Slashdot Mirror
Barack Obama Wins Democratic Nomination
An anonymous reader was one of many who noted that Barack Obama has claimed the Democratic nomination having secured enough delegates and super-delegates to claim victory. Of course, technically this assumes that the supers all vote as they say they will and they are free to change their minds. So no doubt we'll continue to hear debate on this subject until either the convention or Hillary steps down.
People don't seem to learn from history, which may be obvious. But I'm talking about you. All the intelligent people who think they know what they are doing and think that change is on the way .
I think it would be great if Obama was elected president. It would send a great message to the rest of the world that Americans are a diverse, caring and accepting people. And it would probably greatly inspire a lot of people who have felt oppressed over the past 8 years. But honestly, I don't think he stands a chance. Democratic voters are voting with their hearts and not their heads. From having watched many presidential elections from more of a neutral stance, I can say that to really win, you need to win the votes from both parties, not just your own. Sure, you can win by a narrow margin, but that is hardly marks the beginning of change. Change begins with the populace changing their attitudes. Leaving race out of the issue, how many republicans do you think would vote for someone named Barack Hussein Obama. A name that rings with the sounds of two recent so called enemies.
So Obama supporters have voted with their hearts and aren't realizing how idealistic they are being. Is it really worth the risk of having republican bullshit for the next 4 years? I don't think so. Obama supporters, you have risked too much. So don't come crying to everyone when he loses. I hope he doesn't
though.
Hasn't this guy been in the news enough for the last two years? Can't we get his name right yet?
It's Barack.
To be honest, Bush has been an embarrassment to the USA. Barrack can only do better (if he gets elected). The fact that there are numerous youtube videos that rip it out of a countrys president should be enough to make people want to vote him out.
First of all, I'm not sure why this is "news for nerds", but I'll readily concede that it is "stuff that matters".
Obama may have the nomination, but someone really ought to tell Hillary. Last night, during her non-concession speech, she stated that she's "making no decisions tonight". Today I heard on NPR that she is "open to the Vice-Presidential spot", even though she may not take it...she "just wants to be considered".
Sweet Zombie Jesus...what will it take to make this woman go away???
____
~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey
The site has had a Politics category for a couple years now. This election affects many of us, and it is certainly "stuff that matters".
Maybe Windows 7 will be released as Windows Obama?
Really? Based on what?
Calling his own grandmother a "typical white woman"? Is that caring and accepting? Or what about his spiritual advisor, who baptized his children and married him and his wife, saying that the white US Government created AIDS to kill black people?
What about his relationship with someone who has bombed United States buildings?
If you meant this would send a message on a purely superficial level because of his skin color, maybe. But anyone who has done research on this man doesn't want him as president.
Only if you roll the R, ring announcer style.
____
~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey
Comment removed based on user account deletion
This election is being covered amazingly well and in my opinion, the mainstream media, however biased, should be praised for putting the election in peoples minds. I hope now that Hillary does what is right and gets her supporters to rally around Obama as the Democratic candidate and possibly (hopefully) the next president.
I have minimal interest in this subject, but even I know his damn name is spelled "Barack", not "Barrack".
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
Clinton has no practical reason to "go away" - Obama's victory was surprisingly narrow. Over the last few months the Obama campaign lost momentum - Clinton's victories were quite substantial in several key states that would be essential to a Democratic victory (Ohio and Pennsylvania especially).
Given Obama's weakness in three key Democratic demographics - women, white blue collar workers, and Hispanics - Clinton still has a substantial role to play in the election.
Her supporters are bitter about how they perceive Clinton's treatment versus how Obama has been treated by the press. I realize it's anecdotal, but talking to a number of my friends who were ardent Clinton supporters I've become worried that they simply won't vote Democrat due to what they perceive was the unfairness and sexism of the campaign.
Clinton's in a strong position to request the VP slot. If she concedes to Obama then she simply becomes an also-ran, and has no negotiating power.
/* Dang, I can't type that well. */
His campaign's websites use Linux
I don't plan to vote for either McCain or Obama at the moment, but man, am I happy that Hilary lost.
Reviewing just the first hour of video games.
If Obama's wife's speech is any indication of the increased government manipulation of the economy to come, this is going to be a fun ride:
"We have lost the understanding that in a democracy, we have a mutual obligation to one another -- that we cannot measure the greatness of our society by the strongest and richest of us, but we have to measure our greatness by the least of these. That we have to compromise and sacrifice for one another in order to get things done. That is why I am here, because Barack Obama is the only person in this who understands that. That before we can work on the problems, we have to fix our souls. Our souls are broken in this nation."
And as usual the Republicans don't offer any better alternative, so my vote will have to wait another 4 years.
Do it yourself, because no one else will do it yourself. [beta blockade 10-17 Feb]
Are you suggesting that the spell chequer was somehow wrong?
Don't you know that the Computer is your friend, and any deviation from its approved spelling can lead to your being used as reactor shielding?
Anyway, Obama would be demonized with any name, and regardless of his hue. No matter who he is, if he's a D and he's running, then he'll be the "single most liberal member of Congress" since Che Guavera or whoever, an "elite" know-it-all who is out of touch with the heartland of America, will have gotten a "free pass" from our "overwhelmingly liberal media," would put us in danger of "appeasing" the terrorists, "emboldening our enemies," etc. It's the same script, every time, all the time. The Republicans always use the same words to galvanize their base, because, well, it works. Who or what Obama is or isn't has little to do with how the Republicans will vote.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Thank you for NOT using the word 'clinch' in the story.
http://github.com/gbook/nidb
Not quite sure what the change is going to be, except health care, but we're going to see some change.
Yes, CHANGE! There's going to be some things happening in a different way that before and things that weren't happening are going to start happening and things that were are going to stop. Because it's all about change! Yay!
Horay for non-specific policies!
More directly, policitical stories always generate a lot of page hits. They also afford an opportunity to study the site's demographics on the sly.
"Sacrifice for the good of The State" - The State
Balrog Obama? Now that sounds like a candidates I can trust!
hillary STILL hasnt conceded. shes STILL speaking of 'going on'. going on WHERE ? to the doom of her party ? to another bush term in the form of mccain ?
she just wants a post thats it. thats totally it. if she cant make it to president, well, she wants to make it to vp. if she cant make it to even vp, she wants the democrats to sink with her.
but what i really cant believe is how people, especially politicans and political commentators on tv are trying to find rationalizations to her action. they obviously cant believe that someone can choose to be stubborn out of pure sheer greed, and finding reasons and excuses. even commentators leaning to obama are doing that. i can understand it though - one thinks noone can do such a thing out of pure greed in front of millions of people watching. well, actually people can. and hillary did it.
Read radical news here
I'm confused. You managed to post a comment, but you apparently have no idea what the internet is.
It is very perplexing.
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
It's how we say it in Scotland.
In the US there are two major political parties, and each one puts one candidate up for the election in the general election for President. But before the general election, each party has the primary campaign, where individuals within each party run against each other for the right to be the candidate in the election. These primary campaigns basically involve citizens (when it's their state's turn) going and voting for the candidate that they want to represent whichever party. Depending on the rules of the particular state, sometimes you have to be a registered member of that party in order to vote, and sometimes they're open to anyone registered to vote at all. Basically the way it works is that depending on how many votes you get in a primary, then you get a certain number of delegates. Delegates are basically voting representatives for that state, proportioned by the relative populations of each state,and are expected to vote in accordance with the results of the primary popular vote in that state.
You don't need to win one of the primaries to run for president, but you need to win one if you want the support of one of the major political parties. For various reasons, it's currently not particularly practical for a candidate to win the general election unless they are a candidate from one of the two main parties.
The two major parties in the US are the Democrats and the Republicans. Each party creates the specific rules that are used in their own primaries to select their candidates. The democrats, for various reasons, have come up with a complicated system that not only has regular delegates, but also has "super-delegates." Supers are usually (but not always) individuals considered particularly important to the democratic party (elected officials, party leaders, etc), and they are free to put their delegate vote towards whichever candidate they wish. Basically, they're individuals who's vote counts for way more than the average person's. Their role is restricted purely to the democratic primary however, in a general election, their vote counts for no more than anyone else's.
That's just a brief overview, without the history of why super-delegates exist, but there's plenty of information out there to be found on that.
One time I threw a brick at a duck.
White folks are seeing that a Black man may be the one to give the real change they want - at least possibly head us in that direction. I don't know about you, but as a member of the "white establishment", I haven't been treated too well myself: economically, by the Government, Civil Liberties, etc....
Regardless if you agree with his policies or not, I really think that just his nomination and possible election is doing some wonderful things for this country.
As an independent, I am going to have a real hard time this November - I'm a fiscal and Government conservative and a social liberal.
What to do in November?!?!
Each of the (many) political parties chooses (nominates) one person to be their candidate for President in the general election in Nov. The big two do this partly through the mechanism of primary elections, which happen at different times chosen by each state's legislature. Each party has its own rules for what the results of a primary mean exactly, but in general they determine the number of delegates sent to the national party convention. This convention is where the nominee is chosen, and the delegates are the only people allowed to vote at the conventions. The results of the primary election in their state usually (but not always) determine who the delegates from that state have to vote for at the convention. Superdelegates are also allowed to vote at the convention, but are always free to vote for whomever they choose. These people are longtime party officials and insiders, and enough of them are given convention votes to ensure that the winner of the most primary elections can still lose the nomination should that be what the elites want. Remember, the USA is not now and never has been a democracy like Athens was, we fear the mob just as much as the Roman Senate did.
So, as the article points out, nothing is written in stone yet, because no real votes have actually been cast. Some of the delegates are bound by law, and some of the supers have made public promises that they would have a hard time going back on, but the fat lady has not yet sung.
I think you might be surprised. I'm the lonely democrat in an office full of right wing, red meat eating, gun packing republicans...and right now, only one person out of about 12 plan to vote for McCain over Obama. Really, I think a lot of people underestimate how much McCain is disliked by his own party.
Wise men say, "Forgiveness is divine, but never pay full price for late pizza."
We have two major parties in the US, and they ultimately have to decided by themselves who is going to be the candidate that they want to run for president in the 2008 election, or who gets their party's nomination. Delegates or pledged delegates are appointed based on a size of a state and how each state voted in the primary (a mock election so that every individual has the opportunity to throw their support towards the candidate they want to run for president). The number fo pledged delagates is much less than the population of the state. Pledged delegates will vote as the state voted rounded to the nearest whole delegate. Super delegates are members of the party, that for one reason or another are given the opportunity to have their individual vote count as much as a delegate's. Then each party holds a national convention to nominate who is going to represent that party as their candidate for president. The nomination is made by all the delegates (super and pledged) voting at the convention. At this point I should remind you that we have a representative democracy, and every so often the people get to choose their representative. However there is nothing that guarantees that the representative will vote according to the people's needs/ wishes.
insert inflammatory comment here!
Nomination: The major parties have a big round of voting to figure out who they're going to put forward as their candidate. This is different by state, but in the end the candidate that wins the state gets a chunk of the delegate votes. Delegates are allocated to states based on population and their electoral college representation.
Super-Delegates: Jury rigged compromise in which the major elected members of the party can act as voting delegates independent of their voting constituents in the event of a close race.
Basically the supers together have about 1/6th of the total delegate votes, and they can vote for whoever they want to.
The current problem is that no candidate has a majority without a number of super delegates. Obama has the more regular delegate votes, and that would be the end of it, except for the supers.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
"if you don't vote then you don't have any 'moral' right to complain about the result."
That's a quaint assumption backed up by no rationale whatsoever. I am a taxpayer and a US citizen, so I have every right to persuade other members of society to effect changes I desire. Voting is a right, not a gateway to other rights. On its own, it also happens to be the least effective method of bringing about change. I would rather use my freedom of speech to persuade the public to bring about a candidate that will uphold everyone's rights rather than trample them. Until such a candidate exists, there will be no acceptable choice for president.
Hence why Congressional Democrats were not keen on having Hillary win, she would be beyond their control, not so with Obama.
I am voting Libertarian so take the following with a grain of salt.
All three candidates were awful, they are all from Congress meaning they already have no respect for our money. All three propose huge expansion of government as if all that occurred under Bush wasn't enough. More taxes means less freedom. Not one of these candidates has proposed cutting the budget to fund new initiatives. McCain is close with his no earmark pledge but the two Democratic nominees had no choice in that matter as the current Congress controlled by their party has made so many attempts to hide earmarks that their major reason for running the Republicans out of office was a lie.
Frankly, Obama would change nothing. He is still from one of the two parties who give us no choice. If anything he sounds like Carter all over again, promising change (go view old Carter ads and tell me the difference)
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
Dear god...I'm not American and even I understand it... In the American political process, the Republicans and Democrats run through the process of the presidential primaries...at its core, it is an election to become the presidential candidate for the party. Delegates are selected based on electoral results from state to state according to the rules of the Democratic or Republican party. They are pledged to an individual candidate. Superdelegates are high-ranking members of the party, generally speaking they have served the party for many years, and are given a "free vote" to give to the presidential candidate of their choice at the convention. They are not bound to any candidate, or required to vote for a specific candidate based off of any electoral result...they are free to vote for whom they wish. The only reason that the Democratic nomination has been such a gong-show is that neither Clinton nor Obama have enough delegates from the primary electoral process to win the presidential candidacy...they are having to rely on superdelegates to have enough support to secure the nomination (candidacy)...the article you are currently reading is discussing that Obama now has enough elected delegates & superdelegates that have said they will vote for him to secure the nomination. Clinton SHOULD concede the nomination, however in theory if she wants to be a supreme bitch about it she could carry this fight all the way to the Democratic Party convention, where the actual Presidential Nominee is formally selected.
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
I for one welcome our new democratic nominee overlord.
/me sheepish smile
/me heads for the hills
Dewey, you fool! Your decimal system has played right into my hands!
