No...no she's not.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
It's just the Cardinal Richelieu suit. Those things make anybody look hot.
Posted by Xann. (Member # 11482) on :
quote:Originally posted by Noemon: It's just the Cardinal Richelieu suit. Those things make anybody look hot.
Anyone?..... Oh the possibilities.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Yep. That's why if you look at the photos on dating sites a good 60% of 'em feature people dressed up as Cardinal Richelieu.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
To be fair, a full 10% of those people are actually me, wearing a variety of wigs and cosmetic disguises. I'm trying to make C-Rich style happen.
Posted by Achilles (Member # 7741) on :
I thought it was just the mustache.
Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
I'd never even heard of Cardinal Richelieu (well at least as far as clothing is concerned) until now.
The Wikipedia entry is a good read. I'm surprised they haven't wheeled out her beauty pageant photos yet.
And...
quote:Palin admits to smoking marijuana as a youth, during the time when possession was legal in Alaska, though she says she did not enjoy it.
Great... yet another politician that doesn't know hot to smoke pot. Posted by Jenny Gardener (Member # 903) on :
You know, it IS possible to experience marijuana without enjoying it. I remember the one time (in Amsterdam) that I was around the stuff - plenty of second-hand smoke, and then I stole the apple-pen combo that was their pipe and ATE the thing because I was hungry and pissed off that here we were in Amsterdam and all the group wanted to do was sit around in a crappy room and smoke pot. I then left to visit the art museum. I didn't enjoy any of the marijuana effects at all, and I was angry that I was experiencing them without choosing deliberately to smoke. (The small group I was with had made the decision, and we were all on our own in Europe and we had to share a train ticket)
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
Pot should be legalized if for no other reason that to stop making politicians talk about it. They always sound like those squares who feel the need to brag about their drug use, but still want to seem cool to every group of people, so they won't commit to what they actually did.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
Jenny, please tell me you stopped at the pen.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: To be fair, a full 10% of those people are actually me, wearing a variety of wigs and cosmetic disguises. I'm trying to make C-Rich style happen.
Truly, you are the man of a thousand faces (all of which have the C-Rich thing going on).
Posted by luthe (Member # 1601) on :
Anecdotal evidence to the contrary the overwhelming majority of people who smoke marijuana, do so because they want to because they enjoy it.
Posted by lobo (Member # 1761) on :
"Anecdotal evidence to the contrary the overwhelming majority of people who smoke marijuana, do so because they want to because they enjoy it. "
I would assume that logic holds for most of our vices... smoking, drinking, fornication, etc.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
I hate pot. Just being in the room with it makes me sick, and I don't even want to know what smoking it is like. I didn't enjoy the contact buzz I got, so I doubt I would care for it.
And I don't care if that makes me a square. Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by luthe: Anecdotal evidence to the contrary the overwhelming majority of people who smoke marijuana, do so because they want to because they enjoy it.
That isn't evidence to the contrary. Jenny wasn't making an absolute point; she merely said that it was possible for a person to experience pot and not enjoy it. That many people experience pot and do enjoy it doesn't invalidate her point at all.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
quote:And I don't care if that makes me a square. [Smile]
That would be being unnecessarily mean to squares. I'd say you're closer to a trapezoid. No one likes them. Posted by Jenny Gardener (Member # 903) on :
No I didn't eat the pen! Nor much of the apple, really.
I don't find Palin "hot", but my husband thinks she's pretty. Of course, she's LOTS nicer to look at than many of the old men so prevalent in politics. I just find her style of beauty less attractive than some other cultural figureheads.
Posted by Jenny Gardener (Member # 903) on :
I'm not very good at making absolute points, as Noemon shows. But I'm really good about being open to possibility.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by Strider:
quote:And I don't care if that makes me a square. [Smile]
That would be being unnecessarily mean to squares. I'd say you're closer to a trapezoid. No one likes them.
Posted by T:man (Member # 11614) on :
I'm a circle. Posted by martha (Member # 141) on :
Obama is WAY hotter than Palin. Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
martha, have you seen the behind-the-back pool shot?
PS: Palin is quite photogenic as well, and she has a sprightly go-for-it demeanor that really seems to animate the room.
Posted by Vyrus (Member # 10525) on :
I think the're both attractive, although honestly I think Palin's way hotter [as a sexually unbiased opinion.]
Has anyone else noticed the hypocrisy of McCain bashing Obama for his inexperience and then turning around and choosing Palin, who has even less?
Maybe it's just me.
And the backwards pool shot is quite intoxicating, yes.
Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
quote:Originally posted by Vyrus: Has anyone else noticed the hypocrisy of McCain bashing Obama for his inexperience and then turning around and choosing Palin, who has even less?
Maybe it's just me.
I just hope for McCain's sake that no one else on the Internet, in the mass media, or in the Obama campaign makes that connection. Maybe you should delete your post before anyone catches on. Posted by martha (Member # 141) on :
Thanks for that, CT. yum. Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Funny how the polls say most people believe Gov. Palin is more qualified to be president than Obama. In fact, she has a higher approval rating than Sens. Obama or McCain. She also has many years of actual executive experience that the other three candidates do not have.
Dems have not done themelves any favors by inviting comparisons between Palin and Obama in regard to experience. As for Sen. Biden, what he has ever been in charge of running?
I think people will be surprised by how handily Gov. Palin ("Sarah Barracuda") deals with Sen. Biden in the vice presidential debate. She manifestly has twice his I.Q. and a hundred times his moxie. And unlike him, she does not need to plagiarize anyone. (Biden has been described as a "serial plagiarist.") All she needs is for McCain's people to give her adequate prepping. And she is known as a quick learner.
[ September 07, 2008, 03:03 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Ron, you are even more full of it than usual. When did intelligence become a hallmark of Republican Presidential candidates? Or experience?
Bush Jr had little of either. He was the weakest Gov in the country for little to no time, and all of his executive experience were for companies that failed.
Wait....maybe past experiences ARE an accurate predictor of future behavior. You don't have to look much further than our economy or our foreign relations to see what I mean. He has succeeded in doing to our country what he did to all of his business ventures....with the added benefit of ruining our international reputation and creating more terrorist problems for us in the future( by insuring the new group of kinds from the middle east hate us even MORE than their parents, for far greater reason).
Politicians all borrow from each other. If you want I can show you many, many examples....as you seem too unmotivated to do the 5 min of research it took me to find them.
Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese: martha, have you seen the behind-the-back pool shot?
PS: Palin is quite photogenic as well, and she has a sprightly go-for-it demeanor that really seems to animate the room.
CT, the sexiest picture is Obama's wedding picture, sprawled together on the bench. It is lovely.
As for Scary Sarie, what you see as "sprightly" I see as an evil sneer. Watch her eyes dart to the side. Ugh. Sorry, dislike her.
Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jenny Gardener: I'm not very good at making absolute points, as Noemon shows. But I'm really good about being open to possibility.
Lol . . . are you me?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: The behind the back pool shot proves one thing, and one thing only....
I could kick the crap out of him playing pool.
I have no doubt of it, since no variation of pool I've ever seen involved kicking of any sort. Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Kwea, you asked me: "When did intelligence become a hallmark of Republican Presidential candidates?"
Probably about the same time that schizophrenia became a hallmark of Democratic Presidential candidates.
Schizophrenia = split off from reality.
Actually, there have been intelligent candidates among the Republicans, and sane candidates among the Democrats. But they are not the ones the parties nominated. For some reason, ever since McGovern, the Dems have been nominating people who do not comprehend reality--especially that evil actually exists in the world, and needs to be opposed by those who champion good. Before then, the Dem nominees at least had some basic sense about standing up to American's enemies and the enemies of freedom.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Kwea, you asked me: "When did intelligence become a hallmark of Republican Presidential candidates?"
Probably about the same time that schizophrenia became a hallmark of Democratic Presidential candidates.
Schizophrenia = split off from reality.
Actually, there have been intelligent candidates among the Republicans, and sane candidates among the Democrats. But they are not the ones the parties nominated. For some reason, ever since McGovern, the Dems have been nominating people who do not comprehend reality--especially that evil actually exists in the world, and needs to be opposed by those who champion good. Before then, the Dem nominees at least had some basic sense about standing up to American's enemies and the enemies of freedom.
You have Fox news on the brain.
I don't call Republican's dumb, I just question specifics.
How is it good to torture people in the name of freedom? How does lying about justifications for war and having American's die in a country where we are not (and have never been) wanted good for our country? Who the hell made Republican's the arbitrators of what is and isn't American behavior? Since when has not agreeing with someone been treason? What justifies exposing classified information to further a political grudge?
