When it becomes Hillary v McCain
Where is your vote going? I might just write in Radar.
Bruce!
no wait...he is so traditional.
umm ok I am thinking McCain but I have to wait to see how the general election goes. Hilary is my canadate but she isn't going to be allowed to steal the nomination.
oh, snap...did I say steal?:smack:
did I ever mention that I think McCain is HOTT?
hee heee!! I know it makes you guys sick!
Where is your vote going? I might just write in Radar.
I appreciate your vote and I think you're being very premature in assuming it will be Hillary vs. McCain. I think they will be consoling each other after they both lose to Obama.
yeah, what was it you said? it would take a dead girl or a live boy to keep Obama from winning?
we'll see about that. it could just be that his own words (just words, anyone?) didn't really excite enough people into believing he'd make a good president.
Anyway, out of those three I have to vote for McCain even if I've never been a fan. He isn't in love with universal healthcare and not a big fan of higher taxes for the supposed rich.
McCain isn't in favor of universal healthcare, but he is in favor of staying in an unconstitutional war of aggression that is costing more than any universal healthcare plan would ever cost, and which is killing American kids, and making America the scourge of the world. He thinks we should stay 100 years if necessary.
We've spent more money in Iraq than it would cost to provide insurance to each and every single person in America (documented or not) for the next 30 years.
I'll take higher taxes and less dead Americans than to make more enemies around the world, spend my daughter and her grandchildren into debt by throwing money away when it could be used to help people, etc. I consider income taxes to be slavery, but if I'm going to be enslaved anyway, I'd rather see it for a better cause than an unjustifiable, unwarranted, unprovoked, and unconstitutional war.
Also, no tax increase by Democrats will ever equal the HUGE and invisible tax increase we got from Bush in the form of inflation and a weaker dollar. He's reduced our income and our spending ability by more than any Democrat could have.
Amended:
We've spent more money in Iraq than it would cost to build and staff NHS hospitals for the next 30 years.
I'll take higher taxes and less dead British soldiers than to make more enemies around the world, spend my niece & nephew into debt by throwing money away when it could be used to help people, etc and lose us the Eurovision Song Contest year after year. I'll pay my taxes regardless, but I'd rather see it for a better cause than an unjustifiable, unwarranted, unprovoked, and unconstitutional war.
Mostly agree. Wow - me & Radar. Nothing against you bub, but I figure we're pretty much opposite ends of the political spectrum on most topics.
It strikes me as the 2000 and 2004 vote. Two really fucked up choices. Choose the best of the worst. Like a bad poker hand either way you go you are going to lose all yer frigging money.
I will never vote for Hitlery, I would rather not vote for McCain.
A Demoncratic Congress and a Demoncratic President would lead to nothing more than wealth redistribution and errosion of the Second Amendment.
McCain.
[holding nose]
I appreciate your vote and I think you're being very premature in assuming it will be Hillary vs. McCain. I think they will be consoling each other after they both lose to Obama.
Let's hope you're right but I don't know if you can win the Democratic nomination without white unionists. Hillary is pushing the "fighter" line right now which is exactly why I don't want her in the White House. We need to take it down a notch for a few years. It'd be nice to split the branches between the parties. A President who is nonconfrontational might even work with the other side ending up with balanced policies.
A Demoncratic Congress and a Demoncratic President would lead to nothing more than wealth redistribution and errosion of the Second Amendment.
This objection is getting less and less relevant. It didn't happen in 1992... and an R pres and R congress for 6 years spent like a drunken Orange County housewife on Rodeo drive.
He thinks we should stay 100 years if necessary.
Did he say that? Did he really?
Yes.
[youtube]VFknKVjuyNk[/youtube]
He did make the nonsensical caveat "as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed." So maybe he was pretending that the question was, "If Americans stop being injured, harmed, wounded, and killed, how many years should we keep a military base in Iraq?"
"Why not 100?"
Oh goodie, we can have a Guantanamo in Iraq. :rolleyes:
"Why not 100?"
Do we have bases in Germany? Japan? Any other spots where once we were in a shooting war?
Once?
That's where the analogy falls apart.
I guess you lost me there. How does it fall apart?
Let's pretend for a minute. It's WWII and a presidential hopeful is asked how long we would have troops in Germany. The hopeful responds by pointing out that Americans don't really care too much about where troops are stationed as long as they aren't being killed and injured in combat and goes on to say that having bases in Germany might be strategically useful for an unknown amount of time into the future. Would you feel the need to announce that the candidate will keep us in a state of war indefinitely? Or would you accept that unfortunately, there may be some value to the idea of having bases in the region if and when victory is secured?
There is a huge difference between what he said and what some people are saying he meant. I'm not a McCain fan, but show some objectivity in your dislike for the man.
Keeping troops in Iraq will keep us in a state of war indefinitely. How long is he willing to let that go on, in hopes of it turning into Germany?
OK, I didn't hear him say he was going to leave troops there forever regardless of peace/war status. I thought it was a pretty general statement making a very good point that we need to quit all the talk about what date can we circle on the calendar for a pull-out and instead focus on what it will take to get us to a situation where our troops aren't being shot at on a daily basis. Maybe that is a complete pull-out, maybe it isn't but I think his point was valid.
If the war is your primary issue then fair enough, but let's acknowledge that we are currently at war. 2 of the 3 candidates voted in favor of authorizing the war. The third candidate stands on his "I was against the war" credentials while ignoring the fact that he was a nobody when the issue was at hand. Let's not pretend that Obama stood in a position of power, saw the same information that the other two did and was the sole shining light of intelligence that was ignored. Pretty much everyone in power bought into the Iraq war to some degree in '02/'03. We're there. Now what? What is the best way to extract ourselves from the mess and leave some possibility for stability after we're gone?
We're there. Now what? What is the best way to extract ourselves from the mess and leave some possibility for stability after we're gone?
That's the bottom line, well stated.
Keeping troops in Iraq will keep us in a state of war indefinitely. How long is he willing to let that go on, in hopes of it turning into Germany?
You base this on your years of experience doing what?
OK, I didn't hear him say he was going to leave troops there forever regardless of peace/war status. I thought it was a pretty general statement making a very good point that we need to quit all the talk about what date can we circle on the calendar for a pull-out and instead focus on what it will take to get us to a situation where our troops aren't being shot at on a daily basis. Maybe that is a complete pull-out, maybe it isn't but I think his point was valid.
If the war is your primary issue then fair enough, but let's acknowledge that we are currently at war. 2 of the 3 candidates voted in favor of authorizing the war. The third candidate stands on his "I was against the war" credentials while ignoring the fact that he was a nobody when the issue was at hand. Let's not pretend that Obama stood in a position of power, saw the same information that the other two did and was the sole shining light of intelligence that was ignored. Pretty much everyone in power bought into the Iraq war to some degree in '02/'03. We're there. Now what? What is the best way to extract ourselves from the mess and leave some possibility for stability after we're gone?
There were 26 people in the Senate who voted against the unconstitutional "authorization of force" against Iraq. They were in the same position of power as any other Senator including Senator McCain and Senator Clinton. These 26 people did see the same bogus evidence, and were told the same things as the others, but they had the foresight, intelligence, and judgment to know they were being lied to and to stand up for what was right.
Senator Byrd begged the American people to stop this and said their children would die from it. Sadly, he was right.
The fact is Obama is better with foreign policy than either of the other candidates and he's more able to give a rational and intelligent answer if you call him at 3am.
Of those 26 people who voted no, how many are in the presidential race? Zero, you say? So there are two people in the presidential race who were in the senate at the time and they both voted for authorization.
What exactly in Obama's experience has better equipped him for foreign policy issues? Was it his experience as a community activist? His time in the state legislature? His term in the senate? What exactly? He may very well be capable of showing exceptional skill in the area if he wins the race, but don't point to his opposition to the war when he was a state legislator and had no say in the matter as evidence of his expertise.
This is no longer an issue of how we got there, but an issue of how best to get out. In addition to that, it is important to remember that the war may be the single biggest issue, but it isn't the only issue a President will be involved in.
if you call him at 3am.
swayed by marketing, much?;)
OK, I didn't hear him say he was going to leave troops there forever regardless of peace/war status.
