# Barack obama just won iowa primary!!!



## SvK (Jan 3, 2008)

BARACK OBAMA just WON IOWA primary!!!


Senator Barack Obama : 37.18%
Senator John Edwards : 30.00%
Senator Hillary Clinton : 29.58%
Governor Bill Richardson : 2.15%
Senator Joe Biden : 0.94%
Uncommitted : 0.12%
Senator Chris Dodd : 0.03%

Precincts Reporting: 1647 of 1781

WOWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW

SvK


----------



## SvK (Jan 3, 2008)

He beat her by nearly 10%

wowww

SvK


sincerity won in Iowa tonight...


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jan 3, 2008)

The really good news is that Guiliani only got 4%. I fear that's only because he's not into gay-bashing, but it's still encouraging. My prediction is that he's still going to get the Republican nomination - for the simple reason that he's by far the worst candidate in the race, and people tend to compound mistakes rather than changing their minds and in a way admitting they were wrong...if that twisted logic makes sense.


----------



## Fernando Warez (Jan 3, 2008)

I'm not really surprise. 

Also, i get the feeling that being a young candidate helps. 




> The really good news is that Guiliani only got 4%.



8)


----------



## Peter Emanuel Roos (Jan 4, 2008)

I still don't understand why the US don't have a "normal" multi-party democratic system. To Europeans this all looks so silly... Two parties, some 2-3 people (really) electable from each party. IMHO really ridiculous and non-democratic.

And, having a powerful president PLUS government from just ONE of TWO parties is definitely not representative of the people's political preferences...

My 2 cts, please don't bash me too hard 

Peter


----------



## Peter Emanuel Roos (Jan 4, 2008)

Hey Nick!

We have a lot more fun here in the Netherlands with parties for Animals (yes sir!), against foreigners (stupid jerks), for all kinds of religions, socialists (yes, and they are very normal over here!), etc etc. And this group is looking over our multi-party government, that due to its nature often has to make a lot of compromises. I like that. Otherwise we would certainly already have invaded Belgium... (we'd think more locally than Bush).


----------



## SvK (Jan 4, 2008)

LINK OBAMA's victory speech:

http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post_group/ObamaHQFeature/CxBX (http://my.barackobama.com/page/communit ... ature/CxBX)

SvK

fingers crossed for New Hampshire in 4 days!!

SvK


----------



## Peter Emanuel Roos (Jan 4, 2008)

Steve, 

Lol, you "are" fanatic man! 

With our next "local" elections I maybe should do the same.

It's a bit funny for those who consider this a world-wide forum.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jan 4, 2008)

Oh, I'm not saying it's a good thing that we have only two parties, Peter. Actually we do have more parties here too, but voting for them is a waste of a vote - which is why I despise Ralph Nader so much for not withdrawing in 2000.

We have had a couple of Independent candidates do fairly well in recent history: Ross Perot in 1992 (he did badly in 1996), and John Anderson in 1980.

And we may still invade Belgium...


----------



## SvK (Jan 4, 2008)

Peter.....

it might seem that way..."local" to you over there.......it is but it isn't.........

I realise that this is a world-wide forum...and I mean no disrespect to that.......

I have lived in Europe for 20 years and 20 in the states.....


----------



## nikolas (Jan 4, 2008)

Peter Roos @ Fri Jan 04 said:


> Steve,
> 
> Lol, you "are" fanatic man!
> 
> With our next "local" elections I maybe should do the same.


LMAO!

I think I'll do the same with the next Greek national elections! :D:D

Actually, although I'm very seldom a part (poster that is) of such threads, I do follow all of them, more like a... research on different takes about politics in different cultures. It does appear that our American friends are very much more obsessed about politics than the European conuterparts... I mean, while in Greece national election is a big party, with many hostile faces, and many "fans" across the contry, in the UK nobody seems to even give a damn! In Greece schools and jobs stop the day before and after and you are not actually allowd to go out for a drink the night before (!!!) while in the UK nobody gives a damn! In fact every goverement finds it necessary to advertise on the Telly for the coming elections! :D

But really, I am following this coming US elections rather "close", through the net, since I don't watch much Telly, and it is rather interesting to witness "black vs woman"! :D (I hope that the racist/sexist/Internet police I won't arrest me for the above comment! :D It is made with all the light hearted ability that I have! :D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D)


----------



## Peter Emanuel Roos (Jan 4, 2008)

Hey Steve,

We're OK of course - it's just a cultural difference 

But there are (sadly enough) also quite some negative sentiments about the USA in Europe since Bush got elected (and re-elected in such a a strange way). 

It's not easy for us here to understand what the people in the USA think about the rest of the world, given how the Bush governernment "seems" to be in control of publicity over their foreign (war?) policies.

Let's hope the next president will start a war against the devastation of our planet!

Cheers!

Peter


----------



## Peter Emanuel Roos (Jan 4, 2008)

Hi Nicholas!

Greetings from a fellow European. Man, I really hope your country will be able to restore all that terrible damage from the summer fires! It was really terrible to see it all on TV!

PS: any plans to invade Turkey? :mrgreen: Just weirdly kidding!

I hope in 2008 the world will settle down a bit and focus on what should be dearest to us all: this planet and our environment!

Kind regards to all, happy new year,

Peter


----------



## SvK (Jan 4, 2008)

Peter.....