I know a lot of good, honest people. The funny thing is that we can discuss politics, and even disagree with each other on key points, without resorting to name calling and divisiveness. Washington seems to have lost that ability, and it pisses me off. I am tired of attack ads, smear campaigns, and sore losers.
It is time for a change, and McCain has lost ALL of his ability to impress me. He is as dirty, if not more so, than the rest of them.
IMO, of course. Posted by String (Member # 6435) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kwea:
It is time for a change, and McCain has lost ALL of his ability to impress me. He is as dirty, if not more so, than the rest of them.
IMO, of course. [/QB]
I have to disagree with you Kwea, while John McCain has done his share of 'playing the game', I think he has kept it considerably cleaner than most of his counterparts. He is cooperative with his opposition and (relatively) clean of allot of the special interest dirt that plagues Washington. Up until the general election he was even reletively well liked by the opposition, making regular appearances on the Daily Show and working on cross partisan bills such as the McCain Fiengold (Sorry if I slaughtered the latter senators name) bill and others. Allot of republicans hated that bill because it threatened to take away more from their pockets than those of the democrats (didn't exactly work out as planned, but you see the point).
The rhetoric of both parties at this point isn't informative at all. If you look at both senators records, (I mean check into it yourself, not just take someone else's word for it) you might draw a similar conclusion.
And yes Palin is pretty damn hot for an older woman. I also have to admit that I wouldn't be angry if I had Barak Obama's looks either.
Posted by K. E. Spires (Member # 11743) on :
Isn't it funny how someone (Kwea) says something about republicans and then immediately goes off the point and uses our current president to draw derogatory conclusions about John McCain.
Almost every "fact" mentioned about Bush in that post came from Fahrenheit 9/11. Be careful about Michael Moore. He is more than comfortable telling you a lie if it means swaying your opinion, just some friendly advice.
As to the torture issue. McCain is steadfast against it, to the ire of his party, and to my own ire as well. I believe that if we have good enough reason to believe that an enemy has the knowledge necessary to save American lives, do it. McCain and Obama are on the same page on that issue.
Lying about the reason to go to war? No way Kwea, no way. Do you really believe that? That is another idea that Fahrenheit 9/11 pushes really hard. Do you know how many UN sanctions Saddam just shrugged off concerning his weapons buildup? Do you realize that everyone, and I mean all credible sources, said the same thing about the intelligence on Iraq? Hell, even the French thought had WMDs capable of imminent threats to many countries. Viewing that intelligence, his lack of honesty in the past, his unwillingness to conform to UN sanctions, almost everyone from both parties was on board for the invasion of Iraq. President Bush gave a speech long before we invaded, in front of the UN, giving Saddam an ultimatum concerning his actions. It wasn't heeded.
The democratic party jumped ship quicker than rats fleeing a burning building once the war became unpopular. How is that for spine? How is that for putting conviction? Instead of standing by their votes to go in, they began to make very strange accusations that they were "lied to" or that they were "misled by Bush's intelligence."
How strange that when it was the popular idea, they were all fine with the intelligence. Once it became unpopular, instead of seeking out why the intelligence had failed, they chose to slander the President to make the case that they hadn't been wrong in the first place. Again, how about that conviction?
Looking at the intelligence leading up to the Iraq war, I wonder about Obama's initial opposition. I agree, in hindsight, it was a mistake to invade. But the intelligence pointed to a serious threat to our national security. Remember that we'd been very recently attacked on our soil and lost over three thousand of our citizens. Things look different now when we look back. But the threat felt very real when we, as a nation, watched those hearings when Colin Powell explained the danger facing us. He was on board, with all his long years of experience and good judgment.
I used to think like you Kwea, because I swallowed without asking most of the crap fed to me by CNN and Michael Moore. If you stop though, and take a long, hard look at the situation we're in, you'll find that it isn't too difficult to realize how we actually got here.
Do you know what our former president was doing while Osama and his allies were formulating and executing the plan that led to September 11th?
I'd explain but I think going into graphic detail about what his mind was on might violate the decency policy around here.
Our economy?
Things were going pretty good in our economy until 2006. The war was very unpopular and President Bush stuck to his (correct) conviction that pulling out and losing due to popular opinion would be disastrous. So the American people elected a Democratic congress. Congratulations. Look at where we are now.
Since they've taken office we've had the housing bubble crisis, a near recession, ridiculous gas prices, meanwhile Nancy Pelosi is more concerned about making it illegal to hire based on language barriers.
Yeah, that is what we need to focus on.
I feel sorry for longtime democrats. I really do. The party's elected officials have moved further and further left and the party will hear nothing from a centrist or republican. That isn't the way this game is supposed to work. But the party is good at one thing though, propaganda.
They've made the only halfway honest news team into a "right-wing propaganda machine." Of course I'm talking about Fox News. And I'm not talking about Hannity. He is very forthcoming about being a conservative. I'm talking about the actual news team. You don't see the Fox News team spewing the crap that the Daily Kos rumored about. But can you say that about CNN and MSNBC?
They've made John McCain seem like Bush Jr, which is about as far from the truth as you can get. He's the only candidate running with a long history of bi-partisanship.
When is the last time Barack Obama did anything bipartisan?
He votes party line democrat.
Look at what the democratic machine did to Joe Lieberman. He stood on his convictions and they refused to fund him anymore. He had to run as an independent to retain his seat. Thank god he did. He has integrity.
Anyway, this stuff just makes me depressed. Kwea, take a few days to reply, go out and really, objectively read and research most of the things that CNN and Michael Moore have armed you with. You'll find that most are either misdirections, half-truths, or sometimes outright deceptions. It is an unfortunate thing, a sad thing.
There are millions of people who think this kind of thing, even though there are little facts to back it up.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Posted by String: I have to disagree with you Kwea, while John McCain has done his share of 'playing the game', I think he has kept it considerably cleaner than most of his counterparts.
I would have agreed with you before this campaign started. He's learned a lot in a very short period of time. I've seen a couple of bad Obama ads, but nothing compared to the avalanche of crap that I've seen on TV coming from McCain. Half-truths, bald faced lies, and a lot of misdirection from him. I've yet to see him actually talk about his own plans, it's all just attack ads.
KE Spires -
Welcome. It's always nice to have someone from the other side (of the political spectrum) around to make things interesting. I'm not a Democrat, but I still disagree with pretty much everything you said.
quote:Lying about the reason to go to war? No way Kwea, no way. Do you really believe that? That is another idea that Fahrenheit 9/11 pushes really hard. Do you know how many UN sanctions Saddam just shrugged off concerning his weapons buildup? Do you realize that everyone, and I mean all credible sources, said the same thing about the intelligence on Iraq? Hell, even the French thought had WMDs capable of imminent threats to many countries. Viewing that intelligence, his lack of honesty in the past, his unwillingness to conform to UN sanctions, almost everyone from both parties was on board for the invasion of Iraq. President Bush gave a speech long before we invaded, in front of the UN, giving Saddam an ultimatum concerning his actions. It wasn't heeded.
Hah, how was he EVER going to meet the burden of proof that Bush laid out? He said to come clean with your weapons program, so Saddam opened Iraq to inspectors and turned over tens of thousands of pages of documents. A few weeks later we deemed that insufficient and invaded to find that Saddam didn't have anything. There were plenty of people in the intelligence community that doubted the nature of the intel we have on Saddam, and several of them warned, rightly, that Saddam might be lying just to put on a good face for countries like Iran. The opinion of Iraq's having WMDs was NOT universal in the intelligence community. There was no way to avoid war given Bush's drive. And there's also no way the American people would have supported it if A. They knew all the facts that were knew even then, or B. That there weren't WMDs. We knew then that Saddam was actually the enemy of the people that attacked us, and Bush used our fears and desire for retribution as a catalyst for the war. He didn't bother to disclose that little tidbit. I won't even go into the ridiculously horrible way in which Bush prosecuted the war and what a botched job that was. Not even McCain disputes his horrible leadership in the early years of the war.
quote:The democratic party jumped ship quicker than rats fleeing a burning building once the war became unpopular. How is that for spine? How is that for putting conviction? Instead of standing by their votes to go in, they began to make very strange accusations that they were "lied to" or that they were "misled by Bush's intelligence."
How strange that when it was the popular idea, they were all fine with the intelligence. Once it became unpopular, instead of seeking out why the intelligence had failed, they chose to slander the President to make the case that they hadn't been wrong in the first place. Again, how about that conviction?
