You are viewing an archive of the old fxhome.com forums. The community has since moved to hitfilm.com.

Primaries close in Texas, Clinton draws closer...

Posted: Wed, 6th Feb 2008, 8:25pm

Post 1 of 155

ben3308

Force: 5210 | Joined: 24th May 2004 | Posts: 6433

VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

EDIT: Primaries are closing in Texas and Ohio. Clinton is projected as a winner in both, McCain's projections have put him over the top and Huckabee's concession has guaranteed the 'manchurian candidate' of sorts (biggrin) the Republican nomination.




Well, as many of you may or may not know, yesterday marked 'Super Tuesday', the date of the largest primary turnout in the United States (to the lesser-informed, the primary is, in essence, the preliminary vote that determines what candidate either of the larger political parties will champion),

I will first guide everyone to the Drudge Report for most of the breaking facts without any adulterated bias. You can also check out the Wikipedia page on the matter.

The data for the votes came in as follows...

Democratic Primaries wrote:


Clinton: 50.2% (7,347,971)
Obama: 49.8% (7,294,851)
Though he lost personal votes by a hair, Barack Obama was able to pick up more delegate votes, or so his camp claims. I'm not quite sure what this means for a Democratic candidate. Personally, though I was championing the Democratic party, I'm not personally happy with either eventual 'winner' of the nomination.

Anyhow, a Democrat has yet to 'clench' the partywide support for Presidency.

Republican Primaries wrote:


McCain: 43.1% (3,611,459)
Romney: 35.4% (2,961,834)
Huckabee: 21.5% (1,796,729)
From the delegates and votes won in the Republican primaries, reports are coming in that though Romney has taken a considerable chunk of the playing field, McCain will almost certainly win the nomination. On this side of things, it was a little sad to see Ron Paul, who has raised the most money, get the least amount of votes; but I am happy that it's going to John McCain. He's a moderate within his party, he used to be an independent, and he has more experience than either Romney or Huckabee.

So though the Republicans have widened the gap to keep them, too, from adopting partywide support for any one man, I'm decidely happy that projections put their 'pretty boy' at being McCain.

Here's an interesting article on how things have turned out in a rather indecisive manner.


Aaaaaanyhow, even though things aren't to an exact certainty, I think from the Republican side that McCain is a strong candidate for President and, despite voting on iffy things (PATRIOT Act?!?!) I think he's a more-than-capable leader of the free world. As for Obama or Clinton, I haven't made up my mind yet. I always told myself I would vote Democrat when the time came (I spent 5th grade slandering Bush, haha) but right now I am not so sure. As a Democrat, I could either pick one of the greatest orators in the running (Obama) or someone with slightly more experience and know-how (Clinton).

Either way, it will be interesting to see how things play out. It appears Super Tuesday didn't really decide party support, it just made it more cut-throat.

Last edited Wed, 5th Mar 2008, 8:58am; edited 2 times in total.

Posted: Wed, 6th Feb 2008, 8:29pm

Post 2 of 155

Pooky

Force: 4834 | Joined: 8th Jul 2003 | Posts: 5913

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User MacOS User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

Clinton vs McCain? Now that'll be something. Shame to see Obama trailing so close behind, and, as you said, Ron Paul being ignored. Guess people never learn, even after 8 years.

Regarding Clinton vs Obama, one rather large factor that makes me lean towards Obama is lobbyists. I believe it was Hillary who got the most money from lobbyists recently, and she used to be on the Wal-Mart board, so getting money from corporations is pretty much something that defines her, whereas Obama hasn't accepted any money from lobbyists. Getting rid of corruption and making the government more transparent is one of the few things Obama has said he would do in between his constant "Changechangechangechange!" talk, and to be honest, I think that alone would warrant a vote for him over Clinton were I american. Clinton has more experience, but Obama has more experience in an elected position, and well... Bush had a lot of experience, and that didn't help at all.

From what I've heard of McCain (not very much), he scares me a little. The whole 100 years in Iraq thing, and the blatant racism à la Bush is not something that sounds particularly appealing to me really.
Posted: Wed, 6th Feb 2008, 8:59pm

Post 3 of 155

SilverDragon7

Force: 2265 | Joined: 29th Jun 2006 | Posts: 1990

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

I haven't quite been paying attention to the campaining. But from what I have gathered so far I would like to see Clinton as the Democrate runner.
Posted: Thu, 7th Feb 2008, 12:45am

Post 4 of 155

ssj john

Force: 563 | Joined: 4th Nov 2003 | Posts: 795

Windows User MacOS User

Member

ben3308 wrote:

John McCain. He's a moderate within his party, he used to be an independent, and he has more experience than either Romney or Huckabee.
I completely disagree. I think that Romney has the best experience for running this country then any of the candidates democrat of republican.
Posted: Thu, 7th Feb 2008, 12:46am

Post 5 of 155

Evman

Force: 4382 | Joined: 25th Jan 2004 | Posts: 3609

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Pooky wrote:

Clinton vs McCain? Now that'll be something.
For quite some time this was what the majority of people thought was going to end up happening. It's just because of McCain's recent down-and-out campaign that it's surprising.

Go McCain though, seriously. He's a more of a moderate than anyone else running and can draw a large vote. Not to mention he has the experience and knowledge to finally put this mishandled war in its place.

On the Democratic side, I'd rather see Obama. McCain vs. Obama - I'd be happy with that race because it would mean that either way, in a strange sorta way, America would be in good shape.

Although I will say that if Hillary wins it, McCain has a MUCH better shot at winning due to Hillary's unlikeability (warranted or not). Obama is like McCain in that he can draw the independent vote, which would make for a VERY interesting race with probably no clear cut winner until all the votes are in.
Posted: Thu, 7th Feb 2008, 1:12am

Post 6 of 155

Bryce007

Force: 1910 | Joined: 5th Apr 2003 | Posts: 2609

VideoWrap User Windows User

Gold Member

ssj john wrote:

ben3308 wrote:

John McCain. He's a moderate within his party, he used to be an independent, and he has more experience than either Romney or Huckabee.
I completely disagree. I think that Romney has the best experience for running this country then any of the candidates democrat of republican.
I wonder why you'd think that.... (not 'cause he's a mormon, right?)



(Also, John McCain is an uber-warhawk with deep seated issues. I would only trust him to drag us in a world war. So hopefully Obama Wins.) (now that Paul is basically out)
Posted: Thu, 7th Feb 2008, 1:20am

Post 7 of 155

ssj john

Force: 563 | Joined: 4th Nov 2003 | Posts: 795

Windows User MacOS User

Member

DirectorBryce wrote:

ssj john wrote:

ben3308 wrote:

John McCain. He's a moderate within his party, he used to be an independent, and he has more experience than either Romney or Huckabee.
I completely disagree. I think that Romney has the best experience for running this country then any of the candidates democrat of republican.
I wonder why you'd think that.... (not 'cause he's a mormon, right?)



(Also, John McCain is an uber-warhawk with deep seated issues. I would only trust him to drag us in a world war. So hopefully Obama Wins.)
Sure I like that he's mormon, but that doesn't mean that I agree with him on every political topic. But I do think that he is more qualified than any of the rest of them. For me its not about getting a republican elected. (if maccain is the nominee I wont vote for him unless he's up agianst hilary.) I vote for the candidate not the party.

The simple fact is Romney has definately got more experience and I think could handle the presidency better then obama and clinton. Mccain is questionable but like you said he's way gun-ho, and his cheeks are weird.
Posted: Thu, 7th Feb 2008, 2:50am

Post 8 of 155

hatsoff2halford

Force: 1360 | Joined: 6th Feb 2005 | Posts: 360

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Pro User Windows User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

Romney has more experience...? You should probably do some research on the candidates and make an educated vote next time (if you voted). Voting should not be based on someone's religion, and I realize you said that, I'm just adding my two cents. Although I do understand that someones religious views will obviously dictate certain political standpoints.

I really would not like McCain in office. Obama is my vote because of the fact that he does not accept money from lobbyist as already mentioned. Not to mention that I agree on MOST of the issues he does as well. I really would have liked to see Kucinich gain some support, wishful thinking I suppose.
Posted: Thu, 7th Feb 2008, 3:16am

Post 9 of 155

Coureur de Bois

Force: 1394 | Joined: 23rd Sep 2002 | Posts: 1127

VideoWrap User Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

Evman wrote:


Although I will say that if Hillary wins it, McCain has a MUCH better shot at winning due to Hillary's unlikeability (warranted or not). Obama is like McCain in that he can draw the independent vote, which would make for a VERY interesting race with probably no clear cut winner until all the votes are in.
This.

Largely the Democratic party would continue to self destruct if Hilary is chosen as candidate. I think with Obama we have a real shot of turning this nation around, in terms of managing the war(obvious one), rebuilding a heathcare system that works and reversing an already recessive economy.

The issues seem pretty obvious to me.
Posted: Thu, 7th Feb 2008, 4:33am

Post 10 of 155

ssj john

Force: 563 | Joined: 4th Nov 2003 | Posts: 795

Windows User MacOS User

Member

Gorion wrote:

Evman wrote:


Although I will say that if Hillary wins it, McCain has a MUCH better shot at winning due to Hillary's unlikeability (warranted or not). Obama is like McCain in that he can draw the independent vote, which would make for a VERY interesting race with probably no clear cut winner until all the votes are in.
This.

Largely the Democratic party would continue to self destruct if Hilary is chosen as candidate. I think with Obama we have a real shot of turning this nation around, in terms of managing the war(obvious one), rebuilding a heathcare system that works and reversing an already recessive economy.

The issues seem pretty obvious to me.
Obama would be good, except I just don't think he has enough experience. He keeps saying he'll change things but he doesn't say how? He has been a senator for 2 years! woop!
Posted: Thu, 7th Feb 2008, 5:06am

Post 11 of 155

Bflat5

Force: 1788 | Joined: 30th May 2007 | Posts: 206

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 User Windows User

Gold Member

Rating: -2

I find it sad and a little disgusting anyone would even consider Hillary or Obama. Not saying there's much to look forward to on the republican side at this point, but if we're going down in flames at least I would like to say Hillary or Obama didn't get the chance to do it.

Right now Hillary and Obama both are running on a "Change" ticket. For the most part people want change... A change from Bush. But the kind of change Hillary and Obama have in mind is the destruction of America as we know it.

Do yourself and your country a favor. Ignore anything and everything a politician says. 99.997% of it is total BS! Instead look at their voting records. That will tell you exactly what kind of garbage they'll drag into the white house with them.

Immigration is a big deal right now. People are demanding something be done about the illegals flooding into our country, yet it continues to get worse. Hillary and Obama both promise change on immigration. Problem is neither explains what that change is, BUT their voting and proposal records show they want to open the borders and allow free travel to and from our country.

Both were against the proposal of English being declared the official spoken language in the US. That should never have even been questioned! Hillary has said she wants to remove the law saying convicted felons cannot vote, When they are leased they can vote again. That's more BS from that idiot. She also entered an amendment to an immigration bill saying if illegals come to this country, have a baby that would automatically grant the parents and relatives citizenship here.

While her own party blew they brain dead idea out of the sky it doesn't change her ideas on how immigration should be handled.

Barak Hussein Obama... I strongly urge anyone who is even toying with the idea of voting for him to do some real research on him, his family and his past. To put it lightly, it doesn't exactly align with his claims of Christianity and his love for this country.

Again, if you're the type of person that makes a decision of who to vote for based on what the extremely biased liberal media tells you or a punchline on Jay Leno, spend a little time on some government web sites. Look up different bills, resolutions, etc. and see who voted for what. If you understand and agree with what they did, then that's probably who you should vote for.

No one should ever, EVER vote against their own country. Every vote for Hillary and Obama is exactly that.

Right now we're actually going to hear what SCOTUS (Supreme Court Of The United States) has to say about our 2nd amendment and the DC gun ban. If they uphold the lower courts decision that it's unconstitutional, then America is ok for while, until some other commie comes in and wants to challenge that.

Our 2nd amendment is one of the most important we have. Why? Because it guarantees us that we have the right to defend ourselves against all enemies. It also protects our other bill of rights.

People like Joe Biden, Carolyn McCarthy, Nancy Pelosi, Clintons, Obama, Diane Feinstein, Barbara Boxer, etc. Want to see the 2nd amendment abolished.

Here's the problem, well besides telling us we no longer have the right to defend ourselves. They want to say the wording of the 2nd says "the people" refers to government and not us lowly little citizens. Ok, fine let's say that's true, it's not, but lets pretend it is. Our other bill of rights also refers to the freedoms of "the people". So when they are allowed to tell us the 2nd has to go, it won't be long for our other freedoms to die along with it. This whole freedom of speech thing irritates most politicians as it is, so the 1st amendment will be the next to go.

Another problem and this one is huge. America isn't exactly the gleam in the worlds eye. We're constant targets. Right up until the first plane hit the trade center most Americans lived under a false security blanket. "Nothing bad will ever happen on American soil...". We now know that's completely false and everyone should know by know that when the crap hits the fan we're on our own. It's not a matter if it happens again, it's a matter when, where and how... It will happen again!

If America was attacked tonight we won't have enough police or military to defend our people or country. What we do have here would be too busy protecting themselves, their families and the politicians, who by the way will be locked securely away in an underground bunker. The people of this country will be on their own... Who will protect you and your family?

There's roughly 100 million legal, law abiding gun owners in this country today. When the crap does hit the fan, the gun owners will be fighting for the freedom of this country once again, not the politicians... That's what the 2nd amendment is all about. When it's gone, we're all screwed.

What does that have to do with the elections? They're mostly all gun grabbers and offenders of our constitution.
Posted: Thu, 7th Feb 2008, 7:17am

Post 12 of 155

Waser

Force: 4731 | Joined: 7th Sep 2003 | Posts: 3111

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

SuperUser

Rating: +1

Posted: Thu, 7th Feb 2008, 9:17am

Post 13 of 155

A Pickle

Force: 1235 | Joined: 7th Sep 2004 | Posts: 1280

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

ssj john wrote:

Obama would be good, except I just don't think he has enough experience. He keeps saying he'll change things but he doesn't say how?
I would ask you to do a little more research into your politics. To say that "Obama would be good," and then say, "He keeps saying he'll change things but he doesn't say how?" is pretty contradictory -- and you managed to contradict yourself in two lines.

ssj john wrote:

Right now Hillary and Obama both are running on a "Change" ticket. For the most part people want change... A change from Bush. But the kind of change Hillary and Obama have in mind is the destruction of America as we know it.
They're running on a "change" ticket for votes. Will they actually change anything? No.

I say that because, in order for someone to initiate change, they themselves have to demonstrate change. When you change something, you pretty much need to be different -- for that is what change is, it's going from what was to what will be, "what was" being the norm and "what will be" being something different -- which is why it's called a change.

People expect me to believe that Obama and Hillary actually mean that they'll change anything? When have they been different? When has that ever happened? When have either of them changed anything, or strived for a change? What do either of them say or do that makes me think that they aren't actually a "normal Democrat," a line of thinking that I'm already at odds with? What makes them sympathetic to me, the American citizen?

The fact is, neither of them do anything that they say. They lambast Bush about the Iraq War -- Hillary frigging voted for it! They lambast Bush about the defecit, yet both of them are members of the Congressional pension program. They are both for gun control, despite the fact that damn near every statistic in the book says that gun control either does nothing to crime rates, or actually increases it.

Do I want either of them? No.

Bflat5 wrote:

Do yourself and your country a favor. Ignore anything and everything a politician says. 99.997% of it is total BS! Instead look at their voting records. That will tell you exactly what kind of garbage they'll drag into the white house with them.
I liked what Ron Paul says -- mostly because it's direct, pertinent to the question, and consistent from debate-to-debate and audience-to-audience. The man means what he says, he literally uses the same words and phrases in every debate. Just listen to him say it, he says he's a "strict Constitutionalist" most every chance that he gets, and almost any time he's on a foreign policy issue, he'll say "don't police the world, no nation building." Seriously. Go check it out for yourself.

Hillary on the other hand, in a campaign speech in Iowa that she would keep certain troops in Iraq training the Iraqi police and safeguarding the essential spots. Meanwhile, her campaign simultaneously put out a press release saying, quote: "Today in Iowa, Hillary Clinton announced her plan to end the war in Iraq and urged President Bush to act immediately."

You raise a good point, though -- even Ron Paul, even if he is dead serious and dead honest about everything he says -- we shouldn't trust him. We should inherently distrust him, we should inherently distrust government. It is our duty as the governed to ensure that what we receive from our government is truth -- and only truth.

So why then, do I support Ron Paul? Because his votes line up with what he says. He rants about our putrid financial system, about how printing money from thin air is utterly stupid... and I have to agree. What has Ron Paul done about it? Well, he does not participate in the Congressional pension program, he returns a portion of his Congressional office budget to the US Treasury each year, and he has never taken a government-paid junket. Those are matters that directly affect him -- the fact that he takes his stances to heart enough to turn down at least forty thousand dollars a year means something to me. But that's not all, he has never voted for a tax increase or a bill requiring an "unbalanced" Federal budget (pork-barrel bill).

He has never voted for a federal restriction on guns, in fact -- he has stated that it's not unreasonable for ordinary people to be permitted to purchase automatic weapons. I like this fellow. smile

He voted against regulating the internet -- something that means something tremendous to me... because in my opinion, as long as the internet remains un-regulated, democracy will someday prevail over this faux-pas that we call a "republic."

Bflat5 wrote:

Barak Hussein Obama... I strongly urge anyone who is even toying with the idea of voting for him to do some real research on him, his family and his past. To put it lightly, it doesn't exactly align with his claims of Christianity and his love for this country.
This is irrelevant. Do some research yourself -- because his middle name is Hussein, and because he has a Muslim background is perhaps more reason TO elect him as President. We're clearly COMPLETELY out of touch with the Middle East, dismissing all of those who'd put a bomb on their chest and blow themselves up as "religious zealots." No, I'm sorry -- I think it might be because they're pissed that we're over there, and that we'd been over there for a good decade prior to 9/11 because Saudi Arabia permitted us to use their airspace and Osama bin Laden warned the Saudi government not to, because we (the US) would never leave.

How's that feel? Knowing bin Laden was right, and that we, the United States of America, carried out his prophetic warning? Again, though -- I digress.

I will never, ever make my vote based on how someone chooses to spend their Sunday mornings -- be it at church or in bed. Damn those people who do, in a nation of free religion.

Bflat5 wrote:

No one should ever, EVER vote against their own country. Every vote for Hillary and Obama is exactly that.
This is highly opinionated. I agree with Abraham Lincoln when he said, "I am a firm believer in the people. If given the truth, they can be depended upon to meet any national crises. The great point is to bring them the real facts." Now, I'll be honest -- it's pretty narcissistic of me, but I think people who support Hillary and Obama are... mostly un-informed of a lot of their past.

I really think most people would be voting for Ron Paul... but then, I don't think many people give him a chance. He's an "un-electable." He's a crazy.

After all, Hillary and Obama have already admitted Ron Paul was right long before either of them: He never voted for it.

Bflat5 wrote:

Our 2nd amendment is one of the most important we have. Why? Because it guarantees us that we have the right to defend ourselves against all enemies. It also protects our other bill of rights.

People like Joe Biden, Carolyn McCarthy, Nancy Pelosi, Clintons, Obama, Diane Feinstein, Barbara Boxer, etc. Want to see the 2nd amendment abolished.
Quote: "The day you hand your guns in, that means that the country's no good to live in anymore." - Nick Pilla, Restauranteur and Gun Owner in Great Britain.

