Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
R.I.P. Era of Greed and War; Welcome Era of Obama
declaredemer
Member Posts: 2,698
What is the "Hillary Clinton Factor?"
The Hillary Clinton Factor is simple:
- It is no longer a smart political move to vote FOR war.
I believe, not sure if I mention this often that my undergrad degree is in Poli Sci, that Hillary Clinton would have secured the nomination if she voted AGAINST the Iraq War.
When you attempt to obtain the nomination of your party, you must appeal to the more (not so much "extreme") avid, intense elements.
These people fiercely anti-war, and Obama had this wisdom to oppose the war from the BEGINNING.
Aside: Al Gore also opposed the war from the beginning, and I think he would be president had he ran this time around.
Deregulation; Tax Cuts for the Wealthy = Broke AND Broken
The Bush Administration has achieved a legacy, in my lifetime, that I have, literally, prayed would never -ever- happen. That is, the Bush Admin is, probably, the worst administration in our great country's history:
- Tax policies
- Foreign policies
- Domestic policies
- Lack of leadership AND management
- And on and on and on
We must:
- Undue to the Bush tax cuts (especially the estate tax elimination in 10)
- Reform our foreign policy
- Implement infrastructure plans to rebuild the USA
- Inspire America again, similar to how Reagan did: C O M M U N I C A T E
- End farm subsidies, reduce defense contractor spending (rebuild the great U.S. military), etc.
Palin: This is the Future of The Republican Party (My Former Party)
A friend of mine is high level McCain campaign, guaranteed a job at the White House if McCain's succeed; he basically was instrumental in Iowa, a key state, as you know.
Anyway, my friend, in private, well, let's just say he does not support Palin.
If this is the party's future, Bush in drag, then count-me-out.
Count-me-in:
- Tax policies that do not impose the burdens on fixed-income individuals
- Modest foreign policy
- Strong, smart, capable defense used to DEFEND the USA, not invade other countries
- Social Security reform (aka: STOP looting the trust fun!)
- Pro-Second Amendment
- Pro-Privacy Rights
- Enough with the religious anti-gay stuff
- I am still anti-abortion, and I will also choose LIFE over DEATH (call me a neocon)
- Non-deficit spending
- Strong U.S. dollar
- Health care that is AFFORDABLE, ACCESSIBLE, and PRIVATE
The Republican Party needs a new platform and must stop pretending Reagan was godlike.
The Republican Party should return to the small-business, pro-family, pro-civil rights, pro-tax cuts, pro-small government roots that made it so attractive to
- Workers
- Intellectuals
- Freedom-loving persons
- Families
- Entrepreneurs
- Etc.
Comments
Obama will take the war to Africa. He will not leave Iraq, he will expand the war, not lessen it. Greed? More bailouts, more corporatism. Welcome to bigger government, less freedom. More of the same.
fishermage.blogspot.com
You forgot. "Not ready."
EDIT: Oh wait, that changed tonight. "Not ready...yet."
You forgot. "Not ready."
EDIT: Oh wait, that changed tonight. "Not ready...yet."
Huh? You must be mistaking me for someone else.
I'm almost as much against McCain. Obama will never be ready. Socialists don't belong anywhere near the White House. I'm against all Republicrats. Republicans are corporatists, Democrats are welfare state socialist and quasi fascists. Both are teh suxxors, as the kids say.
fishermage.blogspot.com
"Borrow more" economy will cause the USA to be at the center of a worldwide depression, unless this is seriously addressed and averted immediately.
It is unwise to engage in central economic planning; free markets work best when they are free.
The U.S. Treasury and Federal Reserve, now, are the economic planners; the major banks are so powerful now that they are major players, and it is going to crash us in a very short amount of time. It will not, cannot, and some even say is not supposed to "work."
Give banks, good and bad ones, U.S. taxpayer money to loan the U.S. taxpayer their own money, when the U.S. taxpayer is already over leveraged. I do not understand why they just did not mail everyone a check, because that would have helped more. But it was designed not to unfreeze credit, per se, or "fix" the economy, per se, but bail-out the banks because of their political power.
This economic crisis is beyond the control of the President unless they recall the free money to banks and seriously change economic policies.
Farewell, capitalism.
Farewell, free-markets.
Farewell, competition. (now banks are nationalized and the government will not let them fail -yes, their friends are still individualized to private persons- and woe be to their competitor. No fools with money would incorporate and compete with THAT). Note: The way the government nationalized the banks means they will not get any profits from banks; it is basically free money to the banks from the U.S. Treasury (taxpayer) to keep them operating. It is astonishing.
The Republican party has lost its way. Lincoln must be turning in his grave at what it has become. That Palin may represent its future is nightmarish at best.
Agree with his ideas or not, Paul Krugman, the 2008 Nobel Prize winner for economics, said this in August:
(not that his Nobel did one whit to avert the crisis, but I digress, it's just a reference towards his intelligence)
And the debate on energy policy has helped me find the words for something I’ve been thinking about for a while. Republicans, once hailed as the “party of ideas,” have become the party of stupid.