Meh, Democrats were never in favor of the war. They voted for it for two reasons: 1. I really think they thought Bush was going to give diplomacy a try. They foolishly believed that he was sincere when he said he'd exhaust every option before using force. 2. I think they wussed out and feared what the Republicans would do to them if they voted against the measure. They knew Republicans would wave the bloody shirt and cry havoc and they'd get trounched in the next election. Once the people turned on the war, they felt justified in voicing their opinions. I'm not a big fan of their behavior, but for different reasons than you.
quote:Looking at the intelligence leading up to the Iraq war, I wonder about Obama's initial opposition. I agree, in hindsight, it was a mistake to invade. But the intelligence pointed to a serious threat to our national security. Remember that we'd been very recently attacked on our soil and lost over three thousand of our citizens. Things look different now when we look back. But the threat felt very real when we, as a nation, watched those hearings when Colin Powell explained the danger facing us. He was on board, with all his long years of experience and good judgment.
Maybe because Obama realized that rushing to war was silly since Saddam had been there for years without taking action against us in any way, and that the people who were out to get us, Al Qaeda, were the enemies of Saddam, and not the people he would hand WMDs off to. We had time to do it the right way. To investigate, to build a coalition of allies to secure the country and to help share the financial burden. I think if we had Europe on our side, and had truly exhausted all other options, then Democrats, Obama included, might have been on board with a First Gulf War style invasion. We'll never know, but Obama's reasoning for opposing it is sound enough. Using the recent attack as justification to attack would have been like attacking Russia after Japan bombed Pearl Harbor. It actually helps the guys who just attacked you.
quote:Do you know what our former president was doing while Osama and his allies were formulating and executing the plan that led to September 11th?
Launching attacks on middle eastern terror targets, and stopping a genocide in the Balkans. Come on, don't get mad about Kwea going after Bush and then do the exact same thing and go after Clinton.
quote:Since they've taken office we've had the housing bubble crisis, a near recession, ridiculous gas prices, meanwhile Nancy Pelosi is more concerned about making it illegal to hire based on language barriers.
None of what happened is the fault of the Democrats, and I think you know it. That stuff was all YEARS in the making, and the Republicans had been in control of Congress for the previous 14 years. I don't know how you can foist off the blame on the guys who were in charge for a year when that stuff started happening instead of on the guys who sat idly by and did nothing for a decade and a half while those problems mounted.
quote:You don't see the Fox News team spewing the crap that the Daily Kos rumored about.
Oh come on. Terrorist fist bumps? Obama's a Muslim? Baby mama references? They aren't even trying to hide it.
quote:They've made John McCain seem like Bush Jr, which is about as far from the truth as you can get. He's the only candidate running with a long history of bi-partisanship.
::shrug:: Bush worked with Democrats to try and pass an immigration reform bill that Congressional Republicans killed. McCain has voted with Bush 89% of the time in the last year, and has averaged in the high 80's/low 90's for the earlier years of Bush's presidency, which pretty much matches Obama's voting rate with fellow Democrats. I care less about his bi-partisan credentials than I do about his actual policies. Some of them aren't bad. Obama's are just better.
quote:Anyway, this stuff just makes me depressed. Kwea, take a few days to reply, go out and really, objectively read and research most of the things that CNN and Michael Moore have armed you with. You'll find that most are either misdirections, half-truths, or sometimes outright deceptions. It is an unfortunate thing, a sad thing.
I can't speak for Kwea, as I doubt he'd agree with me here, but I've more or less moved on from the whole Iraq debacle. I'm more interested in how we get out and move on with fixing domestic problems that the Republicans totally ignored for the six years they controlled the Legislative and Executive branches of government. We have huge problems that need fixing. And I'm sick to death of seeing misleading ads on tv from the GOP and from McCain about how Democrats are singlehandedly to blame for high gas prices. It's lying, and it's preying on the ignorance of a population that doesn't fully understand the issue. You're telling people exactly what they want to hear and pointing them in the direction of someone to blame. It's descpicable.
McCain isn't Bush Jr., but he's also far from the centrist maverick that he claims to be. It would be nice if he'd actually discuss some policy once and awhile. I want to know what HE wants to do to the country, not just how awesome he was 40 years ago when he was a POW and how much he hates Obama. Stop waving the flag and start waving some position papers.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
The economy was not doing fine until 2006. At the beginning of the Bush presidency there was a recession, and after that recession was the worst recovery in decades of recoveries. Job growth was there, but far less than usual. GDP growth was there, but far less than normal. Et cetera.
That was happening well before 2006. That you didn't notice the problems with the economy until after 2006 speaks to the Bush administration's ability to make things sound good, not to any actual high quality in the economy.
Almost all of the recover problems can be attributed to one, simple thing: huge amounts of deficit spending on the war.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
I think Moore is an idiot, and no more truthful than Bush and Cheney, so try again.
Your sweeping, informed generalizations of people who disagree with you only serve to show how little you care about actual information.
You should look into a new career...perhaps becoming a Rush Limbaugh fact-checker.
I was able to find PLENTY of errors on ALL of Moore's pictures (those that I have bothered to see, which is only 2...and 9-11 wasn't one of them, actually) without any help.
I don't like McCain because of his willingness to work for the same people who did a hatchet job on him the first time he tried to run. I also don't like most of his political views, which I HAVE researched.
And comparing him to Bush IS fair game...because until Obama became such a force, McCain was trying to run on Bush's coat tails. Now all of a sudden is is for CHANGE. Give me a break. The only thing he wants to change are 3 or 4 SCOTUS justices.
Despite his newfound love of change....except where HE is concerned, of course, because HE is different....he has toed the party line, even when doing so went against his well know personal values (back when he had some, that is), in order to get the nomination this time around. NOW all of a sudden he want to bring change....with a voting record that is aligned with Bush almost 90% of the time.
Unlike your allegations of where I get my information.....an accusation made with NO experience on this board, with no personal interaction with me ever before, and made with no attempt to actually ask what I believe....I made a rational inference based on his past behaviors and voting records. I also made sure I phrased it as my personal opinion, saying I had lost respect for him.
Let me get this out of the way, since you are so uninformed (and don't seem to be likely to change that on your own); I am also a US veteran, and are at least 6 other members of my family, and have a level 2 TS clearance with the Army, so I am not Un-American, or a traitor either. I have a lot of respect for McCain because of his wartime experiences, but I don't think he is owed a Presidency for them.
I also think he will be a good President if he is elected, or he will try to be one at least. Not one I will agree with most of the time, but one I could respect. I just worry because I honestly feel he has been compromised at this point.
Most elections are between two choices that was FAR worse than this one will be. Either way we should have a decent President. I just don't want more of the same one crap.
I just don't like what Washington has done to him the past 8 years. Then again, considering what Washington has done to this country in the same time frame, what else could I have expected.
So please...stop. Stop trying to say war was a Democrat's idea. Stop pretending Congress wasn't deceived at worse, misinformed at beast regarding Iraq. Stop pretending that the economy only crashed a year ago, and that health care is working for anyone but the richest of Americans.
You know, the McCain "middle class American" who makes up to 5 million a year.
Let's talk about alternative energy as well as the actual effectiveness of our current means of producing such fuels. Let's talk about the infrastructure that is crumbling, and what we can do about it.
Who freaking cares how Palin wears her hair. Hell, she will be VP....I am not sure how much her opinion of most of this matters, unless something happens to McCain.
And let's ask Palin where the hell the money for that bridge to nowhere went, since she love to take credit for not building it. She had the funds reclassified, and then kept the cash and spent it on other things. She had the right to do so....no doubt about it...but why the hell is she trying to say that keeping the cash saved tax dollars?
That isn't cutting costs to me. It is earmarking it without letting Congress have any say how it is spent.
Lets hear about what TYPE of changes they both want to bring about, and start looking at where they agree as well as where they differ.
[ September 08, 2008, 07:33 PM: Message edited by: Kwea ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Funny how the polls say most people believe Gov. Palin is more qualified to be president than Obama.
Do you believe that, Ron?
----------
quote:There are millions of people who think this kind of thing, even though there are little facts to back it up.
Personally, I blame Fox News. Posted by SoaPiNuReYe (Member # 9144) on :
She isn't that hot. Her daughter is though...
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
I don't think she's that hot-- but I envy any woman who has had multiple children, including one recently (our babies are about the same age), and has that kind of figure. Wow.
I do think it's crazy that someone with a very small baby (ESPECIALLY one with Down Syndrome) is running for VP, though. And I'd say the same if she was not a woman. I can't imagine committing to that kind of thing while I had a baby this age, never mind a baby this age who needs extra medical care.
Posted by String (Member # 6435) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: [qb]
quote:Posted by String: I have to disagree with you Kwea, while John McCain has done his share of 'playing the game', I think he has kept it considerably cleaner than most of his counterparts.
