Shout Box

Who's Online
0 registered (), 14 Guests and 3 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Page 1 of 19 1 2 3 ... 18 19 >
Topic Options
#39429 - 09/03/08 01:18 PM The Candidates
empicard Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 08/29/01
Posts: 2954
Loc: LI, NY
I can't get excited about either one.
What to do?
_________________________
tOOthless

Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.

Top
#39431 - 09/03/08 01:54 PM Re: The Candidates [Re: empicard]
Julie Offline
Pooh-Bah

Registered: 01/16/00
Posts: 2090
Loc: SoCal
Historical statistics say that the economy does far better, and the income gap narrows significantly, under any Democratic administration.

Top
#39435 - 09/03/08 03:19 PM Re: The Candidates [Re: Julie]
Smike Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 05/01/01
Posts: 3143
Loc: in your backyard
"income gap narrows significantly"

Yes its called tax and spend policy. (Take from the rich and give to the poor) ;\)

Top
#39437 - 09/03/08 03:54 PM Re: The Candidates [Re: empicard]
oenophore Online   confused
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 09/24/01
Posts: 5968
Loc: 212 land
The major party candidates aren't the only ones running. As for those who say you'd waste your vote on a "third party" candidate, I'd say that one is wasting one's vote if the choice seems to be the lesser evil candidate. Vote for a loser; you won't be disappointed.
_________________________

Top
#39438 - 09/03/08 04:33 PM Re: The Candidates [Re: Smike]
Julie Offline
Pooh-Bah

Registered: 01/16/00
Posts: 2090
Loc: SoCal
"Yes its called tax and spend policy. (Take from the rich and give to the poor)"

... as opposed to the present (take from the rest of us and give to Big Oil and the rich?) ...

Top
#39441 - 09/03/08 05:23 PM Re: The Candidates [Re: Julie]
skillet Offline
journeyman

Registered: 12/09/04
Posts: 73
Loc: long island,ny
i love this paragraph from a book i'm reading, "why we hate us"-dick meyer. "it boils down to this: when a moderate, independent-minded electorate must select between two-and only two- partisan choices, elections will be close. voters must choose, but because both choices are equally unrepresentative and unpopular, roughly equal numbers vote for each. so the winning team changes frequently. neither side has earned sustained, decisive popular support. in their invisible collective wisdom, voters would rather see power divided than given outright to one of the two creepy teams." love the last sentence.
_________________________
thin the herd

Top
#39442 - 09/03/08 05:25 PM Re: The Candidates [Re: Julie]
Smike Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 05/01/01
Posts: 3143
Loc: in your backyard
This could go on forever.....

So the point is? BOTH choices SUCK!

This country didn’t get into its present state by one party or another.

(While Bush has been the Village Idiot, the Democratic congress has been 'secretly' approving all the spending...)


Edited by Smike (09/03/08 05:28 PM)

Top
#39443 - 09/03/08 05:27 PM Re: The Candidates [Re: Smike]
oenophore Online   confused
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 09/24/01
Posts: 5968
Loc: 212 land
 Originally Posted By: Smike
This could go on forever.....

So the point is? BOTH choices SUCK!

This country didn’t get into its present state by one party or another.

(While Bush has been the Town Idiot, the Democratic congress has been approving all the spending...)
Agreed. All the more reason, Smike, to consider my post above.
_________________________

Top
#39445 - 09/03/08 05:43 PM Re: The Candidates [Re: oenophore]
mworking Offline
old hand

Registered: 05/26/04
Posts: 764
I am solidly middle class – maybe upper middle class, certainly not wealthy, but I don’t mind paying taxes for healthcare, schools, government regulation of many things, infrastructure and defense. Non-corrupt idealistic governments are not perfect, but it seems to me that all these things are even worse off wore off when the private sector controls them. Of course corrupt governments are often far worse..

Sure I’d like to see our government eliminate waste and solve the grey areas exactly the way I want them to, but I don’t expect much of the first and less of the second.

 Quote:
BOTH choices SUCK!


As for that I don’t feel Obama sucks as a choice. I am not afraid of what he will do, but I am already disappointed as his stances have mellowed. Despite that fact that I might like his view of things, I have never though he was a great candidate. He is far to susceptible to smears and they hurt his campaign severely.

PS: Pretty soon he’ll become a Christian and put the flag back on his plane ;\)


Edited by mworking (09/03/08 06:32 PM)

Top
#39447 - 09/03/08 06:12 PM Re: The Candidates [Re: oenophore]
Julie Offline
Pooh-Bah

Registered: 01/16/00
Posts: 2090
Loc: SoCal
Ohno, as much as I might agree that our electoral system is broken (in more than one way) .... Nader cost us Gore as a president.

Just imagine what the world would look like. Try not to cry, at least out loud.

Top
#39449 - 09/03/08 06:51 PM Re: The Candidates [Re: mworking]
Smike Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 05/01/01
Posts: 3143
Loc: in your backyard
"As for that I don’t feel Obama sucks as a choice."

Ok all jokes aside. I have not seen much of anything in his record as a politician to get me remotely excited (I don't care about personal matters in politics)

Can anyone list things about Obama that should be the top reasons someone should vote for him?
(And don’t waste the bandwidth on “because McCain this or Bush that..” as I already know a lot about McCain and I don't like him)

I’m really undecided and nothing has come across from his Campaign to make me think he is the one.


Edited by Smike (09/03/08 06:53 PM)

Top
#39450 - 09/03/08 06:53 PM Re: The Candidates [Re: Julie]
oenophore Online   confused
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 09/24/01
Posts: 5968
Loc: 212 land
One may say that "Nader cost us Gore as a president." This assumes that Nader voters would have voted for Gore if Nader weren't on the ballot -- quite an assumption. It has been pointed out that that slim margin in Florida in 2000 would have tipped the other way if the voters for one of the few socialist parties had all voted Democrat in Florida instead.
I read something in a book written by an economist. It is so obvious, I felt foolish not having thought of it myself. Your chance of deciding an election is comparable to that of winning a lottery. You've decided an election if your candidate wins or loses by one vote. Otherwise your vote is futile and meaningless. Before you send me an angry reply, dear climber/voter, I'll state that I'll foolishly continue to vote anyway.
_________________________

Top
#39451 - 09/03/08 07:02 PM Re: The Candidates [Re: oenophore]
Smike Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 05/01/01
Posts: 3143
Loc: in your backyard
 Quote:
I read something in a book written by an economist. It is so obvious, I felt foolish not having thought of it myself. Your chance of deciding an election is comparable to that of winning a lottery. You've decided an election if your candidate wins or loses by one vote. Otherwise your vote is futile and meaningless. Before you send me an angry reply, dear climber/voter, I'll state that I'll foolishly continue to vote anyway.


Figures a statistician would write something like that and a science guy like you would swallow it whole… \:\/

Top
#39453 - 09/03/08 07:24 PM Re: The Candidates [Re: Julie]
empicard Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 08/29/01
Posts: 2954
Loc: LI, NY
 Originally Posted By: Julie
Ohno, as much as I might agree that our electoral system is broken (in more than one way) .... Nader cost us Gore as a president.

Just imagine what the world would look like. Try not to cry, at least out loud.


i can't figure out if you're being serious or not. Would Gore having been pres been a good thing? i think not.

my biggest problems with the candidates are these:

I am a devout atheist. I think religion is foolish. I have a lot of problems with the religious right. Abortion should be a woman's right. No one else but a woman and her doctor should be involved. As hard as it is to say, not even the father.

I think we need to be aggressive in hunting the evil of the world on their territory. but we've been doing it all wrong. we need to transfor a good portion of our military in equipment, ideology, and man power. (interesting book on force transformation, The Pentagon's New Map, by Thomas PM Barnett)


i am against the war on drugs. its obviously not working. legalize and tax.

i am against social welfare programs. i have to work to pay for my health insurance, why does some mexican immigrant get the same level of care in the same emergency room, and not have to pay a damn dime? and food stamps? what happened to the work for food programs? i see people every day buying groceries with EBT and WIC, and then using CASH to buy CRAP.

i want my borders secure, and all illegals tracked, and taxed, just like me. i want a national ID card. not an RFID implant. just a card, like a drivers license. every citizen gets one, you're not supposed to be here? GET OUT NOW.

I want lower taxes. i want to keep some of what little money i make.

and jesus, would standardizing healthcare forms be so complex? thats it, just everyone use the same damn forms.

there. i said it.
now someone please help me pick a candidate.
or i'm writing in Mickey Mouse.
and when I'm 35 I'm Running.
_________________________
tOOthless

Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.

Top
#39454 - 09/03/08 07:29 PM Re: The Candidates [Re: oenophore]
mworking Offline
old hand

Registered: 05/26/04
Posts: 764
 Quote:
You've decided an election if your candidate wins or loses by one vote.


To be correct the above would needs to be stated as:

You've decided an election if and only if your candidate wins or loses by one vote, and you vote was the last vote counted.


Edited by mworking (09/03/08 07:30 PM)

Top
#39455 - 09/03/08 07:29 PM Re: The Candidates [Re: oenophore]
MarcC Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 07/10/00
Posts: 3532
 Originally Posted By: oenophore
One may say that "Nader cost us Gore as a president." This assumes that Nader voters would have voted for Gore if Nader weren't on the ballot -- quite an assumption. It has been pointed out that that slim margin in Florida in 2000 would have tipped the other way if the voters for one of the few socialist parties had all voted Democrat in Florida instead.

And if Gore had simply won New Hampshire, Florida wouldn't have mattered. The fact is, Gore ran a shockingly ineffective campaign, unable to even win his home state. Sure, Nader didn't help at all, and if all the Nader voters had indeed voted for Gore (say, instead of staying home), maybe Gore would have won, but he does deserve to share the blame in his loss.
_________________________
- Marc

Top
#39456 - 09/03/08 07:42 PM Re: The Candidates [Re: empicard]
oenophore Online   confused
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 09/24/01
Posts: 5968
Loc: 212 land
Empicard, here's a sleazy answer to your question.
(Please let us know the result.)
_________________________

Top
#39457 - 09/03/08 07:43 PM Re: The Candidates [Re: mworking]
oenophore Online   confused
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 09/24/01
Posts: 5968
Loc: 212 land
You've decided an election if and only if your candidate wins or loses by one vote, and you vote was the last vote counted.

No, order doesn't count. In the event that a candidate wins by one vote, every one who voted for him/her can be proud of making the difference.
_________________________

Top
#39461 - 09/03/08 10:40 PM Re: The Candidates [Re: empicard]
quanto_the_mad Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 05/14/02
Posts: 2628
Loc: brooklyn
 Originally Posted By: empicard
i am against social welfare programs. i have to work to pay for my health insurance, why does some mexican immigrant get the same level of care in the same emergency room, and not have to pay a damn dime?


After my accident, it was the private health insurance which enabled me to transfer from the local ER to Columbia Presbyterian in NYC. Without the insurance, the ER staff told us they would have just amputated my leg so as not to waste money.

Same level of care? Maybe if you're getting stitches or an emergency appendectomy. But for more serious things, private insurance certainly does make a difference. All told it cost more than $250K (in 1994, about $375K now) to fix the leg.

I doubt I'd have gotten the same level of care under any universal health care plan though, that's a lot of money that could be better spent providing basic care to many others.
_________________________


Top
#39467 - 09/04/08 01:37 AM Re: The Candidates [Re: quanto_the_mad]
empicard Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 08/29/01
Posts: 2954
Loc: LI, NY
QtM, fair enough. having good health insurance allows people to do things like going to a doc for regular checkups, not just the emergency bypass surgery.

as for the find your candidate thing, it gave me John McCain as my choice. 57.69% for McCain. but also 57.69% for both Bob Barr and Chuck Baldwin.
_________________________
tOOthless

Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.

Top
#39470 - 09/04/08 05:11 AM Re: The Candidates [Re: empicard]
Julie Offline
Pooh-Bah

Registered: 01/16/00
Posts: 2090
Loc: SoCal
 Originally Posted By: empicard
i can't figure out if you're being serious or not. Would Gore having been pres been a good thing? i think not
Dead serious, and yes, a Gore presidency would have us in a far, far better state. We would not have created the perfect terrorist kitchen that is Iraq, while forgetting about Afghanistan. Our economy would not be such a mess. Perhaps, just maybe, we'd be less dependent on foreign oil. One man won a Nobel Prize for the depth of his understanding and communication on a single issue; the other is a blundering idiot puppet for neocons and Big Oil, and we've paid the price.

 Quote:
I am a devout atheist. I think religion is foolish. I have a lot of problems with the religious right. Abortion should be a woman's right.
I agree with you here. Note that the intertwining of church and state has ballooned under Bush. Not only is abortion under attack, but "abstinence (mis)education" has led to a notable increase in teenage pregnancy. All kinds of funding has gone towards "faith-based" social programs, at the cost to things like providing condoms. Fer pete's sake, even creationism has upsurged in schools! under Bush. While McCain is, I believe, only making gestures to pander to the religious right, I do expect Obama to actually reverse some of the damage done under Bush.

More importantly, it is very likely that the next president will nominate at least one Supreme Court Justice. Roe V Wade is in a careful balance here, as are many issues separating church and state.

 Quote:
I think we need to be aggressive in hunting the evil of the world on their territory.
but we've been doing it all wrong.[/quote] If you want to continue the mis-led misadventure in Iraq, vote McCain. Otherwise, it's almost a wash.

 Quote:
i am against the war on drugs. its obviously not working. legalize and tax.
I agree, but this isn't a high-flying issue for either candidate. Still, you're more likely to see opinions you'd favor with a Dem.

 Quote:
i am against social welfare programs. i have to work to pay for my health insurance, why does some mexican immigrant get the same level of care in the same emergency room, and not have to pay a damn dime?
Along with Q's note above, realize this: even when you pay privately, the price you pay reflects a need of the hospital to charge you to cover unrecovered costs - the costs of treating the uninsured. You will always pay, like it or not. Thing is, under our present system it also includes a need to pay a million levels of paper-shuffling, and to pay each CEO his bonus. Our health care system is terribly inefficient, in terms of how much care or medicine any given dollar provides.

 Quote:
i want my borders secure, and all illegals tracked, and taxed, just like me. i want a national ID card. not an RFID implant. just a card, like a drivers license. every citizen gets one, you're not supposed to be here? GET OUT NOW.
Having lived in SoCal .... there's just no answer to this, and neither party can provide one. You might hear more strong words out of McCain, but it's hot air.

 Quote:
I want lower taxes. i want to keep some of what little money i make.
We all do. But given the present financial quandry, McCain simply cannot promise the typical GOP "I'll cut your taxes". The difference between O and Mac is mainly in how they plan to tax the highest bracket; I don't expect that you or I will see much difference between them at tax time.

Further in this area, McCain has professed ignorance at any matters economic. Your ability to hold on to what you earn - in terms of lower costs of things like gas and food - is affected by this.

Besides separating church and state, and women's rights, a big thing for me is science policy. The Bush admin. is quite possibly the worst on record in this aspect: it's well documented at many levels that policy puppets substitute politically biased opinions for scientific fact, when making environmental and even public health policy. I don't expect any headway under McCain to reverse this trend (he doesn't seem to mind ignorance, even his own). I do expect it under a Democrat.

Honestly, I'm not excited about Obama, so I can't be infecting you with that virus either. I do expect that Democratic interests align more closely with my own, and I know that I disagree strongly with some important things for McCain. I am disgusted by his VP pick, and what it reflects of his view of women. That is how I will vote. Not that my vote even matters, in MA, but that's another topic.

Top
#39473 - 09/04/08 12:39 PM Re: The Candidates [Re: Smike]
Smike Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 05/01/01
Posts: 3143
Loc: in your backyard
So asked this [quote=Smike] Can anyone list things about Obama that should be the top reasons someone should vote for him?


and so far all I've got is this:

http://new.wavlist.com/soundfx/014/cricket-2.wav

Seriously I really want to know what it is about Obama that makes him a good candidate other then he is not McCain.

Top
#39475 - 09/04/08 01:07 PM Re: The Candidates [Re: Smike]
oenophore Online   confused
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 09/24/01
Posts: 5968
Loc: 212 land
Smike, give this a try and let us know the result.
_________________________

Top
#39477 - 09/04/08 01:36 PM Re: The Candidates [Re: Smike]
quanto_the_mad Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 05/14/02
Posts: 2628
Loc: brooklyn
Because he's got charisma. Listening to him talk, I feel like I can trust him, I feel I can believe he'll do what he says (or at least try instead of caving into special interests). I think that among all the candidates, he'll inspire more trust in other world leaders to work with the US, maybe rebuild some of the bridges we've burned down in the past 8 years.
_________________________


Top
#39478 - 09/04/08 01:48 PM Re: The Candidates [Re: oenophore]
Smike Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 05/01/01
Posts: 3143
Loc: in your backyard
 Originally Posted By: oenophore
Smike, give this a try and let us know the result.


Thanks but that is not what I was looking for. All that is does is calculate a % of which candidate agrees with choices I make to simple questions.

What I want is reasons as to what makes Obama a valid candidate to lead our country regardless of whether he agrees with me or not on certain issue.

Top
#39479 - 09/04/08 01:53 PM Re: The Candidates [Re: quanto_the_mad]
Smike Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 05/01/01
Posts: 3143
Loc: in your backyard
 Originally Posted By: quanto_the_mad
Because he's got charisma. Listening to him talk, I feel like I can trust him


I really agree with that, but I'm desperately looking for something more to back that up for me.

Top
#39480 - 09/04/08 01:54 PM Re: The Candidates [Re: Smike]
strat Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 04/30/01
Posts: 4242
Mike, Give it up. The choice is EVIL or potentially-not-as-Evil.

I like hope. I'm going potentially-not-as-Evil.

Top
#39481 - 09/04/08 02:02 PM Re: The Candidates [Re: Smike]
alicex4 Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 07/05/00
Posts: 3400
Obama's resume is painfully thin. That's why all the focus is on charisma and platitudes. He went with Biden because anyone else would highlight Obama's lack of job experience. Biden as the running mate is a strange choice. Especially with Biden's baggage; plagerizing forced him out of the 1988 Presidential election (his less than 5% in Iowa this year still proves he's a loser candidate.), his son is being sued over a huge hedge fund fraud scandal (barely making the press, hmmm i wonder why, is more baggage than any campaign needs). Too bad the media is all focused on Bristol Palin, Hunter Biden could use some of the media's attention. What Obama does have in his CV is lots of stuff he doesn't want associated wih him anymore (Ayers, Trinity United Church of Christ, Father Fleagle, and, gasp, Farrakhan and Tony Rezco). The media has been doing a full court press, almost 3 to 1, in super favorable coverage of him and Obama still can't close the deal.

Top
#39482 - 09/04/08 02:26 PM Re: The Candidates [Re: alicex4]
Smike Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 05/01/01
Posts: 3143
Loc: in your backyard
Alice,
Most of the major news outlets in this country have proven once and for all in this election that they hold more uniform bias views and agenda’s then the government of China.

