I didn't know much about her. What can you tell me?
First, that she's probably not McCain's VP. Her office is saying that she's still in Anchorage, and several McCain staffers are saying that there still hasn't been a decision made. Chances are this is just the McCain campaign floating another bogus VP pick to try and catch some of today's newscycle which will be dominated by Obama with the speech.
Second; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Palin
It's fundamentally correct, but it doesn't dwell on some of the scandals that she's been involved in (Alaskan politics can get pretty crazy). It's pretty obvious that the wikipedia page is primarily updated by her campaign staff (which is standard operating procedure for elected officials and candidates), so it should be taken with a grain of salt.
She also shoots the experience and celebrity memes they've been pushing out of the water; she's got less time as a public servant than Obama, and she was the runner up for Ms. Alaska at one point.
Hmm. CNN seems to be confirming. I'll wait for an actual announcement before I believe it, though. McCain's got to push pretty hard if he wants to win this newscycle, and faking a VP choice is a good way to do that.
She also shoots the experience and celebrity memes they've been pushing out of the water; she's got less time as a public servant than Obama, and she was the runner up for Ms. Alaska at one point.
It doesn't matter that she has less time as a public servant than Obama. McCain has enough experience on his own, that he doesn't need to a pick a VP with a lot. This is an interesting choice. I am guessing they want to get the angry women voters who are still bitter about Obama beating Hillary. It might actually work.
It's pretty obvious that the wikipedia page is primarily updated by her campaign staff (which is standard operating procedure for elected officials and candidates), so it should be taken with a grain of salt.
The page has been changed to say that she is the VP nom. ALWAYS take any wiki page with a 10lbs block of salt.
It doesn't matter that she has less time as a public servant than Obama. McCain has enough experience on his own, that he doesn't need to a pick a VP with a lot. This is an interesting choice. I am guessing they want to get the angry women voters who are still bitter about Obama beating Hillary. It might actually work.
I don't really think she's a great choice, but I think she was kind of a necessity if McCain wants to stay in the news today and over the weekend (which he obviously does, his campaign has been very focused on cycle-by-cycle news coverage).
She's a really risky choice, though; she's currently under investigation for ethics violations (related to the Stevens investigation), she doesn't have any experience campaigning outside of Alaska and she's got an infant at home that could inhibit her ability to make the appearances a successful VP pick needs to.
She's also got zero name recognition outside of political circles, and not a whole lot inside of them. A lot of the talking heads, even the Republican ones, are pretty much going "who? McCain picked who?"
It's also very scary when I agree with Pat Buchanan on anything. This makes twice in under twelve hours, I think I'll get myself checked out by a professional;
Biggest political gamble I believe just about in American political history...that is not hyberbole. I can think of no choice of VP that approaches this.
She's also got zero name recognition outside of political circles, and not a whole lot inside of them. A lot of the talking heads, even the Republican ones, are pretty much going "who? McCain picked who?"
Yep, I had to think hard. We'll see if the rumor is true..
It's also very scary when I agree with Pat Buchanan on anything. This makes twice in under twelve hours, I think I'll get myself checked out by a professional;
It is a gamble, but it is also one that could pay off. All that matters is she is a woman. That is why she was picked.
It is a gamble, but it is also one that could pay off. All that matters is she is a woman. That is why she was picked.
She's not bad looking either. Put her in a bikini and send her campaigning...
Interesting choice
She's not bad looking either. Put her in a bikini and send her campaigning...
She's not bad looking either. Put her in a bikini and send her campaigning...
Hey this is one reason the republicans were able to get ahead in the past. Fox news knows the value of a pretty face, with great legs, and a nice pair of eyes. Look at all the pretty gals serving as "advisors" for republican candidates and politicians as well. The best the left can give us is jeanine Garofalo. I say the dems should stop being so PC and put out start parading more sexy women around.
According to this (written by an AP writer), it's true.
Interesting choice
I don't really give the AP much credence at this point, but other sources are confirming as well it seems.
In an interesting piece of schadenfreude, Gov. Palin basically dissed the office of VP a month ago in a television interview;
As for that VP talk all the time, I’ll tell you, I still can’t answer that question until somebody answers for me what is it exactly that the VP does every day? I’m used to being very productive and working real hard in an administration. We want to make sure that that VP slot would be a fruitful type of position, especially for Alaskans and for the things that we’re trying to accomplish up here for the rest of the U.S., before I can even start addressing that question.
Of course, that could be a bonus depending upon how it's spun; running against the position you're running for is a political trope in conservative circles at this point.
Hey this is one reason the republicans were able to get ahead in the past. Fox news knows the value of a pretty face, with great legs, and a nice pair of eyes. Look at all the pretty gals serving as "advisors" for republican candidates and politicians as well. The best the left can give us is jeanine Garofalo. I say the dems should stop being so PC and put out start parading more sexy women around.
Well, like I said, she was a runner up for the Miss Alaska competition. She's got some cred as far as selling herself physically.
That's definitely something the Republicans are better at than the Dems, but I think it's also something they value more highly. It seems like being average looking is a boon in Dem political circles sometimes.
Anyway, I GIS'd for her pageant pictures, but I couldn't find any off-hand. The closest I found were some glamour shots posted on freerepublic, and there's no way of telling with those folks whether those are actually pictures of her or not.
http://www.ontheissues.org/Sarah_Palin.htm
http://www.adn.com/front/story/499248.html
About the only things I could find on Sarah is that she's hard-core pro-life, against gay marriage, for opening ANWR, and apparently tried to get her former brother-in-law fired from the police force.
http://www.ontheissues.org/Sarah_Palin.htm
http://www.adn.com/front/story/499248.html
She also made teaching creationism in schools a plank on her gubernatorial platform. She's both a pretty face and a pander to the hardcore right. Unfortunately for McCain, she's not really anything else of substance, besides potentially guilty of abusing her power.
One can also hope that, if Satan comes through on his end of the bargain and McCain somehow wins, that she is competent and will continue the late trend of active VPs.
Have you noticed who time after time wins the women vote? Maybe there's a connection to not treating women as objects and then getting their vote.
Yes, the hunky male usually wins the women's votes.
Thank you.
And remember, this is a national news source he is being interviewed by, and he is treating them like they were lefty bloggers.
Even if Obama only offered hope, I would prefer that over this transparent gamesmanship of the electoral process. Better Hope deferred than Cynicism achieved.
Last thing he needs access to is a shiny, candy-like, red button...
she's got less time as a public servant than Obama, and she was the runner up for Ms. Alaska at one point.
Actually, not true. Obama has ZERO exec experience at a high level... If I'm hiring for an exec position I look for exec experience. If I'm looking for a lawyer I look for experience as a lawyer. Two totally different animals.
I dug the "Temperment" line, as well. That goes to the core of statesmanship,
Yah, Jefferson was a hot head too. Same with Teddy R., I can go on and on...
Actually, not true. Obama has ZERO exec experience at a high level... If I'm hiring for an exec position I look for exec experience. If I'm looking for a lawyer I look for experience as a lawyer. Two totally different animals.
Being part-time Mayor of Wasilla (a town of 7000 people) and an incredibly short, scandal ridden stint as Governor of Alaska are hardly things I would count as qualifying one to be leader of the free world.
Yah, Jefferson was a hot head too. Same with Teddy R., I can go on and on...
Neither of them had access to a nuclear arsenal or were inheriting a "war" declared on an extremely nebulous enemy that can be redefined at will.
Actually, not true. Obama has ZERO exec experience at a high level... If I'm hiring for an exec position I look for exec experience. If I'm looking for a lawyer I look for experience as a lawyer. Two totally different animals.
This is my least favorite straw man of this election...
The only person who has the experience you are asking for is someone who has already been president. Even a governor from a big state, like Cali, isn't sufficiently prepared.
There is NO experience to prepare you for the presidency, and anyone who tells you different is a nominee.
Pros
+ Has executive experience
+ Is very conservative so he can excite his base
+ Is a woman in a race where the women vote is seen as up for grabs
+ Ran and was elected on an ethics platform
Cons
- The executive experience is light. < 2yrs in Alaska, and mayor of a town of 8,000
- Is very conservative which will probably turn off indies
- Is a former celebrity
- Is younger then Obama so it kills the Obama is too young and too celebrity to be pres.
- No foreign policy experience
- Is under investigation for ethics violations
Cons...
- No foreign policy experience
- Is under investigation for ethics violations
So she's perfect for the Republican ticket, then?
So she's perfect for the Republican ticket, then?
That depends.
What's she got for a lapel pin?
So she's perfect for the Republican ticket, then?
Pretty much.
This is my least favorite straw man of this election...
The only person who has the experience you are asking for is someone who has already been president. Even a governor from a big state, like Cali, isn't sufficiently prepared.
No exec experience vs exec experience for an exec position. If you've ever been a senior exec of a VERY large organization you wouldn't even think of posting that.
Why do you think that over the last 100 years ex Senators have made for poor presidents...
'nuff said.
No exec experience vs exec experience for an exec position. If you've ever been a senior exec of a VERY large organization you wouldn't even think of posting that.
Why do you think that over the last 100 years ex Senators have made for poor presidents...
'nuff said.
Yes, because the Governer-slash-Corporate-Executive we have now is doing such a bang-up job.
On a related note, Obama spent nearly a decade as a community organizer. His experience as an "executive" is probably more applicable than W's.
For the record I know he was a Rep not a Senator.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/05/opinion/05palin.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
Yes, because the Governer-slash-Corporate-Executive we have now is doing such a bang-up job.
On a related note, Obama spent nearly a decade as a community organizer. His experience as an "executive" is probably more applicable than W's.
1st I didn't every exec makes a good pres. 2nd, name one pres in the last 100 years who had Obama's background and was a good pres...
3rd, a "community organizer" is not exec experience. It is a nice side interest... but nowhere close to being the Top Exec running a large state, ever a small state...
Yeah that Lincoln guy sure sucked.
For the record I know he was a Rep not a Senator.
Lincoln was Pres within the last 100 years? What grade school did you attend?
No exec experience vs exec experience for an exec position. If you've ever been a senior exec of a VERY large organization you wouldn't even think of posting that.
Why do you think that over the last 100 years ex Senators have made for poor presidents...
'nuff said.
Another Strawman! You're good at this game:D
There were only three senators who became president in the last century: Truman, JFK, and Johnson; and Johnson wasn't elected. 2/17 is not a good population by which to make blanket statements, but I am sure your grasp of executive experience tells you that...
So, Truman and JFK were poor presidents? JFK gets more credit than he deserves maybe, but the Cuban Missile Crisis is a good display of executive leadership, don't you think?
So, out of 17 presidents, you have a sample of 2. I'll say that the quality of one is debatable, but Truman?
Really?
Edit: and to be frank, Shrub had plenty of executive experience, in many different areas, from organized sports to one of the largest states in the country.
And we all know how THAT turned out...
Another Strawman! You're good at this game:D
There were only three senators who became president in the last century: Truman, JFK, and Johnson; and Johnson wasn't elected.
Once you learn history I'll discuss. You missed one of the best known presidents in history...
1st I didn't every exec makes a good pres. 2nd, name one pres in the last 100 years who had Obama's background and was a good pres...
Kennedy was a Rep, then a single-term senator before jumping to the big chair. He's pretty widely considered a good president.
3rd, a "community organizer" is not exec experience. It is a nice side interest... but nowhere close to being the Top Exec running a large state, ever a small state...
Organizing a community for political change has a lot more to do with what you'll need to know to be president than owning a baseball team. It means he's got experience motivating people, getting folks with different backgrounds to work together and staying focused on his goals. Discounting that experience is a big mistake.
Kennedy was a Rep, then a single-term senator before jumping to the big chair. He's pretty widely considered a good president
Kennedy was a disaster. Bay of pigs & Vietnam.
Kennedy was a disaster. Bay of pigs & Vietnam.
The booming economy, growing civil rights movement and space programs beg to differ.
He made some bad decisions, but so do all presidents. Do we really want to get into a ******* match over vanity wars given the current administration?
Kennedy was a disaster. Bay of pigs & Vietnam.
WSJ voted him 18/43 recently. Other sources have voted him much higher. Definitely not the best, but within the top 5 in the last 100 years, in my opinion.
Your statements are anecdotal, and you have no critical back-up.
Oh mighty Historical Mind named after a half orc barbarian, name a president that you felt had sufficient executive experience before becoming president. I want to see what I think of your judgment...
I just have to say this again:
The additional idiocy in assuming McCain's temper would somehow flare enough for him to "push the button" or expand the war to crush some dignitary that scuffed his Puma at the UN is equally stupid. It ignores the complexity of process that is required to fire a weapon of that power, for one, and mirors many of the stupid arguments Obama fans quickly shout down when they are used by McCain supporters. If McCain is too angry to trust with that weaponry, isn't Obama - a man that has far less military experience than McCain - too inexperienced to be trusted with "the button". I mean, he may well think it's just another paging button and accidentally wipe out N Korea when all he really wanted to do was order a hoagie, right? If you're gonna bash stupid arguments and talking points about your candidate, try not to use them against the other guy's. When ya' do, it makes ya' look silly.
It's painful to read this crap. Really. All of this "mature political conversation" ends up amounting to nothing more valuable than a "my dad can kick your dad's ass" pi$$ing contest.
We have some criticizing McCain's "gamesmenship" while touting Obama's record with voter registration as evidence of executive leadership enough to lead. What fails to get mentioned in this little bit, however, is that his good work (and it was) done in the name of getting everyone heard targeted people - and this is gonna sound odd - most likely to vote for ... *drumroll* ... Obama! Umm, that's "gamesmenship", folks. And let's not forget it. All I'm sayin' is be fair. Don't smash one for doing something your favored candidate does as well unless you find it sickening that he does it, too.
Has anyone even brought up Obama's voter registration drive? I haven't seen mention of it.
I do agree that political discussion in general can very easily dissolve into a partisan ******* match. I don't think that's really something that people intend as much as an all too natural outcome from talking about something so charged.
I am going to be curious to hear the official explanation for her selection as VP, though. I'm not getting a solid bead, even from Republicans, about what she brings to the ticket. With Biden it was very obviously an old white guy who was very strong on foreign policy; with Palin it's not as immediately obvious.
Has anyone even brought up Obama's voter registration drive? I haven't seen mention of it.
I think there was a poster who brought up his community organizing. I didn't see one on the current voter registration. I am admittedly distracted today with real life.
I think there was a poster who brought up his community organizing. I didn't see one on the current voter registration. I am admittedly distracted today with real life.
Well, I was the one that brought up his community organizing, but in context it was in response to allegations of Obama's unpreparedness to lead. Z_B is generally a little more focused than simply lumping an entire thread into one argument and assuming that all the posters are talking about the same thing the whole time.
So I'm a little confused.
Has anyone even brought up Obama's voter registration drive? I haven't seen mention of it.
Hmm. My eyes did deceive me. Sorry for that. My issue was with the "transparent gamesmanship" comment and, though there was no direct reference to the registration drive, I feel the point is still valid. The drive was still gamesmenship (though I should have used it as an illustration and not mistakenly attributed it to something posted here). And smashing McCain for playing the game is odd when Obama did the same. My commentary addressed this improperly. There was no blatant reference, but criticising one and not the other is still shady, IMO. And this changes nothing about the "button" crap. Still, I should have read more carefully and written my still applicable rant in a way that addressed it more clearly.
This does illustrate how awfully bad our election process is. It's nothing more than a popularity contest and the players care only about winning. There would be no gamesmanship - from either side - if this were not the case. And if the American people were not as dumb as a whole. Election season is the worst time to be an American, IMO. It shows the world what we're really like. Celebrity gossip seeking losers. In a decade our electoral process may well be an altered version of American Idol. With the non-American roots of said show, it makes it all the more likely. ;)
The difference between parroting party lines and enfranchising voters is not as thin as you seem to think.
Albeit, Obama is trying to get new voters to register, and I admit they will most likely vote for him. But just because they get the vote doesn't mean they will use it, nor that they will use it as Obama intends. Gamesmanship yes, disgusting no.
In that interview, McCain is lying by omission. Time calls him on it, and he parrots the same line back.
Gamesmanship yes, disgusting yes.
As far as this board being "crap", welcome to the current state of American politics. If you don't like how our country does things, you can leave
The counter narrative is that the PUMA groups are not large and the convention made clear what Hillary thinks of any of her voters going for McCain. Also while she ran on an ethics platform she's currently under investigation herself for abuse of power. Also will the stink of the other Alaskan politicians impact her? Also every time McCain talks about ethics it brings up the Keating 5. Also his investigation of Jack Abramoff did not include his big time supporter and fundraiser, Ralph Reed. McCain would love to distance himself from other Republicans and particularly G. Bush. But when you have multiple videos of him talking about how much he supports Bush and how proud he is of voting for his issues..it's really hard to do so. And then there's that really uncomfortable hug picture...
This does illustrate how awfully bad our election process is.
I do wish that our elections, and particularly our national elections, were more about the issues and less about the spectacle. And not just because I think my side wins on the issues. ;)
Unfortunately, we as a society function at a very low information density. We don't like long explanations and we don't do our own research nearly often enough. That leaves us with sound bites and talking heads, which is a horrible, horrible place to be.
I do find it encouraging (as an American, not as an Obama partisan) that we're getting more long speech excerpts than in previous cycles. Where the 24 hour news used to have 3 second clips, now they're stretching to 15, 20 or even 30 seconds. People are demanding more context and the people who get paid to provide it are obliging. Probably because if they don't their viewers will just go online and find the damn thing for themselves. Hopefully that signals an upswing in Americans wanting to be informed.
Your statements are anecdotal, and you have no critical back-up.
The disasters of Vietnam & the Bay of Pigs are anecdotal?
As far as this board being "crap", welcome to the current state of American politics. If you don't like how our country does things, you can leave
As much as I agree with the other statements I'm going to disagree with this one. I'm not personally attacking or wish to get you p***** but that statement (even with the smiley) is a pet peeve of mine. If it was in jest then I apologize.
In my humble opinion, if you don't like America then change it. It goes directly to what I like about Obama. He does not use the Rovian attacks to divide the nation. His speeches are all about personal empowerment and the ability of people to effect meaningful change in the way things are done.
He made some bad decisions, but so do all presidents. Do we really want to get into a ******* match over vanity wars given the current administration?
Yah, 50000 dead Americans is a bad decision. But you can't make an omelet...
Palin is actually pretty popular in Alaska apparently. She's fulfilled a lot of promises and worked pretty hard up there. I dislike her policies, but he could have chosen a far worse VP.
I'll find it interesting to find out how the campaigns change now in order to deal with this.
http://www.youtube.com/swf/l.swf?video_id=6UojMnCgqVA&rel=1&eurl=http%3A//www.google.com/reader/view/&iurl=http%3A//i3.ytimg.com/vi/6UojMnCgqVA/default.jpg&t=OEgsToPDskJv08Xe_UTZgd6sN9a5mvnI&use_get_video_info=1&load_modules=1&fs=1&hl=en
Yah, 50000 dead Americans is a bad decision. But you can't make an omelet...
The Cold War was full of stupid decisions. Going to war in the modern age has almost universally proven to be a bad decision, at least when it comes to public opinion.
At least with Kennedy there were good domestic works to counteract the warmongering. Fostering talks for the Civil Rights Act, putting a man on the moon, solidifying the American Economy and improving the accessibility of secondary education are all things Kennedy did right. That's a lot longer list than lots of "Executive" Presidents.
The Cold War was full of stupid decisions. Going to war in the modern age has almost universally proven to be a bad decision, at least when it comes to public opinion.
So, what was worse, 4k dead in Iraq or 50k in Vietnam? So Kennedy was worse than Bush?
So, what was worse, 4k dead in Iraq or 50k in Vietnam? So Kennedy was worse than Bush?
Who's to say? The politics around the two wars were very different. A case could probably be made either way, and I'm not really interested in getting into it to be honest.
Kennedy's domestic policies had a vastly more positive effect than Bush's, though. That may not balance out the death-toll, but it's got to account for something.
As far as this board being "crap", welcome to the current state of American politics. If you don't like how our country does things, you can leave
It's not the board, it's the topic. And since when has it been "American" to leave?
I can't understand why anyone would like the way the election process is handled. Well, I do get it. When your candidate is on top of the polls, it's all good. When he's losing, it's time to address the problem. Not that this has any partisan nature to it at all, of course, it's just how we roll. Accept the shortcomings until they bone us personally and then whine about the injustice of it all. This is not saying anything about you. This is just another illustration of why I have an issue with the system. But hey, if you don't like my examples, you can always leave, right? ;)
I do wish that our elections, and particularly our national elections, were more about the issues and less about the spectacle. And not just because I think my side wins on the issues. ;)
Unfortunately, we as a society function at a very low information density. We don't like long explanations and we don't do our own research nearly often enough. That leaves us with sound bites and talking heads, which is a horrible, horrible place to be.
I do find it encouraging (as an American, not as an Obama partisan) that we're getting more long speech excerpts than in previous cycles. Where the 24 hour news used to have 3 second clips, now they're stretching to 15, 20 or even 30 seconds. People are demanding more context and the people who get paid to provide it are obliging. Probably because if they don't their viewers will just go online and find the damn thing for themselves. Hopefully that signals an upswing in Americans wanting to be informed.
It is a sign of the information age that we do want more. But most of the stuff we get is from biased sources. You know that, of course. So while I may be encouraged by the demand, I am still a bit wary about what there is to be found. And what people are sellin' out there, too. Who knows, though? Maybe things will get better. Unless we drastically change how we do things, though, I personally don't see that happening. We care mroe about what candidate is bangin' outta wedlock - for the most part - than we do about their tax policies. Which is disturbing since one obviously impacts us on a personal level. And I'm not talkin' about the sex thing. ;)
As much as I agree with the other statements I'm going to disagree with this one. I'm not personally attacking or wish to get you p***** but that statement (even with the smiley) is a pet peeve of mine. If it was in jest then I apologize.
In my humble opinion, if you don't like America then change it. It goes directly to what I like about Obama. He does not use the Rovian attacks to divide the nation. His speeches are all about personal empowerment and the ability of people to effect meaningful change in the way things are done.
It was made in jest
and no offense taken. As a lefty, I like to tell the right wingers to "Love it or Leave it". Play against type, etc...
I just figured that Z_B was trolling, and wanted to tickle him a little in return.
It was made in jest
and no offense taken. As a lefty, I like to tell the right wingers to "Love it or Leave it". Play against type, etc...
I just figured that Z_B was trolling, and wanted to tickle him a little in return.
I'm curious, what about that post came off as trolling? It addressed both sides and, I believe, presented some valid criticism. Unless, of course, the reader (general) is one that's a bit too pro-anything.
Who's to say? The politics around the two wars were very different.
LOL!
Both failed, neither caused a gain for the US. I'll take 10% death rate personally. You should send letters to the family's of the 45,000 and explain your position...
LOL!
Both failed, neither caused a gain for the US. I'll take 10% death rate personally. You should send letters to the family's of the 45,000 and explain your position...
I know you love your shouting matches, but are you really discounting that the political environment at the height of the Cold War was different than the rush to war after 9/11 with a country that wasn't even involved?
They're both failed attempts at occupation that caused the loss of thousands of American lives; that's the entirety of the similarities.
I'm curious, what about that post came off as trolling? It addressed both sides and, I believe, presented some valid criticism. Unless, of course, the reader (general) is one that's a bit too pro-anything.
"The additional idiocy in assuming McCain's temper would somehow flare enough for him to "push the button" or expand the war to crush some dignitary that scuffed his Puma at the UN is equally stupid. It ignores the complexity of process that is required to fire a weapon of that power, for one, and mirors many of the stupid arguments Obama fans quickly shout down when they are used by McCain supporters.."
This is the part.
"The Button" is now a metaphor for starting a war, and has been for some time. In fact, there probably never was a single button, and it always was a metaphor. I don't need you to educate me in the complexity of launching a nuclear strike.
What did you make of McCain singing "Bomb Iran", btw? Good or bad for diplomacy? Demonstrative of a clear head for making decisions? Or is there a gaffe from Obama that counteracts this one as well?
"The additional idiocy in assuming McCain's temper would somehow flare enough for him to "push the button" or expand the war to crush some dignitary that scuffed his Puma at the UN is equally stupid. It ignores the complexity of process that is required to fire a weapon of that power, for one, and mirors many of the stupid arguments Obama fans quickly shout down when they are used by McCain supporters.."
This is the part.
"The Button" is now a metaphor for starting a war, and has been for some time. In fact, there probably never was a single button, and it always was a metaphor. I don't need you to educate me in the complexity of launching a nuclear strike.
What did you make of McCain singing "Bomb Iran", btw? Good or bad for diplomacy? Demonstrative of a clear head for making decisions? Or is there a gaffe from Obama that counteracts this one as well?
So it's perfectly rational to assume that McCain will get angry and with no cause whatsoever start or expand a war? BTW, the "stupid" you bolded is in reference to lame arguments used against Obama. Now, unless there are no silly arguments being bandied about - by both sides - and the "button" stuff is somehow more than a personal feeling manifested as an attack, I feel pretty confident that my post - while of strong language - was pretty much on. The "button", also, is not a metaphor for war. It is a metaphor for a nuclear strike. As it is, my response still holds up.
So, what was worse, 4k dead in Iraq or 50k in Vietnam? So Kennedy was worse than Bush?
Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon, along with American voters at the time, share much of the responsibility for the 50,000 Americans killed in Vietnam.
This is fun. Some responses in this thread point to why this stuff is incredibly stupid to discuss. Very few people are actually rational enough in their analysis to listen to. We have some criticizing McCain's "gamesmenship" while touting Obama's record with voter registration as evidence of executive leadership enough to lead. What fails to get mentioned in this little bit, however, is that his good work (and it was) done in the name of getting everyone heard targeted people - and this is gonna sound odd - most likely to vote for ... *drumroll* ... Obama! Umm, that's "gamesmenship", folks. And let's not forget it. All I'm sayin' is be fair. Don't smash one for doing something your favored candidate does as well unless you find it sickening that he does it, too.
The additional idiocy in assuming McCain's temper would somehow flare enough for him to "push the button" or expand the war to crush some dignitary that scuffed his Puma at the UN is equally stupid. It ignores the complexity of process that is required to fire a weapon of that power, for one, and mirors many of the stupid arguments Obama fans quickly shout down when they are used by McCain supporters. If McCain is too angry to trust with that weaponry, isn't Obama - a man that has far less military experience than McCain - too inexperienced to be trusted with "the button". I mean, he may well think it's just another paging button and accidentally wipe out N Korea when all he really wanted to do was order a hoagie, right? If you're gonna bash stupid arguments and talking points about your candidate, try not to use them against the other guy's. When ya' do, it makes ya' look silly.
It's painful to read this crap. Really. All of this "mature political conversation" ends up amounting to nothing more valuable than a "my dad can kick your dad's ass" pi$$ing contest.
I can't speak for anyone else on this thread, but here is my take on it. My biggest problem with McCain is how he approaches a problem, and the thing I like MOST about Obama is how he approaches a problem. Obama seems to be willing to stop and analyze the problem. And lets face it, when it comes to actual policy they plan on enacting there just isn't a lot of daylight between 'em. Therefore I have to make a decision based on who I think will react best when faced with a novel situation. You know - like 9/11. GWB's reaction to that has shaped our nation for the next hundered years, give or take.
The scariest thing I recently heard was after the Christian dual interview sessions. They interviewed someone who was in the audience, and they were all gushy about McCain. Why? Because (and I paraphrase here) McCain didn't stop to think about his answers, he just answered on instinct. And I remember thinking at the time, how is that a good quality given our current situation?
Couple that with McCain's outright refusal to ever use diplomacy, and I see a man deliberately closing himself off to information, and sources of potential resolution. I also cite things like not using a computer, or his immediate endorsement of the Georgians. Again - they are not fatal flaws, nor do they make him a bad man. (Hell my parents can barely turn their computer on.) But they all add up to a disturbing picture.
And so I feel that McCain's experience hurts him. My guitar teacher used to tell me - practice doesn't make perfect, perfect practice makes perfect. That is, repetition and experience do not matter if you are doing it wrong in the first place.
I gotta admire the guy, but I just can't see him as being able to carve new paths especially as he is seeing to regress to the party norm under some real competition. Will he be an unmitigated disaster - naw. But is he the right president for right now. No, I certainly do not think so.
Finally let me say when hiring for my companies, yes I always look at the applicant's experience. But some of the worst hires I have ever made have been people who came with scads of experience, but had never learned how to be innovate. Experience is not all there is to doing a good job. And McCain seems to have the worst kind of experience.
This thread appears to have veered off topic a bit. This choice looks like a big risk to me. But from what little I have seen about it on the News so far, the McCain people are doing a good job of using her gender as a weapon, and of using her own lack of experience as a spring board to talk about Obama's lack of experience. She is well spoken. She is very pretty. And she is governor of Alaska (which I am guessing will allow McCain to speak with more authority on drilling and the environment). There may be more to this pick than meets the eye.
Oh its crafty to be sure. I had a good laugh about it as well. He is a snarky old bastard. Always has been. And this is a real thumb in the eye to the Dems. But I honestly think that this is all it is (well that and an appeal to the far right religious groups.) It just seems a little vapid, like him setting up camp in Denver, or running ads during Obama's speech. Yeah it was funny, but I don't think humor cuts it, ya know.
As far as this board being "crap", welcome to the current state of American politics. If you don't like how our country does things, you can leave
Oh no, I will stay right here and ignore these jokers, tyvm.
With a woman VP this would be the closest a woman has been to being president. On top of that the president, McCain, is old and could quite possibly die in office. Upon his death the republicans would be responsible for the first female president. If McCain were to be removed from office for any reason then the USA's first female president would be a republican.
McCain is about 72 and because of this many people have been arguing that he is too old to be president. Many people seem to fear that McCain, if elected, would die in office. If he has a female VP, such as Sarah Palin, then if he was to die in office this would make the first female president a republican. I wonder if this could be a portion of the reason Palin has been chosen?
With a woman VP this would be the closest a woman has been to being president. On top of that the president, McCain, is old and could quite possibly die in office. Upon his death the republicans would be responsible for the first female president. If McCain were to be removed from office for any reason then the USA's first female president would be a republican.
I think a lot of women will vote for him soley for this reason.
@ SpearSpike: I think that some hard core democrat women probably want the first female president to be democrat, which means many women would likely not vote for this reason. I do think that many woman would vote for McCain for this reason, or it will be at least a factor in how they vote.
I think you overestimate their loyalty to the party. The Hilary thing clearly became a womens' issue toward the end. It was fueled by a solidarity among feminists, and not by a desire to have a democrat in office. I am sure some will vote for their party rather than their sex. But I don't think most of the women who feel angry toward Obama and the Democratic party will.
McCain is about 72 and because of this many people have been arguing that he is too old to be president. Many people seem to fear that McCain, if elected, would die in office. If he has a female VP, such as Sarah Palin, then if he was to die in office this would make the first female president a republican. I wonder if this could be a portion of the reason Palin has been chosen?
With a woman VP this would be the closest a woman has been to being president. On top of that the president, McCain, is old and could quite possibly die in office. Upon his death the republicans would be responsible for the first female president. If McCain were to be removed from office for any reason then the USA's first female president would be a republican.
As disgusting as that sounds, I must admit to asking myself the same question. With the way our political system works, it probably does have something to do with it. Obama would be a "first". So now McCain has a "first", too. It's stupid, but that's how the public likes it. And I bet it works, too.
Although I have to wonder about that group. Regardless of how upset they may have been about Hillary losing, McCain is almost a complete opposite of the platform she had. Also, the Clintons are part of the backbone of the democratic party. How many of her supporters are going to get to election day and think, "Can I REALLY vote Republican?"
I think he may LOSE more independent votes than he'll gain. Most independent voters are neither hardcore left or right. Picking a strong conservative isn't going to help your case.
Plus, after Obama's speech last night, I think Barack gained more than a few votes.
So, what was worse, 4k dead in Iraq or 50k in Vietnam? So Kennedy was worse than Bush?
Look at the casualty figure in Iraq and compare it to when Viet Nam reached the same figure. It's a full year sooner. That means that if Iraq lasts the nine years that Viet Nam ran, the figure in Iraq will be lower, right?
And just for the record, It was Johnson that escalated Viet Nam, not Kennedy. If you check your history, Viet Nam didn't get really going until 66 and Kenedy was dead in 63 wasn't it?
I think you overestimate their loyalty to the party. The Hilary thing clearly became a womens' issue toward the end. It was fueled by a solidarity among feminists, and not by a desire to have a democrat in office. I am sure some will vote for their party rather than their sex. But I don't think most of the women who feel angry toward Obama and the Democratic party will.