I would have agreed with you before this campaign started. He's learned a lot in a very short period of time. I've seen a couple of bad Obama ads, but nothing compared to the avalanche of crap that I've seen on TV coming from McCain. Half-truths, bald faced lies, and a lot of misdirection from him. I've yet to see him actually talk about his own plans, it's all just attack ads.
The ads are all worthless. If everyone realized that campaign ads are just like any other ad, 15-30 seconds of bull. As far as ads or rhetoric are concerned, I have not heard much of anything of substance from either party. Although I do think that the McCain campaign's V.P. choice has made for some great press. It's taken away allot of what Obama has going for him, Novelty. Now all the cameras are on Palin and her new baby. Doesn't help inform anyone, but it has been good for the polls. I just can't believe that Obama has shifted focus to her as well. He needs to stay on McCain flaws if hopes to win, not focus on his V.P.
quote:Lying about the reason to go to war? No way Kwea, no way. Do you really believe that? That is another idea that Fahrenheit 9/11 pushes really hard. Do you know how many UN sanctions Saddam just shrugged off concerning his weapons buildup? Do you realize that everyone, and I mean all credible sources, said the same thing about the intelligence on Iraq? Hell, even the French thought had WMDs capable of imminent threats to many countries. Viewing that intelligence, his lack of honesty in the past, his unwillingness to conform to UN sanctions, almost everyone from both parties was on board for the invasion of Iraq. President Bush gave a speech long before we invaded, in front of the UN, giving Saddam an ultimatum concerning his actions. It wasn't heeded.
quote:Hah, how was he EVER going to meet the burden of proof that Bush laid out? He said to come clean with your weapons program, so Saddam opened Iraq to inspectors and turned over tens of thousands of pages of documents. A few weeks later we deemed that insufficient and invaded to find that Saddam didn't have anything. There were plenty of people in the intelligence community that doubted the nature of the intel we have on Saddam, and several of them warned, rightly, that Saddam might be lying just to put on a good face for countries like Iran. The opinion of Iraq's having WMDs was NOT universal in the intelligence community. There was no way to avoid war given Bush's drive. And there's also no way the American people would have supported it if A. They knew all the facts that were knew even then, or B. That there weren't WMDs. We knew then that Saddam was actually the enemy of the people that attacked us, and Bush used our fears and desire for retribution as a catalyst for the war. He didn't bother to disclose that little tidbit. I won't even go into the ridiculously horrible way in which Bush prosecuted the war and what a botched job that was. Not even McCain disputes his horrible leadership in the early years of the war.
I whole heartedly agree Lyrhawn. Bush's Wasteful and pointless war is a travesty. It went against over 200 years of this country's foreign policy. The war on terror has crippled out credibility and painted us (truthfully) as world police.
quote:Since they've taken office we've had the housing bubble crisis, a near recession, ridiculous gas prices, meanwhile Nancy Pelosi is more concerned about making it illegal to hire based on language barriers.
quote:None of what happened is the fault of the Democrats, and I think you know it. That stuff was all YEARS in the making, and the Republicans had been in control of Congress for the previous 14 years. I don't know how you can foist off the blame on the guys who were in charge for a year when that stuff started happening instead of on the guys who sat idly by and did nothing for a decade and a half while those problems mounted.
Come on guys, are we really arguing that republicans or democrats cause high gas prices?
quote:They've made John McCain seem like Bush Jr, which is about as far from the truth as you can get. He's the only candidate running with a long history of bi-partisanship.
quote:::shrug:: Bush worked with Democrats to try and pass an immigration reform bill that Congressional Republicans killed. McCain has voted with Bush 89% of the time in the last year, and has averaged in the high 80's/low 90's for the earlier years of Bush's presidency, which pretty much matches Obama's voting rate with fellow Democrats. I care less about his bi-partisan credentials than I do about his actual policies. Some of them aren't bad. Obama's are just better.
Not going to argue with you about your opinion on who's positions are better, but isn't a president who can listen to his opposition and work with them important to the governance of our country?
McCain voting with bush 90% of the time is not true. For one, Bush cannot vote in the senate, he's the president. Two most of those votes with his party were unanimous party votes, if you take all the votes that are not unanimous, McCain only votes with republicans about 48% of the time since bush has been in office. Over all his votes with party are something like 33 out of 46, which is no where near 90% of the time. But don't take my word for it, look it up.
Also nobody has mentioned what I brought up earlier. Everyone was a McCain fan when he ran against bush. He has not changed his entire person and character in the last year. He is simply doing what all politicians do gearing up to the general election, scrambling to please as many people as he can.
[ September 09, 2008, 04:21 AM: Message edited by: String ]
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
I was using McCain's own words to describe his voting record. It isn't my fault if he doesn't even know what his won voting record is, or isn't above lying about it to further his political aims.
I know the President doesn't vote, but this was about how often he backs plans endorsed by Bush. Once again, in his own words.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
TomDavidson, most definitely I believe Gov. Sarah Palin would be a better president than Sen. Obama. All of our adversaries in the world would think that Obama would be a naive pushover, and act accordingly. This happened when Sen. John Kennedy was elected president, and the Russian leader, Nikita Khruschev, was emboldened to stash Russian nuclear-armed strategic missiles in Cuba. Kennedy had to bring us to the brink of WWIII by blockading Cuba and demanding that the missiles be removed, and that any Russian attempt to launch nuclear missiles at America would result in immediate, automatic, and total retaliation. Would we have to go through this with Obama? I think it could not be avoided, because the freshman senator from Illinois is so lacking in experience. Gov. Palin has a much better sense that there really is evil in the world that needs to be opposed. Her bio, and her record, show that she has a strongly ingrained sense of moral right and wrong, and does not hesitate to take down those who need to be taken down, no matter who they are.
And isn't it eye-opening how many comparisons are being made now between Palin and Obama, instead of between the two vice-presidential candidates? Even those comparisons show up Obama's threadbare lack of experience.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:TomDavidson, most definitely I believe Gov. Sarah Palin would be a better president than Sen. Obama.
That wasn't the question. I asked whether you felt she was, at this point in her life, more qualified.
quote:And isn't it eye-opening how many comparisons are being made now between Palin and Obama...
Yeah. I've been kind of surprised how many Republicans are willing to admit, straight-up, that they apparently expect McCain to die in office.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I'm really discouraged with Palin and Mccain.
Palin continues asserting that she said no thanks to the 'Bridge to Nowhere,' when, in fact, she was a strong supporter of the project until Congress had decided to kill it. She was responsible for bringing $200 mil to Alaska for that project. (If NPR reports are to be believed...)
Posted by Epictetus (Member # 6235) on :
I think both parties are concerned with evil in the world. It just seems to me that Democrats target unspecified evils at home while Republicans target unspecified evils abroad. It depends on where your priorities are. I think Obama would be the best choice because he's willing to talk with our enemies, but I don't think he's going to back away from challenges we face abroad either.
Also, Gov. Palin reminds me of Peggy Hill.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by String: Come on guys, are we really arguing that republicans or democrats cause high gas prices?
Oh you can't blame a single side for that one. I'd say everyone in power since the 70's is to blame. I give everyone before that a bit of a break because they couldn't imagine just how bad things were, but that argument certainly disappears in the wake of the oil crisis that followed. But instead of combating the problem, successive generations have only deepened it. That one goes way across party lines. I was less trying to foist blame off on Republicans than I was pointing out the extreme hypocrisy in blaming people who have been in power for 2 years for not fixing a problem that they ignored for 14.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Her bio, and her record, show that she has a strongly ingrained sense of moral right and wrong, and does not hesitate to take down those who need to be taken down, no matter who they are.
Really? Because the Alaskan Republican party machinery is the same thing as terrorists holed up in a cave in Waziristan?
I'd prefer someone in office who would carefully consider evidence and build coalitions before going to war, rather than people who think they are on a religious crusade to crush a specific set of ideals out of existence. Generally that hasn't worked out so well in history. And for that matter, I'd rather not have a loose canon foaming itching to attack someone. McCain can say he abhors war all he want, but his rhetoric sounds alarmingly like 2000-2007 Bush. 2008 Bush has actually sounded a lot more like Obama, which is odd for a whole different set of reasons.
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Palin continues asserting that she said no thanks to the 'Bridge to Nowhere,' when, in fact, she was a strong supporter of the project until Congress had decided to kill it. She was responsible for bringing $200 mil to Alaska for that project. (If NPR reports are to be believed...)
Her series of positions on the issue have been widely documented, but I think the best summation is on Factcheck.org Her current position on earmarks as a wasteful evil is a wholly new creation.
