If Obama wins

[sook]

i can guarantee you that the u.s's relations with the rest of the world will be so much better if Obama is in office.

The one thing that holds me back on Obama is YOU CAN'T END THE ING WAR NOW.

Mongering re s like whottt got us in there and have left us in a tar pit completely fused to our very skin. We can't get out now.

But having a clueless being one 72 yr old 4 time cancer survivor's heartbeat away from being the commander in chief of the most powerful army on the face of the earth scares the ing out of me.

[George Gervin's Afro]

i can guarantee you that the u.s's relations with the rest of the world will be so much better if Obama is in office.

The one thing that holds me back on Obama is YOU CAN'T END THE ING WAR NOW.

Mongering re s like whottt got us in there and have left us in a tar pit completely fused to our very skin. We can't get out now.

But having a clueless being one 72 yr old 4 time cancer survivor's heartbeat away from being the commander in chief of the most powerful army on the face of the earth scares the ing out of me.

Take heart, she sees russia from her front porch. we'll be fine.

[Cry Havoc]

The it doesn't.





It's repugnant to call fear, ambivalence and indifference liberalism.

Just curious. Do you have the decency or the mental capacity to have a debate online without personally ripping people? How am I supposed to buy your rhetoric about McCain being good for this country when you are willing to go as low as necessary to provoke someone? Is that honest in even the most lenient sense, and do you care? Because if you don't, I'm not sure you deserve any sort of respect. At all.

Now go ahead and scoff, and rip on me. It doesn't change the fact that you act like a prick. Doesn't common decency appeal to you, on some level? I guess when you're comfortable behind your computer it removes you from the need to be kind.

[AFBlue]

i can guarantee you that the u.s's relations with the rest of the world will be so much better if Obama is in office.

The one thing that holds me back on Obama is YOU CAN'T END THE ING WAR NOW.

Mongering re s like whottt got us in there and have left us in a tar pit completely fused to our very skin. We can't get out now.

But having a clueless being one 72 yr old 4 time cancer survivor's heartbeat away from being the commander in chief of the most powerful army on the face of the earth scares the ing out of me.

I'm not gonna lie, I was terribly disappointed with the pick because the national security/CINC role is the biggest priority for me....and she's at the bottom of the list by far in my opinion...well below Obama.

But you're scared enough of the possibility that you'd rather see Obama as the CINC? If so, I guess you and I differ on how big a gap there is between McCain and Obama.

[Findog]

Just curious. Do you have the decency or the mental capacity to have a debate online without personally ripping people? How am I supposed to buy your rhetoric about McCain being good for this country when you are willing to go as low as necessary to provoke someone? Is that honest in even the most lenient sense, and do you care? Because if you don't, I'm not sure you deserve any sort of respect. At all.

Now go ahead and scoff, and rip on me. It doesn't change the fact that you act like a prick. Doesn't common decency appeal to you, on some level? I guess when you're comfortable behind your computer it removes you from the need to be kind.

I'm stealing this from another board, but I think it encapsulates the mental state of people like whottt:

http://www.plastic.com/comments.html...3442953;cid=43

When I listen to conservatives and Republicans talking about what a great pick Palin was — after all, she is anti-abortion and anti-gay marriage, which is all that really counts in a potential President of the United States — I find myself remembering a class in Small Group Interaction from back in 1969.

The teacher gave us a tricky math puzzle, and after we had all attempted to solve it, he told everyone who had the answer "0" to get up and sit in one corner of the room, everyone who had "1" to get up and sit in another corner, everyone who had "6" to sit in a third corner, and everyone who had "12" to sit in the fourth corner. (No one had any other answer.) We then proceeded to debate the correct answer to a math question. Each team picked a debater and each gave arguments for the answer his/her team had picked. At the end of the first debate, anyone who thought s/he had the wrong answer was told to leave his/her group and join the group s/he thought had the right answer. One group disappeared entirely. We then had a second round of debate between the three remaining groups. After the second debate, another group disappeared. We had a third and a fourth round of debate. No one changed sides after the third or fourth debates, and the game was over.

