View Full Version : I wonder how disapointed they will be...
USANick7
10-07-2008, 12:46
I'm just curious, especially of those supporting Obama...
Just how disappointed are you going to be when Obama losses this election?
With each passing day we are greeted with a new poll compelling us to believe that Obama is going to win this thing hands down...just like Kerry did.
Am I really supposed to believe that North Carolina and Missouri are in play?
I mean I understand, I am supposed to buy into the notion that the entire country, almost over night has become so enchanted by Obama, that even conservative strongholds like North Carolina are rethinking the error of their individual liberty, free market, patriotic ways.
Why do they do this to themselves? Is it so they can claim voter fraud when their candidate of hope and change is done before we can even count the ballots on the west coast?
Personally I'm thrilled...
If there are any pollsters out there reading please catch this...
By all means keep your polls isolated to Boston and the Campus at UC Berkley. With every new poll that comes out McCain supporters become more aware of what is at stake, and Obama supporters are encouraged to stay home safe in their conviction of the overwhelming support he is receiving from an "objective" Newsweek poll.
Liberals are in for another upset, as they insist that their guy is the wave of the future, because the latest poll confirms it!
There are going to be some broken hearts come election day...so we conservatives might as well as prepare ourselves for the inevitable screams and calls for recounts...
I am already prepared for the claims of racism and voter fraud (as if conservatives could teach liberals ANYTHING about voter fraud).
Republicans have had a hard time in most every poll imaginable over the last 6 years...except of course for the ones taking place on election day...there we still fair pretty well.:lifter
jasonglh
10-07-2008, 13:30
On election day I think by noon the MSM will start with their its all over now so that McCain voters will think their gas to the polls would be wasted.
just my unsolicited .02
greenberetTFS
10-07-2008, 15:00
I'm just curious, especially of those supporting Obama...
Just how disappointed are you going to be when Obama losses this election?
With each passing day we are greeted with a new poll compelling us to believe that Obama is going to win this thing hands down...just like Kerry did.
Am I really supposed to believe that North Carolina and Missouri are in play?
I mean I understand, I am supposed to buy into the notion that the entire country, almost over night has become so enchanted by Obama, that even conservative strongholds like North Carolina are rethinking the error of their individual liberty, free market, patriotic ways.
Why do they do this to themselves? Is it so they can claim voter fraud when their candidate of hope and change is done before we can even count the ballots on the west coast?
Personally I'm thrilled...
If there are any pollsters out there reading please catch this...
By all means keep your polls isolated to Boston and the Campus at UC Berkley. With every new poll that comes out McCain supporters become more aware of what is at stake, and Obama supporters are encouraged to stay home safe in their conviction of the overwhelming support he is receiving from an "objective" Newsweek poll.
Liberals are in for another upset, as they insist that their guy is the wave of the future, because the latest poll confirms it!
There are going to be some broken hearts come election day...so we conservatives might as well as prepare ourselves for the inevitable screams and calls for recounts...
I am already prepared for the claims of racism and voter fraud (as if conservatives could teach liberals ANYTHING about voter fraud).
Republicans have had a hard time in most every poll imaginable over the last 6 years...except of course for the ones taking place on election day...there we still fair pretty well.:lifter
USANick7,
Sounds pretty good to me.......:D
GB TFS :munchin
jamber97
10-07-2008, 15:36
Barack Obama needs more than liberal votes in order to win. I voted early and for Obama and believe it or not, I'm a registered Republican.
I couldn't find much scrutiny or analysis of Mccain in these forums which threw up a few red flags. I did a bit of research and came to the conclusion that we do indeed need a change.
What finally got me was Obamas voting record on veterans issues. He came thru considerably more times than MCcain, which surprised me.
Honestly as you can probably tell from my posts that I was barely a Republican if ever at all. I subscribed to the Bush philosophy on where to take the country, as given in his speeches, and history as governor. Bush vs. Gore was the first time I was motivated to register to vote and voted for Bush.
With out going into boring details, I feel that Bush didn't hold up to his end of the deal. I see a striking similarity between Bush and Mccain. Similarities in speeches, promises, philosophy, voting record and staff which makes me believe that history will repeat itself and the candidate won't hold true.
It's time to give the Democrats a chance to fall short of their promises.
.....It's time to give the Democrats a chance to fall short of their promises.
Ah, they've been doing that since the 2006 elections. Ever hear of the promises Nacey P made?
Open? Cleaned up? Bipartisan? That's worth about 20 :D
came to the conclusion that we do indeed need a change.
I too want a change.
Most of our Presidents for the past 3 decades, save George H.W. Bush, have been state governors. I'm willing to vote in a Senator just to mix things up a bit.
+1 vote for McCain.
Change is often merely the illusion of progress.
Dozer523
10-07-2008, 16:08
I'm just curious, especially of those supporting Obama...
Just how disappointed are you going to be when Obama losses this election?
. . . Liberals are in for another upset, as they insist that their guy is the wave of the future, because the latest poll confirms it!
Republicans have had a hard time in most every poll imaginable over the last 6 years...except of course for the ones taking place on election day...there we still fair pretty well.:lifter
How disappointed am I going to be? Well disappointment is kind of a relative term. Let's see. Let's check the one of the "happy meters":D. The economy. That's been a little disappointing. The Dow dropped another 508 today after dropping 800 yesterday. It's down 3000 since May and off 4000 since a year ago. I guess the disOpoint-o-meter is in the red:(. Can it get worse? Well, I guess that might ADD to my disappointment.
So will I be disappointed if Obama loses. Nah. (i'm really planning on voting for McCain -- REALLY) But I sometimes wonder what the world would be like if instead of trying to go IN to the White House, if John was copping a short-timer's attitude and thinking that in Jan09 he'd be retiring to help his wife run that brewery. I'm pretty sure he'd have left the place better then he found it. Yup, I wish he had a little better luck in the 2000 Primary.
And finally to "except of course for the ones taking place on election day...there we still fair pretty well" I wish I could say it had worked out as well for my happy meters.
The Reaper
10-07-2008, 19:20
It's time to give the Democrats a chance to fall short of their promises.
If you had served under a more moderate Dem, Jimmy Carter, you might feel differently.
I am not willing to risk my children's lives on the appeasing, far-left, Socialist candidate with the haters for his advisers.
You earlier admitted that you needed to do some more research on the history and positions of Obama. Now it would appear that you have made your choice before you had to. Congratulations. I call this action irresponsible.
I sincerely hope that we do not all have cause to regret this decision.
TR
Barack Obama needs more than liberal votes in order to win. I voted early and for Obama and believe it or not, I'm a registered Republican.
I couldn't find much scrutiny or analysis of Mccain in these forums which threw up a few red flags. I did a bit of research and came to the conclusion that we do indeed need a change.
What finally got me was Obamas voting record on veterans issues. He came thru considerably more times than MCcain, which surprised me.
Honestly as you can probably tell from my posts that I was barely a Republican if ever at all. I subscribed to the Bush philosophy on where to take the country, as given in his speeches, and history as governor. Bush vs. Gore was the first time I was motivated to register to vote and voted for Bush.
Ayers, Wright, Rezko and many others, as well as his work with ACORN are a valid reason to question Obama what his intentions truly are. Don't think so? What would think of McCain if he Pal'd around with David Duke and attended KKK meetings for 20 years?
With out going into boring details, I feel that Bush didn't hold up to his end of the deal. I see a striking similarity between Bush and Mccain. Similarities in speeches, promises, philosophy, voting record and staff which makes me believe that history will repeat itself and the candidate won't hold true.
It's time to give the Democrats a chance to fall short of their promises.
The President doesn't make the laws, pass bills, include earmarks or raise/lower taxes....Your Congress and Senate do. Obamas promises of HOPE and CHANGE are pipe dreams, nothing he talks about will happen without the approval of our Lawmakers making it happen.
And the fact is that for the past 2 years the Democrats have had the majority and have had the oppourtunity to make changes and they haven't done squat.
Wright, Ayers, Rezko and ACORN are all valid reasons to doubt the substance of Obama. If you think not, consider how you would feel if McCain pal'd around with David Duke and was member of the KKK for 20 years.
I am not sure what you mean by this statement. What precisely threw up the red flags and what did the flags say?
If you meant that Senator McCain hasn't received analysis here, I respectfully disagree. Senator McCain has been the focus of intense and informed scrutiny on this forum.
Several examples follow:
http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2954
http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=13618
http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=8746
http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/showpost.php?p=78692
If you decide to pursue seriously your interest in how the modern American presidency works, The Presidency of James Earl Carter, Jr. (second revised ed.) may be worthy of your attention.
The work illustrates the complexities of the federal government, the difficulties a self-proclaimed outsider/reformer faces once he gets to Washington, and how a president's personality traits can quickly become flaws, especially if he thinks he's the smartest guy in the room.
The book also spends time discussing how a candidate who presented himself as many things to many different types of people ended up disappointing almost all of them.
I couldn't find much scrutiny or analysis of Mccain in these forums which threw up a few red flags.
USANick7
10-08-2008, 01:46
Barack Obama needs more than liberal votes in order to win. I voted early and for Obama and believe it or not, I'm a registered Republican.
I couldn't find much scrutiny or analysis of Mccain in these forums which threw up a few red flags. I did a bit of research and came to the conclusion that we do indeed need a change.
What finally got me was Obamas voting record on veterans issues. He came thru considerably more times than MCcain, which surprised me.
Honestly as you can probably tell from my posts that I was barely a Republican if ever at all. I subscribed to the Bush philosophy on where to take the country, as given in his speeches, and history as governor. Bush vs. Gore was the first time I was motivated to register to vote and voted for Bush.
With out going into boring details, I feel that Bush didn't hold up to his end of the deal. I see a striking similarity between Bush and Mccain. Similarities in speeches, promises, philosophy, voting record and staff which makes me believe that history will repeat itself and the candidate won't hold true.
It's time to give the Democrats a chance to fall short of their promises.
This might as well be identical to one of your first posts here where you offered to explain to us all why an Obama presidency would yield long term benefits...
We are still waiting for you to make good on that promise.
And you have been provided adequate analysis regarding the key questions of this election, you simply didn't like the answers.
As I have watched these interactions, I can honestly state, that I cant recall you carrying one to fruition. You simply would leave an argument when it became apparent that you had lost the upper hand, only to reappear with a slightly modified argument later.
The people here have been giving you an analysis of conservatism, more so then John McCain; there is a very simple reason for this.
Conservatives watch for the message, and then the person delivering it. For liberals it appears to be all about style, i.e. the complete reverse.
Your experimental notion of government is quite frankly naive.
For you to suggest that its time to "give the democrats a try" simply because they are not republicans is absurd.
A responsible voter determines what politician they will vote for not based solely off the personality and promises of the person, but based off their stated world view.
From what you have said on this site, it is a wonder why you ever voted for Bush in the first place.
Your positions are decidedly socialist leaning economically. Internationalist- foreign policy wise, and liberal-socially.
Where as most of the people you have been debating with here are capitalist- economically, nationalist- foreign policy wise and moderate to conservative- socially.
Now if that is an accurate description of your political philosophy, then by all means vote for Obama. But lets not pretend, that your opposition to McCain has anything to do with arguments or scrutiny leveled on this site.
Let us also stop pretending that your choice of Obama, was the result of some rugged philosophical search where by you realized that even though your a republican, it was time to give Democrats a go.
Nothing you have written on these pages would have ever lead me to believe that you were a republican.