Top
#39484 - 09/04/08 02:53 PM Re: The Candidates [Re: Smike]
alicex4 Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 07/05/00
Posts: 3400
And again they will all be dumbfounded when the Democrats lose this election. It does make for entertaining editorializing though.

Top
#39486 - 09/04/08 03:07 PM Re: The Candidates [Re: alicex4]
quanto_the_mad Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 05/14/02
Posts: 2628
Loc: brooklyn
Why does he need experience? Can't he just pray to God for guidance?
_________________________


Top
#39488 - 09/04/08 03:55 PM Re: The Candidates [Re: quanto_the_mad]
alicex4 Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 07/05/00
Posts: 3400
You're begging the question, right?

Top
#39489 - 09/04/08 03:57 PM Re: The Candidates [Re: Smike]
Julie Offline
Pooh-Bah

Registered: 01/16/00
Posts: 2090
Loc: SoCal
 Originally Posted By: Smike
 Originally Posted By: quanto_the_mad
Because he's got charisma. Listening to him talk, I feel like I can trust him
I really agree with that, but I'm desperately looking for something more to back that up for me.
While I don't fall into the "oooh, Obama!" camp ... I do recognize that as an effect, and possibly as an effect that can rally a people, and maybe even unify a government around him and his positions. And that's what it's going to take to break the inertia of the present.

In contrast, McCain's "maverick" tendencies could well lead us into deadlock and inaction.

Top
#39494 - 09/04/08 05:46 PM Re: The Candidates [Re: Julie]
oenophore Online   confused
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 09/24/01
Posts: 5968
Loc: 212 land
Interesting. So far, the majority, including me, is in the I-don't-like-either-one camp. A couple are lukewarmly for Obama. So far, no one has come out for the maverick and the milf.
_________________________

Top
#39495 - 09/04/08 05:56 PM Re: The Candidates [Re: oenophore]
empicard Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 08/29/01
Posts: 2954
Loc: LI, NY
milf? what? never! she's pretty nasty.
_________________________
tOOthless

Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.

Top
#39496 - 09/04/08 06:54 PM Re: The Candidates [Re: empicard]
mworking Offline
old hand

Registered: 05/26/04
Posts: 764
I maintained my open-mindedness about Palin until yesterdays quote of the day.

 Quote:
"Pray for our military. Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right for this country - that our leaders, our national leaders are sending them out on a task that is from God,"


It was inevitable that I would come to dislike her - but not this soon or this much.

Personally I hope she keeps it up. She could well scare enough people to loose the election.


Edited by mworking (09/04/08 07:15 PM)

Top
#39497 - 09/04/08 07:00 PM Re: The Candidates [Re: mworking]
quanto_the_mad Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 05/14/02
Posts: 2628
Loc: brooklyn
Nasty? Take of the glasses, let down the hair, add some makeup and she turns into the hot chick that gets the stud at the end of the movie...
_________________________


Top
#39498 - 09/04/08 07:04 PM Re: The Candidates [Re: empicard]
Smike Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 05/01/01
Posts: 3143
Loc: in your backyard
 Originally Posted By: empicard
milf? what? never! she's pretty nasty.


I dunno... She can be pretty hot, especially when you throw in a Char...


Top
#39499 - 09/04/08 07:17 PM Re: The Candidates [Re: Smike]
oenophore Online   confused
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 09/24/01
Posts: 5968
Loc: 212 land
Whoops; I threw in a little Bill Maher wisecrack at the end of my prior post and look what happens.
_________________________

Top
#39500 - 09/04/08 07:27 PM Re: The Candidates [Re: mworking]
Julie Offline
Pooh-Bah

Registered: 01/16/00
Posts: 2090
Loc: SoCal
And if preaching isn't enough reason to run far, far away, here's a few more from a resident of her town:

http://my2bucks.wordpress.com/2008/09/02/a-letter-from-someone-who-has-known-sarah-palin-since-1992/

Top
#39505 - 09/04/08 08:57 PM Re: The Candidates [Re: Julie]
alicex4 Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 07/05/00
Posts: 3400
Interesting that the liberal Democrats on this board still cannot find anything in Obama's resume that makes him qualified for this office, and only offer more opponent bashing. Damn, his resume IS thin.

Top
#39506 - 09/04/08 09:01 PM Re: The Candidates [Re: alicex4]
oenophore Online   confused
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 09/24/01
Posts: 5968
Loc: 212 land
 Originally Posted By: alicex4
Interesting that the liberal Democrats on this board still cannot find anything in Obama's resume that makes him qualified for this office, and only offer more opponent bashing. Damn, his resume IS thin.
The same could be said of Abraham Lincoln in 1860.
_________________________

Top
#39507 - 09/04/08 09:14 PM Re: The Candidates [Re: Julie]
empicard Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 08/29/01
Posts: 2954
Loc: LI, NY
what books did she try to have banned, anyway?
_________________________
tOOthless

Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.

Top
#39508 - 09/04/08 09:34 PM Re: The Candidates [Re: alicex4]
strat Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 04/30/01
Posts: 4242
That fact that he's not McCain is enough. And I am not a liberal democrat by any stretch of the imagination.

Top
#39510 - 09/04/08 11:58 PM Re: The Candidates [Re: alicex4]
mworking Offline
old hand

Registered: 05/26/04
Posts: 764
 Originally Posted By: alicex4
Interesting that the liberal Democrats on this board still cannot find anything in Obama's resume that makes him qualified for this office, and only offer more opponent bashing. Damn, his resume IS thin.


This link which is all true as far as I can tell yet is the perfect answer to Alices post:

McCains choice & Palins experience[/url] http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/6bda020b0f

(Ok I'll have to get to O'Bamas resume.)


Edited by mworking (09/05/08 12:10 AM)

Top
#39511 - 09/05/08 12:09 AM Re: The Candidates [Re: alicex4]
mworking Offline
old hand

Registered: 05/26/04
Posts: 764
 Originally Posted By: alicex4
The media has been doing a full court press, almost 3 to 1, in super favorable coverage of him and Obama still can't close the deal.


You mean mostly against him? How do you think you heard about all those things anyway?


Edited by mworking (09/05/08 03:28 AM)

Top
#39514 - 09/05/08 10:32 AM Re: The Candidates [Re: Smike]
oenophore Online   confused
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 09/24/01
Posts: 5968
Loc: 212 land

Top
#39515 - 09/05/08 02:21 PM Re: The Candidates [Re: alicex4]
mgs Offline
enthusiast

Registered: 09/27/02
Posts: 264
Loc: albany, ny
 Originally Posted By: alicex4
Interesting that the liberal Democrats on this board still cannot find anything in Obama's resume that makes him qualified for this office, and only offer more opponent bashing. Damn, his resume IS thin.


I'm not a liberal democrat, but if I vote for Obama it is going to be because of his lack of experience at running corrupt bureaucracy.

This mantra of his thin resume is like these sports teams that do extensive coaching searches only to come up with some recycled "experienced" guy that has lost everywhere he has been. There is a long history of teams that go with the unknown assistant who comes in, develops a completely different attitude and wins.

The appeal of Obama to me is that he can't be any worse than the so called qualifed candidates and at least with him you have at least the appearance of hope for real change in Washington.

I don't know...I'll probably still write in Ron Paul or vote for Nader or something...but Obama does have appeal to me. I'm willing to take a chance on him without a 17 page resume of all the shit he's been involved in in Washington that has gotten us to this point. I'm not sure why someone would be proud of that.

Top
#39516 - 09/05/08 02:41 PM Re: The Candidates [Re: Smike]
Daniel Online   content
veteran

Registered: 05/23/01
Posts: 1515
 Originally Posted By: Smike
Seriously I really want to know what it is about Obama that makes him a good candidate other then he is not McCain.


Because he's the only remaining candidate who may ask us to take responsibility for our government again.

It seems to me that there's a pervasive attitude that if we just elect the right people, our government will solve our problems for us (whether that's energy independence, lower taxes, health care reform).

I don't think that's how government works--or, actually, that's one reason why it's not working. The government isn't "them," it's "us" whether we like it or not. And if government is acting irresponsibly, perhaps it's because too many people are demanding something for nothing (a trend I trace back to the Reagan years, though it's probably been there far longer than that).

I think we need to reframe our relationship to our government. It's not just the sum of what we want, but what we're willing to do. I ask my friends when was the last time a politician said you'd actually have to do something on an issue that you said was important to you. And I get blank stares in response. That's a bipartisan failure of leadership. For how can we expect "the government" to address problems without not only consent but action from the citizenry?

Things we say we care about are things we should be willing to do something about. Obama does carry that message to some extent, though I think it's gotten lost in the past few months. He did say in his nomination acceptance speech that if we're going to make progress on energy, we're going to have to start making different choices in our lives; at least that's a start. By contrast, I'm tired and ashamed of calls to "support the troops" without any request for any action whatsoever on our part to at least pay for the costs of these operations. It's not supporting the troops to borrow the money from China.

I know everyone can read into the Obama campaign what he or she wants. But I think that with him there is at least a chance that we might be asked to live up to our obligations and responsibilities as citizens. Want that tax cut? What are you willing to give up for it? Want to fix Social Security? What are you willing to do to help maintain its solvency? Want big money out of government? Are you willing to put $10 a year towards public campaign financing for Congress (which would total far more than what was spent in the 2006 election)? If we all do a little bit, these problems can be resolved. And if a majority say no, then that's democracy. But who has ever asked us?

I think Obama might ask us these questions. I know McCain won't. He's offering more tax cuts while promoting longer military engagements that are already funded by driving us deeper into debt (which is why I cringe when I hear Democrats talk about money that we're spending in Iraq and using it here instead, when it's all borrowed).

On specifics, Obama has a health care plan that might work; McCain doesn't. I'm generally a free market person, but it seems clear to me that the market doesn't put the incentives in the right places for health care. Europeans and others get as good health outcomes or better with far less expense. And the present system is harming our economic competitiveness. On the evidence, I see this issue as no contest. (The claims that Democrats will promote "socialized medicine" are false. No country except Great Britain has health care deliverers that are all government employees. They have government regulated insurance, most of which are private but non-profit. And it seems to work better than our system.)

On fiscal policy, I can't understand McCain's opposition to letting the Bush tax cuts expire on the wealthy. He opposed those cuts when they were proposed because they weren't paid for and went mostly to upper income earners. The economy did fine in the 1990s; it won't suffer if the top bracket goes back to that rate, and it would help substantially with our fiscal mess. (I speak as a participant in that bracket.) For those not in that bracket, Obama says personal taxes will not go up. I may not like how that affects the overall budget numbers, but Obama has always been a political pragmatist.

On energy, I think Obama would try to move us off of oil faster than McCain, and I see no reason for delay. Europe will require new fleet standards of 48 mpg. by 2012, and the best we can do is 35 mpg. by 2020? 45% of our oil goes into our cars. If we just got better fuel efficiency, we could easily cut our oil usage by 20% in 10 to 15 years, by which time cars that don't use oil at all could be coming onto the market (if we're serious about solving this problem). The "drill everywhere now" ethic will only delay the day of reckoning, which is not to our advantage: even if we increase domestic production by 50%, we'd still be importing about half our oil, much of it from countries that don't like us. We can deal with this problem if we start making different decisions. We can start doing so today, not in seven years when offshore oil might be coming online (which, by the way, will not be enough to substantially affect oil prices).

On foreign policy, I think Obama has a far more nuanced and effective world view than McCain. McCain sounds like the "talking is appeasement" approach of the Bush administration. Obama realizes that our power is limited and that we need to reestablish our connections to our allies if we want to promote our interests. Obama, as a pragmatist, is less likely to allow ideology to trump facts as the present administration has done over and over again.

Finally, I think Obama will respect the Constitution more than McCain. McCain, to his credit, has said he will close Guantanamo. This is sensible if only because it has cost us far more than it has benefited us. But McCain does seem to think he can ignore congressional law on wiretapping (and who knows what else). This administration has done great damage to the founding principles of this nation: separation of powers, and checks and balances (and habeas corpus). I hold fast to those principles not because they're old, but because they work and help preserve our freedom. I think Obama, who certainly knows and respects constitutional law, is the better candidate to restore what I think this country, or at least I, stand for.

Top
#39517 - 09/05/08 02:48 PM Re: The Candidates [Re: oenophore]
MarcC Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 07/10/00
Posts: 3532
 Originally Posted By: oenophore

Fake.


Edited by MarcC (09/05/08 04:56 PM)
Edit Reason: Original photo removed or blocked at source site
_________________________
- Marc

Top
#39518 - 09/05/08 03:23 PM Re: The Candidates [Re: Daniel]
mworking Offline
old hand

Registered: 05/26/04
Posts: 764
Great posts mgs and Daniel. Thank you for the time and effort.

More on Daniels following paragraph:

 Quote:
Finally, I think Obama will respect the Constitution more than McCain. McCain, to his credit, has said he will close Guantanamo. This is sensible if only because it has cost us far more than it has benefited us. But McCain does seem to think he can ignore congressional law on wiretapping (and who knows what else). This administration has done great damage to the founding principles of this nation: separation of powers, and checks and balances (and habeas corpus). I hold fast to those principles not because they're old, but because they work and help preserve our freedom.

I’d like to say that respecting human rights, civil rights and the constitution is the single most important issue for me. Arguments can be had on both sides for many of the other issues. Of course I believe in the solutions I do, but I understand that I might be wrong about some and that there may be more than one solution.

But since the US has admitted to and allowed actions I consider torture, since we have kidnapped and imprisoned people without representation and trial, and since almost random wire tapping has been allowed and worse since we know it has been abused I cannot be proud of what we have allowed or support those who allowed or performed these actions. Personally I feel some should be considered war criminals.

Otherwise? I agree fully with every one of Daniels points, and would vote for O’Bama simply on mgs argument if I didn’t. There is precious little that I might vote for McCain over Obama for and absolutely I know about Palins view of things I wouldn’t vote against.


Edited by mworking (09/05/08 03:24 PM)

Top
#39519 - 09/05/08 03:47 PM Re: The Candidates [Re: alicex4]
Daniel Online   content
veteran

Registered: 05/23/01
Posts: 1515
 Originally Posted By: alicex4
Obama's resume is painfully thin. That's why all the focus is on charisma and platitudes. He went with Biden because anyone else would highlight Obama's lack of job experience....The media has been doing a full court press, almost 3 to 1, in super favorable coverage of him and Obama still can't close the deal.


There's plenty of substance on Obama's web site, should people choose to look at it. All you have to do is go there and read it. That the press chooses not to dwell on specifics is hardly his fault. Seek and ye shall find.

Biden was an obvious choice. One rap on Obama is that he's got no foreign policy experience. (Of course this is often true for people coming out of legislatures; they only job that gets you both executive and foreign policy experience is, well, the presidency, so all this "experience" talk is a bit of a crock. See Michael Kinsley's piece in Slate for more on the experience issue and what McCain's Veep should indicate about it). Biden as more foreign policy experience than just about anyone else in the Senate, since he's been on the Foreign Relations Committee for umpteen years. It's really tough to argue that "Obama doesn't know his way around Washington" and then criticize him for picking a running mate who does. I think Biden was a great choice. If an instance of plagiarism almost 20 years ago can outweigh the rest of a person's positive attributes, then we truly get the government we deserve. I wouldn't vote against McCain simply because he walked out on his first wife.

As for press coverage, a July study from George Mason University's Center for Media and Public Affairs said that since the end of the primaries, network news stories on Obama had been 72% negative compared to 43% negative for McCain. With weeks spent on Reverend Wright, Bittergate, and other non-policy matters, I don't see how Obama has goten a free ride at all, much less anything "super favorable." (Nor do I think how many homes McCain does or doesn't live in have anything to do with how he would act as president.)

Top
#39520 - 09/05/08 03:56 PM Re: The Candidates [Re: mworking]
oenophore Online   confused
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 09/24/01
Posts: 5968
Loc: 212 land
Mworking, I’m not taking you to task for this, yet I wonder why Obama is spelled O’bama in a couple of your posts.
Mgs’s and Daniel’s posts resonate with me quite a bit. In a film that came and went last month, Swing Vote, the entire presidential election hinges on the vote of one man. If I were that man, I’d vote for Obama on a lesser-of-evils basis. In a prior thread I noted that, while I largely approved of Obama’s US Senate voting record when he did vote, he was recorded as not voting on quite a few important bills. On no occasion did I see him paired for or against anything. He voted yea on the latest FISA amendment. He reneged on a pledge to accept public funding. I thought that I might vote for him earlier this year, but for the above reasons, I changed my mind. Pity, there is so much about him I like.
_________________________

Top
#39521 - 09/05/08 04:16 PM Re: The Candidates [Re: oenophore]
Smike Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 05/01/01
Posts: 3143
Loc: in your backyard
Excellent post Daniel, Thats what I'm looking for. I tend to agree on most points.

Top
#39522 - 09/05/08 04:20 PM Re: The Candidates [Re: oenophore]
Daniel Online   content
veteran

Registered: 05/23/01
Posts: 1515
 Originally Posted By: oenophore
He voted yea on the latest FISA amendment. He reneged on a pledge to accept public funding.


I would have liked to have seen different actions from Obama in these areas too. But I understand his decisions in both cases.

They both go back to Obama as a pragmatist. Obama didn't want telecom immunity, but concluded that holding out for it would have led to a worse outcome both in practical and political terms: without the FISA compromise, conservative Democrats in the House were threatening to join Republicans and vote for the Senate bill. I suppose he concluded that allowing FISA to revert to it's original state and continuing the stalemate was not a better option. Not the outcome I would have preferred, but one has to operate in the political realities of the day and do the best one can.

There is no greater proponent of public campaign financing than myself. But the present presidential system is simply insufficient to the task. It doesn't provide enough funding, and it doesn't take into account vast amounts of independent expenditures (if anyone thinks McCain spending consists solely of his public funds, I've got about $100 million in RNC and 527 organization money to show you). The present system has public funds, but it doesn't guarantee a fair fight.

Maine and Arizona have good systems on the state level that I believe do not infringe on free speech while providing money for publicly financed candidates to answer back to independent expenditures and privately financed opponents. Obama is a cosponsor of legislation that would institute such a system for congressional elections, so I think he does believe in the principle. But I can't really blame him for not participating in a presidential funding system that doesn't really work. His mistake was probably indicating that he would accept the funds in the first place.

But again, as a pragmatist, the public system has to offer enough money to provide an incentive not to raise it privately. If more of us did the $3 check-off on our income taxes, maybe the system would be more robust. And he's still ahead of McCain on this issue, who has not endorsed the public campaign finance system in effect in his own state since 2000. (Plus I think aspects of McCain-Feingold violate the First Amendment.)

