NationStates Jolt Archive

With the Iraq war being such a big issue in the upcoming election, there are many people keeping track of military contributions. Not surprisingly, the two candidates receiving the most contributions from the military are both opposed to the war, although they share little else in common (not even the particular methods by which they would end it). The current top candidate on the military list is Ron Paul. At present (as well as a few months ago when I first saw the numbers), John McCain is coming in third, which is interesting, given his support for the war - but he is also the candidate with the most well-known military record.

But what I find really interesting is that the candidate coming in second - who was actually in the top slot up until very recently - is not a Republican candidate. Traditionally, military contributions have overwhelmingly gone to the Republican party. But one of the top two candidates in the eyes of the military in this election is actually a Democrat - Barack Obama.

What I find disturbing is that only one of these top three candidates has consistently worked for and espoused the ideals that most of our soldiers will tell you they are fighting for - the civil rights and personal liberties that are supposed to be guaranteed to us in this country.

- Only one of those candidates has worked towards ensuring that all of us - regardless of ethnicity, creed, sex, sexual orientation, or gender - receive equal protection under the law.

- Only one of those candidates seeks to ensure that the military is not weakened by losing members simply because of their sexual orientation.

- Only one of these candidates supports a woman's right to decide whether or not to continue a pregnancy.

- Only one of those candidates has attempted to uphold a woman's right to seek and receive the best possible obstetrics medical care (and it, unfortunately, is not the one who once practiced as an OB/GYN).

- Only one of those candidates has continually and consistently upheld the notion that the government should not be concerned with who we sleep with or how we do it, so long as we are consenting adults.

- Only one of those candidates has upheld freedom of religion - realizing that freedom of religion also entails freedom from religion - that laws in this nation should not be based in or biased towards any particular religious viewpoints.

The two Republican candidates will sometimes pay lip service to civil rights, but their voting records and other comments make it clear that lip service is the extent of their support. Of the three only Barack Obama has actually supported and worked for many of the civil rights that we, as US citizens, take for granted.

Given that the president is also commander in chief, I do think that the level of military contributions is an important consideration. But, perhaps any money given should go to the candidate who not only garners a great deal of military support - a candidate who a great deal of the military voters would like to see as commander in chief - but who also seeks to uphold the ideals that our soldiers are willing to fight for - ideals that are an absolute necessity for a democratic society.

Discuss.

I'm biased. Barack Obama is my candidate. However, I can honestly say that I'm shocked he isn't higher on that list. The Republican Party has been doing its level best to destroy and weaken our military, and to ensure that support for veterans at home is next to nil.

All the while, we have Republican syncophants like Rush Limp-baugh calling anti-war Soldiers "Phony Soldiers" and pulling swiftboating on real military heroes, like John Kerry, whilst supporting an AWOL rich boy who hid from the Vietnam war in the Champagne Squadron.

I can understand the draw of John McCain. He's a genuine military hero, and a charismatic man. However, he is still a Republican, and in some ways, he still hasn't left Vietnam. His Iraq strategy will be disasterous for the military, and his party will be even more disasterous if they continue to retain the veto pen.

I cannot understand the draw of Ron Paul on anyone. I can't imagine supporting a white supremacist secessionist hypocrite like Paul. However, his agit-prop is excellent and he is a skilled spinmeister. However, I beleive his candidacy will end soon.

But of all of them, Barack Obama is the best choice.

I'm biased. Barack Obama is my candidate. However, I can honestly say that I'm shocked he isn't higher on that list. The Republican Party has been doing its level best to destroy and weaken our military, and to ensure that support for veterans at home is next to nil.

He was first for quite a while. He's only recently dropped to second. Given that he is a Democratic candidate (and thus not in the party the military voters generally support), that's pretty damn good.

All the while, we have Republican syncophants like Rush Limp-baugh calling anti-war Soldiers "Phony Soldiers" and pulling swiftboating on real military heroes, like John Kerry, whilst supporting an AWOL rich boy who hid from the Vietnam war in the Champagne Squadron.

Yeah, well...

I can understand the draw of John McCain. He's a genuine military hero, and a charismatic man. However, he is still a Republican, and in some ways, he still hasn't left Vietnam. His Iraq strategy will be disasterous for the military, and his party will be even more disasterous if they continue to retain the veto pen.

And his record (and current stances) on civil rights are abysmal.

I cannot understand the draw of Ron Paul on anyone. I can't imagine supporting a white supremacist secessionist hypocrite like Paul. However, his agit-prop is excellent and he is a skilled spinmeister. However, I beleive his candidacy will end soon.

I can't either. I have a good friend who is an avid supporter, and the only thing I can figure out is that his supporters buy into his BS propaganda where he claims to be supporting personal liberty.