Just yesterday, people were talking about him saying he want to raise the cost of college by $4000 per year. Oops... he wanted the government the pay up to 4000 per year - which we naturally concluded the universities would interpret as "hey, we can charge $4000 more per student per year". I went to school in the 1990's when government backed student loans were just taking off. Tuition went up 15-30 percent every single year. Supply and demand determine affect the price you know... Then of course there's the question of who's actually going to pay that $4000. Ummm WE ARE.
I am still voting "none of the above".
The Republicans will only vote for an R, unless their own candidate is so bad that they have to stay home. McCain may or may not be be that bad, but it remains to be seen.
I'm a Republican and I will not vote for McCain. I haven't decided who I would vote for otherwise but because he'd spy on Americans secretly too and because he voted to illegally permit a retroactive law to proceed there is no way I can support him for President.
Obama is full of shit just like an other politician and because Hillary again proved, with her inaction re: retroactive immunity for telecoms (she didn't even vote), that she's a fence riding cunt trying to pander to everyone -- I cannot vote for her either. This is going to be a very difficult decision for me.
There are more than two political parties in the United States, contrary to what many people believe. Each party basically has its own way of determining who will be their candidate for President. Out of the five parties big enough to field a Presidential candidate, though, the three other parties combined did not even get one million votes in 2004 - this makes the U.S. a de facto two party system. If either the Republican or Democratic party were ever to collapse, though, this would obviously change very rapidly.
There are a number of delegates in each state who are assigned God knows how and do God knows what. I would guess it is something to do with the population of your state. What I do know is that the candidates have to do their best to get more delegates to back them for the eventual party convention.
The Primary System, like many other aspects of the U.S. government, is just a big mess that's not entirely fair to many places (especially my home state of New Jersey) or many demographics.
I'd love to hear someone else break down the system further and in an easier way to understand, but what I have written here are the basics.
Random Thoughts From A Diseased Mind (Not For Dummies)
Is Obama a black man with a white mother or a white man with a black father? As a racist white male, this question has been causing me night terrors!
Someone needs to tell him about the rich fat cats in the Republican party who like guns and religion. Dick Cheney for one.
Stories on who might soon become the single most powerful person in the world are news to all of us.
Dealing with lawyers would be a lot less tedious if they all looked like Casey Novak.
1. Obama himself
2. Joe Biden
This BBC article will help you understand what delegates and super-delegates (a term used by the Democrats) are. And nomination is as far as I (being a non-US citizen) understand "simply" a matter of deciding who in a certain party that eventually will run as president by voting. I hope this clarify things a bit. :-)
"I have downloaded hundreds and hundreds of records, why would I care if somebody downloads ours?" Robin Pecknold
an "elite" know-it-all who is out of touch with the heartland of America
Elite: 1. A group or class of persons or a member of such a group or class, enjoying superior intellectual, social, or economic status. 2. The best or most skilled members of a group.
Why is it that people think "elite" is bad? Would you rather have a president who is smarter than the average citizen or just average? For the past 8 years we've had a president who is as dumb or dumber than most people (or at least he likes to pretend he is).... and that didn't do anything good for the country.
He's probably got it sewn up, but things can happen before then.
Exactly. The Republican Party is not "conservative". That word is only used to get votes. In fact, the Republican Party has put the U.S. government into far more debt.
There are, in effect, two Republican Parties. One is a real political party. The other is extremely corrupt and merely says anything necessary to get control. The real purpose is control, not managing the U.S. government for its citizens. For example, search digg.com and reddit.com for the term "martial law".
There has been conflict of interest because of the fact that the president and vice-president and their families and friends and associates have a history of investment in oil and weapons. The purpose of invading Iraq was to get control of the oil supply, so that the price of oil would rise. Saddam Hussein was not cooperating; he was selling as much oil as he wanted.
The reason for the U.S. government's plan to invade Iran is to further restrict the supply of oil. If the U.S. government invades, the price of oil could easily become $8 per gallon; it is necessary to have oil to make our societies function; people would have to pay any price.
Also, his name is "Barack" Obama, as others have noted. I wish Slashdot editors could be real editors, and check their work.
I just wish for once a person would run on something other than a slew of social issues that they have no power to change. And worse yet, I wish people would stop voting for canidates based on their stance on abortion or gay marriage or anything else. The ideal person, for me, is the person who can evaluate situations as they come along and apply a little bit of common sense in government. Maybe this describes Ron Paul, maybe it doesn't. In the end, I know that this is just a dream because the large parties will never nominate someone who goes against their social agenda and people will never vote for someone who goes against their beliefs.
Yes, it did not matter so much in england that Tony blair waited until AFTER leaving office before converting from Church of England to Roman Catholic. That is, he waited until he was done politically. I am guessing that the simple fact is, that nearly all politicians in England are either agnostic OR church of England. After all, how many lords are muslims or hindus?
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
I'm generally a conservative. I hesitate to call myself a republican, though that is the party I'm registered with, but of the two majors, they are closer to what I believe in. A libertarian might be the right term, though they tend to be rather... Extremist. The point is, I'm not a Democrat and didn't get to vote in that primary.
Regardless I am what you might call a moderate conservative. I have and will certainly cross party lines. I vote based on who I think will do the best job, not a D or an R. So I'm the kind of voter that the democrats need to be after. In my case, I'll almost certainly vote for Obama if he's nominated. If not, I'll probably vote for McCain. I don't like Clinton at all. She seems very totalitarian, in that she thinks she knows what's best for the economy, for you personally (her video game stance for example) and so on. That is opposite to what I think. I think in general government should try and stay out of things, when practical. They should be a force that guides the economy, not controls it, and that ensures people have freedoms but that they don't infringe on others, not that hands out a list of what is right and wrong.
So for me, Obama is good. I don't agree with him 100%, but then I don't agree with anyone but myself 100%. However over all I like his policies, and I think he'll be good for the nation. Clinton, no, sorry, I won't go that route. While I don't think McCain is as good a candidate as Obama, I think he's better than Clinton.
I'm not the only person I know who's the same way either. I have a number of friends with similar political views and the thing I hear is "I hope Obama wins because I'll vote for him, but if not I'll vote for McCain."
Hardcore republicans are a lost cause. They'll vote R no matter what. So while they might hate Obama more, it doesn't matter since they won't vote for Hillary either. They are all R all the time. The people who matter are those who come down on the conservative side, but aren't caught up in party dogma.
Now I have no empirical evidence as to who will vote what way, but this assumption that Clinton has the ability win win republicans where as Obama doesn't is just silly. Neither will win the party voters, and I and my friends are proof that there are at least some out there who feel Obama yes, Clinton no. We probably aren't the only ones either.
No candidate is going to have a walk in the park this time around, all of them have something that a non-trivial portion of America has a problem with. However that doesn't mean Obama has no chance, in fact I'd say it is quite the opposite.
Thank you all (except maxume) for your answers.
1% APY, No fees, Online Bank https://captl1.co/2uIErYq Don't let your $$$ sit in a no-interest acct.
I still want to know what he is going to change? I haven't really been able to figure out much of what he plan's to change?
Well, here's the quote:
I guess you and I just read things differently, because I got a bit more nuance out of his statements, and "people only like guns/religion because they're poor" doesn't quite capture it. Seeing the economic viability of your community crumble, seeing the way of life of your parents crumble, can be a polarizing experience, and yes, people cling to things, things they consider symbolic of their way of life. I don't see anything especially patronizing about saying that people are pissed off and that when they're pissed off the symbolic things matter more than they might in times of prosperity.
Did any of you see the speech yesterday by McCain? Who does a speech in New Orleans and not have a single black person show up? The differences between McCain and Obama are so stark that people have very little choice in the matter. 3/4s of this country want the war to end. A vote for McCain is a vote to continue the war. He has made that painfully obvious. A vote for McCain is a vote for continuation of the same policies that have made Bush the most unpopular president in the history of the country. On top of all of that the turnout for this election is going to be massive. Election boards nationwide have reported that turnout for just the primaries this year have exceeded turnout for general elections past. What is energizing people to come out like that? Probably the same feelings that makes Bush unpopular. Independent voters are breaking hard to the left for Obama. And in reality, if you want the best indicator that people are going to vote a Democrat president in, look at the Republican house and senate seats that have been lost already to Democrats this year. Across the country seats held for decades by Republicans are being won by Democrats or are being polled as likely Democrat pickups already. There is one house race I know of in the south that voted 70% for Bush in 2004, it is that Republican of a district. Yet today, it is polling 65% in favor of the Democrat candidate. The turnarounds nationwide are, in some cases, that big. There is no way this country is about to continue the policies of George W Bush with a vote for McCain.
Ooops, according to Wiki, is in favor of "intelligent design" in schools and the PATRIOT and REAL ID acts.
On second thought, fuck that guy. I withdraw my previous statement of being "totally OK with him."
On the other hand, he might be able to actually fix the economy.
Currently the Republican candidate is the only one of the two (Previously 3) presidential candidates with any significant history of voting against the wishes of his voting block. If that doesn't show that using broad generalizations is counter productive and tantamount to a FUD campaign, I don't know what is
Bureaucracy expands to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy.-Oscar Wilde
Yeah - I seem to recall last time around McCain was supposedly too centrist for some folks' liking. Is a 71 year old man going to change his policies so much in 4 years that he'll make a significant dent in this perception? I'm guessing not.
...but chanting "change" doesn't rebuild the economy, chanting "change" doesn't fix healthcare, chanting "change" doesn't rebuild civil rights, reduce corruption, increase education levels, reduce poverty, save a family from foreclosure, combat global warming, or turn people away from drugs or crime.
Indeed the lack of any form of extensive debate of specific policy leads me to believe that either US political competitions have degenerated into mere popularity contests, or that the majority of the American people are so disillusioned with their future prospects that mere catchphrases are all that they can hang on to.
Barack Obama has been compared to both JFK and M. L. King, which, as much as it may be a genuine reflection of the inspiration Obama provides, such comparisons all too often result in deep disappointments and furthering democratic apathy for all that bought into it. I really wish it weren't the case, but I think that the US as a whole is on course for big disappointment followed by the sobering reality that things are actually worse than they appeared, and that "change" is often a very bitter pill.
Even Bush's country accent is fake--he's not really a country boy, not really a rancher, etc. But the populism button keeps on spitting out the votes. As cynical as I am, I still find it depressing.
8 years, not 4. My bad.
he takes the position that using torture is an invitation to enemies to torture our own troops, and opposes it on those grounds.
Do our enemies need such an invitation? Last time I checked Arab countries had a history of torturing captured enemies, one that predates the first Gulf war.
I doubt they'd change over to western laws of war just because we ask nicely.
-- Support a free market in the field of government
I will admit to wanting to vote for Obama. I'm as hard-core republican as they come and have been defending all the crazy stuff this administration has done.
However- there comes a time to admit when one is wrong, and the current party made a HUGE mess of itself. They represent business rather than my conservative views.
'we'll continue to hear debate on this subject until either the convention or Hillary steps down.'
Damn. I had NO IDEA the convention was running for the nomination! If I had known that I would have not voted for either of these morons.
CONVENTION '08!!!
Yeah, has a nice ring to it. And would be just a useful in office as anyone (or anything) else.
Pax Vobiscum
The reality is, there are still quite a number of racist people in the voting population. Shoving a successful southern white man on the ticket as the VP might help some of those voters see past what could be considered a drawback for Obama.
If I have to follow him to the gates of hell, I am going to get Osama Bin Laden
To prove that this delusional diatribe was not merely a slip of the tongue: More footage of McCain at another rally, saying exactly the same thing. Word for word.
So the options are, he is deliberately misleading the people he wants to vote for him, or he is a delusional lunatic who really thinks that he stands a chance of capturing Osama Bin Laden, and worse that capturing or killing Osama Bin Laden will make the US safer. This guy try shouldn't be trusted with the mower at a bowling green, let alone any public office.
Yes.
What part of "black" did you not understand?
Political party selects its candidate = nomination.
The people in the party that vote to select the candidate = delegate.
Each state has a certain number of delegates (based on population) Those delegates vote based on the state primary results. A few 'super' delegates may vote independant of the primary results. (This is mostly a Democrat party thing, there are fewer supers in the Republican process).
It also helps if you view the President of The US as a representative of the States, elected by the States rather than a directly elected representative of the people.
Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
Hey, I've been a Republican all my life, my politics are conservative. I'm voting for Obama because, despite differing viewpoints on MANY things, I think he is the right man for right now. I'm voting for him, but look at his record. He's really pretty left-wing.
Very timely as I heard she won't concede:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TWaL1XnUPN0
Performed by Lisa Nova.
http://www.lisanovalive.com/
We do have one Muslim Congressman (Ellison from Minn.) but thats the exception. During this election all across "Appalachia" rednecks (culturally reactionary, uneducated, unskilled rural whites) said they would never vote Obama because he was a "Muslim". Of course, he's not a Muslim and for many that was just code for "black." However, the news reporters didn't even blink... as if that was a valid reason for not voting for him.
Barack means peach in Hungarian ( i dont think he is yummy though ) I would not vote for him anyway I do not think they are ready for a not white president ( no racism here I want to see diversity everywhere )
I guess the fact that "News for Nerds" used to mean "nerd-specific news" until the last Presidential election has gone straight down the memory hole. And for crying out loud, "stuff that matters" was totally tongue-in-cheek.
I've said it before, I'll say it again, I can find news about the election f*cking everywhere, but there's only so many places I can find commentary on an experiment to see if gravity makes antimatter fall up. That's news for nerds. That Barack Obama won the democratic nomination is a front-pager for almost every newspaper/website on Earth.
I'm looking forward to the presidential debates. Unlike last time, we have two people who are competent at speaking and who have a powerful presence. It will be really interesting to hear them go back and forth.
life is a tragedy to those who feel, and a comedy to those who think
Great, then why was Bush elected twice? In the first time it's conceded that he really didn't win democratically (he didn't had the majority of the votes so it wasn't a democratic victory but an Oligarchic victory since it was some few people that decided by the majority ... please check www.wikipedia.org to understand the meaning of Democracy and Oligarchy).
