Notices
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 100 of 112

Thread: US 2008 Elections...

  1. #1 US 2008 Elections... 
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    In the US, we are into the basics for our, year from now, Presidential Elections. Most observers feel they will be the dirtiest, hardest fought and no doubt most contested in our history.

    This forum has a good many worldwide members, as well as representation form different areas in the US. It would be nice to know who you folks think would best represent the US for four & probably 8 years into the future, current candidate or not. Additionally which party you would prefer to see in control of Congress. (Democrat/Republican)

    According to polls, the current consensus shows, Senator Clinton leading her party and winning the Presidency. They also show the Democrats maintaining with some increase in numbers, both the Senate and House.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
    I visit here for the science, not the politics, so I'm not going to let on what my views are. No, not at all. I have political views, but they're not going to appear on a science bulletin board. No, that would be totally inappropriate. Actually I'm undecided. I haven't decided what type of booze I'm going to get drunk on when the present lethally imbecilic moron vacates the property he fouls with his illegal occupation on Pennsylvania Avenue. But as to my politics, you'll have to guess.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    A former boss of mine, an American, often accused me of being a communist. (I would respond that was not the case, though I did consider Lenin to be dangerously right wing. ) Certainly I lean to the left and so I find more in common with the Democrats than the Republicans.
    Of the Democratic candidates I find Obama very interesting. Once primary season begins I shall ramp up my attention on the character, policies, etc of each candidate and develop a clearer opnion then.
    Bunbury, one possibly positive thing to be said about GW is that he makes Nixon appear to be a man of integrity - which on reflection he probably was.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Freshman looking4recruits's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    93
    China, very left wing, will decide the US elections.

    They will offer ludicrous media contracts to the media that supports their choice of president.
    if ever there was a time for opportunity, it is when opportunity has yet to define THIS "time"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Ph.D. Cat1981(England)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    South Downs.
    Posts
    934
    I would like to see Hillary Clinton as president and the republicans in control of congress.
    Eat Dolphin, save the Tuna!!!!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Guest
    Ophi; The primary season is winding down, with the first primary 1/8/08, or about 40 days and the by mid-February they will finish.

    Bunbury; Sad to say, even some die hard republicans and even some conservatives would join you in that party, although for different reasons.

    looking; Reading between the lines, you fear Clinton, as I do...However, this time around there seems to be no candidate, demo or rep, that creates political interest as she does. Called the base and she does not need the money *Slick Willy* required from the Chinese.

    Cat; Many in the US, republican and our financial markets, would be pleased to have your out come, based on current polling. It looks as though gains will be made in both the Senate and House by the Dem's, based on the Immigration issue alone. The Iraq war here, is losing steam with most observers as an issue.

    To the thread; National Conventions of both major parties for many years have been for show or the candidates pre-determined. The last *Broken Convention* (when nominee has not been determined) was 1979 when Reagan challenged Ford. Ford won, but then lost to Carter in the election.

    If a minority convention produces a viable candidate or the primaries produce a controversial candidate w/o a majority, either or both parties could well be broken, requiring multiple roll calls.

    Conventions; Green Party 7/10-13/08, Libertarian 5/23-26/08,
    Dems 8/25-28/08 and Rep. 9/1-4/08...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Ph.D. Cat1981(England)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    South Downs.
    Posts
    934
    I'm guessing Guest, that you are in fact the well respected Jackson.

    Jackson, who would you like to see in both positions ? And why do you fear Mrs Clinton ?
    Eat Dolphin, save the Tuna!!!!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    The Doctor Quantime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,546
    Quote Originally Posted by Cat1981(England)
    I'm guessing Guest, that you are in fact the well respected Jackson.

    Jackson, who would you like to see in both positions ? And why do you fear Mrs Clinton ?
    She'll make it law that every male adulterer has their balls chopped off

    Not that I'm saying Jackson (guest whatever) is an adulterer.
    "If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe". - Carl Sagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by Anonymous
    Ophi; The primary season is winding down, with the first primary 1/8/08, or about 40 days and the by mid-February they will finish. ...
    I don't quite see how you can say they are winding down since they haven't started yet. I'm not talking about the pre-primary electioneering, but the blood letting that starts once they begin.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    Cat; Don't think "respected" is applicable. Certainly not on this forum. However, AGAIN I forgot to log in.

    In all honesty, I see no candidate (announced & from all parties) worth an effort to go out and vote for, much less campaign for. Furthermore, I see this as the prevailing attitude and those from both parties that do vote, will vote *anti* either Bush or Clinton. Its sad, but my opinion...

    Ophi; Suppose its what you feel "season" means. Five of six debates are in the past (last in LA 12/15), the campaigning for primary votes near complete after what seems like years of effort and a few candidates have already conceded or chose not to run, for lack of support.

    Please note however, IMO 98% of even the *likely* voters are 10-11 months from even trying to understand the issues or what the candidates/parties offer as policy. This should be a responsible citizens duty, prior to the primaries.

    willmer; Simply said, Hillary Clinton IMO is not qualified to run my local grocery. She has some some notion of being owed the position and is as disingenuous with her comments as any common criminal trying to justify a crime. Having said this, she is also a *class act* as a politician and strategist. I felt in 1991, she was Bill Clinton's backbone, still do and w/o Hillary he would have been selling used cars today. Unfortunately she is liked by many peoples of Nations around the world (point of this thread). I am not sure if its a *change in direction*, the promise to make Billy a traveling ambassador or that, again, they dislike Bush II. Gingrich, Limbaugh and myself have said she has a 75% probability of becoming the next President. Newt and Rush have altered their public opinion, in hopes of influencing their audience (radio-books), but down deep I think they would agree with my humble and unchanged view.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    Not an USAian, but which of the candidates are NOT from Texas? Do you think Clinton would have invaded Afghanistan and Iraq? I like Obama, but you have an issue with him I take it. What is it?
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Jackson, my liking for US Presidential elections arose in the 1970s when I lived in S.E.Asia. My insight, such as it was, to these elections was via the pages of the International Herald Tribune and Time magazine. It was the drama of swings of fortune within the primary period, such as Muskie's alleged public breakdown in New Hampshire, that I found fascinating. So I shall indulge my nostalgia by starting my deetailed candidate study when the primaries actually begin..

    As a slight deviation, you may recall that accusations had been made that Muskie's wife had a drinking problem. His emotional defence of his wife, accompanied, allegedly by tears (though he claimed they were melting snow flakes) was seen as a sign of weakness. At the time a reporter phoned Harold MacMillan, former UK Prime Minister, and asked him what he had would have said if such accusations had been leveled at his wife. "I should have replied, if you think Lady MacMillan drinks, you should have seen her mother!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    KALSTER; Since Clinton, accepted that acts of violence with in the US were in fact problems for *Law Enforcement* (93 Twin Towers Bombing) and that acts against the US outside our borders, required impossible to acquire proof of origin; I would say Clinton would have avoided pressure to rid the OBL from Afghanistan. With a Republican Congress 1994 to the end of his term, the pressures may have required actions as Congress has the right to declare war. As for Iraq, NO. In fact most of the eventual reasons were started during his term. Throwing out the WMD inspectors, pot shots at the US/British planes patrolling the *No fly zone* and many of the mass killings of any opposition of Saddam after Gulf I. Am not sure what Texas has to do with it. Lydon Johnson, was also from Texas and with his War on Poverty and many other social reforms, possibly the most liberal of all the Democrats, then or today....

    On "Barrack Obama"; As said, none of the candidates from either party represents my political opinion, in total or even to the degree of support.
    Obama, represents the passive isolationist agenda of many folks in the US, which I might add has been common through out our history. He also is an extreme, when taking a new direction is the issue. IMO however, he lacks in total any perception of how the worlds political system works, has no idea what a Capitalist/Free Market actual is (like it or not, our system) and most important is not currently electable. As a person, I have no problem, but feel he has reach his political limits...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    Ophi; I DO NOT disagree with you...Iowa and New Hampshire, to most are signals, the Elections are coming. However for the US resident or the people who need to be informed, its to late in many cases after the primaries. What is left to vote on, in many cases are the picks of the party elite's. Clinton, Reagan and JFK, did buck the elite's, but had the media behind/opposed to generate interest. Drive the interest, so to speak...

    Moments of defeat or success are given each election. Reagan "I paid for this microphone, now turn it on" (R-won), Nixon sweat during a debate with JFK (N-lost) and Bush I checked his watch at the wrong moment, debating Clinton (1991 and B-lost). Media, has a way of simplifying years of hard fought efforts into one short sound bite...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    Thanks. The Texas thing was just a little poke of fun at americans. I can see what you mean with your stance to Obama. How similar are Mrs. Clinton's view on issues and general style to her husbands? What do you think the american people see her as; another imbodyment of her husband or someone thats there on her own terms? Someone stated that he would not have become what he was if wasn't for her, which from my perspective would not be impossible.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    KALSTER; Bill and Hillary, met while attending Yale Law School. Bill went back to Arkansas, eventually running for the US House and lost in 1974. Hillary was active in Law and in 1974 was chose by, Jerry Zeifman, Chief of Staff of the House Judicial Committee, to set up a procedure to *Impeach Richard Nixon*. IMO, this is where the Clinton Program, under Hillary was born. The next year, 1975, they were married and the story began.

    Generally as Auto-Biography, Bill gives credit to meeting JFK and lack of expertise in other interest. Saying he felt he should serve and could be best at that...

    For a variety of reasons, Bill Clinton DID reign over 8 years of economic growth (prosperity) and had 65% approval rating when leaving office. Reasons rarely considered Robert Ruben, a wall streeter with then and now uncanny understandings of how the economy works. The legacy left over from Reagan's Administration, the First Republican Congress in 40 years in 1994 and the Internet/Computer age along with the change in century scare, which alone created hundreds of major firms.

    Advisor's probably still played a role during his terms, but IMO many issues were formulated by Hillary and still are. As said in an earlier post, I am not sure what the public is expecting from a Hillary administration. She has said Bill will be a world wide traveling Ambassador, which would please many including a few international interest. Change in direction, which many always feel a need for regardless of success in the current, would seem to be expected, which leads to the Anti-Bushers. Those concerned with a *National Health Care* system, raising taxes on the perceived wealthy, discontinuing of the War on Terror, our illegal immigration problems, increasing size of government and all the issues of real importance are going to be disappointed.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
    For a variety of reasons, Bill Clinton DID reign over 8 years of economic growth (prosperity) and had 65% approval rating when leaving office. Reasons rarely considered Robert Ruben, a wall streeter with then and now uncanny understandings of how the economy works.
    Indeed, Robert Rubin was a brilliantly successful Treasury Secretary (and incidentally a Democrat). Huge credit goes to Bill Clinton for hiring him and heeding him, and letting pragmatic economics take priority over politics.

    On Iraq, remember Desert Fox? Clinton's cruise missile attack on Saddam Hussein nearly toppled Hussein. Clinton's policy of containment worked. Read Zinni: "We contained him with fewer troops than go to work every day at the Pentagon". The neocons in Bush's administration wanted war, had no conception of what it would mean in human lives, had no follow up plan, their cost estmates were off by orders of magnitude. Bush hired them.

    Give credit where it's due and blame where it's due.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    Rubin, was a economics adviser to Clinton, long before Secretary of The Treasury, but did do an excellent job at both. IMO he left in July of 1999, because of some disagreement, probably seeing both the pending tech bubble burst and possible recession. I would also guess, he favored some tax breaks, short term earned income in particular, to prevent much of what later happened.

    Rubin, was/is a democrat, however when it came finance and urban development he opposed his own party, on many issues. Currently; He has set on the board for Citi-group for many years, but understand has taken on CEO or CFO duties, to help out while they regroup after the so called "credit crunh"...(housing/loan bubble burst). By the way, he is one of about five, that I could support for the head office...

    IMO; President Bush and his advisor's wanted regional stability, ahead of War. Can't argue the follow up plan, but will suggest the revenge factor of the Iraq people, on each other, was seen by no one.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
    There were many, many, many people who predicted exactly the chaos that ensued. Their warnings were ignored by Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Feith, even Franks. The intelligent analysis was there. It was ignored because of ideology.

    The worst offender of all was Wolfowitz.

    Cheney I simply don't understand. He used to be a smart business man with extensive contacts and knowldege of the Middle East. He was a negotiator, a shmoozer, someone who understood how to work with people of differing views to achieve success. I don't understand how he could buy into such a stupid idea as invading Iraq without a plan. I suspect Chalabi was to blame for subverting Cheney.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    Yes, I recall questioning Armad Chalabi's somewhat over optimistic attitude and questioning his personal motives. He was also active in influencing Congress. Never the less, their must have been a good many advisers to Bush who figured on less in-fighting that what occurred.