Then you didn't hear him answer a question relevant to the reality of the situation. He's asked about Bush's refusal to contemplate leaving Iraq, and he says that if everything turns out hunky dory we could stay there forever?
I thought it was a pretty general statement making a very good point that we need to quit all the talk about what date can we circle on the calendar for a pull-out and instead focus on what it will take to get us to a situation where our troops aren't being shot at on a daily basis. Maybe that is a complete pull-out, maybe it isn't but I think his point was valid.
What it took for Germany and Japan was the defeat of their military. Already done in Iraq. That model won't work. What it took in Korea was an entire half of the country (geographically) supporting us. We're trying to turn our massive embassy and the Green Zone into South Korea.
Now what? What is the best way to extract ourselves from the mess and leave some possibility for stability after we're gone?
Step 1: Acknowledge extraction as a goal. No government with the appearance of being our puppet can provide stability, and one in the shadow of a 104 acre fortress in the middle of Baghdad will have to work hard to not give that appearance, even assuming we withdraw most of the troops.
Fair enough, which candidate has said that extraction is not a goal?
There is no interpretation of "why not 100" that includes extraction, whether the 100 years is during or after hostilities.
So what you're saying that unless a candidate stands up and says "I promise to remove every single american from Iraqi soil on such and such date" then they are a proponent of war without end?
Of those 26 people who voted no, how many are in the presidential race? Zero, you say? So there are two people in the presidential race who were in the senate at the time and they both voted for authorization.
What exactly in Obama's experience has better equipped him for foreign policy issues? Was it his experience as a community activist? His time in the state legislature? His term in the senate? What exactly? He may very well be capable of showing exceptional skill in the area if he wins the race, but don't point to his opposition to the war when he was a state legislator and had no say in the matter as evidence of his expertise.
This is no longer an issue of how we got there, but an issue of how best to get out. In addition to that, it is important to remember that the war may be the single biggest issue, but it isn't the only issue a President will be involved in.
swayed by marketing, much?;)
What exactly makes Obama better at foreign policy? Perhaps it's the fact that he is from an international family. Perhaps it's has something to do with his travels abroad. it doesn't really matter what the reason is, the fact remains that he's displayed better judgment, and leadership ability than the other two candidates.
As far as the war not being the only issue goes, if all Barrack Obama did was end the war on his first day in office and do nothing else, he'll be a thousand times more accomplished and respected around the world than George W. Bush and his entire family will ever be.
If McCain's cue for ending the war is when Iraq is stable and Americans are no longer targets of attack, and his "why not 100" only includes time after that point, then he is in favor of staying well over 100 years.
he'll be a thousand times more accomplished and respected around the world than George W. Bush and his entire family will ever be.
Kind of an underwhelming goal if you ask me.
the fact remains that he's displayed better judgment, and leadership ability than the other two candidates.
Would the judgement I'm meant to admire being his frequent use of the "present" vote to avoid having to actually take a stand on anything? And I'm looking for the leadership experience too, where was that again?
Well, if he wins I hope you're right about having an international family being great training for the presidency. As it stands though, I'm skeptical.
His frequent use of the "present" vote proves he has better judgment than most. Many times, legislators are asked to vote on a piece of legislation without ever even being given a copy of it to read. This happened with the Patriot Act.
By voting "present" he is stating that he won't vote for or against something that he doesn't have an appropriate amount of information to make a judgment on. He's preventing people from rushing thing through without them being read carefully and understood.
He takes a stand when he's got all the information. I'm a lot more skeptical of having Bush part II, or Clinton Part II. It's about time we had a White House that didn't have a Bush or a Clinton in it.
It seems to me that a leader would stand and make a point by drawing attention to the issue of bills being pushed through improperly, rather than meekly voting "present" and going about his day.
Trust me, I don't want Bush/Clinton part deux... but I'm not willing to just say "hey look! there's a guy who hasn't held office long enough to piss too many people off, let's make HIM president."
I don't think any of those three are ideal for the job, but we've got to pick someone. I understand everyone has to hold their nose and pick someone I just don't get the whole Obama/Messiah phenomenon.
Here's the way I see it. Clinton is a bitter, nasty, bitch who is in tight with the old-school political machine. She lies about having snipers fire on her, she has been involved in shady real estate deals where the witnesses mysteriously died before they could testify. She is well-acquainted with those who create back room dirty deals and she's ready to work with them on day 1 so we can get more of the same.
McCain is an out of touch old geezer who thinks the war in Iraq is a great idea and has said we should stay for 100 years. He is a racist who calls Vietnamese people gooks. He turned his back on veterans even though he is one in order to save a few billion, but has no problem with us spending a trillion in Iraq in an unnecessary, unwarranted, unprovoked, and unconstitutional war. He barely has a thought in his head or a hair on his head and he too would bring us more of the same.
Then we've got Obama. He's more young, vibrant, energetic, articulate, intelligent, classy, and dynamic than the other candidates. He's an excellent orator (which should be a requirement of being president), he is well-respected throughout the world, and let's face it, as a black guy who plays basketball he makes America look cooler. He genuinely cares about people in need. He has spent years working with underprivileged people in Chicago. He is everything that George W. Bush isn't....educated, cool, popular, charismatic, respected, etc.
He's exactly the person we need to fix the damage Bush has done to America's reputation around the world, and to improve race relations here and abroad. I realize he's not a Muslim, but perhaps having the middle-name Hussein and his wanting to get us out of Iraq (where we never belonged in the first place) will make Muslim terrorists less likely to attack.
He is by far the best of the 3 candidates. I don't think he's the messiah. In fact I don't think there is such a thing. I just know that I'll take him in a minute over the other two.
I'd still go Hillary, but I know plenty others, younguns that would just opt out. Apparently here too. And that would be a cryin shame.
I agree with Lookout. I don't think Obama is any sort of savior. He is a neo-liberal and has many advisers that display hawkish behavior. He many be against movements in Iraq and Iran but I really doubt he will be against all the smaller campaigns that won't make the evening news every night.
As far as I'm concerned, Obama is just another politician and my view will not change until he can prove me wrong if he gets elected. Bottom line, Obama is too good to be true.
Your cynicism is showing.
He is a racist who calls Vietnamese people gooks.
Cite. That is an extremely derogatory statement to make - even for you. Put up or retract.
Google is your friend. It was widely reported.
Is he talking about all Vietnamese people, or just the ones who tortured him for five and a half years?
I HATE NIGGERS!
no, no. youre taking me out of context! to me, niggers just means those black people who stole my wallet!
...im not buying it.
That would be too bad about your wallet, but when you are tortured for five and a half years I will be here to give you the benefit of doubt.
Cite. That is an extremely derogatory statement to make - even for you. Put up or retract.
Actually he's been nailed for that one pretty frequently and he's unapologetic about it. While I detest this and all use of racial slurs, I will at least give him a half point of respect back for the fact he doesn't grovel and say it was a one off mistake that will never happen again after rehab and sensitivity training.
Your cynicism is showing.
I'm not a cynic. I just don't believe that a US president will change anything. If there is going to be change, the US population will have to stand up and take matters into their own hands.
Just by looking at Obama's key phrase you can see it. Change does not happen overnight. Change cannot happen from a small group of individuals. Change, in the sense that is being used, is sociological movement where the the majority has to take part if it is going to be successful. One large factor that helps Obama is that many just want to blame our problems on an elite class. Even though that "group" is responsible for many problems, the real issues lies within the social structure of the country itself. Racism is not just brought on the country by rich white men. It is a social structure that engulfs everyone, people of color included, and unless everyone is willing to change, racism cannot go away. That works exactly the same way for all social doctrines.
Obama will also not stop US imperialism. Some of his advisers are hawks and Obama will most likely be much closer to Bill Clinton in terms of foreign policy. Just look at Obama status on the socio-economic scale. He isn't that far from any of the Republicans including Bush and McCain.
Another thing is that even if Obama is pure, he will have a hard time working with congress if they are corrupt and no one is doing shit to change that as shown by other threads on this forum.
Is he talking about all Vietnamese people, or just the ones who tortured him for five and a half years?
I must agree. When one of you is a POW for some length of time come back and let us know how it worked out for your liberal sensitivities.
Thats it I want a third party vote. Ron Paul perhaps, or will Natter rerun.