Posted by docmagik (Member # 1131) on :
I would post about how she put the state plane on ebay, but you'd just post about how she's a liar because it didn't sell, which is what she implied, even though she did sell it eventually so she was sincere, but by then we'd have forgotten about the whole discussion about unneccessary spending and we'd just be arguing over whether Palin was a liar or not, and I'm not interested in having that discussion so I'll just stay quiet.
Sort of.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:Also, Gov. Palin reminds me of Peggy Hill.
Oh my gosh, that's it! I knew she reminded me of someone and I've been trying to figure out who for a week!
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Her current position on earmarks as a wasteful evil is a wholly new creation.
I don't mind politicians coming around to a different way of thinking.
I mind when they say "I've always believed X! I've always done X!" and they really haven't done or (apparently) believed either.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by docmagik: I would post about how she put the state plane on ebay, but you'd just post about how she's a liar because it didn't sell, which is what she implied, even though she did sell it eventually so she was sincere, but by then we'd have forgotten about the whole discussion about unneccessary spending and we'd just be arguing over whether Palin was a liar or not, and I'm not interested in having that discussion so I'll just stay quiet.
Sort of.
Passive-aggressive much?
She tried to sell the plane, and eventually did, so I give her credit for that. Let's compare that to how much her state spends on her airfare while she was in office and she if she was right to do so. It looks good, and the taxpayers got the sale funds, so it is probably a good thing, IMO.
However, I am still waiting for her to come clean on the bridge to nowhere statement, as it is pretty much complete bullshit.
I won't be holding my breath for it though. Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:It looks good, and the taxpayers got the sale funds, so it is probably a good thing, IMO.
The plane was sold at a loss of something like $300,000, but that's neither here nor there. It's not her fault the guy before her bought it. There's a lawsuit pending I believe from the field where the plane was housed for fees that allegedly weren't paid for maintenance, but I don't blame her for that either.
Scott R -
I agree.
Posted by String (Member # 6435) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: I was using McCain's own words to describe his voting record. It isn't my fault if he doesn't even know what his won voting record is, or isn't above lying about it to further his political aims.
I know the President doesn't vote, but this was about how often he backs plans endorsed by Bush. Once again, in his own words.
I haven't heard that out of McCain's mouth. Not saying it wasn't said, but the only time I heard it was during an Obama speach
Posted by String (Member # 6435) on :
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen:
quote:Also, Gov. Palin reminds me of Peggy Hill.
Oh my gosh, that's it! I knew she reminded me of someone and I've been trying to figure out who for a week!
Se reminds me of the mom on Bobby's world.
Posted by String (Member # 6435) on :
hurf durf double post.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by String:
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: I was using McCain's own words to describe his voting record. It isn't my fault if he doesn't even know what his won voting record is, or isn't above lying about it to further his political aims.
I know the President doesn't vote, but this was about how often he backs plans endorsed by Bush. Once again, in his own words.
I haven't heard that out of McCain's mouth. Not saying it wasn't said, but the only time I heard it was during an Obama speach
I saw a video...and just a small clip, either, but fully in context...wheere he was bragging about it.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:When is the last time Barack Obama did anything bipartisan?
You say that like he didn't (for example) cosponsor Lugar-Obama.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Quasi substantive thought: Obama picked a Washington insider before McCain picked a grad student for their respective running mates.
Non-substantive thought: Does Palin ever wear the same pair of glasses twice? It's starting to mess with my head.
Palin and Obama both have a "I can't wait to get out of this stuffy outfit" hotness.
Posted by K. E. Spires (Member # 11743) on :
First off, wow, this is a very liberal board.
Second of all, Kwea, you claim that you haven't seen Fahrenheit 9/11 yet almost every claim you made in your original post is congruent with the bull from that film.
Also, someone claimed that we had an immediate recession after Bush took office. We had a slowdown, then after 9/11 we had a serious economic recession. You can't blame that on the war deficit. We weren't at war.
There is a lot of revisionist history here. There are also a lot of folks just running with every liberal tag-line they've heard over the last four years of smears.
I'm not saying this war was a democrats idea. I'm saying that almost all the liberals were on board when it was the popular idea. The conservatives stuck to it when it got tough. The liberals jump ship. They do that because, morally, they're flimsy. Most are pro-infanticide (including their presidential pick) and they go where the popularity goes. You can't say that about our current president. He sticks to his convictions.
Also, wars cost money. Sorry, they just do. Until we find a way to fight one for free, we can't complain too much about the cost of this one. If you factor in inflation and other changes since the 40's, WWII would have cost about three trillion dollars I believe. Fighting Al Qaeda on several fronts, giving 50 million people the opportunity to vote, and winning, costs money. On the whole this war is inexpensive in lives and money.
Now I don't care how many posts everyone has. I don't care whether you're a veteran. I didn't say anything about your personal life other than those things associated with the liberal views you put forth. Bush has a low popularity right now. But he made decisions based on the exact same intelligence that everyone else got to see. Congress made the same decision. He made the decision. Most of the American people supported it. At the time it was the agreed upon course of action. It wasn't Bush's decision alone and he did not deceive anyone to get the course of action approved.
I am proud that when this is over and all the soldiers come home, we'll have made a democracy in Iraq. It wasn't our initial intention. I'm not an idiot. Our initial intention was the remove a threat. In the process though we liberated the Iraqi people. Their voter turn out, even amidst violence, is incredible. We'll have been the ones who stood up and did what was right and necessary to protect our homeland.
Also, Bush didn't destroy 200 years of foreign policy. Good grief, what about Vietnam, Korea, Grenada, Somalia, and various other conflicts large or small. We have a history of intervening militarily when our interest are threatened. Sometimes, such as Somalia, we fought for very short times and attached to UN troops. Al Qaeda, by the way, accounts for some of our casualties, according to bin Laden in an interview later one. Our foreign policies have always been diplomacy first (which was followed with Saddam and he did not meet the burden of proof), then sanctions (which Saddam repeatedly shrugged off), then, if no other recourse is available, military action.
And I am not convinced that it has "destroyed" our credibility. Frankly, I don't much care how the Europeans and the like see us. I'd rather our enemies see us win this war, stand strong when we make a decision, and fear stepping over the line when it comes to the US. When this war is won, if everyone will just let our forces do their job, our enemies will see that when we start something, we finish it. What kind of message do you think it sends when popularity guides our foreign policy?
It has gotten so bad and, unfortunately, the democratic party has shifted so far left, that whatever foreign policy goes into effect needs to be resolved with a good turn around in 4 years or less otherwise the other party will threaten to pull the rug out from underneath it.
Our enemies are counting on us being flimsy. We can't afford to do that.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Typical Ron Lambert Post.
quote:Some interesting false information here. I am amazing myself with how inevitable I believe the progress for the Republican party is going to be! Hypothetical situation, yes or no? It is interesting when you compare today to the completely fictional progress of events I am presenting here as history. I postulate that a ridiculous chain of events is not only plausible but guaranteed! Isn't it eye opening? God supports republicans. Thug lyfe.
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
quote:Originally posted by K. E. Spires: I'm not saying this war was a democrats idea. I'm saying that almost all the liberals were on board when it was the popular idea.
You're reversing cause and effect. Popularity is by definition having people support it. When all liberals (and many conservatives) stopped supporting the war, *then* it became unpopular - by definition.
quote:The conservatives stuck to it when it got tough. The liberals jump ship. They do that because, morally, they're flimsy.
The liberals supported the war when they thought it was helping people. When they realized otherwise, they stopped supporting it. That's because they're morally lucid -- while conservatives support the continuation of the war mainly for purposes of pride.
quote:He sticks to his convictions.
Which is another way of saying that he doesn't let facts get in the way of his preconceived opinions.
quote:Bush has a low popularity right now. But he made decisions based on the exact same intelligence that everyone else got to see.
No, it's quite clear that he made the decision beforehand, and then kept pushing the "intelligence" that supported his already taken decision.
quote:I am proud that when this is over and all the soldiers come home, we'll have made a democracy in Iraq.
Or perhaps you'll have just replaced a secular independent dictatorship, with an Islamist dictatorship subservient to Iran.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Samprimary: literal Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
*Waves*
Some liberals opposed the war from the beginning because we were pretty sure that it would be the disaster it has been. It was also clear that the administration was cherry picking the intelligence. And that we would be replacing a secular dictatorship with an Islamist one. And that it would really screw up the progress that Iran was making toward a more moderate culture.
Plus we were reasonably certain that we didn't have the right to kill lots of people that hadn't actually done anything to us.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: *Waves*
Some liberals opposed the war from the beginning because we were pretty sure that it would be the disaster it has been. It was also clear that the administration was cherry picking the intelligence. And that we would be replacing a secular dictatorship with an Islamist one. And that it would really screw up the progress that Iran was making toward a more moderate culture.