But of all of them, Barack Obama is the best choice.

<3

But of all of them, Barack Obama is the best choice.

As a Chicagoan, it's sacrilege for me to say something different. :p

But, yes, he is.

As a Chicagoan, it's sacrilege for me to say something different. :p

But, yes, he is.

I'm sure there are Republican Chicagoans, are there not?

(Not that I'm arguing with your assessment on Obama, of course)

B-but... Obama doesn't wear an American Flag lapel pin! That means he hates America, freedom, he kicks puppies and eats babies! And it's like Clinton "I did not have sex with THAT woman!" zOMG! :gundge::sniper::upyours:

And his name! It's like Barack HUSSEIN Obama(Sounds like OSAMA! zOMG) HUSSEIN AND OSAMA! THEY HATE AMERICA because they're JEALOUS of our FREEDOM! :sniper::gundge::mp5:

And he was educated at a Madrassa! zOMG! Like, he was trained to be a terrorist and blow up America! He must HATE america and only wnat to be president so he can :mp5: us all! :upyours::gundge:

And he's a m0sl3mz! And he's a brown people! zOMG brown people m0sl3mz hate America! He may say he's a Christian, but he's a sekrit m0zl3m spy! :mp5:











Yeah. I'm a little annoyed at the things they say about Obama. Working on the local chapter of the campaign, I have to say... I'm Fired up! and Ready to go!

*snip*

All that, but he's not "black enough", didn't you know? As that preacher guy said, "Obama got a white mama, and his father ain't even American!"

Yeah. I'm a little annoyed at the things they say about Obama. Working on the local chapter of the campaign, I have to say... I'm Fired up! and Ready to go!

<3

All that, but he's not "black enough", didn't you know? As that preacher guy said, "Obama got a white mama, and his father ain't even American!"



<3

It's great fun working on it, too. The entire chapter bought T-Shirts at once, so that we could get a bulk discount.
The ones we went with are pretty damn cool. (http://store.barackobama.com/product_p/ts18090.htm)

Working on the local chapter of the campaign

I might go to the local organizational meeting.

I'm enjoying all the support for Obama, but does anyone have anything to say about the rest? I'm surprised the Ron Paul supporters don't have anything to say here (or McCain, but I haven't seen many internet-goers rabidly supporting McCain lately).

I'm actually going to a Students for Barack Obama in an hour, lol.

Interesting to read.

I dislike all the candidates. They're all demagogic partisan hacks who will say or do anything, even sell their very souls, just for a vote. That said, the one candidate who I find fairly decent - perhaps even likeable - is Bill Richardson. He seems pretty smart, level-headed, honest, and pragmatic, but he's too nice a guy to be a politician. He's not ruthless or dirty enough.

Ironically, the two candidates I have been more seriously considering lately are Obama and Paul, though obviously for very different reasons. And it honestly doesn't have much to do with my views on the War in Iraq.

I'm really not surprised at how Paul and Obama are the two candidates getting the most military support. I did my long years of martial arts training with a lot of ex-military folks, and most of them had political views that would be closer to Paul's out of the field of candidates.

Some of my friends who are currently serving in Iraq I would see gravitating more towards Obama, because they believe based on firsthand experience that it's a mistake to stay in Iraq, and they want a compassionate moderate on domestic issues.

- Only one of those candidates has worked towards ensuring that all of us - regardless of ethnicity, creed, sex, sexual orientation, or gender - receive equal protection under the law.

- Only one of those candidates seeks to ensure that the military is not weakened by losing members simply because of their sexual orientation.

- Only one of these candidates supports a woman's right to decide whether or not to continue a pregnancy.

- Only one of those candidates has attempted to uphold a woman's right to seek and receive the best possible obstetrics medical care (and it, unfortunately, is not the one who once practiced as an OB/GYN).

- Only one of those candidates has continually and consistently upheld the notion that the government should not be concerned with who we sleep with or how we do it, so long as we are consenting adults.

- Only one of those candidates has upheld freedom of religion - realizing that freedom of religion also entails freedom from religion - that laws in this nation should not be based in or biased towards any particular religious viewpoints.

The two Republican candidates will sometimes pay lip service to civil rights, but their voting records and other comments make it clear that lip service is the extent of their support. Of the three only Barack Obama has actually supported and worked for many of the civil rights that we, as US citizens, take for granted.

Given that the president is also commander in chief, I do think that the level of military contributions is an important consideration. But, perhaps any money given should go to the candidate who not only garners a great deal of military support - a candidate who a great deal of the military voters would like to see as commander in chief - but who also seeks to uphold the ideals that our soldiers are willing to fight for - ideals that are an absolute necessity for a democratic society.

Discuss.

