Is Obama finished?

[fitfan]

Originally Posted by ezmoney

I have to agree. They committed suicide without having to blow themselves up!

ahh! beat me to it

[glb]

Originally Posted by ezmoney

Others have told you that GW Bush is not running for reelection. John Kerry is not running for president . . . he did his running to leave Viet Nam as fast as he could. Clarke's book should be on the fiction list, but since not many copies sold maybe in the trash instead.

Deal with what we have not with what could have been! glb you're not in Kansas anymore!

I repeat:

1. McCain supported 95% of bush policies, which makes those policies & his support of them relevant. Would you claim otherwise?

2. Kerry war efforts (and heroism) are well-documented by men who were there. He got wounded twice. Certainly he didn't get out asap. You actually believed the now-discredited "swift boat" bs? Read all the interviews with the men with whom he fought...who have no axe to grind and who have been saying the same thing for decades...not just around elections.

Kerry, war hero vs. bush, deserter (for whom I guessing you voted). If I'm wrong about your vote, I apologize.

Did you know that the secretary for the general who had bush during Vietnam stated that what Dan Rather said was true, about Bush's absences and what the general said about him? I'd guess...um...no.

You are naive here.

3. Nothing in Clarke's book has been termed false. He uses direct quotes and there are others who were there and verified what he wrote.


It seems to me that you refuse to look at any facts that don't fit with your set beliefs.

It is this knee-jerking, cursory glancing, lack of analytical thinking that got us where we are now (hint: Not a Good Place).

Kansas? I have facts on my side, you have emotion and propaganda. So, which of us, then, is more realistic?

Republicans have not been good for our country, in peace and in war. Or, economically, as history shows.

Only after LBJ did the right thing, but lost the racist-inflicted South in the process, did Republicans gain power.

and, among Republicans, THIS administration (AND it's supporters and apologists, incl McCain) is the absolute worst.

[glb]

Originally Posted by apk919

The Carter Administration. Higher unemployment, higher interest rates, higher inflation, American hostages being held in Iran, oil embargoes, etc.

Gosh...not even close. Now we have: bad economy, corruption, unnecessary war, scandal, low dollar, reduced middle class spending power, HUGE deficit...need I go on?

Moreover, many of what you list were not in our control. Everything I can list was a direct result of bad policy.

Originally Posted by apk919

Is there any current Republican (senator, rep, governor, etc.) you would vote for? Is there any Democratic nominee you would not vote for?

Sure, not many, but yes. I began this by saying how disappointed I was in McCain, as 8 yrs ago, I liked him a lot.

Since then, he's flip-flopped and I've learned more about him. I also like & respect Chuck Hagel. I like Mayor Bloomberg a whole lot.

Originally Posted by apk919

If not, it doesn't sound like careful analysis to me. Sounds like party line voting.

Sorry to ruin your theory.

Originally Posted by apk919

There are Democrats I would vote for, and Republicans that I wouldn't.

May I ask which Democrats they are? NOTE: They must be currently alive.

[glb]

Originally Posted by fitfan

nah - the tribes historically have Islam beat as a documented religion to go kill in the one true Gods name.

i can't think of any where Islam states "if you can't convert them, kill them" at least not in wholelistic sense (but i am not an islamic literature expert by any means) - certainly there may be some isolated text that reads that way though. but again, the tribes had that kinda text first. and the tricky thing - frequently text is a particular conversation to particular people in a particular time and place, and is not to be construed as doctrine in study - but thats a gray area in (especialy biblical) religous belief systems.

I understand. He quoted a passage, but of course it was only a translation. Given that I have Muslim friends who don't agree on what it says....

[glb]

Originally Posted by ezmoney

I have to agree. They committed suicide without having to blow themselves up!

Sorry, but I am wholly confused as to what you mean by this. Pls explain.

[fitfan]

Originally Posted by apk919

The Carter Administration. Higher unemployment, higher interest rates, higher inflation, American hostages being held in Iran, oil embargoes, etc. .

one could argue that we lived as the rest of the world does, and as a resualt postioned america in leadership and participation in the rest of the world. as things stand now - the US has no credability in the ROW, and thats a cause and effect on Lotus raising msrp on the cars. the US is throughly getting its butt kicked right now. so again - one could argue our current situation if far worse than thoose examples.

so a few alternative arguments might look like:

compare the dollar exchange rates since this adminstration

compare the US fatalities since during this adminstration

compare domestic vs. foriegn trade and production

compare "nationalized" jobs

[ezmoney]

Originally Posted by glb

1. You've not done any research on this.

2. "Cut and run"? You really don't mean to use this worn-out phrase, as I assume that's what your quote marks indicate. Remember which admin said "you have to watch what you say (after 9/11) and equated not agreeing with their policies with being anti-American and pro-terrorist. Ridiculous and untrue.

