Hilary or Obama? McCain or Romney?

[Shaun]

Who are you going to vote for, or who would you vote for if any of the above people became nominee for each part? Why or why not? What about their policies don't you like, and why don't you like them?

This is intended as a debate, obviously. People aren't going to agree.

So...have at it! I'll join in once we get a little dialogue going :P

[Alex]

First of all I would just like to say that I was extremeley dissapointed in Dodd and Biden's withdrawal, they were my homeboys.

Far and away over everyone mentioned I am an Obama fan. I think McCain isn't stern enough in his views and I'm not a fan of how Romney ran his campaigning ((although he had obscene amounts of money)). That being said, I like Obama because he seems to realizes((in terms of the Iraq War)) that we are in Iraq, and pulling out abruptly would result in even more negative publicity. He wants to set a date for withdrawl, but not as early in comparison to Hillary.

I love his policies on Illegal Immigration, I think he has it right. Allow them to stay in the U.S. if they are here, but try and reduce incentive for them to want to come.

He also is against pumping money into the system irrationally to fix the Health Care problem.

Like I said, my favorite going in was Dodd, with my second being Biden, but knowing neither of them would get very far I am happy that Obama has a chance.

I am usually more conservative leaning, but I don't like any of the republican candidates to much, and would rather go with who I think is right.

[Shaun]

So you like Obama because he wants to bankrupt the country, have non-conditional withdrawal from Iraq, and wants to grant amnesty to 12 million law breakers? What is the value of citizenship then, or is there such a thing as being an American citizen?

Edit: That's not intended to be mean, I'm just trying to understand your position.

[Crocolyle]

My original favorite was Bill Richardson, but since he's no longer in the running. I support Barak Obama (or at least he can count on my vote in the primary). The one reason I like Obama is that he isn't Hillary Clinton. Unlike Clinton, he's not a pseudo-Feminazi, not for censorship, and he's not a war hawk. Unfortunately, he supports socialized health care which is impractical for our country and that's primarily why I dislike him. I'm also not sure about his views on Iraq.

Out of the Republicans I like McCain. I despise both Romney and Huckabee, and I have several reasons for disliking both of them. I like McCain though because he is the most moderate of the Republicans running. Also, I think he might actually be right in continuing the war.

If I may momentarily digress, while I am against the premise for the war (actually both wars. Afghanistan did not attack us. It just harbored a terrorist organization that was not affiliated with the Taliban regime), I am not sure if I am against the war. While the war in Iraq was a mistake based on deception and misinformation and centered on the legally unsound idea of the absence of evidence not being evidence of absence, we, the United States destabilized the region and it is our responsibility to stabilize it. Why should the innocent people of Iraq suffer for our mistakes? Particularly when, slowly but surely according to news reports, the situation in Iraq is improving because of the troop surge. While I think we should only be socially and economically, not militarily or politically involved with the Middle East, and while I think the government should concern itself almost exclusively with domestic and economic (including trade) issues, we destabilized the region and now we must own up to our mistake. We are not the world police, but we do need to police ourselves. Tying that tirade back into my argument, I would like to say that since McCain supports continuing the war to stabilize the region, he has my support in that regard.

But Obama, I think will be my first choice. I don't think he'll be able to end the war... Like we were still in Vietnam when that ended...

[Shaun]

How do you come to the conclusion that Afghanistan has no involvement? Just curious.

I agree with you on everything else though. We created the problems that exist now, it's our moral prerogative to put things back into a stable position. I somewhat like McCain myself, but I doubt I'd vote for him because he is a little too right leaning for me. I agree with him on his policies about illegal immigration though: make the consequences and conditions so hard they are forced to go back.

[Alex]

In terms of the war I don't agree with Obama, I think we should be taking the troops in Iraq and stationing them in other places in the area, searching for our true goal, but I'd rather see them withdrawn at a more steady pace than Hillary wildly withdrawing them all within 3 months of her getting in office. I agreed with Hunter and Dodd on this saying we leave the same amount of soldiers there and slowly rotate out the heavier artillery until there is no one left ((Hunter)), or slowly move them to Afghanistan and finish off the Taliban ((Dodd)), but I can't make my perfect candidate can I?

Ford granted repreives to every single criminal on death row the day before he left office, he gets no flack for that, so Obama wanting to allow the illegal immigrants who have arrived to stay in the country is nothing in comparison to precedent. McCain also wants to establish a temporary migrant worker program, meaning he isn't for kicking them out. I don't know who you are for Shaun, but McCain is just my popular example. ((I'm assuming your a Romney fan, btw, tell me if I'm right =]))

On the issue of healthcare, its is a toss up to me. I really don't care as long as Kucinich's or Gravel's ways don't get implimented. Tax deductions, or by offsetting the cost of healtcare through payroll, I really don't care as long as we don't establish a set healthcare system. I do like Romney's idea to cut the medical fraud cases.

If there was a republican that I felt was strong in the race then I would vote for them but I don't consider McCain a Republican, its just the party he runs under, he is a complete and total moderate and flatly I just don't agree with some of his policies. Not to say I don't like moderates, probably being one myself, but I just don't agree with his policies.

I don't mind alot of the candidates but I don't love anyone who is left, and as I said before, Dodd was my original choice.

[Shaun]

In terms of the war I don't agree with Obama, I think we should be taking the troops in Iraq and stationing them in other places in the area, searching for our true goal, but I'd rather see them withdrawn at a more steady pace than Hillary wildly withdrawing them all within 3 months of her getting in office. I agreed with Hunter and Dodd on this saying we leave the same amount of soldiers there and slowly rotate out the heavier artillery until there is no one left ((Hunter)), or slowly move them to Afghanistan and finish off the Taliban ((Dodd)), but I can't make my perfect candidate can I?

I don't agree with any politician that doesn't have conditional withdrawals. I like McCain's idea only because he has said that if certain conditions are met he will being withdrawing. I trust his judgment on this because he's been in a similar situation before and knows what's up.

