The random political thoughts thread (Part Deux) [Archive] - Page 12

Strangler Lewis

11-30-2007, 10:18 AM

And Alex I respect your opinion.

No, no, no. It's your turn to say why what Huckabee said about evolution is not a fatal black mark either because 1) what he said was a good thing; 2) it doesn't matter what the president believes about evolution; 3) he was simply pandering and doesn't believe it any more than Reagan and Bush Sr. believed what they said about abortion; or 4) some other reason.

And . . . there's the bell.

Moonliner

11-30-2007, 10:34 AM

Huckabee defends his position quite articulatly in this clip (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mri8Ex5RmDw&feature=related)

All he was saying was that if you believe in evolution then you are godless.

I'm glad we cleared that one up.

Alex

11-30-2007, 12:28 PM

Yeah, I had seen that clip. It is quite nonsensical.

Gemini Cricket

11-30-2007, 12:38 PM

Someone who says they have a bomb is taking hostages at a Clinton campaign office.
New Hampshire.
Yikes.

Alex

11-30-2007, 12:46 PM

I should say it is nonsensical in relation to the question he was asked.

Morrigoon

11-30-2007, 01:03 PM

I got to see several minutes of Giuliani speaking last night on C-Span (http://inside.c-spanarchives.org:8080/cspan/cspan.csp?command=dprogram&record=559304250). Granted, I was already somewhat pulling for him, but I was VERY encouraged by what he had to say, and at this point I'd say I probably WILL give him my vote. He seems to "get it". Very articulate, very good at demonstrating that he understands the grey areas of issues.

For example, one reporter, hoping to trap him in an inconsistency asked him about his stance on illegal immigration, asked him if he thought his statement that we need to stop illegal immigration was inconsistent with his policies as mayor of NYC when he supported giving access to education and medical care to illegals. Rather than try to backpedal his way out, he took it head on and said no, he didn't think it was inconsistent at all, because as mayor of NYC he had a job to do - protect the best interests of the city. He talked a bit about how he reduced crime by 70% (blah blah blah) and then said, you have hundreds of thousands of illegals in the city, and they have kids. What are you going to do, leave them home? No, sending them to school keeps them out of trouble and decreases the chance that they'll turn to crime in the future as well. And with medical care, what is the alternative - turn them away at the hospital door to die in the streets or infect a citizen? Excellent points. He really defended his position well. In other words: dude's got brains.

GC: omg... I thought you were joking about the hostage thing (http://www.thebostonchannel.com/news/14737959/detail.html):eek:

Ghoulish Delight

12-10-2007, 09:43 AM

Forwarded to me by my mother:

There will be no Nativity Scene in the United States Congress this year!

The Supreme Court has ruled that there cannot be a Nativity Scene in the United States capitol building this Christmas season.

This isn't for any religious reason; they simply have not been able to find three wise men and a virgin in the Nation's capital.

There was no problem, however, finding enough asses to fill the stable.

JWBear

12-10-2007, 10:25 AM

That was pretty good, actually. :snap:

Gn2Dlnd

12-10-2007, 02:05 PM

No shortage of Marys, however.

scaeagles

12-14-2007, 06:36 AM

I find this whole Obama drug thing very interesting. I honestly do not know why the Hillary campaign is taking heat for this. Seriously. I can recall the whole GW Bush DUI thing released immediately before the election and that was fine.

I'm no fan of either, obviously....but isn't all fair in politics? Why shouldn't illegal drug usage (regardless of whether one feels drug usage should be illegal) be an issue? And if it isn't a big deal, why is the Obama campaign raising such a stink about it being discussed?

"It's a deliberate attempt to sabotage the campaign" are the the quotes I read from Obama staffers. Well, duh! It's freakin' primary time! Get over it and quit your whining.

Alex

12-14-2007, 07:16 AM

Just like making a big stink about something your opponent did that you actually don't care about is part of the game, being all offended that your opponent is doing so, even though you probably expected it, is as well.

Of course, it is amusing because Hillary Clinton was part of one of the all time stupid drug dodges in political history with "I didn't inhale." (Since she is claiming the entirety of Bill Clinton's administration as personal experience I see no reason not to give her credit for the Bill Clinton stupidities as well.)

Alex

01-03-2008, 12:02 PM

I can't say I know a damned thing about Mike Gravel, but I'm guessing he won't be elected president being all honest and stuff.

On teaching creationism in schools (http://www.livescience.com/blogs/2008/01/03/primararia-candidates-and-hot-button-science/):

As for creationism in the schools, Gravel says: “Oh God, no. Oh, Jesus. We thought we had made a big advance with the Scopes monkey trial … My God, evolution is a fact, and if these people are disturbed by being the descendants of monkeys and fishes, they’ve got a mental problem. We can’t afford the psychiatric bill for them. That ends the story as far as I’m concerned.”

JWBear

01-03-2008, 02:15 PM

I wish people would stop with the "descended from monkeys" crap! Humans and monkeys have a common ancestor. It's like saying I'm a descendant of my cousin! <grumble, grumble, grumble>

Scrooge McSam

01-03-2008, 02:22 PM

innerSpaceman

01-03-2008, 04:04 PM

I didn't get a 'harumph' out of you!

Alex

01-03-2008, 04:36 PM

"Descended from monkeys" is an imprecision that doesn't generally bother me too much since while it is wrong scientifically, in common usage "monkey" is just a catchall word for primates and our common ancestor was certainly some time of primate (and technically, far enough back probably much more monkey-like than ape-like).

Ghoulish Delight

01-03-2008, 05:43 PM

Speaking of evolution vs. creationism...

Updated text on evolution released (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22493477).

Some comments from the other side that are just too easy to poke at...

"One of the greatest scientific evidences that we have is in the holy Bible,"

Great understanding of what science is there, bub.

"It's a detriment (because) if there is no creationism, no God, then children have no responsibility," Drake said. "That's why they go to school and shoot people. Because they've been told there's no accountability."

Are you effing kidding me. "That's why they go to school and shoot people"?! Yeesh, this guy is charged with giving people advice on how to live?

Alex

01-03-2008, 07:16 PM

Have I never mentioned mentioned all of the schools I've shot up?

Ghoulish Delight

01-03-2008, 10:47 PM

With apologies to Tom

Did you ever see Obama win Iowa? Oh the drama! 'Bama drama tastes of llama. Llama, Obama won!

In case y'all missed the news. I is happy.

Oh, and Huckabee won too, but he doesn't rhyme with llama.

Alex

01-03-2008, 10:59 PM

I'm happy about one result. Not so much with the other. Of course, other than the fact that everybody has gathered and decided today is important, I don't really think it is important.

Biggest surprise to me (probably because I haven't really been paying attention to polls) was Thompson's third place.

Gemini Cricket

01-03-2008, 11:12 PM

I didn't get a 'harumph' out of you!
Harumph!

sleepyjeff

01-03-2008, 11:30 PM

For those who are counting Hillary out already I offer this chilling reality: The last time a Clinton finished 3rd in Iowa he went on to become POTUS:eek:

Strangler Lewis

01-04-2008, 08:01 AM

With apologies to Tom

Oh, and Huckabee won too, but he doesn't rhyme with llama.

I think there is great "modern major general" rhyming potential for "Huckabee".

Ghoulish Delight

01-04-2008, 08:53 AM

For those who are counting Hillary out already I offer this chilling reality: The last time a Clinton finished 3rd in Iowa he went on to become POTUS:eek:
True, however Mr. Bill was in the cellar before Iowa, 3rd was a bit of a coup for him. Whereas for Hills, this is a major slip.

BarTopDancer

01-04-2008, 09:19 AM

Very interesting. One thing is clear - the people of IA want change - someone outside the greenbelt (to quote someone on Today). Let's see if the rest of the country follows suit.

I don't know enough about Huckabee to know if I'll be upset if he wins the general. I am so happy Obama won!

I'm still not sure why IA and NH have such a big impact on the results - but I am super happy that our Primary has been pushed up so CA can get an actual choice before people start dropping out.

scaeagles

01-04-2008, 09:28 AM

I think it will be interesting to see the Republican results in NH....Guiliani and Thompson really didn't campaign hard there. I think this hurts Romney a bit, but Romney should do well in the NH. I don't see Huckabee plaing above 4th in NH. I figure Guiliani, McCain, and Romeny will all beat him fairly soundly.

The dems....tough call. NH is typically independent minded, so I see them going for Obama as well. An Iowa and NH win would really, really hurt Hillary.

As much as I dislike Hillary, I'd rather have her than Obama. Hillary lies through her teeth and is going to play politics to keep her poll numbers up if elected. Obama doesn't seem to care and will do things that I think will hurt the country because he thinks they'll be the right thing to do.

blueerica

01-04-2008, 09:52 AM

Ghoulish Delight

01-04-2008, 09:57 AM

Hmm, since I get the vast majority of my news by reading, I haven't heard him in quite a while.

I still like what he's saying, even if I don't know how he's saying it.

sleepyjeff

01-04-2008, 11:14 AM

True, however Mr. Bill was in the cellar before Iowa, 3rd was a bit of a coup for him. Whereas for Hills, this is a major slip.

That, and no one campaigned on the Democrat side in Iowa that year due to the favorite son factor:D

Morrigoon

01-04-2008, 11:23 AM

I'm glad Obama won. I hate Hillary. Also, I have to admit being very impressed with the speech he gave last night. I know it's the usual political speechwriter stuff, but I admit to being somewhat swayed by how "presidential" he managed to appear last night. If we must have a democrat for president, I supposed I'd prefer him.

Very disappointed with Giuliani's failure to show. I'm not sure his campaign can really afford to focus on the large states at the expense of the small. Especially with the very first primary. He runs the risk of not being taken seriously by the media.

Moonliner

01-04-2008, 11:34 AM

Very disappointed with Giuliani's failure to show. I'm not sure his campaign can really afford to focus on the large states at the expense of the small. Especially with the very first primary. He runs the risk of not being taken seriously by the media.

Giuliani took a pass on both Iowa and NH. If South Carolina and Florida don't go his way then you can start to worry.

Morrigoon

01-04-2008, 11:43 AM

I know that's his strategy, but I think it will backfire. SC and FL don't exist in a bubble... those people are likely to be affected by his failure to show in the previous states.

BarTopDancer

01-04-2008, 11:50 AM

Obama doesn't seem to care and will do things that I think will hurt the country because he thinks they'll be the right thing to do.

Can you elaborate?

Because right now I'm thinking of Bush, Iraq v2.0, the housing market, oil prices, impending recession.... because he thought it was the right thing to do.