The only "PUMAs" left are those that were Republicans voting in the Dem primary since they didn't like or didn't need to vote for their choice. The media is blowing this whole party disunity thing out of proportion.
Besides, Palin is the Stepford VP. She'll stand in the background for the powerful "manly-man" War-Hero (TM) John MCain and bake cookies and smile in her pageant way. I think she'll be absolutely crushed in the VP debate with Biden. She shores up his cred with the evangelical religious right of the party, but does nothing else.
lol...Stepford VP...I hope that gets picked up somewhere.
d
A McCain/Palin pairing? I'm sorry, but that's just... weird. It's a pairing that seems to be drawn not from politics, but from a 1980's network sitcom.
HE is an ex-POW turned multimillionaire. He has power, wealth, and more houses than most people have ties. But can anything -- or anyone -- calm his savage temper, and teach him to love again?
SHE's a young creationist who knows little about politics and is in trouble with the law. He'll take her in -- but can he teach her the ways of Washington before she embarrasses him at the big Telecom Ball?
Find out this fall on Dharma and Methuselah...
Saw this quoted on a blog and thought I'd share:
A McCain/Palin pairing? I'm sorry, but that's just... weird. It's a pairing that seems to be drawn not from politics, but from a 1980's network sitcom.
HE is an ex-POW turned multimillionaire. He has power, wealth, and more houses than most people have ties. But can anything -- or anyone -- calm his savage temper, and teach him to love again?
SHE's a young creationist who knows little about politics and is in trouble with the law. He'll take her in -- but can he teach her the ways of Washington before she embarrasses him at the big Telecom Ball?
Find out this fall on Dharma and Methuselah...
LMAO!!!!
d
Couple that with McCain's outright refusal to ever use diplomacy, and I see a man deliberately closing himself off to information, and sources of potential resolution.
This is his Achilles' heel, if you ask me. You can say one president is better than another until you're blue in the face. But when you point out the big winners in the last century, it's usually the ones that have been willing to sit down and actually talk to our "enemies". Could Kennedy solve the Cuban Missile Crises without Adlai Stevenson in the UN? Could Nixon have visited China if it weren't for Kissinger?
If one diplomat will spare a thousand troops, isn't it worth trying? For that matter, if one diplomat will spare one hundred troops, isn't it worth trying? Heck, if one diplomat will spare ten troops, isn't it worth trying? If one diplomat will prevent one flag-draped coffin, isn't that worth trying? If that one coffin is your father's, son's, uncle's or brother's, is it still not worth trying?
As far as this board being "crap", welcome to the current state of American politics. If you don't like how our country does things, you can leave
Or he could take the nobler action and affect change.
Sorry, I just really despise the "If you don't like it, get out" mentality.
After all, everyone knows we're afraid of girls.
Saw this quoted on a blog and thought I'd share:
A McCain/Palin pairing? I'm sorry, but that's just... weird. It's a pairing that seems to be drawn not from politics, but from a 1980's network sitcom.
HE is an ex-POW turned multimillionaire. He has power, wealth, and more houses than most people have ties. But can anything -- or anyone -- calm his savage temper, and teach him to love again?
SHE's a young creationist who knows little about politics and is in trouble with the law. He'll take her in -- but can he teach her the ways of Washington before she embarrasses him at the big Telecom Ball?
Find out this fall on Dharma and Methuselah...
That is probably why they will win.
Nobody wants a President and Vice President who are laughable, but people want a pair that are at least reasonably and humanly humorous.
Obama and Biden are going to wind up as dull as Gore and Kerry, with the only possible humor being savage mockery rather than prime sketch material like that.
Then of course there are the aspects of who is standing in the wings.
Obama is a raw n00b, with Biden the aging insider waiting to retire like Cheney in 8 years if he never gets the call.
McCain has been listening at the door for centuries, with Palin as the hot babe apprentice waiting to continue the legacy in 8 years while still in her prime years as a leader.
While politically both parties should be slapped for such weak choices, structurally McCain-Palin has overwhelmingly more potential than Obama-Biden.
Guess who Sarah Palin's financial portfolio is managed by? Yep life is full of surprises...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IuAVw_v3br8
That is probably why they will win.
Nobody wants a President and Vice President who are laughable, but people want a pair that are at least reasonably and humanly humorous.
Obama and Biden are going to wind up as dull as Gore and Kerry, with the only possible humor being savage mockery rather than prime sketch material like that.
Then of course there are the aspects of who is standing in the wings.
Obama is a raw n00b, with Biden the aging insider waiting to retire like Cheney in 8 years if he never gets the call.
McCain has been listening at the door for centuries, with Palin as the hot babe apprentice waiting to continue the legacy in 8 years while still in her prime years as a leader.
While politically both parties should be slapped for such weak choices, structurally McCain-Palin has overwhelmingly more potential than Obama-Biden.
Perhaps you've never heard Biden or Obama actually speak. There are many words to describe their two very different styles... "dull" is not one of them. One of the attacks on Obama is that he's too removed. Perhaps that true... no one seems to think that Biden is removed. He cetainly speaks from his heart.
McCain/Palin certainly has overwhelmingly more potential for mockery I'll grant you but not for actually governing.
Clearly this is all just a clever ploy, designed to more subtly attack D&D fans.
After all, everyone knows we're afraid of girls.
who isn't? I'm married and am deathly afraid of girls
I know shes a hot milf.
This.
Seriously, though, Dana Perino and Sarah Palin. Now tell me you don't want to at least here the GOP out.
Perhaps you've never heard Biden or Obama actually speak. There are many words to describe their two very different styles... "dull" is not one of them. One of the attacks on Obama is that he's too removed. Perhaps that true... no one seems to think that Biden is removed. He cetainly speaks from his heart.
I have heard them both speak.
Obama spews buzzwords, Biden just spews. And spews. And spews some more.
Perhaps dull is not the best word. How about numbing? Incessant? Egregiously, repetitively, redundantly, unceasing?
50,000 more words
And he talks too much, saying the same thing over and over again.
It might all be from his heart, but does he ever shut up!?!
McCain/Palin certainly has overwhelmingly more potential for mockery I'll grant you but not for actually governing.
They definitely have much more potential for actual governing.
I have heard them both speak.
Obama spews buzzwords, Biden just spews. And spews. And spews some more.
Perhaps dull is not the best word. How about numbing? Incessant? Egregiously, repetitively, redundantly, unceasing?
50,000 more words
And he talks too much, saying the same thing over and over again.
It might all be from his heart, but does he ever shut up!?!
They definitely have much more potential for actual governing.
Did you actually watch the green screen challenge speech? When McCain attempts to talk policy he gets a nausea inducing smile. McCain is a very stiff speaker and prone to pettiness and nastiness. No one knows anything about Palin since even the Republicans don't know anything about her... well except for Ted "series of tubes" Stevens who really likes her. As far as effectively governing McCain has chosen a trophy candidate. Obama picked someone who will discuss ideas with him. Further if something happens to Obama Biden has the chomps to be President. If something happens to the 72 year old McCain no one knows what we have on our hands...
This.
Seriously, though, Dana Perino and Sarah Palin. Now tell me you don't want to at least here the GOP out.
Yeah, the Republicans are seriously cornering the "Likes Hot Babes" demographic.
Did you actually watch the green screen challenge speech? When McCain attempts to talk policy he gets a nausea inducing smile. McCain is a very stiff speaker and prone to pettiness and nastiness.
And? Being telegenic does not make one a competent leader. Even being a brilliant speaker is not particularly useful. Remember that other Republican, Lincoln?
As for pettiness and nastiness, nobody is going to come close to topping Carter for either of those these days. For higher quality viciousness it will be a long time before anyone manages to equal Clinton.
No one knows anything about Palin since even the Republicans don't know anything about her... well except for Ted "series of tubes" Stevens who really likes her.
Even after he gave back the money for the bridge he whined about, and started a state investigation into all the shenanigans he is involved him?
I am sure she is high on his Christmas list.
As far as effectively governing McCain has chosen a trophy candidate.
I thought you wanted a candidate who looks good? That is what you say Obama has going for him.
Obama picked someone who will discuss ideas with him. Further if something happens to Obama Biden has the chomps to be President. If something happens to the 72 year old McCain no one knows what we have on our hands...
That works both ways.
Biden is great if Obama disappears, but nobody knows about Obama.
McCain is great but if he disappears, nobody knows about Palin.
So the Democrats are set if Obama becomes Biden's puppet, while the Republicans just have to hope McCain hangs on long enough to finish training Palin.
And that is supposed to inspire confidence in Obama how?
I think this could be the nail in McCain's coffin. She's a hardcore conservative, and those people we going to vote for McCain anyway.
No. There was a fear that hard core conservatives would stay home as McCain isn't conservative enough..
Did you actually watch the green screen challenge speech? When McCain attempts to talk policy he gets a nausea inducing smile. McCain is a very stiff speaker and prone to pettiness and nastiness.
Which is why Obama is scared stiff of going head to head with McCain on an unscripted free form debate...
Which is why Obama is scared stiff of going head to head with McCain on an unscripted free form debate...
Are you kidding me? Obama should be happy to take McCain on in any debate. An oratory master against a guy who could put a caffeinated 3-year old to sleep with his speaking?
Personally, I can't wait to see the debates. I think Obama is going to really dominate them.
And? Being telegenic does not make one a competent leader. Even being a brilliant speaker is not particularly useful. Remember that other Republican, Lincoln?
When you complain about the opponents speeches as "spewing" expect a rebuttal that they are both actually pretty good speakers.
As for pettiness and nastiness, nobody is going to come close to topping Carter for either of those these days. For higher quality viciousness it will be a long time before anyone manages to equal Clinton.
I admit I don't know as much about Carter (slightly before my time) but Bush gives Clinton a run for his money. Bush doesn't necessarily say the nastiness himself (although he has) instead, he has a full team devoted to character assassination.
Even after he gave back the money for the bridge he whined about, and started a state investigation into all the shenanigans he is involved him?
I am sure she is high on his Christmas list.
Yes, Stevens does like her:
"...
Throughout his visit to Juneau, Stevens praised Palin for her 18 months in office, her plans to handle the state's energy crisis and her deft ability at being the state's chief executive and mother to a newborn with Down syndrome.
He said she would make an ideal running mate for presumed Republican presidential candidate John McCain in the upcoming general election. It's a buzz that he says remains strong back in Washington D.C.
"People come up and ask me what is she like and how is she doing?" Stevens said. "I've been asked that, and I've told them I think she would be a good vice president."
..."
I thought you wanted a candidate who looks good? That is what you say Obama has going for him.
You've misunderstood. I want a candidate who can inspire actual normal people to do good. You attacked Obama's and Biden's speach giving abilities. I contrasted them with McCain's.
That works both ways.
Biden is great if Obama disappears, but nobody knows about Obama.
McCain is great but if he disappears, nobody knows about Palin.
So the Democrats are set if Obama becomes Biden's puppet, while the Republicans just have to hope McCain hangs on long enough to finish training Palin.
And that is supposed to inspire confidence in Obama how?
Except people already know a lot about Obama now. He's run a long campaign for President. Take a look at the differences:
http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/Barack_Obama.htm
http://www.ontheissues.org/Sarah_Palin.htm
Obama's speech last night was heard by more people than watched the Olympic Opening Ceremonies. Obama spoke in front of about 80,000 people (they added seats). Last I heard McCain was having trouble filling the 15,000 seats for Palin's announcement. Therefore while people may be unsure of the new kid he has a big microphone. Palin has 2 months to define herself and be defined by the opposition.
Obama's pick says I can inspire but I know you think I'm too new. How about I create an experienced team?
McCain's pick says I know I've talked about foreign policy being the biggest challenge facing the nation and that Obama is inexperienced but that was a lie. I really don't care about those issues enough for it to impact my VP choice. Instead I'd rather try a political trick to get at disaffected women voters.
Are you kidding me? Obama should be happy to take McCain on in any debate.
Actually not. He turned down offers to participate in free form debates with citizens asking unscripted questions of both candidates... Telling, isnt it?
Obama has more to lose in that kind of debate.
Right, he can't think on his feet.
Don't call Obama at 3 a.m. to answer an unscripted question...
I know shes a hot milf.
VPILF
Right, he can't think on his feet.
Don't call Obama at 3 a.m. to answer an unscripted question...
Yeah it's not like he won a contested primary or anything. Obama has gone to McCain home turf by speaking with conservatives at multiple places. Most notably he spoke first at the Warren Presidential Forum. There's no word on how many people were live at Palin's unveiling. The largest documented crowd for McCain has been around 3,000. I think the unveiling had 15,000 tickets but they were still trying to give them away last night. Obama regularly speaks in front of large enthusiastic crowds. Why would Obama, who's ahead in all the polls, want to let McCain share in that kind of spotlight? All choices are based on an analysis of costs and benefits. Where's the benefit for Obama? He's already ahead.
— Mayoral performance. Palin, who portrays herself as a fiscal conservative, racked up nearly $20 million in long-term debt as mayor of the tiny town of Wasilla — that amounts to $3,000 per resident. She argues that the debt was needed to fund improvements.
— The environment. As governor, Palin vetoed wind power and clean coal projects, including a 50-megawatt wind arm on Fire Island and a clean coal facility in Healy that had been mired in a dispute between local and state governments.
— And, maybe, censorship. According to the Frontiersman newspaper, Wasilla’s library director Mary Ellen Emmons said that "Palin asked her outright if she could live with censorship of library books.” Palin later dismissed the conversation as a “rhetorical” exercise.
There's no word on how many people were live at Palin's unveiling.
Well, the Democractic convention coverage is GONE. ALL the news channels have nothing but McCain and Palin... LOL
Rove strikes again!
Another unearthed fun fact:
Sarah Palin was a Pat Buchanan supporter in 2000.
When you complain about the opponents speeches as "spewing" expect a rebuttal that they are both actually pretty good speakers.
Biden is a fairly decent speaker - the first 10 minutes.
After that he just does not shut his mouth.
At that point his message is totally lost in his verbal diarrhea.
I admit I don't know as much about Carter (slightly before my time) but Bush gives Clinton a run for his money. Bush doesn't necessarily say the nastiness himself (although he has) instead, he has a full team devoted to character assassination.
That is his team, not Bush himself.
Clinton, like Nixon, is a vicious little punk when provoked.
Mind you, that tends to be a Good Thing (TM) in a President. It should just be kept in mind when getting overeager for someone because he talks pretty.
Yes, Stevens does like her:
Good for him then.
Or are you going to go the Guilt by Endorsement route? Obama will lose that a lot faster than McCain will.
You've misunderstood. I want a candidate who can inspire actual normal people to do good. You attacked Obama's and Biden's speach giving abilities. I contrasted them with McCain's.
Biden inspires me to go to sleep.
Obama inspires me to count my fingers after I shake hands with him.
McCain inspires me to rejoice in still just being middle aged.
Palin so far just inspires me to have impure thoughts.
So far, she is the best of the lot of them.
Except people already know a lot about Obama now. He's run a long campaign for President. Take a look at the differences:
So Obama has been making more speeches instead of serving as a Senator.
So that should inspire confidence in me that he will make even more speeches instead of serving in the White House?
You have convinced me!
Or do you want me to assess their stands on the issues?
OK . . .
Both of them suck. Neither comes even vaguely close to representing more than 10% of the issues in a way I approve. That tends to be just a bit more important when considering a President as opposed to a Vice President.
Obama's speech last night was heard by more people than watched the Olympic Opening Ceremonies. Obama spoke in front of about 80,000 people (they added seats). Last I heard McCain was having trouble filling the 15,000 seats for Palin's announcement. Therefore while people may be unsure of the new kid he has a big microphone. Palin has 2 months to define herself and be defined by the opposition.
So a national convention has bigger television coverage than a campaign event.
Ummm . . .
A national convention is larger than a campaign event.
Ummm . . .
Obama's pick says I can inspire but I know you think I'm too new. How about I create an experienced team?
Or it says "I know I can hoodwink the lot of you with fast talk about change, but I know even better that if I hope to get anywhere in Washington I am going to need to be a political insider of the highest order. How about I sell out right from the start so they know I am team player?"
McCain's pick says I know I've talked about foreign policy being the biggest challenge facing the nation and that Obama is inexperienced but that was a lie. I really don't care about those issues enough for it to impact my VP choice. Instead I'd rather try a political trick to get at disaffected women voters.
Or it says "I know I have all the skills needed for the job, but I also know I cannot serve for more than two terms. Rather than just get a clone of myself who will be just as old when I retire to private life, I will choose someone who can pick up all the critical experience needed during my adminstration, and then be ready to lead you for another two terms after that. If you are so venal as to only look at that choice based on sex, then perhaps you need to consider just why it suddenly means so much to you, particularly considering how far you are going to play up the race of your candidate."
I think there are all kinds of wrong here. The inexperience meme thrown at Obama all this time is rendered completely useless now. Besides, is it just me, or is this kinda creepy. McCain, the guy who loves have a trophy wife now has a trophy VP. Wonder what Cindy would say about those long nights planning foreign policy in the Oval Office.
As opposed to the Democrats having a trophy Presidential candidate?
And be real, wondering about what a Republican is doing with a hot chick in the White House? Like the Democrats want to go anywhere near that!
And the inexperience meme is in no way diminished unless you are predicating the entire analysis on a ghoulish expectation of McCain dying during his term. Is that what the Democrats are going to base their campaign on? Instead of Obama vs. McCain they will run on Deathwatch:McCain? Somehow I fail to see how "Inexperience From Day 1 vs Inexperience From Death 1!" will be a winner, though I know the Democrats are stupid enough to try it, particularly with Howard Dean leading them.
Or it says "I know I have all the skills needed for the job, but I also know I cannot serve for more than two terms. Rather than just get a clone of myself who will be just as old when I retire to private life, I will choose someone who can pick up all the critical experience needed during my adminstration, and then be ready to lead you for another two terms after that. If you are so venal as to only look at that choice based on sex, then perhaps you need to consider just why it suddenly means so much to you, particularly considering how far you are going to play up the race of your candidate."
Here I'm really going to disagree though. McCain is 72 years old and a cancer survivor. His VP pick really does need to have experience now to be President. McCain has used his VP pick not to run a government but to score a political point. Here's a test for you if you really think that Obama and Palin have equal inexperience: Could Palin have run and secured her party's nomination for herself like Obama did?
Next fun fact:
McCain has been running for President for longer than Palin has been in office.
Monday, November 13, 2006; Sen. John McCain of Arizona said he will form an exploratory committee as the first step toward a possible run for the Republican presidential nomination in 2008.
December 4th, 2006; Palin was also the first Alaskan governor born after Alaska achieved U.S. statehood and the first not to be inaugurated in Juneau, instead choosing to hold her inauguration ceremony in Fairbanks.
McCain is 72 years old and a cancer survivor. His VP pick really does need to have experience now to be President.
And the Dems presidential pick doesn't need the experience? What?
That's a suicidal argument for the dems to make.
Its not really useful to argue over opinions so I'll stop now. You don't think Biden is an effective speaker and that's fine. I happen to think he was a decent pick but again that's all opinion.
Since your best rebuttal to him not being a good speaker is that he is a good pick anyway, that is probably best for you.
Here I'm really going to disagree though. McCain is 72 years old and a cancer survivor. His VP pick really does need to have experience now to be President. McCain has used his VP pick not to run a government but to score a political point. Here's a test for you if you really think that Obama and Palin have equal inexperience: Could Palin have run and secured her party's nomination for herself like Obama did?
:heehee
Here's a test for you: Could Biden?
Seriously though, Obama is that sure he will not be able to serve as President that he wants us to have Joe Biden on hand for when he dies?
No wait, he wants to have Joe Biden on hand for when his lack of experience threatens the safety of this country!
Given those options, it would be much better to claim Biden was chosen just for D.C. insider political points.
Next fun fact:
McCain has been running for President for longer than Palin has been in office.
Awesome.
And Obama has been running for President for longer than he has been in the Senate.
Once again, nothing good for the Democrats there.
Quick do you think Palin knows the difference between Sunnis and Shiites? Hey I wonder if she has an opinion on Pakistan and how to maintain an alliance with a nuclear country while simultaneously routing out Al-Q and the Taliban... Think she has a concrete opinion on how to deal with Iran (I mean other than McCain's bomb bomb bomb them)? What about the banking crisis? Does she know enough about the economy to have an informed opinion or is she like McCain and "doesn't really know a lot about the economy"?
In case you're wondering Obama has brought up a lot of issues to show that even if he hasn't been in Washington long he can think things through. After watching her speech do you really get the feeling that she's a deep thinker? Did you think to yourself wow there's someone who should be a leader of the party? 'Cause that's what I felt when I first heard Obama speak in 2004.
Oh and here's what she said about the bridge to nowhere while actually running for Governor:
"5. Would you continue state funding for the proposed Knik Arm and Gravina Island bridges?
Yes. I would like to see Alaska's infrastructure projects built sooner rather than later. The window is now--while our congressional delegation is in a strong position to assist."
So specifically yes she thought the projects should be funded while Steven's could milk out the earmarks to do so. Obviously she later changed her mind on the issue but it's not exactly clear that she was "against the bridge to nowhere" from the beginning. I don't mind a politician that changes their mind when new facts are discovered. I'll be interested to see if anyone asks her about her change and if her response is consistent with the facts.
As I said he was experienced enough to win his party's nomination against a well funded insider. He has show damn good judgment in about 80-90% of his calls on the issues.
Obama won.
Biden dropped out after the Iowa caucuses.
If you want to compare, compare both VPs. Biden could not even beat a raw newbie. What does that say about him?
As for Obama's judgement on issues, I have seen a lot of very poor calls from him, particularly on his absurd attempt at a foreign policy junket.
Quick do you think Palin knows the difference between Sunnis and Shiites?
Quick do you think Obama will ever tell the truth about his youth as a Sunni?
In case you're wondering Obama has brought up a lot of issues to show that even if he hasn't been in Washington long he can think things through. After watching her speech do you really get the feeling that she's a deep thinker? Did you think to yourself wow there's someone who should be a leader of the party? 'Cause that's what I felt when I first heard Obama speak in 2004.
Compared to Obama? Very much so. And I oppose just as many of her positions as I do his.
So specifically yes she thought the projects should be funded while Steven's could milk out the earmarks to do so. Obviously she later changed her mind on the issue but it's not exactly clear that she was "against the bridge to nowhere" from the beginning. I don't mind a politician that changes their mind when new facts are discovered. I'll be interested to see if anyone asks her about her change and if her response is consistent with the facts.
In contrast to Obama's massive flip flops for which he has nothing related to a reasonable response.
Of course.
Obama won.
Biden dropped out after the Iowa caucuses.
If you want to compare, compare both VPs. Biden could not even beat a raw newbie. What does that say about him?
As for Obama's judgement on issues, I have seen a lot of very poor calls from him, particularly on his absurd attempt at a foreign policy junket.
Considering that NO one in the Democratic party could, that doesn't say anything particularly bad about Biden. It says a lot of good things about Obama. As for the poor calls... we'll see how it turns out. I bet a whole lot of people cheered Neville Chamberlain in the late 30's... for a time.
Quick do you think Obama will ever tell the truth about his youth as a Sunni?
Truth is a hard thing to determine - what makes you think he has not said it, or thattyou found it, pure and unadultered? I hate to sound offensive, but your post looks like it was pasted from some half-crazed blog.
In contrast to Obama's massive flip flops for which he has nothing related to a reasonable response.
Of course.
While I was disillusioned by Obama's decision on campaign financing, I can say that flip-flopping has been much more typical of another candidate. And like it or not, "getting more funds for one's campaign" is fairly reasonable for politicians in a presidential election
As for my own opinion of Mrs. Palin, I'm somewhat wary of her as I share very few of her political beliefs and am dubious of her link with McCain, but I will try to wait a bit more and see how she does and what else comes up about her.
Considering that NO one in the Democratic party could, that doesn't say anything particularly bad about Biden. It says a lot of good things about Obama.
Quite a few people did better.
Several did a lot better.
What remains is that Obama picked someone with no chance of getting the nomination on his own, just as Moturu wants to accuse McCain as though it proved some horrible thing about Palin.
As for the poor calls... we'll see how it turns out. I bet a whole lot of people cheered Neville Chamberlain in the late 30's... for a time.
Gee, I was only going to compare his poor decisions to him being as lousy a President as David Dinkins was a lousy Mayor. If you really want to suggest he will be as bad at foreign policy as Neville Chamberlain, feel free, but that is rather harsh.
Truth is a hard thing to determine - what makes you think he has not said it, or thattyou found it, pure and unadultered? I hate to sound offensive, but your post looks like it was pasted from some half-crazed blog.
If you hated it so much you would not do it, and yet you did.
While I was disillusioned by Obama's decision on campaign financing, I can say that flip-flopping has been much more typical of another candidate.
And yet Obama is the candidate of change. Apparently he meant just changing his mind when convenient, and not actually changing how campaigns are financed, among other things.
Show
Wait... who did better? Last time I checked, Obama won the Democratic Party nomination, and from what little stats I've seen he did quite well in a historical comparison regarding the number of voters he got in the primaries. What sources do you have to claim differently?
Thanks for the sarcasm, next times do try to reply to what I'm actually saying: that decisions sometimes accepted as good at the time turn out not to be so good in retrospect. Unless you are psychic or something, there is no way to be sure the decisions Obama supported will be wrong. Who knows - it may be your judgement that is wrong, incredible as it may sound.
Wait, what are you talking about? You are the one that brought up that accusation of secret Muslim past or whatever. I told you, basically, that you are in no position to know for sure whether what he has said is the truth, because a) you are not Barack Obama and b) chances are you don't even know the guy. It's common sense - you may suspect that he's not telling the truth, but you make it sound as if you KNOW what the truth is, and he's not telling it. Which, frankly, is BS.
Quite a few people did better.
Several did a lot better.
What remains is that Obama picked someone with no chance of getting the nomination on his own, just as Moturu wants to accuse McCain as though it proved some horrible thing about Palin.
Wait... who did better? Last time I checked, Obama won the Democratic Party nomination, and from what little stats I've seen he did quite well in a historical comparison regarding the number of voters he got in the primaries. What sources do you have to claim differently?
Gee, I was only going to compare his poor decisions to him being as lousy a President as David Dinkins was a lousy Mayor. If you really want to suggest he will be as bad at foreign policy as Neville Chamberlain, feel free, but that is rather harsh.
Thanks for the sarcasm, next times do try to reply to what I'm actually saying: that decisions sometimes accepted as good at the time turn out not to be so good in retrospect. Unless you are psychic or something, there is no way to be sure the decisions Obama supported will be wrong. Who knows - it may be your judgement that is wrong, incredible as it may sound.
If you hated it so much you would not do it, and yet you did.
Wait, what are you talking about? You are the one that brought up that accusation of secret Muslim past or whatever. I told you, basically, that you are in no position to know for sure whether what he has said is the truth, because a) you are not Barack Obama and b) chances are you don't even know the guy. It's common sense - you may suspect that he's not telling the truth, but you make it sound as if you KNOW what the truth is, and he's not telling it. Which, frankly, is BS.
And the Dems presidential pick doesn't need the experience? What?
That's a suicidal argument for the dems to make.
This is one of the good reasons to pick her. Anytime someone brought up her lack of experience the other day, the McCain camp just turned it back on Obama.
The only "PUMAs" left are those that were Republicans voting in the Dem primary since they didn't like or didn't need to vote for their choice. The media is blowing this whole party disunity thing out of proportion. d
There was a whole story on them on NPR the other day. And there appeared to be a lot of ****** off democratic women voters happy to vote for McCain.
Besides, Palin is the Stepford VP. She'll stand in the background for the powerful "manly-man" War-Hero (TM) John MCain and bake cookies and smile in her pageant way. I think she'll be absolutely crushed in the VP debate with Biden. She shores up his cred with the evangelical religious right of the party, but does nothing else.
Actually with her having a son in the military, and McCain having been a prisoner of war, it will be harder for Obama and Biden to aggressively attack them on Iraq. I think she was a clever choice.
She'll stand in the background for the powerful "manly-man" War-Hero (TM) John MCain and bake cookies and smile in her pageant way.
Is this before or after she blows you away with her .30-06?
YUMMY
YUMMY
Now that is a VP I can get behind.
Wait... who did better? Last time I checked, Obama won the Democratic Party nomination, and from what little stats I've seen he did quite well in a historical comparison regarding the number of voters he got in the primaries. What sources do you have to claim differently?
Apparently what you did not check was the series of messages.
Palin was challenged as being unable to win a Presidential primary.
Comparing her to Obama in that respect is silly. Biden was unable to win such a primary either.
Thanks for the sarcasm, next times do try to reply to what I'm actually saying: that decisions sometimes accepted as good at the time turn out not to be so good in retrospect. Unless you are psychic or something, there is no way to be sure the decisions Obama supported will be wrong. Who knows - it may be your judgement that is wrong, incredible as it may sound.
You are welcome for the sarcasm. Next time do try to reply what I actually said instead of trying to make poor historic parallels.
Obama has already made one key poor decision. When faced with the reality his reply was to insist he would have been right and his way would have worked anyway. The simple reality is that his judgement, and that of the faction of the Democratic party that backed him, is wrong, as incredible as it may sound.
Wait, what are you talking about? You are the one that brought up that accusation of secret Muslim past or whatever. I told you, basically, that you are in no position to know for sure whether what he has said is the truth, because a) you are not Barack Obama and b) chances are you don't even know the guy. It's common sense - you may suspect that he's not telling the truth, but you make it sound as if you KNOW what the truth is, and he's not telling it. Which, frankly, is BS.
What a wondeful standard to excuse anything!
Of course you do not realize that the same standard can be used to "prove" that all the complaints leveled against Bush and Cheney about liberating Iraq because of oil and personal vengeance are utter nonsense because a) you are neither of them, and b) you do not know either of them.
Seriously speaking? Considering how the last 8 years have been (if not the last 20+ - despite his party allegations, Clinton ran a budget and social programs that in many ways coincided with the balanced budget and reduction of government programs that were fundamental for conservative economic practices), his policies do seem to indicate a fair bit of change in terms of internal affairs, and possibly some foreign policy as well. Much of his campaign staff, and he himself, are fairly new; in fact, the initial stage of his campaign has been a remarkably grassroots-based. If any of these carries into his possible presidency - and it most likely will - he would bring a fair bit of change. So yes, he would be a candidate of change - especially as compared to McCain (not that he hasn't gone through a bit of change recently, but I am sure he would rather not bring attention to this).
They indicate little change in internal policy, merely shifting where all the tax revenues are spent. Throwing billions at social programs that are not sustainable is no different from what policy has been for 70 years, and neither is letting the deficit surge to pay for it all.
Much of Obama's staff might be new, but the key players, now including Biden are the same old story. The grassroots base has all but been abandoned in favor of the party monolith.
The only change he promises is in how to waste the money, and embracing the abandonment of American world power. Neither of those is particularly impressive.
Also, it remains to be seen how closely affiliated and influenced he is by the establishment of the Democratic party - but considering that he has not been a senator for very long, I would certainly presume he is less hidebound than the typical Congress veteran. In the course of the campaign he has made some compromises, but I would still say he is one of the newer generation of Democrats. So chances are, despite any compromises he makes with the Clinton generation and earlier ones, many of his advisors/administrators - you know, the people who get things done in a government - may be more idealistic and innovative than, say, the people Clinton would bring in office.
That was proven quite thoroughly at the convention. When Ted Kennedy dragged his wrinkly rear out to pray at the altar of Obamamania, the anointing was well and truly complete.
Obama is yet another party hack. What little idealism he is being allowed is more likely to be a threat to the stability of the country than any benefit. Idealists tend to make lousy leaders, unlike decent, upstanding, cynical sleazes.
Now that is a VP I can get behind.
Yes, I would like to explore some of her positions myself.
Yes, I would like to explore some of her positions myself.
I hear that her positions are quite conservative, although with experience she will likely open up to new views upon her preferred positions.
I hear that her positions are quite conservative, although with experience she will likely open up to new views upon her preferred positions.
Yes, but she also claims to be a maverick, so we will have to see exactly how far she is willing to go on any given position. She may have some suprises in store for those who are willing to climb aboard.
YUMMY
I guess, if you like the stuck up librarian look.
Plus, she's a Republican. She's either a frigid sex hater or she gets some same-sex lovin' on the sly from bathroom stalls...
Maybe both.
she gets some same-sex lovin' on the sly from bathroom stalls...
Yeah that would be awesome!!!
I guess, if you like the stuck up librarian look.
Librarians are hot.