Ford granted repreives to every single criminal on death row the day before he left office, he gets no flack for that, so Obama wanting to allow the illegal immigrants who have arrived to stay in the country is nothing in comparison to precedent. McCain also wants to establish a temporary migrant worker program, meaning he isn't for kicking them out. I don't know who you are for Shaun, but McCain is just my popular example. ((I'm assuming your a Romney fan, btw, tell me if I'm right =]))

Mmhmm, and that was wrong. So does that mean we can do anything now just because someone else did something bad? By that logic then we should easily be allowed to murder people since we nearly wiped out the Indians and indentured servitude should be allowed too since we enslaved the Blacks a long time ago. I mean, one murder isn't nearly as bad as genocide, and indentured servitude isn't the same as slavery, so why not? There shouldn't be any freebies for people that break the law. You get caught, tough. You can make deals, fine, get lighter sentences, but I refuse to grant amnesty to people that REFUSE to go through an simple, legal method to come here. Green cards aren't that hard to get. They just don't get them. Not to mention illegal immigrants are great ways to get illegal drugs into the country.
I'm not for Romney...he's crazy. And I don't trust people as rich as him. I like McCain cause he doesn't simply want to say "oh, let them all in, have fun", he wants to make sure they work their asses off for residency and he has publicly stated he wants to make it so hard for illegal immigrants to succeed here that they'll have to just go back where they came from.

On the issue of healthcare, its is a toss up to me. I really don't care as long as Kucinich's or Gravel's ways don't get implimented. Tax deductions, or by offsetting the cost of healtcare through payroll, I really don't care as long as we don't establish a set healthcare system. I do like Romney's idea to cut the medical fraud cases.

We can't afford any sort of government subsidized healthcare system right now. In the future, possibly, now, no. It'll bankrupt us. Although I agree that medical fraud cases should be reduced. It's ridiculous the amount of lawsuits there are and quite frankly I'm sick of people manipulating the legal system like that.


If there was a republican that I felt was strong in the race then I would vote for them but I don't consider McCain a Republican, its just the party he runs under, he is a complete and total moderate and flatly I just don't agree with some of his policies. Not to say I don't like moderates, probably being one myself, but I just don't agree with his policies.'

I probably won't vote for McCain, only because I don't agree with him on a lot of things. He gets brownie points with me on the War and Immigration though, while the democratic candidates have basically turned me off completely with their stupid touchy feely politics...we've granted amnesty before people...and the government said then that they would do more to keep the illegals out...and now look where we are...do we really want to trust another "well we'll give these ones amnesty and defend the border more this time"? I don't think so. Step the foot down now and take care of it. They're destroying our country right from under us by sucking up tax payers dollars out of the welfare and social security systems...

[Crocolyle]

How do you come to the conclusion that Afghanistan has no involvement? Just curious.

I agree with you on everything else though. We created the problems that exist now, it's our moral prerogative to put things back into a stable position. I somewhat like McCain myself, but I doubt I'd vote for him because he is a little too right leaning for me. I agree with him on his policies about illegal immigration though: make the consequences and conditions so hard they are forced to go back.

I don't remember where I read it. I think Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace by Gore Vidal, but I'm not entirely sure. I know it isn't a legitimate source, but Wikipedia's account of the events prior to our attack seem to suggest that the government had nothing to do with the attack; it was Bin Ladin and Al'Queda, not the Taliban regime.

[Shaun]

Wikipedia is far from a legit source :P. I don't think there is enough evidence to make a claim that Afghanistan wasn't involve in some way.

[Crocolyle]

Wikipedia is far from a legit source :P. I don't think there is enough evidence to make a claim that Afghanistan wasn't involve in some way.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/wtccrash/story/0,,553159,00.html#article_continue

Found an article in the Guardian about it. It in no way suggests that the Taliban regime had anything to do with the attack, but rather that our toppling of the regime was not in response to us suspecting their involvement in the attack, but merely their refusal to hand over the prime suspect. One could argue, if Osama was clearly guilty, why didn't they hand him over? Not being Afghanistan and not being knowledgeable enough in foreign policy, I don't think I can draw an accurate conclusion, but based on my limited knowledge of Pashtun culture based on articles in the Washington Post, Afghanis are reluctant to hand over anyone they are harboring, seeing it as shameful and a violation of hospitality, regardless of who that person is.

[Shaun]

Ah, well then they were involved by harboring the man responsible for 9/11. So, indirectly they were responsible and by the mandate set down after 9/11 we had a right to deal with nations that harbored terrorists (at least those involved in 9/11). So, yeah, it's their fault.

[Alex]

while they are guilty of harbroing a terrorist, they are not guilty for september 11th

it wasn't the afghani government who decided to plot the September 11th attacks, and therefore the only right we have as another country should be to search for our enemies within their borders with very few restrictions against us ((killing innocents or bombing certain buildings and such)).

[Shaun]

while they are guilty of harbroing a terrorist, they are not guilty for september 11th

it wasn't the afghani government who decided to plot the September 11th attacks, and therefore the only right we have as another country should be to search for our enemies within their borders with very few restrictions against us ((killing innocents or bombing certain buildings and such)).

In the U.S. we have a very specific law about being an accessory to a murder. It's the same thing. If you're harboring an individual who has admitted to attacking someone else, and that person is wanted because the actions were clearly wrong (which they were), then you are an accessory to a terrorist act and to murder. They refused to give him up, knowing bin Laden was there...they are culpable for their actions.
Innocents die in every war. It's unavoidable. Dwelling on it doesn't do anything but to make war entirely wicked, even when wars are necessary. WW2 saw the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent people. But that war was warranted. The same in Afghanistan and Iraq. When you focus on innocent deaths it really doesn't do much other than to subvert anything positive established. If we could wage wars without putting innocent people in harms way we would. But we can't. The Taliban and the Afghani government brought war on themselves by not cooperating, by harboring a man wanted not only by the U.S. but by the UN and various other organizations and countries for being a violent, immoral terrorist. That is a legal and logical basis to wage a war. Unless you're suggesting that the U.S. should never have retaliated for the events of 9/11 and should just have stood by and done nothing at all...

[Alex]

I'm not saying that, and you read my earlier post where I said we should move into Afghanistan, but I don't feel we can wage a full on war against the country of Afghanistan. We should be given a warrant of sorts to search for him, and I've never taken a college level course on anything... so I'm not best to judge, but its just my opinion.