I said "cut and run" because that's what they want to do. I didn't say they were being anti-American and pro-terrorist, you brought that up. I just think that they are dead wrong.

Originally Posted by glb

cute, but he's shredding your arguments, sorta eating your lunch.

The sophomoric nonsense he said did nothing to my argument. I was asking a genuine question not setting a trap. If someone wants to use the argument that the war is costing too much they should have some idea what the new plan will cost.

Originally Posted by glb

Gee, how original. If you think I'm wrong, just give me the facts to back up your opinion. Not a single thing I've said is incorrect, has been refuted.

Read my previous posts. I give lot's of facts.

Originally Posted by glb

Your remarks aren't moving things forward. I don't advise taking the personal-attack approach...you won't win there either.

Did you see the little face sticking out its tongue? I was just fooling with you. You take this stuff way too seriously. Your're sitting safely at your computer. Thank a soldier. They're being shot at while you type your reply so that you can sit there free to answer this post.

[fitfan]

Originally Posted by glb

Sorry, but I am wholly confused as to what you mean by this. Pls explain.

athiests jump in front of trains in the dread of existance

religous zealots blow themselves up in train stations in the name of god

[fitfan]

Originally Posted by ezmoney

Your're sitting safely at your computer. Thank a soldier. They're being shot at while you type your reply so that you can sit there free to answer this post.

...mmmm - i have a hard time with this argument in this time and place we are at. i really don't see americans being shot at in iraq = freedom in the US. i can respect that argument in other historical context, but i am just not seeing it right now. specifically in regards the chasm between war in iraq vs. counter terrorism.

and i would even add that since such war, we have less freedom, not more.

[pla_time]

Originally Posted by fitfan

athiests jump in front of trains in the dread of existance

religous zealots blow themselves up in train stations in the name of god

Well, we've gone a long way off-topic, but I don't think there is any support for the concept that atheists commit suicide at any higher rate than the general population. Saying that an atheist has "dread of existence" is just bizarre.

Notable Atheists, Diests, etc.
Abraham Lincoln
Aldous Huxley
Arthur C. Clarke
Charles Darwin
Benjamin Franklin
Bertrand Russell
Clarance Darrow
George Bernard Shaw
Kurt Vonnegut
.....

[Flash G]

Originally Posted by ezmoney

I said "cut and run" because that's what they want to do. I didn't say they were being anti-American and pro-terrorist, you brought that up. I just think that they are dead wrong.

"Cut & Run" is a cute, two dollar term devised by Conservatives against any type of withdrawl.

But the fact is, Bush himself declared "Mission Accomplished" in Iraq. So, if we decide to leave FOUR years after the declaration of "Mission Accomplished", that's not cutting & running. That's not surrendering. It's just right-wing propaganda.


.

[apk919]

Originally Posted by glb

Gosh...not even close. Now we have: bad economy, corruption, unnecessary war, scandal, low dollar, reduced middle class spending power, HUGE deficit...need I go on?

Moreover, many of what you list were not in our control. Everything I can list was a direct result of bad policy.

Not even close? The "Misery Index" was much higher, and the economy was much worse. Mortgage rates were 20% (take that, Barney Frank!), and the rate of people owning their own home was lower. More people were below the poverty line. All of that was the result of bad economic policy (high taxes, high spending on bad government programs, etc.). Middle class spending power now is easily higher than it was in 1979

Originally Posted by glb

Sure, not many, but yes. I began this by saying how disappointed I was in McCain, as 8 yrs ago, I liked him a lot.

Since then, he's flip-flopped and I've learned more about him. I also like & respect Chuck Hagel. I like Mayor Bloomberg a whole lot.

I can understand Hagel; he shares your desire to "redeploy" our military.
Bloomberg is only a nominal Republican because he couldn't get the Democratic or Liberal nomination for the NYC mayoral race... don't tell me you didn't know that?

Originally Posted by glb

Sorry to ruin your theory.

No problem.

Originally Posted by glb

May I ask which Democrats they are? NOTE: They must be currently alive.

Sure. Joe Lieberman, for one.

[fitfan]

Originally Posted by pla_time

Well, we've gone a long way off-topic, but I don't think there is any support for the concept that atheists commit suicide at any higher rate than the general population. Saying that an atheist has "dread of existence" is just bizarre.

ok - so allow me to re-position that.

if an athiest were to decide to comit sucide (and this no measure of per capita rates of such acts by various groups) such a suicide would be done in the face of the dread of existance. i say that because typically people don't commit suicide when the are happy. now that being said you are correct to claim the the dread of existance and happines are not mutually exclusive. i tihnk it is fair to say that depression, giving up all hope, no future worth living for, (classic suicidal motivators) are however inclusive of the dread of existance. hence my colorful inclusion of that as a fan of keirkegaard and Dostoevsky.

now, should a religous zealot on the other hand determine that their god has commanded them to wage war on the infidels and promised them eternal salvation by strapping a couple pounds of c-4 under their coat and achieve jhihad, well then they are motivated by something else all together.

