USA Presidential Politics - 2008

[MWC]

Originally Posted by sctx

have any of the candidates proposed a solution to Ranger's woodchuck problem in his garden ???

Ummmm ... tastes like fish.

[roni]

Originally Posted by Brent & Kim

"just cause" reason of "just war" does talk about human rights though. Of course this is an ethical not religious teaching.

Just War Doctrine is a religious teaching, FYI.

[sctx]

Originally Posted by MWC

Ummmm ... tastes like fish.

.......I'll take your word for it

[Brent & Kim]

Originally Posted by roni

Just War Doctrine is a religious teaching, FYI.

Right, and "US National interest" were never mentioned.

[Just Lucky]

Originally Posted by roni

So, have any idea who you're vote for in the Presidential election?

Is Eugene V. Debs running?

[Brent & Kim]

Just added as a running mate on the Clinton ticket. Hes pushing the right to not work and still get paid card.

[roni]

Originally Posted by Just Lucky

Is Eugene V. Debbs running?

My favorite quote of his is:

I'd rather vote for what I want and not get it than to vote for what I don't want and get it.

Cheers

[Just Lucky]

Originally Posted by roni

My favorite quote of his is:

I'd rather vote for what I want and not get it than to vote for what I don't want and get it.

Cheers

I like this one although it is perhaps his most famous:

Your Honor, years ago I recognized my kinship with all living beings, and I made up my mind that I was not one bit better than the meanest on earth. I said then, and I say now, that while there is a lower class, I am in it, and while there is a criminal element I am of it, and while there is a soul in prison, I am not free.

[Jacko]

Originally Posted by roni

Our response should be silence, I would humbly suggest.,

Hmmm..I am not so sure about that....I can try (for awhile) I suppose...but its not going to be easy for me! (I'm bettin' y'all already suspected that)

[ryberg]

Originally Posted by Brent & Kim

Any success stories you can think of?

Hey, you asked the question, implying that there were only success stories or only good to come out of such things. I'm trying to provide a fuller picture of the situation.

Steve

[ryberg]

Originally Posted by roni

Let us bring this conversation around to the US national interest . . . The fact that near 70% of the USA agrees with those points now does not mean we have to engage in endless debate with some of the 30% who are still willing to argue on behalf of the war.

I suggest we move on and let the small minority of the 30% who want to extol the virtues of the war continue to do so.

The same goes for the rest of their assault on reason, to the extent that you consider it an assault on reason.
Our response should be silence, I would humbly suggest.,

I'm not opposed to the first part, though I'm not sure how possible it will be to avoid such discussion if the topic is the 2008 election and security in more general terms remains an issue.

I wouldn't be opposed to the latter, except that my own impression is that that's kind of how we got into the (lousy) state we're in -- by not more doggedly responding and trying to expose what might be less reasonable or well founded views, or more cynical, manipulative approaches, wherever they may appear. I mean, I fear the silent dignity response is OK, even best, when you're talking about a whacked out extremist blogger or some other such low profile example. Unfortunately, though, we're now saddled with Fox "News" you know, and a guy who's gone two terms in the White House. At that level, I think silence just allows all that to stand, and worse, in the minds of the masses, is equated with having no ideas or alternatives to offer (or even agreeing! ).

[Edit: Indeed I think that's helped add to the explicit swagger of Bush and Fox and others, indicative of an over-confidence fed by lack of more response, leading them to believe that more or less only whackos don't think as they do.]

FWIW.

Anyway, I actually put forth about one candidate a response regarding who might be nice to have in 2008, after your post requesting such. I have yet to see another. Who do you like at this early stage?

Steve

[Mexivoof]

Originally Posted by ryberg

Who do you like at this early stage?

Steve

Go Rudy!!!

[MWC]

Right now I like Obama.
I continue to be fascinated by Giuliani.

[Brent & Kim]

Im watching Giuliani also.

[ryberg]

Originally Posted by Mexivoof

Go Rudy!!!

Really?

Originally Posted by MWC

Right now I like Obama.

Really?!? (what I need here is a "surprise" emoticon that's not like the gasping shock of because I didn't think you were interested in him -- thus my comments that you might want to check out his book and that you might like his ideas or something)

Originally Posted by MWC

I continue to be fascinated by Giuliani.

REALLY?!?!? (Bona fide place to use there. I do not understand the fascination with this guy. He seems... I dunno... like he's too much of a blow-his-own-horn-er, a bit too artificially gung ho in some ways (witness his response re Iraq -- sorry, Roni! ), or something along those lines. Personally I think he'd be more likely to attract votes if he were a bit calmer and quieter or something. Like Obama, maybe.

Also, as Dartay and I were discussing, and as one of the other Republicans (can't remember which one right now) said in the debate, I don't know how compatible his views on abortion in particular are with his party, and thus how electable he is, especially as I don't see any 3rd candidate standing a chance.

Why are you (and you, Mexivoof, if it applies) fascinated by him?

Steve