The "Y" Generation

[Tito Jr.]

Mr. Tate,

I think all of us here who find this election incredibly important to the betterment of America need to do more than just talk in these forums among ourselves. If you haven't noticed there really isn't much dissension, besides maybe a few dimwits who quickly realize they are in way over their heads. So here's a cool idea:

AP.net should offer prizes (cds, concert tix, t-shirts, dvds, autographed merch, etc.) to every 20th (this number can be altered) new registered voter (*cough* for Obama *cough*). This may not be exactlly politically correct, but fuck it; We are after all the demographic that has been under power of more Republican administrations than Democrat. Each new voter could submit their stub receipt or take a digital picture as proof.

Just a cool little idea to make this election more interesting than it already is. Final deadline to register is October 20th.

[Lueda Alia]

I've already brought this to his attention. I really do think that AP could do something to energize the youth.

[WarpSpeedChewy]

I'm glad this is being brought up. I've been hoping AP would do something like this. Figuring how many visitors this site gets, it could help out some.

[lew_1987]

www.punkvoter.com

[Machu505]

This is the first election I've really given a shit about. I have, in fact, been inspired by Barack Obama.

[Tito Jr.]

Lets do it, Jason.

[oldwirehands]

This election gives me a fucking headache. I can't wait until its over.

[loveisdead]

This election gives me a fucking headache. I can't wait until its over.
this

[oldwirehands]

this

Seriously, I'm tired of all the Obama supporters' hype and elitist attitudes. While the McCain supporters are just... well I don't know any McCain supporters but all you have to do is watch the Palin interview to understand why. And anyone who's for a third party candidate gets hassled to change their vote by Obama supporters, like shady used car salesman. I'm tired of reading the news and all I see are stories about how Palin has no experience, McCain is lying (and dying) neo-conservative, and Obama was raised a Muslim. Who the fuck cares. Our country's leaders are leaving my generation, what seems like an unpayable debt, and both candidates still want to spend billions on the military. We have the largest military budget in the world and these guys want to make it bigger? What does that say about their priorities?

I'm sorry for so cynical but I can't help it when our contradictions out number our confirmations.

[nfgrocker16]

Seriously, I'm tired of all the Obama supporters' hype and elitist attitudes. While the McCain supporters are just... well I don't know any McCain supporters but all you have to do is watch the Palin interview to understand why. And anyone who's for a third party candidate gets hassled to change their vote by Obama supporters, like shady used car salesman. I'm tired of reading the news and all I see are stories about how Palin has no experience, McCain is lying (and dying) neo-conservative, and Obama was raised a Muslim. Who the fuck cares. Our country's leaders are leaving my generation, what seems like an unpayable debt, and both candidates still want to spend billions on the military. We have the largest military budget in the world and these guys want to make it bigger? What does that say about their priorities?

I'm sorry for so cynical but I can't help it when our contradictions out number our confirmations.

I'd like you to define elitist attitude. I'm not bashing you, I've just heard the phrase used before and was wondering what your definition is.

[oldwirehands]

I'd like you to define elitist attitude. I'm not bashing you, I've just heard the phrase used before and was wondering what your definition is.

An arrogant attitude in which a person presents themself as if they were a better person than the next.

[Broken Parachute]

This is the first election I've really given a shit about. I have, in fact, been inspired by Barack Obama.It's because you were in like 3rd grade during the last one, haha.

[nfgrocker16]

An arrogant attitude in which a person presents themself as if they were a better person than the next.

Ok, for the most part I haven't seen many posts that imply the poster is better than the person they are grilling. I think its a sense of whatthefuckness in how people are basing their arguments not on fact, but on speculation and on propaganda.

I think there are a lot of people on these threads who are sick of the way our country is heading and are sick of people being simpleminded about issues instead of doing research and being smart about the way they form their opinions.

Again, its not a "we're better than you." Its a "we want you to be better then that." And by that I mean succumbing to opinions based on nothing but opinion.

I think most of us are tired of the youth of this country not being as intellectually informed on issues as we should be, seeing as we have the largest and best medium for finding correct information.

I think our annoyance a defense mechanism to how hard we are getting hit with lies and bs by a lot of the republican party.

I would like someone to please find on these forums a person who is pro McCain that has said, "these are his issues I agree with and why, and these are the issues I disagree with Obama on and why." Not "Here is why McCain is better and liberals are scared of Republicans because we're winning." or some bs like that.

[Machu505]

It's because you were in like 3rd grade during the last one, haha.

Haha true true.

[Broken Parachute]

Haha true true.I'm the same way though. Last election I was 14, and even though I was still old enough to care and pay attention, I was still focused on being a kid, haha. I didn't get into politics until I turned like 16 and I realized I should probably start paying attention.

[nicgiovanni]

fSeriously, I'm tired of all the Obama supporters' hype and elitist attitudes. While the McCain supporters are just... well I don't know any McCain supporters but all you have to do is watch the Palin interview to understand why. And anyone who's for a third party candidate gets hassled to change their vote by Obama supporters, like shady used car salesman. I'm tired of reading the news and all I see are stories about how Palin has no experience, McCain is lying (and dying) neo-conservative, and Obama was raised a Muslim. Who the fuck cares. Our country's leaders are leaving my generation, what seems like an unpayable debt, and both candidates still want to spend billions on the military. We have the largest military budget in the world and these guys want to make it bigger? What does that say about their priorities?

I'm sorry for so cynical but I can't help it when our contradictions out number our confirmations.


agreed. but what do you suppose we do about it?

= ]



R
E
V
O
L
U
T
I
O
N


that's all i'm saying.

[fuller]

Settle down Che

[open mind]

f


agreed. but what do you suppose we do about it?

= ]



R
E
V
O
L
U
T
I
O
N


that's all i'm saying.

i'm of the opinion that every revolution ends up being a simple reshuffling of the deck.

[Machu505]

WORKERS OF THE WORLD, UNITE!!!

x

[Machu505]

http://i221.photobucket.com/albums/dd4/bosco_alpha/awesome/communistbear.jpg

[open mind]

http://i221.photobucket.com/albums/dd4/bosco_alpha/awesome/communistbear.jpg

you had to bring the care bears whom i loved when i was 3-4 years old into it.

[Machu505]

you had to bring the care bears whom i loved when i was 3-4 years old into it.

CAPITALIST PIG YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH

x

[open mind]

bitch, don't make me bust out the care bear stare.

[Machu505]

bitch, don't make me bust out the care bear stare.

YOU'RE ALL SHEEP!!! SHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEP!!!

SHEEP I TELL YA!!!

BAHHHHHHHHH!!!

x

[open mind]

better watch your back bro, my homies in care-a-lot are now officially after that ass.

[oldwirehands]

Ok, for the most part I haven't seen many posts that imply the poster is better than the person they are grilling. I think its a sense of whatthefuckness in how people are basing their arguments not on fact, but on speculation and on propaganda.

I think there are a lot of people on these threads who are sick of the way our country is heading and are sick of people being simpleminded about issues instead of doing research and being smart about the way they form their opinions.

Again, its not a "we're better than you." Its a "we want you to be better then that." And by that I mean succumbing to opinions based on nothing but opinion.

I think most of us are tired of the youth of this country not being as intellectually informed on issues as we should be, seeing as we have the largest and best medium for finding correct information.

I think our annoyance a defense mechanism to how hard we are getting hit with lies and bs by a lot of the republican party.

I would like someone to please find on these forums a person who is pro McCain that has said, "these are his issues I agree with and why, and these are the issues I disagree with Obama on and why." Not "Here is why McCain is better and liberals are scared of Republicans because we're winning." or some bs like that.

I've only seen a few elitist supporters on this site. Random people I run into though is another story. I guess a good number of people around where I live read my blogs and shit. So some times when I go to a bar, there will be a random person who's a brother of a friend of a friend that wants to talk politics with me.

I think the problem with people and politics in general is their opinions are formed by their emotions rather than logic. Drew Westen did a political bias study and that is exactly what he found out (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drew_Westen). He has a book out called the political brain. I haven't read it yet but its definitely on my list of books.

[Aether]

Seriously, I'm tired of all the Obama supporters' hype and elitist attitudes. While the McCain supporters are just... well I don't know any McCain supporters but all you have to do is watch the Palin interview to understand why. And anyone who's for a third party candidate gets hassled to change their vote by Obama supporters, like shady used car salesman. I'm tired of reading the news and all I see are stories about how Palin has no experience, McCain is lying (and dying) neo-conservative, and Obama was raised a Muslim. Who the fuck cares. Our country's leaders are leaving my generation, what seems like an unpayable debt, and both candidates still want to spend billions on the military. We have the largest military budget in the world and these guys want to make it bigger? What does that say about their priorities?

I'm sorry for so cynical but I can't help it when our contradictions out number our confirmations.

Agreed.

[apoemtothedead]

I've only seen a few elitist supporters on this site. Random people I run into though is another story. I guess a good number of people around where I live read my blogs and shit. So some times when I go to a bar, there will be a random person who's a brother of a friend of a friend that wants to talk politics with me.

I think the problem with people and politics in general is their opinions are formed by their emotions rather than logic. Drew Westen did a political bias study and that is exactly what he found out (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drew_Westen). He has a book out called the political brain. I haven't read it yet but its definitely on my list of books.
Change your vote to Obama already.

-saysmydoctor

[nfgrocker16]

I've only seen a few elitist supporters on this site. Random people I run into though is another story. I guess a good number of people around where I live read my blogs and shit. So some times when I go to a bar, there will be a random person who's a brother of a friend of a friend that wants to talk politics with me.

I think the problem with people and politics in general is their opinions are formed by their emotions rather than logic. Drew Westen did a political bias study and that is exactly what he found out (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drew_Westen). He has a book out called the political brain. I haven't read it yet but its definitely on my list of books.

That's a great point and I completely agree with you, which is why I think people like Jason Tate have great insight into this election in particular because he sticks to the facts. I think if you look at a lot of people on this sight who are pro-Obama, they don't align themselves with a party, they align themselves with the fact driven knowledge that Obama is the best choice for president and they can back it up. People don't like being proven wrong and I think thats why you see so much backlash by people who say they're pro-McCain.

It seems ridiculous to a lot of us that people would want to vote for someone who's policies are the same as the current president who's gotten us into a world of shit. I think its fair for a lot of the negativity towards biased posters and people who bash our views as one sided, because they aren't. They're based on proven fact that Obama is the best candidate based on how he's talking about this country being ran, his policies, and his goals.

That's not opinion, its fact, and you can argue against it but unless you don't have concrete evidence to back it up then you're going to get torn apart.

I think a lot of the problem with voting these days is people vote based on party allegiance and not based on the facts of who is the best person to fix the problems we face, the best and most pro-active way possible.

I'm an independent because I don't believe in restricting what I believe to a party. I believe in looking at all the options and deciding what's best for me and my country, and that includes everyone in it.

Sorry, long post, but I've wanted to talk about that for a while.

[oldwirehands]

Change your vote to Obama already.

-saysmydoctor

lol

That's a great point and I completely agree with you, which is why I think people like Jason Tate have great insight into this election in particular because he sticks to the facts. I think if you look at a lot of people on this sight who are pro-Obama, they don't align themselves with a party, they align themselves with the fact driven knowledge that Obama is the best choice for president and they can back it up. People don't like being proven wrong and I think thats why you see so much backlash by people who say they're pro-McCain.