Plus, she's a Republican. She's either a frigid sex hater or she gets some same-sex lovin' on the sly from bathroom stalls...
Maybe both.
With five kids in 20 years of marriage, it is more likely her husband hits the North Slope oil fields to get some rest!
With five kids in 20 years of marriage, it is more likely her husband hits the North Slope oil fields to get some rest!
Wow, 5 kids and she still looks that good. She is one hell of a VPILF.
Wow, 5 kids and she still looks that good. She is one hell of a VPILF.
Seriously.
And all the "What are we fighting for?" stuff. All they have to do is include pinup photos of her as VP in the MREs and morale will skyrocket.
Plus, she's a Republican. She's either a frigid sex hater or she gets some same-sex lovin' on the sly from bathroom stalls...
Maybe both.
Let us also note that Obama could not get married until he was 31, and only got in there twice.
Also, what is this about his then fiance introducing him to her potential new female boss who is now a "senior advisor" to his campaign?
Someone should be casting "Detect Alternative Lifestyles" on that set up. Just watch out in case the aura is "overhelming"!
The Democrats are so hosed if they try attacking her, not the least reason being one of the ultimate trusts of politics:
You do not win a campaign against the VP!
Lloyd Bentsen and Al Gore never got anything for beating Dan Quayle. I am sure it will be a nice consolation prize for Joe Biden if he does manage to beat Sarah Palin, but that and winning a 7th term as Senator are the only things that will keep him in D.C. next year.
I guess, if you like the stuck up librarian look.
Plus, she's a Republican. She's either a frigid sex hater or she gets some same-sex lovin' on the sly from bathroom stalls...
Maybe both.
Cause of the glasses? I don't know. She looks hot with them, and certainly would be hot when they come off.
Actually. I have been a life long Democrat. But, I have found that Republican women, are pretty good in the sack.
I guess, if you like the stuck up librarian look.
Yeah sexy stuck up librarian!
Gotta thank our so-called liberals in here for putting it better than any conservative could have.
"We Democrats support womens' rights, so long as those women know their proper place."
Rampant and blatant mysogyny for both Hillary Clinton and now Sarah Palin.
*****,can I say ***** here?
Clearly not.
How could anyone give credits to someone who claims that creationism must be teach at school? Creationists are just plain stupid and even dangerous (hey, we live in a time of enlightment and science, not of fondamentalist religions). You must be willingly blind to still defend such an outdated theory like the creationism (and have very poor scientific knowledge, especially in biology). Can someone kick this monster out and fast!!!
Yessir, I look at that face, and the only word I can think of is "monster". /sarcasm
Seriously. Back up a sec and calm down. I'm what you could call a "creationist", and I doubt I classify as "dangerous". Unless you're a spider. Then you die. *Shudders* I hate spiders.
Let's totally attack with strawmen about people's religious beliefs, and not address the issue strengths and weaknesses she brings to the table.
Also, she looks like either a librarian, or a principal. In fact, I thought of the second when I saw her on TV recently. Not that she has been, but still.
How could anyone give credits to someone who claims that creationism must be teach at school? Creationists are just plain stupid and even dangerous (hey, we live in a time of enlightment and science, not of fondamentalist religions). You must be willingly blind to still defend such an outdated theory like the creationism (and have very poor scientific knowledge, especially in biology). Can someone kick this monster out and fast!!!
And yet our Country was founded on Religious Principles and Many People still believe in those basic principles. Most of our laws are based of the 10 Commandments...Like Murder..Adultry..Unlike our Infancy as a Nation, People choose to attend Churches and are not forced to attend services.
Many people will claim that the Constitution forbids it...Separation of Church and state..Although I believe that the actual intent was to Prevent a Church of United States. Which would endorse one political canidate over another
Religion should be banned, its been a leading cause of War for thousands of years.
Its amazing how one side finds a flaw in the other sides canidates, yet in their own its a Strong Point. He Unexperienced, thats good...She's Unexperienced thats Bad. He's To Old, Thats bad. He's Old, Thats good.
Sometimes I think we should elect presidents for life..Don't say the Constitution disallows it...Yes it does but remember that Congress changed it, while they refuse to place term limits on themselves because they say it up to the people to vote them out...So shouldn't it be up to the people to vote out a President if we thought they needed be.
People talk about the War...Immediately after 9/11 the People wanted it..Elected Officials Voted for it...But its Bush's War...As if Only Bush Wanted it. People cry about the number of dead and yet degrade those who died because they forget that those Soldiers joined the Military by personal choice...not by a Forced draft. They raised their hands and swore to an oath, many of them immediately hours after the planes collided into the Towers. No one forced them into service. Yes many have served multiple tours because the Miltary was cut to bare bones because in the late 80's politicans convinced the public there was no threats to the United States and the Army was a Burden on the Tax paying citizens, even after those cuts they continued to close and downsize bases.
Its about time people wake up and realize the President is just about a figure head. Yes the President can sign laws but its up to the legislative up to pass them and the Judicial branch to approve them.. yes the President can veto a bill but the Legistaure can override that. But rarely that would happen because neither party will play nice. Our political system is no longer about right and wrong its about Republican Vs. Democrat. A Canidate promises everything to everyone, yet can't deliver anything unless the Legislature works with the President. And that won't happen because no matter who wins the other party never coopperates. If you believe that every thing will be perfect once someone wins, I got some real estate to sell ya. Both Parties claim to Understand the Common person, but really when was the last time a representative of the People was truely elected...when was the last time a Middle Class Waged person was elected president..now thats someone who truely can understand living paycheck to paycheck
Too Many people claim to be either a Democrat or a Republican yet can not tell you what destinquishes them Apart..Nothing really except under our political system you have to claim to be either to get on a ticket.
...
Many people will claim that the Constitution forbids it...Separation of Church and state..Although I believe that the actual intent was to Prevent a Church of United States. Which would endorse one political canidate over another....
....
The relevant portion of the First Amendment states:"Congress shall make no law establishing a religion, or prohibiting the free excercise thereof."
This was in response to the Church of England, and an effort to keep it from being the "Baptist USA" or some such.
"Separation of church and state" is a phrase from a set of letters Thomas Jefferson wrote to ensure a particular group at the time that their denomination wouldn't be outlawed or anything.
...
Religion should be banned, its been a leading cause of War for thousands of years.
....
Wait, what?
...
Sometimes I think we should elect presidents for life..Don't say the Constitution disallows it...Yes it does but remember that Congress changed it....
Actually, that was the people. It was proposed by Congress, but had to be ratified by a 2/3 majority of the states...I can't recall offhand, but I believe it had to be at least the legislatures, if not direct votes; it may change slightly state to state. That's how Amendments work; they're not just passed by Congress.
And yet our Country was founded on Religious Principles and Many People still believe in those basic principles. Most of our laws are based of the 10 Commandments...Like Murder..Adultry.
That is technically right, but somewhat misleading. Most countries in the 18th century were based on religious principles, and in fact the founding of the USA was rather secular when comparing it to any of its contemporary monarchies, where authority was practically still based on divine right. A lot of the wording in the original constitution and the Declaration of Independence has minimal religious undertones, but is very strongly influenced by the philosophy of the time.
As for laws being influenced by religion... Well, most laws anywhere are, because religion has long shaped people's views of morality (and, most of the time, was the dominant principle in them). I don't think there are many laws anywhere that promote murder (by non-authorized private individuals, at least - police and military are a different matter) or adultery even in very anti-religious regimes like the USSR or China.
"This is one of the good reasons to pick her. Anytime someone brought up her lack of experience the other day, the McCain camp just turned it back on Obama."
I can imagine that's true, although it works in reverse as well. McCain's claim to superior experience - which his campaign has used both directly and indirectly (i.e. the celebrity ads) - is somewhat undermined by the fact that one of their key players is so green - and even if she is not another Cheney, she will have a fair bit of powers and responsibility. On the other hand, this is probably one reason Obama picked Biden as his choice for a VP - if you do not have experience in some area, or are perceived as not having it, it's best to have an expert at hand.
In a way, perhaps both candidates picked a VP that has what they are perceived to lack - Palin's charisma and good looks could give McCain's campaign a boost among younger voters, while having a woman as a VP might be a good way to attract more women. Still, I think Obama made a better pick than McCain did.
Show
She was challenged more on policy and experience, the way I read the before messages - I apologize if I misread them. Also, you said that Biden's failure to beat a "newbie" meant he was technically no better - but said newbie went on to get the party's nomination, beating John Edwards and Hillary Clinton in the process. That does not necessarily speak bad of Biden.
Oh, so now it's one key poor decision (care to elaborate which decision you mean, by the way). And by the way, I didn't make historical parallels just for kicks, but as an example that sometimes a policy's short-come outcomes are not indicative of its overall success. Hence, it may be too early to issue final judgement on whether Obama's decision was the wrong or right one.
Now, I'm not saying he can't be wrong - politicians, even presidents, sometimes make mistakes. Yet single mistakes do not always mean an overall lack of good judgement. McCain has made quite a few glaring mistakes of his own - more than Obama, imo. His judgement is no better.
If there was no tangible proof of these complaints? Sure. However, there is notably more factual evidence of US, hmmm, "interest" in the Iraqi oil than just a few bloggers' conjectures. As for the revenge angle, despite Bush Jr's own words ("After all, this is the guy who tried to kill my dad."), I doubt it was such a big factor.
Now, if several of Obama's most trusted advisors were members of a highly connected group (let's call them, hmm, PNIA or something) trying to advance the cause of Islam in America, I'd say you would be on to something ;)
Well, throwing money is one of the ways a government gets things done. Throwing money at programs that turn out to be successful means the government is effective. Yet the way I see it, putting money in education and infrastructure maintenance is worth it, unless you really botch the execution. Considering that the last major infrastructural overhaul was in the 1940-50s, I'd say it's high time someone bothered. As for education, well, despite all my not-so-fun nights studying a better educated workforce is believed to be more effective. Since the US can't compete with the Chinese in terms of low wages, it needs something else to encourage investments, doesn't it?
Funny thing, btw. When private businesses do it, it's called investment. When public programs do it, it is called something entirely different.
I hope you were not expecting Obama to turn up at the convention and give everyone the one-finger salute, as everyone pelted him with rotten tomatoes and eggs? It would have been entertaining, perhaps, but nothing more. As for the base being abandoned, I rather doubt it. It is just not so easily visible now that the Convention is going and the media focus is on the big names. Given a choice of covering Obama's relationship with the Clintons is much more interesting to them than his relationship with various NGOs and citizens' groups.
Any party worth its salt would back the winner of the primaries. If you call other party notables' support of him Obamania, then what about McCain? His erstwhile critics and opponents in the primaries all gave him their full support many months ago (except from Ron Paul, who in all honesty is a Libertarian). His critics from the right fell silent. The party notables all endorsed him, as did the President. So was there a McCainia for all those months?
Nah, my bad. Only the Right has a right to complain of press bias against it.
Apparently what you did not check was the series of messages.
Palin was challenged as being unable to win a Presidential primary.
Comparing her to Obama in that respect is silly. Biden was unable to win such a primary either.
She was challenged more on policy and experience, the way I read the before messages - I apologize if I misread them. Also, you said that Biden's failure to beat a "newbie" meant he was technically no better - but said newbie went on to get the party's nomination, beating John Edwards and Hillary Clinton in the process. That does not necessarily speak bad of Biden.
You are welcome for the sarcasm. Next time do try to reply what I actually said instead of trying to make poor historic parallels.
Obama has already made one key poor decision. When faced with the reality his reply was to insist he would have been right and his way would have worked anyway. The simple reality is that his judgement, and that of the faction of the Democratic party that backed him, is wrong, as incredible as it may sound.
Oh, so now it's one key poor decision (care to elaborate which decision you mean, by the way). And by the way, I didn't make historical parallels just for kicks, but as an example that sometimes a policy's short-come outcomes are not indicative of its overall success. Hence, it may be too early to issue final judgement on whether Obama's decision was the wrong or right one.
Now, I'm not saying he can't be wrong - politicians, even presidents, sometimes make mistakes. Yet single mistakes do not always mean an overall lack of good judgement. McCain has made quite a few glaring mistakes of his own - more than Obama, imo. His judgement is no better.
What a wondeful standard to excuse anything!
Of course you do not realize that the same standard can be used to "prove" that all the complaints leveled against Bush and Cheney about liberating Iraq because of oil and personal vengeance are utter nonsense because a) you are neither of them, and b) you do not know either of them.
If there was no tangible proof of these complaints? Sure. However, there is notably more factual evidence of US, hmmm, "interest" in the Iraqi oil than just a few bloggers' conjectures. As for the revenge angle, despite Bush Jr's own words ("After all, this is the guy who tried to kill my dad."), I doubt it was such a big factor.
Now, if several of Obama's most trusted advisors were members of a highly connected group (let's call them, hmm, PNIA or something) trying to advance the cause of Islam in America, I'd say you would be on to something ;)
They indicate little change in internal policy, merely shifting where all the tax revenues are spent. Throwing billions at social programs that are not sustainable is no different from what policy has been for 70 years, and neither is letting the deficit surge to pay for it all.
Well, throwing money is one of the ways a government gets things done. Throwing money at programs that turn out to be successful means the government is effective. Yet the way I see it, putting money in education and infrastructure maintenance is worth it, unless you really botch the execution. Considering that the last major infrastructural overhaul was in the 1940-50s, I'd say it's high time someone bothered. As for education, well, despite all my not-so-fun nights studying a better educated workforce is believed to be more effective. Since the US can't compete with the Chinese in terms of low wages, it needs something else to encourage investments, doesn't it?
Funny thing, btw. When private businesses do it, it's called investment. When public programs do it, it is called something entirely different.
Much of Obama's staff might be new, but the key players, now including Biden are the same old story. The grassroots base has all but been abandoned in favor of the party monolith.
....
That was proven quite thoroughly at the convention. When Ted Kennedy dragged his wrinkly rear out to pray at the altar of Obamamania, the anointing was well and truly complete.
I hope you were not expecting Obama to turn up at the convention and give everyone the one-finger salute, as everyone pelted him with rotten tomatoes and eggs? It would have been entertaining, perhaps, but nothing more. As for the base being abandoned, I rather doubt it. It is just not so easily visible now that the Convention is going and the media focus is on the big names. Given a choice of covering Obama's relationship with the Clintons is much more interesting to them than his relationship with various NGOs and citizens' groups.
Any party worth its salt would back the winner of the primaries. If you call other party notables' support of him Obamania, then what about McCain? His erstwhile critics and opponents in the primaries all gave him their full support many months ago (except from Ron Paul, who in all honesty is a Libertarian). His critics from the right fell silent. The party notables all endorsed him, as did the President. So was there a McCainia for all those months?
Nah, my bad. Only the Right has a right to complain of press bias against it.
Religion should be banned, its been a leading cause of War for thousands of years.
If only there were some place where people could flee religious persecution... oh wait..
Religion should be banned, its been a leading cause of War for thousands of years.
Actually, atheists have killed more people in the last 100 years than were killed in the prior 700 years of war.
Yessir, I look at that face, and the only word I can think of is "monster". /sarcasm
Seriously. Back up a sec and calm down. I'm what you could call a "creationist", and I doubt I classify as "dangerous". Unless you're a spider. Then you die. *Shudders* I hate spiders.
Let's totally attack with strawmen about people's religious beliefs, and not address the issue strengths and weaknesses she brings to the table.
Also, she looks like either a librarian, or a principal. In fact, I thought of the second when I saw her on TV recently. Not that she has been, but still.
Creationism is dangerous because it put dogma and religious belief before reason and that's a one way ticket to go back in medieval time. And someone who put religious belief before reason and logic just can't be trusted as leaders in the 21st century. And creationism is not just a religious belief, it's a fondamentalist lecture of the bicle, what is just plain wrong. Don't make strawman abou what I said: I'm not against all religious values (the majority of these value are good) and it's not because someone as religious belief that it cannot be trusted. But someone who keep an integral and fondamental lecture of the bible, even if it goes against science and reason is just an untrustable and dangerous leader (what kind of education could it bring, made of lie instead of fact, and what kind of decision could she take in time of war, I just don't want to see, it just scare me out). Were in the 21st century and science and reson should go before integral belief and dogma, especially in a well educated and develeoped country like US. If you think creationism must be teach, why not teaching that the earth is flat and the center of the universe, after all, all of these facts are just scientific lies :D .
@Kursk: Touche. Mind you, religious people have killed quite a few people in the last century as well. I think the total was 160 millions or so - our forefathers managed to get their hands quite bloody.
Actually, creationism may be fine if we are talking about religion classes, but I never understood why it should be tought in science classes. To the best of my knowledge, science has some criteria that theories have to meet before they are accepted, and creationism does not meet them. If you want to teach religious beliefs, which is what creationism is effectively based on, why not do it in the appropriate class?
@Kursk: Touche. Mind you, religious people have killed quite a few people in the last century as well. I think the total was 160 millions or so - our forefathers managed to get their hands quite bloody.
Creationism do not meet these creteria because observation and fact established that the theory of evolution from Sir Charles Darwin was more accurate and meet the criteria to be accepted by the science communauty. In fact, those who said that the theory of evolution is not totally accepted by the scientific community are those who wan't it to be false because of religious belief.
One word about Sarah Palin : So cute but as cold and sexless as a religious fanatic could be. :D
She was challenged more on policy and experience, the way I read the before messages - I apologize if I misread them. Also, you said that Biden's failure to beat a "newbie" meant he was technically no better - but said newbie went on to get the party's nomination, beating John Edwards and Hillary Clinton in the process. That does not necessarily speak bad of Biden.
It will if the Democrats choose to make an issue of it.
Oh, so now it's one key poor decision (care to elaborate which decision you mean, by the way).
His opposition to "the Surge".
He insisted, along with the Democratic Party, that it would fail. When confronted with the absolute reality that it had succeeded, rather than accept it, he whined that his way would still have been better.
That is not the way a leader acts.
And by the way, I didn't make historical parallels just for kicks, but as an example that sometimes a policy's short-come outcomes are not indicative of its overall success. Hence, it may be too early to issue final judgement on whether Obama's decision was the wrong or right one.
Except Obama's abovementioned choice now makes that an exercise in begging for political destruction. Can you imagine Neville Chamberlain insisting that appeasement over Poland would have worked out better?
Now, I'm not saying he can't be wrong - politicians, even presidents, sometimes make mistakes. Yet single mistakes do not always mean an overall lack of good judgement. McCain has made quite a few glaring mistakes of his own - more than Obama, imo. His judgement is no better.
Some mistakes indicate a significantly greater lack of good judgement than others.
Some choices really are that easy, others not that relevant. It is the difficult and major ones that tell you what to expect. Between the Surge and Wright, Obama has proven just how incapable he will be at dealing with both being wrong and accepting the decisions of the other branches of government.
If there was no tangible proof of these complaints? Sure. However, there is notably more factual evidence of US, hmmm, "interest" in the Iraqi oil than just a few bloggers' conjectures. As for the revenge angle, despite Bush Jr's own words ("After all, this is the guy who tried to kill my dad."), I doubt it was such a big factor.
That was not the standard you set. You required being the person or knowing him personally. Now that such is inconvenient you want to change it.
Now, if several of Obama's most trusted advisors were members of a highly connected group (let's call them, hmm, PNIA or something) trying to advance the cause of Islam in America, I'd say you would be on to something ;)
There is physical evidence that Obama is lying. How much more is needed to be on to something?
Well, throwing money is one of the ways a government gets things done. Throwing money at programs that turn out to be successful means the government is effective.
No, that means they were lucky.
Using money is a rational and properly planned manner mean the government is effective.
Funny thing, btw. When private businesses do it, it's called investment. When public programs do it, it is called something entirely different.
That is because the public programs are rarely trying to build anything more than support for another election. If they provided a real and significant public service then it would be an investment.
The interstate highway system was an investment.
No Child Left Behind is a sound bite.
I hope you were not expecting Obama to turn up at the convention and give everyone the one-finger salute, as everyone pelted him with rotten tomatoes and eggs?
I expected nothing more and nothing less than what happened.
I would have preferred something completely different.
Any party worth its salt would back the winner of the primaries.
Backing the candidate is fine.
Building a faux Roman Coliseum to anoint a new emperor is cult of personality absurdity.
If you call other party notables' support of him Obamania, then what about McCain? His erstwhile critics and opponents in the primaries all gave him their full support many months ago (except from Ron Paul, who in all honesty is a Libertarian). His critics from the right fell silent. The party notables all endorsed him, as did the President. So was there a McCainia for all those months?
They did?
What news have you been listening to?
Conservatives have been ranting ever since it became obvious Huckabee was just holding out as long as possible. That is why Bob Barr went off to get the Libertarian Party nomination. They have only gotten on the bandwagon at long last when McCain picked someone they consider socially conservative enough, the subject of this thread.
Nah, my bad. Only the Right has a right to complain of press bias against it.
What bias against the Democrats?
The press covered their ridiculous excess of a convention just as they planned it, and just as they wanted.
That they let Obama pick a VP who could be so excessively upstaged by McCain's choice it nobody's fault but their own.
His opposition to "the Surge".
He insisted, along with the Democratic Party, that it would fail. When confronted with the absolute reality that it had succeeded, rather than accept it, he whined that his way would still have been better.
That is not the way a leader acts.
Pardon me for my obvious ignorance. In looking at the casualty figures for this month, how do triple-digit casualty figures equate to success from the "Surge"? In what way does the highest yearly casualty count of the war mean that the "surge" is working?
It has become painfully obvious that the current resident at 1600 Pennsylvania is no longer concerned about "one American life" as he claimed when he was trying to get this war rolling. I'm sorry to have to say this, but when the war in Iraq's figures topped the casualty figures from 9/11 it stopped being anything remotely worth doing, dubious justifications aside.
Not to belittle the caskets coming home draped by the flag, but their deaths have become pointless. Those in power are pursuing some unknown agenda and when confronted by questions concerning it, they claim "executive privelege" and point towards the heros returning in boxes. The office of the President of the United States was once a respected Institution, now it's become a haven for the morally corrupt and ethically questionable.
I, as many others, have attempted to find answers, but none are coming. Barring some great revelation in the coming weeks, the Current Occupant's little parrot, Mr McCain, will not be getting my vote in the coming election. He and the Stepford candidate running mate of his show no signs to indicate to me that they will do anything to restore the openness of the Oval Office, much less restore the honor that was sold off during the last eight years.
Pardon me for my obvious ignorance. In looking at the casualty figures for this month, how do triple-digit casualty figures equate to success from the "Surge"? In what way does the highest yearly casualty count of the war mean that the "surge" is working?
What were those three digits?
Throwing around "triple-digit casualty figures" makes for a nice sound bite, but there is a significant different between 200 and 800.
As for a yearly count, provide an actual one instead of some agenda driven poll pseudo-count "proving" 7 digit yearly casualties in a country less than 30 million people.
When you do not have legitimate figures, any conclusions drawn from them are irrelevant.
Creationism do not meet these creteria because observation and fact established that the theory of evolution from Sir Charles Darwin was more accurate and meet the criteria to be accepted by the science communauty. In fact, those who said that the theory of evolution is not totally accepted by the scientific community are those who wan't it to be false because of religious belief.
All of this creationism talk is a straw man. Palin said that different ideas should not be closed off - the opposite of dogmatism. She is in favor of evolution being taught, but also thinks you shouldn't prohibit other ideas from being discussed along side evolution. She never said that creationism needed to me on any curriculum. Now, you (and others posting on the subject) may still disagree with her stance, but lay off the straw men.
One word about Sarah Palin : So cute but as cold and sexless as a religious fanatic could be. :D
Doesn't she have five kids, one of them just this year? Hard to do that if you are 'sexless'.
What were those three digits?
Throwing around "triple-digit casualty figures" makes for a nice sound bite, but there is a significant different between 200 and 800.
For the time being, the casualty figures are in the low 100's, at least for the Americans. And I'm sorry to say, your arguement doesn't hold any validity at all. Triple-digit casualty figures are still triple-digit casualty figures if it's 100 or 999. You can wave it away with the "sound bite" wand all you want, the truth is that 100 has three digits, ergo it is a triple-digit number.
Apply whatever significance you want to whatever you want, but in my opinion, one American life is not a fair trade for democracy in Iraq. If Iraqis want democracy they can shed their blood for it. Nouri Al-Maliki is not the choice of leader that the Iraqi people want obviously or they would throw their weight behind his political attempts to get American troops out.
The American government has said all along that when the region is safer, we'll pull out. If I was an Iraqi insurgent, I'd quit making attacks until they did pull out and then throw everything under the sun at the puppet government.
For the time being, the casualty figures are in the low 100's, at least for the Americans. And I'm sorry to say, your arguement doesn't hold any validity at all. Triple-digit casualty figures are still triple-digit casualty figures if it's 100 or 999. You can wave it away with the "sound bite" wand all you want, the truth is that 100 has three digits, ergo it is a triple-digit number.
Philadelphia, the City of death
For the time being,
You mean you know the future?
Can you give me the next lottery numbers then?
Oh wait, you are just saying that to promote a specific political agenda, you have no foresight to say that with any guarantee, and your analysis demonstrates that it is hardly a good guess.
the casualty figures are in the low 100's, at least for the Americans.
American casualties reaches the 100s per month twice in 2006 and once in 2007. They have been over 40 in one month only once in 2008. There were 18 American casualties in August.
And I'm sorry to say, your arguement doesn't hold any validity at all. Triple-digit casualty figures are still triple-digit casualty figures if it's 100 or 999. You can wave it away with the "sound bite" wand all you want, the truth is that 100 has three digits, ergo it is a triple-digit number.
And it is 899 less than 999, no matter how much you want to throw it around as some grand condemnation.
Of course since you seem completely unaware that 18 is not a triple digit number at all, I can see how you would want to confuse all actual casualty figures.
Apply whatever significance you want to whatever you want, but in my opinion, one American life is not a fair trade for democracy in Iraq. If Iraqis want democracy they can shed their blood for it. Nouri Al-Maliki is not the choice of leader that the Iraqi people want obviously or they would throw their weight behind his political attempts to get American troops out.
Fortunately other people value the freedom of almost 30 million other people a lot more than you.
The American government has said all along that when the region is safer, we'll pull out. If I was an Iraqi insurgent, I'd quit making attacks until they did pull out and then throw everything under the sun at the puppet government.
And you somehow consider that a good thing?
You mean you know the future?
Fortunately other people value the freedom of almost 30 million other people a lot more than you.
By all means, please tell me the future.
So far, all you've done is insult and make generalizations about my "agenda". I'm sick of hearing the political nonsense about a war that has absolutely nothing to do with any of the reasons we've been given for fighting it. We've lost 4000+ children, yes children, fighting a war in a country that isn't ours. Fighting to bring them democracy just like ours, even though they apparently don't want it. If you can tell me a way to end the violence that doesn't involve getting more Americans killed, by all means, speak up.
Your concern for the plight of the Iraqis is touching. So tell me, when do you deploy? If you're so concerned, why haven't you volunteered to go? I'd much rather see your casket draped with a flag than some kid from the midwest that joined the National Guard so that he could make a couple extra bucks a month. Quit bragging about how much you support the troops and become one of them.
Let me guess, next is the "Love it or leave it" remark, right? Until Iraq becomes the fifty-first star on the flag, I don't give a rat's hindquarters what the people there want to do to each other. And for that matter, since when is the National Guard meant to protect other nations?
*Anyone that thinks my opinion is unjustified, PM me, I'll give you my service number and you can go check my pedigree.
By all means, please tell me the future.
I predict . . .
The future will happen!
So far, all you've done is insult and make generalizations about my "agenda".
That is because all you have done is insult and make generalizations about the general political performance that I support.
I'm sick of hearing the political nonsense about a war that has absolutely nothing to do with any of the reasons we've been given for fighting it.
It has quite a lot to do with almost all of the reasons we have been given for fighting it. Just because you do not support those reasons does not invalidate.
We've lost 4000+ children, yes children, fighting a war in a country that isn't ours.
Everyone is someone's child. Using the term in such a manner is nothing but an appeal to emotion. I may equally respond: "If we do not fight the trouble will come here. Someone think of the children!"
Fighting to bring them democracy just like ours, even though they apparently don't want it.
Which of course is why so many of them keep dying for it.
If you can tell me a way to end the violence that doesn't involve getting more Americans killed, by all means, speak up.
The problem is you cannot tell me a way to end the violence that does not lead to the violence expanding and getting even more Americans killed.
Your concern for the plight of the Iraqis is touching. So tell me, when do you deploy? If you're so concerned, why haven't you volunteered to go? I'd much rather see your casket draped with a flag than some kid from the midwest that joined the National Guard so that he could make a couple extra bucks a month. Quit bragging about how much you support the troops and become one of them.
I am too old to go, not to mention being far from physically capable.
If that is to be your defining standard then what base in Iraq are you posting from? Unless you are over there right now your opinion is obviously obsolete according to your standards.
But thank you so much for suggesting I should be disenfranchised because of that. I am so glad you are so committed to the rights of every American which you place so far above everyone else. Well, I guess not every American. Oh well.
Let me guess, next is the "Love it or leave it" remark, right? Until Iraq becomes the fifty-first star on the flag, I don't give a rat's hindquarters what the people there want to do to each other. And for that matter, since when is the National Guard meant to protect other nations?
If you support a country so little, why would you want to remain in it? You do not have to leave, but you have only yourself to blame for staying someplace you hate so much.
As for what the National Guard is meant to do, perhaps you should do some checking and realize what a militia meant to be activated for federal service is supposed to do. It is not merely a local defense force, but a ready reserve for any military action.
Apparently in your zeal to disenfranchise people you never bothered to learn about the laws behind all the principles you claim to regard so highly.
IIf that is to be your defining standard then what base in Iraq are you posting from? Unless you are over there right now your opinion is obviously obsolete according to your standards.
I was in the Gulf of Aden in '91. No offense meant, but until you've been in the line of fire, you'll never understand why I am so opposed to this war. I'm sorry that you've never been able to put on a uniform, I'm sorry if you never had the inclination to do so. But to put it mildly, don't give me more of the crap I get from the politicians when I ask questions that should have been asked before deploying men to fight and die. It's not the democrats, it's not the republicans, I don't care who is in power. I want to know why there are children dying in places they didn't know existed a decade ago.
No answers to any of my questions have ever been given, just more of the "we fight them there so we don't have to fight them here" rhetoric. When the government starts explaining things instead of attacking me for dissenting, maybe I'll change my mind. When waving the flag took the place of wrapping themselves in the Constitution, this country was finished. You've done nothing but throw rhetoric at me and accuse me of being unpatriotic.
Iraq is not the US, it is not protected by the Constitution, it is not protected by our laws and it is not our problem. I would rather fight the terrorists here, if it means that I don't have to read about another American soldier dying to bring "democracy" to a country half a world away. Those resources we're squandering over there, would be better used here at home. This war has become an albatross that will strangle us if we don't rid ourselves of it.
...this thread sucks.
And you took the time to read all of it and add your opinion. Bravo!
No offense meant, but until you've been in the line of fire, you'll never understand why I am so opposed to this war.
Thank you for so gratuitously disenfranchising me.
Fortunately, while you were fighting for whatever you think you were not fighting for, other people were fighting for my right to have rights.
No answers to any of my questions have ever been given, just more of the "we fight them there so we don't have to fight them here" rhetoric.
As opposed to more of your "we run away and hope nobody ever wants to fight us ever again" rhetoric.
That is a response, but it will never resolve any questions.
Iraq is not the US, it is not protected by the Constitution, it is not protected by our laws and it is not our problem.
Just because it is not part of the US does not mean it is not our problem. The Soviet Union was not part of the US either, but it was very much our problem. This is a simple and natural consequence of having an international economy.
I would rather fight the terrorists here, if it means that I don't have to read about another American soldier dying to bring "democracy" to a country half a world away. Those resources we're squandering over there, would be better used here at home. This war has become an albatross that will strangle us if we don't rid ourselves of it.
I would rather not have the US at war with anyone. That not being possible, I would rather the war be elsewhere than on American territory where the additional damage would be to our people and property. Having a war to fight, I would rather it be won once, now, rather than be left half-finished or with a wasted peace, for another generation to have to deal with.
Doesn't she have five kids, one of them just this year? Hard to do that if you are 'sexless'.
(You're right about the teaching bit: Look here.)
Yes. Her latest was born with Down's Syndrome; I believe her husband is currently helping raise the child (good on him), seeing as she's about to get very busy. In fact, everything I've read about them would indicate to me that they have a strong, loving marriage. Hardly "sexless". But whatever. I'm personally of the opinion her decision to keep her latest shows just how great a mother she is.