I must agree. When one of you is a POW for some length of time come back and let us know how it worked out for your liberal sensitivities.
Sure it's understandable that he hates the "Gooks." They imprisoned him and tortured him. I may understand his hatred, and don't blame him for it, but does that make him a great candidate for president?
I'm not a cynic. I just don't believe that a US president will change anything. If there is going to be change, the US population will have to stand up and take matters into their own hands.
Just by looking at Obama's key phrase you can see it. Change does not happen overnight. Change cannot happen from a small group of individuals. Change, in the sense that is being used, is sociological movement where the the majority has to take part if it is going to be successful. One large factor that helps Obama is that many just want to blame our problems on an elite class. Even though that "group" is responsible for many problems, the real issues lies within the social structure of the country itself. Racism is not just brought on the country by rich white men. It is a social structure that engulfs everyone, people of color included, and unless everyone is willing to change, racism cannot go away. That works exactly the same way for all social doctrines.
Obama will also not stop US imperialism. Some of his advisers are hawks and Obama will most likely be much closer to Bill Clinton in terms of foreign policy. Just look at Obama status on the socio-economic scale. He isn't that far from any of the Republicans including Bush and McCain.
Another thing is that even if Obama is pure, he will have a hard time working with congress if they are corrupt and no one is doing shit to change that as shown by other threads on this forum.
A President who has a congress controlled by his own party can accomplish a lot. Bush accomplished a tremendous amount of things. None of them were good for America, but he accomplished them. He accomplished spending more than a Democrat's wet dream with a Republican controlled Congress and him rubber stamping everything. He made it through his first 6 years without a single veto.
Sure it's understandable that he hates the "Gooks." They imprisoned him and tortured him. I may understand his hatred, and don't blame him for it, but does that make him a great candidate for president?
He wasn't imprisoned and tortured by "gooks". He was imprisoned and tortured by the North Vietnamese. I also don't blame him for his feelings, but nobody who was locked up in a Tiger Cage, or tortured, or who uses racial slurs against the people of other nations, or who supports and wants to continue violations against the bill of rights, and unconstitutional wars of aggression, should be president.
A President who has a congress controlled by his own party can accomplish a lot. Bush accomplished a tremendous amount of things. None of them were good for America, but he accomplished them. He accomplished spending more than a Democrat's wet dream with a Republican controlled Congress and him rubber stamping everything. He made it through his first 6 years without a single veto.
It is very easy to get a bunch of children together and get a room dirty but it nearly impossible to get a different group of children together and clean it up after them.
I guess that would depend on the kids. If you have a bunch of taggers in a room it will get tagged. If you next fill the room with boyscouts, the room will get cleaned up pretty quickly. I'm not saying the Republicans are taggers...they are thieves and murderers. I'm not saying the Democrats are boyscouts... they are just thieves.
Well, let's see, we're in a war -- against the explicitly fascist, antilibertarian, totalitarian purveyors of the ol' Non-Integrating Gap-osis -- and the one war-fighter the Dems seem to have is Lieberman, who isn't in the running.
You know -- the very guys Radar doesn't want to fight. Not now, not ever, never. Funny -- they'd fight him, given a quarter of a chance.
Then too, there's the American habit of if one party dominates the Legislative Branch, put the other in the Oval Office as a check and balance. Doesn't stay that way all the time, of course, but you get it often.
I want a war fighter who can visit their just deserts upon humanity's antidemocratic enemies, whom mankind really should destroy. Doesn't matter much which segment of mankind does the destroying, so long as there are no living fascisto-communist-undemocrats left anywhere, except in an eviscerated, emasculated condition. Don't let them breed, for they will breed war.
The United States military isn't here to win or defend the freedom of any people but our own. It's a DEFENSIVE military and is here only to defend Americans from direct and imminent attacks. It's not here to liberate oppressed people abroad. It's not here to spread democracy or to defend it elsewhere. It's not here to increase libertarianism. It's not here to practice humanitarian aid missions or peace keeping missions. It's not here to overthrow dictators in other nations. It's not here to prevent other nations from building nukes. It's not here to be the police of the world and has no authority to do so even if it were. It is not here to defend human rights in other nations. It's not here to decide who our enemies are and whether or not we should destroy them.
The fact that a war-mongering, imperialistic, idiot like you doesn't like the Democratic candidates is the best endorsement they could get and proof that McCain should not, and will not ever get into the oval office unless President Obama invites him.
The United States military isn't here to win or defend the freedom of any people but our own. It's a DEFENSIVE military and is here only to defend Americans from direct and imminent attacks. It's not here to liberate oppressed people abroad. It's not here to spread democracy or to defend it elsewhere. It's not here to increase libertarianism. It's not here to practice humanitarian aid missions or peace keeping missions. It's not here to overthrow dictators in other nations. It's not here to prevent other nations from building nukes. It's not here to be the police of the world and has no authority to do so even if it were. It is not here to defend human rights in other nations. It's not here to decide who our enemies are and whether or not we should destroy them.
The fact that a war-mongering, imperialistic, idiot like you doesn't like the Democratic candidates is the best endorsement they could get and proof that McCain should not, and will not ever get into the oval office unless President Obama invites him.
And this from a guy who couldn't hack it in the military. :rolleyes:
I guess that would depend on the kids. If you have a bunch of taggers in a room it will get tagged. If you next fill the room with boyscouts, the room will get cleaned up pretty quickly. I'm not saying the Republicans are taggers...they are thieves and murderers. I'm not saying the Democrats are boyscouts... they are just thieves.
True, but for the sake of the the analogy, politicians are not boy scouts. Maybe if we had politician merit badges....
DNC chairman under Bill Clinton: Unite behind Obama
WASHINGTON (AP) - A leader of the Democratic Party under Bill Clinton switched his allegiance to Barack Obama on Thursday and urged fellow Democrats to end the bruising nomination fight.
"This has got to come to an end," former Democratic National Committee Chairman Joe Andrew told reporters in his hometown of Indianapolis just days before Tuesday's crucial state primary. He said he planned to call all the other superdelegates he knows and encourage them to back Obama.
Bill Clinton appointed Andrew chairman of the DNC in 1999, and he led the party through the disputed 2000 presidential race before stepping down in 2001. Andrew endorsed Hillary Rodham Clinton last year on the day she declared her candidacy for the White House.
In a lengthy letter explaining his decision, Andrew said he is switching his support because "a vote for Hillary Clinton is a vote to continue this process, and a vote to continue this process is a vote that assists (Republican) John McCain."
"The ship is taking on water right now," Andrew said at the news conference. "We need to patch those holes, heal the rift and go forward to beat John McCain."
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D90CUR1O0&show_article=1I see by his post Radar doesn't actually want libertarianism to occur anywhere. Why then did he bother? He might as well have stayed over in the hard Left, whence he seems to have originated.
I want free peoples all over the globe, where Radar is quite explicitly content to leave them in their chains. Chains don't come off without a little crowbar work, you know. I say his views are quite immoral, quite unconscionable -- and quite eccentric, unless the man is at bottom a slavemonger, which on the evidence of his writing and the attitudes he has expressed since I first made his acquaintance, he is. His "don't do anything to free anybody ever" attitude would warm Hitler's cockles, and Stalin's too; the same thing warms them both, so he's not eccentric from a fascistocommunistic point of view. He's not happy with any freedom of thought except that freedom to agree with his -- all his isolationism, all his absence of foreign policy, all his just leaving the Gap to ruin and cause us of the Core more troubles. Phooey on that "idea." It's so poorly founded I'm surprised he allows himself to retain it; I certainly would not. I don't have his manifest xenophobia. Read between his lines and you can see it -- and explicitly in post #53 he lays out not a nation, but a sort of vast monastery, disconnected from the rest of the globe. I've said before that isolationism is a nonstarter; national isolationism would only really work in the absence of any other nation state anywhere on the Earth. This not being the case, some other approach to global socioeconomics seems called for.
