Democratic National Convention Thread

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
I feel exactly the opposite. I fear for the country should these two get elected.

Duh. You support the other candidate. Do you expect me to be shocked by that revelation? I fear for the country should McCain get elected. It's mind-blowing, I know.

And I'm pretty sure the country will survive no matter which one is elected. :)
 
brilliant formulation, and goes to the root of what distinguishes democrats from republicans, ties together foreign and domestic policy. the world needs us to be as good as the Republicans want to say we are. fuck exceptionalism. fuck empty nationalism. fuck blind patriotism. this line gets to the heart of why Republicanism has been eviscerated the past 8 years to reveal the empty, greedy, black heart that beats at it's core. it's about me, me, me, and how awesome am i, and what big bombs we have, and what power we can toss around, and who the fuck is out there and wants to fuck with us because goddamnit i got a great big bomb.

Thats just absurd. If even a quarter of it were true, Bush would have never been re-elected President, nor would the current Presidential race be dead locked at the moment, 2 months before election day.


but we don't prove we're better with bombs. we don't bomb people into freedom. we don't occupy people into freedom. we do just the opposite.

Military intervention is sometimes necessary and can help to create stability and the conditions under which freedom can develop. Even Bill Clinton understood this with the multiple military interventions and strikes his administration engaged in, in the 1990s.
 
Thats just absurd. If even a quarter of it were true, Bush would have never been re-elected President, nor would the current Presidential race be dead locked at the moment, 2 months before election day.


did you even read what i wrote? do you have any analysis to offer at all?



Military intervention is sometimes necessary and can help to create stability and the conditions under which freedom can develop. Even Bill Clinton understood this with the multiple military interventions and strikes his administration engaged in, in the 1990s.


as Obama has said, "i don't oppose all wars, i just oppose dumb wars."

iraq was a DUMB war.
 
I didn't say that. However, he has made clear he would try diplomatic efforts first and use military force only as a last resort. Anyone, anyone who would ever do anything otherwise is an idiot at best and a complete monster at worst.


Actually you said the following:

Anyone who would even consider military action, *coughBombBombBombIrancough*, clearly does not understand the ramifications of launching another invasion in an unstable Middle East

Obama is definitely on the record as being one who would consider military action against Iran.
 
Actually you said the following:



Obama is definitely on the record as being one who would consider military action against Iran.

As a last resort. In her(her, right?) first post, u2isthebest said that military force/war should only be a last resort, always. In the second post, she happened to leave out those words, 'last resort', but her meaning was the same, and I think you know that. Obama said he would talk to leaders in Iran and other countries in the region, and that he would consider military action against Iran as a last resort, if absolutely all other avenues failed. This keeps with what u2isthebest was saying. I think you know exactly what she meant, and I think you are twisting words to meet your own arguments.
 
did you even read what i wrote?

Did you?

do you have any analysis to offer at all?

Well, there is not really much to analyze here, but in attempting to describe the difference between the Democrats and the Republicans on Foreign Policy you said "f$%*" five times and described the Republicans as being dark and evil wanting to bomb the whole world to show everyone who is boss. Its what some of the far left of the Democratic Party certainly thinks of Republicans, but not even moderate Democrats would agree with that.


as Obama has said, "i don't oppose all wars, i just oppose dumb wars."

iraq was a DUMB war.

Leaving Saddam in power in Iraq, as Barack Obama wanted to do, would have been DUMB. As Iraq continues to successfuly develop, more and more people will come to realize that fact.
 
Joe Biden gave a great speech. He is, as Irvine said awhile back, a shit kicker. He isn't afraid to get tough and say what needs to be said.

Of coarse when a Republican "gets tough and says what needs to be said" he's not called a "shit kicker" he's called...
(all together now)
"mean spirited."
 
The Democrats made some nice, tender lurches towards attacking McCain. Though I wish they'd stop watering down their own arguments by saying "He's a good, honorable man, who has sacrificed much for his country".

Ok. You don't need this disclaimer if you're not attacking him personally, so go ahead and blast his policies. In the Twin Cities when Republicans talk about Obama I doubt they'll praise his charming life story when they're wailing about tax and spend and Iraq surrender and whatever.
 
The Democrats made some nice, tender lurches towards attacking McCain. Though I wish they'd stop watering down their own arguments by saying "He's a good, honorable man, who has sacrificed much for his country".

