Politics United States Presidential Election Thread

[xi0]

That's simply not true. The truth is that if people in China or Mexico, for example, are willing to work for the same job for lesser pay, then in my opinion they deserve it. It's called competition.

Just FYI, The Heritage Foundation was started by Joseph Coors, a conservative. It's funded by conservatives, and it's a...conservative organization. So keep in mind where your getting your information from. The same goes for liberal media organizations.

Why can't there be an unbiased source of information out there?

 

[mrcongojack]

I disagree....if you're referring to outsourcing, it's really not such a bad thing. For those who's lost their jobs, I sympathize for them.

But don't give up, you can find jobs elsewhere. Be a greater competitor. That's just the way free trade works.

There's some conspiracy going on that outsourcing is a corporate evil practice.

That's simply not true. The truth is that if people in China or Mexico, for example, are willing to work for the same job for lesser pay, then in my opinion they deserve it. It's called competition.

There's competition, and then there's exploitation. American workers simply can't compete with workers in the third world willing to work for a few bucks a day. For people in America to compete with the Chinese, they would have to endure a severe drop in quality of living. Anyone willing to do that would be nuts.

I'm not faulting the corporations. The people that run them are doing exactly what corporate officers are supposed to do - make more money. Obviously these guys have basic human compassion, but their main priority is to increase profits for their stockholders.

What really bothers me is unrepatriated earnings (earnings claimed to be invested overseas to reduce the amount the US can tax them.) The policy basically makes it economically smarter to keep money and assets overseas, so the CEOs are obviously going to keep them their. The US should end this loophole (either by closing it or by lowering the taxes in the US...preferably the former) to get corporations to bring that money back to the states.

He did something similar to this, too, when he put "baby" and "STD" in the same sentence, as if to say babies are punishment.

Did he misspoke, or was it a Freudian slip?

Either way, it came out wrong. No amount of explanation or "uncles" will revise that sentence.


I expect a lot from Obama, because I really think he's an intelligent guy...but lately he and Clinton are just full of...well...shit.

So are you saying being a teenage mother/father is a good thing? I agree with Obama on this issue actually. Teen pregnancy is bad for all involved. The parents are less likely to continue education and will more than likely end up in dead end jobs, and the child is going to have the pleasure of growing up in a broken home. While poorly worded, I think he was dead on. It is important to teach kids about condoms and birth control. Teenagers have been having sex since the dawn of man, and no matter how many abstinence lectures they attend hormones will get the best of them.

And he and McCain are doing much better in terms of gaffes. They might misspeak or mistake "sunni" for "shia" every once in a while, but at least they don't flat out lie about sniper fire.

The problem Obama and Clinton are having is that this primary has gone on too long. The longer it goes on, the more stupid things they are going to do.

 

[miyi]

Just FYI, The Heritage Foundation was started by Joseph Coors, a conservative. It's funded by conservatives, and it's a...conservative organization. So keep in mind where your getting your information from. The same goes for liberal media organizations.

Why can't there be an unbiased source of information out there?

Believe me, I read what I consider (my opinion of course) liberally-biased media (mostly TV news), as well as conservative media. AP news is usually the most unbiased wire news, but I regularly use Reuters (actually Reuters is slightly left-leaning).

Aside from that, I listen to a lot of radio news because I'm usually on the road.

I listen to both sides, and what I get from these two I have formulated my opinions from them. Foreign policy, I trust Republicans, while I usually side with Democrats when it comes to domestic issues.

When I give conservative viewpoints, it's usually to counter-argue what I feel (again, my opinion) is a liberal-leaning Mangahelpers audience.

I will never advise anyone to follow blindly just one viewpoint, in fact, I urge everyone to look at everything from all angles, before coming up with their own convictions. This is what makes us better informed on issues.

As far as free-market policy is concerned, I believe that liberalizing the market is the most conducive to economic growth. Sacrifices at home is inevitable, and small business owners are out-competed by the Walmarts big-businesses. For me, this is just the way it works.

But too much freedom to corporations can also be a bad thing, and that's where government should step in, to regulate free market, to curb corruption.

@mrcongojack:

I agree, we need to get rid of loopholes where they exist, because it's hurting domestic workers.

But the extreme approach of "protectionism", which apparently Obama and Clinton supports, is not good either. We need a combination of free-market and government regulation, but neither of the extremes.

Trading with other countries has been good to our economy.

Globalism works, and it benefits all participants involved. Proportionally, poverty is on the decrease relative to ever-increasing world population. We are empowering other countries to be more self-sufficient simply by trading with them, it's beautiful.

So are you saying being a teenage mother/father is a good thing? I agree with Obama on this issue actually. Teen pregnancy is bad for all involved. The parents are less likely to continue education and will more than likely end up in dead end jobs, and the child is going to have the pleasure of growing up in a broken home. While poorly worded, I think he was dead on. It is important to teach kids about condoms and birth control. Teenagers have been having sex since the dawn of man, and no matter how many abstinence lectures they attend hormones will get the best of them.

And he and McCain are doing much better in terms of gaffes. They might misspeak or mistake "sunni" for "shia" every once in a while, but at least they don't flat out lie about sniper fire.

The problem Obama and Clinton are having is that this primary has gone on too long. The longer it goes on, the more stupid things they are going to do.

You're mis characterizing my argument.

When Obama poorly placed "babies" and "STD" in the same sentence, its very telling of what he feels about human life -- that a baby brought into this world is considered a burden, as opposed to being a positive, beautiful human phenomena.

I agree, we need to educate young people about Sex education and the consequences involved from unsafe sex practice. More awareness is almost universally the solution to everything (I'm considering becoming an educator myself, so I treat education passionately).

The notion of "unwanted" pregnancy is a social construct.

To me, this removes a person of his/her individual responsibility, and instead places the blame onto something/someone else -- I couldn't help it, I was horny -- is not an excuse.

Granted, there are exceptions to this rule, i.e. rape victims. But this is besides the point...they are of the minority, and we need to treat such cases differently and more sensitively.

Promiscuity is the root cause of unsafe sex practices, and if you believe that this is something beyond our immediate control, you're wrong.

Just as drunk driving can be avoided, so too is unsafe and promiscuous behavior.

The problem is our society nowadays tend to promote the idea that we are always victims, and we now no longer have any individual responsibilities.

While contraception works, it doesn't always. How to deal with so-called "unwanted" pregnancies is to reverse this negative mentality towards children. The government can assist pregnant teens in need, and we need to expand this kind of assistance so that there's no shortage of it.

Instead of blaming the mistake on the baby, we need to grow up and accept our own mistakes, and we need to extend this mindset everywhere, so how?

By instilling this kind of value from the very beginning.....think of the difference it will make if, starting from elementary, all children are taught of the importance of human life, about individual responsibilities, about accepting challenges and sticking through it.

I think when we talk about sex education as a means of prevention, we don't realize just how short-sighted and ineffective it is. If we really want to make it work, we need to start educating from the very early stages, starting from elementary.

And when you start equating babies as a burden, you're already headed towards the wrong path.

---

[update]


An op-ed piece on Obama and Mccain, from Washington Post:

Spoiler

Obama's Iraq Weakness

Author:
Michael J. Gerson, Roger Hertog Senior Fellow

April 10, 2008
Washington Post

It is a political error for a candidate to believe that voters who agree with him will always end up supporting him.

There is little doubt that Americans generally feel that the initial use of military force in Iraq was a mistake. Recent, paradoxical polls show a dramatic increase in the number of people who believe that the war is now going well alongside a hardening majority who believe it should not have been begun. Barack Obama’s strongest argument on Iraq is increasingly about the past.

But presidential elections tend to focus on the future. In spite of their past failures, whom do you trust more to conduct a flawed, messy war in the years ahead? Lincoln or McClellan? Nixon or McGovern? Bush or Kerry? McCain or Obama?

At some point, most foreign policy debates, especially during a war, come down to a binary determination: Is a candidate strong or weak? Voters can disagree with a nominee on many things and still find him stronger than his opponent.