Strangler Lewis

01-04-2008, 12:19 PM

I am really not liking anyone this "political season," but I am happy that Obama won. I like how he used to talk, even if he's now moved to the stupid Jesse Jackson emphasizing-first-and-last-words style of speech. There's something about it that turns my stomach... not so much that his speeches come off that way, but that they didn't used to. Alas, doing stuff like that is what politics are all about.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who thought he sounded "blacker" last night. Much as I like him, and inflections aside, I thought it was a horrible, incoherent speech from an intelligent man.

scaeagles

01-04-2008, 12:26 PM

I'm not sure if I should go about defending Bush on these things or not....there is only one thing that is really attributable to Bush in your list

First of all, the surge is working. The mistake is that we didn't surge immediately upon invasion.

Secondly, Bush has nothing to do with the housing market. This was a private banking practice of sub prime loans that irresponsible people used to purchase a house and when the rates went up they couldn't pay.

Oil prices? How is that his fault? Is there something he should be doing to influence OPEC nations to increase production? Or for India and China to reduce their increasing demand? The best thing he could have done is blanketly opposed by dems - drill for domestic oil. But that's not his call either.

Impending recession? What should Bush do to influence the economy? How? Raise taxes? That never spurs economic growth.

Honestly, the only thing there that should be laid at the feet of Bush is Iraq. Disagreement on that point is valid, but on the other points, they are outside his scope of control, and they should be. The problem is that whenever there is a problem everyone expects the government to impose policies and pass laws to solve the problem, and more problems are created by the solution more often than not. It is not the job of the government to fix everything. It is the job of government to stay out of the way. Obama does not share this philosophy, and this is why I don't like him.

I don't currently like most Republicans for the same reason - it isn't just Obama.

BarTopDancer

01-04-2008, 12:35 PM

Can you elaborate?

Because right now I'm thinking of Bush, Iraq v2.0, the housing market, oil prices, impending recession.... because he thought it was the right thing to do.

I'm not sure if I should go about defending Bush on these things or not....there is only one thing that is really attributable to Bush in your list

I was really looking for an elaboration about things that you think Obama will do "because he thinks they are right" that you will take issue with. I don't want to get into a debate about Bush, because we both know we can beat that issue until it's dead and then beat it some more.

scaeagles

01-04-2008, 01:17 PM

Obama believes it is right to raise income taxes on "the rich". Problem is that income taxes are a tax on the accumulation of wealth.

Obama wants a universal health care program.

Obama will pull our troops out of Iraq.

I don't trust Obama on foregin policy at all, but can only base my opinion on what he has said about Iran earlier in the campaign. I fear similar mistakes will be made with Iran that Clinton made with North Korea - giving away tech for a false promise of no weapons built, and even beyond that damage, again similar to Clinton with helping the Chinese development missile technology.

sleepyjeff

01-04-2008, 01:51 PM

Very disappointed with Giuliani's failure to show. I'm not sure his campaign can really afford to focus on the large states at the expense of the small. Especially with the very first primary. He runs the risk of not being taken seriously by the media.

Actually, after seeing what happened to Hillary(who was advised by some of her former handlers to skip Iowa altogether), Rudy might be congratulating himself right about now.

Honestly, the only thing there that should be laid at the feet of Bush is Iraq. Disagreement on that point is valid, but on the other points, they are outside his scope of control, and they should be. The problem is that whenever there is a problem everyone expects the government to impose policies and pass laws to solve the problem, and more problems are created by the solution more often than not. It is not the job of the government to fix everything. It is the job of government to stay out of the way.

So in short, when it comes to Presidential elections one should not listen to promises regarding domestic issues since Presidents really don't have the ability to deliver....Universal Health Care, immigration reform, even tax cuts are really the domain of congress. We've had 19 years of Republican Presidents(to 12 of Dems) since Roe v Wade and no change there either. Where Presidents have immense power is foreign policy and therefore that is where we should be looking to when choosing a President.

Strip away all the flowery talk and Promises of domestic Nirvana from all of these candidates and one is left with only a couple of gentlemen who are really qualified to be President.....neither of which finished above 4th place last night.

innerSpaceman

01-04-2008, 02:16 PM

It is not the job of the government to fix everything. It is the job of government to stay out of the way.

I do not give the government one-third of everything I earn so they can "stay out of the way."

Morrigoon

01-04-2008, 02:17 PM

For the sake of argument, anyone who needs to see the Obama speech can view it here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cNZaq-YKCnE

Morrigoon

01-04-2008, 02:21 PM

Is it just me, or are all the "red" and "blue" politicians starting to wear ties that match their affiliation?

LSPoorEeyorick

01-04-2008, 03:05 PM

Obama believes it is right to raise income taxes on "the rich". Problem is that income taxes are a tax on the accumulation of wealth.

Obama wants a universal health care program.

Obama will pull our troops out of Iraq.

Thank you for the point-by-point list of some of the reasons I support Obama!

I may have missed it, but did anyone post that long political beliefs meme that's been sluicing around LiveJournal lately?

scaeagles

01-05-2008, 08:52 AM

I do not give the government one-third of everything I earn so they can "stay out of the way."

We shouldn't be giving the government one third of everything we earn.

innerSpaceman

01-05-2008, 09:03 AM

Yeah, that's all well and good .... perhaps "give" was not the right word.

I'm sure you're quite aware that they take it.

And maybe they shouldn't. I very much agree. But since they are, I rather prefer they do something with it to improve the situation of other Americans whose money they take, and not use it to our disadvantage or worse.

scaeagles

01-05-2008, 10:02 AM

Take it? Isn't the tax code voluntary? (hahahahahahaha)

This is why I am for tax cuts in any and every form (income taxes particularly), and I think they could be lowered IMMENSELY. Tax cuts historically raise tax revenues becuase of increased economic activity, but I don't really want the government to have more money. This means we could cut them a whole lot.

Ghoulish Delight

01-05-2008, 11:04 AM

Tax cuts historically raise tax revenues becuase of increased economic activity,Bought into that lie, have you?

sleepyjeff

01-05-2008, 11:39 AM

Bought into that lie, have you?

Whether it is the Demand-side cuts of JFK or the Supply-side cuts of RWR I think a case can be made that tax cuts do create more revenue.....at least in the short term. The last three Presidents to try it all had success(JFK, RWR, and yes, GWB)

As for me....I'd rather see the source of the problem addressed first......spending.

JWBear

01-05-2008, 11:40 AM

Bought into that lie, have you?

It is true if you cut taxes to the middle class and small businesses. But Republicans never seem to want to do that. They'd rather give tax breaks to big corporations and the very wealthy, which doesn't help at all.

sleepyjeff

01-05-2008, 11:42 AM

It is true if you cut taxes to the middle class and small businesses. But Republicans never seem to want to do that. They'd rather give tax breaks to big corporations and the very wealthy, which doesn't help at all.

But if they are the ones paying 80+ percent of the taxes it's gonna be kinda hard to cut taxes at all without cutting theirs wouldn't you agree?

JWBear

01-05-2008, 05:07 PM

Yes, but the problem is when they cut the taxes for the rich and the big corporations only.

Ghoulish Delight

01-05-2008, 05:51 PM

Whether it is the Demand-side cuts of JFK or the Supply-side cuts of RWR I think a case can be made that tax cuts do create more revenue.....at least in the short term.Pure correlation, no cause/effect relationship can be proven.

scaeagles

01-06-2008, 04:25 PM

I guess it all depends on how you define rich. My taxes have gone down, and I'm not rich at all.

Rather than copying the information, here's some good info (http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/bg2001.cfm), particularly about myth #10 - that the tax cuts benefit only the "rich". And they are certainly not the only ones who have gotten tax cuts, but again the problem is that the tax burden is so top heavy already tax cuts will naturally affect those that pay the greatest amount of taxes.

Again, I'm not rich, and my taxes have gone down.

The corporate tax is a myth. Raise corporate taxes, corporations raise prices, passing the so called corporate soaking taxes on to the consumer.

Easy solution? Eliminate the income tax and go to property and sales taxes only. But that takes too much power away from power hungry politicians that want to use the tax code as a source of power.

sleepyjeff

01-06-2008, 08:24 PM

Pure correlation, no cause/effect relationship can be proven.

Perhaps....but it has also been done on the State level too......Bill Richardson, the current 4th place contender for the Democratic nomination lowered taxes in his state and viola.....revenue increased.

Correlation? Maybe.....but can you find an equal number of recent correlations showing that lowering taxes produces less revenue?

btw: Is "proven" a word? My spell check didn't like it???

3894

01-07-2008, 09:22 AM

1. Ron Paul appeared to be missing some marbles during the NH Republican debate.

2. Some of the others - particularly Mitt Romney and John McCain - seemed to be smirking at Ron Paul's simplicity.

3. What combination of factors would lead a person to be as big a donkey's rear as Fred Thompson appears to be?

Moonliner

01-07-2008, 09:41 AM

Yes, but the problem is when they cut the taxes for the rich and the big corporations only.

Can you please define "rich" for me? In rural Arkansas most of the people here on LoT might be concidered "rich". In suburban DC where I live the housing prices, food prices and just cost of everything prices set the bar a hell of a lot higher.

So precisely how do you define that term? Do you take into account geographic disparity?

scaeagles

01-07-2008, 09:42 AM

I didn't watch the debate last night, but I don't find Thompson to be that way at all. But you probably aren't sickened by the very sound of Edward's voice like I am.

3894

01-07-2008, 09:48 AM

But you probably aren't sickened by the very sound of Edward's voice like I am.

Is it the accent or the words?

Morrigoon

01-07-2008, 10:13 AM

Count me in on the "please define rich" standpoint. After all, here in California, you need a 6-figure income just to buy a house. Are those people "rich"? Couldn't they use a tax cut too?

JWBear

01-07-2008, 10:29 AM

Can you please define "rich" for me? In rural Arkansas most of the people here on LoT might be concidered "rich". In suburban DC where I live the housing prices, food prices and just cost of everything prices set the bar a hell of a lot higher.

So precisely how do you define that term? Do you take into account geographic disparity?

Here. (http://money.cnn.com/2006/04/05/news/tax_cuts/index.htm)

scaeagles

01-07-2008, 10:35 AM

Is it the accent or the words?

The condesending tone he speaks with.

Strangler Lewis

01-07-2008, 10:36 AM

I didn't watch the debate last night, but I don't find Thompson to be that way at all. But you probably aren't sickened by the very sound of Edward's voice like I am.

I don't think either of them come off well. Call it regional bias, but I don't think Edwards has a very winning appearance. He looks and sounds like someone doing a bad impression of Dan Aykroyd's Jimmy Carter impersonation.