So either you weren't paying attention then, or your not paying attention now. But you really need to determine your worldview. Based off that world view, determine a political philosophy, based off that political philosophy choose a candidate.
It just gets under my skin when I hear someone say "its time to give the other guys a shot". This isn't a question of putting in the rookie pitcher in the bottom of the 9th. Responsible people don't retry what they've already seen fail time and time again, hoping that this time it will work.
And in this case, you are talking about electing a man that would FUNDAMENTALLY alter the way this country does business. He is seeking to weaken individual liberty, and responsibility. He is seeking to weaken individual economic freedom, which as you may recall was a HUGE reason why this country was founded. His solutions are across the board BIG GOVERNMENT.
I don't know how much traveling you've done in your life but I done a bit. And to allot of places people don't generally go to vacation. American is NOT the rule, it is the exception. the reason for that is our religious, economic and political institutions. Now we have someone that wants to ignore the first, completely change the second and drastically alter the balance of power in the third. I have seen that done everywhere where poverty and strife are rampant.
Americans are not genetically superior to other peoples. The only thing that sets us apart are those institutions I mentioned above. Fundamentally alter those, and it will take generations to correct the mistakes, if you ever fully recover.
jamber97
10-08-2008, 06:09
I am not sure what you mean by this statement. What precisely threw up the red flags and what did the flags say?
If you meant that Senator McCain hasn't received analysis here, I respectfully disagree. Senator McCain has been the focus of intense and informed scrutiny on this forum.
Several examples follow:
http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2954
http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=13618
http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=8746
http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/showpost.php?p=78692
If you decide to pursue seriously your interest in how the modern American presidency works, The Presidency of James Earl Carter, Jr. (second revised ed.) may be worthy of your attention.
The work illustrates the complexities of the federal government, the difficulties a self-proclaimed outsider/reformer faces once he gets to Washington, and how a president's personality traits can quickly become flaws, especially if he thinks he's the smartest guy in the room.
The book also spends time discussing how a candidate who presented himself as many things to many different types of people ended up disappointing almost all of them.
Thank you for posting that last link, I had missed that one. I see a Obama Presidency to be more like a Clinton Presidency than a Carter Presidency. Clinton raised taxes and we saw one of the greatest economic expansions in our history.
USANick7
10-08-2008, 06:21
Thank you for posting that last link, I had missed that one. I see a Obama Presidency to be more like a Clinton Presidency than a Carter Presidency. Clinton raised taxes and we saw one of the greatest economic expansions in our history.
Jamber that has got to be one of the most simplistic and absurd correlation vs. causation arguments I have seen on this site.
But let me make sure, before this firestorm starts...
Are you honestly suggesting that it was Clinton's tax raises that fueled the economic boom of the 90's?
..... Clinton raised taxes and we saw one of the greatest economic expansions in our history.
Jamber - read this
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122333901560909871.html?mod=rss_opinion_main
What are your views on this story?
"Clinton raised taxes and we saw one of the greatest economic expansions in our history."
This statement gives proof that you're an idiot.
Clinton raised taxes and we saw one of the greatest economic expansions in our history.
Was he responsible for the fall of the technology bubble in 1999-2000 too? Does he get to share the burden for all the .com companies and telecom companies that went belly up at the end of his four year administration? How about Enron? OR did that all happen in the first nine months Bush was in office :rolleyes:
When are people gonna learn that the economy is cyclical? Regardless of what Obama says, economic laws did not change with the new millennium.
jamber97
10-08-2008, 08:51
This might as well be identical to one of your first posts here where you offered to explain to us all why an Obama presidency would yield long term benefits...
We are still waiting for you to make good on that promise.
I gave you my opinion and I was barraged with a gazillion philosophical,historical questions.
And you have been provided adequate analysis regarding the key questions of this election, you simply didn't like the answers.
The analysis I've noted, reads like a transcript from a number of conservative radio talk shows. I didn't find much independent thoughts except for a good amount of historical first hand experience which I do very much appreciate.
As I have watched these interactions, I can honestly state, that I cant recall you carrying one to fruition. You simply would leave an argument when it became apparent that you had lost the upper hand, only to reappear with a slightly modified argument later.
Once I find that I end up repeating points I've already made, I tend not to respond.
The people here have been giving you an analysis of conservatism, more so then John McCain; there is a very simple reason for this.
Conservatives watch for the message, and then the person delivering it. For liberals it appears to be all about style, i.e. the complete reverse.
Your experimental notion of government is quite frankly naive..
I'm not sure I've communicated my notion of government.
For you to suggest that its time to "give the democrats a try" simply because they are not republicans is absurd..
Wanting a change in a philosophy that you feel needs to be changed is far from being absurd.
A responsible voter determines what politician they will vote for not based solely off the personality and promises of the person, but based off their stated world view..
The Bush/MCain world view is out dated. This opinion is strongly reflected by world leaders and secratries of state.
From what you have said on this site, it is a wonder why you ever voted for Bush in the first place. .
I voted for two terms of Bush because he had a clear plan I could see working.
Your positions are decidedly socialist leaning economically. Internationalist- foreign policy wise, and liberal-socially..
Liberal socialy, yes but I'm probably more of a capitlaist than you are considering your beliefs on abortion.
Where as most of the people you have been debating with here are capitalist- economically, nationalist- foreign policy wise and moderate to conservative- socially..
Now if that is an accurate description of your political philosophy, then by all means vote for Obama. But lets not pretend, that your opposition to McCain has anything to do with arguments or scrutiny leveled on this site.
Based upon some of the arguments I've seen in these forums the people you described above shouldn't be voting for either candidate.
Let us also stop pretending that your choice of Obama, was the result of some rugged philosophical search where by you realized that even though your a republican, it was time to give Democrats a go.
No need to pretend, I've done more research and independent thought than 90% of most americans. Most americans come to conclusion solely off of what they hear thru the grapevine and our propagandist media.
Nothing you have written on these pages would have ever lead me to believe that you were a republican.
Thats a tragic flaw of mine. I tend to play the devils advocate in environments like this.
So either you weren't paying attention then, or your not paying attention now. But you really need to determine your worldview. Based off that world view, determine a political philosophy, based off that political philosophy choose a candidate.
That is very wise advice. I will definetly take it.
It just gets under my skin when I hear someone say "its time to give the other guys a shot". This isn't a question of putting in the rookie pitcher in the bottom of the 9th. Responsible people don't retry what they've already seen fail time and time again, hoping that this time it will work..
All presidencys expirience a bit of failure. I see an Obama term being more centrist and a more modern approach to our issues. McCain seemd to be less clear on his plan and some what out of date with his approach and philosophy.
And in this case, you are talking about electing a man that would FUNDAMENTALLY alter the way this country does business. He is seeking to weaken individual liberty, and responsibility. He is seeking to weaken individual economic freedom, which as you may recall was a HUGE reason why this country was founded. His solutions are across the board BIG GOVERNMENT..
I don't see it. Government has its role and going to extremes either way with the size of government makes no sense to me.
I don't know how much traveling you've done in your life but I done a bit. And to allot of places people don't generally go to vacation. American is NOT the rule, it is the exception. the reason for that is our religious, economic and political institutions...
I agree with you there.
Now we have someone that wants to ignore the first, completely change the second and drastically alter the balance of power in the third. I have seen that done everywhere where poverty and strife are rampant..
Its been happening through out our countries history. You mention nothing new. As King Solomon said " Theres nothing new under the sun"
Americans are not genetically superior to other peoples. The only thing that sets us apart are those institutions I mentioned above. Fundamentally alter those, and it will take generations to correct the mistakes, if you ever fully recover.
I agree but don't see your point on how those fundamentals would be altered under an Obama term. I haven't read or heard anything outside of the conservative radio propaganda that would make me believe your point
jamber97
10-08-2008, 09:13
Jamber - read this
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122333901560909871.html?mod=rss_opinion_main
What are your views on this story?
There was no mention of Obamas incentives on how business's can avoid capital gains taxes. Keeping Jobs here etc . I disagree with the effects that would result from each tax plan. If low corp tax = more jobs then why not make the corp tax 0 and achieve max job growth and achieve net tax rev from fed personal income tax.
Lowering corp tax and capital gains taxes doesn't necessarily increase job growth but it does increase profits. Then its up to the corporation to decide what to do with it and they normally stick it in the pockets of themselves and shareholders.
The tax code needs to be incentive based. If you want business to create jobs they need additional incentive to do so. You just can't count on them to do it because it helps the economy..
jamber97
10-08-2008, 09:17
Jamber that has got to be one of the most simplistic and absurd correlation vs. causation arguments I have seen on this site.
But let me make sure, before this firestorm starts...
Are you honestly suggesting that it was Clinton's tax raises that fueled the economic boom of the 90's?
No I'm saying that raised taxes does not automatically equal failed economy.
....The tax code needs to be incentive based. If you want business to create jobs they need additional incentive to do so. You just can't count on them to do it because it helps the economy..
The business of business is to make money for the owners/shareholders. If that means expanding and creating more jobs - that will help the economy.
A business friendly country (ie low corporate taxes) will draw business. That example can be seen on a small scale here in the states. A state's corporate tax rate has a direct impact on business activity.
jamber97
10-08-2008, 09:22
Was he responsible for the fall of the technology bubble in 1999-2000 too? Does he get to share the burden for all the .com companies and telecom companies that went belly up at the end of his four year administration? How about Enron? OR did that all happen in the first nine months Bush was in office :rolleyes:
When are people gonna learn that the economy is cyclical? Regardless of what Obama says, economic laws did not change with the new millennium.
Clinton gave them enough rope to climb or hang themselves. Some chose to thrive in the environment he helped create and others abused it and therefore hung themselves. Either way Clintons partly responsible for either result.
jamber97
10-08-2008, 09:33
The business of business is to make money for the owners/shareholders. If that means expanding and creating more jobs - that will help the economy.
A business friendly country (ie low corporate taxes) will draw business. That example can be seen on a small scale here in the states. A state's corporate tax rate has a direct impact on business activity.
Thats just it. Reduced tax burden doesn't always mean expanding and creating more jobs. There needs to be addtional incentive.
A business friendly country will draw business but its not the only factor. The quality and stability of the government and quality of the workforce plays a large part in it as well. Tax cuts should be linked with incentive ie. you get xyz break if you do abc.
Team Sergeant
10-08-2008, 09:53
Thats just it. Reduced tax burden doesn't always mean expanding and creating more jobs. There needs to be addtional incentive.
A business friendly country will draw business but its not the only factor. The quality and stability of the government and quality of the workforce plays a large part in it as well. Tax cuts should be linked with incentive ie. you get xyz break if you do abc.
jamber97,
Next time you post you better have "proof" or at least some sort of research to back your "opinions". My point being, those guys with the Quiet Professional title, I know who they are and I know a good bit concerning their background.
We don't know you from adam.
If you're wondering how this might be accomplished go and read a few dozen of nmap's posts.
This is not a request.
Team Sergeant
With all due respect, I do not recognize the discussions of the 2008 presidential election, history, and political philosophy on this board that you described in your post.
If I'm reading you correctly, you argue that you're more informed, better read, and more intellectually independent than 90% of Americans. You offer yourself in contrast to unnamed members of this board who do not voice "independent thoughts" except "for a good amount of historical first hand experience" (which is a backhanded way of dismissing someone's experiences as being anecdotal).
