It must be a tough job being a speechwriter for Obama. I tried my hand at writing this press conference speech about his Iraq policy.
"What I've said before is always what I've said and what I'm still saying, that we need to be careful and deliberate about how we bring the troops home. That's my policy, and it's always been my policy.
"When I said that we would do it in 16 months, and made this promise repeatedly in order to become the presumed Democratic nominee, what I meant -- and I've said this all along -- is that we might NOT do it in 16 months. The timeline really doesn't matter, as any military expert will tell you.
"I mean -- and I respect Senator McCain's military service -- but when he says his goal is to get the troops out of harm's way and make sure that we don't leave behind an unstable Iraq, but that he won't set a timeline, that is very different from my goal to get the troops out of harm's way and make sure that we don't leave behind an unstable Iraq, because I do have a timeline, even though I will readily sacrifice that timeline if it might risk an unstable Iraq or put our troops in harm's way.
"I haven't changed anything. The confusion here is the fault of the McCain campaign, which has deliberately twisted my words ... I mean, I've been very consistent, nothing has changed at all ... if anything, it's McCain who has changed, since he supported the war from the beginning, but NOW he wants to get the troops out of harm's way! Right? ... WILL YOU ALL PLEASE JUST STOP LOOKING AT ME?!??! I mean, COME ON!!!! I thought you LIKED me!"
Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.
Posted by pudge at July 03, 2008 05:35 PM | Email ThisHow is this good strategy again?
Posted by: demo kid on July 3, 2008 05:56 PMAlso, if you are implying McCain would get us into other wars, you are lying, just as you are lying when you say we are in a recession. Cheers!
Posted by: pudge on July 3, 2008 06:10 PMMcCain says he might keep some troops stationed in Iraq when the war is over. Obama said he would keep them in the region, but OUTSIDE of Iraq.
Wooo! Change you can believe! He's a real DIFFERENT KIND OF POLITICIAN!
Where did you pull that fabrication out of ? the Obama smear machine wants you now. Besides that, your thoughts are incoherent, but Obama is too - away from the teleprompter as shown in his quote via pudge. I would much prefer McCain's military strategy with a plan over Obama who doesn't - the metrosexual/girly men might prefer Obama's strategy though.
Posted by: KS on July 3, 2008 06:48 PMTurn off the TelePrompTer and all of the eloquence goes away.
Posted by: Jeff B. on July 3, 2008 07:00 PMhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ioy90nF2anI
Both McCain and Obama have made it clear from the begining that niether has any intention of changing our foriegn policy torwards peace and trade rather than war and embargos. Both want our troops all over the world protecting foriegn and corporate interests.
I hope enough people start rejecting these types of politicians and maybe some day we can celebrate a new independence. One where we are free from DC.
Posted by: Lysander on July 3, 2008 07:32 PMNo I do not think dictators are just dictators because people have not been nice to them. I do however think that it is not the US militaries responsibility to do nation building. Especially in countries that despite having a dictator are no threat to us.
Posted by: Lysander on July 3, 2008 08:26 PMIf we were in fact geared towards war and embargoes we would have bombed North Korea, who no one disputes has provided terrorists and terrorist states such as Syria with assistance and nuclear technology, back to the stone age. We should have bombed Iran when we discovered their nuclear program. We should have bombed Syria.
Instead we have deposed two dictators who posed direct threats and we have spent the past seven years attempting to establish democracies in those countries. We have allowed them to run their own countries including selling their oil to the highest bidder even though that has hurt our own economy.
The evidence is clear. We have used war and embargoes as necessary but the vast majority of our foreign policy is geared towards peaceful trade and self determination.
Posted by: Calvin A on July 3, 2008 08:40 PMAfghanistan is failure since we still have not captured the man responsible for 9/11.
As for Al queda being Iraq, that is just wrong. Saddam and Al Queda were actually enemies.
If our policy was geared towards peace and trade, can you explain why we have troops stationed in over 100 countries around the world?
Posted by: Lysander on July 3, 2008 09:04 PMWe have troops in over 100 countries to promote peace and trade.
As former military that saw my fair share of those 100+ countries I can tell you first hand that presence promotes peace and trade.
Why do you think that the majority of governments and citizens in those 100+ countries have invited us or desire that we stay?
Why do you think the local economies around most foreign soil based US military installations do well? There is economics at work there. Ergo, trade.
Why do you think there is widespread collaboration between armed forces, as well as integration of tactics, logistics and training. Maybe to promote peace? The United States Department of Defense has more people interacting with foreign nationals at any one moment than the Department of State during times of peace. They also have more foreign language trained personnel as well.
The concepts you are attempting to articulate are not mutually exclusive as you are trying to believe.
Posted by: Chris on July 3, 2008 10:07 PMHere is a good picture from Iraq that shows that our efforts there are doing some good. To be sure we have made many mistakes over the course of the past five years. But long term, it will be better to have a Westernized ideological perspective in the Middle East. It will help turn backwards extremist mystical thinking to more rational and successful political philosophy.
That can only be a net good for the US and the world. Soldiers on the ground implicitly understand this because they see with their own eyes the basic human yearning for individual freedom which is flowering in Iraq.
It's easy to sit and dismiss that from an absolutist libertarian perspective, but without the US or a similar effort by another Western nation, it would not be possible for any country in the Middle East to release itself from the iron grip of tyrannical Islam. This is not like communism in Eastern Europe where we need only wait until economic collapse.
My idea of promoting peace is not sending our troops over to other countries to conduct joint missions.
Let me ask you a question... If our government invited the chinese to set up a military base down the street from yo. What if those soldiers blew their paychecks in your town each week. Is that good for our economy?
Would you feel this was a peaceful trade promoting idea?
Posted by: Lysander on July 3, 2008 11:53 PMOur troops are Kicking ass in Iraq
Congrats to all the troops
Let's keep Iraq in check.
Posted by: John Bailo on July 4, 2008 01:10 AM"I mean -- and I, uh, respect Senator McCain's military service -- but, you know, when he says his goal is to get the troops out of ... uh, out of harm's way and make sure that we don't leave behind a uh ... you know ... an unstable Iraq, but that he won't set a timeline ... that is very different from my goal to, uh, get the troops out of ... um, harm's way and make sure that we don't leave behind an ... um, unstable Iraq, because I DO have a timeline, even though I will readily sacrifice that timeline if it might risk an um unstable Iraq or put our troops in uh ... harm's way."
Well now demo kid, that bit of ranting is without a doubt sheer genius...