Your evaluation is wrong. It just is. Just because the other candidates don't worship civil rights issues doesn't mean they're racist opressors. And the fact is, I would hardly call what Obama supports a serious civil rights campaign. Obama takes a stand on relatively trivial civil issues and attempts to blow them up into a MLK style civil rights movement.

Your evaluation of why the military supports him is also wrong. Though there are some people who support him for his stance, the fact is that most of military personel are black, and therefore are far more likely to vote for a black candidate, which Obama happens to be. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identity_politics.

Obama has particularly weak stances on all issues outside of radical civil rights.

I watched Obama at the Democratic National Convention. He was less then stellar.

I'm actually going to a Students for Barack Obama in an hour, lol.

Interesting to read.

Rock on!

I go every Sunday evening to UGA Students for Barack Obama. We're actually one of the most active chapters in the state; we managed to put together a decent awareness concert without spending any money. We got about 40-50 pledged voters for Barack in the primary in that one night, plus just getting people interested. :)

I dislike all the candidates. They're all demagogic partisan hacks who will say or do anything, even sell their very souls, just for a vote. That said, the one candidate who I find fairly decent - perhaps even likeable - is Bill Richardson. He seems pretty smart, level-headed, honest, and pragmatic, but he's too nice a guy to be a politician. He's not ruthless or dirty enough.

I'm actually going to have to agree with you here.

Your evaluation is wrong. It just is. Just because the other candidates don't worship civil rights issues doesn't mean they're racist opressors. And the fact is, I would hardly call what Obama supports a serious civil rights campaign. Obama takes a stand on relatively trivial civil issues and attempts to blow them up into a MLK style civil rights movement.

Your evaluation of why the military supports him is also wrong. Though there are some people who support him for his stance, the fact is that most of military personel are black, and therefore are far more likely to vote for a black candidate, which Obama happens to be. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identity_politics.

Wow, that's extremely condescending and racist. "Dem blackies isn't smart enough to vote based on issues, they just vote for their own!"


Obama has particularly weak stances on all issues outside of radical civil rights.

How so? The fact that he's not anti-choice? The fact that he had the foresight to know that Iraq'd be a mess before it ever started? The fact that he wants to reduce the power of special interest lobby groups? Or is it maybe that he thinks that contraception should be available, and that we should give our students proper sex education, instead of the "abstinence only" rubbish that republicans support?


I watched Obama at the Democratic National Convention. He was less then stellar.
... really? The fact that he's a great speaker is the one thing that even his opponents usually grant him. In fact, I think you're the first person I've ever heard say that you think he didn't speak well at the DNC.

Your evaluation of why the military supports him is also wrong. Though there are some people who support him for his stance, the fact is that most of military personel are black, and therefore are far more likely to vote for a black candidate, which Obama happens to be.

Hm. Evidence for most military personnel being black?

The data I have suggests that is simply not the case, but perhaps you have a reputable source for that claim.

Wow, that's extremely condescending and racist. "Dem blackies isn't smart enough to vote based on issues, they just vote for their own!"

He said they're more likely to vote for Obama because he's black, not that they're "not smart enough to vote based on the issues." Whether he's right or wrong is irrelevant, but you're putting words in his mouth.

How so? The fact that he's not anti-choice? The fact that he had the foresight to know that Iraq'd be a mess before it ever started? The fact that he wants to reduce the power of special interest lobby groups? Or is it maybe that he thinks that contraception should be available, and that we should give our students proper sex education, instead of the "abstinence only" rubbish that republicans support?

Lewis Black once said, "Republicans have bad ideas, Democrats have no ideas." Obama vindicates his statement very well.

... really? The fact that he's a great speaker is the one thing that even his opponents usually grant him. In fact, I think you're the first person I've ever heard say that you think he didn't speak well at the DNC.

A person can be a spectacular speaker, but still a shitty leader, and vice versa.

He said they're more likely to vote for Obama because he's black, not that they're "not smart enough to vote based on the issues." Whether he's right or wrong is irrelevant, but you're putting words in his mouth.

He implied that black voters only vote for Obama because of his skin color. I'd say it was pretty accurate representation of what he was implying.



Lewis Black once said, "Republicans have bad ideas, Democrats have no ideas." Obama vindicates his statement very well.

Right, because Obama doesn't have any political ideas of his own. :rolleyes:


A person can be a spectacular speaker, but still a shitty leader, and vice versa.

Certainly, but I was addressing his comment that "Obama's performance at the DNC was less than stellar."

I dislike all the candidates. They're all demagogic partisan hacks who will say or do anything, even sell their very souls, just for a vote. That said, the one candidate who I find fairly decent - perhaps even likeable - is Bill Richardson. He seems pretty smart, level-headed, honest, and pragmatic, but he's too nice a guy to be a politician. He's not ruthless or dirty enough.