The teacher announced which answer was correct, and the "winning" team cheered and the losing team groused for a bit. But the object of the game was only then revealed. The teacher asked for a show of hands among the team that had the wrong answer: how many had known that their answer was wrong? About a third of the hands went up. The teacher asked the follow-up question: Why didn't you change sides? The answers were what the whole class was actually about. One person refused to switch because he had been on the "0" side from the beginning and didn't want to desert those who had come to agree with him. Another refused to switch because she had a great seat in the front row of her group and wouldn't have gotten as good a seat if she had switched. Another said all his friends were in group "0" and he had no intention of joining the other group and leaving his friends. Still another thought that the "12" group was "arrogant." And so it went, as person after person gave his/her rationale for standing up for a position that s/he knew was wrong.

This class was about a math problem. There was only one correct answer. If apparently extraneous considerations are decisive in determining the correct answer to a math question, how much more do they apply in contexts in which there are arguably more than one correct answer?

It's easier to argue for Sarah Palin's qualifications to serve as Vice President than it is to argue for the wrong answer to a math problem. Many of the people doing it vigorously...probably know that Palin is entirely ignorant when it comes to foreign policy or economic issues, that while she may be a charismatic politician from a small state she couldn't really serve as an effective President if she were called on to do so. But still they argue, for reasons that they will never be called on to reveal in as stark a manner as the students in my Small Group Interaction class were. They stand up with their friends, they stand up for the views of people they think are their allies and/or against the views of people they dislike for any of a range of reasons, they think that favoring their "in-group" against "out-groups" is a moral imperative. Whatever. Palin's interview with Couric was truly a train-wreck, she was not coherent on important issues, and she really doesn't belong in national executive office, and slashing out at people who know these things and say them doesn't really change the facts any.

[mavs>spurs2]

Very well put findog, I was just mulling this over in my mind earlier today but couldn't put it into words. People will always believe what they want to believe. I guarantee if Osama Bin Laden or Satan were the republican candidates in 2012, there would be some diehard republicans who would still support him. Some people just convince themselves of something even if they are wrong and there's just no reasoning with them.

[Findog]

Very well put findog, I was just mulling this over in my mind earlier today but couldn't put it into words.

I didn't write it, which is why I give credit elsewhere, but it pretty much sums it up.

[sook]

Very well put findog, I was just mulling this over in my mind earlier today but couldn't put it into words. People will always believe what they want to believe. I guarantee if Osama Bin Laden or Satan were the republican candidates in 2012, there would be some diehard republicans who would still support him. Some people just convince themselves of something even if they are wrong and there's just no reasoning with them.

haha sad but true.

[mavs>spurs2]

I didn't write it, which is why I give credit elsewhere, but it pretty much sums it up.

I was sitting there baffled thinking why so many people on this site voted for McCain as the winner of the debate in a poll on this site, it was like 50-50. I'm sitting here wondering "how the could people seriously think this? Obama massacred him and McCain came off as so ignorant." But this pretty much sums it up and gives me my answer.

[mavs>spurs2]

by the way the cnn poll was something ilke 2/3 in favor of Obama, which seems more accurate. I guess the other 1/3 are just diehard Republicans.

[AFBlue]

I was sitting there baffled thinking why so many people on this site voted for McCain as the winner of the debate in a poll on this site, it was like 50-50. I'm sitting here wondering "how the could people seriously think this? Obama massacred him and McCain came off as so ignorant." But this pretty much sums it up and gives me my answer.

I voted for both of them, because I thought each "won" a certain portion of the debate. No irrationality involved.

[mavs>spurs2]

I voted for both of them, because I thought each "won" a certain portion of the debate. No irrationality involved.

Did you ever find it odd that McCain couldn't even look at Obama? He was avoiding eye contact for the entire debate, other forums have been buzzing about this all day.

[Findog]

Did you ever find it odd that McCain couldn't even look at Obama? He was avoiding eye contact for the entire debate, other forums have been buzzing about this all day.

Pick up a copy of this month's issue of The Atlantic. McCain can't ing stand Obama, in a way that goes beyond the normal disdain you have for the guy running against you. He also doesn't respect Obama.

[TheMadHatter]

I'm not gonna lie, I was terribly disappointed with the pick because the national security/CINC role is the biggest priority for me....and she's at the bottom of the list by far in my opinion...well below Obama.

But you're scared enough of the possibility that you'd rather see Obama as the CINC? If so, I guess you and I differ on how big a gap there is between McCain and Obama.

Being an effective CIC doesn't necessarily mean you have to have years of foreign policy experience. John McCain has plenty yet he still openly supported the blunder that was Iraq. So much for experience eh?