Top
#39523 - 09/05/08 04:33 PM Re: The Candidates [Re: Smike]
Daniel Online   content
veteran

Registered: 05/23/01
Posts: 1515
 Originally Posted By: Smike
Excellent post Daniel, Thats what I'm looking for. I tend to agree on most points.


Thanks, Smike. Appreciated. And reasonable people can differ on many of these matters. I'm probably as capable of reading what I want into the Obama campaign as much as the next person. But the more we can ground our evaluations in what the candidates have actually said and done, the more productive a discussion we can have (which makes it all the more frustrating to see so much time spent on whether Obama is a "celebrity" or how many houses McCain may or may not own.)

Top
#39524 - 09/05/08 04:42 PM Re: The Candidates [Re: oenophore]
pedestrian Offline
Pooh-Bah

Registered: 08/05/02
Posts: 2244
Loc: a heavily fortified bunker!
 Originally Posted By: oenophore
Mworking, I’m not taking you to task for this, yet I wonder why Obama is spelled O’bama in a couple of your posts.


Clearly a tongue-in-cheek reference to the reports that Obama has Irish ancestry. I guess we'd better not elect him; might be an Irish terrorist...

Top
#39525 - 09/05/08 04:56 PM Re: The Candidates [Re: Daniel]
Mike Rawdon Offline

Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 11/29/99
Posts: 4276
Loc: Poughkeepsie
 Originally Posted By: Daniel


Because he's the only remaining candidate who may ask us to take responsibility for our government again.

It seems to me that there's a pervasive attitude that if we just elect the right people, our government will solve our problems for us (whether that's energy independence, lower taxes, health care reform).


Excellent point, Daniel. And a well thought-out post, as always.

Smike, I may not be impressed by Obama's resume, but I'll be god-damned if I'm going to vote for 4 more years of the Republicans that have so thoroughly F'ed up our economy, our military, our environmental progress, our civil liberties, our rule of law vis-a-vis separation of powers, and our international reputation.

If that amounts to punishing the GOP for what I consider the W...P...E (c'mon, you know what that stands for), then so be it. They could put Superman on the ballot and I wouldn't support him.


(Worst. President. Ever.)

Top
#39526 - 09/05/08 05:14 PM Re: The Candidates [Re: pedestrian]
oenophore Online   confused
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 09/24/01
Posts: 5968
Loc: 212 land
You suspected that the major candidates were a couple of you-know-whats.
================================================================




NYC company markets Obama and McCain-labeled condoms


Entrepreneur Ben Sherman holds his presidential condoms.(AP)

By Associated Press
June 13, 2008
NEW YORK—The presidential race is in full swing -- but not the way you might think.

A young New York City entrepreneur has decided to "have fun" with the campaign by marketing condoms featuring images of Barack Obama and John McCain.

Benjamin Sherman, who created the company Practice Safe Policy, says the Obama condom carries the slogan "Use With Good Judgment." The McCain version says "OLD BUT Not Expired."

According to the Web site, McCain condoms "are battle tested, strong and durable, for those occasions when you just need to switch your position!"

While the company can't guarantee the condoms are 100 percent effective, it says it's certain "that without wearing one, there's likely to be an Obama-Mama in your future."

=====================================================================================




*Craziest Convention Giveaway: The Log Cabin Republicans' black condoms starring Barack Obama's face surrounded by a red circle and slash, as in ''no.''


Top
#39527 - 09/05/08 05:43 PM Re: The Candidates [Re: Mike Rawdon]
Smike Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 05/01/01
Posts: 3143
Loc: in your backyard
 Quote:
I'll be god-damned if I'm going to vote for 4 more years of the Republicans that have so thoroughly F'ed up our economy, our military, our environmental progress, our civil liberties, our rule of law vis-a-vis separation of powers, and our international reputation.


Not so fast Mike, Its easy for us to try to lay blame in one definable recognizable area, but truth be told at least on the current financial well being you need to look across the board at the Democrats for approving all the spending (as they have been in control of the congress for quite some time.) So your punishment needs to be a little broader then the just GOP.

One concerning issue is that with Obama in the oval office, the congress may continue to be business as usual. The biggest indictor of that has been the lack or real alternative proposals to all the crap that has come from the GOP. I mean if the GOP policy is so bad should it not be easy to propose alternatives that should get passed with ease? The years of approval of military spending without any real conditions is what I think amounts to my largest grip I have against the Democrats. This is why I don’t think regime change at the highest level is going to be the end all be all answer to all of our frustrations with the last 8 years. (But will be a start)

Top
#39528 - 09/05/08 05:48 PM Re: The Candidates [Re: Mike Rawdon]
talus Offline
veteran

Registered: 08/23/04
Posts: 1259
 Originally Posted By: Mike Rawdon
 Originally Posted By: Daniel


Because he's the only remaining candidate who may ask us to take responsibility for our government again.

It seems to me that there's a pervasive attitude that if we just elect the right people, our government will solve our problems for us (whether that's energy independence, lower taxes, health care reform).


Excellent point, Daniel. And a well thought-out post, as always.

Smike, I may not be impressed by Obama's resume, but I'll be god-damned if I'm going to vote for 4 more years of the Republicans that have so thoroughly F'ed up our economy, our military, our environmental progress, our civil liberties, our rule of law vis-a-vis separation of powers, and our international reputation.

If that amounts to punishing the GOP for what I consider the W...P...E (c'mon, you know what that stands for), then so be it. They could put Superman on the ballot and I wouldn't support him.


(Worst. President. Ever.)



yes it's great Obama tax policies and labor union policies are only going to create less jobs in the US and more over seas.

Obama wants to cut taxes but also raise Capital gain taxes and that takes away cash from the small business man. So where is the money going to be for the small business man to hire someone.

Yet Obama wants to cut taxes for middle class but with his spending how in the heck is going to do that. Obama numbers do Not add up.

Obama wants stronger union labor polices so More companies will get up and go to Guatemala where unions are nonexistent.

sure Bush ran everything into a muck but really who will be better to get us out huh.

with Iraq seems like Obama will just pull everyone out. then what will happen you think the US dollar is bad now.
_________________________
John Okner Photography

Top
#39529 - 09/05/08 06:03 PM Re: The Candidates [Re: Smike]
Daniel Online   content
veteran

Registered: 05/23/01
Posts: 1515
 Originally Posted By: Smike
truth be told at least on the current financial well being you need to look across the board at the Democrats for approving all the spending (as they have been in control of the congress for quite some time.) So your punishment needs to be a little broader then the just GOP.
...

The years of approval of military spending without any real conditions is what I think amounts to my largest grip I have against the Democrats.


Good points. But since the Democrats have taken over, they've at least tried to adhere to pay-as-you-go rules. When such attempts have been thwarted, such as with the Alternative Minimum Tax patch, it's been at the level of 41+ dissenting votes from Republicans in the Senate (plus the threat of a presidential veto). That's not to say that Democrats will not return to profligate ways if they get larger majorities and an Obama presidency, but unpaid-for tax cuts with increased spending over the prior six years under Republican control doesn't say much for their fiscal responsibility either, and at least the past two years have been an improvement. I wish I could promise that it would continue. We are living beyond our means as a nation, and that trend is not sustainable. (To which I would add: and we in the public need to be asked what we're willing to do about it if we're going to take it seriously.)

As for the military spending, I assume the "conditions" refer to the ongoing mission in Iraq. Again it's a result I disagree with but can understand. The House repeatedly passed military spending bills with conditions. They were, again, blocked in the Senate (I think the votes were pretty close to 50-50, but in any case couldn't clear the 60-vote cloture threshold). And there was the threatened veto to contend with. If they couldn't get something passed with conditions, the only other option was to withhold funds entirely. House Democrats in swing districts saw this as political suicide (next election attack ad: "Congressman So-And-So won't provide the funding to support our brave soldiers!"), so House leadership made a tactical choice to preserve their majority. So even if a majority in the public wanted some kind of restrictions, it was politically tough to hold the line on this one.

Such is life on Capitol Hill. Sometimes you're in the minority. And sometimes you're in the majority but still can't get something passed.

Top
#39530 - 09/05/08 06:12 PM Re: The Candidates [Re: talus]
Daniel Online   content
veteran

Registered: 05/23/01
Posts: 1515
 Originally Posted By: talus
Obama wants to cut taxes but also raise Capital gain taxes and that takes away cash from the small business man. So where is the money going to be for the small business man to hire someone.

Yet Obama wants to cut taxes for middle class but with his spending how in the heck is going to do that. Obama numbers do Not add up.

Obama wants stronger union labor polices so More companies will get up and go to Guatemala where unions are nonexistent.

sure Bush ran everything into a muck but really who will be better to get us out huh.

with Iraq seems like Obama will just pull everyone out. then what will happen you think the US dollar is bad now.


Obama's tax rates would still be lower than they were during the Clinton years. People, as I recall, did fine. And if we're not going to raise taxes, there had better be a plan for massive spending cuts, because we're simply not paying our bills as a nation. Yet McCain promises even more tax cuts. Yes, Obama's numbers do not add up. He's said he thinks it's more important to invest in infrastructure for future growth, which will outweigh the effects of added debt. But McCain's numbers don't add up to a far more severe degree.

As for unions, we've seen the incomes of the wealthy skyrocket over the past seven years while average incomes have dropped (adjusted for inflation). As Warren Buffet said, there is a class war, and his class is winning. Corporate profits are up but workers haven't shared. And that's partly because of the decline of unions. There are lots of businesses that can't just pick up and leave but are squeezing their employees. I think it's hard to blame unions for our nation's economic problems when the percentage of the unionized workforce is so small. And if employees have more money to spend, that's a virtuous economic cycle.

Read Obama's position on Iraq. He's not going to just pull everyone out. His plan has the support of the Iraqi government. And the reason the US dollar is weak has little to do with Iraq but with the fiscal irresponsibility of the present administration (and it will be even worse with more unpaid-for tax cuts).

Top
#39531 - 09/05/08 06:22 PM Re: The Candidates [Re: talus]
Daniel Online   content
veteran

Registered: 05/23/01
Posts: 1515
 Originally Posted By: talus
with Iraq seems like Obama will just pull everyone out. then what will happen you think the US dollar is bad now.


Apologies for the additional post, but...

One reason the dollar is in such bad shape is that we're borrowing all of the money for our military operation in Iraq (among other expenses). If you want a strong dollar back, call your congressman/woman and tell him/her to demand that people like us start picking up the bill instead of borrowing the money from China. And then we can also say that we're finally really supporting the troops instead of just talking about it. Double bonus!

But I don't want to hear: "I want an extended troop presence in Iraq, but I want someone else to pay for it." Things like that are why our fiscal house is in such bad shape. We should have the courage to say we're willing to pay for the things we want, or at least reorder our priorities to do so. (And there again is a bipartisan failure. I don't know what it says about Democratic support for insuring kids (expanding S-CHIP) that they care so strongly that they/we want smokers to pay the tab.)

Top
#39534 - 09/05/08 07:17 PM Re: The Candidates [Re: Daniel]
talus Offline
veteran

Registered: 08/23/04
Posts: 1259
when Bush stepped in he had to clean up the mess that Clinton caused for small business owners.

and how the heck is Obama going to invest in infrastructure for future growth when all the investing will go somewhere else.

decline of unions. sure but you really have no clue on how a union can affect a business. I guess that's why industries are so flourishing in US now.
_________________________
John Okner Photography

Top
#39535 - 09/05/08 07:37 PM Re: The Candidates [Re: talus]
Smike Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 05/01/01
Posts: 3143
Loc: in your backyard
"I guess that's why industries are so flourishing in US now"

Weak dollar = large growth in exports = US business growth.

Some may argue that's the only thing keeping us out of the recession shit can at the moment.

Top
#39536 - 09/05/08 08:11 PM Re: The Candidates [Re: Smike]
talus Offline
veteran

Registered: 08/23/04
Posts: 1259
 Originally Posted By: Smike
"I guess that's why industries are so flourishing in US now"

Weak dollar = large growth in exports = US business growth.

Some may argue that's the only thing keeping us out of the recession shit can at the moment.


duh this has been happening years before the weak dollar, and the export has to out weight the Importing


yup when the guy sweeping the floors and reads the newspaper the rest of the day makes more money then the guy who specializes in plasma welding, just because the floor sweeper has been at the company for 2 yrs longer. yet let's have stronger union policies makes sense then. So Corporate who started the company and or invented the product has to shell more dough for the floor sweeper. So up in goes the company to Mexico where they don't have to deal with Unions and pay lower wages. Yet unemployment is at what 5 year high and will rise with Obama.

oeno they should make VP condoms I can think of some solgans for Palin.
_________________________
John Okner Photography

Top
#39538 - 09/05/08 09:48 PM Re: The Candidates [Re: talus]
Daniel Online   content
veteran

Registered: 05/23/01
Posts: 1515
 Originally Posted By: talus
you really have no clue on how a union can affect a business. I guess that's why industries are so flourishing in US now.


There are good unions and bad unions. But even non-union wages aren't low enough to keep manufacturing from going abroad, where people will work for a few dollars a day (which is not enough for anyone to bother with in the US). Manufacturing is going abroad with or without unions.

As for Smike's comment, the low dollar has been good for exports and has helped the economy from being worse than it otherwise might be. But I've heard at least one economist say that no nation has ever exported itself out of a recession; I'd suspect it's just not a big enough part of the economy.

Anyway, there are far more issues in this election than Obama's position on unions. Unless one is a one-issue anti-union voter, in which case go ahead and vote against him.

Top
#39543 - 09/06/08 10:39 AM Re: The Candidates [Re: empicard]
oenophore Online   confused
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 09/24/01
Posts: 5968
Loc: 212 land
Empicard, in your original post you state

I can't get excited about either one.
What to do?


Almost seventy posts have followed, not counting yours. Has your question been answered?
_________________________

Top
#39544 - 09/06/08 10:40 AM Re: The Candidates [Re: Daniel]
talus Offline
veteran

Registered: 08/23/04
Posts: 1259
yes i'm well aware how export has been good from the weak dollar, but will this help in the future when there is no business to export anything. I agree that there are much greater issues than unions personally i'm not a big fan unions.

one of the bigger issues is who is going to go after the frat like Senate and Lobbyists.
_________________________
John Okner Photography

Top
#39548 - 09/06/08 02:07 PM Re: The Candidates [Re: talus]
empicard Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 08/29/01
Posts: 2954
Loc: LI, NY
no. but i have come to the conclusion that im boycotting the election.
i live in NY. my electoral vote goes to obama no matter what i do.
_________________________
tOOthless

Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.

Top
#39549 - 09/06/08 02:14 PM Re: The Candidates [Re: empicard]
oenophore Online   confused
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 09/24/01
Posts: 5968
Loc: 212 land
I assume though you'll vote for candidates for other offices. Your rationale for not voting for pres./vp has been mine for voting for "third party" candidates over the years.
_________________________

Top
#39550 - 09/06/08 02:23 PM Re: The Candidates [Re: talus]
Daniel Online   content
veteran

Registered: 05/23/01
Posts: 1515
[quote=talus]one of the bigger issues is who is going to go after the frat like Senate and Lobbyists.[quote]

I can't speak about the Senate, but as for lobbyists...

As one representative told me, "lobbyist" should not be a pejorative term. Sometimes laws contain provisions that affect businesses in ways that the lawmakers might not be aware because they lack the relevant expertise in those fields. I see nothing wrong with an industry representative going up to a legislator and saying "You know, you may not be aware, but this law is going to do x, y, and z, and that's going to be really bad for business. Maybe you could revise it this way and still accomplish your goals without such an adverse affect on us." That's a win-win.

The problem is when they start getting favors. And their leverage for favors has been providing gifts and money. The situation has improved somewhat with the ethics reform in this Congress, though there are still loopholes. But there are still campaign donations to be dealt with.

So if we want to free legislators from lobbyists who use money instead of arguments to advance their causes, we need to replace their money with our money through robust public campaign financing. I don't believe in banning speech, so I'm against prohibiting business from taking out ads for or against candidates, but we can have a system where candidates at least are not dependent on business funding. As one (conservative) state legislator elected under Arizona's "clean elections" law put it, he likes the state's public campaign finance system because when a lobbyist walks into his office, he can tell him to go to hell.

On this issue, I'd again say Obama has the stronger hand. Yes, he's raising money privately while McCain has accepted public funding. But as I wrote before, I think the presidential public funding system is simply inadequate to the task. Also, Obama and the DNC are refusing lobbyist and PAC money (though it's probably not all that much in the scheme of things this cycle). Most importantly, Obama is a cosponsor of legislation that would institute an Maine/Arizona type "clean elections" law for Congress; McCain has refused to endorse the system, saying that it needs more time to see if it works (it's been in place in AZ since 2000).

I've talked to a number of people serving in Congress about this issue, and they've all said they support some kind of public financing system (which makes one wonder why there's so little discussion by them on this issue). Though the present system gives them an advantage, lots of them say they don't like spending a third of their time raising money. But it's going to take a push from us to give them the political will to change. Write your representatives. This reform would be relatively cheap, and we'd get some if not all of the money back if it results in fewer taxpayer giveaways.

For more information, see Public Campaign.

Top
#39551 - 09/06/08 02:35 PM Re: The Candidates [Re: empicard]
Daniel Online   content
veteran

Registered: 05/23/01
Posts: 1515
 Originally Posted By: empicard
my electoral vote goes to obama no matter what i do.


Yeah, that's a problem. But we can solve it by enacting laws state by state that would give those states' electoral college votes to the winner of the national popular vote when enough other states have done so to constitute an electoral college majority. Four states constituting 50 EVs have already done so. There's no reason why only those voters in a few swing states should determine the presidential election. And no constitutional amendment necessary: the Constitution gives states the authority to distribute their EVs as they see fit.

More info at National Popular Vote. Write your state legislators, tell them you're tired of your state being ignored in election after election.

Top
#39552 - 09/06/08 02:44 PM Re: The Candidates [Re: talus]
mworking Offline
old hand

Registered: 05/26/04
Posts: 764
First I must admit that very recent Obama votes and decisions have tempered my enthusiasm just as they disappointed Daniel. I want to thank him for his clear explanations that are not in following discussion. Despite this I have far more hope in Obama than any other candidate including Hillary, who I originally supported despite many disappointments in her.

 Originally Posted By: Daniel
 Originally Posted By: smike
Originally Posted By: Smiketruth be told at least on the current financial well being you need to look across the board at the Democrats for approving all the spending (as they have been in control of the congress for quite some time.) So your punishment needs to be a little broader then the just GOP.


The years of approval of military spending without any real conditions is what I think amounts to my largest grip I have against the Democrats.

Good points.

 Originally Posted By: talus
one of the bigger issues is who is going to go after the frat like Senate and Lobbyists.

 Originally Posted By: Daniel
Because he's the only remaining candidate who may ask us to take responsibility for our government again.


