2008 Political debate thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
I would not blame Bush & Cheney exclusively for the Katrina clusterfuck.
There was a lot of b.s. involved at the local level, as well as the national level. About the only thing they could be accused of is having someone running FEMA who definately couldn't do the job...
 
I only wish I owned a brewery. The Backyard Brewery is exactly that - the brewery in my backyard. Sadly, out of commission for two years now due to the tots running around. But, I'm about to fire it back up. First up will be my Arrogant Bastard clone once McCain wins. If Obama wins, I guess I'll downgrade to Light Swill.

No, I'm not in that 5% range (yet!), but I'm doing well enough for myself. The upper 5% will not pay the gross taxes Obama is suggesting, and your statement about them "sacrificing" their money for the greater good is one of my pet peeves. Get the lower class off their respective butts, off welfare, and contributing to society. If somebody's working hard and making money, regardless if they're making 50,000 a year or 50 million a year, they are working hard to get it. (I am referring to people who have every ability to work but choose not to because it's easier in their minds to sit home and collect government checks all month - soundbite me wrong and you may be dealing with a JDub attitude [see Post 12451 in the Official Off Topic Thread). The middle class is the largest class in the US, and they will always bear the tax burden, regardless of what any politico deals to the public.

Well this is where some of my more conservative beliefs that I claimed I had earlier come in. I am in total agreement about the whole wellfare/government handouts to people who do nothing but sit on their asses, that I can assure you. But like you said, it is the HUGE middle class that suffers.

You say the middle class will sadly always be screwed, but you don't see a problem with this being that the middle class represents the majority of citizens? The lower class feed off of wellfare that is paid through the taxes of both the rich and middle class. I like Obama's tax plan because it could essentially get rid of the wellfare system being abused by people who don't really need it (and I feel most people don't really need it).

I pay tons of taxes yet cannot afford healthcare myself, yet these people who abuse wellfare get medicade from the taxes I pay. One reason I struggle with money is the high cost of food, yet these people who abuse wellfare get hundreds of dollars worth of food every month from the taxes I pay. These taxes I pay only beneifit them, and if I didn't pay for these things then I would have a little more money to live on. If Obama gives a tax break to 95% of people then it makes a LOT of people less qualified for wellfare, thus reducing the amount of "handouts" by a significant amount.

I like the idea of universal healthcare because I also want to be able to get healthcare from the taxes I contribute to and not let it all go only to those who won't get off their asses. But you know what? In the end even if there are some of these people I despise still getting handouts with a tax break I still think it is worth it due to how many middle class people that it will help.

So as you can see I completely agree that there are a lot of lower class people who are there because they want to be lazy, sit at home, and collect wellfare. Even so, people in the middle class cannot be accused of not making enough money due to lack of effort, we cannot all be lawyers or what have you. Our country has to have truck drivers, garbage collectors, construction workers, retail workers, factory workers, etc....which means somebody has to do these things. At the same time we cannot all be rich either; however, with 20% of people posessing 80% of the wealth, taxing the elite 5% could at least help the people of the middle class live a little better.
 
Furthermore, for all of McCain's "experience" he claimed the Iraq War would be a walk in the park stating, "I believe that success will be fairly easy" (9/24/2002). Also, he said "There's no doubt in my mind that once these people are gone, that we will be welcomed as liberators" (3/24/2003).

If the campaign in Iraq had been done like McCain wanted...it would have been easier. He pushed for more troops than were originally sent because he knew what was sent was not enough. McCain understood what it took to be successful. Now that more troops have been sent & the surge was initiated...we're seeing that success. Parts of Iraq are being handed over to Iraqi security forces.

Also, we haven't had anymore attacks on our soil since 9/11...I'd call that an extreme success.
 
Even though I don't like her, I think the whole Sarah Palin/Bush Doctrine thing is bullshit. Gibson provided no context when he asked his question and then proceeded to deride her when she (appropriately) asked for some clarification. If anyone has watched any interview or debate with politicians, journalists precede their questions with a little background information. I'm not going to say it was sexist, but it was definitely unfair for him to do what he did.
 
