NationStates Jolt Archive

The War Party is fighting him tooth and nail (http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=12366). If they're that afraid of him, then I can't imagine he's all that bad.

Who the hell is the War Party?

Oh, by all means, go ahead and support Obama, the man who has paid off a considerable portion of his superdelegates (approximately 47%) of them. For a man who is claiming to be the "fresh, new idea" in politics, he's playing the game the same old way. In fact, he's actually putting out more money than Clinton, who's only offered those gifts to about 17% of her own delegates.

Who the hell is the War Party?

A term Raimando uses to describe hawkish Republicans and Democrats alike - and sometimes the Republican Party in general.

Oh, by all means, go ahead and support Obama, the man who has paid off a considerable portion of his superdelegates (approximately 47%) of them. For a man who is claiming to be the "fresh, new idea" in politics, he's playing the game the same old way. In fact, he's actually putting out more money than Clinton, who's only offered those gifts to about 17% of her own delegates.

I'd rather have a corrupt President than a warmonger one.

A term Raimando uses to describe hawkish Republicans and Democrats alike - and sometimes the Republican Party in general.

Okay. *takes deep breath*

That's all well and good (and I can't say I'm a fan of this "War Party" either), but there's something quite spurious with the logic that just because someone you don't like hates him that he's super cool and awesome.

Support him by all means if you think he's the best man for the job (I certainly don't), but do it because of his platform, not what other politicians think of him. The opinions of those we despise should not be used as a reverse barometer for truth. Simply that they don't like him might be a good sign, but it hardly constitutes a "reason to support him" in and of itself. Stalin hated Trotsky; that doesn't mean either one of them was a Saint.

I'd rather have a corrupt President than a warmonger one.

That's horrible reasoning.





Could we at least spread these threads out? It's really the same conversation, it doesn't need so many of its own threads popping up all at once. Please?

I'd rather have a corrupt President than a warmonger one.

Well, thats good, because we don't have any war mongering presidents now or hopefull's running ( hillary excluded). They would both be terrible really. However if a hypothetical warmongering one had us in a "worthwhile" or "necessary" war, they would be the lesser of 2 ebils. If not, then the corrupt one would be.

Support him by all means if you think he's the best man for the job (I certainly don't),

I don't think he's the best for the job, either, but he's less despicable than the other candidates.

I'd rather have a corrupt President than a warmonger one.
Better a good win through corruption than a bad loss through cronyism.

I don't think he's the best for the job, either, but he's less despicable than the other candidates.

I despise just about all of them equally.

I despise just about all of them equally.

Same here, but if one of them is even marginally more antiwar than the others, or marginally more pro-liberty (even if by only a microscopic amount), I will support them over the others.

Here's another reason: He believes in equal rights for those of all religions (and those who don't have one).

Video proof: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IWjR-N0QZ14

/buries head in hands

Okay, if his advocation of "equal rights for those of all religions" is a reason to support him (I emphasize it because the concept seems alarmingly lacking almost everywhere I look), then that means that there must be another candidate in the field that would prefer to limit equal rights of religion.

So I'm dying to know.... who wants to limit religious freedom?

I'd rather have a corrupt President than a warmonger one.

And there you have it. The ideologue. George W. Bush is an ideologue too, but that didn't help the country. Clinton is a mix. She offers some idealism, but it's tempered with the realism that experience provides.

And there you have it. The ideologue. George W. Bush is an ideologue too, but that didn't help the country. Clinton is a mix. She offers some idealism, but it's tempered with the realism that experience provides.

Twist her words however you want, ignore reality to your heart's content, but nothing - nothing - changes the fact that she is a warmonger (http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=8428).

Here's another reason: He believes in equal rights for those of all religions (and those who don't have one).

Video proof: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IWjR-N0QZ14

Twist her words however you want, ignore reality to your heart's content, but nothing - nothing - changes the fact that she is a warmonger (http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=8428).

I'm not sure I would call your "source" authoritative. Furthermore, I resent your accusations. This type of political brinkmanship is what Obama is supposedly standing against, is it not?

I'm not sure I would call your "source" authoritative.

At least I provide sources (and, you'll note, my source provides numerous sources of its own) rather than responding with emotive hysteria and burying my head in the sand like an ostrich.

IN FACT...

I would like a poll about that. If we assumed that Hillary Clinton WAS the best qualified for the job (we can debate the reality from now until doomsday), how many people who dislike her personally would disregard their own personal animosity and vote for her anyway, just because she was the right woman for the job?

