|
|
Minion
Legendary Hero
|
posted February 11, 2008 06:36 PM |
|
|
The superdelegates deciding the outcome instead of the popular vote would be a devastating mistake; the trust for the party would be severely damaged. And if I have understood correctly, most of the superdelegates side with the one who has been more popular.. If it is practically a tie when heading to the convention, then it is another matter. Then it is about electability, and againt McCain, Obama will more likely get the nomination.
|
|
The_Gootch
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Kneel Before Me Sons of HC!!
|
|
posted February 12, 2008 02:22 AM |
|
|
Reason Number One McCain Backed the Wrong Horse
This movie is getting so many accolades it's ridiculous. Last I checked it was playing at the Music Box in Chicago and I'll try to get up there this weekend just to go see it. If you have an opportunity to see it, please do so. This isn't about partisanship. This isn't about Left/Right and who is more correct.
It is about the basic, fundamental, human rights that my president's government trampled on. The Republican Party has traditionally advertised itself to be the most pro-military of the two parties. But how can you be pro-military and explicitly do things that put our troops in even more harm's way. Sending us to an illegal and immoral war was one thing. Denying the basic rules of the Geneva conventions to our Prisoners of War, I don't understand that. I just don't.
____________
|
|
OD
Known Hero
or Grizzly Bear?
|
|
posted February 12, 2008 04:01 AM |
|
|
A prisoner of war has a country. What country claims the detainees? And frankly, do other countries treat Americans with human dignity when they capture them? I don't think so.
____________
"There is no such thing as a plea of innocence in my court. A plea of innocence is guilty of wasting my time. Guilty."
|
|
Andrelvis
Adventuring Hero
|
|
posted February 12, 2008 08:14 AM |
|
|
In the last hundred years, what country has invaded America? It's not really a question of the United States minding it's own business, but rather that whenever it intervenes militarily, it is never for the good of the people of the other country.
In any case, it is impressive how Bush took America from the rather hegemonic position it was when he became president, and greatly declined it's international status overall.
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted February 12, 2008 08:42 AM |
|
Edited by Mytical at 08:48, 12 Feb 2008.
|
Here is the problem however. Other countries come to us say. "Hey these bullies are picking on us. Can you help?"
Now if we say no, we are selfish : Self-Centered, and greedy (or would be portrayed that way).
So we say. "Of course we will come help you."
Once we get there, everybody but the country that asks us for help starts saying "Look at the American Bullies! They should mind there own business!" Eventually they put so much pressure on the country that asked us for help that they say. "We don't want the Americans here, they should go home." so it is a lose lose situation.
Now at that point, we should indeed pack up and go home. But wait..
"The Americans are cowards, see how they run." catch 22. Dang if we do, dang if we don't. This also gives other countries the idea that it would be a good time to attack the 'weak Americans, who have no stomach for war.'
Now sometimes it is diffent, like the current war. I agree never should have happened, and we should get out pronto. But currently there is no out. We are already caught in a catch 22.
Further we are held to a higher standard. We fight a different war then the ones we usually are up against. They can do whatever they want, however they want, and we have to do things a certain way. It's like a boxing match where one competitor is bigger/stronger but has his hands tied behind him and blindfolded. Not much of a match there. Heck, I am a female and I could probably take the current boxing champ with those conditions. Oh yeah, and his opponit can hit below the belt, ect and he cant.
War is horrible and an attrocity. No war should ever be fought. America should stay out of others business, but when we do the international community should not make a big deal of it. When we do help somebody in need, they should not make a big deal of it.
Right now though, this war is already lost. Either way. So getting out now is as good as staying in, so we should get out. Then let the world know they are on their own  . See how that flys. Can't really get a lower global opinon of us, so why not.
Hehe I know this will make me hugely unpopular. *shrugs*. Basically give the message. "You want us out, ok were out."
No finacial assistance, no military assitance, no aid packages, nada/zip zero zilch.
However this isn't about war politics. This is about the presidential candidates. Barak voted against the war, that is why I support him. Sensless deaths are not exactly a strong selling point for me. If you honestly want somebody who will end the war in, vote for him. He has proven he will vote against it. Though of course the senate and house will still have a say. So if it doesn't happen, remember that he can be outvoted.