I have to be honest, Bill Richardson comes across to me as being just as scummy as most politicians. The only one in the race I don't pretty consistently get that "dirty" feeling from is Obama. Well, I don't get it much from Gravel, but I also think he's a bit wacky.

Your evaluation is wrong. It just is. Just because the other candidates don't worship civil rights issues doesn't mean they're racist opressors.

Well, Ron Paul is pretty clearly a racist from his own statements, but I never said McCain was.

They do, however, support policies that infringe upon the civil rights of women and members of the LGBT community. As such, it isn't just a matter of not "worshiping" civil rights. They both actively work against them.

And the fact is, I would hardly call what Obama supports a serious civil rights campaign. Obama takes a stand on relatively trivial civil issues and attempts to blow them up into a MLK style civil rights movement.

Equal protection under the law is a "relatively trivial civil issue"? Are you serious?

The right to bodily integrity is a "relatively trivial civil issue"? Honestly?

Your evaluation of why the military supports him is also wrong. Though there are some people who support him for his stance, the fact is that most of military personel are black, and therefore are far more likely to vote for a black candidate, which Obama happens to be.

Wow, gogo racism! "It's all because of the color of his skin!"

I suppose any woman voting for Clinton is only doing it because she is female, too? Women and black people can't possibly vote based on the issues, right?

Besides, given the constant questioning of whether or not Obama really is "black enough", I highly doubt this would be the case.

Obama has particularly weak stances on all issues outside of radical civil rights.

Such as?


I go every Sunday evening to UGA Students for Barack Obama. We're actually one of the most active chapters in the state; we managed to put together a decent awareness concert without spending any money. We got about 40-50 pledged voters for Barack in the primary in that one night, plus just getting people interested.

UGA? As in, University of Georgia? Did I know you live in GA?

He implied that black voters only vote for Obama because of his skin color. I'd say it was pretty accurate representation of what he was implying.

Maybe. I don't agree with him either way, I was just sayin'.

Right, because Obama doesn't have any political ideas of his own. :rolleyes:

He's like all politicians. He has no ideas of his own: He conveniently adopts whatever "ideas" will win the most political leverage, and thus the most votes. It's how all politicians are.

Certainly, but I was addressing his comment that "Obama's performance at the DNC was less than stellar."

For what it's worth, I think Obama is a brilliant speaker. And I'm sure that he's a great guy. I just think that, as a politician, he's "meh" at best.

I have to be honest, Bill Richardson comes across to me as being just as scummy as most politicians. The only one in the race I don't pretty consistently get that "dirty" feeling from is Obama. Well, I don't get it much from Gravel, but I also think he's a bit wacky.

To each his own. I find Richardson's accomplishments as a diplomat quite laudable (he's been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize several times), and his willingness to put principle above politics. Example (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Richardson#Governor_of_New_Mexico):

]During New Mexico's most recent legislative session, Richardson signed a bill into law that made New Mexico the 12th state to legalize marijuana for medical reasons. When asked if this would hurt him in a Presidential election, he stated that it did not matter, as it was "the right thing to do."

That said, the man is a politician, so I don't completely trust him. I just think that he's more respectable than his competition.

UGA? As in, University of Georgia? Did I know you live in GA?

Yeah, that UGA. I've mentioned being in GA once or twice, but apparently you did not know that I live here. :p

Although I am not American, my favorite candidate is Edwards, I admire this conviction and dedication to social and economic justice issues, and he reminds me of RFK.

You mean like when he gave a speech against the Iraq war before it started, when almost everybody in the country was for the war?

Regardless of my thoughts on him as a politician, he deserves our utmost respect for that.

I certainly disagree with him on certain issues, (really, the biggest one is that I think gays should have full marriages instead of strong civil unions) but I really think he's the best candidate currently running, Though I do seem to agree with Kucinich on a rather lot of issues, he's not electable, and a big reason I'm an Obama fan is that he actually has a consistent willingness to work with Republicans-- a lot of people can say they'll work across the aisle, but actions speak louder than words.

Well put. I agree on gays having full marriage instead of "civil unions," btw.

Obama is such a phony that is astounds me that people actually take him seriously, much like I don't understand how people can buy into Bush's bs.

Bush comes off as dim, but at least genuine. Obama speaks and acts like every part of his life is practiced and carefully scripted. You ever seen him on a talk show? It's like watching a written play. The guy is the absolute epitome of everything wrong with the political system in the US. From the press circus around him to the celebrity status he's gotten in the political world.

His family background is just the root of all of it. His mother was stereotypical 60's slut who married like four different foreign men and left her black son to be raised by her suburban parents and he grows up to write a book about the father who abandoned him and he met one time and identifies with the poor blacks. Pfft.