This is what Thompson's candidacy reminds me of (http://orangecow.org/pythonet/sketches/archeolo.htm) as it's all about appearance. I half keep expecting him to drop trou a la LBJ and demonstrate his qualifications to run the country.

scaeagles

01-07-2008, 10:37 AM

Here. (http://money.cnn.com/2006/04/05/news/tax_cuts/index.htm)

From your link -

Stephen Entin, president of the Institute for Research on the Economics of Taxation, a Washington organization, told the Times that the tax cuts did not go far enough because the more money the wealthiest had to invest, the more that would go to investments that produce jobs.

3894

01-07-2008, 10:43 AM

Call it regional bias, but I don't think Edwards has a very winning appearance.

Okay, it's regional bias.

Ghoulish Delight

01-07-2008, 10:47 AM

Correlation? Maybe.....but can you find an equal number of recent correlations showing that lowering taxes produces less revenue?
I can find you examples where lowering taxes lead to lower revenue, examples where raising taxes lead to lower revenue, examples where raising taxes lead to higher revenue, and examples where lowering taxes lead to higher revenue. What would be the point? There are but a small handful of examples, none of which are more than circumstantial correlations that were caused by such immense factors that 1) have shown no consistent pattern and 2) can't possibly be pinned to being affected solely by the act of changing taxation.

btw: Is "proven" a word? My spell check didn't like it???"Proved" is technically the correct form, though "proven" is an accepted alternative. I personally prefer "proven" and have added to my Firefox dictionary. Incidentally, "Firefox" is not in the Firefox dictionary.

sleepyjeff

01-07-2008, 12:13 PM

I can find you examples where lowering taxes lead to lower revenue, examples where raising taxes lead to lower revenue, examples where raising taxes lead to higher revenue, and examples where lowering taxes lead to higher revenue. What would be the point? There are but a small handful of examples, none of which are more than circumstantial correlations that were caused by such immense factors that 1) have shown no consistent pattern and 2) can't possibly be pinned to being affected solely by the act of changing taxation.

Fair enough.

"Proved" is technically the correct form, though "proven" is an accepted alternative. I personally prefer "proven" and have added to my Firefox dictionary. Incidentally, "Firefox" is not in the Firefox dictionary.

lol:)

Disneyphile

01-07-2008, 12:18 PM

I wish presidents could only serve a single 4-year term. I can't think of a single one who hasn't screwed up in their second term.

Everyone gets a little burned out in their jobs and sometimes start making mistakes - so do presidents. So, I think we should prevent it from happening as much as possible.

sleepyjeff

01-07-2008, 12:30 PM

I wish presidents could only serve a single 4-year term. I can't think of a single one who hasn't screwed up in their second term.

But what if the reason they screw up the second term is that they are not worrying about re-election and thus are not answerable to the voters anymore?

If that's the case allowing only single 4-year terms would have the exact opposite effect you are desiring.

Perhaps a better solution would be to allow Presidents to keep running as long as they like.

Scrooge McSam

01-07-2008, 12:34 PM

But what if the reason they screw up the second term is that they are not worrying about re-election and thus are not answerable to the voters anymore?

Impeachment, thought don't look to this bunch in DC for a lesson in how that's supposed to work.

JWBear

01-07-2008, 12:39 PM

From your link -

Not everyone agrees. (http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2005/12/the_myth_that_t.html)

The recent analysis by Mr. Page at the Congressional Budget Office dismisses the idea that tax cuts may actually improve the government's fiscal situation. Even in his most generous scenario, only 28 percent of lost tax revenue is recouped over a 10-year period.

wendybeth

01-07-2008, 12:40 PM

Why, Sleepyjeff- I do believe you and Chavez have more in common than you might think.;)

Alex

01-07-2008, 12:41 PM

That's where I am (though for no reasons connected to the burnout issue). I'm pretty much universally opposed to term limits at any level. Obviously, this one is built into the constitution and isn't such a high priority to me that I'd campaign to change it but if given the opportunity I would vote to repeal the 22nd Amendment.

I feel pretty much the same way about all other "protect the electorate from themselves" eligibility rules for office. So I'd get rid of the age limit and citizenship as well. And for lesser office, residency requirements would also go away.

If the people of Wyoming collectively decide they want their senator to be a 15-year-old who lives in Vermont then why not let them live with their choice?

If a 29-year-old Brazilian can win election to President of the United States, then why not?

If the majority of the people (for the most part) decide that after Bush II, another nine terms of Bill Clinton would be appropriate, then I'm ok with that.

JWBear

01-07-2008, 12:42 PM

Impeachment, thought don't look to this bunch in DC for a lesson in how that's supposed to work.

Which is why I'm as angry at the current Democrat led Congress for doing nothing to stop the madness, as I was at the previous Republican Congress for rubber stamping the madness.

sleepyjeff

01-07-2008, 01:19 PM

Why, Sleepyjeff- I do believe you and Chavez have more in common than you might think.;)

In this one narrow area I suppose.......but then again, I also believe the US should drop its' restrictions on sugar imports(now I have something in common with Castro)

;)

Ghoulish Delight

01-07-2008, 03:14 PM

Hah!

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/fandom.png

Morrigoon

01-07-2008, 03:28 PM

In this one narrow area I suppose.......but then again, I also believe the US should drop its' restrictions on sugar imports(now I have something in common with Castro)

;)

Actually we have that in common. I want to see them remove the tariffs on imported sugar and encourage soft drink and other food makers to move away from high fructose corn syrup in favor of the real thing.

Morrigoon

01-07-2008, 03:30 PM

Found this amusing. From this article (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22535976/page/2/),

Huckabee - and free pancakes - lured more than 400 people to tiny Mason, N.H., Monday morning to hear his populist economic message. The crowd had to be divided into two seatings to hear Huckabee and his campaign sidekick, actor Chuck Norris.

Wow, pancakes AND Chuck Norris. I don't know where to even begin, but there is at least one good joke there.

Bornieo: Fully Loaded

01-07-2008, 03:43 PM

I hear Gulliani is recruiting Jim Nabors...

BarTopDancer

01-07-2008, 03:52 PM

Actually we have that in common. I want to see them remove the tariffs on imported sugar and encourage soft drink and other food makers to move away from high fructose corn syrup in favor of the real thing.

I would love to see that too. I really don't care how it's done but it is getting harder and harder to find products that aren't full of HFCS (other than shopping at TJs, which I do on a regular basis).

Disneyphile

01-07-2008, 03:59 PM

But what if the reason they screw up the second term is that they are not worrying about re-election and thus are not answerable to the voters anymore?

If that's the case allowing only single 4-year terms would have the exact opposite effect you are desiring.

Perhaps a better solution would be to allow Presidents to keep running as long as they like.
I wouldn't mind that, as long as there was an annual or bi-annual election to determine whether or not they should continue serving. That would keep 'em on their toes.

Morrigoon

01-07-2008, 04:01 PM

But then they would spend all their time campaigning and we'd be barraged with political ads ALL the time, instead of 2 years out of every 4.

Ghoulish Delight

01-07-2008, 04:04 PM

I wouldn't mind that, as long as there was an annual or bi-annual election to determine whether or not they should continue serving. That would keep 'em on their toes.
Too many elections leads to an elected body whose job is to please the electorate rather than make policy. I know that might sound like a good thing, but the Constitution was written to avoid a direct democracy for a reason. In the short term, the will of the people is a confused mess of immediate gratification. Elected officials need time in office to do their job and make long term plans, they don't need to be riding the fickle whims of the masses.

Alex

01-07-2008, 04:06 PM

There is a line of thinking that a lot of the California budget problems have to do with the implementation of term limits and that legislators (and governors) have no strong incentive for considering consequences more than a decade in the future.

Strangler Lewis

01-07-2008, 04:09 PM

Found this amusing. From this article (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22535976/page/2/),

Wow, pancakes AND Chuck Norris. I don't know where to even begin, but there is at least one good joke there.

Huckabee has the support of both Chuck Norris and Ric Flair. Whom will he nominate to be the Secretary of Cartoon Violence?

Ghoulish Delight

01-07-2008, 04:09 PM

I'm not sure I disagree with term limits for the President, but I'm definitely against limits for legislators for that very reason. Short term mentality, no thanks.

sleepyjeff

01-07-2008, 05:24 PM

Actually we have that in common. I want to see them remove the tariffs on imported sugar and encourage soft drink and other food makers to move away from high fructose corn syrup in favor of the real thing.

Me too. I remember drinking Bubble Up and Dr. Pepper out of glass bottles when I was a kid.....and on the label the words "Pure Cane Sugar"

:)

Now I drink an all natural diet cola called "Zevia"......it's no Coke Zero but it sure beats diet Pepsi and it contains absolutely no artificial sweeteners:)

cirquelover

01-07-2008, 06:24 PM

We've been drinking Jones soda as it's the only one I can find with real sugar.

3894

01-07-2008, 07:13 PM

Only Obama and McCain have crossover potential. This is why they'll be the nominees.

mousepod

01-07-2008, 08:16 PM

We've been drinking Jones soda as it's the only one I can find with real sugar.

There are lots of sodas that use real sugar. Just ask anyone who came by our house on Saturday night.

...or check out Galco's Soda Pop Stop (http://www.sodapopstop.com/home.cfm).

innerSpaceman

01-07-2008, 10:55 PM

Mmmm. Moxie Cherry (droool)

Prudence

01-07-2008, 10:57 PM

Oooh! Birch beer!

scaeagles

01-08-2008, 08:17 AM

Only Obama and McCain have crossover potential. This is why they'll be the nominees.

I think Guiliani and Romney have to have some cross over appeal simply because of offices they've previously held. A republican mayor or New York (though I'm not sure of NY mayoral elections are based on party affiliation) and a republican governor of Massachusetts have to have appealed to some liberals.

Richardson has cross over appeal, at least to me. He's about the only one of the dems that this republican would ever consider voting for.

JWBear

01-08-2008, 09:24 AM

Richardson has cross over appeal, at least to me. He's about the only one of the dems that this republican would ever consider voting for.

OMG! There's a candidate we agree on?!?! I think the universe is going to implode now! :eek:

(Seriously though... This is why I like him. He's a moderate who appeals to both sides. And, he's competent and experienced. All of which of course means he hasn’t a snowball’s chance.)

scaeagles

01-08-2008, 09:26 AM

it would, of course, depend on who he was running against. I'm certain I'd pick him over Huckabee or Ron Paul, but definitely not over Guiliani, Thompson, or Romney.

JWBear

01-08-2008, 09:49 AM

it would, of course, depend on who he was running against. I'm certain I'd pick him over Huckabee or Ron Paul, but definitely not over Guiliani, Thompson, or Romney.

I don't like any of the Republican candidates this time around. I don’t think I could bring myself to vote for any of them.