Frankly, no American is an imperialist. Our temporary and halfhearted dabbling in it after the Spanish-American War goes to prove the point. It had its roots in mercantilist economic theories of international trade, and we never hewed to these, having started in laissez-faire capitalism, which unlike mercantilism's tying of cash crops and resources from the colonies and empire for manufactured goods returning to those colonies, and free trade elsewhere discouraged, we began as all about free trade, and we've stuck with it, even when we think it hurts, as in NAFTA. Capitalism trumps imperialism and makes globalism -- and makes globalism more efficient too. We preferred and prefer prosperity to naked power, as our national behavior shows. We aren't in, at bottom, any imperial habit. We also know the only real prosperity is a general prosperity. We've never lost sight of that.
I hate politics and politicians even more,and have little idea of how the USA system works but an American guy I know who lives near me said that the USA won't vote in a woman and is not ready for a black president and the Republicans wll get in again,is that a possibility or is he talking nonsense?
I'm curious if that kind of opinion has been heard.
I hate politics and politicians even more,and have little idea of how the USA system works but an American guy I know who lives near me said that the USA won't vote in a woman and is not ready for a black president and the Republicans wll get in again,is that a possibility or is he talking nonsense?
I'm curious if that kind of opinion has been heard.
I think he has been out of the country to long. Anything can happen at this point.
Merc's right be-bop, anything can happen--but rest assured, if McCain does win it will be for a wide variety of complicated political reasons, not because "America wasn't ready" for either a woman or a black man. If enough people really were opposed to them on that grounds, neither of them would have made it this far.
bebop, those are just the excuses being readied in case McCain does win. It will be very difficult for some people to accept that the voters chose McCain over Clinton/Obama based on ideas, expectations, etc. Obviously there is a BIG IF in there. This election could go any number of ways at this point.
I would say skin color doesn't mean as much as culture, ideals, and looks in American politics. As long as a person of any gender and skin color can appeal the majority in views, personality, and looks, they will most likely stand a chance.
Saying that, I do believe white America (since race is the leading divider in our country) is ready for a black skinned president but they are not ready, or will ever be, for a president that puts the black community's interests ahead of white's, urban over suburban, etc. Just looking at the population that Obama targets shows a lot.
Area also affects our perspectives on this. I go to liberal college campus so the vast majority are Obama supporters here but I don't know what the rest of the country is like.
Saying that, I do believe white America (since race is the leading divider in our country) is ready for a black skinned president but they are not ready, or will ever be, for a president that puts the black community's interests ahead of white's, urban over suburban, etc.
You hit the nail on the head there. Good insight.
And this from a guy who couldn't hack it in the military. :rolleyes:
Only if "couldn't hack it" means, didn't want to answer to morons who know less than a tenth of what I do, and going elsewhere to earn more money, have more fun, become well-respected while actually using my brain
(something you clearly have failed to do), contribute to the economy rather than drain it, and to leave and live my life under my own terms.
Only if "couldn't hack it" means, didn't want to answer to morons who know less than a tenth of what I do, and going elsewhere to earn more money, have more fun, become well-respected while actually using my brain (something you clearly have failed to do), contribute to the economy rather than drain it, and to leave and live my life under my own terms.
Narcissist much??? " become well-respected" by whom? Fellow bombers, fellow tax dodgers, fellow supporters of illegal aliens???
Hey Radar, your bomb outside the Edward J. Schwartz Federal Courthouse located in San Diego, California was a dud. But I hear they are still looking for you.
I see by his post Radar doesn't actually want libertarianism to occur anywhere.
I want libertarianism to occur everywhere. Freedom is to be won by those who would have it, and not to be paid for with the blood of Americans violating Constitution. I concur with our founders who wanted America's government to abide by the limitations on its powers. Like them, I am the well-wisher of freedom and liberty to all and the champion only of ours.
America has neither the authority, nor the responsibility to win freedom for any people but those in America.
Why then did he bother? He might as well have stayed over in the hard Left, whence he seems to have originated.
I find it amusing how the ultra-right-wing extremists accuse those of us in the center of being leftists. It's ok, the left-wing communists accuse me of being a right-winger so I know I'm on the right track.
I want free peoples all over the globe, where Radar is quite explicitly content to leave them in their chains.
Wrong. I also want free people all over the globe, and I believe that while our government is prohibited from taking part in any actions to free them from oppression abroad, you should be allowed to donate your time, money, and even yourself to fighting for their freedom as long as you don't expect America to bail you out if things don't go the way you wanted.
Chains don't come off without a little crowbar work, you know. I say his views are quite immoral, quite unconscionable -- and quite eccentric, unless the man is at bottom a slavemonger, which on the evidence of his writing and the attitudes he has expressed since I first made his acquaintance, he is.
You are clearly an idiot, an asshole, a warmonger, a traitor, and someone who believes America's government has no limitations on its powers and is the only country that has powers beyond its own borders and Americans are supposed to send our children to die unnecessarily to defend the freedom of others when our own freedom is being attacked at home.
His "don't do anything to free anybody ever" attitude would warm Hitler's cockles, and Stalin's too; the same thing warms them both, so he's not eccentric from a fascistocommunistic point of view.
Your "America gets to determine who will have freedom and what freedom means and we'll kill anyone who stands in the way of making it happen" attitude is sickening, and makes you a lot more comparable to Hitler than me. Hitler thought he was liberating people too. All monsters and murderers think they are doing the right thing and killing truly evil people.
He's not happy with any freedom of thought except that freedom to agree with his -- all his isolationism, all his absence of foreign policy, all his just leaving the Gap to ruin and cause us of the Core more troubles. Phooey on that "idea."
Unlike you, I cling to actual libertarian thought which is to say, I do not support the initiation of force for political gain or social engineering and I don't support having a government that steps beyond the limitations of its powers.
Also, nothing I've ever said is even remotely close to being isolationist. All war mongers accuse supporters of non-military interventionism (aka "libertarians") of being either pacifists or isolationists. They are too stupid to come up with anything resembling a genuine or truthful critique.
It's so poorly founded I'm surprised he allows himself to retain it; I certainly would not. I don't have his manifest xenophobia. Read between his lines and you can see it -- and explicitly in post #53 he lays out not a nation, but a sort of vast monastery, disconnected from the rest of the globe. I've said before that isolationism is a nonstarter; national isolationism would only really work in the absence of any other nation state anywhere on the Earth. This not being the case, some other approach to global socioeconomics seems called for.
What I said is factual and libertarian. It provides the most freedom for the most people with the least costs. It's ethical and not the slightest bit isolationist.
Frankly, no American is an imperialist. Our temporary and halfhearted dabbling in it after the Spanish-American War goes to prove the point. It had its roots in mercantilist economic theories of international trade, and we never hewed to these, having started in laissez-faire capitalism, which unlike mercantilism's tying of cash crops and resources from the colonies and empire for manufactured goods returning to those colonies, and free trade elsewhere discouraged, we began as all about free trade, and we've stuck with it, even when we think it hurts, as in NAFTA. Capitalism trumps imperialism and makes globalism -- and makes globalism more efficient too. We preferred and prefer prosperity to naked power, as our national behavior shows. We aren't in, at bottom, any imperial habit. We also know the only real prosperity is a general prosperity. We've never lost sight of that.
I want to thank you for once again proving that you are a blithering idiot without the slightest grasp on reality and you know nothing about socio-economics, politics, history, libertarianism, or freedom.
Narcissist much??? " become well-respected" by whom? Fellow bombers, fellow tax dodgers, fellow supporters of illegal aliens???
Hey Radar, your bomb outside the Edward J. Schwartz Federal Courthouse located in San Diego, California was a dud. But I hear they are still looking for you.
Well-respected by intelligent, articulate, well-educated, decent, ethical, and honest people. In other words, those who are the opposite of you in every way.
I pay every cent of tax I owe. I don't owe any part of my income in taxes. I don't support illegal aliens. I support the Constitution which prohibits the federal government from creating or enforcing immigration laws and I support the LEGAL undocumented immigrants who come here to build a better life in exactly the same way European immigrants did 150 years ago.
I don't know anything about bombings, but I'd love to blow up every IRS building in America in a controlled demolition with nobody inside after the IRS is abolished as it, and all other unconstitutional parts of government should be.
I love illegal aliens and don't pay my taxes.
You are an avowed tax dodging illegal alien supporter. Anyone who would support your wackiness is just that, wacked.
Making up quotes and then responding to them?
Dishonest, and a strawman.
Anyone who would believe a single word you've got to say is mentally retarded, is guilty of treason, and is in need of an ass kicking that will put them in the ICU.