The guy is so phony that I actually have to root for Hillary Clinton on the democratic side. Where are you getting this nonsense about Obama being supported by the military? I'm a reservist and I don't know one person who supports Obama and only a handful who support Clinton and all of them are women. Where did this come from?

I won't vote again this year, because none of them represents anything close to realism, but choosing the least of all possible evils, I'll hope for Rudy to win. George Bush has really destroyed the Republican party though, I don't see them winning.

Maybe. I don't agree with him either way, I was just sayin'.

Fair enough.


He's like all politicians. He has no ideas of his own: He conveniently adopts whatever "ideas" will win the most political leverage, and thus the most votes. It's how all politicians are.

You mean like when he gave a speech against the Iraq war before it started, when almost everybody in the country was for the war?


For what it's worth, I think Obama is a brilliant speaker. And I'm sure that he's a great guy. I just think that, as a politician, he's "meh" at best.

I certainly disagree with him on certain issues, (really, the biggest one is that I think gays should have full marriages instead of strong civil unions) but I really think he's the best candidate currently running, Though I do seem to agree with Kucinich on a rather lot of issues, he's not electable, and a big reason I'm an Obama fan is that he actually has a consistent willingness to work with Republicans-- a lot of people can say they'll work across the aisle, but actions speak louder than words.

He's like all politicians. He has no ideas of his own: He conveniently adopts whatever "ideas" will win the most political leverage, and thus the most votes. It's how all politicians are.

Is that why he was very anti-Iraq war even before it was politically acceptable? Back when public support for the war was very high - before it even began, Obama was already pointing out that it was a mistake.

Is that why he's been working for civil rights issues his entire career - even before becoming a politician?

I really haven't seen any evidence of a lot of shifting in Obama's positions, based on the political tide or otherwise.

I like that one too. The "let's get rid of this blue state vs. red state nonsense" is something I like to hear. I'd like to hear more of it from other candidates, but it doesn't seem to be forthcoming.

A one party government!?!:eek:

I jest.
Though, there are half-truths in everything.
Or some fraction.

Yeah, that UGA. I've mentioned being in GA once or twice, but apparently you did not know that I live here. :p

Spiffy!

*lives in Atlanta* =)

I certainly disagree with him on certain issues, (really, the biggest one is that I think gays should have full marriages instead of strong civil unions)

Yeah, that one bugs me too. The more I see him talk about it, the more I get the idea that he would personally be fine with full marriages, but that he thinks the LGBT community will get the protection sooner with civil unions and that the name can come later. I might be imagining it and it still isn't the route I would take, but I do get that sense.

and a big reason I'm an Obama fan is that he actually has a consistent willingness to work with Republicans-- a lot of people can say they'll work across the aisle, but actions speak louder than words.

I like that one too. The "let's get rid of this blue state vs. red state nonsense" is something I like to hear. I'd like to hear more of it from other candidates, but it doesn't seem to be forthcoming.

A one party government!?!:eek:

I jest.
Though, there are half-truths in everything.
Or some fraction.

Fractional truthiness? An interesting idea, and probably very applicable to US politics.

Spiffy!

*lives in Atlanta* =)

Ooh, cool. Did you see him when he gave the Countdown to Change speech? It was great, I worked as a volunteer at that event and got to see him speak for free. I did miss a few of the other speakers(I had to stand outside and direct people on how to get there), but I was fine with that. I was really only there for Barack.

I have to be honest, Bill Richardson comes across to me as being just as scummy as most politicians. The only one in the race I don't pretty consistently get that "dirty" feeling from is Obama. Well, I don't get it much from Gravel, but I also think he's a bit wacky.



Well, Ron Paul is pretty clearly a racist from his own statements, but I never said McCain was.

They do, however, support policies that infringe upon the civil rights of women and members of the LGBT community. As such, it isn't just a matter of not "worshiping" civil rights. They both actively work against them.



Equal protection under the law is a "relatively trivial civil issue"? Are you serious?

The right to bodily integrity is a "relatively trivial civil issue"? Honestly?



Wow, gogo racism! "It's all because of the color of his skin!"

I suppose any woman voting for Clinton is only doing it because she is female, too? Women and black people can't possibly vote based on the issues, right?

Besides, given the constant questioning of whether or not Obama really is "black enough", I highly doubt this would be the case.



Such as?



UGA? As in, University of Georgia? Did I know you live in GA?

Yeah, I don't very much about Ron Paul or whether he's a racist or not.

Regardless...

