Which democratic candidate do you support?

[SeaniBu]

Ah, the true purpose of this thread is starting to come to the fore.

I knew no one would go to the trouble of starting a thread on politics because they were for someone. Blah, blah. I'm more anti-terrorist than you.

No, I am!

No, me, me!

Obama heard John McCain say this the other day and thought it sounded good.

Doesn't mean a thing.

Can't argue the truth! - although some will hide from it. Well said MM.

This "sides" thing is really stupid too. One side to the other. WELL THANK GOD someone finally trying to use the good points from both sides to try and create a "together" government. Now we have KIDS most of the time "hanging with their cliques.

btw. Do we live in a republic or a democracy country?

Also a few posters FOR SURE are falling to the words of PROPAGANDA and not thinking for themselves. Too bad.

I am writing in MathMan for pres With Gkelly for vice.

 

[Dee4707]

Sean, I won't vote for Mathman, he HATES Evil Dick on Big Brother!!!

Dee

 

[Mathman]

OK, now here is why everyone should hate Evil Dick (aka E.D.). So Amber says, "I love my dog as much as I love my daughter. If both were trapped in a burning house and I could only save one -- how could I possibly decide between them."

So then Dick gets all on her case about how stupid that is, and makes her cry. Of course, a stone rolling down a hill on Mars makes Amber cry, but never mind that.

And then Jamika says, "God told me to take Jen off the block with the power of veto, because God really, really cares who wins this game of lying and deceit."

And Dick says, "Huh?"

The point is, Dick could have remained silent. It is not his job to point out how silly Amber and Jamika are. That's our job. (And we're really, really good at it. )

Somewhere in all this there must by a metaphor for politics, but I can't quite figure it out. :scratch:

 

[CzarinaAnya]

Ptichka makes a good point. If we don't have a Pres. that looks out for Israel, we'll have blood on our hands, the way Iran has been talking. Pretty important stuff.

 

[Mathman]

Ptichka makes a good point. If we don't have a Pres. that looks out for Israel, we'll have blood on our hands, the way Iran has been talking. Pretty important stuff.

So true. The main outcome of the war in Iraq is that we have handed the whole Persian Gulf over to budding nuclear power Iran. Israel must be cursing our name for this blunder.

 

[netnuts]

http://news.bostonherald.com/international/middleEast/view.bg?articleid=1015108,

<blockquote>
Pakistani officials called Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama irresponsible for saying that, if elected, he might order unilateral military strikes in Pakistan against al-Qaida.

Hundreds chanted anti-U.S. slogans and burned an American flag in the street to protest the remark.

Obama’s comment turned up the heat on already simmering anger among Pakistanis about the issue, after senior Bush administration officials said last week they too would consider such strikes if intelligence warranted them.

Further inflaming the situation was a comment by Tom Tancredo, a Colorado Republican whose bid for the White House is considered unlikely to succeed, that the best way he could think of to deter a nuclear terrorist attack on America would be to threaten to retaliate by bombing the holiest of Islamic sites, Mecca and Medina.

U.S. officials quickly distanced themselves from Tancredo’s remarks.

In Miran Shah, a major town in the lawless region that borders Afghanistan, about 1,000 tribesmen condemned recent Pakistani military operations in the area and vowed to repel any U.S. attack.

"We are able to defend ourselves. We will teach a lesson to America if it attacks us," local cleric Maulvi Mohammed Roman told the rally.

In Karachi, Pakistani’s largest city, about 150 people chanted slogans against the United States, Obama and Tancredo at a demonstration organized by Mutahida Majlis-e-Amal, a coalition of six hard-line religious parties. Protesters set fire to a U.S. flag.

"Those who are talking about attacking our holiest places are committing blasphemy. The punishment for this offense is death, and death only," said coalition lawmaker Mohammed Hussain Mahanti.

In a major policy speech Wednesday, Obama said as president he might order strikes in Pakistan’s tribal zone to get terrorists, including those responsible for the Sept. 11 attacks on the United States.

"There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again," Obama said. "If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf will not act, we will."

Top officials in the government of Pakistan President Gen. Pervez Musharraf, a key U.S. ally in the fight against terrorism, bristled at Obama’s comment.

