A government that distributes a free operating system can't be that oppressive, can it?
Please tell me that you aren't that naive.
Any nation not called the "United States" is going to be interested in Linux (or other open source software), for the simple reason that they have access to the source code and full knowledge of what that software does when run. It doesn't take a very big tin-foil hat to assume that Microsoft would be willing (or mandated) to spy for the US Government.
Hell, even various agencies within the American Government are interested in open source software. Take a look at the NSAs involvement with open source software sometime.
Still, the US has practiced torture in the recent past, before the US started outsourcing it's torture to client states via "extraordinary rendition" or kidnapping as it used to called. So much for democracy in the USA, huh?
I won't defend torture, but there is a bit of a difference between going after outsiders and using your thugs to intimidate the local electorate. Get back to me when we start using extraordinary rendition against domestic political opponents.
My country has done some really stupid shit the last seven years, but we'd have to fall a lot further before I'd start comparing us to Iran. If you lived in Iran you might not even be able to point out the bad stuff that your Government has done. We can still do that here.
Impossible. That would enable them to share music and movies. Hollywood would go bankrupt.
I know your just being a wiseass, but if the Iranians are sharing our music and movies then we've probably already "won". Our culture is one of our most important exports and at the end of the day it's going to be a hellva lot more effective at bringing change into that country then bullets will.
The sooner that Americans and Iranians realize that the other one is populated by people not that much different from them, the better off we will all be. Seeing our culture is a huge first step towards realizing this goal.
Do you *really* equate lying about a blowjob with lying about intelligence that has ended up getting thousands of people killed?
No, I don't equate them. Clinton's lie didn't harm nearly as many people as Bush has. That still doesn't excuse it however. Seriously, why do people even bring up the stuff about Bush when somebody says that Clinton committed perjury? Is it a defense to perjury if your lie really doesn't hurt anyone? If our leaders don't respect the law enough to tell the truth then why the hell should the rest of us?
Oh yes, everything is pure black and white
Perjury IS black and white. You either tell the truth while under oath or you don't. There are no "judgment calls" while under oath -- your options are to refuse to answer or tell the truth. Clinton should have said one of two things: "Yes, she sucked my cock. Next question?" or "That's none of your fucking business. Cite me for contempt if you want, but I'm not going to answer that."
I would have respected him for either of those answers. Lying about it under oath deserves nothing but contempt. The only difference between Bush and Clinton is that Clinton's lie didn't get thousands of people killed. That still doesn't mean I have to respect him anymore then Bush.
You gotta get out there and show you are a democrat and like what they stand for
Uhh, I've been a registered Democrat since I was eligible to vote. I don't have to show that I'm a Democrat and "like what they stand for".
and not just this one guy you like 'cuz he is black.
Why the fuck is this even being mentioned let alone beaten in the ground as it has been? I'm about as white as they come. I'm not supporting Obama because he's black. I'm supporting him because I believe in his vision and I think he's genuine. Take his same personality/positions and stick it into a Caucasian or Asian body and he still gets my vote. Take Hillary's personality/positions and stick them into an African body and she still doesn't get my vote.
This has nothing to do with race (or gender) for me.
Serious question: If someone hasn't sufficient experience to perform ALONE in the office, how can you expect him to have sufficient experience to surround himself with GOOD advisors? It's just as likely that he'll surround himself with people who talk a good line but don't have the country's interests at heart, or don't really know what they're doing either.
I'll pose the question again then: What is "experience"? Short of being the VP when the President goes under for surgery, I can't think of anything that qualifies. No Senator or Governor has the launch codes.
Obama has a good head on his shoulders. He'll do just fine in office.
Really? Two out of every three Americans are unhappy with Hillary Clinton's job performance?
Why don't you get off/. for awhile and go talk to some people in rural America and find out how they feel about the Clinton's and get back to me. Right or wrong large numbers of Americans absolutely despise Hillary Clinton.
The fact is, more Democrats support Clinton than Obama.
If that's the fact, then why is he even still in the race and closing the gap with her?
And if you actually think that Obama has mass appeal to the same conservative Republicans who dislike Hillary
I don't think he has "mass appeal" to them nor would I be inclined to vote for him if he did. I think that he is more likely to be able to reach out to Republicans and Independents then she is. Given that we'll probably be running against John McCain (someone with HUGE appeal among Independent voters) I should think that you'd care about that. I don't think Hillary can beat him without using Karl Rovian tactics and I rather hope that we can move past that sort of thing.