But, what is your (the common people you know, the ones that don't have oil wells and major corporations and don't actually have a word to say on how the "Democratic" USA is governed) excuse for Bush to be elected a second time?
And Sen. Obama is offering exactly what as an alternative to more war? Certainly not immediate withdrawal from Iraq, despite how many Americans want that (it'll be a bloodbath if we leave now, we're told, as if Iraqi are so busy laying roses at our soldiers and mercenaries' feet). His Iran threat to the Chicago Tribune ("[T]he big question is going to be, if Iran is resistant to these pressures [to stop its nuclear program], including economic sanctions, which I hope will be imposed if they do not cooperate, at what point ... if any, are we going to take military action? ... [L]aunching some missile strikes into Iran is not the optimal position for us to be in" given the ongoing war in Iraq. "On the other hand, having a radical Muslim theocracy in possession of nuclear weapons is worse.") and his recent vote for allocating $165 billion for the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan (including $51 billion dollars for veterans' education) tell me that he, like any other corporate-funded Democrat, have no principled objection to war or to these wars in particular.
As Cindy Sheehan recently reminded us, the Democrats have a strong history of war making and a lot to apologize for:
Digital Citizen
"Change we can believe in" is the tag line, but I've heard nothing that won't raise my taxes at least 50% and further bankrupt our country.
The changes I believe in are:
- Personal responsibility
- Personal Freedom
- The right to privacy
- Minimal Government
- Equal Protection under the law
George Washington wouldn't live in the country that we've become. He would leave after seeing what we've done to it, crying.
I think it's particularly ironic that the party that has always billed itself as the "Party of the People" is the one that developed a primary process where politically connected individuals are given such a disproportionately large say the nomination of a national presidential candidate.
I guess it's only fitting that it is now bitting them in the ass, as a lot of Democrats begin to feel disenfranchised within their own party. I guess you reap what you sow
Bureaucracy expands to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy.-Oscar Wilde
I live in Miami, where there is a large Caribbean/Cuban-American population. They are predominantly vehemently Christian.
Last night my girlfriend who is Cuban and I were speaking about the Democratic party election. She was telling me that her parents and grandparents, immigrants from Cuba, have never voted for a Democrat but would vote for Hillary this year. They said they wouldn't vote for Obama because he is Muslim. These people who are otherwise fair and judicious with their political hats are scared to death about having a Muslim as a president, even though the man is Christian through and through. I've heard this same mistaken perception from others in Miami as well. If it's a problem in Miami, it certainly will be widespread in the Midwest and South.
For the record, I'm a devout atheist and want all religious discussion stricken from politics but I realize that an atheist is the only thing more frightening to a Christian than a Muslim. I'm also a hardcore green party member and have never voted for a democrat, let alone any candidate within either of the two parties, but I feel as though I can support Obama. He seems like the closest thing to reforming the system from the inside as we're going to get any time soon, so I believe I can compromise this time around.
Shouldn't You expect more from your DJ?
Heck, it was damn near the same script when McCain was running against Bush. McCain was actually accused of being less patriotic than Bush.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
Change means getting rid of the war-mongering, water-boarding, warrentless-wiretapping weasels in the White House. George W. McSame doesn't have a chance.
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Mussolini
I can't help but feel that our laziness and apathy has brought us into a very dangerous place, and is the reason that we're having so many problems. I want to see common sense and reason, but I believe those are ideals from an America long past.
life is a tragedy to those who feel, and a comedy to those who think
Isn't one of the things he is running on improved international relations?
The real interesting thing will be to see what Bill does on January 21st, 2009. Does he file for divorce? Does she? Etc...
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
That's simply the current extrapolation based on most recent polling. He wrote a column for the Guardian explaining some reasons why Obama may in fact have a better shot. All are valid arguments, I think the last one is particularly poignant:
5. It's the campaign, stupid
Finally, Obama's camp could point to things like his fundraising prowess and his stable campaign team and make the claim that it has run the superior campaign. Put more crudely, the argument might take the following form: if Clinton had relinquished a 20-point lead against Obama, who's to say she'd hold a two-point advantage against McCain?
The rest: http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/nate_silver/2008/06/strength_in_numbers.html
Healing racial wounds? It's a nice thought. If you believe the rhetoric that's been coming from Obama's camp, it may look plausible, At first.
Dig deeper and the situation looks rather worrying - just look at the race baiting rhetoric of Jeremiah Wright. Oh, but he's just some crazy kook at Obama's church, those aren't Obama's views. Then how come the new pastor, Michael Pfleger, came out with similar crap? Turns out this is what the church is all about - "Black Liberation Theology", a racist viewpoint that blames all modern day black problems on historical inequities, and holds whites of today responsible for the sins of their grandfathers. I'm not kidding, these people believe in racial reparations. That's really gonna heal racial wounds.
What good is it for Obama to distance himself from this church now, when for 20 years this is what he chose to go and listen to every Sunday, and what he chose for his children's upbringing? These simple facts speak volumes about the true character of the man. He will be a disaster for America.
Wow, you can see a doctor anytime you want? Where do I sign up for this fantastic plan? Currently, I have a top notch health plan with a list of doctors a mile long. Sick with a cold? Better get ready to line up at urgent care because my doctor has no openings for about two weeks. Need a new specialist? If they are even accepting new patients, there's at least a month long wait. Oh, and after that, I had the joy of finding out that my DOCTOR was in my insurance network, but the FACILITY where I had surgery wasn't so I got stuck with a huge bill just for having it done there.
This mythical fantasy world you are afraid of losing isn't so great. I'd be happy if I just didn't get socked with bills left and right for various reasons. Like the facility thing mentioned above. Or the fact that my insurance doesn't cover the first $700 of surgery anyway (totally separate from the facility charge). Or that for some reason, my copay for generic Allegra is the same as it would be for some other name brands. Or that even when I do hit my deductible for the year, they decide I'll be paying out of yet ANOTHER pot called "co-insurance."
A choice quote from your link: "Watching the never-ending spectacle of glassy-eyed white girls gone wild for this mulatto, and knowing the Negro libido and psyche, one finds it almost impossible to believe that he has never taken advantage of his opportunities."
Would you care to renounce that author?
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
My custom-made TShirt.
"The opposite of 'Intellectual Elite' is 'Ignorant Peasant'"
Obama will get us out of Iraq. But he's not a mindless pacifist (no reasonable leader ever should be). There's a big difference.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
And all this time I thought it was Brak!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brak_(character)
> Could you sum up the traits a Democrat nominee would have to have for the Republicans to refrain
> from demonizing him? The Republicans will only vote for an R, unless their own candidate is so
> bad that they have to stay home.
What on gods earth (heh) are you basing this on?
I am a Republican and voted for Kerry (as much as it pained me) because Bush is useless and we have a lovely system with 2 viable options.
I can se Mccains slogan. Obama shall not pass.
What's the worst possible scenario that this country could possibly get itself into?
If John McCain somehow convinced Hillary to be *his* VP.
Talk about a clusterfuck.
It's because most such people are using elite to mean snobbish. The two often coincide, but as you point out, not by definition.
Because "elite" is another way of saying "better", which most people don't feel comfortable with either about themselves or someone else.
Being an elitist, or part of the elite according to other people, implies you're okay with the social classes we have in this country where "everyone is equal". It implies an "anti-American" stance of acceptance that some people just "deserve" more than others because they're "better" people.
Elitism is crap. Being elite and not being elitist is good. It's also very difficult to achieve.
"Growing old is inevitable; growing up is optional."
At this point, I think Ron Paul's book might be the best thing he's been able to offer America. I still drive around with my "Ron Paul for President" bumper sticker -- but we all know that's just a gesture at this point in time.
I don't expect America under Obama to accomplish a whole lot. As I've said before though, I'm at the point where I'd vote for him simply to break up the "dynasty" of Bush/Clinton we've had in power for the last 20 years or so. (There's no way I'd accept *another* 4-8 years of a Clinton in office, and McCain? Well, he's too close to a Bush copy-cat - even if he's not from the same family.)
I see Obama further screwing up our health-care system, with some sort of flawed "socialized medicine" initiative. I also seeing him putting an end to the war in Iraq, though, and possibly improving our foreign relations across the board. There's a good chance we'll see some economic improvement in the short-term, just because consumer confidence will increase - knowing there's a "change of guard" in the presidency. But longer-term, he'll probably try to raise a lot of taxes for programs he perceives we all "need", like most Democrats.
But all that aside, I would think that not spending a few hundred billion dollars on a misguided war effort might go some distance in helping out the economy. --Of course, all that tax money wasn't exactly poured into the sand. It was given to a small number of already wealthy American elites who own weapons factories and mercenary armies. Spending that money in more productive ways, on education and health care, can only help everybody else get a leg up. Smart and healthy people can only make things better. Sick and ignorant people are a disaster waiting to happen. --Also, stopping the artificial jacking up of oil prices, (when there is currently a glutted stockpile), might be a way to help everybody who doesn't own an oil company to fare better with their paychecks, (lower transport costs means EVERYTHING is more affordable and thus the economy is un-stifled. Corruption helps only the corrupt, and un-doing it can only help the regular population. Too bad it won't happen. Obama is too good to be true. The military industrial complex simply won't let it go that way.
-FL
"You are aware there are elections for people and things other than president, right?"
Yep. But the subjects of this entire discussion are the presidential election and the purposes of voting.
That doesn't make sense. That's Gandalf's line, not Saruman's. :)
Super delegates can change their vote as well as well as Pledge and At-large.
This isn't a secret.
There is nothing binding a delegate other than he said he would. He/she can change his mind.
Until the role is called and credentials confirmed, and vote taken nothing counts.
There are actually still states that have not even completed their counts, such as Texas. And I don't think that the number of delegates per candidate that CNN is reporting from Texas is going to be the same next week.
He who said 1,000,000 monkeys on 1,000,000 typewriters would eventually type the great novel, never saw an AOL chat room
Obamanation?
Yeah, it was kind of a silly logic that led to the creation of the super-delegate system. As it's finally played out, I think the party has realized that it's a big problem. Even if the super-delegates overall preferred Clinton, overruling the standard delegate count would've caused some serious blowback. Like you said, it's made an already close and sometimes bitter primary even more convoluted, which didn't help.
I expect that the super-delegate system will be rethought before the next primary. Hopefully the whole primaries setup will be given a good examination, because it's a pretty bad system.
One time I threw a brick at a duck.
i felt like i was playing age of conan in the middle of workday.
Read radical news here
Hey! It worked in Blazing Saddles...
Ask not what you can do for your country. Ask what your country did to you
there comes along a man who fundamentally changes history.
Truly fundamental changes can only come about in two ways: From external forces like war, or from within, either from up the government or from down there, from the people. De Clerk in South Africa and Gorbachev showed the world how easily a corrupt system can be broken up from within. People who went along with the party line, worked their way up and in the moment of holding power, they essentially throw down the whole system of society.
Maybe Obama is one of these people.
Funny with the Peace Corp, funny in establishing the United Nations so we wouldn't have to keep bailing Western Europe out of their own 'wise' and 'brilliant' World Wars which were started cause you guys were fighting over your Colonialism and raping of the rest of the world. Funny with the quick and unreserved Red Cross/Government/Private help for any and every disaster in the world. The list goes on and on but it's of course lost on arrogant 'we're better than you' folks.
Enjoy your Karma, after all you earned it. Feel your Karma Joe, feel it burn.
I don't have any mod points left, but welcome to my friends list pal. You've just echoed the feelings that made me become an independent.
I think the final straw for me was when Team of Rivals came out, and all of the neocon pundits essentially ran a smear campaign... against Lincoln!! The Republicans of today are in name only.
Every time I see a story with a flag on it, I open the thread and find three or four offtopic posts complaining about the fact that the story even exists because it isn't "news for nerds". I've read the same post 500 times by now.
Section 1. In case of the removal of the President from office or of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President.
Therefore, the VP must be able to be President...
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
Right, which is why, at their roots, Democrats want more government intervention in your lives where as Republicans want smaller government. Sorry, pal, but the D's are the ones who don't think you can get by without government.
And better than the ruling population of other countriesHuh....I assume this is yet another slam on Iraq, where the "ruling population" was kindly killing and torturing its own people....
No, really I look forward to our new Obamessiah overlord, where we have unconditional talks with America's enemies and won't have to worry about pesky things like an Israeli state too much longer, and where a quick withdrawal from Iraq will leave incredible civil destabilization and undo the years of progress that our troops, whom the D. leadership claim to care so much about, have made.
The core dems really have no representation just like the core republicans. Obama is extremely liberal so the left loves him and the core dems are almost split down the middle between him and McCain
The core republicans do not like McCain and consider Hillary better then McCain however if Obama is the dems choice for the general election the republicans will certainly fall in line with McCain whereas there could be a huge defection of core conservatives to the Dems side with Hillary being the front candidate thereby strengthening the democratic party. Obama is ruining that possibility and making the dems much more leftist and liberal and weaker as a party. So in affect he is destroying the party and so is all of his supporters. But he nor his supporters will see it because everyone has been blinded by the dog and pony show that he is and his ever reminiscent MLK words of hope and change.
A candidate needs to reach across the ailes
McCain can reach to core dems and far right republicans
Hillary can reach to core conseratives and almost all dems
Obama can only reach to the liberals and part of the core dems
Without being able to reach across party lines he surely will not win. He will have to have Hillary on his ticket to pull in more core dems otherwise expect McCain to win by 67% or higher in the general election. By contrast If Hillary were to run as president on the she would get 10 - 30% of the republican vote and 40 to 45% core dem vote. Putting her at 55% - 75% in the general. Hillary has the swing states Obama does not the swing states have always determined the presidency! Obama without Hillary will probably get 45% of the dem vote providing he has the support of the newly registered voters and the african american support as he had in the primary.