Just because I touched on identity politics and how it relates to african americans specifically doesn't mean that I'm racist, and I highly resent that charge. The fact is is that identity politics is a highly potent force in American politics and it is growing. Have you ever heard of balancing the ticket. In regards to the presidential elections, that's the installation of a person soley based on their region of origin, race, ethnicity, or gender in an attempt to buy more votes from that particular region/ minority. One of my greatest concerns is the growth of identity politics within the United States. I WAS NOT, REPEAT NOT, attempting to say that blacks couldn't form their own opinions. I have cousins who are black who I respect greatly (one of whom is in the military). I was saying that due to the disporportionate number of blacks in the military, they would lean towards Obama due to the trend to identify with someone similar to the voter that is now pervauding throughout america. That was not a racist comment and was not intended to be. So stop putting fucking words in my mouth.

In regards to civil rights, yes I consider them trivial. Is anyone's right to vote being denied? Is anyone's right to freedom of speech being denied? Freedom of religion? Yes, it is important that we garuantee rights to gays and lesbians, but to make that the center of one's campaign? For me, the most important political issue is foriegn policy. Despite the end of the Cold War, the world is still a dangerous place, and Bush's retarded foriegn policy has made it far worse. China is investing huge amounts in their military. My uncle, who works on some board of Chinese affairs, says that Tiawan plans to declare independence next year and that the US has an old law that we are obligated to support them. If so, we will certainly be at war with China, which is a country we simply cannot beat. Especially since our economic vital is crucified to China using the dollar to float the Yuan. And to ignore this and focus on securing gay rights when half of the states have already done so seems ridiculous to me. I can't vote for him.

A one party government!?!:eek:

I jest.
Though, there are half-truths in everything.
Or some fraction.

But of course! No room for dissent!

=)


Ooh, cool. Did you see him when he gave the Countdown to Change speech? It was great, I worked as a volunteer at that event and got to see him speak for free. I did miss a few of the other speakers(I had to stand outside and direct people on how to get there), but I was fine with that. I was really only there for Barack.

Yup, I was there. I missed the rally at GA Tech in the Spring, but I made it to that one. Some of the other speakers were really good (I was a bit put off by just how thick some of the hero worship got with one of them), but Obama was definitely the one to see.

Got my first Obama t-shirt after it was over.

In my view the Iraq War is my primary concern with regard to the election. Unfortunately, there is no candidate that even comes anywhere near my belief on how the war should be handled.

While I believe we were misled by the Bush Administration into attacking Iraq, I also believe that a person, or nation in this case, should be held responsible for their mistakes and should accept the consequences, whatever those consequences may be. Therefore, the US should be held fully accountable for the attacking Iraq, and that it should pay whatever costs may be associated when this mistake.

This is why I cannot find a candidate that actually fits my views.

First, most of the Republicans will not admit that we made a mistake, and will not accept responsiblity for our actions in Iraq, nor will they determine a reasonable timetable for pulling out of Iraq.

Then there is the Democrats. All of them are certain that Iraq is a mistake; however, none of them are willing to accept responsiblity for our actions either. All the Democrats are determined to find the fastest way out of the war, which will be a major mistake.

Just because I touched on identity politics and how it relates to african americans specifically doesn't mean that I'm racist, and I highly resent that charge.

You may not be racist, but you made a racist statement. You assumed that the only reason there is strong military support for Obama is that he is black - that his stance on military issues can't possibly have anything to do with it. In other words, you assumed that "identity politics" is the only reason for that support.

His stance on the Iraq war can't possibly be a reason. His constant attempts to improve healthcare for veterans, particularly mental healthcare, can't possibly be a reason.

Nope, anything other than "He's black" is an incorrect assessment of the reasons military voters might support Obama.

In regards to civil rights, yes I consider them trivial.

Then you should move to a country without them. See how trivial you find them then.

Is anyone's right to vote being denied?

Yes, actually, and in very insidious ways.

http://www.thomas.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c110:4:./temp/~c110yBKeer::

Even in this day and age, voters are being intimidated and lied to in order to keep them from voting.

Is anyone's right to freedom of speech being denied?

Yes, actually, it happens. Some of our politicians even support it.

Freedom of religion?

Yes. Every time someone tries to make their religion a matter of law, that is an attack on freedom of religion. And it happens all around the country.

Yes, it is important that we garuantee rights to gays and lesbians, but to make that the center of one's campaign?

He hasn't made that the center of his campaign. It is simply an important issue. And the LGBT community is not the only one being denied equal protection under the law [which is, by the way, hardly trivial - it is one of the fundamental cores of our entire governmental system].

For me, the most important political issue is foriegn policy. Despite the end of the Cold War, the world is still a dangerous place, and Bush's retarded foriegn policy has made it far worse. China is investing huge amounts in their military. My uncle, who works on some board of Chinese affairs, says that Tiawan plans to declare independence next year and that the US has an old law that we are obligated to support them. If so, we will certainly be at war with China, which is a country we simply cannot beat. Especially since our economic vital is crucified to China using the dollar to float the Yuan. And to ignore this and focus on securing gay rights when half of the states have already done so seems ridiculous to me. I can't vote for him.