I feel there is reason to believe or a least hope Daniel's response is correct and that Obama might be far better than any other candidate. I think he might explain to the public and rally them to support them to support congress for the issues he feels must pass. The following quote is from the top of his campaigns home page:

“I’m asking you to believe not just in my ability to bring about real change in Washington...I am asking you to believe in yours”.

His original grass roots based campaign, and oratory skill have a chance of making a real difference. He just might be idealistic enough and inexperienced enough to try and successfully pull it off. There are no guarantees, but I am willing to be hopeful for a bit.

Whether or not Obama can do great things or not supporting him is a no brainer for me since I so strongly disagree with his opponents on almost every issue.

Top
#39559 - 09/07/08 10:22 AM Re: The Candidates [Re: mworking]
oenophore Online   confused
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 09/24/01
Posts: 5968
Loc: 212 land
Mworking, perhaps I can convert you to my point of view. New Jersey will go for Obama without you. Maybe there is another on the ballot whose policy and record are more to your liking. It's so daunting to hear or read something like "I'm going to hold my nose and vote for ____."
_________________________

Top
#39563 - 09/07/08 05:17 PM Re: The Candidates [Re: oenophore]
mworking Offline
old hand

Registered: 05/26/04
Posts: 764
 Originally Posted By: oenophore
Mworking, perhaps I can convert you to my point of view. New Jersey will go for Obama without you. Maybe there is another on the ballot whose policy and record are more to your liking. It's so daunting to hear or read something like "I'm going to hold my nose and vote for ____."


No, at least I don’t think so. I am an Obama supporter, and I don't know of anyone I would favor over him. I am just disappointed in the less aggressive stance he has taken recently, including the votes Daniel mentioned. As I explained I was happy to read Daniels explanations – they made me feel a bit better.

Is there someone I should know more about?

Top
#39564 - 09/07/08 06:27 PM Re: The Candidates [Re: empicard]
pedestrian Offline
Pooh-Bah

Registered: 08/05/02
Posts: 2244
Loc: a heavily fortified bunker!
 Originally Posted By: empicard
no. but i have come to the conclusion that im boycotting the election.
i live in NY. my electoral vote goes to obama no matter what i do.


This is an unusual election. I wouldn't count on anything, some of the states that are normally not in play may turn out to be in play...

Top
#39565 - 09/07/08 08:40 PM Re: The Candidates [Re: pedestrian]
mworking Offline
old hand

Registered: 05/26/04
Posts: 764
 Originally Posted By: pedestrian
This is an unusual election. I wouldn't count on anything, some of the states that are normally not in play may turn out to be in play...


and Obama is an unusual candidate. I am convinced prejudice will keep him, from doing as well in the election as polsters predict.

Top
#39566 - 09/08/08 12:00 AM Re: The Candidates [Re: mworking]
Daniel Online   content
veteran

Registered: 05/23/01
Posts: 1515
 Originally Posted By: mworking
I am convinced prejudice will keep him, from doing as well in the election as polsters predict.


There's a lot of debate about this. Given that there are so many non-racist reasons one could give not to support Obama, I don't see why people would decline to declare their opposition to a pollster out of fear of being seen as racist. Also, Harold Ford did just about the same as the pre-election polls predicted when he ran for Senate in Kentucky last cycle.

How race may or may not affect how undecideds break going into the voting booth is another matter.

I do think, though, that New York is safely in the Obama camp. You won't see much in the way of presidential ads except as spillover from other markets which may be in play.

Top
#39570 - 09/08/08 03:05 AM Re: The Candidates [Re: Daniel]
Smike Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 05/01/01
Posts: 3143
Loc: in your backyard
Well given today's historic actions by the Fed in its take over of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae and now being in control of $5 trillion in home Loans, the most important task is going to be getting this economy back in safe waters and stable to say the least.

Nether candidate has much to say about economic history so the most important factor for either will be who they bring with them to Washington to help sort out this mess.

Top
#39572 - 09/08/08 09:52 AM Re: The Candidates [Re: Daniel]
oenophore Online   confused
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 09/24/01
Posts: 5968
Loc: 212 land
There's a lot of debate about this. Given that there are so many non-racist reasons one could give not to support Obama, I don't see why people would decline to declare their opposition to a pollster out of fear of being seen as racist.

Nevertheless, there is the notorious Bradley Effect.
_________________________

Top
#39574 - 09/08/08 12:59 PM Re: The Candidates [Re: oenophore]
Daniel Online   content
veteran

Registered: 05/23/01
Posts: 1515
Nevertheless, there is the notorious Bradley Effect.

Yes, that's what I was addressing in my post: that the supposed motivation for the Bradley Effect (fear of being perceived as racist) doesn't make sense when people can come up with plenty of non-racist reasons for not supporting a minority candidate. And as the Wikipedia entry that you cited discusses, there's considerable debate over to its existence, and, if it exists, its extent:

"One of the more ardent critics of the acceptance of the Bradley effect as an accurate explanation for observed polling errors is Gary Langer, who serves as the director of polling for ABC News. Langer has described the Bradley effect as 'a theory in search of data.' He has argued that inconsistency of its appearance, particularly in more recent elections, casts doubt upon its validity as a theory."

Langer may be right or wrong. I'm just not going to make assumptions at this point.

Top
#39579 - 09/08/08 03:23 PM Re: The Candidates [Re: Daniel]
oenophore Online   confused
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 09/24/01
Posts: 5968
Loc: 212 land
If polls give Obama only a slight edge, his advocates would be justly anxious.
_________________________

Top
#39581 - 09/08/08 04:00 PM Re: The Candidates [Re: oenophore]
pedestrian Offline
Pooh-Bah

Registered: 08/05/02
Posts: 2244
Loc: a heavily fortified bunker!
Daniel, so you're implying that polls are probably accurate? Presumably the implication is that it's ok for NY voters to be complacent and stay home. Seems an irresponsible argument for a seemingly committed Democrat such as yourself. Anyway, a cursory glance at the history of the last two elections says that statistical sampling error never tells the whole story, lots of strange things happen with, for example, exit polls, things that are are inexplicable based on statistics alone.

Top
#39584 - 09/08/08 05:41 PM Re: The Candidates [Re: pedestrian]
Daniel Online   content
veteran

Registered: 05/23/01
Posts: 1515
 Originally Posted By: pedestrian
Daniel, so you're implying that polls are probably accurate? Presumably the implication is that it's ok for NY voters to be complacent and stay home. Seems an irresponsible argument for a seemingly committed Democrat such as yourself.


I'm saying that even if there is a demonstrable Bradly effect, I'd have a hard time saying that New York is still not safely Democratic. I never said people should stay home; I'd like everyone to vote, but some will choose not to do so. I'm also saying that I don't think a few people casting protest votes or not voting will make a difference in this state. In other states, it may be a different story. And I'd be glad to change my views if it looks like things are tightening up towards Election Day.

Top
#39589 - 09/09/08 10:30 AM Re: The Candidates [Re: empicard]
oenophore Online   confused
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 09/24/01
Posts: 5968
Loc: 212 land
Well dear posters, you may ask where is that (*&%&$%$@#@^$ comic strip that the (*)*&$#%$#$ Oenophore usually posts in such threads. I won't disappoint you.

================================================================


Top
#39602 - 09/10/08 10:04 AM Re: The Candidates [Re: oenophore]
AOR Offline
enthusiast

Registered: 08/27/04
Posts: 392
Here's one just as funny...!


Top
#39603 - 09/10/08 10:23 AM Re: The Candidates [Re: AOR]
oenophore Online   confused
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 09/24/01
Posts: 5968
Loc: 212 land
Something to offend one and all.
=============================



Top
#39695 - 09/12/08 04:14 PM Re: The Candidates [Re: MarcC]
Mim Offline
old hand

Registered: 01/27/00
Posts: 999
Loc: Gunks
We can discuss 'till the cows come home that Obama's resume looks thin - however, if McCain drops dead, Palin would take the helm – and THAT is quite scary. You want to discuss thin resume?? Look at hers. If she was a guy, she NEVER would have been asked to take this job. The Republican played the gender card and that is utterly insulting and degrading – to all – American voters, and the other qualified candidates that didn’t get asked.
_________________________
Mim

Top
#39716 - 09/13/08 11:22 AM Re: The Candidates [Re: Mim]
oenophore Online   confused
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 09/24/01
Posts: 5968
Loc: 212 land
if McCain drops dead, Palin would take the helm

For what it's worth, I heard on the radio today a Newsweek reporter saying that actuarially, McCain has a 9% chance of croaking (no, he didn't use that word) in the next four years.
_________________________

Top
#39718 - 09/13/08 09:48 PM Re: The Candidates [Re: oenophore]
andrew Offline

Pooh-Bah

Registered: 11/15/99
Posts: 1816
Loc: Denver, CO
One point that has driven me absolutely nuts during this election is people talking about the democratic controlled Congress, which is totally misleading. The Senate is basically a 50-50 split, especially considering that psuedo-Democrat Independent Lieberman has now totally burned his bridges with the democrats. The democrats have a somewhat bigger edge in the house, but still only hold 54% of the seats.

Those advantages are slight, and are not even close to enough to break filibusters or override vetos. A more accurate description would be a democratic influenced Congress.
_________________________
This isn't an office. It's Hell with fluorescent lighting.

Top
#39721 - 09/14/08 12:11 AM Re: The Candidates [Re: Mim]
alicex4 Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 07/05/00
Posts: 3400
Pulease, reality check, called chimmy carter???


PS My Uncle knew him in Annapolis, ......


Edited by alicex4 (09/14/08 12:12 AM)

Top
#39723 - 09/14/08 01:49 AM Re: The Candidates [Re: alicex4]
pedestrian Offline
Pooh-Bah

Registered: 08/05/02
Posts: 2244
Loc: a heavily fortified bunker!
and your point is...?

Top
#39733 - 09/15/08 10:12 AM Re: The Candidates [Re: mworking]
oenophore Online   confused
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 09/24/01
Posts: 5968
Loc: 212 land
Perhaps the most insightful essay I've read about the current presidential campaign.
_________________________

Top
#39735 - 09/15/08 11:27 AM Re: The Candidates [Re: Mim]
talus Offline
veteran

Registered: 08/23/04
Posts: 1259
 Originally Posted By: Mim
We can discuss 'till the cows come home that Obama's resume looks thin. You want to discuss thin resume??


the funny thing Obama is running for President and Palin was picked for Vice, but she has actually governed state. Palin has more experience than Obama who doesn't even Pledge Allegiance to the American flag. Talk about insulting!
_________________________
John Okner Photography

Top
#39741 - 09/15/08 02:24 PM Re: The Candidates [Re: talus]
Daniel Online   content
veteran

Registered: 05/23/01
Posts: 1515
 Originally Posted By: talus
the funny thing Obama is running for President and Palin was picked for Vice, but she has actually governed state. Palin has more experience than Obama who doesn't even Pledge Allegiance to the American flag. Talk about insulting!


First, can we please stop with the "Obama doesn't do the Pledge of Allegiance" thing already? It's been disproved over and over again--not that it should have ever mattered in the first place. If we're picking presidents over whether they obey certain rituals instead of what they're going to do about heath care and Iran, then it's no wonder why we've got a dysfunctional government.

The "experience" issue is a canard. Bush was experienced. Cheney was experienced. Rumsfeld was experienced. This was one of the most experienced administrations in recent history. But experience is useful only insofar as it informs judgment. And they were completely lacking in judgment.

And Obama has more experience than Lincoln did, and most people think Lincoln did a pretty good job. So I think we have to ask whether experience really correlates with job performance.

I recommend this Slate piece by Michael Kinsley. He argues that "experience" is the perennial criticism of presidential candidates because no one usually has it. If you're a governor, then you lack the requisite foreign policy experience. If you're a legislator, then you have no executive experience. (If by chance you've done both, then you're an insider who can't pursue reform.) The only single job that provides both executive and foreign policy experience is, well, being president.

But Kinsley argues that while the Palin pick says little about the value of experience, it does say something about the McCain campaign. Regardless of whether experience is important or not, it was the McCain campaign's chief argument for McCain and against Obama. By choosing Palin, the campaign now seems to hold that experience isn't all that important, which means that they didn't really mean it in the first place. Kinsley calls it "lying." And that's what should be insulting.

Top
#39742 - 09/15/08 03:37 PM Re: The Candidates [Re: Daniel]
talus Offline
veteran

Registered: 08/23/04
Posts: 1259
Yes it should matter Dan. Well let's have President that will Not Pledge to the US Flag geez what's next let's change the name from US to Clueless Obama nation. This is America which is falling apart because there's this group and don't offend that group. Go back to being an American that's were you live right... I think the New Yorker magazine depicted Obama and wife accurately

Your rebuttals i find are boring ex "yes Obama's numbers don't add up but McCains are worse" well McCain can kick Obamma ass if you want to put it that way.

sure go ahead look what the candidates are going to do. Obama will just let Iran going back to chaos that it was just great.

Keep bringing up experience is what the dems are doing for Palin. So you want to compare look at your Democratic selection.

Yup Lincoln wasn't much of a president. if The Emancipation Proclamation was written before the civil war started then maybe Lincoln would have been an good president.
_________________________
John Okner Photography

Top
#39744 - 09/15/08 04:14 PM Re: The Candidates [Re: talus]
Daniel Online   content
veteran

Registered: 05/23/01
Posts: 1515
 Originally Posted By: talus
Yes it should matter Dan.


So, if you had a candidate who matched your views on the economy, on Iraq, on health care...you'd still vote against him or her because he or she wouldn't put his hand over his heart?

Moreover, the allegation that Obama doesn't say the Pledge is just false. But if people don't want to believe the facts, there's not much room for further discussion.

 Originally Posted By: talus
Your rebuttals i find are boring ex "yes Obama's numbers don't add up but McCains are worse" well McCain can kick Obamma ass if you want to put it that way.


Is that a response? If you want to discuss fiscal policy, let's discuss it. Again, I think it's a fact that McCain's budget numbers are more fiscally irresponsible than Obama's. But if that's what you want to vote for, that's your choice.

 Originally Posted By: talus
sure go ahead look what the candidates are going to do. Obama will just let Iran going back to chaos that it was just great.


I think you mean Iraq. And I believe that those who think we should stay indefinitely in Iraq should at least support raising our taxes to pay for it instead of borrowing the money from China.

Also, Obama has not proposed picking up and leaving. He has proposed an orderly withdrawal over a period of time. Some people think that's exactly what's needed to put pressure on the Iraqi government to get its act together. But reasonable people can differ as to what they think will happen.

As for Iran, McCain seems to support the policy of not engaging that nation at all. That's the same policy that hasn't worked for the past seven years, and I see no reason why it would work in the next four.

 Originally Posted By: talus
Keep bringing up experience is what the dems are doing for Palin. So you want to compare look at your Democratic selection.


I was arguing that experience was not a good indicator of performance. I was also arguing that the McCain campaign doesn't really mean it when they say experience is important. Read the Kinsley article I referenced, and let me know what you think. (Also, as Kinsley points out, when Republicans aren't touting the importance of experience, they're busy pushing term limits to ensure no one has it.)

 Originally Posted By: talus
Yup Lincoln wasn't much of a president. if The Emancipation Proclamation was written before the civil war started then maybe Lincoln would have been an good president.


Most historians put Lincoln at or near the top of the list. You're entitled to your opinion, but most people think he did a very good job in perhaps the most trying time in the history of the nation.

Top
#39747 - 09/15/08 04:35 PM Re: The Candidates [Re: talus]
mworking Offline
old hand

Registered: 05/26/04
Posts: 764
 Originally Posted By: talus
Yes it should matter Dan. Well let's have President that will Not Pledge to the US Flag


Originally I thought you just forgot the wink on a smiley face, that is what this comment should have had. You know, it's not true.

 Quote:
Obama will just let Iran going back to chaos that it was just great.


Ouch just as embarrassing as some of the things I've accidentally written



Edited by mworking (09/15/08 04:44 PM)

Top
#39751 - 09/15/08 05:27 PM Re: The Candidates [Re: Daniel]
talus Offline
veteran

Registered: 08/23/04
Posts: 1259
well yes Dan if they can't stand up for the Pledge how in the heck are they going stand up for the US as Nation????????????

"Again, I think it's a fact that McCain's budget numbers are more fiscally irresponsible than Obama's"

there you are; I think McCain's are less. blah blah blah

"I think you mean Iraq."
yes i did so i messed up. and no I did not to say "stay indefinitely" but the next president is going to inherent this war and restoring order over there would be a good thing before you pull out.


"Most historians put Lincoln at or near the top of the list. You're entitled to your opinion, but most people think he did a very good job in perhaps the most trying time in the history of the nation."

Are these the same historians that still believe that the civil was about freeing slaves???
_________________________
John Okner Photography

Top
#39752 - 09/15/08 06:12 PM Re: The Candidates [Re: talus]
Daniel Online   content
veteran

Registered: 05/23/01
Posts: 1515
 Originally Posted By: talus
well yes Dan if they can't stand up for the Pledge how in the heck are they going stand up for the US as Nation????????????


I stand up for the US as a nation. I don't bother with the Pledge. I don't think we have liberty and justice for all, so I won't say it. But I continue to fight for it.

I don't care if people burn the flag. I care that we preserve the principles that this nation should stand for (free speech being among them).

I don't believe in symbolism; I believe in action. Real commitment shows up in deeds, not words. Plenty of people say they "support the troops," but just about no one has done anything to support them, which ought to be a national embarrassment.

Talk is a poor substitute for substance. There are plenty of people who say the pledge and have run this country into the ground, and plenty of people who don't say it and care deeply about the principles that make this nation worth preserving.

 Originally Posted By: talus
"Again, I think it's a fact that McCain's budget numbers are more fiscally irresponsible than Obama's"

there you are; I think McCain's are less. blah blah blah


You can think what you want, but it won't change the facts. If you want to learn about what the candidates' budget plans entail, you could look at a report from a nonpartisan organization such as the Tax Policy Center. The Center says Obama's proposals would increase the debt by $3.5 trillion by 2018, while McCain's would increase it by $5 trillion. As Senator Moynihan once said, everyone is entitled to his own opinion but not his own facts. Still vote for McCain if you want to, but let's not pretend that his budget proposals aren't full of red ink.

 Originally Posted By: talus
Are these the same historians that still believe that the civil was about freeing slaves???


No, I believe they're well-respected people who know better. Even I know from high school that emancipation became more important only some time after the Civil War had already begun, so I assume most historians know it too.

Lincoln was far from perfect. He did suspend habeas corpus, which most now look back on as a bad decision. But without him, there's a good chance this country would look very different today. Why not read a Lincoln biography, see how he handled trying to hold the nation together in a time of crisis, and get back to me?

