|
30 Mar 08 - 03:14 PM (#2301283) Subject: BS: Election debate instead of insults? From: beardedbruce Washington Post McCain's Manifesto By David S. Broder Sunday, March 30, 2008; Page B07 What Barack Obama tried to do with the sensitive issue of race, John McCain attempted last week on the no less important topic of foreign policy. Obama, the leading Democratic presidential candidate, criticized the Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr. but did not repudiate his ties with his former pastor; he used his speech in Philadelphia to explore the wider dimensions of America's tragic history of bigotry and discrimination, suggesting ways this country could move beyond its racial polarization. In an equally significant address to the Los Angeles World Affairs Council, McCain, the certain Republican nominee, refused to back off his support for remaining in Iraq but put that decision in a broader context of American foreign policy, outlining a vastly different approach from President Bush's and one that might heal the wounds left here at home and abroad by the past seven years. Like Obama's address, this McCain speech is worthy of careful study and analysis. It began with a note that only a warrior such as McCain could choose -- a declaration by the son and grandson of combat veterans and the survivor of a Vietnamese prisoner-of-war camp that "I detest war" as only a man who has experienced its horrors can do. "Only a fool or a fraud sentimentalizes the merciless reality of war," he said, in rejecting the caricature of his own belligerence and explaining why he emphasizes diplomacy as the principal tool in a presidential arsenal and says that scholarships will be more important than smart bombs in winning the war on terrorism. In a world "where power of all kinds is more widely and evenly distributed, the United States cannot lead by virtue of its power alone," McCain said in an implicit rebuke to the mind-set of the current White House. "We need to listen to the views and respect the collective will of our democratic allies. When we believe international action is necessary, whether military, economic or diplomatic, we will try to persuade our friends that we are right. But we, in return, must be willing to be persuaded by them." That repudiation of unilateralism was just the first of many efforts to distinguish McCain's approach from Bush's. "America must be a model citizen if we want others to look to us as a model," he said. "We can't torture or treat inhumanely suspected terrorists we have captured. I believe we should close Guantanamo and work with our allies to forge a new international understanding on the disposition of dangerous detainees under our control." Next came a clear signal that the environmental agenda would change radically in a McCain administration. "We need to be good stewards of our planet," he said. "The risks of global warming have no borders. We and the other nations of the world must get serious about substantially reducing greenhouse gas emissions." McCain suggested a continuation of the cautious Bush policy toward China, "based on periodically shared interests, rather than the bedrock of shared values." But Bush's embrace of Vladimir Putin's Russia will not continue in a McCain administration. The Group of Eight assemblage of market-oriented democracies should expand to include Brazil and India, he said, "but exclude Russia. Rather than tolerate Russia's nuclear blackmail or cyber attacks, Western nations should make clear that the solidarity of NATO, from the Baltic to the Black Sea, is indivisible." Finally, McCain signaled not just a break with Bush but an abandonment of his own past preference for strongmen such as Pakistan's Pervez Musharraf by saying that time has run out on the U.S. "strategy of relying on autocrats to provide order and stability" in the greater Middle East. "We relied on the shah of Iran, the autocratic rulers of Egypt, the generals of Pakistan, the Saudi royal family and even, for a time, on Saddam Hussein," he said. But that game has ended: "Change is occurring, whether we want it or not." All this puts McCain's insistence on staying in Iraq until it is a "peaceful, stable, prosperous, democratic" state in a broader context, even if it does not reduce the yawning gulf between his vision of what is achievable in that country and those of Obama and Hillary Clinton. This has the makings of a great debate, and we now know that both sides are intellectually and politically ready for the battle. |
|
30 Mar 08 - 03:25 PM (#2301295) Subject: RE: BS: Election debate instead of insults? From: CarolC I don't think anyone who detests war would make a stupid, childish, and incredibly glib joke about bombing another country as McCain did with that "bomb Iran" joke. That's the kind of behavior that comes from people who like war. |
|
