here to learn more about Obama’s time in the job, from 1985 to 1988. What did he do? What did he accomplish? And what in his experience here stands as a qualification to be president of the United States?

THE RADICAL’S RULES
Perhaps the simplest way to describe community organizing is to say it is the practice of identifying a specific aggrieved population, say unemployed steelworkers, or itinerant fruit-pickers, or residents of a particularly bad neighborhood, and agitating them until they become so upset about their condition that they take collective action to put pressure on local, state, or federal officials to fix the problem, often by giving the affected group money. Organizers like to call that “direct action.”

Community organizing is most identified with the left-wing Chicago activist Saul Alinsky (1909-72), who pretty much defined the profession. In his classic book, Rules for Radicals, Alinsky wrote that a successful organizer should be “an abrasive agent to rub raw the resentments of the people of the community; to fan latent hostilities of many of the people to the point of overt expressions.” Once such hostilities were “whipped up to a fighting pitch,” Alinsky continued, the organizer steered his group toward confrontation, in the form of picketing, demonstrating, and general hell-raising. At first, the organizer tackled small stuff, like demanding the repair of streetlights in a city park; later, when the group gained confidence, the organizer could take on bigger targets. But at all times, the organizer’s goal was not to lead his people anywhere, but to encourage them to take action on their own behalf.

Alinsky started in the 1930s with workers in the Chicago stockyards. Many years later, when Obama arrived here, he came from a different perspective.

“Barack had been very inspired by the civil-rights movement,” Jerry Kellman, the organizer who hired Obama, told me recently. “I felt that he wanted to work in the civil-rights movement, but he was ten years too late, and this was the closest he could find to it at the time.” Obama, in his memoir, put it more simply when he said he went to Chicago to “organize black folks.”

Kellman, a New Yorker who had gotten into organizing in the 1960s, was trying to help laid-off factory workers on the far South Side of Chicago. He led a group, the Calumet Community Religious Conference, that had been created by several local Catholic churches. The Calumet region — basically the farthest southern reaches of Chicago plus the suburbs in northern Indiana — was an industrial area that had been hard hit by the closings of Wisconsin Steel and other industries. Kellman and the churches hoped to get some of those jobs back.

But there was a problem in the Chicago part of the equation. The area involved, around the Altgeld Gardens housing project and the neighborhood of Roseland, was nearly 100 percent black. Kellman was white, as were others who worked for CCRC. “The people didn’t open up to him like they would to somebody who was black and really understood what was going on in their lives,” Yvonne Lloyd, one of the key “leaders” — that is, local residents who worked closely with Obama — told me. “Black people are very leery when you come into their community and they don’t know you.” Lloyd and another leader, Loretta Augustine-Herron, insisted that Kellman hire a black organizer for a new spinoff from CCRC to be called the Developing Communities Project, which would focus solely on the Chicago part of the area.

So Kellman set out to find a black organizer. He ran an ad in some trade publications, and Obama responded. But at first Kellman wasn’t sure Obama was right for the job. “My wife was Japanese-American,” Kellman recalled. “I showed her the résumé, with the background in Hawaii. The name’s Obama, so I asked, ‘Could this be Japanese?’ She said, ‘Sure, it could be.’” It was only when Kellman talked to Obama on the phone, and Obama “expressed interest in something African-American culturally,” that a relieved Kellman offered Obama the job.

But Kellman had to sell Obama to the leaders. “Jerry introduces Barack, and Barack is so young, it’s like, ‘Oh my God,’” Loretta Augustine-Herron remembered. Obama was obviously smart, and he wanted to be an organizer, but he was, in fact, quite young (24) and he didn’t actually know much about the job. Despite those drawbacks, he seemed to work some sort of magic on the leaders. “He had a sensitivity I have never seen in anybody else to this day,” Augustine-Herron told me. “He understood.” The women were sold. “He didn’t have experience,” Augustine-Herron said. “But he had a sensitivity that allowed us to believe that he could do the job.” So Obama it was.

[SShack]

McCain, ESTP.
Palin, ESFJ.
Obama, ENFP.
Biden, (I don't know).

I don't care which experts claim this, but if McCain is a T I will eat my own penis. The man is totally driven by his feelings about things. It may be in a butch, maverick, masculine way as opposed to "touchy-feely" stuff, but he is still a slave to his feelings.

I don't know Biden too well, but his talkativeness (including the occasional gaffe), career history and love of big projects suggests a potential fellow ENTP. The plagiarism incident is a classical case of an ENTP ethical lapse to cut corners.

[Josh]

Eloquent, informative, and thought provoking aeroscooper, appreciate the post. I do however have to disagree on some points.

Now that we're in there, we need to finish the job, or face the consequences, which is, bringing that swarm of angry hornets over here, or having our kids go back to finish what was started.
This i think is a mixed bag. Bush got us into this fiasco and was supported by nearly everyone (except obama and a few others w/ foresight) and now that we're there i have to agree we have the moral obligation to not leave it unstable with a hasty withdrawal. On the other hand i think that continuing to occupy it is counter productive. There were no terrorists there before we went in, certainly not as many as in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia or many other countries i could name. We created the terrorists there by doing it. These aren't hardcore morally bankrupt killers were fighting. They're kids brainwashed from an early age bred by American imperialism.

I've said it before and i'll say it again here. They don't hate us cause of our democracy. They don't hate us cause were capitalist or because we believe in freedom. They hate us because we took Israel's side and because we put military bases in countries throughout the middle east. No matter how you cut it, we're exasperating the situation the longer we stay. McCain thinks if we have enough soldiers and kill enough people so that they stop blowing things up as often we're winning. We're not. We're feeding anti American sentiment, and we're giving terrorist groups and fundamentalists the perfect propaganda and recruiting tool. But he just doesn't get it. His immature, black and white view is we're good, they're bad, let's bomb the shit out of them. This lunatic stood on an aircraft carrier 3 months after 9/11 and said Bagdad here we come! No evidence, no forethought, he was looking for a reason to invade Iraq, just as Bush was when he came into office. War is all McCain knows and he never stopped to one, ask if it's necessary or two, ask where the conlicts are stemming from. The problem isn't even Iraq, it's what this war monger might do next. This is my biggest issue with him by far. He calls Obama soft because he actually weighs the pros and cons and looks at the underlying issues behinds these situations before making a judgement. McCain on the other hand stupidly wants to fight a war of ideas with military force.

And again this is completely ignoring the monetary aspect. I don't have to go over the numbers, i'm sure you know. It makes me sick thinking of all the good we could have done in this country over the last 5 years with that trillion dollars. I'm not for socialism, i am for free trade, capitalism works. But if that money could've gone to social programs, fixed health care, alternative energy, this is a much better use than what is currently going on. Oh and don't even get me started on the the drilling issue. He voted against alternative energy EVERY SINGLE time while he was in congress. He shamelessly exploits it and these poor saps eat up the drill now crap honestly believing it's going to make a difference in the price of gasoline. Ya, in 10 years, when we could be nearly off oil anyway.

Some of the McCain's voting that just makes me scratch my head in awe:
Voted NO on repealing tax subsidy for companies which move US jobs offshore
Voted NO on $5B for grants to local educational agencies. (Oct 2005)
Voted NO on shifting $11B from corporate tax loopholes to education. (Mar 2005)
Voted NO on spending $448B of tax cut on education & debt reduction. (Apr 2001)
Voted YES on $75M for abstinence education. (Jul 1996)
Voted NO on national education standards. (Feb 1994)
Voted NO on $3.1B for emergency oil assistance for hurricane-hit areas. (Oct 2005)
Voted NO on reducing oil usage by 40% by 2025 (instead of 5%). (Jun 2005)
Voted YES on banning drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. (Mar 2005)
Voted YES on removing consideration of drilling ANWR from budget bill. (Mar 2003)
Voted NO on drilling ANWR on national security grounds. (Apr 2002)
Voted YES on defunding renewable and solar energy. (Jun 1999)
Voted NO on do not require ethanol in gasoline. (Aug 1994)
Voted YES on allowing some lobbyist gifts to Congress. (Mar 2006)
Voted NO on banning more types of Congressional gifts. (Jul 1995)
Voted NO on raising the minimum wage to $7.25 rather than $6.25. (Mar 2005)
Voted NO on increasing tax deductions for college tuition. (May 2001)
I agree that history will look very kindly on the Bush administration. Yeah he screwed up with the increase in the size of government, his lack of attention on the southern border, the whole NAFTA issue etc. But look at what he inherited from the Clinton administration. A stagnant to receding economy. The Wall street internet bubble, the housing crisis, the attack on 911, all with a defense that's been dismantled by Clinton's 2 terms in office.

After all of that Bush still kept the economy strong (until recently, coinciding with when the Democrats took over congress), employment still at levels when Clinton was in office, and prevented any further attacks from the Islamic Fundamentals.
I have heard the economy under Clinton called many things but stagnant is not one of them. In fact in every source i've seen, it's been more along the lines of one of the most prosperous times of economic growth in modern american history. You can call it fallout from Bush Sr. if you want, but the facts are there. He was a year or so from actually balancing the damn budget, it was one of the few times in the last half century when the national debt was actually going DOWN, now its what? 13 trillion? The greedy 1% at the top (who coincidentally have more than the botton half of Americans combined) NEED to pay higher taxes. I'm not saying punish the successful just because they have the money, i'm saying look at the numbers, they couldn't be more clear. What did Reagan do? He cut taxes for everyone and what did we get? A deficit that took over 10 years to get out of. And after he had to fix the mess he created he, Bush Sr., and Clinton all raised taxes at the top to remedy the situation. The United States had some of the best market years in history. And of course then Bush turned around and gave the tax breaks right back to the rich and these corporations that are currently posting record profits. It's mind boggling. McCain is going to continue that, whereas Obama will cut taxes for 80% of Americans, and raise them on people making more than 250k a year. Trickle down economics has been proven more than once not to work.

As for the community organizer thing, you know far more about it than i do. What i do know is this man could have been making 6 figures out of law school and he went to help the underprivileged and unemployed. McCain divorced his wife when he got back from Vietnam cause she was disfigured in a car accident, and then married a multimillionare. I'll take the intelligent, altruistic guy with just a little bit of prescience any day, no matter how left he is. And i used to be a strong conservative btw.

[void]

Obama, ENFP.

Changey McHope* strikes me as an INTJ. I'm confident about the N,T and J part, based on his mannerisms. The guy is a great listener and puts a lot of thought into his responses, looking for precision and "safety" - you can tell he is trying really hard to phrase things in a way that won't be used against him (especially after Bittergate). In interviews, he is economical with his statements. On the other hand, he is also incredibly proficient at the superfluous rhetoric and appeal to emotion in his speeches - must have practiced a lot. He has also been described as cocky or arrogant by many reporters. ;)


* Lighten up Obamaniacs - I'm for the guy

[Colette]

Now that we're in there, we need to finish the job, or face the consequences, which is, bringing that swarm of angry hornets over here, or having our kids go back to finish what was started.


How exactly would you define the goal of "finishing the job"? Since Iraq acquired a permanent government in 2006 and took at least nominal responsibility for domestic security and order, what is the US Administration's justification (at international law and with reference to the mandate of security council nations) to continue to occupy Iraq, try to eradicate sectarian violence, and restore a level of civil peace and order that is patently unachievable? While the US continues to occupy Iraq and wage war on Shia militias, the new Iraqi democratic government and armed forces will never develop the competence they need to be able to restore peace to that country and reconcile the warring factions. Tony Blair and other European leaders were sensible enough to realize that fact and withdraw their troops from the area finishing by later this year.

Since Saddam was deposed, and his government was found (after lengthy investigation) not to have been developing and stockpiling WMDs, the American mandate to remain there (at enormous cost to American taxpayers and the lives of troops), has long since expired, and the Bush administration's decision to retain anything more than a peacekeeping presence (for many years to come it seems), is nothing short of an irresponsible face-saving exercise.

[Aeroscoper]

Josh,

Let me first start off by stating one thing. I'm very new to this site, though I'm a member of several other forums, and let me tell you how refreshing it is to debate someone intelligently, without even a hint of ad hominen attacks and other obscuring tactics! I thank you and the moderators for running such an awesome place, and for INTJ's in general for being the detached robots that we are. :)

Good points being made Josh, as stated before, I'm not the biggest fan of McCain's, and your posting of his voting record just reminded me of how far he is from my personal beliefs. That said I picked up on a few of the issues it seems you've got a heart for and I'd like to be able to possibly contribute to the matrices of your understanding on the topics if I may.

There are more but the ones that stood out to me were:

1. The war in Iraq
2. Social concerns in the U.S./Financial inequity
3. Admiration for the sacrifices of Obama

1. I would agree with you and you're one of the few that understands the true origins of the indignations of the Muslims. That being our backing of Israel. My best friend is 1st generation Persian/Iranian. Came to the states when he was 13, so I've got first hand viewpoints from he and his network of friends on what's really driving them. Here's the gorilla in the room, what do we do? Options, keep backing Israel, OR stop and allow them to be annihilated. That's it, one or the other. To me the only time we had an option was back when the league of nations approved the British Mandate of Palestine, or in 1947 when the UN approved the partition of Palestine in 48. Now it's history. Now we have Israel, a democratic nation that is also one of our strongest allies and a part of the U.N. We are obligated to defend any ally with such a relationship when attacked, kinda like what's going on in Georgia. Here's where it gets sticky. The Muslims have vowed that they will NEVER allow Israel to exist, PERIOD. They will never stop fighting till Israel is gone, and will attack anyone helping them. How do you negotiate with people that say "you have one option, die, or we'll gladly die trying to kill you."? The left will tell you differently, but history backs this up. Carter was fooled, Clinton was fooled, Bush is almost being fooled by this "Two state" thing he's trying, but that too will fail. So despite what the left wants to believe, it will end ONLY with one contender standing, us or them...I for one wants that to be us, no matter how ugly and horrific that may be, but you need to keep in mind, we're always on the defensive, the ones being attacked. Answer? Who knows, but negotiation isn't an option because of them, not us. We're in Iraq because of this. This part is my theory and my theory alone, but it's the only thing that makes sense. Bush wasn't up front about why we had to go into Iraq. The U.S. at this point in time wouldn't back it...so he used the chase for Bin Laden as the excuse. Since you understand why the Muslims hate us so much, you have to realize that it would only be a matter of time before Saddam started using his chemical/biological/nuclear agents against Israel, then all heck would have broken loose, even worse than what's going on today. Bin Laden and 911 is child's play compared to if that happened. And here's the irony. Bush was right! Look at the media and the public at large, they're livid about Iraq. But he knew the big picture, they had to be dealt with, and we accomplished that. Next is Iran, and that's even scarier/messier.

That was longer than I thought so I'll condense to next two, sorry.

2. My perspective on social concerns stem primarily from this one bit of fact. I'm in belief that no matter what happens there will always be a portion of society that will be poor. Whether it be from mental health, disability, age, or plain laziness. To me the only way it's ever worked is for family and local welfare systems to help with this. The left uses this fact of life to further it's agenda, which is, growing the size of government, and dependence of the populace on governmental programs. While simultaneously trying to destroy the family and established religions, the left tries to replace both with Big Brother, er, government. I think the latest report showed an average of $37,000 spent per K-12 grade student in the U.S. Any idea where that money goes? Here's an example of why/how our schools fail. Take a look at this:

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. ion

The school boards. I believe last I checked, they were the 2nd largest lobbying group in the U.S. behind AARP. And, surprise! A very leftist leaning organization. Putting more money in crooked board member pockets really won't fix anything and it seems McCain at least sees that.

You mentioned taxes...well the top 1% of the country make about 19% of all the revenue. So to be fair you'd assume they should pay that much in taxes right? Any idea how much they pay in actuality? 37%! Almost double the proportionate revenue. Top 10% of our population pay 68% of all taxes. The bottom 50%, they pay only 3% of all taxes now. A huge percentage of our population pays zero taxes...so the top 1% pay about 6X the taxes as the bottom 50%. You don't think they're pulling enough load??? By the way I'm probably closer to the bottom 50% than anywhere else in case you're interested :)

And finally Baracks sacrifice. Take a look at this.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To me it's almost insane that we're so close to electing someone so undeserving of the highest seat in the world!





Aeroscoper added to this post, 11 minutes and 2 seconds later...

How exactly would you define the goal of "finishing the job"? Since Iraq acquired a permanent government in 2006 and took at least nominal responsibility for domestic security and order, what is the US Administration's justification (at international law and with reference to the mandate of security council nations) to continue to occupy Iraq, try to eradicate sectarian violence, and restore a level of civil peace and order that is patently unachievable? While the US continues to occupy Iraq and wage war on Shia militias, the new Iraqi democratic government and armed forces will never develop the competence they need to be able to restore peace to that country and reconcile the warring factions. Tony Blair and other European leaders were sensible enough to realize that fact and withdraw their troops from the area finishing by later this year.

Since Saddam was deposed, and his government was found (after lengthy investigation) not to have been developing and stockpiling WMDs, the American mandate to remain there (at enormous cost to American taxpayers and the lives of troops), has long since expired, and the Bush administration's decision to retain anything more than a peacekeeping presence (for many years to come it seems), is nothing short of an irresponsible face-saving exercise.

Finish the job would mean making sure their security forces are adequately trained and equipped to maintain some semblance of order. That's on the horizon thanks to the recent surge, but we're not exactly there yet. Any length after that and I would agree with you.

I would disagree with you about the WMD's. There was a recent sale of 550 metric tons of yellow cake uranium to Canada that was found in Iraq. Take a look:

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

It's amazing how that stuff isn't widely circulated in the press eh? But that would of course ruin the now almost complete brainwashing of the masses by the leftist media. Why let truth ruin a good story and oh so many future movie plots??

And it's already well established that Hussein used WMD's on the Kurds and had plenty more. Again that stuff won't see the sight of mainstream media daylight. :/

[void]

I would disagree with you about the WMD's. There was a recent sale of 550 metric tons of yellow cake uranium to Canada that was found in Iraq. Take a look:

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

It's amazing how that stuff isn't widely circulated in the press eh?

This was covered (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) by MSNBC.

But that would of course ruin the now almost complete brainwashing of the masses by the leftist media. Why let truth ruin a good story and oh so many future movie plots??

Why won't this stupid "leftist media" falsehood die already? It has absolutely no merit, especially considering Fox News' unabashed bias toward the right wing. They're the only network that is so obvious about it. The others have been throwing softballs at the Bush administration for the past 8 years. I'd say American news media (the big 4 networks) stopped engaging in actual journalism quite a while ago.

And it's already well established that Hussein used WMD's on the Kurds and had plenty more. Again that stuff won't see the sight of mainstream media daylight. :/

Except it has. For all their faults, the mainstream media did cover the fact that he gassed and used chemical weapons on the Kurds.

[Aeroscoper]

This was covered (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) by MSNBC.



Why won't this stupid "leftist media" falsehood die already? It has absolutely no merit, especially considering Fox News' unabashed bias toward the right wing. They're the only network that is so obvious about it. The others have been throwing softballs at the Bush administration for the past 8 years. I'd say American news media (the big 4 networks) stopped engaging in actual journalism quite a while ago.


Because it's not a falsehood. It's well documented. I would agree that Fox media leans right (for now, until Murdoch's son takes over), but don't see how identifying a biased network (Fox) somehow disproves the existence of biased networks (the others)...? The only difference I see though is that on Fox, they'll actually say "Conservative host", whereas on the rest they portray objectivity, and most buy it. I would agree with the end of actual journalism part.


Except it has. For all their faults, the mainstream media did cover the fact that he gassed and used chemical weapons on the Kurds.

It seems I missed that report. Not many I have spoken about this have ever heard of it. And I'd be willing to bet that it's not common knowledge. Which goes back to my point about leftist media. How widespread is the news/belief that there were zero WMD's vs. those that were informed about this and the yellowcake? Would you say, 50/50? 30/70? 1/99? Thus the biased media part.

So it makes me wonder. It seems that you were already aware of both the Yellowcake and the Kurd WMD connection, yet you still stated "softballs being thrown at the Bush". If you know he had actual reason to go into Iraq than what type of issues do you think the Bush Admin need to be taken to task for?

[void]

Because it's not a falsehood. It's well documented.

I would like to see some documentation.

The only difference I see though is that on Fox, they'll actually say "Conservative host", whereas on the rest they portray objectivity, and most buy it. I would agree with the end of actual journalism part.

And therein lies the problem. American media likes to propagate bullshit about "liberal vs. conservative", "left vs. right", "Democrat vs. Republican" whereas they themselves know that representing political positions with a linear spectrum is not only disingenuous, it is also polarizing. Polarizing public opinion helps their ratings immensely and enables the talking-heads to keep spouting overly simplistic drivel day after day. Hint: the artificial divide doesn't exist. It's a tool used by those in power to slander those who they disagree with. And it has worked wonderfully on those delusional tools over at DailyKos, Democratic Underground, Little Green Footballs and Free Republic.

It seems I missed that report. Not many I have spoken about this have ever heard of it. And I'd be willing to bet that it's not common knowledge. Which goes back to my point about leftist media.

A Google search for "iraq yellow cake uranium canada" (without quotes) yields 70,800 results. Read ahead for why the media didn't go apeshit over this.

How widespread is the news/belief that there were zero WMD's vs. those that were informed about this and the yellowcake? Would you say, 50/50? 30/70? 1/99? Thus the biased media part.

What exactly is a WMD? During the cold war, the term was reserved for nuclear weapons (Iraq had none). It was then broadened by some (not all) to include chemical and biological weapons. Iraq had these as early as the 80s. Guess who supplied (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) the key ingredients.

So depending on your definition of WMD, one could say that Iraq had zero or Iraq had them 10 years before Desert Storm.

So it makes me wonder. It seems that you were already aware of both the Yellowcake and the Kurd WMD connection, yet you still stated "softballs being thrown at the Bush". If you know he had actual reason to go into Iraq than what type of issues do you think the Bush Admin need to be taken to task for?

About the yellow cake: read the MSNBC article I linked earlier. It predated Desert Storm and the IAEA knew about it. U.N inspectors documented and safeguarded the yellowcake. "There was no evidence of any yellowcake dating from after 1991" (from the article).

The administration changed their reasons like a chameleon changes its color. I don't recall the exact chronological order in which the reasons were given, but they basically threw a whole bunch of seemingly unconnected stuff at the media, hoping something would stick. Things like:

"Iraq had a connection with 9/11" (false)
"Saddam is a ruthless bastard who is committing genocide" (was true before Desert Storm)
"Saddam is plotting attacks against the US" (false)
"Saddam has WMDs" (see above)
"The people of Iraq are yearning for democracy and we will be greeted as liberators, with flowers and candy" (flowers and candy covering bombs, more like)
"Saddam threatens peace and stability in the Middle East" (he was running a secular dictatorship and had little tolerance for terrorists - US intervention made the problem exponentially worse)


And a few others that I have surely missed. Say what you want about the Soviets, at least their propaganda was consistent. These guys were all over the board.

A short list of Bush administration offenses largely ignored by the media:

The Patriot Acts
Warrantless wiretapping
Bullying telecommunications companies into giving them customer records
Reasons to invade Iraq (they were little more than unpaid cheerleaders)
Secret CIA prisons overseas
Elimination of Habeas Corpus
4 years of utterly incompetent mismanagement of the Iraqi occupation
Resurgence of al-Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan
Blackwater
Billions of dollars mysteriously disappearing in Iraq


And the hits keep on coming.