    One theory, I have held, is the way the war was fought opposed to the way older military wars were won. InGermany and to a larger degree Japan, the general public was mentally and physically defeated.
    In Iraq, Saddam's elite army was not destroyed and the regular army (if you want to call them that) was virtually unharmed. The public, suffered very little if any, regardless of sect affiliation. US troops were welcomed in, but I noticed the small degree around that toppled statue incident. My point is simply the only ones really defeated were Saddam, his two boys and a hand full of political leaders. This left a lot of long held hostility to vent itself, w/o any emotion of being defeated. It may simply be the military leaders (most) having studied strategy in some Academy, years earlier, got it wrong. All things considered, the fact is you just don't pull out of a situation, for lack of judgment. You move on changing tactics, which seems to be working...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
    You cannot pass the blame to the military. Yes, there was a lot of confusion about strategy, but the military does what it is told to do down the chain of command, which goes back through the secretary of defense to the president. The decision to disband the Iraqi army put hundreds of thousands of armed, trained killers on the streets, without wages to support their families. The responsibility for the Iraq fiasco rests squarely with Bush. This administration was and is utterly and lethally incompetent.

    Are the current tactics working? Is there a viable Iraqi government anywhere in sight? Are the Sunnis and Shiites and Kurds sitting down around a table to talk things out? We will be there for years to come, whoever wins the next election.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    You are correct in that the *Chain of Command* goes from the President to the Secretary of Defense and then to the commanders in the field. However one purpose for the *Joint Chiefs of Staff* is to advise the President on military actions or concerns.

    I am sure Bush would say the buck stops with him but just as sure I am of that, he looks to these folks for advise. Their offices are in the Pentagon which is controled by the Secretary of Defense and no doubt a great deal of planning for the unexpected (contingency planning) takes place.

    You seem to be pretending Mr. Bush is some sort of a go it alone, arrogant person, incapable of consulting. From everything I have read, this is the exact opposite of his true character. It was Mr. Clinton, who rarely met with advisor's, well documented, not Bush...

    In Iraq, the changes are coming from the grass roots. The Shiites and Sunnis fighting against the insurgents and so on. Many of their local police force are acting alone, with success. The people shopping and the kids playing. There country is no less different than ours. While the republicans and democrats fight over (900 investigations), funding government and military, withdrawing troops or where to build a worthless bridge, the people go on doing what needs to be done. It will come together, the media will accept this and maybe we can have some stability in an area, when and where needed the most. I'll leave the credits or failures to historians, which is what Bush has said...

    Iraq, could be some form of a democracy, with untold riches if their politicians can get a grip on reality. Its said by many, their oil reserves will rival Saudi Arabia. They and the Islamic Faith could move into the 21th Century, with the actual people of an Islamic State (including the women) gaining the future, they have all so dearly paid for...Yes sir, the historians in 30-50 years may have something nice to say about Bush, our US Military and the American people....
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
    You seem to be pretending Mr. Bush is some sort of a go it alone, arrogant person, incapable of consulting
    No, I'm not pretending.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24 Re: US 2008 Elections... 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    96
    Quote Originally Posted by jackson33
    In the US, we are into the basics for our, year from now, Presidential Elections. Most observers feel they will be the dirtiest, hardest fought and no doubt most contested in our history.

    This forum has a good many worldwide members, as well as representation form different areas in the US. It would be nice to know who you folks think would best represent the US for four & probably 8 years into the future, current candidate or not. Additionally which party you would prefer to see in control of Congress. (Democrat/Republican)

    According to polls, the current consensus shows, Senator Clinton leading her party and winning the Presidency. They also show the Democrats maintaining with some increase in numbers, both the Senate and House.
    I will be a surprised if there is an election. Any so called terror attack would be an excuse to do like Pakistan did, declare marshal law.
    If elections go ahead, the Republicans likely will be swept out of power. At least in my opinion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    Then be prepared for a surprise...If nothing else, power has been transfered w/o a problem since our founding. It may require the constitutions *checks and Balance* system, ie. the Supreme Court, but power is changed. This election, there is no incumbent, which may test the system, however terror will not play, even if OBL has some pre-planned notion to he can create the problem.

    As for Pakistan, that problem was holding both the head of the military and head of the executive. This resolved and elections back on schedule, with the support of potential sharing participants, think things going just fine...

    Yes, I agree on the pending Democrat sweep...But my guess, from you attitude, its for different reason. The big issue, illegal immigration issue will be responsible for the House/Senate gains and the Republicans have offered NO ONE who can beat Hillary.

    By the way from a simple occasional poster, welcome to this forum...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    96
    Quote Originally Posted by jackson33
    Then be prepared for a surprise...If nothing else, power has been transfered w/o a problem since our founding.
    So what?? A few centuries means little.
    It may require the constitutions *checks and Balance* system, ie. the Supreme Court, but power is changed. This election, there is no incumbent, which may test the system, however terror will not play, even if OBL has some pre-planned notion to he can create the problem.
    Blame it on who you will. I'd bet he was dead or captured before 911.

    As for Pakistan, that problem was holding both the head of the military and head of the executive. This resolved and elections back on schedule, with the support of potential sharing participants, think things going just fine...
    Great, now the question is, who really is the head, and gives the orders?

    Yes, I agree on the pending Democrat sweep...But my guess, from you attitude, its for different reason. The big issue, illegal immigration issue will be responsible for the House/Senate gains and the Republicans have offered NO ONE who can beat Hillary.
    Well, that is a sad commentary on the population then. Guess they deserve all that they get.

    By the way from a simple occasional poster, welcome to this forum...
    Thanks.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    On Pakistan; Musharraf, is Head of State, recently elected and abiding to the law, stepped down as head of the military. This is nearly as new a democracy (of sorts) as Iraq or Afghanistan. Problems will happen, especially when a religion is where laws are taken.

    Turn over of power; The constitution does allow for an administration to remain in power, under certain conditions. However this would have to be agreed to by both the Congress and Executive. If something were to happen just prior to Election Day, the election date would be reset (not canceled and the duty of Congress).

    If a person, becomes president, then deciding to take total control of government in total there are simply to many obstacles to overcome.
    Impeachment alone, could come from the *Presidents Cabinet*. Then you have *Congressional Oversight*, which is always on guard for such attempts. Likewise the powers of the Executive Branch are limited. Really I don't think any persons dream of a legacy, is being physically removed from the White House...

    On OBL; Many people have/do feel he is dead. No one thinks before 9/11, since he has been filmed after 9/11 (not from his source) and we have satellite observations of his camp being taken down and moved, very soon afterward 9/11...

    Since I have faith in what the experts say, the recent voice comparisons of released BL messages are that of him...If government, for some reason does not want OBL to be a symbol of some kind to the Extremist Movement, then he was probably killed in a remote area bombing, will never be found and his legacy will be limited. Factually, he has lost power and control...period.

    On Dem Sweep; The Congressional seats, I feel will be lost are in Border States or states with large cost to maintain the current laws. Cal., Ariz., Tx, are obvious but every State is having some problem is one district or another. This from Medical, Schooling or welfare, which our laws are based on people, not where they are from.

    Yes, it is a sad state of affairs, when you consider the odds on favorite of all parties is Hillary Clinton to become president. IMO its even worse, when there are many folks out there that are qualified, from both parties, electable and have the resume to handle domestic and foreign affairs from day one. These people, have chose not to run in most part, simply to avoid the media rap which all candidates seem to receive.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Freshman taxpo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    KOSOVA
    Posts
    24
    Quote Originally Posted by Cat1981(England)
    I would like to see Hillary Clinton as president and the republicans in control of congress.
    Me too... She supports Kosovas Full Independence. Bush said the same thing in Albania but...
    l=l0[1+α(t-t0)]
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    96
    Quote Originally Posted by jackson33
    On Pakistan; Musharraf, is Head of State, recently elected and abiding to the law, stepped down as head of the military. This is nearly as new a democracy (of sorts) as Iraq or Afghanistan. Problems will happen, especially when a religion is where laws are taken.
    The US supported the guy. The problems may not be made in Pakistan, for all we know. They are a priority, as they have nukesw. I doubt they would easily be left to fall to the radicals, so called.
    Turn over of power; The constitution does allow for an administration to remain in power, under certain conditions. However this would have to be agreed to by both the Congress and Executive. If something were to happen just prior to Election Day, the election date would be reset (not canceled and the duty of Congress).
    That would be easy, if it was serious enough. Also, it could last months. The elections, if held after some big awful thing, might have people leaning again toward the ones they think saved them from the terror.


    If a person, becomes president, then deciding to take total control of government in total there are simply to many obstacles to overcome.
    Impeachment alone, could come from the *Presidents Cabinet*. Then you have *Congressional Oversight*, which is always on guard for such attempts. Likewise the powers of the Executive Branch are limited. Really I don't think any persons dream of a legacy, is being physically removed from the White House...
    Easier said than done. It could take civil war. They have advanced means for controlling crowds these days.

    On OBL; Many people have/do feel he is dead. No one thinks before 9/11, since he has been filmed after 9/11 (not from his source) and we have satellite observations of his camp being taken down and moved, very soon afterward 9/11...
    His camp may move, the question is, who was really in the camp? As for films, they can be done if the guy was a captive. They could maybe be staged, or doctored?

    Since I have faith in what the experts say, the recent voice comparisons of released BL messages are that of him...If government, for some reason does not want OBL to be a symbol of some kind to the Extremist Movement, then he was probably killed in a remote area bombing, will never be found and his legacy will be limited. Factually, he has lost power and control...period.
    ns spemnt on the war is really the culprit?

    Didn't they supposedly let him get away one time, when they almost had him? If the object was to have gone after him, they would not need to attack other countries. Something is rotten in Denmark.

    On Dem Sweep; The Congressional seats, I feel will be lost are in Border States or states with large cost to maintain the current laws. Cal., Ariz., Tx, are obvious but every State is having some problem is one district or another. This from Medical, Schooling or welfare, which our laws are based on people, not where they are from.
    If all things go on as normal, that could be a factor. But maybe the untold billions spent on the needless wars is really the culprit?

    Yes, it is a sad state of affairs, when you consider the odds on favorite of all parties is Hillary Clinton to become president.
    If the majority of the US were Christian oriented, Obama, or her would mean that the majority were not represented. That could catch up to them as well. The country seems divided, and more and more so, it seems, to come, almost any way the elections goes.
    IMO its even worse, when there are many folks out there that are qualified, from both parties, electable and have the resume to handle domestic and foreign affairs from day one. These people, have chose not to run in most part, simply to avoid the media rap which all candidates seem to receive.
    The media and powerful vested interests, and lobbies may have assured that what will be will be. And what will be, as I see it, is the drastic demise of the US power in the globe. And maybe a lot of trouble in the future on the home front.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    On nukes; Think you would agree, its in the WORLDS interest these bombs are limited to some form of rational people/government. Those wishing a return to the 15th century or feeling they are the chosen, to bring an end to civilization, are not rational...IMO.

    Turn over power; NYC was to hold their elections on 9/12, when 19 folks seeking their mortality with some virgins, attacked the US with results you are aware of...Those elections were held a week or so later and I might add the heart of the US economy -Wall Street- was back on line in a few days...It would take a pretty big event to cause a major problem, which if did happen, cancellation of elections would be approved by all concerned including 95% of the population.

    Personally I feel, anyone with the power required to stage such an event would, plan for late January 2009, when transition has been completed and our guard down....

    Civil war; It won't happen, for a number of reason...some already mentioned...

    OBL; Yes Clinton could have taken him out and no doubt Bush could have,
    since the claim was made as to where he was....On the films, he was being congratulated by a Saudi business man for 9/11. Yes anything is possible (doctored or false) but I only have whats offered to make my opinions.

    Dem's sweep; No, as an issue the War on Terror, ranks about 5th on the list of concerns. If it were, to continue or pull out, IMO the Republicans could win, at least the Presidency. As to the money, Americans have accepted the cost to maintain some kind of world order.

    Divided Country; History has shown this to be a positive. Diverse views were present at the Constitutional Convention and exist today. Its the ability of any individual to voice their views, which has made the country great. Our media is subjective to their audience, complicated, but in general the larger sources cater to metropolitan USA, which is liberal. However 10s of thousand of sources exist is small town USA, voicing an entirely different view. The vested interest is in creditability to there audience and MAKING MONEY....

    I really wish, for the sake of future generation, I saw a demise in US influence around the world. While many countries have played with socialism, their defenses have dropped back to the 1930's levels. The US economic system (free and open world trade) can limit some desires for world conquest, but someday the world may be again tested for its resolve to maintain freedom.

    One Nation, not on my list is the USA. Freedom here is not nor likely ever could be taken from us. There may be hit and run attempts, such as 9/11, but IMO you will never see an outright attack on our mainland...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Forum Ph.D. Cat1981(England)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    South Downs.
    Posts
    934
    Well look on the bright side. Whoever replaces Bush will make the US a million time more popular than it is at the moment to the outside world.
    Eat Dolphin, save the Tuna!!!!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
    As to the money, Americans have accepted the cost to maintain some kind of world order.
    This has been true in the past in WWI, WWII, and the Cold War, arguably other wars. To assert that this is also true of the adventure in Iraq is to assume too much.