Now, I don’t mean that G.O.P. politicians are, on average, any dumber than their Democratic counterparts. And I certainly don’t mean to question the often frightening smarts of Republican political operatives.
What I mean, instead, is that know-nothingism — the insistence that there are simple, brute-force, instant-gratification answers to every problem, and that there’s something effeminate and weak about anyone who suggests otherwise — has become the core of Republican policy and political strategy. The party’s de facto slogan has become: “Real men don’t think things through.”
Perhaps some of you don't think this is an accurate assessment but I am afraid I have come to believe it's true.
Liberals are anything but antiwar.
Your own hero is pretty obviously a liberal.
CH, Jedi, Commando, Smuggler, BH, Scout, Doctor, Chef, BE...yeah, lots of SWG time invested.
Once a denizen of Ahazi
R.I.P. the era of War? Are you predicting that the United States is going to become a completely pacifist nation? Times determine when it is necessary to use military force, not Presidents. If Obama becomes President and America gets hit with another terrorist attack, and Obama reacts passively, he will go down as perhaps the worst President ever.
And as far as greed goes, what can I say? It always amazes me that liberals use the word greed during Republican administrations like Reagan and Bush, but refer to the Clinton years as the era of prosperity and economic expansion.
Your own hero is pretty obviously a liberal.
Actually Muirin is quite right.
Disregarding the Bush Family, republicans have always been the party elected to end wars.
Democrats sent us to WW1, WW2, Korea, Vietnam.
Republicans sent us to Gulf War 1 (not really even a war
) and now the current War on Terror (Idiotic War to start but has to be finished 
).
Currently playing:
LOTRO & WoW (not much WoW though because Mines of Moria rocks!!!!)
Looking Foward too:
Bioware games (Dragon Age & Star Wars The Old Republic)
Your own hero is pretty obviously a liberal.
Actually Muirin is quite right.
Disregarding the Bush Family, republicans have always been the party elected to end wars.
Democrats sent us to WW1, WW2, Korea, Vietnam.
Republicans sent us to Gulf War 1 (not really even a war
) and now the current War on Terror (Idiotic War to start but has to be finished 
).
WW I and II don't really count, as they weren't optional wars. They were forced on us by circumstances. They were concluded by Democrats as well. Victoriously.
The groundwork for Vietnam was laid during the Eisenhower administration. Nixon got the same deal in '72 that he could have gotten in '69. The difference of course is 50,000 American lives and hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese lives. Nixon prolonged the war, in part, for domestic political reasons. Don't forget that he EXPANDED the war during that period, creating the circumstances for the Killing Fields in Cambodia.
Much like the deserting coward launched a totally optional war of aggression against Iraq. One that is costing us incalculably in blood and treasure and reputation.
CH, Jedi, Commando, Smuggler, BH, Scout, Doctor, Chef, BE...yeah, lots of SWG time invested.
Once a denizen of Ahazi
Currently playing:
LOTRO & WoW (not much WoW though because Mines of Moria rocks!!!!)
Looking Foward too:
Bioware games (Dragon Age & Star Wars The Old Republic)
Anyone bothered to ask how he is going to pay for all these wonderful programs yet?
Our taxes WILL go up to say they wont is just ludicrous.Start shielding your money folks the govt is coming to get it.
What is your physical limit?
Obama has managed the most incredible, smooth, and brilliant campaign I ever seen in my life or that I am aware in election history.
He took-down a dynasty, the Clinton machine, without raising his voice.
I pray, and hope, he can run the country in at least a similar manner as he did his awesome campaign.
I would have voted for Gore if he had ran. i would have voted for Hillary if she had opposed the war AND avoided such bellicose rhetoric toward foreign nations.
After watching the campaigns progress, I'm glad that Obama won. I don't think Hillary would have been capable of uniting the country post election. I think it's far more likely that republicans would have bucked her and the atmosphere would have been even more divisive.
Thank you for supporting my previous post that times determine the use of military force. Although, one could argue that World War I does, in fact, count. It is often considered one of the most senseless wars in history and the United States was never directly attacked by the Axis powers. Plus Woodrow Wilson was re-elected in 1916 on the promise that he would keep the United States out of the war.
You know, Siobabble, I just love how you view history through your rose colored liberal glasses. You blame Eisenhower for getting the United States in Vietnam, blame Nixon for expanding it...aaaaand completely omit the Kennedy and most especially the Johnson years, when most of the American lives were lost.
The truth is that American military advisors were first sent to Vietnam in 1950, during the Truman Administration and the first combat troops were sent in 1965 under Johnson.
Vietnam
Nixon is the guy who ended the conflict. And he did it about as well as someone, who inherited a war that was not his, could have.
R.I.P. Era of Greed and War; merely your opinion, mine is you live in a dream world. Unless you discount the entire history of the human race so far, War and greed are 2 constants that will remain.
Especially since Obama has already said he wants to expand operations in Afghanistan. He wants to head into Pakistan. He has said he would use military force against Iran.
