eldezod


Because Clinton didn't set himself up as if he were Rambo incarnate. Your saviour, Shrub, did.


Another unintelligent post from you. Please lets have another.

Why isn't Condeleeza running?

Hey. Isn't he the antichrist?

Comrade438
Pagan would imply he has not accepted the world of the Lord. Though I concur the Lutherans to be heretical and near heathens themselves, that language is a bit much.

He is as much a former pagan as Barak is a former Moslem.

Pro Zack: Hey. Isn't he the antichrist?

Soon, I suspect. Three US Senators as the front runners? We're in trouble.

Vet_Curm: He is as much a former pagan as Barak is a former Moslem.

Blasphemy.

No foreign policy experience, no economy management experience, no governing experience, questionable background, but hey he speaks a mean speech. Farker's will vote for him because it's not substance, it's Obama!

/Sheesh. We're doomed.

Rockdrummer

No foreign policy experience, no economy management experience, no governing experience, questionable background, but hey he speaks a mean speech.

I'm with you. If that last few years has taught us anything, it's taught us that we need someone with experence in governing...and with a spotless background...and with successful business experience....and with all that valuable foreign policy experience GW brought to the table.

Seriously, did your inner irony-meter explode while you were typing that drivel?

Obama referring to himself as African-American is very unwise and he won't be getting my vote. He's American. Americans who call themselves "something-American", like Italian-American, Spanish-American, Mexican-American, even European-American diminish what it means to be an American (even worse putting the other country ahead of AMERICA). I am not something-American. I am AMERICAN.

stevedln15: I'm a republican versus a liberal, technically I am registered as an independent but have never found a major Democratic candidate I like, and in my world Obama = A helluva lot better than Hillary.

I'm a rightie, and I'll drink to that. If he can throw in a bone to us Deficiet Hawks (yes, ending the occupation of Iraq would count, but he'd have to do it without all hell breaking loose) he's my guy.

two words.

taxes taxes

Comrade438 said:

Good thing we're electing the President of the United States, not of some joint European-American bloc. 'Cause I'm afraid the quickest way to lose might just be asserting, "He's moderate by socialist Europe's standards." Just sayin', though I find it humorous you've somehow awarded Europe the crown as apogee of political development.

I didn't mention Europe by name.

I simply referenced every other advanced industrialized democracy on Earth as having things like Nationalized health care, rational systems of law that draw firm distinctions between children and adults, legal abortion, and (the vast majority) having abolished the death penalty.

I would also point out the fastest way to lose a debate is to allow one's opponent to "frame" the terms of debate... and to willingly go along with one's opponet's definitions of terms.

The Right Wing in America, through the use of their pet media outlets, have been largely succesfull in paiting every single other industrialized democracy on Earth as "worthless, weak, failing, Socialistic, appeasing, wellfare states".

If one allows the Right Wing to "frame" the issues in such a manner, and one doesn't challenge those false assertions, then the Right Wing will win the debate every time.

Liberal: How about a 40 hour work week, and guaranteed overtime pay?

Right Winger: What? Like Socialist Europe? That's why they are failing and weak! Let the market determine wages and overtime!

Liberal: There should be laws to prevent Companies from hiring armed guards to attack Union organizers.

Right Winger: What?! Like Socialist France, where Unions cause the economy to be so bad?! No.. Unions shouldn't even exist! Let the workers negotiate one-by-one for their wages in the free market, and if they don't like it, send in the Pinkertons!

Liberal: Why are we spending so much money on "Defense" 18,000 miles from home, when we have children malnourished and adults who can't read right here at home?

Right Winger: What?! Waste all our money on social programs instead of the bombs that we NEED to keep us free??!! What are you, some sort of European Socialist wimpy peacemonger?!

And so on, and so forth.

Only by challenging the initial "framing" of the debate, and directly challenging the lie that we're doing better than Europe, can Liberals hope to actually win a debate.

FACT: We score lower than most Euopean Union members on most "quality-of-life" measurements.

FACT: We spend twice as much on Healthcare as the Socialized Medicine countries... and we get the worst health care system of any industrialized democracy.

FACT: Our actual literacy rates are lower than most European Union members... when one takes into account the large numbers of Americans who are "literate" by only the thinest of margins. Barely being able to operate the cash register at McDonald's without pictograms on the keyboard is considered illiterate in most industrialized democracies.