Having a war to fight, I would rather it be won once, now, rather than be left half-finished or with a wasted peace, for another generation to have to deal with.
Then what objectives determine victory, oh great dictator? Because I haven't heard a single, decisive statement that says "When they do this, it's over" come from on high. State the objectives or shut it down. I'm sick of hearing everyone that questions the war called everything from coward to traitor when there hasn't been a single mention of what constitutes victory only that we'll fight until we achieve it.
You call it half-finished? Does that mean we have to tolerate another 5 years of fighting? Does that mean 4000 more dead Americans before we even think of calling it an end? The links between Iraq and Al-Qaeda were tenuous at best and non-existant at the worst, yet still ol' curious George crossed the frontier with guns blazing.
Smoke and mirrors, that's what they called "shock and awe" back when the people of this country could actually think for themselves. Curious George and Dastardly Dick gave you your bread and circuses, now shut up and wave your flag like good little patriots and don't ever think of questioning anything as they rip the stitches out of the fabric of America.
Why is it that those that have put on a uniform and shed blood for this country are doves and those that haven't are hawks? I suppose it's pretty easy to be for war when it doesn't really affect you personally. I guess that not knowing the people who are fighting and dying makes it easy to sleep at night. I suppose I'll be accused of being a poor, pathetic coward too afraid to fight now, eh?
Oceania has always been at war with East Asia, hasn't it?
Then what objectives determine victory, oh great dictator?
As you are the one trying to disenfranchise me, the only dictator around here would be you.
You call it half-finished? Does that mean we have to tolerate another 5 years of fighting?
No, it means finishing the process as we did in Germany and Japan, and not just pretending everything will develop in a reasonable way just because we have spout high minded ideals as we wander back into isolationism.
Why is it that those that have put on a uniform and shed blood for this country are doves and those that haven't are hawks? I suppose it's pretty easy to be for war when it doesn't really affect you personally. I guess that not knowing the people who are fighting and dying makes it easy to sleep at night. I suppose I'll be accused of being a poor, pathetic coward too afraid to fight now, eh?
No, I will call you a poor, pathetic coward, hiding behind a few years of service, and pretending that makes you the sole authority on what it is to be affected by war.
I know too many vets who have not given in to the self-destructive self-pity that you have to even think of suggesting that there is some deficit inherent in being a veteran. You will have to find someone else to bait into such stupidity.
Oceania has always been at war with East Asia, hasn't it?
I am sure you expect that to serve you well if your coup succeeds.
All of this creationism talk is a straw man. Palin said that different ideas should not be closed off - the opposite of dogmatism. She is in favor of evolution being taught, but also thinks you shouldn't prohibit other ideas from being discussed along side evolution. She never said that creationism needed to me on any curriculum. Now, you (and others posting on the subject) may still disagree with her stance, but lay off the straw men.
Doesn't she have five kids, one of them just this year? Hard to do that if you are 'sexless'.
You overuse the term «strawman» there. Even if it's just talking about creationism alongside evolution, it's still an enormous mistake to talk of the two like (or even almost) equal. Evolution is a theory demonstrated with fact and observation. Creationism is an outdated theory like the raisin-bread atomic theory and the ether. The best that you could do when teaching creationism is mention it in the ancient and outdated theory, and it's more a way to nullify that theory, not a way to give credits to this theory. You can tell that in medieval time people were thinking that the earth was flat, but you can't tell that both flat eath and spherical earth could be true (unless you just plain lie).
Yeah, she have five childs.... all under a religious mariage I supposed. She must avoid hell after all. :D
(You're right about the teaching bit: Look here.)
Yes. Her latest was born with Down's Syndrome; I believe her husband is currently helping raise the child (good on him), seeing as she's about to get very busy. In fact, everything I've read about them would indicate to me that they have a strong, loving marriage. Hardly "sexless". But whatever. I'm personally of the opinion her decision to keep her latest shows just how great a mother she is.
Just one thing to say : money. No, I know, that didn't give her money, I meen that money is a great help to overcome such a difficult situation. Ok, she accept to keep the children and that's a very respectable choice. But think if she had been in a more precarious situation like many middle-class workers. It would have been a far bigger sacrifice. Without money, it's far more difficult to have help and many people in this situation must abandoned there work, so there situation become even more precarious. It's sure is a respectable choice, but with someone who have money (like her), it's far more easy to overcome the situation than people in precarious situation.
Just one thing to say : money. No, I know, that didn't give her money, I meen that money is a great help to overcome such a difficult situation. Ok, she accept to keep the children and that's a very respectable choice. But think if she had been in a more precarious situation like many middle-class workers. It would have been a far bigger sacrifice. Without money, it's far more difficult to have help and many people in this situation must abandoned there work, so there situation become even more precarious. It's sure is a respectable choice, but with someone who have money (like her), it's far more easy to overcome the situation than people in precarious situation.
:rolleye2: Yessir, her decision was all money, no principles. It's not like there are any poor people with a lot of kids, Down's Syndrome kids, or both.Yes, money helps. But that's not what informed her decision.
I think the word you used was appropriate: sacrifice. Something too few people in this nation are willing to do, especially if it's of their time or money.
And again, I've taken to understanding that not just her husband, but much of her family (grandparents (of the kids), aunts, uncles, cousins, even the other children) are helping. You know, the way a lot of humans worked together until sometime in the last century or two.
Show
Possibly. In the same way, however, it might be harder for McCain to attack Obama on lack of experience and being a celebrity now that he himself has chosen a person with little experience and charisma for his running mate. Sure, she's only the VP - but the VP he himself picked.
The surge has been an issue where McCain's judgement is so far correct, but the "absolute reality" is that we are talking about an ongoing process. Several years ago, McCain said that Afghanistan is a success - yet now he calls for several more brigades to be sent to that country. Once again, ongoing process.
IMO, the major reasons for the lull of violence in Iraq are that a) the Iraqi groups themselves acted against the extremists (a.k.a Anbar awakening) and that many of them were coopted/hired to work alongside the US forces. These two have little to do with the surge, since a) started before it and b) was not influenced by the number of US troops. The fact that the US chose to work together or at least ignore with groups that it previously opposed was important. Perhaps McCain supports this particular tactic - back in 2006 he wanted Sadr and his militia contained by force, but he may have reconsidered.
Wright's soundbytes were extracted from years of sermons - and many politicians, who unlike Wright know that their speeches would be under scrutiny, make gaffes now and then. Obama's decision not to distance himself from Wright may have something to do with the other 99% of his preaching. Yet Obama eventually severed his ties to Wright, a long-time acquaintance; he realized he was wrong about that man's place in his campaign and personal life, and he acted on it. As for accepting the decisions of the government, not agreeing with something doesn't mean you do not accept it.
Just as a comparison, so far McCain had to change his views, thus admitting an error in his judgement, on tax cuts, the war in Afghanistan, offshore drilling, ethanol, campaign reform (remember the McCain-Feingold bill?), Roe v Wade, the religious right, etc, etc. On torture, he differed from many of his party mates, but eventually settled on a bill that prohibits it - but is simply not valid for, say, Gitmo detainees. Seems to me that he has been wrong on more things than he was right on.
I put it as the standard if you are presenting conjectures such as Obama's Muslim past, and his... what, misleading position about it? If you have proof that corroborates your point, where is it? Because if you do not, you don't know for sure, which is what I was talking about.
Not quite. "Effective" is based on the effects they have, not how well-meaning they were. Of course, proper planning will most likely lead to success, so this is somewhat of a moot point.
Considering that the 2 major parties in the US involve millions, some level of pomp and pageantry is unavoidable - and if you think the Democrats have more, that is your own opinion. It seems to me that most of the perception of Obama as chosen or messiah or something is spread from right-wing sources, which then gleefully denounce the narrative that they themselves invented. The guy gets the usual endorsements from the party notables, and you call this anointing a new emperor. He can get 70-something thousands people to come to an outdoor speech, and does it at a stadium? Colliseum. What, are you telling me that Obama's campaign built a stadium in a few days? Woah, if they can do that, these guys deserve to be in office!
I followed mostly the mainstream news, so I guess I may have missed some of the finer nuances of the inter-party conflict.Which conservatives (please list the more noteworthy ones) would that be? I believe Huckabee and most other presidential hopefuls endorsed McCain long before the Democratic primary was over It could be that they were drowned out in the fight on the democratic side - but if Obama had to fight it out to the last to get the support of his own party, he must be a discreet Messiah indeed.
Good grief. Yes, the press loves having something to talk about, so they will spend more time pondering a candidate who no one knew about. If Obama had chosen a dead parrot for a VP, then they would talk about it even more - but I would pick Palin over a dead parrot any day. Obama chose a VP with expertise, if he wanted one that would have brought him instant media attention, he would have chosen someone else.
As for the lack of liberal media bias, I am thinking about slightly longer terms. The media were engrossed about all the tawdry details of Clinton's affair, they parroted and exaggerated Gore's sighs and the idea that he said he invented the internet ("During my service in the United States Congress I took the initiative in creating the Internet." doesn't sound quite the same, does it?), and how much more natural Bush was than him, they all parroted the oficial position from 9/11 straight to Iraq - and then some, etc, etc. Now, there have been times that they did criticize the Republican establishment, but with things like Katrina, Abramoff, the Downing Street memo etc it is hard to say that criticism equals bias. And yet on and on we hear about how the media has a liberal bias - heck, Fox boasts to rectify it - and never about a conservative one. America must be the only country where multimillion private corporations spread socialist views ;)
It will if the Democrats choose to make an issue of it.
Possibly. In the same way, however, it might be harder for McCain to attack Obama on lack of experience and being a celebrity now that he himself has chosen a person with little experience and charisma for his running mate. Sure, she's only the VP - but the VP he himself picked.
His opposition to "the Surge".
He insisted, along with the Democratic Party, that it would fail. When confronted with the absolute reality that it had succeeded, rather than accept it, he whined that his way would still have been better.
That is not the way a leader acts.
The surge has been an issue where McCain's judgement is so far correct, but the "absolute reality" is that we are talking about an ongoing process. Several years ago, McCain said that Afghanistan is a success - yet now he calls for several more brigades to be sent to that country. Once again, ongoing process.
IMO, the major reasons for the lull of violence in Iraq are that a) the Iraqi groups themselves acted against the extremists (a.k.a Anbar awakening) and that many of them were coopted/hired to work alongside the US forces. These two have little to do with the surge, since a) started before it and b) was not influenced by the number of US troops. The fact that the US chose to work together or at least ignore with groups that it previously opposed was important. Perhaps McCain supports this particular tactic - back in 2006 he wanted Sadr and his militia contained by force, but he may have reconsidered.
Some mistakes indicate a significantly greater lack of good judgement than others.
Some choices really are that easy, others not that relevant. It is the difficult and major ones that tell you what to expect. Between the Surge and Wright, Obama has proven just how incapable he will be at dealing with both being wrong and accepting the decisions of the other branches of government.
Wright's soundbytes were extracted from years of sermons - and many politicians, who unlike Wright know that their speeches would be under scrutiny, make gaffes now and then. Obama's decision not to distance himself from Wright may have something to do with the other 99% of his preaching. Yet Obama eventually severed his ties to Wright, a long-time acquaintance; he realized he was wrong about that man's place in his campaign and personal life, and he acted on it. As for accepting the decisions of the government, not agreeing with something doesn't mean you do not accept it.
Just as a comparison, so far McCain had to change his views, thus admitting an error in his judgement, on tax cuts, the war in Afghanistan, offshore drilling, ethanol, campaign reform (remember the McCain-Feingold bill?), Roe v Wade, the religious right, etc, etc. On torture, he differed from many of his party mates, but eventually settled on a bill that prohibits it - but is simply not valid for, say, Gitmo detainees. Seems to me that he has been wrong on more things than he was right on.
That was not the standard you set. You required being the person or knowing him personally. Now that such is inconvenient you want to change it. There is physical evidence that Obama is lying. How much more is needed to be on to something?
I put it as the standard if you are presenting conjectures such as Obama's Muslim past, and his... what, misleading position about it? If you have proof that corroborates your point, where is it? Because if you do not, you don't know for sure, which is what I was talking about.
No, that means they were lucky.
Using money is a rational and properly planned manner mean the government is effective.
Not quite. "Effective" is based on the effects they have, not how well-meaning they were. Of course, proper planning will most likely lead to success, so this is somewhat of a moot point.
Backing the candidate is fine.
Building a faux Roman Coliseum to anoint a new emperor is cult of personality absurdity.
Considering that the 2 major parties in the US involve millions, some level of pomp and pageantry is unavoidable - and if you think the Democrats have more, that is your own opinion. It seems to me that most of the perception of Obama as chosen or messiah or something is spread from right-wing sources, which then gleefully denounce the narrative that they themselves invented. The guy gets the usual endorsements from the party notables, and you call this anointing a new emperor. He can get 70-something thousands people to come to an outdoor speech, and does it at a stadium? Colliseum. What, are you telling me that Obama's campaign built a stadium in a few days? Woah, if they can do that, these guys deserve to be in office!
Conservatives have been ranting ever since it became obvious Huckabee was just holding out as long as possible. That is why Bob Barr went off to get the Libertarian Party nomination. They have only gotten on the bandwagon at long last when McCain picked someone they consider socially conservative enough, the subject of this thread.
I followed mostly the mainstream news, so I guess I may have missed some of the finer nuances of the inter-party conflict.Which conservatives (please list the more noteworthy ones) would that be? I believe Huckabee and most other presidential hopefuls endorsed McCain long before the Democratic primary was over It could be that they were drowned out in the fight on the democratic side - but if Obama had to fight it out to the last to get the support of his own party, he must be a discreet Messiah indeed.
What bias against the Democrats?
The press covered their ridiculous excess of a convention just as they planned it, and just as they wanted.
That they let Obama pick a VP who could be so excessively upstaged by McCain's choice it nobody's fault but their own.
Good grief. Yes, the press loves having something to talk about, so they will spend more time pondering a candidate who no one knew about. If Obama had chosen a dead parrot for a VP, then they would talk about it even more - but I would pick Palin over a dead parrot any day. Obama chose a VP with expertise, if he wanted one that would have brought him instant media attention, he would have chosen someone else.
As for the lack of liberal media bias, I am thinking about slightly longer terms. The media were engrossed about all the tawdry details of Clinton's affair, they parroted and exaggerated Gore's sighs and the idea that he said he invented the internet ("During my service in the United States Congress I took the initiative in creating the Internet." doesn't sound quite the same, does it?), and how much more natural Bush was than him, they all parroted the oficial position from 9/11 straight to Iraq - and then some, etc, etc. Now, there have been times that they did criticize the Republican establishment, but with things like Katrina, Abramoff, the Downing Street memo etc it is hard to say that criticism equals bias. And yet on and on we hear about how the media has a liberal bias - heck, Fox boasts to rectify it - and never about a conservative one. America must be the only country where multimillion private corporations spread socialist views ;)
Possibly. In the same way, however, it might be harder for McCain to attack Obama on lack of experience and being a celebrity now that he himself has chosen a person with little experience and charisma for his running mate. Sure, she's only the VP - but the VP he himself picked.
And right there are the two primary issues:
1. She is the VP candidate, not the candidate for President
2. You never win an election against the candidate for VP
That means McCain gets to mock Obama's lack of experience with impunity, and Palin's lack of experience is totally irrelevant.
The surge has been an issue where McCain's judgement is so far correct, but the "absolute reality" is that we are talking about an ongoing process. Several years ago, McCain said that Afghanistan is a success - yet now he calls for several more brigades to be sent to that country. Once again, ongoing process.
Except Obama has already proven he cannot accept that.
IMO, the major reasons for the lull of violence in Iraq are that a) the Iraqi groups themselves acted against the extremists (a.k.a Anbar awakening) and that many of them were coopted/hired to work alongside the US forces. These two have little to do with the surge, since a) started before it and b) was not influenced by the number of US troops. The fact that the US chose to work together or at least ignore with groups that it previously opposed was important. Want to bet that if the US tried to disarm Sadr, the casualties would increase - surge or no surge?
Perhaps you missed it, but Sadr quit. He gave up. His militia, most of it anyway, is transforming itself into a public service outfit.
And the shift in Iraqi groups was heavily influened by the number of US troops. It was the numbers that convinced them we were the baddest boys in the hood.
Wright's soundbytes were extracted from years of sermons - and many politicians, who unlike Wright know that their speeches would be under scrutiny, make gaffes now and then. Obama's decision not to distance himself from Wright may have something to do with the other 99% of his preaching. Yet Obama eventually severed his ties to Wright, a long-time acquaintance; he realized he was wrong about that man's place in his campaign and personal life, and he acted on it.
Yep.
After giving a big speech, touted as a major moment in national race relations, where he tried to excuse Wright.
At which point Wright pulled a major crash and burn, apparently with an overt goal of taking Obama down with him.
Even that was not enough until a visiting priest went on a racially fueled rampage against Hillary.
And Wright was a long-time personal family friend, mentor, and political advisor, who Obama had played up as a major member of his brain trust.
I put it as the standard if you are presenting conjectures such as Obama's Muslim past, and his... what, misleading position about it? If you have proof that corroborates your point, where is it? Because if you do not, you don't know for sure, which is what I was talking about.
I have the proof those ever popular bloggers have uncovered of course.
Or are they only a valid source to take down Republicans?
Not quite. "Effective" is based on the effects they have, not how well-meaning they were. Of course, proper planning will most likely lead to success, so this is somewhat of a moot point.
Yes quite.
A wild guess that turns out well is still just a wild guess, and hardly a useful way to run a government.
Considering that the 2 major parties in the US involve millions, some level of pomp and pageantry is unavoidable - and if you think the Democrats have more, that is your own opinion. It seems to me that most of the perception of Obama as chosen or messiah or something is spread from right-wing sources, which then gleefully denounce the narrative that they themselves invented. The guy gets the usual endorsements from the party notables, and you call this anointing a new emperor. He can get 70-something thousands people to come to an outdoor speech, and does it at a stadium? Colliseum. Hmm, I guess it was Obama's campaign who built the stadium that way.
There is pomp and then there is silly.
And I am not talking about the stadium, I am talking about the podium they installed for Obama to speak from. You should dig up some video and check it out.
I followed mostly the mainstream news, so I guess I may have missed some of the finer nuances of the inter-party conflict. Which conservatives (please list the more noteworthy ones) would that be? I seem to remember a distinct quiet of voices speaking against McCain after Giuliani and Romney conceded. It could be that they were drowned out in the fight on the democratic side - but if Obama had to fight it out to the last to get the support of his own party, the Obamania must be weak indeed.
Pretty much every talking head out there, from Rush to the staff of Faux News. It has all been the same, McCain is not "conservative" enough, and not trustworthy on the conservative social issues. All of them have suddenly started soiling themselves for joy over the choice of Palin.
Good grief. Yes, the press loves having something to talk about, so they will spend more time pondering a candidate who no one knew about. If Obama had chosen a dead parrot for a VP, then they would talk about it even more - but I would pick Palin over a dead parrot any day. Obama chose a VP with expertise, if he wanted one that would have brought him instant media attention, he would have chosen someone else.
That is not the problem with Joe Biden.
It is that he is such a null factor except on experience he was an open invitation for McCain to score gratuitous points with almost anyone, as well as use Biden's experience to beat on Obama.
Not that I love raging political animals like Clinton, but at least some knowledge of realpolitik would be nice.
America must be the only country where multimillion private corporations spread socialist views ;)
Look at a list of old time "liberals" some time. Not corporations, but indeed, the US is indeed one of the few places you will find heirs to multi-million dollar fortunes bankrolling major communist front groups.
That is all.
Yes, money helps. But that's not what informed her decision.
I think the word you used was appropriate: sacrifice. Something too few people in this nation are willing to do, especially if it's of their time or money.
And again, I've taken to understanding that not just her husband, but much of her family (grandparents (of the kids), aunts, uncles, cousins, even the other children) are helping. You know, the way a lot of humans worked together until sometime in the last century or two.
IT's more easy to sacrifice you're next mercedez-benz car than sacrifice you're next meal. When you have money, you could pay help, what's it's just impossible to common class workers. So yes, she as done an honoring sacrifice but don't use that to become a hero or to give lesson to other people; they are people in a far worst situation. And that's a reason why people need social and health care governmental programs.
I'm sure Gov. Palin is a fairly nice person and a great mother, and I mean this in all honesty. I just don't see her as an amazing VP, feel free to disagree.
I agree with you. As nice and beautiful that she maybe, I have a problem with a pro-NRA, Pro-creationism teaching and anti-gay marriage. I could ensure you that in Canada, a politician like her would have been seen like a monster and won't do long in politic.
I agree with you. As nice and beautiful that she maybe, I have a problem with a pro-NRA, Pro-creationism teaching and anti-gay marriage. I could ensure you that in Canada, a politician like her would have been seen like a monster and won't do long in politic.
Yes, but Canadian politics and American politics are very different. Gun Control, Gay Marriage, and (as much as it pains me to say it) even creationism are all sticky wedge issues.
Yes, but Canadian politics and American politics are very different. Gun Control, Gay Marriage, and (as much as it pains me to say it) even creationism are all sticky wedge issues.
That's quite weird that creationism is an issue in a scientifically advanced and well educated country like America. Intelligent and educated peoples fighting to keep and outdated and silly theory, I find that quite hard to understand.
That's quite weird that creationism is an issue in a scientifically advanced and well educated country like America. Intelligent and educated peoples fighting to keep and outdated and silly theory, I find that quite hard to understand.
Theory? Did you just call "God made it" a theory? I think you're giving it far more credit than it deserves. Intelligent Design or whatever their calling it this week isn't even remotely close to being a theory, because in science you have to have proof to back up a theory.
By all means, please tell me the future.
We've lost 4000+ children, yes children, fighting a war in a country that isn't ours.
Pet peeve of mine. Calling adults who choose to enlist in the military "children", shows a great deal of disrespect, condescension, and a patronizing attitude towards the brave men and women that choose to serve. I have seen more childlike behavior in my time as a civilian than I ever did when I was serving.
No, I will call you a poor, pathetic coward, hiding behind a few years of service, and pretending that makes you the sole authority on what it is to be affected by war.
Have you ever ordered men into harm's way? Have you ever willing put yourself into harm's way at the orders of a superior? Have you ever been fired on by someone who personally had nothing against you, but was following the orders of their commanders? These are not empty questions. These are not questions to be taken lightly. When a person that has done these things is called a coward, traitor or unpatriotic for asking for the justification for war is disenfranchisement.
You have ignored the fact that I, and many others question the value of a conflict that appears only to create more corpses from the youth of our country. You toss out platitudes and tautology instead of direct and forthright answers and following the party line, you close off communication by suggesting that I am self-destructive and pathetic. My question, sir, is why are you trying to disenfranchise me?
If the only option is for or against war, I say nay. I, sir, have served my country. I, sir, have shed my blood and the blood of my country's enemies. I, sir, am one of the citizens of this great nation. You, sir, have done nothing but spew the obligitory gibberish and soundbites that reinforce my position. Until answers come from those who are to be called our betters, this war is unjustified. You, sir, are backing a tyrant.
Until answers come from those who are to be called our betters, this war is unjustified.
Bull crap. Be honest with yourself and us. No reason given will ever justify it.
If the only option is for or against war, I say nay. I, sir, have served my country. I, sir, have shed my blood and the blood of my country's enemies. I, sir, am one of the citizens of this great nation. You, sir, have done nothing but spew the obligitory gibberish and soundbites that reinforce my position. Until answers come from those who are to be called our betters, this war is unjustified. You, sir, are backing a tyrant.
Thank you. My grandfather died on the Thrasher and his kids were all supposed to go to college because of their loss. That money disappeared. My father, who was denied college, was a Marine and they denied him VA benefits because they intentionally cut his training two days short. He still works for the government in another sector but there is no way I am getting involved with the military.
You can serve, but you might not agree with so much of the "policies" and corruption. Irregardless you did your part and no one can question that and you have a better voice than most from it.
Pet peeve of mine. Calling adults who choose to enlist in the military "children", shows a great deal of disrespect, condescension, and a patronizing attitude towards the brave men and women that choose to serve. I have seen more childlike behavior in my time as a civilian than I ever did when I was serving.
The vast majority go in young at 18 because they recruit in HS...and you are still very dumb to the intricacies at 18. I am still dumb at 24 but it is getting better.
I could ensure you that in Canada, a politician like her would have been seen like a monster and won't do long in politic.
And that's why a country like Canada has almost no power in world wide affairs and relied on the US for its very existence during the cold war... Down here we call Canada, America's largest national park system... LOL
These are not empty questions. These are not questions to be taken lightly. When a person that has done these things is called a coward, traitor or unpatriotic for asking for the justification for war is disenfranchisement.
They are when they come in the manner you are presenting them.
They are when I have not called you a coward, traitor, or unpatriotic for asking for justification for war.
You have ignored the fact that I, and many others question the value of a conflict that appears only to create more corpses from the youth of our country.
And you want everyone to ignore the fact that many others who have been in combat do not question the value of continued operation, despite knowing it means they will have to order more men into combat, or follow orders to go into combat, or that people will die as a result of it.
Most hypocritically of all you casually overlook that a man who has never served is calling for a surge in deployment in Afghanistan. That man is Barack Obama, the Democratic candidate for President.
My question, sir, is why are you trying to disenfranchise me?
I am not.
I have not said you must not express an opinion.
I have not said you are unqualified to express an opinion.
I have not said anything to even suggest your opinion is as worthless as you have declared mine to be.
You, sir, are backing a tyrant.
I am a registered Democrat.
I have been since I was 18, and indeed not until after I registered for selective service.
Given both McCain's flip-flops and Palin's basic positions, it is highly unlikely I will vote for them.
I will instead pick the least objectionable third party candidate I can find and cast a protest vote.
I will do that because nobody will take away my right to vote without first having taken my life.
You however will gleefully support Obama.
You will do this knowing he will send most if not all of the people he will withdraw from Iraq to Afghanistan, provided of course he does not flip-flop yet again.
What sort of person are you backing?
And that's why a country like Canada has almost no power in world wide affairs and relied on the US for its very existence during the cold war... Down here we call Canada, America's largest national park system... LOL
Not true...though I do know down here many ignorant people like to say whatever.
Not true...though I do know down here many ignorant people like to say whatever.
Which part isn't true?
I am a registered Democrat.
I have been since I was 18, and indeed not until after I registered for selective service.
Given both McCain's flip-flops and Palin's basic positions, it is highly unlikely I will vote for them.
I will instead pick the least objectionable third party candidate I can find and cast a protest vote.
I will do that because nobody will take away my right to vote without first having taken my life.
Electoral College will. Like when Gore had the popular vote and we got Bush.
Which part isn't true?
the "many ignorant" part. America is full of ignorant people. If we do have a natural disaster sooo many people in US will die just because they will not know how to live without being told by the news.
the "many ignorant" part. America is full of ignorant people. If we do have a natural disaster sooo many people in US will die just because they will not know how to live without being told by the news.
I can see that you are a newbie here. When someone asks a question because your post is unclear, it is good practice to answer.
So, from the top. What did I write that was untrue? Notice the words in bold? Those are important to understand before you frame your reply.
Electoral College will. Like when Gore had the popular vote and we got Bush.
Hillary got the popular vote and the Dems got Obama.
And that's why a country like Canada has almost no power in world wide affairs and relied on the US for its very existence during the cold war... Down here we call Canada, America's largest national park system... LOL
That is all.
Hillary got the popular vote and the Dems got Obama.
Another case in point.
I can't speak for anyone else on this thread, but here is my take on it. My biggest problem with McCain is how he approaches a problem, and the thing I like MOST about Obama is how he approaches a problem. Obama seems to be willing to stop and analyze the problem. And lets face it, when it comes to actual policy they plan on enacting there just isn't a lot of daylight between 'em. Therefore I have to make a decision based on who I think will react best when faced with a novel situation. You know - like 9/11. GWB's reaction to that has shaped our nation for the next hundered years, give or take.
The scariest thing I recently heard was after the Christian dual interview sessions. They interviewed someone who was in the audience, and they were all gushy about McCain. Why? Because (and I paraphrase here) McCain didn't stop to think about his answers, he just answered on instinct. And I remember thinking at the time, how is that a good quality given our current situation?
Couple that with McCain's outright refusal to ever use diplomacy, and I see a man deliberately closing himself off to information, and sources of potential resolution. I also cite things like not using a computer, or his immediate endorsement of the Georgians. Again - they are not fatal flaws, nor do they make him a bad man. (Hell my parents can barely turn their computer on.) But they all add up to a disturbing picture.
And so I feel that McCain's experience hurts him. My guitar teacher used to tell me - practice doesn't make perfect, perfect practice makes perfect. That is, repetition and experience do not matter if you are doing it wrong in the first place.
I gotta admire the guy, but I just can't see him as being able to carve new paths especially as he is seeing to regress to the party norm under some real competition. Will he be an unmitigated disaster - naw. But is he the right president for right now. No, I certainly do not think so.
Finally let me say when hiring for my companies, yes I always look at the applicant's experience. But some of the worst hires I have ever made have been people who came with scads of experience, but had never learned how to be innovate. Experience is not all there is to doing a good job. And McCain seems to have the worst kind of experience.
Oh its crafty to be sure. I had a good laugh about it as well. He is a snarky old bastard. Always has been. And this is a real thumb in the eye to the Dems. But I honestly think that this is all it is (well that and an appeal to the far right religious groups.) It just seems a little vapid, like him setting up camp in Denver, or running ads during Obama's speech. Yeah it was funny, but I don't think humor cuts it, ya know.
Wow.
First off, all of the questions at the saddleback forums should have immediate answers—because they were really all about beliefs. They weren't analyzing situations. McCain answered quickly so he came off as more genuine than Obama—whose answers appeared cushioned.
It was very obvious that Obama was trying to stretch his beliefs out to encompass both sides of the issue. For instance, take abortion. Nothing is dumber than the democrats line about "pro-choice, anti-abortion." If abortion is wrong, than it should be illegal (and for the record, I am a pro-choice atheist). When democrats hem and haw on the issue, it makes them look servile and weak, not "cerebral", or "thoughtful".
Oh, and come on! If there ever was a cheap, cowardly, politically safe answer, it would be "My wife and my grandmother."
As for diplomacy, well McCain did push for the normalization of relations with North Vietnam—the same people who tortured him. Obviously if he is willing to use diplomacy with North Vietnam he would use it with others.
The very issue of Diplomacy is why I would never align myself with Obama and his like on the left, even though I am a pro-choice (for the most part, not into abortions in the latter stages of pregnancy) atheist who is totally okay living near, working with, or being friends with gay people. Obama doesn't understand diplomacy is essentially the carrot and stick. If you don't have a big stick, and are willing to use it, nobody cares if you're willing to give them the carrot. They'll just take it from you.
Oh, and Obama has NO accomplishments. He's the next Jimmy Carter, and I really, truly think that if you put him in a room with Putin, he would wet himself.
Electoral College will. Like when Gore had the popular vote and we got Bush.
Nope.
That is part of my vote.
Just because the person I vote for does not win does not mean my vote is stolen or irrelevant.
.
One word about Sarah Palin : So cute but as cold and sexless as a religious fanatic could be. :D
Sexless? She has five children!Then what objectives determine victory, oh great dictator? Because I haven't heard a single, decisive statement that says "When they do this, it's over" come from on high. State the objectives or shut it down. I'm sick of hearing everyone that questions the war called everything from coward to traitor when there hasn't been a single mention of what constitutes victory only that we'll fight until we achieve it.
You call it half-finished? Does that mean we have to tolerate another 5 years of fighting? Does that mean 4000 more dead Americans before we even think of calling it an end? The links between Iraq and Al-Qaeda were tenuous at best and non-existant at the worst, yet still ol' curious George crossed the frontier with guns blazing.
Smoke and mirrors, that's what they called "shock and awe" back when the people of this country could actually think for themselves. Curious George and Dastardly Dick gave you your bread and circuses, now shut up and wave your flag like good little patriots and don't ever think of questioning anything as they rip the stitches out of the fabric of America.
Why is it that those that have put on a uniform and shed blood for this country are doves and those that haven't are hawks? I suppose it's pretty easy to be for war when it doesn't really affect you personally. I guess that not knowing the people who are fighting and dying makes it easy to sleep at night. I suppose I'll be accused of being a poor, pathetic coward too afraid to fight now, eh?
Oceania has always been at war with East Asia, hasn't it?
I wore my uniform and fought, and I'm calling you out. Sorry, but uniform or not, if you think America should surrender after 4000 casualties you're a coward and a disgrace to whatever uniform you wore.
Oh, and Obama has NO accomplishments. He's the next Jimmy Carter, and I really, truly think that if you put him in a room with Putin, he would wet himself.
