# OBAMA stays the course ;-)



## SvK (Jan 9, 2008)

Well.....

My guy lost to Hillary

Congrats to all the HRC supporters on this blog......For a victory fought and won!
Now we have ourselves an election! A blow-out would not be good for my guy anyhow......Want him to toughen up a bit. Things should not come so easy...

The GOOD news:
Barack is the front-runner...
Despite a narrow loss in NH. Barack has picked up the same amount of delegates there... That with the delegates form IOWA puts us ahead .(We have more delegates than HRC)

Also, please remember that we won IOWA by 9 points.....Hillary took New Hampshire by 3.

ALSO:

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008 ... dorsement/
Nevada is next. The "Culinary Union" (460.000 strong....everyone that works in the service industry in casinos....biggest voting block in Nevada) has endoresed Barack Obama!

This is huge for us....


Again,

congrats to Team Hillary on New Hampshire 


FIRED UP!
READY TO RUMBLE!

SvK


SvK


----------



## synthetic (Jan 9, 2008)

It was weird looking at CNN this morning and seeing the headline, "Clinton, McCain Pull Into Lead," and to the right of it the delegate count showed Obama in the lead.


----------



## Bruce Richardson (Jan 9, 2008)

synthetic @ Wed Jan 09 said:


> It was weird looking at CNN this morning and seeing the headline, "Clinton, McCain Pull Into Lead," and to the right of it the delegate count showed Obama in the lead.



The media is indeed a curious creature.


----------



## Bruce Richardson (Jan 9, 2008)

That said, Hillary's "superdelegate" count is going to be way above Obama's once more states roll in. Those are like magical Harry Potter wand delegates, and there's an entire intellectual discipline associated with even figuring out what it all means.

Bottom line, Obama does have to really pull away to win the nomination. If it's just a series of neck and neck races, Hillary wins by virtue of arcane party rules.

One of the best Republican strategists I know (this woman never loses anything) says Republicans would rather run against Obama, that their handicappers think he's an easier opponent than Hillary in the general election. I think she probably has a point, because it's the same math. Obama has to ride a wave to win. Hillary could conceivably win by the same kind of hair's margin that put Mr. Chimpy in office.

I still like Obama for the White House. All this Homeland security protect America horse shit isò¸   kÕ+¸   kÕ,¸   kÕ-¸   kÕ.¸   kÕ/¸   kÕ0¸   kÕ1¸   kÕ2¸   kÕ3¸   kÕ4¸   kÕ5¸   kÕ6¸   kÕ7¸   kÕ8¸   kÕ9¸   kÕ:¸   kÕ;¸   kÕ<¸   kÕ=¸   kÕ>¸   kÕ?¸   kÕ@¸   kÕA¸   kÕB¸   kÕC¸   kÕD¸   kÕE¸   kÕF¸   kÕG¸   kÕH¸   kÕI¸   kÕJ¸   kÕK¸   kÕL¹   kÕM¹   kÕN¹   kÕO¹   kÕP¹   kÕQ¹   kÕR¹   kÕS¹   kÕT¹   kÕU¹   kÕV¹   kÕW¹   kÕX¹   kÕY¹   kÕZ¹   kÕ[¹   kÕ\¹   kÕ]¹   kÕ^¹   kÕ_¹   kÕ`¹   kÕa¹   kÕb¹   kÕc¹   kÕd¹   kÕe¹   kÕf¹   kÕg¹   kÕh¹   kÕi¹   kÕj¹   kÕk¹   kÕl¹   kÕm¹   kÕn¹   kÕo¹   kÕp¹   kÕq¹   kÕr¹   kÕs¹   kÕt¹   kÕu¹   kÕv¹   kÕw¹   kÕx¹   kÕy¹   kÕz¹   kÕ{¹   kÕ|¹   kÕ}¹   kÕ~¹   kÕ¹   kÕ€¹   kÕ¹   kÕ‚¹   kÕƒ¹   kÕ„¹   kÕ…¹   kÕ†¹   kÕ‡¹   kÕˆ¹   kÕ‰¹   kÕŠ¹   kÕ‹¹   kÕŒ¹   kÕ¹   kÕŽ¹   kÕ¹   kÕ¹   kÕ‘¹   kÕ’¹   kÕ“¹   kÕ”¹   kÕ•¹   kÕ–¹   kÕ—¹   kÕ˜¹   kÕ™¹   kÕš              ƒæ    ÷æº   kÖ    ÷ç»


----------



## SvK (Jan 10, 2008)

Senator Kerry just endorsed Obama...

(not huge news....but we will take it)

SvK


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jan 10, 2008)

Dave, nobody is saying that *every* terrorist attack is blowback. You can't point at 9/11 or most individual terrorist attacks and say "that's blowback" any more than you can point at a single weather event and say it's due to climate change.

But Bin Laden did actually say that 9/11 was because of three grievances: 1. our unwavering support for Israel; 2. the Prince William Air Force base in Saudi Arabia (since quietly closed down because even the Rumsfelds recognized that it was provocative); and 3. our sanctions in Iraq being responsible for starving children.

I'm inclined to take that at face value - which is certainly not to say that I'm taking that disgusting man's side, just that I believe strongly that we need to adopt a new approach if we want to be more secure. It's going to take a measurable amount of our GNP to research what to do next, but we absolutely have to come up with a new energy economy. We're running out of easy oil anyway, and the sooner we do it the less expensive it's going to be.

As I said, I like the approach all the Democrats are taking: selling it as a way to create more jobs. The Republicans historically have used the "it creates jobs" line to push through all kinds of anti-environmental things in the past, so it's time to turn that shizzle around!


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jan 10, 2008)

By the way, there's a good possibility that nuclear energy may be the only answer. That's very scary, so I guess we also have to research how to make it safer - if that's possible.

But the energy demand is going up and up, and with it are all the geopolitical pressures.


----------



## Moonchilde (Jan 10, 2008)

Nick Batzdorf @ January 10th 2008 said:


> By the way, there's a good possibility that nuclear energy may be the only answer. That's very scary, so I guess we also have to research how to make it safer - if that's possible.
> 
> But the energy demand is going up and up, and with it are all the geopolitical pressures.



What exactly is so unsafe about nuclear energy?


----------



## Dave Connor (Jan 10, 2008)

Nick, we're on the same page then. I'm suggesting a balanced approach to the issue as well. I'm very cautious when it comes to being a little nicer to your enemy because it rarely works. Bin Laden's enough of a politician to say the right things for is constiuents but the guy revels in killing people and isn't likely to stop even if our policy followed his dictates exactly.


----------



## Dave Connor (Jan 10, 2008)

Kerry endorsed Obama!? He'll recover from that I'm sure. He's already getting things back together after New Hampshire so this latest blow will be no doubt be handled in stride as well.

SvK, make sure the fellow knows if he's elected he has to serve the full term. No walking off the job after only a year. I'm sure he's thinking of us and not himself when he does that kind of thing - like all great politicians.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jan 10, 2008)

Bin Laden may not stop, but what we're doing now is playing directly into his PR. He thrives on the war we gave him. It helps create terrorists.

That's not just supposition, by the way - there was an Israeli study of Iraq proving it.


----------



## Bruce Richardson (Jan 10, 2008)

Nick Batzdorf @ Thu Jan 10 said:


> Bin Laden may not stop, but what we're doing now is playing directly into his PR. He thrives on the war we gave him. It helps create terrorists.
> 
> That's not just supposition, by the way - there was an Israeli study of Iraq proving it.



Of course. If we were spending a zillion dollars a day waging PEACE in the world, Bin Laden would just be regarded as the two-bit crackpot he is.

We give him every shred of power/influence he has.

The problem with waging peace is that it doesn't funnel the money into business interests that support Republicans. So, if we want out of these wars, we've got to stop electing Republicans, first. Then we have to keep the Democratic party on-track until the whole military/industrial machine chokes.

Then, maybe we replace the Republican party altogether with a party that is so much more blindingly progressive and brilliant, that the Democrats become the new Republicans...and we get rid of them, too.

We can have a perfectly strong defense without all this BS. We haven't played actual DEFENSE with our defense in as long as anyone can remember. And that crap about offense being the best defense is about the same thing as saying black is white. No, it isn't.

The best defense is doing good in the world. The best defense is being loved.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jan 10, 2008)

"What exactly is so unsafe about nuclear energy?"

Seriously?

You haven't heard about Chernobyl?


----------



## Fernando Warez (Jan 10, 2008)

Bruce Richardson @ Wed Jan 09 said:


> If someone wants to fly a jet into a building, then they'll do it. It's ridiculous to assume that can be stopped.



Now that's ridiculous! So you think north American air space is unprotected? :roll: 
You obviously have no idea what you're talking about here. Ever heard of NORAD? :roll: Reality is you wouldn't be able to pull this off even if you had 007 flying those planes. Actually you could but you'd only have 5 to ten minutes to hit your target before an F16 appear in your rear view mirror ready to shout you down. And that's assuming you managed to go through airport security undetected, and that you out smarted the NSA, CIA, FBI, NSE and many other intelligence agencies. 

In 1978 NORAD bragged they could intercept an airliner in less than five minutes and that's exactly what they did with success 67 times in the 9 months before 911. The question American should ask them selfs is how the hell could those hijacked planed fly for more than an hour in some case on 911. An air liner is like a slow moving elephant for an F16, and they have transponders on them saying ''look I'm right here!''. 911 was not done by terrorist and could not have been done by terrorist. Not in their wildest dreams. 911 was a false flag terrorist attack made by criminal elements inside the US government for a political agenda. 

PLEASE! guys research this. I'm not joking, and there's more of that crap coming. They're looking for a full blown conflict in the ME. Iraq was just the beginning... 

Here's an ex Mi5 on false flag terrorism.

http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=-wFWXWrY4Rk

And for those who think the 911 truth movement are just a bunch of nut case here a little video.

http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=GXE1XhG-6 ... re=related

http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=uBL21koub ... re=related


----------



## Moonchilde (Jan 10, 2008)

Nick Batzdorf @ January 10th 2008 said:


> "What exactly is so unsafe about nuclear energy?"
> 
> Seriously?
> 
> You haven't heard about Chernobyl?



Have you ever looked into the disaster and done some research on it to know what caused the accident? You also do know that there is constant on going research into nuclear safety? That progress is being made every day?

Please show me one thing in the world that is 100% safe. Oh right, there is no such thing. Everything we do has a risk. Having electricity in your home is a risk. Driving a car is a risk. How many hundreds of thousands of car accidents happen a year? And yet people still drive cars. I bet you drive a car, too, or at least use public transportation. Having knives and cutting tools in your kitchen is a risk. Simply existing in this world is a risk.

I bet its so scary to think of all the things that can kill us. Lord knows the minute you get into a car you're putting yourself at risk of a high speed collision should you drive on a highway. All it takes is a collision at 35 mph for a fatal accident. As often as I've seen you talk about how bad Guiliani is and his fear mongering, you're basically doing the same against nuclear power here.

"Seriously? 

You haven't heard about 9/11?"