I'm guessing the taxpayers who were forced to pay for your education are proud, real proud to see that all they got for their money was a socialist parrot...
Funny how you couldn't find it within yourself to mention what is really driving this country into a ditch financially and has been since FDR, ENTITLEMENTS...
Oh yeah, one question for you, which credible source told you we as a nation are in recession?
Curious minds want to know...
Posted by: juandos on July 4, 2008 03:41 AMWhat is your idea of promoting trade and peace then? I see a lot of 'not's.
And your analogy is flawed. We won't ask the Chinese because we don't need the Chinese. Often we are invited because we have more to offer and the inviting country needs us. Try again.
While I am not a libertain per se, I will say that I would love to see most of those installations closed and our troops closer to home to defend our borders in their current state. However I cannot discredit the impact that the DoD has worldwide on a peace time footing.
Posted by: Chris on July 4, 2008 06:11 AMMy point with the china analogy was to point out that just because a government invites us or allows us to be there, does not mean the people are happy for us to be there. One of the primary reasons for 9/11 was our troops in saudi arabia. The saudi family is happy we are there. Many if not most of the people were not. Bush finally pulled us out which was probably the best thing he has done in the war on terror. The problem was he left them in the region.
My idea of promoting peace and trade would be to lift embargoes to allow people to trade with others, pull troops out of the 100+ countries and bring them back home to protect us. End our 100s of trade treaties, regulations, and tariffs that make it more diffiuclt to trade, and stop interfering with countries and conflicts that do not and should not involve us.
Ron Paul has a book out called Revolution that describes quite well what we should be doing. It also has the advantage of costing less, and follows the constitution.
Posted by: Lysander on July 4, 2008 07:34 AMGet over it, Yeah RP had some good ideas, but most people just didn't like the guy.
O-and far as the nut who made 911 happen. It's a good chance he's hiding in Pak-E-stand. Should we bomb that country to find him like Obama wanted to do???
Dude your losing all common sense!
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on July 4, 2008 09:24 AMCalvin. Where do you get your information? Hannity? Fantasy? PNAC?
Now how are our kids gonna pay off the 5 trillion Bush borrowed, now his policies have completely destroyed our economy, and our military. I know. With dollars worth only a nickel!!!!
Posted by: All Facts Support My Positions on July 4, 2008 09:34 AMBy, of course, admitting people that would not have been admitted if the Armed Forces could have the pick of the litter. Don't forget too that serving several tours in a row is bound to make many burn out quickly.
And that's not even mentioning the infrastructure. Vehicles, equipment, services for returning vets... the picture is not just about how many high school kids you can sign up and toss into Iraq.
Face it... the military is being overextended with this long deployment.
@22: Funny how you couldn't find it within yourself to mention what is really driving this country into a ditch financially and has been since FDR, ENTITLEMENTS...
Yes, tell me again how wonderful life would be for all those people going into unemployment that wouldn't have "ENTITLEMENTS" to rely on during down markets. Or all those retirees without significant savings that need to get by on a fixed income.
@22 again: Oh yeah, one question for you, which credible source told you we as a nation are in recession?
Well, there's an interesting question, because I'm naturally skeptical about information like that. However, consumer confidence is low, several indicators are down, inflation is up, and government spending and borrowing is through the roof. Tell me about how that's a recipe for economic success, if you would.
Posted by: demo kid on July 4, 2008 10:24 AMhttp://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/obama_to_the_center
That is rather unresponsive. Are we in a recession? If so, by whose measure do you assert that fact? You are welcome to retract your assertion that we are in a recession; a discussion about how to improve the economic outlook is always worthwhile once unverified hyperbole is gone.
I am laughing so hard, I almost peed my pants....
Since you hate entitlements so much, tell me who is gonna change your diaper in a couple decades?
Oops, now I really did pee my pants..... (laughing uncontrollably)
Osama Bin Laden is the only winner in Iraq. We spent (when the bills come due) 3 trillion dollars destroying our military, alienating our allies when we need them the most, and creating a totally corrupt lootocracy in Iraq, possibly worse than Saddam's. Wahooooo...
Obama is faced with 2 choices, thanks to Bush. Damned if we do, and damned if we don't.
Go for it Barack. Do your best. The cons are gonna blame you for the "failure" in Iraq regardless.
Hopefully once Bush is gone (hopefully prosecuted) we may be able to find allies to help us clean up the mess. Probably not though..... It is politically popular worldwide to be anti-American these days.
Posted by: All Facts Support My Positions on July 4, 2008 11:41 AMThe president that did what he could to keep today's energy crisis from happening, until Ronnie Ray Gun trashed his efforts, along with beginning the destruction of the middle class.
Carter made some mistakes, but compared to what Bush has done, he was a Caesar.
Posted by: All Facts Support My Positions on July 4, 2008 12:08 PMYour above quote Just shows us all that you are a true sheeple -not an original thought to be found, just progressive talking points. There is no expedient or easy way to clean up the mess and a progressive collectivist like Obama will FUBAR this county. Where do you get your facts ? The Daily Kos, the Huffington Post or Democratic Underground ?
"Carter made some mistakes, but compared to what Bush has done, he was a Caesar."
That also shows how willfully ignorant of history you are. Bush is bad, but Carter was worse - he contributed big to opening the gates for Radical Islamist terrorism among other economic blunders.
Posted by: KS on July 4, 2008 12:40 PM"I have some ideas, but I'm not going to commit to anything until I feel ready to weigh in with an informed, thoughtful and reflective opinion" -- and the MSM and other swooners would shriek with delight at what an amazing, intelligent, and pragmatice guy he is.
Unbelieveable.
Pudge is right on the money.
Posted by: School Marm on July 4, 2008 01:35 PMWait until September when the gloves start coming off.
Is the Jimmy Carter approval rating in Iran by chance? They would love another term of that guy.
Posted by: Andy on July 4, 2008 01:37 PMIt's now time for the general election center scoot. It's kind of like the hokey-pokey: put your right foot in, put your right arm in, hope they don't notice that you still have a left side.
Posted by: Cydney on July 4, 2008 01:56 PM"Since you hate entitlements so much, tell me who is gonna change your diaper in a couple decades?"
Um. Huh? You really want the government to do it? Do you really think you will ever win ANY election ANYWHERE -- including in the cities -- on a platform of "you should not provide for yourself, or even try, or have your family or friends to help you out. You should just rely on the government for everything."