EDIT: Forgot to mention American media's voluntary blackout of Stephen Colbert's legendary performance at the White House Press Correspondents Dinner in 2006. They talked non-stop about everything else at the event except that, probably because they couldn't handle the truthiness.

[Synamon]

It's amazing how that stuff isn't widely circulated in the press eh? But that would of course ruin the now almost complete brainwashing of the masses by the leftist media. Why let truth ruin a good story and oh so many future movie plots??


Um... leftist media brainwashing? The right wing media appears to be more effective with brainwashing the nation. Polls done during the 2004 election campaign showed that about 30% of Americans STILL thought WMDs were found. Pretty similar stuff is popping up during this campaign since 12% of Americans think Obama is muslim and even more don't know what his religious affiliation is despite a very public scandal involving the pastor of his church. Not letting the facts get in the way of a good story is not left or right. All the lofty ideals of free press in the US mask the fact that the media is a tool of the powerful, which in many cases is the government and it certainly hasn't been leftist lately.

[Aeroscoper]

I would like to see some documentation.



And therein lies the problem. American media likes to propagate bullshit about "liberal vs. conservative", "left vs. right", "Democrat vs. Republican" whereas they themselves know that representing political positions with a linear spectrum is not only disingenuous, it is also polarizing. Polarizing public opinion helps their ratings immensely and enables the talking-heads to keep spouting overly simplistic drivel day after day. Hint: the artificial divide doesn't exist. It's a tool used by those in power to slander those who they disagree with. And it has worked wonderfully on those delusional tools over at DailyKos, Democratic Underground, Little Green Footballs and Free Republic.

I can see your point about how the separation of beliefs may be used by media industries for profits, but I can't understand your view that these delineating lines don't exist? Are you saying that everyone has the same stance on abortion? On the war? On social programs? On racial quota systems? On religion? I can understand that there are many sheep out there that will identify themselves with one party or another, then adopt their beliefs along party lines, sure, but there are a few out there that actually want to hear the "truth" and can come up with our own conclusions, we INTJ's are relatively good at that.



A Google search for "iraq yellow cake uranium canada" (without quotes) yields 70,800 results. Read ahead for why the media didn't go apeshit over this.

Your Google search isn't a very good indicator to our discussion. Your polling will bring up any reference, whether it be from blogs, forum discussion, anything. I'm considering "mainstream media", the ones that used to have the monopoly on information until the recent internet and talk radio growth broke the stranglehold they had on information. Even so if you google "no wmds in Iraq" without the quotes it brings up....569,000 results.


What exactly is a WMD? During the cold war, the term was reserved for nuclear weapons (Iraq had none). It was then broadened by some (not all) to include chemical and biological weapons. Iraq had these as early as the 80s. Guess who supplied (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) the key ingredients.

So depending on your definition of WMD, one could say that Iraq had zero or Iraq had them 10 years before Desert Storm.

About the yellow cake: read the MSNBC article I linked earlier. It predated Desert Storm and the IAEA knew about it. U.N inspectors documented and safeguarded the yellowcake. "There was no evidence of any yellowcake dating from after 1991" (from the article).

This sounds an awful lot like "well that depends on what your definition of "is" is."

We started with whether they had some or not, now it's deteriorating to the definitions of them, I'd rather leave that to another discussion if that's ok. Either they had them or they didn't, and when it was thought they didn't it was reported non-stop, now that there are arguments that there may, it's unheard of, or discussions are obscured by refocusing the point. Exactly.

I'll state this premise and see if you agree or not. Due to today's political climate, it helps Republicans for the war to do better, and it helps Democrats if the war doesn't do so well. I don't think that's anything really too deep or anything, I hope.

Now consider this, when the war wasn't going so well, how much did we hear about the war? How many reports did we hear on a daily basis on the death toll? How many times did we hear of roadside bombs??? I'd have to say the American public was inundated with reports on such. Now fast forward to today. It's no secret that the surge and other factors have made a vast improvement over there. Aside from Obama's world tour where he had throngs of mainstream media trailing him around, how much do we hear about the war today? Where are the reports of the training of Iraqi troops? The reports of all the new construction, the diplomatic agreements, the water lines, the schools, the new hope over there? Few and far between. Of course bad news generates more interest than good news in today's liberalized society, but no matter what it still favors the Democrats.

Again websearching won't be very useful to this debate because the internet will have those reports in numbers, but I'm talking the big guys, MSNBC, CNN, ABC, CBS.



The administration changed their reasons like a chameleon changes its color. I don't recall the exact chronological order in which the reasons were given, but they basically threw a whole bunch of seemingly unconnected stuff at the media, hoping something would stick. Things like:

"Iraq had a connection with 9/11" (false) To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
"Saddam is a ruthless bastard who is committing genocide" (was true before Desert Storm) Why qualify, it's true or it's not.
"Saddam is plotting attacks against the US" (false) He was actively attacking one of our alies, Israel, over 40 scuds during the Gulf war.
"Saddam has WMDs" (see above) yes, see above
"The people of Iraq are yearning for democracy and we will be greeted as liberators, with flowers and candy" (flowers and candy covering bombs, more like) I have friends that recently came back from fighting over there, and they're regarded as heros by most of the Iraqi population. To think a population would really want to live under a dictatorship where people can be killed for expressing a differing opinion, and where "rape rooms" were a part of their accepted judicial system, is beyond comprehension and completely contrary to logic. Of course you won't get that coverage on the mass media.
"Saddam threatens peace and stability in the Middle East" (he was running a secular dictatorship and had little tolerance for terrorists - US intervention made the problem exponentially worse) He had less tolerance for Israel, the real reason we had to go over there.


And a few others that I have surely missed. Say what you want about the Soviets, at least their propaganda was consistent. These guys were all over the board.

A short list of Bush administration offenses largely ignored by the media:

The Patriot Acts
Warrantless wiretapping
Bullying telecommunications companies into giving them customer records
Reasons to invade Iraq (they were little more than unpaid cheerleaders)
Secret CIA prisons overseas
Elimination of Habeas Corpus
4 years of utterly incompetent mismanagement of the Iraqi occupation
Resurgence of al-Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan
Blackwater
Billions of dollars mysteriously disappearing in Iraq



Some of those I agree with, and you missed "eminent domain", but some are really nothing more than liberal/main media's agenda points.

Though Bush's administration isn't really what I would consider "conservative", they're better than the alternative. To me politicians are politicians and they're all to be considered with a skeptical eye. The framers and forefathers realized this, thus they wrote the constitution, which primary goal is to limit the powers of government. The liberals are typically the party of larger, more powerful government, the conservatives, smaller government and more individual liberties. As stated the Bush's admin isn't the best portrayal of this, but their faults are all ones that lean toward leftist ideals.

It seems you've already made up your mind and not really open to changing it, if you start from the premise that the media is a reliable source of information than there's really no point in me arguing with you. What I've found from some of my liberal, yet well meaning friends, is that they get alot of their information from Jon Stewart's Daily Show, and from Bill Maher, and a study came out saying that most Americans get their news from Entertainment Tonight. How anyone can rely on asshats from Hollywood is beyond me, but just evidence of how complete the leftist manipulation has become. If you don't understand/realize the radical movement in today's America than I doubt a few links will do much for you. Appreciate the discussion though!





Aeroscoper added to this post, 5 minutes and 47 seconds later...

Um... leftist media brainwashing? The right wing media appears to be more effective with brainwashing the nation. Polls done during the 2004 election campaign showed that about 30% of Americans STILL thought WMDs were found. Pretty similar stuff is popping up during this campaign since 12% of Americans think Obama is muslim and even more don't know what his religious affiliation is despite a very public scandal involving the pastor of his church. Not letting the facts get in the way of a good story is not left or right. All the lofty ideals of free press in the US mask the fact that the media is a tool of the powerful, which in many cases is the government and it certainly hasn't been leftist lately.

This is currently being debated between Void and I but take a look at this. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

And even Void acknowledged the fact that Saddam had plenty of WMD's that he used against his own Kurddish population.

I would agree with you that today's media is no where near objective, it's an industry now, but when a study shows that over 80% of journalists in the U.S. are registered Democrats, and look at the parent companies of the media giants and how they're very big supporters of Obama, that can't be ignored.

[Josh]

Now we have Israel, a democratic nation that is also one of our strongest allies and a part of the U.N. We are obligated to defend any ally with such a relationship when attacked, kinda like what's going on in Georgia. Here's where it gets sticky. The Muslims have vowed that they will NEVER allow Israel to exist, PERIOD. They will never stop fighting till Israel is gone, and will attack anyone helping them. How do you negotiate with people that say "you have one option, die, or we'll gladly die trying to kill you."? The left will tell you differently, but history backs this up. Carter was fooled, Clinton was fooled, Bush is almost being fooled by this "Two state" thing he's trying, but that too will fail. So despite what the left wants to believe, it will end ONLY with one contender standing, us or them...I for one wants that to be us, no matter how ugly and horrific that may be, but you need to keep in mind, we're always on the defensive, the ones being attacked.

You speak as if the only solution to this is killing them all or bombing them into submission. Tell me what good would ever come of this? Give me your plan on how you would do it. Any reasonable person will see this is not practical, let alone achievable. I see 3 ways out of this:

1) Establishing authoritarian control over these areas, killing all dissidents (basically what we are doing.) I would hope you see that while it might lead to calm in the short run it will only make it far worse in the long term.

2) Abolishment of religion - definitely the best solution but impossible.

3) Talk, compromise. Detractors will say you can't negotiate with people who don't think like us, they will point to 1930's Germany and say appeasement never works, they will say you're only demonstrating that countries will give into violence. Still, it is far and away the only practical, realistic solution. Let the Palestinians have half of Jerusalem, who gives a ****? Establish free trade in exchange for abandonment of nuclear programs in Iran and N. Korea. Why the embargos? They do not care and it only makes these stubborn bastards more defiant.
Since you understand why the Muslims hate us so much, you have to realize that it would only be a matter of time before Saddam started using his chemical/biological/nuclear agents against Israel, then all heck would have broken loose, even worse than what's going on today.
Saddam may have been a brutal, ruthless psychopath, but he was anything but stupid. He didn't have any love for terrorists, only power. He never would have attacked Israel, being well aware that would have brought down the full fury of the international community and he would no longer be running Iraq, but instead hiding in a hole. Excluding the Kurds and people he didn't like, Iraq was quite a peaceful country before we invaded. As void said, he didn't abide terrorists, they undermined his control.
My perspective on social concerns stem primarily from this one bit of fact. I'm in belief that no matter what happens there will always be a portion of society that will be poor. Whether it be from mental health, disability, age, or plain laziness. To me the only way it's ever worked is for family and local welfare systems to help with this. The left uses this fact of life to further it's agenda, which is, growing the size of government, and dependence of the populace on governmental programs. While simultaneously trying to destroy the family and established religions, the left tries to replace both with Big Brother, er, government. I think the latest report showed an average of $37,000 spent per K-12 grade student in the U.S. Any idea where that money goes? Here's an example of why/how our schools fail.
So the poor portion of society that you say will always exist doesn't stem from antiquated schools, horrible education, and a justice system imprisoning kids for drugs? It's all laziness? Not getting a felony on their record and being unable to get legitimate work after that sending them right back to the streets? Iran Contra anyone? These people in urban areas really do not have a chance, it's a perpetual cycle that the elite keep going so they can keep the middle class and lower class in fear of each other while they grab all the money and power they can get their hands on.

No child left behind was one of the most ridiculous policies in history. Set standards for schools, then if they are not met, punish the teachers and take away funding?? Wtf, it's the exact opposite of what should be done. Unlike Obama, who will give more support for teachers, in return demanding more accountability.
You mentioned taxes...well the top 1% of the country make about 19% of all the revenue. So to be fair you'd assume they should pay that much in taxes right? Any idea how much they pay in actuality? 37%! Almost double the proportionate revenue. Top 10% of our population pay 68% of all taxes. The bottom 50%, they pay only 3% of all taxes now. A huge percentage of our population pays zero taxes...so the top 1% pay about 6X the taxes as the bottom 50%. You don't think they're pulling enough load??? By the way I'm probably closer to the bottom 50% than anywhere else in case you're interested
The lower and middle class make so much less comparatively, these numbers are extremely misleading. And exactly who doesn't pay any taxes at all? Documentation, if you would be so kind. The point is that while the wealthy may pay a disproportionate amount of the tax burden, they also make a disproportionate amount of the money. Moreover you are ignoring the human factor. The rich get taxed more heavily, they can afford one less jet. The poor get taxed more heavily, they can afford one less meal for their family. Yes for god sakes they do need to get taxed more. How do you condone billions in tax breaks for oil companies who made more money this year than ever before? Billions in tax breaks the republican ticket will continue.

The liberals are typically the party of larger, more powerful government, the conservatives, smaller government and more individual liberties. As stated the Bush's admin isn't the best portrayal of this, but their faults are all ones that lean toward leftist ideals.
There is a stark contrast on "typically" and what Bush did and McCain would do.
The democrats didn't push the patriot act.
The democrats didn't wiretap without warrants.
The democrats didn't turn Afghanistan into a country producing no opium to one providing 80% of that which currently reaches our shores.
The democrats don't fill 50% of our prisons with non violent drug offenders to get the family value hick vote. (Ok well Clinton did but Obama will not)
The democrats didn't invade a sovereign nation and occupy it to save face and carve it up amongst their business partners to turn a profit under the guise of being tough on terror and making us "safe" when in reality we're stretched thin and far less safe than we were.

Oh and Palin's on CNN right now, i can't stand it. Mrs. Earmark herself talking about fiscal responsibility.

[Aeroscoper]

3) Talk, compromise. Detractors will say you can't negotiate with people who don't think like us, they will point to 1930's Germany and say appeasement never works, they will say you're only demonstrating that countries will give into violence. Still, it is far and away the only practical, realistic solution. Let the Palestinians have half of Jerusalem, who gives a ****? Establish free trade in exchange for abandonment of nuclear programs in Iran and N. Korea. Why the embargos? They do not care and it only makes these stubborn bastards more defiant.

This has been tried several times in the past. Palestinians were and never will be satisfied with half of Israel, they want it ALL. Ask Carter.

Let me show you an over-simplified, but realistic example of what I'm talking about, you be the west and Israel, I'm the Muslim backed Palestinians.

You: "so, how much land will make you happy?"
me: "all of it"
you: "well that's not possible, will you take half?"
me: "no, give us all or face the consequences"
You: "is there any way out of this stalemate?"
me: "yes, die infidels, all of you, die."

That's it, all you've suggested have been tried for decades, and it's always failed. The problem is you're a reasonable person coming up with reasonable solutions, but we're dealing with fanatics that aren't bound by reason and logic, but ideological fanaticism.



Saddam may have been a brutal, ruthless psychopath, but he was anything but stupid. He didn't have any love for terrorists, only power. He never would have attacked Israel, being well aware that would have brought down the full fury of the international community and he would no longer be running Iraq, but instead hiding in a hole. Excluding the Kurds and people he didn't like, Iraq was quite a peaceful country before we invaded. As void said, he didn't abide terrorists, they undermined his control.

You seem to forget that the reason we had the Gulf war in the first place was that he attacked the sovereign nation of Kuwait, and during the process he shot over 40 scud missiles into Israel. Again I reiterate that I wasn't a big fan of going back into Iraq in the first place, but your reasoning isn't sound on this one.


So the poor portion of society that you say will always exist doesn't stem from antiquated schools, horrible education, and a justice system imprisoning kids for drugs? It's all laziness? Not getting a felony on their record and being unable to get legitimate work after that sending them right back to the streets? Iran Contra anyone?



So by your logic, the only reason there has ever been prosperity and success is because of the U.S. schools and our justice system? And prior to it, there were no poor people? Contrary to popular belief, there were poor people since the start of the world, and yes, even before Bush took office. AND, there will always be, no matter how much money you line crooked school board members' pockets with. Today's inner city and poor communities issues have little to do with school funding, it has everything to do with the break-down of the nuclear family and family involvement. It has everything to do with lack of personal responsibility and accountability. I listed several other factors besides laziness, such as mental issues, disability, and age, and those will always be there. When the biggest indicator of poverty and criminal behavior is children being born and raised by single mothers, there's a disconnect between that and the money being poured into schools. Also, I grew up dirt poor with dirt poor parents and went to dirt poor public schools. Through a lot of personal sacrifice and blood and sweat, my parents worked their way out, and I"m also a minority. So it's hard to believe all this when I and millions of other Americans are living examples of how much rubbish that really is. There are no other countries in the world that gives individuals the opportunity for vertical movement as the U.S. Of course the catch is to grasp that opportunity and rely on individual ability to achieve it, and by doing so this country will reward you, unless more people like you take over and start punishing success because of mislead liberal ideals that aren't based on reality. Ask yourself whether conservatives or liberals are the ones that promote the factors that lead to such statistics.


The lower and middle class make so much less comparatively, these numbers are extremely misleading. And exactly who doesn't pay any taxes at all? Documentation, if you would be so kind. The point is that while the wealthy may pay a disproportionate amount of the tax burden, they also make a disproportionate amount of the money. Moreover you are ignoring the human factor. The rich get taxed more heavily, they can afford one less jet. The poor get taxed more heavily, they can afford one less meal for their family. Yes for god sakes they do need to get taxed more. How do you condone billions in tax breaks for oil companies who made more money this year than ever before? Billions in tax breaks the republican ticket will continue.


I'm speaking proportionately.

And you pointing to the the rich "making disproportionate amount of the money" shows that it's capitalism that you have an issue with. That's right out of Marxist socialism. Either you believe the government has the right to demand money from someone to give another based on some obscure criteria, or you don't. The founders and framers of this country didn't believe it, neither do I. Russia and China and today's liberals are the major examples of those that don't follow this mindset.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

There is a stark contrast on "typically" and what Bush did and McCain would do.
The democrats didn't push the patriot act. I'm against this
The democrats didn't wiretap without warrants. I'm against this
The democrats didn't turn Afghanistan into a country producing no opium to one providing 80% of that which currently reaches our shores. This conflicts with your next statement.
The democrats don't fill 50% of our prisons with non violent drug offenders to get the family value hick vote. (Ok well Clinton did but Obama will not)
The democrats didn't invade a sovereign nation and occupy it to save face and carve it up amongst their business partners to turn a profit under the guise of being tough on terror and making us "safe" when in reality we're stretched thin and far less safe than we were. Don't even know where to start so won't.


Oh and Palin's on CNN right now, i can't stand it. Mrs. Earmark herself talking about fiscal responsibility.

This explains a lot. CNN is very left leaning under the guise of "objectivity".


I"m obviously a conservative, and most of the things you just listed that you're against are moves more inline with liberal ideology, that being, more government intrusion into citizens' lives, and less individual liberty. The GBA isn't very conservative overall in my opinion. Though it boggles my mind when people list all those things with angst that Bush has done wrong, which are for the most part, very liberal policies, to use as a reason to vote for liberals...? Doesn't make much sense to me.

By the way, do you know the political spectrum and the ideals behind each? Liberalism is a drive toward Communism, you realize this right?

[void]

I can see your point about how the separation of beliefs may be used by media industries for profits, but I can't understand your view that these delineating lines don't exist? Are you saying that everyone has the same stance on abortion? On the war? On social programs? On racial quota systems? On religion?

My point was that one cannot represent a person's political stance using a 1 dimensional scale. I have taken various tests to determine where I stand on the linear scale, and I usually end up as a centrist, even though I harbor some moderate left and moderate right views simultaneously - they seem to cancel out. The Political Compass (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) is much better for comparison as it separates social issues from fiscal issues and gets rid of the "you're a leftie/rightie" nonsense. Although a 2 dimensional scale like the Compass is much better, I still prefer comparisons on an issue-by-issue basis and don't think in terms of left-right (trust me, it's pointless).

I'm not saying that everybody has the same stance on any issue. That is clearly false.

Your Google search isn't a very good indicator to our discussion. Your polling will bring up any reference, whether it be from blogs, forum discussion, anything. I'm considering "mainstream media", the ones that used to have the monopoly on information until the recent internet and talk radio growth broke the stranglehold they had on information. Even so if you google "no wmds in Iraq" without the quotes it brings up....569,000 results.

Fair enough. I haven't watched the MSM's TV broadcasts in ages, and have been getting (some) of my news from their websites. But I mostly prefer external sources like CBC & BBC and smaller American sources (NPR, PBS, The Economist). They keep the spin to a minimum.

This sounds an awful lot like "well that depends on what your definition of "is" is."

Unlike Clinton, I wasn't trying to evade. It was an honest question. We need to be clear on what constitutes a WMD, because there is no universal agreement. You give me a precise definition of WMD and I'll tell you if Saddam had WMDs, based on your definition. Is it just nuclear? Nuclear & biological? Nuclear, biological and chemical? Dynamite? Saddam's flatulence?

We started with whether they had some or not, now it's deteriorating to the definitions of them.

The definition of WMD is essential for us to determine if he had them or not.

I'll state this premise and see if you agree or not. Due to today's political climate, it helps Republicans for the war to do better, and it helps Democrats if the war doesn't do so well. I don't think that's anything really too deep or anything, I hope.

It's not deep, but it is imprecise. What is "doing better"? The Bush administration has (after being unsure themselves) told us what the objective is in Iraq: to aid the Iraqis in building a stable, autonomous government that is able to contain the sectarian violence on their own, without US help. So what do you mean by "doing better"? Kill more insurgents in a day? Minimize US casualties in a day? Either way, I find it absurd that Democrats would benefit from the war not going very well. I think it's obvious that it is in the best interests of all Americans for the US to succeed in its mission (stated earlier).

Now consider this, when the war wasn't going so well, how much did we hear about the war? How many reports did we hear on a daily basis on the death toll? How many times did we hear of roadside bombs??? I'd have to say the American public was inundated with reports on such.

The media should not report on how badly the mission is being executed? They should not report on the administration's inability to fight an insurgency? Sounds an awful lot like Barbara Bush's body bags comment.

Now fast forward to today. It's no secret that the surge and other factors have made a vast improvement over there. Aside from Obama's world tour where he had throngs of mainstream media trailing him around, how much do we hear about the war today?

You'll notice that any relevant news has been largely overshadowed by general election hysteria. Truly a sad state of affairs. As for the "liberal media" not reporting on progress in Iraq: read this (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) and this (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.). You seem to be advocating Vladimir Putin's Russian media reforms for American media. You do realize he's a commie, right?

Of course bad news generates more interest than good news in today's liberalized society, but no matter what it still favors the Democrats.

You lost me at "liberalized". Drop the silly labels and we can have a reasoned discussion.

I'm talking the big guys, MSNBC, CNN, ABC, CBS.

Curiously you left out the biggest fish: Fox News.

Some of those I agree with, and you missed "eminent domain", but some are really nothing more than liberal/main media's agenda points.

Again with the fabricated liberal boogeyman.

Though Bush's administration isn't really what I would consider "conservative", they're better than the alternative.

Bush & company are social conservatives. But above all, they follow the neoconservative ideology. No, I'm not using the term 'neoconservative' in a pejorative sense. It's an idea - not inherently good, not inherently bad.

The liberals are typically the party of larger, more powerful government, the conservatives, smaller government and more individual liberties. As stated the Bush's admin isn't the best portrayal of this, but their faults are all ones that lean toward leftist ideals.

