Obama's Foreign Trip

RAMSTORIA

CAGiversary!
Feedback
34 (100%)
So this has been getting a lot of media coverage. So what do you guys think? Does this deserve as much attention as it's been getting? Do you care what Europe or Israel think of Obama?


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Personally, I don't think it warrants as much attention it's been getting in the media. But I understand the media is all over his nuts (thank God Jackson didn't cut them out). It's been geting so much attention there are rumors McCain would reveal his VP this week to get some of the spotlight back.

I do think it's important for him to check out the two war fronts. But I could really care less about him giving speaches in Germany and meeting with foreign dignitaries he may not even be working with in 6 months.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think the news coming out of the first half of the trip has been pretty substantial, so yeah, it's certainly deserving. It's no secret that America has lost a considerable amount of international clout over the last 8 years, I think seeing Obama meeting with Europe's leaders and making speeches and what have you will (quite possibly) show him off as the candidate that can restore the US's place as a respected world leader, which is a major concern to many voters.

McCain might come out with his vice pick this week, otherwise he's going to get slaughtered in the media. But then again, if he does that now, he has no huge media attention getting trump card for later in the campaign.
 
i mean McCain did the same thing awhile back but he was "fact finding" but his camp complains its publicity stunt


At the worst its a morale booster for the troops in Iraq that he just met.
 
[quote name='homeland']no the reports I'm hearing is that the VP lives on the Iraqi/Pakistani border...[/quote]

McCain/Ahmadinejad '08!! :cool:
 
[quote name='homeland']no the reports I'm hearing is that the VP lives on the Iraqi/Pakistani border...[/QUOTE]

*snort*

This topic of discussion reminds me of the laff-fest the right wing had over Kerry's "world test" comments during the 2004 election. The idea that it was pathetic and laughable that the leader of the US take the globe into consideration when it comes to decision-making. Somehow, unless you're pissing off every single non-American on the face of the planet, you're doing it wrong.

The fact that Obama, whether in terms of policies or as a mere symbol, has the capacity to restore some of the worldwide goodwill and appreciation that George Bush has stomped on, pissed on, wrecked, snorted a few lines off of, relocated to third world countries in order to "remain competitive in the marketplace, then shit on, kicked, laughed at, declared it a member of the "axis of evil," put it on the terror watch list, put it on the no-fly list, waterboarded, searched and searched for WMD, blew it up again anyway,...well, you get the point. It's nice.

It's not everything, but what Obama brings to the table as a symbolic leader is far greater than anything the GOP has offered in the past decade. And that includes a 74 year old candidate whose most endearing quality is that he admits his ineptitude in every policy area on a daily basis.

Really, let's not fool ourselves: McCain is a patsy, a fall guy, a chump, and someone who doesn't stand, nor deserves, a chance. His policies are laughably pathetic, ignorant of the fiscal crisis we've been in for almost 40 years and how we got there, ignorant of the fiscal crisis we've been in the past 18 months, and ignorant of solutions for how to end the quagmire in the middle east. Does he deserve to be treated on equal footing with Obama?

Maybe. But tell me this: did you demand that the news focus on the New York Giants as much as the Patriots leading up to the Super Bowl? (of course, you righties may love if that analogy pans out entirely ;)).
 
I think it's deserving. And I care greatly what foreign leaders think of Obama (or McCain if he end's up winning).

We live in a global society and Bush has ruined the US reputation abroad. We had such a huge outpouring of support after 9/11, and he managed to piss that all away. That takes a special kind of person.

So I care a great deal about how Obama is viewed abroad as I have high hopes that he can help heal many foreign relation wounds if elected. I don't have any optimism that McCain will do anything but further tarnish our international reputation.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']

It's not everything, but what Obama brings to the table as a symbolic leader is far greater than anything the GOP has offered in the past decade. And that includes a 74 year old candidate whose most endearing quality is that he admits his ineptitude in every policy area on a daily basis.

Really, let's not fool ourselves: McCain is a patsy, a fall guy, a chump, and someone who doesn't stand, nor deserves, a chance. His policies are laughably pathetic, ignorant of the fiscal crisis we've been in for almost 40 years and how we got there, ignorant of the fiscal crisis we've been in the past 18 months, and ignorant of solutions for how to end the quagmire in the middle east. Does he deserve to be treated on equal footing with Obama?[/quote]
OMGF. Take note kids, this might be the closest Mykevermin comes to ever admitting how pointless the election process is, albeit for different reasons and only for a specific election. ;)

Really though, Myke - kidding aside- is there a possible GOP candidate you can think of that you'd have much higher of an opinion of? Somehow I find it unlikely that you'd find anything more kind to say about another GOP candidate, no matter who he was. But who knows, you could surprise me.

Maybe. But tell me this: did you demand that the news focus on the New York Giants as much as the Patriots leading up to the Super Bowl? (of course, you righties may love if that analogy pans out entirely ;)).

