Ron Paul FTW

[Thanatopsis123]

People here too. Hell, they even had a little Super Tuesday party to cheer him on.

Although honestly it's just because the town that happened in is named Obama and so they find it quite amusing. The mayor sent Obama a letter and they are always inviting him to come over. They even sent him some chopsticks (which the town is famous for manufacturing).

 

[General Zod]

No need to rehash our disagreements over this issue.

I wasn't making the case against Iraq, I was making a case against McCain. I also wasn't attempting to rehash this argument, so much as I was unwillingly to let the idea that McCain is somehow a "moderate" go unchallenged.

Please cite your sources on this figure.

Source - Opens as a Word Document

Believe me when I say I'm not trying to start anything with you here, but when did he say this? Why do you believe he's such a hawker over going to war with Iran?

You cannot deny the positive effect the surge he pushed for has had.

Perhaps you see it as an issue of semantics. However, I just love how the Bush administration uses language to deflect what they're actually doing. It's not a "surge", it's an escalation. Regardless, the fact that the right can spin this as some sort of victory, is beyond reason. Let's not even get into whether or not they're choosing to count Iraqi deaths depending on where in the head they were shot. To say they have a history of twisting the facts would be like saying Exxon is kind of a profitable company. We sent in more troops. Clearly if we sent in 5,000,000 troops, we could gain even greater control. However, how long are we going to leave them there, and at what cost to American lives and tax payers, to continue this deadly game of whack-a-mole?

I trust McCain to manage the conflict infinitely more than I trust Bush.

Is that now the barometer for leadership? I could have a lobotomy and manage this conflict better than Bush.

I see him as the most moderate of all the candidates and at least capable of finding non-partisan solutions. We need more politicians like that on either side.

You have to explain how someone who wants to remain in the Middle East for another 100 years, and has joked about attacking yet another Muslim nation, embraces Jerry Falwell to pander to evangelicals, and has backed, at nearly every turn, the most divisive President since Lincoln, as "moderate". I'd also be curious to know how you see McCain as more moderate than Obama.

Zod

 

[Dark One]

I wasn't making the case against Iraq, I was making a case against McCain.

"A war that will undoubtedly go down in history as the greatest foreign policy mistake ever (for this country or any other)."

That was the quote I was responding to when I said "no need to rehash our disagreements over this issue" (and I meant from myself - no need to rehash on my part only because you know my viewpoint and all)

Source - Opens as a Word Document

Here is the most independent, non-partisan source I've found that I've been using for a few years now:

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/about/

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/database/

Oh come on, the entire interview/Q&A session was ommitted from that video. Do you really think he was being serious and that this proves he's hawkish on going to war with Iran? Do you???

Perhaps you see it as an issue of semantics.

I just see it as potentially better management of the conflict that you fundamentally disagree with, nothing more. If Obama wins, the conflict will be managed the way you want it to, it will be ended.

However, I just love how the Bush administration uses language to deflect what they're actually doing. It's not a "surge", it's an escalation. Regardless, the fact that the right can spin this as some sort of victory, is beyond reason. Let's not even get into whether or not they're choosing to count Iraqi deaths depending on where in the head they were shot. To say they have a history of twisting the facts would be like saying Exxon is kind of a profitable company. We sent in more troops. Clearly if we sent in 5,000,000 troops, we could gain even greater control. However, how long are we going to leave them there, and at what cost to American lives and tax payers?

No argument whatsoever that the Bush administration spins webs with the best of them. I understand many of the reasons you hate the war and don't blame you at all for having them.

I could have a lobotomy and manage this conflict better than Bush.

No arguments.

You have to explain how someone who wants to remain in the Middle East for another 100 years

He believes in the mission, you don't. I think he can manage it infinitely better then Bush has, you don't care.

embraces Jerry Falwell to pander to evangelicals

He's certainly not Mike Huckabee - and since the evangelical base generally votes conservative, you have to do at least some pandering to try and energize the base. I don't blame him for that, that's politics and I don't think he'd bring an evangelical based approach to a potential administration in any way, shape or form.

and has backed, at nearly every turn, the most divisive President since Lincoln, as "moderate". I'd also be curious to know how you see McCain as more moderate than Obama.