On a different note, Romney is out and McCain is pretty much certainly the winner on the side of the Republicans.

[Shaun]

I'm not saying that, and you read my earlier post where I said we should move into Afghanistan, but I don't feel we can wage a full on war against the country of Afghanistan. We should be given a warrant of sorts to search for him, and I've never taken a college level course on anything... so I'm not best to judge, but its just my opinion.

On a different note, Romney is out and McCain is pretty much certainly the winner on the side of the Republicans.

Well they wouldn't let us search for him and most likely they knew exactly where he was. All they had to do was give him up. That's it. Done and done.

Yeah, McCain is probably taking the Rep. side...not sure if that's 100% good or not. I need to do a little more research on all his ideas.

[Crocolyle]

It's not like we never harbored terrorists. We're kind of hypocritical in that sense. Catholic churches across the country used to have drives to support IRA members. In that regard would Great Britain have been justified in attacking us?

It is not the regime's fault, simply because they harbored a person who has intentions of harming us. Also, as a different culture, we cannot truly understand their reasons and motives for harboring him. Also, they did not bring the war on themselves entirely by ardently refusing to give him up. According to the article I linked or a different one I read on that site, the government said that they'd give him over if our government could adequately prove it was Bin Ladin. We simply refused. Also the article goes to point out that even if we handed him over, we would have attacked anyway, if only to destroy al-Quaeda's training facilities. While we may think our government is right in a lot of actions, our government commits atrocities and declares war inconsistently based on opportunity and hidden motives (for the record I love our country--but that doesn't mean it's always right).

[Shaun]

It's not like we never harbored terrorists. We're kind of hypocritical in that sense. Catholic churches across the country used to have drives to support IRA members. In that regard would Great Britain have been justified in attacking us?

The difference is that "CATHOLIC" Churches were involved. Separation of Church and State. It's not the Government.

It is not the regime's fault, simply because they harbored a person who has intentions of harming us. Also, as a different culture, we cannot truly understand their reasons and motives for harboring him. Also, they did not bring the war on themselves entirely by ardently refusing to give him up. According to the article I linked or a different one I read on that site, the government said that they'd give him over if our government could adequately prove it was Bin Ladin. We simply refused. Also the article goes to point out that even if we handed him over, we would have attacked anyway, if only to destroy al-Quaeda's training facilities. While we may think our government is right in a lot of actions, our government commits atrocities and declares war inconsistently based on opportunity and hidden motives (for the record I love our country--but that doesn't mean it's always right).

It is the regime's fault. They failed to cooperate in handing over a man that killed thousands of people in cold blood. This is despite the U.S.'s involvement in their creation and protection against Soviet Russia. Such negotiations had been held before, as Bin Laden was a wanted man already, but the Taliban wanted to hand him over to a third party (i.e. a country that wasn't directly influenced by Bin Laden's former attacks on innocent people), and the U.S. flat out refused that. The result was that when 9/11 happened, an event a thousand-fold worse than any other attack since Japan's bombing of Pearl Harbor, we gave them an ultimatum: Give him up, or face military action. They brought it on themselves. End of story. They had the opportunity in the past, and were not willing to cooperate then, and the U.S. has every right to take necessary action to defend itself and to punish those responsible. Anyone who harbors Bin Laden with intent to keep him from the U.S. is an enemy to the safety and security of this country and her allies. That might sound harsh, but it's true. Bin Laden is and always will be a threat to the U.S. so long as he remains outside of our control--either dead or in prison. Will he attack again? Yes, he will. His radical religious ideology will lead him to make more attacks, possibly worse ones than 9/11, possibly on the U.S. or England, or elsewhere. Bin Laden is a terrorist, end of story.
As for adequate proof: Bin Laden's brother publicly came forward to say he's spoken with BL...BL has claimed to be sorry for what he did and his brother wants to act as some sort of 'peace' man between the U.S. and arabic nations. It was on Yahoo. Not sure where it is now, but it's there somewhere. It was a video. Really interesting actually.

I sound incredibly republican right now...

[Crocolyle]

The difference is that "CATHOLIC" Churches were involved. Separation of Church and State. It's not the Government.


Separation of church and state has nothing to do with the situation. The fact is the IRA is a terrorist organization and the American government tolerated this terrorist organization working within our boarders. The churches weren't affiliated with our government, and Bin Ladin wasn't affiliated with the Afghani government.

It is the regime's fault. They failed to cooperate in handing over a man that killed thousands of people in cold blood. This is despite the U.S.'s involvement in their creation and protection against Soviet Russia. Such negotiations had been held before, as Bin Laden was a wanted man already, but the Taliban wanted to hand him over to a third party (i.e. a country that wasn't directly influenced by Bin Laden's former attacks on innocent people), and the U.S. flat out refused that. The result was that when 9/11 happened, an event a thousand-fold worse than any other attack since Japan's bombing of Pearl Harbor, we gave them an ultimatum: Give him up, or face military action. They brought it on themselves. End of story. They had the opportunity in the past, and were not willing to cooperate then, and the U.S. has every right to take necessary action to defend itself and to punish those responsible. Anyone who harbors Bin Laden with intent to keep him from the U.S. is an enemy to the safety and security of this country and her allies. That might sound harsh, but it's true. Bin Laden is and always will be a threat to the U.S. so long as he remains outside of our control--either dead or in prison. Will he attack again? Yes, he will. His radical religious ideology will lead him to make more attacks, possibly worse ones than 9/11, possibly on the U.S. or England, or elsewhere. Bin Laden is a terrorist, end of story.
As for adequate proof: Bin Laden's brother publicly came forward to say he's spoken with BL...BL has claimed to be sorry for what he did and his brother wants to act as some sort of 'peace' man between the U.S. and arabic nations. It was on Yahoo. Not sure where it is now, but it's there somewhere. It was a video. Really interesting actually.

I sound incredibly republican right now...

None of this really refutes what I have already stated and what the article says. Regardless of what they had done, they most likely would have faced military action (Do you honestly think if they hand us only the leader of the terrorist organization we would have stopped there, when his whole organization was present?). And once again, Pashtun sense of honor. All we had to do was prove that he had done it, but we didn't. End of story.