So you've missed his foreign policy, then? Bush's policy absolutely has made the world a worse place, and has made our position in it more precarious. That is why Obama plans to open up diplomatic relations with all of the countries Bush has turned his nose up to and said he won't talk to. This includes Iran - a country we haven't had a diplomatic relationship in over 20 years and to better our relationship with other nations that Bush's actions have pissed off.

Meanwhile, I doubt that war with China is really as imminent as you make it out to be and, even if it is, there isn't a single candidate talking about it, so you can hardly put that one on Obama alone.

The fact that I chose to focus on civil rights issues here hardly suggests that those issues are the entirety of Obama's campaign.

Then there is the Democrats. All of them are certain that Iraq is a mistake; however, none of them are willing to accept responsiblity for our actions either. All the Democrats are determined to find the fastest way out of the war, which will be a major mistake.

That isn't completely true. Obama does plan to immediately begin pulling combat troops out of the war, but his policy does not entail leaving Iraq completely. He is also one of the few candidates calling for diplomatic talks with all factions within Iraq, as well as the neighboring countries, in order to determine the best way to stabilize the area. He'll even establish diplomatic ties with Iran - a nation that our government has been trying to ignore for over 20 years.

You may not be racist, but you made a racist statement. You assumed that the only reason there is strong military support for Obama is that he is black - that his stance on military issues can't possibly have anything to do with it. In other words, you assumed that "identity politics" is the only reason for that support.

His stance on the Iraq war can't possibly be a reason. His constant attempts to improve healthcare for veterans, particularly mental healthcare, can't possibly be a reason.

Nope, anything other than "He's black" is an incorrect assessment of the reasons military voters might support Obama.



Then you should move to a country without them. See how trivial you find them then.



Yes, actually, and in very insidious ways.

http://www.thomas.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c110:4:./temp/~c110yBKeer::

Even in this day and age, voters are being intimidated and lied to in order to keep them from voting.



Yes, actually, it happens. Some of our politicians even support it.



Yes. Every time someone tries to make their religion a matter of law, that is an attack on freedom of religion. And it happens all around the country.



He hasn't made that the center of his campaign. It is simply an important issue. And the LGBT community is not the only one being denied equal protection under the law [which is, by the way, hardly trivial - it is one of the fundamental cores of our entire governmental system].



So you've missed his foreign policy, then? Bush's policy absolutely has made the world a worse place, and has made our position in it more precarious. That is why Obama plans to open up diplomatic relations with all of the countries Bush has turned his nose up to and said he won't talk to. This includes Iran - a country we haven't had a diplomatic relationship in over 20 years.

Meanwhile, I doubt that war with China is really as imminent as you make it out to be and, even if it is, there isn't a single candidate talking about it, so you can hardly put that one on Obama alone.

The fact that I chose to focus on civil rights issues here hardly suggests that those issues are the entirety of Obama's campaign.

I did not assume that ALL black voters vote for him because he's black, and if I left that impression, I apologize, because I did not intend for that. But the fact that he's black clearly sways some people's votes in favor of him, in collusion with whatever his stance happens to be.

As disturbing as I found your Senatorial report, 14,000 immigrants in LA out of a hispanic population of some 40 million equates to less than .1%. This sort of thing is the problem with free speech, but it thankfully seems limited in scope. If it grows larger, than yes, something should be done, but it is very small scale at this point, nowhere near the levels in the Jim Crow days.

And yes, war with China is impending. The next Tiawanese elections will determine whether Tiawan becomes independent or not (it's a huge issue over there). We have a law on our books that says in the event of a Tiawanese war, the US must go to war to defend them. Ignoring that law vastly damages our reputation, even more then Iraq, and threatens the very integrity of NATO and other military alliances. Chinese military buildup seems to indicate that they are preparing for war. Chinese television is also running a highly unusually number nationalist films, which is the usual indicator of preparing for war. And the fact that they hold such huge American investments, and that by simply reverting to the Euro could take out our economy (people vastly underestimate the amount of investment there is in China) worries me greatly.

Yes, of course the Chinese want the wealth that trade with the US provides. But they want Tiawan more.

Wasn't it Neville Chamberlain who said "There will be peace in our time"?

That isn't completely true. Obama does plan to immediately begin pulling combat troops out of the war, but his policy does not entail leaving Iraq completely. He is also one of the few candidates calling for diplomatic talks with all factions within Iraq, as well as the neighboring countries, in order to determine the best way to stabilize the area. He'll even establish diplomatic ties with Iran - a nation that our government has been trying to ignore for over 20 years.

True, I am not completely correct on this. Obama has opposed the war from the beginning, and in effect, he has said that attacking Iraq was a mistake.