Ok. You don't need this disclaimer if you're not attacking him personally, so go ahead and blast his policies. In the Twin Cities when Republicans talk about Obama I doubt they'll praise his charming life story when they're wailing about tax and spend and Iraq surrender and whatever.

But maybe they're trying to do something honorable in that regard. Maybe they're trying to prove that they can win an election without sinking to the level of the attack-at-all-costs Republican mentality of recent years. Maybe they're trying to take the high road here. Maybe you can say that you fear that, unfortunately, the high road may not win, but I don't think you can really fault them for trying to be honorable and trying to win on the high road.
 
Well, there is not really much to analyze here, but in attempting to describe the difference between the Democrats and the Republicans on Foreign Policy you said "f$%*" five times and described the Republicans as being dark and evil wanting to bomb the whole world to show everyone who is boss. Its what some of the far left of the Democratic Party certainly thinks of Republicans, but not even moderate Democrats would agree with that.


you have FAILED at the single task presented to you after 9-11. bring Bin Laden to justice. instead, you used it as an excuse to invade Iraq, shred the constitution, and allow torture to become common practice.

look at McCain's history and how he's responded to the crisis in Georgia. it is one of bellicosity. one that says, "don't fuck with us." it has no time for the neocon good-vs-evil constant state of warfare. that will not do anything to curb Jihadism. yes, as i've said, as Obama said, OF COURSE there are time when military action is needed. but military action is a sign of FAILURE. it's a sign that diplomacy has failed. we need shrewd diplomacy and an actual understanding of the cultures we are dealing with and the knowledge that strength is oftentimes restraint.

bombs are not an effective geopolitical tool. war is an absolute last resort.




Leaving Saddam in power in Iraq, as Barack Obama wanted to do, would have been DUMB. As Iraq continues to successfuly develop, more and more people will come to realize that fact.


sorry, kiddo, no one accepts the false pretense of your statement.
 
Of coarse when a Republican "gets tough and says what needs to be said" he's not called a "shit kicker" he's called...
(all together now)
"mean spirited."



you cannot even compare the McCain ads to the Obama ads.

it's just not in the same ballpark.

even you must see that.
 
My wife a blood blue liberal walked out on Biden's speech saying my karaoke singing is better than Joe's speaking skills.

She wanted Hil and Irvine you must be drunk.
<>
 
Well, for starters, I'm disappointed he originally supported the Iraq war. Most of Congress did at that point, and I'm not holding it against any of them, Republican or Democrat. They were given faulty evidence by the CIA

Bingo !!

That is the whole ball of wax, there was bad information cooked up by Cheney and his cohorts. (no one knew it at the time.)

Senators had clearance to see these files.

Anyone that voted for it-
did a reasonable thing.


In 2002 Obama was just an Illinois State Senator
he did not have clearance to see what the Senators were given.
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.
American Thinker: Obama's Iraqi Oil for Food connection

He gave a speech, so what.

This is the crux of his great judgment??

He did not campaign against the war when he ran for U S Senate in 2004.
He pulled the speech off of his website then.

When he was elected to the Senate, he did not vote with Dennis Kucinich, and all the other end the war Senators.
He voted with Biden, Hillary and all the ones that voted to authorize the war.
 
In the Twin Cities when Republicans talk about Obama I doubt they'll praise his charming life story when they're wailing about tax and spend and Iraq surrender and whatever.


All the GOP talking heads on TV are making nice remarks about the historical significance of the first African American to be nominated be a major party.

I do expect the the GOP to hit on his lack of experience in the executive field and his judgment.
 
john mccain is a great candidate for president.. but honestly, yea... he's running into an absolute buzzsaw in barack obama. the comparisons to john f. kennedy aren't just just comparisons... he IS the next JFK, god willing without the same end results. but damn.. he just has that electricity that very few in the history of america have ever had.
 
another JFK comparison i'd like not to repeat -- his very, very, very narrow victory over Nixon in '60.

people forget this. but many thought the only reason JFK won was because a few hundred thousand women swooned over how good he looked at the first ever series of televised debates.
 
Bingo !!

That is the whole ball of wax, there was bad information cooked up by Cheney and his cohorts. (no one knew it at the time.)

Senators had clearance to see these files.

Anyone that voted for it-
did a reasonable thing.


In 2002 Obama was just an Illinois State Senator
he did not have clearance to see what the Senators were given.
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.
American Thinker: Obama's Iraqi Oil for Food connection

He gave a speech, so what.

This is the crux of his great judgment??