So far, Obama has not taken this challenge with sufficient seriousness. His Iraq approach comes down to three points. First, he has voted twice against funding U.S. troops in the field—a political necessity in the Democratic primaries but a blunder with the broader electorate. No matter what subtleties Obama attempts to develop in his Iraq position, this will be seen as a symbol of impulsive radicalism, unbecoming in a commander in chief.

Second, Obama advocates a specific timetable for the withdrawal of American combat troops to pressure the Iraqi government to take its responsibilities more seriously. (In fact, according to Obama’s January 2007 Iraq plan, all combat troops would already be out of Iraq.) But it seems increasingly unfair to denigrate the efforts of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s government, which has moved forward on 12 of 18 benchmarks set by Congress and has recently engaged Shiite militias in a fight the United States has been demanding. In many cases, the Iraqis seem to lack capacity, not will—which is precisely Gen. David Petraeus’s argument for continued American engagement.

Third, Obama promises to personally negotiate with President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Iran’s destabilizing support and training of Shiite militias. What might seem a bold strategic maneuver from a Nixon or Kissinger smacks of dangerous naivete from a fourth-year senator.

Obama—the most reflective of candidates—displays little self-knowledge when it comes to these political challenges. When questioned recently about his choice for vice president, he responded, “I would like somebody who knows about a bunch of stuff that I am not as expert on. I think a lot of people assume that might be some sort of military thing to make me look more commander in chief-like. . . . Ironically, this is an area—foreign policy is the area where I am probably most confident that I know more and understand the world better than Senator Clinton or Senator McCain.”

The question here is not self-confidence but public confidence. And Obama’s political judgment is exactly wrong. He will have enormous advantages on domestic policy in the coming campaign, on which he seems both more activist and interested than McCain. But McCain is ahead on measures such as “strong leader.” Obama needs to seem, and be, more commander in chief-like.

McCain has challenges of his own. The fortunes of his campaign remain tied to events in Iraq, as they have been from the beginning. And despite undeniable progress against Sunni radicalism, events in Iraq are still inseparable from the actions and attitudes of Shiite militias armed and directed by Iran—an influence that America failed to confront for many years. Maliki’s uncoordinated attack on the Shiite militias in Basra seems to indicate that while the Iraqi spirit is willing, the flesh remains weak. But the failure of the Shiite uprising to spread more broadly shows that the extremists may be weaker than in the past. And, as Fred Kagan of the American Enterprise Institute points out, Moqtada al-Sadr was forced to cave in at the end. “By going after al-Sadr,” he says, “Maliki forced the Iraqi political parties to take sides, and every single one sided with him [Maliki].”

The situation in Iraq, as Gen. Petraeus insists, is “fragile and reversible.” But the debate has moved far beyond a candidate’s initial support for the war. This has led to an odd inversion of the generational battle. Young Obama’s strongest arguments are focused on the failures of the past. The older man, by insisting on victory, is more responsible and realistic about the future.

 

[xi0]

Wait, I agree with some of your sentiments regarding an attitude towards teaching awareness to children, but how is having a child not a burden? Unless you're unreasonably wealthy, bringing a child into this world first falls on the child's parents as a burden, and second, if that parent can't adequately care for their child, it becomes the taxpayer's burden. I don't think Obama had a negative connotation on "babies", he was simply stating a fact. How is teen pregnancy a good thing? The younger you are, the more cards are stacked up against you.

That's why I believe it's incredibly selfish to bring a child into this world UNLESS you can adequately care for it, and that usually comes with being a bit older and having stability in your life, including a two parent household. The fact is, teen parents can't provide that type of environment usually, and shouldn't be expected to either, given the fact that they're still "kids" themselves.

So while "unwanted pregnancy" may be a social construct, how is that the root of the problem?

 

[miyi]

Wait, I agree with some of your sentiments regarding an attitude towards teaching awareness to children, but how is having a child not a burden? Unless you're unreasonably wealthy, bringing a child into this world first falls on the child's parents as a burden, and second, if that parent can't adequately care for their child, it becomes the taxpayer's burden. I don't think Obama had a negative connotation on "babies", he was simply stating a fact. How is teen pregnancy a good thing? The younger you are, the more cards are stacked up against you.

That's why I believe it's incredibly selfish to bring a child into this world UNLESS you can adequately care for it, and that usually comes with being a bit older and having stability in your life, including a two parent household. The fact is, teen parents can't provide that type of environment usually, and shouldn't be expected to either, given the fact that they're still "kids" themselves.

So while "unwanted pregnancy" may be a social construct, how is that the root of the problem?

you're mis-characterizing my argument...that's not even remotely close to what I'm saying.


socially promoted sexual promiscuous behavior is the root cause of unprotected, or sometimes unsafe sex, which leads to "unwanted pregnancy".

We live in a sex-crazed culture, and we need instead to foster an environment that's more family-oriented, and we can do so through education, preferably teaching soon-to-be teenagers about values such as "responsibilities", "choices", "mistakes", "consequences", and so forth, at a very young age.

Teen pregnancy is not good...I never said nor implied that it was a good thing to have.

And we need to welcome welfare programs that provides financial assistance to teen mothers (or teen parents).

If you think that is a burden, then you are complicit in thinking that a baby is a financial "burden".

A baby is innocent, if anything, they are the biggest losers and victims in this ordeal.

Instead of alienating teen parents by rejecting them financial assistance, we need to offer that help.

If money was the problem (you've alluded to that), then the problem is solved....we will offer welfare. This should enable struggling teen parents to become economically stable, so they can raise their "unwanted child".

Teens make poor choices, I understand and acknowledge that.

My challenge is that they should accept the responsibility as parents.

You've alluded that teen pregnancy will cost us "taxpayer money"...so who is to blame, then?

If we are to deny financial assistance to parents, this no doubt places a burden on teen parents, which produce an environment of broken homes, and it's a vicious cycle that we as a collective unwilling "taxpayers" are helping to perpetuate.

So if anything, perhaps we are to blame, not the teens themselves.

While I understand your point that it's "irresponsible" for any parent who brings a child onto this world if they cannot adequately support for them, that's not what I'm talking about.

I don't know how we can fix that problem...again, I think that a sex-crazed culture influences that kind of wanton sexual behavior.

Specifically, I'm discussing the general cases of teens who think they are powerless to raise children, who with a bit of financial assistance, might actually get by.

To help reduce teen "unwanted" pregnancy, we can start by changing our values; steering teens away from sexual influences that's so pervasive in our culture.

And I'm not saying this from a religious standpoint. I just think that in order to cope with a sex crazed culture, more protection from such influences are needed, otherwise teens are susceptible, and hormones gets the best of us, as previously stated.



Which is why sex education alone will not suffice. If anything, I would argue that it can sometimes be counter-productive.

The feeling of security knowing contraceptives will lessen the chances of pregnancy motivates increased incidences of sexual behavior. But as we all know, contraceptives are not full-proof.

So while there are increased occurences of sex and more sex, chances of contraceptives not doing it's job also increases, and thus increases cases of "unwanted pregnancy".

I'm not arguing against the use of contraceptives.

What I am arguing is that this method of awareness in itself is inadequate.

Changing our values to be less receptive to sexual influences is what I'm suggesting here, in addition to sex education.

 

[igotthegoods]

i love reading this thread, seriously i've looked over every post and usually stay out of the conversations because 1. I know my vote in Washington state is pointless so why bother and 2. I haven't the facts to support my opinions.

i can sympathize with you here somewhat. in the last presidential election, i lived in indiana, which is a red state through and through. no matter which way i voted, it seemed that the state would go to the republican candidate. this year is not much different even though i now live in illinois. this is obama's home state, so if he wins the nomination, he will definitely win in illinois. it's sad to think that your vote doesn't count, but vote anyway! you never know what will happen.

i haven't actually decided on a candidate yet. i need to do some more research before choosing. it's sad that so many people decide their vote based on the person rather than their actual policies. my friend was telling me the other day about something she saw that was interesting. sorry, i don't remember the source, but i think it was some sort of news program. i'll have to ask her. anyway, i believe it was a poll of people around indiana university in bloomington, in (practically the only liberal place in all of indiana) where they would ask people their stance on certain issues as well as the candidate they would be voting for in the upcoming democratic primary. apparently, many of the people who said they would be voting for obama, actually gave answers to the questions on the issues which were more in line with hillary's platform. when this was pointed out to them, many of them would get very defensive and say how much they dislike hillary even though they share the same views. i just thought it was interesting and sad how "well-informed" the general public's decisions are during these elections

 

[xi0]

you're mis-characterizing my argument...that's not even remotely close to what I'm saying.


socially promoted sexual promiscuous behavior is the root cause of unprotected, or sometimes unsafe sex, which leads to "unwanted pregnancy".