    First, far from maintaining world order, Bush's war has added to world disorder. I don't think either you or I would claim to be able to predict the longer term consequences, but it seems to me that as we empty the treasury to pay for this war, we diminish our ability to maintain world order in the future.

    Second, Americans haven't yet felt the cost in money terms. They will feel it when Social Security and Medicare come back into focus, and the cupboard is bare.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    Quote Originally Posted by Bunbury
    As to the money, Americans have accepted the cost to maintain some kind of world order.
    This has been true in the past in WWI, WWII, and the Cold War, arguably other wars. To assert that this is also true of the adventure in Iraq is to assume too much.

    First, far from maintaining world order, Bush's war has added to world disorder. I don't think either you or I would claim to be able to predict the longer term consequences, but it seems to me that as we empty the treasury to pay for this war, we diminish our ability to maintain world order in the future.

    Second, Americans haven't yet felt the cost in money terms. They will feel it when Social Security and Medicare come back into focus, and the cupboard is bare.
    I would question the US activity in world political affairs until about the Reagan Administration. Even the Korean Conflict, was kind of a clean up action after WWI, which took the US way to long to become involved IMO.

    Iraq, Afghanistan and the war on terror are on going projects. Its very difficult to judge something in motion, for either a conclusion or its effects in the world or the USA.

    Yes, the US has a serious problem developing from its playing around with socialism. Social Security/Medicare/Medicaid, War on poverty and other social actions have been played with by the Congress (increasing original intent) to say nothing about spending of SS/Medicaid income through the years. However there are potential solutions, which Congress will have to address.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    1,079
    Quote Originally Posted by jackson33
    I would question the US activity in world political affairs until about the Reagan Administration.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    96
    Quote Originally Posted by jackson33
    On nukes; Think you would agree, its in the WORLDS interest these bombs are limited to some form of rational people/government. Those wishing a return to the 15th century or feeling they are the chosen, to bring an end to civilization, are not rational...IMO.
    So who gets to decide on who is rational? Israel? Pakistan? Iran? The US?
    Turn over power; NYC was to hold their elections on 9/12, when 19 folks seeking their mortality with some virgins, attacked the US with results you are aware of...
    No. I assume you mean 911. The ones used as cannon fodder may have been working for someone they knew not of.

    Those elections were held a week or so later and I might add the heart of the US economy -Wall Street- was back on line in a few days...It would take a pretty big event to cause a major problem, which if did happen, cancellation of elections would be approved by all concerned including 95% of the population.
    Right. The world is full of big events these days.
    Personally I feel, anyone with the power required to stage such an event would, plan for late January 2009, when transition has been completed and our guard down....
    Assuming the object was to harm the US, you might have a point. But I do not look at threats as if they are Arabs trying to hurt the US.

    Civil war; It won't happen, for a number of reason...some already mentioned...
    Then out with a whimper rather than a bang it will be.

    OBL; Yes Clinton could have taken him out and no doubt Bush could have,
    since the claim was made as to where he was....On the films, he was being congratulated by a Saudi business man for 9/11. Yes anything is possible (doctored or false) but I only have whats offered to make my opinions.
    So, what is on offer is that OBL is either a patsy, or insignificant, if they couldn't be bothered to actually take him out.
    Dem's sweep; No, as an issue the War on Terror, ranks about 5th on the list of concerns. If it were, to continue or pull out, IMO the Republicans could win, at least the Presidency. As to the money, Americans have accepted the cost to maintain some kind of world order.

    The so called world order is not really something that the US controls, is it? Europe, China, and a new Russia, all seem to be marching to a different drummer.

    Divided Country; History has shown this to be a positive. Diverse views were present at the Constitutional Convention and exist today. Its the ability of any individual to voice their views, which has made the country great. Our media is subjective to their audience, complicated, but in general the larger sources cater to metropolitan USA, which is liberal. However 10s of thousand of sources exist is small town USA, voicing an entirely different view. The vested interest is in creditability to there audience and MAKING MONEY....
    The history of the civil war shows that divisions can be costly. The diverse views really don't matter if only a few get to realize their views, and the rest dream on. As for the media, it is the presidency, congress, and supreme court, for all those are subject to it's whims. As for liberal, I say that is a red herring. I am liberal enough to hate wars. Especially needless ones. Yet I am conservative enough to be opposed to killing babies. I don't give a damn about so called liberal and conservative labels. I do care about issues of faith.

    I really wish, for the sake of future generation, I saw a demise in US influence around the world. While many countries have played with socialism, their defenses have dropped back to the 1930's levels. The US economic system (free and open world trade) can limit some desires for world conquest, but someday the world may be again tested for its resolve to maintain freedom.
    To maintain it, it needs to first be here. The mass murders of the US seem to preclude it from being much connected to the peace, love, and freedom stick.
    One Nation, not on my list is the USA. Freedom here is not nor likely ever could be taken from us. There may be hit and run attempts, such as 9/11, but IMO you will never see an outright attack on our mainland...
    I think you are in dreamland. The freedoms have eroded, to the point of being a joke. Highest incarceration rate on earth. Most lobbies that control the government. (?) Most nukes (?) Most wars!! Who has their heart into supporting the US any more??? Even if we are talking about those people IN the US?? Who supports killing a million or whatever in the Mideast??
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    Quote Originally Posted by free radical
    Quote Originally Posted by jackson33
    I would question the US activity in world political affairs until about the Reagan Administration.
    Free radical;
    In September of 1939, Germany invaded Poland, starting what would soon be known as WWII. The US declared neutrality, officially staying out of that war for 2 1/2 years. Japan, ironically also declared neutrality with regards to Germany, but was having problems in Asia. It took Pearl Harbor, to force the US into actions, which really had nothing to do with Germany.

    This passive, head in the sands attitude by the US allowed mass killing of people around the world. If not for Pearl Harbor, Europe could well have been under some dictatorship for years, the US influenced by that rule or at worst under that rule. The few Jewish, which survived, underground or possibly totally annihilated.

    With todays mentality, or the sense to assist our friends around the World, we could have tried to pre-empt Hitlers desires, gone to Poland's aid, Japan seeing some sort of resolve (not seen), preventing Pearl Harbor and possibly even the eventual bombings of the two Japanese Cities. To say nothing about the 30-50 MILLIONS who died as a result of WWII and one mans desire to rule the world.

    Many folks in the US, around the world and myself have hoped the United Nations, could take on the job of defending free peoples from individual wishes for unlimited power and control.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    Quote Originally Posted by creation

    So who gets to decide on who is rational? Israel? Pakistan? Iran? The US?

    No. I assume you mean 911. The ones used as cannon fodder may have been working for someone they knew not of.

    Right. The world is full of big events these days.

    Assuming the object was to harm the US, you might have a point. But I do not look at threats as if they are Arabs trying to hurt the US.

    Then out with a whimper rather than a bang it will be.

    So, what is on offer is that OBL is either a patsy, or insignificant, if they couldn't be bothered to actually take him out.

    The so called world order is not really something that the US controls, is it? Europe, China, and a new Russia, all seem to be marching to a different drummer.

    The history of the civil war shows that divisions can be costly. The diverse views really don't matter if only a few get to realize their views, and the rest dream on. As for the media, it is the presidency, congress, and supreme court, for all those are subject to it's whims. As for liberal, I say that is a red herring. I am liberal enough to hate wars. Especially needless ones. Yet I am conservative enough to be opposed to killing babies. I don't give a damn about so called liberal and conservative labels. I do care about issues of faith.

    To maintain it, it needs to first be here. The mass murders of the US seem to preclude it from being much connected to the peace, love, and freedom stick.

    I think you are in dreamland. The freedoms have eroded, to the point of being a joke. Highest incarceration rate on earth. Most lobbies that control the government. (?) Most nukes (?) Most wars!! Who has their heart into supporting the US any more??? Even if we are talking about those people IN the US?? Who supports killing a million or whatever in the Mideast??
    Most civilian populations, including Pakistan, Iran, Venezuela or of any hostile government are or could be rational. I can only judge from my little mind, what seems to be rational. If my government said "Israel needs to be moved to Germany" or all that the *Islamic Extremist Cleric* do say, IMO they would not be rational. To defend others, which we do, even though not a threat today to us, seems rational.

    The US Civil War (1861-65), is another topic entirely. First its in another time line or a part of our formation as a country. State rights and slavery were argued from the founding. Nothing today compares to then and the people are of another frame of mind to whats worth death.

    If your referring to deaths in Iraq or the deaths caused by, revenge fighting, insurgency or outside influence I fail to understand your point.
    If your talking about Saddam's (or two sons), mass killings to maintain power, its a way to maintain power and occurs often, even today...

    Freedoms, are not eroding. You are beginning to speak like *move on dot com* now. I will admit, Domestic and Drug cases result in to many going to jail or that acceptable standards are set to high, that we spend to much just jailing offenders, BUT for those that can stay with in the standards our freedoms remain in tact and far above most the worlds societies...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    1,079
    Quote Originally Posted by jackson33
    Quote Originally Posted by free radical
    Quote Originally Posted by jackson33
    I would question the US activity in world political affairs until about the Reagan Administration.
    Free radical;
    <lengthy text>
    Perhaps, then, you meant to say that the US did not declare pre-emptive war prior to Reagan, as you seem to be saying that pre-emptive aggression defines involvement in world political events; a bizarre notion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
    Iraq, Afghanistan and the war on terror are on going projects. Its very difficult to judge something in motion, for either a conclusion or its effects in the world or the USA.
    Well let's try. Consider some possible outcomes for Iraq and then rank them in terms of likelihood to occur.

    1. The Americans withdraw and the Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds shake hands and start a stable peaceful democracy.

    2. The Americans withdraw and civil war rages between the Shia and the Sunni. The Kurds declare independence and occupy the northern oilfields. Turkey invades the north. Iran invades the east to support the Shiites. Sunni fighters from Saudi Arabia and Syria pour in to fight the Shiites. Al Qaeda overthrows the Saudi royal family. The turmoil spreads to Pakistan where the government is overthrown by fundamentalists and al Qaeda, who now have a nuclear weapon and sophisticated delivery system capable of striking as far as Israel. Israel launches a preemptive nuclear stike against Pakistan...India takes the opportunity to annex Kashmir...

    3. America stays for many years, managing to keep a lid on things, but unable to pull out. So, after spending half a trillion dollars, and killing tens of thousands of people, we have "containment". But wait. Isn't "containment" what we had under Clinton? While America is busy in Iraq and taxing its citizens to pay for the effort, China takes the opportunity to invade Taiwan.

    How do you see this "project" developing?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    96
    Quote Originally Posted by jackson33

    Most civilian populations, including Pakistan, Iran, Venezuela or of any hostile government are or could be rational. I can only judge from my little mind, what seems to be rational. If my government said "Israel needs to be moved to Germany" or all that the *Islamic Extremist Cleric* do say, IMO they would not be rational. To defend others, which we do, even though not a threat today to us, seems rational.
    So, Israel, and it's WOMD are rational, and Arabs are all demented extremists. OK.

    The US Civil War (1861-65), is another topic entirely. First its in another time line or a part of our formation as a country. State rights and slavery were argued from the founding. Nothing today compares to then and the people are of another frame of mind to whats worth death.
    Right. Mainly, it seems, those with oil deserve death, so we can get it?

    If your referring to deaths in Iraq or the deaths caused by, revenge fighting, insurgency or outside influence I fail to understand your point.
    If your talking about Saddam's (or two sons), mass killings to maintain power, its a way to maintain power and occurs often, even today...
    I was referring to a number I heard on the radio, of how many died since the US attacked.

    Freedoms, are not eroding. You are beginning to speak like *move on dot com* now. I will admit, Domestic and Drug cases result in to many going to jail or that acceptable standards are set to high, that we spend to much just jailing offenders, BUT for those that can stay with in the standards our freedoms remain in tact and far above most the worlds societies...
    Really, now? Howso?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    [quote="creation"]
    Quote Originally Posted by jackson33

    Right. Mainly, it seems, those with oil deserve death, so we can get it?

    I was referring to a number I heard on the radio, of how many died since the US attacked.

    Freedoms, are not eroding. You are beginning to speak like *move on dot com* now. I will admit, Domestic and Drug cases result in to many going to jail or that acceptable standards are set to high, that we spend to much just jailing offenders, BUT for those that can stay with in the standards our freedoms remain in tact and far above most the worlds societies...
    Really, now? Howso?
    Yes, Israel seems to handle Nukes in a rational manner, if indeed they have some...You keep saying Arabs, as if all Muslim Extremist are Arab or I have some beef with them. Actually, my problem is with Cleric Extremist and possible basing law and government on a 1500 yo document. It really makes no sense and pretends nothing has changed in those 1500 years. Every other religion, most voicing these religions and the societies they live in, have changed with the times....