[Shaun]

Separation of church and state has nothing to do with the situation. The fact is the IRA is a terrorist organization and the American government tolerated this terrorist organization working within our boarders. The churches weren't affiliated with our government, and Bin Ladin wasn't affiliated with the Afghani government.

It has everything to do with it. The difference is that if England said to us "hey, could you hand over those terrorists" we would have done that, provided with the same level of proof provided by the U.S. against Bin Laden, which wasn't just someone saying "oh, yeah I know he did it", there was actual evidence of it that the President, idiotically, ignored when it was brought to him. Afghanistan refused to cooperate and harbored Bin Laden: i.e. when asked to hand him over and to cease allowing him to operate in their borders they refused and therefore became involved.

None of this really refutes what I have already stated and what the article says. Regardless of what they had done, they most likely would have faced military action (Do you honestly think if they hand us only the leader of the terrorist organization we would have stopped there, when his whole organization was present?). And once again, Pashtun sense of honor. All we had to do was prove that he had done it, but we didn't. End of story.

If Afghanistan had given up Bin Laden and taken efforts to thrust out al-Qaeda, then yes, that would have been just about the end of it. They didn't, they offered Bin Laden shelter.
And I don't care about Pashtun sense of honor. There's a time when honor and idiocy can no longer exist. True honor would have been to look at what the consequences would be and make the right decision.
There's no real evidence that they would have faced military action if they had cooperated. A lot of speculation, but any military action they would have faced was due to a lack of cooperation and for harboring terrorists intentionally. Someone who harbors a terrorist intentionally is no different than a terrorist. You should still be held accountable. And yes, I think the Church should be held accountable for a lot of things it has done in the past. There are a lot of evil, wicked people in the Church.

[Crocolyle]

It has everything to do with it. The difference is that if England said to us "hey, could you hand over those terrorists" we would have done that, provided with the same level of proof provided by the U.S. against Bin Laden, which wasn't just someone saying "oh, yeah I know he did it", there was actual evidence of it that the President, idiotically, ignored when it was brought to him. Afghanistan refused to cooperate and harbored Bin Laden: i.e. when asked to hand him over and to cease allowing him to operate in their borders they refused and therefore became involved.



If Afghanistan had given up Bin Laden and taken efforts to thrust out al-Qaeda, then yes, that would have been just about the end of it. They didn't, they offered Bin Laden shelter.
And I don't care about Pashtun sense of honor. There's a time when honor and idiocy can no longer exist. True honor would have been to look at what the consequences would be and make the right decision.
There's no real evidence that they would have faced military action if they had cooperated. A lot of speculation, but any military action they would have faced was due to a lack of cooperation and for harboring terrorists intentionally. Someone who harbors a terrorist intentionally is no different than a terrorist. You should still be held accountable. And yes, I think the Church should be held accountable for a lot of things it has done in the past. There are a lot of evil, wicked people in the Church.

Wait!? What does "evil, wicked people in the Church" have to do with this? Your thought jumped, but I can't make that leap... if you're talking about the IRA thing, I don't think the Pope advocated it. It was more of an ethnicly, not religiously, based--back in the old country they still had family involved the IRA. It's more like, since most members of the IRA were Catholic, where else could they get money except at an Irish Catholic Church? And if the Church should be held accountable for its past wrongs: persecution of heretics, suppression of paganism, and the Crusades, should all people descended from one group that oppressed another be held accountable for their past wrongs? Descendants of slave owners, those descended from Protestants who persecuted Catholics, Germans descended from Nazis? Or are you just bigoted against Catholics?

I'm sure the United States has harbored terrorists in some form or another and by your logic we are terrorists (well, technically we are anyway. Who were the founders of our nation, if not terrorists?). Like our government previously backed Kurdish militias, in hopes of overthrowing Saddam, which is even worse than what Afghanistan did. Afghanistan really had nothing to do with the Saudi terrorists. The terrorists were merely operating in their borders--they didn't know that they were planning. There are a lot of delusions in our country, and you seem to have latched onto one of them with a deathgrip. The Taliban and al-Quaeda were not affiliated.

[Shaun]

Wait!? What does "evil, wicked people in the Church" have to do with this? Your thought jumped, but I can't make that leap... if you're talking about the IRA thing, I don't think the Pope advocated it. It was more of an ethnicly, not religiously, based--back in the old country they still had family involved the IRA. It's more like, since most members of the IRA were Catholic, where else could they get money except at an Irish Catholic Church? And if the Church should be held accountable for its past wrongs: persecution of heretics, suppression of paganism, and the Crusades, should all people descended from one group that oppressed another be held accountable for their past wrongs? Descendants of slave owners, those descended from Protestants who persecuted Catholics, Germans descended from Nazis? Or are you just bigoted against Catholics?

People are held accountable for their actions. End of story. If you murder someone, you go to jail in this country. If you kill someone in war, that's different, and we have clear rules on that, unless it is a war crime, which has rules set to it again. If any Catholic entity, whether the entire Church or a small group of churches, or whatever, chose to sponsor terrorist actions those people should very well be held accountable for anything that can be considered sponsoring terrorism. We do not hold people accountable for what their ancestors did, because we cannot control what our ancestors did. If you're related to Hitler you are not at all punishable for the doings of Hitler, unless you were involved. I'm not bigoted against any group unless that group is clearly dangerous to mankind. Not all Catholics are evil, not all atheists are good. There are no black and white lines. There are good Catholics and bad Catholics, good Muslims and bad Muslims, good Atheists and bad Atheist.
My thought never jumped. I was simply stating that there are people within the Church who should very well be punished for their actions.
On the subject of the IRA, there is a very fine line between whether they are in fact terrorists or not. Yes, they do things that are considered to be of a terrorist nature, but what they are doing is considered a defense of land that was actually theirs at one point. That doesn't mean I think they are in the right, far from it. Any form of terrorism, even if for a good cause, I think is stupid, but they might think themselves in the right and it is a far more complex subject than 9/11, which is clear lines written into it. Bin Laden easily could have bombed our embassies or a U.S. territory, or Ally, but he planned an elaborate plot to drive planes into the towers and the pentagon, and possibly a third target. I don't know enough about the IRA to say whether they are actually 100% terrorists. They very well may be, but there is a clear distinction that has to be made between them and this argument on Afghanistan.