More like a national level David Dinkins.
The incompetence level is the same though.
That's quite weird that creationism is an issue in a scientifically advanced and well educated country like America. Intelligent and educated peoples fighting to keep and outdated and silly theory, I find that quite hard to understand.
It isn't a majority of people. But enough to form a solid voting block. America does seem to be more religious than Europe and Canada though.
I know,impossible right? Damn people these days...
I know,impossible right? Damn people these days...
And it look like her teenage daughter is pregnant. I am going to have to guess she is more open minded about sex than people here have been giving her credit for.
And it look like her teenage daughter is pregnant. I am going to have to guess she is more open minded about sex than people here have been giving her credit for.
It would make sense if the sexless claim was made if Palin was single and had no children, but she isn't. Or was the sexless thing used because she is a conservative, which obviously means that she never has sex. :rolleye2:
Or was the sexless thing used because she is a conservative, which obviously means that she never has sex. :rolleye2:
I think this is the angle people were taking. Honestly, as a life long democrat who has had the good fortune to land a few republican babes, I don't think there is much of a difference in terms of sex. The only thing I noticed about conservative women was this: they tend to be more discriminating when it comes to things like casual sex. This, in my mind is a good thing. Who wants to sleep with the girl who has had it with half the school or half the guys in the office?
And it look like her teenage daughter is pregnant. I am going to have to guess she is more open minded about sex than people here have been giving her credit for.
More accurately, her teenage daughter is pregnant, keeping the baby, and marrying the father.
I imagine they already had a long talk with her about her (the daughter's) decisions and the results/consequences of them. Now that they've done that, they'll move on and keep loving her, and likely welcome the boy in with open arms (though, I'd be shocked if there hadn't been a stern discussion with him at some point; doubly scary since both dad and mom are hunters!).
Also, breaking news: Teenagers make mistakes! The Shocker!
And that's why a country like Canada has almost no power in world wide affairs and relied on the US for its very existence during the cold war... Down here we call Canada, America's largest national park system... LOL
Wow, the ignorance of some Americans of Canada constantly amazes me. Perhaps you are unaware of Signals Intelligence played in the success of the Cold War, the Dew Line and NORAD or the US atomic bomb that landed on Canadian soil (admittedly no one will confirm that one). oh how about Canada's roll in Korea or NATO. How about the fonding of the UN and are commitment to peace keeping. I can only wonder why when traveling just about any where in the world and we tell people that where Canadian not Americans we are treated so much better.
McCain I like but Palin nomination makes your whole system look more like a joke then your current president and thats saying something. As a outsider I can say that many may fear the U.S. but few respect U.S. and thats sad. Despite being of U.E.(1) stock I can appreciate your fonding fathers intent and morn the failure of there experiment.
note 1http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Empire_Loyalist
Wow, the ignorance of some Americans of Canada constantly amazes me. Perhaps you are unaware of Signals Intelligence played in the success of the Cold War, the Dew Line and NORAD or the US atomic bomb that landed on Canadian soil (admittedly no one will confirm that one). oh how about Canada's roll in Korea or NATO. How about the fonding of the UN and are commitment to peace keeping. I can only wonder why when traveling just about any where in the world and we tell people that where Canadian not Americans we are treated so much better.
McCain I like but Palin nomination makes your hole system look more like a joke then your current president and thats saying something. As a outsider I can say that many may fear the U.S. but few respect U.S. and thats sad. Despite being of U.E.(1) stock I can appreciate your fonding fathers intent and morn the failure of there experiment.
note 1http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Empire_Loyalist
First, the word you're looking for there is "whole", not "hole". Unless that was intentional.
Second, how does this "make the system look like a joke"? Because she doesn't have 25 years of "political experience"? It's not like she's never run something before; she's been a mother, a mayor, and now a governor. Sure, she doesn't have a large number of years there, but hey, Barack's not much more experienced on the large level, and all his experience is in the legislative section.
I won't deny the important contributions Canada has made in recent history. I will say, though, that they still can't be considered a "prime power" in the world. People don't ask "what's Canada's response to this?". Perhaps it's because Canada tends to work more in the background as it were, which is fine.
Yeah people hate Americans. Some of it's deserved, some not. But you know what, if they're going to judge me based on my country and nothing else...they're no better. Besides, I couldn't give a flip what they think.
I have to wonder what the actual numbers of "fear" and "respect" are. People bandy about "nobody respects the US", but are there hard numbers, if you can even quantify it?
Again, seriously, how does her stepping up for this make it a joke?
First, the word you're looking for there is "whole", not "hole". Unless that was intentional.
thanks, my dyslexia/spell checker mistake.
Second, how does this "make the system look like a joke"? Because she doesn't have 25 years of "political experience"? It's not like she's never run something before; she's been a mother, a mayor, and now a governor. Sure, she doesn't have a large number of years there, but hey, Barack's not much more experienced on the large level, and all his experience is in the legislative section.
Barack's just beat out some vary qualified individuals for the nomination. She was appointed for the VP spot by a small group of big wigs, if she was say mayor of New York or governor of California I might be able to see that as a plus, some one was touting her roll as commander of the national guard on CNN as military experience and when asked how she had used them was unprepared to answer. I'm not saying that she is a bad person but he's a 72 year old cancer surviver and I would not trust her to be the primer of Ontario let alone the president of U.S.
I won't deny the important contributions Canada has made in recent history. I will say, though, that they still can't be considered a "prime power" in the world. People don't ask "what's Canada's response to this?". Perhaps it's because Canada tends to work more in the background as it were, which is fine.
on this we can agree
Yeah people hate Americans. Some of it's deserved, some not. But you know what, if they're going to judge me based on my country and nothing else...they're no better. Besides, I couldn't give a flip what they think.
but thats the whole problem
I have to wonder what the actual numbers of "fear" and "respect" are. People bandy about "nobody respects the US", but are there hard numbers, if you can even quantify it?
don't think you can but I'm willing to bet that more people fear and less respect the U.S. than 50 years ago.
Again, seriously, how does her stepping up for this make it a joke?
her stepping up doesn't but her parachuting in dose
Theory? Did you just call "God made it" a theory? I think you're giving it far more credit than it deserves. Intelligent Design or whatever their calling it this week isn't even remotely close to being a theory, because in science you have to have proof to back up a theory.
Yeah, I admit that you totally right. Creationism and intelligent disign are just plain crap, not theories.
I think this is the angle people were taking. Honestly, as a life long democrat who has had the good fortune to land a few republican babes, I don't think there is much of a difference in terms of sex. The only thing I noticed about conservative women was this: they tend to be more discriminating when it comes to things like casual sex. This, in my mind is a good thing. Who wants to sleep with the girl who has had it with half the school or half the guys in the office?
Are at least she play the angel that look down at the girl who has had half the office guys when she had the other half-office guys. :D Sometime, people who do the moral on others are the worse of the lot, like is sometime the case with priest. That said, I don't care for whatever sex life she has, as long as she don't do moral on other people.
Yeah, I admit that you totally right. Creationism and intelligent disign are just plain crap, not theories.
Yessir, that there is a detailed analysis.
Are at least she play the angel that look down at the girl who has had half the office guys when she had the other half-office guys. :D Sometime, people who do the moral on others are the worse of the lot, like is sometime the case with priest. That said, I don't care for whatever sex life she has, as long as she don't do moral on other people.
Could you maybe clarify a bit? I'm having a bit of trouble understanding due to grammar, but there could be reasons for that. I'm just not sure what you're trying to get across here.Perhaps you are unaware of Signals Intelligence played in the success of the Cold War, the Dew Line and NORAD
I come from a mil background. Without the US those wouldn't have existed and Canada would have been around until about 1955...
Right, he can't think on his feet.
Don't call Obama at 3 a.m. to answer an unscripted question...
And sure as hell don't eMail McCain.
Quick do you think Obama will ever tell the truth about his youth as a Sunni?
This is where you lost all credibility. I mean really: "Obama loves Islam, this I know, for an anonymous eMail tells me so." is your basis for not voting for him? I would seriously love to hear what you have got that proves he is gonna turn the US into an Islamist theocracy.
As for diplomacy, well McCain did push for the normalization of relations with North Vietnam—the same people who tortured him. Obviously if he is willing to use diplomacy with North Vietnam he would use it with others.
Except he says he won't. Now maybe he is posturing, but I'm gonna take him at his word. And explain to me again how shutting down diplomacy before you even know what the involved parties are is a good thing.
The very issue of Diplomacy is why I would never align myself with Obama and his like on the left, even though I am a pro-choice (for the most part, not into abortions in the latter stages of pregnancy) atheist who is totally okay living near, working with, or being friends with gay people. Obama doesn't understand diplomacy is essentially the carrot and stick. If you don't have a big stick, and are willing to use it, nobody cares if you're willing to give them the carrot. They'll just take it from you.
So you say. Again I think McCain has less relevant experience than Obama. He's spent many years in office learning how to do it wrong. You can teach an old dog new tricks, to be sure, (witness the death of the straight talk express under the Neo-Con spin machine) but in this area he doesn't seem willing to learn.
Oh, and Obama has NO accomplishments. He's the next Jimmy Carter, and I really, truly think that if you put him in a room with Putin, he would wet himself.
I doubt it. But even if he did it would be better than fawning sycophancy of the current administration, or the knee jerk "Let's have a war" McCain response. Quite frankly I don't care if he is scared of Putin - I care if he is using every avenue available to gather relevant and useful information. My ego doesn't require that my leader be the most confident man in the room, I just want the most informed and the most competent. Typically the most confident person in the room is the one who doesn't have a clue what is really happening.
I know that sometimes war may be what is needed, as does Obama given his statements. I just don't see him so quick to revel in jingoistic ignorance, which is what McCain has done several times recently. It is our failures of foreign policy that has given Putin the power to get where he is; I do not see any impetus in McCain to even recognize that this is an issue. Just more of the saber rattling. Which must make Putin laugh.
And NORAD itself? I'm looking at it... Cheyenne Mountain in Colorado Springs, CO.
And that's why a country like Canada has almost no power in world wide affairs and relied on the US for its very existence during the cold war... Down here we call Canada, America's largest national park system... LOL
Wow, being Canadian, I am deeply insulted. Many people on this forums seem to think that many countries hate the US. If every American "down there" are as arrogant and disrespectful, I can understand why.
Maybe you don't study you're history close enough. Canada as been an important player in World politics. We where never in the spotlight, sure, but we have made alot of contributions. See the next quote, for some examples. We also beat you on three separate occasions at the birth of you're great nation. So the score is about 3-0 for Canada.
I know, with don't have a chance now because we are a peace loving country. But still history is history.
Wow, the ignorance of some Americans of Canada constantly amazes me. Perhaps you are unaware of Signals Intelligence played in the success of the Cold War, the Dew Line and NORAD or the US atomic bomb that landed on Canadian soil (admittedly no one will confirm that one). oh how about Canada's roll in Korea or NATO. How about the fonding of the UN and are commitment to peace keeping. I can only wonder why when traveling just about any where in the world and we tell people that where Canadian not Americans we are treated so much better.
That atomic bomb landed pretty close to my home town. In fact, the landowner is a friend of my family. Seeing helicopters and men with machine guns landing in his field was quite a shock. He still talks about it.
While I don't like to slight Canada's accomplishments, I really can't see how they can claim the Dew Line and NORAD in that list, since all they really did was lease the property. Most of those installations are even crewed today by American Air Force.
And NORAD itself? I'm looking at it... Cheyenne Mountain in Colorado Springs, CO.
All America did was send some crew. All installations where constructed by Canadians. But that's not the point, those institutions are COOPORATIONS between many countries. Giving the benefits to only one country is not TEAM SPIRIT.
As I see it, WHY SPIT ON YOUR ALLIES??
Personnally, I like the US. Ok, maybe not their foreign policies of late, but the people and the places are pretty fine.
All America did was send some crew. All installations where constructed by Canadians. But that's not the point, those institutions are COOPORATIONS between many countries. Giving the benefits to only one country is not TEAM SPIRIT.
I just meant that you couldn't cite them as 'uniquely Canadian' anyway. NORAD and its associated Dew Line defense network were under NATO auspices.
As I see it, WHY SPIT ON YOUR ALLIES??
You tell me? Actually, Canada hasn't been too bad about that, so far as the US is concerned, but let's look at NATO members such as Germany and France, nae?
Personnally, I like the US. Ok, maybe not their foreign policies of late, but the people and the places are pretty fine.
Our foreign policy is really okay, when you actually sit down and look at it. Afghanistan was off the table long ago. Iraq was likely inevitable, etc. Putin is an issue still for Europe to handle first and foremost. Bush's blunders internationally were really more strategic in nature, not political, and I'm far from convinced that any 'alternatives' being pushed would have yielded better results.
That atomic bomb landed pretty close to my home town. In fact, the landowner is a friend of my family. Seeing helicopters and men with machine guns landing in his field was quite a shock. He still talks about it.
It's a very good thing that A-Bombs and H-Bombs are not, popular assumption aside, impact-based weapons.
It's a very good thing that A-Bombs and H-Bombs are not, popular assumption aside, impact-based weapons.
I second that !!!!
That atomic bomb landed pretty close to my home town. In fact, the landowner is a friend of my family. Seeing helicopters and men with machine guns landing in his field was quite a shock. He still talks about it.
I'm kind of thinking that you are taking about another one, I was thinking of the one in northern B.C. Which one are you referring to?
oh Montreal area didn't know about that one
I come from a mil background.
thats swell
Without the US those wouldn't have existed and Canada would have been around until about 1955...
oh the Russians where going to invade where they? don't think so
thats swell oh the Russians where going to invade where they? don't think so
There was never a threat of Russia invading really... but they could and would have bombed other nations into compliance.
Kinda like they're doing now, actually.
I just meant that you couldn't cite them as 'uniquely Canadian' anyway. NORAD and its associated Dew Line defense network were under NATO auspices.
No NORAD is a purely bilateral Canada / U.S. organization at all levels up to but excluding the nuclear response.
You tell me? Actually, Canada hasn't been too bad about that, so far as the US is concerned, but let's look at NATO members such as Germany and France, nae? .
I'd say we deal with you guys pretty well all things considered.
I'm English, so I spare little thought for the United States' elections (it is not my place to say who I think the Americans ought to elect), but I must say this: even if nothing else (which I doubt), Sarah Palin seems friendly, lively, and down-to-earth. That is more than can be said for many politicians.
That's the thing she does seem down to earth and a lot of Americans can identify with her and her family. She’s also as of right now has the highest rating as a governor in the US. Is she the ideal choice? No, one of the reasons I think Obama is a horrible candidate is due to his lack of experience. So I cannot give Palin a pass on this dept. At the same time McCain’s strategy is brilliant yet stupid . He’s essentially gambling that this true conservative woman will bring back his base and also get female independent voters who would have voted for Hillary C. The problem is not all the conservative are that crazy about an inexperienced VP even if they like her as a person, but McCain I think is hoping that the majority of informed voters will see the liberal side of McCain and the change he would bring to the white house with having the first female VP as an example.
What about the whole thing with her ex brother in law or something that she tried to get fired?
It's under investigation? I guess we will see what happens when it's over.
It's under investigation? I guess we will see what happens when it's over.
Or we will never see anything if McCain gets elected.
Don't put Governor Palintine into office!
I know - low blow, but I couldn't resist.
Or we will never see anything if McCain gets elected.
Don't put Governor Palintine into office!
I know - low blow, but I couldn't resist.
Well, yes, you could have, but ah well.
It could maybe be nothing, eh?
It's under investigation? I guess we will see what happens when it's over.
You mean the one that threatened to shoot Mrs Palin's FATHER, and commited several other breaches of 'public trust'.. yeah, let's make that an issue. (Remember, the officer WAS fired eventually, for racking up multiple counts of crap like that.)
Or we will never see anything if McCain gets elected.
Don't put Governor Palintine into office!
I know - low blow, but I couldn't resist.
It is a valid concern though. Also her record on enviornmental issues sucks. She even wants to take polar bears off of the endagered species list, probably so she can hunt one.
And sure as hell don't eMail McCain.
You expect a President to sit at his computer at 3 am waiting for unknown emails? Weird.
Wow, being Canadian, I am deeply insulted. Many people on this forums seem to think that many countries hate the US. If every American "down there" are as arrogant and disrespectful, I can understand why.
No disrespect. Without the US military might, Canada, Germany and list of others would have been speaking Russian. Without UK intelligence and persistence in WWII, the US under FRD would have probably been speaking German OR dealing with a German dominated EU.
You expect a President to sit at his computer at 3 am waiting for unknown emails? Weird.
Nope, I just expect him to know how to - you know - open one to read it. I mentioned nothing about the time stamp on the eMail. But you make excuses for his ignorance however you want to. I take it as further evidence that his so called experience doesn't amount to a hill of beans.
NORAD and its associated Dew Line defense network were under NATO auspices.
No. There is no command line from NATO to NORAD. It goes CINC ---> NORAD CINC.
Have you ever worked under the "hill" or seen the command chart?
I'm kind of thinking that you are taking about another one, I was thinking of the one in northern B.C. Which one are you referring to?
oh Montreal area didn't know about that one
No, not really in the Montreal region, that would have been a real panic. It was in the 50's, in a small rural region in a South-Western part of Quebec called Pontiac. The bomb never ignited or anything. It was recovered in less then a day.
There was another bomb that droped in those days, buyt this time in Rivière-du-Loup in the Eastern part au Québec. In this incident, they detonated without it's nuclear core. Saving the region from a nuclear catastrophe.
Many such incidents where reported in the region because of the presence of the Goose Bay military base. Here is a french article on the subject : Article.
No. There is no command line from NATO to NORAD. It goes CINC ---> NORAD CINC.
Have you ever worked under the "hill" or seen the command chart?
Sadly no. My scheduled time there was closed when 9/11 happened, and it's never been opened up since. All I see is the big ol' NATO office structure up front at Fort Carson.
No disrespect. Without the US military might, Canada, Germany and list of others would have been speaking Russian. Without UK intelligence and persistence in WWII, the US under FRD would have probably been speaking German OR dealing with a German dominated EU.
So that makes Canada you're Northern Natural Park?? Well sorry if I do see some disrespect. I would like to say, that Canada soldiers fought hard by the side of american soldiers during both wars. So, I don't see where that makes us a less proud country.
So that makes Canada you're Northern Natural Park?? Well sorry if I do see some disrespect. I would like to say, that Canada soldiers fought hard by the side of american soldiers during both wars. So, I don't see where that makes us a less proud country.
Of course they fought hard. There weren't enough soldiers to greatly influence the war but, they fought VERY hard. Don't mess with Canadian Mountain troops.
But, the FACT remains. Canada wouldn't now exist if it hadn't tucked under the military US military shield. SO, I expect respect for the US from Canadians as we are the reason you live in a free country. Just as you should show respect to the parents who gave and ensured you are alive...
Of course they fought hard. There weren't enough soldiers to greatly influence the war but, they fought VERY hard. Don't mess with Canadian Mountain troops.
But, the FACT remains. Canada wouldn't now exist if it hadn't tucked under the military US military shield. SO, I expect respect for the US from Canadians as we are the reason you live in a free country. Just as you should show respect to the parents who gave and ensured you are alive...
An Kursk with your logic the USA should have France's balls in its mouth. If it wasn't for France helping out the US during the revolutionary war the British would not have surrendered.
(Edit: I mean, seriously, is it too much to ask for a politician who is consistently pro-life? One who is against abortion, against embryonic stem cell research, against the death penalty, against environmental destruction, against gun proliferation...? Yep, it would seem so.)
Anyway, I'm not American, so I can't vote. But, honestly, it looks like both parties have very good candidates, both those going for president and their running mates. This is something of a relief for me. No matter who gets elected, it seems like the country will be in good hands.
Evolution is a theory demonstrated with fact and observation. Creationism is an outdated theory like the raisin-bread atomic theory and the ether. The best that you could do when teaching creationism is mention it in the ancient and outdated theory, and it's more a way to nullify that theory, not a way to give credits to this theory.
As far as I'm concerned: evolutionism is science and creationism is religion. They should never be seen as equal because there aren't even in the same category. Science is about discovering how things work and how they're connected to each other, whereas religion is about exploring why there's anything at all and what the significance of our existance is. There is absolutely no need to regard evolution and creation as incompatible - and that's true of *anyone*, whether they claim that evolution shouldn't be taught (the kind of people you criticise) or that creation shouldn't be taught (which you pretty much do - claiming that it should only be taught in order to ridicule it doesn't really count).
Yeah, she have five childs.... all under a religious mariage I supposed. She must avoid hell after all. :D
I find your remark offensive. At its best, religious marriage is a very fulfilling commitment of love and faith. I have seen it yield dividends of happiness for so many people, both friends and family - and I wouldn't exist without it. I'll be very lucky if I can enter into one myself. Implying that it's just something that people do out of fear or to avoid hell is effectively claiming that millions of good and honest people are cowards.
Maybe you've had a bad experience with some religious extremists - and I sympathise with you if you have - but there is really no call to go tarnishing everyone with the same brush.
An Kursk with your logic the USA should have France's balls in its mouth. If it wasn't for France helping out the US during the revolutionary war the British would not have surrendered.
Actually, not entirely true. The French actually cut off the British retreat more than anything. Even without France's help, the revolution would have succeeded, but taken a bit longer.
But that's neither here nor there. He's just echoing the frustration that many Americans have in that we're so easily disposed of by so many that constantly make demands on us.
But, the FACT remains. Canada wouldn't now exist if it hadn't tucked under the military US military shield. SO, I expect respect for the US from Canadians as we are the reason you live in a free country. Just as you should show respect to the parents who gave and ensured you are alive...
Sorry, but I must disagree. I think the relations between countries or between citizens of different countries should be of MUTUAL respect. There is no country that should be morally ou politically enslaved by another. NATO exists a COOPERATION between the two countries. BOTH collects the rewards. There is no SMALLER partner. Only partners.
Actually, not entirely true. The French actually cut off the British retreat more than anything. Even without France's help, the revolution would have succeeded, but taken a bit longer.
But that's neither here nor there. He's just echoing the frustration that many Americans have in that we're so easily disposed of by so many that constantly make demands on us.
Yep. And we sorta paid France back once or twice, IIRC. ;) It is funny to see so many countries condemn the US presence in Iraq while begging for us to intervene in other places. People clamored for intervention in Zimbabwe. Georgia felt nearly betrayed by our lack of nuking the Ruskies. It's no wonder that we're not well liked. We don't do enough of what everyone else wants us to. They want police until we police and then when we don't police they tell us we are the police and how un-police-like we're behaving. Mind boggling.
Sarah Palin's outlook and record impress me a lot... Well, apart from her views on guns and environmental & global warming issues - but I think I'll never find a politician who agrees with me on everything, so I have learned to live with being less than 100% happy...
(Edit: I mean, seriously, is it too much to ask for a politician who is consistently pro-life? One who is against abortion, against embryonic stem cell research, against the death penalty, against environmental destruction, against gun proliferation...? Yep, it would seem so.)
Anyway, I'm not American, so I can't vote. But, honestly, it looks like both parties have very good candidates, both those going for president and their running mates. This is something of a relief for me. No matter who gets elected, it seems like the country will be in good hands.
As far as I'm concerned: evolutionism is science and creationism is religion. They should never be seen as equal because there aren't even in the same category. Science is about discovering how things work and how they're connected to each other, whereas religion is about exploring why there's anything at all and what the significance of our existance is. There is absolutely no need to regard evolution and creation as incompatible - and that's true of *anyone*, whether they claim that evolution shouldn't be taught (the kind of people you criticise) or that creation shouldn't be taught (which you pretty much do - claiming that it should only be taught in order to ridicule it doesn't really count).
I find your remark offensive. At its best, religious marriage is a very fulfilling commitment of love and faith. I have seen it yield dividends of happiness for so many people, both friends and family - and I wouldn't exist without it. I'll be very lucky if I can enter into one myself. Implying that it's just something that people do out of fear or to avoid hell is effectively claiming that millions of good and honest people are cowards.
Maybe you've had a bad experience with some religious extremists - and I sympathise with you if you have - but there is really no call to go tarnishing everyone with the same brush.
First, my remark is not offensive but sarcastic. And I said that because I know that these people look down on people like me who are not married (not married and my grilfriend is pregnant, what a shame lol). So, I consider that I am not worse than those people who claim that we should have no sex before wedding. These people just don't respect my way of life, so I don't care to do a little sarcasm abot their view.
For creationism vs evolution, you can claim that genesis is metaphorical ;) .
English is not my first langage (like many other there). So stay cool about grammar, I doing my best.
What I just said is that people who do the lesson on other people are sometime no more good.
In short, thanks Canada for helping out my good old US of A.
Yeah, I admit that you totally right. Creationism and intelligent disign are just plain crap, not theories.
Can't do more analysis about what is just religious dogma and not scientific fact... unless you analyse this in a metaphorical way like the bible should normally be analyse.
Nope, I just expect him to know how to - you know - open one to read it.
I fear the president that uses email. You trust microshaft to be the wall between hackers and the highest gov official? It's bad enough congress uses it. I'm waiting for the inevitable congressman to get suckered into a 419 scam. Any bets on party affiliation?
I fear the president that uses email. You trust microshaft to be the wall between hackers and the highest gov official? It's bad enough congress uses it. I'm waiting for the inevitable congressman to get suckered into a 419 scam. Any bets on party affiliation?
Seriously? You fear the president who uses eMail? Seriously? Please tell me you are making a little joke here. 'Cause honestly you have got to be somewhat computer literate if you are going to sign off on legislation that say allows monitoring of people's eMail for example. The whole "series of tubes" meme is not just absurdist mockery. It points out that these are the people who are passing laws about a thing that they do not comprehend in any way. Doesn't that bother you somehow?
I mean if it were a law about Cuckoo Clocks and he had no idea how they worked, then I might let it slide, but this is something that touches every single aspect of our lives deeply and thoroughly. He should at least want to bone up a little on it. Order those CDs from that shouty guy on the television. You know, have a little bit of intellectual curiosity about the main industry that is keeping this country from going completely in the crapper.
This, I'm just a simple caveman crap should not cut it.
I never, ever, ever, want to hear any liberal or Democrat ever claim that they support women's rights. Ever.
So that makes Canada you're Northern Natural Park?? Well sorry if I do see some disrespect. I would like to say, that Canada soldiers fought hard by the side of american soldiers during both wars. So, I don't see where that makes us a less proud country.
the Canadian butchers bill for WW2 Please note the dates, Canada's population in 39 was 11,267,000
COUNTING THE COST
1939-1945
More than 42,000 Canadians lost their lives as a result of the Second World War.
Canada played a strong role in defeating the Axis powers. The price of victory was high: approximately 23,000 Canadians laid down their lives serving in the army, 17,000 in the air force, 2000 in the navy and 1600 in the merchant navy. Another 54,000 Canadians were wounded and thousands would be physically impaired or psychologically scarred for life. Over 700 Newfoundlanders also died during the war.
Canadian war cemeteries around the world bear testimony to their sacrifice. “At the going down of the sun, and in the morning, we shall remember them.” All Canadians owe the nation’s war dead the debt of remembrance.
http://www.warmuseum.ca/cwm/chrono/1931cost_e.html
Sorry, but I must disagree. I think the relations between countries or between citizens of different countries should be of MUTUAL respect.
Respect is EARNED. The world is reality not some PC love fest.
Disgusting.
I never, ever, ever, want to hear any liberal or Democrat ever claim that they support women's rights. Ever.
I support Womens Rights. Olympia Snowe or Kay Bailey Hutchinson would have been good, respectable picks...
Except they are for Womens rights, too, and the Republican base wouldn't like that
I support Womens Rights. Olympia Snowe or Kay Bailey Hutchinson would have been good, respectable picks...
Except they are for Womens rights, too, and the Republican base wouldn't like that
And you're full of it.
And you're full of it.
Full of what? Concern? Patriotism? Do tell
Is Olympia Snowe more qualified than Sarah Palin? What's your opinion?
I wore my uniform and fought, and I'm calling you out. Sorry, but uniform or not, if you think America should surrender after 4000 casualties you're a coward and a disgrace to whatever uniform you wore.
Did I say surrender? You will find that the word surrender was never once typed by me. I call for a cease in hostilities, but that is a long way from surrender. I advocate finding out what it will take to make the other guy quit fighting and if it's acceptable making the deal. That's called peace. That's called diplomacy. That's even called a return to civility and sanity. What it's not called is surrender.
Maybe if more Americans learned that we are only 228 million out of the 5 billion or so people on the Earth, we wouldn't be so quick to want to dictate to other people. Just because we can lord over other nations, doesn't mean we should. Someday we'll pull this same routine with the wrong country and we'll face a dozen or so of those little countries ganging up to even the odds. How would you feel about that?
No disrespect. Without the US military might, Canada, Germany and list of others would have been speaking Russian. Without UK intelligence and persistence in WWII, the US under FRD would have probably been speaking German OR dealing with a German dominated EU.
You know, this "my country is better than yours" crap is what makes Americans so hated worldwide. If you want to see how friendly the rest of the world can be, tell them you're Canadian. Believe me, it works. At one point in time the state department even suggested that if you were abducted in a foreign country.
Did I say surrender? You will find that the word surrender was never once typed by me. I call for a cease in hostilities, but that is a long way from surrender. I advocate finding out what it will take to make the other guy quit fighting and if it's acceptable making the deal. That's called peace. That's called diplomacy. That's even called a return to civility and sanity. What it's not called is surrender.
The only thing they want is more power. Power to enact Sharia law, to enslave women, and to replace the American Hegemony with an Islamic one.
Peace with such people should not even be considered.
So that makes Canada you're Northern Natural Park?? Well sorry if I do see some disrespect. I would like to say, that Canada soldiers fought hard by the side of american soldiers during both wars. So, I don't see where that makes us a less proud country.
My apologies Paul. I know I'm not the one that seems to think that Canada isn't a real country, but I'll apologize for my countrymen.
If the people of the US ever looked at the size of the Canadian army and then compared it to the population, they'd see a far bigger percentage than the US can boast. I've worked with Canadians before, I can tell you that their soldiers are not people I want hostile towards me. The only thing I can say about Canada that could be called critical is that there should be more Canadians.
Peace with such people should not even be considered.
That's an extremist position. And strangely ironic, they seem to have the same feeling about America.
I could try to make peace, but it's pointless. Too many people have decided that the only solution is the utter destruction of anyone not like them. Do me a favor, drop the bomb. Go on, nuke each other and take the rest of us out too. It's better that we should all shuffle off this mortal coil. Maybe we'll get lucky and the cockroaches can manage to live together without killing each other off in droves.
My apologies Paul. I know I'm not the one that seems to think that Canada isn't a real country, but I'll apologize for my countrymen.
If the people of the US ever looked at the size of the Canadian army and then compared it to the population, they'd see a far bigger percentage than the US can boast. I've worked with Canadians before, I can tell you that their soldiers are not people I want hostile towards me. The only thing I can say about Canada that could be called critical is that there should be more Canadians.
Why are you lying? About 1% of the American population is in the military, while .2% of the Canadian population is. Take special note of the decimal point to the left of that two there.
The average canadian soldier is decently trained—but surely not frightening.
Really, just stop making stuff up.
Why are you lying? About 1% of the American population is in the military, while .2% of the Canadian population is. Take special note of the decimal point to the left of that two there.
The average canadian soldier is decently trained—but surely not frightening.
Really, just stop making stuff up.
What's the source of your numbers? If I'm lying, cite your sources. My comments were anecdotal. Or does calling me a liar make enough of a statement that you don't have to defend your position?
What's the source of your numbers? If I'm lying, cite your sources. My comments were anecdotal. Or does calling me a liar make enough of a statement that you don't have to defend your position?
Population of Canada: 33,364,000 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada
Population of U.S.A.:305,029,000 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States
Canadian Military: 62,000 active, 25,000 reserve
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Forces
U.S. Military: 1,426,713 active, 1,458,500 reserve http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_the_United_States
Do I really have to type up the math? Oh, and by the way—the size of a military force relative to population is not the sort of thing you want to judge "anecdotally."
As for quality of the soldier, that is anecdotal for me as well. From what I have seen, their training is decent, but they just aren't very vicious.
Oh, and I just finished reading the rest of the thread. You lied about the number of casualties in Iraq this month as well—or was that "anecdotal" too? I'm so glad there are people like you in America who are willing to lie so blatantly just to try and prove your pitiful political beliefs.