What people don't see, and what will inevitably be the doom of this country is that... politicians can and will get their way if people let them. If politicians want to ban guns, they will. They'll never get an outright gun ban passed today. But an assault weapons ban? Well, that makes sense, right? Of course.

And then in ten years, when the people are good and softened up and have forgotten the fight for assault weapons, who'll need a shotgun, or a small pistol?

And then in ten more years, who'll need anything that's semi-automatic...?

Fifty years, and you've lost your guns. People wonder why people fight such "logical" laws like the Assault Weapons Ban or a National Gun Registry -- because once you give an inch, once those smarmy politicians get that wedge forcibly in, they will take a mile.

"Don't let the American legislators put the short end of the wedge in, because once they find a way of doing it, and once it's successful, they will do it time and time again." - A British Guy. biggrin

Bflat5 wrote:

Here's the problem, well besides telling us we no longer have the right to defend ourselves. They want to say the wording of the 2nd says "the people" refers to government and not us lowly little citizens. Ok, fine let's say that's true, it's not, but lets pretend it is. Our other bill of rights also refers to the freedoms of "the people". So when they are allowed to tell us the 2nd has to go, it won't be long for our other freedoms to die along with it. This whole freedom of speech thing irritates most politicians as it is, so the 1st amendment will be the next to go.
The First Amendment is already under fire: Ever heard of internet regulation? Perhaps the term "net neutrality" comes to mind?

I am a firm believer that the "old guard" of politicians are done. The internet truly is the great equalizer, quite like a gun. People are not stupid -- they are only as smart as the facts that they're aware of. If they're not given the whole story, well... they won't know the whole story.

The trouble is, it has always been difficult to get the facts. Voting isn't hard -- voting is easy. You go into a booth, scribble in a dot, and leave. Doing research on candidates? It's quite difficult, it is a task -- but it is becoming easier. It's very easy nowadays, especially with the internet, WikiPedia, Facebook, content on demand. It's incredible -- people don't see that we now truly have this medium through which we can communicate instantaneously to people on the other side of the planet? With text, audio and video, with the ability to share ALL of the information available online? People, that's... that's something that no one ever believed could ever come true. That's the stuff of fairy tales, and yet here we are -- debating politics through that almost clairvoyant medium.

Call me crazy, but I think the internet is (it sort of already has) single-handedly going to usher-in a change in humankind. For once, it will finally be easier to talk, to distribute information whose credibility can be checked in an instant. True democracy, I think, is at hand -- and politicians are terrified of that. Isn't it funny that we now have a debate on how the internet should be regulated? Look at Iran, they do not permit any internet faster than 128K ISDN. Look at China, the "Great Firewall of China" restricts any sites but state-approved ones. The experts in subjugation know what's best, and we have a bill that they would admire in our Congress?

And wouldn't you know it -- the candidates that the Internet support are Ron Paul... and Barack Obama. Hmm.

Bflat5 wrote:

If America was attacked tonight we won't have enough police or military to defend our people or country. What we do have here would be too busy protecting themselves, their families and the politicians, who by the way will be locked securely away in an underground bunker. The people of this country will be on their own... Who will protect you and your family?
My AR-15. twisted

Last edited Fri, 4th Apr 2008, 12:38pm; edited 1 times in total.

Posted: Thu, 7th Feb 2008, 9:45am

Post 14 of 155

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

Rating: +3

Bflat5 wrote:

I find it sad and a little disgusting anyone would even consider Hillary or Obama.
Don't you think 'disgusting' is rather too strong a word?

But the kind of change Hillary and Obama have in mind is the destruction of America as we know it.
Slightly emotive language being used here. smile You should be a politician! Or maybe a tabloid writer. (is there a difference?)

Do you mean the 'dream' of America, or the current state of America, or previous glory days? Everyone seems to have a different sense of what America should be. If you mean America as it is now, with a couple of messed up wars, a ragged foreign policy and a faltering economy, then surely restructuring it would be a good plan?

I know there's inevitably going to be a lot of "you're not American, you don't understand/have the right to say anything" in this topic, as always. However, I grew up loving America, and especially the 'idea' of America. Personally I'd love to see it return to that position, of the shining beacon on the hill, that inspires forward progress. I think sometimes it's forgotten that the negative feeling towards America in other countries is a very recent thing - it didn't used to be that way.

Do yourself and your country a favor.
No one should ever, EVER vote against their own country.
I find your wording here rather suspect. So you're saying that anyone that disagrees with your opinion of what America should be is actually unpatriotic and a traitor-of-sorts? Don't you think that's a bit narrow-minded? Surely what makes America great is its diversity of people and opinion?

This kind of "my way or you're not a true American" thinking seems rather against the very ethos of America, to me.

Again, if you're the type of person that makes a decision of who to vote for based on what the extremely biased liberal media tells you or a punchline on Jay Leno, spend a little time on some government web sites.
Yes, because government websites aren't going to have any bias or spin at all! razz

I agree with your sentiment that it's vital to read/watch as wide a variety of media as possible, but that's because they're all biased. You can't accuse the liberal media of being biased, then imply that the non-liberals are bastions of the truth. Everyone has agendas, so you need to get as much of a cross-section of opinions and 'facts' as possible - as somewhere in-between will be the truth.

If they uphold the lower courts decision that it's unconstitutional, then America is ok for while, until some other commie comes in and wants to challenge that.
Oh dear.

This whole freedom of speech thing irritates most politicians as it is, so the 1st amendment will be the next to go.
You do realise that a lot of what you've said in your post also goes directly against the concept of freedom of speech? Saying that certain opinions are directly 'against America', or that's it's 'disgusting' to want to vote in a particular way?

As your post has illustrated, for most people (including politicians) freedom of speech is great, until someone disagrees with them. smile

Another problem and this one is huge. America isn't exactly the gleam in the worlds eye. We're constant targets.
There are reasons for that, though. They don't justify atrocities, of course, but you're not just arbitrary targets. There is a reasoning there, albeit a skewed one.

We now know that's completely false and everyone should know by know that when the crap hits the fan we're on our own.
Er...you mean other than all your allies? You know, the ones that are fighting and dying alongside your own soldiers. Other than them, right?

Have you forgotten how pretty much the entire world rallied around America after 9/11? Bush's subsequent handling of the situation caused lots of disagreement, of course, but the American people (ie, not the government, but the people) have always had support. That's why we love your food, your TV programmes, your movies. It's why we love interacting on the FXhome.com forums, which are 90% populated by Americans.

I think it's really important to separate the population of a country from their government, as they don't always tally up and go in the same directions.

It's not a matter if it happens again, it's a matter when, where and how... It will happen again!
Quick, everyone get really scared! Vote with your fear instead of your brains!

If America was attacked tonight we won't have enough police or military to defend our people or country.
Do you actually think a country would invade America? That's the silliest thing I've read for ages. You're at risk from isolated terrorist incidents, sure - we all are. Here in the UK we've suffered from terrorist activities for centuries. That kind of thing is always difficult to protect against without destroying civil liberties.

In terms of actual warfare between countries, though, America is fairly impregnable.

There's roughly 100 million legal, law abiding gun owners in this country today. When the crap does hit the fan, the gun owners will be fighting for the freedom of this country once again, not the politicians...
You seem to be living in a bit of a military fantasy world. Any military attack on America wouldn't be on the scale that individuals with rifles could do anything about.

That's what the 2nd amendment is all about. When it's gone, we're all screwed.
Yeah. I mean, look how many times countries without the right to bear to arms have been invaded. England, for example. No legal right to carry guns, and we're invaded constantly. Oh, wait...no, we're not. And America is vastly more powerful and secure than we are, with or without the 2nd amendment.

What does that have to do with the elections? They're mostly all gun grabbers and offenders of our constitution.
You mean "They're mostly all people that disagree with my opinion, and should therefore be silenced", right?

a pickle wrote:

Call me crazy, but I think the internet is (it sort of already has) single-handedly going to usher-in a change in humankind. For once, it will finally be easier to talk, to distribute information whose credibility can be checked in an instant. True democracy, I think, is at hand -- and politicians are terrified of that.
Agreed, I think you're spot-on here. It's only just begun, of course, but the Internet is and will continue to change just about everything.

For one, it is starting to erode the concept of geographical, political and social borders. It helps to highlight the fact that this is one single lump of rock floating through space, covered in living creatures, and that any boundaries are entirely made-up.

The sooner people realise that, the sooner we might have some better understanding of each other, and less isolationist and absurdly prejudiced views of 'the other'.

Last edited Thu, 7th Feb 2008, 10:16am; edited 3 times in total.

Posted: Thu, 7th Feb 2008, 9:49am

Post 15 of 155

Bflat5

Force: 1788 | Joined: 30th May 2007 | Posts: 206

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 User Windows User

Gold Member

Better start stocking up on .223 ammo then. biggrin

We agree for the most part. I was not clear or specific on some of it simply because I didn't want to go into too deeply here. This is one of those discussions that can get ugly quick. Just trying avoid that is all.
Posted: Thu, 7th Feb 2008, 10:19am

Post 16 of 155

Xcession

Force: 42802 | Joined: 21st Mar 2001 | Posts: 1964

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 3 Pro User Windows User

SuperUser

http://www.whoshouldyouvotefor.com

A somewhat inaccurate, but revealing website. Apparently i should vote for Mike Gravel. I've no idea what this means though, as i'm not a particularly political person.
Posted: Thu, 7th Feb 2008, 10:43am

Post 17 of 155

A Pickle

Force: 1235 | Joined: 7th Sep 2004 | Posts: 1280

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Tarn wrote:

I think it's really important to separate the population of a country from their government, as they don't always tally up and go in the same directions.
And in this day and age, where I can communicate and agree with someone across the pond in a matter of minutes -- there is no excuse for what you said above to be taking place. Back when there was a lag in communication, a lag in idea-moving, a Republic was an obvious and necessary government type. Mob rule simply wouldn't work, everyone would be on different pages like that.

But today, we aren't limited by that. Today more than ever -- and I really think that true Democracy is at hand. It isn't terribly inconvenient to be versed in the politics of the day, it's very easy, especially with sites like Wikipedia and Google News.

Democracy is people-driven, but so is the web. Look at Google -- when you search for a term on Google, it doesn't look for the page that contains the most instances of that word like the old search engines do (Lycos, HotBot, ohh, those days biggrin), it looks at what OTHER PEOPLE interested in that term have visited. And pretty soon, people unknowingly create the most relevant information. And there are those rare people out there who will see a need, and fulfill it. Just look at Microsoft's Customer Experience Improvement Program, Wikipedia, Facebook, YouTube, the Open-Source Community.

This isn't just technology -- it's a paradigm shift in all of mankind. And King Ahmadinejad may delude himself into thinking he can prohibit internet from the people of Iran... but 128K ISDN is enough to send a message. He will be in for a rude awakening soon, I think, as will others who share his interests. I don't think there's a chance in hell that in 100 years, there will be any country without internet.

The people-driven internet will drive the world to the people-driven form of government called Democracy. And First Contact thought it would be when the Vulcans came down to Earth. Guffaw. biggrin

Tarn wrote:

In terms of actual warfare between countries, though, America is fairly impregnable.
And I think this is largely becoming aware to us. I think just about any western civilized nation in NATO could effectively decimate any attempt to invade their country by means of a standing army.

I mean... uh... AC-130's. Come on. biggrin

It is worth noting however, that the guerilla tactics of our current foe in the Middle East are making it difficult for... our standing army... to invade them. Even though I am a member of the armed forces here in America, I think that's largely a good thing -- the more trouble ANY country has invading anyone else, the better. It'll dissuade people from doing that in the future, if they know it'll just become a quagmire.

But yeah, invasion is a little ridiculous. I think Abraham Lincoln most accurately predicted the doom of America, when he said, "America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves."

Tarn wrote:

You seem to be living in a bit of a military fantasy world. Any military attack on America wouldn't be on the scale that individuals with rifles could do anything about.
I would disagree -- nor would I discount his post. No country is impregnable, what is today may not be tomorrow. To make a theory that invasions, war, and revolution won't happen in a nation as powerful as America has been disproven by many, many nations in the past.

Boots on the ground are the only way to occupy and subjugate any people -- and boots on the ground are vulnerable to gun owners popping out of windows. This is one of the reasons why I don't think gun control is a good thing, perhaps even in light of a safer society. A disarmed society is not free -- and it is foolish and amazingly naive to believe that the day where people will once again need to take arms against a rogue government will never come.

It sounds like the thoughts that only the "crazies" would worry about. It sounds like the "extremist" point of view. But Bflat5 said it quite correctly, that it may not be today, and it may not be tomorrow. But the question of the day we need to take arms and rebel is not if, but when.
Posted: Thu, 7th Feb 2008, 10:58am

Post 18 of 155

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

Yeah, I agree with you generally, Pickle.

The key difference, though, is that you acknowledge the need for guns primarily for defence against your OWN government - should it 'go to the dark side'. Whereas bflat5 was focusing more on the perceived external threat.

Keeping an eye on your own government (in any country) is vital. Lots of the world's problems are caused when people don't question their governments enough, or when the government has got such a good grip on propaganda that the people don't realise what's going on.

This feeds back to your thoughts on the Internet - which is making it more and more difficult for governments to keep a stranglehold on information. Unfortunately there will always be politicans (and a worrying number of stupid civilians) who support the idea of censorship and information restriction.

I'd also say that focusing to much on the enemy being 'outside', or foreign, or different, often leads to the enemy within going unnoticed.

Just look at Senator Palpatine! razz
Posted: Thu, 7th Feb 2008, 11:22am

Post 19 of 155

A Pickle

Force: 1235 | Joined: 7th Sep 2004 | Posts: 1280

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Tarn wrote:

Just look at Senator Palpatine!
As funny as that is, all I can think of is the PATRIOT Act and the Military Commissions Act...
Posted: Thu, 7th Feb 2008, 11:27am

Post 20 of 155

Bflat5

Force: 1788 | Joined: 30th May 2007 | Posts: 206

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 User Windows User

Gold Member

Tarn wrote:

Yeah, I agree with you generally, Pickle.

The key difference, though, is that you acknowledge the need for guns primarily for defence against your OWN government - should it 'go to the dark side'. Whereas bflat5 was focusing more on the perceived external threat.
Ummm... No, not really what I was going for there. There's a constant attack on the American people by the US government. Every time a criminal does something stupid, and it doesn't matter what it is, new laws are put into place restricting the tax payers, not the criminals. From guns to the internet the law abiding tax payers are the ones that takes the hit.

My comments about an attack and not having the military or police support to defend the people comes primarily from news stories and articles I've read recently. I should have been a little more long winded and explained myself better there.

Tarn wrote:


Keeping an eye on your own government (in any country) is vital. Lots of the world's problems are caused when people don't question their governments enough, or when the government has got such a good grip on propaganda that the people don't realise what's going on.
Could not agree more...

Tarn wrote:


This feeds back to your thoughts on the Internet - which is making it more and more difficult for governments to keep a stranglehold on information. Unfortunately there will always be politicans (and a worrying number of stupid civilians) who support the idea of censorship and information restriction.
Once again, couldn't agree more. smile

Tarn wrote:


I'd also say that focusing to much on the enemy being 'outside', or foreign, or different, often leads to the enemy within going unnoticed.
I agree again. The best way to defeat your enemy is from within. Infiltrate and dominate.

Tarn wrote:


Just look at Senator Palpatine! razz
Are you suggesting we toss all the bad politicians down an energy well? biggrin
Posted: Thu, 7th Feb 2008, 11:28am

Post 21 of 155

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

A Pickle wrote:

Tarn wrote:

Just look at Senator Palpatine!
As funny as that is, all I can think of is the PATRIOT Act and the Military Commissions Act...
As silly and populist as Star Wars is, and despite its seriously wobbly dialogue, episodes 1-3 do have a pretty good Beginner's Guide To Totalitarianism. Showing kids that dictators can gain power not through military might but through the glowing, democratic support of the masses is quite an important message, really, and feeds back into what we were saying about how questioning your own government is essential.

The biggest crime the Bush administration made is making people think that criticising the government is unpatriotic, and un-American. America (and any country) is about more than just the government. The government should serve the country, not the other way around.
Posted: Thu, 7th Feb 2008, 7:05pm

Post 22 of 155

Pooky

Force: 4834 | Joined: 8th Jul 2003 | Posts: 5913

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User MacOS User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/07/romney.campaign/index.html

Well, there you go, McCain is the republican candidate.

Tarn wrote:

The government should serve the country, not the other way around.
"People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people." -V smile
Posted: Thu, 7th Feb 2008, 7:09pm

Post 23 of 155

NuttyBanana

Force: 730 | Joined: 23rd Nov 2004 | Posts: 711

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

I have no idea what you lot are talking about but who on earth made up the name "Super Tuesday". That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard.
Posted: Thu, 7th Feb 2008, 7:38pm

Post 24 of 155

A Pickle

Force: 1235 | Joined: 7th Sep 2004 | Posts: 1280

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Tarn wrote:

The biggest crime the Bush administration made is making people think that criticising the government is unpatriotic, and un-American.
Agreed. The very principle of America was freedom, America was created by criticizing, questioning, and rebelling against the parent government. Thomas Jefferson once said, "God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion."

And Bush has it that questioning the government is un-patriotic and un-American? Blind patriotism is nothing to be proud of, and to be American is to question the government! That's how America started! I'm a firm believer that, even if your government is truly trustworthy -- it is the duty of the people to distrust the government and continually check it and inspect it.

Keith Olbermann on Bush signing the Military Commissions Act -- a good video pertinent to your statement.

"We have lived as if in a trance. We have lived... as people in fear.

And now — our rights and our freedoms in peril — we slowly awake to learn that we have been afraid... of the wrong thing.

Therefore, tonight, have we truly become, the inheritors of our American legacy. For, on this first full day that the Military Commissions Act is in force, we now face what our ancestors faced, at other times of exaggerated crisis and melodramatic fear-mongering:

A government more dangerous to our liberties than is the enemy it claims to protect us from."
Posted: Thu, 7th Feb 2008, 8:39pm

Post 25 of 155

Serpent

Force: 5426 | Joined: 26th Dec 2003 | Posts: 6515

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Pro User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

*claps* Tarn, that was a great read. Excellent series of posts right there, fantastic.

I'm voting in my primary next week, my first experience with voting, yay!
Posted: Thu, 7th Feb 2008, 8:52pm

Post 26 of 155

Fill

Force: 1257 | Joined: 1st Jul 2005 | Posts: 1652

CompositeLab Lite User EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

Yeah, Tarn. I completely agree with you. Great posting.

A Pickle wrote:

Call me crazy, but I think the internet is (it sort of already has) single-handedly going to usher-in a change in humankind. For once, it will finally be easier to talk, to distribute information whose credibility can be checked in an instant. True democracy, I think, is at hand -- and politicians are terrified of that.
No, you're not crazy. I recently read an article in News Max on Ron Paul's success over the internet. How Facebook's polls showed him as the top candidate. Now think, the internet is made up by mostly younger people, and they're screaming for change. They've voiced their opinion on the internet, and it turns out they want someone like Ron Paul for president. That puts a good feeling in my heart for the future of America.