Why do you think i'm posting this sooo much? it's called "American Guilt".....

WE HATE GWBush as well....(we are dreadfully embarassed by him)

BArack Obama is the "Anti-Bush"

Our constitution/declaration of independence suggests that anyone from any background of any sex, religion, race can be whatever they want to be in the USA......it's about time we proved that!

This man is inspiring the young over here like no one since Martin Luther King / Bobby Kennedy......this is a historic , first step for us.......That is why this is different from simply being a win in Iowa........I would explain the significance of IOWA, but I'll leave that to the illustrious Nick Batzdorf 

THAT is why an Obama victory MATTERS....in terms of healing how the rest of the world percieves the USA...


all the best,

SvK


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jan 4, 2008)

Peter, the strange victory when he was appointed by one vote on the Supreme Court was in 2000. Bush won the re-election by about 5% - assuming the voting wasn't corrupt, and I'd like to feel better about that than I do.


----------



## Stephen Hill (Jan 4, 2008)

> All I am saying is that if one is a racist in this day and age, it stands to reason that one is unlikely to be in agreement with liberalism, which is all about tolerance.





> WE HATE GWBush as well....(we are dreadfully embarassed by him)


?


----------



## Bruce Richardson (Jan 4, 2008)

Stephen Hill @ Fri Jan 04 said:


> > All I am saying is that if one is a racist in this day and age, it stands to reason that one is unlikely to be in agreement with liberalism, which is all about tolerance.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Nice try, but false analogy.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jan 4, 2008)

To me the significance of Iowa - now that it's over - is that Obama has been proven "electable." And I also can't help thinking it's a civil rights victory of sorts. We've come a long way.

(Answering SvK's post about the illustrious moi.)


----------



## Stephen Hill (Jan 4, 2008)

Bruce Richardson @ Fri Jan 04 said:


> Stephen Hill @ Fri Jan 04 said:
> 
> 
> > > All I am saying is that if one is a racist in this day and age, it stands to reason that one is unlikely to be in agreement with liberalism, which is all about tolerance.
> ...



Tolerance - hate - false analogy? No analogy. Just an observation. The first two quotes came from the same person.


----------



## tobyond (Jan 4, 2008)

Stephen Hill @ Fri Jan 04 said:


> Bruce Richardson @ Fri Jan 04 said:
> 
> 
> > Stephen Hill @ Fri Jan 04 said:
> ...



With that kind of brilliant reasoning one can not be liberal minded and hate Hitler? Impressive reasoning Steven :roll:


----------



## SvK (Jan 4, 2008)

hehehehe
Ohh kaaayyyy guys you got me good 

My boundless enthusiasm for my candidate most definitely exceeds my non-existent debating skills...........

"Many of us are embarrassed by George Bush"

the "Hate" comment was uncalled for.....as I do not speak for all of us....


Forgive me.....

ps:

did I mention to drop by our site and have a solid look around and join us on our blog? 

http://www.barackobama.com/index.php


----------



## Stephen Hill (Jan 4, 2008)

Steven,

I am from the other side of the aisle, even though, I want to encourage you to stick by your impassioned convictions. I have listened to the music on your website, and I don't think it would be as good as it is without that passion. I wouldn't, however, want you to be accused of being hateful and intolerant. Impassioned rhetoric does not always come out the way we intend. 

We may differ strongly politically, but hey, it's your right to express your views and don't be embarrassed. Al Gore is an American, Nobel prize winner, recognized the world over - I don't see things the way he does, but I'm not embarrassed to be an American because of him and his views.

I will look forward to more impassioned rhetoric from both you and Nick B. 

P.S. You would be welcome to sit at my dinner table anytime. (Our dishes and glasses would not be that expensive to replace.)

Sincerely,
Stephen


----------



## Peter Alexander (Jan 4, 2008)

Regarding the US two party system. The US is not restricted to the number of political parties it can have. However, most of the time a third party emerges with some strength, it's more often as a protest that dissipates once the election is over. For a political party to work requires grass roots that extends beyond a single election. 

If anyone is interested in how this has played out in our history, read Presidential Courage by Michael Beschloss. I got it for Christmas and it's excellent. 

To better understand our constitution, read The Federalist Papers by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison.

Also, the United States is not a democracy. We are a republic, res publicus, of people.


----------



## Peter Alexander (Jan 4, 2008)

SvK @ Fri Jan 04 said:


> I have lived in Europe for 20 years and 20 in the states.....



You don't look that old...


----------



## jsaras (Jan 4, 2008)

I hate to deflate your bubble, but the Iowa farmer's almanac has never been predictive in terms of who will win the Presidency....with the exception of George Bush.

It's very likely that Obama flooded the farmer's almanac with college students from Illinois. The Democratic caucus rules allow for anyone to register without any identification, which is remarkably similar to how Democrats would like our general elections to be run. 

The real "meaning" of this is that Obama paid a bunch of kids to buy a meaningless election. If you think that Obama is more ethical than any other politician you're gonna be in for a serious disappointment.


----------



## Patrick de Caumette (Jan 4, 2008)

Definition of a republic: [1]A republic is a state or country that is not led by a hereditary monarch,[2] where the people of that state or country (or at least a part of that people) have impact on its government,[3] and that is usually indicated as a republic.