Even though I don't like her, I think the whole Sarah Palin/Bush Doctrine thing is bullshit. Gibson provided no context when he asked his question and then proceeded to deride her when she (appropriately) asked for some clarification. If anyone has watched any interview or debate with politicians, journalists precede their questions with a little background information. I'm not going to say it was sexist, but it was definitely unfair for him to do what he did.

It was a legitimate question. The Bush Doctrine is a very basic concept that any adult American citizen should be aware of. I spend maybe 10 minutes a day researching politics (I consider myself less-informed than I should be) and I was fully aware of what Charlie Gibson was asking. She is a governor. She has no excuse for her ignorance on that question and others.

This is her JOB. She should be spending hours a day researching the issues and getting a read on voters' opinions. She doesn't even know the most basic of concepts. It's absurd.
 
Even though I don't like her, I think the whole Sarah Palin/Bush Doctrine thing is bullshit. Gibson provided no context when he asked his question and then proceeded to deride her when she (appropriately) asked for some clarification.

It was a legitimate question. The Bush Doctrine is a very basic concept that any adult American citizen should be aware of.

And she should ask for clarification because even foreign policy experts aren't clear on the subject...

Foreign policy experts argue over the meaning of the term "Bush Doctrine," and some scholars have suggested that there is no one unified theory underlying Bush's foreign policy. Jacob Weisburg identifies six successive "Bush Doctrines" in his book The Bush Tragedy,while former Bush staffer Peter D. Feaver has counted seven.Other foreign policy experts have taken the term to mean Bush's doctrine of preventative war, first articulated in 2002, which holds that the United States government should depose foreign regimes that represent a threat to the security of the United States

Seems to me she took the intelligent "high road". And in turn helped to put distance between the McCain/Palin ticket & the Bush administration. Of which...comparing the 2 isn't fair anyway.I mean... I don't see anyone comparing the current Dem ticket to the Jimmy Carter administration. If you lived through Carter...you know what a debacle that was.
 
This is her JOB. She should be spending hours a day researching the issues and getting a read on voters' opinions. She doesn't even know the most basic of concepts. It's absurd.

I'm not excusing her knowledge (or lack thereof) with respect to current events, I'm saying that it was an example of irresponsible journalism. The Bush Doctrine isn't something on the books like the Monroe Doctrine; it's just a term coined by political writers. Charlie Gibson may as well have asked "so what do you think about that stuff George Bush said?" and he basically would have asked the same question and gotten the same response.
 
I'm not excusing her knowledge (or lack thereof) with respect to current events, I'm saying that it was an example of irresponsible journalism. The Bush Doctrine isn't something on the books like the Monroe Doctrine; it's just a term coined by political writers. Charlie Gibson may as well have asked "so what do you think about that stuff George Bush said?" and he basically would have asked the same question and gotten the same response.

We'll have to agree to disagree here. A candidate should understand basic terminology, especially when it references the single most important part of Bush's legacy.

It's unfortunate she tried to BS an answer instead of saying, "I don't know what that is, could you elaborate?"
 
We'll have to agree to disagree here. A candidate should understand basic terminology, especially when it references the single most important part of Bush's legacy.

It's unfortunate she tried to BS an answer instead of saying, "I don't know what that is, could you elaborate?"

It can't be basic terminology if the most respected foreign policy experts can't agree with what it encompasses. Absolute bare minimum fundamentals would be long-established terms like laissez-faire and the contents of the constitution, understanding different sects of different religions (not just Islam!), knowledge of current events as well as historical events, etc. and this does not include whatever coinage Tom, Dick or Harry wrote in some bullshit op-ed piece in the West Bumblefuck Times.

Oh, and an edit because I absolutely love it:

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Yes, what put us here in the first place were the attacks on 9/11 by AFGHANISTAN. What happened was Bush never even finished hunting down Osama bin Laden in order to declare war on Iraq for no real good reason. So basically what is going on in Iraq now really doesn't have anything at all to do with 9/11. Bush only used the emotions of ignorant people (brought on by 9/11) to justify a war in Iraq so that he could finish what his daddy started many years before.