You can check out this summary of academic presidential polls. Even a Wall Street Journal poll which attempted to balance for liberal/conservative ideology had Lincoln in the #2 slot. Every poll has Lincoln in the top three. Not bad for someone who lacked "experience." He had good judgment, and that's what matters.

Top
#39753 - 09/15/08 06:33 PM Re: The Candidates [Re: Daniel]
talus Offline
veteran

Registered: 08/23/04
Posts: 1259
" He had good judgment, and that's what matters. "

yes and this is what Obama lacks. you too much free time Dan
_________________________
John Okner Photography

Top
#39754 - 09/15/08 06:38 PM Re: The Candidates [Re: talus]
alicex4 Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 07/05/00
Posts: 3400
Where is Henry Clay when you need him?

Top
#39756 - 09/15/08 06:42 PM Re: The Candidates [Re: talus]
Daniel Online   content
veteran

Registered: 05/23/01
Posts: 1515
 Originally Posted By: talus
" He had good judgment, and that's what matters. "

yes and this is what Obama lacks.


That is a matter of opinion. But it seems to me that Obama has been right quite a lot on policy, while McCain offers little difference from the past 7 years which have not worked out too well. I outlined the candidates' positions above, and people can reach their own conclusions as to who has better judgment.

 Originally Posted By: talus
you too much free time Dan


That is indisputably true.

Top
#39757 - 09/15/08 06:44 PM Re: The Candidates [Re: alicex4]
oenophore Online   confused
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 09/24/01
Posts: 5968
Loc: 212 land
Perhaps the true "issue" in this and many other campaigns isn't issues at all but rather how skillfully the candidates are marketed (see URL link in my post above.)
_________________________

Top
#39759 - 09/15/08 07:35 PM Re: The Candidates [Re: oenophore]
Daniel Online   content
veteran

Registered: 05/23/01
Posts: 1515
 Originally Posted By: oenophore
Perhaps the true "issue" in this and many other campaigns isn't issues at all but rather how skillfully the candidates are marketed (see URL link in my post above.)


I met the author of that article (George Lakoff) out in Denver. He's an interesting guy. I understand and have some empathy for his argument that since we don't know what problems will be facing us in two years that it's rational for people to vote on "if a candidate shares your values, if he's saying what he believes, if he connects with you, if you trust him, and if you identify with him."

But I don't think that's what goes through most voters' minds. I don't think most voters go through the "I don't know what the situation will be in the future" part and just go with the values-beliefs-connects-trust-identify part.

As far as trust goes, lots of people vote for candidates who promise tax cuts and more spending and fiscal responsibility, even though those three items are mutually inconsistent. Candidates who promise all of these things should not be trusted, yet they get elected. Trust should be grounded in some factual basis, yet Lakoff says people don't vote on facts. So I think there's some kind of conceptual problem there.

But as far as his "framing" argument goes, I find little to disagree with.

Top
#39761 - 09/15/08 07:38 PM Re: The Candidates [Re: oenophore]
Smike Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 05/01/01
Posts: 3143
Loc: in your backyard
 Quote:
The Center says Obama's proposals would increase the debt by $3.5 trillion by 2018, while McCain's would increase it by $5 trillion. As Senator Moynihan once said, everyone is entitled to his own opinion but not his own facts.


Those being ‘projections’ I find it hard to put them in the category of ‘facts’ ;\)


 Quote:
Still vote for McCain if you want to, but let's not pretend that his budget proposals aren't full of red ink.


Nether really has any hopes for stemming the incoming wave of red ink. With the Iraq War, and the Feds propping up of more and more finical institutions at an alarming rate, the next president when it comes to the economy is walking into political suicide. (I’m still convinced that is the main reason we have the 2 choices we have, as no one wants the job really)

For the economy the chickens are coming home to roost no matter who get into office.

Top
#39762 - 09/15/08 07:42 PM Re: The Candidates [Re: Daniel]
alicex4 Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 07/05/00
Posts: 3400
UK Times

Barack Obama the speechmaker is being rumbled
There is a yawning gulf between what the Democratic candidate says and how he has acted. That's why the race is so close
Gerard Baker
It's funny how the harder you look at something, the harder it can be to understand it. I can't recall a US presidential election that has attracted more attention. But neither can there have been a time when the world has watched what goes on in America with the nonplussed, horrified incomprehension it has now.
Travelling in Britain this week, I've been asked repeatedly by close followers of US politics if it can really be true that Barack Obama might not win. Thoughtful people cannot get their head around the idea that Mr Obama, exciting new pilot of change, supported by Joseph Biden, experienced navigator of the swamplands of Washington politics, could possibly be defeated.
They look upon John McCain and Sarah Palin and see something out of hag-ridden history: the wizened old warrior, obsessed with finding enemies in every corner of the globe, marching in lockstep with the crackpot, mooseburger-chomping mother from the wilds of Alaska, rifle in one hand, Bible in the other, smiting caribou and conventional science as she goes.
Two patronising explanations are adduced to explain why Americans are going wrong. The first is racism. I've dealt with this before and it has acquired no more merit. White supremacists haven't been big on Democratic candidates, whatever their colour, for a long time, and Mr Obama's race is as likely to generate enthusiasm among blacks and young voters as it is hostility among racists.
In a similarly condescending account, those foolish saps are being conned into voting for Mr McCain because they like his running-mate. Her hockey-mom charm and storybook career appeals to their worst instincts. The race is boiling down to a beauty contest in which a former beauty queen is stealing the show. Believe this if it helps you come to terms with the possibility of a Democratic defeat. But there really are better explanations.
One is a simple political-cultural one. This election is a struggle between the followers of American exceptionalism and the supporters of global universalism. Democrats are more eager than ever to align the US with the rest of the Western world, especially Europe. This is true not just in terms of a commitment to multilateral diplomacy that would restore the United Nations to its rightful place as arbiter of international justice. It is also reflected in the type of place they'd like America to be - a country with higher taxes, more business regulation, a much larger welfare safety net and universal health insurance. The Republicans, who still believe America should follow the beat of its own drum, are pretty much against all of that.
You can argue the merits of each case. But let me try to explain to my fellow non-Americans why Mr Obama's problems go well beyond that. Even if you think that Americans should want to turn their country into a European-style system, there is a perfectly good reason that you might have grave doubts about Mr Obama.
The essential problem coming to light is a profound disconnect between the Barack Obama of the candidate's speeches, and the Barack Obama who has actually been in politics for the past decade or so.
Speechmaker Obama has built his campaign on the promise of reform, the need to change the culture of American political life, to take on the special interests that undermine government's effectiveness and erode trust in the system itself,
Politician Obama rose through a Chicago machine that is notoriously the most corrupt in the country. As David Freddoso writes in a brilliantly cogent and measured book, The Case Against Barack Obama, the angel of deliverance from the old politics functioned like an old-time Democratic pol in Illinois. He refused repeatedly to side with those lonely voices that sought to challenge the old corrupt ways of the ruling party.
Speechmaker Obama talks about an era of bipartisanship, He speaks powerfully about the destructive politics of red and blue states.
Politician Obama has toed his party's line more reliably than almost any other Democrat in US politics. He has a near-perfect record of voting with his side. He has the most solidly left-wing voting history in the Senate. His one act of bipartisanship, a transparency bill co-sponsored with a Republican senator, was backed by everybody on both sides of the aisle. He has never challenged his party's line on any issue of substance.
Speechmaker Obama talks a lot about finding ways to move beyond the bloody battlegrounds of the “culture wars” in America; the urgent need to establish consensus on the emotive issue of abortion.
Politician Obama's support for abortion rights is the most extreme of any Democratic senator. In the Illinois legislature he refused to join Democrats and Republicans in supporting a Bill that would require doctors to provide medical care for babies who survived abortions. No one in the Senate - not the arch feminist Hillary Clinton nor the superliberal Edward Kennedy - opposed this same humane measure.
Here's the real problem with Mr Obama: the jarring gap between his promises of change and his status quo performance. There are just too many contradictions between the eloquent poetry of the man's stirring rhetoric and the dull, familiar prose of his political record.
It's been remarked that the biggest difference between Americans and Europeans is religion: ignorant Americans cling to faith; enlightened Europeans long ago embraced the liberating power of reason. Yet here's an odd thing about this election. Europeans are asking Americans to take a leap of faith, to break the chains of empiricism and embrace the possibility of the imagination.
The fact is that a vote for Mr Obama demands uncritical subservience to the irrational, anti-empirical proposition that the past holds no clues about the future, that promise is wholly detached from experience. The second-greatest story ever told, perhaps.

Top
#39763 - 09/15/08 08:16 PM Re: The Candidates [Re: alicex4]
Daniel Online   content
veteran

Registered: 05/23/01
Posts: 1515
I've seen that article before, and thought it was remarkable in its lack of substance.

I find it hard to blame Obama for not breaking with his party while in the Senate when there has been so little reason to do so over the past three years. If the author of the article had some specific issues where Obama should have voted the other way, he should bring them up. Otherwise, the allegation is an empty one, relying on form over substance. One or two examples does not constitute a trend.

Moreover, I'm tired of the charge that he is the most liberal member of the Senate. Again, if there are issues on which he is far-left, they should be named and discussed. But he and Clinton had similar positions on just about every major policy issue, so if she isn't left-wing, then he can't be left-wing either. Their biggest difference was on a mandate for individual health insurance, and Obama had the more centrist view on that one.

If people like McCain's positions more than Obama's, by all means they should vote for McCain. But I wouldn't pay much attention to screeds that paint such a one-sided picture.

And shall I go into all the ways McCain has conformed to his own party's dictates over the past few years? I think he's got a bigger gap between what he said and what he does than Obama. Not that what McCain had said or done in the past would matter to me if I thought he had moved to better positions--but in my opinion when he's shifted he's moved the wrong way.

Top
#39764 - 09/15/08 08:25 PM Re: The Candidates [Re: Smike]
Daniel Online   content
veteran

Registered: 05/23/01
Posts: 1515
 Originally Posted By: Smike
Those being ‘projections’ I find it hard to put them in the category of ‘facts’ ;\)


Fair point. I suppose that it's a "fact" that the Center's analysis "projects" McCain's numbers to be fiscally worse than Obama's, for whatever that's worth.

 Originally Posted By: Smike
For the economy the chickens are coming home to roost no matter who get into office.


Yup. As long as enough people continue to believe we can have something for nothing, personal and national budgets will be a mess until the big crash, and that won't be fun for any of us.

Unfortunately, few politicians have figured out how to say "look folks, this course is unsustainable and we should really be making different choices" and still get elected. And that's a failure on the part of both the public and our leaders to take the problem seriously.

Top
#39765 - 09/15/08 08:42 PM Re: The Candidates [Re: Daniel]
Smike Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 05/01/01
Posts: 3143
Loc: in your backyard
 Originally Posted By: Daniel


Yup. As long as enough people continue to believe we can have something for nothing, personal and national budgets will be a mess until the big crash, and that won't be fun for any of us.


I agree, and believe that premise is the ultimate driver, but unfortunately has been covered over with the following events in the last 8 years:

9/11
War in Afghanistan
War in Iraq
Lose oversight of the mortgage and investment industry
Katrina

All were the results of bad choices (even Katrina with NOL a city built below sea level) All of them have been major threats to our financial well being and long term future. But no one particular event is easy to trace back to the route cause. (9/11 being the exception)

Top
#39766 - 09/15/08 09:08 PM Re: The Candidates [Re: Daniel]
oenophore Online   confused
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 09/24/01
Posts: 5968
Loc: 212 land
Unfortunately, few politicians have figured out how to say "look folks, this course is unsustainable and we should really be making different choices" and still get elected.

It is, politically speaking, a sort of wet daydream of mine that a president would say as much in his inaugural speech.
_________________________

Top
#39767 - 09/15/08 09:13 PM Re: The Candidates [Re: Daniel]
mummert Offline
journeyman

Registered: 11/16/99
Posts: 96
Loc: Danbury, CT, USA

Small towns never forget.....

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/09/15/bess/

For me the most worrisome issues are on page 2 of the article. In part...

 Quote:

"She wanted to get people who believed in creationism on the board," said Munger, a music composer and teacher. "I bumped into her once after my band played at a graduation ceremony at the Assembly of God. I said, 'Sarah, how can you believe in creationism -- your father's a science teacher.' And she said, 'We don't have to agree on everything.'

"I pushed her on the earth's creation, whether it was really less than 7,000 years old and whether dinosaurs and humans walked the earth at the same time. And she said yes, she'd seen images somewhere of dinosaur fossils with human footprints in them."

Munger also asked Palin if she truly believed in the End of Days, the doomsday scenario when the Messiah will return. "She looked in my eyes and said, 'Yes, I think I will see Jesus come back to earth in my lifetime.'"

Bess is unnerved by the prospect of Palin -- a woman whose mind is given to dogmatic certitude -- standing one step away from the Oval Office. "It's truly frightening that someone like Sarah has risen to the national level," Bess said. "Like all religious fundamentalists -- Christian, Jewish, Muslim -- she is a dualist. They view life as an ongoing struggle to the finish between good and evil. Their mind-set is that you do not do business with evil -- you destroy it. Talking with the enemy is not part of their plan. That puts someone like Obama on the side of evil.

Top
#39768 - 09/15/08 09:18 PM Re: The Candidates [Re: Smike]
alicex4 Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 07/05/00
Posts: 3400
Aye aye the economic chickens are coming home on sooooo many fronts. Americans have been robbing Peter to pay Paul on many levels.

Personal
-NINJA loans
-no personal savings
-credit card debt

Government
-putting SS into the general fund and spending it as fast as it comes in
-Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac where the govt has no business being in the mortgage industry and this was never a private entity, it was stupid to make everyone think they could afford a home especially given the state of personal finances.

The people pulling the cart need a revolution. The people in the cart freeloading need to get out and work. Pay attention, this is historic.


And Sorry Charlie Rangel should get OUT of the cart.


Edited by alicex4 (09/15/08 10:10 PM)

Top
#39771 - 09/16/08 12:02 AM Re: The Candidates [Re: oenophore]
Mike Rawdon Offline

Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 11/29/99
Posts: 4276
Loc: Poughkeepsie
 Originally Posted By: oenophore
Unfortunately, few politicians have figured out how to say "look folks, this course is unsustainable and we should really be making different choices" and still get elected.

It is, politically speaking, a sort of wet daydream of mine that a president would say as much in his inaugural speech.


NY's new governor just said basically that a couple weeks ago. Let's see how it plays out.

Top
#39772 - 09/16/08 01:29 AM Re: The Candidates [Re: alicex4]
Kent Offline
old hand

Registered: 01/21/00
Posts: 1038
Loc: The Bayards
 Quote:
The people pulling the cart need a revolution. The people in the cart freeloading need to get out and work. Pay attention, this is historic

This sounds like a quote from Dollar City Chamber of Commerce, but is Atlas Shrugging or being Shrugged? With so many high rollers losing as much as 95% of their net worth, in the matter of a few days, it's hard to tell.

And there is a biological corollary for much of what we see in the news today. Mimicry, cuckoldry, phoresis, and parasitism are all effective evolutionary strategies. So too, deception and freeloading in the form of Ponzi like derivatives, excessive executive compensation, and yes, zoning to take something that's not yours, are all a means for some to get ahead at someone else's expense. It's not new, just more, much more, of the same.

Systems sometimes tend to crescendo, destabilize, contract, reorganize, and then grow stronger. Rinse and repeat as needed.

Shadows
Now curtain the moon
But faith swears
It will shine again soon

K.d. Lang/Greg Penny

Top
#39773 - 09/16/08 02:20 AM Re: The Candidates [Re: Kent]
empicard Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 08/29/01
Posts: 2954
Loc: LI, NY
you guys wouldn't believe how long ago i stopped caring about what was in the thread i started!
_________________________
tOOthless

Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.

Top
#39776 - 09/16/08 02:41 AM Re: The Candidates [Re: alicex4]
Daniel Online   content
veteran

Registered: 05/23/01
Posts: 1515
Our overall personal savings rate is a serious problem. So is our federal budget where we keep demanding more from government (whether it's a war, medical benefits, or tax cuts) without any input from the public. I hear over and over "so and so is going to raise your taxes." As I've noted before, I think that's a fundamentally flawed way of looking at government. "The government" doesn't tax us; we're supposed to decide through our government how to tax ourselves for the programs we say we want. But there now seems to be a substantial portion of the public who want the programs, but not the taxes.

I've already criticized the position of those who support an extended stay in Iraq but refuse to raise taxes by a dime to pay for it. I'm equally critical of those who say that if we ended our military venture, then we could spend that money at home. But there is no money to transfer; it's all borrowed. Now, there's good debt and there's bad debt (I think that tax cuts for the wealthy is bad debt), but let's not pretend that it isn't debt.

I'd love to hear some politician say: "Look folks, we're not close to paying our bills as a nation. It's not 'the government's' debt; it's your debt. And if you want the problem solved, you have to be willing to do something about it. The choices are relatively simple. We can have higher taxes, or fewer programs, or some combination of the two. Or we can continue on our present course and allow the countries that are financing our debt to control our future. In the end, it's the public that is accountable under our system of government, whether we like it or not, and you have some decisions to make."

But I fear the response would be: "Hey, look at that bright shiny tax cut!" It seems to win elections. But it's not a sustainable form of governance.

I'm reading The Limits of Power by Andrew Bacevich. I don't agree with a lot of what he writes, but I do agree with this observation: "If one were to choose a single word to describe that identity [of what it means to be an American in the twenty-first century], it would have to be more. For the majority of contemporary Americans, the essence of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness centers on a relentless personal quest to acquire, to consume, to indulge, and to shed whatever constraints might interfere with those endeavors."

He then offers several examples of how the ethic of "more" has caused us, through our government, to make decisions that avoid short term pain at long term cost. The most obvious is when Bush told us to go shopping after 9/11 instead of using it as a clarion call to get us out of our oil addiction. But it goes back to 1980 when Carter declared that the US would use "any means necessary" to prevent hostile powers from dominating the Middle East. Reagan got involved in the Iran-Iraq conflict by having the US Navy protect the Kuwaiti tanker fleet. In 2006, Bush said "America is addicted to oil" but called for no action.

No president since Carter has called for action on the part of the public. Even today, substantial numbers of people seem to believe that drilling here and drilling now will have some kind of substantial benefit, even when there is no evidence to show that we have enough oil reserves to do anything but slightly delay the day of reckoning. But since it requires nothing from us, it gets waves of public support.

Bacevich argues that if we are to preserve our liberty, we need to make do with less (at least I think that's what he argues, though I haven't finished the book yet) and reorder our priorities. But can anyone run on that message and still win elections?

We can't expect our elected officials to have the political will to make tough decisions unless their constituents are willing to do so. And maybe that's a message that our representatives could take home to their states and districts, and see if it generates any results.