----------



## Moonchilde (Jan 10, 2008)

Fernando Warez @ January 11th 2008 said:


> Bruce Richardson @ Wed Jan 09 said:
> 
> 
> > If someone wants to fly a jet into a building, then they'll do it. It's ridiculous to assume that can be stopped.
> ...



All right, this thread just took a turn for the worst. I'm out of here.


----------



## JonFairhurst (Jan 10, 2008)

To get a feel for Chernobyl, check out this website. It's a motorcycle tour of the place, including photos. Just click on the "Chapter" links at the bottom to navigate. 

http://www.kiddofspeed.com/chapter1.html

The big problem with nuclear, of course, is disposal. And longggg term maintenance. The half-life of nuclear waste outlasts our ability to contain it. It really pisses me off that they have that [email protected] at Hansford, up the river from me. If people, knowledge, equipment and funds weren't available, the containers will degrade without anything to stop it. And eventually it will kill the Columbia River. 

No one can guarantee that the site can be maintained until the materials are no longer harmful. And please don't make the argument that it won't matter after we're all dead.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jan 11, 2008)

I'd add security to that list of dangers, Jon.

But Moonchilde, there's no reason for you to leave this thread in a huff just because Fernando Warez believes the 9/11 conspiracy nonsense. That has nothing to do with any other posters in this thread.

Second, I thought you seriously didn't know why nuclear power was dangerous. I wasn't trying to be patronizing, and it sounds like you think I'm totally opposed to nuclear power. In fact I'm not, because at the moment it seems like the most likely solution to a lot of problems.

But there's no argument you can make to say that it has no dangers, and the fact is that Chernobyl did happen. I've also read stories about the Navy dumping nuclear waste into the ocean in something like standard oil drums, and then when they didn't sink they simply shot at them with machine guns to let water in! (This is in Bill Bryston's Brief History of Nearly Everything.)

So you have to look at the real world as well as what's possible theoretically. In the real world I think it makes sense to have concerns!


----------



## Moonchilde (Jan 11, 2008)

Ah, ok, I really did think you were being patronizing. I apologize.

Aside from Chernobyl, which had many variables to that disaster, nuclear power is relatively clean and safe. The only drawback is that in certain countries, they don't reprocess the uranium fuel rods and instead store them under 20 to 30 feet of water. Its a shame really, since we only use about 60% to 70% of the energy from them. Reprocessing them would allow us to use more of it, and you can hypothetically continue to do so until the uranium becomes lead. The USA will not reprocess uranium and instead opts to put it under water. Other forms of nuclear waste is being stored in containment under a mountain, which is ridiculous as well, considering the half life's timespan vs the storing materials.

These are issues that can be dealt with. Worse comes to worse, we could launch the waste into the sun, hoping the rocket doesn't blow up and splatter it into our atmosphere, lol!

One day we'll have fusion figured out, and won't need to worry about this anyway. Fission will be a thing of the past, as will combustion.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jan 11, 2008)

Fusion would be great, but I even remember one of my high school teachers - i.e. early 70s! - saying that they'd expected to have worked it out long ago. As I said, we need to devote a measurable part of our GNP to researching the next energy economy.

And if we're going to be using nuclear energy more - something that's happening throughout the world (I read that Britain is building another 20 or something) - we have to figure out how to make it safer.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jan 11, 2008)

It's amazing how some things stick with you for so long. I actually remember what the teacher said: "There's enough energy in this piece of chalk to power the city for a very long time."

That would have been 1972!


----------



## Moonchilde (Jan 11, 2008)

I think the modern designs are pretty safe, if you're discussing a meltdown. However, like Chernobyl, you could get a huge steam explosion that will really screw things up. But that should be a given, and could happen at any power generating plant. Safety precautions are a lot better now a days.

Check out 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_reactor

There are already experimental fusion reactors being tested. Maybe in 75 years we'll see some progress. Progress, not a solution entirely. Perhaps we will, but right now, fission reactions are the best bet for power generation on a larger scale. 

Still, thats a rather small issue in the face of a much larger fuel economy issue. The market for fuel is getting much larger while the supply much smaller... its going to really hurt in another 2 decades when developed nations are going to be in the midst of bidding wars. While fusion is a grand idea for power generation, we need to figure out something to run our automobiles on, and both fusion and fission is not that solution.


----------



## Moonchilde (Jan 11, 2008)

I want to add, that Chernobyl was a mess of disasters, and there are many precautions now to prevent those. I highly doubt another Chernobyl will ever happen, its just one of those things. We just can't afford another mistake like that, and no one in the business would be willing to cut corners when you have a risk that high. You'd just lose everything.


----------



## Bruce Richardson (Jan 11, 2008)

Fernando Warez @ Thu Jan 10 said:


> Bruce Richardson @ Wed Jan 09 said:
> 
> 
> > If someone wants to fly a jet into a building, then they'll do it. It's ridiculous to assume that can be stopped.
> ...



Don't roll your eyes at me if you're going to post a bunch of nutjob crap from YouTube to advance a discussion.

Or for that matter, if you are going to go off half-cocked.

A reasonable interpretation of my statement is not literal. I'm saying that a motivated person can find dozens of means of creating terror. I could go to my garden center right now, pack up my Honda Element with fertilizer, and go take a crater out of a shopping mall. I could get all kinds of harmful materials. I could go into a live theater performance, sneak back, hit the breakers, and start playing recordings of gunshots and panic, and create a stampede.

I could pilot a corporate jet into a building (If I knew how to fly one, and my sanity somehow snapped to that degree).

The actual point being that acts of random evil are difficult to prevent, because they're random. And evil. They do not conform to rational thought. One can create many impediments to random evil, including the single system (NORAD) in which you seem to place great faith.

My point remains that the single most effective thing that can be done, whether it's on a personal or global level, is be a friend to mankind in every possible way. You don't get allies by asking for allies. You get allies by being an ally...so that the asking is not necessary.

The cost of a single F-16 (around 20 million) could create a sustainable farming infrastructure for a large group of people. It could build a massive school in a third-world country, where the power of knowledge and opportunity could make thousands of friends.

And even the most cynical among us, those that would say "war money" is win-win, (because it mostly lands right back in our military/industrial economy) can no longer imagine that this false economy is beneficial in the long term. The jobs in that industry return very little when the product is used to promote a culture of death and violence.

Perhaps you were throwing down a little hyperbole or satire at my expense... ~o)


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jan 11, 2008)

"While fusion is a grand idea for power generation, we need to figure out something to run our automobiles on, and both fusion and fission is not that solution."

Well, they could be if we ran cars on electricity. Or for that matter if we used them to create hydrogen and then used hydrogen cars.


----------



## artsoundz (Jan 11, 2008)

edit


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jan 14, 2008)

"He criticized Mr. McCain and Senator Joseph I. Lieberman, independent of Connecticut, for a bill that they have pushed to cap and trade greenhouse gas emissions. Mr. Romney asserted that the bill would cause energy costs to rise and would ultimately be a “job killer.”

That's from NY Times.com, and it's why at the end of the day I just don't understand how anyone could possibly vote for one of these jackasses. This is the number one issue facing human civilization!

WHAT IS WRONG WITH THESE PEOPLE?!


----------



## JonFairhurst (Jan 14, 2008)

The development of new energy technologies will be a huge job *generator*. (But that's not very attractive to companies entrenched in today's technologies.)

If we don't invest, others will. (And have.)


----------



## JonFairhurst (Jan 28, 2008)

aeneas @ Mon Jan 28 said:


> I am hoping for the energy technology that will be the job *terminator*. o/~ /\~O o=< =o


Hasta la vista, oil!!!


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jan 28, 2008)

One interesting thing pointed out in "The End of Oil" is that we'd only have to increase our average fleet gas mileage by something like 3 MPG (it might not have been three, maybe it was 2 MPG) - and not use the savings anywhere else - to eliminate the need for all the oil we import from the Persian Gulf.

(People think most of our oil comes from the Middle East, but in fact it comes from Mexico and Canada.)

It's in that context that I find Mitt Romney's nonsense so outrageous. These people are applying for the biggest job in the world, and they have absolutely no concept of the big picture!

Of course Romney is also saying what people want to hear: your jobs (in Michigan) are coming back. It may have worked; McCain told them the truth - they're not coming back - and they didn't vote for him.

But I don't think it's pure cynicism, I think it's a serious lack of insight into the problems of the world. What we've seen the past seven years is a radical misconstruction of reality that these nuts worked each other up into a frenzy over, but Mitt Romney doesn't appear to be like that. He - and Guiliani, and even Ron Paul in this issue - just simply do not get it.

It's very simple: our civilization is facing ecological collapse! Put away the fiddles, for heaven's sake.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jan 28, 2008)

"The development of new energy technologies will be a huge job *generator*"

Oh, and I agree with that. As I've posted before, I wish all the candidates would emphasize that rather than just going farther down the same path that has our empire on the verge of collapse.


----------



## José Herring (Jan 28, 2008)

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

Svk= Obama girl /\~O


----------



## aeneas (Jan 29, 2008)

Nick Batzdorf @ Tue 29 Jan said:


> our civilization is facing ecological collapse! Put away the fiddles, for heaven's sake.


Alright, Mr Apostle sir, as you wish - no fiddles. May I keep my trumpet and drums though?... /\~O o=< o


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jan 29, 2008)

Nero, aeneas, not the apocalypse.


----------



## SvK (Jan 30, 2008)

And then there were 2!

edwards drops out!

SvK


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jan 30, 2008)

And I suppose you think Hilary is going to drop out after Super Tuesday?


----------



## JonFairhurst (Jan 30, 2008)

The question is, will Edwards' supporters migrate toward Obama, or Hillary? I've heard valid arguments for both. And the polls have been notoriously wrong this year. Could go either way.

My guess? Obama.


----------



## tobyond (Jan 30, 2008)

Unfortunately just the wrong time for Edwards, he is someone I'd love to see in office at some point, a person who is looking out for the little guy.


----------



## artsoundz (Jan 30, 2008)

edit


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jan 30, 2008)

My guess is Obama too, Jon, because Edwards is a little less "establishment" than Hilary - as far as his image, I don't mean any more than that - and so is Obama. On the other hand, a lot of people probably feel the same way I do, namely that I consider both Hilary and Obama good candidates and would be happy with either one of them.

But I'm breathing a little more easily today now that Guiliani has dropped out. I'll be still happier if Romney got knocked out of the race, because I consider him a very poor candidate.

So if McCain is the Republican nominee, who does have a better chance of beating him: Hilary or Obama? I think it's a tough call.


----------



## synthetic (Jan 30, 2008)

Poor Edwards. Always the bridesmaid, never the bride.


----------



## JonFairhurst (Jan 30, 2008)

synthetic @ Wed Jan 30 said:


> Poor Edwards. Always the bridesmaid, never the bride.


Last time he was the bridesmaid - and he got voted off the island before the ceremony! Maybe he'll make it to the show and catch the bouquet this time around...


----------



## Christian Marcussen (Jan 31, 2008)

> But I'm breathing a little more easily today now that Guiliani has dropped out. I'll be still happier if Romney got knocked out of the race, because I consider him a very poor candidate.