FACT: Our military is about 10 times the size it needs to be to actually defend the United States from any concievable military threat.

We have twice as many aircraft carriers as every single other nation on Earth COMBINED.... and our Aircarft Carriers are about twice the size of everyone else's.

Every one of those carriers... (designed to protect us from who exactly?).. represents 30 major urban hospitals and 100s of urban school systems that simply were never built.

So... little johnny can't read very well, and he can't do math very well, and he can't really write an essay at all, and he works twice as long per year as his European counterparts for what ammounts to lower pay, and if he gets sick then he'll end up bankrupt from the medical bills (if he doesn't simply die from lack of care), and when he retires he'll be likely to be eating cat food because there are no state pensions and his 401k will likely be absconded with by his bosses at the corporation he works for...

... but at least he gets to feel all manly and virile every couple of years, when the powers-that-be decide to blow another couple 100 billion of our money stomping on someplace half-way around the world.

Rather than buying into the Right-Wing meme that America is the best at everything just magically *because* we are... it would probably be a good idea to look at the reality of what is going on in the world.

I have one request for this thread.

When defending Obama, can we NOT compare him to Bush? I know holding up a possible future President beside the current one is natural, but it doesn't prove anything. Having a better record and being a better speaker than President Bush does not make you a good candidate. It just means you meet the minimum possible requirements for candidacy in 2008. Everyone in this race is better than Bush, on both sides, with the possible exception of Sam Brownback. Let's set our sights a bit higher than that.

/No more Bushes, no more Clintons.

Rockdrummer: No foreign policy experience, no economy management experience, no governing experience, questionable background,

It worked for Bush. The difference being Obama actually worked to achieve his political position, unlike you-know-who who has relied his entire life on his family name and connections.

Wonder who he's voting for?
hmmm..

General Zang: I didn't mention Europe by name.

Though the vast majority of that is conjecture, you assume that Americans want to emulate such things. Europe is the minority; the vast majority of the world does not adhere to the sometimes asinine notions of the supposedly civilized West. That you advocate we ought to adopt the clearly superior behavior of the Europeans simply because until we do so we are something less than civilized is preposterous. Why would we seek to mold ourselves around a collection of nations in rapid decline militarily, politically, economically and socially? A group of nations that, for all the bluster of higher quality of living, cannot hope to compete with the rise of the People's Republic of China or even India either politically or economically? A group of nations that still cannot even exert enough global leadership to push through any form of climate control (least of all upon the Chinese or Indians) despite being vastly ahead of the United States in every realm? That has - despite in encompassing nearly half a billion people - the inability to project military power beyond its' own borders on any significant scale, something even the undeveloped militaries of the Chinese and Indians, least we forget the United States itself, could manage? That is so affluent that it can no longer, save its' impoverished and unemployed Moslem immigrants, even manage to maintain that more workers will be around to replace those which retire and die? Who will increasingly rely upon ever fewer workers to support an ever increasing bureaucratic social welfare system?

Now, by no means do I advocate the status-quo here in the United States. Something ought to be done about a number of pressing issues ranging from the inability of our government to control its' own spending to the need for something as far as healthcare goes. However, looking towards Europe one views only collapse. A people who have, whether willingly or not, decided to place themselves on a path towards irrelevance and decline. If America wants to move forward, looking backwards to Europe is not the answer.

Nor is dismantling the United States military in the short term by any means wise. Defense spending is already the on par with the lowest levels it has ever been as percentage of the Gross Domestic Product, near the levels following Viet Nam and before Reagan's buildup. To assume that the world will somehow remain peaceful indefinitely, that Pax Americana will continue onwards despite the dismemberment of the United States' ability to enforce said peace, is foolish. If anything, American ought to readjust its' long term strategic goals and move away from the Middle East towards where the true future rivals to American might will actually be: China. Further on this subject is the reality that we cannot continue to use the weapon systems of the Reagan-era. At some point in the near future Congress must realize that the costs associated with using such aged hardware becomes prohibitively expensive. The F-117, the F-15 and even F-16 have seen nearly thirty years of service. It's time to retire them from active service and invest in the procurement of modern fighter aircraft of sufficient numbers.

The modern American military has been focused on fighting wars with vastly inferior nations since the end of the Cold War. It needs to be remade into a force prepared to confront a major power in a conflict that could result, unfortunately, in major loses of life, material, wealth and prestige.