    In the US alone, 6000 people die daily. A good many from violence, such as auto accidents, killings or some kind of conflict. Obviously most die from some natural cause. In Iraq, US or coalition troops (especially the British, in south Iraq) are probably responsible for saving life far beyond the deaths.

    *Move on*, obviously a political motivated media, predicts doom and gloom daily with such ideas of losing rights. These statement are intended to attack Bush, Chaney and in particular Rumsfeld (when around) trying to undermine the administrations creditability. Any rights lost, were far less than US society had lost during many wartime periods and any actual rights that have been lost was not directed toward the US society in general, but to an element with in....
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    Bunbury;

    1) Revenge ran ramped from the time Saddam's government fell. This would hold some validity today, but doubt will happen or in fact work...

    2) Why would Israel launch a pre-emptive attack against Pakistan. First, thats a problem for India to handle. The scenario in general is why the US and coalition is there. Stabilize the region. By the way, Western Iraq is said to hold much of Iraq oil reserves, thought to hold near that of SA.

    3) Taiwan business, is moving into China daily. If China continues on its current path, the Taiwanese will probably accept annexation. Containment under Clinton, was hurting the Iraq people, to say nothing of causing unrest in the area.

    There are cost involved, but keep in mind oil has flowed from the mid-east everyday of the Iraq war. One week of *No oil* and a trillion dollar price tag would be cheap by comparison. The world GDP is about 70 Trillion per year, the US 16T and Europe about 16-17T. This taking none of the exporters of oil, which would suffer as well...

    I can't predict the future, but IMO 20-30 years down the road the worlds future will look a little brighter...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    Quote Originally Posted by free radical
    Quote Originally Posted by jackson33
    Quote Originally Posted by free radical
    Quote Originally Posted by jackson33
    I would question the US activity in world political affairs until about the Reagan Administration.
    Free radical;
    <lengthy text>
    Perhaps, then, you meant to say that the US did not declare pre-emptive war prior to Reagan, as you seem to be saying that pre-emptive aggression defines involvement in world political events; a bizarre notion.
    If a WWIII, can be prevented wouldn't it be advisable to do just that. It wouldn't have taken much to alter Hitlers ambitions, but we ALL sat by and did nothing...

    "I don't know what WWIII will be fought with, but WWIV, will be fought with sticks and stones" Einstein
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    96
    Quote Originally Posted by jackson33
    Really, now? Howso?
    Yes, Israel seems to handle Nukes in a rational manner, if indeed they have some...[/quote]

    I thought that line went out with Vanunnu? How does being responsible manifest itself? No one dares attack you if you trounce your largely unarmed neighbors? They haven't fired them off YET?? Kennedy doesn't want to shut the program down anymore, for some reason?? Or...do tell.


    You keep saying Arabs, as if all Muslim Extremist are Arab or I have some beef with them. Actually, my problem is with Cleric Extremist and possible basing law and government on a 1500 yo document. It really makes no sense and pretends nothing has changed in those 1500 years. Every other religion, most voicing these religions and the societies they live in, have changed with the times....
    So, if they want to have Jews march, like Sharon did on up the the mount, that is OK? Extremism is defined as whatever the other religion does??

    In the US alone, 6000 people die daily. A good many from violence, such as auto accidents, killings or some kind of conflict. Obviously most die from some natural cause. In Iraq, US or coalition troops (especially the British, in south Iraq) are probably responsible for saving life far beyond the deaths.
    So, a million or more are dead from the bombs, and etc. and, at the moment, some are saved from death if the suck up to the occupiers enough, or whatever, so the ones that killed the masses are saints. Got it.

    *Move on*, obviously a political motivated media, predicts doom and gloom daily with such ideas of losing rights. These statement are intended to attack Bush, Chaney and in particular Rumsfeld (when around) trying to undermine the administrations creditability.
    The fact you seem to think they have any says a lot. I think Stalin has as much credibility.


    Any rights lost, were far less than US society had lost during many wartime periods and any actual rights that have been lost was not directed toward the US society in general, but to an element with in....
    War time? Can you name the war times you mean, where the other side was mostly civilian deaths? Can you name the undeclared wars you mean here?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    Creation;

    I am not aware of a three month period, when Israel was NOT under some kind of threat or attack. From human bombers looking for their virgins to lobbing firecrackers into their cities or all out war (Lebanon).
    I would say there restraint shown, considering their potential power (not necessarily nuclear) has been remarkable. This restraint also a political problem, with the people, for the ruling party.

    There is no comparison, to what Arab/Persian societies have accomplished in bringing their people into a near 21st Century mentality, when compared to the *EXTREMIST MUSLIM MOVEMENT*, driven by their cleric...

    There are not a million Iraq/Afghanistan dead, from US actions. I doubt there are more than a few hundred from direct results and again the reality is tens of thousands may have died, were it not for coalition presence.

    In case you haven't noticed, we no longer line up across from an enemy and charge. War, even from Viet Nam has changed to air power and the developed *Smart Bombs*, where the innocents are partly safe.

    We agree on *Move On*, however it remains a political tool and has a large following, primarily from the liberal/democrat base.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    96
    Quote Originally Posted by jackson33
    Creation;

    I am not aware of a three month period, when Israel was NOT under some kind of threat or attack.
    Gee, I wonder why?


    From human bombers looking for their virgins to lobbing firecrackers into their cities or all out war (Lebanon).
    I would say there restraint shown, considering their potential power (not necessarily nuclear) has been remarkable. This restraint also a political problem, with the people, for the ruling party.
    Wow, they haven't nuked them, and wiped them all out yet. How nice. Maybe they fear world opinion?
    There is no comparison, to what Arab/Persian societies have accomplished in bringing their people into a near 21st Century mentality, when compared to the *EXTREMIST MUSLIM MOVEMENT*, driven by their cleric...
    You seem to be suggesting a mentality like that is good?

    There are not a million Iraq/Afghanistan dead, from US actions. I doubt there are more than a few hundred from direct results and again the reality is tens of thousands may have died, were it not for coalition presence.
    "The estimate that over a million Iraqis have died received independent confirmation from a prestigious British polling agency in September 2007. Opinion Research Business estimated that 1.2 million Iraqis have been killed violently since the US invasion."
    http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/iraq/iraqdeaths.html

    So this is wrong? And thousands of other similar sites, with similar stats??
    "Day to Day, September 18, 2007 · The British polling agency ORB has released a new survey of Iraqis that suggests that more than one million Iraqis have been killed since the war began."
    http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...oryId=14501232




    In case you haven't noticed, we no longer line up across from an enemy and charge. War, even from Viet Nam has changed to air power and the developed *Smart Bombs*, where the innocents are partly safe.
    Apparently they are not as smart as you think.

    We agree on *Move On*, however it remains a political tool and has a large following, primarily from the liberal/democrat base.
    I guess I must have used a quote from that site? No idea who they are.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    Creation, for a million people to have died since the US went into Iraq, over 700 would need to die each day and according to the idea, in some form of violence. I can't accept this regardless of source.

    Move On Dot Org, is an extreme group of Liberal Activist, sponsored in the beginning by George Sorris, worth billions and in short HATES, republicans/conservatives, both Bushes and a devoted Clinton fan. The name "Move On, was taken from the original Web set up, saying "can't we just move on" from the Clinton Sex Scandals in the late 1990's.

    Carpet bombing of previous wars, including Hitlers WWII tactics was very indiscreet. Thousand upon thousands of innocents would die in an effort to take out a small target. Smart bombs, especially today can target a square yard from hundreds of miles away, even off a ship. Air attacks with these bombs are ALL recorded and there accuracy is not open for discussion. Errors are made, attacking a target not intended, does happen.

    Yes, if the Clergy or governments are trying to advance their people, give their women rights and participate with the rest of the worlds people...this is a good thing. I don't care what religion they are...

    Israel, has military power which was not used against Lebanon or to protect its people from the Gaza Strip radicals, other than nuclear weapons. Frankly to use nuclear in the area would effect the people in Israel as well. One thing I do feel is, Israel will use whatever it needs to prevent war on its people or the acquiring of nuclear weapons by their self professed enemies.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    96
    Quote Originally Posted by jackson33
    Creation, for a million people to have died since the US went into Iraq, over 700 would need to die each day and according to the idea, in some form of violence. I can't accept this regardless of source.
    Personal incredulity alone doesn't do much.

    Move On Dot Org, is an extreme group of Liberal Activist, sponsored in the beginning by George Sorris, worth billions and in short HATES, republicans/conservatives, both Bushes and a devoted Clinton fan. The name "Move On, was taken from the original Web set up, saying "can't we just move on" from the Clinton Sex Scandals in the late 1990's.
    OK, I distrust Soros. But in this case, I think his enemies are just as bad, or worse.

    Carpet bombing of previous wars, including Hitlers WWII tactics was very indiscreet. Thousand upon thousands of innocents would die in an effort to take out a small target. Smart bombs, especially today can target a square yard from hundreds of miles away, even off a ship. Air attacks with these bombs are ALL recorded and there accuracy is not open for discussion. Errors are made, attacking a target not intended, does happen.
    The nuclear potential of mass destruction is much greater. WOMD of today mean that when things really heat up, cities full of people will die.
    "In conclusion, the development of new military technology, along with the growth of powerful and consolidated nations, has resulted in wars causing far more civilian deaths than wars had previously."
    http://www.antiwar.com/orig/worden.php?articleid=10427
    Yes, if the Clergy or governments are trying to advance their people, give their women rights and participate with the rest of the worlds people...this is a good thing. I don't care what religion they are...
    I don't agree. I think the right to murder some some 40 odd million unborn a year children ought to be taken away. Yes, from, gasp..women.

    Israel, has military power which was not used against Lebanon or to protect its people from the Gaza Strip radicals, other than nuclear weapons. Frankly to use nuclear in the area would effect the people in Israel as well. One thing I do feel is, Israel will use whatever it needs to prevent war on its people or the acquiring of nuclear weapons by their self professed enemies.
    Right. It will try. Being somewhat proficient in ancient prophesies, I understand they also will fail.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    Isn't one of those prophesies, that the Jewish will return to where they are, for the world to end...thank goodness most of their 14 million are scattered around the world...

    Guess you talking abortion, but 40 million a year even for the entire planet seems a little high. In the US its a little less than 2...per year.

    Since the issue, was an issue, I have been unable to form an opinion to oppose or validate the reasoning. I do feel, many men or would be fathers are involved than thought, but the issue itself goes back to *Womens Right* issues. Life to me starts when the seed is planted and germination begins, in plants and so obvious. The same should be for humans and the seed, an egg. From your religious view, yes then it would be wrong. From a realistic view, I assume the woman or would be Dad, does not want the future baby and maybe shouldn't be a parent. As for the potential adoption, the woman still has to go through pregnancy and birth, which a great many just don't want the hassle. Then adding 2 million babies to the adoption program would make for some social problems, I will not address. Then too, I have often wondered how many would be great people have been killed for any reason....
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    96
    Quote Originally Posted by jackson33
    Isn't one of those prophesies, that the Jewish will return to where they are, for the world to end...thank goodness most of their 14 million are scattered around the world...
    That doesn't mean God wanted it that way, any more than a prophesied nuclear war. But it is a sign of the end, yes.
    Guess you talking abortion, but 40 million a year even for the entire planet seems a little high. In the US its a little less than 2...per year.
    No, I looked it up on several places last year. I think it was 42 million.

    Since the issue, was an issue, I have been unable to form an opinion to oppose or validate the reasoning. I do feel, many men or would be fathers are involved than thought, but the issue itself goes back to *Womens Right* issues. Life to me starts when the seed is planted and germination begins, in plants and so obvious. The same should be for humans and the seed, an egg. From your religious view, yes then it would be wrong. From a realistic view, I assume the woman or would be Dad, does not want the future baby and maybe shouldn't be a parent.
    Right, I gathered that much. Some people would like to not have anyone living left in the country next door, or the house next door, or the church next door, or the handicapped, or homeless center next door either. So? Tough.

    As for the potential adoption, the woman still has to go through pregnancy and birth, which a great many just don't want the hassle. Then adding 2 million babies to the adoption program would make for some social problems, I will not address.
    Hey, Mother Teresa said she would take every one of them, some years ago. Probably many feel similar. No need to assassinate them.

    Then too, I have often wondered how many would be great people have been killed for any reason....
    My feeling there, is that all such will be born anyhow, to loving parents on the other side. God does not lose. I think the losers there are the ones that snuffed the kids here, and aided and abetted.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    Creation; Guess your correct; Worldwide in 1995, 20 million legal and 26 million illegal abortions were said performed, then add the *pill* factor and were not all that humane. As the world goes however, we seem to have no problem bearing children. 6.5 billion people is quite a lot compared to a couple billion in 1900.

    Born "on the other side". Just what religious faith do you follow? I could understand if you said the soul of an unborn, went on to a place, but your getting into some kind of duel existence.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    96
    Quote Originally Posted by jackson33
    Creation; Guess your correct; Worldwide in 1995, 20 million legal and 26 million illegal abortions were said performed, then add the *pill* factor and were not all that humane. As the world goes however, we seem to have no problem bearing children. 6.5 billion people is quite a lot compared to a couple billion in 1900.

