Please make sure to vote under the correct political affiliation or status. I'm curious not only to hear which your prefer, but to see how it differs among different groups.
Posts: 2241 | Location: In between | Registered: 06-03-02
Right now I'm leaning toward Obama. He is such a strong speaker - really charismatic and inspiring. I think he could make an excellent leader, and I really admire the way he tries to bring people together.
I worry that Clinton is too divisive. We need a leader who will bring our country together, and I don't think Clinton will do that. ****************************************************** 01-23-07, 09:14 PM newnickname Obama has been right about the Iraq fiasco all along; Clinton initially supported it, has hedged her bets, and whatever she's said about it has been with one eye on the opinion poll results.
Obama is probably a slick political operator too, but he doesn't have the air that Clinton does, of being capable of drowning a sackful of kittens if told it would go down well with such-and-such a key sector of voters.
01-24-07, 07:47 PM Sarai Who is the Democrat who would vote for Clinton? I'm really curious to hear your perspective. What is it that you prefer about her?
01-25-07, 02:51 PM Lighteningrodd My preference is Barack Obama. After all he is Senator from my home state.
I remember back in 1992 when Bill Clinton was first running for President. As I recall he did not captivate the electorate near as early in the campaign like Obama has. Clinton had to campaign & earn the nomination. Right now Obama is in the spotlight and other than Hillary, there is no oxygen left for the rest of the Democratic contenders.
01-26-07, 08:10 AM Elexina Tough choice. I wonder if either can win. Are we really ready for a female or black president? I don't give a crap, and neither should anyone else, but people do and knowing that might make me hesitant. Wouldn't want to waste my vote on someone people will vote against just because she's a woman or he's black. Oi. I'm kind of partial to Hillary, though. After all, she's always been a Yankees fan...
01-26-07, 08:51 AM frankvan I am a Democrat and I would vote for Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Chuck Hagel, John Edwards, John McCain, Denis Kusinich, or any one of the horde of aspirants presently or eventually running for the presidency. It would not be on the basis of race, gender, ethnicity, party, or sexual orientation. It would definitely depend on whom they were running against. All issues being somewhat equally weighted, and consonant with my own, I would hope for an outcome that represented progress toward the long overdue elimination of prejudices. The ideal winning candidate would be a pro-choice, black female atheist lesbian. But since most candidates rarely if ever satisfy all my requirements, I might vote for a coke-snorting, alcoholic child molesting creationist, if s/he were running against a George W. Bush or Dick Cheney clone.
Since we are only asked about Clinton versus Obama, I think it requires us to look with objectivity into our own natures. Why do we seem to almost instantly form a "like" or "dislike" for some people on very casual acquaintance ? Some people, like Obama, seem to smile and converse with others in a way that seems friendly and warm, whereas, for me at least, Hillary seems colder, less approachable, perhaps less "feminine". I think she might well make a capable and efficient chief executive, but appears less capable of overcoming traditional gender bias of both male and female voters. Too masculine for both men and stay-at-home moms? Unfortunate! Frown
01-26-07, 09:01 AM Koz
quote: I'm kind of partial to Hillary, though. After all, she's always been a Yankees fan...
No she is not. She has flipped on this issue. While at Yankee Stadium she dons a Yankees cap and while at Shea Stadium she dons a Mets cap. To make matters even worse rumor has it she is also a closet Cubs fan Eek !
Who does she think she is a politician or something! Wink
01-26-07, 12:35 PM Scotty
quote: No she is not. She has flipped on this issue. While at Yankee Stadium she dons a Yankees cap and while at Shea Stadium she dons a Mets cap. To make matters even worse rumor has it she is also a closet Cubs fan !
Business as usual for her. Big Grin
01-29-07, 08:39 AM Elexina That was mostly sarcasm on my account anyway. I’d never vote for someone based on their sports team preference -unless they were Dale Earnhardt, Jr. fans or something, of course! Wink I am partial to Hillary, though, because of her stance on issues I believe in. It doesn’t really matter what I think, though, until the Democrats decide who they are putting forward.
