Why will the republicans win in 2008? - Page 8 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 01-04-2008, 09:37 AM   #106
Blue Crack Distributor
 
Headache in a Suitcase's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Stateless
Posts: 56,416
Local Time: 06:00 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by deep

I read when you posted something like this before,
in relationship to a possible independent run by Bloomberg

what you are not considering is that a 100% vote by either party for their candidate
will not necessarily elect them.

In Iowa for example, the registration breaks this way;

GOP 30%
Dem 31%
undeclared 39%

in CA

GOP 34%
Dem 43%
declined to state 19%

I have not looked up the per cents in Florida, Ohio, Mass, NH and where ever the few "battle ground" states are for 2008


So a well funded campaign by Billionaire Republican Bloomberg could flip a couple of states by appealing to the independents
that were expected to break for the Dems just as they did in the 2006 elections

also, I have a quote from Huckabee I read yesterday
where he says he thinks a run by Bloomberg would be great for the GOP.
no i do consider it. it only makes matters worse for the democrats.

the thing that the republicans, imo, have done well in the past 10 years is at the very least give the perception that they have candidates who apeal to the middle ground, capable of swaying independent voters their way... your giuliani's, your schwarzenegger's and, before he left the party, your bloomberg's. the GOP leadership on the far right certainly doesn't like these people, but they embrace them and put them forward at conventions and the like regardless.

where as democrats who are more moderate, middle-leaning politicians, the joe lieberman's of the world, are shunned by the party because "they might as well be republicans."

arnold schwarzenegger, george pataki, rudy giuliani and mike bloomberg might as well have been democrats... but they were still put front and center at the 2004 republican national convention.

it's like the mafia... the outward face is a harmless olive oil import/exporter, but they're still criminals in the back room. i don't think the democrats have been able to grasp this concept yet, and it's hurt them.

the way the country has been run the past 4 years there shouldn't even be a debate about which party should gain control, but there is. the american public is dying for someone to step up to the plate and inspire us, lead us away from the mess of the past 4 years. and the democrats keep taking their rifles out, they get the republicans in their sights, and then they turn the rifle around and shoot themselves in the face instead.
__________________

__________________
Headache in a Suitcase is offline  
Old 01-04-2008, 12:35 PM   #107
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,488
Local Time: 06:00 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Headache in a Suitcase


it's like the mafia... the outward face is a harmless olive oil import/exporter, but they're still criminals in the back room. i don't think the democrats have been able to grasp this concept yet, and it's hurt them.


it's the Sister Souljah moment.

if Obama is the nominee, expect a big speech where he scolds african-americans for out-of-wedlock births, absentee fathers, etc.

he's going to have to make sure he doesn't scare the white people.
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 01-04-2008, 10:43 PM   #108
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 12:00 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Strongbow


I thought you might try to answer it this way. Forget about the initial reasons for invading Afghanistan in 2001 which your country apparently supported, as well as the invasion of Iraq. Its 2008, and you have two countries that need foreign help in developing their government, economy, and military after the overthrow of two dictatorships.

In an unsecure environment, soldiers are needed to help deliver and provide humanitarian aid. Germany supported the invasion and bombing of Iraq in 1991 as well as the invasion and bombing of Afghanistan in 2001. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think Germany has voted against the UN approved occupation in Iraq which comes up for a vote every summer. So again, I ask, why does Afghanistan deserve 2,000 German troops but Iraq does not deserve any?
From my experience of Germany it is not remotely an anti-American country. (In France, by contrast there probably is a certain streak of anti-American feeling.)


"I thought you might try to answer it this way"

What does that even mean? He answered by making the not unreasonable point that the reason there are no German troops in Iraq is that the majority of the German populace don't want their troops in Iraq where they will be shot at, blown up and attacked. (What part of that do you not understand?)

Merkel is actually very pro-American but she is not stupid.
__________________
financeguy is offline  
Old 01-04-2008, 10:48 PM   #109
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 12:00 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511




it's the Sister Souljah moment.

if Obama is the nominee, expect a big speech where he scolds african-americans for out-of-wedlock births, absentee fathers, etc.

he's going to have to make sure he doesn't scare the white people.
And if he were to make such a speech, would that be a bad thing?