It seems ridiculous to a lot of us that people would want to vote for someone who's policies are the same as the current president who's gotten us into a world of shit. I think its fair for a lot of the negativity towards biased posters and people who bash our views as one sided, because they aren't. They're based on proven fact that Obama is the best candidate based on how he's talking about this country being ran, his policies, and his goals.

That's not opinion, its fact, and you can argue against it but unless you don't have concrete evidence to back it up then you're going to get torn apart.

I think a lot of the problem with voting these days is people vote based on party allegiance and not based on the facts of who is the best person to fix the problems we face, the best and most pro-active way possible.

I'm an independent because I don't believe in restricting what I believe to a party. I believe in looking at all the options and deciding what's best for me and my country, and that includes everyone in it.

Sorry, long post, but I've wanted to talk about that for a while.

I would have to respectfully, but completely, disagree with you about Obama being the best candidate.

[open mind]

I would have to respectfully, but completely, disagree with you about Obama being the best candidate.

i'd say he takes second best.

[nfgrocker16]

i'd say he takes second best.

May I ask why?

[open mind]

May I ask why?

he's way to in bed with the military industrial complex (especially biden) for my liking.

his record on defending our constitutional rights is horrible.

[nfgrocker16]

he's way to in bed with the military industrial complex (especially biden) for my liking.

his record on defending our constitutional rights is horrible.

Do you have any links to the latter? I'm just curious.

[oldwirehands]

he's way to in bed with the military industrial complex (especially biden) for my liking.

his record on defending our constitutional rights is horrible.

love you ;)

[open mind]

Do you have any links to the latter? I'm just curious.

he voted to approve the latest version of fisa (domestic spying).....which was a vote to retroactively give immunity to companies that had illegally spied on u.s. citizens.

these aren't articles that are hard to find........so yeah i'll get links, just give me a minute.

[oldwirehands]

Also check out this site.

http://www.votesmart.org/

You can view all the candidates' voting records and much more.

[Tito Jr.]

he voted to approve the latest version of fisa (domestic spying)

Barrack Obama's explanation:

"After months of negotiation, the House today passed a compromise that, while far from perfect, is a marked improvement over last year's Protect America Act.
"Under this compromise legislation, an important tool in the fight against terrorism will continue, but the President's illegal program of warrantless surveillance will be over. It restores FISA and existing criminal wiretap statutes as the exclusive means to conduct surveillance - making it clear that the President cannot circumvent the law and disregard the civil liberties of the American people. It also firmly re-establishes basic judicial oversight over all domestic surveillance in the future. It does, however, grant retroactive immunity, and I will work in the Senate to remove this provision so that we can seek full accountability for past offenses. But this compromise guarantees a thorough review by the Inspectors General of our national security agencies to determine what took place in the past, and ensures that there will be accountability going forward. By demanding oversight and accountability, a grassroots movement of Americans has helped yield a bill that is far better than the Protect America Act.
"It is not all that I would want. But given the legitimate threats we face, providing effective intelligence collection tools with appropriate safeguards is too important to delay. So I support the compromise, but do so with a firm pledge that as President, I will carefully monitor the program, review the report by the Inspectors General, and work with the Congress to take any additional steps I deem necessary to protect the lives - and the liberty - of the American people."

[open mind]

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/07/obama-fisa.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/20/obama-backs-bill-giving-i_n_108370.html

[open mind]

Barrack Obama's explanation:

"After months of negotiation, the House today passed a compromise that, while far from perfect, is a marked improvement over last year's Protect America Act.
"Under this compromise legislation, an important tool in the fight against terrorism will continue, but the President's illegal program of warrantless surveillance will be over. It restores FISA and existing criminal wiretap statutes as the exclusive means to conduct surveillance - making it clear that the President cannot circumvent the law and disregard the civil liberties of the American people. It also firmly re-establishes basic judicial oversight over all domestic surveillance in the future. It does, however, grant retroactive immunity, and I will work in the Senate to remove this provision so that we can seek full accountability for past offenses. But this compromise guarantees a thorough review by the Inspectors General of our national security agencies to determine what took place in the past, and ensures that there will be accountability going forward. By demanding oversight and accountability, a grassroots movement of Americans has helped yield a bill that is far better than the Protect America Act.
"It is not all that I would want. But given the legitimate threats we face, providing effective intelligence collection tools with appropriate safeguards is too important to delay. So I support the compromise, but do so with a firm pledge that as President, I will carefully monitor the program, review the report by the Inspectors General, and work with the Congress to take any additional steps I deem necessary to protect the lives - and the liberty - of the American people."


to paraphrase some founding father (i think) i believe that those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve niether.

[oldwirehands]

Barrack Obama's explanation:

"After months of negotiation, the House today passed a compromise that, while far from perfect, is a marked improvement over last year's Protect America Act.
"Under this compromise legislation, an important tool in the fight against terrorism will continue, but the President's illegal program of warrantless surveillance will be over. It restores FISA and existing criminal wiretap statutes as the exclusive means to conduct surveillance - making it clear that the President cannot circumvent the law and disregard the civil liberties of the American people. It also firmly re-establishes basic judicial oversight over all domestic surveillance in the future. It does, however, grant retroactive immunity, and I will work in the Senate to remove this provision so that we can seek full accountability for past offenses. But this compromise guarantees a thorough review by the Inspectors General of our national security agencies to determine what took place in the past, and ensures that there will be accountability going forward. By demanding oversight and accountability, a grassroots movement of Americans has helped yield a bill that is far better than the Protect America Act.
"It is not all that I would want. But given the legitimate threats we face, providing effective intelligence collection tools with appropriate safeguards is too important to delay. So I support the compromise, but do so with a firm pledge that as President, I will carefully monitor the program, review the report by the Inspectors General, and work with the Congress to take any additional steps I deem necessary to protect the lives - and the liberty - of the American people."

What threats do we REALLY face? We have to live our lives in an open society knowing we could be attacked but not to fear it. Thats the price for an open and FREE society.

[Tito Jr.]

to paraphrase some founding father (i think) i believe that those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve niether. When a police officer enters your home when he has a warrent it is ok. But when he taps your phone and has a warrent it's not?

[Tito Jr.]

What threats do we REALLY face? We have to live our lives in an open society knowing we could be attacked but not to fear it. Thats the price for an open and FREE society. It's time to lay off the reefer my friend.

[open mind]

What threats do we REALLY face? We have to live our lives in an open society knowing we could be attacked but not to fear it. Thats the price for an open and FREE society.

there are some very real threats (mostly to our buisness interests, but innocent people would definately get killed if terrorists attacked them) but i do agree that you can't have a truly free society that's totally secure anymore then you can have a totally secure society that's truly free.

[nfgrocker16]

he voted to approve the latest version of fisa (domestic spying).....and he voted to retroactively give immunity to companies that had illegally spied on u.s. citizens.

these aren't articles that are hard to find........so yeah i'll get links, just give me a minute.

He voted for the FISA bill and fought for the amendment to strip Telecom immunization. However, there was a loophole in the bill that allowed for criminal prosecution of people who were involved in illegal recordings.

It can, regrettably, be seen as a political move that, if he gets elected, would give him more say, in that he would be president, to prosecute any of these companies that have been illegally spying on American homes.

FISA is a tough issue where either way Obama would have gone with it would have resulted in political criticism from one of the parties. So he chose to try and support the bill but get rid of immunity for Telecom companies, but in the end supported the bill which he called it an improved but imperfect bill.

[oldwirehands]

It's time to lay off the reefer my friend.

Anyone who buys into the whole war on Terrorism probably needs to smoke some weed to realize how much of a joke it is. We don't need a 600+ billion dollar military budget while every other country in the world's is under a hundred billion.

[open mind]

When a police officer enters your home when he has a warrent it is ok. But when he taps your phone and has a warrent it's not?

it's ok if he has a warrant (i'm still prone to believing warrantless investigations haven't stopped)....it's not ok to let people at random companies illegally spy on the american public and not have them face consequences for it.

[nfgrocker16]

ueTqmfmnNCw

I think Keith puts it pretty well in this statement about the FISA bill and what Obama should do.

[open mind]

He voted for the FISA bill and fought for the amendment to strip Telecom immunization. However, there was a loophole in the bill that allowed for criminal prosecution of people who were involved in illegal recordings.

It can, regrettably, be seen as a political move that, if he gets elected, would give him more say, in that he would be president, to prosecute any of these companies that have been illegally spying on American homes.

FISA is a tough issue where either way Obama would have gone with it would have resulted in political criticism from one of the parties. So he chose to try and support the bill but get rid of immunity for Telecom companies, but in the end supported the bill which he called it an improved but imperfect bill.

this is one issue i say he should have stuck to his guns on, i'm a pretty open minded guy but no amount of rationalizing is going to convince me otherwise.

i notice that no one is willing to even attempt to deny that obama is totally in bed with the military-industrial complex.

[Tito Jr.]

it's ok if he has a warrant (i'm still prone to believing warrantless investigations haven't stopped)....it's not ok to let people at random companies illegally spy on the american public and not have them face consequences for it. Well according to that particular bill a warrent is neccessary in order to tap phones.

[nfgrocker16]

this is one issue i say he should have stuck to his guns on, i'm a pretty open minded guy but no amount of rationalizing is going to convince me otherwise.

i notice that no one is willing to even attempt to deny that obama is totally in bed with the military-industrial complex.

I think that depends on what you think of the military. If you think the military is a necessity then yes, the fact that Obama is going to continue spending money on it is OK, as long as it goes to the right things (building up our defenses here at home, getting our troops better armor, better weapons, etc.) Unfortunately nobody wants to go to war but it happens. The point Obama makes is that it should be last in the line of how we deal with foreign issues. That doesn't mean we shouldn't be prepared.

That's up to debate though on whether you think we need to rid ourselves of the military or not.

[open mind]

Well according to that particular bill a warrent is neccessary in order to tap phones.

yeah, i'm aware.

[Tito Jr.]

yeah, i'm aware. So you and Obama agree. :)

[nfgrocker16]

yeah, i'm aware.

So then what's the issue?

[nfgrocker16]

Anyone who buys into the whole war on Terrorism probably needs to smoke some weed to realize how much of a joke it is. We don't need a 600+ billion dollar military budget while every other country in the world's is under a hundred billion.

On the other hand some countries account military expenses under other budget voices: for example China (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China) and Russia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia) categorize spending on nuclear weapons, missile and fighter development as scientific expenses, spending on training are categorized under the education budget, and veteran pensions are afforded by welfare budget. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_federations_b y_military_expenditures

We're also at war which highly increases our military budget.

[open mind]

I think that depends on what you think of the military. If you think the military is a necessity then yes, the fact that Obama is going to continue spending money on it is OK, as long as it goes to the right things (building up our defenses here at home, getting our troops better armor, better weapons, etc.) Unfortunately nobody wants to go to war but it happens. The point Obama makes is that it should be last in the line of how we deal with foreign issues. That doesn't mean we shouldn't be prepared.

That's up to debate though on whether you think we need to rid ourselves of the military or not.

he's backed off of his opposition to iraq, he's said he'd devote more resources to afghanistan, he backs israel without question, and he and biden seem to want to kick russia in the teeth over georgia.....those stances don't give me the impression that he's all about diplomacy or that he believes war should always be the last option.

i'm not someone who dislikes obama with a passion, but i'm not someone who's in love with him either....i probably wouldn't vote for him as my vote wouldn't have a chance of insuring he won alaska....but if i lived in a key battleground state i wouldn't hesitate in voting for him because i despise what the mccain-palin ticket stands for.