Believe it or not, it's not really possible to completely disregard the minority party in either legislative body--especially when the split between parties is so close
And where did I say that they could ignore the minority party?
You could argue against it, but you didn't. Instead, you dropped an f-bomb to try to seem more persuasive
I don't want to argue against it. I'd much rather tell you why I think you should vote for Obama then tell you why you shouldn't vote for Hillary. If you really want some arguments against her without the 'f-bomb' then perhaps I should start with the 500,000 jobs she promised Upstate New York that never materialized. Or maybe the vote in favor of the Iraq war? Or the pandering "think of the children" video game crusade? We could go back and forth for the next week arguing about why we shouldn't vote for Obama or Hillary. Why don't you tell me why I should be voting for Hillary instead of why I shouldn't be voting for Obama? If we keep dragging each other down then the only winners are the Republicans.
but you newbies are giving we lifetime Democrats a bad name
Yes, as opposed to you seasoned professionals that couldn't even manage to defeat the worst President we've ever had in 2004. As opposed to you seasoned professionals that couldn't defeat a draft-dodging/drunk-driving/cocaine-snorting Governor of Texas in 2000. You can argue the merits of style over substance all you want but at the end of the day we ran two of the most uninspiring candidates ever (Gore and Kerry) and lost both times. You'll forgive me if I buck the party elders on this one and base my vote on optimism instead of cynicism.
and doesn't really demonstrate critical thinking on your part. Overall, an unimpressive effort.
The "unimpressive" effort is that put forth by the people that are doing everything they can to undermine the future of the Democratic Party. Obama's youthful supporters represent the next generation of Democrats. You might try understanding why he inspires so many people to follow him instead of trying to undermine him. It could come in handy -- if Hillary wins you'll be needing our votes in November. Right now you don't have mine.
and in payment he turned around and voted for "bankrupcy reform"
Umm, I've been through Chapter 7 and I followed the bankruptcy bill pretty closely. I don't recall Obama voting for it. In fact, this and this both say that he voted "nay" on the bill. Ironically enough Hillary managed to miss the vote, though in her defense, I think that was around the time that Bill was having his heart surgery.
That bill is going to make a lot of middle class people lose their homes, and I don't consider that very "liberal".
How do you figure that? The primary "enforcement" mechanism behind the bankruptcy "reform" bill is the means test that can force you into a Chapter 13 instead of a Chapter 7. Chapter 13 actually makes it easier to keep your home. Generally speaking you can't keep your home at all under a Chapter 7 if you are behind on the payments -- and if you are current then you have to look at the amount of equity vs your states exemptions. Bottom line: It's much harder to keep your home under a Chapter 7 then a Chapter 13.
I don't hold the episode against Clinton because its all just a game
Who the fuck cares if it's "just a game"? He committed perjury. That's a felony in my state and most others. It's a felony under Federal Law. Why the fuck should we forgive him for that just because it's part of the "political game"?
We should expect better from our leaders and not excuse this type of behavior.
You don't see the difference between someone who knows what's best for you and someone who wants to get you (and others) involved to decide that for yourself?
Hillary Clinton, in contrast, has the political clout and the experience on the hill to work with an often intractable Congress to get the Democratic agenda passed and to usher in a new era.
Hillary isn't going to be able to usher in a "new era". She will probably get large parts of her agenda passed (assuming the Democrats keep Congress, which looks very likely), but that doesn't mean she can usher in a "new era".
How do you feel about George W. Bush? Because that's how a large part of this country feels about Hillary Clinton. We can debate the reasons for that until the cows come home (personally, I don't see what she's done to piss them off, other then her controversial 1975 decision to marry Bill.....) but I don't think you can dispute that fact. A Hillary administration condemns this country to four (eight?) more years of partisan rancor and discord. And that's assuming she can defeat McCain, which is not a sure thing at all.
The real indictment is of Obama, who clearly does not know the first thing about how to deal with people like McCain, which is critical to his actually being able to pass the legislation he has promised the American people.
Given that Obama will likely have a Democratic Congress to work with, what makes you think he is any less likely to be able to get his agenda passed then Hillary is?
there are very few differences between what Hillary and Obama propose
I haven't heard Obama advocating for using paycheck garnishment to force people into his health care system. It'll be interesting to see how quickly she backpedals from that promise if she wins the nomination and needs to go to the "center".