Really don't follow sports.

But it is interesting how lopsided the media coverage is, if they influence people at all it almost invalidates this election even further. Ok...maybe invalidate is a strong word. But at least cheapens news media, any notion of impartial election coverage, and possibly the election all together.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='mykevermin']It's not everything, but what Obama brings to the table as a symbolic leader is far greater than anything the GOP has offered in the past decade. And that includes a 74 year old candidate whose most endearing quality is that he admits his ineptitude in every policy area on a daily basis.

Really, let's not fool ourselves: McCain is a patsy, a fall guy, a chump, and someone who doesn't stand, nor deserves, a chance. His policies are laughably pathetic, ignorant of the fiscal crisis we've been in for almost 40 years and how we got there, ignorant of the fiscal crisis we've been in the past 18 months, and ignorant of solutions for how to end the quagmire in the middle east. Does he deserve to be treated on equal footing with Obama?[/QUOTE]

I would like a real leader over a symbolic one. The two main parties (again) don't offer a choice on that matter in this election, although undoubtedly Obama is the superior symbolic leader.

And I have to laugh about Obama's policies being any less laughably pathetic than McCain's. Obama's campaign promises are ignorant of our fiscal crisis (in a different way of course) and his refusal to accept that the surge has succeeded, as well as his constant spin of "Bush's Afghanistan/Iraq policy is wrong but I want to do the same thing," leaves little hope for competent leadership in the foreign affairs arena.

So we have, on most issues, both major-party candidates' policies and promises as being ridiculous on their face. Ouch. So much for our lords and masters, the Democratic and Republican Parties. Partisan political positions on foreign policy, no energy policy for 30 years leading to the current crisis, refusal to put our fiscal house in order (not to mention those entitlements) and more. Can't wait to vote one of those guys in again...or not.
 
elprincipe, there is literally no way you could look at Obama's policies and McCain's and think McCain's is more "Real". You are obviously living in a fantasy world which is to be expected of a known liar like you.

Just for one example in the past week McCain has focused his campaign almost exclusively on how offshore drilling is a panacea (although it wont do squat for a decade and any benefit is measured in small change) and telling people how courageously awsome he is and insulting Obama.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='mykevermin']Really, let's not fool ourselves: McCain is a patsy, a fall guy, a chump, and someone who doesn't stand, nor deserves, a chance. His policies are laughably pathetic, ignorant of the fiscal crisis we've been in for almost 40 years and how we got there, ignorant of the fiscal crisis we've been in the past 18 months, and ignorant of solutions for how to end the quagmire in the middle east. Does he deserve to be treated on equal footing with Obama?[/QUOTE]
He reminds me of Bob Dole.

[quote name='thrustbucket']Really though, Myke - kidding aside- is there a possible GOP candidate you can think of that you'd have much higher of an opinion of? Somehow I find it unlikely that you'd find anything more kind to say about another GOP candidate, no matter who he was. But who knows, you could surprise me.[/quote]
If I may be allowed to steal his question, I would look very closely at Kay Bailey Hutchinson. Aside from her, I would have really loved to see an Obama vs. Romney as I thought Romney's body of work is quite impressive. The debates would be much more interesting. If only he didn't sound like a pandering schmuck every time he opened his mouth..
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='mykevermin']

Maybe. But tell me this: did you demand that the news focus on the New York Giants as much as the Patriots leading up to the Super Bowl? (of course, you righties may love if that analogy pans out entirely ;)).[/QUOTE]

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying McCain should get (or deserves) as much coverage as Obama is getting overseas. I'm just surprised by much attention it's been getting. The trip was talked about for weeks before it happened, now that it's happeneing it's all over the place. That's all, I'm just surprised.
 
I can see the headlines tomorrow now: "Messiah rekindles faith in atheistic Europe"

072408-POD.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='Obama']Thank you to the citizens of Berlin and to the people of Germany. Let me thank Chancellor Merkel and Foreign Minister Steinmeier for welcoming me earlier today. Thank you Mayor Wowereit, the Berlin Senate, the police, and most of all thank you for this welcome.

I come to Berlin as so many of my countrymen have come before. Tonight, I speak to you not as a candidate for President, but as a citizen -- a proud citizen of the United States, and a fellow citizen of the world.

I know that I don't look like the Americans who've previously spoken in this great city. The journey that led me here is improbable. My mother was born in the heartland of America, but my father grew up herding goats in Kenya. His father -- my grandfather -- was a cook, a domestic servant to the British.

At the height of the Cold War, my father decided, like so many others in the forgotten corners of the world, that his yearning -- his dream -- required the freedom and opportunity promised by the West. And so he wrote letter after letter to universities all across America until somebody, somewhere answered his prayer for a better life.