I saw Chris Rock being cheered to the rafters by an overwhelmingly African-American audience for saying the exact same thing in a humorous way, as follows:-

"I ain't no deadbeat dad. I take CARE of my kids."

"..but....but....they're your kids! You're SUPPOSED to take care of them."

(Actually the first line wasn't quite what he said. I can't post what he actually said, because then I'd be a racist.)
__________________
financeguy is offline  
Old 01-04-2008, 11:03 PM   #110
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 12:00 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Headache in a Suitcase
where as democrats who are more moderate, middle-leaning politicians, the joe lieberman's of the world, are shunned by the party because "they might as well be republicans."
This is rewriting history. Lieberman wasn't shunned by the Democratic party. He shunned them. He made it clear over a period of several years, through word and deed, that he preferred Bush's neo-conservatives to his own party. He's been taking the piss and insulting the hospitality of the Democratic party for years, frankly. He is the very embodiment of a DINO.

If you mentioned, say, Joe Biden, your point would have made more sense. Joe Biden's presidential campaign seems to be floundering but he is actually a very credible moderate candidate.
__________________
financeguy is offline  
Old 01-05-2008, 04:29 PM   #111
Blue Crack Distributor
 
Headache in a Suitcase's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Stateless
Posts: 56,416
Local Time: 06:00 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by financeguy


And if he were to make such a speech, would that be a bad thing?

I saw Chris Rock being cheered to the rafters by an overwhelmingly African-American audience for saying the exact same thing in a humorous way, as follows:-

"I ain't no deadbeat dad. I take CARE of my kids."

"..but....but....they're your kids! You're SUPPOSED to take care of them."

(Actually the first line wasn't quite what he said. I can't post what he actually said, because then I'd be a racist.)
you're not supposed to go to jail you low expectation havin' mothafucka.
__________________
Headache in a Suitcase is offline  
Old 01-05-2008, 05:48 PM   #112
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,289
Local Time: 06:00 PM
Out of the annals of the bizarre:

Quote:
NASHUA, N.H.-- Fox News host Bill O'Reilly got into a confrontation with an Obama aide after O'Reilly started screaming at him as he tried to get Barack Obama's attention following a rally here. O'Reilly eventually did chat briefly with Obama and asked him to be a guest on his show.

The incident was triggered when O'Reilly--with a Fox News crew shooting--was screaming at Obama National Trip Director Marvin Nicholson "Move" so he could get Obama's attention, according to several eyewitnesses. "O'Reilly was yelling at him, yelling at his face," a photographer shooting the scene said.

O'Reilly grabbed Nicholson's arm and shoved him, another eyewitness said. Nicholson, who is 6'8, said O'Reilly called him "low class."

"He grabbed me with both his hands here," Nicholson said, gesturing to his left arm and O'Reilly "started shoving me." Nicholson said, " He was pretty upset. He was yelling at me."

Secret Service agents who were nearby flanked O 'Reilly after he pushed Nicholson. They told O'Reilly he needed to calm down and get behind the fence-like barricade that contained the press.

Obama had his back turned at this point and did not see any of this.

O'Reilly yelled "sir" at Obama and Obama walked over, not aware of what happened and told him he had an overflow crowd to visit. According to the time code from a photographer shooting the two, Obama and O'Reilly talked near 11:45 a.m. eastern time.

He just came right around the barricade. They shook hands and Mr. O’Reilly said he thought Sen. Obama was great and that he loved him and loved to have him on the show and said he would think about coming on after the primaries.

The situation took place near risers in the gym at Nashua North High School where Obama just addressed a jammed rally.
__________________
anitram is offline  
Old 01-06-2008, 10:37 AM   #113
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Vincent Vega's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Berlin
Posts: 6,615
Local Time: 12:00 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Strongbow


I thought you might try to answer it this way. Forget about the initial reasons for invading Afghanistan in 2001 which your country apparently supported, as well as the invasion of Iraq. Its 2008, and you have two countries that need foreign help in developing their government, economy, and military after the overthrow of two dictatorships.