We live in a sex-crazed culture, and we need instead to foster an environment that's more family-oriented, and we can do so through education, preferably teaching soon-to-be teenagers about values such as "responsibilities", "choices", "mistakes", "consequences", and so forth, at a very young age.

Teen pregnancy is not good...I never said nor implied that it was a good thing to have.

And we need to welcome welfare programs that provides financial assistance to teen mothers (or teen parents).

If you think that is a burden, then you are complicit in thinking that a baby is a financial "burden".

A baby is innocent, if anything, they are the biggest losers and victims in this ordeal.

Instead of alienating teen parents by rejecting them financial assistance, we need to offer that help.

If money was the problem (you've alluded to that), then the problem is solved....we will offer welfare. This should enable struggling teen parents to become economically stable, so they can raise their "unwanted child".

Teens make poor choices, I understand and acknowledge that.

My challenge is that they should accept the responsibility as parents.

You've alluded that teen pregnancy will cost us "taxpayer money"...so who is to blame, then?

If we are to deny financial assistance to parents, this no doubt places a burden on teen parents, which produce an environment of broken homes, and it's a vicious cycle that we as a collective unwilling "taxpayers" are helping to perpetuate.

So if anything, perhaps we are to blame, not the teens themselves.

While I understand your point that it's "irresponsible" for any parent who brings a child onto this world if they cannot adequately support for them, that's not what I'm talking about.

I don't know how we can fix that problem...again, I think that a sex-crazed culture influences that kind of wanton sexual behavior.

Specifically, I'm discussing the general cases of teens who think they are powerless to raise children, who with a bit of financial assistance, might actually get by.

To help reduce teen "unwanted" pregnancy, we can start by changing our values; steering teens away from sexual influences that's so pervasive in our culture.

And I'm not saying this from a religious standpoint. I just think that in order to cope with a sex crazed culture, more protection from such influences are needed, otherwise teens are susceptible, and hormones gets the best of us, as previously stated.



Which is why sex education alone will not suffice. If anything, I would argue that it can sometimes be counter-productive.

The feeling of security knowing contraceptives will lessen the chances of pregnancy motivates increased incidences of sexual behavior. But as we all know, contraceptives are not full-proof.

So while there are increased occurences of sex and more sex, chances of contraceptives not doing it's job also increases, and thus increases cases of "unwanted pregnancy".

I'm not arguing against the use of contraceptives.

What I am arguing is that this method of awareness in itself is inadequate.

Changing our values to be less receptive to sexual influences is what I'm suggesting here, in addition to sex education.

Fair enough, I agree with some of the things you said, but I can't agree that we live in a sex-crazed society. Sex has ALWAYS existed, whether it was on TV or behind closed doors is irrelevant in my eyes. Hormones always existed in young teens as well. I think you're making the mistake of characterizing sex as a bad thing. It's something the majority of young adults partake in, but I agree that there are those young teens that probably shouldn't take part in for various reasons. Not only due to the risk of unwanted pregnancy, but also to prevent STDs and any number of emotional traumas. The first thing we can do as a society is to teach sex education, because, let's face it, if sex isn't seen as a taboo thing by our society, rebellious teens will have one less thing to do (hormones reign supreme here regardless, but you see my point). Abstinence teaching is a pipe-dream in my opinion, but of course it's just MY opinion.

A child is a "burden"...regardless of how you look at it miyi, the difference is, good parents can shoulder that burden and provide for their offspring, whereas younger teens can't have the same success rate...it's really improbable and against the odds.

And saying that young parents can "rely" on welfare to help them with raising a child.....that type of government program already exists, and anyone can see that it isn't exactly improving anything, it may just be stunting the problem. The idea that you say you think there should be a better welfare program directly contradicts the notion you have that there is a lack of self-responsibility in this country as it pertains to teen pregnancy. Self-responsibility isn't merely filling out paperwork and relying on the government to provide for your child.

So maybe I'm misreading your comments, but that's what I got out of it.

 

[SoulReaporKoul]

First, I'd like to discuss the media's and other candidates reactions from the story pointed out in mrcongojack's post a couple of posts ago

Has anyone heard the latest Obama gaffe? Here's a
link.

to sum up what he said, he said small town folks are bitter that their jobs are going overseas, and they cling to guns, religion, and dislike immigrants because of it. While terribly worded, I agree with him.

Many of the jobs in my town, where one of the main employers is GM, are going overseas or to Mexico, and pay is going down to $14 an hour. Many people cope with the loss of employment by clinging to religion, which can't be taken away. Many of my uncles and cousins do this.

To be honest, all of the main candidates (Clinton, Obama, McCain) are looking like bad choices. Clinton's a hag, Obama puts his foot in his mouth too much, and McCain is cranky. I think I might just vote Libertarian. I agree with most of their policies (except education...we need to invest more money in that.) Most political quizzes put me as a left-leaning libertarian. I agree with many of the policies of the Democratic Party, but it's run by idiots. Seriously, it shouldn't take this long just to get a nominee. And so many PACs and lobbyists wield too much power in the DNC. Plus, Mike Gravel has defected to the Libertarians, and I really liked him at the beginning of the campaign.

and here is the link to the reactions to what Obama said http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/04/16/elitism/

What I got from the article is that basically the problem (to Obama) isn't the validity of what Obama said (which he commented later that was true but worded not worded as eloquently/correctly as it should have been), but the fact that what he said has branded him with the "term"/description of being "elitist" and that this could cost him the election because it means that he is not as connected or understand the concerns of the average voter.

First of all, let's ignore the fact that out of all the candidates running for office Obama is the LEAST elitist (Both the Clintons and McCains did not grow up in poverty, and both have a startlingly vast sums of money with the Clintons having earned more than 109 million dollars since leaving the white house, and McCain's wife being worth an estimated 100 million dollars), if anything, he is the definition of America and the American dream, born into a broken home, poverty, and a minority, but rising both the economic and social ladder through his dedication and hard-work enabling him to attend two of the most prestigious universities in the USA, and being a heavy contender for not only the most prestigious (although after Bush this might have been diminished) but also the most important job in the USA.

Let's not argue about wether Obama is elitist or not, but whether that matters or is even such a bad thing anyway? First off, all the candidates (with his two opponents even more than him) are elitist, the fact that they believe they are the best people out there to run a country, is elitist.

Second, does it even matter? I'm tired of watching candidates doing things against their character to prove to the average voter that they are "just like them" whether it be going on a BUS TOUR (When you can afford a private jet, or at the very least, one of those highly expensive RVs), Drinking in a bar with the average joe's, or feeding milk to a calf on a farm, THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH YOUR ABILITY TO RUN A COUNTRY, and if there is anyone out there that doesn't know that these are staged photo ops, YOU ARE AN IDIOT.

As to whether being elitist is necessarily a bad thing? I don't think it is. I mean, consider the demands we put on Doctors (in both America and Canada, and everywhere in the world really), they have to constantly prove themselves competent and intelligent, time and time again, whether it be in High-School, College, Med-School, constantly having them maintain good grades, pass every test along the way, and we select only the best, why? BECAUSE THEIR DECISIONS ON A DAILY BASIS INFLUENCE THE LIVES OF HUNDREDS OF PEOPLE. Shouldn't we expect the same if not MORE from the President of the United States, the person (he/she) who will be responsible for not only the lives of 300 million Americans, but also the rest of the world (At the very least the Iraqis), a person who with a single command can destroy the world 13 times over?