EDIT: Alright, my 18th birthday is one day before election day. Does anyone know how I can get myself into the voting booths? I know there's some paper work that's required, but I don't know if I can get to surely vote in time this year.
Posted: Thu, 7th Feb 2008, 9:00pm

Post 27 of 155

A Pickle

Force: 1235 | Joined: 7th Sep 2004 | Posts: 1280

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Fill wrote:

No, you're not crazy. I recently read an article in News Max on Ron Paul's success over the internet. How Facebook's polls showed him as the top candidate. Now think, the internet is made up by mostly younger people, and they're screaming for change.
Isn't it funny how the demographic with the fastest access to the largest repository of the most up-to-date and credible information has chosen Ron Paul or Obama?
Posted: Thu, 7th Feb 2008, 9:18pm

Post 28 of 155

Bryce007

Force: 1910 | Joined: 5th Apr 2003 | Posts: 2609

VideoWrap User Windows User

Gold Member

Well, let me put it this way: The only candidate I wanted to win was Ron Paul. And he still is.


Magically, he did terrible in the polls.

Is this election rigged? Probably.


The point is, at this point, you have to pick the least of the many evils.

Romney just dropped out, McCain is a war-mongering curmudgeon, Hillary is a liar/fembot, Obama has an incredibly sordid family history, and Huckabee is probably going to drop out.


Basically, Obama is the least harmful frontrunner (as it seems)
Posted: Thu, 7th Feb 2008, 10:41pm

Post 29 of 155

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

I don't like Obama and I doubt I ever will. He sees things as broken completely in this country and I just don't agree. He wants change, sure. I want change too. I'm a democrat. But it doesn't just spring up out of nowhere and you can't run expecting to get rid of 100 years of establishment and start your own better thing.

History teaches us that just doesn't work. Well, unless you're America or Napoleon. smile

I won't go into Semantics, but if it came down to Hillary or McCain I'd have a hard ticket on my hands to vote. Sure, Hillary is stern. Most good leaders are. McCain is stern. But both to me have interesting and varying views that align with both parties; Clinton's experience and some rightism and McCain's experience and a handful of leftism.

Either candidate, I'm sure I'd be happy. At this point, however, I couldn't support Barack Obama. "Pretentious" is the first word that comes to my mind while most think something along the lines of "Kennedy". Well, I'll tell you Kennedy is possibly my favorite President (FDR and possibly Bill Clinton in the top also) and all of my favorite qualities about him are devoid in Obama.

I don't have a problem with him being black, I don't have a problem with his name or lineage. I simply don't like him. He seems like he has an agenda. A "gimmick" is what I see.

Oh, if only Joe Biden was still in this thing. Hopes on the Huckmonster, now.
Posted: Thu, 7th Feb 2008, 10:41pm

Post 30 of 155

ssj john

Force: 563 | Joined: 4th Nov 2003 | Posts: 795

Windows User MacOS User

Member

DirectorBryce wrote:

Well, let me put it this way: The only candidate I wanted to win was Ron Paul. And he still is.


Magically, he did terrible in the polls.

Is this election rigged? Probably.


The point is, at this point, you have to pick the least of the many evils.

Romney just dropped out, McCain is a war-mongering curmudgeon, Hillary is a liar/fembot, Obama has an incredibly sordid family history, and Huckabee is probably going to drop out.


Basically, Obama is the least harmful frontrunner (as it seems)
Sadly that is too true....I'm really disappointed that Romney dropped out. I will be pissed if Mccain picks Huckabee as his Vice. Thats true conspiracy! I didn't want Ron Paul to be president because I just don't think he is focused on the right issues but at this point I would pick him over Mccain or clinton or obama. The U.S is in for another 4 crappy years.
Posted: Thu, 7th Feb 2008, 11:45pm

Post 31 of 155

Pooky

Force: 4834 | Joined: 8th Jul 2003 | Posts: 5913

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User MacOS User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

My prediction: Clinton will narrowly beat Obama despite him having more elected delegates due to her undemocratic superdelegate advantage, and then face off against a McCain/Huckabee alliance and lose due to this duo's ability to attract Bush voters as well as her unlikeability.

As coined by some guy I forget on TV recently, McCain makes Cheney look like Ghandi... this is going to be nasty.
Posted: Fri, 8th Feb 2008, 12:13am

Post 32 of 155

Evman

Force: 4382 | Joined: 25th Jan 2004 | Posts: 3609

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Pooky wrote:



As coined by some guy I forget on TV recently, McCain makes Cheney look like Ghandi... this is going to be nasty.
That's... wow.

Man can't cut a break despite not being able to lift his arms above his head. That's dedication to America that one can look up to. I'm not sure exactly what you've got against McCain or where you're getting your information, but that's just... ugh... This is precisely and example of why young people don't understand sacrifice these days.

He knows what's at stake and he wouldn't put troops in his previous situation. Comparing him to Cheney who wouldn't know the first THING about sacrifice is frankly sickening.
Posted: Fri, 8th Feb 2008, 12:53am

Post 33 of 155

Bryce007

Force: 1910 | Joined: 5th Apr 2003 | Posts: 2609

VideoWrap User Windows User

Gold Member

It's basically irrelevant what either of them know. What the truth is, is that you shouldn't/don't have to give up your freedoms to maintain your freedoms. (Circular thinking) Thus, Sacrifice has nothing to do with it really. They both still push the same agenda.

If McCain and Liberman run together, Say hello to the next draft.
Posted: Fri, 8th Feb 2008, 1:36am

Post 34 of 155

Pooky

Force: 4834 | Joined: 8th Jul 2003 | Posts: 5913

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User MacOS User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

Yeah I agree with Bryce. It's a far more extreme example, but I bet Hitler showed a lot of dedication for his country... it doesn't really mean anything. McCain's agenda is not one of freedom, and moreso than Bush.
Posted: Fri, 8th Feb 2008, 2:14am

Post 35 of 155

Serpent

Force: 5426 | Joined: 26th Dec 2003 | Posts: 6515

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Pro User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Fill wrote:

EDIT: Alright, my 18th birthday is one day before election day. Does anyone know how I can get myself into the voting booths? I know there's some paper work that's required, but I don't know if I can get to surely vote in time this year.
You can register to vote now. At least, you can in Virginia. You basically register to vote at 17, saying you will be 18 by election day.

EDIT:

ssj john wrote:

I didn't want Ron Paul to be president because I just don't think he is focused on the right issues
He is really focusing on the economy, which right now I think is the one of the most important things about this election. Our economy is going straight to hell right now, and Ron Paul is the most brilliant candidate on this issue, in my eyes. I just am not sure it matters what he's focusing on, the man has a straight forward answer for everything. It should be easy for those who agree with most of his ideas to support him. My thoughts on the matter.

Honestly, I like McCaine's fair tax, not so much the war thing. If it's McCaine vs. Clinton, I might vote Clinton. I don't agree with her, but if draft was ever brought about again, I would honestly leave the country to one with no extradition laws with the United States, and I don't want to be forced to do that. That is the most important thing to me in this election, right next to economic policy, and personal freedoms. Ron Paul is my ideal candidate, but I'll be voting for Obama in the primary.
Posted: Fri, 8th Feb 2008, 6:44am

Post 36 of 155

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Evman wrote:

Pooky wrote:



As coined by some guy I forget on TV recently, McCain makes Cheney look like Ghandi... this is going to be nasty.
That's... wow.

Man can't cut a break despite not being able to lift his arms above his head. That's dedication to America that one can look up to. I'm not sure exactly what you've got against McCain or where you're getting your information, but that's just... ugh... This is precisely and example of why young people don't understand sacrifice these days.

He knows what's at stake and he wouldn't put troops in his previous situation. Comparing him to Cheney who wouldn't know the first THING about sacrifice is frankly sickening.
Damn spot-on. It's sickening to also see someone with such flagrant disregard for such sacrifice. And it's not even something he plays up at all.

McCain might've strongly supported the war in Iraq, but he's also unwillingly devoted 5 years of his life to torture and imprisonment simply for the cause of his country. That's dedication that even MacArthur would bow to as pacifistic. McCain is hardly a warmonger, if anything he understands when, why, how, and how necessary conflict is. He entered an unthankable war himself and even as a anti-war Democrat I greatly respect him for that. I would vote for him because he seems sensible about war. Sure he sees our situation in Iraq a certain way, but going through the perils himself and having decades of view-changing McCain seems like the most logical man to find a workable solution to complete/and/or get us out of Iraq. President or not. After what he's endured I'd very hardly believe he'd institute such a draft unless it was completely necessary. And when we get to that point, if ever, we're all going to have bigger problems to deal with and I won't mind, liberal pacifist and all, taking arms for my country if it comes down to it.

He's not narrow-minded and works often with Democrats. He's good friends with Hillary Clinton, even! And with someone universally open if not necessarily accepting of most major philosophies in American government- count me in for his vote.

And now I owe Evman 5 bucks from a 2004 election bet. smile
Posted: Fri, 8th Feb 2008, 7:19am

Post 37 of 155

Hendo

Force: 13107 | Joined: 16th Sep 2004 | Posts: 848

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

FXhome Team Member

I hope Obama and Ron Paul get the nominations.

I'm a lefty -- or as Bflat5 might put it, a "commie" wink -- and until I'd heard of Ron Paul I was a pure Obama man. But Paul's libertarian, federalist, non-intervention and constitutional message is very appealing to me. Maybe it's just cos I love hearing him telling off the other Republican candidates about the Iraq war. smile

Paul seems to discuss and address issues that nobody else wants to, like monetary policy, whether the US should actually intervene in foreign affairs, and the idea of unintended consequences, or blowback, when it has done so. Incidentally, Charlie Wilson's War provides a good example of that.

I think both Obama and Paul showed good judgement in opposing the Iraq war before it had begun, when the Administration (and some media) was ramping up its propaganda and most politicians jumped on board.

It's unfortunate that the US President has so much influence over the rest of the world, but it's for this reason that I so much hope that either Obama or Paul becomes the next one.
Posted: Mon, 11th Feb 2008, 3:58pm

Post 38 of 155

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

A quick note to people looking for the 'Presidential Election' topic, which I just deleted: please keep this discussion in one place. There was no reason to start a new topic - as the original poster seemed to be aware. Don't do it again. smile
Posted: Mon, 11th Feb 2008, 7:05pm

Post 39 of 155

Frosty G

Force: 540 | Joined: 28th May 2005 | Posts: 640

EffectsLab Pro User Windows User

Gold Member

Ahh, all my posts were in the other thread including my big opinion on McCain and the race. Can you like ressurect it so I can copy paste it here.
Posted: Mon, 11th Feb 2008, 7:33pm

Post 40 of 155

Coureur de Bois

Force: 1394 | Joined: 23rd Sep 2002 | Posts: 1127

VideoWrap User Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

Frosty G wrote:

Ahh, all my posts were in the other thread including my big opinion on McCain and the race. Can you like ressurect it so I can copy paste it here.
Tarn's pretty powerful, but I think it's asking a lot of him to just TURN BACK TIME.
Posted: Mon, 11th Feb 2008, 8:00pm

Post 41 of 155

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

I'm afraid the posts are gone, sorry about that. That'll learn you for posting in a topic that shouldn't have been there in the first place. wink
Posted: Mon, 11th Feb 2008, 9:25pm

Post 42 of 155

Rawree

Force: 3250 | Joined: 27th Jun 2002 | Posts: 1925

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

Rating: +1

Pooky wrote:

I bet Hitler showed a lot of dedication for his country
Firstly
Secondly he was Austrian so it's not really his country wink.

I notice how a lot of people tout this capture and torture business involving McCain as a positive quality for a wartime president but in all honesty it would make me slightly uncomfortable about him. Sure knowing the ins and outs of war can be a benefit but having that kind of connection may make his views substantially different and skewed compared to the average American (if such a thing exists) and at the end of the day it's the views of average Americans that he's meant to represent isn't it?
Posted: Tue, 12th Feb 2008, 6:16am

Post 43 of 155

Coureur de Bois

Force: 1394 | Joined: 23rd Sep 2002 | Posts: 1127

VideoWrap User Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

Rawree wrote:

... and at the end of the day it's the views of average Americans that he's meant to represent isn't it?
Not just the "average" American my friend, but every American.
Posted: Tue, 12th Feb 2008, 8:56am

Post 44 of 155

A Pickle

Force: 1235 | Joined: 7th Sep 2004 | Posts: 1280

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Gorion wrote:

Rawree wrote:

... and at the end of the day it's the views of average Americans that he's meant to represent isn't it?
Not just the "average" American my friend, but every American.
That's not true. If it were, we wouldn't have elections -- and Obama wouldn't stand a chance.
Posted: Tue, 12th Feb 2008, 1:02pm

Post 45 of 155

Frosty G

Force: 540 | Joined: 28th May 2005 | Posts: 640

EffectsLab Pro User Windows User

Gold Member

Pooky wrote:

As coined by some guy I forget on TV recently, McCain makes Cheney look like Ghandi... this is going to be nasty.
I just read that and laugh because it was Pooky who was telling everyone to get to know the candidates in the other election thread. Excusing whoever you were watching and yourself, I don't think there are many people in the country who agree with those views. McCain is generally a liked guy by most people, especially moderate liberals/independants/moderate republicans.

Infact, its his moderate appeal that gives him his biggest advantage.

DirectorBryce wrote:

If McCain and Liberman run together, Say hello to the next draft.
I always find it funny when people mention the draft. A few years ago someone got everyone at my school excited because legislation was going through Congress to reinstitute the draft. It will not happen anytime soon if ever again. Congress would not vote for it and I gurantee McCain won't institute it.

It's as if I assumed if a democrat won the election America would pull back all its troops from throughout the world and only act with the absolute approval of our allies. It just won't happen.
Posted: Tue, 12th Feb 2008, 3:24pm

Post 46 of 155

Arktic

Force: 9977 | Joined: 10th Nov 2003 | Posts: 2785

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

I always find it funny when people mention the draft. A few years ago someone got everyone at my school excited because legislation was going through Congress to reinstitute the draft. It will not happen anytime soon if ever again. Congress would not vote for it and I gurantee McCain won't institute it.
There's another bill for conscription that was introduced last year which is (as far as I know) still under review.

And you've got to ask yourself, if your country really had no plans to bring back 'the draft', why does your government require that every man register with the "Selective Service Agency" soon after their 18th birthday? Why have a plan for re-introducing conscription if you're never going to do it?

Cheers,
Arktic.
Posted: Tue, 12th Feb 2008, 9:38pm

Post 47 of 155

Rawree

Force: 3250 | Joined: 27th Jun 2002 | Posts: 1925

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

I can't see introducing a draft as being beneficial to someone who wants to perpetuate the war in Iraq. It's very easy for people to allow their standing army to go to war, after all that's what they're for, but as soon as you begin to try and send the general population to fight and there's a risk that those same people may be called up it becomes much more personal and I'm sure even some of those in favour of the war would rather see America pull out than enter into the conflict themselves. I hate to draw the tired old Vietnam comparison but...just look at Vietnam.
Posted: Tue, 12th Feb 2008, 9:45pm

Post 48 of 155

Evman

Force: 4382 | Joined: 25th Jan 2004 | Posts: 3609

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Exactly Rawree. This is why I always tell people that there probably won't ever be a draft unless theres a WW3 (which would be nuclear anyway) a war as "small" as Iraq wouldn't be worth the risk of law makers creating another Vietnam. They learned their lesson with that war, and of course they'll face the exact same opposition if the draft is brought back up.

Of course this is very near and dear to my heart - being 18, I just recently registered with the selective service agency... I don't understand why I needed to do it... if the gov't knows enough to punish me if I don't sign up, they know that I'm an 18 year old male and should simply sign me up automatically. If it's mandatory why should I have to do it if they already have my info?
Posted: Tue, 12th Feb 2008, 11:30pm

Post 49 of 155

Frosty G

Force: 540 | Joined: 28th May 2005 | Posts: 640

EffectsLab Pro User Windows User

Gold Member

Yes, unless WW3 happens and a large number of big "maybes" happen in a row than just "maybe" the draft will be reinstituted. But really if something big happens to require a draft and it really affects America, there will be enough people enlisting that it won't be necessary.(and the theme

If you are using the fear of draft or the idea that McCain is going to reinstitute the draft, than I am going to pass on Pooky's advice. Read up on the candidates. Because you really must have no idea what their positions are. OR you are just in a constant state of paranoia.
Posted: Tue, 12th Feb 2008, 11:46pm

Post 50 of 155

Arktic

Force: 9977 | Joined: 10th Nov 2003 | Posts: 2785

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

OR you are just in a constant state of paranoia.
Ironic - I would suggest that it is YOUR country that is in a state of paranoia, what with having a system for conscripting people 'should the need arise'.... wink

Anyhow, I do know what the candidates and their positions are, I was just commenting on the possible re-introduction of the draft. Which is perfectly plausible; as I say, you don't have the SSS for nothing - if it's never intended to be used, it's a huge waste of tax dollars in unnecessary admin, if nothing else.

But that is indeed a sidetrack to this discussion. My vote (were I eligible to) would indeed lie with Obama for other reasons than conscription.

Cheers,
Arktic.
Posted: Tue, 12th Feb 2008, 11:57pm

Post 51 of 155

Frosty G

Force: 540 | Joined: 28th May 2005 | Posts: 640

EffectsLab Pro User Windows User

Gold Member

I'm just saying the reintroduction of the draft is a piece of legislation that has been floating around Washington for at least the past 10 years. Its nothing.
Posted: Wed, 13th Feb 2008, 2:09am

Post 52 of 155

Serpent

Force: 5426 | Joined: 26th Dec 2003 | Posts: 6515

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Pro User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

I've voted in my first election today, I'm glad it was for something big like this. I voted for Obama, and he dominated our primary.
Posted: Wed, 13th Feb 2008, 2:13am

Post 53 of 155

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

I hope you've picked out a nice metal limb, Serpent. You'll need it. wink
Posted: Wed, 13th Feb 2008, 2:25am

Post 54 of 155

Serpent

Force: 5426 | Joined: 26th Dec 2003 | Posts: 6515

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Pro User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Atom wrote:

I hope you've picked out a nice metal limb, Serpent. You'll need it. wink
I didn't vote for McCain.


wink
Posted: Wed, 13th Feb 2008, 3:28am

Post 55 of 155

A Pickle

Force: 1235 | Joined: 7th Sep 2004 | Posts: 1280

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Arktic wrote:

Ironic - I would suggest that it is YOUR country that is in a state of paranoia, what with having a system for conscripting people 'should the need arise'wink
I would hope that 9/11 would remind us of the need for being prepared for war.
Posted: Wed, 13th Feb 2008, 3:41am

Post 56 of 155

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

I realize I'm even talking to the moderators here, but let's keep heavy nationalism out of this. It's not right to talk about other countries like you know everything. It isn't appropriate to act like you know yours much better than the next guy either.

The draft is a curious thing that I was worried about. But my grandfather fought in WW2 and survived and I know I'd probably be willing to do the same given horrible, horrible circumstances. In the same way, I haven't registered yet, but I'm not worried. The way I think about it: My dad probably did the same thing back in the 70s and he never was drafted.

What are the chances I will be? And even then, will it be for a reason I don't agree with? (Vietnam comes to mind, but we've certainly and irrefutably changed since those days.)

But most of all: it isn't that big of a deal. I think I speak for many other American males over age 18 when I say I'd rather not have non-Americans who aren't registered like we are to comment and have such criticism for it. I may not completely agree with it, but I'm in it whether I like it or not. And I understand the reasoning why. I don't care to hear others not in the same situation mocking my country about something that doesn't affect them and, more importantly, does affect me.