    Born "on the other side". Just what religious faith do you follow? I could understand if you said the soul of an unborn, went on to a place, but your getting into some kind of duel existence.
    I meant born in heaven, commonly called the other side. The place where spirits live at the moment.
    Your numbers were a little old.

    "
    The following is a list of useful abortion statistics as well as some facts on abortifacients. All abortion numbers are derived from pro-abortion sources courtesy of The Alan Guttmacher Institute and Planned Parenthood's Family Planning Perspectives.

    WORLDWIDE

    Number of abortions per year: Approximately 46 Million
    Number of abortions per day: Approximately 126,000"

    http://www.abortionno.org/Resources/fastfacts.html

    That is MORE than the population of Japan every three years. Move over, Little Boy.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard icewendigo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,148
    Elections 08,

    heres my light hearted opinion,

    I think Cheney ran the Ford administration, that VP Bush ran the Regan administration, and that Cheney is running the W Bush whitehouse.

    So the W Bush Yale skullnBones Oil aristocrat was the figurehead of Cheney CFR Earl of Halliburton who stole 2000 with dirty tricks in Florida and the methods were outsourced to other states to steal 04 from Bushes SkulnBones bretheren Kerry.

    For 08 youll probably have a choice between 2 pre-selected CFR members with the crazier GOP variant having the elections fraud edge.

    On the Rep side Thompson would have the acting skill required for his figurehead role but you'd need a Darth Cheney-like insider VP to run the day to day dirty business.

    Other Rep have the crazy religious appeal that offsets the need to be a good lier since their base are Beleivers by definition.

    Romney with his magical underwear would be great for late shows.

    Don Guiliani would make a good godfather figure and make it easy on speech writters (just repeat 911)

    All rep would probably be a catastrophe for the US and the world before the end of their mandate.

    On the Dem side

    Clinton is a warmongering chickenhawk
    Obama is the 'warmongering light' candidate
    Edwards might be good
    Kucinich (not CFR) would be the best candidate for the people of the US (assuming he'd get elected and avoid the lone gunman)

    As for Congress, the last elections showed how cosmetic they are, one of the few remaining members with balls of steel got an Anthrax envelope message(with CIA stationary :wink: ), and to this day the FBI still tells congress to go fly a kite when they ask for an update on the Anthrax attack investigation.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    Creation; As a *Conservative Republican" in the US, its hard to defend abortion, to begin with. In my life I fathered 7 kids and neither myself nor a spouse, ever gave a thought to the idea. My folks and none of my grand parents, to my knowledge ever mentioned the idea. In not formulating a set opinion, reality plays a roll.

    If Rowe/Wade was repealed today, abortion would not stop. Frankly since this would become a States right to rule on, many would tomorrow, make abortion legal. For those developing countries, is it really best to have kids which will no doubt starve, die at 5-10 from aids or from a thousand reasons they already and knowingly do die. Is it my right or yours, to say a woman HAS TO, go through child birth, or that the father has to submit to the womans will and support the child for 18-22 years, while not having a say so even if wanting the child. There is a lot more to the issue than *right & wrong*...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    Ice; Think you saying, we in the US in 2008 do not have much to choose from. If so I do agree and am almost ready to accept Hillary. As you think Dennis would be the best, I feel Romney would be, but neither is electable.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    "Jamerica"...When in America, Florida; when in Jamaica, St. Mary
    Posts
    969
    I'm still undecided on who I'm going to vote for.

    But I'm definitely going to vote Democrat this time around (though I'm a registered Republican).
    Whence comes this logic: no evidence = false?

    http://www.atheistthinktank.net/thinktank/index.php

    Theists welcome.
    ___________
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    96
    Quote Originally Posted by jackson33
    Creation; As a *Conservative Republican" in the US, its hard to defend abortion, to begin with. In my life I fathered 7 kids and neither myself nor a spouse, ever gave a thought to the idea. My folks and none of my grand parents, to my knowledge ever mentioned the idea. In not formulating a set opinion, reality plays a roll.

    If Rowe/Wade was repealed today, abortion would not stop. Frankly since this would become a States right to rule on, many would tomorrow, make abortion legal. For those developing countries, is it really best to have kids which will no doubt starve, die at 5-10 from aids or from a thousand reasons they already and knowingly do die. Is it my right or yours, to say a woman HAS TO, go through child birth, or that the father has to submit to the womans will and support the child for 18-22 years, while not having a say so even if wanting the child. There is a lot more to the issue than *right & wrong*...
    No, I don't think so. Your opinion seems to be that it is better to snuff out the poor before they are born. How about the handicapped? Minorities? Where does it end?
    If your point is that the US is so far gone, that laws can't make them stop killing kids, fine. I think they are on the way to being flushed as a world power anyhow. Why would not those that believed in good things stand up and be counted, and vote for what is right, even if it is their last stand?
    On the bright side, some are legalizing same sex unions, I think there? That at least means less kids available to kill!

    Anyhow, I don't think that issue is a big one in the coming elections. I would think that the wars of the current regime are the big thing. Blair went out, and the Australian guy, and many that supported the coalition of the war willing.
    About the only place I hear the drums of war still really being beat over there in in Israel. "Oh, the report that Iran would have no nukes is all wrong, blah blah'

    Since the presidents of the US, and other leaders really need the media to get elected, maybe a good thing would be to vote in the media first. Then, they could worry about voting for congress, etc.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #58  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Columbus, OH
    Posts
    935
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    I'm still undecided on who I'm going to vote for.

    But I'm definitely going to vote Democrat this time around (though I'm a registered Republican).
    I'm completely undecided as well. I'd strongly prefer to vote Democrat but the candidate I trust least is Hillary. I CANNOT see myself voting for her - she in my eyes absolutely DEFINES "slimy politician" who will do or say anything to get elected.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #59  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    Creation; You have strong feelings on the *Abortion* issue. Many folks here in the US, also have strong feelings and on both sides the issue. As for an issue, your correct, its a minor issue and one which only the religious right will address.

    What about Minorities, Handicapped and assume the elderly? Somewhat aware of history, I know of no society that ever existed which has done more to bring all people into one social structure, than the US.

    Yes, many States have some form *same sex unions* written into their laws and they have always had the right to form a contract giving the same limited rights. Its also legal, for these folks to adopt children or if women, to bear children.

    Media, can influence the vote but as Americans we can chose our media. The people will make their choice in 2008, not the media...


    Neutrino; Hillary IMO, has been planning this election for years. Possibly back to choosing her husband. This kind of drive, makes for a good story
    and she is a very good strategist. Her only formidable Republican Candidate is Romney, which is far from electable. She has taken a centrist attitude on *The War and security* and is the wife of Bill Clinton. We may be in for another 4-8 years of the *Clinton Saga*, but with the electable republicans we could be in for far worse...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #60  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    96
    Quote Originally Posted by jackson33
    Creation; You have strong feelings on the *Abortion* issue. Many folks here in the US, also have strong feelings and on both sides the issue. As for an issue, your correct, its a minor issue and one which only the religious right will address.

    What about Minorities, Handicapped and assume the elderly? Somewhat aware of history, I know of no society that ever existed which has done more to bring all people into one social structure, than the US.
    Yes Guantanamo, and Abu Graib really brought people in. Of course, the US has by far the greatest percentage of people in prison as well, I heard. How nice, I guess, if you like that social structure.
    It really made an impression in Iraq as well, with hundreds of thousands dead. Seems like they set up a social structure of a palace type fortress, for themselves, who cares about the rest of the country anyhow?
    But the point was, that, if millions. literally of kids are hacked to death, scraped, or whatever they do, who knows what defenseless group might be next?

    Yes, many States have some form *same sex unions* written into their laws and they have always had the right to form a contract giving the same limited rights. Its also legal, for these folks to adopt children or if women, to bear children.
    Right. But the point you missed that was the whole concept has to lead to less chuldren being born. Simple, that.

    Media, can influence the vote but as Americans we can chose our media. The people will make their choice in 2008, not the media...
    I don't believe you. It is like choosing another pea in the pod. If I want balance in news, the last place I look is US media.


    How about an Obama/Hillary ticket? That might get some votes.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #61  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    Creation; My goodness, you do recreate a question during a conversation, don't you...

    Prisoners of War; We don't chop off heads now do we? Water boarding is the worst torture to have been committed.

    US Legal System; I would agree, to many folks are in jail for domestic and drug violations, far to many. Another good share of imprisoned are from other countries, Mexico and Central America. In their country, many things classified illegal here are not, where they come from. Ignorance of the the, in the US is not a defence...I could go deeper, with our social aid policy, which takes personal responsibilities out of play creating most the problems, but think you viewpoint is set...

    Media; Most if not all media, offers both sides of a story. Placement in the paper or what program its seen, pick out what they feel their audience wants. The 30 minute nightly programs or the front pages of any paper. Deeper in the paper or the following *Local* news programs often give a different slant.

    Politics; Hillary is electable, IMO. Obama is not, at least not next year. I would say, Hillary knows this. Add to that, both are from Chicago and if nominated she will need a contrasting VP to here own origin. The person will be chosen on where from and how the choice will benefit the ticket. California for instance is already won, Texas lost and several like that. Florida and Ohio or the South in general all offer potential electoral count and currently called toss ups.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #62  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    96
    Quote Originally Posted by jackson33

    Prisoners of War; We don't chop off heads now do we? Water boarding is the worst torture to have been committed.
    That we know about! --That they so far admit to! They seem to be monsters to me, so I wouldn't put it past them.

    US Legal System; I would agree, to many folks are in jail for domestic and drug violations, far to many. Another good share of imprisoned are from other countries, Mexico and Central America. In their country, many things classified illegal here are not, where they come from. Ignorance of the the, in the US is not a defence...I could go deeper, with our social aid policy, which takes personal responsibilities out of play creating most the problems, but think you viewpoint is set...
    Well, I just throw out a few things automatically, when I hear someone touting the US as mother Teresa.

    Media; Most if not all media, offers both sides of a story.
    I don't believe you. I'll give an example, from aprox the time I gave up on trusting them at all for news.

    The church of the Nativity was surrounded by Israel. They said there were some 'terrorists' in there. They had snipers on the rooftops, and the place surrounded. The people inside were cut off, with no power, if I recall, or toilets that worked. There was loudspeakers outside blasting loud music, and noises, I think it was day and night. They even used some sort of fireworks, or incendiary devices. One such device caught the roof on fire. The scene a bit like waco. They were afraid of also being burned alive. An off duty Palestinian policeman ran up, risking his life, to try to put it out, to save the people. He was shot dead by a sniper. The US media I read all ran the story in a way that sounded like a terrorist on the roof was taken out by the brave snipers! I figured, I would get my news from a more balanced source after that.

    Politics; Hillary is electable, IMO. Obama is not, at least not next year. I would say, Hillary knows this. Add to that, both are from Chicago and if nominated she will need a contrasting VP to here own origin. The person will be chosen on where from and how the choice will benefit the ticket. California for instance is already won, Texas lost and several like that. Florida and Ohio or the South in general all offer potential electoral count and currently called toss ups.
    You seem to have it pretty in depth there. Maybe you are right. But I think that Charles Manson might get elected, if he was the only one against the wars of the Bush people. Despite the polls, I think that is the issue.

    Only a major 'terror' attack might turn that around. And, that, as I mentioned might mean no elections for a while.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #63  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    Creation; I am not interested in hashing out the difference in Militant Islam and the American differences. They are and you already know and understand them. As for the US media, your talking about a tremendous number of News Letters, Papers, Radio Stations (800 News/Talk), TV Stations or channels in the hundreds, the Internet and to some degree even our entertainment sources. We even have a few that write/broadcast
    from the Radical Terrorist viewpoint and even the BBC gets an hour or so each day.

    I have gone over the Constitution and our laws which involve a delay in an an election. There are no laws or scenarios to allow one to be canceled.

    The number one issue in the US, is Border Security. Number two may be the economy, by election day, followed by Health Care (pro/con national) and then SS/Medicaid reform. It may be arrogance, but things seem to be going fine in the mid-east and the War on Terror is only an issue, if pulling out is mentioned. Here any person running on a "Cut and Run" policy, has about as much chance of Winning the National Election as my pet dog. Obama, by the way fits that person, with his stance on IRAQ...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #64  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    96
    Quote Originally Posted by jackson33
    Creation; I am not interested in hashing out the difference in Militant Islam and the American differences. They are and you already know and understand them. As for the US media, your talking about a tremendous number of News Letters, Papers, Radio Stations (800 News/Talk), TV Stations or channels in the hundreds, the Internet and to some degree even our entertainment sources. We even have a few that write/broadcast
    from the Radical Terrorist viewpoint and even the BBC gets an hour or so each day.

    I have gone over the Constitution and our laws which involve a delay in an an election. There are no laws or scenarios to allow one to be canceled.

