US 08 Presidential Campaign General Discussion Thread #8

[BVS]

Originally Posted by purpleoscar

They are the only ones with the hope I can see militarily that can keep dictators from going to town on their neighbors. Europe, Canada, South America don't seem to be in the game or are willing to stop bullies.

If Obama wins he says he will talk to Iran without preconditions. Yikes!

Nancy Pelosi already asked Syria and Iran to help the U.S. to get out of Iraq. Yikes!

If they win the bullies of the world will be happy.

You've been drinking too much of the Kool-Aid man...

[hiphop]

Originally Posted by purpleoscar

If they win the bullies of the world will be happy.

And if they not only win but restore US foreign policy without violating international law instead of bullying the UN, the pacifists will be happy too!

Rumors say Carla Bruni (french fries) likes Obama!

[Vincent Vega]

Originally Posted by purpleoscar

They are the only ones with the hope I can see militarily that can keep dictators from going to town on their neighbors. Europe, Canada, South America don't seem to be in the game or are willing to stop bullies.

If Obama wins he says he will talk to Iran without preconditions. Yikes!

Nancy Pelosi already asked Syria and Iran to help the U.S. to get out of Iraq. Yikes!

If they win the bullies of the world will be happy.

Of course, the US has considerable weight and another standing than any other country. However, you are exaggerating the overall military power of the US when it comes to countries like China or Russia. I would say, economic interests are a far greater driving factor than fear of US military intervention.
With the current situation, the US probably couldn't even invade North Korea or Iran. It was even said Darfur would be too much of a stretch.

By the way, the Bush administration is already talking to Iran. Remember the press conference where Dana Perino went out of her way to tell the press that there is no negotiation going on?

The times of "You have to earn and deserve me talking to you" are hopefully over soon, which nevertheless doesn't mean they are giving in or allowing Iran and other regimes to do whatever they want.
It's just easier to get to some kind of agreement when you engage with each other in talks. Something the Bush government apparently eventually realized and yet tries to deny at all cost.

[purpleoscar]

Originally Posted by BonoVoxSupastar

You've been drinking too much of the Kool-Aid man...

If you mean Kool-Aid as in propaganda I could say the same for you. I would be tempted to have Obama win to prove my point but then just the weakness of the U.S. having a campaign was enough for Russia to make a move on Georgia. They also are egging on the U.S. sabre-rattling style in regards to another cold war. China has already threatened to use military action on Taiwan by 2020 if Taiwan doesn't join them. N. Korea never listens to the U.S. and now has leadership issues like Cuba.

Kool-Aid or no, there are definately enemies out there and asking our enemies for help is like pouring blood into the ocean and then going for a swim in it.

Pelosi could possibly be the stupidist American politician I've ever seen.

[BVS]

Originally Posted by purpleoscar

Yes. That's why we are in the hole we are in. Don't overspend on social programs unless you intend to increase taxes. The government likes to use debt as a way to keep taxes as they are while increasing spending. They like to have their cake and eat it too.

This isn't what you said originally. You brought up Bush Sr. and the Dems.

Originally Posted by purpleoscar

On the military question I was saying that attacking the Bush Administration for spending money on military seems to ignore the fact that U.S. military is a necessity to keep the freedoms we have (including NATO).

Then you completely misunderstood my post... I said nothing about military spending. I said you don't fight a war that costs your country 10 billion a month while making tax cuts! That's just fuzzy conservative math for you...

[hiphop]

Vincent, do you really want to discuss US military now? I´m pretty sure our fellow sportsmen ready for the Navy Cross would love to, but my radar says this thread title is election.. and we´re too used to get long winded 2 paged derailing replies on that topic..

[purpleoscar]

Originally Posted by Vincent Vega

Of course, the US has considerable weight and another standing than any other country. However, you are exaggerating the overall military power of the US when it comes to countries like China or Russia. I would say, economic interests are a far greater driving factor than fear of US military intervention.
With the current situation, the US probably couldn't even invade North Korea or Iran. It was even said Darfur would be too much of a stretch.

I'm looking at the U.S. as the only one with the chance. Yes Americans are usually not the best at ground forces (though they are improving as they gain experience) but my point is that cutting military for budget purposes weakens the west in its deterrance of bullies around the world. The U.S. doesn't have that option. If your comment is correct then the U.S. is already in a weak position. I wish Europe was on side but they rely heavily on Russian oil (hence Russia's dislike of U.S. trying to have Georgia subvert their economic stranglehold). Sarkozy at least is supportive.