I'm sure the United States has harbored terrorists in some form or another and by your logic we are terrorists (well, technically we are anyway. Who were the founders of our nation, if not terrorists?). Like our government previously backed Kurdish militias, in hopes of overthrowing Saddam, which is even worse than what Afghanistan did. Afghanistan really had nothing to do with the Saudi terrorists. The terrorists were merely operating in their borders--they didn't know that they were planning. There are a lot of delusions in our country, and you seem to have latched onto one of them with a deathgrip. The Taliban and al-Quaeda were not affiliated.

Sigh, no I'm not latching on to a delusion, you're simply ignoring a parallel. It is IRRELEVANT if they had their hands in the actual act. The fact is they provided the space and the support for Bin Laden to launch his attacks. They KNOW that al-Queda is a terrorist group, they KNEW that the U.S. wanted Bin Laden for prior attacks against humanity, and they KNEW that the U.S. was not willing to negotiate sideways terms on the subject. Likewise they obviously KNEW where Bin Laden was and REFUSED to give him up. That is the same as saying "I know where that guy who killed all those children over at the elementary school is, but I'm not telling you" to the police. That makes you culpable for the actions of the group intentionally harbored. I'm not deluding myself at all here. This is the fact of the matter. They had every opportunity to give the U.S. what they wanted and flatly refused. End of story. Direct affiliation isn't necessary. The Taliban didn't have to have their hands on the trigger in order to make them responsible. Anyone harboring al-Qaeda is a terrorist themselves. They would be sponsoring the violent, immoral destruction of peoples for no purpose. There is no logical, constructive purpose to acts that al-Qaeda carries out these days. None. All it does is piss people off and make them afraid and more likely to drop bombs. That's the difference between supporting militias and terrorism. Saddam was evil, and there is no doubt about that. Our reasons for Iraq were wrong, since they were lies, but you can't deny that the man was an evil person. If the U.S. can take efforts to support groups that could overthrow him, so be it.

[Shaun]

You know, I just realized we're tremendously off topic here...

Edit: Back to the subject at hand. I think Croc and I should argue about Afghanistan elsewhere. Sorry all, I got carried away. I was having fun!

Anyway, so Obama just took a bunch more states than expected, so what do you guys like certain candidates or not? Honestly I think the whole thread was supposed to help me figure out who the heck to vote for :glare:

[Jessica]

I hate them all, I want Gravel and Paul *Tears*

[Shaun]

Aww, well I was partial to Paul myself, although I think some of his ideas were a little too off the mark for America...

[Alex]

Paul >.< maybe if his supporters didn't crowd me like the plague when I left the library...

not a big fan though, just didn't appeal to me

[Jessica]

Yeah, but at least he had good ideas... I agreed with pretty much everything Mike Gravel had to say, so yeah. That's why I like him. But I'm Canadian... So yeah, it doesn't really affect me.

[Shaun]

The thing I liked about Paul was that he wanted to go back to following to Constitution, which is 100% true. Republicans and Democrats have completely ignored that document and it is the second most important written work in America.

[GeorgeMichael]

The thing I liked about Paul was that he wanted to go back to following to Constitution, which is 100% true. Republicans and Democrats have completely ignored that document and it is the second most important written work in America.


being daft here but what's the first most important work? The DoI?

oh and I'm still not truly sure who I would vote for, (barely 17 :( no vote for me) but I'm almost definately on the democrats side this time around. (Last election I was for the greene party because I didn't care and I was young :) and foolish.) but between Clinton or Obama, which brings me to another off topic question. Everywhere on the enws and when people talk they Say Hilary and Obama... why do they say Hilary and not clinton...is it to differentiate from the otehr clinton... yeah that's probably it... ok ignore that question. But yeah, right now I'm leaning a bit towards Hilary but Obama is still cabable of winning my vote...

[Shaun]

Declaration of Independence is the most important :P. It's the document that made us into the U.S.A. :)

As for Hilary, that's probably the reason. They don't want to confuse her with her husband, although her husband did do a lot of great things in his 8 years and we threw a fit cause he got a BJ, but we don't throw a fit when Bush breaks the law and violates our civil rights...yeah...BJs apparently are worse than throwing the Constitution right out the door. And yes, we had a fit over the BJ, not the fact that Clinton lied. We all could have cared less that he lied...it was just the principle of the matter. "Oh no, BJs, eww, that's bad family values, meh"...Personally I don't care. Whatever, get a BJ in the oval office. Doesn't bother me as long as you do your damned job. BJs aren't illegal.

Anywho...

[GeorgeMichael]

Shaun speaks the truth! :)

BJ's are not illegal, and Bush... well he explained it enough :)

[Alex]

yea but cheating on your wife isn't good either

I liked what he did as a president, but that doesn't mean I have to respect what he did.

[Shaun]

No, I'm not saying you should respect what he did as far as the BJ and stuff goes, but I think if we had to pick between a President who did a good job, but had some moral issues, or a President who does a horrible job and practically destroys the foundations of an entire country in 8 years but has "SOUND" morals...wait...nevermind, our President doesn't have good morals either...yeah, so let's get Clinton back...I can at least live with having to explain to kids that the President is a bad man for cheating on his wife...I don't want to have to explain to kids that the President is a bad man because he lies, screws up over and over, takes us into war and kills thousands of innocent people and our soldiers for something that wasn't true and never was...umm, oh fails to do his job, violates civil rights, violates the constitution...I mean, good lord. We've impeached Presidents for less!

[Alex]

No, I'm not saying you should respect what he did as far as the BJ and stuff goes, but I think if we had to pick between a President who did a good job, but had some moral issues, or a President who does a horrible job and practically destroys the foundations of an entire country in 8 years but has "SOUND" morals...wait...nevermind, our President doesn't have good morals either...yeah, so let's get Clinton back...I can at least live with having to explain to kids that the President is a bad man for cheating on his wife...I don't want to have to explain to kids that the President is a bad man because he lies, screws up over and over, takes us into war and kills thousands of innocent people and our soldiers for something that wasn't true and never was...umm, oh fails to do his job, violates civil rights, violates the constitution...I mean, good lord. We've impeached Presidents for less!

but we haven't kicked them out of office :P

sorry just a little bit of humor.