McCain was against the Bush tax cuts for one thing, and has worked closely with Democratic leaders in the senate to try and solve the immigration crisis. He's on record as agreeing that waterboarding is torture (a common belief among Democrats and a belief certainly not espoused by Bush) and has advocated trying the detainees at Guantanamo or letting them go home and has acknowledged that the facilities there have helped hurt the U.S.'s image in the world. Finally, so many of the most influential hard-edged Neo-Con, Republican pundits like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, Laura Ingraham, etc. are 100% against his nomination. Limbaugh even just indicated today that he's willing to try and raise money for the Hillary campaign to help her get into office and prevent his party from moving towards a more liberal philosophy. No one could ever confuse any of those individuals for being monderate Conservatives.

Obama has a strictly liberal voting record, is on record as indicating he'd give driver's licenses to illegal aliens, will immediately pull out troops from Iraq, will meet directly one-on-one with leaders guided by theocratic, fanatical religious beliefs, will institute a socialist health care plan (which I happen to agree with by the way). I don't begrudge him these viewpoints, but they are hardly moderate or aisle-reaching positions.

Jason

 

[General Zod]

Here is the most independent, non-partisan source I've found that I've been using for a few years now...

"The IBC admits that their count is an undercount due to their stringent requirement for the death to be recorded by the media". Regardless, even if we accept their count as gospel, it means we've killed one out of every 260 Iraqis. I suppose that's better than 1 in 26, but it's still horrifying. Especially when you consider, (and I think we agree on this) we should have never begun this war.

Oh come on, the entire interview/Q&A session was ommitted from that video.

So your argument is that singing about killing people is acceptable, in the appropriate context? In the moments leading up to that comment, we're they talking about past world leaders who had sung Beach Boy parodies about dropping bombs on people?

Do you really think he was being serious and that this proves he's hawkish on going to war with Iran?

I certainly don't think it makes him anti-war. Regardless of the incredibly poor judgment he showed by doing that (I'm sure it wlll be really helpful when he's president and they play it all over Iranian TV), everything he's said and done, in reference to Iran and Iraq in the last 5 years, would indicate he's hawkish.

He was against the Bush tax cuts for one thing...

[youtube]wWr3rhGJviQ&rel[/youtube]

Obama has a strictly liberal voting record, is on record as indicating he'd give driver's licenses to illegal aliens...

I don't see it as liberal, I see it as realistic. He's not looking to open the flood gates. He intends to strengthen the borders. However, unless you're prepared to round up 12,000,000 people, who have already integrated themselves into our society, what other choice do you have but to let them come forward? Even if we could push a button and make them all vanish, I'm not sure the immediate economic impact would be desirable. Look, I know it plays well to the base, to decry the idea of giving these folks driver's licenses, but unless McCain or some other candidate is willing to step and endorse rounding them all up, then they're just ignoring the problem. Because if they think these folks who illegally fled here, risking life and limb, and have learned to enjoy the benefits of our country, are simply going to step forward so that they can be fined and sent home, they're insane.

will immediately pull out troops from Iraq

I actually don't see this as a "liberal" concept. The idea that we shouldn't nation build and that we should continue to prosecute an illegal war, at the cost of American live and tax payer dollars, hardly seems liberal. The cost of this war is somewhere between 500 million and 3 trillion, depending on how you view the numbers. It seems like the fiscally responsible thing to do. And here I thought the Republicans were the party of fiscal responsibility?

will meet directly with leaders guided by fanatical religious beliefs

Isn't that what McCain did at Falwell University? Isn't that what McCain did every time he's met with George Bush? All kidding aside, is ignoring these people the solution? While I'm happy to view diplomacy as a liberal construct, I'm not certain that it is.

will institute a socialist health care plan (which I happen to agree with by the way)

Isn't it odd that we choose to label caring for the sick as "liberal", or even worse, "socialist"? And isn't it bizarre that the party of Jesus, is dead set against it?

I don't begrudge him these viewpoints, but they are hardly moderate or aisle-reaching positions.

I guess I don't view these positions as inherently liberal. I view most them as realistic and common sense. I view them as what we need to do to move forward.