Sorry, Canadian humour. :P
Yep. And we sorta paid France back once or twice, IIRC. ;) It is funny to see so many countries condemn the US presence in Iraq while begging for us to intervene in other places. People clamored for intervention in Zimbabwe. Georgia felt nearly betrayed by our lack of nuking the Ruskies. It's no wonder that we're not well liked. We don't do enough of what everyone else wants us to. They want police until we police and then when we don't police they tell us we are the police and how un-police-like we're behaving. Mind boggling.
When you've got the biggest riding lawnmower on the block, don't be surprises if everyone wants you to cut their lawn. ;)
As for quality of the soldier, that is anecdotal for me as well. From what I have seen, their training is decent, but they just aren't very vicious.
try this
http://www.cbc.ca/sunday/2007/09/090907_1.html
or this
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1026271952413_269
try this
http://www.cbc.ca/sunday/2007/09/090907_1.html
or this
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1026271952413_269
Interesting stuff. I've never met any Canadian snipers, though you can't really call snipers "average."
I do want to point out, that my posts were not to belittle Canada, as I have served beside a few and still consider them friends, and I also live near the Canadian border and visit there quite often. I just really hate it when people use lies to further their own agenda.
The soldiers I served with were professional, though they personally didn't want to be there.
Seriously? You fear the president who uses eMail? Seriously? Please tell me you are making a little joke here.
...
I mean if it were a law about Cuckoo Clocks and he had no idea how they worked, then I might let it slide, but this is something that touches every single aspect of our lives deeply and thoroughly.
I only mean on the job. As an IT profess... er... someone who works in the IT field, I want a tech savvy government. But I literally don't want them using it while on the job.
I support Womens Rights. Olympia Snowe or Kay Bailey Hutchinson would have been good, respectable picks...
Except they are for Womens rights, too, and the Republican base wouldn't like that
I'm kind of curious what part of Women's rights they're for, that Republicans wouldn't like, that Sarah Palin doesn't represent?
I mean, seriously, the woman is a self-made-woman, going from fisherman and oil field worker, to candidate for Vice President of the USA, on her own honest merits. She has a loving and well adjusted family (yeah, the teenage daughter made a mistake; and now she's owning up to it, and taking the path less traveled).
I'm kind of curious what direction you're going here.
Respect is EARNED. The world is reality not some PC love fest.
Your quite right. And you cannot EARN it by showboating or bullying. The size of your military doesn't grant you RESPECT, it grants INTIMIDATION (which can be a good thing by the way). Sorry if you don't understand the difference. I have always (not now unfortunatly) been proud of Canada's dedication to peacekeeping and the environment. And that earns respect. If you don't see the merits of peace and diplomacy, well, our views will always diverge.
First, my remark is not offensive but sarcastic.
Well, now that you've told me it's sarcastic, I am certainly less offended...
And I said that because I know that these people look down on people like me who are not married (not married and my grilfriend is pregnant, what a shame lol). So, I consider that I am not worse than those people who claim that we should have no sex before wedding. These people just don't respect my way of life, so I don't care to do a little sarcasm abot their view.
People who think that sex should be kept for marriage don't *share* your way of life, but that doesn't have to mean that they don't respect it. Some of my closest friends have had kids outside of marriage: beautiful children that have given them much happiness and required a lot of hard work. I respect my friends' choices a great deal, even though I am waiting for marriage personally. Again, I would suggest not tarring everyone with the same brush. ;)
For creationism vs evolution, you can claim that genesis is metaphorical ;) .
There is no "versus" in my mind, as I believe in both. Scientifically, the evidence for evolution is so strong that I cannot disbelieve it (not that I have any special reasons to want to disbelieve it). I regard Genesis as metaphorical in the sense that I don't believe the entire universe took its more-or-less-current shape in six 24-hour periods... (And that's just going with the Priestly account, without even touching the much older Yahwist account.) But, as that was *never* the real message of Genesis (that's just not the mode in which storytellers of the time actually worked), I am happy to believe in the real truth of its message: that the whole universe owes its existence to God, who judges every last part of His creation as fundamentally "good."
For me, this is one of the most meaningful of all truths. In fact, it's often the case that truths of such huge significance can *only* be portrayed through metaphor... But that doesn't make them any less true. It just requires people to realise that there are many different kinds of truth, not all of them scientifically provable. Can one measure love or subject it to laboratory tests? Perhaps not, but we still know it exists, most tangibly. This is only really the tip of the iceberg, though, and I don't want to go any more off-topic than I already have.
Anyway, really... if one takes each day in Genesis 1 as a metaphor for a very long period of development, it doesn't even disagree with much science anyway... But why anyone would try to teach it in a science class is totally beyond me. It belongs in religious studies.
Full of what? Concern? Patriotism? Do tell
Best. Answer. Ever. :D
Well, now that you've told me it's sarcastic, I am certainly less offended...
People who think that sex should be kept for marriage don't *share* your way of life, but that doesn't have to mean that they don't respect it. Some of my closest friends have had kids outside of marriage: beautiful children that have given them much happiness and required a lot of hard work. I respect my friends' choices a great deal, even though I am waiting for marriage personally. Again, I would suggest not tarring everyone with the same brush. ;)
There is no "versus" in my mind, as I believe in both. . Ever. :D
Now, if marriage is a beautiful way of life (what I believe, but, just don't care about ceremonies) the question is : Why denying the right of marriage to gay couple? There love could be as true as the love of any heterosexual couple.
For «versus», it's just a short term to resume what you said; I didn't have enough time to give a better elabration ;) (a pregnant girlfriend took much of my time:D ).
You mean the one that threatened to shoot Mrs Palin's FATHER, and commited several other breaches of 'public trust'.. yeah, let's make that an issue. (Remember, the officer WAS fired eventually, for racking up multiple counts of crap like that.)
Exactly, I find it funny how all this explosive detail of this woman’s life is getting thrown out there, but John Edwards who was having an affair gets suppressed, Obama’s involvement with a militant black church with it’s racist leader, and his involvement with Bill Ayers gets suppressed. It would be nice if the media covered everyone equally maybe Hillary C. would be the nominee for President instead of Obama.
Full of what? Concern? Patriotism? Do tell
Is Olympia Snowe more qualified than Sarah Palin? What's your opinion?
That's funny Olympia Snowe, I heard James Carville say the same thing on Larry King and I LMAO.
Now, if marriage is a beautiful way of life (what I believe, but, just don't care about ceremonies) the question is : Why denying the right of marriage to gay couple? There love could be as true as the love of any heterosexual couple.
I'm not really sure what to think on this front, to be perfectly honest. My feelings and thoughts are very divided. I just try to keep confronting those divisions and the realities that lead to them and hope that I don't make too many mistakes along the way. Let me sketch things out...
On the one hand, some of my gay friends are in very serious, loving, and long-term relationships, and they want to get married. In fact, some of them plan to have their weddings in countries in Europe where this is legal. Sometimes I feel that the theological principles I have learned when it comes to sexuality don't stand up in the face of their very tangible and visible attachment to each other. I find myself asking: if it's best to pledge oneself to a lifetime of commitment to one sexual partner, then why shouldn't gay people be allowed to do this? Oftentimes, I find myself unable to answer this question.
On the other hand, there is a general principle in the teachings of my religious tradition which says that sex has two purposes: 1) to create and strengthen a bond of love between two people, and 2) to bring children into the world. Now, two people of the same sex cannot produce children through biological union. It simply isn't possible, and never will be. (Egg + egg != child; ditto sperm + sperm. Well, perhaps science could accomplish this eventually, but not without a vast quantity of genetic experimentation on human embryos, which is unambiguously forbidden by my ethical and religious traditions.) Anyway, this means that a same-sex couple is not capable of fulfilling the second function of sex. Now, this whole "two purposes" thing might seem a bit arcane - but I can't deny that it has been a great uniting factor in my tradition's theology of sexuality generally, and a good guideline in helping me to understand so many different areas of bioethics. For instance: my religious tradition has often been accused of viewing sex as contemptible except insofar as it produces children - but, in fact, it does not allow in-vitro fertilisation (even though this could produce children without sexual intercourse) because it achieves the second purpose of sex without the first (which is also seen as very important). So, ultimately, the central principles of my tradition (when it comes to sexuality) are against people having sex with people of the same gender, point blank - not marriage, as such (that's just a consequence of it).
Now, I would be in favour of legal civil partnerships - which would not just be open to gay people (though they would be included) but also to a wide range of people who are very committed to each other, co-dependent, and living together. (A classic example in Ireland would be two elderly siblings living together - it would be good for them to be able to improve their legal situation.) Some kind of vow of commitment would probably be involved here: and, since this would reflect a commitment to faithful love, I really don't see why there could be any reasonable opposition to such a thing, whether the people taking the vow are gay or not.
Anyway, those are my views. Of course, I don't go around shoving them in gay people's faces, as they would be considered offensive by many of them (even though, of course, I don't mean to offend). Interestingly, though, the two gay people I know who are most committed to each other are also those who are most interested in discussing my views and tolerate them very well. (Mind you, one of them is also staunchly pagan, yet, of all my friends, I have the most interesting conversations on religion with him, in spite of our very different views! Just goes to show, each person is a wonder unto themselves, and branding people according to various categories and refusing to see them outside of these boxes is a mistake.)
Anyway, I don't have a clear-cut answer for you, just this muddle of thoughts. Sorry. But, irrespective of my divided feelings, I wish all gay people the very best (whatever that best might be). It's not always easy to know how to love - I mean, what concrete form the effort to love should take in each particular situation... But, no matter how hard it is, we have to keep trying.
(a pregnant girlfriend took much of my time:D ).
I'm sure! :D Best wishes to you, to her, and to the baby.
Oh, and I just finished reading the rest of the thread. You lied about the number of casualties in Iraq this month as well—or was that "anecdotal" too? I'm so glad there are people like you in America who are willing to lie so blatantly just to try and prove your pitiful political beliefs.
First off, boyo, I had a 28 million population figure for Canada and the casualty figures for Iraq came from MSNBC.
Secondly, I have no reason to lie about anything to prove a political point. A political point is an opinion. We all have those. Apparently personal attacks are the way you make yours known.
For creationism vs evolution, you can claim that genesis is metaphorical ;) .
Metaphor is literature, not science. Since Genesis is in a currently practiced religion, it's afforded a place in the field of theology, part of sociology alongside anthropology, archaeology and history.
But, the FACT remains. Canada wouldn't now exist if it hadn't tucked under the military US military shield. SO, I expect respect for the US from Canadians as we are the reason you live in a free country.
You expect people to respect their jailer?
We don't live in a free country, we live under American occupation. Pax Americana. If in free elections we were to finally elect a socialist to get rid of the corrupt capitalist crony government we have, how long would you wait until you pulled off the same crap as in Chile, or Nicaragua, or Mexico, on us?
When you've got the biggest riding lawnmower on the block, don't be surprises if everyone wants you to cut their lawn. ;)
That makes sense - to a point. The issue is that when we do cross the street and mow a neighbor's lawn, the other people on the block get angry with us for doing it. Then, after a time, they see that the puny mower they have just isn't keeping their lawn as kempt as they need it to and demand we mow it for them - or, at the very least, help them mow. They fail to realize that we are already commited to helping another neighbor or two and do remember that they told us before that we should only mow our own lawn. So we kindly tell them that we just don't have a big enough mower to mow the lawns we are currently mowing, start mowing theirs too and keep ours looking nice and neat. We are then villified for not caring enough about their lawns even though we are friends. Villified by the same people that condemned us for mowing someone else's lawn in the first place. The blatant hypocrisy is not usually understood.
You expect people to respect their jailer?
We don't live in a free country, we live under American occupation. Pax Americana. If in free elections we were to finally elect a socialist to get rid of the corrupt capitalist crony government we have, how long would you wait until you pulled off the same crap as in Chile, or Nicaragua, or Mexico, on us?
Freedom in capitalist society always remains about the same as it was in ancient Greek republics: Freedom for slave owners.
Vladimir Lenin
Just to put things in perspective.
Freedom in capitalist society always remains about the same as it was in ancient Greek republics: Freedom for slave owners.
Vladimir Lenin
Just to put things in perspective.
The only thing wrong in that quote is Vladimir Lenin.
To put more things in perspective"If the present situation continues, the very word “socialism” will turn into a curse. This is what happened to the conception of “equality” in France for forty years after the rule of the Jacobins."
- Peter Kropotkin, letter to Lenin
The only thing wrong in that quote is Vladimir Lenin.
"If the present situation continues, the very word “socialism” will turn into a curse. This is what happened to the conception of “equality” in France for forty years after the rule of the Jacobins."
- Peter Kropotkin, letter to Lenin
"The two great movements of our century --towards Liberty of the individual and social co-operation of the whole community--are summed up in Anarchist-Communism."
Peter Kropotkin
I assume this is where you are going?
That's funny Olympia Snowe, I heard James Carville say the same thing on Larry King and I LMAO.
I thought Carville nailed it, too. The funnier thing was Bachmann accusing Carville of disparaging women, when he was a rabid Hilary supporter.
McCains campaign overruled McCains desire to have Tom Ridge or Joe Lieberman as his VP. He needed a women to catch the PUMAs...
My sarcasm detector is off this morning, but truth be told, there are many republican women who would be preferable to Palin other than Snowe, personal judgments aside. But they are not pro-life, and McCain needs Dobson and the evangelicals to like him again. Or maybe they aren't beauty queens.
Thus, Sarah Palin.
I thought Carville nailed it, too. The funnier thing was Bachmann accusing Carville of disparaging women, when he was a rabid Hilary supporter.
McCains campaign overruled McCains desire to have Tom Ridge or Joe Lieberman as his VP. He needed a women to catch the PUMAs...
My sarcasm detector is off this morning, but truth be told, there are many republican women who would be preferable to Palin other than Snowe, personal judgments aside. But they are not pro-life, and McCain needs Dobson and the evangelicals to like him again. Or maybe they aren't beauty queens.
Thus, Sarah Palin.
Thus the right choice IMO, but we will find out after the election.
I'm kind of curious what part of Women's rights they're for, that Republicans wouldn't like, that Sarah Palin doesn't represent?
I mean, seriously, the woman is a self-made-woman, going from fisherman and oil field worker, to candidate for Vice President of the USA, on her own honest merits. She has a loving and well adjusted family (yeah, the teenage daughter made a mistake; and now she's owning up to it, and taking the path less traveled).
I'm kind of curious what direction you're going here.
She is pro-life. Most other qualified republican women happen to be pro-choice or agnostic.
Thus the right choice IMO, but we will find out after the election.
Cynicism FTW
First off, boyo, I had a 28 million population figure for Canada and the casualty figures for Iraq came from MSNBC.
Secondly, I have no reason to lie about anything to prove a political point. A political point is an opinion. We all have those. Apparently personal attacks are the way you make yours known.
Where are your links? Your last post told me your evidence was anecdotal, now your trying to convince people that you were just misled by bad sources.
Regardless of wether you have a reason to lie—you did. Repeatedly.
Unless you provide some evidence, I really have no reason to believe a single word you're saying.
That makes sense - to a point. The issue is that when we do cross the street and mow a neighbor's lawn, the other people on the block get angry with us for doing it. Then, after a time, they see that the puny mower they have just isn't keeping their lawn as kempt as they need it to and demand we mow it for them - or, at the very least, help them mow. They fail to realize that we are already commited to helping another neighbor or two and do remember that they told us before that we should only mow our own lawn. So we kindly tell them that we just don't have a big enough mower to mow the lawns we are currently mowing, start mowing theirs too and keep ours looking nice and neat. We are then villified for not caring enough about their lawns even though we are friends. Villified by the same people that condemned us for mowing someone else's lawn in the first place. The blatant hypocrisy is not usually understood.
Well, there was that time we drove through the one neighbor's topiary to get to that other neighbors yard, and that time we stored our lawnmower in that neighbor's front yard, or the time we gave bits of several neighbor's yards to that new neighbor, or the time......
I understand what you are saying ZB, and I feel it too, but the lawnmower situation is a little more complicated than we always mow lawns, and never get a thank you. If you know what I mean. I am not placing any value on the whys and wherefores here. I am just saying stuff is complicated. Which means, perhaps that we need to articulate why we mow this lawn and not that one for starters. I am by no means a diplomat or foreign policy strategist, but I am tired of the lawnmower analogy.
Well, there was that time we drove through. the one neighbor's topiary to get to that other neighbors yard, and that time we stored our lawnmower in that neighbor's front yard, or the time we gave bits of several neighbor's yards to that new neighbor, or the time
I understand what you are saying ZB, and I feel it too, but the lawnmower situation is a little more complicated than we always mow lawns, and never get a thank you. If you know what I mean. Which means, perhaps that we need to articulate why we mow this lawn and not that one for starters. I am by no means a diplomat or foreign policy strategist, but I am tired of the lawnmower analogy.
Of course it's more complex than a simple mower analogy. You tossed it out there and I felt creative. :D
In all honesty, I wish we'd just let the world decide it's own problems. We are too tied together, though. The current situation is that we really didn't have a great reason to go into Iraq (well, maybe to help Israel indirectly - but that's sketchy as hell). The world knows why we went to Afghanistan. We didn't go to Zimbabwe because we're stretched pretty damned thin and, well, they just aren't important enough. Georgia was different, though. We don't want to take Russia on. Especially when we are stretched so thin. Russia recognized this and took the opportunity. So yeah, it's complicated. But the hypocrisy is there. Again, damned if we do and damned if we don't. It's not great, but it is reality.
She is pro-life.
"Pro life" is a purposely misleading term devised by anti-abortionists to imply that those on the opposite side of the issue are "anti-life". No one, apart from perhaps the criminally psychotic, is "anti-life". That is why many years ago I devised* and started using the far more apt "anti-choice" to accurately describe their position.
"Pro life" is a purposely misleading term devised by anti-abortionists to imply that those on the opposite side of the issue are "anti-life". No one, apart from perhaps the criminally psychotic, is "anti-life". That is why many years ago I devised* and started using the far more apt "anti-choice" to accurately describe their position.
QFT, which is why I use Womens Rights as an umbrella for this subject, and other subjects, of course. Republicans love their word games: Withdrawal Timeline vs. Withdrawal Horizon, etc...
The parallel of removing the privacy protecting a decision between a women and a doctor, and of removing the privacy of a pregnant, unmarried 17 year old is rather striking, isn't it?
I wonder if her parents asked her if it was alright?
The parallel of removing the privacy protecting a decision between a women and a doctor, and of removing the privacy of a pregnant, unmarried 17 year old is rather striking, isn't it?
I wonder if her parents asked her if it was alright?
Simply because you wonder doesn't mean they didn't. Unless they decide to tell us, we will never know.
Do you also wonder if the bloggers asked if it was alright before they started saying Trig was actually the son of an unwed 17 year old? Or is that somehow OK because they aren't her family?
Republicans love their word games: Withdrawal Timeline vs. Withdrawal Horizon, etc...
I had no idea Republicans were the sole practitioners of these word games. Enlightening. ;)
Well so far I'm liking the bounce in the polls since Sarah Palin's announcement:
Pollster has Obama up 49.1 to McCain's 43.9. The graph is really telling.
http://www.pollster.com/polls/us/08-us-pres-ge-mvo.php
You can now return to your regularly scheduled discussions.
Of course it's more complex than a simple mower analogy. You tossed it out there and I felt creative. :D
In all honesty, I wish we'd just let the world decide it's own problems. We are too tied together, though. The current situation is that we really didn't have a great reason to go into Iraq (well, maybe to help Israel indirectly - but that's sketchy as hell). The world knows why we went to Afghanistan. We didn't go to Zimbabwe because we're stretched pretty damned thin and, well, they just aren't important enough. Georgia was different, though. We don't want to take Russia on. Especially when we are stretched so thin. Russia recognized this and took the opportunity. So yeah, it's complicated. But the hypocrisy is there. Again, damned if we do and damned if we don't. It's not great, but it is reality.
A mentor of mine once told me when I started my own business, get a surrogate. Get someone who you appear to defer your decision making to, and get someone who can deliver bad news with an "its just business" flair. Maybe thats what the US needs.
Quick break from the amusing discussion that Republican's are for women's rights and when the U.S. should use force to democratize countries.
Well so far I'm liking the bounce in the polls since Sarah Palin's announcement:
Pollster has Obama up 49.1 to McCain's 43.9. The graph is really telling.
http://www.pollster.com/polls/us/08-us-pres-ge-mvo.php
You can now return to your regularly scheduled discussions.
Polls taken now mean nothing.
A mentor of mine once told me when I started my own business, get a surrogate. Get someone who you appear to defer your decision making to, and get someone who can deliver bad news with an "its just business" flair. Maybe thats what the US needs.
I can't see it making anything worse. Anything to show us in a better light would be good. Though spin does oft get recognized for what it is.
I can't see it making anything worse. Anything to show us in a better light would be good. Though spin does oft get recognized for what it is.
Isn't that what the British are for? or at least Tony Blair? I haven't been following British politics but Gordon Brown seems like less of a puddle.
We've really used them badly.
Metaphor is literature, not science. Since Genesis is in a currently practiced religion, it's afforded a place in the field of theology, part of sociology alongside anthropology, archaeology and history.
I know, but the bible is a kind of litterature (in fact a great source of inspiration for any kind of art) and so, part of what is written in the bible should be consider metaphoric and not litteral. Theologians decrypt and analyse bible texts to understand his meaning beyond the first lecture. And that's why the bible sense should not always be consider litterally.
I'm not really sure what to think on this front, to be perfectly honest. My feelings and thoughts are very divided. I just try to keep confronting those divisions and the realities that lead to them and hope that I don't make too many mistakes along the way. Let me sketch things out...
On the one hand, some of my gay friends are in very serious, loving, and long-term relationships, and they want to get married. In fact, some of them plan to have their weddings in countries in Europe where this is legal. Sometimes I feel that the theological principles I have learned when it comes to sexuality don't stand up in the face of their very tangible and visible attachment to each other. I find myself asking: if it's best to pledge oneself to a lifetime of commitment to one sexual partner, then why shouldn't gay people be allowed to do this? Oftentimes, I find myself unable to answer this question.
On the other hand, there is a general principle in the teachings of my religious tradition which says that sex has two purposes: 1) to create and strengthen a bond of love between two people, and 2) to bring children into the world. Now, two people of the same sex cannot produce children through biological union. It simply isn't possible, and never will be. (Egg + egg != child; ditto sperm + sperm. Well, perhaps science could accomplish this eventually, but not without a vast quantity of genetic experimentation on human embryos, which is unambiguously forbidden by my ethical and religious traditions.) Anyway, this means that a same-sex couple is not capable of fulfilling the second function of sex. Now, this whole "two purposes" thing might seem a bit arcane - but I can't deny that it has been a great uniting factor in my tradition's theology of sexuality generally, and a good guideline in helping me to understand so many different areas of bioethics. For instance: my religious tradition has often been accused of viewing sex as contemptible except insofar as it produces children - but, in fact, it does not allow in-vitro fertilisation (even though this could produce children without sexual intercourse) because it achieves the second purpose of sex without the first (which is also seen as very important). So, ultimately, the central principles of my tradition (when it comes to sexuality) are against people having sex with people of the same gender, point blank - not marriage, as such (that's just a consequence of it).
Now, I would be in favour of legal civil partnerships - which would not just be open to gay people (though they would be included) but also to a wide range of people who are very committed to each other, co-dependent, and living together. (A classic example in Ireland would be two elderly siblings living together - it would be good for them to be able to improve their legal situation.) Some kind of vow of commitment would probably be involved here: and, since this would reflect a commitment to faithful love, I really don't see why there could be any reasonable opposition to such a thing, whether the people taking the vow are gay or not.
Anyway, those are my views. Of course, I don't go around shoving them in gay people's faces, as they would be considered offensive by many of them (even though, of course, I don't mean to offend). Interestingly, though, the two gay people I know who are most committed to each other are also those who are most interested in discussing my views and tolerate them very well. (Mind you, one of them is also staunchly pagan, yet, of all my friends, I have the most interesting conversations on religion with him, in spite of our very different views! Just goes to show, each person is a wonder unto themselves, and branding people according to various categories and refusing to see them outside of these boxes is a mistake.)
Anyway, I don't have a clear-cut answer for you, just this muddle of thoughts. Sorry. But, irrespective of my divided feelings, I wish all gay people the very best (whatever that best might be). It's not always easy to know how to love - I mean, what concrete form the effort to love should take in each particular situation... But, no matter how hard it is, we have to keep trying.
I'm sure! :D Best wishes to you, to her, and to the baby.
Thank you!
Personnaly, I think that gay couple should have the right of civil wedding. And it should be consider outside any religious view since it's a matter of state and not church. For the religious wedding, it's the matter of the church to debate and chose if they give or denied the right of wedding to same sex couple. And at that point, any religious view and arguments could be consider. As a «private» organisation, the church is free to decide it's internal rules.
I know, but the bible is a kind of litterature (in fact a great source of inspiration for any kind of art) and so, part of what is written in the bible should be consider metaphoric and not litteral. Theologians decrypt and analyse bible texts to understand his meaning beyond the first lecture. And that's why the bible sense should not always be consider litterally.
You are looking for the term allegory.
I know, but the bible is a kind of litterature (in fact a great source of inspiration for any kind of art) and so, part of what is written in the bible should be consider metaphoric and not litteral. Theologians decrypt and analyse bible texts to understand his meaning beyond the first lecture. And that's why the bible sense should not always be consider litterally.
No, the Christian Bible isn't literature. Calling it that removes the basic level of respect that you should show simply to acknowledge that there are people that believe it is indeed the word of god, handed down through the ages. It is, however, made up of allegory and parables. There are hundreds, if not thousands of different meanings that can be deciphered from the stories in it.
The amount of inspiration is a key part towards understanding why it's not treated as literature. Literature is a term generally associated with fiction. If you begin using terms like that describing the holy texts of any religion, you begin alienating the faithful of that religion. Once you've alienated someone and made some insult against their faith (even unintentionally), it's impossible to learn anything further from them or even maintain a dialogue.
"Pro life" is a purposely misleading term devised by anti-abortionists to imply that those on the opposite side of the issue are "anti-life". No one, apart from perhaps the criminally psychotic, is "anti-life". That is why many years ago I devised* and started using the far more apt "anti-choice" to accurately describe their position.
No. This is just as asinine as what you're railing against, just as partisan, and just as false.
No one is "anti-choice" any more than anyone is "anti-life." The average freedom-loving American person is both "pro-life" and "pro-choice."
It's nothing but word games from groups who would seek to transform what is in reality a rather complicated issue into a simple binary issue that's easy to divide across the parties. Standard fare from a dual-party system that has successfully convinced the world that politics are one-dimensional (left vs. right).
The real issue is one rarely outright discussed, and that's when a developing human embryo becomes an actual human being with rights that are to be protected just like everyone else's. Not when it's convenient to protect those rights, not when some preacher says it's morally imperative to protect the rights, but when the embryo becomes an actual living human being. I have my own answer, and it disagrees with the partisan positions on both sides of this particularly non-binary issue. And it's both pro-life and pro-choice. I won't share it, because there's no point in having an actual abortion argument here, but I make the point to refute the ridiculous comment quoted above.
"Pro life" is a purposely misleading term devised by anti-abortionists to imply that those on the opposite side of the issue are "anti-life". No one, apart from perhaps the criminally psychotic, is "anti-life". That is why many years ago I devised* and started using the far more apt "anti-choice" to accurately describe their position.
I dunno, since Obama and Biden have both advocated termination of children in the first three months after they're born, I think that 'anti-life' is pretty much a suitable term. (Though Biden has changed his position on this issue repeatedly over the years. More waffles than if Kerry owned IHOP.)
I have my own answer, and it disagrees with the partisan positions on both sides of this particularly non-binary issue.
Non-binary? You mean there isn't just a yes or no answer to it? I wonder if anything else could have more than one answer. Wouldn't it be amazing if more of the big political questions had more than two possible answers?
*sorry for the sarcasm level, I've got to clean out the filters.
I dunno, since Obama and Biden have both advocated termination of children in the first three months after they're born, I think that 'anti-life' is pretty much a suitable term. (Though Biden has changed his position on this issue repeatedly over the years. More waffles than if Kerry owned IHOP.)
Source Please, because I think you are lying. Or maybe misled.
No, the Christian Bible isn't literature. Calling it that removes the basic level of respect that you should show simply to acknowledge that there are people that believe it is indeed the word of god, handed down through the ages. It is, however, made up of allegory and parables. There are hundreds, if not thousands of different meanings that can be deciphered from the stories in it.
The amount of inspiration is a key part towards understanding why it's not treated as literature. Literature is a term generally associated with fiction. If you begin using terms like that describing the holy texts of any religion, you begin alienating the faithful of that religion. Once you've alienated someone and made some insult against their faith (even unintentionally), it's impossible to learn anything further from them or even maintain a dialogue.
You're playing with words. Litterature is not just fiction, it's more than just fiction and novel, it's more complex. Litterature could serve to tell a story that really happen, it could be a depiction of reality. And even if bible don't enetr in the conventionnal term of «litterature», it has at least some point in common with it.
If faithful (hey, I'm a faithful Christian) are insult insult because of a comparison between bible and litterature, then they should work on themself, it's just a sign that they are too easily insulted and even narrow-minded. It's important to be open-minded and don't panic when people tell opinion, particularly moderate opinion.
Allegory and parable = metaphor
I dunno, since Obama and Biden have both advocated termination of children in the first three months after they're born, I think that 'anti-life' is pretty much a suitable term. (Though Biden has changed his position on this issue repeatedly over the years. More waffles than if Kerry owned IHOP.)
Can you please link to a source? I am rather dubious that any of the two would actively advocate or condone killing children, and this is quite the accusation you are making.
Can you please link to a source? I am rather dubious that any of the two would actively advocate or condone killing children, and this is quite the accusation you are making.
From the pro life perspective this is what pro-choice people are doing all the time: condoning the killing of children. If there was an activist group that wanted to make it legal to commit murder, or to allow people the option- the choice- to commit murder (making it a private matter), wouldn't you consider that condoning killing human beings?
The amount of inspiration is a key part towards understanding why it's not treated as literature. Literature is a term generally associated with fiction. If you begin using terms like that describing the holy texts of any religion, you begin alienating the faithful of that religion. Once you've alienated someone and made some insult against their faith (even unintentionally), it's impossible to learn anything further from them or even maintain a dialogue.
Actually, I never heard the word "literature" used like that. The definition of the word means the collection of writings be it fiction or non-fiction. Heck, in physics (my field) we often go search the "literature" on one subject. Understand here, all previous records of the work on the subject (be it graphes from an experiment, a paper or a series of equations).
I would never imply that the Bible is a mere novel. Nor would I do it for the Coran or any other religious text. But they make good literature (good reading material to gain a bit of culture). Like you say it, they offer a treasure of inspiration and a trove full of beautiful texts. To cite a movie I like: "You don't need to be muslim to be moved by it's poetry."
From the pro life perspective this is what pro-choice people are doing all the time: condoning the killing of children. If there was an activist group that wanted to make it legal to commit murder, or to allow people the option- the choice- to commit murder (making it a private matter), wouldn't you consider that condoning killing human beings?
In most countries (France, Canada, Belgium, etc.), the law for a volontary abortion is set to twelve weeks of labor. In this time span, the feotus is still not developed enough to live by it's own. It is still completly dependent on the organism of the mother and thus could probably be identified to it.
I'm a also pro-life and pro-choice. I like the fact that the legal time span is roughly the third of the labor. It gives enough time for the futur parents to thoroughly think it thrue while still fulfilling the moral responsability to protect a viable human life. Unfortunatly, one thing the law lacks, is a means to stop abuse. I don't support abortion as a safety net for faulty birth-control.
One thing I never understood, is people that call themselves pro-life, while they talk about beginning/continuing a war.
I mean, there will be more termination of life (in more gruesome manners) in a war then by abortion in the US.
Let's look at the numbers:
Abortions : 854,122 legal induced abortions in 2004 (sorry didn't bother looking for more recent data)
War in Iraq : [100,000 - 250 000] (sorry about that... I can't believe I forgot to divide by 4... must have needed more coffee)
The figures are still roughly the same for the moral stand point.
Obama opposes a PBA ban, so it is theoretically possible that he would support something like this (NOT saying he does, but you can follow the logic to that conclusion, if you wish).
Biden, on the other hand is on the record and has voted supporting a ban on PBAs, so it's a heck of a leap that he would support such nonsense as killing a three month old.
Source Please, because I think you are lying. Or maybe misled.
http://townhall.com/columnists/TerenceJeffrey/2008/01/16/more_on_obama_and_babies_born_alive
While I personally find it hard to believe that anyone would condone killing a three month old child, it's really a short step from partial-birth abortions, which are one of the most violent and horriffic things that can be inflicted upon a human being.