I agree - however I was quite impressed with his performance at the recent debate. He was clear, articulate and seemed more statesly than in previous debates. I also thought of McCain as a man with lots of integrity - but the attack on Romney on his timetable quote is low, silly, and obviously misplaced. It made him look ridiculous in my view... 

Anyway... Go'bama


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jan 31, 2008)

Yes. But even though McCain or Huckabee would be an improvement over what we have now, there's the Supreme Court to worry about. Hopefully some of the damage of the past seven years can be reversed in a generation or two, but with Roberts and Alito added to the Supreme Court we're in danger of seeing a lot of the social progress made over the past generations reversed. These people absolutely must be balanced on the Court, and only a Democratic President can make that happen.


----------



## Bruce Richardson (Jan 31, 2008)

Couldn't agree more. Very dangerous to imagine that McCain would even go down the center on the court, and regardless, down the center won't be enough to balance the two extreme right judges that Bush seated


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Feb 1, 2008)

"Ann Coulter supports Hillary"

The real mystery is why that ridiculous woman is always in the news.


----------



## JonFairhurst (Feb 2, 2008)

Nick Batzdorf @ Fri Feb 01 said:


> The real mystery is why that ridiculous woman is always in the news.


Why do people slow to look at car wrecks?


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Feb 5, 2008)

Hey gang,

I hope you don't mind a little thread-jacking:

Can someone please explain to me why so many people seem to be going gaga over Reagan? It's like he's considered a model president or something now. When I think of the Gipper, I remember the Iran-Contra affair, Star Wars defence (sic), "Start the bombing now!", the Savings and Loans crisis, Reaganomics (yikes!), the invasion of Grenada...

Is it just about his smile and good looks?


----------



## Ashermusic (Feb 5, 2008)

Ned Bouhalassa @ Tue Feb 05 said:


> Hey gang,
> 
> I hope you don't mind a little thread-jacking:
> 
> ...



Mind you I voted against him twice but I will take a whack at this.

Reagan preached optimism. He had a simple set of core beliefs that many if not most Americans shared and he articulated them well. 

After the double digit inflation-unemployment of the Carter years, the lack of success in freeing the Iranian hostages, and Carter's generally dour outlook, as a nation Americans were discouraged. Reagan told us that we were a great nation with our best days ahead of us. Despite all his flaws one can argue that at least in his first term he was the right man on the historical stage that led to the disintegration of the Soviet Union and the collapse of the Berlin Wall.

And Reaganomics worked in the short run, although the bill for it fell due on poor G.H.W. Bush's desk.

Bill Clinton actually did some of the same with his "Don't stop thinking about tomorrow" bridge to the 21st century approach. And optimism is certainly a large part of the Obama campaign.

We are by nature an optimistic nation and we respond to politicians who reflect that. Candidates who do not understand that rarely win in American politics.

That is the lesson of Ronald Reagan.


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Feb 5, 2008)

Right, that makes sense. Re: the Iranian hostages, is it true that they could have been freed earlier but that it was orchestrated so that they would be let go only after Reagan had been sworn in? And does he really get the credit for what Gorbachev's Glasnost and Lech Walesa Solidarity movement did to the Communist movement? I wonder if history will judge him as kindly as many do today.


----------



## Bruce Richardson (Feb 5, 2008)

Nick Batzdorf @ Sat Feb 02 said:


> "Ann Coulter supports Hillary"
> 
> The real mystery is why that ridiculous woman is always in the news.



I hear when she takes her teeth out she gives good....


----------



## sbkp (Feb 5, 2008)

Tangentially, having met Bruce at NAMM, his jokes (which I already dug) are even funnier...


----------



## Ashermusic (Feb 5, 2008)

Ned Bouhalassa @ Tue Feb 05 said:


> Right, that makes sense. Re: the Iranian hostages, is it true that they could have been freed earlier but that it was orchestrated so that they would be let go only after Reagan had been sworn in? And does he really get the credit for what Gorbachev's Glasnost and Lech Walesa Solidarity movement did to the Communist movement? I wonder if history will judge him as kindly as many do today.



1. There are different versions of this and the dust has not totally settled IMHO.

2. Yes. Reagan simply out-spent the Soviet Union into oblivion which eventually pushed the rock over the cliff.

3. Yes. History is written by the winners.


----------



## Thonex (Feb 5, 2008)

I'm still torn between Hillary and Obabma.

I'm trying to think who would do better against the Rupugnicans.... I can't tell who stands a better chance... Hillary or Obama.

For some reason, I think the Repugnicans fear the Clinton Machine more than Obama... so that may be one reason to go for Hillary.

On the other hand, I'm loving the grass-roots-and-up type of leadership Obama is showing.

It's a tough decision.


----------



## JonFairhurst (Feb 5, 2008)

If McCain is the GOP guy, Obama matches up well as a person of youth and change. Hillary can't really claim the change banner with a straight face...


----------



## SvK (Feb 5, 2008)

Thonex,

Every single "match-up" poll shows Obama BEATING McCain and Hillary LOSING against McCain...

Nothing will motivate republicans to turn out and vote more than Hillary being the nominee.....

....They hate her. They will show up and vote NOT for McCain BUT AGAINST Hillary..

Giving Hillary the nomination virtually GUARANTEES a Republican victory in November.

GOBAMA08

SvK


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Feb 5, 2008)

"Yes. Reagan simply out-spent the Soviet Union into oblivion which eventually pushed the rock over the cliff."

Not so, Jay. I think I've posted this before. The rock over the cliff was pushed by Zbigniew Brezhinski during the Carter years when they backed the anti-Soviet Muhadeen in Afghanistan. That was designed to give them "their version of Vietnam," and it did - although it was a pretty savage way to do it. The part about us forcing them to try and keep up with our military spending is mythology.

It's also worth pointing out that every President throughout the Cold War battled the Soviets. But their empire eventually imploded as they all do, and that was not Reagan's doing. He was just a dopey guy who got elected.

As Ned sort of says, he should have been excommunicated and sent to Corsica for the Iran-Contra affair. Those people all should.

Frankly it bothers me to see the Ronald Reagan Hospital at UCLA, the Ronald Reagan Freeway, etc. He was a terrible president.

And the Republican candidates all debating who's the most Reagan is really silly. Do people really swallow that bull?


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Feb 5, 2008)

"Giving Hillary the nomination virtually GUARANTEES a Republican victory in November"

I disagree. Hillary is a much more dynamic personality than McCain, and a lot of the country is tired of having a Republican administration. Remember, it was pretty close to 50/50 last election.

Also, I find it really hard to understand why so many people hate or at one point hated Hillary. You only have to look at her voting record to see that she's very moderate - not a polarizing type of person at all.


----------



## JonFairhurst (Feb 5, 2008)

Nick Batzdorf @ Tue Feb 05 said:


> Also, I find it really hard to understand why so many people hate or at one point hated Hillary. You only have to look at her voting record to see that she's very moderate - not a polarizing type of person at all.


That doesn't really take her reputation and general impression into account. My feeling about her is that she's a poll-following weather vane who makes decisions based on political calculus. Maybe that is or isn't true, but it's the feeling I have.

Today on MSNBC the pundits were talking about Romney's Mormon factor, and if that led to Huckabee's success in the South. Personally, I don't think so. They both talk about their faith, and they both take socially conservative positions. 

The difference is that Romney comes off as a slick businessman - and a bit stiff and robotic. Huckabee comes off as a friendly neighborhood preacher. When Romney talks about faith it doesn't feel 100% authentic. When Huckabee talks about faith, it feels like it's in his bones.

Make the Mormon a warm, friendly guy and make the Baptist stiff and uncomfortable and the Mormon wins the social conservative vote going away.

Anyway, Hillary has a well-established identity that triggers a variety of emotions. No amount of studying her voting record or policy positions will change most people's fundamental feelings about her.

She might win the White House, but I believe that it would be a rocky, defensive 4 or 8 years. She will have a really tough time getting broad support for her agenda - even with a Democratic Congress.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Feb 6, 2008)

I don't get that feeling, Jon (the last sentences), and I think the impression people have of her is different than it was when she first started. She simply became a better candidate over the past few months, both by experience and in peoples' minds.

It's going to be a close race. Either Hillary or Obama will make a great President, I think. They both have all the qualities you need, and lots of them.


----------



## SvK (Feb 6, 2008)

CONGRATS TO OBAMA,

1) We won more states .........Obama 14states / Hillary 8 states.

2) We won more delegates.

3) We've raised 3 times more money than her.....she has 10 million we have 30 million

4) Whites voted for us in DROVES last night.

5) Our margins of victory from state to state by far trounced her margins.


GoBama!

SvK


----------



## JonFairhurst (Feb 6, 2008)

Nick Batzdorf @ Wed Feb 06 said:


> I don't get that feeling, Jon (the last sentences).


Regarding a rocky presidency, it's going to be one conservative attack after another - it's an old habit. They just can't help themselves. I expect a very defensive West Wing.

And regarding Democratic support, we have a Democratic Congress today and can't hardly pass anything - yet conservative stuff still seems to get through. There are a number of conservative Democrats that split the party vote, while Republicans tend to vote as a block.

At least getting a Democratic president would remove the veto threat.

Obama offers some key advantages:

1) His message is consistently about inclusiveness. He is more likely to bring moderate Republicans into the tent.

2) His oratory is unmatched. He has the potential to inspire the country to achieve new goals - especially on the energy front - his ties to nuclear notwithstanding.

3) Racial slurs are no longer tolerated by public opinion or the press. His detractors will have to be more careful about how they criticize him. Female bashing is still socially accepted.

4) Obama consistently polls with "lower negatives" than Clinton. Those negatives will be very hard to turn around. (Not to say that Obama won't earn negatives over time. Look at how many Bush has acquired since 2001!)


----------



## Ashermusic (Feb 6, 2008)

SvK @ Wed Feb 06 said:


> CONGRATS TO OBAMA,
> 
> 
> 
> ...



2. Not if you count the super delegates.

5. Not in the big states like NY and CA.

Hillary still leads 824 to 741.

I think there is a good chance that neither candidate will have enough votes going into the convention so it could be very interesting.


----------



## JonFairhurst (Feb 6, 2008)

One thing that's different this year is that the primaries and caucuses are so freaking early. It used to be just one month between the last primary and the start of the convention. This year it could be three long months of uncertainty - lots of time to make ridiculous promises to the super delegates...

Regarding the current delegate count, different news outlets are quoting different totals. And the super-delegates aren't locked in until they actually cast their votes - even if they made early pledges.

Welcome to Mr. Toad's jalopy!


----------



## madbulk (Feb 7, 2008)

Sorry to disappoint you? More states, nuff said??

I agree your guy is looking good, but it's not nuff said. And where it stands now depends on how you wanna call it.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/


----------



## Dave Connor (Feb 7, 2008)

JonFairhurst @ Wed Feb 06 said:


> Nick Batzdorf @ Tue Feb 05 said:
> 
> 
> > Also, I find it really hard to understand why so many people hate or at one point hated Hillary. You only have to look at her voting record to see that she's very moderate - not a polarizing type of person at all.
> ...