A president himself cannot change the world and if people do not support his change nothing changes so everyone needs to have a reality check. Really the left needs to have there own party at this point because they have gone too far left and are pulling the rest of the party with them.
There should be 3 parties in my opinion as the core dems and the true conservatives actually have sense and sensibility and really have no true representation with either Obama or McCain or the parties they represent. The far right and far left are all about fanaticism that blindly leads them with emotional drive versus intelligent, analytical drive. The far right is power hungry the far left is feel good hungry neither one of these represent a stable state of thought it is emotional drive all the way. The proof is in the pudding as every far left supporters reason for electing Obama is "He inspires me" that is a FEELING not a fact.
If Obama gets elected as president and screws up the dems will never see another White House bid for years and any upcoming house and senate elections will end up with the republicans getting back those seats because all the ticked off core democrats that were not heard and forgotten will be voting for the republicans to take back over since the dems can't seem to get anything right. I am sure he has a lot of skeletons in his closet that still have yet to see the light of day and you can bet the republicans are already arming that battleship
In World of Warcraft, here is his head I got as a trophy.
Maybe I can sell it on the AH to McCainiacs and disappointed Hillary backers. Bwah!
(serious note: If he gets elected, I wonder if WoW will change that NPC name? It is rather bizarre to be told to go kill Barak then go around with his head as a trophy to be turned in for a bounty).
Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo! http://goo.gl/J9bkO
Don't you get tired of throwing out the bullshit that has been the standard GOP attack line for decades? That the Democrat is an elitist liberal who will raise your taxes for the sake of raising taxes, take away your guns, sell us out to the UN, and a godless flipflopper.
It's been 40 years since Nixon won the White House. You'd think you could come up with something new.
I'm from the UK and there's something I really don't understand. Whenever I read comments on the Internets from Americans at election time I often read fantastically insightful comments and opinions about world affairs, current issues and who (and why) should/shouldn't be "the next president of the united states of America". This is especially true when I read Slashdot.
So perhaps then people here could answer a question I have had for a while: Why is it that the people in America, at least over the last couple of decades, continue to vote into office, hmmm, shall we say "substandard" presidents that appear to not have the ability to piece a sentence together, let along come up with a solid set of foreign policies?
(This is a genuine question - I am not trolling)
A Bill Hicks quote comes to mind: "...we assassinate the good presidents..."
ron paul anyone? or what about the other parties?
Exactly, and on that note I think it would make a good slogan for Hillary.
:)
A good slogan for McCain: "No,no you have lost!!!!!!"
Struggling for karma is more fun anyways
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
"Quote me as saying I was mis-quoted." -Groucho Marx
Exactly. About 40% of people who vote will vote Republican, even if the reincarnation of Adolf Hitler were the nom, simply because he's a Republican. Ditto for the Democrats - 40% would happily vote for Stalin's ghost because of the D.
About 10% of people will usually vote their party (hold their nose and vote) unless the candidate is a true abortion, in which case they'll stay home. Or, if the other party fields a really great candidate or someone who gets people excited they might cross-over for that election.
And then there's the remaining 10% who look at policies and track-records and generally take all this political stuff really seriously.
I think I'm in that 20%, maybe in that "really independent" 10% - I mean, I find it absurd that in a nation of 300 million people we only have 2 major parties. But, generally, I do feel like any 3rd party candidate will be a total waste of a vote at best. I am so pissed at Perot for doing his on-again off-again run - not because I liked his positions, but because he could have gotten enough of the vote to secure public funds for a 3rd party, which would have opened the door for more diversity in politics, if only he hadn't backed out of the race and then come back into it.
Since I can't tell them apart, I treat all ACs as the same person.
You know as a Hillary supporter, you could help avoid a republican being put in charge if you are so against this. But you seem more for causing strife and seeing us go headfirst into destruction that to try to attempt to reach for something more hopeful. The is always a hand being held out to join us to make America a place for all of us to be proud of again if you wish to join us.
This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.
United Nations - Ah, you mean this failing institution we have now, that you created to replace the failing institution we had before called the League of Nations in order to have a major position in it with your veto power and that you disrespect constantly like when you bombed Belgrade or invaded Iraq?
Also, just to let clear, veeeerrrryyy funny your comment about how you the USA stopped Europe colonialism ... bad boys, you were never much of a team players were you, you just couldn't stand there were any other colonialist countries in this world competing with your imperialism.
And about your donations, oh, you are such a nice guys. It's just a pity that whenever you refer that point, that you are such a giving nation, you don't mention that the far biggest part of that "humanitarian" aid you provide outside the USA goes actually to Israel for them to buy weapons from you in order to perpetrate the killing of innocent Palestinians. And that if you don't count that part, EU actually provides much more in humanitarian aid than the USA. Yeah, look, but tanks for sharing that info with the rest of us.
I wish I had mod-points.
Pulling out over-night, as many seem to want, is possibly the worst thing to do. The government (and army) is nowhere near the point that they can actually control the country, and seeing the mighty american army leave like that will only help to bolster the extremists, Iran etc.
I feel sorry for the next president, having to inherit this mess from Bush, but it's an issue that has to be dealt with in an intelligent manner, and simply pulling out is not intelligent - it's emotional.
VPS-like shared hosting, on under-crowded servers.
I'm getting very sick of the fact that America as a whole does not understand that we have more than 2 political parties in this country plus independents. Republicans and Democrats are not that dissimilar. Both want more power, both want to spend more of our money, both wish to use taxation as a method of transferring wealth between classes, both seek an unconstitutional federal gov't. If you are one of those people who says voting for a 3rd party is a waste of a vote or you'd rather pick from the lesser of "2" evils, you are part of the problem so get out of America! I would've loved a Ron Paul nomination but since that didn't pan out, Bob Barr is the next best choice.
Certainly not immediate withdrawal from Iraq
... if any, are we going to take military action?
Ooh not "immediate" withdrawal. It'll be fast enough for most of us.
at what point
Oh yeah, that's a terrible threat there. "There may or may not exist a point where we would want to use military action to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons". Wow, so hostile there, compared to Bush's peace offerings.
Considering that he has also been heavily criticized for saying he would speak directly with Iran's President, i.e. use diplomacy, this 'threat' seems pretty irrelevant.
is recent vote for allocating $165 billion for the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan (including $51 billion dollars for veterans' education) tell me that he, like any other corporate-funded Democrat, have no principled objection to war or to these wars in particular.
Funding a war in progress -- and in particular caring for our people damaged by this war -- is completely different from not objecting to it. Guess what? It'll cost money to get our troops out of Iraq too, so when he proposes a spending bill that includes this money, don't lump that in with "supporting the war".
Democrats deserve no slack, and should be given none.
I don't hold the actions of Nixon or Reagan against Bush Jr; I see no reason to hold the actions of JFK against Obama. Because that makes no sense.
The enemies of Democracy are
I agree on the first part.
The war in Iraq right or wrong (personally I think we are doing some good over there, and yes was there myself) is actually dumping money into the economy and has created many jobs. Do a search for defence contracting jobs in the DC or Virgina areas there a ton of them and they pay extremely well.
Spending money on education, sure sounds like a great idea! But we already spend a ton of money on schools (look at your taxes). Maybe we should hold schools accountable for their budgets, starting with spending less on these ultra fancy buildings and football teams and more on decent books and other learning aids. Also support the teachers on maintaining order in their classrooms by allowing them to actually discipline their students. But success at school also requires support at home, do you think a child is going to do good at school if they can get failing grades and face no reprecussions from there parents? A few might yes, but they would be an exception. The fact of the matter is if you want a good education in the United States you will get one. You could spend a million dollars per child but if they don't have the will to learn they won't.
The health care system is broke because its based on a group policy system. If they went to a indivual based programs like they do with car insurance it would be much easier for everyone to get and much cheaper, especially if your employeer either helped out or paid for all of it. If it was easier to get at an individual basis the more widspread it will become the lower the rates would be and the more choices the person would have.
I agree the cost of oil needs to come down, but government subsidies isn't the way to do it. There hasn't been a new refinery built since the 70's and I would imagine there is alot more cars on the road today than there was in back then. Supply and demand my friend. Sure there probably is a stockpile of oil, its because they can refine it fast enough. Unless you are thinking of the strategic reserve, but we've always had that and thats a good thing to have.
Blaming the oil company is very misplaced, the government actually makes more per gallon of gas then the oil company. Last year the oil companies surrendered 41% of their profits to the government. The reason they make so much money is the pure scale of their business.
If you want to lower the price of gas let the oil companies do there job. Let them drill and refine. Do you think they like selling gas at $4-$5 a gallon? Basic economics will tell you no, cheaper gas means they sell more which means more money.
The futures market is artifically affecting the price as well, but I don't know enough about that to know how to fix it.
Obama is not too good to be true. He's gonna be a disaster. He was just a rookie senator that was at the right place at the right time. Mark my word if he gets a elected he will destroy this economy.
Sad part is I don't think McCain will do much better. This cap-and-trade thing is gonna not going to be kind to the American economy.
I know he won't get elected. I know people think he's a nut-job. I know he's got some extreme ideas for fixing the USA, but he's just what this country needs right now. He proposes the only real change.
Currently theta testing the prototype "Event Horizon" server-scaled desktop box with a 50 Gigameg of Ram.
Perhaps it is because you are the one who has been misled.
I wish you were right.
Politicians want to get elected. To get elected, politicians identify problems and promise to use the government to solve them. The solution may or may not work, the problem may or may not be soluble, but that doesn't matter. What matters is winning the elections.
"I can't solve it even if I get elected, you'll have to put in the effort yourselves" doesn't win elections. "If I solve it, holders of this office will have a power that will eventually be abused, and that abuse will be a lot worse than the current problem" isn't a vote winner either.
Republicans play to a different audience and therefore identify and promise to solve different problems. But in both cases the basic premise of the politician is that the best solution is for the government to do something.
I'm not saying government is never the solution. I doubt plague prevention and national security can be done at a lower level than the federal government. I'm scared at the idea of a private police force with the ability to arrest me for alleged crimes I committed in the past. But government should be the last resort, not the first solution.
-- Support a free market in the field of government
The libertarian party will be on the ballot and Bob Barr and Ron Paul are good friends and have similar stances on the federal gov't.
Have any of the candidates suggested they will make any change to this graph:
http://www.globalissues.org/i/military/country-distribution-2006.png
Until that changes, nothing will.
Invoicing, Time Tracking, Reporting
Pulling out over-night, as many seem to want, is possibly the worst thing to do. The government (and army) is nowhere near the point that they can actually control the country, and seeing the mighty american army leave like that will only help to bolster the extremists, Iran etc.
Hi. Hate to break this unhappy news to you, but the current government is fundamentally incapable of controlling the country, because it is seen as illegitimate by most of the country. Any government formed under occupation, no matter how many stained thumbs you show off, is going to be seen as thus. No matter how long we stay, that government will fall as soon as we leave. Or it will have to start being very un-Democratic in order to stay in power. Either way, it will be brutal.
Also, this entire Iraqi enterprise has bolstered Iran, and nothing we do before we leave is going to change that either. The government, and especially the army, is closely tied with Iran. The largest political party, SCIRII* was formed by Iraqi exiles living in Iran. Their militia, the Badr Brigade, has effectively transformed itself into the army. It's the same militia, but now wearing uniforms with "official" standing. Remember in that recent farce of a conflict, where the Iraqi Army was trying to push Sadr's militia out, and failed miserably? Remember how they were calling Sadr "Iran-backed" in the stories to help justify the action? Well, he is Iranian backed, but the Prime Minister's party and SCIRII are even more. So in the conflict that comes after we leave, whoever wins, it's a win for Iran.
So while we shouldn't leave instantly, we shouldn't dawdle because there isn't much point. We should start drawing down, over maybe a year, two tops, and dedicate our time remaining to all the public works projects that we have failed to finish. Maybe it'll all be blown up the day after we leave, but maybe we can at least leave a positive last impression on our way out. Sticking around trying to prevent the inevitable is just making things worse.
* Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, they call themselves something else now, without the scary "Islamic Revolution" part. Must have made the Iranian pedigree too obvious.
The enemies of Democracy are
Election Wrapping Up (Part 2)
Note the part 2. Politics (whether through big stories or YRO) has always been covered here.
Clinton won't run third party because she can't win as a third party. If history and these primaries demonstrate one thing, it's that the Clintons are all about winning. The sanest explanation for why Clinton ran so hard this primary, long past the time when the spreadsheets said it was still possible to win, was that she recognized that this was her best opportunity. And now the landmine she's trying to avoid is being blamed if Obama loses in November, because that destroys any possibility of running again in 2012 as the Democrat.
At it's worst, each side's supporters showed about a 20-25% response rate of "I'm voting for McCain if the other one wins". That number is dropping, and will drop further now that there's a clear nominee. The vast majority of Clinton supporters will vote for Obama. The question of how she exits the race will determine how much of that last 10-20% fall in line with party wishes, and the point of Clinton's non-concession last night is a negotiating stance for being bought off to exit gracefully. Privately and semi-publicly (to donors and the press) she's already conceded that the race is over and Obama won. Now it's a question of whether she gets to reject the VP spot, or gets Senate majority leader, or what. Also who pays off her campaign's debts.
As for Obama picking up the middle, he's already beating McCain by eight points in states like Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Colorado. One thing the press continually got wrong was that, where Clinton was beating Obama, they assumed it was diehard support that wouldn't transfer (e.g., Pennsylvania). But overall polling showed that either Democrat beats McCain, indicating that Clinton's support was a preference, not a last stand. In a lot of states, the Dem voters simply liked Clinton better, but were happy with both.
Anyone who loves or hates any language, platform, or manufacturer, doesn't know what they're talking about.
We don't know either. Our media is too busy spouting off the buzzwords to stop and explain what they actually mean.
Your courageous and selfless spelling corrections have made me a better person.