At the same time, you say that you have been "barraged with a gazillion philosophical,historical questions" to which you've not replied because you "end up repeating points."
Your comments present several tensions but I'll confine myself to two. First, to mistake the conversations on this board for a 'transcript' of conservative talk radio suggests that one is listening to both with a tin ear. The comments on this board about the campaign, the economy, and America more generally reflect a diverse range of views that are obviously based upon careful reflection and frequent reconsideration.
Put simply, the argument that there is not intellectual rigor or diversity here is unsustainable. The reasons why the differences among these viewpoints do not degenerate into drag-out shouting matches are because of the fundamental respect that members of this board share have for each other as well as the commitment that many guests have to demonstrate that we are worthy of our hosts.
Second, your assertion that you are intellectually rigorous conflicts with your dismissive approach towards the "gazillion" questions. If you were truly as conversant with the topics at hand as you allege, you could easily respond to every question you have been asked. If your level of knowledge were vastly superior to those here who (allegedly) parrot what they hear on the radio, your posts would establish your expertise.
As an example (and I am deliberately avoiding using QPs here), I would point to nmap. He has consistently demonstrated his detailed knowledge of economic and financial issues. While some here clearly do not agree with some of his analysis, almost everyone here understands that he knows what he is talking about. If someone asks him a question, he answers it. If someone disagrees with his analysis (or, most often, does not understand), he takes the time to clarify, to rephrase and to elaborate his position. His knowledge, his patience, his humor, his writing skills, and his humility all establish nmap's credibility as a discussant.
I strongly encourage that you accept the numerous invitations you have received from others to approach topics that interest you with a higher level of intellectual intensity, a degree of humility, and a measure of respect for those who differ with you.
I gave you my opinion and I was barraged with a gazillion philosophical,historical questions.
The analysis I've noted, reads like a transcript from a number of conservative radio talk shows. I didn't find much independent thoughts except for a good amount of historical first hand experience which I do very much appreciate.
Once I find that I end up repeating points I've already made, I tend not to respond.
I'm not sure I've communicated my notion of government.
The Bush/MCain world view is out dated. This opinion is strongly reflected by world leaders and secratries of state.
Based upon some of the arguments I've seen in these forums the people you described above shouldn't be voting for either candidate.
No need to pretend, I've done more research and independent thought than 90% of most americans. Most americans come to conclusion solely off of what they hear thru the grapevine and our propagandist media.
Thats a tragic flaw of mine. I tend to play the devils advocate in environments like this.
That is very wise advice. I will definetly take it.
All presidencys expirience a bit of failure. I see an Obama term being more centrist and a more modern approach to our issues. McCain seemd to be less clear on his plan and some what out of date with his approach and philosophy.
Its been happening through out our countries history. You mention nothing new. As King Solomon said " Theres nothing new under the sun"
I agree but don't see your point on how those fundamentals would be altered under an Obama term. I haven't read or heard anything outside of the conservative radio propaganda that would make me believe your point
jamber97
10-08-2008, 10:13
jamber97,
Next time you post you better have "proof" or at least some sort of research to back your "opinions". My point being, those guys with the Quiet Professional title, I know who they are and I know a good bit concerning their background.
We don't know you from adam.
If you're wondering how this might be accomplished go and read a few dozen of nmap's posts.
This is not a request.
Team Sergeant
Yes Team Sergeant.
TS and Sig have answered to your lack of awareness regarding members of this board, so I revamped my post to focus on another one of your assertions.
"The Bush/McCain world view is outdated." You then cite various world leaders and secretaries of state to back up your view. First things first, where is your proof? Which countries are you talking about? Iran? Spain? China? Russia? France? Germany? Please, let's hear all about this.
If and when you can provide this proof, here is a little bit of "devil's advocate" for you to chew on. Let's assume your argument is correct, and that various world leaders have this view.
Why do you think that they have this view? Have you left room in your own argument for them having an interest in the U.S. not being a superpower? Do they have economic interests in countries that the U.S. is opposed to(i.e. Russian and French weapons sales)? Did you ever consider they have their own selfish aims or saying such things?
That is just a very small portion of the questions you have left unanswered in a single assertion that you made. This isn't even taking into account other counterpoints to your arguments that have already been stated here. Which, I'd like to point out you have not responded to with any sort of evidence to back up your assertions.
This might as well be identical to one of your first posts here where you offered to explain to us all why an Obama presidency would yield long term benefits...
We are still waiting for you to make good on that promise.
And you have been provided adequate analysis regarding the key questions of this election, you simply didn't like the answers.
As I have watched these interactions, I can honestly state, that I cant recall you carrying one to fruition. You simply would leave an argument when it became apparent that you had lost the upper hand, only to reappear with a slightly modified argument later.
The people here have been giving you an analysis of conservatism, more so then John McCain; there is a very simple reason for this.
Conservatives watch for the message, and then the person delivering it. For liberals it appears to be all about style, i.e. the complete reverse.
Your experimental notion of government is quite frankly naive.
For you to suggest that its time to "give the democrats a try" simply because they are not republicans is absurd.
A responsible voter determines what politician they will vote for not based solely off the personality and promises of the person, but based off their stated world view.
From what you have said on this site, it is a wonder why you ever voted for Bush in the first place.
Your positions are decidedly socialist leaning economically. Internationalist- foreign policy wise, and liberal-socially.
Where as most of the people you have been debating with here are capitalist- economically, nationalist- foreign policy wise and moderate to conservative- socially.
Now if that is an accurate description of your political philosophy, then by all means vote for Obama. But lets not pretend, that your opposition to McCain has anything to do with arguments or scrutiny leveled on this site.
Let us also stop pretending that your choice of Obama, was the result of some rugged philosophical search where by you realized that even though your a republican, it was time to give Democrats a go.
Nothing you have written on these pages would have ever lead me to believe that you were a republican.
So either you weren't paying attention then, or your not paying attention now. But you really need to determine your worldview. Based off that world view, determine a political philosophy, based off that political philosophy choose a candidate.
It just gets under my skin when I hear someone say "its time to give the other guys a shot". This isn't a question of putting in the rookie pitcher in the bottom of the 9th. Responsible people don't retry what they've already seen fail time and time again, hoping that this time it will work.
And in this case, you are talking about electing a man that would FUNDAMENTALLY alter the way this country does business. He is seeking to weaken individual liberty, and responsibility. He is seeking to weaken individual economic freedom, which as you may recall was a HUGE reason why this country was founded. His solutions are across the board BIG GOVERNMENT.
I don't know how much traveling you've done in your life but I done a bit. And to allot of places people don't generally go to vacation. American is NOT the rule, it is the exception. the reason for that is our religious, economic and political institutions. Now we have someone that wants to ignore the first, completely change the second and drastically alter the balance of power in the third. I have seen that done everywhere where poverty and strife are rampant.
Americans are not genetically superior to other peoples. The only thing that sets us apart are those institutions I mentioned above. Fundamentally alter those, and it will take generations to correct the mistakes, if you ever fully recover.
USANick7 Exceptionally well stated!!
Jamber97, I just want to stated again, that when you first surfaced here I tagged your position and reasons for being here. You have learned nothing! How tragic to waste that amount of time.
Thank you for posting that last link, I had missed that one. I see a Obama Presidency to be more like a Clinton Presidency than a Carter Presidency. Clinton raised taxes and we saw one of the greatest economic expansions in our history.
So explain to me how these two correlate. Clinton raised taxes, yet Obama has stated more times than I care to count that he is LOWERING taxes for 95% of Americans. How does that correlate to a Clinton Presidency? Either you are naive and don't understand what you just posted, or you are admitting what many of us already know and that is Obama is lying out both sides of his mouth when he talks about his tax proposals, and in the end will eventually raise taxes on us all. So which is it?
Team Sergeant
10-08-2008, 10:54
So explain to me how these two correlate. Clinton raised taxes, yet Obama has stated more times than I care to count that he is LOWERING taxes for 95% of Americans. How does that correlate to a Clinton Presidency? Either you are naive and don't understand what you just posted, or you are admitting what many of us already know and that is Obama is lying out both sides of his mouth when he talks about his tax proposals, and in the end will eventually raise taxes on us all. So which is it?
jamber97 is out doing research. ;)
(Because he knows that if he posts again without citing sources his stay here will be short lived. Team Sergeant)
Barack Obama needs more than liberal votes in order to win. I voted early and for Obama and believe it or not, I'm a registered Republican.
I couldn't find much scrutiny or analysis of Mccain in these forums which threw up a few red flags. I did a bit of research and came to the conclusion that we do indeed need a change.
What finally got me was Obamas voting record on veterans issues. He came thru considerably more times than MCcain, which surprised me.
Honestly as you can probably tell from my posts that I was barely a Republican if ever at all. I subscribed to the Bush philosophy on where to take the country, as given in his speeches, and history as governor. Bush vs. Gore was the first time I was motivated to register to vote and voted for Bush.
With out going into boring details, I feel that Bush didn't hold up to his end of the deal. I see a striking similarity between Bush and Mccain. Similarities in speeches, promises, philosophy, voting record and staff which makes me believe that history will repeat itself and the candidate won't hold true.
It's time to give the Democrats a chance to fall short of their promises.
You once again have shown your complete naivete when it comes to matters of state. I worked as a Legislative Affairs Officer for General Schwartz while he was the Commander of USTRANSCOM, and as such learned a lot about the process of governing. I will give you that very few people have had that experience to build upon when forming their opinions of the world around them. But the information is out there if you care to learn, which you hav he stated you wish to do, yet have proven that you didn't. Failing to even look for conversation on this particular board about Senator McCain is but one example. You state that being on this site you feel that you are listening to a right wing radio show. There is a search buttton at the top of every page, and had you taken the time to use it to research what members of this site have argued for and against McCain for quite some time, your opinion may be a little different than the one you stated. That is your own undoing, not the members of this site.
With all that being said, you have stated time and time again that you need to do more research into the issues, yet here you come and state some of the reasons why you voted for Obama, which go contrary to your previous statements. You stated above that you voted for Obama because of his votes on issues such as the VA. Did you take the time to study the background on why McCain casted a NO vote? More times than not, when it comes to votes of this nature, a NO vote is not against the primary language of a bill, it is about the amendments tacked onto said bill. I am sure that if you went back and asked McCain's staff about it (and yes they will answer you), they would tell you the exact same thing. He was not voting against VA benefits, he could not in good conscience vote for the amendments that were tacked onto the bills.
As for your second argument about giving the Democrats a chance, this is one of the secondary reasons I will not be voting for Obama. We have all experienced what happens when the House, the Senate and the White House are all held by the same party. In my opinion the Congress during Bush's first six years was woefully inept at keeping any sort of checks and balances in place on the executive branch of government. Given that the Dems are going to pick up a substantial amount of seats in both houses, there in no way that I want to see our entire government run by one party once again.
Even though Congress for the past 2 years has been pretty "do nothing" I would rather see that than a Congress that is going to vote yes on every piece of legislation President Obama wants to see enacted. If there was even the remote possibility that the Republicans would retain one house in Congress I would not be too worried about an Obama Presidency because he would still have a check and balance against him. Without that check and balance I fear what this nation could turn into in 4 short years.