[open mind]

So then what's the issue?

retroactively covering peoples asses.

[oldwirehands]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_federations_b y_military_expenditures

We're also at war which highly increases our military budget.

It says the United States' budget is at $547b while, like I said before, everyone else's is under $100b...

[nfgrocker16]

he's backed off of his opposition to iraq, he's said he'd devote more resources to afghanistan, he backs israel without question, and he and biden seem to want to kick russia in the teeth over georgia.....those stances don't give me the impression that he's all about diplomacy or that he believes war should always be the last option.

i'm not someone who dislikes obama with a passion, but i'm not someone who's in love with him either....i probably wouldn't vote for him as my vote wouldn't have a chance of insuring he won alaska....but if i lived in a key battleground state i wouldn't hesitate in voting for him because i despise what the mccain-palin ticket stands for.

From what I've heard, read, seen he still says he was apposed to going to Iraq in the first place and that he would get troops out of Iraq within 16 months. His reason for going to Afghanistan is to fight the Taliban, which, btw, are the ones who actually attacked us.

On Russia: Obama said that the U.N. must stand up for Georgia, “The United States, Europe and all other concerned countries must stand united in condemning this aggression, and seeking a peaceful resolution to this crisis. We should continue to push for a United Nations Security Council Resolution calling for an immediate end to the violence. This is a clear violation of the sovereignty and internationally recognized borders of Georgia – the UN must stand up for the sovereignty of its members, and peace in the world.”

[Tito Jr.]

My thread is ruined.

[nfgrocker16]

It says the United States' budget is at $547b while, like I said before, everyone else's is under $100b...

Because countries like Russia and China don't include certain military spending as military spending. for example China (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China) and Russia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia) categorize spending on nuclear weapons, missile and fighter development as scientific expenses, spending on training are categorized under the education budget, and veteran pensions are afforded by welfare budget.

When we finally leave Iraq that number will go down. His budget increases that he's voted for are for better armor, better technology. How is that a bad thing?

[open mind]

From what I've heard, read, seen he still says he was apposed to going to Iraq in the first place and that he would get troops out of Iraq within 16 months. His reason for going to Afghanistan is to fight the Taliban, which, btw, are the ones who actually attacked us.

On Russia:

i didn't say he wasn't against the initial invasion, just that his stances have gotten softer as the campaign has gone on.
what's funny about blaming the taliban for the 9/11 attacks is that it's not true......the majority of the men directly involved in the attacks were saudi's.

i believe that we orchestrated a provocation because of a struggle going on concerning control of a massive pipeline that's been proposed, and that the russians weren't exactly wrong in responding in the way they did......so even posturing like russia needs to be put back in it's place annoys me.

[oldwirehands]

I think that depends on what you think of the military. If you think the military is a necessity then yes, the fact that Obama is going to continue spending money on it is OK, as long as it goes to the right things (building up our defenses here at home, getting our troops better armor, better weapons, etc.) Unfortunately nobody wants to go to war but it happens. The point Obama makes is that it should be last in the line of how we deal with foreign issues. That doesn't mean we shouldn't be prepared.

That's up to debate though on whether you think we need to rid ourselves of the military or not.

War just doesn't happen. It should be the very last resort and in our defense.

[open mind]

Because countries like Russia and China don't include certain military spending as military spending.

When we finally leave Iraq that number will go down. His budget increases that he's voted for are for better armor, better technology. How is that a bad thing?

historically even in times of peace our military budget has dwarfed every other nations.

[nfgrocker16]

War just doesn't happen. It should be the very last resort and in our defense.

I didn't say war "just happens", I said war happens, which is true. How is Obama's stance towards war being the last resort any different than yours? Spending money on the military doesn't mean he's pro war. That's insinuation and speculation, not fact. The fact that the next president will be inheriting a two front war means that they'll have to deal with war and have a plan for how to execute it. That doesn't mean they would have started it or will start another one if unprovoked.

[oldwirehands]

Because countries like Russia and China don't include certain military spending as military spending.

When we finally leave Iraq that number will go down. His budget increases that he's voted for are for better armor, better technology. How is that a bad thing?

The UK is the second highest budget. Do they hide their spending as well? And even if you included Russia and China's collective military spending, I'm sure the number wouldn't be anywhere near our's.

I'm not saying we don't need any military spending but we definitely need to cut back on it BIG time. There are way more problems to handle here in this country that we can actually fix, than there are around the world by using our military. Not to mention spending money on contractors like Blackwater.

[nfgrocker16]

i didn't say he wasn't against the initial invasion, just that his stances have gotten softer as the campaign has gone on.
what's funny about blaming the taliban for the 9/11 attacks is that it's not true......the majority of the men directly involved in the attacks were saudi's.

i believe russia was in the right, and that we orchestrated a provocation because of a struggle going on concerning control of a massive pipeline that's been proposed, and that the russians weren't exactly wrong in responding in the way they did......so even posturing like russia needs to be put back in it's place annoys me.

First point, how have they gotten softer?

Second point, the men claimed to have been led by Osama Bin Laden, who is in fact, the head of the Taliban, and who in fact claimed responsibility.

[nfgrocker16]

The UK is the second highest budget. Do they hide their spending as well? And even if you included Russia and China's collective military spending, I'm sure the number wouldn't be anywhere near our's.

I'm not saying we don't need any military spending but we definitely need to cut back on it BIG time. There are way more problems to handle here in this country that we can actually fix, than there are around the world by using our military. Not to mention spending money on contractors like Blackwater.

You should also look at our population compared to most other countries, seeing as we are the 3rd largest country, population wise, in the world. That denotes that more people are going to join the military, meaning more military spending, meaning we need more money for better gear for more people. I agree that military spending is not what we want our money going towards but it's an unfortunate necessity to make sure we have the best prepared troops in the world.

[oldwirehands]

I didn't say war "just happens", I said war happens, which is true. How is Obama's stance towards war being the last resort any different than yours? Spending money on the military doesn't mean he's pro war. That's insinuation and speculation, not fact. The fact that the next president will be inheriting a two front war means that they'll have to deal with war and have a plan for how to execute it. That doesn't mean they would have started it or will start another one if unprovoked.

But why would he feed more money into an already outrageous military budget? That doesn't send a good message to anyone. I also don't like Obama's siding with Israel. It just asks for trouble.

[open mind]

First point, how have they gotten softer?

Second point, the men claimed to have been led by Osama Bin Laden, who is in fact, the head of the Taliban, and who in fact claimed responsibility.

he used to at least give the impression that he favored immediate withdrawal.

osama bin laden is not the head of the taliban......he's the leader of al queda.

[nfgrocker16]

But why would he feed more money into an already outrageous military budget? That doesn't send a good message to anyone. I also don't like Obama's siding with Israel. It just asks for trouble.

That's implying that the budget will remain where its at when the war is finally over. The budget will go down and his spending is only going towards the right things, as I've pointed out over and over again. Better equipment is not something we should cut back on.

His stance on Israel is touchy because of the fact that they've been an ally for so long, and we need allies in the region. He has also stated that he will work to ally us with the Palestinians as well and try to help the two come to a peaceful resolution. I don't think he should disregard support for Israel just because they have problems with other countries. I think it depends on how he deals with other countries in that region.

[nfgrocker16]

he used to at least give the impression that he favored immediate withdrawal.

osama bin laden is not the head of the taliban......he's the leader of al queda.

Ok, I misstated. Sorry. The fact of the matter is is that the Taliban support Bin Laden and are harboring him.

[open mind]

You should also look at our population compared to most other countries, seeing as we are the 3rd largest country, population wise, in the world. That denotes that more people are going to join the military, meaning more military spending, meaning we need more money for better gear for more people. I agree that military spending is not what we want our money going towards but it's an unfortunate necessity to make sure we have the best prepared troops in the world.

we do not have the 3rd largest population.

edit:guess we do.

[open mind]

Ok, I misstated. Sorry. The fact of the matter is is that the Taliban support Bin Laden and are harboring him.

no......bin laden is said to be in pakistan, which isn't controlled by the taliban.

[oldwirehands]

You should also look at our population compared to most other countries, seeing as we are the 3rd largest country, population wise, in the world. That denotes that more people are going to join the military, meaning more military spending, meaning we need more money for better gear for more people. I agree that military spending is not what we want our money going towards but it's an unfortunate necessity to make sure we have the best prepared troops in the world.

India and China hold close to 40% of the world's population. The 300 million people here only take up a very small percentage. It does not justify our massive military spending.

[oldwirehands]

That's implying that the budget will remain where its at when the war is finally over. The budget will go down and his spending is only going towards the right things, as I've pointed out over and over again. Better equipment is not something we should cut back on.

His stance on Israel is touchy because of the fact that they've been an ally for so long, and we need allies in the region. He has also stated that he will work to ally us with the Palestinians as well and try to help the two come to a peaceful resolution. I don't think he should disregard support for Israel just because they have problems with other countries. I think it depends on how he deals with other countries in that region.

Is having Israel as our ally really important? Taking sides is not going to help our relationship with these middle-eastern countries. The budget won't go down once the war in Iraq is ended because another war would just start. I'm guessing Iran.

Nonetheless, these are my reasons for not wanting to vote Obama and all of them are valid. What Obama wants for this country, I do not (mostly) want.

[nfgrocker16]

no......bin laden is said to be in pakistan, which isn't controlled by the taliban.

The stated intent of military operations was to remove the Taliban from power because of the Taliban's refusal to hand over Osama bin Laden (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_bin_Laden) for his alleged involvement in the September 11 attacks, and disrupt the use of Afghanistan as a terrorist base of operations

Which is why we went to Afghanistan.

As of early 2007, Taliban influence in Pakistan continues in conjunction with the Taliban insurgency (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban_insurgency). Citing a suicide bombing of a restaurant in Peshwar in retaliation for the arrest of a relative of Taliban commander Mullah Dadullah (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mullah_Dadullah), the Associated Press states "... in Pakistan's frontier regions, ... scores of people have been executed over the past two or three years apparently for being too aligned with the Pakistani government or America — allies in the U.S.-led war on terrorism."[102] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban#cite_note-101)

I didn't say Pakistan was run by the Taliban, I said we went to war in Afghanistan because they were harboring him at the time.

[open mind]

His stance on Israel is touchy because of the fact that they've been an ally for so long, and we need allies in the region. He has also stated that he will work to ally us with the Palestinians as well and try to help the two come to a peaceful resolution. I don't think he should disregard support for Israel just because they have problems with other countries. I think it depends on how he deals with other countries in that region.

the thing about backing israel, is that that's the main reason we have so few allies in the region.

israel is famous the world over for human rights abuses and apartheid like practices....the u.s. for whatever reason is the only country blind to the mistreatment they systemattically put the palestinians through......you see more criticism of the israeli government from israelis then you do from the american government.

i also have a problem with the very notion of creating what amounts to an ethnically and culturally pure state.

[nfgrocker16]

Is having Israel as our ally really important? Taking sides is not going to help our relationship with these middle-eastern countries. The budget won't go down once the war in Iraq is ended because another war would just start. I'm guessing Iran.

Nonetheless, these are my reasons for not wanting to vote Obama and all of them are valid. What Obama wants for this country, I do not (mostly) want.

So you're not voting for him because there's a chance a war could start? He never said he's going to war with Iran, in fact he's the only person talking about actually talking with the heads of state there and finding peaceful resolutions to our differences.