Plus we were reasonably certain that we didn't have the right to kill lots of people that hadn't actually done anything to us.
QFT
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Yup. We lefties up here in Canada elected not to tag along on the Iraq misadventure -- and that was with a centrist government in office, by Canadian standards.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
"I'm not saying this war was a democrats idea. I'm saying that almost all the liberals were on board when it was the popular idea."
Obama wasn't.
Posted by Elmer's Glue (Member # 9313) on :
Oh, snap!
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
You keep questioning my statements, yet you claim to not be saying anything about my views or character.
Whatever.
I notice you don't care about anything that might give another person reason to disagree with you. How convenient. I didn't mention post counts...because I only barely care about that as well.
What I do care about are facts. It is a fact that I was speaking about a lot of this before Moore's hack job 9-11 came out. It is a fact that I have said many, many times that I disagree with his techniques and that I don't trust his honesty. I don't doubt his enthusiasm, or his fervor....but he needs a fact checker just as bad as Rush does.
It is also a fact that I have never sat down and watched 9-11 either.
I am just tired of Republicans....not all of them, but a lot of highly placed ones...claiming to own patriotism, and claiming to have the final say about what is and isn't American. Last time I checked they didn't have that right.
It matters that McCain was a veteran, but no one else's service history matters, unless they agree with you? Thank you for being so transparent that your agenda is evident within your first 3 posts.
Get over yourself. You have been here less than 2 weeks, but you already know who is lying about well know personal beliefs; you already can see the liberal slant, and feel you can adequately counter it; and you feel completely free to insult and belittle the views of people who have been a part of this community for years.
It is possible that people can look at the same facts and come to two completely different views without either one of them lying, or acting in poor faith. If you were interested in an actual discussion you would already know that, though.
It isn't about post counts, or about how long someone has been a member. To me at least, it IS about feeling like a part of a community where people are free to discuss ideas without being called a supporter of infanticide...which does NOT have the same definition of the word abortion, regardless of what you may think. (let me guess, the dictionary is run by a liberal cabal who drink babies blood out of fetus skulls ). Just because you wish to redefine a word doesn't mean we have to accept your skewed definition of it.
Particularly when your agenda for redefining it is telegraphed so obviously.
On a lighter note....
....I think we have found Bean Counter's soul mate.
[ September 11, 2008, 01:24 AM: Message edited by: Kwea ]
Posted by String (Member # 6435) on :
quote:Originally posted by K. E. Spires: First off, wow, this is a very liberal board.
What internet are you surfing?
Posted by Luet13 (Member # 9274) on :
With no interest in starting a huge debate :
Sarah Palin is kinda horrible.
(Direct response to thread title.)
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:....I think we have found Bean Counter's soul mate.
That is not a light accusation.
Bean Counter — and to a lesser extent, reshpec — were so bad, they were funny. They could galvanize. Ain't seeing it again yet.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I'm not even feeling adversarial, let alone galvanized.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
Actually, this board has a wide range of opinions including ultra-conservative libertarians, Republicans, Democrats, Independents, and nut jobs.
It's one of the reasons I like to come here to talk politics. Not too often I get a chance to actually have a meaningful discussion with people who might disagree with me. I realize not everyone can handle that...
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by Christine: Not too often I get a chance to actually have a meaningful discussion with people who might disagree with me. I realize not everyone can handle that...
Yep. Getting to have meaningful discussions with thoughtful, well intentioned people who held positions 180 degrees from my own was what really drew me into Hatrack, and I feel like I grew quite a bit as a person as a result of it.
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
quote:and nut jobs.
Hey! Quit talking about me if front of my back!
*shifty eyes*
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: *Waves*
Some liberals opposed the war from the beginning because we were pretty sure that it would be the disaster it has been. It was also clear that the administration was cherry picking the intelligence. And that we would be replacing a secular dictatorship with an Islamist one. And that it would really screw up the progress that Iran was making toward a more moderate culture.
Plus we were reasonably certain that we didn't have the right to kill lots of people that hadn't actually done anything to us.
I'd like to see some evidence that people who opposed the war in Iraq did so for the following reasons:
1) The administration was cherry picking the intelligence.
2)We would be replacing a secular dictatorship with an Islamist one.
3)It would really screw up the progress that Iran was making toward a more moderate culture.
To my recollection, most of the people who did not support the war from the very beginning used the illegality/immorality of the action ("we didn't have the right to kill lots of people that hadn't actually done anything to us.") to justify their stance.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I was kind of involved with anti-war activism at the time and all of the things I listed (and more) were reasons for many of the people I knew. They certainly were my reasons. What evidence of this would you like?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:To my recollection, most of the people who did not support the war from the very beginning used the illegality/immorality of the action ("we didn't have the right to kill lots of people that hadn't actually done anything to us.") to justify their stance
That's why I opposed it from the beginning. Pre-emptive war against an independent state was wrong then and it's wrong now, no matter how much trash-talking the dictator does.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
That was probably the most important reason for me, but it was one of many.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I'd like to see some evidence that people who opposed the war in Iraq did so for the following reasons
The reasons I gave back when people asked me why I opposed invading Iraq:
1) The administration was cherry-picking intelligence; 2) we'd risk destabilizing the region in favor of Shiite extremists; 3) the cost would far exceed the estimates provided, and would run into the hundreds of billions; 4) we were really invading to install permanent military bases in the area in preparation for a larger war, but were lying about our reasons because the administration didn't think they could sell the public on its real motivations; 5) pre-emptive war isn't something we should be doing.
I stand by all of those.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
quote:Originally posted by K. E. Spires: First off, wow, this is a very liberal board.
Well, the "board" as a whole, in membership, is probably about equal. However, when you are talking about vocal majority....
The rest of us learned some time back (and through last election) it is best to just remain silent, because there isn't a valid, respectful "exchange of ideas" here between two sides who can respect each other enough to just "agree to disagree" about some things.
Feel free to jump in, however, and see how it goes for you.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:What evidence of this would you like?
Editorials. Links. Posts.
Especially about the the strengthening of an Islamicist regime in Iran.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I didn't really post my conversations with people on the internet or what was said at meeting or rallies. Or write them down.
I am sorry that you seem to believe that I am not telling you the truth, but I will look for links of things that other people may have posted.
The likelihood of strengthening of the Islamicist regime in Iran was pretty self-evident, though. Iraq had been our ally in keeping Iran contained. Saddam Hussein imposed a secular rule in Iraq. Our invasion makes other countries in the region more anti-western which makes it more difficult for the budding moderate student movement in Iran to gain traction. How would any of those things not help the extremists in Iran to consolidate power?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:The likelihood of strengthening of the Islamicist regime in Iran was pretty self-evident, though.
It's possible it was, and I don't remember the argument being made. Thus, my request for evidence that there was this concern being broadcast generally.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:I'd like to see some evidence that people who opposed the war in Iraq did so for the following reasons:
Well, I can't speak for "people who opposed the war" in general, but I can speak for myself. Unfortunately, I think the threads before August 2003 are gone, so I can't provide evidence from before the war started. However, I can provide links from shortly thereafter...
1) The administration was cherry picking the intelligence. Shortly before the Iraq War began, I started a thread about the concept of "innocent until proven guilty" and suggested that it should apply to Iraq - since the stakes are so high when contemplating invading a whole country. I said that we shouldn't go to war unless the administration could provide smoking-gun evidence to support what it claimed it knew. Unfortunately, that thread has been deleted.
3)It would really screw up the progress that Iran was making toward a more moderate culture. This is one I don't think I ever, personally, thought. At least not about Iran specifically. But I definitely had said countless times that an Iraq War would (generally speaking) cause an increase in support for radical Islam around the world.
quote:To my recollection, most of the people who did not support the war from the very beginning used the illegality/immorality of the action ("we didn't have the right to kill lots of people that hadn't actually done anything to us.") to justify their stance.
That's because that was the strawman oversimplification of the anti-war argument that kept being floated around. Proponents of the war often weren't listening to the more complicated argument, and replying only to the simplified version.
There is a reason why we obey laws and morals. Things like "invading other countries without just cause" aren't illegal and immoral just for the heck of it. That reason is because we've found that, even though the people doing the invading often think it is for the best, it nevertheless usually causes harm in the big picture. Numbers 1-3 above are examples of this.
When folks said that we shouldn't invade because it wasn't justified, it was more complicated than simply expressing a concern for doing the right thing. It was because acting wrongly tends to cause unforeseen bad results.
[ September 11, 2008, 01:45 PM: Message edited by: Tresopax ]
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Yes, of course, Gov. Palin is better qualified to be president right now, than Sen. Obama, who has spent most of his short legislative career voting "present." Palin has actually accomplished substantive things that brought about major changes and reform.