Naa, the trick is to select someone as your VP that no one would want as President. That virtually assures that no one will try to assassinate you.

I think Obama may be electable, just not this election. He should get at least one more term under his belt.

Recent history:
Nixon-Agnew
Ford- Rockefeller
Reagan-Bush 1 (He got elected but if you remember some tried to kill Reagan
Bush-Quayle
Clinton-Gore
Bush II - Cheney

call his campaign and ax to volunteer

fififo-fofofifo
area code treefiddy

I think Biden meant that now that Obama's quitting smoking, he's clean-cut.

Comrade438: A people who have, whether willingly or not, decided to place themselves on a path towards irrelevance and decline. If America wants to move forward, looking backwards to Europe is not the answer.

That's just idiotic. No American of any influence is preaching that we emulate them in every category and any smart European probably wishes they could emulate a few things that the US does very very well.

But our 'relevance' (if you mean foreign policy) to the world has been a decidedly mixed bag. And by mixed I mean unbelievably expensive in terms of military spending, which is frankly the biggest portion of your tax bill that seemingly gets you no substantive advantage.

So if you mean that Europe's emphasis on services and not military is somehow the way of the past, you're not looking clearly at the world. We need a strong military, without a doubt. But it also represents the spending that we do the most of and get the least for.

So there has to be a smart way to cut that spending without leaving us vulnerable. There has to be a way to start moving government spending into a sector that helps the average american more than military spending does. We have to move our populace into higher skilled tech jobs. We have to retool our schools to compete. We have a lot of stuff that needs doing and no one wants higher taxes.

That shiat about being relevant is ridiculous. We don't want to be relevant, we want to make the most money and have the happiest lives. Europeans, on average, do that pretty well. We could do even better if we were smarter about how we spend our tax dollars.

BTW, I have an office with windows, why do you think I can sit on Fark? I'm the CIO.

Dude, thats a drive-thru window. Please dont breed.

MrGumboPants: But our 'relevance' (if you mean foreign policy) to the world has been a decidedly mixed bag. And by mixed I mean unbelievably expensive in terms of military spending, which is frankly the biggest portion of your tax bill that seemingly gets you no substantive advantage.

That's bullshiat. The vast majority of all government spending is payments to individuals, whether Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid or simple welfare and unemployment. The spending on the military, as percentage of the GDP, is at Carter levels and by absolutely no means ever close to a "majority" of the government's expenses.

his smooth presentation wouldn't beat an experienced, moderate republican.

I like Obama, from what little I know of his record and ideas, and the fact that he gets the righties so bent out of shape is great, but the dumbass voted for the Patriot Act.

And I don't think he can win. I'd rather vote on a Clark/Web ticket--but I'd be more than happy to vote for him over Hillary.

fark I hate that phony biatch. Can't wait to see her go down in flames.

his smooth presentation wouldn't beat an experienced, moderate republican.

an experienced, moderate republican wouldn't win the nomination

FlashLV:Maybe doing something of importance, being a leader. Someone willing to try something new, like start a business, even if it fails.

Oh man, if I've smelled stinkier BS before, then I've forgotten about it now. You just stated two things that you think fit Bush, and therefore validates any argument that comes back at you. Those two farking things are what make someone worthy to be the POTUS? Any farktard who's been the captain of a local baseball team and started a popsicle stand (which may fail, it's ok, we don't need a successful person as POTUS) could be the Prez? I think not.

FlashLV:Do you think that's any different from yourself or anyone else in this thread?

Yes. My favorite candidates are: Firstly Obama; Secondly McCain. fark you and your (R) or nothing attitude.

His being pro AA is reason enough for me to vote against him.

GardenWeasel
That said, with all his law credentials, I think he would better serve the country as a Supreme Court justice.

There's nothing stopping him from doing both. He can get appointed to the Court after he finishes as President (Like Taft).

That said, I wouldn't be overly surprised if, should he not get the nomination (or VP nod) and the Democrat wins, he is the next Justice, which I imagine will happen within months of the next President's term (Stevens is REALLY old. I could easily see him stepping down as soon as Bush is out of office). Alternatively, it could go to Connie Callahan, due to the lack of women on the bench at the moment.

Emeraldstar

His being pro AA is reason enough for me to vote against him.