Politics in America goes all the way from M to N. It's that far apart and right in the middle.
tomorrow who's gonna fuss
Don't count Ron Paul out yet! Um, sorry, too much digg.com :-)
Donating $50 to a charity that helps the poor, that is more likely to succeed at getting them out of their situations...[than] the government spend[ing]...$50
This sounds rather empirical...but do you have any actual evidence this is the case?
I recall we had situations like this in the industrial revolution it didn't work too well -- remember Scrooge from A Christmas Carol? Most wealthy people kept their money causing the Gilded age.
But hey, if you've got any actual facts to back up your opinion, I'd love to hear them.
-- Political fascism requires a Fuhrer.
Personally, I've always been cynical about issues-based campaigns because it's easy to stand up in the contest and say "I'll do X, Y, and Z if elected"; actually passing legislation is much more difficult, and the end result is rarely what was promised or launched. If you want to see Obama's policy papers, go to his website. He's got lots of them, and a lot of them are saner than Clinton's. The real test of Obama's plans is what happens when he actually goes to pass a law.
However, remember that Obama is the one who took the intelligent, principled position on a gas-tax holiday that was supported by economists. That should be a hopeful sign.
What happened in this election is that the Democrats on Obama's team looked at history and saw that the Democrats continually lose issues-based campaigns. You're right that elections are popularity contests, and the Dems finally figured out what the Republicans have understood for years. That doesn't mean any of the candidates aren't smart or have good positions. It just means that an election, like a job interview, is a pretty lousy way of vetting a candidate.
Anyone who loves or hates any language, platform, or manufacturer, doesn't know what they're talking about.
Hard to believe, but never the less, true.
A second piece of wisdom. You do yourself a disservice praising and quoting a piece liberally sprinkled with the following kinds of phrases: "Magic Negro", "Negro clown", "young gentleman of color is claiming to have had a sexual encounter with Saint Barack", "because Obama is a socialist, a Democrat, and - especially - a Negro". It strongly suggests that you yourself are quite comfortable with overt racism and pathological hate. And it leads me to the conclusion, Mr. Cornelius, that you are engaged in a crude form of psychological rationalization for your own unstated racist sentiments.
A little self-introspection may be in order.
Since he's not unambiguously white, he's therefore black. That's the American way. And in a way, it makes it all the more impressive that he's the nominee, and has a real shot at winning the election.
Anyone who loves or hates any language, platform, or manufacturer, doesn't know what they're talking about.
What's the alternative? Just going about business as usual? Let's not have a global warming debate right now, but irregardless of that, there's a very real energy crisis on the horizon. Oil is going to become more scarce and go up in price, regardless of who we elect.
It's a consequence of our past actions, under the leadership of both republicans and democrats, that we've basically put ourselves in an unsustainable situation. We're going to have to deal with the problem eventually, and it's going to be painful and expensive and it's going to suck.
So we can bitch and moan about how hard it will be and just try to ignore it until we have no choice, or we can be honest with ourselves about the problem, take it on the chin, and get it over with. There's no easy solutions to many of the problems that we face. There's not even any perfect solutions.
One time I threw a brick at a duck.
This gets trotted out because it works.
The bulk of voters like big government but hate to pay taxes.
The politicians of both major parties know that when they try to make government smaller,
the people that benefit from the area being cut start squawking and taking their votes elsewhere.
Some people like a strong defense (big Department of Defense). Some people like farm subsidies
(protect the family farmer). Some people want more government employees to enforce existing
regulations (think SEC, EPA, USDA). Some people want NASA to get space colonies going --
mission to Mars! People actually like government but don't want to pay for it.
They vote for the person that tells them they can have all that AND A TAX CUT!
So the politicians talk about cutting taxes then talk some vague talk about government waste
but avoid specific cuts like the plague.
When the average voter cares about deficit spending more than tax rates, that's when we'll start
getting cuts in total government spending.
If you think of the recent Republican administrations (Reagan, Bush I, Bush II), which ones
cut the size of government? Which one put an end to deficit spending?
Reducing the size of government is political suicide.
"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them." -- Albert Einstein
YOU SHALL NOT PASS... legislation, because that's the job of Congress.
Barack & Hillary 2008
Vote Barakilly, it's the Bush families worst nightmare!
Online Starcraft RPG? At
Dietary fiber is like asynchronous IO-- Non-blocking!
Obama for President!!!!
Dollar menus actually cost the franchisee money, this is why they're starting to charge more or remove items from the menu
http://marketplace.publicradio.org/display/web/2008/06/04/mcds_dollar_menu/
Live EVERY week... Like it's Shark Week
"So you are saying that you would rather use your freedom of speech to convince other people to change the world for you, rather than enacting the change yourself?"
I cannot enact the change by myself. I am saying I would rather use my freedom of speech to bring about a situation where I can join with everyone else to enact the change.
"That sounds a lot like 'Do as I say, not as I do.'" - People follow by example.
If you would prefer to gloss over the entire discussion and categorize my statements as such, feel free. However you would be wrong to do so. You're assuming I am wrong in order to show I am wrong. In other words, your incorrect assumption is that the only way to influence other voters is to vote yourself. Another way to influence them is with opinions and discussion - the whole point of this thread.
It is sad that the political parties are allowed to run the election process. In Ohio voters who switched parties were threatened with Lawsuits. Michigan and Florida had their primaries invalidated by the political parties. In many states you must declare a political affiliation which means your vote is no longer secret. Voters are assailed by people campaigning in the parking lots of polling places. Is it any wonder why people do not vote in this country
Did you seriously just consider WW2 with the Iraq Wars? My God man, take some history. Yes, there is a certain amount of propaganda associated with World War II, but it is nonetheless *widely agreed* that it was a necessary war, and that America's role in it was inevitable (we *were* attacked by Japan, y'know, as opposed to *not* being attacked by Iraq).
So... On the one hand we have... A war fighting two aggressive world powers, who have taken over many countries not their own, one of whom has attacked American territory directly, unprovoked.
On the other hand we have... A war fighting a country that has not attacked us, nor attacked any other country... Nor is it connected to any attacks against the US.
How are they comparable?
Yeah! Everybody knows that $600 checks courtesy of our Chinese lenders is how you really stimulate the economy! Who cares about the long-term consequences? If we focus on short-term thinking that increases stock prices every quarter, what could possibly go wrong? By my calculations, such a strategy will yield infinite growth!
In that vein, I suggest we make permanent policies like banking deregulation that allows near-million dollar home loans to be given without regard to the applicant's assets or even income. Similarly, we should also make permanent the tax breaks for the ultra-rich. After all, every economist knows that a millionaire buying another yacht is the single most important factor driving the economy. Products and services that people actually need like food, gas, and baby-formula are apparently acquired through some alternate currency other than money. Besides, a federal deficit is over-rated. There's no need to pay attention to that now. After all, if we can get away with waging the longest, most expensive war in modern U.S. history without the usual, obligatory war tax, clearly we can be as irresponsible as we please. What could possibly go wrong?
-Grym
For reference, we've been in Iraq for five years now, with just over 4000 killed. Averages 800 per year.
Vietnam had an average of more than 5000 per year (any year in Vietnam saw more casualties than this last five years has).
Korea had an average of about 13000 per year.
WW2 had about 75000 per year.
WW1 about 70000 per year.
Spanish-American War about 800 per year.
Civil War about 70000 per year.
Mexican-American war about 4000 per year.
The earlier wars (Revolution, 1812) we have incomplete data on, but a good guestimate is comparable to the Spanish-American war.
Note that almost every war we've ever been in, we had FAR higher casualties than we've had in Iraq. Note that the only people alive who've seen a war with casualties this low are over 100 (Spanish-American war survivors, if any).
Note also that I'm only considering US casualties. If we include allied casualties, this war looks even better in camparison (we were a small fraction of the casualties of the Korean War, not the large fraction here, as an example). And I don't consider enemy casualties to be particularly relevant in warfare.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
It also helps me to ease my conscience with regard to racism I don't think I'm guilty of, but must assume I might be guilty of. I mean, I do think Michael Richards is a pretty funny guy... This balances the scale.
Bow-ties are cool.
I believe the USA should be a beacon of hope and civilization ...all alone, in the night...
Bow-ties are cool.
It also helps that Obama is in fact ranked as the most liberal senator (according to the non-partisan National Journal).
Nationally democrats have been moving further and further to the left to try and seperate themselves from the Republicans (who kind of just float around aimlessly center right to mid right on most issues). On local fronts or when actually in office however, Dems, with the exception of their often "talk before they think leadership", tend to vote more center left because they know most of their rhetoric is just that, empty campign talk. Just look at some of the recent upsets in the house and senate, the Dems who were elected are often more conservative than their republican opponents.
Of course that's just my opinion...... you could be wrong!
I'd like to take this opportunity to thank all of you hard & soft core Dems & Reps for continuing to deomonstrate how this 2-party system is the real problem with American politics.
Solving problems? Making change? Uniting? Overcoming? Pulling out? Staying the course?
These are very entertaining notions coming from people who put their party first (and in some cases very disturbing social theories) and America second.
"No power in the 'verse can stop me"
I really don't think the name is a big deal to anyone but trolls, and not just media trolls. Voting with their head or heart I don't think represents very many people at all. As Obama explained in his book (not like it is a very unique idea, but just to reference) Candidates are whatever the media makes them out to be because the number of people that actually see a candidate in person and catch everything they say in context is virtually irrelevant. 75,000 people showed up in Oregon to listen to Barack Obama. So what? Even if we are just talking about Oregon voters, how many of them by comparison are just going to listen to CNN, ABC, or Fox clips that the news finds the most worthy to air. That being before commentary.
The biggest help for me politically this year has been Library of Congress and OpenCongress.org to find out what our congress is actually doing with all their time. For some perspective, I read "A Living History", "A Woman In Charge", "The Audacity of Hope", and looking forward to reading "The Revolution - A Manifesto". YouTube has also been useful in being able to review speeches. I still listen to CNN and NPR, but it usually bores me to tears the issues they choose to discuss, but it doesn't surprise me anymore. I also strongly value the opinion of Lawrence Lessig. People come to conclusions about candidates in a variety of ways. I still think Ron Paul had the whole "Hope for America" campaign down first, but whatever. I have some understanding and respect for McCain supporters, but I just can't be so cynical all the time. A combination of things tell me who is going to win in November, and that voting here in California won't make a difference, and if it does or doesn't. I will say though, the more I think about Obama's message of hope and argument to give a little faith to the idea that we can change the system and make it better makes me want to vote for Ron Paul.
Want Big Business out of government? Take away the incentive and start by getting government out of big business!
as I indicated in another
post
in this discussion, there seems to be a huge undercurrent of support for trying
to keep Obama out just because he's black. Wait, hold up - Obama is black?
Why don't people tell me these things??!?
Bow-ties are cool.
Wait, what do you mean neither of them are eligible for election to US office? Don't bother me with details, man!
Bow-ties are cool.
Do you realize how hated Hillary Clinton is among republicans? Quite possibly the most polarizing figure in politics right now. They see her as disingenuous and power-hungry, and quite frankly she is.
So is McCain. He's against the 1st (McCain-Feingold) and 14th (his young adult conscription program) amendments and strongly for alien amnesty.
At this point, Clinton is right of McCain on fundamental issues.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Care to give any specific examples of Obama's supposed corruptness?
History? I just remembered some Floridans got fooled by the false promise of some retirement benefits and propelled George W. Bush to the White House despite Al Gore won the majority of the votes.
And now 8 years later, some Floridan politician violated their party's own rules and propelled Barack Obama to the nomination despite Hillary Clinton have won the majority in the primaries.
Why Florida again? Are Floridans just a bunch fools? Or something fishy going on there?
It is time to learn from History!
A war fighting a country that has not attacked us, nor attacked any other country...
Well, I suppose that someone could consider that statement not palpably idiotic, for some value of "any other" that excludes the country of Iran,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Iraq_War
the country of Kuwait,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_War
genocide of the ethnic nation of Kurdistan,
http://www.hrw.org/reports/1991/IRAQ913.htm
genocide of the ethnicity of Marsh Arabs,
http://www.usip.org/newsmedia/releases/2002/nb20021125.html
and assorted offenses against Turkmens, Shi'a, and every other non-Sunni-Arab religion/ethnicity in the region.
How are they comparable?
That's a good question. But for the exact opposite reason you ask it. The genocidal offenses documented above are much more than anything Hitler was known to have done at the time the U.S. declared war on Germany despite never being attacked by Germany, only by a *very* loosely allied country on the completely opposite side of the globe.
From any humanist -- OR pragmatic -- perspective, war to remove Saddam Hussein was unquestionably far more justified than declaring war on Germany was.
I still don't get the whole "There is no point in trying to talk to them, they are unwilling to listen or really negotiate or make any changes". Their the fascist?!? Last I checked that was the worlds opinion of US!
Can't we at least appear to be the better country, get everyones sympathy for "trying" THEN bomb the shit out of them when they don't do everything we tell them to do?
Want Big Business out of government? Take away the incentive and start by getting government out of big business!
If you are a subscriber, you can probably find a prior post I wrote on why exactly political posts unrelated to "nerd-specific" topics are probably bad for discourse on slashdot.org. Summary: they eat mod points and attract trolls, which hurts every article.
So we have an idiot posting on slashdot and it's NOT Anonymous Coward.
Seriously - you should post as AC when venting your ignorant rants.
Yes.
What part of "black" did you not understand? It's kind of like how Tiger Woods is black. It's pretty easy, you can just look at their skin and just know.
Bow-ties are cool.
"Octoroon" sounds like an eight-sided cookie.
The Democratic Party delegate system contains two components that diverge from the "one person one vote" concept. The first is the insider payoff system called the "SuperDelegate". The second is the much discussed proportional allocation scheme. The proportional allocation system was skewed towards reliably Democratic district. 1000 votes in a typically Republican district were worth X delegates. The same 1000 votes in a historically Democratic district were worth more than X delegates.