I'd be more than happy to volunteer for the job.
Making up quotes and then responding to them?
Dishonest, and a strawman.
Anyone who would believe a single word you've got to say is mentally retarded, is guilty of treason, and is in need of an ass licking that will put them in the ICU.
I'd be more than happy to volunteer for the job.
:lol2: what a pussy.
I don't know anything about bombings, but I'd love to blow up every IRS building in America in a controlled demolition with nobody inside after the IRS is abolished as it, and all other unconstitutional parts of government should be.
I'll be sure and pass your comments on to the IRS, I am sure someone would be interested in public threats to blow up their buildings. :rolleyes:
Feel free to publish them. They are the same as Harry Browne, Aaron Russo, and Michael Badnarik
:lol2: what a pussy.
Anytime you want to test that theory out, swing by L.A. and I'd be more than happy to turn you into a bloody stain on the pavement.
Feel free to publish them. They are the same as Harry Browne, Aaron Russo, and Michael Badnarik
I still say they would love to check up on you. Your history is well known. :D
Yes, my history of standing up for freedom, liberty, justice, and the U.S. Constitution is very well-known. My history of proving mental midgets like you wrong on a daily basis is also well-known
Nothing wrong with that.
:behead:
Doing the good work, sending em home.
You know, Radar -- when you rant, you descend to kindergarten level. I'm a grownup. My opposition has this habit of disgracing itself out of its own mouth. No wonder some people spoke of the Libertarians on this forum being conspicuous jerks when I mentioned libertarianism.
As an intermediate goal towards improvement during your fits, try hitting, oh, about sixth grade level. Then middle school. You're bringing this on yourself.
I don't have fits, and I don't rant. I tell the truth, and I set the record straight when you rant, act childishly, or tell boldfaced lies.
I always thought you were a moron with no sense of humor. Now I realize you're a moron with a sense of humor. You must have one to claim that you are an adult.
Anytime you want to test that theory out, swing by L.A. and I'd be more than happy to turn you into a bloody stain on the pavement.
Sounds like a threat to do bodily harm to me...:rolleyes:
Sounds like an invitation for you to back up something you say for a change. No threats were involved. You accused me of being a "pussy" and I welcomed you to test that theory. Since you've been proven wrong on everything else, it would stand to reason you'll keep up your perfect record of being the single most consistently wrong person on earth by getting the shit kicked out of you. I've already pummeled you intellectually in every argument we've ever had, and there's no reason for me to believe anything different would happen in a physical confrontation.
Sounds like an invitation for you to back up something you say for a change. No threats were involved. You accused me of being a "pussy" and I welcomed you to test that theory. Since you've been proven wrong on everything else, it would stand to reason you'll keep up your perfect record of being the single most consistently wrong person on earth by getting the shit kicked out of you. I've already pummeled you intellectually in every argument we've ever had, and there's no reason for me to believe anything different would happen in a physical confrontation.
More threats from a fat ass political failure, a failure in the military, and a general failure as a supporter of illegal immigration criminals.. nothing to see here. You have "proven" you are a dumb ass, I'll give you that one.:rolleyes: :lol2:
I served in the military and got an honorable discharge. That's a success.
Politically, I successfully registered thousands of people to vote, I was on the board of the largest state chapter of my political party, and I ran a successful information campaign for Congress. I'm also a success as a citizen who adheres to the Constitution and stands up against unconstitutional federal immigration laws.
I've proven myself to be anything but a dumbass, or a failure, and proven you to be big mouthed, failure, and a worthless, idiotic loser in every way who can't back up anything he says intellectually or physically.
I ran for Congress.
Now their's a damm scary thought! :lol2:
...who can't back up anything he says physically.
Whatcha mean Willis? :eyebrow:
Now their's a damm scary thought! :lol2:
Only scary for enemies of the Constitution or champions of socialism/fascism or any other form of authoritarianism.
Only scary for enemies of the Constitution or champions of socialism/fascism or any other form of authoritarianism.
Well them and the majority that did not vote for you.
Well them and the majority that did not vote for you.
They are one in the same. Anyone who chose either of the other candidates over me is either a facsist who wants to violate a woman's right to have an abortion, or a socialist who hates economic freedom. Both were enemies of the U.S. Constitution which makes them enemies of America & it's people.
The important thing is that I gave my district the opportunity to vote for the best candidate who has ever run there. It's their own loss if they wasted that chance
The important thing is that I gave my district the opportunity to vote for the best candidate who has ever run there. It's there own loss if they wasted that chance
One of the most important symptoms of pathological narcissism (the Narcissistic Personality Disorder) is grandiosity. Grandiose fantasies (megalomaniac delusions of grandeur) permeate every aspect of the narcissist's personality. They are the reason that the narcissist feels entitled to special treatment which is typically incommensurate with his real accomplishments. The Grandiosity Gap is the abyss between the narcissist's self-image (as reified by his False Self) and reality.
When Narcissistic Supply is deficient, the narcissist de-compensates and acts out in a variety of ways. Narcissists often experience psychotic micro-episodes during therapy and when they suffer narcissistic injuries in a life crisis. But can the narcissist "go over the edge"? Do narcissists ever become psychotic?
Some terminology first:
The narrowest definition of psychosis, according to the DSM-IV-TR, is "restricted to delusions or prominent hallucinations, with the hallucinations occurring in the absence of insight into their pathological nature".
And what are delusions and hallucinations?
A delusion is "a false belief based on incorrect inference about external reality that is firmly sustained despite what almost everyone else believes and despite what constitutes incontrovertible and obvious proof or evidence to the contrary".
A hallucination is a "sensory perception that has the compelling sense of reality of a true perception but that occurs without external stimulation of the relevant sensory organ".
Granted, the narcissist's hold on reality is tenuous (narcissists sometimes fail the reality test). Admittedly, narcissists often seem to believe in their own confabulations. They are unaware of the pathological nature and origin of their self-delusions and are, thus, technically delusional (though they rarely suffer from hallucinations, disorganised speech, or disorganised or catatonic behaviour). In the strictest sense of the word, narcissists appear to be psychotic.
But, actually, they are not. There is a qualitative difference between benign (though well-entrenched) self-deception or even malignant con-artistry – and "losing it".
Pathological narcissism should not be construed as a form of psychosis because:
The narcissists is usually fully aware of the difference between true and false, real and make-belief, the invented and the extant, right and wrong. The narcissist consciously chooses to adopt one version of the events, an aggrandising narrative, a fairy-tale existence, a "what-if" counterfactual life. He is emotionally invested in his personal myth. The narcissist feels better as fiction than as fact – but he never loses sight of the fact that it is all just fiction.
Throughout, the narcissist is in full control of his faculties, cognisant of his choices, and goal-orientated. His behaviour is intentional and directional. He is a manipulator and his delusions are in the service of his stratagems. Hence his chameleon-like ability to change guises, his conduct, and his convictions on a dime.
Narcissistic delusions rarely persist in the face of blanket opposition and reams of evidence to the contrary. The narcissist usually tries to convert his social milieu to his point of view. He attempts to condition his nearest and dearest to positively reinforce his delusional False Self. But, if he fails, he modifies his profile on the fly. He "plays it by ear". His False Self is extemporaneous – a perpetual work of art, permanently reconstructed in a reiterative process designed around intricate and complex feedback loops.
Though the narcissistic personality is rigid – its content is always in flux. Narcissists forever re-invent themselves, adapt their consumption of Narcissistic Supply to the "marketplace", attuned to the needs of their "suppliers". Like the performers that they are, they resonate with their "audience", giving it what it expects and wants. They are efficient instruments for the extraction and consumption of human reactions.
As a result of this interminable process of fine tuning, narcissists have no loyalties, no values, no doctrines, no beliefs, no affiliations, and no convictions. Their only constraint is their addiction to human attention, positive or negative.
Psychotics, by comparison, are fixated on a certain view of the world and of their place in it. They ignore any and all information that might challenge their delusions. Gradually, they retreat into the inner recesses of their tormented mind and become dysfunctional.
Narcissists can't afford to shut out the world because they so heavily depend on it for the regulation of their labile sense of self-worth. Owing to this dependence, they are hypersensitive and hypervigilant, alert to every bit of new data. They are continuously busy rearranging their self-delusions to incorporate new information in an ego-syntonic manner.