Zod

 

[Dark One]

"The IBC admits that their count is an undercount due to their stringent requirement for the death to be recorded by the media". Regardless, even if we accept their count as gospel, it means we've killed one out of every 260 Iraqis. I suppose that's better than 1 in 26, but it's still horrifying. Especially when you consider, (and I think we agree on this) we should have never begun this war.

Agreed there - if I had known just how mismanaged it would be, I absolutely never would've been in favor of going in.

So your argument is that singing about killing people is acceptable, in the appropriate context? In the moments leading up to that comment, we're they talking about past world leaders who had sung Beach Boy parodies about dropping bombs on people?

It was an irresponsible joke, no question about it, but an isolated one and not one that reflects his true position IMO.

everything he's said and done, in reference to Iran and Iraq in the last 5 years, would indicate he's hawkish.

I respectfully disagree and don't think he'll consider military action against Iran unless they actually acquire nukes and threaten to use them.

[youtube]wWr3rhGJviQ&rel[/youtube]

Again though, he voted against the tax cuts to begin with and was outspoken about it. His current position is based on having to deal with the current state of the economy that resulted after the tax cuts were already entrenched.

I don't see it as liberal, I see it as realistic. He's not looking to open the flood gates. He intends to strengthen the borders. However, unless you're prepared to round up 12,000,000 people, who have already integrated themselves into our society, what other choice do you have but to let them come forward? Even if we could push a button and make them all vanish, I'm not sure the immediate economic impact would be desirable. Look, I know it plays well to the base, to decry the idea of giving these folks driver's licenses, but unless McCain or some other candidate is willing to step and endorse rounding them all up, then they're just ignoring the problem. Because if they think these folks who illegally fled here, risking life and limb, and have learned to enjoy the benefits of our country, are simply going to step forward so that they can be fined and sent home, they're insane.

What you see as realistic, many see as liberal. I agree, he's not in favor of open borders, but his position is much closer to amnesty for the 12,000,000 that are here than McCain's is.

I actually don't see this as a "liberal" concept. The idea that we shouldn't nation build and that we should continue to prosecute an illegal war, at the cost of American live and tax payer dollars, hardly seems liberal. The cost of this war is somewhere between 500 million and 3 trillion, depending on how you view the numbers. It seems like the fiscally responsible thing to do.

Again though, that's hardly a position espoused by the majority on the right. I'm not saying Obama's position here is wrong by any means, I'm just saying it's not moderate in political terms. It's hard to reach across the aisle that way (acknowledging that he's entitled to want to handle it in the best possible way he knows how as commander in chief).

And here I thought the Republicans were the party of fiscal responsibility?

LOL - I'd certainly never try to debate or counter that point.

Isn't that what McCain did at Falwell University? Isn't that what McCain did every time he's met with George Bush?

Your point is well taken, but that's not quite what I meant (I'll explain below).

All kidding aside, is ignoring these people the solution? While I'm happy to view diplomacy as a liberal construct, I'm not certain that it is.

Oh no, not at all, ignoring them is absolutely not the solution. But I do believe meeting one on one is a tactical error. My preference would be to meet with all leaders in the region and get everyone involved at the table (from Iran & Syria to Saudi Arabia, to Russia and so forth) because the more leaders involved that have an in depth understanding of where the philosophy of Iran's theocratic viewpoints are coming from, the greater the chances of being able to negotiate to a point where we can get on the same page (or at least only a few pages apart). This is why I agreed with the six party talks with North Korea, rather than bi-lateral talks.

Isn't it odd that we choose to label caring for the sick as "liberal", or even worse, "socialist"? And isn't it bizarre that the party of Jesus, is dead set against it?

Well... I do think it's a lot more complicated than just caring for the sick in terms of how government sponsored healthcare would affect our economy. But in a general sense I know what you mean and do agree with you in principle - many that can't afford healthcare need our help and I'm definitely in favor of helping them.

I guess I don't view these positions as inherently liberal. I view most them as realistic and common sense. I view them as what we need to do to move forward.