01-29-07, 09:46 AM coldfuse While I find Obama far more intoxicating and moving, of the two I would vote for Ms. Clinton if forced to vote between the two today. I believe her views are more seasoned and substantive. The election, however, is nearly two years off and Obama has time to strengthen his weaknesses to become a more formidable, well-rounded candidate.
As for now, I like Rudy Smile
01-29-07, 01:22 PM aminator2002
quote: she is also a closet Cubs fan !
Not at all a closet Cubs fan. Very much in the open, she grew up here.
01-29-07, 02:56 PM Koz
quote: Not at all a closet Cubs fan. Very much in the open, she grew up here.
Well that sure explains a lot! Razz
quote: That was mostly sarcasm on my account anyway.
Mine too, I know she is open about her (albeit pathetic) love for those Cubbies Wink .
(sarcasm again Big Grin )
Back to the question, at the moment given the choice between the two candidates listed I would have to lean towards Senator Clinton. The junior senator from New York has accomplished (for New York) many good things during her first term as senator. As for Senator Obama, I don’t really know what he has accomplished for the people of Illinois during his short time as senator.
My current two “problems” with Senator Clinton are:
1. Now that she seems to be whole heartedly campaigning for the presidency New York will be one senator short. Most all of her time and concentration won’t be on New York for the next two years or so.
2. I really, really hate the way she speaks in public. The way her voice rises and the inflection on certain words toward the end of a sentence bugs me Roll Eyes.
01-29-07, 03:45 PM Lighteningrodd Well by golly, she certainly knows how to handle evil men Big Grin www.nypost.com
quote: Originally posted by newnickname: Obama steps up on Iraq
He has the great gift of being able to summarise an argument or premiss in memorable and pithy words " No amount of American soldiers can solve the political differences at the heart of somebody else's war".
PS What's "the Y generation" referred to in the link?
02-02-07, 08:25 PM methos You've heard of generation X, right? Generation Y is some people's rather uncreative name for the generation after them. Of course, there's disagreement about what years it covers even among those who use the term, but it's roughly people born in the last 20 years of the 20th century.
02-02-07, 11:50 PM FredPuli
quote: Originally posted by methos: You've heard of generation X, right?
Wrong ! What is generation X? X suggests some unknown quantity or date. Why is it X ? Confused
02-03-07, 08:36 AM frankvan Generation X are the children of the Baby boomers. Following the end of WWII there was a huge surge in the birth rate, ergo the name "baby boom" for babies born around 1946-47. Their children are generation Y just because Y follows X, I suppose.
02-03-07, 08:46 AM methos Whoops. I knew "generation X" was a primarily North American term, but I was under the impression it was commonly known in Britain.
02-03-07, 10:51 AM coldfuse Is the next generation going to be "Z?" Does that mean they are predestined to be last, or can we start over again with "AA?"
02-03-07, 11:03 AM Sarai A coworker was just explaining to me yesterday that the Mayan calendar predicts that the world will end on December 21, 2012 at 7:00 am.
So yes, I'm sorry to report that Generation Z will be last. This is a scientific fact. Wink
02-03-07, 11:14 AM Scotty I would like to know who determined that generation X was in fact generation X, and how they came to that conclusion. Confused
02-03-07, 12:20 PM DorianGreyed I'm one of the earliest Boomers (Shup, SR!), but my son is Gen Y. I tend to put things off, I guess.
Scotty, a group of scientists and sociologists got together and decided that they didn't have a clue what to call the generation after the Boomers, so they did the best they could; they called statisticians. Hence, the X Generation. Roll Eyes
Actually, I think the X name came about when the media was talking about the neXt generation after the Boomers. Another possibility that I've seen is that, in the rush to label everything, it was realized that, while patterns of Boomers were well known, nothing was known about their children, what trends they would make, what patterns they would follow. They were, at that time, the unknown generation. Both seem to be reasonable possibilities.
