If Obama Weren't Black

[haha]

I think geopolitics can be a little too complicated to decide on the basis of overarching purity of principles. Our principles might wear a little thin if we were freezing in the dark. Seems that Greenspan hedged his bets- maybe there are WMD in Iraq, maybe not. But there sure is oil there, and a lot of it.

Don't know why fighting wars over resources seems so shocking. It has been going on for millennia. I am not sure why fighting a war for oil, the blood of our industrial society should be thought a worse reason than fighting a war to free oppressed people. There will never be an end to oppressed people, whereas we might be able to use another 8-10 mbpd to tide us over into a new energy economy.

Even on the aiplane they remind the parent to secure her oxygen mask before putting on baby's.

I am personally conflicted about it, but I don't think I really have enough information to make a clear decision.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/16/AR2007091601287_pf.html

Ha

[chinaco]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gumby Gee, and all this time I thought the war was about WMD's and the threat to America.

It was. And I am disturbed about it. Unfortunately, this is the result of an ultra-conservative (GWB). It does not translate to all Republicans.

Unfortunately, we are in that mess and need to see it through. We need to have Iraq stable before we exit. I do not like it myself. But that is where we are right now.

Likewise, I fear the other polar political end which is (too liberal) Obama.

A vote from a Democrat for Obama results in an independent vote for McCain.

Obama is the best thing that has happened to the Republican party this election cycle. The Republican campaign planners are rubbing their hands together over their good fortune. They know that McCain (any republican) will have a much easier time defeating Obama. This is a fact... they are gleeful about the devision of the Dem party... Watch any Republican oriented news (read loud mouth) show.

[clifp]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gumby Gee, and all this time I thought the war was about WMD's and the threat to America.

In virtually every major speech given by a President or senior official prior to the invasion, three primary reasons were given for invading Iraq.

Sadddam had WMDs or WMDs programs and in world with global terrorist it was too dangerous to let this continue.
Saddam had a 25 year history of invading and threatening his neighbors and the US had a vital interest in region (i.e Oil)
Saddam the worlds worst dictator and his people were suffering greatly.

Many of the other points that Samclem stated were also used at various speeches

WMDs were the primary reason but not the only reason. That was clear to anybody who was listening back in 2003 or cares to review the historically documents. Gumby you are to smart to fall for the Bush Lied people died bumper sticker version of events...

[clifp]

Quote:

Originally Posted by chinaco Obama is the best thing that has happened to the Republican party this election cycle. The Republican campaign planners are rubbing their hands together over their good fortune. They know that McCain (any republican) will have a much easier time defeating Obama. This is a fact... they are gleeful about the devision of the Dem party... Watch any Republican oriented news (read loud mouth) show.

Not me, as avid McCain supporter/contributor since 2000, I absolutely don't want run against Obama. Beating Hillary is very doable since the Republican base hates her, lots of men don't like her, and her experience is pitful compared to McCain's. McCain is more principaled, honest, and is an equal to her in campaigning.
Against Obama, McCain has more experience not all of which is an advantage and is more of a known quantity. Other than courage, Obama wins all of the intangibles against McCain.

As an American I'm not upset Obama is likely to win the primary.

I think of Obama as emerging markets funds lots of upside, but very risky. McCain is like Bershire,a steady performer, but probably won't be spectactular, but the guy I want in the White House if bad stuff happens internationally.
Hillary is a CDO, not much upside but really ugly once you dig deeper

[chinaco]

Quote:

Originally Posted by clifp Not me, ...

I was referring to the RNC (and political pundits) not republicans voters.

Hillary (Billery) is more of a threat... at least, that seems to be the prevailing line of thought with the political wonks.

They are tickled to death with the division in the democratic party and the development of another controversial candidate. In other words, they have an issue they can push to overshadow criticism about the war in Iraq (and possibly the pending recession). Ultra-Left Liberal/Socialist agenda of Obama compared to moderate (more right-center) McCain.

Plus the fact that Obama represents an unknown. That is enough to pause a large number of people.

Put it like this. In the back of many people's mind is the concern that Obama might be a closet Sharpton or Jackson. That is the primary concern shared by many... including many Democrats. It is the main reason I am not very likely to vote for him if he is in the general election. That is enough to drive many to the alternative (McCain)... why take the chance? Why roll the dice?

I am not going to let my anger about GWB override my common sense. And Obama is an unknown quantity/quality!

Of course, if Obama had some track record that was in the daylight... I might consider voting for him. It is not about his race, it is about his politics and the impact to my wallet.

[Texarkandy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gumby Even if that is true, what good is it to win a war that never should have been started? The fact that we may eventually pacify them does not justify our invasion.