This is why the Narcissistic Personality Disorder is insufficient grounds for claiming a "diminished capacity" (insanity) defence. Narcissists are never divorced from reality – they crave it, and need it, and consume it in order
I stated a fact. It's not a disorder.
Besides, you're hardly one to comment on anyone's delusions of grandeur when you are suffering from delusions of adequacy.
He's brimming with adequacity. -Mystery Quote
That would be awesome on an employee's annual review. That’s where I stole my delusions of adequacy line. I've read a bunch of really funny ones. I'll post some. :)
[LIST]
[*]"Since my last report, this employee has reached rock bottom and has started to dig."
[*]"His men would follow him anywhere but only out of morbid curiosity."
[*]"This associate is really not so much a has-been, but more of a definitely won't be."
[*]"Works well when under constant supervision and cornered like a rat in a trap."
[*]"When she opens her mouth, it seems that this is only to change feet."
[*]"He would be out of his depth in a parking lot puddle."
[*]"This young lady has delusions of adequacy."
[*]"He sets low personal standards and then consistently fails to achieve them."
[*]"This employee should go far -- and the sooner he starts, the better we'll be."
[*]"This employee is depriving a village somewhere of an idiot."
[*]"This employee should not be allowed to breed."
[*]"This man has the whole six pack but is missing the plastic thingy that holds them all together."
[*]"He certainly takes a long time to make his pointless."
[*]"He doesn't have ulcers, but he is a carrier."
[*]"He's been working with glue too much."
[*]"He would argue with a signpost."
[*]"He has a knack for making strangers immediately."
[*]"When his IQ reaches 50, he should sell."
[*]"Is apparently very careful with equipment, as his tools show very little signs of wear."
[*]"He is 25 years old, and still has to get his mother's permission to leave the house."
[*]"He stated in his resume that he knew the things required to do the job. Unfortunately it now has become painfully clear that the skills he possesses involve nothing but bragging and know-it-all attitudes."
[*]"This employee seems inadequate of accomplishing anything at all during work hours, beyond flirting with co-workers and doing her nails."
[/LIST]
But the real issue is if he has an "acceptable name"?
Without that, he would never get hired in the first place, let alone a review. ;)
I just saw Edwards endorsement of Obama. He did start off with a ringing endorsement of Hillary. I have to say it was the one of the strangest political moments I've seen.
[youtube]gvlcOK8JPAM[/youtube]
I stated a fact. It's not a disorder.
Besides, you're hardly one to comment on anyone's delusions of grandeur when you are suffering from delusions of adequacy.
"Though the narcissistic personality is rigid – its content is always in flux. Narcissists forever re-invent themselves, adapt their consumption of Narcissistic Supply to the "marketplace", attuned to the needs of their "suppliers". Like the performers that they are, they resonate with their "audience", giving it what it expects and wants. They are efficient instruments for the extraction and consumption of human reactions.
As a result of this interminable process of fine tuning, narcissists have no loyalties, no values, no doctrines, no beliefs, no affiliations, and no convictions. Their only constraint is their addiction to human attention, positive or negative.
Psychotics, by comparison, are fixated on a certain view of the world and of their place in it. They ignore any and all information that might challenge their delusions. Gradually, they retreat into the inner recesses of their tormented mind and become dysfunctional.
Narcissists can't afford to shut out the world because they so heavily depend on it for the regulation of their labile sense of self-worth. Owing to this dependence, they are hypersensitive and hypervigilant, alert to every bit of new data. They are continuously busy rearranging their self-delusions to incorporate new information in an ego-syntonic manner.
This is why the Narcissistic Personality Disorder is insufficient grounds for claiming a "diminished capacity" (insanity) defence. Narcissists are never divorced from reality – they crave it, and need it, and consume it in order"
I just saw Edwards endorsement of Obama. He did start off with a ringing endorsement of Hillary. I have to say it was the one of the strangest political moments I've seen.
[youtube]gvlcOK8JPAM[/youtube]
Yea, I agree, and I am not sure how much it is going to contribute to the overall movement. Some of those are endorsements are more about the person giving them vs. those on the receiving end.
One can only hope that Edwards will convince more superdelelegates over to the Obama side so they can finally end the Democratic Primary and get to the part where Obama beats McCain.
That was a speech with a purpose. The purpose was to say, "I love you both and I'll make a great VP."
I had that feeling too...and he would make a fine V.P.. He may even become President if those backwards, redneck, racist, assholes in West Virginia stop fucking their sisters long enough to take their huntin' rifle to shoot Obama.
That was one of the most entertaining, politically-based, cockfights I've seen in the past hour. I applaud both Radar and TheMercenary.
My cock is a lover, not a fighter.
My cock is a lover, not a fighter.
Someone needs to cut it off and give it to Obama for his mantal in the White House.
Ha. Obama in the
White House.
Get used to that idea. It will be a reality in January.
McCain has as much chance of beating Obama as Michael Jackson has of beating Mike Tyson on a street fight. In both cases, the black guy will win.
Get used to that idea. It will be a reality in January.
McCain has as much chance of beating Obama as Michael Jackson has of beating Mike Tyson on a street fight. In both cases, the black guy will win.
I hope he wins and the dems take a complete majority for the next 8 years. The American people will get just what they asked for.
I'm not a Dem or a liberal or a conservative, but no matter what he does, he can't be worse than Bush 1 & 2 or Reagan. He will win.
That was one of the most entertaining, politically-based, cockfights I've seen in the past hour. I applaud both Radar and TheMercenary.
wow. welcome back from the territories, or the Kuiper Belt, or... wherever... long time no see.
. . . long enough to take their huntin' rifle to shoot Obama.
Out of bitterness? Or religion? Or because it would annoy everyone else in Bugsplat Junction to shoot somebody more local?
Only scary for enemies of the Constitution or champions of socialism/fascism or any other form of authoritarianism.
You aren't particularly scary to these: unlike me, you are neither willing to shoot socialists/fascists, nor to see them shot, as we are doing daily in the Iraqi and Afghan theaters of war. You become very, and irrationally, angry at the very prospect. Too much fascistosocialist sympathy on your part, I say. Don't prate to me about not coercing them -- for the fascists are coercing already, and they must stop -- or so say the libertarians. Being a disciple of freedom, I say the antidemocrats' survival is very, very secondary to their halting their coercions. Yea, tertiary. Quaternary.
It's hardly un-libertarian to shorten slavemakers' lifespans, isn't it?
It's unlibertarian to initiate aggression, even against someone who is using aggression against a third-party who didn't ask you for help. It's unlibertarian to use force against anyone who is not using it against you first. It's also unconstitutional to start wars with a defensive military, especially without a Constitutionally required formal declaration of war has not been made by Congress.
Libertarians are against government stepping beyond its limited authority. Libertarians are also against forcing our brand of freedom on to others.
I, and other libertarians, do support your right to go on your own or to put together a private militia to go about overthrowing monsters in other countries as long as you don't expect any support from America when you do it.
Also, I'm very willing to shoot socialists and fascists as long as they are attacking people right here in America. The people in other countries have to worry about their own monsters unless they can find suicidal, unlibertarian, war-mongering, idiots to come into their own country to help them overthrow their oppressors. Before I worry about the freedom of people in other countries, I prefer to worry about the freedom of my own countrymen. America is far from the free country it started as, and it's getting less free all the time.
wow. welcome back from the territories, or the Kuiper Belt, or... wherever... long time no see.
Thanks!
To Radar: why are you lumping socialists and fascists together? They are two distinct political ideologies that fought against each other.
To Merc, re: the 8 years and Democrats comment: I have hopes that it won't be worse, though politicians in general are not to be trusted. But really, they're going to have to work to make them worse than the past 8.
In the end, both socialists and fascists are authoritarians. Both assume that your property and earnings belongs to the state, both tell you how to live, both have no qualms about killing, etc.
Headsplice, one thing you really should understand about socialists and fascists: they are not merely brothers under the skin, they are identical twins under the skin. Google "beefsteak Nazi" for some expatiation. Fascists and Socialists fought against each other in WW2 not because they were antitheses -- they were
competitors. See also Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn's
Leftism Revisited. Believe me, you'll never look at the various brand names of antidemocracy the same way again. You'll probably have to hunt it up in university library stacks or online used book dealers; I believe it is unfortunately still out of print. I last read it about 1990.