He's dirty as fuck, more corrupt than a Louisiana politician.
Appropriate analogy! McCain was eating cake with Bush as New Orleans, Louisiana drowned. While people were dying in one of the greatest natural catastrophes in US history, McCain and Bush were licking delicious sugar icing off each other's noses!
Lil' Thindime, lilting a lacrimose lament, krashes the kwaint konfines of Kokonino Kounty
First, in the frenzy to be "frist" in line (or close) to hold primaries, a lot of votes and a huge amount of momentum is blown nearly a year before the election. The parties are taking a huge chance that their nominee will turn out to have some big skeletons in his closet with this mad rush to "make their vote count". Ironically, their votes would have been more significant if they'd waited until, say, June, when a big state could decide the nomination for the Dems.
Second, as alluded to above, the Dems primary voters seem to naively voted for who they personally wanted to be president. That is a mistake in primary voting. The smart thing is to get the candidate with the best chance of winning nominated (given that an actual Republican isn't running as a Democrat, I guess). The conventional wisdom is that Clinton would much more likely to win the general election. Besides, she got more popular votes.
Third, as an aside to point 2, primaries are a really bad way to pick a candidate. But smoke-filled rooms are passe. I'd suggest a compromise... One-half of the delegates to be selected by primaries and caucuses. Committed to their declared nominee for say two rounds of voting. The rest appointed as the party sees fit. And the conventions would have some meaning again. And maybe, just maybe, we'd see some presidential candidates worth considering. Someone who has more going for them than a disturbing willingness to glad-hand and stump for two years without a break.
Most people don't even think inside the box.
And in fact, this is exactly what some articles are now saying. She knows she lost the lead of the ticket. She's now lurking around the 2nd-tier options.
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
Anything we can do to lower the national debt will help the people of our country. Granted, it's not easy, but there guys and gals that we send to Washington are professionals...right? Fixing Medicare and SS (and getting out of Iraq) are the biggest targets. Anybody who comes through with a good plan for these problems gets my vote. Ms. Clinton seems to know what she's talking about, so putting her in the VP seat might be the best thing for America right now.
Seriously, the debt is the biggest threat to our continuing quality of life, IMO. Debt leads to inflation, which amounts to a tax on money itself.
"In a 32-bit world, you're a 2-bit user. You've got your own newsgroup, alt.total.loser." -Weird Al
Cindy Sheehan is an far left idealogue with an axe to grind, so anything that she says about the Iraq war or even war in general must not be taken as if it comes from a disinterested party (you might argue that nobody is really completely disinterested when it comes to Iraq but she is more personally involved and interested than most).
Obama knows that talks with Iran will not produce anything substantial (if talks could have resolved the problems in the Middle East they would have been resolved a long time ago) and there is really nothing to be gained at this point by talking to Iran or even North Korea for that matter. The best that we can hope for is to stave of immediate misunderstandings that could lead to cross border shooting. Bush was right about one thing when he spoke to the Israeli parliament and said, "Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along." There is every reason to believe that Ahmadinejad will negotiate in bad faith merely to wring concessions from America and Israel while eventually breaking any promises that he makes (and probably intending to break them from the start). The real power behind the government of Iran, the Ayatollahs, would probably not agree to sit in the same room with western envoys in any case so speaking directly with them will probably be impossible.
The problem with the Iranians is that they are not pragmatists like the Soviets were, but rather Islamic theocrats who are willing to put their interpretation of Islam before the welfare, prosperity, and even the lives of their people. Neither the Soviets or the Americans were going to deliberately "push the button" first during the Cold War no matter how poor relations got, but it is likely that someone like Ahmadinejad or the Ayatollahs would "push the button" to destroy Israel , even though they were certain of being wiped out according to MAD.
Finally, what if you talk to them and they simply say "we are taking our ball and going home" (or , less politely, f*** you America and Israel) and they develop the bomb anyway? Life is already pretty austere in Iran so sanctions are probably not going to make things much worse than they already are for the economy (which is still in shambles despite high oil prices). What then? Do you call their bluff and attack? If you don't, then they know that there is a line that the United States and Israel will not cross and so they just do what they want and dare us to stop them.
The US DID NOT declare war on Germany in WWII.
"America declared war on Japan on December 8, 1941 and upon Germany two days later."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_American_shots_fired_in_World_War_II
You're not saying that wikipedia could possibly be in any way fallible, are you?
Leaving that aside, it's quite clear that Roosevelt had been waging an undeclared war hidden from the public.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/higgs/higgs77.html
Hitler himself didn't want to fight either England or the US, he wanted their allegiance in an anti-Communist alliance. Which would make for a more interesting alternative history series than the Turtledove books, I'm sure.
Does anyone remember Eddie Murphy's take on what would happen with the first black president? Also his "White Like Me" skit. I don't think even a half-black president would survive for more than the first year. Some inbred redneck hillbilly would take him out with a deer rifle. Eddie Murpy was actually funny in the 80s on SNL before he started acting in movies. He'd probably make one hell of a president. We need to stop electing lawyers.
Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
wiki sez:
"Quadroon" is someone of one-quarter black ancestry. A quadroon has a biracial parent (black and white) and one white parent. In other words, the person has one black grandparent and three white grandparents.
"Octoroon" means a person of fourth-generation black ancestry. An octoroon has one parent who is a quadroon and one white parent. In other words, the person has one black great-grandparent and seven white great-grandparents.
Is anyone else running for president? Can't find any news about anyone but Ubama.
Uhuh...so this was not a thread about Obama winning the nomination? BTW: why isn't a Democrat who surrounds himself with bigots and uses at the very least intolerant language called a bigot when a Republican certainly would have. Barack called small town Americans bigots. And yet he surrounds himself black racists. I feel he's a bigot, as such. You don't have to agree. Show me my ignorance, then.
No one's saying he'd put us in danger of "appeasing" the terrorists. They're saying he'd appease Iran under Ahmadinejad and Hamas. And they don't really support terror so much as genocide. I don't want to Godwin the thread, so never mind.
My fellow Americans, let's restore the death penalty for child rapists. Let's do it . . . for the children.
How is the media 'deciding'? He has a majority of the delegates to the convention. I don't think the media repeating this fact is 'deciding' anything.... it's reporting.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
This is important and valuable, especially when it constructs community and social connections between the people involved. But individual voluntary contributions run smack into collective action problems.
In order to address poverty (to take the current example, but this applies to other social problems and needs also), we need education, safe neighborhoods, effective banking, credit regulation, access to housing, transportation, health care, and so on. These things cannot be addressed by independent individuals. These goods (programs, services, etc.) require many people working together in order to be provided at all. But the more people required to ensure the good is provided, the less likely it is that each of them will participate.
Say we need better policing. We want to hire another cop at a cost of $100,000. As an individual, I might be able to put $100 towards this cause. But my donation is wasted unless others also contribute. If they do, my $100 is a drop in the bucket - it probably won't be the difference between success and failure - and I will benefit from the hiring even though I didn't donate (I can free-ride). If I contribute and others don't, my money is essentially wasted and I feel like a chump. So I don't contribute. Neither does anyone else, and nothing happens.
With collective action problems, the more individuals are required to participate, the less likely anything is to happen. They are much better provided by individual entities (including governments and corporations) than by uncoordinated or voluntary groups.
Politics is another example. I'm involved in fighting a pernicious copyright law that has been proposed in Canada. For individual citizens like myself the cause seems hopeless. Why would I spend hours lobbying politicians if only a handful of other people will do the same? Our cause appears doomed because each of us would be alone in our efforts, and each of us is alone because our cause appears doomed. Catch-22. Fortunately, it turns out I am not alone and we have had some success staving this thing off. But now look at the situation from the point of view of a corporation or professional association lobbying for this law. There are only a few of them, each is powerful enough to have an impact on its own, so they don't face the same problem. In general, organizations like this are much more politically effective, citizens are ignored, and our democracy is debased.
Churches and charities are valuable - particularly because they can provide some coordination, reducing the severity of collective action problems. But they are not enough. Social problems cannot be adequately addressed from the point of view of individuals helping individuals. It sucks. Governments, like all human institutions, are deeply flawed. But whether you're Left or Right or something else, that's just how it is.
Idaho is very typically a red state, but if you go by any of the parties that get thrown down here for primaries and whatnot, you'll find that Ron Paul was better liked than McCain. I think it's the first time disgruntled democrats and gruntled republicans every agreed on someone in this state.
Obama is full of shit just like an other politician and because Hillary again proved, with her inaction re: retroactive immunity for telecoms (she didn't even vote), that she's a fence riding cunt trying to pander to everyone -- I cannot vote for her either. This is going to be a very difficult decision for me.
Something to consider that might help. Given that either Obama or Hillary will screw us over domestically, it is a wash as to which one you might choose. But one of the duties of the President is to act as a figure-head for the United States: our representative to the the rest of the world. Which one would help us out the most internationally?
For that purpose, you want the most full-of-shit -- but believable and charismatic -- politician you can get in the office of President. Other nations would be more impressed by Obama as President then Hillary, on a purely racial basis. Female heads-of-state aren't uncommon, but black ones in predominately white countries are less so. Also, Obama is likely to be more favored among Muslim nations (though from their perspective it might be a case of "slightly less obnoxious of two evils").
But at this point, your choices are simpler. Obama already HAS the nomination. You just have to choose between him and McCain, or vote a third party.
i'd hit it so hard, if you pulled me out you'd be the king of britain [bash.org]
Ouch...that's pretty bad....I live in New Orleans.
Got any links or articles or personal experiences to back this up? I've heard this from others but, I've never seen any evidence of it put forth....
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
> He's dirty as fuck, more corrupt than a louisiana politician.
Oh I doun't doubt Obama is a fully integrated part of the political machine 'yall got up there, but you Yanks don't know squat about corruption.
We have a Governor in Federal Prison. He got elected while under indictment, with the endorsement of BOTH major parties. Of course due to our crazy open primaries his opponent was David Duke so it wasn't like we had much of a choice.
We got us a Congresscritter who got caught with $90,000 in 'cold hard cash' sitting in his freezer. He is still in Congress, reelected by nice margins.
We got us a blooming idiot down in New Orleans as mayor, prone to foot in mouth like 'ya wouldn't believe. Makes Wright look like a beginner in the whitey hatin' business. And totally incompetent. You want to know why New Orleans didn't really TRY to evacuate, look no farther than Ray and the Ray Nagin Memorial Bus Lot.
We just got rid of a Governor who was so incompetent her own party made sure she didn't run for reelection.... didn't help em though, Jindal cleaned their clocks anyway, so we have some room for optimism.
Democrat delenda est
Wow even a slashdot user 137 can post racist articles.
Quotes from the first article...
"being a Negro in America"
"uppity Negro"
"upstart Negro"
"Magic Negro"
"Negro clown Alan Keyes"
"Negro libido and psyche"
"and â" especially â" a Negro"
Attention troubleshooter: the previous information was permitted only for ultraviolet and above level clearance. Please report to the debriefing center immediately.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Couple of points. Iraq really did not have WMDs. The war is a sham sold by the current administration based on a farce. Iran, however, does have nuclear capability and does represent a threat to the region. His thoughts reflect that with the intelligence community but he does not draw a line in the sand. He only mentions the possible threat of Iran. Second, his allocating money to the war (and to veterans benefits) is a no-win vote. If he voted against it, he would not be supporting the troops. If he votes for it, he's a war monger. He didn't vote for the war because he wasn't in Congress at the time. We can only surmise how he would have voted.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/ Read up on his issues. How does he have time to debate issues when he's running around madly trying to secure the nomination?
-
I'm so happy! This is not just a victory for Obama, it's a victory for America, for he will surely lead America into the right direction And wow, 1,300 comments. Thats the most comments I've seen in a LONG time...
He has a delegate lead. He would not have an actual majority until the non-bound delegates vote. Of course, now they'll look like idiots if they do anything other than vote for Obama. It's on the news that he won, you know.
This is like one big exit poll, and everyone wants to be first to project the winner. Without Barack saying "I have won the nomination" or "I am the nominee" or Hillary saying "He won" or "I lost", the media has decided based on their informal count of delegates or on what their rival station/newspaper is saying. They decided.
Now it's true. That's how it works .
We have two extraordinarily poor candidates for president this time. It's a vacuum that the right person could fill.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
> I think he is as honorable a politician as you can find today.
Perhaps, but he is NOT honorable in my book. He did just fine defending the Republic from external threats. Hell, 'just fine' doesn't even cover it, he is a frickin' War Hero in the best use of the word. But he utterly failed the biggest challenge a man can face. When the time came to defend the Republic from Senator John McCain he failed. When his Oath of Office ran into his ego the ego won. My only question for Senator McCain is "Mr. McCain, do you have a literacy problem and just don't understand what 'Congress shall make no law...' and that it applies to you or do you understand and just not care?"
The rest of his 'compromising with Dems' I can disagree with and still vote for him, but the 1st Amendment is a bridge too far for me. Unless BHO really pisses me off between now and the election, I'll be going 3rd Party.
Democrat delenda est
The media decides who gets name recognition. Why do you think Ron Paul did so poorly in the 'scientific' polls? Because he didn't have name recognition due to the media having a near blackout on info about him in the early part of the Republican race, and then once he started wiping the floors with the other candidates at the debates, they did everything they could to make him seem like a lunatic/crazy old man. The media has a monopoly on who gets recognized by the public, and subsequently who gets elected.
And this is a problem for us why? As another person said in their reply to you, the Iraq situation is unwinnable, just like Vietnam was, unless you're willing to put another Saddam in power to exert brutal control over the country. Saddam's government is the only kind of government that could work in Iraq. Either that, or the US needs to conquer the entire region, re-draw the borders, and govern it in an obviously imperial fashion. The first solution doesn't seem like it would go over too well with American voters, and the second solution requires too much money (which we don't have) and would probably cause world war three with China and Russia.