Very succinct post with which I agree.


----------



## Hans Adamson (Feb 7, 2008)

SvK @ Thu Feb 07 said:


> Are we really crazy enough to re-elect a presidential-couple that was impeached?


I support Obama, but have to correct this. President Clinton was never impeached.


----------



## JonFairhurst (Feb 7, 2008)

Hans Adamson @ Thu Feb 07 said:


> SvK @ Thu Feb 07 said:
> 
> 
> > Are we really crazy enough to re-elect a presidential-couple that was impeached?
> ...


He was impeached by the House, but not convicted by the Senate, so he was able to stay in office.


----------



## Hans Adamson (Feb 7, 2008)

JonFairhurst @ Thu Feb 07 said:


> Hans Adamson @ Thu Feb 07 said:
> 
> 
> > SvK @ Thu Feb 07 said:
> ...


From Wikipedia:
"Impeachment in the United States is an expressed power of the legislature which allows for formal charges to be brought against a civil officer of government for conduct committed in office. The actual trial on those charges, and subsequent removal of an official on conviction on those charges is separate from the act of impeachment itself: impeachment is analogous to indictment in regular court proceedings, trial by the other house is analogous to the trial before judge and jury in regular courts. Typically, the lower house of the legislature will impeach the official and the upper house will conduct the trial."

Svk's use of the word "impeachment" needs to be scrutinized as he is holding it against President Clinton that he was charged of wrong-doing and indicted, but aquitted before even going to trial (Senate impeachment hearings). I don't agree with being considered guilty only by forwarding accusations that are rebuked and turned down without trial. It is even more troublesome considering who the people were that fought to bring the indictment to the congress.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Feb 7, 2008)

And the couple wasn't impeached, nor are we electing a couple. That's just silly!

I have to go farther and say that if you like one of the two candidates, it's ridiculous to dislike the other one - even taking into account what Jon says about Hillary (which I find hyper; sorry). Their positions are quite close, and they're much better for the future of human civilization than any of the Republican candidates' positions.

If you're a Republican swift boat monster, okay, but I don't think liberals should be turning the talking head BS into reality by repeating it hook line and sinker. Most of these pundits are just people with opinions that are no more or less reasoned or informed than yours and mine. Polls are fickle. 89.6% of all statistics are made up on the spur of the moment.

Both Obama and especially Hillary stressed Democratic unity in the last debate, and they're right - it's very important for the survival of our Republic.


----------



## Brian Ralston (Feb 7, 2008)

Not only was Bill Clinton impeached. But he was formally disbarred by the Arkansas State Bar Association for his lying under oath. 

Some say you can lie in your answers about sex because they are just little white lies. Nothing bad comes of them. Others say the law is the law and you take an oath for the truth, that is it. Well, the Arkansas State Bar felt it was a violation enough to disbar him. 

But...that is all water under the bridge now. No need to re-tread that all again.


----------



## Brian Ralston (Feb 7, 2008)

Nick Batzdorf @ Thu Feb 07 said:


> 89.6% of all statistics are made up on the spur of the moment.



I read it was 93.7%. Hmmmmmm

:wink: :lol:


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Feb 7, 2008)

"Some say..."

That's the Faux News line!



We're going to be hearing a lot of "some say" during this election. "Some say" that Hillary/Obama (whoever wins) was caught fornicating with a goat while riding on a swift boat...


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Feb 7, 2008)

A survey of 93.7% of all the leading polls say it's 89.6%.


----------



## Hans Adamson (Feb 7, 2008)

Brian Ralston @ Thu Feb 07 said:


> Not only was Bill Clinton impeached. But he was formally disbarred by the Arkansas State Bar Association for his lying under oath.
> 
> Some say you can lie in your answers about sex because they are just little white lies. Nothing bad comes of them. Others say the law is the law and you take an oath for the truth, that is it. Well, the Arkansas State Bar felt it was a violation enough to disbar him.
> 
> But...that is all water under the bridge now. No need to re-tread that all again.


If you are going to hold it against someone that they have been accused of wrong-doing, then I could just accuse you of something horrendous, and we can all repeat it over and over whenever we would want to smear you. Do you approve of that kind of behavior?


----------



## Brian Ralston (Feb 7, 2008)

Hans Adamson @ Thu Feb 07 said:


> If you are going to hold it against someone that they have been accused of wrong-doing, then I could just accuse you of something horrendous, and we can all repeat it over and over whenever we would want to smear you. Do you approve of that kind of behavior?



I said he was impeached to clarify that he was in fact...impeached Hans. And he was not disbarred for nothing. The State Bar Association found solid grounds to disbar him from practicing law for his lying under oath. They don't disbar people for doing nothing wrong. 

Why was he not criminally convicted for lying and held liable you ask? I suspect because it would have been more of a scar on the country for him to be convicted than to just let it go...with the distinction of being an impeached sitting president and then disbarred enough of a slap. So the politics won out and it is what it is. 

But to try to argue that he did nothing wrong because he as not convicted and is an upstanding politician to be favorably looked at is just not accurate at all. Really. It is not.

And...with your stated speculation...if you accuse someone of doing something horrendous and criminal and you are lying and cannot prove it...you can be held for libel. And why did Clinton not turn around and put all of his "accusors" in jail for Libel and for making false statements about him? Because they were telling the truth and stating a fact that was found to be true.


----------



## Hans Adamson (Feb 7, 2008)

Brian Ralston @ Thu Feb 07 said:


> Hans Adamson @ Thu Feb 07 said:
> 
> 
> > If you are going to hold it against someone that they have been accused of wrong-doing, then I could just accuse you of something horrendous, and we can all repeat it over and over whenever we would want to smear you. Do you approve of that kind of behavior?
> ...


Brian, did you read my post above quoting the Wikipedia description of impeachment? Impeachment is a word describing a process in two stages, comparable to the process in the justice system, where an indictment can be brought (as it was by the republican majority in the House against President Clinton), and if the indictment is found valid it will proceed to trial (Senate hearing).

Using the word impeachment to somehow try to give the impression of the whole procedure with indictment and trial in the senate, when in fact the indictment charges against President Clinton were dismissed, and never brought to trial hearings in the Senate, is, to me, nothing short of disingenuous.


----------



## Brian Ralston (Feb 7, 2008)

Hans Adamson @ Thu Feb 07 said:


> Brian, did you read my post above quoting the Wikipedia description of impeachment? Impeachment is a word describing a process in two stages, comparable to the process in the justice system, where an indictment can be brought (as it was by the republican majority in the House against President Clinton), and if the indictment is found valid it will proceed to trial (Senate hearing).
> 
> Using the word impeachment to somehow try to give the impression of the whole procedure with indictment and trial in the senate, when in fact the indictment charges against President Clinton were dismissed, and never brought to trial hearings in the Senate, is, to me, nothing short of disingenious.



That is absolutely wrong Hans. You know wikipedia is maintained by just about anyone right. 

Impeachment is the term for the first stage of the two stage process. It is not a term for the entire process. It is a formal charge of misconduct while in office.

Whether the second stage goes forward or not is up to congress for whatever their reasons.

And again...Cilnton was disbarred for lying under oath. Which the Arkansas State Bar Association found had merit and was true. And they don't do that because he did nothing wrong. And that was the same reason for impeachment. Which again...is the fist stage only of a two stage process.


----------



## Hans Adamson (Feb 7, 2008)

Brian Ralston @ Thu Feb 07 said:


> Hans Adamson @ Thu Feb 07 said:
> 
> 
> > Brian, did you read my post above quoting the Wikipedia description of impeachment? Impeachment is a word describing a process in two stages, comparable to the process in the justice system, where an indictment can be brought (as it was by the republican majority in the House against President Clinton), and if the indictment is found valid it will proceed to trial (Senate hearing).
> ...


Whether or not Wikipedia is correct: Do you want to live in a society where a charge can be brought by political opponents, and then repeated in perpetuity as if valid, when in fact dismissed? It is ugly isn't it.


----------



## Brian Ralston (Feb 7, 2008)

JonFairhurst @ Thu Feb 07 said:


> Apparently, lying under oath isn't such a big deal after all...



Isn't that what the Clinton impeachment taught us? :roll:


----------



## Hans Adamson (Feb 7, 2008)

Brian Ralston @ Thu Feb 07 said:


> Despite the fact that I also said many posts ago that it was all water under the bridge...I will continue to answer your questions Hans...in the interests of having good political discussions.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Assume you have a 16-year old daughter. She is keeping her virginity by engaging in oral sex with her boyfriend. You suspect she is no longer a virgin, and confront her. She tells you she is not having sex. Is she a lier?

This was President Clinton's explanation for his southern use of the expression "having sex" or "having sexual relations"

Is this a undisputable example of lying to you?

It is also highly disputed that the special prosecutor would have any right start this whitch-hunt only for his own political reasons. 

Even if some would consider the answer in my initial question above to be "Yes, she is a lyer", as many people would say no, and in the case of a grown man many would say: "It is none of your business".


