VPILF

[White Warlock]

Man, its lucky this is the internet. When you mention Wiretapping (illegal wiretapping) in the VERY SAME POST as "We wouldn't hack Obama's Email because we are more morally good", there is no way you would be able to keep a straight face IRL.

lol, so true

[HATEFACE]

Guess I'm not crazy. White Warlock is!

Dig into that collge kid. Of course Obama isn't stupid. I never said he was - He is tactful, manipulative, & secretive. You've said nothing about Palin's social security number being stolen either. So either you know nothing of it or you just don't care.

Umm... so you think the U.S. should continue on the path of deregulation? Am i understanding you correctly?

Yes, but we should regulate democrats who get elected to congress to ensure they do their jobs they're entrusted with. You use the word deregulation like a friggin catch-phrase man. Do you even know what that means? I don't think you even do. We weren't exactly deregulated - But we do have a freer market.

I'm sorry, but this is just plain false. From 1994 until 2000, the Republicans controlled both houses of U.S. Congress. From 2000 to 2002, the Republicans controlled the House of Representatives. From 2002 until 2006, the Republicans controlled both houses of U.S. Congress. In 2006, the Republicans lost both houses.

Being in 'control' in congress doesn't mean absolute rule though you would like to think so, and probably do, hence why this idealogy is so dangerous. Democrats are fully capable of killing a bill before such time, though much less likely. Yes! it was entirely preventable! Some of the most damning of bills that were killed appeared during 05-06. Some of which were in the period of "first 100 days" of democratic control of the legislature.

So, claiming the economic downturn, which started well before 2006, to be the fault of the Democrats... is just downright false.

It's not false. It's true. . .and not one of those relativistic truths either, this is absolute documentation. The only thing you're correct on is the downturn happaning well before 06.

Really... and what do you define as lose? For that matter, what do you define as win? And finally, what do you think will happen when U.S. troops pull out of Iraq and focus on Afghanistan? Yep, you guessed it... Al Qaeda militants will relocate to Afghanistan to fight U.S. troops over there.

Your conjectures may be right unfotunately Iran isn't Al Qaeda and we'll still have to deal with them. Also your conjectures that Al Qaeda militants will relocate to Afghanistan (which they mostly have already after a rather sound deathblow.) isn't entirely plausible. Since they murder, kill, kidnap, & rape to achieve a goal, part of which is the a propaganda war (which seems to effect democrats more than republicans.) and a destabilized Iraq. Indeed all their targeting of Iraqi officials looks to me that they don't want a democratic Iraq.

I guess Fight The Smears only fights Obama's smears and doesn't bother with Palin.

Umm, the Fight the Smears website is Obama's website.

Right! Now you get it! Spread smears and only fight one's against Obama! Marginalization and destruction. That's his platform!

lol, i'm sorry... but considering the McCain campaign has posed far more lies in their ads than the Obama campaign, i can't see as how you can claim they are "more" morally good. I mean, they are lieing to the American people in those ads, and i find that to be far from morally good.

Both are retardedface but my issue, again, isn't with the ads. Those are common. Cute that you think McCain lies more. To me they both lie, but Obama is far more subersive and militant.

It is essential that you understand just what it is that corporations/megacorps are doing all over the world, so you can understand just how silly your statements sound. Acting on an interest for profits over life, U.S. corporations have been exploiting third world populations for quite some time (children enslaved for the production of clothing, shoes, cocoa, textiles, etc).

Yeah, man, I get it. We have problems. What nation doesn't? - The problem is putting up with barbarism on the extreme. Dictatorships, terrorism, etc. We can have a peaceful world but we cannot have it when dangerous individuals exist within it.

As well, the U.S. government has been promoting dictatorships and monarchies over democracies. Both these facets are a direct result of the Cold War, in which the U.S. competed with U.S.S.R. for global domination. Dictatorships and monarchies were the means to control nations (and thus the reason why the U.S. trained and inserted dictators in various nations, including Iran, Iraq, and Panama).