BarTopDancer

01-08-2008, 09:53 AM

During Passover Coke puts a Kosher for Passover Coke with real sugar.

scaeagles

01-08-2008, 10:10 AM

I don't like any of the Republican candidates this time around. I don’t think I could bring myself to vote for any of them.

Doesn't happen for me very often with Dems. I would have been able to vote for Lieberman, depending on whom he was running against, but that's about the extent of the dem candidates I can recall that I would have voted for.

Morrigoon

01-08-2008, 10:14 AM

During Passover Coke puts a Kosher for Passover Coke with real sugar.
Duly noted. I will have to look for that. Coke with real sugar is awesome.

Gemini Cricket

01-08-2008, 10:14 AM

The best news of all is that Bush II can never, ever be president again. Never ever.
:D

3894

01-08-2008, 10:17 AM

The best news of all is that Bush II can never, ever be president again. Never ever.

:cheers:

Morrigoon

01-08-2008, 10:23 AM

:snap:

Ghoulish Delight

01-08-2008, 10:24 AM

The best news of all is that Bush II can never, ever be president again. Never ever.
:D
This made me finally delve into whether Bill Clinton could Constitutionally be VP.

The answer is...slightly cloudy. It all depends on a semantic interpretation.

There are 3 rules in the Constitution that it all hinges on.

Article II says, "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."

12th Amendment says "But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States."

22nd Amendment says "No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once."

So the answer depends on whether "shall not be elected" is equivalent to "is eligible". One interpretation says that it's not. That only Article II deals with eligibility, so as long as he meets those requirements and is not elected to the Presidency, he (or Dubya) can be VP and thus potentially President.

However if you take a less semantically literate view that the 22nd Amendment does constitute a condition for ineligibility, then clearly he would not be allowed to be VP.

While part of me would be amused at the acceptance of the pedantic, semantic reading, I can't imagine any Supreme Court buying it.

BarTopDancer

01-08-2008, 10:44 AM

Duly noted. I will have to look for that. Coke with real sugar is awesome.

You can also sometimes find it with the Hispanic food products. I think I'll start a new thread.

scaeagles

01-08-2008, 11:22 AM

The best news of all is that Bush II can never, ever be president again. Never ever.
:D

We can all hold out hope for Jeb, though.

(I'm joking, OK? Don't throw things at me.)

sleepyjeff

01-08-2008, 11:26 AM

The best news of all is that Bush II can never, ever be president again. Never ever.
:D

It may be worse: Imagine if you will:

1988---George Bush elected President
1992---Bill Clinton elected President
2000--George Bush elected President
2008--Hillary Clinton elected President
2016--Marvin Bush elected President:evil:
2024--Lauren Bush elected President:D
2032--Chelsea Clinton elected President:eek:

2037--Republican and Democratic parties dissolved......now everyone is either a Bushie or a Clintonite;)

Gemini Cricket

01-08-2008, 11:46 AM

I'll say it once again. I'm not a fan of bush. I mean... Bush!

:D

JWBear

01-08-2008, 11:53 AM

I have a friend from Australia (not Lashie) who suggested that, once Dubya is out of office, we Americans hold a public Bush burning.....

Gemini Cricket

01-08-2008, 11:58 AM

I'm wondering how history will remember Bush II?
As the hero with his arm around a fireman after 9/11?
or
As some sort of dufus in a flight suit underneath a Mission Accomplished banner?

I guess we'll know after he dies, like Reagan.
:shrug:

JWBear

01-08-2008, 12:04 PM

Both.

Morrigoon

01-08-2008, 12:06 PM

It may be worse: Imagine if you will:

1988---George Bush elected President
1992---Bill Clinton elected President
2000--George Bush elected President
2008--Hillary Clinton elected President
2016--Marvin Bush elected President:evil:
2024--Lauren Bush elected President:D
2032--Chelsea Clinton elected President:eek:

2037--Republican and Democratic parties dissolved......now everyone is either a Bushie or a Clintonite;)

I'm suddenly inclined to hate Che Guevara a little less...

sleepyjeff

01-08-2008, 12:40 PM

I'm suddenly inclined to hate Che Guevara a little less...

He died the year I was born:D

BarTopDancer

01-08-2008, 01:13 PM

We can all hold out hope for Jeb, though.

(I'm joking, OK? Don't throw things at me.)

Oh I won't throw them at you. I'll chuck them at you. High speed.

innerSpaceman

01-08-2008, 01:22 PM

I love how, according to G.D.'s analysis, the question of whether Bill Clinton, of all people, can be U.S. vice-president hinges upon a semantic interpretation.

Heheh, akin to what the word "is" is.

Alex

01-08-2008, 01:55 PM

Based on the previous 43 examples odds are most of history will remember bush this way:

"who?"

The average person probably can't name more than 4 or 5 presidents from before they were born. And the biggest scandals, liars, cheats, and general morons have largely been forgotten.

Quick, who started the Mexican-American War? What were the arguments in favor and against. Ultimately was it a good thing or not? What were the significant repercussions?

That was probably the most despicable, overtly imperialist war we've ever been in. It was a huge deal. And outside of a relatively small circle of people with a particular interest in history, completely forgotten.

"Important people" and "important thinkers" put way too much thought into how events and people will be regarded by "history." The answer, with very few exceptions, is: not at all.

Here, by the way, from the wiki page is a quote about that war, that may sound familiar:

In the murder of Mexicans [replace with Iraqis] upon their own soil, or in robbing them of their country, I can take no part either now or here-after. The guilt of these crimes must rest on others. I will not participate in them.

scaeagles

01-09-2008, 07:36 PM

Looks like JWBear will not have his prediction come true, and also that there isn't a chance in hell I'll vote for a dem for President.

Richardson drops out of the race (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080110/D8U2MD7O2.html)

mousepod

01-09-2008, 07:44 PM

Tom

01-09-2008, 08:28 PM

This makes me so sad. I've been a registered Libertarian for years, and yesterday, when I sent in my new voter registration (because I moved), I changed my party affiliation to Democratic specifically so I could cast a vote for Richardson in the CA primary.

You still might be able to. Ballots have to be printed up in advance, so Richardson's name still might be on it when we get to the polling place. As long as you don't mind voting for someone who has already dropped out of the race.

Alex

01-16-2008, 11:35 AM

Let's see if Mike Huckabee has said anything recently (here, with video (http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Huckabee_Amend_Constitution_to_meet_Gods_0115.html )) to change my mind about him.

I have opponents in this race who do not want to change the Constitution. But I believe it's a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living god. And that's what we need to do -- to amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards rather than try to change God's standards so it lines up with some contemporary view.

Nope, I guess not.

If even Joe Scarborough thinks you're reaching a bit far, that's not a good sign.

Not Afraid

01-16-2008, 11:36 AM

UGH!

Ghoulish Delight

01-16-2008, 11:42 AM

Yikes.

If that vision does come to pass, where religious language starts being amended to the Constitution...Paris is nice.

innerSpaceman

01-16-2008, 11:59 AM

Oui.

Alex

01-16-2008, 12:02 PM

innerSpaceman

01-16-2008, 12:03 PM

Don't get me started, Alex.

JWBear

01-16-2008, 12:05 PM

I hear Toronto is nice.

scaeagles

01-16-2008, 12:14 PM

Strangler Lewis

01-16-2008, 12:35 PM

To be fair that was specifically in response to the issue of amendments on abortion and gay marriage. There are perfectly good reasons for supporting such things (not that I agree with them) that don't rely on references to biblical authority. I'd much rather he used them instead.

I'm not sure that there are non-religious arguments to be made unless it's that for purposes of social stability, all healthy, fertile adults should be required to marry AND reproduce. In which case you, Pat Buchanan, Elizabeth Dole and Condi Rice better run from the soylent green trucks.

Alex

01-16-2008, 01:02 PM

I want to emphasize that while there are non-religious reasons for supporting an amendment banning gay marriage and abortion, I don't agree with them.

I'm just saying that if a politician is going to support policies I disagree with that they at least provide support for their positions that aren't based on "because this ancient book tells me so."

scaeagles

01-18-2008, 10:31 AM

If the economy needs an economic stimulus package that involves tax rebates, why would we not also make the tax cuts permanent that are due to expire soon? Would it not follow that a tax rebate is basically the same thing as a tax cut? The rebate, from what I've read, would go to dual incomes as high as 110K, and those people are affected by the tax cuts.

Not meant to be rhetorical, really. I really don't understand the difference and I'm wondering if someone can offer an explanation.

sleepyjeff

01-19-2008, 01:14 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mbaszmcpesc

Out of context or not....truer words were never spoken:)

Strangler Lewis

01-22-2008, 12:41 PM

The bigger they are . . . well, the bigger they are. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080122/ap_on_el_pr/thompson)

Snowflake

01-22-2008, 01:43 PM

I will again state that I am not a fan of Huckabee. This is only part of the reasons.

The more I hear from Romney, though, the more I like him. I'm thinking I'm starting to move more into the Romney camp rather than being undecided about which Republican I'd be voting for in the primary. It will either be him or Thompson, and it really depends on what Thompson decided to do.

Thomson is now out, apparently, Leo. Out of the race kind of out, BTW.

Apologies to Strangler Lewis, I just saw your post. Sorry for the double nonsense from me.

scaeagles

01-22-2008, 02:13 PM

Yeah, I heard. Romney is my guy for now. Guiliani is in second.

Alex

01-22-2008, 02:28 PM

I'm very quickly getting locked into the Democrat camp for president.

In making my compromises on how I think it should all work I've long felt the excesses of the Republicans to be more palatable, particularly because I though the structure of our government was more suited to resisting them than the excesses of the left end of the spectrum.

At this point it is hard for me to imagine voting for any of the Republican front runners.

Not Afraid

01-28-2008, 05:33 PM

Obama's association with the Kennedy Klan and the inevitable comparisons being made to JFK is really going to help his numbers.

innerSpaceman

01-28-2008, 05:36 PM

Something about Obama just rubs me the wrong way. Despite the fact that she kinda bugs me, I'm going to vote for Hillary. I just want the woman-president thing, and I love the thought of Bill as First Fella.

Yeah, piss-poor reasons for picking a president ... that's IF I thought the president was EVER going to be someone who wouldn't take this country straight to hell ... like nearly every president I've lived through. At this point, I just don't care that much. Hillary could sprout horns and I'd still vote for her if she retained her womanhood.

BarTopDancer

01-28-2008, 05:37 PM

Regardless if it is Obama or Hillary history will be made with the first Black or first female candidate running for POTUS.

Prudence

01-28-2008, 06:38 PM

Something about Obama just rubs me the wrong way. Despite the fact that she kinda bugs me, I'm going to vote for Hillary. I just want the woman-president thing, and I love the thought of Bill as First Fella.