That is why I'm here. And you are here because you too know that yearning. This city, of all cities, knows the dream of freedom. And you know that the only reason we stand here tonight is because men and women from both of our nations came together to work, and struggle, and sacrifice for that better life.

Ours is a partnership that truly began sixty years ago this summer, on the day when the first American plane touched down at Templehof.

On that day, much of this continent still lay in ruin.Ê The rubble of this city had yet to be built into a wall. The Soviet shadow had swept across Eastern Europe, while in the West, America, Britain, and France took stock of their losses, and pondered how the world might be remade.

This is where the two sides met.Ê And on the twenty-fourth of June, 1948, the Communists chose to blockade the western part of the city. They cut off food and supplies to more than two million Germans in an effort to extinguish the last flame of freedom in Berlin.

The size of our forces was no match for the much larger Soviet Army. And yet retreat would have allowed Communism to march across Europe. Where the last war had ended, another World War could have easily begun. All that stood in the way was Berlin.

Ê And that's when the airlift began -- when the largest and most unlikely rescue in history brought food and hope to the people of this city.

The odds were stacked against success. In the winter, a heavy fog filled the sky above, and many planes were forced to turn back without dropping off the needed supplies. The streets where we stand were filled with hungry families who had no comfort from the cold.Ê

But in the darkest hours, the people of Berlin kept the flame of hope burning. The people of Berlin refused to give up. And on one fall day, hundreds of thousands of Berliners came here, to the Tiergarten, and heard the city's mayor implore the world not to give up on freedom. "There is only one possibility," he said. "For us to stand together united until this battle is wonÉThe people of Berlin have spoken. We have done our duty, and we will keep on doing our duty. People of the world: now do your dutyÉPeople of the world, look at Berlin!"

People of the world -- look at Berlin!

Look at Berlin, where Germans and Americans learned to work together and trust each other less than three years after facing each other on the field of battle.

Look at Berlin, where the determination of a people met the generosity of the Marshall Plan and created a German miracle; where a victory over tyranny gave rise to NATO, the greatest alliance ever formed to defend our common security.Ê

Look at Berlin, where the bullet holes in the buildings and the somber stones and pillars near the Brandenburg Gate insist that we never forget our common humanity.Ê

People of the world -- look at Berlin, where a wall came down, a continent came together, and history proved that there is no challenge too great for a world that stands as one.ÊÊ

Sixty years after the airlift, we are called upon again. History has led us to a new crossroad, with new promise and new peril. When you, the German people, tore down that wall -- a wall that divided East and West; freedom and tyranny; fear and hope -- walls came tumbling down around the world. From Kiev to Cape Town, prison camps were closed, and the doors of democracy were opened. Markets opened too, and the spread of information and technology reduced barriers to opportunity and prosperity. While the 20th century taught us that we share a common destiny, the 21st has revealed a world more intertwined than at any time in human history.

The fall of the Berlin Wall brought new hope. But that very closeness has given rise to new dangers -- dangers that cannot be contained within the borders of a country or by the distance of an ocean.ÊÊ

The terrorists of September 11th plotted in Hamburg and trained in Kandahar and Karachi before killing thousands from all over the globe on American soil.Ê

As we speak, cars in Boston and factories in Beijing are melting the ice caps in the Arctic, shrinking coastlines in the Atlantic, and bringing drought to farms from Kansas to Kenya.

Poorly secured nuclear material in the former Soviet Union, or secrets from a scientist in Pakistan could help build a bomb that detonates in Paris. The poppies in Afghanistan become the heroin in Berlin. The poverty and violence in Somalia breeds the terror of tomorrow. The genocide in Darfur shames the conscience of us all.

In this new world, such dangerous currents have swept along faster than our efforts to contain them. That is why we cannot afford to be divided. No one nation, no matter how large or powerful, can defeat such challenges alone. None of us can deny these threats, or escape responsibility in meeting them. Yet, in the absence of Soviet tanks and a terrible wall, it has become easy to forget this truth. And if we're honest with each other, we know that sometimes, on both sides of the Atlantic, we have drifted apart, and forgotten our shared destiny.

In Europe, the view that America is part of what has gone wrong in our world, rather than a force to help make it right, has become all too common. In America, there are voices that deride and deny the importance of Europe's role in our security and our future. Both views miss the truth -- that Europeans today are bearing new burdens and taking more responsibility in critical parts of the world; and that just as American bases built in the last century still help to defend the security of this continent, so does our country still sacrifice greatly for freedom around the globe.