----------



## Hans Adamson (Feb 7, 2008)

[quote:db492a7b0d="Hans Adamson @ Thu Feb 07, 2008 12:04 pm"][quote:db492a7b0d="Brian Ralston @ Thu Feb 07, 2008 11:47 am"]Despite the fact that I also said many posts ago that it was all water under the bridge...I will continue to answer your questions Hans...in the interests of having good political discò'Ð   n¦m'Ð   n¦n'Ð   n¦o'Ð   n¦p'Ð   n¦q'Ð   n¦r'Ð   n¦s'Ð   n¦t'Ð   n¦u'Ð   n¦v'Ð   n¦w'Ð   n¦x'Ð   n¦y'Ð   n¦z'Ð   n¦{'Ð   n¦|'Ð   n¦}'Ð   n¦~'Ð   n¦'Ð   n¦€'Ð   n¦'Ð   n¦‚'Ð   n¦ƒ'Ð   n¦„'Ð   n¦…'Ð   n¦†'Ð   n¦‡'Ð   n¦ˆ'Ð   n¦‰'Ð   n¦Š'Ð   n¦‹'Ð   n¦Œ'Ð   n¦'Ð   n¦Ž'Ð   n¦'Ð   n¦'Ð   n¦‘'Ð   n¦’'Ð   n¦“'Ð   n¦”'Ð   n¦•'Ð   n¦–'Ð   n¦—'Ð   n¦˜'Ð   n¦™'Ð   n¦š'Ð   n¦›'Ð   n¦œ'Ð   n¦'Ð   n¦ž'Ð   n¦Ÿ'Ð   n¦ 'Ð   n¦¡'Ð   n¦¢'Ð   n¦£'Ð   n¦¤'Ð   n¦¥'Ð   n¦¦'Ð   n¦§'Ð   n¦¨'Ð   n¦©'Ð   n¦ª'Ð   n¦«'Ð   n¦¬'Ð   n¦­'Ð   n¦®'Ð   n¦¯'Ð   n¦°'Ð   n¦±'Ð   n¦²'Ñ   n¦³'Ñ   n¦´'Ñ   n¦µ'Ñ   n¦¶'Ñ   n¦·'Ñ   n¦¸'Ñ   n¦¹'Ñ   n¦º'Ñ   n¦»'Ñ   n¦¼'Ñ   n¦½'Ñ   n¦¾'Ñ   n¦¿'Ñ   n¦À'Ñ   n¦Á'Ñ   n¦Â'Ñ   n¦Ã'Ñ   n¦Ä'Ñ   n¦Å'Ñ   n¦Æ'Ñ   n¦Ç'Ñ   n¦È'Ñ   n¦É'Ñ   n¦Ê'Ñ   n¦Ë'Ñ   n¦Ì'Ñ   n¦Í'Ñ   n¦Î'Ñ   n¦Ï'Ñ   n¦Ð'Ñ   n¦Ñ'Ñ   n¦Ò'Ò   n¦Ó'Ò   n¦Ô'Ò   n¦Õ'Ò   n¦Ö'Ò   n¦×'Ò   n¦Ø'Ò   n¦Ù'Ò   n¦Ú'Ò   n¦Û'Ò   n¦Ü              ò'Ò   n¦Þ'Ó   n¦ß'Ó   n¦à'Ó   n¦á'Ó   n¦â'Ó   n¦ã'Ó   n¦ä'Ó   n¦å'Ó   n¦æ'Ó   n¦ç'Ó   n¦è'Ó   n¦é'Ó   n¦ê'Ô   n¦ë'Ô   n¦ì'Ô   n¦í'Ô   n¦î'Ô   n¦ï'Ô   n¦ð'Ô   n¦ñ'Ô   n¦ò'Ô   n¦ó'Ô   n¦ô'Ô   n¦õ'Ô   n¦ö'Ô   n¦÷'Ô   n¦ø'Ô   n¦ù'Ô   n¦ú'Ô   n¦û'Ô   n¦ü'Ô   n¦ý'Ô   n¦þ'Ô   n¦ÿ'Ô   n§ 'Ô   n§'Ô   n§'Ô   n§'Ô   n§'Ô   n§'Ô   n§'Ô   n§'Ô   n§'Ô   n§	'Ô   n§
'Ô   n§'Ô   n§'Ô   n§ 'Ô   n§'Ô   n§'Ô   n§'Ô   n§'Ô   n§'Ô   n§'Ô   n§'Ô   n§'Ô   n§'Ô   n§'Ô   n§'Ô   n§'Ô   n§'Ô   n§'Ô   n§'Ô   n§'Ô   n§'Ô   n§'Ô   n§ 'Ô   n§!'Ô   n§"'Ô   n§#'Ô   n§$'Ô   n§%'Ô   n§&'Ô   n§''Ô   n§('Ô   n§)'Ô   n§*'Ô   n§+'Ô   n§,'Ô   n§-'Ô   n§.'Ô   n§/'Ô   n§0'Ô   n§1'Ô   n§2'Ô   n§3'Ô   n§4'Ô   n§5'Ô   n§6'Ô   n§7'Ô   n§8'Õ   n§9'Õ   n§:'Õ   n§;'Õ   n§<'Õ   n§='Õ   n§>'Õ   n§?'Õ   n§@'Õ   n§A'Õ   n§B'Õ   n§C'Õ   n§D'Õ   n§E'Õ   n§F'Õ   n§G'Õ   n§H'Õ   n§I'Õ   n§J'Õ   n§K'Õ   n§L'Õ   n§M              ò'Õ   n§}'Õ   n§~'Õ   n§'Õ   n§€'Õ   n§'Õ   n§‚'Õ   n§ƒ'Õ   n§„'Õ   n§…'Õ   n§†'Õ   n§‡'Õ   n§ˆ'Õ   n§‰'Õ   n§Š'Õ   n§‹'Õ   n§Œ'Õ   n§'Õ   n§Ž'Õ   n§'Õ   n§'Õ   n§‘'Õ   n§’'Õ   n§“'Õ   n§”'Õ   n§•'Õ   n§–'Õ   n§—'Õ   n§˜'Õ   n§™'Õ   n§š'Õ   n§›'Õ   n§œ'Õ   n§'Õ   n§ž'Õ   n§Ÿ'Õ   n§ 'Ö   n§O'Ö   n§P'Ö   n§Q'Ö   n§R'Ö   n§S'Ö   n§T'Ö   n§U'Ö   n§V'Ö   n§W'Ö   n§X'Ö   n§Y'Ö   n§Z'Ö   n§['Ö   n§\'Ö   n§]'Ö   n§^'Ö   n§_'Ö   n§`'Ö   n§a'Ö   n§b'Ö   n§c'Ö   n§d'Ö   n§e'Ö   n§f'Ö   n§g'Ö   n§h'Ö   n§i'Ö   n§j'Ö   n§k'Ö   n§l'Ö   n§m'Ö   n§n'Ö   n§o'Ö   n§p'Ö   n§q'Ö   n§r'Ö   n§s'Ö   n§t'Ö   n§u'Ö   n§v'Ö   n§w'Ö   n§x'Ö   n§y'Ö   n§z'Ö   n§{'Ö   n§|'×   n§¡'×   n§¢'×   n§£'×   n§¤'Ø   n§¥'Ø   n§¦'Ø   n§§'Ø   n§¨'Ø   n§©'Ø   n§ª'Ø   n§«'Ø   n§¬'Ø   n§­'Ø   n§®'Ø   n§¯'Ø   n§°'Ù   n§±'Ù   n§²'Ù   n§³'Ù   n§´'Ù   n§µ'Ù   n§¶'Ú   n§·'Ú   n§¸'Ú   n§¹'Ú   n§º'Ú   n§»'Ú   n§¼'Ú   n§½'Ú   n§¾              ò'Ú   n§À'Ú   n§Á'Ú   n§Â'Ú   n§Ã'Ú   n§Ä'Û   n§Å'Û   n§Æ'Û   n§Ç'Û   n§È'Û   n§


----------



## Brian Ralston (Feb 7, 2008)

There is an awful lot of stuff there Kays which is not all related to each other...



midphase @ Thu Feb 07 said:


> Which is worse....lying under oath about getting a blowjob or avoiding testimony, making ambiguous statements, sidestepping questions,



Lying under Oath is lying under oath...no matter what the subject. 
The rest is politics as usual. Both parties do it. Again...no party has a monopoly on the ugly side of politics. We each just choose to see things in a certain way because of who's side we politically agree with or not.



midphase @ Thu Feb 07 said:


> and generally abusing political powers to make sure that nobody in your administration gets nailed for torture (waterboarding and who knows what else),



Waterboarding is not defined as torture by everyone. That is really all a matter of opinion. Lean back and hold your face under the running water of a shower and inhale. There, you just waterboarded yourself. And you know what...in my opinion...if we had someone in custody who had information about terrorist activity that would kill thousands if not millions of people if carried out...and nothing else had worked to interrogate this individual...I would waterboard them in a second if it were the only way to get them to talk. And it has gotten a lot of people to talk with info that has lead to more arrests. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed comes to mind. 



midphase @ Thu Feb 07 said:


> treason (ratting out a CIA operative),



The outing of Valerie Plame was not done by a white house person...the VP...or Scooter Libby. It was done by Richard Armitage. A known Bush opponent actually. He admitted it. And, she was not classified as covert at the time. Which has a very specific definition to actually be covert. Hence...why nothing has come about from it. When your husband is talking about what you do to the papers...and your friends know you work for the CIA...and you brag about your CIA job around town...you are not covert. Maybe in the movies you are...but not in real life. She was not covert...thus Armitage outing her as being with the CIA nothing a google search would not have found at the time. 



midphase @ Thu Feb 07 said:


> unfair labor practices (the firings of the state attorneys),



Again...politics as usual. And do you know how many state attorneys were fired by Clinton when he took office for similar political reasons? More than Bush did.



midphase @ Thu Feb 07 said:


> manipulation of information to influence congress (the whole WMD's thing),



Information that was believed at the time by many governments around the world including the British, Israel...Russia...and others. It was the fact that all of these world intelligence services believed it that made it...ummm....so believable. Saddam wanted the world to believe he had WMD. And true to form...they in turn did.



midphase @ Thu Feb 07 said:


> and a ton of other unethical and immoral things that this administration has done that we know about (and that I'm sure we'll be discovering for the next 20 years) that makes Nixon look like an amateur in comparison!



All a matter of personal opinion tainted by political orientation Kays. 
o-[][]-o


----------



## Brian Ralston (Feb 7, 2008)

SvK @ Thu Feb 07 said:


> Dude.......
> 
> get real. He's not going to be dusting the China.
> 
> SvK


 :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## JB78 (Feb 7, 2008)

Brian Ralston @ Thu Feb 07 said:


> There is an awful lot of stuff there Kays which is not all related to each other...
> Waterboarding is not defined as torture by everyone. That is really all a matter of opinion. Lean back and hold your face under the running water of a shower and inhale. There, you just waterboarded yourself. And you know what...in my opinion...if we had someone in custody who had information about terrorist activity that would kill thousands if not millions of people if carried out...and nothing else had worked to interrogate this individual...I would waterboard them in a second if it were the only way to get them to talk. And it has gotten a lot of people to talk with info that has lead to more arrests. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed comes to mind.



Ehhh, no Brian...you cannot seriously believe that "holding your head under water and inhaling" is the same as being held captive in a remote and secret location by people who you know most likely hate you in the first place. That would be scary in itself, but when you add the following I don't care if you're Jack Bauer you would still admit to anything while shitting yourself in the process: 

Technique
The waterboarding technique was characterized in 2005 by former CIA director Porter J. Goss as a "professional interrogation technique."[13] According to press accounts, a cloth or plastic wrap is placed over or in the person's mouth, and water is poured on to the person's head. As far as the details of this technique, press accounts differ - one article describes "dripping water into a wet cloth over a suspect's face",[17] another states that "cellophane is wrapped over the prisoner's face and water is poured over him."[18] CIA officers who have subjected themselves to the technique have lasted an average of 14 seconds before caving in.[3]

Two televised segments, one from Fox News and one from Current TV, demonstrate a waterboarding technique that may be the subject of these press descriptions.[19][20] In the videos, each correspondent is held against a board by the interrogators. In the Current TV segment, a rag is then forced into the correspondent's mouth, and several pitchers of water are poured onto the rag. The interrogators periodically remove the rag, and the correspondent is seen to gasp for breath. The Fox News segment mentions five "phases" of which the first three are shown. In the first phase, water is simply poured onto the correspondent's face. The second phase is similar to the Current TV episode. In phase three, plastic wrap is placed over the correspondent's face, and a hole is poked into it over his mouth. Water is poured into his mouth through the hole, causing him to gag. He mentions that it really does cause him to gag; that it could lead to asphyxiation; and that he could stand it for only a few seconds.