02-03-07, 01:24 PM methos
quote: I would like to know who determined that generation X was in fact generation X, and how they came to that conclusion.
Well then, follow my earlier link to more information Wink
02-03-07, 03:33 PM Scotty Thanks, DG and methos.
02-12-07, 12:23 AM newnickname 'Australian PM John Howard has criticised the US presidential hopeful, Barack Obama, for saying US troops should withdraw from Iraq next year...
...Mr Howard said al-Qaeda should be "praying as many times as possible" for an Obama victory in the 2008 elections...
...Mr Obama, who has described the Iraq war as "tragic", said he was "flattered" by Mr Howard's statement.
He said: "I think it's flattering that one of George Bush's allies on the other side of the world started attacking me the day after I announced.
"I would also note that we have close to 140,000 troops on the ground now, and my understanding is Mr Howard has deployed 1,400, so if he is (ready) to fight the good fight in Iraq, I would suggest that he calls up another 20,000 Australians and sends them to Iraq."
"Otherwise it's just a bunch of empty rhetoric," he added.' news.bbc.co.uk
'Prime Minister John Howard has told government MPs that "history is on our side", despite opinion polls pointing to a Labor landslide election win.
Mr Howard told backbenchers that voters still had confidence in the government, despite a poll showing Labor's primary vote at a six-year high and a drop in coalition support...' www.thewest.com.au
02-20-07, 11:59 PM newnickname If the example above shows Obama's refreshingly undiplomatic openess, this op-ed maybe captures what's wrong with Clinton's overly careful, establishment, "don't rock the boat" tendency.
'Many people are perplexed by the uproar over Senator Hillary Clinton's refusal to say, as former Senator John Edwards has, that she was wrong to vote for the Iraq war resolution. Why is it so important to admit past error? And yes, it was an error - she may not have intended to cast a vote for war, but the fact is the resolution did lead to war; she may not have believed that President Bush would abuse the power he was granted, but the fact is he did.
The answer can be summed up in two words: heckuva job. Or, if you want a longer version: Medals of Freedom to George Tenet, who said Saddam had W.M.D., Tommy Franks, who failed to secure Iraq, and Paul Bremer, who botched the occupation.
For the last six years we have been ruled by men who are pathologically incapable of owning up to mistakes. And this pathology has had real, disastrous consequences. The situation in Iraq might not be quite so dire - and we might even have succeeded in stabilizing Afghanistan - if Mr. Bush or Vice President Dick Cheney had been willing to admit early on that things weren't going well or that their handpicked appointees weren't the right people for the job.
The experience of Bush-style governance, together with revulsion at the way Karl Rove turned refusal to admit error into a political principle, is the main reason those now-famous three words from Mr. Edwards - "I was wrong" - matter so much to the Democratic base.
The base is remarkably forgiving toward Democrats who supported the war. But the base and, I believe, the country want someone in the White House who doesn't sound like another George Bush. That is, they want someone who doesn't suffer from an infallibility complex, who can admit mistakes and learn from them...'
02-21-07, 12:29 AM DorianGreyed Does that mean they are predestined to be last, or can we start over again with "AA?"
After careful consideration, I have decided that the generation after Gen Z will be labeled using the Greek alphabet. I have notified the proper agencies of my decision.
02-21-07, 01:25 AM FredPuli
quote: Originally posted by DorianGreyed:
After careful consideration, I have decided that the generation after Gen Z will be labeled using the Greek alphabet.
But then every man will be an 'alpha male'. Can't you see the trouble that will cause ?
02-27-07, 10:16 AM newnickname A difference in more than just presentation:
'Several Senate Democrats are renewing their push to curb the U.S. military’s use of weaponry responsible for civilian casualties in conflicts around the world — notably during the summer war between Israel and Lebanon — a proposal that has split the party’s presidential frontrunners.