Obama will vote on any matter that the party tells him to. He's the only man, ever, to have a pure 100 percent 'party' record.
Biden, on the other hand is on the record and has voted supporting a ban on PBAs, so it's a heck of a leap that he would support such nonsense as killing a three month old.
Biden is against it now, but he also didn't expect the ban to survive scruitiny in the courts. He tried to 'play it safe' politically. Now, since he's got the "Presidential Fever", he's claiming it as a part of the Catholic values.
That depends.
What's she got for a lapel pin?
As of her speech last night, it was the Alaskan state flag. Being governor and all, I suppose that's understandable - 'course the critics can always say, "It's not a state campaign - it's national - it should've been an American flag."
Personally, I'm not so much concerned with the choice of fashion accessories, or lack thereof, for political candidates.
Gawd, she is kind of a looker though! No bearing on the task at hand and issues of course, just surprising. Pleasantly so. *smile*
And I thought she did a good job at her speech.
*winces in anticipation of any lurking rabid opposition, backing slowly out of the room*
War in Iraq : 1,033,000 violent deaths
The figures are roughly the same.
That's a Daily Kossack number that's been widely discredited as being based on junk science. (The war on Iraq articles are also among the most vandalized and unreliable articles on Wikipedia.. you should really know better by now than to use it.)
Still, what surprises me is that a so-called 'pro choice' person is DEFENDING a practice that results in as 'nearly as many deaths' as the 'terrible tragic numbers' of the Iraq war.
Obama will vote on any matter that the party tells him to. He's the only man, ever, to have a pure 100 percent 'party' record.
Biden is against it now, but he also didn't expect the ban to survive scruitiny in the courts. He tried to 'play it safe' politically. Now, since he's got the "Presidential Fever", he's claiming it as a part of the Catholic values.
I see nowhere in your article that any bill was ammended to kill 3-month olds. Sure, you can extrapolate that if you wish, but it is not a stance that he actually seems to have stated. IOW, it's retoric BS. Sorry. You may be right about Biden, I don't know. But, since I'm not voting Democrat, I don't really care enough to look into it. ;)
And I thought she did a good job at her speech.
*winces in anticipation of any lurking rabid opposition, backing slowly out of the room*
Meh, the only way someone could not think that was a well delivered speech is if they are blinded by hate. You may not agree with what she she said, but she sure as hell said it very well.
That's a Daily Kossack number that's been widely discredited as being based on junk science. (The war on Iraq articles are also among the most vandalized and unreliable articles on Wikipedia.. you should really know better by now than to use it.)
Probably
Still amongst the only numbers I could find. The numbers are not really important, it's more the question.
Still, what surprises me is that a so-called 'pro choice' person is DEFENDING a practice that results in as 'nearly as many deaths' as the 'terrible tragic numbers' of the Iraq war.
Actually, I was still writing my post (I often save when the post is long enough because I don't want to lose it). Sorry. The hearth of the matter, is what we call a human being. Is a non-viable organism a human. Sure, it could become a human. But is it now?? I think this opens up a gray area. While killing in a war does not have this gray area.
While killing in a war does not have this gray area.
Keeep in mind that the majority of 'pro-war' people aren't interested in simply prolonging the war (as the Democrats in the 1960s were want to do in Vietnam*) - but are instead wanting to win the war, not the least of reasons to avoid a potentially much worse one down the road.
More often than not, punting the football just give the other side a chance to score a touchdown.
*The Democrats, such as Johnson, in the 1960s wanted to show the communists that we were willing to fight them at anytime and anywhere, but never really had a strategy or desire to actually win in Vietnam. Nixon did, ironically, and actually accomplished it.
Keeep in mind that the majority of 'pro-war' people aren't interested in simply prolonging the war (as the Democrats in the 1960s were want to do in Vietnam*) - but are instead wanting to win the war, not the least of reasons to avoid a potentially much worse one down the road.
Sure, I understand that. What's funny, is that exact same argument is used by some women that want abortion (avoid a much worse situation down the road).
I dunno, since Obama and Biden have both advocated termination of children in the first three months after they're born, I think that 'anti-life' is pretty much a suitable term. (Though Biden has changed his position on this issue repeatedly over the years. More waffles than if Kerry owned IHOP.)
I can't even imagine exactly in how many ways this statement is wrong, but here's a few for starters:
1) The bill in question refers to botched abortions, and whether or not a fetus that survives an abortion, viable or unviable, should be afforded person status, along with the rights that status grants. It says nothing about being able to terminate a child up to three months after it is born.
2) Biden voted for the Born Alive Infant's Protection Act (H.R. 2175) which passed the Senate 98-0 in 2002.
3) Your source has trouble with his facts, often wavering back and forth between whether the bill simply never made it out of committee, whether the bill came up for a vote in the Health and Human Services Committee and Obama voted "present", or whether it came up for a vote and Obama voted against. He also conflates his facts, stating near the beginning of the article that Obama killed the bill by holding it in the committee that he chaired, but then later in the article saying that there were three separate bills in three separate years, and that Obama only took control of the HHSC in 2003, with the vote on the first bill commencing in 2001.
4) The author of the article posted this particular story as a correction to a story he had previously posted in which he claimed that Obama killed the bill by holding it in committee, the source being the Illinois state online database. He explains in this story that he printed a correction because of new sources, who happen to both be Republican Senators who served with Obama, who checked the text of the Republican Staff Analysis texts for those years, showing that Obama actually voted against the bill. The author of the article never reports reading the Staff Analysis for himself. Both the author of the article and the sources are extremely biased.
5) Obama is on record in his 2004 debates against Alan Keyes for the Senate position, saying he would have voted for the Born Alive Infant's Protection Act passed in 2002.
As you can see, your assertion is absurd on its face, not to mention there being nothing in your source to support that assertion.
Faelar
More often than not, punting the football just give the other side a chance to score a touchdown.
So your advice is we go for it on 4th and long when we are on our 5 yard line. Sometimes punting the football is the best of two bad choices. It takes a real leader to see that. McCain is not that leader. Obama is. I personally think that you know this in your gut, and that's why you are running scared; making up facts; refuting facts with a "but that guy did it too", or worse still with a "You are just saying what those other guys are saying." You can't stand on the issues, and McCain, while an honorable man, looks ill prepared to lead. In fact, he looks like he's flailing about right now desprate to find something that will stick, and never hitting on the fact that maybe the McCain that was is probably his best bet to gaining his coveted presidency.
(All is MHO, of course, which needs to be said.)
No, the Christian Bible isn't literature. Calling it that removes the basic level of respect that you should show simply to acknowledge that there are people that believe it is indeed the word of god, handed down through the ages.
No, doing so illustrates a lack of respect for literature. You show up at a publisher with a book this long and boring with such shallow characters, ludicrous plots, unnecessary sub-plots, contradictions, and gaping logic holes and you'd be laughed out of the office.
The bill didn't give a time period for how long the child could be considered 'non human', actually. It COULD be argued that a nine-year-old could be murdered undert that bill, and it be all legal in terms of this bill. Yeah, it's an insane stretch, but it was insane law to begin with, and Obama supported it - as part of a party-line mantra.
You need to get your facts straight. The bill in question was the Born Alive Infant's Protection Bill. It stated that a fetus who remained alive after a botched abortion should be afforded the full rights of personhood. The bill never reached a vote in the Illinois Senate during Obama's tenure. Obama is on record as saying that he would have supported the federal Born Alive Infant's Protection Act (H.R. 2175) passed in 2002.
The bill was NOT about killing fetuses who survived botched abortions.
Faelar
The bill was NOT about killing fetuses who survived botched abortions.
Yes it was, because Chicago was having a policy of killing abandoned children as well as abortion survivors within hospitals at the time. The bills entire purpose was to stop the practice.
Obama openly defended the practice.
No, doing so illustrates a lack of respect for literature. You show up at a publisher with a book this long and boring with such shallow characters, ludicrous plots, unnecessary sub-plots, contradictions, and gaping logic holes and you'd be laughed out of the office.
So your advice is we go for it on 4th and long when we are on our 5 yard line.
Ot obviously depends on the situation. Iraq, for instance, has never been 4th and long. Hell, even Vietnam was never a 4th and long situation. The Cuban Missile Crisis was 4th and long, yet Kennedy did a passing play and got a touchdown.
The guy who ALWAYS punts on 4th down, no matter where he is on the field, and no matter how many yards he needs, is not a leader. This is compounded when the guy who punts is doing so because the other side is telling you to. Obama has never shown leadership once in his career.
I'm only scared of Obama because he's a rubber-stamper for Pelosi and Reid, and I don't want to spend the next four years having a president that cannot be criticized without it being called a hate crime. Don't think that's happening? Look at the reaction to criticism about him now.
I'm sorry, I think that America has it pretty good right now, flaws and all, and I'm not about to throw it all away for 'hopechange' because a bunch of people think that Stalin had the right idea.
I don't want to spend the next four years having a president that cannot be criticized without it being called a hate crime.
How is not being able to criticize the president without being labeled a terrorist supporter any better?
How is not being able to criticize the president without being labeled a terrorist supporter any better?
Plenty of people, including myself, criticize Bush all the time. We even critizie him on Iraq. Oddly, it's when that so-called criticism starts morally equivocating Islamic Terrorism in the name of 'hating Bush' and 'hating the US', which you know full well is done all the time, where the label 'terrorist supporter' applies.
I think that's profoundly different than being flat-out told by CBS News that the only reason anyone would EVER vote against Obama is his skin-color.
A smiley. How constructive.
I challenge you - or anybody - to defend the Bible as a work of literature. Not as a focus of worship (time has proven that those need not meet any standards of logic, reason, or sense) but as a literary work. You get more depth of character, logical consistency, and plot cohesion from a Dan Brown novel.
Yes it was, because Chicago was having a policy of killing abandoned children as well as abortion survivors within hospitals at the time. The bills entire purpose was to stop the practice.
Obama openly defended the practice.
What???
If you're going to state that the city of Chicago or the state of Illinois instituted a policy of murdering abandoned children, instead of putting them in the custody of say, Child Protective Services or DHS, then you need to provide some serious evidence.
If your purpose is to spread libelous accusations against Obama, then you need to stop.
Faelar
What???
If you're going to state that the city of Chicago or the state of Illinois instituted a policy of murdering abandoned children, instead of putting them in the custody of say, Child Protective Services or DHS, then you need to provide some serious evidence.
That's what the entire bill was about. Infants were being left in hospitals and they were being quietly killed. The bill was introduced solely to address this issue.
If your purpose is to spread libelous accusations against Obama, then you need to stop.
Obama defeated a bill that would stop infanticide. There's no libel here, it's sodly, plainly evident fact.
I'm only scared of Obama because he's a rubber-stamper for Pelosi and Reid, and I don't want to spend the next four years having a president that cannot be criticized without it being called a hate crime. Don't think that's happening? Look at the reaction to criticism about him now.
You would think if that tactic was so abhorrent to you, you wouldn't use it yourself (see war hero and female veep). If you feel like you can't criticize him because of his race, then its on you bud. That's your own issue.
But that aside, sure, some people are gonna bring up the race issue, but the SOP of the Neo-Cons right now is to deflect honest discussion and honest criticism with "you are just using race as a shield", or "you can't say that about a former POW", and morst recently "that's sexist". (see McCain defense of the celebrity ads.) I personally think there is a place to discuss the issues. I also think that McCain has chosen to avoid discussing those issues. You yourself use this tactic time and again on these boards as a way of avoiding real discussion of issues.
The irony here is that McCain looks like the one who made a cynical ploy to put his own minority on the ticket (I know women are not technically a minority...) just to give him that "you can't criticize her, 'cause she was once oppressed." The difference McCain doesn't seem to get is Obama got to the position he is in through a hard fought battle. There was no anointing, and he has to pull the party back together afterward. McCain appointed Palin, with minimal vetting. So Obama earned his stripes - at least within his party. He was not put into place as some political ploy by the Democrats to avoid criticism.
See, I think he made a grave error if he thought the reverse racism card would work for him to avoid discussion of the issues. You see, the reality is that most people today really don't care about race that much - not like a 70 year old does. Most people independents see these maneuvers for what they are - dirty politics and pandering to the base. The Neo-Cons may laugh up their sleeves when the table get turned like that, but most folks just roll their eye and say - why do you have to go there? Most folks know that McCain hasn't had a hard time of it. So crying "you guys are just haters" when someone legitimately criticizes you ironically makes him look more like Paris Hilton and Brittany Spears than Obama.
And this gets back to the question of his experience. McCain is a product of a different time. His experience related him back to the cold war, and the 60's . But Vietnam is over, and the unrest of civil rights is gone. And good riddance! Why would we want to put in place someone who wants to bring back those tumultuous times. Yes, its important to know your history, but it shouldn't color your entire outlook. Too much has changed since then. I know it was McCain's greatest era, but it doesn't have to be the case. His greatest era may be yet to come, if he can just shake off this Neo-Con throttlehold, get back to discussing issues, and show us that he can relate to the world as it exists today.
A smiley. How constructive.
I challenge you - or anybody - to defend the Bible as a work of literature. Not as a focus of worship (time has proven that those need not meet any standards of logic, reason, or sense) but as a literary work. You can't because as a work of literature it is crap. You get more depth of character, logical consistency, and plot cohesion from a Dan Brown novel.
This statement is absurd. First, the Bible is a collection of books dealing with separate characters, events, and themes, spanning nearly a millennium of development. Second, both the purposes for writing literature and the standards (a term I use loosely when it comes to literary endeavors) have changed over the past two thousand years. As far as logical consistency is concerned, it is not necessary in literature. Marquez's "One Hundred Years of Solitude" is hardly logically consistent, but I daresay no one would fail to classify it as literature.
The bolded statement above is like saying that a compilation of short stories isn't literature because it isn't logically consistent and doesn't have a cohesive plot.
Faelar
You would think if that tactic was so abhorrent to you, you wouldn't use it yourself (see war hero and female veep). Do you really think that
Palin is being attacked for being a woman and not being a liberal. I haven't seen too much being made of her being a woman in a positive light, nor being used as a 'you can't criticize HER' from anywhere. And it's certainly not the press backing off like they have for Obama (reference Us Magazine).
McCain has, yes, at times used the POW status too much. I haven't seen too many people say "you can't criticize him on Iraq because he was a POW", however. I have seen people say that he has a more first-hand experience of war than most in the senate, which is hardly a debatable point.
And I'll say it bluntly, Obama as a candidate is a joke. If he were not black, the DNC would have never considered him as a presidential pick - not yet - maybe in 10 to 20 years. But right now, the man has no executive experience, no real Washington experience, no leadership experience, no foriegn policy experience, and no record of doing ANYTHING aside from party-line voting. He's a poster boy, and that's all he is.
That's what the entire bill was about. Infants were being left in hospitals and they were being quietly killed. The bill was introduced solely to address this issue.
Obama defeated a bill that would stop infanticide. There's no libel here, it's sodly, plainly evident fact.
Then where is your evidence? Surely such an abhorrent practice would have garnered some headlines. It's too much like a bad Robin Cook novel.
As far as Obama defeating the bill in question, you haven't provided any evidence beyond a biased article written for a right-wing publication that that was actually the case.
Faelar
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/08/11/infanticide-revisited/
http://beltwayblips.com/story/heres_the_audio_of_obama_endorsing_infanticide_from/
http://ssi.sagepub.com/cgi/pdf_extract/21/2/199
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=45553
This was a major issue, due to what was happening in Chicago area hospitals (notably the southeast side) at the time. Infants and 'abortion survivors' were being abandonded and, after a few days, were being killed within the hospital and written off as 'legal abortions'.
Obama supported this practice, largely as a part-line pro-abortion vote. There's no slander here, that's exactly what went down. Sorry if you don't like it.
And I knew if I dug enough, I would find Obama's own words on it...
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=45553
A smiley. How constructive.
I challenge you - or anybody - to defend the Bible as a work of literature. Not as a focus of worship (time has proven that those need not meet any standards of logic, reason, or sense) but as a literary work. You get more depth of character, logical consistency, and plot cohesion from a Dan Brown novel.
Depth of Character: A potentially relative subject. But I would counter we do get in-depth character; it's simply on several characters, over several stories. Surely you're not discounting the stories of, say, Joseph, Moses, and David as shallow? Sure, not every single character is deep; there's too many. But then, the Bible isn't about individual characters, so much as mankind, and his interaction with God.
Logical Consistency: Somehow I get the feeling you'd have trouble with anything I'd throw out here. I'd like some examples, because that's a vague statement anyways.
Plot Cohesion: As someone else said, first, this isn't one story so much as several stories. The cohesive plot is: mankind is messed up, but God has a plan. Further, even in our messed-up state, man can work with God, instead of against Him.
The Dan Brown comment is useless, and does nothing for your argument.
I'll throw something else out here: one thing the Bible doesn't have is stylistic consistency. It doesn't have one single mode of narrative, or even transitions. Of course, again, it wasn't written all at the same time. However, I would put forth that this was, and is, intentional. Each of those styles serves a different purpose. They are different glimpses and parts of the whole. For instance, take David. You read his overall story in the books of history, but in the Psalms, you get glimpses of his heart and mind at different times. There, stylistic difference pointing towards a common goal, and character depth.
This statement is absurd. First, the Bible is a collection of books dealing with separate characters, events, and themes, spanning nearly a millennium of development.
So what? Bad is bad. Other works contemporary too, or predating, the Bible are much better written. It is intellectually dishonest to excuse its glaring flaws and fault cos it is "old" and to hold the Bible to different literary standards than its contemporaries.
Second, both the purposes for writing literature and the standards (a term I use loosely when it comes to literary endeavors) have changed over the past two thousand years.
When applying in conjunction the terms "literature" and "standards" in relation to the Bible it goes without saying that one is using the terms loosely.
As far as logical consistency is concerned, it is not necessary in literature. Marquez's "One Hundred Years of Solitude" is hardly logically consistent, but I daresay no one would fail to classify it as literature.
Apples and oranges. The ambiguity about time and events is a consciously chosen literary technique employed by Marquez to reflect the nature of time, causality, and coincidence of events.
The bolded statement above is like saying that a compilation of short stories isn't literature because it isn't logically consistent and doesn't have a cohesive plot.
No, it isn't. Each short story is judged on their own merits. However, when the collected short stories taken as a whole purport to objectively and definitively reflect reality then it is not in the slightest inappropriate to judge them as a whole.
Abortions : 854,122 legal induced abortions in 2004 (sorry didn't bother looking for more recent data)
War in Iraq : 1,033,000 violent deaths
The figures are roughly the same.
Your own link gives numerous estimates, and you decided to take the largest number to try and make a point. You didn't even give a range.
edit: not to mention that this number doesn't come from an actual body count, but from a "poll" of iraqis asking how many people they know have died. Basically the estimates are utterly worthless.
Your own link gives numerous estimates, and you decided to take the largest number to try and make a point. You didn't even give a range.
edit: not to mention that this number doesn't come from an actual body count, but from a "poll" of iraqis asking how many people they know have died. Basically the estimates are utterly worthless.
He also takes a period of four years of war and compares it to a single year of abortions. Talk about apples and oranges.
So if a woman gets an abortion, but the aborted fetus is still defined as living by a whackjob minority, it has to be kept in a jar on life support?
Until it what? Grows up? Turns into an infant? Do they make the mother take it home, or give it to the state? Or does it just stay in the jar in the hospital?
Why would someone want to do that? I agree with Obama.
Flame away, wingnuts.
Response to OnusBone
I don't think you're very familiar with the types of abortions that lead to the children surviving. They tend to be farther along developmentally-speaking than you seem to think. Also, your use of the term "whackjob minority" is amusing -- these aborted children already have a working brain and are often capable of moving on their own after the failed abortion. Your disdain for keeping them alive sounds similar to disdain for keeping anyone alive who requires temporary life support.
I would expect that the state would put the child up for adoption.
I would expect that the state would put the child up for adoption.
So, back on topic.
That was a fantastic speech Wednesday night. I was strongly considering Barr over McCain, but now I'm fully behind McCain, and it's entirely because of his inspired VP choice. I hope Palin continues to succeed in governance, as I'd love to see her in the presidency some day.
She borrowed $27 mill from us for her town of 6,700. She got the town a lobbyist. When she left office, the town OWED $20 million. 3 of her projects are on McCains anti-pork list (or were, if they haven't been scrubbed)
She's the best thing to happen to McCains campaign yet, IMO.
So this Bill that Vanguard digs and Obama hates is about taking an improperly aborted fetus and keeping it alive?
One of the key points you're ignoring is that it wasn't just abortion survivors here.. but any abandoned infant. In Chicago, even abaonded animals have a longer right to live.
So if a woman gets an abortion, but the aborted fetus is still defined as living by a whackjob minority, it has to be kept in a jar on life support?
And at this point, since you're defining anyone who DARES think that a living baby that happened to survive an abortion attempt is a 'whackjob', I'm guessing we're probably going to be done here too.
Flame away, wingnuts.
QED
One of the key points you're ignoring is that it wasn't just abortion survivors here.. but any abandoned infant. In Chicago, even abaonded animals have a longer right to live.
And at this point, since you're defining anyone who DARES think that a living baby that happened to survive an abortion attempt is a 'whackjob', I'm guessing we're probably going to be done here too.
QED
Lots of quotes, very few answers.
Like Sarah Palin
And I knew if I dug enough, I would find Obama's own words on it...
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=45553
Hmm, well that's... disturbing. Learn something new and all that.
I'm so glad I'm not a liberal.
Alaska received the most earmarks last year, and is on the fast track this year.
Stay Classy, Sarah
Sure, I understand that. What's funny, is that exact same argument is used by some women that want abortion (avoid a much worse situation down the road).
That's true, but you also have to take into account a LOT of women who had abortions suffer greatly increased depression, three times the suicide rate, and so on... in this case I think it's a lot of pressure for a 'short term solution' without really thinking through all the ramifications.
That's true, but you also have to take into account a LOT of women who had abortions suffer greatly increased depression, three times the suicide rate, and so on... in this case I think it's a lot of pressure for a 'short term solution' without really thinking through all the ramifications.
Which is why you shouldn't let the government think it through for you. It is for the family and the doctor alone to make the choice.
Overturning Roe v. Wade is impossible without Big Brother.
Sarah Palin requested that the town council of Wasilla resign en masse as a show of loyalty.
Sarah Palin contacted the Librarian of Wasilla, and asked about the process for banning books. The librarian balked; she was later fired.
"Pro life" is a purposely misleading term devised by anti-abortionists to imply that those on the opposite side of the issue are "anti-life". No one, apart from perhaps the criminally psychotic, is "anti-life". That is why many years ago I devised* and started using the far more apt "anti-choice" to accurately describe their position.
I could give a counter rebutal and suggest that "pro-choice" is purposely miseading term for ... but I will refrain from going to that level.
"Pro-life" does not mean "anti-abortion" anymore than the "United States" means "New York." "Pro-life encompases a number of issues from conception to natural death. They include topics as euthanasia (especially involuntary and so called "non-voluntary") and all other aspects of the protection of life at all stages of life.
It's been a few years, but it DID make headlines, nationally, when it all went down. Of course, since it's been a few years back, the old articles are largely supplanted by anti-Obama posts, but the facts remain the same.
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/08/11/infanticide-revisited/
http://beltwayblips.com/story/heres_the_audio_of_obama_endorsing_infanticide_from/
http://ssi.sagepub.com/cgi/pdf_extract/21/2/199
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=45553
This was a major issue, due to what was happening in Chicago area hospitals (notably the southeast side) at the time. Infants and 'abortion survivors' were being abandonded and, after a few days, were being killed within the hospital and written off as 'legal abortions'.
Obama supported this practice, largely as a part-line pro-abortion vote. There's no slander here, that's exactly what went down. Sorry if you don't like it.
And I knew if I dug enough, I would find Obama's own words on it...
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=45553
None of those links say that this bill requires the abandonment of live babies, let alone that Obama supports that task. (One of them is not even a link to anything of relevance.) Didn't you think someone would check them?
Look, I too am squeamish about late term abortions - the whole thing makes me sick, frankly. But you are making some huge leaps here. I can understand the concept of being absolute about a requirement for ****, or the health of the mother, as can most of America. That is why the Neo-Con need to make exaggerated claims, and play up the frankly very disgusting process. However, not supporting a bill is not the same as supporting the practice being outlawed. This is like saying anyone who voted down the bill to limit "cop killer" ammo is in favor of dead policemen. Your hyperbole and dissembly do your arguments no favors.
Your own link gives numerous estimates, and you decided to take the largest number to try and make a point. You didn't even give a range.
edit: not to mention that this number doesn't come from an actual body count, but from a "poll" of iraqis asking how many people they know have died. Basically the estimates are utterly worthless.
He also takes a period of four years of war and compares it to a single year of abortions. Talk about apples and oranges.
Corrected. Sorry, too early in the morning I guess...
That's true, but you also have to take into account a LOT of women who had abortions suffer greatly increased depression, three times the suicide rate, and so on... in this case I think it's a lot of pressure for a 'short term solution' without really thinking through all the ramifications.
I would like to see those statistics in a country plagued by war.
Your hyperbole and dissembly do your arguments no favors.
Most of those links were just to show that the issue did indeed come up, not so much Obama's vote. The last one, where Obama defends the practice in his speeches, is the most relavent from your point of view.
He actually does defend the termination (for sake of argument, I won't use the word 'murder' here) of any abandoned infant as a 'pro-abortion' argument. Even NARAL didn't go that far. He didn't just not support the bill, he actively opposed it on those grounds.
I would like to see those statistics in a country plagued by war.
Because war and abortion is the same thing?
(Though, incidentally, and hardly proof of anything, the suicide rates for Americans during WWII, Korea, and Vietnam was way down from the average.)
The irony here is that McCain looks like the one who made a cynical ploy to put his own minority on the ticket (I know women are not technically a minority...) just to give him that "you can't criticize her, 'cause she was once oppressed." The difference McCain doesn't seem to get is Obama got to the position he is in through a hard fought battle. There was no anointing, and he has to pull the party back together afterward. McCain appointed Palin, with minimal vetting. So Obama earned his stripes - at least within his party. He was not put into place as some political ploy by the Democrats to avoid criticism.
I don't think he did it to somehow avoid critcism with the "girl card". He did it so that he could better court Hil fans and to have his own "first" for his ticket. Obama would be a "first", a sign of enlightened progress. The old white dude thing is fairly played out, but a woman VP would be another "first" sign of enlightenment. This way, people can vote for him and still see progress toward equality. It's playing politics, to be sure, but that is a huge part of what's wrong with our system - and the people of our country - as a whole.
See, I think he made a grave error if he thought the reverse racism card would work for him to avoid discussion of the issues. You see, the reality is that most people today really don't care about race that much - not like a 70 year old does.
This is not nearly the case. The race card has been in play since Obama announced he'd run. That's why there's a ton of people who say they will vote for him because he is black. Since there's no sane person in this country that will come out and say they're voting for McCain because he's white (or because Obama is black), it's pretty obvious race does play a role.
Most of those links were just to show that the issue did indeed come up, not so much Obama's vote. The last one, where Obama defends the practice in his speeches, is the most relavent from your point of view.
He actually does defend the termination (for sake of argument, I won't use the word 'murder' here) of any abandoned infant as a 'pro-abortion' argument. Even NARAL didn't go that far. He didn't just not support the bill, he actively opposed it on those grounds.
Man, I have read that thing three times now, and I do not see what you are claiming. Can you post the words from the web page that is saying what you think it is saying?
Corrected. Sorry, too early in the morning I guess...
Regarding that correction:
Abortions : 854,122 legal induced abortions in 2004 (sorry didn't bother looking for more recent data)
War in Iraq : [100,000 - 250 000] (sorry about that... I can't believe I forgot to divide by 4... must have needed more coffee)
The figures are still roughly the same for the moral stand point.
'Roughly the same'? A difference of 600,000 may be 'roughly the same' if your dealing with 5,000,000 vs. 5,600,000.
But your war casualty number at it's highest isn't even a third of the abortion number. At it's lowest it becomes completly laughable.
Now, I'm not making light of the deaths in war. They are tragic, to be sure, but these numbers are no where near the same for a moral or any other standpoint.
Because war and abortion is the same thing?
(Though, incidentally, and hardly proof of anything, the suicide rates for Americans during WWII, Korea, and Vietnam was way down from the average.)
Of course there not the same thing. What I'm saying is that War is the least favorable response to an international crisis. I believe that many other alternatives should be addressed before even thinking about War. Only when our backs are on the wall should we consider it.
Similarly, I believe that abortion is the least favorable option for "birth control". Many options should be followed before even considering it. But once again, some times we have our backs against the wall. Only then should a women consider it.
So, I guess what I am saying, is if someone believes that he has the possibility to choose war, a women should have the possibility to choose abortion. Both have terrible repercussions.
'Roughly the same'? A difference of 600,000 may be 'roughly the same' if your dealing with 5,000,000 vs. 5,600,000.
But your war casualty number at it's highest isn't even a third of the abortion number. At it's lowest it becomes completly laughable.
It is for me, I mean it's not even an order of magnitude smaller. But you're right, it is debattable.
P.S. Again, sorry for the grammar... I must work on my english.
I don't think he did it to somehow avoid critcism with the "girl card". He did it so that he could better court Hil fans and to have his own "first" for his ticket. Obama would be a "first", a sign of enlightened progress. The old white dude thing is fairly played out, but a woman VP would be another "first" sign of enlightenment. This way, people can vote for him and still see progress toward equality. It's playing politics, to be sure, but that is a huge part of what's wrong with our system - and the people of our country - as a whole.
To be sure this was another main reason why he tapped Palin. And I am sure had other other motivations - mainly the fact that she plays better with his base. But to be honest, I think he failed on those levels as well. He wanted her to be two very different things, something that no one could frankly be.
This is not nearly the case. The race card has been in play since Obama announced he'd run. That's why there's a ton of people who say they will vote for him because he is black. Since there's no sane person in this country that will come out and say they're voting for McCain because he's white (or because Obama is black), it's pretty obvious race does play a role.
Well, we disagree on degree then. But I still contend that someone from McCain's cohort has to really activily change their mindset to understand race relations today. Their default views on race are VERY different from the next generation, and the disparity only increases as we move on down the generational line. And I do not think McCain is even making an effort. The folks he has surrounded himself with give him attaboys when he plays the reverse race card, but he seems to be missing the fact the people he has to reach are kinda rolling thier eyes at Richie-Rich shenanigans. Is that fair? Naw, but welcome to the world of race relations in America. There is little that is fair in that world.
From my point of view it ticks me off because it gets us away from issues. We all know that Obama's black and that McCain white, and that has colored their view of the world. Now let's talk about what the hell we are going to do to fix problems, please. This is why I loved Obama's race speech. He basically said, "Everyone has biases, lets do what we can to control that, and get down to doing some real business."
Regarding that correction:
'Roughly the same'? A difference of 600,000 may be 'roughly the same' if your dealing with 5,000,000 vs. 5,600,000.
But your war casualty number at it's highest isn't even a third of the abortion number. At it's lowest it becomes completly laughable.
Now, I'm not making light of the deaths in war. They are tragic, to be sure, but these numbers are no where near the same for a moral or any other standpoint.
You are correct, the comparison is an absurd one and utter lacking in moral equivalence. The murder of 250,000 real living people far outweighs the termination of 800,000+ fetuses.
While Governor of Alaska, Sarah Palin cut the budgets of programs designed to support unwed mothers
One of the reasons I love her.
Seizing funds from private individuals under threat of violence and kidnapping to give those funds to others you deem more suitable to have them is not "classy," it is theft.
Charity is to be voluntary.
Alaska received the most earmarks last year, and is on the fast track this year
And gee, who secures earmarks? That'd be Congress... like Ted Stevens, whom Palin has shunned.
And gee, who secures earmarks? That'd be Congress... like Ted Stevens, whom Palin has shunned.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/09/01/ST2008090103340.html
Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin employed a lobbying firm to secure almost $27 million in federal earmarks for a town of 6,700 residents while she was its mayor, according to an analysis by an independent government watchdog group.
Ironically, as mayor of Wasilla she was on McCain's list of "Porkbarrel" offenders, given the amount of federal funds she was pulling down for her tiny 'burg.
Of course there not the same thing. What I'm saying is that War is the least favorable response to an international crisis. I believe that many other alternatives should be addressed before even thinking about War. Only when our backs are on the wall should we consider it.
It's an unfavorable solution, but I'll easily argue that it's not the least favorable solution. There are worse things than war, which is an incredibly tough reality to take, I know.