____________
Message received.
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted February 12, 2008 09:59 AM |
|
|
Quote:
And frankly, do other countries treat Americans with human dignity when they capture them? I don't think so.
Well I thought the point of democracy is to be better than third world countries?
On the other hand, the entire Geneva convention is a bit... strange. Someone's at war with a country, he's allowed to bomb them, shoot people, conquer, and whatnot, but he must be nice to the captives. :\
@Mytical
The point is in not intervening militarily, but only materially. That would probably be the most elegant solution. Sending aid packages and similar to people in need. And diplomatic actions to prevent wars of course. That's help. Not going in some troubled region of the world, randomly picking one side (usually the one that asked you to help first - OMG they're asking for help they must be innocent.) and bombing the other side.
That's the thing most American governments don't want to realize, despite all the lessons in the past. Guns are not a solution.
And when thousands of their own people tried to tell that to them (the hippie movement), they called them junkies and represented them in the worst light possible. :\
Most people don't hate the American people as a whole (except the most radical of muslims). They just strongly dislike your government.
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted February 12, 2008 10:03 AM |
|
|
That may be the most sane response ever. May only work in an ideal world, not sure, but sounds good.
____________
Message received.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 12, 2008 02:16 PM |
|
|
Quote:
And when thousands of their own people tried to tell that to them (the hippie movement), they called them junkies and represented them in the worst light possible. :\
Of course war is wrong. But hippies represent a decadent trend in modern society.
Quote:
Now if we say no, we are selfish : Self-Centered, and greedy (or would be portrayed that way).
Or that we have learned from past experience not to do that.
The way that we help other countries, even if we don't go to war, causes problems too. Think about it. We supported the Taliban in Afghanistan, then we invaded. We sold arms to Saddam Hussein, then we invaded. We overthrew Mossadeq (who was democratically elected) and installed the Shah. Since they've overthrown the Shah, our relations with Iran have obviously not been friendly. We had a base in Saudi Arabia, and that was given as one of the reasons for the attack on 9/11. And much of the food we send to Darfur gets in the hands of the militants. And now we're suppoting Musharraf. Will we ever learn? What will it take for us to change our foreign policy?
And while all of this is going on, Bush is passing stuff like the PATRIOT Act and torturing people in Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib. Bush is willing to go "with Geneva, without Geneva, or against Geneva". This is alarming, because you know who said that? Mussolini.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
|
posted February 12, 2008 04:47 PM |
|
|
mvassilev --
Quote:
Of course war is wrong. But hippies represent a decadent trend in modern society.
I resemble that remark. (LOL)
(Vui ne znali -- ya tozhe govariu Poruski??? Ya ezuchala Russki yazik pochta dvatsyet shest goda nazad, e tam ya bila v' SSSR tozha v 1984. No tepyer (ceychas???) pomniu tolko nyemnogo potemushto kyikovo zdyec v'Denvere u menya pogovarit vmyest. Po-etomu, I uzhe zabila pochta vceo... plohco... )
(Shees -- that's really hard to do in this alphabet itsn't it???)
Wow, there's too much to respond to here. It's great to see the dialogue moving along, I just wish it remained a little less angry than it is in some places...
Binabik -- your arguments are very sound. I agree that our topic contains multiple aspects over which reasonable minds can differ. There are flaws in the system despite which version of it we choose to advocate. If I had more time I would offer up a little more detail in response to the well-developed detail in your last post concerning the process at work here. Perhaps later when I get a little free time on my hands --
____________
I have menopause and a handgun. Any questions?
|
|
angelito
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
proud father of a princess
|
|
posted February 12, 2008 05:09 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Here is the problem however. Other countries come to us say. "Hey these bullies are picking on us. Can you help?".
I thought about this statement for a while. Just to remind me some countries who did so lately. Couldn't name any. Maybe Kuwait in the first Iraq war, but not sure they asked the USA explicitely. I'm not sure anyone called the USA in Yugoslavia conflict. Not sure anyone called USA in Afghanistan. Not sure anyone called the USA in 2nd Iraq war.