This is what you're saying, and this is not a majority position anywhere in the country. This is not a winning platform. Only the extremist left believes that government should do everything for us. The problem is that they have done a decent job of convincing the rest of the left, and some moderates, that they don't really want that.
"Osama Bin Laden is the only winner in Iraq."
Let's see. We destroyed most of his infrastructure and took away most of his money and killed most of his leaders. Most of the country hates him and his organization. How is he the winner?
Frankly, it's telling that you think he is the winner in this situation. Clearly, you WANT him to be the winner, because the actual facts do not support that position.
"Obama is faced with 2 choices, thanks to Bush. Damned if we do, and damned if we don't."
So that justifies his dishonesty? Er, I mean, his "refinement"?
"Go for it Barack. Do your best. The cons are gonna blame you for the "failure" in Iraq regardless."
Even if that's true, you're one to talk, as everyone on all sides of the issue knows full well that the left is blaming Bush for everything that goes wrong, in and out of Iraq, regardless of what actually happens, or why it happens.
"Hopefully once Bush is gone (hopefully prosecuted) ..."
Unfortunately for you, there is not a single rational criminal allegation against Bush.
"we may be able to find allies to help us clean up the mess."
Um. There are plenty of allies around to help us, just fewer in actual combat/security roles, and that won't change under Obama.
"It is politically popular worldwide to be anti-American these days."
Yeah, just look at the recent elections in France and Germany and Canada.
Oh wait.
If it really was true that all facts supported your positions, then upon recognizing these facts your opinions would change. But what is clearly obvious is that you cherry pick and fudge the facts to support your opinions.
So sad.
Hmmm... what do you want me to say? A "recession" is defined as a decline in GDP, but it isn't possible to say that we're in one as it's happening. On the other hand, only an idiot would look at the current state of the American economy and declare it a success, nor would anyone think that a recession is not a very real possibility right now. And that is made all the worse by the fact that public debt is increasing.
So yes... has a recession been declared? No. Are we in one right now? That hasn't been determined authoritatively yet. Does that mean that we can't say that the economy is going into the crapper? No.
@36: As a true liberal, you are showing your disdain and actual hatred of our military. They DO have their pick of the best. The best are those who choose to defend our nation. The actual stats show the education level and skill set of new recruits is high. They are not losers, as you would want to believe and spew. They are to be honored, most especially today.
Bull. As a conservative, you are showing your disdain and actual hatred of reality, and your foolishness is simply amazing. Where do you get off claiming that I have disdain for the military, when I'm merely expressing realism about the situation? If you can't look candidly at the issues facing the military today, you're the one dishonoring them.
My statement was in response to two things.
First, if you're sending the military in for multiple tours and extending the length of those tours, you're burning them out. They can be the most determined, the most loyal, but you can field them for only so long before they burn out. Similarly, the personal sacrifices that they are making, and that their families are making, should not be taken lightly. High re-enlistment bonuses can help, as can stop-loss requirements, but in the end, there is a toll that has been taken on the Armed Forces because of this extended conflict.
Second, recruitment goals are being met, but how are they being met? You will always attract a number of people that are keen on becoming career military, and are of high quality. I'm not disputing that fact, and there are a good number of high quality recruits that are signing up. But to put enough boots on the ground and round out the ranks, the military has been playing fast and loose with educational attainment goals. Only 60.8% of recruits are scoring above the median for the AFQT, and 4.1% are in Category IV... and these figures are not trending in the right direction.
Now, tell me this. If you're not meeting educational goals for recruitment, and you're burning out the troops we have on the ground, what would you suppose that would do for the quality of the Armed Forces? And is that a bad thing in your mind?
@39: Bush is bad, but Carter was worse - he contributed big to opening the gates for Radical Islamist terrorism among other economic blunders.
Wait... remind me again. Who sold weapons to Iraq and Afghanistan in the 1980s?
@44: This is what you're saying, and this is not a majority position anywhere in the country. This is not a winning platform. Only the extremist left believes that government should do everything for us. The problem is that they have done a decent job of convincing the rest of the left, and some moderates, that they don't really want that.
And only the extremist right believes that if you're not making enough money to afford health insurance or retirement, you should be left out on the street to die.
Even strong left-wingers don't believe that the government should do everything. However, assuming that the government shouldn't have a role in providing a social safety net is garbage. And squawk and complain about "socialism" all you want, but I'd be very amused if you'd refuse universal healthcare if you were out of a job and without health benefits.
There are plenty of allies around to help us, just fewer in actual combat/security roles, and that won't change under Obama.
The support of countries like Poland and Romania can only go so far. And after the experiences that Canada and Britain have had in Afghanistan and Iraq, respectively, neither one of those countries is liable to follow the United States into any situation ever again.
But you are right, though... that's not liable to change under Obama. Bush has pretty much squandered the will amongst friendly countries which could conceivably conduct joint combat operations to join future expeditions.
Posted by: demo kid on July 4, 2008 03:58 PMWait... remind me again. Who sold weapons to Iraq and Afghanistan in the 1980s?
You are changed the topic. There is no connection because that had nothing to do with either Bush or Carter. That is a circular argument and I stand by what I said. What's the matter, did the facts get in the way again ?
Posted by: KS on July 4, 2008 04:38 PMSocial safety net and universal health care are completely different. The government does provide emergency services which is a social safety net. You can spew that rhetoric all you want, but actions speak louder than words and the past actions of the far left indicate they lean toward big government and totalitarism. Are you going to be blind enough to deny that these programs won't cost way more ? I will take the existing health care system that is modified (as McCain proposes) over universal health care any time.
Are you liberals naive and stupid or what ? Europe has tried this socialist/ big government approach and it isn't working for them - they have actually started cutting taxes in some countries - why ? Tax cuts stimulate the economy - as has been proven in the last 8 years. Bush spent like a liberal, but he also cut taxes which led to a ballooned deficit - he screwed up big time. For every tax cut, there must be a corresponding spending cut. A soft economy is exactly the wrong time for tax increases as Barack Hussein Obama would do - if elected.
Posted by: KS on July 4, 2008 04:52 PMAlthough, the economic proposals of Obama have the potential of equaling such "success."
Posted by: Obi-Wan on July 4, 2008 05:29 PMYes, I is changed the topic. Might have moved too fast for you. But let me connect the dots for you, and see if you get it. Who was in charge in the 1980s?
@47: You can spew that rhetoric all you want, but actions speak louder than words and the past actions of the far left indicate they lean toward big government and totalitarism.
Wow. Let's see... whose party has overseen the largest expansion in government in recent history? Which party has overseen the erosion of civil liberties?