By your statement, both the Democrats and the Republicans are liberal. Modern day Republicans advocate larger government and less individual liberties (most supported the Patriot Acts and other freedom restricting measures). If you start from an assumption that "leftist ideals" (whatever that means) are inherently bad, then you're naturally inclined to call whatever you dislike or don't agree with "liberal" or "leftist". You then use these terms in a pejorative sense.

It seems you've already made up your mind and not really open to changing it...

If you're right, then that makes two of us.

... if you start from the premise that the media is a reliable source of information than there's really no point in me arguing with you.

Please reread what I wrote in one of my earlier posts. I said the American mainstream media stopped engaging in actual journalism many years ago, and are therefore an unreliable source of spin-less facts.

What I've found from some of my liberal, yet well meaning friends, is that they get alot of their information from Jon Stewart's Daily Show, and from Bill Maher, and a study came out saying that most Americans get their news from Entertainment Tonight. How anyone can rely on asshats from Hollywood is beyond me, but just evidence of how complete the leftist manipulation has become. If you don't understand/realize the radical movement in today's America than I doubt a few links will do much for you. Appreciate the discussion though!

Why are the folks in Hollywood asshats for harboring opinions that you think are "leftist"? These accusations of "leftist manipulation" are becoming of a crazed conspiracy theorist, not a rational minded individual. But I do agree that if a person relies solely on ET, TDS, Colbert Report, etc. then they are truly moronic. The biggest radical movement in America is that of the religious fundamentalists, who have hijacked and gutted the Republican party of the admirable principles it once stood for.

And even Void acknowledged the fact that Saddam had plenty of WMD's that he used against his own Kurddish population.

Only if you define WMD to include chemical and biological weapons. And that was pre-Desert Storm.

I would agree with you that today's media is no where near objective, it's an industry now, but when a study shows that over 80% of journalists in the U.S. are registered Democrats, and look at the parent companies of the media giants and how they're very big supporters of Obama, that can't be ignored.

You have not provided a source for the 80% figure. Assuming it is true, journalists don't have in say in media policy - higher-ups set that. If the executives of these companies were truly Obama supporters, the election wouldn't even be close. It would be a landslide for Obama. The fact of the matter is that most of the media has scrutinized Obama more than any other candidate in history, whereas they have said absolutely nothing about the failings of McCain's campaign. You know, his insistence to not talk about the issues and smear Obama as much as possible. The fact that Palin doesn't have a clue in hell about foreign policy. Minor things like that.


EDIT: Post finished! Man that took long.

[Colette]

Aeroscoper:
I am not denying in my earlier post that at various points in his rule in Iraq Saddam undeniably used both chemical weapons and WMDs against Iran, and against the Kurds in his own country. The UN found and destroyed many such weapons in the 1990s following the Iran/Iraq war.

After the withdrawal of UN weapons inspectors in 1998, and Operation 'Desert Fox', the US and UK asserted (on the basis of apparently 'expert intelligence') that Saddam was still stockpiling the raw materials necessary to make WMDs, and that he had failed to comply with UN disarmament resolutions. This led to UN inspectors restarting inspections in 2003 and up until 2003, when the US invaded Iraq on the premise of ridding Iraq of Saddam (and chiefly on the justification that he was still manufacturing WMDs).

It is significant that at the point the US invaded Iraq in March 2003 and on subsequent inspections, no evidence was found by weapons inspectors that WMDs were being stockpiled in Iraq. While various leftover weaponized WMDs and weapons components from the 1980s and 1990s were found, weapons inspectors stated their belief that Iraq's chemical weapons program ceased production after 1991.

Not only did the US invade on the basis of false intelligence, but during the 1980s it was amongst the nations actively assisting Saddam in his weapons programme including (and this is pretty disturbing in my view), the export of lethal biological agents from the US, which Saddam claimed he needed for the purposes of 'medical research'. Here is an extract from Wiki which describes US involvement in that programme quite well:

The United States exported $500 million of dual use exports to Iraq that were approved by the Commerce department. Among them were advanced computers, some of which were used in Iraq’s nuclear program. The non-profit American Type Culture Collection and the Centers for Disease Control sold or sent biological samples to Iraq under Saddam Hussein up until 1989, which Iraq claimed it needed for medical research. These materials included anthrax, West Nile virus and botulism, as well as Brucella melitensis, which damages major organs, and clostridium perfringens, which causes gas gangrene. Some of these materials were used for Iraq's biological weapons research program, while others were used for vaccine development.

One can almost accept Western countries' assistance with this programme if it is understood that they believed Saddam's nuclear programme was primarily for energy purposes, but I fail to see how the export of biological weapons could legitimately be regarded by anyone as contributing to an energy programme, or legitimate national security goals.

Now moving to the UN's international law justifications for the invasion of Iraq, these were stated as being that SC resolution 678 has justified the use of force if Iraq failed to comply with earlier resolutions to disarm. The SC made a new resolution (1441) in which it resolved that Iraq was in material breach of its obligation to disarm, and the USA used this as the legal justification to invade. Whether or not resolution 1441 sanctioned the use of force is a matter still in dispute by legal experts:

In resolution 1441 the Security Council determined that Iraq was in material breach of resolution 687 because it had not fully carried out its obligations to disarm. Although resolution 1441 had given Iraq a final chance to comply, UK Attorney General Goldsmith wrote "it is plain that Iraq has failed so to comply". Most member governments of the United Nations Security Council made clear that after resolution 1441 there still was no authorization for the use of force. Indeed, at the time 1441 was passed, both the US and UK representatives stated explicitly that 1441 contained no provision for military action.

Now Saddam was never given the 'final opportunity to comply' that res 1441 required, because coalition forces invaded and deposed him before he had been given the chance.
By May 2003 UN inspectors still hadn't found any evidence in Iraq of WMDs, so this is what happened (another extract from Wiki):

On 4 June 2003, U.S. Senator Pat Roberts announced that the U.S. Select Committee on Intelligence that he chaired would, as a part of its ongoing oversight of the intelligence community, conduct a Review of intelligence on Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. On 9 July 2004, the Committee released the Senate Report of Pre-war Intelligence on Iraq. On July 17, 2003, the British Prime Minister Tony Blair said in an address to the US congress, that history would forgive the United States and United Kingdom, even if they were wrong about weapons of mass destruction. He still maintained that "with every fiber of instinct and conviction" Iraq did have weapons of mass destruction.

On 3 February 2004, British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw announced an independent inquiry, to be chaired by Lord Butler of Brockwell, to examine the reliability of British intelligence relating to alleged weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. The Butler Review was published 14 July 2004.

What did become apparent during the Senate inquiry was that the Pentagon had actually been influenced in view about the existence of WMDs in Iraq, by various stories that had been published in the NY Times by a female journalist associated with the Middle East Forum (a forum which was openly supportive of an invasion of Iraq). One story concerned the alleged interception by customs authorities of a shipment to Iraq of aluminium tubes, which were said to be destined for a weapons factory. The Senate inquiry found that it was clear the tubes could not have been used for that purpose. One of the problems with the NY Times journalism around that time is that it sourced much of its information from Iraqi exiles who were either ignorant of the true weapons situation, or who had an axe to grind and embellished their recounts.

In 2006 after the Senate inquiry findings were announced, Bush admitted that the intelligence on which the invasion was based had been wrong, and that he was "disappointed" US troops had failed to find WMDs in Iraq.

In contrast, the UK investigation found "some evidence" that Saddam had been exporting weapons making materials (notably for chemical weapons) out of Iraq (presumably so that they could later be re-imported and assembled into weapons once UN pressure on Iraq had subsided.

Similarly no evidence of a collaborative relationship between Saddam and Al Quaeda (another stated US justification for the invasion) was ever found.

The concluding theory (Wiki):

Given the absence of illicit stockpiles and the heavy volume of traffic leaving Iraq shortly before invasion, some analysts and politicians believe Saddam Hussein may have transferred illicit material out of the country during this period. Other individuals suspect WMD may still be hidden in the country, although there is currently no evidence of this. Mainstream opinion, however, is that there were no significant WMDs in Iraq at the time of the invasion.

In any event Saddam was toppled and imprisoned by the coalition in 2003. The transitional government which replaced him was sanctioned by the US and UN, so the issue of WMDs became peripheral (if not irrelevant) to America's continued military presence and operations in Iraq. So of course Bush and Powell shifted the goalposts in terms of the Administration's stated policy on the war in Iraq. The goal now became for the US to maintain a presence, and planned troop withdrawals, once it could be assured that the Iraqi military and the permanent Government was able to get the sectarian violence under control and maintain domestic security.

Following the bombing of the Al-Asqari mosque in Baghdad in 2006 and the civil strife which followed, the US commanders described the situation in Iraq as being "civil war".

In 2007 Congress authorised sending more troops into Iraq, military assistance, and a reconstruction programme, and the view for some months was that the Iraqi army was having some success in quelling continued sectarian violence, however other defence experts claimed that the Iraqi army's performance had been patchy, and that the Iraqi military had not reached the competence level required to allow the US to contemplate a complete troop withdrawal during 2008 and 2009. Iraqi troop desertions (combined with the withdrawal of British and Danish troops from Basra, one of the centres of sectarian violence), put a huge amount of increased pressure on American troops.

The situation at the end of last year was described as follows by the US Department of Defence:

"the security, political and economic trends in Iraq continue to be positive, however, they remain fragile, reversible and uneven."

The current UN mandate for the continued presence of foreign troops in Iraq expires at the end of this year, and more than half of the members of Iraq's new Parliament have called for a rejection of any extension to that mandate by the government, without first seeking the consent of Parliament.

The current situation regarding the 'Status of Forces' Agreement between the US and the Iraqi government is as follows:

Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki told U.S. President George W. Bush on April 9, 2008 that Iraqi security forces are capable of their duties and U.S. troops should be pulled out as the situation allows. In May 2007, Bush said, "We are there at the invitation of the Iraqi government. This is a sovereign nation. Twelve million people went to the polls to approve a constitution. It's their government's choice. If they were to say, leave, we would leave."
Bush said on April 11, 2008, that he is not ready to order further troop withdrawals from Iraq. The last of the surge troops are expected to return home in July.

Negotiations have begun between the Maliki government and the U.S. on the Status of Forces Agreement for U.S. forces in Iraq. The current U.N. authorization allowing coalition troops in Iraq expires at the end of 2008. The U.S. is pushing for an agreement that allows the continued presence of the U.S. military along with several supporting bases. The Maliki government is considering the agreement, but has required the U.S. to provide a timetable for the withdrawal of its military from Iraq. Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani has suggested to Maliki that the issue be either voted on by the Iraqi Parliament or through a referendum. As the negotiations have progressed, one issue has been resolved, civilian contractors will no longer receive immunity from Iraqi prosecution. Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has pushed for a complete U.S. military withdrawal from Iraq by 2011.

What is this war costing the American people? The financial cost of the war has been more than $845 billion to the U.S., with the total cost to the U.S. economy estimated at $3 trillion, and over a million troop, insurgent and civilian casualties in total. There is evidence that US funds targeted for restructuring programmes have been misappropriated within Iraq, and that there has been corruption and croneyism with respect to the awarding of infrastructure contracts (despite the Iraqi government making millions from oil revenues, the US continues to pour money into restructuring efforts).

IN a 2007 BBC World Service survey of 26,000 people worldwide, 73% stated that they disapproved of the US's handling of the Iraq war, and in Sept 2007 2/3 stated that they believed the US should withdraw its forces from Iraq.

A March 7, 2007 survey of more than 2,000 Iraqis commissioned by the BBC and three other news organisations found that 78% of the population opposes "the presence of Coalition forces in Iraq," that 69% believe the presence of U.S. forces is making things worse, and that 51% of the population consider attacks on coalition forces "acceptable", up from 17% in 2004 and 35% in 2006. However, only 35% want them to leave "now". 64% described their family's economic situation as being somewhat or very bad, up from 30% in 2005. 58% described reconstruction efforts in the area in which they live as either somewhat or very ineffective, and 9% described them as being totally nonexistent.

Now in view of America's deepening economic crisis, and the increasing animosity of the Arab world (and amongst America's Western allies even) towards America's continued presence in Iraq, I simply cannot comprehend how the American public could vote for a man whose stated goal as President is:

"[That it] is strategically and morally essential for the United States to support the Government of Iraq to become capable of governing itself and safeguarding its people. He strongly disagrees with those who advocate withdrawing American troops before that has occurred.

It would be a grave mistake to leave before Al Qaeda in Iraq is defeated and before a competent, trained, and capable Iraqi security force is in place and operating effectively"

Aside from anything else, I cannot understand why McCain believes it is so essential to defeat the Al Qaeda insurgency in Iraq, when in fact the primary strongholds of Al Qaeda, and its breeding grounds for new adherents, are not in Iraq in all, but rather in Pakistan and Afghanistan.

I think the American people should be deeply concerned and suspicious about McCain's agenda in Iraq, and his seemingly arrogant disregard for the views of the world about this crisis, and for the plight of his own population, the majority of whom are struggling to balance their own household budgets, as prices soar, and social services are run further into the ground in order to fund this misguided mission in which America's justification for remaining in Iraq has long since expired.

[DrEast]

I think everyone imputes into either McCain and Obama, depending on their leanings, the values they want to see most in this country, when the truth is the two are nigh indistinguishable. The sad truth is that the respective administrations of both of them would be hard to an outsider to differentiate. Both would be committed to the supremacy of American Hegemony. Both would continue the war so long as it wasn't political suicide, which could take decades. Both of them would also continue to spend vast amounts of money (I'd call it "our money" except that both of them would probably rather inflate and borrow than tax, although what it does to our buying power is essentially the same thing) to make everybody happy. This is how every president, no matter who, is going to act for the next eight years.

Things get very interesting in 2017, however. That's the first projected date when the Social Security program is going to net debt instead of positive cash flow (it being when the vast majority of boomers retire), and that's when that massive program is going to go from a source of ready cash to a massive additional debt. It's also the first year of what will probably be a brand spanking new presidency, assuming the reelection of the incumbent.

So 2016 is the year to eye, when the music's winding down and the hot potato's in mid-air. It's only the start of the true realization of the myriad New Deal problems (what, you thought the New Deal was ancient history?), but it'll feel like a major crisis when it hits. This is just a precursor, possibly the last relatively free ride a president will get.

Interesting times ahead, kids.

[void]

This explains a lot. CNN is very left leaning under the guise of "objectivity".

CNN is an opportunistic ratings-whore joke of a "news" organization that leans whichever side will fetch them the most money. Right-left, up-down, forward-backward, you name it. Now you're gonna say that they lean mostly left because that yields them the most money. I say they lean mostly right. And none of us are wrong. You see where I'm going with this? Left/right is entirely subjective. Compared to Hitler, McCain is a commie. Compared to Marx, Obama is a fascist.

By the way, do you know the political spectrum and the ideals behind each? Liberalism is a drive toward Communism, you realize this right?

Conservatism is a drive toward Fascism, you realize this right? Having oral sex with dyslexic ninjas causes skin cancer, you realize this right?

[Aeroscoper]

I've got a feeling no-one's reading anything they haven't read before, so be it. Bottom line is we shouldn't have gone into Iraq in the first place, but now that we're in there, we need to get out when it's stabilized and not a incubation center for fanatics hell-bent on western destruction.

Void, yes I realize that, both ends of the spectrum ends with tyranny. The goal is somewhere in between, where freedom and individual liberty resides. Right now in the U.S, and the world in general it's a been moving a bit closer to the Communist side than not, the pendulum will swing back, I'm just hoping it's before the U.S. is nothing more than a highly successful, but short-lived memory.

Thanks to all for the good reads, but again, nothing we haven't all heard before I"m sure, well, except for the ninja thing. lol


All social programs such as social security has that unfortunate, but unavoidable ending.

Hopefully people realize all governments since their inceptions will roar towards tyranny without the right restraints. In today's world, social programs behind the guise of charity and fueled by sympathy are their best tools. The only thing we have left to do is limit the size of governments, and today the party, or group, or affiliation, which at least attempts this is the conservative party...once it goes past that to the reactionary and into fascism that will change, but for now it's the best shot we got.

Alright last one of these, my fingers are starting to cramp.



Fair enough. I haven't watched the MSM's TV broadcasts in ages, and have been getting (some) of my news from their websites. But I mostly prefer external sources like CBC & BBC and smaller American sources (NPR, PBS, The Economist). They keep the spin to a minimum.



PBS, and NPR are both very left leaning. I'm sure you won't believe me but they are.


Unlike Clinton, I wasn't trying to evade. It was an honest question. We need to be clear on what constitutes a WMD, because there is no universal agreement. You give me a precise definition of WMD and I'll tell you if Saddam had WMDs, based on your definition. Is it just nuclear? Nuclear & biological? Nuclear, biological and chemical? Dynamite? Saddam's flatulence?


Weapons of mass destruction, though not very precise, it's pretty self explanatory. How about we'll limit it to nuclear, biological, and chemical, the same as they've always been in my experience.



It's not deep, but it is imprecise. What is "doing better"? The Bush administration has (after being unsure themselves) told us what the objective is in Iraq: to aid the Iraqis in building a stable, autonomous government that is able to contain the sectarian violence on their own, without US help. So what do you mean by "doing better"? Kill more insurgents in a day? Minimize US casualties in a day? Either way, I find it absurd that Democrats would benefit from the war not going very well. I think it's obvious that it is in the best interests of all Americans for the US to succeed in its mission (stated earlier).


You really are trying to get this in a quagmire of definitions eh? How about, going well means there's stability, not going well means less stability. And please don't ask me to define stability.


The media should not report on how badly the mission is being executed? They should not report on the administration's inability to fight an insurgency? Sounds an awful lot like Barbara Bush's body bags comment.



Sure they should, just as much as they should report when it's doing better and things are stabilizing. The point I was making being the difference of utter bombardment of bad news(instability) vs. the lack of reporting of the good news (stability).


You'll notice that any relevant news has been largely overshadowed by general election hysteria. Truly a sad state of affairs. As for the "liberal media" not reporting on progress in Iraq: read this (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) and this (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.). You seem to be advocating Vladimir Putin's Russian media reforms for American media. You do realize he's a commie, right?


If you truly believe that that's a legitimate reason for the utter disparity in reporting back then and now then that's for you to decide, though it's pretty weak. If a commie like Putin recognizes the biasness of our media, it's downright scary when our own citizens can't or won't acknowledge it.



You lost me at "liberalized". Drop the silly labels and we can have a reasoned discussion.

Again with the fabricated liberal boogeyman.


Liberalized is being used as a descriptive, if you see it as a derogatory term that's you not I. Why is it that liberals hate being labeled liberals? I'm a conservative, which reflects my views, so what's wrong with being called liberal? Should I say "progressive"? Maybe Margaret Thatcher was correct in what she said about liberals...



Bush & company are social conservatives. But above all, they follow the neoconservative ideology. No, I'm not using the term 'neoconservative' in a pejorative sense. It's an idea - not inherently good, not inherently bad.



I agree, they are neocons, as well as Wolfowitz et. al. The bad thing about them is that anytime I try to discuss conservatism vs. liberalism people will always point to them instead of focusing on the truly conservative values I'm trying to express.


By your statement, both the Democrats and the Republicans are liberal. Modern day Republicans advocate larger government and less individual liberties (most supported the Patriot Acts and other freedom restricting measures). If you start from an assumption that "leftist ideals" (whatever that means) are inherently bad, then you're naturally inclined to call whatever you dislike or don't agree with "liberal" or "leftist". You then use these terms in a pejorative sense.


Just like you did here. And yes the GBA is way more liberal than I and most traditional conservatives. By me using liberal or leftist, I'm contrasting those views to conservative views. If you find that meaning it's pejorative, so be it.



If you're right, then that makes two of us.


Quite possibly.


Please reread what I wrote in one of my earlier posts. I said the American mainstream media stopped engaging in actual journalism many years ago, and are therefore an unreliable source of spin-less facts.



Yet you continue to cite facts you've collected from those sources to prove your argument. So what is it?


Why are the folks in Hollywood asshats for harboring opinions that you think are "leftist"? These accusations of "leftist manipulation" are becoming of a crazed conspiracy theorist, not a rational minded individual. But I do agree that if a person relies solely on ET, TDS, Colbert Report, etc. then they are truly moronic. The biggest radical movement in America is that of the religious fundamentalists, who have hijacked and gutted the Republican party of the admirable principles it once stood for.



I've said before that the complete domination of the leftist infiltration into American society can often sound conspiracy theorist. It's happened before in history, and I"m sure those that spoke out against it were also targets of such claims. I would agree with with those folks being completely moronic, but unfortunately you're describing a huge segment of our society.

You're wrong about the religious fanatics, they'd be considered reactionary, not radicals, radicals are the Obama faction. He being the most liberal voting senator in congress, and Biden being the third, it'd be quite accurate.



You have not provided a source for the 80% figure. Assuming it is true, journalists don't have in say in media policy - higher-ups set that. If the executives of these companies were truly Obama supporters, the election wouldn't even be close. It would be a landslide for Obama. The fact of the matter is that most of the media has scrutinized Obama more than any other candidate in history, whereas they have said absolutely nothing about the failings of McCain's campaign. You know, his insistence to not talk about the issues and smear Obama as much as possible. The fact that Palin doesn't have a clue in hell about foreign policy. Minor things like that.


The bias of the media isn't just in the way they report, which to an objective eye, is obviously very liberal leaning, it's also the editors and even the media conglomerates. You can look at Obama's contributors and find this out if you're really interested.

This has been a fascinating development in this election cycle. People that are Hilary fans are screaming bloody murder, at the completely biased backing of Obama by the media. These are the same people that swore the media couldn't be biased in any way, with the same arguments you bring up. The mainstream media is completely backing Obama, it's amazing this is so far fetched for you considering how you claim to acknowledge the media's lack of objectivity earlier. The reason he isn't doing better isn't as much an indication of the media's stance as his utter incompetence and sheer lack of qualifications of being president. The fact he's doing as well as he is, is more compelling evidence that the media/hollywood machine has pushed for him. He wouldn't be qualified to run for any lower executive office with his qualifications, or lack thereof, yet he's actually got a chance.


EDIT: Post finished! Man that took long.


Yeah me too, now I need to go check out this storm, I"m in Wilmington, NC and Hanna's right overhead!

Take it slow.

Colette, I'll respond to your post more thoroughly tomorrow, my brain and fingers need to take a break tonight, and plus I'm on hurricane watch (as my infp wife watches Shrek for the 50th time ) hehe.

[void]

Weapons of mass destruction, though not very precise, it's pretty self explanatory. How about we'll limit it to nuclear, biological, and chemical, the same as they've always been in my experience.

OK. In that case, Saddam had WMDs and used them on the Kurds before 1991.

You really are trying to get this in a quagmire of definitions eh? How about, going well means there's stability, not going well means less stability. And please don't ask me to define stability.

What can I say, I dislike ambiguity. Stability is good enough for me. I still contend that it is in the best interests of all Americans (Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent) that stability is attained in Iraq as soon as possible. People from every political group have relatives serving there, and I don't think they would put party politics over the well-being of their loved ones.

Liberalized is being used as a descriptive, if you see it as a derogatory term that's you not I. Why is it that liberals hate being labeled liberals? I'm a conservative, which reflects my views, so what's wrong with being called liberal? Should I say "progressive"? Maybe Margaret Thatcher was correct in what she said about liberals...