But, i'm going on a tangent here. You do realize the U.S. trained Osama Bin Ladin, right? Claiming the 'other side' is barbaric is an easy, yet blind, claim.

You were on a wild tangent when you started this post.
I see what you're doing. uh huh. 'other side' two sides of a same coin are we? Talk about blind yet easy.

As well, the U.S. government has been promoting dictatorships and monarchies over democracies.

Depends on the president and circumstances, oh Tighty-Whitey. What you just said is a relatively easy thing to say if you uh, IGNORE THE COMPLEXITIES OF HISTORY COMPLETELY!

Both these facets are a direct result of the Cold War, in which the U.S. competed with U.S.S.R. for global domination.

A cold war makes strange bedfellows at times. One thing I am thankful for is the fall of the wall in Berlin. Of course that is the most prominant.

Now as far as Osama being trained by U.S. That's debatable - But I won't do it here unless you honestly want to. I would argue that to say that we are equal to Al Quaeda in barbarism is easy, yet blind, and a downright monsterous injustice to the complexities of our world and the war we wage. Now as far as Al Quaeda being barbaric. Let me state again for the record. AL QUAEDA IS BARBARIC! I'll shout it from the rooftops. Whitey, this is for you.

So whitey I think you should apologize for misleading people into thinking that the United states actively tries to support barbarism and despotism on purpose. - which seems what you're trying to get across, sorry if that's not what you're trying to do but It really seems like it is.

The U.S. invasion of Iraq succeeded only in greatly increasing the amount of Jihadists. Ignorance as to why they attacked on 9/11 is further maintained by a bloodlust for revenge.

Unfortunate for you that Al Quaeda are no more rabid animals then Attila the Hun. They are however, barbarians. They can keep coming at is and we'll keep knocking them down. Like bowling?

Man, its lucky this is the internet. When you mention Wiretapping (illegal wiretapping) in the VERY SAME POST as "We wouldn't hack Obama's Email because we are more morally good", there is no way you would be able to keep a straight face IRL.

Either you pay no attention to the wiretapping bills or you pay no attention to anything at all. Not all republicans are for wiretapping - We are for the monitoring of sleeper cells within the united states. How this can be achieved while maintaining a balance between freedom and national security has always been debated. Make no mistake we are for privacy and so too are democrats which is why Obama's camp doing what they're doing is so ironic. Yeah, you shouldn't be keeping a straight face.

[edit: inflammatory - kmj]

[ç i p h é r]

Interesting debate. This here caught my eye though:

The whole economic downturn was entirely preventable by republicans but attempts to correct this were killed by democrats in congress.

I'm sorry, but this is just plain false. From 1994 until 2000, the Republicans controlled both houses of U.S. Congress. From 2000 to 2002, the Republicans controlled the House of Representatives. From 2002 until 2006, the Republicans controlled both houses of U.S. Congress. In 2006, the Republicans lost both houses.

So, claiming the economic downturn, which started well before 2006, to be the fault of the Democrats... is just downright false.

What exactly constitutes "fault" to you? Direct involvement? Indirect involvement? Failure to act when the warning signs were clear? If any or all of these constitute fault at some level in your mind, then Democrats certainly deserve blame. You've got to be willing to look past the talking points to discover the dirty truth, if you're not blinded by ideology.


But onto another interesting tangent. An op-ed in the Wall Street Journal considering the relationship between Obama and Ayers based on examination of recently released CAC documents:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122212856075765367.html

I'll quote the last paragraph here:

The Obama campaign has cried foul when Bill Ayers comes up, claiming "guilt by association." Yet the issue here isn't guilt by association; it's guilt by participation. As CAC chairman, Mr. Obama was lending moral and financial support to Mr. Ayers and his radical circle. That is a story even if Mr. Ayers had never planted a single bomb 40 years ago.

Yet more evidence of what many of us already know of Obama. Questionable judgment, despite his claims to the contrary. Far left wing, despite his campaign rhetoric to the contrary. Out of curiosity, has this even been mentioned in the news let alone discussed?