So, based on these points, the USA is not a republic anymore:
[1]: the USA is not led by a monarch but by corporate power which results in the same self interested type of rule

[2]: yes, a very small part of the country (the immorally wealthy) have an impact on the government but that doesn't count as a majority of the people
[3]: ok, it is indicated as a republic, as Peter reminded us...but it is no longer one, sorry. Talking about the constitution: what's left of it?
Unrefrained capitalism has castrated it...

ps: I'll have diner with you too and we'll have a jolly time!


----------



## aeneas (Jan 4, 2008)

Peter Alexander @ Fri 04 Jan said:


> the United States is not a democracy. We are a republic, res publicus, of people.


That is correct, the US of A isn't and can't be a Democracy. Democracy is, literally: people's power. People can have power only in small communities, that is why there is no truly democratic country in the whole world. Democracies cannot practically function at the large scale of a country. 

That is where the Republic comes handy. 'Res publica' means literally 'public matter', 'public affairs', 'things managed by the state' - a way of dealing with public things, which grew into a general system of government of larger communities, of countries. I just wanted to correct that - the expression 'res publica' doesn't have something to do directly with the people, but with the things that the people can't manage by themselves, and need external supervision. In a Democracy, people do manage their own community affairs by themselves, by voting directly. Kudos to those old Greek guys for coming up with this brilliant idea: the personal vote!

In short, the Republicans and the Democrats in the US of A are actually a very clear example of these two main political attitudes: authoritarian vs. laissez-faire, conservatism vs. liberalism, meritocracy vs. tolerance and care for common people, etc. As a short example - a democrat leader would never THINK of vetoing a children's health bill. The American current republican leader vetoed it without blinking, and did it twice if I remember correctly.

my two political pence


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jan 4, 2008)

Peter is absolutely right that we're not a literal direct democracy, but we are supposed to be a democratic republic. Instead what we have right now is a mockery of democracy, as Patrick says.

Obviously the whole thing hasn't completely fallen apart - the US is still a great place to live - but things have really unraveled in the past seven years.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jan 4, 2008)

I suggest paper plates and plastic cups.


----------



## JonFairhurst (Jan 5, 2008)

Is that a de-mockery-cy, Nick?


----------



## SvK (Jan 5, 2008)

Stephen Hill.......

Thanx man 

And......what's for dinner 


happy new year buddy!

SvK


----------



## SvK (Jan 5, 2008)

Peter Alexander.....without the hat..I'm quite bald 

The fact that I'm in the studio day in day out...keeps me out of the sun-light....which means.....no wrinkles...hehehe

I don't understand these Southern California botox people....why don't they just stay inside??


no really I turned 40 on Nov 16th.

SvK


----------



## Patrick de Caumette (Jan 5, 2008)

Nick Batzdorf @ Sat Jan 05 said:


> I suggest paper plates and plastic cups.



:mrgreen:


----------



## SvK (Jan 5, 2008)

WASINGTON POST


"Obama: The Movement Has Begun" 

NASHUA, N.H. -- The line snaked for at least a half mile from the entrance of Nashua North High School. The first people in it had arrived at 7:30 a.m. -- two-and-a-half hours before Barack Obama was scheduled to start speaking. One woman had driven from West Hartford, Conn. The crowd was estimated at 3,000 and looked every bit of that number.

The movement has begun.


----------



## SvK (Jan 5, 2008)

go New Hampshire!

SvK


----------



## Peter Alexander (Jan 5, 2008)

Nick Batzdorf @ Sat Jan 05 said:


> Peter is absolutely right that we're not a literal direct democracy, but we are supposed to be a democratic republic. Instead what we have right now is a mockery of democracy, as Patrick says.
> 
> Obviously the whole thing hasn't completely fallen apart - the US is still a great place to live - but things have really unraveled in the past seven years.



By law, not opinion, the United States is a republic. 

In regards to the past seven years, not everyone agrees with you unless they're Democrats. To understand today, we need the perspective of yesterday. A reading of Doris Kearns Goodwin "No Ordinary Time" will show you stark parallels from the early days of Franklin Roosevelt's administration to what we're facing today. 

Darfur and the Sudan - a careful reading of Winston Churchill's The River War will put much in context. 

U.S. Foreign Policy - The opening pages of The Prince suggest where the U.S. has stumbled in regards to dealing with other countries. Less Yale, more Machiavelli might useful for State Department training along with a sales course from Dale Carnegie and a careful study of Jacob's family from Genesis. If you've never spent time in Genesis, using a clean translation, read all about Uncle Laban and his negotiating strategies. Most insightful. After that, read the first 100 pages of the report on Iran Contra. Inescapable conclusion - those guys know how to sell. 

S-CHIP - The bill was vetoed twice because of riders contained in the bill. In our system, you have a bill proposed in Congress. Then, if you want other things passed, you add an attachment to a bill called a rider. The press only tells you that the bill was vetoed. The press doesn't tell you completely what was on the bill. Sometimes bills are vetoed because of the riders, not because of the bill itself. 

Regarding the last seven years, some consideration of Lincoln's suspension of Constitutional principles during time of war (War Between the States) should be considered before rendering final judgment on the Bush Administration.

Politics is about governing and government. In the United States, the people are empowered to act on their behalf and their best interests by communicating with their leaders what they want, and what they don't want. 