Shouldn't we have the BEST, BRIGHTEST, person available, shouldn't we elect not someone like US, but BETTER THAN US, someone who understands more languages, economic theory, world cultures, than US?

I find that the problem of electing someone like you, is that you yourself are not an expert on anything, how can you form an opinion on economic policy if you don't have a phd in Economics and actually truly understand how the Economy works? How can you decide on a plan for Iraq if you don't know the cultural and socioeconomic forces in Iraq?

I think that we should stop trying to pick the person most like us for the most important job in the world, and pick the BEST, most INTELLIGENT and yes, ELITE, person for the job.

For those of you who believe that having an elite person can't understand the wishes of the average person, that is BS, we are all humans, and we all want the same things. We want to find love, live comfortably, and provide a life for our kids better than our own.

So, let's stop acting like we're still in High School and instead of voting for the person who is most popular, we vote for the person who is most QUALIFIED.

 

[mrcongojack]

@ SoulReaporKoul

I agree. This whole "elitest as an insult thing" is complete bullocks. I am voting for Obama because I do think he's pretty L33t. John Stewart did a piece on the Daily Show to that effect - in which he said that he would rather have an elite doing the job rather than some shlub who would use the presidential limo to shout at his friends. Of the three candidates Obama is the least privileged (Hillary grew up in the ritzy part of Chicago, McCain's father and grandfather were admirals in the Navy, whereas Obama was raised by his mother and then his working/middle class grandparents.)

I think it's odd it took until Friday for the Obama remarks (they were said on the previous Sunday I believe). Fridays have been a notorious day for Clintons to dump their news on (they released their tax returns on a Friday this year, for example). They used to do this so that the news might get overlooked, but perhaps they did release the "bitter" remarks on that Friday because it was a slow news day.

Which is why sex education alone will not suffice. If anything, I would argue that it can sometimes be counter-productive.

The feeling of security knowing contraceptives will lessen the chances of pregnancy motivates increased incidences of sexual behavior. But as we all know, contraceptives are not full-proof.

So while there are increased occurences of sex and more sex, chances of contraceptives not doing it's job also increases, and thus increases cases of "unwanted pregnancy".

I'm not arguing against the use of contraceptives.

What I am arguing is that this method of awareness in itself is inadequate.

Changing our values to be less receptive to sexual influences is what I'm suggesting here, in addition to sex education.

People have always been sex-crazed maniacs (save in times of extreme poverty, when they are too preoccupied with finding food.) Rome, post-Renaissance Europe, Japan in/after the middle ages, and Greece have all played host to sexual deviancy,such as orgies, pederastry, etc... Perhaps in Rome's case it could be attributed to the rise in Christianity which had a strict sense of morals, but Christianity's rise coincides with the fall of Rome, so how much could be attributed to either poverty or religion is difficult. In either case it goes to show that people have been perverts for ages. If you think about it, there was a time in the history of man when being a teenager equated with adulthood. Up to maybe 500 years ago, you were lucky to make it to forty. As an example, look at the Jewish tradition. They consider a boy a man at the age of thirteen. I bet it would be similar in most every other culture in ancient history.

It is impossible to say whether or not sexual activity among teenagers is up, seeing as serious polling on the topic has only gone on for 60 years or so and most of the research on the subject is skewed due to the fact that it is almost always self report(which can be greatly influenced by social desirability). But seeing as up to about 300 years ago 15 year olds were considered to be of marrying age, I think it is safe to assume teenagers have been bumping uglies long before MTV first aired "Like a Virgin".

Abstinence education just doesn't work. According to this article, the USA has twice as many teen pregnancies than any other industrialized nation, even though our teens are not more sexually active than the teenagers of Britain, Canada, or Sweden, and states that sex education makes it more likely the teen will use contraception, but has not lowered the age at which teens become sexually active. The pdf available at this site show that states such as Texas, Georgia, and Mississippi (which advocate abstinence)top the list (the rankings include all pregnancies, even ones that end in abortion).

My point is that teenagers are going to have sex. Sex education has worked to reduce the number of teen pregnancies here and abroad. With time sex education will continue to whittle away at the number of teen pregnancies, and once our culture gets used to the fact that people don't normally die at 35, perhaps people will not try to grow up so fast.

 

[miyi]

Fair enough, I agree with some of the things you said, but I can't agree that we live in a sex-crazed society. Sex has ALWAYS existed, whether it was on TV or behind closed doors is irrelevant in my eyes. Hormones always existed in young teens as well. I think you're making the mistake of characterizing sex as a bad thing. It's something the majority of young adults partake in, but I agree that there are those young teens that probably shouldn't take part in for various reasons. Not only due to the risk of unwanted pregnancy, but also to prevent STDs and any number of emotional traumas. The first thing we can do as a society is to teach sex education, because, let's face it, if sex isn't seen as a taboo thing by our society, rebellious teens will have one less thing to do (hormones reign supreme here regardless, but you see my point). Abstinence teaching is a pipe-dream in my opinion, but of course it's just MY opinion.

A child is a "burden"...regardless of how you look at it miyi, the difference is, good parents can shoulder that burden and provide for their offspring, whereas younger teens can't have the same success rate...it's really improbable and against the odds.

And saying that young parents can "rely" on welfare to help them with raising a child.....that type of government program already exists, and anyone can see that it isn't exactly improving anything, it may just be stunting the problem. The idea that you say you think there should be a better welfare program directly contradicts the notion you have that there is a lack of self-responsibility in this country as it pertains to teen pregnancy. Self-responsibility isn't merely filling out paperwork and relying on the government to provide for your child.

So maybe I'm misreading your comments, but that's what I got out of it.

Well, I agree with your points, I think it's just a matter of perception though....(half full/half empty).

I don't see a child as a burden...in fact, I would argue that from a purely economic perspective, a child is in a way a kind of investment, that of course involves some sort of sacrifice. We invest in a child, try to impart good values and such, put him/her through school, etc...so they can someday do well for themselves. It will be a bonus if the child someday, as they become succesful, returns you the favor.

Looking at it in a positive light, it isn't so bad. However, I agree, some parents aren't as lucky....but again I would argue that part of the reason they got to the situation they're in, the first place, is perhaps due to influences from outside that they could have possibly avoided in almost all circumstance.....because I sincerely believe that sex itself is a big commitment, and there are severe consequences that can significantly affect not only your life, but your partner as well.....so to treat sex so lightly means you're asking for trouble. If you don't like the negative after-effects of sex (unwanted pregnancy), then it's best to refrain as possible those hormones, or at least use contraceptives, unless prepared financially and emotionally to take on potential consequences of those actions. It's a commitment, but in the end, you did have the choice.

And just to make it clear: I am arguing for both sex education and abstinence education, not either/or....I want both.

But by abstinence, what I mean by this is --- not to make sex a social taboo....not in that way.....I encourage it only to strengthen children's resolve in combating sex influence, not to convey that sex is necessarily a bad thing.

Lastly, when all of this approach and extra added precautionary measures to raise awareness in children is taken, all of it, I think, will take care of itself.....welfare programs will probably be less needed since there will be less teen parents in need of financial help...

but on the larger context of the whole issue, I think we both agree on a lot of levels...just the nuances.




@SoulReaporKoul:

I think what Obama critics mean when they labeled him "elitist", is not so much based on his priviledged status, but the idea that his views are so far detached from the actual views of his targeted constituents...

but that wasn't even the point.

what he said about Pennsylvanians "clinging" to religion because of undergoing financial hardships, while it might be true in some cases, is nevertheless a gross overgeneralization and a belittling comment towards those people of faith.

Most religious people I know are religious not because of material concerns....that presumption is absolutely ridiculous...they are religious most of the time because it gives them meaning and purpose in life. That's what it's mostly about.