30 Mar 08 - 03:33 PM (#2301304) Subject: RE: BS: Election debate instead of insults? From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor Are we going to have a debate or are you going to cut and paste biased opinion pieces and hope that we waste our time on considered responses while you search for another tangentially related opinion piece? If you want a real discussion, why don't you express your own opinions yourself? |
|
30 Mar 08 - 03:38 PM (#2301312) Subject: RE: BS: Election debate instead of insults? From: beardedbruce My opinion. There are those here who have no desrie to discuss the issues, when they can make claims about what those they are opposed to "meant". My opinion: McCain has brought up a set of points that SHOULD be discussed, but the ones who do not want to see him elected are only going to post lies and try to avoid any real discussion of the issues that the country should be basing the vote on. My opinion is that the two of you should try to let some real discussion be presented, in spiute of your obvious bias against McCain. |
|
30 Mar 08 - 03:44 PM (#2301319) Subject: RE: BS: Election debate instead of insults? From: CarolC My comment was real disscussion, beardedbruce. Stuff like that actually matters. Presidential candidates glibly making jokes about bombing other countries and in the process killing innocent civilians actually does matter, and it reflects on his attitude toward war. He wants us to believe what he says about detesting war, but his behavior demonstrates the opposite. These things do matter in a presidential election. I used to like McCain. I seriously considered voting for him in 2000. But he has changed. He's a war whore now, and I don't trust anything he says. |
|
30 Mar 08 - 04:02 PM (#2301339) Subject: RE: BS: Election debate instead of insults? From: Bobert How many times have the goal posts been moved allready to justify continuation of the occupation??? McCain isn't any different than Bush... He uses the same3 worn out words, the same worn out palns and the same worn out lies... Einstein said that "a problem cannot be solved with the same consciencness that created it"... I really don't mind discussing the issues but as long as the precondition for that discussion is "victory in Iraq" then there can be no discussion at all... It's preconditons that got US into the mess to begin with... B~ |
|
30 Mar 08 - 04:52 PM (#2301393) Subject: RE: BS: Election debate instead of insults? From: McGrath of Harlow I checked on YouTube to see if that address was up there - of course it wasn't. All the McCain clips there seem to be ads or short bits from speeches, just a couple of minutes. The same seems to be true of Clinton. In contrast Obama's clips include lengthy and closely argued addresses. My point being that so far there doesn't appear to be too much evidence of appetite for a genuine debate from McCain or Clinton. But in the interest of debate, here is a link to the full text of the speech by McCain which was the subject of the article Bruce pasted up there. |
|
30 Mar 08 - 05:16 PM (#2301417) Subject: RE: BS: Election debate instead of insults? From: Q (Frank Staplin) McCain's speech had some good and reasoned points. I don'r agree with his position on Iraq- I feel the US-UK continued presence will prolong the conflict. Al-Qaida is active in Pakistan and other countries, as an ally for radical Islamists, and must be fought internationaly. Perhaps a united effort by the UN would be the best approach. Whether withdrawal will spell the beginning of a bloodbath, I am not sure it will. I believe that saner heads in both Syria (support for Sunni) and Iran (support for Shia) will prevail to prevent an all out confrontation, which would further the interests of neither country. Youtube is not a place from which to judge the campaign adversaries. It sells 'the flavor of the day,' to use the cliché. Like the speech by McCain, posted by McGrath, there have been speeches by Clinton, but they are under-reported. |
|
30 Mar 08 - 05:56 PM (#2301457) Subject: RE: BS: Election debate instead of insults? From: Bobert I also agreed with his positions on torture and Guantanemo, Q... I just hope there isn't any "fine print" on his torture position as Bush has used to justify things such as waterbaording... McCain's position on Iraq, however, is the ***meat 'n taters*** that should make for a long, long discussion/debate... B~ |
|
30 Mar 08 - 06:05 PM (#2301463) Subject: RE: BS: Election debate instead of insults? From: dick greenhaus I am somehow dubious about a "league of Democracies"--a sort of "United Nations-that-we like". And I am more dubious about his concept of God creating the US as a political tool: " President Harry Truman once said of America, "God has created us and brought us to our present position of power and strength for some great purpose." In his time, that purpose was to contain Communism and build the structures of peace and prosperity that could provide safe passage through the Cold War. " Certainly McCain's rhetoric is easier on the brain than Bush's. But that's setting the bar pretty low. |
|