Hmmmm.
Europe has tried this socialist/ big government approach and it isn't working for them - they have actually started cutting taxes in some countries - why ?
That's an alarmingly simple-minded argument.
Most social democratic countries that are deregulating and privatizing their economies are shedding the systems that even liberals probably wouldn't want under control of the government. We've never had a national airline, for example, and I doubt that very many people would want the federal government in direct control over telecommunications. Heck, recent privatization in Sweden involved divestment of the production of Absolut vodka! I don't want my taxes paying for that, honestly, and tax cuts derived from eliminating those services are a good thing.
On the other hand, every single developed country in the world, save for the US, has a universal healthcare system. It is one of the things that places American companies at an economic disadvantage in the global marketplace, and despite the problems with the system. In other countries, people may gripe about wait times and service quality, but the horror stories from the US have certainly turned many people off to the Darwinian aspects of privatized healthcare.
Tax cuts stimulate the economy - as has been proven in the last 8 years.
Yes! It's been stimulated right into the toilet. Any economic successes over the past eight years have been temporary ones, propped up only by historically low interest rates and a criminal deregulation of the lending industry.
Posted by: demo kid on July 4, 2008 10:41 PM"Hmmm... what do you want me to say? A "recession" is defined as a decline in GDP, but it isn't possible to say that we're in one as it's happening."
Perhaps. But you wouldn't know it, and you stated it as a FACT that we ARE in a recession, so even then, your statement would be false.
"On the other hand, only an idiot would look at the current state of the American economy and declare it a success"
Not remotely. It is quite easy to look at it as a success, on historical terms. Recessions -- even if we are in one -- are normal cyclical events, and despite various recessions, and major catastrophes, and massive inflation of gasoline prices, we are still doing pretty well. We have many problems, but the fact that our economy is still growing in spite of all those problems is remarkable, and it is reasonable to call it a "success."
"As a conservative, you are showing your disdain and actual hatred of reality"
... says the guy who said we were in a recession, despite the fact that AT BEST he can't know that. Reality goes both ways you know.
"And only the extremist right believes that if you're not making enough money to afford health insurance or retirement, you should be left out on the street to die."
NO ONE believes that. You are a liar.
"Even strong left-wingers don't believe that the government should do everything."
Shrug, your argument is with the other guy, not with me. He is the one who said that he believes it is the government's job to change our "diapers" when we get old. That seems pretty all-encompassing to me.
"However, assuming that the government shouldn't have a role in providing a social safety net is garbage."
And you are committing the question-begging fallacy.
"And squawk and complain about "socialism" all you want, but I'd be very amused if you'd refuse universal healthcare if you were out of a job and without health benefits."
That is entirely illogical. I can be against socialism, but that doesn't mean I would refuse to take my share that I have paid into (by force). I pay into Social Security against my will. I would prefer not to do so. But if I was in the situation of being elgibile for Social Security benefits, of course, I would take them, because I have been forced to participate in the program.
It is simply fallacious to say that I should not take my share of the benefits of a system I've been forced into just because I am against the existence of that system.
"The support of countries like Poland and Romania can only go so far."
No, I am talking about countries like England and Germany and Spain and even France (not to mention many Middle Eastern nations), who continue to support our efforts in Iraq in many non-military ways.
"And after the experiences that Canada and Britain have had in Afghanistan and Iraq, respectively, neither one of those countries is liable to follow the United States into any situation ever again."
You're wrong on two fronts.
First, Britain did not follow us into Iraq, they were a full partner every step of the way. Second, future endeavors will be judged entirely on their own merits, as Iraq was.
Iraq, indeed, obviously proves how wrong you are: if "good will" were enough to get countries to "follow us" into a situation, then why did so many countries NOT follow us into Iraq?
The fact is that -- as we have seen with the multinational talks in North Korea, as we have seen with Europe and the Middle East begging us to get involved with Iran, and with the Palestinian situation, and so on -- Iraq has had, and will not have, a significant impact on our dealings with other nations in other situations, except perhaps to make them significantly more cautious about any intelligence we provide. And that's not a bad thing.
demo kid: you're really bad at this. You should stop while you are way, way, way behind.
Posted by: pudge on July 4, 2008 11:08 PMFalse, typical leftist talking points without merit. The Democrats had a significant hand in deregulation of the lending industry, so don't give us that BS. That problem needs to be corrected. The economy could have been a lot worse than it was if it had not been for the tax cuts - one of the few good things Bush did. Tax increases in a soft economy will lead to recession and if you don't think so, you are ignorant in Economics.
"There is no connection because that had nothing to do with either Bush or Carter. That is a circular argument and I stand by what I said. What's the matter, did the facts get in the way again ? Yes, I is changed the topic. Might have moved too fast for you. But let me connect the dots for you, and see if you get it. Who was in charge in the 1980s?"
I knew where you were going, but questioned your point based on the big picture. Shrug - Reagan with the Democratic Congress was in charge in the 80's. Our foreign policy has been inconsistent over the years no matter who is in charge partly because it is a complex world we live in. It is complex and both sides are to blame, whether you like it or not. We do need to stop being the watchdog and stop our dependence on Foreign oil, but the obstructionist Democrats in Congress don't want us to drill because of some stupid bullcrap reason like it will take too long. They want to social engineer us out of our cars and force us into mass transit, trains and buses.
Before Iraq, it was always Democrat Presidents who got us into wars - WWII, Korea, Vietnam.
"On the other hand, every single developed country in the world, save for the US, has a universal healthcare system. It is one of the things that places American companies at an economic disadvantage in the global marketplace, and despite the problems with the system. In other countries, people may gripe about wait times and service quality, but the horror stories from the US have certainly turned many people off to the Darwinian aspects of privatized healthcare."
Progressive talking points - A simplistic and an circular argument. The disadvantage we have in the global marketplace is not attributed to health care, but to our alarming deficit. That is the main reason that the dollar has diminished. Horror stories about universal healthcare are well-documented in the case of critical surgeries that need to be performed quickly under the Government mandated health care system can't, because of the prioritizations. Only private health care systems can schedule critical surgeries in a timely fashion, as is the case in the US. Why do you think Canadians use our health care system so often - mostly for the critical surgeries or procedures ? Again, that is well-documented.
Posted by: KS on July 4, 2008 11:19 PMAnd let's not forget that the Dems have been in control of legislation for 1.5 years and have not changed anything.
Posted by: pudge on July 4, 2008 11:23 PMRemember what Nancy said in 2006. We shall cut the cost of fuel.