Here's what I don't get though. If leftists really want to live under a socialist system, if they really want government intruding to that degree in their lives and finances, why not simply live under a socialist system that already exists? If that's so much better than the capitalist system we have here, what's the compelling reason to live in America?

[ç i p h é r]

The rare amusing nugget about Obama-Biden that slips out of the press:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/23/ ... index.html

Although Democratic vice presidential candidate Joe Biden routinely mocks his Republican counterpart, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, for her one time support of the infamous "Bridge to Nowhere," Biden and his running mate voted to keep the project alive twice.

...

Both Biden and Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama voted to kill a Senate amendment that would have diverted federal funding for the bridge to repair a Louisiana span badly damaged by Hurricane Katrina, Senate records show.

...

This year, Delaware has requested 116 congressional earmarks through Biden, its longtime senator, at a cost to taxpayers of $342 million.

http://www.sunlightfoundation.com

Yeah. Definitely change we can believe in. Where are you Danielmn? Is the wool still pulled over your eyes?

[Mulu]

What exactly constitutes "fault" to you? Direct involvement? Indirect involvement? Failure to act when the warning signs were clear? If any or all of these constitute fault at some level in your mind, then Democrats certainly deserve blame. You've got to be willing to look past the talking points to discover the dirty truth, if you're not blinded by ideology.

What were they supposed to do as the minority party Cipher? Whine?

But onto another interesting tangent. An op-ed in the Wall Street Journal considering the relationship between Obama and Ayers based on examination of recently released CAC documents:

Op-Ed in the WSJ is roughly equivalent to saying, "Rush Limbaugh claims..." And you chastise me for quoting the NYT.
Anyway, CAC is far less radical than Palin's speaking in tongues church. For that matter, it's less radical than the Creationist agenda of the far right in general. Trying to teach inner city kids something other than drugs and gangs is fighting the good fight, even if it's being done by a former Weatherman.

If leftists really want to live under a socialist system, if they really want government intruding to that degree in their lives and finances, why not simply live under a socialist system that already exists? If that's so much better than the capitalist system we have here, what's the compelling reason to live in America?

We Liberal Democrats founded this country, or didn't you learn about the Founding Fathers in school? And it isn't about intrusion, that's what Republicans do trying to legislate morality and intrude into people's bedrooms, computers, telephone conversations and uteri. No, it's about making a better society, one that doesn't cannibalize it's own. Capitalism doesn't have to mean unrepentant greed and victimization, but that is what it has become in the US, as the current financial meltdown exemplifies.

Besides, the hybrid socialist/capitalist democracies are working very well. Why not use "best practices" at the government level? Why not copy what someone else has succeeded with? Why stubbornly resist increasing our standard of living and making the US a better place? What is the compelling reason to continue to rely on failed policies? Why on Earth are you going to vote Republican after the last 8 years?

Enquiring minds want to know.

[ç i p h é r]

Op-Ed in the WSJ is roughly equivalent to saying, "Rush Limbaugh claims..." And you chastise me for quoting the NYT.

Hardly the same but be that as it may, yes obviously it's an opinion piece. Please dig up something more substantial being reported elsewhere on this issue and we can debate it.

Anyway, CAC is far less radical than Palin's speaking in tongues church. For that matter, it's less radical than the Creationist agenda of the far right in general. Trying to teach inner city kids something other than drugs and gangs is fighting the good fight, even if it's being done by a former Weatherman.

Obama's association with Ayers and work on the CAC speaks to his judgment and to his beliefs, which is something he has been misrepresenting to the public. The only thing moderate about Obama has been his campaign rhetoric. Nothing else. But if you really want to bring up theology, Obama looks no less rosy, and what we've learned about that aspect of his life is actually rooted in fact, not fabricated by the left-wing blogosphere.

We Liberal Democrats founded this country, or didn't you learn about the Founding Fathers in school?

Ah. You've invoked the founding fathers, but we don't seem to have the same recollection of history. Are we speaking about the founding fathers that came here to escape religious persecution and went on to enshrine in the constitution freedom of religion as part of the very first amendment? So what's your point?