I value wisdom over experience, and Obama has plenty of that despite being a little wet behind the ears.

[mavs>spurs2]

You also gotta remember, not every great president in history was a war hero

[AFBlue]

Being an effective CIC doesn't necessarily mean you have to have years of foreign policy experience. John McCain has plenty yet he still openly supported the blunder that was Iraq. So much for experience eh?

I value wisdom over experience, and Obama has plenty of that despite being a little wet behind the ears.

As I've said in another thread, it's probably the strongest reason why he's the presidential nominee for the Democratic party (along with the organizing, fundraising, and speaking ability).

As I've also said before, I commend him for taking that stand (even if he didn't have to cast a vote).

But his first action as CINC will be to begin a phased withdrawal of the troops with disregard for the situation on the ground or in the Iraqi government. To me, that doesn't show the judgement and wisdom he's being applauded for with his stance on the Iraq War.

Instead it seems like a "we never should've gone in the first place so now I'm pulling us out". Only the situation has changed....we're no longer fighting a dictatorial regime. We're fighting the war on terror right there in Iraq, and if we leave now it could be dangerous.

I think Obama is an intelligent, level-headed guy but I don't think he's got the edge on McCain when it comes to leadership experience as commander-in-chief of the armed forces.

[Biernutz]

To be honest this country needs a leader like Obama far more than McCain aka Bush 2.0.

Watching the debate last night solidified that in my mind. Obama was very calm and cool and did give praise to McCain where he felt he was right. That's what we need, people who have the capacity to think outside of their parties and acknowledge when good ideas are good ideas. McCain, at least to me, seemed like he would be an extension of Bush's foreign policy and that scares me. We don't need another cowboy, shoot first ask questions laster, President that is recklessly throwing our country into needless wars.

, McCain is going to extend Bush's same foreign policy philosophies of trying to act tough to everyone we disagree with and we're going to end up going alone in

I agree with you
sincerity Keith Olbermann

[Shastafarian]

I agree with you
sincerity Keith Oberlin

Who is Keith Oberlin?

[AFBlue]

Did you ever find it odd that McCain couldn't even look at Obama? He was avoiding eye contact for the entire debate, other forums have been buzzing about this all day.

Nah, it's not his debate style. You could tell it made him uncomfortable when Lehrer was urging them to basically have a conversation with eachother.

I don't think he looked at Romney when they went at it in the Republican primary debates either.

[AFBlue]

You also gotta remember, not every great president in history was a war hero

True, but it doesn't hurt to have over 20 years of leadership experience, reaching the grade of O-6 and commanding the largest flying squadron in the Navy on your résumé.

Then to spend much of your time in the Senate on the Foreign Relations committee being briefed on the Middle East, Russia, and China.

That experience has to count for something.

[TheMadHatter]

As I've said in another thread, it's probably the strongest reason why he's the presidential nominee for the Democratic party (along with the organizing, fundraising, and speaking ability).

As I've also said before, I commend him for taking that stand (even if he didn't have to cast a vote).

But his first action as CINC will be to begin a phased withdrawal of the troops with disregard for the situation on the ground or in the Iraqi government. To me, that doesn't show the judgement and wisdom he's being applauded for with his stance on the Iraq War.

Instead it seems like a "we never should've gone in the first place so now I'm pulling us out". Only the situation has changed....we're no longer fighting a dictatorial regime. We're fighting the war on terror right there in Iraq, and if we leave now it could be dangerous.

I think Obama is an intelligent, level-headed guy but I don't think he's got the edge on McCain when it comes to leadership experience as commander-in-chief of the armed forces.

If you read a little bit into the history of Iraq you'll really scratch your head as to why we ever went in there in the first place. It's basically a failed state, the different factions do not get along with one another and as soon as we leave they will be at each other's throats. Saddam Hussein was a bad man, but he was the only thing keeping that country together. Ironically he hated Al Qaeda and Iran with a passion and would never have let them into Iraq in any meaningful way.

It really doesn't matter when we come home from Iraq. As soon as we leave the probability of the country descending into Civil War is very likely. We will have to face the cold and hard reality that we failed to achieve our goals in Iraq. Let this be a lesson that Democracy cannot be achieved through the barrel of a gun.

This election comes down to what your priorities are as an American? If you feel it's wise to spend $10 billion dollars a month in Iraq trying to achieve goals that most experts believe cannot be reached then vote for John McCain. If you would rather spend that money here at home to fix the problems we have here than Obama is a better fit.