Hmmmm Guess that one back fired. As of today when I filled up with REG $4.21 per gal. I'm sure it was around 2 something in 2006.
Demo fool, care to answer that one! LOL
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on July 5, 2008 12:00 AMPerhaps. But you wouldn't know it, and you stated it as a FACT that we ARE in a recession, so even then, your statement would be false.
If you're looking to win points in a debate by arguing that I cannot possibly know that we are in a recession, then yes, score one for you! Bravo.
On the other hand, you have no way of telling me that we're NOT in a recession. Not only that, but I would make the argument that the atypical characteristics of the economy at this point in time would suggest that we have no real way of accurately predicting what the effects are going to be. If you don't know the impact of price corrections on overinflated securities, or the final effects of the housing market downturn or credit crunch, there's no way to know what will happen. However, a downturn does seem very likely.
Now, you could be right, the optimists could win, and this could just blow over. Or I could win, jobs will be lost, and the economy will contract. (Not keen on collecting that prize, but still.) But is wishful thinking the best way to conduct fiscal and economic policy? Assuming that this is cyclical is great... until it isn't.
"And only the extremist right believes that if you're not making enough money to afford health insurance or retirement, you should be left out on the street to die."
NO ONE believes that. You are a liar.
Then what are you proposing? Because if you're against socialized medicine and Social Security and you want to see both completely abolished, I'm really wondering what people would do as a substitute in situations where they do not have any other options.
Shrug, your argument is with the other guy, not with me. He is the one who said that he believes it is the government's job to change our "diapers" when we get old. That seems pretty all-encompassing to me.
There's a difference between producing vodka and providing social services. I don't think that the government should have a role in the private market, but the government “changing our diapers” seems like it would be better than sitting in unchanged ones.
And you are committing the question-begging fallacy.
By stating that the government should have a role in social services?
That is entirely illogical. I can be against socialism, but that doesn't mean I would refuse to take my share that I have paid into (by force). I pay into Social Security against my will. I would prefer not to do so. But if I was in the situation of being elgibile for Social Security benefits, of course, I would take them, because I have been forced to participate in the program. It is simply fallacious to say that I should not take my share of the benefits of a system I've been forced into just because I am against the existence of that system.
So now people are handing you checks by gunpoint, eh?
On some basic level, I don't fundamentally disagree with you. Personally, I have savings, and a small retirement fund that's been building up. I also have health insurance through my employer, and I haven't had too many big ticket health expenses yet. I'm not even that great at it, but it would be ideal if everyone could run their personal finances in some kind of reasonable and thoughtful way.
However, this is reality, and that doesn't always happen. People make poor choices, they don't save properly, and they don't manage their finances to ensure that they can weather bad situations. Sure, it'd be easy to say that they can reap what they sow, but do we really believe that people should die for their financial mistakes?
Similarly, there is a significant social cost associated with a lack of common social services. I'd much rather have a universal healthcare system that provided preventative care for chronically ill, than to have acute care provided at top dollar at the local emergency room for ten times the price. I'd much rather have a system for unemployment and healthcare so that labor is more mobile in the market. I'd much rather have a government-sponsored pension system so that if someone's pension fund collapses, they won't be forced into absolute poverty.
The fact is that -- as we have seen with the multinational talks in North Korea, as we have seen with Europe and the Middle East begging us to get involved with Iran, and with the Palestinian situation, and so on -- Iraq has had, and will not have, a significant impact on our dealings with other nations in other situations, except perhaps to make them significantly more cautious about any intelligence we provide. And that's not a bad thing.
demo kid: you're really bad at this. You should stop while you are way, way, way behind.
Well, first of all, I don't really think that making other countries “significantly more cautious about any intelligence we provide” is a good thing, but maybe that's just me.
Second, I think that the US will always be that 900-pound gorilla in the room, as there is no getting away from the military and economic power that this country exerts. And since international politics is all about opportunism, I do think that other adventures will be evaluated on their merit.
However, we've pretty much overplayed our hand right now. Using the stick is great... once. We still can back up our diplomacy with the threat of some force, but at this point, Iran and other countries can be secure in the fact that the American public will not want another prolonged military conflict. Iraq was the wrong war for the wrong reasons, and it overextended us in ways that will make diplomacy much harder in the future.
False, typical leftist talking points without merit. The Democrats had a significant hand in deregulation of the lending industry, so don't give us that BS. That problem needs to be corrected. The economy could have been a lot worse than it was if it had not been for the tax cuts - one of the few good things Bush did. Tax increases in a soft economy will lead to recession and if you don't think so, you are ignorant in Economics.
I don't disagree that the Democrats are partly to blame for deregulation (and I don't think that they should be let off the hook for it), but the current administration was the one that was presiding over an overheating housing market, and actually actively nixed regulation of the market.
And again, this narrow-minded focus on tax cuts! So if we were to cut taxes to zero, would that mean that we'd get an infinite amount of money?
I knew where you were going, but questioned your point based on the big picture. Shrug - Reagan with the Democratic Congress was in charge in the 80's. Our foreign policy has been inconsistent over the years no matter who is in charge partly because it is a complex world we live in. It is complex and both sides are to blame, whether you like it or not.
So before, you're blaming the Democrats on the rise of radical Islam, but now you're claiming that “both sides are to blame”? Be consistent.
Progressive talking points - A simplistic and an circular argument. The disadvantage we have in the global marketplace is not attributed to health care, but to our alarming deficit. That is the main reason that the dollar has diminished. Horror stories about universal healthcare are well-documented in the case of critical surgeries that need to be performed quickly under the Government mandated health care system can't, because of the prioritizations. Only private health care systems can schedule critical surgeries in a timely fashion, as is the case in the US. Why do you think Canadians use our health care system so often - mostly for the critical surgeries or procedures ? Again, that is well-documented.
Well-documented that extreme cases can be addressed for the people that can afford them. And yes, in countries with socialized medicine, there are a preponderance of options to get around the system, if you have the money to pay. On the other hand, if I were poor and looking for a liver transplant, I wouldn't be holding my breath about finding any options in the US.
If you're looking to win points in a debate ...
Nope. Just pointing out that you were wrong. That is how discussions work. If you don't want me to do that, then don't make claims that can be pointed out to be wrong.
Then what are you proposing? Because if you're against socialized medicine and Social Security and you want to see both completely abolished, I'm really wondering what people would do as a substitute in situations where they do not have any other options.