30 Mar 08 - 06:21 PM (#2301478) Subject: RE: BS: Election debate instead of insults? From: Amos HE is making sense, as described in the article. He has a vision of foreign policy which is quite different in important ways from Bush's. He has always opposed torture, and has been critical of the prosecution of the war in Iraq even though supportive of it as a strategy, one for which I do not easily forgive him. But my sense of BB's article -- and I have not had time to read the whole speech -- brings up two misgivings here. One is that although he is emphasizing the difference from his predecessors in the Republican executive, he is not clearly speaking about the continuing, underlying similarities. In the long run, this speech is tempered to his times, but as Carol seems to sense, it does not seem fully organic to McCain's roots. I would be very wary that under changing conditions, his response patterns would fall back onto unchanging -- and unhealthy -- assumptions and hypotheses about the nature of countries and people. The second misgiving is that a healthy dollop of what he is saying seems to have been borrowed from Obama's playbook, wrapped in a different color of ribbon. A |
|
30 Mar 08 - 06:22 PM (#2301479) Subject: RE: BS: Election debate instead of insults? From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor >>McCain has brought up a set of points that SHOULD be discussed, but the ones who do not want to see him elected are only going to post lies and try to avoid any real discussion of the issues that the country should be basing the vote on.<< If you want to bring up those points one by one and discuss them then do so. Make a statement and we will talk about it. Vis a vis McCain, the choice is pretty clear for me. 1. His strategy for Iraq is not sustainable, is costing us trillions and is not making us any safer. 2. He had admitted four times that he doesn't know anything about economics and has demonstrated his ignorance in speeches. If he was the leader we need. He would have learned what he needs to know by now or he would have hired someone who does know economics to write his speeches. 3. He is seventy two years old and his memory is starting to fail. In this terrible time of crisis, mostly generated by the present Republican President, we need someone energetic and alert who knows who the hell he is fighting against. 4. He is a Republican and I am a conservative. Republicans are not conservative they are money-grubbing spendthrift anarchists. I think it is idiotic to put someone who wants to drown government in a bathtub in charge of our government. Reagan and George Bush have been the least fiscally conservative of all our Presidents. When the Republicans ran congress, no pork left unvetoed and no corporate ass went unkissed. Tax and spend is bad but borrow and spend is far worse. Their lack of meaningful oversight caused the mortgage crisis. Their aimless pointless tax breaks during wartime has put us more than twice as deeply into debt. 5. Obama is smarter than McCain he is and a far better speaker. 6. McCain talks about working with our allies, but Obama is not going to have a monkey on his back (Curious George the amazing wonder-chimp) when he meets with allies. 7. McCain worked with AirBus lobbyists to export 20,000 aerospace jobs from the USA. His campaign, while he is advocating for Airbus in the senate, has 3 AirBus lobbyists on staff. 8. McCain ACTIVELY sought the endorsements of two religious figures far worse than Rev Wright. Listening in the pews is one thing, having them on your campaign stage with "McCain for President" in big letters behind them is much worse. 9. Electing an African-American will do a lot toward healing deep divides in this country and will greatly enhance our stature in the world. I have taken the time to engage in real discussion. If you answer with the cut and paste of yet another tired polemic, I will assume that you are just sniping rather than engaging in the "great debate" yourself. |
|
30 Mar 08 - 06:53 PM (#2301509) Subject: RE: BS: Election debate instead of insults? From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor Sorry I misspoke >>no pork left unvetoed<< Should be no pork was harmed in the making of their deficits. |
|
30 Mar 08 - 09:44 PM (#2301643) Subject: RE: BS: Election debate instead of insults? From: GUEST,Guest beardedbruce, we are far apart on the political spectrum on most things, but you do have my sympathies. Any Mudcat Republicans have no chance of voicing their opinions in the forum this year. NONE. The hostility and mean spirited attacks against you personally, and McCain by the Obama cult are beyond the pale. Be reassured though, that it isn't you. It really is them. They have flooded the forum, and will continue to do so until the election is over. There isn't a US political thread the Obama swarm doesn't attack. Sad, the intolerance and hatred. But there you have it. They've shouted you down and drowned you out, and the thread has even hit 25 posts. |
|
30 Mar 08 - 09:48 PM (#2301644) Subject: RE: BS: Election debate instead of insults? From: Peace Not so. BB has never been shouted down. It ain't in his vocabulary. One thing: the Obama supporters have been posting to Mudcat for years. Ain't too many newbies in the group. Could be they really DO like Obama. Of the three, really, who else is there? |
|
30 Mar 08 - 09:54 PM (#2301647) Subject: RE: BS: Election debate instead of insults? From: GUEST,Guest Yet, they have flooded the forum, and continue to bully and shout down anyone who doesn't agree with them. And it isn't just happening here, see the new thread titled "Feingold to Obama Supporters: Cool it!". Before the Mudelfs for Obama delete the thread. |
|
30 Mar 08 - 09:58 PM (#2301648) Subject: RE: BS: Election debate instead of insults? From: Peace Interesting--just read the post, GUEST,Guest. I agree, but also figure he should have included a similar admonition to Hillary's group. The Dems are for-sure hurting themselves. |
|
30 Mar 08 - 10:04 PM (#2301651) Subject: RE: BS: Election debate instead of insults? From: GUEST,Guest Then I would suggest Peace, that you don't have a very objective view of how this dynamic is working. The Obama camp is being far more vicious and manipulative than the Clinton camp. And now, with Feingold coming out and saying it flat out--and he is an Obama supporter--Obama damn well better rein in his foot soldiers. Because it is the viciousness of his supporters that are ratcheting up the heat in the campaign, not the other way around. That is the perception of many non-believers and an increasing number of Obama supporters, so you don't have to take my word for it. It is all over the Dem blogs. |
|
30 Mar 08 - 10:09 PM (#2301653) Subject: RE: BS: Election debate instead of insults? From: Peace As I said, I agree. I just don't perceive it be be something unique to Obama supporters. The mis/disinformation fielded by the Clinton camp has been reprihensible. That doesn't negate the harm Obama's supporters are causing. However, that's the nature of 'radicalisms' in political spheres. |
|
30 Mar 08 - 10:16 PM (#2301659) Subject: RE: BS: Election debate instead of insults? From: Peace reprehensible |
|
30 Mar 08 - 10:18 PM (#2301661) Subject: RE: BS: Election debate instead of insults? From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor Isn't Bruce asking for a debate about the issues? Wouldn't that be nice? |
|
30 Mar 08 - 10:30 PM (#2301670) Subject: RE: BS: Election debate instead of insults? From: Peace The stuff that needs to be debated just ain't. War Health Care Poverty Executive Orders |
|
30 Mar 08 - 10:41 PM (#2301679) Subject: RE: BS: Election debate instead of insults? From: Amos First, I plead nt guilty to the histrionics. I have countered snidity and slant withthe best information and the clearest responses I could muster. If a constant barrage of underhanded remarks, covert and overt accusations, and ad hominem darts has occasionally ticked me off, then I plead guilty to being human, but nothing worse. I think I addressed the issues up thread. As for my enthusiasm for Obama, I think he is an extraordinary individual, and that he stands out from the rest of the pool in character, intelligence, compassion and integrity. I think he has the skills needed to implement fundamental changes. IF that's koolaid, so be it. I sees it as I sees it, and say what I see. A |
|
31 Mar 08 - 08:34 AM (#2301912) Subject: RE: BS: Election debate instead of insults? From: Bobert I'm with you, Amos... But it ain't you or me or any of the other folks here who like Obama it's, ahhhhhhh, the over-sensitive GG who feels compelled to mean-mouth Obama in just about every post, regardless of the nature of the thread... I keep expecting GG to sabatoge my "Creasy Greens Recipe" thread with more anti-Obama venom... Now, I haven't picked up my Washington Post yet but did check in here on the pudder and there are a couple point/counterpoint op eds in today's edition... I'm sure that bb will get around to posting them... I haven't read them but I'm hopefull that these two pieces will frame the debate on Iraq... The problem with Iraq isn't with what folks know as much as what alot of folks, who also vote, don't know or are unwilling to accept, like the linkage of alQeada to Saddam's regiem??? There are still people, who vote, that will go to the grave *believing* that because they have esentailly been brainwashed... Let the discussion/debate continue... Heck, it's been going on now over 5 years during which most of the things that I, along witgh others, predicted would occur in Iraq during the selling of the invasion days have now come to pass... Not to blowing any horns here but in the context of a discussion of policy I think it is fair to remind folks now and then that the anti-war folks of 5 1/2 years ago have been shown to be the folks who were on the right side of history... This is an important point... It's like baseball and you have two pitchers... They both say they can win but one is 0-9 and the other is 9-0... I believe that the manager is going to have more confidence in starting the 9-0 pitcher over the other feller... So, from my perspective, we anti-war folks here who have been here wrestling with the neocons are the pitcher wioth the 9-0 record... IN other words, the neocons will have to put i a lotta overtime here to have any level opf credibilty... This is an important point that shouldn't be lost in this discussion... B~ |
|
31 Mar 08 - 09:08 AM (#2301947) Subject: RE: BS: Election debate instead of insults? From: kendall Jack the sailor, Your piece on McCain is right on the money. Let's examine this word "Hero". What is a war hero? is it someone who goes half way around the world and bombs the piss out of a country that never did anything to us, then makes a career out of complaining about what they did by way of hitting back? I do give the man points for his behavior as a prisoner because he refused to be sent home and leave his buddies behind. That shows character. However, that was then, this is now. He can't run on Viet Nam. That is over and done. We are now up to our debt ridden asses in another quagmire with no end in sight. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Now, as far as deleted posts go, below the line any personal attack can and will be deleted. Simply expressing a contrary opinion on any given subject is not enough to get booted, but the rule on attacks is firm and applies to everyone. Joe has made that quite clear time after time. So, if anyone chooses to think that rule doesn't apply to them, and they post a mean nasty attack, you are asking to be deleted, and you can piss and moan all you want. You know the rules. "Never give advice. the wise don't need it, and the fool won't heed it." |
|
31 Mar 08 - 02:04 PM (#2302244) Subject: RE: BS: Election debate instead of insults? From: beardedbruce So, what happened to my thread with the article that explains how Bobert's whole reason for calling NcCain "MCWar" is a lie? I was attacking his STATEMENT, and showing that others thought it to be a lie. HOW IS THAT A PERSONNAL ATTACK? Please PM me, Clones. |
|
31 Mar 08 - 02:21 PM (#2302260) Subject: RE: BS: Election debate instead of insults? From: Jack the Sailor Bruce, You said you wanted debate and you still not debating. You are cluttering up your own debate thread with accusations. |
|
31 Mar 08 - 02:22 PM (#2302261) Subject: RE: BS: Election debate instead of insults? From: GUEST,Guest Welcome to the world of Mudcat censorship. |
|
31 Mar 08 - 02:32 PM (#2302269) Subject: RE: BS: Election debate instead of insults? From: Amos I saw and responded to such an article here, BB -- right in this thread on 30 Mar. A |
|
31 Mar 08 - 02:34 PM (#2302270) Subject: RE: BS: Election debate instead of insults? From: beardedbruce Fine. Lets debate the FACT that threads that are not in the correct political bent ( ie, critical of Conservatives, and praising Liberals) are removed, especially when the bring out that the comments being used to critisize concervatives are lies of the Liberals. When I find out about my thread, I will "debate" you. You have some points I agree with, but I suppose you want me to argue against them, just to make you feel better about them. |
|
31 Mar 08 - 02:38 PM (#2302275) Subject: RE: BS: Election debate instead of insults? From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor >>>but I suppose you want me to argue against them, just to make you feel better about them.<<< No not at all. Last night I watched McCain on Meet the Press, it was an old interview, recorded while the Republican field was still quite large. To a degree, he impressed me. He has a steadier hand than Bush. He is more thoughtful more balanced and more sane. But he still did not impress me enough to overcome any of the objections listed. I am disappointed that you called for debate, but that you have not done so. i look forward to hearing your opinions. |
|
31 Mar 08 - 02:51 PM (#2302293) Subject: RE: BS: Election debate instead of insults? From: McGrath of Harlow Not much sign of debate so far. So, what happened to my thread with the article that explains ... That sounds rather as if it might have been a lengthy cut and paste rather than a short extract with a link - which would be one reason why it's been removed, if it has. (Or maybe no one posted to it or refreshed it and it just drifted down off the the page, as happens.) |
|
31 Mar 08 - 02:59 PM (#2302303) Subject: RE: BS: Election debate instead of insults? From: Amos You have some points I agree with, but I suppose you want me to argue against them, just to make you feel better about them. Bruce, man, let's try not to get all bitter and exagerrate the misunderstandings to make them even more divisive. Say what you want to say, but let's stay reasonable or, if possible, good humored about it. A |
|
01 Apr 08 - 02:32 PM (#2303520) Subject: RE: BS: Election debate instead of insults? From: kendall Guest guest, old saying..."If you know the dog bites..." |
|
01 Apr 08 - 02:40 PM (#2303535) Subject: RE: BS: Election debate instead of insults? From: GUEST,Jack The Sailor >>>Then I would suggest Peace, that you don't have a very objective view of how this dynamic is working. The Obama camp is being far more vicious and manipulative than the Clinton camp.<<< He's in Canada for gosh sakes. He barely cares who wins. Logic tells us who is not being objective. |
|
01 Apr 08 - 02:46 PM (#2303544) Subject: RE: BS: Election debate instead of insults? From: irishenglish GG- earlier you said, "Be reassured though, that it isn't you. It really is them. They have flooded the forum, and will continue to do so until the election is over." This coming from the same person who flooded this forum with Ralph (already forgotten)Nader posts in February. |
|
02 Apr 08 - 12:16 PM (#2304559) Subject: RE: BS: Election debate instead of insults? From: Wolfgang I just found and filled out a test (in German, so no link) which candidate I would vote for if I was allowed to. Would you like the pres. to close Gitmo? y/n Do you consider the Iraq war a mistake? y/n and so on Now I know why I am so undecided between Obama and Clinton but not full of enthousiasm for any of them. McCain was rock bottom with 3 points on my list (and that was only because he was undecided same as I for three questions). Obama scored 9 and Clinton scored 8 with me (out of 20). So I'd vote for any of the two without hesitation but also without too much hope. Wolfgang |
|
02 Apr 08 - 12:21 PM (#2304566) Subject: RE: BS: Election debate instead of insults? From: Wolfgang A question to the US-Americans. What would happen if the Democrat (or Rep.) candidate would be killed (or died) after the final nomination but before the November election. Would the runner up be the new candidate or the person nominated as vice president by the now dead candidate? Wolfgang |
|
02 Apr 08 - 12:23 PM (#2304568) Subject: RE: BS: Election debate instead of insults? From: Amos I know of no statistic that supports the notion that the Obama camp is being harsher or more aggressive than the Hillary contingent. I do think they may be more impassioned, from what I have seen. My impression has been, as far as distortions go, that it was quite the reverse. But that's subjective and we all know how much water subjectivity holds... :D A |
|
02 Apr 08 - 12:27 PM (#2304575) Subject: RE: BS: Election debate instead of insults? From: Wolfgang Why Americans Never Vote for What They Really Want (a view from a German correspondent in the USA) This type of citizen presents a difficult challenge for the political parties. First he wants everything, and then he wants precisely the opposite. It cannot be ruled out that he will spend an entire election campaign feeling a deep affinity for the idealist and former social worker Barack Obama, only to turn around and pick Republican candidate and Vietnam veteran John McCain on election day. Sometimes people simply vote differently from how they feel. My comment: Mind, this journalist does not like Obama and has often during the last couple of months wrongly predicted an end of the "Obama hype" Wolfgang |
|
02 Apr 08 - 12:40 PM (#2304594) Subject: RE: BS: Election debate instead of insults? From: Bobert And, fir the record, bb, and perhaps for the 10th or so time, I don't repond to your screaming... As for my opinion that "McWar" is appropriate it's just that: an opinion... And it's my opinion... And it's millions of others people's opinions as well... So for you to try to call it a "lie" rather childish... I mean, if I were to make a claim that John McCain is actually Nanci Pelosi dressing up as a man, yeah, the "lie" word would be appropraite... But reverting to your old ways of SCREANING that others are liars because they don't agree with you makes you sound like a fool... That's just a little reminder that if you want debate, fine, lets debate... But if you are going to have yer little bb temper tantrums then you can forget the debate part... Get it yet??? B~ |
|
02 Apr 08 - 01:30 PM (#2304636) Subject: RE: BS: Election debate instead of insults? From: Jack the Sailor Wolfgang, I came here from Canada, a country where the majority of the citizens doe consider social justice a worthy goal. I will tell you that many Americans, even kind generous ones, do not. They think that everyone should have to work for every cent. Making sure that poor people work for what they get is what they consider social justice. I think that that writers analysis is way off the mark and that his conclusions do not follow from evidence he presents in subsequent paragraphs. One thing he needs to consider is that the opinion poles he is reading are not designed to get an accurate gage of public opinion. They are designed to support the idea of the horse race between the two candidates and to keep that horse race exciting. This is how I think it is. There are very very few people who support Obama now who won't vote for him in November. Same for McCain. The vast majority are undecided. There is a religion in this country that is merely a discredited economic theory in the rest of the world. It stems from Ronald Reagan's "Reagonomics" Which basically said that tax cuts to the rich stimulate the economy and everybody benefits. It was a confidence game then. It is a confidence game now. Back then when Reagan cut taxes, the economic engine was fueled by astronomical debt and military spending. The effect of the tax cuts was buried in an avalanche of debt. Reagan gave credit to the tax cuts that was not deserved. It is worthy of note that when Bush's father took office, Reagan's fiscal irresponsibility bit him in the ass and Propelled Clinton to power. Our Bush, cut taxes and has been saying for seven years that his tax cuts have been the engine for economic growth. Mean while the biggest growth engine in the economy has been artificially low interest rates and a lack of oversight on the banking industry which mad a lot of bad loans, infusing cash into the economy, and then collected their fees and then sold the debt as bonds which were fraudulently sold as top rated bonds. There has also been record military spending but since a lot of that was spent over seas and has gone to shell businesses in the Caymen Islands and elsewhere, the economic stimulus from this spending has not been as great as in Reagan's time. But still, the taxpayers see tax cuts for the wealthy and general prosperity at the same time, and since the mouth piece, figure heads keep repeating the mantra, they end up voting for tax cuts for the wealthy. |
|
02 Apr 08 - 02:55 PM (#2304713) Subject: RE: BS: Election debate instead of insults? From: McGrath of Harlow No takers for Wolfgang's question yet. Which isn't at all a far fetched one in the circumstances. |
|
02 Apr 08 - 03:24 PM (#2304744) Subject: RE: BS: Election debate instead of insults? From: Amos What would happen if the Democrat (or Rep.) candidate would be killed (or died) after the final nomination but before the November election. Would the runner up be the new candidate or the person nominated as vice president by the now dead candidate? The party represented by the candidate would probably choose a new candidate -- most liekly the chosen candidate's VP, or the closest competitor from the primary race. But not necessarily. Dead people cannot be elected, and if elected, may not serve. ;>) But they have been known to vote, occasionally... A |
|
02 Apr 08 - 04:41 PM (#2304843) Subject: RE: BS: Election debate instead of insults? From: GUEST,Guest Well, it throws the whole process into disarray, as we found when Wellstone was killed, just 3 weeks before the election, and as he had opened up a fairly substantial lead in the polls. The party had to nominate a new candidate to run in his place, and were only able to do so by squeaking in under the deadline for getting on the ballot by a nose. So, the simple answer is, it would depend upon when it happened, and no, the runner up wouldn't have a legal right to be put on the federal ballot. The way Republican Norm Coleman of MN won the senate seat in the wake of Democrat Wellstone's death, was the most perverse dirty tricks campaign I ever witnessed (and I've seen some real dirty shit), and turned me off to conventional politics, probably forever. |
|
02 Apr 08 - 05:15 PM (#2304879) Subject: RE: BS: Election debate instead of insults? From: McGrath of Harlow Presumably if it happened after the deadline the election would just have to go ahead with the dead candidate staying on it. If he or she got elected I imagine the vice presidential candidate would automatically succeed, as would happen if the president elect died before inauguration. |
|
02 Apr 08 - 05:42 PM (#2304898) Subject: RE: BS: Election debate instead of insults? From: GUEST,heric I don't know, but I believe GG's answer. Up until election day, I don't see any reason why a runner up or a Vice Presidential candidate would have any rights. The matter is not addressed in the Constitution. The party would have to replace the nominee as they see fit, I think, and each party may have its own written rules on the subject. The election date could theoretically get rescheduled by act of Congress, as well, so long as they could still meet the inauguration deadline. |
|
02 Apr 08 - 06:22 PM (#2304923) Subject: RE: BS: Election debate instead of insults? From: Don Firth Just an observation: Jack the Sailor's well-reasoned point-by-point post (non cut-and-paste) at 30 Mar 08 - 06:22 p.m. is right on the money. And it is most certainly points in a legitimate discussion. There are those here who, when faced with a reasonable post such as that, or by any statement of fact or opinion that disagrees with their viewpoint, are in the habit of complaining bitterly that they are being "bullied and shouted down." If they can't tolerate the expression of other opinions—well, let me phrase it this way: If you can't stand the heat, then don't sit on the barbeque! Don Firth |