So to which country(ies) do you refer exactly?
____________
Better judged by 12 than carried by 6.
|
|
Peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
|
posted February 12, 2008 05:26 PM |
|
|
BTW Gootch --
I STILL need your address to send your now-very-late Birthday present... drop me a line here if you lost my phone number, or send me an e-mail or something. (Sorry I didn't call, but I'm sure you understand why it slipped my mind given what was going on that evening)
____________
I have menopause and a handgun. Any questions?
|
|
Peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
|
posted February 12, 2008 05:37 PM |
|
|
Hey Wolf
Nice to see you around too --
Your guy may need your help more than you realize by the time the Nebraska Republican primaries roll around. Huckabee's starting to look like he might actually give him a run for his money...
Same goes to you, Consis.
____________
I have menopause and a handgun. Any questions?
|
|
Seraphim
Supreme Hero
Knowledge Reaper
|
|
posted February 12, 2008 05:54 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Here is the problem however. Other countries come to us say. "Hey these bullies are picking on us. Can you help?".
I thought about this statement for a while. Just to remind me some countries who did so lately. Couldn't name any. Maybe Kuwait in the first Iraq war, but not sure they asked the USA explicitely. I'm not sure anyone called the USA in Yugoslavia conflict. Not sure anyone called USA in Afghanistan. Not sure anyone called the USA in 2nd Iraq war.
So to which country(ies) do you refer exactly?
Well,So help report from Saddam should have called USA to stop terror in Iraq because Saddam(he him-self the caller) is killing them.Hey,should the regime call somebody to stop the regime because the regime is killing?Many flaws in this discussion,really.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 12, 2008 09:42 PM |
|
|
Peacemaker:
Intieriesno szto wy uczili russkij jazyk. Da, konieczno trudno pisat' etim jazykom latinskimi bukwami. Tak czto ja ispolzoju polskij alfawit i prawopisanije sztoby pisat' po russki s latinskim alfawitom. Tak legcze.
Anyway, this isn't a foreign language forum.
The US doesn't always ask for countries' permission before it intervenes.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Andrelvis
Adventuring Hero
|
|
posted February 12, 2008 11:33 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Here is the problem however. Other countries come to us say. "Hey these bullies are picking on us. Can you help?"
Now if we say no, we are selfish : Self-Centered, and greedy (or would be portrayed that way).
So we say. "Of course we will come help you."
Once we get there, everybody but the country that asks us for help starts saying "Look at the American Bullies! They should mind there own business!" Eventually they put so much pressure on the country that asked us for help that they say. "We don't want the Americans here, they should go home." so it is a lose lose situation.
Now at that point, we should indeed pack up and go home. But wait..
"The Americans are cowards, see how they run." catch 22. Dang if we do, dang if we don't. This also gives other countries the idea that it would be a good time to attack the 'weak Americans, who have no stomach for war.'
Now sometimes it is diffent, like the current war. I agree never should have happened, and we should get out pronto. But currently there is no out. We are already caught in a catch 22.
Further we are held to a higher standard. We fight a different war then the ones we usually are up against. They can do whatever they want, however they want, and we have to do things a certain way. It's like a boxing match where one competitor is bigger/stronger but has his hands tied behind him and blindfolded. Not much of a match there. Heck, I am a female and I could probably take the current boxing champ with those conditions. Oh yeah, and his opponit can hit below the belt, ect and he cant.
War is horrible and an attrocity. No war should ever be fought. America should stay out of others business, but when we do the international community should not make a big deal of it. When we do help somebody in need, they should not make a big deal of it.
Right now though, this war is already lost. Either way. So getting out now is as good as staying in, so we should get out. Then let the world know they are on their own . See how that flys. Can't really get a lower global opinon of us, so why not.
Hehe I know this will make me hugely unpopular. *shrugs*. Basically give the message. "You want us out, ok were out."
No finacial assistance, no military assitance, no aid packages, nada/zip zero zilch.
However this isn't about war politics. This is about the presidential candidates. Barak voted against the war, that is why I support him. Sensless deaths are not exactly a strong selling point for me. If you honestly want somebody who will end the war in, vote for him. He has proven he will vote against it. Though of course the senate and house will still have a say. So if it doesn't happen, remember that he can be outvoted.