My question to American's reading this thread is this: When's the last time you wrote your Congressman? 

And as a follow up - do you even know their name? 

How about the name of your local city councilman? Or is that we're too busy doing music so that we should let someone else handle it? Just like "someone else" is determining the value of music via digital downloads and streaming.


----------



## rgames (Jan 5, 2008)

SvK @ Fri Jan 04 said:


> Our constitution/declaration of independence suggests that anyone from any background of any sex, religion, race can be whatever they want to be in the USA......it's about time we proved that!



Right - and there are many who wholeheartedly agree with that principle but who think that neither Obama nor Clinton is the right person to use as the prototype.

I don't (consciously) vote for or against someone because of race or sex. However, I am excited about the opportunity to elect the first non-white or female president of the US and that might tip my vote in favor of a minority or a woman.  But my excitement is diminshed when I think that Obama or Clinton might hold that honor. I believe the significance of the event would be better served with someone else.

rgames


----------



## Bruce Richardson (Jan 5, 2008)

Peter Alexander @ Sat Jan 05 said:


> My question to Americans reading this thread is this: When's the last time you wrote your Congressman?
> 
> And as a follow up - do you even know their name?
> 
> How about the name of your local city councilman? Or is that we're too busy doing music so that we should let someone else handle it? Just like "someone else" is determining the value of music via digital downloads and streaming.



We are probably not in agreement on certain broad philosophies, but I would like to APPLAUD this quoted section of your post.

I'd even push it one step further: Does your City Council representative know YOUR name? Does your State Representative? Does your Congressman?

That's when you're _really_ participating.

There are people who say it's all money. That is not true. Money is simply a storage medium for _Energy_. There are many ways to create results, but money is not necessary for any of them if you have other ways of harnessing and concentrating energy.

For instance, I am secretary of arguably the most successful neighborhood association in Dallas. We win almost all of our zoning cases, sometimes against huge corporate interests and legal teams that cost them hundreds of thousands of dollars on a case. We have direct-dial relationships with almost every member of the City Plan Commission. And all of it is done with a corporate structure based on ad hoc funding. If we need to spend money, we do a collection for each and every project, and our total expenditures last year were, I believe, $450...for three "delay fees" for zoning cases.

Participate. Make relationships, and expand them, then expand those. Harness the common interests, concentrate the energy, and apply it with your best showmanship to advance the common cause. That's the key. Bitching is not only ineffective, it is a guaranteed losing strategy (reactive...day late/dollar short).


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jan 5, 2008)

By the way, Peter, the line of Bush's that most summarizes what I'm talking about is: "I'm not interested in a debate." He just wanted his way; no discussion.

I'll have to look up the context (I forget what it was), but that's what I mean about the erosion of democracy. You may disagree with me and say that Bush's side was right, but it's an objective fact that these people have been megalomaniacal in the pursuit of their own agenda. The only argument is about whether it was the correct one, not their methods.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jan 5, 2008)

Here you go:

Boston Globe: 

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washi ... tatements/

And NY X review of books:

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/19092


----------



## JonFairhurst (Jan 5, 2008)

And let's not forget that Bush has admitted to committing a felony.

President George Bush continues to openly and defiantly ignore the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). He has authorized spying on American citizens without court approval. Congress specifically passed legislation that authorized the FISA court as a mechanism to provide search warrants on short notice. It was intended to balance the needs of security and civil rights.

To listen in on the private phone communications of US citizens without a warrant is a felony.

A Constitutional refresher:
_ The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized._

Pretty much all of the conservatives who I know say that they support the constitution. They say they support the rule of law. But somehow that doesn't apply to the politicians who represent them.


----------



## Peter Emanuel Roos (Jan 6, 2008)

Republic or democracy? The US want to export democracy into the rest of the world, so why is it not a democracy itself? 
France is a republic as well, yet in my opinion it is also a democracy.
It's a matter of how far the leaders can get away with abuse of their "granted" power and control.

I really hope (along with Steve) that there will be an earthquake switch in the US government and that the US will regain respect from the rest of the world. Bush has absolutely done no good to how the rest of the world view the American people... :-( 
One person, one government, that can make such of mess of world issues, incredible...


----------



## Ed (Jan 6, 2008)

JonFairhurst @ Sun Jan 06 said:


> And let's not forget that Bush has admitted to committing a felony.
> 
> President George Bush continues to openly and defiantly ignore the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). He has authorized spying on American citizens without court approval. Congress specifically passed legislation that authorized the FISA court as a mechanism to provide search warrants on short notice. It was intended to balance the needs of security and civil rights.
> 
> ...



How did you say all that without mentioning the Patriot Act? :D


----------



## Brian Ralston (Jan 6, 2008)

JonFairhurst @ Sat Jan 05 said:


> And let's not forget that Bush has admitted to committing a felony.
> 
> President George Bush continues to openly and defiantly ignore the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). He has authorized spying on American citizens without court approval. Congress specifically passed legislation that authorized the FISA court as a mechanism to provide search warrants on short notice. It was intended to balance the needs of security and civil rights.
> 
> ...



I am sorry Jon. One of the first responsibilities of the Gov't and hence the presidency is to take actions to protect the American people. If there are individuals within the U.S. who are speaking with known foreign terrorists abroad via the telephone...wouldn't you agree we should be trying to find out what they are saying? That is what we are talking about here. Individuals within the U.S. (who are most likely not citizens...so that alone would defeat your argument), speaking with known foreign terrorists OUTSIDE the U.S. 