Why? Not being snarky...actually curious

>>Ford- Rockefeller

Squeaky tried to kill Ford.

Hmmmm...I may just join teh Democrat Party just to vote for him in the primary. A vote for Obama is a vote NOT for Hillary.
The sad thing is, is that most Southern, cracka-ass, crackas will not vote for him for his skin color. And I mean the crackas in the Democrat Party.

/not a Repuglican

Comrade438 said:

Though the vast majority of that is conjecture, you assume that Americans want to emulate such things.

Yes, I do make that assumption.

I make the assumption that if the American people were given a clear choice between adding another Aircraft Carrier battle group to our already-swollen military... or getting a brand-new state-of-the-art hospital and a brand-new grade school and high school built and funded in their town... that they'd choose the hospital and the school.

I make th assumption that if Americans were given a choice to vote for 100 billion more dollars to be wasted in Iraq, or to have Science and Math tutors assigned to school districts across the country, that they'd vote for the tutors.

I also assume that the corporate-controlled media, and the bough-and-paid-for politicians are very very carefull to NEVER have the choices be presented to the voters that clearly... lest the Military/Industrial gravytrain of free profits for their pals be thrown off track.

Europe is the minority; the vast majority of the world does not adhere to the sometimes asinine notions of the supposedly civilized West.

325 Million Europeans in the European Union.

Another 100+ Million Euopeans looking on enviously at the EU, hoping that they can get a chance to join also.

600+ Million Latin Americans, largely voting for more Left-of-Center or even outright Socialist governments.

800 Million Indians voting to emulate the European model of development, with the actual Communist Party having won elections in several Indian states.

120 Million Japanese in a hodegepodge system that appears half-way socialist and half-way an emulation of the country that has had troops stationed on their soil ever since conquering them.

75+ Million in former British colonies like Canada, Australia, and New Zealand... with European-style socialized Medicine and policies that would be considered "Socialist" by the US.

So yeah... all those folks are the "minority".... when compared to the populations of Africa, China, Central Asia... and the United States.

Um... so you're happy to have the US as part of the "majority" Africans/Chinese/Uzbekistan-type folks?

Talk about setting your goals low.


That you advocate we ought to adopt the clearly superior behavior of the Europeans simply because until we do so we are something less than civilized is preposterous.

I didn't say that. I implied that we could learn from the Europeans, and apply to opur society the things that have been proven to work well for the Europeans.

Heck... we used to be the masters of learning and coppying good ideas from other folks. Even our LANGUAGE is a hodgepodge of words and ideas that we took from other folks.

There's no shame in coppying a good idea. There should be shame in stubbornly using bad ideas, simply because one is too proud to learn.

Why would we seek to mold ourselves around a collection of nations in rapid decline militarily, politically, economically and socially?

Are we talking about the same place??

The European Union that has 310+ million people? The EU that single-handedly lifted Greece, Southern Italy, Spain, and Portugal up from third-world economic status to new-found prosperity?

The EU that managed to meld an entire continent of peoples, with a dozen different languages, and a dozen different legal systems, into one single union?

The EU that has entire nations literally begging to be allowed to join... and tens of thousands of people trying to sneak across the border so they can get in on the good life?

That certainly doesn't sound like "rapid decline" to me. It sounds like "rapid expansion" and "wild success" to me.

A group of nations that, for all the bluster of higher quality of living, cannot hope to compete with the rise of the People's Republic of China or even India either politically or economically?

Are you on crack?

Economically, the EU blows both China and India out of the water. It's not even close.

Politically, the EU has two vetos on the UN security council, as opposed to merely one for China and zero for India... and in most of the world, diplomats from various EU member states are much more highly respected than Chinese or Inidian diplomats.

A group of nations that still cannot even exert enough global leadership to push through any form of climate control (least of all upon the Chinese or Indians) despite being vastly ahead of the United States in every realm?

Kyoto protocols. Go ahead an google a list of the nations that have signed on. It's a lot... including China.

That has - despite in encompassing nearly half a billion people - the inability to project military power beyond its' own borders on any significant scale, something even the undeveloped militaries of the Chinese and Indians,

The nations of the EU have projected power around the globe when they felt the need to do so.

Great Britain sent a flotilla half-way across the world to protect their citizens on the Falklands Islands.