Top
#39779 - 09/16/08 03:28 AM Re: The Candidates [Re: Daniel]
acdnyc Offline
enthusiast

Registered: 11/10/04
Posts: 208
Loc: NYC/Kerhonkson
"No president since Carter has called for action on the part of the public"

Yep, and he was thrown out of the White House. His biggest mistake was, asking the American people to do anything to help themselves or their children's future. What a dumb @ss.
_________________________
jugs or mugs

Top
#39790 - 09/16/08 01:46 PM Re: The Candidates [Re: empicard]
oenophore Online   confused
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 09/24/01
Posts: 5968
Loc: 212 land
you guys wouldn't believe how long ago i stopped caring about what was in the thread i started!

Is this due to our failure to answer your original question, "I can't get excited about either one. What to do?"? Did you expect a useful answer? Your thread allowed us to blab textwise about a subject that much interested us. I'd be flabbergasted if any of us thought, "After reading some posts in this thread, I intend to vote for A instead of B." Thanks Empicard, for initiating this thread, allowing us to pack the webmaster's server drive with all this precious prose.
_________________________

Top
#39798 - 09/16/08 04:15 PM Re: The Candidates [Re: Daniel]
Smike Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 05/01/01
Posts: 3143
Loc: in your backyard

 Quote:
Our overall personal savings rate is a serious problem


Yes it is, but the cause is not simply because people have decided not to save money.

Hard Facts:
The average money market account yields just 2.4% while a 1-year CD has a yield of only 3.69%. Inflation, meanwhile, is running at 5.4%.

And the stock market does has not have much to offer the common person looking to save. Housing to many that was their savings has been a bust.

So how would average person start saving more? This issue is caused manily by goverment and feds direction, and it will not reverse without action from them regardless if everyone just simply starting stuffing money under the matriss.

Top
#39802 - 09/16/08 05:25 PM Re: The Candidates [Re: Smike]
Daniel Online   content
veteran

Registered: 05/23/01
Posts: 1515
 Originally Posted By: Smike
This issue is caused manily by goverment and feds direction


I don't think so, because this problem was around long before inflation started outpacing interest rates. Personal savings rates have been dropping steadily for the past 25 years (see fig. 1 on the second page on the linked article). Also, credit card debt has steadily increased.

So it seems to me that many people are simply spending more than their incomes, which is not sustainable regardless of what the fed does. Surely it's better to put money in the mattress, or a savings account, than on a credit card bill that can't be paid off, even in today's investment climate. But the numbers show that hasn't been the choice many people have been making for quite some time.

Top
#39803 - 09/16/08 05:39 PM Re: The Candidates [Re: Smike]
alicex4 Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 07/05/00
Posts: 3400
I bet the "average" person still has his cable, internet and budweiser. Average Joe for the most part chooses not to save IMO, because he has different priorities and saving for the future isn't one of them.



Where is the talk of Fannie mae's CEO, Dick Fuld, running the company into the toilet and being held accountable like Ebbers, Lay, et al? Where's Chris Dodd chair of the Senate Banking Committee in all of this? No doubt enjoying his Countrywide sweetheart deal. Where are Hillary Clinton, Obama, Kerry, and Dodd in all of this, remarkably silent since they were the top four recipients of Fannie and Freddie campaign contributions from 1988 to 2008. Published in February 2004, Dodd can find on Page 82 of the budget's Analytical Perspectives these words, Fannie, Freddie and other GSEs "are highly leveraged, holding much less capital in relation to their assets than similarly sized financial institutions. . . . A misjudgment or unexpected economic event could quickly deplete this capital, potentially making it difficult for a GSE to meet its debt obligations. Given the very large size of each enterprise, even a small mistake by a GSE could have consequences throughout the economy." But the Fannie 4 repeatedly blocked attempts at beefing up regulation of these agencies. Listen to the silence and follow the money.

Top
#39804 - 09/16/08 05:48 PM Re: The Candidates [Re: Daniel]
Smike Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 05/01/01
Posts: 3143
Loc: in your backyard
The amount of credit card dept nationally is directly related to cheap money. Money has been relatively cheap for so long (starting in earnest near the end of the 80’s) Make money expensive and people will save it, and not overuse it.

Still the hardest part of this is that most people in the lower half have no way of turning this around right now on their own. Stuffing money under a mattress (in principle) is a very bad idea. You will save yourself poor. Granted running up credit card dept will certainly not help matters. Access to money (in the form of credit card dept) is sooooo cheap its hard for people to say no to such bad habits. This is why my liver is very happy a good single malt is so expensive.

Top
#39811 - 09/16/08 08:31 PM Re: The Candidates [Re: Smike]
J@son Offline
member

Registered: 06/23/08
Posts: 101
Loc: New Jersey
Remember also that people need a reasonable goal to save for. Many Americans don't have enough left over at the end of the week to make a worthwhile goal attainable. They can't save to afford that second home, college etc.. So they might as well blow it on the everyday pleasures they can afford.
_________________________
Labor Omnia Vincit

Top
#39819 - 09/17/08 01:34 AM Re: The Candidates [Re: J@son]
empicard Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 08/29/01
Posts: 2954
Loc: LI, NY
people forget than $1/day can make a difference.
ask that fat chick.
_________________________
tOOthless

Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.

Top
#39833 - 09/17/08 01:09 PM Re: The Candidates [Re: empicard]
talus Offline
veteran

Registered: 08/23/04
Posts: 1259
I wanted to applaud Daniel for his sound, politically well versed, and informative replies. Daniel does all this without ever bashing one side and remains objective to both sides. Daniel has actually made me think on who I may vote for come November. Despite our political differences we have exchanged pm's and hopefully I will climb w/ Dan in future.

As For the person (Mim) who has sent me inane emails belittling the Republican thinker, makes me think wow are all these extreme political wing nuts have nothing better to do but to find worst in the candidates. This goes both sides which is just a drag. It shouldn't matter who has done this or that but what they Are going to do. If an election was up to what they have done, do you really think that Winston Churchill would have been Prime Minister?
_________________________
John Okner Photography

Top
#40234 - 09/29/08 06:24 PM Re: The Candidates [Re: empicard]
oenophore Online   confused
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 09/24/01
Posts: 5968
Loc: 212 land
milf? what? never! she's pretty nasty.

Heck, it's official. Access Voteforthemilf.com
_________________________

Top
#43226 - 02/23/09 11:33 AM Meanwhile, back in Guantanamo ... [Re: Daniel]
oenophore Online   confused
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 09/24/01
Posts: 5968
Loc: 212 land
Finally, I think Obama will respect the Constitution more than McCain. McCain, to his credit, has said he will close Guantanamo. This is sensible if only because it has cost us far more than it has benefited us.


Top
#43258 - 02/24/09 03:47 AM Re: Meanwhile, back in Guantanamo ... [Re: oenophore]
Daniel Online   content
veteran

Registered: 05/23/01
Posts: 1515
Cute cartoon, but not serious even within the realm of satire.

There does have to be a process put in place to see which of the remaining detainees really pose no threat and shouldn't have been there in the first place, which deserved to be detained but should be tried on the evidence against them, and which may be truly dangerous but face uncertain prosecutions due to key evidence that the Bush administration obtained through torture rendering such evidence inadmissible.

Jane Mayer has an article in a recent New Yorker on the topic. An excerpt:

"A number of national-security lawyers in both parties favor the creation of some new form of preventive detention. They do not believe that it is the President

Top
#43260 - 02/24/09 11:22 AM Re: Meanwhile, back in Guantanamo ... [Re: Daniel]
oenophore Online   confused
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 09/24/01
Posts: 5968
Loc: 212 land
Pardon my radical thread deviation here. The last sentence of Daniel's post immediately above was truncated, much as in some previous posts. The HTML code for an apostrophe,
 Code:
’
was the culprit here.
This UBB threads quirk is a pain in the ass for cutter/pasters from web pages.
Those who are troubled with this and are keen on posting from webpage content must find the truncation point on the webpage to see where some punctuation mark must be manually inserted in the post as a substitute for what appears on the webpage. This may entail several cut-and-paste reiterations around offending punctuation marks. So you really must be keen on posting that stuff.
And yes, I know this belongs in the Bugs & Comments forum, but the context wouldn't be as clear.
.................................................................
Getting back to the subject, I thank Daniel for that New Yorker article link. Reading it makes me smug about not having voting for Obama. Things would have been different under Nader.
_________________________

Top
#43263 - 02/24/09 01:41 PM Re: Meanwhile, back in Guantanamo ... [Re: oenophore]
Daniel Online   content
veteran

Registered: 05/23/01
Posts: 1515
I thank oneo for pointing out the technical problems.

To continue with Jane Meyer's excerpt:

"They do not believe that it is the President's prerogative to lock 'enemy combatants' up indefinitely, yet they fear that neither the criminal courts nor the military system is suited for the handling of transnational terrorists, whom they do not consider to be ordinary criminals or conventional soldiers. Instead, they suggest that Obama should work with Congress to write new laws, possibly creating a 'national-security court,' which could order certain suspects to be held without a trial."

Now, I don't believe that indefinite detention is justified. And I believe that implementing such a system would harm us more than it would help us. But the fact that such issues are being intensely discussed--and that Jane Meyer could write such a long article on the topic--indicate to me that the issue really is not simple, and so the cartoon is off base in merely asserting otherwise.

I have my opinion on the matter, and I will be critical and disappointed if the Obama administration concludes otherwise and is unable to convince me that they're right. But I'm going to give them more than a month to reach a decision, and I think it's a little premature to take them to task for a decision they haven't even made yet.

Oeno, I'm curious. You read the Jane Mayer article. Do you still agree with the cartoon that the issue is not at least somewhat complicated? How do we know things would have been different under Nader regarding this issue when the Obama administration hasn't reached a conclusion?

Top
#43273 - 02/24/09 04:59 PM Re: Meanwhile, back in Guantanamo ... [Re: Daniel]
oenophore Online   confused
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 09/24/01
Posts: 5968
Loc: 212 land
Yes, the cartoon strip is only marginally applicable. And perhaps Obama might just turn out to be the constitutional adherent and civil libertarian we'd like him to be. And maybe Nader was full of used food about this in his campaign rhetoric. I believe the latter to be less likely than the former.
The issue is complicated; most issues of this kind are. Whatever the case, I would like to see or hear something to the effect that the US Constitution shall strictly apply. I did not see or hear that. It can not be taken for granted nowadays.
_________________________

Top
#43279 - 02/24/09 06:17 PM Re: Meanwhile, back in Guantanamo ... [Re: oenophore]
Daniel Online   content
veteran

Registered: 05/23/01
Posts: 1515
 Originally Posted By: oenophore
Whatever the case, I would like to see or hear something to the effect that the US Constitution shall strictly apply. I did not see or hear that. It can not be taken for granted nowadays.


Part of the problem is that people differ on what the US Constitution says and therefore what it means to "strictly apply" it. I strongly disagree with what the Bush administration said the Constitution says, but I have little doubt that they (or at least most of them) believed they were acting within constitutional constraints, regardless of how ridiculous some of us thought their interpretations of the Constitution were.

Still, I agree that fairly obvious interpretations of the Constitution cannot be taken for granted. And I would like to see a clear rejection of indefinite detention policies (absent some form of due process akin to a criminal proceeding). But I'll critique the new administration when they come to a decision. As Andrew Sullivan said regarding the Obama administration's wrangling of many crises and issues simultaneously: "Give them time. Then give them hell."

Top
#43280 - 02/24/09 06:45 PM Re: Meanwhile, back in Guantanamo ... [Re: Daniel]
oenophore Online   confused
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 09/24/01
Posts: 5968
Loc: 212 land
As Andrew Sullivan said regarding the Obama administration's wrangling of many crises and issues simultaneously: "Give them time. Then give them hell."

Ooh, I like that! Not a bad sentiment.
_________________________

Top
#43288 - 02/25/09 04:54 AM Re: Meanwhile, back in Guantanamo ... [Re: oenophore]
mworking Offline
old hand

Registered: 05/26/04
Posts: 764
A few points from memory:

Jane Mayer also said that a very large part of the problem now is due to the fact that the Bush administration screwed things up so badly by torturing prisoners. Now we can't use much of the evidence we have against them in court. If we could, we could trie them in our regular court system

Listen to her On Fresh Air.

I don't believe that all or even most of the Bush administration believes what they said the Constitution meant. I am pretty sure they they knew they were at the limit of what they could argue it meant - which is exactly why we they made the cases they did.


Too many of them should be in prison, and a few deserve to be tortured - starting with Bush. He should be water boarded until he admits (figures out for Daniel and others) that it is torture.


Edited by mworking (02/25/09 05:52 AM)

Top
#43289 - 02/25/09 11:49 AM Re: Meanwhile, back in Guantanamo ... [Re: mworking]
oenophore Online   confused
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 09/24/01
Posts: 5968
Loc: 212 land
Too many of them should be in prison, and a few deserve to be tortured - starting with Bush. He should be water boarded until he admits (figures out for Daniel and others) that it is torture.

This is anger speaking, of course. I'm willing to bet these culprits will go scot free.
_________________________

Top
#43290 - 02/25/09 11:59 AM Re: Meanwhile, back in Guantanamo ... [Re: oenophore]
mworking Offline
old hand

Registered: 05/26/04
Posts: 764
Jane Mayer also made it sound as Obama would not push to prosecute them, but that they might still be disbared. Anger, yes, but not just anger. I feel they need to be made an example. Theat might make some difference in the future.

Added: After some refelction this morning I feel that disbarement would be a very suitable minimum punishment. It would render them harmless in the manner they have caused abuse in the past and make an example of them.


Edited by mworking (02/25/09 01:26 PM)

Top
#43307 - 02/25/09 07:54 PM Re: Meanwhile, back in Guantanamo ... [Re: mworking]
Daniel Online   content
veteran

Registered: 05/23/01
Posts: 1515
 Originally Posted By: mworking
I don't believe that all or even most of the Bush administration believes what they said the Constitution meant. I am pretty sure they they knew they were at the limit of what they could argue it meant - which is exactly why we they made the cases they did.


I understand the skepticism. But I think Cheney and others are true believers in the unitary executive theory. And I think many of them believe that there's a war exception to just about everything in the Constitution. I think those positions are wrong, but I'm not willing to assume they don't actually believe it.

 Originally Posted By: mworking
Too many of them should be in prison, and a few deserve to be tortured - starting with Bush. He should be water boarded until he admits (figures out for Daniel and others) that it is torture.


My understanding is that prosecuting these folks is going to be tough, since they did have legal opinions--flawed as they were, and likely telling them what they wanted to hear--to rely on. Disbarment for the lawyers is a distinct possibility; they have an obligation to the law as well as to their clients.

Cheney's insistence that waterboarding is not torture absolutely confounds me.

Top
#43308 - 02/25/09 07:54 PM Re: Meanwhile, back in Guantanamo ... [Re: mworking]
Mike Rawdon Offline

Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 11/29/99
Posts: 4276
Loc: Poughkeepsie
 Originally Posted By: mworking

Added: After some refelction this morning I feel that disbarement would be a very suitable minimum punishment. It would render them harmless in the manner they have caused abuse in the past and make an example of them.


But sadly, they would likely land extremely lucrative lecturing positions at Ivy League schools, or be consultants to lobbying and law firms. No ex-Admin official ever seems to go hungry.

Top
#45187 - 06/02/09 09:46 AM Re: Meanwhile, back in Guantanamo ... [Re: Daniel]
oenophore Online   confused
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 09/24/01
Posts: 5968
Loc: 212 land
I think Cheney and others are true believers in the unitary executive theory.


Top
#49203 - 11/03/09 11:17 AM Re: The former candidates [Re: andrew]
oenophore Online   confused
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 09/24/01
Posts: 5968
Loc: 212 land
that psuedo-Democrat Independent Lieberman has now totally burned his bridges with the democrats.




Top
#50098 - 12/18/09 11:19 PM Guantanamo transfer [Re: Daniel]
oenophore Online   confused
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 09/24/01
Posts: 5968
Loc: 212 land
Finally, I think Obama will respect the Constitution more than McCain. McCain, to his credit, has said he will close Guantanamo.

Now Congress wants to block that. If Obama had cojones, he'd threaten to pardon any prisoner still at Guantanamo after his deadline.
_________________________

Top
#50112 - 12/20/09 03:32 PM Re: Guantanamo transfer [Re: oenophore]
mworking Offline
old hand

Registered: 05/26/04
Posts: 764
Originally Posted By: oenophore
Finally, I think Obama will respect the Constitution more than McCain. McCain, to his credit, has said he will close Guantanamo.

Now Congress wants to block that. If Obama had cojones, he'd threaten to pardon any prisoner still at Guantanamo after his deadline.


What? No way.

Way too many opposers would call that "bluff" in a heatbeat. It would be surely be unwise not to mention politically suicidal to actually pardon them.

I do believe that many of the prisoners held there should have been released long ago, and some should never have been there in the first place, but hopefully our government found a small percentage of prisoners who are actually worthy of being detained!


Edited by mworking (12/20/09 09:21 PM)

Top
#50117 - 12/20/09 09:15 PM Re: Guantanamo transfer [Re: mworking]
oenophore Online   confused
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 09/24/01
Posts: 5968
Loc: 212 land
And that's why it takes cojones.
_________________________

Top
#50119 - 12/20/09 09:34 PM Re: Guantanamo transfer [Re: oenophore]
mworking Offline
old hand

Registered: 05/26/04
Posts: 764
Well, I'd be OK with it if he pardoned prisoners that shouldn't be prisoners. There were some that should never have gotten to Guantanamo. Don't know how many are left.

Top
#50123 - 12/21/09 12:32 PM Re: Guantanamo transfer [Re: mworking]
talus Offline
veteran

Registered: 08/23/04
Posts: 1259
Originally Posted By: mworking
I do believe that many of the prisoners held there should have been released long ago, and some should never have been there in the first place, but hopefully our government found a small percentage of prisoners who are actually worthy of being detained!


so you know all the prisoners personally and that they are innocent. you must be a secret agent.
_________________________
John Okner Photography

Top
#50135 - 12/22/09 01:42 AM Re: Guantanamo transfer [Re: talus]
AOR Offline
enthusiast

Registered: 08/27/04
Posts: 392
Originally Posted By: talus
Originally Posted By: mworking
I do believe that many of the prisoners held there should have been released long ago, and some should never have been there in the first place, but hopefully our government found a small percentage of prisoners who are actually worthy of being detained!


so you know all the prisoners personally and that they are innocent. you must be a secret agent.


M...I tend to agree with talus. That is a pretty broad and blanket statement. Would you care to expound on your reasonings?

Top
#50139 - 12/22/09 04:09 AM Re: Guantanamo transfer [Re: AOR]
MarcC Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 07/10/00
Posts: 3532
Originally Posted By: AOR
Originally Posted By: talus
Originally Posted By: mworking
I do believe that many of the prisoners held there should have been released long ago, and some should never have been there in the first place, but hopefully our government found a small percentage of prisoners who are actually worthy of being detained!


so you know all the prisoners personally and that they are innocent. you must be a secret agent.