Human rights groups long have lobbied to curtail the use of cluster bombs, which disperse “bomblets” over wide areas that can cause civilian deaths years after they are dropped. Democratic lawmakers joined the cause last fall amid growing controversy over Israel’s firing of older U.S.-supplied cluster bombs into Lebanon.
Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) offered a bill earlier this month that allows U.S. sales and transfers only of newer bombs with low error rates, expanding on a cluster-curbing amendment they offered last year.
Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) backed that plan while his rivals for the Democratic presidential nomination, Sens. Hillary Clinton (N.Y.), Joseph Biden (Del.) and Chris Dodd (Conn.), opposed it – a vote that looms as potential attack ad fodder in a 2008 campaign that is kicking off and going negative especially early.
“Perhaps unfortunately, the issue of cluster munitions came about so prominently by Israel’s use or misuse of cluster munitions in its conflict with Hezbollah,” Colby Goodman, a program manager at Amnesty International, said. “It was seen by some as a focus on criticizing Israel, but that wasn’t the intent.”' www.hillnews.com
The article points out that 98% of casualties from cluster bombs are non-combatants. Even the UK has has gone along with moves to ban older, less reliable types of the weapon.
02-28-07, 12:40 PM aminator2002 Hillary's stock will continue to go down as people learn about her.
Obama will continue to rise.
02-28-07, 05:04 PM Kendor
quote: Originally posted by aminator2002: Obama will continue to rise.
Just as many believe will the antichrist.
02-28-07, 08:46 PM Sarai
quote: Originally posted by Kendor: Just as many believe will the antichrist.
What? Confused
02-28-07, 10:00 PM DorianGreyed "What? Confused"
Well, trying to paint Obama as some sort of Manchurian candidate secretly trained in a radical Muslim madrassa who was going to destroy the US from within didn't work with people here, so the next logical step is to hint at his being the antichrist. I don't know why those afraid of a Democrat winning the White House don't just get to the bottom line and accuse Obama of being an alien from the planet Mars sent here to soften the Earth up for the upcoming Martian invasion. The sad thing is that some of the insinuations will take hold with some voters. The funny thing is that those voters wouldn't vote for a Democrat if God, Gandhi, and George Wallace endorsed him.
One must remember that this type of political campaign tactic is a favorite of the Right. In a Texas gubernatorial race, Democrat Ann Richards was accused of being a lesbian and a Communist. In the 2000 Republican primaries, Sen. John McCain was accused of fathering a black child. The truth of the matter, that he and his wife adopted a girl from Bangladesh, wasn't important; it was, after all, only the truth, not important when that type is seeking a goal. He was also accused of being a Manchurian candidate, having been a POW during the Vietnam War. You get one guess as to who was behind them. (Hint: He's lied to the voters since then, too, in order to get his way.)
03-01-07, 09:09 AM Kendor Dorian, there's no way in heck I'm voting republican in '08. See, you constantly have me all wrong.
03-01-07, 09:23 AM Sarai Kendor, then could you please explain your antichrist comment? I thought it was way out of left field.
03-01-07, 10:51 AM DorianGreyed Kendor Gold Enthusiast Picture of Kendor
Posted 03-01-07 09:09 AM Hide Post Dorian, there's no way in heck I'm voting republican in '08. See, you constantly have me all wrong.
Posts: 1503 | Location: South of Sanity | Registered: 06-28-02 ********
The following should be noted:
I didn't say that Kendor was going to vote Republican. The only time I used the R word was to describe an event, a primary election.
Kendor, while denying that he will vote Republican, didn't deny being a Republican.
Kendor didn't deny that he was engaging in smear tactics, either with this comment or his comment in another thread about Obama attending a madrassa.
Neither Republicans nor Democrats are required to vote for their party's pick in an election.
