Senator Obama VS Senator Clinton

[Liberty]

I'm not going to bother with the cut and paste puzzle method. I trust you'll be able to sort this out without such measures.

Everyone is supported and opposed at any given time by anyone else. It's dangerous to call the people who approved the war "criminals," Liberty, firstly because it's a lie, and secondly because it shows more of an interest in arguing from a bias than getting to any real answers. For the war to be "criminal," it must have been in violation of statutory legislation. It wasn't. It was approved by the very people who draft and vote laws into existence, and the process followed the Constitution completely. That people regret it or changed their minds later does NOT make it illegal. Again, let's actually discuss the issue instead of playing media propaganda games. The war was legal, and it remains legal. You may not like it, but if that's the case, let it suffice to say that you don't like it. Say it's unpopular or expensive. All of that is true. There's no need to dramatize or lie about it by calling it illegal.

As for distancing yourself, Bush is an absolute non-issue, and so is his entire cabinet. If your solution has to do with Bush, you're living in the past. Those are not solutions - they're blame fixing. They don't take us forward, and they don't resolve any issues. They just attempt to insulate you from the problem rather than actually addressing it. Leaders have to face and fix problems, and the blame is incidental. So what if Bush did everything wrong? We still have a situation with real-world repercussions. Blaming him doesn't solve anything. And if blame is a Presidential candidate's answer? Screw 'em. They don't have the mettle for the job.

Calling Bush our "greatest enemy" is probably the greatest fraud so far. You're being an editorialist. You're spouting opinions that have no basis in fact. If you truly want to back up that statement, then fine. I'll start a new thread and we can compare the effects of America's real enemies with teh effect of George W. Bush. You may hate the man and all he stands for, but again - that's feeling, not fact. What you're doing is playing to people's willingness to join in the insult war because that's easier than solving the tougher but more important issue of what to do from this point forward. I think you probably realize how stupid it is to say that George W. Bush is a worse enemy of America than Osama bin Laden (or any number of others, for that matter), so I'm not going to dignify that remark any further unless you want to start providing proof instead of rhetoric.

What proposals of Obama's are you referring to? Since the war is literally legal, what criminal ways are you referring to? This is more alarmism, Liberty. Argue facts. Argue something you can support. What you're suggesting is that Obama would be able to surround himself with people he could trust not to serve their own interests over the country's. But look at Obama's track record when it comes to choosing "advisors." Not great. Look at his track record when it comes to gaining cooperation even within the Congress. Not great. What you've posted here is also empty idealism with no basis in fact.

Liberty, I in no way mean any offense by this next statement, and I sincerely hope you believe that. But the reason Republicans support McCain is because he is now the Republican nominee for the Presidency, and that's just the way stuff works. They didn't support him one second before he got the nomination. They didn't like the fact that he's so left-leaning on so many of his policies. But when there's a 50-50 shot at the man becoming the boss, you get behind him - especially if he's the leader of YOUR party. Again, politics is all about being able to win influence. It's about being able to get people to agree to a consensus. Most often, that requires give and take. Talk to Arieson. He's a loyal Rush Limbaugh listener. He'll tell you how viscious the attacks on McCain FROM THE CONSERVATIVE RIGHT have been in the past, when he was one of several candidates. It has only been begrudgingly after his actual nomination that McCain has enjoyed any support at all from most Republicans - Bush included! For crying out loud, they ran against one another and Bush tried to burn the man down! If you think Bush's support for McCain has anything to do with "carrying on policies," you're mad. McCain has been vocally opposed to just about every policy Bush has had (with the notable exception of the war), and Bush's support is a matter of protocol, not legacy.

Take some time and educate yourself on these things. If you want, I'll suggest some reading. I'm not saying that to be condescending, either. The reason I take so much time and go into such detail here is because I think this stuff is important. Learning about politics and government will go a long way toward making you tougher to dupe when it comes to the kind of headline regurgitation I see here. You're buying into bad sales pitches because you lack understanding, and it's making you less effective and less able than you ought to be. Not your fault, really, and easily repairable.

Still, work on issues and facts next time. Lose some of the extremist views and sensationalist tag lines and look at what's really there instead of what you "feel." I'll say it again (at risk of it becoming a quote), "Feelings are not facts."

What do you call knowingly Bush's, Cheney's and Rumsfeld's having purposely mislead the American public about the existence of non-existent "weapons of mass destruction," as a pretext to invading Iraq, after first having thwarted for a month, the CIA's having wounded Bin Laden in Afghanistan - since when does false evidence agains anyone and or aiding and abetting the escape of a dangerous criminal not a crime?