[BVS]

Originally Posted by purpleoscar

Kool-Aid or no, there are definately enemies out there and asking our enemies for help is like pouring blood into the ocean and then going for a swim in it.

Yes there are enemies, but when did peace talks become a bad word? The conservative superhero Reagan knew when to use them, but now all of a sudden all conservatives have short term memory(must be caused by the Kool-Aid) and sabre rattling is the only way...

[purpleoscar]

Originally Posted by BonoVoxSupastar

This isn't what you said originally. You brought up Bush Sr. and the Dems.




Then you completely misunderstood my post... I said nothing about military spending. I said you don't fight a war that costs your country 10 billion a month while making tax cuts! That's just fuzzy conservative math for you...

Bush Sr. campaigned on "no new taxes" and then he decided to raise them in a bipartisan effort to balance the budget. Then during the campaign vs. Clinton democrats said "he said no new taxes, he lied." The democracts continued overspending in congress. Knife in the back. McCain better watch out. Everybody is partisan in the end.

The fuzzy math has to do with democrats focussing on the cost of the war and not health care and education entitlements that costed more. Boondoggle spending needs to be looked at first before the war. The war is a necessity. This goes along with my point that if America is barely keeping the bullies at bay cutting and running in Iraq and Afghanistan because it costs too much then western democracies are in a jam. Dictators can make actions with confidence that the U.S. will do little to stop them.

[BVS]

Originally Posted by purpleoscar

but my point is that cutting military for budget purposes weakens the west in its deterrance of bullies around the world.

Which no one ever suggested

[BVS]

Originally Posted by purpleoscar

Bush Sr. campaigned on "no new taxes" and then he decided to raise them in a bipartisan effort to balance the budget. Then during the campaign vs. Clinton democrats said "he said no new taxes, he lied." The democracts continued overspending in congress. Knife in the back. McCain better watch out. Everybody is partisan in the end.

Your history is being seen through partisan glasses my friend... and none of which has anything to do with the situation we are in today.

Originally Posted by purpleoscar

The fuzzy math has to do with democrats focussing on the cost of the war and not health care and education entitlements that costed more. Boondoggle spending needs to be looked at first before the war. The war is a necessity. This goes along with my point that if America is barely keeping the bullies at bay cutting and running in Iraq and Afghanistan because it costs too much then western democracies are in a jam. Dictators can make actions with confidence that the U.S. will do little to stop them.

Thanks for addressing my point. You remind me of politicians, speak in a bunch of rhetoric and never actually address the issue.

[Vincent Vega]

Originally Posted by hiphop

Vincent, do you really want to discuss US military now? I´m pretty sure our fellow sportsmen ready for the Navy Cross would love to, but my radar says this thread title is election.. and we´re too used to get long winded 2 paged derailing replies on that topic..

No, actually I'm trying to write an assignment about environmental politics of the 1960s/70s (Clean Water and Air Act) and therefore tried to cut it as short as possible.
And yes, I don't want to further derail the thread.

[Harry Vest]

Originally Posted by BonoVoxSupastar

Yes there are enemies, but when did peace talks become a bad word? The conservative superhero Reagan knew when to use them, but now all of a sudden all conservatives have short term memory(must be caused by the Kool-Aid) and sabre rattling is the only way...

"Conservative Superhero"????????????????????
You couldn't have been around in the early 80's.
In his first term he was KING SABRE RATTLER!!!
Many people from all political leanings thought he was going to start World War Three. Especially in his first term, Pre- Gorbechev.

[Vincent Vega]

Originally Posted by purpleoscar

I'm looking at the U.S. as the only one with the chance. Yes Americans are usually not the best at ground forces (though they are improving as they gain experience) but my point is that cutting military for budget purposes weakens the west in its deterrance of bullies around the world. The U.S. doesn't have that option. If your comment is correct then the U.S. is already in a weak position. I wish Europe was on side but they rely heavily on Russian oil (hence Russia's dislike of U.S. trying to have Georgia subvert their economic stranglehold). Sarkozy at least is supportive.

I wouldn't argue with you for the need of a higher military budget of the US given its unique position in the world.
However, when you plan to increase that budget even further in order to fight two wars at a time you shouldn't at the same time cut back income on taxes drastically. And I think that was the point BVS was trying to make, too, though I could be wrong.
Don't increase the budged excessively on the one hand and cut back your main source of income on the other. It's almost like a family where the breadwinner is dropping out of work, yet they buy an expensive new home which they have to pay of over decades with a too small income by the other partner.

[BVS]

Originally Posted by Harry Vest

"Conservative Superhero"????????????????????
You couldn't have been around in the early 80's.

