Go, Obama! ... I think ...

Abookamongstthemany

my2hands wrote:

there are differnces on social issues

Not a big enough difference.

my2hands

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

Not a big enough difference.

i agree with that

but you are supporting a great Democratic candidate in 2008, just as i am

RolandTD20Kdrummer

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

I can't believe it either but it seems just like the Republicans supported Bush through whatever...Dems are gonna be no better. There's really no difference and we've known that.

Sometimes I think the United States is just doomed to run around the globe sucking up resources and bonking people on the head in the process.. well murdering them I guess...

A predominantly mindless population of zombies that don't want to think, or perhaps even have time (or can set aside time) to think. They are happy to eat sleep and dream whatever they are told on the dummy tube.

And it makes them warm and fuzzy this level of ignorance does....and of course why shouldn't it. I know it's a lot to ask people to become educated in politics. Most brains just shut down and go to sleep long before real thought ever occurs...

America...the new Roman empire.

.

RainDog

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

I can't believe it either but it seems just like the Republicans supported Bush through whatever...Dems are gonna be no better. There's really no difference and we've known that.

Oh, for the love of pete, I'm an independent (I've voted for 1, count 'em, 1 democrat in my voting life - and that was under duress from the opposing side). Hell, I've used up most of my posts in this thread criticizing Obama for saying "all options are on the table." Just because I think Ahmadinejad and his administration are potentially dangerous religious fanatics (I dislike religious fanaticism of all kinds, not just the American variety) doesn't mean I've fallen for or am in anyway a purveyor of propaganda. Saying you don't want to go to war with someone doesn't mean you have to deny that said someone might be....... bad, for lack of a better word.

I don't want to bomb Iran.

RainDog

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

...that's some pretty messed up propaganda stuffed opinion right there...

I can't believe I just read that...

.

Just because I realize that Iran's Imams don't like me (or you) doesn't mean I want to bomb the country. Jesus Christ, you can say "I know it's a lot to ask people to become educated in politics," but can you say it in a mirror.

my2hands

RainDog wrote:

I don't want to bomb Iran.

when i hear that i immediately think of McCain making a world class ass of himself

RainDog

my2hands wrote:

when i hear that i immediately think of McCain making a world class ass of himself

Did he say that? I couldn't get past his scary ass smile after saying he'd follow Obama to the gates of hell.





that is what he said, right?

MrBrian

RainDog wrote:

Did he say that? I couldn't get past his scary ass smile after saying he'd follow Obama to the gates of hell.





that is what he said, right?

(follow)Usama?
---

Yeah...
"bomb bomb bomb iran" is what he sang.

Abookamongstthemany

RainDog wrote:

Oh, for the love of pete, I'm an independent (I've voted for 1, count 'em, 1 democrat in my voting life - and that was under duress from the opposing side). Hell, I've used up most of my posts in this thread criticizing Obama for saying "all options are on the table." Just because I think Ahmadinejad and his administration are potentially dangerous religious fanatics (I dislike religious fanaticism of all kinds, not just the American variety) doesn't mean I've fallen for or am in anyway a purveyor of propaganda. Saying you don't want to go to war with someone doesn't mean you have to deny that said someone might be....... bad, for lack of a better word.

I don't want to bomb Iran.

That post wasn't meant to be taken as directly at you. I worry about Dems and also independents supporting a candidate that might take us into another war. It's nothing personal. I dislike religious fanatics, as well but I am also very weary using them for political posturing. Please excuse my edgyness but this seems a bit like deja vu.

RainDog

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

That post wasn't meant to be taken as directly at you. I worry about Dems and also independents supporting a candidate that might take us into another war. It's nothing personal. I dislike religious fanatics, as well but I am also very weary using them for political posturing. Please excuse my edgyness but this seems a bit like deja vu.

I must say, I'm a little shocked to be pegged as a blind supporter after I spent time explaining why I feel it's wrong to be the "all options are on the table" guy - especially considering how limited our options are.

All candidates (even Kucinich) have the potential to take us into another war - as the path to any future war will not necessarily be the same path that lead us into past ones.

Abookamongstthemany

RainDog wrote:

I must say, I'm a little shocked to be pegged as a blind supporter after I spent time explaining why I feel it's wrong to be the "all options are on the table" guy - especially considering how limited our options are.

All candidates (even Kucinich) have the potential to take us into another war - as the path to any future war will not necessarily be the same path that lead us into past ones.

At least with Kucinich, you know clearly from what he says that war would be the opposite of everything he has talked about. I have a hard time understanding not wanting to go into another war but supporting a guy who very well might choose that path. He has repeatedly focused on Iran during his campaign as the bad guy. I don't care for that mentality because it put us against them (and we don't have a leg to stand on when it comes to producing nukes). So when I see people who don't want war continuing to support a guy who doesn't seem like he'd mind it too much...it makes me wonder why. And how long would you continue to support him in that direction?

RainDog

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

At least with Kucinich, you know clearly from what he says that war would be the opposite of everything he has talked about. I have a hard time understanding not wanting to go into another war but supporting a guy who very well might choose that path. He has repeatedly focused on Iran during his campaign as the bad guy. I don't care for that mentality because it put us against them (and we don't have a leg to stand on when it comes to producing nukes). So when I see people who don't want war continuing to support a guy who doesn't seem like he'd mind it too much...it makes me wonder why. And how long would you continue to support him in that direction?

Pre-emptive war would be against what Kucinich has talked about (as far as I understand it) - not simply war. And besides, he's changed his position about things before.