Wow. If you don't know this fundamental thing about conservatives, then maybe you should listen a whole lot more and talk a whole lot less.
the government “changing our diapers” seems like it would be better than sitting in unchanged ones.
You assume those are our only two choices, which is, of course, stupid.
By stating that the government should have a role in social services?
Yes. You said, "However, assuming that the government shouldn't have a role in providing a social safety net is garbage." Says whom? According to what? Nothing more than your simple belief that government should have such a role. So how is that a helpful statement in any way?
So now people are handing you checks by gunpoint, eh?
Um, no, I was quite clear that they are TAKING MY MONEY by gunpoint. They absolutely are. And since they do that, then I will take back the "benefits" created by that use of force against me. It doesn't mean I am in favor of the use of force against me.
If I am falsely convicted and sent to prison -- presumably against my will -- does that mean I won't make use of the prison facilities there: the library, the gymnasium, and so on? Like it or not, I am forced into the system, and there's no virtue in refusing to partake in what that system provides.
Sure, it'd be easy to say that they can reap what they sow, but do we really believe that people should die for their financial mistakes?
No, no one believes that. You and your straw men again.
I'd much rather have a universal healthcare system that provided preventative care for chronically ill, than to have acute care provided at top dollar at the local emergency room for ten times the price.
That is, of course, a false dichotomy. And also, with less government intervention, health care would cost much LESS than it does now. You have it backward. Please do not believe the lie that we actually have a free market in health care today. If that we true, we would have scores of health insurance providers, instead of a half-dozen or so, in this state.
Well, first of all, I don't really think that making other countries “significantly more cautious about any intelligence we provide” is a good thing, but maybe that's just me.
Howso? You want countries to blindly believe what we tell them? I don't. Not only is that bad for them, but it's bad for us, because it puts us in a position that is far too easy to abuse.
Second, I think that the US will always be that 900-pound gorilla in the room, as there is no getting away from the military and economic power that this country exerts. And since international politics is all about opportunism, I do think that other adventures will be evaluated on their merit.
So you agree that you were wrong, and I am right. Thanks. Most in your position refuse to ever back down from their claims when shown to be wrong. It's very big of you.
... at this point, Iran and other countries can be secure in the fact that the American public will not want another prolonged military conflict.
America NEVER wants ANY prolonged military conflict. Nothing has changed on that front. We didn't want one going into Iraq, either. The question is not whether we WANT one, but whether the conflict is better having than not, given the circumstances.
Now, that said, there is NO REASON why America at this time WOULD have a prolonged military conflict with Iran. The possibility of such a war with Iran in the next several years is next to nothing. We have no reason to invade, unless it becomes necessary to invade to reach a specific military objective, like a weapons bunker we can't bomb from above. And in that case, we just hit it and leave.
Iran is not Iraq. There's no reason why our objective would be to take over the government of that country. It's not going to happen.
Iraq ... overextended us in ways that will make diplomacy much harder in the future.
Can you give an example? Iran is not one.
the current administration was the one that was presiding over an overheating housing market, and actually actively nixed regulation of the market.
Deregulation is not the problem here. People keep spouting that mantra meaninglessly.
And again, this narrow-minded focus on tax cuts! So if we were to cut taxes to zero, would that mean that we'd get an infinite amount of money?
Straw man fallacy. He never implied any such thing.
If you are still reading this thread sorry about the "idiot" comment. It was late, I was tired, it is not an appropriate way to start a discussion.
All the Facts,
Ever heard of Salman Pak (terrorist training camp south of Baghdad?); Mohammed Atta's meetings with Iraqi officials in Prague; $300,000 payments by SH to al Zawahiri, at the time al-Qaeda's number two; frequent contact between the Iraqi embassy in Manila and Abu Sayyaf, an al-Qaeda affiliate; Farouk Hijazi, Saddam's outreach ambassador to extremist groups who met frequently with al-Qaeda by his own admission. Then there is Osama bin Laden's February 1998 fatwa in which he was outspoken in support of Iraq against the "oppression" of the United States, three years before we actually invaded.
And finally, this idea that al-Qaeda and Iraq are actually enemies is laughable. It has no basis in fact. It is one of these ideas that has taken root in the public consciousness primarily because the anti-war left continues to repeat it so frequently. Yes, al Qaeda and Iraq represent different branches of Islam. But to then argue that they are, therefore, enemies is ludicrous, any more than Catholics and Protestants are automatically enemies because of their different versions of the same faith. Fact is Sunnis and Shias are all Muslims. They differ in their beliefs about Islam and fight each other based on those differences but at the end of the day, when faced with a common perceived enemy, they fight together for a single religion.
Posted by: Calvin A on July 5, 2008 08:07 AMVery minor point to be argued, of course! And I'm not seeing you disagree with the other reasoning there.
You assume those are our only two choices, which is, of course, stupid.
Brilliant. So, Mr. Doesn't-Understand-The-Real-Question, where are you on that spectrum, then? Dismantle the entire system?
Yes. You said, "However, assuming that the government shouldn't have a role in providing a social safety net is garbage." Says whom? According to what? Nothing more than your simple belief that government should have such a role. So how is that a helpful statement in any way?
Point being? I'm expressing an opinion, which is just about as valid as whining about the government taking your money away at gunpoint.
If I am falsely convicted and sent to prison -- presumably against my will -- does that mean I won't make use of the prison facilities there: the library, the gymnasium, and so on? Like it or not, I am forced into the system, and there's no virtue in refusing to partake in what that system provides.
Interesting comparison, albeit stretched in an absurd way.
But to turn it around to you, what conservatives propose would be equivalent to suggesting that everyone should be placed on house arrest if sentenced to prison. There are definite practical reasons why this is not workable, and I've outlined the reasons why I think that it is in the public interest to maintain some form of universal healthcare and unemployment insurance system in this country. Falling back on the old canard about being held up by the FBI or National Guard or whomever while the IRS takes a C-note from your wallet doesn't argue against that opinion, especially when a large number of people argue that it is in our common interest to have quality healthcare for people.
Sure, it'd be easy to say that they can reap what they sow, but do we really believe that people should die for their financial mistakes?
No, no one believes that. You and your straw men again.
I'm patiently awaiting for your example of a kinder, gentler system where this wouldn't be the case.
That is, of course, a false dichotomy. And also, with less government intervention, health care would cost much LESS than it does now. You have it backward. Please do not believe the lie that we actually have a free market in health care today. If that we true, we would have scores of health insurance providers, instead of a half-dozen or so, in this state.