The term liberal has been redefined over the past few years to almost become synonymous with evil, mostly by talking heads like Hannity, Limbaugh and Coulter. It has been a very long time since I've heard a person use it in a non-derogatory manner. The problem with prefixing things as liberal or conservative is that it isn't really descriptive, because not everybody agrees on what is a liberal and what is conservative. These terms carry bring with them implicit subjectivity, which adds nothing to the discussion. You may call yourself conservative, but another group that holds beliefs quite different from yours may call themselves conservative. You say they are not true conservatives, they say you are not a conservative, and we are led back to the No True Scotsman problem.

I agree, they are neocons, as well as Wolfowitz et. al. The bad thing about them is that anytime I try to discuss conservatism vs. liberalism people will always point to them instead of focusing on the truly conservative values I'm trying to express.

Doesn't help that they self-identify as conservatives and decry anybody who disagrees with them liberal. Many in the Republican party call them conservative. Fox News calls them conservative. You have said their errors stem from liberal acts, but the Republican party didn't have a problem with those acts.

Yet you continue to cite facts you've collected from those sources to prove your argument. So what is it?

The yellow cake story was covered (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) by the CBC as well, which I consider to be far more tolerable than the American MSM. That's why I linked to the MSNBC article. You're right, I should have linked to CBC initially.

I've said before that the complete domination of the leftist infiltration into American society can often sound conspiracy theorist. It's happened before in history, and I"m sure those that spoke out against it were also targets of such claims.

Interesting to note that neoconservatism arose from the rejection of social liberalism and a perceived "leftist infiltration" into American society. Ironically, hedonistic liberalism was also popularly used to justify a jihad against the West in radical Islam.

You're wrong about the religious fanatics, they'd be considered reactionary, not radicals, radicals are the Obama faction. He being the most liberal voting senator in congress, and Biden being the third, it'd be quite accurate.

You've got to be kidding me. Obama's stance is mostly considered further right than the most right wing parties in other Western governments. No, it is not just the American media that feels this way. He is a far cry from socialist.

On another note, I have seen the "most liberal" ranking you are referring to. Funny that Kerry was also ranked at the top in '04. Seems that election season tends 'mysteriously' to boost a candidate's liberal ranking.

This has been a fascinating development in this election cycle. People that are Hilary fans are screaming bloody murder, at the completely biased backing of Obama by the media. These are the same people that swore the media couldn't be biased in any way, with the same arguments you bring up. The mainstream media is completely backing Obama, it's amazing this is so far fetched for you considering how you claim to acknowledge the media's lack of objectivity earlier. The reason he isn't doing better isn't as much an indication of the media's stance as his utter incompetence and sheer lack of qualifications of being president. The fact he's doing as well as he is, is more compelling evidence that the media/hollywood machine has pushed for him. He wouldn't be qualified to run for any lower executive office with his qualifications, or lack thereof, yet he's actually got a chance.

Hillary fans weren't exactly known for their rationality. CNN made a mountain out of a molehill by giving the PUMAs (Party Unity My Ass) far more airtime than necessary. The PUMA brigade numbered in a couple of thousand at most, not the millions CNN was trying to make it out to be. Of course they did this to generate non-existent controversy. Controversy = viewership. If they were truly left-leaning as you insist, then they would have ignored the PUMAs entirely, thereby helping party unity.

MSNBC is completely in the tank for Obama. Fox News is completely in the tank for McCain. CNN has been sucking out of a septic tank thus far. But they have been leaning toward McCain in recent weeks. Obama losing this year means Hillary gets another shot in 2012, and it ain't called the Clinton News Network for nothing.

As for Obama's incompetence and inexperience - that has been debated ad nauseam on various forums (including this one). Another discussion for another day.

Yeah me too, now I need to go check out this storm, I"m in Wilmington, NC and Hanna's right overhead!

Keep your head down and stay safe.

[Aeroscoper]

Aeroscoper:


It would be a grave mistake to leave before Al Qaeda in Iraq is defeated and before a competent, trained, and capable Iraqi security force is in place and operating effectively"

Aside from anything else, I cannot understand why McCain believes it is so essential to defeat the Al Qaeda insurgency in Iraq, when in fact the primary strongholds of Al Qaeda, and its breeding grounds for new adherents, are not in Iraq in all, but rather in Pakistan and Afghanistan.

I think the American people should be deeply concerned and suspicious about McCain's agenda in Iraq, and his seemingly arrogant disregard for the views of the world about this crisis, and for the plight of his own population, the majority of whom are struggling to balance their own household budgets, as prices soar, and social services are run further into the ground in order to fund this misguided mission in which America's justification for remaining in Iraq has long since expired.

Colette,

As stated to void and Josh, I was very adamantly against going into Iraq in the first place. Back then my argument was that because of the Neocons and Israeli lead activists, we're going to expend much blood and treasure on something that's borderline impossible to accomplish, and also borderline imperial. That was then, this is now.

Keep in mind many, if not all of the mainstream media were completely backing our going into Iraq. Most of congress were also backing the initiative. So it wasn't only the GWB administration that was convinced, it was most of the right thinking folks over here.

Well we went in, and now we're in there. I would ask you, do you think it would be/would have been, a good idea to pull out before making sure there was stability in the country? As it was put very well by void, the media had an agenda from the getgo, namely, to make tragedy and conflict the name of the game, for the reason of selling more papers/viewership. But in reality and history backs this up, those Muslim extremists would have followed us to our shores. We've had a group of people staging a war against us for decades, from the first bombing of the U.N, to the bombing of the U.S.S Cole, to the attack on our military bases and embassies overseas, it's been a progressive agenda to attack and kill Americans, and anyone else that backs Israel, for a very long time. Clinton chose the path of world consensus, and passivising, and that lead directly to 911.

The backing of Suddam in the 80's and 90's is really nothing more than another blip in the time line in the war against Muslim Fundamentals. In the 80's, it was the Shiite Muslims that were the more active in the aggression towards the west. I'm not sure your age but I can remember regular occurrences of hi-jacking of airplanes. Those were the Shiites. The U.S. supported Suddam because he was secular and could help with keeping the Shiites at bay...world politics has us sleeping with strange bedfellows unfortunately.

Bottom line, I don't think Bush was completely upfront with the public about his true agenda for going in, I think it was "killing two birds with one stone" issue with him. The situation with Afghanistan is a lot more complicated for many reasons, one major one being that they have the support of Pakistan, a nuclear armed nation. This issue with terrorists isn't the cause or root of the issue, it is merely one of the tentacles that stems from the real issue, our backing of Israel. So as I posed to Josh, what would you have us do? Abandon Israel and let millions of innocent people be wiped out by religious fanatics hell-bent on regaining their Holy Land? They won't rest until Israel is destroyed, and the West is completely out of the region, with Bin Laden having a particular thorn in his side about Saudi Arabia and the royalty there. They want to be the super-power, so they can spread their religion across the world, or kill all those that oppose. If you think that's impossible, take a look at world history when it comes to Iran/iraq and rest of the middle east in the 1700's, it's exactly what they did then, and it's exactly what they'll do now.

Anyway, back to my coffee I"m so addicted to, and picking up all the limbs out of my yard. Hanna past to the west of us so we were spared for the most part. :) Take it easy!

[zibber]

I am not a US voter, but I've been following this election like none before. It should be obvious from my posts that I would like to see the democrats take this (and any Nader voters vote Dem), but I follow these elections with some disinterestedness as well. This election is one of the biggest political competitions around, if you consider the heavy strategic element, and the laudable independent press (the members of which are getting arrested in droves, by the way) makes it possible to study these elections without being dependent on the mass media. Just as an example: if the Palin PR team can make Clinton supporters vote for Palin, despite her being an almost polar opposite of Clinton politically, that's incredibly impressive. What fascinates me most is the neoconservative influence, with the Georgia/Ossetia situation being the most prominent example of that. Wag the dog, man, this is like a movie.

[Karamazov]

I am not a US voter, but I've been following this election like none before. It should be obvious from my posts that I would like to see the democrats take this (and any Nader voters vote Dem), but I follow these elections with some disinterestedness as well. This election is one of the biggest political competitions around, if you consider the heavy strategic element, and the laudable independent press (the members of which are getting arrested in droves, by the way) makes it possible to study these elections without being dependent on the mass media. Just as an example: if the Palin PR team can make Clinton supporters vote for Palin, despite her being an almost polar opposite of Clinton politically, that's incredibly impressive. What fascinates me most is the neoconservative influence, with the Georgia/Ossetia situation being the most prominent example of that. Wag the dog, man, this is like a movie.

It wouldn't be surprising. People rarely, so far as voting is concerned, stick to their principles if it means they won't win. That's why so few simply abstain from voting, and instead vote for the lowest common denominator (the kind of person you can share a beer with, etc.)

New players this time around; same game.

[void]

It wouldn't be surprising. People rarely, so far as voting is concerned, stick to their principles if it means they won't win. That's why so few simply abstain from voting, and instead vote for the lowest common denominator (the kind of person you can share a beer with, etc.)

New players this time around; same game.

It's more prevalent in the USA, as compared to Western democracies with higher standards of education (ergo a better educated populace capable of critical thinking). Compounding this problem is the fact that most people get their opinions and talking points spoon fed to them by bloviating talking heads in the media. I suppose it's easier than thinking on your own.

[Karamazov]

It's more prevalent in the USA, as compared to Western democracies with higher standards of education (ergo a better educated populace capable of critical thinking). Compounding this problem is the fact that most people get their opinions and talking points spoon fed to them by bloviating talking heads in the media. I suppose it's easier than thinking on your own.

Sad but true. I have since stopped watching mainstream media outlets to get my news. It's become entertainment, If anything else. Yet, I am still more informed than anyone else I have conversed with, who are regular viewers of CNN, Fox etc.

People still seem to hold on to the notion of the Media's inherent "leebral" bias. It's ridiculous, especially when the remedy to this is Fox, supposedly.

[Aeroscoper]

It's more prevalent in the USA, as compared to Western democracies with higher standards of education (ergo a better educated populace capable of critical thinking). Compounding this problem is the fact that most people get their opinions and talking points spoon fed to them by bloviating talking heads in the media. I suppose it's easier than thinking on your own.

Today's educational system is poor indeed. The liberals have completely taken over the Board of Education and its affects are staggering.





Aeroscoper added to this post, 1 minutes and 17 seconds later...

Sad but true. I have since stopped watching mainstream media outlets to get my news. It's become entertainment, If anything else. Yet, I am still more informed than anyone else I have conversed with, who are regular viewers of CNN, Fox etc.

People still seem to hold on to the notion of the Media's inherent "leebral" bias. It's ridiculous, especially when the remedy to this is Fox, supposedly.

Nothing inherent about it, systematic and complete, possibly, inherent, not. Stalin said "media is the most effective tool for communism" and it's being proven here in the U.S.

[Karamazov]

Nothing inherent about it, systematic and complete, possibly, inherent, not. Stalin said "media is the most effective tool for communism" and it's being proven here in the U.S.

Right..

Media has always been a tool, no matter what political ideology. This trite piece of conventional wisdom is largely unfounded, and was based primarily on journalists voting records and information that didn't concord with an individual's myopic world view.

Needless to say, it has always been a lucrative enterprise. Companies like CBS, CNN, etc, are more concerned with their profit margins and whatever can expand their viewership to make even more gains. The Executives of these companies, as well as the advertisers, are by and large, conservative.

[Aeroscoper]

Needless to say, it has always been a lucrative enterprise. Companies like CBS, CNN, etc, are more concerned with their profit margins and whatever can expand their viewership to make even more gains. The Executives of these companies, as well as the advertisers, are by and large, conservative.

I'd love to see where you get that last bit of information from. Many of today's media companies are owned by international conglomerates, which for the most part, are very liberal.

I would disagree that many of the media companies are that concerned with their profits in such a wholehearted way. The NY Times, NBC, CBS and many other traditional news outlets have been doing very poorly when it comes to profits. Many are sustained due to being a part of a multi-faceted corporation thus financially supplemented. It's very logical and there are examples everywhere you look, of people getting successful, then using that success as a platform to get their ideologues spread. Look at Hollywood. Look at singers and rappers. Look at Moveon.org's founder George Soros, look at Mark Cuban and his movie "Redacted", he knew going in it would be a money loser. It happens on both sides no doubt, so it's a bit illogical to think that greed is the only motivator in today's world.

[Karamazov]

I'd love to see where you get that last bit of information from. Many of today's media companies are owned by international conglomerates, which for the most part, are very liberal.

Well, Jack Welch was a former chief of NBC and G.E., and he's quite Republican, with exception of a few Democrats who've had "conservative" views. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Larry Tisch, when he owned CBS; along with Steve Case and Richard Parsons of CNN and Time Warner AOL. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Rupert Murdoch, John Malone...I can go on. I'm not trying to counter your argument by saying the media is conservative, but that your view of some purported liberal bias, isn't supported by anything conclusive. So do you have anything that can support your premise?

I would disagree that many of the media companies are that concerned with their profits in such a wholehearted way. The NY Times, NBC, CBS and many other traditional news outlets have been doing very poorly when it comes to profits. Many are sustained due to being a part of a multi-faceted corporation thus financially supplemented. It's very logical and there are examples everywhere you look, of people getting successful, then using that success as a platform to get their ideologues spread. Look at Hollywood. Look at singers and rappers. Look at Moveon.org's founder George Soros, look at Mark Cuban and his movie "Redacted", he knew going in it would be a money loser. It happens on both sides no doubt, so it's a bit illogical to think that greed is the only motivator in today's world.

Actually, It was Brian De Palma's film, not Mark Cubans. Its funny how George Soros is the only financier you can come up with any significance, along with many who share your views on the media.

Sales are dimming due to a myriad of factors, such as the shrinkage of Advertising and the advent of venues such as the internet (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.). I never said greed is where it starts and ends, but it has consistently been axiomatic of any business or enterprise. Money and Power are the hallmarks of a competitive economy, that you can't deny, no matter what political affiliation.


.

[Aeroscoper]

[QUOTE=Karamazov;191184
Actually, It was Brian De Palma's film, not Mark Cubans. Its funny how George Soros is the only financier you can come up with any significance, along with many who share your views on the media.

Sales are dimming due to a myriad of factors, such as the shrinkage of Advertising and the advent of venues such as the internet (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.). I never said greed is where it starts and ends, but it has consistently been axiomatic of any business or enterprise. Money and Power are the hallmarks of a competitive economy, that you can't deny, no matter what political affiliation.


.[/QUOTE]

Mark Cuban funded Redacted. And considering how you so easily disqualified Soros and his influence, there's little point to spending much time trying to convince you about the liberal connections with mainstream media. I"m no clairvoyant, but I can foretell how those would somehow be dismissed as well.

Your links pointed to past chairman and former leaders, and don't really show much about today's situation.

If you truly believe that the media in the U.S. is objective and even conservative leaning, I hold little hope in anything I could say or show would convince you otherwise. This would nothing more than a pissing match, which isn't something I'm eager to pursue.

There's no question we both agree about motivations of those in a competitive economy, and mankind in general, but that in no way validates any of your viewpoints about the media in this country. This is actually the reason why I'm conservative. Though there are questionable agendas and motivations behind both political camps in the U.S., the conservatives are the ones that are attempting to limit the size of government, and the power associated with it. (please don't cite Bush or the current republicans, I in no way identify myself with either)

Take care.

[Karamazov]

Mark Cuban funded Redacted. And considering how you so easily disqualified Soros and his influence, there's little point to spending much time trying to convince you about the liberal connections with mainstream media. I"m no clairvoyant, but I can foretell how those would somehow be dismissed as well.

Your links pointed to past chairman and former leaders, and don't really show much about today's situation.

Right. Thanks for not easily disqualifying my list of recent owners of media and communications companies. I did say that George Soros was the only person of significance, that you have presented, right?

If you truly believe that the media in the U.S. is objective and even conservative leaning, I hold little hope in anything I could say or show would convince you otherwise. This would nothing more than a pissing match, which isn't something I'm eager to pursue.

Now when did I ever say that? I happen to hold our veritable mainstream press in a highly dubious light. I don't know of anyone on this thread who doesn't. As I've said before, my point wasn't to counterbalance your post by proving the MSM's supposed objectivity or conservative bias.

There's no question we both agree about motivations of those in a competitive economy, and mankind in general, but that in no way validates any of your viewpoints about the media in this country. This is actually the reason why I'm conservative. Though there are questionable agendas and motivations behind both political camps in the U.S., the conservatives are the ones that are attempting to limit the size of government, and the power associated with it. (please don't cite Bush or the current republicans, I in no way identify myself with either)

Take care.

How does it not validate my point? I think I explained it quite clearly.

Based on what I've read, you seem like a conservative in the same rite as Barry Goldwater, which I believe is what conservatism is supposed to be. That is, until a religious fundamentalism and Leo Strauss pooped on that parade, and made it bankrupt of any respectability in it's current manifestation.

I've had this discussion before and, like you, I don't think any amount of evidence will change your mind, but I think you've been much more candid and civil, than most conservatives I've talked to in the past. Adios.

[kimsaid]

I don't know Biden too well, but his talkativeness (including the occasional gaffe), career history and love of big projects suggests a potential fellow ENTP. The plagiarism incident is a classical case of an ENTP ethical lapse to cut corners.

The plagiarism thing is a lark. He used the portions of someone else's speech four times, and credited him, before the "plagiarism" incident. Doesn't sound to me like he intended to claim it as his own if he already credited it four times. I've vetted speeches a number of times and things get overlooked unintentionally. Whatever else he does, how about giving him a shadow of a doubt on this one...

[Aeroscoper]

Now when did I ever say that? I happen to hold our veritable mainstream press in a highly dubious light. I don't know of anyone on this thread who doesn't. As I've said before, my point wasn't to counterbalance your post by proving the MSM's supposed objectivity or conservative bias.


I guess I supposed this from the fact my argument was that the media was leftist, and you disagreed. Thus if they're not leftist, they'd have to be objective, or right leaning, but I guess you're more from the standpoint that they're not to be trusted but not necessarily leaning left. I can understand that.



Based on what I've read, you seem like a conservative in the same rite as Barry Goldwater, which I believe is what conservatism is supposed to be. That is, until a religious fundamentalism and Leo Strauss pooped on that parade, and made it bankrupt of any respectability in it's current manifestation.


That seems like a reasonable conclusion. I'm more inline with Constitutionalists and Libertarians. I feel the Founders and the Framers were brilliant, and it's alarming when people today feel they have a better concept of what government should be, which for the most part has all been tried before, and mostly fueled by emotions and not logic and reality. One thing that's interesting is that you and many others with issues with conservatives is the religious aspect. Considering most of our founding fathers were very God fearing men, and many of successes of this country can be directly contributed to Christian concepts, seems to be some disconnect there.


I've had this discussion before and, like you, I don't think any amount of evidence will change your mind, but I think you've been much more candid and civil, than most conservatives I've talked to in the past. Adios.

Likewise, which I find this forum a very nice place to trade ideas. The arguments can get a bit tedious when people decide to divert by use of hair-splitting of semantics and definitions, but beyond those it's much more civil than what I've encountered in other forums.

Take care and good luck in school, cya round the forum.





Aeroscoper added to this post, 99 minutes and 10 seconds later...

Again I'm on a "stop hijacking" mindset today so in attempts to get things back on OT, here's something interesting for those that are hung up on Obama's Muslim connection, and those that hate them for it.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Interesting...Freudian slip? Love how the commentator quickly corrected him, those objective media folks, gotta love 'em.

[void]

Again I'm on a "stop hijacking" mindset today so in attempts to get things back on OT, here's something interesting for those that are hung up on Obama's Muslim connection, and those that hate them for it.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Interesting...Freudian slip? Love how the commentator quickly corrected him, those objective media folks, gotta love 'em.

That's some crafty editing. I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're not that intellectually dishonest. Obama was responding to a question by George Stephanopoulos about the rumors being spread by right-wing blogs, Fox News and (allegedly) the McCain campaign, as you can see in this clip (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.). For the 50 billionth time, there is absolutely no evidence that Obama is or ever has been Muslim. I hate to be the one to break this to you but Muslims don't have pastors and they don't go to church. They don't even get married or baptize their children at a church.

However I do agree that Stephanopoulos is many things but he is not a journalist.

[kimsaid]

Considering most of our founding fathers were very God fearing men, and many of successes of this country can be directly contributed to Christian concepts, seems to be some disconnect there.



God fearing men or fundamental evengelicals? Huge difference that you can drive a truck through. That is the fly in the ointment when it comes to this argument today, it's out of context. Washington was accused of being an atheist. He refused to kneel in prayer or take communion. He called communion a silly superstition. In all of his writings, he used the word Jesus one time. When he died, his wife said that she THOUGHT he was a Christian. Don't even get me started on Jefferson or Franklin. There are many more examples of this expression of faith rather than fire-brand, hell and brimstone, Jesus is coming back next week genre that is threatening all who dare not to believe today. Jesus wasn't even very popular back then. He was very much an afterthought for most. The evangelical movement didn't come into its own until the mid-1800s with the opening of the West and popularity of revivals. The newly liberated citizens didn't want to hear the old sermons, they didn't sell. The Revivalists figured out how to market to the new senses and make it dramatic. They actually traded marketing strategies on how to get the most offerings during the meetings. Fascinating.

That said, Freemasonry was much regarded by many of the founding fathers, as the Enlightenment allowed reason to triumph over blind faith, as in the divine right of kings. I think 11 of the 56 signatories of the Declaration of Independence were known or rumored to be Freemasons. They didn't leave faith behind, but left blind faith behind, and many (most?) expressed a healthy wariness of the corruption that can insume when political power and the church's power are combined.

How should one express their political views if what they say may send them to hell in the eyes of the established church, possibly ex-communicated and a social pariah? How does one express their religious views if they go against the views of the state which has the power to take your property and life? Combine the two and you get the Inquisition. Or, modern day Saudi Arabia. Much easier when the two are separate and distinct, each in their own right and informing one another, rather than combined, monolithic and oppressive. The Church of England should temper anyone's desires for an official combination of the two.

[Aeroscoper]

That's some crafty editing. I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're not that intellectually dishonest. Obama was responding to a question by George Stephanopoulos about the rumors being spread by right-wing blogs, Fox News and (allegedly) the McCain campaign, as you can see in this clip (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.). For the 50 billionth time, there is absolutely no evidence that Obama is or ever has been Muslim. I hate to be the one to break this to you but Muslims don't have pastors and they don't go to church. They don't even get married or baptize their children at a church.

However I do agree that Stephanopoulos is many things but he is not a journalist.

I appreciate the benefit of the doubt, and glad to see we're in yet another agreement about Stephanopoulos, but I'm not sure how you're dismissing what he said. He was answering how McCain took the high road comparing how Obama did likewise with Palin's daughter, I realize this, but how does this somehow counter the words that came out of his mouth? "he didn't attack my Muslim faith".?

I'll say I haven't purchased his books but here's something a friend of mine sent me, not my research, but I have "faith" in my friend and his integrity so here goes:

From Dreams of My Father: 'I ceased to advertise my mother's race at the age of 12 or 13, when I began to suspect that by doing so I was ingratiating myself to whites.'

From Dreams of My Father : 'I found a solace in nursing a pervasive sense of grievance and animosity against my mother's race.'

From Dreams of My Father: 'There was something about him that made me wary, a little too sure of himself, maybe. And white.'

From Dreams of My Father: 'It remained necessary to prove which side you were on, to show your loyalty to the black masses, to strike out and name names.'