If you think the U.S. has the time or ability to route everyone's telephone call though some huge call center with millions of people quietly listening to the conversation, you are crazy. 

The patriot act allowed for such a thing (under the circumstances described) to occur without warrant due to the time sensitive nature of the situation. Should they and could they have gotten warrants retroactively. Probably yes. If only to keep the nay sayers at bay. but did they have to under the patriot act? No. 

But, when the nay sayers continued and with the outcry of criticism, the Protect America Act (which was was passed with a Democrat controlled congress) was used to amend and clarify such actions so there would be no further debate on the issue. Despite what the media was pushing in the press. Under the Protect America Act of 2007, communications that begin or end in a foreign country may be wiretapped by the US government without supervision by the FISA Court. The Act removes from the definition of "electronic surveillance" in FISA any surveillance directed at a person reasonably believed to be located outside the United States. As such, surveillance of these communications no longer requires a government application to, and order issuing from, the FISA Court.

To ultimately try to make the argument and/or hold the president responsible for some proclaimed "felony" for allowing the above described defensive measures to occur is simply mind boggling to me Jon. It really makes me question what your motivations are when it comes to protecting this country from individuals who would do our society great harm. There is a fine line sometimes in dealing with terrorist groups who are not state sponsored. But, to think this is all being done with anything other than the good intent to protect American citizens Jon is just absurd. Really, it is. 

Besides, you guys in general give the office of the presidency too much power yourselves.

"Bush is responsible for eroding the constitution."
"Bush is responsible for global warming."
"Bush is responsible for the falling power of the dollar."
"Bush is responsible for crappy education."
"Bush is responsible for fires in california" (Yes I have even read that one too)
"Bush is responsible for all of our debt."
"Bush is responsible for <insert anything you are upset about here>."
:roll:


----------



## Ed (Jan 6, 2008)

Brian Ralston @ Sun Jan 06 said:


> If you think the U.S. has the time or ability to route everyone's telephone call though some huge call center with millions of people quietly listening to the conversation, you are crazy.
> 
> The patriot act allowed for such a thing (under the circumstances described) to occur without warrant due to the time sensitive nature of the situation.



Apparrently even before 911 the Clinton administration was monitoring private phone calls without a warrent. 



> Should they and could they have gotten warrants retroactively. Probably yes. If only to keep the nay sayers at bay. but did they have to under the patriot act? No


. 

The problem with the patriot act isnt just that that they are allowed to do anything they want without any evidence at all, including locking you up indefinitely, but that they have apparently defined terrorism to include pretty much any crime. So they can do what they like.


----------



## Mike Greene (Jan 6, 2008)

Ed @ Sun Jan 06 said:


> Apparrently even before 911 the Clinton administration was monitoring private phone calls without a warrent.


Yeah, but that was just because he suspected Monica was cheating on him.


----------



## Ed (Jan 6, 2008)

Mike Greene @ Sun Jan 06 said:


> Ed @ Sun Jan 06 said:
> 
> 
> > Apparrently even before 911 the Clinton administration was monitoring private phone calls without a warrent.
> ...



:lol:


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jan 6, 2008)

"Bush is responsible for eroding the constitution"

Brian, you're tossing off a very important point that should outrage you as much as every other American citizen. That's not the same as "Bush is responsible for the wildfires" at all.

Have you read about the signing statements? The beauty of our system of government is that it's based on open debate rather than executive fiat. If you don't think the Bush administration has been guilty as hell of violating that systematically, you're not looking closely.

I'm not saying that he started the trend, just that his administration has escalated it to an incredibly high degree.


----------



## Brian Ralston (Jan 6, 2008)

Yes I know about the signing statements. Which as you stated, were not started with him. Clinton did them many times as well. And I do share concern over how much is too far when it comes to privacy and the constitution. We just disagree on where to draw the line. Hence the debate. 

Under the circumstances laid out above with the wiretapping bit and other tactics used under the patriot act...I do not see a problem when it comes to counter acting potential terrorist activity. Pretty much all of the patriot act has already been in effect for years and years anyway when it comes to the U.S. going after international drug trafficking. These tactics are now just being applied to terrorist activity as well. 

We also disagree on whether a president like George Bush has the best interests of the American people at heart in his actions or not. I believe he does. Many also believe he does. Many believe he doesn't for whatever their reasons (which began with the sour grapes of the 2000 Bush/Gore election results) and have not stopped since. 

I guess it is just payback for all the years of Republican outcry over Clinton. But even if that is the case...it is what it is. Politics. And not anything more sinister than that.


----------



## artsoundz (Jan 6, 2008)

[quote:94367df8a4="Mike Greene @ Sun Jan 06, 2008 12:08 pm"][quote:94367df8a4="Ed @ Sun Jan 06, 2008 11:03 am"]Apparrently even before 9ò“   kˆ“   kˆ “   kˆ!“   kˆ"“   kˆ#“   kˆ$“   kˆ%“   kˆ&“   kˆ'“   kˆ(“   kˆ)“   kˆ*“   kˆ+“   kˆ,“   kˆ-“   kˆ.“   kˆ/“   kˆ0“   kˆ1“   kˆ2“   kˆ3“   kˆ4“   kˆ5“   k


----------



## Ed (Jan 6, 2008)

Brian Ralston @ Sun Jan 06 said:


> Under the circumstances laid out above with the wiretapping bit and other tactics used under the patriot act...I do not see a problem when it comes to counter acting potential terrorist activity. Pretty much all of the patriot act has already been in effect for years and years anyway when it comes to the U.S. going after international drug trafficking. *These tactics are now just being applied to terrorist activity as well*.



