2008 Presidential Primaries

Who ya got?

  • Clinton

    Votes: 6 15.8%
  • McCain

    Votes: 7 18.4%
  • Obama

    Votes: 25 65.8%

  • Total voters
    38
S

Sanguinius

Guest
I thought this would be of interest here although you might have heard this already.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2008/03/breaking_pledges.cfm
 

CnC

Ad Oculos
Sanguinius said:
I thought this would be of interest here although you might have heard this already.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2008/03/breaking_pledges.cfm

I had heard of this sort of thing possibly happening but it looks like Hillary's campaign is actually going through with it. From what I read, it's a valid move for them to make, but imo it might lead to some political blowback. It appears their method is rather crude, too, as they seem to be auto-dialing these people's numbers and having them hear a recording asking them to support Clinton.
 

Vampire_Hunter_Bob

Cats are great
Well apparently now the media is starting to ask, "Is Hillary exaggerating anything else"? :troll:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap_campaignplus/20080325/ap_ca/on_deadline_bosnia
 

Billybob

Succumb to the will of the beast
The Perineum Falcon said:
Did someone say McCain?!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MaP9eiWuX3s

That is one of the most horrifying things I've ever seen. If I was McCain I'd be more emberassed than anything.
 

Griffith

With the streak of a tear, Like morning dew
That video literally made me consider suicide, passively so, but still... :carcus:

Anyway, more interesting is this:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/26/candidates.relatives/index.html

The article doesn't get into the specifics unfortunately, I'm sure in most cases they're related in the same way I'm related to Prince Charles, where we're 12th cousins 27 times removed or something ridiculous and common like that.

The site itself has the details:

http://www.newenglandancestors.org/press/default.asp

They're actually more closely related than I thought, surprisingly so in some cases (such as McCain and Mrs. Bush being only sixth cousins). Even if the Clintons are denied, it seems there's no way to stop the Presidency from being some sort of twisted family affair this time around, all these freaks were breeding with each other. =)
 

Vampire_Hunter_Bob

Cats are great
Griffith No More! said:
They're actually more closely related than I thought, surprisingly so in some cases (such as McCain and Mrs. Bush being only sixth cousins). Even if the Clintons are denied, it seems there's no way to stop the Presidency from being some sort of twisted family affair this time around, all these freaks were breeding with each other. =)

Presidential Inbreeding

This has to be some secret Presidential Inbreeding program the Skull and Bones are doing. Holy shit! They did shove a Presidental family line on us! :isidro:
 

CnC

Ad Oculos
Apparently McCain gave a speech recently on U.S foreign relations, national security. I can't seem to find it but from the snippets I found on it, it seems to be pretty good. Apparently it speaks to closing Guantanamo and environmental standards in addition to the usual arguments for staying in Iraq.

I don't really agree with his stance on Iraq at the moment but if it came down to a question of who's experience on the matter I would trust, Clinton or McCain, I gotta say I'm leaning towards McCain.
 

CnC

Ad Oculos
I think this was pretty well done :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHVEDq6RVXc

The terrorist hiding under a tank was gold
 
Though late, that McCain video needs an opposite. Or atleast.. the first half of the video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=86HEv_Wtyj8&
 
Obama's fiscal platform would be devastating. To pay for the social programs he proposes - just speaking in cold, mathematical facts here - either taxes would have to average about 65% of GDP, or we would have to more than double our national debt. That is if his administration is smart enough not to just print up new dollars, which at the necessary volume would cause the proverbial "wheelbarrow inflation" that just about every economist except for the Federal Reserve's spin-whores is warning about.

McCain's platform would be almost as devastating, except that he wants to spend the country into oblivion on foreign programs instead of domestic ones.

Either of them makes Hillary look like a fiscal conservative, and that's just plain sickening. I don't even want to touch her with a ten-foot pole. She's as crooked as an eleven dollar bill.

I don't feel good about anyone except for Ron Paul. He would, in fact, cause an economic revolution. He is not televised, though, and you know the media elects these fools.
 
_Noone_ said:
I don't feel good about anyone except for Ron Paul. He would, in fact, cause an economic revolution. He is not televised, though, and you know the media elects these fools.

I would choose Ron Paul over any of the republican candidates but I disagree with his philosophy on big government vs. small government.

Ron Paul talks about how our current policies are driving us into a depression, but lack of regulation is what caused the great depression in the first place. The government can many times be a positive thing. It has intervened to make sure that workers are properly paid and treated and has also made sure that businesses follow quality standards and environmental regulations. Many students would not even be in college if it were not for government scholarships and how many people could afford something other than public schools?

The government can also make sure that more of our money gets spent on science and research rather than the many extravagant things that we buy. Had it not been for the government, we would not even have an internet.

However, I don't always think the government trying to expand its power is a good thing; especially when it involves violating our first amendment, fifth amendment, sixth amendment, and eight amendment rights. I also agree with him, for the most part, that our role as policeman of the world has done more harm to us and the world.


One of my biggest issues with Obama:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pup1j1GZ0l0
 

Griffith

With the streak of a tear, Like morning dew
With Hillary showing her true colors more every day, it's time that this thread made a comeback.

Peregrine_Falcon said:
One of my biggest issues with Obama:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pup1j1GZ0l0

I don't see what's so bad there, other than the idea of the original bill honestly, his later answer to a similar, though not the same question, was actually the more thoughtful and reasonable one if anything. Blindly pledging to remove all troops from the region no matter what is a totally unrealistic and irresponsible one to make, impossible even. While it does leave something to be desired, I like his reserved answer a lot better than some disingenuous promise he can't keep.

Of course, like so many of us here, I'm typing this in between cleaning Obama's sheets and making his bed. Anyway, I'll have more time tomorrow after I cook his breakfast and finish cleaning the pool. =)
 
Griffith No More! said:
I don't see what's so bad there, other than the idea of the original bill honestly, his later answer to a similar, though not the same question, was actually the more thoughtful and reasonable one if anything. Blindly pledging to remove all troops from the region no matter what is a totally unrealistic and irresponsible one to make, impossible even. While it does leave something to be desired, I like his reserved answer a lot better than some disingenuous promise he can't keep.

Either Obama is being indecisive or is saying what is convenient for his campaign, as opposed to what he actually thinks is best for our country when he changes his stances like this. I don't want to elect someone who doesn't know how to make a decision or who isn't honest about what our future under him will entail.

This war has created a disaster and staying here would increase our problems. Continuing this war would further endanger our soldiers, drain our budget, and kill even more Iraqis. This war has cost us THREE TRILLION dollars, and the lives of 4,000 Americans. I have seen estimates putting the number of Iraqi deaths at 600,000 and over 1.2 million (more than the Rwandan genocide). These numbers of course do not reflect the number of people who have gone insane or who have become permanently crippled. And as more people suffer, terrorist groups will become even more influential.

Analysts have said that this war would require decades of occupation. Can we even afford that?

Of course, like so many of us here, I'm typing this in between cleaning Obama's sheets and making his bed. Anyway, I'll have more time tomorrow after I cook his breakfast and finish cleaning the pool. =)

I don't doubt that you spend a lot of time on his bed :)
 

Aazealh

Administrator
Staff member
Peregrine_Falcon said:
Analysts have said that this war would require decades of occupation. Can we even afford that?

Should have thought about that before going there in the first place.

Peregrine_Falcon said:
I don't doubt that you spend a lot of time on his bed :)

Oh my, you're so witty.
 
Aazealh said:
Should have thought about that before going there in the first place.

And now we should accept our losses and bring our soldiers home. Let's not let our lack of knowledge, our fear, a biased media, a lobby that does not care about our interests, and corporate greed continue to hurt us.
 

Vampire_Hunter_Bob

Cats are great
Peregrine_Falcon said:
And now we should accept our losses and bring our soldiers home. Let's not let our lack of knowledge, our fear, a biased media, a lobby that does not care about our interests, and corporate greed continue to hurt us.

The Iraqis are not going to just stop fighting when we leave. If we really want to get out of Iraq we probably should speed up on training their military so they can properly handle things when we do leave.
 

Aazealh

Administrator
Staff member
Peregrine_Falcon said:
And now we should accept our losses and bring our soldiers home. Let's not let our lack of knowledge, our fear, a biased media, a lobby that does not care about our interests, and corporate greed continue to hurt us.

Yeah, and just leave the country in ruins. How responsible that would be, after all the promises the US government made. Unfortunately, things have gone too far now to just say "sorry guys, we're not up to the ask after all!"
 

CnC

Ad Oculos
A simple reading of the bill he proposed back in January of '07 isn't really different from what he's saying now:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/30/AR2007013001586.html

[quote author=Washington Post]The Obama plan, called the Iraq War De-escalation Act of 2007, would begin a troop withdrawal no later than May 1, 2007, but it includes several caveats that could forestall a clean break:

It would leave a limited number of troops in place to conduct counterterrorism activities and train Iraqi forces. And the withdrawal could be temporarily suspended if the Iraqi government meets a series of benchmarks laid out by the Bush administration. That list includes a reduction in sectarian violence; the equitable distribution of oil revenue; government reforms; and democratic, Iraqi-driven reconstruction and economic development efforts. Obama's proposal also would reverse Bush's troop-increase plan.[/quote]

I think you're blowing this out of proportion. The spliced video you posted are of two different questions, the first one on a general stance on the war, the second was a reaction to the notion that there might still be troops there in 2013. I could see how you could strongly disagree with the idea of a phased withdrawal but I think it's a bit of a stretch to call what Obama said in one of the early debates a lie. In our previous military disaster, Vietnam, it took about 3-6 years to completely get everyone out.
On a similar note, I think the McCain "hundred year" war quote is also blown out of proportion. McCain was speaking of military presence, not combat/full-blown occupation. Now while I think thats a stupid idea, I at least know what he meant.
 

Griffith

With the streak of a tear, Like morning dew
Why quote me when you don't even address what I had to say?

Peregrine_Falcon said:
Either Obama is being indecisive or is saying what is convenient for his campaign, as opposed to what he actually thinks is best for our country when he changes his stances like this. I don't want to elect someone who doesn't know how to make a decision or who isn't honest about what our future under him will entail.

My point was he really didn't, and if one didn't allow themselves to be swayed by the editing and obvious purpose of the video, they would realize that. And from what you say about leadership, you basically want an anti-war George W. Bush. Someone that'll do whatever they, and in this case, you, want because they think it's idealogical "right thing" despite the real world consequences. I'm tired of that kind of autocratic thinking from our leadership, which is exactly what...

Peregrine_Falcon said:
This war has created a disaster and staying here would increase our problems. Continuing this war would further endanger our soldiers, drain our budget, and kill even more Iraqis. This war has cost us THREE TRILLION dollars, and the lives of 4,000 Americans. I have seen estimates putting the number of Iraqi deaths at 600,000 and over 1.2 million (more than the Rwandan genocide). These numbers of course do not reflect the number of people who have gone insane or who have become permanently crippled. And as more people suffer, terrorist groups will become even more influential.

...got us in THIS situation in the first place. Anyway, are we talking about Obama's stance on Iraq, or waxing poetic on the horrors of war? If it's the latter, fine, but what does this type of grandstanding have to do with the actual problem we're facing, or how to best proceed? It's exactly that kind of emotional rhetoric and hasty action that got us into this in the first place, and we can't just go back in time, it's too late to do the right thing by simply not being there. I'd rather have a reasonable course of action to responsibly disengage without causing more severe damage. Isn't that important to you however cynical you might be about the prospect? In any case, it takes time, and how we leave is more important than when, but people just want the instant gratification of an arbitrary date (that'll get pushed back). It's like people think that because we're the one's that made the hole, we should now just pull our finger from the dyke in shame. That's not okay, that's not the right thing, and it's not going to fix the problems we've created over there or do anything to improve our stance or reputation abroad, on the contrary, it would be quite disgusting of us.

Peregrine_Falcon said:
Analysts have said that this war would require decades of occupation. Can we even afford that?

It depends on what they, or you, mean by occupation, the U.S. military rarely ever leaves somewhere it engages like this. We still have a military presence and bases in sovereign nations all over the world, which is a difficult concept for us to really grasp since we don't see a lot of foreign soldiers walking down our streets over here. Anyway, considering that opposite extreme, what makes you think it's realistic to expect us to just leave immediately? I want us out ASAP, but that's still going to take years after we begin the process, and won't include extremes like every troop being gone.
 
Aazealh said:
Yeah, and just leave the country in ruins. How responsible that would be, after all the promises the US government made. Unfortunately, things have gone too far now to just say "sorry guys, we're not up to the ask after all!"

Because I'm sure that they are begging for the US to stay and now see us as some sort of beacon of human rights and freedom.

Griffith No More! said:
Why quote me when you don't even address what I had to say?

You were defending his second opinion and implied that his first opinion would cause problems. I was saying that occupying this country is causing us problems. That was how I was responding to you.


CnC said:
I think you're blowing this out of proportion. The spliced video you posted are of two different questions, the first one on a general stance on the war, the second was a reaction to the notion that there might still be troops there in 2013. I could see how you could strongly disagree with the idea of a phased withdrawal but I think it's a bit of a stretch to call what Obama said in one of the early debates a lie. In our previous military disaster, Vietnam, it took about 3-6 years to completely get everyone out.
On a similar note, I think the McCain "hundred year" war quote is also blown out of proportion. McCain was speaking of military presence, not combat/full-blown occupation. Now while I think thats a stupid idea, I at least know what he meant.

Griffith No More! said:
My point was he really didn't, and if one didn't allow themselves to be swayed by the editing and obvious purpose of the video, they would realize that. And from what you say about leadership, you basically want an anti-war George W. Bush. Someone that'll do whatever they, and in this case, you, want because they think it's idealogical the "right thing" despite the real world consequences. I'm tired of that kind of autocratic thinking from our leadership, which is exactly what...

...got us in THIS situation in the first place. Anyway, are we talking about Obama's stance on Iraq, or waxing poetic on the horrors of war? If it's the latter, fine, but what does this type of grandstanding have to do with the actual problem we're facing, or how to best proceed? It's exactly that kind of emotional rhetoric and hasty action that got us into this in the first place, and we can't just go back in time, it's too late to do the right thing by simply not being there. I'd rather have a reasonable course of action to responsibly disengage without causing more severe damage. Isn't that important to you however cynical you might be about the prospect? In any case, it takes time, and how we leave is more important than when, but people just want the instant gratification of an arbitrary date (that'll get pushed back). It's like people think that because we're the one's that made the hole, we should now just pull our finger from the dyke in shame. That's not okay, that's not the right thing, and it's not going to fix the problems we've created over there or do anything to improve our stance or reputation abroad, on the contrary, it would be quite disgusting of us.

To CnC and GNM:
Obviously the video was edited and did have an agenda but that doesn't change the fact that in one video he said they would all be out within a year and another said that they would be out by 2013. What next, 2030? I had heard this from many other sources, but I chose to find and post the video since it contained his exact words. I can’t even be sure that politicians who say, ‘phased withdrawal’, are not actually saying "It's politically inconvenient for me to say at no point in the near future."

To GNM:
I gave both financial and strategic reasons, not just moral ones. Boosting enemy recruitment and costing us three trillion dollars is bad for the state. A person who does the "right thing" would be someone who picks every violent conflict around the world and stretches our troops and sinks billions of dollars immediately and believes that we must use every ounce of energy to force the world into a peaceful utopia of industrialized, authentic democracies. I'm against bankrupting ourselves and creating more enemies than we can handle. Unprovoked, costly wars, and massive debts have killed civilizations.

It depends on what they, or you, mean by occupation, the U.S. military rarely ever leaves somewhere it engages like this. We still have a military presence and bases in sovereign nations all over the world, which is a difficult concept for us to really grasp since we don't see a lot of foreign soldiers walking down our streets over here. Anyway, considering that opposite extreme, what makes you think it's realistic to expect us to just leave immediately? I want us out ASAP, but that's still going to take years after we begin the process, and won't include extremes like every troop being gone.

With this supposed ‘phased withdrawal’, the situation of soldiers in Iraq would be nothing like the situation of soldiers in Japan and Germany and keeping troops in hostile territory for decades is also an extreme.
 
Top Bottom