I can't say I agree about the positions not being liberal - but that hardly makes them wrong. And one thing I don't doubt at all is Obama's sincerity. And just like him, you've educated yourself and taken in as much around you as you possibly can and are simply putting forth viewpoints that you feel would best serve our nation and it's place in the world. I admire both of you for that. If he becomes our president - I'll be on board.

Bank on it.

Jason

 

[General Zod]

I respectfully disagree and don't think he'll consider military action against Iran unless they actually acquire nukes and threaten to use them.

If he ends up president, time will tell.

Again though, he voted against the tax cuts to begin with and was outspoken about it. His current position is based on having to deal with the current state of the economy that resulted after the tax cuts were already entrenched.

How it's any different than the flip flop the Republicans laid at Kerry's feet in 2004, I'm not clear. I just don't get how we can spend $500 billion on a war, turn a blind eye as prime lenders destroy the economy, and then hand everyone a check. I suspect McCain realizes that doing so is a bad idea, but he simply doesn't want to be viewed as someone who will raise taxes heading into an election.

What you see as realistic, many see as liberal. I agree, he's not in favor of open borders, but his position is much closer to amnesty for the 12,000,000 that are here than McCain's is.

To my mind, open borders would be liberal. Obama is being realistic. And it seems to be a reality that the right wants to ignore, because it won't play well to the base. Rounding these people up, is never going to happen. We don't have the political will, the man power or the budget for it. And as I said, there are plenty of sound economics models that indicate that removing these low wage earners from our workforce would have significantly detrimental effects. So if we can't round them up, and there's absolutely no way these people are simply going to volunteer to leave, than what's the solution?

Oh no, not at all, ignoring them is absolutely not the solution. But I do believe meeting one on one is a tactical error. My preference would be to meet with all leaders in the region and get everyone involved at the table (from Iran & Syria to Saudi Arabia, to Russia and so forth) because the more leaders involved that have an in depth understanding of where the philosophy of Iran's theocratic viewpoints are coming from, the greater the chances of being able to negotiate to a point where we can get on the same page (or at least only a few pages apart). This is why I agreed with the six party talks with North Korea, rather than bi-lateral talks.

I don't understand why we can't do both. Why is sitting down with someone you disagree with, one on one, a tactical error? And why is doing so liberal?

Well... I do think it's a lot more complicated than just caring for the sick in terms of how government sponsored healthcare would affect our economy. But in a general sense I know what you mean and do agree with you in principle - many that can't afford healthcare need our help and I'm definitely in favor of helping them.

Most G7 nations, all of which are smaller than ours, have figured out how to do this. I don't understand why we continue to fight this.

I can't say I agree about the positions not being liberal - but that hardly makes them wrong. It's not so much that they're not liberal. But they're no less moderate than McCain's.

I think there's a tendency to overrate just how moderate McCain is. When compared to hardcore NeoCons and evangelical Christians, everyone looks moderate. However, I'm not sure that's a fair barometer.

And one thing I don't doubt at all is Obama's sincerity. And just like him, you've educated yourself and taken in as much around you as you possibly can and are simply putting forth viewpoints that you feel would best serve our nation and it's place in the world. I admire both of you for that. If he becomes our president - I'll be on board.

Bank on it.

Ironically, you just summed up why I think it would better for the U.S. and the world if he won.

If McCain is elected, I'd give him the benefit of the doubt and would expect better of him than Bush. I certainly think he's capable, I just don't like how he's evolved over the last five years. However, I think we as a people have a chance for change. Perhaps we don't. Perhaps Obama would be ineffective at bringing that change. Perhaps he'd be just another democrat. But if we as an electorate choose yet another right-leaning old man, who puts people to sleep when he speaks, is incapable of reaching out to the disenfranchised, and has been a friend to the Bush administration, over the hope that an Obama presidency might offer... well... I find that depressing.

Zod

 

[lurch70]

But if we as an electorate choose yet another right-leaning old man, who puts people to sleep when he speaks, is incapable of reaching out to the disenfranchised, and has been a friend to the Bush administration, over the hope that an Obama presidency might offer... well... I find that depressing.

yes, this by far would be the saddest part.

 

[Dark One]

If he ends up president, time will tell.