Or any activity the government deems as terrorism, which means they can use the Patriot Act to do what they like when they like.


----------



## Ashermusic (Jan 7, 2008)

"When Obama mentions change in part that's what I think he means. It's about time we had somebody with intelligence, skill and charisma leading this country again. "


Which is why I will be voting for Hillary. OK, so maybe she does not have charisma, 2 out of 3.

Obama has intelligence and charisma but the skill issue is too unproven for me.


----------



## Christian Marcussen (Jan 7, 2008)

Ashermusic @ Mon Jan 07 said:


> "When Obama mentions change in part that's what I think he means. It's about time we had somebody with intelligence, skill and charisma leading this country again. "
> 
> 
> Which is why I will be voting for Hillary. OK, so maybe she does not have charisma, 2 out of 3.
> ...



I beleive that having intelligence and charisma are skills enough - at least it's enough to learn the other skills very fast. I have no doubt that Obama can rise to the challenges of presidency better than most.

Intelligence and Charisma will get you quite far, also in the international arena. I think most allied leaders will look very favorably upon him.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jan 7, 2008)

I wouldn't say at all that Hilary has no charisma. On the contrary, she's very charismatic. Actually, I find her very impressive. Not perfect, that's for sure, but also an excellent candidate.

I'll have no problem voting or her if I think she's the one who has the best chance of beating Guiliani.


----------



## Ashermusic (Jan 7, 2008)

[/quote]

I beleive that having intelligence and charisma are skills enough - at least it's enough to learn the other skills very fast. [/quote]

There is where we differ. JFK had both intelligence and charisma in spades and he made lots of mistakes for almost 2 years before he started to get it right. 

We cannot afford that at this time in history IMHO.


----------



## José Herring (Jan 7, 2008)

I think Hillary is great too. I just think she's very Machiavellian in her approach to everything she does. The end justifies the means whether the means are legal or not. For some reason this really bothers me.

As far as skill, who really has the skills to be pres before they are pres? Not one person. You have to go with the guy or gal that you feel can think best on his/her feet. It's all a gamble really. Sometimes we win, sometimes we lose.


----------



## SvK (Jan 7, 2008)

WHO IS GIULIANNI?

he's toast....this whole theory of not going for any early states and relying on super-tuesday feb3d...is NOT working.....

he also suffers greatly from a likeabilty factor....

It will be McCain, Huckster or Ken Doll...

SvK

ps: Don't get me wrong, from the Repub pack, Rudy would make a capable president....probably more so than any of the others......but he will not win the nomination.

SvK


----------



## SvK (Jan 7, 2008)

READ THIS Hillary is toast...

Clinton and Obama, Johnson and King

Clinton rejoined the running argument over hope and "false hope" in an interview in Dover this afternoon, reminding Fox's Major Garrett that while Martin Luther King Jr. spoke on behalf of civil rights, President Lyndon Johnson was the one who got the legislation passed.

Clinton was asked about Obama's rejoinder that there's something vaguely un-American about dismissing hopes as false, and that it doesn't jibe with the careers of figures like like John F. Kennedy and King.

"Dr. King's dream began to be realized when President Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act," Clinton said. "It took a president to get it done."

Clinton didn't explicitly compare herself to Johnson, or Obama to King. But it seems an odd example for the argument between rhetoric and action, as there's little doubt which figure's place in history and the American imagination is more secure.

"The power of that dream became real in people's lives because we had a president" capable of action, Clinton said.

The interview was taped, and I listened in. It's set to air later today.

yikes......

SvK


----------



## SvK (Jan 7, 2008)

here is the link

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/ ... l#comments


----------



## SvK (Jan 7, 2008)

HILLARY CLINTON CAMPAIGN FALLING APART:

Bill making things worse:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=72I4tjUlCwE


----------



## SvK (Jan 7, 2008)

Hillary gets choked up today:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/01/0 ... 80254.html

she starts gettin' teary and says "Some people think elections are a game....Who is up and who is down...i"

UMMMM....just 3 weeks ago right before you went negative on Barack you stated:

"This is where the FUN begins!"....

SvK


----------



## SvK (Jan 7, 2008)

Hiilary gets frustrated after JE needles her into losing it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EhydLhz48_k

pay close attention to the 2nd to last sentence.

SvK


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jan 7, 2008)

"he also suffers greatly from a likeabilty factor..."

I'm not sure he suffers from it. That's the problem. 

As my 92-year-old mother-in-law says, even his own children don't like him. 

"Don't get me wrong, from the Repub pack, Rudy would make a capable president....probably more so than any of the others......but he will not win the nomination. "

That's where we disagree: I think he's the worst candidate in either party. His ideas about foreign policy are just like what we have now, only less refined if that's even possible. I saw a few minutes of the Republican debate over the weekend, and Ron Paul again brought up the terrorism/blowback link. Guiliani led the charge against it, and he turned into a defensive grandstander when Paul explained that he was lumping every terrorist attack around the world together. These guys just don't get it.