In your final analysis, you state the same thing as the Liberal MSM "McCain is another 4 years of Bush" If you are referring to his voting 90% along the same line as Bush, then I ask you this: If you are holding McCain to such a high standard of not voting party lines, what do you have to say about Obama voting party line 97% of the time? Do you not hold them to the same standard? If not, why? Additionally, I can point out several pieces of legislation McCain has sponsored with members across the aisle which goes to his belief that sometimes going against your own party is what needs to be done, regardless of the consequences. What is Obama record using the same measurement? Can't be anywhere near McCain, given he only spent 143 days in the job he was elected to do, before he moved on to campaign for POTUS. It is kind of hard to sponsor legislation when you are not present to do it.
USANick7
10-08-2008, 11:47
Jamber...you are not the first liberal minded individual I have argued with, so I understand the tactics...
The bottom line, is there are a number of people on this site, who in a heart beat could change sides and argue your position with more effect than you have.
I simply cannot believe that you would presume to think your socialist economic leanings somehow give you a greater appreciation of capitalism than I, based on my anti-abortion stance....this is a truly amazing statement. I might also add, that you seem to have dropped off in the private discussion we were having on this topic...
As far as the argument stands you have failed to demonstrate how your position differs fundamentally from anyone who desires to kill off the weak for fun, profit, or any other utilitarian purpose. Keep trying though...
I find it amazing that you insinuate that you have not laid out your theory on the role of government, yet you openly and strongly advocate a candidate that has a very distinct theory. Which runs diametrically opposed to our founding principles.
In case there is any confusion, allow me to elaborate...
Obama feels that government is the solution for most of the problems that our Founders would have left up to the individual.
It absolutely astounds me that you do not see how Obama wants to fundamentally change America.
He advocates greater federal control of just about everything, from health care, to economic regulations, to taxation, Obama wants to consolidate power at what he hopes will be HIS position.
You seem to ignore the fact that while our political leanings allow you to privately pursue whatever course of action you please, yours threatens us with the use of violence if we do not conform.
On another note, disregarding our comments because you heard them on Rush as well is not acceptable.
I don't out right reject your positions because MOVEON.org shares them. I attack them on what i find to be their historical, philosophical, or scientific weaknesses.
Your willingness to reject something you have heard on talk radio without adequately providing an opposing argument is not going to fly here. you attempt to reject it solely on the basis that another conservative has said it...since when does that make something untrue?
Am I permitted to arbitrarily decide which sources from you I will simply dismiss without argument or research? If that is the case, how can we ever expect to have meaningful conversation when you reserve the right to reject anything I say simply because you have heard it before from someone you don't appreciate...because as you so eloquently repeated "Nothing is new under the sun".
Jamber, I'm afraid that you are going to be subjected to a little more intellectual scrutiny on these pages then you may be used to. If you arbitrarily reject it you are going to insult.
Attempting to win your case by suggesting that "other world leaders and secretaries of state say that Bush's philosophy is a failed one" will go a long way at the Starbucks out side Evergreen University in Olympia WA. Here you will be taken to task. Anonymous, generic endorsements and "everybody knows" arguments will be tested, and if and when they are found wanting, you will lose credibility.
In short, you had better bring your "A" game, because anything less will be destroyed.
Dozer523
10-08-2008, 12:02
.
As for your second argument about giving the Democrats a chance, this is one of the secondary reasons I will not be voting for Obama. We have all experienced what happens when the House, the Senate and the White House are all held by the same party. . . . there in(s) no way that I want to see our entire government run by one party once again.
You got that right! I'm glad to see the "Republican New World Order" of 2000 -2006 is kind of getting the recognition it deserves. Never in a million years would anyone have predicted the changes THAT wrought! There is going to be a very powerful Dem (it's not spelled Dim:p) congress so that check/ballance thing is going to be especially critical with the economic mess we're going to be in for a LONG time. McCain and Pelosi better get to be good friends! I hope we can go back to the like it was in 82 - 90. the "Ronnie R and Tip O" Show.
To The Reaper: That reference to the Jimmy Carter era brought back memories. ALL BAD. I was in FRG with a mech INF unit. we didn't have fuel to drive the tracks. When it changed in '80 to a Rep Pres' and Dem Congress' things got pretty nice for the military. But "The Jimmy" made things pretty tough!
USANick7
10-08-2008, 12:42
You got that right! I'm glad to see the "Republican New World Order" of 2000 -2006 is kind of getting the recognition it deserves. Never in a million years would anyone have predicted the changes THAT wrought! There is going to be a very powerful Dem (it's not spelled Dim:p) congress so that check/ballance thing is going to be especially critical with the economic mess we're going to be in for a LONG time. McCain and Pelosi better get to be good friends! I hope we can go back to the like it was in 82 - 90. the "Ronnie R and Tip O" Show.
To The Reaper: That reference to the Jimmy Carter era brought back memories. ALL BAD. I was in FRG with a mech INF unit. we didn't have fuel to drive the tracks. When it changed in '80 to a Rep Pres' and Dem Congress' things got pretty nice for the military. But "The Jimmy" made things pretty tough!
The only point I would make here is that the failures of the Bush/Republican congress were not failures of conservative political philosophy, they were failures of individuals.
I don't want to settle for a split government, I want to fight for the right people to get elected...quite possibly a pipe dream given human nature, but its should still be the goal. think of what a true conservative like Reagan could have accomplished if he hadn't had Tip weighing him down.
Numerous political scientists and presidential scholars agree that one of the biggest problems facing the American political system is split-ticket voting. The gridlock we experience is largely due to the fact that we get a party with a minor edge in the legislative branch and, often, a different party in the executive branch. This practice leads legislators to be more concerned with politics than with policy.
Were voters to exercise a higher level of party discipline, one party or the other would have enough power to enact policies based upon the party's philosophy over a period of time (say, four to six years). Then, the voters could decide if those policies worked or if they wanted to try a different path. Then, tensions among branches of the government could shift towards issues of institutional power (checks and balances).
In my view, this configuration offers two advantages. First, politicians would be evaluated based upon their overall effectiveness rather than upon their stance on single issues. A second advantage would be a more professional atmosphere in the legislative branch. To me, the erosion of the professional pride among members of Congress is what most ails the political system.
The only point I would make here is that the failures of the Bush/Republican congress were not failures of conservative political philosophy, they were failures of individuals.
I don't want to settle for a split government, I want to fight for the right people to get elected...quite possibly a pipe dream given human nature, but its should still be the goal. think of what a true conservative like Reagan could have accomplished if he hadn't had Tip weighing him down.
I'd say the failure of the Republicans during the early part of the Bush Presidency was 1) that they wanted to be reelected 2) they wanted the MSM to like them and 3) they wanted to be/appear to be bipartisan with the D's.
It started shortly after 1994 but came to a head under Bush.
The D's do not play that game 1) they'll fix the system to stay in power 2) the MSM thinks they can do no wrong and 3) they'll run the place as if there were no R's.
In all the issues Taxes, Abortion and Gun Control there is no middle ground. Any movement by conservatives towards bipartisanship is Death by a Thousand Cuts.
A lot - None - A lot - None - A lot - None - OK half. Keep doing the 1/2 bit and before ya' know it you have given everything away.
I have to agree with you all that said split government is not the way to go. But the reason behind my previous comment was that if you have Obama in office with Pelosi as the leader in the House, and Reid in the Senate, it is a scary proposition in my opinion. They are all so far left that they don't care that a majority of Americans (even other democrats) don't see their point of view being the correct one. This could be flipped on the Republicans as well.
The framers built our Constitution to have a friction between the executive branch and the legislative branch, regardless of which party any of them are in. We have lost that, in my opinion, and it is now a friction between parties, and if a single party gets all the power in this environment, the vision of the framers is lost. Do you honestly think Reid or Pelosi will step in to stop the power grab of an executive Branch lead by Obama, or will the more likely scenario be "the Republicans have stuck it to us for the past 8 years, so now we are going to get them back in spades?"
In my opinion we should not be leading by the extremes of either party, but on a preponderance of issues it should be from left of center/right of center depending on your party views. In my estimation I find the far right wing people to be just as disturbing as the far left.
When moderates in both parties become such a minority that their views are no longer heard anymore, we have a problem.
I agree with Afchic that the federal government works best when led from the middle. But I wonder if, after the rhetorical carnage of the past twenty years (starting with Judge Bork's confirmation hearings) can either party afford to make that step towards defining and focusing on the common ground? I believe that 2000 election and 9/11 were missed opportunities in this regard and that the current economic crisis is becoming one as well.
[One small point. If I recall correctly, the framers held parties to be detrimental to effective government. James Madison expressed this view in Federalist (http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa10.htm) #10. The framers intent was for members of Congress to be educated land owning men who were disinterested (unbiased) in their deliberation of policy issues.*]
I have to agree with you all that said split government is not the way to go. But the reason behind my previous comment was that if you have Obama in office with Pelosi as the leader in the House, and Reid in the Senate, it is a scary proposition in my opinion. They are all so far left that they don't care that a majority of Americans (even other democrats) don't see their point of view being the correct one. This could be flipped on the Republicans as well.
The framers built our Constitution to have a friction between the executive branch and the legislative branch, regardless of which party any of them are in. We have lost that, in my opinion, and it is now a friction between parties, and if a single party gets all the power in this environment, the vision of the framers is lost. Do you honestly think Reid or Pelosi will step in to stop the power grab of an executive Branch lead by Obama, or will the more likely scenario be "the Republicans have stuck it to us for the past 8 years, so now we are going to get them back in spades?"
In my opinion we should not be leading by the extremes of either party, but on a preponderance of issues it should be from left of center/right of center depending on your party views. In my estimation I find the far right wing people to be just as disturbing as the far left.
When moderates in both parties become such a minority that their views are no longer heard anymore, we have a problem.
* This point is developed in Gordon Wood, "Interests and Disinterestedness in the Making of the Constitution" in Edward C. Carter, Beyond Confederation: Origins of the Constitution and American National Identity (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1987).
Dozer523
10-08-2008, 15:05
(A) Numerous political scientists and presidential scholars agree that one of the biggest problems facing the American political system is split-ticket voting.
(B) Were voters to exercise a higher level of party discipline,
(3) one party or the other would have enough power to enact policies based upon the party's philosophy over a period of time (say, four to six years).
(4) Then, the voters could decide if those policies worked or if they wanted to try a different path.
(E) Then, tensions among branches of the government could shift towards issues of institutional power (checks and balances).
(A) How many is "numerous"? You and one of your friends is technically "numerous". I'm kind of really happy that in America we have "one man -- one vote" and can vote for whomever we wish. And do!
(B) 'Party Discipline" is a hallmark of most repressive regimes (sp?) Thanks, but . . . pass.
(3) Yeah, that worked well from 2000 - 2006. Maybe 'party discipline' was what helped get us into the fix. As a DEM (not dim:p) I, we, us-all felt sort of dis-invited to the discussion, much less the decisions.
(4) Isn't that sort of how we do it now? We vote. We accept the majority rule (well sort of . . . that electorial college frat house thing;)) and then go along. Then we vote again every two years. We elect all our Reps -- and there sure are a lot of them! -- and some Senators, too. But combined we make our will known to the President who gets four years to "enact those party philosophy programs." But, do they always listen? Or do they just say "So?" It usually works as intended. Cuz, after the election aren't we supposed to take off our party hats?