From Dreams of My Father: 'I never emulate white men and brown men whose fates didn't speak to my own. It was into my father's image, the black man, son of Africa , that I'd packed all the attributes I sought in myself , the attributes of Martin and Malcolm, DuBois and Mandela.'

And the only real reference to Muslim's I've seen that may have credibility:

From Audacity of Hope: 'I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.'

Please comment about the above if you have the book, I'm curious to the validity or context of it myself.


God fearing men or fundamental evengelicals? Huge difference that you can drive a truck through. That is the fly in the ointment when it comes to this argument today, it's out of context. Washington was accused of being an atheist. He refused to kneel in prayer or take communion. He called communion a silly superstition. In all of his writings, he used the word Jesus one time. When he died, his wife said that she THOUGHT he was a Christian. Don't even get me started on Jefferson or Franklin. There are many more examples of this expression of faith rather than fire-brand, hell and brimstone, Jesus is coming back next week genre that is threatening all who dare not to believe today. Jesus wasn't even very popular back then. He was very much an afterthought for most. The evangelical movement didn't come into its own until the mid-1800s with the opening of the West and popularity of revivals. The newly liberated citizens didn't want to hear the old sermons, they didn't sell. The Revivalists figured out how to market to the new senses and make it dramatic. They actually traded marketing strategies on how to get the most offerings during the meetings. Fascinating.

That said, Freemasonry was much regarded by many of the founding fathers, as the Enlightenment allowed reason to triumph over blind faith, as in the divine right of kings. I think 11 of the 56 signatories of the Declaration of Independence were known or rumored to be Freemasons. They didn't leave faith behind, but left blind faith behind, and many (most?) expressed a healthy wariness of the corruption that can insume when political power and the church's power are combined.

How should one express their political views if what they say may send them to hell in the eyes of the established church, possibly ex-communicated and a social pariah? How does one express their religious views if they go against the views of the state which has the power to take your property and life? Combine the two and you get the Inquisition. Or, modern day Saudi Arabia. Much easier when the two are separate and distinct, each in their own right and informing one another, rather than combined, monolithic and oppressive. The Church of England should temper anyone's desires for an official combination of the two.

My wife's an Eastern Star so I know much about Freemasonry, fascinating group of folks to say the least. Anyway I have much material on the faith of our founding fathers and I'll try to track them down, in the meanwhile it seems like you're pointing at a very small segment of the entire Evangelical community. I'm pretty involved in the community and I've yet to meet anyone that thinks anywhere near the line you state above. I have heard them characterized over and over that way by the media, with the most reactionary types being plastered wherever, and whenever they can. Like those folks that protest at soldier burials and such.

The Church of England had a huge role to play in the foundations of our country, in trying to get away from it at least. I think we both agree that this nation's success will be jeopardized if it ever took on a national religion. That said, the concept was for a safe place to exercise one's freedom of expression and freewill to choose whichever religion one decides. Today's society has gone very far from those "god fearing men", even those on the lightest end of the spectrum you claim. It's gone so far that no longer is it based on Freedom OF religion, but to Freedom FROM religion, which just as destructive as having a institutionalized mandatory religion imho.

[void]

I appreciate the benefit of the doubt, and glad to see we're in yet another agreement about Stephanopoulos, but I'm not sure how you're dismissing what he said. He was answering how McCain took the high road comparing how Obama did likewise with Palin's daughter, I realize this, but how does this somehow counter the words that came out of his mouth? "he didn't attack my Muslim faith".?

Stephanopoulos: But John McCain said the exact same thing [it is off-limits/unfounded] about questioning your faith
Obama: ... you're absolutely right that John McCain has not talked about my Muslim faith...
Stephanopoulos: Your Christian faith
Obama: My Christian faith - well what I'm saying is he hasn't suggested that I'm a Muslim

It is evident that Obama meant the phrase "my Muslim faith" to be enclosed with quotation marks, to emphasize that it is nothing more than an allegation. It would have been clearer if he had said "my rumored Muslim faith". But it is a great stretch to think his statement is a Freudian slip.

About the issue itself, there is no evidence that McCain's campaign is involved with spreading the "secret Muslim" rumors, just as there is no evidence that Obama's campaign is involved with smearing Bristol Palin. Obama is accusing McCain's campaign of involvement just as McCain accused Obama's campaign of involvement. Both candidates' accusations are without evidence.

I'll say I haven't purchased his books but here's something a friend of mine sent me, not my research, but I have "faith" in my friend and his integrity so here goes:

From Dreams of My Father: 'I ceased to advertise my mother's race at the age of 12 or 13, when I began to suspect that by doing so I was ingratiating myself to whites.'

From Dreams of My Father : 'I found a solace in nursing a pervasive sense of grievance and animosity against my mother's race.'

From Dreams of My Father: 'There was something about him that made me wary, a little too sure of himself, maybe. And white.'

From Dreams of My Father: 'It remained necessary to prove which side you were on, to show your loyalty to the black masses, to strike out and name names.'

From Dreams of My Father: 'I never emulate white men and brown men whose fates didn't speak to my own. It was into my father's image, the black man, son of Africa , that I'd packed all the attributes I sought in myself , the attributes of Martin and Malcolm, DuBois and Mandela.'

And the only real reference to Muslim's I've seen that may have credibility:

From Audacity of Hope: 'I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.'

Please comment about the above if you have the book, I'm curious to the validity or context of it myself.

I have not read the books either, but one-line quotes are very easy to misinterpret without the surrounding context.


EDIT: "My Christian faith - well what I'm saying is he hasn't suggested that I'm a Muslim". I had incorrectly written 'has' previously.

[Aeroscoper]

Stephanopoulos: But John McCain said the exact same thing [it is off-limits/unfounded] about questioning your faith
Obama: ... you're absolutely right that John McCain has not talked about my Muslim faith...
Stephanopoulos: Your Christian faith
Obama: My Christian faith - well what I'm saying is he has suggested that I'm a Muslim

About the issue itself, there is no evidence that McCain's campaign is involved with spreading the "secret Muslim" rumors, just as there is no evidence that Obama's campaign is involved with smearing Bristol Palin. Obama is accusing McCain's campaign of involvement just as McCain accused Obama's campaign of involvement. Both candidates' accusations are without evidence.




Since there is no evidence about McCain spreading the rumors as you just stated, why would Obama make that last statement? To me it looked more like a "good catch", and not even that good of one, than anything else. Stephanopoulos said "faith", and Obama is the one that introduced "Muslim" into the conversation before being corrected.


I have not read the books either, but one-line quotes are very easy to misinterpret without the surrounding context.

I would have to agree, but there sure are a lot of "coincidences" to ignore if you're trying to hold your ground about him from my perspective.

On a side note, and a serious question, you seem to be a reasonable minded person that supports Obama. Can I ask you, why is he your candidate? Please try to answer this without mention of Bush or others, just what it is about Obama that you are drawn to, specifics please.

[kimsaid]

I have not read the books either, but one-line quotes are very easy to misinterpret without the surrounding context.

It's how Ann Coulter makes a living.





kimsaid added to this post, 3 minutes and 51 seconds later...



I'll say I haven't purchased his books but here's something a friend of mine sent me, not my research, but I have "faith" in my friend and his integrity so here goes:.

Is this from the defamatory, anonymous e-mails? I haven't actually seen one.


Today's society has gone very far from those "god fearing men", even those on the lightest end of the spectrum you claim. It's gone so far that no longer is it based on Freedom OF religion, but to Freedom FROM religion, which just as destructive as having a institutionalized mandatory religion imho.


Who are the God-fearing men and/or women that you admire?
Edit: I prefer current affairs. Living please.

[Josh]

Ok aeroscooper this will be my last post directed towards you. You are very intelligent but you have strongly rooted opinions on this issue and i can see you will never be swayed by anyone. Well short of McCain being elected and the situation in this country getting even worse in 4 years.
So by your logic, the only reason there has ever been prosperity and success is because of the U.S. schools and our justice system? And prior to it, there were no poor people? Contrary to popular belief, there were poor people since the start of the world, and yes, even before Bush took office
We haven't had prosperity and success in the last 8 years. The economy that was on the rise during clinton's administration has declined significantly in the last 8 years, unemployment has gone up, and the gap between the very wealthy and the rest of the population has increased greatly. You have disagreed with me on this, posting that bush inherited a stagnant economy and blaming the current situation on democrats gaining control of congress 2 years ago. I have no idea how you reasoned this out, it's just plain false, i can only imagine you have stubbornly refused to accept the facts. ANY (and i do mean any) objective source will show you how wrong you are on this.
This explains a lot. CNN is very left leaning under the guise of "objectivity".
It doesn't matter what channel i watched Palin's speech on. I was making a point that she and her state when she was governor epitomized the term earmark, and now she is so strongly against them, just as McCain who voted against alternative energy every single time in the senate, is now so big on it. I have come to these conclusions based on research, not by the commentators opinions on a particular news station.

"m obviously a conservative, and most of the things you just listed that you're against are moves more inline with liberal ideology, that being, more government intrusion into citizens' lives, and less individual liberty. The GBA isn't very conservative overall in my opinion. Though it boggles my mind when people list all those things with angst that Bush has done wrong, which are for the most part, very liberal policies, to use as a reason to vote for liberals...? Doesn't make much sense to me.
So you disagree with Bush's policies....McCain wants to continue them....yet you are still voting for him cause he has an R after his name. They are almost indistinguashable on economical policies. McCain's campaign manager was right when he said this election isn't based on issues. What you're doing is voting for the name of the party, no matter how far the policies are from what you think it stands for. The fact that the conservatives should be for a smaller government and more individual liberties in theory doesn't matter, if they (thats right Bush and McCain) have been and will do the exact opposite in practice. This is the only thing that matters. You can say don't bring up Bush all you want, but if they are that similar, it is only practical to do so. We have a perfect picture of what will happen in this country if McCain gets elected, i offer you the chance to show me how they are different.
Today's educational system is poor indeed. The liberals have completely taken over the Board of Education and its affects are staggering.
Bush's no child left behind policy is the cause of this. Again anyone who feels the answer is to set standards for education then PUNISH the teachers and cut funding if these standards are not met is, for lack of a worse word, an idiot.
Again I'm on a "stop hijacking" mindset today so in attempts to get things back on OT, here's something interesting for those that are hung up on Obama's Muslim connection, and those that hate them for it.
From Audacity of Hope: 'I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.'
Of course debunked on numerous occasions by people with sense. Anytime you have to bring out the republican playbook and bring up or suggest a correlation and moreover relate it to hijacking, you are seriously losing the argument on substance and issues my friend. Not much more to say here.
From Dreams of My Father: 'I ceased to advertise my mother's race at the age of 12 or 13, when I began to suspect that by doing so I was ingratiating myself to whites.'

From Dreams of My Father : 'I found a solace in nursing a pervasive sense of grievance and animosity against my mother's race.'

From Dreams of My Father: 'There was something about him that made me wary, a little too sure of himself, maybe. And white.'

From Dreams of My Father: 'It remained necessary to prove which side you were on, to show your loyalty to the black masses, to strike out and name names.'

From Dreams of My Father: 'I never emulate white men and brown men whose fates didn't speak to my own. It was into my father's image, the black man, son of Africa , that I'd packed all the attributes I sought in myself , the attributes of Martin and Malcolm, DuBois and Mandela.'
All taken out of context. Again, the same thing the republicans who have nothing to stand on when it comes to legitimate policies and issues do, paint him as a radical, someone who is anti white, someone who is different. If you knew more about his biography, you would see these are excerpt designed to highlight his struggle coming to terms with his racial identity culminating in him understanding it wasn't about race but in fact that we are all human beings or more specifically americans. This was one of the points he went to great lengths to make in his book.
Today's society has gone very far from those "god fearing men", even those on the lightest end of the spectrum you claim. It's gone so far that no longer is it based on Freedom OF religion, but to Freedom FROM religion, which just as destructive as having a institutionalized mandatory religion imho.
History says much differently. You will find genocide and atrocity rampant in most religions, i challenge you to find atheists who have perpetrated such things. Religion has, and always will be, about control. Anti free thinking, pro conformity to hypocritical pseudo moralism. I would elaborate but this should be self explanatory to all but you, and there i'd just be beating my head against the wall.

I'll finish up with a quote from another topic, so true it just absolutely bears repeating here:
As posters have already noted, the hallmarks of "conservatism" in political application are trickle down economics and deregulation.

It has also been noted, here and elsewhere, that wealth does not trickle down. It accumulates, polarizing the populace between an increasingly small portion of people with unimaginable wealth, and a growing number of people on the verge of homelessness.

As for deregulation, what it has resulted in is numerous cases of commercial fraud and failure, from Enron the current mortgage crisis, resulting in over ten banking failures in the last year alone, and the potential for a major banking crisis and depression. It has also resulted in massive recalls of beef and produce, and numerous cases of death and poisoning from tainted beef, chicken, and a variety of produce crops.

Conservatism boils down to two childish and selfish ideals, "I want mine," and "don't tell me what to do." Everything I've read here from the conservative posters on this site has reinforced that observation.

The only people conservatism has worked for are the most ambitious, selfish, and unscrupulous of con artists and swindlers.

Considering the poverty, dishonesty, misery, and death that has resulted from the last eight years of conservative policies, what is truly amazing is the success of the fraud that conservatives represent a moral vision.

If i came off as harsh aeroscooper, i apologize in advance. As i said at the start, i deeply respect your intellect and quite a few of your positions on other topics, but you couldn't be more wrong here.

Respond if you feel the need, but i doubt we will accomplish much.

[Aeroscoper]

Josh,

I'll just conclude our discussions with this:

I've said numerous times till I'm blue in the face, that I'm not a Republican, and I have nothing to do with Bush and McCain. The fact that you paint me this way is irksome.

If you believe that the Board of Education was formed during the Bush days and his "No child left behind ( a very liberal policy btw ) somehow teleported all those Democrats into those seats, then that's just misinformed, but that's your call.

Some people that comes to mind that were atheists. Hitler comes to mind. Pol Pot is another. Between those two they've got millions of innocent deaths under their belt. A couple more than Bush I'd say. Then there's Mao, then there's Kim Jung-Il, Castro...

And could you please "debunk" those issues with Obama? How are they debunked? Because some conservatives that you disagree with also brought those up? Have you ever heard of Black Liberation Theology? If not, I'd suggest taking an objective look at it. If you believe in the existence of the KKK and other racially charged groups, it's irrational to completely dismiss the possibility, and even probability, that these exist, even if your candidate says they don't.

Bottom line, my historical context goes back to the formation of this country and before, it seems, based on your references, that yours goes back 8 years. But it's all good, you'll believe what you'll believe we live in a place that's possible, you need to realize that we're more the exception than the rule in the world. If people are promoting "change", it'd be wise to see where that change is leading into the future, and not just about the ills in the very recent past.

For me it's about smaller government, more individual responsibility, more liberties. NO, I repeat NO, Bush wasn't the biggest proponent of these ideals, neither is McCain, but if Obama represented this, I would surely vote for him, as I voted for Clinton. I wonder if you can ask yourself the same thing, and further, what your ideas of what this country should be, if it's based in reality, and which party is the one that represents that.

Thanks and take it sleazy, and get a frickin' hair cut would ya? I kid. Cya round the forum bud.

[void]

On a side note, and a serious question, you seem to be a reasonable minded person that supports Obama. Can I ask you, why is he your candidate? Please try to answer this without mention of Bush or others, just what it is about Obama that you are drawn to, specifics please.

Obama is not my primary candidate and I most probably will not vote for him in November. However I do find him far more tolerable than McCain. I have neither the time nor the inclination to do an issue-by-issue policy comparison of the two candidates, but I will specify the main issues where I think Obama is preferable. In no particular order:

Social conservatism - To be concise, I am vehemently opposed to every single thing in the "Human Dignity & Sanctity of Life" section of McCain's website. Obama has no such plans.
Iraq - The candidates don't differ much on this issue. However Obama has proposed a 16 month deadline for constructing Iraq's self-sufficient government, emphasizing that it is not set in stone. He has said that ultimately, the withdrawal dates will be determined by the analysis of generals on the ground. McCain has no such deadline. He has stated that he doesn't mind if this goes on for 20, 50 or even 100 years.
Iran - Obama's direct diplomacy approach makes far more sense than McCain's "league of democracies".
Energy - McCain is firmly for offshore drilling, Obama "will consider it" (a change in his position that I didn't like). I'm against offshore drilling. McCain is firmly for nuclear power. Obama "will consider it" (yeah right). I'm firmly for nuclear power. They are more or less even on other energy issues.
Character - I trust McCain about as far as I can throw him. Anybody following him since pre-2000 knows the man doesn't have an iota of integrity in his body after selling out his principles to the neo-Republican party (which differs considerably from what it was during Reagan's time). His reputation as a maverick went down the crapper after he aligned himself with the people who smeared him during his presidential nomination run in 2000. He did a complete 180 on so many issues within 5 minutes, I'm surprised he didn't suffer from whiplash.


Things like the economy and government reform are far too nuanced for me to write in detail. I'm in no mood to write an essay. :)


EDIT: My transcript of the conversation between Obama and Stephanopoulos contains an error in the last line. Obama said "My Christian faith - well what I'm saying is he hasn't suggested that I'm a Muslim". The hasn't is a bit hard to pick up with Stephanopoulos talking over him. This makes more sense, because Obama goes on to say that the "upper echelons" of McCain's campaign have never said that he is a Muslim either.

[Josh]

Ok i can't resist
Some people that comes to mind that were atheists. Hitler comes to mind. Pol Pot is another. Between those two they've got millions of innocent deaths under their belt. A couple more than Bush I'd say. Then there's Mao, then there's Kim Jung-Il, Castro...
Touché, however let's not forget that Hitler did kill 6 million people because of their religion, the fact that he was an atheist is not applicable as this was one of his most important tools in inspiring the people to his cause. As for the numbers of those dead for religious reasons against those under the communist dictators you mentioned we will never know. Obviously life was cheap and death tolls weren't a big priority back then, the estimates i've heard go from a few hundred million to over a billion, a range possibly surpassing that of all the dictators of the 20th century combined. Again it is impossible to determine for the aforementioned reason and in addition, it is often quite difficult to distinguish between religion and political ideology when it comes to the cause.

Furthermore, human beings lacked the technology to enable them to be anywhere near as good at genocide as they are today, so the numbers would undoubtedly be higher if this were the case. Either way, i still contend that mixing political power and religious power is always a bad idea, there is nothing that can inspire the sheep to commit abhorable acts they otherwise wouldn't consider than by making them believe it is god's work (or allah's.) There is no more powerful idea than that, nor one that is easier to exploit for malevolent purposes.

And could you please "debunk" those issues with Obama? How are they debunked? Because some conservatives that you disagree with also brought those up? Have you ever heard of Black Liberation Theology? If not, I'd suggest taking an objective look at it. If you believe in the existence of the KKK and other racially charged groups, it's irrational to completely dismiss the possibility, and even probability, that these exist, even if your candidate says they don't.

It's been done on numerous occasions and i'm not going to prove a negative to you. You are more than welcome to prove that Obama is or ever has been a muslim however, since you were the one that made the insinuation. Either way, my point was that it is irrelevant and simply distracts from the real issues.

Bottom line, my historical context goes back to the formation of this country and before, it seems, based on your references, that yours goes back 8 years. But it's all good, you'll believe what you'll believe we live in a place that's possible, you need to realize that we're more the exception than the rule in the world. If people are promoting "change", it'd be wise to see where that change is leading into the future, and not just about the ills in the very recent past.

I recall discussing presidencies going all the way back to Reagan, in regard to their economic policies. Refer to my previous posts.

Finally you're a cool guy, albeit misguided. Haha i kid as well, we simply differ on this. I've enjoyed our discourse.

[Aeroscoper]

Void, I asked if you could describe your interest in Obama with mentioning others. Each of your statements were more disclosures on why you hate McCain. Still not getting a very clear understanding about what it is about Obama you find so redeemable. But it sounds like your mind's made up. Good luck in November.

Josh. I never implied anything about Obama being Muslim. If you look back, everything I wrote were direct quotes from him or his books. I have no real stance on his connection with Islam, but know there's a lot of odd things in his past that mention/related to it. I was hoping for a bit of clarification about that is all.

In either case, have a good one!

[kimsaid]

If you believe that the Board of Education was formed during the Bush days and his "No child left behind ( a very liberal policy btw ) somehow teleported all those Democrats into those seats, then that's just misinformed, but that's your call. .

Boards of Education are local entities that have authority (some, anyway) over local school systems and are usually elected by the voters in their school districts. The U.S. DEPARTMENT of Education has been run by Bush political appointees for the last eight years. No one teleported anyone anywhere. It's a process that happens when administrations change.

Some people that comes to mind that were atheists. Hitler comes to mind. Pol Pot is another. Between those two they've got millions of innocent deaths under their belt. .

Hitler was Christian. He used some of the anti-semitic writing of Martin Luther to justify killing Jews. Martin Luther was German. The Nazi's wore belt buckles that said "God is with us" (only in German). You can see them in museums and maybe buy one on E-Bay. Pol Pot was an atheist but highly conservative. When he took power in 1975 he abolished property rights, money and religion - attempting to regress the country back to an agricultural society, the "traditional" society.

Have you ever heard of Black Liberation Theology? If not, I'd suggest taking an objective look at it.

Ooooh. Scary. :scared: Black Liberation Theology was founded by Rev. James Cone. It has roots in 1960s civil-rights activism and draws inspiration from both the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. and Malcolm X, as "mainly a theology that sees God as concerned with the poor and the weak." Cone explains that at the core of black liberation theology is an effort — in a white-dominated society, in which black has been defined as evil — to make the gospel relevant to the life and struggles of American blacks, and to help black people learn to love themselves. It's an attempt, he says "to teach people how to be both unapologetically black and Christian at the same time." - James Cone, NPR, 3/31/2008.

Jesus freaks.

Bottom line, my historical context goes back to the formation of this country and before, it seems, based on your references, that yours goes back 8 years.

When was the last time you voted for Thomas Jefferson? James Madison? Anybody from the 18th century? I'll take just one.

For me it's about smaller government, more individual responsibility, more liberties. NO, I repeat NO, Bush wasn't the biggest proponent of these ideals, neither is McCain, but if Obama represented this, I would surely vote for him, as I voted for Clinton. I wonder if you can ask yourself the same thing, and further, what your ideas of what this country should be, if it's based in reality, and which party is the one that represents that..

Nuh uh. You can't prove a negative. Show the cards that you are playing.

Smaller government? Smaller than the size Bush is leaving? Show me.
Individual responsibility? Show me how this will change. Have you read his policy ideas?
More liberties? Don't make me laugh. Obama is a CONSTITUTIONAL LAWYER. Did you lose any under Bush? Does Bush know there is a Constitution?

Aeroscoper, you are TOO MUCH FUN! Thanks for letting us pick on you!;D

Edit: Small clarification

[Aeroscoper]

Boards of Education are local entities that have authority (some, anyway) over local school systems and are usually elected by the voters in their school districts. The U.S. DEPARTMENT of Education has been run by Bush political appointees for the last eight years. No one teleported anyone anywhere. It's a process that happens when administrations change.


You seem to have a very large issue with being able to separate me or anyone that has a different perspective, from Bush. What is that? I've said it about 5x now, not that this will make a difference. I view him as a Republican, not necessarily a conservative. Please play nicely, or at least, honestly.

If you think the downward spiral and infiltration of liberals into public schooling started with Bush's administration and not in the 60's that's ok, but not true.