    The number one issue in the US, is Border Security. Number two may be the economy, by election day, followed by Health Care (pro/con national) and then SS/Medicaid reform. It may be arrogance, but things seem to be going fine in the mid-east and the War on Terror is only an issue, if pulling out is mentioned. Here any person running on a "Cut and Run" policy, has about as much chance of Winning the National Election as my pet dog. Obama, by the way fits that person, with his stance on IRAQ...
    Then I would say he will be the next president when election are held!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #65  
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
    Quote Originally Posted by jackson33
    2) Why would Israel launch a pre-emptive attack against Pakistan.
    BBC News: The Pakistani authorities have been angered by Western media reports speculating that the country?s nuclear arsenal could fall into the hands of al-Qaeda militants.

    The senior military official briefing foreign journalists said that the weapons were protected by an elaborate command and control system, and multiple levels of security.
    If you are sitting in Tel Aviv you might find this statement less than reassuring.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #66  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    Setting in New Mexico, USA, I don't find that statement reassuring. I would think military strategist are concerned about WW III, breaking out over that very issue. Musharraf's success or failure in maintaining power and/or the peace between segments of the Islamics in Pakistan, at best is speculative.

    India, Pakistan and Islamic Extremist arch rival (in that area), would be the target over Israel IMO. Iran, another story could obtain a couple of those 30-100 nukes and easily deliver to Israel. The talk now, is Israel is concerned about US elections and obtaining *air space* privilege over Iraq for a pre-emptive attack on pending development of nuclear bombs.
    The feeling is Democrat candidates would not allow, in favor of diplomacy which has never worked, for Israel.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  68. #67  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    96
    Quote Originally Posted by jackson33
    Setting in New Mexico, USA, I don't find that statement reassuring. I would think military strategist are concerned about WW III, breaking out over that very issue. Musharraf's success or failure in maintaining power and/or the peace between segments of the Islamics in Pakistan, at best is speculative.

    India, Pakistan and Islamic Extremist arch rival (in that area), would be the target over Israel IMO. Iran, another story could obtain a couple of those 30-100 nukes and easily deliver to Israel. The talk now, is Israel is concerned about US elections and obtaining *air space* privilege over Iraq for a pre-emptive attack on pending development of nuclear bombs.
    The feeling is Democrat candidates would not allow, in favor of diplomacy which has never worked, for Israel.
    Hey, last time I posted, it seemed your claim that Iraq and war were not a big issue. Now, Osama seems to be da man.
    Guess you were wrong.

    I think we all know that Israel will be involved in some major wars over there. If the US sides with it, the US will lose, I would think. From bible prophesy, it is not world war three that breaks out right away. It escalates from something lesser.
    If Israel uses nuclear weapons, I would guess that the opinion of the world would support an invasion of it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  69. #68  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    Quote Originally Posted by creation
    Quote Originally Posted by jackson33
    Setting in New Mexico, USA, I don't find that statement reassuring. I would think military strategist are concerned about WW III, breaking out over that very issue. Musharraf's success or failure in maintaining power and/or the peace between segments of the Islamics in Pakistan, at best is speculative.

    India, Pakistan and Islamic Extremist arch rival (in that area), would be the target over Israel IMO. Iran, another story could obtain a couple of those 30-100 nukes and easily deliver to Israel. The talk now, is Israel is concerned about US elections and obtaining *air space* privilege over Iraq for a pre-emptive attack on pending development of nuclear bombs.
    The feeling is Democrat candidates would not allow, in favor of diplomacy which has never worked, for Israel.
    Hey, last time I posted, it seemed your claim that Iraq and war were not a big issue. Now, Osama seems to be da man.
    Guess you were wrong.

    I think we all know that Israel will be involved in some major wars over there. If the US sides with it, the US will lose, I would think. From bible prophesy, it is not world war three that breaks out right away. It escalates from something lesser.
    If Israel uses nuclear weapons, I would guess that the opinion of the world would support an invasion of it.
    Thought I would hear from you again. Welcome back...

    The fact the War is not the issue is why Obama is making a very good showing, but it ain't over and the fat lady has not sung. Todays actions in Israel, may make the War an issue, but I don't think Nuclear Weapons will be needed. You don't swat a fly with a sledge hammer...In short the US will side with Israel and in short, will not lose.

    McCain's comeback, would also indicate the War Issue, but here again the opposition with in his party would say its not an issue. I am still holding to a McCain/Clinton November Race and picking McCain the winner. Obama would be easier to beat (on issues) but his party knows this and will do whats needed to slow his populist message.

    By the way its *Barack Hussein OBAMA Jr*...was Osama a typo???
    Reply With Quote  
     

  70. #69  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    96
    Quote Originally Posted by jackson33


    The fact the War is not the issue is why Obama is making a very good showing, but it ain't over and the fat lady has not sung.
    Well, the war may not be on the surface, but it is what lies beneath. Hillary supported it, that seems to have knocked her out.


    Todays actions in Israel, may make the War an issue, but I don't think Nuclear Weapons will be needed. You don't swat a fly with a sledge hammer...In short the US will side with Israel and in short, will not lose.
    Well, I am not sure why you feel confident of that. They are hated in the world, to a large degree now, and stretched thin with the wars already going on. If Russia helps Iran, and Syria, and co. how could the US get enough forces fast enough in the area to do much about it?
    Seems to me Greenspan is announcing the recession of late as well, and almost seems impatient the US isn't all the way in the gutter yet.
    McCain's comeback, would also indicate the War Issue, but here again the opposition with in his party would say its not an issue.
    Macain is a warmonger, from what I have heard of him. An irritating one at that. He may do better than he deserves if Obama is the Democratic runner, just because a lot of people may vote white.
    But Obama seems to have the Kennedy clan on his side, and that means a lot of whites. Maybe he promised to take action if he finds out who really killed John?


    I am still holding to a McCain/Clinton November Race and picking McCain the winner.
    That could be, if Obama is assasinated.
    Obama would be easier to beat (on issues) but his party knows this and will do whats needed to slow his populist message.
    I should point out, I distrust and detest the man, because of his abortion position, but I don't think the US has a lot of morals as any concern, so if he is handsome, that will override that.

    By the way its *Barack Hussein OBAMA Jr*...was Osama a typo???
    Ha. Yes. I often get the names mixed up for some reason.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  71. #70  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    Why Clinton is having a hard time, is complicated but involves her loving husband, her polarizing personality and her *my turn* persona. The fact she voted for the war, has kept in contention and will probably give her the Democrat nomination.

    Russia supports Iran, doing so back through the Iran/Iraq war. Russia also has terrorist problems and doubt they support Syria. Why so many hate Israel is obvious. We call it religious intolerance here. There are nearly 2 BILLION Islamics in the world and 13 MILLION Jews.

    The American people, are tolerant of other religion and in favor/practice
    religious tolerance. Almost to a fault, American are tolerant of any group whatever the philosophy. I don't see a problem with Russia or for that matter China, but if need be the US Military can handle the problem. Personally I am more concerned with Chavez (Venezuela) and Pakistan today..

    On Mr. Obama: In the Illinois Congress he also voted for many things you would disagree with if you have a problem with the abortion issue. Its not for me to start these issues today, but there out there waiting for the need to discuss.

    Economics; I still don't see a recession. That's two quarters of minus GDP.
    Gold/Silver, would say the World feels this will happen and the US dollar will continue to drop per interest rate drops to offset the possibilities. Frankly I see massive activity this summer and if anything inflation a problem. So much is dependent on the elections and I could have it backwards...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  72. #71  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    96
    Quote Originally Posted by jackson33
    Why Clinton is having a hard time, is complicated but involves her loving husband, her polarizing personality and her *my turn* persona. The fact she voted for the war, has kept in contention and will probably give her the Democrat nomination.
    So you figure the US is so war supporting, that everyone ought to brag about how warmongering they are. I see.

    Russia supports Iran, doing so back through the Iran/Iraq war. Russia also has terrorist problems and doubt they support Syria. Why so many hate Israel is obvious. We call it religious intolerance here. There are nearly 2 BILLION Islamics in the world and 13 MILLION Jews.
    Then, as I say, if the US supports that nation, they will lose.

    The American people, are tolerant of other religion and in favor/practice
    religious tolerance. Almost to a fault, American are tolerant of any group whatever the philosophy. I don't see a problem with Russia or for that matter China, but if need be the US Military can handle the problem. Personally I am more concerned with Chavez (Venezuela) and Pakistan today..
    Your confidence in the military is strange. I think a large part of the problem with things is the lack of trust in the US. For example, who really killed Bhutto? If there is no trust, people might suspect that the US had something to do with that.

    On Mr. Obama: In the Illinois Congress he also voted for many things you would disagree with if you have a problem with the abortion issue. Its not for me to start these issues today, but there out there waiting for the need to discuss.
    Regardless, Obama is an enemy of faith, in the opinion of many.

    Economics; I still don't see a recession. That's two quarters of minus GDP.
    Gold/Silver, would say the World feels this will happen and the US dollar will continue to drop per interest rate drops to offset the possibilities. Frankly I see massive activity this summer and if anything inflation a problem. So much is dependent on the elections and I could have it backwards...
    You could be right. Obama is so bad, in my books, if he gets in, I could see the US doing OK for a while. Financially.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  73. #72  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    People in the US are not war hungry. They favor international peace and in general on their terms. Simultaneously, Americans are concerned with Religious TOLERANCE, human rights and the idea you don't mess with us...
    Government is concerned with National Security, which includes from the economic angle. We had our day with OPEC and being threatened with sanctions from them. Stability in the Mid-East is important to the security or if you prefer, a steady flow of oil to us and our allies.

    A great deal of the America you read about, the young and restless are in fact 'spoiled brats'. They want all they have, yet have no idea how they got what is it they do have. I could go on with Education they say is wanted, Health Care they say they want and taxing the rich to get it. Most don't use the education, don't buy their own insurance (most uninsured are capable of buying 21-45yo), and don't realize taxing the rich is pure political rhetoric and the hand that feeds them and our economy.

    On Israel; I am not Jewish, know very few and in fact realize most of their understandings/beliefs are contrary to most Americans. I go back to the Tolerance thing and Americans...By the way this includes Muslims...

    Bhutto, was advised by many not to do everything she did do. Remember she was Muslim and there is something to say about martyrdom. The US was seriously hoping for a joint government for the two major political factions, IMO..

    On Obama; Well in Muslim areas, Obama is a born Muslim (which is true) and cannot convert to another. His chosen faith, in Chicago, is very close to the original *Black Power* ideas, which was born in Chicago. Again, understanding American tolerance, it would be best to argue his economic, domestic and foreign affair policy, which would be terrible on the economy and may very well be the root of the current economic problem as perceived.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  74. #73  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    1,079
    Quote Originally Posted by jackson33
    On Obama; Well in Muslim areas, Obama is a born Muslim (which is true) and cannot convert to another. His chosen faith, in Chicago, is very close to the original *Black Power* ideas, which was born in Chicago.
    http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/muslim.asp

    If a diverse exposure, including birth, education, tangential exposure, and chosen affiliation, to many schools of religious thought makes one a member of each or any of those schools of thought, then it stands to reason that many more of us are 'muslim' than we realise.

    Judaism, to take another example, is passed through the female line, meaning that a person 7 or 8 or 100 generations removed from a practicing jew is still jewish, provided that ancestry can be traced entirely through females to the original jew.

    It is this sort of thinking that you suggest, that makes Americans appear, em, slightly less than religiously tolerant as you claim. The smear campaign against Romney is also at odds with your claim of religious tolerance. How would Romney have fared in the primary season had he been a devout Christian?

    Again, understanding American tolerance, it would be best to argue his economic, domestic and foreign affair policy, which would be terrible on the economy and may very well be the root of the current economic problem as perceived.
    Can you elaborate on this please? It sounds as though you are saying that Obama is the basis of your economic difficulties at the mo.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  75. #74  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    "In Muslim areas", not the US or the fundamental belief of the American.
    Taking the analogy of the Jewish or Muslim, then we should all worship Sun Gods or believe in multiple gods, as ALL our ancestors did...

    I do agree, Romney suffered from how his religion is perceived. My point was to the tolerance of religion in society, not necessarily toward potential leaders. It is not wrong to want a person with or vote for people of the same faith or at least some similarity. Our 43 Presidents have all been some form of Christan. I am not saying Mormonism, is not Christan...

    The economy would seem to be in trouble, yet most indicators and corporate earnings reports are showing (maybe were) no such signs. I can't tie Obama to this imagined condition, but I could tie the policies of either Obama or Clinton. Anti business, letting GWB tax reforms expire, tightening of merger and acquisition policy, increased government in a Health Care including pharmaceuticals and increased social welfare are all problems for a strong and expanding economy. The markets MAY be reflecting these potential changes and leading the way for sentiment, corporate spending and other factors which could lead to recession.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  76. #75  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    1,079
    Quote Originally Posted by jackson33
    "In Muslim areas", not the US or the fundamental belief of the American.
    Taking the analogy of the Jewish or Muslim, then we should all worship Sun Gods or believe in multiple gods, as ALL our ancestors did...
    Precisely. Since we are not sun worshippers, despite our ancestry, then by extension Obama is best suited to know what his religion is, regardless of ancestry.