He did not campaign against the war when he ran for U S Senate in 2004.
He pulled the speech off of his website then.

When he was elected to the Senate, he did not vote with Dennis Kucinich, and all the other end the war Senators.
He voted with Biden, Hillary and all the ones that voted to authorize the war.

that Obama-Rezko-Saddam link is lame.
 
you have FAILED at the single task presented to you after 9-11. bring Bin Laden to justice. .

There was not a single task presented to the United States after 9/11. In case you did not know, this was not the first time that Bin Ladin and the Al Quada organization had attacked the United States. But the Bush Administration is the first time that the United States actually destroyed Al Quada's main bases of operation. Bush administration policy in Afghanistan has been vastly more successful than Clinton administration policy there.

instead, you used it as an excuse to invade Iraq, shred the constitution, and allow torture to become common practice.

Saddam was another security issue that the Clinton administration had kicked down the road to the Bush administration which successfully resolved the issue of Saddam.


look at McCain's history and how he's responded to the crisis in Georgia. it is one of bellicosity. one that says, "don't fuck with us." it has no time for the neocon good-vs-evil constant state of warfare. that will not do anything to curb Jihadism.

McCain has been well ahead of the curve on Russia encouraging a stronger stance against Russia than the Bush administration or other countries in Europe wanted to take. They along, with Barack Obama and Joseph Biden, are playing catch up to where McCain has been on Russia for some time now.

yes, as i've said, as Obama said, OF COURSE there are time when military action is needed. but military action is a sign of FAILURE. it's a sign that diplomacy has failed. we need shrewd diplomacy and an actual understanding of the cultures we are dealing with and the knowledge that strength is oftentimes restraint.

bombs are not an effective geopolitical tool. war is an absolute last resort.

Had their been military intervention in Bosnia prior to 1995, thousands of lives could have been saved. Instead the world watched 10% of the Bosnian population get slaughtered over 4 years while Diplomacy attempted to resolve the issues, and military force was avoided. Military intervention as an absolute last resort led to the deaths of 250,000 people in Bosnia.

Military intervention as an absolute last resort because of the horrors of World War I helped to create the much greater horror of World War II.

Its not a matter of reserving military intervention only as a last resort, but knowing when military intervention is necessary as opposed to diplomacy or other means of action.


sorry, kiddo, no one accepts the false pretense of your statement.

Colin Powell, Kenneth Pollack, and Michael O'Halon, despite being from different political party's, all agree that removing Saddam was necessary and that the United States, the Persian Gulf Region, and the World is better off as a result.
 
go John Kerry:
When John McCain stood on the deck of an aircraft carrier just three months after 9/11 and proclaimed, "Next up, Baghdad!", Barack Obama saw, even then, "an occupation of "undetermined length, undetermined cost, undetermined consequences" that would "only fan the flames of the Middle East." Well, guess what? Mission accomplished.
 
McCain has been well ahead of the curve on Russia encouraging a stronger stance against Russia than the Bush administration or other countries in Europe wanted to take. They along, with Barack Obama and Joseph Biden, are playing catch up to where McCain has been on Russia for some time now.



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?
 
There was not a single task presented to the United States after 9/11. In case you did not know, this was not the first time that Bin Ladin and the Al Quada organization had attacked the United States. But the Bush Administration is the first time that the United States actually destroyed Al Quada's main bases of operation. Bush administration policy in Afghanistan has been vastly more successful than Clinton administration policy there.

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 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.

So you're a Republican, then?
 
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 is one of the reasons why, despite my absolute love of john mccain, i am currently leaning towards voting for barack obama.

Thats like saying the United States had the luxury of going after Japan before it went to war with Germany 60 years ago. The United States does not have the luxury of dealing with threats to its security one at a time.

In addition, troop levels in Afghanistan actually increased with the start of the war in Iraq, and most of the units deployed to operation Iraqi Freedom, heavy armored brigades would never be used in much of the terrain where Al Quada had based itself in Afghanistan. .
 
Boils down to two ideas: either you're opposed to the Iraq war because you're irrational and unreasonable, or you're a corrupt sellout.

We see the war mentality here in a nutshell. War isn't bad. It's just one of several options available to any president. Door A has diplomacy, Door B has the U.N, Door C has invasion/war. Which do you prefer today?

If someone thinks a leader has failed if he goes to war, in his responsibilities to pursue all diplomatic options before sending men to die.

he's looney, or a sellout.





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.
 
Back
Top Bottom