It would obviously be a disaster if he decided otherwise, but sure, time will tell if it happens.

I just don't get how we can spend $500 billion on a war, turn a blind eye as prime lenders destroy the economy, and then hand everyone a check. I suspect McCain realizes that doing so is a bad idea, but he simply doesn't want to be viewed as someone who will raise taxes heading into an election.

Yeah, I think it's more the latter than anything else.

To my mind, open borders would be liberal. Obama is being realistic. And it seems to be a reality that the right wants to ignore, because it won't play well to the base.

Liberal is not crazy left, it's a legitimate political position IMO. Open borders is crazy left, amnesty is liberal in my mind. But amnesty is at least a legitimate political position.

Rounding these people up, is never going to happen. We don't have the political will, the man power or the budget for it. And as I said, there are plenty of sound economics models that indicate that removing these low wage earners from our workforce would have significantly detrimental effects. So if we can't round them up, and there's absolutely no way these people are simply going to volunteer to leave, than what's the solution?

And McCain isn't advocating rounding them up and deporting them. To me that's a crazy & unrealistic far right opinion (just as you say). McCain's advocating giving them a path to citizenship that penalizes them for breaking the law, but is far more humane than simply breaking up families and rounding up people in the middle of the night. I understand the impact such a ridiculous move would have on the economy. Illegal aliens are rebuilding the major roads in my neighborhood as we speak and actually doing a kickass job.

I don't understand why we can't do both. Why is sitting down with someone you disagree with, one on one, a tactical error?

On the surface, of course it's a noble idea. I think it's a mistake because I feel negotiating alongside those who truly understand what you're negotiating against will help bridge the massive gap that exists between both viewpoints. I'm looking for both apples and oranges talking to oranges rather than just apples. That's just me though - if Obama wants to try going it alone, by all means let him. What I don't want a one on one meeting to project to Iran though, is that we're ok with them having nukes. That's not an acceptable compromise.

And why is doing so liberal?

Because it's a viewpoint championed by far more Democrats than Republicans. Again, agree or disagree, liberal is not a bad word, tons of reasonable people have a liberal, not loony, viewpoint.

Most G7 nations, all of which are smaller than ours, have figured out how to do this. I don't understand why we continue to fight this.

Agreed - it wouldn't mean that our country would turn into a socialist nation just because we have government sponsored healthcare. A good idea is a good idea, I don't care where it comes from.

I think there's a tendency to overrate just how moderate McCain is. When compared to hardcore NeoCons and evangelical Christians, everyone looks moderate. However, I'm not sure that's a fair barometer.

Good point, but I do think several of his views aren't immediately dismissed by Democrats or even hardcore liberals. That's at least a start.

Ironically, you just summed up why I think it would better for the U.S. and the world if he won.

Hey, as long as terrorist activities don't run rampant, I'm all for goodwill.

If McCain is elected, I'd give him the benefit of the doubt and would expect better of him than Bush. I certainly think he's capable, I just don't like how he's evolved over the last five years.

A very fair viewpoint. I think you'd be pleasantly surprised at how much different from Bush he would be (differences on policy positions notwithstanding). But of course, that remains to be seen.

However, I think we as a people have a chance for change. Perhaps we don't. Perhaps Obama would be ineffective at bringing that change. Perhaps he'd be just another democrat. But if we as an electorate choose yet another right-leaning old man, who puts people to sleep when he speaks, is incapable of reaching out to the disenfranchised, and has been a friend to the Bush administration, over the hope that an Obama presidency might offer... well... I find that depressing.

Well, here's to hoping that with either candidate, there's enough change to make us want to concentrate on nothing but friends, family, career, vacations, and how much our brands of metal kick copious amounts of ass.

Jason

 

[skeptik]

I'm really hoping that Obama wins, though I do fear how effective he will be able to be regarding actually getting anything done.

 

[skyrefuge]

Isn't it odd that we choose to label caring for the sick as "liberal", or even worse, "socialist"? And isn't it bizarre that the party of Jesus, is dead set against it?