Woo! -- maybe not!
Check this on Amazon.
I am really very pleased with the behavior of this Republican President: unlike any Democratic one since LBJ, he is trying to remove undemocracies (at which LBJ quite failed), and he is concentrating the Federal government on international matters and foreign policy, rather than in meddling with internal matters and trying to push the Bill of Rights aside, as Clinton so signally did. For seven years I've heard a great deal of yelling about how Bush is destroying our civil rights, yada yada yada he did this and he did that -- while the evidence on the ground clearly shows me that no he isn't. Look around the Cellar -- are we in any wise censored? Is
anyone? How many guns can't you buy, and is that number, if greater than zero, any different than it was under Clinton's misrule? It is somewhat greater than under Nixon's, if you like -- that ought to be fixed. When was the last time you were made to incriminate yourself in a court of law? When was the last time anybody was? And so on and so forth down through the Bill of Rights. It is little appreciated by the Dem Kool-Aid swillers that this Administration isn't interested in trammeling them. They're busy. Successful, too: no more planes in any more buildings. Reagan, and the younger Bush: they are both into limited government, and that is how they will go down in history. Some pundits remark that Bush less resembles Reagan than he does Truman -- a Democrat -- in that while he suffered heavily in popularity polling, he's set up and founded the policies and institutions that will pay off in the present conflict, enabling our victory. Truman did this for the Cold War, Bush for the War on Terror. The biggest detail difference I see in these protracted conflicts is the first revolved around nation-states and the second features transnational terrorists demonstrating that the power to destroy is increasingly available to aggrieved private persons, and that what used to need a nation's resources now can be attempted by a millionaire.
Radar, the antidemocratic antilibertarians have initiated the aggression -- neither you nor I need be worried about that, really ever. As antilibertarian antidemocrats, they should also be viewed as enemies of mankind. You don't seem to grasp this, and thus you are reluctant to actually replace antidemocratic antilibertarians with libertarian democrats by whatever means the savage fascists make needful. Countervailing violence is not made illegitimate by the numbers of people doing the countervailing nor whether they're in uniform, Radar. I read your opposition to removing the sources of mankind's political troubles as you making one rationalization after another to conceal a deeply xenophobic streak in your makeup. I am not crippled by xenophobia, have no need to veil it with an infinity of rationalizations for never removing a single fascist, and thus I think more clearly and more morally than you do -- or perhaps can. (I'm assuming while there's life in you, there is also a possibility of redemption.) My working assumption is that good, libertarian governance is good for any human society anywhere, and ought not to be denied anyone, anywhere, simply because they're furriners. As corollary, I consider human liberation and its consequent tendency to prosperity (viz.: America) of such importance that I cannot see a moral difference or delegitimization whether a native group performs the tyrant-excision, or an outside group like the US Army performs it. It's all being done by humans, making other humans free. Freer, if you're actually willing to accept Plan B. After all, that freedom makes prosperity is a libertarian tenet. (That prosperity demands and begets freedom is a T.P.M. Barnett one.) What kind of libertarian finds excuses, rationalizations, for not pushing freedom? Might it be a xenophobic, narcissistic one?
In fact, I don't know of any reason to deny a free society to them at all, and consider that any attempt to do so on anyone's part, regardless of how native they be, an act of at least moral violence and improper aggression, to be met with a
successful campaign to neutralize such oppressors and remove the threat they present. Don't stop short of hanging such miscreants to capital-city lampposts if you want their threat removed and the success achieved. No one weeps for fallen oppressors, and highly motivated sociopaths who make it to head of state -- all too frequent a phenomenon, right? -- only create sociopathic states.
Just the kind of outfits that make us libertarians feel needed.
Then too, I distrust radicalism, even as a leavening of the lump(-enproletariat, even): the more radicalized and extremist a society is, the less sustainable its stability or its radical condition; the pendulum always swings to center. The centerpoint itself slowly, evolutionarily, incrementally travels, apparently under impetus of a people desiring not to repeat history. Though there may be something to Marx's quip about history's repeats: first as tragedy, then as farce. It would lead one to expect two-fers. A democratic society, tending as it does to longterm stability, evolves less in great sweeping changes than by increments; day-to-day stuff that passes almost unnoticed. I'm patient enough to work with that. Societal tantrums are trouble. They also tend to destroy those who spark them.
Urbane, a lot of people disagree with you. Bush had a chance to finish off al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, but due to the foray in Iraq, bin Laden, the Doctor and most of al-Qaeda hierarchy found relative haven in Waziristan.
Bush called Iran, Iraq and North Korea part of the 'Axis of Evil'. Seeing Bush invade Iraq for what it turned out to be spurious reasons, N Korea and Iraq revitalize their nuclear programs, forcing Bush to halt his world-wide crusade in Iraq.
Bush got two terrorist groups elected into foreign governments (and both are a stone's throw from Israel no less). Bush stood helpless as Hezbollah killed and kidnapped Israeli soldiers, precipitating in a war that all but set Hezbollah up to take over all of Lebanon.
Bush all but invited Sunni terrorists to move into Iraq ('Bring them on!').
Bush also started with a surplus and ended up with an even worse deficit than Reagan. At least Reagan's deficit spending served its directives, and consumer confidence was still high. Bush have very little to show with his deficit spending and consumer confidence is waning. At this rate of his declining popularity, the 'five percenters' would refer not to a sect of the Nation of Islam, the Nation of Gods and Earths, but instead to backers of George W Bush. Small wonder why McCain is trying to shed off the image that his presidency would constitute a third Bush term.
If Bill Clinton did all that, you would be screaming for his head, forget about impeachment. But then, all that is okay if you're a Republican.
-1)Socialists are quite different than Leninists/Stalinists.
-2)The metrics of 'freedom' are not whether we can post statements on the internet and how many guns we can buy. There's also things like the expanding power of the executive, specifically the use of signing statements and the expansion of the President's Article II powers.
-3)As a libertartian, do you support the largest expansion of the federal government in the history of the United States (hint: the DHS)?
-4)Democratic societies do NOT lend themselves to long-term stabilities. That's why the US, when it was founded, was known as the 'Great Experiment.'
-5)I challenge you to name one way in which the United States is better, domestically or internationally, as a direct result of the policies of George W. Bush.
Socialism and fascism are antithetic to each other.
To Merc, re: the 8 years and Democrats comment: I have hopes that it won't be worse, though politicians in general are not to be trusted. But really, they're going to have to work to make them worse than the past 8.
I don't really think so. There is no way they can pay for all the promises they have made, esp if Obama is elected. Our society is about to take it in the shorts economically in the name of fixing all that needs to be fixed. I am not a fan of wealth redistribution, taxes, and the government telling me what I can and cannot do (with reasonalble exceptions).
Nobody wants to pay for the things they don't believe in. For me, it's the Iraq war.
So we shouldn't even attempt to fix some of the problems?
And guess what, we're already taking it in the shorts on the micro-economic scale. The macro is just starting to catch up.
Socialism and fascism are antithetic to each other.
Can't be, DanaC. They are brothers under the skin, never been anything else, and every Fascist leader that ever was spent time as a Socialist. Read von Kühnelt-Leddihn and see if you can still hold that view.
Excuse the interruption. Isn't the thread title "When it becomes Hillary v McCain"? I really hate to stop this love fest, but isn't Hillary as over as W is?
Actually, we in America are royally screwed no matter which of the 3 clones wins.
Actually, we in America are royally screwed no matter which of the 3 clones wins.
I am beginning to believe that.
Don't worry, Obama will act like he loves us for 20 years, then when we embarrass him a couple times he'll drop us like so much used kleenex. It's called "conviction fence-sitting."
:lol:
I HATE NIGGERS!
no, no. youre taking me out of context! to me, niggers just means those black people who stole my wallet!
...im not buying it.
They stole
your wallet too?
[youtube]9izhjnaLa3M[/youtube]
Thanks Monkey. This is all any reasonable person needs to prove that McCain is insane and he belongs nowhere near the whitehouse or in any other part of government. America was most certainly not founded on Judeo-Christian ethics, principles, or doctrine.