As for admitting Sen. McCain might die in office, it is simply a logical respect for actuarial statististics. But remember, McCain's mother is 96 and still going strong (she was at the Republican Convention). It appears that McCain could have good genes for longevity.
It also seems like a fifty-fifty proposition at this point whether McCain would run for a second term when he is 76. The presidency ages people, turns their hair prematurely white. Of course, McCain's hair is already white.
I really, really wish that McCain had won the Republican primary in 2000. Then the victory over Gore would have been by a landslide (according to most polls), so there would have been no concern over "hanging chads" and the courts stealing the election. I think McCain would have handled the aftermath to 9/11 better, using the military more effectively. I really do not know for sure if McCain would have chosen to invade Iraq. I always had the feeling that Bush Jr. felt obliged to bail out his father for failing to send US tanks on to Baghdad after successfully liberating Kuwait.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by Christine: Actually, this board has a wide range of opinions including ultra-conservative libertarians, Republicans, Democrats, Independents, and nut jobs.
It's one of the reasons I like to come here to talk politics. Not too often I get a chance to actually have a meaningful discussion with people who might disagree with me. I realize not everyone can handle that...
Amen.
Ron....brace yourself....
I wish McCain had won as well, and I don't think we would be in the same situation as we are now if he had.
It is too bad Bush didn't read his father's book....and he admitted he had never read it a few years ago, btw....because it lists many reasons why we didn't go all in during his father's administration.
The two biggest reasons why he didn't?
Cost and destabilization of the area, which would lead to greater power and influence of anti-American groups and religious extremists.
Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
It's really interesting to read news articles from 2001-2002 about the possibility of an Iraqi War. I came across an estimate in 2002 of 80-100 billion dollars for the war. That seemed awfully low. A March '08 estimate? Three trillion which includes costs for lives lost.
quote:Former White House economic adviser Lawrence Lindsey reckoned that the conflict would cost $100 billion to $200 billion; Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld later called his estimate "baloney." Administration officials insisted that the costs would be more like $50 billion to $60 billion. In April 2003, Andrew S. Natsios, the thoughtful head of the U.S. Agency for International Development, said on "Nightline" that reconstructing Iraq would cost the American taxpayer just $1.7 billion. Ted Koppel, in disbelief, pressed Natsios on the question, but Natsios stuck to his guns. Others in the administration, such as Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz, hoped that U.S. partners would chip in, as they had in the 1991 Persian Gulf War, or that Iraq's oil would pay for the damages. ... By the time you add in the costs hidden in the defense budget, the money we'll have to spend to help future veterans, and money to refurbish a military whose equipment and materiel have been greatly depleted, the total tab to the federal government will almost surely exceed $1.5 trillion. But the costs to our society and economy are far greater. When a young soldier is killed in Iraq or Afghanistan, his or her family will receive a U.S. government check for just $500,000 (combining life insurance with a "death gratuity") -- far less than the typical amount paid by insurance companies for the death of a young person in a car accident. The stark "budgetary cost" of $500,000 is clearly only a fraction of the total cost society pays for the loss of life -- and no one can ever really compensate the families. Moreover, disability pay seldom provides adequate compensation for wounded troops or their families. Indeed, in one out of five cases of seriously injured soldiers, someone in their family has to give up a job to take care of them.
But beyond this is the cost to the already sputtering U.S. economy. All told, the bill for the Iraq war is likely to top $3 trillion. And that's a conservative estimate.
No matter if you believe 1.5 trillion or 3 trillion... this is a staggering and horrifying amount.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Yes, of course, Gov. Palin is better qualified to be president right now, than Sen. Obama, who has spent most of his short legislative career voting "present."
I'm curious how short you think Obama's legislative career has been. If city and state-level government doesn't count, I'm pretty sure that leaves Palin with no experience.
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
quote: I'd like to see some evidence that people who opposed the war in Iraq did so for the following reasons:
1) The administration was cherry picking the intelligence.
2)We would be replacing a secular dictatorship with an Islamist one.
3)It would really screw up the progress that Iran was making toward a more moderate culture.
Ron Paul has addressed that quite thoroughly. My notes on this particular interview on why he doesn't support the war:
quote: 1: No new information in last two months, 2 years, or even 12 years—military is weak. We are only talking about presumptions and vague accusations. 2: Nothing imminent from Saddam—he didn’t shoot down airplane in 12 years and army is 1/3 the size it was in first invasion. 3: He has not committed an act of aggression. 4: Israel and moderate Arabs have more of a stake to deal with Saddam then us and we should not hold them back. 5: Philosophical basis to oppose the war is the Christian Just War” theory: Has to be defensive and declared by proper authorities. Responsibility is on house and senate to make declaration of war—they should not have given that authority to Bush. 6: When war is initiated through the back door (not having proper declaration from congress), it tends to last longer and have unintended consequences. 7: Iraq’s were not trying to kill us. Supported funding to go after Osama, but we got diverted. 8: Taking over a Muslim Country will have more blowback. 9: War is not popular politically because people die and it hurts the economy. 10: The media (talk radio as well as supposed liberal media like CNN) and the administration presented the vague intelligence in a way to support war.
Altho this piece (the first one that came to my mind) did not spell out your concerns so clearly, I can attest that:
1) Paul made the case that there was no new intelligence to support the invasion. The presumptions were presented to the public in such a way to promote war--both by the administration and all types of media.
2)That unintended consequences would include the possibility of the people voting a Islamic Dictator instead of a secular one.
3) By us being the ones to overthrow a Muslim country there would be more blow back against us--including moderate Muslims in Iran unifying against us. If we were true non interventionists (and not Isolationists) then Israel and moderate Arabs could deal with the situation much more effectively.
Like I said, I don't have the exact quotes on those three points, but this summary of this interview should show that direction. I can look for more precise quotes if you like.
[ September 11, 2008, 04:57 PM: Message edited by: lem ]
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: Ron....brace yourself....
I wish McCain had won as well, and I don't think we would be in the same situation as we are now if he had.
Me, too. I voted for him in the primary.I only became a rabid democrat when Pres. Bush was nominated.
Sen. McCain is not the same person he was. At least he doesn't act like the same person. He has caved to the right wing of the party. He even hired the same people who trashed him in South Carolina, people whose tactics he rightly deplored. And given the situation in Iraq and Sen. McCain's apparent eagerness for more war, he is a dangerous choice in 2008.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
I would have voted for McCain 8 years ago or even 4 years ago. Wish the same guy were running today.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:What evidence of this would you like?
Editorials. Links. Posts.
Especially about the the strengthening of an Islamicist regime in Iran.
Re: Cherry Picking Intelligence (to start)
Okay. There is a lot to sort through and not all of the places I was getting news are well archived. Here are a few though:
quote: With the intelligence all pointing toward bin Laden, Rumsfeld ordered the military to begin working on strike plans. And at 2:40 p.m., the notes quote Rumsfeld as saying he wanted "best info fast. Judge whether good enough hit S.H." – meaning Saddam Hussein – "at same time. Not only UBL" – the initials used to identify Osama bin Laden.
Now, nearly one year later, there is still very little evidence Iraq was involved in the Sept. 11 attacks. But if these notes are accurate, that didn't matter to Rumsfeld.
"Go massive," the notes quote him as saying. "Sweep it all up. Things related and not."
Published on Tuesday, January 28, 2003 by CommonDreams.org The Evidence Bush is Withholding Weakens, Not Strengthens the Case for War
Had I more time, I could link to dozens more. These were just the first few I came across in the first couple of months I started checking.
Not to mention that the Office of Special Plans was created in the fall of 2002. What did people think it was for?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Parts 2 and 3 seem (again) obvious.
Iraq has a Shiite majority, they were suppressed by Saddam Hussein. If we remove that suppression, we will have to deal with a pro-Islamicist majority in Iraq. Similar to the one in Iran. How could this not be a problem?
I will go sift through links, though.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
My reasons for opposing the war are mostly aligned with Tom's, but to add to what he said:
1. I thought inspections should have been given more of a try, and that the burden of proof was wrong formulated to create a situation impossible for Iraq to get out of. 2. There was nothing in place to replace Saddam. "Democracy" isn't a one size fits all solution. Saddam was a force that kept together a region that since birth was determined to fly apart. 3. We had relatively few allies on our side, and it shouldn't be done without a large coalition of forces.
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Yes, of course, Gov. Palin is better qualified to be president right now, than Sen. Obama, who has spent most of his short legislative career voting "present."
I'm curious how short you think Obama's legislative career has been. If city and state-level government doesn't count, I'm pretty sure that leaves Palin with no experience.