I have a few problems with other things Ron Paul says, but he sure has that right. The most effective thing we can do to improve our security is back off and close down all the military bases around the world.


----------



## SvK (Jan 7, 2008)

Nick....

funny

I meant unlikeable..

SvK


----------



## José Herring (Jan 7, 2008)

Nick Batzdorf @ Mon Jan 07 said:


> The most effective thing we can do to improve our security is back off and close down all the military bases around the world.




Yep. Having had a father in the military and having been on US military bases on foreign soil, your average citizen would be shocked at how much antagonism these bases create in the communities of foreign nations. If you think about it in reverse, how would we like to have the Iraqi army or even the British armed forces living and setting up base in a place like Tucson, AZ? It won't fly here and yet the US expects that it sets well with others. It doesn't. All it does is creates fear and people in fear react irrationally.

Pull the military back. We don't need to police the world with force. It just makes us a target. Sure we can help out if another country needs and ask for assistance. But, we don't need to solve all the worlds problems, especially militarily.

Jose


----------



## Ashermusic (Jan 7, 2008)

josejherring @ Mon Jan 07 said:


> I think Hillary is great too. I just think she's very Machiavellian in her approach to everything she does. The end justifies the means whether the means are legal or not. For some reason this really bothers me.
> 
> As far as skill, who really has the skills to be pres before they are pres? Not one person. You have to go with the guy or gal that you feel can think best on his/her feet. It's all a gamble really. Sometimes we win, sometimes we lose.



They said the same things about Bill and I think he was one of the most effective presidents in my lifetime. I would happily vote for him again given the opportunity.

While you may be right about it being a gamble, I am a person who factors in the odds and for me that comes up Hillary over Barak. (Actually it comes up Biden but he is not electable.)


----------



## aeneas (Jan 7, 2008)

josejherring @ Mon 07 Jan said:


> how would we like to have the Iraqi army or even the British armed forces living and setting up base in a place like Tucson, AZ? It won't fly here and yet the US expects that it sets well with others. It doesn't. All it does is creates fear and people in fear react irrationally.


... and that creates even more need for military and world police - a vicious circle that your administrations, starting with Truman, seem to enjoy and take advantage of. The US of A have turned into an economic-military empire, and empires never withdraw from the territories they've conquered. Empires eventually go out of course, and they go out in various ways, but withdrawal is not one of them. One way would be, by 'barbarian' invasion - that might be why your administrations fears so much 'illegal' immigration. 'Illegal' immigration is the backbone of the free America, and the enemy of the the empire America has become. 

So that's my point: don't expect the US military to withdraw. They have this kind of 'fascist' mindset: "Failure is not an option". How about negotiation then? It looks that negotiation is not an option either, for them. As I see it, this Obama guy has an open-minded, free attitude, and he probably doesn't like much the war-games of your military blockheads - so they may see him as a threat, like Robert Kennedy was. Now, you have your vote, which is a powerful weapon that the military can't fight. I believe, if Obama wins, and if he lives, there is hope for America. Exactly as he use to say. 

This guy really has something from the 60s, it's somehow like the spirits of Bobby Kennedy and of Martin Luther King are shaking hands over his head. 8)


----------



## artsoundz (Jan 7, 2008)

Ashermusic @ Mon Jan 07 said:


> [quote="j
> 
> They said the same things about Bill and I think he was one of the most effective presidents in my lifetime. I would happily vote for him again given the opportunity.



Yes- it would be nice to have Bill back. good times.

But Obama gives a better "shot in the arm" which we desperately need. He could empower this nation- maybe get the "people" off their butts which is the fundamental problem ,I believe. Also, I dont think there is any candidate better than Obama that can get the world to "forgive" us-so to speak. From the comments here, it strikes me that we might easily be forgiven once Bush is gone. That's hopeful.


----------



## Bruce Richardson (Jan 7, 2008)

artsoundz @ Mon Jan 07 said:


> From the comments here, it strikes me that we might easily be forgiven once Bush is gone. That's hopeful.



That's the feeling I get when I travel, that people don't blame us as a country. Although most stable countries don't get quite as arrogant and destructive as ours has been these past seven years.

It has been seven years since we've had a President who could think, who has any sense of social grace. Some people were young teens, and are now young adults, and they have no point of reference for a time when the President was someone smart, well spoken...

It will be a thrill to have a president who can actually speak in composed, complex sentences, and actually relate abstract thinking in words. It's just overwhelming, sometimes, to think we have been this long under George Bush. Holy cow, it was bad enough that we Texans were stuck with him as a Governor for eight years. Some of you are lucky. We Texans have been tolerating to his illiterate asshattery for the last SIXTEEN years!!!!!!!!

B.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jan 7, 2008)

I wish it were possible to undo the damage that's been done with the wave of a wand. But alack.

And the damage being done by the ultraconservative Supreme Court is going to take generations to get over. That's the real legacy.


----------



## artsoundz (Jan 7, 2008)

Nick Batzdorf @ Mon Jan 07 said:


> I wish it were possible to undo the damage that's been done with the wave of a wand. But alack.
> 
> And the damage being done by the ultraconservative Supreme Court is going to take generations to get over. That's the real legacy.



oh yeah I. forgot about the supreme court. Unfortunately, that's absolutely true.