"It’s a very irresponsible statement, that’s all I can say," Foreign Minister Khusheed Kasuri told AP Television News. "As the election campaign in America is heating up we would not like American candidates to fight their elections ... at our expense."

Bush called Musharraf Friday to congratulate him on the 60th anniversary of Pakistan’s independence from India, but also mentioned "recent statements emanating from the U.S. regarding possible U.S. action inside Pakistani territory," the foreign ministry said

</blockquote>

 

[Mathman]

Nah, Barack's cool. Not too sure about this Tancredo character, though.

 

[netnuts]

Anybody in Iowa has voted in this poll? Tell us whether you're going to caucus in primaries? LOL.

 

[SeaniBu]

Ptichka makes a good point. If we don't have a Pres. that looks out for Israel, we'll have blood on our hands, the way Iran has been talking. Pretty important stuff.

What else is new? We have so much blood on our hands, but most the US Gov manage to keep secret.

I am not sympathizing, but I must say I see our enemy's point. Our gov. is full of crafty little bastards that kill inadvertently and hide in the shadows. So what else is new?

Supporting Israel IMO is like throwing gum at a boat full of holes, telling the passengers "chew and stick." Plus it is not like they are doing anything to improve relations either.

As a Russian might think, the jews are not a country, it is a race. Country goes, does not mean race goes. When do we stop putting the needs of a million as more important than the needs of a billion? - let alone some "superficial land."

Same process expecting different results. Time to pull head out and see what is going on in the WORLD.

 

[Mathman]

I think it is too late, Sean. U.S. citizen's who support Israel will be accused of treasonously putting the interests of a foreign nation ahead of U.S. interests.

People who oppose Israel will be accused of harboring vile anti-Semitic hatred.

Setting that to one side, I think our biggest foreign policy error in the Middle East lies in believing that we can force democracy on people who don't want it.

In order for democracy to work, a nation's temperament, culture, traditions, and history must have two characteristics.

(1) All people must be willing to set aside personal grudges and long-festering animosities, and go along with what the majority wants to do.

(2) The people finding themselves in the majority must fiercely, with all their might and main, guard the rights of individuals and minority groups.

This is not the case for most countries in the Middle East. So, in terms of diplomacy initiatives, we need a plan B. (One, for instance, that is more imaginative than marching in and hanging a foreign dictator in the naive hope that the next guy will be any better.)

 

[SeaniBu]

People who oppose Israel will be accused of harboring vile anti-Semetic hatred.

Ypou are a very smart man MM!


That is the whole thing I think people are missing. A chunk of land does not designate a race and the feelings there in. If it is, than these people really don't have a box to stand on. I am all for freedom of religion,that has nothing NOTHING to do with where they live. Culture defines culture. ANd if there is a culture or race that think they are defined by the land they occupy, then we made a mistake supporting them in the first place IMO. Me not liking the way Israel has evolved and the issue surrounding the area occupied have NOTHING to do with Jews.

Accusations - the way that one who does not understand tries to justify the discrepancy of opinion.

 

[Mathman]

... And if there is a culture or race that think they are defined by the land they occupy, then we made a mistake supporting them in the first place IMO.

However, many others on every side of every possible fence think differently. I haven't actually researched this, but I bet alegiance to the LAND is of utmost priority in most of the cultures that this globe has fostered over the last 5000 years. (I don't know how the Apache's felt about it, for instance.)

Perhaps now that we are in the "information age" -- information is not tied to land; you can take it with you -- this land thing will gradually become less important. But for most of the history of civilization, owning land was everything.

I have wondered what would happen if the the Israelis and their neighbors would get together and divide up the region's "Holy Cities." Jerusalem is the holy city of the Jews. That much is certainly incontestible. So, no Arabs can go there, just like no Jews can go to Mecca.

But that wouldn't be fair, because there are way more Arabs than Jews in the region. So the Islamic peoples could have two holy cities, Mecca and Medina. Only Moslems can go there, so as not to sully the holy ground where the Prophet walked. Also, throw in Najaf, Kaironan, Karbala and Makkah. Good fences make good neighbors.