This may be somewhat contradictory to my first statement. And if so, sorry for the bouncing of opinion.
Posted: Wed, 13th Feb 2008, 3:46am

Post 57 of 155

Coureur de Bois

Force: 1394 | Joined: 23rd Sep 2002 | Posts: 1127

VideoWrap User Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

Atom wrote:

I realize I'm even talking to the moderators here, but let's keep heavy nationalism out of this. It's not right to talk about other countries like you know everything. It isn't appropriate to act like you know yours much better than the next guy either.

The draft is a curious thing that I was worried about. But my grandfather fought in WW2 and survived and I know I'd probably be willing to do the same given horrible, horrible circumstances. In the same way, I haven't registered yet, but I'm not worried. The way I think about it: My dad probably did the same thing back in the 70s and he never was drafted.

What are the chances I will be? And even then, will it be for a reason I don't agree with? (Vietnam comes to mind, but we've certainly and irrefutably changed since those days.)

But most of all: it isn't that big of a deal. I think I speak for many other American males over age 18 when I say I'd rather not have non-Americans who aren't registered like we are to comment and have such criticism for it. I may not completely agree with it, but I'm in it whether I like it or not. And I understand the reasoning why. I don't care to hear others not in the same situation mocking my country about something that doesn't affect them and, more importantly, does affect me.

This may be somewhat contradictory to my first statement. And if so, sorry for the bouncing of opinion.
Does Not Compute. My head asplode.
Posted: Wed, 13th Feb 2008, 3:48am

Post 58 of 155

Evman

Force: 4382 | Joined: 25th Jan 2004 | Posts: 3609

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Atom wrote:

In the same way, I haven't registered yet, but I'm not worried. The way I think about it: My dad probably did the same thing back in the 70s and he never was drafted.
You do know that you aren't allowed to vote if you haven't registered, right? And they'll also "get" you in other ways.

I agree with you though. It's a little annoying being in a "draftable" situation and having people free of that worry mocking it. I'm sure its easy to poke fun if you're nice and safe. razz
Posted: Wed, 13th Feb 2008, 4:08am

Post 59 of 155

ben3308

Force: 5210 | Joined: 24th May 2004 | Posts: 6433

VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Evman wrote:

You do know that you aren't allowed to vote if you haven't registered, right? And they'll also "get" you in other ways.
You also can't apply to the Walton School of Business at the University of Arkansas (the most endowed business school in America, save Wharton) by January 15th if you don't register for Selective Service.

I learned that one the hard way.
Posted: Wed, 13th Feb 2008, 4:36am

Post 60 of 155

Aculag

Force: 8365 | Joined: 21st Jun 2002 | Posts: 8581

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

ben3308 wrote:

You also can't apply to the Walton School of Business at the University of Arkansas by January 15th if you don't register for Selective Service.

I learned that one the hard way.
Are you saying that you CAN apply after January 15th if you haven't registered for SS? That sentence is confusing.
Posted: Wed, 13th Feb 2008, 4:46am

Post 61 of 155

Frosty G

Force: 540 | Joined: 28th May 2005 | Posts: 640

EffectsLab Pro User Windows User

Gold Member

I do think we've lost focus somewhere. Big night for Obama who pulled ahead tonight. McCain keeps his lead winning the three states.
Posted: Wed, 13th Feb 2008, 7:36am

Post 62 of 155

A Pickle

Force: 1235 | Joined: 7th Sep 2004 | Posts: 1280

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Frosty G wrote:

I do think we've lost focus somewhere. Big night for Obama who pulled ahead tonight. McCain keeps his lead winning the three states.
Though I'm an avid Ron Paul supporter... I'm glad Obama has largely defeated the evil H with the latest primaries.
Posted: Wed, 13th Feb 2008, 9:05am

Post 63 of 155

Arktic

Force: 9977 | Joined: 10th Nov 2003 | Posts: 2785

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

I understand what you're saying Atom, but my point is that rather than going "Oh my, this is the situation we're in and we can do nothing about it!", you should be saying "I'm going to make sure I vote for someone who's NOT going to send our country to war" so that the conscription isn't an issue.
Posted: Wed, 13th Feb 2008, 11:17am

Post 64 of 155

sfbmovieco

Force: 2354 | Joined: 19th Mar 2002 | Posts: 1552

VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 User Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

Well it looks like I'm coming into this thread rather late but I'll drop my two cents into it regaurdless.

In the California primary I voted for Ron Paul. I've cooled down on being a Paulite fanatic because reality is setting in. Not only that but what a lot of Ron Paul supporter are missing is that he is not the end of the 'revolution' but the beginning. The message has to continue on, even if only in local politics from supporters who decide to get up and get involved in the process.

I was almost convinced to vote for Obama because of his opposition to the war; however, I believe he and Hillary's entitlement programs along with this war will only further the US into debt with China. I'm not convinced even Hillary would withdraw troops at any startling rate. And like I said, Obama is quite the speaker. He knows what buttons to push. I think too many people like his personality rather than what sort of political ground he stands on. I won't say much more on the democrats because I don't know their policies nearly as well as the other side.

I'm pretty sick and tired of people telling others to lay off McCain because he was a war hero. Yes he was a war hero. I'm thankful for the way he served his country. But this is now 2008 and he is running for the highest office in the land. I don't agree with most of his positions with bills he has co-sponsored with democrats, and his flip flops on how easy/difficult the war would be make me sick. (Youtube McCain vs. McCain) Now he is saying it's not American presence, it's American casualties....John, this is why we are at war. Because of our presence in Saudi Arabia and other Arab nations. He obviously just does not get it, and wants to stay there another 100 years if need be.

His continued spewing of saying he was a foot soldier in the Reagan Revolution and how he was basically the only backer of the surge is getting quite repugnant. All the conservative republicans I heard were all for the surge and quit it already with the man crush on Reagan. Here we have a man who continues to live on the past when we are spending billions a month and losing young men and women. We need someone to look forward.

Huckabee: I don't agree with him on the war and other taxation issues and I don't think he is far enough removed from the church. My libertarian side cringes every time he mentions the marriage amendment. I'm sorry, but the constitution was built for states to decide on their own with these sort of laws. There is verbiage that deals directly on how things not expressly written in the constitution should be handled.

With all of that said, I'll probably either sit at home or vote for the libertarian candidate. This time I just will not sacrifice my principles.
Posted: Wed, 13th Feb 2008, 12:06pm

Post 65 of 155

A Pickle

Force: 1235 | Joined: 7th Sep 2004 | Posts: 1280

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

I will probably end up voting for Obama, as the chances of Ron Paul becoming the President are slim to none. That doesn't stop me -- the cause lives on. Ron Paul knows his fans, and knows them well. In one interview, he was asked to describe the "typical Ron Paul fan," and his response was, "Well, the typical Ron Paul fan is indescribable." He went on to say that Ron Paul fans were people from all political parties, races, religions... it was rather humbling. But then he said that, "all of these people have come together because they share one thing in common: They're all frustrated with big government."

Boom.

I knew he had described me perfectly, but it wasn't 'til I went and saw Ron Paul at a convention in Colorado that I was humbly awakened to the truth. There were all kinds of people there, and those that I talked to were petty much in agreement with that sentiment: That big government and lost liberties were writings on the wall.

I've never been so dedicated to anything, let alone a political movement, in my life. When I see what happens in and out of this country, I become enraged or saddened. This country has lost it's ability to be democratic. It has lost the ability to agree to disagree -- and you get events like Berkeley telling off the USMC.

Atom wrote:

The draft is a curious thing that I was worried about. But my grandfather fought in WW2 and survived and I know I'd probably be willing to do the same given horrible, horrible circumstances. In the same way, I haven't registered yet, but I'm not worried. The way I think about it: My dad probably did the same thing back in the 70s and he never was drafted.

What are the chances I will be? And even then, will it be for a reason I don't agree with? (Vietnam comes to mind, but we've certainly and irrefutably changed since those days.)
Quite frankly, I had no problem with our being in Vietnam. I'm more disappointed in the lack of resolve, and in many cases, outright treachery some anti-war Americans bore towards the United States, the Military, and the war. I have no problem with the containment of Communism, and if you look back on Vietnam immediately post-war, it isn't a pretty sight.

Iraq, I feel is an unjust war. It's not like we needed to go in there, nor is it like Saddam was going to do anything tremendously different over the course of the next ten years. Iraq was effectively whipped into place after Desert Storm -- Cheney explicitly stated that he knew that in a post Desert Storm interview.

That said, I also feel that, in general -- the American people have this distaste for war. That's a good thing, but it's a bad thing. We shouldn't be warmongers... but Clinton-like responses to actions against us serve only to empower our enemies. Pulling out of Somalia after a militant warlord got some balls and attacked our troops? Firing two whole cruise missiles at abandoned terrorist camps to avenge 17 dead US servicemen after the bombing of the USS Cole?

War is hell. But there are times that fighting is necessary. It shouldn't ever be necessary, but the only times that fighting isn't necessary is when the parties involved in the war have reached a compromise. If one party is unwilling to compromise, they ruin it all and war happens. It is the ultimate, and as a result, least-preferable solution.

Arktic wrote:

I understand what you're saying Atom, but my point is that rather than going "Oh my, this is the situation we're in and we can do nothing about it!", you should be saying "I'm going to make sure I vote for someone who's NOT going to send our country to war" so that the conscription isn't an issue.
Quite frankly, it's... a non-issue. We don't live in an ideal world, and if ever the need arose for a draft, it would come back -- Selective Service or not. There are other way to identify citizens as war-capable, like social security numbers, driver's licenses, etc...

I'm not saying it's right, but... I'm not saying it's wrong. Sometimes the painful is the right course of action, and it can neither be described as right or wrong.

sfbmovieco wrote:

He obviously just does not get it, and wants to stay there another 100 years if need be.
His statement was made in a political debate. Give the man the poetic license that you extend to the other candidates.

Quite frankly, I'm much in favor of McCain's Iraq strategy than Paul's -- I think it's laughable that those who decry the invasion of Iraq, do so because of the tremendous civilian toll -- these people often citing (inaccurate) civilian body counts of up to 650,000 and citing the ever-increasing number of wounded or killed American soldiers. These same people argue that the United States meddles in foreign affairs far too much, and that we created Osama bin Laden during one such "meddling" in Afghanistan in the 1980's by abandoning him and his militia.

And yet, these same people argue that we should leave Iraq immediately -- that the civilian death toll from the ensuing civil war could also be lain squarely at Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld's feet (but not Hillary's). These same people argue that we should set a timetable for our immediate withdrawal from Iraq, a timetable for making the deaths of our servicemen and women mean nothing. Yet somehow, fighting a war halfway, and then abruptly leaving right after an effective violence-reducing measure (the troop surge) would clearly NOT be history repeating itself, and we certainly wouldn't create the next Osama bin Laden.

I fail to see the logic. We pull out, and our men and women will have died for nothing. The Iraqis will be, once again, subjugates of an Islamic dictator at best, and we will draw the most vitriol and ire from the Islamic Middle East that we have ever known.

But that's okay. Clearly McCain, in his four year term in office, would ensure that we stayed there for a full century. Maybe he's campaigning through time, and he's actually been to all 25 elections of this century AT ONCE. Excellent logic.

sfbmovieco wrote:

With all of that said, I'll probably either sit at home or vote for the libertarian candidate. This time I just will not sacrifice my principles.
Quite frankly, that's silly. You should vote for the candidate who has a chance of winning who is closest to your principles -- if you vote for the guaranteed loser with the intent of "honoring" your principles, you have wasted your vote in favor of a transparent, personal goal.

If there were three candidates on the ballot this november: Ron Paul, John McCain, and Barack Obama... I might vote for Obama, because a vote for Paul would be one less vote for Obama, or one more vote for McCain not to need to beat. Then what?
Posted: Wed, 13th Feb 2008, 7:21pm

Post 66 of 155

sfbmovieco

Force: 2354 | Joined: 19th Mar 2002 | Posts: 1552

VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 User Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

Please, I would not be wasting my vote. I don't want to vote for McCain/Huck or Hillary/Obama. None of them come close to my principles.

I think you are missing the point on a lot of issues. If America is for promoting 'democracy' how come we kicked out a democratic leader in Iran in the '50s and installed a dictator. How come we fought alongside Saddam when he was gassing his own people and we knew it? Why do we go after Iraq when 15 of the 9/11 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia? You make smart alike comments about what I've said but please, use facts next time.
Posted: Wed, 13th Feb 2008, 7:33pm

Post 67 of 155

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

sfbmovieco wrote:

Please, I would not be wasting my vote. I don't want to vote for McCain/Huck or Hillary/Obama. None of them come close to my principles.
Then I must ask sbf, what are your principles? The two pairs have in many regard polar opposite opinions on things and represent the only two dominant classes and groups of people in the United States.

I'm not trying to offer the ultimatum of "if you're not with me you're against me", but honestly what are you looking for that can't even vaguely be found in the philosophy or promises of either side and any one of the candidates?

Really.
Posted: Wed, 13th Feb 2008, 8:09pm

Post 68 of 155

Coureur de Bois

Force: 1394 | Joined: 23rd Sep 2002 | Posts: 1127

VideoWrap User Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

sfbmovieco wrote:

Please, I would not be wasting my vote. I don't want to vote for McCain/Huck or Hillary/Obama. None of them come close to my principles.
Doesn't always come down to a giant douche versus a turd sandwich anyway?


Let's get out and vote!
Let's make our voices heard.
We've been given the right to choose,
between a douche and a turd.
It’s democracy in action!
Put your freedom to the test.
A big fat turd or a stupid douche,
which do you like best?
Posted: Wed, 13th Feb 2008, 8:22pm

Post 69 of 155

Bryce007

Force: 1910 | Joined: 5th Apr 2003 | Posts: 2609

VideoWrap User Windows User

Gold Member

[quote="A Pickle" These same people argue that we should set a timetable for our immediate withdrawal from Iraq, a timetable for making the deaths of our servicemen and women mean nothing. Yet somehow, fighting a war halfway, and then abruptly leaving right after an effective violence-reducing measure (the troop surge) would clearly NOT be history repeating itself, and we certainly wouldn't create the next Osama bin Laden.

I fail to see the logic. We pull out, and our men and women will have died for nothing. The Iraqis will be, once again, subjugates of an Islamic dictator at best, and we will draw the most vitriol and ire from the Islamic Middle East that we have ever known.[/quote]


Couple of things:

1. We can't economically afford the war anymore.
2. The troops surge hasn't "Worked"
3. The country of Iraq is responsible for itself. We aren't.
4. The war isn't half over.
5. reducing our meddling in middle eastern affairs would do the exact opposite of drawing the hate of the middle east.
6. It's impossible to say that deceased troops will have "Died for nothing", as they still fought for their country, regardless of the corrupt politics involved.
7. Considering this war has taken longer then WW2, I don't think we could call it "Leaving abruptly"
Posted: Wed, 13th Feb 2008, 8:42pm

Post 70 of 155

Serpent

Force: 5426 | Joined: 26th Dec 2003 | Posts: 6515

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Pro User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Atom wrote:

sfbmovieco wrote:

Please, I would not be wasting my vote. I don't want to vote for McCain/Huck or Hillary/Obama. None of them come close to my principles.
Then I must ask sbf, what are your principles? The two pairs have in many regard polar opposite opinions on things and represent the only two dominant classes and groups of people in the United States.

I'm not trying to offer the ultimatum of "if you're not with me you're against me", but honestly what are you looking for that can't even vaguely be found in the philosophy or promises of either side and any one of the candidates?

Really.
Er... are you that narrow? The Democrat and Republican parties, or the candidates within them, hardly cater to everyone. The people who they don't cater to usually vote for a candidate who suits them who has no chance, or the lesser of the evils. SFB has clearly stated that he is a Libertarian, and the only candidate who follows the principles of the old Republican party, as well as Libertarian ideas is Ron Paul. All he is saying is that Ron Paul has no chance, and I'm pretty sure SFB is just expressing his discontent (I'm just scratching the surface of his posts, of course, I don't want to sound like I'm speaking for him, just summarizing). "Vaguely" is such a ridiculous word. Even the most horrible people in the world may vaguely share some of my ideas, but beyond that they aren't what I stand for.
Posted: Wed, 13th Feb 2008, 9:24pm

Post 71 of 155

A Pickle

Force: 1235 | Joined: 7th Sep 2004 | Posts: 1280

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

DirectorBryce wrote:

1. We can't economically afford the war anymore.
This about the only logical point against the war that I've seen or heard anyone make, and while it's a valid point -- I'd hope that the western world is mature enough to set aside finances in the interests of humanitarianism.

DirectorBryce wrote:

2. The troops surge hasn't "Worked"
"December 22, 2007: The Brookings institute reports that Iraq’s security environment is considerably improved, with security at its best levels since early 2004. In their report, they state that the gains are largely thanks to the surge-based strategy of Gen. David Petraeus."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War_troop_surge_of_2007#Results_of_the_Iraq_War_troop_surge_of_2007

DirectorBryce wrote:

3. The country of Iraq is responsible for itself. We aren't.
3. The country of Iraq was responsible for itself. Then we invaded it.

Fixed that for you. The Iraqi people had no say on the actions of the Bush Administration in 2003. If you somehow delude yourself into thinking we aren't, in any way shape or form, responsible for a country that WE pre-emptively invaded -- you're nuts. The only reason Iraq is IN the news is BECAUSE we invaded, and we're not responsible?

DirectorBryce wrote:

4. The war isn't half over.
Poetic license, sir. I didn't say that as if to imply that the war was exactly 50% fought, I said that to imply that it is an unfinished war.

DirectorBryce wrote:

5. reducing our meddling in middle eastern affairs would do the exact opposite of drawing the hate of the middle east.
No kidding. I agree with you there... don't know why you brought this up.

DirectorBryce wrote:

6. It's impossible to say that deceased troops will have "Died for nothing", as they still fought for their country, regardless of the corrupt politics involved.
Their "country" is wrong, in this case. The ideal of the war is, I think, a noble one... but it isn't our place to make that ideal a reality by gunpoint. The Iraqis were, and have always been, responsible for themselves -- we had no business to EVER tell them that they "needed" Democracy or some other such bollocks. Our troops, who stand for and have been trained around a code of honor, service, integrity, and excellence now fight in defiance of all of those principles.

The least we could do is stick this war out to the end so that, in 50 years, we can look back and say that "Iraq was better when we left than when we entered."

DirectorBryce wrote:

7. Considering this war has taken longer then WW2, I don't think we could call it "Leaving abruptly"
Considering some politicians insist that we should leave in the course of a year, I would. I could care less how long the war took -- the fact that we'd be leaving in incredibly short order is a mistake. A gradual phase from action to the sidelines is what US troops need, while the Iraqi police make the transition from the sidelines to "in the action."
Posted: Thu, 14th Feb 2008, 1:42am

Post 72 of 155

Bryce007

Force: 1910 | Joined: 5th Apr 2003 | Posts: 2609

VideoWrap User Windows User

Gold Member

800 dead troops isn't really what I'd call "a working surge"

Also, you said that if we pulled out of Iraq, that "We will draw the most vitriol and ire from the Islamic Middle East that we have ever known."

Do you really think it's our option how their government is run? Can we actually stop a dictator from running the country?

And yes, "Then we invaded it". The longer we stay, the worse it gets. They aren't going to be able to handle themselves if we keep forcing our ideals and bases on them.