Yes, there have been differences between America and Europe. No doubt, there will be differences in the future. But the burdens of global citizenship continue to bind us together. A change of leadership in Washington will not lift this burden. In this new century, Americans and Europeans alike will be required to do more -- not less. Partnership and cooperation among nations is not a choice; it is the one way, the only way, to protect our common security and advance our common humanity.Ê

That is why the greatest danger of all is to allow new walls to divide us from one another. The walls between old allies on either side of the Atlantic cannot stand. The walls between the countries with the most and those with the least cannot stand. The walls between races and tribes; natives and immigrants; Christian and Muslim and Jew cannot stand. These now are the walls we must tear down.Ê

We know they have fallen before. After centuries of strife, the people of Europe have formed a Union of promise and prosperity. Here, at the base of a column built to mark victory in war, we meet in the center of a Europe at peace. Not only have walls come down in Berlin, but they have come down in Belfast, where Protestant and Catholic found a way to live together; in the Balkans, where our Atlantic alliance ended wars and brought savage war criminals to justice; and in South Africa, where the struggle of a courageous people defeated apartheid. Ê So history reminds us that walls can be torn down. But the task is never easy. True partnership and true progress requires constant work and sustained sacrifice. They require sharing the burdens of development and diplomacy; of progress and peace. They require allies who will listen to each other, learn from each other and, most of all, trust each other.Ê

That is why America cannot turn inward. That is why Europe cannot turn inward. America has no better partner than Europe. Now is the time to build new bridges across the globe as strong as the one that bound us across the Atlantic. Now is the time to join together, through constant cooperation, strong institutions, shared sacrifice, and a global commitment to progress, to meet the challenges of the 21st century. It was this spirit that led airlift planes to appear in the sky above our heads, and people to assemble where we stand today. And this is the moment when our nations -- and all nations -- must summon that spirit anew.

This is the moment when we must defeat terror and dry up the well of extremism that supports it. This threat is real and we cannot shrink from our responsibility to combat it. If we could create NATO to face down the Soviet Union, we can join in a new and global partnership to dismantle the networks that have struck in Madrid and Amman; in London and Bali; in Washington and New York. If we could win a battle of ideas against the communists, we can stand with the vast majority of Muslims who reject the extremism that leads to hate instead of hope.

This is the moment when we must renew our resolve to rout the terrorists who threaten our security in Afghanistan, and the traffickers who sell drugs on your streets. No one welcomes war. I recognize the enormous difficulties in Afghanistan. But my country and yours have a stake in seeing that NATO's first mission beyond Europe's borders is a success. For the people of Afghanistan, and for our shared security, the work must be done. America cannot do this alone. The Afghan people need our troops and your troops; our support and your support to defeat the Taliban and al Qaeda, to develop their economy, and to help them rebuild their nation. We have too much at stake to turn back now.

This is the moment when we must renew the goal of a world without nuclear weapons. The two superpowers that faced each other across the wall of this city came too close too often to destroying all we have built and all that we love. With that wall gone, we need not stand idly by and watch the further spread of the deadly atom. It is time to secure all loose nuclear materials; to stop the spread of nuclear weapons; and to reduce the arsenals from another era. This is the moment to begin the work of seeking the peace of a world without nuclear weapons.

This is the moment when every nation in Europe must have the chance to choose its own tomorrow free from the shadows of yesterday. In this century, we need a strong European Union that deepens the security and prosperity of this continent, while extending a hand abroad. In this century -- in this city of all cities -- we must reject the Cold War mind-set of the past, and resolve to work with Russia when we can, to stand up for our values when we must, and to seek a partnership that extends across this entire continent.

This is the moment when we must build on the wealth that open markets have created, and share its benefits more equitably. Trade has been a cornerstone of our growth and global development. But we will not be able to sustain this growth if it favors the few, and not the many. Together, we must forge trade that truly rewards the work that creates wealth, with meaningful protections for our people and our planet. This is the moment for trade that is free and fair for all.

This is the moment we must help answer the call for a new dawn in the Middle East. My country must stand with yours and with Europe in sending a direct message to Iran that it must abandon its nuclear ambitions. We must support the Lebanese who have marched and bled for democracy, and the Israelis and Palestinians who seek a secure and lasting peace. And despite past differences, this is the moment when the world should support the millions of Iraqis who seek to rebuild their lives, even as we pass responsibility to the Iraqi government and finally bring this war to a close.

This is the moment when we must come together to save this planet. Let us resolve that we will not leave our children a world where the oceans rise and famine spreads and terrible storms devastate our lands. Let us resolve that all nations -- including my own -- will act with the same seriousness of purpose as has your nation, and reduce the carbon we send into our atmosphere. This is the moment to give our children back their future. This is the moment to stand as one.

And this is the moment when we must give hope to those left behind in a globalized world. We must remember that the Cold War born in this city was not a battle for land or treasure. Sixty years ago, the planes that flew over Berlin did not drop bombs; instead they delivered food, and coal, and candy to grateful children. And in that show of solidarity, those pilots won more than a military victory. They won hearts and minds; love and loyalty and trust -- not just from the people in this city, but from all those who heard the story of what they did here.

