Yes, we can.

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by Strangler Lewis

Scaeagles,

Not that you had to, but I don't think you ever responded to my observation that you are not willing to live with the strictures--a greatly reduced speed limit--that would greatly reduce or eliminate traffic deaths, but you appear to be willing to live with the strictures--everyone armed to the teeth, the assumption that everyone is a potential threat--that you believe would reduce deaths at the hands of criminals.

Well, actually, I support law abiding and well trained citizens carrying. I see no problem with that.

I'm afraid I don't see the parallel. I don't see it problematic nor inconvenient for law abiding and well trained citized to carry. I see it as problematic having a 10 mph speed limit.

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by Motorboat Cruiser

Pretty amazing pictures from Oregon, where an estimated 65,000 attended and another 15,000 were turned away.

Interesting and little known fact.....there was a free 45 minute concert by a group called The Decemberists. Obama packs in the crowds, certainly, but I think this may have boosted the crowd.

Something telling to me, and others (I have no doubt) will say this is another thing that doesn't matter.....The Decemberists, according to Wikipedia, named themselves after a lesser known 1825 revolt against imperialist Russia. The thing I find most interesting - they begin their concerts with the National Anthem of the Soviet Union.

Now why the hell would a candidate want a group that plays the National Anthem of the Soviet Union on a regular basis to perform at a campaign rally? It is obviously a political statement on the behalf of the band. "He couldn't have known!" will be the cry, and that's probably true. But the people that work for him and set it up certainly did, and frankly, I find that disgusting. The Soviet Union was an oppressive, murderous place. I work with a Ukrainian immigrant and while he doesn't like to talk about it much, the stories I've heard him tell are damn scary.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

Now why the hell would a candidate want a group that plays the National Anthem of the Soviet Union on a regular basis to perform at a campaign rally?

I wonder how many people look at something like this and say "that's the straw that broke the camel's back - I'm switching sides and not voting for Obama." I think this every time I hear some other slight lob from one side or the other.

I'm having some major campaign fatigue. All these minor issues are bullsh.t. No one is changing their minds over these tiny "issues". Here is what matters:

a) The candidate's Iraq stance
b) The candidate's economy stance
c) The candidate's medical care stance
d) The candidate's race/gender/other character judgments that were made ages ago and will not change no matter what nontroversy is thrown around this week

I may have missed one or two other actual issues (which none of the candidates have changed positions on for a year at least). The rest of it is the prattling of dust mites living in our skin folds.

God, how I hate politics. It reveals the ultimate triviality of our minds. I find myself sucked in to the daily feedbag of supposed happenings that don't matter in the slightest. Human systems always seem to reveal the shortcomings of their creators.

Now that I've mucked around in it for this long, I'm already feeling dirty. I know that if my candidate doesn't win, I'll feel like crap, and if my candidate wins but doesn't perform to my expectation, I'll feel guilty. Here's hoping things turn out ok.

In the meanwhile, I'm beginning to roll my eyes at all of it. I have to admit though, there is one surface problem that I think merits attention - that of Hillary Clinton not dropping out. Even that is endemic of the system, and further pushes me towards simply turning my head from the carnage.

May I say - Blech.

[Moonliner]

Originally Posted by Cadaverous Pallor

I wonder how many people look at something like this and say "that's the straw that broke the camel's back - I'm switching sides and not voting for Obama." I think this every time I hear some other slight lob from one side or the other.

It's rather like a woman I work with. She is husband shopping. So every first date she goes on the guy is measured by the "Is this the guy I want to spend my life with" yardstick.

Needless to say, she goes on a lot of first dates.

[innerSpaceman]

I don't see what the problem is with waiting the week-and-half for the last primary for her to drop out. Yeah, she can't win. At this point, so damn close, let everyone vote just for the hell of it.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Here's an interesting endorsement for Obama.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Joe Biden says a mouthful

You want to talk about emboldening our enemies, 6 years of aggression without engagement has done more to embolden Iran and motivate them to become a real threat than anything else. It's a failed policy, it's time to freaking try another tack.

NOT, as McCain would like us to believe, with the goal of making Iran our bestest buddy, or of appeasing them, or of letting them have their way. With the goal of actually getting a handle on the situation, getting as much information as we possibly can on ALL of the factors involved. Keep your friends close and your enemies closer. Not talking to them does nothing but make it harder to really know what's going on. And that's reflected in the faulty intelligence that continues to pile up and (mis)guide our foreign policy decisions.

Not that talks will necessarily fix the intelligence, but it will provide another data point to refine what we know.

[scaeagles]

I don't buy that.

Terrorism is a means to an uncompromising end. Ahmadinejad supports terrorism because it helps him in his uncompromising goal of the elimination of Israel. As long as we are friends and defenders of Israel that will be directed at us as well.

I don't think Obama wants Iran as our best friends. Again, it comes down to being naive.

To think that iran would be straight forward at a negotiating table is as naive as when Clinton believed North Korea really wouldn't use the nuke plants we built them to assist in their nuclear programs, because, golly, they said they wouldn't do that.

[Motorboat Cruiser]

See, to me, it seems naive to think that terrorism, a tactic, will ever be eliminated by the use of force alone. And that seems to be all that the conservatives can come up with - bomb em' - bomb em' some more. And all that appears to do is increase their recruiting numbers.

The real goal of terrorism - to instill fear in a society, disrupt lives, and cause people to implement stupid measures that don't make them any safer but make them feel safer, at the loss of freedom - seems to be going exactly as planned. And as an added bonus, we slowly bankrupt ourselves fighting a never-ending war. Meanwhile, the real terrorists such as those that actually committed the atrocities of 9/11 live out their days as heroes to their people for attacking the evil USA, all while we continue to fight a war against the only secular society in the middle east (at least it used to be) - the one that never attacked us. And the icing on the cake is that they are slowly turning into a theocracy, not a democracy.

Sorry, but I just don't see that we've done anything by the actions you suggest other than simply make things worse, create more enemies, and watch a few of our soldiers die needlessly each week.

I'm more than willing to try a different strategy, thank you very much, and by last report, so is about 80% of the population.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

To think that iran would be straight forward at a negotiating table is as naive as when Clinton believed North Korea really wouldn't use the nuke plants we built them to assist in their nuclear programs, because, golly, they said they wouldn't do that.

Whoever claimed that they'd expect them to be straight forward? That's not the point. Of COURSE they'll be dishonest. Of COURSE their goals will not match ours. Of COURSE they would be trying to get the most out of any negotiation, any way they can.

All of that is beside the point. Lies can be just as informative as the truth. And negotiations that end in absolutely nothing happening or no deal being made can be just as influential as a unilateral cease fire agreement. The whole point is that having a dialog is a means of learning something about the enemy. No one has ever made the ludicrous commitment that by agreeing to talks we are going to agree to demands. That's absurd and simply not going to happen.

By not talking, you are guaranteeing that you're shutting out a source of information. Whether what they actually say at the talks is truthful or not is entirely irrelevant. The more interface we have with them, the more we know them.