As far as exit strategy, I agree with you. But that kind of strategy doesn't take decades. It could potentially be done within the year.


(But our oil interests are a bit strong to do something like that...)
Posted: Thu, 14th Feb 2008, 2:26am

Post 73 of 155

sfbmovieco

Force: 2354 | Joined: 19th Mar 2002 | Posts: 1552

VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 User Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

Atom, obviously you haven't seen the Nolan chart. smile

Pickle, the surge did not work. Look at what Betraus (sp?) said...It was to clear room for political progress to occur. That has most certainly not occurred.

I think you are grasping the ideas of Paul when you admit it wasn't a good situation to go into; but it fails MY logic to see why after admitting it was a bad idea, you want us to stay there longer...It's not the job of the US to be the humanitarian savior of the world. It's like Paul said and has been said before-US taxpayers are paying to destroy bridges in Iraq, then to rebuild those bridges in Iraq while our bridges at home are not up to par.
Posted: Thu, 14th Feb 2008, 2:57am

Post 74 of 155

Frosty G

Force: 540 | Joined: 28th May 2005 | Posts: 640

EffectsLab Pro User Windows User

Gold Member

DirectorBryce wrote:

800 dead troops isn't really what I'd call "a working surge"

Also, you said that if we pulled out of Iraq, that "We will draw the most vitriol and ire from the Islamic Middle East that we have ever known."

Do you really think it's our option how their government is run? Can we actually stop a dictator from running the country?

And yes, "Then we invaded it". The longer we stay, the worse it gets. They aren't going to be able to handle themselves if we keep forcing our ideals and bases on them.

As far as exit strategy, I agree with you. But that kind of strategy doesn't take decades. It could potentially be done within the year.


(But our oil interests are a bit strong to do something like that...)
I always find opinions like yours fascinating. You say the surge isn't working as if its a documented fact when, in fact, it is widely agreed that it is working. Yes, troops died and that their sacrifice in the name of their country will never be forgotten, but casualties aren't a signal of failure. There were plenty of military operations throughout the history of mankind that suffered casualities, and even severe casualties, that are still considered successes.

Whether you agreed with going into Iraq or not, don't you think if we left now we would rapidly see things fall apart?
Posted: Thu, 14th Feb 2008, 5:42am

Post 75 of 155

sfbmovieco

Force: 2354 | Joined: 19th Mar 2002 | Posts: 1552

VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 User Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

The surge is only a success to those who have changed the stated goal of the surge than when it was started.
Posted: Thu, 14th Feb 2008, 6:22am

Post 76 of 155

Bryce007

Force: 1910 | Joined: 5th Apr 2003 | Posts: 2609

VideoWrap User Windows User

Gold Member

Frosty G wrote:

Whether you agreed with going into Iraq or not, don't you think if we left now we would rapidly see things fall apart?
The real question is, will things fall apart over here if we don't pull out?
Posted: Thu, 14th Feb 2008, 8:09am

Post 77 of 155

Rawree

Force: 3250 | Joined: 27th Jun 2002 | Posts: 1925

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

Frosty G wrote:

Whether you agreed with going into Iraq or not, don't you think if we left now we would rapidly see things fall apart?
I'd say it's much more likely that things in Iraq would stabilize if the US and allies all got out of there. If your annoyed at the fact that an invading army is in your country and are annoyed to the point of trying desperately to shoot, detonate or otherwise kill said army: if however that army isn't in your country anymore it's hard to get mad at them for being in your country...because they're not anymore and also the fact that their elsewhere makes them much harder to attack and fight with. Moreover, if I might trot out our favourite comparison again (in for a penny in for a pound and all that); Vietnam didn't fall apart once the US pulled out - in fact North and South were reintegrated as one state, albeit not the sort of state the US wanted them to become. My point is this: just because things don't stabilize how the West want them to doesn't mean that they're falling apart.
Posted: Thu, 14th Feb 2008, 10:09am

Post 78 of 155

A Pickle

Force: 1235 | Joined: 7th Sep 2004 | Posts: 1280

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

DirectorBryce wrote:

800 dead troops isn't really what I'd call "a working surge"
First off, you've missed the point. The point of the surge was not to level or lower coalition casualties so much as it was meant to stave off the violence in general -- and in general, the violence least dramatically affects the coalition forces.

Secondly, you're using poetic license to evoke a reaction based on emotion. Saying "800 dead troops isn't really what I'd call a working surge," but then, by that statement you blur the definition of the phrase "working surge" into something that biases towards your mis-informed position against the troop surge and the war in Iraq in general.

I would argue that the surge is working, because my definition of a "working surge" is a significant drop in violence.

So, you've piqued my curiousity and motivated my typing fingers. The only way we're going to get a close, albeit imperfect look at the effectiveness of the troop surge is by taking two equal-length segments of time and collecting the casualty data from each. In order to calculate the effectiveness of ONLY the troop surge and no other extraneous variables, it is necessary for us to mitigate the effect of other variables -- and the only way we can really do that is by taking two equal-length segments of time closest to eachother. They would most closely mirror the current scenario and impact of uncontrolled variables.

Now, the troop count as of January 2007 was 132,000 -- and by March 2nd, 2007, the troop count was 152,000. I think we can agree that the troop surge officially began then, having the "full" 20,000 troop addition by that date. By November 1st, both the BBC and the Brookings Institution think-tank reported that data seemed to indicate a modest success of the troop surge. So let's have a look at the data with the troop surge as the variable, between the months of March 2007 up to (but not inclusive of) November 2007. We shall compare it to an era without the troop surge of equal length, from July 2006 up to (but not inclusive of) March 2007.

Pre-Surge - July 2006 up to March 2007:
-Coalition Casualties: 663
-Iraqi Security & Civilian Casualties: 17756
-Total: 18419

During Surge - March 2007 up to November 2007:
-Coalition Casualties: 722
-Iraqi Security & Civilian Casualties: 11586
-Total: 13736

Source: http://icasualties.org/

That's a 25% drop in deaths. That's... pretty significant. Go on, I believe you and sfbmovieco were saying something funny about how the troop surge wasn't working.

DirectorBryce wrote:

Also, you said that if we pulled out of Iraq, that "We will draw the most vitriol and ire from the Islamic Middle East that we have ever known."
Yes, I did. I meant it. I have no idea how you can think otherwise, after history tells us that when we meddled in Afghanistan to stop the Soviets, we sided with a man by the name of Osama bin Laden -- who, after our help, became spiteful towards us because we abruptly left. Now, the pundits are dishing out that our best course of action in Iraq is to have meddled, and then abruptly left. May I ask why you seem to think leaving without a finished job is a good idea? And this time, based on data, not poetic license?

DirectorBryce wrote:

Do you really think it's our option how their government is run?
Ah, see, now you're stereotyping me. You think that simply because I acknowledge (based on the data that I've seen) that the troop surge is a step in the right direction, that I'm a supporter of the Iraq War. I'm not -- we shouldn't have gone in in the first place, but we did -- and that changes everything.

Do I think it's our option? No, it isn't -- but then, I don't see the relevance here. This isn't 2003 nor was I the President at that time (or ever, frankly biggrin).

DirectorBryce wrote:

Can we actually stop a dictator from running the country?
I don't know, nor do I really think it's our place. Or rather, it wasn't our place... when we invaded it. But... we still invaded it. So... what do I think? I think we need to do our best to get the government to be strong, stable, and well-defended, and then slowly begin phasing our troops out.

DirectorBryce wrote:

And yes, "Then we invaded it". The longer we stay, the worse it gets. They aren't going to be able to handle themselves if we keep forcing our ideals and bases on them.
Real data seems to disagree with that.

sfbmovieco wrote:

Pickle, the surge did not work. Look at what Betraus (sp?) said...It was to clear room for political progress to occur. That has most certainly not occurred.
1. See above (and refute) before telling me the surge "did not work."
2. His name is General David Petraeus. Stop reading MoveOn.org's propaganda, start reading facts.

sfbmovieco wrote:

I think you are grasping the ideas of Paul when you admit it wasn't a good situation to go into; but it fails MY logic to see why after admitting it was a bad idea, you want us to stay there longer...
I don't want us to stay there longer. I want us to stay there as long as it takes for there to be the most humanitarian solution to the problem.

What fails my logic is how you seem incapable of differentiating between how we should handle "a bad idea" versus "a bad action." The two phrases are not inter-changeable. Invading Iran today is a "bad idea." If it became a reality, and thus, a "bad action," you think that just leaving would be the appropriate solution?

And finally: I think I have the right to support a politician of my choice, I don't have to (nor do I) agree with every politician on every issue. The "most" pressing argument Ron Paul has indicated against the idea of a civil war following our pullout is that, quote: "Of course, these merchants of fear are the same ones who predicted that invading and occupying Iraq would be a slam dunk operation; that we would be welcomed as liberators, and oil revenues would pay for the operation with minimal loss of American lives."

That's a statement that, while it presents a slightly thought-provoking argument, possesses no actual data to back up why there wouldn't be a civil war immediately following. I act, and I vote, based on data -- not emotional appeals.

sfbmovieco wrote:

It's not the job of the US to be the humanitarian savior of the world.
Nor do I believe it should be. Not all of us can patently dismiss the fact that while Iraq was a bad idea and that we shouldn't have gone in the first place, WE ARE THERE, AND THAT IS AN ARGUMENT WE CAN HAVE LATER. I don't believe the US should be everywhere, and I think we should pull out of areas that we don't need to be in.

sfbmovieco wrote:

It's like Paul said and has been said before-US taxpayers are paying to destroy bridges in Iraq, then to rebuild those bridges in Iraq while our bridges at home are not up to par.
With all due respect, taxpayers more or less agreed that their tax dollars were well spent when they re-elected Bush. You exonerate the people when we have done nothing to regulate our government other than vote. Between elections, politicians have free reign -- because we the people have:

1.) Lost our resolve to fight, be it in a war or in a political struggle, and...
2.) Become apathetic.

We have lost liberties because we haven't reminded politicians of just who pays their salary, and just what happens when an armed and discontent public becomes willing to fight. We're just not willing enough to fight, be it for the restoration of our liberties or for the ending of the war in Iraq.

Rawree wrote:

Vietnam didn't fall apart once the US pulled out - in fact North and South were reintegrated as one state...
Um, no. Actually, that's a rather docile (and dishonest) way of putting history. The North and South were not "reintegrated," North Vietnam conquered the South.

Rawree wrote:

...albeit not the sort of state the US wanted them to become. My point is this: just because things don't stabilize how the West want them to doesn't mean that they're falling apart.
You raise a good hypothetical point and an interesting point to think about... but then reality sets in. Postwar Vietnam had "re-education camps," quite literally internment camps where those sympathetic to the Republican cause were jailed for years. Many of them died in the camps, and were malnourished and mistreated. Many never left the camps, the Communist North quite literally forgot about them.

Up until 1985, Vietnam was completely dependent on the Soviet Union for military, humanitarian, and economic aid. Then they switched to a free market system...

Vietnam did indeed "fall apart" when the US left. If the West's definition of "fall apart" isn't relevant, then I guess Iraq isn't really "falling apart," either, right?
Posted: Thu, 14th Feb 2008, 10:41am

Post 79 of 155

Bryce007

Force: 1910 | Joined: 5th Apr 2003 | Posts: 2609

VideoWrap User Windows User

Gold Member

A Pickle wrote:

1.) Lost our resolve to fight, be it in a war or in a political struggle, and...
2.) Become apathetic.

We have lost liberties because we haven't reminded politicians of just who pays their salary, and just what happens when an armed and discontent public becomes willing to fight. We're just not willing enough to fight, be it for the restoration of our liberties or for the ending of the war in Iraq.

Rawree wrote:

Vietnam didn't fall apart once the US pulled out - in fact North and South were reintegrated as one state...
Um, no. Actually, that's a rather docile (and dishonest) way of putting history. The North and South were not "reintegrated," North Vietnam conquered the South.
All true.

But I think you missed my point. I wasn't saying you were for the war, I was just pointing out that (and I strongly believe as well) The facts and figures are massively skewed in order to continue our occupying the countries our middle eastern oil interests lie with.

We all generally know that the media is controlled by the government/big business (Not even really a considered a conspiracy anymore), so I have to wonder, Do the facts honestly say that unless we stay in the middle east (and perhaps Iran now, randomly), that we'll forever pay the price of exiting?
Posted: Thu, 14th Feb 2008, 1:09pm

Post 80 of 155

Frosty G

Force: 540 | Joined: 28th May 2005 | Posts: 640

EffectsLab Pro User Windows User

Gold Member

Rawree wrote:

I'd say it's much more likely that things in Iraq would stabilize if the US and allies all got out of there. If your annoyed at the fact that an invading army is in your country and are annoyed to the point of trying desperately to shoot, detonate or otherwise kill said army: if however that army isn't in your country anymore it's hard to get mad at them for being in your country...because they're not anymore and also the fact that their elsewhere makes them much harder to attack and fight with. Moreover, if I might trot out our favourite comparison again (in for a penny in for a pound and all that); Vietnam didn't fall apart once the US pulled out - in fact North and South were reintegrated as one state, albeit not the sort of state the US wanted them to become. My point is this: just because things don't stabilize how the West want them to doesn't mean that they're falling apart.
I'm just curious what is leading you to this prediction? Many experts feel that if the US pulls out either it will collapse into a larger civil war and become a hotbed for future terrorist activity and recruitment. The other prediction is that Iran will take over the role of the US Military. Do you really want either of those to happen?
Posted: Thu, 14th Feb 2008, 2:34pm

Post 81 of 155

Arktic

Force: 9977 | Joined: 10th Nov 2003 | Posts: 2785

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

Yes, some experts say that pulling the troops out would cause more problems.

But there are just as many 'experts' who think that the troops presence in Iraq is doing more harm than good.

And besides which - according to a BBC survey, it's estimated that two-thirds of the world's population want either the troops out immediatley, or a gradual pull out over 12 months.

I think that regardless of what the 'experts' think, the USA should really listen to the public opinion of the citizens of the world. Whoever is voted in as the next president would be dumb to not listen to such an overwhelming majority of people, imho.

Cheers,
Arktic.
Posted: Thu, 14th Feb 2008, 3:49pm

Post 82 of 155

A Pickle

Force: 1235 | Joined: 7th Sep 2004 | Posts: 1280

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

DirectorBryce wrote:

Do the facts honestly say that unless we stay in the middle east (and perhaps Iran now, randomly), that we'll forever pay the price of exiting?
Well, to be honest... probably. And we will have to (and should) leave someday, and we may end up paying that price one way or another. Perhaps it's our harsh legacy for going there in the first place, an action we can hopefully learn from and yet, never forget as one of the darkest actions our country ever undertook.

Arktic wrote:

Yes, some experts say that pulling the troops out would cause more problems.

But there are just as many 'experts' who think that the troops presence in Iraq is doing more harm than good.

And besides which - according to a BBC survey, it's estimated that two-thirds of the world's population want either the troops out immediatley, or a gradual pull out over 12 months.

I think that regardless of what the 'experts' think, the USA should really listen to the public opinion of the citizens of the world. Whoever is voted in as the next president would be dumb to not listen to such an overwhelming majority of people, imho.
I don't necessarily believe that. Just because it is unpopular, I feel, doesn't mean it's wrong. The right to bear arms and the death penalty are both very unpopular. I don't particularly feel either are wrong.
Posted: Thu, 14th Feb 2008, 5:49pm

Post 83 of 155

Frosty G

Force: 540 | Joined: 28th May 2005 | Posts: 640

EffectsLab Pro User Windows User

Gold Member

Arktic wrote:

Yes, some experts say that pulling the troops out would cause more problems.

But there are just as many 'experts' who think that the troops presence in Iraq is doing more harm than good.

And besides which - according to a BBC survey, it's estimated that two-thirds of the world's population want either the troops out immediatley, or a gradual pull out over 12 months.

I think that regardless of what the 'experts' think, the USA should really listen to the public opinion of the citizens of the world. Whoever is voted in as the next president would be dumb to not listen to such an overwhelming majority of people, imho.

Cheers,
Arktic.
I'd be very interested to find how the BBC polled two-thirds of the world's population. Frankly, I value expert opinions. I want to have the best possible idea of what is going to happen before I do it. What do you think is going to happen? What do you propose be done to help the Middle East? Aggressive talks? Thats Obama and Hillary's plans. Straight from their websites. No real explanation about what that means, other than that its going to be really aggressive. Hillary plans to just ask the Joint Chiefs what to do. She doesn't have a plan, thats from her site as well.

I just don't see how leaving now would do any good. People in Iraq will feel like they were screwed because in a sense they would be. Whenever a body of people are left with a weak government and a resentment to other nations it leads to some form of authoritarian dictator taking that emotion and harnessing it. Either some new Saddam-like figure will take control or Iran will. Neither is good for the "citizens of the world".
Posted: Thu, 14th Feb 2008, 6:17pm

Post 84 of 155

Arktic

Force: 9977 | Joined: 10th Nov 2003 | Posts: 2785

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

I'd be very interested to find how the BBC polled two-thirds of the world's population.
They.. uhm... they didn't. As I said, it's "estimated". The BBC World Service polled over 23,000 people - not a huge number, by any means; but certainly enough to make a decent estimate (and likely much more than any other news agency would have bothered with).

What do you propose be done to help the Middle East? Aggressive talks?
Yes - peace talks and negotiations are the ONLY way to solve problems like this. Not running in, all guns blazing.

You just have to look at a successful peace process like the one in Northern Ireland to see that, though it's hard work, negotiations and talks are the best way to put an end to a bloody conflict; rather than an illegal occupation of another country.

As I say, any candidate who proposes talks as opposed to further military action would have my vote.

Cheers,
Arktic,
Posted: Thu, 14th Feb 2008, 7:20pm

Post 85 of 155

A Pickle

Force: 1235 | Joined: 7th Sep 2004 | Posts: 1280

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Arktic wrote:

Yes - peace talks and negotiations are the ONLY way to solve problems like this. Not running in, all guns blazing.

You just have to look at a successful peace process like the one in Northern Ireland to see that, though it's hard work, negotiations and talks are the best way to put an end to a bloody conflict; rather than an illegal occupation of another country.

As I say, any candidate who proposes talks as opposed to further military action would have my vote.
While I generally agree, I think it's worth mentioning that at times, talking doesn't work. There are the Hitlers of the world. There are the Yasser Arafats of the world. There are the Osama bin Ladens of the world and to them, talk is cheap. They have a goal, and they are unwilling to compromise. It isn't a pretty reality, but there are some people who will give up their lives before they are willing to give up the provisions necessary for a compromise. That's when war happens, and contrary to popular (and ignorant) belief -- war can solve problems, and it often has.

Coming from an American who seems to be reminded on a daily basis that "Americans aren't the only people on Earth," well, that applies to the Northern Irish just as much. Diplomacy can yeild great success, but only if there is a compromise. And in a collection of parties seeking a compromise -- it only takes one party to refuse to compromise in order to send all of that diplomacy, negotiation, and talk straight down the tubes in favor of the sword.

And I might add, there are times a strong military response is absolutely necessary ahead of diplomacy. We didn't receive polite diplomacy from Osama bin Laden when he bombed the USS Cole. We didn't receive polite diplomacy from him when he committed 9/11. Quite frankly, if he had amassed political support for his position and brought his and his people's collective plight to the United Nations, I assure you the world would be a different place today.