In an unsecure environment, soldiers are needed to help deliver and provide humanitarian aid. Germany supported the invasion and bombing of Iraq in 1991 as well as the invasion and bombing of Afghanistan in 2001. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think Germany has voted against the UN approved occupation in Iraq which comes up for a vote every summer. So again, I ask, why does Afghanistan deserve 2,000 German troops but Iraq does not deserve any?
You are ignoring some aspects of our political process:
To send troops anywhere the Bundestag (our Congress, so to speak) would have to hold a vote, and this vote wouldn't have any chance to result in a majority of delegates opting for sending troops into Iraq.
It would aslo dramatically ignore the wishes of the German public they are to represent.
And except for some members of the CDU and maybe a few of the FDP there is hardly anyone who would be in support of military actions over there.

To get the support for any military action is extremely difficult, which you could have observed with the Libanon and the Afghanistan operations, the question whether to send troops to the south of Afghanistan and the sending of Tornado jets. Every year when there is a vote whether to extend the stay in Afghanistan is extensively discussed and basically just secured by the majority of the CDU and the SPD.

Our Bundeswehr is lacking equipment and experience for such an adventure. It would be suicide. Additionally, we don't have enough troops available to get sent there as we are already in Bosnia, Kosovo, Somalia, at the shore of the Libanon and Afghanistan as well as some other countries.
Being a draftee armee, not a professional army, it's not that easy to send soldiers in such a dangerous area.

And again, the Iraq war and the Afghanistan war might have similarities, but still are not the same and in the perception of the German public they are fundamentally different.

And as you previously so vehemently argued for, most parts of Iraq are safe according to your assessment, so I really don't get why you are now arguing for the need of German troops bringing safety to Iraq, and why it shouldn't be sufficient the way we are helping over there. And quite frankly, it's ridiculous how you imply with sentences like that:

Quote:
Its 2008, and you have two countries that need foreign help in developing their government, economy, and military after the overthrow of two dictatorships.
that we are doing nohing for Iraq. We are doing our share of the support, for example with our rather symbolic approval through the UN, providing Iraqis with all kinds of equipment and training Iraqis in Kuweit and here in Germany how to service the equipment as well as other training and support measures.

You also shouldn't forget that we allowed you to use your US bases here in Germany, you've got overflight permission and we even protected those bases during the war and to this day. We additionally allowed German troops and civilians to stay in AWACS planes over Turkey and our NBC reconnaissance vehicle were used to determine whether rockets fired into Kuweit contained any chemicals.

As I said, the approval through the UN is rather symbolic than an actual support of the occupation. One reason for our approval is, that the German diplomats were, and still are, lacking the guts to vote against it to not further offend Bush, and because they fear the consequences if the US and their partners were to occupy a nation without approval by the UN. It doesn't resemble our support of the Iraq war, but unfortunately goes to show how far away the UN still is to being an effective multilateral institution in the world.

The invasion of Iraq was premature and the pre-emptive attack was, according to common interpretation of Article 51 of the UN charta, way too pre-emptive. Hence, we won't actively support any military occupation, but neither let the Iraqi people down, as you try to implicate.

The Federal Administrative Court of Germany re-emphasized in a decision in 2006, that the Iraq war is according to the UN Charta and public internation law criteria questionable and in their interpretation a break of the law of nations, hence the passive support we gave is in effect a break of law, but it won't be pursued legally and is thusly without consequences for the Schroeder government. But sending in German military forces sure would result in legal consequences nationally and also not backed by the German Grundgesetz, our constitution.