I agree with what you said, he was a horrible president, but I also want to say that I don't think he is a bad human being. Yeah... he screwed up... alot.. ok... alot alot, but it wasn't his goal to screw up the nation. I hate the view that

"oh those damn (insert party here) are trying to ruin the nation"

They aren't trying to ruin the nation, they're just trying to use a method different than yours to help the nation. Just my opinion though

to bad for everyone that Bush didn't take that job as commisioner of major league baseball when the opportunity arose :P

[Shaun]

I actually think all parties should be taken down. I hate party voting, I hate talk of Republicans this or Democrats that. The fact is that both parties suck tremendously.

As for him being a good guy...no, sorry, Clinton is a good guy...a little immoral sure, but you could hang out with Clinton and know he's not going to backstab you later. Bush? No, not a chance. That bastard would hang out with you and while you were hanging out he'd make a phone call to cancel your mortgage and repo your house. Why do I think this? I look at the state of the country and see how shitty our country is doing and can't for one second thing that incompetence can compensate for all that. No, he did some terrible things on purpose and he's still doing horrible things and nobody can stop him because our stupid checks & balances system is broken. The senate is a bunch of pansies, and Congress can't agree on anything anymore because it's this ridiculous battle of the parties. I'm sick of it. I'm also sick of seeing rich ass bastards getting million dollar tax cuts, but poor ass people getting shafted over and over. NO $30 IS NOT GOING TO PULL SOMEONE OUT OF DEBT, BUSH! You need $300 minimum to help anyone in the lower tiers of society...MINIMUM. That means the lowest amount allowed, Mr. Shrub. And yeah, that whole bit about how giving huge tax cuts to the rich would help our economy...NOT A CHANCE. LOOK AT IT! OUR ECONOMY HAS BEEN SHITTY EVERY SINCE YOU GOT IN OFFICE AND WASTED 5.6 TRILLION DOLLARS OF SURPLUS! Oh, and don't forget the part where he gave tax cuts to businesses for outsourcing jobs that would go to Americans. Thanks to him our entire IT industry is centered in other countries! You can't get tech support anymore without talking to some moron who changed his name to Ben so he'd sound American but talks with an accent you can't understand.
No, Mr. Shrub has destroyed American in his 7+ years. If he goes down in history for anything it will be as the worst President EVER. Bring back Nixon. At least he had heart...if Bush said "I am not a crook" we'd all laugh because he would be the only one that believed it...
And America should be slapped a dozen times for ever even considering him for the Presidency...Gore should have won because at least we wouldn't be ass up in poop right now with him around...maybe ass up in BS global warming crap, but not ass up in illegal war, debt, debt, debt, debt, and more debt, idiocy, stupidity, educational fallout, etc.

GAH! You see what you've done...I'm ranting...

[Crocolyle]

I actually think all parties should be taken down. I hate party voting, I hate talk of Republicans this or Democrats that. The fact is that both parties suck tremendously.

As for him being a good guy...no, sorry, Clinton is a good guy...a little immoral sure, but you could hang out with Clinton and know he's not going to backstab you later. Bush? No, not a chance. That bastard would hang out with you and while you were hanging out he'd make a phone call to cancel your mortgage and repo your house. Why do I think this? I look at the state of the country and see how shitty our country is doing and can't for one second thing that incompetence can compensate for all that. No, he did some terrible things on purpose and he's still doing horrible things and nobody can stop him because our stupid checks & balances system is broken. The senate is a bunch of pansies, and Congress can't agree on anything anymore because it's this ridiculous battle of the parties. I'm sick of it. I'm also sick of seeing rich ass bastards getting million dollar tax cuts, but poor ass people getting shafted over and over. NO $30 IS NOT GOING TO PULL SOMEONE OUT OF DEBT, BUSH! You need $300 minimum to help anyone in the lower tiers of society...MINIMUM. That means the lowest amount allowed, Mr. Shrub. And yeah, that whole bit about how giving huge tax cuts to the rich would help our economy...NOT A CHANCE. LOOK AT IT! OUR ECONOMY HAS BEEN SHITTY EVERY SINCE YOU GOT IN OFFICE AND WASTED 5.6 TRILLION DOLLARS OF SURPLUS! Oh, and don't forget the part where he gave tax cuts to businesses for outsourcing jobs that would go to Americans. Thanks to him our entire IT industry is centered in other countries! You can't get tech support anymore without talking to some moron who changed his name to Ben so he'd sound American but talks with an accent you can't understand.
No, Mr. Shrub has destroyed American in his 7+ years. If he goes down in history for anything it will be as the worst President EVER. Bring back Nixon. At least he had heart...if Bush said "I am not a crook" we'd all laugh because he would be the only one that believed it...
And America should be slapped a dozen times for ever even considering him for the Presidency...Gore should have won because at least we wouldn't be ass up in poop right now with him around...maybe ass up in BS global warming crap, but not ass up in illegal war, debt, debt, debt, debt, and more debt, idiocy, stupidity, educational fallout, etc.

GAH! You see what you've done...I'm ranting...


Anyone who understands American political history will understand that political parties are a necessary evil, as Madison wrote. People naturally will gravitate towards people with like-minded ideas and form political alliances in order to get their goals accomplished. This is something that can't and shouldn't be regulated.

The problem isn't so much the fact that there are parties, but rather the role of the corporate lobbyists in the current political structure. Since the 1970s both parties have relied on corporations for political funding in order to get their candidates elected. While, at first this seems harmless, candidates are indebted to the corporation for money and, later, jobs after they retire from politics. They are forced not to vote what's best for the country, but what's best for the corporation.

Corporations not only exploit the political system in that regard, but also use it to limit the effect of independent and anti-corporation third party politics. For example, Ralph Nader was excluded from the debates in the Gore v. Bush race. Then, after someone gave him a ticket to watch the debate on a screen, the security guards removed him from the premises for being Ralph Nader.