At least I provide sources (and, you'll note, my source provides numerous sources of its own) rather than responding with emotive hysteria and burying my head in the sand like an ostrich.

Actually, my source was CNN but I cross-referenced it with the Boston Globe. Read up and be enlightened:

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2008/02/superdelegates.html

Actually, my source was CNN but I cross-referenced it with the Boston Globe. Read up and be enlightened:

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2008/02/superdelegates.html

That's not what I was talking about. You have done nothing to prove Clinton is not a warmonger.

This type of political brinkmanship is what Obama is supposedly standing against, is it not?Maybe, but we're not Obama. Besides, we're just vetting her, and since Hillary says she's already been vetted, that's okay, right?

IN FACT...

I would like a poll about that. If we assumed that Hillary Clinton WAS the best qualified for the job (we can debate the reality from now until doomsday), how many people who dislike her personally would disregard their own personal animosity and vote for her anyway, just because she was the right woman for the job?
Start a poll. I would vote for her if I thought she would make the best president. My beef isn't with her annoyingness or personality; it's with her lack of honesty, her disrespect for the voting public, and some of her positions on the issues.

I support Obama because he smokes cigarettes and is a democrat.

I don't support Obama. He can stand up by himself.




On a more serious note, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" is terrible logic. The Taliban fought against Soviet Russia, so the US supported them based on that logic; and 9/11 was the (indirect) result. Kinda analogous to an old fable about a man who frees a tiger from a trap only to have it threaten to devour him anyway.

EDIT: Is Al-Qaida becoming the new Nazis? Maybe we should introduce "Vodina's Corollary to Godwin's Law", in bold: "As a discussion progresses, the likelihood of a comparison involving Hitler, Nazis, Al-Qaida, or 9/11 increases."

You don't vote for anything, nothing will change, you simply choose a different face every few years, that is the fate of reformism.

I'm voting for Obama because he sang me the "happy birthday" song on my voicemail, and because he left a comment on my blog. :)

Maybe I'm the last person to have seen this, but it's fun anyway:

http://barackobamaisyournewbicycle.com/

Go for it! :p

I'm voting for Obama because he lent me his jacket, and thinks I'm cute.

Here's another reason: He believes in equal rights for those of all religions (and those who don't have one).

Video proof: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IWjR-N0QZ14

The fact that that even needs mentioning is a measure of the serious level of decline in the US political system.

Obama should only be the standard for politician, the status quo, but as it is he's like a comedian in shining armour. Nobody else deserves the presidency.

That's not what I was talking about. You have done nothing to prove Clinton is not a warmonger.

How can I disprove a falsity? Look, the only thing you've got against her in this regard is that she voted to authorize the use of force against Iraq. We acted in good faith on bad information given by the Bush Administration. Many people were fooled, not just Hillary Clinton. Hell, I myself am generally reluctant to send the military gallivanting around the world unless I have a really darn good reason for putting them into a place, and =I= believed Bush when he stood up and depicted Iraq as an imminent threat. And I've NEVER liked Bush personally. In the aftermath of 9-11, we were willing to make all sorts of assumptions that we might not ordinarily make, and one of those assumptions was that the President wasn't going to outright lie about such a serious matter. If you wish to condemn Clinton as a warmonger just because she authorized the use of force (she did NOT declare war, mind you), then you might as well indict three quarters of the American public for gross political negligence because virtually that many of us backed Bush at the beginning.

I am sick and tired of seeing Clinton beat upon by Obama supporters who misrepresent the truth of the matter. She made a mistake. Holy hell! What a dichotomy of thought. We simultaneously expect nothing of our politicians, yet if they screw up we crucify them in the court of public opinion. Pardon our politicians for being human and not an abstraction of perfection. Clinton made a difficult choice at a highly charged time, and most of the Democrats followed suit. Just because Obama voted against it does not somehow magically confer grand leadership powers upon him.

Oh, by all means, go ahead and support Obama, the man who has paid off a considerable portion of his superdelegates (approximately 47%) of them.

May I see a source for that?

How can I disprove a falsity?

If it is false, then it should be easy to disprove.

And her speeches in support of the war for years after it began. And her recent vote to give GW and excuse to attack Iran by declaring their Revolutionary Guard a terrorist force. And her assertion that presidential candidates shouldn't talk about specifics in military foreign policy.