[AFBlue]

If you read a little bit into the history of Iraq you'll really scratch your head as to why we ever went in there in the first place. It's basically a failed state, the different factions do not get along with one another and as soon as we leave they will be at each other's throats. Saddam Hussein was a bad man, but he was the only thing keeping that country together. Ironically he hated Al Qaeda and Iran with a passion and would never have let them into Iraq in any meaningful way.

It really doesn't matter when we come home from Iraq. As soon as we leave the probability of the country descending into Civil War is very likely. We will have to face the cold and hard reality that we failed to achieve our goals in Iraq. Let this be a lesson that Democracy cannot be achieved through the barrel of a gun.

This election comes down to what your priorities are as an American? If you feel it's wise to spend $10 billion dollars a month in Iraq trying to achieve goals that most experts believe cannot be reached then vote for John McCain. If you would rather spend that money here at home to fix the problems we have here than Obama is a better fit.

I'm aware that while the Iraqi people resented Saddam Hussein, they were also somewhat reliant on him to keep the peace. So, yes there's work to be done to ensure the government is strong enough to withstand civil uprising and work through it hopefully by themselves.

If we leave now, we're virtually assured it will fail and the ramifications of that failure are not just political, but also economical and with regard to national security. So I feel it's wise for us to stay until their military is self-sustaining and the situation on the ground is amenable to us leaving.

Besides, conditions on the ground are trending positively and the government is making progress. I sincerely doubt we'll continue to spend $10B/month in Iraq...some of it might move to Afghanistan. Either way, we're fighting the same war against the same enemy.

One final question....

How much of Obama's domestic agenda do you expect will get passed given the $700B of taxpayer money that will likely be committed here in the next few days? Do you think there's a way he carries out his $800B domestic agenda and puts the government $1.5 trillion (with a T) in the hole, while still giving a tax break to 95% of working Americans?

If not, what about Obama are you voting for then?

Okay, technically it was three questions, but they all had the same point.

[Biernutz]

A Democrat beauty pageant. Please vote for your favorite democrat position.

[TheMadHatter]

I'm aware that while the Iraqi people resented Saddam Hussein, they were also somewhat reliant on him to keep the peace. So, yes there's work to be done to ensure the government is strong enough to withstand civil uprising and work through it hopefully by themselves.

If we leave now, we're virtually assured it will fail and the ramifications of that failure are not just political, but also economical and with regard to national security. So I feel it's wise for us to stay until their military is self-sustaining and the situation on the ground is amenable to us leaving.

Besides, conditions on the ground are trending positively and the government is making progress. I sincerely doubt we'll continue to spend $10B/month in Iraq...some of it might move to Afghanistan. Either way, we're fighting the same war against the same enemy.

One final question....

How much of Obama's domestic agenda do you expect will get passed given the $700B of taxpayer money that will likely be committed here in the next few days? Do you think there's a way he carries out his $800B domestic agenda and puts the government $1.5 trillion (with a T) in the hole, while still giving a tax break to 95% of working Americans?

If not, what about Obama are you voting for then?

Okay, technically it was three questions, but they all had the same point.

We are not fighting the same war in Afghanistan that we are fighting in Iraq. That is a fundamentally incorrect statement to make and it shows a profound lack of understanding of the Middle East.

Furthermore us staying in Iraq does nothing but delay the inevitable. As soon as we leave they will be at each other's throats. These people don't want democracy, when we leave a theocracy will be established and things could potentially be worse than before we ever invaded Iraq. You cannot force democracy on a people that don't want it. It just doesn't work that way. I really suggest you educate yourself on the Iraq war and the history of the area in general, it will open your eyes.

Obama understands this. He understands the world is incredibly nuanced and complicated and we can't just meddle into other countries without understanding the ramifications. You may want a shoot first ask questions later President, but I don't. I want a wise leader.

I'm voting for Obama for so many reasons I cannot list them all here. Education reform, health care reform, investment in science and technology, separation of church and state, and the end of trickle down economics to name a few. We can't afford 4 more years of Bush, don't kid yourself that is exactly what McCain wants to do.

[pooh]

I'll be counting the days until 2012 when the Republicans win back the White House. But first regain control of the house and senate. Until then it will be, "America Held Hostage" circa 1992-2000 all over again.