Obama supporters who dislike Hillary tend to dislike her personally and never argue compellingly against her views
What personality??? Hillary's "personality" is whatever she thinks will earn the most points with the crowd she happens to be talking to at that moment in time. And you want a compelling argument against her views? Well, right here is a view off her own fucking webpage that I would argue against. Do we really need the Government in the business of regulating video games or the sales thereof?
Second of all, be on your best behavior, and please try to do more to raise the level of political discourse than just claim that your candidate is good at talking to groups of people while having darker skin.
We (the young voters) need to be on our best behavior? Sorry, but we don't bear the blame for the last 14 years of partisan bickering that has taken over Washington. We don't bear the blame for the influence of corporations and lobbyists that overshadow the needs of the people. We don't bear the blame for the erosion of personal liberties. We don't bear the blame for the Iraq War.
Obama wants to inspire people and get them involved in the political process. Obama thinks that YOU know what's best for the country. Hillary thinks that SHE knows what's best for the country. Your entire argument seems to boil down to the idea that Obama is more style and less substance. That may be so -- but Hillary's substance is not what this country needs and frankly I'm not ready for another eight years of Clinton.
I'm not saying she's an idiot like Bush is, just easily manipulated
I don't think she's manipulated. I think she's calculating. Bit of a difference there, though I still won't be voting for her in the primary and will have to think long and hard about it in the general election if we are unlucky enough to see her win the nomination.
First his lack of experience. The President of the U.S. is rightly considered the most powerful person in the world. It is not an entry-level executive position
I think the experience card is overplayed. I'd rather have a President smart enough to surround himself with intelligent and experienced people who listens to them then someone with "experience" who surrounds himself with yes-men and doesn't pay attention to those few advisor's that dare to disagree with him.
Besides that, what's "experience"? Being a Senator? A Governor? For how long? Does anybody with all that "experience" even remember what it's like to be a normal American any longer? Lincoln went from the House, to being a lawyer in private practice, to being President of the United States. I'd say he turned out pretty good despite his "lack of experience".
And secondly, I find his actual views to just be a rehash of the same tired liberal ideas we've seen disproved time and again for the last two generations
Well, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree there, because I support most of those "tired liberal ideas" and take issue with the idea that they've been "disproved". Regardless though, your next sentence still gives me hope for our country:
That said, however, if he were to win, I would have no problem supporting him despite not agreeing with his politics, as I would support any President of the U.S., but unlike some other candidates (*cough*Clinton*cough*) I wouldn't have to hold my nose while doing so.
I'm hopeful that Obama can bring enough Independents and Republicans into the fold that we can actually change the tone of politics in this country. Do I know for sure that he can pull it off? Nope. Do I know for sure that Hillary can't pull it off? Yep. Hell, I think McCain could do a better job at uniting this country then Hillary can, and I say that even though I've lost respect for him over the last few years (mainly for kissing the ass of the religious right)
This is why U.S. politics is in such a sorry state. We need to stop voting for the "lesser evil" just to defeat a "greater evil.
I'm tired of voting "against" someone, I'd really like to vote "for" someone, even if that means the greater of two evils gets elected. If everyone took the time to find and vote for someone they honestly believed in
Indeed. And that's why I'm voting for Obama. I actually believe in him. It's the first time since I've started voting that I can actually say that about someone.
What, specifically is stopping you from voting "for" him? Do you disagree with his views? Disagree with his statements? Think he's a fraud?
but I don't get how the 2nd amendment gets downtrodden so much even as we support the broadest interpretations of the rights protected by the others
The 2nd gets downtrodden because the framers put "a well regulated militia" ahead of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms".
If he doesn't think it applies at the city level, it's a slippery slope to expand it
It's not just him. SCOTUS apparently thinks so too. Granted, that's a really old ruling, but AFAIK it's settled law and they haven't revisited it.
For the record, I'm opposed to most forms of gun control and it scares me when the Government thinks that it knows better then I do and needs to disarm me. That said, I don't think you can make the argument that what's right for South Carolina is the same as what's right for New York City or Chicago. Local solutions for local problems. Not solutions imposed by Washington that alienate at least half of the population.....