Obama proposes a youtube in real time of White House goings on along with access by everyday American citizens to the White House and awareness by everyday Americans of Corporate meetings as leverage against Corporate America's hold on the White House. And while I think this is not only insane, given the murderous greed of some in power, perhaps impossible given the probable reliability of those advsing him, and in light of Jimmy Carter's great blunder in attempting to demystify the White House given America's very real worldwide enemies, I've got to commend the guy for at least bringing up some sort of real looking out for fellow Americans.

Tell me something, if the war was legal, then why all the manipulation of the American public, why the manipulation and thwarting of those who stood to capture Bin Laden the first few weeks of 911? Sorry, Mike, I greatly respect you, but in this, you remind me of those who supported Johnson during Vietnam. How many Americans have to die only to come to the same conclusion as that hideous war - what another 65,000?

I'm aware of great Republican opposition to McCain prior to his having ended up the only one left standing.

Mike, we just will not see eye to eye on this. It is what it is. Nothing moves me more then the sight of the American flag. Nothing. "My country tis of thee" as full of it as it is, gven the history behind it, nevertheless means the world to me, and I would fight tooth and nail should a war hit our shores. But I'll be damed if I'd go off and fight and lose my life for Corporate greed on some distant shore. And anyone who promotes that is beyond my vote. If that is a feeling you have trouble with then so be it.

[Liberty]

By way of pacifying some of the rhetoric, what is your position on McCain's war policy if you look at it out of the context of Bush's war?

And how do you propose one do that given he is supported by the very criminals who got us in this mess?

In other words, if you start from right now, with the influences, conditions, risks, and consequences we face today, what would your position be if you were in charge? Why?

Do what general Franks, Powell, and very few others did, distance myself from Bush and company.

Consider the options available, the enemies we face, their ability to exert themselves in a chaotic vacuum, our strategic needs, the need to contain certain enemies and oppositional interests, etc. in developing your response.

Our greatest enemies are not in Iraq - not only are they still in the White House, where they've been all along, but will continue to operate from behind closed doors. Like the war on Organized Crime in America, where the FBI and local State's attorneys continually sabotage one another, in their quest for pwoer at the expense of Americans, until this is somehow put an end to, it will always be one step forward, two steps back, regardless of anyone's good intentions "out of context." Honestly, why is this so difficult to grasp for some here and elsewhere?

Don't come at the argument in terms of the people who were involved in getting us there. Don't look at the people who are up for the vote now. Look at it as if you inherited the whole mess yourself, and really research what the consequences of any measure might mean overall. Would a massive commitment of troops in the short term mean a quicker long-term end? Would a quick withdrawal be seen by an incapable and poorly equipped Iraqi government as "abandonment" by the U.S.? What's going on that's not in the news, and what real concerns should a leader have beyond the media storylines and soundbites?

I'd opt for massive commitment of troops in the short term. But first, I'd pull what Obama has suggested and set things up to ensure those behind closed doors in the White House who'd attempt their criminal ways, would be easily exposed at every step.

I think when you put yourself in the positions of the people we elect and ask their questions of yourself, sometimes positions that didn't make sense before all of a sudden begin to.

Exactly. For when I put myself in the positions of people who stole the last election, I conclude that those in Bush's criminal circle, the last thing they'd pull on themselves is to to put their support behind someone (McCain) who would destroy their years of hard, criminal work against the best interests of the American people. Then again, given McCain's possible good traits, it's a great front for them to appear to support him, as Bush and company so often did before the American public, while sabotaging everyone in the way of their conspiracy, behind closed doors.

Until I can see evidence to the contrary, Mike, well, feel free to fill in the blanks...

[Liberty]

Re: PBS' Recent "Bush's War"

Re: last night's (Mon 3-24-08) PBS "Bushes War," though obviously liberal, surprisingly Bush was basically shown incompetant and manipulated by Cheney, Rumsfeld, Libby (sic), and Tenent, who were shown to have been arrogant, cold as ice and scheming from the get. Their agenda, let Ben Laden escape by thwarting Colin Powell, the CIA and General Franks at every turn while a case against Iraq as an accomplice was falsified.

As I watched I was shocked once more at the heartlessnes of both Cheney and Rumsfeld in the wake 911.

Blair, Powell, Rice, Clark, the CIA and General Franks (these last two shown to have been way more than competant) were shown to have been victim's of the above's manipulations. France was shown to have not wanted a part of it when it became evident the agenda had been set, "even though it will mean alienating the American Public."