You can imply something will happen and then base your judgment on that, but its completely cynical. That's emotion driving your stance, not facts.

[nfgrocker16]

we do not have the 3rd largest population.

edit:guess we do.

yeah we do.

[open mind]

Which is why we went to Afghanistan.



I didn't say Pakistan was run by the Taliban, I said we went to war in Afghanistan because they were harboring him at the time.

you said that the taliban was currently harboring osama bin laden......so i pointed out that they weren't and that the country that is isn't under taliban control.

[nfgrocker16]

the thing about backing israel, is that that's the main reason we have so few allies in the region.

israel is famous the world over for human rights abuses and apartheid like practices....the u.s. for whatever reason is the only country blind to the mistreatment they systemattically put the palestinians through......you see more criticism of the israeli government from israelis then you do from the american government.

i also have a problem with the very notion of creating what amounts to an ethnically and culturally pure state.

I don't think you're going to find a presidential nominee who agrees with you on this one, and for that I'm sorry. But I don't think you should dislike a candidate because of this one thing and military spending.

[nfgrocker16]

you said that the taliban was currently harboring osama bin laden......so i pointed out that they weren't and that the country that is isn't under taliban control.

So you don't believe that the members of the Taliban who are in Pakistan are harboring him? To harbor something or someone doesn't necessarily equate to a country. The fact that they are helping him or allying themselves with him is harboring.

[open mind]

I don't think you're going to find a presidential nominee who agrees with you on this one, and for that I'm sorry. But I don't think you should dislike a candidate because of this one thing and military spending.

it's not just one thing, i think obama is wrong on iraq, afghanistan, israel, and russia

i'm going to go off on a tangent here so bear with me.......backing the military ties in with a multitude of issues.....and feeds the drive for more wars, because what's the point of having the most advanced and well trained military in the world if you're not going to use it? the military-industrial complex has now become such an integral part of our economy we can't realistically stop funding it without crippling our economy....the same thing goes for the war on drugs (which obama also is wrong on)
even in times of peace your going to see the military fucking around some unfortuante country that has next to no military "fighting for freedom and justice" when the reality is that we're fighting for u.s. buisness interests......if what i'm saying isn't true and our military wasn't just the muscle for our corporate giants and was in fact used to help innocents and further freedom why do we turn a blind eye to genocide (rwanda, the sudan)?....why did we wipe out thousands of native americans tribes and decimate the rest? and those are just a few examples of our long standing policy of interventionism on behalf of buisness and our indifference in the face of real atrocities.

[nfgrocker16]

Is having Israel as our ally really important? Taking sides is not going to help our relationship with these middle-eastern countries. The budget won't go down once the war in Iraq is ended because another war would just start. I'm guessing Iran.

Nonetheless, these are my reasons for not wanting to vote Obama and all of them are valid. What Obama wants for this country, I do not (mostly) want.

If you really want to look at how much money we spend on our military look at it based on a percentage of the GDP (gross domestic product.) We aren't even in the top 15 countries who spend the most on their military based on a percentage of their GDP.

[open mind]

So you don't believe that the members of the Taliban who are in Pakistan are harboring him? To harbor something or someone doesn't necessarily equate to a country. The fact that they are helping him or allying themselves with him is harboring.

in simplest terms being an ally to someone is fighting for the same cause, which is not automattically the same thing as providing food, or shelter, or sanctuary i.e. harboring someone.

[nfgrocker16]

it's not just one thing, i think obama is wrong on iraq, afghanistan, israel, and russia

i'm going to go off on a tangent here so bear with me.......backing the military ties in with a multitude of issues.....and feeds the drive for more wars, because what's the point of having the most advanced and well trained military in the world if you're not going to use it? the military-industrial complex has now become such an integral part of our economy we can't realistically stop funding it without crippling our economy....the same thing goes for the war on drugs (which obama also is wrong on)
even in times of peace your going to see the military fucking around some unfortuante country that has next to no military "fighting for freedom and justice" when the reality is that we're fighting for u.s. buisness interests......if what i'm saying isn't true and our military wasn't just the muscle for our corporate giants and was in fact used to help innocents and further freedom why do we turn a blind eye to genocide (rwanda, the sudan)?....why did we wipe out thousands of native americans tribes and decimate the rest?

Hey, I completely agree with you that we shouldn't be in countries that we have no business being in. What about Obama's stance on Iraq don't you agree with, because he said that same thing, that we should never have been there. Obama has stated that he is for peaceful solutions, first and foremost. He's been completely for peaceful solutions in Russia. Do you just not believe him? Because if that's the case then no one can help change your mind, because you'll think every person running this country is pro military no matter what they say.

Again, that's a cynical view of the world, and I agree that we've done shitty things as a country, but that doesn't mean we haven't done great things either. Unfortunately any person who steps into the role as our next president inherits our military standing in the world, and its up to them to do what they can to make it so the military never be needed. That's all they can do. They can't, as you said, just completely get rid of the military because its an integral part of our economy and war has unfortunately become a part of how we as humans live, whether we like it or not. All we can do is try and stop bad situations and use war as only a last resort and only if we are provoked.

If you really want to go to a country that has never done anything bad you'll be hard pressed to find it in this world. That's cynical, but its true.

[nfgrocker16]

in simplest terms being an ally to someone is fighting for the same cause, which is not automattically the same thing as providing food, or shelter, or sanctuary i.e. harboring someone.

Ok, then if I use the word support instead of harbor does it change my argument? No.

[open mind]

Hey, I completely agree with you that we shouldn't be in countries that we have no business being in. What about Obama's stance on Iraq don't you agree with, because he said that same thing, that we should never have been there. Obama has stated that he is for peaceful solutions, first and foremost. He's been completely for peaceful solutions in Russia. Do you just not believe him? Because if that's the case then no one can help change your mind, because you'll think every person running this country is pro military no matter what they say.

Again, that's a cynical view of the world, and I agree that we've done shitty things as a country, but that doesn't mean we haven't done great things either. Unfortunately any person who steps into the role as our next president inherits our military standing in the world, and its up to them to do what they can to make it so the military never be needed. That's all they can do. They can't, as you said, just completely get rid of the military because its an integral part of our economy and war has unfortunately become a part of how we as humans live, whether we like it or not. All we can do is try and stop bad situations and use war as only a last resort and only if we are provoked.

If you really want to go to a country that has never done anything bad you'll be hard pressed to find it in this world. That's cynical, but its true.

i think we should get out now, that no matter how long we stay there real political reconciliation isn't going to happen and the country will fall into turmoil (with iran fanning the flames while standing to benefit the most) if we leave tomorrow or if we leave in a hundred years so we should stop throwing our money into a bottomless pit......i don't like it but it's the unavoidable consequence of creating such a massive power vaccum in one of the most oil rich countries on the planet.

peaceful solutions? economic punishments are not peaceful solutions....you might not be putting a bullet in someones head or dropping bombs on their houses, but it is a form of violence.

unless the military-industrial complex is put back in it's place war will never be the last resort because the industry requires military conflict to sustain itself at the levels it really gets fat on.....and buisness interests always have someone who needs to be labeled as a threat so they can get rid of them and make more money.

i'm not saying i want to go to a country that hasn't done any wrong in the past.......i'm saying i want to live in a country that doesn't continue to thrive off of the worst aspects of humanity.

[oldwirehands]

So you're not voting for him because there's a chance a war could start? He never said he's going to war with Iran, in fact he's the only person talking about actually talking with the heads of state there and finding peaceful resolutions to our differences.

You can imply something will happen and then base your judgment on that, but its completely cynical. That's emotion driving your stance, not facts.

No. That is why I don't like either candidate. McCain is straight about it. Obama has just been changing his stances throughout his campaign.

The fact is Obama wants more military spending while increasing the national debt even further than the 9 trillion we're already in and I don't like it. I don't like his healthcare plan. I don't like that he voted for the Patriot Act and Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act along with many others he has voted for. I don't like that he supports NAFTA. I don't like that he doesn't support the impeachment of Bush/Cheney despite how much longer they're in office. I don't like that he hasn't supported open debates with other candidates. I don't like how he keeps changing his stance on Iraq and now planning to continue with military presence there.

These are facts. I don't want to vote for someone like that. But go ahead and use your freedom to vote for whomever you want. Thats just me. I understand I'm in the minority.

[oldwirehands]

If you really want to look at how much money we spend on our military look at it based on a percentage of the GDP (gross domestic product.) We aren't even in the top 15 countries who spend the most on their military based on a percentage of their GDP.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_State s

We spend plenty of money.

[open mind]

Ok, then if I use the word support instead of harbor does it change my argument? No.

supporting al queda is bad, but your never going to squash that support with military might....if you look at the history of radical groups willing to resort to acts of terror the only really reliable way to neutralize them is by integrating them into the political structure.

[DannySniper]

This election gives me a fucking headache. I can't wait until its over.

Same.

And it's not even my country. I would say the the US election has received more media coverage in Australia then the Australian election did last year.

[oldwirehands]

i think we should get out now, that no matter how long we stay there real political reconciliation isn't going to happen and the country will fall into turmoil (with iran getting the most benefit) if we leave tomorrow or if we leave in a hundred years so we should stop throwing our money into a bottomless pit......i don't like it but it's the unavoidable consequence of creating such a massive power vaccum in one of the most oil rich countries on the planet.

peaceful solutions? economic punishments are not peaceful solutions....you might not be putting a bullet in someones head or dropping bombs on their houses, but it is a form of violence.

unless the military-industrial complex is put back in it's place war will never be the last resort because the industry requires military conflict to sustain itself at the levels it really gets fat on.....and buisness interests always have someone who needs to be labeled as a threat so they can get rid of them and make more money.

i'm not saying i want to go to a country that hasn't done any wrong in the past.......i'm saying i want to live in a country that doesn't continue to thrive off of the worst aspects of humanity.

Now that would be some real change.

[nfgrocker16]

No. That is why I don't like either candidate. McCain is straight about it. Obama has just been changing his stances throughout his campaign.

The fact is Obama wants more military spending while increasing the national debt even further than the 9 trillion we're already in and I don't like it. I don't like his healthcare plan. I don't like that he voted for the Patriot Act and Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act along with many others he has voted for. I don't like that he supports NAFTA. I don't like that he doesn't support the impeachment of Bush/Cheney despite how much longer they're in office. I don't like that he hasn't supported open debates with other candidates. I don't like how he keeps changing his stance on Iraq and now planning to continue with military presence there.

These are facts. I don't want to vote for someone like that. But go ahead and use your freedom to vote for whomever you want. Thats just me. I understand I'm in the minority.

Patriot Act: http://www.barackobama.com/factcheck/2008/01/05/fact_check_obamas_consistent_p_1.ph p

Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act: The only negativity about this plan is that it could criminalize protesters, people who might be "considered" radical in their views. However, that assumes that Obama would consider these organizations radical and there's no evidence to prove he would.

On Nafta: http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/18/magazines/fortune/easton_obama.fortune/index.htm?postversion=2008061815 (please actually read what Obama says about free trade and how NAFTA doesn't work but could)

On impeachment of Bush and Cheney" Obama stated "There's a way to bring an end to those practices, you know: vote the bums out," the presidential candidate said, without naming Bush or Cheney. "That's how our system is designed."

On Iraq: He hasn't stated that we need to continue a military presence there. He has stated that we need to have minimal troops there until their government and military can handle the situation without us. To say he will stay there because it's economically good for America is bullshit. It hurts the country more than it helps.