(E) Huh? "Could shift towards . . . checks and balances? Your argument seemed to be that we ought to dump the Checks and Balances idea for four to six years of "We're In Charge". Sort of like >>We should all just get on the bus, sit down, shut up and go along with the driver. In your model, after a four to six year ride we look at where we are. If we're in, say Disneyland* we thank Mr Ronnie and ask him to take us to SeaWorld next. Then it's "back on the bus, sit down . . . . "
BUT, if after a particularly bumpy ride, we don't like where we are -- say, after we wipe the blood from our eyes and notice we're in the parking lot of a burning liquor store in the Rampart District. What then? We pick a new bus driver? Well, yeah, but . . . Nope, I want a bus ride where I get to ask the Bus Driver "wasn't that our exit?" At least!
WOW! No. I think I like the way we vote our beliefs, our hopes, our children's futures and (hopefully) our better natures.
*I'm not making fun of President Reagan. I LOVE Disneyland! And SeaWorld is great too! Because it's run by AB (Bud) and they have "Beer School" and they give it away too!
Dozer--
My responses are:
[A.] Please see the attached PDF. It contains a serviceable review of the literature on split ticket voting.
[B.] By party discipline I mean that citizens vote for the candidates of their party in every election. But it also means that citizens would participate regularly in politics at all levels. K Street rules Washington, D.C. because Main Street stopped paying attention.
[3.] I understand the argument that Democrats in particular were dis-invited to debates over policy. However, I would ask: is that the fault of the Republicans that Democrats exercised deficient parliamentary and rhetorical skills during that interval? Is it President Bush's 'fault' that the most articulate argument against military operations in Iraq was presented by Senator Kennedy? Or, could it be, as has been pointed out numerous times elsewhere on this board that Bush was simply following through on a policy established by President Clinton to affect regime change in Iraq?
When I hear people ask "Why Iraq?" I wonder if they listened at all to Bush's 2002 state of the union address or gone to whitehouse.gov and used the search function. As John Lewis Gaddis has pointed out, the United States practices strategic transparency so that friend and foe will know what we're doing and why.
[4.] I would say that voters need to manage better their expectations and to understand that certain types of policy changes are not going to happen over night or even next year. The only thing that the government makes with a longer life span than its policies are its warships.
I think we collectively need to understand that certain branches of the government are by design less responsive to public opinion than others, that sometimes, the popular decision is not the best decision. (Convenient examples include the: widespread belief that the Confederate States of America should have been allowed to seceded, the widely held view America should have pursued an "Asia first" strategy during World War II, the still widely held belief that the Soviet Union was not a threat to America's interests, and the continuing perception that the Cold War is over.)
Do presidents listen? I can speak with authority about the Reagan administration and there the answer was "yes." During Dutch's presidency, every letter to the White House got read and received a routing slip for future activity whether that letter came from Charlton Heston, Jane Mainstreet, or some guy who claimed the Navy was using Blackhawks to run drugs in the Gulf of Mexico. Reagan in particular was adept at bypassing opinion in "the Beltway" and taking his message directly to the American people (for better and for worse).
[E.] I believe I may have been unclear if that's your reading of my comment. What I am trying to say is that the conflict/tension among the branches of the government should center around separation of powers. I believe that Congress needs to re-establish the fact that it is hands down the most powerful branch of the government and then to be zealous in its exercise of its power. I believe that the long deferred fight over presidential war powers needs to become the donnybrook it was meant to be.
(A) How many is "numerous"? You and one of your friends is technically "numerous". I'm kind of really happy that in America we have "one man -- one vote" and can vote for whomever we wish. And do!
(B) 'Party Discipline" is a hallmark of most repressive regimes (sp?) Thanks, but . . . pass.
(3) Yeah, that worked well from 2000 - 2006. Maybe 'party discipline' was what helped get us into the fix. As a DEM (not dim:p) I, we, us-all felt sort of dis-invited to the discussion, much less the decisions.
(4) Isn't that sort of how we do it now? We vote. We accept the majority rule (well sort of . . . that electorial college frat house thing;)) and then go along. Then we vote again every two years. We elect all our Reps -- and there sure are a lot of them! -- and some Senators, too. But combined we make our will known to the President who gets four years to "enact those party philosophy programs." But, do they always listen? Or do they just say "So?" It usually works as intended. Cuz, after the election aren't we supposed to take off our party hats?
(E) Huh? "Could shift towards . . . checks and balances? Your argument seemed to be that we ought to dump the Checks and Balances idea for four to six years of "We're In Charge". Sort of like >>We should all just get on the bus, sit down, shut up and go along with the driver. In your model, after a four to six year ride we look at where we are. If we're in, say Disneyland* we thank Mr Ronnie and ask him to take us to SeaWorld next. Then it's "back on the bus, sit down . . . . "
BUT, if after a particularly bumpy ride, we don't like where we are -- say, after we wipe the blood from our eyes and notice we're in the parking lot of a burning liquor store in the Rampart District. What then? We pick a new bus driver? Well, yeah, but . . . Nope, I want a bus ride where I get to ask the Bus Driver "wasn't that our exit?" At least!
WOW! No. I think I like the way we vote our beliefs, our hopes, our children's futures and (hopefully) our better natures.
*I'm not making fun of President Reagan. I LOVE Disneyland! And SeaWorld is great too! Because it's run by AB (Bud) and they have "Beer School" and they give it away too!
Fellas, don't cloud discussions of the issues with facts or researched, reasoned arguments. The Obama crowd only wants to talk about what "feels" good to them, ignoring history and dismissing or abandoning discussions in which they quickly find they have no leg upon which to stand. Its not about reason--its about emotion, not unlike the droves of consumers that "felt" they deserved to own a home, regardless of whether they could actually afford one or not.
Sigaba, I think you are dead on. My "emontion" is based in your studied reasons....
USANick7
10-09-2008, 00:12
Wow, so you guys are really confident that McCain will win this, I see. I sure hope you are right! The poll numbers have kind of had my heart in my stomach as of late.
Most small businesses don't pay capital gains tax from my understanding. Businesses pay dividend and capital gains taxes if they have shares, but most small businesses are sole proprietorships or S-Corporations, which pay at the individual income tax rate.
Both Switzerland and Ireland have very low corporate tax rates and they are stealing business from both the U.S. and Europe left and right, so much so that The EU is up-in-arms over Switzerland stealing their businesses.
Furthermore, what neither McCain nor Obama will tell you (I'd guess McCain is simply unaware of it) is that C-corporations making between $100K and $300K revenue pay taxes at a 39% corporate tax rate; our big corporations, on the other hand, pay it at a 35% rate (and that 35% rate itself is very high on the global level).
So when the Democrats bring up about making the tax system fair, I'd mention, why is it that we make our smaller corporations pay at a higher corporate tax rate than our big businesses? That gives the big guys an unfair advantage. One more reason to just lower and create a flat corporate tax rate.
I heard on the news that a study was done that found that three out of four of the individuals filing income taxes in the highest-earning 1% were small businesses, which I can believe, because I'd guess many small businesses earn revenue between $100K and $300K, so it would make sense to file such a business as an S-Corp or sole proprietorship; a C-corp is too expensive I'd think, and also, a 39% tax rate at that point!
With an S-Corp or sole proprietorship, at revenue between $100K and $300K, you pay at most the 35% individual rate.
Under Obama, those paying at the 35% rate would go up to 39.6%!
That's the purpose of a business, to make money for the shareholders, but it leads naturally to more job creation and business growth. The states that have had the best job creation as of late are Florida, Texas, and Arizona I believe, states employing Republican economic policies.
The states employing Democrat economics, like Michigan, Illinois, California, New York, Massachusettes, etc...not only are ranked as the worst states for business, but both California and Massachusettes are asking the Feds for money because they will run out otherwise.
The 7th largest economy in the world, California, with the highest taxes on practically everything, and they STILL are running out of money. Senator Obama could do this to the United States on a national level. They wanted to implement a "universal healthcare" program there and axed it, because it flat-out would have bankrupted the state.
And Senator Obama wants to try this on a national level.
By coincidence, Massachusettes tried implementing a universal healthcare system that was supposed to be cost-effective, but it has since run over-budget.
Look at cities employing Left-leaning economics too: Philadelphia, New York City before Giuliani, San Francisco, Los Angelos, Detroit, Chicago, etc...and also countries.
Cities, states, countries, whatever, high taxes and big government spending lead to disaster.
Take a look at the outright disaster raising taxes has been for Michigan; it has one of the worst economies in the nation now.
The incentive is to let them make more money through lower taxes.
Remember, corporations like to undercut each other price-wise. They mostly pass their taxes either onto their shareholders, their employees (by paying them less or providing less benefits or worse working conditions), or their customers, or some combination of both.
Ultimately, corporations are just anotherm ethod to collect taxes from citizens. The corporation itself doesn't really pay the taxes.
So if you lower taxes, corporations can lower their prices to undercut their competition.
Then there's Obama's plan to raise the minimum wage to $9.50 and index it to inflation.
Wal-Mart, that evil big giant corporation that supposedly doesn't care about its workers, supports a higher minimum wage.
Do you think Wal-Mart supports a higher minimum wage because they care about workers, or do you think they do because they, as a huge multinational corporation, can handle a higher minimum wage easily, but they know that it will make it much tougher for all those smaller businesses out there?
Wal-Mart can absorb a higher minimum wage. Joe Six-Pack small businessman, with a family to feed, cannot; he either has to raise his prices, fire employees, lower what he pays the employees, or if he has full-time employees, he can do stuff like divide full-time jobs that provide benefits into two part-time jobs that provide no benefits, etc...all this makes it tougher to compete.
And it drives up the unemployment rate, particularly in the inner-city areas.
EXCELLENT RESPONSE!
I understand the concerns that I have seen about Obama. I was frankly torn between the two candidates as the decision, based on my priorities and interests, make it a difficult choice.
The decision to choose Sarah Palin as the VP choice has pushed me over to Obama, as I personally do not have faith in Sarah Palin's abilities to lead the country, particularly in foreign policy.
I probably will choose, however, not to vote. It is a personal conviction. I do not feel it appropriate to vote given my intent to serve. This is not to suggest that I think members of the military should not have the right to vote, however I personally don't think I should exercise that right. I do not think it is appropriate as a government employee that I should be playing a role in determining policy - rather, I want to be helping to implement and execute it.
I hope that everyone makes an informed choice, and that our nation, the first democracy in the world, is fortunate enough to continue to be one of the freest societies in the world. I know there are large disagreements over policy and where our country should go in the future, but it is always exciting to see how Americans take such an interest in their country's affairs during presidential elections. I only wish such interest continued after elections.
..The decision to choose Sarah Palin as the VP choice has pushed me over to Obama, as I personally do not have faith in Sarah Palin's abilities to lead the country, particularly in foreign policy. ....
After a good brief on the issues for all four P and VP candidates, if they should should be the one sitting face to face with somebody like Doby Putin, I'd give the edge to Palin over the other three.
She was not the comfortable party player up north. The other three made their fortune, so to say, in the Senate- a land of the big talkers.
Is your view of her based on what you learned in the press or did you study her record in Alaska?
USANick7
10-09-2008, 06:01
The decision to choose Sarah Palin as the VP choice has pushed me over to Obama, as I personally do not have faith in Sarah Palin's abilities to lead the country, particularly in foreign policy.
So by this statement I can assume that you are comfortable with Obama concerning foreign policy...and not only that, but that you are more comfortable with Obama addressing foreign policy than you are McCain, since it will be McCain, not Palin addressing such issues.
I might also add that while Biden has a great deal of experience in foreign policy...he has just as long a record of getting it wrong.
Bad experience is also experience...and it should be judged appropriately.