Kendor is denying an accusation that wasn't made.
03-01-07, 01:14 PM Kendor
quote: Originally posted by Sarai: Kendor, then could you please explain your antichrist comment? I thought it was way out of left field.
As I felt a need to debunk ami's belief that Obama will continue to rise, I gave nod to the fact that across many social subcultures Obama is being compared to, and in many cases, being called, the antichrist.
I believe that neither will rise.
03-01-07, 01:23 PM Kendor
quote: Originally posted by DorianGreyed: Kendor Platinum Enthusiast Picture of Kendor
Kendor, while denying that he will vote Republican, didn't deny being a Republican.
I am not republican. I carry no label. Haven't we been through this before?
Sorry I thought you were accusing me personally, Dorian. I just assumed that since you were responding to Sarai's comment which was directly questioning my comment, that your comment was aimed at me.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: DorianGreyed,
Posts: 2241 | Location: In between | Registered: 06-03-02
Originally posted by Sarai: Kendor, then could you please explain your antichrist comment? I thought it was way out of left field.
As I felt a need to debunk ami's belief that Obama will continue to rise, I gave nod to the fact that across many social subcultures Obama is being compared to, and in many cases, being called, the antichrist.
Originally posted by DorianGreyed: Kendor Platinum Enthusiast Picture of Kendor
Kendor, while denying that he will vote Republican, didn't deny being a Republican.
I am not republican. I carry no label. Haven't we been through this before?
Sorry I thought you were accusing me personally, Dorian. I just assumed that since you were responding to Sarai's comment which was directly questioning my comment, that your comment was aimed at me.
...across many social subcultures Obama is being compared to, and in many cases, being called, the antichrist...
Really? Apart from a few insignificant hate groups? If so, it's strange that the only seriously anti-war candidate is being called the antichrist.
For example, why would the other candidates object to outlawing obsolete weapons that kill mostly civilians? Isn't that more against the spirit of the Sermon on the Mount than anything Obama has said or done?
It's not at all clear who or what the antichrist might be, but surely if there were such a thing, he or she would be one of those politicians in the pocket of arms manufacturers, and in favour of unecessary wars which kill hundreds of thousands for no good reason.
Meet the Antichrist *********************************************** 03-01-07, 01:26 PM newnickname Do you prefer Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton? Why?
quote: ...across many social subcultures Obama is being compared to, and in many cases, being called, the antichrist...
Really? Apart from a few insignificant hate groups? If so, it's strange that the only seriously anti-war candidate is being called the antichrist.
For example, why would the other candidates object to outlawing obsolete weapons that kill mostly civilians? Isn't that more against the spirit of the Sermon on the Mount than anything Obama has said or done?
It's not at all clear who or what the antichrist might be, but surely if there were such a thing, he or she would be one of those politicians in the pocket of arms manufacturers, and in favour of unecessary wars which kill hundreds of thousands for no good reason.
Meet the Antichrist
03-01-07, 05:40 PM aminator2002 As I see the statistics of elections in this country over the past few years, there are some states that just don't play into the election process due to the electoral college. The deep red states are not going to vote for the same candidate that a person living in a large city or even medium city will vote for. The deep red states are mostly where you'd find those who believe in such things as an anti-christ (I have never heard this one before, but it seems quite a whopper). The deep blue states are likely going to vote Democrat no matter what so they don't play into it much either. The states that matter are the ones that are positioned very keenly in between red and blue and include Ohio, Iowa, Florida, and maybe Kentucky/Tennessee and a couple others.
I really don't think the Democrats need to go to the bible belt states... they have very few electoral votes and they are addicted to the abortion issue.
Obama presents a really good moderate approach. His views might be liberal but his manner of speaking, his approach to compromise and his important issues are seemingly quite sane, reasonable and fair. He is a family man and he's very value oriented.