When Jesus cured the leper, he did so with his own (magical) power, using his free will, as an act of charity. He didn't force others in the community to spend their money and resources healing the sick. It's not "caring for the sick" that's labeled socialist. It's "the government taking my money and your money to care for the sick, whether we want it or not" that's socialist.
t
Making an individual decision to care for the sick is quite Christian (and "conservative"). Making a decision that everyone else should be forced into the same (or greater) acts of charity is much less Christian (and much more "liberal").

I agree with you that most of the other issues aren't obviously "liberal" or "conservative", but universal healthcare is strongly "liberal", both in the "socialist" sense, and Jason's opposite-of-"conservative" sense.

I don't understand why we can't do both. Why is sitting down with someone you disagree with, one on one, a tactical error? And why is doing so liberal?

Yeah, now this is one of those issues that just seems completely artificial to me. Before anyone invented this issue and turned it into an us-vs.-them thing, I bet if you asked 100 registered Republicans "which is better, unilateral or multilateral talks?", 25 would have said "unilateral", 25 would have said "multilateral", and 50 would have said "what the hell did you just say?" It's only once they know "the answer" from their team that they know that the other team's answer is dead wrong. If Bush had said "C'mon, I'm a cowboy, a straight-talker, me and Kim-Jong can just work this out between us like a couple of men over a beer, no need for all this silly parliamentary nonsense that never goes anywhere", the average Republican would have accepted that as the right answer, and then derided anyone who suggested multilateral talks would be better.

Neil

 

[General Zod]

Liberal is not crazy left, it's a legitimate political position IMO. Open borders is crazy left, amnesty is liberal in my mind. But amnesty is at least a legitimate political position.

I understand what you're saying; that Obama's positions are viewed as liberal. However, I think that perspective is skewed by today's political climate. And I believe there are many Republicans that would agree, that true conservative ideals have been trampled by the rise of NeoCons and evangelicals within the party over the last 7 years. Regardless of how poorly organized the Dems have been, and they have been horribly organized, you never hear them speaking in terms of having their party "hijacked" or it needing to be "reclaimed".

And McCain isn't advocating rounding them up and deporting them. To me that's a crazy & unrealistic far right opinion (just as you say). McCain's advocating giving them a path to citizenship that penalizes them for breaking the law, but is far more humane than simply breaking up families and rounding up people in the middle of the night.

If there was an alternative position (other than amnesty) that I could view as being at all realistic, than I would concede that Obama's position is liberal. However, I just can't see people coming forward, paying a fine and accepting the risk of being deported, all for the promise of citizenship in 13 years.

Because it's a viewpoint championed by far more Democrats than Republicans. Again, agree or disagree, liberal is not a bad word, tons of reasonable people have a liberal, not loony, viewpoint.

Again, I think this is another position that has fallen victim to the shift in the right's ideology. I see this as being part of the Bush doctrine, not necessarily as a position of true conservatives.

Well, here's to hoping that with either candidate, there's enough change to make us want to concentrate on nothing but friends, family, career, vacations, and how much our brands of metal kick copious amounts of ass.

Amen brother.

Zod

 

[General Zod]

When Jesus cured the leper, he did so with his own (magical) power, using his free will, as an act of charity. He didn't force others in the community to spend their money and resources healing the sick...

So you believe the position of Jesus would be, that only the wealthy deserve health care? Jesus stated, that loving your neighbor was the most important commandment of all. Which means it's above the worship of god, murder, etc. The loving thing to do, is not let sick children die because they're parents can't afford health care, while their neighbor's wealthy wife is going in for her forth tummy tuck.

Zod

 

[Conspicuously Absent]

If he ends up president, time will tell.

Your quote reminded me of this for some reason. In an ominous kind of way...

[ame]http://youtube.com/watch?v=85tMFIA6Dy0[/ame]

For those who never played the game: They whacked hitler, and then Stalin tried to take over the world.

I agree with you that most of the other issues aren't obviously "liberal" or "conservative", but universal healthcare is strongly "liberal", both in the "socialist" sense, and Jason's opposite-of-"conservative" sense.

What is taking everyones money to kill people then?

I think everyone has the right to health care, but the real problems will come when the middle-class start freaking out because they now have to WAIT for their health care, due to all the poor being in there.