And it isn't about intrusion, that's what Republicans do trying to legislate morality and intrude into people's bedrooms, computers, telephone conversations and uteri. No, it's about making a better society, one that doesn't cannibalize it's own. Capitalism doesn't have to mean unrepentant greed and victimization, but that is what it has become in the US, as the current financial meltdown exemplifies.

You're conflating, and grossly over-generalizing. You also continue to overlook the *real* culprits in the current financial meltdown.

Besides, the hybrid socialist/capitalist democracies are working very well. Why not use "best practices" at the government level? Why not copy what someone else has succeeded with? Why stubbornly resist increasing our standard of living and making the US a better place? What is the compelling reason to continue to rely on failed policies? Why on Earth are you going to vote Republican after the last 8 years?

Enquiring minds want to know.

Adopting best practices is a good idea. Dissect away. Who are we inferior to and in what way? I'm all ears.

My standard of living is perfectly fine, thank you. I've worked hard, taken advantage of the opportunities that have been there throughout my life and thus have a comfortable enough life to be having this discussion with you on an Internet forum. It wasn't an easy journey. I've had to contend with affirmative action, gender based quotas, and a bad economy early on in my career. I've had to accept lesser jobs simply to get where I've wanted to go and have seen lesser qualified individuals earn better pay (with signing bonuses) solely on the basis of their gender. But that didn't stop me from making a good living. So what are *you* complaining about?

I'm voting for McCain primarily because, as I have pointed out, I believe he will govern as a centrist, drawing upon the best ideas of Democrats and Republicans - he's done it throughout his career, so why will he stop now? - and secondarily because I simply do not believe Obama is prepared to be President.

p.s. I also don't get to choose who gets on the ballot, and my initial opinion of the two candidates has changed as I've learned more about them. If it were up to me, I'd purge Washington of the career bureaucrats that infest it, abolish the two party system entirely and make elections strictly about ideas, not party ideology. If anything needs fixing, it's our political system first and foremost. We treat our politics as sport - it's my team vs your team.

[White Warlock]

Guess I'm not crazy. White Warlock is!

Dig into that collge kid. Of course Obama isn't stupid. I never said he was - He is tactful, manipulative, & secretive. You've said nothing about Palin's social security number being stolen either. So either you know nothing of it or you just don't care.

Actually, i know more of it than you do. SS numbers are composed of area, group, and serial numbers. Only the area and group numbers were released. The serial numbers were not. I.e., only a partial SSN was released.

The first three numbers (area) indicate "where" a person was born (also, knowing "when" helps to pinpoint which area number was used). The following two numbers (group) are given based on "when" a person was born. So, really... these numbers can be figured out.

The last four numbers are given out "usually" in chronological order, but can be presented somewhat randomly. Thus, the last four numbers are really the numbers that matter.

Finally, it was Politico that obtained the document, which was initially compiled by a group hired by Tony Knowles, who ran against Palin in 2006. Politico never indicated their source, but it doesn't really matter because, as a public and political figure, all the information in the report is publicly accessible.

The intent of bloggers and the GOP to focus on the release of a partial SSN is a ruse to bring attention away from all the information the report provided in regards to Palin's controversial public service.

That you don't know ANY of this means you failed to research the issue, which translates to you taking the word of people... and thus falling into the "dumb and dumber" status of believing lies, even when those lies have been debunked.

Here's the report, for your, and others', perusal - http://www.politico.com/static/PPM106_palin_doc.html

Umm... so you think the U.S. should continue on the path of deregulation? Am i understanding you correctly?

Yes, but we should regulate democrats who get elected to congress to ensure they do their jobs they're entrusted with. You use the word deregulation like a friggin catch-phrase man. Do you even know what that means? I don't think you even do. We weren't exactly deregulated - But we do have a freer market.

Hehe, yes, i know what deregulation means, within context. By your comments here, it seems you don't.

Regardless, this argument is moot, since McCain has flip-flopped on this stance.