All right then, smart guy... please post your argument for why Gravel is the best democratic presidential candidate. I'm dying to hear it.
Well, he would end the war on drugs, which I'd wholeheartedly support. Other then that though I'm not aware of many of his positions and I'm not going to let myself become a single issue voter.
I'll be voting for Obama, but if it was Gravel and Hillary then I'd probably be voting for Gravel. I just can't forgive Hillary for some of the stuff she has said and done over the last few weeks. I see little difference between her and Bush, other then she happens to more closely align with my own viewpoints. She's not the sort we need.
Of all the things the US President can do, which affect the lives of the country's citizens, adultery must be one of the least important.
I don't have a problem with adultery. I do have a serious problem with perjury though.
Bill Clinton should have had the balls to stand up to Ken Star and say "It's none of your fucking business, I'm not going to answer your questions, go ahead and charge me with contempt and see how well that works out for you". Or he should have had the balls to tell the fucking truth, "Yes, she sucked my cock. Any other questions?" Either way, lying under oath? We should expect better from our leaders and the people who are apologists for Bill Clinton are no better then the ones who try and explain away Bushes lies and omissions.
who think its bad that Bill lied about getting some pussy
Sorry, I forgave him for it at the time, but you can't get around the fact that "Bill" committed perjury. Saying "they all do it" is no excuse either -- we should expect better from our leaders.
I only wish that the Republicans of the day had been less focused on playing the political game and more focused on doing what was right. Congress should have censured him -- I don't think it rose to the level of impeachment and even if it did the reality of the situation was they never had enough votes to convict him.
Bill Clinton and George W. Bush share one thing in common: Neither one of them has any respect for the truth.
Could it be that he actually believes what he says? A record of supporting gun control at the local level does not translate into believing that guns should be outlawed nationwide. Local solutions for local problems. Nobody is suggesting that the solution that works for Chicago will work nationwide.
I don't think any of the current Democrats are going to make gun control a very big priority. It's just not a winning issue for us at a national level. Howard Dean said it best.... "I'm sick of coming down here and fighting over gun control and abortion instead of the issues" (down here referring to rural America)
Obama, hillary may as well drop out. Those two states are her states, and if she losses them, that should serve as a wake-up call that even her own people don't want her as president.
I'm a die-hard Obama supporter and a lifelong New Yorker..... and if Obama wins New York I'll eat crow.
I love Obama and I think he's what this country needs, but Hillary has spent the last six years building a machine in New York State. She has a solid lock on upstate Democrats, the backing of every major Democratic official in NYS (thanks Spitzer.... endorse Hillary and give drivers licenses to illegal aliens.... why the fuck did I vote for you again?) and she won her last Senate election with over 67% of the vote.
Obama will do well here, but Hillary will get the "win". I'm just thankful the Democrats use proportional allotment -- my vote will actually matter.
Obama is not a Muslim. Just thought I'd clear that up for you.
Sure he is! The e-mail says so, it must be true! Just like the other e-mail says I'll be getting 15% of $500,000,000 from the Nigerian Lottery if I just help this nice young man move the funds out of that country....... all he needs are my ACH numbers, what could possibly go wrong?
So, what do you propose instead? To refuse medical attention to those people when they show up in a hospital? To socialize the cost and pay it yourself? Something else?
I'd prefer to see a real single-payer system and not a fucking hand-out to insurance companies. You realize the insurance companies are half the reason we are in this mess to begin with? Now Hillary is suggesting that we be mandated to do business with them?
Besides that, let me explain to you exactly what will happen: The rich will have no problem affording their insurance premiums. The poor will have no problem affording them because the Government will pay for it. The middle class on the other hand will get screwed. We don't have enough money to buy elected officials to get loopholes written for us (like the rich did) and we make too much to qualify for Government assistance.
No, if you want universal health care then it needs to be the Government as the single-payer. Not private for-profit insurance companies. Why the hell should we provide them with mandated customers that have no choice but to buy from them?
The reason your party is so hated amongst the Democrats is because it was Nader's attractiveness on the far left that drew votes away from Gore, and prevented him from having a clear victory in the national race
There's only one person more to blame for George W. Bush then Ralph Nader: Al Gore. Seriously, he fucked that up big time and has nobody to blame but himself. Eight years of peace and prosperity and he distanced himself from Bill Clinton? He chose Joe video-games-are-evil-and-I-support-the-surge Lieberman as his running mate. He lost his own state.