Dating back to the Spanish Inquisition, the technique has been favored because, unlike most other torture techniques, it produces no marks on the body.[21] As with any method of torture, information retrieved from waterboarding may not be reliable because a person under such duress may admit to anything, as harsh interrogation techniques lead to false confessions. "'The person believes they are being killed, and as such, it really amounts to a mock execution, which is illegal under international law,' claims John Sifton of Human Rights Watch

Source: Wikipedia


I read earlier in the thread that you don't trust wikipedia, but I believe they've got this one right.




This is probably a strange first post, been a lurker since May-07. I just couldn't shut up when I saw this crazy comment. No offense Brian, I'm sure you're a good guy but this was stretching it a bit don't you think?

Best regards
Jon


----------



## JonFairhurst (Feb 7, 2008)

SvK @ Thu Feb 07 said:


> get real. He's not going to be dusting the China.


Though he might be doing negotiations there...

In fact, I would think that Hillary would need to give Bill a specific job. Secretary of State maybe?


----------



## Bruce Richardson (Feb 7, 2008)

Brian Ralston @ Thu Feb 07 said:


> Waterboarding is not defined as torture by everyone. That is really all a matter of opinion. Lean back and hold your face under the running water of a shower and inhale.



Come on, Brian. Not even close.

The technique is far more sinister than that. The plastic/wet cloth over the face serves as a one way valve.

Water goes in your nostrils, a trickle. That's all it takes. You're able to take it for a second. This is your "shower" phase.

Pretty soon, your nasal cavities and sinuses have filled. This hurts like hell, but you're still in control. For a minute. You purposefully "blow out" in an attempt to clear...you've got a lungful of air. Maybe you can ration out half of it, and cheat some in via your mouth.

But you can't, because the cloth immediately snaps back to seal your mouth. In fact, you take in some water. Maybe you're extraordinary, and are still in control. But even if you are, you have only a little time before you have to try breathing again. You involuntarily exhale, this time.

The "one way valve" lets your last reserve of air out. Then when your body tries to inhale, it seals, and you take in only water. In fact, now, there is nothing but water...water in your mouth, water in your entire nasal/sinus cavity, water in your throat. Now you've sucked water into your windpipe...so your head and sinuses are full, now you've sucked water into your windpipe and maybe at least a little into the lungs. There's nothing available to you but water. And you are probably now at the verge of passing out due to lack of oxygen.

"Official" drowning/gag reflexes kick in, some of the most physically violent your body is programmed to execute. You are no longer in control. You do probably piss and shit yourself. You very likely pass out, or create severe damage to your limbs that are clamped to the board. You maybe even break a wrist or ankle.

Hardly "a little water up the nose."


----------



## JonFairhurst (Feb 7, 2008)

Brian Ralston @ Thu Feb 07 said:


> Waterboarding is not defined as torture by everyone. That is really all a matter of opinion. Lean back and hold your face under the running water of a shower and inhale. There, you just waterboarded yourself. And you know what...in my opinion...if we had someone in custody who had information about terrorist activity that would kill thousands if not millions of people if carried out...and nothing else had worked to interrogate this individual...I would waterboard them in a second if it were the only way to get them to talk. And it has gotten a lot of people to talk with info that has lead to more arrests. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed comes to mind.



Now you're talking out of both sides of your mouth. 

Side One: It's not torture - "Lean back and hold your face under the running water of a shower and inhale. There, you just waterboarded yourself." Dry off, get dressed and go to work. No big deal! I do it every morning!

Side Two: It forces people to talk! "...it has gotten a lot of people to talk with info that has lead to more arrests."

If it forces people to talk against their will for fear of death, how can it not be torture? If it weren't torturous, why would they talk?

The only reason people are saying it's not torture is because they want their buddies to avoid prison. They want a legal gray area that allows them to torture without consequences.

And by the way, it's not simulated drowning. It IS drowning - just not to death. (So it is assumed.) That's like giving somebody a "simulated" beating, a "simulated" gunshot or "simulated" starvation - just because it doesn't kill them doesn't mean it's "simulated."

If starving people of food is illegal, then starving people of air should be no less illegal. Starvation takes weeks to kill you. Suffocation kills within minutes. There is nothing more immediately critical to life than oxygen.

BTW, I'm a masters swimmer. I can do a dolphin kick on my back from wall to wall in a 25 meter pool. And if somebody ties me down and suffocates me and I survive, I will hunt them down...


----------



## Ashermusic (Feb 7, 2008)

SvK @ Thu Feb 07 said:


> Ashermusic,
> 
> Sorry to disappoint you but here is the tally:
> 
> ...



Well it depends on who you trust as a source and it keeps changing day to day but at the moment http://www.cnn.com/POLITICS/ has is as HRC 1033, Obama 927.

I still think Bill Clinton was one of the two best presidents in my lifetime and I would happily elect him again if I could. But since I cannot, Hillary will do.

And once again, at the risk of being the skunk at the picnic in this forum as I so frequently seem to be, while I appreciate your enthusiasm, your behavior here is reminiscent of teenage girls screaming at the Beatles in 1964. You really ought to take a more grown up approach to this.


----------



## Brian Ralston (Feb 7, 2008)

Jon...I will give you that the entire process of waterboarding would be a terrible experience and nothing easy. But, the fundamental reason it is so terrifying (besides the outside theatrics)...is the stimulation of the gag reflex with continuous running water that makes your body think it is suffocating...but it isn't. Impending doom sets in. My point in sarcastically saying to hold back your head under the shower and breath in (while extremely overly simplistic), will stimulate the exact same reflex as waterboarding and thus feel similar in terms of the breathing...or feeling like you are not getting enough air. 

Whether valuable info can be obtained or not using the technique??? It has been shown to work with some people. The information obtained from Khalid Sheikh Mohammed using the technique was shown to be extremely useful. It was the only thing that broke him after all the other more "tame" interrogation tactics that were tried failed. 

Now, if one wants to make the argument that as a society...we should draw the line with waterboarding because we are "better than that" and should be above harsh interrogation tactics like waterboarding...then fine. I can see that argument. I really can. But then I keep coming back to the fact that if the choice is to waterboard a known terrorist who has information on a nuclear bomb plot that will kill thousands if not hundreds of thousands...and to not waterboard him and let him sit there while the plan continues forward...I am sorry, I would waterboard him. I may not have felt that way before 9/11...but since that event, my stance on these individuals is more more....well....heartless...to be frank. 

o-[][]-o


----------



## Brian Ralston (Feb 7, 2008)

Bruce Richardson @ Thu Feb 07 said:


> Come on, Brian. Not even close.



Seeeee.....I knew I could eventually bring you out of hiding Bruce.
 o-[][]-o


----------



## SvK (Feb 7, 2008)

Ashermusic @ Thu Feb 07 said:


> I still think Bill Clinton was one of the two best presidents in my lifetime and I would happily elect him again if I could. But since I cannot, Hillary will do.



Asher,

As far as I can tell, nepotism was never a recipe for superior leadership. Just look at George W. Bush.

SvK


----------



## aeneas (Feb 7, 2008)

Premise:


Brian Ralston @ Thu 07 Feb said:


> Waterboarding is not defined as torture by everyone. That is really all a matter of opinion. Lean back and hold your face under the running water of a shower and inhale. There, you just waterboarded yourself. And you know what...in my opinion...if we had someone in custody who had information about terrorist activity that would kill thousands if not millions of people if carried out...and nothing else had worked to interrogate this individual...I would waterboard them in a second if it were the only way to get them to talk.


Rationale:


JB78 @ Thu 07 Feb said:


> a cloth or plastic wrap is placed over or in the person's mouth, and water is poured on to the person's head
> ... ... ...





Bruce Richardson @ Thu 07 Feb said:


> The technique is far more sinister than that. The plastic/wet cloth over the face serves as a one way valve. Water goes in your nostrils,
> ... ... ...


Conclusion:


Brian Ralston @ Thu 07 Feb said:


> It has been shown to work with some people. ... the technique was shown to be extremely useful... if the choice is to waterboard a known terrorist who has information on a nuclear bomb plot that will kill thousands if not hundreds of thousands...and to not waterboard him and let him sit there while the plan continues forward...I am sorry, I would waterboard him. ... my stance on these individuals is more more....well....heartless...to be frank.


_Brian, a waterboarded guy told us that you have some info on a nuke attack. Oh, you have no idea about it? Boys, get him to the waterboard._

After all those thoughtful, reasonable, valuable points above, THAT is your conclusion: "useful, working technique" ?!? Wow, I am in complete awe with that. Truly breathtaking. You say your stance is "well....heartless" ?!? Man... How is that for the understatement of the year? 

Brian Ralston, I may be wrong, and it would probably seem "heartless" to say this in public, but I think you are a bloody psychotic, to be frank. No joke, you will probably need the waterboard to change this impression of mine.

A simple, sincere, sorrowful, heartfelt take back might do it though...


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Feb 7, 2008)

aeneas @ 7/2/2008 said:


> ...I may be wrong, and it would probably seem "heartless" to say this in public, but I think you are a bloody psychotic, to be frank.



Not cool, really not cool. I honestly believe that there is no room in this forum for this kind of personal attack on another VI member. Consider this a warning.


----------



## aeneas (Feb 7, 2008)

Ned Bouhalassa @ Thu 07 Feb said:


> aeneas @ 7/2/2008 said:
> 
> 
> > ...I may be wrong, and it would probably seem "heartless" to say this in public, but I think you are a bloody psychotic, to be frank.
> ...


I feel honored by your warning. However, FYI, I will always call a bloody psychotic anyone (VI member, CIA member, American president, or whatever) who advertises torture, in public. Now, ban me for that, or 'warn' me some more, or do whatever you consider to be 'cool'. Just don't expect me to feel sorry for 'hurting the feelings' of a torture advertiser. We're talking tough guys here.

How about a little more waterboard advertising, would that bother you? Or maybe that would be 'cool', or unimportant, to your eyes? You don't seem to care much about that. Is there "room in this forum" for that? Do you feel like you're some moral authority here, only because you can warn and ban? Then tell me: How come, Mister Moral Authority, that you don't see torture advertising on this VI board that you oh so proudly moderate, how come you don't see it as outrageous, how come that you chose to close your eyes to it?

Now, you consider yourself warned.


----------



## artsoundz (Feb 7, 2008)

edit


----------



## aeneas (Feb 7, 2008)

artsoundz @ Thu 07 Feb said:


> Aeneas- you know very well what a psychosis is. This aint it.


I know. I have been deliberately unfair in sticking that label. I actually hate sticking labels on people, never done it before. I have made one exception. I said I might be wrong. I was clearly wrong, and I will continue to be wrong about sticking that label. Yet, by psychotic, I didn't mean the mental illness, but the symptom, the mental attitude of someone who, at some point, seem to be insensitive to human suffering, also seem to find 'superior' justification for infringing pain on human beings. Here is a couple of notoriously 'psychotic' attitudes:

http://www.andante.com/article/article.cfm?id=14377&highlight=1&highlightterms=&lstKeywords= (http://www.andante.com/article/article. ... tKeywords=)

Also, this one:
“Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we.” -- GWB
http://thinkexist.com/quotation/our_ene ... 39878.html 
(or, for those who can't read  - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z8pvU1iyT3c)


----------



## Bruce Richardson (Feb 7, 2008)

@ Brian,

You are still oversimplifying waterboarding. It causes injury. It doesn't simulate drowning. It is drowning. The only thing that prevents the person from drowning is the cessation of the torture, immediately before the person dies.