Now the world will watch and remember what we do here -- what we do with this moment. Will we extend our hand to the people in the forgotten corners of this world who yearn for lives marked by dignity and opportunity; by security and justice? Will we lift the child in Bangladesh from poverty, shelter the refugee in Chad, and banish the scourge of AIDS in our time?

Will we stand for the human rights of the dissident in Burma, the blogger in Iran, or the voter in Zimbabwe? Will we give meaning to the words "never again" in Darfur?Ê

Will we acknowledge that there is no more powerful example than the one each of our nations projects to the world? Will we reject torture and stand for the rule of law? Will we welcome immigrants from different lands, and shun discrimination against those who don't look like us or worship like we do, and keep the promise of equality and opportunity for all of our people?

People of Berlin -- people of the world -- this is our moment. This is our time.Ê

I know my country has not perfected itself. At times, we've struggled to keep the promise of liberty and equality for all of our people. We've made our share of mistakes, and there are times when our actions around the world have not lived up to our best intentions.

But I also know how much I love America. I know that for more than two centuries, we have strived -- at great cost and great sacrifice -- to form a more perfect union; to seek, with other nations, a more hopeful world. Our allegiance has never been to any particular tribe or kingdom -- indeed, every language is spoken in our country; every culture has left its imprint on ours; every point of view is expressed in our public squares. What has always united us -- what has always driven our people; what drew my father to America's shores -- is a set of ideals that speak to aspirations shared by all people: that we can live free from fear and free from want; that we can speak our minds and assemble with whomever we choose and worship as we please.

Those are the aspirations that joined the fates of all nations in this city. Those aspirations are bigger than anything that drives us apart. It is because of those aspirations that the airlift began. It is because of those aspirations that all free people -- everywhere -- became citizens of Berlin. It is in pursuit of those aspirations that a new generation -- our generation -- must make our mark on history.

People of Berlin -- and people of the world -- the scale of our challenge is great. The road ahead will be long. But I come before you to say that we are heirs to a struggle for freedom. We are a people of improbable hope. Let us build on our common history, and seize our common destiny, and once again engage in that noble struggle to bring justice and peace to our world.[/QUOTE].
 
im surprised his speech focused on the world fighting terror. guess were going to iran no matter who is elected.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
If he becomes President, he's going to be tested, and quickly at that. He's at least got to attempt that he might do something.

The thing about Obama is he's getting so much media attention that it actually does hurt his campaign. You're already seeing people sick and tired of seeing him on TV for every little thing.

I personally think it won't affect his standing in the Presidential race here at all. Foreign speeches are never really covered that well.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']And I have to laugh about Obama's policies being any less laughably pathetic than McCain's. Obama's campaign promises are ignorant of our fiscal crisis (in a different way of course) and his refusal to accept that the surge has succeeded, as well as his constant spin of "Bush's Afghanistan/Iraq policy is wrong but I want to do the same thing," leaves little hope for competent leadership in the foreign affairs arena.[/QUOTE]

I'll grant you fiscal responsibility - my first reaction to the book "Audacity of Hope" when I read it two (?) years back was "this is great, but where the fuck is the money to pay for this coming from?" - as liberal as I am, I think that there aren't many people as worried about the crushing impact of 4 decades of deficit spending and the national debt. Not a liberal thing to be sure (though, given which presidencies are responsible for the bulk of the debt, even less a conservative thing).

And if you think Obama's plan is "I disagree with Bush but will continue to do the same thing," you're living in la-la-land. I don't know what else to tell you there. Getting out of Iraq, not going into Iran, and increasing military efforts in Afghanistan =/= Bush's policies.

[quote name='thrustbucket']Really though, Myke - kidding aside- is there a possible GOP candidate you can think of that you'd have much higher of an opinion of? Somehow I find it unlikely that you'd find anything more kind to say about another GOP candidate, no matter who he was. But who knows, you could surprise me.[/quote]

For all his tinfoil-hat paranoia, his latent racism and anti-semitism, I'd really have to say Ron Paul. He's one of the few, if not the only, politicians on the right whose record is exemplary of the Goldwater "leeme the fuck alone" style of conservatism. He's pretty much every politician's enemy. He's not the kind of person to cut taxes and ignore that spending just went up. With the right cabinet and congress to temper his..."eccentricities" (i.e., to help foster in tax changes/simplifications, but not doing away with the IRS)...he could be the very first true conservative politician elected to higher office.

My beef with McCain is that he has stupid policies, he admits he knows very little about economics, he's demonstrated that he knows very little about foreign affairs, and yet he still thinks himself a qualified presidential candidate. It's not that I disagree with him - I could respect someone who I disagreed with as long as they put thought into their plans and policies - but McCain shows that he's a know-nothing both in application and policy proposals. He's a walking joke and I don't respect that.
 
Dang, those Europeans love them some Obama, don't they?