M...I tend to agree with talus. That is a pretty broad and blanket statement. Would you care to expound on your reasonings?

I'll let mworking do his own research and justification, but everyone might want to give this a read first:
http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/2009/03/some_truths_abo/
_________________________
- Marc

Top
#50144 - 12/22/09 03:54 PM Re: Guantanamo transfer [Re: MarcC]
AOR Offline
enthusiast

Registered: 08/27/04
Posts: 392
Originally Posted By: MarcC
Originally Posted By: AOR
Originally Posted By: talus
Originally Posted By: mworking
I do believe that many of the prisoners held there should have been released long ago, and some should never have been there in the first place, but hopefully our government found a small percentage of prisoners who are actually worthy of being detained!


so you know all the prisoners personally and that they are innocent. you must be a secret agent.


M...I tend to agree with talus. That is a pretty broad and blanket statement. Would you care to expound on your reasonings?

I'll let mworking do his own research and justification, but everyone might want to give this a read first:
http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/2009/03/some_truths_abo/


Yeah, umm...you'll have to forgive me as I look at this with a jaundiced eye. The Washington Note (Steve Clemons) is just about the most left-leaning blog on the 'net. But, you're certainly entitled to your views.

Top
#50147 - 12/22/09 06:10 PM Re: Guantanamo transfer [Re: AOR]
mworking Offline
old hand

Registered: 05/26/04
Posts: 764
My response to Taluss statement:

"so you know all the prisoners personally and that they are innocent. you must be a secret agent."

Id love to tell you, but then Id have to kill you ! :-)

Actually Id like to edit my statement to say

I do believe that too many of the prisoners held there should have been released long ago, and some should never have been there in the first place, but hopefully our government found a small percentage of prisoners who are actually worthy of being detained!

Markcs link sums thing up pretty well and I have read and heard plenty more from different sources all saying the same thing. I dont record where I heard what, but if the Fox propaganda machine is your only source of information youll never hear any of this.

I have also heard at least a half dozen specific stories over the last couple of years relating the appalling way things were done with prisoners who ended up at Guantanamo. Heres a memorable one:

http://audio.thisamericanlife.org/player/CPRadio_player.php?podcast=http://www.thisamericanlife.org/xmlfeeds/331.xml&proxyloc=http://audio.thisamericanlife.org/player/customproxy.php

Top
#50148 - 12/22/09 06:11 PM Re: Guantanamo transfer [Re: AOR]
MarcC Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 07/10/00
Posts: 3532
Originally Posted By: AOR
Yeah, umm...you'll have to forgive me as I look at this with a jaundiced eye. The Washington Note (Steve Clemons) is just about the most left-leaning blog on the 'net. But, you're certainly entitled to your views.

You might want to note that the author of that entry was not Steve Clemons. It was Lawrence B. Wilkerson, Chief of Staff to Secretary of State Colin Powell.
_________________________
- Marc

Top
#50149 - 12/22/09 08:30 PM Re: Guantanamo transfer [Re: MarcC]
AOR Offline
enthusiast

Registered: 08/27/04
Posts: 392
I realize that...but, it's Clemon's website.

Top
#50153 - 12/22/09 09:36 PM Re: Guantanamo transfer [Re: AOR]
mworking Offline
old hand

Registered: 05/26/04
Posts: 764
I'm not familiar with the Steve Clemens or the Washington Note, but left or right, unless they are known for disbursing falsehoods – essentially propaganda, then what difference does it make where you read an article by Lawrence B. Wilkerson, Chief of Staff to Secretary of State Colin Powell, the article is by him.

Top
#50158 - 12/23/09 02:49 AM Re: Guantanamo transfer [Re: mworking]
AOR Offline
enthusiast

Registered: 08/27/04
Posts: 392
I have read material from Lawrence B. Wilkerson, "Chief of Staff to Secretary of State Colin Powell" and have much respect for his vast and storied career, both military and professional. And, if you've read Lawrence B. Wilkerson, "Chief of Staff to Secretary of State Colin Powell", you'll come to understand that he became very disillusioned with his prior political beliefs for various reasons he most vociferously espouses. He is most vocal about blaming Dick Cheney from everything from the disappearance of Amelia Earhart to the kidnapping of the Lindbergh baby.

In over eight years, more than half of the almost 800 Gitmo prisoners have already been released, with another appr. 200+ released this year. This leaves just over 200 prisoners left on site. In his writings, Wilkerson has stated that appr. 90% of the current Gitmo prisoners do not present a security risk to this country…that leave just a little over 20 prisoners that are "really" security risks to this country.

Personally, I find that to be a load of horsecrap.

Top
#50159 - 12/23/09 03:20 AM Re: Guantanamo transfer [Re: AOR]
Daniel Online   content
veteran

Registered: 05/23/01
Posts: 1515
Originally Posted By: AOR
Personally, I find that to be a load of horsecrap.


Based on what?

The track record of justifications for holding detainees at Guantanamo seems pretty poor, given how many have already been released.

The administration assured the public that the detainees were "the worst of the worst." Yet one of the few detainees actually subjected to the Military Commissions process wound up in a plea bargain that required him only to return to Australia and serve 9 months of a suspended 7 year sentence. That's what our government thinks is proper treatment for one of the worst of the worst?

I don't dispute the assumption that the remaining detainees probably represent the harder cases. But we can't know until they're provided with meaningful process.

We very well may be holding significant numbers of people who have no reason to be held. And if the executive branch can start making exceptions regarding who can challenge the legitimacy of their detention, then it's hard to tell how far the exceptions will go. Not only does our failure to provide meaningful process make us look like hypocrites, but it endangers the rights of all of us. Not too long ago, the Bush administration was arguing that it could declare anyone an "enemy combatant" and essentially subject them to indefinite detention with no legal recourse--including citizens.

After far too long a delay, I think these people need to be provided process rights if only to ensure that such rights remain intact for ourselves. If we think our justice system is so superior to everyone else's, then we should have little to fear in its ability to sort out the properly detained from the innocent.

From "A Man For All Seasons":

William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!
Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
William Roper: Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!
Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!

Top
#50161 - 12/23/09 04:24 AM Re: Guantanamo transfer [Re: talus]
Mike Rawdon Offline

Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 11/29/99
Posts: 4276
Loc: Poughkeepsie
Originally Posted By: talus
Originally Posted By: mworking
I do believe that many of the prisoners held there should have been released long ago, and some should never have been there in the first place, but hopefully our government found a small percentage of prisoners who are actually worthy of being detained!


so you know all the prisoners personally and that they are innocent. you must be a secret agent.


They are all innocent.








Until proven guilty.


A minor detail that Cheney & Co. would surely like to ignore.

Top
#50162 - 12/23/09 05:38 AM Re: Guantanamo transfer [Re: Mike Rawdon]
mworking Offline
old hand

Registered: 05/26/04
Posts: 764
Originally Posted By: Mike Rawdon
Originally Posted By: talus
Originally Posted By: mworking
I do believe that many of the prisoners held there should have been released long ago, and some should never have been there in the first place, but hopefully our government found a small percentage of prisoners who are actually worthy of being detained!


so you know all the prisoners personally and that they are innocent. you must be a secret agent.


They are all innocent.

til proven guilty.


A minor detail that Cheney & Co. would surely like to ignore.



No, did ignore. By the way, your point is exactly why I am so vociferous about this.

Top
#50164 - 12/23/09 05:53 AM Re: Guantanamo transfer [Re: AOR]
mworking Offline
old hand

Registered: 05/26/04
Posts: 764
Originally Posted By: AOR
I have read material from Lawrence B. Wilkerson, "Chief of Staff to Secretary of State Colin Powell" and have much respect for his vast and storied career, both military and professional. And, if you've read Lawrence B. Wilkerson, "Chief of Staff to Secretary of State Colin Powell", you'll come to understand that he became very disillusioned with his prior political beliefs for various reasons he most vociferously espouses. He is most vocal about blaming Dick Cheney from everything from the disappearance of Amelia Earhart to the kidnapping of the Lindbergh baby.

In over eight years, more than half of the almost 800 Gitmo prisoners have already been released, with another appr. 200+ released this year. This leaves just over 200 prisoners left on site. In his writings, Wilkerson has stated that appr. 90% of the current Gitmo prisoners do not present a security risk to this country…that leave just a little over 20 prisoners that are "really" security risks to this country.

Personally, I find that to be a load of horsecrap.


The last minute of the program I referenced states that due to complaint that there were no high value prisoners at Guantanamo GW had 14 brought in from the CIA. So 20 is probably very realistic.

Perhaps youd "care to expound on your reasonings"

Top
#50169 - 12/23/09 05:30 PM Re: Guantanamo transfer [Re: AOR]
Steve Clemons Offline
stranger

Registered: 12/23/09
Posts: 2
Dear AOR - Hope you are having a good holiday. You assert that I have the most left wing site on the net, and that just isn't supported by the facts. I had Richard Perle of all people featured on my site yesterday along with Walter Mead, Stephen Krasner, and others. I am a progressive national security realist whose closest political anchor in the last Congress was Senator Chuck Hagel. I have helped revitalize "realism" as a key part of national security debates in Washington -- which to my knowledge is not a part of the far left political environment. Those who want to read my views, here is my latest:
http://the-american-interest.com/article.cfm?piece=731

Top
#50171 - 12/23/09 06:24 PM Re: Guantanamo transfer [Re: Steve Clemons]
talus Offline
veteran

Registered: 08/23/04
Posts: 1259
Steve is a Fake
_________________________
John Okner Photography

Top
#50176 - 12/24/09 12:47 PM Re: Guantanamo transfer [Re: talus]
Steve Clemons Offline
stranger

Registered: 12/23/09
Posts: 2
Nice photos Talus -- I am not a fake. I saw AOR's comment through Google alerts and decided to respond. My blog is www.TheWashingtonNote.com and encourage folks to take a browse and look at others in the blogosphere. AOR, who I am sure meant no real harm, cited my blog as the most left leaning in the business. It just isn't true. I'm a national security realist, not a pacifist -- used to work for Senator Bingaman in the Senate and was the first Executive Director of the Nixon Center in DC. I do have progressive views in some arenas -- but when my generally centrist credentials are challenged this way, I'll respond. So reasonable folks who want to be informed can check out the blog themselves.
Happy holidays to all of you. best, steve clemons

Top
#50179 - 12/24/09 02:56 PM Re: Guantanamo transfer [Re: Steve Clemons]
SethG Offline
old hand

Registered: 12/16/08
Posts: 709
Loc: NYC
I generally avoid political threads on non-political web forums, but I am amazed to see Steve Clemons here! I'm a big fan, Steve, keep up the good work.

Now I'd like to know if he climbs....
_________________________
It's true, I have a blog. http://climbandpunishment.blogspot.com/

Top
#50180 - 12/24/09 03:41 PM Re: Guantanamo transfer [Re: Steve Clemons]
AOR Offline
enthusiast

Registered: 08/27/04
Posts: 392
Hi Steve, welcome to gunks.com! While your blog and writings may not be "the" most left leaning in nature, they certainly do head that way. But, I'll certainly give you that your political interactions are somewhat centrist in nature. And, to be honest, I don't mind reading from centrist viewpoints, as long as they're not given while sitting on the fencepost. So, while I'm formulating a response to my climbing compadres from across the aisle on our other issues, I'll also keep an eye on your blogs now that it's been made a part of the fabric of gunks.com. However, I'd like to give you one piece of stern advice and a warning…whatever you do, do not allow yourself to become embroiled in ANY mountaineering debates and/or arguments. If you think disputes in Washington can cause battles, you have no idea what wars can start when squabbles arise over things from the world's rock and ice climbing arenas! (just joking).

Merry Christmas to you and yours…

AOR

Top
#50181 - 12/24/09 05:48 PM Re: Guantanamo transfer [Re: AOR]
oenophore Online   confused
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 09/24/01
Posts: 5968
Loc: 212 land
Hey guys, if you seek a more-left-than-thou website, check out Noam Chomsky's.
_________________________

Top
#50187 - 12/28/09 06:28 PM Re: Guantanamo transfer [Re: Steve Clemons]
talus Offline
veteran

Registered: 08/23/04
Posts: 1259
Thank you Steve! I'm still skeptical about who you say you are and no I'm not from Missouri but I believe in their motto. So can you take a photo of yourself holding up a gunks.com sign. if you're not comfortable posting it on here email the photo to me: johnoknerphotography@gmail.com
_________________________
John Okner Photography

Top
#50190 - 12/29/09 05:22 PM Re: Guantanamo transfer [Re: mworking]
alicex4 Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 07/05/00
Posts: 3400
What about this screw up, "Two al Qaeda Leaders Behind Northwest Flight 253 Terror Plot Were Released by U.S."


http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/northwest-flight-253-al-qaeda-leaders-terror-plot/story?id=9434065


I guess these 2 shouldn't have gotten out of Gitmo.

Top
#50191 - 12/29/09 05:56 PM Re: Guantanamo transfer [Re: alicex4]
mworking Offline
old hand

Registered: 05/26/04
Posts: 764
They should have had a fair and public trial, and we should have acted upom the outcome regardless of who they were. Nothing is perfect though. This case is might just be evidnence that even without trials some people that should not be freed will be.

Top
#50192 - 12/29/09 06:22 PM Re: Guantanamo transfer [Re: mworking]
alicex4 Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 07/05/00
Posts: 3400
Do you advocate a trial for the latest knicker bomber or would you execute him for terror crimes? I don't advocate a trial for a non-citizen terrorist who had 253 witnesses to his crime.

Top
#50198 - 12/30/09 03:12 PM Re: Guantanamo transfer [Re: alicex4]
Daniel Online   content
veteran

Registered: 05/23/01
Posts: 1515
Originally Posted By: alicex4
I don't advocate a trial for a non-citizen terrorist who had 253 witnesses to his crime.


If there are 253 witnesses, then why on earth would it be so hard to convict the guy? What is there possibly to fear? If we have what is supposedly the best system for sorting the guilty from the not guilty, why the sudden lack of confidence when it comes to those who want to do us harm, especially when the evidence seems to be overwhelming?

Everyone gets a trial. Everyone gets a lawyer. Unless we want to go the Alice In Wonderland rules: "'No, no!' said the Queen. 'Sentence first--verdict afterwards.'" Our adherence to the rule of law is supposedly what makes us different from "them" and what makes this country worth defending in the first place.

As for "execute," I'm against executing anyone, but that's another topic. I'm certainly against executing anyone before a trial. Talk about being "judge, jury, and executioner..."

Top
#50199 - 12/30/09 05:21 PM Re: Guantanamo transfer [Re: Daniel]
alicex4 Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 07/05/00
Posts: 3400
Well, execution was good enough for Tim McVeigh, it should be good enough for this dolt too. Not everyone gets a trial, ask Randy Weaver, David Koresh, and the MOVE members killed by the Philadelphia Police incendiary device how that worked out.

One should take away from this that individual citizens performed better than various and sundry government agencies/organizations to prevent this disaster. Why are we screening "everyone" when there really seems to be a "profile" to these attacks? Blindly allowing PC pressure to spread out the security on everyone instead of concentrating the security and screening on the smaller pool of suspects seems irrational.


Edited by alicex4 (12/30/09 05:23 PM)

Top
#50200 - 12/30/09 05:45 PM Re: Guantanamo transfer [Re: alicex4]
mworking Offline
old hand

Registered: 05/26/04
Posts: 764
Your changing the subject.

Adding to Daniels reply, didn't the government (GW himself) tell us Guantanamo prisoners were the worst of the worst just like your description "the latest knicker bomber…a non-citizen terrorist who had 253 witnesses to his crime"? One important part of the trial is that it should be public. Wouldn't we have freed those who should never have been taken prisoner in the first place is the truth had been made public. "God" I hope so!

I as far as I can tell, we held some prisoners simply to save GW the embarrassment of admitting a mistake! Again - yes trials for those prisoners would have helped!

Top
#50201 - 12/30/09 06:37 PM Re: Guantanamo transfer [Re: mworking]
alicex4 Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 07/05/00
Posts: 3400
"as far as I can tell, we held some prisoners simply to save GW the embarrassment of admitting a mistake! Again - yes trials for those prisoners would have helped!"

Please provide accurate documentation for your statement, otherwise it is just your fantasy that GW's embarrassment prevented the release of detainees.

According to the Pentagon's own report, 1 in 7 released detainees returned to terror.
Abu Sufyan al-Azdi al-Shihri. He was repatriated to Saudi Arabia in late 2007 and later emerged as a leadership figure with Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. He was reported killed in a recent attack on Al Qaeda strongholds in Yemen, claims that have been disputed by family members.

Mazin Salih Musaid al-Alawi al-Awfi. He too was repatriated to Saudi Arabia in 2007 and then emerged as a leadership figure with Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula before turning himself in to Yemeni authorities in February.

Abdullah Saleh Ali al-Ajmi. He was returned to Kuwait in 2005 and in April 2008 conducted a suicide bombing in Mosul, Iraq, which killed many Iraqi citizens.

Ibrahim bin Shakaran and Mohammed Bin Ahmad Mizouz. These two Moroccans were returned to their home country in 2004, only to be convicted in 2007 for involvement in trying to recruit fellow Moroccans for Al Qaeda in Iraq.

Ibrahim Shafir Sen. He was returned to his home country of Turkey in 2003, and was arrested in the Turkish city of Van in early 2008. He was indicted for being a leader of Al Qaeda cells in Van.

Ravil Shafeyavich Gumarov and Timur Ravilich Ishmurat. These two Russian were returned to their home country in 2004 and were arrested the next year by Russian authorities for involvement in a gas line bombing. They were both convicted in 2006.

Said Mohammed Alim Shah. He was repatriated to his home country of Afghanistan in 2004 and was said to have directed a suicide attack in 2007 that killed 31. He also kidnapped two Chinese engineers in 2004 and claimed responsibility for a hotel bombing in Islamabad. He blew himself up in 2007 to avoid capture.

Mohammed Ismail. He was returned to his home country of Afghanistan in 2004 and was recaptured months later for involvement in an attack on U.S. forces near Kandahar.

Yousef Muhammed Yaaqoub. He was repatriated to Afghanistan in 2003 and quickly joined back with the Taliban as a commander. He reportedly aided a jailbreak in Kandahar and was killed in 2004.

Abdullah Majid al-Naimi. He was repatriated to his home country of Bahrain in 2005 and arrested in 2008. He is known to have associated with Al Qaeda.

Majid Abdullah Lahiq al Joudi. He was returned to his home country of Saudi Arabia in 2007 and is said to have since aided terrorists.

Zahir Shah. He was repatriated to Afghanistan in 2007 and has participated in terrorist training since.