The French have performed numerous military operations across the world in the past decade (too many to list), and the French Foreign Legion maintains military bases on four continents.

That the EU member states don't see their military services as ginat penis extenders to be used when they are feeling flacid, does not mean that they don't have the capability of defending their nations.

That is so affluent that it can no longer, save its' impoverished and unemployed Moslem immigrants

Go to downtown Bakersfield, or any city in Texas near the US-Mexico border. Pot, meet kettle.

Now, by no means do I advocate the status-quo here in the United States. Something ought to be done about a number of pressing issues ranging from the inability of our government to control its' own spending to the need for something as far as healthcare goes. However, looking towards Europe one views only collapse. A people who have, whether willingly or not, decided to place themselves on a path towards irrelevance and decline. If America wants to move forward, looking backwards to Europe is not the answer.

If your only view of what is important in life, is the ability to kill people every few years 18,000 miles away from your own soil.... then yes, Europe "fails" by that standard.

If, however, your standards involve the actual lives, liberty, and persuit of happiness of the citizens of one's own nation... then the EU member states by-and-large far far surpass most of the states within the United States.

FlashLV:


"What exactly was Bush's platform that did it for you?"


Lower taxes.

Finally, it comes out. Your one qualification for a candidate is that he make it so you get to keep more money. That's great. Your one true love laid out so bare. It makes me sad for you, and anyone who you claim to "love."

FlashLV

Not too convincing... lol! You have to try harder to back up what you say.

The man reads poetry out loud, ok?

Like, one time I took his picture and he said if I took his picture again, he'd kill me.....and he meant it!

/Walter E. Kurtz for President! Vote for him you mutts! You nabobs!

Ok, seriously, it makes me sick but I think a Democrat is guaranteed to be win the presidency in 2008. I think the least dangerous person (since we're stuck with a Democrat) is Hillary. She'd at least bring a decent level of competence to the job. Don't count on her ending the Iraq war though, you Michael Moore-type silly geese. How's that for an enthusiastic endorsement?

FlashLV: I was in the club, a bouncer was sweeping and running into me with the broom, I moved he followed, I asked him "what the fark is your problem", he told me to tuck my shirt in I walked towards the door and flipped him off.

I was tackled and assaulted. 4 bouncers went to jail, 1 was in jail for 60 days for aggrevated assault for choking me while in handcuffs, I got a nice settlement, and charged with Disorderly and in court charges were dropped for first offence.


Absolutely BS. Show us those charges, FlashLV, because this story is absolute crap.

1. The Beach is a VERY casual nightclub, and you don't have to tuck your shirt in.
2. 9 times out of 10 they just throw your ass out, and don't call the cops.
3. Why would the bouncers go to jail? They have a right to restrain you if you are causing a ruckus, and some of those bouncers are LVMPD off duty guys making some extra cash.


Show us this evidence, FlashLV, or your story is garbage.

Somacandra said:

I would hope so, but I would never bet against the population's taste for military bases. When excessive militarism has become ingrained into the culture, to the point of it serving as a form of 'welfare,' people will vote to keep it going, even though it has clearly detrimental domestic effects.

Depends on where the vote was taken, I guess.

If it were a National vote, I believe that given a clear choice, the voters would pick the hospital and the school.

Now, if we were talking local votes in places like Alabama, or Misisippi.... then I'm no longer so sure which way they'd choose.

It seems that in America as a whole, and even more so in the Southeastern states, that things like education, learning, knowledge, and caring for your fellow man... are increasingly regarded as "weak", "effeminate" or just plain "teh ghey".

While raining down bombs from inside untouchable aircraft at 20,000 feet on cities full of civilians on the other side of the globe is regarded as more "manly" and "strong".

All the more reason why we NEED to spend more money on schools, and cut back on the military budget to wean folks off of their military-base-spending welfare.

(Biased, Lightly-Researched) Statistics. Question. Answer to question. More fake statistics that my mom told me. Smug superiority. Ignorance of political relativity. Lies. Nattering nabobery.

Somacandra: Ahh, you mean a 'native American,' right?

No, I don't. What did I say again? I'm an American.

Schulte, you do realize that, for Obama, the term "African-American" is literally true, not an assumed identifier, right? His father was African, his mother American. Hence, African-American.

Obama never was a member of the U.S. House of Representatives, so why the Lincoln comparisons?