Hitler was Christian. He used some of the anti-semitic writing of Martin Luther to justify killing Jews. Martin Luther was German. The Nazi's wore belt buckles that said "God is with us" (only in German). You can see them in museums and maybe buy one on E-Bay. Pol Pot was an atheist but highly conservative. When he took power in 1975 he abolished property rights, money and religion - attempting to regress the country back to an agricultural society, the "traditional" society.



Another inaccurate statement. He praised Sparta as being the first true socialism and he based his initial rationale of killlng on the concept of culling the weak, otherwise known as eugenics, as described in Mein Kampf. Far from what the media and revisionist liberals of today feed those that want to be fed, he didn't start killing Jews, he started with people with physical and mental disabilities, exactly as prescribed by the proponents of eugenics. Eugenics was first consolidated by Sir Francis Galton in 1883, drawing on the recent work of his cousin Charles Darwin. It is a social philosophy which advocates the improvement of human hereditary traits through various forms of intervention. He used this rationale, that those with "inferior" traits should be culled out of the population, to move onto the gypsies, then the Jews, noting that if individual persons can be deemed "inferior", than logically so can whole races. Not doubting he may have admired Christianity and I know he read Martin Luther, but reading the Bible and being a Christian are not one in the same(Obama seems to struggle with this concept as well), and based on his actions, he was obviously a eugenic atheist and NOT a Christian, unless you can cite another example of mass termination of Jews by Christians (and Mel Gibson's movie doesn't count, silly sheep). What a coincidence, one of the original supporters in this country was your buddy Keynes. And interestingly enough, a concept adopted by the Planned Parenthood folks, with origins linked to planned destruction of blacks by abortion, yet another big left wing group, anyone see a pattern here?

In 1975 Pol Pot abolished religion, money and property rights...and you "claim" he was conservative? The party that stands for individualism and liberty, vs. your redistribution of wealth, money is evil crowd? That's downright delusional. And you actually believe he was a conservative? Where's the logic in that?



Ooooh. Scary. :scared: Black Liberation Theology was founded by Rev. James Cone. It has roots in 1960s civil-rights activism and draws inspiration from both the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. and Malcolm X, as "mainly a theology that sees God as concerned with the poor and the weak." Cone explains that at the core of black liberation theology is an effort — in a white-dominated society, in which black has been defined as evil — to make the gospel relevant to the life and struggles of American blacks, and to help black people learn to love themselves. It's an attempt, he says "to teach people how to be both unapologetically black and Christian at the same time." - James Cone, NPR, 3/31/2008.

Jesus freaks.



So your idea of a good reference for a controversial person, is his own words in an interview...now that's irrefutable....That totally explains how you are a Obama fan now.

You forgot to mention Cornel West for some reason? In his book Prophesy Deliverance, West believes that by working together, Marxists and black theologians can spearhead much-needed social change for those who are victims of oppression. He appreciates Marxism for its "notions of class struggle, social contradictions, historical specificity, and dialectical developments in history"

You must still be thinking you're at one of your leftist hate blog site, we actually have some critical thinking and research abilities here. Sorry to bust your deluded self created liberal bubble.


When was the last time you voted for Thomas Jefferson? James Madison? Anybody from the 18th century? I'll take just one.



What kind of argument is that? So in your mind, you can't learn from history? That explains why you're examples and knowledge date back to 8 years I guess.


Nuh uh. You can't prove a negative. Show the cards that you are playing.


Yuh huh.

Smaller government? Smaller than the size Bush is leaving? Show me.
Individual responsibility? Show me how this will change. Have you read his policy ideas?
More liberties? Don't make me laugh. Obama is a CONSTITUTIONAL LAWYER. Did you lose any under Bush? Does Bush know there is a Constitution?


There you go obsessing about Bush again. Now that I realize your mindset, I'll never be able to win since Bush is the only "conservative" you can relate with, thus will always paint me as his twin. And that Obama is some champion of our constitution (while hating the founders because they're all white btw) that stands firmly on conservative values. Oh well.

Been fun, see ya in the next thread I guess, oh, it might save a bit of time,(and carpel tunnel) if you respond to the posts where I'm actually addressing you! ;)

[scholarwarrior]

And that Obama is some champion of our constitution (while hating the founders because they're all white btw) that stands firmly on conservative values. Oh well.


Where does this come from? Obama hates white people???? wow. and are you suggesting that everything in this country should roll back to how it was in the 18th century, values, laws and all? Our constitution was pretty progressive at the time, though, wasn't it? And times change, rightly and necessarily. I don't think civil rights were a bad idea (still not there obviously, but progress). You're trying to sound intellectual and informed, but its hard to take this seriously...

[Aeroscoper]

Where does this come from? Obama hates white people???? wow. and are you suggesting that everything in this country should roll back to how it was in the 18th century, values, laws and all? Our constitution was pretty progressive at the time, though, wasn't it? And times change, rightly and necessarily. I don't think civil rights were a bad idea (still not there obviously, but progress). You're trying to sound intellectual and informed, but its hard to take this seriously...

It comes from statements he made in his books, comments he's made while on campaign, and looking to his mentors and friends. If that's an unreasonable approach, we'll agree to disagree.

I can't recall ever saying I'd like things exactly they were in the 18th century, please cite where I've said this. Values, yes, which actually lead directly to the advancements in civil and women's rights.

I"m not "trying" to do anything, I'm stating my opinions, if it makes me sound "intelligent" great, if it makes me sound like "it's hard to take me seriously", great. That's to each to decide, thanks for your evaluation.

[Josh]

Hey now lets keep it civil in my thread! Haha just kidding, keep going at it this is fun.

Really aeroscooper as kimsaid....said, you can't be so against Bush and his "liberal" policies and be for McCain, they are identical on the economy, the war, on big brother policies with the excuse of being tough on terrorists, and many, many other issues. I'm hungry right now so i'll make a food analogy, cause you still haven't got the point.

Republicans are hamburgers, democrats are hot dogs ok? You've always liked hamburgers, you like how they taste and what they stand for. You've got really shitty hamburgers for the last 8 years. You admit that they were terrible but say you can't judge all hamburgers by those particular ones. And now you're going back to the same god damn restaurant for more of those same hamburgers!

It's not only fair to bring up Bush, it's absolutely logical given the similarity. Ok i'm done now, i'm going to eat.

[Aeroscoper]

I'll need some time to answer your post Kimsaid properly (as usual), and I'm going to consolidate both discussions into this thread, but I'll try to answer Josh now.

Josh I tried to make this point to you but I must not have been able to express myself properly (not my first time). I'm not a huge fan of Bush or McCain, so if you can find me a more true conservative, he'll/she'll get my vote.

To answer your food analogy, (what time is it? I'm gettin' hungry, gonna have some Pho for lunch, yummy) I'll put it like this:

It's like if I like my hamburger traditionally, with onions, lettuce, tomato, ketsup, mustard and relish, and I ordered a hamburger that was described that way on the menu, but the chef decided it was wise to sprinkle the burger with hot-dog meat. And I very much had a dislike for hotdogs, thus was very disappointed with what I ended up with.

Now would it be logical for me to order a hot dog next time I ordered because I hated that hot-dog/burger last time?

You're addressing my logic, which isn't what we butt heads on, we have a fundamental difference in what we think is the correct way of governance, to which I say I very much respect your opinion, as I would hope you would mine, but to say I'm not being consistent isn't accurate.

Now where's that soup.

[Lights]

*Wonders why Aeroscoper isn't voting for Ron Paul if he claims to vote based on traditional Conservative values*

McCain is just as much a big government conservative as Bush was so it boggles my mind when so called "traditional conservatives" will vote for him.

[Aeroscoper]

*Wonders why Aeroscoper isn't voting for Ron Paul if he claims to vote based on traditional Conservative values*

McCain is just as much a big government conservative as Bush was so it boggles my mind when so called "traditional conservatives" will vote for him.

Very insightful Lights. Here's why.

The probabilities that Paul winning vs. the probabilities of Obama winning.

It's more of preventing more damage, than voting for getting ahead...quite honestly I'm one of those guys that was seriously considering voting for Hilary, or sitting out...that's how much I"m not a McCain guy...but that would have been a very dark day for me...but with Palin now on the ticket, it's a little less bitter. And to those that aren't reading closely enough...less bitter McCain is still better than arsenic Obama.

[Lights]

Very insightful Lights. Here's why.

The probabilities that Paul winning vs. the probabilities of Obama winning.

It's more of preventing more damage, than voting for getting ahead...quite honestly I'm one of those guys that was seriously considering voting for Hilary, or sitting out...that's how much I"m not a McCain guy...but that would have been a very dark day for me...but with Palin now on the ticket, it's a little less bitter. And to those that aren't reading closely enough...less bitter McCain is still better than arsenic Obama.

Ah, so you are voting for what you perceive as the lesser of two evils. So how exactly is McCain vastly superior to Obama? Obviously McCain can't be considered a "traditional conservative" as he is not exactly morally liberal (certainly not anymore so that Obama), so my guess is that you simply favor tax cuts for the top 5% of the country and the continuance of Bush's economic policies.

And why would Palin make any difference as she is starch right and very neo conservative? If you are going to continue the "I'm a traditional conservative" argument then you are going to have to explain why Palin, who is cited for large quantities of pork barrel spending and religious zealotry, fits that bill.

Unless you can explain how Obama's plans will hurt America anymore so than Bush's have, it seems to me you are voting for McCain simply on the basis that you like him more and feel that he would be a better President. No problem with that since I'm sure about 80% of McCain's supporters are probably supporting him out of intuition or tradition.

[Josh]

It amazes me that Obama has a 20 point lead on the basis of issues and McCain has a 20 point lead on "character." Way for the public to vote for someone cause he's white and speaks with phrases and quips the uneducated will comprehend and not on policy.

[Aeroscoper]

Ah, so you are voting for what you perceive as the lesser of two evils.

Yeah, to a certain point it's that dreaded notion of lesser of two evils, or 3 if you take in Paul, and I'm quite aware of who wins when choosing the lesser of the two.

And it's also factoring in that there will never be a president that I will agree with on all of the categories. If I was more of the Ideal type, such as an NF, I'd probably struggle with this more than I do. For me it's about which candidate will match up with more of my concerns, especially the important ones, the closest. But also factor in that I'd rather vote for someone I'd disagree with, but has shown to be honest, than someone that "says" all the right things, but can't be trusted. Not that this is the situation currently, but bringing to further clarification my decision making process.

Hopefully this will answer most of your assumptions you've come to about me, and if you see where feelings were integral in the process, that's amazing.

Cheers.


Way for the public to vote for someone cause he's white...

Dang, what's your hangups with whites bro?

[Josh]

Dang, what's your hangups with whites bro?

Haha none at all, but don't try to tell me McCain doesn't deliberately pander to hicks.

[meanlittlechimp]

For me it's about smaller government, more individual responsibility, more liberties.

Alaska under Palin has the highest taxes per resident in the nation as well as the highest spend per resident.
The debt incurred to fund the wars in the Middle East has caused the biggest government spending since Vietnam.

The Bush administration is bailing out Fannie May and Freddie Mac (which hold half of the US mortgage market) - making them an extension of the US government, is not small government. It's outright socialism! We overthrow foreign governments for doing things like that (under the pretense of communism).

The republicans have moved us to the highest pending levels and the highest national debt this nation has ever seen. The de-valuation of our currency because of this rampant spending and printing ever more money to make up for the difference will make world governments shift the move away from the US dollar as the world's RESERVE CURRENCY. All nations have to hold US dollars in reserve to buy commodities like oil (because the US economy's paper money is supposedly as safe as a Gold backed currency).

Over the next few decades world governments will shift the move away from dollars to economies that aren't in debt and printing increasingly devaluing currency to finance silly wars.

This will further devalue the dollar and make the lifestyle of the average American the worst it's seen since pre WWII levels. We are in for a serious contraction for the US economy and incurring massive debt to finance unjust wars isn't the way to stay competitive.

Educating the populace and having a more skilled work force, so we can compete better in world markets by actually producing things the world wants to buy, could delay or reverse this trend. The Democracts are hell of a lot more likely to make this choice instead of blocking stem cell research, denying global warming, setting up creationist museums and being anti-science and anti-progress in general.

[Aeroscoper]

Haha none at all, but don't try to tell me McCain doesn't deliberately pander to hicks.

Hicks? lol, ok.

Chimp, I've been through all of that for the most part with Kim and Josh.

Good points some, silly some others, overall I respect your opinion.

Cheers.

[scholarwarrior]

It comes from statements he made in his books, comments he's made while on campaign, and looking to his mentors and friends. If that's an unreasonable approach, we'll agree to disagree.

I can't recall ever saying I'd like things exactly they were in the 18th century, please cite where I've said this. Values, yes, which actually lead directly to the advancements in civil and women's rights.

I"m not "trying" to do anything, I'm stating my opinions, if it makes me sound "intelligent" great, if it makes me sound like "it's hard to take me seriously", great. That's to each to decide, thanks for your evaluation.

I won't bother to refer you to your own posts. 18th century values leading to civil rights does not mean that 18th century values embody civil rights. If those 18th century values were in the right place, they wouldn't need to lead anywhere.

If Obama obviously hated white people, he would have been out of the race a long time ago. There is no room for doubt there. Most people will not read his books obviously, but his opponents did, very thoroughly. If a significant portion of white America did not have a problem with Obama not being White, McCain would not be in sight of him, since he has no idea how to help this country (absence of any discussion of his policies).





scholarwarrior added to this post, 10 minutes and 37 seconds later...

Alaska under Palin has the highest taxes per resident in the nation as well as the highest spend per resident.

The republicans have moved us to the highest pending levels and the highest national debt this nation has ever seen. The de-valuation of our currency because of this rampant spending and printing ever more money to make up for the difference will make world governments shift the move away from the US dollar as the world's RESERVE CURRENCY.

Educating the populace and having a more skilled work force, so we can compete better in world markets by actually producing things the world wants to buy, could delay or reverse this trend. The Democracts are hell of a lot more likely to make this choice instead of blocking stem cell research, denying global warming, setting up creationist museums and being anti-science and anti-progress in general.

And so it would be a mistake to single out Bush and say he's more liberal than Republican (laughable), when a huge chunk of the GOP is on board with the same policies they themselves know are not working and in fact do considerable damage (including McCain and Palin). Hell, if someone's a Republican, fine. But that party is a mess right now.

[Colette]

The Bush administration is bailing out Fannie May and Freddie Mac (which hold half of the US mortgage market) - making them an extension of the US government, is not small government. It's outright socialism! We overthrow foreign governments for doing things like that (under the pretense of communism)

Yes. In fact the very idea of having state-owned enterprises holding mortgage debt is a socialistic concept. I agree that your country under the Republican administration is one of the most highly regulated and government controlled societies I have ever encountered (and I say this from the perspective of an outsider who has traveled there on a number of occasions, and who keeps abreast of political and foreign policy developments in the US). The level of hypocrisy caused by the disjunct between the policy/ideology espoused by the GOP, and the way in which it is operationalised, is truly astounding, and unparalleled in any other Western democracy of which I am aware.

The republicans have moved us to the highest pending levels and the highest national debt this nation has ever seen

That's just one example of the 'titanic' sized government intervention your country is plagued with. Every tiny little problem is legislated for (or against), or regulated. Bureaucracy is swollen, and widespread, with its tentacles reaching into every form of government and quasi-governmental activity, trade levies, tariffs and protectionism have been maintained in order to artificially protect your primary industries from the need to compete in the world free trade arena, and your criminal and penal laws are amongst the most onerous in the Western world. The parallels between the current administration and the former Soviet socialist republics, are not altogether ludicrous.

I can't see any of this domestic 'socialism' changing in the near future whichever party is elected. I can only hope that an Obama-led administration will take measures to rectify America's misguided foreign policy, before something even more catastrophic than 9/11 results from it.

[Antares]

Well, I don't know too much about their economic stance (but I have a few ideas), but anyone who is:

- Pro-life and wishes to over turn Roe v. Wade (If you don't like abortion, don't have one. But don't go around telling the rest of us what to do)
- Religious Right, affiliated with born-agains and evangelists
- Against sex education (sums up Palin pretty well)
- Creationist advocate (notice: ADVOCATE) or cdesign proponentsists
- Anti-Gay marriage (it's none of your business)
- Cites God as a reason to make a certain political decision (think Bush)

Will not get my vote. I'm not sure what others think, but my list pretty much rules out most republicans, McPalin included.

[Evalind]

This election season is yucky. Is it terrible that I may vote for Obama just because my husband plans to vote McCain? I figure it might be best if we cancel each other out this cycle. If I don't do that, I may vote for Barr, or possibly Nader (if I do some more research and decide he's ok, I need more info on him).

[Lights]

And it's also factoring in that there will never be a president that I will agree with on all of the categories. If I was more of the Ideal type, such as an NF, I'd probably struggle with this more than I do. For me it's about which candidate will match up with more of my concerns, especially the important ones, the closest.

Ok, so you are making this decision based on your own subjective, intuitive feelings as opposed to reason supported by evidence. That is pretty typical. It's also why it is probably completely pointless to logically debate you on this issue because it is an emotive one, and your reaction will inherently be defensive.

But also factor in that I'd rather vote for someone I'd disagree with, but has shown to be honest, than someone that "says" all the right things, but can't be trusted.

The argument you are making is that John McCain is honest and Barrack Obama is not. Would you care to provide some evidence to support this assertion or this simply your gut feeling? I watched the GOP convention so I know both John McCain and Sarah Palin have lied during this election, so we must have different definitions for the word "honesty".

Hopefully this will answer most of your assumptions you've come to about me, and if you see where feelings were integral in the process, that's amazing.

You were probably raised and socialized to vote red. There really isn't anything amazing about that. There are people who were raised and socialized to vote blue. People, especially NTs, very seldom question why they feel the way they do about the values they embrace, they only assume that the people that share the same values are good and likable and the people that clearly don't share the same values must be bad and immoral. Your earlier comment seems to support this kind of compartmentalized thinking. NFs have it easier because we can at least analyze why we feel the way we do.

[athiah333]

Well, I don't know too much about their economic stance (but I have a few ideas), but anyone who is:

- Pro-life and wishes to over turn Roe v. Wade (If you don't like abortion, don't have one. But don't go around telling the rest of us what to do)
- Religious Right, affiliated with born-agains and evangelists
- Against sex education (sums up Palin pretty well)
- Creationist advocate (notice: ADVOCATE) or cdesign proponentsists
- Anti-Gay marriage (it's none of your business)
- Cites God as a reason to make a certain political decision (think Bush)

Will not get my vote. I'm not sure what others think, but my list pretty much rules out most republicans, McPalin included.

Add people who make wars for the sake of it to that list and then its pretty much the same as mine.

[Aeroscoper]

It seems Kimsaid had deleted her response...hope I didn't offend her. OH well, won't be the first time :)


Ok, so you are making this decision based on your own subjective, intuitive feelings as opposed to reason supported by evidence. That is pretty typical. It's also why it is probably completely pointless to logically debate you on this issue because it is an emotive one, and your reaction will inherently be defensive.


Are you always this offensive when discussing opinions? It seems you know it all so why even attempt at a discussion with you?


The argument you are making is that John McCain is honest and Barrack Obama is not. Would you care to provide some evidence to support this assertion or this simply your gut feeling? I watched the GOP convention so I know both John McCain and Sarah Palin have lied during this election, so we must have different definitions for the word "honesty".


Cool, so you go vote for who you find honest, and I"ll do the same. I could go on and spew out verbal attacks on your character and flaws of logic to explain why you're voting for Obama, but instead I'll just respect your opinion.


You were probably raised and socialized to vote red. There really isn't anything amazing about that. There are people who were raised and socialized to vote blue. People, especially NTs, very seldom question why they feel the way they do about the values they embrace, they only assume that the people that share the same values are good and likable and the people that clearly don't share the same values must be bad and immoral. Your earlier comment seems to support this kind of compartmentalized thinking. NFs have it easier because we can at least analyze why we feel the way we do.

Interesting analysis. Very in-depth, and insightful. Unfortunately you're completely incorrect, but it sounded good. Both my parents have voted Democrat. I'm the only one in my family that doesn't blindly follow the herd as a matter of fact. I have 3 best friends that are all flaming liberals, and can't understand why I'm not a democrat, considering I'm a minority. I grew up in the northeast/big city/elitist type area so it's standard fare. It's amazing how off the mark you were, yet so completely confident in your analysis. Quite comical.

From my experience and reading, NT's are the least "sheeple" type, we're very inquisitive and rebellious. Unlike many other types, SP's and SJ's especially, we have very little adherence to "the way things are" so more likely attempt to gather or own "truth" and not blindly follow along.

I find your attempt to paint me into a statistical group based on me not voting for your candidate laughable and ridiculous, and seems to me a good example of projection. It'd be offended if it wasn't so idiotic.

Not really interesting in this type conversation, good luck in November.

[Tragic Hero]

- Pro-life and wishes to over turn Roe v. Wade (If you don't like abortion, don't have one. But don't go around telling the rest of us what to do)


That is an incredibly legitimate position to take. Why religious conservatives and other conservatives feel that a women shouldn't have a choice is because they believe murder should never be legally justified. To them, it is ridiculous that women, should have the legal opportunity to murder without legal and moral repercussions. Another argument they may make, is that the females should be more careful to not get pregnant. It is a complicated issue, with many facets and I think i should leave it there.
This is their subjective interpretation on life, and it is a loss of a civil liberty for you but through their eyes, it is a most reasonable loss. I understand your frustration at what you would consider ignorance, on anti-Gay marriage sentiment and teaching only abstinence for sex education. But they believe that they are promoting god's will and god's laws that homosexuality and pre-marital sex is wrong.

I hope the intended tone of post gets through which was to point out that at worst these people are misguided. If you are pro-choice, pro-gay civil unions etc. {of which I agree in principal with you on most issues}; by all means you should support someone else. What I wish to promote in people is a predispostion to being understanding and respectful of other positions. [I am used to another site, where people are viscious]
I have more to say/whinge about, but i'll leave it for now.

[Lights]

Are you always this offensive when discussing opinions? It seems you know it all so why even attempt at a discussion with you?

Offensive? I'm just stating my perspective.

I wouldn't say it is any more or less offensive than blindly stating that one candidate is less honest than another.

Cool, so you go vote for who you find honest, and I"ll do the same. I could go on and spew out verbal attacks on your character and flaws of logic to explain why you're voting for Obama, but instead I'll just respect your opinion.

As I will yours.

Interesting analysis. Very in-depth, and insightful. Unfortunately you're completely incorrect, but it sounded good. Both my parents have voted Democrat. I'm the only one in my family that doesn't blindly follow the herd as a matter of fact. I have 3 best friends that are all flaming liberals, and can't understand why I'm not a democrat, considering I'm a minority. I grew up in the northeast/big city/elitist type area so it's standard fare. It's amazing how off the mark you were, yet so completely confident in your analysis. Quite comical.

Glad to amuse you. However, I'm still quite certain that you were socialized to vote the way you do. I was raised in a red state by Republican parents, but my values were still bestowed upon me through my experiences with other people. It is simply a fact of human nature that we derive our values and morality through our socialization. I'm curious as to what individuals have had such an impact on your life.

From my experience and reading, NT's are the least "sheeple" type, we're very inquisitive and rebellious. Unlike many other types, SP's and SJ's especially, we have very little adherence to "the way things are" so more likely attempt to gather or own "truth" and not blindly follow along.