Not sure what to do with Holy City, California -- population 1.

 

[Mathman]

Pakistani officials called Democrat...with anti-U.S. rhetoric for home consumption.

 

[SeaniBu]

:agree:

Perhaps now that we are in the "information age" -- information is not tied to land; you can take it with you -- this land thing will gradually become less important. But for most of the history of civilization, owning land was everything.

Hope for the que to evolve? But alas, evolution is a sin in some eyes. Yes in-pass. To hell with it than?

I have wondered what would happen if the the Israelis and their neighbors would get together and divide up the region's "Holy Cities." Jerusalem is the holy city of the Jews. That much is certainly incontestible. So, no Arabs can go there, just like no Jews can go to Mecca.

something about this reminds me of the club house and "boys only" posted on the door.

 

[Mathman]

Hope for the que to evolve? But alas, evolution is a sin in some eyes.

In most Western religions, yes, change is a sin. The reason is, this is what God told us to do 3000 years ago. God doesn't go around changing his mind on a silly whim. Therefore, change is bad.

Culture is almost as stubborn. I do it this way because my father did it this way. Why did Dad do it this way? Because Grandpop did.

About the "boys only" club, Jews used to be...well, not exactly welcome, but at least tolerated in Arab lands from Morocco to Pakistan. Many Jews did quite well, gaining prosperity and living in (perhaps uneasy) harmony with their neighbors. No more.

Detroit, by the way, has a very large "Chaldean" community. These are Iraqi Catholics who were driven from that country in the 1960s, when the radical Islamists came to power. They have established a very interesting juxtaposition of customs here, now with a lot of third generation Americans. They are not at all welcoming of the new wave of Iraqi immigrants, who are not only Muslim but also tend to be a lot poorer.

As an example of a truly silly culture clash, the old-money Detroiters object to the new-money Chaldeans building big luxurious houses right up front on major highways. The old Detroiters think this is crass -- everyone knows you are supposed to build your mansion on a recessed lot, then plant a bunch of trees around it so no one will know that a house is there.

But the immigrants who strike it rich want everyone driving by to see how big they have become.

So there are zoning fights, and that sort of thing. hwell:

 

[netnuts]

Lastest Gallup poll

Clinton 48%
Obama 26%
Edwards 12%

http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/2007/08/latest-usatgall.html

New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton has significantly widened her lead over Illinois Sen. Barack Obama for the Democratic presidential nomination," USA TODAY Washington bureau chief Susan Page writes.

She tells us that according to the latest USA TODAY/Gallup Poll, Clinton's support among Democrats and independent voters who "lean" Democratic stands at 48%. -- up eight percentage points from three weeks ago.

Obama's support: 26%, down two points. In third: Former North Carolina senator John Edwards, at 12%.

It's probably not surprising that strategists for the two top Democrats have sharply different takes on the news.

"People are seeing her as the one ready to be president," Mark Penn, Clinton's chief strategist, told Susan. Bill Burton, Obama’s spokesman, dismissed the findings. "National polls may go up and down before people actually start voting, but their irrelevance will not," he said.

 

[netnuts]

Hillary in debate

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BIAOeeG_7IY

Hillary in debate . 'I am YOUR GIRL".!

 

[Kasey]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BIAOeeG_7IY

Hillary in debate . 'I am YOUR GIRL".!

Um, no honey. No you're not. You are far too old to be calling yourself a "girl", and all that does is pimp your presence among the MEN who are also contenders for the vote. Playing cutesy won't get it.

Interesting how single-minded, propagandist political threads are allowed to go on ad infinitum here. Netnuts, how much positive feedback or information do you have to contribute to the actual posts on SKATING on this, a skating board?

 

[Spun Silver]

Is it necessary to make a public personal attack on a poster?

Two wrongs don't make a right (if it is true that the thread itself is a "wrong," which I didn't think it was).

 

[Kasey]

Is it necessary to make a public personal attack on a poster?

My apologies, if my question towards said poster you construe as an "attack". I was just curious, since many of the poster's non-political posts have included quite negative comments regarding Johnny Weir, Katy Taylor, Bebe Liang and most notably Yu-Na Kim, among others.

Bowing out now.