The only rational thing for the US to do in this situation is to pull out unilaterally, and leave the Iraqi people to their own devices (and Iran's). We don't have the capability of "fixing" that situation, and the only reason that things are as peaceful as they are there is because the violent forces there realize that we can't stay there forever, and will eventually have to leave. They're most likely looking at what's going to happen with this year's election before trying anything big.
All of which I'd disavow - except for the crack about Keyes. :-)
.sig, you pack of cultural nincompoops!
btw. That's Percy bloody Shelley in my
Free Huey!
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
sigh... read the OP I was responding too. He suggested supporting !Obama because of the race issue.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
Sorry, I really don't care to read a bunch of position papers written by a bunch of academics. I want to know what's in his heart.
I want to hear it from the horse's mouth. Even then, it's hard to know what the man stands for. In "The Audacity of Hope", he's for free trade. Now, he's for dumping NAFTA and a return to protectionism. Which is it, Barry?
Look, you got my vote in the primary because I'd rather have anyone other than that crazy bitch in the White House. Now, it's time for you to face the music and reveal your stance on the issues. This chameleon crap ain't gonna cut it any longer.
They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
You just have to choose between him and McCain, or vote a third party.
That's what I was referring to but thanks for helping to state the obvious.
Care to explain why every obamabot out there is modding "-1 troll" any time someone stands up to speak the truth about him in this thread?
Look into how Obama disenfranchised voters and made sure his name was the only name on the ballot in some of his Illinois races.
Then look at all the money he got in the various bribery scandals over the years. Start with the $1million+ "discount" he got on his house.
That's just the tip of the iceberg.
Oh, I agree. At least, in the cases where fraud on the part of the broker (which was widespread) was not a factor. The fact that the federal government has a policy that effectively subsidizes questionable, high-risk investment strategies under the euphemism of "too big to fail" is fucking ridiculous and should not be tolerated, particularly by anyone who would try and profess the virtues of the "free" market.
I have nothing against yachts and the people that buy or produce them. My beef lies with economic policies which falsely posit that the rich are somehow more connected to the domestic economy than other demographic groups and, so, should receive tax-cuts and exemptions first. I consider such policies pure pandering as the rich are arguably less connected to the domestic economy because of their overseas investments and bank accounts. What's worse is that it strikes me as a cheap short-term political trick that artificially increases the stock market prices because of increased investment without actually improving market conditions, which ultimately leads to larger fluctuations in the market which, in the long-term, helps nobody.
This whole "environmentally-friendly corn-based ethanol causes starvation" canard needs to stop. Domestic ethanol fuel production was not the only reason why worldwide food prices have gone up in recent years. One reason is that the price of oil has gone up, because it is oil which produces the nitrogen fertilizer, runs the agricultural equipment, and powers the ships and trucks that deliver the food to its ultimate destination. Food prices are very sensitive to the price of oil which has spiked dramatically in recent years. Another reason is that countries like China and India have been consuming far more meat than they ever did in the past. This indirectly causes the price of grain to rise because cattle eat grain which would have, otherwise, gone to people. The original article in The Economist that prompted this discussion made sure to preface its analysis with at least the second fact. Subsequent popular news articles did not and painted the food-shortages abroad as solely result of navel-gazing environmentalists here in the States.
That being said, corn-based ethanol is a dumb idea and a great example our dysfunctional political system. Corn-based ethanol is inefficient, exacerbates the increased price of food, and, ironically, is bad for the environment. The only reason it gained traction in the legislature is because it is politically expedite. The agricultural lobby is very well organized and highly funded spending tens of millions of dollars in campaign contributions in this year alone. Furthermore, Iowa (the Corn-capital of the U.S., or world even) has a disproportionate amount of political power (particularly in a presidential election year) because of its early, bell-weather primary. Corn-based ethanol initiatives gave politicians a great way to pander to special interests while capitalizing on the growing public support of the environmentalism movement--all without actually listening to any serious environmental scientists or experts.
Since when do people at the top pay less taxes? The more you earn the higher percentage of taxes you pay. That's what tax brackets are. Next year, file your own taxes(if you work, which given your comment is a stretch). The rich get gouged more than anyone when it comes to taxes.
At state levels, the discussion is
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
In the general election, a vote for Ron Paul is a vote for John McCain. There's no other legitimate way to see it.
Ron Paul is a libertarian in the parlance of our times. McCain and the Republican party are basically the exact opposite of libertarian values. Their policies are borderline fascist.
If you are a libertarian, you are in a bad way in this election, so you have to be very realistic. Obama is way more libertarian on many issues than McCain. Sure, Obama is a standard liberal on many other issues, but at least with Obama you get something. McCain's POLICIES (not his rhetoric) are diametrically opposed to a true libertarian agenda.
Vote for Obama now. Let the Republican party die and be purged of Neo-cons...in 4 or 8 years, republicans can re-invent themselves as hardcore libertarians across the board to set up a new counter balance to liberals like Obama. Then, and only then, would it make sense for a libertarian to vote for a Republican.
Thank you Dave Raggett
Massage therapists will stimulate the fsck out of the economy.
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
Time to Draft Lessig for VP!
Check this out too:
http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news/local&id=6185320
Know how much of this guy's money wound up in kickbacks to Obama? Loads!
After watching McCain's dire green-screen performance last night I see no possible way he can even compete against Obama. It will be total white-wash, unless... I think the bigwigs in the GOP will make it known to him that he hasn't a hope of winning this thing and they'll basically convince him to step down. We'll see him "taken ill" or somesuch, and his VP (Romney would make most sense) will step up as the replacement nominee. At least then it'll be more of a fair fight.
"Which comes closest to your view about what the U.S. should now do about the number of U.S. troops in Iraq? The U.S. should send more troops to Iraq. The U.S. should keep the number of troops as it is now. The U.S. should withdraw some troops from Iraq. OR, The U.S. should withdraw all of its troops from Iraq."
So you would have us believe that any answer to that question other than "Withdraw all of its troops" means they think we should keep whatever troops remain there until we "win"? You sure they didn't take the question to mean what should be done right now? You sure that the answer "Withdraw some" didn't mean "withdraw some now, and the rest later"?
Because this Quinnipiac survey, they directly ask the question of whether we should end the war by withdrawing troops, and 70% are in favor:
"What should the United States do in Iraq: withdraw all troops as soon as possible, or, set a timetable to withdraw troops gradually, or, keep troops in Iraq as long as needed?"
Withdraw all troops 22%
Set a timetable 48
Keep troops as needed 28
DK/NA 3
Only 28% are in favor of keeping troops there as long as needed. Clearly your assumption that people saying they wanted to withdraw some troops, also wanted to keep the rest there as long as needed, was wrong. Also in this summary of surveys, when asked the even more simple question of whether they approved of the war, 67% flat out said no. And that's in a survey that contains your exact question (with the same percentages, but attributed to CNN, are you sure you aren't mixing up your surveys?).
The majority of Americans want to end the war. Not by waiting until we "win", but by ceasing this endeavor that a majority of Americans think was a bad idea in the first place. From the same link "Looking back, do you think the United States did the right thing in taking military action against Iraq, or should the U.S. have stayed out?", 37% yes 57% no. "In view of the developments since we first sent our troops to Iraq, do you think the United States made a mistake in sending troops to Iraq, or not?", 63% yes, 36% no.
I'll probably get modded down for speaking an inconvenient truth to the uninformed anti-war crowd here at slashdot. But hey, silencing me doesn't change the facts on the ground that the "surge" appears to have achieved its goals at this time.
If you're modded down, it certainly won't be because you are informed and speaking the truth. Nobody who is informed would claim that a majority of Americans want to continue the war until it is "won". Hell, more than half of Americans don't even think victory is even possible ("Do you think the U.S. goal of achieving victory in Iraq is still possible, or not?", 53% no, 40% yes).
The only goal the surge has achieved is a temporary lull in violence, mostly isolated to Baghdad, that is not sustainable. The major goals of the surge, which was to create an environment in which resolution of Iraqs many political problems could be achieved, failed miserably. As was amply demonstrated just over a month ago, the main reason violence dropped was because al Sadr voluntarily told his militia to stand down, and our deals made with Sunni militias to get them on our side fighting al Qaeda*. When the government decided it wanted to kick Sadr out, well the violence flared right up again and all those extra troops were for naught and it took a deal brokered by Iran to stop the fighting.
Anyone who knows anything about counter-insurgency would have expected the surge to "work" by decreas
The enemies of Democracy are
i'm giving a big hells yeah to Clark! It should actually be Clark - P/Obama - VP
Though he's a Democrat, the Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid does far more to accommodate Republicans in the Senate than he does Democrats. If it's a bill Democrats want to pass, the threshold needed to pass is 60 votes to end cloture. If it's a bill Republicans want to pass, only a simple majority is needed.
Oh, and he'll honor holds from nut job wingnuts like Tom Coburn, but not holds from members of his own party, like when he ignored Chris Dodd's hold on telecom immunity.
The bit where it means brown.
Actually, no, wait, one of them did have a source. A source which was pretty obscenely racist, and cared more about Obama's skin tone than about his politics.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
Right, because the the 80s and early 90s justify an invasion *right now*. Whatever justification that was used to attack Iraq in the Gulf War does not apply to the war going on here and now. Whatever moral high ground we stood upon to defend Kuwait from an unprovoked aggressor is now gone. We are the unprovoked aggressors, against a country that did not pose any immediate threat to us (whether "immediate threat" is justification for war is another story), nor attack any of our allies in recent memory.
and assorted offenses against Turkmens, Shi'a, and every other non-Sunni-Arab religion/ethnicity in the region.Right, because the USA is *seriously* committed to righting the injustices of the world. So much so that we've invested our military might in cleaning up the Darfur crisis! Oh wait. No we haven't. This whole "bringing freedom" and "righting the wrongs of the world" thing is BS, and just a convenient excuse to justify an otherwise illegal and morally reprehensible war.
The genocidal offenses documented above are much more than anything Hitler was known to have done at the time the U.S. declared war on Germany despite never being attacked by Germany, only by a *very* loosely allied country on the completely opposite side of the globe.More emotional hogwash with no basis in history. We declared war on Germany because they were the war-time ally of Japan, which attacked the USA directly without provocation. Humanitarian concerns have nothing to do with any of this, and in fact the current war was started for reasons of "immediate threat", which turned out to be a lie. The humanitarian angle was only concocted once it was clear there were no WMDs, nor any *real* reason to have gone to war.
From any humanist -- OR pragmatic -- perspective, war to remove Saddam Hussein was unquestionably far more justified than declaring war on Germany was.Humanist maybe. Pragmatic no. Are you saying that we should've taken Pearl Harbour lying down, and not declared war in return? Japan and Germany were acting as allies in their war of agression, there was no choice for America, once attacked, to declare war on all of the Axis powers.
Let's not color this in the humanist perspective, really, because the war was never started under the pretense of humanitarian aid, whatever justification there may have been for it. Let's also not pretend that we are the shining beacon of humanist behavior - because if we were we wouldn't be engaged in this silly war for oil, and be committing our considerable military might to *much worse* humanitarian disaster zones around the world.
I hope he's careful picking a running mate. He might have won the primary, but if he picks Clinton as running mate and wins the election, I guarantee that before the next election she'll still end up being president.
Amen.
When someone calls a politician "elitist", I generally WANT to vote for them more. My experiences with the average man, has made me realize that they really shouldn't be allowed to govern themselves.
But then again I also think you should have to pass a literacy/IQ test to vote.
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
Bullshit. You didn't know anything more than we did, you're just jumping in after the fact.
And your link discusses an anti war rally that IN NO WAY says what you claim. It was just an anti war rally, you think you're unique? You think there weren't anti war rallies in the US?
If it wasn't bad enough that you're lying about what was "clear" to you, you post a link that implies support for your argument while providing NONE.
You're doing exactly what Bush did.
You just made this more surreal.
The Republicans always call the democrats "elitist". If elitist means okay with the current class structure, and against equality, then they also can't be "commie pinkos", or fall into the classic (ignorant) stereotype of "liberalism".
Elitism is crap. Being elite and not being elitist is good. It's also very difficult to achieve.
I would disagree. The average man generally proves themselves to complete morons, more often than not. I don't want to be average.
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
...his recent vote for allocating $165 billion for the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan (including $51 billion dollars for veterans' education) tell me that he, like any other corporate-funded Democrat, have no principled objection to war or to these wars in particular.I think Obama's position on war is pretty clear.
Also (I said this elsewhere, but I'll say it again) voting to allocate funds for a war in progress does not necessarily mean not objecting to that war. There is no option for no war at that point, the choice is between funding the troops fighting the war, or not funding the troops fighting the war. Choosing to fund the troops fighting the war is the pragmatic decision. It's not inconsistent with opposing the war in principle.
I can see his slogan now
"My fists have your blood on them!"
"I GOT PAID."
"BUST YOU UP."
Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
That could be the single dumbest thing anyone has ever uttered, anywhere, ever.
It is actually true that Hispanics have been on the fence. Both Bush and McCain supported the comprehensive immigration reform. The one that was shot down because it included some amnesty for illegal immigrants. While the democratic party has pretty much the entire black vote, the hispanic vote and a few others are actually still up in the air.
That said, there is a flaw in the whole "women, white blue collar workers, and Hispanic" arguments, which is that she is merely listing the specific groups that voted for her, while more people actually voted against her.
A good example is the Hispanic vote, which went *slightly* more for her. If you compare that to the black vote, which makes up 15% of the country and is larger still as a percentage within the democratic party, that voted 90% to 80% for Barack, it's clear which would be more risky to lose in the general election.
Clinton has essentially been going down the list of people that voted for her and reading out those names individually, to try to make it *sound* longer than the list of people that voted for Obama. However, the hard numbers do not agree with her.
Whatever justification that was used to attack Iraq in the Gulf War does not apply to the war going on here and now.