[nfgrocker16]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_State s

We spend plenty of money.

I never said we didn't spend too much. I'm just pointing out the fact that what matters is the percentage of what our GDP is to how much we spend on our military. And it's not even in the top 15.

[WarpSpeedChewy]

Patriot Act: http://www.barackobama.com/factcheck/2008/01/05/fact_check_obamas_consistent_p_1.ph p

Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act: The only negativity about this plan is that it could criminalize protesters, people who might be "considered" radical in their views. However, that assumes that Obama would consider these organizations radical and there's no evidence to prove he would.

On Nafta: http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/18/magazines/fortune/easton_obama.fortune/index.htm?postversion=2008061815 (please actually read what Obama says about free trade and how NAFTA doesn't work but could)

On impeachment of Bush and Cheney" Obama stated "There's a way to bring an end to those practices, you know: vote the bums out," the presidential candidate said, without naming Bush or Cheney. "That's how our system is designed."

On Iraq: He hasn't stated that we need to continue a military presence there. He has stated that we need to have minimal troops there until their government and military can handle the situation without us. To say he will stay there because it's economically good for America is bullshit. It hurts the country more than it helps.
Thank you for pointing all of this out. I was about to but you did much more articulately and were very detailed.

Also concerning the national debt, it's gonna increase no matter who is in office. That is Bush's fault. Difference I think Obama has the stronger economic policies and soon we won't be spending so much money on the Iraq and we can start paying it off eventually.

[open mind]

i think not impeaching bush is giving license to every future president to blatantly break the law whenever they see fit.

[nfgrocker16]

Now that would be some real change.

Well when are you moving then?

[nfgrocker16]

i think not impeaching bush is giving license to every future president to blatantly break the law whenever they see fit.

That's implying every president would.

[open mind]

That's implying every president would.

the idea that they could should be obliterated.

[open mind]

Well when are you moving then?

i didn't expect you to resort to the old love it or leave it argument.

[WarpSpeedChewy]

i think not impeaching bush is giving license to every future president to blatantly break the law whenever they see fit.
Personally, I think impeaching Bush now is kind of empty gesture. I agree with the intent, but we've had horrible presidents completely serve out their terms before and practically it doesn't make much sense. Better to close the page on a bad chapter so we have a better one.

[nfgrocker16]

i didn't expect you to resort to the old love it or leave it argument.

I'm sorry, I'm extremely tired. I didn't truthfully mean it.

[nfgrocker16]

the idea that they could should be obliterated.

Who's to say impeaching Bush would solve the issue?

Setting an example doesn't solve the problem.

[open mind]

Personally, I think impeaching Bush now is kind of empty gesture. I agree with the intent, but we've had horrible presidents completely serve out their terms before and practically it doesn't make much sense. Better to close the page on a bad chapter so we have a better one.

couldn't disagree more, if we're going to even slow the rate at which government officials believe it's acceptable to abuse power the american people need to make a strong and direct statement that the sort of shit the bush administration pulled is entirely unacceptable and that those who take part in it will be held accountable.

maybe they don't need to be impeached, but if they aren't they should be brought to trial in a criminal court and imprisoned for a long time.

[open mind]

Who's to say impeaching Bush would solve the issue?

Setting an example doesn't solve the problem.

i didn't say it would solve the problem, but it'd be a good start.

[nfgrocker16]

couldn't disagree more, if we're going to even slow the rate at which government officials believe it's acceptable to abuse power the american people need to make a strong and direct statement that the sort of shit the bush administration pulled is entirely unacceptable and that those who take part in it will be held accountable.

maybe he doesn't need to be impeached, but if he isn't he should be brought to trial in a criminal court and imprisoned for a long time.

Did you watch that video of Keith Olbermann I posted? There's a nice little tidbit about the FISA bill and the loophole contained within it.

I wanted Bush impeached for such a long time but realized I should vote for someone who can start fixing the problems instead.

[WarpSpeedChewy]

couldn't disagree more, if we're going to even slow the rate at which government officials believe it's acceptable to abuse power the american people need to make a strong and direct statement that the sort of shit the bush administration pulled is entirely unacceptable and that those who take part in it will be held accountable.

maybe he doesn't need to be impeached, but if he isn't he should be brought to trial in a criminal court and imprisoned for a long time.
If you wanna slow the rate at which government officials abuse power, pass stronger laws completely preventing it, something that would have a longer effect than some trail which practically will never happen. Right intent, wrong method in my mind. It would have made more sense a year ago.

Not to mention the fact that it would be a huge distraction in the middle of a election season.

[open mind]

Did you watch that video of Keith Olbermann I posted? There's a nice little tidbit about the FISA bill and the loophole contained within it.

I wanted Bush impeached for such a long time but realized I should vote for someone who can start fixing the problems instead.

yeah i watched it, and i guess the bill wasn't as bad as i originally thought it was.....but it's still a horrible bill.

my point is that if the bush administration isn't brought to justice we're effectively creating a new problem....or at least making an existing one much worse.

[nfgrocker16]

If you wanna slow the rate at which government officials abuse power, pass stronger laws completely preventing it, something that would have a longer effect than some trail which practically will never happen. Right intent, wrong method in my mind. It would have made more sense a year ago.

Not to mention the fact that it would be a huge distraction in the middle of a election season.

Which Obama is trying to do or says he will do. Again, we can all just say stuff is speculation, but at some point you have to believe that when someone says they'll do it they will. From what I've seen, when Obama says he'll do something he does it unless there's no way he can and he does the best he can to compromise in favor of what he was trying to do.

[open mind]

If you wanna slow the rate at which government officials abuse power, pass stronger laws completely preventing it, something that would have a longer effect than some trail which practically will never happen. Right intent, wrong method in my mind. It would have made more sense a year ago.

Not to mention the fact that it would be a huge distraction in the middle of a election season.

this argument makes no sense......the entire reason for impeaching bush and bringing much of his administration to justice would be him and his cronies breaking the law.....if politicians are breaking existing laws what makes you think they're going to suddenly start paying attention to the new ones?

[nfgrocker16]

yeah i watched it, and i guess the bill wasn't as bad as i originally thought it was.....but it's still a horrible bill.

my point is that if the bush administration isn't brought to justice we're effectively creating a new problem....or at least making an existing one much worse.

Agreed, but I also think you can't say every politician is George Bush. That effectively says that government is the issue. And if government is the issue then we're all fucked anyway.

[WarpSpeedChewy]

Which Obama is trying to do or says he will do. Again, we can all just say stuff is speculation, but at some point you have to believe that when someone says they'll do it they will. From what I've seen, when Obama says he'll do something he does it unless there's no way he can and he does the best he can to compromise in favor of what he was trying to do.
True. But I take him at his word on it. His history supports what he wants to do with those laws. How he's handled stuff like Patriot Act and FISA (something I disagreed with him on) add to that as well.

[nfgrocker16]

this argument makes no sense......the entire reason for impeaching bush and bringing much of his administration to justice would be him and his cronies breaking the law.....if politicians are breaking existing laws what makes you think they're going to suddenly start paying attention to the new ones?

Appointing people in the house, senate, and judicial branch who will check and balance the executive branch, which the GOP did not do with Bush.

[open mind]

Agreed, but I also think you can't say every politician is George Bush. That effectively says that government is the issue. And if government is the issue then we're all fucked anyway.

i'm not saying that every politician is like george bush, i'm saying if he isn't made an example of we're leaving the door wide open for one that's just like him or much worse to walk right through.

[nfgrocker16]

True. But I take him at his word on it. His history supports what he wants to do with those laws. How he's handled stuff like Patriot Act and FISA (something I disagreed with him on) add to that as well.

Did you watch the Olbermann video I posted on Obama and the FISA bill? It's actually pretty brilliant.

[open mind]

Appointing people in the house, senate, and judicial branch who will check and balance the executive branch, which the GOP did not do with Bush.

i don't know....call me crazy, but i think it's important to set precedents.

[nfgrocker16]

i'm not saying that every politician is like george bush, i'm saying if he isn't made an example of we're leaving the door wide open for one that's just like him or much worse to walk right through.

Well that depends on the American people and how we vote. We voted for him. We need to blame ourselves and take some of the responsability for what's happened. I personally didn't vote for him (couldn't in 2000 cause I was only 14 and voted Kerry in 04).

[WarpSpeedChewy]

this argument makes no sense......the entire reason for impeaching bush and bringing much of his administration to justice would be him and his cronies breaking the law.....if politicians are breaking existing laws what makes you think they're going to suddenly start paying attention to the new ones?
It does. I am not completely disagreeing with your opinion either. I just think it's more besides the point of what we need to do. The idea is pretty much the equalivent of picking at a bad scab. Even if it does happen, it's gonna be a giant legal mess anyway. If we pass stronger laws expanding on the limits of "Executive Privilege", there will be less ways for them to get pass it.

Here is a compromise though. Joe Biden has mentioned that if Obama is elected that there will be an investigation to the previous administration. I'm more of a fan of that idea.

[WarpSpeedChewy]

Did you watch the Olbermann video I posted on Obama and the FISA bill? It's actually pretty brilliant.
I'm watching it now. My internet is slow right now so I'm waiting for the video to be completely loaded up. Hopefully it will ease some of my concerns with Obama on that issue.

[open mind]

Well that depends on the American people and how we vote. We voted for him. We need to blame ourselves and take some of the responsability for what's happened. I personally didn't vote for him (couldn't in 2000 cause I was only 14 and voted Kerry in 04).

i never voted for the man, and those that did didn't vote for him to wipe his ass with the constitution, hide behind executive privelage, and defy international law.

[open mind]

It does. I am not completely disagreeing with your opinion either. I just think it's more besides the point of what we need to do. The idea is pretty much the equalivent of picking at a bad scab. Even if it does happen, it's gonna be a giant legal mess anyway. If we pass stronger laws expanding on the limits of "Executive Privilege", there will be less ways for them to get pass it.

Here is a compromise though. Joe Biden has mentioned that if Obama is elected that there will be an investigation to the previous administration. I'm more of a fan of that idea.

sometimes you need to pick at a scab and properly clean the wound to prevent infection that would result in death.
the history of failed republics doesn't indicate that the sort of reform your suggesting will ever happen....generally once someone shows that power can be abused it is abused from then on, and it gets worse and worse until total collapse.

[nfgrocker16]

i never voted for the man, and those that did didn't vote for him to wipe his ass with the constitution, hide behind executive privelage, and defy international law.

No but his record as Governor and choice of VP showed what kind of president he would be. He claimed he would give funding to organizations providing education, drug abuse prevention and domestic violence reduction, as long as those organizations were religious.

People voted for him because he was the kind of guy they could sit down and watch a football game with. I'd rather vote for someone who's better than me and smarter than me.

[open mind]

No but his record as Governor and choice of VP showed what kind of president he would be. He claimed he would give funding to organizations providing education, drug abuse prevention and domestic violence reduction, as long as those organizations were religious.

People voted for him because he was the kind of guy they could sit down and watch a football game with. I'd rather vote for someone who's better than me and smarter than me.

this argument strikes me as nonsensical.....to say that the american people are to blame for the bush administration breaking the law during it's term in office is just wrong because bush did not run on breaking the law....and there are good reasons to believe the man was never really elected in the first place.