CoLawman
10-09-2008, 08:42
I probably will choose, however, not to vote. It is a personal conviction. I do not feel it appropriate to vote given my intent to serve. This is not to suggest that I think members of the military should not have the right to vote, however I personally don't think I should exercise that right. I do not think it is appropriate as a government employee that I should be playing a role in determining policy - rather, I want to be helping to implement and execute it.
Stu,
I fully encourage your decision not to vote.
An attitude of servitude... cast off the chains of participatory government. The politicians know what is best for us. I can hear the chants from those so willing to be blindly led toward socialism. It might sound like: Baaaaaaaa......rack.
Dozer523
10-09-2008, 11:03
I probably will choose, however, not to vote. . . . .however I personally don't think I should exercise that right. I do not think it is appropriate as a government employee that I should be playing a role in determining policy - rather, I want to be helping to implement and execute it.
I hope that everyone makes an informed choice, and that our nation, the first democracy in the world, is fortunate enough to continue to be one of the freest societies in the world.
If there is anyone in this country with a greater right and obligation to vote then a soldier I'd like to meet that person. Soldiers are all that stand between our citizens and those who would deny sufferage! I vote simply because it is my responsibility to impliment and execute that policy. I want to have a say. I deserve to have my voice heard, my vote counted, the record of what I think is best for this country tallied.
After the votes are counted I salute and drive on to impliment and execute the National will. Even if it's not how I would have liked it! Even if I think the directives are wrongheader! There is a no conflict in my mind serving a President I did not vote for. In the military and especially in Special Forces it is completely acceptable to offer input during planning. But once Paragraph Two (Mission) is read for the second time and we get to Execution we EXECUTE. We don't ask questions or disagree.
And think of this. Even if you do not vote don't you have opinions of how you wish / want things to be? The campaign is "planning phase" The day after the election we soldiers must salute and execute. If one can't soldier toward an objective they did not vote for then they ought not to be soldiers.
Everyone has a right and a responsibility to vote.
It's time to read STARSHIP TROOPER! Again!!
greenberetTFS
10-09-2008, 12:21
If there is anyone in this country with a greater right and obligation to vote then a soldier I'd like to meet that person. Soldiers are all that stand between our citizens and those who would deny sufferage! I vote simply because it is my responsibility to impliment and execute that policy. I want to have a say. I deserve to have my voice heard, my vote counted, the record of what I think is best for this country tallied.
After the votes are counted I salute and drive on to impliment and execute the National will. Even if it's not how I would have liked it! Even if I think the directives are wrongheader! There is a no conflict in my mind serving a President I did not vote for. In the military and especially in Special Forces it is completely acceptable to offer input during planning. But once Paragraph Two (Mission) is read for the second time and we get to Execution we EXECUTE. We don't ask questions or disagree.
And think of this. Even if you do not vote don't you have opinions of how you wish / want things to be? The campaign is "planning phase" The day after the election we soldiers must salute and execute. If one can't soldier toward an objective they did not vote for then they ought not to be soldiers.
Everyone has a right and a responsibility to vote.
It's time to read STARSHIP TROOPER! Again!!
Dozer523,
Well said,I agree with all of the above!.......:D
GB TFS :munchin
The Reaper
10-09-2008, 14:00
I understand the concerns that I have seen about Obama. I was frankly torn between the two candidates as the decision, based on my priorities and interests, make it a difficult choice.
The decision to choose Sarah Palin as the VP choice has pushed me over to Obama, as I personally do not have faith in Sarah Palin's abilities to lead the country, particularly in foreign policy.
I probably will choose, however, not to vote. It is a personal conviction. I do not feel it appropriate to vote given my intent to serve. This is not to suggest that I think members of the military should not have the right to vote, however I personally don't think I should exercise that right. I do not think it is appropriate as a government employee that I should be playing a role in determining policy - rather, I want to be helping to implement and execute it.
I hope that everyone makes an informed choice, and that our nation, the first democracy in the world, is fortunate enough to continue to be one of the freest societies in the world. I know there are large disagreements over policy and where our country should go in the future, but it is always exciting to see how Americans take such an interest in their country's affairs during presidential elections. I only wish such interest continued after elections.
Here we go again. Looks like someone has been drinking the Kool-Aid.:rolleyes:
What are the qualifications for POTUS and VPOTUS again?
I am particularly interested in your thought process that determines the experience required of a person whose only official duty is to preside over the Senate and vote, in the event of a tie, versus the one running for POTUS, who will actually exercise executive authority over the nation and act as commander in chief.
Is a few years in the Illinois state house and two years as a US Senator (most spent running for POTUS), with a history of extreme politics, liberalism, partisanship, and a host of extremist, criminal, and racist associates, adequate to make a man experienced enough to be a good candidate for President?
TR
Dozer523
10-09-2008, 17:05
Here we go again. Looks like someone has been drinking the Kool-Aid.:rolleyes:
What are the qualifications for POTUS and VPOTUS again?
I am particularly interested in your thought process that determines the experience required of a person whose only official duty is to preside over the Senate and vote, in the event of a tie, versus the one running for POTUS, who will actually exercise executive authority over the nation and act as commander in chief.TR
YUM! Cherry, I love this stuff . . . more please, suh!:D
Traditionally, the VP's MAIN Campaign JOB was to deliver votes (usually regional) that the Presidential candidate couldn't get. Say . . . Johnson for Kennedy. And Roosevelt swapped them out for regional votes but also as he needed to maintain Party loyalty. The number TWO job (and I'll bet what makes it fun) -- The VP Candidate get to say all the nasty things the Presidential Candidate is too gentlemanly to say himself! (Spiro was really good at that; as was Nixon under Ike.)
Giving it a little thought the VP job has changed a lot! During GWB initial run, Cheney was practically introduced as the Assistant President / Co President. Clinton ran Gore as "Inside Man" during the campaign. Nobody seems to know where Quail came from. Reagan seemed to pick GW1 because he was the "runner up". With the exception of Cheney, after the election, the VP's moved to the background. You hardly heard from or of them. When you did hear from them it was negative ie. Dan and Murphy Brown.
My thought process? (Yeah, right like I'm gonna get one of those anytime soon!:eek:) I'm going with Sara cuz she's cute!
OW shoot!:D KIDDING TR (I'm backing toward the door now)
If there is anyone in this country with a greater right and obligation to vote then a soldier I'd like to meet that person. Soldiers are all that stand between our citizens and those who would deny sufferage! I vote simply because it is my responsibility to impliment and execute that policy. I want to have a say. I deserve to have my voice heard, my vote counted, the record of what I think is best for this country tallied.
After the votes are counted I salute and drive on to impliment and execute the National will. Even if it's not how I would have liked it! !
You made a really good post and I can get behind a lot of what you said except for that part about soldiers standing between us and those who would "deny us suffarage." What soldier stood for the rights of women (in the US) to vote? I'm not totally up on my women's studies. Maybe you know something I don't.
Your last sentence is dead on.
Is a few years in the Illinois state house and two years as a US Senator (most spent running for POTUS), with a history of extreme politics, liberalism, partisanship, and a host of extremist, criminal, and racist associates, adequate to make a man experienced enough to be a good candidate for President?
TR
T - I think you are asking a really good question. What made Eisenhower suitable to be more than a CINC? I'm not disagreeing that his qualifications were there or that he was a great General but how did his war time experience shape his national policy? What is it about running an Army that helps a person in running a country?
Nixon was an Airforce guy and had to live within a budget. I thought he was one of our best Presidents and still do. A friend of my dad's worked with Nixon and talked about how he used to carry a paper bag lunch to work. If you ever wanted somebody who knew the middle class, well, RMN was your guy.
Is your view of her based on what you learned in the press or did you study her record in Alaska?
Another good question. The press has been more than nice when it come to Sarah Palin. I would encourage everyone to look at her record. Look at what the papers up in Alaska say about her. Look at the on-line record of Alaska Governance.
So by this statement I can assume that you are comfortable with Obama concerning foreign policy...and not only that, but that you are more comfortable with Obama addressing foreign policy than you are McCain...Bad experience is also experience...and it should be judged appropriately.
Well, I don't know about stuW but I can tell you that I sure am. My opinion has a lot less to do with Obama than it does with the soldier I'm married to. That would be the same soldier who has deployed with 7th SFG(A) three times in the last three years to Afghanistan and has done several short trips to Iraq.
One last thing and then I'm bowing out of this discussion -
There was an SF Col Bob L., 3/7 guy who said in 2000 that he'd vote for a goat's dick before voting for McCain. Ole Mize in Dec of 1999 said McCain wasn't fit to be CinC. What has McCain learned or done since then to change that?
T - I think you are asking a really good question.
Here's another good question. What did he do for the people of IL? Nothing. So what makes anyone think he'll do anything for the Country?
The man cut his teeth on the Chicago political machine...I guarandamntee you there is nothing good about that.
Here...read this.
http://townhall.com/columnists/ThomasSowell/2008/10/09/the_real_obama_part_iii
What about those "real issues" that Barack Obama's supporters in the media say we should get back to, whenever some new unsavory fact about his past comes out?
Surely education is a real issue, with American school children consistently scoring below those in other countries, and children in minority communities faring worst of all.
What about Senator Obama's position on this real issue? As with other issues, he has talked one way and acted the opposite way.
The education situation in Obama's home base of Chicago is one of the worst in the nation for the children-- and one of the best for the unionized teachers.
Fewer than one-third of Chicago's high-school juniors meet the statewide standards on tests. Only 6 percent of the youngsters who enter Chicago high schools become college graduates by the time they are 25 years old.
The problem is not money: Chicago spends more than $10,000 per student.
Chicago teachers are doing well. A beginning teacher, fresh out of college, earns more than the city's median income and that can rise to more than $100,000 over the years.
That's for teaching 6 hours a day, 9 months of the year. Moreover, a teacher's income is dependent on seniority and other such factors-- and in no way dependent on whether their students are actually learning anything.
Obama has said eloquent and lofty words about education, as he has about other things-- for example, how it is "unacceptable in a country as wealthy as ours" that some children "are not getting a decent shot at life" because of the failing schools.
In a predominantly black suburb of Chicago, where the average teacher's salary is $83,000 and one-fourth of the teachers make more than $100,000, Barack Obama noted that the school day ends at 1:30 PM.
In his book "Dreams from My Father," Obama said candidly that black teachers and administrators "defend the status quo with the same skill and vigor as their white counterparts of two decades before."
It is not a question of Obama's not knowing. He has demonstrated conclusively that he knows what is going on.
But, for all his eloquent words, he has voted consistently for the teachers' unions and the status quo.
"I owe those unions," he has said frankly. "When their leaders call, I do my best to call them back right away. I don't consider this corrupting in any way."
Only other politicians' special interests are called "special interests" by Barack Obama, whose world-class ability to rationalize is his most frightening skill.
Even when he verbally endorses the reform idea of merit pay for teachers, he cleverly re-defines merit so that it will be measured by teachers themselves, rather than by "arbitrary tests." In other words, Obama placates critics of the educational status quo by being for merit pay in words, while making those words meaningless, so as not to offend the teachers' unions.
The failings of teachers are only part of the disaster of inner city public schools. Disruptive and violent students can make it impossible for even the best teachers to educate students.
Administrators are reluctant to impose any serious punishment on those students who make it impossible for other students to learn. Partly this is because liberal judges can make it literally a federal case if more minority students are punished than others.