He could swing the swing states whereas I don't think Hillary has a chance. She's too divisive... I think what Geffen said was spot on.
My prediction is that if it goes McCain against Hillary that even some of the Blue states might go Red. Many people I know that haven't voted Republican for years would not vote for Hillary - Illinois is not as blue as many might think.
If it was Hillary against Guilliani.... I can't say yet but I don't think people around here care much for him.
03-01-07, 06:31 PM honilov Unless Obama becomes the 'Pope', there's no way he's the Antichrist. Smile
03-02-07, 02:42 AM FredPuli Habemus Obamam ? Smile
03-02-07, 07:08 AM aminator2002 By the way, reading that article linked to about Obama's popularity... I think it's important to note that a very serious campaign was won during the primaries. This is pretty typical with the Democrat machine in Chicago and it seems Illinois is more and more a cakewalk for the Democrats in the general elections. So while he didn't have a serious contender against him in the general election, he did stand out in a very hotly contested race with many serious contenders.
03-02-07, 05:08 PM Scotty
quote: Unless Obama becomes the 'Pope', there's no way he's the Antichrist
That statement is as ignorant as calling Obama the Anti-Christ.
03-03-07, 11:54 AM coldfuse Ami has made some particularly inciteful contributions to this topic. I am curious to know how others may think about the idea of more liberal candidates not campaigning in bible belt states. Is it a waste of their resources?
Election 2008 may well not include a candidate from the South, unless Edwards pulls off a miracle. If Obama or Clinton is running against Romney, Giuliani, or McCain, would it be a mistake to dismiss the South?
Here is something to ponder. Defined as an economic development region, the South includes Texas and some peripheral states such as Missouri, Maryland, and Kentucky which share many cultural and economic similarities. The region includes over a third of the US Population, 194 electoral votes (of the 270 needed for a win), and leads the nation in all major economic categories (this was not true until a few years ago, when it also took the banking and insurance category). It may be defined as the world's fourth largest economy. Changes in the last forty years have been dramatic.
As a presidential candidate, I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the South in my campaign unless it was clearly lost to someone else. And if it was, the chances of victory are quite slim.
This, of course, may be altered significantly by taking a portion of the South that is up for grabs. Maryland, though included in the economic development profile, is surely a place where a liberal candidate can win. Taking Florida can alter the course of an election. So I think ami's point about focusing on key states is valid. With no southern candidate, I just wonder who will take the rest of them!
When is the last time someone took the Presidency without taking the South?
03-03-07, 12:09 PM Sarai Here is one of Obama's speeches about the relationship between faith and politics. I thought it was fascinating. It's a long speech, but worth hearing, I think. He makes a good case for why it is wrong for secularists to expect Americans not to refer to religion in speeches and in politics, but also for why it is wrong for religionists to expect politicians to make their decisions based on religion. A great call on Democrats to talk about religion, and not to cede the discussion of religion entirely to the right-wing religious fanatics.
03-03-07, 12:36 PM DorianGreyed Fuse, another way to look at the South's 194 electoral votes is that there are 344 votes outside of the South. In another thread, quite a while back, someone said that Tennessee cost Gore the 2000 election. I countered with about 8 or 10 smaller electoral vote states that, had they gone to Gore, would have put him at or above the 270. There are one or two states in the South in which the Republicans could run Ali Baba and the 40 thieves and the Democrats could run Mother Teresa, and the Dems still couldn't win. Spending Presidential money there would be a waste of the Democrats' money and time. California (55), Illinois (21), Michigan (17), New Jersey (15), New York (31), Ohio (20), and Pennsylvania (21) add up to 180 votes. Add Massachusetts (12) or Minnesota (10), and that Southern bloc isn't so big anymore.
In 2000, bush carried 5 of the 7 states that have 3 electoral votes (All states have at least 3 electoral votes.), none of which are in the south. Maryland was the only "Southern" state that Gore carried. Had any of the 5 bush carried gone to Gore, Gore is elected.