[nfgrocker16]

this argument strikes me as nonsensical.....to say that the american people are to blame for what the bush administration chose to due during it's term in office is just wrong....especially when there are good reasons to believe the man was never really elected in the first place.

I'm not saying the American people are completely to blame, but I think a lot of people voted for him for the wrong reasons and that's why he was elected. Also, Bush didn't have free reign as president. He wasn't a king. He had to get laws and bills approved by congress, and the fact that we had officials, most of whom were republican, and corrupt (fact, don't have a link right now), leads me to the conclusion that some responsibility has to be held on the American people for putting them in office.

I've heard far to many people who are voting for McCain or who voted for Bush just because he was Republican, not because of issues, not because of stances, but because of party, and I blame that on that American people

[open mind]

I'm not saying the American people are completely to blame, but I think a lot of people voted for him for the wrong reasons and that's why he was elected. Also, Bush didn't have free reign as president. He wasn't a king. He had to get laws and bills approved by congress, and the fact that we had officials, most of whom were republican, and corrupt (fact, don't have a link right now), leads me to the conclusion that some responsibility has to be held on the American people for putting them in office.

I've heard far to many people who are voting for McCain or who voted for Bush just because he was Republican, not because of issues, not because of stances, but because of party, and I blame that on that American people

alot of people did vote for him for the wrong reasons, that's not what i'm disputing.....i am disputing that they voted for him to defy the rule of law.

if you want to get into the reasons the people who are put in office are put in office the biggest one isn't the choice of your average american, the people who choose the candidates and fund their campaigns are the people who put people in office, without them there's no telling what our government would look like.

[WarpSpeedChewy]

Just got done watching the Olbermann video. Very interesting idea. The end quote by Obama made me feel a lot better and really showed where his head is at. To be honest, I would much rather go for criminal prosecutions for the people who actually made and pushed these ideas within the government than the telephone companies.

sometimes you need to pick at a scab and properly clean the wound to prevent infection that would result in death.
the history of failed republics doesn't indicate that the sort of reform your suggesting will ever happen....generally once someone shows that power can be abused it is abused from then on, and it gets worse and worse until total collapse.
It's still beside the point. Plus the fact it would a partisan explosion getting in the way of bi-partisan solutions to more devastating, immediate, and deathly serious problems. We might have be in favor of a neutral solution for the greater good.

this argument strikes me as nonsensical.....to say that the american people are to blame for the bush administration breaking the law during it's term in office is just wrong because bush did not run on breaking the law....and there are good reasons to believe the man was never really elected in the first place.
Some of the American people need to realize though there are consequences to voting for someone for the wrong reasons though.

[open mind]

It's still beside the point. Plus the fact it would a partisan explosion getting in the way of bi-partisan solutions to more devastating, immediate, and deathly serious problems. We might have be in favor of a neutral solution for the greater good.


Some of the American people need to realize though there are consequences to voting for someone for the wrong reasons though.

it's beside the point that permitting this pattern of behavior has eventually led to the total collapse of numerous systems of government (including the one our system is modeled on)?

so because some people are idiots it's ok for our leadership to go against some of the most fundamental principles this country was founded upon to the point of repeatedly breaking the law?

[WarpSpeedChewy]

it's beside the point that permitting this pattern of behavior has eventually led to the total collapse of numerous systems of government (including the one our system is modeled on)?

so because some people are idiots it's ok for our leadership to go against some of the most fundamental principles this country was founded upon to the point of repeatedly breaking the law?
It's besides the point going about it in that manner right now. It'll get in the way of solution affecting actual people. There is a bigger picture beyond whatever happens to Bush that affects this country, but the world too. I still believe in Check and Balances as well. Nice thing is too, if this issue was brought up more, it could be a bi-partisan issue with conservatives. Considering their views on small government, I don't think they would like that.

Of course not. But that's what happens when you vote for the wrong reasons.

[nfgrocker16]

it's beside the point that permitting this pattern of behavior has eventually led to the total collapse of numerous systems of government (including the one our system is modeled on)?

so because some people are idiots it's ok for our leadership to go against some of the most fundamental principles this country was founded upon to the point of repeatedly breaking the law?

Ok lets just go ahead and say what everyone is thinking. Star Wars Episode III. Palpatine.

No, I'm not arguing against the fact that Bush should be punished, I'm just arguing that we should take some if not a little of the responsibility.

[nfgrocker16]

It's besides the point going about it in that manner right now. It'll get in the way of solution affecting actual people. There is a bigger picture beyond whatever happens to Bush that affects this country, but the world too. I still believe in Check and Balances as well.

Of course not. But that's what happens when you vote for the wrong reasons.

Yes

[WarpSpeedChewy]

Yes
BTW I just added more to that post.

[open mind]

It's besides the point going about it in that manner right now. It'll get in the way of solution affecting actual people. There is a bigger picture beyond whatever happens to Bush that affects this country, but the world too. I still believe in Check and Balances as well. Nice thing is too, if this issue was brought up more, it could be a bi-partisan issue with conservatives. Considering their views on small government, I don't think they would like that.

Of course not. But that's what happens when you vote for the wrong reasons.

if not right now when is a good time?

i don't see how doing everything you can to curb the abuse of power isn't something that would effect auctual people.

i don't disagree that there is more to correcting the course of the country then impeaching bush (or otherwise bringing him and the rest of his administration to justice), but i do say it's an incredibly important part of doing so.

hypothetically speaking let's say obama gets into office and systemattically abuses his power, would you blame the people who voted for him simply because he's a democrat and say he deserves a free pass bacause of them?

[WarpSpeedChewy]

if not right now when is a good time?

i don't see how doing everything you can to curb the abuse of power is something isn't something that would effect auctual people.

i don't disagree that there is more to correcting the course of the country then impeaching bush (or otherwise bringing him and the rest of his administration to justice), but i do say it's an incredibly important part of doing so.

hypothetically speaking let's say obama gets into office and systemattically abuses his power, would you blame the people who voted for him simply because he's a democrat and say he deserves a free pass on those grounds?
Later on after some time has passed and we deal with more present issues. Either way I'm going with Biden's approach.

Because republicans will be pissed. And we actually need some of them to get some important laws passed. We can't afford 4 years of a partisan stalling. That type of trail would do the trick.

I don't disagree with that either.

No if people voted for him for the right reasons.

[WarpSpeedChewy]

I'm spent. I'm getting off now. Later.

[open mind]

Later on after some time has passed and we deal with more present issues. Either way I'm going with Biden's approach.

Because republicans will be pissed. And we actually need some of them to get some important laws passed. We can't afford 4 years of a partisan stalling. That type of trail would do the trick.

I don't disagree with that either.

No if people voted for him for the right reasons.

if say i dunno.....some random guy broke into your house and killed your entire family in front of you would you be thinking that there are more pressing issues then seeing him locked up?

some republicans would undoubtedly be pissed but if impeachement was seriously presented and pushed for there would be no way the majority could vote against it....and i don't know about you but i think it's wrong to not do what's right because it might upset some people.

i said if they voted for him simply because he was a democrat.

have you guys looked at the case for impeachment? if not here it is.....lifted entirely from impeach bush.

http://www.impeachbush.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5054&news_iv_ctrl=1061



The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors. - - ARTICLE II, SECTION 4 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

President George W. Bush, Vice President Richard B. Cheney, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales have committed violations and subversions of the Constitution of the United States of America in an attempt to carry out with impunity crimes against peace and humanity and war crimes and deprivations of the civil rights of the people of the United States and other nations, by assuming powers of an imperial executive unaccountable to law and usurping powers of the Congress, the Judiciary and those reserved to the people of the United States, by the following acts:

1) Seizing power to wage wars of aggression in defiance of the U.S. Constitution, the U.N. Charter and the rule of law; carrying out a massive assault on and occupation of Iraq, a country that was not threatening the United States, resulting in the death and maiming of over one hundred thousand Iraqis, and thousands of U.S. G.I.s.

2) Lying to the people of the U.S., to Congress, and to the U.N., providing false and deceptive rationales for war.

3) Authorizing, ordering and condoning direct attacks on civilians, civilian facilities and locations where civilian casualties were unavoidable.

4) Instituting a secret and illegal wiretapping and spying operation against the people of the United States through the National Security Agency.

5) Threatening the independence and sovereignty of Iraq by belligerently changing its government by force and assaulting Iraq in a war of aggression.

6) Authorizing, ordering and condoning assassinations, summary executions, kidnappings, secret and other illegal detentions of individuals, torture and physical and psychological coercion of prisoners to obtain false statements concerning acts and intentions of governments and individuals and violating within the United States, and by authorizing U.S. forces and agents elsewhere, the rights of individuals under the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Eighth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

7) Making, ordering and condoning false statements and propaganda about the conduct of foreign governments and individuals and acts by U.S. government personnel; manipulating the media and foreign governments with false information; concealing information vital to public discussion and informed judgment concerning acts, intentions and possession, or efforts to obtain weapons of mass destruction in order to falsely create a climate of fear and destroy opposition to U.S. wars of aggression and first strike attacks.

8) Violations and subversions of the Charter of the United Nations and international law, both a part of the "Supreme Law of the land" under Article VI, paragraph 2, of the Constitution, in an attempt to commit with impunity crimes against peace and humanity and war crimes in wars and threats of aggression against Afghanistan, Iraq and others and usurping powers of the United Nations and the peoples of its nations by bribery, coercion and other corrupt acts and by rejecting treaties, committing treaty violations, and frustrating compliance with treaties in order to destroy any means by which international law and institutions can prevent, affect, or adjudicate the exercise of U.S. military and economic power against the international community.

9) Acting to strip United States citizens of their constitutional and human rights, ordering indefinite detention of citizens, without access to counsel, without charge, and without opportunity to appear before a civil judicial officer to challenge the detention, based solely on the discretionary designation by the Executive of a citizen as an "enemy combatant."

10) Ordering indefinite detention of non-citizens in the United States and elsewhere, and without charge, at the discretionary designation of the Attorney General or the Secretary of Defense.

11) Ordering and authorizing the Attorney General to override judicial orders of release of detainees under INS jurisdiction, even where the judicial officer after full hearing determines a detainee is wrongfully held by the government.

12) Authorizing secret military tribunals and summary execution of persons who are not citizens who are designated solely at the discretion of the Executive who acts as indicting official, prosecutor and as the only avenue of appellate relief.

13) Refusing to provide public disclosure of the identities and locations of persons who have been arrested, detained and imprisoned by the U.S. government in the United States, including in response to Congressional inquiry.

14) Use of secret arrests of persons within the United States and elsewhere and denial of the right to public trials.

15) Authorizing the monitoring of confidential attorney-client privileged communications by the government, even in the absence of a court order and even where an incarcerated person has not been charged with a crime.

16) Ordering and authorizing the seizure of assets of persons in the United States, prior to hearing or trial, for lawful or innocent association with any entity that at the discretionary designation of the Executive has been deemed "terrorist."

17) Engaging in criminal neglect in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, depriving thousands of people in Louisiana, Mississippi and other Gulf States of urgently needed support, causing mass suffering and unnecessary loss of life.

18) Institutionalization of racial and religious profiling and authorization of domestic spying by federal law enforcement on persons based on their engagement in noncriminal religious and political activity.

19) Refusal to provide information and records necessary and appropriate for the constitutional right of legislative oversight of executive functions.