    The economy would seem to be in trouble, yet most indicators and corporate earnings reports are showing (maybe were) no such signs. I can't tie Obama to this imagined condition, but I could tie the policies of either Obama or Clinton. Anti business, letting GWB tax reforms expire, tightening of merger and acquisition policy, increased government in a Health Care including pharmaceuticals and increased social welfare are all problems for a strong and expanding economy. The markets MAY be reflecting these potential changes and leading the way for sentiment, corporate spending and other factors which could lead to recession.
    Thank you for expounding on this. It was my understanding that the sub-prime mortgage crisis was at the basis of US economic problems, and sub-prime mortgages developed under republican stewardship of the economy (and such mortgage plans are consistent with 'pro-business'), no?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  77. #76  
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
    I browsed through the Snopes report – very interesting. How wonderful it would be to have a President with such a diverse background, who arrived at his faith, starting from a secular beginning, via reflection. This kind of faith I can respect, though I don’t share it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  78. #77  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    Obviously, at least his following would agree. Obama has no political experience to speak of and faulty on policy to most American's, but has made his mark on the electorate.

    The Home Builders/Mortgage/Banking bubble burst has been going on for two years and already figured into market prices. During the early period GDP was not effected and increased about what it had been doing. Very recently GDP has slowed (nowhere near -0-) and should not be from that source.

    Interest rates dropped because of the inherited minor recession and then the potential effects of 9-11. The so called bubble would have been, even if government encouragement, loaning non-qualified borrowers where never made. 3-4% rates were available and poorer rated folks offered variable rates to meet the qualified cheaper rates. Today its back to where it was, where your interest rate is based on previous performance and variables are not available. That is, 4% still available to qualified, high risk loans are 5-7% or more and variables not offered. Your credit rating is involved in the same manner with any insurance or small loan(Auto-Home-Life-Health-Credit Card) and can cost the average high risk person thousands per year.

    As for pro-business; Renting or buying makes no difference. Money transfer does and would still happen.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  79. #78  
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
    Obama has no political experience to speak of
    His political experience is somewhat limited and that concerns me. The counter to that is that what we need, perhaps, is a shift in consciousness, from a mind-set that thinks we have to overcome opposing ideas by means of violence to one that says there might be a place we can compromise. Violence tends to be self-perpetuating. I was in England throughout most of the IRA terrorism. There was no form of humanity lower and more vile than an IRA terrorist, and the only possible approach to solving the problem was to kill the bastards. Bill Clinton invited Gerry Adams and his terrorist pal to the US, gave them visas and everything. It disgusted me at the time. I hated Clinton for doing that. Then, guess what, the violence ended, and Northern Ireland is peaceful and prosperous.

    I'm not suggesting we invite bin Laden to speak in Congress, no, but there just might be ways to deal with terrorism other than the Bush way, which has so far proved an abject failure (please don't come back with "no attacks in US" - look at the world as a whole please).

    and faulty on policy to most American's
    I agree in some ways. His health plan is not as good as Hillary's. Is that what you meant?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  80. #79  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    Bunbury; I am not well versed on the IRA, Adams or the reasons for the activity, but wasn't the *Declaration of Peace* made late in 2004, well after 9/11 and the worlds changing attitudes toward 'terrorism'...

    IMO; Neither Clinton or Obama, has a grip on what Socialized Medical Care, would do to one of the last remaining 'Free Market' systems. Frankly I am not sure any politician does...

    In 2006, according to *bls.gov*, there were 633K practicing medical doctor's in the US. 40% in general practice and a full 60% in some specialized field. A good many practice nothing and teach in the medical schools, write books or lecture. Long story short there are about 200k people the vast majority of American rely on for medical attention. That is about one per 1,500 people.

    To become one, requires 4 years pre-med, 4 years med school and 3-8 years OJT as an intern. The end results being an average income under 200k per year, well after that internship. The AMA projects that 633K will increase to 723K by 2016.

    As in every case, when some form of 'Universal Care' is implemented, medical personnel decrease and visits to the doctor increase dramatically.
    The American system, today, draws qualified people from around the world to study here and in most cases those folks stay here. Medical people as well, are put on the fast track for entry into the US through immigration.

    IMO; The problems in the system, and there are many, are from lack of tort reform, governments current involvement and the insistence by the public that Good Health, should be a mandated public right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  81. #80  
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
    The point I tried to make was that our visceral reaction to terrorism is not necessarily a useful approach to solving the problem.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  82. #81  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    96
    Quote Originally Posted by jackson33
    People in the US are not war hungry. They favor international peace and in general on their terms.
    Actions speak louder than words. Yoour words are drowned out by their actions.

    Simultaneously, Americans are concerned with Religious TOLERANCE, human rights and the idea you don't mess with us...
    Well, I don't much care what they are concerned with any more.

    Government is concerned with National Security, which includes from the economic angle.
    What's that, paying for the water boards, and gulags??

    We had our day with OPEC and being threatened with sanctions from them. Stability in the Mid-East is important to the security or if you prefer, a steady flow of oil to us and our allies.
    Point?

    A great deal of the America you read about, the young and restless are in fact 'spoiled brats'. They want all they have, yet have no idea how they got what is it they do have. I could go on with Education they say is wanted, Health Care they say they want and taxing the rich to get it. Most don't use the education, don't buy their own insurance (most uninsured are capable of buying 21-45yo), and don't realize taxing the rich is pure political rhetoric and the hand that feeds them and our economy.
    Well, the brats have a vote. And I doubt they want to ship out to the mid east to fight and die.

    On Israel; I am not Jewish, know very few and in fact realize most of their understandings/beliefs are contrary to most Americans. I go back to the Tolerance thing and Americans...By the way this includes Muslims...
    Well, that seems to be coming to a head. If they support Israel, they will have to maybe round up the Muslims, like the Japanese in WW2 soon.


    Bhutto, was advised by many not to do everything she did do. Remember she was Muslim and there is something to say about martyrdom. The US was seriously hoping for a joint government for the two major political factions, IMO..
    Funny, what they say they want, and what really goes on, many people no longer believe corresponds.
    On Obama; Well in Muslim areas, Obama is a born Muslim (which is true) and cannot convert to another. His chosen faith, in Chicago, is very close to the original *Black Power* ideas, which was born in Chicago.
    So I hear. Pity that people pretend to be Christian.
    Again, understanding American tolerance, it would be best to argue his economic, domestic and foreign affair policy, which would be terrible on the economy and may very well be the root of the current economic problem as perceived.
    You seem to think that what he says has some bearing on what he will actually do. He might be all in favor of getting out of the mid east, but would be faced with some crisis that would force him to act very differently.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  83. #82  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    Quote Originally Posted by Bunbury
    The point I tried to make was that our visceral reaction to terrorism is not necessarily a useful approach to solving the problem.
    Our reactions may seem instinctive, but there is history and precedence for those actions. Obama, seems to prefer Bill Clinton's ideas of leaving terrorist activity to law enforcement and Jimmy Carters ideas of negotiating with perpetrators. Twin Tower 93 and Iran Hostage Crisis.
    Twin Tower 2001 then happened and the Hostages were released when a no non-sense president was elected.

    As for negotiating with an enemy of ideology, there are many examples of how it does not work. We were in negotiations with Japan, in Japan and the US, when Pearl Harbor was attacked. Negotiation also tends to lead to Blackmail, as in North Korea in the 90's...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  84. #83  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    I am an economic conservative and a social moderate. Big issues for me are economics and gun control (for) and for moderation on social issues (ruling out anyone who is too extreme). The war is not a big issue for me because although I think it was selfishly motivated and was always opposed to it going in, now that we stuck our foot in it, it is too late to get out ahead on that one no matter which way we go at this point.

    My favorite candidate was Guilliani. I would have been happy with Al Gore. The closest match to me on the issues was probably Romney so I might have voted for him even though he seemed like a dunderhead to me. I will not vote for McCain under any circumstances. So it looks like I will have to settle on Hillary or Obama. Of the two I would choose Hillary for her ideas on supporting research and development and against Obama's lack of experience, but I will vote for whichever gets the ticket since McCain is on the other side.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  85. #84  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    Creation; Your slipping back into the Anti-American mode, which has always confused me. You seem to have a well founded grasp on American people and to some degree how our system of government works.

    US People and actions; Not to leave out government which is the people, we spend much more around the world for humanitarian needs than we have on war. There are literally hundreds of private groups that work through donation to the betterment of some specific problem, medical to simply feeding and caring for children. The Bill Gates Foundation alone has assets of 150 BILLION dollars (Thanks to Warren Buffet), which is pumping money into Africa, for education, medical equipment and food supplies for both producing food and food itself.

    America, has fought and lost many lives to protect and free other peoples.
    WWI and II, Korea, Kuwait and Afghanistan/Iraq. Yet has never taken one inch of land from any Nation or insisted they be reimbursed for cost. No other World power in history can claim this...

    I know politicians are speaking to their choir. They always do and most of what is offered could never happen because of our system of government. However the electorate has to consider what is said and will hold them to important issues. If the speech becomes to radical or to divisive they will lose.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  86. #85  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    mitch; I don't know how a person can prefer Guilianni, then Romney and make the jump to Clinton/Obama. On top of this you seem to be whats called a moderate, which is exactly what McCain is...or at least perceived to be. Would a particular VP pick, by McCain make a difference? and just which McCain issue disturbs you the most? Age, Illegal Immigration or what...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  87. #86  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by jackson33
    mitch; I don't know how a person can prefer Guilianni, then Romney and make the jump to Clinton/Obama. On top of this you seem to be whats called a moderate, which is exactly what McCain is...or at least perceived to be. Would a particular VP pick, by McCain make a difference? and just which McCain issue disturbs you the most? Age, Illegal Immigration or what...
    Gun control. Guilianni is a strong advocate of gun control having demonstrated its effectiveness in New York. McCain is the number one worst candidate on this issue and thus he was one of the candidates that I completely ruled out from the beginning. Frankly I would suspect anyone with such a stand on this issue to be in pocket of the Military-Industrial complex as well. Guilianni's stand on the issues were well thought out and highly principled and his record of successes is impressive. McCain does not compare at all and I despise both Republican and Democratic parties completely so the the fact that McCain is Republican means less than nothing. No a VP pick would be irrelevant unless it is McCain who is VP.

    I never said I prefered Romney. I don't like dumb candidates and in this respect Romney reminds me of Bush and so despite the fact that he was the best fit to me on the issues, I cannot guarantee that I would have voted for him in a race against Hillary. Now against Obama's inexperience, I probably would have voted for Romney.

    Since the democratic party is down and since Hillary is woman and Obama is not white, then although I am in fact both male and white I would vote for either of these with rellish, curious to see if America can put these boring prejudices behind it.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  88. #87  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    96
    Quote Originally Posted by jackson33
    Creation; Your slipping back into the Anti-American mode, which has always confused me. You seem to have a well founded grasp on American people and to some degree how our system of government works.
    It all seems like a meaningless charade to me these days. A parade of dangerous liars.

    US People and actions; Not to leave out government which is the people, we spend much more around the world for humanitarian needs than we have on war. There are literally hundreds of private groups that work through donation to the betterment of some specific problem, medical to simply feeding and caring for children. The Bill Gates Foundation alone has assets of 150 BILLION dollars (Thanks to Warren Buffet), which is pumping money into Africa, for education, medical equipment and food supplies for both producing food and food itself.
    No people are good, all are sinners on this earth. When one group of sinners has WOMD, and cares nothing for anyone but themselves, and has started down the road of Nazi Germany, it is hard to focus on the good some of it's people do, as redeeming the nation in general.


    America, has fought and lost many lives to protect and free other peoples.
    WWI and II, Korea, Kuwait and Afghanistan/Iraq. Yet has never taken one inch of land from any Nation or insisted they be reimbursed for cost. No other World power in history can claim this...
    Well, as they start to conquer countries like Afghanistan, and Iraq, put missiles on the Russian borders, and make threatening noises to Syria and Iran, we need to be concerned with present reality.
    I know politicians are speaking to their choir. They always do and most of what is offered could never happen because of our system of government.
    Seems like it is, therefore built on a lie.


    However the electorate has to consider what is said and will hold them to important issues. If the speech becomes to radical or to divisive they will lose.
    You seem to be saying, it doesn't matter if they lie through their teeth about everything. All we need is for them to make good on one or two things we think are important, and all is wonderful.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  89. #88  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Jackson

    My opinion in this election is that the democrats have 'splintered' themselves along 'sexist' lines.

    Osama, oops, I mean Obama has further splintered the party along racial lines by his promotion of 'change'.