I've been thinking about this a lot - I think that what bothers me about Obama is his message of change. Now, granted, I'm not happy with the status quo - but now it seems like his primary selling point is that he's an unknown. I don't know that I want an unknown. I don't trust the office holder period, and at this point, after the W Presidency, I'd rather at least feel like I know what I'm getting into, rather than rolling the dice and hoping I like what I get.

I know Hillary talks out of both sides of her mouth, will say whatever it takes to get what she wants, and is totally in it for herself. I might not be thrilled with it, but at least it won't be a surprise.

Alex

01-28-2008, 06:46 PM

The recent use of Bill Clinton as attack dog has reinforced my disqualification of Hillary Clinton simply because I think it is a bad idea to put a former president back in the White House, even if -- and perhaps especially if -- it is in an informal capacity.

dlrp_bopazot

01-28-2008, 11:49 PM

Not Afraid

01-28-2008, 11:52 PM

JWBear

01-29-2008, 12:02 AM

I already know what my Swiss relatives think about American Politics - and it's ain't terribly nice. I'd love to hear it, but be prepared for the patriotic to be insulted.

I beg to differ. The truly patriotic will not be offended.

wendybeth

01-29-2008, 12:43 AM

it is interesting for me especially because i'am in your country to follow closely the Presidentials .

Democrats VS Republicans

i only have to say that i have ifferents thoughs about america especially coming from another country to share with you if you'd like to hear it .

What NA says- be prepared for roughly the same reception one would get in France (or any other country) for venturing their opinions. Doesn't make them less valid, good or bad, just means people are the same all over this world when it comes to their home turf- they tend to get defensive. I am very interested in what you think, btw, just a caution that others might take exception and to be prepared to argue your position. (Especially if you like Bush). ;)

scaeagles

01-29-2008, 05:14 AM

I'm really, really enjoying watching other dems become the victims of the Clinton's tactics of smearing and distortion. I'm enjoying watching dem pundits and commentators coming around to see them for what I've always thought they were - power hungry to such an extreme that they will say or do anything to maintain it or acquire more.

I will admit I find Obama to be a decent and honest guy, though it is easy to speak of "change" without defining exactly what change is and what the specifics of said change is.

scaeagles

01-29-2008, 05:15 AM

(Especially if you like Bush). ;)

I don't even like Bush anymore. It's been a while.

innerSpaceman

01-29-2008, 08:23 AM

Heavens to mergatroids, please don't say the Clintons are nasty in a campaign fight. Let it not be so! I'd hate for them to be so unlike other politicians. :eek:

(That said, Bill's attack tactics have sort of backfired on the Clintons)

Moonliner

01-29-2008, 08:50 AM

(That said, Bill's attack tactics have sort of backfired on the Clintons)

Technically it backfired on Clinton singular not plural.

Do you think Bill really wants to be first husband? I keep thinking not, which could help explain these rather atypical tactics from the consummate campaigner.

scaeagles

01-29-2008, 08:55 AM

Heavens to mergatroids, please don't say the Clintons are nasty in a campaign fight. Let it not be so! I'd hate for them to be so unlike other politicians. :eek:

My point is that they have been so revered by the left in general, and their tactics always praised. Now that those same tactics are being used on their own, the left doesn't seem to like it so much.

Of course politics is a dirty game and i don't expect it to be otherwise. I just like that the Clintons are being called on the tactics they've always used against the right.

And looking at Obama, while I would not vote for him, I do respect him. I do not regard him as being the typical dirty campaigner.

Moonliner

01-29-2008, 08:56 AM

Heavens to mergatroids, please don't say the Clintons are nasty in a campaign fight. Let it not be so! I'd hate for them to be so unlike other politicians. :eek:

I think the point is that Hillary is truly nasty as opposed to just campaign nasty. It's a subtle but rather important point.

Strangler Lewis

01-29-2008, 10:41 AM

I don't know if it's heart medication or the bitterness of age, but I think Bill Clinton's lost a bit of the expansive, intellectual joie de vivre that made him so attractive, at least on paper. I remember seeing him on Jon Stewart a year or two ago, and he seemed so set on getting his digs in on his critics that when Stewart would jump in with jokes, he seemed rattled.

innerSpaceman

01-29-2008, 10:55 AM

Yeah, um, old. Time will do that to you. Oh, and of course the presidency for 8 years ages you 17.

* * * * *

Meanwhile, Republicans better get off their high horse about supporting John McCain. Otherwise, he's going to have a hard time winning states that don't allow Dems and Independents to vote in GOP primaries. That's where lots of his support currently is. But that's precisely why he's the MOST ELECTIBLE REPUBLICAN ... sheesh. Get a Clue.

Core Republicans froth at the thought that McCain, as president, might actually cooperate with Democrats to get things done. He's done so in the past. He also has a very consistently conservative voting record, which Republicans tend to overlook. But it's precisely because they can't stand to consider compromise that they might be willing to forego supporting the ONLY Republican that can win a presidential election in the current electoral climate.

That's the kind of thing that sickens me about conseratives and some Republicans. The want the people of our country to be at war with one another. Meanwhile, if McCain wins the GOP nomination, I will consider voting for him. And it's precisely because, though I support Hillary Clinton, I don't particularly want a president who will be loathed by half the nation.

Republicans revel in the fact that half our nation hated George Bush (now two-thirds, btw). Maybe it's a weakness of good people that we'd rather sacrifice something for the sake of others (i.e., our first choice but divisive president for our 3rd choice but more uniting president). I happen to think it's a great strength, if only of character.

But that's the most important kind.

Ghoulish Delight

01-29-2008, 11:02 AM

Republicans revel in the fact that half our nation hated George Bush (now two-thirds, btw). Maybe it's a weakness of good people that we'd rather sacrifice something for the sake of others (i.e., our first choice but divisive president for our 3rd choice but more uniting president). I happen to think it's a great strength, if only of character.

But that's the most important kind.And yet you're voting for Hillary over Obama?

JWBear

01-29-2008, 11:16 AM

Ghoulish Delight

01-29-2008, 11:28 AM

Now that Richardson is out of the picture, my vote (in the primary) is going for Obama. I do not like Hillary, and I never have. To me, she's just another politician who stands for nothing but her own ego and thirst for power. And, she has a personality you can grate cheese with. No thanks!

I almost agree with that. Almost. I do think she truly believes in one or two things. I do think she honestly, for instance, believes in her vision for change in health care. What bothers me is that she is willing to say anything, do anything, step on anyone, compromise any other stance if it means getting closer to those one or two narrow things she does believe in.

scaeagles

01-29-2008, 11:38 AM

Core Republicans froth at the thought that McCain, as president, might actually cooperate with Democrats to get things done.

Hmm....I find that to be funny, considering Bush's early work on education had bills written by Ted Kennedy, and then those bills were later heavily criticized by dems.

I don't particulary see many dems wanting to work with republicans.

Alex

01-29-2008, 11:46 AM

I'll vote for Obama over pretty much any other person running (even though I disagree with him on almost every political issue I think he could be good for the country; or he could end up being horrible but I'm interested in giving him a shot).

Hillary is disqualified for reasons given above but if it ended up being a choice between her and McCain or her and Huckabee I'd have to seriously reconsider that disqualification. I don't know why but the way many people react viscerally (and badly) to Hillary Clinton is how I respond to McCain.

Plus, I think he is too old for the job. No, that's no more fair to him than it is fair that I disqualify Clinton simply because she is married to a former president. But when I consider presidents I assume 8 year terms and McCain will be almost 3 years older than Reagan when he took office and look how that worked out by the end of his terms.

Not fair, but not a risk I'm inclined to take, especially when I already don't like the man.

sleepyjeff

01-29-2008, 11:47 AM

Meanwhile, Republicans better get off their high horse about supporting John McCain. Otherwise, he's going to have a hard time winning states that don't allow Dems and Independents to vote in GOP primaries. That's where lots of his support currently is. But that's precisely why he's the MOST ELECTIBLE REPUBLICAN ... sheesh. Get a Clue.

The thing is....he's not all that electable. He does nothing to inspire the Republican base and you know as well as I that once it comes down to just one Dem and one Rep candidate his "support" from the left will evaporate and all sorts of "new" evils will be "discovered" by the same media that acts like they love him now.

Core Republicans froth at the thought that McCain, as president, might actually cooperate with Democrats to get things done.

What so many non-conservatives don't get is that we don't want things to get done....every time a law is passed the shine of freedom is scuffed up a bit. Gridlock is our friend:)

He's done so in the past. He also has a very consistently conservative voting record, which Republicans tend to overlook. But it's precisely because they can't stand to consider compromise that they might be willing to forego supporting the ONLY Republican that can win a presidential election in the current electoral climate.

The thing is he also has a knack for compromising with the Dems on things that are fundamentally against our beliefs....and since it is most likely the next congress will be in the control of the Dems the only things that will get "done" are things that he tends to agree with them on......so basically all of the Dem issues will get attention while the Conservative needs go by the way side.

BarTopDancer

01-29-2008, 12:09 PM

SacTown Chronic

01-29-2008, 12:19 PM

Snowflake

01-29-2008, 12:23 PM

I'd vote for Obama even if I did disagree with him on every political issue simply because I perceive him to be a good and honorable man....and that's good enough for me these days. In fact, that's better than good enough -- it's a goddamned better thing than we've had politics-wise in this country for a long time.

So yeah, I'm giving Barrack Obama the chance to fall flat on his face as president. The results can't be any worse than what Bush has wrought.

Why the fvck not?

STC, I have to agree with you here. I cannot, in all good conscience, lob a vote in Hillary's direction since I do not believe her to be good or honorable (her not being a man is immaterial). I'm leaning very heavily in Obama's direction.

My questions is, if Obama lands the nomination, who will land on the ticket as veep. Would an Obama/Edwards ticket be the go?

Alex

01-29-2008, 12:25 PM

I doubt Edwards would be picked for Veep but probably offered cabinet level for his delegates. I wouldn't mind seeing Richardson as VP and he seems to be angling for it.

SacTown Chronic

01-29-2008, 12:30 PM

I cannot, in all good conscience, lob a vote in Hillary's direction since I do not believe her to be good or honorable (her not being a man is immaterial).Her lack of a penis is a cause for concern for me for one very big reason:

Hillary will feel the need to show that she is as tough as any man. Imagine insecure little Republican gay boyz playing war games and multiply by 3....that'll be Hillary.

Ghoulish Delight

01-29-2008, 12:43 PM

One thing's for sure, after the last couple of weeks the idea of a Obama/Clinton or Clinton/Obama ticket is right out.

wendybeth

01-29-2008, 12:43 PM

I agree with Sac. I think she's not balanced, and by that I don't mean a'la Brittney Spears but rather that she's going to spend a lot of time and effort showing she's got bigger cajones than the other players, and all the while it may be a situation that would benefit from a gentler, more diplomatic approach. I also suspect she's got a few grudges going that would impair her abilities to set aside the past and move forward. We need to start fresh, if that is at all possible. I'd love to see a viable female candidate, but I'm afraid it's not going to happen this time around.

SacTown Chronic

01-29-2008, 01:11 PM

Yeah, and i want a female candidate - hell, a female president - with the cajones to say that the boys' way of doing things is antiquated, outdated, and just plain wrong. Let's get in touch with our feminine side, America.

And maybe gently, yet firmly, flick the bean while we're at it?

sleepyjeff

01-29-2008, 01:19 PM

One thing's for sure, after the last couple of weeks the idea of a Obama/Clinton or Clinton/Obama ticket is right out.

That's for sure. Look for Ford, Clark, Warner or Richardson to be the eventual VP nominee.

On the Republican side Thompson, Hunter, Rice, Steele, or Huckabee seem the most likely to me.

SacTown Chronic

01-29-2008, 01:23 PM

Thompson thinks being Veep sounds like fun but wonders do you have anything a little less taxing? Like Nap Czar, maybe?

JWBear

01-29-2008, 01:30 PM

...every time a law is passed the shine of freedom is scuffed up a bit....

You must be referring to the Patriot Act...

...so basically all of the Dem issues will get attention while the Conservative needs go by the way side.

Just like during the first four years of the Bush administration, when conservative issues were pushed through while democratic needs were ignored....

JWBear

01-29-2008, 01:35 PM

I doubt Edwards would be picked for Veep but probably offered cabinet level for his delegates. I wouldn't mind seeing Richardson as VP and he seems to be angling for it.

An Obama/Richardson ticket would make me happy. (While a Richardson/Obama ticket would have made me positively ecstatic!)

Yeah, and i want a female candidate - hell, a female president - with the cajones to say that the boys' way of doing things is antiquated, outdated, and just plain wrong....

Nancy Pelosi! :D

sleepyjeff

01-29-2008, 01:45 PM

You must be referring to the Patriot Act...

Just like during the first four years of the Bush administration, when conservative issues were pushed through while democratic needs were ignored....

1) Among others.

2) Well, if you think Campaign Finance Reform, Prescription drugs and NCLB were conservative issues...I don't. But that's not the point. Bush was put in office by Republicans and we had a Republican Congress....one would expect mostly conservative issues to be pushed forward. But if McCain were President with a Dem Congress the only things to see the light of day will be those the Dems and McCain agreee on......so even though McCain has many conservative views they will not go anywhere.

If McCain wins the Whitehouse Republicans will have at least 8 years of liberal policies winning out.

If Obama or Clinton wins there is a chance that they could be defeated after 4 years.

Not that I am considering a vote for the eventual dem nominee....but if McCain is our nominee I might just forget to mail in my ballot come November....I am sure I am not alone in that feeling either. McCain can't win in November.

Strangler Lewis

01-29-2008, 02:14 PM

Edwards adds nothing. I think Richardson is the clear VP choice for anybody. He's Latinoish, he's experienced, and he came off well during the debates (with the exception of the Whizzer White comment, which he gracefully ate crow on). I don't see it's in either frontrunner's interest to waste time on a decision process to introduce us to somebody new.

Plus if Hillary or Obama chokes on a chicken bone or videotapes of a cocaine fueled orgy, I could still win my bet.

sleepyjeff

01-29-2008, 03:05 PM

Plus if Hillary or Obama chokes on a chicken bone or videotapes of a cocaine fueled orgy, I could still win my bet.

That brings up a good question. If a nominee for President dies after the convention but before the election what happens?

Alex

01-29-2008, 03:13 PM

Vice president elect becomes president.

20th Amendment, Section 3

Section 3. If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President.

This actually almost came up once. There was an assassination attempt on FDR after his first election but before inauguration (the mayor of Chicago was killed in the same attempt -- lesson to future assassins, don't stand on unstable chairs while shooting at the president). If it had been successful his vice president (I forget who that was) would have been sworn in on inauguration day.

Ghoulish Delight

01-29-2008, 03:15 PM

Hmm, that's between election and inauguration. The question was, between party candidate selection and election.

Alex

01-29-2008, 03:27 PM

Ah, misread.

I imagine it would vary widely by state depending on existing laws for ballot formation.

If it happens early enough I imagine the party would reconvene a convention and decide on a new nominee the old fashioned way and then would work with individual states to try and get that new candidate on the ballot instead. As it moves later into the cycle I imagine this would be more and more difficult to accomplish as when Mel Carnahan died so close to the 2000 election in Missouri and went on to defeat John Ashcroft for governor. There simply was no time.

The constitution leaves it to the states to determine how they assign their electors. So I imagine 50 states would very quickly have to pass legislation dealing with it. And then there would be years of lawsuits by whomever didn't care for the results. Remember, we don't vote for president but for electors, and those electors in almost all states are allowed to vote for whomever they want and are not required to vote for the candidate to which they are pledged. So the simplest thing would be that if the dead candidate won electors those electors would vote for a different person when the electoral college convenes (probably whomever the national party has decreed as the replacement).

Alex

01-29-2008, 03:41 PM

An almost historical precedent.

In the election of 1872 Horace Greeley was defeated by Ulysses Grant but did win 66 electoral votes. Greeley died before the Electoral College officially met (constitutionally this is before the actual election of the president) and so 63 of his electoral simply voted for other people. 3 electors held loyal and voted for Greeley but these votes were disqualified.

sleepyjeff

01-29-2008, 04:21 PM

Thanks...that clears it up a tad:)

JWBear

01-29-2008, 06:10 PM

I suddenly have visions of a political action movie:

America's first black President (Don Cheadle) is assassinated by white supremacist weeks into his first term. The lead secret service agent (Denzel Washington - natch) assigned to the case discovers information that implicates that the female VP - now President (Helen Mirren) orchestrated the assassination. He reports his findings to the head of the Secret Service (Harvey Keitel) who, unbeknownst to the agent, is part of the conspiracy. Our hero now must fight for truth, justice, and the American way (not to mention his own life) with the help of a wacky aging Kennedy assassination conspiracy theorist (Harrison Ford) and his daughter (Liv Tyler), a DC cop.

innerSpaceman

01-29-2008, 06:30 PM

OMG, what a great idea for our first LoT film. Post it in the LoT Film Commission Thead (http://www.loungeoftomorrow.com/LoT/showthread.php?t=7321) ASAP.

(Of course, we may have to change the casting a little ... which may effect how could a concept that is after all.)

Strangler Lewis

01-29-2008, 06:46 PM

With gratuitous evil Wilford Brimley.

JWBear

01-29-2008, 07:02 PM

innerSpaceman

01-29-2008, 07:50 PM

Pfft, assassination by poisoning, silly. Poison Bacon. Mmmmmm, it even sounds good.

innerSpaceman

01-29-2008, 08:12 PM

Oh, and John McCain wins Florida! Take that, Rudy! Suck my fat one, Romney! Hahahaha!

I swear, if McCain gets the nom against Hillary, I will vote for him as a nod to national reconcillation.

Strangler Lewis

01-29-2008, 10:11 PM

McCain as the frontrunner has me thinking I might vote for Obama. I'd prefer an election without distractions about a candidate's views of or service in the Viet Nam war.

Motorboat Cruiser

01-29-2008, 10:45 PM

I swear, if McCain gets the nom against Hillary, I will vote for him as a nod to national reconcillation.

I find this puzzling. Although, I must say, you are certainly not the first liberal I have heard express that if Hillary and McCain get the nomination, they will vote Republican.

Basically McCain's platform has been that there are going to be lots more wars and he wouldn't have any problem with seeing the Iraq war last 100 years. Personally, I would vote for an ostrich before I would back someone with that mentality and see it played out over the next four or, potentially, eight years.

I understand that you don't like Hillary, I understand that it is important to take a stance. But the ultimate importance, IMO, is that we have someone who is willing to defend this country against any enemy, but not someone who keeps a box of tissues nearby to assist them in their fantasies of perpetual war.

Granted, McCain is playing to the base. Granted, he is a veteran of war and, unlike the chimp in command, actually has some clue as to the horror that is war. But, in the event that he isn't just pandering and actually feels this way, I will have a glaring eye, and more than a few words, towards any Democrat who gives him their vote, should more wars of aggression break out. There is a bigger picture here than just a visceral hatred for someone because they are a Clinton. There is too much at stake, IMO.

€uroMeinke

01-29-2008, 10:50 PM

What's the deal with Dems disenfranchising their voters for voting early - If I were a Dem I'd be pissed that my own party wouldn't consider my vote. They ought to sue.

Alex

01-29-2008, 11:00 PM

What I'm trying to figure out is how it seems to be conventional wisdom that eventually the Michigan and Florida delegates will be seated at the convention.

If it is a brokered convention how is that remotely fair since the party asked the candidates not to campaign in those two states and Obama/Edwards were much more cooperative in that regard than Clinton, particularly in Michigan? In fact, if anything it is a bad sign that Clinton only got 50% in both states when the other two weren't even trying.

Motorboat Cruiser

01-29-2008, 11:07 PM

If it is a brokered convention how is that remotely fair since the party asked the candidates not to campaign in those two states and Obama/Edwards were much more cooperative in that regard than Clinton, particularly in Michigan? In fact, if anything it is a bad sign that Clinton only got 50% in both states when the other two weren't even trying.

I was under the impression that all three had campaign ads running in Florida.

€uroMeinke

01-29-2008, 11:11 PM

Meanwhile here in California as a registered "Decline to State" the Dems were all over me to vote in their primary - seems odd they's value the vote of an avowed anarchist over a registered democrat in Florida - Oh, and I already sent in my ballot even voting before the Florida Primary. Just makes no sense to me.

scaeagles

01-30-2008, 06:30 AM

Why am I not surprised that my thoughts are completely opposite to MBCs?

I think the only thing McCain gets it right on is national defense, and honestly beleive Iraq would have been run in a better fashion (and make no mistake - we'd be there regardless of who was President or from which party), because the whole operation would have been a "surge".

This is the only reason that I would vote for him if he were to be the nominee. It would be a "hold the nose" vote, for sure, but I'd have to. Obama, regardless of his integrity, which I beleive is genuine, I fear in terms of policy (both foreign and domestic). Hillary....good lord only knows what she would do.

I'll be curious to see how next Tuesday goes with Guiliani ready to endorse Mccain.

innerSpaceman

01-30-2008, 08:16 AM

I understand that you don't like Hillary, ... There is a bigger picture here than just a visceral hatred for someone because they are a Clinton.
No, you misunderstand. I like Hllary, always have. I would like her to be president of the united states. Personally, that's who I'd choose (if she were the Dem nominee ... there are other Dem candidates I prefer).

But Hillary is one of the most divisive figures in American politics. Perhaps even more so than George Bush. I think Republicans hate her with far more venom than Democrats hate Bush.

And so I'm willing to vote for someone who will not keep half the country absolutely despising the president. I haven't liked that sensation the past seven years ... and just because it would now be "my guy" (er, gal) in the White House doesn't make the quasi civil-warness of it any more palatible to me.

As for McCain, I've simply always admired him ... even when I don't agree with him. I don't think he's a war monger, and I don't get the impression he'd be out to invade other countries willy-nilly. His stance that we're going to maintain a military presence in Iraq doesn't concern me. We are whether he's president or not. Name the place on earth where the U.S. has conducted military action and not retained a presence for ever after.

Frankly, I don't think Hillary's any more of a "peacemaker" choice. I think there's something to STC's assertion that she's going to strive to demonstrate the bigger (invisible) penis.

I'd still rather she win for the whole woman president thing (and the Bill as First Fella gimmick). But I'm reluctant to vote for the reviled person, even if it's not my "team" that reviles her.

Scrooge McSam

01-30-2008, 08:38 AM

Thank you John Edwards

I'm sorry I didn't get to vote for you.

Ghoulish Delight

01-30-2008, 08:48 AM

we'd be there regardless of who was President or from which party
You always say that and I always disagree completely. No other President would have spent their entire administration, literally from day one, looking for an excuse to go into Iraq (documented fact that this is exactly what happened). Sorry, we're in Iraq solely because George Walker Bush and his inner circle wanted us to be in Iraq. Whatever his reasons were (revenge, oil, actually believed they were a threat), they were HIS reasons and other than Dick Cheney, no one else would have lead us along this path. Without the filter of the Bush administration constantly and desperately hunting for any shred of a reason to invade, there was no rational justification.

scaeagles

01-30-2008, 09:20 AM

You always say that and I always disagree completely.

I base it simply on the literally hundreds of quotes from leading dems about the threat Saddam was. Now they say it was due to being duped by faulty intelligence, and while that may be the case, the sentiment of the country in general was to go. Being that Hillary is a poll hound, she would have certainly gone. I think Gore would have as well. I do believe that i have perhaps overstated by saying anyone - that is certainly not true, as Kucinich certainly wouldn't have gone.

Ghoulish Delight

01-30-2008, 09:34 AM

I base it simply on the literally hundreds of quotes from leading dems about the threat Saddam was. Now they say it was due to being duped by faulty intelligence...Faulty intelligence that was filtered through an administration looking for an excuse. Without Bush in the White House, a VERY different story would have been presented to Congress...if it was presented to Congress at all.

sleepyjeff

01-30-2008, 09:49 AM

I base it simply on the literally hundreds of quotes from leading dems about the threat Saddam was. Now they say it was due to being duped by faulty intelligence, and while that may be the case, the sentiment of the country in general was to go. Being that Hillary is a poll hound, she would have certainly gone. I think Gore would have as well. I do believe that i have perhaps overstated by saying anyone - that is certainly not true, as Kucinich certainly wouldn't have gone.

Faulty intelligence that was filtered through an administration looking for an excuse. Without Bush in the White House, a VERY different story would have been presented to Congress...if it was presented to Congress at all.

One need only look to Gore(you know, the guy who "won" in 2000). His quotes could not have possibly been "filtered though an administration looking for an excuse" since most of his pro-war statements were made before Bush was even elected.

scaeagles

01-30-2008, 09:51 AM

I would respond but Sleepy said it very well. The intelligence was around LONG before Bush took office.

BarTopDancer

01-30-2008, 09:59 AM

I'm done doing the coulda/woulda/mighta/what-ifs over the choices this Administration made vs. what someone else would have done. It's frustrating and can't be changed. Maybe this country would be in a better place. Maybe this country would be in a worse place. No one can truly say.

McCain scares the crap out of me with his 'pro war' stance. Hillary scares the crap out of me with her 'same ol same ol campaign promises that will never come true' (cutting tax subsidies to the oil companies? like that will get through Congress). Well that and her trying to prove to the world that she is just as tough as any man (who did the Republican gayboy war games reference) - that fits.

I suspect that if Hillary gets the Dem nom then McCain will win.

SacTown Chronic

01-30-2008, 10:07 AM

Yes, the Dems who voted for/advocated invading The Iraq are just as responsible as the Bush administration, citizen war supporters, and two-time Bush voters for what has happened. But to say we would have gone in with anyone as president is an astounding bit of revisionist, conscience-clearing nonesense. John McCain would never have linked 9/11 to The Iraq. Al Gore? Never in a kadgillion fvcking years.

sleepy,

Can you provide those quotes*? We went into The Iraq as a direct result of 9/11 (allegedly). I'd love to read Al Gore's clairvoyant, circa 2000, quotes about The Iraq and 9/11/01.

*Noting vaugue about Saddam pre-9/11, please. Every national politician of the last 25 years has had something to say about Saddam. We never go into The Iraq without the 70% support from the masses....and Bush (or Gore) doesn't get that support without lying about Saddam's role in 9/11. It follows then, that the only way we invade The Iraq is through Bush and his merry band of liars.

Alex

01-30-2008, 10:10 AM

I wish that Edwards had stayed in through next week. That could have helped Obama but I see his departure now as hurting him.

Hundreds of thousands of people have already voted and probably 12-15% have voted for Edwards. It is purely a gut feeling but I believe that without Edwards those votes would have overwhelmingly gone to Obama.

Now he'll only get a few percent of the voting day votes (his name will still be on the ballot some people will still vote for him) meaning that in most states that he is unlikely to reach the minimum threshold in proportional assignment of delegates where if he'd stayed in the race he would have received them.

This isn't ideal for Obama, but I do believe that if things remain close between him and Clinton that Edwards will eventually throw his delegates to Obama. So if he'd stayed in the race those 12-15% of the absentee ballots would eventually have carried some weight for Obama but now they're likely completely off the table of no use to anybody.

This is one reason that, while I make use of it, I don't support early and absentee balloting (at least not as it is currently carried out).

Alex

01-30-2008, 10:18 AM

I think that with the evidence and intelligence at hand in 2002 any significant leader from either party would have considered the continued presence of Saddam Hussein as leader of Iraq to be a serious threat to our national security. While there were naysayers, it was the general belief that Saddam Hussein had old WMDs and was pursuing more.

I considered him an unacceptable threat (without ever linking him to 9/11) and continue to believe that this belief was reasonable at that time.

However, I do not believe that any other potential president would have followed the same course of action that led to the Iraq War. They would have prioritized things differently and it is very easy to accept that this would have move Iraq down the list of immediate threats worthy of pre-emption. It was the specific combination of believing Saddam to be a general threat (which pretty much everybody did) with the neoconservative filter on how to prioritize the many threats that exits (which the rest of the government was then convinced to go along with).

Yes, other presidents may have also made the decision that Iraq was an unacceptable imminent threat, but the way they made the argument may have proven unconvincing. Or any other thousands of factors would have played out differently (with a Democratic president, a Republican controlled congress may have applied the breaks harder just out of general cantankerousness whereas in the reality Democrats who otherwise would have argued stronger knew they were on the losing side and didn't want to be easy victims of charges of unpatriotism once the war started).

That's why, while fun, alternative history and games of "what if" are ultimately pointless. While one can lay out an alternative sequence that seems logical and inevitable given one single variable change it isn't real. It always proceeds not from the logic of its antecedents but rather with the objective of its endpoint.

SacTown Chronic

01-30-2008, 10:22 AM

Awww, Alex says we're engaging in pointless exercise. A disappointing departure from the usual message board goings-on, to be sure.

Alex

01-30-2008, 10:26 AM

And I engaged in it as well. I took a side on the "what if" issue under discussion (would all paths have lead to the Iraq War).

Like I said, it is fun, there's just no basis at all for any one answer to be picked out as more correct than the others other than it matching what one has already decided must be the correct answer.

Strangler Lewis

01-30-2008, 10:30 AM

McCain gets national security right the same way the average tough-on-crime politician gets crime right: by promising harsh measures without consideration of whether dangerous situations might be prevented through use of ameliorative measures. Much like a dentist who would punish the unbrushed tooth for becoming diseased. I suspect that Hillary will get national security right in the same way, i.e., by placing all blame on radical Islam, the rap music equivalent of the Middle East for conservative purposes.

Obama, on the other hand, will at least consider whether national security situations require some adjustment of our behavior in the world. Perhaps such adjustments would only be perceived as weakness, and perhaps the leaders who dine out on hatred of America would never allow knowledge of such developments to filter down to the masses. But it's a different approach which, if combined with the perceived willingness to retaliate strongly against any attacks, might serve us well.

SacTown Chronic

01-30-2008, 10:35 AM

Strangle Lewis' post is a reminder to me of how much of a bullet we are dodging with Guiliani dropping out of the race. Imo, he had the potential to be the one president capable of pulling off the seemingly impossible trick of making Dubya look like a relatively rational peacemonger by comparison. That man has all the worst qualities of a DA combined with all the worst qualities of a politician.

Ghoulish Delight

01-30-2008, 11:37 AM

As a case study on the effects of Edwards dropping out, my sister was a strong Edwards supporter and is now trying to decide which way to go. She says she's leaning Obama, but is hesitating only because he hasn't made clear any specific actions he would take (as if any candidate ever makes those clear, or holds to them if they do make them clear).

sleepyjeff

01-30-2008, 11:45 AM

sleepy,

Can you provide those quotes*? We went into The Iraq as a direct result of 9/11 (allegedly). I'd love to read Al Gore's clairvoyant, circa 2000, quotes about The Iraq and 9/11/01.

*Noting vaugue about Saddam pre-9/11, please. Every national politician of the last 25 years has had something to say about Saddam. We never go into The Iraq without the 70% support from the masses....and Bush (or Gore) doesn't get that support without lying about Saddam's role in 9/11. It follows then, that the only way we invade The Iraq is through Bush and his merry band of liars.

That's a neat debate trick. Make me defend something I did not say. I said Al Gore was pro-war regarding Iraq before Bush took office. I did not say anything about 9/11(although, he was also pro taking out Saddam right after 9/11 too). He is on record not just "saying something about Saddam" but actually harshly criticizing the first Bush for not going into Baghdad.