Al Gore has gained a lot of respect and a wide following in the last eight years because of his work on environmental issues but don't forget why he lost the election in the first place. Neither Al Gore nor John Kerry were particularly inspiring candidates. I blame the two of them for this mess as much as I blame Nader.
I don't care how bad you thought Gore was, I find it difficult to believe that you think he would have done a worse job than George W. Bush.
The worst part is that the die-hards in the Green Party actually do believe this. "There's no difference between Democrats and Republicans". Yeah, well, stop drinking the kool-aid long enough to realize that if Al Gore had won in 2000 we wouldn't fucking be in Iraq right now. Al Gore gets more of the blame for the loss then Ralph Nader does (in my eyes) but it absolutely infuriates me to hear members of the Green Party pull out that fucking line. Yeah, you might have an argument that both of the main parties are too beholden to corporate America, but don't fucking tell me that Al Gore would have been as bad as George W. Bush.
Slashdot Mirror
Please tell me that you aren't that naive.
Any nation not called the "United States" is going to be interested in Linux (or other open source software), for the simple reason that they have access to the source code and full knowledge of what that software does when run. It doesn't take a very big tin-foil hat to assume that Microsoft would be willing (or mandated) to spy for the US Government.
Hell, even various agencies within the American Government are interested in open source software. Take a look at the NSAs involvement with open source software sometime.
I won't defend torture, but there is a bit of a difference between going after outsiders and using your thugs to intimidate the local electorate. Get back to me when we start using extraordinary rendition against domestic political opponents.
My country has done some really stupid shit the last seven years, but we'd have to fall a lot further before I'd start comparing us to Iran. If you lived in Iran you might not even be able to point out the bad stuff that your Government has done. We can still do that here.
I know your just being a wiseass, but if the Iranians are sharing our music and movies then we've probably already "won". Our culture is one of our most important exports and at the end of the day it's going to be a hellva lot more effective at bringing change into that country then bullets will.
The sooner that Americans and Iranians realize that the other one is populated by people not that much different from them, the better off we will all be. Seeing our culture is a huge first step towards realizing this goal.
No, I don't equate them. Clinton's lie didn't harm nearly as many people as Bush has. That still doesn't excuse it however. Seriously, why do people even bring up the stuff about Bush when somebody says that Clinton committed perjury? Is it a defense to perjury if your lie really doesn't hurt anyone? If our leaders don't respect the law enough to tell the truth then why the hell should the rest of us?
Oh yes, everything is pure black and whitePerjury IS black and white. You either tell the truth while under oath or you don't. There are no "judgment calls" while under oath -- your options are to refuse to answer or tell the truth. Clinton should have said one of two things: "Yes, she sucked my cock. Next question?" or "That's none of your fucking business. Cite me for contempt if you want, but I'm not going to answer that."
I would have respected him for either of those answers. Lying about it under oath deserves nothing but contempt. The only difference between Bush and Clinton is that Clinton's lie didn't get thousands of people killed. That still doesn't mean I have to respect him anymore then Bush.
Uhh, I've been a registered Democrat since I was eligible to vote. I don't have to show that I'm a Democrat and "like what they stand for".
and not just this one guy you like 'cuz he is black.Why the fuck is this even being mentioned let alone beaten in the ground as it has been? I'm about as white as they come. I'm not supporting Obama because he's black. I'm supporting him because I believe in his vision and I think he's genuine. Take his same personality/positions and stick it into a Caucasian or Asian body and he still gets my vote. Take Hillary's personality/positions and stick them into an African body and she still doesn't get my vote.
This has nothing to do with race (or gender) for me.
I'll pose the question again then: What is "experience"? Short of being the VP when the President goes under for surgery, I can't think of anything that qualifies. No Senator or Governor has the launch codes.
Obama has a good head on his shoulders. He'll do just fine in office.
Why don't you get off /. for awhile and go talk to some people in rural America and find out how they feel about the Clinton's and get back to me. Right or wrong large numbers of Americans absolutely despise Hillary Clinton.
The fact is, more Democrats support Clinton than Obama.If that's the fact, then why is he even still in the race and closing the gap with her?