I felt inclined to say that, as it occurs to me that over the past six pages of scrutinizing United States foreign policy and other matters, have we addressed the reason why that is today. Could we, the United States, have done a better job diplomatically resolving the situation with Iraq? Probably. At the same time, Saddam Hussein could've shut up and let weapons inspectors in. And, could Osama bin Laden have done a better job diplomatically resolving his dispute with us? Probably.

Let's not turn a blind eye to that, thank you.
Posted: Thu, 14th Feb 2008, 10:11pm

Post 86 of 155

sfbmovieco

Force: 2354 | Joined: 19th Mar 2002 | Posts: 1552

VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 User Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

You can qualify the surge anyway you want. Petraus and the government stated the surge's mission was to make room for a political foothold. That did not happen.

These same 'experts' are the same ones who said it'd be a cakewalk and we would be greeted as liberators. People like McCain make me sick. Before the war he said it would be an easy victory, now he says he doesn't know who people were listening to when they thought it would be a day at the beach. I'm sorry, but that's how morons talk.

And how about this: get the hell out of Iraq and actually get the people who commited 9/11. Saddam is dead. Osama is alive. WTF?
Posted: Thu, 14th Feb 2008, 11:20pm

Post 87 of 155

A Pickle

Force: 1235 | Joined: 7th Sep 2004 | Posts: 1280

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

sfbmovieco wrote:

You can qualify the surge anyway you want. Petraus and the government stated the surge's mission was to make room for a political foothold. That did not happen.
A dramatic drop in violence... as was it's original intent.

sfbmovieco wrote:

These same 'experts' are the same ones who said it'd be a cakewalk and we would be greeted as liberators. People like McCain make me sick. Before the war he said it would be an easy victory, now he says he doesn't know who people were listening to when they thought it would be a day at the beach.
Again, an appeal to emotion with no... real... data. I'm not going to vote based on that -- period.
Posted: Thu, 14th Feb 2008, 11:32pm

Post 88 of 155

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Could we honestly end this Iraq War debacle in here, please. I guess the thread is fitting for it, but it seems like it's become specifically two people offering back-and-forth commentary on essentially agreeing with eachother.

Hillary and Obama are coming to Austin on the 28th for their first major debate with only the two of them. I might drive down and check out UT again and try and catch it.
Posted: Fri, 15th Feb 2008, 12:55am

Post 89 of 155

Fill

Force: 1257 | Joined: 1st Jul 2005 | Posts: 1652

CompositeLab Lite User EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

Atom wrote:

Could we honestly end this Iraq War debacle in here, please. I guess the thread is fitting for it, but it seems like it's become specifically two people offering back-and-forth commentary on essentially agreeing with eachother.

Hillary and Obama are coming to Austin on the 28th for their first major debate with only the two of them. I might drive down and check out UT again and try and catch it.
That's an awesome opportunity. I would love to see Obama speak. I like the guy, aside from what people say about his 'inexperience.' JFK was pretty inexperienced himself, but he's a huge factor in the civil rights movement. Then again... he handled Cuban affairs rather terribly.
Posted: Fri, 15th Feb 2008, 3:22am

Post 90 of 155

Coureur de Bois

Force: 1394 | Joined: 23rd Sep 2002 | Posts: 1127

VideoWrap User Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

Atom wrote:


Hillary and Obama are coming to Austin on the 28th for their first major debate with only the two of them. I might drive down and check out UT again and try and catch it.
Props on getting involved in democracy! You should definitely go see both of them speak. As someone who is voting, I believe that participating in local events where potential candidates are vying for your support is a great way to get a sense of the that person is. I heard Obama speak when he came to Minneapolis the Saturday before Super Tuesday, and wow can that man speak!
Posted: Fri, 15th Feb 2008, 5:30am

Post 91 of 155

A Pickle

Force: 1235 | Joined: 7th Sep 2004 | Posts: 1280

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

I'd love to see Obama speak myself. I was fortunate enough to have seen Ron Paul speak in Denver, CO. He signed my HV20. smile
Posted: Fri, 15th Feb 2008, 1:04pm

Post 92 of 155

Frosty G

Force: 540 | Joined: 28th May 2005 | Posts: 640

EffectsLab Pro User Windows User

Gold Member

I will give Obama that. He is a fantastic public speaker. I feel he uses his powerful statements to hide his lack of clear or workable plans. Has anyone taken a look at both Hillary's or Obama's plans on their own websites. Some of it is histerical, particularly Hillary's.
Posted: Fri, 15th Feb 2008, 3:59pm

Post 93 of 155

A Pickle

Force: 1235 | Joined: 7th Sep 2004 | Posts: 1280

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

To be honest, I like his rhetoric too. Just not about guns. Or universal healthcare. biggrin
Posted: Fri, 15th Feb 2008, 5:19pm

Post 94 of 155

ben3308

Force: 5210 | Joined: 24th May 2004 | Posts: 6433

VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Obama's speaking abilities remind me a lot of Steve Jobs (and this isn't necessarily a good or bad thing) in that he can rally the people more than his opponents, and he can smirk at his own jokes and not take himself too seriously, but some of what he says is wrapped in so much pretention I can't help but think he's being fake.

Obama's speeches, still, are moving and excellent in delivery. It's no wonder he won a Grammy for them. When he speaks, he obviously comparable to another better-known young president (JFK). But unlike JFK, I think, Obama is lacking that enduring wit and wisdom that people (and myself, in videos/newscasts) saw below the surface of JFK. Obama seems sort of like a superficial version of him: the speeches are there, but I'm not sure the authenticity is. Sort of a Bill Clinton thing, although at least he made you believe in anything he said.

On another note, as Hillary has lost two of her delegates to Obama in the past days, Romney has asserted confidence in McCain and is asking his delegates to give their support to the war hero. A bit sneaky, as it's obvious he's after the Vice Presidency and maybe a term in '12 (I'm not sure McCain could do 8 years, considering he gets elected) but you have to commend Romney for being as witfully conniving as he is. wink
Posted: Fri, 15th Feb 2008, 6:22pm

Post 95 of 155

Frosty G

Force: 540 | Joined: 28th May 2005 | Posts: 640

EffectsLab Pro User Windows User

Gold Member

Absolutely, he is definitly playing the game of survival and he is doing it artfully unlike some other politicians(John Edwards comes to mind).

There are alot of things that would benefit McCain by having Romney on the ticket. Firstly, money. Romney has got the money to run a strong and expensive campaign that McCain is going to need in a race against Obama or Hillary. Secondly, he would synch the conservative vote for McCain.

On the flipside, having Romney might hurt McCain's grounds with independents and more moderate democrats who are not feeling either of their candidates. But if it isn't Romney or Huckabee, he is definitly going to need someone with a big name or a Republican in a blue state to give him an edge maybe in the Midwest.
Posted: Fri, 15th Feb 2008, 7:51pm

Post 96 of 155

Penguin

Force: 852 | Joined: 17th May 2006 | Posts: 560

EffectsLab Pro User FXpreset Maker FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

ben3308 wrote:

Obama's speaking abilities remind me a lot of Steve Jobs (and this isn't necessarily a good or bad thing) in that he can rally the people more than his opponents, and he can smirk at his own jokes and not take himself too seriously, but some of what he says is wrapped in so much pretention I can't help but think he's being fake.
And all the other candidates totally aren't smile
Posted: Fri, 15th Feb 2008, 11:50pm

Post 97 of 155

ben3308

Force: 5210 | Joined: 24th May 2004 | Posts: 6433

VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Listen to John McCain. He's not as well-spoken as he used to be (mainly because of age) but what he says sounds like the wisdom from a man who has seen things in his days, not like a prepared speech.
Posted: Sat, 16th Feb 2008, 1:57am

Post 98 of 155

A Pickle

Force: 1235 | Joined: 7th Sep 2004 | Posts: 1280

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

ben3308 wrote:

Listen to John McCain. He's not as well-spoken as he used to be (mainly because of age) but what he says sounds like the wisdom from a man who has seen things in his days, not like a prepared speech.
Have to agree here. Hillary, though... ugh. It hurts my mind whenever she speaks. I have the hardest time placing the tiniest amounts of "confidence" or "trust" in her.
Posted: Sat, 16th Feb 2008, 2:52am

Post 99 of 155

ben3308

Force: 5210 | Joined: 24th May 2004 | Posts: 6433

VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

About Hillary, let me put it this way: I don't think, I know she's definitely smarter than a lot of the Presidential candidates. You can tell it in the way she speaks and carries herself.

However, I don't necessarily think her intelligence over the opposition is large enough to make her a better leader. In fact, I think she, unlike people like Barack Obama, has misused her advantage and instead tried to sound like a politician, as if she had to 'prove herself'.

I think if she were just to realize that people already acknowledge her political know-how (she has it, you can't deny that) and stop trying to tell everyone she's 'for real' then people would take her a lot more seriously.
Posted: Sat, 16th Feb 2008, 5:31pm

Post 100 of 155

A Pickle

Force: 1235 | Joined: 7th Sep 2004 | Posts: 1280

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

I don't think Hillary is stupid, by any means. I just think she's a politician, through and through. I don't trust her one inch, in the same fashion that I didn't trust Mitt Romney or Rudy Giuliani.
Posted: Sat, 16th Feb 2008, 6:57pm

Post 101 of 155

Pooky

Force: 4834 | Joined: 8th Jul 2003 | Posts: 5913

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User MacOS User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

Hillary is, indeed, quite intelligent

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/16/nyregion/16vote.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

Just, in the evil genius kind of way it appears.
Posted: Sat, 16th Feb 2008, 9:00pm

Post 102 of 155

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

While the majority of the "Yes We Can" speech made by Barack Obama was playing the Iraq blame game, a very few and very well-crafter minutes make the speech absolutely perfect.

Although I think the message is largely unrealistic and although I think we're not in a "broken" state right now to begin with, Black Eyed Peas frontman Will.I.Am has unofficially made an amazing chopped-up version of the speech.

Watch it here.

"We've been warned to give offering people of this nation false hope. But in the unlikely story that is America; there has nothing been false about hope." Bobby Kennedy and King come to mind, but not to as great a message or extent. Still, great speech writers. Gotta give him that. Although what I find funniest is how his campaign is so adamant about saying they need funds and don't take donations from special interest groups, all-the-while Oprah is shoveling his pockets full. Oprah is her own special interest group. smile

Oprah's favorite things '08: "EVERY-BODY GETS-A PRESIDENTIAL ADMINISTRATIOOOOOOOOOON!!!!!!"

Last edited Sat, 16th Feb 2008, 9:04pm; edited 1 times in total.

Posted: Sat, 16th Feb 2008, 9:03pm

Post 103 of 155

Fill

Force: 1257 | Joined: 1st Jul 2005 | Posts: 1652

CompositeLab Lite User EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

This is interesting... The KKK supports Obama.

http://www.dailysquib.co.uk/?c=117&a=1227
Posted: Sat, 16th Feb 2008, 9:29pm

Post 104 of 155

Serpent

Force: 5426 | Joined: 26th Dec 2003 | Posts: 6515

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Pro User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Fill wrote:

This is interesting... The KKK supports Obama.

http://www.dailysquib.co.uk/?c=117&a=1227
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/kkk.asp
Posted: Sat, 16th Feb 2008, 9:37pm

Post 105 of 155

Fill

Force: 1257 | Joined: 1st Jul 2005 | Posts: 1652

CompositeLab Lite User EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

Serpent wrote:

Fill wrote:

This is interesting... The KKK supports Obama.

http://www.dailysquib.co.uk/?c=117&a=1227
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/kkk.asp
Ah. Man, I feel like a gullible ass now.
Posted: Thu, 21st Feb 2008, 12:11am

Post 106 of 155

Videoace123

Force: 1056 | Joined: 4th Dec 2006 | Posts: 392

EffectsLab Pro User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

Fill wrote:

This is interesting... The KKK supports Obama.

http://www.dailysquib.co.uk/?c=117&a=1227
KKK really creeps me out.
Posted: Thu, 21st Feb 2008, 12:34am

Post 107 of 155

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

After waiting in line for 3 hours and totally missing school, and even with the hookup from my uncle who manages the venue, I saw Obama speak at Reunion Arena in Dallas today at about noon.

Boy, I've never seen such a crowd. They had 20,000 seats and the line easily covered several miles worth of people zig-zagged into place. I know we were a good quarter mile from the entrance itself and we were in the middle of the people to get in. From there to line wrapped around the sports arena twice, wrapped around the city's gigantic convention center, made it's way back to the arena, zig-zagged probably a hundered times, then went up 4 levels of an abandoned parking garage. The man can command and corral a crowd, I'll give him that.

I'd say easily 100,000 people waited and didn't even get to see him. I was lucky enough to be on the street at one point in the line 2 hours into waiting when the police pushed me back and I got to see him from like 30 feet away drive down slowly.

His speech was largely repetitive (as expected from any candidate) but was made more interesting by his references to and inro given by Dallas Cowboy and Dancing with the Stars champion Emmit Smith. Man, Smith is charismatic himself. Got probably the biggest applause of the day.

Barack pulled it off nicely, looking back at Smith in awe and saying "Thank god he isn't running against me."

Overall it was a grueling but fun experience, and made me that much closer to leaning away from McCain or Hillary and towards Obama.
Posted: Thu, 21st Feb 2008, 3:19am

Post 108 of 155

Frosty G

Force: 540 | Joined: 28th May 2005 | Posts: 640

EffectsLab Pro User Windows User

Gold Member

He is a great speaker, no doubt. But I advise anyone who is voting this election to look beyond stump speeches. I wouldn't put merit into them from ANY candidates.
Posted: Thu, 21st Feb 2008, 5:30am

Post 109 of 155

A Pickle

Force: 1235 | Joined: 7th Sep 2004 | Posts: 1280

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Frosty G wrote:

He is a great speaker, no doubt. But I advise anyone who is voting this election to look beyond stump speeches. I wouldn't put merit into them from ANY candidates.
Speeches? No. Debates? Yes.
Posted: Wed, 5th Mar 2008, 9:07am

Post 110 of 155

ben3308

Force: 5210 | Joined: 24th May 2004 | Posts: 6433

VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

UPDATE

So as some of you may know, Atom attended the Obama rally a little while back. Apparently lines were long and the presentation was formal and inpersonal.

Well about a week and a half ago, I had the luxury of attending a relatively small Hillary Clinton rally (sub 2000 people) just four blocks from my house. I was enamored by what she had to say and she actually swayed my Obama vote back over to the Clinton side of things. I have tons of pictures of this rally, including one from about two feet away. The pictures in the Dallas Morning News of Hillary Clinton also feature me about ten feet from her at most angles. biggrin

Anyhow, because of this rally's effect, I naturally voted today in the primary, and I voted Clinton. She had a lot to say at the rally, and her comments on the fact that President gives no 'on-the-job training' for when a life-or-death call comes in at three o'clock in the morning made me realize that only Hillary or McCain really has the experience to deal with situations immediately once in office.

Sooooo I voted (provisional, sadly, my registration didn't go through, has another day or two I guess) Clinton and my brother voted Obama. We also both stayed to caucus for delegates, and my mom was actually chosen as one of the 167 delegates for Texas! The idea that someone in my family holds 1/167th of the power to decide 1/3 of the primary (primaries run 2/3 on popular vote and 1/3 on delegates) is an exciting prospect, to say the least.

What's more, word got around that identical twins were splitting their political allegiances, and we actually got interviewed and followed around by a photojournalist for the Dallas Morning News. Apparently, we'll be in the paper tomorrow.

In conclusion, though I at first didn't at all like Clinton, I'm happy she has won (we think) Texas and even happier that I was a part of that vote. I'm glad I voted and even more glad that I attended the caucus. If not, my mom wouldn't have been compelled to come and she would not have been chosen as a delegate. This is democracy at work,(well, the voting thing. The delegates are more of a republican concept biggrin) and it's exhilarating just to see what happens.


Anybody else in Texas or Ohio vote?

EDIT: Here's the little writeup on sibling rivalry. They didn't pick the most favorable of quotes from me, but eh...that's the news business for you.
Posted: Wed, 5th Mar 2008, 10:28pm

Post 111 of 155

Fill

Force: 1257 | Joined: 1st Jul 2005 | Posts: 1652

CompositeLab Lite User EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

Dammit, Ben! You've failed me. Haha. I really couldn't care less how great her speech was. Do you know why? I believe, in the bottom of my heart, that Hillary is a dishonest politician that could lie in your face and you wouldn't know it. I don't trust Hillary for anything.

I also hate her healthcare plan. It's hell. It's basically, "Force government healthcare on every U.S. citizen." That's a big government, controlling mindset that honestly scares me.

Also, Hillary stayed in the race, but the funky Texas caucus system might decide differently.
Posted: Thu, 6th Mar 2008, 1:48am

Post 112 of 155

Pooky

Force: 4834 | Joined: 8th Jul 2003 | Posts: 5913

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User MacOS User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

Just wondering, Ben, what experience Hillary has with foreign policy? She voted for Iraq, while Obama voted against Iraq, so I'd say Obama is the one that knows what he's doing. I think we all agree that Iraq should never have been invaded, and well, that was probably the single biggest foreign policy decision of the last decade and she failed at picking the correct option.

At any rate, she'd have to win every remaining state 58 to 42% to tie with Obama, which won't happen, so unless she cooks up some scheme or bribes the superdelegates into voting against the popular vote, Obama will most probably win the nomination.

Last edited Thu, 6th Mar 2008, 2:36am; edited 1 times in total.

Posted: Thu, 6th Mar 2008, 2:25am

Post 113 of 155

ben3308

Force: 5210 | Joined: 24th May 2004 | Posts: 6433

VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Hindsight is 20/20 and I don't think any of us really could have seen just how bad Iraq was going to be. Don't get me wrong, I was against fruitless missions for WMD's in the first place, but I think now it's a bit petty to hold a vote over a single decision made years ago.

Larger scale looks at the track record (and personal history, for that matter) show Clinton's dedication to the American public and her experience as a public leader. I fully support all the values of Barack Obama, I just think he needs more experience.

Please don't martyr me for my vote, I only voted that way because of the issue of experience. To me, it a very important factor; and despite Obama's progress, I think he's missing one of the things that can only come with time: experience.
Posted: Thu, 6th Mar 2008, 2:41am

Post 114 of 155

Pooky

Force: 4834 | Joined: 8th Jul 2003 | Posts: 5913

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User MacOS User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

Well yeah, I respect your opinion, I'm just saying: Clinton has no more experience than Obama. In fact, he's been in an elected position longer than she has. And you can't call Iraq "a single decision made years ago", as it's been one of the biggest disasters in modern times, and was, in fact, quite predictable in its failure (just go read some old forum threads or foreign news articles or something, nearly everybody except the US was against it).

So yeah, I'm just sayin', if your only concern in terms of who you voted for was how much experience each candidate has, as opposed to intelligence, honesty, values, voting record, and so on, then you picked the wrong candidate...

Anyway, that's ok, as I said, since it's pretty much certain she won't win without cheating.
Posted: Thu, 6th Mar 2008, 2:49am

Post 115 of 155

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Pooky wrote:

Well yeah, I respect your opinion, I'm just saying: Clinton has no more experience than Obama.
Now that's just silly and untrue. And I voted for Obama. Pooky, you seem to be quite outspoken in a very odd way about American politics that I must not understand. Often, at least to my commonly over-sensitive self, it's very negative towards one candidate or people.