Thanks, Mr. Buzkill : )


----------



## rgames (Jan 8, 2008)

Bruce Richardson @ Tue Jan 08 said:


> and they have no point of reference for a time when the President was someone smart, well spoken...
> 
> It will be a thrill to have a president who can actually speak in composed, complex sentences, and actually relate abstract thinking in words.



Agreed, however:

Being a good "face man" is not a requirement for being a good administrator. There are plenty of people who have difficulty speaking in well-composed, complex sentences but who are quite smart and capable administrators. Similarly, there are plenty of smooth-talkers who can spew words at a mile a minute but have all the adminstrative capability of a pile of rocks. They're just not related. Period.

The problem is that people often equate verbal ability with overall ability. And their benchmark for "ability" is usually along the lines of "how much does he sound like the prototype for Race X or Ethnicity Y from Region Z?" It's a form of discrimination.

Now I trust that you're not drawing a comparison between verbal ability and capability as an administrator (are you?). But it seems there's an inference there so I wanted to raise this point. I agree that it would be nice to have a president who is an excellent face man. But it's not a primary concern of mine - my main concern is his effectiveness as an administrator.

rgames


----------



## aeneas (Jan 8, 2008)

rgames @ Tue 08 Jan said:


> The problem is that people often equate verbal ability with overall ability.


Maybe 'verbal ability' is a misleading phrase. All politicians have verbal abilities, that's no big deal in itself. I think the point was that composed, complex, and clearly articulated sentences, are signs of a vivid mind and of correct thinking. Something that GWB, if he is capable of, he apparently likes to keep for himself. o 

It is not only how clearly and sharply Obama makes his points and how rational, well thought, and convincing his points are. It is also WHAT he's saying. And how honest he seems to be. It's surely only me, but he looks to me like the most sincere politician I have ever seen, a truly 'rare bird'. How good administrator he is, only future can tell. But his type of leadership appears very effective to me, he seems to be able to put people in motion, which is a great asset for an administrator, right?


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jan 8, 2008)

Richard, to me a president is supposed to be a leader, not an administrator. The Chief of Staff's job is to be an administrator. I've posted Napoleon's famous quote before: "A leader is a seller of hopes."

That's especially important in today's complicated world. Right now we need to get moving toward a new energy economy, and that's going to take a radical (if slow) change in our society. The next president has a chance - pretty much literally - to lead us in a direction that will save the world!

That requires getting people to buy into his or her vision. Just going down the same Bush/Guiliani "grab the oil" path is not going to do it.


----------



## rgames (Jan 8, 2008)

aeneas @ Tue Jan 08 said:


> I think the point was that composed, complex, and clearly articulated sentences, are signs of a vivid mind and of correct thinking.



That can be true. But there are plenty of people with vivid minds and communication problems. And there are plenty of talking heads with diarrhea of the mouth and constipation of thought.

By the way, I don't find Obama any more or less articulate than many of the other candidates... Maybe a little above average, but not much. I think most of the current candidates are thoroughly mediocre in that regard.

Nick - I agree that a president needs to be a leader, but I do believe he needs to be foremost a good administrator. My vote is cast not for the pres/VP, alone, but for them as the heads of an "administration". Of course, you have no idea how that administration will be populated, so you try to make a judgment about how effectively the candidates can organize a group of people to address the issues that matter most to you.

rgames


----------



## SvK (Jan 8, 2008)

NEWS:

next state is Nevada (in 10 days):

The Culinary/Service union (the biggest voting block of nevada)...Is endorsing Barack Obama!

ps: Also major endorsements for Obama are being held back (aces up the sleeve style)

SvK


----------



## Christian Marcussen (Jan 8, 2008)

> By the way, I don't find Obama any more or less articulate than many of the other candidates... Maybe a little above average, but not much. I think most of the current candidates are thoroughly mediocre in that regard.



Interesting. To me Obama outshines everyone else in that regard, save maybe Ron Paul who I also find very articulate. In fact Obama seems the most articulate candidate since perhaps Bill Clinton. Obama knows how to make people listen, and he is extremely precise with his communication. I guess a testimony to that is his ever growing support. 

Obama does indeed seem quite sincere and generaly of a good heart, as does McCain. Compare those two to someone like Mitt Romney. I dont know why, but that man seems as false as they come to me.


----------



## SvK (Jan 8, 2008)

Official: Turnout “Absolutely Huge,” Concerned About Having Enough Ballots

ABC News: New Hampshire Deputy Secretary of State says they could run out of ballots in towns like Portsmouth, Keene, Hudson, Pelham.

NY Times: “Voters flooded the polls at a steady pace throughout the morning.”

What to look for: demands that polling places stay open late because of long lines at closing time.


----------



## SvK (Jan 8, 2008)

NEW HAMPSHIRE MAY RUN OUT OF BALLOTS:


http://thepage.time.com/2008/01/08/nh-primary-weather-to-be-downright-balmy/ (http://thepage.time.com/2008/01/08/nh-p ... ght-balmy/)

SvK


----------



## SvK (Jan 8, 2008)

they vote today 

GOBAMA

FIRED UP!
READY TO GO!

SvK


----------