We don't have a free market in healthcare in this country because we just don't know what we want it to be. This is the same problem that plagued public housing; we couldn't decide on a single coherent system, so we slapped together a halfhearted attempt at government-sponsored healthcare, built up a patchwork of programs and regulations around the rest, and “proved” that a government-run system couldn't work. I certainly agree that the current system should be torn down, but I think that where we differ is with regards to what should be put in its place.
Now, is deregulation reasonable? To a point, it may need to be done, and I'm certainly open to possibilities. But the public may not be with you.
Look at R-67, which passed last year by a margin of 13%. This was stated up front to be consumer protection that would “increase the costs of insurance”, and the public categorically denied that insurance fair conduct should be sacrificed for the sake of “lower insurance costs”. Not only that, but one of the expenses running out of control in healthcare is EMTALA, the federal law that mandates that emergency rooms that receive Medicare payments must treat everyone that comes into an emergency room, regardless of whether they have insurance. I would really enjoy you trying to sell the repeal of that law to the American public.
And while you can sell people on lower healthcare costs, it's when they see what is involved that they will inevitably balk. Again, I don't disagree that there are some painful steps that may need to be taken, but I'm hardly of the opinion that people will vote against their best interest. If reforms go through, people need to feel as if there is something to be gained aside from higher paychecks for HMO CEOs.
Howso? You want countries to blindly believe what we tell them? I don't. Not only is that bad for them, but it's bad for us, because it puts us in a position that is far too easy to abuse.
Straight out of the “damaging our reputation to save it” camp? That's the best twist I've ever seen to wring some benefit out of the Iraq debacle.
Second, I think that the US will always be that 900-pound gorilla in the room, as there is no getting away from the military and economic power that this country exerts. And since international politics is all about opportunism, I do think that other adventures will be evaluated on their merit.
So you agree that you were wrong, and I am right. Thanks. Most in your position refuse to ever back down from their claims when shown to be wrong. It's very big of you.
I think that it's absurd to assume that the US is going to be pariah when we have a stockpile of nuclear weapons, a technologically advanced military, and the largest economy in the world.
On the other hand, can we be viewed as much of an honest broker in certain situations? Hardly. Are we rapidly losing our status as the only game in town? Just look at Chinese troops in Sudan as proof of that. Do we have the capability to conduct another invasion / occupation right now? Nope.
To assume that we've come out of this situation a strategic winner is foolish, and given the amount of time and money and blood spent, that seems like a damn shame.
America NEVER wants ANY prolonged military conflict. Nothing has changed on that front. We didn't want one going into Iraq, either. The question is not whether we WANT one, but whether the conflict is better having than not, given the circumstances.
Now, that said, there is NO REASON why America at this time WOULD have a prolonged military conflict with Iran. The possibility of such a war with Iran in the next several years is next to nothing. We have no reason to invade, unless it becomes necessary to invade to reach a specific military objective, like a weapons bunker we can't bomb from above. And in that case, we just hit it and leave.
Iran is not Iraq. There's no reason why our objective would be to take over the government of that country. It's not going to happen.
But that's not the point of the statement, even though the American right has been salivating at the prospect of a war with Iran. It has to do with the ability of the American public to deal with another conflict, and recognizing that expending the US military even further would have significant economic and strategic effects. If there was any kind of conflict with Iran, public support of this administration and the Republican Party would completely collapse... and other foreign powers know it.
Again... we can use a stick, but we can't use it all the time. After using it in Iraq, however, I'd argue that most regional powers understand that the US can't pull the same trick twice. And that is a disadvantage. It may shock you that a liberal would be preaching for the strategic application of military force... but if you're in prison, you might as well use the gym.
Iraq ... overextended us in ways that will make diplomacy much harder in the future.
Can you give an example? Iran is not one.
Heard anything interesting about Taiwanese sovereignty lately?
the current administration was the one that was presiding over an overheating housing market, and actually actively nixed regulation of the market.
Deregulation is not the problem here. People keep spouting that mantra meaninglessly.
Explain to me how deregulation of government controls was not an issue in this case, when those government controls would have specifically addressed those problems, and when housing prices significantly departed from market fundamentals exactly at the point when deregulation occurred.
And again, this narrow-minded focus on tax cuts! So if we were to cut taxes to zero, would that mean that we'd get an infinite amount of money?
Straw man fallacy. He never implied any such thing.
True, I'm trying to be clever, but the use of the Laffer Curve by conservatives is completely dishonest. Aside from its conceptual flaws, it implies that there will be at some point a level where the tax rates should be *raised* to achieve maximum revenue. Would you be willing to raise taxes if it would result in higher government revenues for needed programs?
Wow.
Your FIRST POINT in your FIRST POST is "very minor"?
You don't think highly of yourself, it seems.
Wow.
Posted by: pudge on July 5, 2008 02:45 PMYou are saying there IS no difference.
And yes, you are silly. You are sitting there defending what you said, when it was clearly, significantly, substantially, and factually incorrect.
Posted by: pudge on July 6, 2008 07:59 AMObama isn't going to be as extreme with withdrawing forces as he has previously portrayed himself as being. I knew reality was going to demand that he moderates his approach on this issue, but I didn't think he would admit it during the election.
And, Juan McCain, how tough will he actually be since he was among the first to criticize Bush's Gitmo policies?
So, here again, despite rhetoric to the contrary the two candidates almost meets together on a critical policy issue.
In the end there really isn't that much difference between Obama and McCain, except for one thing, Obama can't influence what happens within the Republican Party. Vote for McCain and you quite likely have destroyed conservatism as McCain has shown throughout this campaign a desire to destroy the conservative element of the Republican party.
Obama, well, I remember how we stopped Hillary-care. Obama will energize the conservatives through our opposition to him.
The answer may be as clear as it is equally distasteful. Vote for Obama now, and get a strong conservative to defeat him in 2012. In 2012 regardless of which of the two candidates win will be quite bad indeed making whatever party is in the White House then the loser in that election.
So the choice is McCain in 2008 and a Liberal Democrat in 2012 or Obama in 2008 and perhaps a strong conservative in 2012.
No wonder so many conservatives I talk to are either staying home, voting third party or actually voting for Obama this year. They know as I do that timing is everything and a vote for McCain means a critical lost for us in 2012.
Posted by: Alex T on July 6, 2008 04:25 PMWow.
You think the fact that Obama cannot be trusted to stick to anything he says is a reason to vote for him?!