You may see the invasion of Iraq as being a necessity, and even see the ongoing occupation as being justified, but we don't, and we won't do so in future. Hence, you won't see our soldiers dying in Iraq.
__________________
Vincent Vega is offline  
Old 01-06-2008, 05:27 PM   #114
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 11:00 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Vincent Vega


You are ignoring some aspects of our political process:
To send troops anywhere the Bundestag (our Congress, so to speak) would have to hold a vote, and this vote wouldn't have any chance to result in a majority of delegates opting for sending troops into Iraq.
It would aslo dramatically ignore the wishes of the German public they are to represent.
And except for some members of the CDU and maybe a few of the FDP there is hardly anyone who would be in support of military actions over there.

To get the support for any military action is extremely difficult, which you could have observed with the Libanon and the Afghanistan operations, the question whether to send troops to the south of Afghanistan and the sending of Tornado jets. Every year when there is a vote whether to extend the stay in Afghanistan is extensively discussed and basically just secured by the majority of the CDU and the SPD.
I understand that, but its irrelevant to what I was discussing which is simply Germany's ultimate policy decisions and actions regardless of how they were arrived it domestically. Whether you fault the political situation, the people or something else, I'm looking at the result and saying that as a country, Germany technically could be doing a lot more. Germany is not some impoverished third world country with an under developed political system.



Quote:
Our Bundeswehr is lacking equipment and experience for such an adventure. It would be suicide. Additionally, we don't have enough troops available to get sent there as we are already in Bosnia, Kosovo, Somalia, at the shore of the Libanon and Afghanistan as well as some other countries.
Actually it is not, but even if you were to blame that you don't need to look any further than the fact that Germany is not keeping pace with other NATO countries in spending on its military. Defense spending as a percentage of GDP by Germany is currently lower than most other countries in NATO. But Germany still has a more capable and better equiped military than most of the other countries that have sent troops to Iraq as well as most of NATO. Germany has the 4th largest military and 3rd largest Army in NATO. The German deployments to Bosnia, Kosovo, Somalia, Lebanon, and Afghanistan are not so large that the Bundeswehr could not make a contribution to Iraq. The German military currently has 245,702 active members and 161,812 members in the reserve. The number of German military personal currently deployed worldwide is just under 10,000. The German military could make a singificant contribution to Iraq.


Quote:
And again, the Iraq war and the Afghanistan war might have similarities, but still are not the same and in the perception of the German public they are fundamentally different.
In 2008, some the chief differences are the level of Al Quada activity in Iraq as opposed to Afghanistan were there is little or no activity, and then the obvious geographic and natural resource reasons which make Iraq a much more important country in regards to US, German, and global security.

Quote:
And as you previously so vehemently argued for, most parts of Iraq are safe according to your assessment, so I really don't get why you are now arguing for the need of German troops bringing safety to Iraq, and why it shouldn't be sufficient the way we are helping over there. And quite frankly, it's ridiculous how you imply with sentences like that:
There have been large improvements in Iraq, but outside of the 5 Sunni Arab majority provinces, the other provinces always had lower levels of violence throughout the occupation. The main reductions in violence in 2007 have occured in the 5 Sunni Arab majority provinces where most US troops currently operate. German troops could certainly help with security or alternatively relieve some of the great burden that is on the US military. After all, Germany has one of the largest economies on the planet and benefits directly from the improvements in security in area(the Persian Gulf) so vital to the global economy. The United States and the coalition can eventially accomplish its goals in both Iraq and Afghanistan without the German military, but their contribution would and does help and helps spread the cost and burden of the operations around more which benefits everyone.

Quote:
You also shouldn't forget that we allowed you to use your US bases here in Germany, you've got overflight permission and we even protected those bases during the war and to this day.
There are plenty of other European countries especially in Eastern Europe that would be happy to host US troops and bases in 2008. The fact that the United States continues to have those bases in Germany is actually a benefit to Germany and many Germans do not want to see the United States shift such bases to Poland, Romania, Hungary or Italy.



Quote:
As I said, the approval through the UN is rather symbolic than an actual support of the occupation. One reason for our approval is, that the German diplomats were, and still are, lacking the guts to vote against it to not further offend Bush, and because they fear the consequences if the US and their partners were to occupy a nation without approval by the UN. It doesn't resemble our support of the Iraq war, but unfortunately goes to show how far away the UN still is to being an effective multilateral institution in the world.
The fact remains, your country continues every year to support the continued occupation in Iraq in the United Nations, that was brought about by the coalition invasion in March 2003.