(and additionaly you would be correct to add that there is another (add inf.) group that is spiritual yet comits sucide - but the point was directed at 2 groups - not all groups of peoples)

both people commited suicide in the technical sense - but they did it for totaly different reason. as such most "take everyone out" suicides are not athiestically motivated. and most "take everyone out" suicides are reliously (or psychotically) backed. however it is interesting to note that many psychotic killings that include sucide, the sucide is not an action of the killings - but in zealot killings, the suicide is a required part of the salvation, regardless of the effectiveness of the killings. (they could still achieve salvation by their acts if even no one else was killed in the process).

your right - off topic! but i doubt anybody really cares not like we are discusing the accident damage on someones car for sale!

[Rob T]

Originally Posted by Flash G

"Cut & Run" is a cute, two dollar term devised by Conservatives against any type of withdrawl.

.

Kinda like the liberals two dollar term "Bush lied, people died" as a reason to withdraw, eh?

[fitfan]

Originally Posted by pla_time

Saying that an atheist has "dread of existence" is just bizarre.

Notable Atheists, Diests, etc.
Abraham Lincoln
Aldous Huxley
Arthur C. Clarke
Charles Darwin
Benjamin Franklin
Bertrand Russell
Clarance Darrow
George Bernard Shaw
Kurt Vonnegut
.....

everyone has dread of existance. (well maybe some zen masters or jesus freaks would try to exclude themselves - but i think it is safe to say, from the existentalist frameset - everyone faces this) the question is in the face of that dread do you choose to exercise your freedome of choice, and leap through the door of dread into consequnces unknown and accountable - as most in your list would be a yes. or do you follow the masses in fear? and resolve to accept the dread as impassable?

dread of existance is not a bad thing - its justa thing. like a hill - allways there for everyone, but its up to you to turn around and go home or climb it, its truely there when you do not know what is on the other side of the hill. getting there would be experiancing the truth in freedom. - whether the result is good or bad or even capable of being judged is not a part of the equation, but does divide existentailist and nihlist.

[fitfan]

Originally Posted by Rob T

Kinda like the liberals two dollar term "Bush lied, people died" as a reason to withdraw, eh?

yup!

[apk919]

Originally Posted by fitfan

the US has no credability in the ROW, and thats a cause and effect on Lotus raising msrp on the cars. the US is throughly getting its butt kicked right now.

And yet, people are still beating a path to our door.

You'd think if the US was getting its butt kicked so thoroughly, Americans would start migrating in large numbers to say... France, or Germany, or Japan. Or, for great health care: Cuba! For a real populist in charge: Venezuela! For a country that strongly believes in central planning: Russia!

But, that's not really the case, is it. And if you think the economy is worse now than during the Carter Administration, you've got a short memory. Now that was a serious recession!

[fitfan]

it is the case though isn't it? more low value labor is housed in the US as more high value engineering is not. as an example - lets take the automotive industry - most us sold cars have found it cheaper to build in the US. but they retain their engineering outside. which follows on the heels of electronics industry that is pretty much gone from the US. and you can't put that on economy because even Japan is managing to hold some footing despit their even higher economic cost to design and manufacture. i am not trying to be nagative - in fact i tend to be very positive - but our strategic positioning is not so great. we do grow really cheap rice though! too bad its mostly on embargo....

[smoseley]

Originally Posted by ezmoney

You have the right to remain silent but obviously not the ability to!

Trading insults with him is like dueling with an unarmed man.

So what you're saying is that I won't stoop to the level of trading insults with you? You're right!

[ezmoney]

Originally Posted by fitfan

...mmmm - i have a hard time with this argument in this time and place we are at. i really don't see americans being shot at in iraq = freedom in the US. i can respect that argument in other historical context, but i am just not seeing it right now. specifically in regards the chasm between war in iraq vs. counter terrorism.

and i would even add that since such war, we have less freedom, not more.

If we weren't fighting in Iraq we'd be fighting the terrorists elsewhere . . . like San Diego. You may not be seeing it because you choose not to. The Iraq war has become a magnet for the terrorists. They know that if they can beat us there that they can win. Views like yours encourage them to keep fighting ( I'm not saying you're unpatriotic, just wrong). They know they can't beat us with conventional means and that they depend on beating us with a Viet Nam style approach . . . by letting the anti war left do it for them.