Posted by: pudge on July 6, 2008 04:30 PMAnd whatever differences there are between Obama and McCain, the differences seem to be small one. And since McCain is seen to be less radical he could actually be MORE successful in getting his socialist policies enacted than Obama. After all it did take Nixon to go to China.
So given how small the differences are between the two candidates we must ask how good would it be to elect McCain, have him enact socialist policies and drive out conservatism from the Republican party only to get the Democrats elected in 2012?
Doesn't sound good to me at all. But then again I am a conservative and I care about the future of this country, and I don't mean only the next four years of this country but the future of this country for generations to generations to come.
It took Carter to get us Reagan. Had Ford won in 1976 we would still be fighting the Cold War.
We must think of the frog in the pot of boiling water. Obama is the one who turns up the pot real quick getting the frog to jump. Because of that McCain poses the greatest hope in the long term for those who want socialism as he knows how to turn up that heat gradually enough for the public to not to react to the socialism that has crept in after Reagan, socialism that has been not only from Clinton, but the two Bushes too. If you want socialism you want McCain because with Obama the backlash against him will set the socialist movement back.
Posted by: Alex on July 6, 2008 04:41 PMThere is a difference you know.
Although there will, if McCain gets elected will be even a greater difference.
Do you and your Mainstream Republican of Washington friends really think that you are going to win over enough Democrats to make up for all the Conservatives you are driving away from the Republican Party?
Voting for McCain in 2008 says you want the Republicans to lose in 2012 as that will be what will happen.
I on the other hand am voting for a Carter this year, buying a sweater and preparing to help get a Reagan elected in 2012.
Posted by: AlexT. on July 6, 2008 04:53 PMYou know you talk over and over again about Obama being Marxist, which he is. But at the very same time you are supporting someone who has a Marxist plan to rival even Obama's Marxist plans. And since "only Nixon could go to China" it is much more likely that this would pass under McCain than under Obama.
Funny, you say you hate Obama's Marxism yet the person you are supporting has a plan that is practically as Marxist and even has a better chance of getting passed.
So, it must be not Obama's Marxism you hate as you would equally hate McCain's if you hated Marxism.
You must just hate Obama because of his race.
With Obama, the nation will wake up to the dangers of Socialism
With McCain the nation is going to become more socialist.
Either you want to be more socialist or you are just a white racist cracker who doesn't care if the nation becomes more socialist but just don't want a black guy elected.
I don't like Obama but I am willing to vote for him since it means that by 2012 America will be wanting not just a change in government but a change in direction.
But with McCain, in four years there will not be enough conservatives left to resist whatever Marxist Democrat get elected President in 2012. For which ever party loses this election for the White House this election wins the next!
Posted by: AlexT on July 6, 2008 05:15 PMYet, you support him?
Either you hate Black people or you hate Conservatives.
Which is it!
Regardless after reading Juan McCain's Marxist Plan to stop Global Warming, you sure must like Marxism. For while Obama might turn up that heat on the pot with the frog in it way too quickly making that frog jump right out (causing a backlash against Marxism) Juan McCain he knows how to turn up that heat ever so gradually.
Think for yourself, Pudge and don't let hate and racism stand in your way. If you care about preventing Marxism, Juan McCain is your real threat here. Read his socialist Global Warming plan. The one he is spending millions on campaign ads bragging about.
Posted by: AlexT on July 6, 2008 05:30 PMThen you called me a racist.
You are an idiot, and you aren't worth my time.
Idiots who while having the right political beliefs still can't think for themselves and are used by the politicos to actually work towards what they claim to be fighting against are why I eventually just left politics.
I never understood how Marxism all of the sudden becomes good when a Republican candidate is the one promoting it.
--Marxism is Bad, regardless of the color of the person promoting it or the party affiliation. It is bad when it is being promoted by Barak Obama and Rev. Wright, and indeed I would say its even worse when it is being promoted by Juan McCain and the Republican elite.
Don't want to explain to me why if a Democrat politician is supporting Marxism it's bad but when a Republican politician is supporting it Marxism is good, fine.
Just go ahead and enjoy your mental kool-aid. I for one won't be worshiping under your Republican idols.
Posted by: AlexT on July 6, 2008 06:18 PMPlease find one area, just one area when all the rhetoric is washed away the two candidates have significant differences about.
Then I will see if such differences warrants sacrificing the chance of ever, ever having a conservative elected to public office again.
So called free trade, immigration, health care, global warming, and now Iraq, Juan McCain is quite close to Obam on all these issues.
The only significant thing that Juan McCain will do as President that Obama just can't is to remove conservatives away from influential positions within the Republican party.
So, given that is the only difference, oh, and Obama has dark skin color, the only reason you could be such a strong supporter of Juan McCain is that you want to see conservatism destroyed.
Oh, you hate black people and don't want to call a black person Mr President.
So, which is it? Do you hate conservatives or black people?
Posted by: AlexT on July 6, 2008 06:28 PM"The Sept. 11 commission reported yesterday that it has found no "collaborative relationship" between Iraq and al Qaeda, challenging one of the Bush administration's main justifications for the war in Iraq. " - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47812-2004Jun16.html
Pentagon report debunks prewar Iraq-Al Qaeda connection
Declassified document cites lack of 'evidence of a long-term relationship,' although No. 3 Defense staffer called contact 'mature and symbiotic.' - http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0406/p99s01-duts.html
It appears the pentagon and 9/11 commission seem to think there was not really a connection. Now does that mean no al qaeda were there or that they never talked? No. But it does show there was no reason to attack Iraq. Iraq was not a threat to us and if it was at all a threat it was only because we had already been interfering for so long in the mid east.
Obama and McCain both want to continue the cycle of interfering and trying to pick sides and hope to finally some day balance everything just right so that all the sides get along with each other and us. I propose we abandon any and all support of politicians that want to keep a policy of interventionism and instead support a policy of peace and trade.
Posted by: Lysander on July 7, 2008 11:19 PMWhat do I mean? There is an old allegory about how to boil a frog. It is said that if you drop a frog into a pot of boiling water it will immediately jump out.
But if you drop a frog in water that is slightly warm and turn up the heat gradually then the frog just sits there and lets itself be boiled alive, without attempting to jump out of the pot, without even knowing that it is indeed being boiled alive.
This allegory has been applied again, and again regarding the American people's reaction to liberalism/socialism. And it is pretty clear who is who if you apply this allegory to this year's election.
SO, let's vote for the one who will make the frog jump and not the one who will get the frog boiled so that we can get a true conservative in 2012.
After all it took Carter to get us Reagan.
Posted by: Steve on July 9, 2008 08:41 AM