Shah Mohammed. He was returned to Pakistan in 2003 and was later killed fighting U.S. forces in Afghanistan.



Suspected Cases

Ruslan Anatolivich Odijev. He was repatriated to Russia in 2004. Russian authorities said he was involved in several terrorist attacks including one in 2005 that killed police officers in the Caucasus region. He was killed in battle in 2007.

Sabi Jahn Abdul Ghafour. He was returned to his home country of Afghanistan in 2003 and reportedly became a regional commander for the Taliban. He was killed during fighting with Afghan forces in 2004.

Mohammed Nayim Farouq. He was repatriated to Afghanistan in 2003, and renewed contact with the Taliban and Al Qaeda.

Abdullah Kafkas. He was returned to Russia in 2004. He is suspected of being involved in an attack on a police checkpoint in 2005.

Almasm Rabilavich Sharipov. He was returned to Russia in 2004 and has since associated with the terrorist group Hezb-e-Tahrir.

Abdullah Ghofoor. He was repatriated to Afghanistan in 2004 and became a suspected Taliban commander. After planning attacks on U.S. and Afghan forces, he was killed in a raid.

Saad Madhi Saad Hawash al Azmi. He was returned to Kuwait in 2005 and is suspected of associating with Al Qaeda.

Isa Khan. He was returned to Pakistan in 2004 and later associated with a group called Tehrik-i-Taliban.

Muhibullah. He was repatriated to Afghanistan in 2005 and later associated with the Taliban.

Humud Dakhil Humud Said al-Jadan. He was returned to Saudi Arabia in 2007 and is thought to have associated with known terrorists.

Abd al Razzaq Abdallah Ibrahim al-Sharikh. He was returned to Saudi Arabia in 2007 and was arrested a year later for supporting terrorism.

Abdullah Gulam Rasoul. He was repatriated to Afghanistan in 2007 and is thought to have become a Taliban commander who organized an attack on U.S. aircraft.

Haji Sahib Rohullah Wakil. He was returned to Afghanistan in 2008 and has since associated with terrorist groups.

Top
#50204 - 12/30/09 09:59 PM Re: Guantanamo transfer [Re: alicex4]
mworking Offline
old hand

Registered: 05/26/04
Posts: 764
I already have and your cases arent as good as mine.
At least my references were referenced!

Either of us can make up names - all 253 of those eye witnesses if we wish!

Anyway it seems to me you are proving that there should have been trials to prevent prisoners from being released too, as well as to release those who were innocent!!!

Top
#50206 - 12/31/09 05:09 AM Re: Guantanamo transfer [Re: alicex4]
Daniel Online   content
veteran

Registered: 05/23/01
Posts: 1515
Originally Posted By: alicex4
Well, execution was good enough for Tim McVeigh, it should be good enough for this dolt too.


McVeigh got a trial. I don't like capital punishment, but I can't argue that he didn't receive full legal process. Fair process and verdict before sentencing, unless one would like sentencing-first to apply to ourselves.

Originally Posted By: alicex4
Not everyone gets a trial, ask Randy Weaver, David Koresh, and the MOVE members killed by the Philadelphia Police incendiary device how that worked out.


And those incidents were investigated and the government was tried. The Waco Davidians sued and lost. Randy Weaver got a trial and was acquitted on all major counts, sued the government, and won a settlement. Members and relatives of MOVE also won cases against the government. So it's hard to point to these cases where a government may have acted wrongly and then say it's OK to act wrongly again because they did so before.

Even if the government acted wrongly, it's also the case that none of those people were in custody; the government argued, rightly or wrongly, that they were dealing with dangerous and armed suspects. There's not even that excuse in the Christmas bombing case, since the suspect is obviously well within government control. And if one wants to cite more relevant precedent, the shoe bomber was given a trial, as was the "20th hijacker."

Again, what is the danger or harm in having a trial in this case? What is the problem in living up to what we hold out as the best way of achieving justice?

I have to say that I'm tired of the "they did it too" defense, or "they said/did just the opposite so they're hypocrites" argument, whether it comes from the left or the right (and I'm hearing it a lot from the left too these days). Just because someone is a hypocrite doesn't help determine which of the two hypocritical positions is the correct one. Hypocrisy may damage credibility, but pointing it out does nothing to address the merits of the issue.

Top
#50207 - 12/31/09 05:42 AM Re: Guantanamo transfer [Re: alicex4]
Daniel Online   content
veteran

Registered: 05/23/01
Posts: 1515
Originally Posted By: alicex4
According to the Pentagon's own report, 1 in 7 released detainees returned to terror....


What the report failed to consider is whether these people "returned" to terrorism. Many of them may not have been terrorists, but being held for years without legal recourse may have turned them into terrorists. The New York Times even issued a correction stating that according to the Pentagon report, the number should have been 1 in 20, not the 1 in 7 it originally reported (which apparently came from a Cheney speech). For more on the topic, see here and here.

So even if some people did "return" to terrorism, some people who were innocent may have been turned to terrorism by their indefinite detention at Guantanamo. That's the argument that Guantanamo and its absence of process has hurt more than it has helped by creating more net terrorists--and that's not counting the family, friends, and associates of the wrongly imprisoned. That's the danger of incarcerating people without giving them any real chance to challenge the justification of their confinement.

Finally, if one still supports incarcerating people without process, what's the implication? That we can hold hundreds of people without any legal process as long as there are a couple of dangerous ones in the mix? Thousands? How many people are we allowed to wrongly detain if one of them may be dangerous? And remember that the Bush administration said it could hold anyone declared an "enemy combatant," including US citizens, under the president's commander-in-chief authority; indeed, it's hard to see why such power would be restricted to foreigners.

I'm not going to ignore the risk that any system might allow dangerous people to go free. But I'm not going to ignore the fact that a lack of a system results in innocent people being deprived of their liberty. As I recall, Jefferson, Adams, Washington, Franklin, Madison, and the others could have lived very securely under the British, but they thought liberty was more important than their own security. And without rule of law, there is no liberty. Sometimes we have to put a little something on the line for principles we believe in. Otherwise, they're not principles, they're hobbies.

But aside from principles, there's always the self-intrest argument. Reprised from one of my earlier posts, from "A Man For All Seasons":

William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!
Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
William Roper: Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!
Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!


Edited by Daniel (12/31/09 03:13 PM)
Edit Reason: fixed link

Top
#50208 - 12/31/09 07:28 AM Re: Guantanamo transfer [Re: Daniel]
mworking Offline
old hand

Registered: 05/26/04
Posts: 764
At first I found it ironic that (in general) the people here on the right, those who think they want smaller government because government doesnt do anything well are the one who want to trust government to make specific decisions about others lives, while those on the left who don't mind bigger government so much are the ones who don't want to trust the government in this case.

More thought leads me to consider that in this case larger government correlates with a larger "judicial" decision making group while smaller government correlates with smaller "judicial" decision making group.


Edited by mworking (12/31/09 04:38 PM)

Top
#50209 - 12/31/09 11:30 AM Re: Guantanamo transfer [Re: Daniel]
oenophore Online   confused
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 09/24/01
Posts: 5968
Loc: 212 land
Although the latest incarnation of this thread firmly pushes a button of mine as it were, Daniel argues my case better than I can and I don't have to pay him a cent.
_________________________

Top
#50210 - 12/31/09 01:54 PM Re: Guantanamo transfer [Re: oenophore]
alicex4 Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 07/05/00
Posts: 3400
Daniel always has his ducks in a row so to speak and makes salient points in his dialogue. I like reading his responses too.

Top
#50212 - 12/31/09 11:23 PM Re: Guantanamo transfer [Re: alicex4]
Daniel Online   content
veteran

Registered: 05/23/01
Posts: 1515
Thanks for the kind words, folks. Always a pleasure to engage in discussion with you.

And a happy new year to all!

Top
#50213 - 01/02/10 05:49 AM Re: Guantanamo transfer [Re: alicex4]
MarcC Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 07/10/00
Posts: 3532
Originally Posted By: alicex4
Why are we screening "everyone" when there really seems to be a "profile" to these attacks? Blindly allowing PC pressure to spread out the security on everyone instead of concentrating the security and screening on the smaller pool of suspects seems irrational.

Only the ignorant who steadfastly deny that profiling doesn't work and is a waste of resources continue to promote the idea. Hence some of the loudest voices coming from Fux News.

Quote:
"I'm going to argue that this case illustrates the danger and the foolishness of profiling because people's conception of what a potential terrorist looks like often doesn't match reality. In this case we had a Nigerian, for example, not a person from the Middle East or from South Asia. If you look at the airline plot of 2006, two of the plotters were a married couple that were going to get on a plane with a young baby. The terrorists understand that the more they vary the kind of operative they use, the more likely they're going to be able to exploit prejudices if we allow those prejudices to guide the way we conduct our investigation.

I think it's not only problematic from civil rights' standpoint, but frankly,I think it winds up not being terribly effective."
- former Bush Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff on an NPR interview this week.
_________________________
- Marc

Top
#50214 - 01/02/10 11:50 AM Back to the original subject, more or less [Re: MarcC]
oenophore Online   confused
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 09/24/01
Posts: 5968
Loc: 212 land
Once a mind-reading machine is perfected and universally used, we shall have adequate security.

And now that I'm on the subject of such technology, we might get back to the original thread subject (The Candidates -- remember?) of political candidates. Let's throw in incumbents and well-known captains of industry as well. Vocal lie detectors have been around for quite some time. Anyone can buy such software. So why don't counterculture TV and radio stations employ such during a candidate's or incumbent's speech or news conference? Yeah, you might say of someone you dislike, as long as his lips are moving you know he's lying, but wouldn't you like to have some objective evidence? I couldn't be the only one who's thought of this.
_________________________

Top
#50220 - 01/04/10 01:00 PM Re: Guantanamo transfer [Re: MarcC]
alicex4 Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 07/05/00
Posts: 3400
Yeah, profiling doesn't work according to Chertoff. But the Nigerian had a one way ticket (red flag), purchased with cash (red flag), no checked luggage (red flag), and took a window seat (red flag), and one of his legs was through Yemen (red flag). I guess profiling on the basis of these flags would have been positive IMO.

I thought that was one of the reccommendations of the vaunted 9-11 Commission, red flagging these types of travelers.

Top
#50225 - 01/04/10 09:49 PM Re: Guantanamo transfer [Re: alicex4]
oenophore Online   confused
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 09/24/01
Posts: 5968
Loc: 212 land
So now the subject of this thread has drifted to commercial air safety, mainly deterrence of passengers who might harm a plane in flight.
I haven't travelled by air since Jan. 1998, not because I couldn't afford to or didn't care to go to places with an airport. This excerpt from one of the late great George Carlin's rants sums up my feelings on that subject.

As far as I'm concerned, all this airport security, all the searches, the screenings, the cameras, the questions; it's just one more way of reducing your liberty and reminding you that they can fuck with you anytime they want as long as you put up with it.
_________________________

Top
#50226 - 01/04/10 10:46 PM Re: Guantanamo transfer [Re: oenophore]
yorick Offline
old hand

Registered: 11/15/02
Posts: 1041
Loc: hamlet\'s hand
Originally Posted By: oenophore
This excerpt from one of the late great George Carlin's rants sums up my feelings on that subject.

As far as I'm concerned, all this airport security, all the searches, the screenings, the cameras, the questions; it's just one more way of reducing your liberty and reminding you that they can fuck with you anytime they want as long as you put up with it.


And Dr. Carlin's rant was issued pre 9.11.
_________________________
Shongum ain\'t Indian,
it\'s Shawank-unk.

Top
#50228 - 01/05/10 05:50 AM Re: Guantanamo transfer [Re: alicex4]
Daniel Online   content
veteran

Registered: 05/23/01
Posts: 1515
Originally Posted By: alicex4
Yeah, profiling doesn't work according to Chertoff. But the Nigerian had a one way ticket (red flag), purchased with cash (red flag), no checked luggage (red flag), and took a window seat (red flag), and one of his legs was through Yemen (red flag). I guess profiling on the basis of these flags would have been positive IMO.


I was kind of almost ready to forgive the administration--after all, no system will keep us perfectly safe--but Jon Stewart on tonight's Daily Show made the point that the shoe bomber also had a one-way ticket, paid with cash, no checked luggage, and flew from a European capital, also with explosives. Stewart said that we don't expect security to catch everything, but we do expect them to catch the exact same thing.

He also said it was the same plot with the explosive moved up the length of an inseam.

Top
#50229 - 01/05/10 05:52 AM Re: Guantanamo transfer [Re: yorick]
mworking Offline
old hand

Registered: 05/26/04
Posts: 764
I don't think Dr. Carlin would have changed his statement one bit because of 911. 911 did not make us more or less safe. It simply scared a bunch of folk who thought they were safe into thinking they were going to make themsevles safe.

I'm not happy about the loss of lfe 911 caused, but I don't think that alone is even a slightly good reasoon to give up our freedom. Heck more lives have been given in Iraq since then - lives that our government intentionally sent into harms way. It's very simple, if our country valued those lives so much they would not have been lost - not to mention the 100's of thousands of Iraqis lives.


Edited by mworking (01/05/10 12:46 PM)

Top
#50230 - 01/05/10 10:52 AM Re: Guantanamo transfer [Re: Daniel]
oenophore Online   confused
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 09/24/01
Posts: 5968
Loc: 212 land

Top
#50231 - 01/05/10 01:10 PM Re: Guantanamo transfer [Re: oenophore]
mworking Offline
old hand

Registered: 05/26/04
Posts: 764
Thank OE, that was timely.

Yes let profile. Anyone who want to fly can't. Yeah, that will do it.

I'll try to append some text from today news if it get posted in time. It's not available yet.

Top
#50232 - 01/05/10 01:34 PM Re: Guantanamo transfer [Re: Daniel]
alicex4 Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 07/05/00
Posts: 3400
While I agree airport security is relative, and no amount of security is completely foolproof, it seems that if you have to give up personal liberty for collective security we should model El Al's procedures. I can't think of the last time something happened internally on one of their flights. Giving up liberty for a POS system is just dopey.

Top
#50233 - 01/05/10 03:20 PM Re: Guantanamo transfer [Re: alicex4]
mummert Offline
journeyman

Registered: 11/16/99
Posts: 96
Loc: Danbury, CT, USA
Quote:
Giving up liberty for a POS system is just dopey.


Now we're just arguing price?

Top
#50249 - 01/09/10 12:41 PM Re: Guantanamo transfer [Re: mworking]
oenophore Online   confused
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 09/24/01
Posts: 5968
Loc: 212 land

Top
#50250 - 01/09/10 02:12 PM Re: Guantanamo transfer [Re: oenophore]
alicex4 Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 07/05/00
Posts: 3400
Bravo!

Top
#50408 - 01/28/10 06:01 PM Re: Guantanamo transfer [Re: alicex4]
mworking Offline
old hand

Registered: 05/26/04
Posts: 764
Just a bit more of the iceberg uncovered:

New Eyewitness Account Suggests Cover Up At Guantanamo Bay Prison

A former Guantanamo Bay sergeant is speaking out about events he witnessed the night of June 9, 2006, when three prisoners died suddenly. The military has labeled the deaths suicides, but new eyewitness accounts point to 3 possible homicides and a cover-up by the Bush White House that continued under the Obama administration. We speak with Scott Horton, who broke the story for Harper's Magazine.

Top
#50415 - 01/29/10 11:00 AM Re: Guantanamo transfer [Re: mworking]
oenophore Online   confused
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 09/24/01
Posts: 5968
Loc: 212 land

Top
#52789 - 06/18/10 10:37 AM Re: The Candidates [Re: Smike]
oenophore Online   confused
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 09/24/01
Posts: 5968
Loc: 212 land
War in Afghanistan


Top
#57097 - 04/09/11 08:47 PM Re: The Candidates - 2012 [Re: empicard]
oenophore Online   confused
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 09/24/01
Posts: 5968
Loc: 212 land

Top
#57715 - 05/30/11 03:26 PM Re: The Candidates [Re: empicard]
oenophore Online   confused
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 09/24/01
Posts: 5968
Loc: 212 land

Top
#58128 - 06/22/11 09:55 AM Re: The Candidates [Re: oenophore]
oenophore Online   confused
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 09/24/01
Posts: 5968
Loc: 212 land

Top
#60010 - 09/06/11 10:08 PM The Candidates -- 2012 [Re: oenophore]
oenophore Online   confused
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 09/24/01
Posts: 5968
Loc: 212 land


For more stuff like this, mouseclick here.

Top
#64954 - 05/21/12 08:45 PM Re: The Candidates [Re: empicard]
oenophore Online   confused
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 09/24/01
Posts: 5968
Loc: 212 land
Originally Posted By: empicard
I can't get excited about either one.
What to do?
Is it too early to resurrect this thread? Is anyone excited about Rombama or Obamney?
_________________________

Top
#65777 - 06/30/12 11:24 AM Re: The Candidates [Re: empicard]
oenophore Online   confused
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 09/24/01
Posts: 5968
Loc: 212 land
I can't get excited about either one.

How about this?
_________________________

Top
#65780 - 06/30/12 10:14 PM Re: The Candidates [Re: oenophore]
Mark Heyman Offline
old hand

Registered: 12/23/99
Posts: 1123
Loc: South Jersey (Pinelands)
Fun stuff up there !

Excited no, Obama lost the excitement he might have enjoyed if things had been very very different. I dont feel the he pushed strongly for many things I believe he feels strongly about, and I dont feel that he used the bully pulpit as I thought he might. That would have been exciting - for everyone! The interesting thing is that Im not sure he has not gotten more accomplished picking his battles very wisely as he has done and only occasionally only using his voice and authority when it will actually make a difference.

Do I think hes made mistakes or done things I wish he hadnt? Sure. So hes not perfect. I dont know anyone who is.

You want to start with taxes? I live very comfortably, and I am very very grateful for it even though I work quite hard. I dont mind paying my share of taxes, and Ill happily pay more if it will solve problems. I dont like to see funds wasted, but I dont feel waste means begrudging others a good job.

I believe that there are many ungreatful people idiots in the world and many ungreatful people too. Contradictory beliefs irk me. No surprise there!



Edited by Mark Heyman (06/30/12 10:50 PM)

Top
#65781 - 07/01/12 12:41 PM Re: The Candidates [Re: Mark Heyman]
Mark Heyman Offline
old hand

Registered: 12/23/99
Posts: 1123
Loc: South Jersey (Pinelands)
I should have written my wife and I both work very hard.

Top
#66686 - 10/04/12 09:56 AM Laugh about it, shout about it ... [Re: empicard]
oenophore Online   confused
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 09/24/01
Posts: 5968
Loc: 212 land
Going to the candidates' debate
Laugh about it, shout about it when you've got to choose
Every way you look at it you lose




Top
Page 1 of 19 1 2 3 ... 18 19 >


Moderator:  webmaster 
Sponsored