Very interesting perspective. And it probably even applies to ENTPs and INTPs, but when it comes to INTJs, Ni is in control, and by definition that means INTJs are blindly following their intuition and simply providing rational to support it after the fact. That is what I have observed, but I suppose we are each entitled to our own perspectives.

I find your attempt to paint me into a statistical group based on me not voting for your candidate laughable and ridiculous, and seems to me a good example of projection. It'd be offended if it wasn't so idiotic.

Statistical group? Which group? My apologies, but INFJs follow Ni as well. I've yet to meet a person whose values were not derived from their own subjective experiences and intuition, and I was merely pointing out how your compartmentalization of the candidates is a very typical response to having conceptions challenge. I obviously hit a nerve with this analysis as is pretty apparent from your decision to make such insinuations and then completely withdraw from the discussion. You really should learn the source of your personal biases so that you can better understand them.

[Aeroscoper]

Offensive? I'm just stating my perspective.

I wouldn't say it is any more or less offensive than blindly stating that one candidate is less honest than another.


I was addressing your attack mode of conversation, which is relatively common amongst Obama fans from my experience. Your being offended by my characterizing Obama as less honest indicates your emotional attachment to your Obama, thus my mention of "projection".



As I will yours.



Thanks!


Glad to amuse you. However, I'm still quite certain that you were socialized to vote the way you do. I was raised in a red state by Republican parents, but my values were still bestowed upon me through my experiences with other people. It is simply a fact of human nature that we derive our values and morality through our socialization. I'm curious as to what individuals have had such an impact on your life.


Wow, it seems you're actually attempting to curb your ad hominem type dialogue but unable to, fascinating. It seems we both had a similar roads that lead us both to come to our individual conclusions, yet you're having a hard time believing it? Must either be elitism, which type Obama seems to attract in droves, or simple ignorance. I too am curious as to what individuals and experiences have had such an impact on you life. I'm thinking media and hollywood play a major role.


Very interesting perspective. And it probably even applies to ENTPs and INTPs, but when it comes to INTJs, Ni is in control, and by definition that means INTJs are blindly following their intuition and simply providing rational to support it after the fact. That is what I have observed, but I suppose we are each entitled to our own perspectives.



Never knew intuition was dependent upon social influences. If you say so.


Statistical group? Which group? My apologies, but INFJs follow Ni as well. I've yet to meet a person whose values were not derived from their own subjective experiences and intuition, and I was merely pointing out how your compartmentalization of the candidates is a very typical response to having conceptions challenge. I obviously hit a nerve with this analysis as is pretty apparent from your decision to make such insinuations and then completely withdraw from the discussion. You really should learn the source of your personal biases so that you can better understand them.

You give yourself too much credit, and your abilities of personal assessment too much confidence. If you'd like to discuss ideas and derivations of which, I'm more than eager to, but when you interject yourself into a thread with ad hominem attacks and very inaccurate analysis of one's personal story, mostly based on projection and ignorance, you should expect such reactions.

Take care and good luck in November, your boy's being exposed for what he is (just another power hungry politician) and and that's a good thing.

[Lights]

I was addressing your attack mode of conversation, which is relatively common amongst Obama fans from my experience. Your being offended by my characterizing Obama as less honest indicates your emotional attachment to your Obama, thus my mention of "projection".

The problem with the internet is you can't accurately determine the connotation of what is being said.

Wow, it seems you're actually attempting to curb your ad hominem type dialogue but unable to, fascinating. It seems we both had a similar roads that lead us both to come to our individual conclusions, yet you're having a hard time believing it? Must either be elitism, which type Obama seems to attract in droves, or simple ignorance. I too am curious as to what individuals and experiences have had such an impact on you life. I'm thinking media and hollywood play a major role.

I am merely making the simple point that how a person was socialized determines their values and morality, and they develop conceptions about individuals who share in their values and morality as well as misconceptions about those who do not. As such, people should probably be aware of their personal biases. If you wish to take that as a personal attack then have it.

As far as my own personal influences, they have been largely teachers and social workers.

Never knew intuition was dependent upon social influences. If you say so.

Not dependent, but certainly heavily influenced.

You give yourself too much credit, and your abilities of personal assessment too much confidence. If you'd like to discuss ideas and derivations of which, I'm more than eager to, but when you interject yourself into a thread with ad hominem attacks and very inaccurate analysis of one's personal story, mostly based on projection and ignorance, you should expect such reactions.

I've only based my perceptions on what you have said up until this point. You make broad generalizations about the candidates without supplying reasonable evidence to support them, indicating that you are going by how you feel. This suggests that you are going by your subjective experiences and intuition. Since this makes your arguments so personalized and based upon your own socialization, it is impossible to reflect upon your ideas without reflecting upon who you are. The only assertion I have made on this is that it could not hurt to consider your personal biases.

As I said before, that is why it is probably completely pointless to logically debate you on this issue because it is mostly an emotive one, and your reaction will inherently be defensive since it isn't based upon logic to begin with.

Take care and good luck in November, your boy's being exposed for what he is (just another power hungry politician) and and that's a good thing.

Another interesting generalization. I won't even bother to ask you to provide some reasonable evidence to back it up since it so adequately demonstrates my point.

[TigerDak]

Although I do not consider myself a highly charged political person, and rarely do current events interfere with my life, I sill try to follow things while maintaining an outsider's view. I voted for Bush in 2000 and in 2004, and I will be voting for McCain this election.

[Chilibean13]

I'm still torn on what to do during this election. Before the primaries, I knew my candidate. I picked who I was voting for before all the candidates had even announced their decision to run. I even got involved with campaigning for Huckabee. But, alas, he is out, and now I don't know what to do.

I am completely anti-Obama, and at this point I would rather see Hillary in there than him. But, McCain is not conservative enough for me. With the addition of Palin, I was pretty sure I was voting McCain, but the whole book banning thing is a big huge no-no for me. She is ignoring the issue completely, and I need to know if its true or not. I cannot make up my mind until then. I may be conservative, but I stand strongly for freedom of press, speech, and right to bear arms.

[TigerDak]

Regarding the book ban question, go to either of these two links:

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Also, go here and view the second bullet down:

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Chilibean13]

Regarding the book ban question, go to either of these two links:

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Also, go here and view the second bullet down:

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Thank you. That was very helpful. I haven't been keeping as up to date on the election these last couple of weeks. I was becoming rather obsessed with it and had to take a break.

[Aeroscoper]

As far as my own personal influences, they have been largely teachers and social workers.

As I said before, that is why it is probably completely pointless to logically debate you on this issue because it is mostly an emotive one, and your reaction will inherently be defensive since it isn't based upon logic to begin with.



Again I very much enjoy civil discussions about relevant topics, which you don't seem able to do, thus we'll just agree to disagree. I do find it enlightening that you get your "objective" influences from social workers and teachers, not necessarily known for objective and worldly perspectives. Since you keep insisting my influences have been one of emotion, you might look to your influences on why I feel you're projecting that.


Although I do not consider myself a highly charged political person, and rarely do current events interfere with my life, I sill try to follow things while maintaining an outsider's view. I voted for Bush in 2000 and in 2004, and I will be voting for McCain this election.

Sounds reasonable, rare around these parts these days.

Regarding the book ban question, go to either of these two links:

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Also, go here and view the second bullet down:

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I've seen those and have weighed those and have many other points that I've considered when asserting the bias of our news industry. Glad to see others are into researching the facts instead of blindly following what Jon Stewart et. al. has to say.

I'm still torn on what to do during this election. Before the primaries, I knew my candidate. I picked who I was voting for before all the candidates had even announced their decision to run. I even got involved with campaigning for Huckabee. But, alas, he is out, and now I don't know what to do.

I am completely anti-Obama, and at this point I would rather see Hillary in there than him. But, McCain is not conservative enough for me. With the addition of Palin, I was pretty sure I was voting McCain, but the whole book banning thing is a big huge no-no for me. She is ignoring the issue completely, and I need to know if its true or not. I cannot make up my mind until then. I may be conservative, but I stand strongly for freedom of press, speech, and right to bear arms.

We have very similar viewpoints, McCain, and even Bush, have moved the Republicans more left than I'm comfortable with, but still a much better option than Obama's radical views. I hear Huckabee is doing well with his radio host career, I hope him well, he's a very intelligent speaker and I also was a supporter of his. I especially liked his stance and support of the fair tax.

[Lights]

Again I very much enjoy civil discussions about relevant topics, which you don't seem able to do, thus we'll just agree to disagree. I do find it enlightening that you get your "objective" influences from social workers and teachers, not necessarily known for objective and worldly perspectives. Since you keep insisting my influences have been one of emotion, you might look to your influences on why I feel you're projecting that.

I don't deny that I have personal biases. If anything, I have admitted to it. I also never claimed my sources are "objective" so I don't appreciate your rather lame attempt to insinuate that. It's pretty clear that you are not grasping my point, which is simply that issues that come down to one's values and morality cannot be logically discussed. You have done well proving my point with your generalizations and defensiveness.

You also seem to like projection. Is that your favorite defense mechanism of which to arbitrarily accuse people? You realize that doing so in itself is a ego defense mechanism, right?

This discussion has become quite tasteless. Rather than continue this discussion, I will point out generalizations and ask for reasonable evidence to support them. That should be sufficient.





Lights added to this post, 4 minutes and 34 seconds later...

We have very similar viewpoints, McCain, and even Bush, have moved the Republicans more left than I'm comfortable with, but still a much better option than Obama's radical views.

In what ways have McCain and Bush moved the Republican party to the left and how are Obama's views "radical"? These sound suspiciously like overly simple generalizations.

[Jgib5328]

It amazes me that Obama has a 20 point lead on the basis of issues and McCain has a 20 point lead on "character." Way for the public to vote for someone cause he's white and speaks with phrases and quips the uneducated will comprehend and not on policy.

Hmm, yeah they only like his character because he is white and appeals to the uneducated, it has nothing to do with his service to this country or the fact that nobody really knows much about Obama's personality.

[Aeroscoper]

I don't deny that I have personal biases. If anything, I have admitted to it. I also never claimed my sources are "objective" so I don't appreciate your rather lame attempt to insinuate that...You also seem to like projection. Is that your favorite defense mechanism of which to arbitrarily accuse people? You realize that doing so in itself is a ego defense mechanism, right?


So when you insinuated that the only reason I could have my viewpoint is due to emote considerations and not anything rational, I was supposed to somehow come to the conclusion that you were saying that you acted that way also? That's not a very logical way to present your viewpoint and shows a bit of hypocrisy don't you think? Interesting, you start the discussion by accusing me of having a myopic viewpoint due to some imagined background of mine leading me to act emotionally rather than reasonably, yet reveal your rather very limited exposure to objective opinions, and I"m the one projecting...ok.


It's pretty clear that you are not grasping my point, which is simply that issues that come down to one's values and morality cannot be logically discussed. You have done well proving my point with your generalizations and defensiveness.


Really? I thought your point was that since I was a McCain guy I must be acting by emotions and not by reason. Here's something you might consider. If you come into a conversation knowing nothing of someone, then start making highly inaccurate assumptions and persist to address ad hominem vs. the topic, the normal result is defensiveness and rejection of notions. If this proves some point of yours, so be it.


In what ways have McCain and Bush moved the Republican party to the left and how are Obama's views "radical"? These sound suspiciously like overly simple generalizations.

Quite honestly I tread lightly here. So far since being on this forum, I've discovered a very disturbing trend when discussing politics.

1) People that support Obama are highly emotionally driven, and have a tough time sticking to the topics without resorting to ad hominem attacks.

2) People that support Obama really could care less what my viewpoints are, they just want me to say ANYTHING they can pounce upon to bring up their vitriol against Bush/McCain/Palin/religion.

I'll answer your question but first I'd like to ask you a couple of question first, if I may.

-What do you think the term "radical" means?
-Are you really wanting to know my perspectives or looking for any crack in reason to bash?

And I ask these in context of experiences on this forum and Obama fans thus far, so please save the psychoanalysis for another discussion. I truly do value the viewpoints of those that disagree with my own, but it's been a difficult pursuit keeping it on topic and not turning into a poo-fling-fest.

Hmm, yeah they only like his character because he is white and appeals to the uneducated, it has nothing to do with his service to this country or the fact that nobody really knows much about Obama's personality.

To me it's quite alarming, the power of the media and societal pressures are even more than I could imagine.

[Ranie9]

I'm voting for Jack Bauer. Everything will be solved in 24 hours.

[Lights]

So when you insinuated that the only reason I could have my viewpoint is due to emote considerations and not anything rational, I was supposed to somehow come to the conclusion that you were saying that you acted that way also?

That isn't at all what I said, and I suggest you go back and read my earlier posts so that it might become clear to you.

Really? I thought your point was that since I was a McCain guy I must be acting by emotions and not by reason. Here's something you might consider. If you come into a conversation knowing nothing of someone, then start making highly inaccurate assumptions and persist to address ad hominem vs. the topic, the normal result is defensiveness and rejection of notions. If this proves some point of yours, so be it.


No, my point was because you are using generalizations and compartmentalized thinking to discuss your views on the candidates, it indicates that you are using intuition and your own personal experiences, as opposed to logic. If you were being logical, then you could provide reasonable evidence to back up your assertions. The emotive reaction is simply because you have personalized it so much. You should be able to see that much when you are making comments like...

"But also factor in that I'd rather vote for someone I'd disagree with, but has shown to be honest, than someone that "says" all the right things, but can't be trusted."

There you argue that McCain is honest and Obama is dishonest, without providing reasonable evidence to back up your claim. Which would lead any intelligent person to assume that it's nothing but your own values and morals swaying your perception. You perceive that McCain most closely shares in your values and morals and therefore, he must be "honest" and somebody like Obama who you perceive as not sharing in your morals and values must be "untrustworthy".

Quite honestly I tread lightly here. So far since being on this forum, I've discovered a very disturbing trend when discussing politics.

1) People that support Obama are highly emotionally driven, and have a tough time sticking to the topics without resorting to ad hominem attacks.

2) People that support Obama really could care less what my viewpoints are, they just want me to say ANYTHING they can pounce upon to bring up their vitriol against Bush/McCain/Palin/religion.

I'm sensing a trend where you seem to like to generalize and arbitrarily group people. However, I have simply been questioning what I perceive as generalizations and asking you to provide reasonable evidence to support your assertions. As you have failed to do so, I was left to assume that your arguments are based solely on subjective knowledge, which your emotive defensiveness seems to support. It's easy enough to correct me if I'm wrong by simply providing reasonable evidence to support your assertions.

-What do you think the term "radical" means?

Extremist or revolutionary.

Are you really wanting to know my perspectives or looking for any crack in reason to bash?

From what I can tell, you haven't actually provided any reason aside from your own personal convictions. However, I can't really discredit substantial evidence if you provide it. For example, if Obama is truly dishonest, then you should be able to provide numerous examples of where he has lied. And to be honest, I find it strange that you are afraid of having your reasoning examined. It seems to me you are admitting that you don't like having your conceptions challenged.

To me it's quite alarming, the power of the media and societal pressures are even more than I could imagine.

The media is quite a tool. But it swings either way.

[Aeroscoper]

That isn't at all what I said, and I suggest you go back and read my earlier posts so that it might become clear to you.

No, my point was because you are using generalizations and compartmentalized thinking to discuss your views on the candidates, it indicates that you are using intuition and your own personal experiences, as opposed to logic. If you were being logical, then you could provide reasonable evidence to back up your assertions. The emotive reaction is simply because you have personalized it so much. You should be able to see that much when you are making comments like...

"But also factor in that I'd rather vote for someone I'd disagree with, but has shown to be honest, than someone that "says" all the right things, but can't be trusted."

There you argue that McCain is honest and Obama is dishonest, without providing reasonable evidence to back up your claim. Which would lead any intelligent person to assume that it's nothing but your own values and morals swaying your perception. You perceive that McCain most closely shares in your values and morals and therefore, he must be "honest" and somebody like Obama who you perceive as not sharing in your morals and values must be "untrustworthy".



I suggest you go back and re-read my posts. I give much supporting evidence as well as referring to my personal experiences to come to the conclusions that I do. Again, your analysis is very inaccurate, and over presumptive, something you've shown a pattern of doing.


I'm sensing a trend where you seem to like to generalize and arbitrarily group people. However, I have simply been questioning what I perceive as generalizations and asking you to provide reasonable evidence to support your assertions. As you have failed to do so, I was left to assume that your arguments are based solely on subjective knowledge, which your emotive defensiveness seems to support. It's easy enough to correct me if I'm wrong by simply providing reasonable evidence to support your assertions.


Again, incorrect assessment of my statement. If my personal experience with specific persons fits into your definition of "arbitrary", then you can consider yourself correct. You're very good at strawman arguments though, your line of arguments aren't coherent or linear. You started the conversation with irrelevant theories about my background and cognitive processes, and now you say you're only wanting supportive information. Please make up your mind. I've corrected you over and over in your lack of analytical ability and your inaccuracy about my emotive origins, but you seem unable to handle being proven incorrect, yet for some reason, I persist. If there's been anything about me that's suspect is this irrational behavior to argue with someone with such overconfidence in their very limited ability to understand what I'm saying. Yet I'll try again.


Extremist or revolutionary.


OK, that's a good start. When I say he's a radical, I'm referring to more of the political spectrum's definition, in that on the left of liberal, and in opposition to reactionary.

Reasons I say he's radical has nothing to do with emotive motivations, though you persist. I base this on the fact he's ranked #1 in voting for leftist issues since he's been in congress as shown here (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.). Then looking at things he said in his books, some of which can be found here (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.), and his associations, some of which can be seen here (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) , and here (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.). Plus his association with known and unrepentant terrorist William Ayers (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.). His association with ACORN (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.), where he was a community organizer. It would take hours for me to post all of the inputs that have lead me to this conclusion about him, but that's an effort not worth this discussion, but those are relatively indicative of everything I've researched about him. Please concentrate and address the content and not the carrier if possible. If any of those aren't true, please show me some references and I'll consider them. The reason I conclude that McCain is honest is because in the years that I've tracked him closely, he's never contradicted himself. He's never said anything that's merely for populist reasons. Though his moderate to liberal stance on certain issues (McCain/Lieberman, McCain/Feingold bills) have been under scrutiny, his integrity has never come under fire, not even by Democrats. That's why I find him "honest". Now looking back at your conclusion why I found him that way:

"You perceive that McCain most closely shares in your values and morals and therefore, he must be "honest" and somebody like Obama who you perceive as not sharing in your morals and values must be "untrustworthy". "

How close to the mark would you say you were?


From what I can tell, you haven't actually provided any reason aside from your own personal convictions. However, I can't really discredit substantial evidence if you provide it. For example, if Obama is truly dishonest, then you should be able to provide numerous examples of where he has lied. And to be honest, I find it strange that you are afraid of having your reasoning examined. It seems to me you are admitting that you don't like having your conceptions challenged.


See if this makes sense to you. If the topic of this discussion was "A discourse on Aero's reasoning", then I'd be more than willing to discuss it to its fullest, considering we're debating political issues and candidates, your "examinations" comes across as ad hominem and character attacks. You never asked for sources, if you were truly interested you can merely scroll back and look at my previous posts. No matter how you try to justify it, all you did was make faulty conclusions about me personally to reconcile how someone might have a different perspective than yourself. To me a bit indicative of egomania and immaturity.

Now let me pose this question to you. Please cite some non-emotive reasons why you like Obama the way you do. And please, no references to Bush/McCain/Palin, just reasons you're FOR him. What has he accomplished that you're so fond of? What are some of his characteristics that make you come to the conclusion he's ready to carry the role of the most powerful man in the world competently? What's he really trying to "change"?


The media is quite a tool. But it swings either way.

Yes, that's more than obvious to me, but it seems you're blinded to one side of the arc.

[Lights]

I suggest you go back and re-read my posts. I give much supporting evidence as well as referring to my personal experiences to come to the conclusions that I do.

No, I have asked you over and over for reasonable evidence and you simply ignore it.

Again, incorrect assessment of my statement. If my personal experience with specific persons fits into your definition of "arbitrary", then you can consider yourself correct. You're very good at strawman arguments though, your line of arguments aren't coherent or linear. You started the conversation with irrelevant theories about my background and cognitive processes, and now you say you're only wanting supportive information. Please make up your mind. I've corrected you over and over in your lack of analytical ability and your inaccuracy about my emotive origins, but you seem unable to handle being proven incorrect, yet for some reason, I persist. If there's been anything about me that's suspect is this irrational behavior to argue with someone with such overconfidence in their very limited ability to understand what I'm saying. Yet I'll try again.

From the third post I made toward you, I've been asking for reasonable evidence in pretty much every post.

OK, that's a good start. When I say he's a radical, I'm referring to more of the political spectrum's definition, in that on the left of liberal, and in opposition to reactionary.

Ok, I concede he is liberal. I'm not so certain if he is that liberal. After all, they were saying that Kerry was the most liberal person in Congress only 4 years ago.

Reasons I say he's radical has nothing to do with emotive motivations, though you persist. I base this on the fact he's ranked #1 in voting for leftist issues since he's been in congress as shown here (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.). Then looking at things he said in his books, some of which can be found here (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.), and his associations, some of which can be seen here (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) , and here (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.). Plus his association with known and unrepentant terrorist William Ayers (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.). His association with ACORN (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.), where he was a community organizer. It would take hours for me to post all of the inputs that have lead me to this conclusion about him, but that's an effort not worth this discussion, but those are relatively indicative of everything I've researched about him. Please concentrate and address the content and not the carrier if possible. If any of those aren't true, please show me some references and I'll consider them. The reason I conclude that McCain is honest is because in the years that I've tracked him closely, he's never contradicted himself. He's never said anything that's merely for populist reasons. Though his moderate to liberal stance on certain issues (McCain/Lieberman, McCain/Kennedy bills) have been under scrutiny, his integrity has never come under fire, not even by Democrats. That's why I find him "honest". Now looking back at your conclusion why I found him that way:

Thanks for posting some relevant information. I will get back to you as soon as I have reviewed it all.


See if this makes sense to you. If the topic of this discussion was "A discourse on Aero's reasoning", then I'd be more than willing to discuss it to its fullest, considering we're debating political issues and candidates, your "examinations" comes across as ad hominem and character attacks. You never asked for sources, if you were truly interested you can merely scroll back and look at my previous posts. No matter how you try to justify it, all you did was make faulty conclusions about me personally to reconcile how someone might have a different perspective than yourself. To me a bit indicative of egomania and immaturity.

If you go back and read my posts, you will see that I have repeatedly asked you for reasonable evidence to back up your assertions. You simply have ignored them repetitively.

Now let me pose this question to you. Please cite some non-emotive reasons why you like Obama the way you do. And please, no references to Bush/McCain/Palin, just reasons you're FOR him. What has he accomplished that you're so fond of? What are some of his characteristics that make you come to the conclusion he's ready to carry the role of the most powerful man in the world competently? What's he really trying to "change"?

Certainly.

Obama opposed the war in Iraq from the very beginning, and he wanted a time line for withdrawal so that the Iraqi government would be forced to take responsibility for itself. He will also tax the top 5% who have been getting tax breaks over the last 8 years even while they are outsourcing our jobs. I support his health care plan which will ensure that every American who wishes to be will be covered by health insurance, and those who are covered will not their lose their house simply because they got sick. I support him because he is for civil unions with all the rights of marriage without infringing on others religious rights. I like his energy plan which will create millions of green collar jobs and will move us toward renewable energy rather than drilling at home and continued dependence on foreign oil. I like that he wants to pass ethic reforms that will limit how lobbyists can influence the government and promote transparent government. I could keep going on and on, but I'm sure you get the idea by now.