The fact remains that Germany will benefit from both a stabilized and developed Iraq as well as a stabilized and developed Afghanistan. Germany has troops in Afghanistan helping in this regard and could indeed have troops in Iraq which would help the mission and Iraq as well as benefit Germany in the long run, given Germany's interdependence with the global economy which is dependent on the security of Persian Gulf Oil.
__________________
Strongbow is offline  
Old 01-06-2008, 06:09 PM   #115
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,289
Local Time: 06:00 PM
STING, why are you so hellbent on forcing other countries to contribute now? You didn't give a shit about their opinions in the build-up to the war when you had your glorious "alliance" of the mighty Poland and Palau. But what, now that it's been a fuck up and it's costing you billions, the Germans, who were always in opposition, and who were rudely called Old (read: irrelevant) Europe by BushCo, they should hand over their dollars and warm bodies?

Is there no shame left?
__________________
anitram is offline  
Old 01-06-2008, 06:12 PM   #116
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,680
Local Time: 05:00 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by anitram

Is there no shame left?
Apparently not...
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 01-06-2008, 06:52 PM   #117
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 11:00 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by anitram
STING, why are you so hellbent on forcing other countries to contribute now? You didn't give a shit about their opinions in the build-up to the war when you had your glorious "alliance" of the mighty Poland and Palau. But what, now that it's been a fuck up and it's costing you billions, the Germans, who were always in opposition, and who were rudely called Old (read: irrelevant) Europe by BushCo, they should hand over their dollars and warm bodies?
I was simply explaining that if Germany was responsible and doing what was in its best interest and that of the world, that they would be involved in Iraq in 2008 like they are in Afghanistan. I don't expect that to happen at all, but was simply explaining the reasons why they should be and that their opposition to putting troops in Iraq in 2008 is a bit of a contradiction to their support in Afghanistan in 2008. The missions in both countries are fundamentally the same in 2008.
__________________
Strongbow is offline  
Old 01-06-2008, 06:54 PM   #118
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,237
Local Time: 05:00 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by anitram
STING, why are you so hellbent on forcing other countries to contribute now? You didn't give a shit about their opinions in the build-up to the war when you had your glorious "alliance" of the mighty Poland and Palau. But what, now that it's been a fuck up and it's costing you billions, the Germans, who were always in opposition, and who were rudely called Old (read: irrelevant) Europe by BushCo, they should hand over their dollars and warm bodies?

Is there no shame left?
Thank you.

It seems that Sting feels that any endeavor the current administration finds worthy, every nation on Earth should feel obligated to contribute to, or at least share the burden of. Now that might be reasonable to think if the United States showed that it actually valued the opinions of the rest of the world, but with all this administration's unilateral tendencies and "Old Europe" dismissals, I'm not surprised much of Europe doesn't want to play our games.

Would you want to play with someone who defines the rules as those which benefit him the most and calls you names when you disagree?
__________________
Diemen is offline  
Old 01-06-2008, 06:55 PM   #119
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,237
Local Time: 05:00 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Strongbow


I was simply explaining that if Germany was responsible and doing what was in its best interest and that of the world, that they would be involved in Iraq in 2008 like they are in Afghanistan. I don't expect that to happen at all, but was simply explaining the reasons why they should be and that their opposition to putting troops in Iraq in 2008 is a bit of a contradiction to their support in Afghanistan in 2008. The missions in both countries are fundamentally the same in 2008.
You keep equating Afghanistan and Iraq as if they're the exact same situation. They are anything but.
__________________
Diemen is offline  
Old 01-06-2008, 07:19 PM   #120
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 30,343
Local Time: 06:00 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Strongbow
The missions in both countries are fundamentally the same in 2008.
I'd say they are closer to opposites, with the only major similarities being that both are in the Middle East and involve the United States.
__________________

__________________
phillyfan26 is offline  
 

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 06:00 PM.


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