And if you actually think that Obama has mass appeal to the same conservative Republicans who dislike HillaryI don't think he has "mass appeal" to them nor would I be inclined to vote for him if he did. I think that he is more likely to be able to reach out to Republicans and Independents then she is. Given that we'll probably be running against John McCain (someone with HUGE appeal among Independent voters) I should think that you'd care about that. I don't think Hillary can beat him without using Karl Rovian tactics and I rather hope that we can move past that sort of thing.
Believe it or not, it's not really possible to completely disregard the minority party in either legislative body--especially when the split between parties is so closeAnd where did I say that they could ignore the minority party?
You could argue against it, but you didn't. Instead, you dropped an f-bomb to try to seem more persuasiveI don't want to argue against it. I'd much rather tell you why I think you should vote for Obama then tell you why you shouldn't vote for Hillary. If you really want some arguments against her without the 'f-bomb' then perhaps I should start with the 500,000 jobs she promised Upstate New York that never materialized. Or maybe the vote in favor of the Iraq war? Or the pandering "think of the children" video game crusade? We could go back and forth for the next week arguing about why we shouldn't vote for Obama or Hillary. Why don't you tell me why I should be voting for Hillary instead of why I shouldn't be voting for Obama? If we keep dragging each other down then the only winners are the Republicans.
but you newbies are giving we lifetime Democrats a bad nameYes, as opposed to you seasoned professionals that couldn't even manage to defeat the worst President we've ever had in 2004. As opposed to you seasoned professionals that couldn't defeat a draft-dodging/drunk-driving/cocaine-snorting Governor of Texas in 2000. You can argue the merits of style over substance all you want but at the end of the day we ran two of the most uninspiring candidates ever (Gore and Kerry) and lost both times. You'll forgive me if I buck the party elders on this one and base my vote on optimism instead of cynicism.
and doesn't really demonstrate critical thinking on your part. Overall, an unimpressive effort.The "unimpressive" effort is that put forth by the people that are doing everything they can to undermine the future of the Democratic Party. Obama's youthful supporters represent the next generation of Democrats. You might try understanding why he inspires so many people to follow him instead of trying to undermine him. It could come in handy -- if Hillary wins you'll be needing our votes in November. Right now you don't have mine.
Umm, I've been through Chapter 7 and I followed the bankruptcy bill pretty closely. I don't recall Obama voting for it. In fact, this and this both say that he voted "nay" on the bill. Ironically enough Hillary managed to miss the vote, though in her defense, I think that was around the time that Bill was having his heart surgery.
That bill is going to make a lot of middle class people lose their homes, and I don't consider that very "liberal".How do you figure that? The primary "enforcement" mechanism behind the bankruptcy "reform" bill is the means test that can force you into a Chapter 13 instead of a Chapter 7. Chapter 13 actually makes it easier to keep your home. Generally speaking you can't keep your home at all under a Chapter 7 if you are behind on the payments -- and if you are current then you have to look at the amount of equity vs your states exemptions. Bottom line: It's much harder to keep your home under a Chapter 7 then a Chapter 13.
Who the fuck cares if it's "just a game"? He committed perjury. That's a felony in my state and most others. It's a felony under Federal Law. Why the fuck should we forgive him for that just because it's part of the "political game"?
We should expect better from our leaders and not excuse this type of behavior.
Maybe you should be posting in the Republican story if those are your political opinions.
You don't see the difference between someone who knows what's best for you and someone who wants to get you (and others) involved to decide that for yourself?
Hillary isn't going to be able to usher in a "new era". She will probably get large parts of her agenda passed (assuming the Democrats keep Congress, which looks very likely), but that doesn't mean she can usher in a "new era".
How do you feel about George W. Bush? Because that's how a large part of this country feels about Hillary Clinton. We can debate the reasons for that until the cows come home (personally, I don't see what she's done to piss them off, other then her controversial 1975 decision to marry Bill.....) but I don't think you can dispute that fact. A Hillary administration condemns this country to four (eight?) more years of partisan rancor and discord. And that's assuming she can defeat McCain, which is not a sure thing at all.
The real indictment is of Obama, who clearly does not know the first thing about how to deal with people like McCain, which is critical to his actually being able to pass the legislation he has promised the American people.Given that Obama will likely have a Democratic Congress to work with, what makes you think he is any less likely to be able to get his agenda passed then Hillary is?
there are very few differences between what Hillary and Obama proposeI haven't heard Obama advocating for using paycheck garnishment to force people into his health care system. It'll be interesting to see how quickly she backpedals from that promise if she wins the nomination and needs to go to the "center".