It is rather offensive, and ignorant for Obama to say something like that...these little comments, even if you think is trivial, actually matters to some people. It reveals a lot about his character, and for voters, character flaws is just about as important an indicator of qualifications than intelligence, oratory skills, merits, etc.

Speaking of Obama having undergone poverty, while I'm not disputing that....let's not forget that Mccain himself underwent personal hardships as well...in vietnam he was prisoner of war and was tortured. While he turned out to be a very rich man, his past isn't exactly very nice either...heck, even I can't compete with what he went through, and I'm just an average person.


There's a news development that is perhaps the most revealing yet, about Obama....apparently there was a Democratic debate last night which I have missed, but there was some interesting questions that were launched at Obama that is noteworthy:

He was asked about his relations with a convicted terrorist William Ayers, and why he has not disassociated himself from him, given the facts of his criminal record.

Now, I can let go of his dodging of Reverend Wright, because, afterall, he was like an uncle-figure to Obama.

But his ties with a terrorist, is absolutely unacceptable and I do not trust a World Leader, who's undoubtedly going to deal with multiple terrorists in his tenure, who sympathizes with terrorism.

He could have simply denounced Ayers, but he dodged the question once again. How many times?

Legitimate question to ask, I think, from a debate moderator.....I'm glad they're finally being tough on spoiled Obama.


[edit]

Fair enough, I agree with some of the things you said, but I can't agree that we live in a sex-crazed society.

on sex:

I do think that we do live in a sex-crazed culture, more so than in any time of our human history, especially with the advent of the internet and the billion dollar booming business of porn.

I embrace sex, I like sex, I don't think it's a bad thing. My personal views is that sex is very healthy.

But along with sex, we forget the emotional aspects of sex, not to mention the medical sides of it. The fact is, having sex will either result in pregnancy, illness, or at best, the contraceptive will work and you get to live another day not having to worry about it.

With abstinence education, the emphasis I want is more on "values", not necessarily sex-related.

For example, whatever happened to teaching kids about discipline? From personal anecdotal experience, I have found that with a stronger family oriented value, the more disciplined you are about life in general, and also the better prepared you are in combating sex related social pressures.

I have an aunt and an uncle.

My aunt is divorced, she re-married and re-divorced at least three different times, and out of her ex-husbands, she has thirteen children.

My uncle has three wives, and has 9 children.

I come from a very conservative family, and my mother ended up supporting my aunt and uncle's families throughout her life, even today.

I think of civilization itself as a macrocosm of the family...with strong structural foundations, that civilization will remain strong. Once there is fragmentation within that civilization, and likewise, divorces in the family, the whole fabric disintegrates. Poor parenting skills, and lack of discipline enforcement, will result in children disobeying their parents. This lack of values in the home is further compounded with the fact that children are EXPOSED to the ubiquitous sex-driven media culture.....how can you deny that? TV ads, music videos, movies, etc....are almost always centered around sex. Of course, we have TV rating systems, but they're hardly enforced.

I'm not suggesting censorship....like I said, I embrace sex, the idea of sex, there's nothing socially taboo about sex, and it shouldn't be. But that does not mean we should not do anything to protect our young children from this exposure. Thus, abstinence in elementary schools should emphasize the teachings of stronger "values", "responsibilities", "discipline", "work ethics", "respect", etc.....which we aren't doing enough. And when the current divorce rate is approximately 50 percent nationwide, it just shows the magnitude of the disintegration of the family system, which otherwise would have served as a barrier against exposure to outside sex-crazed forces......Thus, my argument is that we need to use education, in the form of abstinence, in addition to sex education, as a way to fill this void in disintegrated family structure. That was my point.

And saying that young parents can "rely" on welfare to help them with raising a child.....that type of government program already exists, and anyone can see that it isn't exactly improving anything, it may just be stunting the problem. The idea that you say you think there should be a better welfare program directly contradicts the notion you have that there is a lack of self-responsibility in this country as it pertains to teen pregnancy. Self-responsibility isn't merely filling out paperwork and relying on the government to provide for your child.

Well obviously if a person lacks a personal commitment to improve and better themselves, of course welfare at this point is pretty much useless....it'll simply become just another form of charity. The idea behind welfare is to assist people in need to get to the point of stability, not to keep them in perpetual need of assistance.

If we offer welfare to people in need, it goes without saying that they need to make an effort to try to better themselves, find a job, become more stable, get a higher education, etc....all of the tools needed for social advancement....welfare is to assist people to transition smoothly from one stage to the next. That is the point of it, and if you think I am proposing just free charity, then again, you are mis-characterizing my arguments.

---

"PHILADELPHIA (Reuters) - Democratic White House hopeful Barack Obama on Wednesday disagreed with former President Jimmy Carter's overtures toward Hamas, saying he would not talk to the Islamist group until it recognized Israel and renounced terrorism.[...]"


What if...... Carter was related to Obama in some way....what would be his reaction towards Carter then?

Will he quasi-denounce Carter, just as he quasi-denounced anti-Semitic Pastor Wright, or terrorist William Ayers?

What made Obama suddenly become decisive this time?

And then he contradicts himself with this:

PHILADELPHIA (Reuters) - Democratic White House hopeful Barack Obama on Wednesday disagreed with former President Jimmy Carter's overtures toward Hamas, saying he would not talk to the Islamist group until it recognized Israel and renounced terrorism.

[...]


"My approach to Iran will be based upon aggressive diplomacy," he said.

"What it means is that we come to the table with a very clear set of objectives and a very clear set of demands -- that Iran ceases from pursuing nuclear weapons, that it stops funding Hezbollah and Hamas, that it ends its noxious statements about Israel and the threats directed towards Israel," he said.

"The current policy of not talking is not working and I believe its time to change that," he said.

First of all, currently Iran does not formally recognize Israel, nor do they have any diplomatic relations. Moreover, Iran supports terrorist Hamas, not just in words, but in actions. They arm, equip, fund, and even train anti-Zionist militias, such as Hamas and Hizballah.

So how could you denounce Hamas, yet be eager to diplomatically talk with Iran?

Iran and US don't talk? oh really? weren't you paying attention to Ambassador Crocker during the Senate hearings? He clearly said that the US attempted to speak with Iran on three different occasions.....they've schedule 3 meetings, 3 of which Iran postponed or cancelled such meetings.

Mr. Obama, stop contradicting yourself with your confused foreign policy and stick to facts. It makes you look horribly inexperienced and stupid.

 

[Gold Knight]

I think of civilization itself as a macrocosm of the family...with strong structural foundations, that civilization will remain strong. Once there is fragmentation within that civilization, and likewise, divorces in the family, the whole fabric disintegrates. Poor parenting skills, and lack of discipline enforcement, will result in children disobeying their parents. This lack of values in the home is further compounded with the fact that children are EXPOSED to the ubiquitous sex-driven media culture.....how can you deny that? TV ads, music videos, movies, etc....are almost always centered around sex. Of course, we have TV rating systems, but they're hardly enforced.

Amazing paragraph there, very, very well written post, miyi. And I agree with the general sentiment.

Of course there's still the rub:

Kids will often try to rebel against what parents try to teach them. There are some kids who are very accommodating but often when kids get out into college after being completely sheltered, they'll go wild. We had a family friend who refused to let her kids even watch T.V. because of all the violence on it, no video games, nothing. No movies. One of her sons grew up to be a very nice guy, very cool kid, the other son... has been out and in of jail more than I can count, is high all the time, and drinks, and has dropped out of college and is living in the basement of his parents' house. My family friends claims they don't 'understand' why, but I think kids DO need to be prepared for life, all its emotional aspects.

So there has to be a balance somewhere... but the most important thing for parents to do is set a good example for their kids somehow, to be a good guide to them. But sex shouldn't be *totally* forbidden. There's no way we can keep the kids from having sexual feelings, anyway. And kids will find out on their own, they always do. The main thing is just to teach them patience and have them understand that they need to prioritize the more important things in life for themselves first.