Thats the current advantage of a purely private healthcare system, they have a shitload of money, the best equipment, generally great staff and minimal waiting times.

If Bush had said "C'mon, I'm a cowboy, a straight-talker, me and Kim-Jong can just work this out between us like a couple of men over a beer, no need for all this silly parliamentary nonsense that never goes anywhere", the average Republican would have accepted that as the right answer, and then derided anyone who suggested multilateral talks would be better.

Probably would have worked better.

"Com'on Kimji, lets get piss ass drunk and send funny decrees to china." :Smokin:

 

[Dark One]

I understand what you're saying; that Obama's positions are viewed as liberal. However, I think that perspective is skewed by today's political climate. And I believe there are many Republicans that would agree, that true conservative ideals have been trampled by the rise of NeoCons and evangelicals within the party over the last 7 years. Regardless of how poorly organized the Dems have been, and they have been horribly organized, you never hear them speaking in terms of having their party "hijacked" or it needing to be "reclaimed".

Yeah, I definitely see your point here and can understand where you're coming from. At the very least, if McCain can help lower that "skewed" perspective (even if not nearly to the degree you'd like), that can only be a good thing.

If there was an alternative position (other than amnesty) that I could view as being at all realistic, than I would concede that Obama's position is liberal. However, I just can't see people coming forward, paying a fine and accepting the risk of being deported, all for the promise of citizenship in 13 years.

But wasn't there some type of compromise reached on the issue of deportation (in the failed bill)? Guest worker programs, not breaking up families and whatnot? I mean, in terms of fines and getting in the back of the line to reach full citizenship status, absolutely, but I didn't think it also entailed immediate deportation, thus making the position a bit more moderate? (Just to clarify, I'm not 100% sure on this one, it's obviously a complicated issue, I just didn't think the options were as black and white as amnesty or 13 years deportation).

Amen brother.

You're praying!! Well done, that means you're reaching across the aisle to evangelicals!!

 

[skyrefuge]

So you believe the position of Jesus would be, that only the wealthy deserve health care?

Of course not, but there is a difference between what one thinks people "deserve", and the ability to enforce that belief. Jesus, unlike the federal government, didn't have the power to force you to transfer your wealth to someone else (or if he did, he didn't use it). All he could do was persuade you to give up your wealth voluntarily (admittedly, he was a pretty persuasive dude, but you were still plenty free to ignore him).

The loving thing to do, is not let sick children die because they're parents can't afford health care, while their neighbor's wealthy wife is going in for her forth tummy tuck.

That actually sounds less like "loving thy neighbor" than "hating one neighbor and forcing them to give their money to another neighbor". The "conservative" thing to do in that situation would be for you to organize a fundraiser on behalf of your sick neighbor kid, and encourage your tummy-tucked neighbor to donate (and heck, even cite the example of Jesus to try to guilt her into it). But once you say "hey, government, you guys with the big guns and stuff, please come here and force my thin-looking neighbor to give her money to my sick neighbor kid", then that's being socialist.

Neil

 

[General Zod]

Neil... I think you're missing my point. If Jesus ran the world, which is what evangelicals would have you believe they want, the sick would not die because they couldn't afford health care. Yet, the Christian right is against providing the sick with health care. Without getting into scripture and verse, which I'm happy to do if you wish, this seems like a glaring hypocrisy.

Zod

 

[lurch70]

this country is fucked ... end of story

 

[lurch70]

i am going to start a movement to make NYC a separate nation

 

[skyrefuge]

What is taking everyones money to kill people then?

Well, the "taking everyone's money" part is certainly "liberal" (in the modern American sense of the word), and the "messing around in foreign countries" part, while not especially "liberal", is quite different from what was historically considered "conservative". But the fact that the acts are being performed by a supposedly-"conservative" administration rather muddies the issue.

The fact that the terms "liberal" and "conservative" are quite poorly-defined and amorphous, and that politicians incorrectly apply the labels to themselves and others, makes this whole discussion a semantic nightmare.

Neil

 

[Conspicuously Absent]

this country is fucked ... end of story

Pick up some rudimentary german and you could probably get gobbled up here like candy for almost any consultant position.