I'm sorry, but this is just plain false. From 1994 until 2000, the Republicans controlled both houses of U.S. Congress. From 2000 to 2002, the Republicans controlled the House of Representatives. From 2002 until 2006, the Republicans controlled both houses of U.S. Congress. In 2006, the Republicans lost both houses.

Being in 'control' in congress doesn't mean absolute rule though you would like to think so, and probably do, hence why this idealogy is so dangerous. Democrats are fully capable of killing a bill before such time, though much less likely. Yes! it was entirely preventable! Some of the most damning of bills that were killed appeared during 05-06. Some of which were in the period of "first 100 days" of democratic control of the legislature.

lol, you're so full of shit. Anyway, why don't you list those so-called "damning" bills. Good luck with that.

So, claiming the economic downturn, which started well before 2006, to be the fault of the Democrats... is just downright false.

It's not false. It's true. . .and not one of those relativistic truths either, this is absolute documentation. The only thing you're correct on is the downturn happaning well before 06.

Okay, provide this "absolute documentation" or stfu.

Btw, do you plan on answering my earlier question? I.e., "what do you define as lose?"

Indeed all their targeting of Iraqi officials looks to me that they don't want a democratic Iraq.

The problem is far more along the lines of Sunni vs Shi'ite, although there is a contingent of Iraqis that do not want a "U.S. installed" government. However, this latter issue should largely iron itself out in time as more public elections occur without U.S. oversight.

Part of the problem here, PD, is that you really don't understand what's been going on in Iraq. You don't know the factions, nor what the U.S. has done to pacify various factions (i.e., pay them). As well as i can tell by your comments, the extent of your information is obtained by watching FOX headlines and reading neocon blogs.

Right! Now you get it! Spread smears and only fight one's against Obama! Marginalization and destruction. That's his platform!

It really is amazing just how .... non-thinking ... you are. The "spread the smears" website was created AFTER a multitude of McCain smears and non-McCain email smears. It was created very early in the campaign, which goes to show who started the smear campaign.

As to the information presented by factcheck.org, it might help if you also present this report specifically in regards to that report you linked to -- http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008 ... nding.html

I.e., McCain, Palin, and now you, falsely claim that the comments about Palin were posed by Obama's campaign. Simply stated, they were not.

It is essential that you understand just what it is that corporations/megacorps are doing all over the world, so you can understand just how silly your statements sound. Acting on an interest for profits over life, U.S. corporations have been exploiting third world populations for quite some time (children enslaved for the production of clothing, shoes, cocoa, textiles, etc).

Yeah, man, I get it. We have problems. What nation doesn't? - The problem is putting up with barbarism on the extreme. Dictatorships, terrorism, etc. We can have a peaceful world but we cannot have it when dangerous individuals exist within it.

I see, so you completely ignored just about every thing i said.

Let me repeat myself:

The U.S. created a multitude of dictatorships, even going so far as to train the persons placed within said positions.

The U.S. created a multitude of "dangerous individuals," even going so far as to train Ali Mohamed, the man who trained some of the 9/11 bombers and Osama Bin Laden. -- Click Here for Ali Mohamed Timeline

The U.S., both the government and private entities (corporations and individuals), have committed a multitude of extremely barbaric acts. That you are not aware of this lands squarely in your face. I.e., NO, you DON'T get it. A large part of the problems and atrocities experienced in third world countries are the direct, or indirect, result of actions committed by the U.S. government and/or privateering U.S. entities.

I recommend you read Eisenhower's farewell address -- http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Eisenhowe ... ll_address

As well, the U.S. government has been promoting dictatorships and monarchies over democracies. Both these facets are a direct result of the Cold War, in which the U.S. competed with U.S.S.R. for global domination. Dictatorships and monarchies were the means to control nations (and thus the reason why the U.S. trained and inserted dictators in various nations, including Iran, Iraq, and Panama).

I see what you're doing. uh huh. 'other side' two sides of a same coin are we? Talk about blind yet easy.