We are living in a society that, while I wouldn't call it any more "sex-crazed" than any other societies of the past (I mean you had vikings and barbarians raping women all the time), it is more "accepted" to talk about sex as part of everyday discussion, "sex" can be found in more aspects of our society than ever. So I'd say it is more of a "sex-conscious" society, and I see both bad and good things about that. One thing, it IS harder than ever for parents to try to keep their kids from doing something they could regret. A lot of that is due to the enormous peer pressure you can find in our society nowadays, though. But at the same time, kids may be a lot more savvy about sex.

EDIT: But still, people and kids both will always, always makes mistakes in despite of anything we do, though. That'll never change. I consider myself having had excellent parental guidance, and I STILL made some very, very bad mistakes. LoL

 

[lordHokage]

Well, tomorrow is another big day, I hope this saga comes to an end soon.

 

[mrcongojack]

Is Hillary in denial?

http://drudgereport.com/flashpa.htm

According to her internal polls, she is 11 points ahead of Obama. Most polls (such as gallup, which is the most reliable of the mainstream polls which isn't saying much) has the race much closer. This leads me to conclude that, for some reason or another, Clinton's polls are flawed. Perhaps she only polled people in the suburbs or in more rural areas, where she has more support. Perhaps the poll was taken during the heat of the "Bittergate". Perhaps she even fabricated the polls (it's a slim chance, but, c'mon...it's the Clintons.)

Even if she wins the general election, Barack may still pick up more delegates than her due to the way Pennsylvania apportions there delegates. And as Hillary said earlier this year, whoever has more delegates should be considered the winner. Then again, she said that before she lost the primary.

 

[lordHokage]

Do or die day. What would happen if Senator Hillary Clinton doesn't win today?

 

[◆ T.D.A ◆]

so do the majority of MH Am. members support Obama? or what?

 

[lordHokage]

I support neither Senator Clinton nor Senator Obama. If I were an American citizen, I would register as an Independent-republican.

 

[miyi]

I stumbled upon this interesting article digging more dirt on Mr. Obama, and ironically it's from HuffPo...it just goes to show how deeply divided the Dems are in this primaries.

Spoiler

No, He Can't Because Yes, They Will
Posted February 16, 2008 | 07:29 PM (EST)

by Larry C. Johnson



Obama's mantra, "Yes, We Can" is inspiring and heartwarming, but in the end is an empty phrase that will founder once the Republican political attack machine spins up. I realize that most Obamatons are so wedded to his vision of hope that any effort to point out the cracks in the foundation of the new Democratic Savior are met with fury and disdain.

If you think for a minute that the Republican party -- who used Willie Horton on Michael Dukakis to devastating effect, who portrayed triple amputee and veteran Max Cleland as a bosom buddy of Osama Bin Laden, and convinced many voters that decorated combat veteran John Kerry was a fraud -- will give Obama a pass come the fall then you are in serious denial.

Email
Print
Buzz up!on Yahoo!But, unlike the attacks on Dukakis, Cleland, and Kerry, the ammunition that Obama has provided to his political foes is significant and deadly. But try telling that to Obama disciples. You get name calling and character assassination (just read the reaction to this piece). At the same time, Obama is treated with a reverence and fawning that I have never seen in my life for a political figure. What in the world was Chris Matthews talking about with his tingling leg adulation heaped on Obama:


During MSNBC's live coverage of Tuesday's primary elections, after the speech of Barack Obama aired, Chris Matthews breathlessly expressed his admiration... and extreme excitement for Barack Obama by saying "I felt this thrill going up my leg. I mean, I don't have that too often."

So, while Democrats engage in self-censorship and promote the worst kind of affirmative action pandering in promoting the myth of Obama, the Republicans are keeping mum and, like Brer Rabbit, begging not to be tossed into the briar patch and face the fearsome Obama. (Want to bet how many accusations of racism I will get for referring to Brer Rabbit?)

Obama's untested achilles heel is his relationship with three men -- Tony Rezko, William Ayers, and Rashid Khalidi. These names will become shorthand for Corruption, Terrorism, and the Destruction of Israel. Oh yes, I know. I am going to extremes. Well, let me lay out the facts and explain how the Republicans will likely use these relationships to bludgeon Obama's presidential aspirations into dust. My challenge to you Obama supporters is to explain to me and other readers of this blog how Obama will defuse these issues.

The Tony Rezko Problem:

There is a growing body of material in the blogosphere on this issue (looseheadprop has an excellent overview), but the mainstream media has paid little attention and most Americans know nothing of Rezko's bribery and corruption trial. Not yet. But that will change starting February 25, when Rezko goes on trial in Chicago. The best Obama can hope for is an acquittal or mistrial. He cannot deny his longstanding friendship with Rezko. A man who has played a significant role in raising funds for his political campaigns and a man who helped Obama and his wife get the home of their dreams.

But it is highly unlikely that Rezko gets off. He just got nailed for lying to the judge about his alleged poverty and was promptly arrested for hiding millions of dollars overseas. And he is up against Patrick Fitzgerald. Pat Fitzgerald does not go to court unprepared and does not have a record of losing, particularly in Illinois. Remember, this is the guy who nailed Scooter Libby and the former Governor of Illinois. The boy plays to win.

When Rezko is convicted and, the details of the corruption and bribery charges are fleshed out and the public learns that Senator Obama got some of that dirty cash, do you really believe the public won't care that the Democratic nominee for President is involved with a convicted felon? Hell, this is a political attack ad that writes itself.

The William Ayers Problem:

William Ayers is an unrepentant terrorist, though he is normally described as a distinguished education professor. One does not necessarily rule out the other, but he himself acknowledges planting bombs in U.S. Federal buildings. There is now undeniable proof of a longstanding relationship between Barack Obama and William Ayers. We are not talking about two guys who just happened to bump into one another on the street. We are not talking about a secret admirer (Ayers) who quietly sent $200 to an aspiring politician.

No, we are talking about William Ayers hosting a fundraiser for Barack Obama and actively working with him to secure Barack's first electoral victory in Illinois. But wait, there is more. Barack and Ayers also served on the board of the Woods Fund. And they worked together to give money to some other folks, including a group with ties to the PLO.

What makes Ayers so toxic is his own written record equating U.S. Marines with terrorists. Look at the beating that John Kerry took for tossing his medals over the White House fence. Ayers did not toss medals, he threw bombs. Real ones. Bombs that exploded.

Do you think that Republicans will ignore Obama's ties to Ayers? The two were serving on the same board in 2002. We are talking less than six years ago and the record will come out showing some questionable grants by these two characters. William Ayers, in the age of terrorism, will be Barack Obama's Willie Horton.

The Problem of Rashid Khalidi:

So far, the press has paid little attention to Obama's ties to Rashid Khalidi, Middle East Professor at Columbia University and PLO activist. An article in The Jewish Week from last year offers up this tantalizing tidbit:


Khalidi, now the Edward Said Professor of Arab Studies at Columbia University, and head of that school's Middle East Institute, declined to comment on Abunimah's recollections. But in an interview in Tuesday's Daily News, he said he hosted the fundraiser because he and Obama were friends while the two lived in Chicago. "He never came to us and said he would do anything in terms of Palestinians," Khalidi told the paper.

Nevertheless, one Hyde Park source close to Obama, speaking only on condition of anonymity, recalled, "He often expressed general sympathy for the Palestinians -- though I don't recall him ever saying anything publicly."


Obama has made his pilgrimage to AIPAC (funny, but in his campaign against special interests and their grip on Washington he gives AIPAC a pass) and worked to position himself as a friend of Israel. But the relationship with Khalidi has not yet received the white hot media attention that tends to occur during the dog days of July and August, when the press needs a story. And guess who helped broker the appearance of Iran's Ahmadinejad last summer at Columbia University? Professor Khalidi. The New York Times had his reaction to the event:

Rashid Khalidi, a professor of Arab studies and director of the Middle East Institute at Columbia, said, "The tone from the host of an event was uncivil and uncalled for.

"The president of the university had every right to state his differences," he said. "That was more than acceptable. But I believe it was embarrassing to the university, frankly, that they should decide to invite him and then treat him in this manner."