In other words, if black males are punished more often than Asian American females, that can be enough to get the administrators drawn into a legal labyrinth, costing money and time, even if the punishment is eventually upheld.
When a bill was introduced into the Illinois state legislature that would put more teeth into suspensions of misbehaving students, Barack Obama voted against that bill.
A real reformer would want to crack down on both unruly students and unaccountable teachers. A clever politician would speak eloquently, demand "change"-- and then vote for the status quo. Obama talks a great game.
Tell you what...I know the "proverbial" lesser of two evils and it ain't Obama.
There are a number of questions posed on this forum and I will attempt to answer them through a response that describes my thought process. I don’t see it as my responsibility to defend Barack Obama, as I personally have questions about his experience. My decision is premised on certain expectations of a presidential ticket (trust), and McCain’s decision to choose Palin has undermined that expectation.
In general, I think America can produce better candidates, and during this time, deserves better candidates. It is highly troubling to me that we are arguing between a presidential candidate who previously claimed to know almost nothing about the economy, a presidential candidate who began learning about and gaining experience with war approximately six years ago, and a VP candidate whose response to foreign policy experience is carefully redirected to oil experience and being able to see Russia from the state shore. While it is interesting to see how excited people are about the candidates, I don’t understand the excitement. Both candidates - as candidates - have without condition failed to impress me.
Leading up the election, McCain had a slight edge for me due to his foreign policy views and experience. While there are personal concerns about voting Republican, I was considering making McCain’s experience, his as he calls it steady hand at the tiller, the determining factor.
My perception of McCain’s values include defending America’s security against all odds, a willingness to sacrifice himself for the country and his men, and a history of acting based on personal convictions (many of which I agree with) even if they contradict his own party line. He was called a moderate, but there was nothing I sensed moderate about him – he was an extremist with his convictions. This is something I personally sympathized with.
But my perception is that the choice of someone who violates many of those values causes me to question the confidence I place in McCain. TR, you are right to suggest that a VP’s job is not particularly challenging, but Palin isn’t running to be the chair of the senate in my opinion. She is running to be the 2nd in line to someone who has lived a long life, has had some health problems, and lived through years of torture and malnutrition. It is not unreasonable to place more emphasis on the number 2 if questions are raised about the number 1’s health. And I believe based on my readings of Palin that she would be a disaster with foreign policy. It appears to me McCain made this pick not based on personal conviction and care for the country in the event his health fails him during the presidency, but on shrewd political maneuvering. And that has undermined my trust in the McCain ticket. Is McCain running as the person I read about in books, or the McCain politically maneuvering for Republican votes? My impression of his recent actions suggest the later.
Well, I don't know about stuW but I can tell you that I sure am. My opinion has a lot less to do with Obama than it does with the soldier I'm married to. That would be the same soldier who has deployed with 7th SFG(A) three times in the last three years to Afghanistan and has done several short trips to Iraq.
Funny... my opposition to Obama's foreign policy is specifically because I am married to a soldier who has been deployed to Assghanistan with 3rd SFG(A) several times over the last four years and have a BIL who did two tours in Iraq with 101st. Quite frankly, I believe both of them when they tell me that these people would be fighting us on our soil if they weren't fight them over there contrary to what Obama and his anti-war lobbyists spout. As far as I am concerned, Obama doesn't have a lick of experience with foreign policy, military issues, or being an executive.
I'll be the first to admit I think Iraq was handled poorly (hindsight is always 20/20), but I don't think Obama has the first clue how to deal with the militant Muslim world or to how to be a CIC of our military forces. Furthermore, I think he is going to pull his money for his precious social experiments from the same place Clinton did, by dismantling the military, which means less money, equipment, and protection for my husband in the coming years... yeah... I'll pass on Obama.
As for Palin, I have looked at her record and have no issue with it. I think the MSM has been tagging on her not only because she is a Republican, but because she is a female Republican. The liberal MSM has been as sexist as they claim the religious right to be. There was no call to bring her family into the fray. No one is asking Obama, McCain, or Biden how they are going to handle their "family situations" and hold public office. All due respect, to say that they have been fair to her, i.e that they have treated her as they would have Huckabee or Romney, is absurd.
CRad,
Since 1898, Eisenhower was arguably the most qualified person to be elected to the presidency.* (Theodore Roosevelt might disagree; Bush the Elder belongs on the short list as well .) Prior to the Second World War, Ike was mentored by Douglas MacArthur and Fox Connor. From Connor, Ike learned about strategy and operations. From MacArthur, Ike learned the nuances of running a government.
During the Second World War, Ike played a pivotal role in the formulation of the Army's global strategy through his work for war plans division and then as General Marshall's assistant chief of staff for operations. As the supreme commander of the allied forces, Eisenhower worked in close concert with the civilian and military leaders of numerous European nations. After the war, Ike played a pivotal role in the reconstruction of Germany.
From these experiences, Ike developed a sense of grand strategy, an understanding of civilian governments, relationships with foreign leaders, and, most importantly, the trust and admiration of his fellow citizens.
As president, Ike leveraged his experiences to craft a national security strategy known as "the New Look" (codified as NSC 162/2). The New Look was an asymmetrical strategy that emphasized diplomacy, strategic public diplomacy, covert operations, the U.S.'s superiority in strategic nuclear weapons, and a prosperous American economy to deter Communist aggression and to promote the roll-back of communist ideology in Eastern Europe.
[A minor point: Richard Nixon served his country as a naval officer.]
T - I think you are asking a really good question. What made Eisenhower suitable to be more than a CINC? I'm not disagreeing that his qualifications were there or that he was a great General but how did his war time experience shape his national policy? What is it about running an Army that helps a person in running a country?
Nixon was an Airforce guy and had to live within a budget. I thought he was one of our best Presidents and still do. A friend of my dad's worked with Nixon and talked about how he used to carry a paper bag lunch to work. If you ever wanted somebody who knew the middle class, well, RMN was your guy.
* In the interest of full disclosure, I will point out that I like Ike and that I have studied under two of the six scholars most responsible for the re-evaluation of Eisenhower's presidency.
The Reaper
10-09-2008, 19:57
There are a number of questions posed on this forum and I will attempt to answer them through a response that describes my thought process. I don’t see it as my responsibility to defend Barack Obama, as I personally have questions about his experience. My decision is premised on certain expectations of a presidential ticket (trust), and McCain’s decision to choose Palin has undermined that expectation.
In general, I think America can produce better candidates, and during this time, deserves better candidates. It is highly troubling to me that we are arguing between a presidential candidate who previously claimed to know almost nothing about the economy, a presidential candidate who began learning about and gaining experience with war approximately six years ago, and a VP candidate whose response to foreign policy experience is carefully redirected to oil experience and being able to see Russia from the state shore. While it is interesting to see how excited people are about the candidates, I don’t understand the excitement. Both candidates - as candidates - have without condition failed to impress me.
Leading up the election, McCain had a slight edge for me due to his foreign policy views and experience. While there are personal concerns about voting Republican, I was considering making McCain’s experience, his as he calls it steady hand at the tiller, the determining factor.
My perception of McCain’s values include defending America’s security against all odds, a willingness to sacrifice himself for the country and his men, and a history of acting based on personal convictions (many of which I agree with) even if they contradict his own party line. He was called a moderate, but there was nothing I sensed moderate about him – he was an extremist with his convictions. This is something I personally sympathized with.
But my perception is that the choice of someone who violates many of those values causes me to question the confidence I place in McCain. TR, you are right to suggest that a VP’s job is not particularly challenging, but Palin isn’t running to be the chair of the senate in my opinion. She is running to be the 2nd in line to someone who has lived a long life, has had some health problems, and lived through years of torture and malnutrition. It is not unreasonable to place more emphasis on the number 2 if questions are raised about the number 1’s health. And I believe based on my readings of Palin that she would be a disaster with foreign policy. It appears to me McCain made this pick not based on personal conviction and care for the country in the event his health fails him during the presidency, but on shrewd political maneuvering. And that has undermined my trust in the McCain ticket. Is McCain running as the person I read about in books, or the McCain politically maneuvering for Republican votes? My impression of his recent actions suggest the later.
Tell me again about the Dims POTUS candidate and why he is any more qualified and experienced than the Repub VP candidate. I find that lack of experience at the top of the ticket far more disturbing than any perceived breach of confidence by McCain in his VP selection.
Personally, I find Palin's conservative creds far more comforting than McCain's.
Without googling, name the VP candidates since you were born and what qualified them to be one heartbeat away from the Presidency.
TR
I took Dozer's post to mean that the imperfect practice of democracy in America is possibly only because of the armed service of men and women who stand between her citizens and those who would impose their will upon us.
You made a really good post and I can get behind a lot of what you said except for that part about soldiers standing between us and those who would "deny us suffarage." What soldier stood for the rights of women (in the US) to vote? I'm not totally up on my women's studies. Maybe you know something I don't.
Your last sentence is dead on.
Tell me again about the Dims POTUS candidate and why he is any more qualified and experienced than the Repub VP candidate. I find that lack of experience at the top of the ticket far more disturbing than any perceived breach of confidence by McCain in his VP selection.
That's a fair point. I'd say Obama has marginal to middling experience in Foreign Policy experience as a result of his aspirations for president (requiring him to become more knowledgeable) along with his admittedly highly limited experience in the Senate. I'd also point out I personally think he's much more educated, intelligent and articulate than Palin or McCain, which I think is important when making foreign policy decisions. I'd love to see Obama with 10 more years of experience in the Senate, but the reality is that his experience is highly limited. But he isn't running on experience, whereas McCain is, and it is troubling to run on that message with his VP choice.
Personally, I find Palin's conservative creds far more comforting than McCain's.
I receive comfort from different credentials...
Without googling, name the VP candidates since you were born and what qualified them to be one heartbeat away from the Presidency.
1984:
Farraro under Mondale is the Dems candidate. I recall her having some government experience (perhaps house?).
George H. W. Bush under Reagon was former head of CIA.
1988:
I don't know anything about Dukakis's VP candidate.
George H. W. Bush with Quayle. I believe Quayle served in House before.
1992:
Gore was in the House.
Quayle with George H. W. Bush.
1996:
Kemp played football and had various experience, including in fed government and I think military.
Gore again.
2000:
Lieberman - Senate experience.
Cheney - Pentagon experience.
2004:
John Edwards - Senate
Cheney
Interesting results from this exercise suggest that each VP has had direct federal government experience, either in elected or in appointed positions.
..... I'd also point out I personally think he's much more educated, intelligent and articulate than Palin or McCain, which I think is important when making foreign policy decisions........
I really don't care how smart a person is making foreign policy decisions - I care more about how a person is going to use the smarts they have.
Obama being smarter than me don't cut any ice when he thinks the 2nd Ammendment is outdated.
Whole lot of "smart" people think things I don't agree with.
[QUOTE=stuW;228823]Tell me again about the Dims POTUS candidate and why he is any more qualified and experienced than the Repub VP candidate. I find that lack of experience at the top of the ticket far more disturbing than any perceived breach of confidence by McCain in his VP selection.
That's a fair point. I'd say Obama has marginal to middling experience in Foreign Policy experience as a result of his aspirations for president (requiring him to become more knowledgeable) along with his admittedly highly limited experience in the Senate. I'd also point out I personally think he's much more educated, intelligent and articulate than Palin or McCain, which I think is important when making foreign policy decisions. I'd love to see Obama with 10 more years of experience in the Senate, but the reality is that his experience is highly limited. But he isn't running on experience, whereas McCain is, and it is troubling to run on that message with his VP choice.