I wasn't fooled. That's because I followed along. It was evident to everybody who was paying attention that Bush was pushing for war no matter what. Even if Iraq did have WMD's, invasion+regime change without true international support was absolutely NOT the way to go, for precisely the reasons Barack Obama outlined in his 2002 speech. So the question is, did Clinton know the Bush would go to war, or might go to war given a blank check - and if she did, why didn't she vote for the Levin amendment? Or was she as naive as you claim? I don't think so - she's smart. The reason she voted to authorize the war was purely political. Her career was more important to her than a decision that would ultimately cost hundreds of thousands of lives and foment terrorism around the globe.

THAT's why we hate her so much. Because personal politics trumps doing the right thing, and then she has the audacity to insult my intelligence by lying to my face and asking for my vote. Fuck Hillary Clinton.

Well said.

You can expect the troll to ignore it, of course.

How can I disprove a falsity? Look, the only thing you've got against her in this regard is that she voted to authorize the use of force against Iraq.And her speeches in support of the war for years after it began. And her recent vote to give GW and excuse to attack Iran by declaring their Revolutionary Guard a terrorist force. And her assertion that presidential candidates shouldn't talk about specifics in military foreign policy.

We acted in good faith on bad information given by the Bush Administration. Many people were fooled, not just Hillary Clinton. Hell, I myself am generally reluctant to send the military gallivanting around the world unless I have a really darn good reason for putting them into a place, and =I= believed Bush when he stood up and depicted Iraq as an imminent threat. And I've NEVER liked Bush personally. In the aftermath of 9-11, we were willing to make all sorts of assumptions that we might not ordinarily make, and one of those assumptions was that the President wasn't going to outright lie about such a serious matter. If you wish to condemn Clinton as a warmonger just because she authorized the use of force (she did NOT declare war, mind you), then you might as well indict three quarters of the American public for gross political negligence because virtually that many of us backed Bush at the beginning.I wasn't fooled. That's because I followed along. It was evident to everybody who was paying attention that Bush was pushing for war no matter what. Even if Iraq did have WMD's, invasion+regime change without true international support was absolutely NOT the way to go, for precisely the reasons Barack Obama outlined in his 2002 speech. So the question is, did Clinton know the Bush would go to war, or might go to war given a blank check - and if she did, why didn't she vote for the Levin amendment? Or was she as naive as you claim? I don't think so - she's smart. The reason she voted to authorize the war was purely political. Her career was more important to her than a decision that would ultimately cost hundreds of thousands of lives and foment terrorism around the globe.

THAT's why we hate her so much. Because personal politics trumps doing the right thing, and then she has the audacity to insult my intelligence by lying to my face and asking for my vote. Fuck Hillary Clinton.

Well said.

You can expect the troll to ignore it, of course.

No kidding. I have to say, the 'hit and run/dodgeball' shit is getting old.

Frankly, the debate is important. The decision between Obama and Clinton and even McCain is something we should talk out. That's why I'm here. That's why I'm doing it. It's not some 'love affair' with Obama as I've been dismissed as-I want Obama challenged, I want Clinton challenged. I want to have this discussion. When I see bullshit I want it called out. I've done it when I've seen it leveled against Clinton and I've expressed concerns with Obama.

But this bullshit isn't interested in the discourse, and if they're not I wish they'd stop polluting the front page with this nonsense.

No kidding. I have to say, the 'hit and run/dodgeball' shit is getting old.

Frankly, the debate is important. The decision between Obama and Clinton and even McCain is something we should talk out. That's why I'm here. That's why I'm doing it. It's not some 'love affair' with Obama as I've been dismissed as-I want Obama challenged, I want Clinton challenged. I want to have this discussion. When I see bullshit I want it called out. I've done it when I've seen it leveled against Clinton and I've expressed concerns with Obama.

But this bullshit isn't interested in the discourse, and if they're not I wish they'd stop polluting the front page with this nonsense.
Amen! That sounds so reasonable - are you sure you're real? ;)

If it is false, then it should be easy to disprove.

Prove you are not a tranny.

If it is false, then it should be easy to disprove.

(Not that there is anything wrong with being a tranny.;))

We acted in good faith on bad information given by the Bush Administration. Many people were fooled, not just Hillary Clinton.

yeah, its not as if the single largest protest in human history was organized to preemptively oppose something that was clearly and obviously a monumentally stupid idea at best or anything. oh wait...

only the ignorant, the stupid, and the warmongering assholes could plausibly have thought the bush administration had presented anything even remotely resembling a justification for going off on an imperial adventure. anyone who did so is automatically disqualified from having any claim to worthwhile leadership abilities, since they are so manifestly lacking in basic judgment and critical thinking skills. also, passing off responsibility for their complete and utter failures onto others ain't such a good sign either.

Prove you are not a tranny.
Hmm, I'm sure I have a digital camera around here somewhere...