There's no reason to nip at Hillary to build up Obama. If you can't defend your candidate without taking down another, you shouldn't be supporting that candidate.

That's Bill Clinton who said that back in 1992, I believe. Again, I voted for Obama if that makes any difference to you. But I'd be more than happy to support Hillary were she the irrefutable Democratic candidate. Truth is, for the first time at least in my life:

We're dealing with an election in which the I feel like we're deciding between the better of several "goods" (Hillary, Obama, Huckabee, McCain) instead of the better of two evils. And I'm optimistic for American politics because of that.
Posted: Thu, 6th Mar 2008, 2:54am

Post 116 of 155

ben3308

Force: 5210 | Joined: 24th May 2004 | Posts: 6433

VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

I admit the Iraq 'decision' comment I made was poor. I just think that people who voted for it- while some wanted a right-wing vendetta- others may not have known just how far George Bush would push things.

As for experience, here's the thing, Pooky:

Experience doesn't just include being in office. Being 13 years Obama's senior and having been a rather proactive (CHIPs, etc) First Lady, Clinton knows, more-so than Obama, how Washington runs and how to handle things.

Again, I really, really want to stress that I don't vehemently support Clinton- I agree almost completely with Barack Obama's issues as well (they are, after all, very similar)- but I landed on Clinton in the primary; and a lot of that reason is because I had the luxury of hearing her face-to-face and I didn't catch any of the facetiousness which I had previously attributed to her (as Fill so openly attributes, as well).

This being said, it will be interesting to see which Democrat ends up with the final nomination, and my votes in the primary are not largely indicative of my votes in the general election.
Posted: Thu, 6th Mar 2008, 3:04am

Post 117 of 155

Bryce007

Force: 1910 | Joined: 5th Apr 2003 | Posts: 2609

VideoWrap User Windows User

Gold Member

Atom wrote:

We're dealing with an election in which the I feel like we're deciding between the better of several "goods"
I don't think I've ever disagreed with you more. on anything. ever. smile




But Heeeey.... It's a filmmaking forum. And that topic I shall stick with...
Posted: Thu, 6th Mar 2008, 3:17am

Post 118 of 155

Serpent

Force: 5426 | Joined: 26th Dec 2003 | Posts: 6515

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Pro User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

ben3308 wrote:

I admit the Iraq 'decision' comment I made was poor. I just think that people who voted for it- while some wanted a right-wing vendetta- others may not have known just how far George Bush would push things.

As for experience, here's the thing, Pooky:

Experience doesn't just include being in office. Being 13 years Obama's senior and having been a rather proactive (CHIPs, etc) First Lady, Clinton knows, more-so than Obama, how Washington runs and how to handle things.

Again, I really, really want to stress that I don't vehemently support Clinton- I agree almost completely with Barack Obama's issues as well (they are, after all, very similar)- but I landed on Clinton in the primary; and a lot of that reason is because I had the luxury of hearing her face-to-face and I didn't catch any of the facetiousness which I had previously attributed to her (as Fill so openly attributes, as well).

This being said, it will be interesting to see which Democrat ends up with the final nomination, and my votes in the primary are not largely indicative of my votes in the general election.
The following isn't meant to dispute you, just expressing my opinion on an issue you were talking about:

I hate discussing experience. George W. Bush, after being governor and then President, has plenty of experience. However, he doesn't know how to run his country, his foreign policy is terrible, his speaking and leading abilities are embarrassing, the list goes on. I disagree with nearly all of his political views and almost every act and decision he has made. I'm sure he's a nice guy, and he did a fine job speaking immediately after 9-11, but that is all I will give him. If he went up against someone with nil experience, but that person had the qualities and political views that I value in a leader, that person will get my vote. Bush is an extreme example, of course, because he is the total, complete opposite of someone who would get my vote, but the same concept applies to even similar candidates.

The differences between Obama and Clinton + Clinton's experience still equals Obama being my choice candidate.
Posted: Thu, 6th Mar 2008, 3:26am

Post 119 of 155

A Pickle

Force: 1235 | Joined: 7th Sep 2004 | Posts: 1280

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Pooky wrote:

Well yeah, I respect your opinion, I'm just saying: Clinton has no more experience than Obama. In fact, he's been in an elected position longer than she has. And you can't call Iraq "a single decision made years ago", as it's been one of the biggest disasters in modern times, and was, in fact, quite predictable in its failure (just go read some old forum threads or foreign news articles or something, nearly everybody except the US was against it).
Seriously. If Hillary would've said, "Yes, I supported the Iraq War from the beginning, but I have since changed my stance on that and regret that vote," that'd be one thing. She seems very keen on touting her so-called "experience" showing the world that Obama, the one who she is "more qualified" and "more experienced," had it right from the beginning.

I'm sorry, I have an extraordinarily hard time trusting a woman who touts her "experience." She voted for the Iraq War, yet somehow opposed it from the beginning. She voted for the PATRIOT Act, to issue it in 2001 and again to renew it in 2006 -- but she opposes it. She has used an image of Obama in Somali garb to mis-inform and mislead people by saying, "Look at Obama in Muslim Gear! That's bad! You want my clearly good track record of experience, not his experience!"

BS. If Hillary wins this election... ugh...

Atom wrote:

There's no reason to nip at Hillary to build up Obama. If you can't defend your candidate without taking down another, you shouldn't be supporting that candidate.

That's Bill Clinton who said that back in 1992, I believe. Again, I voted for Obama if that makes any difference to you. But I'd be more than happy to support Hillary were she the irrefutable Democratic candidate.
You should tell Bill and Hillary to take that philosophy to heart -- because both of them are the ones who have turned the democratic race into a mudsling-fest.

I might add, I'm not sure how you find it noble to "support" the Democratic candidate if/when he/she is selected. Why?
Posted: Thu, 6th Mar 2008, 3:34am

Post 120 of 155

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Maybe it's just me, and again I'll say that I voted for Obama in the Texas primary, but what I'm perceiving is a lot of nasty hatred for Hillary; warranted or not- that I've yet to see at all for any of the other candidates.

And I find it almost sickening. She's a good candidate, really. Whether you agree with her or not (I'd say it's hard not to, she seems to back most things she says with clean-cut facts. Gotta be careful after Bill's slipup. smile) -all candidates aside, in the perspective of politics by themselves: she's generally a very good candidate. And it's unfair to say otherwise. This isn't saying she's the best, no, the best might've been Ron Paul had he also been a viable candidate.

But she's completely dominated the Democratic scene for the past few years essentially all the way up until the primaries, and voting for her or not, I can't just let people act like this isn't a big deal.

The woman's worked hard. Just as hard as all the other candidates. And gone through probably a good deal more hell than any other major candidate. If you're not going to cut her some slack (which is understandable, I guess, if you're looking for someone tough smile) then at least give her credit where she's due it.

In other words, LEAVE BRITNEY ALONE!!! wink

Last edited Thu, 6th Mar 2008, 3:36am; edited 1 times in total.

Posted: Thu, 6th Mar 2008, 3:35am

Post 121 of 155

ssj john

Force: 563 | Joined: 4th Nov 2003 | Posts: 795

Windows User MacOS User

Member

Bryce007 wrote:

Atom wrote:

We're dealing with an election in which the I feel like we're deciding between the better of several "goods"
I don't think I've ever disagreed with you more. on anything. ever. smile




But Heeeey.... It's a filmmaking forum. And that topic I shall stick with...
I completely agree Bryce...I almost don't want to vote just because I don't want any of the present candidates to be president.
Posted: Thu, 6th Mar 2008, 3:36am

Post 122 of 155

Pooky

Force: 4834 | Joined: 8th Jul 2003 | Posts: 5913

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User MacOS User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

Atom - Heh, yeah, to be honest I just have fun here and write out my opinion harshly. I do indeed care very much about American politics seeing as the US has a huge effect on everybody else, and well Canadian politics are horribly dull.

Here's something to think about though:

Nobody had a better resumé than Cheney, and just see how that turned out.
Posted: Thu, 6th Mar 2008, 3:41am

Post 123 of 155

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Nobody had a better resume than FDR, just see how that one turned out. smile

I can't argue the "experience" thing. It should be 'Captain Obvious' to everyone that experience is always and should always be a factor in choosing a candidate. To me that's common sense. It's necessity. Otherwise we end up with an unworkable or naive leader. I don't think that's refutable. This doesn't have to be all the experience or years of seniority in the world, heavens no, but I do find it important.

That's me, I guess.

And we didn't vote for Cheney, he was free with the package deal. And if Cheney had run for President and been elected, I'm confident- my liberal self or otherwise- his know-how would've put us in a better situation. Having scheming political advisors with a lower-level incompetent figurehead like Georgie boy isn't exactly the same as having the scheming people be President.

Dare I feels the boldness to say it: Cheney would probably have been an excellent President, at least in a few ways. If not excellent, than efficient- and that's what we needed for a few years in the past eight. Not all of them, but some. We've been running our feet through the mud slowly. If he didn't have to go through Bush and his minimal independence of thought I have no doubt we'd still have some major issues. But I doubt they'd be as great or numerous.

I hate hate hate to say this. But Cheney is a smart guy. Have you heard him speak? He's great! Knows exactly what he's talking about and does so very eloquently. Call it my conservative concession; Cheney wouldn't have been the worst thing for America. This coming from a Democrat that voted for Obama.

(Also Pooky, I saw "In Bruges" today and there's a point where a man complains about smoke being blown in his face. I couldn't help but think of your attitude in politics a little bit. And low and behold later in the movie it's revealed who the man is by Colin Farrel: "The Canadian? You mean him? He's Canadian? Oy.......of course he is."

I couldn't help but laugh out loud. smile)
Posted: Thu, 6th Mar 2008, 4:42am

Post 124 of 155

Bryce007

Force: 1910 | Joined: 5th Apr 2003 | Posts: 2609

VideoWrap User Windows User

Gold Member

Atom wrote:

Cheney would probably have been an excellent President, at least in a few ways.


.....and NOW, I officially couldn't agree with you less....


Atom wrote:

I hate hate hate to say this. But Cheney is a smart guy. Have you heard him speak? He's great! Knows exactly what he's talking about and does so very eloquently.
...which makes him that much more of an knowingly evil bastard with fascist ideas (who loves to help out his buddies in the oil industry).
Posted: Thu, 6th Mar 2008, 4:49am

Post 125 of 155

ben3308

Force: 5210 | Joined: 24th May 2004 | Posts: 6433

VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Rating: +1

F*ck this, I'm voting Ron Paul.
Posted: Thu, 6th Mar 2008, 4:55am

Post 126 of 155

Bryce007

Force: 1910 | Joined: 5th Apr 2003 | Posts: 2609

VideoWrap User Windows User

Gold Member

.....And now Ben and I see eye to eye...
Posted: Thu, 6th Mar 2008, 5:01am

Post 127 of 155

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

I'm pretty sure he's just being facetious. But then again, when isn't he? smile
Posted: Thu, 6th Mar 2008, 5:02am

Post 128 of 155

Serpent

Force: 5426 | Joined: 26th Dec 2003 | Posts: 6515

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Pro User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Atom wrote:

She's a good candidate, really. Whether you agree with her or not (I'd say it's hard not to, she seems to back most things she says with clean-cut facts. Gotta be careful after Bill's slipup. smile) -all candidates aside, in the perspective of politics by themselves: she's generally a very good candidate. And it's unfair to say otherwise.
Unfair to say otherwise? I disagree with that statement. If one thinks she is a corrupt liar (see Fill), then why would he/she consider her a good candidate. What one person calls a good candidate may not be your definition of one, it's completely subjective.

Experience being a factor goes without saying. Though the significance of experience is probably much lower in my eyes than it is in yours. Your argument about experience was very black and white, and really only covered "do they have experience, or do they not?"

I disagree with everything you said about Cheney, but I don't need to elaborate.

ben3308 wrote:

F*ck this, I'm voting Ron Paul.
Nice play on words. Too bad Ron Paul is amazing and his audience spans beyond the apathetic. smile
Posted: Thu, 6th Mar 2008, 5:10am

Post 129 of 155

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

It seems only those who have actually had a brush of actual Ron Paul have the sense not to be for him. smile
Posted: Thu, 6th Mar 2008, 5:27am

Post 130 of 155

Serpent

Force: 5426 | Joined: 26th Dec 2003 | Posts: 6515

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Pro User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Atom wrote:

It seems only those who have actually had a brush of actual Ron Paul have the sense not to be for him. smile
We aren't completely oblivious to the going-ons in Texas. You haven't had a brush of Clinton, if you did, you would have the sense to not support her. <<See how silly that is? You really can't pull that card. I actually read about people I'd potentially vote for and look into it a lot, I find politics interesting.
Posted: Thu, 6th Mar 2008, 5:36am

Post 131 of 155

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Serpent wrote:

Atom wrote:

It seems only those who have actually had a brush of actual Ron Paul have the sense not to be for him. smile
We aren't completely oblivious to the going-ons in Texas. You haven't had a brush of Clinton, if you did, you would have the sense to not support her. <<See how silly that is? You really can't pull that card. I actually read about people I'd potentially vote for and look into it a lot, I find politics interesting.
I see your logic and it's very clear to me, and frankly that was just a side comment from me, but look at it this way and maybe you'll see where I'm coming from:

I think it's entirely different, because I'm sure citizens of Illinois know at least a tad bit more about the effects of Obama than everyone else. Same with Clinton in New York. It's not really all that silly, it's sensible. The people who have interactions with the candidates before they even had the public aspirations to run surely have a view of these people others don't see during the eager-to-please election days.

Since I've known Ron Paul or, for that matter, known of him here in Texas he's been known as a complete kook. I'm not trying to be offensive, but even the most neutral political people -some of who I know very well and most admire- have told me this same thing, even when I was younger. And even better, I trust them.

This is no different than Kinky Freidman, who ran for Texas Governor a year ago. The ridiculousness gets to be so great, I simply sigh and let it go. And I'd say I've done that towards Ron Paul during the majority of the topics including him thus far.

But I'm just telling you like it is here for me, how I've been told, and how I've felt: Ron Paul does no good. He's an idealist, not a realist. He's a romantic, not a rationalist. And while a good leader has qualities of both: I only find one in 'ol RP.

Don't forget this is coming from a born and bred Texan liberal, either.

I'm not trying to change your mind for or on anything, not at all, I just would like for you to see my approach and restraint from expressing love for Paulie boy.
Posted: Thu, 6th Mar 2008, 5:57am

Post 132 of 155

ben3308

Force: 5210 | Joined: 24th May 2004 | Posts: 6433

VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

People think Clinton lays claim to so much corruption.....why? I can see just not liking her (I didn't until the rally) but where are you getting these facts of corruption?

And even so, (and I know this next bit is a little red herring) is her alleged corruption anywhere close to that of the oil-mongering Bush family or Cheney's Haliburton? I know the Clintons certainly have their misgivings (all politicians do, save crazy ol' Ron Paul biggrin) but in general they're a family that has dedicated their adult lives to better the middle- and lower-middle class families of America; which is something I greatly, greatly admire.
Posted: Thu, 6th Mar 2008, 6:48am

Post 133 of 155

Serpent

Force: 5426 | Joined: 26th Dec 2003 | Posts: 6515

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Pro User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

ben3308 wrote:

People think Clinton lays claim to so much corruption.....why? I can see just not liking her (I didn't until the rally) but where are you getting these facts of corruption?

And even so, (and I know this next bit is a little red herring) is her alleged corruption anywhere close to that of the oil-mongering Bush family or Cheney's Haliburton? I know the Clintons certainly have their misgivings (all politicians do, save crazy ol' Ron Paul biggrin) but in general they're a family that has dedicated their adult lives to better the middle- and lower-middle class families of America; which is something I greatly, greatly admire.
No one blatantly said the word "corruption" or "corrupt", as far as I know, but me. And what I said was a hypothetical example, re-read my post. Also, after re-reading my own post I noticed I tagged Fill's name to that, and I don't know if he thinks she is corrupt, but I know he sees her as a liar, so I didn't mean to put words into his mouth if I did. Now personally, I just don't see things the way she does. I don't know enough about her to decide whether I believe she is/could be corrupt.

Also, ben, people like McCaine, and Huckabee are all for the fair-tax idea, which is also to benefit low, low middle, and middle class. That doesn't mean they can't be corrupt. As you said, all that acted as a red-herring and is really somewhat irrelevant to this conversation. Most successful politicians going for this kind of office try to appeal to lower > middle class as that makes up most of America. This quality is nice and all, but I think candidates should push lower class support as well. The current benefits of lower middle class + is paradise compared to how some people in America live.
Posted: Thu, 6th Mar 2008, 7:02am

Post 134 of 155

ben3308

Force: 5210 | Joined: 24th May 2004 | Posts: 6433

VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Ah, but Serpent the taxing:income disparity between lower middle class and upper class citizens is so much greater than that of lower class to lower middle class. As in, my family (upper end of the lower middle class) is in the same tax bracket (of like 28% of income, I think?) as people who make over quadruple my family's income. Conversely, lower class people I know, who make probably 70% of my family's income, pay half as many taxes as we do.

How do I know this? Amongst the classes of prosperity, we help each other fill out our FAFSA's at school, of course! College season is, after all, a'swingin'! biggrin

I know lower class people may have things bad, but as far as government tax intervention goes, it's the middle class that gets consistently screwed.

Also, when you use strong words like 'lie' or 'corruption' with only the basis of your opinions, it doesn't bode well for your argument. Clinton and Obama are so closely aligned on issues that I think some Obama fans have inadvertently found ways to substantiate their dislikes for opposition (seeing as criticizing her platform can't really be done well). Again, I'm not a huge Hillary fan by any means; but I do believe she deserves someone (in this case, me) to defend her name when it's sort of being tossed around with unreasonable negativity.

Digressing, the red herring I was drawing was definitely NOT for McCain or Huckabee: both those guys are probably some of the most honest, true-to-form Republicans since Lincoln-era (biggrin) but to compare to the corruption due to private interests in oil from George Bush, Sr. as well as Cheney's ties with Haliburton, a company whose hands are consistently found in many a proverbial cookie jar.
Posted: Thu, 6th Mar 2008, 11:26am

Post 135 of 155

Penguin

Force: 852 | Joined: 17th May 2006 | Posts: 560

EffectsLab Pro User FXpreset Maker FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Atom wrote:

People think Clinton lays claim to so much corruption.....why? I can see just not liking her (I didn't until the rally) but where are you getting these facts of corruption?
Just to name one instance of corruption, she used to be really big on universal health care as the first lady; now she receives several hundred thousand dollars a year from health care corporation lobbyists (I don't recall the exact number, but it was at least $200,000). You don't hear her talk about universal health care any more. And to cite one example of a lie, have you heard the quote where she claimed to be a conservative evangelical southerner? (Sorry I don't have the actual quote here, but it's still kind of early here and I don't really feel like searching the internet for it.)
Posted: Thu, 6th Mar 2008, 12:40pm

Post 136 of 155

Serpent

Force: 5426 | Joined: 26th Dec 2003 | Posts: 6515

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Pro User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

ben3308 wrote:

blahblahmissing serpent's point


Also, when you use strong words like 'lie' or 'corruption' with only the basis of your opinions, it doesn't bode well for your argument. Clinton and Obama are so closely aligned on issues that I think some Obama fans have inadvertently found ways to substantiate their dislikes for opposition (seeing as criticizing her platform can't really be done well). Again, I'm not a huge Hillary fan by any means; but I do believe she deserves someone (in this case, me) to defend her name when it's sort of being tossed around with unreasonable negativity.
STOP putting words in my mouth. I'm sick of it. Every time we have a debate, you seem to go out of your way to misread my posts. I never said anything about her being corrupt/lying, I gave a HYPOTHETICAL EXAMPLE.