I don't have much faith in anything the Europeans say about America anyway. Several months ago the Pew Research Center did a poll and found that 58% of Europeans want to see a weaker United States.

I don't care at all for either Obama nor McCain, tho. Neither one has even a clue on how to solve the problems we are facing. But unless Obama comes up with some tangible answers, my nod will probably (and sadly) go to McCain, due simply to his experience (he has spent more than 143 days in a Senator's chair...unlike Obama) and his strong stance on defense. I don't want to vote for McCain, tho. Truth be told, I would have voted for Hilary over both of these losers.

But I am sick of hearing about the Obamassiah every time I turn on the news. I mean, WTF?
obama_superman.jpg


Its like "Obama this" and "Obama that" and then after they quietly say "And that old guy he's running against isn't dead yet."
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='mykevermin']
For all his tinfoil-hat paranoia, his latent racism and anti-semitism, I'd really have to say Ron Paul. He's one of the few, if not the only, politicians on the right whose record is exemplary of the Goldwater "leeme the fuck alone" style of conservatism. He's pretty much every politician's enemy. He's not the kind of person to cut taxes and ignore that spending just went up. With the right cabinet and congress to temper his..."eccentricities" (i.e., to help foster in tax changes/simplifications, but not doing away with the IRS)...he could be the very first true conservative politician elected to higher office.

My beef with McCain is that he has stupid policies, he admits he knows very little about economics, he's demonstrated that he knows very little about foreign affairs, and yet he still thinks himself a qualified presidential candidate. It's not that I disagree with him - I could respect someone who I disagreed with as long as they put thought into their plans and policies - but McCain shows that he's a know-nothing both in application and policy proposals. He's a walking joke and I don't respect that.[/QUOTE]

Interesting. I did not expect you to pull out Ron Paul from your pocket. You know, I tend to agree with most of what you say there. I love that you mentioned Goldwatter. He was a badass. And you are right, someone like them can never get very far because they are an enemy to all politicians. That, and I think a radical departure from the path of the last few decades like Ron Paul would be is too scary for most people to consider.

Your criticisms of McCain (which I do agree with) are not enough to convince me I should vote for Obama quite yet, but they are accurate, imo.
 
[quote name='Krymner']Dang, those Europeans love them some Obama, don't they?

I don't have much faith in anything the Europeans say about America anyway. Several months ago the Pew Research Center did a poll and found that 58% of Europeans want to see a weaker United States.

I don't care at all for either Obama nor McCain, tho. Neither one has even a clue on how to solve the problems we are facing. But unless Obama comes up with some tangible answers, my nod will probably (and sadly) go to McCain, due simply to his experience (he has spent more than 143 days in a Senator's chair...unlike Obama) and his strong stance on defense. I don't want to vote for McCain, tho. Truth be told, I would have voted for Hilary over both of these losers.

But I am sick of hearing about the Obamassiah every time I turn on the news. I mean, WTF?
obama_superman.jpg


Its like "Obama this" and "Obama that" and then after they quietly say "And that old guy he's running against isn't dead yet."[/quote]


Luckily for "that old guy" the media hasn't paid to much attention to him. If they did it would be one contradiction, slip of the tongue, and akward smile after another.
 
[quote name='homeland']Luckily for "that old guy" the media hasn't paid to much attention to him. If they did it would be one contradiction, slip of the tongue, and akward smile after another.[/QUOTE]

I don't think the media has missed one of those yet, and I'm sure they won't until after the election (unless of course McCain wins).
 
[quote name='RAMSTORIA']I don't think the media has missed one of those yet, and I'm sure they won't until after the election (unless of course McCain wins).[/QUOTE]

What are you talking about, if McCain wins they will front-page every single faupax he ever says or does for the next 4 years.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']What are you talking about, if McCain wins they will front-page every single faupax he ever says or does for the next 4 years.[/QUOTE]

thats what i said... (see the unless part)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='mykevermin']And if you think Obama's plan is "I disagree with Bush but will continue to do the same thing," you're living in la-la-land. I don't know what else to tell you there. Getting out of Iraq, not going into Iran, and increasing military efforts in Afghanistan =/= Bush's policies.[/quote]

[quote name='Barack Obama']we will keep a residual force to perform specific missions in Iraq: targeting any remnants of al Qaeda, protecting our service members and diplomats, and training and supporting Iraq's security forces[/quote]

Sounds eerily similar to me.

The Defense Department is intent on moving more troops to Afghanistan "sooner rather than later." That sounds like Obama's policy too. The main difference is that he would draw down troops in 18 months or whatever compared to draw down troops as the situation allows. Whoop-de-damn-do, since troops are already leaving that makes extremely little difference in policies.
 
Drawing troops out over a period of time you set beforehand publicly is stupid.

Football Coach to another Coach example: Okay, coach. Here's the deal. We'll kick your ass for 3 quarters, then we quit. It's foolproof. We can't lose.
 