You don't think conservatives idolize him? WHERE HAVE YOU BEEN?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

see what I did there?

Originally Posted by Harry Vest

In his first term he was KING SABRE RATTLER!!!
Many people from all political leanings thought he was going to start World War Three. Especially in his first term, Pre- Gorbechev.

Yes he was dangerous that wasn't my point, the point was he finally came around and embraced negotiations, and that's something conservatives have forgotten.

[Bluer White]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

you are correct that it is Republicans, including McCain, who are to be faulted for the current crisis.

The Glass-Steagall Act was repealed in the Senate by a margin of 90-8 almost a decade ago. Joe Biden, Harry Reid, Chuck Schumer...they all voted for the repeal.

Bill Clinton signed the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act into law, the final nail in the coffin of Glass-Steagall.

Barack Obama has the second highest amount of campaign contributions from Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac in the last decade, topped only by Chris Dodd. Disgraced former Fannie chairman Jim Johnson was also booted off Obama's VP exploratory committee. Conflict of interest for Obama perhaps?

Many people also consider that the Greenspan Fed may have kept interest rates too low for too long as the economy rebounded from 9/11. Monetary policy plays a big role in the credit bubble as well.


The above is not to indict Democrats, hardly that, because Republicans have always been for de-regulation up to this point, and the Bush Adminstration has been hands off on policing mortgages. But it really is baloney to blame a single political party when everyone's hand has been in the cookie jar. Not to mention a complete lack of "nuance".

[Vincent Vega]

I would agree, neo-liberalism was a false prophet that was believed in for much too long by both sides of the aisle.

[purpleoscar]

Originally Posted by BonoVoxSupastar

Your history is being seen through partisan glasses my friend... and none of which has anything to do with the situation we are in today.



Thanks for addressing my point. You remind me of politicians, speak in a bunch of rhetoric and never actually address the issue.

My writing isn't rhetoric, and calling it "rhetoric" isn't an argument.
Stabbbing Bush in the back after pretending to agree with him on balancing the budget is a track record that does apply to today.

The only time I saw less partisanship was when the republicans sought to reform welfare and cut spending. Bill Clinton didn't get in the way with his line item veto. Most of the time there has been partisanship, and I think that will always be the case because Democrats and Republicans cannot compromise on their core beliefs.

This campaign is partisan. Hillary Clinton complimenting McCain during the primaries and denouncing him during the DNC is a perfect example. Hillary Clinton boycotting the U.N. demonstration regarding Iran because Sarah Palin is there is partisanship. Let's face it. That's the way it's going to be most of the time.

McCain and Palin are attacking Obama on his ideas. There's no way you can avoid having to debate and try to prove you are right to the public. The question is whether Conservatives are just going to compromise on their side just because they want to seem "moderate", or are the Democrats going to compromise for the same reason.

Partisanship is only bad if people side with a point of view they know is wrong simply because the rest of the party believes it. Being partisan when you are staying true to your core beliefs is completely appropriate. What's wrong with sticking to your core beliefs?

If you go across the isle too often you will get back stabbed. It's just a matter of time. People are too scared of saying what they believe and too lazy to convince people.

Washington lobbyists for special interest groups that want a foothold on taxpayer dollars are worried and they should be.

[Utoo]

Originally Posted by Strongbow

Sorry, but your definitely not one of the least popular Presidents ever when you get re-elected with over 50% of the popular vote. W got 50.73% of the popular vote in 2004.

There are only TWO democratic Presidents that have ever been re-elected with 50% or more of the popular vote, Andrew Jackson and Franklin Roosevelt. Without those two, the Democrats don't have anyone as popular and successful as W was in November 2004.

Yes, if you adjust for population, Johnson is ahead of W, but not by much and Johnson was not re-elected like W.

STING, why on God's earth are you trying to defend George W. Bush as a "popular" President???? What point are you trying to make? His re-election numbers from 4 years ago mean absolutely nothing in terms of popularity. Are you factoring in the number of people who voted for him simply because they didn't like Kerry? Are you factoring in the number of people who, like an old professor of mine, believed that "you don't change horses in the middle of the race," even if that horse is leading you off the track?

Gimme a break.

Bush could've won 100% of the vote 4 years ago.

The guy's fucking approval rating is 30%.

Give it a fucking rest.

[financeguy]

Originally Posted by Utoo

Are you factoring in the number of people who, like an old professor of mine, believed that "you don't change horses in the middle of the race," even if that horse is leading you off the track?

"Vote Bush. Why change horseman mid-apocalypse?"