Yes it does, because this is the same war. The ceasefire that was in effect was terminated because Saddam refused to live up to its terms.
gone. We are the unprovoked aggressors,
How so? You claim that Saddam was not violating the terms of the ceasefire? That is not in accord with reality.
a convenient excuse to justify an otherwise illegal and morally reprehensible war.
How is it illegal? There was a ceasefire in a war authorized by the UN, as legal as a war can get, its terms were violated, that is not factually disputable, so the ceasefire was rescinded. Open, shut.
Do you deny that the terms of the ceasefire were in fact being violated -- that UN inspectors were indeed detained and forbidden entry contrary to its provisions, and that unallowable missiles were indeed found? If you deny that, well sorry dude, I'm taking the word of the UN over your word. Check reality.
Or if you don't deny that, you must be denying that a ceasefire was in effect. Alrighty then -- when and where was the peace treaty signed? Or even an armistice? There is certainly no record of it in anywhere in the reality inhabited by sane people.
If you deny neither, and quite honestly I can't see how anybody that claims any grounding in reality can; well then where does this "illegal" bit come from?
I've been asking people like you who toss off this emotional nonsense sprinkled with "illegal" for what seems like years now -- oh, that's right, it IS years now!! -- and so far none has pointed me at what legal statute it is which this law is in violation of, nor refuted what seems to me to be a very simple progression buttressed by more UN resolutions and hard cold evidence than any war that I can think of, well, ever. I await in joyous anticipation you becoming the first.
Well, ok, I lie. I expect either no reply, or emotional frothing at the mouth which completely ignores the fact that ending a ceasefire for proven violations of its terms is not illegal. But hey, one never knows, perhaps I will be surprised!
So many people are interested in the election, and yet, so few [turnout always less than 50%] vote.
If each mistake being made is a new one, then progress is being made.
The Iraq war was definitely a mistake, and we should definitely leave, HOWEVER
>Any government formed under occupation,
>no matter how many stained thumbs you show off,
>is going to be seen as [illegitimate]
This is a patently false statement. Numerous governments that exist today were formed under foreign occupation. Probably the best example of a government formed by the US is Japan. MacArthur's staff *wrote* the Japanese constitution for them (it represented a pretty radical departure from the meiji constitution that the emperor and the remaining officials from the old government wanted to keep).
Furthermore, I've seen a lot of people who are opposed to the war suggest that spreading democracy by war is impossible. Again, this is false and anyone with any history should know better. Democratic ideas have been spread almost *entirely* by war. In fact, I can count on my left hand the number of countries where democratic reform came about internally, and still have three fingers left over.
Take Europe as an example. Today, we think of Europe as a bastion of democracy; however, this is relatively new. Until the 1800's, Europe was ruled by nobility with no patience for things like voting or equal rights, just like everywhere else. Republican ideals were spread to most of mainland Europe by France during Napoleon's conquest of the continent. After the British defeated Napolean and reinstituted monarchy in France, the ideas had already been spread, and ended up resulting in another major revolution (also put down the by the nobility) all across Europe in 1848.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutions_of_1848
Without the Napoleonic wars, Europe would still probably be monarchist.
Similarly, democratic ideas were spread to India during Britain's rule.
Democratic ideas were spread to Korea during the Korean war (although actual adoption of those ideas didn't occur until very recently).
Britain is probably the biggest exception, as reforms have been gradual over a period of a thousand years or so. There have been a number of internal revolutions (notably Oliver Cromwell's) as opposed to external invasions spreading democracy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_Cromwell
but the overall process has been incredibly slow (obviously Britain still *has* a monarchy, and still does *not have* the freedom of speech.) and it isn't really a model for spreading democracy elsewhere.
Democracy by osmosis does not happen often, and it certainly does not happen quickly. It is a fact of history that war is the best and in fact, only reliable way, to spread major political reform. This is an unfortunate fact for people opposed to war, but it is the truth.
Mr. Chop, my friend! Relax. Sorry. I don't aim to either offend - or be offended - by nobody.
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
Any government formed under occupation IN IRAQ will be seen as illegitimate.
Happy now?
The enemies of Democracy are
Oh boo hoo.
If I made even 1 minute of your day worse, you need to take me a lot less seriously.
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
http://republicansforobama.org/?q=homepage
You are going to be coerced anyway. If it's the government being pushy, at least I get to push back with my vote.
In your libertarian world, where the government is so tiny it may as well not exist, who is going to stop the Mafia from demanding "protection money" (i.e. taxes) from you? If your answer is, "I can hire a private security firm", then you are not looking far enough ahead. Remember that there will be nothing to stop these firms from merging and becoming ever more powerful. And history tells us, again and again, that power corrupts. Eventually, you will have little choice but to bend the knee to your local Capo, and he will be your lord and master.
Do you still think there will be no coercion in your libertarian paradise?
Wrap it up folks:
Obama will likely win the nomination. He does NOT have the guaranteed votes until the supers vote in the DNC convention. Obama fans have split the party, not HRC (look at the childish comments from the intellectuals!). HRC holds the keys to the kingdom, but Obama-fans can easily screw it up. McCain is an idiot. Obama's issues are the same as HRC's and his solutions originated from both Clintons--this shows nothing revolutionary, ingenious, bold, or exceptional. Corporations will still rule--where's you're 401K coming from and who Obama's biggest supporter (Goldman + Harvard)?
The supreme court is mainly republican, congress is split (Pelosi = fail!), and Obama will win by <5%. And Obama will have a mandate from his fans, such that GWB had a mandate, and he won by 3%. GWB sure accomplished a lot the last 4 yrs? Likely my ass that the status quo will change over the next 4 yrs.
Political junkies may now return to digg. Slashdot is for nerds.
But you didn't say that--you went straight for the black people/fried chicken analogy. And I'd bet you're one of those guys who can't figure out why people consider that racist. What's more, it's a bad analogy because voting R or D is a decision, whereas being black is genetic. Saying "Rs usually vote for Rs out of party loyalty" may be a generalization that ignores the exceptions, but it's not of the same nature as racist stereotypes.
How about you just disagree with me instead of going for the fried chicken jokes? Is that too much to ask? Did you just have to work that in there somewhere?
no, it's actually ackbar obama http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Admiral_Ackbar admiral of the rebel fleet during the attack on the second death star,
.....don't vote for mccain "IT'S A TRAP!!"
but that was a long time ago, and in a galaxy far far away- I don't expect too many people to remember
This hyperbole isn't exclusively a right-wing problem, but I didn't say that it was. McCain (IMO) isn't the moderate maverick he's touted to be, but neither is he a rabid far-right wacko, any more than Obama is a rabid far-left wacko. My only point was that, from the R side, the criticisms are always the same, verbatim, regardless of who they're running against. Even if I was a Republican (as opposed to just a fiscal conservative, which I am) I'd find that annoying because it shows that they're just pushing buttons with the true believers.
This is no doubt true; there will be employees and material suppliers of the munition makers who are paid. In the final weeks of the Second World War, there were news headlines in Europe, "Peace Scare!". --The prospect of peace was scary for those who had come to depend on the profits of war. But this is not something to be proud of. It's blood money. Hundreds of thousands of people have been killed so far in just this one war. There are far better ways to feed an economy than to make the final product at the end of the supply chain, dead Iraqis. In any case, I'm not in the munitions industry, and I make less today for the same amount of work, and that less buys less thanks to a depreciated U.S. dollar. Clinton was not an angel, but the economy was far healthier before war-time spending.
Spending money on education, sure sounds like a great idea! But we already spend a ton of money on schools (look at your taxes). Maybe we should hold schools accountable for their budgets, starting with spending less on these ultra fancy buildings and football teams and more on decent books and other learning aids. Also support the teachers on maintaining order in their classrooms by allowing them to actually discipline their students. But success at school also requires support at home, do you think a child is going to do good at school if they can get failing grades and face no reprecussions from there parents? A few might yes, but they would be an exception. The fact of the matter is if you want a good education in the United States you will get one. You could spend a million dollars per child but if they don't have the will to learn they won't.
Agreed. --I'd go even further and pull apart the current education system as I think it is deeply flawed for some of the reasons you suggest, among many others. The general problem is that the system is deliberately constructed to create ignorance and trained personality types which make for good workers and willing slaves. This is not theory. There was an amazing talk given by a parent who had spent a few years digging through the system to work out why her kids were being given psych tests designed to train them to be loyal to authority even when they knew the authority was engaged in wrong-doing, and why she wasn't allowed to see the results of those tests. After pulling on that thread, discovered after many battles, that in the twelve states she examined, an elaborate and carefully refined program had been set in place and was directed by private industry in conjunction with the department of labor. It was utterly astonishing, and I just spent an hour trying to dig up the link again with no fruit to bear. In any case, I do believe that in a perfect world, a government-run education system can certainly work, but I don't think it is very likely that we will see such a thing happen. I don't have kids, and I don't know what I would do to tackle this problem. Probably a combination of allowing regular schooling so that my kids would be exposed to other kids and thus socialized, (homeschooling tends to result in some pretty weird kids), while personally teaching my children at around the Jr. High age that marks and scores are meaningless and that the system is manipulative. Perhaps recommending apprenticeship with whatever line of work they feel most excited by. But basically, you have to let kids find their own path.
The health care system is broke because its based on a group policy system. If they went to a indivual based programs like they do with car insurance it would be much easier for everyone to get and much cheaper, especially if your employeer either helped out or paid for all of it. If it was easier to get at an individua
He's actually more of a light brown.
"Black" doesn't refer only to color, as I'm sure you're aware. Barack is considered "black" because of the width of his nose, the length of his neck, and the curl in his hair.
If the same skin color skin were on a Greek or Italian we would call him white.
"Reactionaries must be deprived of the right to voice their opinions; only the people have that right." - Mao
Empower and make people emotionally invested in helping, giving them recognition and boosting their own self-respect and making them better citizens.
I like your idea, it seems to make sense, psychologically speaking.
The devil, as a previous poster rightly pointed out, is in the details.
How will people know which to choose? Will charities have to spend money on advertising and marketing themselves to donors, thus increasing overhead and becoming less efficient?
Will the government have to come up with a comprehensive set of benchmarks to allow a charity to qualify and weed out scams and ineffective ngos? Again, how much bureaucracy and overhead will that add to the government and the charities?
Tricky stuff.
I'm to believe Obama is a villain because one of his fundraisers was taking bribes? And it took 22 days of deliberations to convict him? And nobody else was charged with any wrongdoing? Yep, Obama's one nasty guy.
Barack Hussein.
There's a difference between not being average and lording that fact over "average" people. That's the difficult part I was talking about. I have no problem with people wanting to be elite. I have a problem with people choosing to show how elite they are just to feel "better" than the people around them.
The elite don't have to be asses. Einstein was the epitome of elite, but he was also, by all accounts I've seen, a very gracious man who understood that simply because he was smart didn't make him any better than people who weren't as smart as he was.
"Growing old is inevitable; growing up is optional."
Modded down to -1 overnight by the brainwashed obamabots.
I'm going to give your the benefit of the doubt and assume this was not a deliberate misinterpretation...
Hate speech is indeed a kind of free speech. However, not all free speech is hate speech, so the two are not equal. Equating free speech to hate speech would be saying that all hate speech is free speech (true) and all free speech is hate speech (false). Similarly, while some people may advocate a Libertarian ideology out of personal greed, there are plenty of other reasons to support it, such as ethics. (In my opinion Libertarian ideology isn't a very good match for a greedy individual, since the most basic tenent -- the non-aggression principle -- limits one's options for profit to hard work and/or cooperative interdependencies with one's peers, rather than exploitation.)
As for greed, it is not the same as "pursuit of happiness." Greed is an unreasoning desire for more, to take and keep everything one can for oneself, whether or not it brings the individual in question any benefit or happiness in the end. It is a destructive and anti-social emotion, and generally leaves those who let it drive them thoroughly miserable.
"The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
You know, I just don't find much ugly about getting an admitted wife beater like Hull out of a political race. Most states put court records - including divorce cases - online; it's usually only the rich and powerful who have the pull to get their records sealed. You want power, your life becomes an open book. Tough titty.
As for the "The Black Commentator" article you link - what's your point? Obama's team played better politics. Nothing surprising or new there.
My "tar brush"? Friend, you're the one who linked to a site spouting bigotry. That's not my fault.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
Einstein is a special case, since he was elite in a field that no one in the public cared about or understood. We pretty much deleted and disreguarded all of his political and humanitarian statements, to turn him into the idiot savant (and thus harmless) scientist we wanted.
In realms such as policy, politics, and. justice anything you say can be taken as elitist if it goes against what people want to think. Obama's "elitist" gun comment was the point where I decided TO vote for him, since I think he stated something very truthful, albeit unpopular. In any case like this, the "elitism" ad hominem gun comes out.
I went to school for the study of philosophy, so in many conversations I cite references, and historical contexts. Some people have called me elitist for this, and I always wonder how being informed, having context, and USING it can ever be considered a bad thing.
Hell, there still are people in my family (historically poor, blue collar folk) who look down on me only for the fact I have a college education. In America we confuse elitism for our strange strain of prideful anti-rationalism. We like the idea of "folk", for some strange reason, instead of intelligent, educated individuals with training in the task at hand.
On the otherhand, that is the good thing about this election, there isn't a single "folk" candidate (as hard as Hillary tried at times), so we probably won't be terribly mismanaged no matter who gets in office, even if I disagree with some policies (from everyone) they all are competent.
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
Pretty tough since his Dad was born in Kenya and belonged to a specific African tribe.
It looks like your pathetic ass has resorted to posting AC after getting caught lying.
Why would I care what a lying douche who posts AC to spout off thinks?
85 replies to my post (this one is 86). That's a record for any of my first posts on any topic. The second highest was 77 I think. So that says something about how opinionated people are about Politics and how strongly they feel. I think it also says that people have a wide variety of opinions and they can't all be what turns out to be correct. Maybe not even mine.