Is that your best effort at completely ignoring the critically important information i presented? Doing the 'about face' and acting like it doesn't matter?

As well, the U.S. government has been promoting dictatorships and monarchies over democracies.

Depends on the president and circumstances, oh Tighty-Whitey. What you just said is a relatively easy thing to say if you uh, IGNORE THE COMPLEXITIES OF HISTORY COMPLETELY!

Complexities of history, eh? Is that your rebuttal?

A cold war makes strange bedfellows at times.

You mean like Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden? How about Ali Mohamed? The Shah of Iran? Hmm... Noriega?

[ç i p h é r]

"Part of what being a leader does is to instill confidence, is to demonstrate what he or she knows what they are talking about and to communicating to people ... this is how we can fix this."

"When the stock market crashed, Franklin D. Roosevelt got on the television and didn't just talk about the, you know, the princes of greed. He said, 'Look, here's what happened.'"

Except, Republican Herbert Hoover was in office when the stock market crashed in October 1929. There also was no television at the time; TV wasn't introduced to the public until a decade later, at the 1939 World's Fair.

Open mouth. Insert foot.

[White Warlock]

Op-Ed in the WSJ is roughly equivalent to saying, "Rush Limbaugh claims..." And you chastise me for quoting the NYT.

Hardly the same but be that as it may, yes obviously it's an opinion piece. Please dig up something more substantial being reported elsewhere on this issue and we can debate it.

Hi Cipher. I know you're having a good time there with Mulu, and you're posing some good debate points, but i kinda feel like jumping in on this particular issue.

AYERS
It needs to be stated that Ayers was a Vietnam war protester, very much a radical at the time who blew up three "unoccupied bathrooms" in the early 70's (toilet bombs). In 1980, Ayers turned himself in and was cleared of all charges.

In the early 90's, Ayers worked with Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley in shaping the city's school reform program, and was one of three co-authors of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge grant proposal that in 1995 won $49.2 million over five years for public school reform. Ayers is now a professor of education at the University of Illinois at Chicago. He has no criminal record.

WEATHER UNDERGROUND
Next, the Weather Underground Organization (WUO), co-founded by Ayers, was a loosely organized group of radicals in opposition to the war in Vietnam and the military industrial complex. Members of this organization called themselves, "Weathermen." As WUO issued warnings in advance, to ensure safe evacuation of an area prior to a bombing, nobody was ever harmed (with exception to this, three Weathermen were killed when one of their bombs detonated prematurely).

OBAMA & AYERS
Obama and Ayers served together for a time on the board of an antipoverty charity, the Woods Fund of Chicago, from 1999 to 2002. Ayers also contributed $200 to Obama's campaign for the Illinois state Senate on March 2, 2001. At the time of these cursory associations, Ayers was a well-respected U.S. citizen.

OBAMA'S RESPONSE
George Stephanopoulos asked Obama about Ayers. Obama's response was accurate: "{Ayers is} a guy who lives in my neighborhood ... who I know and who I have not received some official endorsement from. He's not somebody who I exchange ideas from on a regular basis ... and the notion that somehow as a consequence of me knowing somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago when I was 8 years old, somehow reflects on me and my values, doesn't make much sense."

AYERS' REGRETS
In 2004, Ayers was asked how he felt about what he did and whether he would do it again under similar circumstances. He replied: "I’ve thought about this a lot. Being almost 60, it’s impossible to not have lots and lots of regrets about lots and lots of things, but the question of did we do something that was horrendous, awful? ... I don’t think so. I think what we did was to respond to a situation that was unconscionable."

In his blog, Ayers wrote: "The one thing I don't regret is opposing the war in Vietnam with every ounce of my being....'When I say, 'We didn't do enough,' a lot of people rush to think, 'That must mean, "We didn't bomb enough s---.' But that's not the point at all. It's not a tactical statement, it's an obvious political and ethical statement. In this context, 'we' means 'everyone.'"


CLOSING COMMENT
My main issue with these types of arguments is that they are fallacious arguments. This is an informal fallacy, a type of red herring to distract away from substantive arguments. Specifically, it is referred to as a guilty by association fallacy.