|
02 Apr 08 - 06:31 PM (#2304930) Subject: RE: BS: Election debate instead of insults? From: Stringsinger McCain must show more cognizance of the difference between Shia and Sunni if there is to be a substantive debate on foreign policy. He also must show some knowledge of economics to address the deplorable conditions we now face. His approach to the issue of Iraq is consistent with a military mind-set, one that is not needed now because the pattern that has taken place in Iraq based on pre-emptive military policies have been disastrous not only for that country but for the US economy. Being an occupant of the Hanoi Hilton does not qualify him to be a substantial president. He was a participant in a failed foreign policy instituted by a Democratic Johnson. The debate points, I agree, need to be addressed such as the failed policy decisions in Iraq,the plummeting dollar, the support of a country that violates human rights continually even when they are given import status, the race issue which is very much alive in this election and being used in a callous manner by one of the candidates, the sucking noise that Perot predicted about American jobs going overseas, the bailout of Bear Stearns with taxpayer money, the home mortgage debacle by criminal sub-prime lenders, the manipulation of election fraud through machines, the lip-service given to campaign finance reform where one of the major recipients of corporate money has been McCain... Well I don't see McCain discussing any of these issues but falling back on his reputation as a war hero. I am open to debates on the issues. Stringsinger |
|
04 Apr 08 - 01:13 AM (#2306142) Subject: RE: BS: Election debate instead of insults? From: CarolC I think there's a certain amount of truth in the article Wolfgang posted. I've encountered something similar in the way people have voted in an internet forum I administer. We've set it up as a democratic system in which all major decisions and many minor decisions are made by a consensus vote. When we first set up our system, a lot of people (mostly men) wanted strong rules, strictly enforced. A lot of them wanted the admin and moderators to be able to ban people. A lot of them wanted corrective action, including banning, to be administered after a very small number of infractions. We ended up with a compromise system in which other corrective action (deletion of posts, for instance) would take place before stronger corrective action would kick in, which would be in the form of post limits rather than banning. The interesting thing is that, after these rules were voted in, when it came time to actually enforce them, the very same people who were the most vocal about wanting the most strenuous rules and the most strenuous enforcement of rules before the vote were the ones who were the most vocal about not wanting them to be enforced in any way after the rules were put in place. And they didn't just not want the rules to apply to them, they didn't want them to apply to others, either. It was very strange. The way I found this out was by testing the waters the first time a couple of members got into a heated argument with a lot of personal attacks. I deleted a few posts to see how committed they were to what they had voted on. Pretty much all of the ones who had voted for strict rules were upset about the deletions. My theory is that a lot of people, especially in the US, and especially men, have very compartmentalized thought processes. They have one concept of what they think they think, but what they really think is something very different. |
|
04 Apr 08 - 03:32 AM (#2306193) Subject: RE: BS: Election debate instead of insults? From: freda underhill The US has a very different set up to Australia and the UK, partly because there is no labour party in the US. In Australia we have better work conditions, less of a gap between rich and poor, and a more developed welfare state, as a result of union influence on the Australian Labour Party, and a tradition which has had governments walking a middle line between employers and employees. When the last government tried to break down employee rights through legislation which took Australia towards the American labour model(called, ironically, "Workchoices") they were voted out. Australia is a more secular society and has seen social justice very much as being about fairer distribution of economic resources. We have not had so much of a religious tradition here. The US tradition of equality seems to me as an outsider to be a commitment to spiritual or moral equality, but not to economic equality. not an equality of distribution of resources, but an equality of social status. The idea of individual freedom here (in Oz) is very much tied to secular ideals. I hope that either Obama or Hillary get in, and that they are able to lead America towards some of the social gains experienced in australia and in the northern european states. |