    Well, there is a greater 'change' that I can advocate and that is from chauvinism and also over riding sexism by endorsing Hillary Clinton for president.
    Lets keep the chauvinists out of the Whitehouse.
    And besides, woman are 'born' managers since they not only manage their children but the households and budgets if the males contribute to this family support.

    So, lets make a 'greater' change!

    And, she is the only candidate I know of that has promoted a 'National Healthcare Plan' to get in step with the other industrialized nations.
    Our country is the 'only' one that is out of step here.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  90. #89  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    Cosmo; Please reply to my 2/18 7:46 post to Bunbury on the Health Care System. I would like to be shown wrong, knowing the history of many national plans that have degraded, otherwise acceptable systems.

    I don't believe Obama, will be the nominee. All along I have thought the candidates would have to get on issues, which is beginning to be the case.
    You know, I am conservative and vote republican at the National level, but have not particularly liked or been behind any republican candidate. My basis has been on public perception, as I see it, not so much the actual person. Rudy-Thompson-McCain, standing next to very young wives. Huckabee and Romney on religion and Paul on extremism. The public perception on both Hillary and Obama is good. They see a normal family with one or two kids and the same aged wife. Then check out the last 10-20 or all (43) the Presidents we have had, many which were elected on the perception alone (No policy).

    As for Obama and his personal rise, IMO its based on the notion we can somehow correct past attitude of the electorates parents or grandparents.
    As Mitch said above, lets just show the world, we are good people and forget the National interest, this election. I will also attribute that rise, to that of any 'Rock Star' that speaks for all practical purposes like any number of Southern Black Preachers. They ride the tide of enthusiasm very well and play on hopes and desires of their congregation, generally w/o showing realistic ways of escaping their circumstances.

    I will vote for and back McCain, against either Hillary or Barack and still feel Ms. Clinton has a 75% probability of being #44...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  91. #90  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    Creation;

    I suppose your judging Americans from some left wing media, in the country you live and throwing in your personal conviction based on some religious understanding. Thats not a good way to judge people.

    You brought up Missiles on the Russian border. W/O knowing the true reasons, this seems to be some form of posturing and has no military value, that I can see. As for "conquering" Afghanistan/Iraq, don't think the actions meet the meaning of the word.

    "lying through their teeth"; Maybe its best said, ignorant of what they can actually can do. Politics is the only profession I know of, where accountability is rarely mentioned. An example, our Democrat Party has been eliminating poverty and freeing the poor for 50 years. The same people live in relative poverty and receive payments to continue that dream every four years.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  92. #91  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    96
    Quote Originally Posted by jackson33
    Creation;

    I suppose your judging Americans from some left wing media, in the country you live and throwing in your personal conviction based on some religious understanding. Thats not a good way to judge people.
    Well, not really. I meet a lot of them. I come and go through the borders. It is not pleasant. As much as I like many of them, I do not feel they have a right to blow up the world, any more than Russia has. Neither am I convinced of the war on terror, so called, and the gulags and torture that have come in of late. Such things I do not expect of what I consider the good guys. Therefore, I do not consider them the good guys.
    You brought up Missiles on the Russian border. W/O knowing the true reasons, this seems to be some form of posturing and has no military value, that I can see. As for "conquering" Afghanistan/Iraq, don't think the actions meet the meaning of the word.
    Who really knows true reasons from given reasons??? It seems that Russia is pretty well on the warpath over it, so maybe there is more than meets the eye.
    "lying through their teeth"; Maybe its best said, ignorant of what they can actually can do.
    Hmm. As ignorant as US politicians may be, I don't think they are so ignorant as to not know they are lying.
    Politics is the only profession I know of, where accountability is rarely mentioned. An example, our Democrat Party has been eliminating poverty and freeing the poor for 50 years. The same people live in relative poverty and receive payments to continue that dream every four years.
    It is the same in many countries. I guess that says what people are looking for, because a fisherman or farmer, or store clerk, generally just won't make it. A lying, vicious, vindictive, rich, person, with slick palms is a shoe in.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  93. #92  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by jackson
    IMO; Neither Clinton or Obama, has a grip on what Socialized Medical Care, would do to one of the last remaining 'Free Market' systems. Frankly I am not sure any politician does...
    Our current HCS is not free market.

    It is a monopoly promoted by our government because of financial influence.

    Obamas senate partner from Illinois has tried to have natural substances like vitamins and minerals classified as drugs! Can you believe that?
    Whew!

    IMO, these Natural substances are GODS medicines and currently are not patentable.

    With such a partner, that gives me one more reason to oppose Obama.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  94. #93  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    Cosmo; Agree, where government is involved *Free Market* is a stretch.
    Medicaid, Medicare the best examples and results have been terrible for the industry. Laws and rules governing who can or cannot be serve also is not free market. Actually, government involvement in many industries has taken pure free market out of the picture, but FM exist to degree, which is not true around the world.

    You are one that promotes Universal Health Care, so I am somewhat confused on opposition to Obama, at least on this issue. Not only will natural remedies be controlled, but a person's activities, weight and life style will be challenged, then controlled with any such program. The smoking issue, from the first days to today and expected end results are a very good example. The liquor issues, which failed once will return and many issues regarding personal choice will dominate federal government policy, which was and should never have been addressed in the first place.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  95. #94  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    Creation; In the US, Presidents, Governors and to some extent Mayors have no power to legislate policy. They can propose all they want and in some cases create the atmosphere to get whats wanted, but they have little power. Many presidents have addresses this when leaving office, indicating the lack of power to pursue personal agendas. Ronald Reagan ran on elimination of four departments of government, including the education. He believed this and tried. Not only did he fail, those departments all grew under his tenure and there was nothing he could do.
    Obama is saying he will reach across the isle, work with Congress to get these things said wanted. Rather than a long explanation, I'll just say it ain't gonna get done, in most cases...

    Additionally, most persons elected to office were well versed in American History. Frankly, the best of them were very well versed IMO. In all honesty, I don't think Obama or his wife have ever taken a class on the subject and they have very little idea of what Blacks went through (even when) to get where his views and speeches are even listened to.

    Obama, if elected, would have the power to pull US troops out of anyplace and the day he takes office. He could also bomb Pakistan or negotiate with any terrorist he desires, which he has said would do...As commander in Chief.

    On the American people; World opinion has declined over many years on what/who American's are. As WWII falls into history and other issues than security, freedom or sovereignty itself fall from the front pages, peoples interest become singular to their lives. It's just as true here, but there is always enough that understand what true freedoms we have, to the societies that preceded in the world. I don't know what or when these freedoms will be challenged, whether from with-in or from some other Nation, or that even another countries challenged freedom, but the people of this country (from all parts of the world) will come back to life and make their case.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  96. #95  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    96
    Quote Originally Posted by jackson33
    Creation; In the US, Presidents, Governors and to some extent Mayors have no power to legislate policy. They can propose all they want and in some cases create the atmosphere to get whats wanted, but they have little power. Many presidents have addresses this when leaving office, indicating the lack of power to pursue personal agendas. Ronald Reagan ran on elimination of four departments of government, including the education. He believed this and tried. Not only did he fail, those departments all grew under his tenure and there was nothing he could do.
    Obama is saying he will reach across the isle, work with Congress to get these things said wanted. Rather than a long explanation, I'll just say it ain't gonna get done, in most cases...

    Additionally, most persons elected to office were well versed in American History. Frankly, the best of them were very well versed IMO. In all honesty, I don't think Obama or his wife have ever taken a class on the subject and they have very little idea of what Blacks went through (even when) to get where his views and speeches are even listened to.

    Obama, if elected, would have the power to pull US troops out of anyplace and the day he takes office. He could also bomb Pakistan or negotiate with any terrorist he desires, which he has said would do...As commander in Chief.

    On the American people; World opinion has declined over many years on what/who American's are. As WWII falls into history and other issues than security, freedom or sovereignty itself fall from the front pages, peoples interest become singular to their lives. It's just as true here, but there is always enough that understand what true freedoms we have, to the societies that preceded in the world. I don't know what or when these freedoms will be challenged, whether from with-in or from some other Nation, or that even another countries challenged freedom, but the people of this country (from all parts of the world) will come back to life and make their case.
    Freedoms?? I think they are mostly an illusion. People in a fortress are only so free.

    As much as I distrust and dislike Obama, if he is the only one to change directions of the warmongerings of late, why, maybe that is a good thing. I have often felt an undercurrent of black/white tensions from many people from the US, of either color. Another factor that might come into play, is that if Obama got in, the racial hatreds might come to the fore?

    By the way, if those running for 'power' are so powerless, and know it, it is impossible to get honest men in there.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  97. #96  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by jackson33
    Cosmo; Agree, where government is involved *Free Market* is a stretch.
    Medicaid, Medicare the best examples and results have been terrible for the industry. Laws and rules governing who can or cannot be serve also is not free market. Actually, government involvement in many industries has taken pure free market out of the picture, but FM exist to degree, which is not true around the world.

    You are one that promotes Universal Health Care, so I am somewhat confused on opposition to Obama, at least on this issue. Not only will natural remedies be controlled, but a person's activities, weight and life style will be challenged, then controlled with any such program. The smoking issue, from the first days to today and expected end results are a very good example. The liquor issues, which failed once will return and many issues regarding personal choice will dominate federal government policy, which was and should never have been addressed in the first place.
    I support a National Healthcare Plan and always did.
    The current NHP is a monopoly created for the drug companies that influence the government with their dollars.
    The FDA budget is supported by the drug companies that contribute one half of its operating costs. My opinion is that the FDA officials that leave office are given jobs with the drug companies as well or by their influences in other places.

    The FDA has been waging war on the Alternative healthcare practitioners. Especially the Naturopathic doctors that use 'natural' substances and are far more effective in curing patients than the drug, cut and slash treatments of the current system that is insured by the government and other insurance companies.
    This is primarily a big business. .

    If this NHP included the AHC practitioners, the health care costs would drop by at least 50%.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  98. #97  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    Creation; Any one that has been confined, even for a day can tell you what freedom means. McCain for instanced as a POW has elaborated on that issue. The general public usually realizes the loss of a freedom, when removed from their control. As a smoker, I can assure you any loss is noticeable.

    When it comes to people willing to run for an office, you are getting involved with patriotism, loyalty to country and a touch of giving back.
    Some feel power is involved, then usually by an opponent, but I give this little credence, especially when National Office is concerned. The process to the White House, Congress or the Supreme Court are long journeys for any person, as a rule.

    As discussed someplace, business people who are highly qualified to run and operate multi faceted operations, understand the limitations of the American Government Three Branch system. Folks that have not, seem to be ignorant, although I am reluctant to say dishonest...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  99. #98  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo

    If this NHP included the AHC practitioners, the health care costs would drop by at least 50%.

    Cosmo
    Having already shown what the current status is, I can only add; The quality then to, would drop 50%. This if you can find a doctor at all...
    My last three kids, while I was in the delivery room and a bout with pneumonia were all w/o a doctor available...1972 to 1982. Have not bothered since. A nurse delivered each and a nurse gave me a shot and some medicine, which nearly killed me.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  100. #99  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by jackson33
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo

    If this NHP included the AHC practitioners, the health care costs would drop by at least 50%.

    Cosmo
    Having already shown what the current status is, I can only add; The quality then to, would drop 50%. This if you can find a doctor at all...
    My last three kids, while I was in the delivery room and a bout with pneumonia were all w/o a doctor available...1972 to 1982. Have not bothered since. A nurse delivered each and a nurse gave me a shot and some medicine, which nearly killed me.
    When I said the healthcare costs would drop 50%, that would be because the quality would improve by 50%.

    Natursal medicines are superior to man made drugs that are really created for 'profit', rather then to cure diseases.

    Diseases are not caused by drug deficiencies. Previous experiments have proven that vitamin, mineral and etc deficiencies were the causes of diseases.

    Dietary changes would also reduce the need for operations that are the costliest additions to the health care treatments .

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  101. #100  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    In short; I agree with your alternative medicine, preventative and probably the need for medical attention in th first place. I won't even argue as a devils advocate. Frankly I have argued the same on occasion, even questioning the so called historical life span as mis-leading, when modern medicine in said to been the sole contributor to longer spans.

    Quality or increased efficiency of anything has always dropped with government involvement. Not just here in the US, but around the world.
    Think today the average time spent by a doctor to a patient is less than 10 minutes per. This from house calls and sometimes hours of questions to give a creditable diagnosis, just 60 years ago. There are millions of people who don't see a doctor today for cost to themselves, who would then start going to a doctor on the simplest of problems. This happened here already, with government programs for the poor and aged, to say nothing of what goes on the emergency rooms.

    40% of US Medical Doctors are foreign born, according to the AMA. This is not far from produce harvesters. From the early 90's with the threat of Hillary Care to the attitudes of Congress and the public, people are not not getting into the various fields. Nurse shortages are often in the news and then the quality of what is there always questioned. What you and many suggest, IMO will make health care equal to a slaughter house, where any one who WILL do the job, will somehow become qualified.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •