Democratic National Convention Thread - Page 17 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind
Click Here to Login
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 08-28-2008, 01:10 AM   #241
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 01:44 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Headache in a Suitcase View Post
i voted for bush twice. am i sorry for that? no. he was the best candidate the first time around, and the democrats could not put forth a better candidate the second time around.

that said, he fucked up a tremeondous opportunity. there's no other way to put it. the fact that he went after iraq instead of finishing the job in afghanistan, and then would not admit his mistake, is one of the main reasons why, despite my absolute love of john mccain, i am currently leaning towards voting for barack obama.
I voted for Al Gore in 2000 and John Kerry in 2004. am I sorry, not one bit. I thought W was a terrible candidate in 2000 and thought he would probably at best be a mediocre president. In 2004, I wished he was mediocre, instead of being the worst President, ever. I gladly voted for Kerry, a mediocre candidate.

I am currently leaning towards, McCain, barely.
I learned in 2000 that when the American people gamble on someone with little experience
it can have devastating consequences.
__________________

__________________
deep is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-28-2008, 01:19 AM   #242
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 09:44 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
since this is the only thing you haven't already posted before, ad nauseum, let's take a look at this.

are you saying that the McCain position on Russia -- snarling, advocating that Georgia be admitted to NATO!?!?! -- is actually an admirable position and one that others are scrambling to adopt?

Its been the position of the majority of NATO countries for over a year now to begin the process of bringing in Georgia and Ukraine into the NATO alliance. But all 26 NATO countries must agree to start the process, and early this spring, 10 countries led by France and Germany decided to not to start the process. Many have wondered if this action was viewed by the Russians as a green light to large scale military intervention in Georgia.

McCain has had a tougher stance on Russia in general for some time now, dicussing the possibility of replacing Russia in the G-8 with Brazil. While many laughed at the thought of doing that, its actually being seriously considered now, depending on Russia's behavior. He has had a more honest and realistic view of Russia and Putin for some time now, and NATO needs to improve the security of its Eastern members, especially Estonia, Lativia and Lithuania. I think the US should move its forces in Germany into Poland so they can respond more quickly to crises in Eastern Europe especially if something were to happen in the Baltic States.

If Russia sees no cost to this type of military intervention in what it calls the "near abroad", your going to see more of it.
__________________

__________________
Strongbow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-28-2008, 01:21 AM   #243
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
mobvok's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: boom clap
Posts: 4,433
Local Time: 01:44 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by deep View Post
I am just saying he was not in the loop in 2002
Obama did not get the evidence people like Joe Biden, John Kerry and Hillary that were in the Senate.

In 2000 the Democrats would not even give Obama a ticket to their convention in Los Angeles. He tells a story of going to L A and being turned away at the door. Quite an amazing turn of events.
I wasn't satisfied with my argument so I edited it upthread. I should click preview more often.

Basically this:
Quote:
He did have a close relationship with Tony Rezko, a now convicted felon, that may have been mixed up with Saddam Hussein- In the "oil for food" scam.
So Obama was against removing Saddam. What a surprise.
You're saying Obama knew Rezko was taking money from Saddam Hussein, and that was basically why he was anti-war because he was worried about losing Rezko as a fundraiser.

Not only corruption, you could call that soft treason.
__________________
mobvok is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-28-2008, 01:26 AM   #244
ONE
love, blood, life
 
namkcuR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Kettering, Ohio
Posts: 10,290
Local Time: 04:44 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by deep View Post
I voted for Al Gore in 2000 and John Kerry in 2004. am I sorry, not one bit. I thought W was a terrible candidate in 2000 and thought he would probably at best be a mediocre president. In 2004, I wished he was mediocre, instead of being the worst President, ever. I gladly voted for Kerry, a mediocre candidate.

I am currently leaning towards, McCain, barely.
I learned in 2000 that when the American people gamble on someone with little experience
it can have devastating consequences.
See, here's the thing; You are attributing the devastating consequences to the fact that he had little experience. I think that is the wrong thing to attribute it to. I think you should be attributing the devastating consequences to the fact that Bush was at best of average intelligence(I think he's a moron), that he had an amount of arrogance that was disproportionate to his (lack of) intelligence, that he believed in the stupid, simple, ineffective 'cowboy justice' school of thought, that he surrounded himself with either unqualified or ill-intentioned people(like Mr. Brown, or like Cheany who was entirely too connected to the oil industry to be in such a position of political power), and that he just was not a very thoughtful, insightful, person at all. Among other things.

I don't care about Obama's lack of experience. I think Obama is a highly, HIGHLY intelligent person, that views the world in far more complex terms than Bush does, that he will surround himself with far, far, far, far, far more qualified and capable and well-intentioned people than Bush has(Biden is a tremendous start already), and I think he is a very thoughtful, insightful person, I think the way he thinks about things is very cool-headed, very rational, very thoughtful. I think the way he has run his campaign speaks volumes about his ability to run a business(let's face it, a presidential campaign is a business) in an effective, responsible, and successful way. I think his judgement has been entirely sound thus far.

All of this considered, I think it's a huge, HUGE, incorrect generalization to say that, hey, George Bush was inexperienced and he's been awful, and therefore, anyone who doesn't have 30 years of experience is going to be a bad president. I think that's just simplistic, flawed logic, and I don't think it reflects reality.
__________________
namkcuR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-28-2008, 01:31 AM   #245
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 01:44 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by mobvok View Post
that Obama-Rezko-Saddam link is lame.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mobvok View Post
I wasn't satisfied with my argument so I edited it upthread. I should click preview more often.

Basically this:

You're saying Obama knew Rezko was taking money from Saddam Hussein, and that was basically why he was anti-war because he was worried about losing Rezko as a fundraiser.

Not only corruption, you could call that soft treason.
I agree
it is late
there is time for me to edit and remove it
but I wont

I do not make those charges



on another note

I was against the surge,
I had given up on Iraq
with the body counts

I was angry, with the lies into the war
I have never liked, trusted, or believed Bush/Cheney

so, I kind of wanted Iraq to deterioerate on their watch
it was thier fuck up
I thought they should own it

plus they had gotten it wrong about 10 times in a row
stay the course
stay the course
stay the course

Bush would say crap like

we need to honor their sacrifice
with more troops going to iraq


well,
I've never been to Iraq
I've never been briefed by people that have been there

but, I wrote plenty of stuff in here like I knew what I was talking about.


In the last four years McCain has been to Iraq 14 times.
He was early on calling for Rumsfeld to be fired.
When Bush, Cheney and 90% of the GOP was behind them.

Obama has been in the Senate since 2004 and he never went to Iraq once?
That is a bit odd. When he wants to build his campaign around it?

How many times do you think Biden has gone?

And the others.

I was wrong about the surge, my dislike Bush/Cheney did not even let me consider it objectivly.

Obama was wrong.



This was a chief complaint on mine against W.

He had never traveled out of the U S.

Gore was much more ready to be President in 2000.





.
__________________
deep is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-28-2008, 01:38 AM   #246
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
mobvok's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: boom clap
Posts: 4,433
Local Time: 01:44 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by namkcuR View Post
See, here's the thing; You are attributing the devastating consequences to the fact that he had little experience. I think that is the wrong thing to attribute it to. I think you should be attributing the devastating consequences to the fact that Bush was at best of average intelligence(I think he's a moron), that he had an amount of arrogance that was disproportionate to his (lack of) intelligence, that he believed in the stupid, simple, ineffective 'cowboy justice' school of thought, that he surrounded himself with people like Cheany who was entirely to connected to the oil industry to be in such a position of political power, and that he just was not a very thoughtful, insightful, person. Among other things.

I don't care about Obama's lack of experience. I think Obama is a highly, HIGHLY intelligent person, that views the world in far more complex terms than Bush does, that he will surround himself with far, far, far, far, far more qualified and capable and well-intentioned people than Bush has(Biden is a tremendous start already), and I think he is a very thoughtful, insightful person, I think the way he thinks about things is very cool-headed, very rational, very thoughtful. I think the way he has run his campaign speaks volumes about his ability to run a business(let's face it, a presidential campaign is a business) in an effective, responsible, and successful way. I think his judgement has been entirely sound thus far.

All of this considered, I think a huge, HUGE, incorrect generalization to say that, hey, George Bush was inexperienced and he's been awful, and therefore, anyone who doesn't have 30 years of experience is going to be a bad president. I think that's just simplistic, flawed logic, and I don't think it reflects reality.
I think it's simply that, beyond the bad policies, Bush simply had terrible judgment in picking people and/or knowing when they were finished. Donald Rumsfeld, Michael Brown, whoever the fuck thought it was a good idea to staff the Coalition Provisional Authority tasked with rebuilding Iraq with 2000-era staff campaign workers. I'm biased so I think Republican Presidents are usually worse then Democratic ones, but the Special Sauce, the Critical Difference if you would separating a George H.W from a George W. is that W picked the wrong people, AND stuck with them too long.

It's not a very sexy idea, but I think given the enormous stretch of the Executive Branch one of the biggest things is just picking good people to staff the government. With efficacy, we don't need inspirational speeches or decades of experience in a POTUS, so much as someone who knows how to put qualified people into their best spots. The ship of state will at least be sound. I think that's the CEO model, in a way. Although an MBA didn't really help Bush.
__________________
mobvok is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-28-2008, 01:44 AM   #247
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 01:44 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by namkcuR View Post
See, here's the thing; You are attributing the devastating consequences to the fact that he had little experience. I think that is the wrong thing to attribute it to. I think you should be attributing the devastating consequences to the fact that Bush was at best of average intelligence(I think he's a moron), that he had an amount of arrogance that was disproportionate to his (lack of) intelligence, that he believed in the stupid, simple, ineffective 'cowboy justice' school of thought, that he surrounded himself with either unqualified or ill-intentioned people(like Mr. Brown, or like Cheany who was entirely too connected to the oil industry to be in such a position of political power), and that he just was not a very thoughtful, insightful, person at all. Among other things.

I don't care about Obama's lack of experience. I think Obama is a highly, HIGHLY intelligent person, that views the world in far more complex terms than Bush does, that he will surround himself with far, far, far, far, far more qualified and capable and well-intentioned people than Bush has(Biden is a tremendous start already), and I think he is a very thoughtful, insightful person, I think the way he thinks about things is very cool-headed, very rational, very thoughtful. I think the way he has run his campaign speaks volumes about his ability to run a business(let's face it, a presidential campaign is a business) in an effective, responsible, and successful way. I think his judgement has been entirely sound thus far.

All of this considered, I think it's a huge, HUGE, incorrect generalization to say that, hey, George Bush was inexperienced and he's been awful, and therefore, anyone who doesn't have 30 years of experience is going to be a bad president. I think that's just simplistic, flawed logic, and I don't think it reflects reality.
The constitution has age requirements for Congress, Senate and Presidency.


25 Congress

30 Senate

and

35 President.

These were set in the 1700s.




At 21 one is an adult.

Why is that not the age requirement.

It must be because they thought 'experience' was important.



and yes W is not very smart, the alcohol and drugs make have taken a toll, Jeb seems o k.

I also think Obama is fairly intelligent, too. I think he is a gifted politician.

I don't agree that he has always exercised perfect judgement.
But, he has not show terrible judgement like Bush/ Cheney.

The worst thing I have said about Obama is that I think he would he a very good candidate in 2012, 2016 or 2020. I said I would even expect to vote for him with some decent work demonstrated in the Senate.
__________________
deep is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-28-2008, 01:59 AM   #248
ONE
love, blood, life
 
namkcuR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Kettering, Ohio
Posts: 10,290
Local Time: 04:44 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by deep View Post
The constitution has age requirements for Congress, Senate and Presidency.


25 Congress

30 Senate

and

35 President.

These were set in the 1700s.




At 21 one is an adult.

Why is that not the age requirement.

It must be because they thought 'experience' was important.



and yes W is not very smart, the alcohol and drugs make have taken a toll, Jeb seems o k.

I also think Obama is fairly intelligent, too. I think he is a gifted politician.

I don't agree that he has always exercised perfect judgement.
But, he has not show terrible judgement like Bush/ Cheney.

The worst thing I have said about Obama is that I think he would he a very good candidate in 2012, 2016 or 2020. I said I would even expect to vote for him with some decent work demonstrated in the Senate.
See, the last line of your post illustrates the fundamental disagreement that we have. You think he would be a better candidate in 4, 8, or 12 years. I think that in 4, and especially 8 or 12 years, he would 4, 8, or 12 years more cynical, more jaded. What makes his campaign now so special is precisely the fact that he is young, and relatively unjaded, and he truly BELIEVES in the message of hope and change he is spreading. That's what makes it special. In 4/8/12 years, he may very well not believe it as much, and if he doesn't believe it, no one else will, and the magic will be gone, the inspiration will be gone. It is precisely the fact that he DIDN'T wait 4/8/12 more years before trying this that makes the whole thing so special. Millions and millions and millions of people have voted for him not because of a term or two of being governor or because of a reputation crafted over a decade or more, they have voted for him because he has inspired them all in a very short period of time, has made them care, has given them hope in a time when there was little to be had in the political world. That magic would be gone in 8 years, in 12 years because he WON'T BE this young, fresh, unjaded, inspirational, etc. by then. We disagree on this.
__________________
namkcuR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-28-2008, 02:48 AM   #249
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 01:44 AM
I would gamble on an inexperienced Senator of even Governor.

We have that now here in CA with Arnold Schwarzenegger

And they had it with Jesse Ventura in Minn

there is only so much damage they can do.


I don't care about Obama's age. He is 47. I would not care if he was 39 or 40.

There have been 12 other nominees that were younger than Obama.

Bill Clinton was two years younger than Obama is now in 1992.


For a President to be successful and effective he has to know how to get things done. What is possible, what is not. He needs to have relationships with legislators to get anything passed or appointments approved

The Apprentice is fun to watch.
I just don't want it filmed at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
__________________
deep is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-28-2008, 08:01 AM   #250
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,998
Local Time: 04:44 AM
Bill Clinton gave a fantastic speech-the bastard just has it, in spades.
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-28-2008, 08:16 AM   #251
Blue Crack Addict
 
Dalton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Little hand says it's time to rock and roll.
Posts: 15,147
Local Time: 05:44 AM
I can't wait for Obama's speech tonight. My only question is: I understand how they will simulate the sound of thunder, but how do you think they're going to get that dove to land on his shoulder?
__________________
Dalton is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-28-2008, 08:19 AM   #252
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 04:44 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by deep View Post
The Apprentice is fun to watch.
I just don't want it filmed at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
Kenneth Lay had buckets full of experience coming out of his ears when he ran Enron.

I guess if you want a militaristic old man who will further the Republican "War on Everything," then McCain is your man.
__________________
melon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-28-2008, 10:28 AM   #253
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 04:44 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by namkcuR View Post
See, here's the thing; You are attributing the devastating consequences to the fact that he had little experience. I think that is the wrong thing to attribute it to. I think you should be attributing the devastating consequences to the fact that Bush was at best of average intelligence(I think he's a moron), that he had an amount of arrogance that was disproportionate to his (lack of) intelligence, that he believed in the stupid, simple, ineffective 'cowboy justice' school of thought, that he surrounded himself with either unqualified or ill-intentioned people(like Mr. Brown, or like Cheany who was entirely too connected to the oil industry to be in such a position of political power), and that he just was not a very thoughtful, insightful, person at all. Among other things.

I don't care about Obama's lack of experience. I think Obama is a highly, HIGHLY intelligent person, that views the world in far more complex terms than Bush does, that he will surround himself with far, far, far, far, far more qualified and capable and well-intentioned people than Bush has(Biden is a tremendous start already), and I think he is a very thoughtful, insightful person, I think the way he thinks about things is very cool-headed, very rational, very thoughtful. I think the way he has run his campaign speaks volumes about his ability to run a business(let's face it, a presidential campaign is a business) in an effective, responsible, and successful way. I think his judgement has been entirely sound thus far.

All of this considered, I think it's a huge, HUGE, incorrect generalization to say that, hey, George Bush was inexperienced and he's been awful, and therefore, anyone who doesn't have 30 years of experience is going to be a bad president. I think that's just simplistic, flawed logic, and I don't think it reflects reality.


as i was falling asleep last night, i thought this exactly.

well said.

look at where the experience of Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld got us.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-28-2008, 10:54 AM   #254
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
DrTeeth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Q continuum
Posts: 4,770
Local Time: 10:44 AM

Also, George W. Bush has almost eight years of experience in actually being the president, and who'd still vote for him?
__________________
DrTeeth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-28-2008, 11:11 AM   #255
ONE
love, blood, life
 
U2isthebest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Vision over visibility....
Posts: 12,332
Local Time: 05:44 AM
Has anyone heard if there's going to be a tribute to Martin Luther King and/or the Civil Rights movement tonight seeing as this is the 45th anniversary of "I Have A Dream"?
__________________

__________________
U2isthebest is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:44 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com