Come on Tom, that's namby pamby legislative experience, not super awesome, totally cool mayoral or gubanatorial experience. It only counts when it's executive experience.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
Spires--one thing I find weak in the AM-Radio Republicans is that they have a "them or us" attitude. If you disagree on anything you are a scum-liberal. The problem is that those people who disagree on one or two things realize that they are neither scum nor liberal. They then disregard everything else you have to say.
Only those who are invested heavily in the Conservative label and are willing to subjugate all of their ideals to what some other person defines as the "conservative" view is still going to listen to you.
Back to Governor Palin.
When I first heard Senator McCain's choice I was worried. Could he have found a way to gather the disappointed Hillary vote? Was this woman the wonderful Maverick that was being promoted and could this end Senator Obama's campaign?
Then there was the first week of revelations. Again I was afraid, were we unearthing some Crusading Faith-monger so Christianly conservative that all others risk being burned at the stake if she becomes President?
Now, however, after researching all the accusations and revelations, the lies pro and con, I am just saddened.
She is merely a politician, a petty one at that, more interested in her own electability than in any true cause.
I consider her a "Centurion in Temple Robes."
What is that? Well, there is a story.
For a time Rome held Israel, and even some within the Temple itself bowed to the might of Rome. One day, being a bit curious, a Centurion of Rome slipped into the Temple to see what happened there. He was impressed with the devotion and worship that the Isrealites gave to their God.
The next day he forced the Temple priests into disguising him as one of them. He would slip on one of their robes and join the other priests in leading the prayers.
He even memorized enough Hebrew so as to say the right words.
When he stood up there and the hundreds in the room bowed to God, he thought "They are bowing to me". When they gave up Praise and Worship to God, he thought "They are praising me. They are worshiping me." When the swore to obey God's law he thought "They have sworn to obey me."
And the saddest part of the story is that a few, seeing him in the correct robes, hearing the correct language out of his mouth, believed as he did.
But the Centurion, who could have used his time in the Temple of God to find his faith, or to discuss with the wisest of Israel the meaning of God's word, he sought only to seek donations to line his pockets.
Posted by String (Member # 6435) on :
quote:Originally posted by Christine: I would have voted for McCain 8 years ago or even 4 years ago. Wish the same guy were running today.
It amazes me that so many people can believe that john McCain would actually run the country differently than he would have eight years ago. He changed campaign tactics this time around because he wants to win. He has to get elected to make a difference. Abe Lincoln ran on a pro slavery platform, If he had not, he would not have become president. If John McCain (Who some people SAY they would have voted for) Had used those "deplorable" tactics eight years ago, everyone might have gotten what they wanted, and we wouldn't we might not have had the republic party hi-jacked by a bunch of neo cons trying to redefine what it means to be a conservative.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I think it comes down to a question of integrity. I wouldn't have voted for McCain in any election, so I can't say for sure, but after he railed against the tactics Bush used, to use those same tactics, and even worse, to use tactics that even Karl Rove has called over the line puts him pretty low on my totem pole of respect.
I would never vote for a guy who was willing to absolutely do or say anything to get to the office. That's part of why I didn't support Clinton. As her campaign went on and it appeared she wouldn't coast to victory, she showed a vicious, honorless streak in her that totally turned me off to her.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
For me it is the aformentioned integrity and a grasp of issues that he doesn't seem to have anymore.
Different times call for different leaders. The US wasn't in the same "place" eight years ago. We weren't involved in two wars. Though he seems pretty gung ho about Iraq now, I don't know that he (minus VP Cheney) would have rushed us into that war in the first place. Since we are there, he seems inclined to stay. As the world is now, I think he would be a disasterous president.
Posted by St. Yogi (Member # 5974) on :
quote:The New York Times runs a lengthy article today on how the 9/11 attacks contributed to Sen. John McCain’s (R-AZ) foreign policy, particulary his aggression towards Iraq. “A terrorist resides in Baghdad,” he said in Feb. 2002, adding, “A day of reckoning is approaching”:
quote: Within a month he made clear his priority. “Very obviously Iraq is the first country,” he declared on CNN. By Jan. 2, Mr. McCain was on the aircraft carrier Theodore Roosevelt in the Arabian Sea, yelling to a crowd of sailors and airmen: “Next up, Baghdad!” […]
“These networks are well-embedded in some of these countries,” Mr. McCain said on Sept. 12, listing Iraq, Iran and Syria as potential targets of United States pressure.
In written answers to the Times, McCain blamed “Iraq’s opacity under Saddam” for any misleading remarks he made about the threat. Weeks after 9/11, McCain told Larry King that he would have named Donald Rumsfeld and Colin Powell to a McCain cabinet. “Oh, yes, and Cheney,” McCain added, saying he would have offered Dick Cheney the vice presidency. Update One month after 9/11, McCain was already warning that "the second phase is Iraq."
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Anyone else notice Peggy Hill and Palin are almost identical?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
That is something I didn't know about Sen. McCain at the time.
In other news, Gov. Palin refusing to meet with investigators regarding the firing of Walter Monegan is not what I would call the behavior of a champion of accountable, transparent government.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I think it comes down to a question of integrity. I wouldn't have voted for McCain in any election, so I can't say for sure, but after he railed against the tactics Bush used, to use those same tactics, and even worse, to use tactics that even Karl Rove has called over the line puts him pretty low on my totem pole of respect.
I would never vote for a guy who was willing to absolutely do or say anything to get to the office. That's part of why I didn't support Clinton. As her campaign went on and it appeared she wouldn't coast to victory, she showed a vicious, honorless streak in her that totally turned me off to her.
I agree completely. I don't think McCain would be a disaster, but I don't trust him any more. Anyone who could not only work for the guy who did that to him, but could then turn around and claim to be a maverick despite that doesn't get my vote.
Please not that I don't dislike him, but I don't agree with a lot of his political positions, and don't like his support for the Bush admin's policies despite the unmitigated disaster they have been. That shows a disconnect with reality IMO, and makes me fear he will continue to throw our resources away at the current rate.
When I think what I could have spent all the money on the war on it makes my blood boil, and I am not even a public servant. Even with no training or education in the field, I could hardly spent the money any worse....and at least our own country would have benefited.
[ September 15, 2008, 11:09 PM: Message edited by: Kwea ]
Posted by K. E. Spires (Member # 11743) on :
In the interest of intellectual honesty...
Since the fit hit the shan with the economy, I'm going to be voting for Barack.
He'll help push through more regulation. I'm not a democrat, but good grief, the republican addiction to the free market has caused enough havoc.
If we let the guys and gals up on Wall Street do whatever they want, they'll do stupid stuff like this.
I'm frustrated.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I understand your frustration, but a few minor points:
Capitalism != letting Wall Street do what it wants.
A substantial part of the most problematic securities were created by semi-private companies (the FMs) able to borrow at gov't rates, not market rates, making them carry less risk while securing more (short term) gain.
Many of the other problematic securities (credit swaps) were created to deal with increased regulation on the grade of debt/investment various kinds of companies were allowed to hold as part of capital requirements. That is, it is possible to acquire one grade of debt, then effectively switch it out for another grade of debt. There's nothing inherently wrong with credit swaps, but because they were being used for regulatory arbitrage they ended up spreading risk without diluting it all that much.
Heck, without mark to market accounting, the credit collapse certainly wouldn't have happened so dramatically (though there would have been some sort of decline). That was a practice mandated by Sarbanes-Oxley, of course.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Anyone else notice Peggy Hill and Palin are almost identical?
Only in that they are both women and they are both brunettes. Beyond that they are completely different.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Maybe its the accent.
Posted by Elmer's Glue (Member # 9313) on :
They also have glasses.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Anyone else notice Peggy Hill and Palin are almost identical?
Only in that they are both women and they are both brunettes. Beyond that they are completely different.
They're both cartoons.... OOOOHHHHH!
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Anyone else notice Peggy Hill and Palin are almost identical?
Only in that they are both women and they are both brunettes. Beyond that they are completely different.
They're both cartoons.... OOOOHHHHH!
And their both substitutes!
*jumping high five*
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
First Lady Laura Bush met with Governor Palin and said, "She doesn't know enough of foreign policy, but she is a quick learner."
That seemed good enough for some people, but nobody bother to ask, "Great, she a quick learner, but who is going to be the teacher?"
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
What does it mean when Laura Bush is unimpressed with someone's foreign policy experience?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Well, considering who her husband is, she'd know a lack of ability to handle foreign policy when she sees it.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Monkeys]](graemlins/monkeys.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Evil Laugh]](graemlins/evillaugh.gif)
:![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)