[quote name='KingBroly']Drawing troops out over a period of time you set beforehand publicly is stupid.

Football Coach to another Coach example: Okay, coach. Here's the deal. We'll kick your ass for 3 quarters, then we quit. It's foolproof. We can't lose.[/QUOTE]

Nevermind the fact that you are legally retarded it would be more like not pretending the old school yard favorite kill the man with the ball has an actual winner.
 
[quote name='KingBroly']Drawing troops out over a period of time you set beforehand publicly is stupid.

Football Coach to another Coach example: Okay, coach. Here's the deal. We'll kick your ass for 3 quarters, then we quit. It's foolproof. We can't lose.[/QUOTE]
A free and open society works counter intuitively sometimes. It's the price of admission. Iraq stopped being (if it ever was) a strategic military issue long ago.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Is Iraq worth what we're paying for it?[/QUOTE]

I would kinda like to see if any of these guys make a cogent answer.

It seems that Republicans are never actually expected to pay for any of their lunacy.
 
[quote name='Msut77']I would kinda like to see if any of these guys make a cogent answer.

It seems that Republicans are never actually expected to pay for any of their lunacy.[/QUOTE]

didnt you hear? were going to pay for the war with the oil contracts.
 
[quote name='RAMSTORIA']didnt you hear? were going to pay for the war with the oil contracts.[/QUOTE]

Yeah? So how did that work out?

/sarcasm
 
We'll definitely pay for man-made global warming lunacy though. And that will end up being a much higher cost than the Iraq war. Which party is to blame for that?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Well since votes in both the house and senate were near unanimous for the Iraq "conflict", both parties are to blame. Even though one wants to maintain they had nothing to do with it.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']We'll definitely pay for man-made global warming lunacy though. And that will end up being a much higher cost than the Iraq war. Which party is to blame for that?[/QUOTE]

I have little problem with most of this. Even if global warming is man made (I tend to think there's a good chance it at least partially is) most anti-gw efforts are things like conservation and alternative energy sources which are things that 100% need to have irrespective of global warming.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']I have little problem with most of this. Even if global warming is man made (I tend to think there's a good chance it at least partially is) most anti-gw efforts are things like conservation and alternative energy sources which are things that 100% need to have irrespective of global warming.[/QUOTE]

Fine. But at any (taxpayer) cost?
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']Fine. But at any (taxpayer) cost?[/QUOTE]

At any cost? No. But at a decent cost.

Hopefully it can be mostly paid for by getting out of Iraq and not spending so much on military and useless wars in the future.

It's not something we'll agree on as I'm fine with paying taxes around the current levels or a little higher and like a large and strong federal government (view it as key in today's global society) while you want much lower taxes and smaller government.
 
Well i know we disagree on size of government and how much regulation there should be, that's fine.

But for example, let's take a look at Norway. Fifth largest producer of Oil in the world. A gallon of gas costs $11. Why? Taxes.

My issue with that is if a country feels that strongly about the harmful effects of oil on the world, they should just greatly reduce it's production, eventually halting it. Forcing the "change" they long for - rather than levying an ungodly tax on it's citizens and hoping their pain somehow leads to the change.

Maintaining output of the evil fossil fuels and trying to "offset" it somehow with taxes is insanity. If you truly believe carbon based fuels are evil and are destroying the world, and you feel it's the greatest threat the people of the planet face, enough to tax the shit out of people using them - then simply stop producing them, which will drive the cost even higher and force the change quicker, without the hypocrisy.

This is the model I fear. And the people that think the limitless increase of so-called environmental based taxation is perfectly acceptable as long as it's gradual enough (insert frog in boiling pot analogy here) frighten the shit out of me.

What's this have to do with this thread? I fear Obama may think like this too.

BTW, I have no doubt you'll get your wish of paying higher taxes no matter who is elected, but I also doubt you'll get your wish that they won't be spent on conflict (but as good as Obama is behind the mic, chances are good he'll do a better job of selling it ;)).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Like I said above, the main changes that need to happen are conservation (short term) and alternative energy and fuel sources (long term). But I do worry that such environmental taxes won't be fruitfully invested in these efforts.

And I also worry about conflict as well. My one hope with Obama is conflicts will be more justified (i.e. Iran clearly developing nuclear weapons) and and a matter of last resort after all diplomatic efforts have faiied. I also hope that he'll only invade countries with full support of our allies. But time will tell on those points.
 
[quote name='Krymner']I don't have much faith in anything the Europeans say about America anyway. Several months ago the Pew Research Center did a poll and found that 58% of Europeans want to see a weaker United States.[/QUOTE]

Context is everything. Europeans (and others) are much less afraid of American power when we're not seen to be abusing it.