Now, which presidential candidate is calling for talks with Iran? You do not have to be Karl Rove or Lee Atwater to figure out how to tie Obama with Ahmadinejad using Obama's friendship with Khalidi.

I don't know what else is out there on Obama. Unfortunately, the worshipful, servile attitude of many Democrats and media personalities so far has hindered a tough look at Obama's friends and associates and his judgment. But that will come. What should concern Democrats keen on taking back the White House is whether or not these issues will be fully vetted before Obama is installed as the candidate. My guess is no.

And what do Republicans think? I only have anecdotal evidence. I asked an old friend, who served in law enforcement (I'll leave the particular agency out of it) for more than thirty years, about the William Ayers era. There are a lot of Federal agents who believe that Ayers is a terrorist who got away with his crimes and still owes a debt to society. My friend wrote the following to me today:


I think many of my friends believe Obama is beatable; however they concede that Clinton can win. Therefore, the thinking goes, WE hope Obama gets the Democratic nod and THEN flood the gates with information later.

Feelings of hope and inspiration about Obama will evaporate when the commercials tying him to a convicted felon slumlord, an unrepentant terrorist who hates the troops, and a Professor of Middle Eastern Studies who has been a PLO official spouting anti-Israeli rhetoric. Oh, YES THEY WILL! YES, THEY WILL.

I know that some Obama supporters will say, "well this is just another example of logical fallacy of guilt by association".

I admit, the information above concerning Obama's ties with Rashidi, Rezko, and Ayers are still suspect, but nevertheless if you put all of Obama's friends in one room, it's hard to ignore the fact that they all have some commonalities between them.

Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that these are in fact Obama's friends.

Rashidi

- his PLO ties (note: PLO was a former Palestinian terrorist organization that later evolved into a legitimate political and humanitarian wing of the Palestinian government.)

- Columbia Professor who was among those that brokered the invitation of Iran's President Ahmadenejad (forgive my mis-spelling)

note: Ahmadenejad is renowned for denying the Holocoust, denying that 9/11 really happened, is ferociously anti-Israel and has made claims to wipe them out of the earth, and sees himself personally as one who will pave the way to the missing Shia Imam, the Mahdi, and Jesus Christ, and in order to do that, he wants to export Islamism throughout the world. I'm serious...)

Rezko

- all we need to know is his corruption

Ayers

vehemently anti-American and an "unrepentant terrorist"

Wright

vehemently anti-American, anti-Israel, and pro-Palestinian (what's bothering is his support of even the violent elements of the Palestinian cause)

Obama

earlier this month, he suggested to General Patreus and Ambassador Crocker that we haven't been doing enough diplomacy in Iran, and says we should pursue "agressive diplomacy" with Iran.

Recently, after new revelations that North Korea and Syria have cooperated last year developing plutonium-based nuclear weapons site which was destroyed by Israel's airstrike before it became operational, Obama this week says that he will meet with Kim Jong Il of North Korea and sit down with him and talk and talk until we achieve peace. Ok, I may have elaborated a few lines on that last sentence, but you get the idea.

It's also ironic that when former President Jimmy Carter last week met with leader of terrorist organization Hamas in Syria, Obama was without hesitation very critical of Carter.

So even with these dubious connect the dots approach, it's hard to ignore that Obama, given that his circle of friends are all more or less anti-American (note that his wife was never proud of being an American, until just very recently) and also very anti-Israel, I can just imagine how Obama's foreign policy will be like if he becomes our next President.

A sign of weakness in almost all cases, from all the great empires of the past, is when at the height of powers the leaders concede to the demands of other claimants to power, more than likely that empire is bound to disintegrate and fall.

When the Ottomans conceded and granted rights to French merchants in the late 19th Century, it was just the beginning of their collapse.

When the native Americans conceded land rights to European settlers, it was their sign of weakness and the beginning of their fall.

When the Incan emperor Atahualpa conceded to Francisco Pizarro's wishes and gave him a room filled with gold for his ransom, his empire crumbled.

When we give terrorists legitmacy and pursue an "agressive diplomacy" with dictators like Kim Jong Il and concede to his demands, perhaps it is time for USA to crumble and fall, as well. And Obama seems so willing to let this happen, with haste.

 

[mrcongojack]

A sign of weakness in almost all cases, from all the great empires of the past, is when at the height of powers the leaders concede to the demands of other claimants to power, more than likely that empire is bound to disintegrate and fall.

When the Ottomans conceded and granted rights to French merchants in the late 19th Century, it was just the beginning of their collapse.

When the native Americans conceded land rights to European settlers, it was their sign of weakness and the beginning of their fall.

When the Incan emperor Atahualpa conceded to Francisco Pizarro's wishes and gave him a room filled with gold for his ransom, his empire crumbled.

When we give terrorists legitmacy and pursue an "agressive diplomacy" with dictators like Kim Jong Il and concede to his demands, perhaps it is time for USA to crumble and fall, as well. And Obama seems so willing to let this happen, with haste.

There's a big difference between opening up communication with Iran and the Ottoman empire, Native Americans and Incans negotiating.

For starters, all three of these nations were technologically and/or economically inferior to their adversaries. The Ottoman's land-based empire was backwards and no match for the sea-based economy of the day. The Native Americans and Incans didn't have guns for goodness's sake! It wouldn't have mattered if the Native Americans or Incans had just stayed in their dwellings and not talked with the Europeans, they still would've lost due to the fact that they did not have the technology to compete with them.

Iran and North Korea, on the other hand, are inferior to the US and its allies in just about every measure. There economies, technology, and schools are behind us. The downfall of the Ottomans, Native Americans, and Incans wasn't caused by negotiating, rather, their downfall led to negotiating. The US has negotiated instead of just blindly going to battle many times without crumbling. Just look at the Cold War - we didn't kill one Russian, and yet we one (mainly because a mixed economy is more stable then the brand of socialism with so much focus on the military the USSR used). Negotiation is not sign of weakness, it is a sign of wisdom. There are times to shoot and times to talk.

As to the discussion about Jimmy Carter - I don't see the big deal. Carter paid for his trip himself, and he can't do any damage. If he wants to talk with these people, let him.

 

[manu]

note: Ahmadenejad is renowned for denying the Holocoust, denying that 9/11 really happened, is ferociously anti-Israel and has made claims to wipe them out of the earth, and sees himself personally as one who will pave the way to the missing Shia Imam, the Mahdi, and Jesus Christ, and in order to do that, he wants to export Islamism throughout the world. I'm serious...)

did a report on Iran so let me clear a few things, he hates the Western world but the reason for his radical statements are to rally his people and he is anti-isreal because they invaded Palenstine and displaced millions of people and are making profits of those peoples suffering. He doesn't want to wipe Israel off the map ala nuke but whats to see the land returned to the people who lived their before the occupation. Yes he isn't a perfect leader but I believe you give the republican spin machine too much credit if you think they can connect a black kid from Chicago to the leader of Iran.

Obama has the ability to shrug off negative spins, the more aggressive his opposition becomes the more outraged Obama fans are and the more the Republicans are accused of using dirty politics. Republicans want you to think that Obama is beatable but think about how weak John McCain's campaign is.

This guy has no backbone for his own legislation.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200803240005
If you guys remember McCain had the Hispanic vote done because of his plan for immigration but as soon as he secures the nomination he abandons it because the "people" (read the Republican Party) wants more secure borders.

This guy can't make up his opinion about the war:
Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) has long supported a 50-year troop presence in Iraq — or the “South Korea model” — set forth by President Bush and Gen. Petraeus. “We have had troops in South Korea for 60 years and nobody minds,” he said in June. On the Charlie Rose Show in August, McCain said the Korea model was “exactly” the right idea.

Yesterday on Charlie Rose, McCain changed his position, arguing that the Korea-like presence is not an “analogy” he would use for Iraq. Recognizing the “nature of the society in Iraq,” McCain suggested that Iraqi opposition to a permanent U.S. occupation may make the South Korea model implausible.