03-03-07, 01:16 PM coldfuse You are, of course, right. The South as a region cannot compete against the rest of the country. But no other region can compete against the South. I think McCain has a lukewarm reception here. But how would someone from New York (Rudy) or Massachusetts (Romney) fare? I wouldn't just haul off and give the South to them!
When I was a kid, the South was a Democrat stronghold. I just don't think the Dems would be smart to see it as lost territory forever.
The last two Democrats to be President were Carter and Clinton. Carter clearly won the South, and Clinton had two reasonable showings.
03-03-07, 01:39 PM Scotty
quote: You are, of course, right. The South as a region cannot compete against the rest of the country. But no other region can compete against the South
According to population growth, the South is growing by leaps and bounds, while the Northeast and Midwest are decreasing.
03-04-07, 11:23 PM SeattleRon I don't know enough about their political views to really make a call. It would be cool though to see a woman or a black man be president.
03-05-07, 05:21 AM Kendor It would be really cool if [all] US citizens would respect and stand behind which ever man or woman that gets elected. This time.
03-05-07, 12:30 PM coldfuse
quote: Originally posted by Kendor: It would be really cool if [all] US citizens would respect and stand behind which ever man or woman that gets elected. This time.
My first presidential vote was cast for Gerald Ford. When he lost, I told my parents I would support the new President, Jimmy Carter. My mother, who voted for Carter, told me, "That's what they have to do in the Soviet Union. You don't have to do that here."
03-05-07, 12:55 PM Scotty
quote: It would be really cool if [all] US citizens would respect and stand behind which ever man or woman that gets elected. This time
That's the way it used to be in this Country, it would be nice if we could get back to that way of thinking.
03-05-07, 02:07 PM DorianGreyed quote: It would be really cool if [all] US citizens would respect and stand behind which ever man or woman that gets elected. This time
That's the way it used to be in this Country, it would be nice if we could get back to that way of thinking. ***************************** Like the way Republicans did for Clinton?
03-05-07, 03:12 PM frankvan
quote: Originally posted by Scotty:
quote: It would be really cool if [all] US citizens would respect and stand behind which ever man or woman that gets elected. This time
That's the way it used to be in this Country, it would be nice if we could get back to that way of thinking.
Yeah, I remember how the whole country stood behind Harry Truman when he fired that egomaniac whatsisname. Very inspiring! Remember? Roll Eyes
03-05-07, 03:37 PM DorianGreyed Johnson was certainly widely loved and respected, and had the backing of the entire US. Eek
Frank, maybe it's only Republican presidents that we have to respect.
By the way, I most definitely remember talk of impeaching Clinton before he even took office. This equates with one AP member who complained in a post that the Democratic Congress hadn't changed anything yet. The post was in November 2006, I think, over a month before they took office.
03-08-07, 06:07 PM aminator2002 What would be really nice is if people stopped listening to venomous radio and television personalities. I think in the Clinton presidency was when this all started with Limbaugh and the rise of CNN. You have people who make the "news" by being completely nasty... see Ann Coulter's most recent unnecessary comments. I imagine conservatives would say this started during the Reagan or Nixon years, but I can't honestly say there was ever a President that unified... I was only a little kid but I remember Carter being routinely called an idiot. What I see is that the bitterness runs back as long as the given person has lived.
I swear that Hillary will just drive the machine of these talk shows and guys like Jerry Falwell to Jesus status with their following.
Anyway, don't tell me any of this nonsense about supporting who ever is elected. It's PRESIDENT not the almighty - get over the worship of the position.
03-28-07, 01:48 PM Kendor
quote: Originally posted by aminator2002: Anyway, don't tell me any of this nonsense about supporting who ever is elected. It's PRESIDENT not the almighty - get over the worship of the position.