So, I guess what I am saying, is if someone believes that he has the possibility to choose war, a women should have the possibility to choose abortion. Both have terrible repercussions.
The problem for me is that there are quite a few people with vested interest who will deliberately lie and misinform women about abortion, to the tune of millions of people per year. Yet, the exact same people, when they see that some intel on Saddam was incorrect, will hue and cry.
You are correct, the comparison is an absurd one and utter lacking in moral equivalence. The murder of 250,000 real living people far outweighs the termination of 800,000+ fetuses.
In your estimation.
Well, we disagree on degree then. But I still contend that someone from McCain's cohort has to really activily change their mindset to understand race relations today. Their default views on race are VERY different from the next generation, and the disparity only increases as we move on down the generational line. And I do not think McCain is even making an effort. The folks he has surrounded himself with give him attaboys when he plays the reverse race card, but he seems to be missing the fact the people he has to reach are kinda rolling thier eyes at Richie-Rich shenanigans. Is that fair? Naw, but welcome to the world of race relations in America. There is little that is fair in that world.
From my point of view it ticks me off because it gets us away from issues. We all know that Obama's black and that McCain white, and that has colored their view of the world. Now let's talk about what the hell we are going to do to fix problems, please. This is why I loved Obama's race speech. He basically said, "Everyone has biases, lets do what we can to control that, and get down to doing some real business."
It would be nice if we could get to more real discussion, but it won't happen. The people of this country are obsessed with gossip and celebrity. No one wants to hear a tax plan if there's a teenage mother to be to talk about. And that's just fine and dandy to do, if you happen to support the other guy. No one wants to hear about unemployment when there's a wife that rants against America to watch. Again, all good unless it's your candidate. Most people are extraordinarily partisan and refuse to admit it, too. It's been evidenced on this board pretty well, actually. Still, irrational allegiances aside, people want the juicy stuff. Hell, the Obama quote you like so much is, IMO, just a way for him to say "hey guys, let's remember I'm black and some people don't like that". There's elements of racism, sexism and ageism in this election. Which gets play? The race stuff. And Obama highlighted it himself. Instead of letting it alone and recognizing the fact that some people really don't care about race (something you have said against McCain, btw, as evidence that he doesn't get race when he plays the reverse racism stuff) he chose to reinforce the idea that people are prejudiced against him. Well, guess what. They're prejudiced against McCain, too. If you won't vote for him because he's white (or vote for Obama because he is black) you are a racist. So yes, I do feel that there is a much higher degree to all of this. And that Obama quote, while nice, demonstrates this nicely, IMO.
So what? Bad is bad. Other works contemporary too, or predating, the Bible are much better written. It is intellectually dishonest to excuse its glaring flaws and fault cos it is "old" and to hold the Bible to different literary standards than its contemporaries.
Which works? I assume you're referring to the Sumerian Shutur eli sharri or the Babylonian Atrahasis, which both predate the Bible, or for more contemporary examples, the Iliad and the Odyssey or The Aeneid. What you're failing to recognize is that the Bible resides in a completely different literary genre than the aforementioned works. Every single one of them are epic poems. The Bible is not. Therefore you cannot apply the same literary critiques. The biggest discrepancy between them is that all the other works revolve around characters and events, and so are structured more or less in the same way as the modern novel.
Apples and oranges. The ambiguity about time and events is a consciously chosen literary technique employed by Marquez to reflect the nature of time, causality, and coincidence of events.
Ummm...so it is impossible that the authors of the Biblical texts did not employ their own literary devices to define and promote their own thematic considerations, themes and techniques that had specific influences on them that was consistent with the region and time period, much like Marquez was influenced by the effects of postmodernism on literature and by U.S. intervention in Latin America, themes that he explored in his fictional Macondo?
No, it isn't. Each short story is judged on their own merits. However, when the collected short stories taken as a whole purport to objectively and definitively reflect reality then it is not in the slightest inappropriate to judge them as a whole.
First, you're conflating criticism of the message of the Bible with literary criticism of the Bible. Second, you're singling out the Bible when in fact this was a common trope among ancient literature. Finally, you've yet to provide a literary analysis showing why the Bible is of no literary value when it is clear the Bible was not meant to provide a narrative plot progression.
Faelar
You are correct, the comparison is an absurd one and utter lacking in moral equivalence. The murder of 250,000 real living people far outweighs the termination of 800,000+ fetuses.
I didn't realize we had an expert on human reproduction in our midst. Tell me Jayne, when exactly does a fetus become a 'person' and of equal importance as the rest of us?
I didn't realize we had an expert on human reproduction in our midst. Tell me Jayne, when exactly does a fetus become a 'person' and of equal importance as the rest of us?
And, you know, on the flip side, how is it that every single death in a war is considered murder? Because, you know, if all of these "islamic soldiers" were to actually follow their religion the war would be over instantly...
Ironically, as mayor of Wasilla she was on McCain's list of "Porkbarrel" offenders, given the amount of federal funds she was pulling down for her tiny 'burg.
I've seen this a couple times used in attacks from the left, and I haven't heard Palin's explanation yet. I wait to reserve judgment, but I'm pretty well leaning towards this being a substantial mark against her in my book. That's okay, I don't agree with any politician on everything.
Her governance policies seem different, however, which may signify growth or a change of heart. And certainly nothing bad can come of her teaming up with the ultimate pork-fighter, McCain.
Let's see what happens.
In your estimation.
Who else's estimation do you imagine I am qualified to give?
Who else's estimation do you imagine I am qualified to give?
You seem to think you speak for Absolute Truth (TM), particularly in life-or-death matters, so you tell us. :P
I didn't realize we had an expert on human reproduction in our midst.
I didn't realize one had to be an expert on something before being permitted to voice their opinion on a topic.
Tell me Jayne, when exactly does a fetus become a 'person' and of equal importance as the rest of us?
A foetus is never a person, it is a parasite that has the potential to become a person.
I didn't realize one had to be an expert on something before being permitted to voice their opinion on a topic.
Fair enough. My apologies for the snark, but the question remains.
A foetus is never a person, it is a parasite that has the potential to become a person.
I understand this part of your thought process. My question is; when does it fulfill that potential?
I've seen this a couple times used in attacks from the left, and I haven't heard Palin's explanation yet. I wait to reserve judgment, but I'm pretty well leaning towards this being a substantial mark against her in my book. That's okay, I don't agree with any politician on everything.
Her governance policies seem different, however, which may signify growth or a change of heart. And certainly nothing bad can come of her teaming up with the ultimate pork-fighter, McCain.
Let's see what happens.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/la-na-earmarks3-2008sep03,0,5932587.story
However, as a candidate for governor in 2006, Palin had backed funding for the bridge. After her election, she killed the much-ridiculed project when it became clear the state had other priorities. She said she would use the federal funds to fill those needs.
This year she submitted to Congress a list of Alaska projects worth $197.8 million, including $2 million to research crab productivity in the Bering Sea and $7.4 million to improve runway lighting at eight Alaska airports. A spokesman said she cut the original list of 54 projects to 31.
Some quick googling (all I can really manage while at work) didn't turn up figures for other states, so I really don't know how that compares. If anyone else has more info I'd be curious to find out.
Edit: I've found repeated references to Alaska being #1 in Federal Earmarks, but I don't know if that's per capita or overall, or whether it predates the Palin administration. Hopefully someone else who has more time to devote to this can clear it up.
I understand this part of your thought process. My question is; when does it fulfill that potential?
I'm guessing at 18, when they vote Democrat. :P
You seem to think you speak for Absolute Truth (TM), particularly in life-or-death matters, so you tell us. :P
I have never - save where referring to documented facts and providing links or references to such - claimed to speak for anyone or anything but myself. Any assumption to the contrary is entirely that of the reader.
At one point I went so far as to include "Of course that is just my opinion, I could be wrong" as my sig but people just ignored it. It turns out that it was far more convenient for them to imagine I was pontificating and thus ignore anything I said than to address in any meaningful way something with which they disagreed.
Everything I say here is simply my opinion and I go on the assumption that everything everyone else says is their's, unless they claim otherwise.
IMO the internet would be a far better place if everyone would stop treating it like a junior debate club where every single other person as an ***hole who's out to get them.
That's true, but you also have to take into account a LOT of women who had abortions suffer greatly increased depression, three times the suicide rate, and so on... in this case I think it's a lot of pressure for a 'short term solution' without really thinking through all the ramifications.
Where did you get any of these statistics?
The most recent data released shows that women who have abortions have exactly the same rates of depression/mental health as women who have miscarriages and give birth.
The early studies compared women who had abortion to the population as a whole which ignores the effects of pregnancy hormones on a women's brain (or rather the sudden removal). Post partum depression and post abortion depression are the same thing and are both caused by the sudden drop in estrogen and progesterone.
It isn't abortion that causes these problems, it is unwanted pregnancies in the first place. (women with unintended pregnancies also have higher rates of depression after birth than women with highly desired pregnancies)
EDIT: I'm at work and don't have a lot of time, but here is an article that is availble to the public and reviews the studies that are out there: http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/gpr/09/3/gpr090308.html
Where did you get any of these statistics?
Oddly enough, it was from Planned Parenthood and their publications. Planned Parenthood also noted that it was rare occurance that the person who chose the abortion was actually the woman getting it - it was usually the boyfriend pressuring her.
There have also been numerous studies which, granted, are biased, which showed many, many depressions in later years as women look back on their abortions.
Sarah Palin contacted the Librarian of Wasilla, and asked about the process for banning books. The librarian balked; she was later fired.
If that's the case then the librarian that took over would have held a good old fashioned book burning, possibly including marshmallows.
Why has no one looked into whether or not books disappeared*? That would put the rumors to bed and we can't have that.*-My assumption will be that someone HAS looked into it and found nothing.
@ Palin appearing on McCain's Bad earmark list: She appeared 3 times in the past couple of years. How many earmarks were listed in those years by McCain? If it was 10, then this is very troubling. If it's 1,000+ then it's a non issue.
@ Palin appearing on McCain's Bad earmark list: She appeared 3 times in the past couple of years. How many earmarks were listed in those years by McCain? If it was 10, then this is very troubling. If it's 1,000+ then it's a non issue.
Porkbusters, on whom McCain relies, lists tens of thousands of projects a year. I'm thinking three from Palin for the state of Alaska isn't all that troubling a number. (Ted Stevens, for his part, had hundreds.)
Oddly enough, it was from Planned Parenthood and their publications. Planned Parenthood also noted that it was rare occurance that the person who chose the abortion was actually the woman getting it - it was usually the boyfriend pressuring her.
This is a statement that I believe requires some proof as the information I have seen from PP directly contradicts everything you claim here.
There have also been numerous studies which, granted, are biased, which showed many, many depressions in later years as women look back on their abortions.
Well there's your problem.
I mean, honestly, the one constant meme of everything you've said here and in just about every other thread you've ever been in is how everything is someone else's fault, or should be. You've got that 'I hate all things not me' thing going pretty strong. You're actually very predictable in that way.
In fact, to save us both time, how about instead of you actually posting, instead I just take a paragraph or two from www.dailykos.com and just pretend it was from you. Is that okay?
You see, Jayne, I've got you pegged as one of those 'liberal' guys who like abortion, etc, because it means that it's always someone else that has to deal with your actions.
This is possibly the most insulting frame I've ever seen the issue put in. Kudos.
The idea that anyone wants abortion to be an option because it makes "other people deal with their mistakes" is tripe. Grow up and address the issue rather than the winger caricature of the people you disagree with.
Got anything that isn't ad hom? Like potentially the info you claim to have seen but still haven't linked to?
Oddly enough, it was from Planned Parenthood and their publications. Planned Parenthood also noted that it was rare occurance that the person who chose the abortion was actually the woman getting it - it was usually the boyfriend pressuring her.
Could you provide links? When I type depression into the Planned Parenthood website these are the first five results, all of which seem to disagree with you. They are upfront that some women will have emotional difficulties after an abortion, but they stress that these are the same women that are prone to post-partum depression and that the rate of depression after an abortion is lower than the rate of post-partum depression.
Results:
PP supports long term study of depression following pregnancy
Planned Parenthood phone directory
The Truth About Abstinence Only Education
Emotional Effects of Induced Abortion Fact Sheet
The Emotional Effects of Induced Abortion (html version)
Am I searching for the wrong thing? Could you please provide a link to the comment about boyfriends pressuring women to get abortions as well? I can't find anything on their website about that either. Does that include the 1/3 of women who get abortions who are married?
There have also been numerous studies which, granted, are biased, which showed many, many depressions in later years as women look back on their abortions.
Could you provide links? I have seen studies that claimed that. But they all compared women who had abortions to the population as a whole. The studies that I have seen that compare women who had abortions to all women with unwanted pregnancies showed no difference.
This is possibly the most insulting frame I've ever seen the issue put in. Kudos.
Oh, I think it's true. I saw that in college all the time, and it's still going on. There are plenty of guys who 'walk the liberal line' because it means getting easy consequence-free sex from liberal college girls. Go to any college-town Planned Parenthood and ask about it.
Ugly truth? Tough. The world's full of them.
Got anything that isn't ad hom? Like potentially the info you claim to have seen but still haven't linked to?
You know what, I've linked like crazy in this thread, and you ignore all of them. From now on, how about YOU back up your stuff for once? It would be a refreshing change of pace, that someone on your side of the aisle actually put up.
http://www.abortionfacts.com/reardon/abortion_and_suicide.asp, if you want to start though. I'm sure you'll blithely ignore this one to and not put up anything of your own.
Could you provide links? I have seen studies that claimed that. But they all compared women who had abortions to the population as a whole. The studies that I have seen that compare women who had abortions to all women with unwanted pregnancies showed no difference.
See above for link.
But the problem with these studies, both ways, is that they're very self-selecting. If a woman decides against abortion and keeps the child and is happy with the choice, she's no longer in the 'unwanted pregnancy' category, for instance.
My wife and I kept our first child, who was unexpected. We don't follow in the survey because the child was wanted.
And so it goes.
The biggest irony about legalized abortion is that its touted as a 'woman's right', yet it started out as a campaign by certain Democrats to deliberately curb the poor black population led by Margaret Sanger, a Nazi sympathizer.
Like I said, the truth about matters is seldom pretty.
Oh, I think it's true. I saw that in college all the time, and it's still going on. There are plenty of guys who 'walk the liberal line' because it means getting easy consequence-free sex from liberal college girls. Go to any college-town Planned Parenthood and ask about it.
This is getting really close to "women don't want abortions, they are getting pressured into them, we need to outlaw abortion to save women" However, I find that view extremely offensive, so I am going to ask if that is what you actually mean before I interpret what you have said as such.
You know what, I've linked like crazy in this thread, and you ignore all of them. From now on, how about YOU back up your stuff for once? It would be a refreshing change of pace, that someone on your side of the aisle actually put up.
http://www.abortionfacts.com/reardon/abortion_and_suicide.asp, if you want to start though. I'm sure you'll blithely ignore this one to and not put up anything of your own.
The article you linked to is an opinion pieces that cites a book written by three authors who only write about depression and abortion, natural family planning, and euthanasia. All of it is in low impact journals and most of it is in physician throw-aways.
I would really like to see the link to the Planned Parenthood material that you originally quoted. Or a long term scientific study as opposed to an opinion piece.
Or, if you can wait until I leave work, I will even find the most often quoted ones for you and explain why they are faulty science if you prefer.
This is getting really close to "women don't want abortions, they are getting pressured into them, we need to outlaw abortion to save women" However, I find that view extremely offensive, so I am going to ask if that is what you actually mean before I interpret what you have said as such.
Are you seriously going to tell me that abortion is your preferable option as a form of birth control? I would find that hard to believe, and you would be the first woman I've ever met that would say so.
The article you linked to is an opinion pieces that cites a book written by three authors who only write about depression and abortion, natural family planning, and euthanasia.
And there it is. "I don't agree with your evidence because it disagrees with my premise." See? Exactly what I predicted. Hands up, the number of people who are shocked.
I would really like to see the link to the Planned Parenthood material that you originally quoted. Or a long term scientific study as opposed to an opinion piece.
Tough to do, as it was in print from a few years ago when my daughter's junior high was handing it out. In Colorado, they're required to explain the downsides of abortion.
Because, you know, there actually are some, despite what you're attempting to insinuate.
Oh, I think it's true. I saw that in college all the time, and it's still going on. There are plenty of guys who 'walk the liberal line' because it means getting easy consequence-free sex from liberal college girls. Go to any college-town Planned Parenthood and ask about it.
Ugly truth? Tough. The world's full of them.
So, what you're putting forward here is that all males who want abortion to be legal feel that way because the want their sex partners to be able to terminate pregnancies that they don't want to pay child support on.
Nevermind the fathers who don't want their daughters rights taken away because she's pregnant, or the brothers whose sister was raped and doesn't want to have the baby. Or the married couple who have had a vasectomy fail and simply can't afford another kid.
Let's ignore all those people in favor of framing around Chad Dickwhistle, college douchebag. Good call.
You know what, I've linked like crazy in this thread, and you ignore all of them.
You have yet to provide a link that has been asked for that I've seen. You spout and spout and spout, but you never back any of it up. Even the link you provided below isn't backing your statement about Planned Parenthood's info, it's a completely different organization.
From now on, how about YOU back up your stuff for once? It would be a refreshing change of pace, that someone on your side of the aisle actually put up.
I'm not making any assertions at this point, you are. When asked where I got my info, I'm more than happy to link to my source, as evidenced in this very thread. Nice shot at character assassination, but it's not going to work as a dodge at this point.
http://www.abortionfacts.com/reardon/abortion_and_suicide.asp, if you want to start though. I'm sure you'll blithely ignore this one to and not put up anything of your own.
That article is based entirely around a study done 20 years ago that compared teenage girls who had abortions with the general populace, rather than those who had recently had children (and were experiencing the same hormonal issues). Post-partem depression cuts both ways, but that kind of survey (which has since been largely abandoned by the scientific community at this point due to it's inherent inaccuracies with two non-comparable populations) doesn't take that into account. Statistics doesn't work unless you take the variables into account, sorry.
The lady you're handwaving off provided some good ones (which pretty much blow the tires off your "I got this from Planned Parenthood premise), let's post those again;
PP supports long term study of depression following pregnancy
Planned Parenthood phone directory
The Truth About Abstinence Only Education
Emotional Effects of Induced Abortion Fact Sheet
The Emotional Effects of Induced Abortion (html version)
Let's ignore all those people in favor of framing around Chad Dickwhistle, college douchebag. Good call.
Because, unfortunately, the overwhelming majority we're talking about are Chad Dickwhistle types (or, urban males which I won't resort to a parody name of). That's the dirty part of it. The number of 'rapes', and 'incests' which result in abortion are statistically insignifact. It's almost always 'boyfriend' sex and the 'boyfriend' pushing the abortion.
You have yet to provide a link that has been asked for that I've seen.
And again you chose to ignore links, and the articles within and never, ever, put up your own. Again, I'm shocked.
And again, you're trying to put up the view that abortion never, ever, has any negative consequences and is no more a problem for women than changing their shoes or something.
Are you seriously going to tell me that abortion is your preferable option as a form of birth control? I would find that hard to believe, and you would be the first woman I've ever met that would say so.
Where have I said anything about birth control? I asked you if you thought outlawing abortion protects women. Period. Nothing about birth control.
And there it is. "I don't agree with your evidence because it disagrees with my premise." See? Exactly what I predicted. Hands up, the number of people who are shocked.
Um... I asked you to provide evidence. You gave a link to an opinion piece. It had three references: two opinion pieces and one scientific article that isn't really related. You think a random opinion out there on the internet should be used as evidence for anything?
Where have I ever said that???
There are risks to abortion!
Happy? My only point is that the risks, physcially and mentally, associated with abortion are the same as (or less than in some cases) the physcial and mental risks of pregnancy and delivery. Do you see the difference?
See, look at my earlier post:The most recent data released shows that women who have abortions have exactly the same rates of depression/mental health as women who have miscarriages and give birth.
No insinuation. You are the one that is completely ignoring the fact that the alternative to abortion is pregnancy and delivery and there are physical and mental risks associated with pregnancy and delivery. Once a woman is pregnant the choice isn't between abortion or not pregnant. It is between abortion and pregnancy and delivery, therefore, those are the health statistics that should be compared. The rates of "x" following abortion should be compared to the rates of "x" following delivery (or miscarriage) not the rates of "x" in women who have never been pregnant.
You see, Jayne, I've got you pegged as one of those 'liberal' guys who like abortion, etc, because it means that it's always someone else that has to deal with your actions.
I take responsibility for my own actions, thank you.
I mean, honestly, the one constant meme of everything you've said here and in just about every other thread you've ever been in is how everything is someone else's fault, or should be. You've got that 'I hate all things not me' thing going pretty strong. You're actually very predictable in that way.
Are you translating this site through Babelfish or something, cos what you say you're getting from me is not what I'm giving.
In fact, to save us both time, how about instead of you actually posting, instead I just take a paragraph or two from www.dailykos.com and just pretend it was from you. Is that okay?
Well, you've both made up your mind about who and what I am - based on nothing more than some internet posts - and have already made up things about what I think and I feel, so randomly posting rubbish from some web site I've never heard of and claiming it is from me is about par for the course.
I neither desire nor require your approval and don't really give two figs what you do. I know who and what I am and the opinion of some random anonymous internet poster has no impact upon that whatsoever.
If me daring to voice opinions which differ from yours bothers you so much you feel the need to bait and insult me about it then I would suggest you do us both a favour and just put me on your ignore list.
Because, unfortunately, the overwhelming majority we're talking about are Chad Dickwhistle types (or, urban males which I won't resort to a parody name of). That's the dirty part of it. The number of 'rapes', and 'incests' which result in abortion are statistically insignifact. It's almost always 'boyfriend' sex and the 'boyfriend' pushing the abortion.
Again, you're framing out everything you don't agree with. You can continue to do that if it helps you feel better about your hardline stance on taking rights away from women, but it's not in any way reflective of reality.
And again you chose to ignore links, and the articles within and never, ever, put up your own. Again, I'm shocked.
I addressed your link, which you haven't defended. You're the one making assertions here, not me. The burden of proof lies on you.
And again, you're trying to put up the view that abortion never, ever, has any negative consequences and is no more a problem for women than changing their shoes or something.
I've never once said that abortion has no negative consequences, nor have I said anything about it being the preferred version of birth control. Quit misrepresenting my positions, please.
If this is the best you've got (ad hom attacks, links to non-scientific studies, implied racial bias, trying to frame in terms of males coercing women into having abortions they don't want, etc) then it's pretty sad.
Where have I ever said that???
There are risks to abortion!
Then would you go so far to agree that the risks of abortion are almost never discussed, even with people who are looking at getting one? I guarantee you that they're not. That's why states pass laws REQUIRING them to be discussed.
Happy? My only point is that the risks, physcially and mentally, associated with abortion are the same as (or less than in some cases) the physcial and mental risks of pregnancy and delivery. Do you see the difference?
The mental risks of abortion are notably higher than those of pregnancy and delivery. They are. The difference is that the 'studies' you cite, as I mentioned, only refer to 'unwanted' pregnancies which remain unwanted after delivery. That's the trick of it all. That's why Mrs. Palin's daughter won't be part of that statistic.
If you've got a two year old that you still don't want, then that's terrible, but it's not at all that common. Most mothers who have 'unwanted' children love them immensely once they're born, regardless of their circumstance.
So yes, from my experience, from what I've seen and learned, that barring an extreme set of very rare circumtances, it is, in fact, better on the mother to have the child rather than an abortion. If this is troubling to you, let me point out that in the United States, it's so rediculously easy to get contraception for both partners to reduce the risk of pregnancy to less than one percent.
And if that's STILL too high of a risk, just don't have sex. It's an enjoyable experience, yes, but if you're honestly worried that its natural consuquence is going to 'ruin your life', then why the hell do it? There are other options for pleasure, after all.
Again, you're framing out everything you don't agree with. You can continue to do that if it helps you feel better about your hardline stance on taking rights away from women, but it's not in any way reflective of reality.
Let's see.. the 'right of a woman to not be inconvienced' (or, more honestly, the guy who got her pregnant in the first place) versus the apparent murder of a viable child. Let me think on this one...
Let's see.. the 'right of a woman to not be inconvienced' (or, more honestly, the guy who got her pregnant in the first place) versus the apparent murder of a viable child. Let me think on this one...
While doing so if you can rewrite the scenario into one that is not both misleading and reliant on loaded language to evoke and emotional rather than reasoned response that would be super.
Because, unfortunately, the overwhelming majority we're talking about are Chad Dickwhistle types (or, urban males which I won't resort to a parody name of). That's the dirty part of it. The number of 'rapes', and 'incests' which result in abortion are statistically insignifact. It's almost always 'boyfriend' sex and the 'boyfriend' pushing the abortion.
So it's all about the poor women being manipulated into having sex and then getting an abortion?
What about the 80% of women getting abortions who are over 22? Are they not old enough to make their own decisions?
What about the 33% of women getting abortions who are married. Are they being pressured by their husbands to have sex and then get abortions?
What about the 61% of women getting an abortion who already have a child or children and cite the welfare of their existing children as the reason for getting an abortion?
Oh, and here is a link to where I got all of these numbers.
http://www.guttmacher.org/media/presskits/2005/06/28/abortionoverview.html
Where are you going to draw the line? Are you going to claim that women who think they don't want fetal monitors during labor are just being pressured by someone? How about women who want VBAC? Or no epidural? Or to deliver in a position other than on her back? Or are women only pressured into abortion and are completely free and rational when making decisions about other parts of their pregnancy?
Abortions are not about 'women's rights', and never have been. It's about social engineering. The 'women's rights' couching made it an easy sell, and a lot of women now defend abortion to the death (literally) even though it's a terrible option for them.
Abortion was about getting those 'poor black people' to stop having babies. Don't believe me? Look up the history of Roe Vs Wade and the history of Planned Parenthood. It's eugenics, pure and simple, and that aspect of abortion survives to this day.
The simple fact is that there's no real justification for abortion in today's medical and societal climate. You know this, but since it's couched in your 'rights' you want to defend it.
Thing is, I'm not going to cede to you that it's your right. I belive that at some point, early on, there's a living being in there that feels pain and pleasure, and that being told to kill it for the sake of 'convienence' is one of the greatest moral atrocities in the world. There's no budging on this one.
And since it's born of a Nazi eugenics practice, I have an even harder time accepting it as a viable and workable 'right' for women. In fact, there's absolutely nothing about its practice I find morally appealing.
Now, you can hue and cry and argue about this wall all you want, but I'm still going to see it as someone who wants to defend a Nazi practice for the sake of their own convience, consequences be damned.
Edit: And if those sites numbers are accurate, then we've got a sick epidemic of really really dumb people in this country who are, in fact, looking at abortion as their main form of birth control. Again, not something that I would be celebrating.
Pack it up, thread's over.
Then would you go so far to agree that the risks of abortion are almost never discussed, even with people who are looking at getting one? I guarantee you that they're not. That's why states pass laws REQUIRING them to be discussed.
No, I strongly disagree. Performing an abortion without discussing the physical and emotional risks of abortion, miscarriage and pregnancy is malpractice.
I have a feeling that the informed consent, including expected bleeding, pain, and possible risks is explained to every woman and recorded in triplicate or every abortion provider in the country would have lost their license by now with the fervor that the anti-abortion crown is pursuing them.
The new law in South Dakota is currently being challenged for requiring physicians to say things that have been disproven in scientific studies.
The mental risks of abortion are notably higher than those of pregnancy and delivery. They are. The difference is that the 'studies' you cite, as I mentioned, only refer to 'unwanted' pregnancies which remain unwanted after delivery. That's the trick of it all. That's why Mrs. Palin's daughter won't be part of that statistic.
If you've got a two year old that you still don't want, then that's terrible, but it's not at all that common. Most mothers who have 'unwanted' children love them immensely once they're born, regardless of their circumstance.
So yes, from my experience, from what I've seen and learned, that barring an extreme set of very rare circumtances, it is, in fact, better on the mother to have the child rather than an abortion. If this is troubling to you, let me point out that in the United States, it's so rediculously easy to get contraception for both partners to reduce the risk of pregnancy to less than one percent.
And if that's STILL too high of a risk, just don't have sex. It's an enjoyable experience, yes, but if you're honestly worried that its natural consuquence is going to 'ruin your life', then why the hell do it? There are other options for pleasure, after all.
Please cite your statistics. Everything I have ever read shows that abortion is safer than pregnancy and delivery no matter if the woman wants the child or not.
Please also refrain from making assumptions about me. Have I ever said that getting pregnant would ruin my life? You can ask my husband, I would be over the moon if I got pregnant right now. I still think abortion needs to be an accessible, legal option for all women.
I don't think you read the links I provided very well, they were not specific to women who didn't want their babies after birth.
Depression after abortion is around 10%
Post-partum depression occurs in about 14.5% of all pregnant women
A second study with the same results
Godwin, folks.
Pack it up, thread's over.
Would be nice. But, sad fact, both Roe Vs Wade and Planned Parenthood have those origins. Are you denying that to be the case?
The simple fact is that there's no real justification for abortion in today's medical and societal climate. You know this, but since it's couched in your 'rights' you want to defend it.
So when my wife got pregnant despite a variety of preventative efforts - including a tubal ligation - and we were forced to abort owing to complications with her disability that would have killed both her and the child there was no justification for it?
Here I was thinking we'd made a heart wrenchingly difficult personal decision when in truth we're just tools of the Nazi war machine. Good thing you're here to tell us the truth.
No, I strongly disagree. Performing an abortion without discussing the physical and emotional risks of abortion, miscarriage and pregnancy is malpractice.
Which, as I said, is why laws have to be passed to see it done. Abortion mills have pushed 'abortion is the solution' for many many years, treating it as a 'cure all' with no risks and side-effects. This isn't even dispute, NOW and NARAL still push this view on their own web pages!
Please cite your statistics. Everything I have ever read shows that abortion is safer than pregnancy and delivery no matter if the woman wants the child or not.
I did. But if you're going to say 'nyah nyah' each time, why should I both posting research? I could also easily point out that relying on data from abortion mills on how valuable they are and how many customers they get is like asking McDonald's who makes the best hamburgers.
Do you really think that 1 out of 2 to 3 American women have had an abortion? If it's that common, this country may be beyond saving. And if it was true (and I do not believe for a moment that it is), can you honestly tell me in any way, shape, or form, that that's a good thing?
Would be nice. But, sad fact, both Roe Vs Wade and Planned Parenthood have those origins. Are you denying that to be the case?
Are you saying that the act of "exposing" unwanted newborns (as described in the bible, if I'm not mistaken) wasn't an early form of abortion? Are you saying that the concept of abortion, medical or otherwise, was purely conceived in Nazi Germany, regardless of the historical record showing otherwise (the American Eugenics Society was founded in 1922) just so that you can paint those you disagree with as Nazis?
Cause it kind of looks like you are. And that means you've lost any shred of credibility you might have had before that.
So when my wife got pregnant despite a variety of preventative efforts - including a tubal ligation - and we were forced to abort owing to complications with her disability that would have killed both her and the child there was no justification for it?
I already said above that there were some extreme case exceptions. But, even then, if you think I'm remotely inclined to believe you that you're actually one of them, I'm going to have to dissapoint you. I mean, seriously, I'm supposed to take your word on this?
Godwin, folks.
Pack it up, thread's over.
Sorry, Bat. You don't get to invoke Godwin. He's historically acurate in this case.
Of course abortion was practiced looong before Nazi Germany, but it was in fact widely used by them to weed out 'undesirables'.
Are you saying that the act of "exposing" unwanted newborns (as described in the bible, if I'm not mistaken) wasn't an early form of abortion?
And it was a sin condemned by stoning.
I said that the history of Roe Vs Wade and Planned Parenthood are documented as coming from Nazi sympathizers who thought to use social engineering to reduce the 'poor black' population in the United States. And we still see that that mindset is in effect. (See where abortion is pushed the heaviest, for instance, as well as numerous sporadic cases of racial preferences in abortions.)
Again, that's solid fact. The movement has never been about, at its core, the rights of women. That's just a pitch that was used to push Roe Vs Wade through.
I already said above that there were some extreme case exceptions. But, even then, if you think I'm remotely inclined to believe you that you're actually one of them, I'm going to have to dissapoint you. I mean, seriously, I'm supposed to take your word on this?
Our pain has nothing to do with you and I really don't give a **** what you believe, but you talking out your ass and spouting narrow-minded right-wing slippery-slope bull**** rhetoric is an insult to every single person who has had to suffer through this agonizing experience.
I've brought the thread to the attention of Community Management, who will decide if the thread will be moved, reopened, or deleted.