20) Rejecting treaties protective of peace and human rights and abrogation of the obligations of the United States under, and withdrawal from, international treaties and obligations without consent of the legislative branch, and including termination of the ABM treaty between the United States and Russia, and rescission of the authorizing signature from the Treaty of Rome which served as the basis for the International Criminal Court.






some of the details wouldn't stick and are a bit outlandish, but there's no denying that a great many of those articles have merit.

[nfgrocker16]

if not right now when is a good time?

i don't see how doing everything you can to curb the abuse of power isn't something that would effect auctual people.

i don't disagree that there is more to correcting the course of the country then impeaching bush (or otherwise bringing him and the rest of his administration to justice), but i do say it's an incredibly important part of doing so.

hypothetically speaking let's say obama gets into office and systemattically abuses his power, would you blame the people who voted for him simply because he's a democrat and say he deserves a free pass bacause of them?

First of all, the term hypothetical is a word that can be used to say anything could happen, so in that line of thinking, the world could someday be run by Arnold Shwarzennager. It won't though.

Secondly, the fact that Obama does not have the track record to support that he'd do anything bad would show clearly the American people were lied to and manipulated. I think part of the reason Bush got away with some things is he used God as his reason for his actions. He had a track record of doing that. Obama doesn't. He's put all of his decisions on his shoulders and has distinguished the difference between Church and State.

[nfgrocker16]

if say i dunno.....some random guy broke into your house and killed your entire family in front of you would you be thinking that there are more pressing issues then seeing him locked up?

some republicans would undoubtedly be pissed but if impeachement was seriously presented and pushed for there would be no way the majority could vote against it....and i don't know about you but i think it's wrong to not do what's right because it might upset some people.

i said if they voted for him simply because he was a democrat.

have you guys looked at the case for impeachment? if not here it is.....lifted entirely from impeach bush.

http://www.impeachbush.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5054&news_iv_ctrl=1061



The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors. - - ARTICLE II, SECTION 4 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

President George W. Bush, Vice President Richard B. Cheney, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales have committed violations and subversions of the Constitution of the United States of America in an attempt to carry out with impunity crimes against peace and humanity and war crimes and deprivations of the civil rights of the people of the United States and other nations, by assuming powers of an imperial executive unaccountable to law and usurping powers of the Congress, the Judiciary and those reserved to the people of the United States, by the following acts:

1) Seizing power to wage wars of aggression in defiance of the U.S. Constitution, the U.N. Charter and the rule of law; carrying out a massive assault on and occupation of Iraq, a country that was not threatening the United States, resulting in the death and maiming of over one hundred thousand Iraqis, and thousands of U.S. G.I.s.

2) Lying to the people of the U.S., to Congress, and to the U.N., providing false and deceptive rationales for war.

3) Authorizing, ordering and condoning direct attacks on civilians, civilian facilities and locations where civilian casualties were unavoidable.

4) Instituting a secret and illegal wiretapping and spying operation against the people of the United States through the National Security Agency.

5) Threatening the independence and sovereignty of Iraq by belligerently changing its government by force and assaulting Iraq in a war of aggression.

6) Authorizing, ordering and condoning assassinations, summary executions, kidnappings, secret and other illegal detentions of individuals, torture and physical and psychological coercion of prisoners to obtain false statements concerning acts and intentions of governments and individuals and violating within the United States, and by authorizing U.S. forces and agents elsewhere, the rights of individuals under the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Eighth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

7) Making, ordering and condoning false statements and propaganda about the conduct of foreign governments and individuals and acts by U.S. government personnel; manipulating the media and foreign governments with false information; concealing information vital to public discussion and informed judgment concerning acts, intentions and possession, or efforts to obtain weapons of mass destruction in order to falsely create a climate of fear and destroy opposition to U.S. wars of aggression and first strike attacks.

8) Violations and subversions of the Charter of the United Nations and international law, both a part of the "Supreme Law of the land" under Article VI, paragraph 2, of the Constitution, in an attempt to commit with impunity crimes against peace and humanity and war crimes in wars and threats of aggression against Afghanistan, Iraq and others and usurping powers of the United Nations and the peoples of its nations by bribery, coercion and other corrupt acts and by rejecting treaties, committing treaty violations, and frustrating compliance with treaties in order to destroy any means by which international law and institutions can prevent, affect, or adjudicate the exercise of U.S. military and economic power against the international community.

9) Acting to strip United States citizens of their constitutional and human rights, ordering indefinite detention of citizens, without access to counsel, without charge, and without opportunity to appear before a civil judicial officer to challenge the detention, based solely on the discretionary designation by the Executive of a citizen as an "enemy combatant."

10) Ordering indefinite detention of non-citizens in the United States and elsewhere, and without charge, at the discretionary designation of the Attorney General or the Secretary of Defense.

11) Ordering and authorizing the Attorney General to override judicial orders of release of detainees under INS jurisdiction, even where the judicial officer after full hearing determines a detainee is wrongfully held by the government.

12) Authorizing secret military tribunals and summary execution of persons who are not citizens who are designated solely at the discretion of the Executive who acts as indicting official, prosecutor and as the only avenue of appellate relief.

13) Refusing to provide public disclosure of the identities and locations of persons who have been arrested, detained and imprisoned by the U.S. government in the United States, including in response to Congressional inquiry.

14) Use of secret arrests of persons within the United States and elsewhere and denial of the right to public trials.

15) Authorizing the monitoring of confidential attorney-client privileged communications by the government, even in the absence of a court order and even where an incarcerated person has not been charged with a crime.

16) Ordering and authorizing the seizure of assets of persons in the United States, prior to hearing or trial, for lawful or innocent association with any entity that at the discretionary designation of the Executive has been deemed "terrorist."

17) Engaging in criminal neglect in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, depriving thousands of people in Louisiana, Mississippi and other Gulf States of urgently needed support, causing mass suffering and unnecessary loss of life.

18) Institutionalization of racial and religious profiling and authorization of domestic spying by federal law enforcement on persons based on their engagement in noncriminal religious and political activity.

19) Refusal to provide information and records necessary and appropriate for the constitutional right of legislative oversight of executive functions.

20) Rejecting treaties protective of peace and human rights and abrogation of the obligations of the United States under, and withdrawal from, international treaties and obligations without consent of the legislative branch, and including termination of the ABM treaty between the United States and Russia, and rescission of the authorizing signature from the Treaty of Rome which served as the basis for the International Criminal Court.






some of the details wouldn't stick and are a bit outlandish, but there's no denying that a great many of those articles have merit.

And you think these points haven't been covered, if not on blogs then on the news media? I've heard most of if not all of those points and agree there is reason for impeachment but the Bush administration has also answered most of those questions, and whether we like it or not he has given reasons within the realm of the constitution for doing those things. The question is whether he's lying about those reasons.

[nicgiovanni]

i'm of the opinion that every revolution ends up being a simple reshuffling of the deck.


not true at all.

esp. not true if you believe in something more or better.

[oldwirehands]

Well when are you moving then?

2011. Iceland.

Patriot Act: http://www.barackobama.com/factcheck/2008/01/05/fact_check_obamas_consistent_p_1.ph p

Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act: The only negativity about this plan is that it could criminalize protesters, people who might be "considered" radical in their views. However, that assumes that Obama would consider these organizations radical and there's no evidence to prove he would.

On Nafta: http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/18/magazines/fortune/easton_obama.fortune/index.htm?postversion=2008061815 (please actually read what Obama says about free trade and how NAFTA doesn't work but could)

On impeachment of Bush and Cheney" Obama stated "There's a way to bring an end to those practices, you know: vote the bums out," the presidential candidate said, without naming Bush or Cheney. "That's how our system is designed."

On Iraq: He hasn't stated that we need to continue a military presence there. He has stated that we need to have minimal troops there until their government and military can handle the situation without us. To say he will stay there because it's economically good for America is bullshit. It hurts the country more than it helps.

This is just the point I was making. He's 'refined' his positions on all of these issues. I'm not satisfied with the "Its not a good plan, but it can work." explanation. At one point I was really going to vote for him based on the "lesser of two evils" theory but I realized that I don't believe in that. Instead I'm going to vote for an Independent and send the message that I, along with millions of others, are not satisfied with the Democratic and Republican candidates.

And that is a horrible answer to the Bush/Cheney impeachment. Our system works on checks and balances. If the people and congress just let Bush/Cheney finish out his term, even through all of the crimes him and his administrations have committed, that system is being let go to waste. "What does a president have to do to get impeached in this country?" would be a question I'll never stop asking.

I never said we didn't spend too much. I'm just pointing out the fact that what matters is the percentage of what our GDP is to how much we spend on our military. And it's not even in the top 15.

That is because the countries that use more of their money on military are small developing countries, trying to keep up with the rest of the world. They don't have nearly as much money as we do so they're spending more of what they have.

[nfgrocker16]

2011. Iceland.



This is just the point I was making. He's 'refined' his positions on all of these issues. I'm not satisfied with the "Its not a good plan, but it can work." explanation. At one point I was really going to vote for him based on the "lesser of two evils" theory but I realized that I don't believe in that. Instead I'm going to vote for an Independent and send the message that I, along with millions of others, are not satisfied with the Democratic and Republican candidates.

And that is a horrible answer to the Bush/Cheney impeachment. Our system works on checks and balances. If the people and congress just let Bush/Cheney finish out his term, even through all of the crimes him and his administrations have committed, that system is being let go to waste. "What does a president have to do to get impeached in this country?" would be a question I'll never stop asking.



That is because the countries that use more of their money on military are small developing countries, trying to keep up with the rest of the world. They don't have nearly as much money as we do so they're spending more of what they have.

I don't buy that its a refined stance on issues. I think he weighs the pros and cons of the bills and votes accordingly. If the pros outweigh the cons then I don't see why he should vote against something. Also, the climate of politics and the economy change, so therefore adaptation on statnces must also occure. Unfortunately most bills include multiple articles, not all of which are agreeable, but to say no to every bill that you agree with 99% of and disagree 1% of seems a little extreme.

Second of all I hope you don't dislike Obama because of how he voted. I hope you actually look at why he voted and the decisions and reason that went into those votes instead of just seeing the actual vote.

On your second point I think impeachment leads to bigger messes than helpful resolutions. I think if evidence is substantial enough, and I agree with you and others on that I wish George Bush was brought to criminal court, but that doesn't mean anything would come from it. I believe it would be a bigger mess that would end up with nothing happening and a lot of people, me not being one of them, thinking it was a waste of time and money.

I guess a president needs to get a BJ to get impeached cause that's what it took for Clinton. The problem with impeaching Bush is he would never get convicted in federal court. It just wouldn't happen. The amount of loopholes he has sifted through to make what's happened happen just won't allow him to be tried effectivley and have him brought to justice. If you're going to argue that at least it would show we're not afraid to prosecute people we think are criminals I also think you need to take into consideration the fact that most American's won't care, and therefore it will then become the few who care the most fighting for what they believe in against the many who fight for their own beliefs, and that's just not a war we can win. I'm sorry, it sucks, and I hate saying it, but that's how I think it is.

Finally, on your point with military spending, there's no way we can fix the military-industrial complex. Its so engrained in our society that there's nothing we can do to prevent it. I don't think thats a reason to vote against a presidential nominee because of something that would be inherited by them and that you assume they will then take certain actions to make things worse. I don't think you can judge a candidate by the president you think they'll be. I think you can only judge a president by their actions as president. Case in point George Bush. He didn't do a lot as governor that would tell you he'd be a bad president, but he turned into one.