Chalabi was shown to have been the snake he is.

Then the piece went really left and started focuisng on the violated "rights" of the terrorists held at Guantanamo. The program was based on interviews with many of those involved, internal memos, conflicting news clips by the culprits, etc. Part 2 tonight. You can watch excerpts here:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/bushswar/

Looking back at history from this and it's perspective, I'd have to say that in such a sharkfest, Obama, given his inexperience, may not fair much better than Carter, did, even if it turns out Obama truly meant well.

Hilary would be more of the same Cinton lies. McCain? My own verdict (now)is once more "out." Many good qualifications. But his stance on continuing this War is bothersome. Given the above character's scheming, it is obvious going there could not have been for any greater good. Think I'll wait, research, reflect until the "real" run/election rows around, see what else comes out on these individuals running for President, weigh other "candidate" options.

[jubaji]

I already told you, it's a joke based on two radio hosts out here.

Not funny, you bigot.

[Ghost]

Might well take you up on that but our elections are tedious and boring in comparison to yours. i mean its nothing like what you get over there its like a soap opera over there and fun to watch on tv. In the UK they have maybe 1 debate and thats about it lol. its not much fun and the characters are often duller but perhaps very qualified.

[Ghost]

Yeah ive learnt a lot more too, i think id have more interest if it was a UK election and it is intensive. lol. I need a holiday.

[Ghost]

You could at least concede that my post was masterfully executed and that it's scared you off for a few days! Come on, man. Give my ego a boost! You know how shy and introverted I am. I'd do it for you.

grrr stop trying to make me answer the post, yes it was a good post, it was, but i genuinely cant be bothered to think it all the way through right now.
Ill rep you if you like but be ready for the swearing lolol
EDIT: gave you rep for it now tosser lol

[Ghost]

That doesn't mean they'll leave. There are plenty of Sunni alcoves in Iraq. Lots of them, in fact. There are places that al Qaeda can and would hide. And let's not forget the multitude of new Shi'a sponsors that have managed to get over their disdain for al Qaeda and actually fund them. When you put those ingredients together, what you end up with (again, look at your own history) is competitive interests in a hotbed of violence. That can lead to anything from Civil War to all-out oppression or even genocide of a minority. Without a solid security force, a Sunni minority could well look to a group like Osama's to "protect them" from retaliation by their government majority and militias.

There are a lot of factors there to consider, but the potential for negative consequences is far greater and more likely than the potential for it to come out a net positive for us.

And none of that matters anyway, because you got this whole ECONOMY discussion going and you've neglected to address my long and information dense post about McCain's demonstrated understanding (and arguably superior execution) of fiscal policy. One point at a time! Talk about what we're talking about, then we'll move on to the war.

I know! LMAO, Mike ill be honest with you, i cant be bothered to go through the economy thing right now as it requires thought. Right now im in martial arts spamming mode. My enthusiasm for this topic goes up and down regularly, so i expect i will reply at some point in some detail, i just dont have the heart in me for it right now, sorry. It is always interesting reading your posts though, its just the mental effort required to post doesnt always come to me lol.

Just watching CNN, do you think Obama has hillary beaten?

[Ghost]

I think the Shia militia wont tolerate them, they absolutely hate each other. They only tolerate them because the americans are there now. Al queda is estimated to amount to less than 1000 troops. They are a smaller issue, the shia militia wont tolerate them.

[Ghost]

I think only Mike has the patience to point out to you all of the contradictions and irrationalities inherent in that little turn of phrase.

targetted strikes is different from occupation.

Al queda wont be supported when the common enemy is gone.

[DickHardman]

probably would if it was the UK election.

it is your election as well. you just dont get to vote. neither do i though. so were all in the same boat really.

[jubaji]

Bringing Our Troops Home
Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months. Obama will make it clear that we will not build any permanent bases in Iraq. He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda..

I think only Mike has the patience to point out to you all of the contradictions and irrationalities inherent in that little turn of phrase.

[jubaji]

[*]Bush's economic policies are not working. (May 2004).

For 2004:

http://www.xist.org/charts/ec_gdp1.aspx

[Ghost]

= unless you are living in a cardboard box, your taxes are about to go up.

well yours might...mine wont

lol im going to come back to this thread later, its awe inspiringly tiring and i simply dont have the motivation for it most of the time, probably would if it was the UK election.
will post again though soon enough.

[jubaji]

[*]Take China "to the mat" about currency manipulation. (Dec 2007)

Classic empty rhetoric. 'Take them to the mat!' means nothing, and every politician knows it.