Now I'm not a "Bushie" but - before one goes around dissing the initial justification to take down the Sadamm regime, they need to ask themselves a few questions:

1. Did Sadamm have chemical weapons? (which are, in fact, WMD's)

2. Did Sadamm show a willingness to use WMD's? (ask a Kurd)

3. Was there some intelligence (however fuzzy) he was embarking upon a nuclear weapons program?

4. Did Sadamm consistently (for years) obstruct the mission of the U.N. inspectors who were supposed to verify he was not doing all this per the terms of ending the first war with Iraq?

5. Did Sadamm continually (for years) test & violate the no-fly zone per the terms of the UN agreement?

6. Was Sadamm a continuing threat to disrupting oil-supplies coming out of the Persian golf? (a vital interest of the U.S.)


(personally, I was all-for going over there and cleaning his clock in the first place - but the day they dragged him out of his spider-hole was the day we should have started packing our bags & left a note behind that we would do it again if they allowed another madman like Sadamm to run their country - instead of hanging around rebuilding Iraq with US tax dollars & trying to instill a western style democracy)

[dex]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marquette Since McCain is like 500 years old, I'm guessing he did other stuff. How important is it? As Commander in Chief, I would think actual honest to goodness military experience is very helpful... at least, if we're planning to go to war some more.

It would be a mistake for the President and those around him to guide the military in how to fight the war. Yes, s/he would set the limits on how to fight it. It was a mistake in Vietnam for MacNamara and Johnson.

A good President has knowlegeable people around h/h who provide good ideas and management. The President gives guideance - like Reagan.

Jimmy Carter got into the details of running the government and nothing got done.

[Marquette]

Quote:

Originally Posted by samclem I'm not trying to be a jerk. I'm having a tough time understanding your point. The Constitution spells out the role of the President and the function of the Executive Branch (he runs that) as well as the Judicial and Legislative Branches. If you've read that document (or, alternatively, listened to Schoolhouse Rock) then you know what the POTUS does. I'm sure you understand that the President largely sets the agenda for the country, and if he is successful in convincing Congress to see things his way, that they will pass the legislation he/she wants. Or, he/she can appeal directly to the public, which can put pressure on Congress, and result in legislation. And, the POTUS makes judicial appointments, which affect our lives in countless ways. And, the President promulgates executive orders which can affect which laws get enforced and how, and can influence policies below the level impacted by laws. And he/she can appoint either effective or ineffective people to run huge government agencies and to represent the US as Ambassadors overseas. Some people think that is important. And, the President sometimes travels directly to foreign countries and meets with their leaders, sometimes these meetings result in important agreements. And, the President is the only person empowered to sign treaties on behalf of the United States--these treaties are agreements between the US and other nations/international bodies. Some people think this is important. That and more--it's in the 'ol Constitution. Anyway, it's nothing personal. I'd urge anyone who doesn't believe the job of President is important or doesn't know what it entails to stay home on election day. It's really a civic duty.

I don't believe I ever said I had a point or tried to make a point. I'm pretty sure all of my posts centered around asking questions, specifically about what makes each candidate qualified for the job. I'm asking questions so that I can make a better informed opinion and you tell me that I'm stupid for having to ask questions.

So, in light of your above statement, what applicable skills does each candidate possess that the others don't that would make them better suited for the job?

Does more senate experience make one better able to talk Congress into passing legislation? What if that experience comes with a reputation for ticking off most everyone in the senate?

If one of the president's main functions is to be our head of state and meet with foreign head's of state, then I would think being an effectual orator and an engaging and charming individual. What if that ability comes with no experience?

I'm perfectly aware of what the president can do. I'm still not aware, after having asked multiple times, how experience as a senator or lack thereof matters.

[Gumby]

Quote:

Originally Posted by clifp In virtually every major speech given by a President or senior official prior to the invasion, three primary reasons were given for invading Iraq. Sadddam had WMDs or WMDs programs and in world with global terrorist it was too dangerous to let this continue. Saddam had a 25 year history of invading and threatening his neighbors and the US had a vital interest in region (i.e Oil) Saddam the worlds worst dictator and his people were suffering greatly. Many of the other points that Samclem stated were also used at various speeches WMDs were the primary reason but not the only reason. That was clear to anybody who was listening back in 2003 or cares to review the historically documents. Gumby you are to smart to fall for the Bush Lied people died bumper sticker version of events...

I will assume the truth of each of these statements, and still it is unjustifiable.