[quote name='thrustbucket']Interesting. I did not expect you to pull out Ron Paul from your pocket. You know, I tend to agree with most of what you say there. I love that you mentioned Goldwatter. He was a badass. And you are right, someone like them can never get very far because they are an enemy to all politicians. That, and I think a radical departure from the path of the last few decades like Ron Paul would be is too scary for most people to consider.

Your criticisms of McCain (which I do agree with) are not enough to convince me I should vote for Obama quite yet, but they are accurate, imo.[/QUOTE]

I knew he was gonna say Paul; that's who I would have picked, too, though I like McCain a bit more than Myke, I think. Having an internally-consistent belief system goes a long way towards earning my respect, even if I don't agree with it.

[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Is Iraq worth what we're paying for it?[/QUOTE]

"You break it, you bought it."
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']
And I also worry about conflict as well. My one hope with Obama is conflicts will be more justified (i.e. Iran clearly developing nuclear weapons) [/QUOTE]

Are they? I find this interesting. Before the invasion of Iraq, was the evidence for WMD's really that much less convincing (multiple sources of intelligence from multiple countries, defiant tyrannical leader making threats - remember)?

I admittedly was not following international news in 2002 as close as I do now, but I don't recall the atmosphere of belief concerning WMD's any different than it is now for Iran and nukes.

Like I said before, It will be hilarious if we go in there guns blazing and then can't find any clear evidence of a nuclear weapon or program for such. I can't wait to see who gets blamed then.
 
What I meant was I have hope that Obama would not go into Iran unless their was clear evidence they were developing a nuclear weapons program. I wasn't saying there was already such evidence.

I as for Iraq and WMDs, I was skeptical of the evidence--given what the UN inspectors where saying about just needing more time etc. But you're right there wasn't much general up roar.

My main point is I really don't want to see that happen again. I like that Obama is already enlisting international support to put pressure on Iran to stop it's nuclear programs. It's a global society and that's the way to deal with global problems. Not for one country to charge into another on their own.

Hopefully international diplomatic pressure will be enough to dissuade them (see north korea demolishing a nuclear facility), and if not hopefully their will be strong evidence and any military efforts can be an international effort ala the first gulf war.

And of course, another difference here is that Iran is touting development of nuclear technology--and just saying it isn't for weapons. I think most of the world (western world at least) doesn't want to see Iran with the capacity to enrich uranium etc. regardless of their stated intent. At least not when their president has openly talked about desire to blow Israel off the map etc.

But things can change with the right diplomatic pressures. An article a read a while back said that the presidents support was waning and he might not win re-election, another poll showed a small majority (50 some percent) of Iranians polled supported closer relations with the US (was higher among younger respondents) etc. etc.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']
My main point is I really don't want to see that happen again. I like that Obama is already enlisting international support to put pressure on Iran to stop it's nuclear programs. It's a global society and that's the way to deal with global problems. Not for one country to charge into another on their own.

[/QUOTE]

dont forget bush had international support in the lead up to the war (not during the invasion and aftermath as much) but the WMD intelligence was corroborated by british, german, and even russian agencies. its not like the us whipped up a fabrication on their own.

given that, obama can get tons of support in sanctions and intelligence showing iran my have a nuclear program, but if theres an invasion, especially one that turns south, dont expect the same support to continue.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']What I meant was I have hope that Obama would not go into Iran unless their was clear evidence they were developing a nuclear weapons program. I wasn't saying there was already such evidence.
[/QUOTE]

Alright, I misunderstood you then.

I agree with a lot of the rest of what you said. But when action is taken, there will always be a lot of people that think action was taken prematurely. Such is the nature of action.
 
[quote name='RAMSTORIA']dont forget bush had international support in the lead up to the war (not during the invasion and aftermath as much) but the WMD intelligence was corroborated by british, german, and even russian agencies. its not like the us whipped up a fabrication on their own.

given that, obama can get tons of support in sanctions and intelligence showing iran my have a nuclear program, but if theres an invasion, especially one that turns south, dont expect the same support to continue.[/QUOTE]

Fair point.

My hope is that he won't go forward with an invasion if he can't get support. It doesn't have to be universal, but we can't go it nearly alone like we did in Iraq. We've struggled there both in the war and our international reputation--Iran would be a disaster for us in similar circumstances.

I do think support will be more forthcoming for an attack on a cleary nuclear Iran (may take Iran admitting openly that they have nuclear weapons) than what we saw with the Iraq WMD thing. Iraq was a regional threat. A nuclear Iran would be a much larger potential threat and on a much larger scale in terms of potential damage per weapon.

[quote name='thrustbucket']
I agree with a lot of the rest of what you said. But when action is taken, there will always be a lot of people that think action was taken prematurely. Such is the nature of action.[/QUOTE]

Totally. It's just important to not have heated opposition from important allies and to have a few more actively supporting us if it ever came to a war with Iran.

My biggest fear is that the Bush administration will escalate things in Iran before they leave office.
 
bread's done
Back
Top