But, regardless of the fallacious argument posed, Ayers' actions some 40 years ago are taken out of context of the times, blown out of proportion, presented as comparable to Al Qaeda-type terrorism, completely dismissive of his non-criminal standing, and poses a blind eye to his exemplary community services over the past 20+ years. Personally, i think Ayers is an American citizen you should be proud of.

Attribution -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Ayers
http://www.newsweek.com/id/132576
http://fallacyfiles.org/guiltbya.html

[Mayhem]

Man, its lucky this is the internet. When you mention Wiretapping (illegal wiretapping) in the VERY SAME POST as "We wouldn't hack Obama's Email because we are more morally good", there is no way you would be able to keep a straight face IRL.

Either you pay no attention to the wiretapping bills or you pay no attention to anything at all. Not all republicans are for wiretapping - We are for the monitoring of sleeper cells within the united states.

Heh, I like this.

"Not all republicans are for wiretapping" so its ok, even though the ones that are are teh ones that are actually in charge.

Meanwhile in the same post you are able to pass off a group of anonymous hackers who have not even been officially linked to the Obama campaign as representative of that entire campaign.

(and lets not forget, btw it isn't the wiretapping honest folk object to, its the ILLEGAL wiretapping. As the ruling party, you can try to change the law so your activity isn't illegal, or you can obtain warrants so that the wiretapping you want to do is legal, but you don't get to ignore the law just because it is inconvenient, and then claim to be "more morally good".)

[Swift]

Now in Iraq we face Al Quaeda/terrorist militants and Iranian backed groups. So the underlying reason that we are there IS terrorism and now we CANNOT lose this war. We are aided in Iraq and Afganistan by other countries who still understand this global threat and I'm thankful for that.

I am going to say it straight, your a liar and spouting the same crap the whitehouse has been for years.

The reason the US went to war, the reason the US told the world, testified in front of the United Nations Security Council, is that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and were a huge danger to the US and the world at large. They went so far as to say Iraq was capable of striking the US west coast.

Your own intelligence agencies repeatedly briefed Bush and Co that there was no link between Iraq and Al Qaeda, all of which they dismissed and ignored. It has been reported many times from intelligence agencies all over the world in the years since that Al Qaeda did not appear in Iraq until the US military was already there.

Spin it however you want, spout whatever Bush propaganda you want, the reason the US gave the world for invading Iraq was WMDs, which has been repeatedly shown to be a complete, utter lie.

Defeating modern day barbarism and despotism. Now that's hope I can believe in.

Bullshit. If the US actually cared about ridding the world of modern day barbarism and despotism they wouldn't have sat on their hands over Zimbabwe or Burma, both countries who continue to suffer at the hands of ruthless dictators (or the effects of one recently reduced in power ie Zimbabwe). I guess it is also why they have sat on their hands and turned a blind eye to the ruthless murder of thousands of Sudanese by their own government.

But then, i guess all of those are plain old dictators and not OH MY GOD TERRORISTS.

[White Warlock]

tosses Swift a cookie

[Veilan]

And it isn't about intrusion, that's what Republicans do trying to legislate morality and intrude into people's bedrooms, computers, telephone conversations and uteri.

I have to agree here. Legislating taste seems to the be main theme of the G.O.P. to fish for voters - of course it makes sense, since most people are too ignorant to see that there is a difference between, say, finding hairy man ass sex revolting, and demanding their opinion be made into the law.

Just because say, 70% of people agree a personal choice is bad doesn't mean you're right to ban it for everyone else too. Being the party that does try, though, is very effective for rallying those people who also dislike it. It's utterly cynical, as I trust most G.O.P. folks coming up with that stuff are fairly intelligent and do know better.

[White Warlock]

Personally, i find Veilan distasteful. We should ban him.

[Mulu]

Ah. You've invoked the founding fathers, but we don't seem to have the same recollection of history.

That's because I've studied it more.