A one-way valve is constructed, either of plastic or wet cloth, that allows air out, but only water in. Eventually, either asphyixiation or the gag reflex causes the victim to exhale all of his air. Then, only water.

As I mentioned before, one of the primary features of the waterboarding technique is the "board." Look at a waterboard sometime, there are plenty of photos and drawings of them.  Your limbs are shackled in steel. People have ripped their joints apart because of the violent physical reaction triggered in the body.

This is part of the torture.

You seem to concede that "we're better than that" is a valid idea. Well, then. We're better than that.

Rather than spending our time and money creating means and methods of destroying people, we should be spending our money teaching, educating, lifting the less fortunate.

This is how to win a ò((   nÀz((   nÀ{((   nÀ|((   nÀ}((   nÀ~((   nÀ((   nÀ€()


----------



## kid-surf (Feb 8, 2008)

Ashermusic @ Thu Feb 07 said:


> midphase @ Thu Feb 07 said:
> 
> 
> > "Well, the other thing he did wrong was have low standards. It would take a hell of a lot more than Monica Lewinsky to tempt me to cheat on my wife."
> ...




I just prefer a woman to not be the same age as my mom. The 'dressing like a man' part is kind of a turn-off too... 

My wife is pretty smart though...


----------



## Christian Marcussen (Feb 8, 2008)

I think you are... :shock:


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Feb 8, 2008)

I'd find you sexy if you were smart, Jay.


----------



## Frederick Russ (Feb 8, 2008)

Because of the dynamics of off-topic discussion, in my opinion this is one instance where a moderator's influence might be perceived as an intrusion rather than as a help to healthy free discussion. Its my belief that you're all grown ups here in a grown up discussion area and therefore should be able to sort it out yourself. To me, Off Topics, especially in regards to Politics, is a minefield which really has little or nothing to do with music. Personally I've steered clear of it and let the heated discussions and subsequent resolutions unfold naturally. My own approach is that its an island unto itself.

Technically, I believe Aeneus was in the wrong to attack Ned and wrong to label Brian which could have gotten repercussions elsewhere. However, I have to take into consideration the nature of the discussion and where it is being held (off topics). Brian was on the attack initially and although he had been labeled in the heat of the argument, I've heard nothing from him in complaint. A complaint from him would probably carry far more weight however.

For Off Topic Only, we've adopted have a hands-off policy unless a member complains or under special extraordinary circumstances detrimental to VI itself.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Feb 8, 2008)

In that case I'd like to apologize to Jay: I *wouldn't* find you sexy if you were smart.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Feb 8, 2008)

i guess one shouldn't make light of the deep seriousness of the situation, Frederick, but I think in this thread it was a ticky-tack no-harm-no-foul non-call



that nobody other than Ned was bothered by - including Brian.


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Feb 8, 2008)

I apologize for being heavy-handed towards aenas. I will now gently move on <opens door> to other Subjects. <closes door as gently as possible so as not to wake up too many members>


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Feb 8, 2008)




----------



## Hans Adamson (Feb 8, 2008)

Come on Guys,

Ned's gone. Let's tear down the place. /\~O


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Feb 8, 2008)




----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Feb 8, 2008)

Hey Batzdorf, stop playing with pictures and go do some work!


----------



## Mike Greene (Feb 8, 2008)

Are you SURE you want to be a night club comic?

- Arthur


----------



## aeneas (Feb 8, 2008)

Mike Greene @ Fri 08 Feb said:


> Are you SURE you want to be a night club comic?
> 
> - Arthur


Probably not as sure as you think that you already are, Arthur.

As I said, we two have nothing in common, not even the minimal decency to try to understand what the other does mean to say. So -- until you figure out who's making fun of whom, who's more (or less) entertaining than the other, and why -- I'd suggest a truce.


----------



## Brian Ralston (Feb 8, 2008)

I am back posting here again folks not to rejoin the political discussion...but just to apologize if the discussion of my political beliefs offended anyone. My being honest with my thought process was not intended to be offensive. Tone is always hard to read in one's words. But I realize my writing can be sarcastic and direct at times. 

We are all passionate about our beliefs though...otherwise there would not be political discussions here at all. I choose my words carefully on this or any other forum and do my best to not attack anyone personally. I have been bad about that in the past (especially on another forum we all use to know)...and I hope to continue to get better with that in the future. 

Thank you Ned for commenting when it got personal. I just decided at that point (after coming home to read the posts we are referring to) that I had simply played too much of my "hand" in the political discussion and rather than continue to put myself in a position where I (and thus my reputation) could be labeled as this or that on a public forum...I just decided to bow out right now. (Not from the forum...but from this topic). I don't see a reason to escalate this or any other off-topic disagreement like this any further and thus the best thing was just to step away and let the fire die down and it would take care of itself. I have a high amount of respect for every professional here. I enjoy our discussions...Heather and I enjoy our yearly NAMM dinners with everyone and any other time any of us have time to see each other in "real life." 

Sorry Steven for being a part of taking your positive thread in a negative direction. I didn't mean to rain on the parade. I am truly happy to see your excitement in your candidate. I only wish (as I am sure you do too)...that more of the "younger folks" in this country like us would get as passionate and excited about our country's politics. Kudos to you. 

 o-[][]-o 

See you all in other threads. 

Brian


----------



## Mike Greene (Feb 8, 2008)

Brian, I'm just a minor player in this whole thread, but I don't see how anyone could think you were the slightest bit out of line in how you expressed your opinions. Far from it IMHO.

Ill informed and wrong? Yes.* 
Rude or out of line? Definitely not.





* Note - As we've all been told many times, any time you disagree with Nick, you are, by definition, wrong.


----------



## artsoundz (Feb 8, 2008)

edited


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Feb 8, 2008)

* That's right!

And this kind of conversation is way more interesting than samples and computers.


----------



## Bruce Richardson (Feb 9, 2008)

Well, I guess I can join the circle jerk...wheeee...

In all seriousness, Frederick's entry to reiterate VI's policies gave me great joy. I am very happy here.

What stands out in this forum is that the true intellectual content of the writing is considered, not just some little gotcha. It has been really wonderful to see the evolution of this forum, into a place where musicians can be musicians. The signal to noise ratio here is very impressive, and done with the lightest and most considerate moderation I've seen in some time.

And I appreciate, deeply, the ability to discuss politics and difficult subjects in an off-topic area that operates as Frederick outlined in his post.

I think Ned was taking his job as moderator seriously, and I appreciate that, too. I'm very glad that we've defined the playing rules for off-topic, so that misunderstandings can be avoided.

But most of all, I'm glad to see this idea put forward that communities are inherently self-righting. Ultimately, that is what creates community, a set of common stakes. When the stakes are all in one basket, there is very little motivation to care for the community itself. Saying as much has gotten me banned from other so-called communities. I am thrilled to see VI Control continue to evolve into maturity.

And, to get back on topic, I'm THRILLED to see Obama polling 7-8 points over McCain. I like Hillary, but I want to see a president Obama. It would change, literally, everything.


----------



## Ashermusic (Feb 9, 2008)

> And, to get back on topic, I'm THRILLED to see Obama polling 7-8 points over McCain. I like Hillary, but I want to see a president Obama. It would change, literally, everything.



IF Obama wins he nomination and IF he then wins the general election and IF he turns out to be competent, it may change some things but will not change others

Al Qaeda will not say, "OK they now have a black Chrisitan president with some Muslim background so we can immediately suspend terrorist activities around the world."Nor will Hamas. And Iran and Syria i.e. will not suddenly stop training and supplying them.

Iran will not cease to try to become the dominant power in the Miiddle East nor will Russia and China cease their misadventures.

It will not be cheaper to develop alternative energy sources nor will it be easier to get Americans to give up their gas guzzling SUVs. Nor will China and the other nations that are contributing to global warming and green house gasses far more than we are take the financial hit required to stem it.

Nor will internecine tribal warfare that contributes to the terrible killings, disease, and starvation that is going on in Africa cease because of Obama.

You get my drift.

That said, what MAY change is that people around the world will feel more hopeful that the U.S. will be a more transparent and benevolent government that is not as focused to trying to recreate the world in its own image.

He MAY be able to move Congress and his administration to engage in multi-national global warming measures.

He will start the withdrawal in Iraq and the Iraqi government MAY get its act together, which they are IMHOI capable of doing.

He MAY get the economy going in the right direction with tax cuts for those who actually need them, decreased wasteful spending but greater spending for infrastructure, education, etc.

He will appoint justices to the Supreme Court that will keep it more Centrist.

But I also believe that given the same IFs, so will Hillary Clinton and I am more confident that she will run a competent administration.


----------



## Bruce Richardson (Feb 9, 2008)

I actually don't ascribe any of those things to an Obama presidency.

First of all, he's more electable. Period.

I agree with you that Hillary has a good intellect, and she's got a great team.

I find Obama to be her intellectual peer. He demonstrates it in several ways.

His restraint is impeccable.

His honesty is palpable. That's a big deal, because hers is often suspect. I don't find her inherently dishonest. I do observe much evidence that she spins a lot more than he does. I don't like spin. I like transparency.

Colin Powell has all but said he's getting behind Obama. He was the single "Bushy" with the fortitude to withdraw from that administration and with consummate restraint, make it very clear why. It speaks volumes that he's now interested in Obama.

Hillary cannot unite this country. It's foolish to imagine she can. It flies in the face of every bit of evidence (take this and other related threads among fairly intellectual and openminded types as a perfect example). She inspires RABID hatred in Republicans. She doesn't impress independents according to all available data.

Obama, on the other hand, has demonstrated a capability to draw huge independent and even Republican support.

On its face, that is what it is. On a deeper level, it's a tonic this country badly needs. We face, literally, a partisan gridlock that has created social inertia among Americans.

Finally, I don't know if you travel much. I do. The last eight years have been absolutely disastrous in terms of our world standing. You can't sit in a bar in another country without being dragged into a political discussion. And the overwhelming sense that one gets in these talks is sadness. The world needs America. We didn't create democracy and hope by a long shot, but we sure refined and popularized it. Our beacon has been snuffed out by eight years of horrid mismanagement, and I cannot remember a time in my entire life that I actually don't want to travel to some parts of the world.

Would Clinton be another Bush? Of course not.

But here again, the baggage comes into play. You cannot possibly argue that much of the energy in a Clinton administration will be burned away by the divisive consequences that WILL play out among Republicans. She will be investigated and taken to bits from day one. Bill's penis will be under 24-hour telephoto observation, and if you think it won't land in some cute little bitch at some point over the next four years, you are insane. It will. He's a cocksman, and he'll sink that thing in the first plate of pink snapper that presents itself.

I don't fault him for it. I don't fault anyone for it, or frankly care.

But here again, it's the GENERATED INERTIA that will result, even from the quest to catch him doing it. Even if he never does it.

All that baggage comes with Hillary. None of that baggage comes with Obama.