Obama supporters who dislike Hillary tend to dislike her personally and never argue compellingly against her viewsWhat personality??? Hillary's "personality" is whatever she thinks will earn the most points with the crowd she happens to be talking to at that moment in time. And you want a compelling argument against her views? Well, right here is a view off her own fucking webpage that I would argue against. Do we really need the Government in the business of regulating video games or the sales thereof?
Second of all, be on your best behavior, and please try to do more to raise the level of political discourse than just claim that your candidate is good at talking to groups of people while having darker skin.We (the young voters) need to be on our best behavior? Sorry, but we don't bear the blame for the last 14 years of partisan bickering that has taken over Washington. We don't bear the blame for the influence of corporations and lobbyists that overshadow the needs of the people. We don't bear the blame for the erosion of personal liberties. We don't bear the blame for the Iraq War.
Obama wants to inspire people and get them involved in the political process. Obama thinks that YOU know what's best for the country. Hillary thinks that SHE knows what's best for the country. Your entire argument seems to boil down to the idea that Obama is more style and less substance. That may be so -- but Hillary's substance is not what this country needs and frankly I'm not ready for another eight years of Clinton.
I don't think she's manipulated. I think she's calculating. Bit of a difference there, though I still won't be voting for her in the primary and will have to think long and hard about it in the general election if we are unlucky enough to see her win the nomination.
Uhh, and those would be, whom exactly?
The two that I can think of (both Roosevelts) were Governors of New York State, not Senators.
I think the experience card is overplayed. I'd rather have a President smart enough to surround himself with intelligent and experienced people who listens to them then someone with "experience" who surrounds himself with yes-men and doesn't pay attention to those few advisor's that dare to disagree with him.
Besides that, what's "experience"? Being a Senator? A Governor? For how long? Does anybody with all that "experience" even remember what it's like to be a normal American any longer? Lincoln went from the House, to being a lawyer in private practice, to being President of the United States. I'd say he turned out pretty good despite his "lack of experience".
And secondly, I find his actual views to just be a rehash of the same tired liberal ideas we've seen disproved time and again for the last two generationsWell, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree there, because I support most of those "tired liberal ideas" and take issue with the idea that they've been "disproved". Regardless though, your next sentence still gives me hope for our country:
That said, however, if he were to win, I would have no problem supporting him despite not agreeing with his politics, as I would support any President of the U.S., but unlike some other candidates (*cough*Clinton*cough*) I wouldn't have to hold my nose while doing so.I'm hopeful that Obama can bring enough Independents and Republicans into the fold that we can actually change the tone of politics in this country. Do I know for sure that he can pull it off? Nope. Do I know for sure that Hillary can't pull it off? Yep. Hell, I think McCain could do a better job at uniting this country then Hillary can, and I say that even though I've lost respect for him over the last few years (mainly for kissing the ass of the religious right)
I'm tired of voting "against" someone, I'd really like to vote "for" someone, even if that means the greater of two evils gets elected. If everyone took the time to find and vote for someone they honestly believed in
Indeed. And that's why I'm voting for Obama. I actually believe in him. It's the first time since I've started voting that I can actually say that about someone.
What, specifically is stopping you from voting "for" him? Do you disagree with his views? Disagree with his statements? Think he's a fraud?
The 2nd gets downtrodden because the framers put "a well regulated militia" ahead of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms".
If he doesn't think it applies at the city level, it's a slippery slope to expand itIt's not just him. SCOTUS apparently thinks so too. Granted, that's a really old ruling, but AFAIK it's settled law and they haven't revisited it.
For the record, I'm opposed to most forms of gun control and it scares me when the Government thinks that it knows better then I do and needs to disarm me. That said, I don't think you can make the argument that what's right for South Carolina is the same as what's right for New York City or Chicago. Local solutions for local problems. Not solutions imposed by Washington that alienate at least half of the population.....
Well, he would end the war on drugs, which I'd wholeheartedly support. Other then that though I'm not aware of many of his positions and I'm not going to let myself become a single issue voter.