I will quote myself:
Quote:
In the last hundred years, what country has invaded America? It's not really a question of the United States minding it's own business, but rather that whenever it intervenes militarily, it is never for the good of the people of the other country.
Now, what I meant was exactly that it is not that America isn't minding it's own business that bugs me. What bugs me is that when they go to war in other countries, it is almost always for the worse of those countries.
I don't agree that war is senseless, however... At the very opposite, war is the pinnacle of reason, of emotionless thought. It is not deep thinking that will make the world stop having wars, but rather a greater caring for the being of one another.
Some wars are necessary to change a negative status quo, for example, those for the unification of Germany and Italy, the wars of liberation in South and North America, and etc.
As for the president, I guess for the Americans if Bill Clinton would get to be candidate again he would be the best choice. But for the rest of the world... I don't know, the United States were too powerful in his age, international balance of power is pretty good, and the world seems to be walking on that direction.
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted February 13, 2008 10:24 AM |
|
Edited by Mytical at 10:53, 13 Feb 2008.
|
Getting off the war politics in this thread. Probably doesn't matter what I say on the subject anyhow. Want to debate it? Start another thread.
Anyhow, back on topic. Anybody know total votes for each canidate so far? I pretty much know the deligate break up to this point (who gets how many)..just curious.
____________
Message received.
|
|
Andrelvis
Adventuring Hero
|
|
posted February 13, 2008 05:23 PM |
|
|
I would, but it is relevant to what is being discussed here, which is why I wrote about it.
In any case, I ask for apologies in the case I was rude in some form in one of my previous posts.
|
|
bort
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Discarded foreskin of morality
|
|
posted February 13, 2008 05:53 PM |
|
|
Per msnbc,
For delegate awarding states :
Obama 9,373,334
Clinton 8,774,779
Including Florida (stripped of it's delegates for moving primary date early):
Obama 9,942,375
Clinton 9,531,987
Including Florida and Michigan (Obama was not on the ballot in Michigan):
Obama 9,942,375
Clinton 9,860,138
So even including the states that Clinton won by virtue of being the only one who competed there, Obama is ahead in total votes received, although it's not a slam dunk.
It is now virtually impossible for either Clinton or Obama to get the nomination solely by virtue of primary/caucus based delegates -- either of them will need to run the table by somewhere in the neighborhood of 70-30 or greater margins to do so.
So one of the following will have to happen for a nominee :
-- One of the two has to drop out. I hope this happens and I hope it's Clinton that drops out, possibly if she loses Ohio or Texas, she will.
-- Superdelegates break one way or the other. I think the nightmare scenario of Obama winning the pledged delegate count but the superdelegates deciding it the other way is actually pretty unlikely, but you never know.
-- The DNC decides to seat the Florida and Michigan delegates. Even this wouldn't determine it on its own. A more likely scenario is that second Florida and Michigan primaries may be held and the delegates from that result seated.
Now unlike many of the other posters here, I will be happy to vote for Clinton, but ecstatic to vote for Obama. I think Clinton would make a good president, but I think Obama could be a great one.
I will not vote for McCain. This legend of McCain as a maverick baffles me. He voted in virtual lockstep with Bush until Bush's popularity fell at which point he "bravely" showed his independence with the anti-torture push. Now, I will give him credit for opposing torture, but doing so falls into the category of, "the actions of a basically decent human being" not, "profiles in courage." Would he be better than Bush? Well, yeah, but a bowl of rotten yogurt sitting in the oval office would make better decisions than Bush, so that's not saying much.
____________
Drive by posting.
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted February 14, 2008 08:43 AM |
|
|
*sigh*
I have had enough of Florida and their ability to affect our national elections to such an extent. I want them out. No single state has the right to hold the rest of country hostage during an election. Florida is about to test this nation once again and I hold them responsible for their own behavior.
____________
Roses Are Red And So Am I
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 14, 2008 01:59 PM |
|
|
It is, however, extremely unfair to disenfranchise Florida and Michigan. How is it the average voter's fault?
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