Though I could be wrong, I honestly don't think Obama is a pre-emptive war kinda guy. Iran has a sizable population of what we could consider "liberal" citizens (by Iranian standards). These are the people that need to bring down their ruling class. If we do it for them (a la Iraq), then it's very likely they'll congeal with the hardliners against us, and everyone loses except the hardliners (on both sides). I think Obama has taken a reasonable step in calling for U.S. businesses to stop any dealings that'll result in profits for the Iranian ruling class. Weaken them, and maybe they'll fall, and maybe the more liberal aspects of their culture will rise to the surface. As for "all options are on the table," it's a stupid remark that leaves him open to attacks from the left, who hate that kind of talk, and the right, who don't believe it if it comes out of the mouth of a liberal. And Ahmadinejad simply laughs, because he knows that we're stuck right now anyway (all he has to do is look out his window to see it). In the end, it's simply a platitude - a given. Of course all options are on the table - they'll be on the table no matter who wins. The difference is, what would it take for which candidate to use those options? I don't think either of these two are all that trigger happy.

Abookamongstthemany

RainDog wrote:

Pre-emptive war would be against what Kucinich has talked about (as far as I understand it) - not simply war. And besides, he's changed his position about things before.

Though I could be wrong, I honestly don't think Obama is a pre-emptive war kinda guy. Iran has a sizable population of what we could consider "liberal" citizens (by Iranian standards). These are the people that need to bring down their ruling class. If we do it for them (a la Iraq), then it's very likely they'll congeal with the hardliners against us, and everyone loses except the hardliners (on both sides). I think Obama has taken a reasonable step in calling for U.S. businesses to stop any dealings that'll result in profits for the Iranian ruling class. Weaken them, and maybe they'll fall, and maybe the more liberal aspects of their culture will rise to the surface. As for "all options are on the table," it's a stupid remark that leaves him open to attacks from the left, who hate that kind of talk, and the right, who don't believe it if it comes out of the mouth of a liberal. And Ahmadinejad simply laughs, because he knows that we're stuck right now anyway (all he has to do is look out his window to see it). In the end, it's simply a platitude - a given. Of course all options are on the table - they'll be on the table no matter who wins. The difference is, what would it take for which candidate to use those options? I don't think either of these two are all that trigger happy.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=wQc2pd0UaoA

RainDog

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=wQc2pd0UaoA

I can't watch youtube at work, so I'll have to check it out later. I'm curious now, though; could you fill me in?

Abookamongstthemany

RainDog wrote:

I can't watch youtube at work, so I'll have to check it out later. I'm curious now, though; could you fill me in?

Oh, sorry about that. Dennis is addressing Bill Maher about his stance on war. He says only as self defense would he consider it.

RainDog

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

Oh, sorry about that. Dennis is addressing Bill Maher about his stance on war.

I saw that episode, but it was late on a Friday and I was really drunk.

What I remember of it I thought sounded pretty good, though it could have been my condition and the resulting voices in my head being applied to the pretty moving pictures on the screen. As I've told you before, I don't dislike the guy (though I'm not on a first name basis as you are ), and I'd vote for him were he to get the nod.

in fact, I think he'd be the perfect V.P. for Obama..... <<<ducks>>>

Abookamongstthemany

RainDog wrote:

I saw that episode, but it was late on a Friday and I was really drunk.

What I remember of it I thought sounded pretty good, though it could have been my condition and the resulting voices in my head being applied to the pretty moving pictures on the screen. As I've told you before, I don't dislike the guy (though I'm not on a first name basis as you are ), and I'd vote for him were he to get the nod.

in fact, I think he'd be the perfect V.P. for Obama..... <<<ducks>>>

VP...pffft

I know you don't dislike Dennis (:D) but I am having a hard time really finding anything to like about Obama. He just seems like the old weaselly politician to me. And when I see him attempting to further divide us and Iran by creating more tension in the place of diplomacy, I just wanna know where his supporters stand.


If you get the chance, watch that clip in a more sober mode. It's well worth it.

RainDog

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

VP...pffft

I know you don't dislike Dennis (:D) but I am having a hard time really finding anything to like about Obama.

If you look at the On The Issues site, Kucinich and Obama's dots are on the exact same point on the graph. I know, you can't break things down that generally; but in the details they're not all that far apart either. Kucinich is a little more anti-war, while Obama is a little more pro-choice. On other social issues, I think both are pretty much in line.

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

He just seems like the old weaselly politician to me. And when I see him attempting to further divide us and Iran by creating more tension in the place of diplomacy, I just wanna know where his supporters stand.

Iran's leaders simply don't like us, so there's going to be tension either way. I don't see Obama attempting to divide us further - though I do see, how shall we say, kinks in what was supposed to be his gleaming armor of lucidity.

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

If you get the chance, watch that clip in a more sober mode. It's well worth it.

I will.

Abookamongstthemany

RainDog wrote:

If you look at the On The Issues site, Kucinich and Obama's dots are on the exact same point on the graph. I know, you can't break things down that generally; but in the details they're not all that far apart either. Kucinich is a little more anti-war, while Obama is a little more pro-choice. On other social issues, I think both are pretty much in line.

Yeah, I've checked out On The Issues and I think I started about a thread about that site actually. They do appear, on paper, to be much the same. That's why I have to take other things into account.

RainDog wrote:

Iran's leaders simply don't like us, so there's going to be tension either way. I don't see Obama attempting to divide us further - though I do see, how shall we say, kinks in what was supposed to be his gleaming armor of lucidity.

What do you think the reasons are behind the problems Iran has with us and vice versa and what do you think is the appropriate approach at handling it?

RainDog wrote:

I will.

Cool beans Let me know what you think.

Abookamongstthemany

Here's another good site on candidates stances

http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=234508&highlight=project+vote+smart