I'll be voting for Obama, but if it was Gravel and Hillary then I'd probably be voting for Gravel. I just can't forgive Hillary for some of the stuff she has said and done over the last few weeks. I see little difference between her and Bush, other then she happens to more closely align with my own viewpoints. She's not the sort we need.
I don't have a problem with adultery. I do have a serious problem with perjury though.
Bill Clinton should have had the balls to stand up to Ken Star and say "It's none of your fucking business, I'm not going to answer your questions, go ahead and charge me with contempt and see how well that works out for you". Or he should have had the balls to tell the fucking truth, "Yes, she sucked my cock. Any other questions?" Either way, lying under oath? We should expect better from our leaders and the people who are apologists for Bill Clinton are no better then the ones who try and explain away Bushes lies and omissions.
Sorry, I forgave him for it at the time, but you can't get around the fact that "Bill" committed perjury. Saying "they all do it" is no excuse either -- we should expect better from our leaders.
I only wish that the Republicans of the day had been less focused on playing the political game and more focused on doing what was right. Congress should have censured him -- I don't think it rose to the level of impeachment and even if it did the reality of the situation was they never had enough votes to convict him.
Bill Clinton and George W. Bush share one thing in common: Neither one of them has any respect for the truth.
Could it be that he actually believes what he says? A record of supporting gun control at the local level does not translate into believing that guns should be outlawed nationwide. Local solutions for local problems. Nobody is suggesting that the solution that works for Chicago will work nationwide.
I don't think any of the current Democrats are going to make gun control a very big priority. It's just not a winning issue for us at a national level. Howard Dean said it best.... "I'm sick of coming down here and fighting over gun control and abortion instead of the issues" (down here referring to rural America)
I'm a die-hard Obama supporter and a lifelong New Yorker..... and if Obama wins New York I'll eat crow.
I love Obama and I think he's what this country needs, but Hillary has spent the last six years building a machine in New York State. She has a solid lock on upstate Democrats, the backing of every major Democratic official in NYS (thanks Spitzer.... endorse Hillary and give drivers licenses to illegal aliens.... why the fuck did I vote for you again?) and she won her last Senate election with over 67% of the vote.
Obama will do well here, but Hillary will get the "win". I'm just thankful the Democrats use proportional allotment -- my vote will actually matter.
Sure he is! The e-mail says so, it must be true! Just like the other e-mail says I'll be getting 15% of $500,000,000 from the Nigerian Lottery if I just help this nice young man move the funds out of that country....... all he needs are my ACH numbers, what could possibly go wrong?
I'd prefer to see a real single-payer system and not a fucking hand-out to insurance companies. You realize the insurance companies are half the reason we are in this mess to begin with? Now Hillary is suggesting that we be mandated to do business with them?
Besides that, let me explain to you exactly what will happen: The rich will have no problem affording their insurance premiums. The poor will have no problem affording them because the Government will pay for it. The middle class on the other hand will get screwed. We don't have enough money to buy elected officials to get loopholes written for us (like the rich did) and we make too much to qualify for Government assistance.
No, if you want universal health care then it needs to be the Government as the single-payer. Not private for-profit insurance companies. Why the hell should we provide them with mandated customers that have no choice but to buy from them?
There's only one person more to blame for George W. Bush then Ralph Nader: Al Gore. Seriously, he fucked that up big time and has nobody to blame but himself. Eight years of peace and prosperity and he distanced himself from Bill Clinton? He chose Joe video-games-are-evil-and-I-support-the-surge Lieberman as his running mate. He lost his own state.
Al Gore has gained a lot of respect and a wide following in the last eight years because of his work on environmental issues but don't forget why he lost the election in the first place. Neither Al Gore nor John Kerry were particularly inspiring candidates. I blame the two of them for this mess as much as I blame Nader.
I don't care how bad you thought Gore was, I find it difficult to believe that you think he would have done a worse job than George W. Bush.The worst part is that the die-hards in the Green Party actually do believe this. "There's no difference between Democrats and Republicans". Yeah, well, stop drinking the kool-aid long enough to realize that if Al Gore had won in 2000 we wouldn't fucking be in Iraq right now. Al Gore gets more of the blame for the loss then Ralph Nader does (in my eyes) but it absolutely infuriates me to hear members of the Green Party pull out that fucking line. Yeah, you might have an argument that both of the main parties are too beholden to corporate America, but don't fucking tell me that Al Gore would have been as bad as George W. Bush.