Let me backtrack a little bit. The only real problem I see with the parties themselves, besides corruption, is the inability to compromise. Our system of government is designed to be inefficient to force compromise and since both sides are polarized and rely on the misguided fervor of their base, politicians are unable to put aside their ideological convictions and come to a consensus. Take gay marriage--the conservative base of the Republican Party says that marriage should only be between a man and a woman, the liberal base of the Democratic Party says that they should be able to get married. The logical thing would be civil unions for same-sex couples. Pretty much all the rights of marriage, but it isn't called a marriage. But yeah, a consensus is not reached because of polarity...

[Shaun]

Anyone who understands American political history will understand that political parties are a necessary evil, as Madison wrote. People naturally will gravitate towards people with like-minded ideas and form political alliances in order to get their goals accomplished. This is something that can't and shouldn't be regulated.

There's a difference between voting for people who are like-minded and voted for people of a party. The thing about our bi-partisan system is that no two Republicans are the same and no two Democrats are the same. Republicans today are vastly different from what they used to be (if you want to look at this historical...the Republicans used to be the good party...), but people don't pay attention to the issues so much as the part they are attached to. A lot of people don't even pay attention at all...they just see Republican and vote that way. My grandpa was like this, except for Democrat. That's why the whole system should be removed so that it's only candidates, not Democrats and Republicans. It would force people to pay attention.

The problem isn't so much the fact that there are parties, but rather the role of the corporate lobbyists in the current political structure. Since the 1970s both parties have relied on corporations for political funding in order to get their candidates elected. While, at first this seems harmless, candidates are indebted to the corporation for money and, later, jobs after they retire from politics. They are forced not to vote what's best for the country, but what's best for the corporation.

Yup, hence why I'm against corporate involvement in politics at all. Politicians are hired for the PEOPLE, not the corporation.

Corporations not only exploit the political system in that regard, but also use it to limit the effect of independent and anti-corporation third party politics. For example, Ralph Nader was excluded from the debates in the Gore v. Bush race. Then, after someone gave him a ticket to watch the debate on a screen, the security guards removed him from the premises for being Ralph Nader.

Nader is also crazy. Ross Perot was put up on stage in the debates and he actually did very well for a third party, which is rather interesting. The problem with Nader is that he represents the Green Party, which is often associated with crazy leftist policies and nutso campaigns. Granted, he shouldn't be excluded, but yeah, he is crazy :P.

Let me backtrack a little bit. The only real problem I see with the parties themselves, besides corruption, is the inability to compromise. Our system of government is designed to be inefficient to force compromise and since both sides are polarized and rely on the misguided fervor of their base, politicians are unable to put aside their ideological convictions and come to a consensus. Take gay marriage--the conservative base of the Republican Party says that marriage should only be between a man and a woman, the liberal base of the Democratic Party says that they should be able to get married. The logical thing would be civil unions for same-sex couples. Pretty much all the rights of marriage, but it isn't called a marriage. But yeah, a consensus is not reached because of polarity...

That's because religion gets in the way...
There isn't actually any real, logical, valid basis for denying gays marriage rights. Why? Because if marriage can only be a religious institution then you have to deny it to anyone and everyone who isn't Christian in American, which is at least a quarter of the population. If I can get married by a Judge and it counts, then why can't gays get the same thing? There isn't a real reason for it, they just hate gays because they think it's in the Bible, when it really isn't, but they're stubborn, naive, ignorant, and stupid.
And civil unions are not the same, not by a long shot. Civil unions don't actually have the same rights, which means gays have to battle for the rights they're already trying to get. The democrats are more for civil unions than marriage.
And yes, i agree on the ability to compromise and think objectively. The problem with doing that is that religious fanatics have been clouding our political structure for a very long time. We need a moral atheist in office right now.

[Crocolyle]

There's a difference between voting for people who are like-minded and voted for people of a party. The thing about our bi-partisan system is that no two Republicans are the same and no two Democrats are the same. Republicans today are vastly different from what they used to be (if you want to look at this historical...the Republicans used to be the good party...), but people don't pay attention to the issues so much as the part they are attached to. A lot of people don't even pay attention at all...they just see Republican and vote that way. My grandpa was like this, except for Democrat. That's why the whole system should be removed so that it's only candidates, not Democrats and Republicans. It would force people to pay attention.

Of course parties have shifts in views, but the fact remains: safety in numbers. That's why there are parties. Most republicans are socially and economically conservative (economic conservatism used to be considered liberal, by the way) and advocate small government. While not all of them share those views, most do.

Nader is also crazy. Ross Perot was put up on stage in the debates and he actually did very well for a third party, which is rather interesting. The problem with Nader is that he represents the Green Party, which is often associated with crazy leftist policies and nutso campaigns. Granted, he shouldn't be excluded, but yeah, he is crazy :P.

I like Nader. He's less crazy than people make him out to be (seriously). He's also probably the most honest, genuine man in politics. Ross Perot was pro-business so he doesn't count.


That's because religion gets in the way...
There isn't actually any real, logical, valid basis for denying gays marriage rights. Why? Because if marriage can only be a religious institution then you have to deny it to anyone and everyone who isn't Christian in American, which is at least a quarter of the population. If I can get married by a Judge and it counts, then why can't gays get the same thing? There isn't a real reason for it, they just hate gays because they think it's in the Bible, when it really isn't, but they're stubborn, naive, ignorant, and stupid.
And civil unions are not the same, not by a long shot. Civil unions don't actually have the same rights, which means gays have to battle for the rights they're already trying to get. The democrats are more for civil unions than marriage.
And yes, i agree on the ability to compromise and think objectively. The problem with doing that is that religious fanatics have been clouding our political structure for a very long time. We need a moral atheist in office right now.

That was more of an example of a possible compromise. Too many people, not just fanatics, gay marriage is an important issue. A lot of people believe that it is a sign of moral degradation of society and begins to deemphasize the traditional family structure. There is a historical precedent where the fall of society is consistent with the collapse of the traditional family. I'm not talking about homosexuality in particular, because Greece tolerated homosexuality and to an extent encouraged pederasty before it became great, but one can make a legitimate argument that when the family falls apart so does society. I'm not saying I believe it. I'm not saying that it's true. I agree that there should be same-sex marriage or civil unions. I'm just saying that though you disagree with it, there can be legitimate secular reasons to be against it, even if you do not see them as legitimate.