With all due respect stuw, by saying he has middling experience in Foreign Policy as a result of his aspirations allowing him to become knowledgable is extremely flawed reasoning.
That would be like me sitting here and telling you, "I have experience as a Special Forces soldier because I have aspired to be one. Therefore, I got as much information as I could, and am, therefore qualified. Additionally, I have a degree, which would also make me smarter or more qualified."
Of course, the minor flaw in my reasoning is that I do not, in fact, have any Special Forces experience, and I'm almost as blind as a bat. My education, aspirations to be a SF soldier, or soldier of any kind, all the information I have gleaned from this website, WM's book, and my quest for an eyesight waiver don't mean anything.
So how then, is Senator Obama more qualified than Palin, or much less McCain? Perhaps I am incorrect as to your reasoning on this issue? :confused: Either way, I'm not quite sure I agree with that argument.
Additionally, McCain is running on "experience." Therefore, you could say that Obama is running on "change?" The change he wants has been discussed here, and I'm not quite sure we need his kind of change.
I'd also point out I personally think he's much more educated, intelligent and articulate than Palin or McCain, which I think is important when making foreign policy decisions.
As has been pointed out elsewhere, the most educated president in American history was Woodrow Wilson and the guy made some really bad decisions.
In terms of raw intellect, James Earl Carter, Jr., takes a back seat to no one yet it was that very intellect turned him into a micro-manager who refused the guidance of his supporters.
FDR, arguably the most articulate president after Lincoln, could not (would not?) communicate to his inner circle just how he planned to square the circle of spheres of influence and global collective security in a post-war world.
Fair is fair. William Jefferson Clinton was smart enough and articulate enough to talk himself out of lifting a finger to make even a casual effort to stop several hundred thousand people being butchered and then topped that act off by convincing an intern into playing throat gagger in the Oval Office and then convince many Americans that "it" wasn't sex and that he was a victim of a conspiracy.
(And somehow, Bush the Younger, the man self-described intellectuals love to ridicule, managed to figure out that America is better off fighting its enemies over seas than here.)
Historical comparisons aside, Senator Obama is well educated and articulate only if you compare him to candidates for the office which he is most qualified: junior class prom king.
His theory of land warfare posits that the enemy should determine America's objectives and strategy. His world view is egocentric in the assumption that his sworn enemies can be swayed by Western notions of reason and logic. His view of international conflict resolution is better suited for an encounter group. He has more respect for the 'rights' of men who would blow him up without a second thought than his own countrymen.
His view on racial equality is exactly the opposite of the standard recommended by Reverend King. He has a limited understanding of civility and courtesy to those with differing views. He is contemptuous of women.
It took him twenty years (!) to figure out that his reverend was preaching a message that is the exact opposite of Christianity. He is utterly indifferent to the concerns of working class Americans (as evidenced by his appeals to 'middle class' Americans). He does not love his country; he holds Americans in contempt.
But other than that....
VP candidate whose response to foreign policy experience is carefully redirected to oil experience and being able to see Russia from the state shore
I laugh every time someone cites the ABCnews Report that has Sarah Palin stating the reply "Well you can see Russia from Alaska".
stuW,
It seems to me that you need to look a little deeper than what the MSM tells you. If you had exercised a little investigative ability you would have found that the report you are citing was "target edited" or better known as "quote mined". That line you spouted off was hardly her statement of qualification in Foreign Relations. Here is an unedited version of the interview:
Link (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2008/09/13/abc-news-edited-out-key-parts-sarah-palin-interview) (Newsbusters.org)
I especially appreciated how she accurately portrayed Alaska's intrinsic trade relations in the international community:
GIBSON: Have you ever met a foreign head of state?
PALIN: There in the state of Alaska, our international trade activities bring in many leaders of other countries.
GIBSON: And all governors deal with trade delegations.
PALIN: Right.
GIBSON: Who act at the behest of their governments.
PALIN: Right, right.
I would highly encourage you to do more research on each candidate prior to engaging in an authoritave diatribe on "whom is more qualified".
Just my 2 ever-devaluing cents.
- Doc Z
USANick7
10-10-2008, 02:44
Well, I don't know about stuW but I can tell you that I sure am. My opinion has a lot less to do with Obama than it does with the soldier I'm married to. That would be the same soldier who has deployed with 7th SFG(A) three times in the last three years to Afghanistan and has done several short trips to Iraq.
One last thing and then I'm bowing out of this discussion -
There was an SF Col Bob L., 3/7 guy who said in 2000 that he'd vote for a goat's dick before voting for McCain. Ole Mize in Dec of 1999 said McCain wasn't fit to be CinC. What has McCain learned or done since then to change that?
McCain wasnt my first choice either but a little more analysis or explanation other than my husband has been deployed allot, so Ill go with Obama is probably neccesary to justofy your remarks on this site.
Im not trying to cast a disparaging remark on the sacrafices you have probably had to make while your husband has been away, but Im sure you realize that such a statement, while immensly effective in a site NOT comprised mostly of Green Berets and their wives, here its going to get allot more scrutiny.
Not liking McCain is not a good argument for liking Obama. By all means dislike them both if you choose, but how on earth can you say that you are more comfortable with a guy who thinks meeting with terrorist leaders who are currently assisting in the targeting of US military personnel is a better guy to handle foreign policy?
As to the comment about womens suffrage, come on...
Do you really think it was teh place of teh military to rise up and "enforce" womens suffrage? It was however teh US Military that protected teh political process where by womens suffrage could be realized.
USANick7
10-10-2008, 02:50
stuW: "I'd also point out I personally think he's much more educated, intelligent and articulate than Palin or McCain, which I think is important when making foreign policy decisions."
"I would rather be governed by the frst 100 names in the Boston phone book than the faculty at Harvard" William Buckley
I think wisdom is a little more important than knowledge, or even intelligence. An ignorant fool is no where near as dangerous as an intelligent one.
Neville Chamberlin was a pretty articulate and educated guy from what I understand...
Dozer523
10-10-2008, 06:38
I took Dozer's post to mean that the imperfect practice of democracy in America is possibly only because of the armed service of men and women who stand between her citizens and those who would impose their will upon us.
AWWWWWWWWWW Hell! Are you still pissed at me over that "Starbuck's coffee thing"? Here . . . "thank you, thank you, thank you for the cup of coffee." Key Phil Collins . . . "How can you just turn and walk away . . . '
Actually on the coffee thing. I may have had a change of heart (cuz I can't spell "ephiphany". And God forbid I use the wrong word! I'm going to look up "sufferage" and see if it's just for gurrls.) As I was saying . . . I just finished planning and coordinating a Departure Ceremony for my Infantry Company (off to Afghanistan). We live in a community of 6,900. The outpouring of heart-felt support was almost as touching as it was difficult to coordinate. I couldn't get the C-130 fly-over at 500 feet. Damn! The High School kids would have flocked to the recruiter.
Be careful how you talk on the phone.
http://www.lufkindailynews.com/news/content/news/stories/2008/10/07/secret_service.html
Dozer523
10-10-2008, 07:38
You made a really good post and I can get behind a lot of what you said except for that part about soldiers standing between us and those who would "deny us suffarage." What soldier stood for the rights of women (in the US) to vote? I'm not totally up on my women's studies. Maybe you know something I don't.
I swiped this from Wikipedia Types of suffrage
Universal suffrage: Universal suffrage is the term used to describe a situation in which the right to vote is not restricted by race, gender, belief or social status.
Women's suffrage: Women's suffrage is the right of women to vote on the same terms as men. This was the goal of the suffragists and the "Suffragettes". Cue Paul McCartney! The first country to give women the vote in national elections was the Isle of Man in 1881. (I don't want to hear any thing about MCP when The Isle of MAN stepped up to the plate first!)
Equal suffrage: Equal suffrage is a term sometimes confused with Universal suffrage, although its meaning is the removal of graded votes, where a voter could possess a number of votes in accordance with income, wealth or social status.
Census suffrage: Census suffrage is the opposite of Equal suffrage, meaning that the votes cast by those eligible to vote are not equal, but are weighed differently according to the person's rank in the census (e.g., people with high income have more votes than those with a small income). The suffrage may therefore be limited, usually to the propertied classes, but can still be universal, including, for instance, women or ethnic minorities, if they meet the census.
Compulsory suffrage:Compulsory suffrage is a system where those who are eligible to vote are required by law to do so. Thirty-two countries currently practice this form of suffrage. I guess I DO know something you don't. I just didn't know I knew it 'til now. So thanks.
Slantwire
10-10-2008, 07:50
Be careful how you talk on the phone.
http://www.lufkindailynews.com/news/content/news/stories/2008/10/07/secret_service.html
Funny, I got a call from an Obamite last night. Wanted to make sure I'd received an absentee ballot. (I am in the district I'm registered for, and will be on Election Day. I did not request an absentee ballot.)
I told him that instead of calling me, he should talk to someone in Russia or China and see how well socialism worked out for them.
Dozer,
Sir, to be clear, I was attempting to agree with your point on this thread.
As for the other issue, I'll respond via PM so as not to clutter this thread.
Respectfully,
Sigaba
AWWWWWWWWWW Hell! Are you still pissed at me over that "Starbuck's coffee thing"? Here . . . "thank you, thank you, thank you for the cup of coffee." Key Phil Collins . . . "How can you just turn and walk away . . . '
Actually on the coffee thing. I may have had a change of heart (cuz I can't spell "ephiphany". And God forbid I use the wrong word! I'm going to look up "sufferage" and see if it's just for gurrls.) As I was saying . . . I just finished planning and coordinating a Departure Ceremony for my Infantry Company (off to Afghanistan). We live in a community of 6,900. The outpouring of heart-felt support was almost as touching as it was difficult to coordinate. I couldn't get the C-130 fly-over at 500 feet. Damn! The High School kids would have flocked to the recruiter.
Dozer523
10-10-2008, 09:04
Dozer,
Sir, to be clear, I was attempting to agree with your point on this thread.
As for the other issue, I'll respond via PM so as not to clutter this thread.
Respectfully,
Sigaba
:)I love you too, Babe! Just cuz we don't agree doesn't mean we can't be friends!! Lighten up!:p Have some fun.:D "Four Score and ten is a long time!";)
I never thought I'd like using "smilies" so much. Whoda thought we'd find 'em here?
greenberetTFS
10-10-2008, 13:32
:)I love you too, Babe! Just cuz we don't agree doesn't mean we can't be friends!! Lighten up!:p Have some fun.:D "Four Score and ten is a long time!";)
I never thought I'd like using "smilies" so much. Whoda thought we'd find 'em here?
Dozer523,
You sure have gotten Sigaba knickers in an uproar.....
GB TFS
Yeah, that and the fact that you QP's and the regulars here have my head on a swivel.
On this board, I'm a small fish swimming the ocean deep, trying to keep up with the sharks and to avoid ending up being anyone's lunch.
Glub, glub, glub!
Dozer523,
You sure have gotten Sigaba knickers in an uproar.....
GB TFS
Dozer523
10-10-2008, 15:06
kiss kiss hug hug
here little fishy, here little fishy
The MSM is filled with stories about how angry the people at McCain events are.
But since this guy was a black conservative talk show host the left/MSM considers he got what was coming to him.
http://www.todaystmj4.com/news/local/30825819.html