Then, there's the gigantic political plusses that come with Obama. The aforementioned worldwide plusses, that you seem to concede...

Now, add the engagement of a new generation in American politics. That alone is a brilliant and desirable bonus. Old farts like us are sometimes progressive. But step outside of L.A. or other metropolitan areas, and you'll find a horrifying reality: Most middle aged white people in rural popluations are still prejudiced thinkers in myriad ways. Come down here to Texas, and check out the average rural voter.

People still say nigger here, Jay. People say that word in Arkansas. People say that word in Louisiana, and through the south...without blinking an eye. Even here in Dallas, a place where the population is presumably a little more educated and polished, I watched with absolute horror last week as my neighborhood gave a presentation to another neighborhood association, and one of my board members started railing against Mexicans in the neighborhood.

I saw people squirm, and it was heartbreaking to me that our presentation was tainted by it.

This is reality.

It's not anyone's imagination that Barack Obama has the potential to heal these divides. It is the result of every scrap of evidence, using the best known techniques. He bridges these gaps. And if you take the most important things on our plate as a country and really examine them, our primary need is to break through the divisiveness of the previous generation, and to chart a different course.

All other things being approximately equal, which they are, Obama is the best choice among (again) an approximately equal set of choices. His strengths align more closely to the long term goals, and the low-hanging fruit, of the next four years' opportunities.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Feb 9, 2008)

"Al Qaeda will not say, "OK they now have a black Chrisitan president with some Muslim background so we can immediately suspend terrorist activities around the world."Nor will Hamas. And Iran and Syria i.e. will not suddenly stop training and supplying them. 

Iran will not cease to try to become the dominant power in the Miiddle East nor will Russia and China cease their misadventures."

But just maybe we'd cease *our* misadventures, which would have a ripple effect on policy in Iran, Russia, and China. They wouldn't feel as much of a need to counterbalance us. And Al Queda wouldn't have nearly the PR fodder they have now.

Zen. Action and reaction.

Behaving stupidly and crudely doesn't work most of the time.


----------



## Fernando Warez (Feb 9, 2008)

> The world needs America



I don't know but i think you've been reading a little too much in that. How about the world needs peace? Or maybe thats what you were trying to say?..


----------



## aeneas (Feb 9, 2008)

Fernando Warez @ Sat 09 Feb said:


> > The world needs America
> 
> 
> I don't know but i think you've been reading a little too much in that. How about the world needs peace? Or maybe thats what you were trying to say?..


Fernando,

Remember the expression "Pax Romana"? The Romans were not warriors, conquerors, etc. -- they were peaceful guys. They were the good fellas. They were only making peace, imposing peace if necessary, 'their' peace, to the barbaric world. All those legions, everywhere, were peace-keeping forces. That's exactly what America is doing now, with the rest of the world, with the 'barbaric' world: keeping the peace. Their peace. "Pax Americana". Ain't that good? Don't you feel safe with all those Yankees everywhere? (well, almost, they're working on it...) 

As it looks, their peace seems to be needing a continuous state of war. For that, they need enemies. Enemies are like fuel, providing them with justifications and reasons for everything they do (for overriding UNO decisions, for example). Now, that Russia is friendly, and every piece of technology is made in China, now it's the Middle East that 'has to be' their enemy. I wonder, when those muslim guys will lighten up and apply Gandhi's fight strategy (non-violent civil disobedience and calm refuse to cooperate), what will America do? Call the boys back home? Find some other enemies? Create new enemies? Enemies is far easier to make than friends. "Divide et impera" -- how do you say that in American? o 

Pax vobiscum,
Gaius Julius Caesar Octavianus Augustus aka Bushus


----------



## Ashermusic (Feb 9, 2008)

Bruce Richardson @ Sat Feb 09 said:


> I actually don't ascribe any of those things to an Obama presidency.
> 
> First of all, he's more electable. Period.
> 
> ...



Bruce, I respect your opinion and if Obama is elected please believe me when I say I hope you are right and I am wrong. But I believe that the country is fundamentally divided nearly 50-50 on so many big issues that no leader, no matter how charismatic, no matter how little baggage he/she brings to the table, can unite us so I want someone who I believe can fight effectively for the objectives I share and that person to me is Hillary. I am just not convinced yet that Obama is tough enough or experienced enough to go against the kind of crap that the Republicans will throw, never mind our adversaries. Obama noticeably withered a little just under Bill Clinton's relatively mild attacks. He may just be too nice for the job.

And if there is still as much prejudice as you say in rural areas among voters who are not young than I really have to question how electable he will be, polls or no polls. We here in CA remember "Bradley Syndrome" where the polls showed him winning the governorship handily because people did not want to tell pollsters that they would not vote for a black man but then did not.

Well, it is going to be interesting, whatever happens.


----------



## Bruce Richardson (Feb 9, 2008)

Fernando Warez @ Sat Feb 09 said:


> > The world needs America
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know but i think you've been reading a little too much in that. How about the world needs peace? Or maybe thats what you were trying to say?..



Yes, that's very vaguely stated. I'll clean it up.

America is at its worst right now, and I feel badly for it. Unfortunately, the electorate voted this administration into office--twice. I think you can rest assured that if even the most stupidly naive American had the advantage of hindsight, the world would never have heard of the Bush administration.

The reason I say "The world needs America," is that the U.S., by virtue of previous generations of leadership, has had a generally positive effect on the world. We have had the resources to create opportunity.

Those resources have been BADLY squandered by the Bush Administration.

America is capable of "waging peace" with far greater precision than it wages war. It is my hope that we will begin contributing positively to the world again, once the embarrassment of this President is behind us.

I am very grateful that in my travels I have generally felt that people of other countries do not blame individual Americans for the horrible misdeeds of our current leadership. I have found myself asking people to please forgive us for having elected such a terrible president.

I hope very soon that the U.S. can break away from the darkness of the last eight years, and earn the trust of other nations. I think our country has a lot to offer.


----------



## Bruce Richardson (Feb 9, 2008)

@Jay...

Ditto, in that I hope if Hillary is elected that my predictions are wrong. In a perfect...scratch that, even SANE world, she would not have to put up with the ration of shit she gets from the right. As if they've got any moral standing after eight years of President Chimpy and his Brownshirts.


----------



## blue (Feb 9, 2008)

Bruce Richardson @ Sat Feb 09 said:


> America is capable of "waging peace" with far greater precision than it wages war. It is my hope that we will begin contributing positively to the world again, once the embarrassment of this President is behind us.



That's my hope too, but I wonder if we're in it too deep already. Our reputation abroad might heal relatively quickly, but only if we let it. I'm afraid too many Americans have bought into the idea that we can and must wage a war against terrorism in the traditional sense. Politicians brave enough to shun this idea and take a nuanced and longer term approach will face too much internal resistance to get far I would think. Bush abused our vulnerability following 9/11 and made it appear permanent, providing enough momentum to wage 2 wars and counting. Getting beyond that may take a long time, and no one person or administration is going to reverse the damage done.

That said, I do think it's time for a leader that can get the ball rolling in the right direction. Of all the candidates, Obama is the only one I see who has the will and the ability to do it. The buzz surrounding his campaign and short tenure in Washington is not just pure marketing magic. There's more to it, and people are feeling it. Seeing young people care enough to turn out the vote is exciting.


----------



## Fernando Warez (Feb 9, 2008)

aeneas, I'm not sure if you are serious or sarcastic when you say America is spreading peace, do you really believe that?



Bruce, theres no need to apologize. I know the average American is not to blame, and I'm also aware who the bad guys are. I'm not talking about the puppets who get elected or even the neocons here even though they are bad. I'm talking about the real rulers, those who work behind the scene and have been doing so for a very long time now. People so powerful they can create their own reality and make it ours. People who can write history. For example, they wanted to build a pipeline in Afghanistan but couldn't because of the Taliban and are now building that pipeline and 4 us military bases along that pipeline. The company building that pipeline is UNOCAL. Hamid Karzai was a consultant for UNOLAC and he made sure the construction would start the day after he became the prime minister of Afghanistan. Same thing in Iraq. Saddam was an obstacle for their plans and they got rid of him. They wanted to increase executive power - they got it. They wanted a stronger military presence in the region to secure those vital resources -they got it. etc.. And all this was made possible because of the war on terror. 

Frankly, i think it's time people get off reaction mode and start looking at the big picture and ask who benefits from events like 911 and the war on terror. We are to predictable and easily manipulated. Time to take the red pill.

Also, i hate to rain an anyone's parade but if one looks closely one can see the dems and the Republicans and tow faces of the same coin. And that goes for other countries as well.


----------



## JonFairhurst (Feb 9, 2008)

I attended a Washington State Democratic Caucus today. Statewide we went 68% for Obama. 

Our little rural voting precinct and a few others in our legislative district met in the Police station. We had roughly four times the attendance that we had in 2004. More than half of us met outside - we swamped the fire code limits.

In my precinct we voted 17 for Obama, 4 for Clinton and 3 uncommitted. That translates to 4 Obama delegates, 1 Clinton delegate and 1 uncommitted delegate. These are not national delegates, but delegates to the Legislative District and County Conventions. A smaller number will go to the state convention and a smaller number yet will go to Denver.

I am a "big fish in the little pond" delegate for Obama.

I attended the county convention four years ago and it was a blast. We learned about the state of our local party, heard speeches from local and statewide candidates, and approved our resolutions to propose at the state convention. The place was fairly packed last year. I can't imagine us fitting under one roof this year.

Regardless of your party affiliation, I recommend attending your local conventions, if possible. You'll get an idea of how much you agree with and how many of your party is nuts! You'll also learn if your party leadership is competent or disorganized or unfocused. Frankly, some of our resolutions were "out there", and not all of them were consistent, but 80%+ were good. And the local party leaders and candidates were excellent.

I do have to admit, however, that it's easier to type one's political opinion into a browser than it is to make your point quickly and clearly face to face and in real time. And I look forward to seeing some of those familiar faces again at our conventions in April.


----------



## aeneas (Feb 9, 2008)

Fernando Warez @ Sun 10 Feb said:


> Time to take the red pill.


uhm... i dunno... and then, how would I go down the white rabbit's hole?...





:|


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Feb 10, 2008)

Fernando may have a slight tendency to go just a little OTT in my opinion, but I hope everyone realizes that what he says about Unocal and Afghanistan is absolutely true. That's not the only reason for the war there, but it's definitely part of the mix.

It's always about resources. That's my theory and I'm sticking with it.

But obviously I disagree that Democrats and Republicans are two sides of the same coin.

Which brings up another point: I really resent all the hype about Hillary's "negative rating." It's only feeding the swift boat monsters, who I feel should be sent to prison. It's simply a crime that these hideously unethical monsters get to have a disproportionate voice in our republic. That's not free speech, it's lying and slander.

Hillary is an excellent candidate. So is Obama, and McCain used to be (before he started trying to "unify" the Republican party). And even Huckabee. The calibre of the candidates is way higher than in the past several elections.

(Al Gore would have been a terrific President, but he was a terrible candidate.)


----------