Are we speaking about the founding fathers that came here to escape religious persecution and went on to enshrine in the constitution freedom of religion as part of the very first amendment? So what's your point?

Do you *really* want to go there? I have pages and pages of quotes by the Founding Fathers castigating religion. Most of them *hated* religion. They saw Congregationalists, whom we now call Evangelicals, as a danger to the Republic. The Religious Right lies about our early days all the time in a largely successful attempt at revisionist history.

And as a matter of law, the first amendment was originally the second in the proposed Bill of Rights, and the earlier the amendment, the less force and effect it has, as it is potentially modified by all later amendments. "First" is not best in the law. Last is. A common misconception. The most important right conferred in the Bill of Rights is actually the Due Process Clause of the fifth and fourteenth amendments, because without that the other rights are not enforceable.

You're conflating, and grossly over-generalizing. You also continue to overlook the *real* culprits in the current financial meltdown.

You are the one who chose to use the word "intrusion." A poor choice given the "1984"-like behavior of Republicans. And who do you think are the *real* culprits? Wall Street traders repackaged subprime mortgages doomed to fail into securities and claimed they were risk-free, and they were allowed to do so by a combination of deregulation and lack of regulation which ideologically comes from the right. You see the Democrats in this? That's like looking at a coal strip mine and saying, "Well gosh, the darn environmentalists ruined this landscape! After all they didn't stop this from happening." It's nuts.

Adopting best practices is a good idea. Dissect away. Who are we inferior to and in what way? I'm all ears.

It would actually be too large of a post. The easy ones are crime rates, incarceration rates, and poverty rates which all tend to co-vary. The US is very high on these measures, much higher than the hybrid countries. Then you throw in health care and standards of living, and look around to see who's doing it better than us. Lots of countries are doing it better than us. The US isn't even close to being ranked #1 on most measures. We frequently don't even make the top ten.

My standard of living is perfectly fine, thank you.

So is mine, but that doesn't mean overall the standard of living in the US is good. We're the exceptions, not the rule. Heck, there is a fairly large number of ALFAns who can't even afford to buy a computer that can run NWN2. It would cost about $300.00. Think about it. I spend more than that on dry cleaning. I'm sure you do too. Something you need to get over is this idea that it is somehow unethical to be a low wage earner. People who don't have money aren't evil or deserving of a bad fate, but Conservative Republicans like to think they are (at least the wealthy ones), as a way of justifying unfair practices and lowering or at least freezing the minimum wage and busting Unions, among other issues.

Compassionate people want more than just their own financial security, they like to see their fellow brothers and sisters on this planet do well too. But you can get to the same place selfishly: By improving the standard of living overall, you lower the crime rate and thus reduce the probability that you or a loved one will be a victim of crime. Something to consider.

I'm voting for McCain primarily because, as I have pointed out, I believe he will govern as a centrist, drawing upon the best ideas of Democrats and Republicans - he's done it throughout his career, so why will he stop now?

Because he's totally sold out. He'll want to get re-elected too, and that means catering to the same base that got him in. And Palin is the antithesis of bipartisanship and centrist, or even competent, governance. It would be like claiming you are for promoting racial equality and then choosing David Duke as your running mate. It matters.

As an aside, the Palin pick has totally backfired on McCain. He got a one week bump, when then completely reversed, and the only long term effect has been to shore up the Democrats behind Obama and increase his fundraising.

p.s. I also don't get to choose who gets on the ballot, and my initial opinion of the two candidates has changed as I've learned more about them. If it were up to me, I'd purge Washington of the career bureaucrats that infest it, abolish the two party system entirely and make elections strictly about ideas, not party ideology. If anything needs fixing, it's our political system first and foremost. We treat our politics as sport - it's my team vs your team.

Yeah, that's a whole nother thread. When I look at the countries with lots of political parties, they seem very chaotic to me. Political parties will necessarily form, as agencies if nothing else. Individuals don't function as well as a firm, so organized parties will almost always outperform the independent, with obvious but rare exceptions. Anyway, like I said another thread.