Er.... no. 9/11 was performed by mainly Saudi Arabian people with Saudi Arabian money directed by a guy who is er.... oh yeah... Saudi Arabian. BUT..... US has nice little oil and arms deals going on with Saudi Arabia, which incidentally has one of the worst human rights records in the world, so we can't touch them, specially coz Daddy Bush is consultant to the Bin Laden oil interests, and also because Saudi investments account for a considerable chunk of the US economy. And guess who were the only people allowed to fly immediately after 9/11 while the US population were grounded? The Bin Laden family!! I don't think Bush has any intention of catching Osama Bin Laden, firstly because it might not go down too well with the family friends, and secondly because OBL is a handy bogey-man with which to frighten the more retarded of the US population into accepting the next round of draconian control measures. A Taliban delegation that were feted in the US a few years back turned down US proposals for an oil pipeline that would have gone across Afghanistan to good deep water ports. War on terror meant a good opportunity for payback over the Taliban. The Northern Alliance are no better, they're just a little more pro-US in terms of business.

Iraq? No weapons of mass destruction and never was, but they do have one of the largest undeveloped oil fields in the world. starting to get the picture? Hope so. Oh yeah... and it's right on the doorstep of Iran's massive Khuzestan oil area, and where the US has been waging a low-level ground war across the border for the last 2 years. But we're not supposed to know that so sshhhhh...... :p
 
No WMDs? Bullshit...just ask the Kurds about that and they'll tell you what Saddam used to kill hundreds of thousands. WMDs are not just nuclear weapons.

But of course we removed 550 metric tons of yellow cake uranium...a little bit of what you need to build nukes.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25546334/

That's enough probable cause for me.

We should have fucked up Iran immediately after we did Iraq...but we hesitated & now we can't because they're buddy buddy with Russia. We dropped the ball on that one...too bad.
 
Awesome post Acension. I was going to bring up the Kurds as soon as I read that. Sometimes people get too into the fashionable "Hate Bush" bandwagon without checking out all the facts.:)
 
Sinclair Lewis said:
"in America most of us — not readers alone, but even writers — are still afraid of any literature which is not a glorification of everything American, a glorification of our faults as well as our virtues," and that America is "the most contradictory, the most depressing, the most stirring, of any land in the world today."

Lewis died in Rome on January 10, 1951, aged 65, from advanced alcoholism

Apparently one severely depressed & somewhat paranoid dude.
 
It can't be basic terminology if the most respected foreign policy experts can't agree with what it encompasses.
Yep...I don't care for Palin, but she got a raw deal on this whole "Bush Doctrine" thing. Just personally speaking, I didn't know WTF Charlie Gibson meant by that, and I actually follow the news. If I had to guess what the Bush Doctrine was, I would've said incompetence :D
 
No WMDs? Bullshit...just ask the Kurds about that and they'll tell you what Saddam used to kill hundreds of thousands. WMDs are not just nuclear weapons.

But of course we removed 550 metric tons of yellow cake uranium...a little bit of what you need to build nukes.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25546334/

That's enough probable cause for me.

We should have fucked up Iran immediately after we did Iraq...but we hesitated & now we can't because they're buddy buddy with Russia. We dropped the ball on that one...too bad.

Yeah, everyone knew about the chemical weapons Saddam had...Reagan gave them to him. It's like giving a gun to a man in an insane asylum and then being surprised when he shoots other patients (an event which was conveniently overlooked in the 1980s). The context of the WMD to start the war was clearly about nuclear weapons.

I'm not saying there were no intentions involved, but I wasn't aware having uranium was a crime. Also, if you read the article, it said the yellowcake had been in storage since before 1991 under the supervision of UN inspectors. So, probable cause for developing nukes 18 years ago?

War with Iran - That sounds like a brilliant idea. :erk:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.