Are you suggesting Gore exaggerates his positions and would never follow thru with what he suggests others do when given the chance?

;)

SacTown Chronic

01-30-2008, 12:13 PM

I never claimed you said anything about 9/11, sleepy. You make the assertion we would be in Iraq if Gore were president and you base this on quotes from Al Gore pre-9/11. I make the assertion that our current occupation of The Iraq never happens without lying about the connection between Saddam and 9/11.

So, again, if you have quotes from Al Gore that claim a connection between Saddam and 9/11 and support Bush's plans for invasion of The Iraq, let's have them. If not, then wtf are you talking about?

sleepyjeff

01-30-2008, 12:27 PM

So, again, if you have quotes from Al Gore that claim a connection between Saddam and 9/11 and support Bush's plans for invasion of The Iraq, let's have them. If not, then wtf are you talking about?

What I am talking about is the clear fact that Gore wanted to take out Saddam just as much as Bush II.....and would have done so whether we were attacked on 9/11 or not.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=NVUO7voM-ns

Prudence

01-30-2008, 12:50 PM

Thank you John Edwards

I'm sorry I didn't get to vote for you.

What he said.

SacTown Chronic

01-30-2008, 12:57 PM

We'll never agree on this, sleepy, but there is no way any president gets the support from the legislative branch - at least not from the opposition party - or from the American people to pull resources away from hunting Bin Laden in order to occupy Iraq without lying about Saddam's connection to 9/11 (especially with Hans Blix speaking truth to the world about WMD).

I don't care if Al Gore desired to imprison Saddam, pop his eyeballs out, and ram a hot poker into the empty eye sockets every day for a hundred years -- unless President Gore was willing to lie about the Iraqi threat in order to drum up support for invasion, we would not be in Iraq today.

(Sorry, but your video from 1992 does nothing to change this obvious fact.)

sleepyjeff

01-30-2008, 01:14 PM

We'll never agree on this, sleepy,

Well, that much we can agree on:D

The whole thing is a moo point anyway....it's like a cow's opinion, it just doesn't matter........it's moo*;)

*stold that from a Friends episode

SacTown Chronic

01-30-2008, 01:16 PM

Jeff, you know I love you.....but, please, return that joke for a full refund. ASAP!

sleepyjeff

01-30-2008, 01:29 PM

Jeff, you know I love you.....but, please, return that joke for a full refund. ASAP!

:D

JWBear

01-30-2008, 01:32 PM

BarTopDancer

01-30-2008, 01:49 PM

Jeff, you know I love you.....but, please, return that joke for a full refund. ASAP!

:D

Get a freekin room!

scaeagles

01-30-2008, 02:33 PM

It sickens me to think of all the money, resources, and (most importantly) lives that have been wasted in Iraq - diverted from what should have been our top priority; capturing Osama bin Laden and eliminating Al Qaeda.

I would argue that the surge has significantly weakened al Qaeda.

sleepyjeff

01-30-2008, 02:41 PM

I agree with STC. Just because someone spoke out against Saddam's regime does not mean that they would have followed the same course as the current administration. The invasion of Iraq was a neo-con wet dream that they were able to push trough via lies and misinformation.

From a 2000 debate between Gore and Bush:

MODERATOR: Grenada, Panama, the Persian Gulf, Somalia, Bosnia, Haiti, Kosovo. If you had been president for any of those interventions, would any of those interventions not have happened?

MODERATOR: Grenada?

GORE: I supported that.

MODERATOR: Panama?

GORE: I supported that.

MODERATOR: Persian Gulf?

GORE: Yes, I voted for it, supported it.

MODERATOR: Somalia?

GORE: Of course, and that again -- no, I think that that was ill-considered. I did support it at the time. It was in the previous administration, in the Bush-Quayle administration, and I think in retrospect the lessons there are ones that we should take very, very seriously.

MODERATOR: Bosnia?

GORE: Oh, yes.

MODERATOR: Haiti?

GORE: Yes.

MODERATOR: And then Kosovo?

GORE: Yes.

What the debate doesn't say is that Gore also supported the next action (Afghanistan) and was even encouraging an attack on Iraq in early 2002.
Looks like he tends towards war to me.

To be fair, I suppose I should include the following from the same debate:

BUSH: [Somalia]Started off as a humanitarian mission and it changed into a nation-building mission, and that's where the mission went wrong. The mission was changed. And as a result, our nation paid a price. And so I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building. I think our troops ought to be used to fight and win war. I think our troops ought to be used to help overthrow the dictator when it's in our best interests. But in this case it was a nation-building exercise, and same with Haiti. I wouldn't have supported either.

Strangler Lewis

01-30-2008, 03:46 PM

To be fair, we have to remember that this is from the 2000 campaign where everything Gore did and said was idiotic. Here, it appears that he is not actually answering the question but rather ticking off in a fairly kneejerk way all the military actions he voted to "support." I recall Bob Dole saying as a senator that it was important for the Senate to support Clinton's actions in the Balkans. Voting not to support a president's military plans takes particular gumption, particularly if one has greater ambitions.

Gore has also taken anti-choice and anti-gay marriage positions in his past life as a senator from Tennessee. I don't think these would have been good predictors of how he would approach these issues if he had been elected president.

sleepyjeff

01-30-2008, 03:57 PM

JWBear

01-30-2008, 03:58 PM

I would argue that the surge has significantly weakened al Qaeda.

Al Qaeda forces in Iraq, perhaps. It did nothing to touch the main Al Qaeda forces in Afganistan.

It's also worth mentioning that Al Qaeda wouldn't even be in Iraq if it wasn't for the US invasion; and that if we had kept our focus on Afganistan, which we had a legitimate reason for invading, we might have defeated Al Qaeda by now.

scaeagles

01-30-2008, 04:17 PM

I won't bother to debate legitimate, as previous discussions already provide that I believe we had a legitimate reason the moment the cease fire from gulf war I was violated.

I think it's funny that when we can't take dems at their word....they were only showing support for military action to sound like hawks for political purposes but of course wouldn't have done anything of action on their own. It doesn't matter what they say or how they vote, it's only our perception of them, because they certainly wouldn't have done anything similar.

JWBear

01-30-2008, 05:45 PM

You can replace the word "dems" and replace "repubs", and it would have just as much legitimacy.

sleepyjeff

01-30-2008, 06:00 PM

I like what Russel Roberts of NPR said about the stimulus package.....

It's like taking a bucket of water from the deep end of a pool and dumping it into the shallow end. Funny thing — the water in the shallow end doesn't get any deeper.

innerSpaceman

01-30-2008, 07:36 PM

Yeah, but I still want my $600 (which my payroll service has consistently left me owing the IRS each year since I've had my current job).

It would be nice to call it a wash this year (as should happen every year). Where's my check??

scaeagles

01-30-2008, 07:55 PM

You can replace the word "dems" and replace "repubs", and it would have just as much legitimacy.

Indeed. But what I find funny is that there seems to be support because you know they won't do what they say. I honestly get upset with the people I vote for when they don't follow through on what they have said they will do.

Not Afraid

01-30-2008, 08:49 PM

9/11 9/11 9/11 Hitler Hitler Hitler

Goodwin's brother needs a law.

On a similar note, I saw a truck with 2 bumper stickers the other day:

1) 9/11 - Never forget. Never forgive.
2) Jesus Saves.

Now, what's wrong with this picture?

Gemini Cricket

01-30-2008, 08:56 PM

Politicians: Dinglecheeses all.

scaeagles

01-31-2008, 09:22 AM

I'm rethinking McCain.

He does have a decent rating from the American Conservative Union. There are just a few key issues for me that I majorly disagree with him on.

Think i'll still vote for Romney in the primary, but I am leaning toward being more comfortable with him as the nominee.

I also think Hillary will win the dem nomination. 7 pt lead in the most recent national poll with Super Tuesday a scant 5 days away.

Ghoulish Delight

01-31-2008, 09:44 AM

I also think Hillary will win the dem nomination. 7 pt lead in the most recent national poll with Super Tuesday a scant 5 days away.
Yes, but that poll includes Edwards, at at a high enough percentage that it makes a major difference. If Obama gets more than half of the Edwards vote, it becomes a VERY close race.

scaeagles

01-31-2008, 09:46 AM

That is true. I think it will be interesting to see who promises Edwards more as far as consideration for VP, promise of a nomination for AG, whatever. I think he's holding his endorsement for the highest bidder.

Alex

01-31-2008, 09:55 AM

Eh, if that 7 point national lead were to result in a 7 point victory in each individual state that would still result in essentially a tie on delegates.

I think we're still a long way from having a clear leader for the Democrats.

An example from California. 440 delegates up for grabs. If Clinton beats Obama 53% to 47% and the votes are distributed evenly throughout the state she'll get 233 and he'll get 206. If votes for Hillary cluster in urban areas while Obama is more successful in rural areas (as has been the case elsewhere) then he'll start to gain delegates beyond that straight popular vote since most of the delegates are actually assigned based on proportional performance within congressional districts.

sleepyjeff

01-31-2008, 10:49 AM

I'm rethinking McCain.

He does have a decent rating from the American Conservative Union. There are just a few key issues for me that I majorly disagree with him on.

Ford 3.0 (I am just saying)

Dole was Ford 2.0

Alex

01-31-2008, 10:56 AM

Warren G. Harding was Ford 0.1 build 0.1.23.

I bet the party was happy 50 years later when the Ford model finally went goldpin.

sleepyjeff

01-31-2008, 11:26 AM

Warren G. Harding was Ford 0.1 build 0.1.23.

I bet the party was happy 50 years later when the Ford model finally went goldpin.

Good stuff there Alex(smile face omitted out of respect)

Alex

01-31-2008, 12:26 PM

I just heard a guy on Talk of the Nation on NPR ask a great question.

CNN is staking out black hair salons to ask the women inside whether they're conflicted about having to choose between their gender (Clinton) and their race (Obama). The guy on NPR raised the point that we won't see any reporters in suburban bars asking white guys if they are conflicted about having to choose between their gender (Obama) or their race (Clinton).

Strangler Lewis

01-31-2008, 12:34 PM

I bet if Joe Lieberman were running against Hillary Clinton, there would be reporters at the Hadassah meetings asking the ladies the same questions.

sleepyjeff

01-31-2008, 12:45 PM

I just heard a guy on Talk of the Nation on NPR ask a great question.

CNN is staking out black hair salons to ask the women inside whether they're conflicted about having to choose between their gender (Clinton) and their race (Obama).

How insulting. Does CNN really think people are that shallow. What about the issues?

Oh yeah, I forgot, they're both big government Democrats with little to no difference between them when it comes to the issues.......so I guess their race and gender really may be the only point of contention.