So we shouldn't even attempt to fix some of the problems?
Sure we should. Who is going to pay for it and how?
Considering that Bush is intending to pay for 100 plus years of occupation in Iraq, let's say we cut that and spend it on things we need.
Considering that Bush is intending to pay for 100 plus years of occupation in Iraq, let's say we cut that and spend it on things we need.
Not an answer. Show me the money.:headshake
First we have to pay for what we have on credit. You understand that, sort of like a credit card. Ok? Then after we pay for that how do we pay for all the social programs?
I know! we use the liberal left idea and tax corps and people who make money!
So what do we do when Exxon or other big corps say fuck it, see ya! wouldn't want to be ya! We will just set up shop in the Gulf of Oman and fuck you we are moving next week! Then what?
People who have money say fuck you I will just find better ways to legally shelter mine and give less to charity (people like me), or pay myself, hire all of my kids and my wife (legally) and you get shit!
COOL! then what?
That's the part that frustrates me when talking listening to people talking about taxing "the rich". They don't get it. They tax increases really only affect their neighbors. People they see on a daily basis, people who dwell in the cellar, people who work hard for a living... people who don't pay attorneys and accountants tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars annually to take care of the issue. For every rich tax and redistribute plan created there is a new trust or entity created to beat that tax for the truly wealthy. The truly wealthy pay an astronomical sum in terms of dollars, but little in actual percentage because they have attorneys to take care of that. Bill down the street who busted his ass to build a successful small business and has finally cracked into six figures is the one who gets screwed so someone can feel good about taxing the rich.
"The Rich" includes anyone who makes more than me. Screw em.
I think "the rich" describes those who make more than $500,000 per year and "the wealthy" describes those who make more than 50 million per year. I loved it when Chris Rock described the difference between the rich and the wealthy. He said if Bill Gates woke up with Oprah Winfrey's money, he'd jump out the window of a tall skyscraper and slash his own throat on the way down.
What if they only make that amount one year? two?
Bill down the street who busted his ass to build a successful small business and has finally cracked into six figures is the one who gets screwed so someone can feel good about taxing the rich.
Here here....
They could be wealthy now and rich later, or rich now and middle-class later. During the one or two years they are making that kind of money, they are rich or wealthy as the case may be. When they stop making that kind of money, they no longer qualify.
I think "the rich" describes those who make more than $500,000 per year and "the wealthy" describes those who make more than 50 million per year
I'm pretty sure median income (per household) in the US hovers just under $50000/year. Anyone making six figures is fairly rich.
bullshit. $100,000 does NOT make one rich or even "fairly rich". It makes them someone who probably busts there ass to provide for their family just like you do. They've just chosen a field that pays better.
Anyone who makes more than twice what I make is rich. The exact dollar amount will change as my income changes.
Edit: I forgot this: ;)
fair enough. as long as i get to use the same measurement. ;)
seriously though, that is the problem with picking dollar amounts and attaching tags to them. it is completely subjective. When I was in the military the idea of making what a colonel does made my mouth water. Now I'd be scrambling trying to figure out how to stay afloat. Is someone earning a colonel's wage rich or poor? It all depends on where you are standing.
Well, I know from Mr. Carlin that anyone who drives slower than me is an idiot, but anyone who goes faster than me is a maniac.
bullshit. $100,000 does NOT make one rich or even "fairly rich". It makes them someone who probably busts there ass to provide for their family just like you do. They've just chosen a field that pays better.
Agreed. We don't make six figures, but if we did, we certainly wouldn't be swimming a la scrooge mcduck. We would probably get caught up on
some of our bills, though.
bullshit. $100,000 does NOT make one rich or even "fairly rich". It makes them someone who probably busts there ass to provide for their family just like you do. They've just chosen a field that pays better.
UMMMMMMMmmmmmmm.....
Fucking A.
On the same note, so people who make early and calculated decisions about life goals and plans and then see them through to positive results should be penalized because we busted our asses and went to 3 or 4 or 10 years of school after a 4 year college degree should be paying for those who did not?
Yea, "Kiss my ass" floats to the top of that line of thinking rather quickly.
I'm pretty sure median income (per household) in the US hovers just under $50000/year. Anyone making six figures is fairly rich.
Bull shit.
Please to share what you have done to earn your $50000 a year.
And then explain to us why the rest of the world who makes more than you should pay for your happy ass to do anything? "I am all ears."
Anyone who makes more than twice what I make is rich. The exact dollar amount will change as my income changes.
Edit: I forgot this: ;)
No, what they have is more disposable income than you and more likely than not, more bills, a higher standard of living, and the ability to have more choices in life. But yea, they are not rich.
Reminds me of a tree full of monkeys
Everyone at the top looks down at nothing but smiling faces of other monkeys.
Everyone at the bottom looks up and sees nothing but a bunch of assholes.
Sucks to be on the bottom. You get nothing but shit from the top. But hey, no one says you can't sacrifice, bite, scrape, and jockey for a better position in the tree. The only thing holding you back is yourself.
Rock on monkey.
Median household income was $46,326 in 2005, up 1.1 percent from 2004 after adjusting for inflation. This is the first annual increase in real median household income since 1999. Since 1967, the first year for which household income statistics are available, real median household income was up 30.9 percent
During the 2004 election, the line in the sand that Kerry had drawn for his tax-the-rich plan was $250,000 a year. Though obviously the taxation plan itself met with much criticism, the public seemed to swallow the actual number as a reasonable definition of rich at the time.
that's because the public swallows the political hacks' strategy of class warfare hook, line, and sinker. show me the person who thinks anyone making $100/200/300K per year deserves to be taxed more and I'll show you someone who doesn't have the belief that they could ever earn that much. [SIZE="1"] Or someone so disgustingly wealthy that they pay someone hundreds of thousands to ensure they don't pay taxes anyway...[/SIZE]
$500k in Los Angeles is like $150k anywhere else in America...with the possible exception of New York City.
that's because the public swallows the political hacks' strategy of class warfare hook, line, and sinker. show me the person who thinks anyone making $100/200/300K per year deserves to be taxed more and I'll show you someone who doesn't have the belief that they could ever earn that much. [SIZE="1"] Or someone so disgustingly wealthy that they pay someone hundreds of thousands to ensure they don't pay taxes anyway...[/SIZE]
I assure you even 300k is far from disgustingly wealthy.
Lets talk weath. I am starting a new thread in current events. I would appreciate it if you all came over and commented in an effort to refocus the discussion and take advantage of an interesting bit of thread drift.
I assure you even 300k is far from disgustingly wealthy.
To you, 30 billion euros is not disgustingly wealthy.
To you, 30 billion euros is not disgustingly wealthy.
And you would know this how? I accept that our society is economically stratified. It can't be anything else, it does not matter how little you make.
I'm just tired of the rich pleading poverty, especially CEOs who gets raises while their companies go to the toilet and employees lose everything they worked for. Even Mike Bloomberg made over $11 billion while in office, taking a $1 per year job. Eleven billion. At least he didn't take NYC to the toilet.
How much should someone running one of the largest cities in the world make? Also what were his sources of income to produce the $11B?
His trust. He is up from 5 billion to
11.5 billion (my mistake, sorry.)
He owns Bloomberg, LP, now in trust. You see the Wall Street ticker on CNBC and other financial channels? That's thanks to Bloomberg.
Goldman Sachs and just about every other brokerage house on Wall Street got an electronic ticker, thanks to Bloomberg.
I'm not certain yet whether his reach extends to Fleet Street or other European, or Asian markets.
Did his job as mayor have anything illicit impact on that trust? I am not a Bloomberg fan, but so what if his personal wealth grew from $5B to $10B or even $100B? If he only accepted $1 in wages then you should be applauding that choice to not take unneeded taxpayer money.
I'm just tired of the rich pleading poverty, especially CEOs who gets raises while their companies go to the toilet and employees lose everything they worked for. Even Mike Bloomberg made over $11 billion while in office, taking a $1 per year job. Eleven billion. At least he didn't take NYC to the toilet.
If that is the case why would you say this to me?
To you, 30 billion euros is not disgustingly wealthy.
I am no CEO. Sure I make good money by most standards but I am far from rich.
Well, he is an MBA... must be evil. ;)