However, as his website (http://www.barackobama.com/issues/iraq/)states, "Obama has a plan to immediately begin withdrawing our troops engaged in combat operations at a pace of one or two brigades every month, to be completed by the end of next year."

I believe that pulling our troops out before Iraqi leaders are actually able to setup a government and there is no evidence that Iraqi leaders would be able to move forward with their government that quickly. Honestly, if they haven't been able to do anything in the past couple of years, what could possibly make them move forward in the next few?

He implied that black voters only vote for Obama because of his skin color. I'd say it was pretty accurate representation of what he was implying.



Right, because Obama doesn't have any political ideas of his own. :rolleyes:



Certainly, but I was addressing his comment that "Obama's performance at the DNC was less than stellar."

Aside from my not seeing color, I doubt his statistics on the percentages of blacks in the military being a majority. In any case, people vote for who they like or look up to, any kinds of similarities are always helpful. Although we can all agree that ignorance is bliss, sometimes much moreso for others.

But please keep putting words in the mouths of people who don't agree with you, you play a good pro-Obama Rush Limbaugh.

As disturbing as I found your Senatorial report, 14,000 immigrants in LA out of a hispanic population of some 40 million equates to less than .1%. This sort of thing is the problem with free speech, but it thankfully seems limited in scope. If it grows larger, than yes, something should be done, but it is very small scale at this point, nowhere near the levels in the Jim Crow days.

And the other incidents?

If one person is denied the right to vote, there is a problem.


True, I am not completely correct on this. Obama has opposed the war from the beginning, and in effect, he has said that attacking Iraq was a mistake.

However, as his website states, "Obama has a plan to immediately begin withdrawing our troops engaged in combat operations at a pace of one or two brigades every month, to be completed by the end of next year."

I believe that pulling our troops out before Iraqi leaders are actually able to setup a government and there is no evidence that Iraqi leaders would be able to move forward with their government that quickly. Honestly, if they haven't been able to do anything in the past couple of years, what could possibly make them move forward in the next few?

Perhaps the need to move forward would make them do it, especially if we were pushing the diplomatic angle (something Bush tends to ignore). Meanwhile, pulling combat troops out is not pulling all troops out. Obama has stated that peacekeeping forces, training forces for the Iraqi military and police forces, and protection forces for diplomats and the like would still be in Iraq. One of the things I really like is that he has stated that we shouldn't be giving these jobs to contractors, especially when we do not hold those contractors accountable (see Blackwater).

Fractional truthiness? An interesting idea, and probably very applicable to US politics.

Lies grow best when seeded with little, hidden truths. *nod*

Wow, gogo racism! "It's all because of the color of his skin!"

I suppose any woman voting for Clinton is only doing it because she is female, too? Women and black people can't possibly vote based on the issues, right?

Besides, given the constant questioning of whether or not Obama really is "black enough", I highly doubt this would be the case.

Of course!

A white man voting for a white man is clearly voting based on ISSUES. White men, like Chris Mathews, who wax poetic about the "manly characteristics" of white male politicians, are certainly not "playing the gender card" or supporting a male candidate just because he's male.

Meanwhile, anybody who votes for a candidate who isn't white or isn't male is clearly only voting based on race or gender.

Handy, no?

In my view the Iraq War is my primary concern with regard to the election. Unfortunately, there is no candidate that even comes anywhere near my belief on how the war should be handled.

While I believe we were misled by the Bush Administration into attacking Iraq, I also believe that a person, or nation in this case, should be held responsible for their mistakes and should accept the consequences, whatever those consequences may be. Therefore, the US should be held fully accountable for the attacking Iraq, and that it should pay whatever costs may be associated when this mistake.

This is why I cannot find a candidate that actually fits my views.

First, most of the Republicans will not admit that we made a mistake, and will not accept responsiblity for our actions in Iraq, nor will they determine a reasonable timetable for pulling out of Iraq.

Then there is the Democrats. All of them are certain that Iraq is a mistake; however, none of them are willing to accept responsiblity for our actions either. All the Democrats are determined to find the fastest way out of the war, which will be a major mistake.This is impossible :eek:
Someone I'm in full agreement with!

Does anyone know why Bush skipped his duties at Arlington this Veteran's Day. I realize that Cheney might as well be the president, but when you're president in a war, you'd better have a damned good reason to skip Veteran's Day. The media really didn't go into any detail about it.

Does anyone know why Bush skipped his duties at Arlington this Veteran's Day. I realize that Cheney might as well be the president, but when you're president in a war, you'd better have a damned good reason to skip Veteran's Day. The media really didn't go into any detail about it.

I'm not sure. Especially because he served in the military, you'd think he'd be all about Veteran's Day.