As far as accomplishments that I admire, he was a successful community organizer...a job which he chose over a lucrative Wall Street options.

I also think he is ready for the job because he has the endorsement of Bill Clinton who says he is ready, and he has proven that he can operate quite strategically by running a smart campaign that beat Hillary Clinton. He has also proven he won't take any crap as is clear when he set down that families are off limits and keeping a level head during many of the more heated moments in this campaign.

As far as what he is trying to change, that should be pretty clear from what I said above.

[Aeroscoper]

I'll respond after you've read the references, please comment and I'll reply to this and next post, good night.

[Lights]

I base this on the fact he's ranked #1 in voting for leftist issues since he's been in congress as shown here (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.).

That is a decent argument. You are to the right on issues and he is to the left on issues. Of course, calling him "radical" because he has voted substantially left is your own opinion. I could just as easily argue that means he does not pander across party lines as often as other politicians do.

Then looking at things he said in his books, some of which can be found here (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)

I've seen this before. The words are taken quite our of context. I suggest reading the books in their entirety.

and his associations, some of which can be seen here (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) , and here (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.).

Videos that take what people say out of context can't be considered "reasonable evidence". I'm sure you have seen the out of context 12 second clip of "My Muslim Faith". Without seeing the segments of which these were cut, I cannot decipher whether or not he was contradicting himself. However, I highly doubt it.

Plus his association with known and unrepentant terrorist William Ayers (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.).

Yes, he had an association with a radical terrorist. Explain to me why that means Obama is radical? Can people be radical by association? Is it like the flu? Can I catch it?

His association with ACORN (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.), where he was a community organizer.

So you are arguing that Obama is a black supremacist? Seems kind of like a strange thing for a man who was raised by a white women to be, but alright. National Review is probably not the most unbiased source, but I accept their interpretation that Obama was connected to an organization that had radical agendas. How does that mean he is radical? Exactly what radical policies has Obama carried out for this organization or since then?

It would take hours for me to post all of the inputs that have lead me to this conclusion about him, but that's an effort not worth this discussion, but those are relatively indicative of everything I've researched about him. Please concentrate and address the content and not the carrier if possible. If any of those aren't true, please show me some references and I'll consider them. The reason I conclude that McCain is honest is because in the years that I've tracked him closely, he's never contradicted himself. He's never said anything that's merely for populist reasons. Though his moderate to liberal stance on certain issues (McCain/Lieberman, McCain/Feingold bills) have been under scrutiny, his integrity has never come under fire, not even by Democrats. That's why I find him "honest". Now looking back at your conclusion why I found him that way:

I'm not too impressed by your evidence. You posted stuff that is clearly taken out of context and its clear that you have been seeking information which supports your beliefs regardless of authenticity or objectivity. As such, I'm inclined to wonder what degree of confirmation bias you may have.

Now I've been patient. I've let you attack my choice even though I was not allowed to attack yours. How about we switch the roles. I'll provide evidence of equal or greater validity to your own as to why I don't think McCain should not be president and you can provide a case for why you think he should.

[Aeroscoper]

Before I begin I'd like to point out a comment I made about Obama supporters earlier:



1) People that support Obama are highly emotionally driven, and have a tough time sticking to the topics without resorting to ad hominem attacks.

2) People that support Obama really could care less what my viewpoints are, they just want me to say ANYTHING they can pounce upon to bring up their vitriol against Bush/McCain/Palin/religion.


To which you replied:


I'm sensing a trend where you seem to like to generalize and arbitrarily group people.



After your assessment how my analysis was based arbitrarily and you snidely dismissed its merit, in the very next line of question you reverted to exactly the tactics I've observed from you "arbitrary" Obama fans, even despite your best attempts not to:


1) As such, I'm inclined to wonder what degree of confirmation bias you may have.

2) Now I've been patient. I've let you attack my choice even though I was not allowed to attack yours. How about we switch the roles. I'll provide evidence of equal or greater validity to your own as to why I don't think McCain should not be president and you can provide a case for why you think he should.


Priceless. You started this conversation accusing me of acting on emotions, seems like its you that is emotionally tied to "your candidate". I have no such "feelings" about "my candidate". McCain is simply another man, that has the best resume for the job. He's not perfect, and I've pointed to some of his flaws earlier, and can list quite a few more if you'd like. Can you list a few flaws of Obama's for me? Also, if you've been patient with my addressing of your candidate, I've also been patient with your ad hominem attacks against me, I'd like to hear your angry charges against McCain, to which I'll play your role and diagnose the psyche behind your charges, this should be fun.

Anyway, back to the topic at hand.


That is a decent argument. You are to the right on issues and he is to the left on issues. Of course, calling him "radical" because he has voted substantially left is your own opinion. I could just as easily argue that means he does not pander across party lines as often as other politicians do.


Two things. My use of radical is used descriptively, I said I use the word in the context of political spectrum's definition. If you find someone in the senate that's rated #1 voting conservative, to call him reactionary would be a reasonable to me. Your argument could be made, but then how does that reconcile with Obama's "bringing people together" and "change". How is a liberal democrat voting totally liberal represent anything except business as usual? Oh yeah, he doesn't look like the guys on the dollar bill, identity politics, it's the same mentality that the KKK and skin heads adhere to.



I've seen this before. The words are taken quite our of context. I suggest reading the books in their entirety.


Since you claim you've come to your decision based on sound reasoning, it would make sense that you would do the research on "your candidate", such as reading these books. So, what does it say? How does it contradict the the things taken out of context? If you haven't read them, how can you so easily dismiss them except out of a knee-jerk programmed emotional reflex?



Videos that take what people say out of context can't be considered "reasonable evidence". I'm sure you have seen the out of context 12 second clip of "My Muslim Faith". Without seeing the segments of which these were cut, I cannot decipher whether or not he was contradicting himself. However, I highly doubt it.

You cannot decipher or will not? So please put them into context for me.


Yes, he had an association with a radical terrorist. Explain to me why that means Obama is radical? Can people be radical by association? Is it like the flu? Can I catch it?
You're assigning a pejorative to radical based on your emotions. Again it's used as a descriptive. If John McCain was associated with those that bomb abortion clinics, and even had fund raisers put on by them for his campaign, I'd find it something that can't be ignored, and if people called him reactionary because of his associations, I'd find it fair, even if I didn't agree. Then again I'm not emotionally tied to "my candidate".


So you are arguing that Obama is a black supremacist? Seems kind of like a strange thing for a man who was raised by a white women to be, but alright. National Review is probably not the most unbiased source, but I accept their interpretation that Obama was connected to an organization that had radical agendas. How does that mean he is radical? Exactly what radical policies has Obama carried out for this organization or since then?


Your tactics are juvenile to say the least. You asked for supportive evidence that made me call him a "radical", remember? Obviously it seems it a difficult thing for you, but please stay focused. If you don't think you're influenced by the company you keep, and not a believer of the "birds of a feather flock together" thing, than that's you're call. I still don't understand how Obama somehow defies all patterns of human behavior, oh yeah, he's not white. Here's a piece that describes Obama's amazing work with community organizing:

The Organizer
What did Barack Obama really do in Chicago?

BYRON YORK

Chicago
Barack Obama often cites his time as a community organizer here in Chicago as one of the experiences that qualify him to hold the nation’s highest office. “I can bring this country together,” he said in a debate last February. “I have a track record, starting from the days I moved to Chicago as a community organizer.”

When Obama says such things, the reaction among many observers is: Huh?

Audiences understand when he mentions his years as an Illinois state legislator, or his brief tenure in the U.S. Senate. But a community organizer? What’s that?

Even Obama didn’t know when he first gave it a try back in 1985. “When classmates in college asked me just what it was that a community organizer did, I couldn’t answer them directly,” Obama wrote in his memoir, Dreams from My Father. “Instead, I’d pronounce on the need for change. Change in the White House, where Reagan and his minions were carrying on their dirty deeds. Change in the Congress, compliant and corrupt. Change in the mood of the country, manic and self-absorbed. Change won’t come from the top, I would say. Change will come from a mobilized grass roots.”

If you substitute “Bush” for “Reagan,” you have a fairly accurate description of Obama’s 2008 campaign. That’s not a coincidence; it suggests that something about community organizing was central to Obama’s world view back then, and has remained central to his development as the politician he is today. What was it?

I counted myself among those who didn’t have a good idea of what a community organizer does. So I came here to learn more about Obama’s time in the job, from 1985 to 1988. What did he do? What did he accomplish? And what in his experience here stands as a qualification to be president of the United States?

THE RADICAL’S RULES
Perhaps the simplest way to describe community organizing is to say it is the practice of identifying a specific aggrieved population, say unemployed steelworkers, or itinerant fruit-pickers, or residents of a particularly bad neighborhood, and agitating them until they become so upset about their condition that they take collective action to put pressure on local, state, or federal officials to fix the problem, often by giving the affected group money. Organizers like to call that “direct action.”

Community organizing is most identified with the left-wing Chicago activist Saul Alinsky (1909-72), who pretty much defined the profession. In his classic book, Rules for Radicals, Alinsky wrote that a successful organizer should be “an abrasive agent to rub raw the resentments of the people of the community; to fan latent hostilities of many of the people to the point of overt expressions.” Once such hostilities were “whipped up to a fighting pitch,” Alinsky continued, the organizer steered his group toward confrontation, in the form of picketing, demonstrating, and general hell-raising. At first, the organizer tackled small stuff, like demanding the repair of streetlights in a city park; later, when the group gained confidence, the organizer could take on bigger targets. But at all times, the organizer’s goal was not to lead his people anywhere, but to encourage them to take action on their own behalf.

Alinsky started in the 1930s with workers in the Chicago stockyards. Many years later, when Obama arrived here, he came from a different perspective.

“Barack had been very inspired by the civil-rights movement,” Jerry Kellman, the organizer who hired Obama, told me recently. “I felt that he wanted to work in the civil-rights movement, but he was ten years too late, and this was the closest he could find to it at the time.” Obama, in his memoir, put it more simply when he said he went to Chicago to “organize black folks.”

Kellman, a New Yorker who had gotten into organizing in the 1960s, was trying to help laid-off factory workers on the far South Side of Chicago. He led a group, the Calumet Community Religious Conference, that had been created by several local Catholic churches. The Calumet region — basically the farthest southern reaches of Chicago plus the suburbs in northern Indiana — was an industrial area that had been hard hit by the closings of Wisconsin Steel and other industries. Kellman and the churches hoped to get some of those jobs back.

But there was a problem in the Chicago part of the equation. The area involved, around the Altgeld Gardens housing project and the neighborhood of Roseland, was nearly 100 percent black. Kellman was white, as were others who worked for CCRC. “The people didn’t open up to him like they would to somebody who was black and really understood what was going on in their lives,” Yvonne Lloyd, one of the key “leaders” — that is, local residents who worked closely with Obama — told me. “Black people are very leery when you come into their community and they don’t know you.” Lloyd and another leader, Loretta Augustine-Herron, insisted that Kellman hire a black organizer for a new spinoff from CCRC to be called the Developing Communities Project, which would focus solely on the Chicago part of the area.

So Kellman set out to find a black organizer. He ran an ad in some trade publications, and Obama responded. But at first Kellman wasn’t sure Obama was right for the job. “My wife was Japanese-American,” Kellman recalled. “I showed her the résumé, with the background in Hawaii. The name’s Obama, so I asked, ‘Could this be Japanese?’ She said, ‘Sure, it could be.’” It was only when Kellman talked to Obama on the phone, and Obama “expressed interest in something African-American culturally,” that a relieved Kellman offered Obama the job.

But Kellman had to sell Obama to the leaders. “Jerry introduces Barack, and Barack is so young, it’s like, ‘Oh my God,’” Loretta Augustine-Herron remembered. Obama was obviously smart, and he wanted to be an organizer, but he was, in fact, quite young (24) and he didn’t actually know much about the job. Despite those drawbacks, he seemed to work some sort of magic on the leaders. “He had a sensitivity I have never seen in anybody else to this day,” Augustine-Herron told me. “He understood.” The women were sold. “He didn’t have experience,” Augustine-Herron said. “But he had a sensitivity that allowed us to believe that he could do the job.” So Obama it was.




Obama opposed the war in Iraq from the very beginning, and he wanted a time line for withdrawal so that the Iraqi government would be forced to take responsibility for itself.


Considering he was a state senator in Illinois when the war started, what difference did it make his stance? I know that he did vote against funding the troops. I do agree we need to force Iraq to take on more of the burden, but how denying our soldier critical supplies ties into that doesn't make sense.


He will also tax the top 5% who have been getting tax breaks over the last 8 years even while they are outsourcing our jobs.


Did you realize that tax revenues increased 20% during the Bush years over the Clinton years. The drop in tax rate resulted in more money for the government and their social programs. How much of the burden to you think the top 5% needs to carry? 20%? 40%? 50%? The top 5% of this country pays 60.14% of all taxes.
Here's some more interesting info from the 2006 tax year:

Top 1% pays 39.89% of all taxes
top 5% pays 60.14%
top 10% pays 70.79%
top 25% pays 86.27%
top 50% pays 97.01%
Bottom 50% pays 2.99% of all taxes

The top 5% ended up paying a higher percentage after Bush's tax cut than prior. Look here (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.).


I support his health care plan which will ensure that every American who wishes to be will be covered by health insurance, and those who are covered will not their lose their house simply because they got sick. I support him because he is for civil unions with all the rights of marriage without infringing on others religious rights. I like his energy plan which will create millions of green collar jobs and will move us toward renewable energy rather than drilling at home and continued dependence on foreign oil. I like that he wants to pass ethic reforms that will limit how lobbyists can influence the government and promote transparent government. I could keep going on and on, but I'm sure you get the idea by now.


So you work from the premise that politicians, are to be taken for their word. You're also very liberal in your stance, thus reason that since Obama matches much of your perspectives, he's to be trusted. Sound familiar?

People, especially NTs, very seldom question why they feel the way they do about the values they embrace, they only assume that the people that share the same values are good and likable and the people that clearly don't share the same values must be bad and immoral. Your earlier comment seems to support this kind of compartmentalized thinking. NFs have it easier because we can at least analyze why we feel the way we do.


Even if you're blind to it as it seems, it's relatively obvious to anyone paying attention that you're being lead blindly by your emotions and by populist considerations.


As far as accomplishments that I admire, he was a successful community organizer...a job which he chose over a lucrative Wall Street options.


Please cite where you get his "successful community organizer" from. I've never read anything that mentioned him being good at it. As far as his job sacrifice, take a look at this (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.):


I also think he is ready for the job because he has the endorsement of Bill Clinton who says he is ready, and he has proven that he can operate quite strategically by running a smart campaign that beat Hillary Clinton. He has also proven he won't take any crap as is clear when he set down that families are off limits and keeping a level head during many of the more heated moments in this campaign.


So that's his claim to fame? Take a look at what else Bill Clinton thinks of him.

"Bill Clinton believes the Democratic nominee, far from practicing a unifying, transformational brand of politics, has the political instincts of "a Chicago thug," one longtime associate said. Clinton has told people that Obama allowed surrogates to try to suppress Hispanic turnout in the Nevada caucuses, and played "the race card" in reverse against the Clintons in South Carolina and other states. "

You can find the article here (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.).

It's been fairly well known that the Clinton's only reluctantly back Obama due to his promise to cover Hillary's $24 Million election debt.


As far as what he is trying to change, that should be pretty clear from what I said above.


Really? All I see is politics as usual. Now since you've finally revealed your stance and it's highly obvious that you're blinding following the democratic herd without any rationale or research, I want you to again see what you stated about me, and the "projection" topic.

People, especially NTs, very seldom question why they feel the way they do about the values they embrace, they only assume that the people that share the same values are good and likable and the people that clearly don't share the same values must be bad and immoral. Your earlier comment seems to support this kind of compartmentalized thinking. NFs have it easier because we can at least analyze why we feel the way we do.


Your arguments against my evidence is "not in context". So please do us all a favor and put them into context for us. With all of those damning statements he made, what context could logically excuse such things? Did he follow all of those statements with, "but I'm just kidding", or "nevermind". Oh I know, "sike!". Beyond those, it's not logical to think that each of those has been cooked up by some vast right wing conspiracy as you most likely believe. I call it like I see it. During my research, I've looked for anything about Obama I could, the fact that I couldn't find anything that actually supported his claims, but a mountain of information against him, doesn't make my investigation "biased". It makes him suspect. Nothing short of Obama saying "I'm a radical, I'm unqualified, I've used the system to get where I am today, and will never appreciate it", will be a viable piece of information for people like you. Even then I doubt you'd believe it, you'd probably find some way to deny the truth, as you've shown you're got a knack for. Since you have such a difficulty separating the information from the source, here's a few from your own camp that might be more effective, though I doubt it:

How's Biden really feel about Barack?

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

How's he feel about McCain?
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

And finally, here's a definition of "radical" from Merriam/Webster online:

"3 a: marked by a considerable departure from the usual or traditional"

And here's Barack's own words:

"But what you have to ask yourself is who has the chance really to change things, in a fundamentally different way?"

AP report, April 20, 2008.

So unless he said "sike!" after the camera's stopped rolling, it's illogical that that's not his true stance. I urge you to try to put any of these in context, I've tried to find counter arguments but haven't been very successful.

If you do your typical ad hominem style post, save it. Not interested in how emotionally attached to this man you are, it's obvious. And if you want to attack McCain, please do so, I could probably add a few to your list. I'd really like to see if you could find any fault with "your candidate", I doubt it.

[Aeroscoper]

I'll concede that some of the evidence is out of context, and some of his associations might not be relevant. What I find is a pattern though. If you take his "mentor's" mindset, tie it in with things he's written about. Take what his wife has said about our country. Any one of those things alone could be argued against. But when you have so many instances, all very related, it's downright denial to think they're all just mere "coincidences". To me all politicians are suspect. The government isn't something to be trusted. Our individual well-being is dependent on the individual, not some state entity. I'm sure you would agree with much of that when speaking of conservatives, but you must examine why that critical facility is lacking when considering "your candidate".

[Lights]

Hm...I'm going to concede here an let you have the last word. I think I've gotten exactly what I needed from this discussion. There is also just too much difficulty in obtaining critical evidence. I just don't see anything that can be gained by exchanging youtube videos and biased news sources.

[ArchonAlarion]

From wikipedia: "Liberalism is a broad array of related ideas and theories of government that consider individual liberty to be the most important political goal."

Alot of people know this already, but yeah Ron Paul is the closest thing thing to a liberal that this race has seen and thats pretty sad.

So the use of the term is invalid.

In the end, who wins is of no consequence. The result will be the same, more government, more intrusion, and more circuses.

"Hey, look over there, a mexican/terrorist/commy/globalwarming/poverty!!!@!"

[Aeroscoper]

Yeah it's tough digging up negative stuff about McCain, or positive stuff on Obama, even from such sources.

Adios.

[Lights]

Yeah it's tough digging up negative stuff about McCain, or positive stuff on Obama, even from such sources.

Adios.

Not hard at all...

A demonstration of the "honest" McCain...
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

A POW on McCain
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Bill Clinton's endorsement of Obama...
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.]

As I said, I just didn't want to resort to trading youtube videos because it is idiotic.

[Aeroscoper]

Yeah McCain's a politician, and very typical political tactics used. He's got many faults that's for sure.

The fact that some of those videos appear on youtube doesn't automatically make them unbelievable. You just have to sift through the chaff to find the truth. If you have footage of a man contradicting comments he made previously, not sure how it loses merit because it's on youtube. But again, if you discredit everything, it's hard to prove one way or another, a strategy that Obama's camp relies on for his candidacy.

So still your most compelling argument for Obama's accomplishments is that Bill Clinton's for him in trade for $24 million dollars?

That's better than most Obama fans at least.

[Lights]

That's better than most Obama fans at least.

Nah, I'm just too lazy to bother anymore. You have proven that you have reasons outside of your intution and personal experiences for choosing McCain and that is what I have been asking for from the very beginning. Otherwise, our entire discussion has lacked any empathy, respect, and autheticity, which has made it rather tasteless and meaningless. I don't think I have any interest in taking part in these kinds of discussions anymore. I'm just gonig to stick to the facts, which are sadly hard to determine in this atmosphere.

[Aeroscoper]

If you look back to your original posts, I hope you can see how you might have come off as judgmental offensive. Considering the atmosphere of this thread before you even entered, you should be able to understand if my stance was a bit more defensive than necessary.

I too have come to that conclusion about such conversations, but with you I felt you really had best intentions so really tried to clarify my positions, while attempting to fend off what seemed to be assaults. Glad you finally got what you were asking for, and I hope if nothing else all of this got you to think about things a bit differently.

Take it easy.

[enWTFp]

The US elections remind me of a Good Cop/Bad Cop interrogation of the American political conscience.

In general, for non-americans I've come up with a joke once:
"US election is like Alien vs Predator: whoever wins, we lose."

Just a joke, I think taking your analysis and your own personal choice about politics is always important, no matter the situation. I usually avoid to debate myself, when I can. I dislike political propaganda, meaning I wouldn't like someone else to try to persuade me about anything, nor I'd like to do this to anyone. I find it the most annoying and redundant part of politics. Each can think on their own.

[dbpeege]

I think the whole political party system is illogical. We need the best candidates with beliefs that represents us personally. As well as an intelligible leader who has the ability to act so in case of severe instances. Why do we have to have party candidates with a currently installed belief system. Give them a brain and lets have some original candidates for once. No more of this political party bullshit. Now a days it seems as if which candidate we have is more important then the issues at hand.

[The Irish Lands]

I hated Obama at first, i've always been more sympathetic to republican ideals, i actually was pulling for Ron Paul. But yes, i do think Obama is by far the lesser of two evils at this point. Just the shear amount of money we are wasting in iraq (15 million dollars every single MINUTE) and all the good things we could be doing with it instead are enough to vote for him imo.

I've never been one for welfare, i think it promotes complacency and leeching, but with the trillion dollars we've spent over the last 5 years, we literally couldv'e wiped out the national debt, homelessness, made our education system truly the top in the world, and given healthcare to everyone. John McCain may know how to fight a war but he can't see outside his little box and realize that it is merely our presence there that is inflaming the situation, not the fact that we don't have enough guys with guns to scare people into behaving.

On top of that McCain wants to continue tax breaks for corporations and the wealthiest tax bracket, and blatantly lies to americans about how offshore drilling will lower the price of gas. He stood on an oil rig a few weeks ago boasting that it produces 10,000 barrels a day, relying on the ignorance of the public who don't understand that we are using 20,000,000 barrels a day and its continually increasing. Again i have more but for the sake of brevity i will stop.

Interesting.... I also did not like Obama in the beginning - and even said to myself "anyone but him".

But as the election went on, I realised that he is actually closer to my beliefs, especialy of foreign policy and human rights, than McCain is.

McCain was probably a bit closer to me on economic issues, as I am a libertarian.

However, in the last year, contrarily to other people, I did not interest in economic policy much, in spite, or perhaps because of the crisis..

... I did watch it, but I as well saw that it can not be predicted well and that some special action may be needed in order to fight the crisis...

Also, no long-term economic plans could have been done well because of the crisis - and I rather sold my stock positions when the crisis came (but stepped in later...)