In 2006, McCain sponsored legislation to require grassroots lobbying coalitions to reveal their financial donors. In 2007, after receiving “feedback” on the proposal, McCain told far-right activist groups that he now opposes the measure.

He will never make up his mind on Gay marriage. He believes its for man and woman only but believes there should be a ceremony for same sex couples. That was until he won the nomination and he "made up his mind."

He opposed Bush's tax cut for the wealthy 2001 and 2003 but come 2006 he supports our economy. Truth was he knew the Republican party would never support somebody against tax cuts.

Ah yes there is also the fact that he wont let us forget that he was a PoW. Very honorable indeed and so was his anti-torture bill. Of course that is until we find out that the law doesn't apply to anybody that we are torturing.

Justice Department lawyers contended that a detainee at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, cannot use legislation drafted by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) to challenge treatment that the detainee's lawyers described as "systematic torture."

...."Unfortunately, I think the government's right; it's a correct reading of the law," said Tom Malinowski, Washington advocacy director for Human Rights Watch. "The law says you can't torture detainees at Guantanamo, but it also says you can't enforce that law in the courts."

So McCain opposes torture unless it supports the United States.

I can understand changing your positions throughout your career but all of McCain's flip flops have been during his run for President, sign that he either is lying to America but what he believes in or shows how easily manipulated he is. Bring on the Obama hate but realize that its all about the people he associates with, McCain has a history of action and inactions that I believe speaks a lot louder than any words that make Obama sound "elitist."

 

[miyi]

There's a big difference between opening up communication with Iran and the Ottoman empire, Native Americans and Incans negotiating.

For starters, all three of these nations were technologically and/or economically inferior to their adversaries. The Ottoman's land-based empire was backwards and no match for the sea-based economy of the day. The Native Americans and Incans didn't have guns for goodness's sake! It wouldn't have mattered if the Native Americans or Incans had just stayed in their dwellings and not talked with the Europeans, they still would've lost due to the fact that they did not have the technology to compete with them.

Iran and North Korea, on the other hand, are inferior to the US and its allies in just about every measure. There economies, technology, and schools are behind us. The downfall of the Ottomans, Native Americans, and Incans wasn't caused by negotiating, rather, their downfall led to negotiating. The US has negotiated instead of just blindly going to battle many times without crumbling. Just look at the Cold War - we didn't kill one Russian, and yet we one (mainly because a mixed economy is more stable then the brand of socialism with so much focus on the military the USSR used). Negotiation is not sign of weakness, it is a sign of wisdom. There are times to shoot and times to talk.

As to the discussion about Jimmy Carter - I don't see the big deal. Carter paid for his trip himself, and he can't do any damage. If he wants to talk with these people, let him.

The point of negotiations is to come up with a compromise solution; you give up something valuable, in exchange for something in return.

When the Ottomans during the 1600s capitulated (that is, granting special rights and privileges to Europeans) to French merchant demands, it set the precedent for later Europeans during the seventeenth to nineteenth centuries to demand similar rights.

Ottomans at this time were superior to the West. Not the other way around. But as soon as they conceded so much rights to Europeans, more than they would have liked, the balance of power shifted towards the West's favor, and while it was unnoticeable at the time, the Ottomans entered into an era of stagnation and growing weakness, relative to an increasingly improving Western civilization.

The native Americans had an opportunity to drive out the European settlers at Jamestown. Why didn't they? They vastly outnumbered the incoming Europeans, yet they capitulated to the European's demands. The Native Americans instead chose to trade with the Europeans, were fascinated with European technology, and so forth. The balance of power shifted, and it was only a matter of time before Europeans can compete with Native Americans population-wise.

It's the same with the Incans. Pizarro's men were in the hundreds, Atahualpas men are in the hundreds of thousands. It's true, they were inferior technological wise, but nevertheless, Atahualpa capitulated to Pizarro's request of gold and more gold. Atahualpa vastly underestimated the Spanish, and because of that, he put himself into a situation where his empire became susceptible to the Spanish, when he had perfect opportunity to drive them out when they had a chance to do so.

As an empire, country, or government, you never give foreigners so many advantages if you can help it. When you do negotiate, you better be damn sure you get a good deal out of it.

Kim Jong Il and Ahmadenejad can talk, when they give up something we want. That's nuclear weapons. First, they need to be fully transparent and allow inspectors to do their job. Then, we can talk.

You don't negotiate unless the people you're speaking to knows the meaning of "compromise". Obama and Carter, on the other hand, intends to skip all the way to the negotiation process, without making sure the opponent is giving up something in return. If that seems like a bright idea to you, then we are in disagreement.

Negotiation is a strength, but it's also a weakness if you're allowing your opponent too much leverage in the bargaining process.

Now, I am not advocating war with North Korea nor with Iran, that's just completely misrepresenting my point. Not wishing to negotiate is not the same thing as waging war or "shooting". It simply means, we don't want business with North Korea or Iran, unless they show that they are ready to be fully transparent and compliant with what we are asking of them. And likewise, we will give up something that they want from us. That's how diplomacy works.


As for Carter, it is a big deal for the simple fact that his actions is undermining the ongoing peace negotiations already taking place between Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, and Fatah's Mahmoud Abbas.

Why is that relevant? Fatah is a rival faction of Hamas. Fatah is moderate and have renounced terrorism, and willing to negotiate with Israel. Hamas, on the other hand, is not, and continues to attack Israel.

Carter is well respected in the Middle East, especially among extremists, including Hamas. For Carter to give them this gesture that they are a legitimate group as opposed to Fatah completely undermines the ongoing peace process.

That is very relevant, besides the fact that he was a former President credited to bringing Egypt and Israel to sign a peace agreement back in '78.

did a report on Iran so let me clear a few things, he hates the Western world but the reason for his radical statements are to rally his people and he is anti-isreal because they invaded Palenstine and displaced millions of people and are making profits of those peoples suffering. He doesn't want to wipe Israel off the map ala nuke but whats to see the land returned to the people who lived their before the occupation. Yes he isn't a perfect leader but I believe you give the republican spin machine too much credit if you think they can connect a black kid from Chicago to the leader of Iran.

But he literally said so himself, quoting Ayatollah Khomeini, founder of Iran's Islamic Revolution of 1979, that he supports the declaration that Israel should be wiped off the map.

Now whether he meant it or not, we'll never know unless we can read his mind. But the words literally came out of his mouth, and it is not a Republican spin.

And there's more than one side to the Israel-Palestinian argument. You've only described one side of it. That does not make Ahmadenejad's comments of eradicating Israel justified.


@Mccain's flip-flops:

I don't see anything significant about his flip-flopping that I should really be too concerned about. If he did, then it's possible he could have changed his opinions over time, or maybe it's as simple as him playing politics. But that's normal...each candidate has done their share of flip-flopping already..what's new?


as for the torture.........I don't understand why people are so making a big deal about Guantanamo Bay....how many prisoners do we have there? say.....around 500? that's a good number.

How atrocious are our torture methods, if indeed you'd consider them torture, compared to other countries torture methods?


Egypt has 20,000 something prisoners, possibly some being tortured, why is the world not saying anything about that? Much ado about nothing.

---

Bring on the Obama hate but realize that its all about the people he associates with[...]

no, I'm not hating on Obama. I don't hate Obama, nor do I hate Clinton. Hate is such a strong word. I disagree with their views on a lot of things, just as I disagree with Mccains, or for any politician, in general. I merely point out Obama's weaknesses. However, I'm quite positive that he'll become inevitably the next President, just judging from the wave of anti-Bush sentiment in USA and throughout the World right now, and also the worrying economy, which no doubt is attributed to the Iraq War, as always, even when economists say it's caused by a variety of other factors, such as growing world demand for oil, mainly from China, India, and USA; food shortage due to bio-fuel food diversion to ethanol; weakness of US dollar; world real estate bubble; etc. etc.

In other news, Obama finally officially, and decisively denounces Reverend Wright, and it's about time. It's what we Americans (most, at least), have been waiting for him to do. This pastor does not represent the values of the American people, and Obama needed to clarify that. I appreciate him for this, but it's long overdue.