Shout Box

Who's Online
0 registered (), 7 Guests and 3 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Page 11 of 19 < 1 2 ... 9 10 11 12 13 ... 18 19 >
Topic Options
#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 Offline
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 Offline
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 Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 09/24/01
Posts: 5963
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 Offline
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 Offline
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
Page 11 of 19 < 1 2 ... 9 10 11 12 13 ... 18 19 >


Moderator:  webmaster 
Sponsored