Its reliance in the system that I think you're opposing and if I'm right, I'm sorry but truly the only way to fix that is to change our government and how its ran and that won't happen. So like I said before, when's everyone moving? Cause that's literally the only justifiable way to fix your problems. If you have better ideas, please, I'd love to hear them. it would be a breath of fresh air

[oldwirehands]

I don't buy that its a refined stance on issues. I think he weighs the pros and cons of the bills and votes accordingly. If the pros outweigh the cons then I don't see why he should vote against something. Also, the climate of politics and the economy change, so therefore adaptation on statnces must also occure. Unfortunately most bills include multiple articles, not all of which are agreeable, but to say no to every bill that you agree with 99% of and disagree 1% of seems a little extreme.

Second of all I hope you don't dislike Obama because of how he voted. I hope you actually look at why he voted and the decisions and reason that went into those votes instead of just seeing the actual vote.

On your second point I think impeachment leads to bigger messes than helpful resolutions. I think if evidence is substantial enough, and I agree with you and others on that I wish George Bush was brought to criminal court, but that doesn't mean anything would come from it. I believe it would be a bigger mess that would end up with nothing happening and a lot of people, me not being one of them, thinking it was a waste of time and money.

I guess a president needs to get a BJ to get impeached cause that's what it took for Clinton. The problem with impeaching Bush is he would never get convicted in federal court. It just wouldn't happen. The amount of loopholes he has sifted through to make what's happened happen just won't allow him to be tried effectivley and have him brought to justice. If you're going to argue that at least it would show we're not afraid to prosecute people we think are criminals I also think you need to take into consideration the fact that most American's won't care, and therefore it will then become the few who care the most fighting for what they believe in against the many who fight for their own beliefs, and that's just not a war we can win. I'm sorry, it sucks, and I hate saying it, but that's how I think it is.

Finally, on your point with military spending, there's no way we can fix the military-industrial complex. Its so engrained in our society that there's nothing we can do to prevent it. I don't think thats a reason to vote against a presidential nominee because of something that would be inherited by them and that you assume they will then take certain actions to make things worse. I don't think you can judge a candidate by the president you think they'll be. I think you can only judge a president by their actions as president. Case in point George Bush. He didn't do a lot as governor that would tell you he'd be a bad president, but he turned into one.

Its reliance in the system that I think you're opposing and if I'm right, I'm sorry but truly the only way to fix that is to change our government and how its ran and that won't happen. So like I said before, when's everyone moving? Cause that's literally the only justifiable way to fix your problems. If you have better ideas, please, I'd love to hear them. it would be a breath of fresh air

I really don't want to continue this argument/discussion. We could be here for hours talking about this but its not going to get anywhere. I don't like the road this country is headed in so I will leave it in 2011. Unless of course, Obama actually pulls through and sets a path for real change... But I'm not counting on it.

[nfgrocker16]

I really don't want to continue this argument/discussion. We could be here for hours talking about this but its not going to get anywhere. I don't like the road this country is headed in so I will leave it in 2011. Unless of course, Obama actually pulls through and sets a path for real change... But I'm not counting on it.

Fair enough.

Agree to disagree

I'll try and fight the good fight here at home

[open mind]

First of all, the term hypothetical is a word that can be used to say anything could happen, so in that line of thinking, the world could someday be run by Arnold Shwarzennager. It won't though.

Secondly, the fact that Obama does not have the track record to support that he'd do anything bad would show clearly the American people were lied to and manipulated. I think part of the reason Bush got away with some things is he used God as his reason for his actions. He had a track record of doing that. Obama doesn't. He's put all of his decisions on his shoulders and has distinguished the difference between Church and State.

yes i know, i am aware of what the term hypothetical means.

if obama turned out to be just as bad as bush you'd have to say he clearly lied to and manipulated the american public in order to win votes wouldn't you?

[open mind]

not true at all.

esp. not true if you believe in something more or better.

simply saying it's not true doesn't make it so.

if it really isn't true please cite a handful of revolutions that produced long term positive change.

[open mind]

And you think these points haven't been covered, if not on blogs then on the news media? I've heard most of if not all of those points and agree there is reason for impeachment but the Bush administration has also answered most of those questions, and whether we like it or not he has given reasons within the realm of the constitution for doing those things. The question is whether he's lying about those reasons.

the news media hasn't covered the charges in a serious manner, whenever impeachment is brought up the pundits simply say it's not a popular idea and move on.
the bush administration hasn't answered most of the questions in a satisfactory manner.....and all the inquiries and investigations (that have been conducted up to this point) into the alleged misdeeds of the administration have come back and essentially said that the administration did indeed abuse it's power.

[nfgrocker16]

the news media hasn't covered the charges in a serious manner, whenever impeachment is brought up the pundits simply say it's not a popular idea and move on.
the bush administration hasn't answered most of the questions in a satisfactory manner.....and all the inquiries and investigations (that have been conducted up to this point) into the alleged misdeeds of the administration have come back and essentially said that the administration did indeed abuse it's power.

Is there any consolation in the fact that Joe Biden said if Obama is put into office he will make sure there is a thorough investigation into the current administration and whether or not they abused power and prosecute if need be?

[nfgrocker16]

yes i know, i am aware of what the term hypothetical means.

if obama turned out to be just as bad as bush you'd have to say he clearly lied to and manipulated the american public in order to win votes wouldn't you?

Yes I would, but again, your assuming something will happen. That's basically saying you should assume the worst about everybody instead of trying to find the good in people. I just think its cynical. I'm not saying your wrong and that Obama is pristine, I don't know, I'm not him. I think what's fucked up about Bush's legacy is that it's made thousands if not millions of people jaded to politics. I think politics and government can work and i'm hopeful, not doubtful about it. But that's a personal belief and you really can't argue those cause then you get into a whole world of not accomplishing anything by arguing beliefs not based on pure fact.

[Tito Jr.]

You guys Palined my thread.

[open mind]

Yes I would, but again, your assuming something will happen. That's basically saying you should assume the worst about everybody instead of trying to find the good in people. I just think its cynical. I'm not saying your wrong and that Obama is pristine, I don't know, I'm not him. I think what's fucked up about Bush's legacy is that it's made thousands if not millions of people jaded to politics. I think politics and government can work and i'm hopeful, not doubtful about it. But that's a personal belief and you really can't argue those cause then you get into a whole world of not accomplishing anything by arguing beliefs not based on pure fact.

i'm not assuming anything, i'm just creating a hypothetical situation to illustrate just how thin your argument against impeaching bush really is.

[open mind]

Is there any consolation in the fact that Joe Biden said if Obama is put into office he will make sure there is a thorough investigation into the current administration and whether or not they abused power and prosecute if need be?

no, not really because i know people won't want to really do anything about it later on the grounds that those days are past, and that we should just get over it and deal with the present....as if the past has no effect on the present.

[aloneatlastnj]

to paraphrase some founding father (i think) i believe that those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve niether.

yeah you're def. right. it was ben franklin who said it.

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

[nfgrocker16]

i'm not assuming anything, i'm just creating a hypothetical situation to illustrate just how thin your argument against impeaching bush really is.

On those grounds both our arguments are thin because either one isn't valid because he hasn't been impeached and we don't know what the outcome of him being impeached would be. So unless you know something that I don't that if he were impeached things would be better for sure then your argument is just as valid as mine.

[oldwirehands]

On those grounds both our arguments are thin because either one isn't valid because he hasn't been impeached and we don't know what the outcome of him being impeached would be. So unless you know something that I don't that if he were impeached things would be better for sure then your argument is just as valid as mine.

With the serious offenses him and his administration have committed, impeachment is absolutely necessary no matter what the result is. Things may get messy but we can't let that be a reason to ignore the situation. I personally want to see the guys who have been behind this behind bars. Clean up Washington. It doesn't stop at Bush/Cheney, thats for sure.

[nicgiovanni]

simply saying it's not true doesn't make it so.

if it really isn't true please cite a handful of revolutions that produced long term positive change.

do i really need to? i mean, even if i do, you'll most likely shoot them down in some sort of way.

the point is that i believe in change...

i mean, i guess you could say it is reshuffling, in some ways. sure.

but wasn't it thomas jefferson who said every generation should have a revolution?

ok, so what if after one revolution, people move back or forward to something else. we live in constant flux.

and one day we're all going die. whatever 700 years ago won't be as important as what happened today or tomorrow. you live yr life in the present. do what you feel is right at that time.

i want a revolution now. to create a world where everyone is free. call me a dreamer. say "well, what if after you create this new world, it all goes back eventually to what it was or changes drastically?".

well, ok. fine. maybe i was wrong then. but no one has the answers. we're all just people living on this great big planet trying to figure it all out.

so why not have fun while yr here?

[open mind]

do i really need to? i mean, even if i do, you'll most likely shoot them down in some sort of way.

the point is that i believe in change...

i mean, i guess you could say it is reshuffling, in some ways. sure.

but wasn't it thomas jefferson who said every generation should have a revolution?

ok, so what if after one revolution, people move back or forward to something else. we live in constant flux.

and one day we're all going die. whatever 700 years ago won't be as important as what happened today or tomorrow. you live yr life in the present. do what you feel is right at that time.

i want a revolution now. to create a world where everyone is free. call me a dreamer. say "well, what if after you create this new world, it all goes back eventually to what it was or changes drastically?".

well, ok. fine. maybe i was wrong then. but no one has the answers. we're all just people living on this great big planet trying to figure it all out.

so why not have fun while yr here?

i'm pretty sure just about everyone is pro-change in some sense.

yes thomas jefferson advocated a revolution every generation or two......so the deck could be reshuffled and those who had power wouldn't become to powerful.

i dunno about your logic here......advocating revolution on the grounds that you only live once so we should all have fun (revolutions are usually very bloody, destructive and divisive affairs by the way) just doesn't fly with me, and makes me question your sanity and sense of fun.

[open mind]

On those grounds both our arguments are thin because either one isn't valid because he hasn't been impeached and we don't know what the outcome of him being impeached would be. So unless you know something that I don't that if he were impeached things would be better for sure then your argument is just as valid as mine.

are you seriously telling me that if i'm not psychic my argument can't have merit?

[nfgrocker16]

are you seriously telling me that if i'm not psychic my argument can't have merit?

No, I think it does have merit. The point I was making is that mine does too and I think you should recognize that.

I've already stated that your argument is one I share, but I think you should also agree that my argument also has merit and that we can just agree to disagree.

[open mind]

No, I think it does have merit. The point I was making is that mine does too and I think you should recognize that.

I've already stated that your argument is one I share, but I think you should also agree that my argument also has merit and that we can just agree to disagree.

i'm sorry but there's just no way i'm going to accept the argument that the american people are to blame for the bush administration choosing to abuse it's power and defy the rule of law.

i'll agree that alot of people are idiots and voted for bush for the wrong reasons, but i can't go any farther then that.

[nfgrocker16]

i'm sorry but there's just no way i'm going to accept the argument that the american people are to blame for the bush administration choosing to abuse it's power and defy the rule of law.

i'll agree that alot of people are idiots and voted for bush for the wrong reasons, but i can't go any farther then that.

Fair enough. I don't think its all of the American people's fault. I just think its wrong to vote for someone based on party allegiance alone, not based on positions and facts.

[open mind]

Fair enough. I don't think its all of the American people's fault. I just think its wrong to vote for someone based on party allegiance alone, not based on positions and facts.

i agree with you on that, but even if you do vote strictly along party lines you aren't automattically advocating or endorsing criminal activities.