How is that "End of War"? All it sounds like is Obama wants to change the Zipcode of the war.
Currently playing:
LOTRO & WoW (not much WoW though because Mines of Moria rocks!!!!)
Looking Foward too:
Bioware games (Dragon Age & Star Wars The Old Republic)
And yet, amazingly, he may still end up losing this election.
I actually see this as a danger. I believe that Obama (assuming he gets elected) and other democrats in power could become so worried about the political repercussions of being seen as "weak on defense" that they might over react in the event of an international incident.
- How can you talk if you haven't got a brain?
- I don't know, but some people without brains do an awful lot of talking, don't they?
Hay Muirin, I watched V just tonight...
and what's amazing is how that movie was trying to make a point against the war on terror and against "conservativism" ... well the things, ideals, and way they say it looks more like the Obama faction is more like the elitist, power hungry types. Amazing how things in the mirror stare right back at you eh? lol
Not at all interested in thinking beyond "cut taxes", "freeze spending", eh?
There is no one-line, simple answer to describe remedying all of the problems that we have, because our problems aren't simple. Complex problems call for complex approaches; thus all the talk of eliminating programs that're unnecessary, keeping those that are necessary but making 'em more fruitful and less expensive.
There's the ending of the war in Iraq, which costs us a good one and a half times more a year than what Obama's health care plan calls for, which is the most expensive item on his list.
All this stuff McCain talks about, combating climate change, tax cuts and tax credits, that's ALL apart of Obama's "new spending".
If we want new green jobs centered around building up our communities to be more energy efficient, we have to pay for it if we want those jobs.
If we want to do something with the millions Americans of college-age who can't pay for it at all, or without going into debt trying to pay for it; well we have to offer 'em opportunities to have that money through national services that we pay for.
It's not like Obama is going to spend the money on anything else other than investing in us, in very real bottom-up ways that you'll actually notice in your community. Why would you favor indiscriminate cutting corporate taxes when the pursuit is to create jobs; when one corporation sends jobs across seas anyway and one wants to keep jobs here? How evil of Obama of single out outsourcers.
Even the one item that might not have a visible direct effect on us, foreign aide, Biden spoke up about it during the debate saying he and Obama would start there when it came to being realists about what they'd have to cut if their spending turned out too much. Nothin' raising taxes on the middle-class.
Blind freezing of government spending and cutting taxes across the board for the hell of it should be a scary idea to anyone right now. McCain champions doing that only because it's a frickin' myth that Reagan's tax cuts did any good; the moment Reagan saw the deficits we faced in the early 80s he raised taxes, and continued to throughout his presidency.
That whole scalpel vs. hatchet comparison drawn during debates isn't something that just sounds clever, it's reality that we really need complex approaches to fixing our problems the most efficient way possible.
I don't want Washington shook up, hatches being used, shit being frozen and Mavericks running amuck. Let's put the guy in office with actual ideas wrought from critical thinking; both his own and those from the minds of the Bill Clinton and Warren Buffet types.
The only reason Republicans can say they don't start wars is that they don't call them wars. They call them "peacekeeping activities" like Grenada, Lebanon, the Mayaguez, Panama, Lybia, etc.
__________________________
"Its sad when people use religion to feel superior, its even worse to see people using a video game to do it."
--Arcken
"...when it comes to pimping EVE I have little restraints."
--Hellmar, CEO of CCP.
"It's like they took a gun, put it to their nugget sack and pulled the trigger over and over again, each time telling us how great it was that they were shooting themselves in the balls."
--Exar_Kun on SWG's NGE
Especially since Obama has already said he wants to expand operations in Afghanistan. He wants to head into Pakistan. He has said he would use military force against Iran.
How is that "End of War"? All it sounds like is Obama wants to change the Zipcode of the war.
Let's not forget the No-Fly zone in the Sudan,
Especially since Obama has already said he wants to expand operations in Afghanistan. He wants to head into Pakistan. He has said he would use military force against Iran.
How is that "End of War"? All it sounds like is Obama wants to change the Zipcode of the war.
There's the idea of "conditions". You kind of need them to both begin and end wars.
Strikes in Pakistan only if actionable intelligence warrants it against a high-profile target like Osama, and the Pakistan government refuses to, or is unable to act on intelligence themselves. Are you adverse to that?
As far as Iran goes, Obama's at the forefront of wanting direct diplomacy with 'em. I imagine you might be against that, but it isn't war.
As for Iraq, the whole timetable idea that both Bush and the Iraqi government are adopting now, that was one of those conditions of Obama's as well.
Tell me, what're McCain's conditions for war?
How will we deal with Iran if not for direct diplomacy? Do what Bush did against North Korea and wait for Iran to declare itself a nuclear power, then decide it's probably a good time to start talkin'?
What about possible al Qaeda training camps in Pakistan, keep our troops in the area underfunded and of little focus due to the Iraq War?
And what conditions are McCain waiting for before deciding we're done over in Iraq? What is "victory" there at this point, if it isn't trading out our brigades with trained forces of their own?
umm?!?!?!?!