Digressing, the red herring I was drawing was definitely NOT for McCain or Huckabee: both those guys are probably some of the most honest, true-to-form Republicans since Lincoln-era (biggrin) but to compare to the corruption due to private interests in oil from George Bush, Sr. as well as Cheney's ties with Haliburton, a company whose hands are consistently found in many a proverbial cookie jar.
AGAIN, missing my damn point. I was saying, that hypothetically, they COULD be corrupt despite their attempts to benefit the classes you mentioned in your 'red-herring' argument. Plenty of people try to benefit the majority of the American populace and appeal to that population in this election.

However, aside from all these hypotheticals, I think Huckabee would be a completely corrupt president, and is a corrupt politician. I'm not going to go into that though (on here, I'd be glad to discuss it in PM's).

It really pisses me off that you say I am using the words "lie" and "corrupt" for the basis of my opinion. I am using those as hypotheticals to prove a point, not expressing my opinion for the candidates (except those times where I unbiasedly said that Hillary simply doesn't represent my political or social views.)
Posted: Thu, 6th Mar 2008, 3:03pm

Post 137 of 155

Bryce007

Force: 1910 | Joined: 5th Apr 2003 | Posts: 2609

VideoWrap User Windows User

Gold Member

Also, Both McCain and Huckabee are Neo-cons. They aren't even close to being "True" republicans, in any sense of that word.
Posted: Thu, 6th Mar 2008, 3:37pm

Post 138 of 155

Pooky

Force: 4834 | Joined: 8th Jul 2003 | Posts: 5913

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User MacOS User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

Google it for more details, as I'm too lazy to do it myself, but regarding Hillary's dishonesty, there's the issue of her tax records which she doesn't want to release publicly like Obama, the huge amount of money she gets from lobbyists, the black districts in New York which reported 200-odd for Hillary against ZERO for Obama, and the fact that she wants to get Flordia and Michigan's delegates back despite agreeing to not campaign there (which she did) and not put her name on the ballot (which she did) like all the other candidates. She spread quite a lot of lies about Obama (like that picture with him in muslim garbs that she spread going "ooh lookie lookie he's a terrorist!"), and even went so far as to endorse McCain. There's other more minor stuff but those are the big ones I can think of.
Posted: Thu, 6th Mar 2008, 3:50pm

Post 139 of 155

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

Pooky wrote:

She spread quite a lot of lies about Obama (like that picture with him in muslim garbs that she spread going "ooh lookie lookie he's a terrorist!")
Yeah, what the hell was that about?

A politician goes to another country and shows an interest in their culture.

....



...and? That's cool, right?

...Right?

I was really utterly perplexed by that whole issue - primarily I was confused as to why it was an issue at all. From my point of view it seemed like a good thing! Yet the implication was that the Clinton's had released it as negative press, which I think says a lot about their viewpoints (not to mention their view of the American voting public...).

The BBC News really didn't cover the issue very well at all - I don't suppose somebody in the know could fill me in? I think it's because the BBC was confused by the whole thing as well, so reported it as a big thing without really knowing why it was.

If it was an issue, then it says a lot about US politics.

Clinton's tactic of "oh bugger, I'm losing, quick let's get dirty!" was a little sad to see, especially when you're talking about two candidates in the same party. I imagine they've done more to harm the party itself than promote each other.

My main reason for disliking Clinton is her random jumping on the bandwagon of "BAN THESE SICK GAMES!" a few years back, when she clearly had absolutely no idea what she was talking about. Then again, that was a while back, so she may have done some research since then. Anyone happen to know her current stance on video games?

Last edited Thu, 6th Mar 2008, 4:09pm; edited 1 times in total.

Posted: Thu, 6th Mar 2008, 4:06pm

Post 140 of 155

Pooky

Force: 4834 | Joined: 8th Jul 2003 | Posts: 5913

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User MacOS User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

Rating: +2

Tarn, American politics are all about fear these days. It's all about who can protect you better, who should answer that phone call at 3AM, who is good and who is evil... the whole good vs evil thing is pretty much responsible for everything bad that's happened in recent times, as it is far too simplistic to be applicable in the real world, yet gets used EVERYWHERE in the US. Still, it gets votes.

I could get you tons of pictures of our prime minister in middle eastern garbs, and they've been on the front page of newspapers under a positive headline.

Oh and I remember reading not too long ago that Hillary was still for banning violent games, though I might be mistaken.
Posted: Thu, 6th Mar 2008, 4:13pm

Post 141 of 155

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

Pooky wrote:

the whole good vs evil thing is pretty much responsible for everything bad that's happened in recent times, as it is far too simplistic to be applicable in the real world, yet gets used EVERYWHERE in the US.
Heh, that reminds me of an interview with a top US military/political person (to my shame I can't remember who, sorry!) from a few years back. The interview was on the BBC, I think on Newsnight (a very respected current affairs show), and there were a few people talking about Iraq: some British politician, the US guy and a former SAS guy.

Anyway, at some point the US guy actually, genuinely referred to the rebels in Iraq as 'the bad guys'.

I nearly fell off my chair, as did the interviewer. I seem to recall the SAS man then politely took the US guy apart.
Posted: Thu, 6th Mar 2008, 4:52pm

Post 142 of 155

Fill

Force: 1257 | Joined: 1st Jul 2005 | Posts: 1652

CompositeLab Lite User EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

Alright, Ben. Here are some sources of Hillary's "corruption", "lies", or whatever you want to call it. Here are instances of Hillary...:

Ripping People Off

Getting Desperate for the Texas votes

Flip-Flopping within a few weeks

Makes a college student ask a planted question

Obama exposes Clinton's allegations of plagerism This part of the debate made me like Obama a lot. Instead of shooting more sh!t back at Hillary, he just flat out says it, "We're getting into the silly season of politics." I haven't heard a politician say that in years. Hillary lives in the silly season.

Oh, and Hillary's attacks on Obama's inexperience is really annoying me. Have you noticed every response to questions starts with, "Well, (insert amount of years here) ago, I was...."

NBC points out Hillary's mood swings

Ben, I'm not trying brainwash you, but it just seems like you're blindly walking. I know you're a very intelligent person, don't get me wrong, but you're driving me crazy! razz
Posted: Thu, 6th Mar 2008, 7:25pm

Post 143 of 155

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Darth Penguin wrote:

Atom wrote:

People think Clinton lays claim to so much corruption.....why? I can see just not liking her (I didn't until the rally) but where are you getting these facts of corruption?
Just to name one instance of corruption...
I didn't write that, buddy. smile

You don't hear her talk about universal health care any more.
Are you kidding? Honestly, are you kidding? Hillary Clinton's base, her platform for Presidency, almost entirely rides on her plan for universal health care.

This is a bit of a rant, and I'm sure it has been heightened by a perpetuated frustration; so please take it what I say with a grain of salt. I'm going to be patriotic right now, and I want people to know that. But I'm going to keep these as anti-ad hominem as possible. I'm not speaking from or for facts, and I'll acknowledge this, but I feel the compulsion to respond to this:

Pooky wrote:

Tarn, American politics are all about fear these days. It's all about who can protect you better, who should answer that phone call at 3AM, who is good and who is evil... the whole good vs evil thing is pretty much responsible for everything bad that's happened in recent times, as it is far too simplistic to be applicable in the real world, yet gets used EVERYWHERE in the US. Still, it gets votes.
Thank god you Canadians know exactly how American politics are for the American people these days. They may affect you, and I won't refute that, but you're speaking on the behalf of a people you're not even part of!

Come on, Pooky! That's ridiculous. I'm an American. Not a Canadian, not someone who 'knows about American politics'. I'm an American. And say what you want, make generalizations if you must; but you have no right to speak on my behalf and say that fear and "good and evil" gets used EVERYWHERE in the U.S.

You don't even live in the U.S.! That's just silly to say such baseless, factless things. Say what you want about the candidates, defame my country if you must, I won't stand in your way. I'll sigh and turn my head to your negative or disagreeable attitude about America and American politics sometimes; but when you're speaking on almost completely 'guesses', I feel inclined to respond in a frustrated way.

Whether you acknowledge it or not, you inadvertently just blamed America for everything bad that has happened in recent times. That is sad.

I surely, surely hope my fellow American FXhomers will agree with me on this. A Canadian telling a Brit exactly how the politics affect the American people and where in America they're used.

Ridiculous, really.
Posted: Thu, 6th Mar 2008, 7:54pm

Post 144 of 155

Penguin

Force: 852 | Joined: 17th May 2006 | Posts: 560

EffectsLab Pro User FXpreset Maker FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Atom wrote:

Darth Penguin wrote:

Atom wrote:

People think Clinton lays claim to so much corruption.....why? I can see just not liking her (I didn't until the rally) but where are you getting these facts of corruption?
Just to name one instance of corruption...
I didn't write that, buddy. smile
What do you mean you didn't write it?

Atom wrote:

You don't hear her talk about universal health care any more.
Are you kidding? Honestly, are you kidding? Hillary Clinton's base, her platform for Presidency, almost entirely rides on her plan for universal health care.
Well, I guess I'm just horribly misinformed smile I haven't really been paying much attention to the primaries as I can't vote this election, so guess I should just keep my mouth shut in the topic. But what I was saying still applies; once she got on the lobbyists payroll, she stopped pushing for universal health care as first lady. Now that she has something to gain (i.e. being President) by supporting it, she obviously will start supporting it again. Who knows if she actually plans to deliver it, or if it's just an empty campain promise.


Atom wrote:

Angry stuff at Pooky
I'm afraid I have to agree with Pooky on this, even though I am American. Although you're right- nobody should make baseless generalizations about other people's countries/cultures, something that we as Americans do far more than we should.
Posted: Thu, 6th Mar 2008, 8:06pm

Post 145 of 155

Bryce007

Force: 1910 | Joined: 5th Apr 2003 | Posts: 2609

VideoWrap User Windows User

Gold Member

As previously stated, I'm 100% unimpressed with my country's Politics and politicians.

Our climate IS fear and war mongering, and a majority of the U.S are apathetic to it to such an extent that it's become common place.

As a country, we've done some astoundingly arrogant and unintelligent things.

That is how it is. Blind patriotism doesn't change that. There really is no ignoring the actual facts.


I love America, but the people and decisions running it right now are utterly deplorable, and the criticisms directed at them are MORE than warranted.

Last edited Thu, 6th Mar 2008, 8:20pm; edited 2 times in total.

Posted: Thu, 6th Mar 2008, 8:08pm

Post 146 of 155

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Darth Penguin wrote:

Atom wrote:

Darth Penguin wrote:

Atom wrote:

People think Clinton lays claim to so much corruption.....why? I can see just not liking her (I didn't until the rally) but where are you getting these facts of corruption?
What do you mean you didn't write it?
What I mean is, you put "Atom wrote" on that quote, when I absolutely did not say that.


Well, I guess I'm just horribly misinformed smile I haven't really been paying much attention to the primaries as I can't vote this election, so guess I should just keep my mouth shut in the topic.
You're absolutely entitled to speak here, whether you can vote or not. And I won't stop you, haha. There's nothing wrong about honestly being misinformed or not informed enough about something in American politics. None of us know everything. Just watch how and what you say. You'll end up, even if only on accident, saying something like 'Hillary doesn't support universal healthcare' when that's entirely her platform. It's fine to concede, not exactly know your stuff, but don't force yourself into a wrong answer. smile

But what I was saying still applies; once she got on the lobbyists payroll, she stopped pushing for universal health care as first lady.
I think this is true, but I also think there was a 'muscled-out' of the health care situation going on. After all, even Michael Moore concedes that while she accepted health care lobbyists dollars, she really didn't have a choice unless she was prepared to be incredibly bold and take on the companies that took down so many others.

And while things might've changed by now, she was really only the First Lady, an inherited title by marriage to the President- not a politician.

Now that she has something to gain (i.e. being President) by supporting it, she obviously will start supporting it again. Who knows if she actually plans to deliver it, or if it's just an empty campain promise.
I doubt it's an empty promise. Universal health care is really something Hillary Clinton picked up on and has continually fought for even when she had little she could do or gain (I mean, if it was merely to progress her career, how far would she have got when she's still only First Lady?).

It's fine to just say you don't know much about it, most people don't, but don't do what I think all of us tend to do sometimes and peg someone with something you vaguely heard somewhere. smile

Hillary Clinton, if you'll only give her one thing, has almost always been vehement about health care.
Posted: Thu, 6th Mar 2008, 10:17pm

Post 147 of 155

sfbmovieco

Force: 2354 | Joined: 19th Mar 2002 | Posts: 1552

VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 User Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

Atom, I agree with Pooky. I don't like the democratic candidates and I loathe McCain and Huck Finn. They all seem to expand the government, just in different areas...

"Government that is big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have...The course of history has shown as government grows, liberty decreases."

-Jefferson

People need to watch tv that actually matters with showing what is really going on. I regularly youtube bill mahers show and penn and tellers show.
Posted: Thu, 6th Mar 2008, 10:44pm

Post 148 of 155

ben3308

Force: 5210 | Joined: 24th May 2004 | Posts: 6433

VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Serpent wrote:

STOP putting words in my mouth. I'm sick of it. Every time we have a debate, you seem to go out of your way to misread my posts.
Where have I misread? You inferred from Fill's stuff that he thinks she's a liar. That's calling her a liar. I'm not saying you did that, but someone did. I was addressing the universal 'you' in my beginning of my post, maybe that wasn't as obvious as I thought it was. Also, I HAVE PUT NO WORDS IN YOUR MOUTH SERPENT (see how crazy all caps looks? biggrin). I simply said when you use words like corruption and lies in your inferences, it sort of brings your argument (even when hypothetical) to more of an opinion-based point. Not being facetious here: does that make sense?

AGAIN, missing my damn point. I was saying, that hypothetically, they COULD be corrupt despite their attempts to benefit the classes you mentioned in your 'red-herring' argument.
I didn't so much miss your point as fail to address it, simply because it was a rebuttal that was formed from you missing my point. I wasn't mentioning McCain or Huckabee in my comparison, so your rebuttal including them is sort of a fallacy to the argument. biggrin I didn't miss your point....it just wasn't part of what I was trying to say, so I didn't include it.

I am NOT trying to put words in your mouth, and I think it is your that may have missed what I am trying to delineate.
Posted: Thu, 6th Mar 2008, 10:53pm

Post 149 of 155

A Pickle

Force: 1235 | Joined: 7th Sep 2004 | Posts: 1280

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

sfbmovieco wrote:

Atom, I agree with Pooky. I don't like the democratic candidates and I loathe McCain and Huck Finn. They all seem to expand the government, just in different areas...

"Government that is big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have...The course of history has shown as government grows, liberty decreases."

-Jefferson

People need to watch tv that actually matters with showing what is really going on. I regularly youtube bill mahers show and penn and tellers bullshit.
For once, I agree with you.

I can't help but be utterly BLOWN AWAY that Hillary is actually still a viable candidate for the Democratic nomination. I would've thought the insipid voting record, the inability to provide specifics or even a general direction when presented with a question in a debate, her and her husband's history with the illegal Chinese funding of the Democratic Party, and her resorting to mudslinging, mockery, and political slime at her opponent would've convinced American voters of one thing:

She is a "well-oiled political machine," as one eloquent YouTube user pointedly put it. Obama/Ron Paul 2008, that's all I have to say.
Posted: Thu, 6th Mar 2008, 10:56pm

Post 150 of 155

sfbmovieco

Force: 2354 | Joined: 19th Mar 2002 | Posts: 1552

VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 User Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

Well I agree with you too, except the Obama/Ron Paul 08 thing. There are some HUGE fundamental differences in their views. In fact, the war may be one of the only things they concur on.
Posted: Fri, 7th Mar 2008, 2:42am

Post 151 of 155

Serpent

Force: 5426 | Joined: 26th Dec 2003 | Posts: 6515

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Pro User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

ben3308 wrote:

Serpent wrote:

STOP putting words in my mouth. I'm sick of it. Every time we have a debate, you seem to go out of your way to misread my posts.
Where have I misread? You inferred from Fill's stuff that he thinks she's a liar. That's calling her a liar. I'm not saying you did that, but someone did. I was addressing the universal 'you' in my beginning of my post, maybe that wasn't as obvious as I thought it was. Also, I HAVE PUT NO WORDS IN YOUR MOUTH SERPENT (see how crazy all caps looks? biggrin). I simply said when you use words like corruption and lies in your inferences, it sort of brings your argument (even when hypothetical) to more of an opinion-based point. Not being facetious here: does that make sense?

AGAIN, missing my damn point. I was saying, that hypothetically, they COULD be corrupt despite their attempts to benefit the classes you mentioned in your 'red-herring' argument.
I didn't so much miss your point as fail to address it, simply because it was a rebuttal that was formed from you missing my point. I wasn't mentioning McCain or Huckabee in my comparison, so your rebuttal including them is sort of a fallacy to the argument. biggrin I didn't miss your point....it just wasn't part of what I was trying to say, so I didn't include it.

I am NOT trying to put words in your mouth, and I think it is your that may have missed what I am trying to delineate.
All points aside, in a hypothetical example, I could say: "let's say Gandhi was a corrupt human who hated his people." Not sure what I'd use that for to prove a point, but it would be for exclusively for proving a point. Hypothetical examples are allowed to have things in them that are false in real life, because they are hypothetical. So no, what you said makes absolutely no sense in paragraph one.

Maybe it's just me, but I find your communication skills sometimes make your points unclear. Example, in the very post I quoted:

"That's calling her a liar."

That sounds, again, like it is me calling her a liar. My inclusion of McCain and Huckabee was just to show that candidates with a wide range of political ideas does exactly the same thing you said you admired the Clintons for. All I was saying is that it isn't all that unique, and could very well be contrived (not saying it is, just saying it could be for anyone. It's politics.) So what I said wasn't a fallacy, it's you missing my point (at least this time you did).
Posted: Fri, 7th Mar 2008, 3:16am

Post 152 of 155

Evman

Force: 4382 | Joined: 25th Jan 2004 | Posts: 3609

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Nader '08!
Posted: Fri, 7th Mar 2008, 3:18am

Post 153 of 155

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Evman wrote:

Nader '08!
Woot!
Posted: Sat, 8th Mar 2008, 3:43am

Post 154 of 155

Pooky

Force: 4834 | Joined: 8th Jul 2003 | Posts: 5913

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User MacOS User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

http://isaacs.newsvine.com/_news/2008/03/06/1348806-election-fraud-against-obama-in-ohio-more-comes-out

Heh, so now people are voting for Hillary because they want McCain to win in the general elections.
Posted: Sat, 8th Mar 2008, 8:16pm

Post 155 of 155

Fill

Force: 1257 | Joined: 1st Jul 2005 | Posts: 1652

CompositeLab Lite User EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

Pooky wrote:

http://isaacs.newsvine.com/_news/2008/03/06/1348806-election-fraud-against-obama-in-ohio-more-comes-out

Heh, so now people are voting for Hillary because they want McCain to win in the general elections.
(See: Terrorist Voting)

It's a shame to see this. I actually have a feeling Hillary will win if she's nominated, and the terrorist voters will kick themselves in anger.