Have you considered that we have more WMD's than anyone else? And that we have shown a willingness to use them? (ask the Japanese) That we have a history of invading our neighbors (ask the Mexicans about that) and other places around the globe? That there are many who believe the current government is illegitimate and undemocratic and that we are turning into a police state? That we have important natural resources (e.g coal and corn)? Maybe the Chinese should invade to set us right again.

[ziggy29]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gumby That there are many who believe the current government is illegitimate and undemocratic....

Of course, if Obama wins the regular delegate count and the popular vote and Hillary takes the superdelegates, history will repeat itself, at least if she went on to win the general election.

And the irony is that Hillary railed against the Electoral College in 2000 as "undemocratic" and she qualified support for Joe Lieberman's primary bid in 2006 by saying the voice of the Democratic primary voters needed to be upheld....

[Gumby]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ziggy29 Of course, if Obama wins the regular delegate count and the popular vote and Hillary takes the superdelegates, history will repeat itself, at least if she went on to win the general election. And the irony is that Hillary railed against the Electoral College in 2000 as "undemocratic" and she qualified support for Joe Lieberman's primary bid in 2006 by saying the voice of the Democratic primary voters needed to be upheld....

No one will be more irate than me if that should occur.

[TromboneAl]

Quote:

Bush was a ... ploitician

As in exploited his position. Great term -- I think it will catch on.

[HFWR]

Quote:

Originally Posted by samclem I hope others who have studied the issues to a similar depth will make the same decision to avoid wasting their time in exercising the franchise.

You think voter turnout is low now...

[Nords]

I'm surprised that no one has brought up the specter of Bill Clinton owning a White House pass again.

Even if he didn't perjure himself on the nitpicking, we know pretty much what he did in the Oval Office with his leisure time (and the odd cigar). Just imagine what he could do if he was unleashed among the rest of the place while his spouse was otherwise occupied. I'd be afraid to touch a horizontal surface there ever again, let alone the humidors...

[Notmuchlonger]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nords I'm surprised that no one has brought up the specter of Bill Clinton owning a White House pass again. Even if he didn't perjure himself on the nitpicking, we know pretty much what he did in the Oval Office with his leisure time (and the odd cigar). Just imagine what he could do if he was unleashed among the rest of the place while his spouse was otherwise occupied. I'd be afraid to touch a horizontal surface there ever again, let alone the humidors...

Um probably because it was something I didnt really want to think about. Thanks for bringing it up though

[chinaco]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nords ... Just imagine what he could do if he was unleashed among the rest of the place while his spouse was otherwise occupied. ...

What makes you think he is going to want the collar off?

[FIRE'd@51]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nords I'm surprised that no one has brought up the specter of Bill Clinton owning a White House pass again.

Actually, Mitt Romney alluded to this in a debate.

Bill Clinton back in WH

[Letj]

Quote:

Originally Posted by chinaco Put it like this. In the back of many people's mind is the concern that Obama might be a closet Sharpton or Jackson. That is the primary concern shared by many... including many Democrats. It is the main reason I am not very likely to vote for him if he is in the general election. That is enough to drive many to the alternative (McCain)... why take the chance? Why roll the dice? I am not going to let my anger about GWB override my common sense. And Obama is an unknown quantity/quality!

Could you be anymore racist? What would prevent you from voting for him? Because he is a closet Sharpton or Jesse Jackson? Because he is part black, it means that he must be like them? How dispicable! Speaking of being fair and open minded. Geesh! For God sake, the man has been a state Senator for 8 years and a congressman for 4 and displayed no such tendencies yet he didn't pass the test in your eyes? Man, examine your own conscience.

[dex]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Letj Could you be anymore racist? What would prevent you from voting for him? Because he is a closet Sharpton or Jesse Jackson? Because he is part black, it means that he must be like them? How dispicable! Speaking of being fair and open minded. Geesh! For God sake, the man has been a state Senator for 8 years and a congressman for 4 and displayed no such tendencies yet he didn't pass the test in your eyes? Man, examine your own conscience.

Did you purposely misinterperate what chinaco wrote just to get you point out? I see this is only your 56th post - I hope you do better in the future.

[ziggy29]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Letj Could you be anymore racist? What would prevent you from voting for him? Because he is a closet Sharpton or Jesse Jackson? Because he is part black, it means that he must be like them? How dispicable!

You are misinterpreting.

Earlier in the thread this was mentioned in the context of Obama specifically being endorsed by Sharpton and Jackson, not that the fact that both he and Sharpton are black must mean Obama is another Sharpton.

HUGE difference.

I would agree that the latter is racist, but that wasn't the original context of the author to whom you were replying. You spun this one WAY out of its original context.