Not worship ami, it's about
'sore losers' vs 'respectful non-winners'.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: DorianGreyed,
It has nothing to do with the election. He was elected and I do not support him and I honestly believe he needs to be stopped. He is not just a bad President, he's a bad American.
Posts: 3040 | Location: USA | Registered: 06-04-02
I believe it really does have something to do with the election, Ami. Many people who voted for the incumbent nincompoop, find it difficult to admit their mistake, despite overwhelming evidence. There is still a Flat Earth Society operating in today's world also.
Originally posted by aminator2002: He was elected and I do not support him and I honestly believe he needs to be stopped. He is not just a bad President, he's a bad American.
Needs to be stopped?!?! What's he doing?
Do you honestly believe, that had a Democrat been elected in 2000, we would have not taken military action in Iraq? That's pure fantasy. It was the US's duty to go into Iraq in 2003, and any administration present at the time would have had that responsibilty then, and be taking the blame now.
A bad American would be one who selfishly ignores the plight of the world's future, and thinks only for his/her current generation in his/her own country.
The 'Iraq Liberation Act' did not make it a duty for the US to invade Iraq. Firstly because it doesn't mention invasion but rather establishing "a program to support a transition to democracy in Iraq", for example with the President designating "qualified recipients of assistance, with the primary requirement being opposition to the present Saddam Hussein regime. Such groups should, according to the Act, include a broad spectrum of Iraqi individuals, groups, or both, who are opposed to the Saddam Hussein regime, and are committed to democratic values, respect for human rights, peaceful relations with Iraq's neighbors, maintaining Iraq's territorial integrity, and fostering cooperation among democratic opponents of the Saddam Hussein regime"
There's nothing there about a duty to invade, staging a coup d'etat and trying to put exiles with Iranian connections in power, or bombing the country's infrastructure to pieces.
Second, the fact that the US government passed a law saying it was the duty of the US to invade Iraq does not necessarily make it so. Would you accept that, for example, if the democratically elected government of Palestine passed a law saying it was the duty of Palestine to attack Israel then it would be, in fact, the duty of Palestine to do so?
I'm not sure why you think your second link points to a duty to invade. NO WMD stockpiles or manufacturing facilities have been found since the invasion, and there was no convincing evidence that such a threat existed before the invasion. The administration had to sex up and cherry pick what evidence there was, to justify its war.
There's an important point further down that page - 'Most member governments of the United Nations Security Council made clear that after resolution 1441 there still was no authorization for the use of force.'
Clearly the Bush administration wanted to invade Iraq, but I don't see that there was any duty to do so.
I'm not sure why you think your second link points to a duty to invade. NO WMD stockpiles or manufacturing facilities have been found since the invasion, and there was no convincing evidence that such a threat existed before the invasion. The administration had to sex up and cherry pick what evidence there was, to justify its war.
Kendor - to secure oil supplies for the US (witness the 'production sharing' legislation), to establish military bases in the region to replace the Saudi ones (witness the 'enduring' bases and the fortified embassy), to show off what free-enterprise capitalism could do given a blank sheet (witness that Harper's articel I keep linking to but which I can't be bothered finding right now), to get a boost in the polls by winning an easy little war abroad (the 'Falkland's Factor'), to allow defence contractors such as Halliburton to make billions (which they have), and as a first step in following PNAC's loopy plans for planetary domination (witness the coincidences between PNAC's published plans and actual events - before it all went so catastrophically wrong).
Scotty, as I pointed out above, that people inside US politics felt it was the US's duty to invade Iraq doesn't make it so. Those quotes you like to link to are good material for embarrassing anti-war US Democrats - they don't add up to a case that the invasion was justified or the right thing to do. I don't dismiss the quotes; you're just barking up the wrong tree with them. Go try them out on a Clinton supporter and watch him or her squirm.
Obama, on the other hand, has consistantly been against the invasion - which is part of what makes him the better candidate, IMHO.
AnswerPool.com 