[Shaun]

Of course parties have shifts in views, but the fact remains: safety in numbers. That's why there are parties. Most republicans are socially and economically conservative (economic conservatism used to be considered liberal, by the way) and advocate small government. While not all of them share those views, most do.

Our current President is far from economically conservative...and he's supposed to be Republican. Republicans are also supposed to be fiscally responsible (meaning they balance the budget and think about what they're spending before they spend it), but that's gone to the wayside too. Now we're just spending whatever the hell we want, and it's going to bite us in the ass. And he's by far not for small government since he's pushing all sorts of government control and has been since he got in office. The Patriot Act is no 'small government' document. Actually, that's about as close as we can come to being like Communist China without Americans actually throwing a fit...

I like Nader. He's less crazy than people make him out to be (seriously). He's also probably the most honest, genuine man in politics. Ross Perot was pro-business so he doesn't count.

Ross Perot so counts, even if his politics were nuts. I hate Nader. He's a bane in the voting system. Because he could never win he ends up just pulling votes that would go to the democrats. If he had a shot it would be different, but he never has had a shot and he just sucks away votes.

That was more of an example of a possible compromise. Too many people, not just fanatics, gay marriage is an important issue. A lot of people believe that it is a sign of moral degradation of society and begins to deemphasize the traditional family structure. There is a historical precedent where the fall of society is consistent with the collapse of the traditional family. I'm not talking about homosexuality in particular, because Greece tolerated homosexuality and to an extent encouraged pederasty before it became great, but one can make a legitimate argument that when the family falls apart so does society. I'm not saying I believe it. I'm not saying that it's true. I agree that there should be same-sex marriage or civil unions. I'm just saying that though you disagree with it, there can be legitimate secular reasons to be against it, even if you do not see them as legitimate.

There are no legitimate reasons for banning gay marriage. None. People might get it in their little, narrow-minded heads that there are reasons, but there aren't. Degradation of society, historically, has more to do with oppressive political systems than family values. If anything we can look to religion, in our society, as a primary force for tearing down our society since it is religious ideology that is suppressing free though, open-mindedness, scientific advancement, education of the masses, etc. That is the degradation of society and it has nothing to do with family values at all.
Plus, there's no such thing as a 'traditional family'. If there was then Blacks, Asians, and other non-white races wouldn't be allowed to get married and have children since, by the numbers, a traditional family in America would be a white Christian family.

[Crocolyle]

Our current President is far from economically conservative...and he's supposed to be Republican. Republicans are also supposed to be fiscally responsible (meaning they balance the budget and think about what they're spending before they spend it), but that's gone to the wayside too. Now we're just spending whatever the hell we want, and it's going to bite us in the ass. And he's by far not for small government since he's pushing all sorts of government control and has been since he got in office. The Patriot Act is no 'small government' document. Actually, that's about as close as we can come to being like Communist China without Americans actually throwing a fit...

Small government has less to do with the government's actual power, but more to do with the size. Democrats tend to support a government with extensive bureaucracy and additional government organizations (i. e. socialism), whereas advocates of "small government" want the government to be as small as possible. Advocates of small government are often for a more authoritarian government because such a government sacrifices bureacracy in favor of expedience, efficiency. And I did not say that all people in the party are exactly the same, or if the beliefs of the party are always practical or implementable. There is a recognizable difference in political ideology of the parties though, so while there are some petty differences and some larger differences among individuals as well as fluidity and evolution of ideas, parties tend to maintain several essential differences.

There are no legitimate reasons for banning gay marriage. None. People might get it in their little, narrow-minded heads that there are reasons, but there aren't. Degradation of society, historically, has more to do with oppressive political systems than family values. If anything we can look to religion, in our society, as a primary force for tearing down our society since it is religious ideology that is suppressing free though, open-mindedness, scientific advancement, education of the masses, etc. That is the degradation of society and it has nothing to do with family values at all.
Plus, there's no such thing as a 'traditional family'. If there was then Blacks, Asians, and other non-white races wouldn't be allowed to get married and have children since, by the numbers, a traditional family in America would be a white Christian family.

You are partially proving my point in arguing with me about this. In regards to this issue, you are just as polarized as the religious fundamentalists, only in the other direction. To you, there is no legitimate reason for banning gay marriage. To them, there is no reason for advocating it.

[Shaun]

Small government has less to do with the government's actual power, but more to do with the size. Democrats tend to support a government with extensive bureaucracy and additional government organizations (i. e. socialism), whereas advocates of "small government" want the government to be as small as possible. Advocates of small government are often for a more authoritarian government because such a government sacrifices bureacracy in favor of expedience, efficiency. And I did not say that all people in the party are exactly the same, or if the beliefs of the party are always practical or implementable. There is a recognizable difference in political ideology of the parties though, so while there are some petty differences and some larger differences among individuals as well as fluidity and evolution of ideas, parties tend to maintain several essential differences.

I agree, but Bush is not any of those things. He's a terrible republican. I tend to lean right on a lot of things, not because I'm nuts or republican, but because there are some things that you have to be conservative about. But Bush isn't a true conservative. He's really a poor example of a conservative, because he's not doing much that is very republican.

You are partially proving my point in arguing with me about this. In regards to this issue, you are just as polarized as the religious fundamentalists, only in the other direction. To you, there is no legitimate reason for banning gay marriage. To them, there is no reason for advocating it.

Separation of Church and State. End of story.
And when you actually look at the issue, there is a legitimate reason for banning gay marriage in CHURCH and ONLY CHURCH. Nowhere else. You can't legally deny marriage to gays without denying the same rights to everyone else who doesn't get married by religious standards. I will never get married in a Church, so if my marriage is not based on religion does that mean I can't have it too?
What I'm proving is that logic tends to get left behind when religion comes into play, because people can't look past their religious nuttery and see the reality of the issue. I say protect religious sanctity of marriage, but open marriage legally to all, because it's not a religious practice...